Baptismal Meaning and Mode - Whence the Historical and Didactic Disparity?

[Phil D.]

I suppose I’m somewhat (in)famous here on the PB for my postings on immersion. But I don’t think I’ve ever come out and specifically asked the $64 question:

How does one account for the wide gap in the historical interpretation of modal issues that exists between modern non-immersionists and their predecessors, particularly when it comes to the Reformed?​

In short, previous generations largely believed immersion was the normal apostolic practice, and that such had intentional and rich spiritual symbolism. Most people agree that the concept of cleansing has appreciable links to a range of biblical practices, including sprinkling, pouring, and bathing (often interpreted as being by immersion). Yet historically there has also been substantial unity in the understanding that passages like Rom. 6:4,5,6 (cf. Col. 2:12), indicate that baptism by immersion is meant to portray the believer’s death, burial, and resurrection, mediated by Christ in the spiritual realm. For example, here is one Reformed stalwart who was emphatically enthusiastic about this symbolism, and its interrelation with multiple passages of Scripture, here contextualized in a discussion of 1 Cor. 10:2.

Francis Turretin (1623-87); Genevan Italian Reformed; De Baptismo Nubis et Maris; Accessit ejusdem Disputationum Miscellanearum Decas; (Geneva: 1687), 131ff.​

​

...In another great similarity, the passage of the Israelites through the Sea wonderfully agrees with our own baptism, by foreshadowing its grace. For, as in baptism, when performed by immersion and emersion, as it once was, the person descends into the water and then comes out again, of which descent and ascent we have an example in the Eunuch (Acts 8:38,39). Consequently, when in this rite persons are immersed in water, they are overwhelmed and, in a manner, buried together with Christ; and again, when they emerge, seem to be raised out of the grave, and are said to rise again with Christ (Rom. 6:4,5, Col. 2:12).​

​

In the Mosaic baptism we likewise have an immersion and an emersion; that, when they descended into the depths of the Sea; this, when they came out and escaped to the opposite shore. The former was a picture of death, the latter of resurrection. When they passed through the bottom of the Sea, what distanced them from death, except their escape to the opposite shore—so were they not, as it were, resurrected from the dead? Again, in the crossing of the Sea the Israelites are saved, but the Egyptians perish; the same Sea which is the means of deliverance for one, becomes the cause of death and destruction to the other.​

​

And we may also observe this very thing in baptism: the same baptism which saves us, also extinguishes and mortifies the old man; just as Pharaoh with his whole army of sins perish in the Red Sea of the Blood of Christ, so our old man was crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:3,6). While we are baptized into the death of Christ, the same blood that redeems us and opens the way to heaven for us (Heb. 10:19,20), destroys the devil and sin. By death He destroyed him who had the power of death (Heb. 2:14,15), and triumphed on the cross over Principalities and Powers (Col. 2:13,14,15).​

Many similar examples of this same comprehension among the Patristics and early Reformed alike could be given. So, the first part of my question is this: Do non-immersionists believe the historical interpretation of these passages is simply mistaken? If so, that’s fine, and there is no need to proceed further with my post. It’s not my intent here to debate the particular merits of either position on that matter.

For those who do agree with the historical understanding, and especially ministers, I have another question: Even if you don’t practice immersion, do you think it is still important to convey these concepts when presenting the meaning of baptism? Here is perhaps the most striking case I have found where someone who didn’t practice immersion still thought it was necessary to do so.

John Calvin; Sermons sue l'harmonie des trois evangelistes; S. Matthieu, S. Luc et S. Marc, 42; G. Baum, E. Cunitz, E, Reuss, eds., Ionnes Calvini Opera, quae Supersunt Omnia, (Brunsvigae: 1891), 46:520f.​

The natural use of Baptism, therefore, as regards the figure, was that one was immersed in the water. And that represented the complete washing that must be done in man. For, as we have said, we do not just need to be regenerated in part to be reformed to the obedience of God, rather, we must be wholly recast and renewed from the crown of our head down to the soles of our feet, on account of there being nothing in ourselves but what is filth and stench to God.​

​

In addition, baptism is to show us that we must die to ourselves and to the world, and that we must be resurrected, in a manner of speaking, so that God may live in us, although this was better expressed when persons were completely immersed in the water. ...But, again, it is not necessary for us to be so devoted to what is of little importance, that we make a fuss over it.​

​

It is sufficient that baptism is administered, as required, and that above all it is shown to us that from the womb of our mother we bring only disease, and that we are abominable before God until he properly cleanses us. We must realize where our washing comes from, and how it proceeds to us, namely, from the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. We must also know that we must die (and this is also why the water is put on the head, as if the child being baptized were put at the bottom of a river to die), and we must know how this is done, and how God communicates this grace to us, which is through the Holy Spirit. When all these things are declared to us, let us be content, for that is what is required in Baptism.​

I have witnessed many non-immersionist sermons on baptism and baptismal services where but scarce, or even more often, no mention is made of this aspect of baptism. To me, it seems the issue of proclaiming “the whole counsel of God” is an applicable concern here. So, the second part of my question for non-immersionists who may agree with the historical take (again, especially ministers), how do you handle this matter—and why?

 

[Northern Crofter]

I suppose I’m somewhat (in)famous here on the PB for my postings on immersion. But I don’t think I’ve ever come out and specifically asked the $64 question:

How does one account for the wide gap in the historical interpretation of modal issues that exists between modern non-immersionists and their predecessors, particularly when it comes to the Reformed?​

In short, previous generations largely believed immersion was the normal apostolic practice, and that such had intentional and rich spiritual symbolism. Most people agree that the concept of cleansing has appreciable links to a range of biblical practices, including sprinkling, pouring, and bathing (often interpreted as being by immersion). Yet historically there has also been substantial unity in the understanding that passages like Rom. 6:4,5,6 (cf. Col. 2:12), indicate that baptism by immersion is meant to portray the believer’s death, burial, and resurrection, mediated by Christ in the spiritual realm. For example, here is one Reformed stalwart who was emphatically enthusiastic about this symbolism, and its interrelation with multiple passages of Scripture, here contextualized in a discussion of 1 Cor. 10:2.

Many similar examples of this same comprehension among the Patristics and early Reformed alike could be given. So, the first part of my question is this: Do non-immersionists believe the historical interpretation of these passages is simply mistaken? If so, that’s fine, and there is no need to proceed further with my post. It’s not my intent here to debate the particular merits of either position on that matter.

I have witnessed many non-immersionist sermons on baptism and baptismal services where but scarce, or even more often, no mention is made of this aspect of baptism. To me, it seems the issue of proclaiming “the whole counsel of God” is an applicable concern here. So, the second part of my question for non-immersionists who may agree with the historical take (again, especially ministers), how do you handle this matter—and why?

Without weighing on the historical aspect right now (for example, the many references to the deaths of infants after being immersed in the Middle Ages - still the norm in EO communions), it is important to recognize that someone who is non-credo is not necessarily a non-immersionist (I'm not saying you were suggesting this, I just wanting to clarify). As the WCF puts it, "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person." (28.3). So many non-credos have no issue with immersion - they just don't see it as "necessary" for fulfilling the sacramental sign. Like the recent discussion on PB regarding the color of what's in the communion cup bringing to mind the color of Christ's shed blood, just because the believer’s death, burial, and resurrection with Christ can be sensibly analogized via immersion does not make it regulative absent explicit warrant in Scripture.

 

[Phil D.]

Without weighing on the historical aspect right now (for example, the many references to the deaths of infants after being immersed in the Middle Ages - still the norm in EO communions), it is important to recognize that someone who is non-credo is not necessarily a non-immersionist (I'm not saying you were suggesting this, I just wanting to clarify). As the WCF puts it, "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person." (28.3). So many non-credos have no issue with immersion - they just don't see it as "necessary" for fulfilling the sacramental sign.

That's a good point. So to clarify, by "non-immersionist" I mean those who do not see immersion as either a required, or a preferable mode of baptism.

the many references to the deaths of infants after being immersed in the Middle Ages

I've not encountered "many" references to this effect, but perhaps this point speaks more to another issue concerning baptism... But let's save that discussion for a different time.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Isn't your answer found in Calvin?

One could make a similar argument about the Lord's Supper that a tiny portion of bread and wine does not "naturally" convey the feast it signifies or our feeding upon Christ spiritually.

Calvin's point is not that we need to concern ourselves with ensuring we have the natural mode to convey what baptism signifies. We need to instruct and teach the fullness of what it signifies.

 

[Phil D.]

Calvin's point is not that we need to concern ourselves with ensuring we have the natural mode to convey what baptism signifies. We need to instruct and teach the fullness of what it signifies.

Again, my question is, why don't so many Reformed ministers follow Calvin's (and others') example in heralding the full biblical meaning of baptism, even if they don't use or see immersion as necessary? In other words, in my experience, and unlike Calvin, the connection with death-burial-resurrection often isn't even mentioned when a minister preaches on baptism or baptizes by means other than immersion. Some possibilities for this omission seem to be 1) they reject the historical comprehension on this matter, 2) they don't want to concede anything to the Baptists, 3) they fear it would raise too many questions as to why a normal apostolic practice isn't still followed. I'm sure there must be other possibilities as well. But rather than merely suppose or attribute a motive, I would rather hear others' actual perspective. I'm even hopeful someone might chime in here to say they do follow Calvin in this matter. Another way to express my main concern is, how does such a didactic omission comport with declaring the whole counsel of God to their congregations?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Again, my question is, why don't so many Reformed ministers follow Calvin's (and others') example in heralding the full biblical meaning of baptism, even if they don't use or see immersion as necessary?

From the PCA BCO (similar to the original Directory):

The Administration of Baptism
The Baptism of Infants and Children
56-1. Baptism is not to be unnecessarily delayed; not to be administered, in any case, by any private person; but by a minister of Christ, called to be the steward of the mysteries of God.

​

56-2. It is not to be privately administered, but in the presence of the congregation under the supervision of the Session.

​

56-3. After previous notice is given to the minister, the child to be baptized is to be presented, by one or both the parents, or some other responsible person, signifying the desire that the child be baptized.

​

56-4. Before baptism, the minister is to use some words of instruction, touching the institution, nature, use, and ends of this sacrament, showing:
That it is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ;
That it is a seal of the Covenant of Grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with Him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal;
That the water, in baptism, represents and signifies both the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, original and actual; and the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin, and the corruption of our sinful nature;
That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifies the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ;
That the promise is made to believers and their children; and that the children of believers have an interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the Church, under the Gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the Covenant of Grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before;
That the Son of God admitted little children into His presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, “For of such is the kingdom of God”;



That children by Baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the Visible Church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their Baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh;

That they are federally holy before Baptism, and therefore are they baptized;

That the inward grace and virtue of Baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered; and that the fruit and power thereof reaches to the whole course of our life; and that outward baptism is not so necessary, that through the want thereof, the infant is in danger of damnation;

By virtue of being children of believing parents they are, because of God’s covenant ordinance, made members of the Church, but this is not sufficient to make them continue members of the Church. When they have reached the age of discretion, they become subject to obligations of the covenant: faith, repentance and obedience. They then make public confession of their faith in Christ, or become covenant breakers, and subject to the discipline of the Church.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Can you provide any forms from Reformed confessions that omit this?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Heidelberg:

Question 69. How art thou admonished and assured by holy baptism, that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to thee?

