Kinderdoop onbijbels?

[Afgewezen]

Het is ook geen antwoord het is een verzoek.

Een advies of zou 2 Cor 3 vers 12 - 16 sommige van ons in de weg kunnen staan?

Ik hou niet van die huiswerkopdrachten. Zie verder het antwoord van Zonderling.

Dan zal ik het hier voor je neer zetten als het dan niet teveel moeite is om te lezen


Dewijl wij dan zodanige hoop hebben, zo gebruiken wij vele vrijmoedigheid in het spreken;
13 En doen niet gelijkerwijs Mozes, die een deksel op zijn aangezicht legde, opdat de kinderen Israëls niet zouden sterk zien op het einde van hetgeen te niet gedaan wordt.
14 Maar hun zinnen zijn verhard geworden; want tot op den dag van heden blijft hetzelfde deksel in het lezen des Ouden Testaments, zonder ontdekt te worden, hetwelk door Christus te niet gedaan wordt.
15 Maar tot den huidigen dag toe, wanneer Mozes gelezen wordt, ligt een deksel op hun hart.
16 Doch zo wanneer het tot den Heere zal bekeerd zijn, zo wordt het deksel weggenomen.
17 De Heere nu is de Geest; en waar de Geest des Heeren is, aldaar is vrijheid.

Ik zie niet in wat dit te maken heeft met het voor of tegen de kinderdoop zijn.

[Auto]

zo langzamerhand worden de kaders van de forumregels hier weer opgezocht. On-topic en wel met respect graag.

[Tiberius]

In 1 Pet 3 ver 21 staat De doop wast niet het vuil van uw lichaam, het is een vraag aan God om een zuiver geweten. Hierom kunt u vragen dankzij de opstanding van Jezus Christus,

Hoe kan een baby bewust zijn van zijn zonden en God vragen om een zuiver geweten. Zijn geweten is immers nog niet vervuild door het doen van domme dingen zonden zeg maar.

Wederom een bewijs dat dopen gedaan werd door mensen die op een leeftijd gekomen zijn dat ze weten waar ze het over hebben.

Overal waar de doop ter sprake komt staat het woord "laat" of een vervoeging daar van. Het is werk, dus een vraag die je stelt aan een andere persoon om iets met jou te doen. Dopen in dit geval.

Bekeert u en laat u dopen
Maak alle volken tot mijn discipelen en doopt hen

Overal is duidelijk te lezen dat degene die zich moet laten dopen over een bepaalde mate van kennis moet beschikken of moet weten waar hij/ zij mee bezig is. Door te geloven.

Het is ook geen kennis in de zin van veel dingen weten. Je moet weten en beseffen wat Jezus voor je gedaan heeft en als antwoordt daarop laat je je dopen.

Dit heeft dus niets te maken dat je op de mens gericht bent welke andere afzwakkende opmerkingen ik zoal gelezen heb.

Je laat je dopen omdat je ten volle bezeft dat je wedergeboren moet worden en dat Jezus aanneemt als je enige redder.
En dat met het water graf samen met Jezus wilt sterven aan je oude natuur en dat je met Hem een weder geboren mens wilt zijn. Dat zijn bloed je gereinigd heeft van alle zonden en dat je rein voor God staat.

Ik ben geen zondaar meer ik mag me een zoon van God weten een erfgename een wedergeboren mens. Dat is wat ik heb laten zien met de doop. Ik zeg hier niet dat geen domme dingen meer doe.

Als God naar mij kijkt dat ziet hij Jezus en dat Hij voor al mijn zonden betaald heeft voor al mijn zonden die ik gedaan heb en die ik misschien nog ga doen. Prijs God voor dit grote wonder en deze geweldige genade. En daarom mag ik altijd vrijmoedig naar God gaan. Halleluja

En dat is wat de doop voor mij betekend

Maar goed, al met al heb ik nog geen antwoord op mijn voorgaande vragen. Misschien wil je die nog even beantwoorden.

[Bert Mulder]

In 1 Pet 3 ver 21 staat De doop wast niet het vuil van uw lichaam, het is een vraag aan God om een zuiver geweten. Hierom kunt u vragen dankzij de opstanding van Jezus Christus,

Hoe kan een baby bewust zijn van zijn zonden en God vragen om een zuiver geweten. Zijn geweten is immers nog niet vervuild door het doen van domme dingen zonden zeg maar.

Wederom een bewijs dat dopen gedaan werd door mensen die op een leeftijd gekomen zijn dat ze weten waar ze het over hebben.

Overal waar de doop ter sprake komt staat het woord "laat" of een vervoeging daar van. Het is werk, dus een vraag die je stelt aan een andere persoon om iets met jou te doen. Dopen in dit geval.

Bekeert u en laat u dopen
Maak alle volken tot mijn discipelen en doopt hen

Overal is duidelijk te lezen dat degene die zich moet laten dopen over een bepaalde mate van kennis moet beschikken of moet weten waar hij/ zij mee bezig is. Door te geloven.

Het is ook geen kennis in de zin van veel dingen weten. Je moet weten en beseffen wat Jezus voor je gedaan heeft en als antwoordt daarop laat je je dopen.

Dit heeft dus niets te maken dat je op de mens gericht bent welke andere afzwakkende opmerkingen ik zoal gelezen heb.

Je laat je dopen omdat je ten volle bezeft dat je wedergeboren moet worden en dat Jezus aanneemt als je enige redder.
En dat met het water graf samen met Jezus wilt sterven aan je oude natuur en dat je met Hem een weder geboren mens wilt zijn. Dat zijn bloed je gereinigd heeft van alle zonden en dat je rein voor God staat.

Ik ben geen zondaar meer ik mag me een zoon van God weten een erfgename een wedergeboren mens. Dat is wat ik heb laten zien met de doop. Ik zeg hier niet dat geen domme dingen meer doe.

Als God naar mij kijkt dat ziet hij Jezus en dat Hij voor al mijn zonden betaald heeft voor al mijn zonden die ik gedaan heb en die ik misschien nog ga doen. Prijs God voor dit grote wonder en deze geweldige genade. En daarom mag ik altijd vrijmoedig naar God gaan. Halleluja

En dat is wat de doop voor mij betekend

Dit is absurd! God wat (de bekering) en ons wat (de doop) dus? De doop mijn antwoord op God????? En: misschien nog zonden doen? Nee die zul je zeker doen! Na bekering is het nog zeker dat je willens en wetens zondigen zult.

Verder, zo als ik eerder al zei, wij maken geen keus tot God. Er is niemand die God zoekt. En voor de wedergeboorte is geen leven. Zoals Christus zei tot Nicodemus, dat men zonder de wedergeboorte het Koninkrijk niet eens zien kan.

[mayflower]

In 1 Pet 3 ver 21 staat De doop wast niet het vuil van uw lichaam, het is een vraag aan God om een zuiver geweten. Hierom kunt u vragen dankzij de opstanding van Jezus Christus,

Hoe kan een baby bewust zijn van zijn zonden en God vragen om een zuiver geweten. Zijn geweten is immers nog niet vervuild door het doen van domme dingen zonden zeg maar.

