Anglican but want immersion baptism?

Cappadocious · Oct 13, 2012

Albion said:
However, I'm sure someone else can find and post that particular mural. It's well known and often appears in textbooks.

Is it the one that shows Christ with the waters washing over him, John the Baptist pouring water, and a little mermaid-type figure at the bottom, personifying the Jordan river following the hellenistic motif?

Albion · Oct 13, 2012

Cappadocious said:
Is it the one that shows Christ with the waters washing over him, John the Baptist pouring water, and a little mermaid-type figure at the bottom, personifying the Jordan river following the hellenistic motif?

It might be. I can't be certain from that description, but I do recall that the waters look more like curved lines that can be seen through than actual water.

mark46 · Oct 13, 2012

I was taught that immersion was the norm, and that pouring was used when baptisms needed to be done in secret.

Cappadocious said:
Can you post the picture for us?

Also, the earliest Christian records we have are of immersion baptism as a default. This is not to say it is the only "valid" form, but it is the oldest traditional form. It is more likely that Christ's baptism was an immersion baptism than otherwise, and I don't think there is any scholar who would argue that aspersion was more likely.

Cappadocious · Oct 14, 2012

mark1 said:
I was taught that immersion was the norm, and that pouring was used when baptisms needed to be done in secret.

The thing is, it is generally assumed that the earliest baptisms were by immersion typically. Didache being an obvious source, and the fact that St. Paul associates baptism with being covered/buried like Christ in the tomb, and other things. This contains no associated claim that a baptism is "invalid" if it is performed with aspersion, or anything like that.

Our friend Albion must've encountered something that would make him convinced of the contrary. Is it the murals showing St. John pouring, or is this the opinion of a popular theologian or some such?

I ask because I've never really encountered it before.

I'll also note that immersion baptisms can, and have, involved pouring as well, to insure that the entire body is covered. I've witnessed one of these before in a Greek Orthodox church.

Cappadocious · Oct 14, 2012

Albion said:
It might be. I can't be certain from that description, but I do recall that the waters look more like curved lines that can be seen through than actual water.

Here is a catacomb painting from the 3rd century in the San Callisto catacomb.

Is this it?

Here is another, not sure about the date:

This is from the "Arian Baptisty" in Ravenna, showing the personification of the river Jordan as a satyr-like creature:

Albion · Oct 14, 2012

I'm sorry to say that neither of those is the one I was referring to.

And now that my interest has been renewed, I guess I'll have to go on a hunt here and see if I can find the one that I was thinking of.

MKJ · Oct 14, 2012

What about this:

Albion · Oct 14, 2012

Not one of those scenes suggests that the prevailing view in the Christian community was that Christ was baptised by immersion, does it?

MKJ · Oct 14, 2012

Albion said:
Not one of those scenes suggests that the prevailing view in the Christian community was that Christ was baptised by immersion, does it?

Well, I wouldn't say it was indicative either way, necessarily. He's standing in water (in the ones where it is visible) and he is having it poured on his head in some (but not all). In the fisrt one in particular it could be after he was totally immersed.

If someone asked me if any of them were an immersion, I'd have said yes, they all are - he's in the water though he may or may not have been dunked totally, but he's in.

It doesn't really look like a sprinkling in a font which I would say is the other possibility. And in immersion baptisms it is common to see pouring as well.

If someone defines immersion as dunking only, I guess that would mean it isn't immersion. But I'm not sure anyone but Baptists and similar groups would say that.

From a historical context, I don't think the Baptist type position is important. Clearly it is important to an individual who is coming from that tradition and is worried about his baptism with pouring or sprinkling to being valid, but I think that is a modern issue.

I'd say the dominant pattern historically (at least in pictures) was immersion which may not necessarily mean being totally dunked, as opposed to being sprinkled.

Cappadocious · Oct 14, 2012

Christ is shown out of the water in these motifs because people wanted to throw the Holy Spirit dove in there, and it came down when Christ was coming out of the waters.

Thus, they don't indicate dunking vs. pouring with partial immersion. But St. John the Baptist isn't holding a cup in any of them.

