There’s been a lot of comment on baptism recently, due mainly to Bethlehem Baptist (pastored by John Piper) opening up the possibility of allowing membership in their church to those who believe that biblical baptism includes sprinkling, pouring and baptising infants/children. This has been opened up for consideration because the qualifications for eldership have been tightened to include the need for elders to believe and teach believer’s baptism by immersion.

Jollyblogger, a Presbyterian pastor, has made characteristically wise and generous comments about this move.

I, on the other hand, have recently come to the conclusion that, biblically, the “how” of Christian baptism is limited to using water. This came from feeling the tension of being able to read the Biblical accounts as supporting both pouring and immersion (though on further investigation I have decided that pouring is the most likely biblical method). This tension along with the conclusion of one particular article (it’s argument leading to sprinkling as the method is interesting, but not what I value it for) lead me to the position that using water is the only requirement for Christian baptism.

I may explain my arguments in full later, but right now I want to look at some ramifications if this belief is correct. Consider this:

1. Nowhere does the Bible explicitly state how Christian baptism was performed (though the Bible does explain fairly precisely how other baptisms were performed).
2. The arguments for sprinkling, pouring or immersion are all indirect and all the indirect arguments can be read to fit into each view.
3. Nowhere does the Bible even hint that the method of Christian baptism is important (though the method of OT baptisms are explicitly laid out).
4. Therefore, any division over the method of baptism is a division based on something God chose not to specify in the Bible. Why, then, do we argue over it as something so important?

Now, before the “yes, but”’s get too loud, consider the following.

5. If the amount of effort that has gone into figuring out the exact method of baptism went into figuring out the exact method of the other protestant sacrament - communion/eucharist/the Lord’s Supper - the celebration of communion would look far different in most churches than it does today. Use wine? Why not? The Bible is clear that wine is the correct drink for communion. If you use grape juice you are not really celebrating communion. And unleavened bread should be the type of bread, otherwise it is not communion you are partaking in. And communion should be celebrated while having a shared meal. How many churches do that? Does this mean that most churches do not actually celebrate communion? No, because the Bible does not specify that all these things must be present for communion to be shared.

6. On the other hand, 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 lays out direct and explicit instructions about what to do when Christians gather together. How many churches who are so concerned about the indirect evidence of something the Bible draws no explicit attention to (i.e, the method of Christian baptism in water) pay attention to 1 Cor 12 and 14? Very, very few.

My only conclusion is that the church has been and continues to be divided over an issue that the Bible pays no attention to itself.

How are we to be baptised? I agree with the conclusion of the above article: WITH WATER! Can the disagreement over method not be considered non-essential opinion? Could it be…might it be…possibly…that divisions over this matter are, in themselves, sin?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed