Immersion?

[CalvinandHodges]

Circumstantial evidence

Hi:

Randy:

An excellent point on the Baptism of Paul. I noticed that you have been accused of "conjecture," but the accuser's response was just as full of "conjecture" as he accuses you. The argument is not about "conjecture" though, it is about circumstantial evidence.

In Law, if the circumstantial evidence is strong enough - it can convict a man of wrongdoing. Circumstantial evidence is differentiated from direct evidence. For example, if I saw a man walk into a house, and then I heard a scream, and then I saw him leave with a bloody knife, then my testimony would be circumstantial in nature. However, if I peeked in the window and saw him stab his wife with the knife, then that would be direct evidence.

The circumstantial evidence of Paul's baptism, as you have pointed out, sides with the idea that he was sprinkled rather than immersed. I hope you don't mind if I summarize your points?

1) Paul was resting in a house.

2) Paul was without food, water, or sight for three days.

3) Ananias lays his hands on Paul, and Paul stood up, and was baptized.

Now, if we assume the literal definition of "baptism," then we must assume that Paul was fully immersed. But, those who hold to submersion as the means of baptism have not proved their point. If "baptism" means "submersion," then we do not find it here in the baptism of Paul. All we are told is that he was baptized after he stood up.

The only action of Paul mentioned in this narrative is that Paul stood up. It does not say that he then walked out of the house, went down to a river, lake or baptistry, and then he was baptized. Certainly, it would be natural for Luke to have said something like this:

"Paul stood up, and walked out of the house, and he was baptized."

Why would Luke only mention that Paul stood up? If Luke is going to mention Paul's actions after he received his eyesight, then would it not have been reasonable to mention that Paul left the house in order to be baptized? That Paul was "strengthened" after he ate the meal does not jive with those who claim that he was supernaturally strengthened to go down to a lake to be submerged.

After three days without food or water the narrative suggests that all that Paul could do was stand up. The circumstantial evidence indicates that Paul was baptized while he was standing in the room. It was only after he received food that he was strengthened and could go about the business that the Lord required of him.

So, which is more likely based on the circumstantial evidence?

1) That Paul walked out of the house, went down to a river or lake, and was submerged by Ananias?

Or,

2) That Paul stood up, was baptized by sprinkling or pouring by Ananias, and then received food that was available in the house?

That the narrative does not mention any further action by Paul after he stood up is strong circumstantial evidence that Paul was baptized in the house. Yet, this is not the only example, when we look at all of the Baptizms in the New Testament the circumstantial evidence sides with the idea of sprinkling/pouring rather than submersion.

1) The 3,000 people baptized at Pentecost.

2) The Baptism of Cornelius, and his household.

3) The Baptism of the jailor, and his household.

4) John the Baptist baptisms.

The large amount of circumstantial evidence alone is enough to prove that Baptism is rightly administered by sprinkling/pouring rather than submersion.

Thanks again for pointing out Paul's baptism,

-CH

 

[shackleton]

The thing I found interesting in my recent study of baptism and my readings all along was the emphasis by the reformers on the fact that mode was unimportant. I thought it was all about the fact that water was applied and it had more to do with what God promised to do and about a covenant and promise than a strict adherence to a certain mode.

Calvin's Institutes Vol. 4 section on Baptism under section 19 "Erroneous and Correct Baptismal Usage.
"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 observedin the ancient church"

WCF under Baptism 28:3 "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 (Mark 7:4; Acts 2:41; 16:33; Heb 9:10, 19-22)."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The thing I found interesting in my recent study of baptism and my readings all along was the emphasis by the reformers on the fact that mode was unimportant. I thought it was all about the fact that water was applied and it had more to do with what God promised to do and about a covenant and promise than a strict adherence to a certain mode.

Calvin's Institutes Vol. 4 section on Baptism under section 19 "Erroneous and Correct Baptismal Usage.
"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 observedin the ancient church"

WCF under Baptism 28:3 "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 (Mark 7:4; Acts 2:41; 16:33; Heb 9:10, 19-22)."

Right.

What I find ironic about most Baptists is that they tend to be pretty "loosy goosey" about a lot of strictures in other areas of doctrine that I would find to be pretty important but then, in the externals, they become very concerned where the Scriptures are generally silent by comparison.

Obviously many of the Baptists here are the exception (though not all) but there's still this strange obsession with mode that is historically ingrained. One of my biggest suspicions of Baptist theology, in fact, is how much doctrine they derive from historical narratives and word etymologies that are, at best, tenuous and are never discussed as didactic principles in any of the Epistles. Just one reference by an Apostle insisting this is so utterly important to the practice might be nice.

 

[VictorBravo]

Calvin's Institutes Vol. 4 section on Baptism under section 19 "Erroneous and Correct Baptismal Usage.
"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 observedin the ancient church"

Heh, as I said way back on this thread, mode wasn't a hot button for me. I was thinking of this very quote when I wrote that.

 

[Herald]

Rich, while I consider myself one of the Baptist exceptions you mentioned (regarding scripture), I believe mode is important. I look to scriptural support: Matt. 3:16, John 3:22-23, Acts 8:36, Col. 2:12 (spiritual reality/immersion language). Now, how important is it? Not so important as to nullify a baptism. God is greater than our errors. But I believe the bible points towards immersion just as you probably believe there is scriptural support for sprinkling. Therefore, if I am going to practice baptism I am going to do so, in good conscience, in the method I believe to be scriptural. Am I swayed by those Baptists who gave their life for mode? No. I think mode is part of the complete package of baptism but it's not an issue I would fall on my sword over; literally!

 

[CalvinandHodges]

What does the Bible say?

Hi:

The question is not what the Reformers believed (for as men they can err), but what does the Bible teach? The submersionists have yet to prove that their position is Biblical. If all that they can produce is a literal definition of "Baptism" as meaning "to dip," then they have not proven their case from the Scriptures. Calvin echos their arguments, but he provides no Scriptural support for their points:

Yet the word “baptize”means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church,IV.XV.19

Now, as I understand it, submersion may be a valid form of baptism, but it is not Scriptural. I believe that is what the WCF is driving at when it says that immersion "is not necessary." Baptism relys on the Work of the Spirit working with the Word of Institution. If a Calvinistic Baptist were to convert to Paedo-Baptism I would not re-baptize him as long as the Word of Institution was correctly used in his Credo-Baptism.

Again, if the Bible teaches only one mode of Baptism, then to make the claim that mode is immaterial - even if it is Calvin so stating - is to go beyond the bounds of the Scriptures. Our conscience should be bound by the Bible - not the opinions of Godly men.

Respectfully submitted,

-CH

 

[Herald]

The submersionists have yet to prove that their position is Biblical.

Robert, I believe we have, it's just that you don't agree. That's fine. We just...well...disagree.

 

[Herald]

Come to think of it, there are times when disagreement is fine. We have a tendency to want to find a definitive answer to each and every point of doctrine. That's why it's so hard to disengage from a debate and just admit that we don't agree. It doesn't mean we can't revisit the debate at a later date, but in the now it may just be time to hang up the spikes and allow what was said to incubate.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi Bill:

If all that they can produce is a literal definition of "Baptism" as meaning "to dip," then they have not proven their case from the Scriptures.

Where have they shown that the Bible teaches submersion? I must have missed it.

Grace,

-CH

 

[Herald]

Robert,

I don't know about "they", meaning this thread. I know I have given scriptural support for immersion a few posts prior and in other threads. But what it really comes down to is perspective. You genuinely believe the immersionist has not proven his point scripturally. I believe it has been proven, although not exclusively in this thread. I'm quite content with the disconnect.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Bill:

Citing a few passages in Scripture is not proof of your position. Why, the Jehovah Witnesses do the same thing - there is only One God - they claim, and then they cite passages in Scripture to prove their point.

That Jesus saw the Holy Spirit descend upon Him like a dove is not in dispute. The problem comes when John the Baptist testifies that he saw the Spirit descend upon Jesus like a dove - when he was supposedly busy baptizing Jesus.

Can you explain the mechanics, from a submerisionist view, how, when Jesus is "coming up out of the waters," John the Baptist could observe the heavens open and the Spirit descend upon Jesus like a dove?

And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him, John 1:32ff.

If John the Baptist is going to baptize a huge crowd, then would it not be wise to go to a place where "there is much water"? John 3:23. It does not follow that John immersed. The fact is the Scriptures say differently:

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.

In the baptism of the Ethiopian did both Philip and the Ethiopian "go down into the water, and come back up"?

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,

Acts 8:38ff.

I have never seen an immersion where both the administrator of baptism and the one being baptized are both submerged!

And then you cite the famous burial passage of Col. 2:12. How does immersion picture the burial of Jesus Christ? The Gospels do not record Jesus being plunged into the earth, but he was wrapped in a linen cloth and placed in a tomb. "Buried with him in baptism" does not mean the same thing as immersed in the earth.

Certainly, you can believe whatever you like, but that freedom is extended to the Jehovah Witnesses as well.

Grace,

-CH