Poll: Modes of Baptism

[RZehr]

We pour. I’m okay with that. In a vacuum I would choose full immersion. But it’s not something I would fight for.

[ohio jones]

Posts primarily about infant baptism rather than the subject of the thread have been moved here at OP request:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6582

[Sudsy]

Why doesn’t the NT say a peep about infant baptism then?

Didn't need to. Why didn't it say a peep about pouring?

Whether someone pours, or affuses, or immerses is not of great import.

Some believe that, many do not. Immersion is argued that it is the most symbolic of these other modes and is related to Jesus death, burial and resurrection.

Those who believe in immersion say that scriptures such as John 3:23, Matthew 3:16, and Acts 8:38 give conclusive proof that the original method of baptism was by immersion and the symbology is of dying to self, being buried and being resurrected to a new life in Jesus. It is a public declaration of a changed life, a relationship with Jesus, and a desire to follow Him.

Put another way - Being put into the water represents the death of the "old man" with his sinful way of life. Being completely covered by water symbolizes burial, and being raised from the water pictures a resurrection to "newness of life."

To me, what is most important is whether or not water baptism has any salvation properties or is it symbolic only. I believe many have been mislead to believe it has saving properties and this act means they are 'good to go', so to speak, once they have had some mode of being baptised in water and some include joining the local church as part of this also. I believe the salvation of the thief on the cross indicates water baptism is not necessary for salvation but rather it is a testimony and means of identifying publicly that you have entered into a new life with Christ. A picture of what has happened and not something that does happen as if the water actually washes away your sins.

[Bootstrap]

....
... I think it's helpful to look at the reasons the NT gives for baptism. Which of these reasons makes sense for infants? This summary was created with ChatGPT, feel free to point out where it got anything wrong, it looks good to me at first blush.

1. For the forgiveness of sins:
- Acts 2:38 - "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"
This verse links baptism with repentance and the forgiveness of sins, suggesting that baptism is a step towards being cleansed of sin.

2. To follow Jesus' example:
- Matthew 3:13-17 - "Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, 'I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?' Jesus replied, 'Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.' Then John consented."
Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist serves as a model for believers to follow, demonstrating obedience and righteousness.

3. As a public declaration of faith:
- Romans 6:3-4 - "Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."
Baptism is symbolically associated with dying to one's old self and rising to a new life in Christ, signifying the believer's faith in Jesus' death and resurrection.

4. To receive the Holy Spirit:
- Acts 19:4-6 - "Paul said, 'John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.' On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied."
This passage highlights that baptism in Jesus' name is linked with receiving the Holy Spirit, marking the believer's full inclusion into the Christian community.

5. As an act of obedience to Jesus' command:
- Matthew 28:19-20 - "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Baptism is part of the Great Commission, where Jesus commands His followers to baptize disciples, underscoring it as an act of obedience to His teachings.

6. To belong to the body of Christ (the Church):
- 1 Corinthians 12:13 - "For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink."
This verse emphasizes the unifying aspect of baptism, where believers are spiritually joined into one body, the Church, regardless of their background.

I think that some of these perceived connections are tenuous at best, because this device (what ever ChatGPT uses) fails to distinguish symbolic use of the term "baptize" from the literal use. (That is, where the term is used in Scripture when it may not be referring to physical baptism, but rather to spiritual 'baptism'. One must carefully examine the context to discern the difference, and comparing Scripture with Scripture as well.) But it might still be interesting to repeat this process with the terms "sprinkling" , and "pouring" or "outpouring".

You're right - number 4 and 6 do not refer to physical baptism. I think the others do refer to physical baptism. And I think it failed for precisely the reason you suggest. But the rest are valid, aren't they? Did it miss any reasons given for baptism in the NT? It often misses some.

Here's what I got in response to your question:

The term "baptizo" is generally understood to mean "to dip," "immerse," or "submerge." However, the emphasis in the New Testament is more on the symbolic representation of baptism in terms of death, burial, and resurrection with Christ, rather than on the specific method of water application.

Considerations for Pouring or Sprinkling:

• Acts of the Apostles: Descriptions of baptisms in Acts do not specify the method used. The logistical considerations of baptizing large numbers in various settings have led some to argue that pouring or sprinkling could have been practical alternatives (e.g., Acts 2:41, Acts 8:36-38, Acts 10:47-48, Acts 16:33).
• Hebrews 10:22: "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water." This passage is interpreted by some as metaphorically supportive of non-immersion methods, emphasizing inner cleansing.
• Ezekiel 36:25-27 (Old Testament reference): "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols." Early Christians often interpreted Old Testament prophecies in the context of the New Covenant, including baptism. This verse is sometimes cited to support the theological justification for sprinkling or pouring, symbolizing spiritual cleansing and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

[Bootstrap]

Some believe that, many do not. Immersion is argued that it is the most symbolic of these other modes and is related to Jesus death, burial and resurrection.

!!! SNIP !!!

Put another way - Being put into the water represents the death of the "old man" with his sinful way of life. Being completely covered by water symbolizes burial, and being raised from the water pictures a resurrection to "newness of life."

This is precisely why I prefer immersion.

But I do not consider other modes invalid. God gives grace.

[mike]

Some believe that, many do not. Immersion is argued that it is the most symbolic of these other modes and is related to Jesus death, burial and resurrection.

!!! SNIP !!!

Put another way - Being put into the water represents the death of the "old man" with his sinful way of life. Being completely covered by water symbolizes burial, and being raised from the water pictures a resurrection to "newness of life."

This is precisely why I prefer immersion.

But I do not consider other modes invalid. God gives grace.

I agree with this.

[Josh]

I would note that arguments from symbolism don’t really hold a lot of water with me, so to speak. If we just stick to the text. The NT doesn’t really speak to mode at all.

[RZehr]

What pushes me in favor of submersion is the Jewish purification rites. From wikipedia -

"Although the term "baptism" is not used to describe the Jewish rituals, the purification rites in Halakha, Jewish law and tradition, called tvilah, have some similarity to baptism, and the two have been linked. The tvilah is the act of immersion in naturally sourced water, called a mikva.[2][unreliable source?][3] In the past Hebrew Bible and other Jewish texts, immersion in water for ritual purification was established for restoration to a condition of "ritual purity" in specific circumstances. For example, Jews who (according to the Law of Moses) became ritually defiled by contact with a corpse had to use the mikvah before being allowed to participate in the Holy Temple. Immersion is required for converts to Judaism.[4] Immersion in the mikvah represents a change in status in regards to purification, restoration, and qualification for full religious participation in the life of the community, ensuring that the cleansed person will not impose uncleanness on property or its owners.[5][non-primary source needed][6] It did not become customary,[7] however, to immerse converts to Judaism until after the Babylonian Captivity (586–539 BCE).[8] This change of status by the mikvah could be obtained repeatedly, while Christian baptism, like circumcision, is, in the general view of Christians, unique and not repeatable.[9] Even the so-called rebaptism by some Christian denominations is not seen by them as a repetition of an earlier valid baptism and is viewed by them as not itself repeatable.[citation needed]

Hemerobaptists (Heb. Tovelei Shaḥarit; 'Morning Bathers') were an ancient religious sect that practiced daily baptism. They were likely a division of the Essenes.[10] In the Clementine Homilies (ii. 23), John the Baptist and his disciples are mentioned as Hemerobaptists. The Mandaeans have been associated with the Hemerobaptists on account of both practicing frequent baptism and Mandaeans believing they are disciples of John.[11][12][13]

Hemerobaptists (Greek: 'day bathers') were a Jewish sect mentioned by some early Christian writers.[1][2] They were known for their daily ritual baptisms for purification, distinct from mainstream Jewish practices of ritual immersion.

Hegesippus mentions seven sects of the Jews, one of them was the Hemerobaptists.[4] The sect was also mentioned by Justin Martyr referring to them as "baptizers".[3]

Mandaeans revere John the Baptist and practice frequent full immersion baptism (masbuta) as a ritual of purification, not of initiation.

