Ask a Presbyterian

Doulos 7

Active Member
Jul 10, 2018
74
21
43
Oklahoma
✟11,413.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Heb. 10:22
Ezek. 36:25
Nu. 8:7; 19:9, 12-13, 18-21; 31:23; cf. Heb. 9:13
Heb. 9:10, "divers washings" lit. baptisms
Ex. 24:8; Lev. 14:1-7; Heb. 9:19-22

Scripture does not clearly teach immersion. The meaning of baptism points more to our union with Christ and any debates about the "true mode" of baptism makes the focus not Christ but a quantity of water.

"Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.15.19).​

Reformed Westminster Standards supports both sprinkling and pouring.

The Reformed believe sprinkling to be either the or a proper mode of baptism from scripture; we understand the picture of the covenant people being sprinkled with the blood of Christ, even as Israel was sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifices when her covenant was established; and of which the Old Testament washings were symbolic, etc. We can demonstrate this exegetically. Whether the baptist agrees with our paedo exegesis is one thing, but I am quite certain that most sober-minded baptists will acknowledge the consistency and legitimacy of paedobaptist, covenantal exegesis.
First of all the word baptism is the greek word baptizo which means to dip plunge or immerse. The word for sprinkle is rantizo. the catholics wanted to keep their sprinkling operation so bad that they twisted the word from immerse to baptize so that their error would not be visible to the untrained eye (Revelation 22:18,19).
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
First of all the word baptism is the greek word baptizo which means to dip plunge or immerse. The word for sprinkle is rantizo. the catholics wanted to keep their sprinkling operation so bad that they twisted the word from immerse to baptize so that their error would not be visible to the untrained eye (Revelation 22:18,19).
Several points to consider--

1. Catholics seldom sprinkle. That (sprinkle) is a word that people who belong to churches which insist on immersion, etc. think sounds funny or silly. Therefore, they like to use it when discussing churches of the other persuasion (which is to say, most of them), whether or not they actually baptize by sprinkling.

2. You are right that the word in the Greek can mean more than just immerse. It can also mean to dip, which doesn't imply total immersion, but it also can mean to wash and/or several other actions which likewise do not unfailingly mean that the object is to be completely underwater.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,715
912
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟211,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
First of all the word baptism is the greek word baptizo which means to dip plunge or immerse. The word for sprinkle is rantizo. the catholics wanted to keep their sprinkling operation so bad that they twisted the word from immerse to baptize so that their error would not be visible to the untrained eye (Revelation 22:18,19).

Romans 6:4-6 uses three συν- verbs to describe the relationship between Christ and the believer signified in baptism.

συνεταφημεν - buried with
συμφυτοι - planted with
συνεσταυρωθη - crucified with

Does it not seem arbitrary to insist that we must take the first verb as God's intention for how baptism is to be visibly portrayed, while ignoring the other two? Which mode visually looks like crucifixion? Also, Jesus was buried by being laid into a chamber hewed out of the side of a rock face. Baptism by immersion doesn't really depict that very well.

Heb 10:22 προσερχώμεθα μετὰ ἀληθινῆς καρδίας ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως, ἐρραντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς καὶ λελουσμένοι τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ·

This is the majority text/TR reading. The variants in the participles (for sprinkling and washing) for the CT don't affect the translation of the terms into faithful English.

For example:
KJV: Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

ESV: let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

When were our bodies washed by Christ, if not at baptism?

I find the Baptist interpretation of "buried with him in baptism" to be utterly unconvincing, even contrary to the spirit of the text. And yet, I understand the very clear plausibility of that interpretation to the Baptist. It is a biblical argument, and I admit that Baptists use the Scriptures to defend their practice.
 
Upvote 0

Doulos 7

Active Member
Jul 10, 2018
74
21
43
Oklahoma
✟11,413.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Romans 6:4-6 uses three συν- verbs to describe the relationship between Christ and the believer signified in baptism.

συνεταφημεν - buried with
συμφυτοι - planted with
συνεσταυρωθη - crucified with

Does it not seem arbitrary to insist that we must take the first verb as God's intention for how baptism is to be visibly portrayed, while ignoring the other two? Which mode visually looks like crucifixion? Also, Jesus was buried by being laid into a chamber hewed out of the side of a rock face. Baptism by immersion doesn't really depict that very well.

Heb 10:22 προσερχώμεθα μετὰ ἀληθινῆς καρδίας ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως, ἐρραντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς καὶ λελουσμένοι τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ·

This is the majority text/TR reading. The variants in the participles (for sprinkling and washing) for the CT don't affect the translation of the terms into faithful English.

For example:
KJV: Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

ESV: let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

When were our bodies washed by Christ, if not at baptism?

I find the Baptist interpretation of "buried with him in baptism" to be utterly unconvincing, even contrary to the spirit of the text. And yet, I understand the very clear plausibility of that interpretation to the Baptist. It is a biblical argument, and I admit that Baptists use the Scriptures to defend their practice.
It is a well-known fact that many religious groups, in the administration of what they call “baptism,” do not immerse. Rather, they either pour water or sprinkle it on the candidate’s head. But this procedure ignores the following facts.

The Greek word bapto means to “immerse”—nothing else. So the standard Greek lexicons affirm (Balz & Schneider, 192). Note that the word is translated “dip” in passages where there is no theological bias involved (cf. Lk. 16:24; Jn. 13:26).

Next, the New Testament makes it quite plain that baptism involves a burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). Sprinkling and pouring certainly do not require this.

Then, history is explicit regarding the fact that sprinking or pouring are post-apostolic innovations. The historian Mosheim declares that baptism, in the first century, “was performed by an immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font” (36).
Also if we were to read Acts 8 in the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch we would read that first the eunuch learned of Jesus (v. 35). Which implied that he would known of baptism (v.36), and then verse 38 the bible says that they "went down into the water" the man would have had enough water aboard to last for the journey, why didn't he just get sprinkled? simply because that is not what he learned when Jesus was preached to him!
 
Upvote 0