# Why I reject Immersion-Only Baptism



## ThomasCartwright

I have just completed a short paper on why I reject immersion-only baptism. 

It would be helpful to hear any objections from the Baptist brethren.

View attachment 2034


----------



## Pergamum

> Many koine Greek words acquired a specialized Christian usage distinct from its original meaning e.g. agape. It also should be noted that although the writers of the NT had another Greek word for immerse egkataduno which means “sink beneath,” yet the word baptiso was consistently used to refer to that rite, and egkataduno is never used.



This is an interesting point and I would also love to hear a credo-immersionist response about this term _egkataduno._


----------



## refbaptdude

This is not just an issue concerning Baptists, the entire Eastern (Greek) Orthodox typically insists that immersion is the proper mode. 

Quote: "The Eastern Orthodox hold that baptism has always been by immersion and it is not proper to perform baptism by way of sprinkling of water.[188]"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQzHH7qMqSs

And many in the Western Church agree that this was the mode of the early church:

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

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

Philip Schaff -"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).

Cardinal Gibbons -"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 -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 -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 -commenting on Rom 6:4-":This passage cannot be undersood unless it is understood that the primitive baptism was by IMMERSION."


----------



## ThomasCartwright

refbaptdude said:


> This is not just an issue concerning Baptists, the entire Eastern (Greek) Orthodox typically insists that immersion is the proper mode.
> 
> Quote: "The Eastern Orthodox hold that baptism has always been by immersion and it is not proper to perform baptism by way of sprinkling of water.[188]"
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQzHH7qMqSs
> 
> And many in the Western Church agree that this was the mode of the early church:
> 
> John Calvin -"The very word "baptize however, signifies to IMMERSE, and it is certain that IMMERSION was the practice of the ancient church."(Institutes of the Christian Religion, chp 15)
> 
> Martin Luther -" I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word."
> 
> Philip Schaff -"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).
> 
> Cardinal Gibbons -"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 -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 -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 -commenting on Rom 6:4-":This passage cannot be undersood unless it is understood that the primitive baptism was by IMMERSION."



No one is disputing that immersion is a valid form of baptism or indeed that your list of quotations is not impressive. What non-exclusive immersionists are arguing is that the Scriptures do not teach that immersion is the only valid mode. That you have not established by exegesis. Even if we were to concede that Romans 6:4 was immersion, that does not deal with the other passages such as Acts 1:5 that teach baptiso is a pouring.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

FYI: The complete quote from Calvin reads:



> But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water - these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word "baptize" means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church, Institutes 4:15:19.



Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Marrow Man

There is also the question of reading anachronistic definitions of baptism into the word "immersion." For instance, such a concept would not necessarily entail the modern practice of being bent backwards in a semi-horizontal position and being carried under water that way, followed by being promptly being lifted out of the water. The word could have simply meant that a person knelt down in a pool or body of water and then had the water poured over his head. Or it could mean the person dipped himself (kneeling down so that the head is underwater). Exactly how do Greek Orthodox perform baptisms? I ask in ignorance; I'm trying the recall the scene from "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," but I don't remember that resembling an immersion as it might be commonly thought of in the American church.


----------



## Phil D.

Dr. Ferguson,

I don't consider myself to be a full-fledged immersionist in the sense that term is usually used - "immersion is though only effectual mode of baptism." As a result of my own study of the issue, however, I have become convinced that immersion was normally, and perhaps even always used by the NT church. 

Your paper essentially looks at the same issues, and uses the same basic arguments that have been forwarded by many modern writers who urge against seeing immersion in various NT contexts. I believe compelling arguments can be made to counter most of them. If you're really interested in discussing objections, then maybe you could highlight one or two points in your paper that you find the most convincing, and we could start there.




Pergamum said:


> Many koine Greek words acquired a specialized Christian usage distinct from its original meaning e.g. agape. It also should be noted that although the writers of the NT had another Greek word for immerse egkataduno which means “sink beneath,” yet the word baptiso was consistently used to refer to that rite, and egkataduno is never used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an interesting point and I would also love to hear a credo-immersionist response about this term _egkataduno._
Click to expand...

 
Pergamum, both the _bapto_ and _duno_ family of words can include the concept of "immersion" in their usage. However, _baptizo_ often carries the further connotation of a commensurate "emmersion" as well, while _duno_ almost always carries the connotation of being permanantly submerged. The French-Swiss Reformed classicist and philologist Isaac Casaubon (1559–1614), who was Professor of Greek at the Genevan Academy from 1581-96, was one among many who have pointed this out:

For [in apostolic times] the rite of baptizing was performed by immersion in water: which the word _baptizein_ sufficiently declares; nor does this have the same significance as _dunein_, which is “to sink to the bottom and perish.” It is also certainly not the same as _epipolazein_, [‘swim on the surface’]. For these three words, _epipolazein_, _baptizein_, and _dunein_, have different meanings. Hence we can see that it is not without reason that the ancients contended for an immersion of the entire body in the ceremony of baptism; for they emphasized the import of _baptizein_.​
_(Novi Testamenti Libri Omnis, cum Notis Issaci Casauboni_, (Geneva: Eustache Vignon, 1587), on Matthew 3:6; my translation. Latin: _Hic enim suit baptizandi ritus ut in aquas immergerentur, quod vel ipsa vox_ βαπτίζειν _declarat satis; quae ut non significat _δύνειν, _quod est ‘fundum petere cum sua pernicie’, ita profecto non est_ έπιπολάζειν. _Differunt enim haec tria_ έπιπολάζειν, βαπτίζειν, δύνειν. _Unde intelligimus non esse abs re quod jampridem nonnulli disputarunt de toto corpore immergendo in ceremonia baptismi: vocem enim _βαπτίζειν _urgebant._; [_Criticorum Sacrorum Tomus Sextus, Exhibens Annotata in Quatuor,_ {Amsterdam: Guilielmun vande Water, 1698}, 97.)​


----------



## refbaptdude

Brother,

My point was that your paper only addressed Baptists, when in fact the Eastern Church typically holds the same position. Immersion is the catholic mode of the Church.


----------



## Grillsy

refbaptdude said:


> Immersion is the catholic mode of the Church.



Really? Since when?


----------



## refbaptdude

Grillsy said:


> refbaptdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immersion is the catholic mode of the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Since when?
Click to expand...

 
Immersion is the universally accepted mode of every church communion.


----------



## Grillsy

refbaptdude said:


> Immersion is the universally accepted mode of every church communion.



I see what you are saying. I thought you meant that it has been the most widely practiced throughout all of church history. My mistake.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

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





> But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water - these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word "baptize" means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church, Institutes 4:15:19.



Funny how what someone says can be changed by sound bites.


----------



## Marrow Man

Interesting. While trying to find the scene from MBFGW on Youtube, I came across several videos of EO baptisms. The first was a Greek orthodox baptism of an adult man. It took place in a shallow (but not that shallow) pool, where the man was bent _forward_ until his head went under (three times). The second was the baptism of a young girl in a Russian Orthodox church. She climbed into a tub, knelt down, and then (at the priest's prompting) held her nose and stuck her own face (but not her head or most of her body) in the water. The priest then splashed water on her as she did so. This was also done three times.

In the first example, I believe there were images of Christ in the video so I won't post that, but here is the video of the baptism of the little girl:

[video=youtube;IMVyDVX7hMI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMVyDVX7hMI[/video]

Then, I clicked on this short video which shows an EO baptism by immersion in a frozen section of the Ural River (!). The participant essentially baptizes himself by dipping his head underwater three times:

[video=youtube;0U194PCFcqo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U194PCFcqo[/video]

Finally, I found this video in a Greek Orthodox church of an infant baptism. The infant is baptized naked (video is out-of-focus) three times in a large urn-like container. The infant is lowered down but not actually immersed all the way. The priest then appears to pour or splash water on the head of the infant.

