In the sermon 'Immersion in Baptism,' Nate Wikman explores the mode of baptism, emphasizing that while the mode is not as crucial as subjects of baptism or salvation by faith, it remains important due to the regulative principle of worship. He argues for immersion as the biblically and linguistically supported mode, citing Greek terms like 'baptizo' and historical evidence. Wikman challenges interpretations allowing for sprinkling or pouring, noting that these modes are not explicitly supported by scripture's language or symbolism. He acknowledges that early church practices and interpretations varied, with immersion often being the standard. Wikman encourages charitable discourse among believers with differing views and concludes with a reflection on baptism's symbolic union with Christ, drawing from Colossians 2:11-12 and John Gill's commentary.

So we've come today to the final paragraph in chapter 29 of baptism, which focuses on the mode in which baptism should be administered. I do believe this is a lesser issue than some of the previous paragraphs in this chapter, as it's of far more importance who the subject of baptism is than how the water is used in the ordinance. However, we do firmly believe in the regulative principle of worship, which we know, and we know the specific words of Scripture given to us by the Spirit have specific meaning, and so we do believe that the mode of this ordinance is important to study and to come to firm conviction on. And just for example, if anyone was to teach that in baptism the person should drink the water, because when we are united to Christ, his spirit dwells within us and thus drinking the water could be a picture of partaking of the spirit. I believe all true believers who are committed to soulless scripture and the regulative principle of worship would firmly oppose that.

And it could be argued that there are other ordinances where the partaker eats or drinks the substance, whether that's the priests partaking of the Old Covenant offerings or New Covenant believers eating the bread and drinking the wine. But again, as we know that every word of scripture is inspired and given it to us by God, our goal is to understand what scripture means and is teaching as best as possible, and we should be careful not to apply the modes or methods of different ordinances to any other ordinance without an express command or an example to do so. So I do wanna be clear too, that there are many serious believers who believe that pouring and sprinkling are acceptable modes of baptism, who also hold firmly to the conviction, the regulative principle, and are very careful to be as faithful as possible to Scripture. So my main point here is that while the mode of baptism is not a primary issue, like salvation by faith alone, or even what I'm going to term a first ranking secondary issue such as subjects of baptism who baptism are professing believers only or as Pato Baptists would argue professing believers and their children.

Still, this lesser issue is important in that it's given to us by God, and we should treat seriously every aspect of what He has commanded us, even more so when it comes to an ordinance given to Christ's church. So in my study for today's teaching, the two main arguments against immersion only that I came across were number one, that evidence is lacking to require understanding the English transliteration of baptism as meaning immersion. And then number two, while immersion is an acceptable picture of the reality that baptism signifies, which is union with Christ, there are other acceptable pictures of related realities, such as the outpouring of God's Spirit, that have some measure of precedent in the Old Testament. So the corresponding paragraph on baptism from the Westminster Confession, which is chapter 28, paragraph 3, it states that the dipping or states dipping the person into the water is not necessary, but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person. And then they give a number of proof texts which I'm going to go through and let's see.

First is Hebrews 9, 9 through 10, which states that, which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices that could not make him that did the service perfect. And sorry, just jumping right into Hebrews 9 here, he's referring to or speaking of the priests in under the Old Covenant, which were offered both gifts and sacrifices that could not make him that did the service perfect." And sorry, just jumping right into Hebrews 9 here, he's referring to or speaking of the priests in under the old covenant, which were offered both gifts and sacrifices that could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience, which stood only in meats and drinks, in diverse washings, and carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of Reformation. And then skipping a little bit further in Hebrews, the next proof text is verses 19 through 22. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats with water, and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

Moreover, he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. In almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood there's no remission." Next we have Acts chapter 2 verses 41, then they that gladly received his word were baptized. In the same day, they were added unto them about 3, 000 souls. Then Acts 16, 33, and he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was baptized, he and all his straight way." And then finally, Mark chapter 7 verse 4, I'm jumping back to verse 3 just to start there's a little more context, but they have just verse four. So starting in three, for the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. In many other things there be which they have received to hold as the washing of cups and pots and brazen vessels and of tables." Now before examining these proof texts I want to provide some background on the Greek words used in these verses and in our discussion of baptism. The definitions come from Strong's Greek concordance, and it is a little technical, so bear with me, but I do think it's important to understanding why Credo-Baptist, why we hold to immersion only. So first off, the word bopto in Strong's is defined as to dip, in, or immerse. And from that root word, we have three additional words, bop-teed-zo, which is defined as to dip repeatedly, to immerse or to submerge, to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water.

And then the second word derived from that is boptisma, which means immersion or submersion. And then boptismos, which means washing or purification affected by means of water. There's two other words that we're gonna come across in the proof text that I just read. One of them is herontizo, which means to sprinkle or to cleanse by sprinkling. And the third one is nipto, which means to wash or to wash oneself.

So bopto is, like I just said, is the root from which these three words, boptismos, boptizo, and boptisma are all derived. Thayer's Greek-English lexicon has a note on the history of the root word which says that the clearest example that shows the meaning of boptidzo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicanter who lived around 200 years BC, 200 years before Christ. It's a recipe for making pickles and it's helpful because it uses both words. And in that, he says that the vegetable should first be dipped, and he uses the word bopto, into the boiling water and then they are to be baptized or bop-teed-zode in the vinegar solution. And Thayer's definition or example goes on saying, both the verbs contain concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution, but the first is temporary.

The second, the act of baptizing the vegetables produces a permanent change." End quote. So while in the New Testament, baptismo and baptisma are used almost exclusively to indicate Christian baptism. Baptismos is used to refer primarily to Jewish ceremonial washings, which may have included immersion. When you wash pots and pans, you certainly don't just sprinkle water on them. Paul Smalley, in writing in Reformation Heritage's Reform Systematic Theology, he cites another scholar, James R.

Edwards, who writes that, quote, cleansing pools were a standard feature of Jewish homes and settlements in the first century. And then, this is me again. And while the argument can be made that these ritualistic washings that Baptiste Moss is primarily used to refer to could be accomplished. These ritualistic washings could be accomplished by pouring water. The linguistic definition of the word implies immersion as it's coming from that root word bopto, similar as the other two.

And we don't have a compelling reason to believe that these washings didn't include dipping or submerging the items into water. The only place that boptismos, this word that's used more for the ceremonial washing is the only place that that's used to refer to Christian baptism. So the only place that's used to refer to Christian baptism is in Colossians 2.12 where Paul writes that we were buried with him in Baptismos in which you were also raised with him. So it's interesting to note that in this place where Paul uses a Greek word that is used primarily for ceremonial cleansings or purification, Paul explicitly states that we were buried with Christ in Baptismos. Being buried with Christ in pouring or being buried with Christ together or being buried together with Christ in sprinkling does not create a plausible image.

Now, to jump back to the Westminster Confessions proof text. The first one, Hebrews 9, actually the second one, Hebrews 9, 19 through 22, when it's speaking of Moses sprinkling the blood in the water, The word that's used there is the hrantizo in both times that that's used. And I believe that this passage was likely included in the proof text because sprinkling is being offered as an example of cleansing for purification in the Old Testament, making it for some an appropriate symbol for the cleansing of baptism in the New Testament. On this point, Joel Beeke has written that, quote, sprinkling is an appropriate mode of baptism as the scriptures repeatedly use sprinkling to represent necessary purification or cleansing from sin, " end quote. And then he goes on to provide a number of references from the Old and New Testaments, where both the sprinkling of blood and water is used to picture cleansing from sin.

So it's at this point that I would argue and Credo-Baptist would argue that we need to have a stricter adherence to the regulative principle in the text of Scripture. So Paul Smalley, who's a reformed Credo-Baptist who co-authored Reformation Heritage Systematic Theology with Dr. Beeke, he points out that while God does say that he will sprinkle his Spirit, the Spirit on his people, there are other metaphors for the work of the Spirit that quote have no corresponding action in the ordinances that Christ instituted for the church." End quote. So the words used for the ordinance of baptism in their widest meanings are to immerse, submerge, or wash with water for cleansing. And while we have examples of other symbols from the Old and New Testaments that signify spiritual cleansing, I believe a stricter adherence to the regular principle of worship requires that if the Bible hasn't said that a particular symbol can be used in baptism to represent our union with Christ and everything that flows from that, we need to avoid it.

Baptism signifies our union with Christ and his death, burial, and resurrection. Moving on, I guess to the next proof text that I have from the Westminster Confession, they use Acts 2.41, where in this passage it says they gladly received His Word and were baptized. The word used there is baptizo. So again, as credo baptis, we would argue that that word, by its very definition, requires immersion. And then again, in Acts 16-33, where it says that they took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was baptized.

That again also is the bap-tidzo. But Mark 734 is interesting. And I started with verse 3 because it mentions that the Pharisees accept they wash their hands often. And the word for washing their hands they use there is nipto, which just refers to washing primarily of the hands or the feet. But when he comes to the other word, the second word translated as washing, It's Baptismos, the one that primarily refers to ceremonial washings or cleansings.

And he says that many of the things there be which they have received to hold, such as the washing, Baptismos, of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and of tables. So one other note on this is just that there's a number of, when it says tables, it's actually referring to the kind of reclining couches that they would sit on while they were eating or dining. And it's interesting that there's some of the better manuscripts don't include that. But regardless, when it's talking of cups, pots, brazen vessels, or the dining couches, with that word, baptismos, while it's primarily used for ceremonial washings, I don't think that there's a strong enough argument to say that that didn't include actually immersing the items into water. And then that kind of goes back to the point that James R.

Edwards had, or the historical note that he had made that these Jewish homes often did have, I can't remember the word they used for it, basically bowls or basins for doing these ceremonial washings in their homes. Joel Beeke in the Reformed Systematic Theology, he gives a few arguments to support a wider understanding of the word baptizo, and He mentions a couple verses, Matthew 3, 11, where in contrast to John's baptism, Jesus is said to baptize with the Spirit and fire. And then in Matthew 20, chapter 20, verses 22, Jesus asks his disciples, if there are two of them, if they're able to drink the cup that he drinks and be baptized with the baptism that he is going to be baptized with. And so B, he uses these as examples of where the word does not mean immersion in water because Jesus is metaphorically speaking of baptism of the Spirit and then metaphorically speaking of his death. But in both of these instances, I would argue that it's clear Jesus is speaking metaphorically, so immersion in water is not required as the understanding of what Jesus meant.

However, what he did mean is what the definition of immersion, the idea that that gives. The baptism of the Spirit will be so complete that Jesus used the word for immersion to describe it, which gives the understanding of being fully surrounded. The same is true when Jesus used bap-tidzo to metaphorically refer to as death, because it would be all-encompassing. I think a stronger argument for the wider understanding of bap-tidzo that includes variations, variations of that definition would be what J.C. Ryle wrote and he writes that quote, we read in St.

Luke chapter 11 verse 38 that when our Lord dined with certain Pharisees, the Pharisee marveled that he had not first washed before dinner. It may surprise some readers perhaps to hear these words would have been rendered more literally that he had not first been baptized before dinner. Yet is evident to common sense that the Pharisee could not have expected our Lord to immerse or dip himself over the head in water before dining. It simply means that he expected him to perform some ablution or to pour water over his hands before the meal. But if this is so, what becomes of the argument that to baptize always means complete immersion?

It is cut from under the feet of the advocate of dipping, and to reason further about it is a mere waste of time. But I'm gonna reason a little bit further. While Ryle makes a forceful argument, this is one example of bap-tidzo, where the immersion of the whole object, in this case, a person, probably or may not be the correct reading. However, the Pharisee could easily have been referring to immersing Jesus' hands in water versus his entire person. A common figure of speech, something that's, I believe, is pronounced synecdoche, is when a part is used to refer the whole, such as all hands on deck, where hands refers to the whole person.

