Why Baptize by Sprinkling - by Dr. John R. Church - now available online!

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by refbaptdude
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.


Cardinal Gibbons (Roman Catholic) -"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)

John Wesley (Methodist)-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 (Methodist)-commenting on Rom 6:4- "It is certain that the words of our text is an allusion to the manner of baptism by IMMERSION

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

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

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

Philip Schaff(Lutheran)-"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).

Ironically, Steve, your citations above only help to prove MY point, not yours.

ALL of the men you quoted above, EVERY single one of them, believed that immersion was acceptable.

So do I.

ALL of the men you quoted above, EVERY single one of them, believed that sprinkling/pouring is also acceptable.

So do I.



So do you agree with all those guys you quoted, or not?

 

[Steve Owen]

Joseph,
There doesn't seem to be much point in reading your precious pamphlet.

I have refuted three points made by Dr Church and you haven't responded to one of them yet.

Have YOU read it? There doesn't seem to be much sign that you have!

Martin

 

[Steve Owen]

Joseph wrote:-

John the baptist was not located in a place where immersion was even possible. Scripture says that John was "at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water" (John 3:23). Plenty of water was necessary for pouring water on many people for baptism. But while there was "plenty of water", there still wasn't enough for immersion. "Aenon" comes from the Aramaic word which means "springs" or "fountains." Aenon is probably to be identified with a place about eight miles south of Scythopolis, west of the Jordan. In this locality there are seven springs within a radius of a quarter of a mile. But unfortunately for those who are hoping to find proof for immersion, "these springs trickling through marshy meadow land on their way to the Jordan, offer little or no facilities for immersion" (Christy, A Modern Shibboleth, p. 82). Assuming that the area has changed little since Jesus' day, we are again forced to conclude that John's baptism was probably by pouring water over the body, rather than by immersion.

So John baptized in the middle of a bog?
Thanks Joseph! That makes a lot of sense. Most convenient for the waiting crowds!

See the Calvin quote posted by Refbaptdude.

Actually, the water levels around the Jordan today bear no resemblance to those of former times. The demands of modern agriculture have lowered the water table most worryingly, I understand.

Martin

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Joseph,
There doesn't seem to be much point in reading your precious pamphlet.

I have refuted three points made by Dr Church and you haven't responded to one of them yet.

Have YOU read it? There doesn't seem to be much sign that you have!

Martin

Of course I have read it. Has it occured to you that perhaps I just don't find much merit in your so-called "refutations"? I generally don't try to refute something unless I think it's worthwhile to bother doing so. Nevertheless, just to humor you, here goes:

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

One of Dr Church's more egregious mistakes is to suppose that baptizo only means 'to dip' in Classical Greek. It means 'dip' in secular Koine Greek writers as well.

You are incorrect. Dr. Church does NOT claim that baptizo can't be used for dipping in Koine Greek. In fact, he even points out a place where it is used in just that way. But he also points out places in secular Koine Greek where it is NOT used in that way. So please stop misrepresenting Dr. Church.

I quote, from his booklet:

There is another word that is not often used in the New Testament, but was in common use in the days of Christ, that had gone through somewhat the same change in its meaning. The word of which I speak is bapto. It comes from the same root as the word baptizo. Now in classical Greek this word meant to dye by the process of dipping or submerging the article in the dye. However, in common use this word had become so closely associated with the process of dyeing that it finally came to mean dye, regardless of how it might be done. It might be done either by dipping the garment in the dye, or it might be done by sprinkling or pouring the dye upon the garment. Regardless of how it might be done the word bapto was used to describe it. One of the classical writers of that day used this word bapto in speaking of a lake being dyed (or bapto) with the blood of a rat. Now of course we can readily see that the lake was not immersed in the blood of a rat, but it was rather tinged or dyed with the blood of a rat. We also find an instance in the classical writers where Socrates speaks of an island being baptized (baptizo) with the spray of the ocean. I am sure we can readily see that he did not mean to imply that the island was immersed in the spray of the ocean, and yet he used this word baptizo in speaking of what took place.

You see, Dr. Church does NOT disqualify dipping from inclusion in the meaning of baptizo. Rather, he includes sprinkling and pouring in the meaning, just as the secular and biblical Koine Greek writers did.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

Also, the people who might be expected to know the meaning of Greek: viz the Greek Orthodox churches, practise baptism by immersion, and always have.

They also practice infant baptism and paedocommunion. I highly recommend you follow suit.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

Dr Church suggests that a verse in the Apocrypha 'has to' refer to sprinkling. This is wrong. The verse in question is Judith 12:7-8. 'She went out each night to the valley of Bethulia and bathed at the spring in the camp. After bathing, she prayed......'. Now if she was only lightly washing, there is a Greek word, nipto which could have been used; also, the was no need for her to have left her tent; she could have washed from a basin. If she was sprinkled, there are two words, Rhaino and rhantizo which actually mean 'sprinkle'.

Have you ever taken a bath, Martin? If so, then during your bath, did you ever fully immerse yourself? I doubt it. If you did, then you are not the normal bather.

During a bath, people often get partially in the water, but don't totally immerse themselves under it.

