can I ask why do presyterians etc think baptism is sprinkling?

[maryofoxford]

This is all well and good, but how do you explain the current trend in Roman Catholicism to baptize by immersion? The Eastern Orthodox Church has been immersing folks "since the beginning" (as they claim). Of course, they also include sprinkling as well and pouring as well as anointing with oil as part of their baptismal rite. I think they try to cover all of the bases.

The Roman Catholic Church has never changed it's doctrine on how a person should be baptized. Immersion or the pouring of water over the person (or their head) was always acceptable. (I understand that "sprinkling is basically pouring to the faiths that do that.") It just wasn't always feasible in the churches to get water that would fit an adult and was moving in order to immerse them, and if you were simply going to pour the water on them (another acceptable practice according to the first Christians) it didn't really matter if they were standing in a pool at the time, or had their head held over a basin. Now that we have fountains that can be built in the newer Churches, we find that it's a beautiful way of baptizing adults. (Just like the first Catholic Churches did, and some always did).

You will always find within the Catholic Church that we put great importance on continuing to do things that were instructed by the apostles as being necessary to do. The only things that can change within the R. Catholic Church and it's various Rites are the disciplines (like eating meat on Friday). This was obviously not something that was required by Christ, yet we believe that he gave Peter the authority to represent him on Earth and to bind and loose things, as Christ's physical representative. Therefore the Pope might decide that the faithful Catholics should practice something for their own good, and spiritual well being. Because of that, he can also change the practice when it is no longer seen as beneficial. Sort of like a parent setting rules for the children and changing them as they get older. Believe me, he understands the HUGE importance of any disciplines that he asks of the faithful Catholics.

As for the mention of applying the oil when a person is Baptized. The Chrism oils have nothing to do with the Baptism, but are applied when a person is Confirmed and receives the fullness of the Holy Spirit. Because some are baptized as adults they will also receive the laying on of hands by the bishop (or the priest with the bishop's permission to act in his name). The young child or baby that is baptized is not anointed with Chrism Oil, since they are seen as too young to understand the seriousness of what they are committing themselves to. They do receive the Holy Spirit's guidance when they are baptized and this is understood to help them to seek more fully the truth of Christ as they grow in the faith. Once they reach the age of reason they are instructed more intensely in the faith for two years (generally) before they receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands by the Bishop and the anointing with the Chrism oil. The adults that are anointed w/ it have been receiving instructions in the Catholic faith for one year before they receive this. This is all very Biblical, and you can see examples of people in the New T. that were baptized, but didn't receive the Holy Spirit in His fullness until one of the apostles laid hands on them and prayed.

Sorry, I know that was a long explanation, but it's hard to explain a 2,000 yr old faith in a few words. (and I'm not good at shortening things.)

My Anglican friend on this thread shows just how very close we are in the faith. Wouldn't it be nice if all the Christians could unite once again, just as it was in the beginning. ONE faith, One Lord, and ONE Baptism. (Is it just a dream, or could we truly pray that we become one?)

 

[At The Ready]

I've read through the beginning and end pages of this thread, so forgive me if I am repeating old arguments from the middle of it, but my feeling abt the ideal way to baptize is through immersion, and my simple argument for that is that the word "baptize" isn't a random word we came up with to describe a new ritual, performed by Christians. The Koine Greek word used in the New Testament that we translate "baptize" is "baptidzo" and it is the Greek word for "to immerse"! The word baptize, before it meant anything pertaining to a specifically Christian practice, means to immerse something in water. If you are hand-washing dishes, you will probably "baptidzo" them first to soak them. That is what it means. So, keeping that in mind, when you literally translate it, to say "our denomination practices immersion by sprinkling"--well, that's kind of funny... and a bit illogical!

I don't think one needs to get legalistic about it, but if one is physically able to be baptized through immersion, as those coming to God with a repentant heart have from John the Baptizer on, then why not? I was baptized that way, and it was a profound symbol of being "buried with Christ" in baptism, and then being raised up (by another's strength, not your own) out of the water, just as we will be raised up by the power of God at the resurrection. When you are under water, you are soaked in a different element, not air, it's like you are in another world. That symbolizes death, but it also symbolizes being cleansed from a guilty conscience, and having our bodies washed with pure water, as Hebrews 10:22 alludes to.

