Why I reject Immersion-Only Baptism

[PuritanCovenanter]

At the same time I would say that death, burial, and resurrection are pictured better by the immersion method.

Except for the fact that this is an anachronistic understanding of what it means to be "buried." It is taking a modern conception of burial (i.e., a body being placed beneath the surface of the ground) and imposing that on the text of Romans 6. It is true enough that we are buried with Christ through baptism into death, but what did Jesus' burial look like? He was placed in a cave with a stone rolled over it -- hardly an exact metaphor to the way (some) immersionists which to depict it. Furthermore, burial is not the only metaphor for baptism in the writings of Paul: "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ" (Galatians 4:27). I'm not sure how one would depict that through immersion.

It was still a placing in the ground or internment. If you notice I never use Romans Romans 6 as argument. It is a totally different greek word for bury as is the word in Colosians 2:12.

There is an internment spoken of. It is in the ground. And there is also the concept of Coming out of the grave. Anyways, maybe we are thinking too much like the Western Culture. I definitely don't see this in the rituals and rites of Indians who burned the bodies that were suspended in the air by a platform type structure.

Anyways, As I said, I really don't have a dog in this fight.

 

[Marrow Man]

If you notice I never use Romans Romans 6 as argument. It is a totally different greek word for bury as is the word in Colosians 2:12.

No, it's a different form of the same Greek word in both cases (sunthapto -- to be buried together with), although one is a participle and the other is a verb. But I'm willing to let sleeping dogs die, er, lie.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

One more thought, and I am thinking out aloud Tim, if our baptism shows the death, burial, and resurrection then the putting on Christ would be something more akin to our clothing ourselves in His righteousness. In other words it would have more to do with our identifying with him and being raised in newness of life. Either way it is fully enveloping.

 

[Marrow Man]

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of Paul's metaphors having to do with our union with Christ and the benefits of that joining to Him, not with modes of application. To take passages that speak of what our Lord has accomplished for us and reduce them arguments over mode sort of misses the whole point of what Paul is saying.

 

[Marrow Man]

Of course, now that I think about it, it is kind of ironically funny that Paul compares being baptized into Christ to being clothed with Him, and those two EO guys were baptized in their underwear.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I agree with Pastor Tim Phillips for the most part. In my estimation a lot of people get too hung up on the particulars and miss the real thing. See, Baptists and Presbyterians can agree. :^)

 

[Marrow Man]

See, Baptists and Presbyterians can agree. :^)

Especially a Presbyterian who was immersed and a Baptist who is a member of a Presbyterian Church.

 

[MW]

How does the position that immersion was used by the NT church (and I cannot find where Calvin ever asserted otherwise), but then insisting that other modes are just as good, comport with the RPW? In one place Calvin even explains his position by saying that "the church did grant herself the liberty to change the rite [of baptism by immersion] somewhat."

There is social convention and there is religious institution. The RPW applies to the latter. There was originally a fellowship meal connected with the Lord's supper. That was a social convention. In 1 Cor. 11 we find the apostle Paul confining the meal to the home and separating the bread and wine as sacramental elements. The social convention of participating in a meal is not required. The religious institution of partaking of the elements remains. Likewise, in baptism, the association of cleansing with bathing means that the social convention of being IN water (not necessarily submerged) is attached to the sacrament, but it is the application of the water itself which constitutes the essential element of baptism. The social convention may be easily removed without affecting the essential sacramental character of applying water to the person.

 

[Particular Baptist]

On this issue, I have found Warfield's work, The Archaeology of the Mode of Baptism, to be interesting. I believe this is the work that convinced Lloyd-Jones of the practice of pouring over immersion as being more biblical. If I remember correctly, he asserted that from the standpoint of Archaeology, it appears that baptism was done with the subject being waste deep in the baptismal waters and water poured over the head of the subject three times. He mentions how there was much debate over whether three pourings or one pouring was better, as well as if three or one immersions was the biblical mode. I'm not sure if he endorced this thesis, but I also think he mentions a hypothesis that perhaps both pouring and immersion were part of the original mode of baptism and later the Oriental churches began to emphasis immersion and the Latin church, affusion. Also, I think he rightly points out, that in the early church no baptism, of whatever mode, was considered invalid because of mode.

 

[timmopussycat]

On this issue, I have found Warfield's work, The Archaeology of the Mode of Baptism, to be interesting. I believe this is the work that convinced Lloyd-Jones of the practice of pouring over immersion as being more biblical. If I remember correctly, he asserted that from the standpoint of Archaeology, it appears that baptism was done with the subject being waste deep in the baptismal waters and water poured over the head of the subject three times. He mentions how there was much debate over whether three pourings or one pouring was better, as well as if three or one immersions was the biblical mode. I'm not sure if he endorced this thesis, but I also think he mentions a hypothesis that perhaps both pouring and immersion were part of the original mode of baptism and later the Oriental churches began to emphasis immersion and the Latin church, affusion. Also, I think he rightly points out, that in the early church no baptism, of whatever mode, was considered invalid because of mode.

And on this Warfield may have been wrong. I have this second hand, but my understanding is that one of Warfield's claims was that the apostles did not have suffiicient water handy to immerse the thousands who professed faith on Pentecost and on the other occasion shortly thereafter. In actual fact it appears that the temple bathhouses would have easily sufficed for such crowds.

 

[torstar]

At the same time I would say that death, burial, and resurrection are pictured better by the immersion method.

Except for the fact that this is an anachronistic understanding of what it means to be "buried." It is taking a modern conception of burial (i.e., a body being placed beneath the surface of the ground) and imposing that on the text of Romans 6. It is true enough that we are buried with Christ through baptism into death, but what did Jesus' burial look like? He was placed in a cave with a stone rolled over it -- hardly an exact metaphor to the way (some) immersionists which to depict it. Furthermore, burial is not the only metaphor for baptism in the writings of Paul: "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ" (Galatians 3:27). I'm not sure how one would depict that through immersion.

Excellent point.

Also, Lazarus didn't have to pull a Houdini to get out of his sealed casket and then burrow like a mole towards the sunlight.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Lazarus didn't have a sealed casket. But he was in the ground or cave and enveloped. We discussed this already. Jesus did stand outside after they uncovered the tomb to call Lazarus out.

 

[Peairtach]

Isn't it the case that we are baptised by/with the Holy Spirit by Christ into His birth, ministry, life, crucifixion, death, resurrection, ascension and session at regeneration?

This spiritual baptism is symbolised by water baptism. The crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection are just around the point of Christ's moving from a state of humiliation to a state of exaltation, but they do not represent all that we are baptised into.

This was one reason - apart from the fact that He did not have all power in Heaven and on Earth until His session, not being at the right hand of the Father - why Christ delayed baptising the disciples into Himself with the Spirit until His session. He couldn't appropriately baptise them into His ascension and session until Pentecost.

E.g.

You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28, ESV)

E.g. When Christ rose from the dead He gave the disciples a foretaste of Pentecost but not the full baptism into Him, because He had not ascended and was not seated in Heaven at the right hand of the Father.

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." John 20:22, ESV)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The full context of Calvin's remarks actually raises another question for me: How does the position that immersion was used by the NT church (and I cannot find where Calvin ever asserted otherwise), but then insisting that other modes are just as good, comport with the RPW? In one place Calvin even explains his position by saying that "the church did grant herself the liberty to change the rite [of baptism by immersion] somewhat."

However, thats another thread...(which maybe I'll start sometime later).

I assume you understand the difference between an element and a circumstance...

 

[alb1]

Brother,

My point was that your paper only addressed Baptists, when in fact the Eastern Church typically holds the same position. Immersion is the catholic mode of the Church.

I attended a believer's baptism of a relative at an AOCA of North America parish about 15 years ago. There were two items in regards to belief that the the priest made perfectly clear; salvation is initiated in the waters of baptism and through the act of baptism your sins are actually forgiven. As far as the practice, he was immersed three times , in a large tub that he could sit in, backwards. Once in the name of the Father, once in the name of the Son, and once in the name of the Holy Spirit.

Besides immersing, the Baptists and Orthodox do share Romans 6 as their proof text for their respective ideas on baptism. Both allude to the union with Christ in baptism, Orthodox literally, Baptists symbolically.

 

[TomVols]

Though presently SBC, I am becoming less convinced of the traditional Baptist view of the subjects and mode of Baptism. I find much that is positive in Tony Lane's either/or approach.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Lazarus didn't have a sealed casket. But he was in the ground or cave and enveloped. We discussed this already. Jesus did stand outside after they uncovered the tomb to call Lazarus out.

Hi Randy:

When you take a shower you are being fully covered with water - enveloped - and yet it is a sprinkling. You are "under" the water when it is poured upon you in the shower. When people normally take a bath they do so by sitting in the tub and having hot water poured over their heads. Yet, we usually think of a bath as being fully immersed.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[Peairtach]

I'm not saying that this was originally part of what was behind the insistence that baptists had that the water is only to be applied by immersion, but it seems to have been a compelling superstitious reason behind Judaistic insistence on thorough immersion for the Old Covenant cleansing rites, that the water should touch every part of the body for the cleansing to be done properly.

Ritual washing in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Niddah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are differing customs about how many immersions are performed at each visit to a mikvah. It is the custom of many in the Orthodox community to immerse at least twice.[25] Accordingly, they would immerse, recite the blessing, then immerse again. This order is in deference to two opinions in the codes. One compares this immersion to that of a convert, who cannot recite the blessing before immersing as s/he is not yet Jewish. The other opinion states that like other commandments, here too the blessing should be recited before performing the commandment.[26]

Immersion at the mikvah is preceded by an ordinary bath or shower, involving the cleaning of every body cavity, including the ears, and of the nails, as well trimming all nails (toenails as well as fingernails), removal of food from between the teeth, and combing of the hair. There is usually a female attendant at mikvahs to help women to ensure that they are prepared for immersion.

A special type of bath, designed to be in direct contact with naturally gathered water, known as a mikvah, was created by the rabbis to simplify ritual washing, although certain forms of immersion in natural streams, lakes, and even the sea, if cleared by a rabbi, are still considered sufficient. (See Ritual washing in Judaism for additional details). According to tradition, there must be nothing between the woman and the water at any point of her body, and therefore before bathing, the woman is traditionally required to remove all jewelry, make-up, and any other obstructions (defined in such a way that in modern times this would include contact lenses); the rabbinical tradition requires full immersion, including the entire head of hair.

It is also customary for a specific Hebrew blessing to be recited during immersion:

(Hebrew) Baruch atah Ha-Shem, Elokainu Melech Ha'Olam, asher kidshanu b'mitzvotav v'tzivanu al ha-tevila
(translation) Blessed are you, the Name, our God, King of the Universe, who has sanctified us with his commandments, and has commanded us regarding immersion.

Water doesn't need to touch every part of the body for a proper baptism since it is a symbol of the cleansing of the heart as Christ applies His finished work in regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Herald]

As a sort of rebellious Reformed Baptist I subscribe to immersion as the sole mode among Baptists, but I would not discount the baptism of a person who was sprinkled or poured outside of a Baptist church. If an individual wanted to join my church I would accept their baptism, regardless of mode, so long as it was trinitarian and credo. Most Baptists would link mode with type, but I only require it when the individual has no other church affiliation and is seeking believers baptism.

Sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix

 

[Pilgrim]

As a sort of rebellious Reformed Baptist I subscribe to immersion as the sole mode among Baptists, but I would not discount the baptism of a person who was sprinkled or poured outside of a Baptist church. If an individual wanted to join my church I would accept their baptism, regardless of mode, so long as it was trinitarian and credo. Most Baptists would link mode with type, but I only require it when the individual has no other church affiliation and is seeking believers baptism.

Rebellious indeed! And unconfessional to boot! Is the crisis really over? (For the newcomers, Bill's handle here used to be "Baptist in Crisis.") From a confessional standpoint overall I'm sure I'm much more rebellious than you are.

On this issue, I too have been questioning the insistence on immersion only as baptism. The inconsistency of the prevalence of open communion in most Baptist churches (whether "Reformed" or not) is a related subject. If I had to take a position now, it would probably be something like Bunyan's, which is reflected in many non-denominational Bible churches and the Evangelical Free church. The only other position that makes sense to me from a credo (and immersionist) standpoint is the traditional closed membership close communion view in which baptism by immersion is prerequisite to both church membership and the Lord's Supper. This is the view reflected in nearly every historic Baptist confession. The 2nd London Baptist Confession is the only exception that I'm aware of, but my guess is that the vast majority of those present held to the close communion view.

When you think about it, immersionism can be taken to absurd lengths, many of which appear to be good and necessary consequences of taking on that position. A few years ago, I witnessed a baptism in which about half of one of the man's arms was not immersed. Does that mean that the baptism was not valid? How can it be from an immersionist standpoint? I wonder if I were to point this out to the pastor and if it were to be confirmed on video, would he want to (re)baptize the man? A Southern Baptist pastor friend told me he's had feet and legs pop out of the water, etc. I should have asked him if those cases require another go at it. Or does close count not only with horseshoes and hand grenades, but with immersion as well?

It seems to me that the open table at most Baptist churches is a way to dodge some of the "odious consequences" of the immersionist view, to quote Dabney. In Dabney's day, close or closed communion in Baptist churches was the norm.

 

[Particular Baptist]

One thing that I'm beginning to understand about baptismal mode, and I think this has to play a part in our understanding of baptism, is that Christianity is not to be tied to any particular place. However, according to those who believe that immersion is the only acceptable mode of baptism, how can they assert such a claim? How could someone practice Christianity in a place where water is not in so much abundance that baptism by immersion could not be practiced? I think we begin to, in a certain way, restrict where the gospel may be preached and the sacraments faithfully administered when we state that baptism can ONLY be by immersion.

 

[Herald]

Rebellious indeed! And unconfessional to boot! Is the crisis really over? (For the newcomers, Bill's handle here used to be "Baptist in Crisis.") From a confessional standpoint overall I'm sure I'm much more rebellious than you are.

"Conflict? There is no conflict." ~ Darth Vader

Actually, there is no crisis. I am still a credobaptist and believe that immersion is the proper mode. If an individual desires to join my church, and they have never been baptized, they must submit to immersion; it is not open to negotiation. However, if an individual was baptized by pouring or sprinkling, upon a credible profession of faith, I will not require them to submit to immersion in order to make their baptism valid. I believe the command is to believe and be baptized. That command is of more weight than mode; although I am not lessening the importance or significance of mode. It is enough for me that an individual has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit upon the confession of their faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I agree with Herald.

 

[Jack K]

I agree with Herald.

And I appreciate the willingness both of you brothers have to go even that far in recognizing the baptisms performed by other churches belonging to our Lord. Just thought I'd express that appreciation.

 

[Marrow Man]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It seems to me that a willingness to accept a baptism that is not by immersion is a tacit rejection of the immersionist-only position. In other words, either mode is a circumstance or it is so tied to administration that it can be said that a person was never baptized if they were not immersed. If the latter, then it could not merely be a personal scruple.

Frankly, I believe the immersionist-only position tries to devolve the discussion down to the etymology of a word while ignoring widespread Biblical use of ther term. Furthermore, it is impossible to demonstrate an explicit command to immerse. Quite the contrary, "baptisms" by sprinkling are all over the OT ceremonial practice and 1 Cor 10:2 indicates a baptism in the mist of the Red Sea. Furthermore, baptism of the Holy Spirit is repeatedly seen as a "pouring out."

I've never seen anything other than "bapto means dip or immerse" as an argument from etymology. By the same argument, we would have to apply the term logos, as used of Christ, to refer to an impersonal emanation.

 

[Herald]

It seems to me that a willingness to accept a baptism that is not by immersion is a tacit rejection of the immersionist-only position.

I expected one or more PB members to bring this up. I see it differently. I am an immersionist. I require immersion with every baptism that is performed in my church. I admit that accepting a person who was previously administered baptism by sprinkling or pouring, upon a credible profession of faith, is out of practice with the general immersionist position. However, I'm not terribly concerned about that. I believe that requiring them to submit to immersion, after they have already been baptized upon their profession, is straining a gnat. I don't want anyone to misconstrue my view as accepting paedobaptism as a valid baptism. I just happen to believe that RB's should emphasize what is truly important about baptism; namely that the proper recipient is one who professes faith in Jesus Christ. Require immersion as the proper mode? Absolutely. Require rebaptism because of an irregularity regarding mode? No. If that makes me contra-confessional with the 1689 then I suppose I have an exception in this area.

 

[Phil D.]

1 Cor 10:2 indicates a baptism in the mist of the Red Sea.

Really? What translation do you use?

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Rich,
you said this;

Quite the contrary, "baptisms" by sprinkling are all over the OT ceremonial practice and 1 Cor 10:2 indicates a baptism in the mist of the Red Sea

you said mist.....in other words "sprinkling of water"? Yet the text in Exodus indicates a place, the mi d st of the sea the d in the middle means central right. Even the soldiers went into the midst. The water of baptism proved to be death to the egyptians who were not rightly related to it. They did not come through it to new life.They perished like the world in the flood in the day of Noah.Those not rightly related to the judgment perished by immersion, the water of Death as they were not in the Ark. All that died were immersed.....not sprinkled. Even Jonah praying in chapter two was as good as dead and the language of his prayer seems very similar to the language of Psalm 69...being overflowed by water.....and for all practical purposes dead for three days figuratively ,until he learns salvation is of the Lord.In the fish he was immersed,not sprinkled.
We are rightly related to the judgment in Union with Christ.We come through the waters of death in a figure ,in Christ.
Thomas Manton on his sermons on Romans 6 in volume 11 had no problem with immersion being the mode.

I think clearly immersion relates best to these three examples, instead of speculating that the wall of water may have provided a "mist" to sprinkle everyone.

Exodus 14-says

21And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

22And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

[QUOTE 23And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen.

][/QUOTE]

27And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.

28And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.

29But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

Jonah 2
1Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly,

2And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

3For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.

4Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.

5The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.

6I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.

7When my soul fainted within me I remembered the LORD: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.

8They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.

9But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.

10And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.

[QUOTE 1Save me, O God; for the waters are come in unto my soul.

2I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me.

3I am weary of my crying: my throat is dried: mine eyes fail while I wait for my God.

4They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away.

5O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee.

6Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel.

7Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face.

8I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.

9For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

10When I wept, and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach.

11I made sackcloth also my garment; and I became a proverb to them.

12They that sit in the gate speak against me; and I was the song of the drunkards.

13But as for me, my prayer is unto thee, O LORD, in an acceptable time: O God, in the multitude of thy mercy hear me, in the truth of thy salvation.

14Deliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink: let me be delivered from them that hate me, and out of the deep waters.

15Let not the waterflood overflow me, neither let the deep swallow me up, and let not the pit shut her mouth upon me.

16Hear me, O LORD; for thy lovingkindness is good: turn unto me according to the multitude of thy tender mercies.

17And hide not thy face from thy servant; for I am in trouble: hear me speedily.

18Draw nigh unto my soul, and redeem it: deliver me because of mine enemies.

19Thou hast known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonour: mine adversaries are all before thee.

20Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none.

21They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

22Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.

23Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake.

24Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them.

25Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.

][/QUOTE]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

1 Cor 10:2 indicates a baptism in the mist of the Red Sea.

Really? What translation do you use?

Are you aware of anyone who was immersed in the Red Sea other than Pharaoh's Army? Every translation I have read clearly records the Israelites as walking across with walls of water on either side as they passed through. 1 Cor 10:2 states they were baptized in the "cloud" and the "Red Sea". If baptism, by a typical Baptist reading, means to immerse the individual in the medium spoken of then, by definition, this verse is a counter-factual as the Israelites were clearly not immersed into the Red Sea but walked through it.

At best, whatever else the Israelites physically experienced as they passed through was mist. By noting this, I'm not creating an eisogetical case for sprinkling but merely pointing out that they were baptized into Moses as they physically passed through sea mist. If you would like to make the argument that this was a baptism that had no physical means then I'm fine with that but, either way, it is quite clear that all Israel was baptized and no immersion in water occurred.