Why Sprinkling? (and a random board ??)

[A2JC4life]

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

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

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

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

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

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

 

[Kevin]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

 

[A2JC4life]

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

I'll check out Hebrews.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kevin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[rbcbob]

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

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

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

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

No.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

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

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

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

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

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

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

No.

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

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

 

[rbcbob]

While there are a number of different tacks one could take with this question, here's one defense, just using this one verse:If the inner work of the Spirit is correlative to the outer act, and the outer act illustrative of the inner work, then the "washing" of the body would be appropriately exemplified by "sprinkling."

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

No.

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

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

non sequitur

 

[jogri17]

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

 

[Kevin]

Great point, Bob!

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

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

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

Joseph, glad to have you join in!

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

 

[DMcFadden]

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

I'll check out Hebrews.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Bob,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[rbcbob]

Great point, Bob!

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

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

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

Joseph, glad to have you join in!

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

It is the historical meaning of the Greek word for baptize

 

[A2JC4life]

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

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

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

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

 

[A.J.]

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

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. - Ezekiel 36:25-28​

Something I think you haven't considered in your argument against sprinkling from your understanding of Heb. 9:10 is the very word that appears there by divine inspiration.

but deal only with food and drink and various washings [diaphorois baptismois], regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.​

Why does that word, "baptisms," appear at all in the original (cf. Heb. 6:2, "washings")? Here we find a word that God "clearly, intentionally used as it was originally written" to quote your previous post. Note that the author of Hebrews shows the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old (Mosaic Covenant). And in this regard, he compares these purificatory rites with the cleansing effect of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. The inspired writer then explains for us what these baptisms were and how they were administered. Look at 9:13, 19 and 21.

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

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

And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.​

Rev. Buchanan's argument stands since one of the realities (thing signified) which baptism (the sign) represents is the cleansing effect of the blood of Christ on those who believe in Him (cf. 1 Cor. 6:11). And how is Christ's blood applied to the elect? By sprinkling.

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

according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood.... - 1 Peter 1:2​

Immersion does not capture the relationship between the sign and the thing signified.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

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

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

Peace.

 

[Seb]

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

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. - Ezekiel 36:25-28​

Something I think you haven't considered in your argument against sprinkling from your understanding of Heb. 9:10 is the very word that appears there by divine inspiration.

but deal only with food and drink and various washings [diaphorois baptismois], regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.​

Why does that word, "baptisms," appear at all in the original (cf. Heb. 6:2, "washings")? Here we find a word that God "clearly, intentionally used as it was originally written" to quote your previous post. Note that the author of Hebrews shows the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old (Mosaic Covenant). And in this regard, he compares these purificatory rites with the cleansing effect of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. The inspired writer then explains for us what these baptisms were and how they were administered. Look at 9:13, 19 and 21.

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

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

And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.​

Rev. Buchanan's argument stands since one of the realities (thing signified) which baptism (the sign) represents is the cleansing effect of the blood of Christ on those who believe in Him (cf. 1 Cor. 6:11). And how is Christ's blood applied to the elect? By sprinkling.

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

according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood.... - 1 Peter 1:2​

Immersion does not capture the relationship between the sign and the thing signified.

Rachel,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[A2JC4life]

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

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

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

Rachel, sprinkling and
Something I think you haven't considered in your argument against sprinkling from your understanding of Heb. 9:10 is the very word that appears there by divine inspiration.

but deal only with food and drink and various washings [diaphorois baptismois], regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.​

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

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Where does this definition:

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

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

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


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

 

[christianhope]

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

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

Here's the link:

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

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

I hope it does the same for you also Rachel.

 

[A2JC4life]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CharlieJ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[A2JC4life]

Where does this definition:

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

I must have forgotten to scroll or something, 'cause I somehow missed this last portion of your post and the entire post that followed it.

Yes, I would allow for baptism by pouring. My husband I believe that immersion is preferable, but that pouring is also acceptable, particularly depending on circumstances. For instance, a shut-in who cannot get to a baptismal pool or river, or whatever body of water, should, in my opinion, be baptized by pouring.

I will download McMahon's sermon, as well, and try to find a time to listen to it. (I find listening tricky with little ones about!) I'm not sure if it will make a difference or not, though. We are pretty atypical. Our theology is covenantal, even with regard to how we view our children, but we still have not found paedobaptism to be biblical. I won't say never. But at this point, even with study, and understanding (I think) why paedobaptists do what they do, I don't see it as Scriptural.

 

[J. David Kear]

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

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

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

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

 

[Seb]

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

Rachel,

I noticed your first question wasn't answered:

 

[Denton Elliott]

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

 

[A2JC4life]

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

Rachel,

I noticed your first question wasn't answered:

Thanks.

 

[Irish Presbyterian]

Rachel,

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

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

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

I hope that makes some sense.