(from newsgroup aus.religion.christian)

Michael wrote:
> The instructions in the didache (in my words)
> You baptise by immersion, if this is not possible, baptise by
> sprinkling or pouring.

Good. So we agree that sprinkling and pouring are still baptism.

My only argument with you on this issue would be if you tried to say that immersion is the only method of baptism. If you say that it was the preferred method in the early church, and is the preferred method in your church today, then I can live with that.

> In our modern society, baptism by immersion is ALWAYS possible.

Not in my church, it isn't. I could go down to the river, but then, so could people in the early church.

Let me use an analogy I have used before on another thread.

At the last supper, Jesus probably used unleavened bread (assuming it was a passover meal), and fermented wine (given that unfermented grape juice would have been unavailable at that time of year). If we are to follow Jesus' instructions to 'do this in remembrance of me...", as accurately as possible, then we too should use unleavened bread and fermented wine. For very good pastoral, practical, and social reasons, many modern churches use grape juice and leavened bread for communion. They are still following the Lord's command, and the essential nature of what they are using (Bread, 'wine') is the same. Few people would suggest that communion with leavened bread and unfermented grape juice is not communion, although we may wish to argue about which is more ideal.

Exactly the same thing is true of Baptism. In the time of Jesus and the early Church it is likely that most Baptisms were by immersion. As I have said, it is unlikely, but not impossible, that the large- crowd and whole- household baptisms were done by immersion, but the scriptures give us no clear evidence on this. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that every Baptism described in the New Testament was by immersion. For very good pastoral, practical, and social reasons, many modern churches use sprinkling or pouring for Baptism. We know from the didache that this practise dates back to at least the second century. They are still following the Lord's command, and the essential nature of what they are using (Water) is the same. Few people would suggest that baptism by sprinkling or pouring is not Baptism, although we may wish to argue about which is more ideal.

You and I are unlikely to change the diversity of the modern Church on these matters, but isn't it funny that our churches solve each issue in the opposite way. My church uses fermented wine and unleavened bread for Communion, and would not think of doing otherwise, but we mostly use pouring for Baptism. Your church uses immersion for baptism, and would not think of doing otherwise, but (AFAIK) uses grape juice and leavened bread for communion.

> "Baptidzo" comes from "bapto" which means "wash", usually by
> immersion in water.

True.

But in the NT *Baptidzo* does not mean 'wash', it means 'baptise'. It is the act of Baptism which is important, not the amount of water used.

Nigel B. Mitchell