And another similar figure of speech is where we use the whole to refer to the part, such as The United States has won gold in the Olympics. It wasn't the entire United States that won, it was a team or an individual, but in figures of speech and in language, we do at times use the whole to refer to the part. And as Paul Smalley again notes, the vast majority of uses of baptezo in contemporary extra-biblical resources refer to immersion in water, including acts such as, quote, pushing an inflated skin underwater, drowning someone in the sea, or sinking a ship into the sea." So in studying all of this from a linguistic standpoint, the evidence seems clear to me from a linguistic standpoint and from the historical usage of the term, both in scripture and other sources, that the most accurate reading of bap-teed-zo is immersion. And if an argument could be made for reading bap-teed-zo as pouring, especially sprinkling, I would believe that is on very shaky ground. Apart from arguing for a wider interpretation of baptizo, Bicchi writes that it is, quote, striking that the mode of baptism is never mentioned, end quote.

And that is, again, another quote here, of little concern to the New Testament, and therefore it should be of little concern to us. Replying from the Credo-Baptist perspective, I would say that the mode is included in the word. And when contemporary culture would have understood the word, it would have been redundant to write that we should immerse by immersion or immerse by submerging. Beeke goes on to argue that with no express command or example, we must use good and necessary inferences to inform our practice. And from there he goes on to symbolism of baptism.

But proponents of multiple modes of baptism, paedobaptists, would agree that immersion is a valid mode of baptism and accurately symbolizes what baptism represents, our union with Christ. Where I believe they go wrong is in advancing from the symbolism of our union with Christ to realities that are related to our union with Christ. For instance, we are united to Christ when God's Spirit quickens us or makes us alive, but baptism is not a picture of the spirit, but a picture of the work the Spirit has done, which is namely our union with Christ. The same is true of the result of this union. The result is that we are considered righteous or pure before God in a legal sense, we are being sanctified or purified in an actual sense as we grow in Christ.

So I would argue that attempts to use modes of baptism that symbolize these other related realities such as the pouring out of God's Spirit or the sprinkling of blood and water for purification should not be used as a justification for including pouring or sprinkling as modes of baptism. First, because the definition of baptism from a linguistic standpoint doesn't permit it. And second, because baptism primarily is a picture of our union with Christ, and these other symbols point to either causes or results rather than the primary reality that is being referred to. The apostle Paul also says in Galatians that as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Saying that as many as have been immersed into Christ have put on Christ, and we have here the picture of putting on referring to putting on clothing, that makes sense.

But being sprinkled into Christ or poured into Christ doesn't make a logical picture when compared to the picture of putting Christ on. Again, there are valid images that the Bible gives us for spiritual realities, but if the Bible doesn't say that baptism in ordinance of the church pictures these realities, then I believe that the church shouldn't attempt to create the connection. Paul Smalley again points out that just as the work of the Spirit is pictured with sprinkling or pouring throughout scripture, The work of the Spirit is also pictured as a refining fire and as a shining light, and obviously these symbols have no connection with baptism. Apart from examining lexical grammatical definitions for baptism and the historical use of the word in the symbols of baptism, we can also look at church history to understand how previous Christians understood baptism. I'll point out that this is probably the weakest argument as other topics that we've examined have to do with interpreting scripture and understanding what the specific words used by God mean.

However, when we go to church history, we're referencing man's interpretation or understanding, which is fallible. However, there is insufficient proof from church history to make a solid case for additional modes of baptism apart from immersion. So while the reformers of the 16th century understood baptizo to mean immersion, many of them did permit sprinkling, Calvin saying that the mode of baptism is quote of no importance. But then again Paul Smalley notes Calvin did admit that baptizo means immersion and he acknowledged that the ancient church practiced immersion. And then from there, Smalley outlines three examples from the early church of their understanding of baptism.

