Immersion, Submersion, and Other Ways of Baptizing

[Sudsy]

Here is a link to support pouring for those interested - http://www.pilgrim-covenant.com/weekly- ... or-pouring

If it ain't headcovering wars, it's baptismal mode wars or Covid shots wars. And yet we are to be peacemakers.

[joey_the_ox]

I think most believers' baptism advocates would say that an insincere baptism or commitment to Christ is not legitmate and a person should be rebaptized if they want to follow Jesus. In this thread I am trying to learn if there are things other than insincerity or infant baptism that some churches believe deligitimizes their baptism and requires rebaptism. (I know of some churches that require a correct understanding of baptism, but I don't know of any denominations presently that require this. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.)

It is my observation that the strongest "immersionists" think a person's baptism is illigitimate and should be rebaptized if they were not immersed, trine immersed, fully submerged, baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, baptized in the name of Jesus, baptized by a particular segment of the Church, etc.

Yes, if baptism is a symbol of something that has already happened, then if that thing did not actually happen the symbol is "illegitimate" in the sense that there is nothing to symbolize. And since the symbol must come after the actual occurrence of that which is symbolized (presumably), this would then logically require rebaptism.

But I'm not sure how a baptism could otherwise be illegitimate (at least in the symbolic view). Did the thing (sincere commitment to Christ) happen? If yes, then was it at a later time symbolized by something involving water and recognized as "baptism" by those present? If also yes, then I am not sure how one could argue that the thing was not actually symbolized.

On the pouring method, the 1963 confession says

Since baptism with the Holy Spirit is a pouring out, we generally practice pouring as our mode of water baptism.

This is a fairly weak rationale. One could just as easily say "Since divine cleansing from sin is a washing, we generally practice physically scrubbing with water as our mode of water baptism." Or "Since identification with Christ in His death and resurrection is like drowning and then rising, we generally practice full submersion as our mode of water baptism."

[Ken]

Much debate has been made over mode of water baptism and what part it might play in salvation.

At my baptism the bishop began his message by saying that the mode of baptism is not really important. Then he spent the next 45 minutes explaining why Mennonites pour. This meeting was fairly influential for a Baptist friend of ours who attended my baptism and was considering joining our church. She was not very impressed and I'm not sure she attended much after this.

I have never heard the rational for pouring but I will look into it. This subject reminds me somewhat of the controversy over what is a headcovering.

Here is a link below more of what I was raised to believe and the biblical support given. The conclusion was stated as ' In Conclusion, it is clear that Biblical baptism requires all the following: "water," "much water," "coming to the water," "going doing into the water," "coming up out of the water," "burial," "resurrection," and "washing the body." Most of the water baptisms when I was a youth was done in Lake Erie and sometimes it was pretty difficult to time the waves correctly. I have no issue with whether a swimming pool or sauna is used but I do think appropriate dress should be required. Getting baptised in a bikini does not seem appropriate.

https://www.mapministry.org/articles/20 ... -immersion

Personally I don’t think the gallons of water you use makes the slightest bit of difference to God.

Although the Middle East being a desert land where water was a precious commodity that was pumped and carried by hand from public wells, I doubt they wasted very much of it.

[Ernie]

Yes, if baptism is a symbol of something that has already happened, then if that thing did not actually happen the symbol is "illegitimate" in the sense that there is nothing to symbolize. And since the symbol must come after the actual occurrence of that which is symbolized (presumably), this would then logically require rebaptism.

Yes, I agree.

But I'm not sure how a baptism could otherwise be illegitimate (at least in the symbolic view). Did the thing (sincere commitment to Christ) happen? If yes, then was it at a later time symbolized by something involving water and recognized as "baptism" by those present? If also yes, then I am not sure how one could argue that the thing was not actually symbolized.

I think I get what you are saying but I am not getting the conclusion or the point. Can you explain further or do a contrast for us?

[Neto]

The etymological meaning of the Greek word does fairly clearly allow for only one form - that of full immersion.

Could the word submersion be used in place of full immersion.

also think that it is easier to understand some spiritual meaning with the starting point being "washing" than it is for someone to make the mental leap to a figure of death & resurrection. Also, there are texts which speak of "sprinkling by His blood", which clearly connect to the OT ceremony through which not only people, but the utensils of sacrifice & worship were consecrated - made holy toward God.

Which texts? Is sprinkling ever likened to baptism in the NT?

First, I think that there is more than one meaning behind the symbol or event of baptism. I am not saying that it is not (also) about death and resurrection, as it commonly maintained by immersionists.

Now for the symbolism of sprinkling, it is in a sense stepping farther back, from the symbol to the meaning behind the symbol.

Some passages where I see a possible connection to baptism:
I Peter 1:2
Heb 9:13-14 & ff
Heb. 10:22 "hearts sprinkled - bodies washed"
Heb 12:24

The concept of baptism is then a bit different than it is for the strict immersionist. It is a subtle switch from a "testimony" and recognition of death & resurrection to a consecration, and a symbol of having been sanctified (as were not only the articles of sacrifice in the temple, but the "people of God in the OT experience).

