Baptism without immersion, should I go ahead?

[JRichard68]

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.

Probably the best thing you can do. Specific questions like this can be handled best by him, and chances are that he can answer your doubts/fears/concerns quite well - although others have given excellent answers here as well. I would say to consider other meanings for "baptizo" that maybe are outside a traditional "Baptist" understanding. That may be a question for the pastor as well. Whatever decision you make, it's an important one so don't be deterred.

 

[frater_domus]

Probably the best thing you can do. Specific questions like this can be handled best by him, and chances are that he can answer your doubts/fears/concerns quite well - although others have given excellent answers here as well. I would say to consider other meanings for "baptizo" that maybe are outside a traditional "Baptist" understanding. That may be a question for the pastor as well. Whatever decision you make, it's an important one so don't be deterred.

The bible, to me, has always been more about spiritual truths. As such, it is not the precise way baptism is executed that is relevant to me, but the meaning behind it and reasons for doing it. I tend to ask why, not how or what. You can hose me, for all I care. I think that my doubts are a result of unmet expectations.

 

[Albion]

Well, the Lutherans are probably the closest to the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches of all Protestants, unless it would be the Anglicans (and I suppose they are rare in Germany). The problem I ran into when reading your posts was that I began by thinking you were all but certain to become Lutheran...but then it looked progressively as though you were not asking for a little advice on why Lutherans (and Catholics, etc.) believe as they do. In reality, you still have substantial reservations about their theology.

Not knowing what is available to you in the way of a church home, I would think that the Baptists would still be the closest to what I have been reading here, if you are committed to those beliefs about baptism (and probably also Holy Communion). However, if that is the only contentious issue, and you are willing to keep something of an open mind about it for the time being, I would still advise you to go through with talking to the Lutheran pastor and visiting that church if you have not done so already. There are other Protestant churches, of course, such as the Reformed, but their views on baptism are closer to the Catholic and Lutheran views than to the Baptists.

 

[LoricaLady]

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 see some say "If you have faith....If you are Protestant or Catholic." No, it's about what we are commanded to do in the Word. If you will do a study of where the word "baptize" comes from, you will see that it originally was called immersion. Why waste your time doing something that isn't commanded while not doing what is? Do not follow traditions of men, but the actual Word of the Almighty.

 

[LoricaLady]

P.S. You do not have to be baptized in a Church or by someone who went to Seminary. Church just comes from the word "ecclesia" which simply means a gathering of believers at any time anywhere.
Neither our present day concept of Church - with a building having a cross on top where you worship on Sunday - or Seminaries, were ever even heard of by the early believers. If you know someone who is a sincere Christian, that person can baptize you by immersion in a pool, a nearby lake or river, whatever. No degrees or other criterion, other than sincere belief in the Savior - are given for whom the baptizer must be.

 

[LoricaLady]

P.P.S. I believe that any such sincere Christian baptizer should also have been baptized by immersion.

 

[All4Christ]

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

Orthodox baptize with triple immersion even with babies.

 

[Acts2:38]

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?

Baptism is not something to be waited on. And theres nothing in the bible that states the the one giving you the baptism HAS to be a Christian. We don't know what tomorrow brings, our souls could be required of. Paul was baptized told to be baptized instantly "arise, why are you waiting". Peter in Acts 2 baptized 3,000 people the very day he preached Christ crucified. Once you realized you needed Christ as your only means of salvation, and you understood about baptism, you should get it done without delay. You can always study more after and grow in Christ.

Baptism in water is important.

It is a command Mark 16:15-16
It is for remission of sins Acts 2:38
It is to put on Christ Galatians 3:27
It is to obey the gospel 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Romans 6:3-4
It is because it is one of the witnesses to our salvation 1 John 5:8

What more do you need to know about it other than all the conversions in Acts?

"arise, why are you waiting....?" Acts 22:16 find someone, anyone who will do it for you now.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="frater_domus, post: 72658968, member: 406771"]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?[/QUOTE
===============================
If they break with/from Scripture in one thing, what else, what other things, will they (and already have) also 'excuse' instead of always doing what Yahweh(God) says to do ?
'Who' are they obeying .....

 

[dqhall]

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?

The Bible study is important. John the Baptist taught people should not only seek baptism, but should repent of their sins. Without knowledge of what is good and what is bad, baptism is of little
importance.

Rev. Richard Wurmbrand was organizing underground churches in the Soviet Union. He was arrested and sentenced to seven years in prison. In prison he baptized someone with a cup of water. That is as good as baptizing someone in the Jordan River.

 

[Micah888]

...either way, it bothers me and I am not sure how to react...

Since you know Bible truth, baptism without immersion should bother you. So don't do that which violates your convictions and your conscience.

One of the purposes of baptism is to have an outward witness that you have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and have identified yourself with His death, burial, and resurrection. That you have died to the old man, and have been raised to walk in newness of life. It is a testimony to your conversion. This can only be depicted through baptism by immersion. That is how Jesus was baptized, and that was the only mode of baptism in the New Testament, and hundreds of years later.

