Luther: Immersion the Best Mode of Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.
JTB.SDG said:
You never got back to me about the Acts passage.
Click to expand...
Please re-read posts #17, #20, and #25. Disagreeing with my explanation doesn't mean I didn't give an explanation. I've made my case pretty clear. No honest study of the Greek word "baptize" will fail to conclude that it means "immerse". Many who do not practice immersion have admitted as much. You have convinced yourself that it doesn't and determined it is of no consequence what mode you use. I think you're wrong. Is it a matter of first importance? No. But I believe it is important because Christ has commanded it. Nothing Christ ever said was unimportant. And Christ said "baptize." You think that word has virtually no meaning. I think you are wrong and unwilling to give an honest hearing to the evidence that challenges your view. So, I've stated my view and endeavored to make my case. You don't agree and think its irrelevant. That's fine. But I see no reason to continue the back and forth unless you have some other argument to make from Scripture.
 
Last edited:
C. M. Sheffield said:
"The couches were 'pallets' and could easily be dipped into water."—International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've always found the "couch" argument weaker than many other Presbyterians seem to find it.

If you actually look at a Roman-style dining couch, it's pretty much a simple wooden frame with cushions tied to. It's not a modern couch.

There would have been little need to clean the frame, but the cushions could easily have been removed and swished around a bit in the local creek.
 
C. M. Sheffield said:
Luther here says the word baptize means immerse. Calvin says "It is evident that the term ‘baptize’ means to immerse..."
Click to expand...

Calvin and Luther may have said as much, but is it entirely true? Geerhardus Vos, absolutely no slouch when it comes to linguistics, makes a distinction between βάπτω and βαπτίζω as they came to be used in the New Testament and contemporary literature, saying these things:

"When a Baptist says that baptō means “immerse,” then one should grant him that without reservation. [...] The concept of baptizō is placed directly under the viewpoint of 'washing,' a fact of the highest importance. That this 'washing' was in most instances a washing by immersion appears as something accidental that could also be something else, and that, if it had been something else, nothing of substance would have changed. [...] The error the Baptists make when they insist that baptizein is immersion and nothing else lies in overlooking the fact just mentioned. Words have their meaning by their use, not by their etymology. One can safely grant not only that originally baptizō means to immerse; indeed, one can even go so far as to say that initially immersion was the customary mode of baptism, without playing into the hands of the Baptists. The point at issue between them and us surely lies in this: whether immersion constitutes the heart and essence of the symbolism of baptism, so that abandoning it would be the same as abandoning baptism itself. [...] Thus the issue between us and Baptists is not at all whether baptizein means to immerse or to sprinkle. One can grant, and probably will have to grant, that nowhere in the New Testament has it completely lost its original meaning of 'immersing' or 'dipping.' The issue is simply whether immersion was the main point or something incidental. And then we say the latter."

—Geerhardus Vos, Ecclesiology, ed. Kim Batteau and Allan Janssen, trans. Richard B. Gaffin, vol. 5, 5 vols., Reformed Dogmatics (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 121-123.​
 
C. M. Sheffield said:
Please re-read posts #17, #20, and #25. Disagreeing with my explanation doesn't mean I didn't give an explanation. I've made my case pretty clear. No honest study of the Greek word "baptize" will fail to conclude that it means "immerse". Many who do not practice immersion have admitted as much. You have convinced yourself that it doesn't and determined it is of no consequence what mode you use. I think you're wrong. Is it a matter of first importance? No. But I believe it is important because Christ has commanded it. Nothing Christ ever said was unimportant. And Christ said "baptize." You think that word has virtually no meaning. I think you are wrong and unwilling to give an honest hearing to the evidence that challenges your view. So, I've stated my view and endeavored to make my case. You don't agree and think its irrelevant. That's fine. But I see no reason to continue the back and forth unless you have some other argument to make from Scripture.
Click to expand...

Brother please remember this from Martyn Lloyd-Jones the Credobaptist:

"In conclusion, as far as I am concerned, those who are to be baptised should be adult believers. I cannot see the case, as I have tried to show you, for infant baptism. But as to the mode, it can be sprinkling or immersion or a combination of the two, which I personally believe is the more scriptural and the method for which great evidence can be produced historically."

Minority view for a Baptist I admit, but as we began with Martin Luther on immersion, Martyn Lloyd-Jones is reason to believe we have concluded honestly. There are places where paedos talk like credos, but there are many places where credos--far as I'm concerned--talk like paedos, and in a few cases they are inches from paedo.

I was a convinced Reformed Baptist in 2017. I am now a convinced household Baptist who favors pouring, in the fear of God, from the Scripture, after vigorous study of the Bible itself. God will testify at that Last Day that my study and conclusions are honest. I haven't interacted because in part I don't have much different than @JTB.SDG to say. In short, Joel 2 did it in for me among other passages that interpret baptizo.

Brother, I have no doubt that you believe your conclusions from Scripture in the fear of God. I will always assume this about my RB brothers. There is no doubt at all in my mind you do, and I know you too expect you will give a good account for your view. I believe you are wrong, but no less will give a good account.

I would ask, as a younger brother, that you at least give your paedo brothers the benefit of the doubt concerning their honesty, even if the conclusion makes no sense to you.

By 1 Corinthians 13, we likewise are thoroughly obligated to do the same for you, and you have been wronged if we--if I--have not.
 
Last edited:
C. M. Sheffield said:
Please re-read posts #17, #20, and #25. Disagreeing with my explanation doesn't mean I didn't give an explanation. I've made my case pretty clear. No honest study of the Greek word "baptize" will fail to conclude that it means "immerse". Many who do not practice immersion have admitted as much. You have convinced yourself that it doesn't and determined it is of no consequence what mode you use. I think you're wrong. Is it a matter of first importance? No. But I believe it is important because Christ has commanded it. Nothing Christ ever said was unimportant. And Christ said "baptize." You think that word has virtually no meaning. I think you are wrong and unwilling to give an honest hearing to the evidence that challenges your view. So, I've stated my view and endeavored to make my case. You don't agree and think its irrelevant. That's fine. But I see no reason to continue the back and forth unless you have some other argument to make from Scripture.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I caused you any wrong. God bless.
 
Harley said:
Brother please remember this from Martyn Lloyd-Jones the Credobaptist:

"But as to the mode, it can be sprinkling or immersion or a combination of the two."
Click to expand...

How in the world are aspersion and immersion combined? And is there any evidence that this was the practice at Westminster Chapel? :scratch:
 
Last edited:
C. M. Sheffield said:
No one is forcing you to participate. If you don't like the discussion, find another one to join. I'm enjoying the exchange.
Click to expand...

It has been a long time since I have participated in a baptism discussion on the PB. When I joined the PB in August of 2005, I was struggling with baptism. The various discussions I engaged in on the PB were indispensable in my study of the ordinance. Of course, those discussions impacted more than just the issue of baptism. The continuity/discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and even the construction of the Church came along for the ride. The active moderation on the board did a good job of limiting the number of times the discussions became over-heated. That made the environment conducive to learning. Fast forward nearly 14 years and I can see how much I have learned. I am glad for the reminder.
 
De Jager said:
In my opinion these arguments are pointless because immersion is not the only valid mode of baptism.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, this type of discussion is not pointless. This is how we learn. It is good to be challenged. If your mind is settled on the topic, that is fine. Do not assume that everyone else is settled on it. Obviously, the systemic beliefs of credobaptists and paedobaptists create a natural disagreement about baptism. Those individuals who are struggling with the issue can profit from a healthy discussion.
 
C. M. Sheffield said:
I am not in any doubt about the integrity of the members of this board. So I'm not sure what you are referring to.
Click to expand...

Post #71, in your reply to your assertion (which I quoted, relevant parts emboldened) that @JTB.SDG is in essence willingly ignorant of the facts against his position and has convinced himself of his position against clear evidence. Second-to-last paragraph of #71 the most relevant here though I ask you to read the rest as well.

If you can honor my request in that post, well and good, as I really want to see some more charity between credos and paedos; but if not, we can say before God that we fear Him, studied the Scriptures, and we are convinced from Scripture of our position, and not the traditions of men. I ask that under the 9th Commandment and the rule of charity that we be believed, even if you can't agree with the conclusion. Be sure I do the same for my Baptist brothers. After all, I was a Baptist and found the Baptist arguments very convincing, so I dare not judge.

@Herald , the post I'm referencing is quoted in Post #71. It's under question whether we choose tradition over Scripture and simply don't want to hear the facts--so, our motivations and inner man, the place where only God sees, has come under question. Though, we are confident God will declare that we have searched the Scriptures honestly and sincerely. I believe the Baptist side is wrong, though I believe God will vindicate the Baptist brothers and sisters as honest men and women anyway, with God and with the Word, and that will be to your credit in giving an account before God.

That's what all I meant, and what all I intend. But my apologies: "vindicate" probably comes off as imprecatory. Not what I want!
 
Last edited:
Harley said:
@Herald , the post I'm referencing is quoted in Post #71. It's under question whether we choose tradition over Scripture and simply don't want to hear the facts--so, our motivations and inner man, the place where only God sees, has come under question. Though, we are confident God will declare that we have searched the Scriptures honestly and sincerely. I believe the Baptist side is wrong, though I believe God will vindicate the Baptist brothers and sisters as honest men and women anyway, with God and with the Word, and that will be to your credit in giving an account before God.
Click to expand...

Jake, we do not have a contentious-thread-ranking system but if I were to guess, I would say baptism threads are right at the top of the list. It is a very personal issue, especially for someone who has changed positions. It is a good reminder for all of us to remain charitable even when we think that has not been extended to us.
 
The issue hinges on what the greek means. I would say it normally means immersion or dipping. But pedobaptists argue that it means a washing also (even when not done by immersion), or a total envelopment.

"Exhibit A:
1 Corinthians 10:1-2 “For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”

Were the Jews immersed by a cloud? Certainly not; The Jews passed through the sea on dry ground. (Exodus 14:22).

Exhibit B:
Hebrews 9:10 “but deal only with food and drink and various washings (baptismois), regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation”.

This passage refers to Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, which were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. The baptisms mentioned in this chapter (verses 13, 19, 21;conf. Num. 19:17-18; Exo. 24:6,8; Lev. 8:19; 16:14) are all via sprinkling.

Exhibit C:
Mark 7:4 “and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash (baptisontai). And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing (baptismous) of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches”.


I am still a baptist, but these 3 verses do give me pause to think.


Then we have these other evidences:

"Exhibit D:
Luke 11:38 “The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash (ebaptisthe) before dinner”.

Did Jesus immerse himself before eating dinner?

Exhibit E:
Leviticus 14:6 “He shall take the live bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, and dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water”.

It is scientifically impossible for a bird cannot to be completely immersed in its own blood. This word is bapto in the Septuagint."
https://daboatman.wordpress.com/tag/credobaptism/

I think this second set of examples is weaker. If I wash my foot in water or dip it, this is an immersion of my foot, after all. And if I dip a bird in blood, it is still a dip and not a sprinkle.
 
Herald said:
Jake, we do not have a contentious-thread-ranking system but if I were to guess, I would say baptism threads are right at the top of the list. It is a very personal issue, especially for someone who has changed positions. It is a good reminder for all of us to remain charitable even when we think that has not been extended to us.
Click to expand...

Certainly. Possibly it's more personal to me than I wish to admit, but yes it is for all of us in some manner.

Still leaving intact the substance of #71, I'll admit in post #79 I was thrown off because what I really hoped would get addressed just didn't; but in a thread on a heated topic with lots of posts it's easy to gloss things over or think you've read everything. Depth and heat is a recipe for confusion. My apologies @C. M. Sheffield, that was overbearing on my part.
 
Harley said:
Still leaving intact the substance of #71, I'll admit in post #79 I was thrown off because what I really hoped would get addressed just didn't; but in a thread on a heated topic with lots of posts it's easy to gloss things over or think you've read everything. Depth and heat is a recipe for confusion. My apologies @C. M. Sheffield, that was overbearing on my part.
Click to expand...

It has been an exceptionally busy week. Please do not interpret my silence till now as indifference to your concerns.

I felt many of the arguments I had advanced were not being interacted with and this occasioned frustration on my part. I should have been more moderate in my choice of words. For that I apologize to Jon and anyone else who took offense. I have no doubts about the sincerity of the members of this board. I know we are all endeavoring, for as much as lies in us, to be faithful to the word of God.
 
Whether sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, we've proved our need of washing.

There's one way to improve our baptisms.
 
From A’ Brakel, as always he seems well balanced:

The External Sign of Baptism The second thing to be considered in reference to baptism is the external sign. In this respect we need to consider the element as well as the ceremony, that is, the manner of administration. The element is water, that is, common, clean water, without any distinction. John the Baptist and the apostles used this. “I indeed baptize you with water” (Matt 3:11); “... He that sent me to baptize with water” (John 1:33); “... because there was much water there” (John 3:23). This is also true for the apostles: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized” (Acts 10:47); “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized ... and they went down both into the water ... and he baptized him” (Acts 8:36,38). Baptism is therefore called “the washing of water” (Eph 5:26). The Papist additions of exorcisms, making of crosses, papal saliva, oil, salt, flour, and other such concoctions are human fabrications which are sacrilegious and therefore are to be rejected with abhorrence. The Ceremony or the Manner of Administration: Immersion or Sprinkling In early times, and in countries with a warm climate, immersion was used most frequently. The Lord Jesus was baptized by immersion (Matt 3:16), as was the eunuch (Acts 8:38). The apostle also refers to this: “Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death” (Rom 6:4). Subsequent to this, however, sprinkling has come into use, just as sprinkling is now generally in use, be it once or three times. The Greeks and Russians still use immersion. One need neither argue about this nor be concerned, however, since it is one and the same as far as the matter itself and the assurance it yields. First, the verb “baptize” can also be translated as “sprinkle.” “... except they wash, they eat not” (Mark 7:4). The washing of hands generally occurs by allowing water to be poured upon the hands. “... Here is Elisha ... which poured water on the hands of Elijah” (2 Kings 3:11). Secondly, the matter signified, namely, the blood of Christ as cleansing the soul, is expressed as sprinkling. “And to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling” (Heb 12:24). Thirdly, the relationship between the sign and the matter signified is expressed both by sprinkling and immersion, for one cleanses the body by both methods. Concerning sprinkling or pouring out we read, “Then shall I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean” (Ezek 36:25). 495 Fourthly, it is obvious that the apostles also have used sprinkling in baptizing the three thousand upon the day of Pentecost, the jailor, as well as at other occasions. It also makes no difference if one sprinkles the person to be baptized once or three times. If one sprinkles but once, the reference is to the Trinity of the divine Being; if one sprinkles three times, the reference is to the three Persons. In considering the ceremony or manner of sprinkling, one may also consider the pronouncement of the words, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” as belonging to this since 1) Christ in issuing His command to baptize uses these words; 2) it is a certainty that one must be baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, for there is no other God but He; 3) the person baptized is declared to be the property of a triune God; 4) the pronouncement of these words has at all times been used in the church; 5) there is a special relationship between each Person and the person being baptized: that the Father is his Father, the Son is his Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit is his Comforter and Sanctifier; and 6) the Holy Trinity is expressly confessed in this manner. One must therefore preserve the pronouncement of these words. If, however, the church acknowledges and confesses the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and if the adult to be baptized does likewise, I would neither consider such a baptism to be unlawful nor deem it to be null and void, even if the words in question were not expressly pronounced at his baptism. I neither consider the pronouncement of the words to be relevant to the essential nature of baptism, nor does it validate baptism as such. I do not know, however, if such a case has ever transpired, for the baptism of heretics is not baptism, regardless of whether they mention the Trinity or not. When the apostle exhorts the people in Acts 2:38 to let themselves be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and when it is related in Acts 8:16 that those of Samaria were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, this neither proves that baptism was administered upon the pronouncement of the words, “I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ,” nor that the names of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost were not used; rather, these expressions only indicate that baptism was administered upon the command and according to the ordinance of Christ. Baptism in the name of Christ does not exclude, but includes, the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Mode: Immersion or Affusion?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Plimoth Thom
P
W
  • Locked
Baptism = Immersion?
2
Replies
46
Views
7K
Larry Hughes
L
Phil D.
Did Immersion Flourish as a Mode of Christian Baptism due to Pagan Influences?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Phil D.
Phil D.
rookie
  • Locked
baptism by immersion
2
Replies
41
Views
9K
Iconoclast
Iconoclast
Ryan&Amber2013
Peter and the Mode of Baptism
Replies
15
Views
1K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
Back
Top