A History of the Baptists, Chapter 9 - The Reformers Bear Witness of the Baptist

There was a constant conflict between the Reformers and the Baptists on the proper subjects of baptism. At first the Reformers were disposed to take the Baptist side of the controversy and to deny the necessity of infant baptism. "The strength of the Baptist reasoning in regard to infant baptism," says Planck, the great German Protestant historian, referring to Melanchthon, "made a strong impression on his convictions." Planck continues: "The Elector, wishing to quell the controversy, dissuaded the Wittenberg theologians from discussing the subject of infant baptism, saying he could not see what benefit could arise from it, as it was not of much importance, and the rejection of it would create great excitement, since it had been so long hallowed in the Church by the influence of Augustine, its defender. Melanchthon agreed with the Elector. Whether it were right in him to be so quickly convinced, we leave it for theology to determine" (Planck, Geschichte der Entstehung, der Veranderungen und der Bildung unseres protestantisehen Lehrbegriffs. Leipsic, 1781-1800. 6 vols). When the Reformers for State and political reasons finally retained infant baptism, between them and the Baptists there was a constant controversy. On the form of baptism, however, by dipping, there was but slight conflict between the parties, since the Baptists and the Reformers held practically the same views. even when the Reformers practiced, or permitted, pouring or sprinkling, they generally affirmed that the primitive rite was by dipping.

De Hoop Sheffer relates that in Germany "until 1400, there was no other method (of baptism) than immersion." The displacement of immersion after that date was not rapid. Dipping as the form of baptism, at the time of the Reformation, still existed in many parts of Germany "In the North and East of Germany," says Van Slee, "even as in England and the Northern kingdoms immersion still existed up to the breaking in of the Reformation period of the sixteenth century" (Van Slee, De Rijnsburger Collegianten, 376. Harlem, 1895). Dipping for baptism, in Germany, was practiced as late as 1560. The Archbishop of Metz, in 1549, called a provincial council, which published decrees that were not only applicable to that province, but also to Treves and Cologne. The Synod made no provision for sprinkling, it required the priest "to dip the child three times in water" (Sleiden, The General History of the Reformation, XXI. 481).

In 1551, at Wittenberg, the Saxon Confession of Faith was adopted by the superintendents, pastors and professors, that it might be presented to the Council of Trent. The Confession was published by Melancthon, and contained the following reference to baptism:

Baptism is an entire action: to-wit, a dipping (mersio) and a pronouncing of these words, I testify by this immersion (mersione) that thou art washed from sin, etc.

In Pomerania, one of the Northern provinces of Prussia, the form of baptism in 1560 was immersion. They were required to baptize by the ritual of Luther, which was by immersion, and the following is added:

Where it is possible, we would much rather they be baptized naked, whether it be in Winter or Summer time. But where it is not, they can be baptized in their clothes. Still no one should.take offense, for we baptize not the clothing, but the person. Not alone in the head, but the whole body as the ordinance of Christ and the words in baptism convey (Acta et Statuta Synodica Ecciesiarum Pomeranie Dormni, 1560).

The Roman Catholic custom of the period is mentioned by the celebrated Jacopo Sadeleto, who was Secretary to Leo X., and was afterwards made a cardinal by Paul III. Writing in the year 1536, he says:

Our trine immersion in water at baptism, and our trine emersion, denote that we are buried with Christ in the faith of the true trinity, and that we rise again with Christ in the same belief (Sadoleto, Pauli Epist. ad. Romanos commentar. cap. VI. 8).

It is observed that in the North and East of Germany the form of baptism as practiced by the Baptists was not especially a matter of note. This was because that in the North and East of Germany immersion was the common practice and so the dippings of the Baptists did not seem an unusual thing. But in the South of Germany at Strassburg and Augsburg the practice of dipping was especially made a record of as peculiar to the Baptists, because there affusion was the common practice of the people. The Baptists stood out in this particular as acting contrary to the customs of the people. Had the Baptists of North and East Germany practiced sprinkling it would have been a matter of peculiar remark. That this was not done is a powerful intimation that the Baptists of those sections practiced dipping.

Martin Luther did not differ substantially from the view expressed by the Roman Catholic Church on the form of baptism. The act of baptism was not an item of controversy at that time, for the Reformers either preferred immersion, as Luther, or held the act to be a matter of indifference, as Calvin. Luther at first followed the practice of his own country and insisted on immersion. It is not altogether impossible that Luther learned the practice of dipping from the Baptists of Bohemia, for in the early days of the Reformation he leaned heavily on the old evangelicals (Enders, Luthers Briefwechsel. II. 345, Nr. 280).

Roman Catholics claimed that the Baptists received their views of baptism from Luther. This was the charge of John Eck, the old opponent of Luther (Eckius, Enchiridion Locitvni Communion, 226. Anverpiae, 1539). This charge greatly exasperated Luther. Robinson says:

Luther bore the Zwinglian dogmatizing, but he could not brook a further Retormation in the hands of the dippers. What rendered the great man’s conduct more surprising is that he had himself, seven years before, taught the doctrine of dipping. . . . The Catholics tax Luther as being the father of the German dippers, some of the first expressly declare, they received their first ideas from him, and the fact seems undeniable, but the article of Reforming without him he could not bear. This is the crime objected against them, as it had been against Carlstadt. This exasperated him to the last degree, and he became their enemy, and notwithstanding all that he had said in favor of dipping, persecuted them under the title of re-dippers, re-baptizers, Anabaptists. It is not an improbable conjecture that Luther at first conformed to his own principles and dipped infants (Robinson, Ecclesiastical Researches, 542, 543).

