After having the HS change my entire life, getting dunked in a pool & having water go up my nose didnt do it for me. I was already a new man so a tub of water seemed anti climatic...sorry.
But the "symbol" should be identifying with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, hence immersion. Without the symbol of immersion there is no identifying with the death, burial or resurrection. (Romans 6:4) Simply placing water on the head in any fashion has no value or symbolism.
I agree with this.
In most cases, we can do full immersion even with someone in a wheelchair (Call your local VA Hospital to see if they have a pool with handicapped equipment - or else a retirement home.
Oftentimes they do and we've used them with great success for the handicapped.)
However, there WOULD be times that immersion was not possible and in that case we'd probably not do anything unless the person requested it.
Then we would figure out something.
:)
Yep, that's it.
It is a symbol, but it ought to be the correct symbol--sprinkling does not give an accurate picture of death, burial and resurrection.
I guess that's technically correct. As an autonomous congregation, you can call sprinkling immersion and make it stick.
But my autonomous congregation would not knowingly accept a sprinkled believer as a member.
Boy, am I glad, too, because on a rare occasion I have been wr.....wro....wrrrro.
I'm glad I can appeal to the final authority, the Scriptures.
Even those denominations which sprinkle agree that the Greek, baptizo, is properly translated dip, plunge, immerse.
And most of them will immerse a new convert if requested.
Now, Brother Sag, maybe you can explain how my appeal to scripture
for my view is pharisee-like.
Unless, of course, you weren't referring to me, then, never mind.
Yes Tom, I was referring to you. You scriptural appeal is not valid. But, thanks for interjecting your opinion and negating a legitimate alternative in the case of a woman that I could not immerse but still wanted to follow the command of Christ as closely as she could.
I guess that's technically correct. As an autonomous congregation, you can call sprinkling immersion and make it stick. But my autonomous congregation would not knowingly accept a sprinkled believer as a member.
In 99% of the cases I would agree with you. My church only accepts baptism by immersion. In fact, we require those coming to join our church from other denominations or churches with significant doctrinal differences to submit to believer's baptisms as a demonstration of their having become Baptist. But, in the case of the senior saint who could not be immersed we made an exception.
Play this out for me Sag. I'm a committed reformed believer & I was baptized in a pool by a Congregational Pastor. Does your church necessitate that I be re-dunked?
I'm not familiar with a congregational church. But, if there are significant differences then we might ask that you identify with us by being baptized not as a sign of salvation but as a sign that you are now a Baptist of like faith and mind. There are lots of SBC churches and Independent churches that have this requirement for membership.
I understand and sympathize with your desire.
But following Christ's command closely as possible is not quite following it exactly.
Earlier, I said: I guess that's technically correct. As an autonomous congregation, you can call sprinkling immersion and make it stick. But my autonomous congregation would not knowingly accept a sprinkled believer as a member.
I appreciate your church's position.
But the exception you made is an admission that it's not actually baptism.
An act of kindness, certainly.
But not baptism.
What if we used an empty baptistry and just went through the dunking motions? Would it still symbolize death, burial and resurrection? Like in the desert of sand and no water!
Here, we are definitely on the same side.
Jesus could have gotten anybody to baptize him, but he traveled a long way to submit to baptism by the proper administrator.