Wederom een bewijs dat dopen gedaan werd door mensen die op een leeftijd gekomen zijn dat ze weten waar ze het over hebben.

Overal waar de doop ter sprake komt staat het woord "laat" of een vervoeging daar van. Het is werk, dus een vraag die je stelt aan een andere persoon om iets met jou te doen. Dopen in dit geval.

Bekeert u en laat u dopen
Maak alle volken tot mijn discipelen en doopt hen

Overal is duidelijk te lezen dat degene die zich moet laten dopen over een bepaalde mate van kennis moet beschikken of moet weten waar hij/ zij mee bezig is. Door te geloven.

Het is ook geen kennis in de zin van veel dingen weten. Je moet weten en beseffen wat Jezus voor je gedaan heeft en als antwoordt daarop laat je je dopen.

Dit heeft dus niets te maken dat je op de mens gericht bent welke andere afzwakkende opmerkingen ik zoal gelezen heb.

Je laat je dopen omdat je ten volle bezeft dat je wedergeboren moet worden en dat Jezus aanneemt als je enige redder.
En dat met het water graf samen met Jezus wilt sterven aan je oude natuur en dat je met Hem een weder geboren mens wilt zijn. Dat zijn bloed je gereinigd heeft van alle zonden en dat je rein voor God staat.

Ik ben geen zondaar meer ik mag me een zoon van God weten een erfgename een wedergeboren mens. Dat is wat ik heb laten zien met de doop. Ik zeg hier niet dat geen domme dingen meer doe.

Als God naar mij kijkt dat ziet hij Jezus en dat Hij voor al mijn zonden betaald heeft voor al mijn zonden die ik gedaan heb en die ik misschien nog ga doen. Prijs God voor dit grote wonder en deze geweldige genade. En daarom mag ik altijd vrijmoedig naar God gaan. Halleluja

En dat is wat de doop voor mij betekend

Dit is absurd! God wat (de bekering) en ons wat (de doop) dus? De doop mijn antwoord op God????? En: misschien nog zonden doen? Nee die zul je zeker doen! Na bekering is het nog zeker dat je willens en wetens zondigen zult.

Verder, zo als ik eerder al zei, wij maken geen keus tot God. Er is niemand die God zoekt. En voor de wedergeboorte is geen leven. Zoals Christus zei tot Nicodemus, dat men zonder de wedergeboorte het Koninkrijk niet eens zien kan.

Als baptist ben ik het eens met broeder Bert, want ik zie de doop niet als mijn antwoord naar God toe, maar als Gods soeverein en genadevol werk in mij, die als vijand en dood in zonde levend heeft gemaakt, gerechtvaardigd en verzoend is gemaakt door het werk van de Drie-eenheid Gods!

[Joannah]

Als de kinderdoop een teken/zegel zou zijn van het Verbond, waarom is het dan niet gewoon bij de besnijdenis gebleven?
Als wij heidenen de ge-ente tak zijn op de stam /wortel Israel, hadden we toch de besnijdenis kunnen houden.
Is het niet logisch dat de doop ook een geheel nieuwe funktie bekleedt?
Nl de besnijdenis van het hart?nadat een zondaar zich bekeerd heeft?

[Tiberius]

(...)
En dat is wat de doop voor mij betekend

Dit is absurd! God wat (de bekering) en ons wat (de doop) dus? De doop mijn antwoord op God????? En: misschien nog zonden doen? Nee die zul je zeker doen! Na bekering is het nog zeker dat je willens en wetens zondigen zult.

Verder, zo als ik eerder al zei, wij maken geen keus tot God. Er is niemand die God zoekt. En voor de wedergeboorte is geen leven. Zoals Christus zei tot Nicodemus, dat men zonder de wedergeboorte het Koninkrijk niet eens zien kan.

Als baptist ben ik het eens met broeder Bert, want ik zie de doop niet als mijn antwoord naar God toe, maar als Gods soeverein en genadevol werk in mij, die als vijand en dood in zonde levend heeft gemaakt, gerechtvaardigd en verzoend is gemaakt door het werk van de Drie-eenheid Gods!

Om eerlijk te zijn, kan ik me op deze wijze wel vinden in het standpunt van de baptisten.
Maar dat is dan ook een heel andere visie als die Geborenomvrijtezijn en andere moderne baptisten (zo zal ik het maar even noemen) uitdragen, waar de doop een daad is van de gelovige, mondige mens.

[Tiberius]

Als de kinderdoop een teken/zegel zou zijn van het Verbond, waarom is het dan niet gewoon bij de besnijdenis gebleven?
Als wij heidenen de ge-ente tak zijn op de stam /wortel Israel, hadden we toch de besnijdenis kunnen houden.
Is het niet logisch dat de doop ook een geheel nieuwe funktie bekleedt?
Nl de besnijdenis van het hart?nadat een zondaar zich bekeerd heeft?

Waarom dat zo is, weet ik niet.
Dat het zo is, leert ons de Bijbel.

[helma]

dat is toch duidelijk? Wat bloedig was werd on-bloedig doordat er genoeg bloed gevloeid had op Golgotha.

Dus het bloedige Pascha (het lam wat geslacht moest worden) werd het brood en de wijn in het heilig Avondmaal.
De bloedige besnijdenis werd de onbloedige doop...met het water. in welke vorm dan ook

Denk je trouwens dat de 3000 bekeerlingen op de pinksterdag door 11 discipelen allemaal zijn ondergedompeld?
Allemaal op 1 dag? en waar was zoveel water?
Ik denk dat we er wel vanuit kunnen gaan dat die 3000 mensen besprenkeld zijn met water
Net asl Mozes in de woestijn het volk besprenkelde met het bloed.
En de Israëlieten tijdens de doortocht in de Rode Zee "besprenkeld" werden met druppels water toen ze tussen die muren van water liepen(daarom wordt de doortocht vergeleken met de doop)

[mayflower]

Denk je trouwens dat de 3000 bekeerlingen op de pinksterdag door 11 discipelen allemaal zijn ondergedompeld?
Allemaal op 1 dag? en waar was zoveel water?

Helaas is het alleen in het engels:

The Mikva’ot in Jerusalem

Here we come to one of the most fascinating insights from contemporary archaeology. For centuries paedobaptists have argued that Jerusalem, on the top of Mount Zion, could not possess enough water for the immersion of 3000 people who obeyed Peter’s injunction on the day of Pentecost: “Repent and be baptised, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38). While some aspects of Jerusalem’s water supply, such as Hezekiah’s Tunnel, have been known through archaeologists, it is only in the last two decades that significant discoveries effecting our knowledge of first century baptism have been known.

A. Mazar has made a specific study of the water resources of Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. He writes: “The flow of water to Jerusalem, was solely by gravity. Thus, the sources had to be higher than the city being supplied. Such sources are found south of Jerusalem in three concentrations: in Wadi Arrub, where the springs are an average of 810 metres above sea-level; in Wadi Biyar, at the southern end of which there is a spring at the 870 metre level; and in the region of Solomon’s Pools, where there are two springs above the pools, at 800 metres, and two more below the pools, at the 765 metre level. These very slight differences in height, and the numerous topographical obstructions, necessitated a meandering, lengthy route for the aqueducts, with a very slight gradient.