[video=youtube;a2Ml24KCvoA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2Ml24KCvoA[/video]

Conclusion, other than the baptisms being three-fold, that's about all they have in common. The practice is hardly uniform. In at least one case, the participant baptizes himself, and two are not immersions in the "full" sense. One of the baptisms is done naked, two in underwear, one in full clothing. None are bent backwards in the traditional Baptist way of immersion (which, incidentally, is the way I was immersed).


----------



## Grillsy

The Roman Catholic congregation in my town baptizes by immersion. Even the infants.
Not sure why this is their practice. Maybe the restorationist/revivalists roots in my part of Kentucky?


----------



## Phil D.

puritanpilgrim said:


> John Calvin -"The very word "baptize however, signifies to IMMERSE, and it is certain that IMMERSION was the practice of the ancient church."(Institutes of the Christian Religion, chp 15)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water - these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word "baptize" means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church, Institutes 4:15:19.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how what someone says can be changed by sound bites.
Click to expand...

 
The full context of Calvin's remarks actually raises another question for me: How does the position that immersion was used by the NT church (and I cannot find where Calvin ever asserted otherwise), but then insisting that other modes are just as good, comport with the RPW? In one place Calvin even explains his position by saying that "the church did _grant herself the liberty_ to change the rite [of baptism by immersion] somewhat."

However, thats another thread...(which maybe I'll start sometime later).


----------



## refbaptdude

Willie,

My nephew was baptized by immersion in the Roman Catholic Church in Arkansas. The church recently had an immersion pool built and the priest said that is was the practice of the early church.


----------



## Marrow Man

Phil D. said:


> The full context of Calvin's remarks actually raises another question for me: How does the position that immersion was used by the NT church (and I cannot find where Calvin ever asserted otherwise), but then insisting that other modes are just as good, comport with the RPW? In one place Calvin even explains his position by saying that "the church did grant herself the liberty to change the rite [of baptism by immersion] somewhat."



That is very interesting. There is another possibility to note: maybe Calvin was wrong (gasp!). In the Beveridge edition of the Institutes, there is the following footnote on this section:



> In this sentence Calvin makes three assertions: (1) that the mode of baptism is a matter of complete indifference (“not of the least consequence”). (2) that it is evident that the term “baptize” means to immerse. (3) that immersion was the mode used by the primitive Church. These assertions deserve thoughtful consideration. Perhaps the following observations will be helpful: (1) Behind Calvin’s complete indifference to mode lies an important distinction - the distinction between the substance or matter of the sacraments, and the mode or form of the sacraments; or to put it another way, the distinction between the essentials and the accidentals of the sacraments. For Calvin, the essential elements of the proper administration of baptism include: (a) a proper consecration, which includes the words of institution, the promises and obligations connected with the sacrament, and prayer; (b) a proper distribution, which involves the application of water in the name of the Trinity; and (c) a proper reception, which consists of faith, repentance, and an obedient spirit on the part of the recipient (or , in the case of infants, on the part of the parents). Beyond these, other aspects of the sacrament are “not of the least consequence,” but are purely matters of expediency (such as differences of national or local custom, or diversity or climate). (2) The contention that the word translate “baptize” means to immerse is true in many instances of its usage in the Greek classics, so many of which had been rediscovered in the Renaissance which preceded the Reformation period. It was no doubt in these works that Calvin found the word “baptize” to mean “immerse”. However, from a study of its usage in the Septuagient (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, made about 250-200 B.C.); and from a careful examination of its usage in the New Testament; we discover that this word, during the history of its usage, enlarged its scope of meaning to include, along with its classical definition of “to submerge, to immerse, and to dip,” the further meanings of “to bathe in or with water, to wash.” It should be noted that two of the most highly regarded Greek lexicons—Thayer’s and Arndt and Gingrich’s—bear witness to this enlarged scope of meaning. As far as the New Testament meaning of the word “baptize” is concerned, it must be decided by a study, in each instance, of its usage in context. Such a study reveals that the word “baptize” does not mean immersion (although immersion could have been used in a number of cases). On the other hand, the same study reveals that “baptize” does not mean pouring or sprinkling either! The word, as used in the New Testament, does not mean a particular mode. Whenever it is used to refer to Christian water baptism, it means “to perform the Christian ceremony of initiation, with its essential elements of consecration, distribution, and reception.” (3) The contention that immersion was the mode used by the primitive Church has more recently been questioned, in the light of a comparison between the writings of the Church Fathers and the archaeological evidence that in any way relates to mode. Such a comparison appears to favor pouring the prevailing mode, with other modes also in use. Excellent studies of this question can be found in Clement F. Rogers’ work, Baptism and Christian Archaeology (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1903), and J.G. Davies’ work, The Architectural Setting of Baptism (London, Barrie and Rockliff, 1962).



I only post that in order to help understand Calvin's comments better. OTOH, Beveridge could also be wrong.


----------



## AThornquist

Phil D. said:


> How does the position that immersion was used by the NT church (and I cannot find where Calvin ever asserted otherwise), but then insisting that other modes are just as good, comport with the RPW?



Oh. Good question.

---------- Post added at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 AM ----------




Marrow Man said:


> There is another possibility to note: maybe Calvin was wrong (gasp!).



Be careful. Remember what happened to Servetus?


----------



## Marrow Man

AThornquist said:


> Be careful. Remember what happened to Servetus?



Yes, and Calvin had very little to do with it. 

Dispelling One Calvin “Myth” « Gairney Bridge

Servetus Redux « Gairney Bridge


----------



## Grillsy

refbaptdude said:


> My nephew was baptized by immersion in the Roman Catholic Church in Arkansas. The church recently had an immersion pool built and the priest said that is was the practice of the early church.



This is most interesting. I wonder if this is becoming more common in RC churches?


----------



## Marrow Man

Grillsy said:


> This is most interesting. I wonder if this is becoming more common in RC churches?



Well, no one ever accused RCs of being particularly knowledgeable about church history. Tradition maybe, but that's not the same thing.


----------



## Phil D.

Marrow Man said:


> maybe Calvin was wrong



In terms of the church "granting herself the liberty to change the rite somewhat", I tend to thinks so.


----------



## Marrow Man

Phil D. said:


> In terms of the church "granting herself the liberty to change the rite somewhat", I tend to thinks so.



I do, however, think that the Beveridge note is helpful in considering what Calvin thought was important and unimportant in a sacrament. We could apply that similarly to the Lord's Supper as well. Of course, we tend to fight about the same things there as well (grape juice v. wine, leavened v. unleavened bread, single loaf/cup v. individual pieces, etc.) and lose sight of what the Lord has given us.


----------



## Phil D.

That's a good point, Tim.


----------



## sastark

Phil D. said:


> How does the position that immersion was used by the NT church (and I cannot find where Calvin ever asserted otherwise), but then insisting that other modes are just as good, comport with the RPW?



Because Scripture asserts that Baptism is to be done by "pouring out".

*Luke 3:16*
"John answered, saying to all, 'I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. *He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit* and fire.'"

*Acts 1:4-5*
"And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, 'which,' He said, 'you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but *you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit* not many days from now.'"

*Acts 2:14-18*
"But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, 'Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. *But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel*: "And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that* I will pour out of My Spirit* on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants *I will pour out My Spirit* in those days; and they shall prophesy."'"

*Acts 2:32-33*
"This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit,* He poured out this which you now see and hear*."

God promised that He would *pour out* his Spirit on all flesh, in those days. The promise is fulfilled when Christ *baptizes *with the Holy Spirit. Baptism is to be done by the pouring out of water, just as Christ poured out the Holy Spirit, as prophesied by Joel, John, and Christ Himself.


----------



## Phil D.

Seth, I do want to stay on the OP insofar as possible, yet since Dr. Ferguson does raise this issue in his paper, I'll bite. However, right now I have to go to work for a while , but I'll eventually put something together that explains my thinking on this issue and post it here later.


