Immersion, Submersion, and Other Ways of Baptizing

[Neto]

Did you read what I said carefully enough to realize that you are agreeing with me? (Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant exactly what you said, that it is GOD who imparts his grace. Unless I am not understanding you, either.... But I was dealing with the term "sacrament", saying that I do not think that that's what baptism is, because it is NOT a ceremony by which the church imparts grace. I didn't say that GOD does not in some way impart grace when that step of obedience is taken.)

You seemed to be implying that no grace is given, but only referenced the church. I don't believe the church imparts grace, but as you said, God does. God only imparts grace when there is obedient faith involved on the part of the believer. A cup of juice/wine or a good dunking doesn't help anybody apart from grace, which is why I don't believe in infant "baptism".(at least in part)

It’s true that I did not use the word ‘grace’.
My last comments were:

I'm just leery of the idea that the church is imparting grace. I think the focus should be on God alone, as the actor or agent of the benefits that come from obedience.

(I added underlining now, to show where I was referring to the grace imparted by God.)

[ken_sylvania]

This is an honest question.

But is there a fundamental difference between baptism and communion such that adherence to historical practice and biblical meaning is important for baptism but unimportant for communion?

A lot of the Anabaptist groups that have deep-seated disagreement on the question of baptism seem perfectly comfortable swapping out grape juice for wine when it comes to communion. When Jesus was pretty clearly and indisputably talking about wine.

Is not the substitution of sprinkling or pouring for immersion in the same category as substituting juice for wine? In that it is the symbolism and ritual that is important, not the precise historical details? Or are these two rites different in some fundamental way that I don’t understand?

Is it the KJV translators who are at fault for the fact that our Bibles don't tell us this indisputable fact that Jesus was talking about wine when he said "fruit of the vine"?

[Ken]

This is an honest question.

But is there a fundamental difference between baptism and communion such that adherence to historical practice and biblical meaning is important for baptism but unimportant for communion?

A lot of the Anabaptist groups that have deep-seated disagreement on the question of baptism seem perfectly comfortable swapping out grape juice for wine when it comes to communion. When Jesus was pretty clearly and indisputably talking about wine.

Is not the substitution of sprinkling or pouring for immersion in the same category as substituting juice for wine? In that it is the symbolism and ritual that is important, not the precise historical details? Or are these two rites different in some fundamental way that I don’t understand?

Is it the KJV translators who are at fault for the fact that our Bibles don't tell us this indisputable fact that Jesus was talking about wine when he said "fruit of the vine"?

You assume that "fruit of the vine" can possibly mean anything but wine?

Why don't you run a little experiment. Gather up some wooden kegs of grape juice from the vineyard region of Israel which is mostly the Galilee region, transport it by donkey cart to Jerusalem in the late summer heat of Israel when grapes are harvested without refrigeration or modern preservatives or canning. That is probably a week journey by foot or donkey cart. Store it in a merchant warehouse for 6-8 months until April (when the last supper occurred), and then finally get it to the house in Jerusalem where the last supper occurred, and let me know if that grape juice is still fresh or completely spoiled or fermented.

Fermentation is how the ancient world preserved juices in the days before refrigeration, canning, and preservatives. Wine was one of the major industries in the middle east and Roman world and wine was shipped all across the Roman Empire and is mentioned extensively in the Bible, including by Jesus. They made wine from grapes and also made mead from honey and beer from grains.

The notion that grape juice and not wine was involved in the last supper is probably an affectation of the Christian temperance movement and not anything historic. I doubt that grape juice was even available in the US or anywhere else on any sort of regular basis before the invention of refrigeration and canning.

[gcdonner]

This is an honest question.

But is there a fundamental difference between baptism and communion such that adherence to historical practice and biblical meaning is important for baptism but unimportant for communion?

A lot of the Anabaptist groups that have deep-seated disagreement on the question of baptism seem perfectly comfortable swapping out grape juice for wine when it comes to communion. When Jesus was pretty clearly and indisputably talking about wine.

Is not the substitution of sprinkling or pouring for immersion in the same category as substituting juice for wine? In that it is the symbolism and ritual that is important, not the precise historical details? Or are these two rites different in some fundamental way that I don’t understand?

Is it the KJV translators who are at fault for the fact that our Bibles don't tell us this indisputable fact that Jesus was talking about wine when he said "fruit of the vine"?

You assume that "fruit of the vine" can possibly mean anything but wine?

Why don't you run a little experiment. Gather up some wooden kegs of grape juice from the vineyard region of Israel which is mostly the Galilee region, transport it by donkey cart to Jerusalem in the late summer heat of Israel when grapes are harvested without refrigeration or modern preservatives or canning. That is probably a week journey by foot or donkey cart. Store it in a merchant warehouse for 6-8 months until April (when the last supper occurred), and then finally get it to the house in Jerusalem where the last supper occurred, and let me know if that grape juice is still fresh or completely spoiled or fermented.

Fermentation is how the ancient world preserved juices in the days before refrigeration, canning, and preservatives. Wine was one of the major industries in the middle east and Roman world and wine was shipped all across the Roman Empire and is mentioned extensively in the Bible, including by Jesus. They made wine from grapes and also made mead from honey and beer from grains.

The notion that grape juice and not wine was involved in the last supper is probably an affectation of the Christian temperance movement and not anything historic. I doubt that grape juice was even available in the US or anywhere else on any sort of regular basis before the invention of refrigeration and canning.

I'm sure Paul really meant to say "grape juice" in Eph 5:18...

[Ken]

Is it the KJV translators who are at fault for the fact that our Bibles don't tell us this indisputable fact that Jesus was talking about wine when he said "fruit of the vine"?

You assume that "fruit of the vine" can possibly mean anything but wine?

