Thread: Sprinkling vs Dunking

Does it matter?

This is a strange question.

I could understand Dunkin VS Winchell's, or Sprinkles VS Glazed, but I don't see a comparison here.

Theognome

Originally Posted by Theognome

This is a strange question.

I could understand Dunkin VS Winchell's, or Sprinkles VS Glazed, but I don't see a comparison here.

Theognome

lol

A Presbyterian and a baptist were debating methods of baptism.

Presby: If I get wet up to my ankles, would that be enough?
Baptist: No.
Presby: If I get wet up to my knees, will that be enough?
Baptist: No.
Presby: Up to my waist?
Baptist: No.
Presby: What about up to my neck, if I get in to a pool up to my neck, surely that is enough?
Baptist: No.
Presby: Right then, what about up to my ears? If I get wet up to my ears, that MUST be enough?
Baptist: NO!
Presby: I knew it! I was right all along! Its the top of your head which matters!!!

Originally Posted by Jon 316

A Presbyterian and a baptist were debating methods of baptism.

Presby: If I get wet up to my ankles, would that be enough?
Baptist: No.
Presby: If I get wet up to my knees, will that be enough?
Baptist: No.
Presby: Up to my waist?
Baptist: No.
Presby: What about up to my neck, if I get in to a pool up to my neck, surely that is enough?
Baptist: No.
Presby: Right then, what about up to my ears? If I get wet up to my ears, that MUST be enough?
Baptist: NO!
Presby: I knew it! I was right all along! Its the top of your head which matters!!!

I'm a credo-baptist (for now . . . you know how that goes) but I have no preference concerning mode of baptism.

Steven:

It depends who you ask.

For many if not most Baptists they would say that the meaning of the words 'baptize' or 'baptism' is 'immersion'. In order then to obey the command of the Lord one would, in this view, have to be immersed in order to have a real baptism.

For many if not most Presbyterians and Reformed the meaning of the word 'baptize' or 'baptism' is broader and includes the idea of washing, pouring and sprinkling. However many would argue that pouring or sprinkling best symbolizes the atonement of Christ and the outpouring (regeneration) of the Holy Spirit because the person is entirely passive in the event, therefore demonstrating in a visible or outward way the sovereignty of God in salvation.

Broadly speaking then, it matters more for the Baptist than the Presbyterian.

I guess there is also the whole 'death and burial and resurection' symbolism associated with baptism. Although I am aware that Berkhof hammers this argument. But its definetly in Romans. I would say immersion communicates that aspect of ourt salvation more clearly than sprinkling.

Originally Posted by Jon 316

I guess there is also the whole 'death and burial and resurection' symbolism associated with baptism. Although I am aware that Berkhof hammers this argument. But its definetly in Romans. I would say immersion communicates that aspect of ourt salvation more clearly than sprinkling.

Romans 6:4-6 uses three συν- verbs to describe the relationship between Christ and the believer signified in baptism.

συνεταφημεν - buried with
συμφυτοι - planted with
συνεσταυρωθη - crucified with

Does it not seem arbitrary to insist that we must take the first verb as God's intention for how baptism is to be visibly portrayed, while ignoring the other two? Which mode visually looks like crucifixion? Also, Jesus was buried by being laid into a chamber hewed out of the side of a rock face. Baptism by immersion doesn't really depict that very well.

I wrote an entire chapter on this issue in my book, [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Loves-Little-Children-Baptize/dp/0965398196/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235166767&sr=8-7"]Jesus Loves the Little Children[/ame].

Here is what Calvin said:

"Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.15.19).

To answer the question of whether Romans 6 means we must be immersed to be "buried and raised" with Christ, at the end of my chapter I say the following:

To summarize, let us think about two questions. First, if immersion is necessary for a baptism to be valid, as it is said Romans 6 and Colossians 2 teach, then why isn’t putting on a new pair of clothes after coming out of the water necessary? After all, Paul says in Galatians 3:27, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Christ here is thought of as a garment enveloping the believer and symbolizing his new spiritual existence. This metaphor comes from the Old Testament where changing clothes represents an inward and spiritual change (cf. Isa. 61:10; Zech. 3:3f.). Furthermore, in Romans 6 Paul does not only speak of being united with Christ’s burial and resurrection, but also his crucifixion” (Rom. 6:6). How is this signified in immersion? The point being that baptism signifies so much more than just merely our burial and resurrection with Christ and that to only look at two of the images in Romans and Colossians is arbitrary.

