What is the proper way to be baptized--emerge body in water or sprinking water on a person's head?

Question

I was emerged which I believe is the proper way 'cause when you come out of the water, you're a new person. Some churches just use holy water to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, others pour water over the head. Which way do you believe is the proper way to be baptized? Should a person be baptized at birth and again as an adult?

Answer 1

The candidates are then immersed in water, following the pattern set by Jesus himself. The Bible shows that after getting baptized, Jesus “came up from the water” or “out of the water.” (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10) Clearly, John the Baptizer had immersed Jesus totally. Complete immersion appropriately symbolizes the dramatic change we have made in our life, we figuratively die to our former life course and begin life anew in the service of God.

Jesus himself set the example by being baptized in water. He was not sprinkled with water, and he did not just have some water poured over his head. The word “baptize” comes from a Greek term meaning “dip.” Christian baptism therefore means being fully dipped, or immersed, in water.

Consider what took place when Jesus of Nazareth went to John the Baptizer in 29 C.E. John was baptizing people in the Jordan River. They had voluntarily come to him for baptism. Did he merely have them stand in the Jordan while he poured a little river water on their heads or sprinkled them with it? What happened when John baptized Jesus? Matthew reports that after being baptized “Jesus immediately came up from the water.” (Matthew 3:16) He had been down in the water, having been immersed in the Jordan River. Likewise, the devout Ethiopian eunuch was baptized in “a body of water.” Such bodies of water were needed because the baptisms of Jesus and his disciples involved total immersion.

Greek words translated “baptize,” “baptism,” and so forth, refer to immersing, dipping, or plunging under water. Smith’s Bible Dictionary says: “Baptism properly and literally means immersion.” Certain Bible translations thus refer to “John the Immerser” and “John the dipper.” (Matthew 3:1, Rotherham; Diaglott interlinear) Augustus Neander’s History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries observes: “Baptism was originally administered by immersion.” The noted French work Larousse du XXe Siècle comments: “The first Christians received baptism by immersion everywhere where water was found.” And the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “It is evident that Baptism in the early Church was by immersion.”

baptism is a serious step. Baptizing an infant is wrong because a baby cannot understand, make a decision, and become a disciple. (Matthew 28:19, 20) Those baptized during Philip’s ministry in Samaria were “men and women,” not mere infants. Baptism is for those old enough to learn, believe, and exercise faith. (John 17:3) In this regard, historian Augustus Neander wrote: “Faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable, that the practice of infant baptism was unknown [in the first century C.E.

Answer 2

After reading through your answers up to this point, there is a variety of beliefs which points to the freedom we have in Christ to baptize by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. I don't know that the amount of water is really all that important, because if you have to look at full immersion so closely that every nook and cranny must be wet, then you are talking about removing the Band-Aids, eyes wide open underwater, do not plug the nose, etc. in order to make absolutely sure you are fulfilling new laws that may as well have never been replaced. Bowing forward or laying back? if Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, then the baptizer as well as the baptizee should be going underwater, yes?

I think if baptism points to Jesus, there are a few "rules" to follow, and we follow the Bible closely, but not so closely that we lose sight of its meaning.

Answer 3

I'd say the paintings are just as valid as any pictures of immersion. We simply don't know how it was done, it's not explicitly stated. I prefer to think that Jesus was immersed, while His followers would be sprinkled, in keeping with His taking on a "full immersion" of our sins, while we only receive a sprinkling in our own redemption. This is consistent with Peter's account of Noah, in an anti-type of baptism, full-immersion for those who drowned, while he received a smattering of rain. But pouring out is consistent with the work of the Holy Spirit, who descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove. That also fits. And you're right, coming up out of ankle-deep water would be reasonable if a river could sweep one away if it got too deep. The amount of water is not really the issue. The fact of his baptism, is the issue!

Answer 4

The Bible says that you must know the commitment you are making so therefore you must be old enough to know what you're doing. If you look up the word baptism in the Concordance you will find out that it is a Greek word meaning immersion. In fact the word was never properly translated from the Greek; rather, it was transliterated. But they transliterated it because the church of the day was sprinkling.
And in Acts 2:38 it says, " Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Answer 5

The simplest answer to this question is found in the meaning of the word "baptize." It comes from a Greek word which means “to submerge in water." Therefore, baptism by sprinkling or by pouring is an oxymoron, something that self-contradictory. Baptism by sprinkling would mean "submerging someone in water by sprinkling water on them." Baptism, by its inherent definition, must be an act of immersion in water.
Baptism by immersion, while it is the most biblical mode of identifying with Christ, is not (as some believe) a prerequisite for salvation. It is rather an act of obedience to the command to “repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38).

Answer 6

Immersion works. So does pouring.

John the Baptist was known to use either one, depending on the weather and water conditions at the Jordan River, on any given day.

But John's baptism was merely a symbolic baptism of repentence ... and it was simply "practice" for the real thing.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is done only once in a lifetime.

To repeat it would constitute an affront to God.

Answer 7

I don't think there is a 'proper' way. The baptism is a symbol, and I feel that what is in the heart in important to God not the method.

I was baptized full immersion and I definitely liked the feeling of coming out of the water 'clean'. Many people I know were baptized by sprinkling of water, and it does not mean any less to them than my baptism meant to me.

Answer 8

This would depend upon the denomination. The specific New Testament examples we have show that they were done by immersion.

I recently watched the 1960 version of the King of Kings. It was showing a revisionist example of Jesus up to the waist in the Jordon with John just putting a wet hand on his head.

Answer 9

The formula to be baptized is by full immersion in Jesus' name(specifically) as a consenting person. You need not be an adult but infant baptism has no biblical basis. Infants can't purposely commit sin.Therefore, they are not in need of forgiveness of sin.Which is what baptism symbolizes. If a person was baptized @ birth.Yes, they should be re-baptized as an adult.That way its for the right reasons and their choice.

Answer 10

To be baptized twice is kind of like saying the first time didn't take, that doesn't make any sense to me.

I believe it's not the amount of the water that matters, it's the water and the words.