Baptism by Immersion

[atpollard]

Statement from others on Anabaptist Dogma for me to respond to:

Immersion Baptism: The dogma that there is a biblical mandate that the application of water baptism must entirely and completely cover the entire body of the recipient. It's amount the quantity of water involved. Other baptisms are heretical, invalid, wrong and not permitted.

While it is a bit overstated, I do believe that the correct way to administer Baptism is via immersion.

βαπτίζω baptízō, bap-tid'-zo; from a derivative of G911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet)

This word should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

The word means to immerse.

 

[Josiah]

Anabaptists invented the Dogma that baptism MUST be by complete immersion; all the body entirely covered by water as a mandate of Scripture, other modes of administering water are forbidden in Scripture and render the baptism invalid. Many Baptists continue this dogma.


I disagree with the Anabaptists that the word "baptize" MUST mean and EXCLUSIVELY mean full immersion. It CAN have that meaning but not necessarily. I'd note many Scriptures, but just a very small example would be Mark 10:38-39, Luke 12:50, Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Romans 6:3-4 and many more. Some would note Ezekiel 36:25-27 which from the earliest church was seen as a "type" fulfilled in Baptism (and note the point of sprinkling and the coming of the Holy Spirit); a verse used in the Early Church.


The Didache, dated to the first century by most modern scholars is of enormous value because in it we see a first-century catechism for catechumens which was most likely penned before all of the books of the New Testament were even written. And what do we find concerning baptism? "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: . . . baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. If there is no living [“running”] water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (7:1). Now, clearly he personally prefers immersion, but it specifically STATES that pouring is allowed. The author here spoke Greek. His readers all spoke Greek. He lived and wrote within a century of the life of Jesus and the institution of Baptism. Why conclude that neither he nor his audience evidently even knew that the very word MANDATE full and complete immersion and disallows and prohibits pouring? Why didn't he know what some German speaking Anabaptist figured out 1500 years later?


St. Hippolytus (A.D. 215) is unclear as to which manner of baptism he prefers, but makes it clear that immersion is not essential to the sacrament when he says: "If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available." Hum. He writes in Greek. He knew Greek. Why didn't he know that the very word dogmatically means and MANDATES full immersion and that "other means" are dogmatically forbidden?


St. Cornelius (A.D. 251) writes in very plain terms, in his Letter to Fabius of Antioch: "As [Novatian] seemed about to die, he received Baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring.”


Tertullian (A.D. 205), mentions “sprinkling” as a valid form for baptism: "There is absolutely nothing which makes men’s minds more obdurate than the simplicity of the divine works which are visible in the act, when compared with the grandeur which is promised thereto in the effect; so that from the very fact, that with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, finally, without expense, a man is dipped in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner, the consequent attainment of eternity is esteemed the more incredible." (On Baptism).


St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) responding to a man who was asking him the specific question of whether or not the pouring of water in baptism would be valid: "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."


Hum. It seems no one knew that the Greek word specifically means and mandates full complete immersion under water and dogmatically forbids anything else. None of the above knew that. And the Greeks STILL don't know that (they don't demand immersion and have never practiced it). Yet.... some German speaking Anabaptist, who didn't know Greek...in the late 16th Century ... suddenly realized that the word dogmatically mandates full immersion and forbids any other administration of what, forbids sprinkling or pouring or dipping. Hum... Interesting.



Now, IF the issue where whether immersion is a good form - even the preferred form - ah, that's a whole other enchilada than the Anabaptist/Baptist DOMGA of what is MANDATED and FORBIDDEN. Luther liked immersion, even recommend it. But he rebuked the Anabaptists for their horrible Greek and for their invention of a DOGMA meant to condemn, repudiate and declare invalid all baptisms for nearly 1600 years.



.

 

[atpollard]

Mark 10:38-39
"But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" They said to Him, "We are able." And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized."

Jesus, and the Apostles' deaths were not a mere sprinkling of death (as when Paul was bitten by a poison snake) or a dipping of death (as when Paul was stoned and left for dead, but God raised him), rather it was a complete immersion in death from which their former bodies never recovered and through which they were transformed into their glorified forms. Just like the difference between dipping (bapto) a cucumber in boiling water to clean it and immersing (baptizo) the cucumber in vinegar to transform it.


