Baptism – Sprinking, Immersion?

Will The "Wrong" Method Send One Into Hell?

Read Also:

• Is Water Baptism Necessary For Salvation?
• Who are the teachers of Baptismal Regeneration?
• Baptizing for The Dead 

You may also like to read:

•  Baptismal Regeneration By J. H. Todd

Immersion or Sprinkling?

First, my answer – No. The method shouldn’t matter.  I will explain at the end of this article. 

Overview

That, Jesus commanded baptism is  a fact.  But how it had developed into different methods over the years may be a blur.  I can only make a guess,  and pick up a point or two from research here and there to present an idea.  Even then, not all accounts agree totally.

Now, I bet you never noticed that the bible mentions 3 forms of baptism in at least 6 modes, which I list as:

1)      Water baptisms - ritual

a.   The baptism of John for Jews ( Matt 3 )

b.   The believer’s baptism in the name of Jesus for the Holy Spirit to dwell in him  (Act 19:1-6 )

2)      Non-water baptism - real

c.   The baptism of the Holy Spirit, which comes with power and/or gifts of the spirit ( Acts 2, and Acts 10 )

d.    The baptism of the fire, which you do not want ( Matt 3:11 )

3)      Figurative baptism

e.   The baptism of suffering, or baptism of the cup, which you would love to avoid (Mat 20:22)

f.      The baptism of Moses, which is figurative of identification, oneness with (1Co 10:2 )

All the arguments over baptism is centered on the ritualistic form to be done.  Nobody ever argues about the other 2 forms.  Christians quarrel not only over whether the act of baptism actually washes away sins and saves ( read Is Water Baptism Necessary For Salvation? ), while forgetting the Jesus had no sin, yet He was baptized; but over what is the correct method, as if being baptized with the wrong method will send a person to hell.  Is the Christian God a god of legalism?

Methods of Baptizing

The Lutherans and the Anglicans all do it by sprinkling water on the person being baptized.  Why so?  It is because the Lutherans and Anglicans are direct off-springs from the Catholic Church.  The Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Methodists are in turn Anglican spin-offs, and so how else do you expect them to do it?

Persecution of Christians continue even today.  Just think about Christians in Iran, Saudi Arabia or Bangladesh

The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern churches had probably continued with the tradition of the church of the apostolic age ( no, the Roman Catholics are NOT the original church, it came about long after Emperor Constantine converted ), which had to avoid public attention due to Roman persecution.  In the days of Nero in the A.D.70s  up till the time of Emperor Constantine in A.D.300, Christians were subject to arrest, torture, being crucified, tarred and tied to animal skins to be burned as street lights, fed to the lions. and what have you.  Those were dangerous times indeed.  Christians met underground in catacombs ( underground graves ) and in secret.  So, to my simple mind, it was no big deal that they eventually began to do baptism by sprinkling and not by immersion in the river water.  That would be too obvious and attract too much attention.  And 200 years of persecution is a long time, and is long enough for baptizing with sprinkling of water to develop both as a tradition, a culture and even became a doctrine.

However, some people point out that:

1)           In the Nicean And Post-Nicean Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 288, 289., Eusebius, the “father of church history,” was recorded to have related about baptism by sprinkling in 251 A.D., when a sick man, Novatian baptized himself, fearing that he would die unbaptized, an act which Eusebius protested against.

2)           In the Edinburgh Cyclopedia, III, 245-246, it was noted that in 753 A.D. Pope Stephen III legislated baptism by “affusion”, i.e. pouring water on the head “in cases of necessity”, a practice which became known as clinical or hospital baptism (baptismus clinicorun).  Somewhere along the line, “aspersion” or sprinkling of water was introduced, maybe to accommodate the sickly and infants.

3)           Finally in 1311 A.D. a council of bishops that met at Ravenna, Italy voted that either sprinkling or immersion was acceptable.  However, people took to the easier way more readily, rather than having to look for a river or a tub big enough to immerse the person.  ( See Johnson’s Universal Cyclopedia, vol. 1 page 488.) 

I personally think that the sprinkling and pouring had developed because of the need to avoid attracting attention due to the fear of persecution and arrests.  It is up to you to believe how these methods had developed.  As far as I am concerned, the methods of baptism developed over the years for reasons of practicality, and is really of no importance at all.  Just good to know.  But it is good to do it in the correct way and original way though, to preserve its history.

How Was Jesus Baptized?

The truth is this.  Jesus was baptized by immersion.  How do I know? The bible makes it so clear!  Note these verses:

Mat 3:16  And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:

Rom 6:4  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 "having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

Dropping a few drop of water on the head is not symbolic of burial, is it?  Neither does pouring water on the head.  Only total immersion would be able symbolize burial.

So without doubt, immersion would have been the original practice.

What Does History Say?

The thing about the Roman church is that it is so deceptive.  It will admit to something, and then hide the admission and continue doing what it has been doing all the time. Do you know that the Catholic authorities have openly admitted that total immersion was the historical practice?  Confirm these for yourself: (Sourced from Roman Catholic Doctrinal evolution  )

• "Baptism took place by immersion in ancient times." (New Interpretation of the Mass, p. 120).
• "Catholics admit that immersion brings out more fully the meaning of the sacrament, and that for twelve centuries it was the common practice." (Question Box, p. 240).
• "Baptism used to be given by placing the person to be baptized completely in the water: it was done in this way in the Catholic Church for 1200 years." (Adult Catechism, pp. 56-57).

o       "The church at one time practiced immersion. This was up to the thirteenth century. The Council of Ravenna, in 1311, changed the form from immersion to pouring." (Our Faith and the Facts, p. 399).

o       "The present mode of pouring arose from the many inconveniences connected with immersion, frequent mention of which are made in the writings of the early Church Fathers." (Question Box, p 366).

And, on the other side of the fence, one Methodist minister, John R. Church, D. D.  in his article entitled “Why Baptize By Sprinkling”even admits:  

“In our dealing with the meaning of this word, baptizo, we want it clearly understood that we very freely and frankly admit that the classical meaning of this word is usually immerse, dip, plunge or submerge.”

I cannot, for the world see why these people can see the truth, yet refuse do what is right.  And that’s religiosity for you.  Human beings, out of selfishness, power, monetary gain, self-righteousness and pride always want to differentiate themselves from the crowd, and will do all things to make themselves stand out, all the while exploiting the name of God.

Why The Method Of Baptism Is Not Fatal

Do you not agree that it is important that a believer obeys the commandment of Jesus to be baptized?  Baptism is an open declaration of faith and acceptance of Jesus as Lord.  If we deny Him before man, so will He deny us before the Father.

As to the method of baptism, let me point you to the thief at the cross who said to Jesus thus:

Luk 23:42  “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. “

And Jesus replied:

Luk 23:43  And “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

The thief was even baptized!  He simply declare his belief and Jesus accepted him there and then.  So, what is the big deal about the method of baptism? 

Now, I lead you to another passage, this time written by Paul in the book of Romans:

Rom 2:28  For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Rom 2:29  But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

What does this tell you? Let me rephrase it this way to you.  “For he is not a Christian which is one outward, neither is that of baptism, which is outward in the flesh:  But he is a Christian, which is one inwardly; and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” Amen.

So, stop all the quibbling and squabbling, you silly Christian leaders!  God is not legalistic.  Do it by immersion by all means, but stop condemning them that want to do it otherwise.  Just lead believers to worship the Father in spirit and in truth, and walk in the spirit before God.

Jesus says in John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."