Note also Titus 3:5 "washing and renewal by the Holy Spirit"

I confined my search to the NT (because that was your question), but as a biblicist, I am a "whole Scripture" believer. Jesus had a high view and respect for the Law and the Prophets, so I think we ought also to respect it, and view it's teaching through the lens of his sacrifice. Is there a difference between the Jewish Christian understanding of baptism and that of the no-Jew? Perhaps, but the "wall of separation" is broken down, the curtain of heaven is torn open, and we ought to learn from one another, and be one, as he plead with the Father for us to be, even as he and the Father are one.

[gcdonner]

If I may interject here a few observations. First, as Ernie rightly pointed out (without actually saying it) there is no such thing as "mode", since if the translators of the Bible into English and other languages had chosen to translate instead of transliterating "baptizo" we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Ernie admits that "he chose" to use the word for wash/cleanse, rather than impose a translation.

I am an immersionist by persuasion, but not just because I was taught that way, but because of something that is being totally ignored or that most people are unaware of concerning the use of immersion under the OC. So let me give a short history lesson, if I may. Are y'all aware that the Jews required full immersion for the purification before entering the temple precincts? Are you aware that full immersion was the normal practice under the OC for those who were to become proselytes?

On the day of Pentecost there were some 3000 people who responded to Peter's message and were all immersed? Remembering that the first Christians were all Jews, including the 12 disciples, how did they accomplish this HUGE feat in one day? Remember that there were 120 in the upper room? Divide 3000 by 120=25. Are you also aware that there were 120 miqvah/baptistries around the temple mount? Are you also aware that the priest did not dunk people, but they were only witnesses to the purification rite to verify that the individual carried out their required oblations?
Below is a picture of a miqvah.

ancient-jewish-mikvah.jpg (19.38 KiB) Viewed 893 times

Please note that there is evidence of a middle wall separating the steps going down and then coming up from the water. It was required that the waters be "living" or running water being fed into these ritual baths. A person would go down one set of steps, immerse themself and then step over the wall and come up the other side of the steps. BTW, under the OC, women were not included in the purification rites of temple access, hence the wall of separation between the "court of women" and the "court of Israel" in the Temple. The picture above is a mikvah from the temple mount in Jerusalem.

This is the background of "baptism"/immersion. There was no debate about modes or what is acceptable and what is not. These are all later arguments, including the imposition of being required to be baptized in the nude in the early centuries of the church once it became separated from Judaism.

Having said all this, my concern is that while we know what scripture dictates we are willing to make the exceptions the rule, like pouring or sprinkling, then find reasons to insist upon their being the "true" method of initiation into the Body of Christ. I have poured once, in a nursing home, because of necessity, but I dare say that the lady in question was well immersed after I poured 2 gallons of water over her, 3 times. Using the formula invoked by our Master. I have recently immersed in the name of Jesus (only) having until recently been attending a Oneness Pentecostal Church. When Peter commanded to be immersed in the name of Jesus, he was referring to the method/formula given by Jesus himself and was not contradicting the Saviour in any way. I will follow the teaching of the Didache, but not allow it to be used to make wholesale changes to doctrinal applications. There are always necessities that will arise, but those exceptions should never become the accepted norm.

Blessings for the New Year, y'all!

[Ernie]

I am an immersionist by persuasion, but not just because I was taught that way, but because of something that is being totally ignored or that most people are unaware of concerning the use of immersion under the OC. So let me give a short history lesson, if I may. Are y'all aware that the Jews required full immersion for the purification before entering the temple precincts? Are you aware that full immersion was the normal practice under the OC for those who were to become proselytes?

When you say that you are an immersionist, could the word submersionist also be used or are the two concepts different in your mind?
Are you using the terms "immersion" and "full immersion" interchangeably, or are you indicating a difference between the two?

[Ernie]

First, I think that there is more than one meaning behind the symbol or event of baptism. I am not saying that it is not (also) about death and resurrection, as it commonly maintained by immersionists.

Now for the symbolism of sprinkling, it is in a sense stepping farther back, from the symbol to the meaning behind the symbol.

Some passages where I see a possible connection to baptism:
I Peter 1:2
Heb 9:13-14 & ff
Heb. 10:22 "hearts sprinkled - bodies washed"
Heb 12:24

The concept of baptism is then a bit different than it is for the strict immersionist. It is a subtle switch from a "testimony" and recognition of death & resurrection to a consecration, and a symbol of having been sanctified (as were not only the articles of sacrifice in the temple, but the "people of God in the OT experience).

Note also Titus 3:5 "washing and renewal by the Holy Spirit"

Thanks Neto. This is helpful and the kind of thing I was looking for.
The scriptures do seem to often use a number of anaologies to help us see a spiritual truth. e.g. The church is likened to a bride, a building, a body, a fold. All of these help us see the spiritual reality a bit more clearer.
I think your comments above help us to see the spiritual reality of baptism more clearly as well.