Shouldn’t we be consistent and follow all that these texts supposedly say?

Second, if the mode of immersion is necessary for baptism, then why not for the other New Covenant sacrament, the Lord’s Supper? After all, Jesus instituted his Supper at Passover (Matthew 26:17). Shouldn’t we, then, partake of this meal once a year on the Passover? He institutes it at night (Matthew 26:20). This would mean the end of our “first Sunday morning of every month” practice of communion. Jesus gave his disciples holy communion while reclining at a table (Matthew 26:20). Should we get rid of pews? It was celebrated in an upper room (Mark 14:15). So do our church’s need to be at least two stories tall? Jesus shared with his disciples a common cup (Matthew 26:27). Is this the end of individual plastic cups? As well, Jesus and his disciples most likely drank wine and ate the unleavened bread of the Passover.

These are important parallels to ponder so that we do not become overly divisive about the precise form of partaking of the sacraments. What is important is what they signify about Christ and his relationship to us and our relationship to his body, the Church.

Lloyd Sprinkle (Baptist) and the late Don Dunkerley (PCA) were speaking at the same event.

Someone noted the odd humor of having a Baptist named “sprinkle” and a Presbyterian named “DUNKerley” in the same venue.

When Dunkerley had opportunity to comment, he pointed out his name was “Dunk early”!

The candidate is more important than the mode.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Originally Posted by Jon 316

I guess there is also the whole 'death and burial and resurection' symbolism associated with baptism. Although I am aware that Berkhof hammers this argument. But its definetly in Romans. I would say immersion communicates that aspect of ourt salvation more clearly than sprinkling.

Romans 6:4-6 uses three συν- verbs to describe the relationship between Christ and the believer signified in baptism.

συνεταφημεν - buried with
συμφυτοι - planted with
συνεσταυρωθη - crucified with

Does it not seem arbitrary to insist that we must take the first verb as God's intention for how baptism is to be visibly portrayed, while ignoring the other two? Which mode visually looks like crucifixion? Also, Jesus was buried by being laid into a chamber hewed out of the side of a rock face. Baptism by immersion doesn't really depict that very well.

fair point... hmmm Berkhof kinda ruined that whole thought process for me a while back shame pre berkhof I thought the argument was water tight...

My Reformed Baptist friend told me to be consistant as a Paedo baptist I must baptize animals, cause animals were in the Ark that was baptized by the flood.

Originally Posted by charliejunfan

My Reformed Baptist friend told me to be consistant as a Paedo baptist I must baptize animals, cause animals were in the Ark that was baptized by the flood.

A reformed baptist would say that though... I guess it doesnt make him right... doh I'm supposed to be a baptist! hmmm

John! Join the Dark Side!!!!

Mode is not important.

Originally Posted by Ivan

Mode is not important.

Ivan, seriously if it is not important then take it out of your church name!

Broadly speaking then, it matters more for the Baptist than the Presbyterian.

Daniel,

Of course it matters for the entire Eastern Church also

Orthodox Infant Baptism - AOL Video

and

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-GeqkQHJDI"]YouTube - Alexandra's Baptism 1[/ame]




Steve

Originally Posted by Ivan

Mode is not important.

It is strange then that the confessional Baptist position is to refuse the Lord's Supper to those whose mode of Baptism differs from immersion.

I can understand the insistance on Baptism on profession, I have never understood any defensible justification for the mode being of equal importance.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Does it matter?

What you believe about the mode of baptism does matter.

If Baptists are right, then pouring and sprinkling are not valid modes. Those baptized by pouring or sprinkling are not validly baptized. But if Presbyterians are right, then Baptists are insisting something that is not found in Scripture. The latter are un-baptizing those whom the Bible recognizes as validly baptized.

