Was this baptism by immersion?

[J.D.]

Wrong? Not necessarily. But useless? Surely. Because the guy still wasn't baptized. Baptism, by definition, is immersion. Anything than immersion, whatever it might be, and however noble its motives might be, is not baptism.

In cases like this, it would generally be better to wait until the man is better than to salve a conscience with a baptism that really isn't. Dumping a tub of water over someone is not baptism, biblically speaking. It does not conform to the definition, the practice, or the symbolism of baptism.

So I do not question the motives or the heart, but right motives do not change the facts of what baptism actually is.

This is the kind of case where I think we let "feel-goodism" overwhelm the biblical teaching. In an effort to feel good, or help others feel good, we do things that are not biblical and in so doing we provide a false salve to a conscience.

Doctrinally speaking, I think you're right that baptizo means dipping/immersion. But we also have a definition provided in scripture that baptism is the answer of good conscience toward God. This was the purpose of that baptism. It was not a false salve, for it was a true response of a good conscience.

BTW waiting was not an option because we had already waited quite some time but his condition was worsening and the doctors said he would only last a few more days. He lived for about a month after the baptism.

But the next time I come across this type of situation, I will think about what you have said.

 

[Pastor Larry]

But we also have a definition provided in scripture that baptism is the answer of good conscience toward God. This was the purpose of that baptism. It was not a false salve, for it was a true response of a good conscience.

I am not disputing that it was the true response of a good conscience. I am disputing that it was baptism.

BTW waiting was not an option because we had already waited quite some time but his condition was worsening and the doctors said he would only last a few more days. He lived for about a month after the baptism.

And like the thief on the cross, he would have still gone to heaven. That's why I think this gets overblown sometimes. It is a key issue of obedience, but if baptism cannot be carried out, I see no need to substitute sprinkling or pouring (even dumping). I think we end up going down the wrong road with that.

 

[TCGreek]

THe baptism of the Holy Spirit yes, and to some degree the washing away of sins, but only inasmuch as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ took away sin. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the judicial placement of the believer into the body of Christ which, again, is because of union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrectino.

I cannot object to this.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

It would have been much easier if the early english translators would have just translated baptizo instead of transliterating it! There would be no argument.

Is there an argument then?
The posts I've seen on here about the definition and meaning of baptizo do not seem to allow for any argument of the word.

 

[revmikewelch]

Is there an argument then?
The posts I've seen on here about the definition and meaning of baptizo do not seem to allow for any argument of the word.

There is no argument. There is not a Bible scholar in the world that will argue that Baptism in it's original sense was not full immersion. The argument with those that sprinkle or pour is that Baptism is only a symbol and sense it is symbolic the method is not important.