The following is a study on the importance of keeping "baptism" biblical. Baptism is for believers; and for those who repent; holding to the truth that our Lord's sacrifice and baptism covers all those who can not be baptized; yet covers none who will not be baptized as He commanded.
If the baptism of and in the Name of Jesus Christ is a "nonessential" how much less "essential" would the baptism by John the Baptist be? And why did so many including Jesus and His disciples follow in obedience to it? Jesus addresses this with the religious leaders of His day...
"(Jesus said) The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Then why don't you believed him? But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they are persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered, that they could not tell from, where it was." Luke 20:4-7
Here the baptism from John the Baptist was of such importance that if it was denied, the people would stone those who apposed it... how much greater was Jesus than John the Baptist? But it would seem today that the baptism of Jesus the Lord is of little significance or importance... treating it as non-essential. It may be not essential for salvation, but a prerequisite for obedience to salvation.
"Don't you know, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Because if we have been "planted" together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old nature is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, so from now on we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin." Romans 6:3-7
Again, if anyone calls the baptism in the Name of Christ the Lord a "nonessential"
how much less "essential" does one make the baptism by John the Baptist?
The Bible depicts John's Baptism as more than just essential...
1.God command the baptism of John
2.John's Baptism fulfilled prophesy in scripture
3.People justified God by obeying John's baptism
4.People "rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of John
(Jesus) For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist... And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. Luke 7:28-30
To read more on the life and testimony of John the Baptist...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...I have found in my discussion on baptism that if opponents (in application or mode) to this biblical foundational principle cannot find enough evidence for their position, they site incomplete bible text or early "church fathers" tradition as the basis for their teaching. Thus substantiating their claim, and over-riding a lack (they claim) of matter on the subject. If it hasn't been obvious, the point I was making by looking at John's baptism is that if the forerunner's (or lesser's) baptism was indeed a prerequisite and a "fruit of repentance" ...and back in the day the denial of it brought the fear of being stoned by the people as blasphemous; then how the much more important baptism in the Name of Jesus (as is commanded and commissioned) by Christ Himself; is of greater significance and importance?
The correct method of Baptism is by immersion, putting under water. The word baptism in its original meaning simply means to immerse or put under, bury. One can conclude that most that hold to a non-biblical diminishing or unsupported method of Baptism fall into a few camps...
1. as [not yet saved] they err not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God
2. seeking for themselves teachers that promote and justify their belief
3. as saved, they compromise and abuse their liberty to accommodate their belief
4. as saved, they compromise and abuse their liberty to accommodate other's beliefs
5. or lost, some teaching the traditions of men to avoid the offence of the cross
6. as deceived or being deceivers, they knowing the commandment, exange it for a lie
The first method that deviated from the full-immersion method of baptism was in 250AD, until then it was preformed by all, including the Catholics by full immersion (putting under water). A man named Novation was on his death-bed and wanted to be baptized because he hadn't to that point, and feared ...unable to be immersed he had been covered by blankets and soaked by pouring water all over him. After he recovered many followed this manner of pseudo-baptism... he became a leader of "Novationists".
"Stephen replied that it would, yet pouring and sprinkling were not allowed except in cases of necessity. It was not till the year 1311 that the legislature, in a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In Scotland, however, sprinkling was never practiced, in ordinary cases, till after the Reformation - about the middle of the 16th century."
http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/vo...(Jesus) "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' and not do as I say?" Luke 6:46
And now why do you wait? get up, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:16
As one lie inevitably leads to another of greater magnitude, so leaving BELIEVER's baptism (immersion) to infant (sprinkling, and NO belief), requires the greater heresy of sprinkling; for one cannot immerse an infant. The sin is in the mockery of what baptism is supposed to represent: the death burial and resurrection of Jesus our Lord… ...and Satan is sly to get us away from that would-be constant reminder of true history.
For whatever the reason or the motive to replace a commandment of God for a tradition of men it is wrong. It would be better NOT to be "baptized" (wrongly)
and have the baptism of Jesus (that fulfills all righteousness) ...cover the willing but "unable" ...than to change the word of God and give false hope to the "able"
solely for their convenience. Even Apollos was re-baptized like others by John's baptism.
Of course one might ofend someone who may have been sprinkled as an infant;
but what an offence it must have been to all Jews, in the time of Christ, called to repentance and then baptism by immersion, after being circumcised as an infant?
To them were given the Commandments and promises, and then to turn from that rich heritage, only to be marked with those outside their nation... that was a cost!
Our Lord's baptizm and sacrafice covers all of those who "cannot"
but covers none of those who "will not."