Paedo-Baptism Answers Sprinkling or pouring: does it matter which one is used?

[clawrence9008]

I’ve been reading James Macdonald Chaney’s William the Baptist, and have become more and more confirmed in my belief that sprinkling or pouring is the proper mode of baptism rather than immersion. It is clear from Chaney’s argumentation from Scripture that both sprinkling and pouring adequately represent the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer, as the believer is sprinkled by the blood of Christ when His work is applied by the Spirit, and the Spirit is described in numerous passages of Scripture as being poured out on the believer (e.g. Joel 2:28-29). Our confession also approves of both modes of baptism:

Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water on the person (WCF 28.3).

My question then is, if both modes of baptism are scriptural, then how does a minister decide which one to employ when administering the sacrament? Is it based on personal preference, or circumstance, or that the minister finds that one mode is more scriptural than the other?

 

[Edward]

As I deacon, I strongly favor sprinkling over pouring. Less water on the floor and a lower risk of the liability for a slip and fall claim.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Baptismal mode, according to Presbyterianism, is adiaphora, a thing "indifferent;" or put differently, there is no preferential mode though there may be practically some mode that is more suitable for one situation or another, or even most situations. Theologically, there are different facts or substance one mode may represent over against another. Not everything can be done all at once, yet baptism is to be applied only once for a person; therefore, in the nature of the case not every illustration designated for baptism will be manifested every time a baptism is administered. This is not a brief for trying out sprinkling one week, dipping the next time, and pouring the time after that in some kind of round-robin modal circus. There is something to be said for picking a mode and using it consistently in one congregation or another.

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

Here's my take from our church's class through the WCF:

WCF 28:3: Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary: but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.(k)
(k)Heb. 9:10, 19-22; Acts 2:41; Acts 16:33; Mark 7:4.

Dipping (or dunking) a person is “not necessary”; this does not mean immersion is an option, but rather that the practice is only “rightly [or correctly] administered by pouring or sprinkling”.[1] Jay Adams explains: “ … mode cannot be separated from meaning. The sacraments are symbolic. If so, then ‘mode’ and ‘symbol’ are one and the same … Mode and symbol, and therefore mode and meaning, cannot be divorced.”[2] A number of considerations are in order about baptism’s mode and meaning:

a. Christ’s baptism was related to His anointing to office as with the sprinkling or pouring of oil over the head of priests and kings (Ex. 29:7; Num. 8:6-7; 1 Sam. 10:1; Ps. 2:2: King Jesus is “my anointed”). As well, the sacrament represents the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which in Acts 2:17-18, 33, is said to be “poured out” on the Apostles, and later to have “fell on them” (and so they were “baptized”) in 11:15-16.[3] Van Dixhoorn says “ .. the actions of sprinkling and pouring repeatedly symbolize the divine work of salvation in the Bible in a way that immersion simply does not.”[4]

b. The Greek word for to baptize (βαπτίζω) has a broad usage, but primarily means to dip, to purify, to wash; it is used interchangeably with another Greek word that means “to wash” (baptism represents inner cleansing and purification by the regenerating and renewing washing of the Holy Ghost that unites us to Christ).[5] Ward explains, “The root idea of the Greek word baptize is not total immersion but an intensive dipping which involves a transformation (cf dyeing) …”[6] So, in Mark 7:4, “wash” and “washing” is the Greek “baptize” and “baptizing”, including a table (not immersed). In Lk. 11:38, the Pharisees marveled that Jesus had not “washed” (“baptized”) before dinner (see Mt. 15:2 of His disciples), and they didn’t mean diving into a lake, but using a utensil.

c. Heb. 9:13, 19, 21, and 10 refer to the OT “sprinklings” of blood to ceremonially cleanse, atone, or sanctify the people and the tabernacle and its ceremonial tools as “baptisms” (translated “washings”; see the connection with 10:22, 24 related to sprinkling of Christ’s blood to cleanse consciences.)[7]

d. Moses and the OT Church were “baptized” under the cloud (Christ) and by the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:1-4), just as Noah and His family were “baptized” by the flood waters (1 Pet. 3:20-22); they were savingly sprinkled by merciful mist while God’s enemies were immersed with judgment.

