should baptism be by immersion only?

[OpenDoor]

I don't know if this ever came up on CF but
should baptism be by immersion only?

 

[DD2008]

There is a sacramental ordinance theology forum they'll probably move this to.

But, no, it should be by immersion, pouring, or aspersion.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

I don't know if this ever came up on CF but
should baptism be by immersion only?

I actually started a thread of my own on this subject here. I also believe that baptism should be by immersion only. Baptize, the greek word which the english word baptism comes from, means to immerse or dip. There is all evidence in the bible which shows the baptism was done by immersion. There is no evidence to show that baptism was done by sprinkling, yet so many people believe that it is right.

Some people just shrug it off and say that it does not matter whether it is by immersion or not, baptism does not really matter. Well it does to God and it should be done by immersion.

 

[Stryder06]

I don't know if this ever came up on CF but
should baptism be by immersion only?

Yes. That is what baptisim means.

 

[Stryder06]

Hello Prophecykid!

Have you really ever given any thought, to the water baptisms as performed today? Isn't it true, that Johns water baptism was only for the Jews under the old law covenant? Isn't it also true, that the baptisms that the Christ was foretold to do, began after his ascension to the right hand of his Father? The first Baptism that Jesus did, was done at Pentecost, where no water at all was used, to do that baptism! It was all done by Holy Spirit and fire, as foretold he would do. Read the account in Acts 2 you will see what I'm saying is correct. All the foretold Baptisms that Jesus was to perform, there is no mention of any water being used. It was by Holy Spirit, or Holy Spirit and fire. Never, though, any mention of any water being used in the baptisms that Jesus was to do. The Apostle Paul was Apostle to the Nations, and he himself said that Jesus never sent him to do any baptising in water. {1 Corinthians 1:17} The Nations was not under the Mosaic law, so there was no need to bapitise them in the water of Johns Baptism, because, not being under that law could not sin while under it; and that was the main thrust of Johns Baptism; for them to gain foregiveness for their sins committed while under that law, and to recognise the true Messiah.

That is the only acceptable baptism there is now, because there's only one acceptable baptism today. If its not done by the Christ from the invisible heavens, then one isn't baptised at alll; because the Christ is the only one to do it now; there is no other way acceptable to God. Water baptism was only for the Jews, and for no one else! That's the truth of it Prophecykid. Copycat

Although this is true in some parts, the baptisim of water is still acceptable and necessary for our times. Remember this account as given in Acts chapter 8:

26And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

27And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36And 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?
37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 40But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

As we can see, baptisim by water is our job. The baptisim, our outpouring, of the Holy Spirit comes from God, but is subsequent to the baptisim of water (in most cases.)

 

[cobweb]

According to the Didache (generally dated late first or early 2nd century) pouring is allowed if you can't do otherwise:

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.

Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation Roberts-Donaldson).

 

[Celticflower]

I actually started a thread of my own on this subject here. I also believe that baptism should be by immersion only. Baptize, the greek word which the english word baptism comes from, means to immerse or dip. There is all evidence in the bible which shows the baptism was done by immersion. There is no evidence to show that baptism was done by sprinkling, yet so many people believe that it is right.

Some people just shrug it off and say that it does not matter whether it is by immersion or not, baptism does not really matter. Well it does to God and it should be done by immersion.

So, what do you do in the case of a death bed confession/conversion? Some churches say you are not truly saved unless you have been baptised, but if you are about to breathe your last there may not be time to fill the bathtub and dunk you in it. Do you walk out of the hospital room and say to the family
"Sorry, but Claude was that close. We just couldn't get him under the water before he died."

 

[OpenDoor]

That is what baptisim means.

I know that this is the common answer, but apparently it is not correct.
I was told it also means wash.

 

[Stryder06]

I know that this is the common answer, but apparently it is not correct.
I was told it also means wash.

You can look to the bible and see how baptisim is done. Do we ever have an example of baptisim being done without people being dipped? This brings us back to tradition versus the bible.

 

[Stryder06]

So, what do you do in the case of a death bed confession/conversion? Some churches say you are not truly saved unless you have been baptised, but if you are about to breathe your last there may not be time to fill the bathtub and dunk you in it. Do you walk out of the hospital room and say to the family
"Sorry, but Claude was that close. We just couldn't get him under the water before he died."

