How Infant Immersion is Similar to Alligator Wrestling; Or, Why the Mode of Baptism is Actually Important (Timothy Raymond)

So I’m preaching through the Gospel of John and the other day I came across a fascinating little sentence by John Calvin.  Commenting on John 3:23 (“…water was plentiful there…”, ESV), Calvin writes:

“From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water.”

– John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John

I remembered Calvin said something similar in The Institutes:

“It is evident that the term ‘baptize’ means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church.”

– John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV, xv, 19

I did a little digging and discovered that Luther, Wesley, and several other revered paedobaptists scholars were also rather forthright in confessing that the early church practiced baptism by complete immersion.

Now in both of the above contexts Calvin is quick to go on to say that the mode of baptism is completely irrelevant and that we should not feel bound to practice baptism by immersion today.  But it got me thinking.  Why is Calvin so concerned to stress that churches need not follow the biblical pattern today?  Why is there frank admission that baptism in the New Testament was the complete dunking of an individual in water but rare is the evangelical paedobaptist who immerses babies today?  If baptism as practiced by both John the Baptist and Jesus was baptism by complete submersion, why have I never seen or heard of this performed (at least on infants) by my Presbyterian and Reformed brethren?

I realize it’s possible that I’m just sheltered and that there are plenty of Presbyterian and Reformed pastors completely dunking infants under water.  But I doubt it.  And I think that here we get at one reason why the mode of baptism is relevant to the baptism debate.  Let me put it bluntly: if true baptism is and should be (to use Calvin’s words) the “plunging the whole body beneath the water”, infant baptism becomes highly unlikely.  For how many infants excel at being fully immersed in water?  And how many mothers would be comfortable with some strange pastor completely submerging their infant in water?

As the father of five youngsters who has administered countless infant baths (though no infant “baptisms”), I know how much young children enjoy going under water.  By which I mean, they positively hate it.  On more than one occasion, bathing my children has somehow transformed into alligator wrestling with both father and child winding up frustrated and soaked.  Young kids just don’t like going under water.  And simply renaming it “baptism” won’t help one bit.

Just imagine for a minute that New Testament baptism is immersion and that we should follow the biblical pattern (crazy thought, huh?).  This would strongly suggest that baptism is really only appropriate for those who can safely go through the biblical experience (i.e., those with enough cognitive sense to hold their breath when they see themselves about to go under).  Obviously I’m not going to have my infant mow my lawn or take out the trash; those duties require somebody with the capacities to perform them.  Likewise, if baptism is and should be immersion, then infant baptism becomes dubious at best.

And I really think this is why Calvin and his heirs have been so quick to emphasize that we need not follow the biblical pattern today.  They realize that infant submersion is a hurdle too high to jump for most.  (Unless, of course, you want to say that it’s necessary for salvation, like the Eastern Orthodox, which is another conversation altogether.)  But infant sprinkling?  That’s much more palatable.

If you’re one of our faithful paedobaptist friends, thank you for reading.  If you trust the Lord Jesus, you are my brother, our differences on this point notwithstanding.  Believe it or not, but I named three of my children after paedobaptists.  But here’s my challenge.  The next time you’re going to baptize an infant, just ask the mother if she’d be okay with you baptizing her infant by immersion.  What does her reaction tell you about the appeal of immersing infants?  And how many babies do you think you’d baptize in a year if you were committed to following the New Testament mode of baptism?

Now the reason I’m emphasizing this is because I’ve heard in recent times even Baptists claiming that the mode of baptism is basically irrelevant and that we should focus our argument for credobaptism chiefly on the candidates of baptism (i.e., believers).  While I entirely agree that the candidate for baptism is the more important point, I don’t believe that the mode of baptism is pointless.  If Calvin’s right, that New Testament baptism was immersion, and if we should follow that biblical pattern (and why wouldn’t we?), let’s teach, emphasize, and practice that.  For that will make infant baptism all the more implausible.

Timothy Raymond is an editor for Credo Magazine and has been the pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Muncie, Indiana since April 2006. He received his MDiv from the Baptist Bible Seminary of Pennsylvania in 2004 and has pursued further education through the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation.