Full Immersion

[stovebolts]

How many infants were baptized in the New Testament? I have not found one yet. Neither do I find anyone being baptized without making a conscious decision to do so after believing that Jesus is Lord.

Therefore, where did infant baptism come from and why? What does infant baptism do for the infant?

This is a valid question, However, lets not muddle this thread as this thread is simply to discuss wether to fully immerse, or not to fully immerse...

If you wish to discuss infant baptism, Please, start a new thread.

Thank You.

Jeff

 

[thessalonian]

How many infants were baptized in the New Testament? I have not found one yet. Neither do I find anyone being baptized without making a conscious decision to do so after believing that Jesus is Lord.

Therefore, where did infant baptism come from and why? What does infant baptism do for the infant?

This is a valid question, However, lets not muddle this thread as this thread is simply to discuss wether to fully immerse, or not to fully immerse...

If you wish to discuss infant baptism, Please, start a new thread.

Thank You.

Jeff

It's not an either/oir question. Immersion is the fullest sign. There is no question about it. None of you have presented a verse that says "thus sayeth the Lord, though shall always baptize by full immersion". Yes Jesus was most likely baptized by immersion. The Etheopian Eunuch was likely baptized by immersion. However from what I can see in the scriptures those are the only two that we can be close to sure on. Three thousdand were baptized on the day of Pentecost, and they didn't even have the whole day to do it. That's alot of baptisms. Four thousand a few days later. Luke 11:38 indicates the word batpizo was not just a matter of full immersion of the whole body. Further, the Didache in the late first century indicates that pouring was allowed by the early Christians.

 

[stovebolts]

Thessalonian,

Thank you for agreeing that full immersion is, in your opinion, the most preferred method of Baptism. Please, correct me if I have spoken out of step by wording it that way.

There is a bigger picture here that I would like to address and hopefully, it will answer many of your questions that you bring to the table. If this does not address your concerns, please, let me know. I hope that this commentary will assist in defining my position.

As a friend told me last night in our bible study,

“Any monkey can look through a telescope, but it takes the spirit of God in man to see through itâ€Â.

While were discussing this topic, let us strive to see Jesus.

Luke 11 is speaking on how we, as men, look to scripture and tradition for salvation. Now, I’m not discounting tradition, but we do not find our salvation through tradition. We simply find it through God’s grace to be short and sweet. To this, I am sure you will agree.

Baptism has always signified cleansing… purification from the religious community. So, what was common in Greek, held a different meanings in the religious community. Baptismo, is a primary example. In Luke 11, we see the Pharisee’s holding to tradition that to be cleansed, man had to clean himself. In other words, since man’s hands were defiled, one had to ‘Baptize†their hands. In this manner, they would not corrupt their insides by bringing in the filth from the outside.

In addition, do you know what made an animal clean or unclean? Breifly (and it you dis-agree, that’s fine. I’m not up for debate on this one), it was its ability to chew its cud. If you look at the animals that chew their cud, they have stomachs with different chambers. These chambers represent Sheol to some religious folks and the ability to regurgitate represents the resurrection.

So, why did the Pharisee’s use the word baptismo and not simply loutron (wash)? I think this is significant and gives us an insight into how strict the Pharisee’s viewed their role in salvation. In the following verses of chapter 11, I believe that Jesus clears up the issue. Note, if the Pharisee’s would have simply used the word loutron (wash), what Jesus had to say would not have applied. Now, contrast this with the word Loutron in Titus 3:5 and how it corresponds to the regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. First, one must be fully immersed (Purified, cleansed, baptized) in the Holy Spirit. Then, we go through ‘washings’… Make sense?

So, what was the point? If we skip over to John 6, we can see in verse 29 that there is work to be done. Now, what is this WORK of God? Is it not Grace? Grace is the work of God and through that grace; he has given us his Word (Jesus Christ, John 1:1-4) in who is the light. Thus, we are baptized fully, into Christ and this is the work of God. Now, in Genesis what do we see? We see that there was God, hovering over the water. What was the first thing that God said? Let there be light. So we have God with the Word above the water and he creates light for the world. This is the purpose of Jesus, that His Light would be poured over every person, every nation across the generations for His Light, is for all that partake in His Spirit, and pouring connotes time and duration as it is coming from God to man.

Now you’re asking… I thought we were talking about full immersion… getting dunked in a tank as I know you probably think I’ve taken this on some bunny trail. But hear me out here.