Luke 12:50
"But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!"
Jesus' suffering and death were not a mere sprinkling of death (as when Paul was bitten by a poison snake) or a dipping of death (as when Paul was stoned and left for dead, but God raised him), rather it was a complete immersion from which His former body never recovered and through which He was transformed into His glorified form. Just like the difference between dipping (bapto) a cucumber in boiling water to clean it and immersing (baptizo) the cucumber in vinegar to transform it.


Matthew 3:11
"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

Mark 1:8
"I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

The Baptism of John the Baptist:

• "the Baptist" is literally "one who 'baptizo'" ... so his name is John the Immerser (from baptizo) and not John the Dipper (from bapto),
• John Baptized at the river where there was plenty of water (for immersion).
• Jesus was dunked, not poured ... "After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water" [Matthew 3:16] "Immediately coming up out of the water" [Mark 1:10]

The Baptism of Holy Spirit:

• Sins are not abrogated with a light sprinkling of the Holy Spirit (Yes you are a full of SIN, but God will pass over it for now).
• Sins are not covered with a quick dip in the Holy Spirit to hide them from view (Welcome to the presence of God you whitewashed sepulcher.)
• Sins are completely removed by a deep soaking in the Holy Spirit that reaches clear to the marrow. (God has washed you white as snow.)

Both illustrate the difference between dipping (bapto) a cucumber in boiling water to clean it and immersing (baptizo) the cucumber in vinegar to transform it.


Romans 6:3-4
"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life."

Christ's suffering and death were not a mere sprinkling of death (as when Paul was bitten by a poison snake) or a dipping of death (as when Paul was stoned and left for dead, but God raised him), rather it was a complete immersion from which His former body never recovered and through which He was transformed into His glorified form. Just like the difference between dipping (bapto) a cucumber in boiling water to clean it and immersing (baptizo) the cucumber in vinegar to transform it.
Our "baptizo" into Christ is also not a light sprinkling of new life in Christ or a brief dipping of new life in Christ, it is a complete immersion into Christ from which our old man never recovers and through which we are transformed. Just like the difference between dipping (bapto) a cucumber in boiling water to clean it and immersing (baptizo) the cucumber in vinegar to transform it.


Ezekiel 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. "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. "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

Here is Ezekiel 36:25 in the Septuagint (Greek):
36:25 καὶ ῥανῶ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ὕδωρ καθαρόν καὶ καθαρισθήσεσθε ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν ἀκαθαρσιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν εἰδώλων ὑμῶν καὶ καθαριῶ ὑμᾶς

• The word "baptizo" does not appear.
• God can do as he pleases, but it is not "baptizo" in this verse.
• People are commanded to "baptizo" (immerse).

However, what God describes as doing himself is still more like immersing (baptizo) the cucumber in vinegar to transform it than dipping (bapto) a cucumber in boiling water to clean it.

 

[NewCreation435]

Statement from others on Anabaptist Dogma for me to respond to:


While it is a bit overstated, I do believe that the correct way to administer Baptism is via immersion.

βαπτίζω baptízō, bap-tid'-zo; from a derivative of G911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet)

This word should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

The word means to immerse.

I'm glad we use water and not vinegar
:;-D:

 

[atpollard]

I'm glad we use water and not vinegar
:;-D:

A quick "DIP (bapto) into boiling water would not be pleasant either. :;-D:

 

[JRT]

On a very much lighter note, many years ago I attended a Fellowship Baptist church. They had a baptismal pool and when there was a baptism the pastor would retire to his office, take off his shoes, suit coat and pants and put on a pair of hip waders, come out and climb into the pool. One day he was ready in the pool when the woman to be baptized came out and climbed in. She was a "very large" woman and the water level rose enough to flood the hip waders. The baptism was conducted in the usual manner and the lady climbed out and departed. The pastor couldn't. With great difficulty he was able to finally get his legs out of the waders and retired unceremoniously behind a large bath towel held up by a couple of the elders. I commend the congregation --- the laughter didn't start until they had left the church.

