Historic Difficulties Administering Immersion-Only Baptism

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The only time physical preparation for NT baptism is recorded in Scripture… is of Saul of Tarsus in the house of Judas. The physical preparation for his baptism is recorded in two separate passages of Scripture: Luke writes that Ananais told Paul to “stand up and be baptized” (Acts 22:16), and he “stood up and was baptized” (Acts 9:18). The whole record of the ceremony of Paul’s baptism on his part was just "stand up." All other recorded baptismal ceremonies in the NT are recorded in far simpler fashion.

In both passages of Luke’s writing, the simple command to Paul was to “Stand up and be baptized” is not “Stand up, go elsewhere, and to be dunked.” Modern day immersion-only advocates interpret Luke’s narritive from “stand up and be baptized” to mean “Stand up, go elsewhere and be dunked.” And a "Should'a, Would'a, Could'a" interpretative principle is articulated.

—————————————

• To render baptism by immersion difficult, if not impracticable in many cases.
• Obstacles have to be overcome in order to be baptized by immersion. Finding a suitable water supply, an extra change of clothes, a towel, a place to change, and proper thermal and weather conditions.
• For example, immersion may be nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos. If immersion were the only mode of baptism, many people in the icy regions of the North and deserts like the Sahara where sufficient water could not be secured could not be baptized and Jesus would have commanded an impossibility.
• Some individuals have a natural dread of being submerged (aquaphobia), hence never be baptized.
• What about inmates in prison thorough the centuries?
• Historical female modesty around large crowds of men. Great cultural differences have to be over come for immersion baptism. Immersion baptism has massive societal implications, which in some cases immersion baptism would be abhorrent. We are not talking a one off circumstance…we are talking about entire societies.
• Even today practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden; quadriplegics; individuals with tracheotomies (an opening into the airway in the throat) or in negative pressure ventilators (iron lungs).
• People might have to travel for many miles together for a human body to be immersed in any natural stream or pool of water.
• Again, those who have recently undergone certain procedures (such as open-heart surgery) cannot be immersed.
• Or consider those in a hostile setting, such as a Muslim regime, where baptisms must be done in secret, without adequate water for immersion.
• Modern day immersionists enforce their own cultural standards of clean, warm, portable water of sufficient quantity on the history of the world and expect immersion baptisms as practiced in contemporary America to be the norm. A good college class in Anthropology would hopefully cure them of this American interpretation of the mode of baptism.

_____________________
Did John the Baptist, baptize by immersion? John the Baptist was dressed in a camel hair tunic. And estimates is he baptized between six and thirty months before he beheaded by Herod. Did John baptize by immersion thousands dripping wet for months on end regardless of air temperature?
______________________
Tension must be resolved between the cumbersonness and difficulty of immersion baptism and the simplicity of all the baptismal accounts in the NT.

And why don’t the early church fathers comment on these immersion difficulties and offer pastoral advice on how to solve them?

It is strange that those who make so much of the method of Baptism should make so little of its content.

 

[The Liturgist]

Tension must be resolved between the cumbersonness and difficulty of immersion baptism and the simplicity of all the baptismal accounts in the NT.

Is there any tension? This strikes me as a contrived credobaptist argument against the baptism of infants, and one that is, if you will forgive a terrible pun, shallow.

Let us instead immerse ourselves in the daily reality of the second largest Christian denomination, the Eastern Orthodox and the closely related Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian (and some of the less heavily latinized Eastern Catholic) churches that are liturgically and theologically similar, for it baptizes infants and adults and does so safely and efficiently in nearly every case using immersion.

