# Why Sprinkling? (and a random board ??)



## A2JC4life (Jun 9, 2009)

First, on a totally unrelated note, why do some of the threads have little orange circles with white stars to the left of their subject lines? The little locks I understand to be locked threads, but the stars I can't make heads nor tails of.

Secondly, my main question. I was reading recently on a very old thread here (which has since been locked, I think because it was so old - there didn't seem to be any dissension in it) a statement from someone who asserted that sprinkling is the proper mode of baptism. I have heard that once or twice before, but have not heard it defended. Is anyone around who holds to this view, and would you be willing to offer a list of Scripture references as a basis for _why_ you hold to this view?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 9, 2009)

While there are a number of different tacks one could take with this question, here's one defense, just using this one verse:


> Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our *hearts sprinkled* from an evil conscience, and our *bodies washed* with pure water.


If the inner work of the Spirit is correlative to the outer act, and the outer act illustrative of the inner work, then the "washing" of the body would be appropriately exemplified by "sprinkling."

Would you agree that is a plausible argument, even if it isn't persuasive to you?


----------



## Kevin (Jun 9, 2009)

Because baptism is an ordinance given by God. And he tells us how to do it. Clearly, repeatedly & in great detail. And every time he describes it it is by pouring or sprinkling.

Now the bible, especially the NT, refers to baptism often without describing its proper mode. It can do this because it so many times has told how it is to be done.

Eample; If I repeatedly teach my children theat I want them to "clean your room, pick up all toys, put them away,fold your clothes, and make your bed". Then one time I simply say; "clean your room, legos are everywhere!" Would I be justified in punishing the child if a half hour later his bed was still unmade, and his clothes not put away?

I think that I would be justified in providing consequnces in this case. His claim that I "only mentioned Legos" would not go very far with me. After all I had many times told him what i meant in exhaustive detail by the phrase "clean your room".

This is how I see the issue of mode of baptism.

As a baptist my paradigm collapsed when I re-read Heb ch 9. I was preparing a bible study & I noticed for the first time that the "washings" in verse 10 was a baptism. WHAT?! It was like my mind was screaming at me, " this is a passage about the contrasts between the Old Cov. & the New Cov. what on earth does the OT have to do with Baptism? After all (my baptist world view insisted) "baptism" was a NT practice originated By John the Baptist. The OT did not even know of this "NT Ordinance"


Once I realised that the rest of the chapter was describing OT rituals as baptisms, and the OT itself gave clear step-by-step instructions for how to properly sprinkle or pour the water... It all began to fall away.

Then I began to examine what John was doing, (and how it was that he was not killed on the spot as a heritic for introducing a new practice, if infact as i had always been taught he did). When I realised that a "Baptism for/of Repentance" was an OT ritual given by God in the OT, with detail (not dunking, BTW) then the cracks in my Baptist worldview grew wider.

Then I began to read all that I could find on the baptism of Jesus, & became convinced that his request to be baptised "to fullfill the law" was a reference to another OT baptism. Then it had to be one of the three OT High Priestly baptisms. Since the pouring with oil on his head was recorded in the NT. And the placing of blood on his forehead, hand, and toe were recorded. (remember that Hebrews teaches us that these rituals are called "Baptisms') The question is; when was Jesus sprinkled with water? If not by John, when? If he was dunked (with no OT warning!) and that was important enough for the HS to include it in scripture, then why was his "baptism" by sprinkling not recorded?

After more than a year of letting scripture interpret scripture, I was convoinced that the proper bible defined method od Baptism was by pouring or sprinkling water on the head.


----------



## A2JC4life (Jun 9, 2009)

I understand the argument, I think. But I'm not really wanting someone to argue it; I'm wanting the Scripture references to study it myself. 

I'll check out Hebrews. 

But I don't find that sprinkling fits the definition of the word baptize. The word is most precisely interpreted by immersion or dipping, as I'm sure you've heard argued before.  So we find that method preferable. But my family also believes that pouring is an appropriate application of the word. However, inherent in the definition of the word is a thorough wetting - as when dyeing cloth. So sprinkling is the one mode we find unscriptural. (Unless, of course, your definition of sprinkling includes a far more liberal use of water than ours. The sprinkling-type baptisms we have seen have resulted in a person so little wetted that one would not know by looking at them that they'd been baptized, even 30 seconds afterward. That, in our estimation, is not a proper fulfillment of the word "baptize.")

Another question, based on this argument (that you have presented above): If NT baptism is a continuation of the types of "washings" as, for instance, the anointing of the priests, why would you not put the water on the recipient's right earlobe, right thumb, and right toe, instead of sprinkling it on his head? Wouldn't that logically follow?

Do you see Naaman's washing(s) as in this same category, or not? Immersion was clearly the method used there.

I guess my underlying question here is _what_ OT events/occurrences do you interpret as being baptisms (with references, please, so I can look them up!)? And why do you correlate particular ones with NT baptism and (if applicable) not others? Or, in other words, how and why are you making your connections between the OT passages and the NT ones?

(I'm afraid that perhaps I'm rambling, as I seem to be a bit fuzzyheaded today, and I don't know if I'm quite making sense. I'm not trying to disprove your arguments; just trying to understand them and what the Scriptural foundation is for them.)


----------



## Kevin (Jun 9, 2009)

OK, Rachel. Sorry if my "meta narative" distracted from the scripture that I was refering to.

However, I really doubt if what you want is a list of chapters & verses. because the very next thing you mentioned is an (un-biblical) arguement about definitions!

As long as you are convinced that you can "do" theology by dictionary you will remain as you are.

IF you are prepared to use the "biblical definition" of a word as normative on the other hand, then you will find the scriptures open to you as never before.

In the bible a word means just what it is intended to mean. So we must us scripture to interpret scripture.

To me, a verse that says "here are a list of rituals that I consider baptisms" when all of the rituals are pouring & sprinkling of water is much more important then an (alleged) definition of "thorough wetting".

And BTW the much vaunted "definition" of baptism, is much weaker then is normally believed by the baptist laity. Any classics scholar can tell you that the cognates of "baptiso" are used with such latitude & flexiblity by the ancient greeks that the oft repeated claim that the word means "dip, plunge or immerse" is almost useless to the discussion.

After all would you be more likely to get to work on Monday by traveling the full distence of your "driveway" or by traveling down the "parkway"?

If Mapquest worked the same way as most arguements for full immersion, then you would find Virginia Beach next to your garage. And my wifes Windstar would be parked on the on ramp to I-75.


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 9, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> While there are a number of different tacks one could take with this question, here's one defense, just using this one verse:
> 
> 
> > Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our *hearts sprinkled* from an evil conscience, and our *bodies washed* with pure water.
> ...




No.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 9, 2009)

Rachel,
The text of Heb.9 describes one of the ceremonial cleansings right there in the passage. It's the "sprinkling" of the blood of the Old Covenant.

But, what might help in this case would be to search for ANY description of an OT cleansing (by water/blood/anything) that was described as, or clearly required, immersion. I think it will be a long look,... and don't overlook the fact that these cleansings were instituted in the heart of the desert wilderness. Any of the OT baptisms referred to by the writer to Hebrews would need to be rightly performed in conditions commensurable with those encountered by the nomadic 12-Tribes.

I would echo Kevin's advice above. If you are going to understand our side of the argument, you are going to have to accept that to my poor ears and brain, the mantra of "baptize=thorough, total, simultaneous soakage of a whole body," just sounds like a drone--it's not supportable by the usage the pagan Greeks made of the term. And likewise the Jewish borrowing.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 9, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > While there are a number of different tacks one could take with this question, here's one defense, just using this one verse:
> ...



So, in your view, the work of the HS inwardly is *improperly* represented by a correlative outward act? Can you lay out that argument for me?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 10, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I would echo Kevin's advice above. If you are going to understand our side of the argument, you are going to have to accept that to my poor ears and brain, the mantra of "baptize=thorough, total, simultaneous soakage of a whole body," just sounds like a drone--it's not supportable by the usage the pagan Greeks made of the term. And likewise the Jewish borrowing.



Bruce, do you mean you have never seen a bird with enough blood in it to totally immerse, simultaneously soak another bird? 



> 5 And the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthenware vessel over fresh water. 6 He shall take the live bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, and dip (_bapto_) them and the live bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water.(Lev. 14:5-6)


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 10, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > Contra_Mundum said:
> ...



*Both the sprinkling of the heart and the washing of the body are something that has been perfectly accomplished for the believer by Another as indicated by both the tense of the verbs and the context. This is why the believer may approach boldly*

*non sequitur*


----------



## jogri17 (Jun 10, 2009)

I think really don't spring sprinkling was what happened to Jesus or in the Book of Acts. I personally think immersion is preferable for an older convert (especially when he was not born in the covenant community) and pouring on the head on an infant best represents what the sacrament signifies. Though I would not make a big feal about it. Some have argues that you sprinkle the water like the priests sprinked the blood on the alter, but I find that argumen insane and just terrible.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 10, 2009)

Great point, Bob!

So, why is it again that you insist that the entire body must be submerged in water?

-----Added 6/10/2009 at 12:45:24 EST-----



jogri17 said:


> I think really don't spring sprinkling was what happened to Jesus or in the Book of Acts. I personally think immersion is preferable for an older convert (especially when he was not born in the covenant community) and pouring on the head on an infant best represents what the sacrament signifies. Though I would not make a big feal about it. Some have argues that you sprinkle the water like the priests sprinked the blood on the alter, but I find that argumen insane and just terrible.



Joseph, glad to have you join in!

Do you have any scriptural reason for that view? Or is it just "what you think"?


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 10, 2009)

A2JC4life said:


> I understand the argument, I think. But I'm not really wanting someone to argue it; I'm wanting the Scripture references to study it myself.
> 
> I'll check out Hebrews.
> 
> ...



Rachel, I have personally baptized hundreds of folks by immersion and NEVER baptized even one by sprinkling. Further, my time picking up several theological degrees and doing decades in pastoral ministry were all in the credo camp of "believers' baptism by immersion." I currently run a Baptist affiliated retirement community and my wife has a full time position doing children's ministry and Christian ed at a Baptist church. However, as I have begun to study the issue freshly with a Bible in hand (esp. a Greek Testament) and an open mind, it has been my uncomfortable experience to discover that the Presbyterian understanding of the covenant and of the teaching of Hebrews makes a LOT more sense than I ever suspected that it did. Whether you are convinced by brother Bruce or not, you will soon discover that Matthew Winzer, Bruce, Fred, Lane, et. al. are VERY capable exegetes and theologians. They may never win you over, but an honest person will almost certainly come to admit that their position has merit and is cogent.

