Immersion, Submersion, and Other Ways of Baptizing

[Neto]

Here's the short version: (Is it possible for Neto to do anything briefly?! )

Translation involves choices.
Translation or transliteration?
If transliteration, based on the source language, or the majority language Scripture (usually the national language)?
If the majority language, which dialect and/or which Scripture translation?
If translation (meaning based), then the etymological meaning or the source language 'street' meaning?

[Sudsy]

Neto posted -

First, I think that there is more than one meaning behind the symbol or event of baptism.

I tend to agree as I also think there is more than one meaning behind the atonement. For examples here are 7 -

1 - The Moral Influence theory (Augustine)
2- The Ransom theory (Origen)
3 - The Christus Victor theory (emphasized by most Anabaptists)
4 - The Satisfaction theory (Anselm)
5 - The Penal Substitution theory (Calvin, Luther)
6 - The Governmental theory
7 - The Scapegoat theory

These are explained further here. I am just agreeing with Neto in this quote and further believe this applies also to the atonement. YMMV.

https://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-o ... ummarized/

The truth I believe is behind these is through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, God is reconciling the world to himself, and us to one another. Again YMMV.

Back to water baptism. If the mode seems important than get immersed, submersed, sprinkled, dunked, poured on, and by yourself, someone else, before others or alone and in Jesus name or in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost then you're 'safe'.

One story before I go for my daily drive in the countryside with my wife, sharing our spiritual learnings. A lady in our MB church was baptised by immersion as a teen and later strayed away from 'following Jesus'. When she returned to following Jesus she wanted to be baptised again as she said the first immersion just got her wet as she had not first been born again. Our pastor at that time was reluctant to do the baptism but did allow her brother, a church elder, to do the baptism. I thought that was interesting back then but today being re-baptised is not an issue for me as I don't see it being a practise that can't be repeated. 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.

Anyway, off to enjoy our drive and coffee.

[Ernie]

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?

[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?

Looking at the difference between the two word, only if the baptismal candidate submerged themselves w/o any other agent/actor involved. That is, the MB method is immersion, not submersion, because the pastor leans the candidate backwards, controlling the completion of the act.

[gcdonner]

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.

I guess I would have made the choice to translate it as "to drown" which would fit nicely with other doctrinal applications of dying to self, "reckoning ourselves dead unto sin" (Rms 6:11)
However, if you read my whole dissertation, the concept of immersion is not based entirely or even initially on etymology, but practical precedence.

I do appreciate your dilemma in translating from one language to another. Even PA Dutch struggles with that concept.

[gcdonner]

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?

Looking at the difference between the two word, only if the baptismal candidate submerged themselves w/o any other agent/actor involved. That is, the MB method is immersion, not submersion, because the pastor leans the candidate backwards, controlling the completion of the act.

Which is historically inaccurate, if we go back to the origins of immersion/purification rites of the Jews, who are the progenitors of our faith.

[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.

[Neto]

Neto posted -

First, I think that there is more than one meaning behind the symbol or event of baptism.

I tend to agree as I also think there is more than one meaning behind the atonement. For examples here are 7 -

1 - The Moral Influence theory (Augustine)
2- The Ransom theory (Origen)
3 - The Christus Victor theory (emphasized by most Anabaptists)
4 - The Satisfaction theory (Anselm)
5 - The Penal Substitution theory (Calvin, Luther)
6 - The Governmental theory
7 - The Scapegoat theory

These are explained further here. I am just agreeing with Neto in this quote and further believe this applies also to the atonement. YMMV.

https://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-o ... ummarized/

The truth I believe is behind these is through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, God is reconciling the world to himself, and us to one another. Again YMMV.

Back to water baptism. If the mode seems important than get immersed, submersed, sprinkled, dunked, poured on, and by yourself, someone else, before others or alone and in Jesus name or in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost then you're 'safe'.

One story before I go for my daily drive in the countryside with my wife, sharing our spiritual learnings. A lady in our MB church was baptised by immersion as a teen and later strayed away from 'following Jesus'. When she returned to following Jesus she wanted to be baptised again as she said the first immersion just got her wet as she had not first been born again. Our pastor at that time was reluctant to do the baptism but did allow her brother, a church elder, to do the baptism. I thought that was interesting back then but today being re-baptised is not an issue for me as I don't see it being a practise that can't be repeated. 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.

Anyway, off to enjoy our drive and coffee.

Somewhat off topic here, but I think that your comparison of baptism and the doctrine of the atonement is revealing in another way, with some clarifying effect regarding how I personally see baptism. These different theories of the atonement all deal with the how - the mechanics of it. But my impression is, that while the proponents of these different theories do not always mention God's PURPOSE in the atonement, I suspect that they very likely all agree that God's purpose is reconciliation. So why do we talk so much about the method by which we think he brought this about, the mechanics, and miss the opportunity to glory in God's purpose, which was so completely accomplished in it?
Now, looking at baptism, discussions or arguments about the mode used to accomplish obedience to the command to be baptized are all also about the mechanics. And I dare say that we all agree on the purpose of it, at least to a greater degree than in respect to the mode, the how it's done part.

[Sudsy]

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 ?

[Neto]

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.

I guess I would have made the choice to translate it as "to drown" which would fit nicely with other doctrinal applications of dying to self, "reckoning ourselves dead unto sin" (Rms 6:11)
However, if you read my whole dissertation, the concept of immersion is not based entirely or even initially on etymology, but practical precedence.

I do appreciate your dilemma in translating from one language to another. Even PA Dutch struggles with that concept.

I have read various commentators who feel that Jesus (in the words Ernie is using here) "submerged" himself, since we have John's refusal (at least initially) to baptize Jesus, knowing that he was unworthy to baptize the Lamb of God, the One is was before all times. Again, we also do not know that John "put people under", or even that he had his hands on them, gently pushing them down (assuming immersion). Maybe he just stood there in the water, while people came out to him, and "submerged" themselves. Possible.

Regarding the Banawa word 'kaboka', in order to not say that the person actually drowned (to the death) a suffix (-na) would need to be added at the end of the verb (after all other suffixes) which basically means 'almost'. Otherwise, the pastor would be saying "I kill you by drowning."
It always struck us as a bit like "linguistic trickery" when someone would run up to our house shouting "A snake bit so-and-so -na." It always seemed like they purposely left a pause between the statement and the '-na' almost suffix at the end, but I suppose it was just that the first part registered fully before we heard the '-na' at the very end. (Snake bites were very serious, sometimes ending in a slow and painful death.) Anyway, it seemed to us that adding the 'almost' would sort of contradict the meaning we wanted to convey.
[Actually, as a Wycliffe missionary, I was not allowed to perform the baptisms there. A Brazilian missionary (with another mission) did it, and either spoke in Portuguese or used a transliterated Portuguese derivation in what he said (I cannot remember now if he spoke in Banawa for that ceremony, or if he used Portuguese), but he also had me stand in the water & recite a statement I had written out in Banawa, and I used the word for 'cleanse', or 'wash', as it was in the Banawa Scripture, which had been fully vetted by WBT translation consultants.]