Another point in support of baptism by immersion is that baptism is still practiced by conservative and orthodox Jews even today, for Gentile converts to their faith. And, as members in the early Church were, it is done naked, by immersion, by same sex leaders in their synagogue! I know of a guy who is part Jewish, but his mother was only half, and it was on her dad's side, so anyway, when he married a Jewish girl, he had to officially convert, and that is how it was done.

 

[vjcoppola]

At the ready,
Immersion is not always available. A valid baptism is just that, a valid baptism. One method does not produce a result superior to another. So if, like in my case, a person was baptised by pouring, that baptism is just as effective as one done by immersion.

I'm not a Greek scholar, but what I have read about the word used is that it means a washing but also suggests an over-flooding, a washing over. This may be seen as a reason to prefer immersion because, especially with adult baptism, it can add to the sensual experience.

But is it a requirement? I don't think so. Holy scripture does not demand it and if you look at the very early Christian writings outside scripture you will see that sprikling was accepted in the first century. These are 1st and 2nd generation Christians who spoke the language that scripture was written in. If they saw no problem with the practice I don't see how we can object today.

A very important principal regarding baptism is that God is the active element. God baptises, not the priest or pastor, not the person baptised and not the water. The cleansing is spiritual by the power of the Holy Spirit. So, regarless of how it is done, since it is done by God Himself, we can be assured thay it is done as well as possible.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Perhaps the most basic meaning of "baptize" from the Greek is "a washing" or "to wash", depending on the grammatical form. In St. Mark's Gospel it mentions the Jewish ritual practices of washing hands and certain pieces of furniture. One of the words translated as "wash" is "baptize", they "baptized" certain pieces of furniture. The idea that they did this by immersing them fully is perhaps absurd, we also see this connected to the Jewish hand-washing ritual (still practiced today) which involves pouring running water over the hands, not immersing them.

We know that, historically, immersion was the chief means of Baptism (specifically triple immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit); however we also know that pouring was regarded as equally as valid, and a necessity for when there wasn't a sufficient quantity of water available.

Many have pointed to the baptism of the three thousand Jewish pilgrims in Acts to suggest that it may have been logistically impossible to immerse all three thousand in one day, but pouring would have been a more feasible form of baptism in such an event.

-CryptoLutheran

-CryptoLutheran

 

[At The Ready]

At the ready,
Immersion is not always available. A valid baptism is just that, a valid baptism. One method does not produce a result superior to another. So if, like in my case, a person was baptised by pouring, that baptism is just as effective as one done by immersion.

I'm not a Greek scholar, but what I have read about the word used is that it means a washing but also suggests an over-flooding, a washing over. This may be seen as a reason to prefer immersion because, especially with adult baptism, it can add to the sensual experience.

But is it a requirement? I don't think so. Holy scripture does not demand it and if you look at the very early Christian writings outside scripture you will see that sprikling was accepted in the first century. These are 1st and 2nd generation Christians who spoke the language that scripture was written in. If they saw no problem with the practice I don't see how we can object today.

A very important principal regarding baptism is that God is the active element. God baptises, not the priest or pastor, not the person baptised and not the water. The cleansing is spiritual by the power of the Holy Spirit. So, regarless of how it is done, since it is done by God Himself, we can be assured thay it is done as well as possible.

I'm not suggesting that to baptize by immersion is required or it's somehow invalid if a person is sprinkled or poured over. You wrote, "One method does not produce a result superior to another." Spiritually, probably not. But for the individual person, I can't imagine how the metaphor of burial and resurrection would be as effective if one was sprinkled with water as opposed to being fully immersed in water and dunked. Exceptions like invalids aside, I have to be an atypical WASP and say that physicality is important and I don't think that God would disagree. Like, I'm sorry, but there is something more special to it to me at least when a church uses real wine and some kind of quality communion wafer rather than grape juice and oyster crackers, ha. (Like my church does, haha)

With the early church adopting the sprinkling method as an option early on, I don't doubt it, but we also have to remember that the church was already pretty persecuted by that point and had to often worship with a very low profile, so baptizing, for instance in the open in "living water" (a river or stream usually), would not always be the smartest idea. "Living water" had spiritual significance to the Jews of the time, a group of Jews who didn't have enough men to form the quorum needed to start a synagogue, would gather together for Sabbath worship by a site of living water, like on the banks of a river. Not sure where that tradition started.

