Submerged Baptsm


#1

Question…

How do I defend myself when I am told i was never realy baptised becasue i wasnt submerged, I had the standard water pouring over the head at about 4. I fully believe I am baptised as this is what the church teaches, I know some very close friends of mine that question it becasue i was not submerged…

I honostly dont understand why some see this as a requirement. i know in the bible it is said to be submerged in the jordan, but that cant betaken literaly either.

And I would like some of our protestant brothers/sisters who agree with submerged baptisim view to help me understand why you see it that way. I am not trying to start an arguement or a mudslinging thread, i am genuinly curious… I am a firm believer in understanding both sides of a debate

Thanks Guys

All of you are a blessing in disgues

In christ


#2

I would ask them to cite you a specific verse (with book,chapter, and verse) for starters… they will not be able to give you one that spells out in detail the baptism ceremony particulars that to be followed for all time in all circumstances. For sola scriptura adherents logically this would have to be explicitly stated. They won’t be able to do this.


#3

cannot answer for any other Christian denomination, but for Catholics baptism by immersion, pouring or sprinkling are all valid if the proper trinitarian formula is used. Since many of these denominations that insist upon immersion also teach the baptism is merely symbolic, (rather than accepting Catholic teaching the baptism is a sacrament of Christian initiation through which Christ acts in removing original and actual sin and restoring sanctifying grace), I don’t see what difference it makes how they do it.


#4

I heard this funny scenario…I hope I don’t mess it up:

A baptist says to a Catholic…Your baptisms are not valid because you do not submerge your entire body!

Catholic asks…would it be valid if I submerged to my knees?

Baptist…No!

Catholic…How about my Thighs?

Baptists…No!

Catholic…well…how about my torso?

Baptist…No!

Catholic… How about my chin?

Baptist…No

Catholic…How about all the way up to my forehead?

Baptist…Yes! Yes, all the way up to your forehead and then your Baptisms will be Valid

Catholic…Well, then…you’ve answered me nicely, and I am relieved to inform you that my Baptism is valid…that is exactly the spot where I was Baptised


#5

The teachings of the Apostles can be found in the Didache. These are the teachings of the early Church, and as you can see it was acceptable to them to baptise by pouring water over the head of the person to be baptised if there is not recourse to living water. I would certainly trust that the Apostles themselves knew what Jesus taught. I don’t know if this will help you with your discussion, but it is worth a shot.

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
7:6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able;
7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.
I got this particular translation from this site.


#6

[quote=puzzleannie]… Since many of these denominations that insist upon immersion also teach the baptism is merely symbolic, (rather than accepting Catholic teaching the baptism is a sacrament of Christian initiation through which Christ acts in removing original and actual sin and restoring sanctifying grace), I don’t see what difference it makes how they do it.
[/quote]

This is a good point that I never thought of before…any Evangelicals out there who can explain why immersion is so important if it’s only symbolic? What impact does it have on a persons’ soul or salvation if he’s baptized by pouring as opposed to immersion?


#7

While not Protestant, I know the argument…

Baptism by immersion is what Christ commanded, and we are to follow the commands of Christ. Pouring is a half-following of the command, which is really no following at all. Is having a fruit and yogurt spread following the command of Christ to “do this in rememberance of me” for the Lord’s Supper? Nope. Form is important because it is as Christ commanded. Bread and wine (grape juice), and water immersion. Anything else is disobedience to Christ.
again, not my argument, just one I have heard…

BTW, the prefered method of baptism for Catholics is baptism by immersion! This should be done unless other circumstances prohibit it! Check your local Catholic bookstore for the Rite of Baptism, and see that this is true!

God Bless,
RyanL


#8

Baptism by immersion is what Christ commanded, and we are to follow the commands of Christ. Pouring is a half-following of the command, which is really no following at all.

Where does it say Christ commanded baptism by submersion? Verse, please.


#9

[quote=puzzleannie]cannot answer for any other Christian denomination, but for Catholics baptism by immersion, pouring or sprinkling are all valid if the proper trinitarian formula is used. Since many of these denominations that insist upon immersion also teach the baptism is merely symbolic, (rather than accepting Catholic teaching the baptism is a sacrament of Christian initiation through which Christ acts in removing original and actual sin and restoring sanctifying grace), I don’t see what difference it makes how they do it.
[/quote]

Sprinkling is not a valid form of baptism.


#10

Acts 10 puts Peter in the house of Cornelius.

After preaching he calls for water ( “can any man forbid water”).

Either Cornelius has a tub large enough to be submerged in (which is contrary to historical Roman homes) , or he was calling for a smaller quantity of water, one that could be brought.


#11

[quote=bigdawg]Sprinkling is not a valid form of baptism.
[/quote]

Although we would all probably love to debate with you, if you don’t answer in detail then we have no idea why you believe the way that you do.


#12

I was told by my expastor that baptism was only a symbol and yet he insisted that I redo my baptism at his church. His reasoning was that my baptism at eight years old could not be valid. I had fallen away from God and redirected myself to Christ. In his OSAS mentality that meant that I was a brand new Christian and my old baptism didn’t count.Even though the first one was performed in a baptist church.

I was told that the submergeing a person underwater represents their death. Bringing them up represents their new birth(It might have been their rescurrection). That was why I was told that you had to be submerged. Also, we were to copy Jesus and Jesus was submerged.

I have to agree with PuzzleAnnie, I don’t understand why it would matter so much to some Protestants how another person was baptised.


#13

[quote=deb1]Although we would all probably love to debate with you, if you don’t answer in detail then we have no idea why you believe the way that you do.
[/quote]

Debate with me or not, sprinkling is not a valid form of baptism. Look in the code of canon law and you will see that there are only two ways which a person may be validly baptized:
a.) by immersion
b.) by pouring

I don’t have a link to refer you to, but you can probably go to ewtn.com and search their Q&A section under canon law using the keyword “sprinkling” and find that it is not a valid form of baptism.

Or, you can find the code of canon law somewhere on the net and look for yourself. I have the hard copy of the code but do not know of a website that has the code.


#14

[quote=drforjc]Where does it say Christ commanded baptism by submersion? Verse, please.
[/quote]

Again, I don’t believe this. But here is the argument…

They will say:

The best evidence for the necessity of full-immersion baptism lies in the very meaning of the Greek verb ‘baptizo’

, and the related noun ‘baptisma’. Most commonly, a Baptist will argue that ‘baptizo’ means “to immerse, plunge, or dip,” and that there are other distinct Greek words for “pour,” “sprinkle” or “wash” that are never used in the New Testament texts in conjunction with the Christian rite of baptism. Hence, the argument runs, baptism by infusion is simply not a real baptism. In addition, the Baptist will argue that the noun *‘baptisma’ *conveys precisely the meaning of the act of Christian baptism, namely that it is a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

We respond:

It is true that *baptizo *often means immersion. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, "went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is *baptizo

] seven times in the Jordan" (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added).

But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash baptizo] before dinner.” They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees “do not eat unless they wash nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves baptizo]” (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.

A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative “baptism” is a sort of “immersion”; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, “I have a baptism baptisma] to be baptized baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!” (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be “immersed” in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples “not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’” Did this mean they would be “immersed” in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include “pouring.”

Additionally, they will claim:

[left] In two of the synoptic Gospels, we read that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus as He was “coming up out of the water” after baptism (Mat. 3:16; Mk. 1:10). Similarly, in the account of Philip baptizing the Eunuch, we read that Philip was caught up by the Spirit of the Lord “as they were coming up out of the water” (Acts 8:39). In all three cases, the verb ‘anabaino’ is used to indicate the action of leaving the water.
[/left]
[left]
[/left]
This phrasing is evidence that New Testament baptism, to include the baptism of John and Christian baptism, was necessarily by full immersion. How else could one come up out of the water unless they had been fully submerged under the water?

To which we may also respond:

In Acts 8:39 the verb *‘anabaino’ *

is in the third person plural (‘anebesan’), and thus refers to Philip as well as to the Eunuch. Surely Philip did not fully immerse himself as he baptized the Eunuch! Even in modern-day Baptist practice, the pastor performing a baptism keeps his own head and shoulders above the water! Indeed, since the verb ‘anabaino’ more commonly refers to a motion of climbing or ascending, we can readily imagine that in the case of Jesus, and Philip and the Eunuch, it describes the action of climbing up the bank and out of the water. Such a motion will be quite familiar to open water swimmers or fisherman in particular.

God Bless,
RyanL


#15

[quote=bigdawg]Debate with me or not, sprinkling is not a valid form of baptism. Look in the code of canon law and you will see that there are only two ways which a person may be validly baptized:
a.) by immersion
b.) by pouring

I don’t have a link to refer you to, but you can probably go to ewtn.com and search their Q&A section under canon law using the keyword “sprinkling” and find that it is not a valid form of baptism.

Or, you can find the code of canon law somewhere on the net and look for yourself. I have the hard copy of the code but do not know of a website that has the code.
[/quote]

Okay, Okay. I see where you are coming from now. See, wasn’t that easy.:slight_smile: My seven year old daughter is getting baptized this spring and I have been assured that the priest will get her good and wet. Perhaps this is what the speaker was referring to.

I think though that when most Protestants use the term sprinkling they are referring to pouring the water on the head.


#16

[quote=deb1]Okay, Okay. I see where you are coming from now. See, wasn’t that easy.:slight_smile: My seven year old daughter is getting baptized this spring and I have been assured that the priest will get her good and wet. Perhaps this is what the speaker was referring to.

I think though that when most Protestants use the term sprinkling they are referring to pouring the water on the head.
[/quote]

Although, if you wanted to, you could toss this prophesy at them:
Ezekiel 36:25
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities…

Then you may ask, why are you ignoring the clear words of scripture? This may give them pause for thought, but for those of us with Sacred Tradition we know the right answer…

God Bless,
RyanL


#17

[quote=jjoshjl]And I would like some of our protestant brothers/sisters who agree with submerged baptisim view to help me understand why you see it that way. I am not trying to start an arguement or a mudslinging thread, i am genuinly curious… I am a firm believer in understanding both sides of a debate
[/quote]

Someone once gave me a pretty fair explanation of why submersion is more appropriate, using an analogy of sorts. It doesn’t attack Catholic traditions; it’s just an explanation.

Imagine having a white handkerchief in your hand and you sprinkle a bit of red dye on it. What you get isn’t a red handkerchief, but a white handkerchief with specks of red on it.

Now take a second handkerchief and dip it wholly into the can of red dye, so that every fiber of that handkerchief is dyed. When you pull it out this time, you no longer see the white and, in fact, you would go so far as to say that it is not a white handkerchief anymore; it’s a red one.

It ties back to the Jordan, but also, it’s a sort of rebirth from the water. You were wholly inside your mother’s womb before being born the first time, so to be born of water (baptized), you go in the water as one person, allow yourself to be fully submerged… and re-emerge a new person in Christ Jesus.

It’s probably not the best explanation (and the one who shared that analogy with me told it MUCH better), but it made sense to me and I could definitely see the rationale more clearly. I hope this helped.

:o


#18

[quote=deb1]Okay, Okay. I see where you are coming from now. See, wasn’t that easy.:slight_smile: My seven year old daughter is getting baptized this spring and I have been assured that the priest will get her good and wet. Perhaps this is what the speaker was referring to.

I think though that when most Protestants use the term sprinkling they are referring to pouring the water on the head.
[/quote]

Deb,

The Methodists for example, actually sprinkle a person as an option to pouring. I think the Presbyterians sprinkle also.


#19

[quote=Elzee]This is a good point that I never thought of before…any Evangelicals out there who can explain why immersion is so important if it’s only symbolic? What impact does it have on a persons’ soul or salvation if he’s baptized by pouring as opposed to immersion?
[/quote]

It has no impact whatsoever. Baptism is not a requirement for salvation. It’s meant to illustrate a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4).

As far as I’ve come to understand it, aside from being a public proclamation of an inward faith, submersion baptism is largely symbolic:

a.) Being immersed in the water represents being buried with Christ (see above-referenced scripture).

b.) The action of coming out of the water represents Christ’s resurrection.

I’m actually surprised that Catholics don’t do submersion themselves. I don’t see the harm in it from the Catholic perspective, but then again… I don’t make the rules.

:smiley:


#20

[quote=ChristianWAB]… Baptism is not a requirement for salvation…
[/quote]

C-WAB,
What you have said expressly contradicts scripture. Please read the following: Baptism now saves you.

God Bless,
RyanL


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.