# Why Baptize by Sprinkling - by Dr. John R. Church - now available online!



## biblelighthouse

Dr. John R. Church wrote an excellent booklet regarding the Biblical mode of baptism:










Now you can read the book for free here:

Why Baptize by Sprinkling






[Edited on 2-20-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Mayflower

Thanks Joseph!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Steve Owen

I like the bit where he writes:-


> If you have been baptized by immersion then you have been baptized according to the way the word is used by our Lord Jesus.



Sounds good to me! 

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I like the bit where he writes:-
> 
> 
> 
> If you have been baptized by immersion then you have been baptized according to the way the word is used by our Lord Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good to me!
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...


If you take Scripture out of context as badly as you take Dr. Church out of context . . .


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> Thanks Joseph!!!!!!!!!



No problem . . . but I just formatted this as a web page and posted it . . . the real thanks goes to my cousin, Jeremy Conrad, for digitizing the text. 

Thank you, Jeremy!!


----------



## refbaptdude

Hey Martin,

We just agree with the Reformers:

John Calvin (Presbyterian)-"The very word "baptize however, signifies to IMMERSE, and it is certain that IMMERSION was the practice of the ancient church."(Institutes, chpt 15; Also see Commentary on the Gospel of John 3:22-23) 

Martin Luther (Lutheran)-" I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word." 

Philip Schaff(Lutheran)-"IMMERSION and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John which was performed in Jordan." (History of the Apostolic Church, p.568).


enjoy,
Refbaptdude


----------



## biblelighthouse

Refbaptdude,

You and Martin are welcome to agree with Calvin and Luther on this one.

I, however, would rather be on the side of Jesus. As Dr. Church points out in his book, Jesus was baptized by sprinkling.

And as for me, I would rather be baptized like Jesus was.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I'm on James W. Dale's side on this one.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Steve;
> 
> Where did you find that Luther reference?
> 
> 
> Any more quotes? Pretty revealing.....



Luther discusses immersion as the proper mode of baptism in Scripture in his Treatise on Baptism.


----------



## JeremyConrad

I find it VERY interesting that those of you who *claim* to want to know the truth are doing very little to search for it. Having been the one to transcribe this awesome, informative book, I believe that the arguments stating that *baptizo* does NOT mean immersion are MUCH stronger than any arguments that say it does. Specifically since they come from the Bible and not from opinion. Before you make any more posts in this area, read the book. Because, as it stands now, your ignorance on the subject is very apparent!

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and have others think you're ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

READ THE BOOK FIRST - THEN COMMENT!!!

Finally, one of you says, "I follow Luther"; another, "I follow Calvin"; another, "I follow Dale"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Luther crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Calvin?

The Word of God is the final authority on all issues!


----------



## Presbyrino

Joseph/Jeremy,

Thanks for your work on digitizing and posting of this work. 

Jeremy,
1. You should probably take a deep breath and calm down a bit. No need to take any comments personally and no need to call anyone "ignorant", because they do not accept your interpretation of the scripture. Let the work stand or fall on it's theological merits.


----------



## JeremyConrad

Steve & Trevor:

Point taken. 

However, let me say that I am not so upset that someone may disagree with me or my interpretation of Scripture. That happens all the time! My beef is with those who wish to either make a comment on this book or take it out of context both without having even read it. How can the work stand or fall it its theological merits if you haven't read it to find out what they are?

Even if I disagreed with this book and someone who hadn't read it then agreed with me, I still would think their comments ignorant. Not that the person is ignorant, per se, but that their comments are ignorant of any context of the book. Fine line? Maybe. But the fact is - you can't comment on the book without first having read it. If you try to, your comments are ignorant.

If you read the book and THEN comment on it - still in disagreement - that is quite fine with me.

Finally, I'm sorry if I offended either of you or anyone else. I'll try to calm down now.

Jeremy

[Edited on 2-20-2006 by JeremyConrad]


----------



## Steve Owen

Jeremy wrote:-


> READ THE BOOK FIRST - THEN COMMENT!!!


I have read it and remain unconvinced by it. It is similar to two or three other ones by paedo-baptists and certainly adds nothing new. Do those who post this stuff really imagine that Baptists (not to mention Luther, Calvin _et al_) haven't looked into all this?

I would not divide with anyone over the mode of baptism, but I would only practise immersion. There's no doubt in my mind that our Lord and the Apostles baptized and were baptized by immersion. 

In the appendices to James Haldane's *Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians* (_Particular Baptist Press._ ISBN 1-888514-17-5 ) there is a fine defense of the Credo-baptist position that answers all Dr Church's points and several others that he didn't think of. Perhaps it's on line somewhere.

One of Dr Church's more egregious mistakes is to suppose that _baptizo_ only means 'to dip' in Classical Greek. It means 'dip' in secular _Koine_ Greek writers as well. Also, the people who might be expected to know the meaning of Greek: _viz_ the Greek Orthodox churches, practise baptism by immersion, and always have.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


[Edited on 2-20-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Pilgrim

I am not convinced that _baptizo_ necessarily means immersion and find the arguments of Jay Adams, J.W. Dale, etc. to be at least as convincing as the Baptist arguments on mode. Apparently _baptizo_ is used in other parts of scripture to describe things where "immersion" isn't really in view.


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Refbaptdude,
> 
> You and Martin are welcome to agree with Calvin and Luther on this one.
> 
> I, however, would rather be on the side of Jesus. As Dr. Church points out in his book, Jesus was baptized by sprinkling.
> 
> And as for me, I would rather be baptized like Jesus was.



Psssssstt... We're not going here anymore. He went down to the River Jordan to what? Hmmm....
:bigsmile:


----------



## brymaes

> When Nebedchadnezzer was baptized by the dew of the morning, does not this mean that he was totally covered (i.e. immersed in the morning's dew) rather than just having it sprinkled on him.



I'm a Baptist and not convinced by this argument. The very fact that it was _dew_ demands that immersion is not in view. Dew is the product of condensation, not immersion. Immersion would require a flood.

[Edited on 2-21-2006 by theologae]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wait a second...I'm starting to understand something here. Are you Reformed Baptists implying that the proper mode of baptism is immersion?!





[Edited on 2-21-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Puritanhead

Duh.


----------



## brymaes

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Wait a second...I'm starting to understand something here. Are you Reformed Baptists implying that the proper mode of baptism is immersion?!



This is surprising?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Man alive....forgive my typos!!!
> 
> Typos are not a definite proof that I am ignorant - I hope?
> 
> Please follow the gist of my argument (my tired old oft-repeated argument you are probably saying). It has some merit.



Trevor,

Your argument would be good, if you were arguing against someone who said that _baptizo_ can _never_ mean immersion. Certainly is can and does mean that at times.

But your argument is no good at all at proving that _baptizo_ always means that. To prove that, you would have to demonstrate it from _every_ passage of Scripture. It only takes one counter-example to ruin your proof.

1 Cor. 10:2 says that the Israelites were baptized in the Red Sea crossing. They were certainly not immersed in water. But the Egyptians were. However, the Israelites were sprinkled by God with rain (cf. Ps. 77:17).

In the Gospels and in Acts, we learn that many people were baptized by the Holy Spirit. Were they dunked in the Holy Spirit? No. Rather, the Holy Spirit was "poured out" on them. Just take a look at Joel 2 and Acts 2.

Jesus said that His crucifixion was a "baptism" which he had to undergo. Was he immersed on the cross? No. In fact, he wasn't sprinkled either. Rather, he was undergoing the covenant curse for his people. His baptism by John the Baptist pointed to the curse, and the cross effected it.

I HIGHLY recommend reading "By Oath Consigned" by Meredith Kline. It has been VERY helpful in demonstrating the dual blessing/curse meaning inherent in Biblical baptism.



By the way, I think immersion is OK. It is not a sin. It is a valid baptism. I myself was immersed when I was 19. On the other hand, when I had my tiny daughters baptized, it was by sprinkling. Like Dr. Church, I agree that all 3 modes (immersion/sprinkling/pouring) are valid. 

I just get irked when people want to argue for "immersion only". That position is Biblically indefensible.


----------



## Puritanhead

Speaking of sprinkling, have any newbies seen my _Presbyterian gettin' baptized_ joke in this old thread.
:bigsmile:


----------



## refbaptdude

The quote below is from the following link:

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/christian/chapter03.htm

The Presbyterians. We have already seen that sprinkling, or rather pouring, was introduced in Scotland by John Knox and his followers from Calvin. But it did not prevail in England among Presbyterians until the Westminster Assembly excluded immersion by a vote of 25 to 24, Dr. Lightfoot, the president, casting the deciding vote. This was only done after the most heated debate. Dr. Lightfoot himself gives this. account:

Then we fell upon the work of the day, which was about baptizing "of the child, whether to dip him or to sprinkle." And this proposition, "It is lawful and sufficient to besprinkle the child," had been canvassed before our adjourning, and was ready now to vote; but I spoke against it, as being very unfit to vote; that it is lawful to sprinkle when every one grants it. Whereupon it was fallen upon, sprinkling being granted, whether dipping should be tolerated with it. And here fell we upon a large and long discourse, whether dipping were essential, or used in the first institution, or in the Jews' custom. Mr. Coleman went about, in a large discourse, to prove tbilh to be dipping overhead. Which I answered at large. After a long dispute it was at last put to the question, whether the Directory should run thus, "The minister shall take water, and sprinkle or pour it with his hand upon the face or forehead of the child;" and it was voted so indifferently, that we were glad to count names twice; for so many were so unwilling to have dipping excluded that the votes came to an equality within one; for the one side were 24, the other 25, the 24 for the reserving of dipping and the 25 against it; and there grew a great heat upon it, and when we had done all, we concluded upon nothing in it, but the business was recommitted.

Aug. 8th. But as to the dispute itself about dipping, it was thought safe and most fit to let it alone, and to express it thus in our Directory: "He is to baptize the child with water, which, for the manner of doing is not only lawful, but also sufficient, and most expedient to be by pouring or sprinkling of water on the face of the child, without any other ceremony." But this lost a great deal of time about the wording of it. (Works, Vol. XIII., p. 299. London 1824).

Sir David Brewster is regarded as high authority. He says: "In the Assembly of Divines, held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly debated whether immersion or sprinkling should be adopted: 25 voted for sprinkling, and 24 for immersion; and even that small majority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in that assembly." (Edinburgh Ency., Vol. III., p. 236).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I just get irked when people want to argue for "immersion only". That position is Biblically indefensible.




I was baptized in a "non-denominational" Christian Church as an adult. It's kind of funny in retrospect but their main creed was "we have no creed" - "We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent."

Virtually all forms of wierd theology were OK there. You didn't really have to know much to be considered a Christian. In fact, if during the altar call, you wanted to be a Christian, they baptized as quickly as you and the Pastor could get into the robes.

I say they had no creed but that's not quite true. They had one: baptism by immersion. They had the standard tract that "...bapto means immerse...", "...much water...", etc.

Baptism was also instrumental to salvation in their view.

I'm not maligning their commitment to believer's and immersive baptism per se but just how shallow they were in all doctrinal matters (including baptism). One of the members of the worship team belonged to a cult that didn't believe in the Trinity. The preaching was pietistic and a clear presentation of the Gospel was never given.

You could believe practically anything you wanted about secondary matters because there was only one discernible primary matter: baptism by immersion.

I don't want to imply guilt by association. I know my Reformed Baptist brethren here are more thoughtful about what and why they do things but, unfortunately, the attitude of that Church is very reflective of the general ignorance in Evangelicalism at large - credo or paedo included.


----------



## Puritanhead

I frankly don't see how one can say baptism by submersion is not valid even if they accept paedo-baptism as valid.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by refbaptdude_
> The quote below is from the following link:
> 
> http://www.reformedreader.org/history/christian/chapter03.htm
> 
> The Presbyterians. We have already seen that sprinkling, or rather pouring, was introduced in Scotland by John Knox and his followers from Calvin. But it did not prevail in England among Presbyterians until the Westminster Assembly excluded immersion by a vote of 25 to 24, Dr. Lightfoot, the president, casting the deciding vote. This was only done after the most heated debate. Dr. Lightfoot himself gives this. account:
> 
> Then we fell upon the work of the day, which was about baptizing "of the child, whether to dip him or to sprinkle." And this proposition, "It is lawful and sufficient to besprinkle the child," had been canvassed before our adjourning, and was ready now to vote; but I spoke against it, as being very unfit to vote; that it is lawful to sprinkle when every one grants it. Whereupon it was fallen upon, sprinkling being granted, whether dipping should be tolerated with it. And here fell we upon a large and long discourse, whether dipping were essential, or used in the first institution, or in the Jews' custom. Mr. Coleman went about, in a large discourse, to prove tbilh to be dipping overhead. Which I answered at large. After a long dispute it was at last put to the question, whether the Directory should run thus, "The minister shall take water, and sprinkle or pour it with his hand upon the face or forehead of the child;" and it was voted so indifferently, that we were glad to count names twice; for so many were so unwilling to have dipping excluded that the votes came to an equality within one; for the one side were 24, the other 25, the 24 for the reserving of dipping and the 25 against it; and there grew a great heat upon it, and when we had done all, we concluded upon nothing in it, but the business was recommitted.
> 
> Aug. 8th. But as to the dispute itself about dipping, it was thought safe and most fit to let it alone, and to express it thus in our Directory: "He is to baptize the child with water, which, for the manner of doing is not only lawful, but also sufficient, and most expedient to be by pouring or sprinkling of water on the face of the child, without any other ceremony." But this lost a great deal of time about the wording of it. (Works, Vol. XIII., p. 299. London 1824).
> 
> Sir David Brewster is regarded as high authority. He says: "In the Assembly of Divines, held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly debated whether immersion or sprinkling should be adopted: 25 voted for sprinkling, and 24 for immersion; and even that small majority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in that assembly." (Edinburgh Ency., Vol. III., p. 236).


Interesting quote. Thanks.

I think it's important to note that this is part of the Directory for Worship and not in the Confession itself. The Westminster Confession permits all forms. The same cannot be said for the Baptist Confession. If the purpose is to show the obnoxiousness of Presybterians in prescribing only sprinkling in their Directory then is it not more obnoxious that Baptists insist upon immersion (and exclude children) in their Confession?

I'm not trying to start a rock fight here. Nevertheless, if you want to compare "insistence on mode" it's a bit strange to compare the Presbyterians' Confessional liberty in the matter with Baptists', is it not?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I frankly don't see how one can say baptism by submersion is not valid even if they accept paedo-baptism as valid.


Agreed Ryan. Confessionally, Presbyterians accept immersion as a valid method. They only claim it is not _necessary_.



> CHAP. XXVIII. - Of Baptism.
> 
> 1. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.
> 
> 2. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
> 
> *3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.*
> 
> 4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
> 
> 5. Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect his ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
> 
> 6. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
> 
> 7. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> 
> The argument that baptism appears to be immersion in the NT is based upon the following:
> 
> a). It required much water,
> 
> b). It required going down into the water,
> 
> c). It required more water than one would normally carry as mere drinking water (i.e "what hinders me..here's a river" and "baptizing in Jordan because of much water" arguments).
> 
> d). It was signified by a word which usually (even if I grant that it does not always) means to dip, wash, immerse. This word etymologically signified immersion.
> 
> e). In Romans 6:4 the very symbolism is one of being buried - a thing best done by immersion under the dirt.



Trevor,

When you get a chance, please read Dr. Church's booklet that I posted online. It answers all of your points above.

I AGREE that a lot of water should be used. While I do not think that baptism is invalidated if only 2 or 3 drops of water are used, I do think it is much better for a LOT of water to be used. The person being baptized should get WET! --- Again, please read Dr. Church's booklet.

As for Romans 6:4, I don't think that argument holds any water (pun definitely intended). :bigsmile: Jesus was never immersed in dirt. He was put in a tomb above ground; he wasn't buried under ground in a hole, like people are today. Plus, if you argue that the "burial" in Romans 6 should be typified by baptism, then so should a number of other things in the chapter. You are picking and choosing. --- Again, please read Dr. Church's booklet. --- Also, on this point, please read the final chapter of Pastor Peter Edwards' book on baptism, which can be found on my website under the infant baptism section. Edwards answers the Romans 6:4 argument quite soundly.



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> 
> A personal confession:
> 
> Sometimes, I wrestle over whether sprinkling or pouring can count as baptism. Maybe you guys are, in fact, baptized!



Thank you!

Do you think the Israelites were really baptized, even though they were only sprinkled? Or was Paul lying in 1 Cor. 10:2?

Do you think people were really baptized with the Holy Spirit, even though the Spirit was just poured on them? Or do you think John the Baptist messed up his prophecy?



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> 
> And by the way, please take my baptist brothers to task for their inconsistency in insisting upon baptism by immersion (in order to strictly follow the NT example) and then giving mere grape juice during communion.



 Now if only the baptist church I attend would quit using that blasted grape juice!! If I ever start a church, I plan to do the Lord's Supper RIGHT in that way!



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> 
> This is an issue that I struggle with. And I struggle with an open mind and a high regard for you brothers who differ with me.



I highly respect you, Trevor. Your attitude is superb. You stand up for what you believe, but you also have a humble spirit. May the Lord richly bless His ministry though you!!!


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I just get irked when people want to argue for "immersion only". That position is Biblically indefensible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was baptized in a "non-denominational" Christian Church as an adult. It's kind of funny in retrospect but their main creed was "we have no creed" - "We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent."
> 
> Virtually all forms of wierd theology were OK there. You didn't really have to know much to be considered a Christian. In fact, if during the altar call, you wanted to be a Christian, they baptized as quickly as you and the Pastor could get into the robes.
> 
> I say they had no creed but that's not quite true. They had one: baptism by immersion. They had the standard tract that "...bapto means immerse...", "...much water...", etc.
> 
> Baptism was also instrumental to salvation in their view.
> 
> I'm not maligning their commitment to believer's and immersive baptism per se but just how shallow they were in all doctrinal matters (including baptism). One of the members of the worship team belonged to a cult that didn't believe in the Trinity. The preaching was pietistic and a clear presentation of the Gospel was never given.
> 
> You could believe practically anything you wanted about secondary matters because there was only one discernible primary matter: baptism by immersion.
> 
> I don't want to imply guilt by association. I know my Reformed Baptist brethren here are more thoughtful about what and why they do things but, unfortunately, the attitude of that Church is very reflective of the general ignorance in Evangelicalism at large - credo or paedo included.
Click to expand...


This sounds like a Campbellite church.


----------



## JeremyConrad

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> 
> READ THE BOOK FIRST - THEN COMMENT!!!
> 
> 
> 
> I have read it and remain unconvinced by it.
Click to expand...


Now THAT'S more like it !!! Thanks Martin.

[Edited on 2-21-2006 by JeremyConrad]


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by refbaptdude_
> The quote below is from the following link:
> 
> http://www.reformedreader.org/history/christian/chapter03.htm
> 
> The Presbyterians. We have already seen that sprinkling, or rather pouring, was introduced in Scotland by John Knox and his followers from Calvin. But it did not prevail in England among Presbyterians until the Westminster Assembly excluded immersion by a vote of 25 to 24, Dr. Lightfoot, the president, casting the deciding vote. This was only done after the most heated debate. Dr. Lightfoot himself gives this. account:
> 
> Then we fell upon the work of the day, which was about baptizing "of the child, whether to dip him or to sprinkle." And this proposition, "It is lawful and sufficient to besprinkle the child," had been canvassed before our adjourning, and was ready now to vote; but I spoke against it, as being very unfit to vote; that it is lawful to sprinkle when every one grants it. Whereupon it was fallen upon, sprinkling being granted, whether dipping should be tolerated with it. And here fell we upon a large and long discourse, whether dipping were essential, or used in the first institution, or in the Jews' custom. Mr. Coleman went about, in a large discourse, to prove tbilh to be dipping overhead. Which I answered at large. After a long dispute it was at last put to the question, whether the Directory should run thus, "The minister shall take water, and sprinkle or pour it with his hand upon the face or forehead of the child;" and it was voted so indifferently, that we were glad to count names twice; for so many were so unwilling to have dipping excluded that the votes came to an equality within one; for the one side were 24, the other 25, the 24 for the reserving of dipping and the 25 against it; and there grew a great heat upon it, and when we had done all, we concluded upon nothing in it, but the business was recommitted.
> 
> Aug. 8th. But as to the dispute itself about dipping, it was thought safe and most fit to let it alone, and to express it thus in our Directory: "He is to baptize the child with water, which, for the manner of doing is not only lawful, but also sufficient, and most expedient to be by pouring or sprinkling of water on the face of the child, without any other ceremony." But this lost a great deal of time about the wording of it. (Works, Vol. XIII., p. 299. London 1824).
> 
> Sir David Brewster is regarded as high authority. He says: "In the Assembly of Divines, held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly debated whether immersion or sprinkling should be adopted: 25 voted for sprinkling, and 24 for immersion; and even that small majority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in that assembly." (Edinburgh Ency., Vol. III., p. 236).



If I remember correctly, this debate among the Divines may have actually been over whether immersion should be considered a valid baptism at all, not whether it was the preferred mode. I seem to remember reading of such a debate somewhere. Part of the Lightfoot quote suggests this. 

Perhaps someone on the board with more knowledge of the Westminster Assembly and the history of Presbyterianism could weigh in here.


----------



## JeremyConrad

This book does not argue the ineffectiveness of baptism by immersion. It is advocating the effectiveness of baptism by affusion. This book is written to those who argue that immersion is the only accepted mode. It is written to those who say that a baptism by affusion is not a valid baptism. 

Like Joseph, I also get irked when the "immersion only-ists" argue that the ONLY mode is immersion. But I also get irked when "affusion only-ists" argue that the ONLY mode is affusion. If it is done by an ordained minister and is a Christian baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the baptism is effective - regardless of the mode.

However, that doesn't mean that I am indifferent as to the mode. After having read through the Scriptures, this book, and a few others on both sides of the issue, I believe that affusion is the mode used by John the Baptist with Jesus, by Philip with the Ethiopian, and by the apostles on and after Pentecost. Because I want to pattern my life as much as possible after Christ's life, affusion will also be my preferred mode. But my opinion doesn't allow me to say that other baptisms by immersion are invalid. Especially since I was baptized by immersion as a teenager. It is still valid, but not the preferred mode taught from Scripture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> One of Dr Church's more egregious mistakes is to suppose that _baptizo_ only means 'to dip' in Classical Greek. It means 'dip' in secular _Koine_ Greek writers as well. Also, the people who might be expected to know the meaning of Greek: _viz_ the Greek Orthodox churches, practise baptism by immersion, and always have.


Martin,

The Greek Orthodox also know the Greek word for idol but it doesn't prevent them from using icons in worship.

Surely, it was not for a lack of an understanding of Greek that the Galatians did not understand what faith was.

[Edited on 2-21-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Joseph;
> 
> I have completely read it! I am going to read it again. I am wrestling over the implications if I were to agree to some of his assertions...
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some of the implications perhaps you can help me with:
> 
> What happens if I agree that your baptism is valid? What happens if I, as a baptist, agree that (though baptism by immersion is the preferred mode) that baptism by sprinkling or affusion should also be accepted as valid baptisms?
> 
> Also, what if I come "half-way" and say, "Well, it doesn't matter if you are dunked, sprinkled or poured....as long as you did so in a Credo (i.e. professing) fashion..."
> 
> Are there credo-baptists who still believe that only disciples ought to be baptized, but that it does not matter how one is baptized, after becoming a disciple? This seems quite a hybrid.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, what ever happened to the elder proposal at John Piper's church about letting in people as members without rebaptism who had previosuly been baptized by another mode? Was it accepted, or did it die (and if so, why)?



Martyn Lloyd-Jones held to the position that sprinkling/affusion was scriptural, but early on in his ministry abandoned the practice of infant baptism. I don't know of any other leaders who held to such a position, but I don't know that the issues of proper mode and subjects are necessarily related in the way that we think they are today either. Some of the early Anabaptists were actually paedobaptists, (I think the Waldensians in particular) but disagreed with having "christenings" done at the behest of the state. 

I think the change in policy at Bethlehem Baptist has been put on hold for now, but I'm can't recall exactly why. I think maybe some elders had second thoughts, but I really haven't kept up with developments there.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Joseph;
> 
> I have completely read it! I am going to read it again. I am wrestling over the implications if I were to agree to some of his assertions...



Thank you for reading it! I appreciate your willingness to consider Dr. Church's arguments.



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> 
> Here are some of the implications perhaps you can help me with:
> 
> What happens if I agree that your baptism is valid? What happens if I, as a baptist, agree that (though baptism by immersion is the preferred mode) that baptism by sprinkling or affusion should also be accepted as valid baptisms?



1) Don't re-baptize someone who was baptized by affusion at a Presbyterian/Methodist/etc. church. If a guy was sprinkled at a Presbyterian church, and then comes to join your church, don't try to invalidate his original credobaptism.

2) Be willing to baptize someone by affusion at your church, if so requested. Such a request may be very rare. But if you refuse to do it when requested, then you would just be basically saying that you do not accept affusion as valid. So if a person really wants to be baptized by sprinkling, then so be it.



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> 
> Also, what if I come "half-way" and say, "Well, it doesn't matter if you are dunked, sprinkled or poured....as long as you did so in a Credo (i.e. professing) fashion..."
> 
> Are there credo-baptists who still believe that only disciples ought to be baptized, but that it does not matter how one is baptized, after becoming a disciple? This seems quite a hybrid.



As Chris pointed out above, Martyn Lloyd-Jones held to the position that sprinkling/affusion was scriptural. Nevertheless, he was a credobaptist.

And for what it's worth, I myself came to believe in baptism by affusion before I ever converted to infant baptism. And at the baptistic church I attend, I have some friends (including our missionary to Mexico) who do not believe people should be re-baptized, even if their baptism was by sprinkling/pouring.

On the flip side, remember that the Greek Orthodox are infant-baptists, and yet they baptize by immersion.

The question of mode truly is a different question from the question of subjects. There are examples in the church of every combination:

credo / immersion
credo / affusion
paedo / immersion
paedo / affusion

Thus, even if you remain credo, there is nothing requiring you to hold to "immersion only" theology.

In fact, there is at least one _entire denomination_ that just says "it doesn't matter" concerning the mode of baptism. The Nazarene church (unfortunately Arminian) was formed in 1907 by the joining together of 3 denominations. One of the 3 immersed, one of the 3 sprinkled, and one of the 3 poured. They determined that unity was more important than fighting over mode, and they agreed to permit all modes, since there are Scriptural arguments for all 3. My dad used to be a Nazarene pastor.

I remember when I was baptized (by immersion) at the age of 19. There were about 10 of us baptized at that service. Well, 9 of us were immersed. But one older lady requested sprinkling. So the pastor dunked 9 of us, and sprinkled 1 of us, all in the same service, and all in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It was great!

In fact, on the flip side, the PCA doesn't require affusion. There are some PCA churches where immersion is practiced, if requested.

So it is not unheard of for multiple modes to be practiced, regardless of whether a church is credo or paedo. 



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> 
> Also, what ever happened to the elder proposal at John Piper's church about letting in people as members without rebaptism who had previosuly been baptized by another mode? Was it accepted, or did it die (and if so, why)?



I believe one or two of the elders had second thoughts, and wanted to back out. So I think this has been put on hold for a while at Piper's church.





[Edited on 2-21-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## raderag

I just wanted to add that the some of the original credo-baptists, the mennonites, baptized by pouring.


----------



## Steve Owen

Since peace seems to be breaking out on this thread, perhaps I can stir things up a little. As I wrote previously, _baptizo_ always means 'to immerse' everywhere in Greek. If one is to try and say vthat it means something different in the N.T., then one must admit that the N.T. writers were unique in their usage.

Dr Church suggests that a verse in the Apocrypha 'has to' refer to sprinkling. This is wrong. The verse in question is Judith 12:7-8. _'She went out each night to the valley of Bethulia and bathed at the spring in the camp. After bathing, she prayed......'_. Now if she was only lightly washing, there is a Greek word, _nipto_ which could have been used; also, the was no need for her to have left her tent; she could have washed from a basin. If she was sprinkled, there are two words, _Rhaino_ and _rhantizo_ which actually mean 'sprinkle'.

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C., well into the time of _koine_ Greek. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both _bapto_ and _baptizo_. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptized' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptizing the vegetable, produces a permanent change. This seems to be the significance of Christian baptism; it symbolizes a permanent change in one's life.

Another error by Dr Church concerns his confusion of sprinkling with baptism. The writer to the Hebrews certainly knew the difference, because when he means 'sprinkle' he uses the word _rhantizo_ (Heb 9:13, 19, 21; 10:22 ). For the noun, 'a sprinkling', he,and Peter use _rhantismos_ (Heb 12:24; 1Peter 1:2 ). (In Heb 11:28, _proschusis_, literally 'pouring', is used ). So when we read of the *'Various baptisms'* of Heb 9:10, we can be assured that the tems washed were actually dipped in water.

There is a number of other errors or false statements in the booklet, but these will do for the moment.

Joseph wrote:-


> 1) Don't re-baptize someone who was baptized by affusion at a Presbyterian/Methodist/etc. church. If a guy was sprinkled at a Presbyterian church, and then comes to join your church, don't try to invalidate his original credobaptism.


I would not demand that someone was re-baptized, if he felt that his earlier credo-baptism was Scriptural, but that dioesn't mean that I agree with him.


> 2) Be willing to baptize someone by affusion at your church, if so requested. Such a request may be very rare. But if you refuse to do it when requested, then you would just be basically saying that you do not accept affusion as valid. So if a person really wants to be baptized by sprinkling, then so be it.


I would only do this in cases where age or infirmity meant that Biblical baptism was not possible. Baptism by sprinkling is not according to Scripture.


There is another discussion on the mode of baptism on
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=15893

Grace & Peace,

Martin


[Edited on 2-21-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Be willing to baptize someone by affusion at your church, if so requested. Such a request may be very rare. But if you refuse to do it when requested, then you would just be basically saying that you do not accept affusion as valid. So if a person really wants to be baptized by sprinkling, then so be it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would only do this in cases where age or infirmity meant that Biblical baptism was not possible. Baptism by sprinkling is not according to Scripture.
Click to expand...


Thank you, Martin, for exposing one of the most heinous problems with "immersion only" theology. 

