Should one be fully submerged for Baptism?

ArtherEld · Oct 16, 2005

I really don't believe it's a condemnable sin to do this the wrong way, at least in my beliefs, since I don't believe baptism saves you. Heck, I love swimming, guess I was saved a long time ago (that is a joke, I know there's more to it than that).

But as for me, baptism is a symbol of salvation. And being fully immersed is what I prefer in terms of what it signifies. I don't know much about the reason for other forms of baptism. Why do they sprinkle? I don't know about it, so I won't condemn it.

ThankyouJesus · Oct 16, 2005

ArtherEld said:
I really don't believe it's a condemnable sin to do this the wrong way, at least in my beliefs, since I don't believe baptism saves you. Heck, I love swimming, guess I was saved a long time ago (that is a joke, I know there's more to it than that).

But as for me, baptism is a symbol of salvation. And being fully immersed is what I prefer in terms of what it signifies. I don't know much about the reason for other forms of baptism. Why do they sprinkle? I don't know about it, so I won't condemn it.

I ran outside in the rain and got soaked ~ I mean what can we really call Holy water today ~ Bottled, Artisian, I dont know ~ on the other hand I truly believe it was necessary for baptism back then because they needed purification ~ they were Jews from Abraham ~ and other kingdoms followed pagan Gods during this time ~ today and after his resurrection anyone born either believed in him or not ~ we have 2 chooses ~ believe or not to believe ~ that is the answer.

Did he not say the Gospel has to be preached throughout the world and he would then come? Because we need to know the truth and choose between him or not.

BigNorsk · Oct 16, 2005

Jig said:
John's baptism surely must of had something to do with SOON BECOMING a follower of Christ.

John's baptism was the start of the new covenant.

Luk 16:16 NET "The law and the prophets were in force until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is urged to enter it.

Marv

Jig · Oct 17, 2005

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

More indication than pouring or sprinkling. The root Greek word "baptizo" means to immerse.

"Every known instance of the use of baptisma and its cognates found in first century literature either demands or permits the word to be understood as "immerse.""

Talcara · Oct 17, 2005

Hi Jig,

Probably not. I honestly believe that baptism should be the full dunking - which represents "dead to self, alive in Christ" as you go under and up respectively.

Celticflower · Oct 17, 2005

Just an odd bone to throw out here---

Could the aversion to any form of baptism except immersion be some long held hold over of anti-Catholic sentiment on the part of some denominations?

Also--with the congregations I have known that ONLY accept full immersion baptism they tie baptism directly to salvation. Doesn't this stance (no salvation without immersion) defeat the whole idea of deathbed conversions? (Sorry Maude--Harry missed salvation by this much. He croaked before we could dunk him.)

KEPLER · Oct 17, 2005

TheDag said:
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.

Dag,

Scripture teaches explicitly that God has attached forgiveness to three things: 1) the preached Word, 2) Baptism, and 3) the Lord's Supper. These are not debatable.

Scripture teaches that believers should be baptized.

Scripture teaches that some who believed were not baptized and yet were guaranteed salvation.

The conclusion that Confessional Lutherans come to then, is that Baptism is necessary, but not absolutely necessary, which seems contradictory, but is not.

I don't know about down in OZ, but here in the States there is a denomination (called the "Church of Christ") which teaches that baptism is absolutley necessary for salvation. Their practice is that as soon as someone professes belief, that person is immediatelly baptized, becasue if they are not they will still not go to heaven. Even if that person is climbing the steps on the altar on the way up to get dunked and accidentlaly falls and cracks their head open, they are damned. Lutherans would NEVER say this!! Because in this scenario, baptism is a work done by the person, but Lutherans believe that baptism is a act done by God.

Lutherans, when someone professes belief, schedule that person for a quick catechism class (to make sure the person isn't just doing it for "social" purposes) and then schedule the baptism. If this person, in the intervening time between their profession of belief and their baptism, gets in a car wreck or someother such tragedy, we still trust in the grace of God that that person is indeed saved. God has forgiven their sins, by the means of the preached word. They are saved, because salvation is of God, not of the individual.

