Scholten
Puritan Board Freshman
The following are a statement and a response from a dialogue that is taking place in our congregation. A number of our members advocate believer's baptism whereas we are a member of the Christian Reformed denomination, a covenantal, Reformed church. Any insights you can add will assist us in our wrestling with this topic.
Any time the words baptizo or baptisma are used, the mode of baptism dis-cussed must be overwhelming and/or immersion by rule of definition.
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
The Statement claims, “Any time the words baptizo or baptisma are used, the mode of baptism discussed must be overwhelming and/or immersion by rule of definition.” (bold added) The following three paragraphs show this to not be the case.
I think I would mark this False, because Hebrews 9:10 and following refers to baptisms of the OT that clearly involved sprinkling of the people. Here the word baptizmous is translated as "ceremonial cleansings" in the NIV, and then refers to all the sprinklings of the people by the blood in the Old Testament. In Hebrews 9 a form of the word baptize is used and as has been pointed out here what is referred to is sprinkling, not “overwhelming and/or immersion.” Therefore, the Statement is not correct.
Mark 7:4 also refers to the washing (baptismous) of dining couches. It is extremely unlikely the Jews would immerse the couches. It is possible they took a wet cloth and washed the entire surface of the couch (hence being more a “washing”) but given the Jewish practices it is much more likely they would have sprinkled the couches for ceremonial reasons as they did in the Old Testament references given above. I disagree with the Statement when it says that “The discussions in Mark 7, Hebrews 6, Hebrews 9, Lev 11, Numbers 19, etc. are all discussions of spiritual purification via washings.” How could the “baptism” or washing of a couch be spiritual? This passage also shows a form of the word baptizo being used but neither over-whelming nor immersion are being referred to.
In Luke 11:38 we find, “The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner.” (RSV) The word translated “wash” is again a form of baptizo. The Pharisees were not expecting Christ to immerse Himself before eating, it was the practice of that time to wash. This is the third New Testament example of the term baptizo being used and overwhelming and/or immersion are not being referred to. Therefore the Statement is incorrect to say that “the mode of baptism dis-cussed must be overwhelming and/or immersion.”
The first internet source the Statement quotes the Strong’s Concordance definition of baptizo. That definition gives the following, “2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe.” There-fore that reference agrees with the above. Washing is one option in addition to immerse and overwhelm.
Another way to view the Statement here is that this should be marked Inconclusive, as the Eastern Orthodox Church immerses their infants. The mode cannot solve the question of infant vs. believer’s baptism.
Statement for Believer’s Baptism.
Any time the words baptizo or baptisma are used, the mode of baptism dis-cussed must be overwhelming and/or immersion by rule of definition.
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Paedo-baptist Response
The Statement claims, “Any time the words baptizo or baptisma are used, the mode of baptism discussed must be overwhelming and/or immersion by rule of definition.” (bold added) The following three paragraphs show this to not be the case.
I think I would mark this False, because Hebrews 9:10 and following refers to baptisms of the OT that clearly involved sprinkling of the people. Here the word baptizmous is translated as "ceremonial cleansings" in the NIV, and then refers to all the sprinklings of the people by the blood in the Old Testament. In Hebrews 9 a form of the word baptize is used and as has been pointed out here what is referred to is sprinkling, not “overwhelming and/or immersion.” Therefore, the Statement is not correct.
Mark 7:4 also refers to the washing (baptismous) of dining couches. It is extremely unlikely the Jews would immerse the couches. It is possible they took a wet cloth and washed the entire surface of the couch (hence being more a “washing”) but given the Jewish practices it is much more likely they would have sprinkled the couches for ceremonial reasons as they did in the Old Testament references given above. I disagree with the Statement when it says that “The discussions in Mark 7, Hebrews 6, Hebrews 9, Lev 11, Numbers 19, etc. are all discussions of spiritual purification via washings.” How could the “baptism” or washing of a couch be spiritual? This passage also shows a form of the word baptizo being used but neither over-whelming nor immersion are being referred to.
In Luke 11:38 we find, “The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner.” (RSV) The word translated “wash” is again a form of baptizo. The Pharisees were not expecting Christ to immerse Himself before eating, it was the practice of that time to wash. This is the third New Testament example of the term baptizo being used and overwhelming and/or immersion are not being referred to. Therefore the Statement is incorrect to say that “the mode of baptism dis-cussed must be overwhelming and/or immersion.”
The first internet source the Statement quotes the Strong’s Concordance definition of baptizo. That definition gives the following, “2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe.” There-fore that reference agrees with the above. Washing is one option in addition to immerse and overwhelm.
Another way to view the Statement here is that this should be marked Inconclusive, as the Eastern Orthodox Church immerses their infants. The mode cannot solve the question of infant vs. believer’s baptism.