Luther: Immersion the Best Mode of Baptism

[De Jager]

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

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

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

Consider Mark 1:8

"I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit"

Note what is happening here. The Holy Spirit is being "applied" to a person here. The person is not being applied "into" the Spirit.

But, now consider Galatians 3:27

"For as many of as you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ"

Here, we have a person being applied "into" Christ.

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

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

Signing off,

Izaak

 

[Pergamum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[De Jager]

Pastor Sheffield,

Why did you misinterpret my comment?

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

Your photos do not depict combat conversions on the battlefield.

There are so many circumstances when immersion baptism is impossible.

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

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

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

Do Eskimos never bath?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

There are so many circumstances when immersion baptism is impossible.

"So many"? I rather doubt that.

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

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

 

[Deuteronomy2929]

Do Eskimos never bath?

Is your question serious?

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

Is your question serious?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

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

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

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

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

 

[earl40]

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

Why not if Our Lord commanded such?

 

[TheOldCourse]

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

 

[Deuteronomy2929]

"So many"? I rather doubt that.

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

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

Would 10 different "categories" suffice for now?

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

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

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

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

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

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

 

[Grant]

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

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

Would 10 different "categories" suffice for now?

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

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

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

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

 

[Grant]

@C. M. Sheffield

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

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

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

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

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

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

 

[Grant]

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

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

 

[Deuteronomy2929]

I couldn't agree more—

—Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church

I remain puzzled by your OP.

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

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I remain puzzled by your OP.

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

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

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

 

[Deuteronomy2929]

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

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

 

[Grant]

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

John,

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

I already stated that I am pro-pouring.

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

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I'm enjoying the exchange.

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

 

[Pergamum]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Susan777]

Yikes!

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

Um, no.

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

 

[Grant]

in steam baths

This is now my preferred method (jets optional)


Joking

 

[JTB.SDG]

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

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

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

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

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footage of actual baptism.

 

[JTB.SDG]

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


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

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

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

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

Footage of actual baptism.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Andrew35]

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

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

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