There is a scholarly consensus that the earliest Christian baptism was normally by immersion,[28][29][30][31] or at least that this is probable.[a] Some interpret this as meaning total immersion or submersion beneath the water. Among those who take this view are Thomas Schreiner,[34] Everett Ferguson,[35] Di Berardino,[36] Tischler,[37] and Lang.[38] Others understand immersion as not necessarily implying submersion beneath the water. Kirsten Marie Hartvigsen distinguishes between immersion and submersion and considers both as possible early-Christian forms of baptism,[39] as does Christian Strecker.[40] Laurie Guy says: "The church most likely practiced full immersion, partial immersion and affusion at various times and places in the early centuries, with sprinkling being practiced rarely (and probably only for medical reasons) during that time period."[41] Robin M. Jensen describes the early Christian baptismal ritual as having for basis "immersion in water (or a thorough soaking by pouring)",[42] and describes the primitive, first-century ritual as having encompassed both "application of water (whether by immersion or by some other means) and an imposition of hands", adding that "'Baptism' originally conveyed the sense of water's application (if not also immersion) in its very definition".[43] Other recent studies that see total immersion (submersion) as not the only form of baptism utilized by early Christians include Steven J. Schloeder,[44] Charles Thomas,[45] Stanley J. Grenz,[46] and also the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,[47] and the Oxford Dictionary of the Bible.[48]

The theology of baptism attained precision in the 3rd and 4th centuries.[49] While instruction was at first given after baptism, believers were given increasingly specific instructions before being baptized, especially in the face of heresies in the 4th century.[50] By the fourth and fifth centuries, baptism had become a several-week-long rite leading up to the actual baptismal washing on Easter. During this time, catechumens attended several meetings of intensive catechetical instruction, often by the bishop himself, and often accompanied by special prayers, exorcisms, and other rites.[51] Catechumens recited the Creed on Holy Saturday to show that they had completed their catechetical instruction.[52] At dawn following the Paschal Vigil starting the night of Holy Saturday, they were taken to the baptistry where the bishop consecrated the water with a long prayer recounting the types of baptisms. The catechumens disrobed, were anointed with oil, renounced the devil and his works, confessed their faith in the Trinity, and were immersed in the font. They were then anointed with chrism, received the laying on of hands, clothed in white, and led to join the congregation in the Easter celebration.[51] By then, postponement of baptism had become general, and a large proportion of believers were merely catechumens (Constantine was not baptized until he was dying); but as baptisms of the children of Christians, using an adaptation of the rite intended for adults, became more common than baptisms of adult converts, the number of catechumens decreased.[50]

As baptism was believed to forgive sins, the issue of sins committed after baptism arose. Some[who?] insisted that apostasy, even under threat of death, and other grievous sins cut one off forever from the Church. As indicated in the writings of Saint Cyprian, others favoured readmitting the "lapsi" easily. The rule that prevailed was that they were readmitted only after undergoing a period of penance that demonstrated sincere repentance.[citation needed]

What is now generally called the Nicene Creed, longer than the text adopted by the First Council of Nicaea of 325, and known also as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed because of its adoption in that form by the First Council of Constantinople in 381, was probably the baptismal creed then in use in Constantinople, the venue of the 381 Council.[53][page needed]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_baptism

[Sudsy]

I would note that arguments from symbolism don’t really hold a lot of water with me, so to speak. If we just stick to the text. The NT doesn’t really speak to mode at all.

Do you believe water baptism is essential for salvation regardless of mode ?

If no, then how do you understand these texts - Acts 2:38 says “for the remission of sins” and Acts 22:16 says “wash your sins away” (Acts 2:38; 22:16).

If mode is not important then what about the reason for baptism as it appears to say in these texts ?

[Josh]

I would note that arguments from symbolism don’t really hold a lot of water with me, so to speak. If we just stick to the text. The NT doesn’t really speak to mode at all.

Do you believe water baptism is essential for salvation regardless of mode ?

If no, then how do you understand these texts - Acts 2:38 says “for the remission of sins” and Acts 22:16 says “wash your sins away” (Acts 2:38; 22:16).

If mode is not important then what about the reason for baptism as it appears to say in these texts ?

No, I believe salvation comes from accepting the gospel and believing in Jesus and then seeking to follow him.

Seekers who want to follow him will pursue being baptised tho.