Baptism By Sprinkling

[rpn]

Does anyone know the historic origins of baptism by sprinkling?

[Calm]

It has been discussed, a search should pull something up.

[CV75]

Does anyone know the historic origins of baptism by sprinkling?

In the days when giants walked the earth, so did very, very, tiny little people. These were totally immersed by sprinkling (one drop per baptizee). They had to jump fast in order to be under, within and then come up out of the drop of water. I had to learn this from extra-curricular sources.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Does anyone know the historic origins of baptism by sprinkling?

I am guessing since Catholics baptize infants, immersion would be harmful.

[Calm]

I am guessing since Catholics baptize infants, immersion would be harmful.

Orthodox do immersion of infants.

[thesometimesaint]

IIRC It wasn't limited to just infants, but included those of such ill health that full immersion would be hazardous.

[cdowis]

It would indeed have been simply a practical matter, not a matter of doctrine. Is it not true that the RCC will do baptism by immersion for an adult convert, if requested?

[Calm]

Not sure about accuracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspersion

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Orthodox do immersion of infants.

Did not know that...thanks.

[3DOP]

Does anyone know the historic origins of baptism by sprinkling?

St. Cyprian of Carthage flourished in the middle of the 3rd Century. It is clear from his Letter 75 that immersion was still the most common mode of baptism:

You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought of those who obtain God's grace in sickness and weakness, whether they are to be accounted legitimate Christians for that they are not to be washed, but sprinkled, with the saving water. In this point, my diffidence and modesty prejudges none, so as to prevent any from feeling what he thinks right, and from doing what he feels to be right. As far as my poor understanding conceives it, I think that the divine benefits can in no respect be mutilated and weakened; nor can anything less occur in that case, where, with full and entire faith both of the giver and receiver, is accepted what is drawn from the divine gifts.

---75:12

But it would appear that sprinkling or pouring were always acceptable because conditions sometimes make immersion problematic:

...nor ought it to trouble any one that sick people seem to be sprinkled or affused, when they obtain the Lord's grace, when Holy Scripture speaks by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, and says, Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean: from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit will I put within you. (Ez.36:25, 26)

---75:12 Edited February 10, 2013 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

It would indeed have been simply a practical matter, not a matter of doctrine. Is it not true that the RCC will do baptism by immersion for an adult convert, if requested?

Hi cdowis.

I have never heard of this. It just doesn't seem like something that would be requested very often. Many adult converts are already baptized anyway. I was 39 when I converted without being baptized. For those converts who are unbaptized, there is no doctrinal reason to request something different from what is the custom at the local church where baptism is occurring.

Few churches have adequate facilities for adult immersion. It seems a little improper for a convert to attach such importance to a particular mode of baptism as to insist upon special arrangements. Would he entertain doubts about the baptisms of his fellow Catholics? If I were a pastor, such a request would tend to rouse a suspicion that perhaps the convert doesn't accept the church's teaching.

3DOP

[Duncan]

St. Cyprian of Carthage flourished in the middle of the 3rd Century. It is clear from his Letter 75 that immersion was still the most common mode of baptism:

---75:12

But it would appear that sprinkling or pouring were always acceptable because conditions sometimes make immersion problematic:

---75:12

interesting, most interesting! I wonder how immersion came about with these scriptures in mind

[3DOP]

interesting, most interesting! I wonder how immersion came about with these scriptures in mind

Hey Duncan.

It seems hard not to understand that Ezekiel is speaking about baptism. In any case, that is how Catholics see it.

The practice of the early Church would be normative whether there is Scripture that is explicit or not. We can make a case for the plausibility of immersion from Scripture, but ultimately we believe, the earliest Christians were repeating what they had seen done. This would be an example of how Tradition, the apostolic practice, helps interpret Scripture. Immersion, being buried by water, as St. Paul says, is a vivid picture of what happens and equally acceptable. This would explain why we would say that both modes were practiced and equally valid.

3DOP

Edited February 11, 2013 by 3DOP

[volgadon]

Hey Duncan.

It seems hard not to understand that Ezekiel is speaking about baptism. In any case, that is how Catholics see it.

The practice of the early Church would be normative whether there is Scripture that is explicit or not. We can make a case for the plausibility of immersion from Scripture, but ultimately we believe, the earliest Christians were repeating what they had seen done. This would be an example of how Tradition, the apostolic practice, helps interpret Scripture. Immersion, being buried by water, as St. Paul says, is a vivid picture of what happens and equally acceptable. This would explain why we would say that both modes were practiced and equally valid.

3DOP

There is a Jewish reference that I'll have to find.

[kenporay]

Excuse my speliling. Look up references to jewish practice of mikveh and teveleh. Immersion for a number of reasons including ceremoney for new converts. That was what john the baptist/immerser was performing. Not a dipping, that came about in the early chritian church...

[cdowis]

Hi cdowis.

I have never heard of this. It just doesn't seem like something that would be requested very often.

I think I said that sprinkling is being used as a practical matter, not a doctrinal one. It appears that you agree with me.

[Bart Burk]

The Didache is a first century early Christian document. It discusses baptism, saying, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

When I was baptized, I knelt in a font of running water. The water was up to my neck. Father Schooler used a large pitcher which he filled from the running water in the font and poured the water over me three times in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. There wasn't a dry part of my body.

This tract on Catholic baptism should answer your questions:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/baptism-immersion-only

[cdowis]

Thanks.

[3DOP]

The Didache is a first century early Christian document. It discusses baptism, saying, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

When I was baptized, I knelt in a font of running water. The water was up to my neck. Father Schooler used a large pitcher which he filled from the running water in the font and poured the water over me three times in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. There wasn't a dry part of my body.

This tract on Catholic baptism should answer your questions:

http://www.catholic....-immersion-only

Oh duh. Good job Bart. I forgot about the Didache.

[nosmelone]

wasn't one of Martin Luther's 95 theses points that ordinances are not required in order to obtain salvation? I would assume he was talking about indulgences and the ordinances invovling relics and whatnot but would this belief in no ordinances for salvation also have lead no a watered down version of baptism and other ordinances? (no pun intended)

[3DOP]

wasn't one of Martin Luther's 95 theses points that ordinances are not required in order to obtain salvation? I would assume he was talking about indulgences and the ordinances invovling relics and whatnot but would this belief in no ordinances for salvation also have lead no a watered down version of baptism and other ordinances? (no pun intended)

Neither indulgences nor relics have any connection with sacraments or ordinances. There are only seven Sacraments that Luther may have condemned:

1) Baptism

2) Confession

3) Confirmation

4) Holy Matrimony

5) Holy Orders

6) The Eucharist

7) Extreme Unction

Lutherans continue to teach Luther's doctrine of baptismal regeneration: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-13a.html

[volgadon]

From the Epistle of Barnabas.

CHAP. VII.

The red heifer, another type of Christ.

BUT what 2 type do ye suppose it to have been, where it is 3 commanded to the people of Israel, that grown persons in whom sins are come to perfection, should offer an heifer, and after they had killed it should burn the same.

2 But then young men should take up the ashes and put them in vessels; and tie a piece of scarlet wool and hyssop upon a stick, and so the young men should sprinkle every one of the people, and they should be clear from their sins.

3 Consider how all these are delivered in a 4 figure to us.

4 This heifer is Jesus Christ; the wicked men that were to offer it are those sinners who brought him to death: who afterwards have no more to do with it; the sinners have no more the honour of handling of it:

5 But the young men that performed the sprinkling, signified those who preach to us the forgiveness of sins and the purification of the heart, to whom the Lord gave authority to preach his Gospel: being at the beginning twelve, 5 to signify the tribes, because there were twelve tribes of Israel.

6 But why were there three young men appointed to sprinkle? To denote Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, because they were great before God.

7 And why was the wool put upon a 6 stick? Because the kingdom of Jesus was founded upon the cross; and therefore they that put their trust in him, shall live for ever.

8 But why was the wool and hyssop put together? To signify that in the kingdom of Christ there shall be evil and filthy days, in which however we shall be saved; and 7 because he that has any disease in the flesh by some filthy humours is cured by hyssop.

9 Wherefore these things being thus done, are to us indeed evident, but to the <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob17.htm#fn_659">8 Jews they are obscure; because they hearkened not unto the voice of the Lord.

Saul Lieberman, in his Midrashei Teiman,provided some Jewish parallels supporting Barnabas' assertion that young boys were selected to sprinkle the priest or people.

[Bart Burk]

Oh duh. Good job Bart. I forgot about the Didache.

I suspect good Baptists in Europe and the Eastern United States weren't confronted with trying to immerse people in areas where water was in short supply. And of course technology in our day makes it even less likely people would be forced to baptize by pouring though it might be hard to baptize someone on his/her death bed by immersion.

[Storm Rider]

For a LDS the focus is on trying to emulate all that Jesus did. We believe that he was baptized by immersion and we follow that method. Even if it demands extraordinary circumstances converts will seek out deep water whether in winter or summer. It has meant that some broke the ice to enter the waters of baptisms while for others it only meant an indoor font full of warm water. Although the ordinance is filled with symbolism, I cannot really say why baptism is done by immersion. However, LDS feels so strongly about it that we even our baptism on behalf of our ancestors is done by immersion. It is easy for a LDS to say that since Jesus was baptized in this manner, we will follow his example. Though this may sound trite or pompous, we as a people really do try to follow him. At the end of the day, I still believe the overriding concern is by what authority does one baptize another?

[Bart Burk]

For a LDS the focus is on trying to emulate all that Jesus did. We believe that he was baptized by immersion and we follow that method. Even if it demands extraordinary circumstances converts will seek out deep water whether in winter or summer. It has meant that some broke the ice to enter the waters of baptisms while for others it only meant an indoor font full of warm water. Although the ordinance is filled with symbolism, I cannot really say why baptism is done by immersion. However, LDS feels so strongly about it that we even our baptism on behalf of our ancestors is done by immersion. It is easy for a LDS to say that since Jesus was baptized in this manner, we will follow his example. Though this may sound trite or pompous, we as a people really do try to follow him. At the end of the day, I still believe the overriding concern is by what authority does one baptize another?

The assumption is generally made that Jesus was baptized by immersion, but I'm not sure that assumption is warranted. Maybe he was, but I don't think we can just jump to that conclusion automatically. This is from a non-Catholic source on the mode of baptism and infant baptism. It might at least offer you another perspective:

http://www.imarc.cc/...ze/waswift.html

Edited February 12, 2013 by Bart Burk