Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8


Should you sprinkled or immersed?
The last message preached by Jesus was a command to baptize all nations. Matthew
The first message preached by the apostles resulted in a command for everyone to be
baptized. Acts 2:38.
Baptism is important and should be administered according to the Scriptures.
There are no baptisms completed by sprinkling within the word of God or the Bible.
Therefore we will look at the immersion ones.
Much Water
"John was baptizing at Aenon because there was much water there." John 3:23
Into the Water
"They both went down into the water." Acts 8:38
Out of the Water
"They came up out of the water." Acts 8:39
Buried in Water
"We are buried with Him in Baptism." Romans 6:4
Planted in Water
"We have been planted together." Romans 6:5
Without question the early church taught and practiced baptism by immersion. Paul said,
"If we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel let him be accursed." Galatians
If your form of baptism cannot be found in the Bible, aren't you afraid to practice it?
Immerse or Sprinkle?
Greek Word for Baptism is Baptizo
Below are writings of imminent Bible scholars and authorities on this subject. Most of
these references can be found in your local library.
the Greek word baptizo - to dip, immerse.
to dip under.
GREEK-ENGLISH DICTIONARY by DIVRY'S Greek word baptizo - to immerse.
Greek word baptizo is translated immerse.
command to baptize was a command to immerse. Vol. 1, pg.451
CATHOLIC BIBLICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA Immersion was oldest method employed.
Buried in baptism. Romans 6:4 pg.61, paragraph 2.
ENCYCLOPEDIA DICTIONARY OF BIBLE It's evident that the action performed in
baptizing was immersion. Page 202.
WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA The early church practiced immersion or
submerging under the water. Volume 2, Page 70.
ENCYCLOPEDIA of LUTHERAN CHURCH Martin Luther preferred immersion as
more true to original practice. Volume 1, Page 188.
PULPIT COMMENTARY by Imminent Scholars Romans 6:4, "Buried in baptism." The
reference is to baptism by immersion. Volume 18, Page 156.
CAMBERS ENCYCLOPEDIA (Volume 2, Pg. 112) That the first recipients of baptism
were adults. Infant baptism was a later development that led to sprinkling.
An important factor is overlooked by the exponents of sprinkling. The original New
Testament text and the spoken language of that day was Greek. The authors of the New
Testament knew the Greek word "Baptizo" meant to immerse. They also knew the Greek
word "Rantizo" meant to sprinkle. These often used words were never interchangeable,
having separate meanings. If God had intended for His ministers to sprinkle, the Greek
word "rantizo" would have been employed, not "Baptizo." If sprinkling cannot be found
in the Bible, then you are practicing a tradition of man, which makes the Word of God of
none effect. Mark 7:13.
"Infant Baptism"
As with sprinkling, the doctrine of infant baptism cannot be found in the New Testament
without adding to it. Scriptural logic cries out against infant baptism. The very mode
(immersion) makes it illogical and impractical. The teaching surrounding baptism
automatically prohibits it.
"The Word of God Speaks"
Matthew 28:19 - "Teach all nations, baptizing them" -Teaching or preaching must
precede baptism. See, Acts 2:41.
Acts 8:36,37 - Eunuch, "What doth hinder me to be baptized?" Phillip, "If thou believest
with all thine heart." Believing is a prerequisite of baptism. See, Mark 16:16.
ACTS 2:38 - "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of sins." Repentance must precede baptism. See, Luke 24:47.
"Did You Know?"
That the first recipients of baptism were adults. Infant baptism was a later development
that led to sprinkling.
CHAMBERS ENCYCLOPEDIA, VOL.2, Pg.112 There is no direct evidence in the New
Testament for infant baptism.
INTERPRETERS BIBLE DICTIONARY, VOL.1. Pg.352 The earliest Christian
literature makes no reference to baptism of infants.
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, VOL.3, Pg.138 The first mention of infant baptism
was about 185 A.D. Not universal until 6th Century.
HISTORY OF CHURCH, by WALKER, Pages 87-88. That 350 Lutheran pastors of
West Germany wish to abandon infant baptism. Many of these same pastors refused to
baptize their own infants. They felt that baptism should be understood first by the
recipient. Time Magazine, Page 58-May, 1968
That Karl Barth of Switzerland, the best known Theologian of the 20th Century said,
"There is not Biblical basis for infant baptism-this tradition is simply an old error of the
church." Time Magazine, Page 58-May, 1968
A child should be old enough to receive teaching, believe, and repent of sin before being
baptized. Dedicating children to God and asking Him to bless them is Biblical. This Jesus
did in Luke 18:15-17, Matthew 19:13-15.
Is It in the Plan of Salvation?
Listed below are three of many reasons why baptism is an absolute necessity.
1.The Bible Says So!
John 3:5 - "Except a man be born of the water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the
Kingdom of God." Most Bible commentaries agree that water here refers to baptism. See,
Mathew-Henry, Adam Clark, Hist. Christian Church, Walker., Catholic Encyclopedia,
Oxford Dictionary of Church, Interpreters Dictionary of Bible., Temples Bible
Mark 16:16 - "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Notice how Jesus places
baptism in conjunction with salvation.
1 Peter 3:21 - "Baptism doth also now save us." Also see Acts 10:46 and 48.
2. It Remits Sin
Hebrews 9:22 - The application of the blood of Christ is necessary to remit sin. What
then is the Biblical way to receive remission of sin? The answer to this question will also
be the only way to get the Savior's blood applied.
Luke 24:47 - "Repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His
Acts 2:38 - "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins..." The blood of Jesus is applied only through water baptism in the name of Jesus.
Also see 1 John 5:8 and Acts 22:16.
3. Baptized Into the Church
Every New Testament church was formed by those whom were baptized into the faith
after believing and repenting. Galatians 3:27 and 1 Corinthians 12:13.
1.Church at Jerusalem - 3000 added by baptism after receiving the word. Acts 2:41.
2.Church at Samaria - Believed and were baptized, men and women. Acts 8:12-16.
3.Church at Caesarea - Peter commanded them to be baptized. Acts 10:48.
4.Church at Philippi - Lydia and the Philippian jailer baptized. Acts 16:14-33.
5.Church at Corinth - Paul preached. They believed and were baptized. Acts 18:8.
6.Church at Ephesus - Paul rebaptizes those improperly baptized. Acts 19:1-6.
7.Church at Galatia - Believed Paul and baptized into Christ. Galatians 3:27.
8.Church at Colosse - They were buried with Christ in baptism. Colossians 2:12.
9.Church at Rome - They died to sin, then buried in baptism. Romans 6:1-4.
Baptism...In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost or in the
Name of the of Jesus Christ?
"In Jesus Name"
Jews - "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ." Acts 2:38.
Samaritans - They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 8:16.
Gentiles - Then Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 10:48.
Peter Taught - There is none other name given whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12.
Paul taught - Whatever you do, in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Colossians 3:17.
"Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"
There Are No Baptisms in the Bible Using That Formula
Mathew 28:19 was a command by Jesus to baptize in a Name. The Apostles did not
repeat the words of the command, but they did obey it as seen in the scriptures above.
Since Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are titles of the manifestations of the Almighty Spirit
and His body, the Apostles understood His saving name to be Jesus. Can any dare say
that the Apostles disobeyed the Lord, or failed to baptize properly? The name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus. The actions of the Apostles in the Book of Acts
prove this to be true. Furthermore John 5:43 says that Jesus came in the father's name.
Matthew 1:21 records the name of the son to be Jesus. And John 14:26 tells us that the
Comforter or Holy Ghost was sent in the name of Jesus.
"Baptism In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ"
How Did the Early Church Interpret Christ's Command of Matthew 28:19?
Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5 are four Biblical references that answer this question. If the
Biblical record is not enough, please examine the findings of the educated, scholars, and
historians below.
Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365 -Baptism was changed from
the name of Jesus to words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in 2nd Century.
Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53 - The early church baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus until the second century.
Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2 - Christian baptism was administered using
the words, "in the name of Jesus." page 377. Baptism was always in the name of Jesus
until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389.
Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263 - Here the authors acknowledged that the
baptismal formula was changed by their church.
Schaff - Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435 -The New Testament
knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus.
Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, page 88 - It must be acknowledged that the three fold
name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but
rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus.
The word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. This term, coined by the Roman Catholic
Church, was introduced at the Nicean Council of 325 A.D. It is accepted by most
Protestant groups, and states that there is one God divided into three persons who are
coequal and coeternal. This, of course, is a contradiction, an impossibility, and
completely unscriptural. It is without scriptural foundation."
The Didache (Catholic Teachings Book) teaches that there are two baptismal formulas.
The Bible teaches only one is valid (Ephesians 4:5: One Lord - (Jesus), one faith, and one
baptism). Wikipedia says this of the trinity. The New Testament does not have an explicit
doctrine of the Trinity. The English word Trinity is derived from Latin Trinitas, meaning
"the number three, a triad." Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early 3rd
century, is credited with using the words "Trinity","person" and "substance" to explain
that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "one in essence - not one in Person." About a
century later, in 325, the First Council of Nicaea established the doctrine of the Trinity.
The doctrine developed from the language used in (one) New Testament passage (citing
Matthew 28:19) and took substantially its present form by the end of the 4th century as a
result of controversies in which some theologians, when speaking of God, used terms
such as person, nature, essence, and substance; (these) terms that had never been used by
the Apostolic Fathers. There are no biblical references to baptism in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
VII. "Concerning baptism, baptize in this way. Having first rehearsed all these things,
baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, in living water.
But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and, if thou canst not in cold, in
warm. If you have neither, pour water thrice on the head in the name, etc...."
IX. "Let none eat or drink of your Eucharist, save such as are baptized into the name of
the Lord. For concerning this the Lord hath said; ‘Give not that which is holy to the
Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian
formula ...was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."
Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was
administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit.
Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original
form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the
name of the Trinity was a later development."
Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Volume XII, Pg. 458) In the New Testament we
do not find the doctrine of the Trinity in anything like it's developed form, not even in the
Pauline and Johnanine theology, although ample witness is born to the religious
experience from which the doctrine springs.
Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Volume XII, Pg. 461) At first the Christian faith
was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference. It was not so in the apostolic and
sub-apostolic ages, as we reflected in the New Testament and other early Christian
writings. Nor was it so even in the age of the Christian apologists.
Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Volume XII, Pg. 461) In other words, in thinking
about the Trinity they arrived at the Trinity. Nonetheless the greatest and most influential
of the Christian fathers, Origen, Athanasius, Basil and the Gregorys, Augustine, all
acknowledge that, for all the light thrown upon it in Biblical revelation, the divine nature
remained for them a mystery transcending reason.
Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Volume XII, Pg. 461-462) In the system of
Christian theology the doctrine of the Trinity does not usually fit well into the general
doctrine of God, and often bears the character of a doctrine apart.
New Catholic Encyclopaedia (Volume II, Pg. 59) (Formula) With regard to the form used
for baptism in the early church, there is the difficulty that although Matthew (28:19)
speaks of the Trinitarian formula which is now used, the Acts of the Apostles (2:38; 8:16;
10:48; 19:5) and Paul (I Corinthians 1:13; 6:11.;Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3) speaks only
of baptism "in the name of Jesus." It has been proposed that we assume that the one being
baptized had to confess the name of Jesus and that then the minister pronounced a
Trinitarian formula (Crehan 76, 81). This remains, however, an arbitrary conjecture.
In the last reference above we find that there is a great deal of confusion as the result of
"arbitrary conjecture." The early church baptized in Jesus' name. It is contradictory to
think that the recipient of baptism would confess Jesus' name while the minister would
confess trinity at the same time. Why base your salvation on mere conjecture that has no
scriptural backing whatsoever? On the other hand, we know according to scripture what
the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is: Jesus is His name! Look again at
Jesus' words as He spoke to his disciples in Matthew 28:19: He said to baptize "in the
name of," not "in the titles of." Remember, the Bible does not contradict itself, people do.
The Early Writers
Those who immediately followed the apostles have left records of the truth. The
following is a true record of a Baptism which took place in Rome A.D. 100 and was
reproduced in Time Magazine, December 5, 1955. "The deacon raised his hand, and
Publius Decius stepped through the baptistry door. Standing waist-deep in the pool was
Marcus Vasca the woodseller. He was smiling as Publius waded into the pool beside him.
‘Credis?’ he asked. ‘Credo,’ responded Publius. ‘I believe that my salvation comes from
Jesus the Christ, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. With Him I died that with Him
I may have Eternal Life.’ Then he felt strong arms supporting him as he let himself fall
backward into the pool, and heard Marcus’ voice in his ear; ‘I baptize you in the Name of
the Lord Jesus,’ as the cold water closed over him." In the fictionous tale of Paul and the
Martyr Thecia we find the reference to water baptism in Chapter 9:6-9. "Afterwards they
brought out many other wild beasts, but Thecia stood with her hands stretched towards
the heaven. And (she) prayed, and when she had done (finished) praying, she turned
about. Upon seeing a pit of water said, "Now it is the proper time for me to be baptized.
Accordingly, she threw herself into the water saying, "In thy name O my Lord Jesus
Christ I am this day baptized." The story as a whole is fiction but there's evidence for the
general mode of baptism at that time as being immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ. Barnabas wrote in reference to water baptism this note. "Blessed are they who put
their trust in the cross, descending into the water: For they shall have their reward in due
time. Having received remission (forgiveness) of our sins, and trusting in the name of the
Lord (Jesus), we have become renewed being created again as it were in the beginning."
Shepherd of Hermas wrote in his book: "Whosoever therefore shall not take upon him
His name, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God. It was necessary said he, for them
to ascend by water that they might be at rest. For they could not otherwise enter into the
kingdom of God. But by laying aside the mortality of their former life. Before a man
receives the seal he's freed from death and assigned unto life. Now that seal is the water
of baptism into which men go down under the obligation unto death, but come up
appointed unto life. They went down therefore into the waters with them and came up
Is It Absolutely Necessary That the Name of Jesus is Called Over a Person's Baptism?
For the answer to this question, please read Acts 15:17 and James 2:7. First Century
Christians invoked or called the name of Jesus over believers in water baptism. If, as
some say, "the name of Jesus means the authority of Jesus," then so much more should
the name, rather than titles, be called over an individual in baptism. Read Matthew 28:18,
Acts 4:12 and Colossians 2:9. Jude 3 is an exhortation to "earnestly contend for the faith
which was once delivered unto the saints." See Galatians 1:8-9 also. Should anyone dare
to change what Christ and the Apostles established?
So now what?
Are you really baptized?
Or are you satisfied just because "your parents did it that way?"
And can you honestly say "that your parents never made a mistake"... Could this be
another one?
Are you willing to risk eternity on it?
Remember... you came in to this world alone, and you will go out alone, where you go
from there is up to you!
B asic
I nstructions
B efore
L eaving
E arth