The Mode of Baptism in the Early Church

                                                                   Introduction 

I have spent a great deal of time arguing from the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the ancient fathers that infant baptism was not a later novelty in Christian history. I wish now, however, to discuss the mode of baptism as it existed in the first century. 

Throughout history, Christians have disagreed about what mode of baptism that was practiced in the New Testament. Indeed, denominations generally practice baptism under one of ore more of the following forms: immersion, partial immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. I will be briefly discussing this topic in one post. 

                                                    Baptism in the Old Testament 

Water was often a substance for purification to the Hebrews under the old covenant. Indeed, Moses had Aaron and the priests bathed in Leviticus 8:6. Oftentimes, sick people resorted to water to cleanse them (Leviticus 14:8). None of this benefits the advocating of sprinkling as being bathed is quite different than receiving a sprinkle. In general, the Jews historically understood baptism to be my immersion as extra-Biblical literature reveals elsewhere. 

However, the New Testament does give us more insight concerning baptism in the Old Testament. 1 Corinthians 10:2 does tell us that Moses and the Israelites were baptized through the Red Sea. While at first glance, this may seem to benefit the idea that the Israelites were immersed by water baptism, we know that the Israelites weren't literally immersed by the red sea (though the Egyptians were), Rather Psalm 77:16-20 reveals that the heavens poured rain upon them as they passed through. I consider this to be a strong Biblical case for the validity of baptism by sprinkling. 

                                                      Baptism in the New Testament

Considering that John the Baptist baptized others in the Jordan river, many advocates of immersion argue that he baptized by full immersion. Of course, while scriptures never articulate this, it does seem to be a natural interpretation. Of course, many works of early Christian and later Medieval art do show baptism (and specifically John the Baptist's Baptism) to be performed by pouring. While it may be difficult to prove either way concerning John's Baptism, both the baptism that Moses and the Israelites received through the Red Sea (1 Corinthians 10:2) and the baptism of John the Baptist (Acts 18:18-28) are not entirely relevant as both were superseded by the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 11:15-16). For us to have a good grasp of what mode Christians should baptize with, our principal source should be in the New Testament, especially those writings concerning the church. 

Both Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 give an analogy of baptism to burial in Christ. Considering this, it seems likely that Paul generally understood baptism to be by immersion. So far, scripture confirms that immersion is Biblical (contrary to those who say otherwise). What of sprinkling and pouring, however? Are they also to be found in the New Testament. 

One of the common passages used for the support of baptism by pouring is Acts 1-2. Acts 1:5 confirms that the early Christians were about to be baptized by the Holy Spirit, while 2:3 tells us that the Spirit had come upon them. All of this was a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy that the Spirit would come (2:17). In conclusion, many advocates of baptism by pouring resort to this passage for proof of their practice. 

One of the exegetical problems for Acts 1-2 supporting baptism, is that the passage while mentioning the Holy Spirit, does not explicitly say anything about water baptism. Indeed, we have no knowledge of whether or not the apostles or the Virgin Mary were ever baptized by water at all. That is not to say that the apostles weren't baptized, but even if they had been, it could have been long before or after the events at Pentecost. In short, the mentioned passage says little to confirm either baptism by pouring or by affusion. However, in a less obvious way, it may point to baptism by affusion as I will demonstrate soon. 

Although some appeal to Hebrews 12:24 as evidence of baptism by sprinkling, the passage speaks of sprinkling with blood, and little of water of baptism. In short, I think to see this passage as benefiting baptism by sprinkling is a forced interpretation. 

According to Wayne Grudem, the word baptizo means ''to plunge, dip, immerse (967),'' something in water. Grudem goes on to explain that this is the commonly understood meaning of the Greek word. Indeed, the pattern of the New Testament seems to fit most with baptism by immersion. The Greek word for sprinkling, rhantizo, is never used in the context of baptisms in the New Testament. 

Colossians 2:11-12 also provides a clear case of baptism by immersion. Speaking of our whole body being stained by sin, Paul affirms the Resurrection for us in Christ. This resembles the practice of a person rising from the water when baptized by immersion (especially full immersion). 

                                           The mode of baptism in the Ancient Church

It is interesting to note that The Didache mentions baptism by immersion, as well as baptism by pouring. While preferring the former, it does believe that pouring is acceptable in case there is not enough water. I find this to be a likely position considering that pouring typically immerses one's head, and thus fits closer with Paul's doctrine in Romans 6:4 than does sprinkling. Even The United States Catholic Catechism for Adults admits that baptism by sparkling was not the norm until the latter half of the Middle Ages. 

As a side note, while I believe that full immersion is the most Biblical form of Baptism, many throughout history have been baptized by pouring. John Smyth, traditionally regarded by many historians as the founder of the Baptists, self-baptized by pouring water on himself. I'm sure that many Baptists today would be shocked to learn that their founder did not believe that baptism was by immersion only. 

People were likely baptized with immersion as nude in the third century. There have been different theories on this, which I will save for another time. However, the Apostolic Tradition seemed to imply immersion as the norm for baptism.  

I concur with the opinion of Michael F. Bird, that both baptisms by immersion and affusion should be retained. To quote Bird,

''Immersion calls to mind Jesus's 'baptism,' which is his death (Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50) while affusion is a moving picture of Jesus as the dispenser of the holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11, John 15:26, 16:7, Acts 2:1-4, 33; 1 Corinthians 12:13).'' 

I think that Bird's last point is especially true. Baptism by pouring, while possibly never mentioned directly in scripture, does bear witness to the Holy Spirit coming upon us. The problem for many immersion advocates, however, is that they see little distinction between the baptism of John and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2). Scripture though shows that baptism from Acts on was connected with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. 

                                                                  Conclusion: 

Today, most scholars of early Christianity believe that immersion was the common form of baptism in the early church (though others argue for pouring). In recent years, more Paedobaptists have returned to the practice of baptism by immersion (as the Eastern Orthodox practice for their infant baptisms). According to Patristic scholar Everett Ferguson, plunging or dipping was the norm in early Christian practice (161).  

For me, history is clear that immersion was the dominant form of baptism at the time of the New Testament. I personally have no objections to baptism by pouring, which I believe comes close (if not identical) to the teaching of Colossians 2:12. However, I am more skeptical of baptism by sprinkling, which I find to lack both Biblical support and early Christian support.