Talk:Baptism

Catholic Baptism

Does anyone have a better picture of a Catholic baptism? The priest's vestments in the one used currently are kinda plain and ugly.

Trinitarian Formula

I've got some beefs with the opening paragraphs:

Baptism is a Christian ritual or sacrament performed with water, applied 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit', by which the baptised person is incorporated into the life and the teachings of Christ, in the context of a Christian church.

Some feminist Christians refer to the persons of the Holy Trinity with more gender-neutral language, such as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer (or Sanctifier), and substitute this language.

Number one, the comment about the feminist POV is definitely important and belongs in this article (or perhaps another), but just doesn't belong up top like that. That's introducing secondary information before explaining the main point and reads like running off on a tangent.

Second of all, and this should help the other complaint, I don't believe the definitive statement that Christian baptism is performed "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" should be made at all as a definition of baptism. There are quite a few Christian groups that don't accept the Trinity and/or perform baptisms simply saying "in the name of Jesus Christ," and some other variants. I'm not a member of any of these groups, but I run across them all the time. I think that statement should be moved down below, and then the feminist comment will not seem necessary at the top and can be moved down lower or into the Trinitarian formula page. Jdavidb 15:47, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alright; but there is also the fact that for most of us, the difference between getting wet and getting baptised, resides in the Trinitarian formula. Mkmcconn — 22:43, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The concern with Trinity -- in the Catholic Church at least -- is understanding baptism as being related to persons (the three persons in God). The reason that Father, Son, and Spirit MUST be used is the issue of immenant vs economic Trinity. At Baptism, one is incorporated INTO God -- ie, a relationship of persons. A dubium was sent to Rome asking about Baptism in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Question was as to validity of the baptism. Answer, negative. While the femine aspect of God is quite real, that isn't the issue in teh Sacrament in this case.Davescj 21:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Not NPOV

Most recent edit wasn't NPOV. Baptism for Christians may have been instituted by Jesus Christ, but John the Baptist was baptizing first, leading to several possible interpretations of who "instituted" it. Also, baptism seems to have been related to the previous Jewish rites of purification and/or conversion involving a Mikvah; I agree with the previous editor that you can't say baptism originated there, but there is some apparent connection. Moreover, the statement that baptism cleanses Original sin is VERY NPOV. Christians like myself don't even BELIEVE in Original sin. Meanwhile, I have no idea what the "indelible mark on the soul" is, but I've never heard it before in any claimed variant of Christianity. Obviously this is true within someone's religion, but it can't be claimed for all Christianity. Jdavidb 18:26, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed- to POV as it currently reads. -Visorstuff 00:22, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, while there are some aspects of the new introduction that could use some work, and broadening of reference if necessary, Visorstuff's version is not better. Mkmcconn — 02:25, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Please be more specific on why the revert - your explanation is too general. Baptism is not only a Christian/jewish ritual. my edits were to broaden the term to what is truly reflected. As it reads now, it is too centric to christianity. Please make the changes to broaden. I think it was better than before... -Visorstuff 13:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

The reverted introduction reads:

Baptism is an initiation ordinance (see also sacrament) typically performed with water or in rare cases oil.

Although the rite is usually associated with Christianity, evidence of forms of baptism has appeared in many cultures, including ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, Jewish, Babylonian, Mayan and Japanese cultures, although such evidence is typically archaeological and descriptive in nature, rather than currently performed.

In Judaism and Christianity, baptism is typically performed with water through immersion or aspersion (sprinkling or dipping).

The fact of the matter is, baptism is almost always associated with Christianity. If the only exceptions that we can think of are "archaeological ... rather than currently performed", then they are a footnote, not introductory material. There are certainly other ritual baths, but as far as I know they are not ever called baptisms in English. Even if you ask a Jew, "have you been baptised?", you will be heard as asking, "have you converted to Christianity?", even though the two questions are not absolutely equivalent. Furthermore, you might be talking about chrismation, which is in some traditions is closely associated with baptism. Baptism with oil is rare enough that I've never heard of it: another footnote, rather than suitable to an introduction. Mkmcconn — 01:01, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I thought a more generalist approach describing what baptism was and who has performed it would remove recent controversy, but like your edits. However, I feel that the current intro is still POV. Again, good edits. -Visorstuff 06:36, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

new intro

I've tried to write a new intro. I recognize that there are a few groups that do not baptize using the "trinitarian formula"; but even counting those exceptions this is the most universal of all practices in the various churches. It is one thing that nearly all have in common. It doesn't seem right that because some depart even from this, that it should therefore be denied that Christian baptism is performed "in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Mkmcconn — 16:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Emergency Baptisms

I put the information on emergency baptisms in the Catholic Church into its own subsection. That way people are aware of the fact, especially in situations where an infant would be in danger of death they can do it themselves instead of waiting for a priest.

JesseG 04:32, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I remembered that after seeing one episode of ER where the parents of a dying baby wanted the doctors to keep the baby alive long enough so that he could baptized. But the priest was so busy that it took a long time for him to get over to baptize the baby, the baby nearly died before he could do the baptism. I was thinking wait a minute, in an emergency can't they do it themselves?

JesseG 02:03, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, in emergency anyone can baptize. They only have to use water, the trinitarian formula, and intend to baptize. Dave

Question on Dave's clarification - If no actual water is available at an emergency baptism, can saliva (spit) be used in a pinch? Ed

Clarification on Ed's question - remember the Scripture that related Jesus' healing of a blind man by spitting into dirt to make mud, and rubbing the mud on the man's eyes. I haven't a Bible in front of me. I can tell you that emergency baptism using something that is substantially water is generally accepted. The Catechism doesn't say much on the substance of the baptismal water, but generally the idea of baptizing one who is near death is preferable to withholding the baptism for wont of Evian. I've heard anecdotes of broth, juice or wine being used, but I cannot confirm these. Thaddeus Ryan 18:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Re Ed's question. In the Catholic tradition, the answer would be saliva would be invalid matter. However, the Catholic Church accepts three forms of Baptism: water, blood (mayterdom) and desire. (want to, can't get water. In the case you suggest, the person would be considered baptized by desire if rational and old enough to choose, otherwise, would not be baptized but would be considered to go to heaven, since an infant by defintion can't sin.DaveTroy 20:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I made some slight changes in the emergency baptism section. One to be more clear (I hope I was) and a couple of additions. ONte was matter (water) and the second was conditional baptism. Obviously, conditional baptism is not the norm. However, neither is it usually necessary to perform one. In most cases, the priest (or deacon) will simple ask how, who performed the baptism and ask their intentions. If everything is fine, no conditional baptism takes place.DaveTroy 19:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

history and linguistics

Could someone write something about the history of baptism - how and why was it practiced in pre-NT times and cultures, how was it practiced in NT times and what are the meanings of the original words used in various languages (eg. greek)? --charon 13:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The word Baptize comes from the Greek and, as many words do in Greek, it encompasses a concept: To plunge something entirely into the water, so that the water closes over it. The most ancient traditions insist on total emersion, the logic being, one doesn’t wash clothes by sprinkling them with water, but by submerging them completely, and so to wash away sins one must be buried in the water as Christ was buried, and rise again as He also rose from the dead.Phiddipus 02:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanx, it would be nice if it was a part of the article, but in some broader form - like a linguistic research with examples and comparations with other texts and occasions of usage. The historical part might include some archeological findings of "baptistries" in ancient buildings where christians met. --charon 10:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I read an old technical book once that cited every reference of the word baptize (and its forms) that is found in Greek literature. It was interesting to see how the word was used. Those texts were using the Greek word in a normal, literal sense, not in a metaphorical sense. But, when the English word "baptize" is used in the English translation, it is easy to read into the Greek text our current connotations of the term. But to do so distorts the actual meaning of the texts. For example, in sea battles ships were "baptized" (they sank). Soldiers "baptized" their swords in their enemies (they stuck their swords clear into their enemies). People were "baptized" in sorrow (they were overwhelmed by sorrow). In all of the secular Greek uses of the word that were listed in the book (and the book claimed to have every instance cited), the term always designated a complete submersion of one object into something else. From this the following observations are made:

(1) The term is a common, non-liturgical term that does not imply an religious or ceremonial activity, unless the context itself explicitly indicates such a meaning. (2) The term in its normal meaning always designates a complete submersion or enveloping of one thing into another. (Of course, individuals could always extend the meaning of the term in a technical sense to indicate something else. But the context always needs to make that extension clear.) (3) The term does not suggest whether or not the submerged item is ever extracted from the medium into which it has been submerged. Context might answer the question, however, or it might leave the issue unclear. For example, when the ship was "sunk/baptized", we may safely assume that it stayed submerged. (4) The view of a few grammarians who argue that the "-izo" ending of the Greek verb means to repeated do something, is simply not valid with this verb. The ship was not repeatedly sunk; it simply sank one time. (I came across this view years ago among some who tried to argue that the Great Commission teaching on baptism implies what they call "trine-immersion" or the three-fold dunking of the person --once each in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The evidence shows that they were "using" --abusing-- Greek grammar to prove / manufacture their point. While the practice of the early church may indeed support trine immersion, the grammar adds nothing to it; such misuse of the Greek was very disappointing.) Chad A. Woodburn 8:33 am EST, Dec. 21, 2004 (the first hour of winter).

This is a very interesting point, thank you. Could you please give us reference to that book? In other languages it is similar. My language also has a manufactured arbitrary term for baptism rather than the correct translation. I've never heared of trine immersion, however the word for "name" in the phrase "in the name of the father..." is in singular, so it does not stand as a reason for 3 immersions. It would also defeat the symbolism of union with Christ's burial and ressurection.--charon 17:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Charon, no, I no longer recall the name of the book. I read it in the seminary library at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. If you really need the reference, perhaps you could contact the seminary librarian there and ask that person to find the book. It was a book on all the references in Greek where the word occurs. It seems to me (this was a few decades ago) that the book was written in the late 1800s by a baptist.

Chad A. Woodburn 8:33 am EST, Dec. 21, 2004 (the first hour of winter).

The tradition of Three-Fold emersion, which is the most ancient Christian form of baptism springs from the apostolic tradition, which St Matthew later put into his Gospel:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Phiddipus 16:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can you prove it historically? How do you get the three-times immersion and rising from the text? Is it based on the three "names"? Isn't just one name mentioned in the greek original? "...baptizing them in the name of the..." (not in the names) And what would be the symbolism of dying and rising with Christ? Did he die and rise three times or once?--charon 17:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Charon, the practice of trine immersion is indeed historically the original pattern. I believe you will find the practice mentioned in the Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles). The book I mentioned before which was written by a baptist (who did not follow that practice) recognized the historicity of trine immersion as the pattern. As for the symbolism of dying and rising with Christ, etc., it must be remembered that the baptism that Jesus and His disciples administered predated His death, burial, and resurrection. The point of this is that baptism is first of all a "purification" ritual, and only secondarily reflects dying and rising with Christ. Chad A. Woodburn 8:33 am EST, Dec. 21, 2004 (the first hour of winter).

Thanx, I'll look up the references. However, Didache is not an authoritative writing and theoretically may introduce new teaching after the original command of Jesus and teaching of the apostles. "Baptism predated His death" - Priddipus was arguing with the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and those designate the baptism that followed Christ's death, burial and ressurection. This is the baptism that Jesus commanded after He rose: it unites you with Him and you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (unlike the preceding baptisms). Maybe other prior baptisms were trine immersions, but we're talking here about the last one. Baptism's purification is done by uniting the person with the christ's blood and with him dying with Christ, so you can't separate them. Btw. do you consider a single immersion valid? If not, on what grounds?--charon 13:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed Text from Main Article

The matter and form of baptism

This is really weird text. Major NPOVing needed. So flagrant that I removed it from the article. Please look over it. I'm going to take some hacks at it myself sometime. Ambush Commander 00:00, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Most Protestant sects have never objected to or denied that Baptism is a sacrament instituted by Christ.... (cut remainder. It's as much a copyvio from [1] here as in the article)

OK, a few things I don't understand, what is conciliar baptism? In the current Catholic rite of baptism, a single person baptizes. I can't find any reference to the objections you speak of. The rite is quite clear that baptism removes original sin. It is also clear that baptism incorporates one into the body of Christ. That is not new with Vatican II. As to the infant, we would presume baptism by desire, since the child was unbaptized. And since neither hell nor purgatory would be logical, we presume in God's infinate mercy the Child goes with God. The Order of Funerals covers this topic. As to validity of baptism, you don't even need to eb Christian to baptize, only to use water, Trinitarian formula, and intend to baptize. If you can help me understand better what you are saying, I would be interested.DaveTroy 08:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Apostolic" baptism?

The writer has applied his peculiar interpretive tradition here as if it was the only one possible, besides citing a number of irrelevant texts, yet other Christian groups obviously don't interpret these verses the same way. This appears to non-NPOV since it's presenting an opinion as if it were objcetive fact. I'll remove it unless there are any reasonable objections over the next day or two. Csernica 18:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some references on the web, to large christian groups that believe this:

• ALJC Aritcles of faith, including doctine of baptism

• United Pentecostal Church International

• Dissertation found by doing a web search

Perhaps editting is more appropriate than outright removal.

Well, that's a reasonable objection right there! Csernica 22:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agree that different Baptismal practices need to be included, so editing to remove POV and yet reflecting the different opinion is needed. -Visorstuff 16:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Baptism

Contrary to the following paragraph, Baptism is an ordinance given to the church and therefore may only be administered by the church. An individual may not baptize himself/herself, nor may their parents.

Baptism is something that you freely chose to do or your parents if you are still young. Anyone can have baptism if they believe in Christ. They have to believe fully in Christ to fully recieve a sacrament. If they don't then they still recieve the sacrament but not fully in the eyes of God and the three persons. Baptism is the act of Christ he did not have to go into the Jordan and get baptized. He was free from original sin so that means he and anyone else that was free from it which where only him, his mother Mary and God. Jesus did it so that he could show us how to recieve the sacrament of Baptism to free original sin. There is two kinds of baptism if they die before they recieve the sacrament. They are Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Baptism of Desire is when someone dies, but they desire baptism or if a baby dies or child and they haven't recieved the sacrament of baptism yet then if their parents wish is to baptize their child then the child is bapized. Baptism of Blood is when you give up your life for Christ and you kinda get baptized in your own blood as you die. Baptism of Blood is not really used today in life. Baptism is needed to go to heaven and so are most of the other sacraments.

only His blood saves

Baptism cannot save anyone or wash away sins; only the blood Jesus can do that. Sin removal requires a blood sacrifice, which Jesus gave us. Water only washes the outside, not the inside; a washing that ALL of us need.

With respect, and I agree that it is Christ who saves, the NT Gospel commands to baptize. This same action is mandated multiple times by Paul in his letters. Therefore, this article logically does fall under Christianity. DaveTroy

Can we stop with the preaching please and reserve this page for discussing article content and changes? This is extremely tiresome. Those of us who don't share your religious views don't want to hear it, and those who do already know it. (Besides, see Rom 6:3, 1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for keeping us on focus. A religion, among other things, is a system of beliefs, and where there is one disagreement between two systems there must be others, as each independent system must maintain its own logicial internal cohesion. Therefore, I suggest any further arguments against Baptism of any form belong within the appropriate ideological entry. Baptism is an institution, not a controversy, and it does very little good to include pros and cons on every single issue - for instance, to include a "Why ____ are wrong" section where ______ refers to a religion, ideology, or culture.Thaddeus Ryan 18:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I regard to original comment - Colossians 2:12 makes it abundantly clear that baptism is the participation in Jesus' death burial and resurection. CdHess 19:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox - Distinctive Difference - the Efficacy of Baptism

Concerning the Eastern Orthodox approach to baptism we must realistically present the Orthodox Church’s canonical point of view, not the opinion of some who seek to gloss over the very real differences between the Orthodox and the rest of Christianity. First of all, the Orthodox do not recognize the validity of any baptism other than an Orthodox one. Roman Catholics are considered by the Orthodox to be completely outside the church and therefore do not possess the grace of God necessary to make the baptism effectual. This is not a popular thing to say but it is the truth. The Orthodox do not consider any other Christian denomination to be part of the Church, therefore how could a Non-Orthodox baptism be construed as acceptance into the Church? When, for instance, a Roman Catholic joins the Orthodox Church, the rubrics of the Church not only call for him to be baptized, but that he must renounce his allegiance to the RC, formally and publicly. Secondly, while it is true that any Orthodox Christian in an emergency can baptize, it is generally accepted that if the “baptizee” survive the emergency, that a Priest will perform the service of baptism for the individual at the earliest possible moment. This is not considered to be a “Re-Baptism” or a second baptism, but rather a baptism of “Economia” to correct the “Form” of the Mystery. Anyone desirous of joining the Orthodox Church is, in essence, baptized in their Heart the moment they have made such a decision. If they die before the Mystery can be performed in Form, that person is still considered Orthodox. It is in the heart and soul that the love of God resides. Never the less, the Form is important and cannot be disregarded except where it is impossible to be performed. Thirdly, it is not uncommon in this day of modern innovation for a priest to have his opinions influenced by non-Orthodox ideas and practices. The Orthodox do not accept sprinkling as a proper form of baptism, yet many Orthodox practice this. It is not therefore, unacceptable, when one joins a more traditional branch of the Orthodox Church to have one’s baptism “Corrected” by “Economia”. Once again, this is not considered to be a second baptism, nor does it imply that the person was not part of the Church, but rather, that the form used was not canonically acceptable and needed correction. This last area is not a black and white area and requires the careful judgment of a bishop in order to administer. Such cases are very delicate in nature and are never taken lightly.--Phiddipus 1 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

Having re-read the article, there remains a problem in trying to speak of Orthodox and non-Orthodox in the same parragraph. I cannot speak for anyone but the Orthodox Church, but seeing how the Orthodox reject all the other Christian denominations as either heretics or schismatics, it likewise does not recognize the validity of their “Sacraments” which are not performed by Orthodox clergy or even members of the Orthodox Church. This may be an unpopular viewpoint in the annals of world church politics and it is not meant to say that only the Orthodox are Christians. What it says is that membership in the Orthodox Church through baptism can only be accomplished by the Orthodox. While the form is important, it is not a magical formula, non-Orthodox following the form do not somehow magically create Orthodox Christians even though they themselves are not Orthodox. The baptism and indeed the sacraments of all other Christian denominations are meaningless to Orthodox. The grace of God is given to Orthodox clergy through the laying on of hands and attaches to apostolic succession; no other church is accepted as having this. Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, are not members in any way of the Orthodox Church, they do not confess to believe exactly what we believe, they are not in communion with us, therefore their rites and rituals have no significance with us. If at one time they were members of the church (1000 years ago), they are broken away, their apostolic succession is broken, and the Grace of God, as we Orthodox understand it, is no longer present within them. This may not be a very PC thing to say out loud, but it is the truth as far as the Orthodox are concerned. Phiddipus 14:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It's becuase of systematic problems of this nature that I added the "Attention" tags. The article is in need of a massive refactoring. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

United Pentecostal Church

I reverted edits by an anonymous user who added a lengthy section on the United Pentecostal Church. I've nothing against that perspective being part of the article, but the material was really long, not wikified, POV, and was pretty much just verbatim from a tract by that denomination (possible copyright issue?). If anyone wishes to add info from this perspective, please do so, but be concise, write in "wiki language", be NPOV, and be original. Thanks. KHM03 18:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

de-baptism

is it possbile to become de-baptised? Or do you just renounce your faith and it doesnt even matter? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.234.213.64 (talk • contribs) 68.234.213.64.

Technically no. Some churches allow re-baptism, and would suggest that on occasion, an individual could do things so sinful that they would need to be re-baptized to eliminate all thier sins. Many churches, however, believe that Baptism imparts a spiritual "seal" on the individual, and can never be undone. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, does not rebaptize, as the point of baptism is the removal of original sin, which can never be returned. A secondary effect is to eliminate personal sins, however, this can be done through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (often called confession), so a baptism is not needed to forgive personal sins.

There would be no need for a de-baptism (the only effect of which would be to reinstate the sins previously forgiven) and as the real point of baptism is to forgive sins, which is something God does, and once He forgives them, they are forgiven forever. In short, no, no de-baptism, but perhaps re-baptism if allowed. -- Essjay · Talk 18:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to note that some Christian denominations do not require converts who were previously baptized to be re-baptized. However, this is not entirely transitive, ie the Catholic church will accept a Pentecostal's baptism as legitimate but a Pentecostal church may or may not accept the Catholic baptism as legitimate. The underlying reason is generally a difference of the age of baptism in the original denomination, the language and method of the baptism, and whether the receiving denomination recognizes the language, method and age as being legitimate. Thaddeus Ryan 18:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Baptism - the reason for the confusion

Why can't the churches/denominations agree on baptism? Jesus Christ promised that when we hold to His Teaching we become His disciples and His Truth will set us free, Jn 8. When Jesus Christ was baptized in physical water by John the Baptist, He was fulfilling the OT Law for those who repent and believe in Him. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance but Jesus Christ had nothing to repent of, He had no sin! If we do not acknowledge that Jesus Christ, God's Word, came in sinless human flesh to perfectly fulfill all of the OT Law for us, including all physical water baptisms, then we will never understand the rest of His saving Gospel Truth, 2Jn. For a short summary of this critical Truth, read Ro 1:16-20; Mt 3; Mk 1:14-15; Mt 5:17-20; Mt 6:1,31-33; Mt 11:12-15; Ro 3:21-24; Gal 4:4-7; Ro 7:4-6; Gal 3:6-10. Failure to acknowledge and declare the righteousness of the Son of God will result in spiritual blindness. This is why the churches/denominations do not understand the one and only true baptism of the Holy Spirit of God, the one and only baptism we must have to be born again, born from above, Ac 1:4-5; Eph 4:1-7; 2Pe 1-3. This is why the churches/denominations do not understand God's definition of Grace. No one will receive God's Grace unless they first receive His righteousness through faith, a faith as Abraham had, Ro 1-8. God's many warnings, in both the OT and NT about those who would rebel against His Word, have come true. Today's churches/denominations, their colleges and seminaries indeed have a form of godliness but deny His power, 1Ti 4; 2Ti 3-4. Not one organized church/denomination understands who God is, they can't, they have not been enabled because they have denied the righteousness of God's Son thereby denying the righteousness of Almighty God, Lk 10:21-24. Study the words, "righteous" and "righteousness" in the Psalms, the Proverbs, the Prophets and the entire NT. Those who believe in physical water baptisms of any kind cannot be saved, they have followed another gospel that is no gospel at all, 2Co 11:12-15; Gal 1:6-12. Salvation begins with Living Water, God's Word in Spirit and in Truth, Jn 7:37-39, never physical water. This is very critical information that no one can prove wrong; it is not wrong, Lk 21:15. God said He would destroy the wisdom of this world and He has done exactly that, 1Co 1-3. For lots of free Biblical proof, just email me at canawedding@aol.com. Canawedding 10:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Friend, I admire your zeal. I must suggest, though, that this is not quite the point of this article. An encyclopedia walks the fine line of presenting an institution as it is in whatever form it exists - especially one that exists under scrutiny and controversy - while simultaneously remaining neutral and avoiding proselytization. May your ministry bless many. Thaddeus Ryan 18:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Baptism is not "Physical water." Baptism is essential to savlation as Romans 3:25 makes clear that faith in his blood is what is first needed. Next, Romans 6:3-7 shows that we are buried with Christ in baptism and forgiven of our sins through Jesus' death burial and resurection. Acts 2:38 also makes clear that repentance must precede baptism and that baptism forgives your sin since baptism is actually the death, burial and resurrection with Christ. 1 Peter 3:21 makes abundantly clear baptism does save you, it is not just the removal of dirt. How can you make all of the above claims and yet leave out these important scriptures.

In the end, I agree with Thaddeus Ryan in that this is an encyclopeida and that there are differences of opinion on the subject of baptism, therfore all views need to be explained in an encyclopeida. CdHess 19:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Mixed marriage and baptism of children

It's bewildering to me how some Catholic kids are given a primary and secondary education in private Catholic Schools, costing their parents thousands of dollars in tuition fees. They are baptized by a priest, confirmed by a bishop, but later, as young adults, they marry a person of another faith but have no regard for baptism of their own offsprings. Attending Mass becomes irrelevant. Instead, the child is brought up to excel in contact sports. These kids begin to crave the cheers and applause of the spectators who attend the games they play. This seems like a pathway to the mundane and materialistic aspects of life. Musicwriter 19:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Catholic school children never come out anymore christian than public school ppl. Most of the time they come out worse.

Attention tag

I have added the attention tag because as it stands this article is a jumbled mess. There was a strong attempt to combine Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and Methodist practices into a single section. While the theology behind baptism in these cases are similar in many ways, they are sufficiently different -- and the practices are so widely at variance -- that it has resulted a completely misleading and useless section. Nearly every sentence has to be qualified, and where they are not they are very often simply inaccurate, with the practices peculiar to one group claimed for all the others. Perhaps following a brief introduction to the section summarizing where they are the same, each group needs to be treated seperately in its own subsection. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this template from the article head. It was added on 25 October 2005 and the article has received substantial attention since then. The template was largely unhelpful and no specific problem has been identified. - mholland 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No specific problem was identified because the problems were systematic. Some of what needed to be addressed were taken care of, but many weren't, especially in the "Conditions of the validity of a baptism" subsection, but I'm not going to argue about it. The problem is much less widespread than it once was. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

indelible

In Baptism, for Catholics, Baptism makes an indelible mark. That is to say one that is on the soul that cannot be removed. Therefore, it is never repeated. Even if the person leaves Christianity, if they return they are not re baptized. They merely confess their sin, and at absolution are re admitted to full communion in the Church.

