# Baptism in the New Testament



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Taking a look at the examples in the New Testament of Baptism concerning mode.

What is the mode of Baptism being defended? In the New Testament it appears to me that Baptism was performed by wading out into a river or pool and having water poured over the head. When water is poured over the head the subject can be said to be "under" the water. This type of Baptism can be referred to as affusion, pouring, showering, or sprinkling. The wading out into the water was not necessary in order for one to be Baptized.

John the Baptist - Baptized by affusion or pouring:

Jesus said that John the Baptist was the greatest of the prophets, Mt 11:11.

John's Baptism was a baptism of Purification. The Jews recognized John's baptism as one of Purification and debated with John's disciples about it, John 3:25. Since John was the one who would prepare the way for the Messiah it is natural that he would preach repentance and faith, and seek to purify the people - making them ready for "He who is greater than I."

Purifications were performed by sprinkling or affusion:



> Numbers 19:13 - Whosoever thoucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of purification was not *sprinkled upon him*, sh shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.
> 
> Leviticus 14:49-51 - And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scaret, and hyssop; And he shll kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water: And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times.
> 
> Numbers 8:5-7 - And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: *Sprinkle water of purifying upon them,* and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.
> 
> Numbers 19:18-22 - And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and *sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:* and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at evening. But the man that shall be unclean and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregations, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: *the water of purification hath not been sprinkled upon him he is unclean.*


Bathing and sprinkling in Numbers 19:18ff are one and the same - you are considered "bathed" if you have been showered upon by sprinkling. Most of us do this every day. When we take a shower - after we get out we are considered clean. The difference between a bath and a shower is that in a bath you are put into the water. In a shower, however, the water is put on you. This is significant when you consider the next verses:



> And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that *sprinkleth the water of purification shall wash his clothes;* and he that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean until evening. And whatosever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean; and the soul that toucheth it shall be unclean until evening.


An unclean person touching the water is still unclean. However, as we read before, when the water of purification touches or is sprinkled upon the unclean person the unclean person is made clean. The actions depicted here are just the opposite of immersion - touching the water and being brought out of the water. In order for the unclean to be made clean the water has to be poured or sprinkled upon the unclean person.

John the Baptist was also confused for the Messiah, John 1:19-20. This is partly due to the mode of Baptism that John was engaging in - that is - sprinkling:



> 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.
> 
> Isaiah 52:13-15 - Behold, My servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted. Just as many were astonished at you, My people, So His appearance was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men. *Thus He will sprinkle many nations,* Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him; For what had not been told them they will see, And what they had not heard they will understand.


The sprinkling of the nations was the work of the Messiah. If John was not baptizing by sprinkling, then the passages would not be relevant, and the Jews would not have asked if he was the Messiah.

The Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist could only have been done by sprinkling. But that will have to wait for another time, because time has limited me. Anyway, I am sure that there will be lots of comments to answer. As a means of illustrating my point here are some early church drawings of baptisms being performed - they all indicate sprinkling and not immersing:

I removed the images because I agree with Chris Colwell - that depicting the Holy Spirit as a dove is a violation of the 2nd Command. I was not thinking in that direction, but simply using them for didactic purposes to show Early Church depictions of Baptism by Sprinkling. Forgive me.

-Rob


----------



## steadfast7

Rob, you admit from the outset:


CalvinandHodges said:


> When water is poured over the head the subject can be said to be "under" the water.


 Correct. This is the most natural (though not exclusive) understanding of the word. How then, do you shift to the assertion:


CalvinandHodges said:


> In order for the unclean to be made clean the water has to be poured or sprinkled upon the unclean person.


 You seem to be implying, now, that the actual immersion of a person under water is incorrect. How do you figure?


----------



## au5t1n

Thanks, Rob. Another point to consider is the connection between baptism with water and baptism with the Holy Ghost, which is an outpouring.


----------



## steadfast7

and yet other connections are that of burial, being consumed, being overwhelmed/flooded over.


----------



## Marrow Man

I have a question (primarily for Baptists and other modern immersionists), and with apologies to Rob, I hope it does not detour the thread but rather advances the discussion -- I know of no examples prior to the last few centuries where anyone practiced immersion in the form as it is normally understood -- i.e., bending a person backwards at the waist or knees, lowering the person under water, and then raising the person up again. However, in the early church, it appears that at least one form that was considered "immersion" involved a person walking into a body of water (such as a river or pool), kneeling or otherwise lower oneself in the water (though not submerging oneself), and then having a large quantity of water poor over the head and upper body, such as with a pitcher. I would assume that with the method the whole person probably gets wet, or at least mostly wet. And I believe my example is virtually the same as the one Rob gives at the beginning of the OP.

My question: how many modern Baptists would find this method acceptable and/or biblical?


----------



## steadfast7

I'm all for the forward rather than backward immersion into water, and that's how I saw it happen in at least one church in India - so it's not universal practice that people be dipped backwards. I figure if you're already kneeling chest-high in water, why not immerse completely? My growing conviction with regard to baptism is we should not only do what is minimally required, but what is symbolically most rich. It seems to me, effusionists are insisting upon the bare minimum rather than reaching for the most symbolically rich. As Rob himself admitted, wading in water and having water poured over you symbolized being "under the water." Isn't the picture most rich if one goes under completely? the sacraments are meant to be visible and tangible signs to our senses are they not?


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> and yet other connections are that of burial, being consumed, being overwhelmed/flooded over.



The last two, where? Also, how would these conflict with the pouring described in Tim's post?

The first one, I know of one reference: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death" (Rom. 6). Indeed we are. Where does it say baptism physically looks like modern burial practices?


----------



## JML

austinww said:


> Where does it say baptism physically looks like modern burial practices?



True. Were those in Bible times not buried above ground?


----------



## au5t1n

I do not regard mode of baptism as essential to its validity (my own baptism was by immersion), but for the sake of discussion, I am willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and like Rob, I think the evidence points towards pouring in the New Testament. I am truly trying to be objective and this is what I see: In Hebrews we are told that the Old Covenant included "divers baptisms." A survey of relevant OT texts will reveal that these tended to be washings from above (pouring or sprinkling), and in some cases they could not have been dunkings. I see John the Baptist saying he baptizes with water; the Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Tongues of fire descend on the Apostles and the Holy Spirit is poured out. What would it mean to call this a "dunking down into the Holy Spirit"? Finally, there is the rich background of water/sprinkling references in the OT to things that baptism signifies. Rob gave a few examples.

Mode of baptism is not of very great importance to me, but I am truly trying to be fair and objective and it seems to me the evidence points to water coming down on the person baptized as the normal mode.


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and yet other connections are that of burial, being consumed, being overwhelmed/flooded over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last two, where? Also, how would these conflict with the pouring described in Tim's post?
Click to expand...

 consume = baptism of fire (Mt 3:11). flood = 1 Pet 3:20-21


> The first one, I know of one reference: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death" (Rom. 6). Indeed we are. Where does it say baptism physically looks like modern burial practices?


 Well, Jesus' own burial was a going completely _into_ a tomb, was it not?

---------- Post added at 08:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 AM ----------

how about that there are already Greek words which more clearly denote pouring and sprinkling that are not used in the NT?


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> how about that there are already Greek words which more clearly denote pouring and sprinkling that are not used in the NT?



If the mode were the important part of the rite it would make sense to use those words. If it is the "washing" that is important, then it makes sense to use a word that means "washing." Based on the evidence provided above, I think the mode of washing/baptism was normally not dunking. To be clear, it is not my contention that the word baptizo means sprinkling or pouring, but simply that it does not mean dunking. It refers to ceremonial washing.



steadfast7 said:


> Well, Jesus' own burial was a going completely into a tomb, was it not?



Yes, but where is it suggested that baptism should _look like_ a burial? It only says we're buried with Christ by baptism into death, not that the external sign looks like a burial.



steadfast7 said:


> consume = baptism of fire (Mt 3:11). flood = 1 Pet 3:20-21



Both from above, and no dunkings in sight.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Thanks for the responses.

Stedfast7 (I like the name by the way):

In regards to being "under" water - when you take a shower - you can be considered "under" the water even though you are not underwater like a submarine, but are being sprinkled by a shower. The water is above you, and you are "under" it. I hope this clarifies the point.

I will get to the burial part in Romans 6, but to whet your appetite, ask yourself how was Jesus Christ buried? Does His burial match the modern idea of immersion we see today?

Austinww:

You have touched upon a major argument for sprinkling, and one, I believe, that the immersionists cannot make an adequate reply. I also agree with you that immersion is a valid mode, but the question is - what is the Biblical mode?

Marrow Man: 

As you surmised I would have no problem with the way you described baptism.

Thanks for you all for some very intelligent replies. 

Now to the Baptism of Jesus Christ we read in Matthew 3:13-17:



> Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have nned to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.


Jesus is sinless, and thus does not need to be baptized, and this John the Baptist recognizes. But Jesus says He needs to be Baptized in order to "fulfill all righteousness." There was a law in the Old Testament that Jesus needed to obey in order for Him to fulfill all righteousness, and this law required him to be Baptized. At this point in His life He was entering into His Three Offices - King, Prophet and Priest. He demonstrates His Kingship by His authority over the demons and miracles, He shows forth His Prophetic Office by His Preaching, teaching, and Prophesying, and His High Priestly Office by His offering up himself as a sacrifice for sins. In order for Him to "fulfill all righteousness" in these offices He had to be anointed.

Israelite Kings were anointed by sprinkling or pouring, Samuel 10:1:



> Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the LORD hath anointed thee to be captian over his inheritance?


Prophets were also anointed, Isaiah 61:1.

Israelite Priests were required by law to be anointed by sprinkling:



> Numbers 8:5-7Again the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Take the Levites from among the sons of Israel and cleanse them. And thus you shall do to them, for their cleansing: *sprinkle purifying water* on them.
> Leviticus 8:30 So Moses took some of the anointing oil and some of the blood which was on the altar, and *sprinkled* it on Aaron, on his garments, on his sons, and on the garments of his sons with him; and he consecrated Aaron, his garments, and his sons, and the garments of his sons with them.



Consider the NT statements concerning Jesus' baptism:



> Matthew 3:16 - And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God *descending* like a dove, and *coming upon *Him.
> Acts 10:37-38 - The word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; *How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.*


The testimony of Scripture is that the Holy Spirit *descended* upon Jesus from above - that is - Jesus was poured upon, or sprinkled, by the Spirit of God. Jesus did not go into the Holy Spirit in the modern understanding of being immersed, but the Spirit of God came down to him from above in the same fashion as Baptism by Pouring or Sprinkling. I do not know if some are going to quibble about "like a dove" but the Scriptures say "like (ὡσεὶ) a dove" it does not say that the Spirit of God *was* a dove.

Since the law specifically required the anointing of Priests to be that of Pouring or Sprinkling, then to "fulfill all righteousness" the Baptism of Jesus was undoubtedly that of Pouring or Sprinkling. 

When the Scriptures say, "Jesus went up immediately from the water" this was after His Baptism, and He was climbing out of the Jordan when John the Baptist saw the heavens open and the Spirit of God descending upon Jesus like a dove:



> John 1:32 - And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.


It would be impossible for John to be pulling Jesus out of the water as the immersionists say, and, at the same time, bear witness to the heavens opening and the Spirit descending. Jesus was walking away from John the Baptist and immediately coming up out of the water of the Jordan river. John was then able to look up and see the Father anointing the Son by the Spirit of God - the Trinity in all of His Glory!

It seems more and more apparent that Baptism, as it is understood by the New Testament, is performed by Sprinkling or Pouring. Time is up, so I will continue this another time, Lord willing.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Peairtach

There would always be psychological perfectionist (obsessive compulsive disorder), and legalistic and superstitious, motivations for full immersion developing even although - for the sake of argument - it was not taught as being necessary by Christ and the Apostles in the first century, or by them in Scripture.