Now on the other hand, if a person professes belief and yet REFUSES to be baptized, Lutherans see that as a denial of God's grace, and that person is not saved.

So...necessary, but not absolutely necessary. There is no contradiction.

IgnatiusOfAntioch · Oct 17, 2005

Jig said:
More indication than pouring or sprinkling. The root Greek word "baptizo" means to immerse.

Actually we know that many forms of baptism were performed by the first and second century Christians. There is a writing from the first century church called the didache. It is the teaching of the Apostles for things such as order of worship and how the baptism and other things were done.

Here is the excerpt concerning baptism:
"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."

It refers to "living water" which would be running water, such as a stream or river. It details the legitimate methods in order of most to least preferred. So there was some latitude based on what was available.

Certainly the martyrs about to be fed to the lions would want to baptised new converts with them and would have little more than a pitcher of water with which to baptize many.

So you see that there was some flexibility in the way baptism was performed by the first Christians.

Jig · Oct 17, 2005

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:
Actually we know that many forms of baptism were performed by the first and second century Christians. There is a writing from the first century church called the didache. It is the teaching of the Apostles for things such as order of worship and how the baptism and other things were done.

Here is the excerpt concerning baptism:
"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."

It refers to "living water" which would be running water, such as a stream or river. It details the legitimate methods in order of most to least preferred. So there was some latitude based on what was available.

Certainly the martyrs about to be fed to the lions would want to baptised new converts with them and would have little more than a pitcher of water with which to baptize many.

So you see that there was some flexibility in the way baptism was performed by the first Christians.

I don't hold that writing to be true. If it's not inspired it could hold errors. Just because it is old doesn't mean a thing. Paul spent most of his time writing other Christian churchs and correcting them. Proving many held wrong ideas and kept straying. IS it not possible that the didache was written by a church who went astray like so many others did?

prodromos · Oct 17, 2005

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:
So you see that there was some flexibility in the way baptism was performed by the first Christians.

Yes but even the Didache states that the rule is submersion in a river or stream and allows the other forms only when such is not available. How difficult really is it to provide a deep tub of water these days?

Jig · Oct 17, 2005

prodromos said:
Yes but even the Didache states that the rule is submersion in a river or stream and allows the other forms only when such is not available. How difficult really is it to provide a deep tub of water these days?

Wow....awesome point.

TheDag · Oct 17, 2005

KEPLER said:
Dag,

Scripture teaches explicitly that God has attached forgiveness to three things: 1) the preached Word, 2) Baptism, and 3) the Lord's Supper. These are not debatable.

Scripture teaches that believers should be baptized.

Scripture teaches that some who believed were not baptized and yet were guaranteed salvation.

The conclusion that Confessional Lutherans come to then, is that Baptism is necessary, but not absolutely necessary, which seems contradictory, but is not.

I don't know about down in OZ, but here in the States there is a denomination (called the "Church of Christ") which teaches that baptism is absolutley necessary for salvation. Their practice is that as soon as someone professes belief, that person is immediatelly baptized, becasue if they are not they will still not go to heaven. Even if that person is climbing the steps on the altar on the way up to get dunked and accidentlaly falls and cracks their head open, they are damned. Lutherans would NEVER say this!! Because in this scenario, baptism is a work done by the person, but Lutherans believe that baptism is a act done by God.

Lutherans, when someone professes belief, schedule that person for a quick catechism class (to make sure the person isn't just doing it for "social" purposes) and then schedule the baptism. If this person, in the intervening time between their profession of belief and their baptism, gets in a car wreck or someother such tragedy, we still trust in the grace of God that that person is indeed saved. God has forgiven their sins, by the means of the preached word. They are saved, because salvation is of God, not of the individual.