The first section of the aqueduct system, which we call the Arrub Aqueduct, is split up by a number of small wadis, necessitating a route of some 40 kilometres, even though the distance is only 10 kilometres as the crow flies. The aqueduct gathers the abundant waters of the springs of Wadi Arrub, partly stored in a pool of some 20,000 cubit metres capacity.

In this region, the aqueduct is built on a high foundation wall, but in the rocky region east of Beit Fajjar it is a mere channel hewn into the bed-rock, or partly hewn and partly constructed, covered over by stone slabs. In this section, it is some 50 centimetres wide and 50-60 centimetres high. In three places the aqueduct tunnels beneath ridges; the bridging of wadis was done by means of solid dams which could withstand the winter torrents. All along the Arrub Aqueduct, two major building phases can be distinguished. The initial stage is probably to be ascribed to the period of the Second Temple; whereas the second stage is apparently from Mamluk times. The aqueduct of Wadi Biyar is a short one, with a fairly straight route, mostly through tunnels. It is some 4.7 kilometres long and differs entirely from the Arrub Aqueduct. The first three kilometres of the Biyar Aqueduct is actually one long tunnel, hewn at a depth of 8-23 metres along the wadi. The tunnel was hewn through tens of shafts, a well-known technique employed in Roman aqueducts.

Tunnels of this type were generally employed to overcome topographical obstacles, but here the intent differed; the wadi provided no obstacle, especially since the opening of the tunnel is some 70 metres above the upper reservoir at Solomon’s Pools. The intent here for hewing the tunnel was purely hydraulic, showing the knowledge of the engineers involved. The tunnel is hewn into soft hawwar, an impermeable limestone giving rise to springs throughout the Judean hills. The geologist A. Flexer, who has examined the tunnel, writes: “The principle of building the tunnel is in the meeting of an aquifer and an aquiclud, so that all along the way ground water is constantly being gathered.” Thus, we have before us a unique hydraulic project, having no parallel in this country; the entire tunnel was hewn to serve as a water-source – three kilometres long!” “Jerusalem Revealed”. Edited by Yigael Hadin. pp.80,81. Israel Exploration Society 1976.

One purpose of such an intricate system, and this was only one aspect of the Jerusalem water supply in the time of Jesus, is the number of private mikva’ot found in houses near to the Temple Mount, and by the stairs leading to the Temple near where Peter was preaching on the Day of Pentecost. These discoveries only made in the last few years, were possible only because of the removal of valuable Islamic buildings accidentally (?) destroyed in the Six Day war.

I have examined them closely and the results are most powerful in ending much of the centuries long debate on the mode of Christian baptism in the early church.

The outstanding Israeli archaeologist Mier Ben-Dov, who has led the archaeological excavation of many of the areas round the Temple mount, writes of his discoveries:


“Our excavations proved that residential buildings were situated as close as a dozen meters from the walls of the Temple Mount. Still, the area immediately surrounding the mount was designated for public use, meaning thoroughfares and squares as well as public and commercial buildings. It was on the slopes of the western hill and to the north of the City of David that we uncovered the remains of residential neighbourhoods. Their buildings were constructed very close together, reminding us again that Jerusalem of the Second Temple period was both a heavily populated and highly prosperous city whose economy was nourished by the steady traffic of pilgrims and a burgeoning network of commercial ties. Although we also know that the city supported crafts and industrial enterprises, as well, to date no sign of such installations has been unearthed within its bounds. The ancient sources help us on this point by noting how the city fathers made sure that petty-crafts workshops were located outside the walls. They seemed to have been aware that ovens and other industrial apparatus pollute the environment and must therefore be kept well away from residential neighbourhoods. This precaution was all the more apt in a city as crowded as Jerusalem.”

“The lively trade in real estate for building purposes, particularly in the areas closest to the Temple Mount, made it necessary to exploit every patch of land to the utmost. Shops were even built into the piers of Robinson’s Arch and Wilson’s Arch. The residential quarters that began near the commercial center adjoining the Temple Mount extended southward and westward, growing into densely built neighbourhoods. In essence the streets were no more than narrow alleys that threaded their way between the houses -when, indeed, these buildings did not actually touch up against each other or share common walls – according the city the look of a typical ancient metropolis. Yet despite the intense exploitation of the real estate and crowded effect on the outside, the houses themselves were relatively spacious inside. The format of a typical residential building in Jerusalem was of a patio house, namely, a set of rooms built around a central courtyard. These enclosures were not in themselves very large, but they allowed for relative privacy in a densely populated city.”

“Sometimes the enclosed courtyards contained no special architectural features; sometimes they were rather like peristylar courts in that they had a few pillars in the centre supporting a thatch of vineleaves. In any event, the houses in Jerusalem during the Second Temple period, though planned with care, were modest in size compared to the villas in the country’s rural areas, for the sheer dearth of space and exorbitant price of land prevented even the wealthy from building in a manner commensurate with their economic standing. The houses were constructed out of stone, sometimes well dressed, sometimes only partially so. Their walls were plastered both inside and out, while the interiors were also whitewashed and decorated with simple frescoes and other artistic embellishments.”

“In Herod’s day the barrel vault became almost the exclusive form of roof in Judea. It required considerable engineering skill, auxiliary equipment for building forms, and scaffolds for constructing the vaults – not to mention a good deal of work to dress the stones that would ultimately make up the vaults. When vaults were first built, they were fashioned exclusively out of dressed stone, which required precision chisel work at angles that aligned with the structure of the arches. Nevertheless, barrel vaults proved to be an unparalleled structural solution to the problem of ceilings and roofs in an area where wooden rafters were a highly expensive commodity. The stone vaults also made it possible to construct multi-story houses – and, indeed, many of Jerusalem’s houses in that period rose to a height of two or three stories, which was a boon for coping with the pressures of a burgeoning population.”

“One of the hallmarks of these buildings – an element found in almost every one of them – is the mikveh or ritual bath. Since they were carved out of bedrock, these baths survived almost intact despite the subsequent destruction inflicted on other parts of the houses. Every generation has its social classes, and from this point of view the Second Temple period was no different from any other. Yet rather than be based on economic or social standards, classes then were defined on the basis of a religious guideline. Some were very strict in observing the religious precepts of the halakhah, others were less rigorous. The more fastidious in their observance of the commandments were called haverim (“comrades”), while their less exacting counterparts were called amei aratzot (“the uninitiated” or “common folk”). Yet we should note that the commandments in question are not the religious precepts whose observance or violation distinguishes between religious and non-observant people today, such as the Sabbath and the dietary laws of kashrut. Those commandments were universally observed in the Jewish community during the Second Temple period. What distinguished between the haverim and the amei aratzot was a rigorous observance of halakhic practice – most particularly the laws of impurity and purification – sometimes well beyond the demands of the halakhah. Hence the abundance of ritual baths. According to the halakhah, the water used in a ritual bath must either be rainwater or come from a constantly flowing source such as a spring. In places where there was no water source in the vicinity, rainwater was used. But that gave rise to problems of its own, for when the water in the ritual bath had to be changed in the summertime, it was necessary to draw water from cisterns.”


