The doctrine of water baptism has sadly been a bitter source of division for Christians down through the centuries, especially since the time of the Protestant Reformation. While most of the debate has centered on the question of whether or not infants are to be baptized, the proper mode of administering baptism has also caused significant debate. Some Christians baptize only by full immersion (this can also be called "submersion" baptism). Other Christians, in addition to immersion, will also administer water baptism by pouring water on the candidate (also called "affusion") or by sprinkling water upon the person receiving baptism (also called "aspersion").
Historically, Christian groups like Baptists, Pentecostals, and most independent Bible churches practice immersion-only baptism. They would argue that sprinkling and pouring are invalid methods of dispensing the ordinance. For example, the Baptist Faith and Message, the statement of beliefs for the Southern Baptist Convention, states that "Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Similarly, the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, published in 1689, states that, "Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance."
As noted above, however, immersion is also practiced by Pentecostals and others. The Sixteen Fundamental Truths of the Assemblies of God has as part of its doctrine of baptism, "The ordinance of baptism by immersion is commanded by the Scriptures." Similar convictions on the proper mode of baptism are found in places like Calvary Chapel and elsewhere.
Conversely, within conservative Evangelical Protestantism, pouring and sprinkling are recognized (often alongside immersion) as valid and biblical modes of baptism. Such convictions are found, for example, in the confessions of faith for Presbyterians and Congregationalists. The Westminster Confession of Faith, the flagship confession of faith for Presbyterians, states the following, "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person." The Savoy Declaration, which historically has been used by Evangelical Congregationalists, repeats verbatim the Westminster Confession on pouring or sprinkling. In practice, however, most Presbyterians and Congregationalists that I am aware of are not necessarily opposed to full immersion. Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and some others also practice baptism by pouring and/or sprinkling.
With that short historical survey out of the way, in this article, I will argue that water baptism can rightly be administered either by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling; and that the mode of baptism need not be a source of division among Christians. Since, however, immersion is really not all that controversial in American Evangelicalism, I will spend very little time defending it, other than to point out some of the arguments in its favor. I will spend most of my time in this article defending both pouring and sprinkling as equally valid as immersion. I will not delve into the issues of infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, or the formula to be invoked when baptism is administered. That will be beyond the scope of this article. Only the mode of baptism will be discussed here.
Baptism by full immersion, as noted above, is relatively uncontroversial in American Evangelicalism. The question really is about whether or not baptism is exclusively by immersion. In other words, is baptism by immersion alone? As noted above, Baptists and some others say yes. They argue that only immersion is the proper baptismal practice, to the exclusion of pouring/sprinkling. One Baptist writer, Tom Elliff, puts it bluntly about his conviction concerning the proper mode of baptism, "This is clearly immersion. The word itself is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means to immerse or plunge into. This is the manner in which Christ was baptized (Matthew 3:16). It was the manner of the disciples' baptism (John 3:22-23). In fact, the picture of death, burial, and resurrection demands immersion (Romans 6:4)." Thus, Elliff presents a threefold argument for immersion-only baptism: (1) the lexical meaning of the Greek word βαπτιζω (baptizo), (2) that Christ and his disciples were baptized by immersion, and (3) an appeal to the word picture of death-burial-resurrection, found in Romans 6:4. This tends to be the standard Baptist appeal to a strict immersion-only position.
%20(1).png)
In response to these arguments, I will offer up three rebuttals, each in turn. Following this, I will submit two positive arguments for sprinkling and pouring respectively, as valid modes of administering the ordinance/sacrament of baptism. I want to state again that my argument is not against immersion as a valid mode of baptism, but only against immersion exclusively.
In the first place, Baptists like Elliff believe that the lexical meaning of the Greek word βαπτιζω demands immersion because the word itself means to dip, plunge, immerse, etc... and that it never means to sprinkle or pour. Now, it is true that βαπτιζω does have that basic denotation. Even though I will argue shortly that it can mean more than to immerse, it does not mean less. That is why I hold that immersion is a proper mode of baptism, even though it is not the only proper mode of baptism. I am not dismissing the lexical meaning of βαπτιζω.
The problem is that I believe that Baptists are committing a very common logical fallacy here, which New Testament scholar D.A. Carson calls the "root fallacy." Carson defines the root fallacy as follows: "...[T]he root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word."[1] Applying it to the present discussion, Baptists and others who insist on immersion only are basing their theology of the mode of baptism on the root meaning of a particular Greek word, without regard to how it is actually used in varying contexts. But Carson reminds us that words, while they certainly do have a semantic limit, also have a semantic range. Words can be used a number of different ways and should never be reduced to mere root meanings. As we shall see later, the Greek words often translated "baptize" and "baptism" will often appear in contexts where immersion is ruled out.
To further illustrate this point, words can have a semantic range even in English. For example, one of the most popular sports in the world is football. In the United States, it is known most often as soccer. Yes, it is true that what is called football in most parts of the world is a game in which a ball is advanced by the foot. That is a very strict lexical definition of the word, and it fits. And yet, other sports called football are played, for example, in the United States, Canada, Ireland, and Australia in which the hands are used prominently, if not primarily, although the feet are certainly used as well. Words can shift in connotation and meaning while still retaining a root definition. The same can be said of the Greek word βαπτιζω. It does not mean less than full immersion, but it can and does (as we will soon see) connote more than strict immersion.
The second line of argumentation that strict immersionists often use is to assert that immersion is the manner in which Jesus and his disciples were baptized, therefore we must be thus baptized as well. Elliff, quoted above, appeals to Matthew 3:16 and John 3:22-23 to support his assertion. Matthew 3:16 tells us that after being baptized by John, Jesus "went up from the water." But while this could imply full immersion, it need not necessarily demand it. I agree with one Presbyterian writer who notes, "The issue with interpreting this as evidence for immersion is that scripture never goes this far. In fact, this verse could have been just as easily true if Jesus went down and touched his toes in the water and then came back up out of the river. Going down into a river doesn’t decisively confirm Jesus was [baptized] by immersion, in-fact we have early Christian art that depicts people being baptized in a river, standing waist-deep scooping up water from the river onto the heads of the recipients." A similar argument could be said for John 3:22-23. Simply needing a large amount of water does not necessarily demand immersion baptism. Scripture is simply not at pains to give us those kinds of details. Both Matthew 3:16 and John 3:22-23 do not give us enough data to make a determination about how baptisms were performed in the early Christian era, nor how they ought to be performed today.
The third line of argumentation that Baptists and other immersionists utilize is Romans 6:4, in which Paul equates water baptism with the picture of death, burial, and resurrection: "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." In addition to Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12 is sometimes appealed to by Baptists, in which believers were, "...buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."
Concerning Romans 6:4, Wayne Grudem is typical of the immersionist position, "Now this truth is clearly symbolized in baptism by immersion. When the candidate for baptism goes down into the water, it is a picture of going down into the grave and being buried. Coming up out of the water is then a picture of being raised with Christ to walk in newness of life. Baptism thus very clearly pictures death to one's old way of life and rising to a new kind of life in Christ. But baptism by sprinkling or pouring simply misses this symbolism."[2] In response, I do partly agree. Baptism by immersion certainly does helpfully illustrate the believers union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. The argument in this article is not that immersion baptism is wrong, but only to say that immersion baptism is not the exclusive mode of baptism. So, while it is appropriate to appeal to Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 to support baptism by immersion as one option, it is inappropriate to use them to argue for immersion exclusively.
Having said that, however, in contrast to Grudem, I point out that not all burials (particularly in Israel at the time of Christ) are below ground in a grave, but many are above ground in a tomb. This is the manner in which the Lord Jesus was buried. He was buried above ground in a tomb hewn out of a rock (Luke 23:53). This would actually suggest a lateral movement for baptism rather than the down-then-up movement as Baptists like Grudem suggest. In that case, contra Grudem, pouring water over the baptismal candidate would better serve the symbolism of burial than immersion. Thus, while immersion can symbolize death, burial, and resurrection, it is not the only way to do justice to that symbolism.
Having shown then that the Baptist insistence on immersion as the exclusive mode of baptism is untenable, I will now offer up two positive arguments in favor of both sprinkling and pouring respectively. In the first place, it is evident that the verbiage for baptism can be used not only for water, but for the Holy Spirit. The Lord Jesus, before his ascension to heaven, told his followers to wait in Jerusalem for the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). It is clear, however, that the early believers were baptized with the Holy Spirit by pouring, not by being downwardly plunged into the Spirit, as Peter declares, "This Jesus God raised up, and of that we al are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing" (Acts 2:32-33). It is evident then, at minimum, that baptism with the Holy Spirit was/is accomplished, not by full immersion, but by pouring.
Further evidence for pouring as one valid mode of baptism, is to consider Titus 3:5-6, "...he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior..." Since water baptism is closely tied to the washing away of sins (Acts 22:16), and since the washing away of sins by the Holy Spirit is communicated here by the idiom of pouring, it stands to reason then that the administration of the symbol could correspond to the reality that it points to.
The same can be said of sprinkling. In another place, the washing away of sins is communicated by the imagery of sprinkling water, "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules" (Ezekiel 36:25-27). This Scripture may even have been in Paul's mind when he penned the letter to Titus referenced above. In any event, since water baptism represents the washing away of sins by the Holy Spirit in regeneration, and the reality is conveyed by sprinkling and pouring, it is evident at least that sprinkling and pouring are just as valid modes of administering water baptism as immersion.
In summary, none of the above is to say that full immersion is an invalid mode of baptism. The language of death, burial, and resurrection in Romans and Colossians and the lexical range of βαπτιζω certainly allow for (but do not demand) immersion baptism. The Presbyterians and Congregationalists who penned the Westminster and Savoy confessions respectively went too far in saying that "dipping of the person into the water is not necessary..." But it is just as certain that Baptists, Pentecostals, and others who insist only on full immersion baptism likewise go too far in that insistence. All three historic modes of administering water baptism are equally valid and none should be rejected out of hand. One or another mode may be the preference and/or practice of a given church, but grace and liberty should be extended on the question of the proper mode of dispensing the sacrament of water baptism. Amen.
[1] D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1996), 32.
[2] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2020), 1197.
%20(1).png)
No comments:
Post a Comment