What Is Baptism—Sprinkling, Pouring, or Immersion

It may be that no Bible subject has caused more confusion among people than the subject of baptism. What is baptism? What is its purpose? Who should be baptized? Why? I would like to look at all of these questions, but for the present, for the purpose of this article, I will confine myself to the question, what is baptism?

Most people assume that the words found in our New Testaments are English words translated from the original Greek. You may be surprised to learn that the word "baptize" and its derivatives are not English words at all, not at first. They are Greek words that were transliterated.

What does that mean?  Dictionary.com online defines transliterate as follows: “to change (letters, words, etc.) into corresponding characters of another alphabet or language.” Thus, those men who translated our New Testaments from the Greek into English decided not to translate the Greek word "baptize" at all. They just made it a new English word. Forget translating it, forget translating the Greek word. To translate is to give the meaning of the Greek word in English. That they refused to do.

Why would they do that? That is a good question. It is a question with an easy answer. The Greek word means to immerse completely. My hardback copy of Vine's, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, says of baptism, "consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion and emergence." If the reader will do a little of their own research they will quickly see that most all Greek scholars readily admit that in the first century the word was used of immersion only, that is what the Greek word meant to those people.

The Bible confirms this to be the case for Paul says, "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death." (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) Baptism is a burial, a burial in water when used in a religious context. Paul says again in Col. 2:11-12 (NKJV), "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." One is not and cannot be buried by pouring or sprinkling.

The truth of the matter as to why the Greek work was transliterated and never translated is to be found in the fact that by the time the Bible came to be translated into English man had decided on his own initiative that sprinkling would do just as well as immersion. If you translate the Greek and are honest in your scholarship you will have to use the word immerse, or dip, or submerge. If you do that, what will that do to your doctrine of sprinkling? It will destroy it. That cannot be allowed to happen. What is the solution? Don't translate the Greek, transliterate it, producing a new English word that because it is new you can make it mean what you want it to mean.

The first time after the establishment of the church in Acts 2 that anyone was sprinkled or had water poured on them rather than be immersed was approximately 250 years later. In about 250 AD, a man named Novation became ill and fearing for his life wanted to be baptized. Too ill for immersion his friends poured water on him. By that point in time there was not an inspired man alive to cause problems over this substitution. Inspiration had ended. The apostles were dead.

One had to go outside the pages of the New Testament to get pouring (affusion) or sprinkling, showing little respect for what was written. What was written was not sufficient for a man (or his friends) who felt he was at the point of death, and knowing he had not been obedient to the command to be baptized (immersed), was desperate. What he needed was a change in the ordinance. He needed pouring as a substitution and if he or his friends had to add a new law or change an old one to get it in then so be it. Evidently, they had never read the passage, “There is one Lawgiver.” (James 4:12 NKJV) Either that or they were just going to ignore it.

Thus, we see the kind of attitude that brought sprinkling and pouring into what the world calls "Christianity." One ought to be able to see the evil of that kind of attitude toward God's word; if I can't find what I want in the word I will do whatever.

In 1311, the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Revenna officially adopted pouring (affusion) and sprinkling (aspersion) of water as valid baptism. The Greek Catholic Church would not accept this but the Roman Catholic Church did and it exercised dominance in the West where the English-speaking people resided and where English Bibles were to be produced. This was more than 100 years before the printing press was invented making mass production of Bibles possible. Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526 was one of the first to use the word baptism or baptize consistently in an English Bible.

The long and short of it was that the doctrine of sprinkling was, by subterfuge, brought into the Bible by a deliberate failure to translate a Greek word and giving the transliterated word any meaning you wanted since it was a new word to the English language. That is why if you look up the word "baptize" or "baptism" in a modern-day dictionary it will give you meanings related to the way the word is used today, thus giving you options--sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.

Even so I was surprised to see that my Webster's New World Dictionary Third College Edition, the last copyright listed being 1988, while listing 3 common meanings of the word "baptize" as used today, gives before those listings the Greek meanings and I quote here from it--"to immerse," "to dip." Honesty in scholarship is a great thing.