----------



## Grillsy

Marrow Man said:


> Well, no one ever accused RCs of being particularly knowledgeable about church history. Tradition maybe, but that's not the same thing.



Who needs church history when you have the Pope?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Being a Particular Baptist from the foundation of my Christian Journey, the mode really hasn't been one I have argued for or against necessarily. Especially when considering the LXX and the use of the terms and applications in the texts in it. Of course that is a secondary source and not the God breathed word, but it does give us reference to how the terms were used. I would and do prefer the immersion understanding. But if there is a contention in someones heart I wouldn't worry about it. To me the issue is about the New Creation as St. Paul noted.



> (Gal 6:14) But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
> 
> (Gal 6:15) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
> 
> (Gal 6:16) And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.



At the same time I would say that death, burial, and resurrection are pictured better by the immersion method.


----------



## Marrow Man

PuritanCovenanter said:


> At the same time I would say that death, burial, and resurrection are pictured better by the immersion method.



Except for the fact that this is an anachronistic understanding of what it means to be "buried." It is taking a modern conception of burial (i.e., a body being placed beneath the surface of the ground) and imposing that on the text of Romans 6. It is true enough that we are buried with Christ through baptism into death, but what did Jesus' burial look like? He was placed in a cave with a stone rolled over it -- hardly an exact metaphor to the way (some) immersionists which to depict it. Furthermore, burial is not the only metaphor for baptism in the writings of Paul: "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ" (Galatians 3:27). I'm not sure how one would depict that through immersion.


----------



## MLCOPE2

Marrow Man said:


> Well, no one ever accused RCs of being particularly knowledgeable about church history.



Nor consistent for that matter! 

---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> At the same time I would say that death, burial, and resurrection are pictured better by the immersion method.



I think sprinkling better pictures the cleansing and renewing work of the blood of Christ in the new covenant.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Marrow Man said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the same time I would say that death, burial, and resurrection are pictured better by the immersion method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the fact that this is an anachronistic understanding of what it means to be "buried." It is taking a modern conception of burial (i.e., a body being placed beneath the surface of the ground) and imposing that on the text of Romans 6. It is true enough that we are buried with Christ through baptism into death, but what did Jesus' burial look like? He was placed in a cave with a stone rolled over it -- hardly an exact metaphor to the way (some) immersionists which to depict it. Furthermore, burial is not the only metaphor for baptism in the writings of Paul: "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ" (Galatians 4:27). I'm not sure how one would depict that through immersion.
Click to expand...


It was still a placing in the ground or internment. If you notice I never use Romans Romans 6 as argument. It is a totally different greek word for bury as is the word in Colosians 2:12. 

There is an internment spoken of. It is in the ground. And there is also the concept of Coming out of the grave. Anyways, maybe we are thinking too much like the Western Culture. I definitely don't see this in the rituals and rites of Indians who burned the bodies that were suspended in the air by a platform type structure. 

Anyways, As I said, I really don't have a dog in this fight.


----------



## Marrow Man

PuritanCovenanter said:


> If you notice I never use Romans Romans 6 as argument. It is a totally different greek word for bury as is the word in Colosians 2:12.



No, it's a different form of the same Greek word in both cases (_sunthapto_ -- to be buried together with), although one is a participle and the other is a verb. But I'm willing to let sleeping dogs die, er, lie.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

One more thought, and I am thinking out aloud Tim, if our baptism shows the death, burial, and resurrection then the putting on Christ would be something more akin to our clothing ourselves in His righteousness. In other words it would have more to do with our identifying with him and being raised in newness of life. Either way it is fully enveloping.


----------



## Marrow Man

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of Paul's metaphors having to do with our union with Christ and the benefits of that joining to Him, not with modes of application. To take passages that speak of what our Lord has accomplished for us and reduce them arguments over mode sort of misses the whole point of what Paul is saying.


----------



## Marrow Man

Of course, now that I think about it, it is kind of ironically funny that Paul compares being baptized into Christ to being clothed with Him, and those two EO guys were baptized in their underwear.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I agree with Pastor Tim Phillips for the most part. In my estimation a lot of people get too hung up on the particulars and miss the real thing. See, Baptists and Presbyterians can agree. :^)


----------



## Marrow Man

PuritanCovenanter said:


> See, Baptists and Presbyterians can agree. :^)



Especially a Presbyterian who was immersed and a Baptist who is a member of a Presbyterian Church.


----------



## MW

Phil D. said:


> How does the position that immersion was used by the NT church (and I cannot find where Calvin ever asserted otherwise), but then insisting that other modes are just as good, comport with the RPW? In one place Calvin even explains his position by saying that "the church did _grant herself the liberty_ to change the rite [of baptism by immersion] somewhat."


 
There is social convention and there is religious institution. The RPW applies to the latter. There was originally a fellowship meal connected with the Lord's supper. That was a social convention. In 1 Cor. 11 we find the apostle Paul confining the meal to the home and separating the bread and wine as sacramental elements. The social convention of participating in a meal is not required. The religious institution of partaking of the elements remains. Likewise, in baptism, the association of cleansing with bathing means that the social convention of being IN water (not necessarily submerged) is attached to the sacrament, but it is the application of the water itself which constitutes the essential element of baptism. The social convention may be easily removed without affecting the essential sacramental character of applying water to the person.


----------



## Particular Baptist

On this issue, I have found Warfield's work, _The Archaeology of the Mode of Baptism_, to be interesting. I believe this is the work that convinced Lloyd-Jones of the practice of pouring over immersion as being more biblical. If I remember correctly, he asserted that from the standpoint of Archaeology, it appears that baptism was done with the subject being waste deep in the baptismal waters and water poured over the head of the subject three times. He mentions how there was much debate over whether three pourings or one pouring was better, as well as if three or one immersions was the biblical mode. I'm not sure if he endorced this thesis, but I also think he mentions a hypothesis that perhaps both pouring and immersion were part of the original mode of baptism and later the Oriental churches began to emphasis immersion and the Latin church, affusion. Also, I think he rightly points out, that in the early church no baptism, of whatever mode, was considered invalid because of mode.


----------



## timmopussycat

Particular Baptist said:


> On this issue, I have found Warfield's work, _The Archaeology of the Mode of Baptism_, to be interesting. I believe this is the work that convinced Lloyd-Jones of the practice of pouring over immersion as being more biblical. If I remember correctly, he asserted that from the standpoint of Archaeology, it appears that baptism was done with the subject being waste deep in the baptismal waters and water poured over the head of the subject three times. He mentions how there was much debate over whether three pourings or one pouring was better, as well as if three or one immersions was the biblical mode. I'm not sure if he endorced this thesis, but I also think he mentions a hypothesis that perhaps both pouring and immersion were part of the original mode of baptism and later the Oriental churches began to emphasis immersion and the Latin church, affusion. Also, I think he rightly points out, that in the early church no baptism, of whatever mode, was considered invalid because of mode.


 
And on this Warfield may have been wrong. I have this second hand, but my understanding is that one of Warfield's claims was that the apostles did not have suffiicient water handy to immerse the thousands who professed faith on Pentecost and on the other occasion shortly thereafter. In actual fact it appears that the temple bathhouses would have easily sufficed for such crowds.


----------



## torstar

Marrow Man said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the same time I would say that death, burial, and resurrection are pictured better by the immersion method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the fact that this is an anachronistic understanding of what it means to be "buried." It is taking a modern conception of burial (i.e., a body being placed beneath the surface of the ground) and imposing that on the text of Romans 6. It is true enough that we are buried with Christ through baptism into death, but what did Jesus' burial look like? He was placed in a cave with a stone rolled over it -- hardly an exact metaphor to the way (some) immersionists which to depict it. Furthermore, burial is not the only metaphor for baptism in the writings of Paul: "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ" (Galatians 3:27). I'm not sure how one would depict that through immersion.
Click to expand...

 

Excellent point.

Also, Lazarus didn't have to pull a Houdini to get out of his sealed casket and then burrow like a mole towards the sunlight.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Lazarus didn't have a sealed casket. But he was in the ground or cave and enveloped. We discussed this already. Jesus did stand outside after they uncovered the tomb to call Lazarus out.


----------



## Peairtach

Isn't it the case that we are baptised by/with the Holy Spirit by Christ into His birth, ministry, life, crucifixion, death, resurrection, ascension and session at regeneration?

This spiritual baptism is symbolised by water baptism. The crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection are just around the point of Christ's moving from a state of humiliation to a state of exaltation, but they do not represent all that we are baptised into.

This was one reason - apart from the fact that He did not have all power in Heaven and on Earth until His session, not being at the right hand of the Father - why Christ delayed baptising the disciples into Himself with the Spirit until His session. He couldn't appropriately baptise them into His ascension and session until Pentecost.

*E.g.*


> You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28, ESV)



E.g. When Christ rose from the dead He gave the disciples a foretaste of Pentecost but not the full baptism into Him, because He had not ascended and was not seated in Heaven at the right hand of the Father.


> And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." John 20:22, ESV)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Phil D. said:


> The full context of Calvin's remarks actually raises another question for me: How does the position that immersion was used by the NT church (and I cannot find where Calvin ever asserted otherwise), but then insisting that other modes are just as good, comport with the RPW? In one place Calvin even explains his position by saying that "the church did grant herself the liberty to change the rite [of baptism by immersion] somewhat."
> 
> However, thats another thread...(which maybe I'll start sometime later).


I assume you understand the difference between an element and a circumstance...


----------



## alb1

refbaptdude said:


> Brother,
> 
> My point was that your paper only addressed Baptists, when in fact the Eastern Church typically holds the same position. Immersion is the catholic mode of the Church.


 
I attended a believer's baptism of a relative at an AOCA of North America parish about 15 years ago. There were two items in regards to belief that the the priest made perfectly clear; salvation is initiated in the waters of baptism and through the act of baptism your sins are actually forgiven. As far as the practice, he was immersed three times , in a large tub that he could sit in, backwards. Once in the name of the Father, once in the name of the Son, and once in the name of the Holy Spirit. 

Besides immersing, the Baptists and Orthodox do share Romans 6 as their proof text for their respective ideas on baptism. Both allude to the union with Christ in baptism, Orthodox literally, Baptists symbolically.


----------



## TomVols

Though presently SBC, I am becoming less convinced of the traditional Baptist view of the subjects and mode of Baptism. I find much that is positive in Tony Lane's either/or approach.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Lazarus didn't have a sealed casket. But he was in the ground or cave and enveloped. We discussed this already. Jesus did stand outside after they uncovered the tomb to call Lazarus out.


 
Hi Randy:

When you take a shower you are being fully covered with water - enveloped - and yet it is a sprinkling. You are "under" the water when it is poured upon you in the shower. When people normally take a bath they do so by sitting in the tub and having hot water poured over their heads. Yet, we usually think of a bath as being fully immersed.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Peairtach

I'm not saying that this was originally part of what was behind the insistence that baptists had that the water is only to be applied by immersion, but it seems to have been a compelling superstitious reason behind Judaistic insistence on thorough immersion for the Old Covenant cleansing rites, that the water should touch every part of the body for the cleansing to be done properly.

Ritual washing in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Niddah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> There are differing customs about how many immersions are performed at each visit to a mikvah. It is the custom of many in the Orthodox community to immerse at least twice.[25] Accordingly, they would immerse, recite the blessing, then immerse again. This order is in deference to two opinions in the codes. One compares this immersion to that of a convert, who cannot recite the blessing before immersing as s/he is not yet Jewish. The other opinion states that like other commandments, here too the blessing should be recited before performing the commandment.[26]
> 
> Immersion at the mikvah is preceded by an ordinary bath or shower, involving the cleaning of every body cavity, including the ears, and of the nails, as well trimming all nails (toenails as well as fingernails), removal of food from between the teeth, and combing of the hair. There is usually a female attendant at mikvahs to help women to ensure that they are prepared for immersion.
> 
> A special type of bath, designed to be in direct contact with naturally gathered water, known as a mikvah, was created by the rabbis to simplify ritual washing, although certain forms of immersion in natural streams, lakes, and even the sea, if cleared by a rabbi, are still considered sufficient. (See Ritual washing in Judaism for additional details). According to tradition, there must be nothing between the woman and the water at any point of her body, and therefore before bathing, the woman is traditionally required to remove all jewelry, make-up, and any other obstructions (defined in such a way that in modern times this would include contact lenses); the rabbinical tradition requires full immersion, including the entire head of hair.
> 
> It is also customary for a specific Hebrew blessing to be recited during immersion:
> 
> (Hebrew) Baruch atah Ha-Shem, Elokainu Melech Ha'Olam, asher kidshanu b'mitzvotav v'tzivanu al ha-tevila
> (translation) Blessed are you, the Name, our God, King of the Universe, who has sanctified us with his commandments, and has commanded us regarding immersion.



Water doesn't need to touch every part of the body for a proper baptism since it is a symbol of the cleansing of the heart as Christ applies His finished work in regeneration by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Herald

As a sort of rebellious Reformed Baptist I subscribe to immersion as the sole mode among Baptists, but I would not discount the baptism of a person who was sprinkled or poured outside of a Baptist church. If an individual wanted to join my church I would accept their baptism, regardless of mode, so long as it was trinitarian and credo. Most Baptists would link mode with type, but I only require it when the individual has no other church affiliation and is seeking believers baptism.

Sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix


----------



## Pilgrim

Herald said:


> As a sort of rebellious Reformed Baptist I subscribe to immersion as the sole mode among Baptists, but I would not discount the baptism of a person who was sprinkled or poured outside of a Baptist church. If an individual wanted to join my church I would accept their baptism, regardless of mode, so long as it was trinitarian and credo. Most Baptists would link mode with type, but I only require it when the individual has no other church affiliation and is seeking believers baptism.


 
Rebellious indeed! And unconfessional to boot! _*Is the crisis really over?*_  (For the newcomers, Bill's handle here used to be "Baptist in Crisis.") From a confessional standpoint overall I'm sure I'm much more rebellious than you are. 

On this issue, I too have been questioning the insistence on immersion only as baptism. The inconsistency of the prevalence of open communion in most Baptist churches (whether "Reformed" or not) is a related subject. If I had to take a position now, it would probably be something like Bunyan's, which is reflected in many non-denominational Bible churches and the Evangelical Free church. The only other position that makes sense to me from a credo (and immersionist) standpoint is the traditional closed membership close communion view in which baptism by immersion is prerequisite to both church membership and the Lord's Supper. This is the view reflected in nearly every historic Baptist confession. The 2nd London Baptist Confession is the only exception that I'm aware of, but my guess is that the vast majority of those present held to the close communion view. 

When you think about it, immersionism can be taken to absurd lengths, many of which appear to be good and necessary consequences of taking on that position. A few years ago, I witnessed a baptism in which about half of one of the man's arms was not immersed. Does that mean that the baptism was not valid? How can it be from an immersionist standpoint? I wonder if I were to point this out to the pastor and if it were to be confirmed on video, would he want to (re)baptize the man? A Southern Baptist pastor friend told me he's had feet and legs pop out of the water, etc. I should have asked him if those cases require another go at it. Or does close count not only with horseshoes and hand grenades, but with immersion as well? 

It seems to me that the open table at most Baptist churches is a way to dodge some of the "odious consequences" of the immersionist view, to quote Dabney. In Dabney's day, close or closed communion in Baptist churches was the norm.


