Should one be fully submerged for Baptism?

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

Yes.

Was the thief on the cross baptized?

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Jig,

Perhaps because I was raised in a Baptist home I think that sprinkling, which my Methodist church accepts, is invalid. Dipping your hand in water and placing it on the infant's forehead is not baptism. The UMC is simply wrong on this point.

Pouring I can see, but I would prefer that individuals, including infants, be dunked.

God Bless,
Diane

 

[KEPLER]

Is baptism necessary for salvation?



Was the thief on the cross baptized?

Which is why the Lutherans say:

Baptism is necessary for salvation...but not absolutely necessary.

 

[prodromos]

My parents tell me I raised quite a fuss during my baptism. Must be something about babies not liking being immersed in water.

My son was starting to cry from being cold, but as soon as he was put in the water he stopped and was quite content to be dunked three times. My eldest daughter was another story. She screamed the whole time but it was probably more because she hadn't slept or had her feed (it was lousy timing).

John.

 

[prodromos]

Mark 7:4 tells us that, "they [the Pharisees] do not eat unless they wash." Again, the word used appears to be "baptizo". Therefore, we can see that baptism does not always necessitate immersion.

There were no taps with running water back then. You washed your hands by filling a bowl with water and putting your hands in (under) the water. "baptizo" always implies submersion whether it is your finger, your hands or your whole body.

John

 

[lmnop9876]

There were no taps with running water back then. You washed your hands by filling a bowl with water and putting your hands in (under) the water. "baptizo" always implies submersion whether it is your finger, your hands or your whole body.

good point.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Is baptism necessary for salvation?



Was the thief on the cross baptized?

Why, are you assuming that he wasn't?

 

[TheDag]

Which is why the Lutherans say:

Baptism is necessary for salvation...but not absolutely necessary.

This is something I've never understood. Either it is necessary or it isn't necessary. There is no difference between necessary and absolutely necessary.

 

[TheDag]

Why, are you assuming that he wasn't?

Is this question why are they assuming the thief wasn't water baptised? or are you talking about the three forms of baptism?

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I don't think baptism has to be by full immersion - the Ethiopian was baptised in a puddle!

In our church, we tend to do adult baptisms by full immersion, although I'm sure they can choose to be baptised at the font, if they wish.

With small children, we baptise by pouring water on their heads (not sure the difference between pouring and sprinkling, but we scoop up the water in a large shell).

 

[Jig]

I don't think baptism has to be by full immersion - the Ethiopian was baptised in a puddle!

In our church, we tend to do adult baptisms by full immersion, although I'm sure they can choose to be baptised at the font, if they wish.

With small children, we baptise by pouring water on their heads (not sure the difference between pouring and sprinkling, but we scoop up the water in a large shell).

I cant seem to prove your comment about the Ethiopian being baptised in a puddle. I read the NASB, which is pretty darn close to word for word. What translation are you getting this from?

Do you believe Jesus was submersed fully? If so. Why would you want to get baptised any other way? Jesus got baptised proabably for many reasons, but one of them was to be an example to us. Why not follow it? This form of baptism is obviously correct, why raise questions and baptise any other way?

 

[yugotpinky]

i have a bit of an issue with the comment that the man in Acts8 was baptised in a puddle! Scripture simply says they came to some water - it could have been a stream, a pond, or any other number of water configurations - including a puddle or even a fountain (man-made as opposed to a natural structure.)

Baptism has historical roots other than Christianity. As a sign of identity, I have a hard time with the concept of infants participating in it! Initiation into faith requires salvation - a personal decision - and is symbolized by baptism.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I cant seem to prove your comment about the Ethiopian being baptised in a puddle. I read the NASB, which is pretty darn close to word for word. What translation are you getting this from?

My own flippant paraphrase, I'm afraid.

 

[Melethiel]

Do you believe Jesus was submersed fully?

I don't know, a lot of early icons show the pouring fashion...

This is something I've never understood. Either it is necessary or it isn't necessary. There is no difference between necessary and absolutely necessary.

It means that baptism is the prescribed method for entry into the Church, but we do not limit God.

 

[Jig]

Most if not all Christians here would agree that being baptised fully submerged is a correct form of doing it. There doesn't seem to be any questions about this. However, sprinkling or pouring raises questions as to its scriptual support. There truely isn't alot if any. John baptized in a river...I hardly doubt he sprinkled. Also many other mentions of baptism happen where there was "much water"...why would there need "much water" if there were going to sprinkle? I could sprinkle 1000 people with a gallon if I wanted too. Also pouring seems to undermine the humbling effect baptism should have. Where as full body baptism doesn't. And still the word 'baptism' itself means to dip or submerge into water. Again why raise questions wih pouring or sprinkling, when we know for sure full body baptism is correct?

 

[ArohaB]

If we go back the the symbolic meaning of baptism, it is to identify with the death of our old life and to die and be buried with Christ in the flesh, then to be born again (raised) to our new life in the spirit...
Therefore, when a person dies and is buried, they are not sprinkled with a bit of dirt on their forehead, but instead are fully immersed in the earth in their grave.

So it would stand to reason that baptism is full immersion, just as Jesus was baptised as an understanding man, not by his mother and father when he was a baby

 

[ThankyouJesus]

The Baptism of Jesus - Mark 3

13Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"



15Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented. 16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

 

[hoser]

I was under the impression that one must be fully submerged when baptised. Is this not true? (Sprinkling and pouring wrong?) And if not what passages is there that would support a non-immersed batism? I mean Christ was baptised fully underwater, why would I or you want to do it any other way then the way Jesus did it?

Baptism should represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. That's why one is dipped into the water (burial) and brought out (resurrection).

Who doesn't agree with this view and why? Thanks for any replies.

There is no indication anywhere that one must be fully submerged when baptised.

 

[ThankyouJesus]

Is it possible that one who changes a religion needs Baptism also?

 

[hoser]

Jig,

Perhaps because I was raised in a Baptist home I think that sprinkling, which my Methodist church accepts, is invalid. Dipping your hand in water and placing it on the infant's forehead is not baptism. The UMC is simply wrong on this point.

Pouring I can see, but I would prefer that individuals, including infants, be dunked.

God Bless,
Diane

So by what authority is the UMC wrong on this? Methodists use scripture and scripture alone just as a baptist does, so what make the baptist beliefs correct and the Methodist beliefs incorrect? What is the authority that determines this???