You yourself admit that according to your theology, "Biblical baptism" is "not possible" for the aged and infirm. How horrible!

Either God instituted a sacrament of initiation into the church which could be *Biblically* applied to ALL Christians, or He instituted a sacrament of initiation into the church which would keep the aged and infirm from ever being to practice it Biblically. Evidently, according to the "immersion only" camp, God grants special spiritual favor to the young and healthy . . .

Martin, I do want to commend you, since your practice obviously is better than your theology. You admit that you *would* baptize someone by sprinkling/pouring if he was aged or infirm. I just ask you: Why would you do this? If it truly is not Biblical as you say, then why would you intentionally do something unbiblical? It seems to me that perhaps the Holy Spirit has worked in your heart, to bring your practical-theology to a better place than your head-theology. This is one place where I truly commend you for being inconsistent. I am very thankful that you would not deny baptism to someone just because he wasn't young or healthy enough to go through immersion.

One only need read the Didache to see that the late-1st/early-2nd century church accepted baptism by pouring as being fully valid. The writer(s) of the Didache never presents baptism by pouring as being "not really Biblical". --- Now, was the very early church correct on this point? I believe Scripture proves that it was.



[Edited on 2-22-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Joseph;
> 
> How "irregular" can an ordinance be before it is invalidated?
> 
> Do you accept Roman Catholic baptism?




Trevor,

Good question.

First of all, though, please keep in mind that it is a totally seperate question. You can accept Martin Lloyd Jones' credobaptism by sprinkling, without also accepting Roman Catholic baptism.

But my answer to your question is "yes". I would accept Roman Catholic baptism. 

But why would I do such a thing? Please take a look at what the Fench Confession of Faith, John Calvin, John Knox, Theodore Beza, William Perkins, Samuel Rutherford, the Westminster Confession of Faith, Richard Baxter, Francis Turretin, and Charles Hodge had to say about this question: http://perumission.org/Roman Baptism.pdf

In short, I would argue that Scripture does not connect the validity of baptism to the person or organization doing the baptism (even Judas Iscariot gave valid baptisms). Rather, a baptism is performed by God Himself (compare various statements in John 3 and John 4). The human doing the baptism is merely the "delivery boy" for the baptism. God Himself is the one actually doing the baptism. As long as a baptism is truly Trinitarian, then it is valid. (Mormon and JW baptisms are not valid.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I've never understood the obsession over mode. It seems like one can do a word study on baptizo and say "OK, I agree the Greek word means immerse". Assuming I leave aside other Biblical uses that show different ways that men were "immersed" (Moses, Noah, etc) I can even grant that immersion is fine.

I guess the point I would make (and I think you're making) is this: And then what? I mean, really, we look at historical narratives of places where there's apparently much water and do Greek word studies that say baptizo means immerse. We then conclude, emphatically, that immersion is the Biblical mode barring other modes as repugnant to the Scriptures?

I have a Galatians 3 and 4 that leaves me without excuse for being a Pelagian. I have a Romans 9 and John 6 that leaves me without excuse for assuming libertine free will. Narratives of much water and a Greek word study leave me without excuse for not immersing baptized believers? 

If the issue of mode is so central to the initiatory rite into the New Covenant why is it not more explicit? If the mode is so central (and credo at that) then why, within the span of a century, are other modes mentioned as acceptable? Some use silence on an issue as license to introduce any concept not spelled out. I use it as a way to guage centrality. It's the same reason I don't buy the idea that the Immaculate Conception has been "believed and held" as a central tenet of the faith by the Church since Pentecost.

From my vantage point the insistence looks very wooden. With no prescriptive language it seems the law of liberty and prudence would rule (which is of course what the author argues for). What about areas of desert where water was scarce? Those familiar with Jewish home construction know they were designed so that rain water would run off the roof into the basement where it would go into cisterns so they could collect and store the water during the rainy season. They had to survive on stagnant water for months of dry weather. Yet we're led to believe an ordnance that insisted on "much water", in all circumstances, is instituted in an arid region?

I'm sorry, word study or historical narrative as example. It doesn't pass the "Why should I insist on this practice based on your inference?" smell test.

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Puritanhead

I always find it funny some Presbyterians won't so much to believe that Jesus was a sprinkler-baptizee... 

Of course, I am a credo-baptist and my predelictions. 

But why don't you just take the Reformer's position like Calvin, instead of going to extremes of dogmatism that baptism by submersion never was practiced among the early church and the Apostles. It seems like a very reactionary position. But than again BibleLightHouse told me once, Jesus was sprinkled with a hyssop branch by John.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Isn't there a Greek word for immersion as well (that isn't baptizo or bapto)?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I always find it funny some Presbyterians won't so much to believe that Jesus was a sprinkler-baptizee...
> 
> Of course, I am a credo-baptist and my predelictions.
> 
> But why don't you just take the Reformer's position like Calvin, instead of going to extremes of dogmatism that baptism by submersion never was practiced among the early church and the Apostles. It seems like a very reactionary position. But than again BibleLightHouse told me once, Jesus was sprinkled with a hyssop branch by John.


I guess I've never actually met a Presbyterian that obsessed over how Jesus was baptized. My experience is that Baptists worry about mode much more than Presbyterians.

But then again, I've seen pictures, in a Baptist Church, of a black John the Baptist, with an afro, baptizing Jesus in a pool of water... 

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> As Chris pointed out above, Martyn Lloyd-Jones held to the position that sprinkling/affusion was scriptural. Nevertheless, he was a credobaptist.
> 
> And for what it's worth, I myself came to believe in baptism by affusion before I ever converted to infant baptism. And at the baptistic church I attend, I have some friends (including our missionary to Mexico) who do not believe people should be re-baptized, even if their baptism was by sprinkling/pouring.
> 
> On the flip side, remember that the Greek Orthodox are infant-baptists, and yet they baptize by immersion.
> 
> The question of mode truly is a different question from the question of subjects. There are examples in the church of every combination:
> 
> credo / immersion
> credo / affusion
> paedo / immersion
> paedo / affusion
> 
> Thus, even if you remain credo, there is nothing requiring you to hold to "immersion only" theology.



I guess there's nothing preventing holding to credo/affusion, etc if you live in a vacuum. But holding to beliefs on baptism in anything but one of the two usual packages (paedo/affusion or credo/immersion) makes one an ecclesiastical misfit! I guess some "Bible" churches allow for latitude on this question, but such are not prevalent in many areas. 

Those in the Methodist tradition (as with your reference to Nazarenes) allow for latitude in this area. I was immersed by a Wesleyan pastor who believes credo/immersion to be Biblical but who does not regard affusion or probably even infant baptism as invalid (I think he might get into trouble with HQ if he did, but I'm not sure). But I think he generally encourages immersion upon profession of faith. He received his M.Div. at NOBTS and used to get hammered by the Baptist students there because he wouldn't say that immersion was the ONLY valid baptism. He also baptized an older man in his congregation by sprinkling because the man didn't want to be immersed. But of course, Methodist churches aren't really an option for Calvinists, at least not long term. But this Wesleyan pastor is more Calvinistic in practice than many Baptists, being expository (influenced by MacArthur) and eschewing "altar calls". All of the denominations of any size in the Methodist tradition seem to ordain women as well.

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Isn't there a Greek word for immersion as well (that isn't baptizo or bapto)?



I saw this somewhere recently but cannot remember where at the moment. It may have been an online article.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I always find it funny some Presbyterians won't so much to believe that Jesus was a sprinkler-baptizee...
> 
> Of course, I am a credo-baptist and my predelictions.
> 
> But why don't you just take the Reformer's position like Calvin, instead of going to extremes of dogmatism that baptism by submersion never was practiced among the early church and the Apostles. It seems like a very reactionary position. But than again BibleLightHouse told me once, Jesus was sprinkled with a hyssop branch by John.




Baptists are the extremists. They are the ones shouting "immersion only". --- I, on the other hand, think immersion, sprinkling, and pouring are ALL valid. It is not as if I say immersion is no baptism at all. I myself was baptized by immersion.

If Jesus was baptized by immersion, then fine. It still wouldn't prove your point. You still have to contend with 1 Cor. 10:2, Acts 2, the Didache, etc. 

But please, have you even read Dr. Church's booklet yet? He demonstrates VERY clearly why he believes that Jesus was baptized by sprinkling. The Biblical evidence is impressive. So don't call me a "reactionary". 

On the contrary, why is that you want so badly to believe that a person can't study the Scriptures, and conclude that Jesus wasn't baptized by immersion? As for me, I think the immersionist "evidence" for an immersion-baptism of Jesus is virtually non-existent. And the evidence for His sprinkling is quite strong. Why is THAT so hard for you to believe? Could it be that we just disagree?

Or have you even bothered to read Dr. Church's arguments?






[Edited on 2-22-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Steve Owen

Joseph wrote:-


> Thank you, Martin, for exposing one of the most heinous problems with "immersion only" theology.
> 
> You yourself admit that according to your theology, "Biblical baptism" is "not possible" for the aged and infirm. How horrible!
> 
> Either God instituted a sacrament of initiation into the church which could be *Biblically* applied to ALL Christians, or He instituted a sacrament of initiation into the church which would keep the aged and infirm from ever being to practice it Biblically. Evidently, according to the "immersion only" camp, God grants special spiritual favor to the young and healthy . . .


Joseph, what does the term, 'I will have mercy, not sacrifice' mean?
In the OT, God instituted a number of sacrifices, where the appropriate offering was a lamb, but then, in His mercy, He ordained that those who were too poor to afford a lamb could bring *'Two turtle-doves or two young pigeons' * instead (eg. Lev 12:8. cf. Luke 2:22-24 ).

The correct offering was a lamb, but God had compassion on those who were unable to afford one. That by no means invalidated the whols sacrifice. Why then do you criticize me for having compassion on those unable to be baptized according to the clear command of Scripture? Obviously, we are to follow the example of our Lord in making other arrangements, but that in no way invalidates baptism by immersion which is so clearly portrayed in Scripture as the norm.

If you look hard enough, you will find several other examples of God bending His own rules as a concession to man's weakness (eg. 2Chron 30:18-20 ), but this by no means suggests that the original commands were foolish or invalid.

You continued:-


> Baptists are the extremists. They are the ones shouting "immersion only".


Who started this thread? And who started the last thread on the mode of baptism? *'Thou art the man!* 

Honestly, if it wasn't for you desperately looking for some way to attack Immersion, I wouldn't give it a second thought. You do what you think is right, brother, but you need to do better than Dr Church!

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Joseph, what does the term, 'I will have mercy, not sacrifice' mean?
> In the OT, God instituted a number of sacrifices, where the appropriate offering was a lamb, but then, in His mercy, He ordained that those who were too poor to afford a lamb could bring *'Two turtle-doves or two young pigeons' * instead (eg. Lev 12:8. cf. Luke 2:22-24 ).
> 
> The correct offering was a lamb, but God had compassion on those who were unable to afford one. That by no means invalidated the whols sacrifice. Why then do you criticize me for having compassion on those unable to be baptized according to the clear command of Scripture? Obviously, we are to follow the example of our Lord in making other arrangements, but that in no way invalidates baptism by immersion which is so clearly portrayed in Scripture as the norm.
> 
> If you look hard enough, you will find several other examples of God bending His own rules as a concession to man's weakness (eg. 2Chron 30:18-20 ), but this by no means suggests that the original commands were foolish or invalid.



Indeed, that should not be ignored in the cases you mention, as well as similarly described cases throughout Scripture. But don't you think we should limit that principle to when God specifically allows for such "bends"? Outside of those cases in which we see Him indicating such allowances with certain commands and practices, it would be very dangerous at best and chaotic at worst to apply that standard (of special allowances for special cases) to any other practices or commands.

So if we were still commanded to perform the practice of sacrificing animals, for instance, we would know that there is a biblically-permissable alternative, what it is and who is permitted to use it. But the commanded practice of baptism is not one with which we see God ever making special allowances or cases as such. So if immersion in the biblical norm with respect to what is commanded, there is no room for allowing other forms in any special cases.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> But the commanded practice of baptism is not one with which we see God ever making special allowances or cases as such. So if immersion in the biblical norm with respect to what is commanded, there is no room for allowing other forms in any special cases.


Chris,

I would agree, _if_ God had made a prescriptive command regarding mode as Baptists would have us believe.

One can argue until he's blue in the face that baptizo means immerse but the specific circumstances surrounding the rite are not spelled out in a Levitical way. I think this is on purpose and that those who are imperialistic about mode are removing liberty regarding circumstance. 

By some wooden appeals to "much water" for instance I could just as well make the maxim that it is not a proper baptism unless performed near a river or a lake or that anything less than 1000 cubic meters is not "much water".

Why not say that baptisms performed indoors are Biblically inpermissible based on the examples of Pentecost and the Ethiopian?

Maybe, since the Greek Orthodox know Greek and haven't corrupted any doctrines, the practice is corrupt unless we baptize with oil as well.

Nowhere do I find in the Scriptures an obsession over mode.

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> But the commanded practice of baptism is not one with which we see God ever making special allowances or cases as such. So if immersion in the biblical norm with respect to what is commanded, there is no room for allowing other forms in any special cases.
> 
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> I would agree, _if_ God had made a prescriptive command regarding mode as Baptists would have us believe.
Click to expand...


Agreed - and I agree that immersion, while a perfectly legitimate form, is _not_ the biblical norm in any way more than affusion. But since most Baptists, especially those on this board, _do_ view immersion as the biblically-warranted mode, I would say that what my post above implies is that Joseph's point still stands - namely that the logically-consistent consequence of that view is the belief that _fully biblical_ baptism is not possible for certain aged or infirmed people.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> But the commanded practice of baptism is not one with which we see God ever making special allowances or cases as such. So if immersion in the biblical norm with respect to what is commanded, there is no room for allowing other forms in any special cases.
> 
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> I would agree, _if_ God had made a prescriptive command regarding mode as Baptists would have us believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed - and I agree that immersion, while a perfectly legitimate form, is _not_ the biblical norm in any way more than affusion. But since most Baptists, especially those on this board, _do_ view immersion as the biblically-warranted mode, I would say that what my post above implies is that Joseph's point still stands - namely that the logically-consistent consequence of that view is the belief that _fully biblical_ baptism is not possible for certain aged or infirmed people.
Click to expand...

 Roger, out.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

"... because there was *much water* there" (Jn. 3:23). 

literally: *many waters*. The area of Aenon near Salim is full of springs.

Water is a precious commodity in the arid, high/hilly country of Judea. Large scale baptisms such as we read about in the New Testament, _regardless of the mode,_ demand an area of super abundance of water so as not to preclude its other uses, or spoil its servicability.

There is absolutely no demand that the language of Jn 3:23 indicate baths of water were in order for said baptisms.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

I read Church's pamphlet and agree that it leaves no doubt that immersion baptism is foreign to Holy Scripture.

He makes the same arguments as James Chaney in his classic, _William the Baptist_.

I would suggest Chaney's book over Church's mainly because Church throws in some confusion due to his Methodist convictions.

I don't agree with Church with the reason we are baptized. He mentions nothing about the covenantal significance but makes the statement that baptism is a sign to the world rather than a sign to the believer and his household of God's promise.

Church interprets John 3:5 as meaning that man must be first born of flesh in order to enter the kingdom of God rather than Titus 3:5 which attributes washing to regeneration and renewing to the Holy Spirit.

Church plugs the Methodists view of church being "little societies."

These disagreements do not dismantle the non-immersion argument, but they may confuse the non-discerner. Methodists and Presbyterians do not baptize for the same reasons.

Joseph, I would be interested in your thoughts on Cheney's _William the Baptist_. It was written in the 19th century, but is very easy to read (I am sure it could be digested in one or two sittings). Cheney makes the same arguments as Church but adds clarity to the covenantal significance of the sacrament. After all, unlike Church, Chaney was a Presbyterian. Like Church's defense, _William the Baptists_ is also available online in it's entirety. 

Overall, Church gives a good defense and I recommend that people read it before defending immersion only. I can tell from some of the responses that arguments are being made without reading the pamphlet. The Classical Greek meaning of the word is not the end of the argument. There are much more that needs to be stretched in order to make Immersion fit into Scripture.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> "... because there was *much water* there" (Jn. 3:23).
> 
> literally: *many waters*. The area of Aenon near Salim is full of springs.
> 
> Water is a precious commodity in the arid, high/hilly country of Judea. Large scale baptisms such as we read about in the New Testament, _regardless of the mode,_ demand an area of super abundance of water so as not to preclude its other uses, or spoil its servicability.
> 
> There is absolutely no demand that the language of Jn 3:23 indicate baths of water were in order for said baptisms.






Also:


John the baptist was not located in a place where immersion was even possible. Scripture says that John was "*at Aenon near Salim*, because there was plenty of water" (John 3:23). Plenty of water was necessary for pouring water on many people for baptism. But while there was "plenty of water", there still wasn't enough for immersion. "Aenon" comes from the Aramaic word which means "springs" or "fountains." *Aenon is probably to be identified with a place about eight miles south of Scythopolis, west of the Jordan*. In this locality there are seven springs within a radius of a quarter of a mile. But unfortunately for those who are hoping to find proof for immersion, "*these springs trickling through marshy meadow land on their way to the Jordan, offer little or no facilities for immersion*" (Christy, A Modern Shibboleth, p. 82). Assuming that the area has changed little since Jesus' day, we are again forced to conclude that John's baptism was probably by pouring water over the body, rather than by immersion.


----------



## refbaptdude

Joseph,

The entire Eastern Church practices immersion only. I guess they are extremists?

Immersion is the catholic (universally accepted) mode of baptism "“ this is just a fact. 


Grace to you,
Steve


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by refbaptdude_
> Joseph,
> 
> The entire Eastern Church practices immersion only. I guess they are extremists?



Yes. They are extremists as far as baptismal mode is concerned. They should allow affusion as well as immersion. There are no Scriptural grounds for immersion.

Also, the entire Eastern Church practices paedocommunion. So would *you* call them extremists? (In case you didn't know, I am pro-paedocommunion.) 

You see, you can use the EO to back you up for immersion, and I can use the EO to back me up for paedocommunion. In both cases, it DOES show that the doctrine in question has been practiced by the church for a long time. But in NEITHER case does it prove the Scriptural grounding of the practice. I just happen to believe that the Bible supports paedocommunion, but not baptism by immersion-only. You, on the other hand, seem to think that paedocommunion is excluded, as well as baptism by affusion. At the end of the day, neither one of us totally agree with EO sacramentology.



> _Originally posted by refbaptdude_
> Immersion is the catholic (universally accepted) mode of baptism "“ this is just a fact.



and your point is??? --- From the beginning I have agreed that immersion is _acceptable_. So that is not even part of the argument. Rather, the argument is about whether immersion is the *only* acceptable mode. Baptists and the Eastern Orthodox are modal extremists, unbiblically denying the validity of affusion. 

Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, etc. are more moderate, accepting ALL modes of baptism, since Scripture doesn't clearly require or disqualify any mode. I do believe affusion to be the preferred method, but I cannot make an airtight case for utterly disqualifying immersion. (In general, though, God seems to reserve immersion for his _enemies_, not His own people. --- In the Noahic baptism, the wicked were immersed, not Noah. In the Red Sea baptism, the Egyptians were immersed, not Israel.)

Nevertheless, I believe sprinkling, pouring, and immersion are all valid modes of baptism.


Steve, have you bothered to read the pamphlet by Dr. Church yet? Or are you commenting against that of which you have no knowledge?




[Edited on 2-22-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by refbaptdude_
> Joseph,
> 
> The entire Eastern Church practices immersion only. I guess they are extremists?
> 
> Immersion is the catholic (universally accepted) mode of baptism "“ this is just a fact.
> 
> 
> Grace to you,
> Steve



So why not join the Eastern Orthodox? They also baptize infants.

Synergism is the catholic (universally accepted) understanding of salvation "“ this is just a fact. What does that tell you?

Did you read Church's pamphlet?







[Edited on 2-22-2006 by ChristopherPaul]


----------



## ChristopherPaul

*simulpost*


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> *simulpost*


----------



## refbaptdude

John Calvin´s commentary on the Gospel of John
John 3:22-23
22. After these things came Jesus. It is probable that Christ, when the feast was past, came into that part of Judea which was in the vicinity of the town Enon, which was situated in the tribe of Manasseh. The Evangelist says that there were many waters there, and these were not so abundant in Judea. Now geographers tell us, that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence of the river Jordan and the brook Jabbok; and they add that Scythopolis was near them. From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water; though we ought not to give ourselves any great uneasiness about the outward rite, provided that it agree with the spiritual truth, and with the Lord's appointment and rule. So far as we are able to conjecture, the; vicinity of those places caused various reports to be circulated, and many discussions to arise, about the Law, about the worship of God, and about the condition of the Church, in consequence of two persons who administered baptism having arisen at the same time. For when the Evangelist says that Christ baptized, I refer this to the commencement of his ministry; namely, that he then began to exercise publicly the office which was appointed to him by the Father. And though Christ did this by his disciples, yet he is here named as the Author of the baptism, without mentioning his ministers, who did nothing but in his name and by his command. On this subject, we shall have something more to say in the beginning of the next Chapter.


Cardinal Gibbons (Roman Catholic) -"For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity baptism was usually conferred by IMMERSION; but since the 12th century the practice of baptism by infusion has prevailed in the Catholic church, as this manner is attained with less inconvenience than by IMMERSION (Faith of our Fathers p. 317) 

John Wesley (Methodist)-commenting on Rom 6:4- "We are buried with Him- alluding to the ancient manner of baptism by IMMERSION (Explanatory notes Upon the New Testament, p. 376) 

George Whitefield (Methodist)-commenting on Rom 6:4- "It is certain that the words of our text is an allusion to the manner of baptism by IMMERSION 

Conybeare and Howson (Episcopalians)-commenting on Rom 6:4-":This passage cannot be undersood unless it is understood that the primitive baptism was by IMMERSION." 

John Calvin (Presbyterian)-"The very word "baptize however, signifies to IMMERSE, and it is certain that IMMERSION was the practice of the ancient church."(Institutes, chpt 15) 

Martin Luther (Lutheran)-" I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word." 

Philip Schaff(Lutheran)-"IMMERSION and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John which was performed in Jordan." (History of the Apostolic Church, p.568).


----------



## biblelighthouse

I repeat:

Steve, have you bothered to read the pamphlet by Dr. Church yet? Or are you commenting against that of which you have no knowledge?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by refbaptdude_
> John Calvin´s commentary on the Gospel of John
> John 3:22-23
> 22. After these things came Jesus. It is probable that Christ, when the feast was past, came into that part of Judea which was in the vicinity of the town Enon, which was situated in the tribe of Manasseh. The Evangelist says that there were many waters there, and these were not so abundant in Judea. Now geographers tell us, that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence of the river Jordan and the brook Jabbok; and they add that Scythopolis was near them. From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water; though we ought not to give ourselves any great uneasiness about the outward rite, provided that it agree with the spiritual truth, and with the Lord's appointment and rule. So far as we are able to conjecture, the; vicinity of those places caused various reports to be circulated, and many discussions to arise, about the Law, about the worship of God, and about the condition of the Church, in consequence of two persons who administered baptism having arisen at the same time. For when the Evangelist says that Christ baptized, I refer this to the commencement of his ministry; namely, that he then began to exercise publicly the office which was appointed to him by the Father. And though Christ did this by his disciples, yet he is here named as the Author of the baptism, without mentioning his ministers, who did nothing but in his name and by his command. On this subject, we shall have something more to say in the beginning of the next Chapter.
> 
> 
> Cardinal Gibbons (Roman Catholic) -"For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity baptism was usually conferred by IMMERSION; but since the 12th century the practice of baptism by infusion has prevailed in the Catholic church, as this manner is attained with less inconvenience than by IMMERSION (Faith of our Fathers p. 317)
> 
> John Wesley (Methodist)-commenting on Rom 6:4- "We are buried with Him- alluding to the ancient manner of baptism by IMMERSION (Explanatory notes Upon the New Testament, p. 376)
> 
> George Whitefield (Methodist)-commenting on Rom 6:4- "It is certain that the words of our text is an allusion to the manner of baptism by IMMERSION
> 
> Conybeare and Howson (Episcopalians)-commenting on Rom 6:4-":This passage cannot be undersood unless it is understood that the primitive baptism was by IMMERSION."
> 
> John Calvin (Presbyterian)-"The very word "baptize however, signifies to IMMERSE, and it is certain that IMMERSION was the practice of the ancient church."(Institutes, chpt 15)
> 
> Martin Luther (Lutheran)-" I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word."
> 
> Philip Schaff(Lutheran)-"IMMERSION and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John which was performed in Jordan." (History of the Apostolic Church, p.568).




Ironically, Steve, your citations above only help to prove MY point, not yours.

ALL of the men you quoted above, EVERY single one of them, believed that immersion was acceptable.

So do I.

ALL of the men you quoted above, EVERY single one of them, believed that sprinkling/pouring is also acceptable.

So do I.



So do you agree with all those guys you quoted, or not?


----------



## Steve Owen

Joseph,
There doesn't seem to be much point in reading your precious pamphlet.

I have refuted three points made by Dr Church and you haven't responded to one of them yet.

Have YOU read it? There doesn't seem to be much sign that you have! 

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen

Joseph wrote:-


> John the baptist was not located in a place where immersion was even possible. Scripture says that John was "at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water" (John 3:23). Plenty of water was necessary for pouring water on many people for baptism. But while there was "plenty of water", there still wasn't enough for immersion. "Aenon" comes from the Aramaic word which means "springs" or "fountains." Aenon is probably to be identified with a place about eight miles south of Scythopolis, west of the Jordan. In this locality there are seven springs within a radius of a quarter of a mile. But unfortunately for those who are hoping to find proof for immersion, "these springs trickling through marshy meadow land on their way to the Jordan, offer little or no facilities for immersion" (Christy, A Modern Shibboleth, p. 82). Assuming that the area has changed little since Jesus' day, we are again forced to conclude that John's baptism was probably by pouring water over the body, rather than by immersion.



So John baptized in the middle of a bog?
Thanks Joseph! That makes a lot of sense. Most convenient for the waiting crowds! 

See the Calvin quote posted by Refbaptdude.

Actually, the water levels around the Jordan today bear no resemblance to those of former times. The demands of modern agriculture have lowered the water table most worryingly, I understand.

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Joseph,
> There doesn't seem to be much point in reading your precious pamphlet.
> 
> I have refuted three points made by Dr Church and you haven't responded to one of them yet.
> 
> Have YOU read it? There doesn't seem to be much sign that you have!
> 
> Martin




Of course I have read it. Has it occured to you that perhaps I just don't find much merit in your so-called "refutations"? I generally don't try to refute something unless I think it's worthwhile to bother doing so. Nevertheless, just to humor you, here goes:



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> One of Dr Church's more egregious mistakes is to suppose that baptizo only means 'to dip' in Classical Greek. It means 'dip' in secular Koine Greek writers as well.



You are incorrect. Dr. Church does NOT claim that baptizo can't be used for dipping in Koine Greek. In fact, he even points out a place where it is used in just that way. But he also points out places in secular Koine Greek where it is NOT used in that way. So please stop misrepresenting Dr. Church.

I quote, from his booklet:


> There is another word that is not often used in the New Testament, but was in common use in the days of Christ, that had gone through somewhat the same change in its meaning. The word of which I speak is bapto. It comes from the same root as the word baptizo. Now in classical Greek this word meant to dye by the process of dipping or submerging the article in the dye. However, in common use this word had become so closely associated with the process of dyeing that it finally came to mean dye, regardless of how it might be done. It might be done either *by dipping* the garment in the dye, *or* it might be done *by sprinkling or pouring* the dye upon the garment. Regardless of how it might be done the word bapto was used to describe it. One of the classical writers of that day used this word bapto in speaking of a lake being dyed (or bapto) with the blood of a rat. Now of course we can readily see that the lake was not immersed in the blood of a rat, but it was rather tinged or dyed with the blood of a rat. We also find an instance in the classical writers where Socrates speaks of an island being baptized (baptizo) with the spray of the ocean. I am sure we can readily see that he did not mean to imply that the island was immersed in the spray of the ocean, and yet he used this word baptizo in speaking of what took place.



You see, Dr. Church does NOT disqualify dipping from inclusion in the meaning of baptizo. Rather, he includes sprinkling and pouring in the meaning, just as the secular and biblical Koine Greek writers did.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> Also, the people who might be expected to know the meaning of Greek: viz the Greek Orthodox churches, practise baptism by immersion, and always have.



They also practice infant baptism and paedocommunion. I highly recommend you follow suit.




> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> Dr Church suggests that a verse in the Apocrypha 'has to' refer to sprinkling. This is wrong. The verse in question is Judith 12:7-8. 'She went out each night to the valley of Bethulia and bathed at the spring in the camp. After bathing, she prayed......'. Now if she was only lightly washing, there is a Greek word, nipto which could have been used; also, the was no need for her to have left her tent; she could have washed from a basin. If she was sprinkled, there are two words, Rhaino and rhantizo which actually mean 'sprinkle'.



Have you ever taken a bath, Martin? If so, then during your bath, did you ever fully immerse yourself? I doubt it. If you did, then you are not the normal bather. 

During a bath, people often get partially in the water, but don't totally immerse themselves under it. 

In any case, I wouldn't argue that the Judith text is an example of sprinkling, either. Rather, I think pouring would be a better word to use, since she probably used a good deal of water, and poured it all over herself. 

Also, you are begging the question to assume that Judith 12 should have used the word "nipto" if only light washing was done. IF baptizo always meant immersion, then you would have a point. But to make your point, you assume the very thing you are trying to prove. Maybe baptizo had changed its meaning enough by the time of the writing of Judith that baptizo was just as fitting as nipto for the passage.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> Another error by Dr Church concerns his confusion of sprinkling with baptism. The writer to the Hebrews certainly knew the difference, because when he means 'sprinkle' he uses the word rhantizo (Heb 9:13, 19, 21; 10:22 ). For the noun, 'a sprinkling', he,and Peter use rhantismos (Heb 12:24; 1Peter 1:2 ). (In Heb 11:28, proschusis, literally 'pouring', is used ). So when we read of the 'Various baptisms' of Heb 9:10, we can be assured that the tems washed were actually dipped in water.



