Full Immersion

[FaithfulPilgrim]

Hello fellow Baptists!

There is something I have been wondering recently.

A core doctrine of the Baptist faith is believer's baptism through full immersion, yet I have met some Baptists that are not as strict about it.

For example, I was baptized through full immersion but I also see pouring as a valid alternative.

John Bunyan is considered a Baptist by historians and he agree with full immersion as the valid mode of baptism, yet he also believed Baptists made an idol out of baptism and accepted Christians who were baptized differently.

How important is it for someone to baptized through full immersion? Do you accept paedobaptists or think they should be baptized again as believers through immersion?

 

[Goodbook]

As long as you get completely wet. Eg not just a dab of water on the forehead like Ive seen it done in non baptist churches.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Hello fellow Baptists!

There is something I have been wondering recently.

A core doctrine of the Baptist faith is believer's baptism through full immersion, yet I have met some Baptists that are not as strict about it.

For example, I was baptized through full immersion but I also see pouring as a valid alternative.

John Bunyan is considered a Baptist by historians and he agree with full immersion as the valid mode of baptism, yet he also believed Baptists made an idol out of baptism and accepted Christians who were baptized differently.

How important is it for someone to baptized through full immersion? Do you accept paedobaptists or think they should be baptized again as believers through immersion?

Baptism must be done by full immersion, since this is the method which most accurately depicts what the Bible teaches about baptism. Notice what Paul teaches, In Romans 6:3-4, about that which baptism symbolises (emphasis is mine): ‘Or don't you know that all of us who were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.’

From this, we can see that baptism is really an analogy with Jesus' death and resurrection. Baptism by full immersion is the best way to illustrate this, unlike baptism by pouring. We also see that baptism represents a new life (a concept reiterated in 2 Corinthians 5:17). The new life, in the entirety of our being, in best represented by a full, not partial, immersion. Thus, from Romans 6:3-4, the case can be made for baptism by full immersion.

Other passages are also worth noticing. Acts of the Apostles 8:39 says that Philip and the eunuch came up out of the water, suggesting they had gone down, in accordance with full immersion. John 3:23 specifies a place where there was ‘plenty of water’ — so much water would be unnecessary if baptism were to be performed solely by pouring.

Now, since the Bible is not clear on this, one might say that perhaps someone who was not baptised by immersion still has his baptism valid. Maybe. OK. However, the best method is evidently still immersion.

As for paedobaptism, it is a different issue altogether. According to Matthew 28:19, baptism is for the disciples, those who have chosen to follow Jesus; children cannot fall into this category. Infant baptism is biblically invalid, and those who have been baptised as children need to be rebaptised as adults, aware of their decision to follow Christ.

 

[twin1954]

Hello fellow Baptists!

There is something I have been wondering recently.

A core doctrine of the Baptist faith is believer's baptism through full immersion, yet I have met some Baptists that are not as strict about it.

For example, I was baptized through full immersion but I also see pouring as a valid alternative.

John Bunyan is considered a Baptist by historians and he agree with full immersion as the valid mode of baptism, yet he also believed Baptists made an idol out of baptism and accepted Christians who were baptized differently.

How important is it for someone to baptized through full immersion? Do you accept paedobaptists or think they should be baptized again as believers through immersion?

The word baptize was coined by the KJV translators because they couldn't actually translate the Greek word baptize into English and hold on to their pedo-Baptist views. Instead of actually translating it they transliterated it and it became the common way of speaking of the act of immersion upon believing. The word means to dip or plunge, which is full immersion, and it is important to do it as the Scriptures teach. Those who pour water do so because they baptize infants and to immerse infants is considered cruel. Moreover their theology is based in an idea of necessary consequence in interpreting the Scriptures. They infer things into the Scriptures that are not there.

So yes it is important to baptize by full immersion and to re-baptize all who were not.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

The word baptize was coined by the KJV translators because they couldn't actually translate the Greek word baptize into English and hold on to their pedo-Baptist views. Instead of actually translating it they transliterated it and it became the common way of speaking of the act of immersion upon believing. […]

Hmm… That does not seem to be the case, really. The word ‘baptism’ apparently existed in the English language before the KJV (http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/15330?redirectedFrom=baptism#eid). It came from Old French, which came from Latin, which came from Greek.

 

[DawnStar]

So yes it is important to baptize by full immersion and to re-baptize all who were not.

So is full immersion salvific?

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

So is full immersion salvific?

No. Faith is what saves (John 1:12; John 3:16; Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8-9). Baptism comes after faith.

 

[twin1954]

So is full immersion salvific?

No it isn't. Baptism is a public profession of faith and identifying with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The Scriptures do not affirm baptismal regeneration. We are to be baptized after we are born of God through the preaching of the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus alone.

 

[Hieronymus]

Christ baptises with the Holy Spirit, unlike John the Baptist, who just baptised with water.
The both told man to repent though.

However, choosing to be baptized is answering "YES" to God.
I hate myself for still not having done it...

 

[DawnStar]

No. Faith is what saves (John 1:12; John 3:16; Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8-9). Baptism comes after faith.

I agree. I also believe there is no need for full immersion for salvation. I do not believe that someone who was not fully immersed in baptism is any less of a Christian. There are way too many people out there who God is using for His glory that were not fully immersed. On the flip side there are also many people out there who were fully immersed that are giving all Christians a bad name.

 

[twin1954]

I agree. I also believe there is no need for full immersion for salvation. I do not believe that someone who was not fully immersed in baptism is any less of a Christian. There are way too many people out there who God is using for His glory that were not fully immersed. On the flip side there are also many people out there who were fully immersed that are giving all Christians a bad name.

Is your opinion based on the Scriptures or on your emotions and feelings?

 

[Bluelion]

This is where i am at.

Yes it should be done going fully under the water being buried in the grave with Jesus and coming out being resurrected to Life with Jesus, That is why we do it that way. However in case where there is little water or the person can not move to a body of water the pouring is ok. A bible case of this is the Ethiopian was baptized in a puddle. Now a Puddle is not enough water to go fully under but it was ok. So it is Biblical. i think it was Paul or peter which did the baptizing in that case.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

I agree. I also believe there is no need for full immersion for salvation. I do not believe that someone who was not fully immersed in baptism is any less of a Christian. There are way too many people out there who God is using for His glory that were not fully immersed. On the flip side there are also many people out there who were fully immersed that are giving all Christians a bad name.

I agree with you; no-one is any less of a Christian for not being baptised (either at all or the proper way). However, the Bible does say that faith without works is dead; in other words, if you are a true Christian, you will choose to obey God. So, what shall we say of someone who either refuses to be baptised at all or who refuses to be baptised the proper way? What shall we say of those who call themselves Christians, but who continue to live in sinful lifestyles? Well… Just maybe they have never been saved in the first place?…

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

This is where i am at.

Yes it should be done going fully under the water being buried in the grave with Jesus and coming out being resurrected to Life with Jesus, That is why we do it that way. However in case where there is little water or the person can not move to a body of water the pouring is ok. A bible case of this is the Ethiopian was baptized in a puddle. Now a Puddle is not enough water to go fully under but it was ok. So it is Biblical. i think it was Paul or peter which did the baptizing in that case.

Where does the text say that it was a puddle?

 

[Light of the East]

Those who pour water do so because they baptize infants and to immerse infants is considered cruel.

He (she?) certainly doesn't seem to find it cruel.

Go to 5:01 in this video to see a kid get the full immersion treatment.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

He (she?) certainly doesn't seem to find it cruel.

Go to 5:01 in this video to see a kid get the full immersion treatment.

I watched the video in the point where you said. The baby was crying! The immersion scared him/her!

Now seriously, the Catholic Church actually thought that is would be unreasonable to immerse a baby, so they would just pour. Pouring comes from the unbiblical practice of infant baptism.

 

[Light of the East]

I watched the video in the point where you said. The baby was crying! The immersion scared him/her!

Now seriously, the Catholic Church actually thought that is would be unreasonable to immerse a baby, so they would just pour. Pouring comes from the unbiblical practice of infant baptism.

The Roman Rite may have thought this. The other 22 rites of the Church still immerse their babies as far as I know. Baptism has replaced circumcision as the ritual of making covenant to enter the Congregation of God. (Col 2: 11-12)

Col. 2: 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

This is just one of a number of Old Covenant ceremonies which found fulfillment and was changed in the New Covenant.
The Passover becomes the Eucharist. (Matthew 26). The high priesthood finds its fulfillment in Christ, the eternal high priest, (Hebrews 7-10) the Apostles are granted the authority of the Levitical priesthood, which is taken from the tribe of Levi (John 20:23) It would be hard to say that it is unbiblical, seeing that it fulfills and replaces an Old Testament ceremony of such importance.

 

[twin1954]

The Roman Rite may have thought this. The other 22 rites of the Church still immerse their babies as far as I know. Baptism has replaced circumcision as the ritual of making covenant to enter the Congregation of God. (Col 2: 11-12)

Col. 2: 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

This is just one of a number of Old Covenant ceremonies which found fulfillment and was changed in the New Covenant.
The Passover becomes the Eucharist. (Matthew 26). The high priesthood finds its fulfillment in Christ, the eternal high priest, (Hebrews 7-10) the Apostles are granted the authority of the Levitical priesthood, which is taken from the tribe of Levi (John 20:23) It would be hard to say that it is unbiblical, seeing that it fulfills and replaces an Old Testament ceremony of such importance.

I would disagree with you as a Baptist covenant theologian. We differ from you and the Presbyterians in viewing the covenant of circumcision as continued by baptism. That covenant was fulfilled in Christ and we are under the New Covenant not a continuation of the Old in replacing ceremonies and rites with new ones. Baptism isn't circumcision continued it is a whole new ordinance of the church which is done by immersion.

You should remember that you are in the Baptist forum and are not allowed by the rules to post anything contrary to Baptist doctrines. You may post in fellowship only. You are not allowed to debate here. I call your attention to this because I neither have the time or the inclination to correct all of your errors.

 

[Light of the East]

I would disagree with you as a Baptist covenant theologian. We differ from you and the Presbyterians in viewing the covenant of circumcision as continued by baptism. That covenant was fulfilled in Christ and we are under the New Covenant not a continuation of the Old in replacing ceremonies and rites with new ones. Baptism isn't circumcision continued it is a whole new ordinance of the church which is done by immersion.

You should remember that you are in the Baptist forum and are not allowed by the rules to post anything contrary to Baptist doctrines. You may post in fellowship only. You are not allowed to debate here. I call your attention to this because I neither have the time or the inclination to correct all of your errors.

Well, in fellowship you know now that only the Romans do not immerse their kids. They also don't give them Holy Communion, as do the other Catholic rites. I have considerable problems with Roman theology. That's all I'll say to avoid the appearance of debate.

 

[Bluelion]

The Roman Rite may have thought this. The other 22 rites of the Church still immerse their babies as far as I know. Baptism has replaced circumcision as the ritual of making covenant to enter the Congregation of God. (Col 2: 11-12)

Col. 2: 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

This is just one of a number of Old Covenant ceremonies which found fulfillment and was changed in the New Covenant.
The Passover becomes the Eucharist. (Matthew 26). The high priesthood finds its fulfillment in Christ, the eternal high priest, (Hebrews 7-10) the Apostles are granted the authority of the Levitical priesthood, which is taken from the tribe of Levi (John 20:23) It would be hard to say that it is unbiblical, seeing that it fulfills and replaces an Old Testament ceremony of such importance.

Look, No one in the Bible ever baptized a baby, that was down by the Catholic church, it them taking man doctrine and claim it to be God's law. Fact, You have to accept Jesus, a baby can not do that. Fact you have to understand what you are doing, babies can not do that, Fact it has to be the person choice who is being baptized, again babies can not do that or make that. Fact it is also a testimony to be saved, babies have no testimony nor do they understand it.

So sense you came in our forum and preached your doctrine let me shoot down your church real fast.

Your priest are called father but Jesus said. Mat 23 8 “Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters.9 And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father,’ for only God in heaven is your Father.10 And don’t let anyone call you ‘Teacher,’ for you have only one teacher, the Messiah.11 The greatest among you must be a servant.12 But those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

Your preist take the spiritual name of father which here God clearly says not to do. Your children take communion when they don't understand what it means, that is also wrong Jesus said do this in remembrance of me.

Also you call the pope holy and believe he holds the keys to heaven having been handed down to him from the pope before him and from Peter to the first pope. This is delusional no where does Peter ever pass on the Keys to heaven that Jesus gave him. The pope also has holy names written on his hat which describe him as holy, Blaspheme. Personally I think your pope is an anti christ. and i truly believe the false prophet of the beast will be one of the popes. Your church is nothing but ritual and man made doctrines. That does not mean no one is saved in your church i have met some who in spite of all this and your priest molesting children are in fact saved, but you came to the wrong forum to preach your crap.