I believe that God the Holy Spirit baptized me into the faith by bringing me into His family, but that my pastor baptized me in water, ha. God did something to seal me in himself through that act of faith and obedience, but God himself wasn't physically dipping me into the water, ha. And as a Charismatic believer in Christ, I believe that Christ himself baptized me with the Holy Spirit when I began to speak with other tongues on a different occasion. That's just my understanding of what I've experienced and how it correlates with my reading of Scripture.

Perhaps the most basic meaning of "baptize" from the Greek is "a washing" or "to wash", depending on the grammatical form. In St. Mark's Gospel it mentions the Jewish ritual practices of washing hands and certain pieces of furniture. One of the words translated as "wash" is "baptize", they "baptized" certain pieces of furniture. The idea that they did this by immersing them fully is perhaps absurd, we also see this connected to the Jewish hand-washing ritual (still practiced today) which involves pouring running water over the hands, not immersing them.

We know that, historically, immersion was the chief means of Baptism (specifically triple immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit); however we also know that pouring was regarded as equally as valid, and a necessity for when there wasn't a sufficient quantity of water available.

Many have pointed to the baptism of the three thousand Jewish pilgrims in Acts to suggest that it may have been logistically impossible to immerse all three thousand in one day, but pouring would have been a more feasible form of baptism in such an event.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't doubt the varied meanings of baptidzo, or that certain special circumstances like a sudden conversion of 3,000 people would change how things were done (these new, crusade-method like converts also didn't go through catechism classes, either, my Lutheran friend ), and I believe that God is a little less legalistic than we often are.

My overall point is that baptism by immersion isn't the ONLY way to do it, but that the sensate nature of it and how it correlates to its symbolism, and how it imitates how Christ himself was baptized and follows early tradition, make it, I believe perhaps the best method for getting the many-layered significance of baptism across.

 

[vjcoppola]

At the ready,

You said:

"My overall point is that baptism by immersion isn't the ONLY way to do it, but that the sensate nature of it and how it correlates to its symbolism, and how it imitates how Christ himself was baptized and follows early tradition, make it, I believe perhaps the best method for getting the many-layered significance of baptism across."

I could agree with that.

You also said:

" I believe that Christ himself baptized me with the Holy Spirit when I began to speak with other tongues on a different occasion. That's just my understanding of what I've experienced and how it correlates with my reading of Scripture."

When I read scripture I often see the idea of there being one baptism in which a person is grafted into the body of Christ.

 

[maryofoxford]

I've been following this thread from the beginning and by now I wish there was a way to consolidate the answers given into categories, because so many are simply repeats of what's already been said.

I have one question that I'd like answered by those in denominations that use sprinkling in the Baptismal rite. I've heard some say that it's the same thing as pouring, and others seem to separate it from pouring. What I'd like to know, simply out of curiosity is, is sprinkling done with just that (something such as hysop or the pastors (can't think of the name at this late hour but it's a silver object that literally does sprinkle water on the one being baptized? Or is it truly pouring water onto the baptized person's head? (I have no problem with that so long as the water is moving).

According to the Didache, the earliest Christian document ever found instructing Christians on the practice of the faith; written aprox. 180 ad or earlier, it very specifically spells out exactly how a Baptism is to be performed. It would seem that common sense would say that the very first Christians, those who were actually taught by either the apostles themselves or by the 12 apostles' close disciples, would most certainly have the correct format for Baptism and any other question regarding what the scriptures mean that have caused debate and separated Jesus Christ's own Church. I would think it FAR more likely that they are correct then ANYONE relying on his own interpretation of the Bible now! There are a great number of writings that can still be read by the early Christians from as far back as 80 AD, that go into greater detail clarifying the scriptures of the New Testament, that had, as of that time, still NOT been combined into one book. If we ever hope to reunite this badly divided faith of Christ's Church the least people can do is to look at what they had to say. This can be found (on the issue of Baptism and the early instructions under: The Didache, on the internet, since that is what it is known as. (We certainly don't seem to have a problem reading Billy Grahams opinions or Chesterton's etc, and they wrote thousands of years after the first Christians, if that's the case please explain why you wouldn't naturally want to read what the first Christians taught?)