Dave

The same is true for United Methodism. KHM03 21:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

The list of external links here is much longer than appears to be indicated per WP:EL:

• Catholic Encyclopedia: Baptism
• Jewish Encyclopedia: Baptism
• Adult Baptism in the Early Church: Some evidence from Ireland
• Articles on Baptism from a conservative Calvinist perspective
• Articles on Baptism from the Catholic perspective
• Mormon Baptism
• Assemblies Of The Lord Jesus Christ articles of faith, including doctrine of baptism
• Baptism - Catholic Sacrament of Initiation - Christening
• By Water & the Spirit: A United Methodist Understanding of Baptism
• Catechism of the Catholic Church on Baptism
• Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Baptism from Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
• John Wesley's Evangelical Theology of Infant Baptism by G. Stephen Blakemore
• United Pentecostal Church International Baptism
• Christian Baptism by GotQuestions.org (Calvinist perspective)
• "Jesus Only" Baptism Articles
• Campbellite perspective

It seems to me that at least some of these should be Wikilinks to proper discussions (e.g. the LDS, much as I hate to encourage yet more LDS articles) rather than being what is, in essence, offsite forks. Some of the sites appear to be personal points of view. I know it's more difficult in this case than in some others. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me a great many of these are covered under number 4 at WP:EL#What_should_be_linked_to. Like Eucharist, this is a very large subject with a wide variance in what is believed about it, and these links all appear representative of real viewpoints. No doubt the article already represents some of these, but I'm not sure it represents all of them. I'm reasonably certain that more than one of them were used as references, which is covered under number 2 above.TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

But the variety of opinon can and should be covered in the article, not by linking to dozens of external sites. Those which are references should of course be included and listed as such.

The real problem here is that once the list of lnks gets above a certain length it becomes difficult to discern which are "official" views and which are just personal takes on it. Also, the more links there are, the more likely it is that individual vanity links will get added (and missed).

You may well be right that many of these are relevant. But I am sure that others are either not relevant, not authritative or are duplicates (in that the persoective is covered in other articles). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to come to an understanding here as to what is appropriate (of course, respecting WP guidelines). For instance, I think it is reasonable to have a link or two from the Catholics, a link or two from the Orthodox, a link or two from the Methodists, a link or two from the Baptists, etc. These are major groups which deserve mention. KHM03 13:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Being bold again and restoring link or two in this manner. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Reviewing the current list, that does seem reasonable; I get carried away sometimes. I might tweak the text so it is a bit more consistent (picky!). One question: why two Catholic ones? Catholic Encyclopedia seems authoritative and complete. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be 2 Catholic, 2 Orthodox, etc.; that was merely a suggestion. I suppose if one really good representative link is found, then one is OK. KHM03 13:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I restructured a bit; not sure if it's better or worse. Feel free to change. KHM03 13:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I debated doing that. Lets see if it works. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sound in principle, a bit clunky in rendering. I wonder if we should use formatting rather than headings to make it a bit tighter? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Make it so. KHM03 22:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

With everyone's consent, I'm going to add back in bebaptized.org as representative of the Church of Christ in "Other groups." However, I'll leave out the pejorative "Campbellite." Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

mikvah

I read the opening line that states "and has its origins with the Jewish ritual of mikvah.", and I also read the linked article on the Jewish mikvah, but the relationship is not apparent.

The Jewish mikvah does not require a priest to be present - an individual washes him or herself, and this washing can be repeated by themselves as required, which contrasts with Christian Baptism, which is preformed by a priest on an initiate, and then only once. I cannot see why is there a claim that Baptism originated from mikvah.

The action of ritual bathing seems to have its origin with the mikvah, but the significance has totally changed. John the Baptist shifted the emphasis from ritual cleanliness to moral cleanliness: it was a "baptism of repentence". Christianity took John's baptism and added to it the meaning of being joined to the death, and resurrection of Christ. Strictly speaking baptism doesn't require a priest either, and some groups don't even require the person administering it to be a Christian.

Still, a reference would be nice.

I am transferring this to the bottom of the page, which is where new threads should go. The simplest way to do this is to click on the "+" next to "Edit this page", which prompts you for a topic name and then adds your post to the bottom automatically. Also, you should sign posts to talk pages. An easy way to do this is to type 4 tildes (~~~~) which signs your username with a link to your user page and a timestamp. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Two small edits.

Reading over this article I saw a couple of things I thought needed clarification.

Under "Baptist and other Protestant baptism" it said that "a wide variety of other Protestant denominations deriving from the Anabaptist tradition, including Mennonites and Pentecostals." I changed that to "some Pentecostals" as not all of us do follow the Baptist interpretation.

Under "Baptism in Churches of Christ" there was a statement that said no one taught that receiving the Holy Spirit meant receiving such gifts of the Spirit as speaking in tongues. Rewritten to make it clearer that the Chruch of Christ does not teach this (other churches do).

David Bird

Emergency Baptism cont.

In one such case, antifreeze from a car radiator was used under extraordinary necessity, and declared valid.

Could somebody please dig out the source of that?

Seems purely anecdotal. Baptismal 'water' must be substantially that. Broth, juice, wine have been used, but antifreeze is ethelyne glycol. It'd seem easier, anyway, to use precipitation or condensation from the air conditioning coils.Thaddeus Ryan

Yes, antifreeze isn't water. But the Catholic Church has said, that, in an emergency, if you're not sure whether something's water or not, use it anyway.--Gazzster 06:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Even in an emergency, the matter would be invalid. Only TRUE WATER (aquae verae) is valid matter for the sacrament (cf can. 849). The Holy See has said that urine, blood (not martyerdom), fruit juice, saliva, etc are INVALID matter, even in cases of necessity. In those instances, baptism of desire would take place.DaveTroy 10:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That is true. But I was looking at a situation where a person has a subjective difficulty in distinguishing what is regarded as valid matter from invalid matter. Sometimes it is tricky to determine what is 'true water'. Do we mean pure water? Mixed with something else? Ice? Steam? The meaning of what is 'true water' may vary from person to person and from society to society. The Roman Catholic Church considers the sacrament so important that even doubtful matter, even probably doubtful matter, may be used sub condicione. I did not have the example of antifreeze specifically in mind. I was thinking of something like thin broth or tea, where the authenticity of the matter is harder to ascertain.--Gazzster 13:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My POV for broth would be invalid as the substance has radically changed, for example the same reason Coke (or similar) would be invalid. While club soda (water with gas) would be valid, as it is still water, basically the matter has not changed. Ice and steam are both water, but would need to be liquified sufficiently for "washing" (water moving) over the head. I would consider tea doubtful, adn would re-baptize personally (again the nature of the matter has been changed). Woestman in his commentary defines water as "whatever is commonly and ordinarily understood as water" (Woestman, Sacraments Intiation, Penance, Annointing of the Sick, Ottawa, St Pauls Univeristy Press 2004, pg 37) The Holy See has given the following as examples of "water" -- sea water, well water, natural spring water, and other similar things. But notice in all cases, the water is natural -- that is not mixed with anything. The 1917 code used the words "true and natural" to get at the same concept.85.20.110.17 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Two questions about Catholic Baptism

1. Didn't the Catholic Church substantially reverse itself on unbaptized infants in the last year or so? 2. Hasn't the Catholic Church abandoned the "baptism is necessary" track, or at least heavily altered it? (I know that Catholic theologians have been very vocal of late about the claim that you don't have to be Catholic to be saved) Phil Sandifer 16:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Not as far as I know. The Catechism says, essentially, we have no idea what happens, but trust in God's mercy; previously, it was thought that they couldn't go to Heaven, so they'd end up in Limbo, a place of perfect physical happiness but no spiritual happiness. The Catholic Church teaches that for all we know, that might still be true, but we hope and trust that God has means of allowing them into Heaven.

2. No to both. As the article states, baptism by desire or blood can replace "ordinary" baptism, but something of the sort is still needed, as far as we know. (NB: "Catholic theologians" don't count as "the Catholic Church" - a given theologian can say anything, but until explicitly approved, it's just them saying it.)

--Cheyinka 06:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

About Limbo - The present Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger has stated, notably in an interview published as The Ratzinger Report (1986) that Limbo has no basis in the Scriptures. It was an idea developed in the Middle Ages to explain what happens to infants who die before baptism. As such it is not a teaching that commands compulsion of belief in the Catholic Church. As Cheyinka states, it is, from a doctrinal position, sounder to commend them to the mercy of God.--Gazzster 00:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ref Phil's question, not the Church has not changed on the requirement of baptism for salvation. The question of those unbaptized and their salvation is discussed and understood apart from the normal sacramental process.85.20.110.17 11:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about "Part of the series on Latter Day Saints"

why is Baptism, a general topic, a part of the series on Latter Day Saints? wahlau 16 April 2006

Revoking baptism?

Does anyone know if it's possible to revoke a baptism, and, if so, how? -Christiaan 00:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Revoke someone else's? No. One might become excommunicated, but reconciliation to the Church after that does not involve another baptism. Renounce your own? You can. But in that case, again you do not get rebaptized if you change your mind later. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you can renounce anything at a personal level I guess. I'd like to know if there's any formal process that somebody can go through to revoke their baptism (and Confirmation for that matter). Do you know of any? -82.35.13.121 12:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

One cannot undo what is done, One cannot turn back the clock. One can only change direction.--Phiddipus 06:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a story from the desert fathers (2nd century) that answers this question. There was a boy who was born, baptized and raised a Christian. He fell in love with the daughter of a pagan priest. He asked this man for his daughters hand in marriage. The priest consulted his pagan gods (who in fact, were demons) and asked them if it was possible for this Christian to marry his daughter. They told him to have the boy renounce his Christianity and offer sacrifice to them. Amazingly, when the boy was given this task, he immediately renounced Christ and offered up libations to the pagan “demon” gods. The father then consulted his “gods” once again – could the boy now marry his daughter? But the demons replied that despite his having renounced Christ, the Holy Spirit still enshrouded the boy and would not release him. Once a Christian, nothing the boy could do would change that. When the father saw the awesome power of Christ and heard from his own demons their lack of power, the pagan priest immediately renounced his false gods in favor of the one true God. The boy later repented of his sin, seeing the profound change in the father of his beloved. He realized that though he had abandoned Christ, Christ never abandoned him. --Phiddipus 03:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This is similar to the question of whether the sacrament of Holy Orders - i.e., the priesthood - can be revoked. The short answer, according to Catholic teaching, is that it can not, as the recipient is considered to have been indelibly marked by the Holy Spirit in the sacrament, which can not be revoked by any earthly authority, including the Church itself.

Thus, even though a priest may be "laicized", "defrocked" or "kicked out of the priesthood" as in the well known sexual abuse scandals of recent years, he nonetheless remains a priest and in certain extraordinary cases (principally those involving persons in danger of immediate death), he has not only the right but the duty to exercise his priestly office. But routine exercise of the priestly office is forbidden and would be a grave sin for the laicized priest. Interestingly, even though marriage or any other sacrament routinely performed by such a person would be illicit it would nonetheless be canonically valid. This doctrine is summarized by the tag phrase "once a priest, always a priest".

The same logic applies to Baptism, which is why the Church rejects re-baptism of adults who have converted to Catholicism from other denominations which it considers to possess canonically valid sacraments, e.g. the Eastern Orthodox Church.

On Orthodox Acceptance of Non-Orthodox Baptism

The paragraph, as it currently stands, sounds a lot like posturing. If the baptism of Non-Orthodox utilizes the same form as Orthodox, yet the Orthodox do not believe the Non-Orthodox baptism has grace, then there would be no reason whatsoever to forgo performing a proper Orthodox baptism. If, on the other hand, a convert is allowed to believe his Non-Orthodox baptism is in some way acceptable then I warrant that the clergy involved have made a grave error and denied the very faith they claim to support. I am, of course, not overlooking “economia” as a means of correcting “incorrectly done” baptisms, but I think this applies to questions of incorrectly done Orthodox baptisms, not those of Non-Orthodox.--Phiddipus 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I largely wrote that paragraph as it stands, if memory serves. I'm aware of the controversy, but we're not here to present one side's or another's "correct" vision of things, but only to report matters as they are. Whether you agree with the reasoning or not, this is how it's done in churches of the Russian tradition and this is the reasoning for it. Nor is this a recent innovation: Chrismation was the method by which (for example) Roman Catholics and Lutherans were directed to be received long before the Russian Revolution. The OCA does it that way because the service books it inherited from Russia say to do it that way. I don't know the history behind why they say that, but have only been told the reasoning behind it. I don't need to know the history to report the current practice.

For what it's worth, the Greeks and Russians have almost never agreed on this. Back when the Greeks were receiving Roman Catholics by chrismation, the Russians were baptizing them. Now the situation is reversed.

In any event, I carefully tried to include both sides of the issue without passing judgment on either. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Baptism-like ritual in Norse pagan practice?

A few poems in the Elder Edda refer to the Norse name-giving ceremony of "sprinkling with water" (vatni ausa); scholars have disagreed whether this developed independently or as a reaction to Christian baptism. --ISNorden 00:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's something of a problem with the study of Nordic religion in general. Most of what we know about it postdates contact with Christianity, so we can never really tell which apparently similar features were due to borrowing. The wearing of the Thor's Hammer talisman may be another example, reacting to the Christian crucifix. (Or maybe not, but I don't think we can tell either way.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the wearing of Thor's Hammer, we could tell if it was a pre-Christian talisman, all we would need would be pre-Christian archaeological artefacts.--Redroven (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Conditions of the validity of a baptism

Is it worth mentioning that the Roman Catholic Church no longer considers Mormon baptisms valid? --Cheyinka 06:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Cheyinka, that interests me. Do you have details?--Gazzster 06:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Straight dope here: [2] Goldfritha 23:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed LDS tag

I removed the "LDS" tag from the section talking about baptism in the LDS church. It was the only religion sidebar in the article. If it were included, we might as well have each religion's giant sidebar tag in every single section in the article, leading to anarchy and a hard to read article. Tempshill 22:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction, there was 1 other sidebar, "Panj Pyare", which I just removed for the same reason. Article is now free of sidebars. Tempshill 22:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Baptism of Desire

In Catholic Theology, baptism of desire not only refers to catechumens, as the article says, but to any person desiring baptism who cannot, for whatever reason, obtain baptism by water. This desire might be explicit, in the case of a non-Christian who believes he must be baptised to be saved, or even implicit, in the case of a non-Christian, who, through no fault of his own, does not realise the necessity of baptism yet desires union with God. This teaching can be found in standard Catholic texts.--Gazzster 07:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian baptism as a sacrament

Sacrament as defined in the Anglican and Roman catechism - "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace".

Outward sign - water; inward grace - the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit".

This is apparently the first effect of baptism. It seems to me that this, in effect what baptism is supposed to achieve spiritually, isn't really mentioned in the article - it is glossed over as being a matter of dispute - while only the secondary effects (salvation from sin, integration into the Church) get stated. Can I add this to the denominational paragraphs to bring out this important point? Or does this come under NPOV rules?

I'd like to put in a link to "Catechumen", which has information on what may happen before baptism and the need for belief to precede it. OK?

Jeremynicholas 18:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparative Summary

I formatted the comparitive summary - and copyedited anything I have knowledge of - I think there is probably a need to copy edit other rows. I am not sure on whether this is useful - or somthing that will be difficult to maintain as neutral --Trödel 05:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Another note - the cited reference for this section does not seem to be verifiable. --Trödel 05:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Updated entries on Episcopalian practice and belief. Someone else may want to figure out how to insert reference near the chart. http://www.holycross.net/anonline.htm CAHeyden 04:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Baptize or baptize

The Catholic Church teaches that the use of the verb "baptize" (or "baptize") is essential.

What was the second one supposed to say? "Baptise"? Marnanel 13:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Baptism in Norse Culture

A pagan rite of "sprinkling with water" for newborn infants is mentioned in Egil's saga and in Njal's saga as well as various other writings. The instances cited occur in pagan households, prior to the introduction of Christianity to Iceland.

Roman Catholicism

The reverts by Lima look good, given that this page compares details of different baptisms in a cursory way. Most of the other sacraments have individual pages, so I'll likely start a Baptism (Catholic Church) page today. Freder1ck 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck

I see that the page I was looking at earlier had been mostly blanked, leaving only the comparative summary. That makes things quite different. Freder1ck 19:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference to increased popularity of immersion among Catholics is interesting. I know many parishes that feature small pools like the one shown in the photo of St. Raphael Cathedral. However, these pools are not deep enough to practice full immersion, in which the head and body are immersed in water; instead, the baptisms that I have seen are better described as pouring (drenching), but over the whole body instead of just the head. It would be more accurate perhaps to say that "forms of immersion" "the idea of immersion" are becoming more popular. I just found the following article discussing recent changes: Adoremus - "Immersed in controversy:fonts or pools?" Freder1ck 20:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck

"Reformist churches"

This appears in the phrase "Reformist churches such as the churches of Christ" under the heading "Meaning/Effects of Baptism". I removed the hyperlink associated with the term, as it led to the article on political "Reformism" in the UK. The term does not appear to be defined elsewhere in Wikipedia. It would appear to be distinct from "Reformed churches". Perhaps another term was intended. Someone who knows should correct it if necessary. Thanks. 71.122.156.77 01:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I found out that it should be "Restorationist", so I made the change. Someone has evidently been making deliberate subtle-plausible changes. 71.122.156.77 01:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Salvation Army

Salvation Army Do not baptize anyone today. Believe it was to be done only at the time of Christ. That was from the table in the article.Now,it may vary according to different countries,but my best friend recently got baptized in the Salvation Army church.Could someone clarify? Serenaacw 10:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[3] says that the SA don't baptise adults or children even in Australia. Are you sure that your friend was baptised by the SA, rather than just in a SA building or something? Marnanel 19:09, 26 December 2006

(UTC)

It was definitely in the SA.Their whole family are members of that church.I'm wondering if that particular church of the SA demonination doesn't agree with the main SA's ruling on baptism,so they practice it as a private thing.Thanks for looking that up,I'lll look into it a bit more.:) Serenaacw 02:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us know what you find out! Marnanel 03:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Methodist Contradictions

In the comparison chart, it says that Methodists see baptism as merely an outward sign. Under the section Meaning/Effects of Baptism, it says that Methodists believe in baptismal regeneration. The section Baptism in most Christian traditions also lists this claim.

In addition, the Meaning/Effects of Baptism claims that Methodists were formed early in the Reformation, which doesn't seem correct to me, but I'm not certain. Freder1ck 22:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Freder1ck

ISBN -> OCLC

Not seeing a valid ISBN for this

• Scaer, David P. ''Baptism.'' Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics, Vol. XI. St. Louis: The Luther Academy, 1999. ISBN 0-9622791-2-1{{Please check ISBN|Calculated check digit (9) doesn't match given.}}

I am removing the ISBN and inserting an OCLC and ASIN. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 19:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

1 Small Edit

Amended section 5.5 , "Who may administer baptism," to reflect new traditions towards the baptism practices of non-denominational churches.

"Newer movements of Protestant Evangelical churches, particularly non-denominational, have begun to allow those persons most instrumental in one's faith to baptize. The rationale for such a practice lies in the New Testament accounts of John the Baptist baptizing his own disciples, Christ his own, Phillip his own (such as the Ethiopian Eunich), etc."

72.86.7.190 00:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)rthomasneace

More on emergency baptism

In an emergency, someone who is not a priest can baptize someone, and (depending on Church) perhaps even someone who is not themself baptized; so, if the conditions called for it, could someone baptize themself? To put forward a purely hypothetical situation: someone trapped alone down a mineshaft, on a desert island, or injured after an accident, thinking death imminent and wanting baptism.... Could someone in that situation perform a self-baptism (water plus "I baptize myself in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit")?

Speaking from a Catholic perspective, the answer would be no, but again falls under baptism of desire.DaveTroy 16:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Early Christian practice

Early Christian period is generally regarded as the period after the Death of Jesus c.33. St. Cyprian (Epistle 75), was baptised in 245 or 246, well beyond this period.

If there is dispute surrounding early Christian time period, perhaps the heading could be changed to "First Century Christian practice"? This would certainly remove ambiguity? Or place sub headings for various "early Christian" periods?--Traveller74 08:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines "early Christianity" (to which Traveller74 has kindly inserted a link in this article) as follows: "The term Early Christianity here refers to Christianity of the period after the Death of Jesus c.33 and before the First Council of Nicaea in 325." Cyprian belongs to this period.

We have documents and paintings that indicate how baptism was administered in early Christianity (normally, but not always, by immersion). I think it would be useless to add a section on the practices of first-century Christianity, what some call Primitive Christianity. It would only be speculation. Have we any evidence of the manner in which the Philippi jailer was "immediately" baptized, apparently in his house, not in a river or the city baths (Acts 16:33)? How long would it have taken to baptize by total immersion the three thousand or so who "received (Peter's) word (and) were baptized ... in that day" (Acts 2:41)? One can speculate that these people of Philippi and Jerusalem were indeed baptized by total immersion. One can just as easily speculate that some other form of baptism must have been used. Surely we don't want to dedicate a whole section of the article to such speculation. Can Traveller74 point to any hard and fast evidence of how first-century Christians administered baptism? I suppose that, only if the Didache could be shown to be of the first-century and not of the first half of the second, would we have evidence about first-century practice, and that document states clearly that merely pouring water on the head was recognized as a form of baptism. (I had better (re)insert the Didache's statement in the article, especially since someone who disliked the idea must have removed (censored?) it: the article still has a reference to "the above quotation from the Didache".) Lima 09:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I must disagree that having a section devoted to first century Christian baptism would be "useless", nor would it be speculation to mention/quote (without bias or speculative comments) first-hand accounts from the Bible. Any speculation regarding this period should be left to the reader. If added this section could present known texts from the bible (or reference to), and references from historians.

As noted by Lima, this period is distinctly different from latter periods. --Traveller74 10:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC) --Traveller74 10:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I await with interest the "first-hand accounts from the Bible" that show how Primitive Christians baptized. I have now read the Wikipedia article on the Didache, and I have learned from it that the prevalent scholarly view is that the Didache is of the first century, and that some would even put it as early as 44 or 47, making it contemporary with the earliest letters of Saint Paul. This last opinion I am reluctant to accept. But I cannot formulate a judgement on the basis of any expertise of my own. And even if I could, it would be excluded by Wikipedia's "no original research" (in other words, verifiability) rule. Lima 10:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I Fail to see where I’ve mentioned first-hand accounts that give any direct reference to the method of baptism? If somehow I’ve inferred this, please accept my apologies. What I propose is to merely mention biblical references and let the reader draw their own conclusions as to how the baptisms were actually performed. After all, no one is disputing the veracity of these texts, and they should be able to stand on their own.

I’m also concerned that the (baptismal pool) http://www.koelner-dom.de/index.php?id=88&L=1#b link is dead, and has been for some time. --Traveller74 11:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have checked and found that the link works for me. Does anyone else have problems with it? I wonder whether, if Traveller74 tried this link and then scrolled down to the words beginning with the letter B, the problem would be overcome. The text there is: "Related to the later medieval baptismal font, this was an early basin often in the floor of a baptistery which allowed Early Christian baptisms to take place with a pouring of water over the person standing in the pool. Many different forms of baptismal piscinas follow Antique models, but only in the 5th/6th century they were clearly related to Christian use with a definite form: e.g., the octagonal piscina with the ciborium in Cologne. More often round and square versions survive from Early Christian times." If others too have difficulty in reaching this text, I should perhaps insert it in the article. Or perhaps I should insert it immediately. A description of the baptismal pool in the Cologne cathedral is given here. More general information on baptismal pools, the average depth of which was less than three feet, can be found in the Archeology section of the article Baptismal Font of the Catholic Encyclopedia of a century ago. Perhaps that is the link that I should put in the article. With renewed thanks to Traveller74. Lima 12:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added two sub-headings to this section, Apostolic period, and Post apostolic period. Contrary to Lima's assertion that the Apostolic period could only be filled with speculation, it currently has verifiable, non-denominational and non-biased information. --Traveller74 13:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Again I thank Traveller74 for the kind assistance given, through which I have learned that the Didache is generally considered to be a first-century work (and therefore extremely important for knowledge of the earliest manners of administering Christian baptism, about which the New Testament gives no details), and have also learned much more than the very little I knew about baptismal pools. Some of this knowledge I have now inserted into the article. Lima 15:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank Lima for his/her paitence and brilliant editing abilities. During research into various historical texts I've managed to expand my own knowledge on the subject, and have hopefully contributed something to this article.

However, there are a few points that need attention:

• References to historian Augustus Neander's works regarding infant baptism have been removed. This should go somewhere in the baptism article, as it does relate to baptism.
• Other references to Augustus Neander's works have been removed, why?
• References to Histoire Dogmatique, Vol. 1, page 236. has been removed, which would give the reader a more balanced view of aspersion and a time period for its introduction.

--Traveller74 05:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am grateful for Traveller77's continued collaboration.

• On infant baptism, Traveller77 could begin a new section. This section is on the manner or method of baptism: immersion etc.
• The only other reference to Neander seems to be: Augustus Neander's History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries states: "Baptism was originally administered by immersion." (Note that Neander does not say: "Baptism was originally administered only by immersion.") My omission of this was not deliberate: it must have dropped out together with the talk about infant baptism. For my part, I do not see its importance. Nobody, as far as I know, denies the statement. But if Traveller74 thinks it important, it can easily be put in along with the other quotations in footnote 3.
• The quotation about aspersion from Corblet's Histoire dogmatique refers to the thirteenth century, long after the period we are considering. One might as well say (and with truth): "Even in the twenty-first century baptism by aspersion is still an out of the ordinary practice in the Roman Catholic Church." Besides, the quotation from Corblet must surely be a mistranslation, if not an out-and-out fabrication. Thomas Aquinas most certainly did not say that "a minister would sin gravely in baptizing other than by immersion, because he would not be conforming to the ceremonial of the Latin Church." Look up what he actually did say on the question Whether immersion in water is necessary for Baptism? Lima 06:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued thanks to Lima, whose contributions continue to enlighten me.