If baptism isn't done the way the baptists usually do it then some little bits of the body could be missed which in some perfectionist minds would mean that the baptism isn't perfect or complete.

We need to look at the psychology of immersion, and also the psychology of trying to baptise only believers. Of course Reformed Baptists can be free to analyse the psychology of Presbyterian practice, too. 

See the lengths to which certain Jewish groups go in their zeal for complete physical purification, while spiritual purification by Christ's blood is not emphasised:

Mikveh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ritual washing in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Niddah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The classical requirement for full immersion was traditionally interpreted as requiring water to literally touch every part of the body, and for this reason all clothing, jewellery, and even bandages must be removed; in a contemporary mikveh used by women, there is usually an experienced attendant, commonly called the mikveh lady, to watch the immersion and ensure that the woman has been entirely covered in water.
> 
> According to rabbinical tradition, the hair counts as part of the body, and therefore water is required to touch all parts of it, thus meaning that braids cannot be worn during immersion; this has resulted in debate between the different ethnic groups within Judaism, about whether hair combing is necessary before immersion. The Ashkenazi community generally supports the view that hair must be combed straight so that there are no knots, but some Black Jews take issue with this stance, particularly when it comes to dreadlocks.A number of rabbinical rulings argue in support of dreadlocks, on the basis that dreadlocks can sometimes be loose enough to become thoroughly saturated with water, particularly if the person had first showered combing dreadlocked hair can be painful although a particularly cautious individual would consider a single knotted hair as an obstruction, in most cases hair is loose enough for water to pass through it, unless each hair is individually knotted



I don't think these Jews can derive all their practices in association with ritual washing as being required by the Torah.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

John Calvin says this in the Institutes:"Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is to be only sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence; churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive church.”


----------



## Marrow Man

Bill The Baptist said:


> John Calvin says this in the Institutes:"Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is to be only sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence; churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive church.”



Yes, but this doesn't take into account two things: 1) Calvin could have been wrong; and 2) "immersion" may not have looked like the modern practice (see Rob's description in the OP and my comments in post #5). To the first point, an explanatory note about this sentence in the Beveridge edition of _The Institutes_ reads:



> 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 infifference 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).


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> Yes, but where is it suggested that baptism should look like a burial? It only says we're buried with Christ by baptism into death, not that the external sign looks like a burial.


 Remember that Romans 6 is not the only instance where Paul pairs burial and baptism. I think the imagery of Col 2 is sharper: 11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12*having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith* in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Let's see, which image comes closer: burial - going into water completely, resurrection - coming out of the water? or, burial - a sprinkle of water on the head, resurrection - (blank)? 

If you can't see the imagery of this metaphor then it looks like you are trying to not see it, in my opinion.

---------- Post added at 09:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 AM ----------




CalvinandHodges said:


> Since the law specifically required the anointing of Priests to be that of Pouring or Sprinkling, then to "fulfill all righteousness" the Baptism of Jesus was undoubtedly that of Pouring or Sprinkling.


 this is quite a statement. It would only begin to be valid if it read: "Since the law specifically required the _baptism_ of Priests to be that of pouring or sprinkling ... then the baptism of Jesus was undoubtedly that of pouring or sprinkling.

since when is priestly anointing synonymous with Christian baptism??


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> Remember that Romans 6 is not the only instance where Paul pairs burial and baptism. I think the imagery of Col 2 is sharper: 11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
> 
> Let's see, which image comes closer: burial - going into water completely, resurrection - coming out of the water? or, burial - a sprinkle of water on the head, resurrection - (blank)?
> 
> If you can't see the imagery of this metaphor then it looks like you are trying to not see it, in my opinion.



Dennis, just to be clear, it would not bother me in the least to learn that immersion via dunking was a normal, or even the normal, mode of baptism in the NT. It would only make me glad I was immersed myself. 

However, the problem with your interpretation of these verses, as I see it, is that you are taking a statement about what baptism _is_, and somehow you are leaping from what baptism _is_ to what baptism _looks like_ in physical motion. Paul does not say baptism _looks like_ a burial into Christ's death; he says we are buried with Christ by baptism into death. Obviously there are important qualifications that need to be made in understanding Paul here. He is speaking holistically of the sacramental union of sign and thing signified when he says that baptism is a burial with Christ into death. This is only true for God's elect, and it is only accomplished by the Holy Spirit's application of Christ's saving benefits in God's appointed time, not tied to the moment of administration of baptism or based on any virtue in the external sign. However, with those important qualifications in place, Paul is able to affirm that baptism is for believers a burial with Christ and an identification with his death and resurrection.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I so want to join in this. The immersion thing is so... 


CalvinandHodges said:


> Taking a look at the examples in the New Testament of Baptism concerning mode.



Historically? 
(Heb 6:2) Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Which one? The one's at the temple or where else? I know you said New Testament but then again. 



steadfast7 said:


> Let's see, which image comes closer: burial - going into water completely, resurrection - coming out of the water? or, burial - a sprinkle of water on the head, resurrection - (blank)?
> 
> If you can't see the imagery of this metaphor then it looks like you are trying to not see it, in my opinion.



Historically you would have to see this more in the light of death in Historical reference instances. The imagery for us wouldn't work maybe. Yes, the Hebrews insisted upon burial of bodies. I am not sure this is true for all though. Historically I think your argument is lacking. Most people have burned their dead. It was a very important understanding that from dust you came and to dust you returned.


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that Romans 6 is not the only instance where Paul pairs burial and baptism. I think the imagery of Col 2 is sharper: 11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
> 
> Let's see, which image comes closer: burial - going into water completely, resurrection - coming out of the water? or, burial - a sprinkle of water on the head, resurrection - (blank)?
> 
> If you can't see the imagery of this metaphor then it looks like you are trying to not see it, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis, just to be clear, it would not bother me in the least to learn that baptism was a normal, or even the normal, mode of baptism in the NT. It would only make me glad I was immersed myself.
> 
> However, the problem with your interpretation of these verses, as I see it, is that you are taking a statement about what baptism _is_, and somehow you are leaping from what baptism _is_ to what baptism _looks like_ in physical motion. Paul does not say baptism _looks like_ a burial into Christ's death; he says we are buried with Christ by baptism into death. Obviously there are important qualifications that need to be made in understanding Paul here. He is speaking holistically of the sacramental union of sign and thing signified when he says that baptism is a burial with Christ into death. This is only true for God's elect, and it is only accomplished by the Holy Spirit's application of Christ's saving benefits in God's appointed time, not tied to the moment of administration of baptism or based on any virtue in the external sign. However, with those important qualifications in place, Paul is able to affirm that baptism is for believers a burial with Christ and an identification with his death.
Click to expand...

 moving from what baptism is theologically and what it looks like is not an invalid hermeneutical move at all, given what baptism is in the first place - a sacrament. It is a visible _picture_ of the gospel, which Christ has instituted to be a figure of our relationship with him. Only by assuming that the imagery employed by Paul is completely random would you conclude that we ought not make the connection. It's like saying the idiom, ".. and then it HIT me ..", or "and then it dawned on me." Well, obviously nothing actually hits the person who is having an epiphany, and actual dawn is not occurring to that person, but the metaphor gives a certain sense of that happening, and makes the figure of speech appropriate to the event.

Note also, that the act of baptism came before its theological formulation. Paul would have noticed many baptisms taking place before he wrote of the connection between baptism and burial/death. It is much more reasonable to think that he looked upon an immersion into water which helped inspire him to make the connection between baptism and burial, as opposed to a few dabs of water on the head.


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> moving from what baptism is theologically and what it looks like is not an invalid hermeneutical move at all, given what baptism is in the first place - a sacrament. It is a visible _picture_ of the gospel, which Christ has instituted to be a figure of our relationship with him. Only by assuming that the imagery employed by Paul is completely random would you conclude that we ought not make the connection. It's like saying the idiom, ".. and then it HIT me ..", or "and then it dawned on me." Well, obviously nothing actually hits the person who is having an epiphany, and actual dawn is not occurring to that person, but the metaphor gives a certain sense of that happening, and makes the figure of speech appropriate to the event.
> 
> Note also, that the act of baptism came before its theological formulation. Paul would have noticed many baptisms taking place before he wrote of the connection between baptism and burial/death. It is much more reasonable to think that he looked upon an immersion into water which helped inspire him to make the connection between baptism and burial, as opposed to a few dabs of water on the head.



Good points, but there are a great many things that baptism represents which are encompassed by identification with Christ. It represents washing of sins, death, resurrection, ingrafting into Christ, burial with Christ, etc. It cannot look visibly like all of these things at once. So as a sign we would expect it to look like one thing which encompasses the rest. I think it is fairly evident that the primary visual symbolism in baptism is _washing_. Whatever the mode, it is a washing with water. "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16). It primarily depicts cleansing from sin. Now what all does cleansing of sin entail? Union with Christ, identification with his death and with his resurrection, and ingrafting into Christ. Now we do not expect baptism to look like an ingrafting of a branch into a tree just because ingrafting into Christ is one of the benefits of what it signifies. Same with burial. The visual symbolism is washing; ingrafting and burial are aspects of being cleansed of sin by identification with Christ, but baptism does not necessarily look like ingrafting of a tree branch or a burial and resurrection.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

This is a good read and hard to do. Just take the time to do it. BTW, thanks to the the person who sent it to me. He knows he is. 

Amazon.com: Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (9780802827487): Everett Ferguson: Books


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

I thank you all for your excellent posts, and I am happy to see that we are not getting heated in these exchanges.

What have I tried to accomplish (God willing) so far:

1) That the Baptism that John the Baptist performed was that of a Purification rite intended to "prepare the way" for the Messiah. That these Purification rites were required to be sprinkling according to the law of God. In order to debunk this point the immersionists will have to show that there were Purification rites in the Old Testament that commanded immersion as the means of cleansing. If they cannot produce such evidence, then they will have to submit to the teachings of Scripture and admit that John the Baptists' baptism was that of sprinkling and not immersion.

2) That the Baptism of Jesus was not done in order to "purify" or "cleanse" Him from sin - since He was sinless. But, that it was an anointing of Him by the greatest of the OT Prophets into the Offices of Prophet, King, and Priest. That the law required Jesus to be anointed, and that this anointing was performed, according to the law, by sprinkling, "in order to fulfill all righteousness." In order to debunk this point the immersionist will have to show that Israelite anointing ceremonies were performed not by sprinkling or pouring, but by immersion. Again, if they cannot prove this, then they will have to submit to the teaching of Scripture that the anointing of Jesus - called in the Bible a baptism - was performed by sprinkling or pouring.

I think it important that we nail down the two points above before going on. Therefore, I will entertain any discussion that will center on the points above. In other words, I ask the immersionists here on the Puritanboard: Where have I gone wrong on the two points above?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

FYI. you are gravely mistaken about the credo alone position.


----------



## steadfast7

CalvinandHodges said:


> 1) That the Baptism that John the Baptist performed was that of a Purification rite intended to "prepare the way" for the Messiah. That these Purification rites were required to be sprinkling according to the law of God. In order to debunk this point the immersionists will have to show that there were Purification rites in the Old Testament that commanded immersion as the means of cleansing. If they cannot produce such evidence, then they will have to submit to the teachings of Scripture and admit that John the Baptists' baptism was that of sprinkling and not immersion.



How about baptism beginning with John the Baptist himself? Where do we have evidence that John's baptism was an exact replica of OT purification rites? Why then in Acts 19:3, when some disciples were asked, "then what baptism did you receive?" they answered, "John's baptism." Why didn't they say, "we received the purification rites according to the law" ?



