Is Immersion required by Scripture when a baptism is performed?

[fastfredy0]

BIBLE [Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth]

LOL ... good one .. never heard it before .. original?

I will let you decide for yourself whether or not the Pickle Recipe has any relevance ... it did to me.

Ah, the "pickle" doctrine.

 

[atpollard]

LOL ... good one .. never heard it before .. original?

No, probably a very old one. My wife was practically raised in the church services and she taught it to me from her Children's Sunday School days.

Ah, the "pickle" doctrine.

Yup ... diping just washes the outside, immersion permanently transforms the inside.

Go Baptists! ​

 

[Red Baker]

Is immersion required?​

If you want to follow the scriptures, it is the only water baptism recorded for us in the scriptures.

Proper Mode​

Baptism is an immersion of the subject completely under water. This is done to represent (show a likeness or figure of) the burial and resurrection of Christ, which put away our sins. As everyone knows, a thing is neither buried nor planted with only a sprinkling. Baptism to be scriptural must provide a figure of the resurrection of Christ, which is only done by immersion.

I understand that some great men in the past who taught only sprinkling as a mode, yet great men are not always wise and right.

Job 32:8-10~"But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment. Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I also will shew mine opinion."

I ask: how was Christ baptized? by immersion, without a question. How did Philip baptized the eunuch? They BOTH went DOWN INTO THE water. Acts 8

In water baptism, believers are baptized into Jesus' death and are raised in the LIKENESS of his resurrection, only immersion can show forth this truth. Romans 6

Here is a perfect scriptures to consider: 1st Corinthians 15:29~"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

In water baptism we are confessing to all that see us being baptized that we believe in a future bodily resurrection~or else why even be baptized if we do not believe that we will rise again? But we DO believe we will, thereby, we are baptized in water, we go down into the water and rise, testifying that we DO believe in a future resurrection. Some at Corinth were denying that there was any bodily resurrection, so Paul ask them ELSE what shall they do which ARE BAPTIZED for the dead, if the dead rise not at all.

Those who believe in sprinkling cannot interpret this verse properly~because their baptism does not show a future resurrection doctrine in sprinkling their converts..impossible.

 

[Jude24]

I ask: how was Christ baptized? by immersion, without a question. How did Philip baptized the eunuch? They BOTH went DOWN INTO THE water. Acts 8

How is it without question? This needs to be exegeted. Believers who state that baptism may be by pouring or sprinkling see nothing in the baptism of Jesus that must be interpreted as immersion without question. In fact, quite the opposite (see my length post near the beginning of this thread).

Also, if, as you say, both went down into the water and immersion is required, then Philip as well as the eunuch must have both been immersed. If going down into the water equals immersion, then both the baptized and the baptized must be immersed.

 

[atpollard]

How is it without question? This needs to be exegeted. Believers who state that baptism may be by pouring or sprinkling see nothing in the baptism of Jesus that must be interpreted as immersion without question. In fact, quite the opposite (see my length post near the beginning of this thread).

Also, if, as you say, both went down into the water and immersion is required, then Philip as well as the eunuch must have both been immersed. If going down into the water equals immersion, then both the baptized and the baptized must be immersed.

I agree "without a question" is a little stronger than I would have worded it, but sprinkling does not require two people climbing into a river or body of water ... it only requires dipping a cup or pouring from your flask. The Locations and circumstances of recorded baptisms (the few with any details) all suggest large quantities of water ... like immersion would require and sprinkling would not.

However the word (baptizo) means "to plunge under" [like a sinking ship or washing a dish] and is not the Greek word for "sprinkle", so the Bible LITERALLY tells you they were immersed.

 

[Jude24]

I agree "without a question" is a little stronger than I would have worded it, but sprinkling does not require two people climbing into a river or body of water ... it only requires dipping a cup or pouring from your flask. The Locations and circumstances of recorded baptisms (the few with any details) all suggest large quantities of water ... like immersion would require and sprinkling would not.

