Why did the Catholic Church change the ordinance of baptism as given to the apostles of Jesus Christ?

Question

Baptism which was for the remission of sins for all who were able to repent, was changed and made a solemn mockery. Baptism was for those who were capable of sinning. It was performed by immersion of the entire body in water. It was changed by the Catholic Church to sprinkling or pouring water on the head, which is definitely not a burial. (Romans 6:1-6; Colossians 2:12)

scholar_ asked "So again, where in the Holy Word of God does it say people being baptized must be submerged?"

When Jesus was baptized he "went up straightway out of the water" (Matthew 3:16), Mark 1:5 mentions that people were baptized in the river. You can sprinkle a bit of water on somebodies head anywhere. Mark 1:10 describes Jesus as "coming up out of the water." John 3:23 says John the baptist was baptizing at a certain location "because there was much water there." Acts 8:38 describes a baptism when "they both went down into the water." Romans 6:4 describes us being "buried with him by baptism" and Colossians 2:12 says we are "Buried with him [Christ] in baptism." How could we be buried by a bit of sprinkling of water on top of our heads?

Answer 1

The Greek word we get the word "baptism" from, means to immerse.

There is no Biblical basis for sprinkling or pouring.

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

You should do some historical research and you'd be suprised at what you found. From an archeological stand point, the safe places to baptize in the Jordan River were shallow and it would be fairly impossible to be completely immersed beneath the water.

If you want to take Mark 1:9-10 "And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And immediately, coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove." Okay, yes it says coming up out of the water, but why do people believe this means he was immersed and then shot up to the surface? It doesn't say "coming to the surface" it says coming up out of the water, which could mean out of the river as the drop to the river's bank is 139 feet.

Also, for the sprinkling part, when Peter (Acts 16:33) escaped from prison, he baptised the guard and his household and there certainly wasn't any rivers around then.

Acts 2:41 says that there were 3,000 people baptized in ONE DAY from all over at one river. If immersion were the only acceptable form of baptism then they would've never gotten 3,000 people baptised, it's not possible to be done in one spot with the limited help they had during that time. Christianity back then was to be hidden, so how did they baptize 3,000 people in one day without being caught if they had to immerse each person?

And if you researched the greek meaning of the word baftisma, you would see that though yes, it means to dip, plunge and immerge, it's also used to mean quite literally to wash. "To be baptised" means "to be washed". This is from the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott.

Take Luke 11:38 "The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash", the greek here being baptisma, so they were astonished he did not baptize himself before dinner. Mark 7:3-4 is the same.

Read some of the early Christian works (anywhere from 50 A,D to 300 A.D) and you'd find that pouring, immersing and sprinkling were all acceptable forms of baptisms as well infant baptism.

Don't think just because you read one meaning of the Greek word Baptism that you know all the meanings or the history of the early Church.

Answer 3

Your real issue with the Church seems to be infant baptism, not just the means by which it's done (although adult converts are certainly baptized as well, and they are "capable of sinning" -- where is that exact phrase in connection with baptism found in Scripture, by the way?). But since you chose to concentrate on the form, I will respectfully address only this.

First, the Church does not disagree with you about immersion baptism: "Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1239)

We tend to take for granted in this age the availability and ease of obtaining water, not to mention the necessary sanitation measures a church can take to maintain a clean full-immersion baptistry. But not everyone has always had a plentiful municipal water supply, nor a convenient river or stream. If a community's supply of water came from a well, especially (as many did, and still do, in that part of the world and elsewhere throughout much of history) the task of drawing sufficient well water to baptize by immersion would have been not only daunting but also an imprudent use of the resource.

Baptism by pouring water, as indicated above, was practiced early on, and this was in great part the reason for it. And because it was considered a valid baptism through the ages, it is yet today. The pouring signifies the "living water" -- sprinkling is considered insufficient and is not done for baptism.

I hope this helps, and I also hope you were sincerely looking for an answer. A blessed Christmas to you.

Answer 4

Just to open up your mind to it, infants weren't ever forbidden, neither were developmentally deficient adults, from receiving the rite.

I thought the Jordan was a rather shallow river most times of the year, but regardless, why couldn't John have been standing in the river, and with the throngs of people being physically impossible to baptize by submersion, why not a screaming John arcing his arm across the water and dousing those standing on the shoreline?

Or how about the book of Hebrews, with all the references to circumcision? There wouldn't have been a connection there if they weren't related. I just don't see how a requirement to believe first, would need to be a distinction, especially if circumcision didn't require an age of reason either. If entire households were baptized, wouldn't the head of that household be sanctifying his family and extended "family" of servants by having everyone baptized? This would include his children too, all sanctified, the head of household forbidding any other practices but service to God.

Why couldn't I raise my child "under her baptism" from infancy? Why couldn't I remind the teen friend who got re-baptized, of who she serves, no matter when it was "official"? This would make Baptism something far more serious than a "look what I did" ceremony, with no more importance than to show everyone around -- one time only -- what you believe.

Answer 5

the 1st Christian church developed into the Catholic Church. The Bible replaced into codified in 383 CE by potential of the Church of Rome. Catholicism is a sect interior of Christianity, what approximately this do you not comprehend? "so If the 1st Christian church developed into the Catholic Church. then they truned there back on god.." on account which you're saying so, not for any real reason you aspects. "if the catholic church replaced into the 1st to canonize the numerous books into the bible. why do bible student say they dont have acurate bible translations?" not a single respected one does. Your pastor would say so, yet he's not dazzling.

Answer 6

God says in Ezekiel 36:25-27 "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws."