• Infant baptism is necessary in the section on the post-apostolic period, as it gives reason for the introduction of aspersion. Even if it is an out of the ordinary pracitce, it is another form of baptism introduced during this period of early Christianity. Also it's referenced in an earler quotation provided by Lima: "Moreover, the acts of the early martyrs frequently refer to baptizing in prisons where infusion or aspersion was certainly employed" therefore deserves further explanation.
• Further research on the history of infant baptism has uncovered works by historian Louis Réau, who discusses infant baptism and shallow baptism pools. It is a fitting introduction to Lima's paragraph on these archaeological uncoverings.
• Given Lima's comment on the quotation about aspersion from Corblet's Histoire dogmatique I didn't re-insert this. But may do so if further research uncovers more solid information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Traveller74 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

On further inspection, this section seems to be contradicting itself. In the Apostolic period section, one paragraph clearly states of Bible accounts "None of these accounts describe the manner of administering baptism", which seems to be correct. However, the Catholic Encyclopedia has seemingly derived methods from these same texts "Moreover, the acts of the early martyrs frequently refer to baptizing in prisons where infusion or aspersion was certainly employed." --Traveller74 00:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a contradiction between the statement about the absence of description of the method used for the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament and the statement about baptisms administered to people in prison awaiting martyrdom in subsequent early-Christian times. The latter statement does not say that aspersion was used; only that, since immersion was impossible, these baptisms must certainly have been conferred either by infusion/affusion or by aspersion, the only other methods that could be used.

I do not see on what grounds it is presumed that baptism by aspersion arose because of baptizing infants. Surely it is easier to immerse infants than adults. If a discussion of infant baptism is to include such considerations, it needs a section of its own all the more. Lima 05:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is other supporting evidence, the assertion that immersion was impossible can only be pure speculation given that Bible texts don't give details of how these baptisms were administered. certainly affusion may have been possible during this period, however aspersion seems highly unlikely at such an early time.

The infant baptism comments are not my own, rather, they're from a reliable and verifiable source, French historian Louis Réau. His grounds for reasoning are quite clear, specifically, the dangers of immersing infants in water. This text certainly gives the reader one reason for when and why aspersion was introduced. If you can find other information regarding when and why aspersion was introduced, please fell free to add.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Traveller74 (talk • contribs).

Apologies for not being sufficiently clear.

1. The quotation in question spoke of immersion as impossible in the circumstances of imprisoned catechumens about to be martyred. It was not referring to the baptisms mentioned in the "Bible texts".
2. The quotation does not say that aspersion was actually used for those persons. It merely says that, since immersion was not possible for them, and since these were in fact baptized before execution, some other method (and there are only two other possibilities) must have been used.

I do not have Réau's book, not have I found anything much about it on the Internet. Does it say that aspersion was in fact used by early Christians? And on what evidence? If there is no clear evidence either that aspersion was actually used, even if only occasionally, in that period, or on the other hand that it was never used, even occasionally, in that period, then it is out of place to speak of it specifically (rather than just as one of the possible forms of non-immersion baptizing) in this section that treats of the method(s) the early Christians used in baptizing. I hope too that the information about the book is not just second-hand and perhaps no more trustworthy than the attribution to Corblet of the above statement about Thomas Aquinas. Lima 09:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Lima for the clarification, perhaps the article could be updated to reflect this.

Information supplied regarding Corblet and that of Réau's book is true and accurate, and certainly has not been altered by myself. The fact that Corblet was not re-inserted after your deletion does in no way lessen its veracity; it was removed until supporting evidence could be located, as a courtesy to yourself . Surely, this should be given the benefit of doubt, rather than suggesting some form of underhanded work? And I certainly hope your not inferring anything about my character, or the writers who originally referenced this work. Unambiguous references have been given, and it's open to public scrutiny for verification. Dare I say, perhaps bias toward the Catholic church is somehow interfering with intellectual reasoning.--Traveller74 10:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you happen to have better information regarding the emergence of aspersion I'd like to read it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Traveller74 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

No, I was not casting aspersions (good word!) on the character of Traveller74, in whose good faith I have full trust. But I have cast them on whatever source attributed to Corblet a statement that I cannot believe Corblet actually wrote. I wonder whether, in accordance with Wikipedia rules about verifiability, more of the quotations that Traveller74 gives should be rephrased to read: "Source X says that such-and-such an author wrote that ..."

Well then, I await enlightenment about what is the earliest evidence of the use of aspersion, rather than affusion or immersion, for baptism. As far as I know, baptism by aspersion is still very rare today and any discussion of it is done with a view not to practising it, but rather to considering on a theoretical level whether it would be valid. Perhaps someone will enlighten me on this question also. Lima 10:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The claims made in this article are not exceptional, and have already been given strong sources, therefore according to wikipedia should not require any stronger sources (see verifiability). They may however go against teachings from one or more Christian denominations, which of course, cannot be avoided. For the sake of neutrality, I have carefully avoided using sources that would bias this section toward one particular denomination, which is why notable historians have been primarily used. Of course, if you're still in doubt, you could seek original texts for verification.

The search for more information regarding the emergence of aspersion is in progress and awaiting my next visit to the library. You'll be one of the first to know if/when more information is found. I've tried to avoid mentioning any texts regarding the validity of any particular baptism method. This topic is entirely subjective and open to all sorts of opinions from virtually every denomination, therefore should be restricted to the appropriate sections. At this point, the evidence suggests aspersion has seemingly been introduced at some point after the apostolic period, would you agree? --Traveller74 23:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see now that some questionable additions escaped my notice yesterday. "In stark contrast to adult only baptism practices of first-century Christians ..." is certainly a POV statement. Infant baptism shows that the first-century situation is not that clear. Just as unsourced is what is said of aspersion. The quotation from Réau in fact says nothing of aspersion: why should aspersion, rather than affusion, have been used for those standing in a baptismal pool? Corblet too, who the Traveller74 editing says spoke of aspersion, in fact explicitly speaks instead, in the quotation from him, of affusion (pouring). Since Traveller74 puts such store by these quotations, I have preserved them by putting them with the others that speak of how immersion was the usual, normal, prevalent form (not necessarily the only form) everywhere at first, but later gave way to affusion in the West. (I would have thought it unnecessary to put more than, at most, one quotation about this matter: surely nobody disputes it.) I have preserved the Neander quotation also, and even inserted it in the article on infant baptism. Lima 07:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to see how a complete lack of evidence for infant baptism is "not that clear"? But given the nature of the topic in general, it is understandable. In fact the Infant baptism article is full of POV and bias toward Catholicism. This is obviously a sore point for the modern day catholic church and its proponents. Jesus aptly prophesied about such matters in Matthew 15:3–9.

I've re-inserted the Corblet paragraph, and changed the error that you've so kindly pointed out. It now reads "Regarding the transition from immersion to affusion". This was an error on my part. With the error fixed, there is no valid reason to remove this paragraph. Lima's preceding paragraph mentions affusion, so it is fitting to have a background on this manner. If removed/moved, it can only be because of POV reasons. --Traveller74 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There may be "complete lack of evidence for infant baptism" in the first century. Much more certainly, there is complete lack of evidence that baptism of infants was excluded in the first century: at a time when Christianity was growing by conversion much more than by by child-bearing, it was inevitable that people would write of baptism principally with converts in mind. Conclusion: "the first-century situation is not that clear", i.e. as clear as Traveller74 still thinks it is.

The Corblet quotation is already in the article, together with other quotations - an unnecessary number of them - dealing with the same matter. See footnote 3. I have also clarified that it refers to the centuries-later change whereby pouring became the prevailing method in the West. It has in fact been said that the change was due to the colder climate of northern Europe, the same reason given for the change whereby solemn baptism began to be conferred at Pentecost rather than at Easter. In the East, immersion has remained the prevailing (but not the only) method. Lima 05:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Some editing and corrections

I did some minor editing to clarify or rectify some things. First of all, under "Meaning/effects of batism", it was said that WATER baptism was a requirement for salvation, a belief "shared by the Roman Catholic...". I removed "water" and specified right away the other types of baptism although I know they are explained in more details in another section. Otherwise, someone who reads this will think that the Catholic Church holds that only water (sacramental) baptism can save, which is not true. Secondly, I added the John 3:5 quote in the section "Catholic baptism and salvation" because the opening sentence "this teaching dates back to the teachings... of first-century Christians" is a half-truth since it is really based on Jesus' own words. In the section "who may administer a baptism", I would suggest to remove the last sentence "The rationale for such a practice..." since there are no New Testament accounts of Christ baptizing his own disciples (there never will be a citation!), so I think the whole line of reasoning doesn't hold up. Finally, in the comparative summary chart, the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church about baptism should be clarified. Grace doesn't "starts one's path to salvation"... it is salvation! Grace is divine life. If you have divine life (if you're filled with Holy Spirit!), you have salvation. It would be better to say : "Sacramental baptism infuses the sanctifying power called grace. It 'removes' original sin and confers forgiveness of actual sins. Sanctifying grace is necessary for salvation." or something among those lines. Of course, if the entire Chart is taken as an external source, it may not be possible to modify it (?) --66.131.26.228 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC) I add my signature at a later date to identify myself properly --Benz74 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Catholic understanding of LDS baptism

I added the citation for the invalidity on LDS baptism. It is worth noting that the CDF DID NOT specify reasons, only made a declaration. Further, as noted in the following sentence, no other group was effected, only the mainline denomination. This is because only the main LDS church was studied as to sacramental validity. I added a citation for that as well.DaveTroy 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Suppression by User(s) IP 129.252.106.50/70.144.12.31 of verifiable fact

Can this user (or is it really more than one) justify his suppression of sourced information about the fact that in the New Testament the verb βαπτίζω, which not even once appears as clearly referring to total immersion, verifiably appears twice as referring to a merely partial washing? Lima 08:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see "Not Necessarily" below. Sky 18:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Sky

Why the head?

Does anyone here know why the sprinkling (apserion) is done upon the head and not on other parts of the body? Why did it first begin?

Please see "Not Necessarily" below. Sky 18:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Sky

You still never answred the question of why the head though and not some other body part.

There are possibly two reasons. As the traditional practice of three fold emersion in a lake or river gave way to baptism within the church building itself, baptismal fonts became smaller. Eventually a person (Except infants) did not climb into the font but stood beside it and leaned over. The second reason, which also might have to do with the development of the font itself is modesty. Old icons show people being baptized naked, or clothed in undergarments. It may be that because people now wore clothing during the baptism that sprinkling the head became practical.--Phiddipus 05:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it goes back long before that. The possibly first-century Didache instructed: "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. 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." It is just that the head is considered the most important part of the body, perhaps because only in the head do you find the organs of all the senses (seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, as well as touching) and it would be considered wrong to choose, say, a toe instead of the head. Soidi 05:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, why did Sky mention "sprinkling". Does any Church regularly practise baptism by sprinkling? (In Catholic teaching, any baptism by sprinkling must result in the water flowing on the person and is thus, practically speaking, baptism by pouring.) Sky should surely have said "pouring", the general practice in, for instance, the Western Catholic Church. The same as the Didache instructed almost two millennia ago. Soidi 05:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pouring upon the head presupposes the one being baptized is standing, so that the water flows down over the body, to make it like a physical washing such as you would do if you didn't have enough water for a bath.

Mainstream American Protestant denominations regularly baptize either by sprinkling or by wetting the hand and wiping it over the infant's head. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Trumpsound

I presume Trumpsound's edits are made in good faith. But the fact remains that he not only wants Wikipedia to make statements that are unverified (and can even be shown to be false) but actually falsely attribute these false statements to respectable sources. Take the statement that "the Catholic Church changed it’s practice of baptizing candidates in the name of Jesus to the use of the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost during the second Century". This allegation runs counter to the probably first-century Didache, which gave explicit instructions to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; but much worse is his attribution of this allegation to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Catholic Encylopedia, neither of which (as the on-line versions show) says: "The Catholic Church changed its (the correct spelling) practice of baptizing candidates in the name of Jesus to the use of the words 'Father, Son, and Holy Ghost' during the second century". Lima 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Catholic acceptance of Orthodox baptism

In the article, the sections Conditions of the validity of a baptism mentions that However, all these Churches recognize each other's form as valid but, it is uncited. Reading above, it would appear that it is not true (at least for the Orthodox Church to recognize non-Orthodox baptisms). But, how about the Catholic Church accepting/recognizing Orthodox baptisms? --Kimon^talk 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes[4]. The RCC recognises any baptism as valid which is performed 1) with water; 2) in the name of the Trinity; 3) (as I understand it) in the context of faith. [5] Marnanel 00:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kimon^talk 12:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification Concerning

I have made some clarification changes which can be seen in the "history" tab. The churches of Christ and the hyperdispensational points are improved.Sky Sky 10:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not Necessarily

Proper biblical exegesis requires adherence to the science of interpretation, and certain axiomatic rules regulate how we borrow from one passage to apply to another. One of those rules concerns figures of speech. The bible is as prone to use a figure of speech as any other literature. When it does, the iron rule states that unless there is clear contextual evidence to the contrary, a word of symbolic import does not escape the conclusion of common sense or common usage. For example, “baptize” is used about a hundred times in its affiliated or related cases in the NT. Therefore, the occasion of a figurative “cleanse” or “sprinkle” or “bury” does not forge a new doctrine, or a different definition of the term.

Unless there is clear contextual evidence that a symbolical usage has not been made, the conclusion goes for common sense, and in this case, for immersion in water rather than “spirit” baptism. The bible shows clearly that the persons who were being baptized were obeying from their hearts the form of doctrine the apostles commanded, Rom 6.17, and that they acted with faith and repentance which gave them the remittance of their sins, union with Christ, and thus the indwelling Holy Spirit which will raise us up on the last day.

Here are three passages that take on a figurative application where the rite of “water baptism” is used as a figure:

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.

Luke 12:50 “But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!

Acts 1:5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

Thank you for calling my attention to the meaning of the word issue. I hadn't noticed the science of interpretation rule violation of the statement, "In spite of the word's basic meaning, there is, as Strong's Concordance says, no unequivocal instance in the New Testament of its use to indicate full body immersion." Actually, Strong's didn't say that at all. Even if Strong's had said that, please note the following:

Not to be confused with Strong's Greek 911, bapto, 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’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables into a solution. Nothing more need be said and no other views need to be weighed.

Careful exegesis requires the figure to refrain from making new and unacceptable doctrine. Sky 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Sky

Meaning of the Word

I was startled to see the patent Calvinistic Point of View within this section and I have removed it to a NEUTRAL Point of View. The biblical term "baptism" must be interpreted with the bible, period. Sky 19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Sky

I'm not sure why you say that. The NT writers certainly didn't; they used a language they understood in the way they understood it. Scholarly, non-religious sources are perfectly acceptable sources for the meaning of Greek words. They happen to agree with Strong, but I see no good reason to drag unrelated arguments in over controversies I just don't see here. In fact, this being an encyclopedia, we shouldn't advance arguments but only explain viewpoints. The overwhelming consensus of Greek language scholarship is that "baptizo" means to dip, or immerse. (Not to mention the overwhelming consensus of modern native Greek speakers.) That's all that needs to be said. Strong might have felt the need to argue against "spirit" baptism -- if I understand the point of the edit correctly -- but the real issue over the meaning of the word is whether sprinkling is acceptable as a normative practice. One might argue one way or the other on it, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word.

This is not to say the text you replaced had any business being there -- it didn't -- but on the other hand, what your edit is trying to get at isn't clear. What does "first derivation" mean, who says Calvin did whatever you meant by that, and who cares? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look more closely, this requires a whole lot of work. I cut this entire section in favor of a short, footnoted derivation in the intro, but the "Apostolic period" section that follows is, frankly, a mess. There are long passages formatted as quotations but unattributed; there are passages that seem to be direct quotations that are not formatted as such; and in general the entire section is an exercise in overkill, as if the point needed to be argued extensively. That may be true in some religious circles, but not in an encyclopedia article. Simply state the consensus of scholarship, cite it, and move on. About 75% of this material can be cut, with no loss of information and at considerable gain of readability. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

TC, thank you for your close inspection and changes. Your removal of the "Meaning of the Word" section is GREAT. You are also right about a change being needed in the Apostolic section. There is simply no need for all of that unless we are going to have to explain each and every view that is possible to have. Since we have the words of the Apostles there is really very little that needs to be said beyond the basic explanations.Sky 05:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Sky

I think we do have to include other views, but in each case we clearly identify the POV. If there are, for example, groups that view a proper baptism as unnecessary, then we say so, mention who they are and what strand of Protestant theology they represent, cite it, and again move on. (I'd do this myself, but I am deeply ignorant on the subject of who might say this.) We don't have to -- in fact we shouldn't -- argue the points or try to demonstrate our own correctness. (Even if we are correct. That's the part of the NPOV policy that's most annoying.)

My complaints weren't something I necessarily expected you to get to work on. I mentioned it here in case there were strong objections to my opinion or if there was some point I was missing, as there might easily have been. But thank you for seeing to it! TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

TC I didn't take your complaints that way, I was anxious that it should be done. I was happy to do it because I was disappointed with trying to patronize every view and having nothing from the bible in tact. I will have NO problems if there are a gazillion different POV's as long as they put their view into a section they create properly labeled instead of trying to mash all the views together. Thanks. Sky 11:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Sky

Article reflects baptistic POV in the translation of the Greek (even baptistic scholars such as Ryrie admit immersion is not the only definition) & in interpretation of going in and out of water .

Apostolic period

I was startled to see the patent Calvinistic Point of View within this section and I have removed it to a NEUTRAL Point of View. The biblical term "baptism" must be interpreted with the bible, period. Sky 19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Sky

I removed, "making full immersion difficult" ??? Such an eisegetical revision of history, which the writer obviously didn't witness, requires strict adherence to Aristotle's dictum that "the benefit of the doubt should be delegated to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself."SkySky

Meaning of the word

A considerable amount of OR is contained in this section despite the references given. The one that caught my eye is the claim of obviousness that a complete immersion of the body (or something close to it) was not expected before eating. Well, that depends on what a person was doing beforehand. One sign archaeologists look for to determine whether a site in Judaea was inhabited by Jews is to look for mikvot. Their presence is a guarantee of a significant Jewish presence; their absence bespeaks a very small Jewish community at best. While not strictly required by Torah before eating after, say, a journey, it may well have been a common practice by way of "setting a fence around Torah" in the 1st century. The Essenes were particularly known for this. So the claim that Jesus was "obviously" not expected to immerse himself before eating, under the particular circumstances at that moment, is something that must be established. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of edit

I've made a major edit in an attempt to yank this article away from the various POVs that's been imposed on it, and I'll explain what I did here as best I can.

• Definition from Liddell & Scott - As phrased, it was somewhat misleading. They really give only one primary definition; the other two are derivative. It's particularly absurd to give the sense "baptize", since that's the very topic under discussion! That's not helpful when trying to determine how the word was used before the Christian meaning became common, and why it was used for the Christian rite. "To perform ablutions" is furthermore given as derivative of this Christian meaning.
• "Meaning of the word" section - I cut this entirely. In response to the concerns I raised above about the excessive OR there, rather than discussing content on this talk page an editor chose to insert even more OR supporting his own POV. There really was very little cited to the point there; the section seemed to exist solely advocacy of baptism by means other than immersion.
• Paragraph beginning "As indicated above, the Bible sometimes uses the word..." - I cut it entirely. In earlier versions of the article it argued for the POV in favor of immersion; it had been edited to argue the opposite instead. Actually, no argument should be made either way.
• Paragraph about Calvinist times and Hyperdispensationalism - I shifted it to a more suitable section, as it not directly related to Apostolic times.
• 2 paragraphs beginning "The following period of Early Christianity seems to have introduced little to no changes." - This contained an extensive quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which was unreferenced and which had some other text inserted with a pro-immersion POV; paragraph following advocated same POV; did what I could to neutralize them.
• Mikvah/Baptism link - This is said often enough that we can't advocate here that they're unrelated. I shifted that section to the beginning of the "Early Christianity", which is now renamed History since it had drifted toward a more general treatment. I cut the old Mikvah section down though, since it went into too much detail.
• Removed Episcopalians from the Comparisons table since they're part of the Anglican Communion. Also removed Salvation Army -- if they don't practice baptism, why are they there? If we need to mention groups calling themselves Christian that don't baptize, then they should be described in the article body, not encountered for the first time in the table.

In general, I have cut unreferenced sections that seemed to present advocacy for one POV or another, since there was far too much argumentation what is a fairly long article in the first place. It's one thing to outline a controversy; it's another to go over the arguments in excruciating detail. No one wants to read that.

In this context, Biblical citations are as good as no citations at all. The Bible is primary source material, and per WP:NOR such should be used with caution. Since the various POVs are supported by varying interpretations of Biblical passages, we can't use them here to support a claim that is in fact controversial. (Showing that certain groups use certain passages in one way or another is a different matter.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the replacement of the intro text and "Meaning" section is still very much OR. You are taking a use where the text makes it clear the context is the washing of hands -- i.e. dipping or immersing them in water, and in the passive voice at that -- and implying it can mean that in a more broad context with no citations at all to back it up; and implying further that dipping or immersion isn't still the basic concept even then. Even the Strong's quotation in the following restored section doesn't help, since its "ceremonial ablutions" definition is in fact circular. (It boils down to "baptism means baptism.") The point is we shouldn't be making any cases here at all, either for or against immersion or other methods. Some traditions prefer or insist on full immersion, some prefer other methods. They all have their own reasons for their practice, explication of which ought to be left to their own articles unless we want this to be a truly lengthy tome.

If you want to discuss it, please do so here. It's impossible to have a meaningful conversation via edit summaries. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by Original Research? I thought it meant putting on Wikipedia your own ideas, not those that are verifiably those of others. And I thought that the sources indicated in the text made it quite obvious, without need of discussion, that what the article says (and said, until it was excised a few weeks ago) about the meaning of the word baptizo is not just the idea of some editor.

The quoted Presbyterian source on the meaning of the word baptizo says:

15. How may it be proved from their scriptural usage that the words baptizo and baptisma do not signify immersion, but washing to EFFECT PURIFICATION, without any reference to mode?

...

2d. The question agitated between some of John's disciples and the Jews, John 3:22 -- 30, and 4:1 -- 3, concerning baptism, is called a question concerning purification.

3d. Matt. 15:2; Mark 7:1 -- 5; Luke 11:37-39. The word baptizo is here used (1) for the customary washing of the hands before meals, which was designed to purify, and was habitually performed by pouring water upon them, 2 Kings 3:1; (2) it is interchanged with the word nipto, which always signifies a partial washing; (3) its effect is declared to be to purify. (4) the baptized or washed hands are opposed to the unclean, (koinais).

The quoted Lutheran source on the meaning of the word baptizo says:

Mark 7:4 may tell us something about how the word "baptize" was used in Jesus' day. This

passage doesn't describe the Sacrament of Baptism, but the word used here for "wash" (Greek baptizo) is the same word. Some people think the word always meant to immerse - that is, to dunk something or someone all the way under the water, but this passage would seem to argue against that. Which item mentioned here would probably NOT be dunked all the way under the water?

The quoted Catholic source on the meaning of the word baptizo says:

Immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, "[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner." They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]" (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.

A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative "baptism" is a sort of "immersion"; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, "I have a baptism [baptisma] to be baptized [baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!" (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be "immersed" in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit."

In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples "not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, 'you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'" Did this mean they would be "immersed" in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include "pouring."

More statements of this kind about what, in the New Testament, was meant by the word baptizo could be quoted, but surely these samples from three different denominations are enough to show that what the article says isn't the result of what at least I would call Original Research.

Liddell and Scott explicitly says that in Luke the word baptizo means perform ablutions. I do not see how, in the context of this article, you can honestly quote Liddell and Scott on the meaning of the Greek word baptizo while omitting this highly relevant statement.

So, really, on what grounds have you have been saying that what the article says about the meaning of the word is, in the Wikipedia sense, Original Research? I thought the matter was so obvious that there was no need for discussion. The expression of what the article says could be improved, but simply deleting what it says deserves, one would think, a word commonly used when reverting edits. Soidi 06:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't go throwing around the "V" word. That's asinine. I posted what I did and my reasons for it on this page; you chose not to discuss the matter until I practically demanded it. If anyone is at fault here, it's not me. You reverted without discussion by reinserting that material. I did no such thing.

The sources you cite appeared in the "Meaning" section, but I didn't cut that because it was OR. I cut it because it was needlessly argumentative and belabors the point for no apparent reason. "Baptizo" primarily means "immerse". That's indisputable. Not only L&S say so, but you can ask any Greek. It can also be used figuratively to mean "wash". Fine. Say it and move on. Or don't even bother saying it. It's not even relevant unless we're going to rehearse all the arguments about immersion/pouring/sprinkling, and as I said above there's no good reason to do that. It says right there in the article there was a range of allowable practices in the early Church. So why go on about it? TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Because some people keep suggesting that "baptizo" in the New Testament must mean "dunk". Making the point was not without "apparent reason": editors kept explicitly declaring that "baptizo" must mean "immerse", and the excision of the point gave readers the impression that what they stated was fact. Nobody, I think, disputes the primary meaning of the word "baptizo" (although there is no indisputable instance of its use in this primary sense in the New Testament), but the word was indeed used (literally, it seems, and not just figuratively, but that is only a minor point) in the New Testament to mean "wash", a fact of more than trivial importance in this context.

Improve the treatment, by all means, but don't cut it. Soidi 13:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You may not have noticed that I cut all that material, and merely noted the practice of the denominations mentioned. If there's any left it was inadvertent, so feel free to rephrase it if you find any. This section is the only contentious language along those lines left in the article as far as I know. As far as I can tell, in RL there really isn't a controversy in the sense of one faction trying to impose its practices on all the rest, so I don't see a reason for this article to reflect anything like that. Each group administers it their own way for their own reasons. They may believe these reasons to be absolutely correct, and it may affect the manner in which they receive converts from other churches, but there's not a lot of contention these days.

The thing is that articles like this can become very tiresome to read when you get 10,000 words of two sides trying to prove their own POVs. It's often impossible for people with a stake in one side or the other to simply present their POV without turning the article into an ongoing debate. When there actually is some kind of ongoing controversy it's important to characterize it, but I just don't see that as being the case with baptism anymore. It certainly was at one time, but in those cases it can be presented in the articles on the involved parties. In a general article they're kind of beside the point. (It would be worthwhile to link to anything like this where it exists.)

As long as we can cut out all the back-and-forth arguing, I'd be happy to give the primary meanings in the intro, since I don't see any indication that the basic meaning is ambiguous, adding, "and is sometimes used by extension to mean washing in general." TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of the word "baptizo" in the New Testament is all that is required, and an article on Christian baptism does require it.

Even apart from what people keep adding to the article - I do not suppose you will be constantly policing the article to remove such additions - the notion that, in the Bible, "baptizo" must mean "immerse" is so often repeated that the article would be incomplete without a treatment of the question.

The article must not give the impression that the basic meaning of the word "baptizo" is almost certainly the meaning it has in the New Testament. The basic meaning of the word "Vatican" is a place; but that is not the meaning in which newspapers usually employ it, since they repeatedly write, for instance, "The Vatican has declared ..." Soidi 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. For one thing, obviously the Early Church understood "batpizo" in the New Testament to mean "immerse"; otherwise that wouldn't have been the normative practice recorded in the Didache. That is how native Greek speakers has always understood it in this context. I think a Greek has a much better understanding of what is and is not a figurative use of one of their own words than either of us do, just as every native English speaker knows perfectly well when "Vatican" is used in the figurative sense you waved around and when it is not. That's why the only church around that still reads the New Testament in the original language baptizes by immersion, and has always done so even when New Testament Greek was the language of the streets. To them, it's nonsensical to do otherwise.

Yes, I know the Didache allows baptism by pouring. It allows it as a last-ditch way of satisfying the ritual requirement of washing in water when no means of immersion is available. The preferred method is to immerse (baptisate) in running ("living") water; if that's not available then immerse (baptison) in still ("other") water, which should be cold, but if that's unavailable then warm, but if none of that can be had, then pour (ekcheon, not an inflection of baptizo). Yes, it's treated as a valid baptism after that, but the fact is that when something other than immersion is meant when directing what should be done, a different word is used.

Clearly, just because a word is used figuratively in one place, we don't automatically read it that way every time it occurs even in the very same text, let alone a collection of texts such as the New Testament. No one is so much of an idiot that they'd read both "The Vatican announced today..." and "The Pope returned to the Vatican..." figuratively even if they appeared in the same newspaper article. You can show all the figurative uses of "baptizo" in the New Testament (where they really occur) that you care to. It doesn't affect how the word is to be understood everywhere else.

That rant is just because of your insistence, despite evidence to the contrary, that the NT does not most likely mean "immerse" where it says "immerse". But that's really beside the point. In spite of the obviously correct meaning of the word, I've taken considerable trouble to remove any "pushes" of that POV from the article, just so that it doesn't end up as little more than a series of arguments that are deeply interesting only to those involved. In spite of that, you insist on keeping a POV push in the opposite direction -- which would leave a reader thinking that the figurative meaning is more common than the primary. That's the wrong impression, and there's no justification for it whatsoever. I'm removing one half of the argument. It's absurd to keep the other half just in case someone comes along and re-inserts the old material. Who does that kind of thing?

I'm not saying to leave out the figurative meaning entirely. It ought to be mentioned just as often as the primary reason is, which is precisely what I suggested. I'm saying we should drop the arguments. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Declaring that, when the NT says "βαπτίζω", it is saying "immerse" sounds like a "petitio principii". Whoever wrote the Didache was a Greek speaker, and he knew that "βαπτίζω" had a wider meaning than that: otherwise he wouldn't have considered pouring water on the head to be baptism. I think a Greek of that time, such as he, had a much better understanding of what was and was not a correct use of one of their own words than either of us do.

No more than the NT, the Didache doesn't expressly say, as I possibly wrongly think you believe, that the ordinary (a more exact word than "normative") or optimal way of baptizing - i.e. in "living water" - was by total immersion in water of that kind: how can you be sure that the expression in the Didache could not apply also to pouring water on a person standing in (not submerged beneath) the living water, which is an impression one can (rightly or wrongly) easily get from ancient pictures of baptism?

I have seen a recent film by the Church of which you write, on the work of its Αλληλέγγυα (please excuse the probable misspelling) organization in Africa, that showed a Greek bishop baptizing a few adults and grown children in a channel of water (doubtless slow-flowing water - and the channel was at most two metres wide) by pouring water on their heads, after which they were made to hunker down briefly in the more-or-less forty-centimetre-deep water.

Would you also say: "You can show all the figurative uses of "Vatican" in the New York Times (where they really occur) that you care to. It doesn't affect how the word is to be understood everywhere else"? Soidi 11:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No. It's not begging the question to assume a word is taking on its primary meaning absent any good reason to the contrary. The burden of proof is the other way around. We couldn't possibly communicate if that wasn't the case. Hasn't it occurred to you that your standards leave no means at all for the New Testament to say "immerse" anywhere? To conclude that it doesn't say anything about immersion based on that standard is circular reasoning, to say the least. It's the kind of thing you'd do only if you had a conclusion in mind that you really, really want to reach.

That the Greek bishop in question was baptizing by pouring using the only water in question is beside the point, since I've already said that under such circumstances this has always been allowable in order to meet the ritual requirement of a washing in water. That's why the Didache only directed it to be done by pouring when no other means was available. If "baptizo" always meant pouring -- a patent absurdity -- they wouldn't save mention of it for last. Otherwise you immerse three times. It doesn't change what the word means, and it doesn't change the preferred method. Orthodox everywhere baptize by immersion when they can. That this happened in a river is neither here nor there; it was not deep enough for immersion and therefore pouring was used. It's a silly casuistry to impose some other interpretation on it. I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to my own church. I've even got a bit of education in it.

To your last question -- Yes, I would. Why every not? You seem to think it results in something nonsensical, but it just isn't there. Just because the NYT means a spokesman for the central authority of the Roman Catholic Church when it says "Vatican" in one place, does not mean they cannot also use "Vatican" in its proper sense as a place name. I even gave you an example. Didn't you bother to read it?

I'm not sure why you picked "Vatican" as an example. The American press uses "White House" in exactly the same way. Just because the NYT says "White House" when it means an unnamed spokesman for the Executive branch, there's no reason why it cannot also use "White House" in its proper sense to denote the Executive Mansion, even elsewhere in the article.

But again all this is a side issue. The subject of the discussion is your resistance to the removal of exactly this kind of argumentation from the article. Since you didn't bother to address that, I'll assume you've conceded the point. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have "bothered to address that", at 13:35 on 2 August and 05:01 yesterday. It is an easily verifiable fact that people think baptism must be done in accordance with what the New Testament says when it speaks of baptizing. And to know what the New Testament says about baptizing, we must understand the word it uses in the way it actually used it. This is essential matter for the article, not something for an appendix or a footnote.

"Hasn't it occurred to you that your standards leave no means at all for the New <York Times> to say <'White House' in the sense of a building> anywhere? To conclude that it doesn't say anything about <the building> based on that standard is circular reasoning, to say the least. It's the kind of thing you'd do only if you had a conclusion in mind that you really, really want to reach."

Well, you answer this yourself, by saying: "Just because the NYT means a spokesman for the <US President> when it says '<White House>' in one place, does not mean they cannot also use '<White House>' in its proper sense as a place name."

"That the Greek bishop in question was baptizing by pouring using the <abundant> water in question is beside the point, since I've already said that under such circumstances <(having to make, for complete immersion of those being baptized, a deeper pool as part of the preparation for the bishop's visit; indeed, it is possible to immerse a non-obese person fully in just 40-cm-deep water, so was pouring (plus the baptized person's own hunkering) used merely to allow the bishop to baptize from the bank of the channel without getting wet?)> this has always been allowable in order to meet the ritual requirement of <baptizing, as explicitly stated in the Didache at a time when people surely understood the word in the same way as the New Testament writers did>." Soidi 05:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I answered it myself. The problem is that it's not a statement you subscribe to. Yes, it looks absurd when you use "NYT" and "White House" in place of "NT" and "baptism". It is absurd. But that's exactly the kind of thing you're doing when you say that we can never unambiguously understand "baptism" (i.e. "immerse") to mean immerse regardless of context. I cannot fathom why you think you're scoring a point here.

Your other substitution doesn't support you either. You insert "abundant" about water that was somehow not deep enough to immerse someone in. You weren't there and neither was I, but I'm telling you that in any Orthodox Church immersion is always done unless there's a very good reason not to. Merely that the bishop doesn't want to get wet isn't one of them -- if it was in this case then it's on his head -- since the sponsor can perform the actual dunking if need be. There must have therefore been some reason why the water was thought unsuitable for it. You can either believe me or not, but any standard reference on Orthodoxy will contradict you. (For example, [6], which is from the standard basic reference on Orthodoxy in English.) The rest of it is the same circular reasoning you've been using all along, and a misreading that can only be achieved by begging the question. Using your method, it certainly doesn't work if we substitute "wash" for "baptize": we're left with, "wash in living water... wash in other water... pour over the head", which still uses words that mean something different. But we're in exactly the same situation I put forward before. You leave this text with no means of using the primary meaning of the word when you insist on reading it otherwise everywhere.

But since you're continuing to argue the point, I'm afraid it's become transparent. You're really about pushing your own POV here, at a time when I'm trying expressly to remove such pushes from either side of the question, even the one I agree with. As I said, if you see any such pushes remaining, I invite you to remove them in lieu of retaining this section devoted exclusively to your side. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "baptizo" had a wider meaning, but of course it could be used also to refer to complete immersion. "White House" has a wider meaning, but of course it can be used also to refer to the bulding. Apart from Jehovah's Witnesses, nearly everyone accepts that the Greek word "stauros" had a wider meaning, but that it could of course be used also to refer to a stake. As you know, the primary meaning of "stauros" is a stake, but I presume you don't claim that an article dealing with the death of Jesus should exclude any mention of what was meant by the "stauros" on which he died; or that, any time that the word "stauros" appears, the onus of proof lies entirely on those who understand it as meaning something other than a stake.

The fact remains that "baptizo" was used in the New Testament in a wider sense than "full immersion". What the words "baptizo", "baptisma", "baptismos" meant to people at the time the New Testament was written is essential for knowing what the early Christians understood by baptism. Excluding from an article that goes into the question of the origins of Christian baptism a mention of this seemingly verified fact of how people did understand these words would be pushing a POV that the words meant "immerse completely" and nothing else. Of course, if you can find verifiable evidence for this latter thesis, I invite you to add it to the section dealing with the meaning of the word. Soidi 06:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Small Change in church of Christ Section

I figured I should mention this since this is a well-debated article. I changed some wording about the Great Commission that implied Christians from the church of Christ use this section in Matthew to define the type of baptism Jesus was talking about. This was unsourced at best, and certainly not true. The Great Commission is simply an example of Jesus commanding baptism to be performed, and for what reason. It doesn't mention the mechanics of the act, and I've never heard anyone claim that it does. Tehpeabody 05:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

early christian beliefs about baptism

Oxford Dictionary of World Religions says that early Christian doctrines about B were variable. Lima (who has a habit of altering and deleting my edits on Purgatory and other pages) changed "doctrines" to "forms." Surely there's a policy against changing a cited statement so that it no longer agrees with the source cited? That can't be kosher, can it? Perhaps Lima is defending the RCC POV that true doctrine has never changed, so I changed the term to "beliefs" instead of "doctrines."

Lima? Is "beliefs" OK? Would you care to explain yourself? Leadwind 14:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Now Lima is doing the same thing he's done to my work on other pages, adding "According to (name of reference)" to the information. The reference is already cited in the footnote and doesn't need to be called out. Lima, please explain yourself. Leadwind 00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding the extraneous "According to (reference)" conditions to citations that they don't like. Lima, is that you? Leadwind (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of World Religions

I'm adding material from World Religions. Lima has taken to altering my cited information without comment. Please keep an eye on him. If he alters the cited information and leaves the citation on it, that's a false citation.

Lima, if you're going to alter a citation, at least delete the reference, too. Leadwind 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Did someone delete the cited information about Jesus not baptizing people? Lima, was that you? Leadwind (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this primary source reference: "The gospel of John says that Jesus too baptized (3:22, 3:26, 4:1) but adds that "Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples" (4:2)." Someone (Lima?) is trying to use a primary source to suggest that Jesus baptized, at least indirectly. What's needed here is a good secondary source, not proof from scripture. The information I deleted would be fine in a section about early Christian references to baptizing, or to Jesus baptizing. But it can't be used as historical information without a secondary source backing it up. Lima, did you substitute primary-source information you like for cited information you don't like? Leadwind (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth may we not report that the Gospel of John does make that statement? It is a fact. I merely state the fact: I add no interpretation, draw no conclusion.

I am not saying that Leadwind quotes his picked sources inaccurately here, but examples of past inaccuracies are found here and here. Lima (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about the gospel of John and what it says, you can, of course, quote what it says. If you are talking about whether Jesus baptized, you need a secondary source. Vassyana has made this point clear to you on the Early Christianity page. You can't use scripture as a reliable source. Please respect the policy of verifiability. In this sentence, you cobbled together two sentences thus: "Jesus did not baptize as part of his ministry,[1][3] though the Gospel of John says three times that Jesus baptized,[4] but adds that "Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples."[5]." Here you're using a primary source (scripture) to qualify a two secondary sources. If you want to reference John, fine, but in the context of what Christians in Ephesus were saying around the end of the first century, not in the context of Jesus' own life.

Are there any other editors reading this who could chime in, or is it going to be Lima and me head-to-head again?

Finally, Lima, would you please answer my original question. Was it you who deleted the referenced information about Jesus not baptizing? Leadwind (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not feel free, over Leadwind's objections, to restate explicitly in the text that what he makes Wikipedia say (i.e. that Jesus simply did not baptize) is a view attributed to two modern writers, neither of whom Leadwind quotes exactly. I therefore found no remedy other than to "cobble together" two statements: a) Jesus did not baptize (which Leadwind presents as a fact, not as what two writers say); and b) "John says that Jesus did baptize, though not personally". I am confident that, precisely because of that apparent (but perhaps not real, since both statements could be true) contradiction, people more knowledgeable that I am will have their attention drawn to the matter and settle it for us. Meanwhile, I let Leadwind's edit stand, and I ask him to be so good as to let mine stand until such time as the more knowledgeable people intervene. Surely, the matter is not so urgent that it must be settled within hours. Please, let the two of us pause our part in this argument and await the help of others. These others may perhaps show, with exact quotations, on what grounds these two end-of-the-twentieth-century writers cast aside (if they did) end-of-the-first-century John's statements, of which they ought surely not to have been ignorant.

I don't see why anyone would think it so important to insert into this particular article either Leadwind's statement that Jesus did not baptize in any sense or John's that Jesus did baptize, but only through his disciples. But I cannot let the first of these statements stand unaccompanied by any explanation whatever of what seems to be its bald direct contradiction of a well-known first-century statement on the question, unaccompanied even by any indication of the existence of the apparent contradiction. Lima (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lima, you've been warned not to use primary sources as references for your assertions. The way I cite Jesus not baptizing is in accord with WP policy. I say what the RS says and I cite it. If this isn't fact, then find an RS that says otherwise. Once there's an RS that says Jesus baptized, then it's an open issue and we must describe it as such. I returned the material to chrono order and distanced my scholarly source from your primary source. And one more thing. Historians generally regard John as not reliable historically. It represents not historical Jesus (who didn't baptize) but semi-gnostic eternal spirit Jesus (who did baptize, and even created the world). These two modern sources have no reason to credit anything John says about Jesus baptizing. Jesus didn't create the world, and he didn't baptize. Leadwind (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My only assertion here is that the Gospel of John says that Jesus baptized (not personally but through his disciples). The fact that this first-century source made that statement (whether correct or not, something about which I make no assertion in the article) is highly relevant to the article as it now stands since you added to it your assertion that two twentieth-century writers ruled out any baptizing in Jesus' ministry. You have not put in chronological order the statement you attribute to these writers, but have instead placed it before Saint Matthew's Gospel! I have left your assertion untouched, and have not even moved it into either chronological order or logical order (i.e. close to the contrary statement in the Gospel of John); so you have nothing to complain about. Let us just let the matter rest (even if the apparent omission by your two sources of any mention of the clear statement by the Gospel of John is puzzling) and cease quarelling.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with quoting exactly and without interpretation easily verifiable primary sources. Quite the contrary. Lima (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Calvin paragraph

What does this mean? Leadwind (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

At the time of John Calvin, some held that immersion in water for remission of sins (Acts 2:38), the "burial in baptism" used as a figure of speech in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12, was not required in Christianity to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Instead, they posited a waterless "baptism in the spirit", citing Jesus on the day of his Ascension in Acts 1:5: "For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence." See Baptism in Hyperdispensationalism.

Oneness Pentecostals

Oneness Pentecostals aren't on the big table. I don't know whether they baptize infants or whether they say that baptism "Regenerates, Gives Spiritual Life." They're pretty interesting as far as their baptism beliefs go, what with their Jesus' name and Holy Ghost baptisms. Anyone know the details? Leadwind (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is to complecated

Half of the people who look at it won't understand what half of it says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.171.222 (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling: baptise v. baptize

A consensus needs to be reached. There are only two occurrences of baptise in the current article, but both appear to be correct (see Wiktionary links in heading). Does anyone else see an overwhelming use of American spelling and usage versus British? According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, terms and spelling should be consistent throughout articles. I can't imagine baptism having any stronger tie to the States or the UK, but you never know until you ask and someone steps up to correct you. [Ashleyy|osaurus] 19:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that since this the English Wikipedia, the spelling should reflect the wider English-speaking community. I think 'baptise' does so, though of course our Yank brethren use 'baptize' and it is the older spelling elsewhere too. No offence to US editors!--Gazzster (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it would be impossible for Wikipedia to adopt the rule that was followed some decades ago (and perhaps still is today) in United Nations documents in English: Use the more international (the non-US) spelling, but with -iz- in place of -is-, as is permitted (not obligatory) outside the United States. I think this would be the ideal, but I think it would not be acceptable to US contributors. Lima (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My two cents on the matter: In every Church-endorsed article or material I've run across that's been published in America, baptize has ALWAYS, without one exception, been spelled with "iz" rather than "is". The only time I've come across it any differently was in the word "baptism" which, of course, has an "is". I've seen the word "baptise" spelled with an "is" ONLY in articles still in English but not so-called "American English". This seems to be a highly technical point. I would say that I personally am in favor of the "iz" spelling because that's what I'm most familiar with, but if the consensus disagrees with me, it's not going to break my heart to concede to the "is" usage. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And the "favour" usage? Lima (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's easy as well. If we're using American English, then "favor" would be the most appropriate. The "favour" usage has been in the scriptures in times past, but "favor" seems to be the most commonly used spelling nowadays. Again, I'm in agreement with whatever the consensus decides, but I personally prefer "favor" because that's the form I'm most familiar with. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As Jgstokes has just indicated, Americans will write "favor" and "baptize". Most others will write "favour" and (quite likely though not necessarily) "baptise". Conclusion: We must follow the general Wikipedia rules and use uniformly throughout the article (except for quotations) one or other of the two styles. It would be inappropriate to apply different rules to this one article. Will someone please check which style was first established in this article? Remember that "-ize" does not necessarily indicate US spelling: it is correct also in the non-US style. Lima (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody else has done it, I have checked the matter myself. The very first version of this article (1 November 2001) used the US spelling, "practice", for the verb "to practise". (The noun is spelled "practice" in both styles.) So, according to Wikipedia rules, US spelling is the one to use here. I leave it to a US-speller to make the adjustments. Lima (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tb|Tb]] (talk) disagrees with me. With regard to a different article, he has written:

You suggest, "If this rule has been violated, then the violation must be undone - or so I think." but this is exactly the problem. This leads to endless problems. The rule does not say anything about "undoing" anything. It says two things: if the article has been around a long time, and edits have been mostly one way, keep it that way, and, if the article is new, follow the lead of the first disambiguating major contributor. The article has been around a long time, and, AFAICT, has for nearly all that period used American usage. The point here is that Wikipedia stresses stability and not correcting every past mistake. The point of the policy is to discourage changes of spelling while preserving consistency. Tb (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Lima (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To speak for myself, Lima's representation of my remarks is correct, but I want to be clear.

• The general wikipedia policy applies here.
• The US spelling of the past tense is "baptize", always with a Z..
• This is not a new article, so the "first major contributor" rule does not apply.
• This is a long-established article, so the main rule applies: use the spelling which has been mostly used.
• Before March 9, the article had inconsistent spellings. But the British spellings were introduced only more recently. For example, "baptised" does not exist in the July 22, 2007 versions. A few Britsh spellings started to get introduced last year. At one point, "baptised" was changed to "baptized", and Lima reversed it. Later, some changes from Lima used -ize spellings, saying that -ize is permissible everywhere.
• It seems to me then that
  • The article has sometimes had inconsistent spellings, and sometimes uniformly American ones,
  • So the article should remain with American spellings. Tb (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The rule is not, as I thought, "Follow the spelling of the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety of spelling" (here the US spelling, in the other article the non-US spelling); the rule is, as Tb has pointed out, "Follow whatever spelling has managed, over time, to establish itself in the article, even if it did so by eliminating the spelling originally used - until such time as the other style succeeds in establishing itself without immediate protest". (By the way, if I at some stage introduced "-ise", I must have been copying a source: I myself use "-ize".) Lima (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Baptize" is one of the few words where the pedantic UK English spelling uses a "z" on the basis that the word comes to us solely from the Greek and "ize" best represents the Greek ending. So in this case "baptize" ought to be viewed as satisfactory to all. (Personally, I laways write "baptise") John Campbell (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So Australians (for instance) either don't exist or don't count? Lima (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, in discussion of a different article I objected that English-speakers did not just exist in North America and UK but then was shot down in flames because (or so it was claimed) there are only two spelling variants, called US and UK for convenience. John Campbell (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Baptism pictures

I removed two pictures reputed to be baptism pictures in the Église du Christianisme Céleste (Celestial Church of Christ). What they really show is headwashing as a kind of "spiritual work" to avert bad luck. In ECC submersion in river water is compulsory for baptism. -- JohSt 08:43 28. April 2008 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 06:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How is confimation given

The bishop extends his hands over the person and anoints the forehead in the form of the cross while saying ("Be sealed with the gift of the holy spirit".)The person being confimed answers "Amen" meaing ("let it be so".)The gift of the holy spitit, who is father and the son to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.74.170 (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about or what religious denomination you are talking about, but it sounds like nothing I've ever heard before. Could you please explain? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds pretty close to the current RC rite to me, though why it should be here is unclear to me. Tb (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Within the Eastern Orthodox Church after the baptism the priest anoints the new member with a specially prepared oil called Chrism. He anoints the forehead, eyes, ears, lips, nostrils, throat, back of the head, chest, shoulders, both sides of each hand, the back, and feet. With each anointing he says "The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit" and the new member says "Seal" or "Amen". In some traditions with infants the entire body is rubbed with this holy oil. Some scholars have said that this tradition is symbolic of wrestlers covering themselves in olive oil before the struggle; in this case the struggle with sin and temptation.

Churches of Christ

I've removed the section on the Churches of Christ, because essentially they believe the same thing about baptism that other protestant denominations do. If we allow them their own section every one of the many hundreds of divisions of evangelical protestantism will want their own section. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

cited material repeatedly deleted

Jesus did not baptize as part of his ministry.<ref name="ODWR">Bowker, John (ed.). The Oxford dictionary of world religions. New York: Oxford University Press. 1997</ref>

That line keeps getting deleted. When people repeatedly delete scholarly material on a religion page, I suspect defense of POV. Leadwind (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If it keeps getting deleted (certainly not by me), perhaps it is because it keeps being reinserted as Wikipedia-stated fact, not as the opinion of the author of the article in the ODWR, while what appear to be contrary indications exist in other sources. Why not explicitly attribute the statement to its source? Then nobody can object. Lima (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You've deleted this sentence before, after an RfC said you should leave it alone. Lima, please do us all a kind favor and find one verifiable source (not scripture or church tradition) that says Jesus baptized. If our only contemporary source says he didn't, then as far as WP is concerned, he didn't. Should every cited piece of information on WP start with "according to name-of-source"? No. Neither should this sentence. Leadwind (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

When two early sources state that Jesus did baptize, one of them a first-century source which adds that the baptizing was done indirectly, the other a second-century source which says Jesus baptized one person personally, I have difficulty in understanding how you can justifiably make Wikipedia baldly state that Jesus did not baptize, instead of saying that according to a certain writer he didn't. I have not said that every cited statement should have "according to ..." I have said that, when sources, even Scripture or a Church Father, indeed, in this matter, especially first-century Scripture, explicitly state (not just are interpreted as implying) the opposite, you must not present something as an undisputed fact. Lima (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

primary sources

Geez, the early Christianity section looks like immersionists and anti-immersionists had a POV war, using as their weapons primary sources (Bible quotes) and long-dead scholars. I'm cleaning up. Leadwind (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)