Just What is the Proper Mode of Baptism

[Ishmael]

Many of my Baptist brethren claim that the greek word baptizo always means to immerse. And yet, the LXX uses the word to indicate "dipping" in a few place:.

1. 2 Kings 5 ebaptisato is used to indicate a "dipping" into the river.
2. Leviticus 4:17
He shall dip his finger into the blood and sprinkle it before the LORD seven times in front of the curtain.
The word use here to clearly indicate "dip" and not immerse is again the word bajei.
3. Leviticus 4:6 (the same)
4. 1 Sam 14:27
But Jonathan had not heard that his father had bound the people with the oath, so he reached out the end of the staff that was in his hand and dipped it into the honeycomb. He raised his hand to his mouth, and his eyes brightened.
Word use here to "dip" a rod into honeycomb: ebaqen

Any thoughts?

[Solly]

Yes, he dipped his finger. Therefore, he immersed it. His finger.

He dipped the end of his staff, therefore he immersed it. The end of the staff.

We dip the believer, therefore we immerse them. Dip can be used as an equivelent of Immerse if you like.

What is doesn't say is that he sprinkled or poured water over his finger or staff, the object was put into the water.

Why didn't you go back to this thread: In Defence of Infant Baptism (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=280)?

[Ishmael]

Today @ 10:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45374#post45374)
Solly:

Yes, he dipped his finger. Therefore, he immersed it. His finger.

He dipped the end of his staff, therefore he immersed it. The end of the staff.

We dip the believer, therefore we immerse them. Dip can be used as an equivelent of Immerse if you like.

What is doesn't say is that he sprinkled or poured water over his finger or staff, the object was put into the water.


Oh but then how do you explain early Christian art which indicates that converts were baptized by kneeling in the river and having the officiant pour water on their heads with their hands?

This is Bapto which is Strong's 911:
baptw bapto bap’-to; a primary verb; to overwhelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the N.T. only in a qualified or specially, sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye):— dip.

Sprinkling and pouring does not moisten a part of one's body?


Why didn't you go back to this thread: In Defence of Infant Baptism (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=280)?

I just might.

[Solly]

Oh well, Strong's is an end to all controversy of course.

Baptize, Baptism. The Greek root-word baptizein means to plunge, immerse, sink; hence to wash; to be immersed, overwhelmed (in trouble).
Elwell, Walter A., Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House) 1998, c1996.

911. bavptw baptoµ, bap´-to; a primary verb; to overwhelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; THIS, HOWEVER, IS INTERPRETATION, NOT EXEGESIS-----> in the N.T. only in a qualified or special sense, i.e. (lit.) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by impl.) to stain (as with dye):— dip.
James Strong, New Strong’s dictionary of Hebrew and Greek words [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996.

907. baptivzw baptizoµ, bap-tid´-zo; from a der. of 911; to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N.T.) of ceremonial ablution, espec. (tech.) of the ordinance of Chr. baptism:— baptist, baptize, wash.
[same source]

And to show Strong's unbiased abilities:
908. bavptisma baptisma, bap´-tis-mah; from 907; baptism (tech. or fig.):— baptism.
[same source]

Redundant; re'dun'dant. See redundant.

----
BAPTISM, BAPTIST, BAPTIZE

A. Nouns.
1. baptisma (908), “baptism,” consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion and emergence (from bapto, “to dip”), is used (a) of John’s “baptism,” (b) of Christian “baptism,” see B. below; (c) of the overwhelming afflictions and judgments to which the Lord voluntarily submitted on the cross, e.g., Luke 12:50; (d) of the sufferings His followers would experience, not of a vicarious character, but in fellowship with the sufferings of their Master. Some mss. have the word in Matt. 20:22-23; it is used in Mark 10:38-39, with this meaning.
2. baptismos (909), as distinct from baptisma (the ordinance), is used of the “ceremonial washing of articles,” Mark 7:4, 8, in some texts; Heb. 9:10; once in a general sense, Heb. 6:2.¶ See washing.
3. baptistes (910), “a baptist,” is used only of John the Baptist, and only in the Synoptists, 14 times.
W.E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger and William White, Vine’s complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996.

[Solly]

911 bapto { bap’-to}

a primary word; TDNT - 1:529,92; v

AV - dip 3; 3

GK - 970 { bavptw } & 4817 { rJaivnw }

1) to dip, dip in, immerse
2) to dip into dye, to dye, colour

Not to be confused with 907, baptizo. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

908 baptisma { bap’-tis-mah}

from 907; TDNT - 1:545,92; n n

AV - baptism 22; 22

GK - 967 { bavptisma }

1) immersion, submersion
1a) of calamities and afflictions with which one is quite overwhelmed
1b) of John’s baptism, that purification rite by which men on confessing their sins were bound to spiritual reformation, obtained the pardon of their past sins and became qualified for the benefits of the Messiah’s kingdom soon to be set up. This was valid Christian baptism, as this was the only baptism the apostles received and it is not recorded anywhere that they were ever rebaptised after Pentecost.
1c) of Christian baptism; a rite of immersion in water as commanded by Christ, by which one after confessing his sins and professing his faith in Christ, having been born again by the Holy Spirit unto a new life, identifies publicly with the fellowship of Christ and the church.
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

[Ishmael]

I knew that you would not be able to comprehend that the word Baptizo does not always mean to fully immerse.