CalvinandHodges said:


> 2) That the Baptism of Jesus was not done in order to "purify" or "cleanse" Him from sin - since He was sinless. But, that it was an anointing of Him by the greatest of the OT Prophets into the Offices of Prophet, King, and Priest. That the law required Jesus to be anointed, and that this anointing was performed, according to the law, by sprinkling, "in order to fulfill all righteousness." In order to debunk this point the immersionist will have to show that Israelite anointing ceremonies were performed not by sprinkling or pouring, but by immersion. Again, if they cannot prove this, then they will have to submit to the teaching of Scripture that the anointing of Jesus - called in the Bible a baptism - was performed by sprinkling or pouring.



An interesting theory, but one fatal flaw: John didn't only baptize Jesus, but hundreds of others. Were they ALL prophets, priests, and kings? Or, did John perhaps change up his baptismal routine when Jesus came along and gave him a deluxe prophet-priest-kingly baptism of some sort? 

the theory fails.

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------

another flaw: anointings of priests and kings were not done with water, but oil or blood.

---------- Post added at 01:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 PM ----------




austinww said:


> Now we do not expect baptism to look like an ingrafting of a branch into a tree just because ingrafting into Christ is one of the benefits of what it signifies. Same with burial. The visual symbolism is washing; ingrafting and burial are aspects of being cleansed of sin by identification with Christ, but baptism does not necessarily look like ingrafting of a tree branch or a burial and resurrection.



there is no reason for us to make the connection between ingrafting and baptism, because these two are not paired in Scripture as is burial and baptism. God did not choose to visualize the sacrament by means of branches on a tree, but a baptism of water which is commented upon twice by Paul in connection with death, burial and resurrection. To be fair, cleansing and circumcision of the heart are associated closely with baptism, but the connection is slightly looser than with burial. 

Rom 6:4 We were *buried therefore with him by baptism* into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 having been *buried with him in baptism*, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

the verse you quoted, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16), doesn't pair the concepts as closely as the burial passages. A closer association between baptism and cleansing is probably 1 Pet 3:21 "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," but it's still in the context of Christ's death and resurrection and the flood waters during Noah's time (v. 18 "Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20becausee they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.")

To me it seems pretty clear that death and burial takes prominence among the concepts that baptism figures.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Martin: In answer to your unasked question: I fully believe in Sola Scriptura as it is taught in the Westminster Standards chapter 1. Because of this I am not going to cite the Early Church Fathers, Luther, Calvin, the Puritans, or any one else to prove Sprinkling - I will use Scripture Alone as my guide. What I do not believe is B.B. Warfield's re-interpretation of the Westminster Standards.

Dennis: Your citation of Acts 19:3 does not prove that John baptized with immersion. The burden is on you to prove that John baptized with immersion, and not with sprinkling. What Acts 19:3 does show is that John's baptism was one of Purification, because the men described in the passage needed to be re-baptized. John's baptism was an OT baptism that was meant to "prepare the way" for the Messiah.

Jesus did not need to be covered with oil or blood because He was sinless. Water would then be an acceptable medium of anointing. You will notice that in Numbers 8:5-7 the Purifying/Separating act of anointing a Priest was that of water. This anointing was done by sprinkling. During His earthly ministry Jesus was "under the law" - and had to perfectly fulfill the law in order to be the spotless lamb that takes away our sins. The law called for the priesthood to be Sprinkled with water, and this is what John the Baptist did with Jesus. God apparently accepted this baptism as an anointing because we have nowhere else in Scripture where Jesus was separated for His ministry.

You have missed the point: John's baptism was that of Purification for the people of Israel - to set them apart and prepare them for the Messiah. It has been abundantly shown that such Purification/Separation rites were only performed by Sprinkling. John's baptism could be nothing but Sprinkling if John is going to be following the law of God, and not the laws of men. If you want to poke holes in this theory, then you will have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that New Testament baptism was done solely by immersion. Show me Scripture to prove your beliefs, and not some speculation that John changed his mode of baptism.

I greatly appreciate your posts. 

In Jesus,

Rob


----------



## Phil D.

I’ll apologize in advance for the length of this post, but the issue involved has important implications for many of the other assertions that have been made here as well. As such, it seemed thoroughness would be a good thing.




CalvinandHodges said:


> Bathing and sprinkling in Numbers 19:18ff are one and the same - you are considered "bathed" if you have been showered upon by sprinkling.




This claim has appeared in a handful of relatively recent anti-immersionist polemics, but it is squarely at odds with historical and mainstream Hebrew scholarship. 

The Hebrew word translated “sprinkle” in this passage is _nazah_, while the one rendered "bathe" is _rahas_. The _Dictionary of Biblical Languages _gives this definition for _rahas_:


_Wash_, _bathe_, i.e., remove dirt and impurities using water and possibly other cleansing agents, either immersed in a body of water, or with lesser amounts of water, used both as normal personal hygiene and as ceremonial ritual...Be abundant, i.e., have an abundant amount of a quantity, as a figurative extension of washing oneself in a large mass of liquid. (#8175)​

The _Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament_ also notes that the idea of a large quantity of fluid is present in similar words used in other Semitic languages: 


[_Rahas_] ...This root refers to ritual washings and is cognate philologically…to Akkadian _rahbasu_, to overflow, to flood. It is cognate to Egyptian and Ugaritic _rhs_ with the same meaning. (p.843)​

So while in itself _rahas_ may not definitively indicate a specific mode of washing, it certainly accords best with methods involving a large amount of water. 

Nor am I aware of any Hebrew lexicon or Hebraist, Jewish or Christian, that suggests these two terms are synonymous when used in the context of various Levitical cleansings rituals, such as the one described in Num. 19:13-19. Rather, they are uniformly understood as denoting two distinct components of a larger, overall process by which a cleansing was secured. 

Moreover, Jewish sources universally understand _rahas_ in this particular context as indicating full immersion. This can clearly be seen in numerous relevant prescriptions throughout the _Mishnah_, which Maimonides summarized as follows:


Wherever ‘washing [_rahas_] of the flesh’ or ‘cleansing of garments’ from uncleanness is spoken of in Scripture, it means nothing else but the immersion of the whole person or object...And the same rule applies to others who are unclean. (H. Danby, _The Code of Maimonides; Book Ten_, 497)​

Many Christian Hebraists and biblical scholars have readily concurred with this interpretation. Here are some notable examples:


(*John Lightfoot*; _English Presbyterian, Hebraist and Westminster divine_) That the baptism of John was by plunging the body (after the same manner as the washing [_rahas]_ of [Levitically] unclean persons, and the baptism of proselytes was), seems to appear from those things which are related of him; namely, [1] that he ‘baptized in Jordan’; [2] that he baptized ‘in Aenon, because there was much water there’; [3] and that Christ, being baptized, ‘came up out of the water’: to which that seems to be parallel, Acts 8:38, ‘Philip and the eunuch went down into the water,’ etc. (_Whole Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot_, 11:63)​


(*Alfred Edersheim*; _Anglican Hebraist_) What John preached, that he also symbolized by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. (_The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_, 1:273.)​


(*James MacKnight*; _Scottish Presbyterian exegete_) In the Levitical ritual many baptisms, or immersions of the body in water, were enjoined as emblematic of the purity of mind which is necessary to the worshipping of God acceptably. (_A New Literal Translation, from the Original Greek, of all the Apostolical Epistles_, 531f.)​


(*Robert Jamieson*; _Scottish Presbyterian exegete_) ‘Wash [_rahas_] his flesh with water’ [Leviticus 22:6] — Any Israelite who had contracted a defilement of such a nature as debarred him from the enjoyment of his wonted privileges, and had been legally cleansed from the disqualifying impurity, was bound to indicate his state of recovery by the immersion of his whole person in water. (_A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, On the Old and New Testaments_, 1:89)​


(*Hermann Cremer*; _German Lutheran lexicographer and philologist_) _Baptizo_...to immerse, to submerge...The peculiar New Testament and Christian use of the word—to denote immersion, submersion for a religious purpose; ‘to baptize’...may be pretty clearly traced back to the Levitical washings, Hebrew _rahas_, Leviticus 14:8, 9, 15:5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 27, 17:15...Numbers 19:7, 19...for which LXX = _louesthai_. (_Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek_, 126)​


(*Ethelbert Bullinger*; _Anglican lexicographer and philologist_) _Baptizo_...to make a thing ‘dipped’ or ‘dyed.’ ‘To immerse’ for a religious purpose, may be traced back to the Levitical washings, see Leviticus 14:8–9; etc...which were connected with the purification which followed on and completed the expiation from sin...By ‘Baptism’ therefore we must understand an immersion, whose design like that of the Levitical washings and purifications was united with the washing away of sin. (_A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament_, 81)​


(*Herbert Danby*; _Anglican Hebraist_) The description of these [Levitical] uncleannesses leads logically to a catalogue [in the _Mishnah_] of the objects which are, and the objects which are not, susceptible to them, and then to an account of the means, namely, immersion, ordained by Scripture for freeing persons and things from these uncleannesses. (_The Code of Maimonides; Book Ten_, xxxiv)​


(*Michael Kruger*; _Presbyterian, Assoc. Prof. of N. T., Reformed Theological Seminary [Charlotte, NC]_)...Bathing (by immersion) was required for a number of Levitical impurities...Leviticus 14:8–9 ..15:13...Numbers 19...Leviticus 15:16...17:15...15:5–8, 11–12...21–22... (_The Gospel of the Savior: An Analysis of P. Oxy. 840 and its Place in the Gospel Traditions of Early Christianity_, 128)​

Hebraists also tend to see zoraq in Num. 19:20 – “*if the man who is unclean does not cleanse himself, that person shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, since he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD, because the water for impurity has not been thrown [zoraq] on him, he is unclean*” – as being a synecdoche (a part used in representation of a whole) for the entire process laid out in its broader context. This is partly based on the fact that we can safely assume the contaminated person would not be deemed cleansed if they left out or rearranged ANY of the specified components, timing, or number of repetitions prescribed in the overall remedial process. Notably, “baptisms (_baptismos_)” can be understood as being used in a similar way in Hebrews 9:10.

In addition, when one checks the broader context of all of the other Levitical passages that involved sprinkling that were mentioned in the OP (or where those same situations are further described in other parallel pentateuchal passages), it can be seen that bathing was prescribed as well. One such case where the distinction between _nazah_ and _rahas_ is brought out quite clearly is in Leviticus 14:3b–9: 


...*Then, if the case of leprous disease is healed in the leprous person,* 4 *the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two live clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet yarn and hyssop. *5 *And the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthenware vessel over fresh water. *6 *He shall take the live bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, and dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water.* 7 *And he shall sprinkle *[_nazah_] *it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the leprous disease. Then he shall pronounce him clean and shall let the living bird go into the open field. *8 *And he* [the leper] *who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes and shave off all his hair and bathe* [_rahas_] *himself in water* [_b-mayim_ – literally “in water”], *and he shall be clean. And after that he may come into the camp, but live outside his tent seven days.* 9 *And on the seventh day he shall shave off all his hair from his head, his beard, and his eyebrows. He shall shave off all his hair, and then he shall wash his clothes and bathe* [_rahas_] *his body in water *[_b-mayim_]*, and he shall be clean.*​

From this sequence of events it is especially apparent that _nazah_ and _rahas_ refer to two separate actions. In addition, it is interesting to consider from another Old Testament event how the command to _rahas _was understood and carried out in biblical times:


(_2 Kings 5:10–14_) *And Elisha sent a messenger to him *[the leprous Syrian general, Naaman]*, saying, “Go and wash *[_rahas_] *in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean.” *11 *But Naaman was angry and went away, saying, “Behold, I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call upon the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place and cure the leper. *12 *Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash *[_rahas_] *in them and be clean?” So he turned and went away in a rage.* 13 *But his servants came near and said to him, “My father, it is a great word the prophet has spoken to you; will you not do it? Has he actually said to you, ‘Wash* [_rahas_]*, and be clean’?” *14 *So he went down and dipped *[_tabal_ – “dip”<> LXX: _baptizo_] *himself seven times in the Jordan *[_b-Yarden_—in the Jordan (River) <> LXX: _en to Iordane_]*, according to the word of the man of God, and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.*​

Again, other than in a few modern anti-immersionist polemics, I have never found a linguist or commentator who supposes that it is natural exegesis to try and maintain that Naaman bathed himself by _tabal / baptizo _seven times in the Jordan River (_b-Yarden / en to Iordanē_), yet somehow in a manner not supposing of a physical immersion.