----------



## Particular Baptist

One thing that I'm beginning to understand about baptismal mode, and I think this has to play a part in our understanding of baptism, is that Christianity is not to be tied to any particular place. However, according to those who believe that immersion is the only acceptable mode of baptism, how can they assert such a claim? How could someone practice Christianity in a place where water is not in so much abundance that baptism by immersion could not be practiced? I think we begin to, in a certain way, restrict where the gospel may be preached and the sacraments faithfully administered when we state that baptism can ONLY be by immersion.


----------



## Herald

Pilgrim said:


> Rebellious indeed! And unconfessional to boot! Is the crisis really over? (For the newcomers, Bill's handle here used to be "Baptist in Crisis.") From a confessional standpoint overall I'm sure I'm much more rebellious than you are.



"Conflict? There is no conflict." ~ Darth Vader

Actually, there is no crisis. I am still a credobaptist and believe that immersion is the proper mode. If an individual desires to join my church, and they have never been baptized, they must submit to immersion; it is not open to negotiation. However, if an individual was baptized by pouring or sprinkling, upon a credible profession of faith, I will not require them to submit to immersion in order to make their baptism valid. I believe the command is to believe and be baptized. That command is of more weight than mode; although I am not lessening the importance or significance of mode. It is enough for me that an individual has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit upon the confession of their faith in Jesus Christ.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I agree with Herald.


----------



## Jack K

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I agree with Herald.


 
And I appreciate the willingness both of you brothers have to go even that far in recognizing the baptisms performed by other churches belonging to our Lord. Just thought I'd express that appreciation.


----------



## Marrow Man




----------



## Semper Fidelis

It seems to me that a willingness to accept a baptism that is not by immersion is a tacit rejection of the immersionist-only position. In other words, either mode is a circumstance or it is so tied to administration that it can be said that a person was never baptized if they were not immersed. If the latter, then it could not merely be a personal scruple. 

Frankly, I believe the immersionist-only position tries to devolve the discussion down to the etymology of a word while ignoring widespread Biblical use of ther term. Furthermore, it is impossible to demonstrate an explicit command to immerse. Quite the contrary, "baptisms" by sprinkling are all over the OT ceremonial practice and 1 Cor 10:2 indicates a baptism in the *mist* of the Red Sea. Furthermore, baptism of the Holy Spirit is repeatedly seen as a "pouring out."

I've never seen anything other than "bapto means dip or immerse" as an argument from etymology. By the same argument, we would have to apply the term logos, as used of Christ, to refer to an impersonal emanation.


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> It seems to me that a willingness to accept a baptism that is not by immersion is a tacit rejection of the immersionist-only position.



I expected one or more PB members to bring this up. I see it differently. I am an immersionist. I require immersion with every baptism that is performed in my church. I admit that accepting a person who was previously administered baptism by sprinkling or pouring, upon a credible profession of faith, is out of practice with the general immersionist position. However, I'm not terribly concerned about that. I believe that requiring them to submit to immersion, _after _they have already been baptized upon their profession, is straining a gnat. I don't want anyone to misconstrue my view as accepting paedobaptism as a valid baptism. I just happen to believe that RB's should emphasize what is truly important about baptism; namely that the proper recipient is one who professes faith in Jesus Christ. Require immersion as the proper mode? Absolutely. Require rebaptism because of an irregularity regarding mode? No. If that makes me contra-confessional with the 1689 then I suppose I have an exception in this area.


----------



## Phil D.

Semper Fidelis said:


> 1 Cor 10:2 indicates a baptism in the *mist* of the Red Sea.



Really? What translation do you use?


----------



## Iconoclast

Hello Rich,
you said this;


> Quite the contrary, "baptisms" by sprinkling are all over the OT ceremonial practice and 1 Cor 10:2 indicates a baptism in *the mist *of the Red Sea


 you said mist.....in other words "sprinkling of water"? Yet the text in Exodus indicates a place, the mi d st of the sea the d in the middle means central right. Even the soldiers went into the midst. The water of baptism proved to be death to the egyptians who were not rightly related to it. They did not come through it to new life.They perished like the world in the flood in the day of Noah.Those not rightly related to the judgment perished by immersion, the water of Death as they were not in the Ark. All that died were immersed.....not sprinkled. Even Jonah praying in chapter two was as good as dead and the language of his prayer seems very similar to the language of Psalm 69...being overflowed by water.....and for all practical purposes dead for three days figuratively ,until he learns salvation is of the Lord.In the fish he was immersed,not sprinkled.
We are rightly related to the judgment in Union with Christ.We come through the waters of death in a figure ,in Christ.
Thomas Manton on his sermons on Romans 6 in volume 11 had no problem with immersion being the mode.

I think clearly immersion relates best to these three examples, instead of speculating that the wall of water may have provided a "mist" to sprinkle everyone.

Exodus 14-says


> 21And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.
> 
> 22And the children of Israel went into *the midst *of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.


[QUOTE 23And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to* the midst *of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. 

][/QUOTE]


> 27And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.
> 
> 28And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.
> 
> 29But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.





> Jonah 2
> 1Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly,
> 
> 2And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.
> 
> 3For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.
> 
> 4Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.
> 
> 5The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.
> 
> 6I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.
> 
> 7When my soul fainted within me I remembered the LORD: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.
> 
> 8They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.
> 
> 9But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.
> 
> 10And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.


[QUOTE 1Save me, O God; for the waters are come in unto my soul. 

2I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me. 

3I am weary of my crying: my throat is dried: mine eyes fail while I wait for my God. 

4They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away. 

5O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee. 

6Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. 

7Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. 

8I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. 

9For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. 

10When I wept, and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach. 

11I made sackcloth also my garment; and I became a proverb to them. 

12They that sit in the gate speak against me; and I was the song of the drunkards. 

13But as for me, my prayer is unto thee, O LORD, in an acceptable time: O God, in the multitude of thy mercy hear me, in the truth of thy salvation. 

14Deliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink: let me be delivered from them that hate me, and out of the deep waters. 

15Let not the waterflood overflow me, neither let the deep swallow me up, and let not the pit shut her mouth upon me. 

16Hear me, O LORD; for thy lovingkindness is good: turn unto me according to the multitude of thy tender mercies. 

17And hide not thy face from thy servant; for I am in trouble: hear me speedily. 

18Draw nigh unto my soul, and redeem it: deliver me because of mine enemies. 

19Thou hast known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonour: mine adversaries are all before thee. 

20Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. 

21They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. 

22Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap. 

23Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake. 

24Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them. 

25Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents. 

][/QUOTE]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Phil D. said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Cor 10:2 indicates a baptism in the *mist* of the Red Sea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What translation do you use?
Click to expand...

 
Are you aware of anyone who was immersed in the Red Sea other than Pharaoh's Army? Every translation I have read clearly records the Israelites as _walking_ across with walls of water on either side as they passed through. 1 Cor 10:2 states they were baptized in the "cloud" and the "Red Sea". If baptism, by a typical Baptist reading, means to immerse the individual in the medium spoken of then, by definition, this verse is a counter-factual as the Israelites were clearly not immersed into the Red Sea but walked through it.

At best, whatever else the Israelites physically experienced as they passed through was mist. By noting this, I'm not creating an eisogetical case for sprinkling but merely pointing out that they were baptized into Moses as they physically passed through sea mist. If you would like to make the argument that this was a baptism that had no physical means then I'm fine with that but, either way, it is quite clear that all Israel was baptized and no immersion in water occurred.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Herald said:


> I believe that requiring them to submit to immersion, after they have already been baptized upon their profession, is straining a gnat.



