Submersion Baptism

[cdonohoue]

So recently I’ve been engaged in a debate with a nondom minister, we disagree about submersion when your baptized. I’ve heard several things that trend towards sprinkling, like how apostles would have come up with so much water in their location to baptize 3000 people or early christian art shows sprinkling vs submersion. Can anyone put forth resources for me? I’d like to be able to cite somethings instead of I heard this guy said this from my boss’s sisters wife.

 

[dsears]

I’m not totally sure myself, but perhaps you could post this in the Sacred Scripture forum and get some better answers from people a lot smarter than I am.

 

[Ignatius]

So recently I’ve been engaged in a debate with a nondom minister, we disagree about submersion when your baptized. I’ve heard several things that trend towards sprinkling, like how apostles would have come up with so much water in their location to baptize 3000 people or early christian art shows sprinkling vs submersion. Can anyone put forth resources for me? I’d like to be able to cite somethings instead of I heard this guy said this from my boss’s sisters wife.

Aparently in the 1st century that was not an issue. The Didache, which is a 1st century document indicating Order of Worship, Order of administration of the Sacraments, etc. says that it is preferred that Baptism be administered using ‘living’ (i.e. running) water as the first preference. So, administration by pouring from a fountain would be in there in the first preference.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Since there were many ritual baths (mikvaot) at the Temple, it would have been no problem to baptize 3000 people on Pentecost.

The “living water” of the Didache refers to a stream or river, not a fountain–which is actually preferred to this day for the rite of mikveh among Jews. In fact, immersion in the mikveh is part of the conversion process for ALL Gentiles of ether sex entering Judaism, even for a Gentile infant a Jewish couple plans on raising as a Jew. So you see that infant baptism came from pre-Chrsitian Judaism, and is not something cooked up by that nasty ole pope feller.

However, “baptizo” means to IMMERSE, and immersion is the NORMAL form of baptism in all the Eastern Churches, both those in union with Rome and not.

The West started to get sloppy about baptizing by immersion and substituted pouring–NOT sprinkling-- in the 800’s or so.

Early Christian art actually shows immersion, with the baptizand nude, following the precedent of the mikveh.

 

[TheosisM]

Aparently in the 1st century that was not an issue. The Didache, which is a 1st century document indicating Order of Worship, Order of administration of the Sacraments, etc. says that it is preferred that Baptism be administered using ‘living’ (i.e. running) water as the first preference. So, administration by pouring from a fountain would be in there in the first preference.

No it isn’'t, because the Didache specifically mentions “pouring” as the third preference.

 

[panevino]

So recently I’ve been engaged in a debate with a nondom minister, we disagree about submersion when your baptized. I’ve heard several things that trend towards sprinkling, like how apostles would have come up with so much water in their location to baptize 3000 people or early christian art shows sprinkling vs submersion. Can anyone put forth resources for me? I’d like to be able to cite somethings instead of I heard this guy said this from my boss’s sisters wife.

Didache
*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. *
earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

Ezek 36:24 KJV

• 24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. 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. *

 

[cdonohoue]

Thank you for correcting my poor wording. Seems like one little miss phrase like sprinkling vs. pour could mess up any argument I can put forth. Anyway, I have heard over and over early christian art shows this or that but where do you get your information? I can’t find any on it.

 

[Spencerian]

(Looks like you have two identical threads for the same question. Don’t worry about it, but only post one thread so others can help and keep track. Here’s my post pasted from the second thread copy.)

So recently I’ve been engaged in a debate with a nondom minister, we disagree about submersion when your baptized. I’ve heard several things that trend towards sprinkling, like how apostles would have come up with so much water in their location to baptize 3000 people or early christian art shows pouring vs submersion. Can anyone put forth resources for me? I’d like to be able to cite somethings instead of I heard this guy said “this” from my boss’s sisters husband.

Hi, there.

A quick scan yields information that’s mostly historical on how baptism can be performed in the Catholic Church.

Historically, baptisms can be done via immersion or by small pouring of water on a person’s forehead over a baptismal font. Since a Catholic baptism is (based on my research) never conducted outside but in a church (since now we have facilities to perform it, rather than using, say, a river, as done for Christ), pouring is common in churches with a baptismal font. If the church has a larger baptismal pool (a baptistery), then the baptism is handled by partial immersion (the catechumen sits or kneels while the priest or deacon pours water over the body in the trinitarian form). I was baptized in a makeshift baptistery.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops official missal notes here how baptisms should be performed during the most common time for it, the Easter Vigil.

You can show him pictures of many churches old and new that show baptismal fonts all over the place. One of these, to start you off, is the baptismal font of my favorite saint, Jeanne d’Arc (Joan of Arc) from the 1400’s.

Your friend may be implying that immersion is superior than partial immersion or forehead pouring. So long as water is involved in the contact of the body and the trinitarian form ("I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit) is used, there’s nothing wrong. (Catholics must be baptized by an ordained priest or deacon; Protestants can have whoever they want).

(Mormons are a special exception; while they use the trinitarian form, their theology is actually polytheist, making their baptisms invalid).

 

[SonofMonica]

To the OP, to get you started, here’s a Catholic Answer:

It is true that baptizo often means immersion. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, “went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo] seven times in the Jordan” (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added).

