The Proper Mode of Baptism: Sprinkling

The Westminster Confession of Faith (the primary doctrinal formulation of Presbyterian Churches), says in XXVIII:3, "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person." This is in opposition to Baptists and other Christians who insist that immersion (called "dipping" here) is the only legitimate mode of baptism. They claim that the word "baptism" means "immersion." I have addressed that particular claim here. By this statement, the divines were not saying that one cannot be baptized by immersion. In fact, I was baptized by immersion. Rather, their statement was intended to discuss the relative worth of the modes.

While not intending this as a complete dealing with the subject (see my post linked above), I want here to bring up two bible verses that I believe support the statement of the divines.

The first text in Isaiah 52:15: "So shall He sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of Him; for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand." This is part of the Suffering Servant passage (Isaiah 52:10-53:12), one of the most-striking Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, and applied to Christ in several places in the New Testament, such as Mark 15:28 and I Peter 2:22. Some Bibles will have a footnote for "sprinkle," saying something like "or startle." There is no "or" about it: the Hebrew unequivocally reads "sprinkle"; the alternative, "startle," is found only in the Septuagint.

The other verse is Ezekiel 36:25: "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." This verse is in the midst of an amazing passage on God's work of regeneration of His elect, culminating in verse 33: "On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities!"

The use of "sprinkle" is adopted from the atonement ceremonies in the tabernacle and Temple, e. g., Leviticus 16:14: "[The priest] shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the front of the mercy seat on the east side, and in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times." Just as those sacrifices pointed to the work of Christ in His suffering and death on the cross, so does the sprinkling with water in the new covenant sacrament of baptism. Note Hebrews 9:13 "the blood of bulls and goats" leading, in verse 14, to "the blood of Christ." This is the author's proof that the blood of Christ is superior to the "washings" (Greek, "baptisms") of the Old Covenant!

Consider also Mark 7:4: "They do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches." The word "wash" is a Greek word which would be literally translated as "sprinkle." And the word "washing" is literally "baptizing." If "baptism" means "immersion," then what are we expecting that the Pharisees did? To immerse their couches under water? The juxtaposition of "sprinkle" and "baptism" makes sense from the Presbyterian point of view. It does not from a Baptist point of view.

My conclusion here is that a proper understanding of Old Testament typology and the application of our atonement in Christ must lead to the conclusion that the biblical mode of baptism is by sprinkling.

Jesus Christ, Savior of the World!

"We have our hope set on the Living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially those who

believe."
- I Timothy 4:10

I come to this verse today because it is one of those trump verses claimed by Arminians. By "trump verse," I mean, not anything to do with Donald Trump, but as in cards, where a trump beats any other card played in the game. This is a trump verse because Arminians believe that citing it overcomes anything in Scripture that a Calvinist can cite regarding the particularity of the atonement.

If you have followed this blog (or by clicking on the "limited atonement" tag at the bottom of this post), then you know that I hold, along with my fellow orthodox Calvinists, that Jesus died effectually for the church, the elect of all ages (see, e. g., Eph. 5:25, Rev. 13:8). I emphatically deny that there will be or can be anyone in Hell for whom Christ died (by which I do not endorse universal salvation).

In contrast, Arminians hold to a universal intent for the atonement, i. e., that Jesus died on the cross for every human being equally. However, they deny that the atonement is necessarily effectual for anyone. In other words, they hold that it was hypothetically possible that not a single person would ever have been redeemed by the death of Christ. In addition, everyone in Hell was also equally included in the intention of the atonement. How can that be understood in any way other than as an assertion that the atonement, at least in the case of some, was insufficient and failed? Or that salvation is by Jesus plus something else? That is a denial of the Reformation principle of solus christus. Such a concept is repugnant to me.

The verse above is often cited in support of the Arminian view, because Paul describes Jesus as "the Savior of all people." However, I deny that it means "of all people in the same sense." To interpret it that way is an unwarranted and unbiblical leap of logic.

I have discussed this before, though not regarding this particular verse. Jesus is not here said to save all people, but rather to be the Savior of all people. That is, Jesus is the only savior to whom men can look to save us from sin and death. In other words, Paul is asserting nothing more than Peter did in Acts 4:12: "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under given among men by which we must be saved." Or as the Prophet said in Isaiah 45:22: "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other." Jesus alone holds the office of Savior, whether one is in China, the United States, or anywhere else on the earth, or in any period of time!

When the application of the atonement is described in Scripture, it is by the verb "to save." For example, Matthew 1:21: "You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." Notice that Matthew doesn't say "might save" or "will offer salvation." That's because His atonement is effectual; it actually saves everyone for whom it was made. As I said above, there is not and never can be anyone in Hell for whom Christ died. That's why we have the last portion of Paul's assertion in the verse above: "especially those who believe." Why "especially"? Because for us, and for us alone, He holds, not just the office of Savior, but is the One who saves us!

A Simple Question regarding the Primacy of Peter and of the Pope

The Church of Rome makes an interesting use of some of the remarks of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. In Matt. 16:18-19, He said, "I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This was in response to Peter's profession that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" in verse 16. In Greek, the name Peter means "a rock," so Rome has long held that Jesus was naming Peter the foundation of the church, and the Pope as Peter's successor.

I have addressed this question before, but I am going to take a different tack here.

One thing to note is that these particular words of Christ don't appear in the parallel passages in Mark 8:27-30 and Luke 9:18-22. Both of those gospel writers stopped after Peter's profession, leaving out the response of Jesus. If Jesus had been making such a fundamental declaration, wouldn't it have been included in the parallel accounts?

Moreover, in all three Synoptics, an account is given shortly after this one, in which the apostles were arguing over leadership. See Matthew 18:1-4, Mark 9:33-37, and Luke 9:46-48. Notice especially the words of Jesus recorded in Mark 9:35: "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all."

These three passages tell us two important things regarding the matter at issue here between Rome and Protestants (and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as well). The first is that the other apostles didn't see the words of Jesus as appointing Peter to supremacy within their group. And second, they tell us that leadership in the church is not a matter of Jesus's call to supremacy, but rather His call to service. The palaces, gold trappings, and expensive art of the Vatican speak much of the former, but nothing of the latter.

There is, however, an account in Scripture regarding someone's claiming supremacy in the Church (III John 1:9-11): "I have written something to the church, but Diotrophes, who likes to place himself first, does not acknowledge our authority." The person who claims supremacy is an enemy of the church, not her head.

The Words of Jesus Against the Error of Modalism

In the New Testament, Jesus often addresses or refers to the other Persons of the Godhead. We see this especially in the Gospel of John, the very book which most-clearly teaches His deity. We see it in John 12:49, 14:16-26, 15:26, and 16:5-15. I bring this topic up because of the claims of the Modalists, or Sabellians (seen primarily in the United Pentecostal Church), that there is no distinction of Persons within the Godhead, but merely the one Person working in different modes (thus the name "modalism").

Consider, first, John 12:49: "I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak." If the Persons of the Trinity are actually one Person acting under two modes, how can the Father speak to the Son? For the Trinitarian, this isn't a problem; it is an aspect of the intra-Trinitarian covenant. For the Modalist, there is no explanation except irrationality.

In the second passage, John 14:16-26, Jesus refers to Himself, the Father, and the Spirit. Look at, for example, verses 16-17: "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth." Thus, we have the Son speaking in the first Person, referring to both of the other Persons, speaking of what He would do, "ask the Father," then what the Father would do, "give the Spirit," then what the Spirit would do, "be with you forever." The Modalists claim that this sentence is an anthropomorphism, i. e., Jesus's describing Himself, acting in all three modes. Yet, how can this be? When Jesus says that He will ask the Father, are we truly to understand that He is speaking to Himself? And when the Father sends the Spirit, are we to understand that Jesus is sending Himself? So, to paraphrase the sentence the way the Modalists understand it: "I will ask Myself to send Myself, and then I will be with you forever." That isn't an anthropomorphism; that's insanity!

In the third passage, John 15:26, we see a nearly-identical remarks: "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness about Me." Again, we see, not each Person acting in turn, as the Modalists maintain, but all three acting in concert.

In the last passage, John 16:5-15, we see something similar. Verses 13-15 read, "When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth, for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take what is Mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is Mine; therefore I said that He will take what is Mine and declare it to you." Again, the Apostle records Jesus's own words describing the Persons of the Trinity acting in concert, not in succession, as the Modalists claim.

Consider the alternative: if the Modalists were right, and there is one divine Person who changes roles, would Jesus not have said something like, "I will return to heaven, and then come back to you as the Spirit"? That is shorter, not at all equivocal or difficult to understand, yet not what Jesus says. In fact it isn't even comparable to what Jesus said. Therefore, is it not simple logic to understand that it isn't what Jesus meant?

My point is this: the Bible does, indeed, use anthropomorphisms. However, they are used for clarification, not obfuscation. The Modalist expects us to believe that Jesus is using figures of speech, not to reveal the truth, but to obscure it.

Was Jesus Born Again? The Heresy of the Word of Faith Movement

Jesus taught us that it is necessary for a man to be born again to enter eternal life (John 3:3). That's because we are all fallen in Adam (Romans 5:12), dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1). To be born again is to have God change our hearts, to become able to believe and obey Him (Ezekiel 36:26-27). Jesus, however, didn't include Himself, because He had no sin (II Corinthians 5:21 and Hebrews 4:15). If He was never a sinner, then He had no need for a new heart.

In contrast, the ministers associated with the prosperity gospel, or Word of Faith, movement, teach that Jesus went to Hell after His crucifixion, and was born again there, so that He could then be resurrected. Can there be any better indication that this movement is actually an anti-Christian, even anti-Christ, cult?

The Pre-Incarnate Mediatorship of Christ in Amos 7

The seventh chapter of Amos opens with three warning visions.

The first is Amos 7:1-3: "This is what the Lord God showed me: behold, he was forming locusts when the latter growth was just beginning to sprout, and behold, it was the latter growth after the king’s mowings. When they had finished eating the grass of the land, I said, 'O Lord God, please forgive! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!' The Lord relented concerning this: 'It shall not be,' said the Lord."

The second is Amos 7:4-6: "This is what the Lord God showed me: behold, the Lord God was calling for a judgment by fire, and it devoured the great deep and was eating up the land. Then I said, 'O Lord God, please cease! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!' The Lord relented concerning this: 'This also shall not be,' said the Lord God." 

And the third in Amos 7:7-9: "This is what he showed me: behold, the Lord was standing beside a wall built with a plumb line, with a plumb line in his hand. And the LORD said to me, 'Amos, what do you see?' And I said, 'A plumb line.' Then the Lord said, 'Behold, I am setting a plumb line in the midst of my people Israel; I will never again pass by them; the high places of Isaac shall be made desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste, and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword."

In all three visions, God warns of an impending judgment on the northern kingdom, a judgment which was eventually fulfilled in the conquest and deportation by Assyria in 722BC. The difference is that the first two judgments are turned away through the intercession of Amos himself. 

However, the third vision is very different. First, notice the varying use of "lord." In the first and third occurrences we see "Lord." That is, the Hebrew word adon. In contrast, the middle usage is "LORD," for the Tetragrammaton, Jehovah. This contrast indicates a conversation between the First and Second Persons

of the Trinity. Compare Psalm 110:1 and its use in Luke 20:42 and Acts 2:34. 

We see Amos's twice taking a mediatorial role, and turning aside God's judgment on the northern portion of Israel. However, in the third judgment, Christ, the ultimate Mediator, refuses to intervene on behalf of Israel and this third, most-devastating, judgment was poured out in the destruction of these ten tribes. We see it again in Amos 9:7, where God tells the northern kingdom that she has no more privileges in His eyes than do the most-obscure (in their knowledge of the world) foreigners. How horrible must God's wrath be, if His own appointed Mediator refuses to plead for a sinner!

The Missionary Heart of Jesus

"Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. When He saw the crowds, He had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a

shepherd. Then He said to His disciples, 'The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.'"
- Matthew 9:35-38 

These verses show us something about Jesus that I find amazing. While He came to save the church (Eph. 5:25, confer John 10:29 and 17:6), He is not blind to the rest of fallen humanity. Rather, He sees their sin, spiritual blindness, disease, futility, and even their stubbornness (see, for example, Matthew 23:37), and is moved with compassion. He sorrows over the irremediable fallenness of the reprobate, though He acts in justice in judging them for their sin (Matthew 25:31-33, 46, and Revelation 20:11-15). 

How can these things be compatible?

It is certainly true that God takes no pleasure in destroying the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). If He did, would He not be too sadistic for us to contemplate? But the Bible also says (Psalm 5:4), "You are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with You."

The problem continues to be that God is more complex than we want Him to be. Too many people talk about the love of God for men, and then stop. What does God value above men? Himself. To love sinners without acting in justice, He would be forced to excise that side of His nature, His holiness (Heb. 12:29). He would thus cease to be God. The God of that kind of belief system is not the God of the Bible, but is rather an idol, a god made, not even in man's image, but rather according to man's desires.