WHICH METHOD OF BAPTISM IS BIBLICAL?
Reproduction of article published in the 7th November 2022 issue of British Church Newspaper

Which method of Baptism is Biblical?

 

By Guest Writer Adrian V W Freer © 2022

​

A LOCAL controversy, in­volving genuine believers - who had attended holy communion for many years - be­ing barred from the communion table, solely on the basis of how they underwent the rite of baptism, caused me to look into the Scrip­tures to see what guidance they gave on the mode of baptism. It had become a divisive issue, with both sides adopting rigid positions, not always as soundly rooted in the Bible as they claimed. As believers in Christ, we should always seek to follow biblical guidelines alone, never going beyond what is record­ed in the Scriptures. We must be­ware of men’s rules and regulations (Mark 7: 7-8]

 

WHICH METHOD OF BAPTISM IS CORRECT?

 

Baptism is a sign or seal of what has already taken place in the be­liever’s life. When the importance of the method of the outward rite takes precedence over the inner spiritual dimension, we are on dan­gerous ground. For example, Mar­tyn Lloyd-Jones said, “To say that complete immersion is absolutely essential is not only to go beyond the scriptures but is indeed to verge upon heresy”(1).

I shall look solely at the mode of baptism, not the separate is­sues surrounding pae­do-baptism.

So readers can under­stand where I am com­ing from, I am from a non-church back­ground, was christened as an infant, but later, as a believer, under­went baptism by full immersion as an adult. I had therefore under­stood that full immer­sion was the only valid method of baptism.

The various methods/degree of baptism can be loosely summarized as follows:

​

• Anointing

• Sprinkling

• Dipping

• Pouring

• Immersion

• Triple immersion (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

 

Which of these are biblical? How do Baptists interpret matters? The only two ‘proof texts’ for full im­mersion, taken from the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, are Matthew 3:18, ‘When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immedi­ately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him,’ and John 3:23, ‘Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, be­cause there was much water there. And they came and were baptized.’ I suggest that there is nothing here that conclusively proves that total immersion was the method used. The texts do not actually say full immersion was used. It may well have been, but the Scriptures are silent on the matter.

If full immersion is so important a doctrine, almost a touchstone of saving faith for some ‘full immer­sion’ Baptists, the Scriptures would surely be unambiguous on the mat­ter. We must not read into the Scrip­tures what we might wish them to say, rather than what they actually say. Here are several instances in the New Testament where baptism is mentioned:

 

PENTECOST

 

At the first Pentecost (Acts 2, esp. verse 41) pouring would seem the most likely option. If, at Pentecost, 3,000 were fully immersed at two minutes a time, this would take 100 hours to complete. If the work was split amongst all the apostles, it would take 9 hours and it would be pitch dark by then. Notice that it says that they were baptized ‘that day’.

 

THE PHILIPPIAN JAILER

 

In the case of the Philippian jail­er and his household (Acts 16:16-40) we are nowhere told how he and his household were baptized, but we are told he was baptized ‘at once’, implying the baptism was on the spot. There would no interval while Paul led them to the nearest river. Moreover, how likely is it that the Roman soldiers would allow Paul, Silas, the jailer and his family to leave the prison in the dead of night? Remember Paul and Silas were in the inner prison, se­cured in the stocks. If they had es­caped, the soldiers’ lives would be forfeit.

 

THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH

 

In the account of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) we are told that, ‘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.’ The passage does not implicitly de­scribe baptism by full immersion. It simply states that both went into the water together, the eunuch was baptized and both came up out of the water.

 

CORNELIUS, HIS RELATIVES AND CLOSE FRIENDS

 

In the record of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48), after the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles, we are told Peter’s words, “Can anyone with­hold water for baptizing these peo­ple, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” Again nothing here expressly indicates full immersion.

 

OTHER EXAMPLES OF BAP­TISM

 

Acts records twelve instances of baptism (e.g. Paul, Lydia, Crispus, the Samaritans, Corinthians, Ephe­sians, etc.) but in not one of the accounts is the precise manner of baptism recorded. That must surely indicate that the actual mode of the rite is not of huge consequence.

 

STORAGE OF WATER IN NEW TESTAMENT TIMES

 

In New Testament times, water was a precious commodity that was stored in large jars for use when needed (see the Wedding in Cana, John 2:1-11). Baths in private residences, except those of the wealthy, were uncommon (2). Public baths were a fea­ture throughout the Roman Empire, although there is no recorded instance of them being used for baptism in the Bible.

 

THE GREEK WORD ‘BAPTIZO’

 

Those who favour full im­mersion emphasise the Greek word ‘baptizo’ [βαπτίζω], but this word has a wide range of meanings, e.g. to dip, im­merse, plunge, wash, bathe, overwhelm, or even to dye. To pick the meaning that suits your argument is dubious.

Significantly Luke 11:37 re­cords that ‘The Pharisee was astonished to see that he [Je­sus] did not first wash (same Greek word ‘baptizo’) before dinner.’ The Pharisees’ ceremonial washing rite entailed washing the hands and forearms to just above the elbow - but not taking a bath. When taking a bath, it is not usual to fully submerge the head beneath the water. Curiously, the same word is used in the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Old Testament where, in Leviticus 14, it describes how two birds were taken, one killed, and the second ‘dipped’ [i.e. ‘baptised’] in the blood of the first. Clearly there would be insufficient blood in the first bird to totally im­merse the second.

Although there are nu­merous New Testament examples of baptism, scholars are agreed that baptism by full im­mersion is not actually described anywhere in the Scriptures. It ap­pears presumptuous therefore to insist on full immersion. What is perturbing is how easi­ly and seamlessly ideas that have no specific warrant from the Scrip­tures can be embraced simply because things have always been done that way. Did the Ana­baptists, for example, purposely choose to­tal immersion to make their mode of baptism as unlike the Roman Catholic ‘pouring’ rite (3) as possible?

 

DEPICTIONS OF BAPTISM IN ART

 

Images from the cat­acombs of very early baptisms invariably depict ‘pour­ing’. Similarly, most portrayals in classical art show pouring as the method used. I suggest that is sig­nificant.

 

SUMMARY

 

Whilst it is important to do things in a proper manner, a fellowship ought not to exclude those whom the Lord has saved, nor put an ex­tra-biblical burden on them. Our Lord was kind, compassionate and gentle. Can the same be said of those who put unscriptural ob­stacles in the way of those whom Christ has bought with His pre­cious blood?

If baptism by full immersion is truly the only acceptable method, it would mean that many highly re­spected Christians would fall into the category of not being ‘real’ believers at all. But some believ­ers may think differently. We are warned not to judge others, lest we be similarly judged (Matthew 7:1-5).

This is not a peripheral matter. Just as in Roman Catholicism, faith-plus the Mass, etc. is deemed essential for salvation; so extreme Baptists insist on faith-plus total immersion for true believers. The essence of the Gospel is ultimately at stake.

 

A PLEA FOR TOLERANCE

 

My article is a plea for tolerance, forbearance and unity amongst be­lievers who hold differing views over what I suggest is a peripheral issue. The mark of a cult is often a new revelation or interpretation that goes beyond what the Scrip­ture teaches. Insistence on full im­mersion appears to go beyond the Scriptures. If church leaders en­force what may be their own think­ing, and true believers are made unwelcome, this does the cause of the Church of Jesus Christ no fa­vours at all.

My personal view, having studied the matter carefully and prayerful­ly, is that I would fully accept bap­tism by either sprinkling, pouring or immersion as equally valid, with no particular method preferred above another, providing the rite symbolizes the new birth and cere­monial purification of the believer.

In this view I am reinforced by John Wesley’s opinion in his lengthy ‘Treatise on Baptism’: “Baptism is performed by wash­ing, dipping, or sprinkling the per­son, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost...I say, by washing, dipping, or sprinkling; because it is not determined in Scripture in which of these ways it shall be done…”.

Jesus warned the Pharisees about tithing mint, dill and cumin, but missing out on the real issues. We must likewise be on our guard. Scripture tells us that heaven will be populated by those of every tribe and language. So we should be equally welcoming in our fel­lowships to those of diverse, but biblical, views from our own.

 

Notes:

1. Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ sermon No 8304 on Baptism (at 46 minutes 25 seconds):

https://www.mljtrust.org/sermons-online/great-biblical-doctrines/baptism/

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_bathing

3. Extract from Roman Catholic baptism rite: ‘The person baptizing should pour the water three times on the person’s head and use a good amount of water, so that it really flows on the person’s head.’

 

Adrian Freer was former co-leader of Gaulby Reformed Evangelical Anglican Fellowship, which upheld Reformation doctrines. He has authored several books, his latest being ‘The Book of Benedictions’, published in July this year.

 

​