Baptism of the Philippian Jailer

[MW]

It's only if we require an immediate and spontaneous baptism that sprinkling begins to be entertained, but even that is not a necessity, as argued above.

Why entertain anything with respect to the mode? Immersionists and anti-immersionists are falling into the trap of making Scripture speak to an issue it nowhere addresses. If mode wasn't important in either the didactic or historic portions of the NT, why should it consume our time and energy? The irony here is that we all agree on the practice of taking a little bread and wine in the Lord's supper without requiring a full meal for each participant. We recognise it is the element that is important, not the amount of it. There is no reason why the same can't apply to baptism.

 

[steadfast7]

Would the fact that they had been beaten with rods and received "many stripes" have hindered any travel that they would have had to undertake to find a suitable location for baptism if it was outside the prison?

Nope. Paul had a knack for moving in the direction of persecution rather than away from it. cf Acts 14:20

 

[JML]

Nope. Paul had a knack for moving in the direction of persecution rather than away from it. cf Acts 14:20

Good point. I guess the answer would definitely be a no.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Does "that same hour of the night" require a 60 minute span of time, though?

I know some commentators who think "hour" here is probably meant in the traditional Hellenistic/Jewish sense of "watch-hour", which was a span of 3 or 4 literal hours, if I recall correctly. Personally, I think that seems like a reasonable interpretation.

Are you sure "3-4 hours" is not just a poetic way of saying 3 or 4 million years?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi Phil D:

Since you quoted Turretin on Baptism I thought it might be interesting to see what Turretin thought concerning the passage under question, Acts 16:27ff:

For although immersion was the ordinary method, still that it was not so universally followed as to exclude sprinkling can be gathered from various arguments with respect to the apostolic church as well as to the primitive church. Thus where there was so great a multitude of believers, as when in one day three thousand were baptized (Acts 2:41), it can hardly be doubted that sprinkling was employed rather than immersion (which could scarcely and not even scarcely be fitly performed in so short a space of time). In like manner, when baptism was administered in the house, where there is not a quantity of water for immersion, especially if the thing should be done unexpectedly (Acts 16:27-33). In the primitive church, baptism was administered to patients sick in bed, which undoubtedly could not have been done by immersion, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, 381.

"For although immersion was the ordinary method..." I do not believe that immersion was the ordinary method in the New Testament, and that, in fact, sprinkling was not only predominant, but the only method used.

Here is a question for you: Where in the New Testament do you find any clear evidence of immersion being performed?

Like I said before - I do not think that the Reformers are reading the Patristic (Early Church Fathers) writings correctly.

Blessings brother!

-Rob

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Rob,
Are you denying that immersion was practiced in the NT as well as the early church or simply the former? Samuel Miller in his book on baptism says that it cannot be denied that immersion was the most commonly practiced mode in the first centuries after Christ (but that effusion and sprinkling were practiced and viewed as perfectly valid as well).

Like I said before - I do not think that the Reformers are reading the Patristic (Early Church Fathers) writings correctly.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Rob,
Are you denying that immersion was practiced in the NT as well as the early church or simply the former? Samuel Miller in his book on baptism says that it cannot be denied that immersion was the most commonly practiced mode in the first centuries after Christ (but that effusion and sprinkling were practiced and viewed as perfectly valid as well).

Like I said before - I do not think that the Reformers are reading the Patristic (Early Church Fathers) writings correctly.

Hi Chris:

I am denying that immersion was used in the 1st Century. I understand that after the 1st Century the use of immersion came into the Church, but I think that many of the ways in which the language of the ECF's were (and are) being interpreted could be read as sprinkling - though not all of them.

I think that the question I asked brings this out: Where in the New Testament is there any clear evidence that immersion was used in any of the baptisms?

Thanks for asking and showing me that I need to be more clear in the future.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[Pergamum]

Would the fact that they had been beaten with rods and received "many stripes" have hindered any travel that they would have had to undertake to find a suitable location for baptism if it was outside the prison?

Nope. Paul had a knack for moving in the direction of persecution rather than away from it. cf Acts 14:20

Great observation. How condemning to most evangelical missionary practices from the US among Muslims.

 

[steadfast7]

Rob, it seems that the only "evidence" that will satisfy is passage that reads, "such and such was dipped under water until not a single part of him remained above the surface of the deep." It was simply not the priority of the biblical writers to provide details of this sort. As with any "historical evidence", things are pieced together from available knowledge that is often fragmentary, and sure, it can often go either way. I would put it back to you to provide the proof positive that sprinkling, and only sprinkling, was the NT practice.

 

[Phil D.]

Here is a question for you: Where in the New Testament do you find any clear evidence of immersion being performed?

Robert, you admit that when it comes to mode you disagree with most of the Reformers' (and others') interpretation of many baptism passages in the NT. As I said earlier, I am convinced that they were indeed correct in their "face-value" reading of them. Therefore, the short answer to your question would be "throughout".

I think it would be wise here to follow your earlier advice about not wandering too far from the OP. How about you start a thread concerning one or more references (whether biblical or otherwise) where immersion has historically been perceived, but with which you disagree? Then we can go from there.

---------- Post added at 08:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 AM ----------

Are you sure "3-4 hours" is not just a poetic way of saying 3 or 4 million years?

I think I know what you're getting at, Rev. Glaser, and I certainly sympathize (if indeed I'm understanding you correctly... ) My understanding is that there was no actual 60 minute unit in ancient Eastern timekeeping, and that the term normally translated "hour" needs to be defined by the applicable historical circumstances. That's why I think the suggested interpretation is a reasonable one. I am certainly willing to be corrected if I am mistaken about this.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

Phil D wrote:

Robert, you admit that when it comes to mode you disagree with most of the Reformers' (and others') interpretation of many baptism passages in the NT. As I said earlier, I am convinced that they were indeed correct in their "face-value" reading of them. Therefore, the short answer to your question would be "throughout".

How does this statement of yours square with the quotation of Turretin above?

For although immersion was the ordinary method, still that it was not so universally followed as to exclude sprinkling can be gathered from various arguments with respect to the apostolic church as well as to the primitive church. Thus where there was so great a multitude of believers, as when in one day three thousand were baptized (Acts 2:41), it can hardly be doubted that sprinkling was employed rather than immersion (which could scarcely and not even scarcely be fitly performed in so short a space of time). In like manner, when baptism was administered in the house, where there is not a quantity of water for immersion, especially if the thing should be done unexpectedly (Acts 16:27-33). In the primitive church, baptism was administered to patients sick in bed, which undoubtedly could not have been done by immersion, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, 381.

In Jesus,

Rob

 

[au5t1n]

My understanding is that there was no actual 60 minute unit in ancient Eastern timekeeping, and that the term normally translated "hour" needs to be defined by the applicable historical circumstances.

Almost. They did use "in that hour" to mean "around that time." However, the day was also divided into 12 hours (and likewise the night), so there were approximately 60-minute hours. Actually, while today we define minutes and seconds by some very precise atomic value, the 60 minute convention probably came from simply dividing an hour (1/12 of the day) into 60 equal portions, so technically their hours would have been exactly 60 minutes by the old convention, but not by the modern convention. Have I put you to sleep yet?

 

[Phil D.]

How does this statement of yours square with the quotation of Turretin above?

I'll highlight and expand on two adjectives and one pronoun that are key when reading my statement.

"...you disagree with most [a numerical majority, but not all, in the sense of head for head] of the Reformers' (and others') interpretation of many [not all, but most - and enough for them to understand immersion as being normative, intentional and meaningful] baptism passages in the NT. As I said earlier, I am convinced that they were indeed correct in their "face-value" reading of them [i.e. their reading of this majority of passages; there are a few verses which were sometimes seen as indicating that means other than immersion were used in the NT, usually in extenuating circumstances].

Hope that helps clarify.

Almost. They did use "in that hour" to mean "around that time." However, the day was also divided into 12 hours (and likewise the night), so there were approximately 60-minute hours. Actually, while today we define minutes and seconds by some very precise atomic value, the 60 minute convention probably came from simply dividing an hour (1/12 of the day) into 60 equal portions, so technically their hours would have been exactly 60 minutes by the old convention, but not by the modern convention. Have I put you to sleep yet?

Good stuff, Austin. Very interesting and informative. Thanks!

 

[steadfast7]

But hour could also mean generic time, which works as well ... it's hard to absolutely certain

 

[Constantlyreforming]

surely there was a Kohler soaking tub present within the walls of the Jail?

I am reading this book as well, actually, I have read it three time in the last two months as it is the most biblical of the books regarding infant baptism I have found. I have been convinced, now, through scripture, that Jesus was also sprinkled and that it is contrary to scripture to submerse.