Should one be fully submerged for Baptism?

[Jig]

If a preacher in Jail in China was baptising people, and they stoped giving him water so he could not baptise people any more, and only gave him apple juice, then would sprinking apple juice on them be baptism? Yes, its the act and the though that counts. I think we should TRY to be fully submerged, but if its not available, then sprinkling water on them is fine.

Nope, it would not be baptism. Thats why baptism isnt essential for salvation though.

 

[KEPLER]

Nope, it would not be baptism. Thats why baptism isnt essential for salvation though.

Ah, Jig, at last we agree on something...sort of. NO it would not be baptism. But while Scripture places great importance on Baptism, it also assures us that faith comes by hearing the preached Word, and we would have to trust in that.


And my repsonse to that translation was not hatred, it was disgust.

 

[Celticflower]

Personally I don't think the age at or amount of water used in baptism matters a whole lot. It is what happens after in the person's life that counts.

I have known many people baptised as infants and many baptised as "believer's". Most of those baptised as infants and raised in the church have, generally, felt a certain security that they were a child of God's and their faith has shown in their lives. Many who undergo a believer's baptism do so as an emotional response to something, and often continue on their merry way as if it meant nothing-- no change in attitude, no change in lifestyle except they believe they are saved and have no worries about about the possibility of hell. Baptism is an insurance policy for them. (Yes, I've known infant baptised people who have fallen away too -- nobody's perfect and baptism doesn't change that.)

I also know one youngster (about 11) who has been re-baptised once and a friend who has been re-baptised 3 times!! What is THAT all about?? The church we attend (husband's choice), only accepts a believer's baptism. My daughter and I where both baptised in the Methodist church, me at one month, she at 3 years. The church has members who often try to pressure us into being baptised (again) so we can join the church and be members like my husband and son. But since Ellie and I both view our baptisms as something God did neither of us feels arrogant enough to tell Him He did it wrong. My daughter is a child of great faith and has often astounded us with her insights. My son is as well, but I feared for awhile he would lose his faith. For more than a year he asked to be baptised and was told by the minister that he was "too young". Then he would watch as children younger than he were baptised, the offspring of the ultra-active, long time member families. When he began to question whether he was good enough for God to care about and want baptised, (broke my heart ) my husband stepped in and had a "talk" with the minister. I think that if he had been baptised as an infant and raised in the church he never would have begun to have those doubts.

So to me, all this talk of how much water, sprinkling, pouring and submerging, hot or cold, running or in a tub is just silly. You don't have to all agree on how to do it, but to aknowledge the validity of another's practice would be nice.

 

[KEPLER]

Personally I don't think the age at or amount of water used in baptism matters a whole lot. It is what happens after in the person's life that counts.

I have known many people baptised as infants and many baptised as "believer's". Most of those baptised as infants and raised in the church have, generally, felt a certain security that they were a child of God's and their faith has shown in their lives. Many who undergo a believer's baptism do so as an emotional response to something, and often continue on their merry way as if it meant nothing-- no change in attitude, no change in lifestyle except they believe they are saved and have no worries about about the possibility of hell. Baptism is an insurance policy for them. (Yes, I've known infant baptised people who have fallen away too -- nobody's perfect and baptism doesn't change that.)

I also know one youngster (about 11) who has been re-baptised once and a friend who has been re-baptised 3 times!! What is THAT all about?? The church we attend (husband's choice), only accepts a believer's baptism. My daughter and I where both baptised in the Methodist church, me at one month, she at 3 years. The church has members who often try to pressure us into being baptised (again) so we can join the church and be members like my husband and son. But since Ellie and I both view our baptisms as something God did neither of us feels arrogant enough to tell Him He did it wrong. My daughter is a child of great faith and has often astounded us with her insights. My son is as well, but I feared for awhile he would lose his faith. For more than a year he asked to be baptised and was told by the minister that he was "too young". Then he would watch as children younger than he were baptised, the offspring of the ultra-active, long time member families. When he began to question whether he was good enough for God to care about and want baptised, (broke my heart ) my husband stepped in and had a "talk" with the minister. I think that if he had been baptised as an infant and raised in the church he never would have begun to have those doubts.

So to me, all this talk of how much water, sprinkling, pouring and submerging, hot or cold, running or in a tub is just silly. You don't have to all agree on how to do it, but to aknowledge the validity of another's practice would be nice.

Actually, CelticFlower, in a way you've laid out something very similar to the Lutheran position, but being a Methodist, that's not surprising. Baptism is one doctrine on which Methodists and Lutherans agree on almost line for line...Lutherans do, however, tend to stress that Baptism is indeed regenerative ...but again, that is God's work, not ours.

