Sprinkler or Dunker?

What is your preferred method of baptism

  • Immersion

  • Sprinkling/pouring

  • Other

  • Baptism is not a part of my belief system.


Results are only viewable after voting.

LovebirdsFlying

My husband drew this cartoon of me.
Christian Forums Staff
Red Team - Moderator
Supporter
Aug 13, 2007
28,720
4,211
59
Washington (the state)
✟829,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Just a survey, not a debate. I'm curious. Do you who believe in baptism prefer the method of immersion, sprinkling, or something else? And why?

I should add: Some people enjoy debate. I only meant I didn't start the thread for the *purpose* of debate, but in WWMC it can be done politely, so if ya wanna, go ahead. Just don't be mean. :sorry: I hate to be responsible for starting a fight. :)
 
Last edited:

DeanM

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2007
3,633
402
59
✟5,870.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I was baptised by sprinkling, and it seemed to have worked, but I think immersion would be just as functional. I'm not sure there's a gray area of "not fully baptised."

Also, in an odd bit of random doctrine, baptisms do not to be performed by clergy, but can be done so by anyone with faith*

*certain restrictions apply.
 
Upvote 0

LovebirdsFlying

My husband drew this cartoon of me.
Christian Forums Staff
Red Team - Moderator
Supporter
Aug 13, 2007
28,720
4,211
59
Washington (the state)
✟829,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
To me, immersion is better symbolism. My reasoning: When something is dead, you don't just sprinkle dirt on it, you cover it in dirt. Same with the water, burying the old person that is now dead. The new birth is represented by coming out from under that water as a new person.

This *represents* the new birth but doesn't *create* it. The difference here is the source of much confusion about baptism. Some (Church of Christ, for one, to which many of my family belong) teach that the act of baptism by immersion is an essential part of the salvation process, and if you leave out a step you are not saved. I say barf. Salvation is through the work of Jesus Christ. Not anything I did. I hold baptism by immersion to be Scriptural, but it wasn't what saved me. It was only a symbol of the fact that I had been saved.
 
Upvote 0

LovebirdsFlying

My husband drew this cartoon of me.
Christian Forums Staff
Red Team - Moderator
Supporter
Aug 13, 2007
28,720
4,211
59
Washington (the state)
✟829,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I was baptised by sprinkling, and it seemed to have worked, but I think immersion would be just as functional. I'm not sure there's a gray area of "not fully baptised."

Also, in an odd bit of random doctrine, baptisms do not to be performed by clergy, but can be done so by anyone with faith*

*certain restrictions apply.

You're absolutely right, it doesn't have to be done in a baptismal during a church service by ordained clergy. The way I understand it, any baptized believer can baptize a new one, any time, anywhere. A bathtub, a swimming pool, a natural body of water... whatever.
 
Upvote 0

Mling

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)
Jun 19, 2006
5,815
688
Here and there.
✟9,635.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I never really got involved in the debate. Sprinkle, dunk, hold by the ankles and dunk only the head...whatever.

What I do think is cool is that my church always added some water from the River Jordan to the baptismal water. I thought that was the definition of holy water for a long time, before a paster said that that wasn't a standard part of baptism.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LovebirdsFlying

My husband drew this cartoon of me.
Christian Forums Staff
Red Team - Moderator
Supporter
Aug 13, 2007
28,720
4,211
59
Washington (the state)
✟829,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I just saw in another CF forum where someone said it's at the point of baptism that the sins are forgiven and the blood of Christ is applied. That is to say, unbaptized = unsaved. This belief can be held by dunkers and sprinklers both, the dunkers because they believe it's part of the salvation process, and the sprinklers as the reason for baptizing infants.

I soooo disagree! For the infant baptizers, what about a sickly newborn who doesn't live long enough to be baptized? The blood didn't get applied, so the baby is unsaved? Uh-uh, not the God I worship!

