Baptism in the New Testament

[Phil D.]

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

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

Have you read it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Moireach]

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

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

Have you read it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JML]

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

 

[steadfast7]

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

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

PhilD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

View attachment 2365

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

Examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Rob

 

[Marrow Man]

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

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

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

 

[Peairtach]

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

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

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

 

[Phil D.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.) (Heraclitus of Ephesus; c. 1st century BC): When the mass of iron, drawn red-hot from the furnace, is dipped [baptizetai (baptizo)] in water, its fiery glow, being quenched with water, is extinguished. (Homeric Allegories, 9; Greek: Επειδήπερ έκ τών βαναύσων διάπυρος ό τοΰ σιδήρου μύδρος έλκυσθείς ΰδατι βαπτζίεται, καί τό φλογώδες ύπό τήν ίδίας φύσεως ΰδατι κατασβεσθέν άναπαύεται)
​

2.) (Plutarch; 1st century AD) [Describing a celebration by Alexander the Great’s army]: All along the road the soldiers were dipping [baptizontes (baptizo)] cups, and horns, and earthenware vessels into great jars of liquor and drinking to one another’s heath. (Life of Alexander, 67; Greek: καί θηρικλείοις παρά τήν όδόν άπασαν οί στρταιώται βαπτίζοντες έκ πίθων μεγάλων καί κρατήρων άλλήλοις προέπινον)​

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

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

1a.) (Aratus; 3rd century BC): But if without a cloud he [i.e. the sun] dips [bapte (bapto)] in the western ocean, and as he is sinking, or still when he is gone, the clouds stand near him blushing red. (Phaenomena, 858f; Greek: Εἰ δ' ὁ μὲν ἀνέφελος βάπτη ῥόου ἑσπερίοιο, ταὶ δὲ κατερχομένου νεφέλαι καὶ οἰχομένοιο πλησίαι ἑστήκωσιν ἐρευθέες)​

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

Here is an example with regard to literal usage:

2a.) (Septuagint; 3rd century BC): And a clean man shall take hyssop and dip it [Hebrew: וְטָבַל tabal—dip; plunge <> LXX: bapsei (bapto)] into the water, and sprinkle [perirranei (raino)] it upon the house and the furnishings, and upon the souls, as many as are there. (Numbers 19:18a; Greek: καὶ λήμψεται ὕσσωπον καὶ βάψει εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ ἀνὴρ καθαρὸς καὶ περιρρανεῖ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ σκεύη καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς ψυχάς, ὅσαι ἐὰν ὦσιν ἐκεῖ)​

2b.) (Josephus; 1st century AD): Then they [the Israelites in carrying out the instructions in Numbers 19:18] threw a little of the ashes into a spring [i.e. “living/potable water”] and, dipping [baptisantes [baptizo)] hyssop, they sprinkled [errainon (raintizo)] [the unclean]. (The Antiquities of the Jews, 4.4.6 [81]; Greek: τής τέφρας ολίγον είς πηγήν ένιέντες καί ϋσσωπον βαπτίsαντες, έρραινον)​

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

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

Finally, here are three examples where bapto and baptizo were used synonymously within a single passage:

1.) (Pseudo-Hippocrates; c. 2nd century BC): Then dipping [bapsas (bapto)] it [a gynecological device called a pessary] in rose oil or Egyptian oil, apply it during the day; and when it begins to sting, remove it, and immerse it again [baptizein (baptizo) palin—again; once more], this time in breast-milk and Egyptian ointment. (The Diseases of Women, 1; Greek: Επειτα βαψας ίς άλείφα ροδινον ή Αίγύπτιον προσθέσθο τήν ήμέραν, καί έπήν δάκνηται άφαρέεσθαι, καί βαπτίζειν πάλιν, ές γάλα γυναικός καί μύρον Αίγύπτιον)​

Here the conjunctive role of the adverb palin (“again”) plainly demonstrates both the synonymous capabilities and usage of bapto and baptizo.

2.) (Melito; Christian bishop of Sardis [Asia Minor]; 2nd century AD): Are not gold, copper, silver, and iron, after being fired, immersed [baptizetai (baptizo)] in water? One, in order that it may be brightened [phaidrunthe—brighten; clean] in appearance; another in order that it may be strengthened [tonothe—strengthen; intensify] by the dipping [bapses (bapto)]. (Fragments, 8b; Greek: Ποίος δέ χρυσός ή άργυρος ή χαλκός ή σίδηρος πυρωθείς ού βαπτιζεται ϋδατι, ό μέν αύτών ϊνα φαιδρυνθή διά τής χρόας, ό δέ ϊνα τονωθή διά τής βαφής)​

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

3.) Cyril of Jerusalem; 4th century AD): Even Simon Magus once came to the bath [loutro]: He was immersed [ebaptisthe (baptizo)], though not enlightened; and though he dipped [ebapsen (bapto)] his body in water, he enlightened not his heart with the Spirit: his body went down [katebe] and came up [anabe]; but his soul was not buried with Christ, nor was it raised up by Him. (Procatechesis, 2; Greek: Προσήλθέ ποτε καί Σίμων τό λουτρώ ό μάγος έβαπτίσθη, άλλ́ ούκ έφωτίσθε καί τό μέν σώμα έβαφεν ϋδατι τήν δέ καρδίαν ούκ έΦώτισε Πνεύματι καί κατέβη μέν τό σώμα, καί άνέβη ή δέ ψυχή ού συνετάφη χρίστω, ούδέ συνεγέρθη)​

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

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

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


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


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

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

...Niptein and louein, on the other hand, express the washing of living persons: although with this difference that niptein (which displaced in the later period of the Attic nisein) and nipsasthai almost always express the washing of a part of the body—the hands (Mark 7:3), the face (Matthew 7:17), the eyes (John 13:5...), the back and shoulders (Homer, Odyssey...)...Louein, which is not so much to “wash,” as to “bathe,” and lousthai, or in common Greek, louesthai, “to bathe oneself,” imply always, not the bathing of a part of the body, but of the whole; leloumenoi to soma, (Hebrews 10:22). (Synonyms of the New Testament, 189f.)​

Other Greek vocabularies wholly concur with these observations (e.g., Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary, [#G3538]; Strong's Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words [#G3068]; A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature [BDAG], p. 603).


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


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


Rob: Thanks again for a very well researched post


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


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


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

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

PhilD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings,

Rob

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

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

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

Blessings,

Rob

 

[Afterthought]

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

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

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

 

[Phil D.]

Good morning, Rob!

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

Amen and amen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

All the best in Christ, brother.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

PhilD:

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

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

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should wak in newness of life, Romans 6:4

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead, Colossians 2:12.

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

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

Blessings,

Rob

Good morning, Rob!

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

Amen and amen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

All the best in Christ, brother.

 

[steadfast7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

Dennis:

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

In your other response:

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

Blessings,

Rob

 

[steadfast7]

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

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

 

[Moireach]

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

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

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

 

[Marrow Man]

In every modern burial I've ever witnessed, they sprinkled dirt on the casket.

 

[steadfast7]

In every modern burial I've ever witnessed, they sprinkled dirt on the casket.

now that would be the very anachronism Rob is arguing against

 

[steadfast7]

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

It doesn't. Presbyterians don't agree that baptism symbolises burial at all. We hold that what is symbolised is the work of the Holy Spirit.
... the Presbyterian's view on baptism in the form of a narrative.

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

 

[Moireach]

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

It doesn't. Presbyterians don't agree that baptism symbolises burial at all. We hold that what is symbolised is the work of the Holy Spirit.
... the Presbyterian's view on baptism in the form of a narrative.

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

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

 

[Marrow Man]

In every modern burial I've ever witnessed, they sprinkled dirt on the casket.

now that would be the very anachronism Rob is arguing against

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

 

[Moireach]

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

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

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

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

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

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

Blessings,

Rob

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

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

 

[Moireach]

Hi:

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

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

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

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

Blessings,

Rob

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

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

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

 

[Constantlyreforming]

Hi:

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

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

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

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

Blessings,

Rob

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

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

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


oh. wait.....

nevermind....

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings,

Rob

 

[py3ak]

PhilD:

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

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