But can you agree that this word's greater meaning is to "cleanse"?

Christ's baptism on the Cross was a cleansing of our sin. The representative sign of NT Baptism is a sign of cleansing NOT some kind of picture of the death burial and resurection. We are burried with him in the sense that His death "cleans" us by the "sprinkling" of his blood. A sign of the benefits (cleansing) of his work on the cross, not a word picture of his work.

[Solly]

Ha ha ha ha, Cal you're so funny at times.

And now you run off from two posts showing you're wrong to theology. The word is the word; how can immerse mean cleanse? It is not, by implication, "wash" on every occasion of its use. The fact that it might not mean immerse on every occasion, does not take away from its primary meaning. The theology comes from its use in context. Was Jesus sprinkled with his sufferings, or immersed in them. What has that to do with cleansing?

Christian Baptism is significal of our immersion in Him, in his death and resurrection. It speaks of an identity and unity with him, that we were in Him as Noah was in the Ark - safe. The cleansing comes from that fact, because we are saved from the wrath to come by being in him. he is our Ark. The "rite" of baptism recognises that fact, and our forefathers should have translated the word immerse, dip, or drench instead of ecclesiaising and transliterating it as baptism, which is where all the trouble comes from.

You are reaching when you try to link it to the sprinkling of the blood; that is a different idea related to the High Priestly work of offering the sacrifice, not being the sacrifice: only the sacrifice could say, All thy waves and billows, they go over me.

--See you tomorrow.

[Ishmael]

Today @ 10:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45401#post45401)
Solly:

Ha ha ha ha, Cal you're so funny at times.

And now you run off from two posts showing you're wrong to theology. The word is the word. The theology comes from its use in context. Was Jesus sprinkled with his sufferings, or immersed in them. What has that to do with cleansing?


It has everything to do with cleansing. What do you think that the blood sacrafices were for? What do you think that Jesus' blood sacracfice was for?


Christian Baptism is significal of our immersion in Him, in his death and resurrection. It speaks of an identity and unity with him, that we were in Him as Noah was in the Ark - safe. The cleansing comes from that fact, because we are saved from the wrath to come by being in him. he is our Ark. The "rite" of baptism recognises that fact, and our forefathers should have translated the word imerse, dip, or drench instead of ecclesiaising and transliterating it as baptism.

You are reaching when you try to link it to the sprinkling of the blood; that is a different idea related to the High Priestly work of offering the sacrifice, not being the sacrifice.

It's only funny and "wrong" to a nonReformed calvinist Baptist.

But we agree in part...
Baptism is a sign of:
1. Ingrafting.
2. Regeneration.
3. Spiritual Cleansing.

The mode of Baptism niether harms nor helps the sign when it is properly understood and administered.

What you cannot understand is that Full Immersion is niether the intent nor the mandate for the sign of Baptism.

[Ishmael]

Here is the early church performing a baptism. Why doesn't this look like modern Baptism?

[Ishmael]

...our forefathers should have translated the word immerse, dip, or drench instead of ecclesiaising and transliterating it as baptism, which is where all the trouble comes from.

Yet another point you have made for me on the issue of the mode of Baptism. Why wouldn't our "forefathers" translate the word to mean immerse or dip (completely covering the body) if that is wha the word means all the time?

"Baptism" was used because this is a specific New Covenant sign which is reflective of ceremonial washing of the 1st century; and yet, also carries with it the notion of ingrafting into Christ and all other benefits of our faith in Christ.

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 05:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45405#post45405)
Calvinist:
It has everything to do with cleansing. What do you think that the blood sacrafices were for? What do you think that Jesus' blood sacracfice was for?

--The cleansing comes as a result. If it was primarily cleansing, they would have used "laver" to signify washing"; they used immerse. We are not cleansed, and then put into Christ, we are cleansed because we are put into Christ.

It's only funny and "wrong" to a nonReformed calvinist Baptist.

--I am that man. However, you also only quote what bolsters your own position. You quoted Strong; yet when I quote Strong (and also Strong revised) you just ignore it and give me unspecified pictures as if that is the end to all argument. I'm a Baptist, Cal, that means Sola Scriptura.

But we agree in part...
Baptism is a sign of:
1. Ingrafting. 2. Regeneration. 3. Spiritual Cleansing.

The mode of Baptism neither harms nor helps the sign when it is properly understood and administered.

--You forgot Union.
But this is a different thing entirely. I am not a Campbellite who believes that Baptism is essential for salvation. What IS important is that Baptism is for confessed believers, not infants. But that discussion was going on on your other thread, so I won't pick it up here. Show me a picture of an infant being baptised.

What you cannot understand is that Full Immersion is niether the intent nor the mandate for the sign of Baptism.

--Of course I can't understand it, cos that's an illogical statement. immersion is the MODE of Baptism. The intent is a confession and identification with Christ by the believer. The mandate is Christ's own words.

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 05:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45406#post45406)
Calvinist:

Here is the early church performing a baptism. Why doesn't this look like modern Baptism?

THE early church, or AN early church?

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 05:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45411#post45411)
Calvinist:

...our forefathers should have translated the word immerse, dip, or drench instead of ecclesiaising and transliterating it as baptism, which is where all the trouble comes from.

Yet another point you have made for me on the issue of the mode of Baptism. Why wouldn't our "forefathers" translate the word to mean immerse or dip (completely covering the body) if that is wha the word means all the time?

--Not so. By our forefathers I of course meant the English translators, who were Reformed Catholics, just as Calvin and Luther were. They "baptised" Catholic practices as suited, which included infant baptism and the mode of baptism, just as they "baptised" the idea of the magistracy (the same protestant magistracy that persecuted my Baptist forebears).

Baptists, on the other hand, are Thoroughly Reformed; qv John Quincy Adams. Have your read William Shirreff's Lectures on Baptism? (ex presbbie).

"Baptism" was used because this is a specific New Covenant sign which is reflective of ceremonial washing of the 1st century; and yet, also carries with it the notion of ingrafting into Christ and all other benefits of our faith in Christ.

--Yes, yes, quote this bit, but ignore the rest won't you. Since when have we been guided by the early church, unless it suits our cause? Are you going to turn catholic because of their sacramental understandning of the communion, and their institution of a priesthood? The ECFs are varied enough that you can find a quote to support nearly any position.

[joelkaki]

The lexicon does not prove that βαπτιζω means to immerse. I believe that Scripture is the final say.

Christian Baptism is significal of our immersion in Him, in his death and resurrection. It speaks of an identity and unity with him, that we were in Him as Noah was in the Ark - safe. The cleansing comes from that fact, because we are saved from the wrath to come by being in him. he is our Ark. The "rite" of baptism recognises that fact, and our forefathers should have translated the word immerse, dip, or drench instead of ecclesiaising and transliterating it as baptism, which is where all the trouble comes from.

I would agree that baptism identifies us with Christ, demonstrating our union with him in his death, burial, and resurrection. But let me ask you this, Solly, How are we united to Christ?

Joel

[Solly]

The lexicon does not prove that âáðôéæù means to immerse. I believe that Scripture is the final say.


If Calvinist can think it disproves it, I see no reason why I can't say it does, esp when the information given is more in my favour than his. This is most strange. First I must take the meaning of the word. Now I am told the lexical meaning is not important, but Scripture is. Are we to assume that biblical words carry there own meanings regardless of origin? My point is, that the word determines our theology and practice, not vice versa.

On your question:

We are united to Christ the Elect in the mind of God in the decree of election.

We are united by God in the covenant, under Christ the Federal Head.

We are united to Christ "mystically" by the Spirit, making one Body, united to him in his death, resurrection, ascension, and session at the right hand of God.

These three bear upon the work of Christ, and his work for us, in that we are with and hidden in Him, "dead with him" "raised with him".

We are united in experience by faith. This bears upon that work made known to us, and our receiving and believing it.

If you are seeking to relate this to the idea of the mode of Baptism, then it is the fact that we are IN Him, just as Noah was IN the Ark, just as Moses and the people were IN the Red Sea (though safe); so we were IN him on the cross, nothing showing. Hence full immersion, in accord with word and theology.

[Ishmael]

Solly: After doing some more studying on just what my own point is about the word baptizo it occurs to me that I communicated this poorly.

What I mean is that I agree that the word means "to immerse" only it seems clear to me that the word does not also always mean "dip" as well-- the word is amodal. In other words: Baptizo is used to "cover with dew" (coming down from above Daniel 4:33 LXX), "wading into liquid (Joshua 3), droping into liquid, sinking permanently below a liquid, or any other way." (http://capo.org/cpc/mode.htm)

[Ishmael]

Today @ 10:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46186#post46186)
Solly:
If Calvinist can think it disproves it, I see no reason why I can't say it does, esp when the information given is more in my favour than his. This is most strange. First I must take the meaning of the word. Now I am told the lexical meaning is not important, but Scripture is. Are we to assume that biblical words carry there own meanings regardless of origin? My point is, that the word determines our theology and practice, not vice versa.


The lexical meaning is important and so is the Scriptural context. As I recall, I showed you from the LXX various passages where the word baptizo was used to indicate immersion without the modern understanding of "dipping" or "full immersion into some kind of pool..." So I pointed out the lexical and the Scriptural IMO.

