The Mode of Baptism
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
|
Lyrics, Chords Tabs Rated
Children's NT Studies