Most all scholars will agree on the meaning of the original Greek word baptize, immerse or dip, but you will probably never see again a major translation that will translate the Greek word baptize that way. Why? With the vast multitude of people who have now come to wholeheartedly embrace sprinkling how many Bibles do you think they would sell? You can still learn the truth on this topic through your own study but you will get no help from most Bible translations. One exception is the Literal Standard Version translation but how many people do you know who have this translation? It is not a major one.

What is sad is that some will read what I have written here, they will then go and do their own research, find out that what I have said is the truth, and yet it will not make a bit of difference in their view of the subject if they have by tradition had pouring and sprinkling handed down to them in their particular faith.

Pouring and sprinkling for baptism came to us from man, not God. It has now become a tradition of men. Jesus once said to the scribes and Pharisees, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3 NKJV) God's commandment to us is to be immersed. Everyone agrees that was the original commandment and historically was done exclusively for a couple of hundred years after the church was established. When I substitute pouring or sprinkling for immersion how can I say anything other than I have done the very same thing these scribes and Pharisees did?

I have transgressed the commandment of God because of my tradition preferring to keep my tradition (pouring and/or sprinkling) over his word (immersion). I have made the commandment of God of no effect by my tradition handed down to me by those who came before which I have accepted wholeheartedly.

Then Jesus also does a comparison and contrast in talking to the scribes and Pharisees. He says God says (Matt. 15:4), then says "but you say." (Matt. 15:5). Again, it is hard to not see a parallel. I, God, have said immersion, but you say sprinkling.

Then we also have to ask, since pouring and sprinkling came from man being 200 to 1300 years after the writing of the New Testament, depending on whether you want to start your count with Novation or the Council of Ravenna, how it can be said that God had anything to do with bringing affusion or asperion into the faith? How can it be anything other than "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men"? (Matt. 15:9 NKJV)

The only way one can get around the difficulties associated with accepting pouring and sprinkling is to say the New Testament is insufficient as a guide for man today. It must be amended. This smacks of the utmost arrogance. It is to say God was not able, not capable, of producing a guide that could stand the test of time and stand on its own two legs. It is to say that we men of dust need to help God stay updated. It is to say we still have inspired men able to amend the teachings of the New Testament.

The Catholic Church accepts both—its inspiration through the Magisterium and the Pope and the need for God's word, the New Testament, to be amended and added to from time to time. If you believe that, then it is not hard to abandon the written word or replace it with your own, your teaching and tradition. Just combine it all and claim the totality to be “God’s word.”

But the truth is this is the approach the vast majority of those who call themselves Christians take whether they are Catholics or Protestants. They are putting their trust in men rather than in what is written. The idea seems to prevail that their tradition (or practice if you will) regarding baptism, whether begun in 250 AD or in the Middle Ages, or even more recently somehow trumps the New Testament and amends it. And, yet, they think it is of God.

I don't know whether you ever thought about it this way or not. What we are saying when we add to God's word is that it alone is insufficient to save men. We now need more. Yes, there was a time when immersion alone was sufficient but not so today. Men need options God did not give. It is too hard to have to do what he said way back then. Getting all wet is too big an inconvenience. What was once sufficient is no longer so. Who said so? We did. Who could fairly question us who have made ourselves the authority?

Hear the words of Jesus, "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day." John 12:48 (NKJV) The word of Jesus in the New Testament is be immersed.

Today we need to make a choice. Will we believe and practice those things that came into our midst religiously hundreds of years after the establishment of the church and which, as a result, came obviously from man, not God, or will we return to the New Testament as our sole guide in our faith and practice? We need to choose. We ought to say as for me and my house I will follow the words of the Lord as recorded in the New Testament and leave the ideas, opinions, and innovations of man to those for whom the New Testament is not good enough.

[To download this article or print it out here.]

