Baptism not by immersion?

[meaprilrain]

Im not sure if I have this right but I believe at one time the RCC practiced baptism by immersion. Could someone point me to when this changed to approve sprinkling and if there is any scripture to support the change ? The only scripture I can find is in reference to going down into the river unto burial meaning by immersion and stepping out of the water into life ? And I have tried the CCC but perhaps I am looking under the wrong terms ?
thank you

 

[NotWorthy]

Im not sure if I have this right but I believe at one time the RCC practiced baptism by immersion. Could someone point me to when this changed to approve sprinkling and if there is any scripture to support the change ? The only scripture I can find is in reference to going down into the river unto burial meaning by immersion and stepping out of the water into life ? And I have tried the CCC but perhaps I am looking under the wrong terms ?
thank you

Let’s see. Not every baptism in Scripture is specifically recorded as immersion. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

When did we stop Baptism by immersion? I wasn’t aware that we did?

When did we start allowing sprinkling? The Didache, first written somewhere from 70AD to 120AD, records three acceptable methods of baptism: full immersion, pouring, and sprinkling.

By the way, where in Scripture is immersion said to be the only acceptable means of Baptism? I recall Jesus requiring that we be born of water and the Spirit, but I don’t recall Jesus saying it must be by immersion.

I mean, is the water magic?

 

[meaprilrain]

Let’s see. Not every baptism in Scripture is specifically recorded as immersion. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

no very few mention going down into river. most are just “baptize you with water”.

When did we stop Baptism by immersion? I wasn’t aware that we did?

is it just a choice because my grandson was baptised with water pouring over his head ? not by immersion…

When did we start allowing sprinkling?

The Didache, first written somewhere from 70AD to 120AD, records three acceptable methods of baptism: full immersion, pouring, and sprinkling.

By the way, where in Scripture is immersion said to be the only acceptable means of Baptism? I recall Jesus requiring that we be born of water and the Spirit, but I don’t recall Jesus saying it must be by immersion.

I mean, is the water magic?

funny…I just wanted references either scriptural or CCC or something that states how baptism is performed , I was confused with my grandsons and wanted to know when immersion stopped ? if not stopped then when others were ok’d, but you answered that with the Didache !

 

[NotWorthy]

funny…I just wanted references either scriptural or CCC or something that states how baptism is performed , I was confused with my grandsons and wanted to know when immersion stopped ? if not stopped then when others were ok’d, but you answered that with the Didache !

I think the key is not in the water, although water must be present, per Jesus’ commands.

I think by focusing so much on the fact that its immersion puts too much focus on the water and not enough on the true efficacy of baptism, which comes about only through the Grace of God!!!

 

[fellowChristian]

The word “Baptise” comes from the Greek language it means

to dip
to bathe
to immerse
to pour

so any one is of the proper formula.I looked in the Catechism but couldn’t find what you are asking about. I also looked in the G.I.R.M. but couldn’t find it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on Baptism
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.shtml#art1

But in this website I found this

Fisheaters
fisheaters.com/baptism.html

Immersion only?
Some Protestants argue that “baptizo” in the New Testament means “immersion” and that any Baptism that doesn’t include immersion is not a true Baptism. While “baptizo” does mean “immersion,” it also means “washing,” as is evident in this verse:

**Luke 11 38 **
And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed [baptizo] before dinner.
Trust me, first century Jews didn’t immerse themselves before dinner, and Ezekiel’s prophecy mentioned above also not only includes, but specifically mentions “sprinkling”:

**Ezekiel 36:25 **
Prophecy] **Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. **

The verses mentioned above that describe St. Paul’s baptizing people in their households – houses without swimming pools in them – indicates “washing” rather than “immersion.” Paul himself was baptized not only in a house, but standing up:

Acts 9:17–18
And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

**Baptism by immersion was a very common practice in the early Church – the most common practice, in fact; but it wasn’t the exclusive practice, as the Bible attests. **Most Catholic churches had baptisteries in which the catechumen would stand and either be immersed (if the size of the baptistery allowed) or have water poured over his head, but all three methods – **immersion, pouring, or sprinkling **-- were used. **The earliest extra-Biblical writing we have on the topic is the Didache, a 1st c. document known as “The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles.” On the topic of Baptism, it reads: **

But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts *, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water; but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water; but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.

I don’t believe it ever changed. I think it just depends on if the church has a font big enough and if the person wants to be immersed. Though it’s not neccessary because either way it’s still valid. *

 

[NotWorthy]

**Ezekiel 36:25 **
Prophecy] **Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. **

I think you short-changed Ezekiel. The first thing someone will say is that you are reading this passage out of context. I’d show verse 26 as well:

I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts.

Then show Peter’s words in Acts, chapter 2 and you’ll only get silence as an argument.

Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

Now, any questions?

 

[Spots]

We did immersion at my Church until we got a new priest. He doesn’t like to get all wet (and presumably cold), so he only does sprinkling. He’s a holy and wonderful father though

It was something to see the candidates ready to jump in there though! Babies always got sprinkled.

 

[Seatuck]

We did immersion at my Church until we got a new priest. He doesn’t like to get all wet (and presumably cold), so he only does sprinkling. He’s a holy and wonderful father though

It was something to see the candidates ready to jump in there though! Babies always got sprinkled.

Are you sure he does sprinkling? Not pouring? Sprinkling is not the norm and hasn’t been for many many years. It is reserved for scarcity of water. I’m pretty sure it is illicit. Sprinkling is what we get at the renewal of baptismal promises when they take the bucket and that implement (sorry don’t know the name) and shake the holy water over the congregation.

 

[fellowChristian]

I think you short-changed Ezekiel. The first thing someone will say is that you are reading this passage out of context. I’d show verse 26 as well:

Then show Peter’s words in Acts, chapter 2 and you’ll only get silence as an argument.

Now, any questions?

sorry it wasn’t me that short changed him it came from the website I quoted:

But **in this website **I found this

Fisheaters
fisheaters.com/baptism.html

I guess thats why it is called a “prophecy”. Thanks for the post:thumbsup:

 

[clmowry]

I think fellowchristian’s post along with notworthy’s comments answered the “form” questions awfully well. Now I vote for the Catholic posters to stay out of the way while we watch the various Protestants present their positions on baptism and argue among themselves as to why Catholic teaching is wrong. I always find it very illustrative.

1. Baptism is completely unnecessay.
2. Baptism doesn’t actually do anything but we should do it anyway once one beieves and is saved because Jesus told us too.
3. Baptism is initiation into Christianity and is required, but it doesn’t actually do anything.
4. Baptism in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit is the Sacrament of initiation, you receive the Holy Spirit and “form” doesn’t matter.
5. Baptism is required and must be full immersion to be valid.
6. Baptism must be in the name of Christ only.

Did I miss any?

Chuck

 

[meaprilrain]

These are good, I am still researching but I have a few quick questions…
when going through the CCC it has references and notes, sometimes leading to scriptures and sometimes leading to the Code of Cannon ? what is the Code of Cannon, is it an official book of doctrine as reliable as the CCC for Gospel doctrine ? where did it come from

also in those references sometimes it says cf… what is the cf ?

one more , what is the G.I.R.M. ?

thank you

 

[NotWorthy]

These are good, I am still researching but I have a few quick questions…
when going through the CCC it has references and notes, sometimes leading to scriptures and sometimes leading to the Code of Cannon ? what is the Code of Cannon, is it an official book of doctrine as reliable as the CCC for Gospel doctrine ? where did it come from

also in those references sometimes it says cf… what is the cf ?

one more , what is the G.I.R.M. ?

thank you

Code of Canon is Canon Law. The Catechism teaches what Catholics believe and teach. Canon Law goes through all the microscopic details of how we manage the Church… i.e. the roles of the parish priest, the roles of the bishop, etc.

The GIRM stands for General Instructions of the Roman Missal. It basically describes the normal means of celebrating Mass and what leeway a priest has in the celebration of the Mass.

Oh yeah, “cf” means that Scripture referenced and the following passages.

 

[meaprilrain]

Part 1 of 2
Ok I have read and researched some and here is my rebuttal be nice now kids…

In the old testament the term baptism or its derivitives are none existence saveth one in ezekial and it is sprinkling.

Ezekiel 36: 25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

In the New testament the following forms or baptism occur this many times…
Baptizeth 2 times
Baptize 29 times
Baptizing 3 times
Baptized 27 times
Baptism 19 times

There is few instruction as to the means of this baptism. Most often it just says in water, or with water. However the most notable is in Mark when Jesus asks his disciples can they be baptized with the baptism that ** I** am baptized? And then it says he was baptized **IN JORDAN **and coming UP OUT OF THE WATER , this denotes immersion as the Lords baptism . The people traveled TO the Jordan river. And in John it says they baptized in Aenon because there was MUCH water there. WHY would they need MUCH water if it was not for by means of immersion ?

Mark 10: 38-39 38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:

Mark 1: 9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

Mark 1: 5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

John 3: 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

Now…

The Didache of approximatley 70 AD. consisting of instructions derived directly from the teachings of Jesus. claims to have been authored by the twelve apostles. The complete text of the Didache was discovered in the Codex Hierosolymitanus.

“Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize “into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit” in running water. ( this would denote a river as the 1st choice of baptism) But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. ( Next a pond or lake as a standing water. Still the choice is enough water to immerse. ) Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don’t have either, pour water three times on the head, ( and as a last resort by means of no other way less water is acceptable )“into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit.”

