Baptism: Immersion vs Sprinkling


I recommend that you read my series on Baptism before engaging in this post.  You can find it by clicking HERE.

By the time I even started looking into this I had already been convinced by scripture that Baptism is real.  Specifically, I do not see it as a symbolic act that that does nothing.  I believe that Baptism is a means of Grace by which God kills and raises us in Christ.  Once you have accepted this after coming from a more Baptist background, the whole sprinkling vs dunking thing is kind of a non-issue.  In my opinion the Baptist fixation here is a distraction, and when we engage in the narrative it assumes the false premise.

That said, I am going to devote one post to this topic.  My goal here is to Biblically present why I believe it doesn’t matter how much water is used or how much of the body is covered in it.

What does Baptism Mean?

The word “Baptism” comes to us from the Greek word “Baptizo“.  I find that different sources will define the word differently depending on the theology of the one providing the definition.  I have seen some sources define it in ways that allow sprinkling and others that seem to try to scratch that out.  Not being educated in Greek myself, I try not to rely too much on those, and instead focus on how the word is used in scripture.

What I have found is that it works like the word “wash” in English.  The quantity of water seems to depend on the context.  Here is an example of what I mean.

“4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.” Mark 7:4 KJV 

Notice in the above verse Mark is using the word “wash” to talk about cleaning dishes, tables, and other such household things.  Some Versions use the word “couch” in there too.  In English this has been translated wash, but in the Greek you will see he simply uses the Word Baptize.


Even the most staunch Southern Baptist would have to concede that at least one place in scripture uses the root word “Baptizo”  in a sense that allows for sprinkling.  Unless of course, you’re going to insist that all first century Jews immersed their couches and tables on a regular basis.

Even today, the English word “wash” can mean either immersion or sprinkling.  It depends on the context and the one performing the washing can do it however they like, the amount of water isn’t definitional, it’s the presence of it that is.

What about the Trinitarian Baptism?

With those who advocate for immersion only Baptism, the argument generally goes something like this…

Though the Bible does use the word Baptizo differently, when it is talking about a Trinitarian Baptism it only means immersion.  To back this up examples from Descriptive Historic Narrative will be used along with photographic evidence, like the Baptism of Jesus below.


Jokes aside, I realize nobody claims that this is actual photographic evidence.  But in American Baptistic-Christian Culture this is the image you are accustomed to seeing.  So when you read the narrative in scripture, this is what you imagine.  The fact of the matter is that such narratives are not that specific.  The words “going” down into and coming “up” out of can just as easily mean walking down into the water and walking up out.  Besides, older Christian art conveys a very different picture does it not?


For the record I have a personal connection to both of these pictures.  While I think the latter is of much higher quality and I identify with it as part of my journey in leaving adventism, the former I remember seeing growing up.  And honestly, because of this it is the picture that I personally think of when I read the narrative in the Bible.

There are several narratives in scripture that describe Baptism being performed.  I’ll pick out two of them below.

“And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” ; And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.  And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.” Acts 8:36-39 ESV 

Notice the text above has both men going down into the water and both men coming back up.  If you’re going to insist that going down and up means immersion then you must also believe that Philip immersed himself!

Does that mean the Eunuch was immersed or sprinkled?  Either are possible, the point is that going down into and coming up out of doesn’t definitively mean anything in relation to the baptism other than the fact that water was necessary.

And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him” Matt 3:16 ESV 

The above verse can be read either way.  You can insist that baptism preceded going “up” in the chain of verbs, thus the baptism was complete by the time he “went up”.  This would mean that the heavens opening occurred as Jesus walked out of the water rather that emerging from the water.  Like in the image below:


If you want to be dogmatic about it you could insist that the verbs are connected and coming up out of the water conveys immersion baptism.  Thus the opening of the heavens would have occurred as Jesus emerged from the water.  I don’t personally think it matters as either way would be a baptism.  The text is simply not specific enough for us to be dogmatic in my assessment.

