I had always been taught the following about the word baptizo: (this quote is taken from http://www.born-again-christian.info/water.baptism.htm)
[quote:365501e452]
A Greek recipe for making pickled vegetables written around 200 BC uses the term 'bapto' to describe the dipping or blanching of the vegetable in boiling water, to prepare it for the next stage of pickling, for which the word 'baptizo' is used, meaning totally immersing the vegetable in vinegar. 'Bapto' means a quick dip, 'baptizo' means immersing, 'baptising', to produce a pickle. If they are not baptised ('baptizo') they are not pickled.

So the candidate must be totally immersed in water in order to obey Christ's plain word. Splashing, sprinkling, pouring, washing and dabbing are NOT baptism. The Holy Spirit makes plain the symbolism of water-baptism in describing the actual born again baptism that occurs prior to water-baptism, when the sinner is born again;

Don't you know that all of us who were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. Ro. 6:3-4[/quote:365501e452]

Recently, I read an article about circumcision, and one of the footnotes reads:
[quote:365501e452]1. These would include, but not be limited to: John Murray, Christian Baptism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing); works by Gabriel Marcel, Francis Schaeffer; John P. Sartelle, What Christians Parents Should Know about Infant Baptism; O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing); and the treatments contained in standard systematic theologies such as Reymond, Berkhof, C. Hodge, etc. This presentation is intended to supplement those. In those works you will find answers to many questions you might have. [b:365501e452]For example, you will find exegetical data to show the error of equating the Greek baptizo with 'immerse'[/b:365501e452][/quote:365501e452]
I was wondering if somebody could recommend which of these guys (or somebody else) gives the best explanation of why its an error to equate the word baptizo with immerse? (preferably an online source)?

__________________
Bob Howes
Framingham, MA

A reoccurring thought:

Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

I can't give you on-line info, but here's a couple things:

Jay Adams' little booklet (probably still can get it from P&R, or maybe Timeless Texts) "The Meaning and Mode of Baptism" has a bit on the meaning of the word in its biblical context. This booklet is highly readable, aimed at the man in the pew.

But what may be most helpful in this context is the brief definitional excerpt he takes from the conclusion of volume one of [i:22c2853dd1]the definitive work[/i:22c2853dd1] on baptism, R.W. Dale's massive work-of-exhaustion, written in the 19th century, recently republished by P&R (a joint venture).

Dale's work is possibly the most thorough survey of a single word in Greek ever attempted, much less accomplished. Vol. 1 is called "Classic Baptism," and surveyed the entire corpus of ancient Greek literature for its use of the term 'baptizo'. He followed up this massive work with FOUR MORE volumes dealing with Christic baptism & Patristic baptism (reprint two vols in one), Judaic baptism and Johannine baptism.

Baptizo dosn't "mean" immerse. It's meaning covers a semantic range that can only be determined by its context.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Bruce writes:
[quote:925d98d868]Baptizo dosn't "mean" immerse. It's meaning covers a semantic range that can only be determined by its context.[/quote:925d98d868]
I agree Bruce

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

Sometimes I wish he was known as John the Presbyterian -- wouldn't that end the debate??!!

__________________
Andrew Myers
Husband of Jessica, Father of Jackson, Katie and Samuel
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia
Warrenton, VA USA
Editor, The Matthew Poole Project

"Let your Morning Thoughts, and your last Evening Thoughts, be what shall become of you to all Eternity." -- Matthew Poole

Andrew...

:bs2:

Bapto [i:9f267f2824]can[/i:9f267f2824] mean 'immerse' but in a few instances it just means 'wash', again, context dictates.

__________________
Michael Gridley
Presbyterian in non-communicant attendance at St. Thomas Lutheran (LCMS),
Eastpointe, MI

Thank-you for your responses.

In looking into it a little bit, I found this excerpt by Louis Berkhof from http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/othe...khof_bapt.html, which seems to be the general consensus so far in the thread:
[quote:d4e2bd01a7]2. IS IMMERSION THE ONLY PROPER MODE OF BAPTISM? The generally prevailing opinion outside of Baptist circles is that, as long as the fundamental idea, namely, that of purification, finds expression in the rite, the mode of baptism is quite immaterial. It may be administered by immersion, by pouring or effusion, or by sprinkling.[/quote:d4e2bd01a7]

I was wondering:
1. In another thread, the question was asked whether Presbyterians ever saw or performed baptism by immersion. I was wondering how strongly reformed baptists feel about immersion being the correct mode of baptism - Would they baptize somebody by sprinkling or pouring if that were the person's wishes?

2. The Westminster Confession says "[i:d4e2bd01a7]III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.[/i:d4e2bd01a7]
Was this just a reaction to baptists at the time who said that immersion was the only valid mode for baptism? Did the Westminster divines believe that pouring or sprinkling was more biblically correct than immersion? (contrary to what Berkhof seems to be saying that all methods are valid)

While our church will accept as members those baptised by another mode, we will not administer with a mode other than immersion. The timing of the ordinance is more important than the mode.

The issue for us is that it be believers baptism. Some do practice believers baptism by sprinkling or pouring, and we would not ask a person who had been poured or sprinkled to submit to being immersed to join our church, but if they later came to us with the conviction that they had not been properly baptized then we would gladly immerse them at that time!

And, according to "[i:326441e36c]A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature - a translation and adaption of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der ubrign urchristlichen Literatur - by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, Second Edition[/i:326441e36c] (known as the BAGD) the koine Greek word and several of its forms means literally, "to baptize, of Jewish ritual washings; a Christian baptism; washing or dipping; to be dipped into something. Examples include washing dishes or dying a garment by baptising them into water or dye.

Yes, dear, I'm coming. I'll help you sprinkle the dishes tonight! You sprinkle, I'll dry.......

Phillip

__________________
Pastor Phillip M. Way
[url=http://www.timeintheword.org][color=blue] Maranatha Community Church of Central Texas[/color][/url]
A Reformed Baptist Congregation and Member Church of the
Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals [url=http://www.firefellowship.org][color=red](FIRE)[/color][/url]

Blogging at: [url=http://pastorway.blogspot.com/][color=blue][i]pastorway[/i][/color][/url]
Sermons Online at: [url=http://www.sermonaudio.com/timeintheword][color=blue]TIME in the Word Ministries[/color][/url]

When all souls are saved and all mourners comforted we may venture to discuss recondite theories, but not while graveyards are filling with those who know not God. -- CH Spurgeon

[b]The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
Luke 18:27[/b]

Interestingly enough, the first Anabaptists practiced affusion.

[quote:b99388baaf="pastorway"]While our church will accept as members those baptised by another mode, we will not administer with a mode other than immersion. The timing of the ordinance is more important than the mode.

The issue for us is that it be believers baptism. Some do practice believers baptism by sprinkling or pouring, and we would not ask a person who had been poured or sprinkled to submit to being immersed to join our church, but if they later came to us with the conviction that they had not been properly baptized then we would gladly immerse them at that time!

And, according to "[i:b99388baaf]A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature - a translation and adaption of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der ubrign urchristlichen Literatur - by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, Second Edition[/i:b99388baaf] (known as the BAGD) the koine Greek word and several of its forms means literally, "to baptize, of Jewish ritual washings; a Christian baptism; washing or dipping; to be dipped into something. Examples include washing dishes or dying a garment by baptising them into water or dye.

Yes, dear, I'm coming. I'll help you sprinkle the dishes tonight! You sprinkle, I'll dry.......

Phillip[/quote:b99388baaf]

Don't forget to immerse the couch...

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

[quote:d4b6e6a0fa="blhowes"]Thank-you for your responses.

I was wondering:
1. In another thread, the question was asked whether Presbyterians ever saw or performed baptism by immersion. I was wondering how strongly reformed baptists feel about immersion being the correct mode of baptism - Would they baptize somebody by sprinkling or pouring if that were the person's wishes?
[/quote:d4b6e6a0fa]

My personal take on it is that the mode itself isn't that important. I believe that immersion or sprinkling are equally as valid, although I believe that immersion might have been the preferred mode (historically).

However, I think most Baptists would be more particular than I am on the mode.

