Baptism by Immersion

[Rocky]

I know many non-Catholics believe that Jesus was fully immersed in the Jordan River when He received the baptism of John, and therefore feel that is the proper way to be baptized. My reading of the Bible doesn’t convince me of this. The synoptic Gospels do say he went into the water and came up out of the water, but the same could be said of me when I go to a lake or river. I go down into the water (as the shore is usually higher than the water line) and I come up out of it. But almost never do I immerse myself preferring to just wade in the water.

Now I think that immersion is a fine way to be baptized, but quite frankly I don’t see how the sprinkling of water on a person’s head would be less acceptable than immersion. Especially since, as I said, the Bible does not explicitly say that Jesus was immersed. And with the crowds coming to John, I would think that he would have scooped water from the river to pour over the heads of those wanting baptism, and probably did the same for Jesus.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

I know many non-Catholics believe that Jesus was fully immersed in the Jordan River when He received the baptism of John, and therefore feel that is the proper way to be baptized. My reading of the Bible doesn’t convince me of this. The synoptic Gospels do say he went into the water and came up out of the water, but the same could be said of me when I go to a lake or river. I go down into the water (as the shore is usually higher than the water line) and I come up out of it. But almost never do I immerse myself preferring to just wade in the water.

Now I think that immersion is a fine way to be baptized, but quite frankly I don’t see how the sprinkling of water on a person’s head would be less acceptable than immersion. Especially since, as I said, the Bible does not explicitly say that Jesus was immersed. And with the crowds coming to John, I would think that he would have scooped water from the river to pour over the heads of those wanting baptism, and probably did the same for Jesus.

Hey Rocky, The Southern Baptist in my area state immersion is the only valid Baptism. I have asked several Southern Baptist to show me this in their Bible…They can’t.
No where in the Bible does state Christ was Baptized by immersion!

Matthew

 

[SteveVH]

Hey Rocky, The Southern Baptist in my area state immersion is the only valid Baptism. I have asked several Southern Baptist to show me this in their Bible…They can’t.
No where in the Bible does state Christ was Baptized by immersion!

Matthew

The Catholic Church today very much promotes baptism by immersion. All (or most) new Catholic Church’s being built today include a pool for immersion. Immersion is very meaningful (dying and rising) and thus helps us understand the nature of the sacrament better than simply pouring water. So, for adults, the Church recommends immersion, while with infants, pouring the water is probably the best method. Regardless, they are both valid as it is the grace of God that is in action, not the acts of men. To require one over the other simply tells me that there is a lack of understanding of what is really occuring.

 

[Dorothy]

I know many non-Catholics believe that Jesus was fully immersed in the Jordan River when He received the baptism of John, and therefore feel that is the proper way to be baptized. My reading of the Bible doesn’t convince me of this. The synoptic Gospels do say he went into the water and came up out of the water, but the same could be said of me when I go to a lake or river. I go down into the water (as the shore is usually higher than the water line) and I come up out of it. But almost never do I immerse myself preferring to just wade in the water.

Now I think that immersion is a fine way to be baptized, but quite frankly I don’t see how the sprinkling of water on a person’s head would be less acceptable than immersion. Especially since, as I said, the Bible does not explicitly say that Jesus was immersed. And with the crowds coming to John, I would think that he would have scooped water from the river to pour over the heads of those wanting baptism, and probably did the same for Jesus.

In the Didache (How the early Church did things) it says that there are several ways to baptize, and besides in a river, one can sprinkle or pour the water over the head. So, you are quite right.

If I can find that site I’ll send it here.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Hey Rocky, The Southern Baptist in my area state immersion is the only valid Baptism. I have asked several Southern Baptist to show me this in their Bible…They can’t.
No where in the Bible does state Christ was Baptized by immersion!

Matthew

Hmmmm…sounds like non Biblical traditions of men being turned into ritualistic religionism…isn’t that the same kind of thing Catholics get accused of…

Are there any non Catholics here who REALLY believe you won’t be saved unless you’re dunk-baptized.

If Christ wore sandals as he waded into the Jordan, does that mean Southern Baptists all have to wear sandals too as they wade into the river.
Since Christ was baptized in the Jordan, why don’t Southern Baptists apply that similarity too, and insist that only Jordan River baptisms are valid…

 

[Dorothy]

See Chapter 7 of this site:

scrollpublishing.com/store/Didache-text.html

It doesn’t mention sprinkling, but it does mention pouring.

And, yes, there are churches being built with an area where candidates can be baptized by immersion.

 

[The_Scott]

Baptism by pouring is also very practical. The lack of baptism by immersion is very connected to the fact that most (not exclusive, of course) of Catholic baptisms are infant baptisms. It would be very dangerous to dunk a newborn completely underwater.

I’m not saying that adults aren’t baptized, of course. And I’m not saying there isn’t baptism by immersion. But the majority of baptisms in the Catholic Church, I believe, are infants.

Which reminds me, I wonder if there is a statistic of baptisms by immersion per baptisms by pouring?

 

[Cat]

I was raised in a Conference Baptist church. The only baptism we recognized was immersion.

Keep in mind that in the evangelical Protestant churches (not the mainlines), baptism is only a symbol, not a sacrament. The water has no power to impart anything to us, and God does not use the water to impart any kind of grace to us. It is merely our outward sign of our inward commitment–just a symbol.

Baptism by immersion is symbolic of “dying with Christ, being buried with Him, and rising with Him.” Many Protestant pastors and baptizers will used those exact words when they baptize someone. Those words were used for my baptism by my dear pastor.

This symbolism of death, burial, and resurrection is utterly lost in a sprinkling or pouring.

Lest anyone thinks this is silliness, just think about how many Catholics on CAF get upset at the idea of receiving only the Body of Christ and not the Precious Blood. Some Catholics believe (and they are correct) that receiving Holy Communion under both species is a more complete picture of Christ.

Symbols are very powerful to us humans.

 

[Link0126]

Hey Rocky, The Southern Baptist in my area state immersion is the only valid Baptism. I have asked several Southern Baptist to show me this in their Bible…They can’t.
No where in the Bible does state Christ was Baptized by immersion!

Matthew

It’s the only valid baptism but baptism is just symbolic… but for some reason it matters if you do it wrong.

 

[Walking_Home]

The Catholic Church today very much promotes baptism by immersion. All (or most) new Catholic Church’s being built today include a pool for immersion. Immersion is very meaningful (dying and rising) and thus helps us understand the nature of the sacrament better than simply pouring water. So, for adults, the Church recommends immersion, while with infants, pouring the water is probably the best method. Regardless, they are both valid as it is the grace of God that is in action, not the acts of men. To require one over the other simply tells me that there is a lack of understanding of what is really occuring.

---

The negative of the push for immersion – is people ending up believing that if they are not immersed – the baptism is not as valid.

 

[Georgia]

My former Baptist church viewed the definition of baptism as being exclusive to immersion. Anything else was thought to be mere sprinkling that very much failed to follow the Bible’s command to baptize.

 

[beth40n2]

If you want to know more about baptism, here is the link to the Catechism scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm

When I was in the Holy Land up on Masada you could see the baptismal pools used by the ancient Jews.

Remember we have Judeo-Christian background. Here is a link on the Jewish tradition haydid.org/ronimmer.htm

 

[Suslar]

I always think it’s interesting when someone tries to defend a practice with Scripture alone. It’s really hard to do given all the changes that have occurred due to translation into other languages and the reliance on oral tradition for so many centuries of the early church.

In the NAB (revised 2010), the term “immersion” is not used – just “coming up from the water” in Mark and Matthew:

It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” Mark 1:9-11

Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?” Jesus said to him in reply, “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed him. After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened [for him], and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove [and] coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, “This is my beloved Son,* with whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:13-17

Then there is Luke who mentions a Baptism, but no specifics:

After all the people had been baptized and Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, heaven was opened and the holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” Luke 3:21-22

And by the time you get to John’s Gospel, there is no indication that Jesus was Baptized at all:

John testified further, saying, “I saw the Spirit come down like a dove* from the sky and remain upon him. I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain, he is the one who will baptize with the holy Spirit. Now I have seen and testified that he is the Son of God.” John 1:32-34

 

[ltwin]

It’s the only valid baptism but baptism is just symbolic… but for some reason it matters if you do it wrong.

