Baptism by Immersion

[ltwin]

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

Just to make sure I’m correct, Baptists do not believe baptism is regenerative right? What would be the purpose of re-baptizing you? Would it be to signify a renewal of your commitment? I’m just curious.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

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.

Baptism was not a requirement in the Calvary Baptist Church (Southern) when I was growing up. It signified that one had accepted Christ and was done in imitation of Him – nice, but not necessary. Since my pastor considered himself a straight-arrow SB, does anyone know when this requirement was added by the SB Convention? I’d be sad to think my pastor was a heretic.

Jim Dandy

 

[babylonsfalling]

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.<—REALLY Is that how SBC’s define their version the Lord’s Supper…or is that your definition?

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

I think everyone knows that SBS’s don’t define their version of communion as Welch’s grape juice and crumpled crackers. That’s YOUR phrase. In their minds, I’m presuming that (even though it’s not literal to them) it’s still much more to them that crumpled crackers and juice. And I think you and I BOTH know that an SBC would take insult at you defining their version of communion that way.

My thinking was that even though they don’t believe in literal body and blood, they at least had some logical theology that kept them from outright denial of the importance of Communion, as stated in this passage

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.

I know that they have problems with the literal presence. But I was trusting that SBC’s aren’t in some type of denial that Christ is still talking about Communion in that Scripture, and that he’s also placing overwhelming importance on Communion by stating that you need it to have “life”

With that in mind though, any SBC who denies another person communion would be very akin to denying them “life” and the idea that an SBC would do such a thing over the notion of Baptism and/or immersion Baptism when they don’t even think it’s regenerative anyway…?! What kind of church would do something like that?

How can they deny something which Christ says is needed for life, over a baptism that they don’t think is necessary. That clearly seems to be a case of placing man’s religious ordinances between men and God.

The only explanation I can think of is that they just ignore or reject what Christ said about communion being necessary for life, that way they could tell themselves that they aren’t really denying the person “life” by denying him Communion. The problem with THAT explanation is that it involves denying the words of Christ himself. They seem stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Just to make sure I’m correct, Baptists do not believe baptism is regenerative right? What would be the purpose of re-baptizing you? Would it be to signify a renewal of your commitment? I’m just curious.

Because I was questioning Sola Scriptura, the pastor put me in the “backslider” category. Baptism was the cure, to show my recommitment. I tried, but Sola Scriptura remained illogical, so I finally left Christianity, believing (wrongly) that Sola Scrip was the foundation of it. Yes, among Baptists, baptism is purely symbolic, not regenerative. Thanks for asking.

Jim Dandy

 

[campeador]

Could Baptism cause scandal?

My dear mother taught me many years ago that the reason the Holy Eucharist was generally given in only one form (the host) was because the more scrupulous members of the community would be scandalized by known drunks receiving the Precious Blood.

She also explained that this was the reason the Church had shied away from full emission Baptism. Wet tee-shirt contest during Church service?

Not a good idea.

:twocents:

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I know that they have problems with the literal presence. But I was trusting that SBC’s aren’t in some type of denial that Christ is still talking about Communion in that Scripture, and

 

[ltwin]

I think everyone knows that SBS’s don’t define their version of communion as Welch’s grape juice and crumpled crackers. That’s YOUR phrase. In their minds, I’m presuming that (even though it’s not literal to them) it’s still much more to them that crumpled crackers and juice. And I think you and I BOTH know that an SBC would take insult at you defining their version of communion that way.

My thinking was that even though they don’t believe in literal body and blood, they at least had some logical theology that kept them from outright denial of the importance of Communion, as stated in this passage

I know that they have problems with the literal presence. But I was trusting that SBC’s aren’t in some type of denial that Christ is still talking about Communion in that Scripture, and that he’s also placing overwhelming importance on Communion by stating that you need it to have “life”

With that in mind though, any SBC who denies another person communion would be very akin to denying them “life” and the idea that an SBC would do such a thing over the notion of Baptism and/or immersion Baptism when they don’t even think it’s regenerative anyway…?! What kind of church would do something like that?

How can they deny something which Christ says is needed for life, over a baptism that they don’t think is necessary. That clearly seems to be a case of placing man’s religious ordinances between men and God.

The only explanation I can think of is that they just ignore or reject what Christ said about communion being necessary for life, that way they could tell themselves that they aren’t really denying the person “life” by denying him Communion. The problem with THAT explanation is that it involves denying the words of Christ himself. They seem stuck between a rock and a hard place.

It seems you are projecting your beliefs on what the Lord’s Supper is on Baptists. They do not see the Bible as saying that you need the Lord’s Supper for life. You can take issue with their interpretation of Scripture, but it is their interpretation. The BF&M says clearly:

The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

Therefore, I was in no way insulting Baptists. There is no “life” in the Welch’s grape juice and crumpled crackers of which they partake. It is a symbolic memorial.

And by and large I share that belief. So I’m not being derogatory at all.

 

[ltwin]

Could Baptism cause scandal?

My dear mother taught me many years ago that the reason the Holy Eucharist was generally given in only one form (the host) was because the more scrupulous members of the community would be scandalized by known drunks receiving the Precious Blood.

She also explained that this was the reason the Church had shied away from full emission Baptism. Wet tee-shirt contest during Church service?

Not a good idea.

:twocents:

Usually churches that practice full immersion will insure that people dress in non-revealing clothing. It only takes some forethought to prevent any scandal. I think some churches will baptize new converts in long white robes. I was simply baptized in a dark shirt and some trunks.

