A Legitimate Question: Partial Baptism?

Since there are a couple threads right now dealing with baptism I thought I would present a very viable scenario to those on AFF.

Here is a legitimate question: We are 'buried' with Him in baptism. I believe it MUST be done in Jesus Name to be legitimate. However, what happens when someone in the process of being baptized either lifts a hand / doesn't let their head go all the way under / etc., essentially meaning they didn't go totally under the water?

Has it happened? Yes, even to me... once. I simply rebaptized them after I explained why.

The question is genuine as I'm not sure one is really baptized (buried) if they don't go totally under. My stance is simple: I can't feel comfortable thinking that I didn't really baptize them totally.

To me, not fully baptizing them by putting them totally under leaves me uneasy. It would essentially mean that I was making baptism an 'outward symbol' (like false doctrines teach) instead of a necessary part of salvation.

[freeatlast]

We've had this discussion before. Some got quite upset when we brought up the "rules" of the Jewish Mikvah. and how history records early baptism in the early church.

[Sherri]

We put them under again, if they don't get fully under the first time! It's happened more than once.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

Since there are a couple threads right now dealing with baptism I thought I would present a very viable scenario to those on AFF.

Here is a legitimate question: We are 'buried' with Him in baptism. I believe it MUST be done in Jesus Name to be legitimate. However, what happens when someone in the process of being baptized either lifts a hand / doesn't let their head go all the way under / etc., essentially meaning they didn't go totally under the water?

Has it happened? Yes, even to me... once. I simply rebaptized them after I explained why.

The question is genuine as I'm not sure one is really baptized (buried) if they don't go totally under. My stance is simple: I can't feel comfortable thinking that I didn't really baptize them totally.

To me, not fully baptizing them by putting them totally under leaves me uneasy. It would essentially mean that I was making baptism an 'outward symbol' (like false doctrines teach) instead of a necessary part of salvation.

I have always redone it.

[freeatlast]

In Jewish baptism or mikvah, there is a witness to insure that that the person is entirley immersed.

Before the mikvah they fast, they wash, all jewelry is removed so the waters of the mikvah will cover and wash all the body.

Do I think God would disqaulify someones salvation because a hand or finger did'nt go under the water? No WAY

I do think anyone who thinks that God would not accept a believer, over a hand not gong under the water, has a very poor concept of God.

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I have always redone it.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me!

Originally Posted by freeatlast

In Jewish baptism or mikvah, there is a witness to insure that that the person is entirley immersed.

Before the mikvah they fast, they wash, all jewelry is removed so the waters of the mikvah will cover and wash all the body.

Do I think God would disqaulify someones salvation because a hand or finger did'nt go under the water? No WAY

I do think anyone who thinks that God would not accept a believer, over a hand not gong under the water, has a very poor concept of God.

Wow... never heard of this. That is some seriously interesting stuff!

[freeatlast]

The transition to Christian baptism was a very natural flow for the early Jewish converts. They were very accustomed to getting in the water for ritual cleansing. John the Baptizer was no new thing to them.

Originally Posted by freeatlast

The transition to Christian baptism was a very natural flow for the early Jewish converts. They were very accustomed to getting in the water for ritual cleansing. John the Baptizer was no new thing to them.

Simply never studied that aspect of it... really neat stuff.

[freeatlast]

Here's a bit of the law from a paper by Ron Mosley, a Hebrew history scholar:

The six non-Essene restrictions on the water used in the mikveh come from the corrupt Leviticus 11:36 text. They are:

* The mikveh can not contain other liquid besides water.
* The water has to be either built into the ground or be an integral part of a building attached to the ground.
* The mikveh can not be flowing except for a natural spring, river or ocean.
* The water can not be manually drawn.
* The water can not be channeled to the mikveh by anything unclean.
* The mikveh must contain at least 40 sa'ah or approximately 200 gallons of water. (Rabbi Yitzchok ben Sheshes said the amount of 40 sa'ah was derived from the idea that the largest normal human body has a volume of 20 sa'ah, therefore the amount of water needed to "nullify" this body is double this amount or 40 sa'ah.)

__________________________________________________---

Boy I sure hope God let's us all "slide a bit", steadfast...were probaly not performing our baptism's correctly......j/k