One of the joys of the PB is fellowship with Bible-believing and Godly people who differ from us on baptism. Also, much to my own dismay, I must admit that many of our most erudite paedo brethren hail from the ranks of former credo baptists. They not only understand their own position, but came to it after searching the scriptures and finding the alternative view not only superior exegetically but more satisfying theologically than the position we hold!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 10, 2009)

Bob,

Heb 10:22 προσερχώμεθα μετὰ ἀληθινῆς καρδίας ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως, ἐρραντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς καὶ λελουσμένοι τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ·

This is the majority text/TR reading. The variants in the participles (for sprinkling and washing) for the CT don't affect the translation of the terms into faithful English.

For example:
KJV: Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

ESV: let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 

Observations:
1) When were our bodies washed by Christ, if not at baptism? What is your theological claim here? How is it supported by other texts?

2) The number of the participles (sprinkling/washing) are both plural, "hearts" is plural; "body" alone is singular (and coupled with the plural participle) which makes perfect sense with NT theology that the church-collective is Christ's body.

3) Since water-baptism in covenant theology isn't something that we DO, but is done TO us, by Christ, in his church, through his ministers, the passive tense certainly doesn't militate against my position whatsoever. It is the basis for it.

4) You have yet to explain why it is the least _*implausible*_ to make these deductions. I do not doubt but you can take the sprinkling and washing, found right together in this one Greek sentence, and separate them conceptually as far as the east is from the west. I don't have to do that, nor do I have to explain why similar terms (one inner, one outer) don't have actually anything operational to do with one another.

Suffice to say, I don't think you've accomplished demonstrating that I've made an implausible connection.


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 10, 2009)

Kevin said:


> *Great point, Bob!
> 
> So, why is it again that you insist that the entire body must be submerged in water?*
> 
> ...



It is the historical meaning of the Greek word for baptize


----------



## A2JC4life (Jun 10, 2009)

First of all, I don't think that the definition of the word baptizto (or however one would properly transliterate that) is an "un-biblical" argument. We are not talking about the definition of an English word; we are talking about the definition of a word that God clearly, intentionally used as it was originally written. As I'm sure you know, it cannot mean what it never meant.  Although I said that it is most literally interpreted as "to dip" or immerse, it has a broader usage. That broader usage, however, still includes a thorough wetting, which one can accomplish by pouring, but not by sprinkling.

I think that the argument of the Hebrews 10 verse and the correlation of the inward act and outer symbol is weak, at best. Having done some studying on this last night - from the Old Testament - I am more convinced than before that immersion or pouring are appropriate and sprinkling is not, and this verse in Hebrews is actually a key part of that.

Consistently throughout the legal instructions of the Old Testament, blood and "sprinkling" go together, while water and "washing" go together. Clearly there was a word for sprinkling (in both Hebrew and Greek) and, just as clearly, it was not chosen for this water cleansing. I find only three instances where water was "sprinkled" - one is on a house, one is on an entire, very large group of people (the entire tribe of Levi), and one is on a group of objects/people who have come into contact with a corpse. (In these instances, with no hoses, etc., I would think that thoroughly wetting these large items/groups would have been highly impractical.)

In every single instance where an individual is being cleansed, the word used with water is "wash." As best I can tell, there is nothing specifically inherent in the word (or words, rather - there are two that seem to be used pretty much interchangeably) to specify a degree of wetness, except that common sense tells us that it's impossible to wash something with water without getting it thoroughly wet. I don't know about you, but if I told my daughter to go wash her hands, and she came back having "sprinkled" them with water, I would not be pleased with her "obedience." But over and over again, for cleansing, the people, or Aaron, or his sons, were told to "wash" themselves, to "wash" their clothes, to "wash" their hands. Perhaps most significantly, those things that had been "sprinkled" with the blood of the sin offering were to be "washed" with water. As in Hebrews 10:9, where our hearts are "sprinkled" and then our bodies are "washed."


----------



## A.J. (Jun 10, 2009)

Rachel, _sprinkling_ and _water_ do go together as well. The text that follows speak of what the _New_ Covenant will be like. (All quotations are from the ESV.)

I will *sprinkle* clean *water* on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And _I will put my Spirit within you_, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and _you shall be my people, and I will be your God_. - Ezekiel 36:25-28​
Something I think you haven't considered in your argument against sprinkling from your understanding of Heb. 9:10 is the very _word_ that appears there by divine inspiration. 

but deal only with food and drink and *various washings* [*diaphorois baptismois*], regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.​
Why does that _word_, "baptisms," appear at all in the original (cf. Heb. 6:2, "washings")? Here we find a word that God "clearly, intentionally used as it was originally written" to quote your previous post. Note that the author of Hebrews shows the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old (Mosaic Covenant). And in this regard, he compares these purificatory rites with the cleansing effect of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. The inspired writer then explains for us _what_ these baptisms were and _how_ they were administered. Look at 9:13, 19 and 21. 

For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the *sprinkling* of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 

For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and *sprinkled* both the book itself and all the people

And in the same way he *sprinkled* with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.​
Rev. Buchanan's argument stands since one of the realities (_thing signified_) which baptism (the _sign_) represents is the cleansing effect of the blood of Christ on those who believe in Him (cf. 1 Cor. 6:11). And how is Christ's blood applied to the elect? By sprinkling. 

and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the *sprinkled* blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. - Heb. 12:24

according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for *sprinkling* with his blood.... - 1 Peter 1:2​
Immersion does not capture the relationship between the _sign_ and the _thing signified_.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 10, 2009)

Rachel,
If I thought you were looking to be _persuaded_ of my position on Scriptural grounds, I might have tried from the beginning to teach a course on baptism, starting with foundational theological and hermeneutical principles, and lecturing on the history of God's covenant people; and consistency within the religious practices he laid down starting in ancient days.

Since your question read to me more like trying to understand another person's view (as in: "since I think you believe the Bible, why don't you agree with ME?"), I simply gave you a text that speaks very clearly to me, teaching a relationship between what God does, and how that is outwardly exemplified by the church's practice.

It is as plain to me as "buried with him in baptism" is to you. I find the Baptist interpretation of "buried with him in baptism" to be utterly unconvincing, even contrary to the spirit of the text. And yet, I understand the very clear plausibility of that interpretation to him. It is a biblical argument, and I admit that Baptists use the Scriptures to defend their practice.

Peace.


----------



## Seb (Jun 10, 2009)

A.J. said:


> Rachel, _sprinkling_ and _water_ do go together as well. The text that follows speak of what the _New_ Covenant will be like. (All quotations are from the ESV.)
> 
> I will *sprinkle* clean *water* on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And _I will put my Spirit within you_, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and _you shall be my people, and I will be your God_. - Ezekiel 36:25-28​
> Something I think you haven't considered in your argument against sprinkling from your understanding of Heb. 9:10 is the very _word_ that appears there by divine inspiration.
> ...



Rachel,

As a former Baptist who crossed over to the Dutch Reformed / Presbyterian view of Baptism a couple of years ago it was these verses (and others) that drove the point home for me. 

I set my pre-conceived notions about what I had always believed the word Baptism meant (immersion) and let OT and NT Scripture define what it meant. When I did that and also looked critically at the NT examples of Baptism I no longer saw how it could be immersion only.

I know I'm a little simplistic about this, but I now see the word "Baptism" as a symbolic ceremonial washing that God does to us. Throughout Scripture there are many illustrations connected to spiritual cleansing and "setting aside for holy uses" that God uses the words sprinkle and pour to effect.

Words don't always mean what we are convinced they mean. That's something I had to re-learn recently regarding usage of the word "lent" in 1 Sam 1:28.

[bible]1 Sam 1:28[/bible]


----------



## A2JC4life (Jun 10, 2009)

I'm still not following. All of the examples given about the symbolism of baptism still refer to the sprinkling of blood. Jesus' blood is (symbolically) sprinkled on our hearts. In the OT, the sprinkling of blood _and_ the outward washing were both part of the process of purification, so saying that Hebrews demands that one represent the other rather than that they are both pieces of the process does not logically follow, in my mind.

I'm also still not understanding why insistence on interpreting a word based on its definition is somehow refusing to see the context. The word baptisto means "to completely cover or surround with water." To say that the situations in which we see baptisms taking place indicate that it means something contrary to that is completely illogical. That is like if I used the word "blue," and you said that the context in which I used it taught that "blue" was a color made by mixing red and yellow. It _cannot_ mean that, because it is inherently, by definition, the primary color exclusive of red and yellow, and those two things are mutually exclusive.

-----Added 6/10/2009 at 11:42:09 EST-----



Seb said:


> A.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Rachel, _sprinkling_ and
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 10, 2009)

Where does this definition:


> The word baptisto means "to completely cover or surround with water."


come from? Is in a lexicon someplace? If I were to propose a definition that says something quite different (and give an "authoritative" source), what would that do to the discussion?

The issue is not even what a root-meaning of a term is, but how is that word USED. If the word is used in a context where a STRICT root-meaning is inapplicable, the word's definition has been expanded into a semantic range by a natural linguistic process of expansion. This is not even controversial.


BTW, are you (as a Baptist) technically allowing that baptism might be properly performed by pouring? No one on this side of the aisle would dispute that, but I know plenty of Baptists who would...


----------



## christianhope (Jun 10, 2009)

I would just like to add, that I was raised baptist, then became reformed baptist. But, as I studied covenant theology I found how beautifully it fits with scripture, tying the whole bible together in, what I believe to be, the way God intended it! 

It was Matthew Macmahon's sermons series called: "a simple and easy to understand overview of covenant theology" that changed my mind regarding the debate on infant baptism. I was so amazed and left just dumbfounded how I had never heard this before! 

Here's the link:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Matthew^McMahon

Once I saw the truth of the position, I loved it, not because I wanted to be a paedobaptist, but, simply because I'm a lover of the truth- so when I recognized that God's Word really teaches the position, it brought great delight to my heart. 

I hope it does the same for you also Rachel.


----------



## A2JC4life (Jun 10, 2009)

Fair enough. I will have to do some more digging on this one. I would assume, though, that since the dictionaries reference other applications of the word besides the Scriptural one, that there are evidences of the word's usage elsewhere that contribute to the conclusion.

So am I understanding correctly that the view that sprinkling is the proper mode of baptism doesn't really have anything (foundationally) to do with water? That baptism is seen as a symbol of the sprinkling of the blood?

If that is the case, then I think I can understand that. I still disagree with it, as I think a different interpretation to be a more accurate comparison of shadow to substance. But I can understand where it comes from. I will do some further study on Hebrews, because I think I'm still not understanding why the premise is that the water represents the blood.

