Immersion, Submersion, and Other Ways of Baptizing

[gcdonner]

Some would say the verse 'one lord, one faith and one baptism' says you can't. I believe the baptism here is the baptism of the Spirit.

The verse you quoted refers to one water immersion, since it was contrary to the idea of the Jews, who had many ablutions for many different reasons of needing to be purified. Just as Jesus said to Peter that he only needed to have his feet washed, not a complete immersion again. (Jn 13:10)

Both my wife and myself were re-immersed once we understood that we were not born again the first time around of getting wet.

So here is another reference to the 'one baptism' showing a 'could be' view -https://www.gotquestions.org/one-baptism.html

When Paul wrote to the Ephesian believers about "one baptism," he was reminding them that, regardless of their background or nationality, they all served the same Lord, shared the same faith, and had experienced the same baptism. He could be referring to water baptism; i.e., all believers have the same testimony of salvation and have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Or he could be referring to Spirit baptism; i.e., all believers have been placed into the Body of Christ through the Spirit’s power. Either way, the emphasis is on unity among Christians. Verse 3 says, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." The Holy Spirit works to unify believers and provides assurance that they are children of God (Romans 8:16; Ephesians 1:13-14). By reminding the church that they all had a similar testimony and that they were all partakers in the same Holy Spirit, Paul encouraged them to work together for the cause of Christ so that the message of redemption would continue to spread throughout the world (Matthew 28:19).

Underlining was mine.

I think most all of us agree that water baptism is not a salvation issue any more than a headcovering or taking Covid shots is. I expect to see my Salvation Army friends and meet some Quakers in heaven that don't see water baptism as something to be obeyed. But perhaps I'm wrong and some here do believe being baptised in water is to be taken as Peter put it in Acts 2:38 and see it as the actual step necessary to have sins forgiven ?

I don't know if I mentioned this before but no where in the NT do we read of anyone being baptised 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' only that they baptised in 'Jesus name'. I guess Peter and others didn't follow instructions too well. Or they understood Jesus instructions not to be used literally. Any thoughts on that ?

I guess you didn't read my post in relation to this question. If we keep scripture in it's proper context a lot of these debates would be unnecessary, IMO. The "one baptism" issue is a case in point. Read my post and you might find something of interest there.

[Sudsy]

The verse you quoted refers to one water immersion, since it was contrary to the idea of the Jews, who had many ablutions for many different reasons of needing to be purified. Just as Jesus said to Peter that he only needed to have his feet washed, not a complete immersion again. (Jn 13:10)

Both my wife and myself were re-immersed once we understood that we were not born again the first time around of getting wet.

So here is another reference to the 'one baptism' showing a 'could be' view -https://www.gotquestions.org/one-baptism.html

When Paul wrote to the Ephesian believers about "one baptism," he was reminding them that, regardless of their background or nationality, they all served the same Lord, shared the same faith, and had experienced the same baptism. He could be referring to water baptism; i.e., all believers have the same testimony of salvation and have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Or he could be referring to Spirit baptism; i.e., all believers have been placed into the Body of Christ through the Spirit’s power. Either way, the emphasis is on unity among Christians. Verse 3 says, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." The Holy Spirit works to unify believers and provides assurance that they are children of God (Romans 8:16; Ephesians 1:13-14). By reminding the church that they all had a similar testimony and that they were all partakers in the same Holy Spirit, Paul encouraged them to work together for the cause of Christ so that the message of redemption would continue to spread throughout the world (Matthew 28:19).

Underlining was mine.

I think most all of us agree that water baptism is not a salvation issue any more than a headcovering or taking Covid shots is. I expect to see my Salvation Army friends and meet some Quakers in heaven that don't see water baptism as something to be obeyed. But perhaps I'm wrong and some here do believe being baptised in water is to be taken as Peter put it in Acts 2:38 and see it as the actual step necessary to have sins forgiven ?

I don't know if I mentioned this before but no where in the NT do we read of anyone being baptised 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' only that they baptised in 'Jesus name'. I guess Peter and others didn't follow instructions too well. Or they understood Jesus instructions not to be used literally. Any thoughts on that ?

I guess you didn't read my post in relation to this question. If we keep scripture in it's proper context a lot of these debates would be unnecessary, IMO. The "one baptism" issue is a case in point. Read my post and you might find something of interest there.

Sorry, I did read your post and did find it interesting. One of my short memory issues. I may also be repeating myself more often in the near future. I may also be repeating myself more often in the near future. I may also be repeating myself more often in the near future.

[gcdonner]

Sorry, I did read your post and did find it interesting. One of my short memory issues. I may also be repeating myself more often in the near future. I may also be repeating myself more often in the near future. I may also be repeating myself more often in the near future.

My forgetter works better than my rememberer these days. That's my excuse and I'm sticking with it...

[Josh]

Of particular interest is that submersion baptism (I like that term) basically didn’t exist until fairly recently.

