Why Not All Three Modes of Baptism?

[Myson]

There has been a lot of ink (and sometimes blood and tears) spilt over the mode of baptism. As a member of a church and denomination that practices sprinkling in an area of America that nearly exclusively practices immersion (even in some of the Catholic and Methodist traditions!), I've thought a lot about this. I hope to not go into all the arguments over why one is necessarily better than the other, but from what I've read, nearly all sides believe that the Bible's picture of Baptism encompasses all three "modes" (sprinkled for a new conscience, buried with Christ in baptism, Holy Spirit poured on us, etc.). The history of the church has seemed to also testify to all 3 modes used throughout the world (earliest baptismals were big enough to be immersed in, gradually got smaller, Biblical arguments for the Eunuch and Gentile converts imply less water). Calvin himself believed that the Scriptures spoke of immersion but that sprinkling was fine!

From everything I've read, the Reformed have focused primarily on affusion or sprinkling, though acknowledge that the amount of water is ultimately trivial and indifferent. So, if that's true, and 1. All three modes capture a biblical theme, 2. Church history has permitted and practiced all three and 3. The true amount is immaterial... then what's wrong with a church practicing all 3 modes at the same time? Immersed, then poured with cupped hands, then sprinkled the rest, all in the name of the Father (who, with Christ's blood, cleanse us as he did the Israelites on Sinai), Son (with whom we are a new creation and United to him through his "overwhelming" of death) and Spirit (who has been poured out on us). Is this such a crazy idea? Wouldn't it sorta resolve a lot of needless nonsense in these arguments?

Lastly, regarding infants, the Greeks still immerse their infants, so it's not like it can't be done or necessarily shouldn't be done. If the Israelites had to watch their sons go through a surgery with an old primitive blade on only day 8, then certainly, Christians could stand a little extra water on their babies and save the cute white gown?

Again, I'm welcoming input. I've never heard anyone ever suggesting something like this, and I see no reason why it couldn't be done or even shouldn't be done. What are your thoughts?

 

[Jake]

What mode is "buried with Christ in baptism"? I'm not familiar with any tradition that pushes a person across the top of a body of water in the same manner as Christ went into the tomb, even if we leave off the closing of the tomb with a large stone from the act.

My comment above is tongue in cheek, but I fail to see the theological significance to immersion in the same way as pouring and sprinkling. I think the WCF is wise to see the validity of immersion while suggesting pouring or sprinkling. I would say sprinkling should err on the side of more water so as to encompass both metaphors.

"Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person." WCF 28:3

 

[Myson]

What mode is "buried with Christ in baptism"? I'm not familiar with any tradition that pushes a person across the top of a body of water in the same manner as Christ went into the tomb, even if we leave off the closing of the tomb with a large stone from the act.

My comment above is tongue in cheek, but I fail to see the theological significance to immersion in the same way as pouring and sprinkling. I think the WCF is wise to see the validity of immersion while suggesting pouring or sprinkling. I would say sprinkling should err on the side of more water so as to encompass both metaphors.

"Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person." WCF 28:3

Well, the word baptizo in Greek seems to suggest an overwhelming or overcoming of something. Perhaps I, by using the (albeit Baptistic) lingo of burial can make the issue worse. Baptists and those who insist on immersion don't really think that baptism by immersion is better because of their modern understanding of burial, but rather, that the word suggests something that overcomes, overwhelms, engulfs a person, as happened when the word was applied to cleansing dirty laundry. Christ said that his baptism was upon him that we could not bear which meant more about being in overwhelmed by death and sin and suffering, and even Peter calls the Noahic flood as being a baptism.

Furthermore, the point is primarily that of death, not of descending burial. The OT literature in many places suggests that death and the grave are "descended" into death, which is language that the Apostles Creed even picks up. To "descend" and therefore be "overwhelmed" by water, which, one could argue, can be seen in the Biblical record, suggests that immersion, like the Confession says, is permissible. I see your tongue firmly in your cheek, but I would simply press that immersion is just as valid as the other two modes.

Ultimately though, my question isn't so much what is better or even permissible, but rather, why can't we do all three at the same time? Some have a fond attachment to one mode, but again, they all paint a very crucial element in the Sacrament. Would it be wrong, (and could it perhaps actually be better...?) if we did all three at the same time? If not, then what are the objective reasons why? Wouldn't the Confession's standards of the Sacrament rightly applied still be met?

 

[Jake]

Well, the word baptizo in Greek seems to suggest an overwhelming or overcoming of something. Perhaps I, by using the more Biblical (albeit Baptistic) lingo of burial can make the issue worse. Baptists and those who insist on immersion don't really think that baptism by immersion is better because of their modern understanding of burial, but rather, that the word suggests something that overcomes, overwhelms, engulfs a person, as happened when the word was applied to cleansing dirty laundry. Christ said that his baptism was upon him that we could not bear which meant more about being in overwhelmed by death and sin and suffering, and even Peter calls the Noahic flood as being a baptism.

I agree there are many uses of baptizo in general that refer to more immersion, but there are also uses that do not. I do not find the theological arguments compelling though. I find it easier to view the word as simply "washing" which can indeed encompass many modes as you've pointed out. I find Romans 6 hard to use to understand the mode of baptism, as there are several different metaphors employed. Verse 4 uses burial, verse 5 uses planting, and verse 6 uses crucifixion, all in the same context. You're right in what you later say as what is really in view in the metaphors is death and resurrection, as they all have this in common.

What verse are you referring to when quoting Christ?

Even in the Noahic flood, who was being baptized and who was receiving judgment? Was it those who were immersed in the flood who were baptized or those who got some rain on them but were safe aboard the ship?

 

[Myson]

What verse are you referring to when quoting Christ?

St. Luke 12:50

Even in the Noahic flood, who was being baptized and who was receiving judgment? Was it those who were immersed in the flood who were baptized or those who got some rain on them but were safe aboard the ship?

I would say that Noah and his family were also "immersed" or overwhelmed in the Flood, but because they were hid in the tree, they were not cast in judgment but in Salvation. The same waters have a salvific/condemnatory message. I don't see that Noah and his family were not engulfed in the waters (otherwise, why need an ark?), only that it was for the Salvation because of their faith.

You're right in what you later say as what is really in view in the metaphors is death and resurrection, as they all have this in common.

So could/should churches use all three and everybody still be happy because nothing is taken away, only what is already true being added? That is, no message of baptism is being taken away, only images of what the Scriptures already indicate, is being added to the ritual, which, historically, have always been present in one of the other modes

 

[hammondjones]

I would say that Noah and his family were also "immersed" or overwhelmed in the Flood, but because they were hid in the tree, they were not cast in judgment but in Salvation.

Even if we are inclined to see baptism as a water ordeal (which, in truth, I am partial to), the Flood waters were the ordeal, and the immersion of the guilty was their verdict. Noah et al, being justified, were neither immersed nor overwhelmed.

Was it not you who dried up the sea
the waters of the great deep,
who made a road in the depths of the sea
so that the redeemed might cross over?

By your logic, we would have on the one hand Pharaoh's army, which was very much immersed, yet apparently not baptized per Paul, and on the other hand we have Israel, which walked on dry ground, but certainly was baptized, not just "baptized".

Wouldn't it sorta resolve a lot of needless nonsense in these arguments?

I doubt that very much.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

That sounds like 3 separate baptisms, unless you dunk in the name of the Father, sprinkle in the name of the Son, and pour in the name of the Spirit. That makes me laugh trying to picture it.

I would just pick one of the three for a baptism, but it doesn't matter which one to me. If people actually killed each other over the mode, that is a disgusting flaw in the history of the church.

 

[Tom Hart]

There has been a lot of ink (and sometimes blood and tears) spilt over the mode of baptism.

I'm not aware of anyone being martyred over a mode of baptism. Could you give any historical examples?

 

[Alan D. Strange]

The mode is not the sticking point between confessional Presbyterians and confessional Baptists as the WCF accepts all three modes as valid.

This is not to say that Baptists do not insist on the mode: they do. They prescribe immersion and proscribe the other modes. Presbyterians, however, regard all three as valid. So it's not the sticking point between us.

The real sticking point between confessional Presbyterians and confessional Baptists is subjects: not how we should baptize but who we should baptize. And we differ on this because we differ on who is in the visible church. Baptists believe that only those who give a credible profession of faith are in the visible church. Presbyterians believe that all who give such a profession and their seed are properly in the visible church. The seed of the faithful, by virtue of their birth, are outwardly in the covenant, and have a right to the sign and seal of it.

Baptists and Presbyterians have a real theological difference that some sleight of hand on the part of Presbyterians is not going to solve. Presbyterians already deem all three modes as valid. At the same time, we deny that immersion is necessary, i.e., that it is the only valid mode. As long as we do this, together with insisting that the children of the faithful are rightfully subjects for baptism and ought to be baptized, there will remain such differences among us.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Myson]

By your logic, we would have on the one hand Pharaoh's army, which was very much immersed, yet apparently not baptized per Paul, and on the other hand we have Israel, which walked on dry ground, but certainly was baptized, not just "baptized".