 What kind of eisogesis is this? Heb. 9:13, 19, & 21 come on the heels of Heb. 9:10. The author of Hebrews gives these sprinkling passages as _examples_ of the baptisms mentioned in verse 10! Hebrews 9 is a great place to demonstrate from Scripture that sprinklings can be baptisms.

But even if you don't want to accept that from Hebrews, you still have to contend with 1 Cor 10:2, 1 Peter 3:20-21, etc. The Israelites were neither dipped nor immersed in the Red Sea. The only water that got on them was from the sprinkling from above (Ps. 77:17). Similarly, Noah and his family were neither dipped nor immersed in the water. 

Sorry, but your arguments just don't hold any water.


----------



## JeremyConrad

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> I read Church's pamphlet and agree that it leaves no doubt that immersion baptism is foreign to Holy Scripture.
> 
> _also_
> 
> I don't agree with Church with the reason we are baptized. He mentions nothing about the covenantal significance but makes the statement that baptism is a sign to the world rather than a sign to the believer and his household of God's promise.
> 
> _and finally_
> 
> Overall, Church gives a good defense and I recommend that people read it before defending immersion only. I can tell from some of the responses that arguments are being made without reading the pamphlet.



amen Amen and AMEN


----------



## Pilgrim

From Francis Schaeffer's booklet on baptism: 



> Lastly, concerning this matter of immersion only, we would remind you that it immersion is the only mode, then the catholicity of the sacraments is destroyed. The Lord's Supper obviously can be given anywhere. Sprinkling can be performed anywhere, but if baptism is by immersion only, there are many parts of the world in which Christians must be denied this sacrament. Those in the desert, those in the land of unending cold, and those on beds of sickness cannot be baptized by immersion, even if they want to.



http://www.spiritone.com/~wing/fs_bapt.htm


----------



## Steve Owen

Dr Church's Greek is rather suspect. He writes that _bapto_ and _baptizo_ come from the same root. Well, _bapto_ *is* the root and _baptizo_ come from it. He continues:-



> However, in common use this word had become so closely associated with the process of dyeing that it finally came to mean dye, regardless of how it might be done. It might be done either by dipping the garment in the dye, or it might be done by sprinkling or pouring the dye upon the garment.


Sprinkling seems a very strange way of dyeing a garment. No ancient source that I can find speaks either of that or of pouring. As far as I can discover, dyeing was always by dipping. I'd like to see his sources. Likewise his reference to Socrates (who actually never wrote anything; he must mean Plato or Xenophon). I can't find this reference in _Liddell & Scott_ according to whom the word *always* means to dip or submerge. The seashore is temporarily submerged by the sea as the waves break on it, and I expect this is the reference. In the Septuagint version of 1Sam14:27, where Jonathan 'dipped' the tip of his staff in a honeycomb, _baptizo_ is used. He submerged the tip of the staff into the honey.

With reference to the Greek Orthodox churches who baptize infants by immersion, I am not suggesting that they know their theology (quite the reverse!), but surely they ought to know their Greek!



> Have you ever taken a bath, Martin? If so, then during your bath, did you ever fully immerse yourself? I doubt it. If you did, then you are not the normal bather.


No indeed! But then, I do not describe my ablution as a baptism. There is a Greek word for taking a bath, _Louo_. The reason that the writer of _Judith_ used _baptizo_ is because it was a ritual washing and therefore she must have submerged herself completely (as in Jewish proselyte baptisms). At all events, there is no evidence that sprinkling or pouring were involved _contra_ Dr Church.



> Heb. 9:13, 19, & 21 come on the heels of Heb. 9:10. The author of Hebrews gives these sprinkling passages as examples of the baptisms mentioned in verse 10! Hebrews 9 is a great place to demonstrate from Scripture that sprinklings can be baptisms.


Oh dear! This really won't do. If the writer mentions baptism in one place and sprinkling in another, then regardless of which comes first, it is surely logical to suppose that he is speaking of two different operations.



> But even if you don't want to accept that from Hebrews, you still have to contend with 1 Cor 10:2, 1 Peter 3:20-21, etc. The Israelites were neither dipped nor immersed in the Red Sea.


The Israelites went figuratively through the midst of the sea (Exod 14:22; Isaiah 43:2 ). This is part of the symbolism of baptism, that we are figuratively united with Christ in His sufferings (cf. Psalm 42:7 ) when we go down into the waters, but they do not overwhelm us for we rise again, united with Him in His resurrection. 

It may be helpful to post again the comments of Presbyterian George Campbell on Matt 3:11:-


> *"In water"¦"¦in the Holy Spirit."* Vulgate, In aqua"¦"¦in spiritu Sancto. Thus also the Syriac and other ancient versions"¦"¦"¦.I am sorry to observe that the Popish translators from the Vulgate have shewn greater veneration for the style of that version than the generality of Protestant translators have shewn for that of the original. For in this the Latin is not more explicit than the Greek. Yet so inconsistent are the interpreters last mentioned, that none of them have scrupled to render _en to Iordana_ in the 6th verse, 'in Jordan', though nothing can be plainer than that, if there be any incongruity in the expression in water, this, in Jordan must be equally incongruous. But they have seen that the preposition "˜in´ could not be avoided there without adopting a circumlocution and saying, with the water of Jordan, which would have made their deviation from the text too glaring.
> 
> The word Baptizein, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, _tingere_, the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning. Thus it is, _en hudati, en to Iordane_. But I should not lay much stress on the preposition _en_, which"¦..may denote "˜with´ as well as "˜in´, did not the whole phraseology, in regard to this ceremony, concur in evincing the same thing. Accordingly the baptized are said, _anabainein_, "˜to arise, emerge, or ascend,' v16, _apo tou hudatos_, and Acts 8:39, _ek tou hudatos_, "˜from out of the water.´ Let it be observed further, that the verbs _raino_ and _rantizo_, used in Scripture for "˜sprinkling,´ are never construed in this manner. ´*I will sprinkle you with clear water*, says God, (Ezek 36:25 ), or as it runs in the English translation literally from the Hebrew, ´I will sprinkle clean water upon you', is in the Septuagint, _Rano ep´humas katharon hudor_, and not (as baptizo is always construed), _Rano humas en katharo hudati_. See also Exod 29:21; Lev 6:27, 16:14. Had _Baptizo_ been here employed in the sense of _raino_, "˜I sprinkle,´ (which as far as I know, it never is, in any use, sacred or classical) the expression would doubtless have been, _Ego men baptizo ep´humas hudor_, agreeably to the examples referred to.
> 
> When therefore the Greek word _baptizo_ is adopted, I may say, rather than translated into modern languages, the mode of construction ought to be preserved so far as may conduce to suggest its original import. It is to be regretted that we have so much evidence that even good and learned men allow their judgements to be warped by the sentiments and customs of the sect which they prefer. The true partisan, of whatever denomination, always inclines to correct the diction of the Spirit, by that of the party.



Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> From Francis Schaeffer's booklet on baptism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, concerning this matter of immersion only, we would remind you that it immersion is the only mode, then the catholicity of the sacraments is destroyed. The Lord's Supper obviously can be given anywhere. Sprinkling can be performed anywhere, but if baptism is by immersion only, there are many parts of the world in which Christians must be denied this sacrament. Those in the desert, those in the land of unending cold, and those on beds of sickness cannot be baptized by immersion, even if they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.spiritone.com/~wing/fs_bapt.htm
Click to expand...

Right on.

Martin: You try and skim right past this argument. You've got your head buried so far up your definition of bapto and baptizo that you miss the larger issue.

You need not surmise as to the water levels of Ancient Israel. Yes, the area is more arid than it once was but it was still an arid region at the time of Christ. As I stated earlier, homes were constructed to capture rain water during what little rain they had and it would flow into cisterns into the basements. This is because water was so scarce during many months of the year.

Given your prediliction to ignore such arguments, or to argue points of minutia while missing the big point, even if Israel was not arid then there would certainly be places/times where a baptismal font is impractical. You've obviously spent little or no time in the desert to dismiss this consideration as immaterial. Do you suppose the Israelites grumbled at Moses because they simply didn't have enough water to fill their swimming pools? Perhaps people can only be Christians if they live next to a large body of water?

Finally, I fail to understand why you, or others, keep arguing the suitability of immersion. NEWS FLASH: WE GRANT THAT IT IS VALID! What's the problem here: are you ignoring what others are writing or are you just being obtuse?

What I have yet to see positively presented is the exegesis that DEMANDS YOUR MODE. Put it forward or be honest _that you don't have one_ and you're just being obnoxious about impugning the liberty of other believers. If mode is so tightly regulated then present your case from more than a word study. 

It's easy to lob rocks and pick apart an argument out of context. Let me see your full-orbed defense of immersion as the only Biblically acceptable mode. A new thread might be nice.

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Trevor,

Here is the problem: Baptist immersion imperialism is my concern, not those arguing for liberty in the matter. I'm not robbing anybody of their Christian liberty in the matter. Many baptists are.

Try to remember that and it makes the issue of debate clearer. If you can prove from Scripture, and plain reason, that I have no liberty then I will reconsider.

In other words:

The Baptist Thesis: Immersion is the only Biblical acceptable mode of baptism.

*Prove it.*

The following militates against my acceptance of your thesis:

1. The Bible only gives enough information to hint at proper mode. 

2. Look at the Levitical rites: cleansing rites, sacrifice, the Passover, etc. are spelled out in clear detail. Are you telling me that the best you can do to claim that the only God-ordained mode of baptism rests upon circumstancial evidence?

3. I never appeal to extra-Biblical arguments to establish an imperialistic attitude about mode by which to judge your practice (remember I'm arguing for liberty and it will be much easier to remember you have to defend the fact you're stealing mine). They serve, rather, to get people to think through the practical consequences of a theological view.

4. From plain reason, the abundance of water is surely an issue. I'm not arguing for a difference in element - water is water. I'm stating a historical fact: water is scarce and was scarce in Israel. Imperialism over an immersive mode makes little sense given those Providential conditions. Have you been to the desert to understand the weight of why this could militate against such an idea?

5. If you are able to demonstrate conclusively from the Scriptures that God prescribed a mode then my argument about water availability is immaterial. I am waiting for that full-orbed defense of exclusive mode. Instead, proponents of exclusive mode are merely presenting the etymology of a Word, pointing to Greek Orthodox believers, and looking at circumstance to say to us: "See! That proves that God told us we have to immerse because, even though he didn't say we had to submerge our bodies, we hear about people near water and a word that means to dip or immerse is used. Thus, we know _for certain_ that immersion is in view and all other modes are precluded. Gosh, affusion might even be as bad as Roman Catholic baptism, I'll call you a brother on a board but I'm not sure about you joining my Church...." 

6. Not being persuaded by the argument, I state: "OK, you're hearing about a baptism next to water and you assume that because a certain word is used that the person must have been submerged. Do you realize how rare water was in that region? Might you want to re-think your assumption. Casting aside that you grew up believing that all sprinklers profoundly corrupt the rite, examine your "it's just GOT to be" assumption based on nothing more than narratives and a word study. If water was and is scarce in the place this rite was initiated, does militancy over mode start to become questionable. What about the uproar in Jerusalem that would occur if 3000 people fouled drinking water during a mass baptism on Pentecost? (ever been around a dusty, sweaty guy that doesn't shower much in the desert - I've been one and they're gross...)." None of these are conclusive but ought to give the person who has no "must be so" preconceptions pause concerning such CERTAINTY of mode.

In short, I haven't been convinced that "word studies" are important to this issue because I haven't been shown that God expresses concern over immersion in the Scriptures. In fact, baptism discusions in the Scripture center on spiritual, not physical, significance. "Baptist speak" on mode just doesn't seem to fit with the tenor of the Epistles - the Apostles don't even remotely echo your concern. Nowhere do I see the Apostles obsessing over the mode. 

Finally, Given the paucity of water in that region and, given quick corruption of practice in other areas, it is probable that some Church, not wanting to risk dying of thirst due to a lack of faith, might not empty all the cisterns in the basement of some believer's home so they could practice the rite properly (as you assume it). I can imagine a Baptist Paul saying: "O foolish Galatians! I wonder that you have forsaken the proper mode of baptism so quickly...." The words sound silly because they are dissonant with the Scriptures regarding Baptism. To conceive of an Apostle parroting the concerns of a modern Baptist sounds strange.

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## biblelighthouse

Very, very good points, Rich!

You have cut to the heart of the issue. The problem is that Baptists often play the "bait and switch" tactic in this debate. All of their arguments merely help demonstrate that immersion is *valid* (which is not even disputed). Then, once they have made their case, they then make the unwarranted leap that immersion is *required*. But there is a big gap between "valid" and "required". If immersion is required, then it is a SIN to baptize by any other mode, for ANY reason, regardless of whether a person is aged or infirm. But if sprinkling/pouring is ok for ANY reason, then the baptist loses his case.

And as an aside: Some Baptists love to make much of trying to force (and I mean force!) the Red Sea crossing into some kind of "immersion", since there was a whole lot of water on each side of the Israelites.

Therefore, how about if we just have a new convert stand between two tall containers of water, to mirror 1 Cor. 10:2, and then just _call_ it "immersion", like the Baptists call the Red Sea crossing an "immersion"? We could even make sure the people get wet, by sprinkling some water on them too (Ps. 77:17). 

Baptists: Would the above scenario make you happy? We could even use the word "immersion", since you think the Red Sea crossing was an immersion! 






[Edited on 2-24-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Mayflower

It's a very interessting discussion. Myself iam a paedobaptist believer. But i have a question for my paedobaptist brethern concerning the Didache :

Didache 7:1
But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. 

Didache 7:2
But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. 

Didache 7:3
But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. 

Didache 7:4
But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before. 

In this discription says nothing about infant bapism but only believers baptism (see 7:4) ? For the credo this is a prove of believers baptism ?

Those who hold only to immersion, what do they do with the Didache which says (7:3) to pour ? (if it would by some baptist not valid?)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> It's a very interessting discussion. Myself iam a paedobaptist believer. But i have a question for my paedobaptist brethern concerning the Didache :
> 
> Didache 7:1
> But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.
> 
> Didache 7:2
> But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
> 
> Didache 7:3
> But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Didache 7:4
> But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.
> 
> In this discription says nothing about infant bapism but only believers baptism (see 7:4) ? For the credo this is a prove of believers baptism ?
> 
> Those who hold only to immersion, what do they do with the Didache which says (7:3) to pour ? (if it would by some baptist not valid?)


Are you referring to the fact that it prescribes a fast for those that are baptized to assume only believer baptism is in order here?


----------



## Steve Owen

Rich, you wrote:-


> Here is the problem: Baptist immersion imperialism is my concern, not those arguing for liberty in the matter.


Where are these Baptist imperialists? Are there Immersion Police roaming the streets of Okinawa arresting unsuspecting Presbyterians and forcibly dunking them? When you go swimming, do Baptists suddenly surround you and force your head under water?

All Baptists have ever argued for is liberty Coercion in religion is (or should be) anathema to us all. We have suffered enough persecution to know better. However, we believe that God has given us an ordinance in sufficiently clear language for us to be able to obey it. Whether God actually _minds_ if people do not obey His commands as they are given is another question. Without doubt, the state of a man's heart is more important than his precise observation of ordinances (cf. Matt 23:23 ). But since we have the command and the ability to obey it, why would we want to tempt God by observing His ordinance in a way that He has not prescribed?