We are to obey God’s words. Read John 4 to get the context, then, lets focus on John 4:24.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

When we are baptized, it is a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Christ was Fully a man, while he was Fully God and God Fully paid the price Through the Light / Word for Fully Everyone. Since Jesus paid the cost, we are to be Fully immersed with His Spirit, through His spirit as our whole being ness is baptized. Not simply our hands.

Now, I realize that there are exceptions to the “method†of baptism and God will judge that by his own measure. For me, I have explained how I view baptism and I have provided scriptural support for my position. I hope this helps.

As for Jesus,I have no doubt whatsoever that He was fully immersed. (I believe I have given supporting evidence that quantifies this position)

I hope that this helps. Let me know if you would like me to address any questions that I may have overlooked, or you feel were not addressed.

In Christ,
Jeff

 

[thessalonian]

Thessalonian,

Thank you for agreeing that full immersion is, in your opinion, the most preferred method of Baptism. Please, correct me if I have spoken out of step by wording it that way.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.

I think the quote from the Didache backs up the contention of the last sentence pretty well.

There is a bigger picture here that I would like to address and hopefully, it will answer many of your questions that you bring to the table. If this does not address your concerns, please, let me know. I hope that this commentary will assist in defining my position.

As a friend told me last night in our bible study,

“Any monkey can look through a telescope, but it takes the spirit of God in man to see through itâ€Â.

While were discussing this topic, let us strive to see Jesus.

Luke 11 is speaking on how we, as men, look to scripture and tradition for salvation.

The issue is not what the pharasees were looking at. It is actually unforunate that is the passage that shows that baptizo does not always mean full immersion of the whole body. I see why you are having trouble admitting this. The passage does add confusion to the issue becaue of it's nature. I'm not using it as an arguement for tradition however but for evidence that baptizo does not always mean full immersion of the whole body. This is evident from the passage. You simply will not acknowledge it. I even highly doudt that they are talking about full immersion of the hands in to water. But a part of the problem with pharasees is they misseed the spirit of the law and focused on the letter. This seems to me to be a problem with what you are doing here as well. Of course there is also a huge issue of authority here that has not been discussed. Who are you to tell me my understanding of scripture is wrong? I am sure to some degree you feel the same way. There are many issues I think I have head and shoulders over you and I am sure you think the same. Neither of us has admitted error on ANY of our differences and likely won't anytime soon. These issues are only resolvable by proper authority as I see it as Matt 18 and Acts 15 speak. You think your church has the authority but do they?

Now, I’m not discounting tradition, but we do not find our salvation through tradition. We simply find it through God’s grace to be short and sweet. To this, I am sure you will agree.

I think you raise a false dichotomy actually. I see grace in a much broader sense. I also see grace as only comming from truth. Truth about scripture is relayed by Oral Teaching/Tradition (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2). Your understanding and mine about what the word of God is, is affected by what we have been taught. The traditions we hold. Where we hold what is true it is by the grace of God. Where we hold something in error, if we are not culpable it may be nuetral to our salvation but it may well be negative toward it if we are culpable and are actually resisting the Word of God (not to be confused with simply scripture). WOG is not equal to scripture. If a Christian believes he should baptize dead people because a verse in Cornithians speaks of such a practice (Evidently some early Christians actually did it) does he have the word of God that prompts his practice? Assuming that you think it is a false practice, otherwise I know of no Christian denomination who does this, though the Mormons do. He has a scripture that speaks of such a practice but in his false understanding does he have the WOG? I say no. You cannot separate the two as you are trying to do and then separate them from grace. We recieve scripture by the grace of God and we recieve the Oral Traditions by the grace of God. The transmission of both of these is through the Church which is said to be the pillar and support of the truth. We do not recieve new revelation. The Holy Spirit only confirms in us what is true in both scripture and Oral Tradition and helps us reconcile them. The faith was delivered once for all to the saints so it cannot be that we recieve scripture and then some revelation that helps us understand it correctly. We are to be taught bother orally (2 Tim 2:2, and 2 Thes 2:15) as well as in writting and these teachings are confirmed by the spirit of God within us. i.e. grace. It is truth that sets a man free so grace cannot be separated from true tradition that enlightens us on the true meaning of scripture.


More later.

 

[guibox]

Baptism signifies 'dying and being buried with Christ'. Christ's whole body was sent to the tomb and swallowed up by the grave, when He came out of the tomb, He conquered death wholly.