I also don’t see much in scripture guiding any formula at all, nor a link from baptism to salvation. I do see a rather obvious link from baptism to church membership.

It is interesting that most of Christendom either:

- improperly links baptism to salvation (Catholics, Orthodox, Church of Christ, Oneness Pentecostals, some Brethren, possibly the Finny Kuravilla church in Boston)
- improperly says the mode is very important - must be fully immersed (Church of Christ, Baptists, Brethren, many others)
- improperly says the formula spoken is of utmost importance (Catholics, Orthodox, Oneness Pentecostals in particular)
- improperly says baptism is an independent act that doesn’t have anything to do with church membership (Baptists, most evangelicals)

[gcdonner]

Of particular interest is that submersion baptism (I like that term) basically didn’t exist until fairly recently.

I also don’t see much in scripture guiding any formula at all, nor a link from baptism to salvation. I do see a rather obvious link from baptism to church membership. Where do you "see" this in scripture? Membership is not even mentioned in scripture...

It is interesting that most of Christendom either:

- improperly links baptism to salvation (Catholics, Orthodox, Church of Christ, Oneness Pentecostals, some Brethren, possibly the Finny Kuravilla church in Boston)
- improperly says the mode is very important - must be fully immersed (Church of Christ, Baptists, Brethren, many others)
- improperly says the formula spoken is of utmost importance (Catholics, Orthodox, Oneness Pentecostals in particular)
- improperly says baptism is an independent act that doesn’t have anything to do with church membership (Baptists, most evangelicals)

I guess you haven't been reading in this thread much. All of your statements have been refuted by scripture and ancient practices "from the beginning". Please read my post earlier in reference to the origins of immersion. BTW, It is Peter who links immersion to salvation directly, on the day of Pentecost. There is no such thing as "mode". That is a misnomer. The closest thing to it are the exceptions allowed in the Didache.

[Josh]

Of particular interest is that submersion baptism (I like that term) basically didn’t exist until fairly recently.

I also don’t see much in scripture guiding any formula at all, nor a link from baptism to salvation. I do see a rather obvious link from baptism to church membership. Where do you "see" this in scripture? Membership is not even mentioned in scripture...

It is interesting that most of Christendom either:

- improperly links baptism to salvation (Catholics, Orthodox, Church of Christ, Oneness Pentecostals, some Brethren, possibly the Finny Kuravilla church in Boston)
- improperly says the mode is very important - must be fully immersed (Church of Christ, Baptists, Brethren, many others)
- improperly says the formula spoken is of utmost importance (Catholics, Orthodox, Oneness Pentecostals in particular)
- improperly says baptism is an independent act that doesn’t have anything to do with church membership (Baptists, most evangelicals)

I guess you haven't been reading in this thread much. All of your statements have been refuted by scripture and ancient practices "from the beginning". Please read my post earlier in reference to the origins of immersion. BTW, It is Peter who links immersion to salvation directly, on the day of Pentecost. There is no such thing as "mode". That is a misnomer. The closest thing to it are the exceptions allowed in the Didache.

The Bible talks a lot about members of the body. That’s where the term membership even comes from.

The Bible also talks about excommunication. If one can be excommunicated, one has to be a member first.

As far as the propaganda about full immersion being required for salvation (the heresy taught by Church of Christ, Oneness Pentecostals, Eastern Orthodox and some Brethren), it is part and parcel the same heresy as that baptism by a bishop from a particular organisation is required (such as
Catholicism).

There is simply no historical, intellectual, biblical, or spiritual basis for these beliefs; they are all perversions of what the Bible says salvation and baptism are: baptism is an outward sign of an inward cleansing.

Of note is the deceit of the modern day era - that baptism is important but church membership isn’t.

[gcdonner]

Of particular interest is that submersion baptism (I like that term) basically didn’t exist until fairly recently.

I also don’t see much in scripture guiding any formula at all, nor a link from baptism to salvation. I do see a rather obvious link from baptism to church membership. Where do you "see" this in scripture? Membership is not even mentioned in scripture...

It is interesting that most of Christendom either:

- improperly links baptism to salvation (Catholics, Orthodox, Church of Christ, Oneness Pentecostals, some Brethren, possibly the Finny Kuravilla church in Boston)
- improperly says the mode is very important - must be fully immersed (Church of Christ, Baptists, Brethren, many others)
- improperly says the formula spoken is of utmost importance (Catholics, Orthodox, Oneness Pentecostals in particular)
- improperly says baptism is an independent act that doesn’t have anything to do with church membership (Baptists, most evangelicals)

I guess you haven't been reading in this thread much. All of your statements have been refuted by scripture and ancient practices "from the beginning". Please read my post earlier in reference to the origins of immersion. BTW, It is Peter who links immersion to salvation directly, on the day of Pentecost. There is no such thing as "mode". That is a misnomer. The closest thing to it are the exceptions allowed in the Didache.

The Bible talks a lot about members of the body. That’s where the term membership even comes from.

