July 4, 2004
Is Baptism by Sprinkling Valid?
Titus 3:5. [Jesus] saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit. [my emphasis]Baptism is a key part of the Christian life, but there are different theories on how Baptism should be performed (we discussed the need for Baptism here). Here I want to address the question of whether Baptism requires the immersion into water of the person being baptized.
It’s actually an interesting discussion because so many protestant groups would say “yes, sprinkling is invalid.” My Southern Baptist pastor used to insist this was true and would rebaptize those who had not been “dunked.” So what’s the problem with requiring immersion? There are two key issues.
First, this is an error of “legalism.” By that I mean this requirement suggests that the power of Baptism lies not in God, but in some ritual procedure. Yes, it is preferred that Baptism be by immersion into water - the Catholic Church agrees - however, this is “preferred” not “required.” This legalism would be akin to me saying that prayer only “works” when you are on your knees (God doesn’t hear you when you aren’t). Sure, the preferred position of prayer is that of Christ in Gethsemani on His knees, but your physical position can’t essentially block the ears of God.
This brings us to the second error: by requiring immersion, we seem to suggest that God can’t work through a drop of water - He can only work through a large pool of water. In other words, we limit the power of God in an odd way. God can cleanse us through a single drop if He so desires, it is the power of God, not the amount of water, through which we are saved.
God has chosen to work through water, but He did not indicate that a certain amount was required. God often uses physical objects for healing purposes - remember the mud that cured the blind and the garment of Jesus (and of Peter in Acts) that healed the sick. But God never suggests that specific amounts of those physical objects must be used - it would start to feel like sorcery if He did!
Ultimately, God did not require baptism by immersion and still does not - He can work with a single drop of water and a repenting man. It’s interesting that often those pushing these requirements are the same who quickly suggest that Jesus didn’t mean it when He said, “You must eat my flesh and drink my blood or your have no life in you.” They are adding words and subtracting meaning.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Jay,
I believe the big difference is that we belive baptism is public declaration of your Christianity and not what makes you a Christian. Thats why we don't believe in baptising infants who are not at an age of accountabilty, already pure in God's eyes.Its same reason why you wouldn't have a baby take part in the eucharist or communion, they don't really know whats going on or the significance of it.
Beings saved is more than a series of rituals, it is a relationship with the living God.
On the protestant side of things we have our traditions that can be abused too. The "Sinners prayer" is often used but sometimes a perons in motivated by emotion and doesn't realize what they are doing.
Back to the sprinkling argument. There are merrits to sprinkling if there is not enough water to immerse otherwise. I don't see a valid reason to not do it the way it was done in the bible other than "that's the way we've always did it". There is a lot of symbolism misssed with Christ and his death and ressurection if its not done by immersion. I agree that immersion is not an absolute but I don't agree that someone is saved without making a choice to be saved.
Now for the history lesson, Baptism or Mikvah was not foreign too the Jews. It was used pre-christian era as for cleansing rituals. For a levite there were many things that could make him ritually unclean, touching the dead or non-kosher meat, they would do a Mikvah often. Also, before a person could enter the temple in Jerusalem they also had go through a Mikvah. Evem a woman on her monthly cycle would have to go through this Mikvah ritual at the end to signafy that she was clean again. Offcourse as you can guess Mikvah was straigh immersion and not a sprinkling. Infact a Mikvah could contain no less than 40 Sa'ah or 150 gallons of water. Talk about legalistic!!! I could go into more detail about need for witnesses to make sure your were fully soaked by the water and the amount of times you had to go under the water, etc..... But I think you get the point. Is sprinkling ok? According to the bible and tradition it doesn't come near to what a baptism actually is.
I encourage you when you find your self studying the bible to use a lexicon so you can see the original language and get a clearer meaning for yourself of what the deeper meanings are.
