Baptism of Baptists

[flameburns623]

Tonks40:

In regards to immersion baptism, as a Catholic, I don’t understand why the Baptist tradition requires that baptisms be conducted by immersion. Where does it say in the Bible that immersion *has *to be done? What I’ve read, it just shows it as one of the ways to get baptized.

Many of us feel that one of the gravest mistakes of translators of the Greek Scriptures into the English language has been to transliterate the Greek word ‘baptizo’ rather than translate it properly as ‘immerse’. Had Tyndale, Wycliffe, and the translators of the Geneva, Bishop’s and Authorized Versions of Scripture opted to translate the word as 'immerse, the proper FORM of regular Christian baptism would not be so hotly debated today. One suspects that even Roman Catholics would have been compelled to translate the Douay and subsequent Catholic translations as was customary in the broader English-speaking world, and in all likelihood would gradually have substituted the practice of sprinkling and/or pouring for immersion. The EO already immerse infants. There is really no good reason to baptise by any other form except in cases of dire emergency.

Not that observing the proper form would settle the issues of adult-only baptism versus infant baptism. Or the issue of baptismal regeneration versus symbolic affirmation of one’s burial into Christ’s death. Etcetera.

By the way–‘Baptist’ is a shortened form of the word ‘Anabaptist’ or ‘Second-Baptist’. It refers to the fact that historically, the Baptist movement was distinguished by it’s custom of baptising ONLY those who had reached an appropriate ‘age of discretion’ and of re-baptising any who might have been baptised prior to such an age of discretion. It is hard to understand why the OP’s Baptist friends were not baptised already by the age of 15–although the ‘age of discretion’ varies somewhat from group-to-group, most agree that somewhere between the ages of 7 and 10, most children understand the details of right versus wrong sufficiently to accept Christ as Savior and thereafter to ‘seal’ that testimony of salvation publicly through baptism.

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

I can’t imagine him standing in the water with the person and simply pouring water over their head. If sprinkling was acceptable, they could have just done this in another place on dry ground.

Greetings my good friend!

I feel the need to clarify something. The Latin (Roman) Catholic Church baptizes by pouring. The Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox baptize by immersion. I am not familiar with any groups who use sprinkling.

Peace and blessings to you!

Mickey

 

[ahimsaman72]

Mickey:

Greetings my good friend!

I feel the need to clarify something. The Latin (Roman) Catholic Church baptizes by pouring. The Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox baptize by immersion. I am not familiar with any groups who use sprinkling.

Peace and blessings to you!

Mickey

Hello my good friend!

Wow, that’s interesting that the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox baptize by immersion and the Latin Church doesn’t. You would think that given the historical similarities between these that they would be the same. I never knew that.
Thanks Mickey!

Peace and blessings to you…

 

[Shogun]

One must remember that S. Baptist’s are Calvinists (John Calvin). They believe in “once saved, always saved”, and in predestination. They do not believe that Baptism removes sin, but use it as more of a public initiation to join a specific church. If you change churches they can require you baptize again. In reality they do not believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation. One must question whether or not such a practice represents Glorification of man and not God.

Catholics believe that Baptism removes the original stain of sin, as described by God in Genesis when he was making his Covenant with Noah. They also believe, as stated in scripture, that baptism replaced circumcision in sealing the new covenant with God. This, coupled with biblical evidence that families were baptized, justifies the baptism of a child. Baptism represent the death of Christ and the person being Baptized coming to the light of Christ, and being raised with him. The Catholic sacrement of Confirmation is the only thing close to Baptist belief. Confirmation is where after reaching the age of reason a person confirms their Baptism and commitment to God and the Church.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

John the Baptist baptized in the Jordan River. Given the amount of water available and depth of it, it is generally assumed that those people were dunked - submersed completely. I can’t imagine him standing in the water with the person and simply pouring water over their head. If sprinkling was acceptable, they could have just done this in another place on dry ground.

There’s also another meaning there. When St. Paul speaks of being “buried with Christ in baptism” this would have a direct correlation to being submersed. When one is buried, they are submersed under the earth. It would be acceptable then to submerse under water to symbolize this death to the old self and new life in Christ. It was always explained this way when baptisms were done. It’s the death of the old sinful self and rising out of the water to a new promise-filled life with Christ.

Peace…

Ok just a quick thought. Christian baptizism is not the same as the baptizism of John the Baptist. Also it says that christ went down into the Jordon. It does not say that John then dunked Him. He could have then knelt down and John then poured water over him.

Also christian baptizism was not always held in the Jordon after the resurrection and being that this is a very Dry and arrid place the odds of large pools to be dunking everyone in is not very likely.

And just one more note. It was the custom in the 1st to 3rd or 4th century chruch to baptize people in the nude. I for one am glad we did not continue that one.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=flameburns623;1447517]Many of us feel that one of the gravest mistakes of translators of the Greek Scriptures into the English language has been to transliterate the Greek word ‘baptizo’ rather than translate it properly as ‘immerse’. Had Tyndale, Wycliffe, and the translators of the Geneva, Bishop’s and Authorized Versions of Scripture opted to translate the word as 'immerse, the proper FORM of regular Christian baptism would not be so hotly debated today. One suspects that even Roman Catholics would have been compelled to translate the Douay and subsequent Catholic translations as was customary in the broader English-speaking world, and in all likelihood would gradually have substituted the practice of sprinkling and/or pouring for immersion. The EO already immerse infants. There is really no good reason to baptise by any other form except in cases of dire emergency.

To be compltely correct “baptizo” can mean Immerse or could mean wash or bathe. Also immerse would not nessitate a total emmersion.

Not that observing the proper form would settle the issues of adult-only baptism versus infant baptism. Or the issue of baptismal regeneration versus symbolic affirmation of one’s burial into Christ’s death. Etcetera.

And to clarify Baptizism by immersion is considered the “Norm” in the Catholic Church, but pouring is premitted as the main issues is that it is in following waters, in which most casees is not readily availible. Also for health reason in many climates and times of the yar not a good thing to do out side.
A big tank filled with water would not do as they are not following.

 

[rev_kevin]

I’d like a Baptist on the forum to respond - I hate to speak for them but it’s my understanding that if a person was baptized as in infant - say as a Lutheran or a Catholic - and they later wanted to become Baptist, I believe they’d have to be baptized again - as a believer. This is what my friend was told when she expressed a desire to join a Baptist Church. Her original baptism didn’t count since it wasn’t her decision.

Most of what I read is pretty true. One must accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, realize they are a sinner, believe Christ died for our sins. This happens at the age of reason, when a person can understand what it means to accept Christ, what it means to give your life to Christ and let him be incharge of your life. See no one can make that decision for you only you can. No one can believe for you only you can. Its your decision and yours only.

 

[Bran_Stark]

One must remember that S. Baptist’s are Calvinists (John Calvin). They believe in “once saved, always saved”, and in predestination.

Um… not all Baptists believe in OSAS, and of those that do not all are Calvinists. While pretty much all Christians, Catholics included, believe in the very broad concept of “predestination”.

 

[Taurks]

For many years I couldn’t understand what these people were doing. I finally understood that they were searching for the sacrament of penance and reconciliation. They did not know what it was and that it was not available to them in the Baptist Church. They just knew that they felt lousy and needed to be forgiven.

Isn’t this an amazing thing, when you finally realize what the correct answer is? My baptist and evangelical family members always talked about a special moment when they became “saved.” This threw me into a panic as a (protestant) teenager because I realized I never had one specific moment like theirs. The earliest thoughts I remember about religion always involved believing in Jesus. But I became quite worried anyway, and so I prayed to “accept Jesus” multiple times a day. It never looked like the way they explained their experiences, so I always doubted it and did it multiple times the next day.

Later that same year, I enrolled in RCIA.