“The sticklers of the day felt that drawing water from a standard well did not meet the demands of the halakhah, because it was “drawn water” rather than rainwater. In order to make the water fit for use, the following solution was arrived at: a receptacle with a minimum capacity of 40 seah (about 800 litres) was built alongside the ritual bath. Referred to as the “treasury,” this reservoir was used to store rainwater, and its contents could not be used for any other purpose. The “treasury” and the ritual bath were connected by a pipe two fingers in diameter “like the width of the tube of a wineskin,” as the Mishnah puts it.

Whenever a householder wanted to clean his ritual bath and change its water, he plugged up the pipe, cleaned and rinsed the bath, and then refilled it with water drawn from a cistern. Afterward the pipe was unblocked and contact was made between the fresh water already in the bath and the water of the “treasury”. This blend purified the water of the mikveh and made it fit for bathing according to halakhic demands. These three components – the ritual bath itself, the “treasury” beside it, and a cistern from which the water was drawn to fill and change the bath – were found in every one of the houses uncovered on the slopes of the western hill. In cases where there was not enough room to build the three components side by side, or for the sake of conserving space, the “treasury” was sometimes built under the steps leading into the ritual bath. Occasionally the cistern was cut into the rock below them both.

The ritual baths were coated with a gray-coloured plaster to prevent seepage. In addition to lime and sand – the standard ingredients of the plaster – olive oil was added to strengthen it and enhance its impenetrability. The ritual bath was entered by at least six steps that were covered by water and were considered an integral part of the bath. Anyone who entered the mikveh would descend these steps impure and ascend them cleansed. To ensure that the purified bather would not come into contact with the part of the step he had tread on while descending into the mikveh, a number of baths had railings to divide the steps and indicate one side for descent and the other for ascent (we have evidence of this convention in the Mishnah). We also uncovered other kinds of ritual baths within the residential quarters, including “seeded” baths that did not draw upon a “treasury” and baths cut into the rock like caves. So far forty-eight ritual baths have been excavated.

The abundance of ritual baths in the area of the Temple Mount, compared to their relative scarcity in the Upper City and other quarters of Jerusalem, prompted scholars to formulate a number of theories. Some posited that the residents of the neighbourhoods adjoining the Temple Mount must have been more pious than the members of the aristocracy, who lived in the Upper City and were less zealous in their adherence to the halakhah. From the standpoint of strict observance of the laws of ritual purity, it is hardly necessary for everyone to have his own private mikveh, especially as public ritual baths definitely satisfied the need.

Then why this abundance of ritual baths in the houses built near the Temple Mount? As we have seen, a prerequisite for entering the Temple Mount was purification in a ritual bath. We know that many pilgrims lodged in hospices and public hostels, but the custom of renting rooms existed back then, too. Imagine the attraction of a notice tacked up on a street corner were it phrased to the following effect: “Rooms for rent. Reasonable rates. Private mikveh on premises.” That is how I would explain the profusion of these baths, for many of the householders living near the Temple Mount made a living from renting out rooms. The cisterns uncovered in these buildings are huge, accommodating some 150 square metres of water. What’s more, five such cisterns were found in a single building!”


“Our work exposing the entire area revealed a mammoth building with some ten rooms, five water cisterns, and three ritual baths! Its state of preservation, relative to Jerusalem buildings of the Second Temple period, was excellent. In a number of places vaults were unearthed fully intact, as were doorways from the threshold right up to the lintel. The foundations of this structure were hardy walls from the First Temple period. Although our excavation of the building is not yet complete and we still have not compiled all the information on it, clearly we have come upon a multi-roomed building of at least two storeys.” “In The Shadow Of The Temple” Meir Ben-Dov. pp.149-155. Kester Publishing House 1982.

The old paedobaptist arguments that there were no facilities in Jerusalem to immerse 3000 people on the day of Pentecost, and an inadequate water system except the drinking pools which would not have been allowed to be used a baptisteries, have been totally destroyed by recent archaeological discoveries of the 48 mikva’ot in the very area where Peter was preaching.

The “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (1971, Vol , p1543) says:


“There were many mikva’ot on the Temple Mount…even during the fratricidal war on the Temple Mount the laws of ritual immersion were strictly adhered to (Josephus Wars 4:205). The Temple itself contained pools in various places for the priests to bathe even in the vaults beneath the courts. The High Priest had special mikva’ot in the Temple for immersion in the Holy Place on the Day of Atonement. There was an additional place for immersion on the Mount of Olives.”

By the great staircase recently excavated, leading into the Holda Gates and into the Temple Mount, there is a mikveh where women were purified after child-birth. Mary would have entered this special female mikveh for her purification.

This occurred 33 days after the birth of Jesus when they brought Him to the Temple. (Luke 2:21-24). The 48 others are also at the foot of these stairs. The 48 mikva’ot also must not be thought to have been the only ones in the area of the Temple Mount. They are the only ones to have been thus far excavated. The difficulties of trying to excavate in a built-up and extremely sensitive area are enormous, but what has been discovered in a small area already is sufficient to end the old arguments about the availability and sufficiency of water for the performance of immersion baptism of adults in the Early Church

http://www.gordonmoyes.com/2005/03/22/t ... jerusalem/

[mayflower]

Ik denk dat we er wel vanuit kunnen gaan dat die 3000 mensen besprenkeld zijn met water

Ondanks dat ze zuigelingen besprenkelde, namen de volgende niet-baptisten, zoals Calvijn, Luther, Oosterzee, Matthew Poole, Turretin. John Owen en vele anderen een total anderen mening rondom de onderdopeling in de vroege kerk±

1. Bellarmine (Roman Catholic), Disputations, Vol. III, p. 279: "Ordinarily baptism is performed by immersion, and that to represent the burial of Christ."

2. Dollinger (Old Catholic), The Church and the Churches: "Baptists are, however, from the Protestant point of view, unassailable, since for their demand of baptism by submersion they have the clear Bible text."

3. Maldonatus (Catholic), Commentary on the Gospels. On Luke 12:50: "Whence it is, that also martyrdom is called a baptism; a metaphor, as I think, taken from those who are submerged in the sea, to put them to death. For in Greek, to be baptized is the same as to be submerged."

4. Est (Catholic), Commentary on the Epistles. On Rom. 6:3: "For immersion represents to us Christ’s burial; and so also his death. For the tomb is a symbol of death, since none but the dead are buried. Moreover, the emersion, which follows the immersion, has a resemblance to a resurrection. We are therefore, in baptism, conformed not only to the death of Christ, as he has said, but also to his burial and resurrection."

5. Arnoldi (Catholic), Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. On 3:6: "BAPTIZEIN, to immerse, to submerge...It was, as being an entire submersion under the water,—since washings were already a confession of impurity and a symbol of purification,—the confession of entire impurity and a symbol of entire purification."

6. Bishop Bossuet (French Catholic): "To baptize signifies to plunge, as is granted by all the world." (Quoted by A. Booth, Pedobaptism Examined, Vol. I, p. 48).

7. R. Wetham (Catholic), Annotations on the New Testament. On Matthew 3:6: "The word baptism signifies a washing, particularly when it is done by immersion, or by dipping, or plunging a thing under water, which was formerly the ordinary way of administering the sacrament of baptism."

8. Calmet (Catholic), Biblical Dictionary: "The Jews dipped themselves entirely under the water, and this is the most simple notion of the word baptize."

9. Martin Luther (Founder of the Lutheran church). On the Sacrament of Baptism: "First, the name baptism is Greek; in Latin" it can be rendered immersion, when we immerse any thing into water, that it may be all covered with water. And although that custom has now grown out of use with most persons (nor do they wholly submerge children, but only pour on a little water), yet they ought to be entirely immersed, and immediately drawn out. For this the etymology of the name seems to demand."

10. Adolf Harnack (Lutheran). In the Independent, Feb. 19, 1885: "1. Baptizein undoubtedly signifies immersion (eintauchen). 2. No proof can be found that it signified anything else in the New Testament and in the most ancient Christian literature. 3. There is no passage in the New Testament which suggests the supposition that any New Testament author attached to the word baptizein any other sense than immerse or submerge."

11. J. J. Van Oosterzee (Dutch Lutheran). Practical Theology, p. 419: "History teaches that baptism at a very early period degenerated from the primitive simplicity. It was originally administered by immersion."

12. Witsius (Dutch Lutheran). Oecon. Foed. IV, ch. 16: "It cannot be denied that the original signification of the word baptizo is to plunge-to dip."

13. Augustus Neander (Lutheran). Church History, I, p. 310: "In respect to the form of baptism, it was in conformity with the original institution and the original import of the symbol, performed by immersion."

14. Bleek (German Lutheran): "Baptizo is the prevalent expression for baptism as it originally took place by immersion under water." (Quoted by J. R. Graves, John’s Baptism, p. 212.)

15. J. L. Mosheim (Lutheran). Ecclesiastical History, Book I, Cent. 1, part II, ch. 4, para. VIII: "The sacrament of baptism was administered in this century, without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by the immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font."

16. J. P. Lange (Lutheran). On Infant Baptism, p. 81: "Baptism in the apostolic age was a proper baptism—the immersion of the body in water."

17. Augusti (Lutheran). Vol. V, p. 5: "The word baptism, according to etymology and usage, signifies to immerse, submerge, etc; and the choice of the expression betrays an age in which the latter custom of sprinkling had not been introduced."

18. Bretschneider (Lutheran). Theology, Vol. II, pp. 673, 681 (1828): "An entire immersion belongs to the nature of baptism."

19. J. A. Bengel (Lutheran). Comment on Rom. 6:4: "Many waters: also the rite of immersion is required."

20. H. A. W. Meyer (Lutheran). Critical Commentary on the New Testament. On Mark 7:4: "Moreover, ean mee baptisontai is not to be understood of washing the hands (Lightfoot, Wetstein), but of immersion, which the word in classic Greek, and in the New Testament, everywhere means."

21. Herman Venema (Lutheran): Eccl. Hist., Ch. 1, sec. 138: "It is without controversy, that baptism in the primitive Church was administered by immersion into water, and not by sprinkling."

22. Fritzsche (Lutheran). Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Vol. I, p. 120: "Moreover Causaubon well suggested, that DUNDIN means to be submerged with the design that you may perish, EPIPOLAZEIN to float on the surface of the water; BAPTIZESTHAI to immerse yourself wholly, for another end than that you may perish. But that, in accordance with the nature of the word BAPTIZESTHAI, baptism was then performed not by sprinkling upon but by submerging, is proven especially by Romans 6:4."

23. Olshausen (Lutheran). Comment on Matthew 18:1-15: "Particularly Paul (Rom. 6:4) treats of baptism in the twofold reference of that ordinance to immersion and emersion, as symbolizing the death and resurrection of Christ."

24. Guericke (Lutheran). Church History, Vol. I, p. 100: "Baptism was originally administered by immersion."

25. Salmasius (French Lutheran). Apud Witsium, Oecon. Fced. Book IV, ch. 16: "The clinic only, because they were confined to their beds, were baptized in a manner of which they were capable: not in the entire laver, as those who plunge the head under the water; but the whole body had water poured upon it. Thus Novatus, when sick, received baptism; being perikutheis, besprinkled, not baptistheis, baptized."

26. Rosenmuller (German Lutheran). Scholia, Matthew 3:6: "To baptize is to immerse, or dip, the body, or part of the body which is to be baptized, going under the water."

27. Tholuck (German Lutheran): Comment on Romans 6:4. "For the explanation of this figurative description of the baptismal rite, it is necessary to call attention to the well-known circumstance that, in the early days of the Church, persons, when baptized, were first plunged below and then raised above the water." (Quoted in J. R. Graves, John’s Baptism, p. 212).

28. William Wall (Episcopalian). History of Infant Baptism, Part II, ch. 2, p. 462: "Their [the primitive Christians] general and ordinary way was to baptize by immersion, or dipping the person, whether it were an infant or grown man or woman, into the water. This is so plain and clear by an infinite number of passages, that as one cannot but pity the weak endeavors of such pedobaptists as would maintain the negative of it; so also we ought to disown and show a dislike of the profane scoffs which some people give to the English anti-pedobaptists, merely for their use of dipping." This is a remarkably candid concession for him to make in rebuking his own people and agreeing with the Baptists—the anti-pedobaptists.

29. Conybeare And Howson (Episcopalians). Life and Epistles of Paul. On Romans 6:3-4: "This passage cannot be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion."

30. Joseph Bingham (Episcopalian). Antiquities of the Christian Church, Book XI, ch. 11, sect. 1: "The Ancients thought that Immersion or burying under Water did more lively represent the Death and Burial, and Resurrection of Christ, as well as our own Death unto Sin, and Rising again to Righteousness...For which Reason they observed the way of baptizing all Persons naked and divested, by a total Immersion under Water, except in some particular cases of great Exigency, wherein they allowed of Sprinkling, as in the case of Clinic Baptism, or where there was scarcity of Water." Bingham was one of the great Antiquarians of all time.

31. Cave (Episcopalian). Primitive Christianity, Part I, ch. 10, p. 320: "The party to be baptized was wholly immersed, or put under the water...As in immersion there are, in a manner, three several acts—the putting the person into the water, his abiding there for a little time, and his rising up again—so by these were represented Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; and in conformity thereunto our dying unto sin, the destruction of its power, and our resurrection to a new course of life."

32. Dean Stanley (Episcopalian). Syria and Palestine, Ch. 7, p. 306-307: "He came baptizing, that is, signifying to those who came to him, as he plunged them under the rapid torrent, the forgiveness and forsaking of their sins."

33. J. Lingard (Episcopalian). History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, Vol. I, p. 317: "The regular manner of administering it was by immersion, the time the two eves of Easter and Pentecost, the place a baptistery, a small building contiguous to the church."

34. Bishop Ellicott (Episcopalian). "There seems to be no reason to doubt that both here and in Rom. 6:6, there is an allusion to the immersion and emersion in baptism." (Quoted in J. R. Graves’ John’s Baptism, p. 218.)

35. J. B. Lightfoot (Episcopalian). On Matthew 3:6: "That the baptism of John was the immersion of the body, in which manner both the ablutions of unclean persons and the baptism of proselytes was performed, seems evident from those things which are related of it; namely, that he baptized in the Jordan, and in Enon, because there was much water; and that Christ, being baptized, went up out of the water."

36. Daniel Whitby (Episcopalian). Annotations on Romans 6:4: "And this immersion being religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our church."

37. Jeremy Taylor (Episcopalian). The rule of Conscience, Book III, Ch. 4, Rule 15, 13: "’Straightway Jesus went up out of the water (saith the Gospel); He came up, therefore he went down. Behold an immersion, not an aspersion.’ And the ancient churches, following this of the Gospel, did not, in their baptism, sprinkle with their hands, but immerged the catechumen or the infant...All which are a perfect conviction, that the custom of the ancient churches was not sprinkling, but immersion in pursuance of the sense of the word in the commandment and example of our blessed Saviour."

38. H. H. Milman (Episcopalian). History of Christianity, III, p. 317: "The baptism was usually by immersion; the stripping off the clothes was emblematic of ‘putting off of the old man.’"

39. Bishop Burnet (Episcopalian). Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles: "The danger of dipping in cold climates may be a very good reason for changing the form of baptism to sprinkling."

40. Bishop Towerson (Episcopalian). Of The Sacrament of Baptism, Part 3, p. 53: "Now, what the command of Christ was in this particular, cannot well be doubted of by those who shall consider the words of Christ (Matt. 28:19), concerning it, and the practice of those times, whether in the baptism of John, or of our Savior. For the words of Christ are, that they should baptize, or dip those whom they made disciples to him (for so, no doubt, the word Baptizein properly signifies)."

41. Bishop William Sherlock (Episcopalian). "Baptism, or an immersion into water, according to the ancient rite of administering it, is a figure of our burial with Christ, and of our conformity to His death." (Quoted in E. T. Hiscox, New Directory for Baptist Churches, p. 404.)

42. Samuel Clarke (Episcopalian). Exposition of Church Catechism, p. 294: "In the primitive times the manner of baptizing was by immersion or dipping the whole body into water."

43. Bloomfield (Episcopalian). Recens. Synop. On Romans 6:4: "Here is a plain allusion to the ancient custom of baptizing by immersion and I agree with Koppe and Rosenmuller, that there is reason to regret it should ever have been abandoned in most Christian churches, especially as it has so evident a reference to the mystic sense of baptism."

44. Prof. Browne (Episcopalian), in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Art. Bap. Sup: "The language of the New Testament and of the primitive Fathers sufficiently point to immersion as the common mode of baptism."

45. G. A. Jacob (Episcopalian). Eccl. Polity of the New Testament, p. 258: "It only remains to be observed that baptism, in the primitive Church, was evidently administered by immersion of the body in water—a mode which added to the significancy of the rite, and gave a peculiar force to some of the allusions to it."

46. Abp. Tillotson (Episcopalian). Works, Vol. I, p. 179: "Anciently those who were baptized were immersed, and buried in the water, to represent their death to sin; and then did rise up out of the water to signify their entrance upon a new life. And to these customs the Apostle alludes."

47. Benson (Episcopalian). Comment on Romans 6:4: "Buried with Him by baptism-alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion."

48. Bishop Fell (Episcopalian). Note on Romans 6:4: "The primitive fashion of immersion under the water, representing our death, and elevation again out of it, our resurrection or regeneration."

49. Sir John Floyer (Episcopalian). History of Cold Bathing, pp. 15, 61: "The church of Rome hath drawn short compendiums of both sacraments; in the eucharist, they use only the wafer; and instead of immersion, they introduced aspersion...I have given now what testimony I could find in our English authors, to prove the practice of immersion from the time the Britons and Saxons were baptized till King James’ days; when the people grew peevish with all ancient ceremonies, and through the love of novelty, and the niceness of parents, and the pretense of modesty, they laid aside immersion."

50. W. F. Hook (Episcopalian). Church Directory (1854): "In performing the ceremony of baptism the usual custom was to immerse and dip the whole body."

51. J. H. Blunt (Episcopalian). Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology (1870): "The primitive mode of baptizing was by immersion, as we learn from the clear testimony of holy scriptures of the fathers."

52. Wilson (Episcopalian). Christian Dictionary, Art. Baptism: "To baptize, to dip one into water, to plunge one into water."

53. A. R. Fausset (Episcopalian). Critical and Experimental Commentary, on Colossians 2:12: "Baptism is the burial of the old carnal life, to which immersion symbolically corresponds: in warm climates, where immersion is safe, it is the mode most accordant with the significance of the ordinance."

54. John Calvin (Founder of the Presbyterian Church). Institutes of the Christian Religion, B. IV, ch. 15, on Baptism, 19: "The word baptize itself signifies immerse, and it is certain that the rite of immersion was observed by the ancient church."

55. Philip Schaff (American Presbyterian). History of the Apostolic Church, p. 570: "Respecting the form of baptism, therefore (quite otherwise with the much more important difference respecting the subject of baptism, or infant baptism), the impartial historian is compelled by exegesis and history, ‘substantially to yield the point to the Baptists, as is done, in fact (perhaps somewhat too decidedly, and without true regard to the arguments just stated for the other practice), by most German scholars."

56. J. Cunningham (Scotch Presbyterian). Growth of the Church, P. 173: "Baptism means immersion and it was immersion. The Hebrews immersed their proselytes; the Essenes took their daily baths; John plunged his penitents into the Jordan; Peter dipped his crowd of converts into one of the great pools which were to be found in Jerusalem. Unless it had been so, Paul’s analogical argument about our being buried with Christ in Baptism would have had no meaning. Nothing could have been simpler than baptism in its first form."

57. MacKnight (Scotch Presbyterian): "He submitted to be baptized—that is, to be buried under the water by John, and to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of His future death and resurrection." (Quoted in J. R. Graves, John’s Baptism, p. 216.)

58. Chalmers (Scotch Presbyterian): "The original meaning of the word baptism is immersion and we doubt not that the prevalent style of the administration in the apostles’ days was by an actual submerging of the whole body under water." (Quoted in J. R. Graves, John’s Baptism, p. 216.)

59. George Campbell (Scotch Presbyterian). Translation of the Four Gospels, Note on Matt. 4:11: "The word Baptizein, both in sacred writers and classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse; and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, tingere, the term used for dying cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning."

60. Theodore Beza (Presbyterian). Annotations on Matthew 7:4; Acts 19:3; Matthew 3:2: "Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain immersion is signified."

61. Assembly of Divines (Presbyterian). Annotations on Matthew 3:6; Romans 6:4: "In this phrase (Col. 2:12) the Apostle seemeth to allude to the ancient manner of baptism, which was to dip the parties baptized, and, as it were, to bury them under the water for a while, and then to draw them out of it, and lift them up. To represent the burial of our old man, and our resurrection to newness of life."