However the word (baptizo) means "to plunge under" [like a sinking ship or washing a dish] and is not the Greek word for "sprinkle", so the Bible LITERALLY tells you they were immersed.

Baptism is a transliteration. This means we took the Greek word and used it without actually translating. So baptizo means “baptize”. Not immerse. This is a common baptist talking point but it’s simply not true.

As for both being in the water, this was a common practice. Both were standing in the water to waist or knee level and water was scooped and poured onto the head. This is attested to by art of baptism and historical tradition. Whether or not you believe it was done this way in scripture, there is clear evidence that it was performed that way and it was not an abnormal practice.

 

[atpollard]

Baptism is a transliteration. This means we took the Greek word and used it without actually translating. So baptizo means “baptize”. Not immerse. This is a common baptist talking point but it’s simply not true.

Go get a Greek Lexicon and just test the definition of the Greek work "baptizo". It means to cover with water. When used to describe a sinking ship, the Greeks say "baptizo". When used to describe washing a dish, the Greek say "baptizo". When used to describe dipping a cucumber in hot water for an instant, the Greek say "bapto", but when they soak that cucumber in vinegar to change it into a pickle, they say "baptizo". When circumstances are threatening to overwhelm you, like being over your head in trouble, the Greek say "baptizo".

Every place in the bible transliterated "baptize" in English is a form of the Greek word "baptizo".

So what does the Greek word "baptizo" actually mean? No smoke and mirrors about "transliteration" ... what does the original word in the original language mean [ancient Greek]?

As for both being in the water, this was a common practice. Both were standing in the water to waist or knee level and water was scooped and poured onto the head. This is attested to by art of baptism and historical tradition. Whether or not you believe it was done this way in scripture, there is clear evidence that it was performed that way and it was not an abnormal practice.

Respectfully, that artwork is from two or three centuries later when the same church was amok with heresies and pagan influences. There is a reason that Rome venerates its traditions and Protestants reset the clock to what the actual APOSTLES wrote. I am simply stating that we will both be best served by agreeing to disagree on the value of post-Apostolic tradition.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Is immersion required when Baptism is performed? can you back your belief with scripture?

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matt 28.

One of the not-so-great things about the KJB is that in several places it chooses to transliterate certain words instead of translating them. Baptism is one of those words.

Had the Greek word Baptizo been translated, immersion would NOT have been the correct translation. The Greek word Bapto means immerse. But Baptizo is more emphatic - it means sunk, drowned, or (my personal favorite) pickled.

Doctrinally, what this means to me is that what's important is not the extent to which the body gets wet or the method thereof. What is important is that the old man thoroughly drowns. The new man is just that - a new creation. You might even say he was born again.

-Jarrod

 

[Red Baker]

How is it without question?

Why you asked? Because the word of God declares it to be so. Matthew 4:16~"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:" THe Spirit of God's testimony is: "And Jesus, when he was baptized, WENT UP straightway out of the water...he was buried, to picture his death and he went straightway UP OUT OF THE WATER to picture his resurrection! The religion of Jesus Christ stands or falls on the blessed truth that he arose from the dead. Sprinkling is a mockery of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his religion that testifies of this truth. I do not care if great men in the past have taught this, it does not make it true, they were influenced by the mother of harlots.

This needs to be exegeted.

I just did, your method is eisegesis, to support your biased opinion. It is impossible to get sprinkling support from the scriptures, and call it water baptism~it is a RCC/EOC heresy.

Believers who state that baptism may be by pouring or sprinkling see nothing in the baptism of Jesus that must be interpreted as immersion without question.

Just because some believers do not see this truth, does not mean that it is not the truth. It truly amazes me that they do not see it, but, I will not judge their love for God and his word on not seeing this truth, but, before God, it leaves me asking how can they not see it? There is not even a hint of pouring, sprinkling in the scriptures, being called baptism.

(see my length post near the beginning of this thread).

I have not, but will when finished with answering this post.

Also, if, as you say, both went down into the water and immersion is required, then Philip as well as the eunuch must have both been immersed. If going down into the water equals immersion, then both the baptized and the baptized must be immersed.

