A different Baptism Consideration

[PaleHorse]

Hello all,
Here is something that has weighed on my mind ever since I accepted Christ; it has to do with the baptism.

We all know what baptism is symbolic of, being buried in Christ and resurrected, this is why we practice baptism by immersion. I am secure in this symbology and I don't question it.

My question however revolves around the biblical examples we have; namely that all of them (as well as I can tell) were not only by immersion but also done in "living" water. For instance, Christ was baptized in a river and He is our example. While I understand that many have been baptized in moving water (such as rivers) I was baptized in a pool.

I recently took this question to those that might have a better understanding of what the Hebrew idiom "living water" means - the Messianc Jews here at CF. Here is the answer I recieved - and it surprized me (if you want to see the entire thread click here):

Baptism or Mikvah was/is traditionally done in mayim hayim (living water) which would mean moving water or as some rabbis have described it - a place where fish live naturally (not an aquarium). It also involves full immersion. However, unlike the tradional protestant baptism with the pastor being in the pool holding his hand over the canidates head, there are witness(es) that stand on the bank/shore. Partially to be a witness and partially to make sure there is full immersion.

And from one of their pastors:

Just to chime in a bit as a pastor of a messianic congregation

I absolutely agree that the baptism or Mikvah must be done in living or open water (running) And though I will be in the water with the person being baptized it is so that the confession of faith might be heard and also for some obvious safety reasons (We typically baptize in the Deleware river and it can be pretty fast moving)

Our congregation holds to this being a lasting ordinance of the faith from the begining. I think that the difference between how Messianics view Baptism and how the western church see's it is that the western church sees Baptism as a soley "New Testement" event or ordinance. The messianic see's it as something that that was given to the people from a very early time for the submission to G-d and obedience to him.

So, bearing this in mind (and recalling that the NT says that the children of Israel were baptized in the Red Sea during the Exodus) should we make not only immersion a stipulation of our baptisms but also include the "living water" aspect - which would mean that baptisms should be done in water that is able to support life (fish) such as a river?

Thoughts? Opinions?

 

[HoneyDew]

Had never thought about it like that -- I thought all we had to do was make sure immersion took place, but I like the idea of living water. The chlorine in the church pool was enough to kill a whale when I got baptized, and I suspect it killed a lot of germs that might otherwise been passed around. Cough, cough nervous bladders.
So, say we adopt that principle: what about those in urban areas that don't have a quick source of living water? What could be done? I know some churches that baptize in the sea and some that use the baptismal pool. I also know that some people are too lazy to bestir themselves to go to the sea for witnessing baptism, since it means leaving the cozy church bench -- especially in dead winter.

 

[moicherie]

Interesting concept it will definitely reduce our current membership from 12 million since I assume a good number of us were baptised in a swimming pool or baptistry.

 

[PaleHorse]

Haha - well, I'm sure not looking to reduce our congregations.

And I do see the point about those that live in urban areas who don't have a ready source of living water nearby. But we've also seen the example in the scriptures where they would travel in order find ample/suitable water...in our age of increased transportation I can see where this would be remedied but it would take extra effort.

Basically, I just wondering if there is an aspect of baptism that we may have been overlooking. I need to investigate this more deeply.

 

[Seraph1m]

LOL, isn't this line of thinking a bit um, "progressive"?

Is that you under there Stormy? HEHEHE, I crack myself up.

 

[PaleHorse]

LOL, isn't this line of thinking a bit um, "progressive"?

Is that you under there Stormy? HEHEHE, I crack myself up.

Hahaha!

 

[Seraph1m]

Seriously though, does scripture support your progression of thought?

Jer 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, [and] hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

Here GOD is refering to Himself as "me" the fountain of "living waters"

and here:

Jhn 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.


Jhn 4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?


Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Jer 17:13 O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, [and] they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.

 

[SassySDA]

Haha - well, I'm sure not looking to reduce our congregations.

And I do see the point about those that live in urban areas who don't have a ready source of living water nearby. But we've also seen the example in the scriptures where they would travel in order find ample/suitable water...in our age of increased transportation I can see where this would be remedied but it would take extra effort.