The frequency with which various modes were actually employed within the overall economy of Levitical cleansings (involving persons), might be quantified as follows:

*Sprinkling* (_nazah/zoraq_) various substances (oil, blood, or water mixed with either ashes or blood – but notably never pure water by itself) was used in three main circumstances: [1] In the consecration of priests (e.g. Exodus 29:21), [2] to cleanse those with leprosy (Leviticus 14:7), and [3] in purifying persons who had touched a corpse or grave (Numbers 19:13). 

*Pouring* (_yatsaq_) oil was involved in two of these same situations, namely: [1] In the consecration of priests (e.g. Exodus 40:15), and [2] in cleansing those with leprosy (Leviticus 14:18). In addition, pouring water was almost certainly part of the regular washing of the priests’ hands and feet (Exodus 30:21; cf. 2 Kings 3:11). 

*Bathing* (_rahas_) with water was prescribed in at least seven different circumstances, including all of those previously mentioned: (1) In the consecration of priests (e.g. Exodus 29:4), (2) as part of the priests’ ongoing purifications—such as before putting on their vestments, after making certain sacrifices, and often before eating—(Leviticus 16:4, 28, 22:4–7), (3) in cleansing those who had touched a corpse or grave (Numbers 19:19), (4) in cleansing lepers (Leviticus 14:8), (5) in cleansing those with various bodily discharges (Leviticus 15:16), (6) in cleansing those who had touched a contaminated person or object (Leviticus 15:7, 26–27), and (7) in purifying those who had eaten carrion or other unclean meat (Leviticus 17:15–16). 

By such an accounting it can be said that bathing (generally understood as an immersion) was actually the most prominent mode by which Levitical cleansings were administered, and was apparently the only mode involved in the remediation of each of the seven major categories of religious impurity. 

As some of the previous citations alluded to (e.g. Lightfoot), the realization that “bathing” was so prominent in Levitical cleansings will rightly factor into - among a number of other important things like primary word meanings and syntax, historical setting and attached symbolisms - the way one approaches trying to understand John’s (and thus Jesus’) baptism.


----------



## Moireach

Interestingly I've only just read a book on this for the first time. It's very short, and written as a narrative, very easy to read and it very plainly and simply sets out the Presbyterian mode. Takes a couple of hours to read maybe. 
I'd recommend it to both camps. It adresses everything discussed in this conversation.

It is called *William The Baptist.*
And is available to read online here

I believe Immersion is valid but not scriptural.


----------



## Phil D.

Moireach said:


> It adresses everything discussed in this conversation. It is called William The Baptist.



Hi David. In relation to what I addressed in my post, I would categorize William the Baptist as being a modern anti-immersionist polemic.


----------



## Moireach

Phil D. said:


> Moireach said:
> 
> 
> 
> It adresses everything discussed in this conversation. It is called William The Baptist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi David. In relation to what I addressed in my post, I would categorize William the Baptist as being a modern anti-immersionist polemic.
Click to expand...


Well it's 144 years old I wouldn't call it modern. The english has been updated and it's been republished if that's what you mean. Have you read it?


----------



## Pilgrim

Moireach said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moireach said:
> 
> 
> 
> It adresses everything discussed in this conversation. It is called William The Baptist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi David. In relation to what I addressed in my post, I would categorize William the Baptist as being a modern anti-immersionist polemic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's 144 years old I wouldn't call it modern. The english has been updated and it's been republished if that's what you mean. Have you read it?
Click to expand...


I think what Phil means (or at least definitely what I would mean) is that it's from the 19th Century or later. Works from that era were often in response to Baptist polemics that by that point had become widely available. (Or at least that was often in the background.) 

I don't know if James W. Dale's work was the first to argue that sprinkling or affusion was THE biblical mode, but a good many Presbyterian and Reformed writers since then have essentially followed his views e.g. James Chaney (author of "William",) Jay Adams, W.A. Mackay, Rowland S. Ward, Robert Reymond, etc. Some have charged that immersion was basically a Romish innovation that is continued to this day in the East. 

Is there any Presbyterian/Reformed polemic prior to the 19th Century that argues that immersion (i.e. submersion) was definitely NOT the biblical mode? From what I've seen, earlier works tended toward what we see in Calvin's writing--that immersion was the primitive mode but that other modes are not invalid. 

Immersion being the "default" mode is seen in the Didache. The earliest editions of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer also reflect this.


----------



## Phil D.

Moireach said:


> Well it's 144 years old I wouldn't call it modern.



LOL I guess age of this kind is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? Personally, I use "modern" in this connection to refer to works from the 19th century and onward. After all the issue involves 2000 years of exposition and discussion,



Moireach said:


> Have you read it?



Yes. Have you read its counterpart, Theodosia Earnst; The Heroine of Faith ?

---------- Post added at 03:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------




austinww said:


> "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death" (Rom. 6). Indeed we are. Where does it say baptism physically looks like modern burial practices?



I wrote a paper on this a while ago. If you're interested it can be read here. I realize that, once again, its length will probably prevent a lot of people from reading through it, but I would summarize my arguments in regard to your question as follows.

1) Many sources, including the Mishnah (c. 2nd century, but deemed relative to all of 2TJ c. 250 BC to 70 AD), indicate that the vast majority of burials in NT times were done with simple earthen graves similar to modern Western ones.

2) In terms of baptism being related to Christ's burial, which was not is a common earthen grave, I argue that the intended comparison is simply being taken too far - although all forms of burial, including in a tomb, certainly involve a state of concealment.

3) One of the main things I argue in support of the previous point is the fact that the symbolic connection in question was held as the unbroken consensus throughout the first 16 centuries of Christendom. Most Reformed leaders up through the 18th century readily embraced it as well. Of course symbolism isn't a concrete thing, so it's interpretation is always open to some extent. However, the fact that so many Christians, from such diverse cultures and eras, have indeed agreed with the symbolism argues strongly that it is has a highly intuitive quality to it.

I also attempt to give fairly in-depth answers to the specific objections to the immersion/burial connection that have been raised in the last 200 years or so.


----------



## Moireach

Phil D. said:


> Moireach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's 144 years old I wouldn't call it modern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL I guess age of this kind is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? Personally, I use "modern" in this connection to refer to works from the 19th century and onward. After all the issue involves 2000 years of exposition and discussion,
> 
> 
> 
> Moireach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Have you read its counterpart, Theodosia Earnst; The Heroine of Faith ?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death" (Rom. 6). Indeed we are. Where does it say baptism physically looks like modern burial practices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wrote a paper on this a while ago. If you're interested it can be read here. I realize that, once again, its length will probably prevent a lot of people from reading through it, but I would summarize my arguments in regard to your question as follows.
> 
> 1) Many sources, including the Mishnah (c. 2nd century, but deemed relative to all of 2TJ c. 250 BC to 70 AD), indicate that the vast majority of burials in NT times were done with simple earthen graves similar to modern Western ones.
> 
> 2) In terms of baptism being related to Christ's burial, which was not is a common earthen grave, I argue that the intended comparison is simply being taken too far - although all forms of burial, including in a tomb, certainly involve a state of concealment.
> 
> 3) One of the main things I argue in support of the previous point is the fact that the symbolic connection in question was held as the unbroken consensus throughout the first 16 centuries of Christendom. Most Reformed leaders up through the 18th century readily embraced it as well. Of course symbolism isn't a concrete thing, so it's interpretation is always open to some extent. However, the fact that so many Christians, from such diverse cultures and eras, have indeed agreed with the symbolism argues strongly that it is has a highly intuitive quality to it.
> 
> I also attempt to give fairly in-depth answers to the specific objections to the immersion/burial connection that have been raised in the last 200 years or so.
Click to expand...


I will try to read that at some point.
Just out of interest can I ask you to sum up your belief on baptism in one sentence? I'm mixed up cos you seem to be a Presbyterian immersionist who doesn't agree with the symbolism of the burial?
I admit I've only read William the Baptist on this issue but I really did think he showed quite clearly that the burial symbolism is invalid.


----------



## JML

If one is a Presbyterian and an immersionist, does one immerse infants or only adults? For those who believe the early church strictly practiced immersion, what is the consensus on their practice with infants?


----------



## steadfast7

The eastern orthodox immerse infants three times according to the triune formula


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

PhilD:

Thank you very much for your well researched post. Even though I do not agree with much of it I still clicked the "helpful" button at the bottom.

The problem that I see in using lexicons and commentaries in order to prove a point is that often lexicons and commentaries will look at the literal definition of a word, and, sometimes miss the figurative uses. Here is an example in English:

When we think of the word "Age" we generally understand it to mean "a certain period of time." If, for example, I asked for your age, then you would tell me the certain period of time you have lived in years. We also use the term "Age" in reference to specific historical references, "Middle Ages," "Dark Age," and also "the age of the Dinosaur." This would be the literal use of the term "Age."

However, if I place a suffix at the end of the word, then the meaning will change: "Ageless" means "eternity," or "forever." The root word has been changed because of a change in its stem. Such is not the case in the stem changes of all words, but this point should not be underestimated.

Before we get into your citation of Scripture I think it is important to remind you of the mode of Baptism being defended here: Baptism was performed by wading out into a river or pool and having water poured over the head. This was pointed out in the OP. And, I think, that when one looks at the action in this type of Baptism, then one can say that the word "bathe" can also be synonymous with the action. Typically, when we "bathe" we do not fully immerse ourselves, but fill a tub with a lot of water, and then we pour water on our heads. Much water is used in this kind of bathing. In the OP I supplied some images of Early Church Baptisms, and they all indicate this type of "bathing." It is interesting to note that there are no pictures or frescos of Early Church "immersions," but such immersions were supposed to be the most frequent? I removed the images because of 2nd Command violations (apparently the ECF did not have such compunctions). 

Here is an image of an Early Church Baptistry that does not seem to facilitate the idea of immersion:

View attachment 2365

In Greek the root word "to dip" is Bapto, and, according to context can be changed to Bapsei. In the LXX the word "Bapsei" is most often used for the word "to dip."

Examples:

Leviticus 4:6 - "And the Priest shall dip his finger and sprinkle..."
Leviticus 4:17 - "And the Priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood and sprinkle..."
1 Sam 14:27 - "and he put forth the end of the rod in his hand and dipped it in the honeycomb..."

Suffice it to say that the root word "Bapto" means "to dip." I am not aware of anyone who holds to sprinkling that would object to this definition of the root word.

In Leviticus 14:8 the LXX reads "lousetai" (to bathe) and not "Bapto" or "Baptidzo."
In 2 Kings 5:10 the LXX reads "lousai" (to bathe) and not "Bapto" or "Baptidzo."

I have not looked at every instance of "bathe" in the LXX, but every one that I saw uses the term "lousetai" or its derivatives rather than "Bapto," "Bapsei," or "Baptidzo." It does not seem to me that your cause is forwarded by referencing the term "lousai" to mean "Bapto" because the term could be interpreted according to the mode of baptism indicated in the OP. Pouring water on the head while standing or kneeling in water is an acceptable use of the term "to bathe." Dipping or immersing a person in water is also an acceptable use of the term "lousai."

