Both modes of baptism, immersion and sprinkling, are fit means to signify the cleansing of sin by the Blood and Spirit of Christ. Some may say that immersion or total submergence in the water better signifies cleansing than does the sprinkling of a few drops of water upon the forehead of those being baptized. If you have ever witnessed a baptismal service in which persons were baptized by immersion, you will have noticed that the persons being baptized were dipped into the water for not more than one second. The minister and the persons to be baptized put on special clothing before stepping into the water. Standing in the water, which is deep enough to dip a person completely into the water either forwards or backwards, the minister administers baptism in a moment's time.

Does now that quick dip into the water better signify the cleansing from sin than does the sprinkling of water on the forehead? Is the filth of the body really taken away by a bath of just one second? Would we not say of a person who took such a quick bath that his "cleansing" must have been very superficial and incomplete? I cannot see that less instruction and understanding as to the real meaning of those "washings" is needed for baptism by immersion than for baptism by sprinkling. A moment's bath speaks just as little of a real complete cleansing as does a few drops of water. At both modes of baptism we are required to think. We have to think of a signified cleansing, which is real, not because of the amount of water used, but on account of God's promises based on the Work of Christ.

Our Baptist friends say that there is no Scriptural example of baptism other than by immersion. They invariably refer to the example of the eunuch of whom we read that he, together with Philip, went down into the water and came up out of the water. To our Baptist friends this is a very solid proof and example of baptism by immersion. Is that true? They and we must always realize that the Bibles which we have are translated Bibles. I am sure you know that the New Testament was written by the immediate inspiration of God in the Greek language. In all controversies of religion we must appeal to the original text, as only that text has decisive and final authority. It is a special blessing of the Lord that He gave to some men the ability to learn other languages. In that way it is possible for those who do not know Hebrew or Greek to find out from their writings the meanings of words directly inspired by the Holy Ghost. It is true that even among the greatest scholars there are differences of opinion about the best interpretation of certain words, because, as all know who have learned a foreign language, some words can be translated in different ways.

Many of our Baptist friends will insist that their interpretation of the Bible is right. We on our part do the same and therefore it is likely that the controversy will continue until the last day, at which time all differences between God's children will disappear forever. In the meantime we should not condemn one another, but try to search honestly for the truth and not be ashamed to defend our standpoint and stick to our practices, as we do not follow our own imaginations or human inventions when baptizing by sprinkling. In our churches many sermons of excellent Baptist ministers have been read, proving that it is not in enmity that we protest against their viewpoints and practices concerning baptism. However, this should not be interpreted as a weakness, as if we do not know how to defend our views, or as if we think that there is at least as much biblical ground for their views and practice as there is for ours, or as if our Baptist friends have more biblical grounds than we do.

The words translated by "into … and out" of (the water) may as well be translated "unto, to and from," as has been done in the King James translation hundreds of times. Those words convey no other meaning than that Philip and the eunuch went down and stood in the water while the eunuch was being baptized by Philip. In that posture, baptizing could easily be done by pouring or sprinkling water upon him, and, when the ceremony was ended, they both came up out of the water. There is as little ground for im­mersion in every other instance of baptism recorded in the New Testament as there is in this case. Is it then not true as maintained by our Baptist friends that the Greek word "baptizo," which is always used in the New Testament for baptism and subsequently translated into the word "baptism," can have no other meaning than to immerse?

The word "baptizo", used in the New Testament when baptism was administered to persons, is the same word used in the Greek version or translation of the Old Testament Scriptures (the so-called Septuagint) to translate the Hebrew verbs meaning to sprinkle or to pour. In the days of the Old Testament clean water, the water of purification, had to be applied by sprinkling or pouring upon persons and things in order to cleanse them from uncleanness. You may read about this in Leviticus 15 and Numbers 19. Not only people had to be cleansed in that way, but also tables and other cumbersome articles which were to be used for the service in the temple, and even the houses of lepers.

It is a very significant fact that the New Testament writers, inspired by the Holy Ghost, used the word "baptizo" when writing about the baptism of persons, whereas this word was never used before other than to signify purification by sprinkling or pouring. If you compare the words as read by the eunuch to Philip out of Isaiah 53 with the words of the 53^rd chapter of Isaiah, you will see that there are some differences in the texts. The reason the eunuch was reading the Greek translation of Isaiah 53, the Septuagint. You will notice similar differences between texts used by the Lord Jesus and the apostles with those recorded in the books of the prophets. Christ and His apostles also used the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This translation was completed about 300 years before the birth of Christ.

The Bible-writers knew very well that the word "baptizo" was used to indicate the purifications by sprinkling and pouring, and they used the same word to record the baptism of persons. As far as the Scriptures are concerned, "baptizo" never means to immerse. There is another word – "bapto", which is the root of "baptizo". This word "bapto" is never used in the Holy Scriptures in connection with ethic purifications or baptisms, but is used in instances that have nothing to do with baptism where it is clear that the meaning is to immerse or dip. Thus we can assert that every instance recorded in the New Testament is a clear case against immersion.

In addition, when the Holy Ghost was received, was He not poured out upon the disciples, and did He not come upon them similar to the sprinkling and pouring of water in the ministration of baptism? The prophet Ezekiel was instructed to write: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean … and I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and ye shall keep My judgments and do them." (Ezekiel 36:25 & 29). For all these reasons we do not feel uncertain or guilty when administering Holy Baptism by sprinkling. It adequately signifies and seals the cleansing from sin by the Blood and Spirit of Christ, and we can defend the practice against our op­ponents with the Bible in our hands. The insistence of our Baptist friends on the re-baptism by immersion of any who are baptized by sprinkling as infants or adults is for this reason not justifiable or defensible. The dipping of the person in water is neither required in Scripture nor was it universally practiced in the Christian church at any time.

We don't put as much emphasis on the mode of baptism as our Baptist friends do. Neither baptism by immersion nor baptism by sprinkling yield any spiritual profit without a true faith and conversion. This is what we should be concerned about.

That baptizing by sprinkling was practiced in the days of the apostles can be stated not only on account of textual proof; there are also other evidences.

There are many parts of the inhabited earth where it is a physical impossibility to baptize by immersion. In our times baptizing by immersion can take place almost everywhere because of heated baptismal tanks or the availability of large quantities of heated water; however, in those times when these were not available, it would have been very detrimental to health, particularly in certain parts of the world, to baptize by immersion. Is it in accordance with Scripture, or even with reason, to hold that Christ would give a commandment where there were such insurmountable impediments standing in the way of its being obeyed? Is it not doing the greatest dishonor to Him to hint or dogmatically assert that He gave a command which would clash with those natural laws with which the Lord governs the earth? Lack of water, scarcity of water through drought or frost, and severe cold are circumstances which would often make it impossible to baptize by immersion.

If we look at the circumstances under which the 3000 were baptized on the day of Pentecost, then it will be very difficult for our Baptist friends to prove that those baptisms took place by immersion. The question may be asked as to where those thousands were immersed. Jerusalem is twenty-five to thirty miles away from the Jordan River. As experienced by invading armies of early centuries, by the Romans and by the Crusaders, water was lamentably scarce in Jerusalem. Until very recently the lack of water has been a serious problem for its citizens. The brook Kidron need not be named as a possible place for immersions at the time of Pentecost. Although it rushes noisily along after the rains, it is dry for almost half of the year, and therefore would very likely have been dry at that Pentecostal season, which was in the end of May or in the first part of June. The pool of Siloam is equally out of the question, as we do not read that the 3000 first went in procession to that pool, and also because of the time of the year. In those days Jerusalem had many cisterns and tanks which were filled during the rainy season, and which, with care, served the inhabitants of Jerusalem during harvest and winter. Is it to be imagined that the 3000 were immersed in these tanks? The fact that these tanks were often deep and quite narrow at the top, similar to wells, forbids the thought. Some of the older Baptist writers suggest the brazen sea of the temple. If we consider the scowling and scornful priesthood at that time, can anyone then assume that the priests would have allowed the despised followers of the Saviour to use those sacred waters for their baptismal services in order to baptize new converts? Even reason forbids us to think of such a possibility. In addition consider the necessity of changing wet clothes after being totally dipped into the water. Therefore, on account of all the factors mentioned, we can logically and reasonably conclude that the baptism of the 3000 took place by sprinkling. Sprinkling with some drops of water signifies as much spiritual burial in the death of Christ as does a moment's immersion under the water. When the Apostle Paul speaks in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:13 of being buried with Christ by baptism, it is obvious that he then refers to a spiritual experience and not to baptism with water.

Having now written so much about the subject of baptism, I surely hope that it may have helped you to understand more of the meaning of baptism, why we baptize infants as well as adults, and why we baptize by sprinkling and not by immersion. However, the most important thing is not when or how we were baptized, but whether we know something by experience of being renewed to a new creature by the Spirit of Christ. Then we will know what it is to mourn about our sins and iniquities, to humbly seek purification and salvation without ourselves by faith in Jesus Christ, and to walk according to the rules set by the Lord in His Word. If some passages of my article may have been somewhat hard to understand, please don't be too discouraged. Keep this article and … with the help of the Lord, it may become more clear to you if you read it once again at a later time. It may also enable you to defend our views concerning baptism if someone attacks them. The Lord bless you.