# John Calvin on the substance and accidents of the mode of baptism



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 20, 2022)

Commenting on Acts 8:38, John Calvin argued that the mode of baptism adopted on that occasion was dipping, but that such a mode was accidental to the ordinance:

_They went down into the water._ Here we see the rite used among the men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the water. Now the use is this, that the minister doth only sprinkle the body or the head. But we ought not to stand so much about such a small difference of a ceremony, that we should therefore divide the Church, or trouble the same with brawls. We ought rather to fight even an hundred times to death for the ceremony itself of baptism, inasmuch as it was delivered us by Christ that we should suffer the same to be taken from us. ...

Wherefore the Church did grant liberty to herself, since the beginning, to change the rites somewhat, excepting this substance. For some dipped them thrice, some but once. Wherefore there is no case why we should be so straitlaced in matters which are of no such weight; so that external pomp do no whit pollute the simple institution of Christ. ...

For more, see:









John Calvin on the substance and accidents of the mode of baptism


Commenting on Acts 8:38, John Calvin argued that the mode of baptism adopted on that occasion was dipping, but that such a mode was accidental to the ordinance: They went down into the water. Here …




reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JH (Aug 20, 2022)

Edifying post. I don't understand why, however, people think this passage (or Jesus' baptism) refers to baptism by immersion. If the language "both went down into the water" refers to immersion, the implication would then be that Philip himself was also baptized because the text refers to "*both*" – but the only thing we read of in the text was "and he [Phillip] baptized him [the eunuch]"

Am I missing something?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phil D. (Aug 20, 2022)

I’ve always found this quotation rather remarkable, given everything Calvin did _and didn’t _say about baptism.

- He says the word _baptizō_ means immersion.
- He says immersion was the apostolic practice, without supposing any exceptions.
- He says both the substance and means used in the sacraments are important (RPW)—and with respect to the Lord’s Supper he’s quite adamant the 
means include the _actions _by which the element(s) are received/administered.
- He says one of baptism’s intended symbolisms is being brought from death to life, which “being under the water” conveys.

To then say “the church did grant liberty to herself, since the beginning, to change the rites somewhat” as the reason for not using immersion has a very odd ring to it...

I do have my theory as to why he and others did what they did in this matter, but as it is largely speculative I’ll refrain…

Still, love John Calvin..!

There is also an interesting nuance in the original Latin with regard to the phrase "sprinkle the body or the head" as translated by Beveridge, which earlier English translators did a better job of capturing, but that can wait for a further time...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D. (Aug 20, 2022)

Jerrod Hess said:


> I don't understand why, however, people think this passage (or Jesus' baptism) refers to baptism by immersion. If the language "both went down into the water" refers to immersion, the implication would then be that Philip himself was also baptized because the text refers to "*both*" – but the only thing we read of in the text was "and he [Phillip] baptized him [the eunuch]"
> 
> Am I missing something?



Such was the universal understanding until the 11th century or so, and even then, prior to the baptismal debates starting in the 16th century, I have only found a few such expositions in some lyrical accounts of Jesus' baptism. Writers in Greek speaking Orthodox churches absolutely howl at the "Latins" failure to see how this accompanying expression clearly demonstrates that _baptizō_/baptizing inherently means to immerse. Virtually all pre-modern Reformed exegetes agreed. Even now there are relatively few that question this convention - and those that do are primarily, it must be said, from a particular partisan segment of the church.

It's an entirely natural way of speaking when one realizes the way early baptism was almost certainly performed, as the most detailed patristic accounts all indicate. Both the baptizer and the baptizee went into the water, where the former put their hand on the head of the latter, who essentially performed a self-immersion with the administrator's hand remaining on their head.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Aug 20, 2022)

When it comes to dealing with the word βαπτίζω, I find Vos's discussion in his _Reformed Dogmatics_ to be most helpful. I know this is a lengthy quote, but it is well worth the read:

