-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Would you receive sprinkling?
- Thread starter rlvaughn
- Start date
- Status
You are answering a question with a question.
Obviously it is a legitimate comparison. There are two recognized ordinances within the Baptist movement, (1) baptism and (2) communion (aka Lord's Supper).
Historically, some of the earliest Baptists were baptized by pouring, but have been quite consistent in believer's baptism by immersion for the last 400 years.
Now the OP references a North Texas church that accepts the baptism of believers using a different mode (although not the meaning) ,and that has raised some opposition in this thread.
Until the Temperance Movement (later taking a prohibitionist stance) moved through the United States, Baptists - like all Christian denominations - used wine in communion.
But Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch successfully pasteurized Concord grape juice to produce an “unfermented sacramental wine” for fellow church parishioners in Vineland, New Jersey in 1869, and it because a way to avoid accusations of hypocrisy when many Baptist churches decided to engage in the Temperance Movement by changing the mode of their celebration of the Lord's Supper without changing the meaning. In fact, some Baptists went so far as to reinterpret the Bible to make it conform to their prohibitionist beliefs.
So why isn't it a valid comparison? The issue is one of changing the mode of baptism without undermining believer's baptism.
First, you cannot change the mode without undermining the nature of Baptism. Sprinkling and pouring water fail to paint a picture of the burial. Further, they have a completely different intent.
Second, just because they are both ordinances of the church does not make them a legitimate comparison.
Third, using grape juice or wine is a distinction without a difference.
Not sure that I follow you on that first part. Are you saying the apostles practiced affusion, which was changed by the Ante-Nicene Fathers to immersion, which was later changed back to the scriptural mode of affusion by the Roman Catholic Church?
Swift in the first paragraph cites "In the earliest Latin versions of the New Testament...the Greek verb baptizo is uniformly given in the Latin form baptizo, and is never translated by immergo or any like word" as proof "that there was something in the rite of baptism to which the latter [immersion] did not correspond." While that could be true, all it is proof of is that the early Latin translations transliterated a Greek word rather than translating it (just like we have done in English). He also seems to deny ritual immersion is any part of Jewish tradition and replaces it with sprinkling only.
Right. Like when I disagreed with you and you failed to fully understand a word I used in my disagreement and you expressed that failure to understand so I posted the dictionary meaning as I was using the word and your "truthful" response was
Sorry Craig by the sea, you are no longer by the sea. You are out to sea. Way over your head. When you are bested in a debate you respond in childish anger and call your opponent names and besmirch his Christian character. You resort to ad hominem belittling those who disagree with you.
Not to mention misstating the position of others, thus erecting a straw man argument, then attacking the straw man and claiming victory. Here is an example:
And neither do any of the other posters participating in this thread. We don't know the meaning of βαπτίζω and the proper mode of baptism because we are baptists. We are baptists because we know the proper meaning of βαπτίζω and understand the proper mode of baptism!
Craig, take some heart felt advice from a very old man. Take a deep breath and walk away for a while. You have lost your perspective. You are responding in anger and posting some very ugly things about fellow posters. Take some time off and regain your perspective.
Have a nice day.
I take it that you believe that Romans 6:1-4 is actually talking about the ritual of immersion (aka "baptism"), not about being immersed in sin and then into Christ's death where we can be raised into a life that overcomes sin and death:
Romans 6:1-7
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been immersed into Christ Jesus have been immersed into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through immersion into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been immersed into Christ Jesus have been immersed into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through immersion into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.
If so, then your view of baptism draws a major distinction between all of the washings of the Old Testament and the ritual immersion of John, instead of a continuation and expansion of the meaning.
I would disagree about that. Baptism is more than simply acting out a picture of death, burial and resurrection... that is actually incidental to the nature and meaning of baptism. Baptism is about being made new, clean, and being born from above.
The two ordinances are being symbols of being united with Christ and engaging in the fellowship of new life. That's not "completely different."
I don't disagree with this. Baptism is not just acting out anything but saying I identify with Christ, just as His old man was buried so is my old man. Just as He was resurrected new so are we. It is a confession of our identity with Christ and our commitment to walk new.
