Baptism by Immersion

[Nicea325]

Who said it has to be outside? I was baptized in January of 2010 in VA. We made a baptismal font out of an old oil drum. The rite took place in the narthex of the church. Though sometimes in Russia they will cut into the ice and baptize people there. Don’t think anyone has died yet. If they have, what better way to go?

In Christ,
Andrew

Then you missed the point my friend. The point is that many,not all. believe baptism is only valid OUTSIDE in full immersion in a body of water. I never said anything about inside.

 

[Nicea325]

Never been to Alaska, have you?

Flown over it while serving in the military. I am simply making a point about full immersion baptism. It is NOT the only valid method.

 

[Calgar]

It is NOT the only valid method.

I agree with you.

I just thought you were stereotyping Alaska as a freezing siberian wastland. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Eutychus123]

From what we can see of the character of John the Baptist, I think he would have dunked everbody. And perhaps held them under for a little while

 

[GlobalWolf]

Please post your evidence that Jesus’ baptism was by full immersion.

The Bible doesn’t explicitly state it, but the location in a river would strongly favor immersion. Statements about Jesus going up out of the water could be taken as meaning that He left the river, but the language could also suggest coming up after being submerged. The history of baptism in the earliest years of the church would definitely suggest it, too.

Please post your evidence that the Didache suggests a clear preference for immersion and that that other forms (other than immersion) were controversial in the early Church.

Thanks, Jim Dandy

The Didache gives the first, most preferable possibility as baptizing a person in flowing water, then goes down through a list of other alternatives before stating that, if there wasn’t sufficient water, then they could pour water on the head of the person being baptized. It would seem to suggest that immersion in flowing water was preferable. As for other forms being controversial, I’m not sure of the exact writer, but there was one theologian early in the church who tried to explain why people should not worry about those baptized via sprinkling (probably aspersion?), suggesting that there was some controversy about it.

 

[Saint_Anonymous]

Whether it is by immersion or pouring is really not important since the requirements needed for a valid baptism are water and the Trinitarian formula. It is not logical to assume that baptism is limited to immersion only since certain situations such as the baptism of persons who are severely injured, bed ridden or on their death bed, will not allow immersion to take place.

“with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner” (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]).

"I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols I will cleanse you" (Ezek 36:25)

 

[ltwin]

Then you missed the point my friend. The point is that many,not all. believe baptism is only valid OUTSIDE in full immersion in a body of water. I never said anything about inside.

Who believes it has to be outside? The churches I know that practice immersion (including Baptists) will have baptismal pools behind the platform. If they don’t then yeah they would have to do it outside or in a swimming pool. My mom let a family member baptize someone in her pool .

 

[GlobalWolf]

By the way, I would like to clarify, I’m not exactly sure how I feel about baptism by forms other than immersion. There are a lot of things that I’m trying to figure out right now about where I fit in within Christianity. That’s one of them. What I’ve posted here isn’t all that controversial, though. Baptism in the early church was almost definitely by immersion whenever possible, something that Catholic historians agree with.

 

[Saint_Anonymous]

By the way, I would like to clarify, I’m not exactly sure how I feel about baptism by forms other than immersion. There are a lot of things that I’m trying to figure out right now about where I fit in within Christianity. That’s one of them. What I’ve posted here isn’t all that controversial, though. Baptism in the early church was almost definitely by immersion whenever possible, something that Catholic historians agree with.

Maybe you will find this helpful in your search for answers, I know I did.

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/sprinkling.htm

God Bless

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

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…

Well that’s my understanding of S.B.C. here in the panhandle.
By immersion only… But to them it’s only an ordinance. So what difference does it make?

Matthew

 

[ltwin]

Well that’s my understanding of S.B.C. here in the panhandle.
By immersion only… But to them it’s only an ordinance. So what difference does it make?

Matthew

Well considering that an “ordinance” is a practice directly instituted by Christ, whether symbolic or not, is a matter of great importance. If Jesus tells you to do something, you want to do it correctly.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Well that’s my understanding of S.B.C. here in the panhandle.
By immersion only… But to them it’s only an ordinance. So what difference does it make?

