A catholic family member was having their baby baptized this weekend. I went to purchase a baptism card from the store and they didn’t have any - only christening cards. I just grabbed a christening card because I figured it was good enough (and I didn’t want to go to another store). Just wondering, is there a huge difference between the two terms anyway? Baptism vs christening?
Well, as far as baptism is concerned, according to the official Roman Catholic Catechism:
“Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit…Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ…Baptism is a bath of water in which the ‘imperishable seed’ of the Word of God produces its life-giving effect…Baptism signifies liberation from sin…By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.”
The word “baptise” itself has had a somewhat troubled history. To simplify it, hundreds of years ago translators had an ecclesiastically-inspired aversion to faithfully translating New Testament Greek into appropriate English.
“βαπτίζω baptízō; fut. baptísō, from báptō, to dip. Immerse, submerge for a religious purpose, to overwhelm, saturate…” (Thayer). Greek words were Anglicised instead, and still are to this day.
1 Like
I understand your point. But in deference to our faithful translators, I suggest that the word resists “appropriate” translation into a single, English equivalent, whether one possesses an “ecclesiastically-inspired aversion” or not. A fairly-close word-for-word translation might be “overwhelm”, but even that word does not carry the same intent in some Biblical passages. “Overwhelm” is not a commonly used English word used in this cleansing sense. “Overwhelm” in modern parlance does not usually mean “immersed in water” but is almost always used to mean “excessive pressure” in a psychological, or emotional context. This difficulty in translating the word “baptize” may not be because of an “ecclesiastically-inspired aversion” per-se, but may explain why translators most often chose to simply keep it as is; to just carry the Greek word phonetically into English, to simply supply an English pronunciation for the Greek word in the text, they may have felt forced to resign themselves to simply pass-it-through as it was originally in Geek as best they could. I remind us that we rarely use the word “baptize”, in modern English conversation outside of ecclesiastical settings. When we do use it we almost always expect it to imply a Christian, or ecclesiastical sense. I never rise from the table and say to my spouse after a meal, “you baptize, I’ll dry”, I never say “I’m going to baptize my car this afternoon”, nor do I tell my kids to “be sure to baptize your hands before dinner”. But a first century Greek might use the word in just this way. Consider these verses:
When they come* from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash (Gk:baptizō). And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing (baptismos) of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches. Mark 7:4
This word was used by The Disciple referring to washing “couches” (Gk:klinē, often rendered bed, or table), refers to something one would not necessarily “immerse”.
And as He spoke, a certain Pharisee asked Him to dine with him. So He went in and sat down to eat. When the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that He had not first washed (Gk:baptizō) before dinner. Luke 11:37-38
Here the same word is used to refer to a “tradition of washing”, a “ceremonial cleansing” that Jesus had failed to do. There is no translator that believes the Pharisee marveled because Jesus had not immersed himself before dinner.
I think, if the word did have an easy one-for-one translation, you and I might have never heard the word “baptize” used in any English Christian communication. We only use and hear the Greek word today because it “didn’t translate well” into something else.
Just some etymology for your thoughtful consideration.
KP
1 Like
You’re right that βαπτίζω has a broad range in Greek, and that Mark 7:4 and Luke 11:38 show ceremonial washings.
When the NT speaks of Christian baptism, the context consistently points to immersion. Jesus came up from the water (Matt 3:16), John needed much water (John 3:23), Philip and the eunuch went down into and up out of the water (Acts 8:38-39), and Paul calls it a burial (Rom 6:4).
That βαπτίζω can mean “wash a couch” in one context doesn’t mean it means “sprinkle” in another. As for “christening”- that’s a naming rite. Baptism is a sacrament of covenant initiation. They’re not the same thing.
2 cents.
J.
1 Like
Just to keep it simple for us to remember, plainly speaking, honestly, a lot of people use them interchangeably. But while they are deeply connected, there is a distinct difference between the two terms. Think of it this way: Baptism is the sacrament itself (the actual religious rite), while a christening is the specific occasion where a child is named and welcomed.
Baptism (The Sacrament) = Baptism is the overarching religious ritual that involves water. It is a formal sacrament practiced by almost all Christian denominations. Water is either sprinkled, poured over the head, or the person is fully immersed in it. It symbolizes the washing away of sin, spiritual rebirth, and a formal entry into the global Christian Church.
Now this can happen at any age. While many traditions baptize babies, others (like Baptists or Pentecostals) practice “believer’s baptism,” which happens when someone is old enough to decide for themselves. Yet I have never been in a church that believed that a baby baptism did anything.
Christening (The Naming & Dedication)= Christening is a term traditionally used specifically for infants. The word literally means “to bring to Christ” or “to Christian”. It almost always includes a baptism, but it carries an extra focus on naming the baby. In fact, an old-school definition of christening is simply “to give a name to.”
It’s a celebratory milestone event centered around the baby, their new Christian name, and the godparents promising to guide them. It is strictly for babies and young children. You wouldn’t really hear an adult say, “I’m getting christened this Sunday.”
Every christening involves a baptism, but not every baptism is a christening. If an adult gets baptized in a river, it’s a baptism. If a two-month-old in a white gown gets baptized at a church altar while being formally named, it’s both a baptism and a christening.
In the church I spent much time in, we dedicated babies to the Lord. Again, not knowing right from wrong, good, sin, heaven, hell, or anything other than eating, pooping, and sleeping, we would sprinkle some water, dedicating it to the Lord. In some cases, we would have more than the parents. Be them Grandparants, or even Godparents, who promised to raise them in the Word and in the faith of Jesus. It was not until they reached “The age of accountability” that we allowed full baptism. When an informed choice can be made by the individual.
In these traditions, the ultimate safety of an infant relies entirely on God’s character and grace, not a ritual. Our view is that infants and young children are already secure in God’s hands because they lack the cognitive and spiritual capacity to understand sin, right from wrong, or the concept of a savior. If a baby or young child passes away, the widespread belief is that they are automatically received into heaven through God’s mercy, regardless of whether they had a formal dedication ceremony or not.
Peter
After reading your comments, KPuff, I have to admit I’ve been guilty of voicing my bias. There are a lot of heavy considerations that come into play when producing Bible translations. And I know precious little about them. Fair enough. But here’s the problem I have with this subject.
For me as a puzzled layman, I’m bothered by the ambiguity that stems from translators’ transliteration of these Greek words that could be acceptably rendered in English according to their context. At the very least, footnotes could be used to help the reader grasp the fuller significance of the Greek in those specific contexts. Perhaps this is the case in some translations. Hope so.
As I understand it, at the time of the 1611 translation, immersion and sprinkling were both practised. Also, the transliteration of baptizō, etc, would have been known to the 1611 translators. But given the huge popularity of their finished work, their decision to transliterate, or Anglicise, the Greek has been unhelpful to say the least. I’m of the opinion that various traditions, in translation contexts and elsewhere, are largely to blame.
Surely specific Greek words can be acceptably and usefully translated in light of the decisive contexts in which they are used? But at the sharp end the ambiguity that results encourages church practices that lead to full membership through a rite or ritual. I have known many people like this. Churchianity is one word for it. To highlight this, consider the Anglican phraseology in the following quote. How many of the baptised infants who are eventually Confirmed have never actually been born again?
“God’s gift in baptism is new birth in Christ, a new direction in life as God’s child, and a calling to be a lifelong, faithful disciple of Christ…Baptism can take place at any age. In the Church of Ireland most people are baptised as infants. Children are baptised before they can answer for themselves so that they become fully included in the life of the Church…Baptism is a sacrament which, for any individual, cannot be repeated or undone, because it represents God’s once–for–all gift and calling to those baptised. If baptised persons want to affirm their faith at a later stage, the proper procedure is to present themselves for Confirmation or to renew their baptismal vows” (What We Believe: Baptism & Confirmation, ireland.anglican.org).
The inherent nature and definitions of the Greek terminology associated with baptism are impossible to ignore. Johann is right to emphasise the importance of context. This is crucial, and a normal practice in the work of translation. So I suppose I would have to question the view that transliteration happens “because (the Greek language] ‘didn’t translate well’ into something else.”
You’ve put your finger on something the Reformers themselves wrestled with. The ambiguity is not innocent, it has consequences for souls.
- The 1611 Translators Chose to Obscure the Meaning
In non-sacramental contexts, βαπτίζω is translated:
Table
Passage Greek ESV
Mark 7:4 βαπτίζωνται “they wash”
Luke 11:38 ἐβαπτίσθη “washed”
Hebrews 9:10 βαπτισμοῖς “washings”
The KJV translators could have translated it in the Gospels and Acts. They chose transliteration because both sprinkling and immersion were practiced in the Church of England. It was a political compromise, not a linguistic necessity. William Tyndale, a century earlier, had actually translated it as “wash” and “dip” in places.
- The Anglican Quote You Cited Is the Problem
It says baptism “is new birth in Christ” and makes the infant “fully included in the life of the Church.” But Scripture says:
John 3:3, 7 (ESV) “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God… You must be born again.”
John 1:12-13 (ESV) “Who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
The new birth is by the Spirit through faith, not by ritual. The Westminster Confession calls baptism a “sign and seal of the covenant of grace” (28.6), not the instrument of regeneration.
- The Greek Demands Immersion in the Sacramental Context
Romans 6:3-4 (ESV) “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead… we too might walk in newness of life.”
Burial imagery requires immersion, not sprinkling. You do not sprinkle a corpse.
Colossians 2:12 (ESV) — “Having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith.”
Faith is the instrument. Baptism is the sign.
- The Church Fathers… The Earliest Mention Is Against Infant Baptism
Table
Father Position
Tertullian (c. 200) Argued against it, earliest mention is opposition
Origen (c. 248) Claimed apostolic tradition, but provided no evidence.
Augustine (c. 400) Defended it, but relied on the developed doctrine of original sin.
Gregory Nazianzus (c. 380) Said wait until age 3, not true paedobaptism
Tertullian, De Baptismo 18: “Let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.” Source
Origen claimed: "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants." But he never produces an apostolic command. Source
The scholarly consensus: infant baptism emerged in the 2nd–3rd centuries as a practical accommodation, not an apostolic practice. Source
- The Reformers Debated This
Calvin defended paedobaptism on covenantal grounds (Institutes 4.16), calling the Anabaptists “fanatics.” But he produced no text commanding infant baptism, only theological inference.
The Particular Baptists replied: the New Covenant is not like the Old. Circumcision was for Abraham’s physical seed; baptism is for the spiritual seed, believers. They cited:
Jeremiah 31:31-34 (ESV) “I will make a new covenant… not like the covenant that I made with their fathers… they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.”
The 1689 London Baptist Confession (29): “Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.”
John Owen, though a paedobaptist, wrote that the New Covenant is made only with the elect. The Baptists simply took his logic to its conclusion.
- On your final question…
“How many of the baptised infants who are eventually Confirmed have never actually been born again?”
The honest answer: We do not know, and that is the problem. The Anglican system treats baptism as effectual and confirmation as ratification. But Scripture treats the new birth as invisible, known only by its fruits:
Matthew 7:16-20 (ESV) “You will recognize them by their fruits.”
A rite cannot produce what only the Spirit can.
The Puritan Thomas Watson: “The sacrament is a sign of grace to those who have grace; but it is not a conduit to convey grace to those who want it.”
So this “puzzlement” is the beginning of wisdom.
Acts 2:41 (ESV) “So those who received his word were baptized.”
I’m learning a lot from posting this to you brother.
J.
1 Like
Bro @Stenos
I hear you, and I understand your inferences and concerns. I share your concern that misunderstanding leads to improper practice, which obscures or bypasses much of the richness of meaning contained in the sacrament. I also concur that there are numerous pressures placed on all Bible Translators, not only their insistence on accuracy. I have read numerous speculative accounts of the translation process put into action by King James I that include political, social, ecclesiastical, and academic pressures that came to bear on the choosing of certain words and phrases. Some of which you point out. I am not sophisticated enough to separate the fact from fiction in these modern accounts, as those who promote them also seem to have some apparent “axe to grind”, so to speak.
I was not writing to discourage the biblical practice of immersion, or to encourage any other practice for the sacrament of Christian Baptism. I personally feel there is plenty of contextual support to understand a full immersion was the original first century practice for the Christian Church. Only a full immersion fully satisfies the intended picture of death and rebirth among other things. I was only waving a yellow flag for any student who believes immersion was always practiced solely on the grammatical fact that they have been brought to believe the word “baptism” means “immersion”(not you, of course). Johann has shown us how we properly exegete the word and how we understand the practice from the context, so I won’t go into that here.
You used the term “transliteration”, not me. I am interested in etymology, and so I do want to reveal some interesting facts about the word. Our English word “baptism” was not transliterated from the Greek word ‘baptizo’, by the King James translators, as many suppose. The English word “baptism” was in common usage five hundred years before the King James translators even began their work, and it referred exclusively to the Christian practice, in various forms. Our English word is actually a translation, and it comes from French “baptiste”. It originates as an english word from around 1066. The French stole it from Latin (Roman) “baptisma” as the Romans invaded Gaul ( France). Romans pilfered it too. They were the ones that actually assimilated it into their language directly from Greek, and from there it spread into French, Italian, Spanish, and eventually English, as well as some other languages as the Roman empire expanded.
Also, we can’t say the translators "could have simply translated the word as ‘dip’ or ‘immerse’ where ever it was applicable. Unfortunately for that theory, the word ‘immerse’ did not even appear in the English lexicon until 1605, the year after the King James translators started their work, and even then, did not have the same meaning as it does today. The English word ‘Immerse’ originally simply meant to "merge ". It only started being used to mean “submerge in” in 1613, two years after the King James Bible was published. So, the KJV translators did not have “immerse” to use for “baptizo”. The English word “dip” was available as a translation for the Gk: bapto, as it is used three times in the King James Bible New Testament, but never once is “dip” used to describe Christian Baptism. (See Matt 26:23, Mark 14:20, (embapto) & Luke 16:24 (bapto))
Ultimately we receive our understanding of biblical themes directly from our internal teacher, the promised paraclete, the Spirit of Christ with whom we are sealed for the day of redemption. You are right to call these things out into the light. I appreciate your teaching on this subject.
KP
1 Like
Origin and history of baptism
baptism(n.)
“initiatory sacrament of the Christian faith, consisting in immersion in or application of water by an authorized administrator,” c. 1300, bapteme, from Old French batesme, bapteme “baptism” (11c., Modern French baptême), from Latin baptismus, from Greek baptismos, noun of action from baptizein (see baptize). The -s- was restored in late 14c.
The signification, qualifications, and methods of administration have been much debated. The figurative sense of “any ceremonial ablution as a sign of purification, dedication, etc.” is from late 14c. Old English used fulluht in this sense (John the Baptist was Iohannes se Fulluhtere).
Phrase baptism of fire “a soldier’s first experience of battle” (1857) translates French baptême de feu; the phrase originally was ecclesiastical Greek baptisma pyros and meant “the grace of the Holy Spirit as imparted through baptism;” later it was used of martyrdom, especially by burning.
baptize(v.)
“to administer the rite of baptism to,” c. 1300, from Old French batisier “be baptized; baptize; give a name to” (11c.), from Latin baptizare, from Greek baptizein “immerse, dip in water,” also figuratively, “be over one’s head” (in debt, etc.), “to be soaked (in wine);” in Christian use, “baptize.” This is from baptein “to dip, steep, dye, color,” which is perhaps from PIE root *gwabh- (1) “to dip, sink.” Christian baptism originally was a full immersion. Related: Baptized; baptizing.
From the link provided.
For your consideration, brother @KPuff. My experience has been that this topic frequently generates considerable debate and, regrettably, can become a source of division among fellow believers.
Nevertheless, I find myself largely in agreement with your statement that our ultimate understanding of biblical truth is mediated through the work of the promised Paraclete, the Holy Spirit of Christ, who enlightens the mind, illumines the Scriptures, and seals believers unto the day of redemption. While theological discourse remains valuable, genuine spiritual understanding is ultimately dependent upon the Spirit’s gracious ministry in the life of the believer.
Your fellow pilgrim.
J.
2 Likes