Luke 23:40-43 is our example for such a scenario.

Baptisim is not a requirement for salvation. Rather it is an outward expression of an inward change (If you can be baptised you should be baptised). The theif wasn't baptised, but would have been if he weren't about to die. Christ looked upon His heart and accepted Him as he was.

 

[OpenDoor]

You can look to the bible and see how baptisim is done. Do we ever have an example of baptisim being done without people being dipped? This brings us back to tradition versus the bible.

Do we have any examples when they were dipped?

 

[Stryder06]

Do we have any examples when they were dipped?

Mark 1:

9And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
10And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

The bible says that Jesus came up out of the water. Now I guess we can speculate if you like and say that He could have simply been standing in the water while John sprinkled Him, but than I doubt that it would be called baptisim.

The word is being used for a reason. Baptisim symbolizes our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. You don't get that with a sprinkling.

 

[ezek33]

Immersion only.

 

[OpenDoor]

Mark 1:

9And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
10And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

The bible says that Jesus came up out of the water. Now I guess we can speculate if you like and say that He could have simply been standing in the water while John sprinkled Him, but than I doubt that it would be called baptisim.

The word is being used for a reason. Baptisim symbolizes our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. You don't get that with a sprinkling.

Being in water and having it poured would be immersion, but not submersion

 

[Stryder06]

Being in water and having it poured would be immersion, but not submersion

That does not symbolize the death, burial, and ressurection however.

 

[Albion]

I don't see any reason why it should be.

Jesus wasn't baptised by total immersion, and his baptism is the model for Christian baptism.

The word doesn't mean total immersion.

And there are no explicit instructions in the New Testament other than that water be used and the name of Jesus or of the Father, Son, and HG be invoked.

 

[Stryder06]

I don't see any reason why it should be.

Jesus wasn't baptised by total immersion, and his baptism is the model for Christian baptism.

The word doesn't mean total immersion.

And there are no explicit instructions in the New Testament other than that water be used and the name of Jesus or of the Father, Son, and HG be invoked.

Where does the bible teach that Jesus' baptisim wasn't total immersion? The word used comes from the greek word baptizo(sp?)

1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3. to overwhelm

And again, most importantly, the baptisim represents our death, burial, and ressurection with Christ. You don't get that in any other way besides going under.

 

[boswd]

Well if Stephen Baldwin baptized Spencer Pratt by full immersion, then that is the way it should be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[OpenDoor]

That does not symbolize the death, burial, and ressurection however.

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.
Romans 6:4

To be buried you have to be cover.

having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
Colossians 2:12

and we are raised through faith

Baptism symbolizes the death (Romans 6:3)
Faith is the resurrection

 

[Albion]

Where does the bible teach that Jesus' baptisim wasn't total immersion? [/qutoe]

Where does the Bible teach that we wasn't wearing a tuxedo when John bpatised him in the River Jordan?

The point is that there is no indication that he was baptised by total immersion, so there is no need for us to improvise and call it obligatory.

The word used comes from the greek word baptizo(sp?)

Correct. To dip. The last time I dipped the dishes in the dishwater, not a one of them was totally immersed. I held onto a corner of each one and rotated the plate, etc. To wash, sure. To dip, sure. All that can be done without total immersion.

And again, most importantly, the baptisim represents our death, burial, and ressurection with Christ. You don't get that in any other way besides going under.

Well, if symbolism is what you want, you ought to actually bury the person in a grave. That would really be symbolic of what happened to Jesus, wouldn't it? And BtW, let's have everyone immersed as the Eastern Orthodox churches do, because that symbolizes the Trinity. You do believe in the Trinity, I assume. Or what about seven? After all, seven represents perfection. There is, in fact, no end to the symbolism that can be attached to the act...but here's the point. ALL OF THAT IS OPTIONAL. THE QUESTION ASKS WHAT "SHOULD" BE DONE, NOT WHAT MIGHT BE DONE.

Go ahead and baptise by total immersion if you prefer that method, but it's not required for a valid baptism. Only what the NT indicates to us about Christian baptism is necessary.