Albion · Oct 14, 2012

Cappadocious said:
Christ is shown out of the water in these motifs because people wanted to throw the Holy Spirit dove in there, and it came down when Christ was coming out of the waters.

Nice try, but I hardly think that's the explanation. For one thing, it would not be difficult to show the HS, whether Christ were shown standing or in an alternate pose suggesting that he'd just been submerged. For another, Christ is shown in all these scenes standing motionless during the baptism, not as though he were emerging from under the waves, or moving from somewhere to somewhere else, and certainly NOT as if this were AFTER the application of the water.

But St. John the Baptist isn't holding a cup in any of them.

I've witnessed plenty of baptisms by affusion in which the priest used his hand instead of any object.

Cappadocious · Oct 15, 2012

Albion said:
Nice try, but I hardly think that's the explanation. For one thing, it would not be difficult to show the HS

But it would be inaccurate, as the HS did not descend until Christ was coming up out of the water.

Albion said:
For another, Christ is shown in all these scenes standing motionless during the baptism

Hellenistic art tends to show the subject in that sort of motionless way. A similar example would be coins with Alexander the Great (or one of his generals) being given a crown by an angelic nymph. Actually, that motif was probably an inspiration for depicting the baptism scene in that manner.

Depicting Christ in this manner is still common in the Orthodox Church. The implication is not that Christ was not submerged; it's simply more sensible to depict and can properly involve the Holy Spirit this way, thus giving all the components of the Epiphany/Theophany.

Albion said:
I've witnessed plenty of baptisms by affusion in which the priest used his hand instead of any object.

And as I said, I've witnessed baptisms by immersion in which the priest used a cup as an aid.

Once again, I believe baptisms by aspersion are valid. And I do believe they caught on very early in the Western Church.

But I do not believe the original practice was aspersion or affusion, nor do I see evidence of this being the case with Christ.

seekingsister · Oct 15, 2012

Wow this has become a great discussion! Thanks for your comments everyone.

Having done some more research myself my view is now:

1) The mode of baptism is not that important but early Church history points to immersion or pouring as the common methods of the time

2) Believer's baptism is the more Scriptural and historical choice over pedobaptism. The Didache gives instructions that those to be baptized should fast - how would an infant do that? And as for baptized households, many households (including mine) have no infants.

Albion · Oct 15, 2012

seekingsister said:
Wow this has become a great discussion! Thanks for your comments everyone.

Having done some more research myself my view is now:

1) The mode of baptism is not that important but early Church history points to immersion or pouring as the common methods of the time

There you go! No need for anyone to complicate the issue.

2) Believer's baptism is the more Scriptural and historical choice over pedobaptism

But that's not true. A careful and extensive study of this matter will show that the respective claims are about 50-50. And I say that, although I'd like be able to argue that the evidence proves pedobaptism to be the true and right way.

seekingsister · Oct 15, 2012

Albion said:
But that's not true. A careful and extensive study of this matter will show that the respective claims are about 50-50. And I say that, although I'd like be able to argue that the evidence proves pedobaptism to be the true and right way.

I also have not seen anything suggesting that household baptisms were done other than at a time when the adults of the household were converted as believers. That is, the jailer etc became Christians and they and their entire families were baptized at the same time. So it is still a believer's baptism done at the same time as baptism of those perhaps too young to make the oaths for themselves. But there is no suggestion anywhere in the Bible or in the earliest sources (Didache) that infant baptism unaccompanied by believer's baptism of a parent/guardian existed in the early church.

Albion · Oct 15, 2012

seekingsister said:
I also have not seen anything suggesting that household baptisms were done other than at a time when the adults of the household were converted as believers

'
As I see it, you are assuming what you want to assume there about households being baptised. In any case, and as I said before, the research shows that there is approximately equal evidence for each of the two sides in this. I am comfortable with the traditional policy of baptising infants because of the symbolism involved and the fact that this is the historic way of the church. At the same time, I do recognize that the evidence is as strong--but not stronger--for the other view. That's just the way it is when all the individual hunches, preferences, and denominational bias is stripped away from the discussion.