In any case, I wouldn't argue that the Judith text is an example of sprinkling, either. Rather, I think pouring would be a better word to use, since she probably used a good deal of water, and poured it all over herself.

Also, you are begging the question to assume that Judith 12 should have used the word "nipto" if only light washing was done. IF baptizo always meant immersion, then you would have a point. But to make your point, you assume the very thing you are trying to prove. Maybe baptizo had changed its meaning enough by the time of the writing of Judith that baptizo was just as fitting as nipto for the passage.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

Another error by Dr Church concerns his confusion of sprinkling with baptism. The writer to the Hebrews certainly knew the difference, because when he means 'sprinkle' he uses the word rhantizo (Heb 9:13, 19, 21; 10:22 ). For the noun, 'a sprinkling', he,and Peter use rhantismos (Heb 12:24; 1Peter 1:2 ). (In Heb 11:28, proschusis, literally 'pouring', is used ). So when we read of the 'Various baptisms' of Heb 9:10, we can be assured that the tems washed were actually dipped in water.

What kind of eisogesis is this? Heb. 9:13, 19, & 21 come on the heels of Heb. 9:10. The author of Hebrews gives these sprinkling passages as examples of the baptisms mentioned in verse 10! Hebrews 9 is a great place to demonstrate from Scripture that sprinklings can be baptisms.

But even if you don't want to accept that from Hebrews, you still have to contend with 1 Cor 10:2, 1 Peter 3:20-21, etc. The Israelites were neither dipped nor immersed in the Red Sea. The only water that got on them was from the sprinkling from above (Ps. 77:17). Similarly, Noah and his family were neither dipped nor immersed in the water.

Sorry, but your arguments just don't hold any water.

 

[JeremyConrad]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
I read Church's pamphlet and agree that it leaves no doubt that immersion baptism is foreign to Holy Scripture.

also

I don't agree with Church with the reason we are baptized. He mentions nothing about the covenantal significance but makes the statement that baptism is a sign to the world rather than a sign to the believer and his household of God's promise.

and finally

Overall, Church gives a good defense and I recommend that people read it before defending immersion only. I can tell from some of the responses that arguments are being made without reading the pamphlet.

amen Amen and AMEN

 

[Pilgrim]

From Francis Schaeffer's booklet on baptism:

Lastly, concerning this matter of immersion only, we would remind you that it immersion is the only mode, then the catholicity of the sacraments is destroyed. The Lord's Supper obviously can be given anywhere. Sprinkling can be performed anywhere, but if baptism is by immersion only, there are many parts of the world in which Christians must be denied this sacrament. Those in the desert, those in the land of unending cold, and those on beds of sickness cannot be baptized by immersion, even if they want to.

http://www.spiritone.com/~wing/fs_bapt.htm

 

[Steve Owen]

Dr Church's Greek is rather suspect. He writes that bapto and baptizo come from the same root. Well, bapto is the root and baptizo come from it. He continues:-

However, in common use this word had become so closely associated with the process of dyeing that it finally came to mean dye, regardless of how it might be done. It might be done either by dipping the garment in the dye, or it might be done by sprinkling or pouring the dye upon the garment.

Sprinkling seems a very strange way of dyeing a garment. No ancient source that I can find speaks either of that or of pouring. As far as I can discover, dyeing was always by dipping. I'd like to see his sources. Likewise his reference to Socrates (who actually never wrote anything; he must mean Plato or Xenophon). I can't find this reference in Liddell & Scott according to whom the word always means to dip or submerge. The seashore is temporarily submerged by the sea as the waves break on it, and I expect this is the reference. In the Septuagint version of 1Sam14:27, where Jonathan 'dipped' the tip of his staff in a honeycomb, baptizo is used. He submerged the tip of the staff into the honey.

With reference to the Greek Orthodox churches who baptize infants by immersion, I am not suggesting that they know their theology (quite the reverse!), but surely they ought to know their Greek!

Have you ever taken a bath, Martin? If so, then during your bath, did you ever fully immerse yourself? I doubt it. If you did, then you are not the normal bather.

No indeed! But then, I do not describe my ablution as a baptism. There is a Greek word for taking a bath, Louo. The reason that the writer of Judith used baptizo is because it was a ritual washing and therefore she must have submerged herself completely (as in Jewish proselyte baptisms). At all events, there is no evidence that sprinkling or pouring were involved contra Dr Church.

Heb. 9:13, 19, & 21 come on the heels of Heb. 9:10. The author of Hebrews gives these sprinkling passages as examples of the baptisms mentioned in verse 10! Hebrews 9 is a great place to demonstrate from Scripture that sprinklings can be baptisms.

Oh dear! This really won't do. If the writer mentions baptism in one place and sprinkling in another, then regardless of which comes first, it is surely logical to suppose that he is speaking of two different operations.

But even if you don't want to accept that from Hebrews, you still have to contend with 1 Cor 10:2, 1 Peter 3:20-21, etc. The Israelites were neither dipped nor immersed in the Red Sea.

