Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

When are you to be baptized ?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
There is a widely held view that baptism can be performed, especially on babies, by sprinkling water on their foreheads (i.e. 'christening'). This is in stark contrast to the Biblical requirement for baptism.

Remember Jesus was not baptized till he was thirty years old.

The Greek word 'baptizo', which is translated 'baptize' in the English Bible, does not mean to sprinkle; it means to completely wash and immerse in a liquid (see the definitions in the concordances of Robert Young and James Strong). This word is used in classical Greek concerning ships sinking and being 'baptized' (i.e. submerged) in water. It is also used with reference to a piece of cloth being dyed from one colour to another by 'baptizing', or dipping it into a dye. To change the colour of the cloth, it is evident that it had to be fully immersed under the liquid, rather than have the dye sprinkled upon it. That immersion is indeed the correct form of baptism is borne out by the following verses:-

- "John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized" (John 3:23). This shows that "much water" was required for baptism; if it was done by sprinkling a few drops of water, then just one bucket of water would have sufficed for hundreds of people. The people came to this spot on the banks of the River Jordan for baptism, rather than John going round to them with a bottle of water.

- Jesus, too, was baptized by John in the River Jordan: "Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water" (Matt. 3:13-16). His baptism was clearly by immersion - he "went up...out of the water" after baptism. One of the reasons for Jesus being baptized was in order to set an example, so that no one could seriously claim to follow Jesus without copying his example of baptism by immersion.

- In similar fashion, Philip and the Ethiopian official "went down both into the water...and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water..." (Acts 8:38,39). Remember that the official asked for baptism when he saw the oasis: "See, here is water: what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (Acts 8:36). It is almost certain that the man would not have undertaken a desert journey without at least some water with him, e.g. in a bottle. If baptism were by sprinkling, it could therefore have been done without the need of the oasis.

- Baptism is a burial (Col. 2:12), which implies a total covering.

- Baptism is called a 'washing away' of sins (Acts 22:16). The point of true conversion is likened to a 'washing' in Rev. 1:5; Titus 3:5; 2 Peter 2:22; Heb. 10:22 etc. This language of washing is far more relevant to baptism by dipping than to sprinkling.

There are several Old Testament indications that acceptable approach to God was through some form of washing.

The priests had to wash completely in a bath called the 'laver' before they came near to God in service (Lev. 8:6; Ex. 40:32). The Israelites had to wash in order to cleanse themselves from certain uncleannesses (e.g. Deut. 23:11), which were representative of sin.

A man called Naaman was a Gentile leper who sought to be healed by the God of Israel. As such he represents sin-stricken man, effectively going through a living death due to sin. His cure was by dipping in the River Jordan. Initially he found this simple act hard to accept, thinking that God would want him to do some dramatic act, or to dip himself in a large and well-known river, e.g. the Abana. Similarly, we may find it hard to believe that such a simple act can ultimately bring about our salvation. It is more attractive to think that our own works and public association with a large, well-known church (cp. the river Abana) can save us, rather than this simple act of association with the true hope of Israel. After dipping in Jordan Naaman's flesh "came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean" (2 Kings 5:9-14).

There should now be little room for doubt that 'baptism' refers to a complete dipping in water after first understanding the basic message of the Gospel. This Bible-based definition of baptism does not make any reference to the status of the person who actually does the baptism physically. Baptism being an immersion in water after belief of the Gospel, it is theoretically possible to baptize oneself. However, because baptism is only baptism by reason of the correct doctrines which one holds at the time of the immersion, it is definitely advisable to be baptized by another believer of the true doctrines, who can first of all assess the degree of knowledge a person has before actually immersing him.

There is therefore a tradition among of holding an in-depth discussion with any candidate for baptism before the actual immersion. A list of questions such as those found at the end of each Study in this book could form the basis for such a discussion. have travelled thousands of miles to assist just one person to be baptized; such is the wonder of just one person coming to the true hope of eternal life, that we are not primarily concerned with numbers of converts. Quality rather than quantity is the keynote of our approach.

There are many future events in the old testament , prophecy.
Please study the old testament
 
The Didache (or Teaching - short for the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) is a document that was written about 60 AD. It tells us a lot about what the first Christians believed and did. On baptism, it has this to say:

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, 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. 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.

According to this, it is most preferable to use "living" (i.e. running) cold water and complete immersion, but if that's not possible, using still or warm water is also allowed, as is sprinkling. It's not the ammount of water that maters, but the faith of the one being baptized.

However much water is used, the person being baptized is to fast for one or two days before his baptism. How many parents would ask that of their babies? It's obvious from this that adults, and not babies were being baptized.
 
