Luther: Immersion the Best Mode of Baptism

[C. M. Sheffield]

From Brakel, as always he seems well balanced:

Thank you for sharing. It seems to me that these men (Reformers, Puritans, Nadere Reformatie) were not in a context where the mode of baptism was a subject of any great debate. They all practiced afusion or aspersion. This, I think, is why they felt more freedom in admitting—"The Lord Jesus was baptized by immersion (Matt 3:16), as was the eunuch (Acts 8:38). The apostle also refers to this: 'Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death' (Rom 6:4);"—while also saying, "It is not of the least consequence" (Calvin, Institutes, IV.15.19).

 

[Tom Hart]

It seems to me that these men (Reformers, Puritans, Nadere Reformatie) were not in a context where the mode of baptism was a subject of any great debate.

The Reformers had to deal with the Anabaptists, and so did the Puritans. I cannot comment on the writings of the Nadere Reformatie, but I know that Anabaptist sects were active in the Netherlands from the early days of the Reformation. Mode of baptism has been an issue from the Reformation onward.

I remember reading something by Calvin in which he argued, against the Anabaptists, that mode of baptism is not the essential thing that the Anabaptists made it.

The Puritan Michael Harrison's excellent treatise on baptism discusses mode at some length. He plainly presents his case in opposition to Ababaptist views.

Clearly, it is not that mode of baptism was not the subject of debate. Rather, the Magisterial Reformers and the Puritans and others knew that to admit the possibility of immersion in the NT, and in their own day, did not weaken their position.

 

[Grant]

Thank you for sharing. It seems to me that these men (Reformers, Puritans, Nadere Reformatie) were not in a context where the mode of baptism was a subject of any great debate. They all practiced afusion or aspersion. This, I think, is why they felt more freedom in admitting—"The Lord Jesus was baptized by immersion (Matt 3:16), as was the eunuch (Acts 8:38). The apostle also refers to this: 'Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death' (Rom 6:4);"—while also saying, "It is not of the least consequence" (Calvin, Institutes, IV.15.19).

Yes it was a good and surprising read, but Brakel also list biblical examples where the baptism of Christians was not likely full immersion if one treats the text honestly. I felt when I read Brakel that is was something honest and that he tried to be unbiased.

Further, I have heard many Paedo’s say something along the lines “well if being buried with in Christ relates to immersion, then why don’t we stick people in a tomb of water”. That type of reasoning line always felt silly and lacking. It was good to see both Brakel and Calvin relate that verse to immersion being supportable.

I am glad the Westminster allows for a few modes. Why don’t we compromise? I’ll start supporting immersion and you start supporting Paedo

 

[JTB.SDG]

Yes it was a good and surprising read, but Brakel also list biblical examples where the baptism of Christians was not likely full immersion if one treats the text honestly. I felt when I read Brakel that is was something honest and that he tried to be unbiased.

Further, I have heard many Paedo’s say something along the lines “well if being buried with in Christ relates to immersion, then why don’t we stick people in a tomb of water”. That type of reasoning line always felt silly and lacking. It was good to see both Brakel and Calvin relate that verse to immersion being supportable.

I am glad the Westminster allows for a few modes. Why don’t we compromise? I’ll start supporting immersion and you start supporting Paedo

I don't know if the Sheffster is going to cut you any deals when it comes to mode.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Compromising on things is how you Presbyterians wound up with the PC(USA) and we Baptists wound up with the ABC. Hard pass! (OUCH)

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I read the thread title, and thought,
"Could Pastor Chris be turning Lutheran? No, that can't be right..."

While Luther wasn't close to being a Baptist (200yrs too early to even be a pietist Dunker), he valued baptism to a very high degree. Those who agree on the doctrine of "improving" one's baptism should heed Luther in his Small Catechism, on the topic of "The Sacrament of Holy Baptism:"

Fourth,
Q. What does such baptizing with water indicate?