You wrote:-


> 4. From plain reason, the abundance of water is surely an issue. I'm not arguing for a difference in element - water is water. I'm stating a historical fact: water is scarce and was scarce in Israel.



One of the Reformed Baptist Churches supported financially by the Met Tab is in Gao, Mali. This is almost bang in the middle of the Sahara Desert. Mali makes Israel look like Ireland on a rainy day! Yet the church there observes the ordinance of God. Where there is a will to obey His commands a way will be found. We read of the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1ff) and the Pool of Siloam (9:7 ) in Jerusalem, both of which were used for bathing. Might there not have been others?

The word _Baptizo_ means to dip. End of story, really. In his desperation to deny this, Dr Church resorts to what appears to be a downright lie, saying that Judith 'baptized' herself in a 'horsetrough'. I cannot find any mention of a horsetrough in the Book of Judith. Presumably Dr Church didn't expect anyone to check up on his statements. His other attempts are no less weak. Luke 11:39 must be read in the light of Mark 7:2-3; it was the hands that the Pharisees believed should be 'baptized', that is, immersed in water, not the whole body.

There are the various other arguments in favour of immersion which I won't go over again. It is possible to nit-pick at each one if you're determined to do so. What I say is that taken as a whole they make an unanswerable case for immersion. But if you're determined to sprinkle, go ahead and be happy! It's not me you answer to. You are welcome to my church; welcome to take the Lord's Supper; welcome even to become a member. What we won't do, however is baptize you by sprinkling, because we dare not disregard what appears to us to be a clear ordinance of God which we are able to obey.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen

Joseph wrote:-


> And as an aside: Some Baptists love to make much of trying to force (and I mean force!) the Red Sea crossing into some kind of "immersion", since there was a whole lot of water on each side of the Israelites.


No forcing involved, brother! It is Moses and Paul, not I, who say that the crossing of the Red Sea was an immersion, albeit a figurative one! They went figuratively down in to the middle of the sea. As it is written, *'So the children of Isarael went into the midst of the sea on the dry ground.' 'Moreover brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea'* (Exod 14-22; 1Cor 10:1-2 ). What is unclear about that? And where does sprinkling come into it? 

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Rich, you wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the problem: Baptist immersion imperialism is my concern, not those arguing for liberty in the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Where are these Baptist imperialists? Are there Immersion Police roaming the streets of Okinawa arresting unsuspecting Presbyterians and forcibly dunking them? When you go swimming, do Baptists suddenly surround you and force your head under water?
> 
> All Baptists have ever argued for is liberty Coercion in religion is (or should be) anathema to us all. We have suffered enough persecution to know better. However, we believe that God has given us an ordinance in sufficiently clear language for us to be able to obey it. Whether God actually _minds_ if people do not obey His commands as they are given is another question. Without doubt, the state of a man's heart is more important than his precise observation of ordinances (cf. Matt 23:23 ). But since we have the command and the ability to obey it, why would we want to tempt God by observing His ordinance in a way that He has not prescribed?
Click to expand...

To state that Baptists allow liberty in such matters is so very naive as to not deserve an intelligent response. As they find themselves in the majority they are no longer the oppressed but the oppressors who, in large numbers, do not extend the right hand of fellowship to anyone who is not immersed. Even John Piper's Church will not. The issue is not what God has PRESCRIBED. The issue is what Baptists have prescribed.


> The word _Baptizo_ means to dip. End of story, really. In his desperation to deny this, Dr Church resorts to what appears to be a downright lie, saying that Judith 'baptized' herself in a 'horsetrough'. I cannot find any mention of a horsetrough in the Book of Judith. Presumably Dr Church didn't expect anyone to check up on his statements. His other attempts are no less weak. Luke 11:39 must be read in the light of Mark 7:2-3; it was the hands that the Pharisees believed should be 'baptized', that is, immersed in water, not the whole body.


I am floored that you cannot read a 50 page pamphlet without misrepresenting the author's position on Judith. You don't even have to read 50 pages to know that you either cannot read a few simple sentences without mis-stating his argument with respect to Judith. How can you get something so simple so wrong? It is really quite alarming.

Please quote Church directly in the matter of how he argues the case of Judith and exegete him. Convince everybody that Church is saying what you state he is saying above. I challenge you to demonstrate how poorly you just handled what Church said regarding Judith. It seems to me that unless you show yourself faithful in a small thing that you are not a trustworthy source for more important things. I was leaving this issue alone until you brought up Church and Judith again. You get him COMPLETELY wrong.

Yet again, I'm not interested in hearing again that you baptize because baptizo means to dip. You sound like a broken record. I'm waiting for your defense of credo-Baptistic imperialism. That's exactly what it is when you call other modes false without a defense other than some lame "baptizo means immerse, baptizo means immerse, infinity...." defense.


> There are the various other arguments in favour of immersion which I won't go over again. It is possible to nit-pick at each one if you're determined to do so. What I say is that taken as a whole they make an unanswerable case for immersion.


But of course they do Martin. You wouldn't believe anything based on a misunderstanding of what you read.


> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin


And to you. I wish I knew your real name. Yet once again, I wish you would fairly represent your opponents. You have established a regular pattern of obfuscating and never admitting a single mis-reading or error in your understanding on any issue that I'm aware of on this board. Please show the integrity to admit your error on Church's representation of Judith.

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen

From Dr Church's book.


> This is illustrated in the case we have mentioned from the book of Judith. She washed herself at the horse trough by sprinkling, but the historian calls it baptism.



Go to the apocryphal book of Judith and see if you can find a horse trough mentioned. She went out of the camp each night to the valley of Bethunia to the spring there and 'baptized' herself. No horse trough. The evidence that the spring contained enough water to baptize herself in is that it provided the water for the whole 'Assyrian' army.

If you want to discuss any other portions of Dr Church's book, post them on the thread so that everyone can see them.

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> In the writings that existed before and at the time of Christ, we find a number of references to the matter of baptism. In the book of Judith (that is one of the Apocryphal books which was written in the 400 year period between the closing of the Old Testament and the coming of Christ), we find the record of how Judith went out and baptized herself every day for a number of days at the horse trough, in order to deceive a king. The writer of this book calls it baptism and it was done by sprinkling. We also find that Josephus, a great Jewish historian, who lived about the same time as Christ, used the word baptize in his writings, and he plainly tells us that it was done by sprinkling. I merely mention these two instances in order to point out to you that the matter of baptism was no new thing to the Jews at the time of Christ. They were perfectly familiar with the practice and looked upon it as a part of their religion. We need to keep this truth in mind if we are to have any clear understanding of the subject. John did not start something new. If he had he would have gotten into plenty of trouble with the Jews of that day.





> This is illustrated in the case we have mentioned from the book of Judith. She washed herself at the horse trough by sprinkling, but the historian calls it baptism. Josephus tells us of people that were baptized and he says it was done by sprinkling, and yet he uses the Greek word baptizo in speaking of it. These two illustrations show us how the word was used by reliable Jewish writers at that time. It is not used in its classical sense but has a different meaning. It conveyed a definite idea to the minds of the people in the days of Christ. When they heard and used the word they were thinking of cleansing or purification, regardless of how it might be done. Now this is the meaning we are most concerned about. We are not so much interested in how Socrates used it and what it meant to him, but we are very much concerned about how Jesus used it and what it meant to the people that heard him speak.


I leave it to people who can read plain English to understand the point he's trying to make.

Once again, you're taking trips to debate the color of the grass and getting off the road.

Can you provide me a Greek copy of the Book of Judith so I can determine what the word spring is being translated from? I found the verses he's referring to. Even if it's a spring, it doesn't change a single point as to what Josephus says about her, how the word is used, AND WHY CHURCH BRINGS IT UP.

Now tell us all Martin: What is Dr. Church's point? Is his point to debate whether Judith immersed herself? Is this the main point of his argument that you feel you have so deftly answered?

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen

One of the problems of Church's book is that he gives no references. If I had not taken the trouble to look up the Book of Judith, I would not have known that he was being disingenuous (not to use a stronger word!). No, I don't have a Greek version of the Apocrypha, but I have three English versions and none of them mention a horse trough!

Having caught Dr Church out once, I am not inclined to believe him concerning Josephus. I don't recall having read of baptism by sprinkling in his works. Can someone find the reference?

With regard to the Jews being acquainted with baptism, he is right, but not for the reason he states. By the time of our Lord's earthly minisry, Jewish Proselyte baptism seems to have been introduced, and guess what? It was by immersion!  (cf. Edersheim, _The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_ Appendix XII. 'On the Baptism of Proselytes.' I provide evidence for my claims!).

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> One of the problems of Church's book is that he gives no references. If I had not taken the trouble to look up the Book of Judith, I would not have known that he was being disingenuous (not to use a stronger word!). No, I don't have a Greek version of the Apocrypha, but I have three English versions and none of them mention a horse trough!
> 
> Having caught Dr Church out once, I am not inclined to believe him concerning Josephus. I don't recall having read of baptism by sprinkling in his works. Can someone find the reference?
> 
> With regard to the Jews being acquainted with baptism, he is right, but not for the reason he states. By the time of our Lord's earthly minisry, Jewish Proselyte baptism seems to have been introduced, and guess what? It was by immersion!  (cf. Edersheim, _The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_ Appendix XII. 'On the Baptism of Proselytes.' I provide evidence for my claims!).
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin


This is par for the course for you Martin. Dodge, obfuscate, never admit an error. Insofar as others find your methods persuasive I'll let you convince them. That you cannot handle two paragraphs faithfully reveals much.

Oh, and by the way, Edersheim was a Presbyterian!

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen

> This is par for the course for you Martin. Dodge, obfuscate, never admit an error. Insofar as others find your methods persuasive I'll let you convince them. That you cannot handle two paragraphs faithfully reveals much.



Rich, stop huffing and puffing! What am I dodging? Where am I obfuscating? I have caught Church out in a clear error (again, I use no stronger word), and therefore I want to see some evidence before I believe him in anything else. That does not seem unreasonable to me. _ Liddell & Scott_ is the most complete and authoritative secular Greek lexicon and I did not see a reference to Josephus and sprinkling in it. But I will look again, and if I'm wrong, I will come back and say so.


> Oh, and by the way, Edersheim was a Presbyterian!



Well, no one's perfect!  But do you think he's telling the truth about Jewish Proselyte baptism? Or are you going to dodge and obfuscate about that?

BTW, Church wrote:-


> We also find that Josephus, a great Jewish historian, who lived about the same time as Christ, used the word baptize in his writings,


Josephus was born in 37 or 38AD, some years after the Ascension of our Lord, and died in about 100AD.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> We also find that Josephus, a great Jewish historian, who lived about the same time as Christ, used the word baptize in his writings,
> 
> 
> 
> Josephus was born in 37 or 38AD, some years after the Ascension of our Lord, and died in about 100AD.
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...

Before this quote, I was convinced you were being obtuse. Now I see how utterly reasonable you are. What a liar Church is. To ascribe that somebody who lived in the same century that Christ lived was"...about the same time as Christ..." *completely* misrepresents the truth. I mean, really, Joshephus was born 4-8 years after the ascension. What _was_ he thinking?! He was probably about the same age as Timothy. What would _he_ know about Greek?!

I take everything back I said. You don't dodge or obfuscate at all!

Ladies and gentlemen, the arguments of Martin Marprelate (or whatever his real name is).

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Oh, and I've read many of Edersheim's works including the one cited. They are outstanding. I trust his scholarship. Read a bit further in his treatment of proselyte baptism about _their children_. Of course, that's off limits for you...

I believe Edersheim and the way he represents proselyte baptism. Nevertheless, a Rabbinical rule concerning the mode of cleansing or washings doesn't mean that all cleansings or washings were performed in that way. Not all cleansings were immersions. Another point you would not have missed if you had represented Church's work properly.

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Joseph wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> And as an aside: Some Baptists love to make much of trying to force (and I mean force!) the Red Sea crossing into some kind of "immersion", since there was a whole lot of water on each side of the Israelites.
> 
> 
> 
> No forcing involved, brother! It is Moses and Paul, not I, who say that the crossing of the Red Sea was an immersion, albeit a figurative one! They went figuratively down in to the middle of the sea. As it is written, *'So the children of Isarael went into the midst of the sea on the dry ground.' 'Moreover brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea'* (Exod 14-22; 1Cor 10:1-2 ).
Click to expand...


Where do Moses and Paul say that the crossing of the Red Sea was an immersion?

And where do they say it was figurative?

You have not demonstrated your point in either case. Moses and Paul never call it an immersion, and they never say it was figurative.

When Peter (in 1 Peter 3:20-21) refers to the type of baptism Noah experienced, Peter explicitly says it figuratively, calling it a "type" of baptism. But in 1 Corinthians 10:2, Paul simply says that the Israelites were baptized. He doesn't say that it was figurative.

And he NEVER calls it an immersion.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> What is unclear about that? And where does sprinkling come into it?



It is only unclear in your head, not mine. 1 Cor. 10:2 is solid proof that baptism need not have anything to do with immersion. 



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> And where does sprinkling come into it?



Right here:
'Moreover brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were *under the cloud*, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses *in the cloud* and in the sea' (Exod 14-22; 1Cor 10:1-2 ). 

What is the significance of their baptism under/in the "cloud"? Just read Psalm 77:17-20 --- "*The clouds poured out water* . . . You led Your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron."

God was sprinkling the Israelites in their baptism!


----------



## Mayflower

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> It's a very interessting discussion. Myself iam a paedobaptist believer. But i have a question for my paedobaptist brethern concerning the Didache :
> 
> Didache 7:1
> But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.
> 
> Didache 7:2
> But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
> 
> Didache 7:3
> But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Didache 7:4
> But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.
> 
> In this discription says nothing about infant bapism but only believers baptism (see 7:4) ? For the credo this is a prove of believers baptism ?
> 
> Those who hold only to immersion, what do they do with the Didache which says (7:3) to pour ? (if it would by some baptist not valid?)
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the fact that it prescribes a fast for those that are baptized to assume only believer baptism is in order here?
Click to expand...


Yes, and iam asking this because i heard that argument from a credobaptist to prove their vieuw.


----------



## Steve Owen

Rich wrote:-


> Oh, and I've read many of Edersheim's works including the one cited. They are outstanding. I trust his scholarship. Read a bit further in his treatment of proselyte baptism about their children. Of course, that's off limits for you...


I'm glad we can agree about Edersheim, but as usual you have missed the point completely. Jewish Proselyte baptism is found nowhere in the Bible. It has nothing to say to us whatsoever about how Christians should conduct baptisms and whether children should be included. I mentioned it solely to show that, as Dr Church said, the Jews would have been familiar with the concept of baptism, *but baptism by immersion.*

The Jews were also familiar with all sorts of sprinklings, *but these are never called baptisms* for the very good reason that they do not include immersion.


Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen

Joseph asked:-


> Where do Moses and Paul say that the crossing of the Red Sea was an immersion?


Moses doesn't, but Paul does. He describes it as a baptism!


> And where do they say it was figurative?


It is clearly figurative because they didn't get wet.

