Bible baptism includes sprinkling or pouring on one's head.

Thanks, Pro! Debates certainly are a great way to dig deep into the Scriptures! My arguments Definition of Bible Baptism “הַרְפּ֣וּ וּ֭דְעוּ כִּי־אָנֹכִ֣י אֱלֹהִ֑ים אָר֥וּם בַּ֝גֹּויִ֗ם אָר֥וּם בָּאָֽרֶץ׃” Pro and I both could speak of how much the truth in this statement impacts our lives. If it weren’t for lexicons and translations, however, neither of us would even know what the quotation says. “There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks [in this case, God through His word], and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me” (1 Cor. 14:10–11). Now let’s use a translation of the Hebrew quotation above: “Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth!” (Psalm 46:10). The point is that we can’t look “at scripture itself” without the authorities. Therefore, we find out “the Bible’s meaning of the Greek words baptisma (noun) and baptizó (verb)” by looking up lexicons, translations, etc. over what they meant at that time. Until proven false, the consensus of the experts stands. To attempt to prove the consensus of the experts false, my opponent referenced Luke 11:38. My opponent cited an online translation, “about half-way down,” that reads, “And the Pharisee when he saw, was shocked that he did not first baptize before the meal.” To answer, ironically, I will use the source Pro gave. The source footnotes Luke 11:38, saying, “The Greek word … [baptizó] was used for the ceremonial dunking of not only human beings' bodies (vessels), but also for the ceremonial dunking of dishes and hands” (emphasis added). They didn’t have the modern sinks we have today. Most translations translate it wash instead of transliterating it baptize because they transliterate “only in the case of dunking the human body.” The word does not mean “sprinkle.” The definition of baptizó, as it was used during the time of the Bible (but not necessarily after), does not include sprinkling or pouring. This alone shows the proposition to be false. Purpose of Baptism Regarding Romans 6:3–5 and Colossians 2:12, Pro says I gave “a lot of emphasis on choice words.” However, it’s not a stretch to dig deep into what the words of the Scriptures are. Jesus made an entire argument about the resurrection based on the fact that God said “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” when speaking to Moses; (Matt. 22:31–32). Pro then says, “Paul does not use the words immersion, sprinkling, or pouring even once.” Well, since he wrote the epistles in Koine Greek, what’s the Koine Greek word for immersion? It’s baptisma (the noun form of baptizó), which is used in Romans 6:4. This was my point when I said, “And considering that baptism by definition is interchangeable with immersion, Paul is actually saying that in immersion we are buried and raised with Christ. Thus, sprinkling or pouring is not sufficient to take part in the Lord’s death, burial, and resurrection, as Paul actually specifies that this is done in immersion.” Pro says that while Romans 6 shows that immersion “best represent[s] death and resurrection,” Acts 2 shows that “pouring best represents the infusion of the Holy Spirit we gain from Baptism.” While Romans 6 explicitly says, “[W]e were buried with Him through baptism …” (v. 4), Acts 2:38 mentions receiving the “gift of the Holy Spirit” (possibly not even interchangeable with “the Holy Spirit) as a result of baptism but does not compare baptism to receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. It’s only a comparison Pro (without sufficient evidence) inferred. “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). Pro’s arguments The Early Church Pro drops two of the three documents he cited, presumably because of their later dates. However, the Didache could also have a somewhat late date, before 150 A.D. And whether the Didache’s instruction was “a matter of practice” or “a matter of belief,” it sounds to me like man-made regulations, or “vain worship” (c.f., Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:20–23). Pro asks, “If Jesus did teach that Baptism was to be through immersion only, wouldn't we see this belief present in the early church and in early Christian writings?” Every record of baptism in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, etc. by definition was immersion and immersion only. Could apostasy have arisen in the second century? Yes, for even the first century wasn’t free from false doctrine (e.g., Acts 15; 1 Cor. 15:12–19). It’s not “Jesus’ teaching” but “hard hearts” that prevent the truth from being understood (c.f. Luke 8:4–15). The Bible’s Reference to Baptism by Immersion Only Everything in the section “My arguments” dealt with immersion only, contrary to what Pro said. I gave Romans 6 and Colossians 2:12 in the subsection “Purpose of baptism.” Also, my other subsection, “Definition of Bible baptism,” reveals that every single mention in the Bible of baptism refers to immersion. The prophecy of Ezekiel Romans 6 explicitly compares “baptism” (or, even more literally, immersion) with Christ’s death burial, and resurrection; not so with Ezekiel 36. Passages in the Bible, like everything else, are “literal until proven figurative.” If Ezekiel 36 tells us what baptism is, why do Catholics, etc. have man perform it, rather than God, the One who said, “I will sprinkle clean water on you” (v. 25)? And if the text is literal, do people have literal “hearts of stone” and as a result need a heart transplant from God Almighty (v. 26)? The Book of Ezekiel was written during the Babylonian captivity[1] and thus refers to the Jews’ future emancipation. All we can conclude from the prophecy is that God would “cleanse [the people] from all [their] filthiness and from all [their] idols,” giving them “a new heart and [putting] a new spirit within” them (vv. 25–26). God also says thus a few verses later: “On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will also enable you to dwell in the cities [which doesn’t make sense unless they were not presently able to dwell there], and the ruins shall be rebuilt. The desolate land shall be tilled instead of lying desolate in the sight of all who pass by” (Eze. 36:33–34). So, while they would be cleansed from their sins (vv. 25–26), it would happen when they would rebuild the ruins and till the land again. Pro assumes but does not prove that Ezekiel 27 refers to Acts 2. Instead of going all the way to Acts 2, why not go just three chapters, to Ezekiel 39:25–29. It reveals that when the “captives of Jacob” (v. 25) would be brought back, “then they shall know that I am the LORD their God, who ... left none of them captive any longer. I will not hide My face from them anymore; for I shall have poured out My Spirit on the house of Israel,’” (v. 28–29). The Holy Spirit was poured after the emancipation from Babylonian captivity. All that I’ve said fits the context of the prophecy; such is not true for Pro. The passage is nowhere near “a clear reference to a Baptism through sprinkling.” So, agreeing with Pro, let’s “not cherry-pick scripture.” Sanctification Neither is this “a clear reference to a Baptism through sprinkling.” My opponent seems to argue that if the sprinkling of blood references entering into covenant, then how we enter into covenant, namely, baptism, must be able to be performed through sprinkling of water. This is a non sequitur; it doesn’t follow. Also, you didn’t provide a Scripture stating the sprinkling of blood references entering into covenant, and I’m confused about what you’re referring to as a result. Holy Spirit Pro says that since we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit through baptism, then the fact that He was poured out (which is different from receiving “the gift of the Holy Spirit”) somehow shows that baptism involves pouring—another non sequitur. ConclusionShort and sweet, the proposition is false. References [1] http://tinyurl.com...