Baptism, while symbolic in these traditions, is still a command of Jesus. So whether Jesus meant sprinkling or immersion (to some people) would become an important issue in determining if you had obeyed correctly.

 

[Harpazo]

I know many non-Catholics believe that Jesus was fully immersed in the Jordan River when He received the baptism of John, and therefore feel that is the proper way to be baptized. My reading of the Bible doesn’t convince me of this. The synoptic Gospels do say he went into the water and came up out of the water, but the same could be said of me when I go to a lake or river. I go down into the water (as the shore is usually higher than the water line) and I come up out of it. But almost never do I immerse myself preferring to just wade in the water.

Now I think that immersion is a fine way to be baptized, but quite frankly I don’t see how the sprinkling of water on a person’s head would be less acceptable than immersion. Especially since, as I said, the Bible does not explicitly say that Jesus was immersed. And with the crowds coming to John, I would think that he would have scooped water from the river to pour over the heads of those wanting baptism, and probably did the same for Jesus.

Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. -Didache, Ch. 7

Not sure when the Latins switched from immersion to sprinkling, but I want to say it was after the Renaissance. Nowadays, with our modern conveniences and whatnot, I think there are very few reasons why baptism couldn’t happen as it was intended. After all, the word implies a submersion.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[ltwin]

I always think it’s interesting when someone tries to defend a practice with Scripture alone. It’s really hard to do given all the changes that have occurred due to translation into other languages and the reliance on oral tradition for so many centuries of the early church.

In the NAB (revised 2010), the term “immersion” is not used – just “coming up from the water” in Mark and Matthew:

It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” Mark 1:9-11

Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?” Jesus said to him in reply, “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed him. After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened [for him], and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove [and] coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, “This is my beloved Son,* with whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:13-17

Then there is Luke who mentions a Baptism, but no specifics:

After all the people had been baptized and Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, heaven was opened and the holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” Luke 3:21-22

And by the time you get to John’s Gospel, there is no indication that Jesus was Baptized at all:

John testified further, saying, “I saw the Spirit come down like a dove* from the sky and remain upon him. I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain, he is the one who will baptize with the holy Spirit. Now I have seen and testified that he is the Son of God.” John 1:32-34

But if baptizein means to “plunge” or “immerse,” then the meaning is contained within the term baptism. Any mention of “immersion” would be repetition.

I’m not arguing that only immersion is valid. I think the important elements are water and the Trinitarian formula, but those who do advocate immersion only valid baptism could be looking at the meaning of baptism and saying if it means to immerse or plunge then we need to immerse.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Immersion was practiced in the early Church, where practical. No way were the 3,000 who were baptized at Pentecost immersed. Palestine had a chronic water shortage. And there wasn’t time.

Artists’ depictions from early on show John the Baptist with a shell dipping water from the shallow Jordan and pouring it over Christ. So that was the traditional belief.

Standing in a pool with water poured over the person was the common practice. So was infusion (pouring). Read paragraph 7 of the first-century Didache. I’ve seen the baptistry where St. Augustine was baptized. It was a pool only a few inches deep – too shallow for dunking.

In the oldest baptistry known, on the Euphrates River, whose walls were destroyed in A.D. 238, a person stood in the shallow pool while water was poured over his head. I’m looking at a picture of it (reconstruction). It’s in my textbook, Understanding the New Testament, by Howard Clark Kee (probably out of print).

The Latins never switched to sprinkling. The most common method used in the Latin Rite is infusion (pouring water over the head). Immersion is also practiced. Sprinking is accepted. It’s not the amount of water that matters. Hospitalized babies in danger of death may be baptized with an eyedropper.

I’ve read that Methodists and some others sprinkle (?). Rev. Schuller (spelling?) at the now defunct Crystal Cathedral (Reformed) sprinkled as the TV audience and the congregation (including moi) watched.

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The Easton’s Bible Dictionary is online at the CCEL web site, here: ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd.html, authored by Scottish Presbyterian Matthew George Easton (1823-1894).

Baptism, Christian

An ordinance immediately instituted by Christ (Matt. 28:19, 20), and designed to be observed in the church, like that of the Supper, “till he come.” The words “baptize” and “baptism” are simply Greek words transferred into English. This was necessarily done by the translators of the Scriptures, for no literal translation could properly express all that is implied in them.