__________________
David Belanger
Member, APC Vancouver
Student Minister, Associated Presbyterian Churches
Student, Haddington House Divinity School
Port Coquitlam, BC

[quote:67d2716fa2="daveb"][quote:67d2716fa2="blhowes"]Thank-you for your responses.

I was wondering:
1. In another thread, the question was asked whether Presbyterians ever saw or performed baptism by immersion. I was wondering how strongly reformed baptists feel about immersion being the correct mode of baptism - Would they baptize somebody by sprinkling or pouring if that were the person's wishes?
[/quote:67d2716fa2]

My personal take on it is that the mode itself isn't that important. I believe that immersion or sprinkling are equally as valid, although I believe that immersion might have been the preferred mode (historically).

However, I think most Baptists would be more particular than I am on the mode.[/quote:67d2716fa2]

Most baptists consider anyone who was not immersed unbaptized, unable to joing a church, and in rebellion against God.

To his credit (and Biblicity) Phillip has never taken that position.

In my background the important thing has always been not the mode, but the number of times. Once, and no more! Otherwise it would constitute a denial of baptism. So a second baptism is a denial of baptism altogether, what is stands for, and not just a denial of the first one. I recall people getting put out of the church over this, being baptized again.

So for me the meaning of the word does not centre around immersion or sprinkling, but over its spiritual significance. It seems that there is a great deal of difference between Baptists and Presbyterians on that issue. We see it in quite different ways. For myself, I don't see how a case for the meaning of [i:df93716273]baptizo[/i:df93716273] to be immersion amounts to an argument for mode. If the mode was important, then the Bible would have made it clear, or left us with a direct inference. The fact that it would mean "immersion" every time it is used is not strictly a direct inference, as it does not rule out any other use of the term all by itself.

But that's me, with my staid Dutch Reformed background for you.

__________________
JohnV :detective:

John Vandervliet
Ontario, Canada
member of: Canadian Reformed Church
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are" C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

[quote:189bfd6cb6="pastorway"]While our church will accept as members those baptised by another mode, we will not administer with a mode other than immersion. [/quote:189bfd6cb6]
That seems to be a good, balanced stand to take.

[quote:189bfd6cb6="pastorway"]
The timing of the ordinance is more important than the mode.

The issue for us is that it be believers baptism. Some do practice believers baptism by sprinkling or pouring, and we would not ask a person who had been poured or sprinkled to submit to being immersed to join our church, but if they later came to us with the conviction that they had not been properly baptized then we would gladly immerse them at that time![/quote:189bfd6cb6]
I'm a little curious what words are actually spoken by a baptist preacher who sprinkles or pours water onto a new convert. With immersion services, I've always heard Romans 6:4 used after the 'trinitarian formula' is said as the person is brought into and then out of the water. What you see seems to go hand-in-hand with the Romans passage - not so if the person is sprinkled. I suppose they would just say the 'trinitarian formula' and end there.

BTW, those you mentioned that practice baptism by sprinkling or pouring, is that their preferred way to baptize, or is that to accommodate those who don't want (for whatever reason) to be immersed?

[quote:189bfd6cb6="pastorway"]
Yes, dear, I'm coming. I'll help you sprinkle the dishes tonight! You sprinkle, I'll dry.......
Phillip[/quote:189bfd6cb6]

[quote:9f27d0fc9e="VirginiaHuguenot"]Sometimes I wish he was known as John the Presbyterian -- wouldn't that end the debate??!![/quote:9f27d0fc9e]
I know what you mean. Or, depending on your point of view, "John the Immerser in water of believers upon a credible profession of faith and their believing children".

I guess its good its not spelled out either way 'cause it forces us to dig into the scriptures. Besides, if it were spelled out, what would we argue about?

[quote:a1bbaa8da7="Steadfast"]Interestingly enough, the first Anabaptists practiced affusion.[/quote:a1bbaa8da7]I don't have my dictionary handy. What's affusion?

[quote:0166112f57="JohnV"]In my background the important thing has always been not the mode, but the number of times. Once, and no more! Otherwise it would constitute a denial of baptism. So a second baptism is a denial of baptism altogether, what is stands for, and not just a denial of the first one. [/quote:0166112f57]
I wonder if that's why others who shared your view historically were so angry with the anabaptists who stressed rebaptism after a person believed. It wasn't so much when a person was baptized or the mode of baptism, but a denial of what baptism itself stands for.

