should baptism be by immersion only?

[Stryder06]

So all churches should have pools (I agree)
but if someone was baptized at a church that did not have a pool the baptism is still valid.

Is this a decent summary of what you believe?
[/quote]

Edit: Decent summary? Yes and no.

Personally, speaking for myself, I believe that if a person is at a church that doesn't have a pool, it'd be best to wait until they can be properly baptised. Possibly see if a sister church would be willing to allow their church to be used for the service.

A church in our neighborhood burned down a few years ago. Our sister church in the same neighborhood opened its doors to the congregation so that they could use the church on sundays. I think that if we can be accomodating like that, it wouldn't be a problem to take the candidate to a place where they can be baptised properly.

But that's just me. If this isn't possible at all, I'd say go to walmart and get one of those inflatable pools for like 50 or 100 bucks and do it in the parking lot.

 

[cobweb]

Huh????????????? That doesn't make any sense!

I think he was pointing out the difference between immersion and submersion.

 

[Stryder06]

Nor would dunking the fellow in a horsetrough as some churches do.

NO ONE considers it a baptism merely because the candidate gets wet. We all know that repentance is part of it, the dedication to God is part of it, the renunciation of Satan and his works is part of it. To speak of baptism as if we were talking about some action confined to the external ceremony is to make light of a serious subject, and we should be able to do better than that here.We've had a good discussion; let's keep it that way.

I'm fine with that.

By the way, it's baptism, not "baptisim." The first time I saw that I thought it was merely a typo.

It is a typo, I have bad eyes lol. I see things that aren't there sometimes and things that are I don't see. I know what I want to write and I try to catch it but sometimes I goof up.

 

[Stryder06]

I'm going to upset everybody...

Valid is what "The Church" accepts as valid.

When we present ourselves to the Bishop and report that we have been baptized, he would ask questions about it.

Was it a Trinitarian Baptism? (In the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.)

Who performed the Baptism?

Was it documented?

If the Bishop decides that the Baptism was done well, and at the hands of a Trinitarian believer, then he will pronounce it as valid and complete the process by offering the seal of The Holy Spirit in chrismation. (The closing action of baptism.)

It is by Apostolic authority that this is done. How it is done is by the same authority.

The sacraments can be given by The Church, but they can not be taken from The Church.

Noone can pronounce them valid nor invalid except her.

Forgive me...

And here I was thinking that all we needed to do was baptise in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, and all was well.

 

[Albion]

Personally, speaking for myself, I believe that if a person is at a church that doesn't have a pool, it'd be best to wait until they can be properly baptised.

"be best to wait?" "be properly baptised?" You know, I've enjoyed your contributions to this thread, but couldn't you just please answer the question so we can move the discussion forward?

 

[ThomasDa]

I think he was pointing out the difference between immersion and submersion.

And the difference is?

 

[Stryder06]

"be best to wait?" "be properly baptised?" You know, I've enjoyed your contributions to this thread, but couldn't you just please answer the question so we can move the discussion forward?

Did you bother reading the rest of my post? I answered his question from my standpoint. If you disagree that's fine, but don't say I didn't answer it. There's about two or so paragraphs that you didn't include in your quote.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

And here I was thinking that all we needed to do was baptise in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, and all was well.

Stryder,

Simple yes or no question:

Can a person who is not in The Church baptize someone?

IOW ~ Can someone who has not been baptized (or was baptized improperly by whatever standards), baptize another?

Can the uninitiated, initiate?

Forgive me...

 

[Stryder06]

Stryder,

Simple yes or no question:

Can a person who is not in The Church baptize someone?

IOW ~ Can someone who has not been baptized (or was baptized improperly by whatever standards), baptize another?

Can the uninitiated, initiate?

Forgive me...

If this was the point of your previous statement, than forgive me because I totally missed it.

 

[Albion]

I'm afraid that a good discussion has lost its way. Instead of addressing the issue itself on its own merits we now have a Seventh Day Adventist saying he can only be comfortable with what the SDA says about it and an Orthodox Eastern Christian posting that whatever his church says is the truth, so he accepts that without question. But this does nothing for the rest of us to know that anyone here intends to be loyal to whatever his denomination tells him to believe.

 

[Albion]

Did you bother reading the rest of my post? I answered his question from my standpoint. If you disagree that's fine, but don't say I didn't answer it. There's about two or so paragraphs that you didn't include in your quote.

Excuse me, but I wasn't referring to whether or not every church should have pools. I was asking about the previously-asked question, "Is a baptism performed by other than immersion valid?"

 

[Stryder06]

I'm afraid that a good discussion has lost its way. Instead of addressing the issue itself on its own merits we now have a Seventh Day Adventist saying he can only be comfortable with what the SDA says about it and an Orthodox Eastern Christian posting that whatever his church says is the truth, so he accepts that without question. But this does nothing for the rest of us to know that anyone here intends to be loyal to whatever his denomination tells him to believe.

The OP question was should baptism be by immersion only. My answer to that question was yes, and thus we've moved on from the answer to why. I don't see how you don't see that.

Your answer was no, but that there are many forms of "baptism" that are correct. And as such you too have moved on from they answer to its explanation.

He didn't ask for a poll, as such you should expect answers with rebuttle.

 

[Albion]

The OP question was should baptism be by immersion only. My answer to that question was yes, and thus we've moved on from the answer to why. I don't see how you don't see that.

Because that was not the whole of the progression of the discussion! Along the way, it was also asked--repeatedly--if the immersionists believe that a baptism done by affusion or some other way that did not include immersion is valid. I note that in your answers there has been a steady use of wording that can be taken several different ways, and I'm just asking you to answer us.

And in case there is any doubt about the OP, it was pointed out, again repeatedly, that "should" can be interpreted as "preferred" or as "must." I don't see why you won't answer "yes" or "no" to the question that attempts to clear this ambiguity up: " Is a baptismal ceremony that includes water and the Triune invocation but not immersion to be considered a valid baptism?" Yes or No.

 

[Stryder06]

Excuse me, but I wasn't referring to whether or not every church should have pools. I was asking about the previously-asked question, "Is a baptism performed by other than immersion valid?"

I double checked to be certain, and I was indeed responding to a statement made by OpenDoor. As such my answer to that particular post had nothing to do with any question you had asked me.

The long and short answer to your question is no. If you're talking about sprinkling or pouring than it isn't baptism.

This isn't to say that a person is not converted, but the truth of the matter is that additional definitions have been added to what baptism acutally is, and these definitions have been accepted by the majority of the christian community.

Anything outside of going under the water isn't baptism, you're just getting wet.

Of course now God alone judges the heart, and if the person was "baptized" in an incorrect manner, but in their heart they believed that this is what God intended, than I believe that it is accepted by Christ.

 

[Stryder06]

Because that was not the whole of the progression of the discussion! Along the way, it was also asked--repeatedly--if the immersionists believe that a baptism done by affusion or some other way that did not include immersion is valid. I note that in your answers there has been a steady use of wording that can be taken several different ways, and I'm just asking you to answer us.

Understood. I thought i was being clear enough as to my standpoint. Your answer however is in post #115 i believe.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

If this was the point of your previous statement, than forgive me because I totally missed it.

It's an extrapolation of the point.

The point was that it must be accepted by The Church.

One of the contentions of accepting the baptism is... who did it.

Forgive me...

 

[Albion]

Stryder:

Your answer however is in post #115 i believe.

"The long and short answer to your question is no. If you're talking about sprinkling or pouring than it isn't baptism. "

All right. So, to you, a baptism must include immersion in order to be valid. Then what do we do about those for whom immersion is not possible (examples were given previously)? They cannot be baptised, as your thinking runs.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The Apostles gave us the answer to the OP in the Didache.

Chapter 7. 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.

Is that not acceptable?

Forgive me...

 

[Stryder06]

Stryder:

"The long and short answer to your question is no. If you're talking about sprinkling or pouring than it isn't baptism. "

All right. So, to you, a baptism must include immersion in order to be valid. Then what do we do about those for whom immersion is not possible (examples were given previously)? They cannot be baptised, as your thinking runs.

And I already responded to those questions. The point isn't about those who have special circumstances that would keep them from being baptised. If you can't be baptised, than you can't be baptised. God is more concerned with your heart.

It's about those who knowingly make the choice to not be baptised properly, and those churches who know what is called for but do otherwise in the name of tradition.

 

[Stryder06]

The Apostles gave us the answer to the OP in the Didache.


Is that not acceptable?

Forgive me...

I don't remember the bible stating that it was a requirement to fast before being baptized.