Mode of baptism

[Iosias]

What say you? I vote for 'All of the above' though sprinkling or pouring is preferable

Ezekiel 36:25 "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

Joel 2:28 "I will pour out my spirit on all flesh"

 

[jdbrown]

They are all acceptable, but full immersion is the best from a symbolic standpoint.

 

[twin1954]

There is no such thing as a mode of baptism. There is only baptism which is immersion.

 

[The Conductor]

For your consideration: Chapter 7 of the Didache, the oldest teaching on baptism outside of the Bible.
"Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."
I'm not saying it's authoritative, but considering that it was written between 50 and 120 AD, I think it's at least worth considering, especially since it's so hard to make a case either way.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

You can sprinkle, pour, or immerse.

 

[JM]

There is no such thing as a mode of baptism. There is only baptism which is immersion.

Yes, indeed. A very clear way of explaining it.

 

[gord44]

For your consideration: Chapter 7 of the Didache, the oldest teaching on baptism outside of the Bible.
"Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."
I'm not saying it's authoritative, but considering that it was written between 50 and 120 AD, I think it's at least worth considering, especially since it's so hard to make a case either way.

Agreed. The Didache can be quite illuminating on some early church stuff. Basically do what you can. Going by the above text I see it as immersion in living water, unless there is none around then sprinkling will do. Which seems to make sense.

 

[JM]

For you traditionalists...do you also require folks to be baptized naked like they did in the early church? lol

Tradition can be a wicked mistress.

What about the baptism by immersion in the Eastern Orthodox church? They baptize infants by dipping into water three times.

 

[gord44]

For you traditionalists...do you also require folks to be baptized naked like they did in the early church? lol

Hehe. Good symbolism there! A new birth and all that.

I would be ok with a good old baptism at the river or a lake, but the whole tub thing in the church seems a bit goofy. I know Spurgeon didn't like the idea. Spurgeon though was baptized full immersion (he was also baptized as in infant) because he could not find anywhere in scripture that supported infant baptism.

 

[bsd058]

There is no such thing as a mode of baptism. There is only baptism which is immersion.

Hi, Twin.

Not to start a debate or anything, because frankly, I do not know which side of the fence I'm on when it comes to baptism.

However, I just wanted to point out that we all agree that there is only one baptism into the body of Christ as we are not followers of Paul, nor Peter, but of Christ (1 Cor 1). The question is if immersion is the only mode ever discussed in the Bible.

There is another mode of baptism mentioned in the Bible in which the children of Israel were baptized into Moses when walking through the Red Sea and while being under the cloud (see 1 Cor 10:2). Understandably, this is not a baptism into Christ since from what I can understand of the Scriptures, one is baptized into the name of the one they are a follower of (1 Cor 1:10-17).

However, at least one mode of baptism--which is what we are discussing--is discussed in the Scriptures. This mode discussed is not an immersion at all, in fact. It is walking under the cloud (which is water) and through the Red Sea (which is water). The only ones who were baptized by actual immersion mode were the Egyptians who never came back up from their "baptism." Obviously, though, they were not baptized into Moses.

This is not to say that immersion couldn't be used in a valid baptism, nor to say that immersion isn't NOW the only valid way of baptizing, but this is only to say that baptism is not used merely in the immersion sense in the Scriptures and that Israel's baptism into Moses was valid even though none of them touched water.

 

[twin1954]

Hi, Twin.

Not to start a debate or anything, because frankly, I do not know which side of the fence I'm on when it comes to baptism.

However, I just wanted to point out that we all agree that there is only one baptism into the body of Christ as we are not followers of Paul, nor Peter, but of Christ (1 Cor 1). The question is if immersion is the only mode ever discussed in the Bible.

There is another mode of baptism mentioned in the Bible in which the children of Israel were baptized into Moses when walking through the Red Sea and while being under the cloud (see 1 Cor 10:2). Understandably, this is not a baptism into Christ since from what I can understand of the Scriptures, one is baptized into the name of the one they are a follower of (1 Cor 1:10-17).

However, at least one mode of baptism--which is what we are discussing--is discussed in the Scriptures. This mode discussed is not an immersion at all, in fact. It is walking under the cloud (which is water) and through the Red Sea (which is water). The only ones who were baptized by actual immersion mode were the Egyptians who never came back up from their "baptism." Obviously, though, they were not baptized into Moses.