[joelkaki]

If Calvinist can think it disproves it, I see no reason why I can't say it does, esp when the information given is more in my favour than his. This is most strange. First I must take the meaning of the word. Now I am told the lexical meaning is not important, but Scripture is. Are we to assume that biblical words carry there own meanings regardless of origin? My point is, that the word determines our theology and practice, not vice versa.

I'm saying that neither you nor Calvinist can use it as the final say. The lexicon is not infallible. The Bible is. If (obviously it doesn't explicitly, because that would end the debate) the Bible said that someone was baptized (baptizo) by sprinkling, then we would know that the word does not only mean immersion.


On your question:

We are united to Christ the Elect in the mind of God in the decree of election.

We are united by God in the covenant, under Christ the Federal Head.

We are united to Christ "mystically" by the Spirit, making one Body, united to him in his death, resurrection, ascension, and session at the right hand of God.

This third one is really my point. You say baptism pictures our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ, and thus should be by immersion, for it pictures that well. But how is it that we are thus united? By the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We are united to Christ in his burial and resurrection by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. How does Scripture speak of the baptism of the Holy Spirit? "Pouring" "Shed upon" etc.--not immersion. So pouring symbolizes the baptism of the Holy Spirit (the Holy Spirit baptism actually unites us to Christ), which would mean it also symbolizes our uniting to him in his death, burial, and resurrection.

Joel

[Dave]

question.

what about Luke 11:38?

And when the Pharisee saw [it], he marvelled that he had not first washed(baptizo) before dinner.

I don't think anyone permanetly immersed themselves before dinner. They did, however, wash.

Mark 7:3-4
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash(nipto) [their] hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
And [when they come] from the market, except they wash (baptizo), they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, [as] the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

Peace,
Dave

[Solly]

Today @ 03:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46567#post46567)
Dave:

question.

what about Luke 11:38?

And when the Pharisee saw [it], he marvelled that he had not first washed(baptizo) before dinner.

I don't think anyone permanetly immersed themselves before dinner. They did, however, wash.

Mark 7:3-4
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash(nipto) [their] hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
And [when they come] from the market, except they wash (baptizo), they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, [as] the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

Peace,
Dave

Dave, context context context. They immersed their hands and their pots. The implication is of thorough washing, the secondary meaning of drench being appropriate here.

Nobody is saying that baptizo applies only to the initiation rite of Christians. The source quoted brings forth a reference from 200bc about its use in cooking. that is how we build up the meaning of the word. It's all very well for Joel and Cal to say, oh but we can't use lexicons. But the fact is, the words used are common words, understood by the hearers, they were not theological coinings. That is why Cal then brings up instances from the LXX.

Since the word refers to immersion, dipping, drenching, in water, it will, by transfer of meaning, come to mean washing, or cleansing - as Cal is seeking to do. Equally, since it carries the meaning of submersion, overwhelming, so it is used by Christ to describe that which it to come upon him. Despite Cal's comments, I do not have a "wooden" interpretation of scripture or scripture words.

[Solly]

Today @ 12:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46442#post46442)
joelkaki:
This third one is really my point. You say baptism pictures our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ, and thus should be by immersion, for it pictures that well. But how is it that we are thus united? By the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We are united to Christ in his burial and resurrection by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. How does Scripture speak of the baptism of the Holy Spirit? "Pouring" "Shed upon" etc.--not immersion. So pouring symbolizes the baptism of the Holy Spirit (the Holy Spirit baptism actually unites us to Christ), which would mean it also symbolizes our uniting to him in his death, burial, and resurrection.

Joel

Yes, you are right in a way. However, the implication is still of drenching, which no font sprinkling ever did. One has to take account of nuances of meaning in different contexts. Also, TWO references does not really overthrow the previously established meanings. Or are we to believe that God's wrath that shall be shed/poured forth is only a light sprinkling, Rev 14.10

Pour, Acts 2.33 & 10.45
Strong's 1632
εκχεω, εκχυνω
ekcheō ekchunō
ek-kheh'-o, ek-khoo'-no
From G1537 and χέω cheō (to pour); to pour forth; figuratively to bestow: - gush (pour) out, run greedily (out), shed (abroad, forth), spill.

See; still talking about something that will drench, cover, using the idea of a blessing poured out copiously from heaven, like the rain, not an immersion into soemthing like a pool. But again, "two references do not a summer make" - Harry S Tottle

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 05:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46195#post46195)
Calvinist:

Solly: After doing some more studying on just what my own point is about the word baptizo it occurs to me that I communicated this poorly.

What I mean is that I agree that the word means "to immerse" only it seems clear to me that the word does not also always mean "dip" as well-- the word is amodal. In other words: Baptizo is used to "cover with dew" (coming down from above Daniel 4:33 LXX), "wading into liquid (Joshua 3), droping into liquid, sinking permanently below a liquid, or any other way." (http://capo.org/cpc/mode.htm)

Hence the ground is drenched. Or do you not know about Middle Eastern dew?
I never said Immerse=dip on all occasions; nor have I argued that baptizo is a specific theological word; it is a common word that has been used for the rite of initiation. One has to take account of the action, that is why I also mentioned drench. But then, that is there even in your quote: dropping into liquid, sinking permanently below a liquid.