The intent of sprinkling and the intent of immersion are completely different.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
No, I am simply saying that the Roman Catholic Church decided to leave behind the practice of the large majority of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers of baptism by immersion in favor of the more Scriptural practice of baptism by affusion. As for the apostles, the Scriptures do not tell us the mode of baptism that they used. Moreover, I do not mean to say, imply, or suggest that the Scriptures teach that affusion is the only proper mode of baptism, for they clearly do not.
I agree; and I have some other issues with Swift’s arguments, but that does not mean that he is incorrect regarding the scriptural mode of baptism.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Who told you that, and why did you believe them?
It is interesting, when people defend the use of grape juice as opposed to wine, one of the first things mentioned will be how it is less of a burden for those suffering with alcoholism.
Maybe this post belongs in the other thread, about medical conditions.
Maybe this post belongs in the other thread, about medical conditions.
The ordinance itself though has NOTHING to do with us become saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, as Baptists would indeed holds that it is a symbol of what has already happened to us by being saved now, aka, believers baptism!
And that chapter in Romans could speak to either the rite of water baptism, or to us being immersed and baptized into Jesus via the Holy spirit at our conversion!
And that chapter in Romans could speak to either the rite of water baptism, or to us being immersed and baptized into Jesus via the Holy spirit at our conversion!
J
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’ (Lev 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.
Finally, those who are unfamiliar with Greek may not realize that, Bible versions notwithstanding, people in the NT are baptized ‘in’ water (Gk. En hudati) and ‘in’ the Holy Spirit (Gk. En hagio pneumati). It is amusing that our Bible translators admit that in Matthew 3:6, people were baptized ‘in’ the Jordan (Gk. En to Iordane) but not that they were baptized ‘in’ water in v11. The Greek construction is identical. Now someone will say that En can sometimes mean ‘with.’ So it can, but according to Young’s Analytical Concordance, it is translated ‘in’ 1863 times and ‘with’ 139 times in the KJV. Its usual and natural meaning is therefore ‘in’ and so it should be translated unless there is a particularly good reason. Moreover in v16, our Lord came up (Gk. Anabaino, to 'emerge,’ ‘arise’ or ‘ascend’) from the water (Gk. Apo to hudati) and in Acts 8:39, Philip and the eunuch came up ‘out of the water’ (Gk. Ek to hudati), suggesting, at the very least, they had been in the water.
It should also be added that no one in Scripture is ever sprinkled ‘in water,’ en hudati. In the Septuagint version of Ezek 36:25, the Greek reads ‘Rano eph’umas katharon hudor,’ literally, ‘I will sprinkle clean water upon you’ (cf. also Exodus 29:21; Leviticus 6:27; 16:14 ). Never in Greek literature, to the best of my knowledge, is water ever baptized ‘upon’ anyone. Water is sprinkled upon one; one is baptized in water.
Tertullian uses the Latin word Tingo which means to 'dip' or 'soak.' He does this many times, but one example will suffice, I hope. Quoting Romans 6:3, he writes, An ignoratis quod quicunque in Christum Jesum tincti sumus, in mortem eius tincti sumus.' [On the Resurrection of the Body, ch. 47]
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 Leviticus 15 will reveal numerous requirements to wash ones clothes and bathe in water. If one looks at the NKJV centre column reference for Hebrews 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 Hebrews 9:10, the Apostle is referring to washing by immersion (Gk. Baptizo); in Hebrews 9:13, 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’ (Lev 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.
Finally, those who are unfamiliar with Greek may not realize that, Bible versions notwithstanding, people in the NT are baptized ‘in’ water (Gk. En hudati) and ‘in’ the Holy Spirit (Gk. En hagio pneumati). It is amusing that our Bible translators admit that in Matthew 3:6, people were baptized ‘in’ the Jordan (Gk. En to Iordane) but not that they were baptized ‘in’ water in v11. The Greek construction is identical. Now someone will say that En can sometimes mean ‘with.’ So it can, but according to Young’s Analytical Concordance, it is translated ‘in’ 1863 times and ‘with’ 139 times in the KJV. Its usual and natural meaning is therefore ‘in’ and so it should be translated unless there is a particularly good reason. Moreover in v16, our Lord came up (Gk. Anabaino, to 'emerge,’ ‘arise’ or ‘ascend’) from the water (Gk. Apo to hudati) and in Acts 8:39, Philip and the eunuch came up ‘out of the water’ (Gk. Ek to hudati), suggesting, at the very least, they had been in the water.
