Mode of baptism

[JM]

lol. Well, in all fairness, even the baptism into Moses was a water baptism.

I never seem to find consensus between sprinklers and those who pour when it comes to this passage.

A person who believes in sprinkling wrote:

This, we are told, cannot be understood as an immersion. Certainly, not a literal immersion. What happened to them was only something like baptism; and it was certainly quite as much like immersion as it was like sprinkling or pouring, and most people would think a good deal more so. They left the shore, and going down into the bed of the sea, with the sea on either side and the cloud above, they were in a position somewhat resembling baptism. And as Christians publicly began to follow Christ by being baptized unto him, so it may be said that the Israelites began following Moses by being baptized unto him in the cloud and in the sea. Some persons actually tell us there was a sprinkling or pouring, because of the poetical expression in Psalms 77:17: "The clouds poured out water."
​

John Broadus responded:

Do they really believe the Israelites were made to cross the Red Sea during a pouring rain and a terrific storm of thunder and lightning? The Psalmist alludes in verse sixteenth to the division of the Red Sea, but then pauses to speak of the general phenomena of storms. At least, so it is explained in the commentary of Addison Alexander, the learned Presbyterian Professor.
​

The Israelites were not sprinkled or poured upon either.

 

[JM]

From Gill's Body of Divinity; on 1 Cor. 10:1-2:

"...chiefly this passage was a figure of baptism by immersion; as the Israelites were "under the cloud," and so under water, and covered with it, as persons baptized by immersion are; "and passed through the sea," that standing up as a wall on both sides them, with the cloud over them; thus surrounded they were as persons immersed in water, and so said to be baptized; and thus Grotius remarks upon the passage."
​

 

[bobsterInJapan]

For you traditionalists...do you also require folks to be baptized naked like they did in the early church? lol

Where did you hear that from?

 

[JM]

Where did you hear that from?

". The catechumens disrobed, were anointed with oil, renounced the devil and his works, ..." Baptism in early Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was mentioned in 'Baptism in the Early Church' by Louw as well.

 

[DocNH]

1 Corinthians 1:12 says, "What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."" Those baptized in the wilderness were following Moses (1 Cor. 10:1-2). So, Paul's argument in 1 Cor. 10 does not begin in 1 Cor 10, but 1 Cor. 1.

Circumcision was suspended (in the NC replaced, cf. Col. 2:11-12) while Israel was in the wilderness. It was re-instituted in Joshua 5:1-8. Because Christian baptism stresses the covenant union of the believer with Christ (cf. Moses, Heb. 3:1-6), Paul used the language of covenant baptism to draw a correspondence between Old Testament Israel and the Corinthian Church (1 Cor 5:12-13). Pratt notes, "All the Israelites, young and old, male and female, faithful and unregenerate, were baptized into Moses in this way." So, all the Israelites of the exodus generation (including their infants, complete households) went through the ordeal and deliverance of this event (which involved crossing through the water) by virtue of their identification with their leader, Moses.

This passage (1 Cor 10:1-2) serves as an illustration and explanation of the warning in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27. Pratt states, "In Paul's mind, sufficient continuity existed between the covenant people of God in the Old Testament (Israel) and in the New Testament (the church) that the Old Testament Israelites were the spiritual forefathers of all New Testament believers." So, all the members of the visible Church in Corinth had been baptized into Christ and therefore had tasted God's deliverance, but that was no guarantee that God would be pleased to save all of them. Just as there were unsaved in Israel (OT Church) who were baptized, there are unsaved baptized members in the visible church in Corinth.

In essence, if Corinth was to take the warning of 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 seriously (and they were, 1 Cor. 10:6-10, et. al.), Paul's argument concerning baptism must also be taken in the same way - it was a baptism, and Israel was not immersed, but sprinkled, sprayed, etc. Like in the time of Noah, it was not good news to be among those who were immersed.

This said, while a mode is important, it is best not to be dogmatic where Scripture is not dogmatic. In answering Grudem on mode:

QUESTION:

In his Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem presents some rather compelling arguments regarding the mode and meaning of baptism. How would you respond to these?

Mode: "The practice of baptism in the New Testament was carried out in one way: the person being baptized was immersed or put completely under the water and then brought back up again" (see pp. 967-969). In the footnote, he also makes a compelling argument against Berkof's understanding of Greek meaning here.

Meaning: An intrinsic difference between the old and new covenants is the physical versus the spiritual nature of the two. Grudem cites six or seven examples of this (p. 977).

Also, even if proper mode in the New Testament was immersion, does this mean that we have to do it this way today? How far can we legitimately deviate? I mean, they certainly didn't use shot glasses, grape juice, and cracker bits at the Last Supper...


ANSWER:

Grudem presents three main arguments for immersion as the biblical mode of baptism:

"Baptizo means 'to plunge, dip, immerse.'"

There is no single instance in the New Testament in which it is stated that baptism took place by immersion. This should incline us away from dogmatic assertions that it must be done by immersion. Certainly "immerse" is within the semantic range of the Greek word baptizo. The real question is: How broad is baptizo's semantic range?

In fact, no example in the New Testament requires the meaning "immerse." All could be explained by the word "wash," which appears to be the primary meaning of baptizo in the New Testament. Regarding John's baptism (from which Grudem frequently argues), "the basic conception is still that of a cleansing bath" (Kittle, TDNT, vol. 1, p. 537). Immersion is not required for a bath. The picture could just as well be one of wading, or of pouring, or of a combination of modes.

Moreover, even if it could be demonstrated that people were baptized standing waist-deep in water, it still would not prove that this was essential to the baptism. It could just as well have been the case that John poured water over their heads while they stood in the water, and that the pouring was the essential element in John's mind. It is speculation either way, and thus not grounds for dogmatism.

"'Immerse' is appropriate and probably required for the word in several New Testament passages."

Not true - it's frequently appropriate but never required (see above). Grudem also appeals to prepositions such as "en" and "ek" to prove his point here. The problem is that these prepositions have far broader semantic ranges than Grudem lists. For one thing, "en" does not always refer to location - it can also refer to means or instrumentality (e.g. "John baptized people with or by means of the Jordan River, i.e. with its water").

Consider also the example of Mark 1:5, 10 to which Grudem appeals. There, the preposition "en" refers to the location where the baptism took place, not to the mode of baptism. A baptism may take place "in" the water without requiring one to be submerged in the water (to this end, note that Mark does not say that people were baptized "hupo" - under - the water). Ankle-deep is in the water, and it makes sense to stand in the water even if the means of baptism is pouring or sprinkling (easier to reach the water, no containers to refill, etc.). "Ek" would be a proper pronoun to use to describe leaving the location where such a baptism took place.

Only immersion symbolizes burial with Christ.

The symbolism of association/burial with an atonement has its roots in the Old Testament sacrificial system. In the Old Testament, one outward means by which the people visibly participated in the death of the sacrificial animal was by the sprinkling of the animal's blood on the people (e.g. Exod 24:8), or even simply dabbing it on the priest's ear, toe, and thumb (e.g. Exod 29:20). In no instance was anyone ever immersed in blood. Of course, this does not prove that baptism can't be by immersion, and it is not to say that immersing someone doesn't effectively demonstrate burial and raising. The point is simply that this is not the only way to make such an association, and that it was not the way the association was made in the Old Testament.

Grudem appears to mistake the old and new covenants for different covenants, when in fact they are one and the same (one covenant of grace under various administrations, etc.; cf. WCF 7.5). As we learn in Hebrews 6:13-20, the covenant which Christ mediates is the Abrahamic covenant. It is a "renewed" covenant, not a "brand new" or "replacement" covenant. Because it is the same covenant, we ought to expect significant continuity across different administrations (such as was always the case with every Old Testament administrative change).

Second, Grudem's examples of differences between the covenant administrations in various portions of Bible Doctrine are simply incorrect. Take for instance his insistence that the children of believers are not members of the church. Paul refutes this error in 1 Corinthians when he says on the one hand that the children of believers are "holy" (hagios; 1 Cor 7:14), and on the other hand that the church is composed of all those who are "sanctified" (hagiazo) and "saints" (hagios; 1 Cor 1:2). The children of believers are hagios, which makes them part of the church.

