# Physical obstacles to immersion, Baptists Only Please



## puriteen18 (Mar 29, 2004)

What should be done when someone was unable to be immersed?

Would affusion then be practiced? or would there be no baptism at all?

Is there any histroical incidents where immersion could not be practiced because the canidate was physically unable have so done?

Thanks.



Title edited by puritansailor


----------



## CyberFish (Mar 29, 2004)

&quot;Is there any histroical incidents where immersion could not be practiced because the canidate was physically unable have so done?&quot;

The theif on the cross next to Christ that believed. 
Since baptism is not required for salvation, I wouldn't worry about it if one absolutely cannot do it. But as soon as that changes, then I would get baptised then.

MT


----------



## blhowes (Mar 29, 2004)

[b:850adac65b]puriteen18 wrote:[/b:850adac65b]
What should be done when someone was unable to be immersed? 

I wish I could think of a verse that talks about what to do in this situation, but I can't. 

I hate to make decisions based on my preferences or emotions, but I would think that if a person can't be immersed, then why not sprinkle or pour water on them? As I've mentioned before, I once attended a service at a reformed congregational church and they had an adult believer getting baptized. They gave their profession of faith and then the pastor poured water on their head as the person kneeled down with her head bowed. It was a very moving ceremony for me as the pouring of the water on the person's head portrayed for me God's active role in a person's salvation. It was neat.

Luckily, I'm not a pastor, deacon, or elder, so we don't have to worry about making such a decision based on how a service affected me.

[Edited on 3-29-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## brymaes (Mar 29, 2004)

Typically, if someone cannt be immersed, a Baptist minister will use another 'mode'. I know a Baptist prision chaplain who would baptize converted inmates in the shower, because immersion would simply not be possible.

This is true even in most fundamentalist circles.

For me, the argument over mode is a silly one. In my mind (and the position of my church), immersion and effusion are equally valid.


----------



## PastorJoe (Mar 29, 2004)

I have never known of a reformed baptist pastor to use another mode. Generally if sufficient water is unavailable, we consider it a providential hindrance and do not baptize.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 29, 2004)

The theif on the cross obviously could not come down and be baptized, but he is not the norm. That would be like a person repenting and coming to Christ as they were being lethally injected in the death chamber. We do not use such an instance to decide proper form in worship and service to God.

If it is absolutely impossible to immerse (and I mean every angle and idea has been covered and there is just no way) then I would pour. There is still the idea of being immersed in the water if it is poured over the entire body. 

I would not ever make mode such an issue as to forbid baptism to an obedient believer. 


Phillip


----------



## puriteen18 (Mar 30, 2004)

[quote:364154911a][i:364154911a]Originally posted by PastorJoe[/i:364154911a]
I have never known of a reformed baptist pastor to use another mode. Generally if sufficient water is unavailable, we consider it a providential hindrance and do not baptize. [/quote:364154911a]

[i:364154911a]providential hindrance [/i:364154911a] 

Hmm... that's rather interesting.  Have to give that one some thought.


----------



## SDD (Mar 30, 2004)

I was involved in a baptism where, for medical reasons, we could not totally immerse the person. We took her into the baptistry, explained to the congregation what we were doing, and poured water over her.

This is obviously the exception to the norm, but remember that baptism is a symbolic representation of an inward reality, and it is the latter that is of greatest importance.


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 6, 2004)

Although some Reformed Baptist like John Gill and Charles Spurgeon considered the mode of baptism to be necessary so that unless it was immersion it was not a baptism but a sprinlking. In fact Gill would not even refer to &quot;infant baptism&quot; but would refer to it as &quot;infant sprinkling&quot;.

But I think, like the orginal baptist before Gill and Spurgeon most baptist feel that the mode is a matter of indefference but it immersion is the wisest course of action because as John Calvin wrote:

[quote:daf553bc1a] But whether the person being baptized whould be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water- these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word 'baptize' means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian religion) [/quote:daf553bc1a] 

But this does not mean that it is not important or that sprinkling is just as perferable as immersion- for just because Scripture does not till us what time to meet on Sunday it does not follow that 2am is just as good as 9am! Therefore, I think it is wisest if you practice beleiver baptism to baptize by immersion unless circumstance restrains.

However, if I thought that infant baptism was alright I can see why someone would think it was not &quot;wise&quot; to put an infant under water!

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Preach (Apr 6, 2004)

Pastorway,
Are you actually saying that pouring is a Scriptural mode of baptism?


----------



## sundoulos (Apr 6, 2004)

The Orthodox (as in Eastern) baptize their infants by immersion.


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 6, 2004)

[quote:b9539626d3][i:b9539626d3]Originally posted by sundoulos[/i:b9539626d3]
The Orthodox (as in Eastern) baptize their infants by immersion. [/quote:b9539626d3]

That is true... I think this is excellent proof that immersion is the preferable way... but I also think that the question of mode cannot really be answered before the question who is to get the sacrament is for the answer to who gets the sacrament will prejudice our answer to the mode.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## pastorway (Apr 6, 2004)

[quote:1d9a4d458e][i:1d9a4d458e]Originally posted by Preach[/i:1d9a4d458e]
Pastorway,
Are you actually saying that pouring is a Scriptural mode of baptism? [/quote:1d9a4d458e]

If, as I stated, I would pour water over the person, I mean ALL over, would that not be immersing them with water??

There is more to immersion than placing someone inside a tub of water!

And I would only do it this way if it were impossible to get the person [i:1d9a4d458e]into[/i:1d9a4d458e] the water to immerse them.

Phillip


----------



## sundoulos (Apr 7, 2004)

I wasn't arguing for mode. I was just responding to your comment on the wisdom of immersing infants. 

I don't have a problem with drenching from above, but our church practices immersion only, so that's what I do.


----------



## Preach (Apr 7, 2004)

Pastorway,
I am not interested in the mode debate perse. As a former Baptist, I have not run into too many that would except any other way than immersion. My question to you (I ask this because I think my paedo brothers and sisters would disagree-I think) is it seems that you are equating a person being put down into a body of water (immersion) and water being put down onto a person (immersion). Is this correct? Do you view them both as immersion? 
Thanks Pastor,
Bobby


----------