Consequently, by calling it a "baptism" you are not an immersion-only Baptist because you do not see mode as material to the definition of baptism itself.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> you said mist.....in other words "sprinkling of water"? Yet the text in Exodus indicates a place, the mi d st of the sea the d in the middle means central right. Even the soldiers went into the midst. The water of baptism proved to be death to the egyptians who were not rightly related to it. They did not come through it to new life.They perished like the world in the flood in the day of Noah.Those not rightly related to the judgment perished by immersion, the water of Death as they were not in the Ark. All that died were immersed.....not sprinkled. Even Jonah praying in chapter two was as good as dead and the language of his prayer seems very similar to the language of Psalm 69...being overflowed by water.....and for all practical purposes dead for three days figuratively ,until he learns salvation is of the Lord.In the fish he was immersed,not sprinkled.
> We are rightly related to the judgment in Union with Christ.We come through the waters of death in a figure ,in Christ.
> Thomas Manton on his sermons on Romans 6 in volume 11 had no problem with immersion being the mode.



The point is, again, that all examples given are baptisms where the subjects baptized were NOT immersed in water. In other words, the use of the term in the Scriptures points to many examples where the subjects of baptism are not immersed by the physical medium of water. Thus, as pointed out, one cannot make the case, based upon the etymology of a word, that baptism _means_ immersion in water and an explicit command by the Lord is associated with the selection of this word.


----------



## Phil D.

Semper Fidelis said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Cor 10:2 indicates a baptism in the *mist* of the Red Sea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What translation do you use?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware of anyone who was immersed in the Red Sea other than Pharaoh's Army? Every translation I have read clearly records the Israelites as _walking_ across with walls of water on either side as they passed through. 1 Cor 10:2 states they were baptized in the "cloud" and the "Red Sea". If baptism, by a typical Baptist reading, means to immerse the individual in the medium spoken of then, by definition, this verse is a counter-factual as the Israelites were clearly not immersed into the Red Sea but walked through it.
Click to expand...

 
Actually, all of the various aspects of this event as it relates to "baptism by immersion" have been given probable explanation by Jewish, early Christian, medieval, and Reformed exegetes alike. I'll tell you what, once I get my promised reply to Seth regarding the pouring out of the Holy Spirit posted here (hopefully later today or tomorrow), in a few days I'll start a new thread for the discussion of this fascinating facet of the "great modal debate"!


----------



## R Harris

The problem that I have with many Baptists on the point is the dogmatic emphasis that immersion is the _only_ way, when clearly there is no explicit instruction in the NT to that effect. We all must thoroughly reject the Landmarkian ideology in every respect.

Several points which have been made in many threads over the years on this board:

1. James Dale's three volume series - Baptizo - Classic Baptism, Judaic Baptism, and Johannine Baptism - convincingly demonstrated over 140 years ago that _baptizo_ does not mean only to immerse and nothing but immerse. Many Baptists in the late 1800s came to that very conclusion as a result of Dr. Dale's remarkable study (such as Baptist theologian David Ford). If you have not seen this series, you really ought to. Many positive comments from Baptists and non-Baptists on the back of each book.

2. The NT examples in Acts have to provide conclusive evidence that _only_ an immersion could have occurred. It is interesting in Acts 8 that Philip and the Eunuch BOTH went down into the water - the point meaning that if I walk down into a pond or lake and only go knee or waist deep, I went down into the water, and then turning around I came up out of the water, without ever having immersed my entire body. Think about it; if you were sprinkling, and you were by a pond or lake, how would it be easiest to perform the baptism? By going in waist deep, with the water right there, is a far more easier and efficient task.

3. I have searched far and wide, but I cannot find any immersionist who can present even a plausible explanation as to how Paul could have been immersed in Acts 9. He was inside the house, which immediately poses a problem, since homes in Damascus in AD 33 did not have any kind of facilities that could have allowed an immersion to have occurred. Only kings, other rulers, or the wealthiest nobles had any kind of water facilities in their homes. Judas was not described as such, and Luke was always careful to note if a man was of that position anywhere else in Acts.

Also note that after Paul received his sight from the Holy Spirit, he STOOD UP, and then was immediately baptized. He then took food and was strengthened. No movement from the room or the house is recorded. 

The point of this instance is that the immersionist must make many far-reaching assumptions to provide the possibility of an immersion. With the sprinkler/pourer, such is not the case, as vases/jars of water could readily be available.

Still waiting, after 25 years, to find adequate responses to these issues.


----------



## Phil D.

R Harris said:


> Still waiting, after 25 years, to find adequate responses to these issues.



I addressed # 1 _ad nauseum _ here. 

Also, I'm not sure it's accurate to say "many Baptists in the late 1800s came to that very conclusion as a result of Dr. Dale's remarkable study (such as Baptist theologian David Ford)...[there are] many positive comments from Baptists...on the back of each book." If I missed this, and it can be documented, I'd truly be interested to see it.

Since I already have several irons in the fire, I'll have to take a pass on answering 2 and 3 in-depth. But I can assure you they have been extensively addressed by Baptist writers before - perhaps not to your satisfaction, but obviously to others'. Maybe we can look into them more sometime down the road.


----------



## Iconoclast

Semper Fidelis said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> you said mist.....in other words "sprinkling of water"? Yet the text in Exodus indicates a place, the mi d st of the sea the d in the middle means central right. Even the soldiers went into the midst. The water of baptism proved to be death to the egyptians who were not rightly related to it. They did not come through it to new life.They perished like the world in the flood in the day of Noah.Those not rightly related to the judgment perished by immersion, the water of Death as they were not in the Ark. All that died were immersed.....not sprinkled. Even Jonah praying in chapter two was as good as dead and the language of his prayer seems very similar to the language of Psalm 69...being overflowed by water.....and for all practical purposes dead for three days figuratively ,until he learns salvation is of the Lord.In the fish he was immersed,not sprinkled.
> We are rightly related to the judgment in Union with Christ.We come through the waters of death in a figure ,in Christ.
> Thomas Manton on his sermons on Romans 6 in volume 11 had no problem with immersion being the mode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, again, that all examples given are baptisms where the subjects baptized were NOT immersed in water. In other words, the use of the term in the Scriptures points to many examples where the subjects of baptism are not immersed by the physical medium of water. Thus, as pointed out, one cannot make the case, based upon the etymology of a word, that baptism _means_ immersion in water and an explicit command by the Lord is associated with the selection of this word.
Click to expand...

 
Well I do agree in part Rich,with the physical part of the OT types.I think we agree that what is at issue is the signification of the sign. The baptism is to represent in part our Union with Christ. Either as you would teach as a sign signifying what happens to believers when God saves them, or as a credo would say it shows what has happened to the professed believer by the Spirits work in regeneration and new birth.
What I see in the OT types is the believers passing through the judgment waters, not so much that they got physically wet.I see more the idea of those trusting the promise of God's word pass through the judgment...In The Ark, unto Moses, and In Christ. This identification with the promise of God is the central idea depicted...even in Romans 6;
[QUOTE 4Therefore we are *buried with him by baptism *into death: that* like as *Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 

5For if we have been* planted together in the likeness *of his death, we* shall be also in the likeness of *his resurrection: 

][/QUOTE]
What I am trying to say is it is that they came out of the water,alive,which the same water was death to those without promise. 

This helps me understand what Jesus spoke ofin Lk12;


> 49I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
> 
> 50But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
> 
> 51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division


 This baptism has to do with the suffering on the cross on our behalf. Water is not involved. But we identify with it IN Christ.
Can you see this element at all... the passing through the judgment, In Christ.;


> 21The* like figure *whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Anthony,

All you've shown is that there is a spiritual reality associated with baptism but have not demonstrated a corresponding necessity with a specific mode to signify the same. Even the passage from Romans 6 that you bolded (buried with Him...) speaks to _spiritual_ union with Christ in His death and not (as commonly abused) with mode of baptism.


----------



## Peairtach

> The clouds poured out water; the skies gave forth thunder; your arrows flashed on every side.(ESV)



Psalm 77:17 indicates rain during the exodus through the Red Sea.

*Spurgeon's "Treasury of David"*


> Verse 17. The clouds poured out water. Obedient to the Lord, the lower region of the atmosphere yielded its aid to overthrow the Egyptian host. The cloudy chariots of heaven hurried forward to discharge their floods. The skies sent out a sound. From the loftier aerial regions thundered the dread artillery of the Lord of Hosts. Peal on peal the skies sounded over the heads of the routed enemies, confusing their minds and adding to their horror. Thine arrows also went abroad. Lightnings flew like bolts from the bow of God. Swiftly, hither and thither, went the red tongues of flame, on helm and shield they gleamed; anon with blue bale fires revealing the innermost caverns of the hungry sea which waited to swallow up the pride of Mizraim. Behold, how all the creatures wait upon their God, and show themselves strong to overthrow his enemies.



Maybe sometimes sitting or standing in the water in baptism, while not necessary, while having it applied by pouring or sprinkling captures these types of salvation and judgment well - the Flood and the Exodus.


----------



## Phil D.

Semper Fidelis said:


> Even the passage from Romans 6 that you bolded (buried with Him...) speaks to spiritual union with Christ in His death and not (as commonly abused) with mode of baptism.



Ahh - yet another future thread...


----------



## Iconoclast

Rich I agree about Spirit baptism in Romans 6. Do you agree about the ot references to water speaking of the judgment of God,and believers identified properly with the promise of God's word coming through the judgment ?
Although I do believe that immersion does picture this more clearly than sprinkling, I cannot say it is indisputable.[in reference to mode] It just seems clear to me at this point. I would like your thoughts however on the verses cited,and the judgment of God. Do you see this[judgment and death] in the verses ,or do you think this is not a valid understanding of these texts? Are you aware of any who view it this way?


----------



## BertMulder

From the reformed baptism form:

_O Almighty and eternal God, thou, who hast according to thy severe judgment punished the unbelieving and unrepentant world with the flood, and hast according to thy great mercy saved and protected believing Noah and his family; thou, who hast drowned the obstinate Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea, and hast led thy people Israel through the midst of the Sea upon dry ground,by which baptism was signified _

I note that the ones being immersed are the ones that perished...

furthermore, sprinkling is often used in the Old Testament for the cleaning rite:

*Exodus 24:8*
And Moses took the blood, and *sprinkle*d it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
*Exodus 29:21*
And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and *sprinkle* it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him: and he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with him.
*Leviticus 4:6*
And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and *sprinkle* of the blood seven times before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary.
*Numbers 8:7*
And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: *Sprinkle* water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.
*Ezekiel 36:25*
Then will I *sprinkle* clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> Do you see this[judgment and death] in the verses ,or do you think this is not a valid understanding of these texts? Are you aware of any who view it this way?



There is death signified in the Lord's Supper as well. The sign signifies many things that are not immediately apparent by the relative simplicity of the meal.

It's relatively easy with the Lord's Supper to know that we're dealing with bread and wine. From what we know it is clear there was a common cup and they broke up bread to pass to one another. It seems clear to me, at least, to insist upon this "mode" of the Lord's Supper (common cup and one big piece of bread divided among those celebrating) if one is going to apply the same logic to build a case for immersion-only baptism.

Remember, we're not talking about the possibility of the validity of a mode. This thread is speaking of the mode as so certain, so obvious by GNC, that it has been instituted by Christ and no other mode is acceptable. Probable explanations of the Red Sea crossing by Jewish or Christian commentators do not a clear case make.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Phil D. said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the passage from Romans 6 that you bolded (buried with Him...) speaks to spiritual union with Christ in His death and not (as commonly abused) with mode of baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh - yet another future thread...
Click to expand...

 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f87/dead-sin-alive-Christ-rom-6-1-11-a-50607/


----------



## Peairtach

Maybe sometimes sitting or standing in the water in baptism, while not necessary, while having it applied by pouring or sprinkling captures these types of salvation and judgment well - the Flood and the Exodus.

Doing this sometimes in Presbyterian churches would involve extra work, but would be a way of reaching out to our less dogmatic Reformed Baptist brethren.


----------



## athanatos

Herald said:


> As a sort of rebellious Reformed Baptist I subscribe to immersion as the sole mode among Baptists, but I would not discount the baptism of a person who was sprinkled or poured outside of a Baptist church. If an individual wanted to join my church I would accept their baptism, regardless of mode, so long as it was trinitarian and credo.


I believe I would argue for the same. As a Reformed Baptist who is only in the last couple years seen anything strongly supporting paedobaptism, and finding a lot more the more I think about it, I have really loosened up on my view.


> Most Baptists would link mode with type, but I only require it when the individual has no other church affiliation and is seeking believers baptism.


I am not sure this makes sense to me. Is there a way you could explain type in this context? I believe I have mode down.



Pilgrim said:


> Rebellious indeed! And unconfessional to boot! _*Is the crisis really over?*_  (For the newcomers, Bill's handle here used to be "Baptist in Crisis.") From a confessional standpoint overall I'm sure I'm much more rebellious than you are.
> 
> On this issue, I too have been questioning the insistence on immersion only as baptism. The inconsistency of the prevalence of open communion in most Baptist churches (whether "Reformed" or not) is a related subject. If I had to take a position now, it would probably be something like Bunyan's, which is reflected in many non-denominational Bible churches and the Evangelical Free church.


What is Bunyan's view?



> When you think about it, immersionism can be taken to absurd lengths, many of which appear to be good and necessary consequences of taking on that position. A few years ago, I witnessed a baptism in which about half of one of the man's arms was not immersed. Does that mean that the baptism was not valid? How can it be from an immersionist standpoint? I wonder if I were to point this out to the pastor and if it were to be confirmed on video, would he want to (re)baptize the man? A Southern Baptist pastor friend told me he's had feet and legs pop out of the water, etc. I should have asked him if those cases require another go at it. Or does close count not only with horseshoes and hand grenades, but with immersion as well?


I feel like the particulars are being missed if we argued for sprinkling-only, immersion-only, or dipped-sprinkling-only. That may make me a confessional failure, especially since I am not 100% convinced at this point on whether I am gonna stick with credo. The symbolic sacrament has within it a level of intent and performance (but not necessarily perfect in expression), but real actualization. For even a child saying "cah" while pointing to an SUV, rather than "car" (intended symbol) or "SUV" (intended referent), still _represents the SUV actually_. To pretend the kid isn't talking about the SUV because, well, it is an SUV, not a car; or to pretend that the kid isn't talking about the SUV, because, well, it is not a "cah", then we've missed the point entirely.



Particular Baptist said:


> One thing that I'm beginning to understand about baptismal mode, and I think this has to play a part in our understanding of baptism, is that Christianity is not to be tied to any particular place. However, according to those who believe that immersion is the only acceptable mode of baptism, how can they assert such a claim? How could someone practice Christianity in a place where water is not in so much abundance that baptism by immersion could not be practiced? I think we begin to, in a certain way, restrict where the gospel may be preached and the sacraments faithfully administered when we state that baptism can ONLY be by immersion.


Isn't it true that, historically, in the early church (over a hundred years after the apostles) baptism was formally done with catechism and a time of preparation -- they would prepare the person and the method to perform the baptism? If that is the case, then without making haste to perform it they could get an abundance of water collecting over a period of time or traveling a distance.



Herald said:


> Actually, there is no crisis. I am still a credobaptist and believe that immersion is *the proper mode*. If an individual desires to join my church, and they have never been baptized, they must submit to immersion; it is not open to negotiation. However, if an individual was baptized by pouring or sprinkling, upon a credible profession of faith, I will not require them to submit to immersion in order *to make their baptism valid*. I believe the command is to believe and be baptized. That command is of more weight than mode; although I am not lessening the importance or significance of mode. It is enough for me that an individual has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit upon the confession of their faith in Jesus Christ.


