TO DIP  OR  NOT TO DIP

By Paul Ferguson

INTRODUCTION 

Centuries ago men felt the Word of God important enough to find out the difference between the teachings of men and “thus saith the Lord.” Even as late as the 1800’s Bible teachers discussed the issue in this little book. Men like Seiss, Campbell, Robinson, Dale, etc. debated the issues and were not afraid to let people know where they stood on the mode of bap­tism. But today very few are willing to ring a clear bell on their position. 

Very few books are thus available on this subject, which bear a 20th century date. Indeed a major bock on the mode of baptism would probably have very few readers. This no doubt is due to the sweeping tendency in religion to stress man’s personal likes and dislikes over and above the WORD. This book is for a selected few that believes the Word of God is to be placed before the teachings of men. 

Some years ago the author published a major work on the subject called A COMPENDIUM OF DOGMA­TIC THEOLOGY. It is the author’s desire at some future date to republish this as a service to Bible lo­vers all over the world. But until then this booklet will suffice to give some of the more important and less technical aspects of the subject. 

IS BAPTISM BY IMMERSION ESSENTIAL? 

In this section we shall list and where necess­ary comment upon some of the major arguments for baptism by immersion. Some of these are as follows:

1. Language. “Baptizo” translated or rather it is transliterated ‘baptize” in English versions, is the ordinary Greek word for immerse. This is the reason why the Greek Church has always immersed. They have a word for “sprinkle” which is “rantizo”. Those who have been sprinkled thus are not baptized but rather are rantized.

BAUER’S LEXICON (p. 131) gives the follow­ing definitions for “baptizo”:  “dip, immerse, wash, plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm.”

 De Stoudza, a 19 century theologian of the Greek Church writes: “Baptizo signifies literally and always ‘to plunge.’ Baptism and immersion are therefore identical and to say baptism by aspersion (sprinkling) is as if one should say “immersion by aspersion” or any other such absurdity of the same nature. The Greek church maintains that the Latin Church instead of a baptismos (baptism) practices a rantismos (Gr. for sprinkling), instead of a baptism a mere sprinkling.” 

2. Typology. In Romans 6:3,4(Col.2:l2 Paul the great apostle compares baptism to the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. If baptism were by sprinkling, Paul’s comparison would have been meaningless. When we bury a person, we do not simply sprinkle a little dirt on the coffin. We completely cover it! 

3. Actual examples. In the portion of Acts 8 which deals with the baptism of the Eunuch (vs. 26-40) the Word of God makes very clear what mode of baptism was used. Acts 8:36 says, “They came upon a certain water (or some water) and the Eunuch said, ‘Look, water! What’s to keep me from getting baptized?” (Ferguson’s trans­lation) Then the Word says, “Then he command­ed the chariot to stop and both of them, both Phillip and the eunuch, went down into the water and he baptized him.” 

If sprinkling were the mode of baptism, then the eunuch could have held up his canteen as the cover shows and said, “Here is water.” Since it was obviously very important to the eunuch he would not want to make any delay. There would have been no need at all to stop the chariot. The evangelist Phillip could have merely poured cut a few drams of water and sprinkled it over him. Even if one were to argue the eunuch made a rest stop to water the horses, this would not have ex­plained why they went down into the water. Water in the desert must have been very scarce. This unnecessary pollution and muddying of the water would have been useless and wrong unless the apostolic mode of baptism was immersion. 

Another passage along the same line in John 3:23. In the gospel of John it states that: John was baptizing in Aenon near Salim because there was much water there.” If John sprinkled, then two or three large pots could have held enough water to baptize the city of Jerusalem. In this case then John could have baptized where it was most convenient for the crowd to come. Then the reference to water would not have been so intimately connected with his baptizing! 

SUMMARY 

In view of the Biblical evidence the method of baptism used by Jesus and the apostles was that of immersion. Thus the question of the mode of baptizing becomes in reality: Are we going to use the same methods which Christ and the New Testament church used? 

Christ told them in plain language (to Greek speaking apostles) “Go ye therefore and immerse all nations…” When we substitute another method for the one commanded by the Lord, then we are plainly and simply adding to His words and are subject to the curse of Rev. 22:18-19. 

IS BAPTISM ESSENTIAL? 

In examining this question we shall find a clue as to why many find debating the mode of baptism an unnecessary task. Many do not even feel that baptism in any form is essential to salvation and thus would not be too worried about how it is to be done.

People who believe this way usually charge us with teaching a salvation by works. They site for proof texts verses such as Eph. 2:8 which tell us that salvation is “not of works lest anyone should boast.” 

This is the same as saying the electricity for my radio does not come from my hand. The electricity is not of my works. It is already there. But unless I make some response to receive it, it will do me absolutely no good. The same thing is true of salvation. The saving power does not originate out of our works, but a response on our part is needed to release it and make it available to us. Bible churches, etc. teach that this response is accepting Christ, having faith, etc. but all teach that some response is necessary. That is almost all. There are some hyper-Calvinist who even throw out faith as a response. 

This of course is the word of men. In the next two pages we shall compare what some men are teaching about water baptism with what is taught in God’s Word and note the contrast. 

 SUMMARY 

Ephesians 2:8 previously referred to cannot be used to offset passages in Acts. Acts 19 tells us about the founding of the Ephesians Church. In this passage Paul examined the very root and core of their salvation. He first inquired about whether they had received the Holy Ghost. Since they had not, he immediately put his finger on the kind of water baptism they had experienced. When Paul heard they were good Baptists, he immediately rebaptized them in the name of Jesus Christ according to Act 19:4-6 and they did receive the Holy Ghost.

If water baptism were not important and the way in which it was done were not essential then Paul erred in confusing these people in Ephesus about non-essential matters. He erred in stirring up division by baptizing them again. He was disrespectful to John who was a good man by not accepting his baptism if the New Testament mode is not essential. 

The question which remains and which all of the readers of this article will face in judgment is…

GOD’S WAY     OR     MAN’S WAY??

 Have you made your choice??????