Baptism By Immersion

[carpeomnius]

Let me first state that I believe that true baptism has always been by immersion. I am a Mormon. This question is directed primarily at my Mormon brothers and sisters. On Yahoo answers I asked why the ordinance of baptism was changed by the Catholic Church from immersion to sprinkling. I got some good responses from Catholics. In fact, some of their responses seem hard to dispute.

One of them told me that we usually take for granted the availability and ease of obtaining water, saying some have not always had a plentiful water supply, nor a convenient river or stream. Says she, 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. This is argument number 1. Argument number 2 cites Acts 2:41, which says 'about' 3,000 people were baptized in one day, as proof that sprinkling was acceptable because 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? Argument number 3 admits to the word Baptism in the Greek to mean dip and immerse, but says that if you look it up in the Greek lexicon it has the meaning of "wash" as well...and one could be washed by pouring. They cite Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:3-4 as having the Greek word baptisma? in one of its meanings as "to wash." So, fellow saints, I would be very grateful if you could help me against these very convincing arguments against baptism by immersion being the only true baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ in the early days. It's much more clear that the Nephites practiced baptism by immersion. And it's obvious that the true Church practices it today, but how do we respond to the above arguments?

[Garden Girl]

Don't know... all I know is that Christ set the example for us in numerous things... baptism by immersion being one (how to pray, the sacrament, charity, etc)

Somehow, the members in Africa and similar countries seem to be able to follow Christ's example...

The Garden Girl

[CourtneyP]

I personally believe in baptism by immersion. That's the way Christ was baptized and that's good enough for me.

[rickg]

Some good(some not so good) dialogues on gospel doctrine, and how it is answered to others, goes on here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/

May want to search their discussions, or register and pose this question there youself. This forum seems short on answering these kind of questions by anything other than the usual "pat answers" you hear in sunday school, no offense intended. I've pretty much given up on trying myself.

[LatterDaySaint]

Hi carpeomnius,

One of them told me that we usually take for granted the availability and ease of obtaining water, saying some have not always had a plentiful water supply, nor a convenient river or stream. Says she, 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. This is argument number 1.

This may sound compelling.... No doubt the availability of water is still something that we take for granted today in some areas of the world. Yet, the ordinance has not changed. Convenience never made it right (or valid).

Argument number 2 cites Acts 2:41, which says 'about' 3,000 people were baptized in one day, as proof that sprinkling was acceptable because 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?

Remember, the actual baptismal ordinance itself can take less than 25 seconds (Think how quickly temple baptisms can be performed). Supposing just 8 people were performing the baptisms, they could theoretically accomplish this feat in under 3 hours. By no means do I think this time constraint was impossible.

Argument number 3 admits to the word Baptism in the Greek to mean dip and immerse, but says that if you look it up in the Greek lexicon it has the meaning of "wash" as well...and one could be washed by pouring. They cite Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:3-4 as having the Greek word baptisma? in one of its meanings as "to wash."

This is only partially correct. The Greek root is Baptismo which means to immerse--not "dip and immerse". There can be no doubt that immersion was performed. You may choose to share these verses: Matt. 3:16; Acts 8:37-39; Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 2:12; D&C 20:72-74; D&C 128:12-13.

Immersion has symbolic meaning in the ordinance of baptism. That meaning is lost if the ordinance is not performed correctly. The early saints performed baptism by immersion. The early saints were taught and understood the symbolic importance of baptism by immersion (See Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 2:12; and D&C 128:12-13). Being immersed in the water is symbolic of death--as in the death of our former, sinful lives. Being raised from the water is symbolic of the resurrection, Christ giving us a new life--as one of His disciples.

As Latter-Day Saints, it can be difficult to explain the importance of baptism by immersion by someone who has authority. Hopefully, some of these scriptures can help. Modern revelation greatly clarifies the matter.

If you're interested, here's a great talk from the late President Faust: James E. Faust, “Born Again,” Ensign, May 2001, 54. I find that referring others to church talks can be a great help.

Good luck helping your friend,

LatterDaySaint

[Connolly]

It had very little to do with the availability of water.

You may want to find and read an article titled "The Catholic Liturgy and The Mormon Temple" by Marcus Von Wellnitz. The article is copyrighted by BYU and is not available online but it can be purchased online. Jeff Lindsay touches briefly on a few of Marcus von Wellnitz's points on his web site (scroll down a little).

Marcus von Wellnitz contends that the baptism ordinance as practiced in the Catholic church is a conflation of the original immersion baptism and other early esoteric Christian rituals, rituals that are familiar to modern LDS. Consider that at a Catholic baptism the child is not just baptized (sprinked) but is also anointed with oil (with reference to Christ's anointing as Prophet, Priest, and King), clothed in a white garment, and given a new name (the name of a saint). (Cyrill suggested in the fourth century that by the anointing the person also became a prophet, priest, and royal)

Also, next time any of you temple endowed members visit a cathedral, especially the really old ones, I suggest you take a good look around. I've been in many cathedrals around the world but St Marks in Venice has some of the best examples of things a temple endowed LDS member should recognize.

