Why Immersion…What’s the Point

Other than the unmistakable fact that the English word ‘baptize’ comes from the Greek word ‘baptizo’ – which means to immerse – and is the only word ever used in connection with that act of obedience which follows faith in Christ, is there anything else that is significant about the mode of immersion with respect to being baptized?

Listen to what some dead guys have to say about it:

William Tyndale

“The washing [of baptism] preacheth unto us that we are cleansed with Christ’s bloodshedding, which was an offering and a satisfaction for the sin of all that repent and believe, consenting and submitting themselves unto the will of God. The plunging into the water signifieth that we die, and are buried with Christ, as concerning the old life of sin which is Adam. And the pulling out again, signifieth that we rise again with Christ in a new life full of the Holy Ghost, which shall teach us and guide us and work the will of God in us, as thou seest Rom.VI.” ( Obedience of a Christian Man, 1571 edition, p. 143.)

Martin Luther

“If you consider what baptism signifies, you will see that the same thing [immersion] is required. For this signifies, that the old man, and our sinful nature, which consists of flesh and blood, is all submerged by divine grace, as we shall more fully show. The mode of baptizing ought, therefore, to correspond to the signification of baptism, so as to set forth a sure and full sign of it.” ( De Sacram. Bapt. Quoted by Conant, The Meaning & Use of Baptizein)

Now, while these great men of the faith erroneously extended this sacrament to infants, they nonetheless understood what baptism was meant to be and what it signified.

Missed it by THAT Much!

Baptism and the Westminster Assembly

From Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines

From Jan.1, 1643 to Dec. 31, 1644

(London, 1824), vol. 13, pp. 300-301

One of the fascinating events in the story of immersion took place in England, where immersion was the common form of baptism until Cromwell’s time. In 1644 the Westminster Divines met to discuss the matter. Dr. John Lightfoot, who presided at the Assembly, recorded the following.

“Wed. Aug. 7. This morning we met again. . . . Then fell we upon the work of the day; which was about baptizing of the child, whether to dip him or sprinkle, and this proposition, ‘Is it lawful and sufficient to sprinkle this child’ — had been canvassed before our adjourning, and was ready now to vote: but I spake against it, as being very unfit to vote, that it is lawful to sprinkle when everyone grants it. Whereupon, it was fallen upon, sprinkling being granted, whether dipping should be tolerated with it. And here fell we upon a large and long discourse, whether dipping were essential or used in the first institution, or in the Jews’ custom. . . . After a long dispute, it was at last put to the question, whether the Directory should run thus: The minister shall take water, and sprinkle or pour it with his hand upon the face or forehead of the child: and it was voted so indifferently, that we were glad to count names twice, for so many were unwilling to have dipping excluded, that the votes came to an equality within one; for the side was twenty-four — and the other, twenty-five: the twenty-four for the reserving of dipping, and the twenty-five against it; and there grew a great heat upon it.”

The discussion came up for rediscussion the next day, but “as for the dispute itself about dipping, it was thought fit and most safe to let it alone.”

So, Presbyterians do not immerse today because in the Westminster Assembly the decision was lost by one vote.

(HT: Biblical Studies)

My Big Fat Greek Immersion

About 2:45 into the scene – just another brick in the wall supporting immersion as the valid and proper mode…

What Did the Seventy Think Baptizo Meant

There is a great body of work that was done between the 3rd and 1st centuries Before Christ, in which the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Koine Greek, the common and universal language of that time, due to the widespread influence and control of the Roman Empire which spanned from Spain in the west, all the way across and surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, reaching to Syria in the east, including Judea. This translation is called the Septuagint (meaning ’seventy’), and can help give us some insight into the meaning of Greek words found in the NT depending on which ones were used to convey their Hebrew counterparts in the OT.

In 2 Kings, chapter 5, we see the story of the king of Aram and how he was cured of his leprosy by following Elisha’s instructions to go wash in the Jordon seven times. At first, the king was adamant about not doing this, but after his servants pleaded with him to do as Elisha had instructed, the king obeyed and did as he had been told. The story then tells us that the king of Aram,

went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child and he was clean. – v.14

Keep in mind that this is from the Old Testament, and is written in Hebrew. Now, when the Septuagint translators came to this verse, which word in the Greek do you think they used to convey the idea and meaning of the Hebrew word ‘tabal’, which means to dip? That’s right. They used ‘baptizo’, because even in the centuries leading up to the birth of Christ it was clear what the meaning of ‘baptizo’ was.

While this is certainly not definitive on its own, it is another example that the Greek word used in the New Testament to refer to the sacrament performed after a person professes faith – baptizo – clearly means to dip or immerse. And the other examples from the Septuagint where baptizo and bapto are used to define their OT Hebrew counterparts strongly support this as well.

To My Paedo-Baptist Brothers Everywhere…I Need Some Help

(Updated below)

Of course, you knew that already! Yuk, yuk, yuk.

All joking aside (I know, you are not joking when you think I need some help), I have a serious request for anyone who holds to infant baptism and sprinkling as a proper mode.

My request is this:

Can you please provide me at least one instance in the New Testament where baptizo means to immerse/dip/submerge, etc.?

Thanks!

UPDATE:

The primary meaning of the Greek word baptizo is to immerse, and I am amazed that, of the sixty-three times it is used in the New Testament, it appears that my Presbyterian brothers and sisters NEVER consider that word to mean immersion in any of those sixty-three occurrences. I wonder if there is anything that comes close to this regarding any other words that are used in the NT.

Please know that this is not at all a taunt or ridicule of my Presbybterian friends. I am just astonished that a word with such a clear meaning apparently never actually means what it actually means…at least to paedo-baptists, anyway.

Have You Been Sprinkled with the Holy Spirit

Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance [baptism]. – 1689 Baptist Confession

In Matthew 3, John the Baptizer makes a proclamation concerning the One who is coming after him (Christ), and he draws a distinction between the baptism he himself is performing and the baptism that Christ will perform. This is what he says:

“As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. – v.11

In this verse, baptizo is the Greek word used both times that the Baptist references baptism. The first time, he says that he baptizes with water, but that the One coming will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. I ask you, does it make any sense at all if sprinkling is in view here? Is John saying that Christ will sprinkle “you” with the Holy Spirit and fire?

Or, is the plain meaning of the word John is using driving the point home to his hearers about what Christ will do when He baptizes? Isn’t the Baptizer, in fact, saying this:

I baptizo (immerse/overwhelm) you with water for repentance, but One is coming after me who will baptizo (immerse/overwhelm) you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

The comparison is undeniable. John is drawing a comparison between physical baptism and spiritual baptism, and he uses ‘baptizo’ to do so. John is immersing these repentant people in water, and that water completely overwhelms them (physically) in the process. But John’s promise is that the One coming after him will not physically immerse/overwhelm them, but that He will immerse/overwhelm them in/by/with the Holy Spirit. I am not really sure what it means to be sprinkled with the Holy Spirit, but I can certainly understand what it means to be immersed in/overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit.

You Say Baptism, I Say Baptizo

What is interesting about the word ‘baptism’ is that it is what is called a transliterated word. When the first English Bible translations were being done, the Greek word ‘baptizo’, unlike other Greek words, was not translated into English. Instead, the translators simply created a new English word, ‘baptism’. So, basically, when you say the word ‘baptism’, or ‘baptize’, or ‘baptized’, you are actually speaking Greek. You are saying ‘baptizo’.

Now, as I mentioned before in another post, the meaning of the word baptizo is:

1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3. to overwhelm

Many have sought to define for themselves (their denomination) the meaning of what water baptism is for them. But, the ramifications of the fact that baptism is a transliterated word straight out of the Greek does not allow for this, and has some interesting results for those who attempt to make it mean something other than immersion when it is being used to describe the sacrament that follows faith in the New Testament.

For example, if you say, “Our mode of baptism is aspersion (sprinkling)”, since the word baptism is straight out of the Greek, what you are really saying is, “Our mode of immersion (baptizo) is sprinkling”, or, “Our mode of washing (baptizo) is sprinkling”, or, “Our mode of dipping (baptizo) is sprinkling”, or, “Our mode of submerging (baptizo) is sprinkling”.

Basically, it becomes a nonsensical statement, seeing as the word baptism already carries with it its own meaning, as it is a word that has been brought over from the Greek.

Our paedo brothers, to be accurate, might need to consider transliterating a different Greek word for the sacrament they perform which is commonly called baptism. The Greek word for sprinkling is rantizo, therefore, I would like to suggest rantism instead of baptism.

The meaning of the word rantizo is:

1. to sprinkle
2. to cleanse by sprinkling, hence to purify, cleanse

This word more accurately conveys the practice of our Presbyterian brothers. The only problem, though, is that this word (nor any other Greek word for sprinkling) is not the one used whenever the sacrament that follows faith in the NT is presented.

Q&A of the Week – Benefits of Effectual Calling

Question 36: What benefits do those who are effectually called receive in this life?

Answer: Those who are effectually called receive in this life justification, adoption, sanctification, and the several benefits which in this life accompany or flow from them.

Scripture: Romans 8:30-32; Galatians 3:26; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:11; Ephesians 1:5.

Comment: We must distinguish effectual calling from the general call of the gospel. Not all who hear the gospel believe. But all who are effectually called by God do believe. The call creates what it commands.

from A Baptist Catechism

Does Baptism By Immersion Come from Eisegesis, or From the Clear Meaning of a Word

UPDATED…

In a previous post, my brother in Christ and paedo-baptist friend Les said the following in response to my assertion that he was engaging in eisegesis with respect to his interpretation of a passage in Acts:

“For example, I could say that you are doing the same when you practice immersion based on what you think you see in the bible, since I do not believe that you can prove immersion only from the scriptures, thus accusing you of eisegisis.”

As a result of that comment from Les, I thought it might be a good idea to take a quick look at the word in the Greek which we call ‘baptism’.

In case you are not familiar with what is meant by ‘eisegesis’, here is a good definition of the word and the practice it defines:

Eisegesis is the approach to Bible interpretation where the interpreter tries to “force” the Bible to mean something that fits their existing belief or understanding of a particular issue or doctrine. People who interpret the Bible this way are usually not willing to let the Bible speak for itself and let the chips fall where they may. They start off with the up-front goal of trying to prove a point they already believe in, and everything they read and interpret is filtered through that paradigm. Stated another way, they engage in what the Bible refers to as “private interpretation”.

My belief is that baptism is to be done by immersion, or by dipping a person all the way underwater when they are baptized. Following is a brief examination of the Greek word which we translate as ‘baptized’.

The Greek word is ‘baptizo’ (Strong’s #907), and means the following:

1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3. to overwhelm

This word is derived from the primary word ‘bapto’ (Strong’s #911), which means:

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

The primary verb ‘bapto’ is used three times in the NT (every time referring to something that is immersed in something else), including Rev. 19:13:

And He is clothed with a robe dipped (bapto) in blood; and His name is called The Word of God.

Of real interest into the meaning of the word we translate as ‘baptized’ is this bit of information -

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.

How significant that baptism by immersion in the NT represents a change in the person being baptized. Just like with the vegetable that has been baptized into the vinegar.

Applying Covenant Logic to the Lord’s Table

As we will see in the following quotes from Sam Waldron in A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession, paedo-baptists do not consistently apply their covenantal-based logic to whom they allow to come to the Lord’s Table.

Waldron says:

They [paedo-baptists] have argued that children are in the covenant and therefore that children ought to be given baptism, the sign of the covenant. Yet, though the Lord’s Supper is clearly a sign of the covenant (1 Cor. 11:25), they do not give the Lord’s Supper to their baptized children. They require a personal confession of faith before participation in the Lord’s Supper. In other words, they require exactly what Baptists require for participation in baptism. – p. 352

He continues with a couple of logical statements:

1. The Lord’s Supper and Passover are, if anything, more parallel than baptism and circumcision. The Lord’s Supper was instituted in the context of a passover meal. The actual ordinances are much more similar than baptism and circumcision.

2. All those who were circumcised were commanded to eat of the Lord’s Passover (Exod. 12:3, 4, 6, 21-28, 42-49).

3. The conclusion ought to be that all the baptized should eat the Lord’s Supper. But paedo-baptists are not consistent! – p. 352

And to this conclusion in #3 the Baptist says, “Amen!”. Now, consider this very important question concerning why paedo-baptists baptize unprofessing infants but require a confession of faith before allowing them to partake of the Lord’s Supper:

Why do paedo-baptists believe that personal, intelligent confession of faith is necessary for participation in the Lord’s Table? 1 Cor. 11:28’s requirement of self-examination is frequently cited. But if the New Testament is normative for the Lord’s Supper, why not for baptism? And if the argument from circumcision overshadows the demand for faith, why doesn’t the argument from the Passover overshadow the New Testament demand for self-examination? – p.352 (bold emphasis mine)

Waldron then finishes his point by asking and answering the question, what is the real reason why paedo-baptists practice believer’s communion?

It is that their great Christian theologians and pastors know in their hearts that such a practice would effectively destroy the visible church. No longer would true conversion have any outward, symbolic, visible expression. Church membership would become a purely external, unspiritual matter. This is the great, the conclusive reason why paedo-baptists dare not take the alternative of infant communion. – p.353