Peter and the Mode of Baptism

[Ryan&Amber2013]

As a Presbyterian, this passage never stood out to me until now. Does Peter imply that the normal mode of baptism he was familiar with was immersion? He talks about removal of dirt from the body.

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"
1 Peter 3:21

 

[Jack K]

Well, you could argue it suggests more water is being used than would be used in a sprinkling, or even in pouring. Some immersionists would probably embrace that argument.

Or, you could argue it shows that washing rather than burial is the primary imagery in baptism. This would suggest a connection to the Old Testament cleansing-by-sprinkling rituals, and would make full immersion seem less important since there's less need to symbolize burial. Some non-immersionists would probably embrace that argument.

I'm inclined toward the second view, but I don't think it proves the case either way.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Agreeing with Jack, a text cannot say more than it says in so many words. There's an unfortunate amount of conviction-by-inference when it comes to the subject of baptism, regardless of the stance. Baptism is a symbolic ritual, intended to point beyond its motions. One of the main lessons of baptism is cleansing, as represented by H.C. 69:

69. Q. How does holy baptism signify and seal to you that the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross benefits you?
A. In this way: Christ instituted this outward washing1 and with it gave the promise that, as surely as water washes away the dirt from the body, so certainly his blood and Spirit wash away the impurity of my soul, that is, all my sins. 2
1. Mt 28:19.
2. Mt 3:11; Mk 16:16; Jn 1:33; Acts 2:38; Rom 6:3, 4; 1 Pet 3:21.

"Just as surely" language fits Peter's description, as he points to the fact that the water of baptism, considered by itself, can only deal with dirt on the flesh; but the substance indicated by the sign points within to the conscience where the Spirit alone accomplishes purification.

72. Q. Does this outward washing with water itself wash away sins?
A. No, only the blood of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit cleanse us from all sins. 1
1. Mt 3:11; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 1:7.

The "implications" of a text are largely dependent on the internal plausibility structures of someone's mind. As these are variable from person to person, the mind must be trained to recognize the limit of what is demonstrable exegetically, i.e. drawn from the text, rather than brought to it. It is a measure of one's sympathy if he is able to understand how someone else perceives a certain text in a supportive way, despite the fact it is silent on a certain question.

Take the following example: Acts 10:47, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” Does this prove that baptismal water was portable, and was intended to be produced for service in response to Peter's invitation? The plausibility structure in my mind says such an interpretation is consistent with my expectations, but someone whose baptismal practice requires much more liquid than mine will probably not read Peter's words invitationally, i.e. equivalent to stating positively, "Bring the water, so these should be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."

Instead, they might interpret Peter's rhetoric as daring anyone to stand between those Gentiles and any water where they will go to have such water applied for baptism, the words painting a picture not of pushing candidates away from the water, but the water away from the candidates. Peter wants water applied; and though it isn't stated, probably hardly anyone thinks self-baptism was an option, so he summons ministers for the ordinance and opposes any Jews who might resist the inclusive step.

My point is the text apart from any implication does not say a single word about baptismal mode. If I think it is odd Peter should speak thus about the water, if the parties to be baptized must attend the water's location, that says something about my own mental architecture but next to nothing about the immersionist's interpretation of Peter's comment, about what he assumes is reasonable expectation given the demands of the situation.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Agreeing with Jack, a text cannot say more than it says in so many words.

Sir, are you quite sure about that? There is a very popular hermeneutic among new evangelicals that human authorial intent has primacy and that human authors can’t have written better than they knew. Is this what you are proposing?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Sir, are you quite sure about that? There is a very popular hermeneutic among new evangelicals that human authorial intent has primacy and that human authors can’t have written better than they knew. Is this what you are proposing?

No, perhaps I was not clear enough, but I'm not including in my definition of the "implications" of a text the embedded intention of the divine Holy Spirit that are found in the words of the text, import that could supersede the human author's historically limited imagination. In the fuller context of special revelation, the mind of the Spirit is shown through his explicit language already anticipating the future light.