The Bible also talks about excommunication. If one can be excommunicated, one has to be a member first.

As far as the propaganda about full immersion being required for salvation (the heresy taught by Church of Christ, Oneness Pentecostals, Eastern Orthodox and some Brethren), it is part and parcel the same heresy as that baptism by a bishop from a particular organisation is required (such as
Catholicism).

There is simply no historical, intellectual, biblical, or spiritual basis for these beliefs; they are all perversions of what the Bible says salvation and baptism are: baptism is an outward sign of an inward cleansing.Where does scripture say this?

Of note is the deceit of the modern day era - that baptism is important but church membership isn’t. Your understanding of "membership" is not the same as mine. Membership in the Body of Christ is different than signing on a dotted line of paper. Membership as scripture sees it is the automatic condition of one who has been born again. I agree, btw, that there is no requirement given for who may do the immersing of a new convert, nor is there a reason to believe that it is necessary for anyone to pour, sprinkle or dip the newborn believer. Again, I suggest you read my lengthy post on the origins of immersion/baptism. "Baptism" is a transliteration of the word to dip, immerse, whelm, etc.
I have seen lots of your opinions and statements, but not even one scripture to backup what you are saying. It is all just your opinion.

[mennonitemom1]

Brethren, Baptists, Churches of Christ and others talk a lot about the importance of immersion baptism. (The older Brethren folks like to talk about their full commitment, baptism being always in season, the blessing of God, etc. in breaking ice to get baptized.)
None of these groups seem to think much of the flexibility or the directives given in the Didache. "“And concerning baptism, 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.

When I go online, one of the definitions for immersion is:
"baptism by immersing a person bodily (but not necessarily completely) in water."

I contend that what the Brethren and Baptists really mean is "submersion", but they use the word "immersion" instead. I've seen videos and written statements explaining that the body needs to be fully under the water and that it needs to be redone if some part of the body doesn't go under the surface of the water.

So I am wondering if the immersionists on MN are submersionists or whether it is not important to you that all the body goes under the water.

Also wondering if you would acknowledge an "immersion by pouring" baptism (lots of water all over the person) as being legitimate, or whether the act of dunking in the water or under the surface of the water is what makes it legitimate.

Good post!
I’ve been immersersed into a baptismal and also the didache style….

[Ernie]

Brethren, Baptists, Churches of Christ and others talk a lot about the importance of immersion baptism. (The older Brethren folks like to talk about their full commitment, baptism being always in season, the blessing of God, etc. in breaking ice to get baptized.)
None of these groups seem to think much of the flexibility or the directives given in the Didache. "“And concerning baptism, 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.

When I go online, one of the definitions for immersion is:
"baptism by immersing a person bodily (but not necessarily completely) in water."

I contend that what the Brethren and Baptists really mean is "submersion", but they use the word "immersion" instead. I've seen videos and written statements explaining that the body needs to be fully under the water and that it needs to be redone if some part of the body doesn't go under the surface of the water.

So I am wondering if the immersionists on MN are submersionists or whether it is not important to you that all the body goes under the water.

Also wondering if you would acknowledge an "immersion by pouring" baptism (lots of water all over the person) as being legitimate, or whether the act of dunking in the water or under the surface of the water is what makes it legitimate.

Good post!
I’ve been immersersed into a baptismal and also the didache style….

Which one in the didache?

[Heirbyadoption]

It seemed prudent to stay out of this conversation, being a "pro-immersionist" on a "Mennonite" site. Having said that, I'm not personally opposed to accepting as a brother or sister someone who recieved baptism in good conscience by another "mode", any more than I would deny the faith of someone simply on the basis that they have been taught to view literal practices taught in Scripture (such as literal footwashing, or gender-specific headcovering/uncovering in 1 Cor 11) as no longer being relevant in their originally delivered forms. I DO personally find the practice of immersion (which some here refer to as "submersion") to be most compelling as the originally intended NT practice, and I would freely encourage it if it is available, but considering these differences of opinions and received teachings among us, are such things worth engaging in for the sake of getting a clearer picture of what the Word calls us to, though? Sure, same as this discussion, and in that vein, I do have a couple questions.

1. I wonder if somebody here can actually speak authoritatively to the question of whether the Jewish mikvah was intended for full immersion (alternatively suggested here as "submersion" since immersion now encompasses partial submersion by some definitions...)? As I understand it from the Jewish individuals I have spoken with and resources I find online, mikvot tend be chest deep and there is an expectation of full immersion (in keeping with the principle of cleansing), making sure every hair is wet, etc... Is this a misunderstanding on my part? Or is the implication (or even expected practice) in that context generally "full immersion?"

2. As for "submersion baptism" not existing until fairly recently, I, too, would be very interested to hear a definition and/source for the idea of "not until fairly recently"... The fact that it has stood out in recent decades/centuries (due to its heavy emphasis by some and the insistence upon other "modes" by others) doesn't really answer the idea of it being a "fairly recent" development.