Valid Baptism?

Question

Is sprinkling or full immersion valid? Where does it say in the bible?

I believe in full immersion. But I was baptized as a baby by sprinkling - before the age of accountability - before I could choose Christianity for myself. Now I want to go get re-baptised by immersion.

K, your movie is irrelevant. I viewed it. Thanks but no thanks for the propaganda.

Actually, I am Lutheran and my beliefs on baptism have changed. :)

Answer 1

The New Testament was originally written in the Greek language. The Greek word we get the word "baptism" from, means to immerse.

Immersion is to dip down into the water. It is an overwhelming. The one being baptized is lowered into (until he is completely under) the water and then lifted up out of the water. It is not just sprinkling or pouring a little water on top of someone.

This can also be seen in Scripture.

John 3:23 says, "Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized." Only immersion requires "much water".

Baptism is described as going down into the water and coming up out of the water. (Matthew 3:16-17, Acts 8:38-39) Only immersion has the one being baptized going into the water.

Also, baptism is described as a burial. (Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:12) Only immersion buries the one being baptized.

It's funny that the only place that people have trouble understanding baptism is in religion. If someone were to say they were "baptized in debt", would you think they had just a sprinkling of debt (a few bills)? No, someone described in this way is figuratively "covered up" with debt.

I saw a sports article that said the freshmen on a football team had an "early baptism". Of course it mean they were plunged into full sudden participation in the program. They did not just see a sprinkling of activity, but they were fully involved.

If we can understand this everywhere else, why not in religion?

Answer 2

The Greek word "baptizo" means "to dip" or "to immerse". Because the church wasn't "immersing" at the time the Bible was translated into English the translators chose to simply transliterate the word (i.e. they created a new word that sounds like the Greek word instead of using an existing English word that means the same thing).

If the Bible said, "Repent and be immersed for the forgiveness of sins" there'd be no question. Ironically, that's EXACTLY what the Bible says but we don't translate the word "baptizo".

So the mode of baptism is immersion.

Since baptism is an outward sign of inward action, it needs to be done to believers, not babies. So the time of baptism is after salvation.

You should be baptized by immersion once you are saved, even if you were baptized as an infant.

Answer 3

So go ahead and get re baptized. Nothing wrong with that.

A baby can't decide whether to get baptized, and I don't think that matters much.

In the Bible, we know that the baptisms were done by walking out into a lake or a river. And then, I suppose it was full immersion, rather than getting water splashed on you.

I also got water sprinkled on me when I was a baby. I know I did, because I found the baptismal records my Mother had kept of the event. I certainly don't remember it.

So, in early spring of this year, I chose to be baptized by full immersion in the church I now attend.

Answer 4

There is no conclusive evidence to say that only one method is right. So I'd say unless you really believe in full immersion over another, treat yourself as already baptised and just do a "confession of faith".

The reason for my view - baptism is a sign that's the result of conversion. Re-baptism's not stated as necessary anywhere in the Bible.

Answer 5

Nowhere in Holy Scripture does it tell us the mechanics of how to baptize an individual. The oldest writing we have which describes the mechanics of baptism is in the Didache (also known as "The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles, through the Twelve Apostles" or "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles") which has been dated by some scholars as early as A.D. 60; which places it before many of the New Testament writings. Paragraph 7 of this writing says:

"Baptize as follows: after first explaining all these points, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you have no running water, baptize in other water, and if you cannot in cold, then in warm. But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

The walls of the catacombs contain drawings of candidates standing ankle-deep in water while the water of baptism is poured over their head.
The Code of Canon Law allows baptism by immersion, by pouring, or by practice.

What's the difference between John the Baptist's baptism and a Christian baptism? (Acts 19:4-5)

John's baptism was a baptism of repentance (Mark 1:4-5). It was a baptism of water only. Participation in John's baptism expressed a person's willingness to change and God's willingness to forgive sins before the coming of God's kingdom. The baptism of John did not remit sins, infuse God's grace, or incorporate the recipient into the Church.

On the other hand, a sacramental (Christian) baptism remits all previous sins, including the stain of original sin, infuses grace, and incorporates the recipient into the Church as a child of God, member of God's family, and part of the body of Christ. It is a baptism of water and the Spirit (Matthew 3:11, John 3:5).

Answer 6

Sprinkling originated when Moses led the Israelite children through the desert, and their was no water available for immersion. Baptism is an outward showing of an inward condition. Remember, the thief on the cross was not baptised at all. I belive in immersion too, but not everyone is able to be baptised in this fashion, and it would change thier salvation.

Answer 7

Let me give you a warning about getting re-baptized by full immersion. False religion always gives you "something to do." Under infant baptism you were brought into a covenant with God in His fellowship with His own. If you have to get re-baptized, are you not doing this as a statement of faith, for an audience of people to clap for you?

Answer 8

I hate to wade into the middle of this learned debate, however, it is not theologically correct to "rebaptize" anyone. If you are baptised according to the Trinitarian formula then you are a baptised Christian PERIOD. It does not matter whether you had water poured upon you or you were immersed. I had a colleague in Graduate School, who was baptized Catholic, became a baptist and got "rebaptized." Myself and another Christian fellow both took exception. It was simply ridiculous. The Catholic Church recognizes all lawfully performed baptisms from any Christian Church. Why would non-Catholic Churches reject our baptism?

VB8

Answer 9

Jesus was fully immersed so this is generally the Biblical way of baptizing. It is a picture of Christ's birth, death and resurrection. If you have converted to Christianity and have not been fully immersed this is the next step in your Christian walk.

Answer 10

Your choice - no clear Scriptural reason for total immersion. Some interpret the phrase used following Christ's baptism '... came up immediately from the water ...' (NASV) - as implying he was totally immersed . Not necessarily so.