by Jefferson David Tant<\/p>\n
Since the Bible teaches that baptism is an essential part of my relationship with Christ (Mark 16:16; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3-5, etc.), then it behooves me to make sure that my baptism is pleasing to the one who has given the ordinance.\u00a0 It isn’t to please family, my church, or myself.\u00a0 I can only strive to please the Lord. “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still striving to please men, I should not be a servant of Christ<\/em>” (Galatians 1:10).<\/p>\n The Bible teaches also that there is now but one baptism (Ephesians 4:5). The religious world now offers multiple types, from immersion in water to sprinkling of rose petals, to baptism on behalf of one’s dead ancestors. Therefore, a decision and choice need to be made concerning this.<\/p>\n Other factors that have a bearing include not only the\u00a0mode<\/em> of baptism but also the\u00a0purpose<\/em>, the\u00a0proper subjects<\/em>, as well as the\u00a0element<\/em>\u00a0in which baptism takes place. The Bible clearly teaches that only believing adults are to be baptized, and not infants. These topics need to be considered, but the purpose of this study is to inquire into the\u00a0manner<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0mode<\/em>\u00a0of baptism, as to whether it shall be by immersion in water or by other means.<\/p>\n To the best of my knowledge, all of the scholars, historians, and others quoted herein are those who practice the sprinkling or pouring of water for baptism.\u00a0 I have purposely sought out no author who practices immersion, though there are thousands of reputable men who could be quoted who do practice immersion. The reason for this is that the\u00a0understanding<\/em>\u00a0of those who\u00a0practice<\/em>\u00a0sprinkling or pouring might effectively\u00a0contradict<\/em>\u00a0their own\u00a0practices<\/em>.\u00a0 In other words, their understanding of what the scriptures teach shows the inconsistency of their practice.\u00a0 Furthermore, their works in support of immersion cannot be dismissed as the words of those who might be prejudiced by some church doctrine, or whatever, in favor of the practice of immersion.<\/p>\n This study is offered with the sincere desire that it may help us to a more perfect understanding of the Will of God.<\/p>\n “John came, who baptized in the wilderness, and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins”<\/em>\u00a0 (Mark 1:4-5).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n NOTE 1: \u00a0They came to the Jordan River. Such would hardly have been necessary if the baptisms were done by sprinkling or pouring. It would have been an inconvenience wholly without reason.<\/p>\n NOTE 2:\u00a0 The text says they were baptized of John in the river. It does not say\u00a0at<\/em>, but\u00a0in<\/em>.<\/p>\n “Jesus was baptized of John in the Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water….”\u00a0<\/em>(Mark 1:9-10).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n NOTE:\u00a0 If He came\u00a0up out of<\/em>\u00a0the water, it is obvious that He first went down\u00a0into\u00a0<\/em>the water. Why did He do this, unless his practice was immersion?<\/p>\n “And John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there, and they came and were baptized”<\/em>\u00a0(John 3:23).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n NOTE:\u00a0 If the scripture is not referring to immersion, then why the necessity of\u00a0much<\/em>\u00a0water?\u00a0 Wouldn’t a few drops of water do just as well?\u00a0 It says he was baptizing there\u00a0because<\/em>\u00a0there was much water.\u00a0 The presence of much water was neither incidental nor accidental.<\/p>\n “And he (eunuch) commanded the chariot to stand still; and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away….”\u00a0<\/em>(Acts 8:38-39).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n NOTE:\u00a0 It is obvious that immersion is implied in this passage, considering the going down into and the coming up out of the water.<\/p>\n “And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name”<\/em>\u00a0(Acts 22:16).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n NOTE:\u00a0 Here the washing of the flesh symbolized the washing of the soul. Which best represents the washing of the flesh:\u00a0 immersion, sprinkling, or pouring?<\/p>\n “We were buried therefore with Him through baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life<\/em>\u00a0(Romans 6:4).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n NOTE 1:\u00a0 Which best represents a burial: sprinkling, pouring, dropping of rose petals, or immersion?<\/p>\n NOTE 2:\u00a0 Which best represents a resurrection: having water sprinkled on the head, or coming up from an immersion in water?<\/p>\n “<\/em>For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ”<\/em>\u00a0(Galatians 3:27).