Basically, I just wondering if there is an aspect of baptism that we may have been overlooking. I need to investigate this more deeply.

There's really no need for you to investigate this more thoroughly, because you have already discovered what you are looking for.

We should all have been baptized in "living water". When I joined this church, I was re-baptized because the first time I was merely sprinkled, and I do mean sprinkled, there was no pouring of water on my head. I knew the correct form of baptism, I was raised Old Primitive Baptist, and if there is one thing they did do CORRECTLY, it was baptisms. We had plenty of creeks and rivers to choose from in those days, and being that we were in the mountains of Virginia, the water was crisp, clear, clean (no factory's, no pollution), and ALWAYS cold. When someone was "called of the Lord to be baptized" it was done immediately...no matter what time of the year. I specifically remember my Aunt being baptized in the dead of winter, February to be exact. I remember the ice being cracked so the preacher could get her out deep enough to immerse her. I remember that she wore a simple dress, no coat, robe, etc. I remember the preacher being in his dress shirt and tie, no suit jacket. I remember snowflakes gently falling on the crowd that had gathered to witness her baptism. Not one person became sick from being out in those elements. Not anyone watching, and not the preacher or my Aunt.

I was still baptized incorrectly, because I allowed myself to be baptized in the baptistry instead of, like my daughter, doing it biblically and asking for an outdoor baptism. We offer both at our church. I was baptized in April, she was baptized in July.

I chose comfort instead of biblical truth and following scripture. I have actually been considering asking the pastor to take me where he did my daughter's, and with little fanfare, do it again. My church goes ALL OUT for baptisms. Huge dinners, gifts, cake...it's a huge joyous occasion. One I have already experienced. I don't wish all of that, I am just wanting to be baptized in "living water".

As for my daughter..."bring them up in the way that they should go..." she wouldn't be baptized any other way. She put me to shame.

In Jesus' day, as you noted PaleHorse, they traveled, sometimes great distances to reach "living water" for baptism. If "pouring", "sprinkling", or prepared pools of water would suffice, do we really believe they would have gone to the lengths they did to be baptized in "living water"? I, personally don't. It still amazes me where the catholics came up with "pouring". Every time I see a picture of Jesus with that orange ball of glowing light behind his head having water poured on Him I simply shake my head in amazement.

If one absolutely has no access to "living water", then I would agree that baptism by complete immersion would suffice. But if they have access, I wouldn't do it any other way.

My pastor's going to have a canary when he hears that I want him to re-baptize me in "living water"...I can see his face now, lol.

 

[Seraph1m]

Let us not put the cart before the horse shall we. Seeing that baptism in living water/flowing water, in the sense that has been suggested above, is not a part of our 28 beliefs.

One must realize that, Hebrew tradition aside, suggesting, promoting or adding such a change in church doctrine or belief, on no more than this current line of thought, as well intended as it might be would not be prudent.

 

[Princessdi]

Ok folks, let' just not go off the deep end, so to speak. There is supposed to be freedom in Jesus Christ, not a new rule everytime we look around.

Besides the water being symbolic of God's cleansing power, and I am truly not understanding the improtance whether the water is moving, filled with fish(algee, seaweed, etc.) or not. In fact, we know that the whole ritual is symbolic of our sinful selves dying and being resurrected to the newness of life, through the cleansing Power of Jesus. Again, it is about starting a relationship with God, and that which is in our hearts.

On the practical side, there are places, even in this great country of ours, that are totally land locked, desert and not near any kind of "living water". Where are they supposed ti find "living water"? I think it is supposed to be a lot less complicated that this. BTJM

There's really no need for you to investigate this more thoroughly, because you have already discovered what you are looking for.

