Does Baptism have to be by immersion?

[Yeshua1]

The new Covenant though DID usher in a new relationship between God and man

No, it did not! There are only two possible states and relationship between God and man:

1. Lost or saved
2. In the flesh or in the Spirit
3. Unregenerated or regenerated
4. His children or Satan's children
5. His kingdom or Satan's kingdom
6. Redeemed or unredeemed


but theyu were not seal and indwelt as we are today, for the saints NOW have immediate access to the throne of grace, AND have the Holy Spirit inside of them!

According to who? Not according to Paul - Rom. 8:8-9! Not according to David (Psa. 89). You don't believe that Abel, Noah or Abraham had immediate access to throne of grace? Who did they go through?????



And the Body of Christ is the Brisde is the Church, ALL sinners saved by grace of god since time of Christ...

Pure unadulterated hogwash! Revelation 18:4 and 21:24 prove that all believers since Christ are not in the bride. Your ecclesiology is based upon eisgesis and complete perversion of Biblical context. You are in reality teaching "another gospel" and perverting the gospel of Jesus Christ just as much as sacramental theology perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ just as much as sprinkling and pouring pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ - not a whit of difference!


we have it from the writings of the New Testament

No you do not! You must pervert the Word of God to teach that Catholic doctrine. Find the words "universal" or "invisible" in the New Testament description of the church? Find any metaphor used of the church that infers universality or invisiblity? Find where only saints from Pentecost forward are only "in Christ" (Eph. 1:4)????? Find anywhere in scripture where more than two classifications of mankind are ever listed???

OT believers were NOT included in the Body/bride/Church of Christ, in so much as the Lord did remit their sins, but they were NOT spiritually united with yeshua, as THAT act by God was not in effect until the coming of the Holy Spirit in order to usher in the new Covenant Age!

And its NOT an eternal Covenant, but more sl like an Eternal Election in the Bible.....

 

[Revmitchell]

I was baptised in the Roman Catholic "church" by having water poured over my head. I know that Baptists and some other Christians reject this mode of baptism and say it must be by immersion alone.

The following is an article by Matt Slick of CARM where he defends baptism by pouring or sprinkling. Please give me your thoughts on this issue - I haven't made up my mind yet.



Is immersion the only way of valid baptism?

by Matt Slick

There is much debate within Christianity on the proper mode of baptism. Some Christians believe sprinkling is acceptable while others believe that only immersion is acceptable. According to Strong's concordance, the word βαπτίζω, ‘baptizo,' is translated as...

“baptize” 76 times, “wash” twice, “baptist” once, and “baptized once. It means to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk). 2 to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe. 1

So, we clearly see that the word means to immerse. Therefore, baptism by immersion is obviously biblical. Compare with Paul's words:

Romans 6:3-5, “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.”

Notice that the baptism is equated with being buried with Christ and raised with him. In baptism, a person is buried under the water by full immersion and then raised up. This represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus as well as our dying to sin (Rom. 6:2).
Baptism and sprinkling

Without a doubt we see baptism typically seen as immersion in the New Testament. However, if it were not for a single verse in Hebrews, we could safely say that baptism never involves sprinkling. But, there we see an exception:

Heb. 9:9-10,13-14, “Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, 10 since they relate only to food and drink and various washings (baptismois), regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation… 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

The writer of Hebrews speaks of washings which is the Greek word ‘baptismois’ (comes from baptizo), and then he goes on to exemplify those ‘washings’ by mentioning how the Old Testament priests sprinkled blood. Therefore, it would appear that baptism, at least in this instance, is used in the context of sprinkling.

Is this proof that baptism can be sprinkling? Not really, but it shows that the word does not only mean to immerse. Therefore, we must be careful when we assert that baptism can only mean immersion when it is used in different contexts in different ways.

So good old Slick makes the case for baptism by immersion only and then works against his own argument. Anyone else find that weird?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I believe immersion is the original and most appropriate form of baptism and should be done when possible. The EOC, which baptizes babies, nevertheless dunks them three times -- because they know that immersion was the original baptism!

However, if someone was not immersed, I would not disfellowship them or refuse to admit them to my church. I would leave it up to them as to whether they wanted to be baptized by immersion or not.

As a minister, I would not pour or sprinkle unless immersion was not possible.

 

[Revmitchell]

Baptist churches, if they are a true Baptist church, will not admit those who have not been immersed. Baptism is a public confession of salvation and a public commitment of service to our Lord and Savior. There is no reason to admit someone who will not do that. and it doesn't matter how many times you dunk, sprinkle, ir splash a baby, it is a stupid act and serves no purpose.

 

[Yeshua1]

Baptist churches, if they are a true Baptist church, will not admit those who have not been immersed. Baptism is a public confession of salvation and a public commitment of service to our Lord and Savior. There is no reason to admit someone who will not do that. and it doesn't matter how many times you dunk, sprinkle, ir splash a baby, it is a stupid act and serves no purpose.

So why could be part of the Church of christ due to being born again, yet not be a member of a local church at same time, correct?

 

[Revmitchell]

So why could be part of the Church of christ due to being born again, yet not be a member of a local church at same time, correct?

Is English not your first language? Please revisit your sentence structure and appropriate capitalization and re-post this. I am not trying to be mean but this is just not coherent.

