Should one be fully submerged for Baptism?

[SPALATIN]

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

The water alone does not baptize. Baptism is the Water together with the word of God. God Baptizes not man.

 

[KEPLER]

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).

Ditto Melethiel's post: we absolutely baptize infants. I only used the example of adult baptisms because it makes the illustration simple, not to be exclusive.

We baptize infants because it is the right, good, holy and Scriptural thing to do.

And before anyone jumps on that, let me just point out that those who would sinfully deny baptism to infants must deal with the fact (as Spalatin pointed out) that Jesus himself welcomed infants into the Kingdom, and that the apostles baptized ENTIRE households, which logically included babies.

 

[Celticflower]

Ditto Melethiel's post: we absolutley baptize infants. I only used the example of adult baptisms because it makes the illustration simple, not to be exclusive.

We baptize infants because it is the right, good, holy and Scriptural thing to do.

And before anyone jumps on that, let me just point out that those who would sinfully deny baptism to infants must deal with the fact (as Spalatin pointed out) the Jesus himself welcomed infants into the Kingdom, and that the apostles baptized ENTIRE households, which logically included babies.

Unfortunately logic is often the baby thrown out with the bath water in these forums.

 

[KEPLER]

Unfortunately logic is often the baby thrown out with the bath water in these forums.

Perhaps it's the baby thrown out with the baptismal water...

 

[Jig]

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.
.

I guess you throw out the symbolism behind full immersion baptism as false.

 

[KEPLER]

I guess you throw out the symbolism behind full immersion baptism as false.

That assumes there was any symbolism in the first place! If there is nothing symbolic, then Spalatin didn't throw anything out!

Don't put the cart before the horse!

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Prove it was inspired, and I'll think about it.

Inspired????? What are you are talking about?

Let's start from the beginning:

I 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.

You Said:

I don't hold that writing to be true

I said:

On what basis?

You said:

Prove it was inspired, and I'll think about it.

The Didache is an actual historical record of the praxis of the original Christians; i.e. order of worship, baptism, etc.

If you doubt it, then try and prove me wrong! Don't just make statements like that with no basis! There are no grounds whatsoever to deny the authenticity of the Didache!

 

[KEPLER]

Ignatius is right, Jig. When speaking of a historical document, inspiration is not the issue. Ignatius is not arguing that the Didache tells us we MUST do something; he is arguing that the Didache describes what people actually did.

It's descriptive, not prescriptive. You trying to say that this document does not describe history is a little bit like saying the Egyptians didn't build the pyramids. You can say it all you want, but all the evidence is against you.

It has nothing to do with belief; it has to do with history.

 

[TheDag]

Ditto Melethiel's post: we absolutely baptize infants. I only used the example of adult baptisms because it makes the illustration simple, not to be exclusive.

Ok thanks for that I didn't think they would have changed that since I stopped attending a lutheran church.

We baptize infants because it is the right, good, holy and Scriptural thing to do.

Just as long as people who infant baptise also accept adult baptism is scriptural.

And before anyone jumps on that, let me just point out that those who would sinfully deny baptism to infants must deal with the fact (as Spalatin pointed out) that Jesus himself welcomed infants into the Kingdom, and that the apostles baptized ENTIRE households, which logically included babies.

Allow me to jump on that if you would (as one who was infant baptized and sees no need to be baptized as an adult). Just because entire households were baptized it does not logically follow that infants were in those households. I am certain there would have been children (although there is no way to prove that). There may have been infants but that would certainly be less certain.

Jesus...said that the the children should be allowed to come to him for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as they.

Jesus himself welcomed infants into the Kingdom

If you are talking about when the children were brought to Jesus and the disciples tried stopping them then that does not justify infant baptism. If you do use it to justify infant baptism then you also need to acknowledge the method used which was Jesus placed his HANDS ON THEM AND BLESSED them. Yes Jesus does accept infants but do not use that to justify infant baptism as it clearly doesn't.

 

[TheDag]

Also Jesus never baptized anyone...

While this statement is true there are two intepretations you can take of that passage. They are
1. Jesus disciples were baptising people in his name without Jesus approval. Highly unlikely in my opinion. Also I'm sure Jesus would have rebuked them for doing this
OR
2. The disciples were doing this with Jesus blessing. So while Jesus wasn't physically doing it himself it can (and usually is) referred to as baptism by Jesus.

The problem if you go with the first view is that would then suggest water baptism isn't as important as so many think it is. Which then would leave it open to easily and logically follow that when Jesus talked about baptism he meant by the spirit. I will be brave and suggest that no Lutheran would accept that intepretation which means the 2nd one is the only view you can take.

 

[TheDag]

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

I was very relieved to hear about a partial change in some beliefs regarding communion.

 

[Jig]

Ignatius is right, Jig. When speaking of a historical document, inspiration is not the issue. Ignatius is not arguing that the Didache tells us we MUST do something; he is arguing that the Didache describes what people actually did.

It's descriptive, not prescriptive. You trying to say that this document does not describe history is a little bit like saying the Egyptians didn't build the pyramids. You can say it all you want, but all the evidence is against you.

It has nothing to do with belief; it has to do with history.

So your saying people always did the right thing back then? I guess Paul was wasting his time writting letters.

 

[prodromos]

So your saying people always did the right thing back then? I guess Paul was wasting his time writting letters.

He never said anything of the sort. Sheesh!

 

[KEPLER]

Just as long as people who infant baptise also accept adult baptism is scriptural.

Of course we do...?! (I'm not aware of any sect who refuses to baptize adults...)

Allow me to jump on that if you would (as one who was infant baptized and sees no need to be baptized as an adult). Just because entire households were baptized it does not logically follow that infants were in those households. I am certain there would have been children (although there is no way to prove that). There may have been infants but that would certainly be less certain.

It is in fact the MOST natural assumption from the passage: in fact, it can be taken a step further (although Lutherans DON'T take a step further!): Acts is clear that the Philippian jailer believed, and that he and his entire household were baptized. The text ALMOST makes it sound as if the enitre household was baptized based on HIS belief!: "C'mon, honey, I've converted to this new Jewish sect, so you're going to get baptized!"

As I said, we DON'T push it that far; we presume that the Jailer went home and convinced the other adults in his house (servants, aunts uncles, siblings, spouse) to be baptized, and of course, as I said, the MOST natural assumption is that there were children in the house. The odds of infants getting baptized increase markedely when one takes into account the two other "entire households" explicitly mentioned as being baptized (which leads us to believe that "entire households" getting baptized was pretty common).

If you are talking about when the children were brought to Jesus and the disciples tried stopping them then that does not justify infant baptism. If you do use it to justify infant baptism then you also need to acknowledge the method used which was Jesus placed his HANDS ON THEM AND BLESSED them. Yes Jesus does accept infants but do not use that to justify infant baptism as it clearly doesn't.

Jesus said they are not to be excluded from the kingdom. Entrance into the kingdom is marked by baptism. Therefore...

 

[SPALATIN]

Of course we do...?! (I'm not aware of any sect who refuses to baptize adults...)


It is in fact the MOST natural assumption from the passage: in fact, it can be taken a step further (although Lutherans DON'T take a step further!): Acts is clear that the Philippian jailer believed, and that he and his entire household were baptized. The text ALMOST makes it sound as if the enitre household was baptized based on HIS belief!: "C'mon, honey, I've converted to this new Jewish sect, so you're going to get baptized!"

As I said, we DON'T push it that far; we presume that the Jailer went home and convinced the other adults in his house (servants, aunts uncles, siblings, spouse) to be baptized, and of course, as I said, the MOST natural assumption is that there were children in the house. The odds of infants getting baptized increase markedely when one takes into account the two other "entire households" explicitly mentioned as being baptized (which leads us to believe that "entire households" getting baptized was pretty common).


Jesus said they are not to be excluded from the kingdom. Entrance into the kingdom is marked by baptism. Therefore...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to KEPLER again.

​

 

[KEPLER]

Thanks Scott...

For those who want the references to the three households that were baptized, there was the household of Lydia (Acts 16:15) and the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:32). Also Paul mentions the household of Stephanus which he himself baptized (1 Cor 1:16 & 16:15).

 

[KEPLER]

He never said anything of the sort. Sheesh!

Hey prodromos, I have a question...do the EO churches rebaptize if someone wasn't immersed? For example, many of my Lutheran brethren are "swimming the river" to EO (shouldn't it be "swimming the Bosporous"? It's not really a river...), and I'm wondering if they'll end up being rebaptized? (I'm not asking to start anything, just asking as a point of fact...)

Eric

 

[ArohaB]

The Bible says "Work out your own Salvation with Fear and Trembling", if this is the case, how can a baby do this and decide to be baptised?
The Bible says "Repent and be baptised, every one of you....", if this is the case, how can a baby repent?

 

[Naomi4Christ]

The Bible says "Work out your own Salvation with Fear and Trembling", if this is the case, how can a baby do this and decide to be baptised?
The Bible says "Repent and be baptised, every one of you....", if this is the case, how can a baby repent?

The Godparents make the promises on behalf of the child, and then the child comes to confirmation when ready to make that personal committment.

There is biblical evidence to support either argument - it's good to recognise both viewpoints instead of telling people they are all wrong.

 

[KEPLER]

The Bible says "Work out your own Salvation with Fear and Trembling", if this is the case, how can a baby do this and decide to be baptised?

If you read this scripture in context, Paul is talking to believers who are already IN the faith, not to unbelievers whom he is exhorting to believe. This scripture, therefore, is an issue of sanctification, and does not apply to the current discussion

The Bible says "Repent and be baptised, every one of you....", if this is the case, how can a baby repent?

This IS an exhortation to adult unbelievers, and can only be taken in that context.

Neither of these Scriptures applies to what Christain parents ought to do with their small children.

In Colossians 2, Paul makes an explicit connexion between circumcision and baptism ("Circumcision used to do this, but how much MORE does baptism do it...")

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Col 2:9-15

Now this passage is PRIMARILY about legalism, i.e., forcing believers to follow certain customs or other behaviors as a prerequisute to salvation, which Paul shoots down in no uncertain terms. But there are also subtler, more implicit meanings as well. We have (at least) two implicit lessons here.

First, Baptism is a work done by Christ, not by men. Therefore it is NOT an "ordinance of obedience" as the Baptists would have it: that is flat out wrong. It is an act of forgiveness instituted by God Almighty, done through water and the preached Word. We believers are the passive agents in baptism, Christ is the active agent.

Secondly, from this context, EVERY believer in the early Church would have undestood Paul to be implying that infants were forgiven and introduced into the covenant family through baptism, because that's how infants were included in the Old Testament. No, it doesn't say it explicitly...but every one of the his readers would have understood it that way: once Paul brought circumcision into the conversation, infants were naturally also assumed to be part of the conversation.