The Catholic Doctrine Concerning Scripture and Tradition

 Roman Catholics are not willing to accept the Bible as the sole authority in religion.  To do so would destroy the Catholic Church for once you remove the authority of the priests and the Catholic hierarchy there goes the authority of the church and its power over men. 

The Catholic Church in history sought to keep the scriptures from the laity.  “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament …  we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.” (Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195).  At the Council of Tarragona in 1234 it was decreed, “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments.”

The following quote from Pope Gregory XVI pretty much sums up the attitude the Roman Catholic Church held for centuries regarding the Bible and the laity. 

From the encyclical INTER PRAECIPUAS (On Biblical Societies) by Pope Gregory XVI, May 8, 1844:

“1. Among the special schemes with which non-Catholics plot against the adherents of Catholic truth to turn their minds away from the faith, the biblical societies are prominent. They were first established in England and have spread far and wide so that we now see them as an army on the march, conspiring to publish in great numbers copies of the books of divine Scripture. These are translated into all kinds of vernacular languages for dissemination without discrimination among both Christians and infidels. Then the biblical societies invite everyone to read them unguided. Therefore it is just as Jerome complained in his day: they make the art of understanding the Scriptures without a teacher ‘common to babbling old women and crazy old men and verbose sophists,’ and to anyone who can read, no matter what his status. Indeed, what is even more absurd and almost unheard of, they do not exclude the common people of the infidels from sharing this kind of a knowledge.”

And more from the same source:

“12. ... In particular, watch more carefully over those who are assigned to give public readings of holy scripture, so that they function diligently in their office within the comprehension of the audience; under no pretext whatsoever should they dare to explain and interpret the divine writings contrary to the tradition of the Fathers or the interpretation of the Catholic Church.”

The last three lines explain the fear of the scriptures on the part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy—the fear that those who read the scriptures will have their eyes opened and reject “the tradition of the Fathers” and “the interpretation of the Catholic Church.”  That did happen, the Reformation, and we entered into the modern era where attempts to withhold the scriptures became an act of futility, impossible to do.  However, by studying history we can see what the desire had been as long as it was possible to carry it out.

Part of Catholic tradition and essential to it is to have scripture interpreted the way the hierarchy wants it interpreted.  Thus, for example, no matter how clear the New Testament text seems to be to the average person it remains a requisite to Catholicism that Mary, the mother of Jesus, be a perpetual virgin.  You are incapable of reading the scriptural texts about Mary and understanding them without the aid of the Catholic Church.  When you read about Jesus having brothers and sisters that runs against the tradition and so cannot be a correct understanding, the church will tell you what those verses are saying.  Even if you have a Ph.D. interpreting those verses will be too tough for you without their aid.

But, what is Catholic tradition?  It might surprise you.  When most of us think of tradition we think of that which developed in the past in the family or some institution-- a school, a team, a country, etc.--whereby certain activities or customs are passed on from time past into the present day.  It might be a traditional yearly get-together.  We all understand tradition in that aspect of it.

But we also understand that as tradition has a beginning it also has an end.  If you are older you have likely experienced it in your own family.  What you once did as tradition you no longer do.  That is fine in the normal course of the life of a man, the circumstances of our lives change over time, but when it comes to religion we do not expect an ever-changing God with ever-changing doctrines and commandments for us to live by.  Yet, that is exactly what you get with religious tradition in Roman Catholicism.

The change from the Mosaical Law to Christianity was not a change of God’s mind but planned before the world was established.  “He (Christ – DS) indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world.” (1 Peter 1:20 NKJV)  He was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 13:8 NKJV)  He was the seed promise to Abraham that through his seed all the earth would be blessed (Gal. 3:8, 16).  The point is that God does not change.  Roman Catholicism changes continually.

The average person not knowing any better would think that when a doctrine is based on tradition in Catholicism it would mean that the early church held that doctrine.  That is what you would think but you would be mistaken.  Under Catholicism, a doctrine based on tradition can begin evolving at any point in time.  It does not have to trace its roots back to the first century.  Why not?  Because Catholicism is its own authority.  It derives its authority from itself; it sees itself as the fountain, or source, of authority.  Thus one will find various Catholic dogmas first stated in generations far removed from the first century and the early church.    

For example, the doctrine of purgatory was officially proclaimed as dogma in 1438.  By dogma, it is meant you are obliged to believe it if you are to be a faithful Catholic.  This means you could have been a faithful Catholic and not believed in purgatory until 1438, well over a thousand years after Christ.  After 1438 you are unfaithful if you don’t believe in it.  You have a moving target for faithfulness. 

Now where do you find purgatory in the New Testament?  You don’t is the quick and accurate answer.  If they tell you such and such scriptures teach it (and I do know they rely on certain scriptures for this) then my response is “why did it take you over a thousand years to discover it?”  The point I am getting at is that Catholicism makes up its doctrines and dogmas as it goes along.  It is like playing a game where you are the sole rule maker and can change the rules as the game goes along and no one has a right to challenge you thus you always win.

Now for the Catholics, I do understand that the doctrine of purgatory evolved and began with the idea of praying for the dead.  From there one idea led to another but that is just my point—the doctrine was not given by revelation but by the philosophizing of men.  There was no revelation; there was only men's reasoning; it was “this is what seems right and reasonable to us.”  That is what all of us non-Catholics have to understand about Catholicism.  Tradition with the Catholics is often no more than the evolution of thought among Catholics, especially the Catholic hierarchy, until a dogma, an official teaching, comes out of it.

What I have done here with the doctrine of purgatory you can do with many other dogmas found in Catholicism.  Search out the date the doctrine became dogma and begin asking questions about it like why then and not earlier.  Why now?  What is the source, etc., etc?  Try it with the teachings about Mary.  I say that because I know you will find fruitful digging.  You will not come up empty-handed.

The non-Catholic must understand the terminology of the Catholic Church or be misled.  If you are not Catholic, but Christian, when you hear the phrase “the word of God” you immediately think of the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.  With the Catholic that is not the case.  With the Catholics, the word of God is the combination of the scriptures and what they call “Sacred Tradition.”  This is the tradition we have been talking about.  Scripture alone is insufficient with the Catholic.  Indeed, tradition will overrule scripture if the need arises for scripture will be interpreted to ensure the desired outcome, one that is in accord with what they teach no matter how incredible the interpretation may seem.

Tradition ends up being whatever we want it to be in Catholicism.  It can be based on any number of things.  It can be simply what we want to believe and thus practice.  I mentioned Mary earlier.  Catholics have a doctrine called the Assumption of Mary which says Mary, after her death, was taken bodily into heaven and thus her body never underwent decay.  This teaching was not to be found in any of the first twenty ecumenical councils, not found in any creeds, only found in the writings of two of the eighty-eight church fathers so-called and both of them wrote in the 7^th century, none of the major church doctors wrote of it and only 1 of the minor doctors and he lived hundreds of years after Christ and yet, based on tradition, the bodily assumption of Mary became dogma.

How could that be?  What tradition?  It was based on the teachings of the bishops alive at the time.  The church calls these bishops and what they are teaching “the Ordinary Magisterium,” and it is considered an infallible guide to the faith.  And it was based on what the church in practice was already doing-- honoring Mary’s assumption, dogma or no dogma, by its practices.  They already had a feast of Mary’s Assumption on August 15^th, they had set up in churches sacred images of the assumption, the church’s liturgy made references to Mary’s Assumption, etc., thus in 1950 the Pope declared the assumption to be dogma.  In Catholicism what we desire, what we are doing, what we are practicing, becomes dogma if we are patient long enough and there is enough of us involved to put the pressure on.  This is Catholic tradition placed on an equal footing with the scriptures.  Abide in it?  Who can?

Well, there is one group – the Catholic hierarchy.  They have a huge stake in maintaining the status quo. 

[To download this article or print it out click here.]