Community answers are sorted based on votes. The higher the vote, the further up an answer is.
Whenever we see baptism in the Bible it is in a river or body of water. That would imply immersion.
Well, Baptism is a big, big topic, however, I could try to pick out some of the key pointers of it. First of all, let us try to understand the meaning of the word "Baptism" The word baptism refers to; immersion, to dip, to go under. In that case, by simply sprinkling, we are doing something else not baptism. So we should better find another word that corresponds well with "sprinkling", it is definitely not baptism. Sprinkling of the forehead has no Biblical, historical backing, we can't trace it anywhere in the scriptures. The emperor Constantine, Caesar in the west, and Linius, was the first emperor to become Christian. He accepted to become Christian on the idea that if you can't fight them, then join them. This is because the Church had continued to grow further even in the face of persecution. All the Roman emperors; especially Nero who executed the Apostle Paul and Peter, had a history of persecuting the Church until Constantine. When Constantine became Christian, he was not baptized until he was on his deathbed. This could have been for two reasons; 1) he waited until he could commit no more sins, would be baptized and therefore, according to him be able to go to heaven. 2) He looked down on baptism of immersion, as demeaning, according to him, as royal as he was, chose to be sprinkled so that he could maintain his royalty. From that time, sprinkling began to gain momentum in place of immersion. Other sources have been local, from our local senior theologians. The Biblical story of Naaman in the book of 2Kings 5 can tell how human beings tend to balloon up themselves even in the face of their appetite. The "Clergy" of the day therefore had to find a way of fulfilling this very important requirement using majestic methods because the king was majestic. The emergency of the sprinkling therefore was drafted in, not on the basis that it had any historical or Biblical backing, but on the human pride of a certain emperor who wished to be treated so even in the face of his appetite. In all the four gospels, baptism is backed up with immersion, not sprinkling. In Matthew 3:11, John baptized by immersion in the river Jordan. In the very same river, Jesus was baptized. Where in the wildest of this world could someone come to a conclusion that sprinkling is a form of baptism? Jesus whom we all follow was baptized and it is only then that we can't even argue about it. He is the CHRIST, we are called Christians because we follow after Him, it means we do what He did, no less, no more, I mean with in the confines of Christianity and the scriptures. The Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:26-40, after accepting Christ to be his LORD and Savior, despite the fact that he was a noble, his nobility had nothing to do with what he had gotten into, it was not about who he was, it was about his life after death, which totally has nothing to do with who you are while on earth. He had to accept to be dipped in water of a river in order to fulfill this very noble step of becoming a full Christian. In conclusion therefore, the Bible tells of no baptism other than immersion. It is the actual and intended meaning of the word right from the beginning of the conception of it. Baptism is the physical sign of renewal of someone, just like you have been washed with/in water of the river or lake, and as it flows away, it does so with your sins. Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 3:5, that unless a person is born of water and spirit, he can never see the kingdom of God. What Jesus meant was that spiritual renewal/washing was as important as the physical one. As such, baptism by immersion is as important. Sprinkling therefore does not, will not, will never give the true intended idea of baptism, it then be looked at as another form of baptism. God bless
The word baptism simply means "to be immersed". The greek word spells it "baptisma". The translators of the Bible, instead of translating the word "baptism" to "being immersed", transliterated it as "baptism" itself. So that is the main reason why some denominations today sprinkle some water and claim it to be baptism. Hence the physical ordination of baptism shall be always by immersion. No need to quote verses here. But, when concentrating on the spiritual significance of baptism, Bible claims it to be buried and to be risen with Christ (Romans 6:4). This claims a higher degree of immersion beyond being just immersed, even though it does not mean we should lie like a dead corpse inside the water. Putting both its spiritual and literal significance together, baptism simply means being immersed in water, where the believer is in full knowledge that he is being emblematically buried and being raised with Christ.
Baptism by immersion was not the practice during the time of our Lord! Why? Because of water shortage. Rivers have not been abundant in the Middle East. In fact, water has been precious like oil in the Middle East. Not all places have had rivers or bodies of fresh water for immersion, but have had millions of liters of sea water and square kilometers of dry land-desert! Jordan was the favorite baptismal site because of clean and abundant water. How about in other desert places? It:s pure and simple economics and necessity that fresh water as potable water was used sparingly! I would not allow my source of potable water to be defiled and debased by swimming dirty bodies who perhaps had not taken a bath for sometime!
All answers are REVIEWED and MODERATED.
Please ensure your answer MEETS all our guidelines.
A good answer provides new insight and perspective. Here are guidelines to help facilitate a meaningful learning experience for everyone.