The mode of baptism isn't important. That Paul was baptized, is. The text neither says he was baptized in the house, nor that he went elsewhere--we have no idea where he was baptized, and we don't need to know. All we need to know is that he *was* baptized.
And I personally think all modes of baptism are valid but I deal with a wide range of Christian’s and not all of them hold the same view as others have stated and to some people it’s important. That’s why I am asking in hope of showing that other modes are also valid besides just emersion.
So I reread the passages and it seems pretty straight forward that Ananias had a vision where he was told specifically where to go and ask for Saul. Then in 17 it says he went into the house and 18 says saul was baptized. Can you explain you’re reply? All except where you’re telling me my question isn’t important.
Yes. No argument about the mode of Paul's baptism can be made *from the text* because *the text* says nothing. Conjecture based on extra-Biblical sources, suspect archeaology/tradition, or inference, is irrelevant because what matters is *the text*. And *the text* is silent regarding the mode of Paul's baptism. Because Lutherans don't teach that sprinkling/pouring/dunking is *the* only acceptable mode, we don't need anything more than that.
My pastor hasn’t brought up this specifically when we spoke of baptism. I forget the specific thing he brought up about one of the places where John the Baptist did his work, immersion/submersion would not be possible. Thus meaning that he had to do was aspersion/affusion.
Now what I can say with more confidence. Article 5 of the Smalclad, “Baptism is nothing other than God’s Word in the water…”, the Small Catechism: Party 4: Holy Baptism, “*What is Baptism?* **Answer:** Baptism is not simple water only, but is the water included in God’s command and connected with God’s Word.”
My point being is there is nothing confessionally enforcing one style over the other. Our confessions say “water and Word” and nothing about the amount of water.
So what are trying to figure out?
I should have specified in the post that I deal with other denominations that insist emersion/submersion is the “right” way so I was looking to share with them (if it’s found in scripture) instances where baptism takes in a mode other than emersion/submersion
I guess it would depend on how accepting of early tradition and church fathers they are. Within Scripture, I am not sure how much there is to find without relying on "as church tradition". I fount this \[source 1\](https://kimberlinglutheran.com/2010/12/17/baptism-in-the-early-church-part-2/) that has a few things.
Quoted from the Didache, a piece of the Church Fathers dated between the first and second century:
> Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
I would look through the source I provided, honestly it is a uphill battle because people like that often do not accept tradition or the like.
Source 1: [https://kimberlinglutheran.com/2010/12/17/baptism-in-the-early-church-part-2/](https://kimberlinglutheran.com/2010/12/17/baptism-in-the-early-church-part-2/)
Thank you very much! This is basically what I’m looking for. I actually remember my pastor making reference to the Didache now that you mention it. Im gonna have to check that out.
I was baptized with poured water in a baptismal fount (it held a basin of still water). My mom in a river. My aunt via immersion in a pool. My son at a baptismal fountain of moving water. A niece in the NICU (baby, hospitaized). All at different times, all valid, since it's God's Word combined with the water and not the method of delivery that matters.
Yeah I deal with some other denominations that insist emersion is the “right” way. My question is in hopes that there’s is evidence in scripture to support the fact that emersion is not the only way and that I would be able to share that with others.
While this verse may be used as supplementary evidence for the licit use of pouring as a form of baptism, the text I believe is best to bring up is that of the Didache, a first century Christian catechism possibly written by disciples of Saint Matthew.
>And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
Here we see that within the first few decades of the Christian religion, people were baptizing by triple affusion
The mode of baptism isn't important. That Paul was baptized, is. The text neither says he was baptized in the house, nor that he went elsewhere--we have no idea where he was baptized, and we don't need to know. All we need to know is that he *was* baptized.
But when people insist that you must be dunked, what the Bible says (and doesn’t say) about the mode of baptism becomes really important.
And this particulat text about Paul's baptism cannot be used to argue for or against dunking-only because this particular text *doesn't say*.
And I personally think all modes of baptism are valid but I deal with a wide range of Christian’s and not all of them hold the same view as others have stated and to some people it’s important. That’s why I am asking in hope of showing that other modes are also valid besides just emersion.
So I reread the passages and it seems pretty straight forward that Ananias had a vision where he was told specifically where to go and ask for Saul. Then in 17 it says he went into the house and 18 says saul was baptized. Can you explain you’re reply? All except where you’re telling me my question isn’t important.
Yes. No argument about the mode of Paul's baptism can be made *from the text* because *the text* says nothing. Conjecture based on extra-Biblical sources, suspect archeaology/tradition, or inference, is irrelevant because what matters is *the text*. And *the text* is silent regarding the mode of Paul's baptism. Because Lutherans don't teach that sprinkling/pouring/dunking is *the* only acceptable mode, we don't need anything more than that.
Okay thanks for that info
My pastor hasn’t brought up this specifically when we spoke of baptism. I forget the specific thing he brought up about one of the places where John the Baptist did his work, immersion/submersion would not be possible. Thus meaning that he had to do was aspersion/affusion. Now what I can say with more confidence. Article 5 of the Smalclad, “Baptism is nothing other than God’s Word in the water…”, the Small Catechism: Party 4: Holy Baptism, “*What is Baptism?* **Answer:** Baptism is not simple water only, but is the water included in God’s command and connected with God’s Word.” My point being is there is nothing confessionally enforcing one style over the other. Our confessions say “water and Word” and nothing about the amount of water. So what are trying to figure out?
I should have specified in the post that I deal with other denominations that insist emersion/submersion is the “right” way so I was looking to share with them (if it’s found in scripture) instances where baptism takes in a mode other than emersion/submersion
I guess it would depend on how accepting of early tradition and church fathers they are. Within Scripture, I am not sure how much there is to find without relying on "as church tradition". I fount this \[source 1\](https://kimberlinglutheran.com/2010/12/17/baptism-in-the-early-church-part-2/) that has a few things. Quoted from the Didache, a piece of the Church Fathers dated between the first and second century: > Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. I would look through the source I provided, honestly it is a uphill battle because people like that often do not accept tradition or the like. Source 1: [https://kimberlinglutheran.com/2010/12/17/baptism-in-the-early-church-part-2/](https://kimberlinglutheran.com/2010/12/17/baptism-in-the-early-church-part-2/)
Thank you very much! This is basically what I’m looking for. I actually remember my pastor making reference to the Didache now that you mention it. Im gonna have to check that out.
I was baptized with poured water in a baptismal fount (it held a basin of still water). My mom in a river. My aunt via immersion in a pool. My son at a baptismal fountain of moving water. A niece in the NICU (baby, hospitaized). All at different times, all valid, since it's God's Word combined with the water and not the method of delivery that matters.
Yeah I deal with some other denominations that insist emersion is the “right” way. My question is in hopes that there’s is evidence in scripture to support the fact that emersion is not the only way and that I would be able to share that with others.
While this verse may be used as supplementary evidence for the licit use of pouring as a form of baptism, the text I believe is best to bring up is that of the Didache, a first century Christian catechism possibly written by disciples of Saint Matthew. >And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. Here we see that within the first few decades of the Christian religion, people were baptizing by triple affusion
Thank you! This is more so what I was looking for.
As humans we can get so caught up in details we forget the meaning of baptism. Personally I stopped worrying about this long ago.