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n NOTE:\u00a0 In the figure given, we clothe ourselves with Christ, putting Him on as we would a garment. Since this is done in baptism, which best represents the surrounding of ourselves with Christ (putting Him on): immersion, sprinkling, or pouring?<\/p>\n “One Lord, one faith, one baptism…<\/em>”\u00a0 (Ephesians 4:5).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n NOTE:\u00a0 If there is only one baptism now, which shall we choose (of the three that are most popularly offered): immersion, sprinkling, or pouring?<\/p>\n “Having been buried with Him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead”<\/em>\u00a0(Colossians 2:12).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n NOTE: (See comments on Romans 6:4).<\/p>\n COMMENT:\u00a0 Of literally scores of such authoritative works, Greek dictionaries, lexicons, etc., I have never heard of even\u00a0one<\/strong>\u00a0that defines “baptize” or “baptism” as sprinkling or pouring. Indeed, there are other works in the Greek language that denote these actions. The word “\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9” (rantidzo) means “to sprinkle,” and the words “\u03b5\u03ba\u03c7\u03b5\u03c9” (ekcheo) and “\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9” (ballo) may be translated as “to pour,” but these words are never used in reference to baptism in water in the New Testament.<\/p>\n It is of more than passing interest to note that in Luke 16:24, the rich man asked if Lazarus might “dip the tip of his finger in water<\/em>.” The word “dip” here is translated from the Greek “\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c9” (bapto), the form from which we get “baptize.” Would one be led to think that the rich man simply asked from Lazarus to sprinkle some water on his finger, or for Lazarus to immerse the end portion of his finger in water, that it might give some relief to the parched mouth of the rich man?\u00a0 I think the latter would be obvious, and so did the translators.<\/p>\n COMMENT:\u00a0 The encyclopedias note the original practice of immersion.\u00a0 Please keep in mind that the ordinance authorizing the change was granted by the Pope of Rome, not Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n In 1644, Parliament acted upon this, repealing the laws enjoining immersion, enacting in their place laws enjoining sprinkling. Those who were not sprinkled were to be treated as outlaws.<\/p>\n The first record of pouring or sprinkling is that of Novatian in 251 A.D.\u00a0 Eusebius, the father of church history, describes it: “He (Novatian) fell into a grievous distemper, and it being supposed that he would die immediately, he received baptism, being besprinkled with water on the bed whereon he lay, if that can be termed baptism.”<\/p>\n COMMENT: We could go on for page after page citing such quotations, but these will serve our purpose of establishing the unanimity of thought on the part of historians. One might wonder how the word “baptize” ever came to be used in the English text, rather than the translation “immerse” or “dip”. Perhaps a bit of historical background will be of interest.<\/p>\n When King James I (Church of England) authorized the translation of the Bible, which was completed in 1611, he gave the scholars some fourteen rules to follow. Two of those rules were: 1. “Old ecclesiastical words must be kept, as, the word ‘church’ must not be translated ‘congregation’ etc.” 2. The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the originals will permit.” (See Lewis’ History of the English Translation of the Bible)<\/p>\n It was during this time that the controversy over immersion vs. sprinkling was heating up, and it was in this atmosphere that the King James translation was done. Some of the Bishops had gone before Parliament affirming that “the devil of immersion ought to be legislated out of the realm, it (was) so troublesome.” When these men came to the word baptizo<\/em>, they had a problem. If they were to translate the word by its accepted meaning of immerse or dip, it would effectively serve to “legislate the devil of immersion” into the realm, rather than legislating it out.<\/p>\n They decided not to translate the word at all, but rather transfer it from Greek into the English language. They dropped the Greek letter omega (\u03c9) at the end of the word, replacing it with the English letter “e.” So from baptizo<\/em> in Greek, we have baptize in English. Therefore, the Bishops did not translate the word at all but left it in the Greek to cover up their pious fraud. Those who could read could then assign whatever meaning they wanted to this new English word.<\/p>\n As earlier indicated, all historians of whom I am aware are unanimous in their statements concerning the practice of immersion by the early church, which, we remember, was under the direct and inspired guidance of the apostles.