[Ernie]

Personally I don’t think the gallons of water you use makes the slightest bit of difference to God. Although the Middle East being a desert land where water was a precious commodity that was pumped and carried by hand from public wells, I doubt they wasted very much of it.

I find Gcdonner's historical comments and picture of a Mikveh to be the kind of information that I could build a case on. All other suppositions are interesting, but only that. I say this because I have seen many people building doctrinal cases or trying to establish orthopraxy on an assumption and I think this is very unfortunate.

[Neto]

If I may interject here a few observations. First, as Ernie rightly pointed out (without actually saying it) there is no such thing as "mode", since if the translators of the Bible into English and other languages had chosen to translate instead of transliterating "baptizo" we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Ernie admits that "he chose" to use the word for wash/cleanse, rather than impose a translation.
....

While my legal name is Ernest, and I go by 'Ernie' in face to face relationships, I post here by my Banawa name, 'Neto', the nickname for 'Eneto', my full name in Banawa. Anyway, I suspect that George is referring to what I said, not to what the MN 'Ernie' said.

If this is so, then I must clarify that every translator or group of translators must "chose" a translation. Even a transliteration involves some choices. I could use the CHOICE about what to call any number of persons whose names appear in the Scripture as an example. 'God'. The Portuguese word is "Deus", which is the Latin word. Not being a student of Latin, I did a quick search on-line, and found the following statement:

Deus (Classical Latin: [ˈd̪e. ... us]) is the Latin word for "god" or "deity". Latin deus and dīvus ("divine") are in turn descended from Proto-Indo-European *deiwos, "celestial" or "shining", from the same root as *Dyēus, the reconstructed chief god of the Proto-Indo-European pantheon.

In the OT the true God is sometimes referred to as Ba'El, elsewhere rendered as Baal (but probably God's personal name is used more than any other designation - I haven't done a count). I could have used the Banawa word for the closest thing to a supreme being, Doni, but it comes with a lot of 'baggage'. (I suppose that is so in every case, so I may have made the wrong choice.) Before I started any telling of the Gospel, I asked around, Who made everything? That didn't get very far at all. (Because they have no 'creation story' they have people as just already being there, and all animal coming from people to animals through a process of 'moral degeneration'.) But when "the Evil one" came up, they instantly knew who it was: Doni Erebo - "the bad spirit". (But here I had to make a choice as well, How do I translate the Banawa word concept into English, for the non-Banawa speakers here on this forum?) OK, so I chose to transliterate the Portuguese word "Deus". But Banawa has no closed syllables (that is, no syllable final consonants), so it became Deoso, pronounced deusu. Jesus. Do I translate the name, since it actually has a meaning behind it, or rather behind the Hebrew form of the name, or do I transliterate? OK, transliterate - because the translation would be very long, because another closely related language translator has already made that choice, it is the choice of Portuguese, English, etc. So do I transliterate based on the written form in Portuguese, or on the spoken form? If the latter (since the Banawa is an oral society, this makes the most sense), then based on which dialect of Brazilian Portuguese? Some dialects pronounce "Jesus' as dzezus, others as dzezuis. Then there is the 'problem' that Banawa also has no consonant clusters, so 'dz' is out. This consonant cluster in Portuguese words sometimes comes out as a 'j' sound, so 'Jesus' becomes jesu, written as 'Yeso'. (There is no 'j' in the Banawa alphabet because we were 'required' to follow the orthography of the related language already being written, where the dominant pronunciation of the j to y sound is y.) In another related language, where the translation was started after Banawa, the translator chose to follow another sound transfer path, and came up with Sesowi (which is actually closer to the local Brazilian Portuguese dialect in some ways, and the dz sound DOES sometimes transfer into Banawa as an s sound, sometimes as a j sound).

Back to 'baptize'. I do not know of any major language translation where the Greek word was not simply transliterated. I could suggest that the reason behind this was confusion about the correct meaning correspondence, but I haven't done a study about this. The problem with transliteration is that you start with zero meaning. (This is also an advantage, because there are no preconceived notions of what the new word means. But then on the other hand, the translator has no way of knowing what the perceived meaning will end up being; It will be supplied from some source or another.) Had I made the choice to transliterate it, it would have come out something like 'batisa', and at least initially the meaning would have been supplied from the people's only frame of reference, which was Catholic baptism. (A priest was carried over the trails into the Banawa village after outside contact was made, several decades before we arrived there for the first time. He had all of the people form a circle, and he 'baptized' all of them, and gave them all "Christian names".) So I CHOSE to translate it. If I had chosen the Banawa word that is closest to immerse (not submerse), I would have a real problem, because the range of meaning for that word (kaboka) includes as it’s most frequent meaning ‘to drown’. Also, the objective of the translator is to chose the meaning of the act, not the mechanics of it. So that’s why I chose ‘wash’.

Perhaps I haven’t made clear my main point here – A translator has no CHOICE but to CHOSE, weighing once choice against the other.