Is this the best you can offer as a rebuttal? Those who baptise converts have to get into the water, but only ONE goes under and come up again to picture some biblical truths stated in the scriptures. One I mentioned in my post which you never attempted to prove wrong. 1st Corinthians 15:29 Folks who believe in pouring or sprinkling would have a hard time answering the the Mormons missionaries knocking on their door and asking them if they have been baptized for the dead? But, those who believe in immersion should have no problem sending them on their way with a true bible answer to their question.

 

[GeneZ]

One assumed position comes from this verse....

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom ​

of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit." John 3:5​

Water baptism is never a birth.
Jesus was speaking of two types of birth.

When we are born physically?
Our mother broke water.
Hence, "born of water."

Then the second birth?
This is spiritual. Born of the Spirit."

Hence... we must be "born again."

Born twice!

grace and peace .....................

 

[Red Baker]

One assumed position comes from this verse....

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom ​

of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit." John 3:5​

Water baptism is never a birth.
Jesus was speaking of two types of birth.

When we are born physically?
Our mother broke water.
Hence, "born of water."

Then the second birth?
This is spiritual. Born of the Spirit."

Hence... we must be "born again."

Born twice!

grace and peace .....................

Agreed, on both accounts~water baptism is not the new birth, and in John 3:5, the water there has reference to our natural birth. If Nicodemus had not asked the question that he did, then Jesus would have never mentioned water. When explaining the new birth, 6-8, water is not mentioned again.

GeneZ, what part of Georgia do you live in? I'm only fifty miles from the Georgia border, plus my daughter and her family lives in Milton, and a grandson is living in Augusta where his wife attends the Medical University of Georgia, they both finished at Georgia Tech a couple of years ago. I have eighteen grandchildren ~ he's number three.

 

[Red Baker]

How is it without question? This needs to be exegeted. Believers who state that baptism may be by pouring or sprinkling see nothing in the baptism of Jesus that must be interpreted as immersion without question. In fact, quite the opposite (see my length post near the beginning of this thread).

Also, if, as you say, both went down into the water and immersion is required, then Philip as well as the eunuch must have both been immersed. If going down into the water equals immersion, then both the baptized and the baptized must be immersed.

 

[Red Baker]

In fact, quite the opposite (see my length post near the beginning of this thread).

Sir, I have read you post, would you like to hear my opinion of your post, for I do have one?

 

[GeneZ]

Agreed, on both accounts~water baptism is not the new birth, and in John 3:5, the water there has reference to our natural birth. If Nicodemus had not asked the question that he did, then Jesus would have never mentioned water. When explaining the new birth, 6-8, water is not mentioned again.

GeneZ, what part of Georgia do you live in? I'm only fifty miles from the Georgia border, plus my daughter and her family lives in Milton, and a grandson is living in Augusta where his wife attends the Medical University of Georgia, they both finished at Georgia Tech a couple of years ago. I have eighteen grandchildren ~ he's number three.

I'm NW of Atlanta.
God blessed this Yankee and got me down here some 20 odd years ago.

First and last time I was in Augusta was 1970 - Fort Gordon.

Great family you got there!

As for me?
I've been a bachelor under orders from the Lord.

grace and peace ..............

 

[GeneZ]

Many assume water baptism is for the Church today.

That is because we have failed to recognize that in the very beginning people like Peter
were transitioning out from the old way of thinking into a new way that he was discovering for the first time.

Here is the key as to why Peter kept water baptizing.

Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining ​

and baptizing more disciples than John— although in fact it was not ​

Jesus who baptized, but his disciples." John 4:1-2​

Before Jesus went to the Cross his disciples like Peter were baptizing people in very large numbers.
It became the expected way to do things for them. Jesus disciples were baptizing more than even
John and his disciples had been doing.

When the Church age burst upon the scene at Pentecost there was a tremendous amount of excitement
and distractions going on. They kept Peter in a spin.

