# Luther: Immersion the Best Mode of Baptism



## C. M. Sheffield

I couldn't agree more—

“It is therefore indeed correct to say that baptism is a washing away of sins, but the expression is too mild and weak to bring out the full significance of baptism, which is rather a symbol of death and resurrection. For this reason, I would have those who are to be baptized completely immersed in the water, as the word says and as the mystery indicates. Not because I deem this necessary, but because it would be well to give to a thing so perfect and complete a sign that is also complete and perfect. And this is doubtless the way in which it was instituted by Christ. The sinner does not so much need to be washed as he needs to die, in order to be wholly renewed and made another creature, and to be conformed to the death and resurrection of Christ, with whom he dies and rises again through baptism.”

—Martin Luther, _The Babylonian Captivity of the Church_

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Tom Hart

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I would have those who are to be baptized completely immersed in the water



Meaning babies, mostly.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Tom Hart said:


> Meaning babies, mostly.


Obviously. But his comment here concerns the mode of baptism, not its subjects.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

C. M. Sheffield said:


> For this reason, I would have those who are to be baptized completely immersed in the water, as the word says and as the mystery indicates.* Not because I deem this necessary*
> 
> —Martin Luther, _The Babylonian Captivity of the Church_



Yes, but you would deem it necessary correct?

P.S. Thanks for sharing the quote BTW.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith

I'd read somewhere that it was a practice to immerse babies. And that it led in some cases to the deaths of those babies (because of the cold climate in northern European countries).


----------



## Tom Hart

alexandermsmith said:


> I'd read somewhere that it was a practice to immerse babies. And that it led in some cases to the deaths of those babies (because of the cold climate in northern European countries).



Dunking of babies is still practiced in many Eastern Orthodox churches. It's free to gawk at it on YouTube.


----------



## Tom Hart

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Obviously. But his comment here concerns the mode of baptism, not its subjects.



Yes, it's interesting coming from an arch-enemy of the Anabaptists. But Luther does here expressly say that whatever his preferred mode, it is not a necessary thing. It's a far cry from what Anabaptists and many Baptists have taught about mode.


----------



## alexandermsmith

Tom Hart said:


> Dunking of babies is still practiced in many Eastern Orthodox churches. It's free to gawk at it on YouTube.



Yikes!

Just watched two. The first the "priest" seemed a bit of a hippy and it was at least gentle. Then watched one in a church and the guy was plunging the baby into the water like it was an enhanced interrogation?!

Um, no.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Grant Jones said:


> Yes, but you would deem it necessary correct?


Our Confessions states "Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance" (29:4). So it necessary for _proper administration,_ though it is not a _sine qua non_ of baptism itself. In other words, a person baptized by affusion (upon profession of their faith) is truly baptized, even though we would say it was administered improperly. The question is one more of proper observance than of the essence of baptism.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## JTB.SDG

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Our Confessions states "Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance" (29:4). So it necessary for _proper administration,_ though it is not a _sine qua non_ of baptism itself. In other words, a person baptized by affusion (upon profession of their faith) is truly baptized, even though we would say it was administered improperly. The question is one more of proper observance than of the essence of baptism.


I appreciate you Christopher; thanks for the quote too. We accept all modes as proper administration, but of course prefer sprinkling and pouring. I'm sure you realize we do this because we see these forms as biblical as well; the sprinkling going back to OT purifications (Numbers 8:7 with John 3:25) and the pouring tying together Christ's words that the apostles would be baptized and that at Pentecost the Spirit was poured out on them. But as Vos explains, our main deal is never to defend sprinkling or pouring as the only proper mode. Keep the quotes coming!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey

JTB.SDG said:


> the sprinkling going back to OT purifications (Numbers 8:7 with John 3:25)



http://www.semperreformanda.com/2017/11/immersion-baths-were-typical-for-jews-in-christs-day/


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Tom Hart said:


> Yes, it's interesting coming from an arch-enemy of the Anabaptists. But Luther does here expressly say that whatever his preferred mode, it is not a necessary thing. It's a far cry from what Anabaptists and many Baptists have taught about mode.


Luther and Calvin both admit that immersion is the plain meaning of the word "βαπτίζω" and that it was the practice of the Apostolic Church. After admitting this, they say, "But it isn't necessary." If by "necessary" one means to say that one baptized by some other mode may still be regarded as a baptized Christian, then I would agree. But if it rather means that the church is at liberty to disregard the plain meaning of the word "Baptize" (the very substance of the command itself), then of course I cannot agree.

Lets for argument sake say Luther and Calvin are right and that the word means "immerse." On what grounds could anyone deem immersion as being of no consequence when their Master has explicitly commanded it?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

JTB.SDG said:


> We accept all modes as proper administration, but of course prefer sprinkling and pouring. I'm sure you realize we do this because we see these forms as biblical as well; the sprinkling going back to OT purifications (Numbers 8:7 with John 3:25) and the pouring tying together Christ's words that the apostles would be baptized and that at Pentecost the Spirit was poured out on them. But as Vos explains, our main deal is never to defend sprinkling or pouring as the only proper mode.


Luther here says the word baptize means immerse. Calvin says "It is evident that the term ‘baptize’ means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church." (Institutes, IV.15.19). My contention is simple: If the word means immerse—as it certainly does—then in his institution of baptism, Christ has commanded his ministers to immerse. Even if the points about the imagery of pouring be admitted, it does not change the fact that when Christ instituted the sacrament, he did not command his ministers to sprinkle or pour. He commanded them to "immerse." On what basis can we say, doing what Christ commands is "unnecessary"?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

When I first joined PB, I found the below thread very helpful with regards to the question of immersion.

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/immersion.31609/


----------



## JTB.SDG

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Luther here says the word baptize means immerse. Calvin says "It is evident that the term ‘baptize’ means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church." (Institutes, IV.15.19). My contention is simple: If the word means immerse—as it certainly does—then in his institution of baptism, Christ has commanded his ministers to immerse. Even if the points about the imagery of pouring be admitted, it does not change the fact that when Christ instituted the sacrament, he did not command his ministers to sprinkle or pour. He commanded them to "immerse." On what basis can we say, doing what Christ commands is "unnecessary"?


Does it mean immersion in Hebrews 9:10? Also, how were the apostles baptized with the Spirit? By immersion or was it poured out? Christ spoke of that event as the baptism of the Spirit, did he not? "But you will be baptized with the Spirit not many days from now." With all respect, this doesnt mean immersed in this context (Acts 2:16-18). But I could be missing something. If so please help me understand how Acts 2:16-18 was immersion?


----------



## De Jager

Calvin also said we should baptize covenant children, are you with him on that one?

Calvin is not the authority on baptism. Everyone likes to quote Luther and Calvin when it suits them (I have done this too), but they weren't infallible. If the word only means immerse, then of course, we must "immerse", but that is a moot point because it does not necessarily mean to immerse.

If it did, the translators would have simply translated the word "immerse" would they not? However, they did not translate it. They transliterated it. Look up every translation - I don't know of a single one that translates the various greek words for baptism as "immerse". And if they do, it certainly is not universal. Why? Because it is not a technical word, it has many different usages and it does not always mean the same thing.

In a simple sense, Baptism denotes a religious purification, a religious washing. In

In the Bible you have the people baptizing their couches (Mark 7). What did they do, rent a crane?

In Hebrews you have the author referencing various "washings", literally various "baptisms" of the OT, or "cleansing rites" (Hebrews 6:2). My understanding is that these were done by sprinkling.

Furthermore, there are other usages in the Bible that do not really follow the logic of immersion - see: the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The people were not immersed into the Holy Spirit.

The biblical data is clear that you simply cannot equate baptism with immersion.

I would heartily recommend the book "The Meaning and Mode of Baptism" by Jay Adams. He simply looks at the scriptural data on this subject.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

JTB.SDG said:


> Does it mean immersion in Hebrews 9:10? Also, how were the apostles baptized with the Spirit? By immersion or was it poured out? Christ spoke of that event as the baptism of the Spirit, did he not? "But you will be baptized with the Spirit not many days from now." With all respect, this doesn't mean immersed in this context (Acts 2:16-18).


Hebrews 9:10? Why not? There were washings that required the full submersion of the thing being washed. And that is consistent with the meaning of the word used. 

As to Acts 2:16, the Spirit being "poured out" and "immersion" are in no way mutually exclusive. It simply means the Spirit was poured out until they were immersed/overwhelmed by Him.

Two examples from God's wrath being poured out will prove the point. The wrath of God was poured out literally with rain from heaven on the generation of Noah until they were immersed in it. So it fell on them until they were overwhelmed by it. Similar language is used by our Lord regarding his suffering in a figurative sense (Mark 10:38). God's wrath was indeed poured out on the Son of Man. But there can be no doubt that it was poured out until he was immersed in/sunk under/overwhelmed by it.

This perfectly suits the "pouring out of the Spirit." He was poured out on them until they were baptized/immersed in Him. What a glorious image!


----------



## JTB.SDG

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Hebrews 9:10? Why not? There were washings that required the full submersion of the thing being washed. And that is consistent with the meaning of the word used.
> 
> As to Acts 2:16, the Spirit being "poured out" and "immersion" are in no way mutually exclusive. It simply means the Spirit was poured out until they were immersed/overwhelmed by Him.
> 
> Two examples from God's wrath being poured out will prove the point. The wrath of God was poured out literally with rain from heaven on the generation of Noah until they were immersed in it. So it fell on them until they were overwhelmed by it. Similar language is used by our Lord regarding his suffering in a figurative sense (Mark 10:38). God's wrath was indeed poured out on the Son of Man. But there can be no doubt that it was poured out until he was immersed in/sunk under/overwhelmed by it.
> 
> This perfectly suits the "pouring out of the Spirit." He was poured out on them until they were baptized/immersed in Him. What a glorious image!


Kind of stretching it I think. The Spirit was poured out upon them. They did not go down to be immersed in the Spirit. Has anyone ever been immersed by water baptism in the way you are describing? That would make quite a scene. So, those are my thoughts. But don't want to argue and I definitely hold it all more loosely than justification. So we're good there . Thanks for the dialogue Christopher.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jake

The issues of subjects of baptism and modes of baptism don't need to be so connected. While today most credo-baptists practice immersion and most paedo-baptists practice sprinkling/pouring, there have always been exceptions. I don't know why so many are bringing the subjects of baptism into this discussion about mode.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

JTB.SDG said:


> Has anyone ever been immersed by water baptism in the way you are describing?


