Consequently, by calling it a "baptism" you are not an immersion-only Baptist because you do not see mode as material to the definition of baptism itself.
Why I reject Immersion-Only Baptism
- Thread starter ThomasCartwright
- Start date
- Status
Consequently, by calling it a "baptism" you are not an immersion-only Baptist because you do not see mode as material to the definition of baptism itself.
The point is, again, that all examples given are baptisms where the subjects baptized were NOT immersed in water. In other words, the use of the term in the Scriptures points to many examples where the subjects of baptism are not immersed by the physical medium of water. Thus, as pointed out, one cannot make the case, based upon the etymology of a word, that baptism means immersion in water and an explicit command by the Lord is associated with the selection of this word.
Actually, all of the various aspects of this event as it relates to "baptism by immersion" have been given probable explanation by Jewish, early Christian, medieval, and Reformed exegetes alike. I'll tell you what, once I get my promised reply to Seth regarding the pouring out of the Holy Spirit posted here (hopefully later today or tomorrow), in a few days I'll start a new thread for the discussion of this fascinating facet of the "great modal debate"!
R Harris
Puritan Board Sophomore
The problem that I have with many Baptists on the point is the dogmatic emphasis that immersion is the only way, when clearly there is no explicit instruction in the NT to that effect. We all must thoroughly reject the Landmarkian ideology in every respect.
Several points which have been made in many threads over the years on this board:
1. James Dale's three volume series - Baptizo - Classic Baptism, Judaic Baptism, and Johannine Baptism - convincingly demonstrated over 140 years ago that baptizo does not mean only to immerse and nothing but immerse. Many Baptists in the late 1800s came to that very conclusion as a result of Dr. Dale's remarkable study (such as Baptist theologian David Ford). If you have not seen this series, you really ought to. Many positive comments from Baptists and non-Baptists on the back of each book.
2. The NT examples in Acts have to provide conclusive evidence that only an immersion could have occurred. It is interesting in Acts 8 that Philip and the Eunuch BOTH went down into the water - the point meaning that if I walk down into a pond or lake and only go knee or waist deep, I went down into the water, and then turning around I came up out of the water, without ever having immersed my entire body. Think about it; if you were sprinkling, and you were by a pond or lake, how would it be easiest to perform the baptism? By going in waist deep, with the water right there, is a far more easier and efficient task.
3. I have searched far and wide, but I cannot find any immersionist who can present even a plausible explanation as to how Paul could have been immersed in Acts 9. He was inside the house, which immediately poses a problem, since homes in Damascus in AD 33 did not have any kind of facilities that could have allowed an immersion to have occurred. Only kings, other rulers, or the wealthiest nobles had any kind of water facilities in their homes. Judas was not described as such, and Luke was always careful to note if a man was of that position anywhere else in Acts.
Also note that after Paul received his sight from the Holy Spirit, he STOOD UP, and then was immediately baptized. He then took food and was strengthened. No movement from the room or the house is recorded.
The point of this instance is that the immersionist must make many far-reaching assumptions to provide the possibility of an immersion. With the sprinkler/pourer, such is not the case, as vases/jars of water could readily be available.
Still waiting, after 25 years, to find adequate responses to these issues.
Several points which have been made in many threads over the years on this board:
1. James Dale's three volume series - Baptizo - Classic Baptism, Judaic Baptism, and Johannine Baptism - convincingly demonstrated over 140 years ago that baptizo does not mean only to immerse and nothing but immerse. Many Baptists in the late 1800s came to that very conclusion as a result of Dr. Dale's remarkable study (such as Baptist theologian David Ford). If you have not seen this series, you really ought to. Many positive comments from Baptists and non-Baptists on the back of each book.
2. The NT examples in Acts have to provide conclusive evidence that only an immersion could have occurred. It is interesting in Acts 8 that Philip and the Eunuch BOTH went down into the water - the point meaning that if I walk down into a pond or lake and only go knee or waist deep, I went down into the water, and then turning around I came up out of the water, without ever having immersed my entire body. Think about it; if you were sprinkling, and you were by a pond or lake, how would it be easiest to perform the baptism? By going in waist deep, with the water right there, is a far more easier and efficient task.