Peter had been told earlier by Jesus that water baptism was to be replaced with Spirit baptism.
But, it took impulsive Peter a bit a time to stabilize in his thinking, as found later in Acts 11 when
Peter finally recals the words of Jesus said shortly before Pentecost burst on the scene.

Here is what Peter and the others were told before Pentecost:

On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: ​

​

“Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have ​

heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will ​

be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 1:4-5​

The disciples had been told that water baptism was to be replaced with Spirit baptism! But?

Peter was so overwhelmed with all the excitement and amazement that he totally forgot what Jesus had told him.
So, when Peter who who had routinely water baptized large numbers of people began his ministry, he without
thinking, kept on water baptizing in spite of the fact people were being Spirit baptized in amazing numbers.

When did Peter snap out of it?

It took till Acts 11 when Peter finally began to focus on the new way in Christ!

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. ​

Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be​

baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ Acts 11:15-16​

We see no more water baptisms from Peter then on..

grace and peace ................

 

[Carbon]

Many assume water baptism is for the Church today.

That is because we have failed to recognize that in the very beginning people like Peter
were transitioning out from the old way of thinking into a new way that he was discovering for the first time.

Here is the key as to why Peter kept water baptizing.

Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining ​

and baptizing more disciples than John— although in fact it was not ​

Jesus who baptized, but his disciples." John 4:1-2​

Before Jesus went to the Cross his disciples like Peter were baptizing people in very large numbers.
It became the expected way to do things for them. Jesus disciples were baptizing more than even
John and his disciples had been doing.

When the Church age burst upon the scene at Pentecost there was a tremendous amount of excitement
and distractions going on. They kept Peter in a spin.

Peter had been told earlier by Jesus that water baptism was to be replaced with Spirit baptism.
But, it took impulsive Peter a bit a time to stabilize in his thinking, as found later in Acts 11 when
Peter finally recals the words of Jesus said shortly before Pentecost burst on the scene.

Here is what Peter and the others were told before Pentecost:

On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: ​

​

“Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have ​

heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will ​

be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 1:4-5​

The disciples had been told that water baptism was to be replaced with Spirit baptism! But?

Peter was so overwhelmed with all the excitement and amazement that he totally forgot what Jesus had told him.
So, when Peter who who had routinely water baptized large numbers of people began his ministry, he without
thinking, kept on water baptizing in spite of the fact people were being Spirit baptized in amazing numbers.

When did Peter snap out of it?

It took till Acts 11 when Peter finally began to focus on the new way in Christ!

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. ​

Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be​

baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ Acts 11:15-16​

We see no more water baptisms from Peter then on..

grace and peace ................

There were many places in the ancient world where fresh water was hard to come by. It isn’t like it is today where we have easy access to water just about everywhere. The early church practiced not only emersion but, pouring and sprinkling as well.
In those places where fresh water was hard to come by I doubt they would emerse

 

[GeneZ]

There were many places in the ancient world where fresh water was hard to come by. It isn’t like it is today where we have easy access to water just about everywhere. The early church practiced not only emersion but, pouring and sprinkling as well.
In those places where fresh water was hard to come by I doubt they would emerse

Did you read what I said?

 

[Carbon]

Did you read what I said?

I don’t believe water baptism was replaced. We have two sacraments. The Lords supper and (water) baptism

 

[Arial]

Just because some believers do not see this truth, does not mean that it is not the truth. It truly amazes me that they do not see it, but, I will not judge their love for God and his word on not seeing this truth, but, before God, it leaves me asking how can they not see it? There is not even a hint of pouring, sprinkling in the scriptures, being called baptism.

2 Tim 2:14-17 Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.

And here we are, quarrelling about words, while the whole purpose of baptism and what baptism is, is lost. Water baptism, whatever form it takes, does not save. It is a covenant sign of having come into the covenant through identification/union with Christ through faith in His person and work. It is an outward sign of what took place---our immersion into Christ, and a member of the household of God.