Your allusion to Psalm 77 is interesting, but smacks rather of desperation. Like most (?) commentators, I think the allusion to the cloud in 1Cor 10 is to the Shekinah glory contained in the cloud mentioned in Exod 13:22 and 14:19-20. I think it means a little more than that it was raining at the time!

_Baptizo_ is frequently used in a figurative sense. To try to be fair to Dr Church, I spent some time this afternoon trying to find a use by Josephus of _baptizo_ meaning 'sprinkle.' Almost needless to say, I failed. However, I did find some interesting usages of _baptizo_. Plutarch speaks of someone being _'Baptized in debt'_. We might say, 'Over his ears in debt!' And I did find one quote from Josephus. He speaks of thousands of Israelites who _'ebaptisen ten polin'_, 'flooded into the city', to escape the Roman armies.

So there are figurative meanings of _baptizo_. But they all seem to have the sense of flooding or drowning. If anyone can find a clear, documented example of _baptizo_ being used in the sense of 'trickling' or 'sprinkling', I shall genuinely be interested to hear it.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> If anyone can find a clear, documented example of baptizo being used in the sense of 'trickling' or 'sprinkling', I shall genuinely be interested to hear it.


Numbers 19:11


> He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days: [12] the same shall purify himslef therewith on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify himself not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean. [13] Whosoever toucheth a dead person, the body of a man thathath died, and purifieth not himslef, defileth the tabernacle of Jehovah; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: _because the water for impurity was not *sprinkled* upon him,_ he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.


The like language is extended and repeated until verse 22 (end of chapter).

Now take a look at extra-biblical, contemporaneous, pre-Christian literature, again from the Apocrypha, Siriach (or Ecclesiasticus) 31:25 (34:25 in English versions):

"*Baptizomenos* (nom. s. m. pres. mid/pass participle of *baptizo*) apo nekrou, kai palin aptomenos autou, ti wfelhse tw loutrw autou?"

"*He that washeth himself* after touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing?"


I'll work on further investigation of the purported Josephus references but I do not have him in Greek at the moment.

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Steve Owen

Doh! 
Well done, Bruce! It's a fair cop!
The voice in my head told me I was setting myself up, but I didn't listen.

I will just point out that the writers of the Septuagint translated Num 19:11 correctly; they used _raino_, 'to sprinkle.'

However, I'm happy to amend my former comment. I wrote:-


> The Jews were also familiar with all sorts of sprinklings, but these are never called baptisms for the very good reason that they do not include immersion.


I withdraw this comment, and substitute:-
*The Jews were also familiar with all sorts of sprinklings, but these are almost never called baptisms for the very good reason that they do not include immersion.*

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> I withdraw this comment, and substitute:-
> *The Jews were also familiar with all sorts of sprinklings, but these are almost never called baptisms for the very good reason that they do not include immersion.*



Thus, according to your own admission, a "baptism" is not *always* an immersion. When you say that something other than immersion is "almost never" called a baptism, you therefore admit that *some* baptisms are by affusion.

Thus, you defeat your own case. Unless you can demonstrate that *100%* of baptisms are by immersion, you lose this debate.

From the beginning, we have agreed that immersions are valid. We just didn't appreciate you claiming that a baptism MUST be immersion, 100% of the time, no matter what. 

So thank you for your concession. The word "baptism" does NOT always mean immerse. Amen!


----------



## Steve Owen

Hi Joseph,
I wrote earlier:-


> There are the various other arguments in favour of immersion which I won't go over again. It is possible to nit-pick at each one if you're determined to do so. What I say is that taken as a whole they make an unanswerable case for immersion. But if you're determined to sprinkle, go ahead and be happy! It's not me you answer to. You are welcome to my church; welcome to take the Lord's Supper; welcome even to become a member. What we won't do, however is baptize you by sprinkling, because we dare not disregard what appears to us to be a clear ordinance of God which we are able to obey.



I don't see any reason to alter that statement. I have spent quite some time looking at extra-biblical usages of _baptizo_. Warriors 'baptize' their swords in each other, ships are 'baptized' in the sea when they sink, and so on. I could not find a single instance of _baptizo_ meaning 'sprinkle,' and I did look quite hard. Now Bruce has found one that might mean that, and well done to him. But whatever the reason for it, it cannot obscure the fact that the overwhelming usage of _baptizo_ is 'immerse' and it will not do so even if two or three more might be found.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hi Joseph,
> I wrote earlier:-
> 
> 
> 
> There are the various other arguments in favour of immersion which I won't go over again. It is possible to nit-pick at each one if you're determined to do so. What I say is that taken as a whole they make an unanswerable case for immersion. But if you're determined to sprinkle, go ahead and be happy! It's not me you answer to. You are welcome to my church; welcome to take the Lord's Supper; welcome even to become a member. What we won't do, however is baptize you by sprinkling, because we dare not disregard what appears to us to be a clear ordinance of God which we are able to obey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any reason to alter that statement. I have spent quite some time looking at extra-biblical usages of _baptizo_. Warriors 'baptize' their swords in each other, ships are 'baptized' in the sea when they sink, and so on. I could not find a single instance of _baptizo_ meaning 'sprinkle,' and I did look quite hard. Now Bruce has found one that might mean that, and well done to him. But whatever the reason for it, it cannot obscure the fact that the overwhelming usage of _baptizo_ is 'immerse' and it will not do so even if two or three more might be found.
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...



Sorry, Martin, but you need an introductory course both in logic an hermeneutics.

I do not grant that the meaning of baptizo is overwhelmingly "immersion". But even if I did, it wouldn't matter, because *all it takes is one counterexample to ruin your argument.*

It doesn't make any difference whether the division is 20/80, 50/50, 80/20, 99/1, or 99.9/.01. *If you cannot prove that a "baptism" is an "immersion" 100% of the time, then you lose the argument.*

As I have pointed out from the beginning, a baptism by immersion is valid. A baptism by sprinkling is also valid. A baptism by pouring is also valid. --- You cannot contest this, unless you prove that "baptism" MUST always mean immersion, in every case, 100% of the time. 

If you cannot meet this standard of proof, then your argument falls flat, and you are guilty of binding people's consciences where they should not be bound.


And, I repeat: Neither Moses nor Paul EVER call the Red Sea crossing/baptism an "immersion". Rather, YOU are the one who *assumes* that "baptism" must mean "immersion" in 1 Cor. 10:2. But that is a logical fallacy: You are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove.

Thus, my arguments stands. 1 Cor. 10:2 is solid Scriptural proof that a baptism need not be immersion.

And, I might add, there is _not even one_ place in Scripture where a baptism is _necessarily_ immersion. Not even one! There are some places where it _could_ be immersion, but there is no way to know for sure.

Like I said: *you are guilty of binding people's consciences where they should not be bound.*


----------



## Steve Owen

No.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Sorry guys,
> 
> I am watching from the side lines and am appreciating the very, very good points made by both sides...but I have withdrawn myself from this discussion because, quite frankly, I find myself getting ticked off. I run the danger of giving off as much heat as light here. So....bless you guys in your quarrel (which is what this is turning into), I am withdrawing....


Trevor,

I respect that. Let me tell you why I have been so strident with Martin.

Go back and read much of the strain of this thread. I even tried, in a very detailed way to express one simple issue of debate - we grant that baptizo usually means immerse but you cannot leap from the meaning of a word to presume a mode.

I confess, truthfully, that Martin irks me. The example of arguing whether Josephus lived around the time of Christ is a perfect example of why. I cannot understand why he brings things like that up. It's just silly.

That would be OK if, for once, someone would either grant the point or produce what is asked. How can one get from the meaning of a word to prescribe that immersion is the only acceptable passage.

I mean, really, it's easy for someone not paying attention to lose track of that in all the repeated insistances that baptizo can never mean anything other than immerse. At the end of the day, God nowhere says "you must immerse your body to have a proper baptism...." Where is the argument?

So, please, please, Baptists do us all a favor...we grant that baptizo usually means immerse. I mean the horse is so well beaten on that issue that it is a pulp on the floor that people are slipping all over.

Let's all grant for a moment that baptizo can mean nothing other than immerse: how does that prove the point that the immersion of a body is the only acceptable mode where the Scriptures nowhere either say "so and so immersed their body" or "thou shalt immerse your body."

Without this argument, the reason for all the heat is the unwillingness of Baptists to be fair to our argument. It is uncharitable to refuse your brother an answer to his sincere question and keep poking him in the eye with points that he grants. Insofar as, after a time, he begins to grow weary of rudeness when he is asking you a question, one can be upset when he pokes you in the chest and says "Answer me darnit" but don't be surprised by it. 

Insofar as my frustration occassionally jumps to sinful anger, however, I ask both you and Martin to forgive me. I still want answers to my questions (because I attend a Baptist Church) but it doesn't mean I should put you in an arm bar when you refuse to answer. 

[Edited on 2-25-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Trying to close the loop on this whole "horse trough" controversy. I cannot find the Greek Septuagint version of the Judith 12:6-10 but here is the Vulgate:


> 6 et praecepit cubiculariis suis ut sicut placeret illi exiret et introiret ad orandum Deum suum per triduum 7 et exiebat noctibus in vallem Bethuliae et baptizabat se in *fontem* aquae 8 et ut ascendebat orabat Dominum Deum Israhel ut dirigeret viam eius ad liberationem populi sui 9 et introiens munda manebat in tabernaculum usque dum acciperet escam suam in vesperam 10 et factum est quarto die Holofernis fecit cenam servis suis et dixit ad Bagao eunuchum vade et suade Hebraeam illam ut sponte consentiat habitare mecum


Here is the English:


> [6] And sent to Holofernes, saving, Let my lord now command that thine handmaid may go forth unto prayer.
> [7] Then Holofernes commanded his guard that they should not stay her: thus she abode in the camp three days, and went out in the night into the valley of Bethulia, and washed herself in a fountain of water by the camp.
> [8] And when she came out, she besought the Lord God of Israel to direct her way to the raising up of the children of her people.
> [9] So she came in clean, and remained in the tent, until she did eat her meat at evening.
> [10] And in the fourth day Holofernes made a feast to his own servants only, and called none of the officers to the banquet.


The Latin word above is small spring or fountain. Keep in mind also that Judith "bathed" in a spring at a camp, under guard.

OK. So I'm thinking: "Martin has a point here. Where does Dr. Church get this horse trough idea?" (After all, I'm not unreasonable and want to grant points when I can).

Now, HERE IS WHERE IT GET'S INTERESTING. Look at what I found:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/d.d.s/letters.html

Edmund B. Fairfield was apparently some minister in the 19th Century who was originally a prominent Baptist commissioned to defend immersion. He ended up being convinced otherwise. His story is unimportant but check this portion out from his Letters on Baptism:


> The very next instance to which I call your attention is one in which the cleansing was in some other manner than by dipping. It is found in the book of Judith, and shows conclusively that the word baptizo was used to express the general idea of ritual purification, and that, too, in a case where immersion is excluded with well nigh absolute certainty.
> 
> Allow me briefly to recapitulate the circumstances as they are given in this book-which is properly placed in the Apocrypha, but which was written, as generally understood, about two hundred years before Christ; and whether the book is historical or fictitious makes no difference in illustrating the use of the word baptizo,
> 
> As the story runs, there was a war between the Assyrians and the Medes. Holofernes was the commander-in-chief of the Assyrian army, and led them forth to a war of conquest determined to compel all to submit to Nebuchadnezzar, the Assyrian king, and even to render him divine worship. In his progress he approached the land of Israel. The Jews prepared to resist him. They were in Bethulia and were rapidly coming into great distress.
> 
> Judith, a Jewish widow, planned deliverance for her country by a piece of superb strategy. Making herself as attractive as possible by reason of her personal beauty and her splendid attire, she went with her maid to the camp of Holoferncs, pretending to take refuge there against the certain destruction which was speedily to overtake her people. In reality she had gone to the camp of the Assyrians for the purpose of getting Holofernes intoxicated and of taking his life, and so raising the siege and delivering her country.
> 
> So well did she play her part that the king was deceived by "her beauty of face and wisdom of words," and a tent was assigned to her and her maid. She remained in the camp three days, and having obtained permission to go out for prayer she went forth by night into the valley of Bethulia and purified herself (ebaptizeto') in the camp at the fountain of water. And entering in pure (kathara) she remained in the tent till one brought her food in the evening. (Judith 12: 6, 7, 9.)
> 
> This was evidently in form a religious purification. It was in the camp. It was under the eye of the guard. It was at a "fountain" (pege)-"a spring"-not a lake. She purified herself at the fountain, not in it. The Greek preposition is epi. It was, I repeat, within the camp. It was not a natural place for immersion. No lady would have been at all likely to immerse herself in such a place, even had there been facilities for it, which is not at all probable *(though one Baptist writer, in his zeal for his theory, suggests that she might have found a horse-trough large enough for the purpose).*
> 
> "But why should she leave her tent for a purification other than immersion; and why at night?" To this objection several answers may be made.
> 
> First, it may be said that as a Jewess, accustomed to the use of running water in all ritual cleansing, she would naturally choose water which had not gone through any uncircumcised hands, and which had not in any ceremonial way become unclean. This she could find only at the fountain itself.
> 
> Secondly, it may be said that she had her own special reasons for this walk to the fountain at night. She had laid a deep plot. Before she got through with it she intended to get into her possession the head of the Assyrian general and to carry it back with her to the besieged city. So she went forth night after night, and returned again, until all suspicion had been allayed and the opportune moment had come. It was not till the fourth night that she could accomplish her mission and return with the head of Holofernes.
> 
> Reasons enough may be suggested for her going to the fountain, and going at night, without adopting the utterly improbable theory that it was for the purpose of immersion- a theory supported only by the assumption that the word baptizo means immerse and nothing else. Understanding it to express the general idea of ceremonial purification by water, all is easy.
> 
> It might be added that as the professed purpose of her going to the fountain was for religious purification, and as the purification of the Jews was almost always by sprinkling, it is not at all probable that she would immerse herself, even could she have done so with perfect facility. But this would be to anticipate what will be said more fully hereafter.


Did you catch that bolded part?

First, I might note that, per my original point above, Fairfield makes a pretty convincing argument that the idea that Judith bathed (immersed) in open camp in front of her guards is just not credible. Secondly, he brings up some reference to an un-named *BAPTIST* minister who posited the horse-trough theory.

Here is what I'm guessing: I think Church read and was influenced by Fairfield's work. I think he borrowed this argument about Judith from Fairfield and included the horse trough in error. The other theory is that the "horse-trough" theory from that un-named Baptist minister affected Church through either his writings or others parroting the idea. Insofar as Church repeated it, he was sloppy but I doubt used intentionally to deceive.

You need only read Fairfield's account to see how convincing the argument is without the trough (in fact, the trough gives the Baptist an "out"). Notice also that Fairfield quotes the Greek words to leave little doubt she was _at_ and not _in_ the Spring because I'm absolutely convinced some are so desperate that they would think Judith would bathe in open sight if the Greek didn't keep them from doing so.

Thus, Martin, I agree with you that Church erred on this point but it doesn't do anything for your case. The irony of this is that you helped me find out that it was a Baptist that first posited the Judith "horse-trough bathing" theory.

[Edited on 2-25-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## biblelighthouse

Excellent work, Rich!! 