[quote:0166112f57="JohnV"]
So for me the meaning of the word does not centre around immersion or sprinkling, but over its spiritual significance. It seems that there is a great deal of difference between Baptists and Presbyterians on that issue. We see it in quite different ways. [/quote:0166112f57]
With all the differences, its pretty amazing that there's any common ground for discussion. Well, one thing that we can agree on is that water is water

uzzled: ...do Presbyterians use tap water, distilled water, or lake water?

[quote:0166112f57="JohnV"]
But that's me, with my staid Dutch Reformed background for you.[/quote:0166112f57]
Say no more, John.

[quote:c30983c113="blhowes"][quote:c30983c113="Steadfast"]Interestingly enough, the first Anabaptists practiced affusion.[/quote:c30983c113]I don't have my dictionary handy. What's affusion?[/quote:c30983c113]

Affusion is pouring water on the person when they are baptized.

[quote:3e5e8f8203="fredtgreco"]
Most baptists consider anyone who was not immersed unbaptized, unable to joing a church, and in rebellion against God.
[/quote:3e5e8f8203]

Wow, I did not know most baptists believed this. I find it amazing that people would take such a hard stance on mode. In any case, there's certainly no biblical warrant for doing so.

[quote:017e3d03b8="blhowes"]I had always been taught the following about the word baptizo: (this quote is taken from http://www.born-again-christian.info/water.baptism.htm)
[quote:017e3d03b8]
'Bapto' means a quick dip, 'baptizo' means immersing, 'baptising', to produce a pickle. If they are not baptised ('baptizo') they are not pickled.

[/quote:017e3d03b8]

[/quote:017e3d03b8]

So according to this ancient usage (assuming it's accurate), modern Baptists don't really "baptizo" they only "bapto", perform a "quick dip".

__________________
Tom Albrecht
Member, Covenant URCNA, New Holland, PA.

"I'm not a famous man. I'm just a simple country doctor with horse sense."

[quote:2decdc6334="tcalbrecht"]
So according to this ancient usage (assuming it's accurate), modern Baptists don't really "baptizo" they only "bapto", perform a "quick dip".[/quote:2decdc6334]
That sounds accurate, depending of course on the relative sizes of the pastor and the person being baptized. With children, its definitely a "quick dip", with regular-sized people its a "somewhat quick dip", and with those who are much larger/heavier than the pastor, its more of a "dunk-and-hope-he-comes-back-up dip".

I think the fact that John baptize people in the river near Salim suggest that it was by immersion, why else would he look for a place where the was much water?(John 20:23)

VanVos

__________________
Rev Jonathan James Goundry
*Calvinist @ Heart
Missionary with International Christian Institute www.iciministry.org
www.fide-o.com
www.vanvos.blogspot.com
www.unchainedradio.com

[quote:d3218b0c6e="Bob"]do Presbyterians use tap water, distilled water, or lake water?[/quote:d3218b0c6e]

This Presby was once responsible for supplying the water for batism. What we do is sneak into the local Baptist Church at night, in the middle of the week, via the back door while about three men and twelve ladies are at prayer meeting, and hide until they are all gone. Then we take a Tupperware drinking bottle (or Rubbermaid tub) and dip into their batism pond. We take it home until Sunday morning, keeping it in the Fridge until then, and then boil it in the church kitchen at about ten minutes before the service starts. If the minister likes to do baptisms early in the service we do it sooner than that. By the time the baptism takes place, not only is it holy water, but it is tepid too.

The local Baptist pastor is totally aware of this at all times, and has even offered me the key. But he did this only tongue in cheek, knowing that that would blow the whole thing.

The trick is that the Tupperware (or Rubbermaid) container needs to be more than bapto. Baptizo is the key to the operation. (So watch out for the janitor. ) Sprinkling water onto it just doesn't work; takes way too long. The idea is not to clean it but to fill it. :bs2:

[As you can tell, I have a forked tongue in cheek.]