62. Leigh (Presbyterian). Critica Sacra, on Acts 8:38: "The native and proper signification of it is, to dip into water, or to plunge under water."

63. Giovanni Diodati (Presbyterian). Annotations on Matthew 3:6: "Baptized—that is to say, ducked in the water, for a sacred sign and seal of the expiation and remission of sins."

64. G. J. Vossius (Presbyterian). Disputat. De Bapt. Disp. I, Thes. I, p. 25: "Baptizein, to baptize, signifies to plunge. It certainly therefore signifies more than epipolazein, which is, to swim lightly on the top; and less than dunein, which is, to sink to the bottom, so as to be destroyed."

65. John Wesley (Founder of the Methodist Church). Note on Rom. 6:4: "Buried with Him—alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." From Wesley’s Journal, from his embarking for Georgia, p. 11: "Mary Welsh, aged eleven days, was baptized according to the custom of the first church, and the rule of the church of England, by immersion."

66. Adam Clarke (Methodist). Comment on Romans 6:4: "It is probable that the Apostle here alludes to the mode of administering baptism by immersion, the whole body being put under water."

67. George Whitefield (Methodist). Eighteen Sermons, p. 297: "It is certain that in the words of our text (Rom. 6:3-4) there is an allusion to the manner of baptism, which was by immersion."

68. J. C. L Gieseler (Methodist). Eccl. Hist., First Period, Div. III (A. D. 193-324), ch. 4, para. 71: "The condition of catechumen usually continued several years; but the catechumens often deferred even baptism as long as possible on account of the remission of sins by which it was to be accomplished. Hence it was often necessary to baptize the sick; and for them, the rite of sprinkling was introduced."

69. G. P. Fisher (Congregationalist). The Beginnings Of Christianity, p. 565: "Baptism, it is now generally agreed among scholars, was commonly by immersion."

70. Coleman (Congregationalist). Antiquities: "In the primitive Church, immersion was undeniably the common mode of baptism."

71. Moses Stuart (Congregationalist). Essay on Baptism, p. 51: "Baptism means to dip, plunge, or immerse into any liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed on this."

72. Doddridge (Congregationalist). Family Expositor on Romans 6:4: "It seems the part of candor to confess, that here is an allusion to the manner of baptizing by immersion, as most usual in those early times."

73. Waddington (Congregationalist). Church History, Ch. 2, sect. 3: "The sacraments of the primitive Church were two: that of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The ceremony of immersion, the oldest form of baptism, was performed in the name of the three persons of the Trinity."

74. Leonard Woods (Congregationalist). Lectures: "Our Baptist brethren undertake to prove from ecclesiastical history, that immersion was the prevailing mode of baptism in the ages following the Apostles. I acknowledge that ecclesiastical history clearly proves this."

75. L. L. Paine (Congregationalist). Professor of Eccl. Hist. in Bangor Theological Seminary: "It may be honestly asked, by some, was immersion the primitive form of baptism, and if so, what then? As to the question of fact, the testimony is ample and decisive. No matter of Church history is clearer. The evidence is all one way, and all Church historians of any repute agree in accepting it...It is a point on which ancient, mediaeval and modern historians alike—Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Calvinist have no controversy...But on this one, of the early practice of immersion, the most distinguished antiquarians, such as Bingham, Augusti (Coleman), Smith (Dictionary of the Bible), and historians such as Mosheim, Gieseler, Hase, Neander, Milman, Schaff, Alzog (Catholic), hold a common language." (Quoted in J. R. Graves, Act of Baptism, pp. 20-21. Dr. Paine further says: "Any scholar who denies that immersion was the baptism of the Christian church for thirteen centuries betrays UTTER IGNORANCE or SECTARIAN BLINDNESS." (Quoted by Graves, ibid, p. 33.)

76. Zwingli (Swiss Reformer). Annotations on Rom. 6:3: "Into his death." "When ye were immersed into the water of baptism, ye were engrafted into the death of Christ; that is, the immersion of your body into water was a sign, that ye ought to be engrafted into Christ and his death, that as Christ died and was buried, ye also may be dead to the flesh and the old man, that is, to yourselves."

77. Philip Melanchthon (German Reformer). Catec. Wit. (1580): "Baptism is immersion into water, which is made with this admirable benediction."

78. Matthew Poole (Episcopalian). Annotations on John 3:23: "It is apparent that both Christ and John baptized by dipping the body in the water, else they need not have sought places where had been a great plenty of water."

79. Turretin (Swiss Calvinist). Institut. Loc. 19, quaes. 11, sec. 4: "The word baptism is of Greek origin, and is derived from the verb Bapto; which signifies to dip, and to dye; Baptizein, to baptize; to dip into, to immerse...Hence it appears, that Baptizein is more than epipolazein, which is to swim lightly on the surface; and less than dunein, which is to go down to the bottom; that is, to strike the bottom so as to be destroyed."

80. Limborch (Dutch Arminian). Complete System of Divinity, Book V, chap. 27, Sect. l. Comment on Romans 6:4: "Baptism, then, consisting in washing, or rather immersing the whole body into water, as was customary in the primitive times...The apostle alludes to the manner of baptizing, not as practiced at this day, which is performed by sprinkling of water; but as administered of old, in the primitive church, by immersing the whole body in water, a short continuance in the water, and a speedy emersion out of the water."

81. J. J. Wetstein (Bible Critic). Comment on Matthew 3:6: "To baptize, is to plunge, to dip: The body, or part of the body, being under water, is said to be baptized."

82. Geikie, Life and Words of Christ, Vol. I, p. 405, says of John: "He led them in groups to the Jordan, and immersed each singly in the waters, after earnest and full confession of their sins."

83. Curcellaeus, Relig. Christ. Institut., Book V, chap. 2: "Baptism was performed by plunging the whole body into water, not by sprinkling a few drops, as is now the practice. For ‘John was baptizing in Aenon, near to Salim, because there was much water; and they came and were baptized,’ (John 3:23). Nor did the disciples that were sent out by Christ administer baptism afterwards in any other way: and this is more agreeable to the signification of the ordinance (Rom. 6:4)."

84: Hugo Grotius (Arminian). Synops. Ad. Matthew 3:6: "That baptism used to be performed by immersion, and not by pouring, appears both from the proper signification of the word, and the places chosen for the administration of the rite, (John 3:23; Acts 8:38); and also from the many allusions of the apostles, which cannot be referred to sprinkling, (Rom. 6:3, 4; Col. 2:12)."

85. Zanchius, Works, Vol. VI, p. 217: "Baptism is a Greek word, and signifies two things; first, and properly, immersion in water: for the proper signification of Baptizo, is to immerse, to plunge under, to overwhelm in water."

86. Joseph Mede, Discourse on Titus 3:5, in Works, p. 63 (Edit. 1677): "There was no such thing as sprinkling, or rantismos, used in baptism in the apostles’ days, nor many ages after them."

