Featured Why we dont Baptize

I have read somewhere that Luther too believed that immersion was the original form of baptism.

 

Melanchthon is the one who created much of the Lutheran traditions. He was closer to Rome than Luther.

 

Did both of them go against that due to their theology then? Can;t help by think what would have happened if 1611 Kjv would have used Immersion term!

 

Apparently that problem presented itself very early and the Didache, probably written in the First Century, addresses it.

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

 

Interesting thread. The Great Schism, as you know, between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches was in 1054 and there is little difference between the two branches in general. The Protestant Reformation of 500 years ago in England and Germany left those churches only one step from Rome as the Anglicans say. Then there was a second wave of breakaways and then Baptists are often called third wave, which classifies baptism as an ordinance. Quakers and Salvationists wrongly do not baptize.

 

I was baptised/Christened in the Church of England as a baby. When I realised that being a Christian was not a matter of being Christened & confirmed & living in a Christian country but a new life of faith in Christ I was baptised by immersion in an Independent Evangelical Church in my first hear at University. (1957) My mother insisted "we made you a Christian..."

We need to separate infant baptism from baptism of believers in the discussion. This was a very serious matter once Christianity became established. Gospel Christians (aka Anabaptists) did not recognise infant baptism, so (re)baptised believers. That became a capital offence that continued for 1,000 years, for over 100 years after the Reformation as reformed churches continued infant baptism & persecution of baptists.

Gospel Christians baptising converts meant rejected the established church order. In England, we had to wait till 1689 to be Baptists & (re)baptise converts without sanctions.

The Biblical case for baptism by sprinkling/pouring is well made in the article cited. The case for immersion to some extent is inferred from baptism examples rather than a direct instruction. See Jerome's comment -

John certainly needed water for baptism & thousands of folk came for baptism. What Calvin & the Reformers missed was the FIRST WORD of John's message - REPENT and be baptised. Baptism is ONLY for repentant sinners.

What many Baptists miss is John's message concerning Christ -

Mat 3:11 “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.12 “His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”​

Both baptism of babies & baptism of adults without a living faith in Christ is worthless - ultimately a baptism of fire.

Is water baptism by immersion NECESSARY for salvation?
Certainly NOT. Repentance & faith in Christ precede baptism, which is why we speak of "believers baptism."

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
​

John's subjects "were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins." (Mat. 3:6) We can infer immersion but must not miss confession of sins. I'm not advocating public confession of sins in detail, but acknowledgement of being a sinner.

I did have a long correspondence with a Reformed Presbyterian who used the arguments as in the article. I can accept that sprinkling/pouring are valid modes for the baptism only of believers. When a repentant sinner gives his testimony of his saving faith, the mode of baptism makes no difference to his faith relationship with his Saviour, or with the Church, or with his Spirit-filled Christian life.

A particularly convincing Scripture is Hebrews 9 -

Heb 9:8 ... the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing.
9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience—
10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings (βαπτισμοῖς BAPTISMS) , and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come,12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
12 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for 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, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
​

That example of a sprinkling baptism is from Numbers 19 - the ritual for cleansing from contact with the dead. See also Psalm 51 - ".... purge me with hyssop... "
Hebrews then gives further examples of the various baptisms all of which are sprinklings.

Heb 9:18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.”
21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
​

IMO Baptist have over-emphasised immersion above repentance & faith. Sprinkling baptism of repentant sinners is Scripturally valid and should be accepted for church membership without further immersion.

 

Back to the OP -
the problem with the Reformed is the "baptism" of infants, NOT the mode of baptism.

IMO Baptist have over-emphasised immersion above repentance & faith. Sprinkling baptism of repentant sinners is Scripturally valid and should be accepted for church membership without further immersion.

 

IF there is shown a credible profession of faith!

 

Reformed to me have a tricky problem with their view on infant baptism, as does not bring infant into salvation as in regeneration as Catholics nd Lutheryns view it, so really what benefit? As we Baptist water baptize believers, and still raise our children up in church, same way Reformed, so what is difference?

 

I think that a lot of Baptist churches bring babies down front even if they don't sprinkle them. It makes everybody happy to have the pastor meet the new baby even if he is not baptizing the baby.

 

Presbyterians view infant baptism as equivalent to infant circumcision ... it marks the child as part of the christian community in anticipation of a monergistic work of salvation by God. They would argue that you do not raise your children as sinners and wait for them to repent to welcome them into the assembly of believers, baptism into the covenant family is no different.

I do not agree, but at least I was finally able to understand why they believe what they believe.

 

Baptists just call it a dedication service without the symbolic "circumcision" of infant baptism.
I understand that there are different types of baptism. John's baptism was meaningless to the Christian, which is why when we meet John's disciples in Acts, they still aren't saved.
Thus the infant baptism of the Presbyterian Church is not unto salvation, but is into community. It is no different than a Baptist baby dedication.

 

Politicians just call it shaking hands and kissing babies....

 

Hi @Covenanter,
Like you I was 'Christened' as a baby into the Church of England and then baptized by immersion when I was saved as an adult and became convinced that it was the right thing to do. And my mother, like yours, was quite upset at this, feeling that she had done everything necessary to make me a Christian.
Although I agree with you that the mode of baptism is not of first importance, and although my church practices open communion, I don't agree with your analysis of Hebrews 9.

Some OT purifications were sprinklings, some involved pouring and others were washings. If we look at the consecration of Aaron and his sons in Leviticus 8, we can find all three methods being used. The briefest flick though Lev 15 will reveal numerous requirements to wash ones clothes and bathe in water. If one looks at the NKJV centre column reference for Heb 9:10, one finds Numbers 19:7: ‘Then the priest shall wash his clothes, he shall bathe in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp.’ A sprinkling? I don’t think so! In Heb 9:10, the Apostle is referring to washing by immersion (Gk. Baptizo); in verse 13, he is referring to sprinklings (Gk. Rantizo). How do we know? Because he tells us. That is why he uses two different words and that is what his language signifies.

Another helpful text is Numbers 19:17f: And for an unclean person they shall take some of the ashes of the heifer burnt for purification from sin, and running water shall be put on them (i.e. ‘poured’) in a vessel. A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, sprinkle it on the tent, on all the vessels, on the persons who were there……’ Here we have pouring, dipping and sprinkling all in the same operation. The Jews distinguished carefully between them, and so should we.

Perhaps it will be helpful to glance at Heb 10:22 at this point: ‘….Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled ( Gk. Rantizo) from an evil conscience and our bodies washed (Gk. Louo) with pure water.’ It may be helpful to explain some of the relevant Greek words here. Nipto is the Greek verb used for a ceremonial washing of a part of the body. According to Alfred Edersheim (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Book III, Chapt. XXXI), this washing could be by pouring or, when holy or sacrificial food was to be eaten, by immersion of the hands up to the wrists, in which case it was called by the Jews a ‘baptism’ of the hands. Louo signifies a bathing of the whole person (cf. John 13:10). This could signify total immersion, but does not necessarily do so. Rantizo is the word that specifically means to ‘sprinkle,’ and baptizo, as we have seen, is the word that means to ‘dip’ or ‘immerse completely.’ In this connection, it is helpful to look at John 2:6. At the marriage at Cana, according to Edersheim, there would have been several hundred gallons of water available for ritual purification, vastly more than would have been required for sprinkling or pouring.

This helps us when we come to Mark 7:2-4. ‘Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed (Gk. Anniptos) hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash (Gk. Nipto) their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash (Gk. Baptizo). And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing (Gk. Baptismos) of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.’

Now we’re looking here at two different scenarios. Whatever the Pharisees were doing they always gave their hands a ceremonial wash before eating. However when they had been in the market-place and had potentially come into contact with all sorts of sinners and Gentiles, a mere hand-wash was quite insufficient; they would bathe their whole selves, and if any furniture were to become unclean for any reason they would place it in water in order to cleanse it. Surely not the dining couches? Yes, even them. They did it in the desert, why not in Israel? ‘Anything on which any of them [unclean reptiles] falls when it is dead shall be unclean, whether it is any item of wood or clothing or skin or sack, whatever item it is, in which any work is done, it must be put in water’ (Leviticus 11:32). According to Moses Maimonides, the 12th Century Jewish authority, if an item was too big to immerse completely, half of it was dunked in the water, then it was taken out, turned around, and the other half immersed. However, we need not imagine a large piece of furniture, anymore than we suppose that the paralytic in Mark 2:12 carried away a four-poster bed! Jews ate as they reclined and the ‘couches’ were probably nothing more than rolls of matting laid out.

This, and some of my earlier posts is taken from my blog post: What About Baptism? If fact, when I was involved with the Puritan Board many years ago, I had long debates with Presbyterians on this subject, and made a number of blog posts which can be found here: Baptism – Martin Marprelate

 

Good questions. I have to say that the remnants of ceremonial baths are scattered all over Israel. Along with cisterns, aqueducts, and all manner of inventions for collecting and storing the water they do receive.

 

We all love to welcome new babies especially into the church family. But our children are not truly God's children until they are born again by the Holy Spirit.

 

Which is the same for infant baptism in the Presbyterian Church. Yet, Baptists call it a "Baby Dedication" not a "Parent Dedication." In many Baptist churches the congregation will confirm that they will assist in raising the child to walk in step with God's counsel.

 

John's baptism prepared his disciples for the Messiah - and he told them to follow Jesus. John 1:7, 15, 29-37. There is no suggestion that these were rebaptised by Jesus' disciples.

The problem with John's disciples in Acts 19 is that they knew nothing of the Holy Spirit, though John did teach that Messiah would baptise with the Holy Spirit. Presumably baptism had become a ritual, rather than a spiritual experience. Compare them with Apollos -

Mat. 3:11 “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Act 18:24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus.
Act 18:25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John.

Act 19:2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
​

 

In Acts 2 we see that thousands are water baptized at Pentacost. We are left to speculate how many had previously been baptized by John.

Suffice it to say, John's baptism was not the baptism of Jesus disciples/Apostles.