If earliest baptismal records and art show immersion....

[anotherpilgrim]

Browsing over some of the old threads on the board, I came across this one http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/early-baptismal-art-63718/ concerning early baptismal art.

If then it is true that the earliest records of baptism show it done by immersion, and if most accounts of baptism in the scriptures one can grant that immersion could have taken place, and given the classical meaning of the greek word, how does one respond to then giving preferences to sprinkling or pouring as is common in most paedobaptist congregations, because the evidence would seem to be on the immersionist side.

If on the other hand, immersion was not the normative practice of the apostolic times, and became normative later, how can one account for that?

Basically, what are the implications of early baptismal art and accounts on the proper mode?

 

[jogri17]

Immersion was the most common practice. No argument here. The question is whether Scripture demands immersion and there seems to be enough vagueness to say no. While personally I think immersion is a better picture of the Gospel, and immersion was the practice of the Protestantism in the 16th and 17th Century (Turretin's famous story is worth reading!), it is still the practice of the Orthodox Church, and Roman Catholicism still dunks people and depending on the culture will immerse infants.

But all 3 branches theologically have said the mode of baptism is a secondary concern.

 

[nicnap]

given the classical meaning of the greek

Are you sure that is the classical meaning of the Greek term? Even if it is the classical Greek usage, it is not the Biblical one. And use, not etymology, determines meaning. How does Scripture use the term? (E.g. from our culture: If a kid posts on his Facebook page, "It was the coolest day ever." By context he means best; do you think anyone would say, "Well, Billy, the coolest day on record for this date was actually 1896 -- it was a full 7 degrees cooler than today was" ? Of course not. Why? Use, not etymology determines what cool means in that sentence.) Scripture determines what the words of Scripture mean--not the classical usage.

I realize this only addresses a small portion of your question, but I thought it to be a necessary one. There are threads abounding, with the answers to the other questions.

 

[Marrow Man]

I would recommend to you The Archæology of the Mode of Baptism by Benjamin B. Warfield. It addresses the issue you mentioned. It is in his collected works, but I can't find an online version.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Rev. B.B. Warfield, "The Archæology of the Mode of Baptism," Bibliotheca Sacra 53 No. 212 (1896): 601-644. [This material is in the Public Domain]
From:BiblicalStudies.org.uk: Bibliotheca Sacra Vols. 51 - 60 (1894 - 1903)

 

[Peairtach]

I don't know if earliest baptismal records support immersion, but standing or sitting in the water with the water being poured or sprinkled from above as per bathing.

 

[Wretch67]

Tradition , which to some is a dirty word, has a lot more to do with how one is baptized than scriptural proof, of which there is nothing specifically written as to method.

 

[Moireach]

"Early art" means absolutely nothing. Scripture alone is the means by which a practice of the church is to be decided. As for how did immersion become more common, I honestly don't know the history but you're not going to find a satisfactory answer and it is certainly not an argument in favour of immersion.

But your question also includes presuppositions that aren't true.
Sprinkling is more likely than immersion in every instance of baptism in the Bible, and the Greek word does not support immersion over sprinkling.