-----Added 6/10/2009 at 12:05:53 EST-----

According to Vine, baptizo: "primarily a frequentative form of bapto, to dip, was used among the Greeks to signify the dyeing of a garment, or the drawing of water by dipping a vessel into another, etc. Plutarchus uses it of the drawing of wine by dipping the cup into the bowl and Plato, metaphorically, of being overwhelmed with questions. It is used in the NT in Luke 11:38 of washing oneself...." (I removed the parentheticals with the specific references for Plutarchus and Plato.)


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 10, 2009)

Rachel, I understand where you're coming from. Part of my journey from Baptist to Presbyterian was studying the word Βαπτιζω and its relations. (Obviously, there is a lot more to the theology of baptism than one word.) So, I'd like to point out a few things that were critical in my thinking process.

1. Words do not have inherent meanings. That is, the combination of sounds or letters do not automatically mean anything. The word "can" potentially means a sealed container, a toilet, to throw something away, to fire someone, or exists as a helping verb. Which of these is its inherent meaning?

2. Words have etymologies, but they are only so useful. For example, if I said, "American Idol star Adam Lambert is gay," you could go about determining what I meant by recourse to the Old High German _gahi_, meaning quick. Perhaps Adam sings fast. Or, you could turn to the prevailing use of the term in the early 20th century, "happy." Yes, Adam does seem happy. But, we all know what I meant. In the 20th century, the word "gay" suddenly and without linguistic reason deviated from its etymology. This sort of thing happens all the time. *This is especially important in Greek, because ca. 330 BC the Greek language moved from the Classical to the Koine phase, causing many shifts in word meaning and grammatical uses.* Appeals to definitions of Βαπτιζω that hold for 800 BC don't necessarily mean anything in the Koine.

3. Words are then determined by their prevailing usage, qualified by context. There are indeed several places in the LXX and NT where the meaning of "immerse" is simply impossible. 

1 Peter 3:21 speaks of baptism corresponding to being safely brought through the flood. Obviously, Noah & co. were the only ones not immersed.

1 Cor. 10:2 speaks of being baptized into Moses in the cloud and sea. Obviously, this metaphorical use of Βαπτιζω does not refer to wetting at all, since the Israelites were not in the cloud and did not get wet in the Red Sea.

Mark 7:4 states that the Pharisees would not eat unless they [were baptized] before the meal. Clearly, the Pharisees did not bathe their whole bodies prior to every meal.


Anyway, my contribution is only to help you think about the word βαπτιζω. I too think that sprinkling is a bit "light" on water for a statement such as Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'


----------



## A2JC4life (Jun 10, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Where does this definition:
> 
> 
> > The
> ...


----------



## J. David Kear (Jun 10, 2009)

Another thing to keep in mind when we interpret the meaning of Greek words is who is using the word and what meaning they are intending for the words.

The NT writers were coming from a Hebrew background. As such many of the Greek words they had to use may have been used in a Hebrew way.

An example would be the Greek word they used for walk. In Greek, Peripateo, simply means something like “to walk around’. But we can understand that when the NT writers used it they meant it to be understood with a Hebrew connotation. They meant it to mean something more like our “life’s trajectory” than simply walking around.

This is to say that it is incredibly important to understand that a Hebrew would have language constraints while using Greek to convey Hebrew cultural and Biblical concepts.


----------



## Seb (Jun 10, 2009)

A2JC4life said:


> First, on a totally unrelated note, why do some of the threads have little orange circles with white stars to the left of their subject lines? The little locks I understand to be locked threads, but the stars I can't make heads nor tails of.



Rachel,

I noticed your first question wasn't answered:


----------



## Denton Elliott (Jun 10, 2009)

Just a thought, why did Jesus just wash the disciples' feet and not their whole bodies?
It seems that washing their feet was enough.


----------



## A2JC4life (Jun 10, 2009)

Seb said:


> A2JC4life said:
> 
> 
> > First, on a totally unrelated note, why do some of the threads have little orange circles with white stars to the left of their subject lines? The little locks I understand to be locked threads, but the stars I can't make heads nor tails of.
> ...



 Thanks.


----------



## Irish Presbyterian (Jun 10, 2009)

Rachel,

I hope you don't mind but I just wanted to recommend 'The Meaning and Mode of Baptism' by Jay Adams as a very accessible short book on the subject that can be read in a single sitting.

The main thrust of his argument is that the proper meaning (significance) of baptism will rightly dictate the mode that is to be employed. For instance James W. Dale ('Classic Baptism, Judaic Baptism, Johannic Baptism and Christian and Patristic Baptism') argues that baptizo does not mean "to dip" (that is, "to put into [and to remove from]") but rather "to put together so as to remain together". 

Others have suggested that in classical Greek the word baptizo is much more flexible than is normally suggested. It can mean; 'to plunge', 'to drown', 'to steep', 'to bewilder', 'to dip', 'to tinge', 'to pour', 'to sprinkle', and 'to dye' (Robert Reymond). When the full semantic range of bapto and baptizo is considered then it cannot be so easily suggested that immersion/dip is automatically preferable. I'm also convinced that there is not a single irrefutable instance of 'immersion' in the New Testament, so it would not, therefore, be "necessary" (WCF Chp 28, III).

I hope that makes some sense.


----------



## A2JC4life (Jun 10, 2009)

It does, indeed. Your post reminded me that the book you mention is actually on my reading list; I just haven't acquired it yet. I will move it up the priority list, though, at your recommendation.