Answer: Thus: That Christ appointed this external washing with water, (a) adding thereto this promise, (b) that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, (c) as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.​

 

[Phil D.]

Can you provide any forms from Reformed confessions that omit this?

No, which only reinforces my concern, because so many ministers make no mention of it in real time, nor make reference to those points in the confessions and catechisms.

 

[MarrowMan]

I find that I emphasize what is most needed in terms of emphasis. That is, the declaration of the objective promise of God that I will be God to you (and your children after you in the case of IB) on the basis of the righteousness that is by faith. This doesn't mean I don't mention the death, burial, and Resurrection. Nor does it mean I don't mention the cleansing signified therein. It does mean that the objective promise of God takes primacy of emphasis based upon the area where my congregation needs instruction most.

 

[Phil D.]

56-4. Before baptism, the minister is to use some words of instruction, touching the institution, nature, use, and ends of this sacrament, showing:
That it is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ;
That it is a seal of the Covenant of Grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with Him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal;
That the water, in baptism, represents and signifies both the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, original and actual; and the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin, and the corruption of our sinful nature;
That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifies the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ;
That the promise is made to believers and their children; and that the children of believers have an interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the Church, under the Gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the Covenant of Grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before;
That the Son of God admitted little children into His presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, “For of such is the kingdom of God”;

In historical terms, the bolded part has been perceived as but one aspect of what baptism signifies. As seen in the Turretin and Calvin quotes, the dying and burial of the old Adam and rising to new life in Christ has been seen as a second symbolism intended to be portrayed in, or at least connected with baptism.

Turretin also prefaced his remarks previously shown by saying, "Paul gives us the key to the mystery in the words that we have before us, for he would not have been able to say that the Fathers were baptized into Moses in the Cloud and the Sea, unless the pillar of Cloud and the passage through the Sea had something that would symbolically correspond to the Sacrament of baptism and the spiritual benefits that are sealed with it." In the case of being baptized in the Sea, Turretin then indicates that an appreciation of the apostolic mode of immersion is a necessary corollary for properly comprehending Paul's teaching.

 

[iainduguid]

Hi Phil,
I'm sure your description of your experience is accurate, but the experience of others might vary. I looked back at what I said at a recent baptism. Here's my first paragraph:

Today we have the great joy of celebrating the sacrament of covenant baptism. Before we do so, it is good to spend a few moments thinking about what this ceremony is. The sacrament of baptism represents and seals three things that are necessary for our salvation: first, baptism is a washing with water that symbolizes the washing away of our sins that is necessary if we are to stand before the presence of a holy God; we are born under the judgment of God because of Adam’s sin, to which we quickly add sin upon sin of our own; without cleansing we cannot approach God. Second, we are baptized into the death of Christ: this act is a symbolic union with Christ in his death and resurrection: the water that we pour out is a symbol of God’s judgment upon sin, just as in the Old Testament Flood. But only a token of that judgment is poured out on these children: the full reality has been taken for his people by Jesus Christ on the cross. As Paul says in Romans 6: “Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life”. We baptize these children into Christ’s death, asking in faith that God will unite them to Christ and thereby raise them to new life in him. Third, baptism symbolizes and seals the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon his people. Through baptism, we are initiated into the covenant community, the church. As baptized people, we are heirs of all of the rights and responsibilities of membership in the people of God, and especially of the promised Holy Spirit.

So maybe more Reformed pastors are saying this than you think, or maybe I'm an outlier. I didn't think I was, but I don't get to a lot of baptisms outside my own church.

 

[Phil D.]

Second, we are baptized into the death of Christ: this act is a symbolic union with Christ in his death and resurrection: the water that we pour out is a symbol of God’s judgment upon sin, just as in the Old Testament Flood. But only a token of that judgment is poured out on these children: the full reality has been taken for his people by Jesus Christ on the cross.

I like it!

I will say, the point I've normally seen made by the early Reformed regarding the Flood is similar to what Turretin says about the Red Sea passage. The Flood was an immersion event that both destroyed and preserved. For example, Ursinus says,

The ceremony connected with baptism sets forth deliverance from our varied afflictions. We are immersed, but not drowned, or suffocated. It is in respect to this end that baptism is compared to the flood; for as in the flood, Noah and his family who were shut up in the ark were saved, yet not without much anxiety and peril, whilst the rest of mankind who were without the ark perished; so, those who are in the church, and who cleave to Christ, will most certainly be delivered at the proper time, although they may be pressed with afflictions and dangers from every side; whilst those who are out of the church will be overwhelmed with the deluge of sin and destruction. We may also appropriately refer here to that passage of Paul, where he compares the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea to baptism. ‘All were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.’
(The Commentary of Dr. Zacharius Ursinus, on the Heidelberg Catechism, [Cincinnati: 1888], p.360f.)