 

[Albion]

THOSE images are priceless!

 

[Josiah]

I don't even care if there is no restriction in the Bible.

So why a dogmatic restriction that every baptism MUST involved the FULL and complete immersion of every cell of the body under water - all baptisms NOT fully meeting that restriction are heretical, invalid, and prohibited? Why dogmatically restrict all baptisms to full, complete immersion under water?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Statement from others on Anabaptist Dogma for me to respond to:


While it is a bit overstated, I do believe that the correct way to administer Baptism is via immersion.

βαπτίζω baptízō, bap-tid'-zo; from a derivative of G911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet)

This word should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

The word means to immerse.

While I now take a different "view" as it were on the mode of baptism, I recall well my own (second) baptism (of the 'Credobaptism' type) and I'll never forget the experience. There is a significance to the full immersion that was very personal to me at the time

 

[Lamb]

While I now take a different "view" as it were on the mode of baptism, I recall well my own (second) baptism (of the 'Credobaptism' type) and I'll never forget the experience. There is a significance to the full immersion that was very personal to me at the time

That's what I hear from most people who insist on immersion only...that it's about the experience. I think they have that need for experience because they don't realize what God is doing for them in their baptisms? The focus is so much on their commitment that they push God out of the way and drown Him.

 

[Josiah]

Here's my question...


That German-speaking Anabaptist in the late 16th Century dogmatically declared that the Greek word for "baptize" MEANS and DOGMATICALLY MANDATES that the person be entirely, completely and wholly immersed under water - and the literal meaning of the word PROHIBITS otherwise (dipping, etc.). Okay.


My question is this: Why doesn't any Greek speaking person know that? There is a LONG list of GREEK SPEAKING people, starting around 90 AD, all indicating that immersion is NOT mandated or required and specifically stating other means are okay. Why didn't any of these people - who knew koine Greek, who spoke koine Greek, who wrote in koine Greek and whose audience knew and spoke koine Greek, why didn't any of them know what this German speaking guy dogmatically KNEW in the late 16th Century?


And the Greek Orthodox Church - which has been speaking Greek for 2000 years and where the clergy and members all know Greek and and speak Greek - NONE of them, not even one of them, in nearly 2000 years - seems to know that the very word MEANS and MANDATES the complete immersion of the person entirely under water and forbids otherwise. The Greek Orthodox Church has NEVER in nearly 2000 years, has NEVER mandated or even used complete immersion. Their custom is to "DIP" (although I admit sometimes their "dipping" can be pretty wet!). Why doesn't a single person of the Greek Orthodox Church EVER - in nearly 2000 years - NO ONE of them as EVER know what this German speaking guy disclosed in the late 16th Century?


Can someone explain that to me?



Now, remember: We're discussing a DOGMA invented by an Anabaptist and still embraced by Baptists. It's DOGMA. It's MANDATED. Otherwise, it's invalid and prohibited. IF (big word, lol) IF the discussion was not dogma, not requirements, not condemnations and repudiations, but rather preferred custom and practice.... THEN we'd have a whole other enchilada. Clearly those in the earliest church PREFERRED immersion (although it seems this was always understood as dipping). And this PREFERRED mode is expressed for years. Luther himself wrote (twice) that this was the perferrable means and it is recorded that at least once, he himself baptized a baby by dipping. But PREFERRED CUSTOM is not the issue. The DOGMA of FULL IMMERSION ONLY is the issue.




Below are some references:


The Didache, (A.D. 90) "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: . . . baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (7:1).


St. Cornelius (A.D. 251) "As [Novatian] seemed about to die, he received Baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring.”


Tertullian (A.D. 205), "There is absolutely nothing which makes men’s minds more obdurate than the simplicity of the divine works which are visible in the act, when compared with the grandeur which is promised thereto in the effect; so that from the very fact, that with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, finally, without expense, a man is dipped in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner, the consequent attainment of eternity is esteemed the more incredible." (On Baptism).


St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."





