The Historical Baptist Position on Baptism. CHAPTER 1: WATER BAPTISM: PROPER MODE.

@xlsdraw I am only tagging you in case you want to continue with me in proving to me that the only water baptism that has been practiced is by immersion which I can concur that there are examples of that in scriptures but failing to see it as a commandment to be water baptized by immersion as I cannot see it can be done every time a believer is saved for discipleship and for as a public witness.

If however you do not wish to walk me through this journey, maybe Alan Gross and others will.

Brother Alan,

When I read this from that first epistle from Peter...

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

I apply verse 21 as deferring from water baptism since water is used to put away the filth of the flesh, but instead to the answer of a good conscience towards God by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, hence the baptism with the Holy Ghost.

So when I read your reference of baptism in Romans 6:4-5 I read that as referring to that baptism of the Holy Ghost whenever anyone believes in Jesus Christ.

Kind of like this reference that some Baptists misapply as water baptism as necessary for salvation when I apply that as that promise of the forever indwelling Holy Ghost for all those that come to & believe in Jesus Christ.
.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I'll be reading & addressing the rest of your opening post to determine whether or not water baptism can only be recognized and be done by immersion.

 

One problem here, Brother Aalan, in regards to the article by Berlin Hisel. Philip was preaching the gospel to the Samaritans and was casting out unclean spirits. When they believed and got water baptized in Jesus's name, they were not saved yet as they had not received the promise of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.

6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.

7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.

8 And there was great joy in that city.

9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:

10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.

11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.

12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.

24 Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.

25 And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.

In understanding what had happened here with the Lord's help, the people believed in the "things" that Philip was preaching about as they and even Simon the sorcerer was following Philip around out of fanfare and so they were not really coming to & believing in Jesus Christ for salvation. They just did whatever Philip told them to do as they were just being fans of Philip following him around seeing all the miracles happening by Philip rather than by the Lord Jesus Christ.

The fact that Simon had infamy for bewitching the people of the area with unclean spirits is why the focus of the people was on Philip rather than on Jesus Christ.

Even Simon still had to have the Lord's help to lift his sight higher as he had thought he could buy the power from Peter & John to be able to give the Holy Ghost like they seemingly did by the laying on of their hands.

So these potential believers were water baptized by someone in authority such as Philip BUT they did not receive the promise of the Holy Spirit even after that water baptism, because their sights were on Philip just as Simon's sights were still on man when he had assumed in error that Peter & John had the power to give the Holy Ghost when they did not.

So by forcing the issue of only the right Baptist church can water baptized anyone, then that is directing their gaze to man and not to God the Father Whom baptizes any believer that comes to & believe in His Son with the promise of the Holy Ghost.

So I disagree with Berlin Hisel on that point.

Although the reference in Acts 8th chapter did not mention water baptism by immersion, I would think that is what had happened there when Philip was out there in the region where I am sure a body of water was available for that purpose.

This is the same reference and line of righty dividing the word of truth that I have with Pentecostals & Charismatics that insist that saved believers can receive the Holy Spirit apart from salvation as if they can receive Him again, but I point out that verse 16 testifies that they did not have the Holy Ghost yet but were just water baptized in His name and so they cannot use that to teach that saved believers can receive the Holy Spirit again apart from salvation when they never had Him in the first place.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Anyway, there is that.

Berlin Hisel, whether he realizes this or not, is practically giving the RCC validation for saved believers to only receive that water baptism done by the RCC as they consider water baptism as a sacrament as necessary for obtaining salvation within the RCC. Hopefully, they will not refer to his work in validating their line of falsehood but it goes to show why we should abstain from all appearances of evil when it is the Father that baptizes any believer with the promise of the forever indwelling Holy Ghost for when they come to & believe in Jesus Christ as water baptism by any specific person or church is not required to make that happen..

 

Although I do not believe in infant baptism nor baptismal regeneration, I do point out that without water baptism, a saved believer is baptized by the Holy Ghost in accomplishing the same manner and metaphors as depicted below.

(Romans 6:4-5; "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:")

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

I apply verse 21 as deferring from water baptism since water is used to put away the filth of the flesh, but instead to the answer of a good conscience towards God by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, hence the baptism with the Holy Ghost.

So when I read your reference of baptism in Romans 6:4-5 I read that as referring to that baptism of the Holy Ghost whenever anyone believes in Jesus Christ.

Repeating what I had posted earlier.

There is no denying the reference citing baptism by immersion but can it be said that this was done every time as following whenever someone got saved at the hearing of the gospel?

Not really. Romans 6:1-5 can very well be talking about the baptism with the Holy Ghost.

Well, I am attempting to research this in finding the scriptures for that point of relevance.

Since the Lord's hand is not short in saving anyone in the absence of water when they come to & believe in Jesus Christ, if Paul did not stress the importance of water baptism here, then why stress water baptism can only be done by immersion?

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God...

.....21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

The problem here is how can you be sure this is referring to water baptism by immersion and not the baptism with the Holy Ghost at our salvation moment when we are born again of the Spirit?

It would be interesting if I did find scriptures that testify to sprinkling form of water baptism, but currently I have not found any yet let alone, infers that kind of water baptism.

 

@Alan Gross & @John of Japan & @xlsdraw

Ezekiel 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

There are a lot of verses regarding the sprinkling of the blood that cleanses as well but I will not bother with that aspect.

The Book of Numbers also list a few references of the actual sprinkling of water for several cleansing purposes. Numbers 8:7 & Numbers 19:13 & Numbers 19:18-21

Nothing about sprinkling of water as a form of water baptism in the New Testament yet.

The one below is not to be taken as such an example.

Hebrews 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;

22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised

I am sure Hebrews 10:21-23 has nothing to do with water baptism, but the baptism with the Holy Ghost.

Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Anyway, so far, I find no New Testament example of water baptism by sprinkling but then again, it is the baptism with the Holy Ghost that counts for salvation rather than any specific form of water baptism to be insisted upon for discipleship.

 

Yes. This is where interperters on this matter disagree.

 

Hopefully neither side will judge the other as not a true Baptist or not a true Christian when Jesus Christ in us is able to make us stand without water baptism at all since salvation is not dependent on it nor is it required to enable us to follow Christ when looking to Jesus Christ daily to help us resist sin and do good is how we are able to follow Him.

 

Romans 6:4-5 can always be applied to the baptism with the Holy Ghost at our born again of the Spirit moment for when we believe in Jesus Christ at the calling of the gospel.

Since Paul deferred from water baptism as not necessary for obtaining salvation, per 1 Corinthians 1:14-18,21

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. ......

......21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

So to avoid factionalism among Baptists like Paul was doing, maybe all Baptist churches should agree that they should not be dividing from one another on the basis of that water baptism, let alone what kind of water baptism.

 

About 15 or 20 years ago, I became embroiled in multiple discussions concerning baptism.
Here is a post I wrote on my blog in 2009 concerning a book called What about baptism by a chap called Ralph Bass which some Presbyterians claimed refuted the whole idea of baptism by immersion.

A new book on the subject of baptism which promotes infant ‘baptism’ by sprinkling as being the Biblical mode, is being hailed by some American Presbyterians as a refutation of the Baptist position. The book is What about Baptism? by Ralph E. Bass, published by Reformation Media & Press. The arguments being put forward by Mr Bass are not new. They are the same ones that have been debated ever since the 17th Century. However, it appears that they may be new to some of the brethren who read the reviews of this book. I will start therefore, as Mr Bass does, by addressing the meaning of the Greek word, Baptizo, and then perhaps move on to the question of the proper recipient of baptism in a subsequent blog.

Mr Bass claims that baptizo means, “To envelope, to merse (merge) – to put together so as to remain together, to unite.” He continues, “It is characterized by the idea of ‘putting in and leaving in’ or ‘envelopment’. The purpose of this envelopment is to produce a change of condition in the object enveloped. In the ancient Greek world if a person was Baptidzo in water, he was drowned. He was enveloped by the water without a withdrawal from the water. This produced a change of condition – from life to death.”

The simplest way to understand the meaning of a word is to study its usage in as many texts as possible. Fortunately we are saved the very hard work that such a study would involve because a 19th Century scholar, T.J.Conant, in his book, The meaning and use of Baptizein (Wakeman Classic Reprints. ISBN 1-870855-31-0 ), has given every single usage of Baptizo in Classical or Koine Greek, and as we study the word, we can see that it always and invariably means, ‘To dip’, ‘submerge’ or ‘to immerse.’ Sometimes the usage is figurative, as when people are said to be ‘overwhelmed’ by grief, drink, debt or desire. Very occasionally, ‘sprinkle’ is a possible alternative translation, but never once is it required by the context.

Sometimes the word does indeed refer to being permanently submerged. We read several times in ancient Greek literature of ships being ‘baptized’ in the sea when they sink and of people drowning as they were ‘baptized’ in rivers or lakes. However, we read in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Book XV, 3,3, describing the murder of the boy Aristobulus: ‘Continually pressing down and submerging (Gk. Baptizo ) him while swimming, as if in sport, they did not desist until they had entirely suffocated him.’ Here we are looking at a series of temporary immersions resulting in a drowning.

Indeed, there are several other times where the word indicates a temporary submersion, such as the plunging of a sword into an enemy’s breast, or as Heliodorus (Aethopics Book IV ch. 17 ) writes, ‘When midnight had plunged (Gk. Baptizo ) the city in sleep, an armed band of revelers took possession of the dwelling of Chariclea.’ Or Gregory Thaumaturgus (Panegyric on Origen XIV ): ‘He himself would remain on high in safety, and stretching out a hand to others save them, as if drawing up persons immersed’ (Gk. Baptizo ). I do not really get the meaning of ‘merge,’ ‘merse’ or ‘unite’ from any of these examples. I am getting ‘dip,’ ‘submerge’ or ‘immerse.’

So, contrary to what Mr Bass seems to be claiming, baptizo can also mean ‘to dip,’ and it was understood by the Church Fathers to mean that. Here is Basil the Great (On Baptism, Book 1, Chap 2, 10 ), commenting on Rom 6:3: ‘We were baptized (Gk. Baptizo ), says he, in order that from it we might learn this: that as wool dipped (Gk. Baptizo) in a dye is changed as to its colour; or rather (using John the Baptist as a guide, when he prophesied of the Lord, “He will baptize (Gk. Baptizo) you in the Holy Spirit and fire”)….let us say this: that as steel, immersed (Gk. Baptizo) in the fire kindled up by spirit (wind), becomes more easy to test whether it has any fault, and more ready for being refined;…..so it follows and is necessary, that he who is immersed (Gk. Baptizo) in fire (that is the word of instruction, which convicts of the evil of sin and shows the grace of justification) should hate and abhor unrighteousness, as it is written, and should desire to be cleansed though faith in the power of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ To translate baptizo anywhere in this text as ‘pour’ or ‘sprinkle’ or ‘permanently submerge’ simply doesn’t work. Whether the person baptized, the wool, the steel, the text refers to something being placed into a substance and then withdrawn.

There are more than 200 examples of the usage of Baptizo given by Conant in his book. Check them out for yourselves.
It is Mr Bass’s contention that baptize has the particular meaning in the New Testament of ‘sprinkle.’ Referring to the book of Hebrews, he writes, “When referring to the ritual purifications in the Old Testament [Heb 9:10] the Apostle Paul notes that these washings (baptismos) were accomplished by means of pouring or sprinkling.”

Well of course, had the writer to the Hebrews noted anything of the sort he would have been wrong. Some OT purifications were sprinklings, some involved pouring and others were washings. If we look at the consecration of Aaron and his sons in Leviticus 8, we can find all three methods being used. The briefest flick though Lev 15 will reveal numerous requirements to wash ones clothes and bathe in water. If one looks at the NKJV centre column reference for Hebrews 9:10, one finds Numbers 19:7: ‘Then the priest shall wash his clothes, he shall bathe in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp.’ A sprinkling? I don’t think so! In Heb 9:10, the Apostle is referring to washing by immersion (Gk. Baptizo); in verse 13, he is referring to sprinklings (Gk. Rantizo). How do we know? Because he tells us. That is why he uses two different words and that is what his language signifies.

Another helpful text is Numbers 19:17f: And for an unclean person they shall take some of the ashes of the heifer burnt for purification from sin, and running water shall be put on them (i.e. ‘poured’) in a vessel. A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, sprinkle it on the tent, on all the vessels, on the persons who were there……’ here we have pouring, dipping and sprinkling all in the same operation. The Jews distinguished carefully between them, and so should we.
[continued]

 

Perhaps it will be helpful to glance at Hebrews 10:22 at this point: ‘….Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled ( Gk. Rantizo) from an evil conscience and our bodies washed (Gk. Louo) with pure water.’ It may be helpful to explain some of the relevant Greek words here. Nipto is the Greek verb used for a ceremonial washing of a part of the body. According to Alfred Edersheim (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Book III, Chapt. XXXI), this washing could be by pouring or, when holy or sacrificial food was to be eaten, by immersion of the hands up to the wrists, in which case it was called by the Jews a ‘baptism’ of the hands. Louo signifies a bathing of the whole person (cf. John 13:10). This could signify total immersion, but does not necessarily do so. Rantizo is the word that specifically means to ‘sprinkle,’ and baptizo, as we have seen, is the word that means to ‘dip’ or ‘immerse completely.’ In this connection, it is helpful to look at John 2:6. At the marriage at Cana, according to Edersheim, there would have been several hundred gallons of water available for ritual purification, vastly more than would have been required for sprinkling or pouring.

This helps us when we come to Mark 7:2-4. ‘Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed (Gk. Anniptos) hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash (Gk. Nipto) their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash (Gk. Baptizo). And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing (Gk. Baptismos) of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.’

Now we’re looking here at two different scenarios. Whatever the Pharisees were doing they always gave their hands a ceremonial wash before eating. However when they had been in the market-place and had potentially come into contact with all sorts of sinners and Gentiles, a mere hand-wash was quite insufficient; they would bathe their whole selves, and if any furniture were to become unclean for any reason they would place it in water in order to cleanse it. Surely not the dining couches? Yes, even them. They did it in the desert, why not in Israel? ‘Anything on which any of them [unclean reptiles] falls when it is dead shall be unclean, whether it is any item of wood or clothing or skin or sack, whatever item it is, in which any work is done, it must be put in water’ (Lev 11:32). According to Moses Maimonides, the 12th Century Jewish authority, if an item was too big to immerse completely, half of it was dunked in the water, then it was taken out, turned around, and the other half immersed. However, we need not imagine a large piece of furniture, anymore than we suppose that the paralytic in Mark 2:12 carried away a four-poster bed; Jews ate as they reclined and the ‘couches’ were probably nothing more than rolls of matting laid out.

Finally, those who are unfamiliar with Greek may not realize that, Bible versions notwithstanding, people in the NT are baptized ‘in’ water (Gk. En hudati) and ‘in’ the Holy Spirit (Gk. En hagio pneumati). It is amusing that our Bible translators admit that in Matt 3:6, people were baptized ‘in’ the Jordan (Gk. En to Iordane) but not that they were baptized ‘in’ water in v11. The Greek construction is identical. Now someone will say that En can sometimes mean ‘with.’ So it can, but according to Young’s Analytical Concordance, it is translated ‘in’ 1863 times and ‘with’ 139 times. Its usual and natural meaning is therefore ‘in’ and so it should be translated unless there is a particularly good reason. Moreover in v16, our Lord came up (Gk. Anabaino, ‘to emerge,’ ‘arise’ or ‘ascend’) from the water (Gk. Apo to hudati) and in Acts 8:39, Philip and the eunuch came up ‘out of the water’ (Gk. Ek to hudati), suggesting, at the very least, they had been in the water.

It should also be added that no one in Scripture is ever sprinkled ‘in water,’ en hudati. In the Septuagint version of Ezek 36:25, the Greek reads ‘Rano eph’umas katharon hudor,’ literally, ‘I will sprinkle clean water upon you’ (cf. also Exod 29:21; Lev 6:27; 16:14 ). Never in Greek literature, to the best of my knowledge, is water ever baptized ‘upon’ anyone.

In my next post, I will look at how the Church Fathers understood baptizo and tidy up any other loose ends.

 

I want to cover two more aspects of the mode of baptism before leaving the subject.

Firstly and biefly, the figurative use of baptizo. In Greek literature, people are frequently ‘baptized’ in debt, misery, sleep and alcohol. We might use the words ‘plunged’ or ‘immersed.’ Now if one was plunged into debt or misery, this might last one’s whole life or for just a short period. Only the context would say wheher the ‘baptism’ was permanent or temporary. However, if one was immersed in sleep or ‘overwhelmed’ by wine, it is obvious that in due course one would wake up or sober up. The ‘baptism’ would be a temporary one. It is therefore wrong to say that baptizo in these figurative usages must mean a permanent change.

This enables us to understand better Luke 12:50. “But I have a baptism (Gk. Baptismos ) to be baptized with (Gk. Baptizo), and how distressed I am till it is accomplished.” Our Lord cannot be referring to His water baptism, which had already taken place, so he must mean His baptism of sufferings which He was to undergo. He declared, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death” (Matt 26:38). The baptism analogy is particularly apt if we attribute to Him the words of Psalm 69: ‘Save Me, O God, for the waters have come up to My neck. I sink in deep mire where there is no standing; I have come into deep waters, where the floods overflow Me.’ But His overwhelming anguish was only a temporary one. He emerged from His sufferings (Phil 2:9; Heb 12:2) to assume His place at the right hand of God. This Baptismos, therefore, was also a temporary one. we claim therefore, contra Mr Bass, that Baptizo can most certainly mean a temporary immersion as well as a permanent one.

Secondly, it may be helpful to see how some of the Church fathers write about baptism. This is not out of respect for their theological understanding, which was variable to say the least. Rather, we look to them to see what Greek-speakers in the early centuries A.D. understood baptizo to mean, and taught their congregations.

1. Cyril of Jerusalem, Instruction III, on Baptism XII. ‘For as Jesus assuming the sins of the world died, that having slain sin He might raise you up to righteousness; so also you, going down into the water, and in a manner buried in the waters as He in the rock, are raised again, walking in newness of life.’

2. John Chrysostom. Comment on 1Cor. Discourse XL. I. ‘For to be baptized, and to sink down, then to emerge, is a symbol of the descent into the underworld, and of the descent from there. Therefore Paul calls baptism, the burial, saying, “we were buried therefore, with Him by the baptism into death.”‘

3. Athanasius. Discourse on the Holy Passover, 5. ‘In these benefits you were baptized, O newly-enlightened; the initiation into the grace……has become to you an earnest of resurrection; you have the baptism as a surety of the abode in heaven. You imitated, in the sinking down, the burial of the Master; but you rose again from there, before works, witnessing the works of the resurrection.’

4. Gregory of Nazianus. Discourse XL, on the holy Baptism. ‘Let us therefore be buried with Christ by the baptism, that we mayalso rise with Him. Let us go down with Him, that we may also be exalted with Him; let us come up with Him, that we may also be glorified with Him.’

In every single example that Ican find (and there are plenty of others), the Church Fathers understand Baptizo to mean immersion. They wrote in Greek; they ought to know what a Greek word means.

Finally, let us look at the earliest post-Biblical Christian work (c. A.D. 110) to mention baptism. It might be mentioned in passing that the writers show absolutely no knowledge of infant baptist. Clearly it had not been introduced at this early stage.

Didache VII. Baptize thus: having first recited all these things, baptize (Gk. Baptizo) “in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” in running water. If you have no running water, baptize in other water; if you cannot baptize in cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water on the head thrice……..’ Only as a very last resort was pouring to be considered, and the pouring is not called baptism.

 

Regardless of what the "early church fathers" understood as the RCC do refer to them a lot for their own errant doctrines, we are missing the forest for the trees when water baptism is not necessary for salvation.

For the Baptist church to emphasize something that was clearly not emphasized in the N.T. as if it must be done by immersion only, it is rather moot in light of that truth.

I dare say because water baptism is not necessary for salvation is why we are not seeing that emphasis to water baptized only by immersion in the scripture.

The danger here is making that denomination of believers as separate from other churches because of that emphasis on water baptism by immersion as if that is why they are called Baptists in the first place rather than that baptism by the Holy Ghost by faith in Jesus Christ which is how every children of God should be identified by per Galatians 3:14 & Galatians 3:26.

 

Water baptism of converts by immersion is a command of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18). All the commands of God are to be obeyed. I really don't think it is up to us to decide that this or that command doesn't matter.

I know many Christians who were 'baptized' as babies who, I have no doubt, are truly born again, but nevertheless, baptism of infants is a great danger, as I know personally, having been 'baptized' into the Church of England as a baby. For years I assumed that I was somehow saved because of it despite not attending church and living a dissolute life. I thank God for rescuing me from that delusion, which is not as rare as you may imagine.