Joel: If (obviously it doesn't explicitly, because that would end the debate) the Bible said that someone was baptized (baptizo) by sprinkling, then we would know that the word does not only mean immersion.

Joel, you miss the point. If "baptism" was by sprinkling alone, then the word would be different. You are arguing in circles. Would scripture say: You must be immersed by the sprinkling of water? There is a different Greek word for sprinkling, and it would have been used.

Strong's 4472
rhantizo
hran-tid'-zo
From a derivative of rhaino (to sprinkle); to render besprinkled, that is, asperse (ceremonially or figuratively): - sprinkle.

or even:

Strong's 4378
proschusis
pros'-khoo-sis
From a compound of G4314 and cheo (to pour); a shedding forth, that is, affusion: - sprinkling.

[Covenanter]

The mode of baptism by immersion is inferred from the common meaning of the word, & the prepositions used in the accounts of baptism.

An instructive discourse on baptism is found in Hebrews 9, where the word "baptisms" in 9:10 has disappeared from almost every translation to be replaced by "washings."

Hbr 9:10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers baptisms, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Note the way the sprinkled blood, or blood, water & ashes of the sacrifice is contrasted with the sprinkled blood of Christ.

The basis for Christian baptism is seen to be the Old Covenant ceremonial washings, NOT circumcision, which were sprinklings with the applied sacrifice. These were not applied to infants.

Note that the examples of Old Covenant baptisms are dipping & sprinkling with the dipped fluid. e.g.

Num 19:17 And for an unclean [person] they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel:
18 And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip (bapsei) [it] in the water, and sprinkle [it] upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:

Read on in Hebrews.

Covenant baptism is not "Christian circumcision". Note that the link with circumcision in Col. 2 is spiritual:

Col 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
Col 2:12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

It is in him, in Christ, that we are circumcised in heart, not in baby baptism.

Note also:
1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Please don't think I am defending infant baptism. Baptism is for believers who have already experienced the baptism into Christ by the Holy Spirit.

[Solly]

Hello Covenanter!!

Notice in Lev 14 the fact, on the one hand of the leper being sprinkled with blood, and on the other, being washed with water.

One could read into this, on the basis of Calvinist's own interpretive skills, that the latter must mean immersion in water, rather than a sponge wash. But let the text speak for itself...

[Solly]

And to point out that Jewish usage, to whom the idea of baptizoing was not a new thing, and lay behind the usage of John, Jesus, and presumbably the Apostles:

A "Baptistry" from Qumran. And stangely, it looks a lot like OUR baptistry, other than their's is cut into Rock, and ours built into the foundations of the building. Look how deep it is, whereas sprinkling only requires a font and a spigot.

[Covenanter]

Solly

Notice again the dip/sprinkle mode.

[Solly]

From: A Historical Survey of Baptism, by Brian Gordon

The form of baptism was dipping, or an immersion in water. John Baptized in the river Jordan (Mark 1:5); and he baptized in Aenon near to Salim "because there was much water there" (John 3:23). Jesus was baptized in the Jordan (Mark 1:9), and he "went into the water" and he "came up out of the water" (Matthew 3:16). The symbolical passages (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12), which describe baptism as a burial and resurrection make it certain that immersion was the New Testament act of baptism.

This, indeed, is the meaning of the Greek word baptizen. The word is defined by Liddell and Scott, the secular Greek lexicon used in all colleges and universities, "to dip in or under the water." In the lexicon of J. H. Thayer, the standard New Testament lexicon, the word is defined as an "immersion in water." All scholarship confirms this view. Prof. R. C. Jebb, Litt. D., University of Cambridge, says: "I do not know whether there is any authoritative Greek-English lexicon which makes the word to mean 'sprinkle' or to 'pour.' I can only say that such a meaning never belongs to the word in classical Greek"

Dr. Dosker, Professor of Church History, Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Louisville, says:


Every candid historian will admit that the Baptist have, both philologically and historically, the better of the argument, as to the prevailing mode of baptism. The word Baptizo means immersion, both in classical and Biblical Greek, except where it is manifestly used in a tropical sense (Dosker, The Dutch Anabaptist, 176, Philadelphia, 1921).
Nothing is more certain than that the New Testament churches uniformly practiced baptism by immersion, and there is no evidence of anyone but regenerated persons being baptized.

[Solly]

Today @ 12:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46828#post46828)
Covenanter:

Solly

Notice again the dip/sprinkle mode.

Yup. One for the conscience, one for the body. He could have washed his body, but without the blood it would not be legit, even though he was cured. He could have had the blood, but it was not over until he had washed. both are spiritual works in the Christian: the conscience sprinkled by the blood, the person baptised into Christ: both declarative that he has been healed/cleansed/saved. Baptism reflects the later; Communion remembers the former.

----

And there is a thought. What has washing and cleansing to do with circumcision, which Cal sees as the primary meaning of baptizein?

----

From John Piper here (http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper97/5-11-97.htm)

". . .in Him [Christ] you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Col 2

It's clear there's a link here between baptism and circumcision. But it isn't, I think, what many infant baptizers think it is. Notice what sort of circumcision is spoken of in verse 11: it is precisely a circumcision "without hands." That means Paul is talking about a spiritual counterpart of the Old Testament physical ritual. Then baptism is linked in verse 12 to that spiritual counterpart to the Old Testament circumcision. This is extremely important. Try to get it.

What is the New Testament counterpart or parallel to the Old Testament rite of circumcision? Answer: it is not the New Testament rite of baptism; it is the New Testament spiritual event of the circumcision of Christ cutting away "the [old sinful] body of the flesh." then, baptism is brought in as the external expression of that spiritual reality. That is precisely what the link between verses 11 and 12 says. Christ does a circumcision without hands : that is the New Testament, spiritual fulfillment of Old Testament circumcision. Then verse 12 draws the parallel between that spiritual fulfillment and the external rite of baptism.

Notice what verse 11 stresses about the new work of Christ in circumcising: it is a circumcision "without hands." But water baptism is emphatically a ritual done "with hands." If we simply say that this New Testament ordinance of baptism done with hands corresponds to the Old Testament ritual of circumcision done with hands, then we miss the most important truth: something new is happening in the creation of people of God called the church of Christ. They are being created by a "circumcision without hands" by God. They are being raised from the dead by God. And baptism is a sign of that, not a repetition of the Old Testament sign. There is a new sign of the covenant because the covenant people are being constituted in a new way : by spiritual birth, not physical birth.

In other words; circumcision is about something being cut off and dying - that is what it figured, even to the OT saints Jer 4.4 where it is applied to their idolatrous and rebellious behaviour; baptism is about someone being raised up. It is not the going down into the water, it is the coming up out of it; it speaks of the new birth that can only come thru the New covenant work of God in Christ, not a replaying of the Old. It is a new thing, not a revamp

[Gyurkovitz]

Covanenter, contrary to baptist practice (as well as my former view) the bible does not divide things up neatly enough for our greek mindsets. Water baptism and spirit baptism are inextricably linked in most cases, and in the one case where they are not water baptism precedes spirit baptism.

As far as the immersion, effusion thing, consider the old testament types of baptism. The Hebrews coming through the red sea were "saved" through baptism and Noah and his family were "saved" through baptism. One reformed writer quipped in regard to those passages: "those who were baptized were not immersed and those who were immersed were not baptized".

[Solly]

Today @ 01:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46859#post46859)
Gyurkovitz:
As far as the immersion, effusion thing, consider the old testament types of baptism. The Hebrews coming through the red sea were "saved" through baptism and Noah and his family were "saved" through baptism. One reformed writer quipped in regard to those passages: "those who were baptized were not immersed and those who were immersed were not baptized".

Gyurk, pardon my coming in here,

The comment should be, that though immersed (baptism = immersion), they did not get wet.

Look at the pictures. Both were going through that which would prove to be death to others, the World, and the Egyptians: the water in both instances was a means of God's salvation and judgment at the same time. We are saved from the wrath to come, from death, by being in Christ, and going thru safely to the other side. That is what is signified. But it obviously causes no problem, because even the apostles did not come up with some way of baptising without getting people wet, and Paul saw no contradiction between that which was signified and typical, and that which had come.

Calvinist and others must accept that the OT gives these pictures, because they have to get around the fact that circumcision was for male Jews only, yet baptism is for both genders. The OT gives shadows, and those shadows are not full 3D pictures, but partial images.

[Pilgrim]

03-26-2003 @ 11:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45364#post45364)
Calvinist:

Many of my Baptist brethren claim that the greek word baptizo always means to immerse. And yet, the LXX uses the word to indicate "dipping" in a few place:.

1. 2 Kings 5 ebaptisato is used to indicate a "dipping" into the river.
2. Leviticus 4:17
He shall dip his finger into the blood and sprinkle it before the LORD seven times in front of the curtain.
The word use here to clearly indicate "dip" and not immerse is again the word bajei.
3. Leviticus 4:6 (the same)
4. 1 Sam 14:27
But Jonathan had not heard that his father had bound the people with the oath, so he reached out the end of the staff that was in his hand and dipped it into the honeycomb. He raised his hand to his mouth, and his eyes brightened.
Word use here to "dip" a rod into honeycomb: ebaqen

Any thoughts?

Proper place or method of baptism...mmm...well, if you can't get down to a beautiful sunny beach...

The method is not important, to think other wise is to return to the harsh legalism that Christ freed us from.

