1. Free to Change
2. Freedom and Responsibility
3. My Kind of People
4. "Come Out And Be Separate"
5. Private Intepretation
6. A "Monkey-Wrench" Scripture
7. The Truth That Frees
8. Literary Devices
9. Fear of God
10. A Love Story
11. The Three Trees In Eden
12. Imputed Righteousness
13. Different Essentials For Different People
14. God's Sons In All Ages
15. Looking To Lust
16. Divorce Her!
17. "While Her Husband Is Alive"
18. "They Won't Let Me Preach!"
19. God's Perplexing Prophets
20. Religous Titles
21. Who Sinned?
22. "I'll Join Your Church"
23. The Church As The Route To Heaven
24. One Hundred Years Old
25. Can Our Churches Unite?
26. Can The Cause Of Sickness Be The Cure?
27. When Life Begins
28. Abortion: Law Or Principle?
29. Human Chattel
30. The Hope of Israel
31. The Great Temptation of Jesus
32. The Rich Man And Lazarus
33. My Hermeneutic
34. Is Immersion Proved By Example?
35. Who Gets The Credit?
36. Hook's Points
37. Heresy
38. I Am A Debtor

Other Books at Freedom's Ring

In my youth I learned how simply the baptism of the Ethiopian nobleman served as a pattern to prove immersion. As I used that example through the years, I thought that anyone who rejected the impact of that precedent just did not respect Bible authority. I learned our hermeneutic of "the authority of approved example" before I ever knew what a hermeneutic was.

Now that I border on senility, I ask: Is immersion proved by the example of the baptism of the eunuch? The answer: No!

As a youth I picked up and used extensively the old sermon about baptism___that it required water, much water, going to the water, going down into the water, and coming up out of the water. I could illustrate that beautifully by the account of the baptism of the eunuch.

Now, let's look at Philip and the eunuch: "..they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water.."(Acts 8:38f). After they went down into the water, Philip baptized the eunuch. Then they came up out of the water. The baptizing took place after they went into the water and before they came out of it. The going in and coming out were not a part of the baptism. Whatever baptism is, it was performed between the going into and coming out of the water. Besides, Philip went into and came out of the water, and he was neither baptized nor partially baptized.

We go to that passage with a mental picture of immersion to substantiate. If we did not know what baptism was already, what would the example prove? Suppose, for instance, that baptism meant to wash his wounds. Would it still be an example of immersion as he washed his wounds?

I am not trying to convince you that pouring or sprinkling water is a proper mode of baptism. I do not understand why anyone would practice anything except immersion. But I am questioning our hermeneutic of trying to bind historical details as patterns.

Immersion is authorized by the word baptizo which means to immerse, not by some supposed example. Surely, the eunuch was immersed, but the "example" does not prove it!

Well, even though this is not exactly an example, baptism is described as a burial in water in Romans 6:3-4, isn't it? Not really! That text reads: "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death..." That passage does not picture baptism in water. In baptism we are buried with Christ in his tomb___not Jesus buried with us in water. Whatever baptism is, in it we are symbolically buried with Jesus in his tomb nineteen centuries ago. Because we know the meaning of baptizo, however, we know Paul speaks of immersion here, but a burial in water is not indicated in the language of this reference.

Now, let's look at another example of baptism. In describing the falling of the Holy Spirit on the apostles on Pentecost, three times that baptism is referred to as a pouring out of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:16-19, 33). In fact, it was "distributed and resting on each one of them" (2:3) Its falling in such a dispersed manner looks more like sprinkling (aspersion) than immersion! In other references, the falling, pouring out, and receiving of the Holy Spirit are all related to the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-47; 11:15f; Titus 3:5f). The giving of the Spirit which enabled disciples to know the truth was called an anointing rather than a burial (1 John 2:20, 26; John 14:26).

Following our hermeneutic of approve example, are we not authorized to define baptism as pouring, aspersion, or anointing? We have tried to evade this point by explaining that the baptism of the Spirit was an overwhelming or submerging of the person by the Holy Spirit. But the Scriptures still say that the Spirit was poured out and fell on them in a distributed manner. Having made this point, I will not pursue any study of the meaning of these words further here.

Again, I have no desire to convince you that immersion should be abandoned, but I am saying that our "approved example" hermeneutic is ineffective.

In the first instance we try to make an example where there is none and in the second we try to explain away the impact of an example. And this is only one of our many inconsistencies in trying to follow precedents as though they were laws. A historical account may reveal an acceptable method for doing a thing but it does not necessarily indicate the only acceptable method.

As I so often sought to bind immersion by the force of example of the Ethiopian's baptism, I wondered why the whole world could not see it as I did. Now I am beginning to see why many of my listeners could detect the inadequacy of my premise.