Poor ole Martin has been too zealous for his own good. Just let him do his magic a few more times, and before you know it, he will help us uncover and refute all kinds of Baptist error that has weaved its way into the church.
:bigsmile:



Martin, thank you for helping Rich uncover the Baptist "horse trough" error.


----------



## Steve Owen

> 7 et exiebat noctibus in vallem Bethuliae et baptizabat se in *fontem* aquae.
> 
> The Latin word above is small spring or fountain.


I'm not sure whether it's wise to nit-pick excessively here, but the Latin quote took me back 30 years to when I was studying the language. _Fontem_ is the accusative of _fons_.

From the Odes of Horace, Book 3, Ode XIII.


> 'O fons Bandusiae, splendidior vitre!'
> 'O fountain (or waters) of Bandusia, more splendid than glass!'



Horace goes on to speak of 'wandering flocks' and 'the plough weary ox' being cooled by its waters, and a cavern beneath which its 'garrulous waters cascade.'
_Fons_ does not mean a 'small spring.' Horace uses the word _fonticulus_ for that. a 'Fons' is a natural spring and the waters produced thereby. Since this particular 'fons' is 'more splendid than glass', the suggestion is (and I've never been to Bandusia!) that the spring forms a glittering lake before it 'cascades' down a hill. There is no reason to suppose that the 'fons' in Judith is the same, but it does appear that it was the water source for an army, so it must have been substantial. 

Rich, I'm glad that you concede that Church is 'in error.' As regards the 'unnamed Baptist minister,' how come paedo-baptists never attribute their sources? If I hadn't taken the trouble to look up the Apocrypha to check Church out, you and Joseph would have been telling everyone that Judith Baptized herself in a horse trough!



> I confess, truthfully, that Martin irks me.


Well, I regret that, brother, but some of what you post irritates me. I suppose we'll have to put up with each other.



> The example of arguing whether Josephus lived around the time of Christ is a perfect example of why. I cannot understand why he brings things like that up. It's just silly.


You might think that, but I don't. Josephus did not live at the time of our Lord on earth, and he wrote around 80AD, fifty years after the Ascension. It is an example of Church's sloppiness to which I draw attention. There are several others, which I shall list if I get time. The man is not a serious witness.

Your Mr Fairfield is no better. He writes:-


> It was at a "fountain" (pege)-"a spring"-not a lake.


For what it's worth, _Pege_ can mean the source of a river, or even the waters of a river according to _Liddell & Scott_.

Rich also wrote:-


> Go back and read much of the strain of this thread. I even tried, in a very detailed way to express one simple issue of debate - we grant that baptizo usually means immerse but you cannot leap from the meaning of a word to presume a mode.


I am glad to hear you agree that _Baptizo_ usually means 'Immerse.' In the light of my studies, I would go further and say it almost always means 'immerse.' Now if you think, in view of that, that when you baptize someone, you don't need to immerse them, then carry on, brother. I truly have no more to say. If the plain meaning of the word does not bind your conscience to obey it, what can I say? Sprinkle away!

That is not to say that there is not a whole lot of other evidence to show that the NT baptisms were by immersion. There certainly is, but for me, the meaning of the word is paramount. It may well be that the Lord doesn't mind how you baptize, but I personally, *without binding anyone else's conscience*, do not care to take the risk.

Let me end by repeating that I did not start this thread, nor any other thread on the mode of baptism. I have purely been concerned to try to answer the points made by Rich and Joseph. If I've not answered all your points, Rich, I'm sorry. Sometimes the thread moves on and arguments get missed. If you want to bring something that I missed to my attention again, please do so; otherwise I'm finished on this thread.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 2-26-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Rich, I'm glad that you concede that Church is 'in error.' As regards the 'unnamed Baptist minister,' how come paedo-baptists never attribute their sources? If I hadn't taken the trouble to look up the Apocrypha to check Church out, you and Joseph would have been telling everyone that Judith Baptized herself in a horse trough!


1. I don't think Fairfield really thought the identity of the Baptist minister was important. If you recall, by his bio, he was once a Baptist minister himself. Really, Martin, must you always seek to sully the reputation of some dead Saint that cannot defend himself over what is most likely a harmless omission? It's just petty.

He does seem genuinely concerned about someone drawing the "horse-trough" theory because he doesn't want to give any Baptist an excuse for arguing she might have had occassion to take a bath under cover without being seen so that she could immerse herself. Read the arguments again - he's defending against the horse-trough theory right after he introduces it. Why put a potential argument into your opponents' hands? You don't seem to think this through before you get bent out of shape. I mean, who really cares what the Baptist minister's name is? Do I need to perform another search? Maybe I'll find out he was so well known at the time Fairfield wrote this that he doesn't need to be named to the person he's writing the letters to. Maybe I won't. What difference does it make to the argument except to give you opportunity to soil the reputation of a Saint over a petty issue? Seriously, if you want me to try to find the identity of that Baptist minister I'll do my best. Do you really need to know?


2. I didn't even notice the horse trough thing until _you pointed it out_!  I didn't think _where_ she baptized herself to be an issue in the account. I skipped right over that because it was an insignificant detail (like the color of her hair). The issue was that she was in a camp, under guard - horse trough, a spring, or the largest lake in the known world - no Jewess is going to strip down and immerse her entire body every night in plain sight! Criminy! If Church had mentioned that her hair was red, which wasn't in the account but was some detail he accidentally included in error, I wonder if you would be picking on that detail thinking that hair color is something I would care about. I cared not about the horse trough, but, while everybody else was walking by it as an interesting but useless detail, you were tripping over it and angry that your shins were bruised. I was trying to find out why that horse trough was there. I was hoping that once the horse trough was out of your way and you didn't have that to complain about you might consider the larger argument about bathing. I was wrong. You found another "pretty pony" to be distracted by.


> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I confess, truthfully, that Martin irks me.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I regret that, brother, but some of what you post irritates me. I suppose we'll have to put up with each other.
Click to expand...

 I'm _quite_ sure of that. I am content to put up with each other Martin. In truth, I imagine in person we would get along grandly. I bear you no ill will. We'll just have to agree to occassionally irritate (though not intentionally). 


> The example of arguing whether Josephus lived around the time of Christ is a perfect example of why. I cannot understand why he brings things like that up. It's just silly.
> 
> 
> 
> You might think that, but I don't. Josephus did not live at the time of our Lord on earth, and he wrote around 80AD, fifty years after the Ascension. It is an example of Church's sloppiness to which I draw attention. There are several others, which I shall list if I get time. The man is not a serious witness.
Click to expand...

Still not credible. The issue of whether Josephus lived at precisely the time of Christ is not in question. Most historians consider somebody that wrote within half a century of events to be quite current and "around the time of". I find this argument to be one to divert readers from the attention of why Josephus is brought into the argument - namely to show that "...here's a Jew, he wrote about Jews, and he said that most baptisms (cleansings) were performed by sprinkling...." It's not as if his argument stands or falls on whether Josephus actually met Christ or lived the exact same time. He lived around the time of Christ in the same way that Timothy did. Church's article is to the educated, after all, do you really think he was trying to hoodwink other scholars into believing Josephus was a peer of Christ?! (Who's this Josephus guy, never heard of him. Well if Church says he lived at that time then it's good enough for me!) To argue this point, frankly, makes you sound desperate to most. I think you ought to try and argue more substantive points.


> Your Mr Fairfield is no better. He writes:-
> 
> 
> 
> It was at a "fountain" (pege)-"a spring"-not a lake.
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, _Pege_ can mean the source of a river, or even the waters of a river according to _Liddell & Scott_.
Click to expand...

Your problem is that you move _out of context_ to look something up and then criticize the man as if he's saying _pege_ always means spring. He never claims it. He even gives you the Greek word. That's more than we had before! He only says it's not a lake. Do you realize how obnoxious it would be if I, or others, started picking apart every word you said when it had nothing to do with what you were saying? I could do a word study on each word of your last critique to show you how you might have written what you said better. After a while you'd say: "You're missing my point by picking apart my words. Please stop and listen to my argument. I know you know what I'm trying to say. Why are you constantly breaking up my train of thought?" The _pege_, whatever it was, was in the middle of the camp. Again, you seem desperate in arguing this. You don't interact with the issue that she's under guard, you don't interact with the way that a Jewess cleansed herself with "living" water, you don't interact with the argument at all really. Instead, you seem petty as you pick apart a single word usage. I don't know why you're afraid to be gracious toward a man who is making an argument. I begin to suspect you are afraid to deal with his real argument, preferring sidesteps into meaningless disputes that don't affect the force of the argument because you might end up being convinced or you are hoping to derail any influence the argument might have on others that don't have your acumen at picking nits.


> Rich also wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read much of the strain of this thread. I even tried, in a very detailed way to express one simple issue of debate - we grant that baptizo usually means immerse but you cannot leap from the meaning of a word to presume a mode.
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad to hear you agree that _Baptizo_ usually means 'Immerse.' In the light of my studies, I would go further and say it almost always means 'immerse.' Now if you think, in view of that, that when you baptize someone, you don't need to immerse them, then carry on, brother. I truly have no more to say. If the plain meaning of the word does not bind your conscience to obey it, what can I say? Sprinkle away!
> 
> That is not to say that there is not a whole lot of other evidence to show that the NT baptisms were by immersion. There certainly is, but for me, the meaning of the word is paramount. It may well be that the Lord doesn't mind how you baptize, but I personally, *without binding anyone else's conscience*, do not care to take the risk.
> 
> Let me end by repeating that I did not start this thread, nor any other thread on the mode of baptism. I have purely been concerned to try to answer the points made by Rich and Joseph. If I've not answered all your points, Rich, I'm sorry. Sometimes the thread moves on and arguments get missed. If you want to bring something that I missed to my attention again, please do so; otherwise I'm finished on this thread.
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...

Grace and peace to you Martin. I'm gratified you are willing to conced the point that the argument about the word itself is insufficient to bind the conscience. I think that's actually the only reason for the thread. I was unable to discern that you felt that was the case up until this admission. I wish you could convince more Baptists that this was the case.

You may feel as if the argument is meaningless. I find it a bit disturbing that you, of all people, would not understand why it is important to me and others. You are usually so strident and critical of the excesses of Anglicanism or even the magisterial Reformers in binding the consciences concerning, especially, the baptism issue. It is then ironic that, these days, it is the Baptists that do so. You're even (strange to most minds) a fan of the Anabaptists because they stood up to ecclesiastical imperialism. 

To us Presbyterians who have no compulsion that the etymology of a single word equals a Biblical mandate, Baptist insistence on it seems like: 
"Well, we have no firm command, but we are convinced in our minds that, because of the meaning of the word, you must immerse or it is improper baptism." 
We say: "OK, but how do you know, based merely on a word that it's the immersion of the entire body in view? Seems strange to say 'We're doing it right and no others' when not a solitary baptism is actually described in any detail."
Baptists say: "Because it's just so, that's our conviction so you have no liberty in refusing it. Either you are re-baptized by immersion or you cannot join our congregation."

You think, Martin, Baptist insistence on Presbyterians (or other affusers) is rare. It happens _all the time_ because Baptist Churches are more ubiquitous in portions of the U.S. I attend a Baptist Church now. I don't begrudge that "they're not like me..." but I know, if the time ever came, they would not accept my son's baptism. Another Church I attended didn't accept _my_ baptism and I could not join until I was immersed. At the time I conceded to join because it was before I understood the issue (it was my future bride's Church). The minister knew nothing other than "You're not baptized by immersion, baptism by immersion is the only way to be saved, you are therefore not saved." You think it's not a binding of conscience but when a man has no other choice to either relent or worship at no Church at all, that is a binding of the conscience.

I would just think, given your track record as being so strident about liberty, that you would seek to do a better job of defending the insistence so as to teach others there is no liberty OR you would be the champion of saying it's a matter of liberty (as the Sriptures are not prescriptive about mode) and fighting against the excesses that Baptists go to in restricting liberty. What I didn't expect was a kind of resignation that seems indifferent after all your insistence. Insofar as you show no concern about how religious bodies, whose practices you are sympathetic to, bind the conscience and restrict liberty without warrant, I can no longer take you seriously at your repeated shock and horror at the practices of all those terrible men that did Baptists such grave injustice.


----------



## Steve Owen

I wasn't going to reply to this thread, but after thought and prayer, there are still a couple of things that need to be clarified.

1. My whole aim in the thread has been to show that the word 'Spring', whether _fons_ in Latin, or _pege_ in Greek can mean a body of water large enough to baptize by immersion. My studies indicate that while it cannot mean stagnant water or the sea or a large river, not much else is excluded. If you read the whole book of Judith, including 13:10, I think you will see that this 'spring' is located outside the camp, but that there is a guard placed on it.

There is much more to be said about the meaning if _baptizo_ and the difference between OT sprinkling and Biblical baptism, but I shall save it up for another thread.

2. You seem not to understand the nature of Christian freedom. It does not mean that churches have to compromise their principles to accommodate you, but rather that if you don't like the practices of a particular church, you are at liberty to go to another one.

You write:_


> Grace and peace to you Martin. I'm gratified you are willing to concede the point that the argument about the word itself is insufficient to bind the conscience.


No sir! My conscience is utterly bound by the true meaning of _baptizo_ based upon its use throughout Greek literature and its practice in the NT. I understand completely the reasoning of those Baptist churches who receive into membership only those who have been baptized by immersion after profession of faith. I have no criticism to make of them.

However, I do not believe that baptism is _of the essence_ of the Christian faith. Abel, Noah and others are commended as men of faith, though they knew nothing of circumcision or baptism. The thief on the cross was saved without baptism. Therefore the Minister you spoke of:-


> The minister knew nothing other than "You're not baptized by immersion, baptism by immersion is the only way to be saved, you are therefore not saved."


Is quite wrong. But his church does have the 'freedom' to be wrong. I think the doctrine of _Presumptive Regeneration_ is both wrong in principle and harmful in practice, but if I wanted to join a church that believed in it, I wouldn't expect them to change for me. I would either put up with it or leave. *That* is freedom. And that is what was denied to Baptists in this country for many years.

On the other hand, baptism is not an optional extra. It is clearly an ordinance of Christ which we are expected to obey.

Matt 28:19. *'Make disciples......baptizing them......'*
Mark 16:16. *'He who believes and is baptized will be saved.'*
John 4:1. *'Jesus made and baptized more disciples.....'
Acts 2:38. 'Repent.....and be baptized.'
Acts 2:41. 'Then those who gladly received his word were baptized.'
Acts 8:12. 'But when they believed.......both men and women were baptized.'
Acts 8:36-7. '"What hinders me from being baptized?"...."If you believe with all your heart you may."
Acts 10:47. "Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

And so on. Baptism is intimately tied up with repentance and faith in Christ. So just to make it clear, I do not accept infant baptism as valid and I do not accept baptism by sprinkling as valid. What I, and those churches who follow Bunyan, do accept is the faith of people whose consciences will not allow them to be baptized scripturally, and such are welcome at our churches, to partake of the Lord's Supper and even to come into membership. They would not, however, be allowed int positions of leadership. 



I know, if the time ever came, they would not accept my son's baptism.

Click to expand...

Quite right too! That is their right. Your right is not to attend that church if you don't like it. What I would accept, as and when your son is born again, is his faith. 

Grace & Peace,

Martin*


----------