<\/p>\n Comment: The early church fathers lived and wrote while Greek was still a living language, and history furnishes us with not even one example in all their writings where baptizo is ever used to mean sprinkle or pour.<\/em><\/p>\n Even in later years, after infant baptism had been introduced, immersion was yet the practice, as evidenced by the decree of the Council of Calcuth in 816 A.D.<\/p>\n COMMENT:\u00a0 Surely there is no need to go on, page after page, citing such quotations from men of learning, recognized by their peers and others. Calvin’s remarks were most enlightening. In the first reference, he admitted that it “is evident that the term “baptize” means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive church.” But this is of no consequence to him as churches “should be at liberty” to make their own laws, as his second quote infers.<\/p>\n Is there to be no respect for the laws of Him who is “King of Kings”, nor for the meaning of the words spoken by the only One who can save us-Jesus Christ?<\/p>\n COMMENT:\u00a0 These commentators, along with multitudes of others recognized as scholarly men, were all of the denominations that did not practice immersion. Their statements, though, show their understanding of what the New Testament teaches, even though they did not choose to follow this teaching in their personal lives and although there is evidence that some of them were immersed.<\/p>\n It is interesting to note the comment of Barnes that immersion “is the idea which would strike the great mass of unprejudiced readers.”\u00a0 In other words, just the simple, unadorned word conveys the idea of immersion. But if minds have been prejudiced by custom, tradition, or creeds of man, the conclusion might be different.<\/p>\n Although volumes could and have been written on this subject, perhaps it has been helpful to sift through the multitude of materials and collect some of the more significant and cogent thoughts for consideration.<\/p>\n Is it not noteworthy that the combined testimonies of authorities in the Greek language (the language of the original writings of the New Testament), of Biblical scholars and commentators, of Church historians, of the Church Fathers, of the encyclopedias, and\u00a0of the Biblical text itself ALL agree?\u00a0 They all agree that the apostolic teaching was immersion, that our Lord himself was immersed, that the early Christians practiced immersion, and that sprinkling as a substitute was not generally accepted until the thirteenth century.<\/p>\n Therefore, if I am convinced that baptism is an essential part of my obedience to the Lord, and I have a choice in the matter, which should I choose-that which all the evidence recognizes is the Biblical practice (immersion), or that which has been invented by men through the passing years (sprinkling or pouring)? Remember the words of the Lord, “In vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men<\/em>” (Matthew 15:9).\u00a0 Furthermore, Jesus said, “Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father who is in heaven<\/em>” (Matthew 7:21).<\/p>\n Jesus said, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved…<\/em>” (Mark 16:16). If, as the evidence supports, a correct translation of that verse is “He that believes and is immersed shall be saved…” (and there have been some translations on the market so reading), then what hope is there for those who have obeyed\u00a0 “He that believes and (is sprinkled) shall be saved…” If we are at liberty to change the\u00a0manner<\/em>\u00a0 (immersion to sprinkling), then why cannot we give approval to those who have changed the\u00a0element\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0(water to rose petals)?\u00a0 Or even to those who have changed the command itself<\/em>\u00a0to, “He that believes and is (not) baptized shall be saved?”<\/p>\n Sprinkling, Pouring, or Immersion, Which Shall It Be? by Jefferson David Tant Introduction Since the Bible teaches that baptism is an essential part of my relationship with Christ (Mark 16:16; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3-5, etc.), then it behooves me to make sure that my baptism is pleasing to the one who has given the ordinance.\u00a0…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[27],"tags":[52],"class_list":["post-38992","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article","tag-baptism"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":38990,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/how-is-the-church-of-christs-view-of-baptism-different-from-the-denominations\/","url_meta":{"origin":38992,"position":0},"title":"How is the church of Christ’s view of baptism different from the denominations?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"October 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: Hello, I recently came across a YouTube comment about baptism that puzzled me a bit: \"It's also important to know the church of Christ view of baptismal salvation is different from every other view; that of the Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics or Orthodox.\" Is this a correct assessment? If so,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":56489,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/god-has-spoken-but\/","url_meta":{"origin":38992,"position":1},"title":"“God Has Spoken,” But …","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"December 1, 2006","format":false,"excerpt":"by Dan S. Shipley via Plain Talk, Vol. 20, No. 8, Oct 1983 \"God hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in His Son...\" (Hebrews 1:2). But men have also spoken unto us. With excellency of speech and persuasive words of wisdom, they have troubled us with\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":9322,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/why-baptize-infants\/","url_meta":{"origin":38992,"position":2},"title":"Why Baptize Infants?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"September 9, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"by Whit Sasser \u201cBaptizing\u201d infants is practiced in the Roman Catholic church and some of the Protestant denominations as well. But why would one need to subject a baby to such? They are not sinners. Sin cannot be inherited (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is not passively received but a violation of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/infant-baptism-300x169.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":34443,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/immersion-pouring-and-sprinkling-a-history\/","url_meta":{"origin":38992,"position":3},"title":"Immersion, Pouring, and Sprinkling: A History","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"April 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Bruce Edwards, Jr. Truth Magazine XIX:27 (May 15, 1975), pp. 422-424 This writer can remember witnessing at the age of five the \"baptism\" of his infant cousin; the denominational \"pastor\" sprinkled drops of water upon his forehead. I wondered at the significance of that action then, but now, with\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":87307,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/is-baptism-by-immersion-valid\/","url_meta":{"origin":38992,"position":4},"title":"Is baptism by immersion valid?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"May 29, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: Is baptism by immersion valid? Ezekiel prophesied, \"I will sprinkle clean water upon you.\" Doesn't that verse mean baptism is to be done by sprinkling and not immersion? Peter said we are \"sprinkled with the blood of Christ.\" Also, Peter baptized in Jerusalem on Pentecost, where there wouldn't have\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2444,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/baptized-but-not-converted\/","url_meta":{"origin":38992,"position":5},"title":"Baptized but Not Converted","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"January 3, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"by Fred Shewmaker Years ago in a home Bible study, the couple with whom we were studying complained that the words I was using were too big. Being somewhat inexperienced in home Bible studies, I was surprised by their complaint. The words about which they were complaining were all words\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38992","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38992"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38992\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38992"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38992"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38992"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}The Testimony of the Biblical Context<\/h2>\n
Testimony of the Greek Lexicons, Dictionaries, etc. on “\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9” (baptidzo)<\/h2>\n
\n
The Testimony of the Encyclopaedias<\/h2>\n
\n
\n<\/em>
\nIt was not until the year 1311 that the legislature, in a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In Scotland, however, sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases until after the Reformation-about the middle of the 16th<\/sup>\u00a0century. From Scotland it made its way into England in the reign of Elizabeth I, but was not authorized in the Established Church.”\u00a0<\/em>(“Baptism.”\u00a0 EDINBURGH ENCYCLOPAEDIA)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
The Testimony of Historians<\/h2>\n
\n
The Testimony of the Church Fathers<\/h2>\n
\n
The Testimony of the Scholars<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
The Testimony of the Commentators<\/h2>\n
\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER<\/h2>\n
\n