The Mode of Baptism by West End Church of Christ

Higher Praise™

Higher Praise Christian Center™
higherpraise.com™ higherpraise.org™

Enjoy A Life Changing Experience

The Mode of Baptism In this lesson on baptism we will focus on a very prominent practice -- sprinkling water on a person for baptism. We will learn who practices it and why. We will also look at some historical data regarding the practice and we will then consider biblical principles and passages pertaining to it. Hopefully our study will lead us to see the folly of substitution for God's divinely ordained commands. The West End Church of Christ is very happy to present these fifteen minute lessons each Sunday morning. We do this for only one purpose. We want to preach the truth of God's word without the restrictions of human doctrines and wisdom. We are also very deeply interested in your soul. We are convinced that there is much error being taught in the religious world. It is not that we feel we have a corner on truth -- we hold that the Bible is the only corner on truth -- we are just interested in seeing that you have the opportunity to hear the truth minus any denominational flavor. Your dictionary will define baptism something like, "the ceremony or sacrament of admitting a person into Christianity or a specific Christian church by dipping him in water or sprinkling water on him, as a symbol of washing away sin." A large segment of the religious world sees baptism exactly this way. Neither the mode nor the purpose is really important, as far as the denominational world is concerned. Such huge denominations as Roman Catholicism, Presbyterianism, and Methodism hold that the form of baptism is irrelevant. They give people the choice, but prefer sprinkling water on a person rather than immersion. The Presbyterian Creed remarks, "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person." The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, page 103." Likewise, the Methodist doctrine includes sprinkling water on infants for baptism. "Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The baptism of young children is to be retained in the church." The Methodist Discipline, page 30. The Catholic Church holds the same view. The Catholic Catechism asks the question, "How should the washing be done to secure the validity of the Baptism?" The answer is: "To secure the validity of the Baptism the washing should be done either by immersion in the water or by pouring the water, or again by sprinkling it, according to the rites approved in that particular part of the Church." The Catholic Catechism, Peter Cardinal Gasparri, page 158. Why Infant Baptism Anyway? One might ask, "Why is it even necessary to practice baptism on infants? Are they guilty of sin?" The Methodist Discipline of 1902 has the following ceremony to be recited at the baptism of infants. "Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, and that our Saviour Christ saith, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God: I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous goodness he will grant to this child, now to be baptized with water, that which by nature he cannot have: that he may be baptized with the Holy Ghost, received into Christ's holy Church, and be made a lively member of the same." Methodist Discipline, 1902, page 219. The practice clearly grew out of the misconception that all men are born in sin. But the Methodist Church found that doctrine of infant damnation too difficult to hold to and changed their ceremony to the following. "Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are heirs of life eternal and subjects of the saving grace of the Holy Spirit; and that our Savior Christ saith, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God; I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous goodness he will grant unto this child, now to be baptized, the continual replenishing of his grace that he become a worthy member of Christ's holy Church." The Methodist Discipline, 1952, page 520. The difference is obvious. They retained the practice of sprinkling water on infants, but changed the reason why. The Catholic Church recognizes the purpose of infant baptism as the one way of saving the soul of the condemned child. The child is condemned to eternal ruin at birth and must be baptized in order to be saved. "As regards children this Holy Synod admonishes people that owing to the danger of death, as may often happen, then, since children can be helped by no other remedy than Baptism whereby they are delivered from the power of the devil, and made the adopted children of God, their Baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days as is done by some, but ought to be conferred as soon as can conveniently be done; and when there is imminent danger of death they should be baptized at once without any delay and, in the absence of a priest, even by lay people, by men or by women, in the form of the Church, as is more fully set forth in the Decree for the Armenians." Concillia, Mansi, xxxi, 1738ff. Infant baptism is the only way an infant can be spared eternal punishment should the child die at birth or early childhood. Infant baptism is based on a false premise and has no biblical basis at all for its continued practice. Infant baptism by sprinkling reaches no further back in history than 1311. From the Edinburgh Cyclopaedia the following is copied. "The first law of sprinkling was obtained in the following manner: Pope Stephen II, being driven from Rome by Adolphus, King of the Lombards, in 753, fled to Pepin, who, a short time before, had usurped the crown of France. Whilst he remained there, the monks of Cressy, in Britany, consulted him whether, in case of necessity, baptism poured on the head of the infant would be lawful. Stephen replied that it would. But though the truth of this fact be allowed -- which, however, some Catholics deny -- yet pouring or sprinkling was admitted only in cases of necessity. It was not till the year 1311 that the legislature, in a council held at Revenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In Scotland, however, sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases till after the Reformation (about the middle of the sixteenth century). From Scotland it made its way into England in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized in the Established Church. Article on Baptism, taken from The History of Apostasies, page 202. One can go no nearer the New Testament times than the middle ages to find anyone endorsing sprinkling infants with water for baptism. Jesus and His apostles never practiced anything like sprinkling water for baptism. And the Bible clearly teaches that babies are born sin free and innocent, thus need no baptism. Biblical Principles The Bible teaches that baptism is a command that must be obeyed in order for a believer to be saved. The nature of the command and the purpose assigned it eliminate both the mode of sprinkling water for baptism and the purpose denominationalists assign it. We will consider the meaning of the term itself. Baptism means immersion -- it cannot have another meaning. It cannot be translated sprinkling water, or effusion. It can only be translated by a term that suggests immersion, submersion, dipping, or plunging one beneath the surface of water. Baptism is a burial. Paul wrote, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3,4). Sprinkling or pouring water upon a person is in no way a burial. Immersion is the only thing that answers the description of baptism as a burial. One may also apply the same principles to Colossians 2:12, "Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the operation of God, who raised Him from the dead." The Bible and Immersion The Bible word baptism means immersion. There is no other meaning the term can have. Two meanings cannot be assigned to a word which describes a specific action. Both the noun and the verb form of Baptidzo describe but one action -- immersion. In the verb form the word is specific. It describes one action. Like the word walk, which specifies one action, the word baptize specifies one action. If walk means run, one would never know what a person was doing if it were said, "He is walking." Just so, to say "I baptize" specifies only one act -- immersion. Scholars affirm the meaning of baptism is immersion. Albert Barnes, a noted Presbyterian scholar wrote, "Therefore we are buried,' etc. It is altogether probable that the apostle, in this place had allusion to the custom of baptizing by immersion. This can not, indeed be proved so as to be liable to no objection, but I presume this is the idea which would strike the great mass of unprejudiced readers." Notes on Romans. James A. Macknight commented on Romans 6:3,4. "Christ's baptism was not the baptism of repentance for He never committed any sin. But He submitted to be baptized; that is, to be buried under the water by John and then raised out again, as an emblem of His future death and resurrection. In like manner the baptism of believers is emblematical of their own death, burial and resurrection (see Col. ii. 12). The burying of Christ and of believers, first in the water of baptism, and afterward in the earth, is fitly enough compared to the planting of seeds in the earth, because the effect in both cases is a reviviscence to a state of greater perfection." Macknight on the Epistles. In summary, the only action that meets the description of baptism in the New Testament is immersion. There is nothing in the New Testament at all mentioning sprinkling of water on anyone at any time for any purpose. Arguments For Sprinkling One of the oldest arguments is that baptism in the New Testament came "in the room" of circumcision of the Old Testament. By this is meant that baptism takes the place of circumcision. Circumcision was a rite of the Jews which marked the covenant and promises God made with Abraham and later incorporated into the Law of Moses. The law required, that every male who was eight days old and of the family of Abraham was to be circumcised (Genesis 17:12). This was carried over into the Law of Moses (Leviticus 12:3). That circumcision is not even remotely similar to baptism is seen in the following basic differences. 1. Circumcision was only for males. 2. Circumcision was for males eight days old. 3. Circumcision was based solely on family relations. 1. Baptism is for both the male and female. 2. Baptism is for those old enough to believe. 3. Baptism is not based on family relations. Some appeal to Ezekiel 36:25 as support for sprinkling of water on infants for baptism. The verse reads, "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols." It is argued that this practice was based on the sprinkling of water on the people of Israel under the Law. Also Isaiah 52:15 reads, "Thus He will sprinkle many nations..." and application is made to the time of Isaiah, the prophet. The Ezekiel passage is allegedly a prophecy of what was to happen when the New Testament age was ushered in. There are a number of reasons for rejecting this reasoning. First, the passage refers to "clean" water. What did Ezekiel mean by "clean" water? Furthermore, the prophecy was given to the children of Israel while they were captives in Babylon. It referred to a time when they would be taken from the heathen nations and restored to their own land. This happened around 538 B.C. At the time they were to return to their homeland they would have clean water sprinkled on them. This was an obvious reference to ceremonial cleansing. What was meant by the "clean water?" In every single instance in the Old Testament where water was sprinkled on people it was never just water alone. It was mixed with something else. Either blood, blood and oil, or water mixed with ashes and blood was sprinkled on the people. But here the clean water is the water of consecration or purification. Numbers 19 gives the detailed information for preparation of this water of cleansing. A red heifer which had never been put into the yoke was to be killed and burned. The ashes were to be mixed with the pure water and then a branch of hyssop was dipped in the water and sprinkled on the people. Ezekiel's reference to "clean" water is simply "cleansing" water. It has no reference at all to baptism. Conclusion: There is no basis at all for sprinkling plain water on anyone at any time for any thing. The man does not live that can take either the Old or the New Testament and find any scriptural support for sprinkling water on babies and calling it baptism. If you have any question at all about this topic, or if you would like extra study materials on it, contact us. You can write us at West End Church of Christ, 1609 Parkside Dr., Bowling Green, KY. 42101. Until the next time we have this opportunity to be with you by radio, may God richly bless you and yours. Good bye. Radio Program No. 36