My only point was that "pouring out" and "immersion" are not mutually exclusive. Not that it's what should be done in baptism. The Spirit was poured out. But we are never commanded to pour out water on one being baptized. When Christ instituted the ordinance, he commanded they be "immersed." The fact that the Spirit was "poured out" doesn't mean we can dispense with immersion in baptism.


----------



## Tom Hart

Days Since a Baptism Debate:

0

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Tom Hart said:


> Days Since a Baptism Debate:
> 
> 0


No one is forcing you to participate. If you don't like the discussion, find another one to join. I'm enjoying the exchange.


----------



## Pergamum

Do you also believe Luther in saying that baptism is a washing away of sins? Rather than a symbol that one's sins have already been washed away? There is a difference. Baptismal regeneration is unbiblical, and a far bigger issue in Luther's theology than his mode of baptism. 

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition...sed-martin-luther-and-the-doctrine-of-baptism

http://gochristianhelps.com/religion/luther/luthbapt.htm

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## JTB.SDG

C. M. Sheffield said:


> My only point was that "pouring out" and "immersion" are not mutually exclusive. Not that it's what should be done in baptism. The Spirit was poured out. But we are never commanded to pour out water on one being baptized. When Christ instituted the ordinance, he commanded they be "immersed." The fact that the Spirit was "poured out" doesn't mean we can dispense with immersion in baptism.


Brother, I believe you quoted Luther saying the word baptize means immerse. I'm just giving you one example where it doesn't mean immerse, but rather poured out. I'm enjoying the exchange too.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

JTB.SDG said:


> I'm just giving you one example where it doesn't mean immerse, but rather poured out.


Acts 2:16-18 never uses the word baptize. So that is not an example of the word meaning something other than immerse. You are equating the figurative language of "pouring out" with baptism and then insisting that that is what baptism means. But as I've already demonstrated, pouring out and immersion are two different aspects of the Spirit being given at Pentecost. The rain is poured out from heaven until all but eight are immersed in God's wrath. "Poured out" speaks to the source of this judgment (i.e. the God of heaven), immersion is its extent and effect. In like manner, the Baptism of the Spirit is poured out from the God of Heaven until its subjects are immersed in him. "Poured out" speaks to its source, while "baptize" speaks to its extent and effect. But in calling it "The baptism of the Spirit" the emphasis is placed not so much on the source (poured out from heaven) as its extent and effect (we become wholly immersed in the Spirit of God).


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> Do you also believe Luther in saying that baptism is a washing away of sins? Rather than a symbol that one's sins have already been washed away? There is a difference. Baptismal regeneration is unbiblical, and a far bigger issue in Luther's theology than his mode of baptism.


Of course I don't subscribe to baptismal regeneration. My interest in Luther's comments related to what he says about the mode.


----------



## Deuteronomy2929

I am paedo, but we obviously baptize converts. There are so many situations when immersion baptism is impossible that it seems counterproductive to put so much emphasis upon it rendering those who can't be baptized in that manner to feel as though they are not "properly" baptized. One of many examples where "dipping" isn't possible is most military battlefield conversions where often only a few drops of H2O out of canteen can be afforded.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> I am paedo, but we obviously baptize converts. There are so many situations when immersion baptism is impossible that it seems counterproductive to put so much emphasis upon it rendering those who can't be baptized in that manner to feel as though they are not "properly" baptized. One of many examples where "dipping" isn't possible is most military battlefield conversions where often only a few drops of H2O out of canteen can be afforded.


Obviously there are unique circumstances which would make immersion very difficult if not impossible. But those situations are very few in number and do not justify dispensing with the biblical mandate.

And as a veteran, I can tell you, battlefield baptisms by immersion are not impossible or even uncommon.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

To be clear, I have performed a baptism of a man who was an invalid. Before he died, he professed faith in Christ and expressed a desire to be baptized. I had no clue how we could do it. But eventually, we arranged for an ambulance to bring him to church. He was brought in on a stretcher and rolled to the front of the church. I baptized him by pouring a pitcher of water over his head. 

So I understand their are sometimes circumstances that make immersion impossible. But I am convinced, that where it can be performed, immersion ought to be observed in obedience to Christ.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Deuteronomy2929

Pastor Sheffield,

Why did you misinterpret my comment? 

I was not exaggerating when I said often only a few drops of H2O from a canteen can be afforded for baptism on the battlefield. 

Your photos do not depict combat conversions on the battlefield.

There are so many circumstances when immersion baptism is impossible.

Therefore, in those many impossible circumstances then newly baptized converts should not have doubts about the authenticity and validity of their baptism when it could not be achieved through immersion.


----------



## De Jager

In my opinion these arguments are pointless because immersion is not the only valid mode of baptism. 

The biblical data shows that the word transliterated from the Greek does not necessarily mean to immerse.

It is a religious word, not a technical word. It is not a word used by engineers, it is a word used in a religious context.

Consider Mark 1:8

_"I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit"
_
Note what is happening here. The Holy Spirit is being "applied" to a person here. The person is not being applied "into" the Spirit.

But, now consider Galatians 3:27

_"For as many of as you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ"
_
Here, we have a person being applied "into" Christ.

There are arguments that go both ways. An immersion-only advocate can find verses to support his position and a sprinkling/pouring advocate can find verses to support his position. I am not saying this makes both right, but what I am saying is that if it is not clear and obvious then perhaps we can conclude that God doesn't care that much _how_ we baptize with water, but mainly that we do.

I do not believe that our consciences need to be bound to a particular mode of baptism.

Signing off,

Izaak

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum

C. M. Sheffield said:


> To be clear, I have performed a baptism of a man who was an invalid. Before he died, he professed faith in Christ and expressed a desire to be baptized. I had no clue how we could do it. But eventually, we arranged for an ambulance to bring him to church. He was brought in on a stretcher and rolled to the front of the church. I baptized him by pouring a pitcher of water over his head.
> 
> So I understand their are sometimes circumstances that make immersion impossible. But I am convinced, that where it can be performed, immersion ought to be observed in obedience to Christ.



That is probably how other modes of baptism got started aside from immersion. 

It seems like the baptisms in the Jordan were dips into the river. But later in the Didache we read:

*(1) *Concerning baptism, baptize in this way. After you have spoken all these things, “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” in running water.

*(2) *If you do not have running water, baptize _[baptizon]_ in other water. If you are not able in cold, then in warm.

*(3) *If you do not have either, pour out _[ekcheo]_ water three times on the head “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

*(4)* Before the baptism _[baptizomenos]_ the one baptizing _[baptizon]_ and the one being baptized _[baptizomenos]_ are to fast, and any others who are able. Command the one being baptized _[baptizomenon]_to fast beforehand a day or two.


So pouring was what to do in a pinch if a real immersion could not be done. This seems to show that immersion or dipping is the preferred method. Puring is only the 3rd choice down the line.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> Pastor Sheffield,
> 
> Why did you misinterpret my comment?
> 
> I was not exaggerating when I said often only a few drops of H2O from a canteen can be afforded for baptism on the battlefield.
> 
> Your photos do not depict combat conversions on the battlefield.
> 
> There are so many circumstances when immersion baptism is impossible.
> 
> Therefore, in those many impossible circumstances then newly baptized converts should not have doubts about the authenticity and validity of their baptism when it could not be achieved through immersion.



I have actually heard that certain puritans said that to force immersion in certain cold climates is a violation of the 6th commandment.

Imagine a missionary to the Inuit in northern Canada, are you really going to tell those people to go jump in the arctic sea? Especially if they are converted mid-winter.


----------



## Pergamum

De Jager said:


> I have actually heard that certain puritans said that to force immersion in certain cold climates is a violation of the 6th commandment.
> 
> Imagine a missionary to the Inuit in northern Canada, are you really going to tell those people to go jump in the arctic sea? Especially if they are converted mid-winter.


Do Eskimos never bath?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Obviously, I am no fan of baptism by immersion but historical honesty compels me to admit to being rather surprised by the number of early Reformed divines whom I have read who have argued that either New Testament baptisms were carried out by immersion or that the Greek word(s) for baptism means to immerse. 

I am not particularly concerned by these discoveries because a) the distinction between substances and accidents helps us to understand that immersion is not essential to the ordinance; b) Greek studies have developed since the 16th and 17th centuries.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> There are so many circumstances when immersion baptism is impossible.


"So many"? I rather doubt that.


Deuteronomy2929 said:


> Therefore, in those many impossible circumstances then newly baptized converts should not have doubts about the authenticity and validity of their baptism when it could not be achieved through immersion.


Agreed. I have already said that where immersion can't be performed alternatives are acceptable. But exceptions do not justify abandoning the rule, which seems to be your argument.


----------



## Deuteronomy2929

Pergamum said:


> Do Eskimos never bath?



Is your question serious?

Are you aware of the ways many cultures keep their bodies clean without water? and others by wiping with moist fabrics or wet objects? And

So of course Eskimos didn't take baths! They kept their bodies clean through other methods.

Another example, many nomadic desert cultures used oils & fats & ashes applied to their bodies and then scraped off to clean their skin. They could not spare water.


----------



## Pergamum

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> Is your question serious?
> 
> Are you aware of the ways many cultures keep their bodies clean without water? and others by wiping with moist fabrics or wet objects? And
> 
> So of course Eskimos didn't take baths! They kept their bodies clean through other methods.
> 
> Another example, many nomadic desert cultures used oils & fats & ashes applied to their bodies and then scraped off to clean their skin. They could not spare water.


My guess is that most Inuit take showers in their homes now.

Should we require the Inuit then to take bread and wine in communion, since these items are foreign to their culture?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> *(1) *Concerning baptism, baptize in this way. After you have spoken all these things, “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” in running water.
> 
> *(2) *If you do not have running water, baptize _[baptizon]_ in other water. If you are not able in cold, then in warm.
> 
> *(3) *If you do not have either, pour out _[ekcheo]_ water three times on the head “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”


Interesting. Evidence that the word for pouring water over someone is not the same as the word for baptizing. They employ a different verb.


----------



## Pergamum

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Interesting. Evidence that the word for pouring water over someone is not the same as the word for baptizing. They employ a different verb.


Yep. It seems when baptism began to be linked more closely with salvation that baptism by any means became more important, and so alternative means of baptism started becoming allowed in cases where they met desert dwellers or Eskimos who never bathed or who lacked water. It was a concession. But not the ideal.


----------



## earl40

Pergamum said:


> Should we require the Inuit then to take bread and wine in communion, since these items are foreign to their culture?



Why not if Our Lord commanded such?


