Saturday, August 22, 2009

Baptism by....Baptism

Among those that profess Christianity and throughout the different denominations there have been for hundreds of years arguments over what mode of Baptism is acceptable and proper. Some baptize by immersion, some by sprinkling and some by pouring. The bible declares that there is “one faith, one Lord and one baptism”; so only one of these ways can be correct. How was Jesus baptized? How did the apostles baptize? What was the New Testament understanding of the word baptism? Answer these questions, and we know the proper mode of baptism.
The answer can be found simply by defining the word baptism. An English dictionary will only tell us what the word has come to mean. The New Testament was written in Greek, and the Greek word that was translated baptism was baptizo. What does the word baptizo mean? John Broadus, former professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote this in his commentary on the book of Matthew the following:


“The Greek word baptize, which we borrow, was of very common use, as is seen in every period of Greek literature and was applied to a great variety of matters, including the most familiar acts of everyday life. It was thus a word which every Greek speaking hearer and reader in apostolic times would at once and clearly understand. It meant what we express by ‘immerse’ and kindred terms, and no on e could then have thought of attributing to it a wholly different sense, such as ‘sprinkle’ or ‘pour’ without distinct explanation to that effect…..Luther and Calvin both explicitly declared that the primitive baptism was immersion and the former said it ought to be restored; but they allowed the existing practice to remain undisturbed. In the course of time many Protestants came to perceive that it was very awkward to rest their practice in this respect on the authority of the Church of Rome, and being accustomed and attacked to the practice they very naturally sought countenance for it in scripture. Such are the unavoidable defects of language, that strongly biased and ingenious minds can always cast some apparent doubt over the mean of the plainest words.”


In fact, the very word means to immerse, and there would have been no question in New Testament times what baptizo meant; dipping or immersing. JR Graves, in his study of the Greek word baptizo in his book John’s Baptism found that “sixty-two standard Greek Lexicons giving only to dip, to immerse, as the literal primary meaning, which is the real meaning, of the work in Greek, corroborating the declaration of Dr. Charles Anton (Episcopalian), [then] President of Columbia ‘The primary meaning of the word [baptizo] is to dip, to immerse; and its secondary meaning, if it ever had any, refers to the same leading idea. Sprinkling and pouring are entirely out of the question”. Using scripture as our sole authority, when a person is saved by God’s grace, they are to be baptized, and scripture declares that we are to be baptized by baptism, which is immersion.

26 comments:

Gary said...

Why do Baptists insist on immersion? It is baffling that a Christian denomination that shuns all trappings of "Catholic ritual" would insist that the Christian rite of Baptism be performed in such a rigid, ritualistic manner that they even surpass the strict adherence to ritualistic form of the Roman Catholic Church!

Even if you believe that baptism is only for the purpose of a public profession of your faith, that it has nothing to do with salvation or the forgiveness of sins, why DEMAND that this rite be performed EXACTLY "as Jesus did it"??

Christianity is about the heart, not the external ritual!

http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2013/09/baptism-are-baptists-more-ritualistic.html

doug4 said...

Why do you insist on being baptized by water? Why don't you be baptized by putting hymn book on top of your head? Why not be baptized by picking flowers? If immersion doesn't have to mean immersion, then it doesn't have to mean anything.

Words matter. Jesus commanded His church to baptize. If Jesus said go and immerse, who do you think you are to change it? By what right and by what authority do change what Jesus said to do.

Gary said...

In the Last Supper, Christ took "the cup and gave it to them saying..."

Why don't Baptists use a common cup? We Lutherans do, but we do not denounce those denominations who do not. But by your criteria, if Jesus said "one cup" for the Lord's Supper, what right do you Baptists have to change "cup" to shooter glasses? Shooter glasses are not cups, and "the cup" signifies using only ONE cup wine or grape juice, not 50-100 individual small shooter glasses. On what basis is it ok for you to be inconsistent, brother?

Here is what matters in Baptism: the application of water with the Word. Specifically, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost".

The Didache, the earliest non-biblical evidence we have of early Christian practice (first century!), states that immersion is the preferred method of baptism, but not the only acceptable method of baptism.

Gary said...

Here is an excellent Lutheran response to the Baptist claim that the Greek word "baptizo" only means "immersion"; copied from the website Intrepid Lutherans, written by Pastor Spencer:


Baptism Means To Apply Water – Any Way You Choose!


Some Christian churches boldly proclaim and insist, “Baptism must be by complete immersion only!” The only thing is, the Bible doesn’t actually say that anywhere.


Jesus commands Baptism, to be sure. However, the word used in the original Greek New Testament is “baptizo,” and every Greek dictionary says that the first and most natural meaning is simply, “apply water.” That’s it, nothing more, nothing less.


True, there are Bible passages about being “buried with Christ” (Romans 6:4), and the church often speaks of “drowning the Old Adam” (Luther’s Catechism), but there also verses about, “being sprinkled” by the saving blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:22), and God grace being “poured out” on us (Titus 3:6). The fact is, it is absolutely and totally impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, either from Scripture or history, that one method of baptism is commanded by God, or was used exclusively by Jesus and His Apostles


So, all those who adamantly insist and demand only one way to baptize, are, in fact, "all wet!" – and causing unnecessary doubt and confusion in the Church. In other words, they’re just plain wrong! And that's the point!

Pastor Spencer

doug4 said...

Sorry Gary/Pastor Spencer. That is just not true.

Please tell me where the Greek word baptizo is found in Hebrews 10:22?

Please tell me where the Greek word baptizo is found in Titus 3:6?

Please provide the more than one Greek lexicon where baptizo means apply water in Koine Greek.

Gary said...

You are missing the point, Douglas.

You and most Baptists state that one of the principle reasons that Baptism must be by immersion is that immersion is the true and only picture of salvation. The above passages that you provided prove Baptists wrong.

God uses several descriptive verbs to describe his monergistic act of salvation: God "buries" us in Christ's death. God "sprinkles" our hearts. God "pours" out the Holy Spirit on us. Your passages are proof that your Baptist position that immersion is the only picture of salvation is incorrect!

And your last line of defense on immersion-only baptism stands on shaky ground also. I have never been able to figure out why Baptists living in the United States believe that they understand Greek better than...the GREEKS! The Greek Orthodox Church believes that "baptizo" can mean full immersion, and that is their usual practice, even for infants, but pouring is an acceptable alternative. The Greek Orthodox Church accepts western catholic baptism by pouring as a valid form of baptism, confirming the position of the Early Church on the mode of Baptism as clearly stated in the Didache.

If the Baptist "Greek" scholars are correct in their understanding of Greek, then all of Greece should be Baptist...which if you check, it is not.

Gary said...

I Peter 3:21...Let's take another look at this controversial Bible verse





1 Peter 3:21 (ESV)
1 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Ask an orthodox Christian what this Bible passage says and this will be his response, "Baptism saves you." Pretty simple interpretation of the passage, right?

Ask a Baptist or evangelical what this passage says, and he will say something like this: "Water baptism is a picture of our appeal to God for a clean conscience which occurs in our spiritual baptism: our decision for Christ/our born again experience. This passage is not talking about water baptism, it is talking about spiritual baptism."

Ok. Let's take a look at another passage of Scripture:

Hebrews 10:22 ESV

let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

What is it that gives us the full assurance of faith according to this Bible passage? Our decision to accept Jesus into our hearts? Our decision to be born again? Our decision to make a decision for Christ? No. The simple, plain rendering of this passage of Holy Scripture tells us that our assurance of faith is based on God sprinkling our hearts, cleansing us of our evil conscience, AND washing our bodies with pure water!

There can be only one explanation for the "when" of full assurance of salvation: WATER BAPTISM!

Both of these passages talk about having our consciences cleansed, and the verse in Hebrews clarifies that this cleansing does not take place in our mind or as a public profession; it takes place in our heart, our soul; and this cleansing occurs at the same time as "pure" water is applied to our body! This is water baptism, Baptist and evangelical brothers and sisters! Stop twisting and contorting the plain, simple words of God to conform to your sixteenth century false teachings!

doug4 said...

Now we get to play everyone's favorite game...make Gary stay on topic. Until Gary tells answers the question, he doesn't get to post any more.

I'll ask again, Gary.

Please tell me where the Greek word baptizo is found in Hebrews 10:22?

Please tell me where the Greek word baptizo is found in Titus 3:6?

Please provide the more than one Greek lexicon where baptizo means apply water in Koine Greek.

Please answer the question or tell me you were wrong.

Gary said...

I looked in my Bible at the passages you asked me to look at, Douglas, but strangely enough, these verses were in ENGLISH in my Bible! I have no idea what a Greek Bible would say.

I will be posting references on the Greek meaning of baptizo shortly, as you demanded...I mean...requested. :)

Gary said...

Here is a link to a discussion by a well-known, non-Christian linguistics expert on the Greek word "baptizo":

http://goddidntsaythat.com/tag/baptizo/

Let me know what you think. Since this gentleman is not a Christian, he has no "dog in this fight".

doug4 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
doug4 said...

Don't you remember that we have already decided that Titus 3 isn't talking about baptism? Read the next to last comment on THIS post to refresh your memory.

You are trying to prove that sprinkling and pouring are valid 'modes' of baptism by quoting scriptures that have nothing to do with baptism (Hebrews 10:22. Titus 3:6). Of course you wouldn't want to look to the text from which your English Bible is translated, I wouldn't want to either, if I were you. But, if I wanted to know what baptism was, then I wouldn't be afraid to study it out.

Hebrews 10:22 and Titus 3:6 aren't talking about Baptism, in any language.

doug4 said...

Also, I asked for more than one Greek lexicon that shows that baptizo means "apply water", not a blog post.

So you were 0-3 in answering the questions.

Gary said...

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon


Strong's Number: 907

Original Word Word Origin
baptizo from a derivative of (911)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Baptizo 1:529,92
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
bap-tid'-zo

Definition
to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
to overwhelm

Gary said...

Old & New Testament Greek

Entry for Strong's #907 - βαπτίζω



Transliteration:

baptízō


Phonetics:

bap-tid'-zo


Word Origin:

from a derivative of (911)


Parts of Speech:



TDNT:

1:529,92


Word Definition [ Thayer's | Strong's ]








Thayer's Definition
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
Not to be confused with 911, bapto. 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. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

Hebrew Equivalent Words:

Strong #: 2881 ‑ טָבַל (taw‑bal');

Gary said...

Here are some definitions of baptizo taken from the BDAG Greek Lexicon: (1) wash ceremonially for purpose of purification (2) to use water in a rite for purpose of renewing or establishing a relationship with God (3) to cause someone to have an extraordinary experience akin to an initiatory water-rite (see 1 Cor 10:2).

Gary said...

Just by looking at these three Greek lexicons, which I found online, it seems to me that at the time of Christ, the Greek word "baptizo" was a general term for "washing", with immersion/ dipping being a subtype.

Lutherans and Presbyterians agree that immersion was the primary mode of baptism in the early Church, but not the ONLY legitimate mode. These lexicons seem to support that.

I'm sure that you can find Greek lexicons that state that "baptizo" only means immersion, but I would then ask the denominational affiliation of the author/authors. Chances are he/she is a Baptist or evangelical.

Gary said...

I gave you three Greek lexicon definitions of "baptizo"? Any response?

doug4 said...

Respond to what? I already knew the word meant immerse and I already knew that it doesn't mean pour or sprinkle.

How can I possibly respond in a word study to someone who doesn't care what it means and how the New Testament church used and applied it because that isn't how your church does baptizes?

Gary said...

You asked me to give three definitions of baptizo from three Greek lexicons. I have done that. Each one of them states that there were multiple meanings for this word in the first century:

1. immerse or dip.
2. to wash, washing.

I have given you the evidence that you demanded and you still refuse to accept it.

Your assertion that the Early Church insisted on immersion is also contrary to known evidence. The earliest non-scriptural writing, the Didache, very clearly states that immersion in LIVING WATER such as a lake or a river is the preferred method, but other methods of applying water are acceptable alternatives.

I have presented evidence. You have presented no evidence that baptizo ONLY meant immersion in the time period that the Bible was written. Now the burden of proof is on you: Provide evidence from three reputable Greek lexicons or from early Church history that baptizo had no other meaning than to fully immerse.

doug4 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
doug4 said...

Refuse to accept what? That the word doesn’t mean sprinkle or pour? The only alternative meaning you provided is the secondary meaning of washing, with the understanding of overwhelming -that still doesn’t mean sprinkle or pour. You are so blinded by your tradition that the definitions you provided show that the word means to immerse and somehow that is supposed to prove you right?

When I asked for evidence, I assumed that you understood that the evidence was supposed to show that I was wrong. Maybe I wasn’t clear? My apologies.

I’m not a Catholic, so post-Biblical tradition isn’t authoritative to me. The meaning of the word means immerse. Jesus was immersed by John. The apostles were immersed by John. The baptisms of the book of Acts were by immersion. But Gary likes to pour and Gary’s tradition says it’s okay. Since you can’t show me in the Bible, you run to tradition and non-authoritative writings.

Nice try though.

Gary said...

No, Douglas, the three lexicons do not say that washing must occur by immersion. If you "baptizo" your face, you have applied water, but you haven't immersed your face. Baptizo means to wash, of which immersing is a subtype.

If I told you, "Hey, Douglas, I am going to wash my car today." If you then go and tell your friends that Gary said that he is going to immerse his car today, would you be correctly interpreting my true intention, my meaning of the word "wash"? Of course not. You are stubbornly sticking to your sixteenth century, western European re-interpretation of Greek Scripture based on ONE meaning of an ancient Greek word.

Yes, if I immerse my car I have washed it, but if I just apply water with a garden hose, I have also washed my car. Immersing and spraying with a garden hose both meet the definition of "washing". One is not more genuinely "washing" than the other method.

THAT is the obvious distinction that you refuse to accept. I did what you asked. I gave you three lexicon definitions of this ancient Greek word, and you still refuse to accept the truth.

And why are there other passages of Scripture that use the word baptizo that clearly have nothing to do with immersing? Example:

The Greek word for “baptize” is baptizo.

We know from passages like Mark 7:4 that the word can mean simply “wash”: “[The Pharisees and Jews] do not eat after returning from the marketplace unless they have washed [baptizo] … [Other traditions include] the washing [baptismos] of [various eating vessels].”

We see similar evidence in Luke 11:38: “The Pharisee was amazed to see that [Jesus] didn’t wash [baptizo] before the meal.”

We also see the verb in the OT, once in II Kings 5:14, where it’s the Greek translation of the Hebrew taval (“dip” or “immerse”), and once in Isaiah 21:4, where the word seems out of context.

Equally, we find the verb baptizo in non-Biblical Greek texts — more on this below. In those contexts, too, the verb seems to be a general one.

From all of these sources, it’s clear that baptizo is a common verb, and the specialized “baptize” in English misrepresents the original Greek.

Gary said...

Ok, so now you refuse to accept the Greek lexicons. You say:

"I’m not a Catholic, so post-Biblical tradition isn’t authoritative to me. The meaning of the word means immerse."

Where in the Bible does it say that "baptizo" means immersion only? If you use the phrase "coming up out of the water" then that means that when Phillip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch they BOTH went under the water because the passage states "they came up out of the water". Isn't it more likely that that phrase simply means they went down the river bank into the water and then came up out of the water onto the river bank? We have no evidence either from Christ's baptism or that of the eunuch's, which mode of water application was used in the act of baptism.

It is very clear: we must look to contemporary writings and cultural evidence to understand the meaning of any ancient language in the Bible. Just reading into the Scriptures what we WANT it to say is not valid or intelligent.

doug4 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
doug4 said...

Because clearly, only a reasonable person would read of two people going into the water and coming back out and think "they must have sprinkled water on his head"

Because when I think of a river and being overwhelmed, it think of drops of water on the head. And, no way did either man have any water with him traveling in the middle east and all.

Its just dishonest to twist the scripture and clear meaning of God's Word so you can be right in your tradition.