----------



## PresReformed (Jun 10, 2009)

Joh 1:19-28 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? (20) And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. (21) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. (22) Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? (23) He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. (24) And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. (25) And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? (26) John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (27) He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. (28) These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

What was John doing that made them think he was the Messiah? Baptizing. But how, and why would that make them think of the Messiah?

Isa 52:13-15 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. (14) As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: (15) So shall he *sprinkle* many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 10, 2009)

A2JC4life said:


> Fair enough. I will have to do some more digging on this one. I would assume, though, that since the dictionaries reference other applications of the word besides the Scriptural one, that there are evidences of the word's usage elsewhere that contribute to the conclusion.
> 
> So am I understanding correctly that the view that sprinkling is the proper mode of baptism doesn't really have anything (foundationally) to do with water? That baptism is seen as a symbol of the sprinkling of the blood?
> 
> ...


Rachel,
Vines is reasonably straightforward, and I think his definition is a bit more confined to general terms most people can agree upon.

The _substance_ into which or by which baptism is done is evidently separate from the act of baptism. If "dye" or "wine" may effect a baptism, then clearly water is only one type of instrument. If fluid is typically a major factor, then blood certainly qualifies.

By which I only mean to say that if Heb.10 classifies the principal and formational _ceremonial cleansing_ of the OT under the term "baptismos", then a bloody-baptism isn't inherently objectionable.

Yet, plunging hundreds of thousands of Israelites into a blood-vat, however dramatic, was neither practical nor necessary. The symbolic sprinkling of being covered by the blood of that covenant was sufficient for their being "merged" into that covenant. They were sanctified by that blood.

Jesus, by calling HIS blood "the blood of the New Covenant" (Lk.22:20; 1Cor.11:25; Heb.12:24), not only calls to mind the Old Covenant, and its inauguration, but is certainly advising his disciples that they must identify with him in a New Covenant, and be sanctified by its blood (Heb.10:29).

This is the New Covenant age, and one in which the blood of sacrifice has been spilled, never again to be sacrificed. But we still have the wine of communion to remind us of it. And the Old Testament also had water (clean, or sometimes mixed with blood or ashes). There were many ways of cleansing things in the OT. A ritual wash is no less a cleansing on account of it's being a ritual.

Ezekiel tells Israel that when the New Covenant arrives, in contrast to blood of animals sprinkled on the people, he will sprinkle them with clean water, and they will be clean. Without even bothering to make a tie-in to ritual baptism, you have to reckon with the simple fact that God uses the symbol of a shower to indicate a thorough cleansing.

So, to object that a New Testament baptism-by-sprinkling might not "use enough water" is to make a demand that Ezekiel might find puzzling. How much water does God need to make his point?

Consider the Bible's own use of the term, speaking of baptism _into_ Moses and Jesus. Your union with Christ is a character-defining integration into his identity. Your life as a Christian is now "hidden with Christ in God."

The Bible uses "baptism" in a multi-faceted way--by means of this symbol speaking: 
of cleansing (Tit.3:5), 
of pouring out unto indwelling and gifting by Holy Spirit (Act.10:44-47), 
of union with Christ in his death (Rom.6:3), 
of union with Christ in his life (Gal.3:27), 
of solidarity with fellow believers (1.Cor.12:13).

"...one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all..."

***************

There are two OT baptisms that are frequently overlooked. They are overlooked because only the NT calls attention to their baptismal character. The second is mentioned in 1Cor.10:2--Israel was baptized in the Red Sea crossing. This is the Exodus, and it is a baptism of judgment. Jesus makes this connection explicit also when he speaks of the "baptism" he must undergo (Lk.12:50); while also speaking of his "exodus" (Lk.9:31) pointing to the same event--the cross.

The first baptism in the Bible shares the judgmental character of the second, Noah's flood--1Pet.3:20-21. Note that in both of these events, ALL the participants are baptized in one form or another. Israel, and Pharaoh and his hosts; Noah and his family, and all the inhabitants of the earth.

The only way to safety in the midst of the judgment of baptism is through the God-appointed means of salvation. In the case of Noah, it is inside the Ark. In the case of Israel it is by union with the mediator of the Old Covenant, Moses. Both of these typify Christ and the antitype found in the New Covenant.

In both cases of those who are saved, they are only sprinkled with the instrument of judgment: water--they are not overwhelmed and drowned in it. Israel goes through the sea dry shod, but are sprinkled with rain, Ps.77:17. And we are all familiar with the "rains" that came down, while the floods arose, and bore the ark upward in the deluge.

The point is, that "sprinkling" is used by the Bible itself to indicate the reality of judgment--one that falls on us but lightly, who yet deserved no better than the rest of mankind, or Pharaoh and his hosts.


----------



## A.J. (Jun 10, 2009)

A2JC4life said:


> Actually, I had considered this, and it is further evidence for immersion or pouring. The law that dealt with food and drink and "baptisms" was what? The Levitical laws regarding cleanness, particularly as relates to the physical body. *(That is, it was symbolic of spiritual cleanness, but it was food and drink and physical "baptisms" - physical things.)* And what were those regulations? What to eat and what not to eat. What to drink and what not to drink. And when to wash. Not sprinkle, wash. As previously noted, it is not possible to wash something with water without getting it thoroughly wet. One may wash ones hands, for instance, by dipping them into a basin, or by pouring water over them. But one does not wash one's hands by sprinkling a tiny bit of water on them. Calling those OT regulations - which the OT refers to as "wash"ings - "baptisms" seems to me to even more strongly suggest that to "baptize" is to "wash" - that is, to immerse in water or to pour water over.