87. Vitringa, Aphorismi Sanct. Theolog., Aphorism 884: "The act of baptizing, is the immersion of believers in water. This expresses the force of the word. Thus also it was performed by Christ and the apostles."

88. Storr and Flatt, Biblical Theology, Book IV, sect. 109, para. 4: "The disciples of our Lord could understand His command in no other way than as enjoining immersion, for the baptism of John, to which Jesus Himself submitted, and also the earlier baptism of the disciples of Jesus, were performed by dipping the subject into cold water."

89. G. B. Winer (German Protestant). Manuscript Lectures on Christian Antiquities: "In the apostolic age, baptism was by immersion, as its symbolical explanation shows."

90. Rheinwald, Archeology, p. 303, note. 1 (1830): "Immersion was the original apostolical practice."

91. August Hahn (German Protestant). Theology, p. 556: "According to apostolical instruction and example, baptism was performed by immersing the whole man."

92. Starch, History of Baptism, p. 8: "In regard to the mode, there can be no doubt, that it was not by sprinkling, but by immersion."

93. Von Coelln, History of Theological Opinions, Vol. I, p. 203: "Immersion in water was general until the thirteenth century; but among the Latins it was displaced by sprinkling; but retained by the Greeks."

94. Claudius Salmasius (French Protestant). De Caesarie Virorum, p. 669: "Baptism is immersion; and was administered, in ancient times, according to the force and meaning of the word. Now it is only rantism or sprinkling; not immersion, or dipping." Apud Witsium, Oecon. Foed., Book IV, chap. 16, sec. 13: "The ancients did not baptize otherwise than by immersion, either once or thrice."

95. Jean Daille (French Protestant). Right Use of the Fathers, Book II, p. 148: "It was a custom heretofore in the ancient church, to plunge those they baptized over head and ears in the water...This is still the practice, both of the Greek and the Russian church, even at this very day:"

96. Danish Catechism, On Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:15-16: "What is implied in these words? A command to the dipper and the dipped, with a promise of salvation to those that believe. How is this Christian dipping to be administered? The person must be deep-dipped in water, or overwhelmed with it." (Quoted in Abraham Booth, Pedobaptism Examined, Vol. I, p. 42.)

97. Magdeburg Centuriators (Lutheran). Century I, Book 2, chap. 4: "The word Baptizo, to baptize, which signifies immersion into water, proves that the administrator of baptism immersed, or washed, the persons baptized in water."

98. John Owen, in Ridgley’s Body of Divinity, quest. 166, p. 608, note: "Though the original and natural signification of the word imports, to dip, to plunge, to dye; yet it also signifies to wash or cleanse."

99: Articles of Smaldcald (Lutheran): "Baptism is no other than the word of God, with plunging into water according to his appointment and command."

100. Robert Barclay (Quaker. The Quakers do not practice a literal water baptism of any sort, and should therefore be considered impartial witnesses). Apology, Proposition 12, sect. 10: "Baptizo signifies immergo; that is, to plunge and dip in; and that was the proper use of water baptism among the Jews, and also by John and the primitive Christians, who used lt."

101. John Gratton (Quaker). Life of John Gratton, p. 231: "John did baptize into water; and it was a baptism, a real dipping, or plunging into water, and so, a real baptism was John’s."

102. Thomas Ellwood (Quaker). Sacred History of the New Testament, Part II, p. 307; speaking of Pentecost says: "They were now baptized with the Holy Ghost indeed; and that in the strict and proper sense of the word baptize; which signifies to dip, plunge, or put under."

103. William Penn (Quaker). Defense of Gospel Truths, against the Bishop of Cork, p. 82-83: "I cannot see why the bishop should assume the power of unchristianing us, for not practicing of that which he himself practices so unscripturally, and that according to the sentiments of a considerable part of Christendom; having not one text of scripture to prove that sprinkling in the face was water baptism,—in the first times.—Then it was in the river Jordan; now in a basin."

104. Thomas Lawson (Quaker). Baptismalogia, p. 117,. 118: "Such as rhantize, or sprinkle infants, have no command from Christ, nor example among the apostles, nor the first primitive Christians, for so doing...The ceremony of John’s ministration, according to divine institution, was by dipping, plunging, or overwhelming their bodies in water."
__________________

[Auto]

Ik heb een aantal postings verwijderd. Nogmaals het verzoek om on topic te blijven en met respect te discussieren binnen het raamwerk van de forumregels.

[Bert Mulder]

Ik heb een aantal postings verwijderd. Nogmaals het verzoek om on topic te blijven en met respect te discussieren binnen het raamwerk van de forumregels.

Zou je hier aub aan kunnen toevoegen, dat dit ook inhoud binnen de gereformeerde belijdenis te blijven?

Dank je.

Zo dat de 'terughoudendheid' die van Marnix ge-eist wordt, vooral ge-eist wordt van degenen die hier enkel en alleen zijn om onze belijdenis aan te vallen?

[Zonderling]

Alle bewijsplaatsen die aantonen dat de doop voor volwassenen door onderdompeling plaatsvond, zeggen nog niets over de vraag of ook zuigelingen in de eerste eeuwen van de christelijke gemeente gedoopt werden. Ik begrijp wel dat Mayflower reageerde op een bepaalde posting (en dat begrijp ik ook, ik zou hetzelfde doen in zijn geval als ik zoveel informatie had als hij), maar voor de essentie die in dit topic aan de orde is, maakt het geen verschil.

Nogmaals: Abraham geloofde God en hij ontving het teken van de besnijdenis als zegel van de rechtvaardigheid des geloofs (Rom. 4:11).
En hijzelf ontving dit teken niet alleen, maar ook zijn zaad met hem, want God richtte Zijn verbond niet alleen met Abraham op, maar ook met zijn zaad (Genesis 17). En zijn zaad ontving de besnijdenis niet vanwege hun eigen geloof, maar vanwege het geloof van Abraham en op grond van het door God met Abraham in genade opgerichte verbond.

Waar zijn de Schriftbewijzen dat de doop in dit opzicht anders is dan de besnijdenis? Zowel het geloof van de ouders als het verbond zijn hierin de wezenlijke argumenten voor de doop van de kinderen. En waar zijn de bewijzen dat de kinderdoop in de oude kerk niet is onderhouden? Ik heb ze nog niet gezien.

[mayflower]

Beste forumleden,

Nadat ik enkele reacties heb mogen lezen rondom de discussie van de doop, en de argumenten die men vanuit de baptisten visie heeft omschreven, lees ik de onrust en ongenoegen van sommige omdat dit tegen de belijdenisgeschriften in gaat.
Ik kan me dit goed voorstellen en respecteer hun standpunt hierin, vandaar dat ik heb besloten om te stoppen met mijn deelname aan refoforum, niet vanuit een teleurstelling of bitterheid, maar om het standpunt van sommige te respecteren rondom de belijdenisgeschriften.
Ik wil jullie danken voor de tijd dat ik deel mocht nemen aan het forum, en het inzicht dat ik door velen heb mogen opdoen.

In de genade van de Here Jezus Christus verbonden,

Ralph (mayflower)