hat
Kòm Bertrand L. Conway vize deyò, gen anpil prèv akeoloji pwouve pratik nan Batèm pa éfuzyon nan Legliz la byen bonè. Ansyen atizay kretyen, tankou nan katakonb yo ak bapistries byen bonè, souvan montre kanpe nan resevwa batèm nan yon pisin fon ak dlo ke yo te vide sou tèt li. Conway tou te diskite ke twa nan mil konvèti nan Pannkòt ane (Travay 2:41) pa t 'kapab yo te resevwa batèm nan imèsyon akòz nimewo yo ak mank de yon kò gwo nan dlo nan lavil Jerizalèm. Konsentrasyon, li te note, ta gen Inposibl kòm byen nan kay la nan Kònèy (Travay 10:47-48) mwen te nan prizon an nan Filip (Travay 16:33). finalman, li diskite ke nesesite pou Batèm pou delivre vle di fòm lòt pase imèsyon dwe akseptab, otreman ki jan prizon an, enfim nan, timoun piti, ak moun k ap viv nan rejyon ekstrèm tankou sèk la Arctic oswa yon dezè resevwa Batèm? (A Box kesyon, New York , 1929, pp. 240-241). ↩
eng
As Bertrand L. Conway pointed out, there is extensive archeological evidence proving the practice of Baptism by effusion in the early Church. Ancient Christian art, such as in the Catacombs and early bapistries, commonly show the baptized standing in a shallow pool with water being poured over his head. Conway also argued that the three thousand converts at Pentecost (Acts 2:41) could not have been baptized through immersion due to their numbers and the lack of a large body of water in Jerusalem. Immersion, he noted, would have been impractical as well in the home of Cornelius (Acts 10:47-48) and in the prison at Philippi (Acts 16:33). Finally, he reasoned that the necessity of Baptism for salvation means forms other than immersion must be permissible, otherwise how could the imprisoned, the infirm, small children, and those living in extreme regions such as the Arctic Circle or a desert receive Baptism? (The Question Box, New York , 1929, pp. 240-241). ↩