Any Paedos practice full immersion?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Matthew1344

Puritan Board Sophomore
Any Paedos practice full immersion?

I now see the covenant as one covenant, two administrations.
Trying to find out now, if the early church practiced baptism on the 8th day, and if they practiced full immersion.

Any body have input or direction for me?
 
E.O.s use a variety of baptismal methods, as I have observed them (and so can you, available on the internet). I've seen a baby "swished" down under and through water in a basin font. Just the other day the infants were being dipped head-first, then toes, head-then-toes, head-toes (3X)--no full immersion, not even full-body wetness.

Does Scripture direct baptism-on-the-8th-day? No; we argue that baptism replaces circumcision in the NT as God's covenant sign in toto. The old sign was accompanied by directions for how it should be done, and all that is done away. The new sign has been given with all the directions needed for proper performance.

So, even if the ancients did tried to make an 8th-day rule for applying infant baptism (assuming it so) we shouldn't copy them. We run the danger of adopting their habit superstitiously. It makes no difference if some ritual addition is made up whole-cloth (as when the papists pour oil in the water, and salt, and make the sign of the cross, etc.); or if some false justification is sought for extraneous ceremony from within the pages of divine revelation. Such is an abuse and profaning of the Word to a false end.

Don't make the mistake of viewing the old covenant sign as a kind of intrusion of an alien (heavenly) Thing into our age from outside, all clothed in habits designed to make it accessible; then conceive the new covenant sign as simply exchanging, minimally, the accidental dress for the Thing. This approach seems to assume that if on some point the ritual need not change on account of the form of the sign changing, therefore it should stay unchanged. This is not a proper argument from continuity.

We argue: God identified believers with their children as visible members of his covenant from the beginning. Whatever the visible sign of that membership, it belongs to them to whom God so wills to witness. Circumcision of male Israelite infants born under the old administration was commanded and that on a particular day; all of that stands together. One should not replace the former in one's thinking (as directed), but retain some or all positive direction concerning the ritual manner.

If one takes that erroneous route, it is no hard climb at all to see how Rome employs the same logic with respect to the Lord's Supper. They attempt "sacrifice and offering," though they have no more bleating animals. They take the elements they are given, and try to enact the priestly activity of the old covenant under the present circumstances. The logic is the same as maintaining an 8th-day rule for baptism of infants because that was prescribed in conjunction with circumcision.

Don't go there.
 
Last edited:
This may be helpful from Ursinus:

The word baptism comes from the Greek baptizw, which is derived from baptw, which means to plunge, to dip, to wash, or to sprinkle. In the eastern church they were ordinarily immersed. Those, however, who lived in the colder regions of the north were commonly sprinkled with water. But this is a matter of no importance, as washing may be performed either by dipping or sprinkling. Baptism now is a washing.
 
Two good friends, a baptist and a Presbyterian got together for the very last time to "hash it all out," - immersion or sprinkling.
The Baptist was granted first right of debate, and explained, insisted, that immersion was the way to go.
The Presbyterian said, I just want to be perfectly clear.
Ok, the Baptist said, clear on what?
Well, if I get into a pool up to my ankles, and just my ankles are immersed, is that baptism?
No, the Baptist said.
Ok, what if I get in up to my knees, is that baptism?
No, the Baptist said.
Ok, what about up to my waist, is that baptism?
No, the Baptist said.
How about up to my chest?
No, the Baptist said.
How about right up to my shoulders?
No, the Baptist said.
What about right up to my forehead? I mean, that has to be baptism, right?
No, the Baptist said.
Ah, so it is the top of my head that counts.

[This is my only joke, it only happens once. Enjoy it.]
 
From our enquirer's/communicant membership class booklet through the Westminster Confession of Faith (Ch. 28):

28:3: Dipping (or dunking) a person is “not necessary”; this does not mean immersion is an option, but rather that the practice is only “rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling”.[1] Jay Adams explains: “ … mode cannot be separated from meaning. The sacraments are symbolic. If so, then ‘mode’ and ‘symbol’ are one and the same … Mode and symbol, and therefore mode and meaning, cannot be divorced.”[2] A number of considerations are in order about baptism’s mode and meaning:

a. Christ’s baptism was related to His anointing to office as with the sprinkling or pouring of oil over the head of priests and kings (Ex. 29:7; Num. 8:6-7; 1 Sam. 10:1; Ps. 2:2: King Jesus is “my anointed”). As well, the sacrament represents the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which in Acts 2:17-18, 33, is said to be “poured out” on the Apostles, and later to have “fell on them” (and so they were “baptized”) in 11:15-16.[3] Van Dixhoorn says “ .. the actions of sprinkling and pouring repeatedly symbolize the divine work of salvation in the Bible in a way that immersion simply does not.”[4]

b. The Greek word for to baptize (βαπτίζω) has a broad usage, but primarily means to dip, to purify, to wash; it is used interchangeably with another Greek word that means “to wash” (baptism represents inner cleansing and purification by the regenerating and renewing washing of the Holy Ghost that unites us to Christ).[5] Ward explains, “The root idea of the Greek word baptize is not total immersion but an intensive dipping which involves a transformation (cf dyeing) …”[6] So, in Mark 7:4, “wash” and “washing” is the Greek “baptize” and “baptizing”, including a table (not immersed). In Lk. 11:38, the Pharisees marveled that Jesus had not “washed” (“baptized”) before dinner (see Mt. 15:2 of His disciples), and they didn’t mean diving into a lake, but using a utensil.

c. Heb. 9:13, 19, 21, and 10 refer to the OT “sprinklings” of blood to ceremonially cleanse, atone, or sanctify the people and the tabernacle and its ceremonial tools as “baptisms” (translated “washings”; see the connection with 10:22, 24 related to sprinkling of Christ’s blood to cleanse consciences.)[7]

d.
Moses and the OT Church were “baptized” under the cloud (Christ) and by the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:1-4), just as Noah and His family were “baptized” by the flood waters (1 Pet. 3:20-22); they were savingly sprinkled by merciful mist while God’s enemies were immersed with judgment.

e. Paul was baptized standing up by a bedside (Acts. 9:18, 22:16), and, “In the case of Saul’s baptism, the baptism of the household of Cornelius, and that of the household of the Philippian jailer, since each of these acts of baptism was carried out within a home (Acts 9:11; 10:25; 16:32), and in the last case sometime after midnight (Acts 16:33) but before dawn (v. 35), it is virtually certain that these baptisms would not have been by immersion, since few homes in those times would have had facilities for such an act …”[8]

f. When it is said of outdoor baptism events that they were “coming out of or up from the water” (Mark 1:9-10; Acts 8:36-39), note that Luke says such of Philip and the eunuch, but Philip was not baptized—he did the baptizing; and, the Eunuch had just read Isaiah 53, which is preceeded by 52:15: “So shall he sprinkle many nations …” (see also Ezek. 36:25)[9] They came up from out of the water location (not out from under the water). So when Israel crossed the Jordon River into the Promised Land, the priests stepped their feet into water, but then the waters were blocked up and they crossed over on dry land, of which they then were said to “come up out of” (Josh. 3:13; 4:16-19). R.C. Sproul points out that with where the Ethiopian and Philip were (Acts 8:26), “It is doubtful that in that ‘desert’ between Jerusalem and Gaza … there was enough water for an immersion.”[10]

g. Van Dixhoorn cites these other considerations: “ … there were times when too many people were baptized to permit immersion. Acts 2:41 tells us that 3,000 people were baptized on one day in Jerusalem. It is hardly possible …” Also, “ … there were times when baptism happened too quickly … at once … (Acts 16:33). The language of immediate baptism [with the Philippian jailer and his family] does not suggest that they went through the city and were baptized at the river, or a pool. Paul probably reached for a jug or a bowl and, after explaining baptism, poured or sprinkled water on these new converts.” As well, “The only plausible picture of immersion in baptism is that of Romans 6 or Colossians 2, but arguably it is plausible to us because we think of burials vertically, six feet under the ground, whereas in hard Palestinian soil burials were often effected horizontally, behind a rock in a cave.”[11] More importantly, Rom. 6 and Col. 2 are figures of speech for union with Christ.

h. “Total immersion lacks Old Testament precedent or clear New Testament justification.”[12]

[1] While not directly addressing the WCF here, John Murray’s comments seem to reflect this interpretation, if not of the Confession, of the Scriptural doctrine on mode: “ … there are numerous instances in which the action denoted does not imply immersion and which prove that baptism does not mean immersion (cf. Lev. 14:6, 51; Matt. 15:2 Mark 7:2-5; Luke 11:38; 1 Cor. 10:2; Heb. 9:10-23) … the ordinance is properly [correctly] administered by sprinkling or affusion.” “Baptism” in Collected Writings, vol. 2, 373.

