Baptizo - Immersion vs. Sprinkling

[Iconoclast]

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?

Michael,

We view full immersion as representing total judgment, as in the Noahic flood and the Red Sea covering all of Pharoah's armies. Noah and his family were saved in the ark with the rain sprinkling down upon them (1) but bringing a flood of total judgment upon the world, yet saved from the destruction of the waters; the Israelites passed through the cloud through the division of the waters of the sea and being baptized therein and delivered from bondage. (2)


Hence, we hold that total judgment is symbolized in baptism in Christ's death and burial, wherein we are being sacramentally baptized into that, thus our deliverance is symbolized in not being totally immersed, by Him being raised from dead.

(1) "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" 1 Peter 3:20-21


(2) "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" 1 Cor 10:1-2

In each of your examples offered here, Noah, Moses, Christ, why not look at baptism, as identification with/ rather than the mode and worrying about the physical water. Christ's baptism of suffering,did not have to do with water. substitute the idea of identification when you read baptism and you might have something. Forget the water for a second,and try it.

They "identified" with;
Noah in the ark
Moses in the cloud and sea
John's baptism of repentance
Christ's suffering and death,and resurrection
The apostolic message,repent and be baptized
It is not so much the judgment as it is the place of safety in the time of judgment [ propitiation]. At the end of the day we all want to be identified as In Saving Union with Christ before the last day.

 

[refbaptdude]

I agree with Calvin and Luther and will practice the mode of the ancient church.

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)

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).


Cardinal Gibbons -"For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity baptism was usually conferred by IMMERSION; but since the 12th century the practice of baptism by infusion has prevailed in the Catholic church, as this manner is attained with less inconvenience than by IMMERSION (Faith of our Fathers p. 317)

John Wesley -commenting on Rom 6:4- "We are buried with Him- alluding to the ancient manner of baptism by IMMERSION (Explanatory notes Upon the New Testament, p. 376)

George Whitefield -commenting on Rom 6:4- "It is certain that the words of our text is an allusion to the manner of baptism by IMMERSION

Conybeare and Howson -commenting on Rom 6:4-":This passage cannot be undersood unless it is understood that the primitive baptism was by IMMERSION."

 

[toddpedlar]

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.

Todd, this is the passage:


Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

I don't have a hard position on the mode issue. Just pointing out that burial symbolism is one of the things associated with baptism.

I know of the passage and had it in mind when I wrote what I did. I don't see symbolism of the type that baptists usually argue for here. What the passage states clearly is that IN our baptism we "are buried" with Christ. Nowhere in that verse can you find any reason that one must therefore "bury" someone under the surface of water.

If you come to this text with a predlilection that one must immerse a person under water, then of course I can see why you'd insist that the passages teaches an "immersive burial" in baptism - but the text itself doesn't contain such an implication. Also, if we are to be buried like Christ was buried, then we'd better find a different way to "immerse" people - somehow digging a hole into the side of a waterfall or something... we can't draw upon modern, western burial practices in order to specify how we need to baptize.

 

[Bygracealone]

1 Peter 3:18-22 18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Peter makes a connection between the Flood and baptism. Interestingly, the only ones who were "immersed" in the Flood were the wicked who were judged... The baptism referred to in this passage is the "inner" baptism; the cleansing of our souls which comes as a result of our union to Christ and His resurrection...

Another passage that uses similar terminology is the following:

1 Corinthians 10:1-2 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

Again, this baptism signifies union, not immersion. Once again, we know what happened to those who were "immersed" at the Red Sea...

By the way, I personally don't believe immersion invalidates one's baptism, but I have a hard time seeing where one gets the idea from the Scriptures.

 

[Coram Deo]

Pastor Bradley,

What do you think of the Calvin and Luther quotes below that refbapdude brought up?

Michael

I agree with Calvin and Luther and will practice the mode of the ancient church.

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)

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).


Cardinal Gibbons -"For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity baptism was usually conferred by IMMERSION; but since the 12th century the practice of baptism by infusion has prevailed in the Catholic church, as this manner is attained with less inconvenience than by IMMERSION (Faith of our Fathers p. 317)

John Wesley -commenting on Rom 6:4- "We are buried with Him- alluding to the ancient manner of baptism by IMMERSION (Explanatory notes Upon the New Testament, p. 376)

George Whitefield -commenting on Rom 6:4- "It is certain that the words of our text is an allusion to the manner of baptism by IMMERSION

Conybeare and Howson -commenting on Rom 6:4-":This passage cannot be undersood unless it is understood that the primitive baptism was by IMMERSION."

 

[Bygracealone]

I have the utmost respect for our Reformed fathers. That said, just because they are great in many areas doesn't mean they are right in every area. None of us are...

By the way, the fuller quote from Calvin says:

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4:15:19, “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.”

 

[Bygracealone]

I found the following to be helpful:

http://www.wrs.edu/Materials_for_Web_Site/Courses/Theology_4/Chapter_8-Mode_Baptism.pdf

 

[Bygracealone]

By the way, I know the Greeks immerse their infants in baptism, but did Calvin hold to that too? If he truly believed baptism means immerse and he believed in infant baptism, then I wonder what his practice was???

 

[Coram Deo]

I think after careful thought that I can accept Sprinkling, Pouring, and Immersion for baptism but.... Like Calvin said.... "it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.”

So I am going to uphold the ancient practice of the church and the example of Christ's baptism by immersion as normative but not absolute....

 

[Bygracealone]

Michael, the example of Christ's baptism is that of sprinkling...

Again, to quote from Adam's work. He quotes a scholar by the name of Ben L. Rose:

The law of the Old Testament which Jesus was obeying when He was baptized is found in Numbers 8:6-7. "Take the Levites...and cleanse them. Thus shalt thou do to them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water...upon them." The Levites were priests. Jesus Christ was (and is) a priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14; 5:5; 9:11); He is our High Priest forever. Christ's baptism was the ceremonial act of His ordination to the priesthood. It was the rite that set Him apart as a priest and a minister of holy things.

Before any man could become a priest, three things were required: first, he must be 30 years old (Num. 4:3,47). (This is why Christ's age at His baptism is given as 30 years in Luke 3:23.); second, he must be called of God as was Aaron, the first high priest (Ex. 28:1). (Christ was thus called, Heb. 5:4-10); and thirdly, he must be sprinkled with water (Num. 8:6-7) by one already a priest (John was a priest, inheriting the office from his father, Ex. 29:9; Num. 25:13; Lk. 1:5, 13). Christ knew His call, waited until He was 30 years old and then came to John "to fulfill all righteousness," that is, to meet the last demand of the Old Testament Law for a priest before He began His public ministry.

As evidence of the fact that Christ was made a priest by John's baptism, we note that when Jesus cleansed the temple (Mt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15), He was exercising the authority of a priest. And when the Jews came to Him asking , "By what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this authority?" (Mt. 21:23; Mk. 11:28), Jesus cited to them John's baptism, which He had received, and asked, "Was it from heaven or of men?" In Jesus' mind there is obviously a definite connection between His priestly "authority" and His "baptism by John." He indicates that if John's baptism was from heaven, and He surely believed it was, then He had been truly ordained a priest and possessed authority to cleanse the temple.

 

[kceaster]

For me, I can't begin to imagine how immersion was a common practice except in those places where water was plentiful. Water is such a precious commodity in those areas of the world. And when we think about the different places where baptisms occurred, it seems like a stretch to affirm complete immersion. On the day of Pentecost, so many people were baptized in an area where the baptism of that many would preclude immersion, no matter how many ceremonial baths are nearby. Cornelius' household may be another example.

The deeper issue may be that we have difficulty getting past the mere sign. When David lifted up his hands as if to signify the evening sacrifice, it does not say that God was displeased with this. Because what David did certainly and spiritually did signify the sacrificial sacrament as it would normally take place in worship. Such is the case with the NT sacraments we've been given. They are real and physical, but that is not the most important thing. God is a spirit and therefore must be worshiped in spirit and truth. When someone is baptized, we see the water, they feel the water as it is applied, so it is real and physical. But much more important is the spiritual aspect that our forebears were correct in stating that mode does not matter, but only the spiritual aspect of it.

I think if we're going to apply a mode to baptism, and baptism signifies the washing away of sin, our ingrafting into Christ, and our engagement to be His, then we should keep in mind that we come to Mount Zion in this sacrament in worship, and that when we come, we come sprinkled with the blood that speaks better things than that of Abel. However we're baptized physically, the important thing is the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ applied to our sin, sick souls. This is the only way we may live as we come before the consuming fire of our God.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Coram Deo]

This makes an interesting argument, one I have not heard before.. I am going to have to ponder this for awhile........

Michael, the example of Christ's baptism is that of sprinkling...

Again, to quote from Adam's work. He quotes a scholar by the name of Ben L. Rose:

The law of the Old Testament which Jesus was obeying when He was baptized is found in Numbers 8:6-7. "Take the Levites...and cleanse them. Thus shalt thou do to them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water...upon them." The Levites were priests. Jesus Christ was (and is) a priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14; 5:5; 9:11); He is our High Priest forever. Christ's baptism was the ceremonial act of His ordination to the priesthood. It was the rite that set Him apart as a priest and a minister of holy things.

Before any man could become a priest, three things were required: first, he must be 30 years old (Num. 4:3,47). (This is why Christ's age at His baptism is given as 30 years in Luke 3:23.); second, he must be called of God as was Aaron, the first high priest (Ex. 28:1). (Christ was thus called, Heb. 5:4-10); and thirdly, he must be sprinkled with water (Num. 8:6-7) by one already a priest (John was a priest, inheriting the office from his father, Ex. 29:9; Num. 25:13; Lk. 1:5, 13). Christ knew His call, waited until He was 30 years old and then came to John "to fulfill all righteousness," that is, to meet the last demand of the Old Testament Law for a priest before He began His public ministry.

As evidence of the fact that Christ was made a priest by John's baptism, we note that when Jesus cleansed the temple (Mt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15), He was exercising the authority of a priest. And when the Jews came to Him asking , "By what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this authority?" (Mt. 21:23; Mk. 11:28), Jesus cited to them John's baptism, which He had received, and asked, "Was it from heaven or of men?" In Jesus' mind there is obviously a definite connection between His priestly "authority" and His "baptism by John." He indicates that if John's baptism was from heaven, and He surely believed it was, then He had been truly ordained a priest and possessed authority to cleanse the temple.

 

[Bygracealone]

As for the practice of the ancient church, I'm not sure I would base any of my practices on their example alone. I think it's great that we know quite a bit about the ancient church, but we also know that the Church back then wasn't right in all matters of faith and practice...

I think it's great when we can go to the Scriptures come to a right conclusion and find that the ancient church also held that conclusion, but I would never encourage anybody to trust a conclusion solely based on an alleged practice of the ancient church...

Not that I think anybody here is doing that... just my

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

John Wesley -commenting on Rom 6:4- "We are buried with Him- alluding to the ancient manner of baptism by IMMERSION (Explanatory notes Upon the New Testament, p. 376)

Wesley didn't get much right.

 

[etexas]

John Wesley -commenting on Rom 6:4- "We are buried with Him- alluding to the ancient manner of baptism by IMMERSION (Explanatory notes Upon the New Testament, p. 376)

Wesley didn't get much right.

Nice! Brutal....but nice

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

John Wesley -commenting on Rom 6:4- "We are buried with Him- alluding to the ancient manner of baptism by IMMERSION (Explanatory notes Upon the New Testament, p. 376)

Wesley didn't get much right.

Nice! Brutal....but nice

Thank you.

 

[hollandmin]

I think that the mode is much less significant that what it needs to take place before hand

Originally Posted by bygracealone View Post
Michael, the example of Christ's baptism is that of sprinkling...

Mark 1:10 refutes this assertion

Before any man could become a priest, three things were required: first, he must be 30 years old (Num. 4:3,47). (This is why Christ's age at His baptism is given as 30 years in Luke 3:23.); second, he must be called of God as was Aaron, the first high priest (Ex. 28:1). (Christ was thus called, Heb. 5:4-10); and thirdly, he must be sprinkled with water (Num. 8:6-7) by one already a priest (John was a priest, inheriting the office from his father, Ex. 29:9; Num. 25:13; Lk. 1:5, 13). Christ knew His call, waited until He was 30 years old and then came to John "to fulfill all righteousness," that is, to meet the last demand of the Old Testament Law for a priest before He began His public ministry.

Only those who were from the line of Levi, were able to become priests, Remember that Christ was not from the line of Aaron. His priesthood was in the order of Melchizedek a priesthood that shall be forever. It is true that Christ was 30, and that he did receive a baptism from John. That being said, if this was to correlate with what was stated in the quote then his baptism too must have been just a ritual cleansing as it was for the Jewish priesthood. If we look at baptism as just that ritual then perhaps this holds true, but if we believe that baptism has some kind of sacramental ability (i.e. the instillation of grace) the "ritual" cleansing would be inappropriate. We do know that after Jesus was baptized (Mark 1:10 "and when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opening and the spirit descending on Him like a dove.") John makes reference that he did not know who Jesus was in John 1:31. He may have perhaps had contact with him prior to Jesus' baptism but he didn't know who Jesus was until the spirit lit on Him. The obvious sign was for Israel's sake not not Jesus' He was well aware of who He was, remember, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one with God in the Trinity, there was nothing hid from Jesus.

Jesus cited to them John's baptism, which He had received, and asked, "Was it from heaven or of men?" In Jesus' mind there is obviously a definite connection between His priestly "authority" and His "baptism by John." He indicates that if John's baptism was from heaven, and He surely believed it was, then He had been truly ordained a priest and possessed authority to cleanse the temple.

Jesus new from where His authority came, His discussion with the authorities in the temple where not for His sake the question was for the Priests who knew that John was a Prophet. If they denied Christ's baptism given by John coming from God it would have created hate and discontent with the Jewish people. There was no question that Jesus knew the significance of His baptism, it was a sign for Israel that the Messiah had come this was what fulfilled all righteousness.

Blessings

 

[Kevin]

brother. Toby, you missed the point!

Read the earlier posts again.

 

[Archlute]

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'd tell him that just because I can read English and have read Shakespeare that it doesn't make me a Shakesperean scholar.

I'd also note to him that his dorked up ecclesiology, sacramentology, soteriology, and just about every other -ology hardly gives me confidence that he understands what he's reading even if he can read the language.

 

[hollandmin]

Sorry guys,

Sometimes I just get a little carried away.....