Sprinkle vs. Immerse

[paulespino]

I also believe that since baptism is a symbol whatever is available will be acceptable to God.

For example if very little water is available then baptism by sprinkling of water would make sense.

If lakes and beaches are available to be used by the public for baptism then I would say go ahead and use the lakes and beaches.

If the government made it against the law to perform baptism in the public then I think baptism in the public ( among Christians only) will still be acceptable to God although I think a lot of Christians might disagree with me especially to my point on this one.

I'm willing to change my view.

[paulespino]

I also believe that God made different symbols to be available not so that we become legalistic about it but because Humans

are very much visual, What I meant is that humans will not believe anything without seeing it. And The practice of performing

the procedure of Baptism is something that provides visual evidence that the person is now a Christian or a follower of Christ.

[Homer]

Hi Paul,

You wrote:

Your explanation is very clear: Since I take baptism as a symbol therefore Baptism is a symbol showing the public that we have changed in the name and presence of Christ.

And in two subsequent posts indicated you believe baptism to be a symbol, directed toward man. This is a rather common, and mistaken idea IMO, that the meaning of baptism is "testimony". The difficulty is that in no place in scripture is baptism described as testimony, nor does anyone ever act as though this was the meaning in any of the conversion narratives. We find no one making any effort to gather a crowd, in fact we find the opposite: baptism promptly upon coming to faith, even in the middle of the night, Acts 16:33, an odd thing to do if the purpose of baptism is "testimony". Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, Acts 8, with no indication of anyone else being there. If there was, to Luke it wasn't worth mentioning.

Peter informs us of what baptism is in 1 Peter 3:21:

1 Peter 3:21 (New American Standard Bible)
21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The word translated "appeal" is the Greek word eperotema. This is the only place the noun form is used in scripture. It has been variously translated as pledge (NIV), appeal (NASB and ESB), answer (KJV and NKJV), and various other ways. However, the verb form of the word, eperotao, was used almost 60 times in the New Testament, and almost always translated "ask" (53 times).

Here are two examples:

Matthew 16:1 (New American Standard Bible)
1. The Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Jesus, they asked Him to show them a sign from heaven.

Mark 9:32 (New American Standard Bible)
32. But they did not understand this statement, and they were afraid to ask Him.

Considering the use of the verb form of eperotema, and the context in 1 Peter 3:21, I believe it is safe to conclude that baptism is a form of prayer - the biblical "sinners prayer". In the book "Pagan Christianity" by Viola and Barna, they point out how the sinner's prayer, alter calls, etc. are a rather modern invention, used as the early Christians used baptism. They are not the first to point this out. It is well known and documented.

In the scriptures you will find no case where people are told or urged to pray upon coming to faith in Christ. Why? I believe the answer is that Baptism was, and is, that prayer. A response of faith in and to God.

[steve]

wwalkeriv wrote:

How do you think this fits with the scriptures that speak of the Messiah coming to sprinkle the nations. Also, if sprinkling (the old covenant form of the ritual) was changed to immersion under the new covenant, why wasn't there more dispute over the issue. It seems like whenever a radical change was made between the old covenant and the new covenant there was always a lot of discussion.

The sprinkling of the nations is not a reference to water, but to blood—see Hebrews 10:22, where the sprinkling of the heart is contrasted (not identified) with the washing of the water (baptism). This sprinkling is explicitly said to be a sprinkling of the blood of Christ in Hebrews 12:24 and 1 Peter 1:2. This is also the thought in Hebrews 9:14. Whatever the sprinkling of the heart with the blood of Jesus may involve, it is contrasted with baptism, and thus provides no information about the mode of baptism.

The Didache (7:1-3) presents the most detailed instructions for baptism as practiced at the end of the apostolic age. It seems to suggest that the earliest practice of Christian baptism was immersion, though the church was flexible about modes:

Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed" all these things, baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times "in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

What we can learn about the early attitudes toward baptismal modes is that baptism could be done by pouring—but only as a concession when there was not enough water available to follow the normal practice (which is assumed to have been known to the readers). Since the only known options are immersion, pouring and sprinkling, it is clear that only immersion would require more water than would pouring, and must be the normal method, in agreement with what most of the posts in this thread have suggested.

Why was there not more dispute over this in the early church? Perhaps because Jesus and John the Baptist were known to have immersed, which would render any antecedent Jewish practices moot.

[Allyn]

I seem to never come into these interesting threads until they are well underway so maybe this has been touched on or is already understood. Here is my thought. Under the Old Covenant when the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled upon the children of Israel there must have also been a washing to take place soon after. That washing must have been with water. Under the New Covenant we know, of course, that Jesus was that Lamb which was sacrificed. His blood has been spiritually sprinkled upon all people but our washing is an experiece we initiate. We must complete the sanctification within us by the washing with water. We cannot physically wash our own sins away, however, because just as the blood of Christ was a spiritual sprinkling the washing has a spiritual context resulting in our sins being washed away. The sins are mingled with the blood and washed by the word and the water.

Does this make sense and does it have any truthful reason in it?

[paulespino]

I just would like to point out that when the thief on the cross beside Christ accepted Christ, He was never baptized with the

water nor with blood. But perhaps he was spiritually cleansed with the blood of Christ. And yet he was saved.

[Homer]

Allyn,

Interesting thought; I had never thought of it that way. I certainly can't prove you wrong. This brings to mind something a wise preacher said almost 150 years ago. I don't recall his exact words, but basically he said that if God would not accept our obedience to His commands unless we understood why He commanded a particular thing, then we would all be in trouble.

[Homer]

Paul,

We probably shouldn't consider the thief as normative. I am not sure how anyone could be "baptized into His death" before He (Christ) died.

[Paidion]

I just would like to point out that when the thief on the cross beside Christ accepted Christ, He was never baptized with the water nor with blood.

Paul, how do you know this? How do you know that he hadn't repented of his sins, and been been baptized by Christ (or rather, by Christ's apostles)? The law may have caught up with him much later, and sentenced him to the cross. Perhaps that is why he asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom instead of behaving like the other who said, "If you are the Messiah, save yourself and us!"

[Homer]

Paidion,

Another interesting comment pointing out something I had not considered. Thanks.