Why don't you run a little experiment. Gather up some wooden kegs of grape juice from the vineyard region of Israel which is mostly the Galilee region, transport it by donkey cart to Jerusalem in the late summer heat of Israel when grapes are harvested without refrigeration or modern preservatives or canning. That is probably a week journey by foot or donkey cart. Store it in a merchant warehouse for 6-8 months until April (when the last supper occurred), and then finally get it to the house in Jerusalem where the last supper occurred, and let me know if that grape juice is still fresh or completely spoiled or fermented.

Fermentation is how the ancient world preserved juices in the days before refrigeration, canning, and preservatives. Wine was one of the major industries in the middle east and Roman world and wine was shipped all across the Roman Empire and is mentioned extensively in the Bible, including by Jesus. They made wine from grapes and also made mead from honey and beer from grains.

The notion that grape juice and not wine was involved in the last supper is probably an affectation of the Christian temperance movement and not anything historic. I doubt that grape juice was even available in the US or anywhere else on any sort of regular basis before the invention of refrigeration and canning.

I'm sure Paul really meant to say "grape juice" in Eph 5:18...

Probably what Ecclesiastes 9:7 meant as well.

[Josh]

Do not associate with one given to much grape juice

And they accused Jesus and his disciples of being grape-juice-bibbers

And Mary said to Jesus, behold, they have run out of grape juice.

[Joy]

Words can have more than one meaning. Context is essential.

[Ken]

I grew up in a church that conducted communion with grape juice. and that also used dozens of little plastic cups rather than a common cup. But I was not aware that anyone seriously argued that it was grape juice and not wine that was served at the actual last supper with Jesus. Do people make that argument based on any sort of historical or textual evidence and the fact that Jesus uses a metaphor "fruit of the vine" for dramatic effect rather than just saying "wine"?

Just the timing alone would seem to make that notion absurd. The last supper was a Passover meal which according to the Jewish calendar would have put it around April 1st. The grape harvest in Israel occurs in late summer so primarily August and September. This was a society without refrigeration or canning and they would have been drinking fresh grape juice about 7-8 months after the end of the grape harvest in that region. Fermentation was how they preserved "the fruit of the vine" for distribution and year-round use. There is tremendous evidence of winemaking traditions going back millennia in the middle east. No evidence at all of out-of-season markets in fresh fruits and juices. That is a modern 20th Century thing brought on by the invention of refrigeration and canning.

I have always assumed that grape juice in individual tiny cups was just used to represent a common wine glass during communion in the same exact manner that pouring is used to represent immersion in baptism. That it was the act and expression of belief behind it that counts, not the strict adherence to historical details. Christianity is full of symbolism and Jesus consistently spoke in metaphor.

[gcdonner]

I have always assumed that grape juice in individual tiny cups was just used to represent a common wine glass during communion in the same exact manner that pouring is used to represent immersion in baptism. That it was the act and expression of belief behind it that counts, not the strict adherence to historical details. Christianity is full of symbolism and Jesus consistently spoke in metaphor.

But if the metaphor has lost it's point, how do you really expect people to understand it? So your prefer to have substitutes and not the real thing? For me part of the point of using wine is that it has a bitter aftertaste which (metaphor) reminds me that it was a bitter cup that Jesus accepted for me. Perhaps we should replace the cross with a more acceptable "metaphor"?
If the act and expression behind a rite is what counts, then how can we maintain what is behind if it has been replaced with an easier substitute? The whole reason for attempting to be consistent in our expressions of faith is to be sure that it is the same faith that was..."  that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 1:3)
Are you OK with delivering a different faith, represented by different metaphors than were originally given for a purpose.

How do you find pouring to represent death, burial and resurrection?

Rom 6:4  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. 

The metaphor is missing with either pouring or sprinkling. There is a Divine purpose in the metaphor of immersion.

Rom 6:11  Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 

Do you think that Jesus turned water into grape juice?

[Ken]

I have always assumed that grape juice in individual tiny cups was just used to represent a common wine glass during communion in the same exact manner that pouring is used to represent immersion in baptism. That it was the act and expression of belief behind it that counts, not the strict adherence to historical details. Christianity is full of symbolism and Jesus consistently spoke in metaphor.

But if the metaphor has lost it's point, how do you really expect people to understand it? So your prefer to have substitutes and not the real thing? For me part of the point of using wine is that it has a bitter aftertaste which (metaphor) reminds me that it was a bitter cup that Jesus accepted for me. Perhaps we should replace the cross with a more acceptable "metaphor"?
If the act and expression behind a rite is what counts, then how can we maintain what is behind if it has been replaced with an easier substitute? The whole reason for attempting to be consistent in our expressions of faith is to be sure that it is the same faith that was..."  that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 1:3)
Are you OK with delivering a different faith, represented by different metaphors than were originally given for a purpose.

How do you find pouring to represent death, burial and resurrection?

Rom 6:4  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. 

The metaphor is missing with either pouring or sprinkling. There is a Divine purpose in the metaphor of immersion.

Rom 6:11  Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 

Do you think that Jesus turned water into grape juice?

I agree with you. I always thought the grape juice thing was more about Menno temperance obsessions than anything biblical. As a teenager I probably would have been more intrigued with the whole thing had they actually been using wine. I’m just relaying the Mennonite Church tradition I experienced, not expressing my approval. Using one cup would probably have been a step too far though given some of the old sick people we had in our church.

As for baptism. I did that so long ago I really don’t remember much of the details. I do note though, that elaborate submersion baptism is becoming more of a thing in some evangelical churches. They really go all out. So perhaps that trend is turning back too and Mennos might pick that up too like so many other friends they have absorbed from the evangelical world. I have a cousin who was a minister at a CMC church and noticed shots of full immersion river baptisms on their facebook page so perhaps it is becoming more common.