Baptism by immersion is the norm among all Eastern Christians. As a Melkite Catholic, I can say with confidence that we baptize both infants and adults by immersion.
The Western Church save for the Church of Milan discarded baptism by immersion for some reason in the 13th century. But it has made a comeback in some Roman Catholic parishes as an option.
Don’t cite the Bible because the problem is with how you interpret it. The issue goes far beyond baptism by immersion though.
Your interpretation of the Bible with regard to the sacraments and what baptism means is revisionist.
There is more continuity between the Catholic and Orthodox episcopate of today and the apostles because of unbroken apostolic succession than there is between a Baptist congregation and the apostles.
There are fundamental differences even among Baptists about what we Catholics would call core dogmatic issues such as predestination, free-will, etc. Every time Baptists open their mouths to pontificate about scripture, it is subjective.
That’s why Catholics and Orthodox appeal to tradition, so we know how to properly interpret scripture as it has been interpreted at all times, in all places, by all.
## Baptism by immersion is the norm among all Eastern Christians. ###
That only means a coincidence with The Apostles’ doctrine, not a proof of obedience to it. Which of the seven baptisms of the new testament are you talking about, if any (not counting mikvah cleansing)? (”Norm” and “Eastern” bear no weight or essence here, though “nominal” might accompany “Christians.”)
## As a Melkite Catholic, ###
(Query (sideissue): Melkite? Is that Benedictine? or is this representing as “Melchisidekian” priesthood?)
### I can say with confidence that we baptize both infants and adults by immersion. ###
But neither Jesus, his disciple-apostles, nor (I think) the first-generation of patristics did. Your claim is an argument for having departed from NT doctrine, not an argument for compliance. Any confidence in the value of water baptism as effecting salvation of infants (or adults) is misplaced.
### The Western Church save for the Church of Milan discarded baptism by immersion for some reason in the 13th century. But it has made a comeback in some Roman Catholic parishes as an option. ###
It is not the discarding of the baptism of believers that marks corruption of doctrine of Christ and His Apostles; it is the innovation of “baptism” of infants (far, far earlier) that initiated one phase of apostasy that increased in its prevalence. Perhaps the tendency to drown infants by total immersion was contraindicated.
### Don’t cite the Bible because the problem is with how you interpret it. ###
Wrong. The Bible _is_ the authority is what I am citing, not a personal interpretation. Attention to hermeneutics will give you a better view, perhaps improve your slant.
### The issue goes far beyond baptism by immersion though. ###
Well, this is quite correct — even most of today’s baptists are prone to immediately water-baptise converts who have not really become disciples, and thus wind up with people who are convinced that they are “saved” but fail in displaying the behavior brought about by (1) discipled from unbelief to repentance, to (2) regeneration of God that is (3) followed by spiritual maturation brought about by (4) continued faithful discipling (for ever). But God does the saving (through reliance on the transaction completed at the Mercy Seat in Heaven, paid for with the uncorruptible blood of Jesus Christ). We only do the water baptizing afterward.
### Your interpretation of the Bible with regard to the sacraments and what baptism means is revisionist. ###
No, that is incorrect. I am clearly stating the command of The Christ without the revision which you presuppose. Please do not call what I stated in the note as my doctrine. It is the gospel of at least Levi and John and Paul. The one you propose is later, is deviant, and is a consequence of “Christianity” being adopted as the state religion, with an unregenerated emperor as its authority and decision-maker, and “infant baptism” being the significance of automatic citizenship by nativity and as a co-religionist imposed.
### There is more continuity between the Catholic and Orthodox episcopate of today and the apostles because of unbroken apostolic succession than there is between a Baptist congregation and the apostles. ###
That is an extreme and unproveable presumption, which is easily rejected by an obvious disparate comparison of Catholic or Orthodox dogma opposing unassailable Biblical doctrine. Apostolic succession is a myth not supported by Scripture, and is only a figment of very active political manipulation. There is no continuity. The line of Apostleship (the Twelve having seen The Christ personally, discipled by Him alone, and ordained by Him face to face as Apostles — the eleven plus Paul), ended with the death of the beloved John at about 100 AD, which was also the closure of the progressive revelation of Holy Scripture. My understanding is that God’s special ordained servants now only include evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Offices in the local church also include qualified elders and appointed deacons (as defined in the pastoral missives).
### There are fundamental differences even among Baptists about what we Catholics would call core dogmatic issues such as predestination, free-will, etc. Every time Baptists open their mouths to pontificate about scripture, it is subjective. ###
With “every time Baptists” you are in the ad-hominem mode. And you seem to insist that factual reproof is subjective, when it is not (= “don’t confuse me with facts!”). No thanks.
### That’s why Catholics and Orthodox appeal to tradition, so we know how to properly interpret scripture as it has been interpreted at all times, in all places, by all. ###
Wrong again. By such traditions one descends into the error of the scribes and Pharisees — “Why do ye also transgress the commandments of God by your traditions?” “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own traditions.” That is why the Donatists, the Paulicians, the Albigensians, the Waldensians, the Anabaptists, the Baptists, the brethren out of Plymouth, kept appearing, rejected statist apostasy, were claimed to be heretics, and were persecuted and murdered (and their unadulterated Scriptures burned) by the traditionalists, when they only wished to adhere to the commandments of Christ uncorrupted.
Error cannot stand the competition with The Truth.
********
Let me suggest that the line you have been taking always hits the “glass ceiling” that the rabbis, Jesuits, Calvinists, philosophers, and the like traditionalists and logicians never seem to be able to supersede. What God directs is to “... lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways, acknowledge him, and he will direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.” It is only by obedience to the explicit direction of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scriptures (not one’s own reasonings) to the spiritually regenerated man that God can be pleased.
To the natural man who _cannot_ understand this, it is foolishness. So this is only presented in a factual sense, not in striving or rivalry as a contest. Take it, or leave it (kerusso).
Find me a place, any place in the Holy Bible that his disciples are commanded by God to immerse infants, especially when repentance/salvation/regeneration is presumed to have already occurred as God’s clear prerequisite to the ordinance of immersion as a measure of obedience to a command. That will be the only worthwhile point from which we can depart on a profitable rational or spiritual discussion.
Until then ...