The word “Baptise” comes from the Greek language it means

to dip
to bathe
to immerse
to pour

Those words appear in the New Testament but None of them refer to baptism

Sprinkle 5 times all refered to blood
Pour 8 times oils, wine, vials in Rev.
Dip 3 times in blood, sop, water
Immerse none
Bathe none

continued…

 

[meaprilrain]

part 2 of 2

Only 2 scriptures appear with washing that can be read as baptism…

Ephesians 5: 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Titus 3: 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

And washing is defined as:
1 : to cleanse by or as if by the action of liquid (as water) b : to remove (as dirt) by rubbing or drenching with liquid
2 : to wet thoroughly : DRENCH to pass a liquid (as water) over or through
3: to pass through a bath to carry off impurities or soluble components
4 : to clean something by rubbing or dipping in water

So even the vague washing scriptures are defined as being dipped, bathed or drenched thoroughly with water. Thus more than a simple 3 pours or sprinkling.

The verses mentioned above that describe St. Paul’s baptizing people in their households – houses without swimming pools in them – indicates “washing” rather than “immersion.” Paul himself was baptized not only in a house, but standing up:

Acts 9:17–18
And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Although households were baptized, they were not baptized IN their houses. Households only denoted that an entire family was baptized at the same time.

And to say that just because he arose, that the baptism took place right there is kind of far fetched. If I say lets eat and everyone arises, it does not mean we stood there and ate, we left the living room and went to the kitchen and sat to dine. Thus the household arose, left the house and went to where the water was, and there they were baptized.

With all scriptures aside, If times were and would once again come that water was a scarcity or that someone truly lived in the desert or mountains where water was hard to come by, or the health or mobility of a person was in question, I don’t think the Lord would deny baptism to someone with true intentions and a pure heart to be baptized in his name with just a small pouring or sprinkling of water if that is all that was available or the only means they could use ??

I don’t believe it ever changed. I think it just depends on if the church has a font big enough and if the person wants to be immersed. Though it’s not neccessary because either way it’s still valid. [/INDENT]

But the evidence is quite strong that The Lords baptism is by immersion in moving water first, standing water second and lastly other means. So why is this not the foremost used by the church with the other means only being a serious second ? Not just a choice because the Priest doesn’t like getting wet ?

“Baptized with the baptism that I am”? that is by immersion in the river. next standing water, next pouring or sprinkling ?

remember your manners

 

[NotWorthy]

Since when does “come up out of the water” means someone has been immersed.

If my mom tells me to “come up out of the pool this instant”, that only means I was in the pool, not necessarily underwater.

I think people insert their pre-conceived notion of baptism into the phrase “come up out of the water”.

 

[cfrancis]

Since when does “come up out of the water” means someone has been immersed.

If my mom tells me to “come up out of the pool this instant”, that only means I was in the pool, not necessarily underwater.

I think people insert their pre-conceived notion of baptism into the phrase “come up out of the water”.

My thoughts, exactly!
I hear this argument often - “See, the Bible says he came up out of the water…therefore he was immersed!”

Mt 3:16
16 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water

Mk 1:9-10
9 In those days Jesus (I)came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
10 Immediately coming up out of the water,

Lk 3:21
21 Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened,

To follow the “he was immersed” logic, the above passages read this way:
“After being immersed in the water, Jesus came up immediately from the water…”
“…and was immersed by John in the Jordan. Immediately coming up out of the water…”
“…Jesus was also immersed, and while He was praying…”

The first two read as if the immersing was only the placing under the water, and that a separate act was needed to pull one up from under water.
The last one, following the same logic, means Christ was praying while He was under the water.

I think the “immersion only” argument further falls apart when we look at Acts 8:
38 And he [the Ethiopian eunuch] ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
39 When they came up out of the water…,

If we use the “immersion” logic, then according to v39, both Philip and the eunuch were immersed.

 

[meaprilrain]

Since when does “come up out of the water” means someone has been immersed.

If my mom tells me to “come up out of the pool this instant”, that only means I was in the pool, not necessarily underwater.

I think people insert their pre-conceived notion of baptism into the phrase “come up out of the water”.

If I only need a pouring or a sprinkling then why would I even be in the river or pond to begin with ? I have to be in it to come up out of it.

Now If I was just having a pouring or sprinkling I wouldn’t have to be IN the river or pond ? I could just be next to it and have the pitcher poured over my head, in this instance I wouldn’t be coming up out of anything would I ? because I wouldn’t be in it ? He came up straightway out of water… which means he was down in the water and there is no reason to be IN the water versus just pouring on top unless you are immersioning a large something ? like a body… I wouldn’t have to get IN the water to just have some poured over my head ?
Yet many peoples came TO the river Jordan to be baptized, why if they could just get a pitcher from the well in town ?

