kahnam,

If I understand your point, you are saying all the examples in the Bible point to only living (flowing?) water in baptism. This appears to be the \"pattern\" that is shown in the Bible. It follows that generally the churches of Christ have not followed this pattern (at least in the 20th century and beyond). In fact, they have taken the exception to the rule (non-living water, which is not even mentioned in the Bible) and made it the rule.

So I guess your question is: why would it be wrong to make pouring the rule even thought it appears to be the exception?

Interesting thoughts kanham,

Ken

Before I vote, could you please define affusion?  Sounds too much like infusion to me!

Thanks for all of the input, thus far.

Just to add a little spice to the mix, so to speak, I am going to quote a section from \"Easton's Bible Dictionary\", regarding baptism...

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Baptism, Christian
 
An ordinance immediately instituted by Christ (Matthew 28:19,20), and designed to be observed in the church, like that of the Supper, \"till he come.\" The words \"baptize\" and \"baptism\" are simply Greek words transferred into English. This was necessarily done by the translators of the Scriptures, for no literal translation could properly express all that is implied in them.

The mode of baptism can in no way be determined from the Greek word rendered \"baptize.\" Baptists say that it means \"to dip,\" and nothing else. That is an incorrect view of the meaning of the word. It means both (1) to dip a thing into an element or liquid, and (2) to put an element or liquid over or on it. Nothing therefore as to the mode of baptism can be concluded from the mere word used. The word has a wide latitude of meaning, not only in the New Testament, but also in the LXX. Version of the Old Testament, where it is used of the ablutions and baptisms required by the Mosaic law. These were effected by immersion, and by affusion and sprinkling; and the same word, \"washings\" (Hebrews 9:10,13,19,21) or \"baptisms,\" designates them all. In the New Testament there cannot be found a single well-authenticated instance of the occurrence of the word where it necessarily means immersion. Moreover, none of the instances of baptism recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (2:38-41; 8:26-39; 9:17,18; 22:12-16; 10:44-48; 16:32-34) favours the idea that it was by dipping the person baptized, or by immersion, while in some of them such a mode was highly improbable.

The gospel and its ordinances are designed for the whole world, and it cannot be supposed that a form for the administration of baptism would have been prescribed which would in any place (as in a tropical country or in polar regions) or under any circumstances be inapplicable or injurious or impossible.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the two symbolical ordinances of the New Testament. The Supper represents the work of Christ, and Baptism the work of the Spirit. As in the Supper a small amount of bread and wine used in this ordinance exhibits in symbol the great work of Christ, so in Baptism the work of the Holy Spirit is fully seen in the water poured or sprinkled on the person in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That which is essential in baptism is only \"washing with water,\" no mode being specified and none being necessary or essential to the symbolism of the ordinance.

The apostles of our Lord were baptized with the Holy Ghost (Matthew 3:11) by his coming upon them (Acts 1:8). The fire also with which they were baptized sat upon them. The extraordinary event of Pentecost was explained by Peter as a fulfilment of the ancient promise that the Spirit would be poured out in the last days (2:17). He uses also with the same reference the expression shed forth as descriptive of the baptism of the Spirit (33). In the Pentecostal baptism \"the apostles were not dipped into the Spirit, nor plunged into the Spirit; but the Spirit was shed forth, poured out, fell on them (11:15), came upon them, sat on them.\" That was a real and true baptism. We are warranted from such language to conclude that in like manner when water is poured out, falls, comes upon or rests upon a person when this ordinance is administered, that person is baptized. Baptism is therefore, in view of all these arguments \"rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.\"[/quote]

Any comments?

James,

Might it also be the three part baptism as shown here:

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]

\"But thou shalt beforehand anoint the person with the holy oil, and afterward baptize him with the water, and in the conclusion shall seal him with the ointment; that the anointing with oil may be the participation of the Holy Spirit, and the water the symbol of the death of Christ, and the ointment the seal of the covenants.\" (\"Constitutions of the Holy Apostles\", Book 7, Chapter 22)[/quote]


Three DUNKS!!!  
 :thumbs-up:  :thumbup:  :whatisthat:  :doh:  :priest:  :inlove:
NEVER!

Just this morning the question was posed, \"What are your absolutes about your salvation?\"  The very first answer was, \"You must be baptisized to receive salvation.\"  As I started to groan, the neatest thing happened...in our fairly legalistic group, the preacher started to list hypothetical situations where baptism would be impossible, and asked, \"What happens to those people?\"  He then followed with a lesson about not locking ourselves into absolutes that are actually traditions.  It was great.

Said all that to say, I voted immersion.  After a lot of study and prayer, I believe it most closely demonstrates biblical examples of baptism.  I personally would not have been comfortable with any other method of baptism for me.

However, I will not condemn another's conviction regarding a different mode of baptism.  I have heard some pretty convincing reasons that others used a method other than immerson. This just is not one of my \"absolutes.\"  
Suzi :)

Yeah, but old habits die hard. How many of you have ever watched a baptism and seen the \"baptee\" dipped but with some body part, an elbow or foot, never quite go under? Ever see that and have just a twinge of alarm? After it's over everyone is happy and all the consciences are clean (which is what baptism is asking for, right?), but you can't help thinking to yourself, \"he should have dunked him all the way.\"

Which begs the question:
If I see an elbow that never got submerged, but neither the baptizer nor the convert noticed it, isn't the conscience still clean? If so, then what of someone who was baptized by pouring; what of their conscience? What about sprinkling? What about the conscience of someone who grew up in the church knowing they had been baptized as an infant? If it's not about the water, but is about the death of Jesus and the purity of our consciences, is there any baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that is not true saving baptism?

And if immersion is vital, and nothing less will do, then shouldn't we all pray the prayer of Hezekiah for ourselves and all we know, because we're probably messing even that up too? Maybe that's the answer: approaching grace through childlike steps, all the while prefacing, including and following our actions with pleas to God to accept our imperfect offerings and to sancify them. No matter how right they are in our own eyes.

Charlie-
You said this:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]So is someone who was baptized in order to be saved truly saved, or are they guilty of idolizing the water and the act of baptism? [/quote]
When we discuss the idolization of the water we are not refering to those who are baptized to be saved, we are referring to those who emphasized the water rather than God as the source of salvation.  Had Naaman put his confidence in the water rather than the God who promised him that He would work through this agent he would not have been healed.  Would he have been healed without the water?  Didn't he go to the water to receive healing?  Was he then idolizing the water? Of course not!  The concept that baptism was \"unto salvation\" was universally understood in that light for the first 17 centuries of our religion- Baptism is very clearly portrayed in this light in scripture as there is not a single grace associated with baptism that is not directly associated with salvation.  Now we are to suggest that not only is our new improved understanding of baptism (a show void of grace) correct, but all of the Christians up until recent history are lost because they understood \"Baptism saves you\" to mean \"baptism saves you.\"

\"Baptism saves you\" ... \"Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved.\" ... \"Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins.\" ... \"repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.\" ... \"No one can enter the kingdom of God unless born of water and the Spirit.\" ... \"we were buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life!

Peter explains perfectly how and why baptism saves you.  He draws our minds away from the physical aspect of it and in to the spiritual aspect.  

To appeal to the water is idolatry.  
To appeal through the water is Baptism.

\"What is new is rarely true ... what is true is rarely new.\"

God Bless,
Geoff

I personally would prefer dry-cleaning as a method, but not sure that'd fly.