Featured If a medical condition hinders baptism

I'm going with sponge bath.

 

I thought I was being innovative?

But it seemed like a good compromise. The entire body is cleansed, and the person performing the modified baptism gets a dose of humility similar to foot-washing.

 

This sounds very similar to the abortion debate as it pertains to exceptions for life-threatening pregnancy. My own reading on the topic has led me to believe there is no such instance where an abortion would save the life of the mother, if that were even a worthwhile decision.
I'm skeptical of such an instance of disability where someone can't be immersed.

Because I believe baptism is only full immersion, and I believe it is biblically consistent to require baptism for membership, my answer would be "immerse them anyway".

I appreciate your specificity in saying,

and conclude that the two questions to be asking are:
1. Are non-immersion baptisms obedient to scripture?
2. Ought baptism be required for membership?

 

True story...

A patient at the hospital where I work was wanting to be baptized, but he was at the end of life with end-stage COPD. He could not hold his breath long enough to get his head under water. He was in the ICU, and at that time, another preacher was an ICU nurse. I asked him if he would help me to help this guy by taking him to a shower and 'baptize' him using the shower. I also asked the patient if that would suffice him. He truly had a desire to have someone help him, so I did the best I could. We wheeled him into the shower, got the water good and warm, and 'baptized' him in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. He seemed truly happy afterwards. A few days later, he went to be with the Lord.

 

Too often the Legalism gets in the way of practicality.

Legalism has nothing to do with symbolism.

Baptism is symbolic, not to be something that is required or a right of passage that places it into the legalistic realm.

 

This patient had end-stage COPD and ppl knew his days were short before dying. He wanted to have something done that would answer a good conscience before God. Due to his poor lung health, no one would help him. We did the best with what situation was before us.

 

I think that for the few cases where it is an issue, alternatives to immersion should be considered equal to immersion. The key is to keep the use alternatives restricted to situations that truly require them.

It's easy to "what if?" something to death. But in reality (or at least what I've seen of it), this just isn't that common of a problem. And sadly, as Bro SG's example informs us, these situations won't often result in later speculation as pertains to church membership or any other issue.

Now, suppose you are on a manned mission to Saturn, in zero Gs for years, with water conservation of deadly importance. The odds of all crew members making it back alive are 50/50. One of your fellow crew members converts to Christianity during the voyage, and wishes to be baptized. What do you do?

 

This happened more than 25 years ago,

A good friend and his wife had a son, second of three children.
It was discovered that he had a brain tumor when he was about six.
As the years progressed it became obvious that he would die.
He accepted that he would die; he was a believer and desired to be baptized in his last days.
While it was quite difficult, he was baptized by immersion.
It was a grand event and a great witness in the community.
He went into his final coma two days later, dying at home about two weeks later.

Rob

 

The thief on the cross also never had to worry about having his mode of baptism being considered a bar to membership in a local church.