The Meaning of Baptism Is Lost In Sprinkling

That is, of course, if one assumes that Baptism is purely symbolic. However, the scriptures you quote leave no doubt that Baptism is more than a symbol, rather something substantive is occuring, namely being buried and resurrected with Christ.

P.S. Nobody actually sprinkles, it is a misnomer created by those who engaging in polemical rhetoric.

 

Although Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans baptize by pouring water on the head, I'm pretty sure Methodists actually sprinkle.

 

Two questions, TC. Does "sprinkling" invalidate the baptism, and what are the consequences of an invalid baptism?

 

What does this mean for the subject of the baptism, in this life and in the life beyond the grave? I assume he or she would not be eligible to join your church, but what else?

 

Me thinks you'll not get very many arguments contrary to that on the BAPTISTboard.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

Methodists sprinkle? That's one I hadn't heard.

As mentioned by another poster, most churches outside of the baptist and pentacostal traditions practice pouring, with the exception of Orthodox, who dunk.


But what invalidates sprinkling or pouring as baptism? How can a human action undo what is an act of God, for that is what resurrection in Christ is, an act of God.

 

If you go waist or chest deep in water, and have water poured over you, you would be emerging from the baptismal, lake, river, etc.

 

I tend to recall that in those days "burial" happened in the side of a cave with a stone rolled in front and not underground. Take that!

 

So baptism should be standing ankle deep in water...behind a big curtain...and then the pastor whips it open...and the individual walks out!

Sprinkling and submersion are both wrong

 

See post #12...