Baptism doctrine, which way?

[Katzpur]

Seems every church and person has their own distinct notions of baptism. The Catholics perform child sprinklings, the Baptist adult immersion, the Mormons for even the dead. Some deny it is even important at all. What are your beliefs concerning baptism and why?

Well, I kind of answered this in another thread, but anyway...

I believe that baptism is an essential ordinance (i.e. sacrament, if that word is more understandable). In other words, I believe it is required for salvation (at least for the "fullness of salvation", which I can further explain if anyone's interested). I believe it must be performed by immersion by someone holding the proper priesthood authority, and in order for it to have any validity, it must be accompanied by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and repentance for one's sins. For this reason, we do not baptize infants and small children. To Latter-day Saints, it is the means by which a person enters into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. It signifies the person's willingness to take upon himself the name of Jesus Christ for the rest of his life and to do his best to always keep the Savior's commandments. We believe that as a result of keeping the covenants we make at baptism, we are assured salvation.

 

[Many Sages One Truth]

I have read about pouring in some early church literature, but do you have any sources that the Apostles or their immediate followers used it for anything other than extreme necessity? I have not read any where that it was an early preferable method.

No you're right that it wasn't the preferred method, however, that it was practiced shows that it is permissable. I think it became popular in Catholicism because some of the towns had a scarce water supply, or the nearest water source was far away, and pouring was easier and more efficient.

 

[Katzpur]

No you're right that it wasn't the preferred method, however, that it was practiced shows that it is permissable.

I'm curious to know that how the fact that something has been practiced makes it "permissible." I guess a couple of better questions would be: What do you mean by permissible? Are you equating "permissible" with "valid in God's eyes"?

 

[Many Sages One Truth]

Why wouldn't Baptism by pouring be valid in God's eyes if the Apostles practiced it?

 

[Katzpur]

Why wouldn't Baptism by pouring be valid in God's eyes if the Apostles practiced it?

Do you have any evidence that they did? Hypothetically, I'd say yes, if that's how they practiced it, it would be valid, but I don't think that ever happened.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't think it is necessary.

I'm surprised there isn't one that says it is available at any time in your life.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

the Baptist adult immersion,

Are all Baptist churches like this? I was raised Baptist but baptized young yet.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Are all Baptist churches like this? I was raised Baptist but baptized young yet.

Define young. At birth?

 

[Firstborner]

Are all Baptist churches like this? I was raised Baptist but baptized young yet.

Most Baptists I have spoken with, not too many, have referred to an age of accountabilty. It is not so much a number of years as much it is an age where the recipient knows right from wrong and can make an educated decision to go forward with baptism.

 

[Many Sages One Truth]

Do you have any evidence that they did? Hypothetically, I'd say yes, if that's how they practiced it, it would be valid, but I don't think that ever happened.

The Didache and other sources say they did.

 

[Katzpur]

The Didache and other sources say they did.

Hmmm. That's interesting. I don't know all that much about how reliable the Didache is, but it seriously would surprise me if the Apostles themselves ever baptized by anything but immersion. Could you provide me with a little bit more detail?

 

[Many Sages One Truth]

Didache Chapter 7: "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism, but not by immersion. If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring.

 

[Katzpur]

Didache Chapter 7: "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

So this statement is supposed to be the words of one of Christ's Apostles? Or just one of the early Church fathers? Since the Didache dates no earlier than the late first century, and possibly the early second century, I would be kind of suspicious that this statement was actually made by an Apostle. I'm definitely no expert on the subject, though.

Much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism, but not by immersion. If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring.

How early? If this artwork dates after the end of the first century, my own personal belief is that an apostasy was already underway, and that the ordinance had been modified from the way it was originally to be performed. I'd have to do a bit more research on the subject to say for sure, though.

 

[ChristineES]

I personally prefer dunking, but I don't reject sprinkling. But baptism is a symbol- sort of a death of your old life and rebirth of your new life with Jesus. I think it should be done by Christians but it is not totally necessary, since some people aren't in good health or they are unable to because they are bedridden or about to die, etc. My daughter was sprinkled (I am a Baptist but she is a Lutheran, my husband is a Charismatic and accepts the Oneness doctrine- neither of my sons is religious).

 

[Firstborner]

I personally prefer dunking, but I don't reject sprinkling. But baptism is a symbol- sort of a death of your old life and rebirth of your new life with Jesus. I think it should be done by Christians but it is not totally necessary, since some people aren't in good health or they are unable to because they are bedridden or about to die, etc. My daughter was sprinkled (I am a Baptist but she is a Lutheran, my husband is a Charismatic and accepts the Oneness doctrine- neither of my sons is religious).

Wow! Now that's a mixed bag!

 

[Otherright]

Seems every church and person has their own distinct notions of baptism. The Catholics perform child sprinklings, the Baptist adult immersion, the Mormons for even the dead. Some deny it is even important at all. What are your beliefs concerning baptism and why?

I was raised baptist, we did it by immersion. My beliefs, however, have changed.

 

[Renji]

The Catholic Church baptizes for the reasons: remision of inherited sin and to "welcome"/ make the person to be officially part of the church. The sprinkling/pouring of water to the one that is going to be baptized was rooted from "Didache", the earliest (or one of the earliest) Christian writtings.

 

[Firstborner]

The Catholic Church baptizes for the reasons: remision of inherited sin and to "welcome"/ make the person to be officially part of the church. The sprinkling/pouring of water to the one that is going to be baptized was rooted from "Didache", the earliest (or one of the earliest) Christian writtings.

But the didache did not refer to sprinkling. It did acknowledge triple pouring in emergency cases.

 

[Renji]

But the didache did not refer to sprinkling. It did acknowledge triple pouring in emergency cases.

It does not matter I guess whether it is done through immersion, sprinkling or pouring, what matters is the "message" of baptism itself. If we are going to do it the "biblical" way, well, they usually do baptism in rivers. We can't do that in poluted rivers this time..

 

[Firstborner]

We can't do that in poluted rivers this time..

Why not? If I have read the account of the Syrian Naaman correctly I am of the understanding that the River Jordon was one of the dirtiest around.