Rather, I mean that readers and hearers tend to regard an implication of a text, e.g. 1Pet.3:21 or Act.10:47, not found in the words themselves and which may vary from an immersionist to an effusionist, as proof or validation of his conviction when it is merely consistent with it; and often judges the man on the other side obtuse for not going along with him. What I consider "obvious" is very often not a strict entailment.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

No, perhaps I was not clear enough, but I'm not including in my definition of the "implications" of a text the embedded intention of the divine Holy Spirit that are found in the words of the text, import that could supersede the human author's historically limited imagination. In the fuller context of special revelation, the mind of the Spirit is shown through his explicit language already anticipating the future light.

Rather, I mean that readers and hearers tend to regard an implication of a text, e.g. 1Pet.3:21 or Act.10:47, not found in the words themselves and which may vary from an immersionist to an effusionist, as proof or validation of his conviction when it is merely consistent with it; and often judges the man on the other side obtuse for not going along with him. What I consider "obvious" is very often not a strict entailment.

I appreciate your clarification. As a follow up question specific to the subject of baptism, do both sides of this particular issue not engage in a great deal of conviction-by-inference, though? Such as when one assumes the infants were baptized with all the house, etc. How shall we decide what bridge is near enough to walk across and which is a bridge too far?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I appreciate your clarification. As a follow up question specific to the subject of baptism, do both sides of this particular issue not engage in a great deal of conviction-by-inference, though? Such as when one assumes the infants were baptized with all the house, etc. How shall we decide what bridge is near enough to walk across and which is a bridge too far?

Bruce can answer for himself but it depends upon the "sides" one is referring to. I would argue that a Presbyterian/Reformed conviction about paedobaptism doesn't arise from inference from historical narratives as much as from other theological ideas present in the NT and OT. The solidarity of the household under the visible administration of the Covenant of Grace is established and continuity is not only interpreted from NT but OT passages as well. This would differ from a dispensational "side" of the debate that would reject a CoG continuity and would even cast the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenants in a different theological light. I think you'd read that a Particular Baptist would first argue for the perfection of the NC as rejecting a mixed administration and the baptism of those professing the faith would follow.

There are those who argue for things strictly by inference from historical narratives (e.g. it is obvious to some Baptists that any time the word disciple is used it means a person who can profess the faith), but I'm trying to answer more broadly.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that the foundational element of the Confession I confess within the PCA is Covenantal first and the Sacraments are cast in the light of means of grace given by the hand of our Mediator. That the Sacrament of Baptism is to be administered to our Covenant children owest to the nature of how that Covenant is administered visibly. It's not to say that if a historical narrative had some statement or feature that would clash with our understanding that I would ignore it, but every narrative is perfectly compatible with our view.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I appreciate your clarification. As a follow up question specific to the subject of baptism, do both sides of this particular issue not engage in a great deal of conviction-by-inference, though? Such as when one assumes the infants were baptized with all the house, etc. How shall we decide what bridge is near enough to walk across and which is a bridge too far?

What I believe, and what interactions on the PB have taught me, is that we owe our brothers of contrary conviction grace and patience, and hope to receive it in return. If truth will be discovered (by him or by me) it will require less additional mental effort or acuity, and more divine encouragement, 1Cor.4:7.

For my part, I try not to exceed the demonstrable force of the text for the purpose of proof. I think any effort to compel another person to a change of mind, or to obtain conviction-by-inference is unfortunate. It only reinforces a poor form of reasoning. I don't want to replace the "rose-colored glasses" of the Baptist with a pair of "jaundiced lenses" worn by many a Presbyterian. A man convinced against his will/ Is of the same opinion still. And a man who has simply traded one prejudicial interpretation for a second has not improved his lot by much, assuming he has adopted a correct conclusion if on a bad premise.

To borrow your example of household baptism, I make those examples no ground for my theology of baptism, nor use them for proof that infants were baptized by the apostles or other church ministers in the NT. It happens that my theology of baptism expects household baptisms, or is unsurprised to find them in the NT. The term as a descriptor, found in the Bible throughout, is "inclusive." The Baptist is sufficiently entitled (in my view) to make an exclusion of infants on his own theological grounds, but he is powerless to prevent the Presbyterian from retaining them on his.

