should baptism be by immersion only?

OpenDoor said:

Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:3

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

Click to expand...

These are analogies, poetic comparisons. They are not intended literally. If they were meant to be taken that way, we would have to actually bury the candidate in the ground (as has already been discussed).

We also read in the NT, "As many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ." Gal 3:27 Should we therefore make a blanket or shirt of Christ, or just how do we--literally speaking as the "Immersion only" literallists want us to do--"put on Christ?" It an analogy!

Another passage about baptism says this: "...and have all been made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Cor 12:13. Where and how do you suggest we drink something here?

The only New Testament instructions about Baptism are these--

1) Use water and 2) do it in the name of Jesus or the Trinity.

That's it. And I for one have a hard time appreciating the arguments of people who otherwise say that they are guided by the Bible Alone but in matters such as this one are head over heels for something men added.

Stryder06 said:

submergence: sinking until covered completely with water

Now even though I believe that one should be placed totally under the water, that wasn't the point. Standing in the water wouldnt be immersion, and if all Jesus was doing was standing in the water while He was sprinkled or when the water was poured on Him, than churches that practice such methods of baptisim are still doing it incorrectly because they are not placing the baptisimal candidates in water when they pour water on them or sprinkle them.

Click to expand...

Which misses the point entirely IMHO. We could add to immersion and standing in water up to your knees the following--

Dress like Jesus was dressed.
Do it only in a river.
Be sure that other people are being baptised on the same occasion.
Have the minister wear clothing of camel hair with a leather belt.
Go immediately into the desert to complete the occasion.

All that the Bible teaches--and we have a number of NT examples for this, not just Jesus' own baptism--is to use water and invoke the Trinity or Jesus.

Being immersed is NOT the issue...It is the admission and response to Jesus the Christ...

Acts 8:
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And 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?
37 And 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.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Because threads tend to wander, may I ask the "Immersion Only" advocates to clarify this for us...

Is it your position that unless Immersion occurs, the baptism is invalid?

or are you saying that

Immersion is the proper mode of baptism, although others done with the proper intention are nevertheless valid, in the way that we could argue that communion should be at the altar rail vs. in the seats, or use hard crackers vs. leavened bread, etc.?

There have been many martyrs that have been said to have been baptized in their own blood.

Forgive me...

simonthezealot said:

Being immersed is NOT the issue...It is the admission and response to Jesus the Christ...

Acts 8:
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And 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?
37 And 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.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Click to expand...

But there would be no reason for any kind of ceremonial baptism if what is in our hearts were the only command. Note, BTW, how the eunuch described the situation. "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized." Obviously he knew that baptism involves the use of water.

Albion said:

Which misses the point entirely IMHO. We could add to immersion and standing in water up to your knees the following--

Dress like Jesus was dressed.
Do it only in a river.
Be sure that other people are being baptised on the same occasion.
Have the minister wear clothing of camel hair with a leather belt.
Go immediately into the desert to complete the occasion.

All that the Bible teaches--and we have a number of NT examples for this, not just Jesus' own baptism--is to use water and invoke the Trinity or Jesus.

Click to expand...

It doesn't miss the point at all. We're talking about baptisim, not the way they dressed. John wasn't the only one who baptised. Philip baptised the eunuch in a "certain type" of water (I believe that's how the bible describes it) so it's obvious that it doesn't have to be done in a river. This one example adresses all of your listed potential arguements.

There really is no escaping the fact that being in the water plays an important role in baptisim, or else it wouldn't be called baptisim, it'd be called sprinkling or pouring. The word was used for a reason.

The biblical examples in the NT involve water, (enough so that one can be placed in it) and the calling out of the Trinity. We are to baptise in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, not just Jesus' name. That was His command.

Baptism can be viewed as outward evidence of an inward change. Doing it because Jesus said we should although we're just as saved without it.

OrthodoxyUSA said:

There have been many martyrs that have been said to have been baptized in their own blood.

Click to expand...

Yes, but this is a supposition on the part of the church--that when water IS NOT AVAILABLE, and when there's no opportunity for it--presumably God accepts the intention of the person. But that's something apart from the normal situation facing the rest of us and which we are discussing. OTOH, I agree with you that (water) baptism, sacramental baptism, is not a 100% requirement for salvation (if that's what you were getting at).

Stryder06 said:

It doesn't miss the point at all. We're talking about baptisim, not the way they dressed.

Click to expand...

And why aren't we discussing the way that they dressed? We've been discussing the supposed necessity of baptising in the precise way that you suppose Jesus was baptised by John...including the belief that it involved limmersion? If that is to be made a requirement for baptism, it follows that other incidentals should also be adhered to. But if we DON'T see it that way, immersion ALSO is not necessary.