[2] Jay E. Adams, The Meaning and Mode of Baptism, vi.

[3] Adams, 23.

[4] Chad Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith: A Reader's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith, 371.

[5] A. A. Hodge, The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Commentary, 341.

[6] Rowland Ward, The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Study Guide, 176.

[7] Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 933.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid, 932.

[10] R.C. Sproul, Truths We Confess: A Layman's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith, vol. 3, 119. David Dickson, Truth's Victory Over Error: A Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, 219-220: “ ... we read of three thousand baptized in one day, in the streets of Jerusalem, by twelve apostles at the most, where there was no river to dip them into (Acts 2:4I). And was not Jerusalem and all Judea and the region round about Jordan baptized by John the Baptist alone, which could not be done to all and every one by dipping (Matt. 3:5-6)?”

[11] Van Dixhoorn, 371, 372.

[12] Ward, 176.
 
Any Paedos practice full immersion?

I now see the covenant as one covenant, two administrations.
Trying to find out now, if the early church practiced baptism on the 8th day, and if they practiced full immersion.

Any body have input or direction for me?
Is there any baptist churches that practice sprinkling?
 
Is there any baptist churches that practice sprinkling?

Depends on if you mean they always practice it or if some make allowances for it if it is unsafe or unwise to immerse, as in the case of an invalid, etc. In other groups, I've seen some say that they will do this. But they are generally independent and aren't Southern Baptist or part of some other group that strongly emphasizes immersion.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones held baptistic views on the subjects (or objects if you prefer) of baptism but also believed that sprinkling was the biblical mode. I don't know if I've ever come across anyone else who agreed with that.

It is said that the earliest General (Arminian) Baptists baptized by pouring.
 
Any Paedos practice full immersion?

I now see the covenant as one covenant, two administrations.
Trying to find out now, if the early church practiced baptism on the 8th day, and if they practiced full immersion.

Any body have input or direction for me?

Asking the question in this way with no further elaboration seems to indicate acceptance of pedobaptism. Hence the question to you about whether or not you've accepted infant baptism by a previous poster.

Until the recent emergence of the "1689 Federalism" camp that denies that the Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace, the predominant view among contemporary Reformed Baptists was one covenant, two administrations. The 1689 Federalist site refers to this as the "20th Century Reformed Baptist" teaching. But If I recall correctly even the 1689 Federalists admit that there is precedent for the one covenant two administrations teaching going back centuries among Baptists even as they argue that it was not the predominant view of the English Particular Baptists who were responsible for the London Baptist confessions.

One covenant two administrations is the view taught by David Kingdon and also, I think, Samuel Waldron and James White. For many years Kingdon's book Children of Abraham was considered by many to be the ne plus ultra of Reformed Baptist defenses of their view. Several years ago when I asked about it in a RB group, a prominent 1689 Federalist (one who I believe holds a doctorate from a Reformed seminary) referred to Kingdon's book as "immersing paedobaptism" because Kingdon teaches that the covenants are the same in substance (although not in administration) which is what the 1689 Federalists deny. (It is clear to me that many Baptist writers of the past also deny one covenant, two administrations.) Reformed pedobaptists believe that the covenants are the same in substance and administration.

So accepting one covenant, two administrations does not necessarily lead to acceptance of pedobaptism, although many baptistic people who disagree with it allege that it puts one on a slippery slope toward acceptance of pedobaptism.

I will say as one who has wrestled with the issue for years that if you just want or need to be convinced that baptizo does not necessarily mean immerse (or that it doesn't mean immerse at all when referring to baptism) then Jay Adams' Meaning and Mode of Baptism, J.M. Chaney's William the Baptist or Rowland Ward's Baptism in Scripture and History are likely to do the trick. So will the Didache with its allowance of other modes besides immersion. If I'm not mistaken, that is generally thought to be a 1st or 2nd Century document.