And the first was a book of church order from the first or second century referred to or called the Dadachi. It outlines baptism by immersion with an allowance for pouring when immersion was not possible. And then, we have Cyprian of Carthage from the third century who allowed pouring or sprinkling only when necessary. And then Cyril of Jerusalem from the fourth century, he described baptism as being plunged into water and encompassed on all sides by water." And then Smalley gives this quote here, we can detect the movement toward normalizing other modes of baptism besides immersion in the late Western medieval church. Thomas Aquinas said in the 13th century that baptism may be done by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring, though immersion is the ordinary mode and better represents Christ's burial.

And then Bonaventure from the same period, the 13th century, said that baptism is an immersion or washing of the entire body or at least its most noble part of the head in that triple immersion fittingly represents Christ's death, burial, and resurrection." End quote. So when we examine church history while it's not conclusive or on par with the authority of scripture by any means, the evidence favors that the early church taught that baptism by immersion was the correct mode with exceptions solely out of necessity, and then those changing over time to become acceptable modes on par with immersion. There are many other arguments made from both the pedo and credo perspectives that have more or less weight, one of which from the credo perspective is that the examples we see of baptism in the New Testament strongly indicates immersion, and that's where the two proof texts that we have from our confession come from. Matthew 3.16, which speaks of Jesus, is coming up from the water, and then John 3.23, which gives a specific reason for John baptizing at the Jordan as being because there was plenty of water there. If only a little bit of water was needed for sprinkling, it wouldn't be necessary to baptize where plenty of water was, and additionally there would have been no reason for the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip to go down into the water.

The eunuch certainly would have had water with him on a long journey, and sprinkling a little of that on his head could have been done much more easily than both him and Philip going down into the water. So in closing, I've tried to truthfully represent the arguments from the Pato Baptist camp and then interact with them. I'm certain I've not done so anywhere as ably as one of them would have. But I've also read from multiple reformed authors on both sides who pointed out that while only one side can be right in whichever the other side is, they must be in error. All of them have argued that we should be charitable with each other and we definitely don't want to doubt the sincerity or commitment of those who disagree with us on this issue.

And then Joel Beeke had an interesting quote from Spurgeon saying that one day in heaven our hearts will be made right even if some of our heads have been proved wrong. And then Paul Smalley, he closes his defense of credo baptism by saying that if brothers and sisters in Christ with otherwise sound doctrine in holy lives are wrong in this area, then we know that we can also be wrong and this should cause us to seek to walk humbly and pray for God's Spirit to enlighten us and give us wisdom. And then I just want to end with Colossians 2, 11 through 12, and then John Gill's commentary on it which I think gives a beautiful summary of immersion in its picture of our union with Christ. So Colossians 2, 11 through 12 says, in him also you were circumcised which is a circumcision made without hands by putting off the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, having been 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. So then John Gill says, the apostle goes on to observe how complete and perfect the saints are in Christ, that they are not only circumcised in him in a spiritual sense, in the body of the sins of their flesh is put off and removed from them, an allusion to the cutting off and casting away of the foreskin and circumcision, but that they and all their sins were buried with Christ, of which their baptism in water was a lively representation.

Christ having died for their sins was laid in the grave where he continued for a while and then he rose again. And as they were crucified with him they are also buried with him as their head and representative and all their sins too which he left behind him in the grave signified by his grave clothes there in baptism being performed by immersion when the person baptized is covered with water and as it were buried in it is a very significant emblem of all this. It is a representation of the burial of Christ and very fitly holds him forth to the view of faith in the state of the dead in the grave and points out the place where the Lord lay. It is also a representation of our burial with him as being dead to sin to the law and to the world by him. This shows now that baptism was performed by dipping or covering the whole body in water for no other form of administration of baptism as sprinkling or pouring water in the face can represent a burial or be called one and this is what many learned interpreters own and observe on this place.