Three cute questions ^_^

Scynne · #1 (**permalink**) 03-10-2009, 05:57 AM

Good day, PB!
Three quick baptism questions.
1) I heard the argument for credo-baptism that whenever crowds are exhorted to turn to Jesus Christ, they are tole to "repent and be baptized," or "believe and be baptized." That is to say, belief and repentance always precedes baptism.
Upon hearing that, I instantly thought, "But were they not talking unto unsaved hearers? Of course you would not baptize someone who had never heard the Gospel, and then convert them!" Plus, were not whole households baptized? This argument struck me as weak (and I'm one who for my whole life was taught that paedo-baptism was evil).
2) What's up with baptism by sprinkling or pouring? I'm no expert on New Testament Greek (I just have a dictionary or two), but does not the word 'baptizo' mean to immerse/dunk/what have you? (I'm not sure how common it is amoung reformed churches, but the WCF is not against sprinkling)
3) May un-ordained men/women baptize? If not, why not? I cannot find a verse stating a limitation on who may baptize.

Please and thank you

nicnap · #2 (**permalink**) 03-10-2009, 06:22 AM

...we need a seat-belt smiley to indicate, "Fasten your seat-belts, it's about come at you like a flood."

Tim · #3 (**permalink**) 03-10-2009, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scynne

1) I heard the argument for credo-baptism that whenever crowds are exhorted to turn to Jesus Christ, they are tole to "repent and be baptized," or "believe and be baptized." That is to say, belief and repentance always precedes baptism.

Upon hearing that, I instantly thought, "But were they not talking unto unsaved hearers? Of course you would not baptize someone who had never heard the Gospel, and then convert them!" Plus, were not whole households baptized? This argument struck me as weak (and I'm one who for my whole life was taught that paedo-baptism was evil).

For those who are outside the covenant, it is quite correct that belief must precede baptism. This notion is consistent across credo- and paedobaptist beliefs.

Quote:

2) What's up with baptism by sprinkling or pouring? I'm no expert on New Testament Greek (I just have a dictionary or two), but does not the word 'baptizo' mean to immerse/dunk/what have you? (I'm not sure how common it is amoung reformed churches, but the WCF is not against sprinkling)

The definition of the word can also include 'sprinkling'.

Quote:

WCF 28:3 Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary: but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person (Mar_7:4; Act_2:41; Act_16:33; Heb_9:10, Heb_9:19-22).

Quote:

3) May un-ordained men/women baptize? If not, why not? I cannot find a verse stating a limitation on who may baptize.

Quote:

WCF 27:4 There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained (Mat_28:19; 1Co_4:1; 1Co_11:20, 1Co_11:23; Heb_5:4).

Please notice that the first scripture reference here is 'The Great Commission' at the end of Matthew. It seems that the Westminster divines held the position that the great commission was given generally to the church and specifically to the ministers of the word, who would teach and baptize.

Hope this helps.

Hamalas · #4 (**permalink**) 03-10-2009, 08:45 AM

what Tim said.

One more note on number three. There are two sacraments instituted by our Lord:

1) Baptism
2) Communion

Sacraments are gifts given to the body as signs of the Covenant and means of grace. They are not things to be done individually. If you're looking for a verse that says only a Minister can administer baptism then you can put down your Bible because it isn't there. However, what we do see is that both the sacraments, throughout Scripture were administered by ordained ministers. Every time we see a baptism it is done by a minister. As we begin to understand the weight and significance of both of these sacraments this model begins to make sense. It is this example that we follow in our own practice. In addition to this, the confession is also very clear here.

***Contra_Mundum*** · #5 (**permalink**) 03-10-2009, 10:59 AM

1) I'm not sure exactly what the question is... But to try to give it a few words: Mat.28:19-20 says "Make disciples" by baptizing and teaching. As you pointed out, first you evangelize in order to gather disciple-making material; you introduce people to Christ and the Christian faith by proclaiming men's need and God's solution. So, those who hear and profess a desire to enter the church are brought in by baptism, but they do not come alone in every instance--often they bring additional disciples with them, namely their children. Those little people are minors, they are under authority, they are federally represented, they don't have a full range of "options" (but they lack the maturity to handle such choices). They are disciples, and must be taught the faith. We (Presbyterians/Reformed) do not insist that they may only become disciples as adults able to make mature decisions.

2) How did the Spirit come upon believers? Was he not "poured out"? How were ceremonial cleansings done in the Old Covenant? Were they not often by sprinkling? And see Ezek.36:25, and Heb.10:22. What were some of the earliest "baptisms" in the Bible? Heb.9 records (v.10 where the word "washings" is "baptizo") one very important such instance, vv.19-21. And there are Greek secular sources that plainly indicate the word "baptizo" can have a whole range of application. So even if one grants an etymological baseline for the word's origin, the lexical foundation is not as important as the semantic range for determining the meaning of a specific contextual usage of the word.

3) Not according to the Reformed view, because sacraments are churchly acts, God saying something about himself and his gospel (and not so much about the person) in the application of these things. Only men may be in the ministry, and ministers are the "stewards of the mysteries of God" (1Cor.4:1-2).

I hope these answers are helpful.

A.J. · #6 (**permalink**) 03-14-2009, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

2) How did the Spirit come upon believers? Was he not "poured out"? How were ceremonial cleansings done in the Old Covenant? Were they not often by sprinkling? And see Ezek.36:25, and Heb.10:22. What were some of the earliest "baptisms" in the Bible? Heb.9 records (v.10 where the word "washings" is "baptizo") one very important such instance, vv.19-21. And there are Greek secular sources that plainly indicate the word "baptizo" can have a whole range of application. So even if one grants an etymological baseline for the word's origin, the lexical foundation is not as important as the semantic range for determining the meaning of a specific contextual usage of the word.

Rev. Buchanan, I have a follow-up question regarding Heb. 9:10ff. The case for the validity of sprinkling is quite explicit there. Immersionists at any rate are not convinced. And they have provided several reasons why they reject the paedo-baptist interpretation of the text.

Quote:

The next place instanced in by him, is Hebrews 9:10. where the ceremonial law is said to stand only in meats and drinks, and divers washings; it is in the Greek text, in divers baptisms; and, says our author, "it is evident from the word of God, that those washings generally stood in pouring or sprinkling of water;" but that is a mistake of his, for they neither flood in them generally, nor particularly; for those ceremonial ablutions were always performed by bathing or dipping in water, and are called diaforio, divers, or different, not because they were performed different ways, as some by sprinkling, others by pouring, and others by plunging, but because of the different persons and things, the subjects thereof; as the priests, Levites, Israelites, vessels, garments, etc. And here it may not be atolls to observe what Maimonides,[20] who was one of the most learned of the Jewish writers, says concerning this matter, "Wherever, says he, the washing of the flesh or garments is mentioned in the law, it means nothing else than the washing of the whole body; for if a man washes himself all over, excepting the very tip of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness." Nay, he says it is necessary that every hair of his head should be washed; and therefore the apostle might well call these washings, baptisms.

. . . .

[20] Ubicunque in lege memoratur ablutio carnis aut vestium, nihil aliud vult, quam ablutionem totius corporis, nam siquis se totum abluat. Excepto ipsissimo apice minimi digiti ille adhuc in im-munditie fua, Maimon. In Mikvaoth. c. 1, 4. in Lightfoot Hor. Hebr, in Matthew page 47.

