Hey:

Mayflower posted a rather detailed, and lenghty, thread that sought to prove that Immersion was the only way to define the Biblical words related to "Baptism." He has done a monumental job in advancing the cause of Sprinkling as the only Biblical means by which the Sacrament should be practiced.

Why? You may ask? Immersionists pay attention here.

Immersionists pride themselves on being "Biblical." They even have a joke they pass around about a Baptist going to a Presbyterian book table, and not being able to find a Bible on it. I think they make these jokes because there is no Biblical evidence of an Immersion ever taking place.

Their method of argumentation does not start and end with the Bible, but, like Mayflower has shown, they begin with lexicons, quotations from church fathers, pagan sources, and even paedo-baptists who all agree that the literal definition of "baptize" is to plunge, or immerse.

Consequently, they stand outside of the Bible, find a definition that suits their needs, then they thrust their definition into the Bible at every point they can find. I think Pilgrim's response to this was most appropriate:

If I was a Baptist, and I have prided myself about how "Biblical" my views are in light of the "Romish" paedo-baptists, then I would have been embarrassed by Mayflower's post, and repudiate him for his non-Biblical arguments.

In every argument the Immersionist makes he first turns to Greek scholars - both pagans and Christians - church historians, and paedo-baptists who acknowledge the literal definition of the word. They then take this literal definition of the word and apply it to every instance where "Baptism" is found.

If we take the Bible alone, then we find that there is no clear case of Immersion to be found in any of the passages where "Baptism" is referred. The Reformed view of defining a word in the Bible is seeing how the Bible uses it - not how Aristotle may have thought it meant.

The Immersionists has to take his "outside of the Bible" definition, and then cram it into a place where it doesn't belong.

How does the meaning "to dip" fit here:

And when they come from the market, except they baptize they eat not. And many other things they have received to hold, as the baptizing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables, Mark 7:4.

Are the Pharisees Immersing themselves every time before they eat? Do they immerse the cups and pots, brasen vessels as well? The washing of these things is more likely to have been done by pouring water upon it.

What is more remarkable are the tables. Do you honestly think that the Jews carried their tables to a lake or river and fully immersed them every time before they ate? Isn't it more likely that they sprinkled or poured water on the tables, and then washed them with a clean rag?

In these instances the "water" of baptism is being applied to the articles in question. The things are not being applied to the water. The Scriptural mode of Baptism is when the water is applied to the subject, not the subject to the water. This is not only proven here, but in all instances where Baptism occurs.

Buried with Him in Baptism?

After showing from their lexicons that Baptism can only be defined as "dipping" they turn to two passages in Scripture that seem to justify their definition, Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12. It is on the strength of these two passages that Immersionists claim another argument for their views of Baptism. They say something to the effect:

"Baptism is commemorative of the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus."

Plunging the subject into the water is commemorative of the burial of Jesus, and pulling him/her out of his resurrection.

First, none of the Gospels mention that Jesus was literally buried. The only places where Jesus was said to be "buried" is the above two passages. This seems to indicate that Paul is not talking about a literal burial, but of a figurative one - our sins are buried by our union with Christ.

Second, Immersion is not at all similar to the "burial" of Christ. Jesus was wrapped in a linen cloth and laid in a tomb or sepulchre. They did not dig a six foot hole and "plunge" him in the earth, and then He rose again from the ground. Reading the Gospel accounts how can anyone think that Jesus was "plunged"?

Third, the burial of Jesus has nothing to do with His atoning work - it is His death. They could just as easily left his body hanging for three days, and He still would have been resurrected. Or, they could have placed His body in the Upper Room, and sealed it, and He still would have rose three days later. The mode of His burial has no theological significance whatsoever.

"Buried with him in Baptism" means that we are united to Christ through His death. Paul is using the word "buried" figuratively of the death of Christ. He is certainly not using the term literally meaning that the literal burial of Christ had something to do with our salvation. If such would be the case, then it was not the work of Christ alone that saves us, because it took the work of men to bury Christ (Joseph of Arimathaea and his servants, Mark 15:42-47).

Finally, we already have a rite that commemorates the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - The Christian Sabbath.

The Baptism of Jesus and the Eunuch.

Jesus was Baptized by John in the river Jordan. In examing all of the records of Jesus' Baptism I fail to see the idea of an immersion. They refer to Jesus going "into" the water, and coming out of it.

But did not John go "into" the water as well. Yet, John was not baptized as well at the same time? One can go "into" the river Jordan, but not go "under" it. The words of Jesus tell us that He did not go "under" the water, but was sprinkled.

First, Jesus Christ - the Second Adam - the God/Man - did not need to be washed either ceremonially or spiritually of any uncleanness. John the Baptist acknowledged this when he tries to forbid Jesus Baptism, Mat. 3:14.

Second, Jesus Christ - the Great High Priest - the Messiah - the One who came to fulfill the Law in all righteousness - said He had to be Baptized as a means of fulfilling all righteousness. This can only mean that there is a law in the Old Testament that required the rite of Baptism on Priests.

Third, there is such a law found in Numbers 8:5-7:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. 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.

It is clear that John did not Baptize Jesus by Immersion, but was following the Law and sprinkled Jesus according to it. What is also clear is that John saw the Holy Spirit "descending" upon Jesus afterward. Jesus was not "plunged into" the Holy Spirit.

Baptism does not commemorate the burial and resurrection of Jesus, but the "washing and renewing" of the Holy Spirit. It represents the Work of the Holy Spirit. And the Bible always represents the Spirit of God as "descending" or being "poured" upon men and women. Thus, "sprnkling" or "pouring" water upon the subject is the only Scriptural mode of Baptism.

As far as the Eunuch is concerned the Bible says that both the Ethiopian and Philip "went into the water," and that they both went up out of it. I think it very unlikely that Philip was Immersed with the Ethiopian.

That pouring or sprinkling are representative of the Work of the Holy Spirit I will leave that to my brother paedo-baptists to prove.

Using lexicons and quotations is not the same thing as using the Bible alone.

Blessings,

-CH

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO
RPCNA

Well said!

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Mount Zion ARP
Moncton NB

Greetings:

I guess the onus is on me to show that the true Biblical mode of Baptism is by Sprinkling and Sprinkling or Pouring only.

1. The Baptism of Jesus was by sprinkling and sprinkling or pouring only.

This was mentioned in the OP, but since Immersionists (IM's) so desperately rely on this incident it is good to go over again. First, the IM's argument:

And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him, Mark 1:10.

IM's think this passage settles the issue. The phrase, "coming up out of the water" is a clear indicative (they think) that Christ was plunged into the water, and that he was being pulled out of it. It was during this "coming up out of the water" that the Spirit of God descends upon Jesus like a dove.

In all of the narratives concerning the Baptism of Jesus it is reported that John the Baptist was the one who saw, and testified, that the Spirit descended upon Jesus. There is an improbability here: If John is busy pulling Jesus out of the water, then how can he see the Spirit of God descend upon Jesus? Of all of the Immersions I have seen the one who is administering the Immersion (like John the Baptist) is looking down, not up.

The Bible is emphatic that it was done immediately, "straightway" (eutheos) as Jesus is "coming up out of the water" the Spirit of God, "Descends upon Him like a dove." For the Immersionist picture to work John the Baptist would have to stop pulling Jesus out of the water, turn his head 180 degress, and look up, then watch the Holy Spirit descend upon Jesus as he finishes pulling Jesus out of the water.

The present tense "coming" makes the Immersionist view implausible. The Paedo-Baptist view of this you will find lower down.

2) The Baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch,Acts 8:38,39:

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

After reading all of the extra-biblical lexicons, quotations from pagan and sacred sources, and telling us about how Aristotle and Plato thought about the meaning of Baptism one can be blinded into thinking that this passage confirms Immersion. However, if such preconceived notions are stripped away, then Immersion would be impossible to find.

The most obvious point made here is that Philip and the eunuch, "went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. The Bible uses the term "both" twice in order to emphatically teach something. What is it saying? That both Philip and the eunuch, "went down both into the water."

Can the Bible be any more plain?

If the Ethiopian eunuch was "fully Immersed" because he "went into the water," then it would follow that Philip was also Immersed because he went "into the water" with the eunuch. The Bible would not be so emphatic if it were not the case. The only way for the IM's to talk their way out of it is for them to cling to their extra-Biblical idea about the meaning of Baptism.

I would like to go to the Paedo-Baptist views on the passages cited above, because I find them fascinating and throughly Biblical. But I think that I should point out the way the Bible defines the word "Baptism" and oppose this definition with the Immersionists use of the Greek Philosophers.

The Bible Alone vs. the Greek lexicons and philosophers:

In the OP I already pointed out the connection between the Baptism of Jesus, Matt. 3:15, and Numbers 8:6,7:

Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. 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.

Again, the Scriptures use the term "cleanse" twice as a means of emphasis. The Priests in the OT were "cleansed" by the sprinkling of water upon them. Undoubtedly, this was the method John the Baptist used when he Baptized Jesus, "in order to fulfill all righteousness."

To "Dip" Jesus into the water when God commanded Sprinkling would have been a violation of the Word of God, and it would have been unrighteous.

2) The Method of John the Baptist was Sprinkling with a hyssop branch, and not Immersion.

John's theology of Baptism was very simple, "...I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the holy Ghost and with fire, Luke 3:16.

It follows that John considered his Baptism as symbolical of the Baptism of Jesus when the Holy Ghost would "descend" or be "poured out" upon all flesh. And, after the Baptism of Jesus he did witness the Holy Spirit descend upon Jesus.

But, Baptism was not an invention of John the Baptist. Ceremonial washings and cleansings are found throughout the Old Testament.

Heb. 9:19 - For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people.

Exo 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.

Eze 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.

Dan 4:33 - The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.

In this last passage Nebuchadnezzar is said to be "wet" with the dew of heaven. Yet, the Hebrew word here used for "wet" means "to dip" or "Immerse." Yet, it is clear that Nebuchadnezzar was "sprinkled" by the dew of heaven, and that he was not plunged into a lake, river, or bathtub.

It seems to me both reasonable and clear that a godly Bible Believing Man like John the Baptist would search the Scriptures to find the correct mode for Baptism. I doubt very much he would search Greek philosophies, Hebrew lexicons, and other such things for his method.

Would an Immersionist like to prove me wrong?

That Baptism as it is defined by the Bible is only done by sprinkling or pouring can be shown by many other verses. Of which I will have to demonstrate at a different time.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

Very convincing argument.

Nicely done!

__________________
John J.
Member Christ Prebyterian Church (OPC) Preparing For Eldership
Salt Lake City, Utah
www.christpres.net
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...
Currently reading Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship

I would say either sprinkling or pouring

__________________
Name: Richard
Church: Church of England, UK

It is amazing how convincing the arguments can seem when one is already a convert.

If only I had the time to demonstrate the weakness of the arguments that some find sooooo convincing ......Sigh! Groan!

Just for starters those who want to read of the Jewish practice of washing pots, pans, tables and much much more please refer to:

John Gill's Tracts on Baptism to be found here

__________________
Satch Chikhlia, Reformed Baptist, Surrey, England

"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." Colossians 3.1

http://www.book-academy.co.uk For FREE downloadable pdf commentaries recommended by C.H. Spurgeon, Spurgeon's works, and Great Puritan works.

Are you referring to yourself? or someone else?

No one is going anywhere, take your time, and show us how wrong we are. By the way - I was once a credo-baptist like you.

"Infant Baptism - a relic of popery" - Gill is a real unbiased source isn't he?

Grace and Peace,

-CH

Yeah - almost as unbiased as your postings here

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/
The Regulative Principle of Worship: Explained and Applied (Xulon Press)
A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government (Reformed Worldview Books)

I usually take a slightly different tack on the baptism of Jesus. For one thing, a Baptist might note that the paedo argument advocated below has difficulty with the pronouns. Who looked up and saw the Spirit descending on him? The pronouns are ambiguous. However, given the fact that the second pronoun must refer to Jesus, and given the fact that Jesus was the subject of the passive and active verbs in verse 9, it seems rather conclusive to me that Jesus is the One who saw the heavens opened, and Jesus was the One upon whom the Spirit descended. However, the passage is completely inconclusive with regard to immersion, given the geography of the Jordan River, which has extremely steep banks leading to a rather shallow river. One would have to be standing in the river to make use of the water in the river at all. So "coming up from the water" could just as easily mean "got out of the Jordan" as meaning "came up from underneath the water." If they were coming up out of the Jordan River, then the baptism is done (though just done: "euthus"), and as they climb out of the Jordan, Jesus sees the heavens open and the Spirit descend upon Him.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com

Just an aside, what's wrong with bias, anyway? Are we supposed to be neutral and only read neutral people? I thought this was the PuritanBoard!?!

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA

LOL Okay the real funny thing is i'm actually eating popcorn right now.

__________________
Nikki Edmond
New Beginnings Believers Bible Fellowship (Family's Church), Non-Denom
Los Angeles, CA
www.haveatulip.com - Chat Room for Reformed Believers
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

I wish I was! I'm gluing PVC pipe right now, so I can't enter a full reply, especially since I'm a Credo-dunker! This will be my first foray into the baptism debate, since I also affirm the validity of paedo dunking (I wish, o.k., paedo sprinkling). I'm looking forward to this!! By the way, I'm PCUSA, and we have all kinds of things on our tables, but no Bibles!

Just waiting till the glue dries - Grymir

I am personally putting off the ordeal of digging into all of the arguments again for myself until later in the year (due to some other professional responsibilities). However, having a little exposure to arguments by people like Robert ("I was once a credo-baptist like you") and Lane over the years, it seems to me that Satch is correct whether you hold to immersion or sprinkling: "It is amazing how convincing the arguments can seem when one is already a convert."

Both the WCF and the Savoy use exactly the same words to describe the sufficiency of the Word of God to accomplish all that is necessary for God's glory and for our "salvation, faith, and life."

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." — WCF

The 1689 LBCF phrases it somewhat differently but to the same effect:

"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."— 1689

We all agree that the NT teaches either immersion or sprinking, not both. As we also probably all agree that it teaches either credo OR paedo baptism. However, upholders of both the WCF and the 1689 are in significant disagrement as to which conclusion correctly renders the teaching of the Word of God. Obviously, the issue is not one of wanting to be faithful to the teaching of the Bible; BOTH sides strive to do that. And, both the WCF and the 1689 use very similar words to describe their adherance to the same standard of authority, despite the fact that they reach opposite conclusions as to the proper teaching of that scripture.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

WOW.... VIC, actually posted in a Baptism Thread. I am amazed.

I am taking a rest from such at this time. Life is good smelling the flowers of Spring.

__________________

R. Martin Snyder
1689er PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."William Symington

Once a year, brother.