But there is no suggestion anywhere in the Bible or in the earliest sources (Didache) that infant baptism unaccompanied by believer's baptism of a parent/guardian existed in the early church.

That "suggestion" has already been presented on this very thread, so to say that there isn't any causes me to think that you will believe what you want to believe about this, come what may. At any rate, the Anglican policy is and always has been to baptise infants and young children, so that's the end of this discussion on this forum as far as I'm concerned.

seekingsister · Oct 15, 2012

Unfortunately Albion you are wrong about Anglican policy.

I can't post links but boths of these are from the Church of England website.

Q. What is the right age for baptism?
A. Baptism can happen at any age. What matters is that those concerned are committed to bring up a child as a Christian.
Teenagers and adults may also be baptized. This is celebrated with confirmation by the Bishop. You can only be baptised once, but there are ways of renewing your Christian commitment publicly as an adult - your priest will be able to advise you.

The Thanksgiving Service - "Thanksgiving for the Gift of a Child"

It is designed to meet the needs of:
-parents who see this as a preliminary to Baptism;
-parents who do not wish their children to be baptized immediately;
-others, who do not ask for Baptism, but who recognize that something has happened for which they wish to give thanks to God.

ETA: I am OK with children old enough to speak for themselves getting baptized.

Albion · Oct 15, 2012

seekingsister said:
Unfortunately Albion you are wrong about Anglican policy.

No, I'm not. Anglicans baptise infants.

I can't post links but boths of these are from the Church of England website.

Q. What is the right age for baptism?
A. Baptism can happen at any age. What matters is that those concerned are committed to bring up a child as a Christian.
Teenagers and adults may also be baptized. This is celebrated with confirmation by the Bishop. You can only be baptised once, but there are ways of renewing your Christian commitment publicly as an adult - your priest will be able to advise you.

The Thanksgiving Service - "Thanksgiving for the Gift of a Child"

It is designed to meet the needs of:
-parents who see this as a preliminary to Baptism;
-parents who do not wish their children to be baptized immediately;
-others, who do not ask for Baptism, but who recognize that something has happened for which they wish to give thanks to God.

Apparently you've misunderstood the contents of the above. It does not say that we don't baptise infants. All it says is that those who HAVE NOT BEEN BAPTISED AS AN INFANT OR YOUNG CHILD, may of course be baptised later. Also that parents may dedicate their infants PRIOR TO BAPTISM if they choose.

Nowhere in that passage does it say that Anglicans do not baptise infants. As we all know, it is the usual procedure in our churches.

seekingsister · Oct 15, 2012

You said, "At any rate, the Anglican policy is and always has been to baptise infants and young children."

That's not the policy though. The policy is that children of believers may be baptized at any age. Here is my church's explanation of it:

"We baptise children of believing parents, and we give thanks for the birth of children who we may later baptise as believers. We offer this mixed economy for a number of different reasons.

Firstly, we recognise that there are a diversity of views and opinions about baptism in the church. The Church of England offers a variety of services that ensures, whatever your tradition or conviction, there is a service to suit everyone.

Secondly, each expression has a different emphasis, both of which are important.

The baptism of children emphasises the gracious initiative of God as he welcomes us into the church. Both this divine initiative and our initiation into the church are key elements of what baptism means.

The Thanksgiving of Children followed by their baptism as believers, on the other hand, emphasises the importance of our response of faith to this gracious call of God.

We practice a mixed economy that we believe gives a good balance between God’s grace and call, and our response and faith."

Albion · Oct 15, 2012

I said that we baptise infants, and we do. You had said, "But there is no suggestion anywhere in the Bible or in the earliest sources (Didache) that infant baptism unaccompanied by believer's baptism of a parent/guardian existed in the early church."

THAT is a rejection of infant baptism. We Anglicans do not reject infant baptism. What you wrote is NOT a plea for allowing adults to be baptised as well as infants.

Anglican but want immersion baptism?

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Contributor

Facilitator

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Facilitator

Newbie

Facilitator

Newbie

Facilitator

Newbie

Facilitator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency