Cold Steel Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Some sectarian Christians believe that sprinkling is okay for baptism, even though some acknowledge it was originally done by immersion. But which teach that Jesus went all the way to the Jordan River, only to have some water poured over his head or to be sprinkled by a wet hyssop? If so, what evidence is there? Edmund Fairfield's Letters on Baptism are unconvincing to me because they're speculation. He notes: "I have not succeeded thus far in finding one instance in which anybody was required to dip or immerse himself, or to be dipped or immersed by another, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Malachi. And yet the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of this Old Testament Dispensation as embracing 'divers baptisms.'"The whole point of immersion was to be representative of Christ's burial and resurrection, but Fairfield argued: "The Hebrews, to whom this epistle was written, understood the matter. Long before this the word baptism had come to mean ceremonial water cleansing, and not immersion, in all the sacred writings." Yet if one visits the ancient sites in Jerusalem, one can see that purification rites were performed by immersion in water, or at least in fonts with steps leading down. Fairfield also notes: "The people had always known that even after having touched a dead body the "baptizing" was by sprinkling. The ceremonial cleansing from the leprosy was by sprinkling. 'The priest shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times' (Lev. 14:7)."My grandfather was a confirmed Methodist, but as he "began to be old" (to use Mormon's phrase), he began to worry that perhaps he should be immersed. To those who are not LDS but believe in immersion, do you believe not being immersed jeopardizes one's eternal salvation? ... Link to comment
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.