Baptism by Immersion

https://carm.org/baptism-and-john-35
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." *4 Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? *He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"* 5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. *7"Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' *8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit,"(John 3:3-8).

There are five basic interpretations of this section of*scripture*in reference to water.

The water refers to the natural birth.

The water refers to the Word of God.

The water refers to the Holy Spirit.

The water refers to the ministry of John the Baptist.

The water refers to the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.

The first option looks to the context of Jesus' words dealing with being born "again" (3:3). *Nicodemus responds by mentioning the experience of being born from the womb (v. 4). *Jesus then speaks of water and the Spirit and then says,*"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."*(3:6).* The implication is that the first birth is the natural birth, and the second birth is the spiritual birth.* In other words, the water refers to the water of the womb--the first birth.* This seems to have support in the understanding of Nicodemus about entering into the womb to be born a second time.* However, this view is not the most commonly held view.

The second option holds that the water is referring to the Word of God. *Eph. 5:26says,*"that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word."*Some believe that the washing of water is done by means of the Word of God.

The third view says that the water refers to the*Holy Spirit. *Perhaps Nicodemus was reminded of*Ezek. 36:25-27,*"Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. *26"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. *27"And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances."*Certainly,*Jesus' own words are applicable here when He says in*John 7:37-39,*"Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. 38"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.'" *39But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified."

The fourth view holds that the water is in reference to the water baptism of repentance taught by John the Baptist. *Matt. 3:1-6*describes John's ministry in the desert, his teaching about repentance, and baptizing people into that repentance. Contextually, the first chapter of John mentions John the Baptist in verses 6-8 and 19-36. *Certainly, John and his ministry is in view here. *If this is the case, then Jesus would have been speaking of the "baptism" (the initiatory ordinance) of repentance preached by John the Baptist.

The fifth view is the one held by the International Church of Christ and other churches that require baptism in order to be saved.* They state that the water is referring to baptism and that it is essential to*salvation.

https://carm.org/baptism-and-john-35
Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is essential to salvation?

As you can see, there are different interpretations to*John 3:5. *But, to say*simply*that*John 3:5*does*not*teach the necessity of baptism isn't enough. *Some sort of proof must be offered. *The proof is found in God's word--the word that has no contradictions.* Clearly, salvation is by faith. For example,*Rom. 5:1*states that we are justified (declared righteous) by faith. *It does not say faith and baptism. *If baptism were part of salvation, then it would say we were justified by faith and baptism. *But it does not. *If*justification*is by faith, then it is by faith. *Baptism is not faith. It is a ceremony.* It is something we do as a ritual. *Furthermore, please consider the following verses which declare how we are saved.

Rom. 3:22,*"even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction."

Rom. 3:26,*"for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

Rom. 3:28,*"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."

Rom. 4:5,*"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness."

Rom. 5:1,*"Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Gal. 3:8,*"And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham."

Gal. 3:24,*"Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."

Eph. 2:8,*"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."

Additionally, Paul tells us that the gospel is what saves us and that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Baptism is not included in the description of the gospel. *This explains why he said he came to preach the gospel--not to baptize:*"I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. *(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) *For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel . . . "*(1 Cor. 1:14-17). *If baptism is necessary for salvation, then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? *It is because baptism isn't necessary for salvation. *Therefore,*John 3:5*must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the rest of scripture.

Another way of making this clear is to use an illustration. *Let's suppose that a person, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), believed in Jesus as his savior (Rom. 10:9-10;*Titus 2:13) and has received Christ (John 1:12) as Savior. *Is that person saved? *Of course he is. *Let's further suppose that this person who confesses his sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and receives Jesus as Savior and then walks across the street to get baptized at a local church. *In the middle of the road, he gets hit by a car and is killed. *Does he go to heaven or hell? *If he goes to heaven, then*baptismisn't necessary for salvation. *If He goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, isn't enough for salvation. *Doesn't that go against the Scriptures that say that salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23) received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9)? *Yes, it does. *Baptism is not necessary for salvation, and*John 3:5cannot teach that it is.

atpollard said:

The literal meaning of the Greek word ‘baptizo’... is immerse...

The word ‘baptizo’ means ‘immerse’ not pour...

I have ALWAYS argued that Immersion is Preferred

Click to expand...

Trying to work backwards from Greek words
to their definitions
to their usages
in a wide variety of contexts...
And from there to their theological meaning in the Bible
regarding Church Dogma
is a sketchy venture...
And especially so when done
outside the Faith and Praxis
of the Body that produced those words
which we are trying to understand
as we read our Bibles...

Yet this is what we are left to do...
When we have turned our backs...
On the Body that produced the words...

This is the inherent fatal flaw, you see...
Of the false doctrine of Sola Scripture...

Sola Ekklesia would be no better...

Katholika, not Sola, is the key...

The Faith is according to the Whole...

The Ekklesia is Katholika...


Arsenios

ps - That Georgian Priest has the most unusual infant Baptism I have ever seen...

And the infants getting dunked headfirst seem to have no complaints...

Shocking, I say!

Less trauma than circumcision I would imagine...


A.

MennoSota said:

https://carm.org/baptism-and-john-35
Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is essential to salvation?

Click to expand...

It would sure seem so...

5
Jesus answered,
“Very truly I tell you,
no one can enter the kingdom of God
unless they are born of water and the Spirit."

Mark 1:8
I indeed have baptized you (in) water:
but He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.

We are saved from and through and by water...

First: Noah from water in the Ark...

Second: Moses through the Red Sea's waters...

Third: Christ in the waters of the Jordan in the Holy Spirit...

Water is centrally involved in our Salvation by God...


Arsenios

Arsenios said:

Trying to work backwards from Greek words
to their definitions
to their usages
in a wide variety of contexts...
And from there to their theological meaning in the Bible
regarding Church Dogma
is a sketchy venture...
And especially so when done
outside the Faith and Praxis
of the Body that produced those words
which we are trying to understand
as we read our Bibles...

Yet this is what we are left to do...
When we have turned our backs...
On the Body that produced the words...

This is the inherent fatal flaw, you see...
Of the false doctrine of Sola Scripture...

Sola Ekklesia would be no better...

Katholika, not Sola, is the key...

The Faith is according to the Whole...

The Ekklesia is Katholika...


Arsenios

ps - That Georgian Priest has the most unusual infant Baptism I have ever seen...

And the infants getting dunked headfirst seem to have no complaints...

Shocking, I say!

Less trauma than circumcision I would imagine...


A.

Click to expand...

...well...mother russia didn't produce the words so no turning our backs on God and the words he chose to use when we don't listen to an apostate church.

MennoSota said:

https://carm.org/baptism-and-john-35

Click to expand...

NOTHING there proves that Baptism MUST be by full, complete submersion under water or it's invalid.

NOT ONE SCRIPTURE there that states it is dogmatically prohibited to baptize by dipping or sprinkling and doing so is heretical and invalid.

NOTHING in what entire article that provides ANYTHING AT ALL substantiating that the very word "baptize" MEANS and MANDATES the full immersion of a person under water and FORBIDS any other mode of water application.




.

Josiah said:

NOTHING there proves that Baptism MUST be by full, complete submersion under water or it's invalid.

NOT ONE SCRIPTURE there that states it is dogmatically prohibited to baptize by dipping or sprinkling and doing so is heretical and invalid.

NOTHING in what entire article that provides ANYTHING AT ALL substantiating that the very word "baptize" MEANS and MANDATES the full immersion of a person under water and FORBIDS any other mode of water application.




.

Click to expand...

It's not intended to.
I am fine with sprinkling.
Water Baptism is a copy of what Christ has done in making us pure by the shedding of his blood. Christ secured our place in heaven and the Spirit has baptized us into Christ. Whether we symbolically express this on earth by full immersion or sprinkling is not important to me since baptism is symbolic.

Hebrews 9:15-28

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Click to expand...

Arsenios said:

Of the false doctrine of Sola Scripture...

Click to expand...

Sola Scriptura is the PRAXIS of using the words of Scripture as the Rule in the normin g of disputed positions among us. Three steps are required in resolving disputes: 1) ALL parties must accept that they are fully accountable and could be wrong 2) Some Rule to which all agree to be subject - and the more objective and universally accepted as authoritative, the better 3) Arbitration to which all will submit; something which determines if the position is or is not normed by the Rule (the 7 Ecumenical Councils were attempts at this). Theoretically, Protestants have #1 (reality may not be so much, lol) and we have the second - but we don't have the third. The RCC has none of these, just ego the size of Jupiter. But all 3 don't exist. And sadly, never have. But that doesn't mean they are irrelevant or bad, just that AS PRACTICED, it's insufficient.

BTW, Sola Scripture does NOT - at all - ignore Tradition. However, Tradition comes in to play in that third part.... and it is used as "the historic consensus in how Scripture is understood." It doesn't displace the words of Scripture, it is not separate from Scripture (a second "leg" or "stream" or "source"), it is the consensus of the church catholic on the interpretation and application of Scripture, meaningful because the third step (arbitration) mandates something outside of itself to help determine if the disputed position "measures up" to the "measuring stick" (the Rule, the Norma Normans). Lutherans do NOT dismiss Tradition, they simply embrace it in step 3 and as a hermeneutical too, not a separate Rule

I'm the first to admit some Protestants misunderstand and misuse this praxis.

Sola Ekklesia would be no better...

Click to expand...

It IS worse. FAR worse.

In Sola Ecclesia, the teacher (a person, church, denomination, cult) simply declares SELF to be unaccountable; meaning the whole issue of truth is entirely irrrelvant, ALL that matters is whether self says it. Check out the RCC and the LDS for examples. BUT I admit, this IS the default position of a LOT of individual persons, churches, denominations and cults. PRIDE is - sadly, tragically - all too common in Christianity. People seem to care FAR more for power than truth. IMO, we need to work HARD and CONSTANTLY against relativism/minimalism on the one hand AND equally against pride/power on the other.





To the thread:


The DOGMA of "IMMERSION ONLY BAPTISM" was invented in the late 16th Century by some Anabaptists.
It is one of the foundational, defining Dogmas of Baptists. One of the few things that makes one a Baptist.
It dogmatically mandates that baptism be ONLY by the full and complete submersion of every cell of the recipient under water.
That ALL other modes are dogmatically forbidden, invalid and heretical.
Every baptism before the late 16th Century when this dogma was invented were thus heretical and invalid (and most since)

It's entirely based on the Greek word "baptism" dogmatically meaning and mandating full immersion and prohibiting anything otherwise.
Of course, that's news to any who actually knows Greek.



- Josiah








.