3. I have searched far and wide, but I cannot find any immersionist who can present even a plausible explanation as to how Paul could have been immersed in Acts 9. He was inside the house, which immediately poses a problem, since homes in Damascus in AD 33 did not have any kind of facilities that could have allowed an immersion to have occurred. Only kings, other rulers, or the wealthiest nobles had any kind of water facilities in their homes. Judas was not described as such, and Luke was always careful to note if a man was of that position anywhere else in Acts.
Also note that after Paul received his sight from the Holy Spirit, he STOOD UP, and then was immediately baptized. He then took food and was strengthened. No movement from the room or the house is recorded.
The point of this instance is that the immersionist must make many far-reaching assumptions to provide the possibility of an immersion. With the sprinkler/pourer, such is not the case, as vases/jars of water could readily be available.
Still waiting, after 25 years, to find adequate responses to these issues.
I addressed # 1 ad nauseum here.
Also, I'm not sure it's accurate to say "many Baptists in the late 1800s came to that very conclusion as a result of Dr. Dale's remarkable study (such as Baptist theologian David Ford)...[there are] many positive comments from Baptists...on the back of each book." If I missed this, and it can be documented, I'd truly be interested to see it.
Since I already have several irons in the fire, I'll have to take a pass on answering 2 and 3 in-depth. But I can assure you they have been extensively addressed by Baptist writers before - perhaps not to your satisfaction, but obviously to others'. Maybe we can look into them more sometime down the road.
Last edited:
Iconoclast
Puritan Board Junior
Well I do agree in part Rich,with the physical part of the OT types.I think we agree that what is at issue is the signification of the sign. The baptism is to represent in part our Union with Christ. Either as you would teach as a sign signifying what happens to believers when God saves them, or as a credo would say it shows what has happened to the professed believer by the Spirits work in regeneration and new birth.
What I see in the OT types is the believers passing through the judgment waters, not so much that they got physically wet.I see more the idea of those trusting the promise of God's word pass through the judgment...In The Ark, unto Moses, and In Christ. This identification with the promise of God is the central idea depicted...even in Romans 6;
[QUOTE 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
][/QUOTE]
What I am trying to say is it is that they came out of the water,alive,which the same water was death to those without promise.
This helps me understand what Jesus spoke ofin Lk12;
This baptism has to do with the suffering on the cross on our behalf. Water is not involved. But we identify with it IN Christ.
Can you see this element at all... the passing through the judgment, In Christ.;
Anthony,
All you've shown is that there is a spiritual reality associated with baptism but have not demonstrated a corresponding necessity with a specific mode to signify the same. Even the passage from Romans 6 that you bolded (buried with Him...) speaks to spiritual union with Christ in His death and not (as commonly abused) with mode of baptism.
All you've shown is that there is a spiritual reality associated with baptism but have not demonstrated a corresponding necessity with a specific mode to signify the same. Even the passage from Romans 6 that you bolded (buried with Him...) speaks to spiritual union with Christ in His death and not (as commonly abused) with mode of baptism.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Psalm 77:17 indicates rain during the exodus through the Red Sea.
Spurgeon's "Treasury of David"
Maybe sometimes sitting or standing in the water in baptism, while not necessary, while having it applied by pouring or sprinkling captures these types of salvation and judgment well - the Flood and the Exodus.
Ahh - yet another future thread...
Iconoclast
Puritan Board Junior
Rich I agree about Spirit baptism in Romans 6. Do you agree about the ot references to water speaking of the judgment of God,and believers identified properly with the promise of God's word coming through the judgment ?
Although I do believe that immersion does picture this more clearly than sprinkling, I cannot say it is indisputable.[in reference to mode] It just seems clear to me at this point. I would like your thoughts however on the verses cited,and the judgment of God. Do you see this[judgment and death] in the verses ,or do you think this is not a valid understanding of these texts? Are you aware of any who view it this way?
