Baptism is a big deal. The Christian Church worldwide (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) all agree that it’s related to the beginning of a person’s Christian life and the believer’s initiation into the church (both the universal invisible church and the local visible church). It is performed and received as an act of obedience to Christ who himself was baptized (Matt.3:13) and commissioned his followers to baptize all people (Matt. 28:19). Again, all churches that call themselves Christian agree on these things. Not all, however, agree on the following:

• How should it be done? (Part 1)
• When should it be done? (Part 2) And, most importantly…
• Why should it be done?  

The following is written from an evangelical and Presbyterian perspective to give guidance on these questions in a way that 1) is thorough and honest with the evidence and 2) seeks to intentionally facilitate genuine professions of faith.

How should it be done?

How much water should be used? Should baptism be done by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion? Does it even matter? Great leaders and thinkers like John Calvin, for example, were of the opinion that “whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should be only sprinkled with poured water- these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries.”[1] Although the amount of water used is not of primary importance, several dictionary, historical, and biblical considerations are significant in deciding on the proper mode of baptism:

1. It’s true that the primary meaning of the word baptize in Classical Greek is “immerse or dip.” Because it is used as a theological term in the NT, however, the classical or secular usage cannot always be seen as normative. James Boice points out that if the word always meant “immerse” or “sprinkle” then it wouldn’t be left translated baptize in certain places.[3]  The fact is that in the New Testament (NT) and the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament), baptize can have a range of meanings and be used both literally and figuratively. As D.A. Carson explains in his book Exegetical Fallacies, we cannot just take the lexicographical meaning of a word and pick the meaning that suits our purposes. We have to determine how the word is used in its context and the context limits the meaning of a word. Here are a few examples where baptize cannot mean immerse and where washing, sprinkling, and/or pouring are implied by the context: Luke 11:38; Acts 1:5; 2:3-4; 17; 1 Cor. 10:1-2; Heb. 9:10-23.  To add to this, here are other passages where the work of the Spirit is “poured out” or applied to individuals in a figurative sense: John 1:33; Prov. 1:23; Isa. 32:15; Isa. 44:3; Ezek. 39:29; Joel 2:28,29; Mark 1:10; and Titus 3:6. The lexicographical evidence, then, shows sprinkling or pouring to not only be an allowable translation of baptize in many passages, but also the best translation in some instances as well.
2. Historically, in the evidence we have from the early post-apostolic period, baptism was usually by immersion. For example, The Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, an early second-century document (100-110), prefers that it be done in “living,” that is, running water. But where water was scarce it could be administered by pouring water three times over the head, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…”[4] Interestingly, the earliest artist’s depictions (see above) show baptism by pouring (sometimes referred to as “affusion”).
3. Many who would defend immersion as the only valid means of baptism would do so from Romans 6:3-4. While I agree that this passage is speaking about water baptism and that baptism by immersion is the best way to visually represent this passage, there is more here than at first meets the eye. On closer inspection, we see that we are not just buried as Christ was buried; we are buried with him.  This being the case, as Doug Moo points out, “Baptism does not symbolize our being buried with Christ; it is the means ‘through’ which we are identified with Him.” In other words, baptism is described here as the means by which we are brought into relationship with Christ.[5]  Certainly, this is a stronger statement regarding water baptism than many evangelicals, especially Baptists, would be comfortable with. How are we to understand it? For those who share the biblical conviction that faith is the critical means by which we get into relationship with God (e.g. Romans 4:5, 5:1, etc.), and reject the concept of “baptismal regeneration,”[6] Moo’s explanation is helpful: “Although the issue is debated, the studies of James Dunn have convinced me of one critical point: The New Testament presents water baptism as one component of a larger experience, which Dunn calls ‘conversion-initiation.’ Faith, repentance, water baptism, and the gift of the Holy Spirit are four key elements of this ‘coming to Christ’ experience… Baptism for Paul and the other New Testament writers had significance only as one part of a larger experience. It set the seal on one’s conversion. Therefore, baptism in Rom. 6 stands, by synecdoche,[7] for the entire conversion experience.[8] One gets into relationship with God not by baptism itself but by conversion, of which baptism is one key element.”[9]
4. John chapter three is a monumental passage for all concerning salvation. In discussing the concept of being “born again” with Nicodemus, Jesus references being born of “water and the spirit” (verse 5) and the sovereign “wind” of the Spirit (verse 8).  Although Nicodemus is confused, Jesus implies that he should know these things because of his knowledge of the OT (verse 10). What, then, is the OT passage that Jesus is referring to—the one that should have come to Nicodemus’ mind? The passage that most clearly parallels Jesus’ thought is Ezekiel 36:25-27, 32 & 37:4-10.  Chapter 37 talks about the dry bones and how the “wind” (a reference to the Spirit as in John three) will make dead corpses come alive (again, a parallel to being “born again”). In chapter 36, however, the parallel is even clearer. Here water is connected with the coming of the New Covenant. Notice how the water that is applied is associated with the image of having a clean heart:  

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

Ezekiel 36:25-26, ESV

For these reasons, I concur with the following joint statement from Reformed scholars (both Baptists and paedo-baptists) found in the New Geneva Study Bible:

“No prescription of a particular mode can be found in the New Testament. The command to baptize may be fulfilled by immersion, dipping, or sprinkling; all three modes satisfy the meaning of the Greek verb baptizo and the symbolic requirement of passing under, and emerging from cleansing water.”[10]

I’m also comfortable with this statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith that says, “Dipping of a person is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.”[11]

---

[1] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion.

[3] See his discussion in Foundations of the Christian Faith, 598.

[4] Justo Gonzales, The Story of Christianity, Volume I, p.97

[5] 1 Peter 3:21 is also a clear statement of this.

[6] Baptismal regeneration is the idea that we are saved, that is “made alive” or born again, by baptism. See Eph. 2:1-5 to better understand the concept of regeneration.

[7] Synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole (as hand for sailor), the whole for a part (as the law for police officer), the specific for the general (as cutthroat for assassin), the general for the specific (as thief for pickpocket), or the material for the thing from which it is made (as steel for sword).

[8] This explanation also helps the following passages make sense: Acts 2:28; 8:36,38; Col. 2:12; 1 Pet. 3:21.

[9] Douglas J. Moo, The NIV Application Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan) 2000, 203-204.

[10] Geneva Study Bible, See the conclusion of the note on the article on “Baptism” in Rom. 6 on page 1776.

[11] WCF, Chapter XXVIII, III.