Immersion

[Salty]

From another thread:

Hmmmm.... Why is it, Christians did not have total immersion baptisms for over 1500 years?

Well, we know immersion did happen in the Early church-
Why is it over the next centuries the Roman Catholic church decided that sprinkling was acceptable?

But before we get into the time line:

What is the reason for baptism?

 

[Salty]

Apparently - it was not 1500 years

Catholic doctrinal Flip-Flops: Baptism: Changed from immersion to sprinkling in 1311 AD.

 

[Campion]

From another thread:



Well, we know immersion did happen in the Early church-
Why is it over the next centuries the Roman Catholic church decided that sprinkling was acceptable?

But before we get into the time line:

What is the reason for baptism?

"This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, ‘to be saved.’ To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil, to enter into Christ’s kingdom, and to live with him forever." - Martin Luther, Large Catechism



Baptism is the normative means by which God brings people to newness of life (Romans 6:4). It means the old life and person has died in baptism and is made new, born again (John 3:5). This belief is based on all the baptism texts of Scripture, which say baptism "forgives sins" (Acts 2:38), "washes sin away" (Acts 22:16), "regenerates" (Titus 3:4-7), "buries, unites us to Christ, and frees us from sin" (Romans 6:1-10), was typified in the Israelites crossing the Red Sea (1 Corinthians 10:1-4) and yes, "saves" us (1 Peter 3:21).


If you don't even believe baptism actually does that which Scripture says it does (above), then arguing about the volume of water used like whether to immerse or sprinkle someone is entirely moot.

 

[37818]

Baptism is the normative means by which God brings people to newness of life (Romans 6:4).

It teaches no such thing,
Romans 6:3-4, ". . . Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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. . . ."
It is not part of the gospel, 1 Corinthians 1:17, ". . . For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: . . ."

 

[Campion]

It teaches no such thing,
Romans 6:3-4, ". . . Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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. . . ."

Did you not even read what you just quoted???

"...us as were BAPTIZED into Jesus Christ were BAPTIZED into his death...so we should walk in NEWNESS OF LIFE."

It is not part of the gospel, 1 Corinthians 1:17, ". . . For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: . . ."

It's in my Gospel ---> See Mark 16:16 ---> "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." - Gospel of Mark

That St. Paul never baptized does not negate the necessity of baptism. He would be contradicting Jesus if he taught otherwise.

For in baptism, the baptizer contributes nothing. St. Paul's calling was to preach, as he said in your quotation.

And don't forget, what was St. Paul instructed to do by Ananias immediately after his conversion???

“Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” (Acts 22:16)

 

[37818]

Did you not even read what you just quoted???

"...us as were BAPTIZED into Jesus Christ were BAPTIZED into his death...so we should walk in NEWNESS OF LIFE."

That is the meaning of baptism. What baptism does is get one fully wet.

It's in my Gospel ---> See Mark 16:16 ---> "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." - Gospel of Mark

It is the believing the gospel, not the work of baptism. There are no Holy Scriptures that teaches baptism is part of the gospel.

 

[prophecy70]

It is the believing the gospel, not the work of baptism. There are no Holy Scriptures that teaches baptism is part of the gospel.

The gospel is the good news about Christ, baptism is a means of Grace and it is God's work, not mans.

 

[prophecy70]

From another thread:



Well, we know immersion did happen in the Early church-
Why is it over the next centuries the Roman Catholic church decided that sprinkling was acceptable?

But before we get into the time line:

What is the reason for baptism?

Yes immersion was the preferred mode, but it didn't always happen that way. There are many ancient fonts that immersion would be impossible in.

In 1 Kings 18:32-38, Elijah built an altar and offered sacrifices upon it, after drenching the altar and the sacrifices with four barrels of water. Even the trench about the altar was filled with water.

Dale in his work cited several of the Greek fathers, Origen, Basil Magnus, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Latin father, Ambrose, who commented on this passage.
In each case, they spoke of Elijah baptizing (Gr. baptizō, Lt. baptizo) the altar and sacrifices with water, even though the water was applied by pouring.

So we can see baptizo didn't only mean immersion.

and in Daniel 4:30 baptō represents the Hebrew tseba, which means “to dip or to wet.

 

[LaGrange]

Apparently - it was not 1500 years

Catholic doctrinal Flip-Flops: Baptism: Changed from immersion to sprinkling in 1311 AD.

Hi Salty,

I don’t have time to answer everything right now because I’m working on something else but eventually I want to do a thread on Baptism. For now, I want to say a couple of things about your attachment:

1. Baptism of Jesus - Matt 3:16 “And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him.
My Comment: Notice: It doesn’t say whether Jesus was dunked or not. All it says is that He came out of the water. He went down into the water and then came out of the water.

2. From your attachment quoting us - "The church at one time practiced immersion. This was up to the thirteenth century. The Council of Ravenna, in 1311, changed the form from immersion to pouring." (Our Faith and the Facts, p. 399).”
My Comment: This is NOT a change in doctrine. This is a disciplinary rule just like in Acts 15:20. These rules can change. To baptize you must have the “Form and Matter”. The Form are the “words” pronounced at Baptism and the Matter is “water”. You must have both of these. A celibate priesthood is a disciplinary rule. It could change. A lot of people don’t realize that. You never had to immerse only for doctrinal reasons but there is nothing wrong with it. You may have had to immerse only because it was a disciplinary rule. I think immersion signifies Baptism the best but it was not always practical.
Read the following (the brackets are mine):
“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 (Form = Words), 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 (Matter = Water). But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.” (Didache, ch 7, 70ad)
A lot of the things in your attachment are true but the “interpretation” of them is wrong. Hope this helps.

 

[Salty]

I shall be looking for that!

I remember the 13th century rather well, but by the 1300's I was getting rather old

 

[VDMA]

From another thread:

Well, we know immersion did happen in the Early church-
Why is it over the next centuries the Roman Catholic church decided that sprinkling was acceptable?

But before we get into the time line:

What is the reason for baptism?

Didache, ch. 7 “Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”

The Greek word for baptize (baptizo) simply means “to apply water.” The water can be applied by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.

It would be wrong to say that immersion is the only valid method for applying water in Baptism. “To apply water” by either sprinkling, pouring, or immersion is the meaning of the word baptize.

 

[VDMA]

"This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, ‘to be saved.’ To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil, to enter into Christ’s kingdom, and to live with him forever." - Martin Luther, Large Catechism

Baptism is the normative means by which God brings people to newness of life (Romans 6:4). It means the old life and person has died in baptism and is made new, born again (John 3:5). This belief is based on all the baptism texts of Scripture, which say baptism "forgives sins" (Acts 2:38), "washes sin away" (Acts 22:16), "regenerates" (Titus 3:4-7), "buries, unites us to Christ, and frees us from sin" (Romans 6:1-10), was typified in the Israelites crossing the Red Sea (1 Corinthians 10:1-4) and yes, "saves" us (1 Peter 3:21).

If you don't even believe baptism actually does that which Scripture says it does (above), then arguing about the volume of water used like whether to immerse or sprinkle someone is entirely moot.

Excellent response. If you reject the apostolic biblical view of holy baptism and believe it is a “mere symbolic” ritual ("it like a wedding ring") what is the point of arguing over the amount of water. Baptist also reject the fact that baptism is necessary* for salvation. It seem like a waste of time for a Baptist to argue over the amount of water.

 

[Walter]

From another thread:



Well, we know immersion did happen in the Early church-
Why is it over the next centuries the Roman Catholic church decided that sprinkling was acceptable?

But before we get into the time line:

What is the reason for baptism?

Catholics don't 'sprinkle', that is Presbyterians, Methodist, and other Protestants. Catholic pour water over the baptismal candidates head, or as in my Catholic Church, they can opt for immersion in a tank that is brought in for that purpose. Orthodox Catholics baptize only by immersion. I always find it amusing that Baptist insist that Catholic 'sprinkle' babies and argue over the 'correct amount of water' needed for purely symbolic 'ordinance'. Sprinkling never happens in Catholic or Lutheran Churches..

 

[Salty]

Sprinkling and pouring = close enough for govt work

How much water?
John 3:23 "And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized."
(note: Bold = my emphasis)

and no need to "baptize" a baby - as it has nothing to do with salvation

 

[canadyjd]

….

The Greek word for baptize (baptizo) simply means “to apply water.” The water can be applied by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.

It would be wrong to say that immersion is the only valid method for applying water in Baptism. “To apply water” by either sprinkling, pouring, or immersion is the meaning of the word baptize.

I guess it is a problem with definitions. I’ve never heard that the Kone Greek “baptizmo” simply means to “apply water.”

I’ve been taught it means to immerse or dip in water. That is the example found in Acts with the Ethiopian Eunuch.

When modern translators (English) came across “baptizmo” and realized it meant immerse in water, which was not the practice of the church, they invented a new word “baptize” I guess to have a little flexibility.

On the other hand, I’m glad they invented “baptize” instead of immerse or dip in water. Otherwise, the President of the SBC would be called the “Big Dipper”.

peace to you

 

[Walter]

I guess it is a problem with definitions. I’ve never heard that the Kone Greek “baptizmo” simply means to “apply water.”

I’ve been taught it means to immerse or dip in water. That is the example found in Acts with the Ethiopian Eunuch.

When modern translators (English) came across “baptizmo” and realized it meant immerse in water, which was not the practice of the church, they invented a new word “baptize” I guess to have a little flexibility.

On the other hand, I’m glad they invented “baptize” instead of immerse or dip in water. Otherwise, the President of the SBC would be called the “Big Dipper”.

peace to you

Perpetua was someone who was converted while in prison and was baptized. Many other people in prison were converted AND baptized. Do you really think these prisoners had access to enough water to be immersed? From what I have read, they were fortunate to have enough water to drink.

 

[Salty]

Do you really think these prisoners had access to enough water to be immersed?.

Apparently not - but then again - baptism is not a requirement to arrive in Heaven!

 

[canadyjd]

Perpetua was someone who was converted while in prison and was baptized. Many other people in prison were converted AND baptized. Do you really think these prisoners had access to enough water to be immersed? From what I have read, they were fortunate to have enough water to drink.

Right, and the thief on the cross certainly didn’t have access to water to “apply” or immerse. But that’s not really the issue.

The issue is, what did the word “baptizmo” mean in 1st century Kone Greek? It really doesn’t matter how it’s used today, since all languages will develop different meanings over time.

Hope to see Perpetua when I get to heaven. I’m sure he will have a good testimony.

peace to you

 

[Salty]

...Hope to see Perpetua when I get to heaven. I’m sure he will have a good testimony.
...

I think Perpetua was a female - as she had been breastfeeding her baby!

 

[canadyjd]

I think Perpetua was a female - as she had been breastfeeding her baby!

I stand corrected. Thank you

peace to you