 

[mercygate]

If I only need a pouring or a sprinkling then why would I even be in the river or pond to begin with ? I have to be in it to come up out of it.

Now If I was just having a pouring or sprinkling I wouldn’t have to be IN the river or pond ? I could just be next to it and have the pitcher poured over my head, in this instance I wouldn’t be coming up out of anything would I ? because I wouldn’t be in it ? He came up straightway out of water… which means he was down in the water and there is no reason to be IN the water versus just pouring on top unless you are immersioning a large something ? like a body… I wouldn’t have to get IN the water to just have some poured over my head ?
Yet many peoples came TO the river Jordan to be baptized, why if they could just get a pitcher from the well in town ?

Though the “matter” of the sacrament is crucial – it MUST be water – the discipline of the sacrament can be modified according to pastoral necessity. In cold climates, standing in the river could be downright risky. The method of pouring versus getting completely wet either in a river or in a tank would be, for us, similar to the distinction between the Eastern Church’s practice of using leavened bread in the Eucharist versus our Latin Church’s requirement that unleavened bread, without any ingredients other than water and flour, be used. These are our Traditions, both rooted in Scripture, neither is “wrong” but we follow the norms of our own Tradition.

Scripture is by no means unequivocal on the subject of how baptism was done. We have first century literature that mentions pouring and the baptism of infants. Up thread you say, for example that people were not baptized in their homes. Normatively that is certainly true. But one can make a pretty good case for the Philippian jailer being baptized at home with his family.

 

[meaprilrain]

Mt 3:16
16 After being baptized, Jesus came up
immediately from the water

after being immersed or dunked in water, Jesus came up immediately from the water . ?? there is no contradiction to that ? He simply did not remain under water long ? he was dunked and immediately came up from the water ?

Lk 3:21
21 Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened,

this doesn’t say he was praying while he was being baptised. it just says while he was praying. and prayer can be in your mind or out your mouth.

The first two read as if the immersing was only the placing under the water, and that a separate act was needed to pull one up from under water.
The last one, following the same logic, means Christ was praying while He was under the water.

Immersing IS being placed under water ! a seperate act is needed, either you rise yourself from the water or the person holding you rises you !

I think the “immersion only” argument further falls apart when we look at Acts 8:
38 And he [the Ethiopian eunuch] ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
39 When they came up out of the water…,

If we use the “immersion” logic, then according to v39, both Philip and the eunuch were immersed.

Again, why did they both need to go down into the water ? If Phillip is just going to pour over or sprinkle on the Eunuchs head then why doesn’t just PHILLIP go into the water to obtain some and then get out and pour it over the Eunuch ? or why do either of them get it ? Phillip can just scoop it from the pond and pour it over ? They BOTH would not enter the water if it was not necessary to do so ?

 

[cfrancis]

after being immersed or dunked in water, Jesus came up immediately from the water . ?? there is no contradiction to that ? He simply did not remain under water long ? he was dunked and immediately came up from the water ?

Immersing IS being placed under water ! a seperate act is needed, either you rise yourself from the water or the person holding you rises you !
this doesn’t say he was praying while he was being baptised. it just says while he was praying. and prayer can be in your mind or out your mouth.

First, your question marks are a tad confusing.
Second, if you and I accept your assertion that the “immersion” of Baptism is only the placing under the water, and not the pulling up from under the water, then we must apply it consistently.

Therefore, back to Lk 3:
21 Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened,

Given your assertion, Lk 3:21 reads:
“Jesus was also placed under the water, and while He was praying [under the water, as there is no mention of the separate act of raising up from under the water]…”

Acts 8:
38 And he [the Ethiopian eunuch] ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
39 When they came up out of the water…

Again, why did they both need to go down into the water ? If Phillip is just going to pour over or sprinkle on the Eunuchs head then why doesn’t just PHILLIP go into the water to obtain some and then get out and pour it over the Eunuch ? or why do either of them get it ? Phillip can just scoop it from the pond and pour it over ? They BOTH would not enter the water if it was not necessary to do so ?

Your statement - indeed your whole argument - makes sense only if

1. “Baptism” means only to place under the water, not the act of placing under the water and bringing back up
2. the water sources mentioned in Mt, Mk, Lk and Acts were on the same plane/level as the surrounding geography

Neither of these is likely, and neither is supported by Scripture.
Indeed, in your argument against Acts 8, you hold both Philip and the eunuch were under the water, a ridiculous assertion.
Further, you are assuming the water into which they entered was deep enough for immersion. Scripture makes no mention as to the depth of the water.

The bottom line is that Scripture does not provide the rite of Baptism; Scripture does provide the formula - Trinitarian blessing and water.