Exegetical basis for Immersion only baptism?

[Puritan Sailor]

To my baptist brothers, I'd like to understand the exegetical basis for why you believe immersion to be the only method of baptism.


Secondly, how do you respond to the historic exegetical claims (i.e. John Murray, and others) who argue "baptidzo" does not in fact mean "immerse" but "ceremonial washing" which could be done by immersion but historically were also done by sprinkling or pouring?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Were have you been Patrick?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Even though water baptism is not mentioned in Romans 6 the death, burial, and resurrection analogy is signified in the going down under the water and the resurrection is signified by coming up to newness of life, out of the water. That is some of the reasoning.

Let me leave you with a quote here.



Also in the footnotes of Fred Malones book 'The Baptism of Disciples Alone' on page xviv it is noted.

See also Herman Wisius' and Francis Territin's discussions of mode of baptism in the early church. Both admit immersion was the practice, though they claim pouring and sprinkling also was practiced depending upon circumstances such as health or the availability of water.
Economy of the Covenants 1:422-428
Institutes of Elcentic Theology 3:381

The following post is also pretty revealing.

Some additonal quotes concerning baptism by immersion:

What Non Baptists Have Said Concerning the Ancient Mode of Baptism

Presbyterian
John Calvin -"The very word "baptize however, signifies to IMMERSE, and it is certain that IMMERSION was the practice of the ancient church."(Institutes of the Christian Religion, chp 15)

John Calvin’s commentary on the Gospel of John
John 3:22-23
22. After these things came Jesus. It is probable that Christ, when the feast was past, came into that part of Judea which was in the vicinity of the town Enon, which was situated in the tribe of Manasseh. The Evangelist says that there were many waters there, and these were not so abundant in Judea. Now geographers tell us, that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence of the river Jordan and the brook Jabbok; and they add that Scythopolis was near them. From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water; though we ought not to give ourselves any great uneasiness about the outward rite, provided that it agree with the spiritual truth, and with the Lord's appointment and rule. So far as we are able to conjecture, the; vicinity of those places caused various reports to be circulated, and many discussions to arise, about the Law, about the worship of God, and about the condition of the Church, in consequence of two persons who administered baptism having arisen at the same time. For when the Evangelist says that Christ baptized, I refer this to the commencement of his ministry; namely, that he then began to exercise publicly the office which was appointed to him by the Father. And though Christ did this by his disciples, yet he is here named as the Author of the baptism, without mentioning his ministers, who did nothing but in his name and by his command. On this subject, we shall have something more to say in the beginning of the next Chapter.


Lutheran
Martin Luther -" I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word."

Philip Schaff -"IMMERSION and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John which was performed in Jordan." (History of the Apostolic Church, p.568).


Roman Catholic
Cardinal Gibbons -"For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity baptism was usually conferred by IMMERSION; but since the 12th century the practice of baptism by infusion has prevailed in the Catholic church, as this manner is attained with less inconvenience than by IMMERSION (Faith of our Fathers p. 317)

Methodist
John Wesley -commenting on Rom 6:4- "We are buried with Him- alluding to the ancient manner of baptism by IMMERSION (Explanatory notes Upon the New Testament, p. 376)

George Whitefield -commenting on Rom 6:4- "It is certain that the words of our text is an allusion to the manner of baptism by IMMERSION

Episcopalians
Conybeare and Howson -commenting on Rom 6:4-":This passage cannot be undersood unless it is understood that the primitive baptism was by IMMERSION."

 

[Blue Tick]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Remember this is a Credo only thread.... NO PAEDOs.

 

[VictorBravo]

Patrick, I grant that there is a good argument for the ceremonial washing view, and that baptidzo can have a varied meaning. After all, even today we say things like we were "drenched in sweat," even though originally the word meant to drink a lot of water.

So I don't find the word argument particularly persuasive either way.

I've literally been laughed to scorn invoking Romans 6:4, but I think it is a starting point. "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death. . . ."

Yes, I know Jesus was not plunged underwater after his death and that the tombs were elevated, but the image is one of being engulfed. Jesus alluded to the same idea in Matthew 12:39 when he said he would give only the sign of Jonah. That sign was clearly looking back to when Jonah was engulfed inside a fish, surrounded completely by water, alone and without hope. I think it is fair to say that Jesus considered his time in the tomb to be a form of complete "immersion" in the sense of being surrounded by the bonds of death.

And Psalm 130 has a cry from the depths. Granted, the depths may be the depths of the earth or it may be water, but in either case, it is an image of being plunged into something. We also see numerous references to surrounding water as symbolizing despair of death (Psalm 90:5, 69:2, and many other places).

So, for a thumbnail view, if "we are buried with him by baptism into death," I see the symbolism of immersion baptism expressed on several fronts.

I'll note that Col. 2:11-12 provide an interesting nod to ceremonial circumcision and then describes baptism as burial. I acknowledge the connection between Baptism and circumcision, but, as a Baptist, I tend to look at Christ's death and resurrection as subsuming the old ceremonial sign--and the sign of baptism is viewed as a symbol of complete and utter death to self. It looks to Christ's death and resurrection as the fulfillment of what the old sign pointed to.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Thank you Randy and Vic.

So, how do you exegetically deal with passages like Hebrews 9:10ff describing "various baptisms" including ceremonies that involved sprinkling? Or in the "baptism" of the Spirit being described as "pouring out"?

And how would you respond to Murray's argument on Romans 6 that the primary picture there is union with Christ, not just his burial, but his life and death, including his crucifixion (Rom 6:5-6)? He argues that the immersion- only view renders an incomplete picture of what Paul is describing there by baptism.

If you know of any baptist resources specifically interacting with Murray's book on Baptism, that would be helpful too.

Not trying to argue mind you, I'm just trying to understand the position better.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Even though water baptism is not mentioned in Romans 6 the death, burial, and resurrection analogy is signified in the going down under the water and the resurrection is signified by coming up to newness of life, out of the water. That is some of the reasoning.

Let me leave you with a quote here.



Also in the footnotes of Fred Malones book 'The Baptism of Disciples Alone' on page xviv it is noted.

See also Herman Wisius' and Francis Territin's discussions of mode of baptism in the early church. Both admit immersion was the practice, though they claim pouring and sprinkling also was practiced depending upon circumstances such as health or the availability of water.
Economy of the Covenants 1:422-428
Institutes of Elcentic Theology 3:381

The following post is also pretty revealing.

Some additonal quotes concerning baptism by immersion:

What Non Baptists Have Said Concerning the Ancient Mode of Baptism

Presbyterian
John Calvin -"The very word "baptize however, signifies to IMMERSE, and it is certain that IMMERSION was the practice of the ancient church."(Institutes of the Christian Religion, chp 15)

John Calvin’s commentary on the Gospel of John
John 3:22-23
22. After these things came Jesus. It is probable that Christ, when the feast was past, came into that part of Judea which was in the vicinity of the town Enon, which was situated in the tribe of Manasseh. The Evangelist says that there were many waters there, and these were not so abundant in Judea. Now geographers tell us, that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence of the river Jordan and the brook Jabbok; and they add that Scythopolis was near them. From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water; though we ought not to give ourselves any great uneasiness about the outward rite, provided that it agree with the spiritual truth, and with the Lord's appointment and rule. So far as we are able to conjecture, the; vicinity of those places caused various reports to be circulated, and many discussions to arise, about the Law, about the worship of God, and about the condition of the Church, in consequence of two persons who administered baptism having arisen at the same time. For when the Evangelist says that Christ baptized, I refer this to the commencement of his ministry; namely, that he then began to exercise publicly the office which was appointed to him by the Father. And though Christ did this by his disciples, yet he is here named as the Author of the baptism, without mentioning his ministers, who did nothing but in his name and by his command. On this subject, we shall have something more to say in the beginning of the next Chapter.


Lutheran
Martin Luther -" I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word."

Philip Schaff -"IMMERSION and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John which was performed in Jordan." (History of the Apostolic Church, p.568).


Roman Catholic
Cardinal Gibbons -"For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity baptism was usually conferred by IMMERSION; but since the 12th century the practice of baptism by infusion has prevailed in the Catholic church, as this manner is attained with less inconvenience than by IMMERSION (Faith of our Fathers p. 317)

Methodist
John Wesley -commenting on Rom 6:4- "We are buried with Him- alluding to the ancient manner of baptism by IMMERSION (Explanatory notes Upon the New Testament, p. 376)

George Whitefield -commenting on Rom 6:4- "It is certain that the words of our text is an allusion to the manner of baptism by IMMERSION

Episcopalians
Conybeare and Howson -commenting on Rom 6:4-":This passage cannot be undersood unless it is understood that the primitive baptism was by IMMERSION."

These quotes are interesting but I'm strictly looking from an exegetical standpoint. On what basis do baptists read immersion into the text (went to the waters ... came up from the waters... etc. ) when there is no specific case that tells us what actually happened in the water? If John were sprinking or pouring, how would the text say anything different if the people still had to go down to the waters and come up from the waters when they were finished?

Again, not trying to argue, I just want to hear your side of this.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Randy, does Malone's book specifically deal with Murray's book at all?

 

[refbaptdude]

Secondly, how do you respond to the historic exegetical claims (i.e. John Murray, and others) who argue "baptidzo" does not in fact mean "immerse" but "ceremonial washing" which could be done by immersion but historically were also done by sprinkling or pouring?

Patrick,

Do you realize that Baptists are not the only ones being insistent upon the mode of immersion? The ancient Eastern Church still practices immersion to this day (Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.). I’ve noticed on the PB when the issue of immersion comes up, those arguing against immersion are totally oblivious to the existence and history of the Eastern Church and think only in terms of the Western Church.

A couple of questions relating to the mode of baptism and the Eastern Church:

1. Why do the Eastern churches practice immersion?
   
2. Did they practice pouring and sprinkling originally and then fell away to immersion?

 

[Mayflower]

The meaning of the words baptism according to Non-Baptist Scholars.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The meaning of the words baptism according to Non-Baptist Scholars.

1. Bellarmine (Roman Catholic), Disputations, Vol. III, p. 279: "Ordinarily baptism is performed by immersion, and that to represent the burial of Christ."

2. Dollinger (Old Catholic), The Church and the Churches: "Baptists are, however, from the Protestant point of view, unassailable, since for their demand of baptism by submersion they have the clear Bible text."

3. Maldonatus (Catholic), Commentary on the Gospels. On Luke 12:50: "Whence it is, that also martyrdom is called a baptism; a metaphor, as I think, taken from those who are submerged in the sea, to put them to death. For in Greek, to be baptized is the same as to be submerged."

4. Est (Catholic), Commentary on the Epistles. On Rom. 6:3: "For immersion represents to us Christ’s burial; and so also his death. For the tomb is a symbol of death, since none but the dead are buried. Moreover, the emersion, which follows the immersion, has a resemblance to a resurrection. We are therefore, in baptism, conformed not only to the death of Christ, as he has said, but also to his burial and resurrection."

5. Arnoldi (Catholic), Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. On 3:6: "BAPTIZEIN, to immerse, to submerge...It was, as being an entire submersion under the water,—since washings were already a confession of impurity and a symbol of purification,—the confession of entire impurity and a symbol of entire purification."

6. Bishop Bossuet (French Catholic): "To baptize signifies to plunge, as is granted by all the world." (Quoted by A. Booth, Pedobaptism Examined, Vol. I, p. 48).

7. R. Wetham (Catholic), Annotations on the New Testament. On Matthew 3:6: "The word baptism signifies a washing, particularly when it is done by immersion, or by dipping, or plunging a thing under water, which was formerly the ordinary way of administering the sacrament of baptism."

8. Calmet (Catholic), Biblical Dictionary: "The Jews dipped themselves entirely under the water, and this is the most simple notion of the word baptize."

9. Martin Luther (Founder of the Lutheran church). On the Sacrament of Baptism: "First, the name baptism is Greek; in Latin" it can be rendered immersion, when we immerse any thing into water, that it may be all covered with water. And although that custom has now grown out of use with most persons (nor do they wholly submerge children, but only pour on a little water), yet they ought to be entirely immersed, and immediately drawn out. For this the etymology of the name seems to demand."

10. Adolf Harnack (Lutheran). In the Independent, Feb. 19, 1885: "1. Baptizein undoubtedly signifies immersion (eintauchen). 2. No proof can be found that it signified anything else in the New Testament and in the most ancient Christian literature. 3. There is no passage in the New Testament which suggests the supposition that any New Testament author attached to the word baptizein any other sense than immerse or submerge."

11. J. J. Van Oosterzee (Dutch Lutheran). Practical Theology, p. 419: "History teaches that baptism at a very early period degenerated from the primitive simplicity. It was originally administered by immersion."

12. Witsius (Dutch Lutheran). Oecon. Foed. IV, ch. 16: "It cannot be denied that the original signification of the word baptizo is to plunge-to dip."

13. Augustus Neander (Lutheran). Church History, I, p. 310: "In respect to the form of baptism, it was in conformity with the original institution and the original import of the symbol, performed by immersion."

14. Bleek (German Lutheran): "Baptizo is the prevalent expression for baptism as it originally took place by immersion under water." (Quoted by J. R. Graves, John’s Baptism, p. 212.)

15. J. L. Mosheim (Lutheran). Ecclesiastical History, Book I, Cent. 1, part II, ch. 4, para. VIII: "The sacrament of baptism was administered in this century, without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by the immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font."

16. J. P. Lange (Lutheran). On Infant Baptism, p. 81: "Baptism in the apostolic age was a proper baptism—the immersion of the body in water."

17. Augusti (Lutheran). Vol. V, p. 5: "The word baptism, according to etymology and usage, signifies to immerse, submerge, etc; and the choice of the expression betrays an age in which the latter custom of sprinkling had not been introduced."

18. Bretschneider (Lutheran). Theology, Vol. II, pp. 673, 681 (1828): "An entire immersion belongs to the nature of baptism."

19. J. A. Bengel (Lutheran). Comment on Rom. 6:4: "Many waters: also the rite of immersion is required."

20. H. A. W. Meyer (Lutheran). Critical Commentary on the New Testament. On Mark 7:4: "Moreover, ean mee baptisontai is not to be understood of washing the hands (Lightfoot, Wetstein), but of immersion, which the word in classic Greek, and in the New Testament, everywhere means."

21. Herman Venema (Lutheran): Eccl. Hist., Ch. 1, sec. 138: "It is without controversy, that baptism in the primitive Church was administered by immersion into water, and not by sprinkling."

22. Fritzsche (Lutheran). Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Vol. I, p. 120: "Moreover Causaubon well suggested, that DUNDIN means to be submerged with the design that you may perish, EPIPOLAZEIN to float on the surface of the water; BAPTIZESTHAI to immerse yourself wholly, for another end than that you may perish. But that, in accordance with the nature of the word BAPTIZESTHAI, baptism was then performed not by sprinkling upon but by submerging, is proven especially by Romans 6:4."

23. Olshausen (Lutheran). Comment on Matthew 18:1-15: "Particularly Paul (Rom. 6:4) treats of baptism in the twofold reference of that ordinance to immersion and emersion, as symbolizing the death and resurrection of Christ."

24. Guericke (Lutheran). Church History, Vol. I, p. 100: "Baptism was originally administered by immersion."

25. Salmasius (French Lutheran). Apud Witsium, Oecon. Fced. Book IV, ch. 16: "The clinic only, because they were confined to their beds, were baptized in a manner of which they were capable: not in the entire laver, as those who plunge the head under the water; but the whole body had water poured upon it. Thus Novatus, when sick, received baptism; being perikutheis, besprinkled, not baptistheis, baptized."

26. Rosenmuller (German Lutheran). Scholia, Matthew 3:6: "To baptize is to immerse, or dip, the body, or part of the body which is to be baptized, going under the water."

27. Tholuck (German Lutheran): Comment on Romans 6:4. "For the explanation of this figurative description of the baptismal rite, it is necessary to call attention to the well-known circumstance that, in the early days of the Church, persons, when baptized, were first plunged below and then raised above the water." (Quoted in J. R. Graves, John’s Baptism, p. 212).

28. William Wall (Episcopalian). History of Infant Baptism, Part II, ch. 2, p. 462: "Their [the primitive Christians] general and ordinary way was to baptize by immersion, or dipping the person, whether it were an infant or grown man or woman, into the water. This is so plain and clear by an infinite number of passages, that as one cannot but pity the weak endeavors of such pedobaptists as would maintain the negative of it; so also we ought to disown and show a dislike of the profane scoffs which some people give to the English anti-pedobaptists, merely for their use of dipping." This is a remarkably candid concession for him to make in rebuking his own people and agreeing with the Baptists—the anti-pedobaptists.

29. Conybeare And Howson (Episcopalians). Life and Epistles of Paul. On Romans 6:3-4: "This passage cannot be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion."

30. Joseph Bingham (Episcopalian). Antiquities of the Christian Church, Book XI, ch. 11, sect. 1: "The Ancients thought that Immersion or burying under Water did more lively represent the Death and Burial, and Resurrection of Christ, as well as our own Death unto Sin, and Rising again to Righteousness...For which Reason they observed the way of baptizing all Persons naked and divested, by a total Immersion under Water, except in some particular cases of great Exigency, wherein they allowed of Sprinkling, as in the case of Clinic Baptism, or where there was scarcity of Water." Bingham was one of the great Antiquarians of all time.

31. Cave (Episcopalian). Primitive Christianity, Part I, ch. 10, p. 320: "The party to be baptized was wholly immersed, or put under the water...As in immersion there are, in a manner, three several acts—the putting the person into the water, his abiding there for a little time, and his rising up again—so by these were represented Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; and in conformity thereunto our dying unto sin, the destruction of its power, and our resurrection to a new course of life."

32. Dean Stanley (Episcopalian). Syria and Palestine, Ch. 7, p. 306-307: "He came baptizing, that is, signifying to those who came to him, as he plunged them under the rapid torrent, the forgiveness and forsaking of their sins."

33. J. Lingard (Episcopalian). History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, Vol. I, p. 317: "The regular manner of administering it was by immersion, the time the two eves of Easter and Pentecost, the place a baptistery, a small building contiguous to the church."

34. Bishop Ellicott (Episcopalian). "There seems to be no reason to doubt that both here and in Rom. 6:6, there is an allusion to the immersion and emersion in baptism." (Quoted in J. R. Graves’ John’s Baptism, p. 218.)

35. J. B. Lightfoot (Episcopalian). On Matthew 3:6: "That the baptism of John was the immersion of the body, in which manner both the ablutions of unclean persons and the baptism of proselytes was performed, seems evident from those things which are related of it; namely, that he baptized in the Jordan, and in Enon, because there was much water; and that Christ, being baptized, went up out of the water."

36. Daniel Whitby (Episcopalian). Annotations on Romans 6:4: "And this immersion being religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our church."

37. Jeremy Taylor (Episcopalian). The rule of Conscience, Book III, Ch. 4, Rule 15, 13: "’Straightway Jesus went up out of the water (saith the Gospel); He came up, therefore he went down. Behold an immersion, not an aspersion.’ And the ancient churches, following this of the Gospel, did not, in their baptism, sprinkle with their hands, but immerged the catechumen or the infant...All which are a perfect conviction, that the custom of the ancient churches was not sprinkling, but immersion in pursuance of the sense of the word in the commandment and example of our blessed Saviour."

38. H. H. Milman (Episcopalian). History of Christianity, III, p. 317: "The baptism was usually by immersion; the stripping off the clothes was emblematic of ‘putting off of the old man.’"

39. Bishop Burnet (Episcopalian). Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles: "The danger of dipping in cold climates may be a very good reason for changing the form of baptism to sprinkling."

40. Bishop Towerson (Episcopalian). Of The Sacrament of Baptism, Part 3, p. 53: "Now, what the command of Christ was in this particular, cannot well be doubted of by those who shall consider the words of Christ (Matt. 28:19), concerning it, and the practice of those times, whether in the baptism of John, or of our Savior. For the words of Christ are, that they should baptize, or dip those whom they made disciples to him (for so, no doubt, the word Baptizein properly signifies)."

41. Bishop William Sherlock (Episcopalian). "Baptism, or an immersion into water, according to the ancient rite of administering it, is a figure of our burial with Christ, and of our conformity to His death." (Quoted in E. T. Hiscox, New Directory for Baptist Churches, p. 404.)

42. Samuel Clarke (Episcopalian). Exposition of Church Catechism, p. 294: "In the primitive times the manner of baptizing was by immersion or dipping the whole body into water."

43. Bloomfield (Episcopalian). Recens. Synop. On Romans 6:4: "Here is a plain allusion to the ancient custom of baptizing by immersion and I agree with Koppe and Rosenmuller, that there is reason to regret it should ever have been abandoned in most Christian churches, especially as it has so evident a reference to the mystic sense of baptism."

44. Prof. Browne (Episcopalian), in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Art. Bap. Sup: "The language of the New Testament and of the primitive Fathers sufficiently point to immersion as the common mode of baptism."

45. G. A. Jacob (Episcopalian). Eccl. Polity of the New Testament, p. 258: "It only remains to be observed that baptism, in the primitive Church, was evidently administered by immersion of the body in water—a mode which added to the significancy of the rite, and gave a peculiar force to some of the allusions to it."

46. Abp. Tillotson (Episcopalian). Works, Vol. I, p. 179: "Anciently those who were baptized were immersed, and buried in the water, to represent their death to sin; and then did rise up out of the water to signify their entrance upon a new life. And to these customs the Apostle alludes."

47. Benson (Episcopalian). Comment on Romans 6:4: "Buried with Him by baptism-alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion."

48. Bishop Fell (Episcopalian). Note on Romans 6:4: "The primitive fashion of immersion under the water, representing our death, and elevation again out of it, our resurrection or regeneration."

49. Sir John Floyer (Episcopalian). History of Cold Bathing, pp. 15, 61: "The church of Rome hath drawn short compendiums of both sacraments; in the eucharist, they use only the wafer; and instead of immersion, they introduced aspersion...I have given now what testimony I could find in our English authors, to prove the practice of immersion from the time the Britons and Saxons were baptized till King James’ days; when the people grew peevish with all ancient ceremonies, and through the love of novelty, and the niceness of parents, and the pretense of modesty, they laid aside immersion."

50. W. F. Hook (Episcopalian). Church Directory (1854): "In performing the ceremony of baptism the usual custom was to immerse and dip the whole body."

51. J. H. Blunt (Episcopalian). Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology (1870): "The primitive mode of baptizing was by immersion, as we learn from the clear testimony of holy scriptures of the fathers."

52. Wilson (Episcopalian). Christian Dictionary, Art. Baptism: "To baptize, to dip one into water, to plunge one into water."

53. A. R. Fausset (Episcopalian). Critical and Experimental Commentary, on Colossians 2:12: "Baptism is the burial of the old carnal life, to which immersion symbolically corresponds: in warm climates, where immersion is safe, it is the mode most accordant with the significance of the ordinance."

54. John Calvin (Founder of the Presbyterian Church). Institutes of the Christian Religion, B. IV, ch. 15, on Baptism, 19: "The word baptize itself signifies immerse, and it is certain that the rite of immersion was observed by the ancient church."

55. Philip Schaff (American Presbyterian). History of the Apostolic Church, p. 570: "Respecting the form of baptism, therefore (quite otherwise with the much more important difference respecting the subject of baptism, or infant baptism), the impartial historian is compelled by exegesis and history, ‘substantially to yield the point to the Baptists, as is done, in fact (perhaps somewhat too decidedly, and without true regard to the arguments just stated for the other practice), by most German scholars."

56. J. Cunningham (Scotch Presbyterian). Growth of the Church, P. 173: "Baptism means immersion and it was immersion. The Hebrews immersed their proselytes; the Essenes took their daily baths; John plunged his penitents into the Jordan; Peter dipped his crowd of converts into one of the great pools which were to be found in Jerusalem. Unless it had been so, Paul’s analogical argument about our being buried with Christ in Baptism would have had no meaning. Nothing could have been simpler than baptism in its first form."

57. MacKnight (Scotch Presbyterian): "He submitted to be baptized—that is, to be buried under the water by John, and to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of His future death and resurrection." (Quoted in J. R. Graves, John’s Baptism, p. 216.)

58. Chalmers (Scotch Presbyterian): "The original meaning of the word baptism is immersion and we doubt not that the prevalent style of the administration in the apostles’ days was by an actual submerging of the whole body under water." (Quoted in J. R. Graves, John’s Baptism, p. 216.)

59. George Campbell (Scotch Presbyterian). Translation of the Four Gospels, Note on Matt. 4:11: "The word Baptizein, both in sacred writers and classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse; and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, tingere, the term used for dying cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning."

60. Theodore Beza (Presbyterian). Annotations on Matthew 7:4; Acts 19:3; Matthew 3:2: "Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain immersion is signified."

61. Assembly of Divines (Presbyterian). Annotations on Matthew 3:6; Romans 6:4: "In this phrase (Col. 2:12) the Apostle seemeth to allude to the ancient manner of baptism, which was to dip the parties baptized, and, as it were, to bury them under the water for a while, and then to draw them out of it, and lift them up. To represent the burial of our old man, and our resurrection to newness of life."

62. Leigh (Presbyterian). Critica Sacra, on Acts 8:38: "The native and proper signification of it is, to dip into water, or to plunge under water."

63. Giovanni Diodati (Presbyterian). Annotations on Matthew 3:6: "Baptized—that is to say, ducked in the water, for a sacred sign and seal of the expiation and remission of sins."

64. G. J. Vossius (Presbyterian). Disputat. De Bapt. Disp. I, Thes. I, p. 25: "Baptizein, to baptize, signifies to plunge. It certainly therefore signifies more than epipolazein, which is, to swim lightly on the top; and less than dunein, which is, to sink to the bottom, so as to be destroyed."

65. John Wesley (Founder of the Methodist Church). Note on Rom. 6:4: "Buried with Him—alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." From Wesley’s Journal, from his embarking for Georgia, p. 11: "Mary Welsh, aged eleven days, was baptized according to the custom of the first church, and the rule of the church of England, by immersion."

66. Adam Clarke (Methodist). Comment on Romans 6:4: "It is probable that the Apostle here alludes to the mode of administering baptism by immersion, the whole body being put under water."

67. George Whitefield (Methodist). Eighteen Sermons, p. 297: "It is certain that in the words of our text (Rom. 6:3-4) there is an allusion to the manner of baptism, which was by immersion."

68. J. C. L Gieseler (Methodist). Eccl. Hist., First Period, Div. III (A. D. 193-324), ch. 4, para. 71: "The condition of catechumen usually continued several years; but the catechumens often deferred even baptism as long as possible on account of the remission of sins by which it was to be accomplished. Hence it was often necessary to baptize the sick; and for them, the rite of sprinkling was introduced."

69. G. P. Fisher (Congregationalist). The Beginnings Of Christianity, p. 565: "Baptism, it is now generally agreed among scholars, was commonly by immersion."

70. Coleman (Congregationalist). Antiquities: "In the primitive Church, immersion was undeniably the common mode of baptism."

71. Moses Stuart (Congregationalist). Essay on Baptism, p. 51: "Baptism means to dip, plunge, or immerse into any liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed on this."

72. Doddridge (Congregationalist). Family Expositor on Romans 6:4: "It seems the part of candor to confess, that here is an allusion to the manner of baptizing by immersion, as most usual in those early times."

73. Waddington (Congregationalist). Church History, Ch. 2, sect. 3: "The sacraments of the primitive Church were two: that of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The ceremony of immersion, the oldest form of baptism, was performed in the name of the three persons of the Trinity."

74. Leonard Woods (Congregationalist). Lectures: "Our Baptist brethren undertake to prove from ecclesiastical history, that immersion was the prevailing mode of baptism in the ages following the Apostles. I acknowledge that ecclesiastical history clearly proves this."

75. L. L. Paine (Congregationalist). Professor of Eccl. Hist. in Bangor Theological Seminary: "It may be honestly asked, by some, was immersion the primitive form of baptism, and if so, what then? As to the question of fact, the testimony is ample and decisive. No matter of Church history is clearer. The evidence is all one way, and all Church historians of any repute agree in accepting it...It is a point on which ancient, mediaeval and modern historians alike—Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Calvinist have no controversy...But on this one, of the early practice of immersion, the most distinguished antiquarians, such as Bingham, Augusti (Coleman), Smith (Dictionary of the Bible), and historians such as Mosheim, Gieseler, Hase, Neander, Milman, Schaff, Alzog (Catholic), hold a common language." (Quoted in J. R. Graves, Act of Baptism, pp. 20-21. Dr. Paine further says: "Any scholar who denies that immersion was the baptism of the Christian church for thirteen centuries betrays UTTER IGNORANCE or SECTARIAN BLINDNESS." (Quoted by Graves, ibid, p. 33.)

76. Zwingli (Swiss Reformer). Annotations on Rom. 6:3: "Into his death." "When ye were immersed into the water of baptism, ye were engrafted into the death of Christ; that is, the immersion of your body into water was a sign, that ye ought to be engrafted into Christ and his death, that as Christ died and was buried, ye also may be dead to the flesh and the old man, that is, to yourselves."

77. Philip Melanchthon (German Reformer). Catec. Wit. (1580): "Baptism is immersion into water, which is made with this admirable benediction."

78. Matthew Poole (Episcopalian). Annotations on John 3:23: "It is apparent that both Christ and John baptized by dipping the body in the water, else they need not have sought places where had been a great plenty of water."

79. Turretin (Swiss Calvinist). Institut. Loc. 19, quaes. 11, sec. 4: "The word baptism is of Greek origin, and is derived from the verb Bapto; which signifies to dip, and to dye; Baptizein, to baptize; to dip into, to immerse...Hence it appears, that Baptizein is more than epipolazein, which is to swim lightly on the surface; and less than dunein, which is to go down to the bottom; that is, to strike the bottom so as to be destroyed."

80. Limborch (Dutch Arminian). Complete System of Divinity, Book V, chap. 27, Sect. l. Comment on Romans 6:4: "Baptism, then, consisting in washing, or rather immersing the whole body into water, as was customary in the primitive times...The apostle alludes to the manner of baptizing, not as practiced at this day, which is performed by sprinkling of water; but as administered of old, in the primitive church, by immersing the whole body in water, a short continuance in the water, and a speedy emersion out of the water."

81. J. J. Wetstein (Bible Critic). Comment on Matthew 3:6: "To baptize, is to plunge, to dip: The body, or part of the body, being under water, is said to be baptized."

82. Geikie, Life and Words of Christ, Vol. I, p. 405, says of John: "He led them in groups to the Jordan, and immersed each singly in the waters, after earnest and full confession of their sins."

83. Curcellaeus, Relig. Christ. Institut., Book V, chap. 2: "Baptism was performed by plunging the whole body into water, not by sprinkling a few drops, as is now the practice. For ‘John was baptizing in Aenon, near to Salim, because there was much water; and they came and were baptized,’ (John 3:23). Nor did the disciples that were sent out by Christ administer baptism afterwards in any other way: and this is more agreeable to the signification of the ordinance (Rom. 6:4)."

84: Hugo Grotius (Arminian). Synops. Ad. Matthew 3:6: "That baptism used to be performed by immersion, and not by pouring, appears both from the proper signification of the word, and the places chosen for the administration of the rite, (John 3:23; Acts 8:38); and also from the many allusions of the apostles, which cannot be referred to sprinkling, (Rom. 6:3, 4; Col. 2:12)."

85. Zanchius, Works, Vol. VI, p. 217: "Baptism is a Greek word, and signifies two things; first, and properly, immersion in water: for the proper signification of Baptizo, is to immerse, to plunge under, to overwhelm in water."

86. Joseph Mede, Discourse on Titus 3:5, in Works, p. 63 (Edit. 1677): "There was no such thing as sprinkling, or rantismos, used in baptism in the apostles’ days, nor many ages after them."

87. Vitringa, Aphorismi Sanct. Theolog., Aphorism 884: "The act of baptizing, is the immersion of believers in water. This expresses the force of the word. Thus also it was performed by Christ and the apostles."

88. Storr and Flatt, Biblical Theology, Book IV, sect. 109, para. 4: "The disciples of our Lord could understand His command in no other way than as enjoining immersion, for the baptism of John, to which Jesus Himself submitted, and also the earlier baptism of the disciples of Jesus, were performed by dipping the subject into cold water."

89. G. B. Winer (German Protestant). Manuscript Lectures on Christian Antiquities: "In the apostolic age, baptism was by immersion, as its symbolical explanation shows."

90. Rheinwald, archaeology, p. 303, note. 1 (1830): "Immersion was the original apostolical practice."

91. August Hahn (German Protestant). Theology, p. 556: "According to apostolical instruction and example, baptism was performed by immersing the whole man."

92. Starch, History of Baptism, p. 8: "In regard to the mode, there can be no doubt, that it was not by sprinkling, but by immersion."

93. Von Coelln, History of Theological Opinions, Vol. I, p. 203: "Immersion in water was general until the thirteenth century; but among the Latins it was displaced by sprinkling; but retained by the Greeks."

94. Claudius Salmasius (French Protestant). De Caesarie Virorum, p. 669: "Baptism is immersion; and was administered, in ancient times, according to the force and meaning of the word. Now it is only rantism or sprinkling; not immersion, or dipping." Apud Witsium, Oecon. Foed., Book IV, chap. 16, sec. 13: "The ancients did not baptize otherwise than by immersion, either once or thrice."

95. Jean Daille (French Protestant). Right Use of the Fathers, Book II, p. 148: "It was a custom heretofore in the ancient church, to plunge those they baptized over head and ears in the water...This is still the practice, both of the Greek and the Russian church, even at this very day:"

96. Danish Catechism, On Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:15-16: "What is implied in these words? A command to the dipper and the dipped, with a promise of salvation to those that believe. How is this Christian dipping to be administered? The person must be deep-dipped in water, or overwhelmed with it." (Quoted in Abraham Booth, Pedobaptism Examined, Vol. I, p. 42.)

97. Magdeburg Centuriators (Lutheran). Century I, Book 2, chap. 4: "The word Baptizo, to baptize, which signifies immersion into water, proves that the administrator of baptism immersed, or washed, the persons baptized in water."

98. John Owen, in Ridgley’s Body of Divinity, quest. 166, p. 608, note: "Though the original and natural signification of the word imports, to dip, to plunge, to dye; yet it also signifies to wash or cleanse."

99: Articles of Smaldcald (Lutheran): "Baptism is no other than the word of God, with plunging into water according to his appointment and command."

100. Robert Barclay (Quaker. The Quakers do not practice a literal water baptism of any sort, and should therefore be considered impartial witnesses). Apology, Proposition 12, sect. 10: "Baptizo signifies immergo; that is, to plunge and dip in; and that was the proper use of water baptism among the Jews, and also by John and the primitive Christians, who used lt."

101. John Gratton (Quaker). Life of John Gratton, p. 231: "John did baptize into water; and it was a baptism, a real dipping, or plunging into water, and so, a real baptism was John’s."

102. Thomas Ellwood (Quaker). Sacred History of the New Testament, Part II, p. 307; speaking of Pentecost says: "They were now baptized with the Holy Ghost indeed; and that in the strict and proper sense of the word baptize; which signifies to dip, plunge, or put under."

103. William Penn (Quaker). Defense of Gospel Truths, against the Bishop of Cork, p. 82-83: "I cannot see why the bishop should assume the power of unchristianing us, for not practicing of that which he himself practices so unscripturally, and that according to the sentiments of a considerable part of Christendom; having not one text of scripture to prove that sprinkling in the face was water baptism,—in the first times.—Then it was in the river Jordan; now in a basin."

104. Thomas Lawson (Quaker). Baptismalogia, p. 117,. 118: "Such as rhantize, or sprinkle infants, have no command from Christ, nor example among the apostles, nor the first primitive Christians, for so doing...The ceremony of John’s ministration, according to divine institution, was by dipping, plunging, or overwhelming their bodies in water."

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Secondly, how do you respond to the historic exegetical claims (i.e. John Murray, and others) who argue "baptidzo" does not in fact mean "immerse" but "ceremonial washing" which could be done by immersion but historically were also done by sprinkling or pouring?

Patrick,

Do you realize that Baptists are not the only ones being insistent upon the mode of immersion? The ancient Eastern Church still practices immersion to this day (Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.). I’ve noticed on the PB when the issue of immersion comes up, those arguing against immersion are totally oblivious to the existence and history of the Eastern Church and think only in terms of the Western Church.

A couple of questions relating to the mode of baptism and the Eastern Church:

1. Why do the Eastern churches practice immersion?
   
2. Did they practice pouring and sprinkling originally and then fell away to immersion?

No one denies that immersion is one way to baptize (as all the quotes Ralph provided illustrate), and that some ceremonial washings were done that way before in Judaism. I want to understand why our baptist brothers go a step further to immersion-only exegetically, especially given the broader meaning and comparisons of "baptism" to other pictures of cleansing in Scripture as I noted above. Unfortunately, the baptist materials I have read so far don't deal with these more specific exegetical questions. Thus, my posting here....

 

[refbaptdude]

No one denies that immersion is one way to baptize

Patrick,

There are actually some paedobaptists like Jay Adams and a few others who deny immersion as a valid mode of baptism.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

No one denies that immersion is one way to baptize

Patrick,

There are actually some paedobaptists like Jay Adams and a few others who deny immersion as a valid mode of baptism.

That may be the case, but it's not the historic Presbyterian/Reformed view, (nor the Confessional view), which is where I'm coming from. I'm fine with all three modes. I'm just trying to understand my baptist brothers better.

 

[bug]

Appendic B, of Fred Malone's book, the baptism of disciples alone, does a pretty good job of refuting Murray's exegesis, he looks at etymology, then also the verb forms before cosnidering the relevant texts. It is too much for me repeat it all here, but the book is really worth reading!

 

[refbaptdude]

Patrick,
The Baptists works defending immersion exegetically are numerous, see an excerpt from AH Strong below. Any Baptistic systematic theology like Wayne Grudems, JL Dagg contains such defenses.

2. The Mode of Baptism.
This is immersion, and immersion only. This appears from the following considerations:

A. The command to baptize is a command to immerse.—We show this:
(a) From the meaning of the original word βαπτίζω. That this is to immerse, appears:

First,—from the usage of Greek writers—including the church Fathers, when they do not speak of the Christian rite, and the authors of the Greek version of the Old Testament.
Liddell and Scott, Greek Lexicon: “βαπτίζω, to dip in or under water; Lat. immergere.” Sophocles, Lexicon of Greek Usage in the Roman and Byzantine Periods, 140 B.C. to 1000 A.D.—“βαπτίζω, to dip, to immerse, to sink..…There is no evidence that Luke and Paul and the other writers of the N. T. put upon this verb meanings not recognized by the Greeks.” Thayer, N. T. Lexicon: “βαπτίζω, literally to dip, to dip repeatedly, to immerge, to submerge,.…metaphorically, to overwhelm..…βάπτισμα, immersion, submersion.…a rite of sacred immersion commanded by Christ.” Prof. Goodwin of Harvard University, Feb. 13, 1895, says: “The classical meaning of βαπτίζω, which seldom occurs, and of the more common βάπτω, is dip (literally or metaphorically), and I never heard of its having any other meaning anywhere. Certainly I never saw a lexicon which gives either sprinkle or pour, as meanings of either. I must be allowed to ask why I am so often asked this question, which seems to me to have but one perfectly plain answer.”

In the International Critical Commentary, see Plummer on Luke, p. 86—“It is only when baptism is administered by immersion that its full significance is seen”; Abbott on Colossians, p. 251—“The figure was naturally suggested by the immersion in baptism”; see also Gould on Mark, p. 127; Sanday on Romans, p. 154–157. No one of these four Commentaries was written by a Baptist. The two latest English Bible Dictionaries agree upon this point. Hastings, Bib. Dict., art.: Baptism, p. 243a—“The mode of using was commonly immersion. The symbolism of the ordinance required this”; Cheyne, Encyc. Biblica, 1:473, while arguing from the Didache that from a very early date “a triple pouring was admitted where a sufficiency of water could not be had,” agrees that “such a method [as immersion] is presupposed as the ideal, at any rate, in Paul’s words about death, burial and resurrection in baptism (Rom. 6:3–5).”

Conant, Appendix to Bible Union Version of Matthew, 1–64, has examples “drawn from writers in almost every department of literature and science; from poets, rhetoricians, philosophers, critics, historians, geographers; from writers on husbandry, on medicine, on natural history, on grammar, on theology; from almost every form and style of composition, romances, epistles, orations, fables, odes, epigrams, sermons, narratives: from writers of various nations and religions. Pagan, Jew, and Christian, belonging to many countries and through a long succession of ages. In all, the word has retained its ground-meaning without change. From the earliest age of Greek literature down to its close, a period of nearly two thousand years, not an example has been found in which the word has any other meaning. There is no instance in which it signifies to make a partial application of water by affusion or sprinkling, or to cleanse, to purify, apart from the literal act of immersion as the means of cleansing or purifying.” See Stuart, in Bib. Repos., 1833:313; Broadus on Immersion, 57, note.

Dale, in his Classic, Judaic, Christic, and Patristic Baptism, maintains that βάπτω alone means ‘to dip,’ and that βαπτίζω never means ‘to dip,’ but only ‘to put within,’ giving no intimation that the object is to be taken out again. But see Review of Dale, by A. C. Kendrick, in Bap. Quarterly, 1869:129, and by Harvey, in Bap. Review, 1879:141–163. “Plutarch used the word βαπτίζω, when he describes the soldiers of Alexander on a riotous march as by the roadside dipping (lit.: baptizing) with cups from huge wine Jars and mixing bowls, and drinking to one another. Here we have βαπτίζω used where Dr. Dale’s theory would call for βάπτω. The truth is that βαπτίζω, the stronger word, came to be used in the same sense with the weaker; and the attempt to prove a broad and invariable difference of meaning between them breaks down. Of Dr. Dale’s three meanings of βαπτίζω—(1) intusposition without influence (stone in water), (2) intus-position with influence (man drowned in water), (3) influence without intusposition,—the last is a figment of Dr. Dale’s imagination. It would allow me to say that when I burned a piece of paper, I baptized it. The grand result is this: Beginning with the position that baptize means immerse, Dr. Dale ends by maintaining that immersion is not baptism. Because Christ speaks of drinking a cup, Dr. Dale infers that this is baptism.” For a complete reply to Dale, see Ford, Studies on Baptism.

Secondly,—every passage where the word occurs in the New Testament either requires or allows the meaning ‘immerse.’
Mat. 3:6, 11—“I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance.…he shall baptize you in the holy Spirit and in fire”; cf. 2 Kings 5:14—“Then went he [Naaman] down, and dipped himself [ἐβαπτίσατο] seven times in the Jordan”; Mark 1:5, 9—“they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins..…Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John into the Jordan”; 7:4—“and when they come from the market-place, except they bathe [lit.: ‘baptize’] themselves, they eat not: and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings [lit.: ‘baptizings’] of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels”—in this verse, Westcott and Hort, with א and B, read ῥαντίσωνται, instead of βαπτίσωνται; but it is easy to see how subsequent ignorance of Pharisaic scrupulousness might have changed βαπτίσωνται into ῥαντίσωνται; but not easy to see how ῥαντίσωνται should have been changed into βαπτίσωνται. On Mat. 15:2 (and the parallel passage Mark 7:4), see Broadus, Com. on Mat., pages 332, 333. Herodotus, 2:47, says that if any Egyptian touches a swine in passing, with his clothes, he goes to the river and dips himself from it.

Meyer, Com. in loco—“ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται is not to be understood of washing the hands (Lightfoot, Wetstein), but of immersion, which the word in classic Greek and in the N. T. everywhere means; here, according to the context, to take a bath.” The Revised Version omits the words “and couches,” although Maimonides speaks of a Jewish immersion of couches; see quotation from Maimonides in Ingham, Handbook of Baptism, 373—“Whenever in the law washing of the flesh or of the clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else than the dipping of the whole body in a laver; for if any man dip himself all over except the tip of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness..…A bed that is wholly defiled, if a man dip it part by part, it is pure.” Watson, in Annotated Par. Bible, 1126.

Luke 11:38—“And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first bathed [lit.: ‘baptized’] himself before dinner”; cf. Ecclesiasticus 31:25—“He that washeth himself after the touching of a dead body” (βαπτιζόμενος ἀπὸ νεκροῦ); Judith 12:7—“washed herself [ἐβαπτίζετο] in a fountain of water by the camp”; Lev. 22:4–6—“Whoso toucheth anything that is unclean by the dead.…unclean until the even.…bathe his flesh in water.” Acts 2:41—“They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls.” Although the water supply of Jerusalem is naturally poor, the artificial provision of aqueducts, cisterns, and tanks, made water abundant. During the siege of Titus, though thousands died of famine, we read of no suffering from lack of water. The following are the dimensions of pools in modern Jerusalem: King’s Pool, 15 feet x 16 x 3; Siloam, 53 x 18 x 19; Hezekiah, 240 x 140 x 10; Bethesda (so-called), 360 x 130 x 75; Upper Gihon, 316 x 218 x 19; Lower Gihon, 592 x 260 x 18; see Robinson, Biblical Researches, 1:323–348, and Samson, Water-supply of Jerusalem, pub. by Am. Bap. Pub. Soc. There was no difficulty in baptizing three thousand in one day; for, in the time of Chrysostom, when all candidates of the year were baptized in a single day, three thousand were once baptized; and, on July 3, 1878, 2222 Telugu Christians were baptized by two administrators in nine hours. These Telugu baptisms took place at Velumpilly, ten miles north of Ongole. The same two men did not baptize all the time. There were six men engaged in baptizing, but never more than two men at the same time.

Acts 16:33—“And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately”—the prison was doubtless, as are most large edifices in the East, whether public or private, provided with tank and fountain. See Cremer, Lexicon of N. T Greek, sub voce—“βαπτίζω, immersion or submersion for a religious purpose.” Grimm’s ed. of Wilke—“βαπτίζω, 1. Immerse, submerge; 2. Wash or bathe, by immersing or submerging (Mark 7:4, also Naaman and Judith); 3. Figuratively, to overwhelm, as with debts, misfortunes, etc.” In the N. T. rite, he says it denotes “an immersion in water, intended as a sign of sins washed away, and received by those who wished to be admitted to the benefits of Messiah’s reign.”

Döllinger, Kirche und Kirchen, 337—“The Baptists are, however, from the Protes tant point of view, unassailable, since for their demand of baptism by submersion they have the clear Bible text; and the authority of the church and of her testimony is not regarded by either party”—i. e., by either Baptists or Protestants, generally. Prof. Harnack, of Giessen, writes in the Independent, Feb. 19, 1885—“1. Baptizein undoubtedly signifies immersion (eintauchen). 2. No proof can be found that it signifies anything else in the N. T. and in the most ancient Christian literature. The suggestion regarding a ‘sacred sense’ is out of the question. 3. There is no passage in the N. T. which suggests the supposition that any New Testament author attached to the word baptizein any other sense than eintauchen = untertauchen (immerse, submerge).” See Com. of Meyer, and Cunningham, Croall Lectures.

Thirdly,—the absence of any use of the word in the passive voice with ‘water’ as its subject confirms our conclusion that its meaning is “to immerse.” Water is never said to be baptized upon a man.

(b) From the use of the verb βαπτίζω with prepositions:

First,—with εἰς (Mark 1:9—where Ἰορδάνην is the element into which the person passes in the act of being baptized).
Mark 1:9, marg.—“And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John into the Jordan.”

Secondly,—with ἐν (Mark 1:5, 8; cf. Mat. 3:11. John 1:26, 31, 33; cf. Acts 2:2, 4). In these texts, ἐν is to be taken, not instrumentally, but as indicating the element in which the immersion takes place.

Mark 1:5, 8—“they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.…I baptized you in water; but he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit”—here see Meyer’s Com. on Mat. 3:11—“ἐν is in accordance with the meaning: of βαπτίζω (immerse), not to be understood instrumentally, but on the contrary, in the sense of the element in which the immersion takes place.” Those who pray for a ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ pray for such a pouring out of the Spirit as shall fill the place and permit them to be flooded or immersed in his abundant presence and power; see C. E. Smith, Baptism of Fire, 1881:305–311. Plumptre: “The baptism with the Holy Ghost would imply that the souls thus baptized would be plunged, as it were, in that creative and informing Spirit, which was the source of light and holiness and wisdom.”
A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 67—“The upper room became the Spirit’s baptistery. His presence ‘filled all the house where they were sitting’ (Acts 2:2)..…Baptism in the Holy Spirit was given once for all on the day of Pentecost, when the Paraclete came in person to make his abode in the church. It does not follow that every believer has received this baptism. God’s gift is one thing,—our appropriation of that gift is quite another thing. Our relation to the second and to the third persons of the Godhead is exactly parallel in this respect. ‘God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son’ (John 3:16). ‘But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name’ (John 1:12). We are required to appropriate the Spirit as sons, in the same way that we are required to appropriate Christ as sinners.…‘He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye’—take ye, actively—‘the Holy Spirit’ (John 20:22).”

(c) From circumstances attending the administration of the ordinance (Mark 1:10—ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος; John 3:23—ὕδατα πολλά; Acts 8:38, 39—κατέβησαν εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ.…ἀνέβησαν ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος).

Mark 1:10—“coming up out of the water”; John 3:23—“And John also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much water there”—a sufficient depth of water for baptizing; see Prof. W. A. Stevens, on Ænon near to Salim, in Journ. Soc. of Bib. Lit. and Exegesis, Dec. 1883. Acts 8:38, 39—“and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water..…” In the case of Philip and the eunuch, President Timothy Dwight, in S. S. Times, Aug. 27, 1892, says: “The baptism was apparently by immersion.” The Editor adds that “practically scholars are agreed that the primitive meaning of the word ‘baptize’ was to immerse.”

(d) From figurative allusions to the ordinance.

Mark 10:38—“Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?”—here the cup is the cup of suffering in Gethsemane; cf. Luke 22:42—“Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me”; and the baptism is the baptism of death on Calvary, and of the grave that was to follow; cf. Luke 12:50—“I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!” Death presented itself to the Savior’s mind as a baptism, because it was a sinking under the floods of suffering. Rom. 6:4—“We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life”—Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, say, on this passage, that “it cannot be understood without remembering that the primitive method of baptism was by immersion.” On Luke 12:49, marg.—“I came to cast fire upon the earth, and how would I that it were already kindled !”—see Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:225—“He knew that he was called to bring a new energy and movement into the world, which mightily seizes and draws everything towards it, as a hurled firebrand, which whereever it falls kindles a flame which expands into a vast sea of fire”—the baptism of fire, the baptism in the Holy Spirit?
1 Cor. 10:1, 2—“our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea”; Col. 2:12—“having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him”; Heb. 10:22—“having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and having our body washed [λελουμένοι] with pure water”—here Trench, N. T, Synonyms, 216, 217, says that “λούω implies always, not the bathing of a part of of the body, but of the whole.” 1 Pet. 3:20, 21—“saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”—as the ark whose sides were immersed in water saved Noah, so the immersion of believers typically saves them; that is, the answer of a good conscience, the turning of the soul to God, which baptism symbolizes. “In the ritual of Moses and Aaron, three things were used: oil, blood, and water. The oil was poured, the blood was sprinkled, the water was used for complete ablution first of all, and subsequently for partial ablution to those to whom complete ablution had been previously administered ” (Wm. Ashmore).

(e) From the testimony of church history as to the practice of the early church.

Tertullian, De Baptismo, chap. 12—“Others make the suggestion (forced enough, clearly) that the apostles then served the turn of baptism when in their little ship they were sprinkled and covered with the waves; that Peter himself also was immersed enough when he walked on the sea. It is however, as I think, one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea; another thing to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion.” Fisher, Beginnings of Christianity, 565—“Baptism, it is now generally agreed among scholars, was commonly administered by immersion.” Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church, 570—“Respecting the form of baptism, the impartial historian is compelled by exegesis and history substantially to yield the point to the Baptists.” Elsewhere Dr. Schaff says: “The baptism of Christ in the Jordan, and the illustrations of baptism used in the N. T., are all in favor of immersion, rather than of sprinkling, as is freely admitted by the best exegetes, Catholic and Protestant, English and German. Nothing can be gained by unnatural exegesis. The persistency and aggressiveness of Baptists have driven pedobaptists to opposite extremes.”

Dean Stanley, in his address at Eton College, March, 1879, on Historical Aspects of American Churches, speaks of immersion as “the primitive, apostolical, and, till the 13th century, the universal, mode of baptism, which is still retained throughout the Eastern churches, and which is still in our own church as positively enjoined in theory as it is universally neglected in practice.” The same writer, in the Nineteenth Century, Oct. 1879, says that “the change from immersion to sprinkling has set aside the larger part of the apostolic language regarding baptism, and has altered the very meaning of the word.” Neander, Church Hist., 1:310—“In respect to the form of baptism, it was, in conformity with the original institution and the original import of the symbol, performed by immersion, as a sign of entire baptism into the Holy Spirit, of being entirely penetrated by the same..…It was only with the sick, where exigency required it, that any exception was made. Then it was administered by sprinkling; but many superstitious persons imagined such sprinkling to be not fully valid, and stigmatized those thus baptized as clinics.”
Until recently, there has been no evidence that clinic baptism, i. e., the baptism of a sick or dying person in bed by pouring water copiously around him, was practised earlier than the time of Novatian, in the third century; and in these cases there is good reason to believe that a regenerating efficacy was ascribed to the ordinance. We are now, however, compelled to recognize a departure from N. T. precedent somewhat further back. Important testimony is that of Prof. Harnack, of Giessen, in the Independent of Feb. 19, 1885—“Up to the present moment we possess no certain proof from the period of the second century, in favor of the fact that baptism by aspersion was then even facultatively administered; for Tertullian (De Pœnit., 6, and De Baptismo, 12) is uncertain; and the age of those pictures upon which is represented a baptism by aspersion is not certain. The ‘Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,’ however, has now instructed us that already, in very early times, people in the church took no offence when aspersion was put in place of immersion, when any kind of outward circumstances might render immersion impossible or impracticable..…But the rule was also certainly maintained that immersion was obligatory if the outward conditions of such a performance were at hand.” This seems to show that, while the corruption of the N. T. rite began soon after the death of the apostles, baptism by any other form than immersion was even then a rare exception, which those who introduced the change sought to justify upon the plea of necessity. See Schaff, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 29–57, and other testimony in Coleman, Christian Antiquities, 275; Stuart, in Bib. Repos., 1883:355–363.

The ‘Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,’ section 7, reads as follows: “Baptize..…in living water. And if thou have no living water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. And if thou have neither, pour water upon the head thrice.” Here it is evident that ‘baptize’ means only ‘immerse,’ but if water be scarce pouring may be substituted for baptism. Dr. A. H. Newman, Antipedobaptism, 5, says that ‘The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles’ may possibly belong to the second half of the second century, but in its present form is probably much later. It does not explicitly teach baptismal regeneration, but this view seems to be implied in the requirement, in case of an absolute lack of a sufficiency of water of any kind for baptism proper, that pouring water on the head three times be resorted to as a substitute. Catechetical instruction, repentance, fasting, and prayer, must precede the baptismal rite.

Dexter, in his True Story of John Smyth and Sebaptism, maintains that immersion was a new thing in England in 1641. But if so, it was new, as Congregationalism was new—a newly restored practice and ordinance of apostolic times. For reply to Dexter, see Long, in Bap. Rev., Jan. 1883:12, 13, who tells us, on the authority of Blunt’s Ann. Book of Com. Prayer, that from 1085 to 1549, the ‘Salisbury Use’ was the accepted mode, and this provided for the child’s trine immersion. “The Prayerbook of Edward VI succeeded to the Salisbury Use in 1549; but in this too immersion has the place of honor—affusion is only for the weak. The English church has never sanctioned sprinkling (Blunt, 226). In 1664, the Westminster Assembly said ‘sprinkle or pour,’ thus annulling what Christ commanded 1600 years before. Queen Elizabeth was immersed in 1533. If in 1641 immersion had been so generally and so long disused that men saw it with wonder and regarded it as a novelty, then the more distinct, emphatic, and peculiarly their own was the work of the Baptists. They come before the world, with no partners, or rivals, or abettors, or sympathizers, as the restorers and preservers of Christian baptism.”

(f) From the doctrine and practice of the Greek church.
De Stourdza, the greatest modern theologian of the Greek church, writes: “βαπτίζω signifies literally and always ‘to plunge.’ Baptism and immersion are therefore identical, and to say ‘baptism by aspersion’ is as if one should say ‘immersion by aspersion,’ or any other absurdity of the same nature. The Greek church maintain that the Latin church, instead of a βαπτισμός, practice a mere ῥαντισμός—instead of baptism, a mere sprinkling”—quoted in Conant on Mat., appendix, 99. See also Broadus on Immersion, 18.

The evidence that immersion is the original mode of baptism is well summed up by Dr. Marcus Dods, in his article on Baptism in Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ and the Apostles. Dr. Dods defines baptism as “a rite wherein by immersion in water the participant symbolizes and signalizes his transition from an impure to a pure life, his death to a past he abandons, and his birth to a future he desires.” As regards the “mode of baptism,” he remarks: “That the normal mode was by immersion of the whole body may be inferred (a) from the meaning of baptizo, which is the intensive or frequentative form of bapto, ‘I dip,’ and denotes to immerse or submerge—the point is, that ‘dip’ or ‘immerse’ is the primary, ‘wash’ the secondary meaning of bapto or baptizo. (b) The same inference may be drawn from the law laid down regarding the baptism of proselytes: ‘As soon as he grows whole of the wound of circumcision, they bring him to baptism, and being placed in the water, they again instruct him in some weightier and in some lighter commands of the Law, which being heard, he plunges himself and comes up, and behold, he is an Israelite in all things’ (Lightfoot’s Horæ Hebraicæ). To use Pauline language, his old man is dead and buried in water, and he rises from this cleansing grave a new man. The full significance of the rite would have been lost had immersion not been practised. Again, it was required in proselyte baptism that ‘every person baptized must dip his whole body, now stripped and made naked, at one dipping. And wheresoever in the Law washing of the body or garments is mentioned, it means nothing else than the washing of the whole body.’ (c) That immersion was the mode of baptism adopted by John is the natural conclusion from his choosing the neighborhood of the Jordan as the scene of his labors; and from the statement of John 3:23 that he was baptizing in Enon ‘because there was much water there.’ (d) That this form was continued in the Christian Church appears from the expression Loutron palingenesias (bath of regeneration, Titus 3:5), and from the use made by St. Paul in Romans 6 of the symbolism. This is well put by Bingham (Antiquities xi. 2).” The author quotes Bingham to the effect that “total immersion under water ” was the universal practice during the early Christian centuries “except in some particular cases of exigence, wherein they allow of sprinkling, as in the case of a clinic baptism, or where there is a scarcity of water.” Dr. Dods continues: “This statement exactly reflects the ideas of the Pauline Epistles and the ‘Didache’ ” (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles).

The prevailing usage of any word determines the sense it bears, when found in a command of Christ. We have seen, not only that the prevailing usage of the Greek language determines the meaning of the word ‘baptize’ to be ‘immerse,’ but that this is its fundamental, constant, and only meaning. The original, command to baptize is therefore a command to immerse.

As evidence that quite diverse sections of the Christian world are coming to recognize the original form of baptism to be immersion, we may cite the fact that a memorial to the late Archbishop of Canterbury has recently been erected in the parish church of Lambeth, and that it is in the shape of a “font-grave,” in which a believer can be buried with Christ in baptism; and also that the Rev. G. Campbell Morgan has had a baptistery constructed in the newly renovated Westminster Congregational Church in London.

Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 2:211—“As in the case of the Lord’s Supper, so did Baptism also first receive its sacramental significance through Paul. As he saw in the immersing under water the symbolical repetition of the death and resurrection of Christ, baptism appeared to him as the act of spiritual dying and renovation, or regeneration, of incorporation into the mystical body of Christ, that ‘new creation.’ As for Paul the baptism of adults only was in question, faith in Christ is already of course presupposed by it, and baptism is just the act in which faith realizes the decisive resolution of giving one’s self up actually as belonging to Christ and his community. Yet the outward act is not on that account a mere semblance of what is already present in faith, but according to the mysticism common to Paul with the whole ancient world, the symbolical act effectuates what it typifies, and therefore in this case the mortification of the carnal man and the animation of the spiritual man.” For the view that sprinkling or pouring constitutes valid baptism, see Hall, Mode of Baptism. Per contra, see Hovey, in Baptist Quarterly, April, 1875; Wayland, Principles and Practices of Baptists, 85; Carson, Noel, Judson, and Pengilly, on Baptism; especially recent and valuable is Burrage, Act of Baptism.

B. No church has the right to modify or dispense with this command of Christ. This is plain:

(a) From the nature of the church. Notice:
First,—that, besides the local church, no other visible church of Christ is known to the New Testament. Secondly,—that the local church is not a legislative, but is simply an executive, body. Only the authority which originally imposed its laws can amend or abrogate them. Thirdly,—that the local church cannot delegate to any organization or council of churches any power which it does not itself rightfully possess. Fourthly,—that the opposite principle puts the church above the Scriptures and above Christ, and would sanction all the usurpations of Rome.

Mat. 5:19—“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”; cf. 2 Sam. 6:7—“And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.” Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part I, 2:4—“Faith, I have been a truant in the law, And never yet could frame my will to it, And therefore frame the law unto my will.” As at the Reformation believers rejoiced to restore communion in both kinds, so we should rejoice to restore baptism as to its subjects and as to its meaning. To administer it to a wailing and resisting infant, or to administer it in any other form than that prescribed by Jesus’ command and example, is to desecrate and destroy the ordinance.

(b) From the nature of God’s command:
First,—as forming a part, not only of the law, but of the fundamental law, of the church of Christ. The power claimed for a church to change it is not only legislative but constitutional. Secondly,—as expressing the wisdom of the Lawgiver. Power to change the command can be claimed for the church, only on the ground that Christ has failed to adapt the ordinance to changing circumstances, and has made obedience to it unnecessarily difficult and humiliating. Thirdly,—as providing in immersion the only adequate symbol of those saving truths of the gospel which both of the ordinances have it for their office to set forth, and without which they become empty ceremonies and forms. In other words, the church has no right to change the method of administering the ordinance, because such a change vacates the ordinance of its essential meaning. As this argument, however, is of such vital importance, we present it more fully in a special discussion of the Symbolism of Baptism.
Abraham Lincoln, in his debates with Douglas, ridiculed the idea that there could be any constitutional way of violating the Constitution. F. L. Anderson: “In human governments we change the constitution to conform to the will of the people; in the divine government we change the will of the people to conform to the Constitution.” For advocacy of the church’s right to modify the form of an ordinance, see Coleridge, Aids to Reflection, in Works, 1:333–348—“Where a ceremony answered, and was intended to answer, several purposes which at its first institution were blended in respect of the time, but which afterward, by change of circumstances, were necessarily disunited, then either the church hath no power or authority delegated to her, or she must be authorized to choose and determine to which of the several purposes the ceremony should be attached.” Baptism, for example, at the first symbolized not only entrance into the church of Christ, but personal faith in him as Savior and Lord. It is assumed that entrance into the church and personal faith are now necessarily disunited. Since baptism is in charge of the church, she can attach baptism to the former, and not to the latter.
We of course deny that the separation of baptism from faith is ever necessary. We maintain, on the contrary, that thus to separate the two is to pervert the ordinance, and to make it teach the doctrine of hereditary church membership and salvation by outward manipulation apart from faith. We say with Dean Stanley (on Baptism, in the Nineteenth Century, Oct. 1879), though not, as he does, with approval, that the change in the method of administering the ordinance shows “how the spirit that lives and moves in human society can override the most sacred ordinances.” We cannot with him call this spirit “the free spirit of Christianity,”—we regard it rather as an evil spirit of disobedience and unbelief. “Baptists are therefore pledged to prosecute the work of the Reformation until the church shall return to the simple forms it possessed under the apostles” (G. M. Stone). See Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles, 234–245.

Objections: 1. Immersion is often impracticable.—We reply that, when really imprac-ticable, it is no longer a duty. Where the will to obey is present, but providential circumstances render outward obedience impossible, Christ takes the will for the deed.
2. It is often dangerous to health and life.—We reply that, when it is really dangerous, it is no longer a duty. But then, we have no warrant for substituting another act for that which Christ has commanded. Duty demands simple delay until it can be administered with safety. It must be remembered that ardent feeling nerves even the body. “Brethren, if your hearts be warm, Ice and snow can do no harm.” The cold climate of Russia does not prevent the universal practice of immersion by the Greek church of that country.
3. It is indecent,—We reply, that there is need of care to prevent exposure, but that with this care there is no indecency, more than in fashionable sea-bathing. The argument is valid only against a careless administration of the ordinance, not against immersion itself.
4. It is inconvenient.—We reply that, in a matter of obedience to Christ, we are not to consult convenience. The ordinance which symbolizes his sacrificial death, and our spiritual death with him, may naturally involve something of inconvenience, but Joy in submitting to that inconvenience will be a test of the spirit of obedience. When the act is performed, it should be performed as Christ enjoined.
5. Other methods of administration have been blessed to those who submitted to them.—We reply that God has often condescended to human ignorance, and has given his Spirit to those who honestly sought to serve him, even by erroneous forms, such as the Mass. This, however, is not to be taken as a divine sanction of the error, much less as a warrant for the perpetuation of a false system on the part of those who know that it is a violation of Christ’s commands. It is, in great part, the position of its advocates, as representatives of Christ and his church, that gives to this false system its power for evil.

Strong, A. H. (2004). Systematic theology. "The present work is a revision and enlargement of my 'Systematic Theology,' first published in 1886."--Pref. (933). Bellingham, Wa.: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

-----Added 10/16/2009 at 08:00:28 EST-----

JL Dagg on Baptism

Founders Ministries | TABLES OF EXAMPLES

 

[jason d]

The best exegesis I have heard for credo-baptism was in a debate you can get the audio here:

Part 2: Dr. Malone’s 40 min. opening statement (MP3)
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X13.../WSC_Events/StrimpleMaloneBaptismDebate.2.mp3

 

[steadfast7]

I may be wrong, but it also doesn't say in the Bible that we must ONLY use bread and wine when taking the Lord's supper, but Christians do so as was shown us by biblical example and by the tradition of the church. I'm sure you would agree that using Snickers and Coke (as I've heard is the practice of some post-modern fellowships) is not appropriate, even though the Bible does not say that bread and wine is the ONLY elements one can use.

Another exegetical argument is Acts 8:36-38

And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" 38And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

The eunuch was reading Isaiah and probably acquainted with the OT, yet discerned baptism needed more water than he had on his person. Surely Philip could have baptized him with whatever flask of water he had in his chariot, but they took the time and effort to find a sufficient body of water.

my thoughts. At any rate, I attend a Presbyterian church. Let's just all get along!

 

[JonathanHunt]

Remember this is a Credo only thread.... NO PAEDOs.

I'm pretty sure that babies aren't allowed to register for the PB.

Why not? Why not? Why do you deny precious covenant children the marvellous privilege of entry into the Puritanboard community by the outward sign of a login?