Lutheran theologians have always said that we agree with any mode of Baptism (infusion or immersion) so long as it is done with WATER and the in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We do not privelege one method over another. In fact, it has been suggested by some that if the Baptists were not INSISTING that sprinkling is wrong, the Lutherans would possibly return to immersion. Franz Pieper, one of our dogmaticians, explicitly states that we maintain sprinkling primarily as a testimony against those who make immersion a point of "works righteousness": in other words, in defense of the Gospel.

Kudos to you and your daughter for clinging to the work God wrought in you in your baptisms!

 

[ArohaB]

"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

The pharisees didn't think they had to be baptised since they came from the geneology of Abraham, and what did John have to say about that? Something about God and stones... If we are Christs then we are baptised into Christ, as he was a grown adult being fully submerged.

 

[TheDag]

The case with John the Baptist is beyond unique. John was actually Elijah.

I have never before heard it said that John was actually Elijah. Where do you get that from please?

 

[TheDag]

The pharisees didn't think they had to be baptised since they came from the geneology of Abraham, and what did John have to say about that? Something about God and stones... If we are Christs then we are baptised into Christ, as he was a grown adult being fully submerged.

I think we need to be careful before drawing too much out of Jesus baptism by John. First we need to determine why Jesus was baptised by John. It was certainly for a different reason as to why others were being baptised by John. After all if it was for the same reason then when we couldn't say Jesus was without sin and therefore couldn't be the sacrifice for us. I'm sure everyone here would say Jesus was without sin. So why was Jesus baptised? Was it simply to show us how it should be done? Surely he would have emphasised this in his teachings if it was so important.

 

[Peaceful Dove]

This is an awesome thread! I love it.

I'm going to jump right in the deep end of the pool! LOL Pardon that, I couldn't resist.

Scripture doesn't say a lot about immersion or pouring.

A few of the things it does say are:

Unless you be born again of Water and the Spirit....
Scripture also mentions only One baptism. That should answer the questions of being re-baptised.

The biggest thing we know is that Jesus is the Baptiser. John the Baptist said so.
We saw that.

So, if Jesus is the Baptiser, no matter which Church you are Baptised in, so long as you are baptised in water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, you are indeed Baptised.

That means, if you were an infant, a child, an adult or an old goat like me, you are baptised, indeed. Jesus does not fail.

THAT is why scripture says ONE baptism. You are not to go on feelings.

Can an infant receive the Holy Spirit???? Well, read the first chapter of Luke. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mothers womb.
Only by the Holy Spirit can you say, Jesus is Lord. John jumped for joy in his moms womb when he came in the presence of the Lord in Mary's womb.

Sooo, what does this tell us? When Jesus baptises, you are baptised.

About immersion and pouring. I have never seen water sprinkled and I have seen lots of Baptisms.

Immersion is the preferred method in the Catholic Church whenever possible. However, we went through a history of thinking desease was caused this way. Pouring became the norm for quite some time. Churches were no longer built with immersion tanks. Thank God, newer Churches are now being built so that immersion is possible.

 

[DeaconDean]

John the Baptist was not Elijah! "And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No." (John 1:21) The matter of Baptism is going to bring about a large amount of debate. The Bible said that when Jesus was baptized he "went up straightway out of the water." If a person is healthy enough, then plunge then into the water. But...for instance, if you visit the hospital to minister to one whom may be dying and they confess and accept Jesus, then sprinkle then with water. You can't very well baptize them in their hospital bed.

 

[Jig]

I have never before heard it said that John was actually Elijah. Where do you get that from please?

John the Baptist was not Elijah! .

John the Baptist WAS Elijah.

Matt. 11:14
14"And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.

Mark 9:11-13
11They asked Him, saying, "Why is it that the scribes say that Elijah must come first?"
12And He said to them, "Elijah does first come and restore all things. And yet how is it written of the Son of Man that He will suffer many things and be treated with contempt?
13"But I say to you that Elijah has indeed come, and they did to him whatever they wished, just as it is written of him."

John the Baptist came before Christ to pave the way and then had his head chopped off.

Matt. 17:12-13
12but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands."
13Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist.

 

[DeaconDean]

Prophesy of the coming of John the Baptist, not Elijah: "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Perpare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our Lord" Isa. 40:3 Fulfilled in Matt. 3:1-3. How could the prophet Isaiah prophize that Elijah was coming when he had already been? What about John's own personal confession that he wasn't Elijah? (John 1:21) John the Baptist was a liar? I guess we should discount these two verses huh. Oh I get it, John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah. Silly me. So let me get my facts straight, Elijah came, was taken up, was reborn as John the Baptist, had his head cut off, and is now in heaven? Do I have that correct? Show me where in the Bible it teaches reincarnation.

 

[Jig]

Prophesy of the coming of John the Baptist, not Elijah: "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Perpare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our Lord" Isa. 40:3 Fulfilled in Matt. 3:1-3. How could the prophet Isaiah prophize that Elijah was coming when he had already been? What about John's own personal confession that he wasn't Elijah? (John 1:21) John the Baptist was a liar? I guess we should discount these two verses huh. Oh I get it, John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah. Silly me. So let me get my facts straight, Elijah came, was taken up, was reborn as John the Baptist, had his head cut off, and is now in heaven? Do I have that correct? Show me where in the Bible it teaches reincarnation.

Well...what about the verses Jesus said about John the baptist being Elijah? Maybe John really didnt know he was Elijah. It's funny how Jesus would call John Elijah. Why would Jesus lie.

 

[DeaconDean]

The Angel Gabriel announced to Zecharias that his son's name would be called John in Luke 1:13. He goes on to say in verse 15 that he will be great in the sight of the Lord and “shall drink no wine or strong drink and will be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb.” Verse 17 says of John, “he will also go before Him (The Lord) in the Spirit and power of Elijah,” which is a ministry of reconciliation, would have the “hearts of the fathers turned to the children and children turning to their fathers.”

To claim that Elijah is John the Baptist is to teach reincarnation. The premise is that a spirit in a former body comes back to be born in another body. At the very least, it is transmigration. The Bible has never taught this.

In Matthew 11:13, Jesus states: “For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.” (Jesus calls him “John” not “Elijah.” Elijah is included with 'all the prophets' who came before John. In verse 14, Jesus says “and if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.” John wore a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt and preached in the wilderness. This was the same attire that Elijah wore (2 Kings 1:8), bringing attention to the Jews of the similarity of John's mission to that of Elijah's. Prophecy has many patterns and sometime dual or more fulfillments.
Malachi had predicted that before the Messiah's appearing, Elijah would come as a forerunner (Mal. 4:5-in relation to the day of the Lord). If the people had been willing to receive Jesus as the Messiah, then John would have filled the role of Elijah. Jesus then tells them to heed His words. If John fulfills Elijah's coming then Jesus is the Messiah.

Jesus pointed to John the Baptist as a type of fulfillment of Elijah's coming but he was not a reincarnation.

This is proven in John 1:20 when the Jews sent out the priests and Levites to investigate John's ministry. They ask him if he is the Christ. He states emphatically “No!” They ask him again if he is Elijah, John answers “I am not.” This is not a temporary memory loss for John that Jesus has to correct later. In verse 25, John the Baptist is asked, ‘Why do you baptize if you are not the Christ nor Elijah nor the prophet?’ In verses 25-27 John points to the Messiah who is coming after him. He states that it is he who is the forerunner of Malachi 3:1. In Luke 1:76, we see that John's father, Zecharias, is filled with the Holy spirit and says that his child will be called the prophet of the highest and will “go before the face of the Lord and prepare His ways again.' This relates John's ministry to Mal. 3:1, 4:5, and Luke 1:17. John labored in the same Spirit and power of the former prophet by calling people to repentance and he was preparing them for the salvation that Christ would later bring.


Both are Elijah and John the Baptist are forerunners. Elijah was promised to come for the second coming not the first, therefore he is not John the Baptist.

 

[DeaconDean]

Furthermore: Mal.3:1 promised an unnamed forerunner Mal.3:1: “Behold, I will send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me: and the Lord, whom you seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom you delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.” Malachi speaks of two messengers one that will prepare the way for the Lord, this is none other than John the Baptizer who is foretold in Isa.40:3-4 as “The voice crying out in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. In Mal 4:5-6 he is named “ Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. We are told the prophet Elijah will come before the great and terrible day of the Lord (the tribulation). In Luke 4:18 when Jesus stood up in the temple and quoted Isa.61:1-2 he stopped at proclaiming the acceptable year of the lord and did not read of the day of vengeance of our God. This is reserved for the tribulation period in which Elijah will preach before the day of the Lord! Which makes it clear that John could not be Elijah for it was not the Day of Vengeance; it still is in the future. Again, if we go back to what the angel Gabriel said: he (John) would come “in the spirit and power” of Elijah (Luke 1:17), coming in this ministry does not make him literally Elijah the prophet.
One of the strongest testimonies that John is not Elijah is on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3; Luke 9:30; Mark 9:4-5). Elijah and Moses appear and Jesus talks to Elijah. The disciples recognize him as Elijah in his original form, not as John the Baptist. One must either concede that they are 2 different people or that John the Baptist turned back into Elijah. Again, this would promote reincarnation or transmigration of a spirit going from one body to another. The Bible does not teach either. If one insists on this view then they must deal with II kings 2 where in vs. 9 Elisha asks for a double portion of Elijah’s spirit upon himself. He is promised this will be so if he sees his mentor taken to heaven. In vs. 11-12 he does see this event and Elijah's mantle falls on Elisha. In vs. 14 he struck the water and it divided just as it did before with Elijah. The Sons of the prophets see this and say, “The Spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha.” If Elijah’s spirit was upon Elisha then he was not taken to heaven! John had the same Spirit upon him that Elijah did. This did not change Elisha to be Elijah but gave him the same authority through the ministry of the Spirit. If one is going to use the Scripture that John the Baptizer literally came in the Spirit and power of Elijah then how did he rest on Elisha and become a double portion no less. Obviously verse 9 this means in like ministry, and function, to having authority. John came “in the spirit and power of Elijah,” the similarity being his fiery preaching and being in the wilderness (Luke 1:17; John 10:41). There are patterns that repeat themselves in the scriptures as a certain aspect is expressed in different people.
Let’s now sum up this unbiblical view. In II Kings 2:1, we find Elijah taken bodily into Heaven. For one to enter Heaven they must be transformed (1 Cor. 15:50-54), changed to an immortal body, a body which is no longer subject to death since corruptible flesh cannot enter into Heaven. If Elijah came back as John the Baptist, and was killed, this would be impossible according to Scripture. For one who has had a changed body to be equipped for Heaven, does not turn back to mortality. If we look at it more carefully in II Kings 2:11 Elijah never experienced physical death so for him to come back in another body means he reincarnated not only in Spirit but in body too, and the Bible never teaches either one of these. Elijah did not die, so the Scripture is not talking about his reincarnation as John the Baptist (2 Kings 2:1,11).The Bible teaches resurrection, a totally different concept.
It's obvious that when Jesus spoke in Matt. 11:13-14, concerning John being “Elijah who is to come.” He was not speaking in a solid, literal sense. Jesus was metaphorically comparing 2 different things that also shared some similarities and functions. The Jewish scriptures always taught resurrection, not reincarnation. Each person is given 1 body to live in and will be reunited with that same body in the resurrection. When one takes the whole body of scripture instead of isolating verses, we find the consistent teaching that refutes any concept of Elijah becoming John the Baptist and then becoming Elijah again.

Also, if you insist on saying that John was the reincarnation of Elijah why stop there! Moses said: "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me;" Deut. 18:15. Why not claim that Jesus was the reincarnation of Moses? Or for that matter Jesus was King David? Didn't God say to David: "I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Psa. 2:7

 

[Jig]

The Angel Gabriel announced to Zecharias that his son's name would be called John in Luke 1:13. He goes on to say in verse 15 that he will be great in the sight of the Lord and “shall drink no wine or strong drink and will be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb.” Verse 17 says of John, “he will also go before Him (The Lord) in the Spirit and power of Elijah,” which is a ministry of reconciliation, would have the “hearts of the fathers turned to the children and children turning to their fathers.”

To claim that Elijah is John the Baptist is to teach reincarnation. The premise is that a spirit in a former body comes back to be born in another body. At the very least, it is transmigration. The Bible has never taught this.

In Matthew 11:13, Jesus states: “For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.” (Jesus calls him “John” not “Elijah.” Elijah is included with 'all the prophets' who came before John. In verse 14, Jesus says “and if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.” John wore a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt and preached in the wilderness. This was the same attire that Elijah wore (2 Kings 1:8), bringing attention to the Jews of the similarity of John's mission to that of Elijah's. Prophecy has many patterns and sometime dual or more fulfillments.
Malachi had predicted that before the Messiah's appearing, Elijah would come as a forerunner (Mal. 4:5-in relation to the day of the Lord). If the people had been willing to receive Jesus as the Messiah, then John would have filled the role of Elijah. Jesus then tells them to heed His words. If John fulfills Elijah's coming then Jesus is the Messiah.

Jesus pointed to John the Baptist as a type of fulfillment of Elijah's coming but he was not a reincarnation.

This is proven in John 1:20 when the Jews sent out the priests and Levites to investigate John's ministry. They ask him if he is the Christ. He states emphatically “No!” They ask him again if he is Elijah, John answers “I am not.” This is not a temporary memory loss for John that Jesus has to correct later. In verse 25, John the Baptist is asked, ‘Why do you baptize if you are not the Christ nor Elijah nor the prophet?’ In verses 25-27 John points to the Messiah who is coming after him. He states that it is he who is the forerunner of Malachi 3:1. In Luke 1:76, we see that John's father, Zecharias, is filled with the Holy spirit and says that his child will be called the prophet of the highest and will “go before the face of the Lord and prepare His ways again.' This relates John's ministry to Mal. 3:1, 4:5, and Luke 1:17. John labored in the same Spirit and power of the former prophet by calling people to repentance and he was preparing them for the salvation that Christ would later bring.


Both are Elijah and John the Baptist are forerunners. Elijah was promised to come for the second coming not the first, therefore he is not John the Baptist.

You brought up some good points but still tip-toed around the verses I used in my post to prove what I was saying.

Matt. 11:14
Mark 9:11-13
Matt. 17:12-13


These verses are Jesus saying Elijah has indeed come again and is John.

Why would Jesus say this?

I completely understand your side, please try to understand mine. How was Elijah to come back from the past? In spirit? In body? It was foreseen that he'd come back before Christ, and with God ALL things are possible.

 

[Peaceful Dove]

Very odd. Did I miss anyone mentioning the Transfiguration when Jesus stood and spoke to Moses and Elijah? Elijah, not John the Baptist.
How could you turn one person into two separate people?

 

[ArohaB]

I think we need to be careful before drawing too much out of Jesus baptism by John. First we need to determine why Jesus was baptised by John. It was certainly for a different reason as to why others were being baptised by John. After all if it was for the same reason then when we couldn't say Jesus was without sin and therefore couldn't be the sacrifice for us. I'm sure everyone here would say Jesus was without sin. So why was Jesus baptised? Was it simply to show us how it should be done? Surely he would have emphasised this in his teachings if it was so important.

He was baptised by John to "fulfill all righteousness", ie: that's what his Father told him to do, since yes he was perfect and without sin. He is our example, so we follow him. Everything Jesus said and did was/is important, there is nothing more important than anything else, just as in the opposite there is not sin worse than any other sin is sin and righteousness is righteousness.

 

[TheDag]

You brought up some good points but still tip-toed around the verses I used in my post to prove what I was saying.

Matt. 11:14
Mark 9:11-13
Matt. 17:12-13


These verses are Jesus saying Elijah has indeed come again and is John.

Why would Jesus say this?

I completely understand your side, please try to understand mine. How was Elijah to come back from the past? In spirit? In body? It was foreseen that he'd come back before Christ, and with God ALL things are possible.

Perhaps you should read his posts again as I saw the response to them. Not only that but I also saw him mention the OT prophecy that relates to two of those passages.

 

[DeaconDean]

Elijah and Moses appear and Jesus talks to Elijah. The disciples recognize him as Elijah in his original form, not as John the Baptist. One must either concede that they are 2 different people or that John the Baptist turned back into Elijah. Again, this would promote reincarnation or transmigration of a spirit going from one body to another. The Bible does not teach either.

You brought up some good points but still tip-toed around the verses I used in my post to prove what I was saying.
It was foreseen that he'd come back before Christ,

Mal.3:1 promised an unnamed forerunner Mal.3:1: “Behold, I will send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me: and the Lord, whom you seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom you delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.” Malachi speaks of two messengers one that will prepare the way for the Lord, this is none other than John the Baptizer who is foretold in Isa.40:3-4 as “The voice crying out in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. In Mal 4:5-6 he is named “ Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. We are told the prophet Elijah will come before the great and terrible day of the Lord (the tribulation).

Did I miss something? John the Baptist would herald the coming of Christ the Messiah. Elijah would herald the coming of Christ before that "Day of the Lord."

 

[Jig]

Elijah and Moses appear and Jesus talks to Elijah. The disciples recognize him as Elijah in his original form, not as John the Baptist. One must either concede that they are 2 different people or that John the Baptist turned back into Elijah. Again, this would promote reincarnation or transmigration of a spirit going from one body to another. The Bible does not teach either.



Mal.3:1 promised an unnamed forerunner Mal.3:1: “Behold, I will send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me: and the Lord, whom you seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom you delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.” Malachi speaks of two messengers one that will prepare the way for the Lord, this is none other than John the Baptizer who is foretold in Isa.40:3-4 as “The voice crying out in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. In Mal 4:5-6 he is named “ Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. We are told the prophet Elijah will come before the great and terrible day of the Lord (the tribulation).

Did I miss something? John the Baptist would herald the coming of Christ the Messiah. Elijah would herald the coming of Christ before that "Day of the Lord."

So....we are still waiting for Elijah to come?