----------



## TheOldCourse

I recall reading that there was a debate at the Westminster Assembly as to whether immersion was a proper mode of baptism at all. I'm at work so I don't have time to look up the reference, but they were so convinced by the redemptive-historical references to washing/pouring/anointing that they viewed immersion as a significant deviation from the Scriptural and catholic (small "c") practice as it applies the person to the water rather than the water to the person. In the end compromise language was adopted but the last point about application to the person is still present and is important.


----------



## Deuteronomy2929

C. M. Sheffield said:


> "So many"? I rather doubt that.



What is your definition of "many"? 3 or 5 or 10 or 100 or 1000 or what?

How many kinds of examples of "categories" do you require that would meet your definition of "many", since each categorie comprises countless individuals.

Would 10 different "categories" suffice for now? 

#1) Missionaries "undercover" in various countries like North Korea, and certain Muslim countries not only have to evanglize without drawing attention but "immersion" baptism is usually out of the question
#2) numerous hospital scenarios render it medically unsound
#3) many prison scenarios even in th US, but globally, make immersion baptism unachievable
#4) in cultures and climates where water is scare and needed for drinking
#5) in the desperately poor communities where there is no sewage control or water infrastructures and no clean "safe" water available
#6) When only rivers or lakes are available but are polluted, often more and more these days with bacteria and also with parasitic organisms in these modern times which makes it unhealthy and unwise to use that water 
#7) those with a variety of medical conditions, physical disabilities, bed-ridden, and so on.
#8) baptism needs to be a "sanitary" affair for Missionaries so if more than 1 person is being baptized in the same container of water then anyone with certain communicable skin conditions, or anyone who is ill and might be contagious, really shouldn't be immersed, or should be immersed last so as not to spread the illness. 
#9) battlefield combat situations
#10) death bed conversions

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> What is your definition of "many"? 3 or 5 or 10 or 100 or 1000 or what?
> 
> How many kinds of examples of "categories" do you require that would meet your definition of "many", since each categorie comprises countless individuals.


Some of these are a reach. But regardless, it's beside the point. As I've said now multiple times, exceptions don't nullify a rule.

And I would politely encourage you throttle back a bit and adopt a less combative tone. You seem overly excited. This is a friendly discussion between brethren on a subject of much lesser importance than the things on which we all agree.


----------



## Smeagol

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> What is your definition of "many"? 3 or 5 or 10 or 100 or 1000 or what?
> 
> How many kinds of examples of "categories" do you require that would meet your definition of "many", since each categorie comprises countless individuals.
> 
> Would 10 different "categories" suffice for now?
> 
> #1) Missionaries "undercover" in various countries like North Korea, and certain Muslim countries not only have to evanglize without drawing attention but "immersion" baptism is usually out of the question
> #2) numerous hospital scenarios render it medically unsound
> #3) many prison scenarios even in th US, but globally, make immersion baptism unachievable
> #4) in cultures and climates where water is scare and needed for drinking
> #5) in the desperately poor communities where there is no sewage control or water infrastructures and no clean "safe" water available
> #6) When only rivers or lakes are available but are polluted, often more and more these days with bacteria and also with parasitic organisms in these modern times which makes it unhealthy and unwise to use that water
> #7) those with a variety of medical conditions, physical disabilities, bed-ridden, and so on.
> #8) baptism needs to be a "sanitary" affair for Missionaries so if more than 1 person is being baptized in the same container of water then anyone with certain communicable skin conditions, or anyone who is ill and might be contagious, really shouldn't be immersed, or should be immersed last so as not to spread the illness.
> #9) battlefield combat situations
> #10) death bed conversions


I do not believe Mr. Sheffield is saying “immersion only” in 100% of those situations. He has even provided an example where he preformed a baptism by pouring.

I think we need to also be careful of letting human circumstances dictate obedience no matter where you fall in this discussion. Pragmatism can quickly push us away from the Bible if we let it lead.

I fail to see a need to be this aggressive so far.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

@C. M. Sheffield

Even though I believe pouring to be best, I appreciate your stance.

Too many Baptist brethren totally exclude all other forms and see all baptisms invalid unless one is washed behind both ears. Considering you are a convicted and studied confessional baptist, your position is admirable.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Grant Jones said:


> Even though I believe pouring to be best, I appreciate your stance.
> 
> Too many Baptist brethren totally exclude all other forms and see all baptisms invalid unless one is washed behind both ears. Considering you are a convicted and studied confessional baptist, your position is admirable.


Thank you brother. That's kind of you to say.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Thank you brother. That's kind of you to say.


No problem... I spent all my debate juice on grapes

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Deuteronomy2929

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I couldn't agree more—
> 
> —Martin Luther, _The Babylonian Captivity of the Church_



I remain puzzled by your OP.

Why do you bother to agree with Luther about the mode of Baptism he mentioned in a comment but don't agree with Luther's paedobaptism? Why do you agree with the Calvinistic principles of all of the Reformers but don't agree with all of the reformer's paedobaptism?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> I remain puzzled by your OP.
> 
> Why do you bother to agree with Luther about the mode of Baptism he mentioned in a comment but don't agree with Luther's paedobaptism? Why do you agree with the Calvinistic principles of all of the Reformers but don't agree with all of the reformer's paedobaptism?


I don't know of a single person that I agree with on everything. Do you?

But to answer you question, I don't agree with Luther's doctrine of infant baptism because I don't believe it's taught in Scripture. And I do agree with Luther on the mode of baptism because I think it is taught in Scripture. That goes for all the other things that I would affirm or deny with other theologians.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deuteronomy2929

Grant Jones said:


> I think we need to also be careful of letting human circumstances dictate obedience no matter where you fall in this discussion. Pragmatism can quickly push us away from the Bible if we let it lead.


Dear Grant Jones - When a missionary baptizes a convert by sprinkling of water because immersion could not be achieved, how can you say the missionary is letting circumstances dictate obedience? Why do you think baptizing by sprinkling when immersion is not possible is as you say "pragmatic and leading away from Bible teachings"? 
Also, my very first comment expressed the opinion that immersion should not be emphasized so strenuously because when people can't get baptized by immersion they sometimes think their baptism is not authentic or valid. I know that the Baptist Pastor of this OP does not believe immersion only and that their are exceptions. But it seems like he thinks those who are not baptized by immersion received and "second class" substandard form of baptism. I am paedobaptist and my theological studies have shown scriptural backing for pouring and sprinkling as being perfectly acceptable in all cases, as do almost all reformed churches.


----------



## Smeagol

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> Dear Grant Jones - When a missionary baptizes a convert by sprinkling of water because immersion could not be achieved, how can you say the missionary is letting circumstances dictate obedience? Why do you think baptizing by sprinkling when immersion is not possible is as you say "pragmatic and leading away from Bible teachings"?
> Also, my very first comment expressed the opinion that immersion should not be emphasized so strenuously because when people can't get baptized by immersion they sometimes think their baptism is not authentic or valid. I know that the Baptist Pastor of this OP does not believe immersion only and that their are exceptions. But it seems like he thinks those who are not baptized by immersion received and "second class" substandard form of baptism. I am paedobaptist and my theological studies have shown scriptural backing for pouring and sprinkling as being perfectly acceptable in all cases, as do almost all reformed churches.


John,

You are missing my point and the point of others. I advise a re-reading starting at Post # 1.

I already stated that I am pro-pouring.

Mr. Sheffield has not once advocated some “second class” baptism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I'm enjoying the exchange.



Yes it is always good to have an old fashioned baptism debate. It’s nice to see you being feisty again Chris.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> Dear Grant Jones - When a missionary baptizes a convert by sprinkling of water because immersion could not be achieved, how can you say the missionary is letting circumstances dictate obedience? Why do you think baptizing by sprinkling when immersion is not possible is as you say "pragmatic and leading away from Bible teachings"?
> Also, my very first comment expressed the opinion that immersion should not be emphasized so strenuously because when people can't get baptized by immersion they sometimes think their baptism is not authentic or valid. I know that the Baptist Pastor of this OP does not believe immersion only and that their are exceptions. But it seems like he thinks those who are not baptized by immersion received and "second class" substandard form of baptism. I am paedobaptist and my theological studies have shown scriptural backing for pouring and sprinkling as being perfectly acceptable in all cases, as do almost all reformed churches.



To bring up the Eskimos again, they have a tradition of taking "Steam baths" - Magii.

http://tundramedicinedreams.blogspot.com/2006/06/taking-steam.html

If the mode of placing the water on the person is of little consequence and may depart from the literal meaning of baptism (immersion or dipping), then there should be little objection to missionaries baptising eskimos in steam baths.

The element is still water, and it totally envelopes the recipient. Plus, it is already meaningful to the culture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Susan777

alexandermsmith said:


> Yikes!
> 
> Just watched two. The first the "priest" seemed a bit of a hippy and it was at least gentle. Then watched one in a church and the guy was plunging the baby into the water like it was an enhanced interrogation?!
> 
> Um, no.


I watched some of those baptisms too. Aayi! They mean business!


----------



## Smeagol

Pergamum said:


> in steam baths


This is now my preferred method (jets optional)


Joking


----------



## JTB.SDG

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Acts 2:16-18 never uses the word baptize. So that is not an example of the word meaning something other than immerse. You are equating the figurative language of "pouring out" with baptism and then insisting that that is what baptism means.


Acts 1:5: "Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, 'Which,' He said, 'you heard of from Me; for John BAPTIZED with water, but YOU WILL BE BAPTIZED with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'"

Peter's description of this baptism in Acts 2:14-18; 33: "this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: 'And it shall be in the last days, God says, that I will POUR FORTH of My Spirit on all mankind. . .even on My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days POUR FORTH of My Spirit. . .Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has POURED FORTH this which you both see and hear."

Christopher, I respect your position and can see how you derive it from Scripture. And again, we don't have any problem accepting immersions. Just trying to help to explain why I personally (and we as Presbyterians) generally go with sprinkling or pouring. Can you not likewise see how we could derive this from Scripture? It seems to me you have to do a lot of gymnastics to get anything else as the plain meaning of these two texts. I'm fine with baptists preferring immersion; and I understand it. I do wish they would at least acknowledge sprinkling/pouring even if they saw it as second class. I fear the danger on that side is putting too much emphasis on the proper mode. At the end of the day, I believe the mode is not important. If it's done with water in the name of the Trinity, it's done properly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

JTB.SDG said:


> It seems to me you have to do a lot of gymnastics to get anything else as the plain meaning of these two texts.


Well, if it's any consolation, I find your arguments equally "gymnastical." 