What's the difference between proper and valid? Like, isn't "invalid" to mean that it is as if they never got baptized?


----------



## Peairtach

Maybe its time we Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists buried the hatchet and let the loooooooooove flow 

On a more serious note, doesn't the mode of immersion strengthen the case for credo-only baptism to the credo-baptist community, since it is maybe difficult or possibly harmful to immerse babies? Could babies choke or get water in their lungs if unexpectedly immersed as is done with converts in baptist churches?


----------



## Herald

Richard Tallach said:


> Maybe its time we Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists buried the hatchet and let the loooooooooove flow



Nah.


----------



## Pilgrim

athanatos said:


> What is Bunyan's view?



Bunyan's view was that differences over baptism were no bar to communion/church membership. (I think this was discussed at length in either this thread or the other one Bill started on the LBCF and immersion.) As I understand it, it is similar to what the Evangelical Free churches and some Bible churches practice. I know that at least some in this category go further than Bill and will admit those who were sprinkled prior to a profession of faith (e.g. as infants) as well. 

As Bill notes, his scenario in which a man or woman was baptized by a mode other than immersion is pretty rare. Even in those cases, most who wish to unite with a Baptist church ("Reformed" or not) will almost always want to be immersed since that is what is taught there. Joining a church, especially one that majors on doctrinal teaching and preaching, would seem to necessarily entail some identification with the church's teaching and practice. Joining a church like Bill's is something to which more thought is typically given compared to joining the big steeple church on the corner on Main Street or the multi-campus megachurch in the suburbs. 

Nevertheless, I do believe Rich is correct in noting that Bill's stance as articulated raises some implications as to what Bill thinks the mode really is. My guess is that Bill might say something like "_We practice immersion here because we believe it to be the biblical mode. Baptism by sprinkling or pouring is irregular but not invalid,__ thus we will not divide over the issue_ _so long as the baptism was subsequent to conversion_." This would be similar to how the Reformed throughout history have tended explain their acceptance of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism. As I recall it, their basic argument is that Roman Catholic baptism is irregular but not invalid and that like circumcision, baptism is not repeatable. In other words, it is definitely not recommended, but nevertheless the validity of the sacrament or ordinance is upheld because it is still trinitarian, etc. (Not all Reformed churches accept RC baptism, but the majority have historically, with the notable exception of the Southern Presbyterians in the USA.) 

In my experience (which may be colored by my living in the Deep South) examples of those who are in effect "credo baptized" by sprinkling as adults or as older children in paedobaptist churches are relatively rare, as most in those churches are typically sprinkled as infants. Those coming in from the outside typically already have some church background and will have already been baptized (in some form acceptable to paedos) at some point previously. (What amounts to a late stage paedobaptism is all too frequent in many baptistic churches as well, where children as young as 5 or under are baptized.) 

However, the numbers of those who come of age who have little or no church background (using church very loosely here) figures to become more common in the future as our culture identifies less and less with Christianity, even in the Bible Belt. No doubt it is already more common in other areas than my native Deep South. Thus, the cases in which a believer is baptized by sprinkling or pouring subsequent to a profession of faith may increase in the future. 


What have you seen that "strongly supports paedobaptism?" You can send a PM or start another thread if you like since that is somewhat off topic in this thread. 

*
A question for Bill*: Would you accept a credo-sprinkling (or pouring) from basically any non-Catholic and non-cultic group? Would this include mainline Protestants? Would you limit it to evangelical churches? Or would you limit it to confessional Reformed churches only? 

It would seem to me that if one who holds to some latitude on mode when accepting members were to accept an immersion from any of the above groups, consistency would demand that one must accept a credo sprinkling or pouring from them as well. The reason I ask the question is that I would imagine that some in the "Reformed Baptist" camp might more readily accept a man who had been sprinkled after having come to faith in the OPC or PCA as opposed to the United Methodist Church or the United Church of Christ.


----------



## Herald

Chris, I would accept a credo/trinitarian baptism that was performed by a true church. By true church I mean one that proclaims the gospel, practices church discipline, and where the ordinances (mode of baptism notwithstanding) are practiced.

Sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix


----------



## Pilgrim

Herald said:


> Chris, I would accept a credo/trinitarian baptism that was performed by a true church. By true church I mean one that proclaims the gospel, practices church discipline, and where the ordinances (mode of baptism notwithstanding) are practiced.
> 
> Sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix



It would seem that the subjects (or objects if, you prefer) of baptism would not play a part in your definition of a true church or a right administration of the ordinances either. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to accept baptisms from paedobaptist churches. By the Baptist definition, paedobaptist churches do not administer baptism properly, even if you allow for latitude on mode. 

I do want to note that, in case it's not clear, I'm not looking for contentious debate here. I'm simply trying to delve into your thought process a little. These are issues I've been contemplating as well.


----------



## Herald

Chris, I'm not seeking Baptist approval for my conviction. Don't get me wrong, I'm not seeking contention either. For me it all stems from what is required for New Covenant membership. On that issue I am a Baptist's Baptist.

Sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I think perhaps we spend way too much time focusing on the proper mode of baptism and we neglect the real issue; who should be baptised. Whether we sprinkle or dip, and how many times we sprinkle or dip, is not nearly as important as who it is we are sprinkling or dipping. Should the church be baptising infants? or should baptism be for believers only? I would have to say that it is the latter and it seems to me that the main reason the church moved away from any type of immersion and towards sprinkling is because no one wants their infant dunked under water. Just a thought.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi Bill:

I think you have a point, but since sprinkling is the Biblical mode of baptism, then baptism of infants is more likely.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Peairtach

Well _do_ babies choke and get water in their lungs when immersed? That would mean there _is_ a material connection of some sort between mode and subjects.

Adults hold their breath when immersed?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi Richard:

If I remember correctly, the Greek Orthodox Church immerses babies, and they do not seem to have a problem with infants choking. However, I believe they are taking the Greek word for "Baptism" too literally - as is our Baptist brothers. And one could almost turn the Baptist objections upon themselves on this matter: Where is the clear unambiguous examples in the New Testament of immersion? If they are going to demand clear examples of Infant Baptism in the New Testament, then would it not be proper for them to demonstrate unambiguous examples of immersion in the NT?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I think there are a lot of good points made by both sides of the baptism issue and I don't think any of us have room to be overly dogmatic on this subject. Baptism is afterall just a symbol, and it is what is being symbolized that is really important and not so much the symbol itself.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Well do babies choke and get water in their lungs when immersed? That would mean there is a material connection of some sort between mode and subjects.
> 
> Adults hold their breath when immersed?



Babies hold their breath if you blow on their face before they enter the water.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

puritanpilgrim said:


> Well do babies choke and get water in their lungs when immersed? That would mean there is a material connection of some sort between mode and subjects.
> 
> Adults hold their breath when immersed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Babies hold their breath if you blow on their face before they enter the water.
Click to expand...

 
Does that mean you guys are baptising babies out there in Texas?


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Robert*


> If I remember correctly, the Greek Orthodox Church immerses babies, and they do not seem to have a problem with infants choking.



I don't know if they immerse them in the way Baptists demand for a proper baptism i.e. dunking the whole body, including the head which is normally used for breathing.

*Bill*


> I think there are a lot of good points made by both sides of the baptism issue and I don't think any of us have room to be overly dogmatic on this subject. Baptism is afterall just a symbol, and it is what is being symbolized that is really important and not so much the symbol itself.



The Apostle Paul couldn't remember who he had baptised at Corinth (I Cor 1:16), whereas the Lord's Supper is hedged about with warnings about examining oneself before partaking and about chastisement (I Cor 11:27-34). 

*Aaron*


> Babies hold their breath if you blow on their face before they enter the water.



Interesting; they're very clever. So this means that there _is_ a way to baptise babies by full immersion.


----------