Now on the other hand, if a person professes belief and yet REFUSES to be baptized, Lutherans see that as a denial of God's grace, and that person is not saved.

So...necessary, but not absolutely necessary. There is no contradiction.

So does that mean some parts of the lutheran church no longer do infant baptism or are people batised twice with the second one replacing confirmation? There have been a number of changes since I stopped going to the lutheran church (although comments by a number of american lutherans suggests that some american lutheran beliefs are very different to aussie lutheran beliefs).

IgnatiusOfAntioch · Oct 17, 2005

Jig said:
I don't hold that writing to be true.

On what basis?

IgnatiusOfAntioch · Oct 17, 2005

prodromos said:
Yes but even the Didache states that the rule is submersion in a river or stream and allows the other forms only when such is not available. How difficult really is it to provide a deep tub of water these days?

Agreed! The preferred form is triple submersion in a river or stream. The preference for "living water" seems to indicate that it pouring from a small "living" stream would be preferable to dunking in a still water.

Ultimately, though, there is no indication that other forms are invalid.

Talcara · Oct 17, 2005

Hi Celticflower,

Celticflower said:
Just an odd bone to throw out here--- Could the aversion to any form of baptism except immersion be some long held hold over of anti-Catholic sentiment on the part of some denominations?Also--with the congregations I have known that ONLY accept full immersion baptism they tie baptism directly to salvation. Doesn't this stance (no salvation without immersion) defeat the whole idea of deathbed conversions? (Sorry Maude--Harry missed salvation by this much. He croaked before we could dunk him.)

Just following the ways that was set in the Bible probably more than anti-Catholic sentiment.

I personally don't believe that baptism is neccessary to salvation - it's symbology more than anything else. It's a symbolical thing about saying "dead to self, alive to Christ".

So Harry would be in heaven now with Jesus so long as He had faith in Jesus...

Jig · Oct 17, 2005

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:
Agreed! The preferred form is triple submersion in a river or stream. The preference for "living water" seems to indicate that it pouring from a small "living" stream would be preferable to dunking in a still water.

Ultimately, though, there is no indication that other forms are invalid.

Your missing the point prodromos was trying to make. Why do Catholics and others do the lesser form of baptism when you can do the greater? That document says "IF" there is no running water ONLY THEN do the lesser, etc.

ArohaB · Oct 18, 2005

We're told not to add or remove words from the bible, so any writings other than the bible cannot be taken as teaching. Jesus never told us to sprinkle children, in fact he said unless ye become as little children, so the need for "sprinkling on them", is not really there, we are to use Jesus as our guide, he is our shepherd, he was fully immersed therefore as his followers wouldn't we do the same, or would we go our own way and then try and justify ourselves?

Jig · Oct 18, 2005

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:
On what basis?

Prove it was inspired, and I'll think about it. Just because it holds some truth, doesn't make it ALL true.

Melethiel · Oct 18, 2005

So does that mean some parts of the lutheran church no longer do infant baptism or are people batised twice with the second one replacing confirmation?

Absolutely not. There have been many changes (not all of them good...), but not in that regard.

SPALATIN · Oct 18, 2005

Jig said:
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.

Jesus was baptised the by the only means available in his time. And the baptism he took part in was not the same as the one which he gave to his disciples in Matt 28:19. The reason for giving us Baptism is so that through it we receive the salvation won for us on the Cross and that is the forgiveness of our sins. Salvation is a gift from God and should be bestowed on ALL Nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Also Jesus never baptized anyone but said that the the children should be allowed to come to him for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as they.

Should one be fully submerged for Baptism?

Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Christ Follower

Active Member

charity crocheter

Crux sola est nostra theologia

Contributor

Christ Follower

Senior Veteran

Christ Follower

I don't like titles

Contributor

Contributor

Active Member

Christ Follower

LOVE

Christ Follower

Miserere mei, Domine

Lifetime friend of Dr. Luther

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency