Anglican but want immersion baptism?

[seekingsister]

I am a relatively new to Anglicanism and would love to hear thoughts from you guys.

When I was born my father was a lapsed Catholic (still is) and my mother was an Anglican. I was christened by sprinkling at a university church in a "Protestant" service that was not specifically Anglican but for any staff/student children who were from an infant baptism tradition. Before I was old enough to remember my mom joined an evangelical non-denom church in which I was raised. This church practices believer's baptism but was legalistic and corrupt in many ways - I was aware of this at a young enough age that I was never baptized and stopped attending once I left home for university.

I felt drawn back to God and have started attending a charismatic Church of England congregation which I really am grateful for and I feel myself growing spiritually for the first time in my life. But here is my issue - I feel like I need to be baptized by immersion. In church on Sunday we read Mark 1 and it is very clear that Jesus went into the river, was immersed, and rose out of the water when he heard God's voice. I think we as Christians should be emulating this unless there is a lack of water somehow.

My CofE church is more open in that it doesn't require infant baptism and allows members to just do a dedication and let the children decide when they are old enough. I know they baptize adults by immersion but I've never heard of someone who was christened as an infant doing that. I have heard there is a "renewal of baptismal vows" that can go along with an immersion, but I'm nervous asking about it if it's very unusual as I don't want to make the priest question why I'm an Anglican if I don't accept the mainstream doctrine.

And if anyone is in London do they know of CofE churches that do immersion baptism/baptismal renewals? I don't think my church even has a pool or basin to do it.

 

[Albion]

I am a relatively new to Anglicanism and would love to hear thoughts from you guys.

When I was born my father was a lapsed Catholic (still is) and my mother was an Anglican. I was christened by sprinkling at a university church in a "Protestant" service that was not specifically Anglican but for any staff/student children who were from an infant baptism tradition. Before I was old enough to remember my mom joined an evangelical non-denom church in which I was raised. This church practices believer's baptism but was legalistic and corrupt in many ways - I was aware of this at a young enough age that I was never baptized and stopped attending once I left home for university.

I felt drawn back to God and have started attending a charismatic Church of England congregation which I really am grateful for and I feel myself growing spiritually for the first time in my life. But here is my issue - I feel like I need to be baptized by immersion. In church on Sunday we read Mark 1 and it is very clear that Jesus went into the river, was immersed, and rose out of the water when he heard God's voice. I think we as Christians should be emulating this unless there is a lack of water somehow.

My CofE church is more open in that it doesn't require infant baptism and allows members to just do a dedication and let the children decide when they are old enough. I know they baptize adults by immersion but I've never heard of someone who was christened as an infant doing that. I have heard there is a "renewal of baptismal vows" that can go along with an immersion, but I'm nervous asking about it if it's very unusual as I don't want to make the priest question why I'm an Anglican if I don't accept the mainstream doctrine.

And if anyone is in London do they know of CofE churches that do immersion baptism/baptismal renewals? I don't think my church even has a pool or basin to do it.

1. The passage in scripture that describes Jesus' baptism DOES NOT describe him being immersed. That misreading of the New Testament is a favorite of certain Christian churches, but it is not inherent in the verses you referred to.

2. You say you were "christened" as a child. That's normally a word that means "baptised." If so, we Anglicans consider you to be baptised. There is no such thing as a re-baptism.

3. You might arrange for some sort of "renewal of vows" (although you yourself never made those vows) and have it involve an immersion, I suppose, but we don't ordinarily engage in such things. I'd recommend that you begin by having a careful discussion with your vicar or rector concerning the Anglican understanding of the sacraments and baptism in particular.

 

[seekingsister]

I don't see how this is in any way ambiguous though:

9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

How can he have come out of the water if he was not immersed in it? This does not describe a sprinkling.

I want to clarify that Church of England is not teaching immersion is necessary and that was not the point of using this scripture. That is my understanding of the scripture and one shared by many Christians in other denominations.

My only problem with the Anglican church is this issue of baptism. And of course for my children it won't be a problem because as I've said my congregation is happy to let children decide themselves and baptize/confirm at the same time in teenage or adult years.

 

[Albion]

I don't see how this is in any way ambiguous though:

9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

How can he have come out of the water if we was not immersed in it? This does not describe a sprinkling.

It means that he ascended the banks of the river after the baptism. And, by the way, it does not tell us that he came up from BENEATH the water, just from it.

Whether or not the baptism featured immersion or pouring, we don't know, although an early representation of Jesus' baptism in a catecomb has him standing in the river while water was poured on his head, so the early Christians apparently did not consider it to be an immersion.

HOWEVER, I think the bigger issue here is a rebaptism of any sort. While immersion is good symbolism and we recognize baptisms that have been performed in some other church by immersion, you were baptised. The only thing you could possibly do now is have a reaffirmation of vows ceremony, if that even made sense, but we really don't do that in the way that people reaffirm their marital vows, which by the way is not the same ceremony as a wedding ceremony (which is not to say that you couldn't find some priest somewhere and talk him into it, but I'd recommend just letting it go).

I want to clarify that Church of England is not teaching immersion is necessary and that was not the point of using this scripture. That is my understanding of the scripture and one shared by many Christians in other denominations.

Not a problem. I understood your original post to be telling us just that.

 

[Catherineanne]

I'd recommend that you begin by having a careful discussion with your vicar or rector concerning the Anglican understanding of the sacraments and baptism in particular.

I agree with this recommendation.

Anglicans only have one baptism, and however it was done, it is done. It can't be done again. A Vicar will be able to explain this more fully.

The important point is not whether we feel as if we have been baptised. All that matters is that we have, and you have.

 

[seekingsister]

I agree with this recommendation.

Anglicans only have one baptism, and however it was done, it is done. It can't be done again. A Vicar will be able to explain this more fully.

The important point is not whether we feel as if we have been baptised. All that matters is that we have, and you have.

That's a good point. It's hard for me to move into the frame of mind that baptism is something that happens to us instead of it being something that we do.

While rationally I don't believe that immersion vs sprinkling is a salvific issue, my worry is that if I believe immersion to be necessary and I don't do it, then I am willfully ignoring something that I feel God is asking of me. I also think that had I been raised Episcopalian/Anglican then I wouldn't struggle with this at all.

 

[Albion]

That's a good point. It's hard for me to move into the frame of mind that baptism is something that happens to us instead of it being something that we do.

While rationally I don't believe that immersion vs sprinkling is a salvific issue, my worry is that if I believe immersion to be necessary and I don't do it, then I am willfully ignoring something that I feel God is asking of me. I also think that had I been raised Episcopalian/Anglican then I wouldn't struggle with this at all.

Well, here's another thought. We have confirmations. In churches that practice believers' baptism only, there's no point in having a subsequent confirmation, although there may be some ceremony that represents becoming a voting member of the congregation.

But in the older churches that baptise infants and consider Confirmation to be a sacrament or a sacramental, its purpose is very much what you are looking for--a conscious, personal reaffirming of the baptismal vows. No immersion of course, but part of what you are looking for.

You can find the service for Confirmation in the Book of Common Prayer, and if you are joining an Anglican church from some other one, and have never been Confirmed, you'll probably be told that it's something you will be expected to do.

 

[seekingsister]

It means that he ascended the banks of the river after the baptism. And, by the way, it does not tell us that he came up from BENEATH the water, just from it.

Whether or not the baptism featured immersion or pouring, we don't know, although an early representation of Jesus' baptism in a catecomb has him standing in the river while water was poured on his head, so the early Christians apparently did not consider it to be an immersion.

Hmm that's an interesting interpretation. Makes sense.

It's very hard to overcome years of being told that believers immersion baptism is necessary. But then I can't accept that no Christians were saved until the Baptists were founded either, so in my heart I know it's not true.

I hope that prayer will give me the guidance I'm seeking. I don't want to make the wrong choice but it remains a nagging concern.

 

[Catherineanne]

Nagging concerns are the reason we have priests to turn to.

 

[toLiJC]

baptism by immersion in water is just a rite, which means that it is not required, because the true baptism is not in the flesh, but in the "heart"(spirit)

Romans 2:28-29 "For he is not a Jew(ie a true Believer), which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision(ie true baptism), which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew(ie a true Believer), which is one inwardly; and circumcision(ie and true baptism) is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.",

1 Corinthians 1:17 "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."

Blessings

 

[Albion]

baptism by immersion in water is just a rite, which means that it is not required, because the true baptism is not in the flesh, but in the "heart"(spirit)

Well, the OP was from a new Anglican asking Anglicans about Anglican belief and usage. Our task was to explain that, not to comment on every other theory that's out there.

 

[Catherineanne]

baptism by immersion in water is just a rite, which means that it is not required, because the true baptism is not in the flesh, but in the "heart"(spirit)

Not in STR it ain't. Nor indeed in Nicene, which Christians on this site are supposed to subscribe to.

Good luck with that.

 

[Adam Warlock]

Not in STR it ain't. Nor indeed in Nicene, which Christians on this site are supposed to subscribe to.

Exactly

 

[mark46]

We have baptism in the river each year for those who wish it. It is awesome!

 

[Adam Warlock]

We have baptism in the river each year for those who wish it. It is awesome!

Oh wow! That's really cool.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I am in London, and it is very typical for us to practise full-immersion baptism for adults.

For infants, we will baptise or have service of thanksgiving. With teenagers and adults, we will either baptise (if they haven't already been baptised) or re-affirm vows.

An adult baptism will, typically, have the curate or youth pastor, plus the bishop, do the immersion from inside the pool. A reaffirmation means the candidate does it by themselves.

We also have a font for the small number of candidates who prefer this mode. However, we don't use this for infant baptisms - we have jug and the Lord's Table.

 

[Anna Scott]

Hmm that's an interesting interpretation. Makes sense.

It's very hard to overcome years of being told that believers immersion baptism is necessary. But then I can't accept that no Christians were saved until the Baptists were founded either, so in my heart I know it's not true.

I hope that prayer will give me the guidance I'm seeking. I don't want to make the wrong choice but it remains a nagging concern.

seekingsister,

Having grown up in the Southern Baptist Church, I can understand why immersion is such a concern.

Southern Baptists are very strict in their belief of Baptism by immersion; yet, deny any Graces are imparted. So, they believe you must be immersed, but deny that anything happens in this Baptism that must be done by immersion.

For Southern Baptists, Baptism is considered a symbolic act of obedience, and a church ordinance, which is "prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper."
See VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper

So, in the Baptist view, it's kinda "much ado about nothing," so to speak.

The problem with the Baptist view of Baptism is that something does happen in Baptism in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Our sins are forgiven, and we enter into Covenant with God.

1979 BCP, Holy Baptism 299, Concerning the Service:

"Holy Baptism is full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into
Christ's Body the Church. The bond which God establishes in Baptism
is indissoluble."

It would be helpful to read the rest of this section in the Book of Common Prayer regarding Baptism.

An Outline of Faith, or Catechism 845, Holy Baptism

Q. What is Holy Baptism?
A. Holy Baptism is the sacrament by which God adopts us as his children and makes us members of Christ’s Body, the Church, and inheritors of the kingdom of God.

Q. What is the outward and visible sign in Baptism?
A. The outward and visible sign in Baptism is water, in which the person is baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace in Baptism?
A. The inward and spiritual grace in Baptism is union with Christ in his death and resurrection, birth into God’s family the Church, forgiveness of sins, and new life in the Holy Spirit.

Q. What is required of us at Baptism?
A. It is required that we renounce Satan, repent of our sins, and accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

Q. Why then are infants baptized?
A. Infants are baptized so that they can share citizenship in the Covenant, membership in Christ, and redemption by God.

Q. How are the promises for infants made and carried out?
A. Promises are made for them by their parents and sponsors, who guarantee that the infants will be brought up within the Church, to know Christ and be able to follow him.

___________________________

Holy Scripture does not say or indicate that Baptism is a Church ordinance and only a symbolic act of obedience.

Acts 2:
38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

1 Peter 3:
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

There is a connection between circumcision and Baptism. When God spoke of the coming salvation, He said the uncircumcised will no longer come into Jerusalem:

Isaiah 52:1
Awake, awake,
put on your strength, O Zion;
put on your beautiful garments,
O Jerusalem, the holy city;
for there shall no more come into you
the uncircumcised and the unclean.

Colossians Chapter 2 tells us that Baptism is the circumcision of Christ, the circumcision made without hands.

Colossians 2: 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Male Jewish babies were circumcised when they were 8 days old, and their circumcision brought the women into the Old Covenant with God.

Through Christ, females are brought into the New Covenant, not through the circumcision of males, but through Baptism, the circumcision made without hands.
______________________

Please let us know if you have any other questions or concerns.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[gordonhooker]

That's a good point. It's hard for me to move into the frame of mind that baptism is something that happens to us instead of it being something that we do.

While rationally I don't believe that immersion vs sprinkling is a salvific issue, my worry is that if I believe immersion to be necessary and I don't do it, then I am willfully ignoring something that I feel God is asking of me. I also think that had I been raised Episcopalian/Anglican then I wouldn't struggle with this at all.

Sister if you feel you are drawn to immersion baptism then go ahead and talk to a Priest and ask that it be done:

Be praised, My Lord, through Sister Water; she is very useful, and humble, and precious, and pure.

Blessings, Gordon

 

[toLiJC]

Not in STR it ain't. Nor indeed in Nicene, which Christians on this site are supposed to subscribe to.

Good luck with that.

Well, the OP was from a new Anglican asking Anglicans about Anglican belief and usage. Our task was to explain that, not to comment on every other theory that's out there.

we did not mean that the baptism with water which is shown in the books of NT is wrong, nor we want to prevent/spoil that tradition, but we just have been trying to testify that more important is the humans to have abundant life in the true God and Jesus, or in case (that) some of them still have no such, to receive it quite directly than to perish, according to the written in the Scripture:

Hebrews 6:1-11 "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit. For |it is| impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put |him| to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers |is| rejected, and |is| nigh unto cursing; whose end |is| to be burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation(ie namely the things that provide the best possible salvation for all humans), though we thus speak. For God |is| not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:"

Blessings

 

[Anna Scott]

we did not mean that the baptism with water which is shown in the books of NT is wrong, nor we want to prevent/spoil that tradition, but we just have been trying to testify that more important is the humans to have abundant life in the true God and Jesus, or in case (that) some of them still have no such, to receive it quite directly than to perish, according to the written in the Scripture:

Hebrews 6:. . . .

toLiJC,

Seekingsister is a new Anglican and is asking about Anglican Baptism.

This is not the place to argue against Anglican Baptism.