We should all have been baptized in "living water". When I joined this church, I was re-baptized because the first time I was merely sprinkled, and I do mean sprinkled, there was no pouring of water on my head. I knew the correct form of baptism, I was raised Old Primitive Baptist, and if there is one thing they did do CORRECTLY, it was baptisms. We had plenty of creeks and rivers to choose from in those days, and being that we were in the mountains of Virginia, the water was crisp, clear, clean (no factory's, no pollution), and ALWAYS cold. When someone was "called of the Lord to be baptized" it was done immediately...no matter what time of the year. I specifically remember my Aunt being baptized in the dead of winter, February to be exact. I remember the ice being cracked so the preacher could get her out deep enough to immerse her. I remember that she wore a simple dress, no coat, robe, etc. I remember the preacher being in his dress shirt and tie, no suit jacket. I remember snowflakes gently falling on the crowd that had gathered to witness her baptism. Not one person became sick from being out in those elements. Not anyone watching, and not the preacher or my Aunt.

I was still baptized incorrectly, because I allowed myself to be baptized in the baptistry instead of, like my daughter, doing it biblically and asking for an outdoor baptism. We offer both at our church. I was baptized in April, she was baptized in July.

I chose comfort instead of biblical truth and following scripture. I have actually been considering asking the pastor to take me where he did my daughter's, and with little fanfare, do it again. My church goes ALL OUT for baptisms. Huge dinners, gifts, cake...it's a huge joyous occasion. One I have already experienced. I don't wish all of that, I am just wanting to be baptized in "living water".

As for my daughter..."bring them up in the way that they should go..." she wouldn't be baptized any other way. She put me to shame.

In Jesus' day, as you noted PaleHorse, they traveled, sometimes great distances to reach "living water" for baptism. If "pouring", "sprinkling", or prepared pools of water would suffice, do we really believe they would have gone to the lengths they did to be baptized in "living water"? I, personally don't. It still amazes me where the catholics came up with "pouring". Every time I see a picture of Jesus with that orange ball of glowing light behind his head having water poured on Him I simply shake my head in amazement.

If one absolutely has no access to "living water", then I would agree that baptism by complete immersion would suffice. But if they have access, I wouldn't do it any other way.

My pastor's going to have a canary when he hears that I want him to re-baptize me in "living water"...I can see his face now, lol.

 

[SassySDA]

Let us not put the cart before the horse shall we. Seeing that baptism in living water/flowing water, in the sense that has been suggested above, is not a part of our 28 beliefs.

One must realize that, Hebrew tradition aside, suggesting, promoting or adding such a change in church doctrine or belief, on no more than this current line of thought, as well intended as it might be would not be prudent.

As far as promoting or adding to the churches doctrine or belief, YOU are putting the cart before the horse, not me. I never said anything even remotely close to that.

However, that being said, we truly are to be baptized in "living waters", and that doesn't mean Jesus either. If it did, water wouldn't have a thing to do with baptism, we wouldn't need to be immersed, or baptized at all.

As I stated, my church offers both the baptistry AND outdoor, in living water baptism. I chose wrong, it has nothing to do with the church.

I can't say, with any certainty of course, that to be baptized indoors in the baptistry or in a pool, is going to have a thing to do with one's salvation.

But for me, personally, I should have had it done outdoors, because I knew what was the correct way and what wasn't.

Giving it time, that's what I'm doing. I was surprised to see this thread started, because it is something that I have been mulling over for some time now.

I do not wish to add to or change the church doctrine, LOL, Lord knows that's not something I would want to even contemplate doing. I didn't even think of that, as my church offers both ways, and leaves it up to the individual to choose, I never gave the doctrine, regarding this a thought.

 

[TrustAndObey]

LOL, isn't this line of thinking a bit um, "progressive"?

Is that you under there Stormy? HEHEHE, I crack myself up.

I got your crack up right here...I'll crack you upside the.....hehe, just kidding.

While I totally see PaleHorse's point of view on this, I also see the restrictions this would cause for people not anywhere near living water. And if there were a drought that would narrow the suitable spots down even more in most places.

All I can say for sure is that I "felt" my baptism. I felt every bit of what it was symbolizing and took the commitment very seriously....but if a revelation hit me that I needed to do it again, this time in living water, I sure would. Maybe this time I could do it without the 104.4 temperature I had the day I got baptized!! :o

A very dear friend of mine had decided she didn't want to join an "organized religion" and I panicked when I heard that because I thought "oh no, she won't get baptized!" I threatened her with having a pastor in her area come to her house and do it her bathtub. Again, I do agree with PaleHorse, but then again I think my friend could've been buried with Christ in her home just as easily as doing it in her church.