This is not to say that immersion couldn't be used in a valid baptism, nor to say that immersion isn't NOW the only valid way of baptizing, but this is only to say that baptism is not used merely in the immersion sense in the Scriptures and that Israel's baptism into Moses was valid even though none of them touched water.

Paul was using figurative language concerning the Israelites being baptized in the Red Sea. The simple meaning of the word is to dip, plunge and immerse. It doesn't mean sprinkle or pour. What actually convinces me is that baptism is clearly taught by Paul in Rom. 6 as a union in picture of being dead, buried and risen again with Christ. Have you ever seen anyone buried by throwing a little dirt on their face or pouring a shovel full on them and then saying that they are buried? Baptism is our public profession of faith and we come forth from the watery grave to walk in the newness of life. The only baptism that there is a burial by being fully immersed.

 

[Iosias]

There is only baptism which is immersion.

Baptism has a wide lexical meaning: consider Heb. 9:10 which speaks of 'various baptisms' when it is referring to the various washings of the OT.

Then of course we have Titus 3:5-6 where we are informed that God 'saved us...according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour'. Thus, baptism being a symbol of this could be poured.

 

[twin1954]

Baptism has a wide lexical meaning: consider Heb. 9:10 which speaks of 'various baptisms' when it is referring to the various washings of the OT.

Then of course we have Titus 3:5-6 where we are informed that God 'saved us...according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour'. Thus, baptism being a symbol of this could be poured.

You can try to justify it any way you like but it doesn't change the meaning of the word or the picture.

 

[garydoc]

I vote for nude full immersion. The early church baptized in the nude till the 3rd century. Hippolytus writes about this and is very clear. The earliest Christian art has Jesus being baptized nude as well.

 

[JM]

From Calvin's Institutes:

"The word 'baptise' signifies 'to immerse', and it is certain that the rite of immersion was observed by the ancient church."
​

From John Calvin's commentary on John :

"The Evangelist says that there were many waters there, and these were not so abundant in Judea. Now geographers tell us, that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence of the river Jordan and the brook Jabbok; and they add that Scythopolis was near them. From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water; though we ought not to give ourselves any great uneasiness about the outward rite, provided that it agree with the spiritual truth, and with the Lord’s appointment and rule."
​

To paraphrase, "John the Baptist and Christ baptized by immersion, the Greek word means immersion BUT don't worry about it...baptize however you like."

 

[bsd058]

You can try to justify it any way you like but it doesn't change the meaning of the word or the picture.

The word means to immerse. No one argues with that. Not even paedobaptists. However, your assumption that only a literal immersion meets the qualifications of a valid baptism might be hasty.

I think where paedobaptists differ with you is that the word, in the figurative sense, can have many applications.

Kind of like the word plunge, in English.

We say, "I plunged myself into the water," or "I plunged myself into my studies." Essentially, the word itself means to immerse in, physically, but it can be used figuratively, too, and still be a valid plunging.

And baptism, being a symbol, could potentially be used in the same manner. For instance, Israel being baptized in the Red Sea and under the cloud was figurative since they were not literally baptized. However, it was still a valid baptism from what I understand.

 

[twin1954]

The word means to immerse. No one argues with that. Not even paedobaptists. However, your assumption that only a literal immersion meets the qualifications of a valid baptism might be hasty.

I think where paedobaptists differ with you is that the word, in the figurative sense, can have many applications.

Kind of like the word plunge, in English.

We say, "I plunged myself into the water," or "I plunged myself into my studies." Essentially, the word itself means to immerse in, physically, but it can be used figuratively, too, and still be a valid plunging.

And baptism, being a symbol, could potentially be used in the same manner. For instance, Israel being baptized in the Red Sea and under the cloud was figurative since they were not literally baptized. However, it was still a valid baptism from what I understand.

When you can bury someone by sprinkling a little dirt on them then I will start sprinkling.

 

[Iosias]

When you can bury someone by sprinkling a little dirt on them then I will start sprinkling.

That's part of the problem; Jews of the first century did not bury their dead, they laid them in tombs...hence the immersion being a burial doesn't work.

 

[bsd058]

When you can bury someone by sprinkling a little dirt on them then I will start sprinkling.

lol. Well, in all fairness, even the baptism into Moses was a water baptism.

 

[twin1954]

lol. Well, in all fairness, even the baptism into Moses was a water baptism.

Baptism is a picture of our union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. Rom. 6 is the place to go to in order to understand baptism for there it is defined and described.