Question #1

Is baptism really necessary? Can’t one just be sprinkled?

“I am trying to convince a friend that he must be baptized, not sprinkled to be saved. He says it is the same thing. I have told him to read Acts 2:38 but he isn’t convinced that that isn’t just a symbol but not a prerequisite to being saved. Sprinkling or pouring is baptism to him. Also in Acts regarding the Ethiopian eunuch it says they went into the water and came up out of the water but he says that’s only because the water was there that they used ‘much water.’ Any other scriptures that you can name for me that may be more convincing? I know there are many others but I can’t read and find them all today!”

The Answer:

All scholars of the New Testament, be they lexicographers, historians, or theologians, admit that New Testament baptism was by immersion. Having made that admission some will argue that it makes no difference, that the church can change the mode but not the meaning, or that climate or other matters justify it.

The earliest use of sprinkling (affusion) was in the third century and was referred to as “clinical baptism.” It was used only in dire cases such as when the convert was so ill that the administrator concluded that immersion would probably kill him. Even then, the convert was neither sprinkled with a little water nor was a small amount of water poured upon him. Instead, the convert was literally soaked with buckets of water, thus coming as close to immersion as possible. The first recorded instance of this seems to have been the affusion of Novatian around AD 251. See The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, (Baker Book House, third printing, 1956) vol. viii, page 199.

A good illustration of modern attitudes is found in The Standard Manual For Baptist Churches by Edward T. Hiscox, page 22:

“It is most likely that in the Apostolic age when there was by ‘one Lord, one faith, and one baptism,’ and no differing denomination existed, that baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the church, and at once endowed him with all the rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, ‘baptism was the door into the church.’ Now is it different. . . .”

A good question is by what right and by whose authority is it now different? It cannot be by the authority of Scripture because Scripture has not changed. It must, therefore, be by the authority of man. What man or group of men has the authority to change Scripture? None!

For an excellent review of what the Bible teaches relative to the mode and purpose of baptism, listen to N.B. Hardeman’s sermon on “Baptism”.

No one can read the Bible with an open mind and reach any conclusion other than that baptism is by immersion for the remission of sins. Unfortunately, many then proceed like a radio preacher once did who, after having read Acts 2:38, declared : “If you just read that you would think that baptism is essential to the forgiveness of sins, but now let me tell you what it really means.” Put another way, man it seems needs some expert help to misunderstand the Scripture!

It is true that Webster’s Dictionary defines baptism as sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. Those who appeal to Webster should remember that Webster gives modern usage, not New Testament usage. More importantly, to paraphrase Paul, “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:13) If Webster be Lord, follow him. If Christ be Lord, follow Him!