Matthew

Be interesting to find out how they define ordinance.

I don’t think it DOES make a difference if it’s dunk baptism or sprinkle baptism. I think people who DO believe that are being led into religionism. It’s just ironic because (in my experience) it’s often Catholics that get accused of relgionism/ritualiam etc, and I have seen that accusation come directly from the SBC crowd.

More irony…the SBC is putting itself into a very weird position because I think (maybe I’m wrong) they believe baptism ISN’T an actual requirement. It’s very important to them, but not a “have to” kind of thing. On the other hand, the manner in which NON-mandatory baptism is done SOUNDS mandatory.

The idea of having a mandatory procedure for a NON mandatory practice…AFTER accusing Catholics of being to religionistic?!..…need to think about that for a while.…the needle on the irony-gauge is now in the red zone.

 

[Hesychios]

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.

To be baptized is to be immersed. In the process one dies to the old worldy life and is ‘buried’ with Christ (in the water) and rises again to a new life as a Christian. St Paul explains this.

It is clear there can be exceptions in the baptismal practice, since the didache (an old Orthodox document) explains it. Mostly these had to do with a scarcity of water, which situation was (and is) common along the margins of the deserts. Yet the Christians of those lands still routinely immerse.

But the exceptions are supposed to be exceptions, for a good reason, not the norm.

The Roman Catholic church used to routinely immerse, one can see these baptistries in Italy and Spain to this day and the practice goes back to the Apostles. There is no good reason not to routinely immerse and leave the exceptions to be exceptions. Anything said otherwise is just an excuse.

 

[Rocky]

It is an interesting picture that you posted. Not knowing the dimensions, I wonder how deep and wide it is. It looks maybe four feet deep by four feet wide. This does not look to me to be something that two people could stand in with one person baptizing the other. But again, without knowing the actual dimensions I would say this picture does not support full body immersion, but rather people being in the water together and water being scooped up to pour over the person’s head.

 

[Nicea325]

Who believes it has to be outside? The churches I know that practice immersion (including Baptists) will have baptismal pools behind the platform. If they don’t then yeah they would have to do it outside or in a swimming pool. My mom let a family member baptize someone in her pool .

To the former fundamentalists I have spoken to prior to their initiation into the RCC. I said many,not all, non-Catholics believe it as the only method.

 

[Nicea325]

*Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Dandy
Please post your evidence that Jesus’ baptism was by full immersion. *

The Bible doesn’t explicitly state it, but the location in a river would strongly favor immersion. Statements about Jesus going up out of the water could be taken as meaning that He left the river, but the language could also suggest coming up after being submerged. The history of baptism in the earliest years of the church would definitely suggest it, too.

Yes one can make that argument since it was located at a river. However,that in no shape or form proves only full immersion is acceptable. To state otherwise is pure conjecture. Second,no where in the early church does it state full immersion is ‘the’ only acceptable method. If so,kindly present an ancient source clearly saying full immersion is “the” only acceptable method of baptism.

I]Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Dandy
Please post your evidence that the Didache suggests a clear preference for immersion and that that other forms (other than immersion) were controversial in the early Church.

Thanks, Jim Dandy

The Didache gives the first, most preferable possibility as baptizing a person in flowing water, then goes down through a list of other alternatives before stating that, if there wasn’t sufficient water, then they could pour water on the head of the person being baptized. It would seem to suggest that immersion in flowing water was preferable. As for other forms being controversial, I’m not sure of the exact writer, but there was one theologian early in the church who tried to explain why people should not worry about those baptized via sprinkling (probably aspersion?), suggesting that there was some controversy about it.

From what I have read from the Didache I do not acknowledge any controversy. The controversy is among many non-Catholic communities.

 

[ltwin]

Be interesting to find out how they define ordinance.

I don’t think it DOES make a difference if it’s dunk baptism or sprinkle baptism. I think people who DO believe that are being led into religionism. It’s just ironic because (in my experience) it’s often Catholics that get accused of relgionism/ritualiam etc, and I have seen that accusation come directly from the SBC crowd.

More irony…the SBC is putting itself into a very weird position because I think (maybe I’m wrong) they believe baptism ISN’T an actual requirement. It’s very important to them, but not a “have to” kind of thing. On the other hand, the manner in which NON-mandatory baptism is done SOUNDS mandatory.

The idea of having a mandatory procedure for a NON mandatory practice…AFTER accusing Catholics of being to religionistic?!..…need to think about that for a while.…the needle on the irony-gauge is now in the red zone.

As to what SBC Baptists believe, we can take a look at the Baptist Faith and Message, which says about Baptism:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.

So, it isn’t necessary for regeneration, but it is necessary for membership in a church.

 

[babylonsfalling]

As to what SBC Baptists believe, we can take a look at the Baptist Faith and Message, which says about Baptism:

Christian baptism is the immersion

Obedience to who? If they don’t think God is making it necessary for regeneration, who do they think they are to make it necessary for ANYTHING? Is it Biblical that man be adding requirements even though they think God doesn’t require it and then deny men the things of God (Lord’s Supper) because they aren’t following the ordinances of men?

Regarding the Lord’s Supper, or Communion, or the Last Supper, the Eucharist, any of terms used by different people and churches, we were told by Christ to participate in it, we were also told that if we didn’t eat His flesh and drink His blood, there would be no life in us. Hopefully the SBC crowd is not denying the importance of this Scripture or the plain sense meaning of it.

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

But if they aren’t denying it’s importance, why would they deny it’s practice to people people who aren’t Baptized, especially if they believe Baptism isn’t necessary in the first place.
Who are they to deny something which gives eternal life just because a believer doesn’t do what they themselves think is unnecessary?
How did their religion become more important than eternal life?

 

[ltwin]

Obedience to who? If they don’t think God is making it necessary for regeneration, who do they think they are to make it necessary for ANYTHING? Is it Biblical that man be adding requirements even though they think God doesn’t require it and then deny men the things of God (Lord’s Supper) because they aren’t following the ordinances of men?

Regarding the Lord’s Supper, or Communion, or the Last Supper, the Eucharist, any of terms used by different people and churches, we were told by Christ to participate in it, we were also told that if we didn’t eat His flesh and drink His blood, there would be no life in us. Hopefully the SBC crowd is not denying the importance of this Scripture or the plain sense meaning of it.

But if they aren’t denying it’s importance, why would they deny it’s practice to people people who aren’t Baptized, especially if they believe Baptism isn’t necessary in the first place.
Who are they to deny something which gives eternal life just because a believer doesn’t do what they themselves think is unnecessary?
How did their religion become more important than eternal life?

I was under the impression that both Catholics and Baptists were in agreement that Baptists neither believe in nor have apostolic succession and thus the “Lord’s Supper” as practiced by Baptists is not the Body and Blood of Christ. So the Baptists are not denying “something which gives eternal life.” They are only denying some Welch’s grape juice and crumpled crackers.

But returning to Baptism, Baptists agree that Jesus commanded baptism. They do not deny that it is important, only that it is not regenerative.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The first congregation of Baptists was founded in 1609 in Amsterdam by English Separatist John Smyth, who rebaptized himself by infusion (pouring). He wasn’t happy in his new community and returned to the Mennonites shortly thereafter. The practice of immersion only didn’t begin until the community was back in London, and the third split in the Baptist ranks occurred in 1644. A group called the Immersion Baptists then decided the only way baptism could be “valid” was by immersion (submersion). Immersion then became one of the Baptist “distinctives.” You’d have thought immersion would have been one of their first principles, but it wasn’t (Handbook of Denominations in the U.S., Samuel Hill).

Baptists insist that if one hasn’t been dunked, one hasn’t been baptized, citing the (nonexistent) “proof” that Jesus was immersed, but Southern Baptists have no qualms about baptizing members more than once – a most unbiblical practice.

When I went to my SB pastor with my concerns about Sola Scriptura, he thought I needed to be baptized again. So I was. It didn’t help. I left Christianity anyway. I was a long, long time finding my way home .

Jim Dandy