_11. What word in the New Testament is used for baptizing, and what is the force of that word?_​​Βάπτω (_baptō_) means "to dip," "immerse," for to baptize and to immerse are related to each other (cf. the English "to dive," "to dip"). In John 13:26 it is used for the dipping of the morsel by Jesus that he gave to Judas. See also Ruth 2:14 [Septuagint] for dipping the morsel in vinegar by Ruth; Luke 16:24 for dipping Lazarus' finger in water. In all these passages, the word used is βάπτω, so that positively no doubt need exist about the original meaning. When a Baptist says that baptō means "immerse," then one should grant him that without reservation.​
A strengthened form of _baptō _is _baptizō _(βαπτίζω), and this is the usual word in use for "baptize." This, too, is originally "immerse." Actually, _baptizein _means "immerse repeatedly"; it is an iterative form. Hence it is used instead of _baptō _in 2 Kings 5:14 [Septuagint], which recounts how Naaman dipped himself seven times in the Jordan. But this iterative meaning is not always maintained, so that often enough _baptizein _is equal in meaning to _baptein_. Now, however, this _baptizein _appears at the same time to have been the usual Greek translation for the Levitical washings and purifications, which again may be connected with the V 5, p 122 fact that this took place generally by bathing—that is, by immersing the body in water. One may compare, for example, Matthew 15:2, "For they do not wash their hands when they eat" (οὐ γὰρ νίπτονται τὰς χεῖρας), with Mark 7:4, "unless they first wash" (ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται).​
With this, the concept of _baptizō _is placed directly under the viewpoint of "washing," a fact of the highest importance. That this "washing" was in most instances a washing by immersion appears as something accidental that could also be something else, and that, if it had been something else, nothing of substance would have changed. The Levitical purifications were washings of the whole body, also where a sprinkling accompanied them (Num 19:19; see also v. 18; Lev 11:24–28 and following; 17:15; 14:2–8; 15:16–18, 19–24, 25–29, 2–15). That in all these purifications the whole body had to be washed and not just a part had to do with the ceremonial and burdensome character of the Old Testament dispensation. If an easy sprinkling had been sufficient, then perhaps it would have quickly become an outward form. The bathing of the whole body did not easily become a meaningless custom. Then one should also not forget that for the Levitical purification its symbolic character came to the fore. It was therefore in all respects fitting that in the case of uncleanness the whole body was subject to a washing. By that was certainly pictured how the entire person is polluted by sin and how complete renewal is necessary. However, from that it may not be inferred that at baptism as a sacrament, too, complete immersion of the body is necessary. With baptism, not the sign but the seal is surely in the foreground. The New Testament sacraments are not in the first place symbols; they are above all seals of the covenant. Thus it is in no way necessary that the entire symbolism of the purifications of the Old Testament be transferred to the baptism of the New Testament.​
The error the Baptists make when they insist that _baptizein _is immersion and nothing else lies in overlooking the fact just mentioned. Words have their meaning by their use, not by their etymology. One can safely grant not only that originally _baptizō _means to immerse; indeed, one can even go so far as to say that initially immersion was the customary mode of baptism, without playing into the hands of the Baptists. The point at issue between them and us surely lies in this: whether immersion constitutes the heart and essence of the symbolism of baptism, so that abandoning it would be the same as abandoning baptism itself. When one asks a Baptist, "Why did Christ institute the sacrament of incorporation into the Christian church in _this _way?" then his answer is: "Because it had to be portrayed by descending into and emerging from the water." That thereby washing takes place at the same time, since one cannot immerse someone without the water at the same time washing his body is, according to him, something incidental. Baptism would be baptism, and its essence preserved, if one could immerse someone in something else that does not have a cleansing quality. If one poses the same question to us, then we answer: The sacrament was instituted by Christ in this way because He intended to have washing and purification portrayed. The fact that this ordinarily took place in a land like Palestine and according to the Jewish law by immersion or bathing was something incidental and subordinate. If a washing takes place without immersion, then baptism retains its essence.​