Rachel, the author of Hebrews describes in the succeeding verses the baptisms he mentions in 9:10. Verses 12-14 and 19-21 make clear that the *baptisms* (as indicated in the original) he is discussing involve the purification/cleansing of *persons* in addition to things. And these were done by sprinkling. The OT references of these verses bear this out.

Hebrews 9:12-14 summarizes what happened in Numbers 19:1-13. Verse 13 from Numbers is especially important since we find both _sprinkling_ and _water_ together there. *Persons* were the ones purified/cleansed by water that was sprinkled. (cf. Ezekiel 36:25-28)

Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any *man* that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the _water_ of separation was not _sprinkled_ upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.​
Hebrews 19:19-21 describes the event in Exodus 24:1-8. Notice as well that in the institution of the Lord's Supper, the Lord Himself uses the language of Exodus 24:1-8 to describe the once for all effect of His shed blood to His elect (cf. Luke 22:1ff especially verse 20 with Exodus 20:8). Observe the striking parallel as it relates to the argument of the author of Hebrews concerning the superiority of Christ and His ministry. As before, the _sprinkling_ in the Exodus account was done to *persons*. 

And Moses took the blood, and _sprinkled_ it on the *people*, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.​
Therefore, the only way to deny the validity of sprinkling as a mode of baptism is to deny _any_ connection between Hebrews 9:10 on the one hand, and 9:12-14 and 9:19-21 on the other. That is, for the immersionist case from this important chapter to be convincing, he/she must argue that the sprinkling rites of 9:12-14 and 9:19-21 are *not* the baptisms of 9:10. This can't be done and does injustice to why the inspired writer connects these purification rites _at all_ to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ (cf. 10:22; 12:24; 1 Peter 1:2).

-----Added 6/10/2009 at 11:37:32 EST-----



PresReformed said:


> Joh 1:19-28 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? (20) And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. (21) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. (22) Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? (23) He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. (24) And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. (25) And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? (26) John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (27) He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. (28) These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
> 
> What was John doing that made them think he was the Messiah? Baptizing. But how, and why would that make them think of the Messiah?
> 
> Isa 52:13-15 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. (14) As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: (15) So shall he *sprinkle* many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.





This is the same OT text the Ethiopian eunuch would have just been reading before Philip explained to him what the Scriptures meant and *baptized* him (Acts 8:27ff.).


----------



## A2JC4life (Jun 11, 2009)

For clarification, when I said "physical things" I did not mean purification of objects. I meant physical aspects of our lives - food and drink and "hygiene" for lack of a better way to phrase the connection. These were the "washings" that went together with "food" and "drink."

As I said, though, I will give Hebrews further study. I haven't had a chance yet.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 11, 2009)

There is never any talk of being immersed in Christ's blood in the Bible. The Holy Spirit is poured out in Spirit baptism and revival - in such a way does Christ apply His forgiveness and cleansing.

Were those in Noah's ark immersed or sprinkled/splashed or were the unbelievers not immersed? Were the children of Israel immersed or sprinlked or were the Egyptians not immersed?

"So shall He (that is Christ) sprinkle many nations." (Isaiah 52:15)

The Presbyterians allow for sprinkling or pouring and accept those who've been immersed out of charity. Although immersion is not ideal, it does involve washing with water, which is even more essential than how it is done.


----------



## A2JC4life (Jun 11, 2009)

Do none of you find it strange that although the writers of the NT had a word for sprinkling - which is used in other instances, the word baptizo was consistently used to refer to that rite, and sprinkling is never used?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 11, 2009)

Rachel,
I'm a little confused now. That doesn't sound quite like an honest question to me. It sounds more like you have a pretty well-formed opinion--_that if it was OK to baptize by sprinkling, then the word "baptism" wouldn't have been used, and the word "sprinkling" would have been._

Your original question seemed to be a desire to know why sprinklers thought they had a biblical justification for using that method to baptize. Since then, you have gotten answers that range from a single verse to extended explanations.

No one has tried to change your mind--I certainly haven't. But your question "what is your biblical justification" has been fairly responded to. Now, it just seems as though you want us to question that justification.

Is that a fair evaluation of your intent?

I have a different question for you: *Do you not find it strange that although the writers of the NT had another word for immerse-"enkatadunô"- which is used in other instances, the word baptizo was consistently used to refer to that rite, and immerse is never used?*

{actually, "kataduo/kataduno" (drop the strengthened form, en- pref.) is more common word}


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 11, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I have a different question for you: *Do you not find it strange that although the writers of the NT had another word for immerse-"enkatadunô"- which is used in other instances, the word baptizo was consistently used to refer to that rite, and immerse is never used?*



Are you sure about that word? I can't find it in the GNT, BDAG, or LSJ.


----------



## A2JC4life (Jun 12, 2009)

I'm sorry; I don't mean to come across as obnoxious. 