Baptists see the mode of immersion as essential to the valid administration of baptism. They say that it is the only consistent mode with the Bible's depiction of baptism's symbolism which is an identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:1-4; Col. 2:11-12). Presbyterians on the contrary do not see the mode as essential. Though they accept immersion as a valid mode, they see pouring and sprinkling as the proper modes. They contend that baptism (the sign) must be consistent with the thing it signifies, namely, the pouring out/falling upon of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2, 10 and 11; cf. Titus 3) and the sprinkling of the blood of Christ (Hebrews 9-10).

Originally Posted by refbaptdude

Broadly speaking then, it matters more for the Baptist than the Presbyterian.

Daniel,

Of course it matters for the entire Eastern Church also

Orthodox Infant Baptism - AOL Video

and

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-GeqkQHJDI"]YouTube - Alexandra's Baptism 1[/ame]




Steve

oh my....

Here is what Calvin said:
"Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.15.19).

Of course Calvin also said:

John Calvin -"The very word "baptize however, signifies to IMMERSE, and it is certain that IMMERSION was the practice of the ancient church."(Institutes of the Christian Religion, chp 15)

John Calvin’s commentary on the Gospel of John
John 3:22-23
22. After these things came Jesus. It is probable that Christ, when the feast was past, came into that part of Judea which was in the vicinity of the town Enon, which was situated in the tribe of Manasseh. The Evangelist says that there were many waters there, and these were not so abundant in Judea. Now geographers tell us, that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence of the river Jordan and the brook Jabbok; and they add that Scythopolis was near them. From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water; though we ought not to give ourselves any great uneasiness about the outward rite, provided that it agree with the spiritual truth, and with the Lord's appointment and rule. So far as we are able to conjecture, the; vicinity of those places caused various reports to be circulated, and many discussions to arise, about the Law, about the worship of God, and about the condition of the Church, in consequence of two persons who administered baptism having arisen at the same time. For when the Evangelist says that Christ baptized, I refer this to the commencement of his ministry; namely, that he then began to exercise publicly the office which was appointed to him by the Father. And though Christ did this by his disciples, yet he is here named as the Author of the baptism, without mentioning his ministers, who did nothing but in his name and by his command. On this subject, we shall have something more to say in the beginning of the next Chapter.

Ok, just to remain true to my baptist colors...

Acts 8: 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea.

Perhaps one of the only bible texts to describe something of the event of baptism??

Good catch. Although this only proves that Calvin was not dealing with all of the issues.

Rob,

How do you explain the practice of the entire Eastern Church (Greek Orthodox, etc)?

Rob the post that you deleted needs to deal with the practice of the Eastern Church, your not dealing with all the issues ; )

Thanks

Originally Posted by refbaptdude

Good catch. Although this only proves that Calvin was not dealing with all of the issues.

Rob,

How do you explain the practice of the entire Eastern Church (Greek Orthodox, etc)?


Rob the post that you deleted needs to deal with the practice of the Eastern Church, your not dealing with all the issues ; )



Thanks

I don't need to explain their [Greek Orthodox] practice. They are not exactly my model of orthodoxy, nor are they yours, I would presume. The fact that they practice such things proves little to me. Neither they, nor the Baptists get down to the text when the gospel writers use the words for wash and baptise interchangeably. (c.f. Matthew 15:2 and Luke 11:38)

I did delete the post, as I thought twice about inciting more debate over a very much debated subject.

And I guess the words of Calvin and Luther mean little to you also?

Martin Luther -" I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word."

Philip Schaff -"IMMERSION and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John which was performed in Jordan." (History of the Apostolic Church, p.568).

Unfortunately it is a much debated issue.

Your brother in Christ

Originally Posted by Jon 316

Perhaps one of the only bible texts to describe something of the event of baptism??

Hi John. I don't think the text describes immersion. Does it not say that both Philip and the eunuch were involved in the going down and the coming up out of the water?

And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. - Acts 8:38-39 (ESV)

If this teaches that the recipient of baptism was immersed, then does this not mean that the one who administered baptism was immersed as well?

Acts 8: 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea.

Hi John, I believe first off, it is highly unlikely there was a body of water with significant depth in the middle of the desert as is spoken in v. 26

"Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." This is a desert place,"

that would allow for full immersion.

Originally Posted by Michael Doyle

Acts 8: 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea.