Thus the issue between us and Baptists is not at all whether _baptizein _means to immerse or to sprinkle. One can grant, and probably will have to grant, that nowhere in the New Testament has it completely lost its original meaning of "immersing" or "dipping." The issue is simply whether immersion was the main point or something incidental. And then we say the latter. It was immersion with the purpose of washing, and in order to portray purification. We rely on this when we claim that baptism by sprinkling is just as much the ordinance of Christ as baptism by immersion. From their side, Baptists believe that the Reformation has taken half measures, that Luther and Calvin did not fully clean out the Roman Catholic leaven, and that on them the duty rests to restore original Christianity in its purity.​
One should preferably not combat Baptists with weak historical arguments from the New Testament. One can appeal to Mark 7:4: βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων καὶ κλινῶν, "washing of cups and pots and copper vessels _and couches_." It is said that cups and pots and copper vessels could be immersed, but not couches. It is a question, however, whether these words (_kai klinōn_) belong in the text. Westcott and Hort omit them. The Revised Version does also. One can also point to Acts 2:41–42. There were 3,000 people added to the church, who for the most part were also certainly baptized. Was that possible in so short a time if baptism took place by immersion? It is not impossible. An equally large number of converts have been baptized in a relatively V 5, p 124 short period of time by immersion. The appeal to Acts 10:47 is also not strong, since we evidently have to do there with a figurative expression. Peter intends to say: the Holy Spirit has already come upon them; can anyone still forbid water, by which they are signified and sealed? From Acts 16:33 it has generally been inferred that the jailer and his family were not baptized by immersion but simply by sprinkling. But Baptists say that the jail, like most of the large buildings in the Middle East, had a fountain and a cistern. First Corinthians 10:1–2 states that all the fathers were under the cloud and passed through the sea and were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. The fact that they went through the water, and that certainly with dry feet, can, it is said, be called already being baptized. They were simply sprinkled with the spattering drops. But there is no mention of sprinkling in the account of these events. The apostle apparently conceived of them such that the sea and the cloud surrounded the people, and so became an element in which they were located. The sea was on both sides, the cloud was over the Israelites; that was their baptism.​
Appeal is also made to passages that speak of a baptizing with the Holy Spirit: Matthew 3:1 (ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί); Mark 1:8 (ἐγὼ ἐβάπτισα ὑμᾶς ὕδατι, αὐτὸς δὲ βαπτίσει ὑμᾶς ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ); John 1:33 (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ); Acts 1:5; 11:16 (ὑμεῖς δὲ βαπτισθήσεσθε ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ); 1 Cor 12:13 (καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν). The question is how this "in the Holy Spirit," as it literally stands in all these passages, is meant. Is the Holy Spirit the element in which one is baptized, in which God, as it were, immerses, or is it to be understood as a being baptized with the Holy Spirit? In the latter case, ἐν, equivalent to בְּ in Hebrew, would be an instrumental preposition. In Mark 1:8 it is without doubt "by means of water … by means of the Holy Spirit." But from this it does not yet follow that sprinkling is thought of, for one can also call baptism through immersion a baptism by means of water. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, the translation "by means of one Spirit" appears to us the most natural, but sprinkling is not proven by it. By all of these things one can only deprive Baptists of proofs, not obtain proofs for his own views. See the commentaries on these passages.​​—Geerhardus Vos, _Ecclesiology_, ed. Kim Batteau and Allan Janssen, trans. Richard B. Gaffin, vol. 5, Reformed Dogmatics (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 121-124; all italics original.​

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Phil D. (Aug 20, 2022)

I actually agree with most of what Vos had to say on the topic. I think his exposition is refreshingly the most forthright and objective of any modern non-immersionist theologian I have read.

Perhaps the most glaring omission in his discourse is a failure to account for - indeed he only gives it cursory inferential treatment - the universally perceived symbolism (historically speaking) of a death, burial, and resurrection being portrayed in baptism, knowing that a seminal intention of the Sacraments is to sensibly portray that which they represent. (Yes, I know many objections to this being the case have been raised by modern non-immersionists, all of which, I believe, can readily be disposed of with adequate historical research into ancient Hebrew practice and conceptions. But I'll not get into those particular issues unless prompted.)

Here are some of my thoughts on the practical aspect of the matter I've brought up, as I have previously written in my rebuttal of James Dale's theory of baptism (which categorically denies and even mocks the death-burial-resurrection concept).

[_After giving multiple representative examples from throughout the span of church history_] References like these could be multiplied many times over. Clearly, _burial by/in baptism _is scarcely, as Dale so impudently pronounced, an inexcusably foolish comprehension, nor a recent partisan belief. The broad, representative sampling above also amply supplies the historical witness at least backhandedly demanded in Dale’s remark that “it might be worthwhile to indicate when, or where, or among whom, this singularity has made and revealed itself.” This statement also invites further consideration of the use and function of symbolism itself, and how such relates to the figurative language the Bible uses in connection with baptism.​​First, by its very nature symbolic language is somewhat notional. While the intended meaning behind a given figure is obviously known to the one that originates it (in this case the Apostle Paul as inspired by the Holy Spirit), in an important, practical respect its interpretation ultimately rests with the beholder. For instance, upon being shown or having described to them an emblematic dove, a Christian may instinctively perceive it as representative of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, a secular humanist may most readily associate it with so-styled “world peace.” Relatively disinterested persons could simply perceive the depiction as that of a certain species of bird, the meaning of which is uncertain, unimportant, or even indeterminable.​​As such, a crucial concern in using figurative language is realizing how it is likely to be perceived by those intended to appreciate it. Correspondingly, for their readers to properly grasp a given symbolism an author must ensure two things: 1) That it is used in a familiar context, and 2) that there is a credible and readily discernible resemblance between the figure and what it is intended to portray. Then, presuming the author possesses a basic competency to communicate well, simply observing how broadly and durably a figurative concept has been perceived among its target audience must be given considerable weight in determining its true intentionality.​​In this case, if water baptism by immersion does not appreciably relate to, or meaningfully convey the joint concept of a death, burial and resurrection, then surely such a comprehension would not widely resonate. Rather, the supposed allusion would exist only among a few overly imaginative or perhaps prejudiced individuals. Yet as the given witnesses clearly attest, this distinct, symbolic correlation has proven broadly intuitive across the entirety of church history, and universally transcended all cultural and ecclesial boundaries. Thus, reckoning such a didactic relationship to be intentional is not only credible, but the only sound conclusion.​​Alternatively, by the same measure, one must suppose the historical consensus is in effect a mass delusion from which only a relatively few Christians, primarily, it must be said, from a particular segment of the church, have only somewhat recently begun to extricate themselves.​​All this is not to say Paul’s burial statements in Romans 6 and Colossians 2 are, strictly speaking, given as instructions on how water baptism is to be performed. Rather, their semantic construct suggests he is making a theological simile based on the known manner of baptism, for pedagogical purposes. Yet, ultimately, are not these kinds of apostolic correlations the very (and only) means by which the church is rightly informed of the spiritual concepts God intends to be symbolized, and thus sensibly portrayed in the Christian ordinances?​​(In light of several recent threads, I also can't resist pointing out that Vos gives at least some credence to Westcott and Hort's methodology in his remarks, which may dismay some PB'ers...)

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## beloved7 (Aug 21, 2022)

Though he obviously wasn’t, his reasoning sounds strikingly similar to that of those who hold to the normative principle of worship. God commands us to baptize, and Scripture is not silent on this issue of mode, ergo it is not a matter of Christian liberty. I would respectfully submit that it is absolutely a matter to divide over, as it pertains to transgression.


----------



## Northern Crofter (Aug 21, 2022)

Taylor said:


> One can safely grant not only that originally _baptizō _means to immerse


Is it not correct that _baptizō _has a more general meaning: "placed under"? This has always been my understanding and makes passages such as I Corinthians 10:1–2 more meaningful. "Baptism" (why do we continue to transliterate rather than translate this word in our English texts?) is not always a "placing under" water. Isn't the full meaning of I Corinthians 11 really the understanding of being "placed under" the blessings and warnings of the covenant? If _baptizō _really means being immersed under water or placed under water, isn't it redundant in texts such as Matthew 3:11/Mark 1:8/Luke 3:16/John 1:26 to state "baptized with water"? Is not the use of _baptizō _in passages such as John 1:33/Acts 1:5/Acts 11:16 better understood as a "placing under"/"being placed under" something rather than being "immersed" - in this case being placed under the power and authority of the Holy Ghost? It also seems clear that sometimes _baptizō _does mean "immersed," but it also seems that this is not always the case.


----------

