Baptism without immersion, should I go ahead?

[Micah888]

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

All Christians have two options: (1) do exactly what is revealed in Scripture, since that is what God has put before us or (2) accept the doctrines and traditions of men, and go along with them.

 

[Albion]

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.

Actually, there is absolutely no reason to think that Jesus was baptized by immersion.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually, there is absolutely no reason to think that Jesus was baptized by immersion.

There's not? I was under the distinct impression that, that is exactly how John baptized him.

 

[LoricaLady]

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.

Why do Christians so often feel they need some "expert" to tell them what to do? They are quite capable, generally, of thinking for themselves and reading, and researching, the Bible, for themselves. Where do we find the One and only true Authority speaking? In the Bible.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Would it do any good for anyone to show that Scripture and tradition don't mix !?
Tradition , changed from Scripture, "shows" other than immersion possible.

Scripture never does.
Jesus was immersed, for Righteousness Sake, as Jesus said Himself.

 

[Albion]

Nope. People--mainly of the Baptistic persuasion--have been told this enough that they take it for granted, but there is no reason to think that is how it happened. The Bible account says that he came up out of the water, but while that could by some stretch refer to immersion, it is more likely a reference to him leaving the river after his baptism, which would of course mean him walking up the bank from the water, just as you or I would have to do after swimming.

"As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water."

If you had been baptized by immersion in the river, it would not be said that you went up OUT OF THE WATER merely because you stood up, still in the river. Plus, this language would not likely be used if you merely were propped back up in typical fashion after being dunked. That is part of the same motion, not something described as being after the baptism.

 

[Micah888]

Actually, there is absolutely no reason to think that Jesus was baptized by immersion.

John Gill's commentary helps us to understand why Christ was baptized by immersion.

And Jesus, when he was baptized,.... Christ, when he was baptized by John in the river Jordan, the place where he was baptizing, went up straightway out of the water. One would be at a loss at first sight for a reason why the Evangelist should relate this circumstance; for after the ordinance was administered, why should he stay in the water? what should he do there? Everyone would naturally and reasonably conclude, without the mention of such a circumstance, that as soon as his baptism was over, he would immediately come up out of the water. However, we learn this from it, that since it is said, that he came up out of the water, he must first have gone down into it; must have been in it, and was baptized in it; a circumstance strongly in favour of baptism by immersion: for that Christ should go down into the river, more or less deep, to the ankles, or up to the knees, in order that John should sprinkle water on his face, or pour it on his head, as is ridiculously represented in the prints, can hardly obtain any credit with persons of thought and sense. But the chief view of the Evangelist in relating this circumstance, is with respect to what follows...

 

[frater_domus]

You people have confused me more than my own doubts could have ever done. Chapeau

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.

As I mentioned, I do not really care for denominations. I just picked the closest church community. I was under the impression was something general, not an entry ritual into a denomination, but a profession of faith. In fact, couldn't any believe just baptize me in a river, as has been mentioned? Pastors and denominations did not exist in the early church, just a bunch of believers.

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.

I have no intention joining anywhere. As I mentioned, I was under the impression that baptism was a general thing. Seeing as I will be moving to Budapest in August, I will not be part of this local community I am living near right now.

I mean, I could hold it off until I am in Budapest as they have an international baptist church there. But why does it all matter? Are we not getting lost in details? Wasn't early baptism by water just a believer immersing another? No lessons, no denominations, no entry rituals, no documents?
Seriously, all I want is to be baptised like they did way back when, as an outward expression of my faith. All this denomnational humbug is just getting in the way >.<

 

[Albion]

John Gill's commentary helps us to understand why Christ was baptized by immersion.

Gill says: However, we learn this from it, that since it is said, that he came up out of the water, he must first have gone down into it; must have been in it, and was baptized in it....

That's silly, and even he admits, a few words later, that he is guessing, saying it is a possibility.

When we say that someone goes down into the water, we obviously are not saying that he must go entirely under the water. If you go into the river, you can very well stand in it, wade in it, swim in it, and none of that means immersion.

 

[corinth77777]

@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.

Im of the Baptist...
And where does the Bible say Baptize with water?

 

[frater_domus]

Im of the Baptist...
And where does the Bible say Baptize with water?

John the Bapist baptised with water, Peter baptised Cornelius and his family with water, Philip baptised the Ethiopian eunuch with water. I am sure there are a few other ones.

Well, I guess I will have a discussion with the pastor on wednesday, but I am fairly certain I already know the answer. There are so many argument back and forth and I get both sides. But unfortunately, it made a simple question into a confusing cluster and back and forths and now I have no idea what I want anymore Well, I do, but right now I am more confused than anything. Once again, faith has turned into a inter-denomational battleground it seems.

 

[Invalidusername]

Actually, there is absolutely no reason to think that Jesus was baptized by immersion.

So if people were baptized at a river and it wasn't by immersion, how do you think it happened? People slapped the water and splashed each other?

Ridiculous. It was done by immersion.

 

[Albion]

So if people were baptized at a river and it wasn't by immersion, how do you think it happened? People slapped the water and splashed each other?

In the most obvious way. And it is still done today.

You wade out into the water, perhaps waist deep, and the minister who is standing by pours water over you. That is exactly how Jesus' own baptism is pictured in one of the earliest examples of Christian art that we still have from the ancient church.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

@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.

Personally I would say wait and do it at the church where you are moving. It would be a great way to jon the church community. Dont forget the Bible tells us not to stop meeting together so it is important to do so.

 

[Albion]

John the Bapist baptised with water, Peter baptised Cornelius and his family with water, Philip baptised the Ethiopian eunuch with water. I am sure there are a few other ones.

Well, I guess I will have a discussion with the pastor on wednesday, but I am fairly certain I already know the answer. There are so many argument back and forth and I get both sides. But unfortunately, it made a simple question into a confusing cluster and back and forths and now I have no idea what I want anymore Well, I do, but right now I am more confused than anything. Once again, faith has turned into a inter-denomational battleground it seems.

I am sorry that happened. It almost always does. But I would advise you to not overthink the matter before speaking to the pastor. Be straightforward about your doubts and see what he says. There is no obligation to do anything, one way or the other, after hearing his comments.

I wish you well.

 

[Micah888]

Im of the Baptist...
And where does the Bible say Baptize with water?

If you are a Baptist and you don't know that, shame on you.

So so you could start here (Acts 8:36):And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

 

[GraceBro]

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?

Given that water baptism is not required for salvation or as the "first act of obedience" after you are saved, it is up to you as to when, where and how you are baptized. Don't be troubled by it.

Grace and Peace

 

[Micah888]

That's silly, and even he admits, a few words later, that he is guessing, saying it is a possibility.

Actually this is what Gill said, which I quoted:

"However, we learn this from it, that since it is said, that he came up out of the water, he must first have gone down into it; must have been in it, and was baptized in it; a circumstance strongly in favour of baptism by immersion: for that Christ should go down into the river, more or less deep, to the ankles, or up to the knees, in order that John should sprinkle water on his face, or pour it on his head, as is ridiculously represented in the prints, can hardly obtain any credit with persons of thought and sense."

 

[All4Christ]

The Didache makes it clear as to the practice of the early Church. The Apostolic Traditions from around 215AD also gives a detailed description: The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Actually this is what Gill said, which I quoted:

And likewise all Scripture - but relying on Scripture doesn't help someone who relies on tradition - they simply change the words to mean something untrue.