Baptism by Immersion ... The Only Valid Baptism?

[IgnatianPhilo]

Total immersion is preffered and should always be used if available. But since the didache there have been exceptions, economia as it were, that pouring on the head three times and sprinkling.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

Given that it wasn’t a rite when Christ did it, I have to assume you’re using an English language dictionary. Yes, that is the modern definition.

The word, in Koine Greek, means to be immersed, or flooded by (the word is also used to describe the crowds flocking to Christ). You have to use the language of the authors if you want to know what the word implies. You can’t use a modern English dictionary for an ancient Greek word.

Hello Nine_Two, I understand what you are saying. What i’m saying is that immersion is NOT the only valid form of Baptism which is the topic of this thread.

Matthew

 

[Porknpie]

Total immersion is preferred and should always be used if available. But since the didache there have been exceptions, economia as it were, that pouring on the head three times and sprinkling.

IgnatianPhilo - why do you say it is preferred? Do you believe that one receives more or less purification, justification & santification depending on the form?

 

[LivingWaters7]

IgnatianPhilo - why do you say it is preferred? Do you believe that one receives more or less purification, justification & santification depending on the form?

Because the Didache says that it is preferred. It states that the other methods (i.e. pouring) are to be used if immersion is not possible. I believe the Eastern Orthodox (and presumably the Eastern Catholics) still follow what is stated in the Didache (immersion, including for infants, is the norm), in contrast to the Latin Catholics, where pouring is the norm, not immersion.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Continuing on the subject of baptism, I have a good protestant friend - Church of God member ( churchofgod.org/index.php/pages/declairation-of-faith ) , that believes baptism by immersion is the only valid baptismal form.

Neither sprinkling nor pouring forms allowed…

Anyone agree with him?

Apologetic thoughts from Catholics (and catholics of similar view) on starting the conversation with him?

Immersion not required. Here is from the actual Catholic rite:

Baptism

The celebrant invites the family to the font and questions the parents and godparents:

Celebrant: Is it your will that N. should be baptized in the faith of the Church, which we have all professed with you?

Parents and Godparents: It is.

He baptizes the child, saying:

N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, **]He immerses the child or pours water upon it. **and of the Son, He immerses the child or pours water upon it a second time. and of the Holy Spirit.

He immerses the child or pours water upon it a third time. After the child is baptized, it is appropriate for the people to sing a short acclamation. (See nos. 225-245.) If the baptism is performed by the pouring of water, it is preferable that the child be held by the mother (or father). Where, however, it is felt that the existing custom should be retained, the godmother (or godfather) may hold the child. If baptism is by immersion, the mother or father (godmother of godfather) lifts the child out of the font.

 

[Porknpie]

Because the Didache says that it is preferred. It states that the other methods (i.e. pouring) are to be used if immersion is not possible. I believe the Eastern Orthodox (and presumably the Eastern Catholics) still follow what is stated in the Didache (immersion, including for infants, is the norm), in contrast to the Latin Catholics, where pouring is the norm, not immersion.

LW -

Same question…OK, I understand your using the Didache as the source but do you believe that one receives more or less purification, justification & santification depending on the form?

 

[LivingWaters7]

LW -

Same question…OK, I understand your using the Didache as the source but do you believe that one receives more or less purification, justification & santification depending on the form?

Well, as a Latter-day Saint, I personally believe that baptism is to be done by immersion, and is the only valid way to perform it. However, I’m sure that those that accept immersion and pouring as valid methods don’t view one as having more purification, justification, and sanctification than the other. That isn’t the issue (and I don’t believe IgnatianPhilo said anything to imply that he thought that). The issue is whether one form is preferred over another (noting that this preference doesn’t have to have anything to do with more or less purification, justification, and sanctification). According to the Didache, pouring is done is immersion is not possible. It seems to me that the Eastern Churches still follow that ancient guidance, while the Latin Catholics have pouring as the norm instead.

 

[maryjk]

Continuing on the subject of baptism, I have a good protestant friend - Church of God member ( churchofgod.org/index.php/pages/declairation-of-faith ) , that believes baptism by immersion is the only valid baptismal form.

Neither **sprinkling **nor pouring forms allowed…

Anyone agree with him?

Apologetic thoughts from Catholics (and catholics of similar view) on starting the conversation with him?

Do you know of a church that baptism is by “sprinkling?”

 

[Porknpie]

Do you know of a church that baptism is by “sprinkling?”

Here’s one using sprinkling …

upc-orlando.com/resources/written/doctrines/doctrine01.html

 

[Erich]

Remember that in the early days of the Catholic Church, many of the believers met in the catacombs. There were no rivers of flowing water in those tunnels. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the Christians were persecuted during the first four hundreds years, it would have been unwise for any believers to gather in groups by the rivers and lakes in order to be baptized.

 

[Nine_Two]

Hello Nine_Two, I understand what you are saying. What i’m saying is that immersion is NOT the only valid form of Baptism which is the topic of this thread.

Matthew

I agree with that.

What I am clarifying is that
A) The bible does specify he was immersed (as that is what the Greek word means)
B) There are those who do believe Baptism by immersion is the only way, and who believe it really means something.
which run counter to comments you made.

Even though I agree with your thesis, it is important to have the facts right so you can argue with those who don’t. A modern English dictionary is worthless when discussing the bible.

 

[Nine_Two]

LW -

Same question…OK, I understand your using the Didache as the source but do you believe that one receives more or less purification, justification & santification depending on the form?

Purification is a Boolean concept isn’t it? You are either made pure or you are not. If it is only half way done then you are still impure, therefore to say that something will make you pure, you must accept that it does it all the way. Degrees do not come into the discussion.

 

[Porknpie]

Well, as a Latter-day Saint, I personally believe that baptism is to be done by immersion, and is the only valid way to perform it. However, I’m sure that those that accept immersion and pouring as valid methods don’t view one as having more purification, justification, and sanctification than the other. That isn’t the issue (and I don’t believe IgnatianPhilo said anything to imply that he thought that). The issue is whether one form is preferred over another (noting that this preference doesn’t have to have anything to do with more or less purification, justification, and sanctification). According to the Didache, pouring is done is immersion is not possible. It seems to me that the Eastern Churches still follow that ancient guidance, while the Latin Catholics have pouring as the norm instead.

LW -

So you would agree that Pouring OR Immersion result in the same purification, justification and sanctification…? If the end result is the same, why would there be a preference outside of practical issues like no pools of water in the desert ? Just curious to different views…

 

[iloveangels]

Continuing on the subject of baptism, I have a good protestant friend - Church of God member ( churchofgod.org/index.php/pages/declairation-of-faith ) , that believes baptism by immersion is the only valid baptismal form.
Neither sprinkling nor pouring forms allowed…
Anyone agree with him?
Apologetic thoughts from Catholics (and catholics of similar view) on starting the conversation with him?

This is actually quite a big issue among some protestant groups out there. It’s not really an issue for Catholics at all, meaning that for us, it has no theological meaning like it does for Protestants. I’m a convert and I’ve been witness to this sort of thing over baptismal procedures in my former Church settings.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Orthodox certainly believe from age-old tradition that baptism by immersion is normative. Baptism by pouring or sprinkling is only a last resort and only if immersion is not possible. Not that it is invalid, but it should never be the first option.

 

[Reuben_J]

This is actually quite a big issue among some protestant groups out there. It’s not really an issue for Catholics at all, meaning that for us, it has no theological meaning like it does for Protestants. I’m a convert and I’ve been witness to this sort of thing over baptismal procedures in my former Church settings.

I was just about to say something like this too. Not very familiar with Protestant practices but I thought this issue is really no big deal. Immersion, half-immersion (which we do during Easter Vigil since we constructed the pool in front of the sanctuary), and sprinkling are all valid forms of Baptism. The half-immersion that we do really lengthen the time a bit as the Baptismal candidates had to change all over again. But it was nice to see though – from the black cloth they used during the immersion and came out with fully white attire.

 

[PRmerger]

Well if they want to be “literal” to any one saying that, point to the fact that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan river, therefore their baptism by inmersion in a “pool” is invalid.

Indeed. And if they claim to want to be baptized “the way Jesus was baptized”, not only do they have to fly to Israel to get baptized in the River Jordan, but they also need to have their cousin who eats locusts and wears camel hair perform the baptism.

 

[fbl9]

Indeed. And if they claim to want to be baptized “the way Jesus was baptized”, not only do they have to fly to Israel to get baptized in the River Jordan, but they also need to have their cousin who eats locusts and wears camel hair perform the baptism.

Well if they want to be “literal” to any one saying that, point to the fact that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan river, therefore their baptism by inmersion in a “pool” is invalid. Tell them they need to go to the Jordan to be “properly” baptized. But since they do not believe Baptism does anything what’s the point? Sprinkled, inmersed, or at the Jordan, it’s just a symbol! Right?
Definetively tong in cheak on my comments.

to me, these two posts are an example of how rabid anti-catholics start out.
if this then it must be that and it becomes an obsession.

disclaimer: no intention meant to depict above posters as rapid anti-protestant.