We must remember Jesus did NOT speak Greek or Latin, but Aramaic, and the Jewish Church of that time had their services in Hebrew and used Hebrew as the formal language of their faith. Greek was spoken and widely recognized outside of Jerusalem, even by the Jews, since the Romans spoke it. This is why so much of the New Testament was written in Greek. Never forget though that the language our Lord spoke to the people WAS in Aramaic (and this is critical when it comes to interpreting passages such as whether Peter was the Rock Jesus refered to, or whether it was the faith Peter had He was speaking about.)

Also despite the Holy Spirit still guiding people today, it is clear that every person that has a new interpretation of the Bible could not be guided by the Holy Spirit, as God is not split in his interpretation of His own meanings. Those in the earliest church that were martyred for the faith had a HUGE outpouring of the Holy Spirit in addition to first hand witnesses, with nobody contradicting their interpretations found in the early church. There was, and is to be ONE faith, ONE Church, ONE Baptism. The question becomes can we place pride aside to seek what that ONE faith was suppose to be and to not look at what we think is right, but what Christ taught was the correct way to worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit? I'd like an answer to my question about the sprinkling, but I'd really like an answer to the most important question of learning what Christ intended His words to mean by reading what His first witnesses and followers told other He meant by the words THEY wrote down in the Gospels and letters of the New Testament. How about it?

Praying Father, that we can be one as you are one.

 

[Albion]

With all due regard for the advocates of immersion, a very strong case can be made for pouring. But what I don't get is an argument for sprinkling, since that would seem to be nothing but pouring "on the cheap."

 

[vjcoppola]

MaryOfOxford,

You make some great points. I agree, more Christians should be reading the early writings. I purchased a 39 volume ancient commentary that quotes the church fathers and use it weekly. Wonderful resource.

The problem is that not all Christians are willing to use the fathers to determine doctrine. Alot of evangelicals reject these writings because they "are not in the Bible". But, as you pointed out, what these guys had to say is worth listening to. They were much closer in time, geography, language and culture than anyone today, or recent times. Yet many people are inclined to go with the modern interpretation. I don't get it.

The fathers themselves do not agree on all things either. They wrote over several hundred years and during those years the faith was still taking shape. I know that idea will upset alot of people but it is true. Beginning with the Council of Jerusalem, which is recorded in Acts, the church often met in council to come to agreement on various doctrines. This is the way, patterned after the example in Acts, the Church should have remained unified but Satan has been at work keeping us divided.

Another problem is that the concept of church has changed since the reformation. Unity as in the catholic model is not always seen as ideal. And the concept of catholic has changed too.

Regarding the Didiche, newer estimates of its origin are between 85 BC and 110 AD.

You are right that the common language was Arimaic, and that is what Jesus spoke, but Jesus and most people in that area, also knew and spoke Greek. Even in Isreal Jews read scripture in Greek, the septuigint. Jesus and the Apostles quote scripture from that version too.

I too pray for unity but it does not seem likely any time soon. There are so many new doctrines which seem to be more appealing to so many people. And very few people are willing to change their minds.

 

[Albion]

The problem is that not all Christians are willing to use the fathers to determine doctrine. Alot of evangelicals reject these writings because they "are not in the Bible"....

The fathers themselves do not agree on all things either. They wrote over several hundred years and during those years the faith was still taking shape.

The surprising comment that there's something wrong with trusting the Word of God over human speculation aside, the latter point above should settle it.

 

[vjcoppola]

Albion,
You're puting words in my mouth. As all Anglicans do, I place primary authority on Holy Scripture. You may have noticed, not all Christians, not even all Anglicans agree on how to interpret Scripture. And then discussion begins and various human authorities are brought into the picture. And you cannot escape that. Things as basic as which books shall we consider to be the Word of God and include in the cannon of scripture arise. So who are these human authorities and how do they do it? The pattern, which demonstrated in the Book of Acts, is for Apostles or their descendants (Bishops) to meet in council and with prayer, discussion and the help of the Holy Spirit make decisions. You can read through the text of some of these councils and see that not all bishops were always in agreement but were able to reach a consenuss. Councils like the Nicene council took around 50 or 60 years to complete. During those years some of those bishops continued to write and various viewpoints were expressed.

So, the idea isn't that we replace the authority of scripture with the writings of the fathers but we when we read the fathers we get very early held understandings of scripture written by people who actually lived in a similar culture to that of 1st century Israel. An example is the discussion at hand, method of baptism and how to interpret the words used in the New Testament that we now interpret as 'baptism'. Those who were only 40 0r 60 years from the event and living the same culture would have a much clearer idea of how those words were used and what they mean than we do. Even better than those in the 16th to 19th century when most of the innovative ideas about baptism were developed.

I'm sorry my previous post was so unclear.

VInce

 

[vjcoppola]

I'd like to say something else about this. It is easy for us, in this time to feel that certain ideas are very clear in scripture that actually are not all that clear. Take, for example, the doctrine of The Trinity. Most Christians today are comfortable with it. When we read scripture we see it supported over and over again. But the reason that we do is that we have been taught that doctrine and taught those understandings of scripture. There was a time when this was not so. The christians who did not hold the trinitarian doctrine were quite intelligent. They read the same sciptures. They had the same faith in Jesus as savior. But they had teachers who had a different understanding. Men themselves did not straighten things out. It took prayer and The Holy Spirit for the church to finally arrive at what we now have in the Trinitarian Doctrine.

Even the Apostles, who heard first hand the teachings of Jesus, were not of like mind on some doctrine. They had to apply this proccess so that all christians finally could agreed that Gentiles could receive God's grace without becoming Jews first.

 

[Albion]

Albion,
You're puting words in my mouth. As all Anglicans do, I place primary authority on Holy Scripture.

All I can do is go by the written word on these forums. Misunderstandingss sometimes happen, as a result, and I am sorry for that.

As an Anglican, I place ultimate, not primary authority on Scripture, so it may not be as simple a matter as you're saying.

You may have noticed, not all Christians, not even all Anglicans agree on how to interpret Scripture...And you cannot escape that.

That, however, is a different issue.

So, the idea isn't that we replace the authority of scripture with the writings of the fathers but we when we read the fathers we get very early held understandings of scripture written by people who actually lived in a similar culture to that of 1st century Israel.

Yes, they are witnesses--to the extent that they actually witnessed what they are commenting on. But as you yourself noted, much is not in that category. That's where I suggest we use caution.

 

[vjcoppola]

And I agree. Caution is necessary. But isn't neglect foolish.

 

[maryofoxford]

The surprising comment that there's something wrong with trusting the Word of God over human speculation aside, the latter point above should settle it.

It's true that the early church was still working out the correct format for worship, and coming to an agreement through prayer on the Finer meanings on the scriptures. This being said, it's not at all like today. The early church was VERY unified in it's understanding of sacraments like Baptism, the Eucharist, Confession, Marriage, and Holy Orders, and the Sacrament of the Sick.

What they were "working out" were debates on items such as, "Did the Holy Spirit come from the Father THROUGH the Son, or did he come from the Father AND the Son?"

The various councils of the early church such as the Council of Jerusalem, the council of Constantinople,and the council of Nicea, etc. were a gathering of all of the Bishops in the early church to discuss these VERY important issues of faith and to decide on a common belief. The latter council mentioned is where the final doctrine of the faith was decided. At one of the earlier councils they had decided on the Apostles Creed and later at the Council of Nicea, they CLARIFIED the beliefs further by writing the Nicean Creed. This wasn't a change of faith, but a clarification of the already existing faith.

There were always things that needed to be clarified and clearly stated, this was the purpose of the councils. A council is never called unless a belief of the faith is being challenged or disregarded by the faithful. A council is then called to FORMALLY declare what the belief of the apostles, that was given them by Christ, always was. God NEVER changes, only people change. The faith handed on to the apostles by Christ was correct and unchanging. (although I realize that people often are confused regarding doctrine and disciplines, and their differences.) Doctrines, for the record, are what was taught to the Christians, by the apostles. This is what they faithfully received from Jesus, and the Holy Spirit has faithfully protected for over 2000 years. Disciplines (how those beliefs may be practiced such as receiving the Eucharist on the tongue or in the hand, etc. are changeable, as it doesn't effect WHAT the Eucharist IS.

So even though some in the early church may have differed on the finer points of the deep meaning of the Scriptures and the Sacred Traditions handed down to them, there were no disagreements on the most important aspects. They were still one faith, and didn't disagree for over 1500 years on things such as a Heirarchy in the church, and the sacraments. (The exception to this was with individuals that challenged the teachings of the apostles, or the future Bishops that the apostles had laid hands on and anointed to succeed them. Those that did this were generally immediately excommunicated, and sometimes later reunited with the church when they either repented of their beliefs, or clarified it to the point where the Bishops of the church could see their point and understand that they in fact weren't disagreeing with the doctrines of the faith, but only with the finer points. (Remember that philosophy was still very much a common past time and debates often sprang from this.)

People need to remember that the NEW TESTAMENT hadn't yet been compiled, and outside of a few letters that were floating around from church to church along with the gospels people didn't have the scriptures to read, and when they were present the writings were read to the people and then explained. The average Christian didn't have access to the writings of the New T. and had to rely on the Bishops, or the Presbyters (in English it is Priest) to read and explain them, since it was THEY who were anointed to do this.

My last point is that the Bible clearly states that you are to follow the scriptures AND the Traditions that were handed down to them, "either by letter or by word of mouth."

 

[Albion]

It's true that the early church was still working out the correct format for worship, and coming to an agreement through prayer on the Finer meanings on the scriptures. This being said, it's not at all like today. The early church was VERY unified in it's understanding of sacraments like Baptism, the Eucharist, Confession, Marriage, and Holy Orders, and the Sacrament of the Sick.

If so, then why did all of those other than the two Sacraments of the Gospel not become recognized as sacraments for another 1000 years?

At one of the earlier councils they had decided on the Apostles Creed and later at the Council of Nicea, they CLARIFIED the beliefs further by writing the Nicean Creed. This wasn't a change of faith, but a clarification of the already existing faith.

No. That's a nice way of explaining things, but the reason for Nicaea was that there had never been a consensus on the triune nature of God and most Christians up until that time did not understand or believe what we now take for granted.

My last point is that the Bible clearly states that you are to follow the scriptures AND the Traditions that were handed down to them, "either by letter or by word of mouth."

But it does not identify which "traditions" were being referred to or whether they were a matter of doctrine. All that's there is an admonition to hold onto something traditional--not something DIFFERENT from the scriptures or something IN ADDITION TO scripture. There is just the word "traditions" itself.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The way I see it, Baptism is the union of two things: water and the Word. Without the Word, there is no Baptism, it's just getting wet; without water it's not Baptism (though the Word can regenerate because it is still God's Word).

Immersion, affusion, aspersion, or a consecrated super soaker; all quite secondary. It's not the quantity of water that makes a Baptism, but the presence of water itself, being united to the Word. At the end of the day it's the simple fact that by this Sacrament God has, by His infinitely free gifts, His very grace, joined us to Christ and made us citizens of His kingdom. Baptismus sum, I am baptized; and therefore a child of the Father, I belong to God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Sprinkled with water, full immersion in water, head dunked in water- it doesn't really matter. A baptism is a baptism.
As long as it stays in the lines of reason, there shouldn't be an idea that any which way is better then the other. God still blesses the person for a more perfect life, and that's what matters.

 

[seeking.IAM]

If we are to be so legalistic as to require full immersion, why not go all the way and require it to be in the River Jordan? Is the Wabash really on the same level as the Jordan?

 

[VolRaider]

If we are to be so legalistic as to require full immersion, why not go all the way and require it to be in the River Jordan? Is the Wabash really on the same level as the Jordan?

I agree. But the closest thing to the River Jordan would be the Tennessee River. God's river, baby!