Question about mode

[wesandell]

I had a question about mode of baptism.

In Acts 9:18, Paul is baptized by Ananias. However, in 9:9 it says that Paul had been fasting 3 days. 9:17 says that Ananias entered the house and laid hands on him and Saul was healed. In 9:18, Saul rose and was baptized. However, in 9:19 it said he took food and was strengthened. How was Paul able to get to the river or some other suitablely sized body of water in order to be baptized before eating? The text seems to imply that Paul never left the house and as baptized in that house. How is that possible if baptism is supposed to be by immersion?

The Philippian jailer is another one that has me scratching my head. In Acts 16, Paul and Silas are in prison. There is a great earthquake and the jail doors fly open and everybodys bonds unfasten. The jailor wakes up and sees the doors open and is about to kill himself thinking everyone escaped. Paul stops him and preaches to the jailor and he is converted. The jailor washed their wounds and he and his family were baptized. However, right after this in 16:34 it says the jailor brought them up into his house and fed them. But the next day the magistrates ordered their release from prison. If they were still in prison, how did they get to a river or other body of water to immerse the family? The jailor's house must have been close by if not part of the prison becaue as soon as he got up he saw the doors opened. Also, prisons at that time were not very cozy and the conditions were awful. It doesn't make sense that there would be a giant pool and the text doesn't say they went anywhere for the baptism. Also, the earthquake damaged the prison (at least enought to cause the doors to fly open and the bonds broken off) and the jailor was ready to kill himself if anybody escaped. Why would he leave the prison and go down to the river to get baptized in the middle of the night? Also, Paul made the magistrates come to the prison to escort him out because he was a Roman citizen. Why would Paul leave in the middle of the night and risk the jailor being caught letting prisoners escape and killed?

Also, how did the 3000 on the day of Pentecost get baptized by immersion in one day near Jerusalem. The Jordan river was 16 miles away (that would have taken half a day at least to walk that far and they wouldn't have had the time to fit all 3000 in one day) and the Brook Kidron was more than likely dried up at that time of year and it was used as a sewer for the city. Where did they find enough water to immerse 3000 people? As well, be able to do it in one day. Also, the Ethiopian Eunich was baptized in the middle of the desert, how did they find enough water to completely immerse him there?

I know that the word baptizo historically means immerse, but these passages seem to imply the possibility that something else is going on. Mark 7:4 & Luke 11:38 use it for just ceremonial washing, which was just pouring water over hands or of cups and plates according to the Talmud. What do you guys think? I've never even considered the background info in these passages. I just always thought baptism = immersion, so they were baptized by immersion.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

You realize that you cannot be the first Baptist to wrestle with such issues, correct? So, it would be wise to consult your Baptist fathers on such questions. At least you would have access to their best responses. At worst, you could say that exceptions test the general rule.

Perhaps your best decision for now might be: to maintain a theological commitment to the mode you think is most proper, perhaps even mandated (as many Baptists believe); while perhaps allowing that the text might actually be a source for the opinions of others.

Even if you eventually felt as if mode was less of an issue than some make it out to be, I would not want you to start either from mode (fixed or variable) or from simpliistic lexical considerations, and attempt to "work back" to a deeper theological understanding. It is very important to work our way forward in these matters: from sure and safe theological ground, using reliable hermeneutical principles, to the expression of our Faith in word and deed.

 

[wesandell]

Perhaps a little background would help. I was raised Catholic, got saved at 20 and become a baptist. I graduated from SBTS with an MDiv. I came to the reformed view of soteriology without much controversy. The bible taught it, so I accepted it. There were some hang ups here and there about limited atonement, but that wasn't from a moral objection. I just wanted to believe what the Bible taught. After graduating from SBTS, I came to discover the richness of baptist history and how influential the 1689 used to be. I poured myself into study to find out what was the truth. I had never really considered things like the 4th commandment continuing. My profs at SBTS were all very NCT friendly. Since that time, the opportunity to supply preach at a very small Presbyterian church (PCUSA) came up. Btw, yes I understand the crazy things going on in the PCUSA, but the people in this church hate what is going on and don't know what to do about it and the presbytery is holding the property over their heads.

Because of my involvement with them, I decided to give infant baptism a fair shot. I've always had a struggle with the fact that guys like Calvin and Edwards (and most other reformed theologians in the past) believed it. I never really understood Covenant theology that well and never really took the time to study it that much in seminary. I knew they thought baptism replaced circumcision and that was pretty much it. However, I've come to understand more that it is a very signficant paradigm shift in hermeneutics. I've not come to the question of mode outside of the theological issues though. To be honest, I just always thought the word baptizo meant immerse, so there should have been no debate. I had a lot of presuppositions about baptism that I never realized. Both sides seem to have assumptions and interpret the scriptures based on those assumptions. For example, Acts 9. If baptism = immersion, than Paul must have been immersed even if the timeline of the passages seems to imply that it was not possible. Either the house Paul was in had a pool or bath to perform the baptism, or Paul was so excited and his adreneline was pumping that the 3 days without food and water didn't hinder him finding a pond or river to be baptized in before he ate.

I put it here because I wanted to see both sides of the issue. I understand this kind of issue can get heated quite quickly, but I am really just trying to figure out what is the truth. I could care less which one it is, I just want to know the truth. I've come to realize that the issue is a lot more complicated than "repent and be baptized" = credo and baptizo = immersion. My pressuppositions about the weaknesses of the covenantal argument are making me try to purge them and read both sides with an open mind. I thank you for your response Rev Buchanan and I'm in complete agreement, mode is not the starting point. Views on mode (whether lexical or other) can support one side or the other, but the issue is more the nature of the covenant and who are its members. Can infants be considered members of the covenant without a profession of faith? How do the apostasy passages (Heb 6, 10, etc) fit in? A few months ago, if someone had told me that I would be contemplating these things I would have thought they were crazy. Yet, here I am. No matter which side I end up on, I'll be glad I studied this. Either I'll be confirmed in my credo position with a solid understanding and renewed respect for paedos, or i'll switch and Lord willing maintain a high respect for credos knowing where they come from.

 

[PaulMc]

A few months ago, if someone had told me that I would be contemplating these things I would have thought they were crazy. Yet, here I am. No matter which side I end up on, I'll be glad I studied this. Either I'll be confirmed in my credo position with a solid understanding and renewed respect for paedos, or i'll switch and Lord willing maintain a high respect for credos knowing where they come from.

You're coming at this subject with the right spirit which is to be commended. I was in a similar place as you of being credo, and the discussions on this board helped me enormously in understanding more deeply the issues at stake and respect both sides (and eventually changed views).

Regarding mode, you're asking the right questions, as texts such as Mark 7:4 and Hebrews 9:10 I think definitely indicate a meaning other than immersion. You should also consider some of the things signified in baptism, such as cleansing with the blood of Christ (often referred to by sprinkling, and with the OT ceremonial sprinkling of blood in mind too), and regeneration and Spirit baptism (Who is spoken of as poured out in numerous places).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Bill,
From my lexical studies (without taking away from anything I stated above) a "base" English equivalent for baptizo--if one assumes gratuitously that our current transliterated term is not far-and-away the best choice--is "whelm." There is no certain mode inherent in that term, which makes for a nice neutrality of sorts.

I've seen the argument that, "if sprinkling were meant," (and likewise, another mode like pouring) "...then another word was available." The chief drawback of that kind of argument is that there is likewise a more precise equivalent to "immerse" available in Gk. as well. So what is sauce for the goose, is also sauce for the gander. Whatever exact meaning the term has in one context or another, it cannot depend on a purely lexical preference, even a "default" meaning.

But honestly, the Gk. loan-word: "baptize," very early became a perfectly good technical term for religious/ecclesiastic purpose, one which allows for both literal and metaphorical appropriation. And in fact, the Gk. term is used in a variety of situations outside of and even prior to NT use where a strict immersionist modality is completely foreign to the context.

Ten years ago, in truth I would have been fairly strongly opposed to immersionist insistence, even to the point of asserting that immersion was unfit for the church's use, though not strictly unlawful. Partly that was my own reactionary umbrage to my encounters with those who in essence unchurched me for not following (as they saw it) either the proper order or the proper mode. The lexical defense notwithstanding, I was wholly unmoved by insistence on mode, mainly because I could not find immersion (full, and all at once) in the Bible. I had satisfying (to me) theological and biblical answers for the immersionist-only proponents. I still believe the language of "pouring out" regarding Holy Spirit--also called his baptism--is possibly the best modal guidance found in Scripture.

In the past decade, the stiffness of my opposition to immersion has softened, to the point where I simply think that in most circumstances it is the least suitable mode. John Fesko, (see his book, Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism - Reformation Heritage Books) did for me what even WCF 28.3 had not done, namely gave me some theological and biblical reason to value the illustrative quality of "whelming" for the church. And no, with apologies to all my Baptist friends and relatives, I have never found the "burial-resurrection" (down under/up out of) motif convincing as an illustration of Christ or myself dying then rising from the grave. On the other hand, the plainly biblical connections of baptism to both the Flood (1Pet.3) and the Red Sea (1Cor.10) events have helped me to appreciate baptism from the perspective of whelming.

Not that whelming exhausts baptism's illustrative value. There are obvious (to me) connections as well between baptism as pouring (as alluded above), and sprinkling; and other biblical motifs such as circumcision, identification, union, cleansing, clothing, drinking, and indwelling, to name a few. Frankly, baptism appears to me amazingly versatile in its application by the biblical writers. I have written and posted here an outline that expresses some of that breadth The PuritanBoard - Circumcision and Baptism revisited .


I'm happy that you are first interested in the theological underpinnings of baptism. Tinkering with baptism, as if if was a superficial matter only, fails to consider the roots of matter, especially when understanding the practice has long been taken for granted. I would rather see you a faithful Baptist Protestant, than an apostate effusionist.

Blessings.