A. It indicates that the Old Adam in us should by daily contrition and repentance be drowned and die with all sins and evil desires, and that a new man should daily emerge and arise to live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

Drown the old man daily. Good advice, from a paedobaptist.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

The Reformers had to deal with the Anabaptists, and so did the Puritans. I cannot comment on the writings of the Nadere Reformatie, but I know that Anabaptist sects were active in the Netherlands from the early days of the Reformation. Mode of baptism has been an issue from the Reformation onward.

I remember reading something by Calvin in which he argued, against the Anabaptists, that mode of baptism is not the essential thing that the Anabaptists made it.

The Puritan Michael Harrison's excellent treatise on baptism discusses mode at some length. He plainly presents his case in opposition to Ababaptist views.

Clearly, it is not that mode of baptism was not the subject of debate. Rather, the Magisterial Reformers and the Puritans and others knew that to admit the possibility of immersion in the NT, and in their own day, did not weaken their position.

I'm fully aware of the history of the Reformation and the role the Anabaptists played. What I said was, "the mode of baptism was not a subject of any great debate." That's a fact. The principle men of the era rejected Anabaptist views of baptism. Anabaptist were a radical fringe group and they were esteemed as such by most Christians of that time. None of the Reformers espoused baptistic convictions and only very few of the Puritan era. So no, it was not a subject of any great debate for them. They lived in time when the vast majority were all of the same mind about the matter. And that is why I think, they felt a greater measure of liberty in admitting that the mode of immersion is that described in Scripture and employed by the early church. I think some Presbyterians today are not as willing to make the same admissions (if at all) for fear of it compromising their own view.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Further, I have heard many Paedo’s say something along the lines “well if being buried with in Christ relates to immersion, then why don’t we stick people in a tomb of water”.

Funny you say that, there is a very old Baptist chapel in England where the baptismal pool is a hexagonal, coffin-shaped whole recessed into the stone floor.

Why don’t we compromise? I’ll start supporting immersion and you start supporting Paedo

I will gladly immerse any baby that makes a credible profession of faith.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

The issue hinges on what the greek means. I would say it normally means immersion or dipping. But pedobaptists argue that it means a washing also (even when not done by immersion), or a total envelopment.

"Exhibit A:
1 Corinthians 10:1-2 “For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”

Were the Jews immersed by a cloud? Certainly not; The Jews passed through the sea on dry ground. (Exodus 14:22).

Exhibit B:
Hebrews 9:10 “but deal only with food and drink and various washings (baptismois), regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation”.

This passage refers to Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, which were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. The baptisms mentioned in this chapter (verses 13, 19, 21;conf. Num. 19:17-18; Exo. 24:6,8; Lev. 8:19; 16:14) are all via sprinkling.

Exhibit C:
Mark 7:4 “and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash (baptisontai). And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing (baptismous) of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches”.


I am still a baptist, but these 3 verses do give me pause to think.


Then we have these other evidences:

"Exhibit D:
Luke 11:38 “The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash (ebaptisthe) before dinner”.

Did Jesus immerse himself before eating dinner?

Exhibit E:
Leviticus 14:6 “He shall take the live bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, and dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water”.

It is scientifically impossible for a bird cannot to be completely immersed in its own blood. This word is bapto in the Septuagint."
https://daboatman.wordpress.com/tag/credobaptism/

I think this second set of examples is weaker. If I wash my foot in water or dip it, this is an immersion of my foot, after all. And if I dip a bird in blood, it is still a dip and not a sprinkle.

This excellent answer came from Sean in a different thread and I wanted to share it here.

I don't see why this is even a controversy. Every language has lots of words with a large semantic domain. Some words even mean the opposite of their normal usage in some contexts! (For example, in the 80s and 90s, "bad" meant "good".)

The question isn't "can baptizo mean something other than dipping?" Everyone agrees it can.

The questions should be, "what does baptizo mean in the context of the Christian sacrament of Baptism?".

For 1100 to 1200 years the Church pretty much unanimously agreed that baptizo in the context of the Christian sacrament of Baptism meant to pretty much cover the entire body with water. A hundred or so years in it was accepted that in an emergency sprinkling or pouring would do if the recipient and the "Baptizer" would have dipped / dunked if they were able, but it was still better to dip or dunk. Ask those of the Eastern Orthodox tradition and they'll tell you that it was the Western Church around the 1100 / 1200 time frame that started seriously arguing that sprinkling or pouring was sufficient all the time regardless of whether dipping / dunking was feasible.

Nowadays you even have people who (for reasons that blow my mind) say that sprinkling is supposed to be normative and that dipping or dunking is even inappropriate! That's just theologically and historically unsupportable.

 

[Tom Hart]

What I said was, "the mode of baptism was a subject of any great debate."

You'll find references to Anabaptists' insistence in immersion in many places in the works of Calvin, and Luther, too.

Reformed Christians have historically rejected the entire Anabaptistic system, including their view that only baptism by immersion is valid. This business about mode was tied up with everything else the Anabaptists were doing.

Perhaps you have a different idea of what a "great debate" is.

 

[Tom Hart]

This excellent answer came from Sean in a different thread and I wanted to share it here.

I don't see why this is even a controversy.

It is a controversy because some have insisted that there is only one valid mode of baptism. Others do not go that far, but say that other modes are disobedient to a "clear command".

For 1100 to 1200 years...

I would love to see the source for all this.

Anyway, it's sort of an funny argument coming from a Baptist.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

You'll find references to Anabaptists' insistence in immersion in many places in the works of Calvin, and Luther, too.

Reformed Christians have historically rejected the entire Anabaptistic system, including their view that only baptism by immersion is valid. This business about mode was tied up with everything else the Anabaptists were doing.

Perhaps you have a different idea of what a "great debate" is.

You're just restating your earlier argument and not interacting with what I said. So that's as far as I'm going to go with you.

 

[Tom Hart]

You're just restating your earlier argument and not interacting with what I said. So that's as far as I'm going to go with you.

You have only asserted that the mode of baptism was never the subject of a "great debate". (What precisely constitutes a "great debate" remains unspecified.)

I am saying, rather plainly, that the mode of baptism was part of a larger controversy surrounding the doctrines of the Anabaptists. And the Reformers and their successors were not silent on it.

 

[Herald]

I am saying, rather plainly, that the mode of baptism was part of a larger controversy surrounding the doctrines of the Anabaptists. And the Reformers and their successors were not silent on it.

Tom, you are going to find Reformed/Particular Baptists to be of kindred spirit with you when it comes to their opinion on the Anabaptists. The Reformers had more of an issue with the Anabaptist movement in toto than just mode of baptism. Christopher is correct. Most of the Reformers and Puritans were like-minded on baptism, so the issue of mode was never a major controversy. That does not mean they did not oppose the Baptist position of only baptizing professed believers, it is just that they opposed the Baptist view of baptism more than the mode of baptism. While I do not have data to support this, I believe mode is more of an issue today than it was in the 16th and 17th centuries.

 

[Tom Hart]

The Reformers had more of an issue with the Anabaptist movement in toto than just mode of baptism.

That's what I said.

 

[Solparvus]

Tom, you are going to find Reformed/Particular Baptists to be of kindred spirit with you when it comes to their opinion on the Anabaptists. The Reformers had more of an issue with the Anabaptist movement in toto than just mode of baptism. Christopher is correct. Most of the Reformers and Puritans were like-minded on baptism, so the issue of mode was never a major controversy. That does not mean they did not oppose the Baptist position of only baptizing professed believers, it is just that they opposed the Baptist view of baptism more than the mode of baptism. While I do not have data to support this, I believe mode is more of an issue today than it was in the 16th and 17th centuries.

I don't know much about history, but I would think that you and @C. M. Sheffield are right. If anyone wants to look up John Calvin's own words on immersion as quoted earlier in this thread they are found in the Institutes. From my own brief perusal, Calvin spent no time at all defending his position on the mode. After all, if he doesn't believe mode to be essential, then why would he? Interesting too, considering that the Institutes are meant to lay groundwork for his commentaries, and in them he intended to address certain issues up-front rather than write about those same things again and again when expositing Scripture. I haven't read much of Calvin, but it's a safe bet he didn't spend much time at all one immersion/sprinkling/pouring. Certainly, for things he considered highly important, such as a defense for the baptism of the children of believers, he spent a whole chapter.

Prima facie, I can't conceive that Calvin put up a big fuss about mode in his own day. Apparently in the Institutes the topics of baptism subjects and mode are not so married together as now. So, if there was a "Great Debate," I'm guessing he wasn't part of it.

Even some of the early 17th century English Baptists did not take issue with sprinkling. John Smyth in 1608/09 came to Baptist convictions, baptized himself, and gave to others what he called believer's baptism. However, he did it by pouring/sprinkling. Only a few--if any--did it by immersion until perhaps 1630-1640. Another reason to think that mode was not a subject of serious contest.

Source:
http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistorigins/baptistbeginnings.html

And according to Samuel Miller in his sermon on infant baptism, the Waldenses did baptize by immersion, but at other times they baptized by sprinkling. I seem to remember too that some early Mennonite groups applied sprinkling, but I would need to verify that.

Then again, I know less about history than about others. It doesn't seem unreasonable to say that until recent centuries there wasn't a hard debate on mode.

Seeing as I caused a ruckus earlier in the thread it's only fair I wade into this at some point. I've taken the comments here and been restudying the issue, and my own view has shifted and sharpened a bit, so maybe.

 

[Dachaser]

Tom, you are going to find Reformed/Particular Baptists to be of kindred spirit with you when it comes to their opinion on the Anabaptists. The Reformers had more of an issue with the Anabaptist movement in toto than just mode of baptism. Christopher is correct. Most of the Reformers and Puritans were like-minded on baptism, so the issue of mode was never a major controversy. That does not mean they did not oppose the Baptist position of only baptizing professed believers, it is just that they opposed the Baptist view of baptism more than the mode of baptism. While I do not have data to support this, I believe mode is more of an issue today than it was in the 16th and 17th centuries.

You are correct, as there have always been some who supported Immersion mode of Baptism even among Reformed as the preferred method, but they strongly objected to the only memorial view traditionally held by Baptists.

 

[Solparvus]

I read the thread title, and thought,
"Could Pastor Chris be turning Lutheran? No, that can't be right..."

While Luther wasn't close to being a Baptist (200yrs too early to even be a pietist Dunker), he valued baptism to a very high degree. Those who agree on the doctrine of "improving" one's baptism should heed Luther in his Small Catechism, on the topic of "The Sacrament of Holy Baptism:"Drown the old man daily. Good advice, from a paedobaptist.

Rich statement!

 

[Grant]

Well dear brothers, I think we all agree the only proper and orthodox way to eat an Oreo is full immersion (in milk). Anything less than full immersion in milk (unfermented ) is a “second class” Oreo experience. Surely there can be no debate there.

 

[Solparvus]

Well dear brothers, I think we all agree the only proper and orthodox way to eat an Oreo is full immersion (in milk). Anything less than full immersion in milk (unfermented ) is a “second class” Oreo experience. Surely there can be no debate there.

I don't drink milk, but I would dip without fully submerging. Keeps the hands clean, like Ruth dipping her morsel in Ruth 2, likely not full immersion, translated in LXX with word bapto.

 

[Grant]

I don't drink milk, but I would dip without fully submerging. Keeps the hands clean, like Ruth dipping her morsel in Ruth 2, likely not full immersion, translated in LXX with word bapto.

Where are the moderators?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I don't drink milk, but I would dip without fully submerging. Keeps the hands clean, like Ruth dipping her morsel in Ruth 2, likely not full immersion, translated in LXX with word bapto.

I completely agree here. I dip half the cookie in the milk. Then I reverse the second half: eat the cookie then take a swig of milk.

 

[Grant]

I dip half the cookie in the milk. Then I reverse the second half:

Ryan,

I think your covered, dipping 2 halves still gives you the full immersion experience. But just tread lightly.