It should also be added that no one in Scripture is ever sprinkled ‘in water,’ en hudati. In the Septuagint version of Ezek 36:25, the Greek reads ‘Rano eph’umas katharon hudor,’ literally, ‘I will sprinkle clean water upon you’ (cf. also Exodus 29:21; Leviticus 6:27; 16:14 ). Never in Greek literature, to the best of my knowledge, is water ever baptized ‘upon’ anyone. Water is sprinkled upon one; one is baptized in water.
Last edited:
Yes, I agree.
Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference between "the intent" of sprinkling versus immersion? As described in the OP, we are talking about believer's baptism in both instances, so I don't know what you mean when you are calling out a difference in intent.
When do you think it did that?
Sprinkling is used with the intent to administer grace that one may be saved. Immersion is used as a symbolic confession of our identity with Christ. I am actually kind of puzzled at this question you asked. I hope this helps.
I take showers, does that mean I have not been bathed?
If I get in the shower or jump in a pool with my cloths on, do they not get wet?
When I visit the grave of a person not yet covered (boxed or un-boxed) , and they begin to put the dirt in, is it all put in at the same exact moment, or "sprinkled" in with each bucket and shovel full?
What if a person being "immersed" isn't completely covered but some part remained out of the pool water, did that defile the baptism? Silly, I know, but there are churches who believe it to be so.
Is it that inconsistent to the intent of Scriptures, which place nothing of grace or anointing upon one baptized that it remain a public symbol, for one to be baptized with a sprinkling can or an ocean?
The church (Baptist included) need to be far more concerned with the changed life lived than the symbol of baptism. For what good is baptism of any sort if there is not that changed life lived!
It is also remarkable that preachers and teachers will also quote and cite authorities that were not immersed but sprinkled and yet would deny that person membership over a "symbol."
Sometimes I think the vociferous cymbal becomes the focus rather than the symbol.
If I get in the shower or jump in a pool with my cloths on, do they not get wet?
When I visit the grave of a person not yet covered (boxed or un-boxed) , and they begin to put the dirt in, is it all put in at the same exact moment, or "sprinkled" in with each bucket and shovel full?
What if a person being "immersed" isn't completely covered but some part remained out of the pool water, did that defile the baptism? Silly, I know, but there are churches who believe it to be so.
Is it that inconsistent to the intent of Scriptures, which place nothing of grace or anointing upon one baptized that it remain a public symbol, for one to be baptized with a sprinkling can or an ocean?
The church (Baptist included) need to be far more concerned with the changed life lived than the symbol of baptism. For what good is baptism of any sort if there is not that changed life lived!
It is also remarkable that preachers and teachers will also quote and cite authorities that were not immersed but sprinkled and yet would deny that person membership over a "symbol."
Sometimes I think the vociferous cymbal becomes the focus rather than the symbol.
Nothing about this post is true or helpful. The administering of sprinkling is done with the intent to administer the grace of God in salvation. Such is unscriptural and in fact heretical.
Being baptized by immersion creates the symbolic picture of the death, burial, and resurrections of Jesus. It is our opportunity to publically say that we identify with Jesus in this and we are children of God.
The mode and intent of each are far different. As baptists this is a key issue. If you do not support Baptism by immersion you are in fact not Baptist.
I did some research on my old denomination, didn't see anything about baptizing being used to administer grace.
http://mennoniteusa.org/confession-of-faith/baptism/
There is a scriptural baptism which goes all the way back to John--The Baptizer, who reportedly was dunking, immersing, and or plunging folks in the River Jordan. (no mention of sprinkling) He must have been doing it right--Jesus was thus baptized. The key to understanding this issue is: "there was a man sent from God..." The authority to perform baptism has been handed down since day one. No one has been given authority to change the candidate, mode or efficacy.