And for those who believe that baptism by immersion is a vital part of salvation (along with the oft-repeated CoC teaching of "hear and believe, confess Christ publicly, repent of sins, and be baptized by immersion to wash them away; ALL of these steps are necessary or you aren't saved") I ask this. Say I have done all of these things, and I die in a car accident on the way to the church to be baptized. Nothing doing; I'm lost because I didn't actually get dunked?

This doesn't sound like a loving Father to me, but a petty tyrant. That's not the God I know.
 
Upvote 0

IndomitableAmy

Regular Member
Mar 22, 2008
565
65
✟8,552.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I prefer immersion. I like the symbolism of it and I like the bit about being old enough to understand at least some of the symbolism. At the same time, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with sprinkling (though I did at one point.) That tradition isn't mine, though.. and I like the symbolism of immersion better. *shrug*

Um.. and yeah, LBF, some would say you'd go to hell if you hadn't completed all the steps regardless of intention.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speculative

Senior Veteran
May 29, 2007
2,412
343
Seattle
✟19,750.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As sprinkling/pouring is better supported by both scripture and tradition, I prefer this method. However, I have nothing against immersion. I see no prohibition against it and I see that it would be supported by the experience leg of the quadrilateral.
 
Upvote 0

DailyBlessings

O Christianos Cryptos; Amor Vincit Omnia!
Oct 21, 2004
17,775
981
38
Berkeley, CA
Visit site
✟30,234.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I just saw in another CF forum where someone said it's at the point of baptism that the sins are forgiven and the blood of Christ is applied. That is to say, unbaptized = unsaved. This belief can be held by dunkers and sprinklers both, the dunkers because they believe it's part of the salvation process, and the sprinklers as the reason for baptizing infants.

I soooo disagree! For the infant baptizers, what about a sickly newborn who doesn't live long enough to be baptized? The blood didn't get applied, so the baby is unsaved? Uh-uh, not the God I worship!

And for those who believe that baptism by immersion is a vital part of salvation (along with the oft-repeated CoC teaching of "hear and believe, confess Christ publicly, repent of sins, and be baptized by immersion to wash them away; ALL of these steps are necessary or you aren't saved") I ask this. Say I have done all of these things, and I die in a car accident on the way to the church to be baptized. Nothing doing; I'm lost because I didn't actually get dunked?

This doesn't sound like a loving Father to me, but a petty tyrant. That's not the God I know.
If it helps: In my tradition (Lutheran) there's a distinction drawn between Holy Baptism, a sacrament of grace, and the Rite of Baptism, a human activity that symbolizes it. The rite is a powerful and important event in the life of a Christian, the beginning of their walk with the church. But, the reason it is powerful is not because it can save of its own power, but because it proclaims a promise already given by a loving creator, the gospel promise that destroys the old sinful self and clothes us in the new. So, it doesn't really matter when the rite is performed, and your infants are safe in the loving arms of God, who is the source of the power of the sacrament. True baptism is the one that comes from above.

To the OP, I really don't have an opinion. I was sprinkled, would probably choose immersion if I did it now. As long as water and the Word are present, we're good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Izdaari
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Protinus

...once more unto the breach dear friends
Supporter
Apr 13, 2004
6,590
370
64
New York City
✟31,143.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
Immersion does not undermine the symbolism and sacrament of baptism by sprinkling. I will tell you that after years of study to understand the Word as youngster and then to fully understand the acceptance of Christ in one's life, to be confirmed AND baptized by immersion, at the same time, in front of the congregation (as in the Disciples of Christ), it is and exceedingly joyous and powerful moment in one's life.

As a Catholic now, I try to explain the experience to my sons and I don't think they get it. It's dad going "off again". I just wish they would have experienced it the way I did but it is not fair to impose that experience on them.
 
Upvote 0

Protinus

...once more unto the breach dear friends
Supporter
Apr 13, 2004
6,590
370
64
New York City
✟31,143.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
I was just baptised this past week in the Atlantic Ocean and it was and powerful experience for me so my preferred method would have to be immesion

That is so great Kaonashi!! That was some experience! Welcome!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums