should baptism be by immersion only?

[PaladinValer]

immersion only....

you call it legalism...I call it reverence of God.

It is legalism because of the Didache.

Out with legalism; in with Christ!

 

[ThomasDa]

Anyone who loves God, obeys God.
Obeying our Lord (i.e. Master) is not legalism. It is only doing what is excepted. It is only the bare minimum. God requires more than the bare minimum.

 

[PaladinValer]

Anyone who loves God, obeys God.
Obeying our Lord (i.e. Master) is not legalism. It is only doing what is excepted. It is only the bare minimum. God requires more than the bare minimum.

The Didache shows that God thinks immersion-only is wrong.

I'll go with God.

 

[OpenDoor]

That's like saying should baptism be by baptism.
Of course baptism should be by baptism.

do you consider submersion baptism? or only immersion?

 

[ThomasDa]

The Didache shows that God thinks immersion-only is wrong.

I'll go with God.

Well, make up your mind, you can't do both.

Didache? You make my sides ache. LOL

 

[PT Calvinist]

Didache

What is this heresy?

it isn't God inspired is it?

Did you forget that when we go into the water it is symobolic with dying with Christ. Did you also forget that when we rise up out of immersion it is symoblic as being born-again.

I haven't read anywhere in the Word of God (WHICH IS WHAT I GO BY!!!) where they are anything other than immersed....

Ignorant people Tick me off...(I didn't say any names. Just Stating.)

 

[PT Calvinist]

shows that God thinks immersion-only is wrong.

OMGOODNESS!!!

I am behind reproof already.....!!!

If you are this guilable than I understand now why you are advanced in the Theological area. We are given only barely any details of God in the Word of God.

So how then can there come a excerpt that can tell you how God feel's toward particular issues.

 

[Albion]

immersion only....

you call it legalism...I call it reverence of God.

Except that NOWHERE in the New Testament is a baptism by immersion described or commanded. Having followed the posts in this thread, I can't find a single BIBLICAL argument that supports 'immersion only.' Jesus doesn't seem to have been baptised in this way, the word itself doesn't necessarily mean immersion despite what its fans like to say, and apparently no one thought of the idea of 'immerson only' in the whole history of Christianity until recent centuries, even though we're all working from the same Bible translations. You can call it reverence of God and I won't dispute that since reverence is expressed in many ways and it's been noted that immersion has good symbolism, but to make it a required form of baptism...no, that is a manmade idea.

 

[Saera]

that's where reverence of God in the keeping of ordinances comes in.

 

[Albion]

that's where reverence of God in the keeping of ordinances comes in.

But no one has been advocating irreverence in the matter of keeping God's ordinances. For that matter, no one on this thread has been advocating not keeping God's ordinances.

The issue if focused soley upon those who want to make a requirement of one mode of baptism only, and one that is never described in scripture or recommended to us in God's word. I have a hard time considering the adding of stipulations to God's ordinance as some kind of a show of reverence.

 

[ThomasDa]

do you consider submersion baptism? or only immersion?

I know that you are kidding, but for the poor soul that might not.....

From Merriam-Webster's Online Search:

im·mer·sion:
Pronunciation: \i-ˈmər-zhən, -shən\ Function: noun Date: 15th century: the act of immersing or the state of being immersed: as a: baptism by complete submersion of the person in water

sub·merge:
Pronunciation: \səb-ˈmərj\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): sub·merged; sub·merg·ing Etymology: Latin submergere, from sub- + mergere to plunge — more at merge Date: 1606 transitive verb 1 : to put under water 2 : to cover or overflow with water

 

[ThomasDa]

But no one has been advocating irreverence in the matter of keeping God's ordinances. For that matter, no one on this thread has been advocating not keeping God's ordinances.

The issue if focused soley upon those who want to make a requirement of one mode of baptism only, and one that is never described in scripture or recommended to us in God's word. I have a hard time considering the adding of stipulations to God's ordinance as some kind of a show of reverence.

By definition there can not be "different modes" of baptism.
It is what it is.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Yes it is. You have shown that you will use any source to claim anything whether biblical or not. Most offten not.

Not true.

I have ALWAYS used The Orthodox Church as my source.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

What is this heresy?

it isn't God inspired is it?

Did you forget that when we go into the water it is symobolic with dying with Christ. Did you also forget that when we rise up out of immersion it is symoblic as being born-again.

I haven't read anywhere in the Word of God (WHICH IS WHAT I GO BY!!!) where they are anything other than immersed....

Ignorant people Tick me off...(I didn't say any names. Just Stating.)

Your ignorance is showing.

The Didache was written by the Apostles and is the result of the council in ACTS 15.

So you tell me... is it God inspired? Why not? Because you've never heard of it before?

Forgive me...

 

[Albion]

By definition there can not be "different modes" of baptism.
It is what it is.

Completely wrong.

We have already had the definition presented here on this thread by an immersionist, and it did not support your POV. The word means any of a number of closely-related ideas. You merely want to make one of them the only permissible one.

What that means, in short, is that although there ARE different modes of Baptism, you have decided not to allow it. That is your problem. It is not the definition of the word, and, as has already been noted, there is no command in scripture to baptise by immersion or any example there of it. "Immersion ONLY" is a purely a manmade addition.

 

[PaladinValer]

Well, make up your mind, you can't do both.

Didache? You make my sides ache. LOL

I can do both because the Didache is an orthodox work, arguably written by the Apostles and if not by them, probably then by their own disciples in the late 1st century/early 2nd.

What is this heresy?

You fling a lot of words in a great deal of your posts.

What is so "heretical" about the Didache?

it isn't God inspired is it?

It is orthodox and Apostolic. In those terms, then yes, it is inspired.

Did you forget that when we go into the water it is symobolic with dying with Christ. Did you also forget that when we rise up out of immersion it is symoblic as being born-again.

Perhaps you didn't read my posts in this thread. Go back and try to say that again to me.

I haven't read anywhere in the Word of God (WHICH IS WHAT I GO BY!!!) where they are anything other than immersed....

1. Jesus cannot be read. Jesus, not the Bible, is the Word of God. The Bible contains God's words and is sacred, holy revelation. However, that Revelation proclaims Christ, not itself, to be the Word of God.
2. Situation: a person wishes to be baptized. There are no rivers or large bodies of water for miles. How is that person to be baptized?

I'll say it again, this time a little stronger: Out with man-made legalism; in with God's Infinite Mercy.

Ignorant people Tick me off...(I didn't say any names. Just Stating.)

I'd say something very, very obvious, but those who are truly not ignorant will already know what I'd say, so the meaning to say it, beyond rule-breaking, is moot.

OMGOODNESS!!!

I am behind reproof already.....!!!

If you are this guilable than I understand now why you are advanced in the Theological area. We are given only barely any details of God in the Word of God.

Gullible?

With all due respect sir, I've done specific research for more than 10 years, about half of it professionally and post-professionally, in historical research of the Christian religion. I know what was believed by who and when and why.

Would you like me to give you an exhaustive history? I'm quite capable of boring you right to tears and I've done so quite literally to others who have dared to call me "gullible."

I suggest you first LEARN and only THEN respond.

Your ignorance is showing.

The Didache was written by the Apostles and is the result of the council in ACTS 15.

So you tell me... is it God inspired? Why not? Because you've never heard of it before?

Forgive me...

I suspect what I've bolded to be true.

 

[BreadAlone]

Sorry, I hate budding into long Threads, but had to comment at the OP:

I don't know if this ever came up on CF but
should baptism be by immersion only?

LOL you better believe it's been discussed (to death) on CF.

Carry on with your endless debate.

 

[ThomasDa]

Not true.

I have ALWAYS used The Orthodox Church as my source.

Forgive me...

Exactly...therein lies your problem, relying on men rather than God. Lean not to your own understanding or that of men.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Exactly...therein lies your problem, relying on men rather than God. Lean not to your own understanding or that of men.

Quote it correctly please, if your going to do so.

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

You do not recognize that we are obeying scripture. Therein lies your problem:

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Forgive me...

 

[Albion]

However, you don't say that baptism minus immersion is necessarily and always invalid and not a baptism at all, while that's what he's convinced himself is the case, thanks to his determination to misinterpret the meaning of the word.