Last year I submitted a question to John Piper’s “Ask Pastor John” (basically a question and answer system where people submit questions and John Piper answers them. Really very good). The question was this:

How does “I follow Paul, I follow Apollos” [in 1 Cor 3] differ from “I’m a Baptist, I’m a Presbyterian,” when Paul seems to say that Christians—and, by extension, churches—should identify only with Christ?

Continue Reading »

Want an argument for paedobaptism that doesn’t depend on Covenant Theology?  Read on… Continue Reading »

I’ve enjoyed writing this series.  When I first saw Aaron’s second post on baptism by immersion, I didn’t expect to make any response other than to leave a comment that we would have to agree to disagree.  But something about Aaron’s post spurred me on to reply - these four posts being that reply.

There are, of course, many other pieces of evidence that could be considered - my previous posts on baptism cover just some of these - but I’m not sure it is beneficial to go over them all.  In this last post, I will quickly address the hypothetical situation I put to Aaron and then conclude.

Continue Reading »

This is the third ‘Answering Aaron’ post.  The “figuratively and literally” in the title does not refer to my answering Aaron, but rather his discussion of the meaning of baptizo (and the noun baptismos).

Literally…

We have already seen that baptizo was understood to mean “ceremonial washing” in the Septuagint (LXX) and later NT writings. Aaron agrees that baptizo was understood to include “non-immersion washings”, but sees no warrant for applying that wider meaning (wider than “immersions only”) to John the Baptiser’s and Christian water baptisms.

That confuses me.  Continue Reading »

In these posts I am responding to a long post on baptism written by Aaron.  As I said, I am glad to discuss things with Aaron (though whether he has the time to continue is another story - I invite other input).  I must confess, though, a little exasperation with the immersionist position (the position - not Aaron) that states Christian baptism can only be valid if performed as immersion.  The evidence for that position is just not there.

In my previous post, I addressed Aaron’s reference to 2 Kings 5:14 as an example of something called baptism that is described as immersion - a claim that I acknowledged could be true contrary to my own statement in the comment section of the first of his baptism posts.  He then goes on to assert that there are various clues in the New Testament accounts of baptism that amount to a description of these events being carried out as immersion.

I do not agree.  Continue Reading »

It’s always a pleasure discussing something with Aaron from his corner of the internet - he is a gracious conversation partner and willing to consider the other side. In a recent post of his I thought he had proved me wrong when I made an over-confident statement in the comment section of his post on baptism. However, while my statement was over-confident, I’m not sure Aaron’s answer proves everything he says it does. Continue Reading »

I made the comment in a previous post that I could not understand how people read the Bible and came away with the idea that baptism is only full immersion in the water.  I guess I’d better back that up with a quick explanation.

Biblical descriptions of Baptism.

New Testament: The only baptism method that is described clearly in the New Testament is the baptism in the Holy Spirit and that is pouring (eg. Acts 2:17-18).

Less clear, but significant is Luke 11:38 which literally says Jesus was not baptised before the meal.  This obviously doesn’t refer to Jesus not being immersed, but to him not washing his hands!  And my understanding of the method used to wash hands was to have water poured over them.

Hebrews 6:1-2 speaks of instructions about baptisms.  In the context of the book this refers to OT baptisms forward.

Hebrews 9:10 refers to baptisms (ceremonial washings), one of which is described in verse 13 - the sprinkling of blood and ashes.

Old Testament: Hebrews opens up the way to consider baptisms in the Old Testament - referred to as baptisms in the Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint.

The first is in Exodus 24 - the blood sprinkling spoken of in Heb 9:13.  Water baptisms are found in the following places:

Nu 8:7; Ex 29:4-6, 40:12; Lev 8:6; Ex 30:18-21; Lev 16:4,24,26,28; Nu 19:7-8; Lev 22:1-7; Nu 19:11-22; 31:19-24; Lev 11:25, 28, 32, 33; 15:1-13, 16-33; 17:14-16.

None of these, instituted in the desert where water was sparse, involved immersing the body under water.  (In our society where baths have been common it is easy to forget that in older times washing the body was done by pouring water over a person rather than taking a dip).

New Testament hints.
In John 2:6, six stone water pots used for ceremonial purification (baptism) were present.  These would not have been used for immersion.

When the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius’ household in Acts 10, Peter says, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (v 47 NRSV - more literal in this instance than the NIV).  The question must be asked, would this be an appropriate question if baptism was by immersion?

The only stated difference between John’s baptism and Jesus’ baptism is what is used to baptise - everything else can reasonably be expected to remain the same.  Jesus baptises with the Spirit by pouring; John baptises with water…and it makes sense that the mode would also be pouring.

Other Baptisms in the NT.

No other events called baptisms in the NT involve immersion - even if they are considered figurative baptism, there is no hint of immersion in them.  (Eg. 1 Cor 10:2).

From history and archaeology.

At Pentecost, thousands of people were baptised.  Jerusalem did not have enough water to immerse all of them and still have a decent amount of drinking water.

Houses were not equipped with baths or jacuzzi’s - when people were baptised in houses, special provisions would have needed to have been made.  Eg. the jailer in Phillippi would have needed to take Paul and Silas and his whole household somewhere to be fully immersed in the middle of the night.  It doesn’t read like that, however.

The none of the utensils used in the OT for purification with water were big enough for immersion.

The area of Aenon (John 3:23) is much more likely to have had many smaller pools (many waters) rather than one or a few big bodies of water (much water).  Both translations are possible in the Greek.

Protests.

“Jesus and the Ethiopian went down into and came up out of the water”.  The same language is used of Jesus’ baptism and of the Ethiopian’s baptism.  Neither require them to have been immersed, but rather to have walked into the water where the person baptising would sprinkle or pour water over them.  This is confirmed in Acts 8 when both Ethiopian and Philip went down and came up from the water.

“Romans 6 tells us baptism is immersion”.  In fact, it tells us that we are buried and raised with Jesus in baptism, but this is only one explanation of what happened in baptism.  In Galatians 3:27, for example, baptism is referred to as “being clothed with Christ” - a phrase more suitable for pouring.  Added to that is the inescapable fact that Jesus, like all dead bodies at that time, was put in a tomb rather than buried in the ground, and therefore immersion cannot be acting out the burial and resurrection of Jesus - though the truth that we were “buried and raised with Jesus” remains even when baptism is administered by pouring or sprinkling.

Conclusion.

I can see no evidence that in the NT there were any baptisms by immersion.  In fact, all the evidence points to pouring or sprinkling.  In passages where it is possible that a person was immersed, given the other evidence, it does not seem at all likely.

This does not mean I am against immersion.  The early Church practiced both immersion and other methods and I am happy to see people baptised by immersion today.  However, I do not think immersion is the only valid form of Christian baptism, and to say this in the face of such strong evidence of pouring or sprinkling in the Bible is quite obviously wrong.

There’s been a lot of comment on baptism recently, due mainly to Bethlehem Baptist (pastored by John Piper) opening up the possibility of allowing membership in their church to those who believe that biblical baptism includes sprinkling, pouring and baptising infants/children. This has been opened up for consideration because the qualifications for eldership have been tightened to include the need for elders to believe and teach believer’s baptism by immersion.

Jollyblogger, a Presbyterian pastor, has made characteristically wise and generous comments about this move.

I, on the other hand, have recently come to the conclusion that, biblically, the “how” of Christian baptism is limited to using water. This came from feeling the tension of being able to read the Biblical accounts as supporting both pouring and immersion (though on further investigation I have decided that pouring is the most likely biblical method). This tension along with the conclusion of one particular article (it’s argument leading to sprinkling as the method is interesting, but not what I value it for) lead me to the position that using water is the only requirement for Christian baptism.

I may explain my arguments in full later, but right now I want to look at some ramifications if this belief is correct. Consider this:

1. Nowhere does the Bible explicitly state how Christian baptism was performed (though the Bible does explain fairly precisely how other baptisms were performed).
2. The arguments for sprinkling, pouring or immersion are all indirect and all the indirect arguments can be read to fit into each view.
3. Nowhere does the Bible even hint that the method of Christian baptism is important (though the method of OT baptisms are explicitly laid out).
4. Therefore, any division over the method of baptism is a division based on something God chose not to specify in the Bible. Why, then, do we argue over it as something so important?

Now, before the “yes, but”’s get too loud, consider the following.

5. If the amount of effort that has gone into figuring out the exact method of baptism went into figuring out the exact method of the other protestant sacrament - communion/eucharist/the Lord’s Supper - the celebration of communion would look far different in most churches than it does today. Use wine? Why not? The Bible is clear that wine is the correct drink for communion. If you use grape juice you are not really celebrating communion. And unleavened bread should be the type of bread, otherwise it is not communion you are partaking in. And communion should be celebrated while having a shared meal. How many churches do that? Does this mean that most churches do not actually celebrate communion? No, because the Bible does not specify that all these things must be present for communion to be shared.

6. On the other hand, 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 lays out direct and explicit instructions about what to do when Christians gather together. How many churches who are so concerned about the indirect evidence of something the Bible draws no explicit attention to (i.e, the method of Christian baptism in water) pay attention to 1 Cor 12 and 14? Very, very few.

My only conclusion is that the church has been and continues to be divided over an issue that the Bible pays no attention to itself.

How are we to be baptised? I agree with the conclusion of the above article: WITH WATER! Can the disagreement over method not be considered non-essential opinion? Could it be…might it be…possibly…that divisions over this matter are, in themselves, sin?