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I suppose I’m somewhat (in)famous here on the PB for my postings on immersion. But I don’t think I’ve ever come out and specifically asked the $64 question:

How does one account for the wide gap in the historical interpretation of modal issues that exists between modern non-immersionists and their predecessors, particularly when it comes to the Reformed?​

In short, previous generations largely believed immersion was the normal apostolic practice, and that such had intentional and rich spiritual symbolism. Most people agree that the concept of cleansing has appreciable links to a range of biblical practices, including sprinkling, pouring, and bathing (often interpreted as being by immersion). Yet historically there has also been substantial unity in the understanding that passages like Rom. 6:4,5,6 (cf. Col. 2:12), indicate that baptism by immersion is meant to portray the believer’s death, burial, and resurrection, mediated by Christ in the spiritual realm. For example, here is one Reformed stalwart who was emphatically enthusiastic about this symbolism, and its interrelation with multiple passages of Scripture, here contextualized in a discussion of 1 Cor. 10:2.

Francis Turretin (1623-87); Genevan Italian Reformed; De Baptismo Nubis et Maris; Accessit ejusdem Disputationum Miscellanearum Decas; (Geneva: 1687), 131ff.​

​

...In another great similarity, the passage of the Israelites through the Sea wonderfully agrees with our own baptism, by foreshadowing its grace. For, as in baptism, when performed by immersion and emersion, as it once was, the person descends into the water and then comes out again, of which descent and ascent we have an example in the Eunuch (Acts 8:38,39). Consequently, when in this rite persons are immersed in water, they are overwhelmed and, in a manner, buried together with Christ; and again, when they emerge, seem to be raised out of the grave, and are said to rise again with Christ (Rom. 6:4,5, Col. 2:12).​

​

In the Mosaic baptism we likewise have an immersion and an emersion; that, when they descended into the depths of the Sea; this, when they came out and escaped to the opposite shore. The former was a picture of death, the latter of resurrection. When they passed through the bottom of the Sea, what distanced them from death, except their escape to the opposite shore—so were they not, as it were, resurrected from the dead? Again, in the crossing of the Sea the Israelites are saved, but the Egyptians perish; the same Sea which is the means of deliverance for one, becomes the cause of death and destruction to the other.​

​

And we may also observe this very thing in baptism: the same baptism which saves us, also extinguishes and mortifies the old man; just as Pharaoh with his whole army of sins perish in the Red Sea of the Blood of Christ, so our old man was crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:3,6). While we are baptized into the death of Christ, the same blood that redeems us and opens the way to heaven for us (Heb. 10:19,20), destroys the devil and sin. By death He destroyed him who had the power of death (Heb. 2:14,15), and triumphed on the cross over Principalities and Powers (Col. 2:13,14,15).​

Many similar examples of this same comprehension among the Patristics and early Reformed alike could be given. So, the first part of my question is this: Do non-immersionists believe the historical interpretation of these passages is simply mistaken? If so, that’s fine, and there is no need to proceed further with my post. It’s not my intent here to debate the particular merits of either position on that matter.

For those who do agree with the historical understanding, and especially ministers, I have another question: Even if you don’t practice immersion, do you think it is still important to convey these concepts when presenting the meaning of baptism? Here is perhaps the most striking case I have found where someone who didn’t practice immersion still thought it was necessary to do so.

John Calvin; Sermons sue l'harmonie des trois evangelistes; S. Matthieu, S. Luc et S. Marc, 42; G. Baum, E. Cunitz, E, Reuss, eds., Ionnes Calvini Opera, quae Supersunt Omnia, (Brunsvigae: 1891), 46:520f.​

The natural use of Baptism, therefore, as regards the figure, was that one was immersed in the water. And that represented the complete washing that must be done in man. For, as we have said, we do not just need to be regenerated in part to be reformed to the obedience of God, rather, we must be wholly recast and renewed from the crown of our head down to the soles of our feet, on account of there being nothing in ourselves but what is filth and stench to God.​

​

In addition, baptism is to show us that we must die to ourselves and to the world, and that we must be resurrected, in a manner of speaking, so that God may live in us, although this was better expressed when persons were completely immersed in the water. ...But, again, it is not necessary for us to be so devoted to what is of little importance, that we make a fuss over it.​

​

It is sufficient that baptism is administered, as required, and that above all it is shown to us that from the womb of our mother we bring only disease, and that we are abominable before God until he properly cleanses us. We must realize where our washing comes from, and how it proceeds to us, namely, from the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. We must also know that we must die (and this is also why the water is put on the head, as if the child being baptized were put at the bottom of a river to die), and we must know how this is done, and how God communicates this grace to us, which is through the Holy Spirit. When all these things are declared to us, let us be content, for that is what is required in Baptism.​

I have witnessed many non-immersionist sermons on baptism and baptismal services where but scarce, or even more often, no mention is made of this aspect of baptism. To me, it seems the issue of proclaiming “the whole counsel of God” is an applicable concern here. So, the second part of my question for non-immersionists who may agree with the historical take (again, especially ministers), how do you handle this matter—and why?

Phil,
As you know, I've thanked you for our interactions here on the PB (going back many years) being one element but quite instrumental in broadening my appreciation for baptism's symbolic work. I did considerable study in the Scriptures on the subject--not much interest on my part on what different historical eras and geography had to say about preference of doctrine or practice. You probably could track that research and broadened emphasis in my PB posts.

How does one account for the wide gap in the historical interpretation of modal issues that exists between modern non-immersionists and their predecessors, particularly when it comes to the Reformed?​

I'll answer for myself, as to why I think I formerly made little effort to cover that "gap"--I suppose it was partly a matter of priorities, thinking first of all what was needful for my auditory or readership as best I could gauge it. But also, I think I did fit a category of ministers/teachers in my tradition who responded to the contrary insistence by typical immersionists (as to modal non-negotiation) with a reflexive dismissal. Today, I think my indifference was an error: I was partisan (tribal) rather than principled.

It is possible to maintain your tradition has a handle on truth--even the best grasp--and maintain a balanced perspective. After all, the truth remains what it is without any dependence on the number or quality of those who regard it. The immersionists affirm at least one aspect of the truth, and they should not have exclusive right of it. I suspect that as immersionists gained adherents, passing from a minority in the 16thC to a majority of evangelicals in the USA today, the once-majority became virtually anti-immersionist, to the neglect even of echoing earlier fathers of the Reformation on the subject.

So, the second part of my question for non-immersionists who may agree with the historical take (again, especially ministers), how do you handle this matter—and why?​

I usually confine my commentary to BCO terms when conducting baptism. However, I typically preach a sermon that goes along with the sacramental observance. I have preached the texts 1Pet.3 and 1Cor.10, which evoke immersion symbolism. "Burial" in baptism (ala Col.2:12 and Rom.6:4) is a summons to imagination, with a connection to drowning, rather than a direct reference to (alleged) sine qua non physical acts; in this vein there are two other baptism ritual-illustrations that stand parallel to ritual death in the text, namely ritual dress (Gal.3:27) and ritual drink (1Cor.12:13). I understand why immersionists might insist that baptism's physical practice surely must have anticipated St.Paul's verbal choice for the first; but then go with imagination for the other two. I rather opine an inverse causal relation: immersion practice came about in part because of signal utility tied to the first illustration.

The view I have come to over years of study and ministry is that baptism is such a rich fund of symbolism, there is no aspect that should be neglected (over time). We are committed above all to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. We should appreciate the opinions and support of Calvin and others in the historical record, even if we dissent from them at various points. I'm not so concerned with what the Reformers practiced or thought on baptism when connecting themselves with the Medieval and Ancient church, as I am with connecting my theology and practice of baptism with a robust biblical defense.

 

[Ploutos]

It is possible to maintain your tradition has a handle on truth--even the best grasp--and maintain a balanced perspective. After all, the truth remains what it is without any dependence on the number or quality of those who regard it. The immersionists affirm at least one aspect of the truth, and they should not have exclusive right of it. I suspect that as immersionists gained adherents, passing from a minority in the 16thC to a majority of evangelicals in the USA today, the once-majority became virtually anti-immersionist, to the neglect even of echoing earlier fathers of the Reformation on the subject.

I think this hits the nail on the head. It is reflective of sinful human nature that we are quick to accommodate to the point of compromise OR quick to draw lines to the exclusion of any viewpoint tainted by mere association with rivals. Purism or pluralism - it's hard to find the balanced approach in the middle.

While still young in faith and in knowledge, I have read enough to taste this for myself. I was very surprised when I read the Institutes and saw that Calvin thought immersion was likely the original practice. I have also been surprised that Calvin thought that Jesus was giving some sort of primacy to Peter in Matt. 16 or that other Reformers accepted the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity. At one time I would have shuddered at talk of Jesus being truly present in the Lord's Supper - sounds like a slippery slope to Roman Catholicism in the ears of a younger me!

My take away is not so much that I need to agree with the Reformers or change my views on every such topic, but more so to allow myself to become more aware of the range of possible views on a topic held by faithful believers, and most importantly to go deeper into Scripture and have the confidence to hold beliefs not merely in reaction to opposing systems but because they have a strong biblical case for them. My take away from Calvin is that I need not shrink back from seeing immersion or the primacy of Peter in Scripture just because Baptists or Romanists do. I need not agree with him, but it's possible to do so - if one sees a biblical basis for those views - without teasing out erroneous conclusions of which those views are part and parcel.

I acknowledge, of course, that there is a great deal of difference between being Baptist and Romanist, nor do I mean any disparagement in lumping the two together in the category of "erroneous conclusions" - just that I'm neither Roman nor Baptist. I'm mainly sharing some analogous examples from my own experience with the notion of "reflexive dismissal" to which Phil and Bruce are so eloquently bringing our attention.

 

[Phil D.]

Hi Rev. Buchanan, I'm glad you responded and appreciate your input.

The view I have come to over years of study and ministry is that baptism is such a rich fund of symbolism, there is no aspect that should be neglected (over time). We are committed above all to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. We should appreciate the opinions and support of Calvin and others in the historical record, even if we dissent from them at various points. I'm not so concerned with what the Reformers practiced or thought on baptism when connecting themselves with the Medieval and Ancient church, as I am with connecting my theology and practice of baptism with a robust biblical defense.

With regard to what you wrote above. You seem to be saying that the Reformers based some of their views on baptism more on patristic and medieval concepts, rather than Scripture. Am I reading that correctly? If so, might you share with what things in particular you think they did this?

 

[Phil D.]

I think this hits the nail on the head. It is reflective of sinful human nature that we are quick to accommodate to the point of compromise OR quick to draw lines to the exclusion of any viewpoint tainted by mere association with rivals. Purism or pluralism - it's hard to find the balanced approach in the middle.

This gets at what initially grabbed my attention years ago when I was studying baptism and came to the issue of mode. The consensus (to the extant that term can ever apply) among all stripes of Christians was that immersion was the apostolic norm. Virtually no one disagreed with that, until mode became an issue in the confrontation between the Reformers and Anabaptists and then later Baptists. Even then the vast majority of Reformers continued to affirm that immersion was the/an apostolic practice. But in situations where things began to become very heated, you can see the former concord on that point start to crumble. In the space of a couple of centuries, the majority position among the Reformed went from affirming apostolic immersion, to in some significant cases denying that, and then occasionally going the step further by outright denigrating immersion as an appropriate mode of baptism. People can study that historical progression and draw their own conclusions as to why this happened, and whether or not it was justified.

Though not from a particularly important person, perhaps the most extreme case I have come across was with a Swiss-Canadian Reformed minister named Philippe Wolff (1810–94). From the Reformed often calling the symbolism of immersion in Rom. 6:4 profound, striking, wonderful, and sacramentally rich, it had somehow come to instead saying,

...We will assert that immersion is no baptism. ...It is an indecency, the parody of a Christian institution, if not even a blasphemy. ...We utterly deny that immersion has any analogy with the burial of Christ, unless as a parody and profanation of a holy thing. ...The conditions indispensable to a symbolic burial are in no way fulfilled by immersion. It is but a burlesque, a miserable parody, of the death of Jesus Christ, and that is all.​

(Baptism: The Covenant and the Family, [Boston: 1862], 34, 73f.)​

 

[Northern Crofter]

My take away is not so much that I need to agree with the Reformers or change my views on every such topic, but more so to allow myself to become more aware of the range of possible views on a topic held by faithful believers, and most importantly to go deeper into Scripture and have the confidence to hold beliefs not merely in reaction to opposing systems but because they have a strong biblical case for them. My take away from Calvin is that I need not shrink back from seeing immersion or the primacy of Peter in Scripture just because Baptists or Romanists do. I need not agree with him, but it's possible to do so - if one sees a biblical basis for those views - without teasing out erroneous conclusions of which those views are part and parcel.

I usually confine my commentary to BCO terms when conducting baptism. However, I typically preach a sermon that goes along with the sacramental observance. I have preached the texts 1Pet.3 and 1Cor.10, which evoke immersion symbolism. "Burial" in baptism (ala Col.2:12 and Rom.6:4) is a summons to imagination, with a connection to drowning, rather than a direct reference to (alleged) sine qua non physical acts; in this vein there are two other baptism ritual-illustrations that stand parallel to ritual death in the text, namely ritual dress (Gal.3:27) and ritual drink (1Cor.12:13). I understand why immersionists might insist that baptism's physical practice surely must have anticipated St.Paul's verbal choice for the first; but then go with imagination for the other two. I rather opine an inverse causal relation: immersion practice came about in part because of signal utility tied to the first illustration.

I largely agree. I was raised in a credo-baptist congregation, so I still have an affinity for the imagery that being placed under water and then being pulled up out of it has with with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. I'm still fascinated by the EO practice of full immersion for infants (and for requiring adult converts to climb into the standard EO fount - though I've been told by an EO friend that, in his American experience, (a) babies are now usually sat in the water and then water is poured over their head, and (b) adult converts put their head in, not their whole body, and (c) some congregations have cross-shaped or jacuzzi-style pools):

But such an affinity is not based on Scripture. I disagree that:

passages like Rom. 6:4,5,6 (cf. Col. 2:12), indicate that baptism by immersion is meant to portray the believer’s death, burial, and resurrection,

Scripture specifically testifies that Christ was placed in a tomb, not under the earth (see the testimony of all 3 synoptic accounts). When Moses led the people "our fathers were under that cloud, and all passed through that sea," not under it (1 Corinthians 10:1, my emphasis). I've come to believe that the essential aspect of all these events - Noah, Moses, etc. - is that God's chosen people are placed under His love and care in a way that sets them apart. This does not always mean those people always come to faith (Ham was on the ark with Noah, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram passed through the Sea with Moses, for examples). Baptism is a placing under - it is not always done with water (else Scripture would not have to say "baptize you with water" at times - see Matthew 3:11 and elsewhere). Like several other Greek words, baptizó has a meaning and use distinct in Scripture. Christ specifically spoke of baptism without water: "John baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the holy Ghost." (Acts 11:16) so it clearly seems to have the broader meaning of "being placed under" than the common Greek usage of "being dipped in a liquid." I think we miss the fullness of baptism by limiting it to water in such passages - I believe we should be placing more emphasis on the truth that the person being baptized is being placed under God's love and care and less on parallels to compatible truths such as Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.

 

[Phil D.]

Scripture specifically testifies that Christ was placed in a tomb, not under the earth (see the testimony of all 3 synoptic accounts). When Moses led the people "our fathers were under that cloud, and all passed through that sea," not under it (1 Corinthians 10:1, my emphasis). I've come to believe that the essential aspect of all these events - Noah, Moses, etc. - is that God's chosen people are placed under His love and care in a way that sets them apart. This does not always mean those people always come to faith (Ham was on the ark with Noah, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram passed through the Sea with Moses, for examples). Baptism is a placing under - it is not always done with water (else Scripture would not have to say "baptize you with water" at times - see Matthew 3:11 and elsewhere). Like several other Greek words, baptizó has a meaning and use distinct in Scripture. Christ specifically spoke of baptism without water: "John baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the holy Ghost." (Acts 11:16) so it clearly seems to have the broader meaning of "being placed under" than the common Greek usage of "being dipped in a liquid." I think we miss the fullness of baptism by limiting it to water in such passages - I believe we should be placing more emphasis on the truth that the person being baptized is being placed under God's love and care and less on parallels to compatible truths such as Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.

Ultimately we must all come to our own conclusions. But so much here ignores the historical and historical-Reformed understanding of these things. There are good explanations and answers to all of your objections, some of which are anachronistic. While no one is infallible, I am slow to believe that so many Christians were so wrong about so many things for so long, and that only now can we really determine what is meant.

 

[Northern Crofter]

But so much here ignores the historical and historical-Reformed understanding of these things....I am slow to believe that so many Christians were so wrong about so many things for so long, and that only now can we really determine what is meant.

One of the issues with your OP is that you claim:

In short, previous generations largely believed immersion was the normal apostolic practice, and that such had intentional and rich spiritual symbolism.

but then you only appeal to quotes from Calvin and Turretin who were 1500 years separated from the Apostolic Era. For every reference to immersion in a source like the Didache one can find an opposing image (pouring) in early Church art. But all such references are problematic - the Didache records triple immersion in running water, and most of the art has images of Christ (unless one argues that modern immersionists are doing it wrong by only placing the person under the water once or that the 2nd Commandment allows such images because previous generations seemed to have allowed it).

I am slow to believe that so many Christians were so wrong about so many things for so long, and that only now can we really determine what is meant.

Who is saying that about whom? What pre-reformation "historical... understanding of these things" are you referring to? What historical sources are you using to claim that "immersion was the normal apostolic practice"? If it was that clear in the historical record, we would not be having this discussion. Are you claiming there is a record of people predominately practicing baptism via immersion for hundreds of years and that people are just recently saying that's wrong and it is not necessary to immerse?

 

[Phil D.]

One of the issues with your OP is that you claim ... In short, previous generations largely believed immersion was the normal apostolic practice, and that such had intentional and rich spiritual symbolism. ... then you only appeal to quotes from Calvin and Turretin who were 1500 years separated from the Apostolic Era.

I had to chuckle here, because if anything I have been criticized in the past for quoting sources ad nauseam to prove my point about the historical consensus on these matters. I'd prefer not to do so here again, but this document I created years ago should give some indication of what I mean. I've also extensively considered the issue of early baptismal art, most recently in the PB thread Jesus Baptism.

 

[cthorn14]

In short, previous generations largely believed immersion was the normal apostolic practice, and that such had intentional and rich spiritual symbolism.

From David Dickson (1589-1662), Truth's Victory Over Error: A Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Quest. II. Is dipping of the person (to be baptized) into Water necessary?
No.

Is Baptism rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person?

Yes. Acts 2. 41. Acts 16. 33.

Well then, do not the Anabaptists err, who maintain, Dipping to be an absolute and necessary ceremony in Baptism?
Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?
(1.) Because, the Greek word in the original signifies, as well to pour, and sprinkle water, as it signifies to dip; Mark. 7. 4. Where it is said, and when they come from the mercat, unless they wash, or be Baptized, they eat not. (2.) Because, we read of three thousand baptized in one day, in the streets of Jerusalem,by twelve Apostles at the most, where there was no river to dip them into; Acts 2. 41. And was not Jerusalem, and all Judea, and the region round about Jordan, baptized by John the Baptist himself alone, which could not be done to all and every one by Dipping? Matth. 3. 5, 6. (3.) Were not many baptized in private houses, as we read in the History
of the Acts, chapter 10. 47. and 18. 8. with 9. 17. and 16. 33. (4.) Because, Dipping of Infants into water in these cold Countries, would be hurtful and dangerous to them. But GOD will rather have mercy than sacrifice; Matth. 9. 13.

 

[Phil D.]

In short, previous generations largely believed immersion was the normal apostolic practice, and that such had intentional and rich spiritual symbolism.

From David Dickson (1589-1662), Truth's Victory Over Error: A Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith:

By previous generations I mean until the modal controversy arose, starting with the Anabaptists in the 16th Century, at which time presentations like Dickson's began to deviate from the previous consensus.

 

[cthorn14]

By previous generations I mean until the modal controversy arose, starting with the Anabaptists in the 16th Century, at which time presentations like Dickson's began to deviate from the previous consensus.

Fair enough, but you should modify your original post to reduce the scope of the claim. Dickson was a contemporary of Turretin.

 

[Phil D.]

Dickson was a contemporary of Turretin.

In which case the modifier "largely" in the OP applies.

 

[Ploutos]

Phil, I think we've jumped from observing that Calvin and other Reformers considered immersion the apostolic practice to an assumed premise that immersion has always until recently been considered the practice of the early church. The former is a given; the latter is not.

 

[Phil D.]

Phil, I think we've jumped from observing that Calvin and other Reformers considered immersion the apostolic practice to an assumed premise that immersion has always until recently been considered the practice of the early church. The former is a given; the latter is not.

The earliest suggestion I have found that anything other than immersion was used in the New Testament comes from the 12th Century (Bernard). Between then and the arrival of the Anabaptists in the 16th Century, the occurrences of such a view are indeed few and far between (I have found maybe a half-dozen or so). If you look at the link I gave in post #21, you can see where many subsequent reputable sources concur, enough I believe to call it a consensus, as that term would normally be used. If we want to talk raw numbers, taking into account secular scholars, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and other pre-modern Protestants, the number of dissenters is relatively minuscule.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I had to chuckle here, because if anything I have been criticized in the past for quoting sources ad nauseam to prove my point about the historical consensus on these matters. I'd prefer not to do so here again, but this document I created years ago should give some indication of what I mean. I've also extensively considered the issue of early baptismal art, most recently in the PB thread Jesus Baptism.

Yes, I have in the past read what you have (extensively) posted on the topic of baptism. But statements like "There is widespread agreement amongst scholars that immersion was the normative or general practice in apostolic and early patristic water baptism," (emphasis added) and then quoting Justin Martyr or Clement or Irenaeus or Tertullian is misleading:

First, there is no apostolic teaching regarding the mode of baptism.

Second, there are some early patristic references to the mode of water baptism, but they do not all agree.

Third, not everything they recorded/taught during the early patristic period is still being done by immersionists - like baptisms being without any clothing, using oil, and including exorcism. See Hippolytus (a contemporary of some of your sources from the early patristic period) for example:

"1 At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water.
2 When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water.
3 Then they shall take off all their clothes.
4 The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.
5 After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water.
6 At the time determined for baptism, the bishop shall give thanks over some oil, which he puts in a vessel. It is called the Oil of Thanksgiving.
7 He shall take some more oil and exorcise it. It is called the Oil of Exorcism.
8 A deacon shall hold the Oil of Exorcism and stand on the left. Another deacon shall hold the Oil of Thanksgiving and stand on the right.
9 When the elder takes hold of each of them who are to receive baptism, he shall tell each of them to renounce, saying, "I renounce you Satan, all your service, and all your works."
10 After he has said this, he shall anoint each with the Oil of Exorcism, saying, "Let every evil spirit depart from you."
11 Then, after these things, the bishop passes each of them on nude to the elder who stands at the water. They shall stand in the water naked. A deacon, likewise, will go down with them into the water." Hippolytus. "Apostolic Traditions," 21:1-11

I guess what I'm driving at is, how do you justify the practice of immersion on the basis of alleged historical consensus but then not also argue for the other modal practices (such as fasting, corporate nudity, oil, etc.) that were in use during the early patristic period and mentioned alongside immersion?

The earliest suggestion I have found that anything other than immersion was used in the New Testament comes from the 12th Century (Bernard). Between then and the arrival of the Anabaptists in the 16th Century, the occurrences of such a view are indeed few and far between (I have found maybe a half-dozen or so).

The Didache (which most of the same scholars you refer to holding that immersion was the normative or general practice in apostolic and early patristic time period assign to the first century) shows there were several modes were allowed/used:

"Chap. VII.

1. Now concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first taught all these things, baptize ye into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.
2. And if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm (water).
3. But if thou hast neither, pour [water] thrice upon the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
4. But before Baptism let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and any others who can; but thou shalt command the baptized to fast for one or two days before."

It seems obvious that the mode was not essential - there may have been a preference (likely for the compatible truths such as Christ's death, burial, and resurrection mentioned above in this thread, and/or because of links to Jewish washing traditions) for immersion in running water, but there seems to have never been a legislated standard.

Doesn't one run the risk losing the Biblical concept of the washing away/regeneration in the sign of baptism if one instead chooses to focus on and emphasize the parallel between the immersion mode and Christ's death, burial, and resurrection? Which concept is more clearly associated with baptism in Scripture?

 

[Phil D.]

Yes, I have in the past read what you have (extensively) posted on the topic of baptism. But statements like "There is widespread agreement amongst scholars that immersion was the normative or general practice in apostolic and early patristic water baptism," (emphasis added) and then quoting Justin Martyr or Clement or Irenaeus or Tertullian is misleading:

First, there is no apostolic teaching regarding the mode of baptism.

Second, there are some early patristic references to the mode of water baptism, but they do not all agree.

Third, not everything they recorded/taught during the early patristic period is still being done by immersionists - like baptisms being without any clothing, using oil, and including exorcism. See Hippolytus (a contemporary of some of your sources from the early patristic period) for example:

"1 At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water.
2 When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water.
3 Then they shall take off all their clothes.
4 The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.
5 After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water.
6 At the time determined for baptism, the bishop shall give thanks over some oil, which he puts in a vessel. It is called the Oil of Thanksgiving.
7 He shall take some more oil and exorcise it. It is called the Oil of Exorcism.
8 A deacon shall hold the Oil of Exorcism and stand on the left. Another deacon shall hold the Oil of Thanksgiving and stand on the right.
9 When the elder takes hold of each of them who are to receive baptism, he shall tell each of them to renounce, saying, "I renounce you Satan, all your service, and all your works."
10 After he has said this, he shall anoint each with the Oil of Exorcism, saying, "Let every evil spirit depart from you."
11 Then, after these things, the bishop passes each of them on nude to the elder who stands at the water. They shall stand in the water naked. A deacon, likewise, will go down with them into the water." Hippolytus. "Apostolic Traditions," 21:1-11

I guess what I'm driving at is, how do you justify the practice of immersion on the basis of alleged historical consensus but then not also argue for the other modal practices (such as fasting, corporate nudity, oil, etc.) that were in use during the early patristic period and mentioned alongside immersion?

The Didache (which most of the same scholars you refer to holding that immersion was the normative or general practice in apostolic and early patristic time period assign to the first century) shows there were several modes were allowed/used:

"Chap. VII.

1. Now concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first taught all these things, baptize ye into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.
2. And if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm (water).
3. But if thou hast neither, pour [water] thrice upon the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
4. But before Baptism let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and any others who can; but thou shalt command the baptized to fast for one or two days before."

It seems obvious that the mode was not essential - there may have been a preference (likely for the compatible truths such as Christ's death, burial, and resurrection mentioned above in this thread, and/or because of links to Jewish washing traditions) for immersion in running water, but there seems to have never been a legislated standard.

Doesn't one run the risk losing the Biblical concept of the washing away/regeneration in the sign of baptism if one instead chooses to focus on and emphasize the parallel between the immersion mode and Christ's death, burial, and resurrection? Which concept is more clearly associated with baptism in Scripture?

As you note, I have already shared my views extensively, and don't see anything here that I haven't already addressed elsewhere, and in some case multiple times. We clearly aren't going to agree on most things regarding this topic. And that's fine. We should all strive to be teachable, adequately inform ourselves, and then follow our conscience. When we ultimately don't see eye to eye, let's just shake hands (...COVID protocols notwithstanding...) and agree to disagree.

 

[Northern Crofter]

let's just shake hands (...COVID protocols notwithstanding...) and agree to disagree

Is that still a thing (was it ever) in South Dakota?