Authority to baptize has been a major bone of contention since before the Dark Ages, when millions died refusing to baptize their infants. Then there are the "Re-baptizers" who actually considered themselves baptizing for the first time. They rejected Rome categorically as having no scriptural authority to do anything. A curious corollary: if the church at Rome had no authority, would her daughters also be without authority? This is an interesting dilemma for large groups in Christendom. By whose authority do you do these things? The RCC claims over a billion adherents.
We are in the middle of an ecumenical age--just before the end of time. As long as we are a "good" whatever, everything will be o.k. Are we sure? Who has the authority to change the Word of God?
The KJV translators did not help. When they came to the Gk: baptizo--immerse, dip, plunge, they transliterated the word to baptize which sort of covers up the practice of sprinkling which the Church of England practices--a practice which they got from Rome.
Now we have the majority of Christendom sprinkling infants as a scripturally valid baptism.
Those who would oppose such heresy seem to be few and far between.
Will The Lord find The Faith when He returns?
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Authority to baptize has been a major bone of contention since before the Dark Ages, when millions died refusing to baptize their infants. Then there are the "Re-baptizers" who actually considered themselves baptizing for the first time. They rejected Rome categorically as having no scriptural authority to do anything. A curious corollary: if the church at Rome had no authority, would her daughters also be without authority? This is an interesting dilemma for large groups in Christendom. By whose authority do you do these things? The RCC claims over a billion adherents.
We are in the middle of an ecumenical age--just before the end of time. As long as we are a "good" whatever, everything will be o.k. Are we sure? Who has the authority to change the Word of God?
The KJV translators did not help. When they came to the Gk: baptizo--immerse, dip, plunge, they transliterated the word to baptize which sort of covers up the practice of sprinkling which the Church of England practices--a practice which they got from Rome.
Now we have the majority of Christendom sprinkling infants as a scripturally valid baptism.
Those who would oppose such heresy seem to be few and far between.
Will The Lord find The Faith when He returns?
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
So how I bathe is not a truthful statement?
I think your statement about my statement is both untruthful and unhelpful.
That is what you have been taught, however BY EXPERIENCE I have met a great number of particularly the Presbyterian folks who do not consider "sprinkling done with the intent to administer the grace of God in salvation." They take the child sprinkling as the expression much like the child dedication done in Baptist churches, and they take salvation must occur before one is "baptized" into the fellowship.
What you seem to have done is paint with a very wide and sloppy brush all sprinkling in comparison to all immersions.
There is no argument that baptism by immersion presents such a picture IF the public understand that presentation.
So can sprinkling be such a public statement of identification.
There is nothing about being dunked that is any more right in itself as being Scriptural than being drenched by a water hose.
It is the message of the identification that is important not the colors used in the picture painted.
One can be just as identified with Christ and considered "baptized" by the public if the public recognizes that the baptism performed indicates a changed life.
However, just as confused is the public that attends a Baptist baptism that does not explain that the symbolism expresses a reality that has already taken place.
See, here is the issue. In your view, one MUST be immersed or it isn't true baptism, NO MATTER the public perception of death burial practices. Your view must disregard the public and hold to tradition.
But, the fact is the picture of the death, burial and resurrection can also take place using a cave, a river, sand, a wooden box or any other method indicating covered over - including sprinkling.
For example: Our Lord was baptized into a tomb and arose from that place. A cave could be used to symbolize the scene just as well as water, and it be called baptism - (immersed - in this way by a cave rather than water).
So, it matters very little as to the method, what matters (or should matter) is the obedience and the life lived. And the public understanding of what is taking place.
THAT is Baptist thinking at the core of the issue - that baptism is a symbol, that it carries no grace or no anointing that it is a point of public display of a the start of a new life. It is THAT thinking that separates the baptist view of baptism from all others who would attach some grace or anointing to it, NOT immersion.
Therefore, there are those Baptists who do consider that as baptism is a symbolic representation that the symbol used can be adjusted according to public thinking of death and burial and the baptism be just as valid in the representation.
Frankly, it is most wearisome for Baptists to rely upon their baptism and church membership as an indication of salvation rather than a changed life.
- Status