Compare this to Act 2:38 "38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Ezekiel is a prophecy and a foreshadowing of baptism and it obviously said to sprinkle water.

Both passeges say that sins will be forgiven (impurities = sin)

Both passages were void of symbolic language (that is if you believe that the spirit is symbolic and not a reality).

So again, where in the Holy Word of God does it say people being baptized must be submerged ?

Answer 7

Pouring and Sprinkling versus Immersion
Ezek. 36:25 - Ezekiel prophesies that God "will 'sprinkle' clean water on you and you shall be clean." The word for "sprinkle" is "rhaino" which means what it says, sprinkle (not immersion). (“Kai rhaino eph hymas hydor katharon.”)

2 Kings 5:14 - Namaan went down and dipped himself in the Jordan. The Greek word for "dipped" is "baptizo." Here, baptizo means immersion. But many Protestant churches argue that "baptizo" and related tenses of the Greek word always mean immersion, and therefore the Catholic baptisms of pouring or sprinkling water over the head are invalid. The Scriptures disprove their claim.

Num. 19:18 – here, the verbs for dipping (“baptisantes”) and sprinkled (“bapsei”) refers to affusion (pouring) and sprinkling (aspersion), not immersion.

Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 -John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize ("baptisei") with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, "baptisei" refers to a "pouring" out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus' head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles' heads in the form of tongues of fire. In each case, in fulfilling John the Baptist's prophecy, the Lord baptized ("baptizo") in the form of pouring out His Spirit upon the head, not immersing the person.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - Jesus also talks about His baptism (from "baptizo") of blood, which was shed and sprinkled in His passion. But this baptism does not (and cannot) mean immersion.

Mark 7:3 - the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash ("baptizo" ) their hands. This demonstrates that "baptizo" does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something (in this case, over their hands).

Mark 7:4 - we see that the Jews washed ("bapto" from baptizo) cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed (bapto) couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.

Luke 11:38 - Jesus had not washed ("ebaptisthe") His hands before dinner. Here, the derivative of "baptizo" just means washing up, not immersing.

Acts 2:41 - at Peter's first sermon, 3,000 were baptized. There is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in this area. Instead, these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism.

Acts 8:38 - because the verse says they "went down into the water," many Protestants say this is proof that baptism must be done by immersion. But the verb to describe Phillip and the eunuch going down into the water is the same verb ("katabaino") used in Acts 8:26 to describe the angel's instruction to Phillip to stop his chariot and go down to Gaza. The word has nothing to do with immersing oneself in water.

Acts 8:39 - because the verse says "they came up out of the water," many Protestants also use this verse to prove that baptism must be done by immersion. However, the Greek word for "coming up out of the water" is "anebesan" which is plural. The verse is describing that both Phillip and the eunuch ascended out of the water, but does not prove that they were both immersed in the water. In fact, Phillip could not have baptized the eunuch if Phillip was also immersed. Finally, even if this was a baptism by immersion, the verse does not say that baptism by immersion is the only way to baptize.

Acts 9:18; 22:16 - Paul is baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. There is no hot tub or swimming pool for immersion. This demonstrates that Paul was sprinkled.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius, even though hot tubs and swimming pools were not part of homes. Those in the house had to be sprinkled.

Acts 16:33 - the baptism of the jailer and his household appears to be in the house, so immersion is not possible.

Acts 2:17,18,33 - the pouring of water is like the "pouring" out of the Holy Spirit. Pouring is also called "infusion" (of grace).

1 Cor. 10:2 - Paul says that the Israelites were baptized ("baptizo") in the cloud and in the sea. But they could not have been immersed because Exodus 14:22 and 15:9 say that they went dry shod. Thus, "baptizo" does not mean immersed in these verses.

Eph. 4:5 - there is only one baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one faith. Once a person is validly baptized by water and the Spirit in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the intention of the Church (whether by pouring or immersion), there is no longer a need to rebaptize the person.

Titus 3:6 – the “washing of regeneration” (baptism) is “poured out” upon us. This “pouring out” generally refers to the pouring of baptismal waters over the head of the newly baptized.

Heb. 6:2 – on the doctrine of baptisms (the word used is “baptismos”) which generally referred to pouring and not immersion.

Heb. 10:22 – the author writes, “with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience.” This “sprinkling” of baptism refers to aspersion, not immersion. The text also parallels 1 Peter 3:21, which expressly mentions baptism and its ability to, like Heb. 10:22, purify the conscience (the interior disposition of a person).

Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord "pours" water on the thirsty land and "pours" His Spirit upon our descendants. The Lord is “pouring,” not “immersing.”

2 Thess. 2:15 - hold fast to the tradition of the Church, whether oral or written. Since the time of Christ, baptisms have been done by pouring or sprinkling.

Answer 8

Shortage of water

Too lazy to get into the water promptly

Man made doctrines

Ezekiel mention Baptism and other ordinations here 36: 25-27

I think the RCC has changed this one to their agenda of lazyness.

Also Exodus 40: 12-14

Answer 9

Perhaps you can explain why certain Protestant sects take the dunking in water so literally, but think that Jesus was only speaking metaphorically at the Last Supper. It seems to me that anyone who takes the Bible literally should also believe in transubstantiation. Why is it that the Catholics are wrong when they look at the dunking in water as a symbol, but are also wrong when they take "This is my body" literally?

Answer 10

it is to remove the original sin(curse) we have inherited from adam and eve, were born with it, to be baptised the main concern (question)is were you baptised in the name of the father, son and holy spirit or ghost, i hear some do not use holy spirit or holy ghost in baptism, making it not complete, you do not need to be dunked. hope this clears it up for you.