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

Thank you con. Let's take a look at each point. Con's Arguments Definition of Bible Baptism: In this section my opponent argues that the definition of the word “baptize” in Greek means “to dip, submerge, but specifically of ceremonial dipping; I baptize.” It is important to note that this debate is on Bible Baptism. If this debate was on the Dodson dictionary's definition of the Greek word baptizo, then by all means, I would concede the debate. However, in order to understand what the writers of the New Testament meant when they used the word “baptizo”, a good place to look would be at scripture itself. Here is an example: Luke 11:38 “The Pharisee was astonished to see that He [Jesus] did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner.” Did the Pharisee expect Jesus to fully submerge himself before dinner? Well of course not. But we know through other passages in scripture precisely what he is referring to. Mark 7:3 “For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders” So the Pharisee was astonished to see that Jesus did not wash [baptizo] himself before dinner because it was the tradition of all the Jews to wash their hands before eating. In other words, we see that the biblical authors did not just mean “to submerge”, but also simply “to wash”. With this in mind, we cannot assume each time “baptizo” is used in scripture it is automatically referring to submersion, because it clearly does not. Con and the Purpose of Baptism: Here con uses Romans 6:3-5 to parallel burial with immersion. He concludes “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.” It is important to notice that Paul actually does not specify this in his letter, but rather it is inferred by my opponent (with a lot of emphasis on choice words). Paul does not use the words immersion, sprinkling, or pouring even once. So at face value, the conclusion appears to be quite a leap. This being said, I do not necessarily disagree that immersion best represent death and resurrection. But, on the other hand, pouring best represents the infusion of the Holy Spirit we gain from Baptism. As evidenced through Acts 2:17, 18, and 33, two of which I referenced in my opening arguments. All three forms of Baptism, however, adequately suggest the sense of cleaning we receive by Baptism. Con's Rebuttals The Early Church: This does not change the fact that Didache and first quote which was posted was still very close to the time when the Apostles were alive. In fact, if it was written around 65-80 A.D., the writers could have very well known some of the Apostles. Con then goes on to claim that the early church contradicted the Bible when it instructs that one should fast an hour or two before Baptism since a family in the bible received Baptism without doing this. This is not so. This instruction by the early church was a matter of practice, not a matter of belief. And I think that con and I can both agree that those who did fast before they were baptized were actually giving the sacrament (if con would call it that) more reverence than they would be otherwise. In a sense, the instruction actually uplifted the sacrament and held it in a higher esteem. This argument is very relevant to the topic at hand. 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? Did Christ fail as a teacher? It certainly does not appear, if this belief was present, that the apostles passed it on. This, therefore, only provides further evidence that this belief was never taught by Christ in the first place. The Bible’s Reference to Baptism by Immersion Only: Considering this is a debate on BibleBaptism, we ought to refer to the Bible in order to understand what the authors meant when they used the word “baptizo”. Refer to my section under “Definition of Bible Baptism”. To reiterate, there is no biblical quote, verse, paragraph, nor page that can be given that states Baptism must be done specifically by immersion alone. If there were such a quote, con would have provided it under his heading “My arguments”. The Prophecy of Ezekiel: I find it a bit odd that con would infer that Ezekiel’s language here is simply figurative considering his own approach to Romans 6. Instead of taking what Paul said figuratively, he analyses every word and arrives at the conclusion that a burial with Christ specifically speaks to Baptism by immersion alone. I ask for consistency here. The language the Bible uses is important in Romans 6, as it is in Ezekiel 36. Con states that in Ezekiel the people lived in the promised land, whereas in Acts the people came to the promised land. In the original reference to Ezekiel 36:24 it states “For I will take you away from among the nations, gather you from all the foreign lands, and bring you back to your homeland.” Then it says God will sprinkle clean water on His people. So Ezekiel says God will gather His people from foreign lands and Baptize them. Acts says the people gathered from foreign lands and were Baptized. See the similarity? Furthermore, what con referenced (Ezekiel 36:28) is after the passage that Ezekiel speaks about Baptism. In fact the passage starts with the word “then”, which implies afterwards. I will present my question to con once again. Is there some other process, other than Baptism, by which clean water is sprinkled upon people for the forgiveness of their sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit? Con also states, “Furthermore, if Pro is right, then sprinkling is really significant in Christianity.” This is not necessarily true. It is important that we do not cherry-pick scripture. Rather than pointing to one reference to Baptism in the Bible, whether it be in Ezekiel 36 or Romans 6, and saying, “Ah, this says all there is to understand about Baptism!”, we ought to take biblical text in whole. Yes, the Baptism described in Romans is best described through immersion. And yes, the Baptism described in Ezekiel is a clear reference to a Baptism through sprinkling. But instead of focusing solely on one of these texts, both should be taken into account if we are to understand Bible Baptism. What con references as the best argument relies on the faulty idea that “Baptizo” can only mean immersion in scripture. We know through scripture this is not true (Read above argument titled: Definition of Bible Baptism). Sanctification: People in the O.T. were sanctified and entered into covenant with God through the sprinkling of the sacrifice’s blood. For instance when Moses entered the people into the Mosaic Covenant with God (Exodus 24:1-8), he sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on the people. Likewise, when Hebrews makes the parallel between the sprinkling of the blood in the O.T. and the sprinkling of Christ’s blood, he is not only referencing the sanctifying nature of Baptism, but also the entering into covenant with God. Con and I both agree Baptism sanctifies, but I ask con, how as Christians do we enter into the new covenant with God if not through Baptism? Holy Spirit: Con states that receiving the Holy Spirit is different from us being Baptized. However, how can men go about receiving God’s Holy Spirit? Through Baptism (Ezekiel 36 and Acts 2). It is interesting that the language of the Holy Spirit being poured out even exists if immersion and dunking were the only means to go about Baptism. Conclusion: If we are to understand Bible Baptism, we must encompass the entire Bible when doing so. And when considering all of the Bible, it is in support of a Baptism which includes sprinkling and pouring. References: Biblical Meaning behind “Baptizo”: http://www.bibletranslation.ws... (about half-way down)