e. Paul was baptized standing up by a bedside (Acts. 9:18, 22:16), and, “In the case of Saul’s baptism, the baptism of the household of Cornelius, and that of the household of the Philippian jailer, since each of these acts of baptism was carried out within a home (Acts 9:11; 10:25; 16:32), and in the last case sometime after midnight (Acts 16:33) but before dawn (v. 35), it is virtually certain that these baptisms would not have been by immersion, since few homes in those times would have had facilities for such an act …”[8]

f. When it is said of outdoor baptism events that they were “coming out of or up from the water” (Mark 1:9-10; Acts 8:36-39), note that Luke says such of Philip and the eunuch, but Philip was not baptized—he did the baptizing; and, the Eunuch had just read Isaiah 53, which is preceded by 52:15: “So shall he sprinkle many nations …” (see also Ezek. 36:25).[9] They came up from out of the water location (not out from under the water). So when Israel crossed the Jordon River into the Promised Land, the priests stepped their feet into water, but then the waters were blocked up and they crossed over on dry land, of which they then were said to “come up out of” (Josh. 3:13; 4:16-19). R.C. Sproul points out that with where the Ethiopian and Philip were (Acts 8:26), “It is doubtful that in that ‘desert’ between Jerusalem and Gaza … there was enough water for an immersion.”[10]

g. Van Dixhoorn cites these other considerations: “ … there were times when too many people were baptized to permit immersion. Acts 2:41 tells us that 3,000 people were baptized on one day in Jerusalem. It is hardly possible …” Also, “ … there were times when baptism happened too quickly … at once … (Acts 16:33). The language of immediate baptism [with the Philippian jailer and his family] does not suggest that they went through the city and were baptized at the river, or a pool. Paul probably reached for a jug or a bowl and, after explaining baptism, poured or sprinkled water on these new converts.” As well, “The only plausible picture of immersion in baptism is that of Romans 6 or Colossians 2, but arguably it is plausible to us because we think of burials vertically, six feet under the ground, whereas in hard Palestinian soil burials were often effected horizontally, behind a rock in a cave.”[11] More importantly, Rom. 6 and Col. 2 are figures of speech for union with Christ.

h. “Total immersion lacks Old Testament precedent or clear New Testament justification.”[12]

Footnotes for above:

[1] While not directly addressing the WCF here, John Murray’s comments seem to reflect this interpretation, if not of the Confession, of the Scriptural doctrine on mode: “ … there are numerous instances in which the action denoted does not imply immersion and which prove that baptism does not mean immersion (cf. Lev. 14:6, 51; Matt. 15:2 Mark 7:2-5; Luke 11:38; 1 Cor. 10:2; Heb. 9:10-23) … the ordinance is properly [correctly] administered by sprinkling or affusion.” “Baptism” in Collected Writings, vol. 2, 373.

[2] Jay E. Adams, The Meaning and Mode of Baptism, vi.

[3] Adams, 23.

[4] Chad Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith: Study Guide, 371.

[5] A.A. Hodge, The Westminster Confession: A Commentary, 341.

[6] Rowland Ward, The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Study Guide for the 21st Century, 176.

[7] Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 933.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid, 932.

[10] R.C. Sproul, Truths We Confess: A Systematic Exposition of the Westmisnter Confession of Faith, vol. 3, 119. David Dickson, Truth's Victory Over Error: A Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, 219-220: “ ... we read of three thousand baptized in one day, in the streets of Jerusalem, by twelve apostles at the most, where there was no river to dip them into (Acts 2:4I). And was not Jerusalem and all Judea and the region round about Jordan baptized by John the Baptist alone, which could not be done to all and every one by dipping (Matt. 3:5-6)?”

[11] Van Dixhoorn, 371, 372.

[12] Ward, 176.

