should baptism be by immersion only?

[MamaZ]

When one is baptised for the remission of sin don't you think that the whole person ought to be baptized and not just a sprinkle here or there?

 

[PaladinValer]

When one is baptised for the remission of sin don't you think that the whole person ought to be baptized and not just a sprinkle here or there?

Straw Man.

Who is arguing for aspergion baptism?

 

[Albion]

When one is baptised for the remission of sin don't you think that the whole person ought to be baptized and not just a sprinkle here or there?

Is someone here arguing for "sprinkle here or there?" If so, we all must have missed it. More to the point, are you still laboring under the mistaken idea that to baptise means to immerse and only that? This was quite thoroughly examined earlier in the thread.

 

[MamaZ]

Is someone here arguing for "sprinkle here or there?" If so, we all must have missed it. More to the point, are you still laboring under the mistaken idea that to baptise means to immerse and only that? This was quite thoroughly examined earlier in the thread.

My Apologies.. That is what I get when I come in at the end of a conversation.. Kind of like eaves dropping without hearing the full of the conversation.. So I do apologize.

 

[Albion]

Thanks, Mama!

 

[OpenDoor]

When one is baptised for the remission of sin don't you think that the whole person ought to be baptized and not just a sprinkle here or there?

if remission of sin happens with sprinkling then it happens
do you think remission of sin happens with sprinkling?

 

[PaladinValer]

if remission of sin happens with sprinkling then it happens
do you think remission of sin happens with sprinkling?

If the aspergion is done three times: Once for each Person of the Trinity, in Trinitarian/Nicene understanding; Once for each of these: Christ has died/Christ is risen/Christ will come again; Once for each of these: Christ's death/burial/resurrection. All of that, and the Baptizer and the Recepient acknowledge them and that what is done is exactly that...

...then it is a valid Baptism.

 

[Albion]

if remission of sin happens with sprinkling then it happens
do you think remission of sin happens with sprinkling?

Not quite sure what you are saying to us here except, perhaps, that MamaZ's point is not to be taken very seriously. But as has been pointed out many times already, all that is required (by most churches and by the Biblical description) is 1) the use of water, and 2) the invocation of the Trinity or Jesus specifically. That's it.

I would agree with those who say that baptism should be done by immersion only IF ANY of the following were true--

1. The New Testament shows any suggestion of immersion being "the" way to baptise. As it is, we have no such guidance and the earliest known evidence other than the Bible is a wall-painting from the catecombs showing water being poured over the head of Jesus.

2. The word itself meant to submerge or immerse exclusively. It, however, means any of the following similar actions (as has already been shown on this thread): immersing, dipping, washing, dousing, and drenching. To insist that one of these and no more than one is a valid translation from the Greek is not credible.

3. The early church understood immersion to be essential to a valid baptism. Although immersion was the most common and preferred mode of baptism, it was not considered the only valid method (as has also been shown to us on this thread).