Modes of Baptism

I worked in a Methodist church for a bit as their music minister and asked their pastor one day why they sprinkle over immersion. His answer...convenience. We had a discussion on the subject and he asked what would we Baptists do if we didn't have facilities in our church. I said we'd go find a river or pond. He said what would we do if someone was in the hospital dying and wanted to be baptized. I thought about it for a second and quipped..."I'd call the local Methodist pastor!"

 

Since Baptizism isn't part of salvation and baptism is a ritual God gave the church just as the Lord's supper is then the person is no less saved if they aren't baptized.
The desire is there but the physical ability isn't so God see's the heart.
The person is still saved whether baptized or not.

 

What if my answer was "Trinitarian"?

 

I just asked who would be excluded, so why would you exclude a "Trinitarian"?
Do they immerse being a part of the RCC? The question deals with those who are truly saved and were immersed after salvation, would a Trinitarian qualify under those standards?

 

i was going to respond in like manner. When the Bible was translated into English, a few words were "transliterated" instead of translated. Had baptizo been actually translated we would never have a baptism that was not by immersion, for that is precisely how that term was used in the era of the writing of the NT.

Even the RCC, famous for taking biblical matters into their own hands due to their Sacred Tradition, admits that baptism by immersion was the biblical NT norm. They changed the "sacrament" later in history (ancient churches almost universally have a baptistry with 3 steps leading into a pool and 3 steps leading back out) for pragmatic reasons, coupled with poor biblical exegesis based largely on the false notion that the OT covenant of circumcision has bearing on the practice of baptism.

 

My bad, I would exclude any baptism that wasn't Trinitarian.

 

One can make the case for alternative forms of baptism from the records of the earliest church, but those alternative forms were always caused by some necessity, not made the norm -- that is, until the RCC did so officially and set the standard for the rest of Christendom to mimic (until they fought and won the right to do otherwise!). Of note, the Greek Orthodox Church, which split from the RCC formally circa AD 900, has always baptized by immersion, but we do not consider them "Baptists."

 

As a Baptist too many of our forefathers died for their beliefs to be indifferent about it. I've gotten into (healthy) discussions with Methodist, Presbyterians, Catholics, etc. and none of them have a proper frame of reference for understanding the mode of baptism.

The theological proximity of Baptist and Mennonites is highly overstated. While we are in the same family we are definitely beyond kissing cousins.

There are always going to be exceptions to the mode, but for all other able bodied people the mode should stay the same.

So what would you say to someone who tries to convince you of paedobaptism? Since both Presbyterians, Catholics, Lutherans, etc practice it they seem to have a case.

An emotional appeal doesn't add to this discussion. Again there are exceptions to every case. Whenever I go to visit shut-ins or nursing home bound people I take a communion set with me and allow them to participate independently of our congregation. Yet I don't do this for able-bodies members who can get to the services.

There can be exceptions, but they should be rare and just that...exceptions. The biblical case for baptism by immersion following salvation is sound and robust. There is no good argument against it imho.

 

I've heard this too. My reply has always been convenience is great when talking about going to the grocery store but a bad principle when talking about spiritual matters. I've never bought that argument since following Christ isn't about convenience but discipline. Discipline, when done well, is anything but convenient.

The church where I serve is currently helping several churches in Africa get started and they don't have the "facilities" to do baptism in their building. Yet they are all exuberant about going down to the river and doing them there. We should take their example imho. Besides, river baptisms are wonderful!

 

Immersion, but I would not condemn my brothers and sisters who pour and sprinkle. For salvation is of the Lord.

 

Based on your alleged strict adherence to scriptural practice, I would assume that when you take a communion set to shut ins it contains wine and not grape juice. If so, I commend you for your consistency. If not, please explain why it is all right to deviate from the scriptural practice for communion but not for baptism.

 

I don't want to get into this one, because it isn't germane to the OP, but check out the following texts for examples specifically related to immersion:

The Baptist Heritage by McBeth
The Anabaptist Story by Estep
The Story of Christianity by Gonzalez
Baptist Theology by Garrett
A History of Christianity by LaTourette

I have talked with these kinds of leaders. (Ironically my RCC priest friend rarely pivots to "the Church" answer, well until I corner him...) They don't have a good answer. The biblical mode of baptist for the vast majority of all believers is by immersion following salvation.

Let's celebrate our agreement! :thumbs:

In the ministries I've been involved with over the past 25 years I've seen thousands and thousands of individuals baptized. I can count on my hands the number of people that would count as exceptions. There are always exceptions but they are rarer than rare. The world isn't just black-and-white all the time.

Just this last week we saw a young paraplegic man with a brain tumor get baptized by immersion because he believed it was important. We made accommodation, checked with his doctor, and celebrated with him.

The point here is for every follower of Christ baptism by immersion following salvation is the standard. You can't show me otherwise. Just because I might make an exception for a brother or sister who desires to be baptized by is immobile doesn't alleviate the standard.

No minister in their right mind would require baptism by immersion for a person who is bed-ridden and couldn't safely survive the practice.

Communion relates in that every NT example it is to be done publicly and with other believers. It's an accountability thing. Some would say that communion done in private isn't authentic. That is the point.

But all this is about how baptism by water of the body is a symbol of the baptism by the Holy Spirit of the soul. Our personal, physical baptism is a ceremony of celebration to remind us and others of the inward decision we've already made. Baptism isn't salvific but is celebratory. The mode is important.

 

If you want to have this conversation I'm happy to but in another thread. It doesn't fit the OP. Thanks

 

This isn't an exhaustive list, but will give you a snapshot.

We accept the baptisms of churches of like faith and order. This will generally include any SBC church (we're SBC), most Independent Baptist Churches. We would probably not accept the baptism of Free-Will Baptist Churches, or General Baptist Churches.

Since Evangelical Free Church is similar to Baptist, I would generally vote to accept their baptism, but I'd have to see their doctrinal statement first, and a copy of their by-laws, just to make sure.

 

My understanding (which is usually faulty) is that the word "baptize" means "to immerse", and that does not include sprinkling or pouring. It is meant to be symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, although He wasn't actually buried--just put in a tomb.

 

Neither did they sprinkle a little dirt on him and call it a burial.

I think we can call it a burial, Jon-Marc. He is in the earth.

 

Interesting, considering they would most likely accept yours.

Concerning the OP: The method is not nearly as important as the ritual and the condition of the heart of the individual. While I agree that immersion is preferred, that doesn't mean that the other methods can't, won't or don't accomplish the same purpose that immersion does.

I don't believe churches should require people to be rebaptized simply because their original baptism occured in a different denom. That's almost like saying they aren't saved because they weren't baptized "right". Instead individuals should be instructed in our beliefs about baptism and if they believe our purpose for baptism were accomplished in them originally the decision to rebaptise should be left to them.

You don't believe and wouldn't expect that the church at Ephesus rebaptized believers fleeing Jerusalem. Why should we then require one who is saved and baptized, albeit in a different manner, to be baptized again? Scripture says:

Eph 4:4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

As Baptists we don't even consider baptism to be a part of salvation, why then do we bother so much about the mode?