Logically, not to mention scripturally, it seems to me (as well as most in Church history, East and West, Catholic and Protestant) that baptism is prerequisite to communion. Hence, most Baptists until relatively recently, especially those in the USA, have practiced restricted communion. (No pedobaptist communion that I know of other than liberals will admit the unbaptized (by whatever mode) to the table.)

In the section on baptism in his systematic theology, the Southern Presbyterian R.L. Dabney's takes this to its logical conclusion and says that immersionists unchurch all others and that the "odious consequences" of this teaching should be pressed on all of them whether they practice close communion or not. That Protestant pedobaptist churches weren't true churches was indeed standard Baptist teaching, especially in the South, until the 20th Century and maybe even the mid 20th Century. And we see a resurgence of it among Calvinistic Southern Baptists. (Well, more accurately, we see a resurgence of close or restricted communion where they bar the unimmersed from the Lord's Supper. But many of them go through some rather unconvincing mental gymnastics (at least as far as I'm concerned) and say that conservative Presbyterian churches are indeed true churches because they preach the gospel. In other words, they don't consider the sacraments to be a mark of the church.)

BTW, teaching that pedobaptist churches aren't true churches (and certainly those that merely practice close communion) does not by itself constitute Landmarkism. That controversy was somewhat more complicated than simply teaching that the Methodists and Presbyterians weren't true churches and it involved additional issues, and from what I've gathered even the anti-Landmarkers usually taught that pedobaptist congregations weren't true churches.

All that to say that if you are desperate to reject the last vestige of immersionist views you can also get worked up about the inherent sectarianism of the historic Baptist position since it teaches that even the leading lights of Protestantism haven't belonged to true churches. My apologies if I've misread the situation.
 
Last edited:
Any Paedos practice full immersion?

I now see the covenant as one covenant, two administrations.
Trying to find out now, if the early church practiced baptism on the 8th day, and if they practiced full immersion.

Any body have input or direction for me?

Below is from the early church writing the Didache:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
 
Years ago when I was at Bel Air Pres (PCUSA) and they were not like they are now they gave you the option of Sprinkle, Over the Font (Catholic Style), and Full Immersion most likely at the Beach. That's how I was baptized was at the Beach the wave was coming in and we went down. I have not been to a baptismal in a number of years although I did see one in the Catholic Church last year a friend of the family and they did the Font with the Sea Shell very interesting. It bothered me that the Priest much like the Pre-Trib churches did not see if they believe before they were baptized, what they do is say after the baptismal now we have new believers. C Matthew McMahon has a great book on this that I just finished last night for the second time John 3:16 and gets into the verse readers vs the complete thought readers. I think that most Bibles should translate exactly what it says and not throw an English word in there.

This was about babies and it's the same just at the beach they just go shallow no waves so I guess they don't drop the baby in the water and the parents get to be part of it. The church I am in now is kinda trendy you have to arrange one of the three ways I guess most do this practice this cause we are in a beach town.

The above my post Stope he is right on the money God Bless you brother..........
 
Last edited:
Two good friends, a baptist and a Presbyterian got together for the very last time to "hash it all out," - immersion or sprinkling.
The Baptist was granted first right of debate, and explained, insisted, that immersion was the way to go.
The Presbyterian said, I just want to be perfectly clear.
Ok, the Baptist said, clear on what?
Well, if I get into a pool up to my ankles, and just my ankles are immersed, is that baptism?
No, the Baptist said.
Ok, what if I get in up to my knees, is that baptism?
No, the Baptist said.
Ok, what about up to my waist, is that baptism?
No, the Baptist said.
How about up to my chest?
No, the Baptist said.
How about right up to my shoulders?
No, the Baptist said.
What about right up to my forehead? I mean, that has to be baptism, right?
No, the Baptist said.
Ah, so it is the top of my head that counts.

[This is my only joke, it only happens once. Enjoy it.]

Man, I'm dense. I read this a week ago and only just now "got it."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top