So whatever the outward form takes it still represents the same thing. Some people come to Christ at an age or in a physical condition that would prohibit full out immersion in a body of water.

 

[Rella]

If you want to follow the scriptures, it is the only water baptism recorded for us in the scriptures.

Proper Mode​

Baptism is an immersion of the subject completely under water. This is done to represent (show a likeness or figure of) the burial and resurrection of Christ, which put away our sins. As everyone knows, a thing is neither buried nor planted with only a sprinkling. Baptism to be scriptural must provide a figure of the resurrection of Christ, which is only done by immersion.

I understand that some great men in the past who taught only sprinkling as a mode, yet great men are not always wise and right.

Job 32:8-10~"But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment. Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I also will shew mine opinion."

I ask: how was Christ baptized? by immersion, without a question. How did Philip baptized the eunuch? They BOTH went DOWN INTO THE water. Acts 8

In water baptism, believers are baptized into Jesus' death and are raised in the LIKENESS of his resurrection, only immersion can show forth this truth. Romans 6

Here is a perfect scriptures to consider: 1st Corinthians 15:29~"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

In water baptism we are confessing to all that see us being baptized that we believe in a future bodily resurrection~or else why even be baptized if we do not believe that we will rise again? But we DO believe we will, thereby, we are baptized in water, we go down into the water and rise, testifying that we DO believe in a future resurrection. Some at Corinth were denying that there was any bodily resurrection, so Paul ask them ELSE what shall they do which ARE BAPTIZED for the dead, if the dead rise not at all.

Those who believe in sprinkling cannot interpret this verse properly~because their baptism does not show a future resurrection doctrine in sprinkling their converts..impossible.

Red,

Do you have an opinion on what the little baptismal font within the larger one at the Church of the Nativity was used for? see reply #19.

You say...."

In water baptism we are confessing to all that see us being baptized that we believe in a future bodily resurrection

Ummmm~ I dont think the Eunuch had much of an audience.....

But when I was baptised as a baby... I had the entire congregation witnessing that.

Got Questions says this:

Jul 31, 2023And baptism by immersion clearly shows one's identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (see Acts 2:38-41; 16:29-34; and Romans 6:3-4 ). Pouring or sprinkling, the method used in infant baptism, fails to illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

One minister explains the following as he is about to perform an infant baptism

It our great privilege this morning to administer that sacrament of baptism to one of our little infants. We do not believe that there is anything magical about the water we apply to the child. The water does not wash away original sin or save the child. We do not presume that this child is regenerate (though he may be), nor do we believe that every child who gets baptized will automatically go to heaven. We baptize infants not out of superstition or tradition or because we like cute babies. We baptize infants because they are covenant children and should receive the sign of the covenant.

What Presbyterians believe: the sacrament of baptism

Baptism is one of two sacraments practiced by Presbyterians; Communion is the other. The act of baptism is deceptively simple—but in a handful of water, there is a deep well of mystery and meaning.

www.presbyterianmission.org

Presbyterians have recognized baptism as one of two sacraments initiated by Christ in Scripture. All four Gospels report the baptism of Jesus by John in the Jordan River (Matt. 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–22; John 1:29–34). When we are baptized with water in the name of the Trinity, we share in Christ’s own baptism.

A teaching elder—a pastor—must preside at the baptism, but it is a congregation’s session (or ruling council) that authorizes baptisms and provides for the spiritual growth and nurture of members.

Presbyterians practice both adult and infant baptism. Infant baptism expresses that it is God who chooses us for faith, discipleship, and salvation; without God, we have no power to claim these things for ourselves.

Repeating, just a bit, what you have read from me ad nauseum over at the other site

It is our confirmation, within my church that is hand in glove with our baptism.

Confirmation is a reaffirmation of our baptismal vows. For those of us who are baptized as children or infants, it is our parents who initially accept the vows on our behalf. Confirmation then becomes our opportunity to personally reaffirm those baptismal vows and claim the grace offered by Christ in baptism.

I know what you shall say.... Have at it for others hear have not...