Expert: Rev. Robert Woods - 3/21/2004

Question
 I am Baptist and have never understood the reason Presbyterian,as well as other denominations, sprinkle instead of immerse. Could you explain this to me?

Answer
Blessings and thank you for your question.  In your question I believe you only want the arguments dealing with water baptism.  The best explaination I have found comes from Michael Wilhite who says that: In Christianity today there are many different teachings about baptism. Some teach that there are three valid modes of baptism- sprinkling, pouring, and immersion. Others teach that immersion is the only way. Those who claim three modes of baptism usually claim that those who believe in immersion only are legalistic. And those who believe in immersion only believe that they are not being legalistic, but staying true to Scripture.

In order to understand what modes are valid and which ones are not valid, we have to look at a very important underlying issue. That issue will decide which modes can be performed. That question is simply what does baptism signify? What does it mean in other words. To understand this, we need to go to Scripture. When we get Scripture's perspective, we can truly understand what baptism is.

Paul says this concerning baptism, "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, NASB.

Paul says that the person being baptized is buried and resurrected with Christ. Immersion clearly shows this. When he is baptized, he goes down into the water and then up again. While down in the water, it is symbolical of being buried with Christ, and when coming out of the water, it is symbolical of being resurrected with Christ. So, we can clearly see that baptism by immersion is definitely a valid mode.

But what about pouring or sprinkling? Are they valid modes? To answer this, simply ask yourself one question. Can being buried and resurrected with Christ be symbolized by these modes?

To be buried means one has to lie flat. And it follows that resurrection is symbolized by rising up from that state of lying flat. How can pouring or sprinkling symbolize these? The answer is that they can not, and therefore, can not be considered valid modes of baptism.

I would also like to bring up one more point here. I would like to turn to the two Greek words for baptism since the New Testament was written in Greek. They are baptizo and baptisma. Baptizo is the verb and baptisma is the noun form. We get the word baptism from these two words. That is pretty obvious. What isn't so obvious, however, is what these two words meant. Baptizo means to immerse, submerge, or go under water. Even the original Greek word means to immerse.

So, why are Churches still performing pouring and sprinkling? It is because of tradition. Back in the early Church days, Catholicism was the only Church around. They somehow got the heretical idea that it was necessary to be baptized in order to be saved. Before this time, immersion was the only mode they performed. It was hard to immerse someone who is bed-ridden, however. So, they developed the mode of pouring. They tried to get water over all of the body, as it would be in immersion.

This took much time, however, and they then started to sprinkle instead of pour or immerse. It was also hard to immerse a baby. And since baptism was necessary to be saved, babies HAD to be baptized.

Most churches today still perform infant baptisms and recognize three valid modes. This is merely tradition and not Scripture, however. Baptism can not be done by pouring or sprinkling because it changes the meaning of baptism. Being buried and resurrected with Christ can only be symbolized by immersion.

Probably the very best definition of baptism that I have found comes from the Baptist Faith and Message, the official doctrinal statement of the Southern Baptist Convention. "Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Savior, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in the newness of life in Christ Jesus." (Article Seven)

From this definition we can gather three important points. 1) Baptism is by immersion only. This has already been discussed. 2) Baptism is for believers only. and 3)Baptism is an act of obedience. Let's see what Scripture says about baptism being for believers only and from there it will be clear why it is an act of obedience.

Acts 2:40-41 says, "And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, 'Be saved from this perverse generation!' So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls." (NASB) Those who received Peter's word, in other words, those who accepted Christ, were then baptized.

Acts 8:12, "But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike." (NASB) They believed and were then baptized.

Acts 10:43-48, "'Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.' While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 'Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?' And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days." (NASB)

Even though this passage does not come right out say that the people believed first, it is clearly implied. No one can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit unless that person is a believer. In this situation, the people got the gift of the Holy Spirit and then were baptized.

These are just three examples of this in Scripture. Others are Acts 18:8, and 19:4. Also note that Matthew 3:2-6 shows that John only baptized when they repented. But what about those passages that seem to contradict this belief? What about those passages in Acts where the whole household were baptized? Let's look at them in depth now.

Acts 16:30-34, "and after he brought them out, he said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.' And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household." (NASB)

This can be a confusing passage at first. If you believe in infant baptism, this is probably one of the verses that you have been taught because after all, as some say, "there had to be some infants in there, right?" Not necessarily. In fact, if you take a look at the passage closely, you will see that there weren't.

The last verse says that he "believed in God with his whole household." Infants can not believe in Christ. They can not make decisions on their own. If his whole household believed, there were no infants there in the household. Also, they were believers when they were baptized. This is definitely implied because he and his household all believed. One has no choice but to believe this because this is the way it is in the rest of the Scripture.

Now, for the last verse about households being baptized. Acts 16:14-15, "And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, 'If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.' And she prevailed upon us." (NASB)

This passage doesn't come out and say that she believed either, but it does say that she was faithful to the Lord, implying that she believed. It also says that the Lord "opened her heart" to what Paul told her, also implying that she believed before baptism.

I think you have to understand the part about the whole household being baptized as we did with Acts 16:30-34. We MUST acknowledge that they were believers when they were baptized as well because this is what is found in the rest of Scripture. And no Scripture can be interpreted by itself. It must be in line with what the rest of Scripture clearly teaches. Otherwise the Bible would be of no value to us.

From these passages, it should be clear that baptism is for believers only. Now that we understand this, it is easy to see why it is an act of obedience. It is an act of obedience because it is the believer's choice to be baptized. Christ commanded us to be baptized in the Great Commission found in Matthew 28:18-20. When a believer is baptized, he is being obedient to Christ's command to be baptized. It is an act of obedience.

In short, there are many teachings on baptism today in Christianity, but only one of those teachings can be correct. Baptism is an act of obedience by a believer in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit whereby the believer is immersed in water as a symbol of the inward change he has received as well as being buried and resurrected with Christ.


I hope this answers your question.  Blessings