[Dale]

This article dealt with the argument behind Acts 2:41. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2237 I am not saying it's a definitive answer though. I didn't have time to see if it dealt with any of the other scriptures used to support sprinkiling. I tend to use my search tool to find different way's different faith's treat such scriptures and the other's arguments.

[mnn727]

This is argument number 1. Argument number 2 cites Acts 2:41, which says 'about' 3,000 people were baptized in one day, as proof that sprinkling was acceptable because 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?

Ever do Baptisms for the dead in the Temple? 3000 in one day would be a piece of cake, even hidden.

[Traveler]

Let me first state that I believe that true baptism has always been by immersion. I am a Mormon. This question is directed primarily at my Mormon brothers and sisters. On Yahoo answers I asked why the ordinance of baptism was changed by the Catholic Church from immersion to sprinkling. I got some good responses from Catholics. In fact, some of their responses seem hard to dispute.

One of them told me that we usually take for granted the availability and ease of obtaining water, saying some have not always had a plentiful water supply, nor a convenient river or stream. Says she, 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. This is argument number 1. Argument number 2 cites Acts 2:41, which says 'about' 3,000 people were baptized in one day, as proof that sprinkling was acceptable because 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? Argument number 3 admits to the word Baptism in the Greek to mean dip and immerse, but says that if you look it up in the Greek lexicon it has the meaning of "wash" as well...and one could be washed by pouring. They cite Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:3-4 as having the Greek word baptisma? in one of its meanings as "to wash." So, fellow saints, I would be very grateful if you could help me against these very convincing arguments against baptism by immersion being the only true baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ in the early days. It's much more clear that the Nephites practiced baptism by immersion. And it's obvious that the true Church practices it today, but how do we respond to the above arguments?

You seem like a really good guy - rather than argue a point, I would be inclined to offer a baptism (with much water as Christ was baptized by John) for anyone that is concerned with having been baptized with not very much water.

The Traveler

[Stampede]

Let me first state that I believe that true baptism has always been by immersion. I am a Mormon. This question is directed primarily at my Mormon brothers and sisters. On Yahoo answers I asked why the ordinance of baptism was changed by the Catholic Church from immersion to sprinkling. I got some good responses from Catholics. In fact, some of their responses seem hard to dispute.

One of them told me that we usually take for granted the availability and ease of obtaining water, saying some have not always had a plentiful water supply, nor a convenient river or stream. Says she, 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. This is argument number 1. Argument number 2 cites Acts 2:41, which says 'about' 3,000 people were baptized in one day, as proof that sprinkling was acceptable because 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? Argument number 3 admits to the word Baptism in the Greek to mean dip and immerse, but says that if you look it up in the Greek lexicon it has the meaning of "wash" as well...and one could be washed by pouring. They cite Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:3-4 as having the Greek word baptisma? in one of its meanings as "to wash." So, fellow saints, I would be very grateful if you could help me against these very convincing arguments against baptism by immersion being the only true baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ in the early days. It's much more clear that the Nephites practiced baptism by immersion. And it's obvious that the true Church practices it today, but how do we respond to the above arguments?

Christ, and his apostles commanded all to be baptized with the "Baptism of John" in many occasions.

the greek word for Baptism means "To Dip" and also contingently means "To Wash" but the term "to wash" derives from the act of purifying oneself during baptism. Christ was baptized by immersion by john the Baptist as an example. and he said in the Bible to be baptized in the manner in which he was.

The argument for that of the limited water supplies, there was recorded people trecking across deserts to reach the ocean to be baptized properly. even in the early days of the church past 40 A.D.

The Second argument is easier to argue with. the act of baptizing takes all of 20 seconds.

So if you could do a baptism in 20 seconds (which is entirely possible because it is very few words spoke, and then the dipping and coming forth.) the formula follows for only one person performing the baptism:

3 per minute x 60 minutes in an hour = 180 Baptisms per hour x 24 hours in a day = 4320.

Even if they only did it 17 hours straight with 1 person baptizing, that's still 3060. (and this is unprobable due to exertion on one person)

Say there were 4 people with the proper authority to baptize. and say it took them 30 seconds to baptize each person. it would still only take 7 hours to baptize 3360 people.

limited help? i think 4 people is sufficient. and the strength the priesthood gives strength "unto the renewing of your bodies" would be entirely possible...

If they had 5 people and it took a WHOLE MINUTE to baptize each person, it would still only take 10 Hours to reach 3000 People.

Math is awesome.

[a-train]

Romans 6 demonstrates the symbolism of death and resurrection made in the ordinance of baptism. Without immersion, this symbolism is lost.

-a-train

[Maya]

I am sorry I ahve no time to read all of the thread...but here is my 5 pence:

Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times - Maxwell Institute Papers

I hope it was not here yet...