John wasn't the only one who baptised. Philip baptised the eunuch in a "certain type" of water (I believe that's how the bible describes it) so it's obvious that it doesn't have to be done in a river.

Click to expand...

Oh, so now the discussion about how Jesus was baptised himself--coming up from the water, etc.--is not that important? OK, I can accept that, and we can discuss ALL the references to baptism in the NT as you seem to think is appropriate. That seems reasonable to me. You do note that there is no reference to immersion in these others.

There really is no escaping the fact that being in the water plays an important role in baptisim, or else it wouldn't be called baptisim, it'd be called sprinkling or pouring. The word was used for a reason.

Click to expand...

Again, the misunderstanding of what the word means. It is called baptism because of the dousing with water idea. The word does not mean immersion alone, but a number of similar actions, just as we use the word "wash" to mean bathing, showering, using a cloth or not, etc. If that were the debate we were having here, some would be saying "Shower only! That's the meaning of the word!," completely ignoring the fact that other modes of washing are just as well and properly described by the word.

If a false interpretation of that word is all the the Immersion-Only side can cling to, I will just have to say to look in the dictionary and our debate is resolved.

There really is no escaping the fact that being in the water plays an important role in baptisim

Click to expand...

,
Agreed.

and the calling out of the Trinity.

Click to expand...

OK

We are to baptise in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, not just Jesus' name. That was His command.

Click to expand...

Well, that is the way that most churches, including mine, do it, but there is a passage in which "in Jesus' name" appears and is the basis for some churches' practice. I didn't think we needed to make that an argument in itself when we are focused on immersion.

Albion said:

Yes, but this is a supposition on the part of the church--that when water IS NOT AVAILABLE, and when there's no opportunity for it--presumably God accepts the intention of the person. But that's something apart from the normal situation facing the rest of us and which we are discussing. OTOH, I agree with you that (water) baptism, sacramental baptism, is not a 100% requirement for salvation (if that's what you were getting at).

Click to expand...

Ah... It is not a supposition. It is their decree. They (The Church) have the authority to declare it.

They ask it of the father through the grace and love of Christ Jesus and it is granted in heaven as on earth.

In this method they have decreed that this "person" was granted the Holy Sacrament.

Authority was given.

It is theirs to give.

Note: There is no sacrament that we can "take" from the Church... they can only be given.

Forgive me...

OrthodoxyUSA said:

Ah... It is not a supposition. It is their decree. They (The Church) have the authority to declare it.

Click to expand...

OK, the church acted upon its supposition. I didn't mean to invite another lecture on Eastern Orthodox practices and beliefs merely because I agreed that so-called Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire have a historic place in Christian thinking.

The question is, do people think that first and 2nd century Christians were baptized incorrectly? We know from their writings that pouring was considered acceptable if triple "dunking" wasn't possible.

Perhaps people don't really care what the early Christians did.

Albion said:

And why aren't we discussing the way that they dressed? We've been discussing the supposed necessity of baptising in the precise way that you suppose Jesus was baptised by John...including the belief that it involved limmersion? If that is to be made a requirement for baptism, it follows that other incidentals should also be adhered to. But if we DON'T see it that way, immersion ALSO is not necessary.

Click to expand...

I really don't see how you can honestly think the way they dressed as a valid arguement. This really seems to be a statement made to argue simple for the sake of doing so. They dressed as it was appropriate for their time/culture. So in essence we are dressed the way Jesus would have been dressed should he had lived during our time. I'm certain that you are aware of that.

Oh, so now the discussion about how Jesus was baptised himself--coming up from the water, etc.--is not that important? OK, I can accept that, and we can discuss ALL the references to baptism in the NT as you seem to think is appropriate. That seems reasonable to me. You do note that there is no reference to immersion in these others.

Click to expand...

I mentioned Jesus as an example. It says that He came up out of the water. Now if you choose to believe that He wasn't put under the water, that's on you, but you can't deny that He was in the water to begin with. Thus for baptisim to take place one needs to be in the water, that's the point you seem to keep glancing over.

I already conceded to the point that the bible does not say that they were immersed. Of course this is to simply cut back on the senseless arguements that would ensue. You're choosing the definition of the word that suits you, and in all honesty it still doesn't work. Spriknling or pouring is not dipping, or immersing. Thus it's not baptising.

Again, the misunderstanding of what the word means. It is called baptism because of the dousing with water idea. The word does not mean immersion alone, but a number of similar actions, just as we use the word "wash" to mean bathing, showering, using a cloth or not, etc. If that were the debate we were having here, some would be saying "Shower only! That's the meaning of the word!," completely ignoring the fact that other modes of washing are just as well and properly described by the word.

Click to expand...

