should baptism be by immersion only?

[cobweb]

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.

So how would you baptize someone in a hospital bed, or someone who couldn't go under the water for a medical reason? What about in a prison camp where there isn't access to enough water? Do you say, "Too bad. No baptism for you."?

 

[Albion]

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.

But this isn't a either-or proposition. Use water on the candidate. That's the issue. Pour it, immerse him, blast him with a fire hose if you wish. NO PARTICULAR mode of applying the water is identified in scripture. If you prefer to immerse, go ahead. Just don't say (and I don't mean you specifically) that if we pour water over our people, that it's not a baptism.

BTW, the great majority of churches which do not immerse, do pour. Even the charge that they "sprinkle" is something said with a sneering intention by most who say that, since few churches really do sprinkle. But I guess "sprinkle" sounds more ridiculous than "pour."

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.

Very well. Could we say "outside," then and make another artificial requirement?

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 what it symbolizes.

I'm disappointed. That last sentence in no way follows from what you said in the first two. Take away "has to happen" and substitute something about it being a good symbol but not a requirement for a valid baptism and I'd be right with you.

 

[Stryder06]

So how would you baptize someone in a hospital bed, or someone who couldn't go under the water for a medical reason? What about in a prison camp where there isn't access to enough water? Do you say, "Too bad. No baptism for you."?

Was the theif on the cross baptised? Baptisim is an outward expression of an inward change that should be done by those who are able to be baptised. I don't believe that God will not offer salvation to someone who cannot be baptised because of a condition or circumstance that prevents it.

Either way pouring a bit of water on or sprinkling a bit of water is not baptisim, nor should it be considered baptisim. It's a man made substitution that holds no biblical support.

 

[Stryder06]

But this isn't a either-or proposition. Use water on the candidate. That's the issue. Pour it, immerse him, blast him with a fire hose if you wish. NO PARTICULAR mode of applying the water is identified in scripture. If you prefer to immerse, go ahead. Just don't say (and I don't mean you specifically) that if we pour water over our people, that it's not a baptism.

I don't think i'll ever get used to the "let's make an assumption that this is right simply because scripture doesn't write it out that it's wrong even though we have examples to the contrary" arguement.

BTW, the great majority of churches which do not immerse, do pour. Even the charge that they "sprinkle" is something said with a sneering intention by most who say that, since few churches really do sprinkle. But I guess "sprinkle" sounds more ridiculous than "pour."

I've never been a fan of the "because everyone else is doing it so should we" school of thought, especially when it comes to the scripture. By all accounts and purposes, in the bible, it's always been the minority that were doing it right. So I think i'm in good company

Very well. Could we say "outside," then and make another artificial requirement?

No. You'd be missing the point entirely and starting a senseless debate on a invalid point. He baptised outside because that's where they had the water. I'm not too certain but I don't think that indoor plumbing for the masses was available yet.

I'm disappointed. That last sentence in no way follows from what you said in the first two. Take away "has to happen" and substitute something about it being a good symbol but not a requirement for a valid baptism and I'd be right with you.

Oh it does indeed. You're nitpicking trying to make a point that it's ok to pour or sprinkle simply because the bible doesn't "say" that its wrong. It's been repeated several times that baptisim is also symbolic of the death resurrection and burial of Christ, but you constanly glance over that. You can't symbolize that without going under. It's not about having water poured over you or splashed on your face, and caliming that as long as you invoke the name of the Trinity that everything will be ok. It's about committing to the example that was given to us by God. Again, He wouldn't have said to baptise if we weren't to baptise.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

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.

Quite correct! Baptisms were not performed inside the Church building (The Temple). Any water can be blessed for baptism.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

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.

You knew I was a cat when you brought me home....

Forgive me...

 

[Celticflower]

Again, He wouldn't have said to baptise if we weren't to baptise.

I don't think that is the argument here. The problem is he said go and do, but didn't leave detailed instructions as to how. This is why different traditions were adopted. In some cases there weren't bodies of water big enough to immerse a person in. Sometimes the baptism had to be done in secret, so pouring was a better option.

I have never found in scripture any requirements listed for amount of water to be use, how the water is to be used, where the water is supposed to be, age of the person to be baptised, if the person needs to be in the water at all - all these are things people have read into scripture over time. If you read the passage about Phillip and the eunuch with a slightly different view, you might surmise that both the baptiser and the baptisee must go under the water so they can both come up out of the water. How many baptism like that have you seen?

 

[Celticflower]

You knew I was a cat when you brought me home....

Forgive me...

Meow?

 

[Stryder06]

I don't think that is the argument here. The problem is he said go and do, but didn't leave detailed instructions as to how. This is why different traditions were adopted. In some cases there weren't bodies of water big enough to immerse a person in. Sometimes the baptism had to be done in secret, so pouring was a better option.

I have never found in scripture any requirements listed for amount of water to be use, how the water is to be used, where the water is supposed to be, age of the person to be baptised, if the person needs to be in the water at all - all these are things people have read into scripture over time. If you read the passage about Phillip and the eunuch with a slightly different view, you might surmise that both the baptiser and the baptisee must go under the water so they can both come up out of the water. How many baptism like that have you seen?

Point taken. But as I already said, given a certain circumstance I believe God accepts what can be done. Most however today could be immersed in the water but are not. Most churches today could practice this but do not.

That is where I have a problem.

 

[Celticflower]

Point taken. But as I already said, given a certain circumstance I believe God accepts what can be done. Most however today could be immersed in the water but are not. Most churches today could practice this but do not.

That is where I have a problem.

But many of us don't have a problem with it. And that is the root of your problem.

 

[OpenDoor]

Baptism is immersion. If you're not immersed, you're not baptized.
There are not different types of baptism.
Being baptised/immersed is being baptised/immersed; you either are or you're not.

If this is true, then submersion is NOT baptism

 

[OpenDoor]

Point taken. But as I already said, given a certain circumstance I believe God accepts what can be done. Most however today could be immersed in the water but are not. Most churches today could practice this but do not.

That is where I have a problem.

if a person was baptized in such a church under such a matter would it be considered valid?
Usually it is done because the church does not have ready access to a baptismal pool.

In such a case, should the person seeking baptism be told to wait or go elsewhere?

Do we have any biblical examples were a person is told not to be baptized?

 

[Stryder06]

if a person was baptized in such a church under such a matter would it be considered valid?
Usually it is done because the church does not have ready access to a baptismal pool.

In such a case, should the person seeking baptism be told to wait or go elsewhere?

Do we have any biblical examples were a person is told not to be baptized?

This makes three times: Given the circumstance I believe God is happy with whatever it is that they are able to do.

If you can't put someone in a pool than you can't. If you can put someone in a pool but opt not too just because, than that's where the problem comes in.

 

[Stryder06]

But many of us don't have a problem with it. And that is the root of your problem.

I don't have a problem. It's pretty sad that this is even something to discuss honestly, because it is very simple.

If you can't be baptised, than you can't. If a church however decides to do away with baptism as it is given us in the bible, and instead looks to have it done their own way, than yes I have a problem with that.

I've seen some huge churches with large congregations that i'm positive bring in a nice bit a money. And just about everytime I look around their sanctuaries and say to myself "Where is the baptisimal pool?"

I fear, that with other things, baptism will soon be one of those things that gets compromised right out of the church.

 

[OpenDoor]

This makes three times: Given the circumstance I believe God is happy with whatever it is that they are able to do.

If you can't put someone in a pool than you can't. If you can put someone in a pool but opt not too just because, than that's where the problem comes in.

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?

 

[Albion]

Either way pouring a bit of water on or sprinkling a bit of water is not baptisim, nor should it be considered baptisim.

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.

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

 

[PaladinValer]

Baptism is immersion. If you're not immersed, you're not baptized.

Explain the Didache?

There are not different types of baptism.

Being baptised/immersed is being baptised/immersed; you either are or you're not.

It is true that there is only one type of Christian Baptism, but thanks to the mercy and grace of God, He knows that it isn't always possible for an immersion or submersion. It isn't out of human weakness, but rather due to the fact that geography sometimes is a barrier.

Why are so many Protestants such legalists?

 

[Albion]

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?

Personally, I see no particular merit in baptising anyone in a large indoor pool, since no one in the NT was baptised that way. If one were trying to be true to the Bible, he'd baptise only outdoors and in "living water."' So if that is NOT going to be adhered to, there's no logic in making a single, guessed-at, characteristic of NT Baptism into a hard and fast requirement.

But if one is going to do that, the bigger question still remains what you asked here and I asked before--is this just your idea of a more symbolic or historic way of doing the ceremony but not something that is necessary for validity? The question was answered by some here but skirted, so it seemed, by others. To say that if you do what you are "able to do"...or that one would "prefer" immersion, doesn't actually answer the question.

I suppose that the reason for the equivocation is that the only possible answers are these: 1) either non-immersion means invalidity and the bedridden person in the example is just out of luck, or else 2) to make immersion a requirement for a valid baptism really is indefensible. This (#2) is what the early church understood (as has also been explained previously by another poster), i.e. immersion is more symbolic, but it can't be considered mandatory. And if it is not mandatory, that argument which says "the word means immersion so if there is no immersion it can't be a baptism" is in error.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

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...

 

[ThomasDa]

If this is true, then submersion is NOT baptism

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