This is what baptism signifies. We are submerged under the water (like Christ was in the grave) and COME OUT of the water, as Christ did out of the tomb.

there is no room for interpretation of 'baptizo' as pouring or sprinkling.

If this is supposed to signify the death and resurrection of Christ, then procedure her is important for theological signfiicance, don't you think?

Therefore, sprinkling or pouring DOES NOT sumbolize or reflect the dying to self and resurrected in the spirit. We are not born of the spirit if we are not properly baptized.

Simple logic folks...

 

[thessalonian]

Baptism signifies 'dying and being buried with Christ'. Christ's whole body was sent to the tomb and swallowed up by the grave, when He came out of the tomb, He conquered death wholly.

This is what baptism signifies. We are submerged under the water (like Christ was in the grave) and COME OUT of the water, as Christ did out of the tomb.

there is no room for interpretation of 'baptizo' as pouring or sprinkling.

If this is supposed to signify the death and resurrection of Christ, then procedure her is important for theological signfiicance, don't you think?

Therefore, sprinkling or pouring DOES NOT sumbolize or reflect the dying to self and resurrected in the spirit. We are not born of the spirit if we are not properly baptized.

Simple logic folks...

The Scriptures in Acts 1 speak of a baptism of the Holy Spirit coming for the Apostles. In the very next chapter there is a pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon them. I agree that one valid reflection upon baptism is the burial in Christ and resurrection. Another is the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic baptism focuses on both. Our baptismal rite speaks of both even when pouring is the mode. So your arguements are nothing but red herrings. I believe what you say. Amen, preach it bro. The word baptism itself in the Catholic Catechism is DEFINED as a burial in Christ, so that sign is not neglected. It is however only a sign of the inward grace that occurse. The immersion can be spoken in a spiritual fashion when pouring is the mode of baptism. Likewise the pouring out of the Holy Spirit can be spiritual when immersion is performed. Definitely the burial with Christ and resurrection as a new creation is not to be neglected. However I see great neglect among protestants about the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in baptism.


Hope this helps

 

[thessalonian]

I think in all of this I need to make one thing clear. Let me approach it from the standpoint of the Lord's Supper as an analogy. I see manythings in the Lord's supper. It is the mana in the desert, the sacrifice of Melchiezedek, the offering of cain and Able, the pascal lamb, the Jewish sacrifices of the unblemished lamb, the jar of grain that never went dry, feeding the widow and Elijah, the pure grain offering spoken of in Malchi 1:11, the grain offering of Abel, the feeding of five thousand, etc. etc. all rolled up in to one. That we use bread and wine does not neglect the sign of the unblemished lamb or deny it. In fact it is spoken of in our rite of the Mass. I do not limit God to one sign per sacrametn either.

That is why when I say baptism can be done by pouring, you see me as denying immersion, but I am not. The two are not exclusive at all. I can't find the Catholic Rite of Baptism that is read during a baptism but it speaks of both, fully acknowledging our burial with Christ in baptism even when the rite is performed by pouring. In baptism I see many things in from the Old Testament as well. The cleansing of Namaan, the crossing of the Jordan river (which tradition has as where Jesus was baptized) of the Israelites in to the promised land, the parting of the red sea, and noah's ark. All these things cause us to reflect on what the sacrament is and understand what God intends for us from it at least on some human level because for me they are greater mysteries than we can comprehend.

I hope that clears thinsgs up a bit for you Jeff.

Blessings

 

[stovebolts]

Thess,

We agree on many, many points and I believe that I understand where you stand. All too often, we seem to target where we disagree, and not validate where we agree. As a result, because we disagree on one point, we seem to assume that we disagree on all points.

This, is not the case and I have heard you.

Luke 11 is speaking on how we, as men, look to scripture and tradition for salvation. Now, I’m not discounting tradition, but we do not find our salvation through tradition. We simply find it through God’s grace to be short and sweet. To this, I am sure you will agree.

That being said, I emphasized the words "Short and Sweet"... This, is not dichotomy. Sorry if you mis-understood.

So it would seem that we disagree on the word baptizmo and what it represents. Please, respond to this statment.

So, why did the Pharisee’s use the word baptismo and not simply loutron (wash)? I think this is significant and gives us an insight into how strict the Pharisee’s viewed their role in salvation.

Why Thess? Why Baptismo and not loutron for the context? Certainly, if the Pharisee's meant wash (like we do before dinner), they would have used the word that meant wash and not that which wholly purifies. Please, feel free to elaborate the differences between these two words within the two scriptures that have been cited. (Luke 11, Titus 3)

Take care and I'll look forward to seeing your reply in the morning.

Regards,
Jeff

EDIT to Correct act 2, Titus 3, with Luke 11 :

 

[thessalonian]

Jeff

Well, since I see Titus 3:5 and Eph 5:26 as references to baptism, I don't know what the arguement is gaining you. If anything it is losing you ground in the discussion from my perspective, though your perspective is different and you will draw a different conclusion. The focus in those verses is on the cleansing of sins, i.e. the washing of our souls. Thank you for making the arguement however. I had not heard it before and needed to do a little research. I always enjoy coming accross arguements that I haven't heard before. It keeps me from thinking I know everything. :

Blessings

 

[Orthodoxy]

Jeff,

The baptismal rite from even the time of John the Baptist was preceded by a repentance publicly.

After Jesus Christ was baptised the waters of the earth were sactified and purified. Made holy by His obedience. This is God's gift to man yet we over look the grace placed in the waters touching His most pure body. The hem of His cloak healed how much more the waters!

Justin Martyr documented the Baptismal rite in the 1st century Church. Early the members of the community confessed their sins, repented before the entire Church prior to baptism. After a time this became impractical (5000 baptisms a day?!) thus "appointed men" that stood in stead of the entire Church or on the behalf of the entire Church, priests, to hear confessions.

The next stage is a cathecumen stage of learning the "faith" to "believe". Then one is ready to enter the Church at baptism.

One repents. One is then brought to the "community". One confesses distain and disregard for the devil and spits upon him.

After this "excorism" a confession of faith in Jesus Christ is made. Today it is called the "Nicene/Constantinople Creed" penned from Scripture entirely in 381 ad. Only after one confesses the Jesus Christ known to the Church for 2000 years is one baptised with the one triple emersion baptism in the name of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Trinity one in essence and undivided. OT was Circumsicion NT is Baptism. I am certain we agree on that. One baptism right? Why is the arguement "sprinkle or emerse" if there has always been and always will be only "one Baptism"? It cannot be both.

After Baptism by triple emersion one is brought into the Church and "crismated" with oil. This is throughout the Scripture. Jesus was "anointed" with oil. Aaron, Solomon, David, etc...

One receives the most pure body and blood in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. This is the completion of ones "marriage to Christ" in His Church. The Communion rememberance is the union of God with man in Christ partaken of by the whole Church in a mystical union both in heaven and on the Earth.

So the Church has:

Repentance

Exsorism

Confession of Faith

Baptism

Crismation

Eucharist

No real time limit is needed. Justin Martyr describes it someplace. I will look for it then post a link if I find the time. There is only "one baptism".

Many early Christians were baptised in their own blood after repentance and confession. Children that die are saved in a "baptism of tears". Martyrdom is hard to come by in America unless one is selfless or married or moves to an Islamic nation where there are laws against such beliefs like Saudia Arabia or former "Iraq".

We cannot use the "I am a martyr" excuse before the throne of God with a head on our shoulders not smoldering.

Visit an Orthodox Church when they have a baptism.

We just baptised our new Temple. http://www.theophany.org

In Love,

Orthodoxy

 

[stovebolts]

Orthodoxy,
Thank you for your comments. BTW, Nice temple. It looks very much like the Mecedonian temple I visited. I noticed that they havn't finished with the ceiling paintings. I am sure it will be glorious when it is finished.

Thess,
Your arogance is showing quite clearly. That truly is a shame. You see, what you fail to grasp (and perhaps I havn't made it abundently clear) is there are several different 'baptisms'. Simply put, there is the ritual of baptism for a woman after her monthly period, and there is a ritual of baptism before you eat. There is also the baptism that John the baptist baptized and there is the baptism where we are baptised into Christ. So you see, the word 'baptismo' does not always represent being buried with Christ. Get it? (This is a yes or no question)

Now, you accuse others of speaking mean to you. I feel that I have been very generous in treating you with respect. That being said, I have asked you if I have answered all of your questions. You have not replied so I assume that your silence means that you have no questions. Why now can you not answer a direct question without some pompus remark?

