Which is better? Immersion or Sprinkling? Isn't just being baptized the most important?

Answer 1

Yes baptized is the most important. Though it can be easily argued that the immersion is the most authentic to the New Testament.

i believe that they started going with sprinkling in drafty old Northern European Cathedrals in winter because kids especially were catching pneumonia from the cold.

Answer 2

I don't know of any church that baptizes by sprinkling (?), but the original Christian Church, the Holy Catholic Church, does have two approved methods, pouring and immersion. Scripture does not mention any specific method of baptism, except for the required use of the Trinitarian formula - "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". However, we know from the writings of the earliest Church Fathers that both methods were used in the early Church. This only makes sense considering that the early Church existed in a largely desert land, where often the only water available for a great many miles was what came up in a bucket from the town well. When the Apostles baptized in these localities they certainly didn't immerse anyone. We also know from Scripture that whole families, including small children, were routinely baptized together. The early Church Fathers recorded the traditional means of administering the sacraments at that time, and they specifically described the baptism of infants, who were not immersed for obvious reasons.

It is significant that every known early work of art depicting the baptism of Jesus shows Him standing in the water beside John, as John pours water over His head, either from his hand or from a shell. Apparently no-one in the early centuries thought that Jesus had been baptized by immersion. They figured He had been baptized the same way they themselves had been - by pouring water three times while saying the Trinitarian prayer.

Answer 3

The better question has to do with the meaning and function of baptism. Many babies are baptized as a type of dedication, by the parents, of the child to God. Other babies are baptized as a means to their salvation - which really is not legitimate since the child is not old enough to choose to follow Christ. Neither of these forms of baptism are biblical, but they are not harmful either. Baptism is a statement - saying I am identifying with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and I will follow Him. Immersion is the picture of the death, burial and resurrection, which is why most evangelicals use it as a means of baptizing. But, God looks at the heart and if sprinkling is a statement of commitment to Christ, I suppose that's what matters, though it's hard to see a picture of death and resurrection in sprinkling.

Answer 4

The words translated 'baptism' in the Bible originally meant a total immersion. Why be part of a church who would follow a man-made tradition (sprinkling)? Wouldn't that indicate they would also do other things not in the Bible?

Answer 5

Jesus set the example that we should be totally immersed to be baptized.

Answer 6

Immersion because it is what is commanded by Christ. Christ was baptized fully in the Jordan River, and we are to follow His example.

Answer 7

Jesus was baptized by immersion. That's what's in the Bible, so that's what should be followed.

It should also only be done to people who are old enough to make the decision that they want to be baptized.

Answer 8

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist by affusion, a pot of water poured over his head.

Obviously, John the Baptist could have dunked him, i.e., baptized by immersion.

Then there is aspersion, sprinkling.

All are legitimate forms of Christian baptism.

Answer 9

It's not a question of better.
The greek word in the Bible as written 200 years ago was "baptiso" which is defined as "to fully submerge".

Answer 10

Baptism by the Holy Spirit is best!