:dunno:





.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

That's what I hear from most people who insist on immersion only...that it's about the experience. I think they have that need for experience because they don't realize what God is doing for them in their baptisms? The focus is so much on their commitment that they push God out of the way and drown Him.

That, and there are some things I believe about baptism itself that I didn't want to address in the thread. I also recall, though, that they had me put on this sort of 'jumpsuit' thing that was waaaay too small. It was soaked as well and took me ten minutes to get out of it. They were a bit worried about me!

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

In response to some of the objections raised, it is my understanding that for those who are unable to be baptized by immersion (illness, deathbed, etc) allowances are made for other modes. I'm speaking from what I understand of the Credobaptist position. I'm open to being corrected

 

[Josiah]

In response to some of the objections raised, it is my understanding that for those who are unable to be baptized by immersion (illness, deathbed, etc) allowances are made for other modes.

If that is true, then in MY opinion, that destroys the whole dogma. The whole point is what is dogmatically MANDATED and PROHIBITED. If it's neither, then there goes the dogma.


As I mentioned, IF the Baptist position was simply this: We hold that the PREFERRED mode is immersion and it is our custom/praxis to do that whenever practical - but we will not declare other modes as wrong or invalid or heretical. IF that was their position, we'd have no conflict. OBVIOUSLY immersion (well, probably understood as dipping) WAS the preferred mode in the early church (as my quotes show); even Luther himself held to that. And every church and denomination has every ability to establish ways of doing things in that denomination as it regards as best. IF that were the situation, there would have been no HUGE issue in the Reformation and we'd probably have ended this whole thread in 3 posts. The ISSUE is the DOGMA. The issue is that Anabaptist declared it MANDATED and all other means FORBIDDEN and INVALID. That's what made the whole issue such a big deal 400 or so years ago in Europe, and that's what makes it do divisive today. And the entirely of the dogma is just this: The koine Greek word ITSELF dogmatically mandates this and forbids any other mode. That's the whole point, the entire argument, the totality of the apologetic. Well..... if "exceptions" are made and it's still valid.... there goes the dogma, there goes any basis to argue my baptism was invalid because not every cell of my body was under water (I was baptized with an eye-dropper),



Blessings!


Josiah

 

[atpollard]

The Didache, (A.D. 90) "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: . . . baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water.

That is IMMERSION like John the Baptist did it (and the Greek word ‘baptizo’ means) ... at least one group of early Greek speaking Christians understood it, apparently. [Traditionally, the the Didache is the teaching of the Apostles.]

If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (7:1).

Why is it you can see the word POUR so clearly, but never seem to notice that that is a ‘third choice’ after the FIRST CHOICE of immersion in moving water (living water), the SECOND CHOICE of immersion in still water (like a pool), and then comes the THIRD CHOICE of pouring in the event that you have neither moving water nor a pool of still water to immerse in.

Do you really have access to neither moving water nor a still pool to immerse in?

 

[Josiah]

Here's my question...


That German-speaking Anabaptist in the late 16th Century dogmatically declared that the Greek word for "baptize" MEANS and DOGMATICALLY MANDATES that the person be entirely, completely and wholly immersed under water - and the literal meaning of the word PROHIBITS otherwise (dipping, etc.). Okay.


My question is this: Why doesn't any Greek speaking person know that? There is a LONG list of GREEK SPEAKING people, starting around 90 AD, all indicating that immersion is NOT mandated or required and specifically stating other means are okay. Why didn't any of these people - who knew koine Greek, who spoke koine Greek, who wrote in koine Greek and whose audience knew and spoke koine Greek, why didn't any of them know what this German speaking guy dogmatically KNEW in the late 16th Century?


And the Greek Orthodox Church - which has been speaking Greek for 2000 years and where the clergy and members all know Greek and and speak Greek - NONE of them, not even one of them, in nearly 2000 years - seems to know that the very word MEANS and MANDATES the complete immersion of the person entirely under water and forbids otherwise. The Greek Orthodox Church has NEVER in nearly 2000 years, has NEVER mandated or even used complete immersion. Their custom is to "DIP" (although I admit sometimes their "dipping" can be pretty wet!). Why doesn't a single person of the Greek Orthodox Church EVER - in nearly 2000 years - NO ONE of them as EVER know what this German speaking guy disclosed in the late 16th Century?