Let's look at the word again and compare it with dousing and sprinkling:


Baptizo:

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

Douse:
put out, as of a candle or a light; "Douse the lights"
wet thoroughly
dip: dip into a liquid; "He dipped into the pool"
lower quickly; "douse a sail"
slacken; "douse a rope"
drench: cover with liquid; pour liquid onto; "souse water on his hot face"
Sprinkle:
scatter: distribute loosely; "He scattered gun powder under the wagon"
cause (a liquid) to spatter about, especially with force; "She splashed the water around her"
rain gently; "It has only sprinkled, but the roads are slick"
scattering: a light shower that falls in some locations and not others nearby
scatter with liquid; wet lightly; "Sprinkle the lawn"


With that cleared up it is still painfully obvious that sprinkling is not what the word being used was trying to get across, in any sense.


Let's try to look at it like this, when you are baptised and placed under the water you are not just symbolizing the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, you are also symbolizing your complete and total surrendor to Him. You are giving your all. This is in no way signified by getting partially wet on the top of your head. It's like you're saying that you're only going to give God some of you, when we know that He requires all of you.

If a false interpretation of that word is all the the Immersion-Only side can cling to, I will just have to say to look in the dictionary and our debate is resolved.

Click to expand...

The defintions above address this point. Of course if you can provide another dictionary defintion than please do. And it's not the only point. The real point is understanding what baptism symbolizes. Look that up and our arguement will be done indeed.

Agreed.

OK

Well, that is the way that most churches, including mine, do it, but there is a passage in which "in Jesus' name" appears and is the basis for some churches' practice. I didn't think we needed to make that an argument in itself when we are focused on immersion.

Click to expand...

Fine with me.

cobweb said:

The question is, do people think that first and 2nd century Christians were baptized incorrectly? We know from their writings that pouring was considered acceptable if triple "dunking" wasn't possible.

Perhaps people don't really care what the early Christians did.

Click to expand...

On that latter point, I'd say "it depends." Yes, I care that they didn't have any ideas about Popes, Indulgences, and some other notions that crept into the church later on. But no, I don't care in what order they seated the bishops at church councils, don't care if they made men and women sit on opposite sides of the church, don't care that they thought sins committed after baptism could never be forgiven, etc.

It depends.

On the other hand, I haven't had an answer to my question of a few posts ago, i.e. do the Immersion Only folks think other baptisms are invalid or just not done in the best way?

Albion said:

On that latter point, I'd say "it depends." Yes, I care that they didn't have any ideas about Popes, Indulgences, and some other notions that crept into the church later on. But no, I don't how they seated the bishops at church councils, don't care if they made men and women sit on opposite sides of the church, don't care that they thought sins committed after baptism could never be forgiven, etc.

It depends.

On the other hand, I haven't had an answer to my question of a few posts ago, i.e. do the Immersion Only folks think other baptisms are invalid or just not done in the best way?

Click to expand...

I'd say, just not done in the best way.

My 6 year old son is about to be baptized. He will not be completely submerged 3 times, contrary to the usual practice of our Church.

He is terrified of going under water. Out of mercy he will be immersed as far as possible and then water will be poured over his head. He will still be baptized, even if his head doesn't completely go under water.

OrthodoxyUSA said:

Ah... It is not a supposition. It is their decree. They (The Church) have the authority to declare it.

They ask it of the father through the grace and love of Christ Jesus and it is granted in heaven as on earth.

In this method they have decreed that this "person" was granted the Holy Sacrament.

Authority was given.

It is theirs to give.

Note: There is no sacrament that we can "take" from the Church... they can only be given.

Forgive me...

Click to expand...

Baptism was not church related until later... the commission was given to all the disciples to go out and baptise... so if today, someone is taken up from one place and finds themselves somewhere else where, let's say, a enunich is trying to make heads or tails of scripture, and you are there to teach, and the enunich asks after the truth fills his soul, his need to be baptised, any near by water will do.

Stryder06 said:

I really don't see how you can honestly think the way they dressed as a valid arguement.

Click to expand...

The point is simply that it is as valid as saying immersion is necessary because, presumably, Jesus was immersed (whether or not that is accurate). If one non-essential is made into an essential, where can the line be drawn? Think about it.

This really seems to be a statement made to argue simple for the sake of doing so.

Click to expand...

It's a statement made to illustrate the illogic in making one superficial aspect of Jesus' baptism into a requirement for a real baptism. I am not actually advocating that we all dress like John the Baptist, for example.

They dressed as it was appropriate for their time/culture.

Click to expand...

Then wouldn't you agree that being baptised in a river, and with immersion if that was the case, is ALSO something appropriate for their time and culture but not especially so for ours?

