00B.17 Chapter 10--Why Methodists Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies--No. 2

X. "Why Methodists Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies"

No. 2 The Methodist Herald has begun its series of articles on baptism. These articles have been promised to the readers for some weeks, and in announcing them the editor ran a picture of John the Baptist pouring water upon the head of our Savior. The editor announced that many people were subscribing for the paper for the express purpose of reading these articles. The first article appeared in its issue of June 17. Again the picture accompanies the article, and the editor announced that this picture will appear each week while this discussion lasts. Of course, the picture is a forgery, as no photograph was taken of the scenes of Christ’s life. No drawings were made and no picture was ever given to the world of Christ until many centuries after he had gone from the earth. Then the pictures were made out of the imagination of the artist. But the picture is no worse a misrepresentation of facts than are the arguments by the editor. We do not know how long the editor means to continue this discussion, and we do not promise to review each article in detail, but the following is the second article from the pen of the editor. Read it carefully and then read the review: The reason why most Methodists differ on the mode of baptism from some who practice immersion is because of their difference of viewpoint.

Those who practice immersion believe that it represents the burial and resurrection of Christ. We believe that water baptism should represent the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and we believe that this was done by pouring. Jesus said: "John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." He referred to the day of Pentecost.

Joel the prophet (Joel 2:28) says: "And it shall come to pass afterwards that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." This refers to the same thing.

Peter, speaking of this baptism, said: "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; and it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." (Acts 2:16-17.) Peter, referring to this same promise (Acts 11:15-16), says:

"The Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."

Peter here is reminded that John’s baptism was by pouring, for at Jerusalem the Holy Ghost baptism was by pouring. How could "with water" mean immersion if "with the Holy Ghost" means pouring? Some of our immersionist friends have translated the ex­pression of Christ this way: "John indeed baptized in water, but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Ghost." Try using "in" with other expressions like "with a kiss," "with a rod," "with an iron," etc. See Acts 1:8 : "Holy Ghost is come upon you." Isaiah 32:15 : "Until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high." The people were astonished "because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." The manner of the purifying of the Jews was by sprinkling and pouring. These signified purity. This was so common that sprin­kling and pouring are mentioned in the Bible two hundred and four times. The Jews sprinkled the people and vessels (see Hebrews 9:19­21), and this was a symbol of the purifying of the Holy Ghost. At the marriage in Cana of Galilee, when Jesus performed his first miracle, we read in John 2:6 : "And there were set there six water- pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews." This was the custom of the Jews, signifying the purifying of the Holy Ghost. The Old Testament was the only Bible in the days of Jesus. He never saw a New Testament. The apostles preached from the Old Testament, too. In the Old Testament under the Mosaic law the outward sign of purification was by pouring and sprinkling. John the Baptist was a priest under the Mosaic law and knew nothing but pouring and sprinkling as an outward sign of cleansing. It would be perverting reason to say that he was familiar with immersion in his work of baptizing. He baptized the multitude, no doubt, with hyssop weeds by sprinkling. He baptized Jesus, no doubt, by pour­ing—a greater profusion of water as in the case of priests. Pouring and sprinkling came from the same Greek word. When we say it pours rain, we mean it sprinkles harder. In the Bible we do not read of rubber suits, baptisteries, and persons being taken to rivers and creeks, as is a custom today. Such are modern inventions and do not belong to apostolic days. Name any church with a baptistery of the early church. In fact, a modern building like unto what we know was not built until the third century. Now, since the people were more in the open those days, name a river where they took a candidate for baptism to baptize him. In conclusion on this article, let us say that if immersion were the only mode of baptism, many people of the icy regions of the North and deserts like the Sahara, where sufficient water could not be secured, could not be baptized, and God would have com­manded an impossibility.

REVIEW

I. The Apostles Baptized with the Holy Spirit—The Holy Spirit Poured Out The editor makes an argument from the fact that the apostles were baptized with or in the Holy Spirit, and he cites a number of Scriptures to show that the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them, etc. We do not deny that the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit. We do not deny that the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them. But we do deny that the pouring was baptism. The word "bap­tize" means to dip, to plunge, to immerse, to submerge, to overwhelm. The apostles were completely overwhelmed in the Holy Spirit. They were filled with the Holy Spirit and passed completely under the control of the Holy Spirit, and in that way were swallowed up or submerged in the Holy Spirit. If you say this was done by pouring, we reply that persons can be baptized with water in the same way.

If we pour water upon them until they are completely over­whelmed, covered up, submerged in water, they will be bap­tized. But let us notice the grammar of this language. Who was to be baptized? The answer is, the apostles, the witnesses of our Lord’s death and resurrection. (Acts 1:3-5.) The word "baptize" is a verb, and it takes an object. The apostles were the object. The action of the verb "bap­tize" took place upon the apostles. The word "pour" is also a verb. It is active and also takes an object. What is the object of the verb "pour"? Why, the Holy Spirit, of course. The action of the verb took place or terminated upon the Holy Spirit. It was the Spirit that was poured. Then, if the word "pour" means "baptism," it was the Holy Spirit that was baptized. If the action of the verb "pour" took place upon the apostles, then they were poured themselves instead of having something poured upon them. These words cannot be interchanged. "Pour" does not mean "bap­tize" and "baptize" docs not mean "pour." They are differ­ent words in the English and have different meanings. They are different words in the Greek, and they have different meanings.

2. Baptize with or in the Holy Spirit and with or in Water. The editor says that some immersionists have translated the word "with" by "in" and the Scripture reads: "John indeed baptized i n water; but ye shall be baptized i n the Holy Ghost." Does the editor think that all the revisers who gave to us the American Standard Revised translation were immer- sionists? Doesn’t he know that many of them were affu- sionists? There were Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congre- gationalists, and Methodists among those revisers, and yet they translated the word "in" instead of "with." But the editor says we should try using the word "in" in such expres­sions as "with a kiss," "with a rod," "with an iron," etc. By this the editor hopes to show that the revisers did not know what they were about, and that if they had tried such expressions as he gives us they would have seen the ab­surdity of their translation. But while the editor is using the expression where the preposition "with" is used, why doesn’t he say, "She washed the clothes with water?" Does the editor think this was done by sprinkling a few drops upon the clothes? But let him try the expression, "She dyed the garments with dye." Would anyone think this was accomplished by having a few drops of dye sprinkled upon the garment? So, if we repudiate the revisers and retain the word "with" in the text, there is nothing to favor sprinkling or pouring. But as to the word "with" in such expressions as "with a kiss," "with a rod," etc., does not the editor know that the word "with" has many different meanings and is used in many different senses even in English? And does he not know that the word "with" is translated from some half dozen or more different Greek words? But the Greek word in the expression in question is "en" in the Greek, and it is correctly translated "in." "With a kiss" would be a different Greek word. No doubt the editor knows all of this, but what shall we say? If we say he does not know it, we would be accusing him of ignorance, and this would not be good form. But if we say that he docs know it and still tries to mislead his readers, we would be accusing him of deception, and that would not be good taste. Hence, nameless we will let this argument stand.

3. The Purifying of the Jews. The editor argues that John the Baptist knew nothing about baptism except what he had learned from the custom of the Old Testament of purifying. He claims that John’s baptism was simply the action of a Mosaic priest purifying the people, and that purifying was always done by sprin­kling. The only reply this needs is simply to remind the readers that no persons of the Old Testament ever sprinkled simple water upon the people for any purpose. Their water of purification was a composition of blood, ashes, and living water. (Hebrews 9:13; Numbers 19:9-17.) But John the Baptist used no such mixture as this. He baptized the people in the river Jordan, and the river Jordan was unmixed water. John’s baptism in the Jordan and the sprinkling that the priests did for a ceremonial cleansing were as different as day and night.

4. "Pour,” "Sprinkle,” "Baptize" We can hardly believe our eyes when we read this sentence from the editor: "Pouring and sprinkling come from the same Greek word." Any man who knows the Greek alphabet can take an interlinear New Testament and turn to the passages where "pour" is used and see that the word is "ekcheo," to pour out, or "epicheo," to pour upon. The root word is "cheo," to pour. But the word for sprinkle is "rantizo," and the noun form is "rantizmos." In the Greek, "baptize" is "baptizo," and the noun form is "baptizma." These three words are different in the Greek as in English and have different meanings. If any reader will get his Bible and turn to the fourteenth chapter of Leviticus and the fifteenth and sixteenth verses, he will find the words"pour," "dip," and "sprinkle" all used in these verses. The priest was to pour the oil into the palm of his hand, dip his finger in the oil, and sprinkle the oil seven times. In the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, we have the words "cheo," "baptizo," and "rantizo" used in this passage. The translators rendered one "pour," the other "dip," and the other "sprinkle." The exact forms of the Greek words in this passage are "epicheei" and "bapsei" and "ranei." But they are all from the roots that are given above.

Why would the editor of the Methodist Herald say that the words "sprinkle" and "pour" come from the same Greek word? Does he not know any better?

5. Taking People to the Rivers and Creeks. The editor says we do not read in the Bible of rubber suits, baptisteries, and of the taking of people to the rivers and creeks. Of course we do not read of rubber suits or of baptisteries, for, as the editor says, there were no church buildings in that day: but when we come on in church history, we find that as early as they began to build church buildings they built a fount for a baptistery. But the editor’s reference to rubber suits and baptisteries, which are only incidents and conveniences, help him to slip the rest of the sentence by the readers. That is, that we do not read in the Bible of where people were taken to the rivers and creeks. Does the editor think all of his readers are ignorant of the Scripture? Does he not remember that the jailer at Philippi "took" Paul and Silas and washed their stripes and was baptized? Where did he take these preachers? Of course, he "took" them to water, for he washed their stripes, and he was baptized: and we know he took them somewhere outside of the house, for the language shows that he first brought them out of the prison and then "took" them, and was baptized, and then he brought them up into his house. And does the editor imagine that the readers have all for­gotten that the record says that John the Baptist was preaching along the Jordan banks, and that there "went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about the Jordan; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins"? (Matthew 3:5-6.) These people all went out to a river. The name of that river was "Jordan." And can the readers forget that "then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him"? (Matthew 3:13.) Jesus came to a river to be baptized. And he walked from sixty to one hundred miles to get to that river. Does the editor imagine that all the people are ignorant of the fact that "John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized"? (John 3:23.) These people came to much water. The editor thinks that people who live on the Sahara Desert or in the frozen North cannot be baptized. How many people does he think live on the Sahara? How many could he sprinkle on that desert, even if they could live there? Who lives in the extreme North? In what do the seals and polar bears swim? It must be a weak cause that will drive an editor to make such an argument. This completely answers the editor’s sophistry, and the inexcusable mistakes that he has made in this article ought to lead the readers to distrust anything that he may say on the subject in the future. But we shall watch for his articles, and perhaps may give him further attention on this page.