Looking at the root word "Bapto," "to dip" in the New Testament:

Matthew 26:23 And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.
Mark 14:20 And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. 
Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
John 13:26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. 
Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 

In every instance the literal definition of "Bapto" is present. What is striking is that none of these references are baptisms. It seems to me that since the NT writers were well acquainted with the literal definition of the word, and they wanted to express Baptism the way "immersionists" would like it explained, then would they not settle any dispute by using the literal word at least once? And not a derivative?

Can you show me any clear example where the term "Baptidzo" is used to specifically mean "to dip"? I am not looking for a lexicon or a commentary. I am looking for a specific example where the word is used unmistakably to mean "to dip"? Our conscious is bound by the Word of God, and not by lexicons or commentaries.

Purification in the Old Testament was performed by sprinkling, and this has been attested in the New Testament:



> Hebrews 9:19-23 - For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And nearly in blood all things are by the law purged; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.


How were the people and the things of the Temple purified? Paul answers, by blood. And how was this blood applied to the people? One can only answer: By sprinkling.

I think I have shown that the Baptism of Christ could only have been done by sprinkling as defined by the OP.

I think I have also shown that the Baptism of the jailor was done by sprinkling as well.

I think it can be demonstrated that all the other Baptisms in the New Testament were done by sprinkling as defined in the OP. Though I will have to wait for another time to point these out.

Thanks again for a very well researched post, and I look forward to your reply to this one.

Blessings to you in the name of our risen Lord Jesus Christ,

-Rob


----------



## Marrow Man

steadfast7 said:


> The eastern orthodox immerse infants three times according to the triune formula



Part of the problem, though, is that EO baptisms look little to nothing like baptisms performed in western immersionist-only churches. I discussed this briefly on a previous thread (see here), posting videos from modern EO baptism services. I would venture to say that these would not even been considered "valid" in some immersionist-only churches (since it does not fit their exact definition of an "immersion").

The reason for the "three-fold" nature has more to do with a controversy in the early church over distinguishing between Christian baptism and Jewish proselyte baptisms. The latter was "one-fold", but the former "three-fold" to reflect the Trinitarian nature of the baptism. If I recall correctly, Warfield's article on the archaeology indicates that the early controversy on valid and non-valid baptism had to do more with 3 v. 1 than the precise mode.


----------



## Peairtach

The modern immersionist has an obsession about the person being "buried" in the water, probably because of their reliance on Romans 6:4.

They need to loosen up a bit for the sake of church unity, particularly since baptism also only needs a credible profession of faith, rather than the accredited profession of faith necessary for the Lord's Table.

Early immersion - as was said - was by standing or sitting in the water and having it poured or sprinkled over you, as per bathing, and as per Noah's ark, and the Israelites passing through the Red Sea.


----------



## Phil D.

CalvinandHodges said:


> I am not looking for a lexicon or a commentary...Our conscious is bound by the Word of God, and not by lexicons or commentaries.



First, I believe this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the proper role of scholarship. While we are ultimately bound only by Scripture in terms of our beliefs and actions, we are wise to carefully and teachably consider what reputable scholars, who have dedicated their lives to studying various specialties, have to say in the process of our deriving such. This is especially true in the area of word meaning and usage with respect to languages one is not fluent in. 

Your statements implicitly posit the illogical notion that lexicons must somehow base their findings on something other than their creators’ understanding of the common usage of the specific language and literature they pertain to. But if this is in fact the case, then it would be very difficult to see how these kinds of references can have any real value or use whatsoever. Indeed, wouldn’t we be better off simply discarding them altogether? After all, it would apparently be up to everyone to simply read an English translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts (which of course in itself involves relying on the informed scholarship of the translators), and base all of their beliefs on whatever impression it is they happen to come away with. 

Taken to its logical conclusion, one must also deduce that commentaries are out of bounds in such pursuits as well. And if this is true, then every one of the reformers must share in the censure, as they were glad to frequently quote and stand on the learning of those who went before them. I hope you will come to see the folly of your approach. 

Nor, I would point out, are you being consistent in your own position. You have disclosed to me that your views are primarily (although not entirely) based on what you read in a book by Ralph Bass. So why are you so willing to take the word of one man (whose works, it might be pointed out, are only in print via a vanity publisher) against that of a historical host of dedicated Hebrew, Greek and biblical scholars who have gained respect throughout the Christian world?



CalvinandHodges said:


> Baptism was performed by wading out into a river or pool and having water poured over the head.



I’m sorry, but this is simply an assertion, and is only begging the question - especially in terms of NT baptism.



CalvinandHodges said:


> Suffice it to say that the root word "Bapto" means "to dip."



I know of no one on either side who would deny this, although most would point out that it also came to mean “to dye.”



CalvinandHodges said:


> Can you show me any clear example where the term "Baptidzo" is used to specifically mean "to dip"?



Certainly. But in line with the standard hermeneutic approach in cases like this, I will provide some examples of where I believe classical Greek and Jewish usage of the word_ baptizo_ quite obviously carries the meaning “to dip.” This is in keeping with the (nearly) universal position that such sources are valid, and indeed indispensible for properly understanding how those same words were typically used in the NT - which, after all, was surely written in such a way that the common, original readers would have been readily able to understand it. While you may not appreciate this approach, I am confident that many others looking in on the conversation will find it useful. For the sake of space I’ll provide just a few examples that originated in the general era when the NT was written, although if someone wants I will be happy to provide more.


1.) (*Heraclitus of Ephesus*; _c. 1st century BC_): When the mass of iron, drawn red-hot from the furnace, is dipped [_baptizetai_ (_baptizo_)] in water, its fiery glow, being quenched with water, is extinguished. (_Homeric Allegories_, 9; Greek: _Επειδήπερ έκ τών βαναύσων διάπυρος ό τοΰ σιδήρου μύδρος έλκυσθείς ΰδατι βαπτζίεται, καί τό φλογώδες ύπό τήν ίδίας φύσεως ΰδατι κατασβεσθέν άναπαύεται_)​


2.) (*Plutarch*; _1st century AD_) [_Describing a celebration by Alexander the Great’s army_]: All along the road the soldiers were dipping [_baptizontes_ (_baptizo_)] cups, and horns, and earthenware vessels into great jars of liquor and drinking to one another’s heath. (_Life of Alexander_, 67; Greek: _καί θηρικλείοις παρά τήν όδόν άπασαν οί στρταιώται βαπτίζοντες έκ πίθων μεγάλων καί κρατήρων άλλήλοις προέπινον_)​


3.) (*Achilles Tatius*; _c. 2nd century AD_): For if any of them [boatmen on the Nile] thirsts as he is sailing along, he leans over from the boat, bending face down to the river; then he puts down his hand to the water and dips [_baptisas_ (_baptizo_)] it in, made hollow, and filling it with water, shoots the same into his mouth, and fails not to reach it. (_Loves of Cleitophon and Leucippe_, 4.18; Greek: _Εί γάρ τις αύτών διψήσειε πλέων, προκίψας έκ τής νεώς τό μέν πρόσωπον είς τόν ποταμόν προβέβληκε, τήν δέ χείρα είς τό ϋδορ καθήκε, καί κοίλην βαπτίσας καί πλησάμενος ϋδατος, άκοντιζει κατά τοΰ στόματος τό πόμα, καί τυγχάνει τοΰ σκοποΰ_)​

Many Greek scholars have also noted that over time _bapto_ was increasingly replaced by the intensified _baptizo_ when the two words were used in the same context. Here are three examples of that, the first from the epics of ancient Greek poetry, where the expressions are obviously figurative:


1a.) (*Aratus*; _3rd century BC_): But if without a cloud he [i.e. the sun] dips [_bapte_ (_bapto_)] in the western ocean, and as he is sinking, or still when he is gone, the clouds stand near him blushing red. (_Phaenomena_, 858f; Greek: _Εἰ δ' ὁ μὲν ἀνέφελος βάπτη ῥόου ἑσπερίοιο, ταὶ δὲ κατερχομένου νεφέλαι καὶ οἰχομένοιο πλησίαι ἑστήκωσιν ἐρευθέες_)​


1b.) (*Orpheus*; _c. 4th century AD_): But when the Titan [in this case Helios = the sun] had dipped [_baptizeto_ (_baptizo_)] himself in the ocean flood, and the new-moon darkly led out the star-robed night, then went forth the column of warriors who dwelt in the mountains. (_Argonautica_, 514f; Greek: _‘Αλλ ότε γ’ ‘Ωκεανοϊο ροόυ βαπτίζετο Τιτάν, μήνη δ’ άστροχίτων έπαγεν μελαναυγέα όρφνην, τήμος άρηιφατοι κίον άνέρες, οϊ ρα νέμοντο ‘Αρκτώοις έν όρεσσι_)​

Here is an example with regard to literal usage:


2a.) (*Septuagint*; _3rd century BC_): *And a clean man shall take hyssop and dip it* [Hebrew: וְטָבַל _tabal_—dip; plunge <> LXX: _bapsei _(_bapto_)] *into the water, and sprinkle *[_perirranei_ (_raino_)] *it upon the house and the furnishings, and upon the souls, as many as are there.* (_Numbers 19:18a_; Greek: _καὶ λήμψεται ὕσσωπον καὶ βάψει εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ ἀνὴρ καθαρὸς καὶ περιρρανεῖ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ σκεύη καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς ψυχάς, ὅσαι ἐὰν ὦσιν ἐκεῖ_)​


2b.) (*Josephus*; _1st century AD_): Then they [the Israelites in carrying out the instructions in Numbers 19:18] threw a little of the ashes into a spring [i.e. “living/potable water”] and, dipping [_baptisantes_ [_baptizo_)] hyssop, they sprinkled [_errainon_ (_raintizo_)] [the unclean]. (_The Antiquities of the Jews_, 4.4.6 [81]; Greek: _τής τέφρας ολίγον είς πηγήν ένιέντες καί ϋσσωπον βαπτίsαντες, έρραινον_)​

Another instance where _bapto_ in the Septuagint was replaced by _baptizo_ occurs in a later Jewish-Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was written by Aquila of Sinope (published c.138 AD). The Hebrew word being translated is again _tabal_:


3.) (Job 9:31): ...*Yet you will plunge* [LXX: _ebapsas_ (_bapto_) — Aquila: _baptiseis_ (_baptizo_)] *me into a pit, and my own clothes will abhor me.* (LXX: _ἱκανῶς ἐν ῥύπῳ με ἔβαψας ἐβδελύξατο δέ με ἡ στολή_; Aquila: _καί τότε έν διαφθορά βαπτίσεις με καί βδελύξεται ἡ στολή_)​

Finally, here are three examples where _bapto_ and _baptizo _were used synonymously within a single passage:


1.) (*Pseudo-Hippocrates*; _c. 2nd century BC_): Then dipping [_bapsas_ (_bapto_)] it [a gynecological device called a pessary] in rose oil or Egyptian oil, apply it during the day; and when it begins to sting, remove it, and immerse it again [_baptizein_ _(baptizo_) _palin_—again; once more], this time in breast-milk and Egyptian ointment. (_The Diseases of Women_, 1; Greek: _Επειτα βαψας ίς άλείφα ροδινον ή Αίγύπτιον προσθέσθο τήν ήμέραν, καί έπήν δάκνηται άφαρέεσθαι, καί βαπτίζειν πάλιν, ές γάλα γυναικός καί μύρον Αίγύπτιον_)​

Here the conjunctive role of the adverb _palin_ (“again”) plainly demonstrates both the synonymous capabilities and usage of _bapto_ and _baptizo_.


