Can a Person be a "Baptist" and not Immerse?

Pastork --

You are absolutely right. I realized that after
writing my post, then forgot to come back and
correct it. Please forgive me.

 

No Helen. This is not correct. After you revealed to everyone on the aforementioned thread that you do not believe that baptist by immersion is the only acceptable mode of baptism, questions were raised. This is the Baptist Board. We are not merely baptistic.

Frankly, I have great respect for Dr. Bob Griffin, another moderator and administrator. I would give him more credit than merely attacking you. You are the one who started with this non-baptist take on baptism. Dr. Bob went further by asking others.

Further, we believe baptism by immersion because that is what the Scripture says. Therefore, other "christians" are wrong and disobedient to do otherwise. They might be a christian, but obedience to Christ is more important than sincerity.

- a friend

[ January 19, 2003, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Kal-El ]

 

Helen has asked that she be PMed about this topic, and has bowed out of responding(pg 4).

We obviously have all seen something that wasn't there, but I'm still a bit confused on all of the responses given, but chose to let it die as it has touched a nerve, ( not mine). Bite my tongue.

 

I have followed this thread and the original thread with interest. In fact I have read the original thread referred to several times. I have refrained from comment until this point.

I do not understand the following quote from Kal-El

No Helen. This is not correct. After you revealed to everyone on the aforementioned thread that you do not believe that baptist by immersion is the only acceptable mode of baptism, questions were raised. This is the Baptist Board. We are not merely baptistic.

Questions were raised yes, but it seemed that a person was being attacked.

In my understanding this is the way I read Helen's posts, Helen did not say that she did not believe in immersion. She did not say that there were other acceptable ways of Baptism.
She said that there are other Christians who are not Baptist that believe in other forms of Baptism and she respects their belief. (This is my understanding....I am not trying to interpret what Helen said)

For those who may be lurking and may misunderstand this discussion and it seems many of us have misunderstood what others are trying to say:

The only way to salvation:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Baptism has nothing to do with Salvation.

Further, baptist believe that after one has asked for forgiveness of sin and believed with all their heart, and are saved, then that person to obey Jesus will follow in baptism by immersion, which represents the death, burial, and resurection of Christ.

The answer to the question of this thread should be "NO"

I am sure that some of you could say this more eloquently and perhaps you might want to do that.

We should in no way give the impression that a person must be baptised to be saved.

 

I was raised in the Presbyterian Church and it may interest some of you to know that baptism by immersion as the correct mode used by the early church or the proper mode today is far from a settled issue. It is possible to make a good Biblical case for pouring or sprinkling. How many of you have really studied the other side of the picture? There are books out on the subject. Some questions I have for you to ponder are:

1. If being burried with Christ in baptism means going under and coming back up, how does that symbolize Christ's burial, since He was layed in a tomb inside a cave?

2. Being baptized into Christ's death means being crucified with Christ as well as being buried with Christ. How does immersion symbolism crucifiction? Rom. 6:3-6

3. If baptism always means to immerse, then what happened on the day of Penticost when the Spirit came down on the apostles?

 

Hello, Leonk. Welcome to the Baptist Board. I'd like to encourage you to visit the "Welcome to Baptist Board.com" forum and introduce yourself to everyone. Hope you will find enjoyment and instruction here.

First, I must say that I am quite surprised that you changed from Presbyterian to Baptist if you feel the way you seem to concerning Baptists and immersion. I do find it interesting that your Presbyterian church evidently tried to find a scriptural reason for pouring. The Presbyterians that I know personally never felt it important enough to worry about what mode the scriptures might favor.

Second, concerning your 3 points: [1] I find this to be little more than a quibble. I assume you are contrasting Jesus' burial in a cave with our common practice of burying 6 feet under; yet Jesus Himself refers to His stay as being "in the heart of the earth." (Matt. 12:40) [2] How does pouring or sprinkling symbolize crucifixion at all or any more than immersion? [3] Peter does refer to the coming of the Spirit as an outpouring, but that does not prove that one cannot be immersed or submerged in that which is poured out. Obviously this is all language referring to what the Spirit accomplished "spiritually" rather than physically. Certainly He was not poured out of heaven like pouring water out of a glass; nor were they literally baptized in a pool of Holy Spirit.

 

__________________________________________
Second, concerning your 3 points: [1] I find this to be little more than a quibble. I assume you are contrasting Jesus' burial in a cave with our common practice of burying 6 feet under; yet Jesus Himself refers to His stay as being "in the heart of the earth." (Matt. 12:40)
____________________________________________
A quibble yes, but no more so than assuming that being buried with Christ always means one must be immersed. I gave that illustration to show that it doesn't have to mean this.

____________________________________________

[2] How does pouring or sprinkling symbolize crucifixion at all or any more than immersion?________________________________________________

It doesn't. Pouring or sprinkling symbolizes the outpouring of the Spirit on a person when he is saved. John the Baptist contrasted his baptism using water with the Baptism Jesus would do with the Holy Spirit. We become at one with Christ after we receive the Holy Spirit and that's how we share his death, crucifiction, burial and ressurection.

_________________________________________

Peter does refer to the coming of the Spirit as an outpouring, but that does not prove that one cannot be immersed or submerged in that which is poured out. Obviously this is all language referring to what the Spirit accomplished "spiritually" rather than physically. Certainly He was not poured out of heaven like pouring water out of a glass; nor were they literally baptized in a pool of Holy Spirit.
_________________________________________
True, and since it's the symbolism that matters, why is it so important that it be done exclusively by either poring or immersion? Where there is no absolute proof either way, shouldn't we all try to get along?

 

Try taking a garment to a clothier to be dyed. They will understand the Greek word "baptize". You will be greatly disappointed when the garment comes back spotty, stained in one area and not completely dyed.......as in baptized.

Cheers,

Jim

[ January 20, 2003, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Jim1999 ]

 

If simply getting along is all we are concerned with, why don't we all just practice immersion? In my reading, I have found that almost everyone agrees that immersion is a scriptural method of baptism, while both sprinkling and pouring are unacceptable to a large portion of professing Christians. If we're going to get along, it seems best to adopt the method acceptable to the most people. I do not know of any the churches that accept sprinkling & pouring that will not accept immersion.

 

____________________________________
In my reading, I have found that almost everyone agrees that immersion is a scriptural method of baptism, while both sprinkling and pouring are unacceptable to a large portion of professing Christians. If we're going to get along, it seems best to adopt the method acceptable to the most people
_____________________________________

Sprinkling and pouring is the acceptable means of baptism for the large majarity of Christians world-wide.

 

Leonk:

Sprinkling and pouring is the acceptable means of baptism for the large majarity of Christians world-wide.

___________________________________________

Have you been immersed?

Cheers,

Jim

 

Yes, it may be. But you missed the point. This "large majority" also believes immersion is an acceptable form of baptism. If the only goal is for all of us to get along, why not let those who accept all methods simply use the one method that is agreeable to all - immersion? Then we would all get along. Or do you have some objection to immersion as a valid form of baptism?

 

_________________________________________________
This "large majority" also believes immersion is an acceptable form of baptism. If the only goal is for all of us to get along, why not let those who accept all methods simply use the one method that is agreeable to all - immersion? Then we would all get along. Or do you have some objection to immersion as a valid form of baptism?
_________________________________________________
No, I don't have any objection to immersion as a valid form of baptism, I'm just saying that many Christians believe that sprinkling or pouring is the correct way to do it snd since we can't prove which way is correct, maby we should be a little more tolerant. Is'nt that what the're doing when they accept Christians who have been immersed? It seems to me like that's the correct way to get along without being so condescending. I think that's what turns a lot of people off about Baptists- that in a matter so controversal as baptism, we insist that our way is the only way that could be correct.

 

_________________________________________________
Have you been immersed?

Cheers,

Jim

Yes Jim, I joined the Baptist church years ago when I was 16; I wasn't a theologion then and I'm not one now but I believed they should have accepted my baptism as a Presbyterian.

 

There is no intent on my part to be condescending. I don't go to the Presbyterian church and tell them they have to immerse. But if they come to my church or if they ask me, I will tell them what I believe - immersion is the scriptural mode of baptism. I do not agree with the idea of asking a person to give up their convictions in order to get along. That seems to be what you are asking of Baptists. If the Presbyterians, Methodists, or any other church find all three modes acceptable, then fine, let them practice it that way. But don't ask us to practice something we don't believe. I answered your question on the assumption that if the sole idea is just for us to just get along, then the way to do it would be to adopt a solution that is acceptable to all. Immersion would be that solution, because it is acceptable to all. But the true way to not be condescending is to let each church be free to practice what they believe, and not ask them to do something that is opposed to their convictions of what is right. It appears to me that you are arguing that Baptists must give up their conviction that immersion is scriptural baptism and adopt the conviction (of Presbyterians is this case) that any mode of baptism is scriptural. Where's the tolerance in that?

 

He was laid in a tomb and it closed over him (the stone). He was in the earth. In resurrection, He was uncovered and came up out of the tomb. Baptism by immersion is almost a perfect symbolic picture of this. Also, considering the testimonial aspect of baptism for early believers, sprinkling is inadequate. Baptism was intended as a public testimony. Sprinkling could easily be done in secret.

The real test is what was the form of baptism established by the NT, 1st century Christians... and the evidence says it was immersion.

You make a connection that is not necessitated by a normal reading of the text. Immersion is no more nor less symbolic of crucifixion than sprinkling because that was obviously not the intent.

Baptism is not intended to picture the Holy Spirit. It is intended to identify the believer with the death (going down), burial (underneath), and resurrection (coming up) of Christ.

 

Yes Jim, I joined the Baptist church years ago when I was 16; I wasn't a theologion then and I'm not one now but I believed they should have accepted my baptism as a Presbyterian.

__________________________________________________

Presbyterian baptism has a different theological meaning that goes beyond mere mode. It is covenental and links the New Testament with the Old Testament by circumcision; it is a covenant promise.

Up until 30 years past the introduction of the KJV, even the Church of England immersed. It was universally acknowledged that the mode of baptism was immersion. For a short period, the Presbyterians gained power in the British Parliament and enacted a law making it illegal to immerse in English churches. Even Queen Elizabeth I was immersed.

Cheers,

Jim

 

the greek for baptism is baptiso. which means immerse.

 

Rivaughn,

Your point is well taken, thanks. Your certainlly entitled to practice your convictions. God bless.