Today I wanted to look at the practice of only baptizing by "full immersion." The folks in his community (and other ones too) believe the only valid or proper baptisms are those which fully immerse the person in water.
Are they correct?
Not an Instruction Manual:
Here is the first thing one should realize when investigating this question: Nowhere does the Bible give explicit instruction on the matter. Nowhere does it say, "Here is how you baptize."
Why is that?
Well, this exposes an inherent limitation on the data contained in the Bible. The majority of the books and letters were written to adult converts. In other words, the intended audience has already been baptized. They didn't need to be told how it is done.
Thus, giving instructions to these folks on the mechanics of baptism would be like me handing out directions to my house... to people who are already at my house.
This means any attempt to answer this question from the Bible must rely on indirect evidence.
Let's see what we can find.
A Fully Immersive Experience:
First, we can see evidence for the “full immersion” mode of Baptism in texts which compare Baptism to burial. Take this instance from Colossians:
“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in Baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” - Col 2:11-12This conjures a mental image of a person laying down completely in water, similar to the way a person lays down in the earth when being buried.
Proponents of immersion-only commonly point to the literal Greek meaning of the word "Batptize" (βαπτίσ). By its bare etymology, it means "plunge" or "immerse". This certainly lends support to baptizing by full immersion.
Pouring it On:
However, one has to be cautious here. We also have to ask:
"Can we assume that the etymology of the name for a ritual conveys every aspect of how that ritual is performed?"I ask that because we also see evidence of another mode of Baptism in Scripture.
For instance, in Acts 2:41 we learn that three thousand were baptized in Jerusalem after hearing Peter's first sermon. However, Jerusalem is a long march away from the nearest large body of water. So it stands to reason that some other method was used.
We can see another piece of evidence in the Baptism of Paul. He was Baptized in the house of Ananias of Damascus... and it is pretty safe to assume Ananias did not have a large dunk-tank handy.
Now here are the instructions he gave to Paul:
“And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” - Acts 22:16Here Paul is specifically instructed to "rise" and be Baptized. In other words, this was done to him while he was upright. That would fit with another common Baptismal practice; Pouring water over the person's head.
Ancient Account:
So the Biblical evidence points to both “pouring” and “immersion” as valid modes of Baptism. But there is one last place we can look for an answer on this subject.
There is an ancient Christian writing called the “Didache”. It was written around the middle of the first century AD and contains explicit instructions on how to perform baptism. It says:
“If no running water is available, immerse in ordinary water. This should be cold if possible; otherwise warm. If neither is practicable, then pour water three times on the head ‘In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’.” – Didache, 7, 50 ADGoing by the evidence in the Didache, it appears immersion in running water was preferred but pouring water upon a person was an allowable substitute.
Thus, while I do not intend to take anything away from my friend's preference for immersion, his congregation is incorrect to believe it is the only way to validly Baptize.
No comments:
Post a Comment