Poll: Modes of Baptism

[Josh]

I didn't know Anabaptists baptize in Jesus only. Interesting. Pouring instead of immersion and in Jesus name only.

Anabaptists use the Trinitarian formula.

I am simply saying that baptising in Jesus’ name only is entirely scriptural and is valid.

Incidentally, Acts is just as authoritative as Matthew.

[Valerie]

I didn't know Anabaptists baptize in Jesus only. Interesting. Pouring instead of immersion and in Jesus name only.

Anabaptists use the Trinitarian formula.

I am simply saying that baptising in Jesus’ name only is entirely scriptural and is valid.

Incidentally, Acts is just as authoritative as Matthew.

So why do Anabaptists use Trinitarian? Acts is authoritative. I think there's a misunderstanding about it that isn't clear after the Reformation.

[Josh]

I didn't know Anabaptists baptize in Jesus only. Interesting. Pouring instead of immersion and in Jesus name only.

Anabaptists use the Trinitarian formula.

I am simply saying that baptising in Jesus’ name only is entirely scriptural and is valid.

Incidentally, Acts is just as authoritative as Matthew.

So why do Anabaptists use Trinitarian? Acts is authoritative. I think there's a misunderstanding about it that isn't clear after the Reformation.

Just tradition. But there is no biblical case to be made that one should be used and the other not used.

[Sudsy]

Anabaptists use the Trinitarian formula.

I am simply saying that baptising in Jesus’ name only is entirely scriptural and is valid.

Incidentally, Acts is just as authoritative as Matthew.

So why do Anabaptists use Trinitarian? Acts is authoritative. I think there's a misunderstanding about it that isn't clear after the Reformation.

Just tradition. But there is no biblical case to be made that one should be used and the other not used.

Well, the case I have heard via Oneness Pentecostals is show me one occurrence in the NT where anyone was baptised in the Matthew 'formula' ? Additionally some say, show me one case where anyone not baptised in the Spirit did not speak in an unknown tongue aside from Jesus ? Some would even go so far as saying that if one does not have the initial evidence that they have the Holy Spirit now living within, speaking in tongues, they are likely not saved. There is a water baptism but also a Spirit baptism that new converts are to pursue.

The Pentecostals I grew up in did not see tongues speaking as a requirement for salvation but they really emphasized that new converts pursue that experience. Some believe that after this experience the believer enters into a whole greater dimension of holiness, spiritual gifts and service in their Christian life. This, latter, was more of the teaching I grew up in. There was considerable urgency to see new converts speak in tongues. My buddy years ago left and joined the Salvation Army due to this pressure he felt people placed on him. Well, God used him in a great way for some 50+ years now in the Salvation Army ministry in our city.

[Valerie]

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?

[Neto]

....
... 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".

[Josh]

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.

[Neto]

I think it might be helpful to look back at the opening post from time to time, to refresh our collective memory as to what the topic is really about. As I understand both the thread title, and the first post, this is about MODES of baptism, not about the TIMING of baptism. So really, the subject of infant baptism does not apply to this particular discussion.

(As I understand, some infant baptizers DO use different modes, so if the discussion involves comparing these different modes of infant baptism, fine by me, but Ask the thread starter. It is not that there cannot be discussions of infant baptism here - there have been many - but it is not the subject of this discussion, and these "bunny trails" inflate the discussion, and it can be hard to follow the intended topic. I'm also not a moderator or Admin here, so no one is obligated to listen to anything I say. It's only a friendly request from a fellow member.)

[Josh]

I think it might be helpful to look back at the opening post from time to time, to refresh our collective memory as to what the topic is really about. As I understand both the thread title, and the first post, this is about MODES of baptism, not about the TIMING of baptism. So really, the subject of infant baptism does not apply to this particular discussion.

(As I understand, some infant baptizers DO use different modes, so if the discussion involves comparing these different modes of infant baptism, fine by me, but Ask the thread starter. It is not that there cannot be discussions of infant baptism here - there have been many - but it is not the subject of this discussion, and these "bunny trails" inflate the discussion, and it can be hard to follow the intended topic. I'm also not a moderator or Admin here, so no one is obligated to listen to anything I say. It's only a friendly request from a fellow member.)

Yes, that's correct. Eastern Orthodox paedobaptisers attempt to do both a full immersion and a trine immersion. One could say they are the German Baptists of infant baptisers.

Catholic infant baptisers instead practice affusion ("sprinkling").

Amongst groups like Methodists, Moravians, Presbyterians, and so forth, there is a mixture of pouring and affusion. (A Presbyterian deacon once said he prefers sprinkling to pouring of infants so there isn't as much water to clean up or worry about a slip and fall.)

[Neto]

It might actually be interesting to also discuss the timing of baptism among those who follow some mode of "conscious believer's baptism", but in a separate thread/discussion. I was baptized at around 14 years of age. I HAD been convicted about my spiritual condition for some time, perhaps even years, before that, and I deflected any suggestion about getting baptized with a sort of deception, saying "I was baptized in the Holy Spirit, so I do not need to be baptized in water." But really, I just did not want to admit my dire spiritual condition, and nor did I dare commit the blasphemy of a false baptism. This is not some thought I'm projecting back on my much younger self. I vividly remember the terror I felt toward doing that. Then as soon as my spiritual problem was taken care of, I desperately wanted to be baptized.)