Baptism without immersion, should I go ahead?

[frater_domus]

Having finally overcome my reservations about church communities, I found my desire to be baptized. This usually includes a few weeks of studying things about bible and church, which I do not understand, but it isn't bothering me. What bothers me is that they practice baptism without immersion, something I just found out. I am not sure how I feel. Maybe it is because most things I know I learned from Baptists or because the word 'baptizo' means 'immerse' or because the bible only ever mentions places with sufficient water as places of baptism, either way, it bothers me and I am not sure how to react. I feel bad going to them and suddenly call it off, but I am not sure how to feel about baptism without immersion. I know that it isn't technically in the bible, but it is what I was looking forward to and what I imagined.

Any thoughts on how to handle it?

 

[Invalidusername]

I don't think baptism without immersion is how God wants you to do it. Don't feel sorry about calling it off if you feel that this is not the right way to be baptized. Baptism is supposed to represent dying to the world and rising to a new life. Being baptized in the water is very symbolic and I don't think you should do it the wrong way. This is YOUR baptism not your church's. This is to represent YOUR spiritual commitment to the Lord. You do not do it for the church, you do it for yourself and to represent your spiritual faith.

 

[Dave-W]

The important thing is that it be done in faith. If you have reservations, that is not faith. Don't do it. The lack of faith will invalidate it.

 

[frater_domus]

@Invalidusername Technically, it isn't my church. It is a local church I approached because of my desire. I will be moving away in two or three months. There is an International Baptist Church where I will be moving. They do it, for lack of a better word, properly.

@Dave-W Not all doubts are legitimate doubts though. It may as well be just a personal preference, one that would not interfere with anything. This is why I started this discussion, to put a voice (text, rather) to my concerns and find out whether they are legitimate or merely a product of my expectations without further relevancy.

 

[mark kennedy]

It really depends on what kind of a fellowship you intend to be baptized by. Orthodox and Catholics sprinkle but most Protestants immerse.

 

[Albion]

Maybe it is because most things I know I learned from Baptists or because the word 'baptizo' means 'immerse' or because the bible only ever mentions places with sufficient water as places of baptism, either way, it bothers me and I am not sure how to react. I feel bad going to them and suddenly call it off, but I am not sure how to feel about baptism without immersion. I know that it isn't technically in the bible, but it is what I was looking forward to and what I imagined.

Any thoughts on how to handle it?

Yes. Consider the following--

The great majority of Christian churches have, since ancient times, baptized by immersion OR pouring OR even sprinkling. It is not as though any of these methods is invalid so long as water is used on the candidates.

It has only been since the appearance of what is called in history, the Radical Reformation, that 'immersion as necessary for validity' has found a niche in Christian thinking.

Baptizo does not mean immersion. At least it does not mean immersion exclusively. The word also means to dip, or plunge, or wash. The claim that it has to mean immerse is bogus.

And as for the Bible reference to much water...the locale being referred to there was one that was known for having a lot of shallow pools. It was not on the shores of a great, deep lake, etc. You probably could NOT immerse someone in one of those pools, and the reference certainly is not about there being water deep enough to permit immersion in the usual way.

 

[frater_domus]

It really depends on what kind of a fellowship you intend to be baptized by. Orthodox and Catholics sprinkle but most Protestants immerse.

Lutherans, in this case. What mattered to me was that it would be done in a reformed church. The manual I have says that the baptism is done by pouring water over the person three times. That does not sound like immersion to me, more like someone tosses a bucket at me

In any case, I will meet the pastor on wednesday and I will bring this issue to his attention. The least I can do before potentially calling it off is to talk about it.

 

[Albion]

It really depends on what kind of a fellowship you intend to be baptized by. Orthodox and Catholics sprinkle but most Protestants immerse.

Orthodox immerse but recognize as valid baptisms performed in other churches, such as the Roman Catholic, even when immersion is not done. And sprinkling is not the usual method used in Roman Catholic or most mainline Protestant churches. It is pouring, called affusion.

 

[frater_domus]

Yes. Consider the following--

The great majority of Christian churches have, since ancient times, baptized by immersion OR pouring OR even sprinkling. It is not as though any of these methods is invalid so long as water is used on the candidates.

It has only been since the appearance of what is called in history, the Radical Reformation, that 'immersion as necessary for validity' has found a niche in Christian thinking.

Baptizo does not mean immersion. At least it does not mean immersion exclusively. The word also means to dip, or plunge, or wash. The claim that it has to mean immerse is bogus.