I must admit that my head is foggier than usual this week (sick kids last week mean lack of sleep!), so my thought process is probably a bit zig-zaggy. I'm still trying to see this from all angles. The link between the other verses that talk about sprinkling, and the verses that talk about baptism seems, to my mind, to be tenuous at best. And I find it strange that this would be such an obscure link, and that a word whose primary meaning is "to dip" would be used consistently instead of a readily-available word for "to sprinkle," if sprinkling is what the authors had in mind. But my question was not meant to be contentious, but rather to seek out a response such as your own, in order to continue looking at the question from both sides. Do you happen to have a Strong's number or something available, so that I might look up this word you mentioned?


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 12, 2009)

For what it is worth ....
_"Yet the word *baptize* means to *immerse,* and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church__ John Calvin, Inst. IV.15.19


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 12, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> Are you sure about that word? I can't find it in the GNT, BDAG, or LSJ.



Here's what I picked up ref. LSJ (via internet):
enkata-dunô [u_], aor. -katedun, of the sun,

A. set upon a place, Hp.Aër.6; sink beneath, hudasin AP7.532 (Isid.); muchon Opp. H.1.153 : abs., sink, be absorbed in, Archig. ap. Aët.3.167, Gal.7.217: metaph., to be immersed in, c. dat., Dam.Pr.10:--Med., tois oikeiois epitêdeumasi Procop.Arc.1 .

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

A related term in a more Bible-oriented lexicon would be "enduo", Strongs # G1746 (drop the kata)

{I added in the earlier thread, "kataduo/kataduno" (w/out the strengthened en- prefix) is probably more common word}

**************

My purpose is not to play "one-up" or anything, on Rachel or anyone else. The point is simple: if "baptize" meant something other than "baptize", then we wouldn't have a transliterated word. It doesn't just transfer over as "immerse," no matter if that word could be used in a majority of instances to explain the meaning of "baptizo".

Like most terms, "baptizo" has a history of meanings and a semantic range. One of those is "ritual washing." There are many ways that idea can be incarnated.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 12, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> For what it is worth ....
> _"Yet the word *baptize* means to *immerse,* and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church__ John Calvin, Inst. IV.15.19


This is a well known statement. What surprises me is that Calvin is trotted out so frequently as though his statement was intended to provide support for immersion practice.

It was as well know in Calvin's day as it is today that the Greek-Orthodox "swoosh" their infants three times bodily through a font or trough. I'm not sure if they've drenched adults recently.

I know this for an iron-clad fact: the descriptions of the elaborate rites and *nude adult immersion-baptisms* that have come down to us from the ancient church were neither attractive to Calvin (when seeking to purify the church's worship according to Scripture), nor are those ancient practices sought after by today's baptists.


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 12, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > For what it is worth ....
> ...



Easy there pardner, I didn't quote Calvin for support of immersion. I quoted Calvin as linguistic support for baptizo because you asked -
_*Do you not find it strange that although the writers of the NT had another word for immerse-"enkatadunô"- which is used in other instances, the word baptizo was consistently used to refer to that rite, and immerse is never used?*_

As the Genevan Reformer attests the NT writers *did* use the word for immerse. That's all.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 12, 2009)

Bob,
It's possible that you didn't see that _my_ question was simply _Rachel's_ question, with the terms switched out.

Her point was that "rhantizo" was not used. And perhaps we should think it odd that Christ and the Apostles didn't say, "Be sprinkled for the remission of sins," etc.

My rejoinder: "enkataduo" was not used. And perhaps we should think it odd that Christ and the Apostles didn't say, "Be immersed for the remission of sins," etc.

If you tell me "But that's exactly what they did said, _according to Calvin,_" I will have to say "I think Calvin would oppose your appropriation of his language to make such a case, as much as I would."

Calvin is certainly acknowledging a denotative definition of the term, but not a connotative definition--that much is obvious from the context (and his practice). And he acknowledges baptismal-immersion can be found in the ancient church--but he doesn't say it is defined and delimited as such in Scripture.

Peace.


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 12, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Bob,
> It's possible that you didn't see that _my_ question was simply _Rachel's_ question, with the terms switched out.
> 
> Her point was that "rhantizo" was not used. And perhaps we should think it odd that Christ and the Apostles didn't say, "Be sprinkled for the remission of sins," etc.
> ...



Yes, it is possible that I missed that.

I did not attribute any such conclusion to the Reformer, did I?

Simply linguistics, brother.


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 12, 2009)

charliej said:


> contra_mundum said:
> 
> 
> > i have a different question for you: *do you not find it strange that although the writers of the nt had another word for immerse-"enkatadunô"- which is used in other instances, the word baptizo was consistently used to refer to that rite, and immerse is never used?*
> ...



lsj - ἐγκαταδύνω


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 12, 2009)

Thanks Lance.

I was wondering why it was hard to locate, and the assimilation/sandhi of the "n" to "g" seems to explain that.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 12, 2009)

Another reason that Presbyterians accept people who have been immersed without rebaptising them by sprinkling or pouring is that part of the symbolism of the washing of baptism is that it should only be done once only, because it speaks of the washing of regeneration and baptism in the Spirit which only happens once at the beginning of true Christian life.

What is water baptism a symbol of? It is a symbol of baptism in the Spirit. How is baptism in the Spirit spoken of? Immersion in the Spirit? No. The Spirit is poured out on believers (Acts 10:45). 

We are anointed by the Anointed One (Messiah, Christ) to be kings, priests and prophets. In the Old Covenant the anointing of kings, prophets and priests didn't involve immersion. There is an overflow of Christ's anointing with the Spirit upon His people.


----------