Hi John, I believe first off, it is highly unlikely there was a body of water with significant depth in the middle of the desert as is spoken in v. 26

"Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." This is a desert place,"

that would allow for full immersion.

oh dear, everything I have been taught about full immersion seems to be based upon a lot of assumptions.

John,
Be patient with yourself. I think you've recently come into a Calvinistic frame of reference, and that can be a period of great excitement, as well as great turmoil. As a baptized believer, I don't think you need to stress over the issue of baptism at present.

What I think is good is when everyone (everyone!) stops, takes a step back, and realizes that no one (no one!) just reads the Bible like a virgin, "and if you just read it as simple and straightforward you'll have to agree that I'm right!" Someone is bound to come along, and point out difficulties that in-house discussions frequently gloss over.

Their points don't have to be true or correct criticisms; however, we do well to realize they just did us a favor. Being a Baptist, a Lutheran, a Methodist, or a Presbyterian (etc.) isn't just a matter of "a clear reading of Scripture." Those words are simply a cudgel to beat up people who have sincere disagreements with us. When we realize that other people might actually have some biblical grounds for their disagreement, however mistaken, it ought to make us more humble and patient.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Does it matter?

If it does I'm covered because I was Sprinkled as an infant and Dunked as a Young Child.

Originally Posted by whitway

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Does it matter?

If it does I'm covered because I was Sprinkled as an infant and Dunked as a Young Child.

We are all covered because Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

My pastor preached a sermon on the mode of baptism, he is a very nice and humble teacher, if you have some time, I think it might be of a help. He argues against immersion as an invalid and wrong mode of baptism and defends sprinkling as the valid mode.

SermonAudio.com - The Mode of Baptism

Some important points here I would like to post that seemed to have been overlooked.

1. The only ones completely immersed in Baptism in the O.T. were the Egyptians and the Genesis flood victoms. And they were immersed in the judgement of God's wrath. "Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them: They sank as lead in the mighty waters" Exodus 15:10 Also see Psalm 107:24-31 pertaining the angry sea being the source of God's judgement.

2. The righteous are not swallowed up, immersed in God's judgement in the O.T. They are carried accross the evil of the "sea". Noah and his family were protected in the Ark in the waters of judgement. The Israelites walked "on dry land" and were not consumed in God's wrath. Moses was carried accross the waters in an Ark. The Israelites walked accross the Jordan river "on dry land". Also the Ark was carried accross the Jordan by the Priests and their feet did not touch the waters! And behold, the "Commander of the Lords Army" is standing on dry ground in the promised land, after being carried accross the Jordon in the Ark! (also note! the waters stood up in a heap al the way back to "Adam"! Yes, the passing on dry land without being swallowed up, or immersed, in God's judgement goes all the way back to the first sinner, Adam!) Next, we have David being carried accross the Jordan and declared as King in 2 Samuel. Next we have Elijah striking the water of the Jordan, it is divided and He crosses over "on dry land" just before he is taken up to the promised land in the chariot.

3. In the N.T. we have Jesus revealing Himself on the mountain to his people by the breaking of bread and the feeding of the 5 thousand. (Christ IS REVEALED through the breaking of bread. see Luke 24) The people do not recognize Him as the messiah and God the Father gets angry. He whips up a storm on the "Sea of Galilee" in His anger. "For they considered not the miracle of the laoves: for their hearts were hardened" That is why they ended up in the storm of God's wrath, just like those who strainded at the oars in Jonah. But again, Christ walks accross as though "on dry land" accross the sea of God's wrath and was about to pass them by, just as he does in Luke 24!

3. Now Christ has gone before us in the sea or chasm of God's wrath. For He has gone to a place where we have never been before. (Joshua 3:4) He has been totaly immersed in the sea of God's righteous judgement! He has gone over the Jordon before us with a sacrafice "in hand". Just as God provided Jacob a sacrafice of atonement which he sends over the Jordon to Esau, to appease Esau's wrath. God sends His Son through the sea or chasm of God's wrath that separates us and Him!

4. Now, in "our Baptism" were are united or identified as being "in Christ" and His baptism. His baptism or immersion "in judgment". Therefore if we are identified and united "in Him" in his judgement, God recognized us as have already been judjed "in Christ".

5. Take note of Solomon's enormous "Sea" that he placed between the altar and the temple doors. This is the "Sea of God's judgement" In Revelation 20:13 we read, "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them" Here the sea is linked to the chasm of death and hell, and contains those who were swallowed up in judgment.

I am a paedo-baptist, but I do see the connection of being immersed in Baptism even though it means more than just being washed or being raised in resurrection. We are able to cross over the chasm of God's judement "on dry land" because of Christ's immersion. Yes, if we are preoccupied by the methodology of Baptism. Then immerse your baby, what do you think that the gag reflex is for in baby's anyway?

Originally Posted by Rogerant

Some important points here I would like to post that seemed to have been overlooked.

1. The only ones completely immersed in Baptism in the O.T. were the Egyptians and the Genesis flood victoms. And they were immersed in the judgement of God's wrath. "Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them: They sank as lead in the mighty waters" Exodus 15:10 Also see Psalm 107:24-31 pertaining the angry sea being the source of God's judgement.

Except there was also Naaman in 2 Kings 5:14. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew word for "plunge" or "dip" as "baptized."

Just a point of info.

The way I see is that if the paedos are wrong they're disobedient.
How could the credos be wrong when they've gone the whole way?

My former pastor never failed to say, 'buried with Christ in baptism, raised to walk in newness of life'. I never tired of hearing those words and those being baptized were eager to be totally buried in baptism!

Rather than translations or texts that some would question their divine authority, why don't we go to the word itself and how it is used. Strongs 2881:

In the documented directions for the method of ceremonial washing of lepers. Lev 14:1 "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest: 3 And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper; 4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: 5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water: 6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip (2881) them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water: 7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field"and 16:"16 And the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the LORD: 17 And of the rest of the oil that is in his hand shall the priest put upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the blood of the trespass offering: 18 And the remnant of the oil that is in the priest's hand he shall pour upon the head of him that is to be cleansed: and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD."

And for sin offering washings Le 4:6 And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary.

And note: Ex 12:22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip (2881) it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.

Do you believe that anyone who heard this command believed that they were to immerse the entire piece of hyssop or just the end to paint the door lintels?

I don't think that we are in 2 Kings to exegete a new method for the ceremonial cleaning for leprosy. The fact that human origins translated the word used as "dip" in every other usage of the word, to an idea of totally "immersing" is weak at best. I don't think that you can force that into the text.

Dear Christiana: If paedo's are going to be charged with improper methodology on the method of Baptism, we must look at the texts of law that deal with the methodology for the cleansing from sin. (which leprosy symbolizes). The book or ceremonial tutorial of the methodology is Leviticus. The gospels and the book of Acts are not to be read as a ceremonial or a how to for dummies for methodology. The book of Acts is a historical book. It is not a book of how to's for ceremonial law. The book of Leviticus is.

And regarding the disobedience when it comes to when we baptize our children, I believe that it was Moses in whom the Lord was seeking to kill for not given his son the sign of the covenant.

Exodus 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

When did this change?
2 Timothy 3:16 (New King James Version)

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Who decided all those things you mentioned above after God Himself said what 2 Timothy says? Must have been the same men who devise all the other rules of the day!

Originally Posted by Rogerant

I don't think that we are in 2 Kings to exegete a new method for the ceremonial cleaning for leprosy. The fact that human origins translated the word used as "dip" in every other usage of the word, to an idea of totally "immersing" is weak at best. I don't think that you can force that into the text.

Nah, I wasn't trying to exegete anything, just observing that we can't say with complete certainty that the word "baptize" as immersion never applied to someone (except the condemned) in the OT. Whether we think the Septuagint is a fraud or the real deal, it seems fairly straightforward that "baptize" historically and to educated Jews at least sometimes means immerse.

I was assuming that Naaman was following Elisha's directions to wash his entire flesh. The shift in the verb from רחץ (rachats) used by Elisha to the טבל (tabal) describing what Naaman did seems to imply to me zeal in the procedure. Of course, I grant that maybe he dipped his foot, and then his hand, and then his head, and then his back, and then his front, etc., until his entire flesh had been cleaned, and then did it all over again six more times. . . .

Yes, I believe that All scripture is God breathed. But I do not believe that the Septuagent translation is God inspired. Nor do any of the confessions including the WCF or the 3 forms of unity.