[Solly]

Today @ 03:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46961#post46961)
Pilgrim:



Proper place or method of baptism...mmm...well, if you can't get down to a beautiful sunny beach...

The method is not important, to think other wise is to return to the harsh legalism that Christ freed us from.

Pilgrim. There are Presbyterian brethren who think method is very important. That is why they persecuted the early Baptists over the issue. That is why they go for regulative principle, exclusive psalmody, catechising and presbyteries. Calvinist thinks its important, because he started the thread, not me.

[Pilgrim]

Well, fortunately those early Presbyterians are no longer around. And yes we do practice a certain mode. But the Presbyterian Church also recognizes that other modes are perfectlly aceptable as we affirm that their is only one baptism. Which means that someone coming to us from a Baptist tradition does not have to be baptized again.

And sorry, I did not mean to be so callous in that last post. Of course it is important to talk about such things because they sharpen our theology.

However, I refuse to believe that such questions have an import on salvation. As if Christ will turn us away at the gates because we didn't get dunked or conversly because we went down to the river instead of up to the chancel.

[Solly]

Today @ 04:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46986#post46986)
Pilgrim:

Well, fortunately those early Presbyterians are no longer around. And yes we do practice a certain mode. But the Presbyterian Church also recognizes that other modes are perfectlly aceptable as we affirm that their is only one baptism. Which means that someone coming to us from a Baptist tradition does not have to be baptized again.

And sorry, I did not mean to be so callous in that last post. Of course it is important to talk about such things because they sharpen our theology.

However, I refuse to believe that such questions have an import on salvation. As if Christ will turn us away at the gates because we didn't get dunked or conversly because we went down to the river instead of up to the chancel.

And to that extent I agree with you. We are each responsible to the light we have. We are each responsible to achive as much light as we can. But we are all suffering the noetic affects of sin. It will never be a perfect world, nor a perfect Church. On that basis we can agree, fellowship, and worship and serve God. It was Roger Williams, the American Baptist, who first made THAT Declaration of Independance.

[Bob Jenkins]

Pilgrim has it when he said "The method is not important, to think other wise is to return to the harsh legalism that Christ freed us from.

Calvanist has it when he mentioned "Regeneration"

Solly had it and lost it when he qualified his agreement with Calvanist. by stating "The mode of Baptism neither harms nor helps the sign when it is properly understood and administered." This unfortunetly places the reason and benefit apart from the recipient..

I replied in another thread that Baptism is the act, water is the symbol and the message to be taken from that act and symbol is the rebirth of someone in Christ.

To quibble about the words and to focus on the act or symbol destroys the spiritual message.

[Long Hair]

We are baptized with the Holy Spirit when we are saved. Water was for the Jews. It was a sign during the transitionary period. We live by faith. We are baptized ONCE by the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 4:5. We are in the New Covenant now! John came baptizing with water, but Jesus was mightier who baptized with the Holy Spirit. There is NO command to be baptized with WATER. It is not a command or ordinance that we are to keep. If you say that we NEED to be water baptized to be saved, that is a works. We can not work for our salvation. It is the gift of God.

[George Blaisdell]

Solly: writes:

". . .in Him [Christ] you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Col 2

>>> It's clear there's a link here between baptism and circumcision. But it isn't, I think, what many infant baptizers think it is. Notice what sort of circumcision is spoken of in verse 11: it is precisely a circumcision "without hands." That means Paul is talking about a spiritual counterpart of the Old Testament physical ritual.<<<

Solly, that understanding is flatly contradicted by the scripture you just quoted, is it not? Does the quote not begin with ". . .in Him [Christ]...", which is flat out NOT ANY part of some "Old Testament physical ritual." I mean, do you not agree that the baptism of Christ, which He affirms is OUR baptism, is the *fulfillment* of the OT ritual, which was itself but a figure, a foreshadowing, of which Christ's baptism is the fulfillment?

And that the baptism of Christ is followed by the descent and abiding of the Holy Spirit, upon emergence from the waters? Is not this what the Bible says?

> Then baptism is linked in verse 12 to that spiritual counterpart to the Old Testament circumcision. This is extremely important. Try to get it.

Iindeed, it is this baptism that replaces the Circumcision of hands cutting flesh, because the baptism of Christ does not have hands cutting flesh, yet effects the now fulfilled purpose of the circumcision of the Jews upon the flesh, which is itself but foreshadowing what we receive with Christ's baptism in the Jordan, which had to be crossed to get to the promised land...

When the Church baptizes someone, they are baptizing them into Christ's baptism in the Jordan - That is the meaning of 12 "Ye are buried with Him in baptism, wherein ye also are risen with Him through the faith wrought by the operation of God,"...

> What is the New Testament counterpart or parallel to the Old Testament rite of circumcision? Answer: it is not the New Testament rite of baptism; it is the New Testament spiritual event of the circumcision of Christ cutting away "the [old sinful] body of the flesh." Then, baptism is brought in as the external expression of that spiritual reality.

Then??? As in AFTER? Scripture contrdicts you, Solly - Does it not say: "Ye are buried with Him in baptism, wherein..."?? The key ontradicting words are "in" and "wherein" - And not at all what you assert - which is: "Previous to..."

> That is precisely what the link between verses 11 and 12 says. Christ does a circumcision without hands:

Yes, without hands cutting foreskin...

> that is the New Testament, spiritual fulfillment of Old Testament circumcision.

Christ's baptism in the Jordan is... Which is our baptism...

> Then verse 12 draws the parallel between that spiritual fulfillment and the external rite of baptism.

No, it does not. It clearly affirms that it is WITHIN baptism that the 'spiritual fulillment' occurs, through faith wrought by God:

12 "Ye are buried with Him in baptism, wherein ye also are risen with Him through the faith wrought by the operation of God,"

> But water baptism is emphatically a ritual done "with hands."

Solly, there is NO FLESH CUT by hands in Christ's baptism, which is our baptism. You DO agree that we are baptized into Christ's baptism, yes? The circucision wrought upon the flesh is truely without hands, and by the Spirit, within that holy Mystery...

geo

[Waterrock]

Dear Solly & friends,

Allow me to chime in with a couple of observations:

First, presenting a painting (without citing provenance!) and saying, "There, sprinkling is okay," is not going to resolve anything, any more than presenting a picture of the Pope will prove that the papacy is a legitimate institution.

Second, while, as someone observed, the early church fathers are so weird and diverse that one is almost certain to find patristic support for the wildest of views if one looks hard enough, istm that the second-century statements about baptism should count for something, particularly statements by sources such as "Barnabas," "The Shepherd of Hermas," Justin Martyr, and the Didache.

This last-mentioned source is particularly interesting because it is early and because it gives specific instructions about how to baptize. It says: "Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [i.e., flowing] water. But if you do not have flowing water, baptize in other water, and if you do are not able to baptize in cold water, do so in warm water. But if you do not have either kind, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit."

Now by bringing this up I do not mean to toss "Sola Scriptura" out the window. I mean to show that, in the generation immediately after the apostle John had died, to baptism someone was to immerse someone. That was the way it was done. But at the same time, baptism as a ceremony ~ an entrance-rite into the church (and not a piece of the church, but the Church Universal) ~ was understood to be adaptable to circumstances as far as the question of how the water was administered was concerned.

Immersion, being (crystal-clearly) the original form of baptism (which is a bit like saying that "arrow-shaped" is the original shape of an arrow), was preferred. But if circumstances mitigated that immersion was impossible, then triple-effusion was allowed, so as to drench the individual, as a last resort.

Istm that in the course of time, what was once a last resort became, for various reasons (bad theology being not the least of them), the standard form of baptism. But if there are any grounds to posit a /Biblical/ case for baptism as anything other than immersion, it would be on grounds of expediency, and it would not extend beyond the sort of thing described in the "Didache," and it would be for exceptional circumstances only (for instance, for the infirm or the imprisoned).

We may also look at the era immediately /preceding/ the apostolic era, and observe that the Essenic community at Qumran (not far at all from the wilderness of Judea) regularly baptized themselves. I would not call their structures "baptisteries," but "miqveh/miquot," pools for ceremonial purification. But regardless of what one calls them, the *act* which was performed in them was one of complete washing. (I don't have videotape of Essenes immersing themselves, but it seems extreeemely likely that what they did was much closer to immersion than it was to sprinkling or pouring.) Qumran was certainly not a typical place. But it shows that people in the first century would recognize what John the Baptist meant when he came baptizing in the Jordan River, and I think it also shows what he was doing (i.e., he was immersing repentant people, for the forgiveness of sins, a la Mark 1).

So: we have a rite of cleansing a lot like immersion being done in Judea /before/ the apostles (and, in the interest of brevity, I haven't even looked at the washings of the priests in Jerusalem) at Qumran. And we have baptism being clearly defined as immersion /after/ the apostles in the Didache, with effusion being allowed only as a last resort. So when did the idea of sprinkling as the standard form of baptism enter the picture?

Yours in Christ,
Waterrock

[Preacherman]

After reading through the preceding 'comments", i am very tempted to ask if you guys really want to know the truth, or just to defend your own position...

the trouble seems to be in whether you will believe, or not...


there are two words...bapto
and baptizo...pardon the spelling....one is to immerse, the other is to "dip'..


it reminds me of a greek pickle recipe...

the cucumbers were to be dipped in hot water...bapto...

and then to be immersed...baptizo...in vinegar...

like i always say...baptism is a matter of the heart...not the method.

you can immerse a sinner, and all you get is a wet sinner, it is repentance, and a heart 'circumsised' to God that makes baptism of any use at all...so let's put away the straw men, and stick to the real issues...
it is no wonder the world will not take us seriously...