Baptism by immersion vs? Pouring

[thessalonian]

I got in to a debate on what is said to be a thread about baptism by immersion vs. pouring. A few posts in it became clear to me that Protestants who insist on immersion believe we are denying it in our baptism's by pouring. It is the false dichtomy, the either/or mentality we as humans naturally have, rather than the both/and view of Catholic thought. I wrote the following up in order to clarify my thinking on the matter and would be interested in your input to help further develope my thinking. If you have no input I hope it at least helps you in addressing the issue in some future discussion with non-catholics.

Jeff,


I think in all of this I need to make one thing clear. Let me approach it from the standpoint of the Lord's Supper as an analogy. I see manythings in the Lord's supper. It is the mana in the desert, the sacrifice of Melchiezedek, the offering of cain and Able, the pascal lamb, the Jewish sacrifices of the unblemished lamb, the jar of grain that never went dry, feeding the widow and Elijah, the pure grain offering spoken of in Malchi 1:11, the grain offering of Abel, the feeding of five thousand, etc. etc. all rolled up in to one. That we use bread and wine does not neglect the sign of the unblemished lamb or deny it. In fact it is spoken of in our rite of the Mass. I do not limit God to one sign per sacrametn either.

That is why when I say baptism can be done by pouring, you see me as denying immersion, but I am not. The two are not exclusive at all. I can't find the Catholic Rite of Baptism that is read during a baptism but it speaks of both, fully acknowledging our burial with Christ in baptism even when the rite is performed by pouring. In baptism I see many things in from the Old Testament as well. The cleansing of Namaan, the crossing of the Jordan river (which tradition has as where Jesus was baptized) of the Israelites in to the promised land, the parting of the red sea, and noah's ark. All these things cause us to reflect on what the sacrament is and understand what God intends for us from it at least on some human level because for me they are greater mysteries than we can comprehend.

I hope that clears thinsgs up a bit for you Jeff.

Blessings
_________________

[phatcatholic]

that's a good point man, i like it.

btw, here are some articles that may help:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/531"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/531[/url]

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Twentie Fow]

I wonder when the doctrine of baptism by pouring was defined? Or has the Church always done baptisms this way? It's interesting that scripture does not instruct to either pour or immerse.

Edited October 8, 2005 by Twentie Fow

[tojo]

I really believe that one of the biggest divisions in world Christianity today is betweem "baptists" and "pedobaptists."

"Baptists" are people hold that baptism may only be given to consenting believers by immersion. "Pedobaptists" are people who will baptize babies and will baptize by pouring or sprinkling. Baptist (i.e. Southern) take their name from this doctrinal position.

Anyways, I use to be a "baptistic" Pentecostal and Evangelical, and there was this sense of a huge divide between us and the pedobaptists, such that many, if not most would ever consider attending a pedobaptistic church. (Unless God makes them become Catholic : )

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Twentie Fow' date='Oct 8 2005, 05:25 AM']I wonder when the doctrine of baptism by pouring was defined?  Or has the Church always done baptisms this way?  It's interesting that scripture does not instruct to either pour or immerse.
[right][snapback]750491[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If you look in the Didache, which is a late first, early second century Catechetical writing, also known as The Teachings of the Apostles, it speaks of pouring as a valid baptismal practice. Look for Didache at www.newadvent.org/fathers/

[Benedict]

It is called baptism by infusion.

[phatcatholic]

here is the reference from the Didache:[list]"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
[/list]it is the matter that is important, not how that matter is conferred upon the recipient. full immersion is simply not always practical. what were the people in desert lands to do? every church is supposed to have a pool or a river near by? what of the ancient christian artwork that shows the minister pouring, even John the Baptist as he stands in the Jordan River? its simply too legalistic and ahistorical to insist that immersion is the [i][b]only[/b][/i] way to baptize.