Although I do believe that immersion does picture this more clearly than sprinkling, I cannot say it is indisputable.[in reference to mode] It just seems clear to me at this point. I would like your thoughts however on the verses cited,and the judgment of God. Do you see this[judgment and death] in the verses ,or do you think this is not a valid understanding of these texts? Are you aware of any who view it this way?
BertMulder
Puritan Board Junior
From the reformed baptism form:
O Almighty and eternal God, thou, who hast according to thy severe judgment punished the unbelieving and unrepentant world with the flood, and hast according to thy great mercy saved and protected believing Noah and his family; thou, who hast drowned the obstinate Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea, and hast led thy people Israel through the midst of the Sea upon dry ground,by which baptism was signified
I note that the ones being immersed are the ones that perished...
furthermore, sprinkling is often used in the Old Testament for the cleaning rite:
Exodus 24:8
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
Exodus 29:21
And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him: and he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with him.
Leviticus 4:6
And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary.
Numbers 8:7
And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.
Ezekiel 36:25
Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
O Almighty and eternal God, thou, who hast according to thy severe judgment punished the unbelieving and unrepentant world with the flood, and hast according to thy great mercy saved and protected believing Noah and his family; thou, who hast drowned the obstinate Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea, and hast led thy people Israel through the midst of the Sea upon dry ground,by which baptism was signified
I note that the ones being immersed are the ones that perished...
furthermore, sprinkling is often used in the Old Testament for the cleaning rite:
Exodus 24:8
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
Exodus 29:21
And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him: and he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with him.
Leviticus 4:6
And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary.
Numbers 8:7
And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.
Ezekiel 36:25
Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
There is death signified in the Lord's Supper as well. The sign signifies many things that are not immediately apparent by the relative simplicity of the meal.
It's relatively easy with the Lord's Supper to know that we're dealing with bread and wine. From what we know it is clear there was a common cup and they broke up bread to pass to one another. It seems clear to me, at least, to insist upon this "mode" of the Lord's Supper (common cup and one big piece of bread divided among those celebrating) if one is going to apply the same logic to build a case for immersion-only baptism.
Remember, we're not talking about the possibility of the validity of a mode. This thread is speaking of the mode as so certain, so obvious by GNC, that it has been instituted by Christ and no other mode is acceptable. Probable explanations of the Red Sea crossing by Jewish or Christian commentators do not a clear case make.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f87/dead-sin-alive-Christ-rom-6-1-11-a-50607/
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Maybe sometimes sitting or standing in the water in baptism, while not necessary, while having it applied by pouring or sprinkling captures these types of salvation and judgment well - the Flood and the Exodus.
Doing this sometimes in Presbyterian churches would involve extra work, but would be a way of reaching out to our less dogmatic Reformed Baptist brethren.
Doing this sometimes in Presbyterian churches would involve extra work, but would be a way of reaching out to our less dogmatic Reformed Baptist brethren.
athanatos
Puritan Board Freshman
I believe I would argue for the same. As a Reformed Baptist who is only in the last couple years seen anything strongly supporting paedobaptism, and finding a lot more the more I think about it, I have really loosened up on my view.
I am not sure this makes sense to me. Is there a way you could explain type in this context? I believe I have mode down.
What is Bunyan's view?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.
I feel like the particulars are being missed if we argued for sprinkling-only, immersion-only, or dipped-sprinkling-only. That may make me a confessional failure, especially since I am not 100% convinced at this point on whether I am gonna stick with credo. The symbolic sacrament has within it a level of intent and performance (but not necessarily perfect in expression), but real actualization. For even a child saying "cah" while pointing to an SUV, rather than "car" (intended symbol) or "SUV" (intended referent), still represents the SUV actually. To pretend the kid isn't talking about the SUV because, well, it is an SUV, not a car; or to pretend that the kid isn't talking about the SUV, because, well, it is not a "cah", then we've missed the point entirely.
Isn't it true that, historically, in the early church (over a hundred years after the apostles) baptism was formally done with catechism and a time of preparation -- they would prepare the person and the method to perform the baptism? If that is the case, then without making haste to perform it they could get an abundance of water collecting over a period of time or traveling a distance.
What's the difference between proper and valid? Like, isn't "invalid" to mean that it is as if they never got baptized?Herald said:
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Maybe its time we Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists buried the hatchet and let the loooooooooove flow 
On a more serious note, doesn't the mode of immersion strengthen the case for credo-only baptism to the credo-baptist community, since it is maybe difficult or possibly harmful to immerse babies? Could babies choke or get water in their lungs if unexpectedly immersed as is done with converts in baptist churches?
On a more serious note, doesn't the mode of immersion strengthen the case for credo-only baptism to the credo-baptist community, since it is maybe difficult or possibly harmful to immerse babies? Could babies choke or get water in their lungs if unexpectedly immersed as is done with converts in baptist churches?
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Bunyan's view was that differences over baptism were no bar to communion/church membership. (I think this was discussed at length in either this thread or the other one Bill started on the LBCF and immersion.) As I understand it, it is similar to what the Evangelical Free churches and some Bible churches practice. I know that at least some in this category go further than Bill and will admit those who were sprinkled prior to a profession of faith (e.g. as infants) as well.
As Bill notes, his scenario in which a man or woman was baptized by a mode other than immersion is pretty rare. Even in those cases, most who wish to unite with a Baptist church ("Reformed" or not) will almost always want to be immersed since that is what is taught there. Joining a church, especially one that majors on doctrinal teaching and preaching, would seem to necessarily entail some identification with the church's teaching and practice. Joining a church like Bill's is something to which more thought is typically given compared to joining the big steeple church on the corner on Main Street or the multi-campus megachurch in the suburbs.
Nevertheless, I do believe Rich is correct in noting that Bill's stance as articulated raises some implications as to what Bill thinks the mode really is. My guess is that Bill might say something like "We practice immersion here because we believe it to be the biblical mode. Baptism by sprinkling or pouring is irregular but not invalid, thus we will not divide over the issue so long as the baptism was subsequent to conversion." This would be similar to how the Reformed throughout history have tended explain their acceptance of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism. As I recall it, their basic argument is that Roman Catholic baptism is irregular but not invalid and that like circumcision, baptism is not repeatable. In other words, it is definitely not recommended, but nevertheless the validity of the sacrament or ordinance is upheld because it is still trinitarian, etc. (Not all Reformed churches accept RC baptism, but the majority have historically, with the notable exception of the Southern Presbyterians in the USA.)
In my experience (which may be colored by my living in the Deep South) examples of those who are in effect "credo baptized" by sprinkling as adults or as older children in paedobaptist churches are relatively rare, as most in those churches are typically sprinkled as infants. Those coming in from the outside typically already have some church background and will have already been baptized (in some form acceptable to paedos) at some point previously. (What amounts to a late stage paedobaptism is all too frequent in many baptistic churches as well, where children as young as 5 or under are baptized.)
However, the numbers of those who come of age who have little or no church background (using church very loosely here) figures to become more common in the future as our culture identifies less and less with Christianity, even in the Bible Belt. No doubt it is already more common in other areas than my native Deep South. Thus, the cases in which a believer is baptized by sprinkling or pouring subsequent to a profession of faith may increase in the future.
What have you seen that "strongly supports paedobaptism?" You can send a PM or start another thread if you like since that is somewhat off topic in this thread.
A question for Bill: Would you accept a credo-sprinkling (or pouring) from basically any non-Catholic and non-cultic group? Would this include mainline Protestants? Would you limit it to evangelical churches? Or would you limit it to confessional Reformed churches only?
It would seem to me that if one who holds to some latitude on mode when accepting members were to accept an immersion from any of the above groups, consistency would demand that one must accept a credo sprinkling or pouring from them as well. The reason I ask the question is that I would imagine that some in the "Reformed Baptist" camp might more readily accept a man who had been sprinkled after having come to faith in the OPC or PCA as opposed to the United Methodist Church or the United Church of Christ.
Last edited:
Chris, I would accept a credo/trinitarian baptism that was performed by a true church. By true church I mean one that proclaims the gospel, practices church discipline, and where the ordinances (mode of baptism notwithstanding) are practiced.
Sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix
Sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
It would seem that the subjects (or objects if, you prefer) of baptism would not play a part in your definition of a true church or a right administration of the ordinances either. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to accept baptisms from paedobaptist churches. By the Baptist definition, paedobaptist churches do not administer baptism properly, even if you allow for latitude on mode.
I do want to note that, in case it's not clear, I'm not looking for contentious debate here. I'm simply trying to delve into your thought process a little. These are issues I've been contemplating as well.
Chris, I'm not seeking Baptist approval for my conviction. Don't get me wrong, I'm not seeking contention either. For me it all stems from what is required for New Covenant membership. On that issue I am a Baptist's Baptist.
Sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix
Sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
I think perhaps we spend way too much time focusing on the proper mode of baptism and we neglect the real issue; who should be baptised. Whether we sprinkle or dip, and how many times we sprinkle or dip, is not nearly as important as who it is we are sprinkling or dipping. Should the church be baptising infants? or should baptism be for believers only? I would have to say that it is the latter and it seems to me that the main reason the church moved away from any type of immersion and towards sprinkling is because no one wants their infant dunked under water. Just a thought.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hi Bill:
I think you have a point, but since sprinkling is the Biblical mode of baptism, then baptism of infants is more likely.
Blessings,
Rob
I think you have a point, but since sprinkling is the Biblical mode of baptism, then baptism of infants is more likely.
Blessings,
Rob
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hi Richard:
If I remember correctly, the Greek Orthodox Church immerses babies, and they do not seem to have a problem with infants choking. However, I believe they are taking the Greek word for "Baptism" too literally - as is our Baptist brothers. And one could almost turn the Baptist objections upon themselves on this matter: Where is the clear unambiguous examples in the New Testament of immersion? If they are going to demand clear examples of Infant Baptism in the New Testament, then would it not be proper for them to demonstrate unambiguous examples of immersion in the NT?
Blessings,
Rob
If I remember correctly, the Greek Orthodox Church immerses babies, and they do not seem to have a problem with infants choking. However, I believe they are taking the Greek word for "Baptism" too literally - as is our Baptist brothers. And one could almost turn the Baptist objections upon themselves on this matter: Where is the clear unambiguous examples in the New Testament of immersion? If they are going to demand clear examples of Infant Baptism in the New Testament, then would it not be proper for them to demonstrate unambiguous examples of immersion in the NT?
Blessings,
Rob
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
I think there are a lot of good points made by both sides of the baptism issue and I don't think any of us have room to be overly dogmatic on this subject. Baptism is afterall just a symbol, and it is what is being symbolized that is really important and not so much the symbol itself.
puritanpilgrim
Puritan Board Junior
Babies hold their breath if you blow on their face before they enter the water.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
Does that mean you guys are baptising babies out there in Texas?
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Quote from Robert
I don't know if they immerse them in the way Baptists demand for a proper baptism i.e. dunking the whole body, including the head which is normally used for breathing.
Bill
The Apostle Paul couldn't remember who he had baptised at Corinth (I Cor 1:16), whereas the Lord's Supper is hedged about with warnings about examining oneself before partaking and about chastisement (I Cor 11:27-34).
Aaron
Interesting; they're very clever. So this means that there is a way to baptise babies by full immersion.
I don't know if they immerse them in the way Baptists demand for a proper baptism i.e. dunking the whole body, including the head which is normally used for breathing.
Bill
The Apostle Paul couldn't remember who he had baptised at Corinth (I Cor 1:16), whereas the Lord's Supper is hedged about with warnings about examining oneself before partaking and about chastisement (I Cor 11:27-34).
Aaron
Interesting; they're very clever. So this means that there is a way to baptise babies by full immersion.
- Status