The mode of baptism can in no way be determined from the Greek word rendered “baptize.” Baptists say that it means “to dip,” and nothing else. That is an incorrect view of the meaning of the word. It means both (1) to dip a thing into an element or liquid, and (2) to put an element or liquid over or on it. Nothing therefore as to the mode of baptism can be concluded from the mere word used. The word has a wide latitude of meaning, not only in the New Testament, but also in the LXX. Version of the Old Testament, where it is used of the ablutions and baptisms required by the Mosaic law. These were effected by immersion, and by effusion and sprinkling; and the same word, “washings” (Heb. 9:10, 13, 19, 21) or “baptisms,” designates them all. In the New Testament there cannot be found a single well-authenticated instance of the occurrence of the word where it necessarily means immersion. Moreover, none of the instances of baptism recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (2:38-41; 8:26-39; 9:17, 18; 22:12-16; 10:44-48; 16:32-34) favours the idea that it was by dipping the person baptized, or by immersion, while in some of them such a mode was highly improbable.

The gospel and its ordinances are designed for the whole world, and it cannot be supposed that a form for the administration of baptism would have been prescribed which would in any place (as in a tropical country or in polar regions) or under any circumstances be inapplicable or injurious or impossible.

Easton on Baptsm posted by Jim Dandy

 

[Harpazo]

The Easton’s Bible Dictionary is online at the CCEL web site, here: ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd.html, authored by Scottish Presbyterian Matthew George Easton (1823-1894).

Baptism, Christian

An ordinance immediately instituted by Christ (Matt. 28:19, 20), and designed to be observed in the church, like that of the Supper, “till he come.” The words “baptize” and “baptism” are simply Greek words transferred into English. This was necessarily done by the translators of the Scriptures, for no literal translation could properly express all that is implied in them.

The mode of baptism can in no way be determined from the Greek word rendered “baptize.” Baptists say that it means “to dip,” and nothing else. That is an incorrect view of the meaning of the word. It means both (1) to dip a thing into an element or liquid, and (2) to put an element or liquid over or on it. Nothing therefore as to the mode of baptism can be concluded from the mere word used. The word has a wide latitude of meaning, not only in the New Testament, but also in the LXX. Version of the Old Testament, where it is used of the ablutions and baptisms required by the Mosaic law. These were effected by immersion, and by effusion and sprinkling; and the same word, “washings” (Heb. 9:10, 13, 19, 21) or “baptisms,” designates them all. In the New Testament there cannot be found a single well-authenticated instance of the occurrence of the word where it necessarily means immersion. Moreover, none of the instances of baptism recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (2:38-41; 8:26-39; 9:17, 18; 22:12-16; 10:44-48; 16:32-34) favours the idea that it was by dipping the person baptized, or by immersion, while in some of them such a mode was highly improbable.

The gospel and its ordinances are designed for the whole world, and it cannot be supposed that a form for the administration of baptism would have been prescribed which would in any place (as in a tropical country or in polar regions) or under any circumstances be inapplicable or injurious or impossible.

Easton on Baptsm posted by Jim Dandy

I don’t think it’s completely irrational to assume that immersion was the norm, even for mass baptisms.



From New Advent:

The most ancient form usually employed was unquestionably immersion. This is not only evident from the writings of the Fathers and the early rituals of both the Latin and Oriental Churches, but it can also be gathered from the Epistles of St. Paul, who speaks of baptism as a bath (Ephesians 5:26; Romans 6:4; Titus 3:5). In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, however, were growing common in the thirteenth century and gradually prevailed in the Western Church. The Oriental Churches have retained immersion, though not always in the sense of plunging the candidate’s entire body below the water. Billuart (De Bapt., I, iii) says that commonly the catechumen is placed in the font, and then water is poured upon the head. He cites the authority of Goar for this statement.

Immersion should be preferred.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[ltwin]

I’ve read that Methodists and some others sprinkle (?).

From the United Methodist Church’s website:

baptism
The sacramental act whereby a person is cleansed by the Holy Spirit and becomes part of the body of Christ-the church universal. In The United Methodist Church a candidate for Holy Baptism or his sponsors may choose any of the traditional ways baptism is administered: sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. The most common method in recent years has been sprinkling.