Should one be fully submerged for Baptism?

[Jig]

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.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I do not believe that baptism must be by submersion, but I certainly agree that it is favourable for the symbolism behind it. However, since the command to, "go forth and baptise in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," does not include an implicit command that this baptism be by submersion rather than pouring or sprinkling, I do not by any means think that one must be fully submerged during baptism.

Pax Christi

Rob

 

[Ragamuffins]

I agree with Robbie that in symbolism it is good to do it just the way that the Apostles are known to have done it (Orthodox I believe dunk three times in the name of the Trinity), but if all you had was a cup of water, I think the intent would be the same and therefore it would be valid.

 

[Jig]

I do not believe that baptism must be by submersion, but I certainly agree that it is favourable for the symbolism behind it. However, since the command to, "go forth and baptise in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," does not include an implicit command that this baptism be by submersion rather than pouring or sprinkling, I do not by any means think that one must be fully submerged during baptism.

Pax Christi

Rob

Let me copy what I had posted in another thread.

A quote from John MAcAurthur:
There are two Greek verbs that are used in the New Testament with regard to baptism. They are translated baptism": bapto and baptizo. Bapto is the less common, used only four times in the New Testament and it means "to dip into." "to dip," "to dip into," in fact, it was used for dyeing, when you immerse something in a dye. It's the word immerse, bapto.
Baptizo is an intensified form of bapto. The Greeks had ways of sticking in a few extra letters and intensifying a word. Baptizo is used many, many times in the New Testament; many, many times. It means "to dip completely" and it's the Greek word for drowning; that shows you how complete the dipping is, potentially. It's the word "to submerse" or "immerse". In fact, the Latin equivalent is immersio or submersio. The noun baptism, baptismas, is used always in the book of Acts to refer to a Christian being immersed in water. It's always used to refer to a Christian being immersed in water. So, that is what baptism is: it's a ceremony by which a person believes the gospel and is then immersed into water.

In fact, the terms bapto and baptizo, the verb, and baptismas, the noun, could have been translated immerse; and probably would have solved a lot of problems, but the translators chose to transliterate the Greek baptizo into baptise. They transliterated it rather than translate it because it had become such a technical term for immersion. So, they just transliterated it across, but that doesn't change the meaning. It means, to immerse.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

However, in Luke 11:38, it says: "But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised."

ebaptisqh is the Koine Greek word for "wash" in this case. For some unknown reason I can find translations into English, but none into Greek transliterated into the Roman alphabet. Therefore I am going to have to assume that "ebaptisqh", the ridiculous gibberish that my computer gives me in text bars that only accept Roman letters, is-as Catholic Answers says-"baptizo".

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.

From the seventh chapter of the Didache, written around 70 AD, we read:

"7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;

7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;

7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."


​

Pax Christi

 

[Catholic Dude]

First of all Baptizing infants has been done since the beginning, even the original Protestants did this. So from that standpoint I wouldnt expect an infant to be submerged.

 

[whitedove7]

In the bible, they did submersion. I would go for submersion because Jesus was submerged. The word of God is used for example. If a person can only be sprinkled, then that is fine too. It is the heart issue anyway. I did both. I was sprinkled as a child and it was special but when I got submerged when I was older, I felt something different. This could be because I was older with more understanding.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

I am not really convinced that the method is all that important. Obviously I think it's best not to immerse babies, but I don't really see why a more grown up believer cannot be immersed.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

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.

We have a document from the first century church, the didache, which may have been written around 60 A.D. before even the Gospels. It is the teaching of the Apostles for things such as order of worship and how the baptism and other things were done. I'll find it and be back.

 

[Salvatore Gonzales]

It's not the amount of water used or how deep you go in the pond that will
help you follow the Spirit.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

There is a writing from the first century church, the didache, which may have been written around 60 A.D. before even the Gospels. 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.

 

[DrTheophorus]

In the bible, they did submersion. I would go for submersion because Jesus was submerged. The word of God is used for example. If a person can only be sprinkled, then that is fine too. It is the heart issue anyway. I did both. I was sprinkled as a child and it was special but when I got submerged when I was older, I felt something different. This could be because I was older with more understanding.

The Bible rarely defines how baptism was done. The only clear explanation fo Baptism in the first century Church is in the Didache, or "The Training of the Twelve". Immension is one of several approved methods. There is no Biblical record of which method St. John the Baptist used to baptize Jesus. In fact the earliest record we have of the baptism of Jesus is in pictograph's in the Catacombs from the second century depicting St. John the Baptist pouring water from a pitcher over Jesus' head. Most of the year the Jordan River is very shallow so pouring would seem more likely.

There has been some discussion of the Greek word "Baptizo" which should be understood as wash, in Greek literature it is rarely used to mean immerse of which there are other words more appropriately translated as immersion.

Deus Misereatur

 

[KEPLER]

First of all Baptizing infants has been done since the beginning, even the original Protestants did this. So from that standpoint I wouldnt expect an infant to be submerged.

Actually Catholic Dude, the Orthodox baptize infants, and they IMMERSE them, not once, but three times!! (I've been to two EO baptisms, so I've seen it myself...and let me tell you, it makes for one unhappy baby! )

By the way, in the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16), when in hell, the Rich Man begs Abraham to tell to Lazarus "to "baptize" his finger in the water to cool my tongue." So much for immersion.

 

[Chadsly]

First of all, babies should not baptized. Baptism is a symbol of being a follower of Jesus Christ not just having parents who happen to believe a certain way. This is way off topic so let's get back to the discussion.

Baptism is a symbol of being a follower of Christ. Yes baptism is to be done by saturating the outside of ones self whether being sprayed with a water hose, dunking, or whatever method. Sprinkling a few drops on someones head is not how God said to do it, but that's not the major emphasis of what Christ asked us to do. he asked us to go and make disciples and then baptize them.

 

[PaladinValer]

Chadsly, then how come 1st century Christians did otherwise and thought otherwise?

 

[Jig]

By the way, in the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16), when in hell, the Rich Man begs Abraham to tell to Lazarus "to "baptize" his finger in the water to cool my tongue." So much for immersion.

I still see immersion. The rich man wants Lazarus to baptize his finger, not his whole body. In other words, to completely dip his finger into water.

Let me say this again. Being baptised by immersion is agreed BY ALL to be legit in the eyes of God. So way raise questions and do it any other way, if you know for a FACT immersion is baptism??

We can go back and fouth that it may very well be OK to do it by pouring or sprinkling, but the evidence is pretty weak compared to full body immersion.

 

[Stinker]

There is a writing from the first century church, the didache, which may have been written around 60 A.D. before even the Gospels. 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.

Actually the scholars say the Didache may have been written 120 A.D-150 A.D.

Many pseudo scholars would have us also believe that such inferior writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, etc., were written before the earliest New Testament writings.

 

[Stinker]

The Bible rarely defines how baptism was done. The only clear explanation fo Baptism in the first century Church is in the Didache, or "The Training of the Twelve". Immension is one of several approved methods. There is no Biblical record of which method St. John the Baptist used to baptize Jesus. In fact the earliest record we have of the baptism of Jesus is in pictograph's in the Catacombs from the second century depicting St. John the Baptist pouring water from a pitcher over Jesus' head. Most of the year the Jordan River is very shallow so pouring would seem more likely.

There has been some discussion of the Greek word "Baptizo" which should be understood as wash, in Greek literature it is rarely used to mean immerse of which there are other words more appropriately translated as immersion.

Deus Misereatur

{In fact the earliest record we have of the baptism of Jesus is in pictograph's in the Catacombs from the second century depicting St. John the Baptist pouring water from a pitcher over Jesus' head. Most of the year the Jordan River is very shallow so pouring would seem more likely.}

And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. (Jn.3:23)

 

[DrTheophorus]

Actually the scholars say the Didache may have been written 120 A.D-150 A.D.

Many pseudo scholars would have us also believe that such inferior writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, etc., were written before the earliest New Testament writings.

I have not seen anyone who gave the Didache such a late date but judging the pseudo scholarship coming out of the Jesus Seminar, I will believe almost anything. At worst the Didache is a contemporary writing to the Gospels but likely predate the Gospels by a decade. Both the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary are Gnostic works which were condemned. I am not sure about the Gospel of Mary but the Gospel of Thomas was probably mid 2nd century.

It does a disservice to the Didache to group it with the Gnostic works. There is no doubt that the Didache is a first century Christian work deserving considerable respect.

Deus misereatur

 

[tecjr]

I am not really convinced that the method is all that important. Obviously I think it's best not to immerse babies, but I don't really see why a more grown up believer cannot be immersed.

I agree that method is not important. And I do know a pastor who has immersed infants (at the parent's requests.) He holds their nose and mouth and moves them very quickly through the water in an arc motion. Never had one even choke a bit--not once.

But, everyone keeps saying Jesus was immersed. I see no evidence of this. Though, even if he were, it is not a matter of salvation whether or not you have gone all the way under or if you had water poured on your head. "In the name of the Father, and the Son, and The Holy Ghost." Those powerful words uttered at baptism are far more powerful than the symbolic amount of water to be used.
all of this, of course is my humble opinion.

Forgive any offense