The fact that must be conceded is that the scripture doesn’t teach ONLY immersion or ONLY sprinkling, asserting otherwise establishes a false dichotomy.

That said, the main point that blows all of this out of the water  is that what we are dealing with here is descriptive historic narrative.  Even a Baptist would tell a Pentacostal not to base their understanding of tongues out of the book of Acts.  Historic narrative lends itself well to eisegesis and must be understood through the lens of systematic prescriptive works, like the writings of Paul.  And on all topics save baptism, a conservative baptist would likely agree with me on that.

What about the Symbolism Conveyed in Immersion Baptism?

One of the arguments for immersion only baptism is that it better conveys the symbolism taught in the following passage.

“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:3-5 ESV

The idea is that going fully into the water conveys an image of death and burial while the coming up out of the water is a picture of the resurrection.

The problem with this framework is that the passage isn’t teaching something symbolic it’s teaching something literal.  Notice the verbs in the passage above are being performed by God not by Man.  You are not being symbolically baptized into the death of Christ, you are literally receiving it.  The scripture calls this the circumcision without hands.

“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” Colossians 2:11-12 ESV

Notice that Paul specifically states that this is the “working of God”.  Baptism is not symbolic at all.  It’s real.

I would argue that focusing on the symbolism of immersion is a denial of what is actually happening and sends the wrong message.  For this reason and this reason only I think that in the era we currently live in sprinkling is preferable immersion in the western churches.   I say this because it sends a message that you actually believe in baptism.

What would convince me to believe in immersion only?

I am going to be fair and set the same standards for others that I do for myself in proving something from scripture.  If I were to be convinced immersion only is a thing then I would need to see the following proven from scripture:

  • Prove that Baptism is a work of Man, not of God
  • Prove that Baptism is Law, not Gospel
  • Demonstrate a prescriptive command to immerse only
  • Demonstrate a prescriptive command not to sprinkle


Even if one could prove that every case of Baptism in the Bible was immersion that wouldn’t cut it, because I am not denying that immersion baptism is a thing.  I am simply contesting the word “only”.

Is that standard not fair?  I think that it is absolutely fair!  I am very careful when claiming “only” anything in the Bible.  Read my post on Justification, notice that I present very clear prescriptive passages teaching Justification by Faith and not by works.  Anytime you are going to claim the word “only” you need to back it up with solid clear scripture that presents the either/or juxtaposition on it’s own.  Eisegeting the historic narrative just doesn’t cut it.



I of course believe that any Trinitarian Baptism applies the blessings promised in scripture.  The amount of water simply isn’t the issue.  The real flaw here is that so many see Baptism as Law instead of Gospel.  This of course doesn’t remove the heavenly promise that comes with it, but it does remove the comfort and knowledge that you have been forgiven in your baptism.

This is why I find the immersion debate irrelevant and generally don’t bring it up, this will likely be my only post on it.  The issue that actually matters is the efficacy of Baptism, though water is necessary the amount of it just isn’t.

About ACTheologian

I am a layman who blogs my Biblical studies. Enjoy, please read with an open Bible and do double check with your pastor.
This entry was posted in Armchair Lounge, Soteriology and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Baptism: Immersion vs Sprinkling

  1. Grace Ambassador says:

    ACTheologian, Grace and Peace to you. Great Liberty and Freedom must be yours after coming out of the SDA org, eh? Praise God, I can understand that, as The Wonderful LORD delivered me from Roman Catholicism!

    Now concerning “Baptism,” I wish to propose the following about “God’s Operation” for your consideration:

    I believe we are “spiritually identified with” (baptized into) CHRIST, His Crucifixion, His Death, His Burial, And His Resurrection:

    Rom 6:3 …baptized into JESUS CHRIST…baptized into HIS Death
    Rom 6:4 …buried with HIM by baptism into Death
    Rom 6:6 …crucified (JESUS’ Baptism?) with HIM,” and also:

    Ga 3:27 For as many of you as have been BAPTIZED into CHRIST have put on CHRIST.

    Comparing spiritual Scripture With spiritual Scriptures, This Baptism makes us “spiritually”:

    Col 2:10 COMPLETE in HIM, Who Is The Head of ALL principality and power:
    Col 2:11 ….the circumcision made WITHOUT HANDS (God?)…the CIRCUMCISION of CHRIST
    Col 2:12 Buried with HIM in BAPTISM, wherein also ye are risen with HIM through the Faith [Faithfulness] of

    THE OPERATION of God, WHO hath RAISED HIM from the dead.


    Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His Mercy he saved us, by The WASHING of REGENERATION, and RENEWING of The Holy Ghost;
    Tit 3:6 Which HE Shed on us Abundantly through JESUS CHRIST our Saviour

    This Should Complete The Spiritual OPERATION of The Triune GodHead, but, are we done Comparing Scriptures of Baptism?

    In The Revelation of The Mystery (Gospel of GRACE for today), a Prayerful and Careful study, Rightly Divided, we find:

    Eph 4:5 …One LORD, one faith, ONE BAPTISM

    So, What Saith The Scriptures in It’s Context, about The One Baptism?:

    “Endeavouring to keep The Unity of The Spirit in the
    bond of peace. There is one Body, and one Spirit, even
    as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One LORD,
    one faith {Romans – Philemon},

    One Baptism,

    One God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” [Ephesians 4:3-6]

    Now, unless I am mistaken, we have 3 choices:
    1) all “physical” = Destruction of “the context”, agreed?
    2) “combo” of 6 “spiritual” + 1 “physical,” lifted “out, and
    from the context, to be interpreted as “water” baptism = Destruction of the context, agreed?
    3) These Seven Unities of God’s Spirit are All “Spiritual,” so, Is The One Baptism “Spiritual”?
    Make One More Comparison and Ask The Scripture, and, The Answer you get Is:
    “For by ONE [Holy] Spirit are we all Baptized {Spiritually Identified with CHRIST} into ONE Body , whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into ONE [Holy] Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:13)

    Please Be Richly Blessed!

    Sincerely yours and SECURE-ly HIS!
    Saint Christopher


    • ACTheologian says:

      Thanks for the comment. I take all those verses very seriously and literally. With respect, I think you eisegete your premise if you assume they are all figurative or teach baptism as a work of man rather than God.

      I would like to see a verse that says baptism is a work of man and that it totally does nothing and is just a sign that we have made a decision for Jesus if I’m going to change my stance.

      God Bless.


  2. There are two illustrations used regarding baptism in the New Testament:

    1. The flood (1 Peter 3)
    2. The Red Sea (1 Cor 10)

    In both cases, the wicked were completely covered by water, and the righteous were saved. This fits well with the scripture that we are “buried with Him in baptism” (Rom 6 / Col 2). Our old man is put to death, washed away; the new man rises in life. It is a complete death, once-for-all, although most modern “gospels” deny this.

    Sprinkling does not convey this full picture. Sprinkling of blood was used in the Old Testament, just as the foot-washing is used in the New, to represent a cleansing away of the contamination picked up in the daily life. “You are clean,” Jesus said, “but not all.” This would not be a suitable picture of the new birth, in which we are entirely unclean, and need a complete renovation of the spiritual nature. “Old things are passed away, behold, all things [in the spiritual nature] are become new.” 2 Cor. 5:17.


    • ACTheologian says:

      It’s not a picture, it’s literal. The picture was the red Sea and the flood, the fulfilment is being saved from sin and death.

      Also, they were likely sprinkled in the red Sea when they walked through if you want to pick at hairs.


      • The spiritual death, of which baptism is a sign, is represented by those who perished under the water: the ungodly world at the flood, and the Egyptian army at the Red Sea. Neither of those parties could properly be described as “sprinkled.” They were immersed into a watery grave from which they never walked out.

        Two deaths were required before the Israelites could be delivered from Egypt: the death of the Passover lamb, and the death of the firstborn of Egypt (which represented the life and power of that nation).

        Two deaths are required before we can be delivered from the power of Sin: the death of Christ, and the death of our spiritual firstborn.

        Romans 6
        6 Our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
        4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.


      • ACTheologian says:

        Baptism isn’t merely a sign, notice Romans 6 doesn’t say we are symbolically buried with him. It’s literal.


      • Frank Z. says:

        Yes, of course. The plagues on Egypt were “signs” also, but they were very real! Christ and His children are to be for “signs and wonders” (Isaiah 8:18) but they are not just to play-act…it must be the power of God working through them.


  3. Joseph Dodji says:

    thanks for the insight given.
    I would be glad to teach on infant baptism.
    I’m of the believe that it is good and acceptable but some doctrines in some churches are against it
    waiting to hear from you


  4. Neal Stafford says:

    Additional argument against the immersionists. The baptism of St. Paul. Baptism was administered to him in a standing position in Acts 9:18 with the same wording in 22:16. How is it possible to be immersed standing up in a house? Paul’s not eating for three days and Luke’s mentioning him eating immediately after his baptism are the two contextual bookends that indicate the baptism occurred in the same location and relatively quickly.

    We have (1) two separate texts (2) commenting on the same event (3) where water is applied to the human body (4) confirming baptism was administered to Paul in a standing position. This is the plain and ordinary meaning of the text. A reasonable person should come to this conclusion.

    Testing the “reasonable person” rule. This I got from the internet:

    Supposing I were to place an ad on Craigslist asking for thirty known atheists to interpret Acts 9:18 and each would receive $100. An explanation would be given on the various modes of baptism used historically (immersion, sprinkling, pouring). Then I would give a visual example of each mode. After reading the whole chapter nine, they then would try to determine what mode was used in 9:18. The result would be inconclusive, but they would certainly rule out immersion. The same would be about Acts 22. Thirty atheists would agree that Paul was not immersed. What is so hard about understanding this?

    Using the “reasonable person” standard just means not all people will agree with what you are saying but a “reasonable person” would. This is the best we can hope for in a sinful world.

    Baptists suffer from confirmation bias. This is the tendency to interpret Scripture which conforms to a persons prior beliefs while rejecting or ignoring any conflicting data. So if a Baptist were taught from cradle to grave before opening up the Bible, all baptisms in the NT are only by immersion…then they are! And no investigation is necessary. But how do you know all baptism are immersion unless you study each passage that applies baptism to the person.


    • Frank Z. says:

      Except that “arise” in this case refers to Paul’s need to get up off the bed he is lying down on, not with the posture he had while being baptized. “Arise, and be baptized,” NOT “Arise while you are being baptized.”
      Colossians 2:12 “Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised Him from the dead.”
      I wonder which “reasonable atheist” would surmise that Jesus was buried in the tomb in a standing position?


      • ACTheologian says:

        Do you honestly see Colossians 2:12 as a prescriptive passage on orientation of ones body for baptism? Really? Seems clear to me that Paul is teaching what baptism does to you when you’re baptized. Reading it in a prescriptive fashion rather than a descriptive seems like twisting the passage to me and that’s something I try very hard not to do.


  5. Neal Stafford says:

    Immersionists fail to make a distinction between texts that describe the administration of baptism (Acts) and texts which describe what baptism accomplishes (Paul’s writings). Due to immersionists belief that baptism is an empty sign and neither accomplishes nor does anything, there will be a mixing or blending of these two distinct categories with a clear bias towards all NT baptismal texts as pertaining to the mode of immersion baptism.

    Immersion only baptism is an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose baptism always means immersion in the Bible.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s