Now, if you had an emergent condition where someone, was at risk of death, and needed to be baptized, and was dependent on life support apparatus that precluded immersion, something would be worked out. Additionally, many, probably most, Eastern Orthodox churches and some Oriental Orthodox will accept the baptisms performed by other traditional churches such as Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and so on, regardless of whether they were performed via immersion, affusion, or aspersion, provided of course the Trinitarian formula was used, and the church is of the Nicene faith, so Mormon baptisms, which are done in the Trinitarian formula via immersion, are rejected, because Mormons while claiming a belief in the Trinity are actually tritheists, and are heretical, so obviously no one will accept their baptisms as valid. Depending on the church, converts might be received by a profession of faith, or simply confession and partaking of the Eucharist when converting from a schismatic Old Calendarist Orthodox church to ROCOR, in the case of someone known to me personally, or in most cases, via Chrismation, which is like Confirmation, except there isn’t anything one must memorize, since it is performed on children and infants. Chrismation is even used to receive Orthodox who had gone through a period of apostasy and who perhaps in a bit of ill advised adolescent flightiness dabbled in Hinduism or the occult.

Like the baptisms of many traditional churches, all Orthodox baptisms include an exorcism, which is simply a prayer said over the person being received, and not anything unpleasant or an ordeal to be feared. This is important, in my opinion, because the devil will attack children, and this is why the Orthodox church protects its children by baptizing them as infants and additionally providing the seal of the Holy Spirit by confirming them immediately after baptism, and then immediately after that giving them the Eucharist. We do not believe it right that our children should be literally excommunicated (in the technical sense of the word, that is, to be denied reception of the chalice, as opposed to the vernacular sense of being disfellowshipped or otherwise kicked out of a church) until the age of seven.

Also I would note that the Orthodox Church in America’s largest Archdiocese is that of Sitka and Alaska, consisting of the large number of Aleuts and other native Alaskans converted by St. Herman of Alaska and his successors, and the largest number of Orthodox Christians live in the coldest countries (consider some of the countries which have a national Orthodox church: Finland, Japan, Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus, Lativa, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland - beautiful countries but definitely places where a white Christmas is more than a dream for most people. Indeed, in Russia, Alaska, Finland, Ukraine and other Orthodox countries, on the Feast of the Baptism of Christ, or Theophany, on January the 6th (January the 18th on the Gregorian calendar) a cross will be cut in the snow and filled with water during the Great Blessing of Water, and many of the faithful will swim in it. This is not required and likely inadvisable, but the fact that this is a thing goes to show that your particular example of immersion baptism being an obstacle for Eskimos is not realistic, considering that the Native Alaskans and others voluntarily go for a splash in the blessed water on Theophany in many cases.

If baptism by immersion were an actual impediment to being baptized, we would of course not require it, but the fact is that in almost all cases it poses no practical problems, even when it comes to baptizing infants. Indeed infants seem to enjoy in many cases being baptized by full immersion, just as infants enjoy swimming (I have happy memories of splashing around with parental supervision in a wading pool on an inflatable float around the time of my second birthday).

There have been times when I have considered being rebaptized, due to the tremendous appeal of it, but the problem is, one is not supposed to do this if one has been validly baptized, and I cannot find any evidence that my baptism as an infant was in any respect deficient.

Now I do understand the point you are trying to make here, @Ain't Zwinglian , and I appreciate it, but I just feel compelled to defend the ease of baptism by full immersion, especially for infants. And also the importance of confirming infants with the sacred Chrism, a sacrament that is the seal of the Holy Spirit, and then giving the Eucharist to infants. The first day a baby is in church they will receive all three sacraments, providing the maximum amount of spiritual benefit. The Orthodox use procedures for the distribution of the Eucharist that make it safe for infants to partake.

I also feel my Orthodox friends @prodromos @HTacianas and one other fellow who likes to participate in these threads but whose name escapes me would agree with me in general regarding this matter. I mean, obviously, you are seeking to debunk a credobaptist argument, and I support that, but the argument they are making is one that is spectacularly weak. If one can safely baptize an infant, and I would note that the second largest denomination in the world, the majority of its members are baptized as infants via full immersion in complete safety - baptizing infants in this manner has a spectacularly good safety record, and alternative means can be used if there is an actual safety risk, for example, a tracheotomy, or a respirator, or anything of that nature. There is also a semi-immersion technique that can be used where you simply place the infant in the font seated upright and splash them, three times, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which has the advantage of providing them with most of the enjoyment that they might derive from the full immersion experience, but without any of the other issues.

I would also note that full immersion baptism, depending on the font, or if one is baptized outside, can be possible in a standing position, and indeed a good way to do it might be to stand in a swimming pool and then be plunged three times. However I myself don’t think that standing is what is meant in a literal way since infants are obviously baptized well before they can stand upright.

Thus I felt compelled to take us on a bit of a deep dive through the wondrous oceans of liturgical delight that are Orthodox baptisms, because only through full immersion in the theological riches of the East can one overcome the false dichotomies in which one can find oneself stranded in the parched deserts of 16th-19th century Radical Reformation and Restorationist theology. Here, as always, the oasis can be found in the paradise of luxuriant liturgics that the churches of the Orient delight in providing for those adventurous Christians who, comforted by the stability of the ship of salvation that is the Church, are willing to venture to new continents because their God became a man and not only saved all of us on the Cross, but also provided us with the delight of baptism, to experience as an infant or as an adult if we were not baptized in our infancy, and also walked on water and assisted St. Peter in doing so as well.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Depending on the church, converts might be received by a profession of faith, or simply confession and partaking of the Eucharist when converting from a schismatic Old Calendarist Orthodox church to ROCOR, in the case of someone known to me personally, or in most cases, via Chrismation,

You raise some great issues....

While it is true, the Orthodox hold all non-Orthodox Christian baptisms as valid, they are not considered efficacious unless accompanied by Chrismation. This I reject on the basis of Romans 6. Being united with Christ's death and resurrection is what Baptism accomplishes....which is solely God's work not mine. If there truely was any verses in Scripture which demonstrates baptism as God's activity it is Romans 6:3-5. For me, all modes pale before this great truth of Scripture. I find no comfort or aesthetic appeal at all with the symbolism of any mode.

 

[DragonFox91]

Many churches that teach 'immersion only' offer exceptions. Your examples are mere grumblings or worst-case scenarios.

You demand historic proofs but then bring up Eskimos!

In the NT, it's not brought up being difficult b/c they didn't view it as an inconvinience or a rewardless work. I think you're looking too much into that Acts line. 'Stand up' is too vague to infer where his baptism took place.

The Didache says it s/b running water, but if not pouring is sufficient.

(I lean towards it should be immersion but if it's not, that's okay)

I think the Bible leaves it vague to allow for your worst-case scenarios.

 

[The Liturgist]

While it is true, the Orthodox hold all non-Orthodox Christian baptisms as valid, they are not considered efficacious unless accompanied by Chrismation

That’s not accurate. Chrismation, also known in the West as confirmation, is a separate and important sacrament. The reality is that we do not regard any non-Orthodox baptisms as valid unless one is received into the Orthodox church, however, the manner in which one is received may or may not involve chrismation. For example, the three Eastern churches, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East historically received members between them by confession. The canonical Eastern Orthodox churches likewise receive members from the schismatic Old Calendarist churches by confession. However, the schismatic Old Calendarists regard all sacraments except their own to be invalid and will baptize nearly everyone, with some possible exceptions being people transferring from churches who they were at one time in communion with.

Rather, the reason why the Orthodox will normally immediately Chrismate infants is for the same reason that we then immediately give infants the Eucharist. It is not a commentary on the validity of their baptism.

Also, even the canonical Orthodox do not hold all non-Orthodox baptisms as being valid. Indeed in many cases, we regard as invalid baptisms other churches regard as valid. The only baptisms likely to be accepted by any canonical Orthodox churches are those of the Catholics, Anglicans, Assyrians and Lutherans. And even the most accepting of the canonical Orthodox will reject baptisms by non-Trinitarian churches. In general, the less liturgical and more liberal or more doctrinally non-Patristic a church is, the less likely its baptisms will be accepted.

And some chrismations are accepted, with occasionally even a Roman Catholic confirmation being accepted by some Oriental Orthodox churches, although usually only the confirmations or chrismations performed by the three Eastern communions and possibly some Sui Juris Eastern Catholic Churches will be accepted.

 

[The Liturgist]

Being united with Christ's death and resurrection is what Baptism accomplishes....which is solely God's work not mine. If there truely was any verses in Scripture which demonstrates baptism as God's activity it is Romans 6:3-5. For me, all modes pale before this great truth of Scripture. I find no comfort or aesthetic appeal at all with the symbolism of any mode.

I think aside from your monergism, most Orthodox would agree with you except insofar as we would insist that union with the death and resurrection of our Lord requires both Baptism and the Eucharist.

Chrismation or Confirmation is the seal of the Holy Spirit and is a separate and distinct sacrament from Baptism, usually performed with it, but not necessarily, since unlike Baptism, it can be repeated.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The Didache says it s/b running water, but if not pouring is sufficient.

Baptists and American Evangelicals are real big on Sola Scriptura as their authoritative source of theology EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM. They just love to use extra Biblical sources such as the Didache or the Rabbic writings as the Midrash, Mishnah, and Talmud to interpret Scripture. The scary thing here is THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THEY ARE DOING IT!

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The reality is that we do not regard any non-Orthodox baptisms as valid unless one is received into the Orthodox church, however, the manner in which one is received may or may not involve chrismation.

This is nothing less than re-packaged Baptist theology. In baptist theology, baptism is an empty sign signifying nothing. To say as you say, "we do not regard any non-Orthodox baptisms as valid" is to devoid the promises attach to any baptism. With no promises of God in baptism, baptism is "no baptism" and just water like Mormon baptism.

 

[The Liturgist]

This is nothing less than re-packaged Baptist theology. In baptist theology, baptism is an empty sign signifying nothing. To say as you say, "we do not regard any non-Orthodox baptisms as valid" is to devoid the promises attach to any baptism. With no promises of God in baptism, baptism is "no baptism" and just water like Mormon baptism.

What? Our position is literally that of the LCMS, and we predate both the LCMS and the Baptists by many centuries.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The reality is that we do not regard any non-Orthodox baptisms as valid unless one is received into the Orthodox church

Ohps. Sorry. I misread your statement. Two negatives make a positive. "we do not regard," "non orthodox," and "unless" gave me the impression you believed only Orthodox baptisms are valid.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

'Stand up' is too vague to infer where his baptism took place.

Really? Twice, scripture mentions Paul baptized in a standing position in Acts 9:18 and 22:16. Is two passages of Scripture saying the same thing....vague?

Jesus turning water into wine is only mentioned once. Is that also vague?

In your opinion, how many times in Scripture does it take to believe baptism was administrated to Paul in a standing position? 30 times, 300 times, 3,000 times for it not to be vague?

The virgin birth is only written about twice in Scripture (Matthew and Luke). Is that vague also?

 

[The Liturgist]

Ohps. Sorry. I misread your statement. Two negatives make a positive. "we do not regard," "non orthodox," and "unless" gave me the impression you believed only Orthodox baptisms are valid.

Indeed, ordinarily, I would not use multiple negatives, given my disdain for when criminals protest “I ain’t done nothin!”

If I were a police officer, I would then say “Ah, so you confess!”

In the case of theology however, while I do seek to avoid double negatives, a triple negative such as what was employed here seemed the best way to approach the issue in a circumspect manner. Also Orthodox theology tends to be defined using negation, given our preference for the via negativa, that is to say, apophatic theology. Cataphatic theology, that is, theology expressed using positive statements, runs a greater risk of accidental error, and also runs into problems when it comes to the Divine Essence of God, which is incomprehensible and the reality of which is only partially comprehensible by using apophatic theology to exclude, on the basis of scriptural revelation, certain aspects, so that it is not extremely difficult to describe in part what God in His Divine Essence is not, by using those scriptural revelations, which themselves are usually cataphatic, as the basis for apophatic statements that must of course be consistent with all such revelations and understood as part of the entirety of sacred tradition, but that still is dramatically easier than coming up with any new cataphatic statement about God that is not found in scripture. And thus apophatic theology is fundamentally safer when it comes to the Divine Essence.

However, lest you get the wrong impression from the above, there are not a large number of Orthodox Christians who right now are figuring out new negative statements that can be applied to God, rather, apophatic theology is the method traditionally used by most of the Greek and Syrian fathers and their successors in Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Cataphatic theology, that is, theology expressed using positive statements, runs a greater risk of accidental error,

To a certain extent I disagree.

I would say Apophatic Theology has always been part of Christian theology like, for example, Divine Simplicity (God is not composed of parts), God is Uncreated (God doesn't have a Beginning), God's uniqueness (God is not like anything) and many other things. Obviously, you can't have a Christianity composed entirely of Apophatic Theology, that's where God's revelation comes in.

Some of my earliest presuppositions concerning the Christian faith came from Francis A Schaeffer in his famous quotation: There was love and communication before the foundation of the world. This is pure Cataphatic theology. And it answers many of my personal questions. God chooses to reveal Himself primarily though his own revelation and God's grace comes from from the love the Godhead has for each other.

By focusing on what God isn't, some think to gain better knowledge about God. This is sometimes motivated by a mistrust of language or positive human capacity to comprehend God. This, I reject. God has communicated to us positively, catophatically through his Wod, I will always affirm this over Apophaticism. As Jesus said, "He who has seen me has seen the father."

 

[The Liturgist]

By focusing on what God isn't, some think to gain better knowledge about God. This is sometimes motivated by a mistrust of language or positive human capacity to comprehend God. This, I reject. God has communicated to us positively, catophatically through his Wod, I will always affirm this over Apophaticism. As Jesus said, "He who has seen me has seen the father."

Apophatic theology does not negate the revealed and understandable aspects of God. In the Incarnation, God Himself condescended to become a Man, born of a woman, who we could see, understand and react with, and thus have the quality of the Father relayed to us.

Basically, apophatic theology goes back to the Cappadocian concept of the essence/energies distinction, in which the energy of God is easy to understand and is perceptible, while His essence consists of those aspects of God which are beyond human understanding, which Scripture refers to. For example, “God is inscrutable in His ways.” These cataphatic statements in Scripture about God form the basis of apophatic deductions concerning aspects of God which are not explicitly revealed but are rather implied through the multitude of cataphatic theology.

I would note that apophatic theology does appear to significantly reduce the risk of doctrinal error, and in many cases it also represents the best way to express theological truths, even in scenarios where the use or cataphatic theology.. For example, the Son and the Holy Spirit are uncreated, and the Father is unoriginate. This is easier to express apophatically. Then we turn onto the Via Positiva and assert from the Nicene Creed that the Son is begotten of the Father before all ages and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and perhaps the Son, if that is your belief*). Thus we see apophatic and cataphatic theology being used harmoniusly.

*I myself obviously cannot agree with the Filioque but in not quoting it no disrespect is intended towards those who do believe it, and I don’t want to derail this thread into an argument about the filioque. I am sympathetic to the views of many filioque adherents and I have a working theory for ecumenical reconciliation, and I am also not what Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, jokingly referred to Orthodox who are hardliners on the Filioque, a “Filioque Hawk.” I probably am also not a “Filioque Dove” either. Rather I think I am a Filioque penguin.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

These cataphatic statements in Scripture about God form the basis of apophatic deductions concerning aspects of God which are not explicitly revealed but are rather implied through the multitude of cataphatic theology.

Yet it seems 99.95% of your statements to others at CF are cataphatic rather than apopharic. Idealism seems to interplay here.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yet it seems 99.95% of your statements to others at CF are cataphatic rather than apopharic. Idealism seems to interplay here.

That’s because 99.95% of my statements on CF do not pertain to the Divine Essence of God or other topics of higher theology but rather pertain to Christology or Liturgics or Church History or Ecclesiology.

If you take a look at statements of mine relating to the Divine Essence, what I say either quotes the small number of cataphatic statements by various Patristic figures, or are apophatic.

I did try to make it clear in my posts that the specific use of apophatic theology involves discussing the Divine Essence, which is incomprehensible, as opposed to the Divine Energies, which are comprehensible, and also the Incarnation. And what is more, there are a limited range of statements which can be made about God which do not involve apophatic theology, but which are instead direct quotes of Scripture or certain church Fathers. In particular, St. John the Beloved Disciple, St. Gregory Nazianzus, and St. Symeon the New Theologian are venerated in the Orthodox Church as Theologians, that is to say, having direct experiential knowledge of God, and much of what I have to say about the divine essence of a cataphatic nature comes from them (of course all of scripture is authoritative concerning the nature of God, but there is an unusually large amount of this material in the Johannine corpus).

To give you an example of a statement I do frequently make on CF.com when debating with certain members who seem to think God exists in time, I frequently have to express that God exists outside of time, and that God is not bound by time, since space and time were created by God according to John 1:1-3.

Now to unpack that a bit, the only cataphatic statement I am making is one directly derived from the writings of St. John the Theologian, who as I mentioned earlier is a source of much of the cataphatic information about God. Now, John !:1-18 is largely Incarnational and Christological, but verses 1 through 3 pertain to God the Father and God the Son, who, together with God the Holy Spirit, are co-essential (homoousios, as the Creed puts it).

The other statements I am making, which refer to the relationship of God to His creation, which includes all things, and time and space are definitely things, I can’t even express cataphatically. I know of no way of saying, with any accuracy, that God exists outside of time and is unbound by time, that does not involve negation (the statement that God is outside of time might sound cataphatic, but semantically, I would argue that it still represents a negation, and what is more it is essential to point out that God is not constrained by time or space when discussing points such as these, and this important fact I feel can only be reliably expressed apophatically. It would not be entirely correct to say that God transcends time, since as the creator of time, this statement comes across as being a bit backwards; with regards to God’s involvement of Himself in time, I can think of no other way of expressing this than to say that God does not exclude Himself from HIs creation; God is not subject to His creation but He does not deny creation the blessing of His uncreated grace.

So this is an area where you will frequently see me use apophatic forms of expression. For example, any time I argue with the Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgement, my arguments are mostly apophatic: Jesus Chris is God, God is unchanging, God exists outside of time and does not experience the passage of time, God is not even subject to time, because the God the Father, by the uncreated Son and Word of God, created time in addition to space and everything that exits in time and space according to John 1:1-3. And additionally in His divine essence, God is unknowable. Therefore we cannot assert that God requires a period of time that has now extended to ninescore years since God created those years and, being eternal, that is to say, timeless, and not subject to or constrained by the ordinary workings of his creation, is not bound to experience the passage of time in a linear fashion like we are.

I have made this argument a great many time and in all cases I have used at least some apophatic expressions, since the issue deals with God the Son in the context of his deity.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

That’s because 99.95% of my statements on CF do not pertain to the Divine Essence of God or other topics of higher theology but rather pertain to Christology or Liturgics or Church History or Ecclesiology.

If you take a look at statements of mine relating to the Divine Essence, what I say either quotes the small number of cataphatic statements by various Patristic figures, or are apophatic.

I did try to make it clear in my posts that the specific use of apophatic theology involves discussing the Divine Essence, which is incomprehensible, as opposed to the Divine Energies, which are comprehensible, and also the Incarnation. And what is more, there are a limited range of statements which can be made about God which do not involve apophatic theology, but which are instead direct quotes of Scripture or certain church Fathers. In particular, St. John the Beloved Disciple, St. Gregory Nazianzus, and St. Symeon the New Theologian are venerated in the Orthodox Church as Theologians, that is to say, having direct experiential knowledge of God, and much of what I have to say about the divine essence of a cataphatic nature comes from them (of course all of scripture is authoritative concerning the nature of God, but there is an unusually large amount of this material in the Johannine corpus).

To give you an example of a statement I do frequently make on CF.com when debating with certain members who seem to think God exists in time, I frequently have to express that God exists outside of time, and that God is not bound by time, since space and time were created by God according to John 1:1-3.

Now to unpack that a bit, the only cataphatic statement I am making is one directly derived from the writings of St. John the Theologian, who as I mentioned earlier is a source of much of the cataphatic information about God. Now, John !:1-18 is largely Incarnational and Christological, but verses 1 through 3 pertain to God the Father and God the Son, who, together with God the Holy Spirit, are co-essential (homoousios, as the Creed puts it).

The other statements I am making, which refer to the relationship of God to His creation, which includes all things, and time and space are definitely things, I can’t even express cataphatically. I know of no way of saying, with any accuracy, that God exists outside of time and is unbound by time, that does not involve negation (the statement that God is outside of time might sound cataphatic, but semantically, I would argue that it still represents a negation, and what is more it is essential to point out that God is not constrained by time or space when discussing points such as these, and this important fact I feel can only be reliably expressed apophatically. It would not be entirely correct to say that God transcends time, since as the creator of time, this statement comes across as being a bit backwards; with regards to God’s involvement of Himself in time, I can think of no other way of expressing this than to say that God does not exclude Himself from HIs creation; God is not subject to His creation but He does not deny creation the blessing of His uncreated grace.

So this is an area where you will frequently see me use apophatic forms of expression. For example, any time I argue with the Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgement, my arguments are mostly apophatic: Jesus Chris is God, God is unchanging, God exists outside of time and does not experience the passage of time, God is not even subject to time, because the God the Father, by the uncreated Son and Word of God, created time in addition to space and everything that exits in time and space according to John 1:1-3. And additionally in His divine essence, God is unknowable. Therefore we cannot assert that God requires a period of time that has now extended to ninescore years since God created those years and, being eternal, that is to say, timeless, and not subject to or constrained by the ordinary workings of his creation, is not bound to experience the passage of time in a linear fashion like we are.

I have made this argument a great many time and in all cases I have used at least some apophatic expressions, since the issue deals with God the Son in the context of his deity.

Geez, I hit a hot button.

I don't spend 50% of my time defending something I use 0.5% affirming or defending the Christian faith. In my most clearest terms (without denying apophatic theology), the resurrection of Christ is along with the revelation of God's Word is cataphatic theology. This is my homestead and where I live 99.5% time. Life is too short to do otherwise.

 

[The Liturgist]

Geez, I hit a hot button.

No, what you did is touch on subject matter I find intellectually interesting, since I very rarely get a chance to talk about where apophatic theology is particularly useful. I m disappointed however by the fact that you did not intellectually engage with my reply.

In my most clearest terms (without denying apophatic theology), the resurrection of Christ is along with the revelation of God's Word is cataphatic theology.

Of course, since these are the Incarnation and the fruits of the uncreated energies of God, such as divine grace and inspiration, and these are areas where use of the via negativa would be awkward and unnecessary.

At any rate I try to spend most of my time on Christian Forums having interesting conversations about subjects such as the liturgy, but I do find myself having to spend some time defending the traditional churches, including the Confessional Lutheran churches, from absurd attacks mainly from the members of certain restorationist denominations.

 

[The Liturgist]

Geez, I hit a hot button.

I don't spend 50% of my time defending something I use 0.5% affirming or defending the Christian faith. In my most clearest terms (without denying apophatic theology), the resurrection of Christ is along with the revelation of God's Word is cataphatic theology. This is my homestead and where I live 99.5% time. Life is too short to do otherwise.

By the way I want to make it clear I regard you as a friend and I enthusiastically support your work. I am not Lutheran, so I doubt we will agree on everything, but I believe if we evaluate our reflective views we will find we agree on most things, especially our opposition to Zwinglianism, Memorialism and Credobaptism. Speaking of the latter, I mentioned you in a thread on credobaptism I expect you will find interesting.

 

[Jan001]

The only time physical preparation for NT baptism is recorded in Scripture… is of Saul of Tarsus in the house of Judas. The physical preparation for his baptism is recorded in two separate passages of Scripture: Luke writes that Ananais told Paul to “stand up and be baptized” (Acts 22:16), and he “stood up and was baptized” (Acts 9:18). The whole record of the ceremony of Paul’s baptism on his part was just "stand up." All other recorded baptismal ceremonies in the NT are recorded in far simpler fashion.

In both passages of Luke’s writing, the simple command to Paul was to “Stand up and be baptized” is not “Stand up, go elsewhere, and to be dunked.” Modern day immersion-only advocates interpret Luke’s narritive from “stand up and be baptized” to mean “Stand up, go elsewhere and be dunked.” And a "Should'a, Would'a, Could'a" interpretative principle is articulated.

—————————————

• To render baptism by immersion difficult, if not impracticable in many cases.
• Obstacles have to be overcome in order to be baptized by immersion. Finding a suitable water supply, an extra change of clothes, a towel, a place to change, and proper thermal and weather conditions.
• For example, immersion may be nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos. If immersion were the only mode of baptism, many people in the icy regions of the North and deserts like the Sahara where sufficient water could not be secured could not be baptized and Jesus would have commanded an impossibility.
• Some individuals have a natural dread of being submerged (aquaphobia), hence never be baptized.
• What about inmates in prison thorough the centuries?
• Historical female modesty around large crowds of men. Great cultural differences have to be over come for immersion baptism. Immersion baptism has massive societal implications, which in some cases immersion baptism would be abhorrent. We are not talking a one off circumstance…we are talking about entire societies.
• Even today practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden; quadriplegics; individuals with tracheotomies (an opening into the airway in the throat) or in negative pressure ventilators (iron lungs).
• People might have to travel for many miles together for a human body to be immersed in any natural stream or pool of water.
• Again, those who have recently undergone certain procedures (such as open-heart surgery) cannot be immersed.
• Or consider those in a hostile setting, such as a Muslim regime, where baptisms must be done in secret, without adequate water for immersion.
• Modern day immersionists enforce their own cultural standards of clean, warm, portable water of sufficient quantity on the history of the world and expect immersion baptisms as practiced in contemporary America to be the norm. A good college class in Anthropology would hopefully cure them of this American interpretation of the mode of baptism.

_____________________
Did John the Baptist, baptize by immersion? John the Baptist was dressed in a camel hair tunic. And estimates is he baptized between six and thirty months before he beheaded by Herod. Did John baptize by immersion thousands dripping wet for months on end regardless of air temperature?
______________________
Tension must be resolved between the cumbersonness and difficulty of immersion baptism and the simplicity of all the baptismal accounts in the NT.

And why don’t the early church fathers comment on these immersion difficulties and offer pastoral advice on how to solve them?

It is strange that those who make so much of the method of Baptism should make so little of its content.

The Didache, an early Christian writing, explains how baptism was given to converts to Christianity.

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
7:6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able;
7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation J. B. Lightfoot).

Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation J. B. Lightfoot). On Early Christian Writings.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

Whole households were baptized. This would mean children and infants also.

Acts 16:31-34 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.