can I ask why do presyterians etc think baptism is sprinkling?

[Goodbook]

I always thought baptism was being dunked in the water, a full immersion. I wasn't taught this but this is what it says in the Bible. Jesus went to the river Jordan, and came up out of the water. I don't think you can be sprinkled in a river?! Otherwise why don't we just stand in the rain and be 'baptised?'

Then I met a pastor from a presbyterian church, and he tried to say baptism was sprinkling, saying it was because the priests sprinkled blood on the mercy seat. But that isn't baptism, and that was with BLOOD, not water. He said baptists 'imagine' that Jesus was fully immersed. And that baptists, who teach this, don't look at the Old Testament.

Am I just being argumentative? My friend said as christians we shouldn't argue over such things. But if some christians think baptism is sprinkling, then would they not think other things in the Bible mean something else, and take other liberties with God's word?

 

[Albion]

I always thought baptism was being dunked in the water, a full immersion. I wasn't taught this but this is what it says in the Bible. Jesus went to the river Jordan, and came up out of the water. I don't think you can be sprinkled in a river?! Otherwise why don't we just stand in the rain and be 'baptised?'

Then I met a pastor from a presbyterian church, and he tried to say baptism was sprinkling, saying it was because the priests sprinkled blood on the mercy seat. But that isn't baptism, and that was with BLOOD, not water. He said baptists 'imagine' that Jesus was fully immersed. And that baptists, who teach this, don't look at the Old Testament.

Am I just being argumentative? My friend said as christians we shouldn't argue over such things. But if some christians think baptism is sprinkling, then would they not think other things in the Bible mean something else, and take other liberties with God's word?

First, the Bible does NOT say that Jesus was immersed. The verse you refer to says that after the baptism he came up from the water, that is to say he left the river and walked up the banks, just as your kids would do if you called them in for dinner and said "Time to get out of the water." That wouldn't be to say that they were at that moment under the water, would it?

Second, the answer that was given by this Presbyterian minister is strange. Most Christians are baptised by a pouring of water, but to insist upon sprinkling and only sprinkling--and with that rationale for it--can't be considered typical of Pressbyterians or anything. I've never hear of it before.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I always thought baptism was being dunked in the water, a full immersion. I wasn't taught this but this is what it says in the Bible. Jesus went to the river Jordan, and came up out of the water. I don't think you can be sprinkled in a river?! Otherwise why don't we just stand in the rain and be 'baptised?'

Then I met a pastor from a presbyterian church, and he tried to say baptism was sprinkling, saying it was because the priests sprinkled blood on the mercy seat. But that isn't baptism, and that was with BLOOD, not water. He said baptists 'imagine' that Jesus was fully immersed. And that baptists, who teach this, don't look at the Old Testament.

Am I just being argumentative? My friend said as christians we shouldn't argue over such things. But if some christians think baptism is sprinkling, then would they not think other things in the Bible mean something else, and take other liberties with God's word?

In all likelihood Jesus was fully immersed in the water of the Jordan. Simply because the Jewish mikvah--and St. John the Baptist's baptism was, in effect, a special sort of mikvah--involved immersing oneself in water for ritual purity.

However the New Testament, in speaking about Baptism, does not proscribe how to perform a Baptism. But we do know, based on Christian writing, that immersion was the normative method of baptizing an individual. The earliest of these writings, the Didache (some think the earliest date of authorship for the Didache was the mid-to-late 1st century, making it the oldest Christian writing outside of the New Testament), mentions immersion as the standard, but speaks of pouring as a valid alternative if it isn't possible to immerse.

"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot in cold, then in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water thrice upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." - Didache, ch. 7

It's also worthwhile to point out that single immersion wasn't the standard method, but rather triple immersion--the method still used by Eastern Orthodox and other Christians in the East.

In Western Europe, during the middle ages, pouring/sprinkling ended up becoming more common; while the East still baptizes in the more ancient way.

However, whether one immerses once, three times, or pours or sprinkles is ultimately of non-importance. What's important is the Baptism itself. It would be rather silly for us to become legalistic over such trivial matters.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

I was sprinkled as a Presbyterian infant and taught that this was the only true and correct manner of baptism. As a young adult I became a Christian and was faced with the issue. To help resolve it in my mind I was glad to carry on a correspondence with a conservative Presbyterian minister who was fully convinced that sprinkling was the correct mode. He provided a very helpful list of all the usages of the word in the Bible. After examining them I concluded that probably the best English equivalent for the word is washing. Typically, one washed one's body (this was long before the invention of the modern shower) by immersion. As CryptoLutheran has pointed out, this, indeed, was the normative model. Although one might be able to wash oneself by sprinkling, the washing would, at best, be difficult and probably insufficient.

I know the Presbyterian OT correlations and I did not find them valid. I think they developed their entrenched position in opposition to the Baptists, who take a similar position in insisting on full immersion. There is no doubt that traditional Christian churches, such as the Eastern Orthodox, baptize (both infants and adults) via immersion and I see no reason to use another mode except in cases where it may be impossible, as an elderly person. One of the Presbyterian arguments against immersion is that babies will drown. This is patently false, as proven by centuries of Eastern Orthodox immersion of infants.

 

[Albion]

Apparently I'm wrong about the Presbyterians strongly favoring (as opposed to permitting) sprinkling!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Apparently I'm wrong about the Presbyterians strongly favoring (as opposed to permitting) sprinkling!

For what it's worth, I found it pretty strange as well. On the other hand, we may simply be dealing with individuals with extreme views that do not exactly represent a more mainstream Presbyterian view.

I grew up in an Evangelical/Pentecostal environment, and as such wasn't baptized until I was 17, and it was single full immersion in the "Baptistic" manner. I would find it very strange that my Baptism would be considered invalid in a Presbyterian church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

For what it's worth, I found it pretty strange as well. On the other hand, we may simply be dealing with individuals with extreme views that do not exactly represent a more mainstream Presbyterian view.

I grew up in an Evangelical/Pentecostal environment, and as such wasn't baptized until I was 17, and it was single full immersion in the "Baptistic" manner. I would find it very strange that my Baptism would be considered invalid in a Presbyterian church.

-CryptoLutheran

If you were to join a Presbyterian Church you would need either Letter of Membership from another (prevferrably Reformed) chuch or a Confession of Faith. Most Pentecostal and Baptist churches do not use Letters of Membership that comply with Presbyterian standards, so people coming from those churches usually have to jump through more hoops to join.

Years ago I was active with a small, non-denominational church. One of our members had been sprinkled as a Catholic and in early adulthood had become a Christian. He then became active in a Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (extremely traditional and conservative) congregation. He wanted to be baptized in that church. The elders of the church refused to baptize him because he had already been sprinkled in the Catholic Church. After much insistence on his part, they baptized him by sprinkling. He later joined our church and we accepted his baptism as valid, although not normative. After several years he decided to leave us and joing a Presbyterian Church of American (conservative and traditional) congregation. Our letter of membership for him was rejected. His earlier baptism in the RPCNA was accepted and he joined the congregation using his former Letter of Membership from the RPCNA.

 

[Goodbook]

thanks for your responses gave me something to think about! I think I agree ...both baptists and presbyterians can be extreme in their 'modes' by excluding the other, it seems to me baptism is more about washing than one or the other, when I think about it if you want to be really clean, you bathe by immersing yourself and pouring water over yourself and also rinse yourself by sprinkling with clean water afterwards. And you need someone to wash you - it's hard to really get clean by yourself, otherwise we could just baptise ourselves.

I think the baptists go for submersions (the ones I've seen) but omit the pouring, I don't know about the presbyterians I haven't seen how they do it yet. ( I mean, do they do it with a hose? one of those pressure sprayers?!)

I like the way the orthodox do it..but the way some churches teach baptism, in WOF churches it isn't about purification at all but dying and coming to life(?) ie. you die when you go under the water representing burial, and then when you come out you are raised to new life.

I went to a WOF church initially, and heard the teaching about this and I thought something wasn't quite right about the way they taught it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

thanks for your responses gave me something to think about! I think I agree ...both baptists and presbyterians can be extreme in their 'modes' by excluding the other, it seems to me baptism is more about washing than one or the other, when I think about it if you want to be really clean, you bathe by immersing yourself and pouring water over yourself and also rinse yourself by sprinkling with clean water afterwards. And you need someone to wash you - it's hard to really get clean by yourself, otherwise we could just baptise ourselves.

I think the baptists go for submersions (the ones I've seen) but omit the pouring, I don't know about the presbyterians I haven't seen how they do it yet. ( I mean, do they do it with a hose? one of those pressure sprayers?!)

I like the way the orthodox do it..but the way some churches teach baptism, in WOF churches it isn't about purification at all but dying and coming to life(?) ie. you die when you go under the water representing burial, and then when you come out you are raised to new life.

I went to a WOF church initially, and heard the teaching about this and I thought something wasn't quite right about the way they taught it.

