What's important, I believe, is that the symbolism and purpose are understood.  It's much more easy to convey a certain analogy with the immersion technique, but I agree with you -- and I don't think God's going to ask us, "why didn't you get baptised by _this_ method/_that_ method?"

As a point of interest ... Mark 1:10 describes Jesus as coming up out of the water in the river, at least in my NLT, so there is certainly evidence that some of the church's early traditions didn't follow scripture as closely as they do now.  (I'm sure we've fallen away from some genuine, scriptural practices, too.)

 Then again, one could argue that we should be performing baptisms in rivers instead of a baptism tank, and people could get into all sorts of funny debates about it, but like you said, I don't think that's the matter of importance.  I think the obedience is the most essential thing.

On myblog, over at mattfarina.com, I was asked something that will have me blogging about purpose next week.  I figure in the middle of the week.  It's something I need to think about and have some decent research on.

What does it mean to come up out of the water?  What did they mean by it?  We are missing the starting point for what He was doing in the water.  He could have been under the water and came up out of it.  Or, he could have been standing in the water and came up out of it.  Both cases are plausible.

Since, the text doesn't say whether there was immersion or what state Jesus was in the water anything we read into this is from us and not the text itself.  It's an assumption.  I think this is something we need to be careful of when we read the texts.

Hi Matt,

I found you again.  Food for thought about baptism by immersion again.....If we, as born again children of God believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and is our sole, sovereign authority on all matters concerning our lives, then why all the controvery about baptism?  If the original Greek word for baptism is baptizo and that means to submerge or immerse, why then not, just by plain 'ol simple faith, believe that this is how the Lord Our God intended for baptism to be and just be obedient and perform it according to those instructions (which seem quite specific to me.)  God doesn't make mistakes, and don't you think His inspired scribes who penned the word baptizo under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, penned it correctly?  I think this just might be a "Faith" matter here.

It doesn't matter how many artists depicted Jesus having water poured over him by a cup or a shell, what matters is that Jesus always did that which pleased the Father, and following Him as our example, I think we should be more concerned about our benchmark being the clear teaching of Scripture.  If Scripture says baptizo, then baptizo it is!!!

I think baptism is one of those things that has truly become the Devil's Workshop.  I did more digging and came up with some info. on when Church history recorded the first account of any attempt to baptize by any other mode  than by immersion:

In about 250 A.D. there was a man by the name of Novation who was on his deathbed.  He had never been immersed.  His friends laid around him many bed sheets and poured water all over him, trying to immerse him in his bed.  This was accepted by the populace as his baptism.  He later recovered, but was never immersed.  He then became a leader of a group called "Novationists," which other Christians considered a heretical sect.  This is the first account of anyone substituting for immersion.  This is confirmed by numerous encyclopedias and ancient authors.. Euebuis (260-340 A.D.) for example, was a church historian.  He says in his Church History:

"Novation, aided by the exorcists, when attacked with an obstinate disease, and being supposed at the point of death, was baptized by aspersion (pouring) in the bed on which he lay; if indeed it be proper to say that one like him did receive baptism." 

When did the Roman Catholic Church accept sprinkling? -- "The first law for sprinkling was obtained in the following matter: Pope Stephen II being driven from Rome by Adolphus, King of Lombards, in 753, feld to Pepin, who a short time before had usurped the crown of France.  While he remained there, the Monks of Cressy, in Britany, consulted him whether in case of necessity, baptism poured on the head of an infant would be lawful.

Stephen replied that it would, yet pouring and sprinkling were not allowed except in cases of necessity.  It was not till the year 1311 that the legislature in council held at Ravenna, declared sprinkling or immersion to be indifferent.  In Scotland however, sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases until after the Reformation - about the middle of the 16th century.  From Scotland it made its way into England, in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized in the Established Church."  (Edinburg Encyclopedia)

"Baptizo" is the Greek word of immerse or dip.  To this all Greek Lexicons and Greek scholars agree.  However, sprinkling had already been introducted into the Protestant church by John Calvin, who, by the way, admitted that the word "baptizo" signified "to immerse" (Inst. B. 4C15).  The church practiced sprinkling and not immersion.  In 1561 a group of the bishops produced a translation of the Bible known as "The Bishops Bible."  When confronted with the Greek word "baptizo" they were forced to either translate it or to transfer it, untranslated, into English.  Had they translated it, they would have be obligated to use either "immerse" or "dip", and this would have brought them into sharp contrast  with their teaching.  On the one hand, had they translated it "sprinkle" to fit their practice, they would have been accused of dishonesty.  So they chose to "transliterate" it, or simply transfer it into English, substituting the English alphabet for the Greek, and coming up iwht a new word "baptize."

When King James authorized the translation of a new version of the Bible in 1611, he laid down two rules: 1) "Old ecclesiastical words must be kept, as the word 'church' must not be translated congregation, etc." 2)  "The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible, was to be followed and altered as little as the original will permit."  Since the word "baptism" had become a "old ecclesiastical word" and was in the Bishop's Bible, it was retained in the King James Version.

To say that the Greek word baptizo means "to sprinkle" is to say that the Greeks had two words meaning "to sprinkle" and none meaning "to immerse."  The Greek word Phantizo is used often in the Bible and means: "Sprinkle" (Greek-English Lexicon of the N.T. by Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, Page 741)  "To sprinkle, besprinkle" (An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott. Page 715).  The term is used six times in the N.T.; Heb. 9:13-14; Heb. 9:21; also again in Heb. 9:21; Heb. 10:22; Heb. 12:24 and 1 Peter 1:1-2.

The term baptizo and its other forms are used 125 times in the N.T..  Not one time are they translated anything like "sprinkle".  They are either transliterated "baptize" or "baptism" or else translated "dip" as in Luke 16:24, John 13:26 and Rev. 19:13.  Occasionally they are translated "wash" as in Mark 7: 4 & 8 and Heb. 9:10.  Since they are speaking about washing cups and pots, etc., this can only be understood in the sense of immersion.  Below is a small sampling of definitions for the word "baptizo" as found in the Lexicons. 

1) Bagster: "to dip; to immerse"  2) Bloomfield: "to immerse; to sink"  3) Bretschneider: "to dip or wash repeatedly; to immerse into water, or submerge"  4) Bullinger: "to dip or dye; immerse"  5) Constantine: "immerse, submerge"  6) Cremer: "immerse, submerge"  7) Dawson: "to dip or immerse in water"  8) Donnegan: "to immerse repeatedly into a liquid, to submerge; to sink"  9) Dunbar: "to dip, immerse, submerge, plunge, or sink"  10) Ewing: "to cover with water or some other liquid"  11) Hendricks: "to plunge; immerse; cover with water"  12) Jones: "plunge; dip; bury, overwhelm  13) Leigh: "the native and proper signification of it is to dip into water, or to plunge under"  14) Liddell and Scott: "to dip in, or underneath water"  15) Schleusner: " properly, to immerse, to dip in, to dip into water, from Bapto, and corresponds to the Hebrew 'tabal." II Kings 5:14.  More Lexicons could be cited.

I could go more into it even with statements by the leaders of great churches which sprinkle, who also testify that immersion is the Bible's way of baptism, but I'll wait for now, unless you'd like this information.  I can cite more about sprinkling of infants later if you'd like also.

In conclusion (for now, anyway): The N.T. is God's "Will" - His "Testament."  In it He bequeaths His eternal inheritance to His children.  "...We are heirs - heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ..."  (Romans 8:17).  Since the N.T. is His will, and since the inheritance is more precious than anything money could ever buy, it seems reasonable that one should make every effort to fulfill the provisions of that will exactly as the author of the will intended them to be carried out!  When a teaching touches on a subject as great in importance as your salvation, it ought never be viewed lightly.  I have been challenged to serve the Lord in the manner He has asked of me.  Will you?

  "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' and not do as I say?  (Luke 6:46)

Peace,

Linda <><

Linda,

As I pointed out before in one of the comments at on my post "Is There More To Baptism Than Symbolism" the word baptizo means more than to immerse.

The another definition of the word baptizo is about washing.  Look at it's usage in Luke 11:38.  It's used to describe washing and in this case washing up for dinner. Did they completely immerse themselves to wash up for dinner?  Nope.  I find it very interesting that Luke, who talks about baptism, uses baptizo to describe non-immersion washing up.  Or, in Mark 7:4 where one of the words for baptism (a derivative of baptizo) is used to describe washing pots.  This is a word normally used to mean baptism.  In fact when the autors of the bible use the words that mean baptism in the bible in other contexts it is that of washing something and not of immersing something.  So, we need to be careful and the use of the word baptizo here doesn't mean it's immersion.

Oh, and Scholars agree on this use of the wording.  You will find this usage in the Lexicons as well.  And in the major translations.

The history is another story.  There was non-immersion baptism going on well before Calvin.  In the history of the church we have recorded proof of it going back to that first 100 years AD.  The first century church that is.  One example of this being recorded is in the Didache.  It goes into explicit detail even stating the number of times to pour the water.  This is about 1500 years before Calvin.

But, lets go back to the wording.  The bible often uses phrases like Hebrews 10:22 which says, "let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water."    The idea of washing away our sins is something we see multiple times in the bible.  This goes back to that washing definition of baptizo.   Or we can look at Ephesians 5:26 which says, "so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,".  Doesn't that sound like baptism to you?

As for scholars who study the greek there are many who don't sign up for it being immersion in these cases.  In fact over half the worlds Christian churches don't sign up for immersion being required.  Those who study the greek disagree here but there are just as many who are for immersion as there are against it.  

What great leaders of the church say it's immersion?  Lets look back at the History of the church on this.  Martin Luther, in the 1500s, didn't say that true intent was immersion.  Augustine who was part of the church in the 3rd and 4th centuries said that baptism didn't require immersion.   

While I was digging into the First century church leaders I found that Justim Martyr described baptism as a washing.  In his writings  on baptism it is all about washing.  Washing is the same thing that shows up in the bible.

This is something that seems to be the basis for the root of the debate.  Is it immersion like a burried that is important?  Or the water washing the sinful nature away?  Or is it something totally different? 

Do you see why it's such a deep issue.  I don't expect you to agree with me.  But I hope you learn to appreciate the depth of the discussion on both sides.  Both sides of this issue are well versed on the bible, the origional texts, the issues, the archeology, and all this stuff.  Yet they still don't agree.  But, I think it's important listen to what the other side says, respect their level of study, love them none the less, and work with them for the greater good that God has for us.  For this whole baptism thing is not what makes someone saved.  It's by the blood of Jesus Himself.  All it takes is a mustardseed of faith so people on both sides will be saved by that blood and may someday have a good laugh about this when we are with the big guy in heaven ;-)

Matt,

  The Bible is the word of God and it is Truth.  I'm getting the feeling from what you've written that you are more interested in conversing about baptism than you are in what real truth is at this point.  You made the statement that "...this whole baptism thing is not what makes someone saved, yet the Scripture clearly states that "Baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21).  You're giving your opinion and you expect others to believe it and yet it's not what the Bible states.  Yes, it's good to listen to both sides of an issue, but eventually one has to come to a conclusion about what's true.  Both sides cannot possibly be right.  You're doing some deep digging, but what has it brought you so far?  Just a lot of men's opinions.  I do not take baptism lightly and I'm sure you don't either.  You obviously have been led by the Spirit to study this out, but I think too much information can cloud one's thinking after a while.  I'm not trying to be disrespectful and argumentive, but the Bible says "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: (1 Kings 18:21).  "Both sides" unfortunately will not be saved and, I'm sorry, but no one will be laughing when the hammer finally comes down.  God does have a sense of humor but He is also sovereign and I think we'd better get it right if it is indeed our intention to be in heaven with Him one day.

Calvin, Luther, Billy Graham, Benny Hinn, Joel Olsteen, Matt Farina, Linda Core are only men/women with opinions, but what saith the Word of the Lord? Let God be true and every man a liar. 

I'm confident that if we continue to diligently seek Him, He will lead us into all truth about Baptism and all the other controversial issues flying around out there (or as the Bible puts it, "every wind of doctrine".  If we are true born again children of God we need to learn to hate every false way.  We need to buy the truth and sell it not.  The truth about being born of the water is a pearl of great price and plays a HUGE part in our salvation.   

Linda,

I am very clear on what I believe the truth is.  I don't go between multiple opinions.  I am throwing out other things for you to consider.  I don't expect you to change your mind on this.  But, I hope you understand the other sides and points of view on this.  Will God lead us to the truth?  I am sure he will.  Will it happen in this lifetime?  Maybe not.

Baptism is an important thing.  I don't argue that.  Yet, baptism is not the way, the truth, or the light.  Jesus is these things.  Baptism is not the way to the Father.  Jesus is.  Baptism is not what saves us from our sins.  Jesus sacrafice is.  We are not credited with righteousness thorugh baptism but through faith.  Someone who is not baptized can still be saved.  They can still have that mustardseeds worth of faith which is all it takes.

Granted I am not a fan of the least common denominator but it's something that we can't overlook. Jesus is the one that saves.

You are right that we are all a people with opinions.  In this case even the greatest amung the experts don't share the same opinions.  As long as this has been a topic of debate the greatest experts don't agree.  That's why I am thankful that this is not what saves.  Jesus is what matters and if someone has faith that's what matters.  That's what gets them the credit as righteousness as Hebrews puts it.

Are we capable of getting all the theology and doctorine correct?  As people we aren't.  We are sinful.  We have fallen and are made in that fallen image.  Where Adam and Eve were made in the image of God everyone since then are made in the image of the fallen Adam (Genesis 4:3).  If it were about getting everything right we would be screwed.  Look at Abraham.  There is a man who did a lot wrong.  Yet, he had great faith and that was credited to Him as righteousness.

This is a tough issue.  Anyone who gets into the debate has a lot to learn to wrap themselves around everything that's involved.  This is definitely a case where careful hermeneutics needs to happen.  To debate or even really discuss this takes a lot of study.  What does the bible say?  What do the words mean?  How are they used?  What does scripture intrepret itself here?  What does the extrabiblical info say?  How did the ealy church leaders see this?  They were closer to what happened and knew more than we do today. (their writings may not be the bible but they were closer to the events by a lot to know more and interpret them.)

In any case we aren't going to agree and that's OK.  It's the faith that gets us saved. It's faith that will have Jesus stand up for us at judgement and say we are one of His.  If it were about getting everything right we would be doomed.  Thankfully Jesus came to save us from that.

Hi Matt,

Not for the sake of argument, but for the sake of the saving of our souls, how can you justify saying that baptism doesn't save us when scripture (1 Peter 3:21) says that it does?  You just kind of skirted around that issue in your comment and I'd just like your opinion.  I understand that there is no other name by which we can be saved and that name is definitely Jesus, and yes, Jesus is salvation, but it's the calling of that name over us in baptism that applies his precious blood to us to remit our sins.  This isn't happening when one is not baptized and therefore, that poor soul is not going to make it!!  Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins and without that blood applied, we are still in our sins.  According to your knowledge and understanding that says it's Jesus' sacrifice that saves us, this is true to a point, however I think one must consider that He also requires us to be obedient and part of that obedience is to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of our sins so that our sins are washed away.  He is coming back for a church without spot or wrinkle.  Can we stand before him unwashed and expect him to say, "well done thou good and faithful servant, enter into thy rest"?  Without the proper wedding garment (Baptism), I don't think so.  If we don't accept the truth in this lifetime there is no hope for life eternal.  I'm sorry, but God is sovereign and IT IS ABOUT GETTING EVERYTHING RIGHT.  If you have his Spirit dwelling in you, he will teach you all truth and you will get everything right.  Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?  It's not just about believing, for scripture says that even the demons believe and tremble, it's about really, really wanting to please Jesus and doing as the scripture says.  That's key.

Love in Jesus' name,

Linda <><  

Linda,

Ah, I see what you are getting at here.

To start it's not just Demons that tremble before the Lord.  Look at John in the book of Revelation.  It's in Chapter 1 verses 12-18.  When John met Jesus there he "fell at his feet as though dead."

So, if baptism is a requirement for salvation what about infants who die at birth or in the womb?  What about Abraham, David, and all those who came before?  None of them were baptized. 

In the case of Noah and Able the bible tells us where their righteousness came from. Hebrews 11 points out that it's by faith.  But, lets dive into 1 Peter 3:21.

It does point out what baptism does.  It points out the supernautral that happens.  But, what does it not say.  That's one of those important things.  It isn't talking about salvation but what baptism does.  Does it say that baptism is a requirement for salvation?  Nope.  It does say that baptism ties us to Christ and that saves.

Let's look at some other verses.  Hebrews 11:6 says, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

Or Romans 10:9 says, "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

I think Romans 10:9 says it fairly clearly.  We are saved by faith.  Even someone who isn't baptized but has the faith will be saved.  Baptism does tie us into a relationship with Christ and Christ saves.  Yet, it still isn't requiered.

You said we have to get everything right.  What happens if we get something wrong in our lives?  Is it we just have to get everything right by our deaths?  We are not saved by doing good things.  In Romans 3 is says, "there is no one who does good".  I think Roams 3:20-22 sums it up better than I can.  It says, "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.  But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

If it were about getting everything right we would all fail.  Thankfully that's not the case.

I am not saying that baptism isn't important; it is.  But, the bible clearly says that it isn't baptism that saves but Jesus.  Thought I hope for everyone to be baptized.

wow,

sprinkle, splash, dunk or dryclean...... I'm saved by grace and faith in Christ.

Personally, baptised in a river, but I would have settled for a bottle of water poured over my head!

"For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not  of works, lest anyone should boast."  Ephesians 2: 8-9 

 Sabrina :)