 

[mark kennedy]

Orthodox baptize with triple immersion even with babies.

Apparently I was mistaken about that one, thanks for the correction.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Hypocrltes]

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?

Baptism without immersion is like cheese sandwich without butter , cheese and bread .

But for real Acts 1:5 for you . Read it like really . You take that verse into baptist church and they will start throwing chairs to kill you trust me don't do that . They will start yelling at you and saying you cherry pick from bible so then you throw Matthew 3:11 so they can be even more angry at you .


In short , water baptism is not needed for being saved , it's not bad but we are baptised with Holy Spirit the moment you believe Ephesians 1:13-14 .
But if you want to be baptised by water do it properly , full body not some water spit by priest on your face so he can cash you out for that , that's what shamans were doing back then ...

 

[mark kennedy]

Baptism without immersion is like cheese sandwich without butter , cheese and bread .

But for real Acts 1:5 for you . Read it like really . You take that verse into baptist church and they will start throwing chairs to kill you trust me don't do that . They will start yelling at you and saying you cherry pick from bible so then you throw Matthew 3:11 so they can be even more angry at you .

Oh come on, Baptists aren't that bad.

 

[PaulCyp1]

So you will be joining a Protestant church, which claims to follow the Bible alone, yet your major concern is something that you admit isn't in the Bible. Sure, the Bible describes baptism in a river, and that's a perfectly legitimate means of baptism; however the Apostles traveled far and wide through nations that were largely desert, so most of the people they baptized certainly had no large body of water available to them. And, you have the 2,000 year history of the one Church Jesus Christ founded, which He said was to remain one, and to which He promised the fullness of God's truth, which has always baptized both by immersion and by pouring water over the forehead. The "immersion alone" idea is a product of Protestantism, only a few hundred years old.

 

[mark kennedy]

So you will be joining a Protestant church, which claims to follow the Bible alone, yet your major concern is something that you admit isn't in the Bible. Sure, the Bible describes baptism in a river, and that's a perfectly legitimate means of baptism; however the Apostles traveled far and wide through nations that were largely desert, so most of the people they baptized certainly had no large body of water available to them. And, you have the 2,000 year history of the one Church Jesus Christ founded, which He said was to remain one, and to which He promised the fullness of God's truth, which has always baptized both by immersion and by pouring water over the forehead. The "immersion alone" idea is a product of Protestantism, only a few hundred years old.

Baptism by immersion was how John the Baptist did it and the early church for that matter. I see no real problem with baptism by pouring water on the head, if you identify with that it serves the intended purpose. I was baptized a Catholic as an infant, been immersed not once but twice, it's a long story but the second one was kind of pointless. Walk in the light as you see the light, God is more concerned with the condition of your heart then how you got wet in baptism. Not that the rite of baptism should be taken lightly.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[TheBibleIsTruth]

The Greek verb "βαπτίζω" which is usually translated "baptize", is used to denote,

"dip, plunge, to be drowned, deep water" (Liddell and Scott, Greek lexicon)

"properly, to dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge" (Thayer, Greek lexicon)

"to dip, immerse, sink" (G Abbott-Smith, Greek lexicon)

Which clearly shows that it was not "sprinkling" over the head, but actually being "submerged".

Romans chapter 6 speaks of water baptism as being symbolic of the Death and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, where Paul says, "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death" (verse 4). To be "buried" can hardly mean to have some mud/dust thrown over the persons head, likewise the water needs to be to "submerge", which would represent a "burial".

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The "immersion alone" idea is a product of Protestantism, only a few hundred years old.

As shown already, Protestantism was not around in the first century.
After the first century, AFTER the Apostles and disciples who knew and who followed Jesus were gone, THEN other practices not found in the Bible STARTED.

Thus "immersion" WAS NOT a product of Protestantism - it couldn't be, as shown through the Bible first, and then through history.

 

[All4Christ]

Apparently I was mistaken about that one, thanks for the correction.

Grace and peace,
Mark

No worries. I wrote that before seeing that Albion already responded about it. Hope you have a great Sunday!

 

[LoricaLady]

The Bible study is important. John the Baptist taught people should not only seek baptism, but should repent of their sins. Without knowledge of what is good and what is bad, baptism is of little
importance.

Rev. Richard Wurmbrand was organizing underground churches in the Soviet Union. He was arrested and sentenced to seven years in prison. In prison he baptized someone with a cup of water. That is as good as baptizing someone in the Jordan River.

Richard Wurmbrand was a wonderful human and was doing the best he could in a horrendous place. However, he didn't get to rewrite the Bible and make up new rules which we are supposed to now follow that contradict Scriptures. The OP is not in a Russian Gulag. Why shouldn't she obey the Bible which clearly shows that baptism means immersion?

As someone said above, the Savior was Baptized by immersion. Again, Richard Wurmbrand didn't get to change the rules - though I believe the Father showed mercy to him and those he "baptized" considering the circumstances.