It is doubtless true that Luther began by dipping infants. That he taught immersion there can be no doubt. In his celebrated sermon on Baptism, date 1518, he says:

First baptism is called in Greek baptismos, in Latin mersio, that is, when we dip anything wholly in water, that it is completely covered over. And although in many provinces it is no longer the custom (in other provinces it was the custom) to thrust the children into the font and to dip them; but they only pour water with the hands out of the font; nevertheless, it should be thus, and would be right, that after speaking aloud the word (baptize) the child or any one who is to be baptized, be completely sank down into the water, and dipt again and drawn out, for without doubt in the German tongue the word (taufe) comes from the word tief (deep), that a man sinks deep into the water, what he dips. That also the signification of baptism demands, for it signifies that the old man and sinful birth from the flesh and blood shall be completely drowned through the grace of God. Therefore, a man should sufficiently perform the signification and a right perfect sign. The sign rests, in this, that a man plunge a person in water in the name of the Father, etc., but does not leave him therein but lifts him out again; therefore it is called being lifted out of the font or depths. And so must all of both of these things be the sign; the dipping and the lifting out. Thirdly, the signification is a saving death of the sins and of the resurrection of the grace of God. The baptism is a bath of the new birth. Also a drowning of the sins in the baptism (Opera Lutheri, I. 319. Folio edition).

In the judgment of Luther, in the year 1518, in Germany, taufen meant to dip. He is altogether a capable witness on this point. It is a significant fact that when the Ritual of Luther (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VI. 578, 607, 608), in 1528, prescribed immersion there was no controversy on baptism between him and the Baptists.

There is an account of how Luther caused dipping to be restored in Hamburg. John Bugenhagen found that only sprinkling was performed, and he reported the case to Luther. There was some confusion on the subject. Bugenhagen, A. D. 1552, says:

At length they did agree among themselves, that the judgment of Luther, and of the divines at Wittenberg, should be demanded upon this point: which being done, Luther did write back to Hamburg that sprinkling was an abuse, which they ought to remove. Thus was plunging restored at Hamburg (Grosby, The History of English Baptists, I. xxii. London, 138).

Luther affirmed that the Baptists were in the practice of dipping. In a familiar letter written to his wife he says:

Dear Kate—We arrived here, at Halle, about 8 o’clock, but have not ventured to go to Eisleben, for we have been stopped by a great Anabaptist (I mean a flood) which has covered the road here, and has not threatened us with mere "sprinkling," but with "immersion," against our will, however. You may comfort yourself by being assured that we are not drinking water, but have plenty of good beer and Rhenish wine, with which we cheer ourselves in spite of the overflowing river. Halle, January 25, 1546.

No other construction, save that the Baptists were in the practice of dipping can be applied to this language of Luther.

We now turn to the testimony of Huldreich Zwingli, the Swiss Reformer. As early as June 15, 1523, he wrote to his friend, Wittenbach, that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are what the water is in baptism. "It would be in vain," he added, "for us to plunge a man a thousand times in water, if he does not believe" (D’ Aubigne’, History of the Reformation, III. 298).

Zwingli published, at this date, a book which is most suggestive of the practice of the Baptists, and without point if they did not practice dipping. The book is Elenchus contria Catbaptistas, A Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists or Drowners. Why should they be called "drowners" if they did not immerse? The title of such a book would be inappropriate to persons in the practice of sprinkling. The word "Catabaptist" essentially means a submersion, and not one who merely despises baptism. The idea of despising baptism is not inherent in the word, but only an implication from their rejection of infant baptism, or any part of the meaning of Catabaptist, for the word does not mean anything different from Submersion. Other words may be used in connection with it to indicate that the Baptists despised infant baptism, but the idea is not contained in the word Catabaptist, but in words which explain such hatred. Catabaptist is a Greek word which means one who submerges. The lexicons and the Greek language are all in accord with this use.

Our churches are infested throughout the country by the Catabaptists whom it is not possible at this time to reproach with evil. We have tried by the Scripture to persuade them but with their convictions this is not possible. Silence was then placed upon them, the neglecting of which, it is deserving that the authorities should return to their pertinacities that they shall be immersed a second time and returning, be submerged from within deeply (Ottius, Annales anabaptistica, 55).

The Baptists preferred the name Catabaptists to that of Anabaptists. Indeed, they always repudiated the word Anabaptist, since they did not consider that they practiced anabaptism. They simply baptized; never attempted to rebaptize. They did think they practiced catabaptism, namey, immersion. They never would have admitted the name as applicable to them if it meant despisers of baptism. They practiced baptism; they rejected infant baptism. "They naturally disowned," says.Gieseler, the able historian, "the name Anabaptist, as they declared infant baptism invalid and called themselves Catabaptists" (Gieseler, A Compendium of Ecclesiastical History, V. 255, 256).

The use of the word Catabaptist among Baptists may be found in Fusslin (III. 229); and as late as the time of Schyn, A. D. 1729, the name Catabaptist, even among the Mennonites, meant immersion. There had been before the days of Schyn changes among the Mennonites, and in his time many of them practiced affusion, yet the word Catabaptist still meant immersion. Schyn rejected the word Baptist as not appropriate to his people. "Yet some think," he continues, "that the name Catabaptist is more suitable; but because this word is of ambiguous meaning, and is used by adversaries in a bad sense, and more properly means immerse, and that rite is not in common use among Mennonites, nor is it esteemed necessary among all Mennonites, hence also the name does not suit all Mennonites" (Schyn, Historiae Mennonitarum Plenior Deductio, 35).

Zwingli made many references to the immersions of the Catabaptists. A few instances are here cited. He says: "Since, therefore, you see that Catabaptism which you hope as from a fountain to derive all your counsel is proved by no Scripture," etc. Once more he says of his Baptist opponent: "What then if upon you, you raging wild ass (for I could not call him a man whom I think was baptized among the shades of the Phlegethon)," etc. This was one of the rivers of hell. He further says of his opponent: "Yet, as I have said, since the man now doubtless burns among the shades as much as he froze here through his Catabaptist washings, I have concluded to omit his name." He further tells of a whole family of Baptists who had been immersed and then made shipwreck of themselves.

Desiderius Erasmus was the most brilliant representative of the humanistic culture of the sixteenth century. Writing out of England, in 1532, he says: "We dip children all over in water, in a stone font" (Erasmus, Coloquia Familiaria). His influence was very great upon the educated ministers among the Baptists of the lower Rhenish provinces, such as John Campanus, and others (Rembert, Die Wiedertaufer im Herzogtum Julich), and the Baptists often spoke of him as the ornament of the German nation (Beck, Die Geschichte Bucher der Wiedertaufer, 12 note). We certainly’ know that John Campanus was in the practice of dipping.

The immersion in water is a seal, the servant he who plunges signifies a work of God, moreover, the sinking down in that manner is a token of the divine will, with the form spoken, to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; as the apostles use to baptize in Acts, in the name of Christ. In which words the signification is plain. Behold, to what end we should plunge, that so ye may receive, and also to be made certain of favor toward thee in the divine testimony. . . A seal is made in baptism, for from this custom he may know that he is passing from death unto life. It is also the sinking down of the old Adam in death, and the coming forth of the new. This is why Paul calls it the bath of regeneration. This signification is easily perceived from the type (Melanchthon, ‘‘Communes rerum theologicarum, Part, De Baptismo A. D. 1521).

William Farel, the Geneva Reformer and the friend of Calvin, wrote in 1528 in the defense of the Baptists. He had already written, September 7, 1527, a letter in appreciation of the position of the Baptists on the subject of baptism. He now compares their baptism by dipping to that of Christ. He says:

It is not understood by many what it is to give one’s name to Christ to walk and preserve in the newness of life by the infusion of the Spirit with whom Christ dips his own, who, in His mind and by His grace wish to be dipped in water (intingi aqua) in the presence of the Christian congregation, that they may publicly protest that they believe in their hearts, that they may be dearer to the brethren and closer bound to Christ by his solemn profession, which is only rightly dispensed as that great John, and the greatest of all, Christ, commanded (Herminjard, Correspondance des Reformateurs dans les pays de Ia langue francaise, II. 48).

There is an instance of dipping on record from Henry Slachtcheaf. He wrote to Martin Bucer as follows:

And this I desire to admonish thee, brother, no longer to impart baptism to infants. I see this by the Lord who has shown to me clearly by the Spirit, and not on that account to dare to dip.our children in water. Hence it is cursed with the mother, it is cast out from place to place, etc. Hence my friend, I beseech you, do not oppose the truth. Vehemently and wickedly have the things of our Gospel suffered with many most of all about these two ordinances, the Supper and the baptism, but with the Lutherans very badly. With the Anabaptists that I know thus far baptism is observed literally (Cornelius, Die Geschichtquellen d. Bisthums Munster, I. 228, 229).

Thus was immersion the literal practice of the Baptists. Slachtchaef baptized a child by dipping upon a profession of faith. Cornelius says of him:

He preached in Hueckeihoven in the house of Godert Reinharts, and he dipped it in a bucket of water (er es eimer wasser taucht) (Ibid, 228).

The vessel (eimer) was doubtless a tub used to hoist water out of the well. Whatever the vessel was the child was dipt into it. The ceremony was performed by a man who had written Bucer against infant baptism and stated that baptism was by dipping. This same vessel is elsewhere mentioned in the practice of dipping among the Baptists.

There are two examples in the writings of John Calvin which go to show that the Baptists were in the practice of dipping. Calvin came in direct contact with the Baptists and well knew their opinions, for he married the widow of a Baptist preacher. In the first example, he defines, in a well-known passage the meaning of the word. He says:

The word signifies to immerse, and it is certain that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church (Calvin, Institutes, Bk. IV. C. 15).

Immediately following this statement he makes a reply to a Baptist who urged that Acts 19:3-5 taught rebaptism. Calvin says to the Baptist:

That if ignorance vitiated the former baptism, so that another baptism is made to correct it; they were the first of all to be baptized by the apostles, who in all the three years after their baptism scarcely tasted a small particle of the measure of the sincere doctrine. Even now among us, where would there be sufficient rivers for a repetition of the dipping of so many, who in ignorance of the compassion of the Lord, are daily corrected among us (Ibid, c. 15. Sec. 18).

Calvin thus speaking of his own times declares that if the opinions of the Baptists prevailed the rivers would not suffice suffice for their dippings.

The second instance where Calvin refers to the dipping practiced by the Baptists is as follows:

Truly so much ignorance deservedly requires another baptism, if for ignorance they should be rebaptized again. But what pertains to us it would be necessary always to have a lake or a river at our back, if so often as the Lord purge any error, we should be completely renewed from baptism (Calvin, Opuscula. Contra Anabaptists, II. 28. Geneva, 1547).

Calvin was here discussing the relation of baptism to Acts 19:3-5 as expounded by the Baptists. He declared the Baptist needed a river or lake to carry out their idea of dipping.

Diodati, the Geneva reformer and scholar, expressed himself, A. D. 1558, clearly on the subject of dipping. In speaking of the baptism of John, Math. 3 :6, he says: "Plunged in the water for a sacred sign and seal of the expiation and remission of sins" (Diodati, Pious and Learned Annotations Upon the Holy Bible. London, 1648).

When once the position of Luther and the other Reformers is understood, it is not surprising that the form of baptism was not a subject of discussion between the Reformers and the Baptist. The testimony of the Reformers is clear and distinct that the Baptists were in the practice of dipping.

Baptism shows that, and is why the intensive form is used of this verb. To pretend, however, that these words are two different and distinct verbs, as your sources appears to attempt to do, is simply bad Greek and bad theology.

But it is not true that the word [baptizo] means "immerse" and only "immerse." Regardless of what else his massive volume, Classic Baptism, proves, R. W. Dale for all time has settled the question of the extra-biblical usage of baptizo. Though the word possibly can mean "immerse," he has clearly demonstrated that this is not usually true and certainly not the basic meaning of the term. In fact, the word is a rather "fluid" one (to use a bad pun) comprising such divergent concepts as "to plunge, to pour, to tinge, to sprinkle, to dye," and many others. In summarizing the results of his exhaustive study of Classic Baptism, he writes, …
Usage, the accepted arbiter, has spoken freely, and, I think, has been faithful, as teaching --
(1) bapto, TINGO, and DIP, are words, which, in their respective languages, represent, for the most part, the same identical ideas.
(2) baptizo, MERGO, and MERSE, are words, which, in their respective languages, represent, for the most part, the same identical ideas.
(3) These two classes of words differ from each other essentially. They are not interchanged, nor interchangeable ordinarily, much less identical.
(4) bapto and baptizo exhibit a perfect parallelism in their development.
…
(5) Baptism is a myriad-sided word, adjusting itself to the most diverse cases.
Agamemnon was baptized; Bacchus was baptized; Cupid was baptized; Cleinias was baptized; Alexander was baptized; Panthia was baptized; Otho was baptized; Charicles was baptized; and a host of others were baptized, each differing from the other in the nature or the mode of their baptism, or both.
A blind man could more readily select any demanded color from the spectrum, or a child could more readily thread the Cretan labyrinth, than could ‘the seven wise men of Greece’ declare the nature, or mode, of any given baptism by the naked help of baptizo.

THE MEANING AND MODE OF BAPTISM by Jay E. Adams

R. W. Dale for all time has settled the question of the extra-biblical usage of baptizo.

If R.W. Dale's conclusions are the ones you cite, then, frankly, no he hasn't. With all due respect to Jay Adams (whose commentary on James I thoroughly enjoyed, btw), his sources on this issue are grossly incorrect.

I've surveyed each use of the verbs bapto and baptizo in the classical Greek extra-biblical literature. None of the evidence supports what you're claiming.

First, baptizo. Each and every time this intensive form of the verb was used, regardless of author, regardless of the type of literature, it is used to refer to something being submerged - whether we are talking about a ship sinking, someone drowning, something being flooded out, dropped in the water, etc. this word in the classical Greek lit. is always used to refer to immersion of some sort. Adams' claim that...

"Though the word possibly can mean 'immerse,' he has clearly demonstrated that this is not usually true and certainly not the basic meaning of the term."

...is most assuredly incorrect. Not only is "immerse" the usual meaning of baptizo, it is pretty much the ONLY meaning. Nowhere that I know of does this term refer to "sprinkling", "pouring", "plunging", etc.

This is not surprising, since likewise, no Greek lexicon that I am aware of gives any other definition for baptizo than immersion.

Now, on to bapto. Being that this term is the basic, non-intensive form of the verb, its usage is a bit broader. However, its usage still centres uniformly around the idea of "immersion." Bapto, not baptizo (as Adams incorrectly states) can refer to dyeing something - but we should note that this is so through the fact that to dye something like a garment, etc., the ancients DIPPED it into the dye. Incidentally, Aristophanes has an interesting use of this term along this line, in which he basically calls a guy a "chickenhawk."

Likewise, other extra-biblical Greek sources use bapto to refer to tempering metalwork (through the idea of dipping the hot item in water, thus tempering it) and as a "picturesque" device describing the "dyeing" of a sword by plunging it into somebody (one particularly graphic image from Sophocles has Athena asking Ajax if he has "dyed well his sword in the Greek army?"

Nevertheless, in all these cases, the application of the verb is in the sense of immersion of some sort.

Sorry, but given the data available, there is simply no case to be made for baptism being anything but immersion, if we are to interpret the Biblical use of these words through the context of their extrabiblical use.

Further, within the Biblical use, no case can be made for baptism as anything other than immersion. Any time that we see the actual mode of baptism implied in the NT (i.e. when more than the mere use of the term is given), we see immersion. In Matthew 3:16, after Jesus was baptised, he came up OUT OF the water, indicating that He had been in the water, i.e. being immersed. In Acts 8:38, Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch went down into the water, obviously for the purpose of immersion. In Romans 6:4, Paul clearly uses the picture of burial and resurrection to demonstrate the imagery and purpose behind the identification of baptism - which, again, implies going down into something and coming back out, immersion.

Again, I'm sorry, but you simply have no case that can be made for biblical baptism being sprinkling, christening, anointing, or any other non-immersive technique.

In reading some of the early “fathers” you can get a feel for how the practice evolved.

Whereas we focus on the “immersion” meaning of the word, and its comparison to going down into the grave and rising up again or the “born again” aspect of coming up out of the water, a number of the early fathers seem to have focused more on the “washing of sins” meaning exclusively.

I’ve seen (thanks to cable) some of the pools where jews evidently would practice baptism and they were quite deep, not large, but deep. And we know all the biblical accounts of early baptism as taking place in the river.

But as it became a church ritual, it evolved into something akin to a washing, with a smaller tub and eventually no tub at all as the ritual became increasingly symbolic.

In reading, it seems that the alternate forms of baptism probably started fairly early, I would suspect that as the faith grew and spread rapidly there were probably a lot of variations on the theme and as the center of gravity of the faith shifted further and further away from Jerusalem, whatever had been the older practices faded away. Probably at the time it wasn’t considered particularly important how you did it.

After a certain point, the people calling for complete immersion were the ones out of step. The rapid growth and the loss of Jerusalem as center of the faith, the fact that the faith ceased to be a hebrew cult as millions of greeks, romans, and gauls flooded in probably changed, not the underlying scripture, but the cultural expression of that scripture and the traditions that took hold right from the very beginning.

Thats my take on it, anyway.

I’m not sure how your analysis can differ from other scholarship, but suffice it to say that the evidence is not as conclusive as perhaps you suggest.

Further, within the Biblical use, no case can be made for baptism as anything other than immersion.

In part 2, Adams goes on to examine the various NT texts where baptism is described and they do not support the conclusion of submersion in all cases. E.g.:

Look more closely at the term hudata as well. Is there any way of determining just what these "waters" were? Montgomery guesses "streams," but the context provides more accurate information. If Baptists who attend a church named "Aenon" only knew what the word means, they would be faced with a serious problem, for the word means "springs" or "fountains"! Dr. William Hodges says,
Aenon, being the plural of fountain, or spring, probably took its name from the many springs or fountains there. And this agrees with the Greek hudata polla; many waters, many springs or fountains, instead of much water in one body. ( William Hodges, Baptism Tested by Scripture and History, New Dutton and Co.: N. Y., 1875) p. 306.)
Christy writes,
Unfortunately for those who are accustomed to find here proof of immersion, these springs trickling through marshy meadow land on their way to the Jordan, as they do to this day, offer little or no facilities for immersion. (Wilbur A. Christy, A Modern Shibboleth, (Pentecostal Publishing Co.: Louisville, N. D.) p.82. )
To think that John would leave the Jordan river (the largest source of water supply in Palestine) for any other area in order to find more water is, upon reflection, unthinkable. But it is interesting to ask why John did leave Jordan at this time. Christy proposes the following idea,
The thought that was no doubt in the mind of John leading to this change of location was the contrast of the cool clear water of these "many springs" with the foul, muddy flood of the Jordan "overflowing all its banks," as it usually did at this season of the year (Joshua 3:15), and then the insistent requirement of the law, that he should use clean water for baptism, altogether render it easy to account for his presence at this time. Here again, simply the use of the correct translation is sufficient to remove all the difficulty. John was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water or many springs there, as there are at this time, and that is all there is of it. It really proves nothing either way, except perhaps, that John was endeavoring to comply with the law, which, as he knew said that "he should sprinkle them with clean water". ( A Modern Shibboleth, pp.82-83. )
…
Because the [Ethiopian Eunuch] context is explicit, mentioning that trip along a "desert road,"[3] one might imagine that there would have been no more question.
The route which he was following lay through the ‘negeb’, a fringe of the desert and unpopulated land lying south of the land of Judea. . . . Besides as an absolute fact, there was not water enough there sufficient for an immersion even if that had been their intention. I am aware that some are quite willing to suppose a river there for that purpose, but if there were one it must have been miraculously supplied, and for that occasion only, for neither before nor since has it been visible. . . . And it is an established fact, that no river or stream is to be found in that region now, and there is no geographical note of there ever having been any. The only water to be found is that of an occasional little spring trickling from a bluff or hillside, and forming a little pool before losing itself in the sand. The Eunuch’s exclamation, (in the original) tina hudor, ‘a little water,’ shows his surprise at the discovery.
We might remember that this was the ‘dry season’ and this desert country, destitute of water in ordinary times, must have been even more so at this time. As a positive proof of Baptism by sprinkling the circumstances of this occasion leave nothing to be desired." ( Shibboleth, pp.74 and 76-77. )
…
To say that the story of Acts 16 allows immersion is nearly incredible. Look at the circumstances. It was midnight, and in that "same hour" they were baptized. Sometime after twelve o’clock midnight it is supposed that Paul and Silas went out to a river and immersed the Philippian jailer and his household. A very unlikely hour! Moreover, recall how Paul and Silas had been lashed not many hours before. Immersion would be quite a task for two men in this condition at this hour. How much more likely that the scriptural mode of sprinkling was used as the jailer was baptized with water from the same vessel that contained’ the water he used to wash their stripes.
But some have argued that the text says, "he brought them out"; therefore, they say, all this took place outside and that it is in accord with the context to suppose that they did go out to some body of water and perform an immersion. But, that is not what these words indicate. The context clearly states that Paul and Silas were thrust into the "inner prison," and that the jailer "sprang in." It was from within this "inner prison" that the jailer "brought them out."

There is also the issue of where sufficient, accessible water was found in the city of Jerusalem to submerse the three thousand souls converted in Acts 2:41.

The common Baptist arguments for submersion are not that air-tight.

In reading some of the early “fathers” you can get a feel for how the practice evolved.

I suspect that you're on the right track there.

We need to keep in mind that the evidence of the patristics is one of steady falling away from sound biblical doctrine. As many Christians and local churches began to be influenced by all sorts of heresies, it is unsurprising that baptism would be one area in which heresy should emerge.

One error, which you mentioned, was the developing view that baptism "washes away" sin. It does not. It is an identification with the work that Christ did for us, made by the converted soul who now desires to openly identify with the grace he has received. Baptismal regeneration was an error that entered early into the churches, especially in the Latin West, since the pagan Roman mindset did not readily understand the abstract idea of symbolism, and desired a concrete result from ritual. If one is going to be baptised, it has to be because this baptism does something "real" for you. It can't just be a symbol, it has to wash away your sins as well, otherwise why do it? Nevertheless, baptismal regeneration explicitly rejects the biblical view of grace as something given by God apart from the works or ritual of man.

In the case of Reformed (i.e. Calvinistic plus) individuals such as topcat, baptism is viewed as a means of "entering into a covenant" that exists between "the church" and God, replacing the OT covenants between Israel and God. Of course, those covenants were not nullified, and nowhere is "the church" viewed as being in some sort of "covenant" with God. Indeed, to the extent that the idea of "covenant" enters into NT Christianity, it is in the sense of an individual believer's covenant with their Lord, whereby they are now to give Him their loyalty and love. Nevertheless, the Reformed idea of baptism as entry into the covenant body is unscriptural.

This, although referred to so frequently and with so much confidence, by Baptists, really affords no support for their theory, that baptizo means to dip and never has any other meaning. In classic Greek the word baptizo is never used in the modern Baptist sense of putting a body into water or other element and then immediately withdrawing it. Here, however, let me observe that the strength of my argument which is designed to shew the Scripture meaning of the word, is by no means dependent on the classic usage. Even were Baptists able to shew (which however they never have been) that in heathen or secular Greek baptizo always means to dip, it would not at all follow that in the sacred Scriptures it must mean the same thing. …
But although the Scriptural mode of baptism is not to be determined from the heathen meaning of baptizo we nevertheless firmly maintain that the Greek classics are just as free from baptism by dipping as the Scriptures. Dr. T. J. Conant, who stands at the head of the Baptist Bible Revision movement, and who is undoubtedly one of the best scholars at present, in the Baptist Church, has published a book (Baptizein) in which he gives one hundred and seventy-five instances of the use of the word in Greek literature. These instances are selected for the avowed purpose of proving the Baptist theory. Collected by such a man, and for such a purpose, we may safely assume they are the most favourable to that theory that can be found. And yet what is the result ? Why when Dr. Conant comes to translate these passages he gives the word baptizo seven different meanings, using seven different English words* "What then even on their own shewing becomes of the Baptist statement, that baptizo means " to dip, and nothing but dip, through all Greek literature ?" Nay more, of the one hundred and seventy-five instances quoted to prove dipping, no less than sixty-four (more than one- third of the whole) are translated by Dr. Conant himself by the English word overwhelm, that is a word which clearly implies that the overwhelming (baptizing) element comes upon the person or thing over- whelmed (baptized). Rev. T. Gallaher, in his "Short Method," after a thorough examination of every sentence containing baptizo written before the time of Christ, and quoted by Dr. Conant, says, "In every instance the baptizing element or instrumentality is moved and put upon the person or thing baptized, never is the person put into the element."
(Rev. W.A. McKay, B.A., "Immersion proved to be not a scriptural mode of baptism.”)

Nevertheless, the Reformed idea of baptism as entry into the covenant body is unscriptural.

Using a phrase like “unscriptural” without direct reference to what covenant theologians have written on the subject, including the extent to which they make their case from Scripture alone, is a misrepresentation of the facts.

E.g.,

Baptism as Covenantal
A second major dimension the doctrine of baptism in the Reformed tradition is its covenantal character. The theology of covenant went through significant developments in the first centuries after the Reformation, but a fuller and enduring version appears in the Westminster standards.4 In the theology of Westminster, “covenant” denotes the manner in which God condescends to human limitations. As The Westminster Confession puts it in 7.1,
The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
Here “covenant” is a categorical term describing the full breadth of God’s revelation of himself to humanity. In this broad sense, there is nothing in the Christian Faith that is not covenantal, defined in terms of God’s revelation to humanity.
To understand how baptism relates to covenant, however, we must delve further into Westminster’s theology. Divine condescension through covenant takes two basic forms. First, before the fall into sin, God entered into the “covenant of works” with humanity in Adam5; second, he entered into the “covenant of grace” with humanity in Christ. As The Westminster Confession 7.2,3 put it,
The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam … Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace.
The covenant of works applied to the relationship between God and humanity before sin; the covenant of grace was initiated immediately after the fall into sin, extending from that point in the Old Testament to the end of the New Testament.
Reformed theology has understood the governing principle of both Testaments to be the grace of God in Christ. As The Westminster Confession puts it in 7.6: “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.” Old Testament believers found salvation by placing their faith in the gospel of Christ to come; New Testament believers find salvation by placing their faith in the gospel of Christ who had come.
When Reformed theology speaks of baptism as covenantal, the sacrament is viewed in the context of the unity of the covenant of grace. The meaning of baptism is not found in the teachings of New Testament alone; it is also inferred from the manner in which baptism fufills Old Testament patterns of faith. This reliance on the covenantal unity of the Old and New Testaments is stated in general terms when The Westminster Confession identifies the ordinances by which both the Old and New Testaments are administered. In the Old Testament the covenant of grace was “administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews” (7.5). Yet, “when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper” (7.6). Baptism administers the New Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace in ways that are analogous to the administration of the Old Testament dispensation of that same covenant.
A number of important aspects of the Reformed doctrine of baptism come to the foreground on the basis of the unity of the covenant of grace. We will mention four of these: initiation and continuation of life in covenant, external and internal conditions in covenant, visible and invisible communities of the covenant, and believers and their children in covenant.
Initiation and Continuation
The fact that there are two sacraments ordained for the people of God in the New Testament age, draws attention to a set of parallels in the Old Testament. Baptism correlates to circumcision, and the Lord’s Supper corresponds to Passover.
It is evident from the gospels that the Lord’s Supper is the fulfillment of the rite of Passover.6 The Lord’s Supper nourishes and sustains believers in their faith by repeated observances much like Passover aided the faithful in the Old Testament. Passover was a lasting ordinance for Israel; it was her way to remember, even to re-enact, the deliverance of the nation from slavery in Egypt.
In much the same way, the Lord’s Supper re-enacts Jesus’ celebration of Passover with his disciples and reminds us of the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection. In this sense, the Lord’s Supper focuses on the continuation of life in covenant with God.
Reformed theologians and commentators typically focus on baptism as an initiation into covenant by pointing out a similar analogy between baptism and circumcision. As The Belgic Confession states: “Having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, he established in its place the sacrament of baptism … baptism does …what circumcision did for the Jewish people” (Article 34).
This connection between circumcision and baptism is usually based on Colossians 2:11-12:
In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
New Testament believers undergo “the circumcision done by Christ” as they are “buried with him in baptism.”7
The book of Acts reveals that baptism replaced circumcision only through a complex process. The rite of baptism probably has its roots in temple washing ceremonies as they were expanded and applied in various ways in first century Judaism. Thus the mode of baptism in Reformed theology is largely a matter of indifference.8 Christian baptism can be associated with the ritual washings that various sects of Judaism observed to distinguish themselves as the remnant of Israel. It may also be associated with Jewish proselyte baptism.9 As Gentiles began to fill the early church, the perpetuation of circumcision among Christians came into question. Christ himself apparently never taught on this question, leaving it to his apostles to determine the course of the church. In Acts 15, the Christian apostles determined that circumcision would no longer be required of New Testament believers, and that baptism alone would suffice as the initiatory rite for the Christian church.
In the Old Testament, circumcision was the rite of initiation into the covenant of grace. It was established in the days of Abraham as a perpetual ceremony (Gen 17:12). In fact, to fail to be circumcised was to violate the covenant offered to Israel (Gen 17:14).
Reformed theologians draw upon this Old Testament pattern and see baptism as an initiatory rite, such that those who receive baptism are initiated into covenant with God. This is why The Westminster Confession 28.1 speaks of baptism as “a sign and seal of the covenant of grace.”
Baptism as a Sacrament of the Covenant By Richard L. Pratt, Jr.

I recommend you read the entire paper to better understand the biblical underpinnings of covenant theology wrt the baptism question.

I’m not sure how your analysis can differ from other scholarship, but suffice it to say that the evidence is not as conclusive as perhaps you suggest.

The analyses differ because I am directly accessing the relevant information from the extra-biblical Greek sources themselves, while you are relying on second- and third- hand sources, sources which are both old and which have an obvious interest in "spinning" the data to support a polymodic form of "baptism."

Aenon, being the plural of fountain, or spring, probably took its name from the many springs or fountains there. And this agrees with the Greek hudata polla; many waters, many springs or fountains, instead of much water in one body. ( William Hodges, Baptism Tested by Scripture and History, New Dutton and Co.: N. Y., 1875) p. 306.)

Unfortunately for those who are accustomed to find here proof of immersion, these springs trickling through marshy meadow land on their way to the Jordan, as they do to this day, offer little or no facilities for immersion. (Wilbur A. Christy, A Modern Shibboleth, (Pentecostal Publishing Co.: Louisville, N. D.) p.82. )

The problem with this argument is that, since it was made in 1875, it doesn't take into account the evidences available to us today that indicate that the Palestine of 2000 years ago was significantly wetter than it is today. So yes, perhaps the fountains of Aenon are puddles today, but they weren't in John's day. Further, the idea of these being "many springs" instead of one large body of water does nothing against the argument for immersion. After all, you only need a spring the size of two people to immerse someone. The surface area of a bathtub would do the job.

To think that John would leave the Jordan river (the largest source of water supply in Palestine) for any other area in order to find more water is, upon reflection, unthinkable. But it is interesting to ask why John did leave Jordan at this time. Christy proposes the following idea,

This is something of a straw man argument, since the Scripture nowhere gives the reason WHY John was baptising at Aenon at one point, and at Jordan at another. Hence, the argument that his doing so was because he didn't need some large body of water (which has been previously shown to be a non-argument, anywise) rests only on unfounded assumption, not having any basis in fact.

Mostly likely, John was at Aenon simply for the fact that he was a travelling preacher. He made the rounds. He lived in the wilderness, and travelled round about it in a semi-nomadic fashion, as the Scripture seems to indicate.

The route which he was following lay through the ‘negeb’, a fringe of the desert and unpopulated land lying south of the land of Judea. . . . Besides as an absolute fact, there was not water enough there sufficient for an immersion even if that had been their intention. I am aware that some are quite willing to suppose a river there for that purpose, but if there were one it must have been miraculously supplied, and for that occasion only, for neither before nor since has it been visible. . . . And it is an established fact, that no river or stream is to be found in that region now, and there is no geographical note of there ever having been any. The only water to be found is that of an occasional little spring trickling from a bluff or hillside, and forming a little pool before losing itself in the sand. The Eunuch’s exclamation, (in the original) tina hudor, ‘a little water,’ shows his surprise at the discovery.

We might remember that this was the ‘dry season’ and this desert country, destitute of water in ordinary times, must have been even more so at this time. As a positive proof of Baptism by sprinkling the circumstances of this occasion leave nothing to be desired." ( Shibboleth, pp.74 and 76-77. )

As with the other arguments above, Christy's argument here rests on a number of false assumptions. First, again, is that the climate in Palestine 2000 years ago was as dry as it is now. And again, this was not the case. Indeed, Christy has apparently been mislead into assuming that because the Scripture uses the term "desert" in v. 26 to describe this region, that this implies a dry and parched land. It does not. The term used is eremos, which simply refers to a wilderness or uninhabited place, and makes no climatological statements.

Indeed, the path from Jerusalem to Gaza, somewhere upon which Philip met the eunuch, travels through two basic regions of Palestine - the Shephelah and the coastal plain. The Shephelah even today gets enough rain to support orchards and even grain crops. It would have been wetter two millennia ago. Indeed, in this region there would have been plenty of open water available in which to immerse due to the plentiful cisterns used to catch rain water. The coastal plain would also have had plenty of water, since it received runoff from the Shephelah and the hill country.

Further, it was through the coastal plain that the primary international traderoutes went, including the routes that went through Gaza, which back then was something of a trade and caravan hub. To go from Jerusalem to Gaza, you probably would not have gone the straight overland "as the crow flies" route. Instead, the eunuch would have taken the established route from Jerusalem to Ashdod, and then down to Gaza. Philip most likely met the eunuch near Gaza, as the latter was coming near that town. They would have likely been in this well-watered coastal plain.

To say that the story of Acts 16 allows immersion is nearly incredible. Look at the circumstances. It was midnight, and in that "same hour" they were baptized. Sometime after twelve o’clock midnight it is supposed that Paul and Silas went out to a river and immersed the Philippian jailer and his household. A very unlikely hour! Moreover, recall how Paul and Silas had been lashed not many hours before. Immersion would be quite a task for two men in this condition at this hour. How much more likely that the scriptural mode of sprinkling was used as the jailer was baptized with water from the same vessel that contained’ the water he used to wash their stripes.

This argument is silly. The typical Roman house (and remember, Philippi was a Roman colony, which means it would have been patterned after Roman types seen in Italy) had a huge pool of water in its central courtyard called an impluvium, which acted as a cistern to collect water via rainfall. Philippi, in the Macedonian hill country, had a general Mediterranean climate, getting pretty regular rainfall all year round. There would have been a ready-made pool of water, available right there inside the jailor's own house.

The argument from supposed debilitation due to Paul's wounds has no merit. Paul was also up walking around for those hours - why should he have been unable to stand in a pool of water with a man after having walked all the way back to this man's house?

But some have argued that the text says, "he brought them out"; therefore, they say, all this took place outside and that it is in accord with the context to suppose that they did go out to some body of water and perform an immersion. But, that is not what these words indicate. The context clearly states that Paul and Silas were thrust into the "inner prison," and that the jailer "sprang in." It was from within this "inner prison" that the jailer "brought them out."

I have never heard this passage used with reference to baptism even once. As such, this rebuttal doesn't merit any response on my part, other than to merely acknowledge its existence so that you don't think I'm merely skipping it.

There is also the issue of where sufficient, accessible water was found in the city of Jerusalem to submerse the three thousand souls converted in Acts 2:41.

What? Jerusalem in the time of the Apostles had an extensive aqueduct system that filled up a number of large pools in and around Jerusalem (Siloam, Bethesda, the Pool of Israel, the Tower's Pool, and especially the extremely large Serpent's Pool in the Hinnom Valley right outside the city walls. In addition, there was enough water available at the Gihon headwaters, right near the city, to allow Hezekiah 700 years earlier to tap it and bring enough water by conduit to provide for the entire population of the city in his day (upwards of 10,000 people) in case of Assyrian seige. I doubt that finding enough water to baptise these people by immersion would have been very difficult.

The common Baptist arguments for submersion are not that air-tight.

Sorry, but once again, you have shown us nothing to seriously cast doubt upon Baptist arguments for immersion.

This, although referred to so frequently and with so much confidence, by Baptists, really affords no support for their theory, that baptizo means to dip and never has any other meaning.

If you can adduce some other usage of baptizo than "dip, etc." then please do so. The common usage in the Greek lit., as well as the definitions given in pretty much every major Greek lexicon that I'm aware of, relate to dipping. I've not seem "sprinkling," "pouring," etc. ever given as a meaning for baptizo.

In classic Greek the word baptizo is never used in the modern Baptist sense of putting a body into water or other element and then immediately withdrawing it.

That's something of a straw man argument. The use of baptizo with reference to Christian baptism, to the dipping and then immediate removal of the one dipped from the water is connotative, and is necessitated by the fact that not doing so would constitute a felony.

Baptizo refers to immersion - and it can refer to either temporary or permanent immersion. Contrary to McKay's implied argument, the word IS, in fact, used to refer to the act of dipping and then removing. Reference the pickle-making recipe from Nicander earler given. Likewise, Polybius (Histories, 3.72) uses the term to describe the act of soldiers wading through a river - they were baptizo to their navels (and obviously got out later). Plato (Symposium, 176) uses the term metaphorically to describe a drunken man who is baptizo - immersed, covered over - with his wine (and who, obviously, would be sober later). Strabo (Geography, 12.2.4) uses the word to describe a javelin being (temporarily) dipped into water. Epictetus (Fragments) uses the term figuratively to describe a life covered over with fortune - but immediately warns that this can be reversed.

Clearly, the "Baptist" meaning of baptizo is well-represented in the Greek lit. I'm unsure as to how McKay arrives at his conclusions.

Here, however, let me observe that the strength of my argument which is designed to shew the Scripture meaning of the word, is by no means dependent on the classic usage. Even were Baptists able to shew (which however they never have been) that in heathen or secular Greek baptizo always means to dip, it would not at all follow that in the sacred Scriptures it must mean the same thing...

That's simply a bad argument. Words mean things. When Paul or one of the other men writing under inspiration used a Greek word, they were using a word with a meaning, which had - barring clear connotative context to the contrary, which you have not shown concerning baptizo - the same idea as its use in Greek anywhere else. Words define theology, not the other way around.

we nevertheless firmly maintain that the Greek classics are just as free from baptism by dipping as the Scriptures.

A statement already shown to be false.

Nay more, of the one hundred and seventy-five instances quoted to prove dipping, no less than sixty-four (more than one- third of the whole) are translated by Dr. Conant himself by the English word overwhelm, that is a word which clearly implies that the overwhelming (baptizing) element comes upon the person or thing over- whelmed (baptized). Rev. T. Gallaher, in his "Short Method," after a thorough examination of every sentence containing baptizo written before the time of Christ, and quoted by Dr. Conant, says, "In every instance the baptizing element or instrumentality is moved and put upon the person or thing baptized, never is the person put into the element."

This argument sort of moves the goalposts, and is therefore a logical error.

Baptizo's basic meaning is "to dip, immerse." As has already been shown, the claim that the "baptising instrumentality" is always "put upon" the person being baptised is manifestly false. The argument that McKay and Gallagher appear to be trying to make, further, simply doesn't take into account things like tense, mood, and voice of the verb in question. If baptizo is used in an active voice, then yes, it's someone going into the liquid. If it is used in the passive tense, then it is the liquid being used on the person, whether to put them in it, or to cover them with it. This in no wise affects the underlying meaning of the word, or the meaning of how it is used in Scripture.

Again, your sources are old (McKay's book was written in 1884) and rely on outdated and/or simply incorrect arguments.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.