2.) (*Melito*; _Christian bishop of Sardis_ [_Asia Minor_]; _2nd century AD_): Are not gold, copper, silver, and iron, after being fired, immersed [_baptizetai_ (_baptizo_)] in water? One, in order that it may be brightened [_phaidrunthe_—brighten; clean] in appearance; another in order that it may be strengthened [_tonothe_—strengthen; intensify] by the dipping [_bapses_ (_bapto_)]. (_Fragments_, 8b; Greek: _Ποίος δέ χρυσός ή άργυρος ή χαλκός ή σίδηρος πυρωθείς ού βαπτιζεται ϋδατι, ό μέν αύτών ϊνα φαιδρυνθή διά τής χρόας, ό δέ ϊνα τονωθή διά τής βαφής_)​

No matter how _bapto_ and _baptizo_ are translated here, Melito was clearly referring to the same aspect of the physical act in view using both verbs—while the result of, or the condition produced by the operation was denoted by two other terms (_phaidrunthe_ and _tonothe_). 


3.) *Cyril of Jerusalem*; _4th century AD_): Even Simon Magus once came to the bath [_loutro_]: He was immersed [_ebaptisthe_ (_baptizo_)], though not enlightened; and though he dipped [_ebapsen_ (_bapto_)] his body in water, he enlightened not his heart with the Spirit: his body went down [_katebe_] and came up [_anabe_]; but his soul was not buried with Christ, nor was it raised up by Him. (_Procatechesis_, 2; Greek: _Προσήλθέ ποτε καί Σίμων τό λουτρώ ό μάγος έβαπτίσθη, άλλ́ ούκ έφωτίσθε καί τό μέν σώμα έβαφεν ϋδατι τήν δέ καρδίαν ούκ έΦώτισε Πνεύματι καί κατέβη μέν τό σώμα, καί άνέβη ή δέ ψυχή ού συνετάφη χρίστω, ούδέ συνεγέρθη_)​

It is based on the historical usage of _baptizo_ such as in these examples, that Greek lexicographers have with near unanimity (along with the vast, vast majority of biblical scholars) determined that the ordinary (primary, root) meaning of _baptizo_ is “to dip/immerse.” In then in following one of the cardinal rules of historical-grammatical interpretation (namely, that whenever the literal or normal sense of a word is wholly admissible, no other meaning need, nor generally should be sought), that so many scholars have agreed that there are many instances where the natural syntax and contextual indicators best support the understanding that various New Testament passages also use _baptizo_ in reference to the act of dipping/immersion. My own study, as limited as my personal abilities may be, has led me to this consensus position as well.

You, on the other hand, seem quite intent on rigorously following the assertions of Mr. Bass (who, as a devotee, in turn parrots the theretofore singular claims of James Dale), who would claim that the verb (!) _baptizo_ never really denotes an action, but only and always a condition. That is certainly your prerogative, although I think an ill-advised one.

(Not quite sure what happened to the highlight and quote feature as I'm typing this), but...


Rob: "I have not looked at every instance of "bathe" in the LXX, but every one that I saw uses the term "lousetai" or its derivatives rather than "Bapto," "Bapsei," or "Baptidzo.""


This is generally the case, yes. Dr. Cremer indeed made note of this in my earlier citation of him, while not hesitating to equate it with the idea of immersion. In the same post I also provided a significant case where both the Hebrew word for “dip” and _baptizo_ were in fact used to describe how that term was evidently comprehended in the context under discussion (2 Kings 5:14). In terms of the definition of the specific term _louo_ - if you are willing to listen to a source more qualified than you or I or, with all due respect, Mr. Bass – here is what Dr. Richard Trench, the well-respected Anglican philologist, writes:


We have but the one English word, to “wash,” with which to render these three Greek [_plunein_, _niptein_, _louein_]. We must needs confess here to a certain poverty, seeing that the three have severally a propriety of their own—one which the writers of the New Testament always observe, and could not be promiscuously and interchangeably used. Thus _plunein _is always to wash inanimate things, as distinguished from living objects or persons; garments most frequently

..._Niptein_ and _louein_, on the other hand, express the washing of living persons: although with this difference that _niptein_ (which displaced in the later period of the Attic _nisein_) and _nipsasthai_ almost always express the washing of a part of the body—the hands (Mark 7:3), the face (Matthew 7:17), the eyes (John 13:5...), the back and shoulders (Homer, _Odyssey_...)..._Louein_, which is not so much to “wash,” as to “bathe,” and _lousthai_, or in common Greek, _louesthai_, “to bathe oneself,” imply always, not the bathing of a part of the body, but of the whole; _leloumenoi to soma_, (Hebrews 10:22). (_Synonyms of the New Testament_, 189f.)​

Other Greek vocabularies wholly concur with these observations (e.g., Zodhiates, _The Complete Word Study Dictionary_, [#G3538]; _Strong's Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words_ [#G3068]; _A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature_ [BDAG], p. 603).


Rob: "Purification in the Old Testament was performed by sprinkling, and this has been attested in the New Testament [Hebrews 9]"


I am running out of time here, so I will, God willing, try to respond to your reading of Hebrews 9 at some later time.


Rob: Thanks again for a very well researched post


I do believe you are sincere in your thanks, Rob, and you’re certainly welcome. But I also have to say that the last part of your remark rings pretty hollow, seeing how you essentially dismiss the kind of research I submitted as being largely inadmissible and irrelevant. I would sincerely commend to you a substantial broadening of the sources that you apparently rely on with regard to your own research into this topic. In other words, why not check out the “other side” a little better?


*The one who states his case first seems right, until another comes and examines him.* (Proverbs 18:17)


As I' am now rereading the last part of my post again, I just want to clarify that I am not intending to apply Prov. 18:17 directly to my response to Rob. Rather, it was in connection with my general advocacy of consulting different sources that approach an issue like this from varying perspectives, which will often (and rightly) cause all of us to consider certain things we otherwise may not be presupposed to consider. With regard to issues like the current one, I personally think "neutral" authorities like lexicons are particularly worthy of attention.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

PhilD:

First, I am sincere in saying that I appreciate your research. This does not mean I have to agree with it - does it?

Second, The Bible is not like any other book in the world. The proper hermeneutic to interpret the Scriptures is by the Scriptures themselves, WCF 1:9. I believe that the London Baptist Confession also has a similar statement. Thus, your citations of Pagan scholars is not a valid hermeneutic when one interprets Scripture. If I seem dismissal of your "scholars," then do not take it personally - it just does not impress me in light of what the Scriptures teach. Especially the Hebrews 9:19ff passage cited in my earlier post. Lexicons and commentaries are *secondary* sources not primary, and if a lexicon or commentary contradicts the Scriptures - which I think they do when it comes to "Baptism" then we are to forsake the secondary source(s) in favor of the Scriptures.

Third, it does not seem at all that you have answered my post. I am curious as to whether or not you are simply entranced with the research, and not with the Scriptures? The only citation of Scripture to back up your position is Job 9:31, and your citation is questionable according to your own post. That is, there are other citations of the passage that does not use the word in question. Consequently, _βαπτίσεις_ may be a scribal error rather than a deliberate change in the text. But let us take a look at the citation. You wrote:



> 3.) (Job 9:31): ...Yet you will plunge [LXX: ebapsas (bapto) — Aquila: baptiseis (baptizo)] me into a pit, and my own clothes will abhor me. (LXX: ἱκανῶς ἐν ῥύπῳ με ἔβαψας ἐβδελύξατο δέ με ἡ στολή; Aquila: καί τότε έν διαφθορά με καί βδελύξεται ἡ στολή)


Apparently, you are equating _βαπτίσεις_ with _βαπτίζω_ in one citation from the LXX. I would question if one citation from Scripture is enough to establish your point. However, I did ask for one citation, and you did provide it, so thanks! (and that is sincere).

But your citation does not prove your point. The term _βαπτίσεις_ is not found anywhere in the New Testament. Consequently, even if this derivative follows the meaning of the root word, it does not apply to New Testament Baptism.

Thanks again for your work, if you are not interested in engaging with the Biblical content, then I will let you have the last word, and I will continue to answer other pertinent questions raised by others that I have not addressed, e.g. burial and baptism.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Just to try to give you a sense of what I am saying above, suppose the following:

That I wrote a post citing every scholar you have cited above, and that all of them concurred on the subject of Infant Baptism. Would such citations convince you of Infant Baptism?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Afterthought

CalvinandHodges said:


> Second, The Bible is not like any other book in the world. The proper hermeneutic to interpret the Scriptures is by the Scriptures themselves, WCF 1:9. I believe that the London Baptist Confession also has a similar statement. Thus, your citations of Pagan scholars is not a valid hermeneutic when one interprets Scripture.


Question. Words do not occur in a vacuum. While Scripture should in the end define its own terms, shouldn't there be some use of lexicons that survey the word in its pagan use, and if there should be that use, how should they be used in relation to Scripture, given that Scripture should define its own terms in the end?

Edit: As an example, it is my understanding that the reason why many believe leavened or unleavened bread can be used in the Lord's Supper is because the Greek word used in Scripture allows for either meaning. Yet if we tried to fix the meaning of the word Scripturally, wouldn't we be forced to fill that word with the meaning of "unleavened bread"?


----------



## Phil D.

Good morning, Rob!



CalvinandHodges said:


> The proper hermeneutic to interpret the Scriptures is by the Scriptures themselves, WCF 1:9.



Amen and amen. 



CalvinandHodges said:


> Thus, your citations of Pagan scholars is not a valid hermeneutic when one interprets Scripture.



Frankly, this is just silly. Bringing other relevant sources to bear (yes, including pagan ones) to help establish our grammatical understanding of the underlying original languages that scripture is written in is a central and necessary tenet of historical-grammatical interpretation, and has been a staple in conservative Protestant exegesis since Luther. If you read any of the reformers you will see them repeatedly doing just that. Are you sure that you want to declare their use of this hermeneutic invalid? They even (gasp!) produced, consulted and frequently cited Greek and Hebrew lexicons! 

For that matter, even the sources you acknowledge relying on in this area readily use such sources - which should cause you to realize that in the end so do you. We all read scripture with presuppositions that we have accepted from various extra-scriptural sources, whether we are candid enough to disclose and directly cite them or not. And what about all those pictures you keep appealing to as compelling evidence for your position.  Again, I think your reasoning and approach in this area, while undoubtedly well-meant, is rather naive, inconsistent and practically deficient. But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. 



CalvinandHodges said:


> The term βαπτίσεις is not found anywhere in the New Testament. Consequently, even if this derivative follows the meaning of the root word, it does not apply to New Testament Baptism.



You would never be able to find anyone knowledgeable in language to support such a nonsensical assertion. I would try to explain further, but I might have to quote various extra-biblical sources to do so. Given the preceding discussion this would obviously be a pointless exercise. I would, however, encourage you to perhaps inquire about this with someone you might have confidence in.



CalvinandHodges said:


> Third, it does not seem at all that you have answered my post. I am curious as to whether or not you are simply entranced with the research, and not with the Scriptures?...If you are not interested in engaging with the Biblical content, then I will let you have the last word, and I will continue to answer other pertinent questions raised by others that I have not addressed,



Well, I was under the impression that our discussion was leading up to this, and I even specifically told you I was going to address it more directly later. But given your determination to move on to greener pastures, I'll forgo giving my thoughts concerning passages like Hebrews 9 (shucks...there goes 2 pages of notes I was in the process of compiling...) I will, however, offer this brief summary of my position on immersion in scripture:


1.) It is clear from scripture that a variety of modes - sprinkling, pouring and bathing - were prescribed and employed in the course of various Levitical cleansings (or, purifications, if one prefers that term). 

2.) It is apparent from scripture that bathing was actually the most widely used of these modes, as well as being the only one to utilize pure water, and was always the concluding one in cases where multiple modes were involved.

3.) The single place in the OT that specifically describes how such bathings were rightly performed uses a word that all parties agree (or at least reluctantly concede) means "to dip."

4.) Thus, there is no historical or theological reason for prelimanarily supposing that John the Baptist wouldn't have used dipping/immersion.

5.) Based on the ordinary use and meaning of the word used to designate John's water ritual, there is good reason to believe that he indeed most likely performed it by dipping/immersion.

6.) All of the most descriptive contextual indicators in the accounts of John's and subsequent Christian baptism best support the conclusion that they were ordinarily performed according to the commonly known meaning of the word.

7.) The symbolisms that the NT attaches to water baptism, as well as its figurative use of the term "baptism", are fully supportive, and in some cases most compatible with the above conclusions.


I know this doesn't impress you in the least, but I'll still reiterate that my exegesis here is in full agreement with the vast majority of Christian leaders throughout church history. I'll spare you any direct citations - except one. Seeing how this is a confessional board I feel justified in citing a document which virtually all of the Reformed churches of the era are known to have readily embraced:

"Baptism was instituted and consecrated by God. First John baptized, who dipped Christ in the water in Jordan." (_Second Helvetic Confession_, 20.1)



CalvinandHodges said:


> I wrote a post citing every scholar you have cited above, and that all of them concurred on the subject of Infant Baptism. Would such citations convince you of Infant Baptism?



First of all, be careful not to presume too much about what you think you might know about my ultimate position on infant baptism. Now, as for your specific question - Would such citations be sufficient _in and of themselves_? Of course not. Would (and do) I summarily object to them playing a prominent role in discussions of the issue? Most definitely not. Do I use them to help inform and illuminate my reading of scripture concerning this matter? Absolutely and thankfully. Would I end up agreeing with them if I found them to be fully consistent with all of scripture? Most readily.


In taking your advice, this will likely be my final post on this thread. I think we are just too far apart in our whole initial approach to this kind of an issue for further interaction to be useful or edifying. So I'll leave you to discuss things with others, unencumbered by my apparently incompatible contributions.

All the best in Christ, brother.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

PhilD:

I would like to thank you for your post, but I find little in it that addresses the Biblical content, it shows no gracious reasoning, and, in places, is rather infantile and churlish. Having read past posts of yours, and having mentioned this to you in a private message, I was afraid that you would revert to this kind of posting. No doubt some will think I am being rude for pointing this out. Again, I will respond to any Scriptural point you would like to make, but I will not be drawn into a heated debate where inflammatory language is prominent. I am more saddened and disappointed by your post than surprised or offended. It would have been better for you to delete the above and simply posted your "2 pages of notes" on Hebrews 9:19ff.

Moving on then to Stedfast's citatation of Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12. The passages read, in the KJV:



> Therefore 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 wak in newness of life, Romans 6:4
> 
> Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead, Colossians 2:12.


In order to proceed on this matter I would like Dennis to realize that the burial of Jesus Christ was not done according to how we understand it to mean in modern times. That is, a 6 to 8 foot hole in the ground was dug, the body of Jesus Christ placed into this hole, His body was then covered with dirt, and then 3 days later Christ arose from this grave.

Is that how you understand the burial of Jesus Christ? If so, then your view of immersion would fit that picture perfectly.

Blessings,

Rob



Phil D. said:


> Good morning, Rob!
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proper hermeneutic to interpret the Scriptures is by the Scriptures themselves, WCF 1:9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen and amen.
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, your citations of Pagan scholars is not a valid hermeneutic when one interprets Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, this is just silly. Bringing other relevant sources to bear (yes, including pagan ones) to help establish our grammatical understanding of the underlying original languages that scripture is written in is a central and necessary tenet of historical-grammatical interpretation, and has been a staple in conservative Protestant exegesis since Luther. If you read any of the reformers you will see them repeatedly doing just that. Are you sure that you want to declare their use of this hermeneutic invalid? They even (gasp!) produced, consulted and frequently cited Greek and Hebrew lexicons!
> 
> For that matter, even the sources you acknowledge relying on in this area readily use such sources - which should cause you to realize that in the end so do you. We all read scripture with presuppositions that we have accepted from various extra-scriptural sources, whether we are candid enough to disclose and directly cite them or not. And what about all those pictures you keep appealing to as compelling evidence for your position.  Again, I think your reasoning and approach in this area, while undoubtedly well-meant, is rather naive, inconsistent and practically deficient. But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term βαπτίσεις is not found anywhere in the New Testament. Consequently, even if this derivative follows the meaning of the root word, it does not apply to New Testament Baptism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would never be able to find anyone knowledgeable in language to support such a nonsensical assertion. I would try to explain further, but I might have to quote various extra-biblical sources to do so. Given the preceding discussion this would obviously be a pointless exercise. I would, however, encourage you to perhaps inquire about this with someone you might have confidence in.
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Third, it does not seem at all that you have answered my post. I am curious as to whether or not you are simply entranced with the research, and not with the Scriptures?...If you are not interested in engaging with the Biblical content, then I will let you have the last word, and I will continue to answer other pertinent questions raised by others that I have not addressed,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I was under the impression that our discussion was leading up to this, and I even specifically told you I was going to address it more directly later. But given your determination to move on to greener pastures, I'll forgo giving my thoughts concerning passages like Hebrews 9 (shucks...there goes 2 pages of notes I was in the process of compiling...) I will, however, offer this brief summary of my position on immersion in scripture:
> 
> 
> 1.) It is clear from scripture that a variety of modes - sprinkling, pouring and bathing - were prescribed and employed in the course of various Levitical cleansings (or, purifications, if one prefers that term).
> 
> 2.) It is apparent from scripture that bathing was actually the most widely used of these modes, as well as being the only one to utilize pure water, and was always the concluding one in cases where multiple modes were involved.
> 
> 3.) The single place in the OT that specifically describes how such bathings were rightly performed uses a word that all parties agree (or at least reluctantly concede) means "to dip."
> 
> 4.) Thus, there is no historical or theological reason for prelimanarily supposing that John the Baptist wouldn't have used dipping/immersion.
> 
> 5.) Based on the ordinary use and meaning of the word used to designate John's water ritual, there is good reason to believe that he indeed most likely performed it by dipping/immersion.
> 
> 6.) All of the most descriptive contextual indicators in the accounts of John's and subsequent Christian baptism best support the conclusion that they were ordinarily performed according to the commonly known meaning of the word.
> 
> 7.) The symbolisms that the NT attaches to water baptism, as well as its figurative use of the term "baptism", are fully supportive, and in some cases most compatible with the above conclusions.
> 
> 
> I know this doesn't impress you in the least, but I'll still reiterate that my exegesis here is in full agreement with the vast majority of Christian leaders throughout church history. I'll spare you any direct citations - except one. Seeing how this is a confessional board I feel justified in citing a document which virtually all of the Reformed churches of the era are known to have readily embraced:
> 
> "Baptism was instituted and consecrated by God. First John baptized, who dipped Christ in the water in Jordan." (_Second Helvetic Confession_, 20.1)
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote a post citing every scholar you have cited above, and that all of them concurred on the subject of Infant Baptism. Would such citations convince you of Infant Baptism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, be careful not to presume too much about what you think you might know about my ultimate position on infant baptism. Now, as for your specific question - Would such citations be sufficient _in and of themselves_? Of course not. Would (and do) I summarily object to them playing a prominent role in discussions of the issue? Most definitely not. Do I use them to help inform and illuminate my reading of scripture concerning this matter? Absolutely and thankfully. Would I end up agreeing with them if I found them to be fully consistent with all of scripture? Most readily.
> 
> 
> In taking your advice, this will likely be my final post on this thread. I think we are just too far apart in our whole initial approach to this kind of an issue for further interaction to be useful or edifying. So I'll leave you to discuss things with others, unencumbered by my apparently incompatible contributions.
> 
> All the best in Christ, brother.
Click to expand...


----------



## steadfast7

CalvinandHodges said:


> The proper hermeneutic to interpret the Scriptures is by the Scriptures themselves, WCF 1:9. I believe that the London Baptist Confession also has a similar statement. Thus, your citations of Pagan scholars is not a valid hermeneutic when one interprets Scripture.


 Rob, although I agree with your assertion that only Scripture interprets Scripture, I believe your confidence in being able to do that yourself, without the testimony of the church and the help of reason and natural revelation, is a bit inflated. It is not an endeavor that even the sola scriptura believing Reformers took, rather, they poured over the writings of the fathers and were students of the languages and texts that came from that era - a lot like what Phil seems to be doing.

Not all of the citations above come from "pagan" sources, so that argument is not only invalid but unfounded. At any rate, your way of dismissing Phil's attempt to shed light on the subject outright doesn't leave much more room for intellectually honest discussion, in my opinion.

---------- Post added at 07:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:58 AM ----------




CalvinandHodges said:


> In order to proceed on this matter I would like Dennis to realize that the burial of Jesus Christ was not done according to how we understand it to mean in modern times. That is, a 6 to 8 foot hole in the ground was dug, the body of Jesus Christ placed into this hole, His body was then covered with dirt, and then 3 days later Christ arose from this grave.


 You bring up a good point that I have thought about. For me, I don't see the 6-foot hold in the ground as necessary for the immersion metaphor to make sense. The point of burial is that the body be completely encased and not exposed to the elements. That's the point. Note also, and more interestingly, that Jesus relates his own future burial with Jonah in the belly of the fish for 3 days. If immersion in water is dismissed as a legitimate baptismal practice after having these metaphors presented, then I don't know what else is necessary to convince anyone.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Dennis:

The interpretation of the passages of Scripture that I am making are completely consistent with Reformed Orthodoxy - specifically Presbyterianism. So, I am not using a "private interpretation" of the passages in question. You will find similar exegesis in such works as Samuel Miller, _On Infant Baptism_, Cheney's, _William the Baptist_, John Murray's, _Infant Baptism_ to name a few.

In your other response:

"the body be completely encased, and not exposed to the elements," But does that explain how Jesus was buried? If I remember, Jesus was put on a shelf in a Sepulchre (SP?), and His body was at least exposed on one side to the rest of the cave. Does this picture the "burial and resurrection" of Jesus Christ in the mode of immersion that you are trying to defend.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## steadfast7

CalvinandHodges said:


> "the body be completely encased, and not exposed to the elements," But does that explain how Jesus was buried? If I remember, Jesus was put on a shelf in a Sepulchre (SP?), and His body was at least exposed on one side to the rest of the cave. Does this picture the "burial and resurrection" of Jesus Christ in the mode of immersion that you are trying to defend.


 The idea of burial is conveyed merely in his body being placed _completely _inside the tomb, with a stone rolled over to ensure that he is fully in the earth. It really is not a far stretch of the imagination to see how being immersed completely into water is a picture of this. It is ironic that one who advocates sprinkling as the _only _baptismal mode is questioning immersion as a picture. Pray tell, how does sprinkling do any better in picturing burial? noting that baptism and burial are explicitly paired together as metaphors in scripture - twice! I am quite convinced that the only reason pouring water on the head was allowed as a mode in the early church was because poured water mimicked flowing, or "living", water rushing over a person (cf. didache). but that's just an opinion. blessings!


----------



## Moireach

steadfast7 said:


> Pray tell, how does sprinkling do any better in picturing burial?



It doesn't. Presbyterians don't agree that baptism symbolises burial at all. We hold that what is symbolised is the work of the Holy Spirit. 

If I could refer you back to my earlier comment I posted a link to a short book, it explains very simply and briefly the Presbyterian's view on baptism in the form of a narrative. It's a much better and less stressful way to see the other side of the coin on this issue than by debate.


----------



## Marrow Man

In every modern burial I've ever witnessed, they _sprinkled dirt_ on the casket.


----------



## steadfast7

Marrow Man said:


> In every modern burial I've ever witnessed, they _sprinkled dirt_ on the casket.



now that would be the very anachronism Rob is arguing against


----------



## steadfast7

Moireach said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pray tell, how does sprinkling do any better in picturing burial?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't. Presbyterians don't agree that baptism symbolises burial at all. We hold that what is symbolised is the work of the Holy Spirit.
> ... the Presbyterian's view on baptism in the form of a narrative.
Click to expand...

those burial passages are explicit and clear enough to warrant at least a consideration in the theology of baptism, aren't they?


----------



## Moireach

steadfast7 said:


> Moireach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pray tell, how does sprinkling do any better in picturing burial?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't. Presbyterians don't agree that baptism symbolises burial at all. We hold that what is symbolised is the work of the Holy Spirit.
> ... the Presbyterian's view on baptism in the form of a narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those burial passages are explicit and clear enough to warrant at least a consideration in the theology of baptism, aren't they?
Click to expand...


There's a conversation in the book which deals with this, if it's a reasonably short length I can copy and paste. The gist is that Paul wasn't teaching at all in the passage in question, he was using baptism to illustrate a point. Very difficult for me to explain, bear with me i'll have a look at the link.


----------



## Marrow Man

steadfast7 said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> In every modern burial I've ever witnessed, they _sprinkled dirt_ on the casket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now that would be the very anachronism Rob is arguing against
Click to expand...


That's sort of my point. Anachronisms abound, even an anachronistic understanding of "immersion." But even modern burial involves "sprinkling." It was a little humor on my part.


----------



## Moireach

Here is the conversation on the symbolism of baptism. It starts by discussing the proposed symbolism of burial. It's a 5 minute read tops. 
In the conversation, W is the baptist and P is a Presbyterian minister. Let me know you views on the conversation if you like.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

I appreciate the perceptiveness of your posts. In regards to Romans 6 and Colossians 2 both Sprinkling (which is an enveloping of the person in water as per the OP) and Immersion do not picture the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ perfectly. This is because I do not believe that Paul is talking about mode when he wrote those passages. Paul is talking about our union with Christ in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus in those passages. This union is facilitated by the power and work of the Holy Spirit. Physical baptism, then, is not a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but of the union of the believer with Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit.

In short, Baptism pictures to us our union with Christ by the working of the Spirit of God. When we investigate how the Spirit of God unites the believer to Jesus - it is always set forth as a sprinkling or a pouring out of the Spirit:

Isaiah 32:15 - Until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high...
John 20:22 - Jesus "breathed" the Spirit upon His disciples.
Acts 2:16-18 - ...And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh...
Acts 10:45 - And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

And in many other verses can it be shown that the Holy Spirit is poured out or sprinkled upon the elect. The Scriptures refer to this as the Baptism of the Spirit. This Baptism is administered by the Spirit of God by pouring or sprinkling. It would follow that physical baptism pictures the way the Spirit baptizes.

Blessings,

Rob




steadfast7 said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the body be completely encased, and not exposed to the elements," But does that explain how Jesus was buried? If I remember, Jesus was put on a shelf in a Sepulchre (SP?), and His body was at least exposed on one side to the rest of the cave. Does this picture the "burial and resurrection" of Jesus Christ in the mode of immersion that you are trying to defend.
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of burial is conveyed merely in his body being placed _completely _inside the tomb, with a stone rolled over to ensure that he is fully in the earth. It really is not a far stretch of the imagination to see how being immersed completely into water is a picture of this. It is ironic that one who advocates sprinkling as the _only _baptismal mode is questioning immersion as a picture. Pray tell, how does sprinkling do any better in picturing burial? noting that baptism and burial are explicitly paired together as metaphors in scripture - twice! I am quite convinced that the only reason pouring water on the head was allowed as a mode in the early church was because poured water mimicked flowing, or "living", water rushing over a person (cf. didache). but that's just an opinion. blessings!
Click to expand...


----------



## Moireach

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> I appreciate the perceptiveness of your posts. In regards to Romans 6 and Colossians 2 both Sprinkling (which is an enveloping of the person in water as per the OP) and Immersion do not picture the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ perfectly. This is because I do not believe that Paul is talking about mode when he wrote those passages. Paul is talking about our union with Christ in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus in those passages. This union is facilitated by the power and work of the Holy Spirit. Physical baptism, then, is not a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but of the union of the believer with Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> In short, Baptism pictures to us our union with Christ by the working of the Spirit of God. When we investigate how the Spirit of God unites the believer to Jesus - it is always set forth as a sprinkling or a pouring out of the Spirit:
> 
> Isaiah 32:15 - Until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high...
> John 20:22 - Jesus "breathed" the Spirit upon His disciples.
> Acts 2:16-18 - ...And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh...
> Acts 10:45 - And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> And in many other verses can it be shown that the Holy Spirit is poured out or sprinkled upon the elect. The Scriptures refer to this as the Baptism of the Spirit. This Baptism is administered by the Spirit of God by pouring or sprinkling. It would follow that physical baptism pictures the way the Spirit baptizes.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the body be completely encased, and not exposed to the elements," But does that explain how Jesus was buried? If I remember, Jesus was put on a shelf in a Sepulchre (SP?), and His body was at least exposed on one side to the rest of the cave. Does this picture the "burial and resurrection" of Jesus Christ in the mode of immersion that you are trying to defend.
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of burial is conveyed merely in his body being placed _completely _inside the tomb, with a stone rolled over to ensure that he is fully in the earth. It really is not a far stretch of the imagination to see how being immersed completely into water is a picture of this. It is ironic that one who advocates sprinkling as the _only _baptismal mode is questioning immersion as a picture. Pray tell, how does sprinkling do any better in picturing burial? noting that baptism and burial are explicitly paired together as metaphors in scripture - twice! I am quite convinced that the only reason pouring water on the head was allowed as a mode in the early church was because poured water mimicked flowing, or "living", water rushing over a person (cf. didache). but that's just an opinion. blessings!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This is what is shown in my link, Dennis and others, but it goes through it slowly step by step.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> I appreciate the perceptiveness of your posts. In regards to Romans 6 and Colossians 2 both Sprinkling (which is an enveloping of the person in water as per the OP) and Immersion do not picture the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ perfectly. This is because I do not believe that Paul is talking about mode when he wrote those passages. Paul is talking about our union with Christ in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus in those passages. This union is facilitated by the power and work of the Holy Spirit. Physical baptism, then, is not a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but of the union of the believer with Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> In short, Baptism pictures to us our union with Christ by the working of the Spirit of God. When we investigate how the Spirit of God unites the believer to Jesus - it is always set forth as a sprinkling or a pouring out of the Spirit:
> 
> Isaiah 32:15 - Until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high...
> John 20:22 - Jesus "breathed" the Spirit upon His disciples.
> Acts 2:16-18 - ...And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh...
> Acts 10:45 - And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> And in many other verses can it be shown that the Holy Spirit is poured out or sprinkled upon the elect. The Scriptures refer to this as the Baptism of the Spirit. This Baptism is administered by the Spirit of God by pouring or sprinkling. It would follow that physical baptism pictures the way the Spirit baptizes.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the body be completely encased, and not exposed to the elements," But does that explain how Jesus was buried? If I remember, Jesus was put on a shelf in a Sepulchre (SP?), and His body was at least exposed on one side to the rest of the cave. Does this picture the "burial and resurrection" of Jesus Christ in the mode of immersion that you are trying to defend.
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of burial is conveyed merely in his body being placed _completely _inside the tomb, with a stone rolled over to ensure that he is fully in the earth. It really is not a far stretch of the imagination to see how being immersed completely into water is a picture of this. It is ironic that one who advocates sprinkling as the _only _baptismal mode is questioning immersion as a picture. Pray tell, how does sprinkling do any better in picturing burial? noting that baptism and burial are explicitly paired together as metaphors in scripture - twice! I am quite convinced that the only reason pouring water on the head was allowed as a mode in the early church was because poured water mimicked flowing, or "living", water rushing over a person (cf. didache). but that's just an opinion. blessings!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



What of the verses that _*discuss immersion in the Spirit*_??


oh. wait.....

nevermind....


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

First, I want to point out that the interpretation of Scripture which I have presented *is by no means original.* It is, as far as I can tell, the standard Reformed Presbyterian understanding of the passages, and I have learned it from such men as Samuel Miller, Matthew Henry, John Calvin, James Chaney, Pierre Marcel, Wilhelmus a'Brakel, and Hermann Bavinck to name a few. What interested me in starting this thread was not who believed what, but to investigate the Biblical arguments for the mode of Baptism subscribed by the Reformation. After all, it is not what so-and-so says that is important, but what the Scriptures teach that is important.

What has been shown is that the Biblical evidence for sprinkling/pouring as outlined in the OP is in fact the method used by the 1st Century Church:

1) The Baptism of John the Baptist was a purification ceremony (making the people ready for the Messiah) for the people of Israel. That it was an anointing of the Prophet, Priest and Kingly offices of Jesus Christ. This anointing ceremony could only have been done by Sprinkling/Pouring as specified by the Law, Numbers 8:5-7.

2) That the Baptism of the jailor could only have been accomplished by that of Sprinkling/Pouring.

3) That the Baptism into the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ noted in Romans 6 and Colossians 2 are indicative of the Baptism of the Spirit of God, and do not depict the mode of Baptism, but being united to Christ by the Baptism of the Spirit.

4) That the terms used in the Scriptures to show how the Spirit Baptizes people is that of Sprinkling or Pouring, e.g. "I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh..."

Good Theology teaches us that we cannot cleanse ourselves, that we need the working power of the Spirit of God to first enter our souls in order for us to repent and believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When we consider that Baptism is the "washing and renewing of the Holy Spirit," then how does it follow that Full Immersion as understood by Credo-Baptists illustrates the cleansing work of the Spirit of God? In Full Immersion the subject is dipped into the water. But everywhere in Scripture it is taught that the Spirit of God must first be applied to the person in order for that person to be cleansed/forgiven of his sins. The water of baptism is symbolic of the work of the Spirit of God. Yet, in Full Immersion, the subject is "applied" to the "water" (Spirit of God). But the Scriptures teach that the Spirit of God must be applied to the person in order for that person to be cleansed from sin. Sprinkling/Pouring is the Biblical mode that rightly shows forth the work of the Spirit of God in our salvation.

With all of this in consideration, as well as all of the other clear examples of Baptism in the New Testament, it appears impossible to think that the 1st Century Church conceived of Baptism as anything but Sprinkling. That is, the way the Spirit of God presented Himself to the 1st Century Believers, the way the purification and anointing ceremonies were performed by the Jews, the very nature of Good Theology, and the way actual Baptisms were executed by the 1st Century Christians all argue for the exclusive use of Sprinkling/Pouring as the mode of Baptism.

Full Immersion, then, was an invention which entered the church after the 1st Century, was popular for awhile, but eventually died off as the Biblical mode of Baptism began to reassert itself. This explains why there are so many 2nd to 4th century quotations that seem to argue for Full Immersion. But the question is not what the 2nd to 4th Century fathers thought, but what does the Bible teach?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## py3ak

CalvinandHodges said:


> PhilD:
> 
> I would like to thank you for your post, but I find little in it that addresses the Biblical content, it shows no gracious reasoning, and, in places, is rather infantile and churlish. Having read past posts of yours, and having mentioned this to you in a private message, I was afraid that you would revert to this kind of posting. No doubt some will think I am being rude for pointing this out. Again, I will respond to any Scriptural point you would like to make, but I will not be drawn into a heated debate where inflammatory language is prominent. I am more saddened and disappointed by your post than surprised or offended. It would have been better for you to delete the above and simply posted your "2 pages of notes" on Hebrews 9:19ff.



With apologies to Phil for not having observed this incredibly tone-deaf post previously, this thread is now closed.


----------

