Baptizo - Immersion vs. Sprinkling

Coram Deo · #1 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 01:16 PM

I had a very interesting conversation this week with a Greek Eastern Orthodox Minister. He asked me where I went to church which struck up a conversation about Baptist and Presbyterians. I was explaining how presbyterians believe that you can sprinkle for baptism because they do not believe that the Greek word Baptizo means Immersion...

He butted in and said "What do you mean that Presbyterians do not believe it means immersion", "They can't redefine OUR Greek word." "IT is Our Word, and We know what it means and it means Immersion."

So Sprinklers, How would you answer this?

victorbravo · #2 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunaer

I had a very interesting conversation this week with a Greek Eastern Orthodox Minister. He asked me where I went to church which struck up a conversation about Baptist and Presbyterians. I was explaining how presbyterians believe that you can sprinkle for baptism because they do not believe that the Greek word Baptizo means Immersion...

He butted in and said "What do you mean that Presbyterians do not believe it means immersion", "They can't redefine OUR Greek word." "IT is Our Word, and We know what it means and it means Immersion."

So Sprinklers, How would you answer this?

I'm no sprinkler, but my answer is that in Scripture it obviously doesn't always mean immersion.

I don't know about the particular minister you spoke with, but I've spoken with others. I find that their knowledge of the Bible is often quite limited. One I talked with was not aware of the Septuagint!

GenRev1611 · #3 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 01:47 PM

Hebrews 6:2 and 9:10 in the ESV speak of ceremonial washings. These washing did not require immersions.

Poimen · #4 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 01:50 PM

Michael:

I don't mean to be rude or condescending but it should be obvious that no one 'owns' any word from scripture, past or present.

In reference to 'baptizo' we must simply understand the word in its context and usage elsewhere. However the Greeks (or the Greek Orthodox) may use the word is largely irrelevant.

Daniel Ritchie · #5 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunaer

I had a very interesting conversation this week with a Greek Eastern Orthodox Minister. He asked me where I went to church which struck up a conversation about Baptist and Presbyterians. I was explaining how presbyterians believe that you can sprinkle for baptism because they do not believe that the Greek word Baptizo means Immersion...

He butted in and said "What do you mean that Presbyterians do not believe it means immersion", "They can't redefine OUR Greek word." "IT is Our Word, and We know what it means and it means Immersion."

So Sprinklers, How would you answer this?

I am not sure we should base anything on what an Eastern Orthodox minister says. Whether for or against sprinkling or immersion.

Bygracealone · #6 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 01:56 PM

Michael, my Michael, when will you stop kicking against the goads? :-) Just kidding...

Hey, if you haven't read the short work on baptism by Jay Adams, I'd encourage you to do so. I might have an extra copy laying around somewhere... Anyway, the title is "The Meaning and Mode of Baptism." In it, he does a solid job of refuting the notion that baptism always means immersion.

Your brother in Christ our Lord,

Steve

Answerman · #7 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 02:00 PM

I am convinced that is has a more generic sense like washing, or that it has multiple meanings. As GenRev1611 mentioned, as in Hebrews 6:2 and 9:10 it carries the meaning of the ceremonial washings carried out in the old testament, which were sprinklings.

Daniel Ritchie · #8 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bygracealone

Michael, my Michael, when will you stop kicking against the goads? :-) Just kidding...

Hey, if you haven't read the short work on baptism by Jay Adams, I'd encourage you to do so. I might have an extra copy laying around somewhere... Anyway, the title is "The Meaning and Mode of Baptism." In it, he does a solid job of refuting the notion that baptism always means immersion.

Your brother in Christ our Lord,

Steve

Good to see a pastor instructing one of his flock.

Thomas2007 · #9 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunaer

I had a very interesting conversation this week with a Greek Eastern Orthodox Minister. He asked me where I went to church which struck up a conversation about Baptist and Presbyterians. I was explaining how presbyterians believe that you can sprinkle for baptism because they do not believe that the Greek word Baptizo means Immersion...

He butted in and said "What do you mean that Presbyterians do not believe it means immersion", "They can't redefine OUR Greek word." "IT is Our Word, and We know what it means and it means Immersion."

So Sprinklers, How would you answer this?

Michael,

I think you are confused, we do not believe that the Greek word "baptizo" does not mean immersion. What we believe is that the Greek word "baptizo," is not intended to teach an independent methodology as doctrine tied to the cultural definition of this word segregated from the Old Testament. Hence, we don't believe the Apostles intended us to frame the doctrine of Baptism rooted into Greek culture and not rooted into the Old Testament, so when we look at the Greek Old Testament we find the Greek word "baptizo," translating the ceremonials washings &c.

Once you put priority upon method then whole other issues arise. Should one be immersed face down, or face up, or should it be a verticle immersion as the word properly ties to dipping cloth into dye? Should they be held under through the whole Trinitarian invocation, or brought up and re-immersed upon each Divine Name? In the history of the methodology debate, things like this are involved, because there are baptistic Churches in history that wouldn't accept your face up baptism, which is common in American baptistic culture, even though you were fully immersed.

In the end we don't believe the Greek word is intended to teach methodology tied to the Greek cultural definition of the word.

Cordially,

Thomas

DMcFadden · #10 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 02:29 PM

As a Baptist, even I don't think that the methodology was the point. In fact, the earliest Baptists were not immersionists. "Baptist" polity originally addressed the candidates for baptism (i.e., infants vs. believers), not the mode (the "who" rather than the "how"). Coming out of congregationalism, they assumed sprinkling in the early days. It is my understanding that the SBC requires strict immersionist practice now. Ironically, even Karl Barth argued that the early church practiced immersion, however.

Thomas2007 · #11 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 02:45 PM

Hello Dennis,

I understand the issues completely as I was once a Baptist minister, raised a Baptist, my grandfather was a Baptist minister, my sister married a Baptist minister. I struggled against this for a decade if not more.

The issue you bring up concerning paedobaptism vs credobaptism and the methodology are tied together though, because if the definition is properly tied to the Old Testament, and not the Greek cultural definition, then the issue is settled.

The problem, of course, is that a Presbyterian Church would accept a properly administered immersion as being a valid baptism, where a Baptist Church would not accept a properly administered adult sprinkling or pouring as being a valid baptism. There the methodology is asserted as a priori necessity over the Trinitarian invocation.

Cordially,

Thomas

tellville · #12 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 02:48 PM

The Eastern Orthodox not only Baptise by immersion they do it three times! In the name of the Father <dunk>, and the Son <dunk>, and the Holy Spirit <dunk>. This includes infants! Boy, are they screaming loud at the end! It was intense seeing it.

While I do not think Baptism needs to be done by immersion, I find it interesting that the EO do it by immersion. I can't really think of any historical reason why they would have gone from sprinkling to immersion, while there are some reasons why the West possibly went from immersion to sprinkling (don't ask me, because I forget them now!).

Yeah, arguing with the EO on Greek issues gets annoying. They refuse to listen.

larryjf · #13 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 03:34 PM

The "wash" is baptizo...i doubt immersion was the normal custom of washing before dinner.

raekwon · #14 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 04:24 PM

The thing that's consistently bugged me in debates surrounding "baptizo" is the insistence by some of my fellow Presbyterians that immersion is somehow a less valid mode of baptism than sprinkling. The converse error is still error.

DMcFadden · #15 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas2007

I understand the issues completely as I was once a Baptist minister, raised a Baptist, my grandfather was a Baptist minister, my sister married a Baptist minister.

Thomas, I am still a Baptist minister and chair the committee that has examined the ordinands in our fellowship (at least the last 450 or so going back 26 years). I realize that most Baptists today tie the mode to the meaning (particularly in the SBC although generally so in most other Baptist bodies as well). My point was simply that originally mode was secondary to meaning in the minds of the earliest Baptists.

It was not until the second/third generation of Baptists that the issue of mode arose. Since then, most Baptists will only accept immersion as normative, although there ARE exceptions.

Quote:

The problem, of course, is that a Presbyterian Church would accept a properly administered immersion as being a valid baptism, where a Baptist Church would not accept a properly administered adult sprinkling or pouring as being a valid baptism. There the methodology is asserted as a priori necessity over the Trinitarian invocation.

Again, generally true but not universally. One of the congregations I pastored (it ran about 500 per Sunday) insisted upon believer's baptism for anyone we baptized but accepted any mode for members who transferred from other evangelical churches. After 10 years it is difficult to remember if any of our members had been poured on, but several had been sprinkled. Of course we were not SBC which seems to take a firmer stand on the issue than practically any other Baptist body.

Daniel Ritchie · #16 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

The "wash" is baptizo...i doubt immersion was the normal custom of washing before dinner.

Just out of interest, would Baptists are that the "immersion" mentioned in the above verse would be that of the hands rather than of the entire body. Though I doubt that even hand washing at that time would have involved immersion.

Coram Deo · #17 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 06:00 PM

My Apologies... I guess I sort of stuck my foot in my mouth and spoke before doing some research into the subject.... It is more complexed then I realized at first....

I admit that the passages of 1 Corinthians 10:2, 1 Peter 3:18-19 and less with Hebrews 6:2, Hebrews 9:10, do present a problem for the immersion onlyism... But I need to study this out some more.... I looked up those passages to see what other immersionist have said on the matter and sadly I did not like their answers... They tried to dodge those passages by saying that it was either figurative or are obscured passages. I never like that approach and find it a slippery slope.

Two questions though,

1. How Hebrews 6:2 and Hebrews 9:10 be used against immersion? Can not various washings also be immersion? In biblical times they did not have running water from a faucet.. They had a wash bowl, etc... Did they not immerse their hands into the wash bowl for cleansing? or when washing feet, did not the feet become immerse in the wash bowl? What about the Jewish Proselyte Baptism? They did immerse, did they not?

2. How does Pouring or Sprinkling symbolizes burial? We know that aleast with immersion when you go down you symbolize death to old self and when raised from the water you symbolize newness of life.. How does pouring or sprinking symbolize this?

Daniel Ritchie · #18 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 06:02 PM

Michael

1. It may include immersion, but can refer to more than that.

2. Baptism symbolizes union with Christ, which includes union in His burial, no matter what mode is employed it symbolizes that.

toddpedlar · #19 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunaer

My Apologies... I guess I sort of stuck my foot in my mouth and spoke before doing some research into the subject.... It is more complexed then I realized at first....

I admit that the passages of 1 Corinthians 10:2, 1 Peter 3:18-19 and less with Hebrews 6:2, Hebrews 9:10, do present a problem for the immersion onlyism... But I need to study this out some more.... I looked up those passages to see what other immersionist have said on the matter and sadly I did not like their answers... They tried to dodge those passages by saying that it was either figurative or are obscured passages. I never like that approach and find it a slippery slope.

Two questions though,

1. How Hebrews 6:2 and Hebrews 9:10 be used against immersion? Can not various washings also be immersion? In biblical times they did not have running water from a faucet.. They had a wash bowl, etc... Did they not immerse their hands into the wash bowl for cleansing? or when washing feet, did not the feet become immerse in the wash bowl? What about the Jewish Proselyte Baptism? They did immerse, did they not?

The baptisms of the old testament included washings of couches.

How does one immerse a couch?

Quote:

2. How does Pouring or Sprinkling symbolizes burial? We know that aleast with immersion when you go down you symbolize death to old self and when raised from the water you symbolize newness of life.. How does pouring or sprinking symbolize this?

I think there's a chicken and egg thing going on here. Where does Scripture say that baptism symbolizes burial? Yes there is a connection between baptism and the death of Christ, but I think it's a stretch (created by the assumption that baptism means immersion) to say that the act of baptism needs to look like a burial. (also, where does the "raised to newness of life" require a "raising up from out of the water"?)

Also, even if burial was to be symbolized somehow in the physical act of baptism, baptisms by dunking in the water look NOTHING like burials in Palestine, which are ABOVE GROUND, not burials as we in the west know them.

Just two cents to start off..

I second the suggestion that you check out Adams... it's really very good - or else "William the Baptist", which is an old publication but also a good discussion of what baptizo does and does not mean.

Kaalvenist · #20 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunaer

My Apologies... I guess I sort of stuck my foot in my mouth and spoke before doing some research into the subject.... It is more complexed then I realized at first....

I admit that the passages of 1 Corinthians 10:2, 1 Peter 3:18-19 and less with Hebrews 6:2, Hebrews 9:10, do present a problem for the immersion onlyism... But I need to study this out some more.... I looked up those passages to see what other immersionist have said on the matter and sadly I did not like their answers... They tried to dodge those passages by saying that it was either figurative or are obscured passages. I never like that approach and find it a slippery slope.

Two questions though,

1. How Hebrews 6:2 and Hebrews 9:10 be used against immersion? Can not various washings also be immersion? In biblical times they did not have running water from a faucet.. They had a wash bowl, etc... Did they not immerse their hands into the wash bowl for cleansing? or when washing feet, did not the feet become immerse in the wash bowl? What about the Jewish Proselyte Baptism? They did immerse, did they not?

2. How does Pouring or Sprinkling symbolizes burial? We know that aleast with immersion when you go down you symbolize death to old self and when raised from the water you symbolize newness of life.. How does pouring or sprinking symbolize this?

For myself, I tend to rely especially on Hebrews 9:10ff. to vindicate sprinkling. It's the "ff." that you should notice here

... just keep reading from that verse, especially verses 13, 19, and 21.

Bygracealone · #21 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 06:33 PM

Michael,

Adams really does answer these questions very well. Give him a read...

WRT baptism of proselytes, Adams quotes a guy by the name of John Scott Johnson who says:

There is no assured evidence available that John or any other Jew of that time, knew anything of immersion as a Bible rite. It is stated that Jews in those days immersed proselytes, but this statement lacks historical proof. God told Moses how to receive proselytes (it was by circumcision--"When a stranger...will keep the passover..let all his males be circumcised'--Ex. 12:48,) and there is no adequate historical evidence that the Jews in Christ's time added anything to God's direction. If sufficient evidence ever appears that the Essenes (it is held that they immersed) or any other body of Jews practiced such an anomaly as immersion, such a repudiation of every Bible command and example relating to purifying, it would show only how far the Chosen People had retrograded, had fallen away from obedience to God. it would not prove that John--"filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15)--followed a procedure so entirely without Bible precedent, and with not a word of explanation or justification. He alleged no revelation calling for such a departure from all the related commands and practices of the Old Testament. But if John was ever guilty of such an irregularity, and if he was able to "put across" to the Pharisees and Sadducees such an oddity and that the Lord Jesus, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, in fulfilling "all righteousness" (Matt. 3:15)--which is obedience to law--would have submitted to a proceeding which was not commanded, was not prefigured, and utterly disregarded His own detailed instructions to Moses. Immersion is foreign to Bible usage, is not in the Bible picture anywhere.

Commenting on this Adams goes on to say:

...True, there is evidence [from Edersheim] that at a later period the Jews laid down three requirements for the admission of proselytes: circumcision, a sacrifice, and baptism. But the sources for this are late, and by their time Jewish thought itself possibly may have been influenced by John the Baptist or even Christian practice...