I've said for many years that baptism of infants is properly a conclusion, not a practice in search of justification. Or as CMM has written, IB is the last 10mins of a 3hr conversation on classical covenant theology. You walk a secure route to further safety when your understanding of the road's construction, and how a road or bridge should be built, penetrates beyond a surface apprehension that can occasionally be deceptive.

 

[Phil D.]

As a Presbyterian, this passage never stood out to me until now. Does Peter imply that the normal mode of baptism he was familiar with was immersion? He talks about removal of dirt from the body.

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"
1 Peter 3:21

Yes, I think that is a reasonable assumption when taking the text at face value, as I've suggested elsewhere. (I can't get a link to work, so I'll re-post the relevant part)

Insofar as there is an allusion to mode in v.21b, apostolic baptism evidently involved a physical action that, in its mere profane usage, Peter’s audience would have perceived as capable of removing/washing filth/dirt from the body. Of the three modal possibilities, this would arguably favor bathing/immersion, and practically exclude sprinkling or nominal pouring.​

Take the following example: Acts 10:47, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” Does this prove that baptismal water was portable, and was intended to be produced for service in response to Peter's invitation? The plausibility structure in my mind says such an interpretation is consistent with my expectations, but someone whose baptismal practice requires much more liquid than mine will probably not read Peter's words invitationally, i.e. equivalent to stating positively, "Bring the water, so these should be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."

Instead, they might interpret Peter's rhetoric as daring anyone to stand between those Gentiles and any water where they will go to have such water applied for baptism, the words painting a picture not of pushing candidates away from the water, but the water away from the candidates. Peter wants water applied; and though it isn't stated, probably hardly anyone thinks self-baptism was an option, so he summons ministers for the ordinance and opposes any Jews who might resist the inclusive step.

Exploring this is a bit peripheral to the OP's direct question, but I guess since it is sometimes evoked in the general sense that it helps inform us of Peter's view of mode...

Peter's statement here obviously hearkens back to Acts 1:5, 2:2-3, and as far as I can tell the idea that it has any reference or implications as to mode is limited to some modern non-immersionists. Some even prominently feature it in their argument. But I've always wondered in what practical respect the text can be made out as saying the water for baptism was to be "brought" to the candidates. Rather, the consensus commentary I've seen, along with my reading of it, limits it to the theological sense of "how can water baptism [lessor] be denied/forbidden/withheld to/from those who heave already received the [greater] baptism of the Holy Spirit." I appreciate what you are saying overall with regard to the direct intent of less explicit passages like this, but maybe you can explain better than I've previously seen how the modal information sometimes suggested for this passage is derived.

I'd also like to understand better how passages like Acts 10:47 and Acts 22:16 can be embraced by some as reasonably containing modal "information," while at the same time and in the same respect stiff-arming passages like Matt. 3:6, 3:16-17, Mark 1:5, 9, Acts 8:36-39, Rom. 6:4 etc. - especially when this is opposite the understanding of their Reformed forebears.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I appreciate what you are saying overall with regard to the direct intent of less explicit passages like this, but maybe you can explain better than I've previously seen how the modal information sometimes suggested for this passage is derived.

I'd also like to understand better how passages like Acts 10:47 and Acts 22:16 can be embraced by some as reasonably containing modal "information," while at the same time stiff-arming passages like Matt. 3:6, 3:16-17, Mark 1:5, 9, Acts 8:36-39, Rom. 6:4 etc. - especially when this is opposite the understanding of their Reformed forebears.

My point throughout (this, and following posts) is that hewing to the words themselves, the mode of baptism is indecipherable. The Baptist may disagree, by demanding of the term baptizo a prescribed mode; but I think that is linguistically indefensible, and is defied by the multiple metaphors the NT itself applies to baptism (at minimum: a death, a drink, and a dress) and to its effects (washing, uniting, rebirth, etc.). The stricture works both ways, so the Presbyterian may not insist on a preferential implication of his own, as if it were decisive proof in his favor.

If Reformed luminaries of the past were less cautious, perhaps when writing from the dominant paradigm and able to assume "obvious implications" of a text or word, today's Baptist numerical dominance (in the English-speaking, non-liberal church) and the inversion of affairs means modern Reformed men returning to first principles and correcting a facile reliance on what our expectations impose on the text. This, after all, was precisely what the Baptists were doing in the Reformation and post-Reformation eras when as minority they rejected what they regarded as dominant thought forms imposed on the text.

We aren't prevented from drawing out the implications we believe are present--that's actually a requirement laid on the teacher. But we must identify the basis of our conclusions, and distinguish a deduction from an inference when deciding what weight to rest on each. I confess my own failure early in my career to give due weight to the "whelming" angle of baptism, as I was interested primarily in polemics. Those who challenge and are challenged tend to narrow their focus to those thrusts and parries that have scored them points in the past, if they aren't interested in learning but only winning.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Those who challenge and are challenged tend to narrow their focus to those thrusts and parries that have scored them points in the past, if they aren't interested in learning but only winning.

You've pierced my heart, Sir. I needed to read this today. Thank you!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My point throughout (this, and following posts) is that hewing to the words themselves, the mode of baptism is indecipherable. The Baptist may disagree, by demanding of the term baptizo a prescribed mode; but I think that is linguistically indefensible, and is defied by the multiple metaphors the NT itself applies to baptism (at minimum: a death, a drink, and a dress) and to its effects (washing, uniting, rebirth, etc.). The stricture works both ways, so the Presbyterian may not insist on a preferential implication of his own, as if it were decisive proof in his favor.

If Reformed luminaries of the past were less cautious, perhaps when writing from the dominant paradigm and able to assume "obvious implications" of a text or word, today's Baptist numerical dominance (in the English-speaking, non-liberal church) and the inversion of affairs means modern Reformed men returning to first principles and correcting a facile reliance on what our expectations impose on the text. This, after all, was precisely what the Baptists were doing in the Reformation and post-Reformation eras when as minority they rejected what they regarded as dominant thought forms imposed on the text.

We aren't prevented from drawing out the implications we believe are present--that's actually a requirement laid on the teacher. But we must identify the basis of our conclusions, and distinguish a deduction from an inference when deciding what weight to rest on each. I confess my own failure early in my career to give due weight to the "whelming" angle of baptism, as I was interested primarily in polemics. Those who challenge and are challenged tend to narrow their focus to those thrusts and parries that have scored them points in the past, if they aren't interested in learning but only winning.

I appreciate this point and admonition.

It seems to me that those who would insist that anytime a washing of the flesh occurs must assume that the whole body was washed in order for it to be considered clean would also have to contend with the words of our Lord in John 13:9-10. It's certainly not a baptism, per se, but it's simply another example of where I just don't see the scriptures as laser-focused on a particular mode when it comes to washings or cleansings. As much as "early Reformers" might have argued that immersion might accord better with what the Sacrament signified, they were not so convinced that they insisted upon it as either validating or invalidating the Sacrament.

 

[Phil D.]

My point throughout (this, and following posts) is that hewing to the words themselves, the mode of baptism is indecipherable. The Baptist may disagree, by demanding of the term baptizo a prescribed mode; but I think that is linguistically indefensible, and is defied by the multiple metaphors the NT itself applies to baptism (at minimum: a death, a drink, and a dress) and to its effects (washing, uniting, rebirth, etc.). The stricture works both ways, so the Presbyterian may not insist on a preferential implication of his own, as if it were decisive proof in his favor.

If Reformed luminaries of the past were less cautious, perhaps when writing from the dominant paradigm and able to assume "obvious implications" of a text or word, today's Baptist numerical dominance (in the English-speaking, non-liberal church) and the inversion of affairs means modern Reformed men returning to first principles and correcting a facile reliance on what our expectations impose on the text. This, after all, was precisely what the Baptists were doing in the Reformation and post-Reformation eras when as minority they rejected what they regarded as dominant thought forms imposed on the text.

We aren't prevented from drawing out the implications we believe are present--that's actually a requirement laid on the teacher. But we must identify the basis of our conclusions, and distinguish a deduction from an inference when deciding what weight to rest on each. I confess my own failure early in my career to give due weight to the "whelming" angle of baptism, as I was interested primarily in polemics. Those who challenge and are challenged tend to narrow their focus to those thrusts and parries that have scored them points in the past.

I understand the fundamental interpretive differences that exist between the two main baptismal paradigms, and realize that's not going to change, but I guess I was simply looking for any exegetical or grammatical reason for seeing an allusion to mode in Acts 10:47 (or Acts 22:16) as you suggested there is. And the metaphorical applications of baptism have all been historically understood in terms of immersion/covering/overwhelming.

I'll simply add that to sort of suggest that the exposition of earlier Reformed theologians, which is in in continuity with patristic and mediaeval theologians, on the significance of passages like Rom 6:4 (and others) would somehow have been more cautious had they foreseen the later demographics of Christendom, is to me, well, rather astonishing. It was nowise polemical. It was very plainly a rich theological/modal concept that they fully endorsed and often quite extensively expounded on as being most edifying to the church. Even though they didn't insist on immersion, or normally practice it, neither did they avoid or minimize declaring the theological merits that they obviously perceived in such matters.

So, again, for me, we're kind of back to realizing how differently people approach and process information. que sera, sera...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'll simply add that to sort of suggest that the exposition of earlier Reformed theologians, which is in in continuity with patristic and mediaeval theologians, on the significance of passages like Rom 6:4 (and others) would somehow have been more cautious had they foreseen the later demographics of Christendom, is to me, well, rather astonishing. It was nowise polemical. It was very plainly a rich theological/modal concept that they fully endorsed and often quite extensively expounded on as being most edifying to the church. Even though they didn't insist on immersion, or normally practice it, neither did they avoid or minimize declaring the theological merits that they obviously perceived in such matters.

I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion from Bruce's remarks about how Reformed men would have come to exegetical conclusions. Even Baptists will quarrel with Calvin's exegetical conclusions when they don't believe he can draw an exegetical inference with which they disagree.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If I may add a note about reading earlier theologians, it's not as if when you're reading their arguments that you run through a continuous stream of things you agree with. Even when I'm reading a Presbyterian Puritan, he makes arguments that deal with some sort of light of nature or another type of exegetical argument that I find either to be dated or something I disagree with. When one lasers in on a particular subject (like mode) it can seem as if the writer is communicating something in a continuous stream of exegetical or theological arguments that compel the reader to adopt his overall argument. He may even be writing things that everyone else just takes for granted (e.g. baptismal regeneration or sacerdotalism) but, because it deals with mode, it may selectively support some idea about some universal, exegetical conclusion about mode even though everything else surrounding that one feature is generally ignored.

I'm not saying I simply ignore things I don't like to see, but I also don't find the argument about exegetical consensus to be terribly forceful when earlier writers are writing form diverse perspectives and mode is not really the focus of their attention in their overall project.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I understand the fundamental interpretive differences that exist between the two main baptismal paradigms, and realize that's not going to change, but I guess I was simply looking for any exegetical or grammatical reason for seeing an allusion to mode in Acts 10:47 (or Acts 22:16) as you suggested there is. And the metaphorical applications of baptism have all been historically understood in terms of immersion/covering/overwhelming.

I'll simply add that to sort of suggest that the exposition of earlier Reformed theologians, which is in in continuity with patristic and mediaeval theologians, on the significance of passages like Rom 6:4 (and others) would somehow have been more cautious had they foreseen the later demographics of Christendom, is to me, well, rather astonishing. It was nowise polemical. It was very plainly a rich theological/modal concept that they fully endorsed and often quite extensively expounded on as being most edifying to the church. Even though they didn't insist on immersion, or normally practice it, neither did they avoid or minimize declaring the theological merits that they obviously perceived in such matters.

So, again, for me, we're kind of back to realizing how differently people approach and process information. que sera, sera...

Who doesn't read/study a passage where baptism is mentioned--particularly a narrative text--and eliminates the conception the underlies the presentation? Problems arise when we raise our supposed mechanics or logistics (trying to answer the question, "How?") beyond "possible." If you think a cup of water is sufficient to the conception of a Christian baptism rite, that thinking will affect the range of interpretation acceptable to the terms that govern. The same is true if you think an immersion-font is required for the conception. I do not insist that Act.10:47 (or Act.22:16) positively teach on mode, but what they do say in so many words should not be precluded from the shape of our thinking, even touching mode. Historical narrative particularly invites a practical curiosity. As a literary onlooker, it's reasonable to imagine events taking place before your mind's eye, which requires a plausibility structure.

Peter asks what I interpret as a rhetorical question; it is clear he does not expect opposition (or to lose a challenge if one is raised), based on his reasoning expressed in words that justify what he thinks should be done. Though it is not stated in the text, we know there was an historic Jew vs. Gentile prejudice that has already been exposed in the book of Acts. Peter's own reluctance to defile himself with Gentile contact was preempted by the heavenly vision resulting in a crushed barrier to gospel-witness, laying the groundwork for the moment of Act.10:47f. For all that is the thrust of Peter's desire, he expresses his aim with words that put attention on the physical substance of baptism, as if hypothetical resistance to his desire would be imagined as someone trying to hide the water; or put up a barrier to the water or to those who would provide it; or refuse to provide the water themselves.

I'm not used to Baptists presenting baptism as the application of water to a person, but ordinarily as the application of the person into the water. I'm not a Baptist, and so I may not appreciate how little distinction there is between the two ideas in a Baptist's mind. Still, Peter's expression, "Can anyone hold back the water?" conveys to my mind (with its wiring) some aim of bringing the water into this situation, with the first thought being that it will be brought forward by someone. But that is not the only idea that comes to mind. Holding back the water invokes the idea of a dam, so Peter may want no person standing like a dam in front of a flood that has already been experienced in any event, vv44-46; the baptism of water only signifies the spiritual reality. Perhaps Peter was standing in a room with vats and baths, and wanted the taps opened so baptisms could commence? Peter's words point to the intrusion of water there and then. I can't rule out the possibility he was obliquely proposing an adjournment to the seaside, where there was no lack of water. There are more and less complex notions of actually accomplishing the deed, with sprinkling/pouring being least elaborate and most instant.

Having written so much above, I wonder about the wisdom of addressing other items. I do not think "immersion/covering/overwhelming" are adequate to handle all the metaphors of baptism and its effects. Baptism as a drink, 1Cor.12:13, trades on the pouring out of the Spirit and the liquidity of water and other connections to the provision of water to the church in the wilderness (1Cor.10:4); the verbal "root" of baptism is totally evacuated. The idea that only a total, simultaneous immersion effects cleansing is contrary to many passages in Scripture; Rich mentioned one, Jn.13:10; see also Ezk.36:25; many places in the Law, e.g Num.8:7. The principle of union with a mediator involves notions both of being subsumed and of attachment. One verbal concept or depiction does not suffice. Baptism is ritual, symbolic washing even before the NT appropriation of the term, which use only expands the metaphors.

As for ancient writers, I don't see why we must criticize them from any angle, other than they had their own dominant perspectives, plus their consuming heresies and challenges to address. They did not owe the future some prophetic emphasis. When the Reformed-era writers joined to bash the Anabaptist sectaries, they critiqued those objections from a position of strength and historic continuity; so we should not expect them to feel the same pressures felt by later generations (including the present) when possible inadequacies in their claims and stances were not yet exposed by 300yrs or more of Baptist persistence. It is no critique of our fathers to observe that our arguments should have been refined and strengthened since their day, as we have continued their contest. That's like doubting the military prowess of Wellington, because he had no modern combined-arms experience.

I've acknowledged in some prior thread a personal debt to you, Phil, and through you to previous authors for helping me recover some of my heritage even on the topic of baptism. I grew up in an era when each side (Baptist & Presbyterian) had their own emphasis and arguments, to the exclusion of the other's valid interests. I'm no longer shy of Baptist appeal to the "root" idea of the term baptism, a thing to ignore in favor of more developed utility as a church sacrament. It has become an essential element of my theology of baptism, while that theology isn't reducible to a basis so simple.