should baptism be by immersion only?

Stryder06 · Jun 30, 2009

Albion said:
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.

I'm not too particular on how one goes down into the water as long as they go down into the water. I don't particularly think that if you don't go down backwards it means that you haven't been baptized correctly.

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?

If that was what was needed...but fortunately it isn't. Instead we have baptisim. We go down into the watery grave and raise up in newness of life.

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.

One could attach a multitude of symbols to it, but that wouldn't make it right. Christ was baptised once. Christ died once. I'm fine with being baptised once.

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.

What does the NT require? From all points I can see that it is total submerssion, not a sprinkling on of water.

Stryder06 · Jun 30, 2009

OpenDoor said:
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

Only part of the baptisim symbolizes death. When you go down you hold your breath, hence you stop breathing, and close your eyes as if you were dead, you are covered by the water, as if you were actually buried in a tomb, and than you are brought back up, as if you have been ressurected. It's all there.

MamaZ · Jun 30, 2009

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

Yes

Albion · Jun 30, 2009

Stryder06 said:
I'm not too particular on how one goes down into the water as long as they go down into the water. I don't particularly think that if you don't go down backwards it means that you haven't been baptized correctly.

Correct. As long as water and the divine invocationg are present, that's baptism. Go under the water if you wish, have it thrown on you, pour it over you, do a breast stroke in it, whatever.

If that was what was needed...but fortunately it isn't. Instead we have baptisim. We go down into the watery grave and raise up in newness of life.

But you've already said that symbolism is what you want. Why stop with the symbolism of being immersed in water and thinking of that as like a burial? Live it up. Use LOTS of symbols. The more symbols the better the sacrament, is what I hear you saying. I don't oppose symbolism at all, and I'll bet you oppose it in other areas of church life more than I do. But here it's only a question of what SHOULD be done.

Christ was baptised once. Christ died once. I'm fine with being baptised once.

Being immersed three times IS to be baptised once. Just like a play that has three acts. You wouldn't say that you saw three different plays, would you? The baptism is the whole thing. It clearly is not just hitting the water.

What does the NT require?

I answered that at the top of this post.

From all points I can see that it is total submerssion, not a sprinkling on of water.

Oh, no. There is NOTHING in scripture that says that immersion or submersion is required. I'll give you that it's a nice symbol. So is having the father of the child hold a lighted candle or having the minister wear certain vestments. But all that is necessary is the water and the invocation, and this is what almost all Christians have believed through almost all of Christian history, so don't be too quick to assume that all these billions of disciples somehow missed what you think you found in Scripture. And the earliest Christians pictured in their catecomb paintings Jesus being baptised while wading in the water. How could they be so wrong?

On the other hand, maybe I should ask you...where do you find submersion required in the Bible? The word itslef doesn't mean that. It can mean--as you noted--to dip, to wash, or any of several other non-submersion uses of water.

MamaZ · Jun 30, 2009

When one is buried are they just dipped in the grave?

Albion · Jun 30, 2009

MamaZ said:
When one is buried are they just dipped in the grave?

When you baptise by submersion do you let the person come up for air? If not, it's not really like being buried, is it?

Stryder06 · Jun 30, 2009

Albion said:
-snip-

On the other hand, maybe I should ask you...where do you find submersion required in the Bible? The word itslef doesn't mean that. It can mean--as you noted--to dip, to wash, or any of several other non-submersion uses of water.

The word doesn't possibly mean to dip. It does mean to dip, to immerse, to submerge.

And you're right the bible doesn't specifically say that they went under the water, even though the context is obvious, all we have is the meaning of the root word that baptisim comes from. It does say that they came up out of the water,so even if sprinkling, or pouring was actually baptisim, it's still not being done right because you need to be in the water so that you can come up out of it.

ezek33 · Jun 30, 2009

MamaZ said:
When one is buried are they just dipped in the grave?

I think the better question is when one is buried is a little dirt just thrown on their head.

OpenDoor · Jun 30, 2009

Stryder06 said:
Only part of the baptisim symbolizes death. When you go down you hold your breath, hence you stop breathing, and close your eyes as if you were dead, you are covered by the water, as if you were actually buried in a tomb, and than you are brought back up, as if you have been ressurected. It's all there.

I agree that we are baptized in to his death:
Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:3

but where in scripture does it say we are baptized into his resurrection?

The scriptures do say:
If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.
Romans 6:5

but why?

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

buried in baptism (water)
raised in faith (not water)

OpenDoor · Jun 30, 2009

ezek33 said:
I think the better question is when one is buried is a little dirt just thrown on their head.

that's the question
what's the right way to bury?

Stryder06 · Jun 30, 2009

OpenDoor said:
I agree that we are baptized in to his death:
Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:3

but where in scripture does it say we are baptized into his resurrection?

The scriptures do say:
If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.
Romans 6:5

but why?

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

buried in baptism (water)
raised in faith (not water)

I see what you're saying, at least I think I do. The reason why I say that baptisim is symbolic of the entire thing is because of it's nature. We go down and come back up, therfore there is a symbolic act of dying and resurrecting. Baptisim at its heart, I believe, as the bible says, is more focused on the death of Christ, but it's a given that if we believe in His death that we'll have faith in His resurrection. At least, that's how I see it.

I hope that made sense.

rosenherman · Jun 30, 2009

Nope.

OpenDoor · Jun 30, 2009

Stryder06 said:
I see what you're saying, at least I think I do. The reason why I say that baptisim is symbolic of the entire thing is because of it's nature. We go down and come back up, therfore there is a symbolic act of dying and resurrecting. Baptisim at its heart, I believe, as the bible says, is more focused on the death of Christ, but it's a given that if we believe in His death that we'll have faith in His resurrection. At least, that's how I see it.

I hope that made sense.

but...
if the resurrecting of the baptism is not part of the baptism, then why say down and up?
Am I saying we should go down and not come up? No.

But why say go down and up?

I have a feeling "modern tradition" has said, it is immersion because it is death and resurrection, but scripture does not say baptism is death and resurrection.

AngelusSax · Jun 30, 2009

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.

Except that I've heard theological professors and pastors say that the method used for Baptism was to stand in the river and the baptizer would use a sea-shell to cup some of the water and pour it over the baptizee's head.

Baptism is about the Word working together with the water. How much water is irrelevant, as God's Word is what does the real work.

PROPHECYKID · Jun 30, 2009

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

No. John's baptism had nothing to do with covenants. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, aimed at preparing the lives of people for the coming of the messiah. Concerning the prophecied baptisms that the messiah had to do you will need to show me those prophecies. I don't know of any prophecies which states any baptism that the messiah was supposed to do. Concerning everything else, it is hard to understand why you totally fail to mention the baptism of water a few verses later in the same chapter 2. Why you fail to mention Jesus' comission to his disciples to baptize in the name of the father, son and holy spirit.

Let me just ask, what do you do about the many referrences in the book of acts to baptisms being done by Peter, Phillip, many of the other disciples and Jesus' own words to Nicodemus, stating that a man must be born of the water and the spirit.

OpenDoor · Jun 30, 2009

PROPHECYKID said:
I don't know of any prophecies which states any baptism that the messiah was supposed to do.

Ezekiel 36:25
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols.

Psalm 51:7
Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.

Matthew 3:11
"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

maybe Jeremiah

Jeremiah 31:9
They will come with weeping;
they will pray as I bring them back.
I will lead them beside streams of water
on a level path where they will not stumble,
because I am Israel's father,
and Ephraim is my firstborn son.

OrthodoxyUSA · Jun 30, 2009

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

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

Agreed.

Forgive me...

Albion · Jun 30, 2009

Stryder06 said:
The word doesn't possibly mean to dip. It does mean to dip, to immerse, to submerge.

I see what you're thinking, but here's where you are making your mistake...

The word doesn't mean all those things at once, doesn't mean that to baptise one must comply with some list of actions. That kind of definition means that it's this general idea--dip, immerse, submerge. It's not as though if you do one of those you have to do the others.

In this thread the question is SHOULD baptism be by immersion ONLY.

Well, no. No more than we'd say "yes" to a question like "SHOULD baptism be done on Sunday ONLY." If you want to do it that way, it's fine and valid. If you want to do it otherwise, it's also fine. Immersion is an old way of doing it, but there's no indication that Jesus was immersed, nor were all the Jews who were baptised in those times immersed, nor are there any instructions in the NT saying to immerse. If it was NECESSARY, we'd expect this.

And you're right the bible doesn't specifically say that they went under the water, even though the context is obvious

Oh no it's not. There is nothing specific but neither is there any "obvious" context that suggests immersion.

all we have is the meaning of the root word that baptisim comes from. It does say that they came up out of the water,

And this means that Jesus came up the bank of the river, not that he was coming up from below the water's surface as you must have been told in some church or other. That's not the meaning.

In fact, if you read the verse carefully and with no preconceived notions, you will see that it CANNOT mean that he came uip from below the water's surface. It says "As soon as Jesus was baptised, he went out of the water." "As soon as he was baptised" means it's done. But the ceremony is not done the minute you hit the water. And consider the part that says "came up OUT OF THE WATER." Do you suppose he exploded out from the water like a rocket? No, he was still IN the water according to your theory, standing in it. So, he could NOT have been OUT OF THE WATER unless the phrase means what it does--that he came away from the river by climbing the bank of the river...out of the water.

OpenDoor · Jun 30, 2009

Albion said:
In fact, if you read the verse carefully and with no preconceived notions, you will see that it CANNOT mean that he came uip from below the water's surface. It says "As soon as Jesus was baptised, he went out of the water." "As soon as he was baptised" means it's done. But the ceremony is not done the minute you hit the water. And consider the part that says "came up OUT OF THE WATER." Do you suppose he exploded out from the water like a rocket? No, he was still IN the water according to your theory, standing in it. So, he could NOT have been OUT OF THE WATER unless the phrase means what it does--that he came away from the river by climbing the bank of the river...out of the water.

I agree
but why do you think the Father wanted Jesus out of the water?

I think people always forget this verse:
When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And AS HE WAS PRAYING, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."
Luke 3:21-22

Albion · Jun 30, 2009

OpenDoor said:
I agree
but why do you think the Father wanted Jesus out of the water?

I don't. There is nothing in that passage which suggests that the Father either wanted him in the water or out of it or that there would be any advantage in him being in the one place or the other.

should baptism be by immersion only?

Check the signature

Check the signature

MamaZ

Guest

Facilitator

MamaZ

Guest

Facilitator

Check the signature

Junior Member

Faith + Hope + Love

Faith + Hope + Love

Check the signature

Sparkly rainbow butterfly kitten

Faith + Hope + Love

Believe

Veteran

Faith + Hope + Love

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Faith + Hope + Love

Facilitator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency