should baptism be by immersion only?

[OrthodoxyUSA]

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

That's because it's not in there.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Attempting to assemble a puzzle with many of the pieces missing is bound to give a limited view of the whole.

Forgive me...

 

[Albion]

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.

Where does the Bible grant that examption? We do not normally decide on salvation-related matters by referring to hunches about what makes God happy when his rules are not adhered to. Do you have a Biblical basis for saying this? You are unable to make the same exception for the billions of Christians whose hearts are right but who were baptised by affusion instead of immersion.

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.

Do you have any real churches in mind or was that a blanket dismissal of the great majority of Christians of a wide range of denominations and communions? My church does not baptise by immersion, but it is not the case that we "knowingly do otherwise in the name of tradition." That's a ridiculously incorrect notion. The normal way of baptising is not done in the name of tradition and no one "knowingly" dismisses God's will in this matter.

 

[Albion]

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

Well, the Bible doesn't state that immersion is necessary for a valid baptism, either. Nor does it support your rationalization given in defense of non-immersion baptisms being acceptable to God after you've said that they are not valid: "given a certain circumstance I believe God accepts what can be done."

Looks like the Bible is supposed to matter...until the Bible doesn't matter.

Don't be upset with me, please. I have tried to see if all the contraditions in the immersionist position can be explained, and I've asked you questions to that end. But it appears to be a system that is neither Biblical nor rational.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

...That's a ridiculously incorrect notion. The normal way of baptising is not done in the name of tradition and no one "knowingly" dismisses God's will in this matter.

I agree.

Forgive me...

 

[Albion]

A common theme on this thread has been to appeal to the Bible.

Therefore, and in everyone's interest, maybe we need to know...


...where, in the Bible, we can find:

1. Immersion ordered as the only valid method of baptising.

2. Baptisms done in the name of the Trinity and using water are invalid.

3. It matters to God if one is baptised by pouring, but not if water is absent altogether!?

 

[rosenherman]

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.

It is.

 

[Stryder06]

Where does the Bible grant that examption? We do not normally decide on salvation-related matters by referring to hunches about what makes God happy when his rules are not adhered to. Do you have a Biblical basis for saying this? You are unable to make the same exception for the billions of Christians whose hearts are right but who were baptised by affusion instead of immersion.

Theif on the cross. Was he baptized? Didn't Christ tell him that He'd be in paradise?
Do we have any record of the partriarchs of old being baptized? Will they not be in heaven?

Do you have any real churches in mind or was that a blanket dismissal of the great majority of Christians of a wide range of denominations and communions? My church does not baptise by immersion, but it is not the case that we "knowingly do otherwise in the name of tradition." That's a ridiculously incorrect notion. The normal way of baptising is not done in the name of tradition and no one "knowingly" dismisses God's will in this matter.

I'm making a general statment about all churches who do so while knowing. I don't know the hearts of man, but I do know that there are churches that engage in false pratices and teach men to do the same. Of course this is going to get off topic so perhaps we should save any further comments for a different thread.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

St. Dismas (the thief on the cross) participated in Christ's "death, burial and resurrection" (baptism) in a most personal way.

It was counted as baptism by The Church.

Forgive me...

 

[Albion]

I was just reading a well-known exegesis of Matthew's Gospel account of Jesus' baptism done by a Presbyterian theologian. For whoever cares, I thought I'd pass it along in view of our previous discussion.

He says, "In order to demonstrate from this passage that immersion is essential, it is necessary to demonstrate, a) that he went into the river; b) that, being there, he was wholly immersed; c) that the fact that he was immersed, if he was, proves that all others must be, in order that there could be a valid baptism. Neither of these three things has ever been demonstrated from this passage, nor can they be."

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Forgive me...

 

[Albion]

Theif on the cross. Was he baptized? Didn't Christ tell him that He'd be in paradise?
Do we have any record of the partriarchs of old being baptized? Will they not be in heaven?

OK, I don't think that either of those is analagous to the situation we were looking at, but I'll not press the point about God giving a pass to those who could not be baptised for one reason or another. It's already been mentioned that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are long-established principles in Christian history, so they do seem similar.

What Jesus said to the Good Thief, by the way, was only that both of them would pass into the afterlife that day (Paradise). What Dismas' ultimate destination was, we do not know from this passage.

I'm making a general statment about all churches who do so while knowing.

All right. But I can't think of any that fall in to that category, which is why I asked if you have any particular ones in mind.

I don't know the hearts of man, but I do know that there are churches that engage in false pratices and teach men to do the same. Of course this is going to get off topic so perhaps we should save any further comments for a different thread.

I agree. However, I have to say that teaching falsity and "knowing" that some other way or belief is God's intended way are two entirely different matters. There are many churches that teach falsely. I'd say yours does and we already know that you think mine does. I do not, however, assume that you know better but defy God nevertheless.

 

[Stryder06]

OK, I don't think that either of those is analagous to the situation we were looking at, but I'll not press the point about God giving a pass to those who could not be baptised for one reason or another. It's already been mentioned that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are long-established principles in Christian history, so they do seem similar.

What Jesus said to the Good Thief, by the way, was only that both of them would pass into the afterlife that day (Paradise). What Dismas' ultimate destination was, we do not know from this passage.

I think we agree on principle here so i'll leave it at that. This isn't the venue to discuss our beliefs on the state of the dead.

All right. But I can't think of any that fall in to that category, which is why I asked if you have any particular ones in mind.

I can't name any off hand without derailing this thread. Suffice it to say that when I'm referring to this matter, it's the institution, not the people, that i'm talking about.

I agree. However, I have to say that teaching falsity and "knowing" that some other way or belief is God's intended way are two entirely different matters. There are many churches that teach falsely. I'd say yours does and we already know that you think mine does. I do not, however, assume that you know better but defy God nevertheless.

I believe they go hand in hand. I wouldn't say that your church teaches falsity because quite honestly I have no idea what you guys teach. I'd never heard of your denomination until I started posting here.

I guess the best way to put it is that there are certain people that live up to the light that God gives them, and as such are completly acceptable to Him, while there are others that know better but choose to do their own thing. It is these type of individuals, more so than not, that I'm thinking of when I post.

 

[boswd]

You know what get's me is the one's who make this whole stink about totally immersion of Baptisim, most of them only view being Baptised as symbolic instead of a Holy Sacrement.

So if you only view it as a symbolic then who cares? I don't understand.

 

[Albion]

I believe they go hand in hand. I wouldn't say that your church teaches falsity because quite honestly I have no idea what you guys teach. I'd never heard of your denomination until I started posting here.

Hmmm. I'm sorry. I'd have thought that 110 million or so was a big enough number to to noticed. And who do you suppose wrote (meaning translated) the Bible you use in your church?

I guess the best way to put it is that there are certain people that live up to the light that God gives them, and as such are completly acceptable to Him, while there are others that know better but choose to do their own thing. It is these type of individuals, more so than not, that I'm thinking of when I post.

My point was given in reply to this: "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...." Those who know God's will and way but voluntarily choose to do the opposite are few or none, meaning that the point seems moot.

 

[Albion]

You know what get's me is the one's who make this whole stink about totally immersion of Baptisim, most of them only view being Baptised as symbolic instead of a Holy Sacrement.

So if you only view it as a symbolic then who cares? I don't understand.

That does seem a valid point to make. Most of those churches which insist upon immersion don't consider baptism much more than a gesture in the first place. Of course, it's hard to generalize about the various churches becasue this wouldn't be true of the Orthodox, but they aren't saying that non-immersion is invalid, either, as the ones you have in mind do.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

An Orthodox Baptism.... (mine)

http://www.orthodoxtupelo.com/images/Baptism.wmv

Forgive me...

 

[PaladinValer]

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.

The words themselves do not necessarily mean that the person administering the rite believes in the Trinity.

For example, both Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons use that formula. The reason, of course, is because, like Christians, they use the wording Christ commanded in the Gospel according to St. Matthew. However, since they do not believe in the dogma of the Blessed Trinity, then their baptisms, although utilizing the correct wording, are invalid because the Trinity isn't being invoked...because it cannot be invoked by those who reject It.

That is what OrthodoxyUSA is getting at. And he's absolutely 110% right.

 

[Stryder06]

The words themselves do not necessarily mean that the person administering the rite believes in the Trinity.

For example, both Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons use that formula. The reason, of course, is because, like Christians, they use the wording Christ commanded in the Gospel according to St. Matthew. However, since they do not believe in the dogma of the Blessed Trinity, then their baptisms, although utilizing the correct wording, are invalid because the Trinity isn't being invoked...because it cannot be invoked by those who reject It.

That is what OrthodoxyUSA is getting at. And he's absolutely 110% right.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Stryder06]

Hmmm. I'm sorry. I'd have thought that 110 million or so was a big enough number to to noticed. And who do you suppose wrote (meaning translated) the Bible you use in your church?

Well I only know a few denominations by name. As far as who translated the bible, their denomination didn't matter to me, rather the fact that I trust that God saw fit to use the right men to make sure the bible was assembled properly.To my knowledge I thought it was a group of Catholic clergy.

My point was given in reply to this: "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...." Those who know God's will and way but voluntarily choose to do the opposite are few or none, meaning that the point seems moot.

The point isn't moot. The bible tells us that the road that leads to salvation is narrow and there are only a few that find it. We are also told that there are people who have come in among us like ravenous wolves and will not spare the flock.

The bible warns of people with a form of godliness, of those that honor God with their mouths but have hearts that are far from Him. There are plenty of people that willingly go against God, we simply can't say who it is exactly. This is shown by the parable of the sower and the seed. The wheat and tares will grow together and at the end will they be separated. If we try to do the separating than we'll end up hurting the real wheat.