I dunno, this is a good subject and one that I'll pray about.

 

[Seraph1m]

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks... Lk 6

 

[PaleHorse]

Seriously though, does scripture support your progression of thought?

Jer 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, [and] hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

Here GOD is refering to Himself as "me" the fountain of "living waters"

and here:

Jhn 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.


Jhn 4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?


Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Jer 17:13 O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, [and] they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.

I must admit that I also haven't found a verse about baptism that states it must be done in "living" water. And as you've shown in the above verses, the phrase seems to be used in reference to Christ; so your point is well taken.
In fact, for Christ to make the above references almost seems like (just as He did at the Feast of Tabernacles to proclaim the He was the light of the world) maybe He was putting an end to that Jewish tradition too? The perplexing part though is that He was indeed baptised in the river Jordan - and just like most things associated with His doings, there might be deep symbolic reasons associated with the method He chose on top of the very act of being baptised.
That said, it does seem that the thrust of the scriptures indicate that flowing water/living water is not a necessity. It could very well be that at the time of Christ pools weren't readily available. This would also hold true for the early years of our country. So baptising via a river or the sea is likely a tradition that many denominations adhere to; and they wouldn't be wrong for doing so since Christ (our example) also employed this method.

Thanks for the inputs guys and gals, what you've posted has given me food for thought.

 

[awesumtenor]

A
But for me, personally, I should have had it done outdoors, because I knew what was the correct way and what wasn't.

So are you saying that the church's current doctrine of and teaching on baptism is incorrect because it does not mandate baptism in 'living waters'?

In His service,
Mr. J

 

[HoneyDew]

I must admit that I also haven't found a verse about baptism that states it must be done in "living" water. And as you've shown in the above verses, the phrase seems to be used in reference to Christ; so your point is well taken.
In fact, for Christ to make the above references almost seems like (just as He did at the Feast of Tabernacles to proclaim the He was the light of the world) maybe He was putting an end to that Jewish tradition too? The perplexing part though is that He was indeed baptised in the river Jordan - and just like most things associated with His doings, there might be deep symbolic reasons associated with the method He chose on top of the very act of being baptised.
That said, it does seem that the thrust of the scriptures indicate that flowing water/living water is not a necessity. It could very well be that at the time of Christ pools weren't readily available. This would also hold true for the early years of our country. So baptising via a river or the sea is likely a tradition that many denominations adhere to; and they wouldn't be wrong for doing so since Christ (our example) also employed this method.

Thanks for the inputs guys and gals, what you've posted has given me food for thought.

Me too. Even though I hadn't thought about the living water thing until you brought it up, searching the passages led me to the same conclusion as you did.

 

[Seraph1m]

John the baptist baptized Jesus. Is there some indication, from scripture, that the water Jesus was baptized in was moving or not? Did Jesus baptize anyone? And what of being baptized in the Holy Spirit?

 

[awesumtenor]

John the baptist baptized Jesus. Is there some indication, from scripture, that the water Jesus was baptized in was moving or not? Did Jesus baptize anyone? And what of being baptized in the Holy Spirit?

Yes; Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan. The ethiopian eunuch, however, in Acts 8 was baptized in a roadside cistern; the Philippian jailer and his family in Acts 16 also were probably baptized in something similar, seeing that they were baptized in the middle of the night... of course there is no biblical evidence that the 12 disciples, with the exception of Andrew, who had been a follower of John the Baptist (see John chapter 1), were ever baptized at all; only that they baptized others (John chapter 3, chapter 4).

In His service,
Mr. J

 

[reddogs]

It is the heart and mind that need to be reborn, being immersed in the water is just a symbol so that all can see our declaration. That is why infant baptism or spinkling on infants is not correct as they cant make a real decision for themselves so they can be reborn, and the sprinkling is from ancient eastern religions if my memory serves me right, I have to look it up.....