JTB.SDG said:


> I'm fine with baptists preferring immersion; and I understand it.


That's just it: this has nothing to do with preferences. It has to do with the meaning of our Lord's command to "baptize" the nations. Nothing as important as that should be left the men's preferences.


JTB.SDG said:


> I do wish they would at least acknowledge sprinkling/pouring even if they saw it as second class.


I'm not sure what "acknowledge" entails, but if it means acknowledging those as baptized that were baptized by inferior modes (sprinkling or pouring) then I do. But that doesn't mean I should be happy with folks sprinkling in baptism any more than I would using intinction in the Lord's Supper. In my view, the second class status applies to those ministers who either knowing the truth, deem it "of no consequence," or those who think looking into the the Scripture's teaching isn't worth their time and effort and they are happy to go along with the practice of whatever tradition in which they find themselves.


JTB.SDG said:


> I fear the danger on that side is putting too much emphasis on the proper mode.


Admittedly, that is a danger. But, I ask you, is not putting too little emphasis on the proper mode also a danger? What is more dangerous: being overly concerned with following what Christ has commanded, or with not regarding it enough? If we should err on any point, I would hope it is the former.


JTB.SDG said:


> If it's done with water in the name of the Trinity, it's done properly.


The question rests entirely on what "it" is. If "it" (baptism) is applying water in any fashion, then I ask: Is it baptism if the minister drips a single drop upon the forehead? What if he should only sprinkle the hand? or immerse the foot? Will that do? What if he sprays another in the face three times with a mister, would you be satisfied that the biblical requirement had been met? Of course not. But it's hard for me to see how you can object to any of these on any grounds except the traditions of men. I would encourage you to undertake an honest and thorough study of the word "baptize." Therein lies the substance of the command and the measure of our faithfulness to it.






Footage of actual baptism.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## JTB.SDG

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Well, if it's any consolation, I find your arguments equally "gymnastical."
> 
> 
> That's just it: this has nothing to do with preferences. It has to do with the meaning of our Lord's command to "baptize" the nations. Nothing as important as that should be left the men's preferences.
> 
> I'm not sure what "acknowledge" entails, but if it means acknowledging those as baptized that were baptized by inferior modes (sprinkling or pouring) then I do. But that doesn't mean I should be happy with folks sprinkling in baptism any more than I would using intinction in the Lord's Supper. In my view, the second class status applies to those ministers who either knowing the truth, deem it "of no consequence," or those who think looking into the the Scripture's teaching isn't worth their time and effort and they are happy to go along with the practice of whatever tradition in which they find themselves.
> 
> Admittedly, that is a danger. But, I ask you, is not putting too little emphasis on the proper mode also a danger? What is more dangerous: being overly concerned with following what Christ has commanded, or with not regarding it enough? If we should err on any point, I would hope it is the former.
> 
> The question rests entirely on what "it" is. If "it" (baptism) is applying water in any fashion, then I ask: Is it baptism if the minister drips a single drop upon the forehead? What if he should only sprinkle the hand? or immerse the foot? Will that do? What if he sprays another in the face three times with a mister, would you be satisfied that the biblical requirement had been met? Of course not. But it's hard for me to see how you can object to any of these on any grounds except the traditions of men. I would encourage you to undertake an honest and thorough study of the word "baptize." Therein lies the substance of the command and the measure of our faithfulness to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Footage of actual baptism.


You never got back to me about the Acts passage. Please explain how this is not the case: 1) Jesus said the Apostles would be "baptized" with the Holy Spirit. 2) When the event Jesus was speaking about actually took place, the Spirit is described as being "poured out" on them. Help me to see what I'm missing?

Thanks for the video, but remember, I'm not the one who was advocating the "pour until your dunked" immersion. I think you know what I meant: Immersion, sprinkling, pouring. Sorry, Jesus didn't say: "Go and dunk." So I would prefer not to bind where Scripture doesn't. Good interacting with you about this. If you want to keep going on the Acts passage, let's do; otherwise I think I've said all I can.

PS, thanks for the exhortation to study the word baptism. Have you ever read "William the Baptist?" Can I exhort you to read it and let me know what you think?

PSS, I said I understood immersion; I never said it was the best way or most Scriptural. I'm not sure you could prove from the NT anyone was immersed, though if you wanted to give it a shot, I would be willing to give it a read.

This is why I do think it is dangerous to give a hard and fast rule where Scripture doesn't. (Yes, dangerous). So along with your loving exhortations to me, I would lovingly exhort you not to make this a thing God's people need to obey, lest you bind where He hasn't. How long do you hold people under the water? Is half a second long enough? What if their head goes under completely but one of their fingers accidentally stayed above the water? Does it count? How do you know whether to dunk them forward or backward (or straight down)? Where is that in Scripture? Surely we need to know to administer properly? But Scripture simply doesn't say. This is why I believe mode is not important. Because Scripture simply doesn't tell us (despite your affirmation to the contrary). And where God doesn't clearly reveal something, we do well to not strictly enforce our own rules.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Andrew35

Is there a bit of confusion here? My understanding is that immersion, properly speaking, might be standing in the water and having water poured over you.

I think you _can_ make a solid argument that was pretty typical of Scriptural examples, and I'd be pretty confident stating that was the norm of the Early Church, given the art and archaeology. (I guess this might also be called "partial immersion," but given that water is understood as covering the whole person, I think one could make the case that it's total.)

What is less clear is whether or no one could make a case for _submersion_, which is often what we are discussing, no? Can't think of anything in favor of that beyond Nathan the Leper and a reference to burial.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

JTB.SDG said:


> You never got back to me about the Acts passage.


Please re-read posts #17, #20, and #25. Disagreeing with my explanation doesn't mean I didn't give an explanation. I've made my case pretty clear. No honest study of the Greek word "baptize" will fail to conclude that it means "immerse". Many who do not practice immersion have admitted as much. You have convinced yourself that it doesn't and determined it is of no consequence what mode you use. I think you're wrong. Is it a matter of first importance? No. But I believe it is important because Christ has commanded it. Nothing Christ ever said was unimportant. And Christ said "baptize." You think that word has virtually no meaning. I think you are wrong and unwilling to give an honest hearing to the evidence that challenges your view. So, I've stated my view and endeavored to make my case. You don't agree and think its irrelevant. That's fine. But I see no reason to continue the back and forth unless you have some other argument to make from Scripture.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

De Jager said:


> In the Bible you have the people baptizing their couches (Mark 7). What did they do, rent a crane?



"The couches were 'pallets' and could easily be dipped into water."—_International Standard Bible Encyclopedia_


----------



## Scott Bushey

C. M. Sheffield said:


> No. But I believe it is important because Christ has commanded it.



Just as a side, does your church sing the Psalms?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Scott Bushey said:


> Just as a side, does your church sing the Psalms?


Yes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35

C. M. Sheffield said:


> "The couches were 'pallets' and could easily be dipped into water."—_International Standard Bible Encyclopedia_


Yeah, I've always found the "couch" argument weaker than many other Presbyterians seem to find it.

If you actually look at a Roman-style dining couch, it's pretty much a simple wooden frame with cushions tied to. It's not a modern couch.

There would have been little need to clean the frame, but the cushions could easily have been removed and swished around a bit in the local creek.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Andrew35 said:


> Yeah, I've always found the "couch" argument weaker than many other Presbyterians seem to find it.



If it helps any, "couch" comes from an Old French word, _coucher_, meaning "to lie down".


----------



## Andrew35

Tom Hart said:


> If it helps any, "couch" comes from an Old French word, _coucher_, meaning "to lie down".


Still means that in English, when used as a verb.


----------



## Tom Hart

Andrew35 said:


> Still means that in English, when used as a verb.



The only use of that word as a verb that I can think of has to do with jousting.


----------



## Andrew35

Tom Hart said:


> The only use of that word as a verb that I can think of has to do with jousting.


Well it is a bit archaic, I'll grant you...


----------



## Taylor

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Luther here says the word baptize means immerse. Calvin says "It is evident that the term ‘baptize’ means to immerse..."



Calvin and Luther may have said as much, but is it _entirely _true? Geerhardus Vos, absolutely no slouch when it comes to linguistics, makes a distinction between βάπτω and βαπτίζω as they came to be used in the New Testament and contemporary literature, saying these things:

"When a Baptist says that _baptō_ means “immerse,” then one should grant him that without reservation. [...] The concept of _baptizō_ is placed directly under the viewpoint of 'washing,' a fact of the highest importance. That this 'washing' was in most instances a washing by immersion appears as something accidental that could also be something else, and that, if it had been something else, nothing of substance would have changed. [...] The error the Baptists make when they insist that _baptizein_ is immersion and nothing else lies in overlooking the fact just mentioned. Words have their meaning by their use, not by their etymology. One can safely grant not only that originally _baptizō_ means to immerse; indeed, one can even go so far as to say that initially immersion was the customary mode of baptism, without playing into the hands of the Baptists. The point at issue between them and us surely lies in this: whether immersion constitutes the heart and essence of the symbolism of baptism, so that abandoning it would be the same as abandoning baptism itself. [...] Thus the issue between us and Baptists is not at all whether _baptizein_ means to immerse or to sprinkle. One can grant, and probably will have to grant, that nowhere in the New Testament has it completely lost its original meaning of 'immersing' or 'dipping.' The issue is simply whether immersion was the main point or something incidental. And then we say the latter."

—Geerhardus Vos, _Ecclesiology_, ed. Kim Batteau and Allan Janssen, trans. Richard B. Gaffin, vol. 5, 5 vols., Reformed Dogmatics (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 121-123.​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Please re-read posts #17, #20, and #25. Disagreeing with my explanation doesn't mean I didn't give an explanation. I've made my case pretty clear. *No honest study of the Greek word "baptize" will fail to conclude that it means "immerse". Many who do not practice immersion have admitted as much. You have convinced yourself that it doesn't and determined it is of no consequence what mode you use*. I think you're wrong. Is it a matter of first importance? No. But I believe it is important because Christ has commanded it. Nothing Christ ever said was unimportant. And Christ said "baptize." You think that word has virtually no meaning. *I think you are wrong and unwilling to give an honest hearing to the evidence that challenges your view.* So, I've stated my view and endeavored to make my case. You don't agree and think its irrelevant. That's fine. But I see no reason to continue the back and forth unless you have some other argument to make from Scripture.



Brother please remember this from Martyn Lloyd-Jones the Credobaptist:

"In conclusion, as far as I am concerned, those who are to be baptised should be adult believers. I cannot see the case, as I have tried to show you, for infant baptism. But as to the mode, it can be sprinkling or immersion or a combination of the two, which I personally believe is the more scriptural and the method for which great evidence can be produced historically."

Minority view for a Baptist I admit, but as we began with Martin Luther on immersion, Martyn Lloyd-Jones is reason to believe we have concluded honestly. There are places where paedos talk like credos, but there are many places where credos--far as I'm concerned--talk like paedos, and in a few cases they are inches from paedo.

I was a convinced Reformed Baptist in 2017. I am now a convinced household Baptist who favors pouring, in the fear of God, from the Scripture, after vigorous study of the Bible itself. God will testify at that Last Day that my study and conclusions are honest. I haven't interacted because in part I don't have much different than @JTB.SDG to say. In short, Joel 2 did it in for me among other passages that interpret baptizo.

Brother, I have no doubt that you believe your conclusions from Scripture in the fear of God. I will always assume this about my RB brothers. There is no doubt at all in my mind you do, and I know you too expect you will give a good account for your view. I believe you are wrong, but no less will give a good account.

I would ask, as a younger brother, that you at least give your paedo brothers the benefit of the doubt concerning their honesty, even if the conclusion makes no sense to you.

By 1 Corinthians 13, we likewise are thoroughly obligated to do the same for you, and you have been wronged if we--if I--have not.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1 | Amen 3


----------



## JTB.SDG

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Please re-read posts #17, #20, and #25. Disagreeing with my explanation doesn't mean I didn't give an explanation. I've made my case pretty clear. No honest study of the Greek word "baptize" will fail to conclude that it means "immerse". Many who do not practice immersion have admitted as much. You have convinced yourself that it doesn't and determined it is of no consequence what mode you use. I think you're wrong. Is it a matter of first importance? No. But I believe it is important because Christ has commanded it. Nothing Christ ever said was unimportant. And Christ said "baptize." You think that word has virtually no meaning. I think you are wrong and unwilling to give an honest hearing to the evidence that challenges your view. So, I've stated my view and endeavored to make my case. You don't agree and think its irrelevant. That's fine. But I see no reason to continue the back and forth unless you have some other argument to make from Scripture.


Sorry if I caused you any wrong. God bless.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

JTB.SDG said:


> Sorry if I caused you any wrong. God bless.


None at all. Grateful for the exchange. God bless you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Harley said:


> Brother please remember this from Martyn Lloyd-Jones the Credobaptist:
> 
> "But as to the mode, it can be sprinkling or immersion or a combination of the two."



How in the world are aspersion and immersion combined? And is there any evidence that this was the practice at Westminster Chapel?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

C. M. Sheffield said:


> And is there any evidence that this was the practice at Westminster Chapel?


Dr Lloyd-Jones baptised by sprinkling at Westminster Chapel, based on profession of faith. See Appendix 3 in Iain Murrays biography of MLJ.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Herald

C. M. Sheffield said:


> On what grounds could anyone deem immersion as being of no consequence when their Master has explicitly commanded it?



And this is why, for the Baptist, mode is important.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Herald

C. M. Sheffield said:


> No one is forcing you to participate. If you don't like the discussion, find another one to join. I'm enjoying the exchange.



It has been a _long _time since I have participated in a baptism discussion on the PB. When I joined the PB in August of 2005, I was struggling with baptism. The various discussions I engaged in on the PB were indispensable in my study of the ordinance. Of course, those discussions impacted more than just the issue of baptism. The continuity/discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and even the construction of the Church came along for the ride. The active moderation on the board did a good job of limiting the number of times the discussions became over-heated. That made the environment conducive to learning. Fast forward nearly 14 years and I can see how much I have learned. I am glad for the reminder.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

De Jager said:


> In my opinion these arguments are pointless because immersion is not the only valid mode of baptism.



With all due respect, this type of discussion is not pointless. This is how we learn. It is good to be challenged. If your mind is settled on the topic, that is fine. Do not assume that everyone else is settled on it. Obviously, the systemic beliefs of credobaptists and paedobaptists create a natural disagreement about baptism. Those individuals who are struggling with the issue can profit from a healthy discussion.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## deleteduser99

C. M. Sheffield said:


> How in the world are aspersion and immersion combined? And is there any evidence that this was the practice at Westminster Chapel?



Well... I guess I can assume this is your answer. 

The Lord will vindicate our integrity in these matters.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Harley said:


> Well... I guess I can assume this is your answer.
> 
> The Lord will vindicate our integrity in these matters.


I am not in any doubt about the integrity of the members of this board. So I'm not sure what you are referring to.


----------



## Herald

Harley said:


> The Lord will vindicate our integrity in these matters.



Jake, I am not sure what you mean by this comment. Will you explain?


----------



## deleteduser99

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I am not in any doubt about the integrity of the members of this board. So I'm not sure what you are referring to.



Post #71, in your reply to your assertion (which I quoted, relevant parts emboldened) that @JTB.SDG is in essence willingly ignorant of the facts against his position and has convinced himself of his position against clear evidence. Second-to-last paragraph of #71 the most relevant here though I ask you to read the rest as well.

If you can honor my request in that post, well and good, as I really want to see some more charity between credos and paedos; but if not, we can say before God that we fear Him, studied the Scriptures, and we are convinced from Scripture of our position, and not the traditions of men. I ask that under the 9th Commandment and the rule of charity that we be believed, even if you can't agree with the conclusion. Be sure I do the same for my Baptist brothers. After all, I was a Baptist and found the Baptist arguments very convincing, so I dare not judge.

@Herald , the post I'm referencing is quoted in Post #71. It's under question whether we choose tradition over Scripture and simply don't want to hear the facts--so, our motivations and inner man, the place where only God sees, has come under question. Though, we are confident God will declare that we have searched the Scriptures honestly and sincerely. I believe the Baptist side is wrong, though I believe God will vindicate the Baptist brothers and sisters as honest men and women anyway, with God and with the Word, and that will be to your credit in giving an account before God.

That's what all I meant, and what all I intend. But my apologies: "vindicate" probably comes off as imprecatory. Not what I want!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

Harley said:


> @Herald , the post I'm referencing is quoted in Post #71. It's under question whether we choose tradition over Scripture and simply don't want to hear the facts--so, our motivations and inner man, the place where only God sees, has come under question. Though, we are confident God will declare that we have searched the Scriptures honestly and sincerely. I believe the Baptist side is wrong, though I believe God will vindicate the Baptist brothers and sisters as honest men and women anyway, with God and with the Word, and that will be to your credit in giving an account before God.



Jake, we do not have a contentious-thread-ranking system but if I were to guess, I would say baptism threads are right at the top of the list. It is a very personal issue, especially for someone who has changed positions. It is a good reminder for all of us to remain charitable even when we think that has not been extended to us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

The issue hinges on what the greek means. I would say it normally means immersion or dipping. But pedobaptists argue that it means a washing also (even when not done by immersion), or a total envelopment.

"Exhibit A:
1 Corinthians 10:1-2 “For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”

Were the Jews immersed by a cloud? Certainly not; The Jews passed through the sea on dry ground. (Exodus 14:22).

Exhibit B:
Hebrews 9:10 “but deal only with food and drink and various washings (baptismois), regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation”.

This passage refers to Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, which were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. The baptisms mentioned in this chapter (verses 13, 19, 21;conf. Num. 19:17-18; Exo. 24:6,8; Lev. 8:19; 16:14) are all via sprinkling.

Exhibit C:
Mark 7:4 “and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash (baptisontai). And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing (baptismous) of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches”.


I am still a baptist, but these 3 verses do give me pause to think. 


Then we have these other evidences:

"Exhibit D:
Luke 11:38 “The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash (ebaptisthe) before dinner”.

Did Jesus immerse himself before eating dinner?

Exhibit E:
Leviticus 14:6 “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”.

It is scientifically impossible for a bird cannot to be completely immersed in its own blood. This word is _bapto_ in the Septuagint."
https://daboatman.wordpress.com/tag/credobaptism/

I think this second set of examples is weaker. If I wash my foot in water or dip it, this is an immersion of my foot, after all. And if I dip a bird in blood, it is still a dip and not a sprinkle.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## deleteduser99

Herald said:


> Jake, we do not have a contentious-thread-ranking system but if I were to guess, I would say baptism threads are right at the top of the list. It is a very personal issue, especially for someone who has changed positions. It is a good reminder for all of us to remain charitable even when we think that has not been extended to us.



Certainly. Possibly it's more personal to me than I wish to admit, but yes it is for all of us in some manner. 

Still leaving intact the substance of #71, I'll admit in post #79 I was thrown off because what I really hoped would get addressed just didn't; but in a thread on a heated topic with lots of posts it's easy to gloss things over or think you've read everything. Depth and heat is a recipe for confusion. My apologies @C. M. Sheffield, that was overbearing on my part.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JTB.SDG

I love your humility Jake. Thanks for pointing me to Jesus.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Harley said:


> Still leaving intact the substance of #71, I'll admit in post #79 I was thrown off because what I really hoped would get addressed just didn't; but in a thread on a heated topic with lots of posts it's easy to gloss things over or think you've read everything. Depth and heat is a recipe for confusion. My apologies @C. M. Sheffield, that was overbearing on my part.



It has been an exceptionally busy week. Please do not interpret my silence till now as indifference to your concerns. 

I felt many of the arguments I had advanced were not being interacted with and this occasioned frustration on my part. I should have been more moderate in my choice of words. For that I apologize to Jon and anyone else who took offense. I have no doubts about the sincerity of the members of this board. I know we are all endeavoring, for as much as lies in us, to be faithful to the word of God.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## deleteduser99

Whether sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, we've proved our need of washing.

There's one way to improve our baptisms.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JTB.SDG

Amen,wash us anew Lord.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

From A’ Brakel, as always he seems well balanced:



> The External Sign of Baptism The second thing to be considered in reference to baptism is the external sign. In this respect we need to consider the element as well as the ceremony, that is, the manner of administration. The element is water, that is, common, clean water, without any distinction. John the Baptist and the apostles used this. “I indeed baptize you with water” (Matt 3:11); “... He that sent me to baptize with water” (John 1:33); “... because there was much water there” (John 3:23). This is also true for the apostles: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized” (Acts 10:47); “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized ... and they went down both into the water ... and he baptized him” (Acts 8:36,38). Baptism is therefore called “the washing of water” (Eph 5:26). The Papist additions of exorcisms, making of crosses, papal saliva, oil, salt, flour, and other such concoctions are human fabrications which are sacrilegious and therefore are to be rejected with abhorrence. The Ceremony or the Manner of Administration: Immersion or Sprinkling In early times, and in countries with a warm climate, immersion was used most frequently. The Lord Jesus was baptized by immersion (Matt 3:16), as was the eunuch (Acts 8:38). The apostle also refers to this: “Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death” (Rom 6:4). Subsequent to this, however, sprinkling has come into use, just as sprinkling is now generally in use, be it once or three times. The Greeks and Russians still use immersion. One need neither argue about this nor be concerned, however, since it is one and the same as far as the matter itself and the assurance it yields. First, the verb “baptize” can also be translated as “sprinkle.” “... except they wash, they eat not” (Mark 7:4). The washing of hands generally occurs by allowing water to be poured upon the hands. “... Here is Elisha ... which poured water on the hands of Elijah” (2 Kings 3:11). Secondly, the matter signified, namely, the blood of Christ as cleansing the soul, is expressed as sprinkling. “And to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling” (Heb 12:24). Thirdly, the relationship between the sign and the matter signified is expressed both by sprinkling and immersion, for one cleanses the body by both methods. Concerning sprinkling or pouring out we read, “Then shall I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean” (Ezek 36:25). 495 Fourthly, it is obvious that the apostles also have used sprinkling in baptizing the three thousand upon the day of Pentecost, the jailor, as well as at other occasions. It also makes no difference if one sprinkles the person to be baptized once or three times. If one sprinkles but once, the reference is to the Trinity of the divine Being; if one sprinkles three times, the reference is to the three Persons. In considering the ceremony or manner of sprinkling, one may also consider the pronouncement of the words, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” as belonging to this since 1) Christ in issuing His command to baptize uses these words; 2) it is a certainty that one must be baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, for there is no other God but He; 3) the person baptized is declared to be the property of a triune God; 4) the pronouncement of these words has at all times been used in the church; 5) there is a special relationship between each Person and the person being baptized: that the Father is his Father, the Son is his Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit is his Comforter and Sanctifier; and 6) the Holy Trinity is expressly confessed in this manner. One must therefore preserve the pronouncement of these words. If, however, the church acknowledges and confesses the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and if the adult to be baptized does likewise, I would neither consider such a baptism to be unlawful nor deem it to be null and void, even if the words in question were not expressly pronounced at his baptism. I neither consider the pronouncement of the words to be relevant to the essential nature of baptism, nor does it validate baptism as such. I do not know, however, if such a case has ever transpired, for the baptism of heretics is not baptism, regardless of whether they mention the Trinity or not. When the apostle exhorts the people in Acts 2:38 to let themselves be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and when it is related in Acts 8:16 that those of Samaria were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, this neither proves that baptism was administered upon the pronouncement of the words, “I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ,” nor that the names of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost were not used; rather, these expressions only indicate that baptism was administered upon the command and according to the ordinance of Christ. Baptism in the name of Christ does not exclude, but includes, the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Grant Jones said:


> From Brakel, as always he seems well balanced:


Thank you for sharing. It seems to me that these men (Reformers, Puritans, _Nadere Reformatie_) were not in a context where the mode of baptism was a subject of any great debate. They all practiced afusion or aspersion. This, I think, is why they felt more freedom in admitting—_"The Lord Jesus was baptized by immersion (Matt 3:16), as was the eunuch (Acts 8:38). The apostle also refers to this: 'Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death' (Rom 6:4);"—_while also saying, _"It is not of the least consequence"_ (Calvin, _Institutes,_ IV.15.19).


----------



## Tom Hart

C. M. Sheffield said:


> It seems to me that these men (Reformers, Puritans, _Nadere Reformatie_) were not in a context where the mode of baptism was a subject of any great debate.



The Reformers had to deal with the Anabaptists, and so did the Puritans. I cannot comment on the writings of the Nadere Reformatie, but I know that Anabaptist sects were active in the Netherlands from the early days of the Reformation. Mode of baptism has been an issue from the Reformation onward.

I remember reading something by Calvin in which he argued, against the Anabaptists, that mode of baptism is not the essential thing that the Anabaptists made it.

The Puritan Michael Harrison's excellent treatise on baptism discusses mode at some length. He plainly presents his case in opposition to Ababaptist views.

Clearly, it is not that mode of baptism was not the subject of debate. Rather, the Magisterial Reformers and the Puritans and others knew that to admit the possibility of immersion in the NT, and in their own day, did not weaken their position.


----------



## Smeagol

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Thank you for sharing. It seems to me that these men (Reformers, Puritans, _Nadere Reformatie_) were not in a context where the mode of baptism was a subject of any great debate. They all practiced afusion or aspersion. This, I think, is why they felt more freedom in admitting—_"The Lord Jesus was baptized by immersion (Matt 3:16), as was the eunuch (Acts 8:38). The apostle also refers to this: 'Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death' (Rom 6:4);"—_while also saying, _"It is not of the least consequence"_ (Calvin, _Institutes,_ IV.15.19).


Yes it was a good and surprising read, but Brakel also list biblical examples where the baptism of Christians was not likely full immersion if one treats the text honestly. I felt when I read Brakel that is was something honest and that he tried to be unbiased.

Further, I have heard many Paedo’s say something along the lines “well if being buried with in Christ relates to immersion, then why don’t we stick people in a tomb of water”. That type of reasoning line always felt silly and lacking. It was good to see both Brakel and Calvin relate that verse to immersion being supportable.

I am glad the Westminster allows for a few modes. Why don’t we compromise? I’ll start supporting immersion and you start supporting Paedo

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JTB.SDG

Grant Jones said:


> Yes it was a good and surprising read, but Brakel also list biblical examples where the baptism of Christians was not likely full immersion if one treats the text honestly. I felt when I read Brakel that is was something honest and that he tried to be unbiased.
> 
> Further, I have heard many Paedo’s say something along the lines “well if being buried with in Christ relates to immersion, then why don’t we stick people in a tomb of water”. That type of reasoning line always felt silly and lacking. It was good to see both Brakel and Calvin relate that verse to immersion being supportable.
> 
> I am glad the Westminster allows for a few modes. Why don’t we compromise? I’ll start supporting immersion and you start supporting Paedo


I don't know if the Sheffster is going to cut you any deals when it comes to mode.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Compromising on things is how you Presbyterians wound up with the PC(USA) and we Baptists wound up with the ABC. Hard pass! (OUCH)


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I read the thread title, and thought, 
"Could Pastor Chris be turning Lutheran? No, that can't be right..."

While Luther wasn't close to being a Baptist (200yrs too early to even be a pietist Dunker), he valued baptism to a very high degree. Those who agree on the doctrine of "improving" one's baptism should heed Luther in his _Small Catechism,_ on the topic of "The Sacrament of Holy Baptism:"


> Fourth,
> Q. What does such baptizing with water indicate?
> 
> A. It indicates that the Old Adam in us should by *daily *contrition and repentance be *drowned *and die with all sins and evil desires, and that a new man should daily emerge and arise to live before God in righteousness and purity forever.


Drown the old man daily. Good advice, from a paedobaptist.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Tom Hart said:


> The Reformers had to deal with the Anabaptists, and so did the Puritans. I cannot comment on the writings of the Nadere Reformatie, but I know that Anabaptist sects were active in the Netherlands from the early days of the Reformation. Mode of baptism has been an issue from the Reformation onward.
> 
> I remember reading something by Calvin in which he argued, against the Anabaptists, that mode of baptism is not the essential thing that the Anabaptists made it.
> 
> The Puritan Michael Harrison's excellent treatise on baptism discusses mode at some length. He plainly presents his case in opposition to Ababaptist views.
> 
> Clearly, it is not that mode of baptism was not the subject of debate. Rather, the Magisterial Reformers and the Puritans and others knew that to admit the possibility of immersion in the NT, and in their own day, did not weaken their position.


I'm fully aware of the history of the Reformation and the role the Anabaptists played. What I said was, "the mode of baptism was not a subject of _any great_ debate." That's a fact. The principle men of the era rejected Anabaptist views of baptism. Anabaptist were a radical fringe group and they were esteemed as such by most Christians of that time. None of the Reformers espoused baptistic convictions and only very few of the Puritan era. So no, it was not a subject of any great debate for them. They lived in time when the vast majority were all of the same mind about the matter. And that is why I think, they felt a greater measure of liberty in admitting that the mode of immersion is that described in Scripture and employed by the early church. I think some Presbyterians today are not as willing to make the same admissions (if at all) for fear of it compromising their own view.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Grant Jones said:


> Further, I have heard many Paedo’s say something along the lines “well if being buried with in Christ relates to immersion, then why don’t we stick people in a tomb of water”.


Funny you say that, there is a very old Baptist chapel in England where the baptismal pool is a hexagonal, coffin-shaped whole recessed into the stone floor.


Grant Jones said:


> Why don’t we compromise? I’ll start supporting immersion and you start supporting Paedo


I will gladly immerse any baby that makes a credible profession of faith.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> The issue hinges on what the greek means. I would say it normally means immersion or dipping. But pedobaptists argue that it means a washing also (even when not done by immersion), or a total envelopment.
> 
> "Exhibit A:
> 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 “For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”
> 
> Were the Jews immersed by a cloud? Certainly not; The Jews passed through the sea on dry ground. (Exodus 14:22).
> 
> Exhibit B:
> Hebrews 9:10 “but deal only with food and drink and various washings (baptismois), regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation”.
> 
> This passage refers to Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, which were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. The baptisms mentioned in this chapter (verses 13, 19, 21;conf. Num. 19:17-18; Exo. 24:6,8; Lev. 8:19; 16:14) are all via sprinkling.
> 
> Exhibit C:
> Mark 7:4 “and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash (baptisontai). And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing (baptismous) of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches”.
> 
> 
> I am still a baptist, but these 3 verses do give me pause to think.
> 
> 
> Then we have these other evidences:
> 
> "Exhibit D:
> Luke 11:38 “The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash (ebaptisthe) before dinner”.
> 
> Did Jesus immerse himself before eating dinner?
> 
> Exhibit E:
> Leviticus 14:6 “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”.
> 
> It is scientifically impossible for a bird cannot to be completely immersed in its own blood. This word is _bapto_ in the Septuagint."
> https://daboatman.wordpress.com/tag/credobaptism/
> 
> I think this second set of examples is weaker. If I wash my foot in water or dip it, this is an immersion of my foot, after all. And if I dip a bird in blood, it is still a dip and not a sprinkle.


This excellent answer came from Sean in a different thread and I wanted to share it here.


SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I don't see why this is even a controversy. Every language has lots of words with a large semantic domain. Some words even mean the opposite of their normal usage in some contexts! (For example, in the 80s and 90s, "bad" meant "good".)
> 
> The question isn't "can _baptizo_ mean something other than dipping?" Everyone agrees it can.
> 
> The questions should be, "what does _baptizo_ mean in the context of the Christian sacrament of Baptism?".
> 
> For 1100 to 1200 years the Church pretty much unanimously agreed that _baptizo_ in the context of the Christian sacrament of Baptism meant to pretty much cover the entire body with water. A hundred or so years in it was accepted that in an emergency sprinkling or pouring would do if the recipient and the "Baptizer" _would have_ dipped / dunked if they were able, but it was still better to dip or dunk. Ask those of the Eastern Orthodox tradition and they'll tell you that it was the Western Church around the 1100 / 1200 time frame that started seriously arguing that sprinkling or pouring was sufficient all the time regardless of whether dipping / dunking was feasible.
> 
> Nowadays you even have people who (for reasons that blow my mind) say that sprinkling is supposed to be _normative_ and that dipping or dunking is even _inappropriate_! That's just theologically and historically unsupportable.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

C. M. Sheffield said:


> What I said was, "the mode of baptism was a subject of _any great_ debate."



You'll find references to Anabaptists' insistence in immersion in many places in the works of Calvin, and Luther, too.

Reformed Christians have historically rejected the entire Anabaptistic system, including their view that only baptism by immersion is valid. This business about mode was tied up with everything else the Anabaptists were doing.

Perhaps you have a different idea of what a "great debate" is.


----------



## Tom Hart

C. M. Sheffield said:


> This excellent answer came from Sean in a different thread and I wanted to share it here.





C. M. Sheffield said:


> I don't see why this is even a controversy.



It is a controversy because some have insisted that there is only one valid mode of baptism. Others do not go that far, but say that other modes are disobedient to a "clear command".



C. M. Sheffield said:


> For 1100 to 1200 years...



I would love to see the source for all this.

Anyway, it's sort of an funny argument coming from a Baptist.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Tom Hart said:


> You'll find references to Anabaptists' insistence in immersion in many places in the works of Calvin, and Luther, too.
> 
> Reformed Christians have historically rejected the entire Anabaptistic system, including their view that only baptism by immersion is valid. This business about mode was tied up with everything else the Anabaptists were doing.
> 
> Perhaps you have a different idea of what a "great debate" is.


You're just restating your earlier argument and not interacting with what I said. So that's as far as I'm going to go with you.


----------



## Tom Hart

C. M. Sheffield said:


> You're just restating your earlier argument and not interacting with what I said. So that's as far as I'm going to go with you.



You have only asserted that the mode of baptism was never the subject of a "great debate". (What precisely constitutes a "great debate" remains unspecified.)

I am saying, rather plainly, that the mode of baptism was part of a larger controversy surrounding the doctrines of the Anabaptists. And the Reformers and their successors were not silent on it.


----------



## Herald

Tom Hart said:


> I am saying, rather plainly, that the mode of baptism was part of a larger controversy surrounding the doctrines of the Anabaptists. And the Reformers and their successors were not silent on it.



Tom, you are going to find Reformed/Particular Baptists to be of kindred spirit with you when it comes to their opinion on the Anabaptists. The Reformers had more of an issue with the Anabaptist movement _in toto_ than just mode of baptism. Christopher is correct. Most of the Reformers and Puritans were like-minded on baptism, so the issue of mode was never a major controversy. That does not mean they did not oppose the Baptist position of only baptizing professed believers, it is just that they opposed the Baptist view of baptism more than the mode of baptism. While I do not have data to support this, I believe mode is more of an issue today than it was in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Herald said:


> The Reformers had more of an issue with the Anabaptist movement _in toto_ than just mode of baptism.



That's what I said.


----------



## deleteduser99

Herald said:


> Tom, you are going to find Reformed/Particular Baptists to be of kindred spirit with you when it comes to their opinion on the Anabaptists. The Reformers had more of an issue with the Anabaptist movement _in toto_ than just mode of baptism. Christopher is correct. Most of the Reformers and Puritans were like-minded on baptism, so the issue of mode was never a major controversy. That does not mean they did not oppose the Baptist position of only baptizing professed believers, it is just that they opposed the Baptist view of baptism more than the mode of baptism. While I do not have data to support this, I believe mode is more of an issue today than it was in the 16th and 17th centuries.



I don't know much about history, but I would think that you and @C. M. Sheffield are right. If anyone wants to look up John Calvin's own words on immersion as quoted earlier in this thread they are found in the Institutes. From my own brief perusal, Calvin spent no time at all defending his position on the mode. After all, if he doesn't believe mode to be essential, then why would he? Interesting too, considering that the Institutes are meant to lay groundwork for his commentaries, and in them he intended to address certain issues up-front rather than write about those same things again and again when expositing Scripture. I haven't read much of Calvin, but it's a safe bet he didn't spend much time at all one immersion/sprinkling/pouring. Certainly, for things he considered highly important, such as a defense for the baptism of the children of believers, he spent a whole chapter.

Prima facie, I can't conceive that Calvin put up a big fuss about mode in his own day. Apparently in the Institutes the topics of baptism subjects and mode are not so married together as now. So, if there was a "Great Debate," I'm guessing he wasn't part of it.

Even some of the early 17th century English Baptists did not take issue with sprinkling. John Smyth in 1608/09 came to Baptist convictions, baptized himself, and gave to others what he called believer's baptism. However, he did it by pouring/sprinkling. Only a few--if any--did it by immersion until perhaps 1630-1640. Another reason to think that mode was not a subject of serious contest.

Source:
http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistorigins/baptistbeginnings.html

And according to Samuel Miller in his sermon on infant baptism, the Waldenses did baptize by immersion, but at other times they baptized by sprinkling. I seem to remember too that some early Mennonite groups applied sprinkling, but I would need to verify that.

Then again, I know less about history than about others. It doesn't seem unreasonable to say that until recent centuries there wasn't a hard debate on mode.

Seeing as I caused a ruckus earlier in the thread it's only fair I wade into this at some point. I've taken the comments here and been restudying the issue, and my own view has shifted and sharpened a bit, so maybe.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> Tom, you are going to find Reformed/Particular Baptists to be of kindred spirit with you when it comes to their opinion on the Anabaptists. The Reformers had more of an issue with the Anabaptist movement _in toto_ than just mode of baptism. Christopher is correct. Most of the Reformers and Puritans were like-minded on baptism, so the issue of mode was never a major controversy. That does not mean they did not oppose the Baptist position of only baptizing professed believers, it is just that they opposed the Baptist view of baptism more than the mode of baptism. While I do not have data to support this, I believe mode is more of an issue today than it was in the 16th and 17th centuries.


You are correct, as there have always been some who supported Immersion mode of Baptism even among Reformed as the preferred method, but they strongly objected to the only memorial view traditionally held by Baptists.


----------



## deleteduser99

Contra_Mundum said:


> I read the thread title, and thought,
> "Could Pastor Chris be turning Lutheran? No, that can't be right..."
> 
> While Luther wasn't close to being a Baptist (200yrs too early to even be a pietist Dunker), he valued baptism to a very high degree. Those who agree on the doctrine of "improving" one's baptism should heed Luther in his _Small Catechism,_ on the topic of "The Sacrament of Holy Baptism:"Drown the old man daily. Good advice, from a paedobaptist.



Rich statement!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Well dear brothers, I think we all agree the only proper and orthodox way to eat an Oreo is full immersion (in milk). Anything less than full immersion in milk (unfermented ) is a “second class” Oreo experience. Surely there can be no debate there.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## deleteduser99

Grant Jones said:


> Well dear brothers, I think we all agree the only proper and orthodox way to eat an Oreo is full immersion (in milk). Anything less than full immersion in milk (unfermented ) is a “second class” Oreo experience. Surely there can be no debate there.



I don't drink milk, but I would dip without fully submerging. Keeps the hands clean, like Ruth dipping her morsel in Ruth 2, likely not full immersion, translated in LXX with word bapto.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Smeagol

Harley said:


> I don't drink milk, but I would dip without fully submerging. Keeps the hands clean, like Ruth dipping her morsel in Ruth 2, likely not full immersion, translated in LXX with word bapto.


Where are the moderators?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

Harley said:


> I don't drink milk, but I would dip without fully submerging. Keeps the hands clean, like Ruth dipping her morsel in Ruth 2, likely not full immersion, translated in LXX with word bapto.


I completely agree here. I dip half the cookie in the milk. Then I reverse the second half: eat the cookie then take a swig of milk.


----------



## Smeagol

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I dip half the cookie in the milk. Then I reverse the second half:


Ryan,

I think your covered, dipping 2 halves still gives you the full immersion experience. But just tread lightly.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Luther, _Babylonian Captivity_ (cited in the OP):

_I would have those who are to be baptized completely immersed in the water, as the word says and as the mystery indicates. *Not because I deem this necessary*, but because it would be well to give to a thing so perfect and complete a sign that is also complete and perfect. And this is doubtless the way in which it was instituted by Christ._​
Calvin, _Institutes_, Book IV, Ch. XV.19:

_But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water -*these details are of no importance*, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word “baptize” means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church._​
WCF 28.3:

_*Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary*; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person._​

There's two Reformers and the Westminster Divines. Was mode of baptism not the subject of a grand debate? Not by itself, no. As I have said, it was a piece of a larger controversy. Immersion-only baptism was (is) a part of the Anabaptistic system that the Reformers and their successors rejected wholly.

What was the context of Luther's words? He makes a point of saying that, while he prefers immersion, it is not necessary. Anabaptists, who were running wild in Luther's day, held that immersion was required, that all other baptism was invalid. Luther's remarks must be read in the context of the religious upheavals of the time.

So Calvin's. Why make the point that immersion is not required? Because the Anabaptists were teaching the opposite _as part of their whole errant system_.

That the debate over mode in the 16th and 17th centuries did not take the form it has taken today hardly means that the debaters hadn't considered it. (@C. M. Sheffield: "They lived in a time when the vast majority of them were all of the same mind about the matter.") (In those days, the number of Reformed Christians who rejected infant baptism in favour of adult baptism by immersion was, it would seem, negligible. So it is only natural that the debate would have progress differently to how it does today. Nowadays, "Reformed" Christians can argue about mode among themselves.)

Luther railed against the Anabaptists, Calvin personally debated them (and married the widow of one). And Anabaptists were active in England during the English Civil Wars (the context of the writing of the WCF.)

Simply consider the historical context of these quotations.


----------



## Tom Hart

Grant Jones said:


> Well dear brothers, I think we all agree the only proper and orthodox way to eat an Oreo is full immersion (in milk). Anything less than full immersion in milk (unfermented ) is a “second class” Oreo experience. Surely there can be no debate there.



I use a spoon to drown the Oreo completely.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Smeagol

Tom Hart said:


> I use a spoon to drown the Oreo completely.


Now that’s being TR. keep up the good work.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Grant Jones said:


> Now that’s being TR. keep up the good work.



Thanks!

I wait until they stop wriggling and the bubbles stop coming up.


----------



## deleteduser99

I think we are getting off-track.

@Tom Hart , I think the point is that an extensive debate on mode like we have it today did not take place. Not fully absent, but not substantial so far as I'm aware. Yes they addressed it, that's clear, but maybe you know a few Reformation-era treatise on the matter, or perhaps an extended debate between two parties on mode, either from that era or the Puritan age? Anything that even approaches the back-and-forth as we have it today?

It hit me thinking this over... I'm not aware of any contention over mode at all until the 16th century. Some did immersion, some sprinkling, some pouring, but I've not seen any quotes before that time asserting one mode or set of modes is correct and others are wrong. But then, I'm an elementary level historical theologian.

History experts? Would this be a right assessment?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Harley said:


> I think the point is that an extensive debate on mode like we have it today did not take place. Not fully absent, but not substantial so far as I'm aware.



I have been pushing back against the unsupported assertion that "in the 16th and 17th centuries everyone basically agreed, so they had no problem saying immersion was in the Bible". In fact, the doctrines of the Anabaptists (the whole system, including but not limited to immersion) were a very present threat.



Harley said:


> I'm not aware of any contention over mode at all until the 16th century. Some did immersion, some sprinkling, some pouring, but I've not seen any quotes before that time asserting one mode or set of modes is correct and others are wrong. But then, I'm an elementary level historical theologian.



In 1527, Felix Manz, a Swiss Anabaptist leader, was executed, drowned in a river in mockery of his sect's insistence on re-baptism by immersion.

But, yes, not a lot of contention before the 16th century. That's when the Reformation started, after all.


----------



## hammondjones

Dear friends, you seem to be unaware of the Tim Tam Slam...


----------



## Andrew35

Grant Jones said:


> Well dear brothers, I think we all agree the only proper and orthodox way to eat an Oreo is full immersion (in milk). Anything less than full immersion in milk (unfermented ) is a “second class” Oreo experience. Surely there can be no debate there.



...but are you paedo?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Kinghezy

Grant Jones said:


> Well dear brothers, I think we all agree the only proper and orthodox way to eat an Oreo is full immersion (in milk). Anything less than full immersion in milk (unfermented ) is a “second class” Oreo experience. Surely there can be no debate there.



Sip it, don't dip it

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Smeagol

hammondjones said:


> Dear friends, you seem to be unaware of the Tim Tam Slam...



I just looked this up on Wikipedia for “how to” instructions and my mind was blown. That looks amazing!!!!

https://m.wikihow.com/Do-the-Tim-Tam-Slam

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Tom Hart said:


> I have been pushing back against the unsupported assertion that "in the 16th and 17th centuries everyone basically agreed, so they had no problem saying immersion was in the Bible".


Who are you quoting? I can't find that statement in the discussion. I didn't say it. If you are going to use quotation marks, it should be an actual quote. Otherwise you risk mischaracterizing your opponents.

But that aside, as Grant has already said, how big a debate it was or not is something of a distraction from the main discussion. I think it would be profitable to move on.


----------



## Tom Hart

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Who are you quoting? I can't find that statement in the discussion. I didn't say it.



See Post #91:


C. M. Sheffield said:


> *It seems to me that these men (Reformers, Puritans, Nadere Reformatie) were not in a context where the mode of baptism was a subject of any great debate. They all practiced afusion or aspersion. This, I think, is why they felt more freedom in admitting—*_*"The Lord Jesus was baptized by immersion* (Matt 3:16), as was the eunuch (Acts 8:38). The apostle also refers to this: 'Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death' (Rom 6:4);"—_while also saying, _"It is not of the least consequence"_ (Calvin, _Institutes,_ IV.15.19).



And again Post #97:


C. M. Sheffield said:


> I'm fully aware of the history of the Reformation and the role the Anabaptists played. What I said was, "the mode of baptism was not a subject of _any great_ debate." That's a fact. The principle men of the era rejected Anabaptist views of baptism. Anabaptist were a radical fringe group and they were esteemed as such by most Christians of that time. None of the Reformers espoused baptistic convictions and only very few of the Puritan era. So no, it was not a subject of any great debate for them. *They lived in time when the vast majority were all of the same mind about the matter. And that is why I think, they felt a greater measure of liberty in admitting that the mode of immersion is that described in Scripture and employed by the early church*.





C. M. Sheffield said:


> If you are going to use quotation marks, it should be an actual quote. Otherwise you risk mischaracterizing your opponents.



If you were trying to say something else in Posts #91 and #97 then the problem does not lie in my one-sentence summary.



C. M. Sheffield said:


> But that aside, as Grant has already said, how big a debate it was or not is something of a distraction from the main discussion. I think it would be profitable to move on.



I simply aim to correct a factual error.

If you're going to begin a thread by quoting Luther speaking positively of baptism by immersion, if you're going to ignore the historical context of his words that immersion is not a necessary thing, and then if you're going to the same for Calvin and the Puritans, you should receive some pushback.

I am saying, plainly, that the Reformers were not silent about immersion. The Puritans were not silent. (I again direct you to Michael Harrison.) Their comments about immersion baptism -- especially with the qualification that immersion is not a necessary thing! -- ought to be considered in their historical contexts. They did not favour immersion baptism because it was more biblical but they hadn't thought it through or debated it.

Yes, the debate today is different. In the period of the Reformation and afterwards, the conversation surrounding immersion took place within the broader one of Anabaptism. (Indeed, any comments about mode of baptism are bound up in baptism generally. Luther, Calvin, etc. are speaking of infants as well as converted adults.) But I repeat myself.

Further, you have said that Presbyterians today are unwilling to admit immersion baptism in the Bible and the early church, because such an admission would compromise their view. So I will not be accused of mischaracterization, here is a quotation:



C. M. Sheffield said:


> I think some Presbyterians today are not as willing to make the same admissions (if at all) for fear of it compromising their own view.



I hope you would consider that there are Presbyterians whose convictions are not held merely due a risk of approaching a Baptistic view of baptism. There might just be a little more to it.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

I'm sorry but you quoted me as saying,


Tom Hart said:


> "in the 16th and 17th centuries everyone basically agreed, so they had no problem saying immersion was in the Bible".


That is your summary of my argument. Not my actual comments, as the posts you have now actually cited from me make clear.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Tom Hart said:


> If you're going to begin a thread by quoting Luther speaking positively of baptism by immersion, if you're going to ignore the historical context of his words that immersion is not a necessary thing, and then if you're going to the same for Calvin and the Puritans, you should receive some pushback.


I have not ignored it. I do disagree with it being something of no consequence. But I have profitably discussed that with others in this very thread! Saying I have ignored it is false. Again, you are again misrepresenting me and my statements.


Tom Hart said:


> I am saying, plainly, that the Reformers were not silent about immersion. The Puritans were not silent. (I again direct you to Michael Harrison.) Their comments about immersion baptism -- especially with the qualification that immersion is not a necessary thing! -- ought to be considered in their historical contexts. They did not favour immersion baptism because it was more biblical but they hadn't thought it through or debated it.


I never said the Reformers were silent! But I can see you are uninterested in debating anything other than straw men.


Tom Hart said:


> Further, you have said that Presbyterians today are unwilling to admit immersion baptism in the Bible and the early church, because such an admission would compromise their view. So I will not be accused of mischaracterization, here is a quotation:


You have a bad habbit of missing key qualifying words in sentences. Here, while caliming you do not want to misrepresent my words, you misrepresent them anyway! Pay careful attention. I said "SOME PRESBYTERIANS." Yet notwithstanding, you claim I have said as much about all Presbyterians in general. Read my words!


Tom Hart said:


> I hope you would consider that there are Presbyterians whose convictions are not held merely due a risk of approaching a Baptistic view of baptism. There might just be a little more to it.








If you can't discuss things with the care that is required to not misrepresent the words of those with whom you discuss them, then I would suggest Facebook or Twitter would be a better venue for that kind of exchange.


----------



## Herald

OK. This is where the moderator-on-call jumps in. Let's bring the discussion back on point without pointless bickering or cease discussing altogether.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Herald said:


> or cease discussing altogether.


I second that motion.


----------



## Tom Hart

C. M. Sheffield said:


> That is your summary of my argument. Not my actual comments, as the posts you have now actually cited from me make clear.



Help me out, then. What were you saying?



C. M. Sheffield said:


> I have not ignored it. I do disagree with it being something of no consequence. But I have profitably discussed that with others in this very thread! Saying I have ignored it is false. Again, you are again misrepresenting me and my statements.



Perhaps you have not ignored the historical circumstances. Perhaps you simply do not understand them.



C. M. Sheffield said:


> I never said the Reformers were silent! But I can see you are uninterested in debating anything other than straw men.



I didn't say that you said the Reformers were silent. It is a figure of speech meaing that they discussed it.



C. M. Sheffield said:


> You have a bad habbit of missing key qualifying words in sentences. Here, while caliming you do not want to misrepresent my words, you misrepresent them anyway! Pay careful attention. I said "SOME PRESBYTERIANS." Yet not withstanding, you claim I have said as much about all Presbyterians in general.



I said that you said "Presbyterians". I did not say that you said "all Presbyterians". The absence of any quantitative adjective does not mean that a total is being discussed.

Consider:

1. "I like fish."

2. "I like some fish."

3. "I like all fish."

The first sentence need not be understood identically to the last. While the first does not specify a portion, it is not necessarily to be read as a total.



C. M. Sheffield said:


> If you can't discuss things with the care that is required to not misrepresent the words of those with whom you discuss them, then I would suggest Facebook or Twitter as better options for you.



I will be charitable and assume that your misrepresentations of my words are out of genuine misunderstanding in communication.


----------



## Tom Hart

I have just seen the Moderator's note.

I am withdrawing from this conversation. I do not wish to carry on a conversation in which there are repeated accusations of mischaracterizarions while no substantial discussion is taking place.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