God Bless
Posted by: Stan at July 5, 2004 1:29 AMStan,
There are several problems with the notion that Baptism is merely symbolic - just a "public declaration" of your commitment to Christ. First, take a look at the quote I started this article with (Titus 3:5) where Paul writes that Jesus saved us "by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit" - a clear reference to the necessity of Baptism. The article I link to above includes several other Scriptural references to the reality and power of baptism.
Baptism washes away original sin and prepares us for grace from God. This is why an infant can receive baptism. Note that in the Bible many times it refers to entire families being baptised; it would be silly to suggest that none of those families had children under a certain age. The Bible never suggests that someone is too young to be baptised and, in fact, Christ warns us never to stop children from coming to Him.
Having said that, you bring up a good point: if a protestant church has already stripped any power from the sacrament of Baptism, why does it matter if they introduce ritual? Baptism washes away original sin and Catholics correctly note that the important thing is that you are baptised - in John 3:5 Jesus states that "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." That's enough reason to baptise my children right there! But if you see baptism as a public declaration of fealty, then it makes some sense to limit it to adults, but again this is the problem of sola scriptura: you can read the entire Bible and miss the importance of Baptism.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
Just to correct you or give the other side. Paul was talking about the baptism of the holy spirit which is not water baptism but a spirtual one. Water points to the holy spirit it does not equal it. Thats another reason why we do immersion it points to the immersion in the Holy spirit. Sprinkling of the holy spirit does really sound right.
Posted by: Stan at July 5, 2004 6:21 PMStan,
The Greek is "through a bath of rebirth," which I think is a clear reference to baptism - why would Paul use a term that cannot occur without water if he did not want us to think of water? I'll also refer to St. Jerome, the great Scriptural expert:
Titus 3:5. uprightness: The language of justification found here probably is derived not directly from Paul himself, but from Eph 2:8-9 (or a prior popular summation utilized by both texts). through a bath of rebirth: i.e., baptism. The author uses a commonplace from Hellenistic religious language, palingenesia, "rebirth," to express Paul's notion of "new creation."
Notice that he doesn't feel the need to even develop an argument for this being baptism - he takes it for granted that everyone sees it.
I think the only way this verse could be seen as not referring to baptism is if you've decided beforehand that it doesn't - in other words, the reader would have to force the interpretation onto Scripture, rather than derive the interpretion from what the passage says.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
Didn't say it wasn't baptism, I just said it was a different type of baptism a spiritual kind. John the baptist said of Jesus "I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." Mark 1:8. Jesus said in Acts when speaking of the day of pentacost "John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
What do think they are talking about?
Stan,
Baptism still requires water. However, until Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit descended upon the leaders of the Church), the water was merely symbolic in nature. It did not have the cleansing power Paul speaks about until the Holy Spirit elevated it to a Sacrament with actual benefits, e.g. the removal of original sin. Remember, Paul isn't saying the word "baptism," he's saying "through a bath of rebirth" and making a clear reference to literal baptism with water. I don't know of many churches who would teach water is unnecessary for baptism!
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
Your site is a very valuable way to understand the catholic point of view and I thank you.
"Baptism still requires water" by this do you mean that any reference to "spiritual baptism" is a reference to the baptism you do today by water.
Also I would differ with you that every time paul speaks of baptism he is talking about a literal water baptism.
On a side not I did some more research on pre-christian baptism I think you'll find of interest.
Another use for jewish baptism or Mikvah was in the conversion process. For a Gentile to become a Jew/join Judaism he had to first be instructed in the faith. Then circumscized. After he had healed he then would immerse himself in water in a witnessed ceremony. Immediately after he would be given all rights and privileges of Judaism.
Stan,
I think your reference to pre-Christian baptism shows that baptism inherently includes the use of water, even from the earliest days. I don't believe Jesus or Paul intended to change baptism, but simply get across the point that it now (post-Pentecost) contains the power of God to cleanse.
Even if you hold to the view that there is non-water baptism, in the Titus quote Paul specifically uses the analogy of a "bath," which I think you would agree always includes water - it's difficult to conceive of a "dry" bath, which is a good description of baptism in my mind. So here, Paul I think you would agree Paul is talking about the use of water - most translations use either "bath" or "washing."
To sum up, I believe even "spiritual" baptisms include the use of water and always were intended to - Jesus is very fond of using physical elements to heal us through. I believe in particular this verse shows this truth, since Paul uses the term "washing" or "bath."
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
Thanks helping to clear up the Catholic point of view. I have a messianic brother who would sum up our differences well. He would say that you look to more physical side things while I look the the non-physical or spiritual. I believe the things that really affect us happen out side of the physical realm. God is spirit. It can make us, espicially Pentacostals, sound like our heads are in the clouds or we are biased against anything physically divine.
Posted by: Stan at July 7, 2004 1:25 PMThe Roman Catholic Church also teaches of baptism by desire (for those who have had no real opportunity to embrace the gospel) and baptism by blood (for catechumens who are martyred for the faith before baptism).
I believe the Church only uses those terms only for people who have died. So although water is not strictly necessary, it is for anyone while they are alive.
Posted by: Richard Wan at July 7, 2004 3:10 PMI just wanted to pop in and say hello... HAve gone the complete circuit from catholicism, to pentecostalism, to baptist style churches, to messianic, now I find myself back, thru much bible study, in the arms of the one true, complete church, catholicism... It was not out of choice but having been led. with all the negativity such as CHICK publications and others, I found some of the esagerations so unwelcoming of christians and when I did old testament studies of new testament fulfillments, I found more truth in what catholicism teaches than an other. it is with this introduction, I would like to offer some insight into baptism, from the bible, (for the sola scriptura people.. even tho we all know it wsa thru oral tradition that we have coeme to know which books of the new testament were used extensively and which were not an accepted),
Be it as that may, baptism by sprinkling was always the type in the old testament.. In hebrews for instance, the "bptisms" refered to were all old testament rituals and when we go back to those rituals, ALL, bar none, were by sprinkling or pouring over your head, not immersioin... The blood of Chrsit is spiritually sprinkled on your heart, the ashes f the red heifer, sprinkled for your cleansing...
For now, as this is a very vyer LARGE subject with an overwhelming amount of study material in the bible that teaches conclusively, (we use the bible right? Not bible dictionaries which bias to the translator and which are not the bible itself.. wink)
When John "baptised", the jews were expecting whom? They were expecting Messiah. Even SOME asked if John was the messiah and he refuted this. Now, why would they think JOhn wsa the messiah? Because of what he was doing.. baptising... ( the reason for a baptism of repentance is more exhatological or prophetic which we can discuss in time), but what did the old testament teach of the coming messiah?
Isaiah taught us the following:
Isaiah 52:15:
-------------
He shall sprinkle many nations
What is the great commision? To go out and baptise and evangelize the world.. aka.. many nations.... continuing:
John's baptism of repentance for the remission of sins was in fact, a pouring over or sprinkling, as per fulfilled prophecy and old testament type, ( to make it valid and as a marker to who he was)
This also fulfilled Ezekiel 36:25, 26:
--------------------------------------
I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall he clean; from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you and a new Spirit will I put within you.
It was this latter part that John referred to in
MAtthew 3:11:
-------------
He (the Messiah) shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit”?
Wsa not Jouhn fulfilling the former part?
Additionally, when the pharisees questioned John,, they said "why baptiseth thou? If what John did wsa not already was was EXACTLY prescribed in the old testament, (since they were such legalists), it would have been easy to defrauck John and show taht he wsa not a prophet, or true priest... Instead, their question was why do you do this?
Consier when Chrsit wsa baptised. WHy? Because it wa to fulfill ALL RIGHTEOUSNES OF THE LAW.
What was the law? That a priest wsa set apart at age 30. and how was that done?
This is found in Numbers 8:7: “Sprinkle water of purifying upon them.”
No immersion there.. Christ was sprinkled....
Aaron and his sons were also anointed with oil
Leviticus 8:30
---------------
Moses took of the anointing oil...and sprinkled it upon Aaron...and upon his sons
Acts 10:38
-----------
God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost”
Thus, we see that the method wsa first the pattern, (remember, all things are patterned afte the spiritual) The pattern was water sprinkling, (John sprinkled Chrsit), then, the dove descended and Chrsit was poured over or anointed.. (oil poured over his head, as in the anointing or christening of a king..... One ALWAYS FOLLOWS THE OTHER...
To sumarize, baptism wsa prophecized in Ezekiel :
Ezekiel 36:25
“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.”
For those who think this is all future, (besides the issue tt why would God change the way he did things, going back to sprinkling for the jews in the future), and besides teh fact that prophetically, this was already fulfilled in the first century, let's go thru some parallel passages to PROVE fulfillment of these verses old to new:
Ezekiel 36:28
-------------
Ye shall be my people, and I will be your God
II Cor. 6:16
------------
“I will be their God, and they shall be my people”
Heb. 8:10
---------
“I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people”
Rev. 21:3
----------
“Men...shall be his people, and God himself shall be...their God”
The passages show tht the promise wsa to those who accepted Chrsit and so it was given to the jew first, then the gentiles..... This was to show that those passages were fulfilled, and now, some other examples in the same chapters...
Ezek. 36:25-27
--------------
“I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and ye shall keep my judgments and do them”
Sprinkling precedes the receiving of the spirit.. how much distortion do those who feel we have to be immersed only have to make to change prophecy to make it man's tradition?
here are the NT fulfillment s of this, (which are very evident to all)
Acts 2:38
----------
“John baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit”
Acts 1:5
----------
“Be baptized...and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”
Acts 10:47
-----------
“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit?”—
Heb. 10:16
-----------
“I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them”
God’s promises in Ezekiel 36:25, 27 (“will sprinkle clean water,” “will put my Spirit”) were assuredly fulfilled when John baptized by sprinkling with water most of the Jews in Palestine, and when the Holy Spirit fell upon the 3120 at Pentecost (3000 of whom were baptized with water the same day).
Additionally, and I don';t have the time at this second to gather the pasages but there are a GREAT many passages taht speak of "baptizmo" in the new testament that mean washing or sprinkling and in many areas where it says "baptismpo", it refers back to an old testament ritual which we know FOR FACT, means sprinkling in the hebrew and was done accordingly thru other passages....
Fr now, this was one area I wanted to offer some insights into.. I was baptised in the catholic church, rebatpised by immersion, then again, later, baptised in the name of Jesus only.. Yes, I was led by the false prophets of modern churches whom all had their "sorceries" or specific rituals, had to be done exactly a certain way, etc.... But upon truly studying the bible, I found that the baptists and others got it wrong and for those who suppossedly brought the bible to the people,(cuz the church was hiding something in their eyes) their private interpretations lack true biblical depth.....
God Bless
CArmine
Jay,
I find it interesting that you would call the Baptist view of immersion "legalism". I also find it interesting that you believe that the Catholic Church believes that immersion is best as well. How can the Catholic church belive this, when they do not practice it (in general) instead they have given their member the message that they must have their babies sprinkled to avoid going to hell if they perish. This sounds more like "legalism" to me.
The Baptist position would not be legalism, rather they would disagree that "sprinkling" is not baptism. It is "rantizo" not "baptizo" in the greek, if God had intended for us to sprinkle, I believe that He knew enough Greek to tell us the proper method. But He used "baptizo" which we have proof texts from non-Biblical sources (200BC) that show "baptizo" being used with no doubt in its intended meaning.
The Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. wrote a recipe for making pickles. It says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
Anyway, we believe that sprinkling is not Baptism so really it is not a legalism about mode, it is a basis of truth about the definition of what Baptism is.
By the way, nice site!
Bruce
Posted by: Bruce at March 30, 2005 7:42 PMBruce,
Legalism is a strict adherence to a particular rule. Such as the rule that those being baptized must be immersed or the baptism isn't valid. This suggests that the power lies in the ritual, not in God. If God can baptize through water, why does it matter how much?
Yes, immersion is the preferred method, but this certainly doesn't mean baptisms that don't use immersion are invalid. Remember, God performs the act, not man, not the ritual. Thus God can work through a drop of water as effectively as he can worth through an ocean of it.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
Please understand that I totally agree with you about the ability of God, however part of your lack of understanding on this issue is that you do not fully understand the baptism of Christ.
Jesus was baptised by John in the Jordan so that all righteousness could be fulfilled. This baptism was immersion much the same as the high priest would have to undergo before taking his position. So here we have Jesus being immersed.
Likewise we believe that Baptism is a representation of the new life we have in Christ, this is representative of having our old self buried with Him and then rising up out of the water to new life given by Him. Sprinkling does not show this.
I have a presbyterian brother who would probably agree with you about how baptism brings us into the new covenant of Christ. Here is the problem with this mindset.
1. The OT covenant sign was circumscision, the NT sign of the new covenant is Baptism, this is the logic that most padeo baptist's use. However if this is the case then you should not baptise females, they were only in the covenant by marriage or while in their father's house. You must see that the new covenant is spiritual and not physical, the sign of the new covenant should only be applied to those who have experienced new birth in Christ.
2. The Bible never tells us to Baptise children nore does it ever mention sprinkling. The only Biblical proofs for this practice are "read in" to the text based on infants would be a part of the household. We have no proof of this nor do we have proof that they would have been baptised. If when Jesus fed the 5000 we believe that was only the Men and so there were more people there when you count women and children. Why would we think that when the word household was used that the intent was Children who had not professed faith in Christ were included?
I am not arguing about "mode" here alone, rather I am making a stance that sprinkling anyone who has not professed faith in Christ is not baptism. We only see Baptism preformed in the scripture after repentance. There is no basis for the RC ritual of infant baptism.
Sorry
Bruce
Posted by: Bruce at March 31, 2005 12:50 PMBruce,
First let me suggest some of our other articles:
- Baptism: The Gateway to Life offers the basics of what baptism actually acheives.
- Should Infants be Baptized? answers this question through Scripture.
You overlook much by simplifying your argument to the above post. For example, 1 Peter 3:21 says that Baptism now saves us. Acts 2:38-39 says baptism is for us and our children. Collossians 2:11-12 equates Baptism as the Sacrament replacing circumcision. Mark 16:16 says "he who believes and is baptized will be saved."
In other words, Scripture supports my position much more than yours. The simple "women weren't circumcised, so this can't be" doesn't hold water for a couple of reasons. First, going back to the Scripture that says "and his household" were baptized. Note that the Scripture doesn't say that his household "believed" in any of these cases. It says "he believed" and his household was baptized. Thus, Scripture separates "belief" from the ability to receive baptism. Second, there are several versses (including the one above) that suggest baptism is essential to salvation. But I can't find any that say "children shouldn't be baptized" or that "sprinkling isn't valid." Please correct me if I'm wrong. You seem to suggest that if it doesn't appear in the Bible, it can't happen, but even Baptists would disagree with that notion (where is popular election of pastors in the Bible?).
So, Scripture agrees that Baptism replaces circumcision (Col 2 above). Scripture says Baptism is required for Salvation (Mark & 1 Pet above). Scripture certainly suggests that a husband can choose baptism for his wife and children (remember: the scourge of contraception didn't exist in Biblical times, so most families had children - and Jesus plainly said we are not to stop children from coming to him). Baptism removes sins (Acts 2:38 - be baptized for the forgiveness of sins).
So if we believe we are all born with original sin, and baptism removes sins. Why would we not baptize infants to remove original sin? Especially since the Bible does not condemn it and strongly suggests the apostles did this? In one of the articles above I also show that since the beginning the Church has baptized infants - long before the anabaptists decided it was wrong (fyi - Luther recommended they be killed for this teaching, because it was such a large error).
Also see the verses quoted by Carmine above. I hope you take the time to read the other articles.
God bless,
Jay
