The Church of the Brethren actually have six ordinances which include the love feast, the anointing with oil, the laying on of hands, the assembling together for worship, the holy kiss, and trine baptism.
There are several reasons the Church of the Brethren believe in trine baptism which means to baptize the person face forward three times. One reason for the face forward aspect of baptism is that baptism pictures our crucifixion with Christ and John 19:30 says that when Jesus died on the cross “he bowed his head and gave up the ghost.” Therefore baptism face forward is a literal application of the Scripture. The identification with the death of Christ pictured in water baptism by immersion is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:1-4) not all of the details of the death of Christ. Because Christ was nailed to a cross, does this mean that this detail must be duplicated in baptism.
The three times forward aspect of water baptism is based on the Trinity in the Great Commission in Matt. 28:19-20. Each baptismal candidate is baptized forward as each name to the Trinity is mentioned. In the Great Commission of Matt. 28:19-20, Jesus said to baptize “in the name (singular) of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Baptizing once in the singular name of the Trinity emphasizes the deity or essence of the Trinity. There is no evidence from any baptismal passage that the converts were immersed three times face forward. Also in Acts 19:5, the believers were baptized in the short formula of Jesus’ name only and therefore were not baptized three times.
The Didache, also called the The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, and written around the turn of the 1st century is referenced as evidence for trine baptism. The part quoted reads: “But concerning baptism, thus baptize, ye having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water.” “The Didache states that if immersion is not possible then water was to be poured three times on the head (chap. 7). Notice that this early work does not say to immerse three times, only pour three times” (Ryrie, page 491).
Ryrie also states that “Proponents of trine immersion point out that some lexicons say that baptizo means to dip repeatedly but some do not). The evidence for this view is not strong” (page 492).
Definitely an usual view, but they are at least baptizing people according to their profession of faith. Don’t believe that dipping three times is necessary since we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The idea of trying baptism is more symbolic the scriptural. To me it’s much like the RCC’s and they’re making the shape of the cross as they enter church or pray it’s a symbol it’s not something that’s done and scriptural or backed up by structure. The idea of dipping someone three times as a symbol doesn’t add to that baptism, just like making the shape of a cross doesn’t add to the prayer.
Baptism is an ordinance that believers do to identify with their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and the new life they have in Him. If these people want to dunk someone face forward three times, I think that is fine, as long as they don’t say it is this way and no other way, or you have to do it this way in order to be saved. I personnaly do not see it as the right way to baptize. They can do it. They just need to remember it does not save, it is only an outward sign of the change that has taken place on the inside of the person.
The Didache is a first century document of the Apostle’s doctrine. It is Indeed a trustworthy document of the Apostle’s doctrinal beliefs. Some have used it to argue against the RCC transubstantaton . The same argument applies to baptism. But the Scriptures are clear regardless of what the Apostle may have decided to do in the absence of water. Baptism doesn’t save a person but there is one baptism (Eph. 4:5)
As long as the biblical principle of baptism is upheld, I suppose the means are just a secondary concern. Please do not misunderstand me, the means are important but need to be viewed in the proper perspective. If one understands the true meaning and significance of baptism, the details are not as important. Though clearly immersion is the mode most often used in the early church.
It is funny we I first heard of the trine baptism and what it was. I thought went I heard they baptized three time, I thought what the first time did not work they had to try three more times. I was thinking the person who needs to be baptized three times in a row they must have a really rough past. Ha-ha. But I truly I think that baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is just doing it once. We go back as if we are going into the grave and a rise up right like Christ did three days later. Baptism is something that people have tried to take there on spine on it. We need to stop and ask God what His take on baptism is.
This aspect of baptism seems to be getting its root from interpretation of scripture but in an extreme literal sense. If Cat holism held to this view of baptism and as a sacrament then all that were baptized would come out Bishops. I agree with Ryrie, this view has a very week argument from the standpoint of scripture.
Very true, immersion does seem to be the most accepted view of baptism. Trine baptism has a very weak argument in Scripture. However this is not an issue worth division. A believer may like the way this form of baptism associates the new believer with all three parts of the trinity and want to practice it.
This is some what wierd that this sort of baptism would take place when it isn’t mentioned this way in the bible. It seems to even contradict “the Didache which states if immersion is not possible then water was to be poured three times on the head.” I don’t think that this sort of baptism would be wrong but saying this would be the only way, is a little far reaching.
I really do not see any problem with this form of baptism. As far as I have been taught, baptism has always been a symbol of association with Christ and His Gospel. Whether I poor water over my head or immerse myself or any form of baptism that associates the with my new identity; I cannot yet knowledgeably argue for one view or the other.
I have no problem with this view of Baptism. I do not necessarily agree with it but really find nothing anti-Scriptural about. Immersion is happening and they are identifying their lives with Christ. This is what Baptism is for. I will agree with Dr. Ryrie though that their position is weak on this view of Baptism.
This is an interesting post on a subject that I am not familiar with. The Brethren are baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit which is biblical. The face forward baptizing three times is different than our church practices. I agree with Ryrie at this time that thier agrument for immersing three times is weak.
Once again i did not know it had a name. I have seen this before in churches. One dip per name of the Godhead. Most of the time it was backwards but I have seen it forward as well. I don’t necessarily see a problem with 3 dips as long as they don’t believe in the dips as acts of salvation. As for the 6 ordinances, I have never heard of that many. Ryrie points out three and I have heard some say the foot washing.
I really do not think it is a problem unless they are saying that the practice itself gives salvation, or makes one holy or something like that. I think it might be a little much, but if it has the faith and the biblical understanding to back the person getting dunked three times more power to them. i would say this is more of an opened hand preference more than a closed fist error in doctrine.
This type of baptism is not wrong but it is also not required.
I have never heard of trine baptism before, but do not see a problem with it. I do not see it supported scripturally though. The idea seems harmless and does not affect the basis of the baptism debate which would be identifying oneself with Christ and His church.
I think this is a funny view of baptism to be honest. It is good to emphasize the trinity of course but to dunk three times is unnecessary to say the least. In some ways I am getting tired of looking at all these modes of baptism when what really matters is the meaning behind baptism. Oh well.