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.

I know only a little about David Powlison, though what I have read about and by him I have liked.  So, when Tim Challies wrote a post about this article, I was keen to have a read.

I was a little suprised.

Now, let me make it clear, I may not have fully grasped what Powlison is saying, but the nub of his argument seems to be summed up in the following quote:

If Amelia’s “need” to feel loved is an unchangeable given (passive heart), then change only involves turning from disappointing parents and disappointing “special friends” to a Jesus who will meet her deepest desire/need.  But if, in fact, Amelia loves human affection more than she loves God (active heart), then change involves turning from idolatrous craving to the Jesus who died for sinners, who lives to remake us into lovers of God and neighbour, and who will return in glory and joy for our glory and joy. (p5)

What Powlison seems to say is that explaning sinful action as resulting from an “unmet need” for love is wrong.  Instead, sinful action comes from sins like idolatry, fear of man, pride and unbelief.  

Now, since I have argued that all sin comes from an unmet need here on this blog, I really had to think this through to see if I was drifting into heresy. 

There is biblical evidence that sin comes from an unloved heart.  For a start, 1 John 4:19 states positively that, “We love because God first loved us.”  Thus, we need to be loved in order to love.  This is a biblical truth about the passive situation of the human heart.

Second, 1 Corinthians 13 gives a description of love’s characteristics, including a list of what love is and isn’t, or does and does not do.  For example, love is patient and kind.  This means love is not impatient or cruel.  Love does not envy, does not boast, is not proud and so on.

So, what this means is that if a person has love (and this is acquired through being loved - especially by God), they will not sin in those ways.

This is confirmed by Romans 13:8-10 which says that love fulfills the law.  That’s a sweeping statement.  It means that as long as you love God and your neighbour, you will not sin!!!  And you can only love God and your neighbour if you know God’s love.  Therefore, all sin is a result of the unmet need of love - specifically God’s love.

But this doesn’t mean that the other side of Powlison’s reading of the situation is wrong.  It is because we humans doubt that we do not go to God for His love.  It is because we don’t want to be dependent on God that we try to get love our own way.  It is because we humans need love that when we refuse to go to God we lust after the approval of man.  And it is because we are afraid we won’t be loved that we fear man.

So, we want love, but we won’t go to the only One Who can give us the love we need - God.  Why won’t we go?  We are want to determine where we get love - in short, we are sinful.  Powlison is right in this comment:

Sin is the deepest explanation, not just one more problem begging for different and “deeper” reasons. p5.

But Powlison is wrong to suggest that we should throw out the insight about our need for love because the Bible is full of that very analysis.  In fact, salvation is all about God’s love for us - our deepest need - being revealed in Jesus Christ’s death (Romans 5:8) and being revealed to our passive hearts through the Spirit (Romans 5:5).  It is being enabled to know that love through the transforming work of the gospel that motivates and empowers us to (actively) turn away from sin and obey God - not just at the time of conversion, but throughout our lives as believers.  And any sin in our lives as believers is the result of not realising and responding to God’s love.

There’s much more to this, but I cannot see that recognising the “unmet need” for love in Amelia and suggesting she turn to Jesus to meet that need is incompatible with pointing out the other sins that it has lead to that Powlison rightly points out.

Jeremy Pierce posts about this article as well over at Parableman.

I’ve gotta say, looking into the issue of infant baptism has shown me just how ignorant I am of the Church both my grandfathers were ministers in and that I was brought up in (Presbyterian) and has made me appreciate that differences that led to different denominations in the Reformation period are somewhat more significant than I thought, and far more significant than the differences that see the rise of denominations today.

And I have to say, I’m finding the Presbyterian doctrines quite attractive.

It all started with predestination.  That then led to Calvinism.  Then I came to the place where I couldn’t figure out how anyone without an emotional attachment to immersion can look at the Bible and come away believing that to be the only legitimate mode of baptism.  And now…infant baptism.

No, I’m not a convert to that doctrine yet, but I must say what I’m reading about the Presbyterian take on it is persuasive.  I don’t think I fully grasp the whole thing yet, but the explanation of Christ’s death and resurrection saving both Old and New Testament believers; the theme of “households” throughout Scripture (along with OT definitions that include infants); the explanation of 1 Corinthians 7:14; the presence of non-believers among the baptised in the Church; the expectations Jews steeped in the OT would bring to the phrases and sacraments in the NT - all these things tie disparate exisiting beliefs of mine together with new ideas to build a comprehensive system that lends credence to infant baptism.

What I still experience lack of clarity on is the exact relationship between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant (I know the New is a fulfillment of the Abrahamic, but how); the change from circumcision to baptism (why baptism with water?  Is it a fulfillment of all the baptisms in the OT like Jesus’s death was a fulfillment of all the sacrifices?  And how is circumcision both a sign of righteousness by faith - which should then be a sign for NT believers - and a symbol of being cut off from God’s people for disobedience that has been fulfilled in Christ).  And so on…

That’s where I am…who knows where I’ll end up.