Or consider his example that Old Testament saints offered things to God on the altar, while New Testament saints offer God "spiritual sacrifices." This is all well and good, except that the Old Testament saints also offered God "spiritual sacrifices" (cf. Ps 51:17), and the New Testament saints offer physical things in sacrifice (e.g. "sharing" in Heb 13:15) as well as depend upon the actual, physical sacrifice of Christ on the cross for their sufficient atonement. Even now in heaven Christ continually pleads his shed blood on our behalf in order to maintain our salvation (Heb 7:25; 9:11-15). And when there was still an altar, early Christians felt free to use that too (Acts 21:26). These are points of continuity between the administrations of the covenant, not points of difference.

Without getting into every detail Grudem offers, suffice it to say that from my perspective he skews the data too much in order to support his arguments. As a result, I think his ultimate conclusions are flawed.

You also wondered how closely we need to adhere to biblical modes, citing our modern observance of the Lord's Supper as an example of a clearly different mode from that which Jesus instituted. Personally, I think we ought to stick more closely to biblical mode than we often do (e.g. I think we should use wine in the Lord's Supper). But we also need to be careful not to confuse circumstances that accompanied mode with mode itself. Our dogmatism on mode ought not to be greater than our certainty about these distinctions. I believe the New Testament does not demonstrate any singular mode for baptism. Certainly I believe that immersion is one good option, but I think good cases can be made for pouring and sprinkling too.

Since, I know JM will disagree I will retire from this argument. I do not wish him to drown in his conclusions.

 

[JM]

Since, I know JM will disagree I will retire from this argument. I do not wish him to drown in his conclusions.

Yes, I disagree but not with the same desperate urgency I use to feel just a few years ago. I realized, not just with lip service and right doctrine, that God is in control. Disagreements, wrestling with the word is profitable, but it is all vain unless we are truly resting in the sovereignty of God when we work through our disagreements.

When I read your post brother I come away with the impression that it is just too complex and elaborate to be true...that a Baptist is just too dumb for not seeing baptism in Gen. 17 or the lack of importance on the mode of baptism. J. I. Packer explains, covenant theology "is what is nowadays called a hermeneutic -- that is, a way of reading the whole Bible that is itself part of the overall interpretation of the Bible that it undergirds." And a sentence further down, "It is a hermeneutic that forces itself upon every thoughtful Bible-reader..." When I read the arguments for paedobaptism and sprinkling I can't help but see a pattern of forcing a hermeneutic grid on scripture without allowing the scriptures to teach.

I do not wish to go rounds again Doc just wanted to make a short post.

Yours in the Lord,

j
(It is true I consider my theology to be covenantal but it is not the same covenantal theology found in Presbyterianism.)

 

[DocNH]

JM,

Dumb, by no means. I myself use to be a Baptist too. The problem is connecting the dots in the proper order. This can be the result of the lack of proper exegesis, stubbornness, etc.

No one interprets Scripture in a vacuum (tabula rasa -blank slate). We all put glasses on of some kind - whether purposely or through our experiences, etc. The question is not if we have a hermeneutic, but if we have the right hermeneutic.

The Introduction: On Covenant Theology, in The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man: comprehending a complete Body of Divinity, by JI Packer is a good read. BTW, as JI Packer continues, he explains what he means by forces. He says:

Earlier it was said that the Bible "forces" covenant theology on all who receive it as what, in effect, it claims to be -- God's witness to God's work of saving sinners for God's glory. "Forces" is a strong work; how does Scripture "force" covenant theology upon us? By the following four features, at least.

First, by the story that it tells. The books of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, are, as was said earlier, God's own record of the progressive unfolding of his purpose to have a people in covenant with himself here on earth. The covenantal character of God's relationships with human beings, first to last, has already been underlined, and is in fact reflected one way and another on just about every page of the Bible. The transition in Eden from the covenant of works to the covenant of grace, and the further transition from all that was involved in the preliminary (old) form of that covenant to its final (new) form, brought in through the death of Jesus Christ and now administered by him from his throne, are the key events in the covenant story. The significance of the fact that God caused his book of instruction to mankind to be put together with the history of his covenant as its backbone can hardly be overestimated. Covenant relationships between God and men, established by God's initiative, bringing temporal and eternal blessings to individuals and creating community among them, so that they have a corporate identity as God's people, are in fact the pervasive themes of the whole Bible; and it compels thoughtful readers to take note of the covenant as being central to God's concern.

Second, Scripture forces covenant theology upon us by the place it gives to Jesus Christ in the covenant story. That all Scripture, one way and another, is pointing its readers to Christ, teaching us truths and showing us patterns of divine action that help us understand him properly, is a principle that no reverent and enlightened Bible student will doubt. This being so, it is momentously significant that when Jesus explained the memorial rite for himself that he instituted as his people's regular form of worship, he spoke of the wine that they were to drink as symbolizing his blood, shed to ratify the new covenant -- a clear announcement of the fulfilling of the pattern of Exodus 24 (Jesus echoes directly the words of verse 8) and the promise of Jeremiah 31:31-34.

It is also momentously significant that when the writer to the Hebrews explains the uniqueness and finality of Jesus Christ as the only source of salvation for sinners he does so by focusing on Jesus as the mediator of the new covenant and depicts him as establishing this prophesied relationship between God and his people by superseding (transcending and thereby cancelling) the inadequate old covenant institutions for dealing with sins and giving access to God.

It is also momentously significant that when in Galatians Paul tells Gentiles that their faith in Christ, as such, has already made them inheritors of all that was promised to Abraham, he makes the point by declaring that in union with Christ, as those who by baptism have "put on" the Christ in whom they have trusted so as to become his own people, they are now the seed of Abraham with whom God has made his covenant for all time (Gal. 3) . . . the covenant that brings liberty from law as a supposed system of salvation and full fellowship for ever with God above (Gal. 4:24-3 1). Such Scriptures require us to interpret Christ in terms of God's covenant, just as they require us to interpret God's covenant in terms of Christ, and this fact also alerts thoughtful readers to the centrality of the covenant theme.

The third way in which Scripture directs us to covenantal thinking is by the specific parallel between Christ and Adam that Paul draws in Rom. 5:12-18; 1 Cor. 15: 21 f., 45-49). The solidarity of one person standing for a group, involving the whole group in the consequences of his action and receiving promises that apply to the whole group as well as to himself, is a familiar facet of biblical covenant thought, usually instanced in the case of family and national groups (Noah, Gen. 6:18, 9:9; Abraham, Gen. 17:7; the Israelites, Ex. 20:4-6, 8-12, 31:12-17 (16); Aaron, Lev. 24:8 f.;Phinehas, Num. 25:13; David, 2 Chr. 13:5, 21:7; Jer. 33:19-22).

In Rom. 5:12-1 8 Paul proclaims a solidarity between Christ and his people (believers, Rom 3:22-5:2; the elect, God's chosen ones, 8:33) whereby the law-keeping, sin-bearing obedience of "the one man" brings righteousness with God, justification, and life to "the many," "all;" and he sets this within the frame of a prior solidarity, namely that between Adam and his descendants, whereby our entire race was involved in the penal consequences of Adam's transgression. The 1 Corinthians passages confirm that these are indeed covenantal solidarities; God deals with mankind through two representative men, Adam and Christ; all that are in Adam die; all that are in Christ are made alive. This far-reaching parallel is clearly foundational to Paul's understanding of God's ways with our race, and it is a covenantal way of thinking, showing from a third angle that covenant theology is indeed biblically basic.

The fourth way in which Scripture forces covenant theology upon us is by the explicit declaring of the covenant of redemption, most notably (though by no means exclusively) in the words of Jesus recorded in the gospel of John. All Jesus's references to his purpose in the world as the doing of his Father's will, and to his actual words and works as obedience to his Father's command (Jn. 4:32-34, 5:30, 6:38-40, 7:16-18, 8:28 f., 12:49 f., 14:31, 15:10, 17:4, I9:30); all his further references to his being sent by the Father into the world to perform a specific task (3:17, 34, 5:23, 30, 36, 38, 6:29, 57, 7:28, 29, 33, 8:16, 18, 26, 9:4, 10:36, 11:42, 12:44, 13:20, 14:24, 15:21, 16:5, 17:3, 8,18, 21, 23, 25, 20:21, cf. 18:37); and all his references to the Father "giving" him particular persons to save, and to his acceptance of the task of rescuing them from perishing both by dying for them and by calling and shepherding them to glory (6:37-44, 10:14-16, 27-30, 17:2, 6, 9,19, 22, 24); are so many testimonies to the reality of the covenant of redemption. The emphasis is pervasive, arresting, and inescapable: Jesus' own words force on thoughtful readers recognition of the covenant economy as foundational to all thought about the reality of God's saving grace.

Though I wish I had some time to do some more 'rounds' it is time for vacation. However, I did desire to set straight what Packer actually said.

The whole text may be read here: Introduction: On Covenant Theology

Yes, I disagree but not with the same desperate urgency I use to feel just a few years ago. I realized, not just with lip service and right doctrine, that God is in control. Disagreements, wrestling with the word is profitable, but it is all vain unless we are truly resting in the sovereignty of God when we work through our disagreements.

When I read your post brother I come away with the impression that it is just too complex and elaborate to be true...that a Baptist is just too dumb for not seeing baptism in Gen. 17 or the lack of importance on the mode of baptism. J. I. Packer explains, covenant theology "is what is nowadays called a hermeneutic -- that is, a way of reading the whole Bible that is itself part of the overall interpretation of the Bible that it undergirds." And a sentence further down, "It is a hermeneutic that forces itself upon every thoughtful Bible-reader..." When I read the arguments for paedobaptism and sprinkling I can't help but see a pattern of forcing a hermeneutic grid on scripture without allowing the scriptures to teach.

I do not wish to go rounds again Doc just wanted to make a short post.

Yours in the Lord,

j
(It is true I consider my theology to be covenantal but it is not the same covenantal theology found in Presbyterianism.)

 

[JM]

JM,

Dumb, by no means. I myself use to be a Baptist too. The problem is connecting the dots in the proper order. This can be the result of the lack of proper exegesis, stubbornness, etc.

Of course the knife cuts both ways. The lack of proper exegesis and stubbornness for tradition can be found on either side of the debate which is all I was trying to convey.

No one interprets Scripture in a vacuum (tabula rasa -blank slate). We all put glasses on of some kind - whether purposely or through our experiences, etc. The question is not if we have a hermeneutic, but if we have the right hermeneutic.

Very true but we must allow scripture to interpret scripture, not tradition or a set of preconceived ideas. Again, the knife cuts both ways.

The Introduction: On Covenant Theology, in The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man: comprehending a complete Body of Divinity, by JI Packer is a good read. BTW, as JI Packer continues, he explains what he means by forces. He says:

What Packer explains by 'forces' is exactly what a Calvinistic Dispensationalist would claim referencing Dispensations in place of covenants. It doesn't negate the issue of 'forcing' the text to be understood within a hermeneutic grid. That's all I wanted to state.

We agree on what prevents us from a meeting of the minds but charge each other with a lack of proper exegesis, stubbornness, etc.

Though I wish I had some time to do some more 'rounds' it is time for vacation. However, I did desire to set straight what Packer actually said.

May God bless you as you vacation.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[HermanNeutics13]

There is no such thing as a mode of baptism. There is only baptism which is immersion.

Where does it say in the Bible immersion is the only form of Baptism? And are those who weren't baptized by immersion not really baptized? The important aspect of baptism is the word.

 

[JM]

Where does it say in the Bible immersion is the only form of Baptism? And are those who weren't baptized by immersion

not really baptized? The important aspect of baptism is the word.

This is a forum for Calvinists. Our understanding of Grace and the sovereignty of God in all things binds us in a way other Christians may not understand and we freely discuss these issues with this in mind. As a Lutheran you are encouraged to ask questions but not to debate.

Yours in The Lord,

J

 

[HermanNeutics13]

This is a forum for Calvinists. Our understanding of Grace and the sovereignty of God in all things binds us in a way other Christians may not understand and we freely discuss these issues with this in mind. As a Lutheran you are encouraged to ask questions but not to debate.

Yours in The Lord,

J

I didn't notice what category it was under. OK. In am still getting used to this forum.

 

[JM]

No problem. You asked a good question...I'm sure twin will answer it when he gets time.

Peace.