- John Gill in The Ancient Mode Of Baptizing . . . Maintained And Vindicated

Quote:

But it is alleged, that Paul has informed us in the context, that some of these divers baptisms were performed by sprinkling. This is a mistake. Paul mentions in the context, "the sprinkling of the ashes of an heifer, sanctifying to the purifying of the flesh. "He classifies the various rites under four heads: 1. Meats. 2. Drinks. 3. Divers immersions. 4. Carnal ordinances, or ordinances concerning the flesh. Under the last of these heads, the sprinkling which sanctified to the purifying of the flesh, was manifestly included. The assumption that it was one of the divers baptisms, is unauthorized and erroneous.

- John Dagg in Manual of Theology, Vol. II (A Treatise on Church Order)

I am curious as to how paedo-baptists would respond to this. Thanks.

Rich Koster · #7 (**permalink**) 03-14-2009, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicnap

...we need a seat-belt smiley to indicate, "Fasten your seat-belts, it's about come at you like a flood."

I'm gonna smoke some chicken and ribs for this one......chips & popcorn are insufficient.

***Contra_Mundum*** · #8 (**permalink**) 03-14-2009, 10:07 AM

First, this

Quote:

... and are called diaforio, divers, or different, not because they were performed different ways, as some by sprinkling, others by pouring, and others by plunging, but because of the different persons and things, the subjects thereof; as the priests, Levites, Israelites, vessels, garments, etc.

looks to this Sprinkler like a "bold" denial, where nothing but a bold denial will do.

The truth is the different washings/baptisms were different BOTH in manner and in subject, and the manner was suited to the subject and occasion. Only the dogmatic insistence that the word "baptizo" has such a fixed meaning that it cannot possibly be appropriated by a "sprinkling" (of all things!) forces the interpreter to fixate on the subject.

But shifting merely to the subject will not answer the question of how those subjects were baptized, and so instead of proving his point from Scripture, he runs to Maimonides, the 12th cent. (AD) Jewish polemicist. Whose quote is marginal at best to establish his point, since it speaks neither to the Israelites in the desert nor does it teach a mode.

Gill writes:

Quote:

...those ceremonial ablutions were always performed by bathing or dipping in water

Really? How did they manage that in the desert? How did they manage that with the portable laver? The point of that position seems to be that the entire person or thing must be wholly submerged for at least an instant in order for it to be properly baptized. Unfortunately for his case, not even the Maimonides quote (as presented) can be adduced to prove that point.

Dagg seems to claim that from v9 we may conclude there is a four-fold enumeration or division of Israelite rites. This is unattested anywhere in the Law. And its seems more reasonable to understand that this is no head or division at all, but a summary description (including wide overlaps) of the whole OT ritual system. The last, the "fleshly ordinances" ("regulations for the body" ESV) actually appears as a summary of the summary, that is: "these outward things."

In which case (not that it is a natural question, but rather forced), v13 might make the reader wonder if "...blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean," was better described as "sacrifice" (v9) or "meat" (v10), or "washing/baptism" since it was for "cleansing" (katharotēs). But the text was not designed to answer this question.

Far more pertinent to an exposition of the meaning of vv9-10 are vv18-23 (really, its the whole rest of the chapter, not one little verse), where we repeatedly encounter "cleansing" terms (katharizō). Instead of standing on the "fixed meaning" of baptizo (and note how Dagg lets his dogmatism show in rendering the word as "immersion"), we should be asking "how (in what variety of manner) were the (various) of people and things washed (cleansed) under the OT system?"

Finally, the most wonderful expedient of avoidance has been made, turning aside from the context of Hebrews 9 as immediately following the Writer makes his appeal to one of the original, and richest "rites" in the whole Old Testament, containing sacrifices and offerings, meat and drink, regulations for the body and ceremonial cleansings (!) as illustrative of the Old Covenant.

If you haven't decided ahead of time what a baptism cannot be, then it should be apparent how one could read this passage and conclude that Israel was cleansed through washing/baptizing by Moses in the sprinkling.

A.J. · #9 (**permalink**) 03-14-2009, 10:18 AM

I appreciate the analysis both of the text and the arguments of the immersionists quoted. Thank you.