I'm not aware of Word of Faith baptismal beliefs or practices; however as far as dying and rising, that is what Scripture says (read through Romans 6). In Baptism we are joined to Christ's death and resurrection.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

Presbyterians do not hold firmly hold to one mode of baptism, its not about quantity of water to us. We see immersion, sprinkling and pouring as valid. The issue with immersion comes in that baptism must happen in the confines of the service, which is not always as easy to do immersion in a church that has baptismal font designed for sprinkling or pouring. Also confessional Presbyterians will not "rebaptise" someone who has previously been baptized within a valid Christian Denomination (whether there baptist, liberal or, Catholic) its because baptism is only a one time thing.

I used to to be a baptist but after reading the Bible i found the baptists argument about immersion increasingly weak, and the Presbyterian view more scriptural. The baptisms at Pentecost were most likely by pouring/sprinkling.

To learn about Presbyterian view of baptismal mode i suggest you read "William The Baptist" By James M Chaney its a story of a Baptist man who starts talking with a Presbyterian Minster about Baptism mode. It was written in a story format in order to teach. Its free here: William the Baptist

 

[maryofoxford]

Just for the record, as a Roman Catholic my entire life; and also one that graduated from a Catholic Seminary with a Diploma in Lay Ministry, I'm very confident with saying that we do both immersion and pouring for baptism. We also will immerse or pour 3 times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is taken from the scriptures and also from Sacred Tradition (not the traditions of men and there is a difference). The best example of Sacred Tradition showing what the early Christian practice was is the Didache. (quote) "In regard to Baptism-baptize thus: After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. (understood to mean "moving water") If you have no living water, then baptize in other water; and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This is a practice that we still do. Adults are submerged 3 times if we have a pool in the church large enough for them (many churches are converting some sort of baptismal font to allow for this), Infants in the Roman Catholic churches have water poured over the heads (not over their faces for obvious reasons). I haven't heard of any infant baptisms in the Orthodox churches where they submerged the infants; I'd like to hear from practicing Orthodox Catholics to confirm this practice of submerging infants. Thanks.

If anyone cares to read the Didache in full, they can find it on the internet under that title. "The oldest parts of it are thought to be originally a Jewish work for the instruction of gentile proselytes to Judaism." "In Syria, no later then A.D. 160, and perhaps about A.D. 140, the Jewish "Two ways document" found entrance to Christian circles." More was added by a Christian, thus producing the "Didache" as we have it now, "a work for the instruction of catechumens." (Those becoming Christians and studying to enter the Church.)*

* The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1; William A. Jurgens

I hope this helps fill in some gaps. God Bless.

 

[maryofoxford]

BTW, for those saying that their faiths "sprinkle", could you please describe exactly what you mean by that? Many people have said that the Catholic Church "sprinkles" also, when in fact, we do no such thing, but simply pour water over the forehead and over the top of the head of babies, and others that can't be submerged. Thanks.

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

I dont see a huge distinction between sprinkling and pouring. I fear its language favored by immersion only types who want to swear us with the idea that we use an eye dropper. When its about quality of the baptism and not quantity. I have often found it funny Presbyterians actually believe that baptism does something, and are very relaxed about the mode. Baptists believe baptism does nothing yet get all up in arms about immersion. If it really does nothing they should not care.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I dont see a huge distinction between sprinkling and pouring. I fear its language favored by immersion only types who want to swear us with the idea that we use an eye dropper. When its about quality of the baptism and not quantity. I have often found it funny Presbyterians actually believe that baptism does something, and are very relaxed about the mode. Baptists believe baptism does nothing yet get all up in arms about immersion. If it really does nothing they should not care.

Presbyterians (at least the PCUSA of my youth) do get up in arms about the mode and are not at all relaxed about it. They were firm that sprinkling is the only possible mode and thus have small baptismal fonts near the front of the auditorium (sanctuary in Presbyterian parlance).

That said, a brief internet search by myself on the topic revealed that Presbyterian churches are very sketchy about the mode. Some PCUSA sites do, indeed indicate pouring; however, the one photograph showing the pouring was simply a minister pouring water into the baptismal font and not on any person. Another site clearly showed a minister sprinkling the forehead of an infant.

The PCUSA strongly asserts that baptism is not christening, but the PCA equally states that it is.

So, what's a Presbyterian to do?

 

[Goodbook]

hmm, would like some scripture about the sprinkling part of baptism please. There doesn't seem to be any indication of it in the New Testament.

If an adult wants to be baptised I guess they couldn't really do it in a Presbyterian church they would have to go to a Baptist one or go to a river. That's what I did rather than make an issue of it. The Baptist church happened to be preaching on baptism that Sunday, and the Holy Spirit had been nudging me to obey, so I was baptised that night. But I still go to the presbyterian church. Baptists were wanting me to become a paid up member but I only went there about 3 times!

However the church membership to the presybterian church says you have to be baptised (I think they accept baptist baptisms) But if you never got baptised or sprinkled as a child, then I suppose they would have to baptise you as an adult. Yet I've never seen an adult get sprinkled, and there doesn't seem to be any thing in the church building itself to get baptised in, maybe they just get taken to the nearest pool or river.

anyway..just was a bit confused by it that's all. I think..river baptisms would be most scriptural. I know Jewish tradition had mikvahs these were private baths for purification, but this river baptism that Jesus had was out in the public. Baptist baptisms to me seem lukewarm..it's a pool (not moving water) and it's even heated..and you don't get poured over they make you lie back like you're falling.

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

There is no basis for immersion only. I see no clear biblical text that uses immersion, now people will bring up Jesus Baptism but that was not a Christian baptism, and also it never particularly uses the word immersion, it seems just as forced into the text as other things. The first baptists did not even believe in immersion the subject or baptism was important and not the mode. They sprinkled and poured as much as the next one.

I was baptized as a infant in a liberal church by non Christians. In high School i became a christian. I went to university and was visiting a friends church were they were doing spontaneous baptisms. I ended up going up. I now of course see my baptism as a infant as the only valid one the second one was merely a splash in a pool with the pastor while everyone watched.

If a Presbyterian Church does not except your Baptist baptism then there in error. I've seen a number of adult baptism by pouring or sprinkling.

 

[Goodbook]

wow, you seem very admant but yet give no scripture that supports sprinkling. I'm waiting until somebody does, just a few verses, that's all, not a thesis or argument about it.


. Why do you say 'i now of course see my baptism as the only valid one' ...it doesn't make sense..why 'of course'? Why should I take your word for anything, just because you say it? You are wrong about the first baptists - as a denom the reason why they are different and broke away is because they firmly believed in BELIEVER'S baptism, and that it was by immersion. That is what they teach.

Again you please give some scripture, as there are lots supporting immersion, I mean having read the NT and not just bits of it, Jesus was water baptised and commanded baptism, he was an example for us to follow, if that isn't christian then nothing in the Bible is! Please, no arguments or opinions, or what the church doctrine says, or the excuse that there's no facility in the church building for being baptised, (no scripture says it has to be inside a church) just some plain SCRIPTURE about sprinkling would be good, so I can understand why some churches do it that way. I mean as christians what we practice - everything has to go back to God's Word on it. Thanks.

 

[Albion]

wow, you seem very admant but yet give no scripture that supports sprinkling.

It's not an issue of sprinkling--or immersion, or affusion (pouring), or any other mode--being proven or demonstrated in scripture.

All that is necessary is that it be water applied to the candidate. I've even seen a minister squeeze a saturated cloth upon an infant. Although odd and not especially a great symbol IMO, it's water.

Again you please give some scripture, as there are lots supporting immersion

From all that I know and have read, there are none. Lots of people have convinced themselves that some of the baptisms described in the NT amount to immersion, but that requires a lot of "assuming."

 

[ViaCrucis]

wow, you seem very admant but yet give no scripture that supports sprinkling. I'm waiting until somebody does, just a few verses, that's all, not a thesis or argument about it.


. Why do you say 'i now of course see my baptism as the only valid one' ...it doesn't make sense..why 'of course'? Why should I take your word for anything, just because you say it? You are wrong about the first baptists - as a denom the reason why they are different and broke away is because they firmly believed in BELIEVER'S baptism, and that it was by immersion. That is what they teach.

Again you please give some scripture, as there are lots supporting immersion, I mean having read the NT and not just bits of it, Jesus was water baptised and commanded baptism, he was an example for us to follow, if that isn't christian then nothing in the Bible is! Please, no arguments or opinions, or what the church doctrine says, or the excuse that there's no facility in the church building for being baptised, (no scripture says it has to be inside a church) just some plain SCRIPTURE about sprinkling would be good, so I can understand why some churches do it that way. I mean as christians what we practice - everything has to go back to God's Word on it. Thanks.

Baptism as meaning "washing" seems straightforward, in Mark's Gospel he speaks of the Jewish practice of ritually purifying the hands and cups, and furnishings.

The Greek word translated as "washing" in Mark 7 in the following passage is "baptismos"

"And from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, the washing of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." - Mark 7:4

This follows directly after discussing the Jewish ritual of hand-washing. Such hand-washing is not immersion, but pouring. This practice has been preserved in Judaism until the present, here is a video demonstration:

How-To: Handwashing - YouTube

The point isn't that one SHOULD pour, only that the word "Baptism" does not necessitate an immersion, but rather a washing.

A Baptism is valid if water is used, regardless of the method of applying the water to the candidate.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

wow, you seem very admant but yet give no scripture that supports sprinkling. I'm waiting until somebody does, just a few verses, that's all, not a thesis or argument about it.


. Why do you say 'i now of course see my baptism as the only valid one' ...it doesn't make sense..why 'of course'? Why should I take your word for anything, just because you say it? You are wrong about the first baptists - as a denom the reason why they are different and broke away is because they firmly believed in BELIEVER'S baptism, and that it was by immersion. That is what they teach.

Again you please give some scripture, as there are lots supporting immersion, I mean having read the NT and not just bits of it, Jesus was water baptised and commanded baptism, he was an example for us to follow, if that isn't christian then nothing in the Bible is! Please, no arguments or opinions, or what the church doctrine says, or the excuse that there's no facility in the church building for being baptised, (no scripture says it has to be inside a church) just some plain SCRIPTURE about sprinkling would be good, so I can understand why some churches do it that way. I mean as christians what we practice - everything has to go back to God's Word on it. Thanks.

No Presbyterian would say that a immersion is not a valid form of baptism, only that it is unnecessary. I say I consider my baptism as an infant valid not because sprinkling or pouring is the only valid form of baptism. I think all modes can be used, but Paul says in Ephesian if 4:5 " one lord, one faith, one baptism."

The Baptism signifies not only our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ, but also a cleansing from sin by the blood of Christ(Sprinkling):

"And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the leprous disease. Then he shall pronounce him clean and shall let the living bird go into the open field." Leviticus 14:7

"Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them go with a razor over all their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves." Num 8:7

"I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you." Ezekiel 36:25

"For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify[a] for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God." Hebrews 9:13-14


"For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Hebrews 9:19-22


"let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." Hebrews 10:22

"according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:

May grace and peace be multiplied to you." 1 Peter 1:2

As well as a reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit who is and poured out upon us:

"“And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions." Joel 2:28

"“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
18 even on my male servants[a] and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy." Acts 2:17-18


"Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing." Acts 2:33

What is important to grasp here is the classic distinction between the sign and the thing signified in the sacraments. The sign is the outward element, will sing signified is a spiritual reality being portrayed. So what is the sign in baptism? Is a sign of baptism the water or the way the walk water is applied. We can answer this question by asking another what does our Lord Jesus Christ's institution of the sacrament of baptism in Matthew 28:19 have to say about the mode of baptism. Jesus says nothing. The sign of baptism is the water, not the mode of the waters application.

Matthew 3:6 and Mark 1:5 say that John the baptist was baptizing " in the river Jordan." Yet know well that these verses do not say anything as the mode john was using if it is responded that john's baptizing where there was much water shows that this was because of immersion, it can be simply answered that because water supplies were precious, john would not go to a place without much water and so place hardship on that town. Furthermore, because people were traveling to hear john and be baptized by him, they would have needed water for themselves and their animals in order to survive.

The a few more texts would seem to be Matthew 3:16, where jesus " went up from the water." Or Acts 8:38, where for law and the Ethiopian Eunuch " went down into the water..." And "... Came up out of the water." Yet, these verses do not say that those baptized were immersed, but this is assumed by immersion onlyists. We can just as easily read these texts to say that those baptized went down from the shore to stand "in the water" to have water poured over them; then we can understand them to have left the water and come back up over the shore. Even more specifically, in Acts 8:38 the phrase "and they both went down" simply means that they stepped down from the chariots to the water below. As well, Acts 8:38 says both Philip and the eunuch " went down into the water." This cannot mean baptism by immersion, or else Philip baptized the unit and himself! This would mean that when we baptized, if we are to follow this example, both the person being baptized and the one doing the baptizing would have to go under the water.

What about 1 Corinthians 10? That we are told of the Israelites "passed through the sea". Obviously they were not on Merced is a castle on dry your land. But they were under sea level and handed on both sides of water, right? Yes, but this would mean that people under sea level who do not get wet are baptized.

The two most common text used to "prove" baptism by immersion are Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12, which speak of being buried with Christ in baptism. Again these texts do not say who spoke and offer baptized by immersion, but this is implied.