Suggested Readings Listed that Particularly Address the Meaning and Mode of Baptism Biblically and Historically:

• Meaning and Mode of Baptism, Jay E. Adams
• Baptism in Scripture and History: A Fresh Study on the Meaning and Mode of Baptism, Rowland Ward

 

[Sam Jer]

I was just about to post this very same question, when I saw it's already been posted. Are pouring and sprinkling two variations of the same mode? If not, I cannot see how there wouldn't even be an argument to be made for one over the other when all else is equal.

Does the image of sprinkling blood / water in the OT hold the weight here? Or does the puring of the Holy Ghost?

How were the OT washings performed? Is this a relevant question? Would seem to me it is a very relevant one since this would be the "baptism" they would previously be familiar with.


Also, pardon my ignorance (I have never actually witnessed baptism outside of a credo-immersionist congergation), but how precisely are these modes actually done in practice? Is pouring usually performed like with a huge bucket, or a shot-glass sized vessel? Is sprinkling making the hair a little wet with the fingers, or splashing a whole cup?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

As I deacon, I strongly favor sprinkling over pouring. Less water on the floor and a lower risk of the liability for a slip and fall claim.

Brother you have posted over 13,000 posts on the Puritanboard. This means, paradoxically, you have got "immersed" in a lot of discussions

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

While there is no "correct" mode in an exclusive sense, sprinkling or pouring is more convenient and suitable for various practical reasons.

 

[dsanch1120]

This may be a question for another thread. When pouring is used as the mode, is there typically some sort of dish or other instrument used to pour?

 

[AOB]

This may be a question for another thread. When pouring is used as the mode, is there typically some sort of dish or other instrument used to pour?

In our church, there is a baptismal font from which the minister scoops the water in his hand and pours it on the recipient.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I was just about to post this very same question, when I saw it's already been posted. Are pouring and sprinkling two variations of the same mode? If not, I cannot see how there wouldn't even be an argument to be made for one over the other when all else is equal.

Does the image of sprinkling blood / water in the OT hold the weight here? Or does the puring of the Holy Ghost?

How were the OT washings performed? Is this a relevant question? Would seem to me it is a very relevant one since this would be the "baptism" they would previously be familiar with.


Also, pardon my ignorance (I have never actually witnessed baptism outside of a credo-immersionist congergation), but how precisely are these modes actually done in practice? Is pouring usually performed like with a huge bucket, or a shot-glass sized vessel? Is sprinkling making the hair a little wet with the fingers, or splashing a whole cup?

I will attempt answers to the various Q's posted.

In some sense, pouring and sprinkling have the appearance of "variation within mode," however Scripture makes its own commentary with each thus driving us toward the two being distinguishable modes.

Sprinkling, whether of water or blood or a mixture of both, was a prescribed mode of cleansing/sanctifying in OT covenanting and worship ritual, e.g. Ex.24:8; Lev.8:11; Lev.14:51; Num.8:7; there is a particular New Covenant promise that draws on this imagery, Ezk.36:25; cf. Is.52:15. The NT book of Hebrews makes repeated reference to such ritual sprinkling, and (so it appears obvious to me) uses the word "baptize" to describe the washing in the same context (Heb.9:10) as fully half of its references to such ritual. Baptism is a ritual sanctifying, cleansing by way of signification, see 1Pet.3:21.

Pouring is a rather more copious use of water, but often bears a very similar connotation to sprinkling (consider rain, Ex.9:33; Ps.77:17). Sprinkling liquid was very apt for a desert-wandering people; still, the rite when prescribed was not typically changed for settlement in the Promised Land. Pouring does receive its own biblical signification, however, and is not merely a generous sprinkling. Anointing oil was poured out in official rites (Lev.2:1), especially for sanctifying priests (e.g Ex.29:7) and kings (e.g. 1Sam.10:1), and by analogy prophets also though there is no specific record of a literal anointing of one such (but note Ps.105:15). Drink offerings were poured out, e.g. Ex.29:40, which might be of water or wine.

