Another of many issues of faith that Christians are not agreed upon is what form baptism should take. It has become one of the most controversial subjects in Christianity and a sour spiritual point on which denominations have crossed paths.
Baptism is “a rite of washing with water as a sign of religious purification and consecration.” This rite was practiced frequently in the Old Testament. It signified purity or cleansing from sin and devotion to God. In the New Testament, the significance of baptism is seen more clearly in John the Baptist, who was sent by God to spread the news of the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ. John was directed by God (John 1:33) to baptise those who accepted his message.
John’s baptism is called “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” Those baptised by John acknowledged their sins and professed their faith that through the coming Messiah they would be forgiven. Baptism then is significant in that it represents the forgiveness and cleansing from sin that comes through faith in Jesus Christ.
But as simple as this ritual appears, the way it should be performed on believers has continued to be a serious dispute among the various Christian leaders and denominations the world over. Today, some Christians, particularly Quakers and the Salvation Army, do not see baptism as necessary and do not practice the rite.
Among those that do, differences can be found in the manner and mode of baptising and in the understanding of the significance of the rite. Most Christians baptise “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (following the Great Commission), but some baptise in Jesus’ name only. Most Christians baptise infants while many others hold that only believers’ baptism is true baptism. Some insist on submersion or at least partial immersion of the person who is baptised, others consider that any form of washing by water, as long as the water flows on the head, is sufficient.
The tent of dispute is particularly pitched among the Orthodox churches, Catholic, Anglican Communion, etc who practise baptism by sprinkling of water on the one hand, the Baptist Church, which supports baptism by immersion and the Pentecostal churches, some of which support immersion and many others not identifying with sprinkling or immersion but sticking to the promise of Jesus of sending of Holy Spirit as their own baptism.
Christian denominations differ widely on their teachings about baptism. Some believe baptism accomplishes the washing away of sin. Others consider baptism a form of exorcism from evil spirits. Still others teach that baptism is an important step of obedience in the believer’s life, yet only an acknowledgment of the salvation experience already accomplished, not that it has any power to cleanse or save from sin.
In the days of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), accoding to the Baptists, baptism was performed by totally immersing the convert, in water – typically in a stream, river or lake. Baptism of a new Christian was a major watershed in his or her life. It was normally permitted only after a religious conversion, followed by a lengthy period of study. It was regenerative in that the baptised person’s sins were believed to have been erased during the ritual.
In John Chapter 3 verse 5, Jesus says: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Also in Matthew Chapter 28 verse 19, He says: “Therefore go and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” These two Gospel verses, both quoting Jesus Christ, form the basis for the Christian practice of baptism. However, there is no quicker way to generate controversy among a large gathering of Christians than to start a discussion about baptism.
Beliefs on the subject vary among denominations, churches, etc. Yet, it is told in Holy Scripture, Ephesians 4:4-6: “There is one body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all.” These verses of the Bible clearly state, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God.’ So why are there different beliefs concerning baptism?
Some theologians say it is because there are varying interpretations of what Jesus meant by these verses. According to them, the verses are often interpreted on a stand-alone basis, without considering the complete context of the Holy Bible.
What then does the word ‘Baptism’ mean? Research shows that in the original manuscripts of Scripture, all the various forms of the word baptise are translations from the Greek word ‘baptizo’, which comes from the root word ‘bapto’. The usage of these words, according to Greek scholars, is: ‘bapto’ – to whelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament, only in a qualified or special sense, i.e. (literally) it means to moisten (a part of one’s person). Further research also shows ‘baptizo’ is to immerse, submerge, to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet).
From the above, it can be seen that the meaning depends upon the context of the entire passage where the word is used, for it can mean immersion, moistening, or ceremonial washing. This is what fuels the controversy between ‘sprinklers’ and ‘dippers’.
A number of Christian leaders say “according to the teachings of Holy Scripture, it is merely an outward sign of spiritual rebirth by the ‘quickening’ of, regeneration by, the Holy Spirit, through being washed in the Blood of Jesus Christ.” To them that is the only significance of Baptism. It holds no special power and grants no spiritual gifts or guarantees.
Then, why be baptised? They say the answer to this question is the answer to: What is a Christian? By definition, they argue, ‘a Christian is a follower and emulator of Jesus Christ’. They make reference to Matthew 10:38 where Jesus said: “He who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me.” ‘Follow’ is interpreted from the Greek manuscripts word ‘akoloutheo’, which in this usage means to be in the same way with. Figuratively, to walk in someone else’s shoes. A follower of Jesus Christ believes what He believes and teaches and emulates His life, they added.
This Christian leaders’ position is just one out of the many that diverge on the the issue. One group will say ‘believer’s baptism’ is only accomplished by immersion. The other says that moistening the forehead is acceptable. And it has been shown previously that ‘baptise’ can mean immersion, moistening, or ritual washing.
The disagreement between ‘dippers’ and ‘sprinklers’ is seen by some as reminiscent of the Pharisee’s of Jesus’ time. ‘Being more interested in the form of the law, than in its meaning, they claimed spiritual superiority over everyone else, maintaining that their method was the only one acceptable. Some Christians nevertheless believe that the important thing about baptism is, ‘what it is symbolic of, not if it is done by immersion in water or sprinkling with water.’
But another group of Christians hold the belief that the mode of baptism is as controversial as is the purpose because the purpose of baptism is equated with salvation in Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21; the forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38, 22:16 and Colossians 2:11-13; the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38; circumcision of the heart in Colossians 2:11-13; a new life in Romans 6:3-4; becoming children of God in Galatians 3:26-27; putting on Christ in Galatians 3:27; and being added to the body of Christ in Acts 2:41, 47 and 1 Corinthians 12:13. They argue that the mode of baptism becomes more important than it would be if baptism were not associated with these crucial issues.
Supporters of immersion argue thus: “Matthew 3:5-6 declares that those who came to John the Baptist were ‘baptised of him in Jordan.’ Replace the word baptized with the word sprinkling or pouring and this statement becomes illogical – ‘sprinkled of him in Jordan’ or ‘poured of him in Jordan.’ Replace ‘baptised’ with ‘immersed’ and it makes perfect sense – ‘immersed of him in Jordan.’ If John had been sprinkling or pouring, he and the person whom he was baptizing would have simply stood at the edge of the river; only if J
ohn were immersing would they be in the Jordan River.
“In Mark 1:9-10, Jesus is described as being in and coming up out of the Jordan after being baptised: And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him.This would have only occurred if immersion was the mode.
“In Acts 8, we are informed that both Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch went down into the water prior to the eunuch being baptised, and both came up out of the water following the eunuch being baptised: And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptised him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip…. If pouring or sprinkling meets the requirements for baptism, Philip and the eunuch would have only needed to go to the edge of the water rather than down into the water. In fact, they would not have needed a body of water at all because the eunuch certainly would have been carrying sufficient water with him for sprinkling or pouring, which could have been accomplished right in his chariot.
“Immersion is depicted in these biblical accounts just as it is implicit in the Greek word. Twice the Bible identifies ‘baptisma’ as a burial and a resurrection there from: Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4). In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him…. (Colossians 2:11-12).
Only immersion meets the criteria for a burial and a resurrection.
Baptisma’ is the same word used for Jesus’ suffering and for the baptism with the Holy Spirit. If water baptism is to be performed by sprinkling, then Jesus was only sprinkled with suffering, and those who were baptised with the Holy Spirit were only sprinkled with the Spirit.
“Only immersion satisfies both the Greek word and the biblical context in fulfilling the scriptural command to be baptized.
“The translators of the first Bible into English came to a problem with how to translate the Greek word for ‘baptism.’ The word never meant ‘sprinkle’ or ‘pour’. It literally means to ‘dip’ or to ‘immerse’. For example, when Odysseus was escaping from the Cyclops, he took a stick and ‘baptised’ the stick into the eye of the Cyclops. He did not sprinkle it in. He ‘baptised’ it deeply into his eye.
“When it came time to translate ‘baptise’ into English, the translators faced a problem. If they translated the word, a firestorm would erupt because most of the church practiced sprinkling and not full immersion.
“Interestingly enough, the Anabaptists were persecuted mercilessly for practicing baptism by immersion. They were the only ones following the correct Biblical teachings on the subject. So, instead of translating the word, they transliterated it. Transliteration means that they simply took the Greek letters and transposed them into English. The word ‘baptism’ in Greek is spelled: βαπτιζω. The transliterated English letters look like this: baptidzo. The close parallel should be noted. Crisis was averted and the new English Bible was less likely to be offensive to some and rejected.
“Also explaining how sprinkling, rather than immersion, came into being, an American and a member of Baptist Church, Roger Barrier, said that early writings from some 2nd century Christian desert communities dealt with the practical issues of baptism in the desert. According to him: “The writings taught that if not enough water existed for full immersion then pouring on the head was acceptable. If not enough water existed for pouring, then sprinkling was acceptable. And, if water was in really short supply, then sand may be used. Again, this is not Biblical teaching. It was expedient.”
However, supporters of sprinkling deny that the abundant water had anything to do with the baptism that John practiced. They claim that John chose this place of abundant water because it would have been a gathering place for people, thus he would have found an audience for his message.
It’s just a symbol: This argument claims that baptism is just a symbol of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, therefore the actual mode of baptism is irrelevant. This argument takes the approach that since Christians are not literally crucified on a cross (Gal. 5:24), why should they insist on a literal burial in water?
Also, this argument plays a tricky little game with the word “literal.” Christians are not literally crucified as Christ was crucified and they are not literally buried in a tomb, left for dead, as Christ was literally buried. The burial in water is a symbolic death, burial and resurrection. It is not the literal physical death, literal burial in a cemetery and literal resurrection that Jesus experienced. Yes, this symbol requires a literal burial in water but it is still a symbolic burial. It is not the literal process Jesus went through in His death burial and resurrection.
They also argue that historical evidence supports the practice of sprinkling. According to them, historical evidence does exist that suggests sprinkling was practiced shortly after the first century. But some people would say such evidence only showss that sprinkling was limited to rare cases of severe illness where an immersion was not deemed feasible and that such “baptisms” were considered second rate and opposed by many.
Their other argument is that there are sprinklings and washings in the Old Testament ( Exodus 40:12; Leviticus 14:8,9; Numbers 19:19).
Then, there is the argument over the word ‘With’ in John 1:26-34. This argument focuses on John the Baptist’s use of the word “with” when he said, “I baptize you with water.” Based on this use of the word “with”, it is claimed that what John meant was: “I sprinkle you with water.”
Again, supporters of sprinkling say the baptism with the Holy Spirit as recorded in Acts 2:17-18 and 10:45 is identified with pouring and that therefore, pouring is the mode of baptism.
In Nigeria it is the same doctrinal confusion, except that there has come a twist to why some denominations, including the Pentecostal, now do partial immersion rather than full immersion. They claim that many of the available rivers around are daily being polluted by traditional ritualists who litter their banks with occultic preparations meant as sacrifice to some gods. Therefore, rather than go to rivers for administration of baptism, they improvise a pool of water within their church premises.
However, founder of Goodnews Miracle Bible Church and Secretary of Lagos State chapter of Christian Association of Nigeria, Bishop George Amu, would support immersion, though he’s quick to add that he in no way is against other forms of baptism but that he considers immersion most biblical.
Leader of Gospel Baptist Conference of Nigeria & Overseas, Archbishop (Prof.) A.A. Atilade, maintains the same position as Amu. It is only that he’s totally in support of immersion and totally against other forms.