Can someone explain that to me?



Now, remember: We're discussing a DOGMA invented by an Anabaptist and still embraced by Baptists. It's DOGMA. It's MANDATED. Otherwise, it's invalid and prohibited. IF (big word, lol) IF the discussion was not dogma, not requirements, not condemnations and repudiations, but rather preferred custom and practice.... THEN we'd have a whole other enchilada. Clearly those in the earliest church PREFERRED immersion (although it seems this was always understood as dipping). And this PREFERRED mode is expressed for years. Luther himself wrote (twice) that this was the perferrable means and it is recorded that at least once, he himself baptized a baby by dipping. But PREFERRED CUSTOM is not the issue. The DOGMA of FULL IMMERSION ONLY is the issue.




Below are some references:


The Didache, (A.D. 90) "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: . . . baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (7:1).


St. Cornelius (A.D. 251) "As [Novatian] seemed about to die, he received Baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring.”


Tertullian (A.D. 205), "There is absolutely nothing which makes men’s minds more obdurate than the simplicity of the divine works which are visible in the act, when compared with the grandeur which is promised thereto in the effect; so that from the very fact, that with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, finally, without expense, a man is dipped in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner, the consequent attainment of eternity is esteemed the more incredible." (On Baptism).


St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."

Why is it you can see the word POUR so clearly

Because OBVIOUSLY the author of this ... around 90 AD.... who knew and spoke koine Greek and his audience knew and spoke koine Greek.... only a few decades after Jesus established Christian baptism.... he doesn't seem to know what that German speaking Anabaptist knew 1500 years later, that the word BAPTISM means and mandates full immersion under water and prohibites every other means of applying water.

Why do you think he didn't know that? Why did it take 1500 years and a German speaking Anabaptist to figure out that the Greek word means and mandates full immersion under water and forbids anything other?



.

 

[atpollard]

Because OBVIOUSLY the author of this ... around 90 AD.... who knew and spoke koine Greek and his audience knew and spoke koine Greek.... only a few decades after Jesus established Christian baptism.... he doesnt seem to know what that German speaking Anabaptist knew 1500 years later, that the word BAPTISM means and mandates full immersion under water and prohibites every other means of applying water.

Why do you think he didn't know that? Why did it take 1500 years and a German speaking Anabaptist to figure out that the Greek word means and mandates that?
.

The Didache, (A.D. 90) "baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water.”
Why did it take 1500 years for someone to read the Didache and do what it says ... baptize in living water.

 

[Arsenios]

I'm glad we use water and not vinegar
:;-D:

There is, to be sure, something that is just, well, WRONG...
With the whole expression that would then ensue, you see...
About the resultant condition of Salvation being described...
As that of one being PICKLED in the Holy Spirit, yes?

NO vinegar in the Baptismal Waters of Regeneration!


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

In response to some of the objections raised, it is my understanding that for those who are unable to be baptized by immersion (illness, deathbed, etc) allowances are made for other modes. I'm speaking from what I understand of the Credobaptist position. I'm open to being corrected

We have a story out of the Desert in Egypt, where three young men, two Christian and one not, got lost...
And they ran out of water, and food, and were getting very very weak and unable to keep walking...
And the non-Christian, seeing death approaching, said he wanted to be baptized before he died...
And would the Christians please Baptize him...

The first said: "Sorry, I am not a priest..."
The second said: "Why not? We will die anyway."
So he baptized the non-Christian by pouring on him three times...
In the Name of the Father...
And of the Son...
And of the Holy Spirit...

And the now Christian revived...
Found his way to get help...
And they all survived...
And the Church Baptized the young man properly...

For he had been Baptized with sand...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Now for all you SISSIES out there!!!

This is how REAL MEN get Baptized in Russia!!!

Winter ICE is no problem!!!

Brace yourself for 56 seconds of manly Baptisms!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTRiid5ERd0


Arsenios