The Israelites went figuratively through the midst of the sea (Exod 14:22; Isaiah 43:2 ). This is part of the symbolism of baptism, that we are figuratively united with Christ in His sufferings (cf. Psalm 42:7 ) when we go down into the waters, but they do not overwhelm us for we rise again, united with Him in His resurrection.

It may be helpful to post again the comments of Presbyterian George Campbell on Matt 3:11:-

"In water"¦"¦in the Holy Spirit." Vulgate, In aqua"¦"¦in spiritu Sancto. Thus also the Syriac and other ancient versions"¦"¦"¦.I am sorry to observe that the Popish translators from the Vulgate have shewn greater veneration for the style of that version than the generality of Protestant translators have shewn for that of the original. For in this the Latin is not more explicit than the Greek. Yet so inconsistent are the interpreters last mentioned, that none of them have scrupled to render en to Iordana in the 6th verse, 'in Jordan', though nothing can be plainer than that, if there be any incongruity in the expression in water, this, in Jordan must be equally incongruous. But they have seen that the preposition "˜in´ could not be avoided there without adopting a circumlocution and saying, with the water of Jordan, which would have made their deviation from the text too glaring.

The word Baptizein, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, tingere, the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning. Thus it is, en hudati, en to Iordane. But I should not lay much stress on the preposition en, which"¦..may denote "˜with´ as well as "˜in´, did not the whole phraseology, in regard to this ceremony, concur in evincing the same thing. Accordingly the baptized are said, anabainein, "˜to arise, emerge, or ascend,' v16, apo tou hudatos, and Acts 8:39, ek tou hudatos, "˜from out of the water.´ Let it be observed further, that the verbs raino and rantizo, used in Scripture for "˜sprinkling,´ are never construed in this manner. ´I will sprinkle you with clear water, says God, (Ezek 36:25 ), or as it runs in the English translation literally from the Hebrew, ´I will sprinkle clean water upon you', is in the Septuagint, Rano ep´humas katharon hudor, and not (as baptizo is always construed), Rano humas en katharo hudati. See also Exod 29:21; Lev 6:27, 16:14. Had Baptizo been here employed in the sense of raino, "˜I sprinkle,´ (which as far as I know, it never is, in any use, sacred or classical) the expression would doubtless have been, Ego men baptizo ep´humas hudor, agreeably to the examples referred to.

When therefore the Greek word baptizo is adopted, I may say, rather than translated into modern languages, the mode of construction ought to be preserved so far as may conduce to suggest its original import. It is to be regretted that we have so much evidence that even good and learned men allow their judgements to be warped by the sentiments and customs of the sect which they prefer. The true partisan, of whatever denomination, always inclines to correct the diction of the Spirit, by that of the party.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
From Francis Schaeffer's booklet on baptism:

Lastly, concerning this matter of immersion only, we would remind you that it immersion is the only mode, then the catholicity of the sacraments is destroyed. The Lord's Supper obviously can be given anywhere. Sprinkling can be performed anywhere, but if baptism is by immersion only, there are many parts of the world in which Christians must be denied this sacrament. Those in the desert, those in the land of unending cold, and those on beds of sickness cannot be baptized by immersion, even if they want to.

http://www.spiritone.com/~wing/fs_bapt.htm

Right on.

Martin: You try and skim right past this argument. You've got your head buried so far up your definition of bapto and baptizo that you miss the larger issue.

You need not surmise as to the water levels of Ancient Israel. Yes, the area is more arid than it once was but it was still an arid region at the time of Christ. As I stated earlier, homes were constructed to capture rain water during what little rain they had and it would flow into cisterns into the basements. This is because water was so scarce during many months of the year.

Given your prediliction to ignore such arguments, or to argue points of minutia while missing the big point, even if Israel was not arid then there would certainly be places/times where a baptismal font is impractical. You've obviously spent little or no time in the desert to dismiss this consideration as immaterial. Do you suppose the Israelites grumbled at Moses because they simply didn't have enough water to fill their swimming pools? Perhaps people can only be Christians if they live next to a large body of water?

Finally, I fail to understand why you, or others, keep arguing the suitability of immersion. NEWS FLASH: WE GRANT THAT IT IS VALID! What's the problem here: are you ignoring what others are writing or are you just being obtuse?

What I have yet to see positively presented is the exegesis that DEMANDS YOUR MODE. Put it forward or be honest that you don't have one and you're just being obnoxious about impugning the liberty of other believers. If mode is so tightly regulated then present your case from more than a word study.

It's easy to lob rocks and pick apart an argument out of context. Let me see your full-orbed defense of immersion as the only Biblically acceptable mode. A new thread might be nice.

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Trevor,

Here is the problem: Baptist immersion imperialism is my concern, not those arguing for liberty in the matter. I'm not robbing anybody of their Christian liberty in the matter. Many baptists are.

Try to remember that and it makes the issue of debate clearer. If you can prove from Scripture, and plain reason, that I have no liberty then I will reconsider.

In other words:

The Baptist Thesis: Immersion is the only Biblical acceptable mode of baptism.

Prove it.

The following militates against my acceptance of your thesis:

1. The Bible only gives enough information to hint at proper mode.

2. Look at the Levitical rites: cleansing rites, sacrifice, the Passover, etc. are spelled out in clear detail. Are you telling me that the best you can do to claim that the only God-ordained mode of baptism rests upon circumstancial evidence?

3. I never appeal to extra-Biblical arguments to establish an imperialistic attitude about mode by which to judge your practice (remember I'm arguing for liberty and it will be much easier to remember you have to defend the fact you're stealing mine). They serve, rather, to get people to think through the practical consequences of a theological view.

4. From plain reason, the abundance of water is surely an issue. I'm not arguing for a difference in element - water is water. I'm stating a historical fact: water is scarce and was scarce in Israel. Imperialism over an immersive mode makes little sense given those Providential conditions. Have you been to the desert to understand the weight of why this could militate against such an idea?

5. If you are able to demonstrate conclusively from the Scriptures that God prescribed a mode then my argument about water availability is immaterial. I am waiting for that full-orbed defense of exclusive mode. Instead, proponents of exclusive mode are merely presenting the etymology of a Word, pointing to Greek Orthodox believers, and looking at circumstance to say to us: "See! That proves that God told us we have to immerse because, even though he didn't say we had to submerge our bodies, we hear about people near water and a word that means to dip or immerse is used. Thus, we know for certain that immersion is in view and all other modes are precluded. Gosh, affusion might even be as bad as Roman Catholic baptism, I'll call you a brother on a board but I'm not sure about you joining my Church...."

6. Not being persuaded by the argument, I state: "OK, you're hearing about a baptism next to water and you assume that because a certain word is used that the person must have been submerged. Do you realize how rare water was in that region? Might you want to re-think your assumption. Casting aside that you grew up believing that all sprinklers profoundly corrupt the rite, examine your "it's just GOT to be" assumption based on nothing more than narratives and a word study. If water was and is scarce in the place this rite was initiated, does militancy over mode start to become questionable. What about the uproar in Jerusalem that would occur if 3000 people fouled drinking water during a mass baptism on Pentecost? (ever been around a dusty, sweaty guy that doesn't shower much in the desert - I've been one and they're gross...)." None of these are conclusive but ought to give the person who has no "must be so" preconceptions pause concerning such CERTAINTY of mode.

In short, I haven't been convinced that "word studies" are important to this issue because I haven't been shown that God expresses concern over immersion in the Scriptures. In fact, baptism discusions in the Scripture center on spiritual, not physical, significance. "Baptist speak" on mode just doesn't seem to fit with the tenor of the Epistles - the Apostles don't even remotely echo your concern. Nowhere do I see the Apostles obsessing over the mode.

Finally, Given the paucity of water in that region and, given quick corruption of practice in other areas, it is probable that some Church, not wanting to risk dying of thirst due to a lack of faith, might not empty all the cisterns in the basement of some believer's home so they could practice the rite properly (as you assume it). I can imagine a Baptist Paul saying: "O foolish Galatians! I wonder that you have forsaken the proper mode of baptism so quickly...." The words sound silly because they are dissonant with the Scriptures regarding Baptism. To conceive of an Apostle parroting the concerns of a modern Baptist sounds strange.

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Very, very good points, Rich!

You have cut to the heart of the issue. The problem is that Baptists often play the "bait and switch" tactic in this debate. All of their arguments merely help demonstrate that immersion is valid (which is not even disputed). Then, once they have made their case, they then make the unwarranted leap that immersion is required. But there is a big gap between "valid" and "required". If immersion is required, then it is a SIN to baptize by any other mode, for ANY reason, regardless of whether a person is aged or infirm. But if sprinkling/pouring is ok for ANY reason, then the baptist loses his case.

And as an aside: Some Baptists love to make much of trying to force (and I mean force!) the Red Sea crossing into some kind of "immersion", since there was a whole lot of water on each side of the Israelites.

Therefore, how about if we just have a new convert stand between two tall containers of water, to mirror 1 Cor. 10:2, and then just call it "immersion", like the Baptists call the Red Sea crossing an "immersion"? We could even make sure the people get wet, by sprinkling some water on them too (Ps. 77:17).

Baptists: Would the above scenario make you happy? We could even use the word "immersion", since you think the Red Sea crossing was an immersion!






[Edited on 2-24-2006 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Mayflower]

It's a very interessting discussion. Myself iam a paedobaptist believer. But i have a question for my paedobaptist brethern concerning the Didache :

Didache 7:1
But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.

Didache 7:2
But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.

Didache 7:3
But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Didache 7:4
But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

In this discription says nothing about infant bapism but only believers baptism (see 7:4) ? For the credo this is a prove of believers baptism ?

Those who hold only to immersion, what do they do with the Didache which says (7:3) to pour ? (if it would by some baptist not valid?)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Mayflower
It's a very interessting discussion. Myself iam a paedobaptist believer. But i have a question for my paedobaptist brethern concerning the Didache :

Didache 7:1
But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.

Didache 7:2
But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.

Didache 7:3
But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Didache 7:4
But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

In this discription says nothing about infant bapism but only believers baptism (see 7:4) ? For the credo this is a prove of believers baptism ?

Those who hold only to immersion, what do they do with the Didache which says (7:3) to pour ? (if it would by some baptist not valid?)

Are you referring to the fact that it prescribes a fast for those that are baptized to assume only believer baptism is in order here?

 

[Steve Owen]

Rich, you wrote:-

Here is the problem: Baptist immersion imperialism is my concern, not those arguing for liberty in the matter.

Where are these Baptist imperialists? Are there Immersion Police roaming the streets of Okinawa arresting unsuspecting Presbyterians and forcibly dunking them? When you go swimming, do Baptists suddenly surround you and force your head under water?

All Baptists have ever argued for is liberty Coercion in religion is (or should be) anathema to us all. We have suffered enough persecution to know better. However, we believe that God has given us an ordinance in sufficiently clear language for us to be able to obey it. Whether God actually minds if people do not obey His commands as they are given is another question. Without doubt, the state of a man's heart is more important than his precise observation of ordinances (cf. Matt 23:23 ). But since we have the command and the ability to obey it, why would we want to tempt God by observing His ordinance in a way that He has not prescribed?

You wrote:-

4. From plain reason, the abundance of water is surely an issue. I'm not arguing for a difference in element - water is water. I'm stating a historical fact: water is scarce and was scarce in Israel.

One of the Reformed Baptist Churches supported financially by the Met Tab is in Gao, Mali. This is almost bang in the middle of the Sahara Desert. Mali makes Israel look like Ireland on a rainy day! Yet the church there observes the ordinance of God. Where there is a will to obey His commands a way will be found. We read of the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1ff) and the Pool of Siloam (9:7 ) in Jerusalem, both of which were used for bathing. Might there not have been others?

The word Baptizo means to dip. End of story, really. In his desperation to deny this, Dr Church resorts to what appears to be a downright lie, saying that Judith 'baptized' herself in a 'horsetrough'. I cannot find any mention of a horsetrough in the Book of Judith. Presumably Dr Church didn't expect anyone to check up on his statements. His other attempts are no less weak. Luke 11:39 must be read in the light of Mark 7:2-3; it was the hands that the Pharisees believed should be 'baptized', that is, immersed in water, not the whole body.

There are the various other arguments in favour of immersion which I won't go over again. It is possible to nit-pick at each one if you're determined to do so. What I say is that taken as a whole they make an unanswerable case for immersion. But if you're determined to sprinkle, go ahead and be happy! It's not me you answer to. You are welcome to my church; welcome to take the Lord's Supper; welcome even to become a member. What we won't do, however is baptize you by sprinkling, because we dare not disregard what appears to us to be a clear ordinance of God which we are able to obey.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[Steve Owen]

Joseph wrote:-

And as an aside: Some Baptists love to make much of trying to force (and I mean force!) the Red Sea crossing into some kind of "immersion", since there was a whole lot of water on each side of the Israelites.

No forcing involved, brother! It is Moses and Paul, not I, who say that the crossing of the Red Sea was an immersion, albeit a figurative one! They went figuratively down in to the middle of the sea. As it is written, 'So the children of Isarael went into the midst of the sea on the dry ground.' 'Moreover brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea' (Exod 14-22; 1Cor 10:1-2 ). What is unclear about that? And where does sprinkling come into it?

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Rich, you wrote:-

Here is the problem: Baptist immersion imperialism is my concern, not those arguing for liberty in the matter.

Where are these Baptist imperialists? Are there Immersion Police roaming the streets of Okinawa arresting unsuspecting Presbyterians and forcibly dunking them? When you go swimming, do Baptists suddenly surround you and force your head under water?

All Baptists have ever argued for is liberty Coercion in religion is (or should be) anathema to us all. We have suffered enough persecution to know better. However, we believe that God has given us an ordinance in sufficiently clear language for us to be able to obey it. Whether God actually minds if people do not obey His commands as they are given is another question. Without doubt, the state of a man's heart is more important than his precise observation of ordinances (cf. Matt 23:23 ). But since we have the command and the ability to obey it, why would we want to tempt God by observing His ordinance in a way that He has not prescribed?

To state that Baptists allow liberty in such matters is so very naive as to not deserve an intelligent response. As they find themselves in the majority they are no longer the oppressed but the oppressors who, in large numbers, do not extend the right hand of fellowship to anyone who is not immersed. Even John Piper's Church will not. The issue is not what God has PRESCRIBED. The issue is what Baptists have prescribed.

The word Baptizo means to dip. End of story, really. In his desperation to deny this, Dr Church resorts to what appears to be a downright lie, saying that Judith 'baptized' herself in a 'horsetrough'. I cannot find any mention of a horsetrough in the Book of Judith. Presumably Dr Church didn't expect anyone to check up on his statements. His other attempts are no less weak. Luke 11:39 must be read in the light of Mark 7:2-3; it was the hands that the Pharisees believed should be 'baptized', that is, immersed in water, not the whole body.

I am floored that you cannot read a 50 page pamphlet without misrepresenting the author's position on Judith. You don't even have to read 50 pages to know that you either cannot read a few simple sentences without mis-stating his argument with respect to Judith. How can you get something so simple so wrong? It is really quite alarming.

Please quote Church directly in the matter of how he argues the case of Judith and exegete him. Convince everybody that Church is saying what you state he is saying above. I challenge you to demonstrate how poorly you just handled what Church said regarding Judith. It seems to me that unless you show yourself faithful in a small thing that you are not a trustworthy source for more important things. I was leaving this issue alone until you brought up Church and Judith again. You get him COMPLETELY wrong.

Yet again, I'm not interested in hearing again that you baptize because baptizo means to dip. You sound like a broken record. I'm waiting for your defense of credo-Baptistic imperialism. That's exactly what it is when you call other modes false without a defense other than some lame "baptizo means immerse, baptizo means immerse, infinity...." defense.

There are the various other arguments in favour of immersion which I won't go over again. It is possible to nit-pick at each one if you're determined to do so. What I say is that taken as a whole they make an unanswerable case for immersion.

But of course they do Martin. You wouldn't believe anything based on a misunderstanding of what you read.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

And to you. I wish I knew your real name. Yet once again, I wish you would fairly represent your opponents. You have established a regular pattern of obfuscating and never admitting a single mis-reading or error in your understanding on any issue that I'm aware of on this board. Please show the integrity to admit your error on Church's representation of Judith.

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Steve Owen]

From Dr Church's book.

This is illustrated in the case we have mentioned from the book of Judith. She washed herself at the horse trough by sprinkling, but the historian calls it baptism.

Go to the apocryphal book of Judith and see if you can find a horse trough mentioned. She went out of the camp each night to the valley of Bethunia to the spring there and 'baptized' herself. No horse trough. The evidence that the spring contained enough water to baptize herself in is that it provided the water for the whole 'Assyrian' army.

If you want to discuss any other portions of Dr Church's book, post them on the thread so that everyone can see them.

Martin

 

[Semper Fidelis]

In the writings that existed before and at the time of Christ, we find a number of references to the matter of baptism. In the book of Judith (that is one of the Apocryphal books which was written in the 400 year period between the closing of the Old Testament and the coming of Christ), we find the record of how Judith went out and baptized herself every day for a number of days at the horse trough, in order to deceive a king. The writer of this book calls it baptism and it was done by sprinkling. We also find that Josephus, a great Jewish historian, who lived about the same time as Christ, used the word baptize in his writings, and he plainly tells us that it was done by sprinkling. I merely mention these two instances in order to point out to you that the matter of baptism was no new thing to the Jews at the time of Christ. They were perfectly familiar with the practice and looked upon it as a part of their religion. We need to keep this truth in mind if we are to have any clear understanding of the subject. John did not start something new. If he had he would have gotten into plenty of trouble with the Jews of that day.

This is illustrated in the case we have mentioned from the book of Judith. She washed herself at the horse trough by sprinkling, but the historian calls it baptism. Josephus tells us of people that were baptized and he says it was done by sprinkling, and yet he uses the Greek word baptizo in speaking of it. These two illustrations show us how the word was used by reliable Jewish writers at that time. It is not used in its classical sense but has a different meaning. It conveyed a definite idea to the minds of the people in the days of Christ. When they heard and used the word they were thinking of cleansing or purification, regardless of how it might be done. Now this is the meaning we are most concerned about. We are not so much interested in how Socrates used it and what it meant to him, but we are very much concerned about how Jesus used it and what it meant to the people that heard him speak.

I leave it to people who can read plain English to understand the point he's trying to make.

Once again, you're taking trips to debate the color of the grass and getting off the road.

Can you provide me a Greek copy of the Book of Judith so I can determine what the word spring is being translated from? I found the verses he's referring to. Even if it's a spring, it doesn't change a single point as to what Josephus says about her, how the word is used, AND WHY CHURCH BRINGS IT UP.

Now tell us all Martin: What is Dr. Church's point? Is his point to debate whether Judith immersed herself? Is this the main point of his argument that you feel you have so deftly answered?

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Steve Owen]

One of the problems of Church's book is that he gives no references. If I had not taken the trouble to look up the Book of Judith, I would not have known that he was being disingenuous (not to use a stronger word!). No, I don't have a Greek version of the Apocrypha, but I have three English versions and none of them mention a horse trough!

Having caught Dr Church out once, I am not inclined to believe him concerning Josephus. I don't recall having read of baptism by sprinkling in his works. Can someone find the reference?

With regard to the Jews being acquainted with baptism, he is right, but not for the reason he states. By the time of our Lord's earthly minisry, Jewish Proselyte baptism seems to have been introduced, and guess what? It was by immersion! (cf. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah Appendix XII. 'On the Baptism of Proselytes.' I provide evidence for my claims!).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
One of the problems of Church's book is that he gives no references. If I had not taken the trouble to look up the Book of Judith, I would not have known that he was being disingenuous (not to use a stronger word!). No, I don't have a Greek version of the Apocrypha, but I have three English versions and none of them mention a horse trough!

Having caught Dr Church out once, I am not inclined to believe him concerning Josephus. I don't recall having read of baptism by sprinkling in his works. Can someone find the reference?

With regard to the Jews being acquainted with baptism, he is right, but not for the reason he states. By the time of our Lord's earthly minisry, Jewish Proselyte baptism seems to have been introduced, and guess what? It was by immersion! (cf. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah Appendix XII. 'On the Baptism of Proselytes.' I provide evidence for my claims!).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

This is par for the course for you Martin. Dodge, obfuscate, never admit an error. Insofar as others find your methods persuasive I'll let you convince them. That you cannot handle two paragraphs faithfully reveals much.

Oh, and by the way, Edersheim was a Presbyterian!

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Steve Owen]

This is par for the course for you Martin. Dodge, obfuscate, never admit an error. Insofar as others find your methods persuasive I'll let you convince them. That you cannot handle two paragraphs faithfully reveals much.

Rich, stop huffing and puffing! What am I dodging? Where am I obfuscating? I have caught Church out in a clear error (again, I use no stronger word), and therefore I want to see some evidence before I believe him in anything else. That does not seem unreasonable to me. Liddell & Scott is the most complete and authoritative secular Greek lexicon and I did not see a reference to Josephus and sprinkling in it. But I will look again, and if I'm wrong, I will come back and say so.

Oh, and by the way, Edersheim was a Presbyterian!

Well, no one's perfect! But do you think he's telling the truth about Jewish Proselyte baptism? Or are you going to dodge and obfuscate about that?

BTW, Church wrote:-

We also find that Josephus, a great Jewish historian, who lived about the same time as Christ, used the word baptize in his writings,

Josephus was born in 37 or 38AD, some years after the Ascension of our Lord, and died in about 100AD.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

We also find that Josephus, a great Jewish historian, who lived about the same time as Christ, used the word baptize in his writings,

Josephus was born in 37 or 38AD, some years after the Ascension of our Lord, and died in about 100AD.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

Before this quote, I was convinced you were being obtuse. Now I see how utterly reasonable you are. What a liar Church is. To ascribe that somebody who lived in the same century that Christ lived was"...about the same time as Christ..." completely misrepresents the truth. I mean, really, Joshephus was born 4-8 years after the ascension. What was he thinking?! He was probably about the same age as Timothy. What would he know about Greek?!

I take everything back I said. You don't dodge or obfuscate at all!

Ladies and gentlemen, the arguments of Martin Marprelate (or whatever his real name is).

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Oh, and I've read many of Edersheim's works including the one cited. They are outstanding. I trust his scholarship. Read a bit further in his treatment of proselyte baptism about their children. Of course, that's off limits for you...

I believe Edersheim and the way he represents proselyte baptism. Nevertheless, a Rabbinical rule concerning the mode of cleansing or washings doesn't mean that all cleansings or washings were performed in that way. Not all cleansings were immersions. Another point you would not have missed if you had represented Church's work properly.

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Joseph wrote:-

And as an aside: Some Baptists love to make much of trying to force (and I mean force!) the Red Sea crossing into some kind of "immersion", since there was a whole lot of water on each side of the Israelites.

No forcing involved, brother! It is Moses and Paul, not I, who say that the crossing of the Red Sea was an immersion, albeit a figurative one! They went figuratively down in to the middle of the sea. As it is written, 'So the children of Isarael went into the midst of the sea on the dry ground.' 'Moreover brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea' (Exod 14-22; 1Cor 10:1-2 ).

Where do Moses and Paul say that the crossing of the Red Sea was an immersion?

And where do they say it was figurative?

You have not demonstrated your point in either case. Moses and Paul never call it an immersion, and they never say it was figurative.

When Peter (in 1 Peter 3:20-21) refers to the type of baptism Noah experienced, Peter explicitly says it figuratively, calling it a "type" of baptism. But in 1 Corinthians 10:2, Paul simply says that the Israelites were baptized. He doesn't say that it was figurative.

And he NEVER calls it an immersion.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
What is unclear about that? And where does sprinkling come into it?

It is only unclear in your head, not mine. 1 Cor. 10:2 is solid proof that baptism need not have anything to do with immersion.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
And where does sprinkling come into it?

Right here:
'Moreover brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea' (Exod 14-22; 1Cor 10:1-2 ).

What is the significance of their baptism under/in the "cloud"? Just read Psalm 77:17-20 --- "The clouds poured out water . . . You led Your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron."

God was sprinkling the Israelites in their baptism!

 

[Mayflower]

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Originally posted by Mayflower
It's a very interessting discussion. Myself iam a paedobaptist believer. But i have a question for my paedobaptist brethern concerning the Didache :

Didache 7:1
But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.

Didache 7:2
But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.

Didache 7:3
But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Didache 7:4
But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

In this discription says nothing about infant bapism but only believers baptism (see 7:4) ? For the credo this is a prove of believers baptism ?

Those who hold only to immersion, what do they do with the Didache which says (7:3) to pour ? (if it would by some baptist not valid?)

Are you referring to the fact that it prescribes a fast for those that are baptized to assume only believer baptism is in order here?

Yes, and iam asking this because i heard that argument from a credobaptist to prove their vieuw.

 

[Steve Owen]

Rich wrote:-

Oh, and I've read many of Edersheim's works including the one cited. They are outstanding. I trust his scholarship. Read a bit further in his treatment of proselyte baptism about their children. Of course, that's off limits for you...

I'm glad we can agree about Edersheim, but as usual you have missed the point completely. Jewish Proselyte baptism is found nowhere in the Bible. It has nothing to say to us whatsoever about how Christians should conduct baptisms and whether children should be included. I mentioned it solely to show that, as Dr Church said, the Jews would have been familiar with the concept of baptism, but baptism by immersion.

The Jews were also familiar with all sorts of sprinklings, but these are never called baptisms for the very good reason that they do not include immersion.


Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[Steve Owen]

Joseph asked:-

Where do Moses and Paul say that the crossing of the Red Sea was an immersion?

Moses doesn't, but Paul does. He describes it as a baptism!

And where do they say it was figurative?

It is clearly figurative because they didn't get wet.

Your allusion to Psalm 77 is interesting, but smacks rather of desperation. Like most (?) commentators, I think the allusion to the cloud in 1Cor 10 is to the Shekinah glory contained in the cloud mentioned in Exod 13:22 and 14:19-20. I think it means a little more than that it was raining at the time!

Baptizo is frequently used in a figurative sense. To try to be fair to Dr Church, I spent some time this afternoon trying to find a use by Josephus of baptizo meaning 'sprinkle.' Almost needless to say, I failed. However, I did find some interesting usages of baptizo. Plutarch speaks of someone being 'Baptized in debt'. We might say, 'Over his ears in debt!' And I did find one quote from Josephus. He speaks of thousands of Israelites who 'ebaptisen ten polin', 'flooded into the city', to escape the Roman armies.

So there are figurative meanings of baptizo. But they all seem to have the sense of flooding or drowning. If anyone can find a clear, documented example of baptizo being used in the sense of 'trickling' or 'sprinkling', I shall genuinely be interested to hear it.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
If anyone can find a clear, documented example of baptizo being used in the sense of 'trickling' or 'sprinkling', I shall genuinely be interested to hear it.

Numbers 19:11

He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days: [12] the same shall purify himslef therewith on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify himself not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean. [13] Whosoever toucheth a dead person, the body of a man thathath died, and purifieth not himslef, defileth the tabernacle of Jehovah; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water for impurity was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.

The like language is extended and repeated until verse 22 (end of chapter).

Now take a look at extra-biblical, contemporaneous, pre-Christian literature, again from the Apocrypha, Siriach (or Ecclesiasticus) 31:25 (34:25 in English versions):

"Baptizomenos (nom. s. m. pres. mid/pass participle of baptizo) apo nekrou, kai palin aptomenos autou, ti wfelhse tw loutrw autou?"

"He that washeth himself after touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing?"


I'll work on further investigation of the purported Josephus references but I do not have him in Greek at the moment.

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[Steve Owen]

Doh!
Well done, Bruce! It's a fair cop!
The voice in my head told me I was setting myself up, but I didn't listen.

I will just point out that the writers of the Septuagint translated Num 19:11 correctly; they used raino, 'to sprinkle.'

However, I'm happy to amend my former comment. I wrote:-

The Jews were also familiar with all sorts of sprinklings, but these are never called baptisms for the very good reason that they do not include immersion.

I withdraw this comment, and substitute:-
The Jews were also familiar with all sorts of sprinklings, but these are almost never called baptisms for the very good reason that they do not include immersion.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

I withdraw this comment, and substitute:-
The Jews were also familiar with all sorts of sprinklings, but these are almost never called baptisms for the very good reason that they do not include immersion.

Thus, according to your own admission, a "baptism" is not *always* an immersion. When you say that something other than immersion is "almost never" called a baptism, you therefore admit that *some* baptisms are by affusion.

Thus, you defeat your own case. Unless you can demonstrate that 100% of baptisms are by immersion, you lose this debate.

From the beginning, we have agreed that immersions are valid. We just didn't appreciate you claiming that a baptism MUST be immersion, 100% of the time, no matter what.

So thank you for your concession. The word "baptism" does NOT always mean immerse. Amen!

 

[Steve Owen]

Hi Joseph,
I wrote earlier:-

There are the various other arguments in favour of immersion which I won't go over again. It is possible to nit-pick at each one if you're determined to do so. What I say is that taken as a whole they make an unanswerable case for immersion. But if you're determined to sprinkle, go ahead and be happy! It's not me you answer to. You are welcome to my church; welcome to take the Lord's Supper; welcome even to become a member. What we won't do, however is baptize you by sprinkling, because we dare not disregard what appears to us to be a clear ordinance of God which we are able to obey.

I don't see any reason to alter that statement. I have spent quite some time looking at extra-biblical usages of baptizo. Warriors 'baptize' their swords in each other, ships are 'baptized' in the sea when they sink, and so on. I could not find a single instance of baptizo meaning 'sprinkle,' and I did look quite hard. Now Bruce has found one that might mean that, and well done to him. But whatever the reason for it, it cannot obscure the fact that the overwhelming usage of baptizo is 'immerse' and it will not do so even if two or three more might be found.

Grace & Peace,

Martin