Hi Elvis and Theo,

I had this conversation with another member a few years ago. I also mentioned sprinkling and he was quick to mention it says, pour, not sprinkle. They are different. Pouring is a steady flow of water, sprinkling is not.

Sprinkling would be an invalid way to baptize.

Anyway, I believe baptism to be a choice and prefer it be full immersion.
 
Baptism is from the Greek word "???????" and this directly translates to "immersion". Anything other than a full immersion Baptism is contradictory to the very word!

A Baptism should be done as soon as possible. There are some churches around me that will Baptize people in the same service that the people come and confess the Lord! Did the Eunice wait to be baptized? No. Baptism should be right away and full immersion.

I wish I could have had a do over, I would have been baptized ASAP instead of waiting a few months. I also wish I could have been baptized in the lake, but the circumstances did not make the lake a viable option.
 
If we are to go off the Greek language, which I believe is the way we should, then it does indeed imply full immersion...however...it implies full immersion until the "one" or thing being baptized is completely converted by that which it is being baptized into.

The example given is of a turning a cucumber into a pickle. Just to dunk, even if it is full immersion, does not make the cucumber a pickle. It is only until you leave that cucumber underneath the solution long enough for the cucumber to absorb its surroundings, only until then can it become a pickle.

"Baptizing" as we know it is just an outward sign, just a circumcision was to the Jew. What Jesus commands is that we 'baptize' people into the name of The Father, Son, and Spirit. That is to say we are to open fully what it means to be a follower and believer. We pour out what we have been given, through grace which is the power of God working in us. We 'immerse' them into the doctrine and teachings of our Lord until they come to the knowledge of what it is to be a disciple.

Jesus said it to indicate that we are not just to get people to say a prayer, or get dunked, or perform some religious activities. He wanted us to take the time to pour our lives, His life, into another until that person 'gets it'.
 
I guess I was not fair in not answering the original question directly. We are to be baptised when we understand what it means to be a follower of Christ. For some it means a while, for others only moments.
 
Baptism follows repentence. Until somebody is old enough to understand repentence or to have something to repent of, they have no need of baptism. Unless a man [we can safely assume a full-grown man/person] be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Read John 3:5.
 
Theofilus said;
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, 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. 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.

Craig;
Be very careful not to teach the commandments of men for doctrine.

You admit what you quoted was custom and tradition, not scripture.

Try to show this same logic in the bible and it is not there.

Most say it does not really matter, however we are told clearly" Do not add to the word" or receive a curse for
your indiscretion.
The whole duty of man is to fear God and keep His commandments.
 
Theofilus said

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, 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. 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.

elvispelvis said'

Be careful not to teach commandments of men for doctrine.

You say this was custom and tradition yet it can not be found in the bible.

We are warned not to add to the word or you will be cursed.

The whole duty of man is to fear God and keep His commandments.

Please study the old testament.
 
Theofilus said

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, 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. 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.

elvispelvis said'

Be careful not to teach commandments of men for doctrine.

You say this was custom and tradition yet it can not be found in the bible.

We are warned not to add to the word or you will be cursed.

The whole duty of man is to fear God and keep His commandments.

Please study the old testament.

Please don't make baseless accusations against people. I never said that the Didache was or should be part of the Bible. I never "added to the word". Neither did I "teach the commandments of men for doctrine". I merele showed what was done at the time, based on the evidence we have.

Remember that "with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again". So, be careful about calling people "cursed".
 
I wish I could have had a do over, I would have been baptized ASAP instead of waiting a few months. I also wish I could have been baptized in the lake, but the circumstances did not make the lake a viable option.

Why should one get baptized ASAP? What is wrong with waiting a few months, as the earliest Christians did? In some cases, the first pagans who became Christians waited several YEARS before they were baptized. But waiting a few months, why is that such an issue?

Same with being baptized in a lake. Why does that matter? Isn't the INVISIBLE part of baptism what matters?

Just curious on your thinking here.

Regards
 
Be careful not to teach commandments of men for doctrine.

You say this was custom and tradition yet it can not be found in the bible.

We are warned not to add to the word or you will be cursed.

The whole duty of man is to fear God and keep His commandments.

Please study the old testament.

The "how" on baptism is not mentioned very often in the Scriptures, so refering to the Didache as an historical work that documents that "how" should not be a problem, when considering what the ancient Church did.

Reading historical works is not against the duty charged with man to keep the commandments of God. Nowhere does God tell us "thou shall remain ignorant and not read extra-biblical material".

Regards
 
Back
Top