 

[Nicea325]

babylonsfalling;8261250:

That is not the viewpoint of any SB I ever knew. “The Lord’s Supper” was held quarterly. Crackers were passed in a basket and grape juice in little individual cups. It had no relationship to life. No meaning other than the symbolism. I never in my entire life as a Southern Baptist ever heard a sermon or a Sunday School lesson on John 6. What individual SBs may believe can vary.

It is true,because I honestly have never heard ANY evangelist on t.v. ever discuss John 6. I am always on the look out to hear if they will discuss Ch. 6 from John,but to no avail. Geeee…I wonder why?

 

[campeador]

Usually churches that practice full immersion will insure that people dress in non-revealing clothing. It only takes some forethought to prevent any scandal.

Surely you’re not suggesting that this kind of scandal is impossible. Even with precautions, sometimes things can go wrong especially with a soaking wet, fully clothed person.

 

[ltwin]

Baptism was not a requirement in the Calvary Baptist Church (Southern) when I was growing up. It signified that one had accepted Christ and was done in imitation of Him – nice, but not necessary. Since my pastor considered himself a straight-arrow SB, does anyone know when this requirement was added by the SB Convention? I’d be sad to think my pastor was a heretic.

Jim Dandy

I don’t know. I know that like in 2000 or maybe earlier there was a controversial update to the BF&M (largely to make it more theologically conservative). This might have been it, or it may have always been in the SBC official beliefs. Your pastor and church may have been exercising its authority to determine its own standards for admission to the Lord’s Table and church membership.

 

[Rocky]

I went to a Evangelical church and the woman pastor (one of several pastors in this small church) gave a sermon on disappointment. She said that Jesus had a period of disappointment when He said God was His Father in John Chapter 6 verse 32, and then the people all went away except for the apostles. Needless to say, I wondered where her training to become a pastor of souls took place.

 

[ltwin]

Surely you’re not suggesting that this kind of scandal is impossible. Even with precautions, sometimes things can go wrong especially with a soaking wet, fully clothed person.

I mean anything is possible, but I mean if you’re wearing the right kind of material, and you are in a baptismal pool for like a couple minutes I mean how much opportunity to see anything are you really gonna have. The way baptismal pools are constructed, once you are done being baptized you leave the pool and you are out of view of the rest of the congregation. It’s not like you leave the baptismal pool and then proceed to walk down the church aisles on display to the entire congregation.

 

[campeador]

I mean anything is possible, but I mean if you’re wearing the right kind of material, and you are in a baptismal pool for like a couple minutes I mean how much opportunity to see anything are you really gonna have. The way baptismal pools are constructed, once you are done being baptized you leave the pool and you are out of view of the rest of the congregation.

Friend, my original point (and my Mom’s) was that scandal is possible with any completely soaked person in public. I don’t know this to be fact, but I suspect many in the Early Church tried to minimize it as well, but for the sake of scandal found it much easier to pore than to dunk.

 

[ltwin]

Friend, my original point (and my Mom’s) was that scandal is possible with any completely soaked person in public. I don’t know this to be fact, but I suspect many in the Early Church tried to minimize it as well, but for the sake of scandal found it much easier to pore than to dunk.

I don’t know about the early church. I know that in my church it has not been a problem. I do believe there were “deaconesses” who were in charge of overseeing the baptisms of women though. Of course, these were not the same as deacons.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I don’t know about the early church. I know that in my church it has not been a problem. I do believe there were “deaconesses” who were in charge of overseeing the baptisms of women though. Of course, these were not the same as deacons.

If you are AoG, your ecclesial community began in 1914. The Pentecostal movement began in 1900.

 

[ltwin]

If you are AoG, your ecclesial community began in 1914. The Pentecostal movement began in 1900.

What does the age of Pentecostalism have to do with deaconesses in the early church?

The universal prevalence of baptism by immersion and the anointing of the whole body which preceded it, rendered it a matter of propriety that in this ceremony the functions of the deacons should be discharged by women. The Didascalia Apostolorum (III, 12; see Funk, Didascalia, etc., I, 208) explicitly direct that the deaconesses are to perform this function.

“Deaconesses,” Catholic Encyclopedia

So, I’m sure the early church had in mind to prevent any scandal. As to whether there is any evidence that it was scandal that caused immersion to become less popular, I don’t know maybe someone else information.

 

[campeador]

What does the age of Pentecostalism have to do with deaconesses in the early church?

“Deaconesses,” Catholic Encyclopedia

So, I’m sure the early church had in mind to prevent any scandal. As to whether there is any evidence that it was scandal that caused immersion to become less popular, I don’t know maybe someone else information.

I as well would like to see evidence that it was scandal that caused immersion to become less popular in the Church, if only to prove my Mother correct.

 

[Izdaari]

I don’t say that other methods of baptism are invalid. But I do prefer, and feel much more comfortable with, immersion.

 

[amber_lux]

In the Didache (How the early Church did things)

If you are going to quote the Didache, quote it accurately,.

Chapter 7. 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.

Sprkinling was first used circa 250, and permitted only when the individual was too sick to be immersed. Until 1284 spinrkling was permitted only in cases of absolute neccessity, and then only when pouring could not be done. In all instances immersion was the preferred mode.

it was only in 1311 that sprinkling was officially made an option for baptism in all instances and cases.