And as for the Bible reference to much water...the locale being referred to there was one that was known for having a lot of shallow pools. It was not on the shores of a great, deep lake, etc. You probably could NOT immerse someone in one of those pools, and the reference certainly is not about there being water deep enough to permit immersion in the usual way.

Thank you for clarifying. As I have said, I learned most things from Baptists and they are really fixated on the immersion part of it. It is good to have another perspective on it.

 

[R. Hartono]

ITS okay if they pour down 10 tank truck of water over your head.

 

[mark kennedy]

Orthodox immerse but recognize as valid baptisms performed in other churches, such as the Roman Catholic, even when immersion is not done. And sprinkling is not the usual method used in Roman Catholic or most mainline Protestant churches. It is pouring, called affusion.

Oh, I didn't know that, I had always thought the Orthodox sprinkled.

 

[Albion]

No. Triple immersion.

 

[dreadnought]

Having finally overcome my reservations about church communities, I found my desire to be baptized. This usually includes a few weeks of studying things about bible and church, which I do not understand, but it isn't bothering me. What bothers me is that they practice baptism without immersion, something I just found out. I am not sure how I feel. Maybe it is because most things I know I learned from Baptists or because the word 'baptizo' means 'immerse' or because the bible only ever mentions places with sufficient water as places of baptism, either way, it bothers me and I am not sure how to react. I feel bad going to them and suddenly call it off, but I am not sure how to feel about baptism without immersion. I know that it isn't technically in the bible, but it is what I was looking forward to and what I imagined.

Any thoughts on how to handle it?

I don't think your salvation depends on this decision. One out for you would be to go ahead with the baptism and then find another church that will give you an immersion baptism. I was baptized as an infant.

 

[SkyWriting]

Having finally overcome my reservations about church communities, I found my desire to be baptized. This usually includes a few weeks of studying things about bible and church, which I do not understand, but it isn't bothering me. What bothers me is that they practice baptism without immersion, something I just found out. I am not sure how I feel. Maybe it is because most things I know I learned from Baptists or because the word 'baptizo' means 'immerse' or because the bible only ever mentions places with sufficient water as places of baptism, either way, it bothers me and I am not sure how to react. I feel bad going to them and suddenly call it off, but I am not sure how to feel about baptism without immersion. I know that it isn't technically in the bible, but it is what I was looking forward to and what I imagined.

Any thoughts on how to handle it?

I always thought it was a lot of water to be wasted on a ceremony.
And they don't fill it early, so its quite cold.

Focus on being immersed in the Spirit. Personally, I'd prefer a river
to a concrete tank and so have never been baptized, just for the
river reason. Becasue of family camping, I have as strong connection
to rivers.

 

[SkyWriting]

No. Triple immersion.

Three times the charm for getting really wet.

 

[SkyWriting]

The important thing is that it be done in faith. If you have reservations, that is not faith. Don't do it. The lack of faith will invalidate it.

I'm waiting for a river for my baptism.
When God gets around to it, He'll
offer me a river baptism.

 

[frater_domus]

I don't think your salvation depends on this decision. One out for you would be to go ahead with the baptism and then find another church that will give you an immersion baptism. I was baptized as an infant.

Indeed. To me, baptism is symbolic. I see it as the wedding ring when marrying. I was also baptized as an infant, though not because my parents were believers, but because that's what everyone did. It was russian orthodox. However, it means little to me. I want to get baptized in the name of Christ by my own choice and out of love for God and Christ.

Why would I want to do multiple baptisms though? One seems enough, though I wouldn't say no to a river baptism, just because its awesome

 

[Mountainmanbob]

@Invalidusername Technically, it isn't my church. It is a local church I approached because of my desire.

Find a Church that will do the total dunking in water.
The Church that we attend now does not.
But, we love their preaching.

I called a Church (which I was not attending) many years ago and asked to be baptized.
The Pastor told me to come on over.
It was just him and me and the Holy Spirit -- very nice of him.
He left me under for a long while -- extra dirty.
M-Bob

 

[Albion]

Indeed. To me, baptism is symbolic.

The more I read here, the more I am wondering why you ever considered a Lutheran church for your own. There are others that fit your theology much better, we both know.

 

[frater_domus]

The more I read here, the more I am wondering why you ever considered a Lutheran church for your own. There are others that fit your theology much better, we both know.

To be frank, I have very little experience with all the different denominations, as I am against the whole concept. It fractures the body of Christ and breeds elitism, contempt and conflict. To me, it matters little what church does it. The only criteria I have that it is reformed, as I am at odds with the catholic and orthodox churches. Other than that, I care only forthe baptism in the name of Christ.

What denomination do you suggest? I wouldn't really know.