Is baptism only useful if it is salvific? Or is there a message of judgment within it? Pharaoh's army and Moses both passed through the same waters. Only one was saved because of their faith. Both Noah's family and the world were covered in the flood. Only Noah's family was saved by their faith. The waters carry a dual function, and I don't think it is incorrect historically or biblically to say this, especially since baptism is a type of circumcision which also carried with it judgment themes.

I doubt that very much.

Bummer.

 

[Myson]

That sounds like 3 separate baptisms, unless you dunk in the name of the Father, sprinkle in the name of the Son, and pour in the name of the Spirit.

That was the idea, although the ancient church submersed people three different times in one session. Many arguments arose over whether or not people ought to baptize once in all three names, or three times each for a name.

That makes me laugh trying to picture it.

I mean... I thought it would've been alright...

 

[Myson]

I'm not aware of anyone being martyred over a mode of baptism. Could you give any historical examples?

Perhaps I was mistaken, since, now that I'm looking for it, I can't find it.

 

[Myson]

The mode is not the sticking point between confessional Presbyterians and confessional Baptists as the WCF accepts all three modes as valid.

This is not to say that Baptists do not insist on the mode: they do. They prescribe immersion and proscribe the other modes. Presbyterians, however, regard all three as valid. So it's not the sticking point between us.

The real sticking point between confessional Presbyterians and confessional Baptists is subjects: not how we should baptize but who we should baptize. And we differ on this because we differ on who is in the visible church. Baptists believe that only those who give a credible profession of faith are in the visible church. Presbyterians believe that all who give such a profession and their seed are properly in the visible church. The seed of the faithful, by virtue of their birth, are outwardly in the covenant, and have a right to the sign and seal of it.

Baptists and Presbyterians have a real theological difference that some sleight of hand on the part of Presbyterians is not going to solve. Presbyterians already deem all three modes as valid. At the same time, we deny that immersion is necessary, i.e., that it is the only valid mode. As long as we do this, together with insisting that the children of the faithful are rightfully subjects for baptism and ought to be baptized, there will remain such differences among us.

Peace,
Alan

There will certainly be differences, but there are Reformed Baptists that I'm aware of, even in my own city and those surrounding it, that refuse membership to those who have not been immersed, even if they were baptized as adult converts. Furthermore, there is real Biblical imagery that I think is lost on us when we only use one mode over the other. I just think that using all three modes might give a full biblical picture of the Sacrament and avoid unnecessary quibbling.

 

[Myson]

So, the general vibe I am getting is, "No it wouldn't be wrong, it's just not what we've ever done before, and why would you even want to?" Am I misrepresenting the vibe of the room?

 

[Alan D. Strange]

There will certainly be differences, but there are Reformed Baptists that I'm aware of, even in my own city and those surrounding it, that refuse membership to those who have not been immersed, even if they were baptized as adult converts.

J.M.

I realize all of that. Baptists regard immersion as the only valid mode. Thus someone baptized upon a profession of faith as an adult in a Presbyterian church in which the mode employed was pouring is not considered validly baptized by Baptists.

So are you saying that Presbyterians should all employ immersion as our mode of baptism so as to remove that dispute between us and the Baptists? You've not said that but is that what you're getting at?

Peace,
Alan

 

[Myson]

J.M.

I realize all of that. Baptists regard immersion as the only valid mode. Thus someone baptized upon a profession of faith as an adult in a Presbyterian church in which the mode employed was pouring is not considered validly baptized by Baptists.

So are you saying that Presbyterians should all employ immersion as our mode of baptism so as to remove that dispute between us and the Baptists? You've not said that but is that what you're getting at?

Peace,
Alan

Should is perhaps a strong word. Could, theoretically might be better, but ultimately, I think all sides of all denominations could (maybe should) incorporate all 3 modes in their ritual unless they are so strongly against the belief that Baptism has anything to do with receiving the Holy Spirit or being given a new conscience. To my knowledge however, no such denomination exists. I say, if it shows something further in the Scriptures, still conforms to the Biblical requirements, and there is orthodox precedent for it, why not?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I mean... I thought it would've been alright...

Lol, I'm just messing around. I'm sure it could be done very reverently.

But yes, I don't see all the commotion over the mode. They all seem good to me.

 

[Von]

Thus someone baptized upon a profession of faith as an adult in a Presbyterian church in which the mode employed was pouring is not considered validly baptized by Baptists.

If you pour enough water you can fill a tub and the person would be covered.

I would however still accept a person coming from the background you described, if he was baptized upon confession of faith, as baptized (regardless of the mode).