steven-nemes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Does it matter?
Sprinkling vs Dunking
- Thread starter steven-nemes
- Start date
- Status
Roldan
Puritan Board Junior
A Presbyterian and a baptist were debating methods of baptism.
Presbyterian: If I get wet up to my ankles, would that be enough?
Baptist: No.
Presbyterian: If I get wet up to my knees, will that be enough?
Baptist: No.
Presbyterian: Up to my waist?
Baptist: No.
Presbyterian: What about up to my neck, if I get in to a pool up to my neck, surely that is enough?
Baptist: No.
Presbyterian: Right then, what about up to my ears? If I get wet up to my ears, that MUST be enough?
Baptist: NO!
Presbyterian: I knew it! I was right all along! Its the top of your head which matters!!!
Presbyterian: If I get wet up to my ankles, would that be enough?
Baptist: No.
Presbyterian: If I get wet up to my knees, will that be enough?
Baptist: No.
Presbyterian: Up to my waist?
Baptist: No.
Presbyterian: What about up to my neck, if I get in to a pool up to my neck, surely that is enough?
Baptist: No.
Presbyterian: Right then, what about up to my ears? If I get wet up to my ears, that MUST be enough?
Baptist: NO!
Presbyterian: I knew it! I was right all along! Its the top of your head which matters!!!
Knoxienne
Puritan Board Graduate
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Steven:
It depends who you ask.
For many if not most Baptists they would say that the meaning of the words 'baptize' or 'baptism' is 'immersion'. In order then to obey the command of the Lord one would, in this view, have to be immersed in order to have a real baptism.
For many if not most Presbyterians and Reformed the meaning of the word 'baptize' or 'baptism' is broader and includes the idea of washing, pouring and sprinkling. However many would argue that pouring or sprinkling best symbolizes the atonement of Christ and the outpouring (regeneration) of the Holy Spirit because the person is entirely passive in the event, therefore demonstrating in a visible or outward way the sovereignty of God in salvation.
Broadly speaking then, it matters more for the Baptist than the Presbyterian.
It depends who you ask.
For many if not most Baptists they would say that the meaning of the words 'baptize' or 'baptism' is 'immersion'. In order then to obey the command of the Lord one would, in this view, have to be immersed in order to have a real baptism.
For many if not most Presbyterians and Reformed the meaning of the word 'baptize' or 'baptism' is broader and includes the idea of washing, pouring and sprinkling. However many would argue that pouring or sprinkling best symbolizes the atonement of Christ and the outpouring (regeneration) of the Holy Spirit because the person is entirely passive in the event, therefore demonstrating in a visible or outward way the sovereignty of God in salvation.
Broadly speaking then, it matters more for the Baptist than the Presbyterian.
I guess there is also the whole 'death and burial and resurection' symbolism associated with baptism. Although I am aware that Berkhof hammers this argument. But its definetly in Romans. I would say immersion communicates that aspect of ourt salvation more clearly than sprinkling.
CharlieJ
Puritan Board Junior
Romans 6:4-6 uses three συν- verbs to describe the relationship between Christ and the believer signified in baptism.
συνεταφημεν - buried with
συμφυτοι - planted with
συνεσταυρωθη - crucified with
Does it not seem arbitrary to insist that we must take the first verb as God's intention for how baptism is to be visibly portrayed, while ignoring the other two? Which mode visually looks like crucifixion? Also, Jesus was buried by being laid into a chamber hewed out of the side of a rock face. Baptism by immersion doesn't really depict that very well.
dannyhyde
Puritan Board Sophomore
I wrote an entire chapter on this issue in my book, [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Loves-Little-Children-Baptize/dp/0965398196/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235166767&sr=8-7"]Jesus Loves the Little Children[/ame].
Here is what Calvin said:
To answer the question of whether Romans 6 means we must be immersed to be "buried and raised" with Christ, at the end of my chapter I say the following:
Here is what Calvin said:
"Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.15.19).
To answer the question of whether Romans 6 means we must be immersed to be "buried and raised" with Christ, at the end of my chapter I say the following:
To summarize, let us think about two questions. First, if immersion is necessary for a baptism to be valid, as it is said Romans 6 and Colossians 2 teach, then why isn’t putting on a new pair of clothes after coming out of the water necessary? After all, Paul says in Galatians 3:27, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Christ here is thought of as a garment enveloping the believer and symbolizing his new spiritual existence. This metaphor comes from the Old Testament where changing clothes represents an inward and spiritual change (cf. Isa. 61:10; Zech. 3:3f.). Furthermore, in Romans 6 Paul does not only speak of being united with Christ’s burial and resurrection, but also his crucifixion” (Rom. 6:6). How is this signified in immersion? The point being that baptism signifies so much more than just merely our burial and resurrection with Christ and that to only look at two of the images in Romans and Colossians is arbitrary.
Shouldn’t we be consistent and follow all that these texts supposedly say?
Second, if the mode of immersion is necessary for baptism, then why not for the other New Covenant sacrament, the Lord’s Supper? After all, Jesus instituted his Supper at Passover (Matthew 26:17). Shouldn’t we, then, partake of this meal once a year on the Passover? He institutes it at night (Matthew 26:20). This would mean the end of our “first Sunday morning of every month” practice of communion. Jesus gave his disciples holy communion while reclining at a table (Matthew 26:20). Should we get rid of pews? It was celebrated in an upper room (Mark 14:15). So do our church’s need to be at least two stories tall? Jesus shared with his disciples a common cup (Matthew 26:27). Is this the end of individual plastic cups? As well, Jesus and his disciples most likely drank wine and ate the unleavened bread of the Passover.
These are important parallels to ponder so that we do not become overly divisive about the precise form of partaking of the sacraments. What is important is what they signify about Christ and his relationship to us and our relationship to his body, the Church.
Shouldn’t we be consistent and follow all that these texts supposedly say?
Second, if the mode of immersion is necessary for baptism, then why not for the other New Covenant sacrament, the Lord’s Supper? After all, Jesus instituted his Supper at Passover (Matthew 26:17). Shouldn’t we, then, partake of this meal once a year on the Passover? He institutes it at night (Matthew 26:20). This would mean the end of our “first Sunday morning of every month” practice of communion. Jesus gave his disciples holy communion while reclining at a table (Matthew 26:20). Should we get rid of pews? It was celebrated in an upper room (Mark 14:15). So do our church’s need to be at least two stories tall? Jesus shared with his disciples a common cup (Matthew 26:27). Is this the end of individual plastic cups? As well, Jesus and his disciples most likely drank wine and ate the unleavened bread of the Passover.
These are important parallels to ponder so that we do not become overly divisive about the precise form of partaking of the sacraments. What is important is what they signify about Christ and his relationship to us and our relationship to his body, the Church.
Glenn Ferrell
Puritan Board Junior
Lloyd Sprinkle (Baptist) and the late Don Dunkerley (PCA) were speaking at the same event.
Someone noted the odd humor of having a Baptist named “sprinkle” and a Presbyterian named “DUNKerley” in the same venue.
When Dunkerley had opportunity to comment, he pointed out his name was “Dunk early”!
The candidate is more important than the mode.
Someone noted the odd humor of having a Baptist named “sprinkle” and a Presbyterian named “DUNKerley” in the same venue.
When Dunkerley had opportunity to comment, he pointed out his name was “Dunk early”!
The candidate is more important than the mode.
fair point... hmmm Berkhof kinda ruined that whole thought process for me a while back
shame pre berkhof I thought the argument was water tight...
charliejunfan
Puritan Board Senior
My Reformed Baptist friend told me to be consistant as a Paedo baptist I must baptize animals
, cause animals were in the Ark that was baptized by the flood.
, cause animals were in the Ark that was baptized by the flood.My Reformed Baptist friend told me to be consistant as a Paedo baptist I must baptize animals
A reformed baptist would say that though... I guess it doesnt make him right... doh I'm supposed to be a baptist! hmmm
charliejunfan
Puritan Board Senior
John! Join the Dark Side!!!! 
refbaptdude
Puritan Board Freshman
Ivan, seriously if it is not important then take it out of your church name!
refbaptdude
Puritan Board Freshman
Daniel,
Of course it matters for the entire Eastern Church also
Orthodox Infant Baptism - AOL Video
and
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-GeqkQHJDI"]YouTube - Alexandra's Baptism 1[/ame]
Steve
Last edited:
Hippo
Puritan Board Junior
It is strange then that the confessional Baptist position is to refuse the Lord's Supper to those whose mode of Baptism differs from immersion.
I can understand the insistance on Baptism on profession, I have never understood any defensible justification for the mode being of equal importance.
A.J.
Puritan Board Junior
What you believe about the mode of baptism does matter.
If Baptists are right, then pouring and sprinkling are not valid modes. Those baptized by pouring or sprinkling are not validly baptized. But if Presbyterians are right, then Baptists are insisting something that is not found in Scripture. The latter are un-baptizing those whom the Bible recognizes as validly baptized.
Baptists see the mode of immersion as essential to the valid administration of baptism. They say that it is the only consistent mode with the Bible's depiction of baptism's symbolism which is an identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:1-4; Col. 2:11-12). Presbyterians on the contrary do not see the mode as essential. Though they accept immersion as a valid mode, they see pouring and sprinkling as the proper modes. They contend that baptism (the sign) must be consistent with the thing it signifies, namely, the pouring out/falling upon of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2, 10 and 11; cf. Titus 3) and the sprinkling of the blood of Christ (Hebrews 9-10).
Croghanite
Puritan Board Sophomore
Daniel,
Of course it matters for the entire Eastern Church also
Orthodox Infant Baptism - AOL Video
and
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-GeqkQHJDI"]YouTube - Alexandra's Baptism 1[/ame]
Steve
oh my....
refbaptdude
Puritan Board Freshman
Of course Calvin also said:
John Calvin -"The very word "baptize however, signifies to IMMERSE, and it is certain that IMMERSION was the practice of the ancient church."(Institutes of the Christian Religion, chp 15)
John Calvin’s commentary on the Gospel of John
John 3:22-23
22. After these things came Jesus. It is probable that Christ, when the feast was past, came into that part of Judea which was in the vicinity of the town Enon, which was situated in the tribe of Manasseh. The Evangelist says that there were many waters there, and these were not so abundant in Judea. Now geographers tell us, that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence of the river Jordan and the brook Jabbok; and they add that Scythopolis was near them. From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water; though we ought not to give ourselves any great uneasiness about the outward rite, provided that it agree with the spiritual truth, and with the Lord's appointment and rule. So far as we are able to conjecture, the; vicinity of those places caused various reports to be circulated, and many discussions to arise, about the Law, about the worship of God, and about the condition of the Church, in consequence of two persons who administered baptism having arisen at the same time. For when the Evangelist says that Christ baptized, I refer this to the commencement of his ministry; namely, that he then began to exercise publicly the office which was appointed to him by the Father. And though Christ did this by his disciples, yet he is here named as the Author of the baptism, without mentioning his ministers, who did nothing but in his name and by his command. On this subject, we shall have something more to say in the beginning of the next Chapter.
refbaptdude
Puritan Board Freshman
Rob,
How do you explain the practice of the entire Eastern Church (Greek Orthodox, etc)?
Rob the post that you deleted needs to deal with the practice of the Eastern Church, your not dealing with all the issues ; )
Thanks
uberkermit
Puritan Board Freshman
I don't need to explain their [Greek Orthodox] practice. They are not exactly my model of orthodoxy, nor are they yours, I would presume. The fact that they practice such things proves little to me. Neither they, nor the Baptists get down to the text when the gospel writers use the words for wash and baptise interchangeably. (c.f. Matthew 15:2 and Luke 11:38)
I did delete the post, as I thought twice about inciting more debate over a very much debated subject.
Last edited:
refbaptdude
Puritan Board Freshman
And I guess the words of Calvin and Luther mean little to you also?
Martin Luther -" I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word."
Philip Schaff -"IMMERSION and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John which was performed in Jordan." (History of the Apostolic Church, p.568).
Unfortunately it is a much debated issue.
Your brother in Christ
Martin Luther -" I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word."
Philip Schaff -"IMMERSION and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John which was performed in Jordan." (History of the Apostolic Church, p.568).
Unfortunately it is a much debated issue.
Your brother in Christ
A.J.
Puritan Board Junior
Hi John. I don't think the text describes immersion. Does it not say that both Philip and the eunuch were involved in the going down and the coming up out of the water?
If this teaches that the recipient of baptism was immersed, then does this not mean that the one who administered baptism was immersed as well?
Michael Doyle
Puritan Board Junior
Hi John, I believe first off, it is highly unlikely there was a body of water with significant depth in the middle of the desert as is spoken in v. 26
that would allow for full immersion.
oh dear, everything I have been taught about full immersion seems to be based upon a lot of assumptions.
John,
Be patient with yourself. I think you've recently come into a Calvinistic frame of reference, and that can be a period of great excitement, as well as great turmoil. As a baptized believer, I don't think you need to stress over the issue of baptism at present.
What I think is good is when everyone (everyone!) stops, takes a step back, and realizes that no one (no one!) just reads the Bible like a virgin, "and if you just read it as simple and straightforward you'll have to agree that I'm right!" Someone is bound to come along, and point out difficulties that in-house discussions frequently gloss over.
Their points don't have to be true or correct criticisms; however, we do well to realize they just did us a favor. Being a Baptist, a Lutheran, a Methodist, or a Presbyterian (etc.) isn't just a matter of "a clear reading of Scripture." Those words are simply a cudgel to beat up people who have sincere disagreements with us. When we realize that other people might actually have some biblical grounds for their disagreement, however mistaken, it ought to make us more humble and patient.
Be patient with yourself. I think you've recently come into a Calvinistic frame of reference, and that can be a period of great excitement, as well as great turmoil. As a baptized believer, I don't think you need to stress over the issue of baptism at present.
What I think is good is when everyone (everyone!) stops, takes a step back, and realizes that no one (no one!) just reads the Bible like a virgin, "and if you just read it as simple and straightforward you'll have to agree that I'm right!" Someone is bound to come along, and point out difficulties that in-house discussions frequently gloss over.
Their points don't have to be true or correct criticisms; however, we do well to realize they just did us a favor. Being a Baptist, a Lutheran, a Methodist, or a Presbyterian (etc.) isn't just a matter of "a clear reading of Scripture." Those words are simply a cudgel to beat up people who have sincere disagreements with us. When we realize that other people might actually have some biblical grounds for their disagreement, however mistaken, it ought to make us more humble and patient.
- Status