But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner.” They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees “do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]” (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.

Want more? catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp

 

[ryanoneil]

To the OP, to get you started, here’s a Catholic Answer:

It is true that baptizo often means immersion. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, “went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo] seven times in the Jordan” (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added).

But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner.” They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees “do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]” (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.

Want more? catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp

Then a man who is clean shall take some hyssop, dip it in this water, and sprinkle it on the tent and on all the vessels and persons that were in it, or on him who touched a bone, a slain person or other dead body, or a grave.(Num 19:18)

Here the verbs for dip (“baptisantes”) and sprinkle (“bapsei”) refers to affusion (pouring) and sprinkling (aspersion), not immersion.

 

[SonofMonica]

I’ve never understood why an immersion-only group of believers has such a beef with the external form of baptism, whenever they do not believe it is a sacrament and do not believe confers any grace. If all you’re doing is signaling to the world that you’ve been saved from sin, then isn’t being “washed” of your sins just as powerful of a symbol as being “buried” with sin? And, remarkably, these groups have no qualms with using grape juice instead of wine, so it’s kind of hard to take them seriously…

 

[bpbasilphx]

Thank you for correcting my poor wording. Seems like one little miss phrase like sprinkling vs. pour could mess up any argument I can put forth. Anyway, I have heard over and over early christian art shows this or that but where do you get your information? I can’t find any on it.

Do a Google search with “baptism” + “early Christian art” and see what you get.

Or, oddly enough, “nude baptism”.

 

[ryanoneil]

Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius and Paul was baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. Either those houses had pools or they were sprinkled.

 

[cdonohoue]

I’ve never understood why an immersion-only group of believers has such a beef with the external form of baptism, whenever they do not believe it is a sacrament and do not believe confers any grace. If all you’re doing is signaling to the world that you’ve been saved from sin, then isn’t being “washed” of your sins just as powerful of a symbol as being “buried” with sin? And, remarkably, these groups have no qualms with using grape juice instead of wine, so it’s kind of hard to take them seriously…

Well, I hear you on grape juice vs. wine. The preacher’s church uses juice. He does believe a confess of faith plus a full dunking is the only way to confer the holy spirit. Thank you for your previous links, they were very helpful. I still would like to build a bullet proof case but seeing as I’m not a scholar, I don’t think that will happen.

 

[Rolltide]

I took this from another post of mine, and some of the information is redundant, but I still think it’s worth reposting here:

This passage is taken directly from the Didache, the oldest authentic non-Biblical Christian document we have. It’s so old, it was written even before parts of the New Testament, such as Revelations. (It dates probably to about 70 AD.) The reason it wasn’t included in the canon of the Bible had NOTHING to do with it’s accuracy or authenticity. It was simply because it discussed traditions here on Earth, and it was not deemed to be inspired. In other words, it was mainly a procedural document, rather than discussing our eternal salvation. Historians widely regard it as an true document of that era. Now that said… look at what it says about baptism:

7:1 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;

7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;

7:3 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.

This document, and other historical documents like it, CLEARLY demonstrate that in the early church, baptism by pouring or sprinkling was allowed and practiced. It wasn’t the preferred method, but it was perfectly acceptable. So, why was it allowed at all, and why did it become so common? Remember, that many people at that time lived in large urban areas like Rome, and you wouldn’t want to go baptize people in a river, since the river was also your sewer. That continued to hold true (sewage wise) until relatively recently in history, I might add.

 

[redoctober]

ryanoneil:

Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius and Paul was baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. Either those houses had pools or they were sprinkled.

Can you show me the verse?

 

[Atemi]

Aparently in the 1st century that was not an issue. The Didache, which is a 1st century document indicating Order of Worship, Order of administration of the Sacraments, etc. says that it is preferred that Baptism be administered using ‘living’ (i.e. running) water as the first preference. So, administration by pouring from a fountain would be in there in the first preference.

That is incorrect.

The Didache teaches that the first preference is to baptise (immerse) “IN” living water.

The very last preference, when all other options were not possible, was to pour on the head.

Why the last preference is the one most argued for by so many today, I don’t know.

Of course, it is worthy of note that the Didache teaches credo baptism, not infant baptism.

…

 

[Atemi]

No it isn’'t, because the Didache specifically mentions “pouring” as the third preference.

Correct…and only as a last resort (not the first).

…

 

[Atemi]

So recently I’ve been engaged in a debate with a nondom minister, we disagree about submersion when your baptized.

There is no real debate here.

Baptism, by definition, means to immerse.

It is a picture of being BURIED.

This is one reason why all early baptisms were credo baptisms, not infant baptisms.

…

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

So recently I’ve been engaged in a debate with a nondom minister, we disagree about submersion when your baptized. I’ve heard several things that trend towards sprinkling, like how apostles would have come up with so much water in their location to baptize 3000 people or early christian art shows sprinkling vs submersion. Can anyone put forth resources for me? I’d like to be able to cite somethings instead of I heard this guy said this from my boss’s sisters wife.

First you have to realize that the Scriptures do NOT specify the method of Baptism explicitly. You have to look at the practice of the Early Church, start with the Didache. Written at the end of the first century.