 

[Yeshua1]

Is English not your first language? Please revisit your sentence structure and appropriate capitalization and re-post this. I am not trying to be mean but this is just not coherent.

A person could be a member of the Church/body/bride of Christ, and yet NOT be accepted as a member of a local church due to differences in doing a mode of water baptism?

 

[Revmitchell]

A person could be a member of the Church/body/bride of Christ, and yet NOT be accepted as a member of a local church due to differences in doing a mode of water baptism?

No sir, not due to differences in mode, but because of disobedience to scripture concerning Baptism.

 

[Yeshua1]

No sir, not due to differences in mode, but because of disobedience to scripture concerning Baptism.

So you would agree that we could have the situation where a church would not accept a Chrsitian as a member due to "improper baptism", while jesus has that same person saved, and in His church?

 

[Revmitchell]

So you would agree that we could have the situation where a church would not accept a Chrsitian as a member due to "improper baptism", while jesus has that same person saved, and in His church?

Please respect our Lord and Savior.

And yes but they are disobedient and living in sin.

 

[Yeshua1]

Please respect our Lord and Savior.

And yes but they are disobedient and living in sin.

Wouldn't a person though NOT be living in sin, as the blood of jesus cleanses them from all sin?

 

[Revmitchell]

Wouldn't a person though NOT be living in sin, as the blood of jesus cleanses them from all sin?

You need to capitalize Jesus. Get back to me when that becomes a habit for you.

 

[Yeshua1]

You need to capitalize Jesus. Get back to me when that becomes a habit for you.

why would that be so offensive though? the lord knows that i am not making fun or mocking Him?

 

[Revmitchell]

why would that be so offensive though? the lord knows that i am not making fun or mocking Him?

Failure to give respect when it is due is just as bad as using His name in vain. Why would you do that anyway?

 

[The Biblicist]

A person could be a member of the Church/body/bride of Christ, and yet NOT be accepted as a member of a local church due to differences in doing a mode of water baptism?

First, All the elect are not part of the church/body/bride of Christ as the church had no existence previous to the public ministry of Jesus Christ and yet multitudes of elect regenerated (spiritual union with God) saints lived between Genesis and Matthew.

Second, you are confusing the kingdom of God with the church of God. All the elect are born into the kingdom of God and have SPIRITUAL UNION by new birth BEFORE the cross and BEFORE Pentecost (John 3).

Third, the church of Christ has to do with SERVICE and PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION and nothing at all to do with regeneration/conversion/justification.

Fourth, your doctrine demands TWO different kinds of churches of Christ when there is but "one" kind - the local visible kind and your doctrine demands two different ongoing kinds of baptism when there is but "one baptism" and it is the baptism administered by men until the end of the age (Mt 28:19-20). Water baptism ONLY has reference to that kind and is the prerequisite for membership in the Church of Christ (Acts 2:40).

Fifth, the confusion of Christendom lies in the professing kingdom of God on earth (Mt. 13) which is not to be confused with the churches of Christ or "the church of Christ" as an institution built by Christ with ordinances and ordained leaders.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Baptist churches, if they are a true Baptist church, will not admit those who have not been immersed. Baptism is a public confession of salvation and a public commitment of service to our Lord and Savior. There is no reason to admit someone who will not do that. and it doesn't matter how many times you dunk, sprinkle, ir splash a baby, it is a stupid act and serves no purpose.

That is false and pure legalism. To contend that baptism is not necessary for salvation but that immersion is absolutely necessary for a valid baptism runs against the spirit of Jesus. If a person has had believer's baptism, by any mode, I would leave it to the conscience of that person as to whether to be immersed or not when joining my church.

Liberty of conscience is a Baptist principle; legalism is not.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Please respect our Lord and Savior.

And yes but they are disobedient and living in sin.

That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is false and pure legalism.

No! That is obedience to scriptures!

To contend that baptism is not necessary for salvation but that immersion is absolutely necessary for a valid baptism runs against the spirit of Jesus.

You fail to understand both the concept and purpose of a symbol. The concept of a symbol is an established PATTERN/FORM/SHADOW whose sole purpose is to visibly convey a certain truth. If the administration veers from the established pattern the intended truth is PERVERTED and denied visible manifestation.

Water baptism is by design to publicly identify the believer with the truth of the gospel or the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We are explicitly said to be "buried" by baptism and any other mode PERVERTS that truth and thus perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ. In addition, any other mode (sprinkling, pouring) repudiates the Holy Spirits choice of "baptizo" and arbritrarily makes it synonymous with epicheo and rantizo which are NEVER used for the Christian ordinance.

 

[Revmitchell]

That is false and pure legalism. To contend that baptism is not necessary for salvation but that immersion is absolutely necessary for a valid baptism runs against the spirit of Jesus. If a person has had believer's baptism, by any mode, I would leave it to the conscience of that person as to whether to be immersed or not when joining my church.

Liberty of conscience is a Baptist principle; legalism is not.

You must be new to Baptist Circles. Let me help you out. Baptist is only by immersion is a baptist distinctive.

 

[WestminsterMan]

He is right! Trash the scriptures and seek authority from traditions of men and you can justify the false doctrine of sprinkling and pouring as baptism. Indeed, you can justify anything your heart desires!

Biblicist. I didn't trash the scriptures, I simply provided historical documentation clearly indicating how early Christians worshiped. I understand your frustration with the fact that their worship is different than yours. But with that, you must deal.

WM