Let me clarify this one more time. You see Titus 3:5 and Eph 5:26 as a reference to baptism. What baptism? Certainly you don't mean the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Like Acts 8:38) : (see, I can do the stupid LOL smiley thingy too) :

You see, Eph 5:26 is speaking about the Church... And the cleansing waters of baptism sanctify's the Church. You, I or our neighbor can be baptised into Christ. However, does that make us spotless? Simply put, no. Thus, is the Church spotless? Again, NO. (Keep in mind that the Chruch is a collection of baptised believers) When we sin, do we need to be baptised again? No. We need to be washed... made clean... regenerated. duh :roll:

 

[thessalonian]

God bless you stove.

 

[thessalonian]

For those of you who couldn't tell, this was said tongue in cheek. That's kinda what the lol smiley was about but it apparently went right over some people's heads.

" It keeps me from thinking I know everything. "

Apparently some don't have a sense of humor on this board.

 

[Orthodoxy]

Jeff,

When we sin, do we need to be baptised again? No. We need to be washed... made clean... regenerated. duh :roll:[/quote]

This occurs in a good confession which is like unto "baptism" renewed.

In love,

Orthodoxy

 

[Heidi]

This thread looks like another work. "full immersion? :o How about 3/4? Or may 7/8's? After all, if we don't take a measuring rod then we might not be fully baptized and then what? Oh no, we have to go back into the water and do it again! Because we still look at the bible the way the Jews do which as Jesus puts it, "teachings that are but rules taught by men" everything has to be done according to the full measure of the law or we won't be saved.

Did I do too much work on Sunday? Can I turn the TV on? The Jews can't even push an elevator button on the Sabbath because they consider it work, so what is work? Or maybe to be safe, I should just sit in a chair and not talk to anyone on Sunday even though my heart still wants to share my love with people.

Oh but wait, maybe the Sabbath is on Saturday instead on Sunday? Now what do I do? I have to consult my rule book again to see. But the problem is, it doesn't say! Oh, what if I misunderstand it? Who will tell me? The people who say it's Sunday or the people who say it's Saturday? I'm going to go to hell if I don't find out because following the rules is what saves me. Oh Jesus, where is the rest you promised me?

 

[Orthodoxy]

This thread looks like another work. "full immersion? :o How about 3/4? Or may 7/8's? After all, if we don't take a measuring rod then we might not be fully baptized and then what? Oh no, we have to go back into the water and do it again! Because we still look at the bible the way the Jews do which as Jesus puts it, "teachings that are but rules taught by men" everything has to be done according to the full measure of the law or we won't be saved.

Did I do too much work on Sunday? Can I turn the TV on? The Jews can't even push an elevator button on the Sabbath because they consider it work, so what is work? Or maybe to be safe, I should just sit in a chair and not talk to anyone on Sunday even though my heart still wants to share my love with people.

Oh but wait, maybe the Sabbath is on Saturday instead on Sunday? Now what do I do? I have to consult my rule book again to see. But the problem is, it doesn't say! Oh, what if I misunderstand it? Who will tell me? The people who say it's Sunday or the people who say it's Saturday? I'm going to go to hell if I don't find out because following the rules is what saves me. Oh Jesus, where is the rest you promised me?

Seems you have the burdenson rule book that says people must ignore what the historical christian faith is for a warm and fuzzy version of the protestants.

ick

Orthodoxy

 

[Heidi]

I'm sorry you don't have the knowledge of your salvation, Orthodoxy. Faith and doubt are opposites and if they co-exist in the same body, it is a house-divided and cannot stand.

I am centered on faith, not doubt. Faith is from God, doubt is from the devil. I want to shout my thankfulness from the rooftops! I want buckets of water to be poured all over me, not because I've consulted a rule book, but because I am thankful. I don't consult a rule book to show my love for my husband, nor do I consult a rule book to show my love to God. I simply give him all of my love and always want to give him more. But you cannot do that if you're unsure of what he did for you. Therefore, you are still under law like the Jews still are. But once you come to Christ for rest instead of the law, you will know what faith is, not doubt.

 

[stovebolts]

Jeff,

When we sin, do we need to be baptised again? No. We need to be washed... made clean... regenerated. duh :roll:

This occurs in a good confession which is like unto "baptism" renewed.

In love,

Orthodoxy

Kyril,

I am in 100% agreement

Thess,
Here are two sites that I am sure you will enjoy.
http://www.acns.com/~mm9n/Baptism/index.htm
http://www.bebaptized.org