 

[Tom Hart]

Luther, Babylonian Captivity (cited in the OP):

I would have those who are to be baptized completely immersed in the water, as the word says and as the mystery indicates. Not because I deem this necessary, but because it would be well to give to a thing so perfect and complete a sign that is also complete and perfect. And this is doubtless the way in which it was instituted by Christ.​

Calvin, Institutes, Book IV, Ch. XV.19:

But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water -these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word “baptize” means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.​

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.​

There's two Reformers and the Westminster Divines. Was mode of baptism not the subject of a grand debate? Not by itself, no. As I have said, it was a piece of a larger controversy. Immersion-only baptism was (is) a part of the Anabaptistic system that the Reformers and their successors rejected wholly.

What was the context of Luther's words? He makes a point of saying that, while he prefers immersion, it is not necessary. Anabaptists, who were running wild in Luther's day, held that immersion was required, that all other baptism was invalid. Luther's remarks must be read in the context of the religious upheavals of the time.

So Calvin's. Why make the point that immersion is not required? Because the Anabaptists were teaching the opposite as part of their whole errant system.

That the debate over mode in the 16th and 17th centuries did not take the form it has taken today hardly means that the debaters hadn't considered it. (@C. M. Sheffield: "They lived in a time when the vast majority of them were all of the same mind about the matter.") (In those days, the number of Reformed Christians who rejected infant baptism in favour of adult baptism by immersion was, it would seem, negligible. So it is only natural that the debate would have progress differently to how it does today. Nowadays, "Reformed" Christians can argue about mode among themselves.)

Luther railed against the Anabaptists, Calvin personally debated them (and married the widow of one). And Anabaptists were active in England during the English Civil Wars (the context of the writing of the WCF.)

Simply consider the historical context of these quotations.

 

[Tom Hart]

Well dear brothers, I think we all agree the only proper and orthodox way to eat an Oreo is full immersion (in milk). Anything less than full immersion in milk (unfermented ) is a “second class” Oreo experience. Surely there can be no debate there.

I use a spoon to drown the Oreo completely.

 

[Grant]

I use a spoon to drown the Oreo completely.

Now that’s being TR. keep up the good work.

 

[Tom Hart]

Now that’s being TR. keep up the good work.

Thanks!

I wait until they stop wriggling and the bubbles stop coming up.

 

[Solparvus]

I think we are getting off-track.

@Tom Hart , I think the point is that an extensive debate on mode like we have it today did not take place. Not fully absent, but not substantial so far as I'm aware. Yes they addressed it, that's clear, but maybe you know a few Reformation-era treatise on the matter, or perhaps an extended debate between two parties on mode, either from that era or the Puritan age? Anything that even approaches the back-and-forth as we have it today?

It hit me thinking this over... I'm not aware of any contention over mode at all until the 16th century. Some did immersion, some sprinkling, some pouring, but I've not seen any quotes before that time asserting one mode or set of modes is correct and others are wrong. But then, I'm an elementary level historical theologian.

History experts? Would this be a right assessment?

 

[Tom Hart]

I think the point is that an extensive debate on mode like we have it today did not take place. Not fully absent, but not substantial so far as I'm aware.

I have been pushing back against the unsupported assertion that "in the 16th and 17th centuries everyone basically agreed, so they had no problem saying immersion was in the Bible". In fact, the doctrines of the Anabaptists (the whole system, including but not limited to immersion) were a very present threat.

I'm not aware of any contention over mode at all until the 16th century. Some did immersion, some sprinkling, some pouring, but I've not seen any quotes before that time asserting one mode or set of modes is correct and others are wrong. But then, I'm an elementary level historical theologian.

In 1527, Felix Manz, a Swiss Anabaptist leader, was executed, drowned in a river in mockery of his sect's insistence on re-baptism by immersion.

But, yes, not a lot of contention before the 16th century. That's when the Reformation started, after all.

 

[hammondjones]

Dear friends, you seem to be unaware of the Tim Tam Slam...