I mentioned Jesus as an example. It says that He came up out of the water. Now if you choose to believe that He wasn't put under the water, that's on you, but you can't deny that He was in the water to begin with.

Click to expand...

We've covered all of that several times--culture of his time, understanding that "came up out of the water" means walking from the water, not bobbing up from under it, etc. The point remains that immersion is nowhere commanded or referred to in the NT, although the use of water is and also the invocation of the Trinity. Bear in mind also that no one has argued here that if you want to immerse and think that Jesus probably was immersed, that it's all great symbolism, that there is anything wrong with doing that. It's only when someone says that UNLESS you immerse, it's not a baptism that it becomes a controversy.

Thus for baptisim to take place one needs to be in the water, that's the point you seem to keep glancing over.

Click to expand...

No, that's no more necessary than dressing the way John and Jesus did or any of the other incidentals attached to that scene. You can no more make this one incidental--standing in water--a requirement than you can immersion or, let's say, using a river. WHY DON'T you argue, BTW, for that--must use river, if you're going to make some incidentals into requirements? Why pick and choose as you are doing?

You're choosing the definition of the word that suits you

Click to expand...

No, I'm not. But that is exactly what you are doing. I'll explain again--

All the meanings are valid. I am content with baptism by pouring OR by immersion. The other side is picking only one definition and saying "This is how it must be done."

Let's look at the word again and compare it with dousing and sprinkling:




Baptizo:

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

Click to expand...

You see, you are doing just what you say you are not. The word has a variety of meanings and, in red, you have one of them that covers all these modes. To argue that taking a shower--which is just about what baptism by affusion amounts to--does not meet the definition of washing oneself, making clean with water, etc., which is from your own definition, strikes me as disingenuous.

Albion said:

The point is simply that it is as valid as saying immersion is necessary because, presumably, Jesus was immersed (whether or not that is accurate). If one non-essential is made into an essential, where can the line be drawn? Think about it.


It's a statement made to illustrate the illogic in making one superficial aspect of Jesus' baptism into a requirement for a real baptism. I am not actually advocating that we all dress like John the Baptist, for example.



Then wouldn't you agree that being baptised in a river, and with immersion if that was the case, is ALSO something appropriate for their time and culture but not especially so for ours?


We've covered all of that several times--culture of his time, understanding that "came up out of the water" means walking from the water, not bobbing up from under it, etc. The point remains that immersion is nowhere commanded or referred to in the NT, although the use of water is and also the invocation of the Trinity. Bear in mind also, that no one has argued here that if you want to immerse, and thing that Jesus probably was immersed, so it's all great symbolism, that there is anything wrong with doing that. It's only when someone says that UNLESS you immerse, it's not a baptism that it becomes a controversy.



No, that's no more necessary than dressing the way John and Jesus did or any of the other incidentals attached to that scene. You can no more make this one incidental--standing in water--a requirement than you can immersion or, let's say, using a river. WHY DON'T you argue, BTW, for that--must use river, if you're going to make some incidentals into requirements? Why pick and choose as you are doing?


No, I'm not. But that is exactly what you are doing. I'll explain again--

All the meanings are valid. I am content with baptism by pouring OR by immersion. The other side is picking only one definition and saying "This is how it must be done."

Let's look at the word again and compare it with dousing and sprinkling:




Baptizo:

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

You see, you are doing just what you say you are not. The word has a variety of meanings and, in red, you have one of them that covers all these modes. To argue that taking a shower--which is just about what baptism by affusion amounts to--does not meet the definition of washing oneself, making clean with water, etc., which is from your own definition, strikes me as disingenuous.

Click to expand...

I think i'm starting to see your point. I think, but the question still is where does the bible give any example of pouring being acceptable.

As far as why I don't argue for the river idea is because the river isn't the point. Philip didn't baptise in a river. So it isn't the location or body of water that matters. Rather it is the action that does matter. Going under the water is what has to happen because of wha it symbolizes.

cobweb said:

I'd say, just not done in the best way.

My 6 year old son is about to be baptized. He will not be completely submerged 3 times, contrary to the usual practice of our Church.

He is terrified of going under water. Out of mercy he will be immersed as far as possible and then water will be poured over his head. He will still be baptized, even if his head doesn't completely go under water.

Click to expand...

I'd agree...and I have agreed. Symbolism is important. But apparently there are many who will say he wasn't baptized.

Immersion is a great symbol. The issue we are stuck on here is nothing more or less than the way the OP was framed--Should immersion by used ONLY. I'd say no and that those who say yes are making a non-essential into an essential. But I favor symbolism in general, much moreso, I'm sure, than the Immersion Only people do. They make this a big issue, but just ask them to contemplate the use of ashes on Ash Wednesday, for example, and they'll be running for the hills.