For Heaven's Sake by Mike Morgan for January 10, 2011

Didn’t John say that the water was merely symbolic? It’s the Lord’s baptiism in the spirit that counts.

I suppose the water pistol would count as sprinkling if the candidate requested it. I followed a pastor who would dip a rose in the bowl and touch the baby’s forehead with it. Some parents thought it was a sweet gesture and they kept the rose as a memento.

Baptism is not “symbolic”. It is being buried with the Lord Jesus in baptism, signifying death to our “old man” that we may rise (signifying Jesus’ resurrection) in the newnwss of life by putting away our “old man”.

Acts 1:26: 19:1-6 (repentance is a “turning away from sin” baptism is the washing away of sin- you must do both.) Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12, I Pet. 3:21.

Nothing better than being born again!

Notice that he said that their church allowed “various modes of baptism,” including sprinkling, pouring and dipping. The Bible only mentions immersion; in fact, the word “baptism” is a transliteration of the Greek word baptidzo, which means “to immerse.” It was only done to those old enough to repent of their sins and confess that Jesus was the Christ (i.e., no infants), and it was done “in order to receive the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38, NIV).

Why not use a SuperSoaker 5,000? More distance and force, greater spread, and think of how many folks can be baptised with one tank fo water!

Our Lord said we are to be born of the water and the Spirit when he talked to Nicodemus. Good enough for me.

Jen: there are points such as the dying thief on the cross beside him that suggest it is not essential for final salvation. It is his command for those who are able, though.

I also suspect the Jesus who made so many funny and sly references in the Gospels would have totally loved a super-soaker baptism as long as it was done with reverence for his Father.

May be founding a Soaked with the Spirit movement in Charismatic churches. Talk about a latter day rain! ;-)

He may be in for the fun therefore not an actual baptism. Like kids running and trying to soak each other. Here with it so cold outside is the only way to use summer time fun. Not in winter.

Jen said, about 3 hours ago

Baptism is not “symbolic”. It is being buried with the Lord Jesus in baptism, signifying death to our “old man” that we may rise (signifying Jesus’ resurrection) in the newnwss of life by putting away our “old man”.

Of course, the “symbolic” refers to the fact that, in baptism, we don’t actually drown the candidate so that they can die in fact. Thus the burial is a symbol, which has, however, a direct connection to the symbol used–the water of life. This is how smoke is connected to fire, as a natural symbol, while a red light or sign is not naturally connected to stopping.

Still, while a valid form of sprinkling, a water pistol has some other connotations that make it bad liturgy. I don’t even know if it’s illicit–most churches wouldn’t make rules against such things, since they wouldn’t even conceive of why someone might try to use it.

Post-note: While the Catholic Church strongly encourages baptism when possible, as a sign of the person turning to the Lord and to the community he established, it has never been held strictly speaking as required. There are other forms: catechumens who were martyred were held as having received the “baptism by desire.”

That’s a whole new take on baptism by fire.

As far as an actual doctrinal take… you might also want to regard the connection between circumcision and baptism. Paul makes reference to this fact as well as does the symbolism in the new and old covenants reflect each other in many aspects. Of course there is a difference between baby baptism and adult baptism, but that would take a while to elucidate.

So I’m sticking with strip… making jokes.

If the water guns aren’t valid, I’m up for water balloons. There are so many possibilities. Like if the person really wants to be baptized, he has to get hit with a water balloon. The pastor/priest throws one up in the air and the person getting baptized has to try and get hit by it. If it misses or it doesn’t break then God isn’t accepting the statement of repentance and faith. Ha!

Okay, completely invalid doctrinally, but boy would it fit into some crazy establishments.

My grandfather (a Baptist minister) used to say, “Some churches dunk, some sprinkle, but we hold ‘em under till they REALLY repent!”

gayfatnakedvet, are you really surprised that people are discussing baptism in connection with this comic?

freeholder1, the thief on the cross was forgiven before the death of Christ. The New Testament was not yet in effect (Hebrews 9:16).

Well, B and i could have a few arguments over the “community HE established” but you guys would just turn it all off after Apostolic Succession…

the acceptance of sprinkling is generally only in the Catholic and Catholic Lite Churches. the comparison to circumcision is seriously flawed since that was a rite meaning one joined the community by birth and Baptism means an exterior expression of a joining with Christ himself by choice. (Reason infant baptism is a serious error that can lead people to never accept the Savior himself.) C. was the sign of the Old Covenant, a rite invalidated by the New.

@freeholder, that’s why I put it in a post-script, and prefixed it as Catholic belief.

[You know, it sure is hard to get a good, no-holds-barred, no-listening argument going on around here these days…]

ALMOST reminds of this other baptism-themed For Heaven’s Sake strip:

http://www.gocomics.com/forheavenssake/2009/08/03/

Some of you commentators mentioned of a Super Soaker. If I were Hal A. Luyah, I’d utilize a fire hydrant.

Coming to a corner near you: the “Church of the Holy Soaker”!