Above all, the OT promised pouring of the divine Spirit forms the most significant background to the NT rite of baptism, see Is.32:15; 44:3; Ezk.39:29; Jol.2;28f; Zech.12:10; all which takes the NT baptism of the Holy Spirit as fulfillment, see Act.2:16ff and 10:45-47 (note the connection in both contexts to ritual baptism). It is rational to recognize that outpouring by ritual sign may call the thing signified to mind.

Next Q. Recall previous comment on the suitability of sprinkling for ceremonial washing (referred to in the NT as baptism) in a desert setting. The portable Tabernacle laver was a modestly large, general bucket containing water for cleansing needs, not a vat for putting an instrument in (much less a person). If the laver was treated as a "bath," it would be useless after a single employment, the clean water now rendered contaminated, requiring immediate replenishment (not simple at any time, let alone in a desert). Sacrifices were made ceaselessly during the day, not just at set times, as both the regular rituals and personal use of the altar and priesthood demanded, meaning that there was constant need for pure water for ritual purification of the implements of the altar. And no, just any source was NOT allowed for ritual provision on the basis of "need;" compare God's judgment against Nadab and Abihu for them sourcing fire ("strange fire") from somewhere other than the divinely lit altar when they went to offer incense.

The increase of the laver-provision in the Temple era doesn't indicate a new method for ritual cleansing, as there is no indication the law underwent a shift. The conditions were no more desert, the land was rich in resources, and it was appropriate to put the glory of God on display in numerous enhancements of the original religious presentation. The water was still sprinkled, poured, and applied in various other standard ways of which we may lack specific description in the sacred record, but done by divine approval; but we can safely exclude a vat or bath of increasingly contaminated water used like we use the kitchen sink to wash our dinner dishes.

There may have been certain approved "immersions" for ritual cleansing, but no prescription for such is hinted at in the Law of Moses, originally given in a desert setting where exceeding rare was the availability of copious water (other than the rock giving drinking/washing water following them as it were through the desert); tent-dwellers (especially an army's worth) have never been body-dippers, lacking the physical means.

Nevertheless, it still is the case that dipping/immersion can fulfill the instance of a "sign" pointing to a baptismal reality. "Burial" within a watery-grave of sorts could be legitimated as mode, given the two NT texts that appear to connect baptism and burial, Rom.6:4 and Col.2:12. As burial is not the only NT illustration-by-baptism, I don't believe these two texts are dispositive of baptism's signification and thus compelling for modal use. Baptism is likened to putting on clothes (Gal.3:27) and a refreshing drink (1Cor.12:13; cf. the correlation found in Mt.20:22-23). One mode cannot exhaust all the biblical imagery we can find, and no mode may be able to put into visual experience this or that allusion to baptism in the Bible.

Baptism is a ritual judgment, as 1Cor.10:1-2 and 1Pet.3:21 demonstrate. We don't actually drown (as the Lord's enemies did in the Red Sea and in the flood), but by faith we are united to Christ in his death, and raised on account of his resurrection. I don't think there is anything inherently misplaced by immersion mode, simply because the ungodly were destroyed in their immersion; the believer dies in Christ's death, and does not abide in the power of death at all; and the immersed person does not remain under the water. Still, I find preferable the Christian's symbolic identification with the Israelites, who were not immersed, but even the soles of their feet were dry as they went through the ritual judgment safe, being united to their mediator Moses. That preference cannot prevent me from acknowledging that immersion could be an effective sign pointing to the thing signified.

Finally, the application of water is typically by hand, either cupping water or sprinkling it with the fingers. But in some non-immersion baptisms, cups or some other implement for applying the water (in non-specific amount) may be found.

I hope this is helpful.

 

[clawrence9008]

I will attempt answers to the various Q's posted.

In some sense, pouring and sprinkling have the appearance of "variation within mode," however Scripture makes its own commentary with each thus driving us toward the two being distinguishable modes.

Sprinkling, whether of water or blood or a mixture of both, was a prescribed mode of cleansing/sanctifying in OT covenanting and worship ritual, e.g. Ex.24:8; Lev.8:11; Lev.14:51; Num.8:7; there is a particular New Covenant promise that draws on this imagery, Ezk.36:25; cf. Is.52:15. The NT book of Hebrews makes repeated reference to such ritual sprinkling, and (so it appears obvious to me) uses the word "baptize" to describe the washing in the same context (Heb.9:10) as fully half of its references to such ritual. Baptism is a ritual sanctifying, cleansing by way of signification, see 1Pet.3:21.

Pouring is a rather more copious use of water, but often bears a very similar connotation to sprinkling (consider rain, Ex.9:33; Ps.77:17). Sprinkling liquid was very apt for a desert-wandering people; still, the rite when prescribed was not typically changed for settlement in the Promised Land. Pouring does receive its own biblical signification, however, and is not merely a generous sprinkling. Anointing oil was poured out in official rites (Lev.2:1), especially for sanctifying priests (e.g Ex.29:7) and kings (e.g. 1Sam.10:1), and by analogy prophets also though there is no specific record of a literal anointing of one such (but note Ps.105:15). Drink offerings were poured out, e.g. Ex.29:40, which might be of water or wine.

Above all, the OT promised pouring of the divine Spirit forms the most significant background to the NT rite of baptism, see Is.32:15; 44:3; Ezk.39:29; Jol.2;28f; Zech.12:10; all which takes the NT baptism of the Holy Spirit as fulfillment, see Act.2:16ff and 10:45-47 (note the connection in both contexts to ritual baptism). It is rational to recognize that outpouring by ritual sign may call the thing signified to mind.

Next Q. Recall previous comment on the suitability of sprinkling for ceremonial washing (referred to in the NT as baptism) in a desert setting. The portable Tabernacle laver was a modestly large, general bucket containing water for cleansing needs, not a vat for putting an instrument in (much less a person). If the laver was treated as a "bath," it would be useless after a single employment, the clean water now rendered contaminated, requiring immediate replenishment (not simple at any time, let alone in a desert). Sacrifices were made ceaselessly during the day, not just at set times, as both the regular rituals and personal use of the altar and priesthood demanded, meaning that there was constant need for pure water for ritual purification of the implements of the altar. And no, just any source was NOT allowed for ritual provision on the basis of "need;" compare God's judgment against Nadab and Abihu for them sourcing fire ("strange fire") from somewhere other than the divinely lit altar when they went to offer incense.

The increase of the laver-provision in the Temple era doesn't indicate a new method for ritual cleansing, as there is no indication the law underwent a shift. The conditions were no more desert, the land was rich in resources, and it was appropriate to put the glory of God on display in numerous enhancements of the original religious presentation. The water was still sprinkled, poured, and applied in various other standard ways of which we may lack specific description in the sacred record, but done by divine approval; but we can safely exclude a vat or bath of increasingly contaminated water used like we use the kitchen sink to wash our dinner dishes.

There may have been certain approved "immersions" for ritual cleansing, but no prescription for such is hinted at in the Law of Moses, originally given in a desert setting where exceeding rare was the availability of copious water (other than the rock giving drinking/washing water following them as it were through the desert); tent-dwellers (especially an army's worth) have never been body-dippers, lacking the physical means.

Nevertheless, it still is the case that dipping/immersion can fulfill the instance of a "sign" pointing to a baptismal reality. "Burial" within a watery-grave of sorts could be legitimated as mode, given the two NT texts that appear to connect baptism and burial, Rom.6:4 and Col.2:12. As burial is not the only NT illustration-by-baptism, I don't believe these two texts are dispositive of baptism's signification and thus compelling for modal use. Baptism is likened to putting on clothes (Gal.3:27) and a refreshing drink (1Cor.12:13; cf. the correlation found in Mt.20:22-23). One mode cannot exhaust all the biblical imagery we can find, and no mode may be able to put into visual experience this or that allusion to baptism in the Bible.

Baptism is a ritual judgment, as 1Cor.10:1-2 and 1Pet.3:21 demonstrate. We don't actually drown (as the Lord's enemies did in the Red Sea and in the flood), but by faith we are united to Christ in his death, and raised on account of his resurrection. I don't think there is anything inherently misplaced by immersion mode, simply because the ungodly were destroyed in their immersion; the believer dies in Christ's death, and does not abide in the power of death at all; and the immersed person does not remain under the water. Still, I find preferable the Christian's symbolic identification with the Israelites, who were not immersed, but even the soles of their feet were dry as they went through the ritual judgment safe, being united to their mediator Moses. That preference cannot prevent me from acknowledging that immersion could be an effective sign pointing to the thing signified.

Finally, the application of water is typically by hand, either cupping water or sprinkling it with the fingers. But in some non-immersion baptisms, cups or some other implement for applying the water (in non-specific amount) may be found.

I hope this is helpful.

Rev. Buchanan, I always appreciate your thorough and richly redemptive-historical responses to tough questions, and I am always edified by them. A question I have regarding what you said about immersion as the mode of baptism: why does Chaney in his book refer to immersion as an unscriptural mode, to the point that it would violate the pastor’s conscience in the book to baptize William via immersion? It seems from what you said, as well as WCF 28.3 (which seems to render mode somewhat as a thing indifferent, though not entirely), that the language of Chaney’s book (he actually refers to immersionism as a “heresy,” though in this context he likely just means “error”) is rather strong. I have seen reference to a book by W.A. MacKay that has similarly strong opinions on it.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

A question I have regarding what you said about immersion as the mode of baptism: why does Chaney in his book refer to immersion as an unscriptural mode, to the point that it would violate the pastor’s conscience in the book to baptize William via immersion? It seems from what you said, as well as WCF 28.3 (which seems to render mode somewhat as a thing indifferent, though not entirely), that the language of Chaney’s book (he actually refers to immersionism as a “heresy,” though in this context he likely just means “error”) is rather strong. I have seen reference to a book by W.A. MacKay that has similarly strong opinions on it.

I'm sure the answer lies in the polemics of baptismal debate. Immersion was (and is) an insistence by most of the Baptist persuasion, an idea the WCF specifically renounces in contradiction of the typical Baptist position. More than likely, those authors you mention gave short-shrift to any possibility that the immersionist mode ought to be given the least credit; which thought would seem compelling (or so I should think) when immersion had every appearance in their time and place of being an innovation. The Anabaptists had already and most willingly alleged they had resurrected a dead practice, at least in western Europe. The (false) logic goes: "We're good, biblical people; ergo, if we do something, it must be biblical and best; immersion is practically unheard of; we don't do it, ergo, it's exclusion must be biblical; and besides, these odd folk insist on it, so it's probably cultish and a dangerous error/heresy." What's the point of attending to a positive, scriptural argument for the other side? Polemics have rendered the opposite side unreasonable; our biblical justification is apriori unassailable.

I don't agree that that WCF statement goes so far as to find immersion mode un- or really anti-scriptural; but is carefully worded specifically to confront the (radical) position that only immersion mode made a baptism legitimate (being a necessary, though not sufficient condition in a certain Baptist conception). And in the earlier day and setting, immersion was definitely a distinctive of that portion of the minority non-conformist ecclesiastical scene. Now alive in an era when there are many more Baptists about, and mainline Presbyterianism has defected from the faith generally, we few who maintain what was once a majority practice with a robust biblical defense are not well-served by brusque dismissals from a past era. We should grant both a hearing and award points to our opponent when he makes a biblical case--we might say, "That's true, as far it goes; which in my opinion is less mileage than you aim for it." By listening and learning, we potentially open up the ears of our opposites to a comparable rehearsal of our biblical case--one that many of them have literally no idea exists (when attributing all our conviction to binding traditions).

For my part, while I'm not conscience-bound to avoid immersion, because of the WCF's position I would not baptize by immersion someone who insisted on it as a matter of his conscience. It would be important in that case to delay baptism into our fellowship, until that crisis of conscience was past, and he could recognize both his own baptism and that of the rest (or most) of the congregation as "one baptism." But I suppose as well, that there remain pastors who refuse the immerse-mode because they are not persuaded immersion is in any sense proper; I believe they should not violate their conscience. They are the polemic contrary to the Baptist who is just as adamant, against the impropriety of all other modes.