Immersion vs. Pouring Baptism

[Mennogal]

Why would a church prefer a particular baptismal method over another? Are there especial methods of immersion that are carried out ~ I.e pool vs. stream, is one more valued than another? Should I choose immersion or pouring?

[Neto]

Some anabaptists (including some forum members) feel strongly that immersion is the only right method. The etymological meaning of the Greek word from which 'baptize' is derived is basically 'dipped'. The question is as to whether the etymological meaning was still the common meaning at the time the word was used in the New Testament period, and also as to whether the mode is even in focus at all, or instead, the spiritual or symbolic meaning. (For example, the same word is used in the case of the ceremonial washing of hands in Jewish practice of Jesus' time.)
In my own background (Mennonite Brethren), in the early years of the formation of the group (1860 ff), there was a controversy about this, and some of the leaders, being influenced by non-Mennonite persons & writings, adopted immersion as the only form of baptism accepted. Up until 1960 or so, anyone who wished to join an MB congregation had to have been baptized by immersion, or they were required to be re-baptized, even if they were coming from another Mennonite church, and had thus (hopefully) been baptized upon faith. The actual requirements at the time that my parents were baptized specified that it must be unheated, running water ('living water'). I was baptized (into the MB church) in a baptismal tank in a nearby MB congregations church house - our own building did not have one, because of the previous requirement that it be outdoors. But I do not (personally) think that the mode is important, and as one trained in Bible translation do not think that there is clear Biblical evidence as to what mode was used in the New Testament period, or by John the Baptizer, either. That is an opinion, and others' opinions will certainly differ.

[Hats Off]

From what I have gathered, there may be three or four variations of immersion, with some strong disagreement between those methods. Since we use pouring, I am not familiar with the various methods of immersion but I am sure there are some on the forum who are.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Why would a church prefer a particular baptismal method over another? Are there especial methods of immersion that are carried out ~ I.e pool vs. stream, is one more valued than another? Should I choose immersion or pouring?

Mostly “This is what we have always done” I think. My conference in particular does not seem to worry, and I seriously doubt that the MCUSA Church you are looking at really would make an issue over it.

Robert has more experience in MCUSA settings and would likely be able to give you a more authoritative answer.

J.M.

[steve-in-kville]

At age 11, I was baptized in an indoor "baptistery" pool. Three times back, not sure why. This was a Church of God, nothing Anabaptist. My parents made the move to the COB at age 12, and that former baptism was accepted.

At age 17, when I joined the Dunkard church, I had to be re-baptized, in a moving stream, three times forward. Most Mennonite churches I am aware of will accept a previous immersion baptism, done in an Anabaptist church. I think where we are at now, they will either use the baptistery or a stream. Your choice.

[ToseekGod]

I recently took a class entitled "Principles of Biblical Interpretation". One of the things said by Mr. Yoder (my teacher) that stuck out to me was "the most straight forward interpretation is generally the best." Acts 8:38 says, "And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him." (ESV). Now to me it seems the most direct interpretation of this passage gives support for immersion. I'd also say the most direct interpretation of the Greek word baptidzo is in support of immersion. However Mr. Yoder (both an excellent teacher as well as a wise, open-minded Christian) is a strong advocate for effusion (pouring). If I understand correctly (which I don't know I do) he believes the symbolism of effusion to be more powerful. In Romans 6:4 Paul shows the symbolism of what seems to me to be immersion,
"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." All this combines to convince me that immersion is the more biblically accurate form of baptism.

At the risk of sounding post-modern and all "truth is relative" I will type my opinion of effusion. I, in my current state of youthfulness, know of two reasons for baptism: 1 as a testimony of your commitment to Christ, and 2 we are told to be baptized so if we are not then we are living in the son of a lie. Effusion is an acceptable testimony of your commitment to Christ. If done with the right attitude, with a clear conscience, and not against the prompting of the Holy Spirit then I see no reason effusion does not fulfill the command to be baptized. Therefore effusion under the right condition is an acceptable form of baptism, the same is true of immersion, however to my limited understanding immersion is more biblical.

[shadrach]

@ToseekGod,

That's some interesting observations. I have also heard explanations related to the Flood--the evil ones were immersed, and Noah and his family were rained upon. Also sin't there a reference to the children of Israel being baptized in when they crossed the Red Sea (and the Egyptians were immersed, of course).

There could likely be arguments of symbolism drawn out for both methods. I suppose the greatest issue is the condition of the heart. Has it been sprinkled with the blood and baptized with the Spirit?

[lesterb]

To argue the mode too strongly is to destroy the meaning. I don't really know of any good reason to prefer the one over the other, other than practicality.

[JimFoxvog]

I like looking at baptismal history. One of the earliest descriptions of Christian Baptism I know is The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome

The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome was composed in approximately 215 in Rome.
It apparently preserved older second century practices which were in danger of falling to
disuse or innovation.
http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html.

Chapters 20 and 21 refer most to baptism. It is clear the baptizer and the one to be baptized go into the water, but immersion is not clear unless the Latin translated "baptize" was clearer then. Triune baptism was prescribed.

20:11Then, after these things, the bishop passes each of them on
nude to the elder who stands at the water. They shall stand in the water naked. A deacon,
likewise, will go down with them into the water. 12When each of them to be baptized has
gone down into the water, the one baptizing shall lay hands on each of them, asking, "Do
you believe in God the Father Almighty?" 13And the one being baptized shall answer, "I
believe." 14He shall then baptize each of them once, laying his hand upon each of their
heads. 15Then he shall ask, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was
born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and
died, and rose on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat
down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the living and the dead?"
16When each has answered, "I believe," he shall baptize a second time. 17Then he shall
ask, "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the
flesh?" 18Then each being baptized shall answer, "I believe." And thus let him baptize the
third time.

19Afterward, when they have come up out of the water, they shall be anointed by the
elder with the Oil of Thanksgiving, saying, "I anoint you with holy oil in the name of Jesus
Christ." 20Then, drying themselves, they shall dress and afterwards gather in the church.

[Hats Off]

I like looking at baptismal history. One of the earliest descriptions of Christian Baptism I know is The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome

The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome was composed in approximately 215 in Rome.
It apparently preserved older second century practices which were in danger of falling to
disuse or innovation.
http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html.

Chapters 20 and 21 refer most to baptism. It is clear the baptizer and the one to be baptized go into the water, but immersion is not clear unless the Latin translated "baptize" was clearer then. Triune baptism was prescribed.

20:11Then, after these things, the bishop passes each of them on
nude to the elder who stands at the water. They shall stand in the water naked. A deacon,
likewise, will go down with them into the water. 12When each of them to be baptized has
gone down into the water, the one baptizing shall lay hands on each of them, asking, "Do
you believe in God the Father Almighty?" 13And the one being baptized shall answer, "I
believe." 14He shall then baptize each of them once, laying his hand upon each of their
heads. 15Then he shall ask, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was
born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and
died, and rose on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat
down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the living and the dead?"
16When each has answered, "I believe," he shall baptize a second time. 17Then he shall
ask, "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the
flesh?" 18Then each being baptized shall answer, "I believe." And thus let him baptize the
third time.

19Afterward, when they have come up out of the water, they shall be anointed by the
elder with the Oil of Thanksgiving, saying, "I anoint you with holy oil in the name of Jesus
Christ." 20Then, drying themselves, they shall dress and afterwards gather in the church.

I would think this practise, followed in all details, would not be considered acceptable by most of today's Anabaptists.