35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
(Acts 8:35-39)

This passage contains a simple and yet complete summary of baptism.

There are two men spoken of here: an unnamed eunuch from Ethiopia, and a man named Philip who was sent by the Holy Spirit to preach the scriptures to the eunuch.
The eunuch was not initially a believer, but through Philip's preaching of Jesus as prophesied in the book of Isaiah, he came to have saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Although there is no specific mention of baptism in the book of Isaiah, the eunuch appears to have understood that baptism was an important first step for a new believer.
And, as verse 36 says: "As they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?"

There exists only one precondition for baptism: salvation.

(verse 37) "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

To believe with all one's heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is to be saved.

As it says in Romans 10:9:

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

The eunuch believed in his heart, and confessed with his mouth, and he was saved.

Now, I believe that there is two important points that can be drawn from this. Firstly, baptism is for believers, and believers only. There are many people (including some fine Presbyterians who I know personally!) who believe that infants should be baptised. But the preconditon for baptism mentioned in Acts 8:37 effectively excludes infants, because infants cannot believe with all their heart in the Lord Jesus Christ. In time, infants may grow to an age where they become aware of their sin and need of a Saviour, and by God's grace they may well come to repentence and saving faith in Christ. We pray that this will happen, and quite often it happens at a very young age. But until then, there is no Scriptural warrant for baptising an infant.
Just as the Lord's Table is an ordinance for believers only, baptism is also only for people who have saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.


The second point is this: Baptism is an act of obedience to a command of God, but baptism plays no part in a believer's salvation.
Some people (such as the Christadelphians) maintain that baptism is essential to salvation, and that a person is not saved until the baptism has taken place. But as has already been pointed out, the eunuch was a saved man when he believed in his heart and confessed with his mouth the Lord Jesus, and this salvation took place before he entered the waters of baptism.
If the eunuch had suddenly dropped dead before he had a chance to be baptized, he would have died a saved man.

Here's an actual example of a case where a man died: unbaptized and yet fully saved.

And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
(Luke 23:42,43)

This thief that was crucified alongside Jesus was wonderfully saved only a short time before his death. He had no chance to be baptized, but Jesus made it unmistakeably clear that this thief would not be going to hell after he died. Some cults try to change the meaning of this verse by saying that the second comma is in the wrong place, and that it should actually be after the words "To day" instead of before them. But this is really clutching at straws! There are thousands of commas in the Bible, and these cults are happy to leave most of them as they are. And yet, they quibble over this one!
Far better for them would it be if they were to simply allow the Scripture to mould their doctrine, rather than the other way around.

The passage in Acts 8 now goes on to describe how baptism is to be performed.
They came unto "a certain water" (verse 36), the chariot was stopped, they "went down both into the water", and Philip baptised the eunuch (verse 38).
After that, they came "up out of the water" (verse 39).

And that is how baptism should be. The body of water should be large enough so that both the person to be baptised and the person performing the baptism are able to go down into the water, and afterwards come up out of the water. I have had the privilege of witnessing many baptisms over the years. I've seen people baptized in baptistries in church buildings (that's how I was baptized), in backyard swimming pools, at the beach, and once in a river. On one occasion, a young man made a sudden decision to be baptized after hearing a sermon on the subject at a camp meeting one evening. Rather than delay it until the following day, the decision was made to do it straight away, and we all went for a drive to the nearest body of water, which was a tidal inlet about 30 minutes drive away. And there, in the moonlight, and under the puzzled gaze of some of the locals, this young man was baptized as a public testimony of his faith in Christ. The spontaneous nature of this baptism made a joyous occasion even more special.

There are other places in Scripture where baptisms took place at large bodies of water. Here's one example:

And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. (John 3:23)

Notice how the location for the baptism was chosen "because there was much water there".

In Matthew 3:6 and Mark 1:5 and 9, John baptized people in the River Jordan. Not on the banks of the river, but in the river itself!

If the Bible said nothing about the quantity of water to be used for baptism, then any amount of water would do. But from these verses and the passage in Acts 8, the quantity of water used for baptism is large enough to fully immerse the person being baptized.

When people depart from the simple truth of a passage of Scripture like Acts 8:35-39, false teachings like infant baptism, sprinkling, and baptismal regeneration abound. These teachings are taught by many mainstream denominations today.

But there is no need for anyone to be ignorant of the truth; it's there in the Bible, plain and simple for all to see!

I look in occasionally, but when my previous post on the covenant theology waited a year for other posting, I find the discussion too slow moving to be gripping.

I looked at the doctrinal statement this morning, particularly as George is considering adopting replacement theology, to see if Zionism was written into it. Pleased to see it isn't, but I note immersion baptism is.

Immersion baptism would exclude all the KJV translators. Anabaptists were persecuted.

I was "christened" as a baby, when my parents said they made me a Christian. I was converted at 18 & baptised at the first possible occasion in my first term at university.

You arguments from the Ethiopian fail logically.

All it requires is that he should believe. He wasn't an infant. Had he declared unbelief, Philip would not have baptised him. Its nothing to do with age. Paedobaptists likewise baptise new believers on condition of faith. They do not baptise adult unbelievers.

Immersion is not proved. The Westminster Confession allows sprinkling as an approved mode of baptism.

Immersion is inferred but not specified. It would be consistent with the Scripture for both to go ankle deep into the water, & for Philip to scoop up water with his hands & baptise the kneeling eunuch by sprinkling, laying on hands in the process.

The WC quotes Heb. 9:10 as the proof for sprinkling. The Greek is "divers baptisms" examples of old covenant baptisms being given in the following verses - red heifer (Num. 19) contrasted with the blood of Christ; the sprinkled blood of the covenant (Ex. 24,) etc.

We can infer the mode of baptism, but not prove it from the examples. When we consider the OC basis, baptism occurs in the LXX with the cleansing of Naaman. There the Hebrew is "tabal" & is often used in conjuction with a dip/sprinkle ritual.

Num 19:18 And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip [it] in the water, and sprinkle [it] upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:

Thank you for your reply, Ebenezer. I'll attempt to answer the points you have raised as best as I can.

The points I have made from the account of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch are actually quite logical. I'll explain why.

The eunuch asked Philip: "What doth hinder me to be baptised?"
And Philip replied: "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest."
Therefore, absence of belief with all the heart is a hinderance to baptism, and a baptism should not take place unless the person wanting to be baptised believes with all his or her heart. No failure of logic there.
That is what I mean by the "precondition" for baptism.

Now, what is the "belief" that is spoken of here?

You say:

but the Scripture says:

"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (verse 37)

Now, if mere "belief" is the only requirement, then anyone who has a belief could be baptised, including unsaved people. Even the devils would be eligible for baptism, because "the devils also believe, and tremble" (James 2:19a)

The word "believe" can refer to many things, including salvation. But when the Scripture refers to a person who believes with all of his heart that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, then it is speaking specifically about a person's salvation.

A saved person will also confess with his mouth the Lord Jesus:

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Romans 10:9)

I cannot find any examples in Scripture of an infant "believing with all its heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that God hath raised him from the dead".
And I certainly don't find any examples in Scripture of an infant "confessing with its mouth the Lord Jesus".

Therefore, infants should not be baptised.

I have much respect for the Westminister Confession of Faith and the well-meaning and godly men who wrote it. It contains much sound doctrine. I know many good Christians who hold to it. But the WC is nevertheless a fallible document written by fallible men, and even the best of men are still prone to making mistakes. The Word of God remains our final authority. If the WC is at variance with God's Word in any matter of doctrine, then God's Word is right and the WC is wrong. And the issue of baptism is one area where the writers of the WC were mistaken.
The WC may "allow sprinkling as an approved mode of baptism", but the Scriptures say:

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
(Acts 8:38,39)

Ankle deep? That explanation doesn't make sense. Why would two men both go "down into the water" just to get a small quantity for sprinkling?

The baptism of people as described by the Scriptures involves a large quantity of water:

"And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized." (John 3:23)

So, there it is: Baptise people who have "believed with all their heart that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God", and baptise them in "much water".

In this case, the WC authors failed to "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). They took as their proof a verse from Hebrews 9, a chapter that does not seem to contain any description of baptism as practiced by New Testamant believers, and ignored the fact that there are many verses and passages in the New Testament that speak clearly about the way baptism was performed by the Lord Jesus, John the Baptist, and the early followers of Christ. Passages such as Acts 8:35-39 give a very clear pattern of baptism for us to follow, as I have already explained in my first post in this thread.

It's interesting that you should mention the example of Naaman.
Now, I am not fluent in the foreign tongue in which the LXX is written, but I can turn to 2 Kings 5:14 in the Word of God, the Book that God has graciously allowed to be translated into my native tongue of English, and I read:

"Then he went down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean." (2 Kings 5:14)

Now, this incident should not be taken to be a pattern of baptism for New Testament belivers to follow, but it does show that the "dipping" (which any English-speaking person would understand to mean "immersion") of a person in a large quantity of water (the river Jordan) was not an unheard of thing in the Old Testament.

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
(Acts 8:35-39)

This passage contains a simple and yet complete summary of baptism.

There are two men spoken of here: an unnamed eunuch from Ethiopia, and a man named Philip who was sent by the Holy Spirit to preach the scriptures to the eunuch.
The eunuch was not initially a believer, but through Philip's preaching of Jesus as prophesied in the book of Isaiah, he came to have saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Although there is no specific mention of baptism in the book of Isaiah, the eunuch appears to have understood that baptism was an important first step for a new believer.
And, as verse 36 says: "As they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?"

There exists only one precondition for baptism: salvation.

(verse 37) "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

To believe with all one's heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is to be saved.

As it says in Romans 10:9:

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

The eunuch believed in his heart, and confessed with his mouth, and he was saved.

Now, I believe that there is two important points that can be drawn from this. Firstly, baptism is for believers, and believers only. There are many people (including some fine Presbyterians who I know personally!) who believe that infants should be baptised. But the preconditon for baptism mentioned in Acts 8:37 effectively excludes infants, because infants cannot believe with all their heart in the Lord Jesus Christ. In time, infants may grow to an age where they become aware of their sin and need of a Saviour, and by God's grace they may well come to repentence and saving faith in Christ. We pray that this will happen, and quite often it happens at a very young age. But until then, there is no Scriptural warrant for baptising an infant.
Just as the Lord's Table is an ordinance for believers only, baptism is also only for people who have saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.


The second point is this: Baptism is an act of obedience to a command of God, but baptism plays no part in a believer's salvation.
Some people (such as the Christadelphians) maintain that baptism is essential to salvation, and that a person is not saved until the baptism has taken place. But as has already been pointed out, the eunuch was a saved man when he believed in his heart and confessed with his mouth the Lord Jesus, and this salvation took place before he entered the waters of baptism.
If the eunuch had suddenly dropped dead before he had a chance to be baptized, he would have died a saved man.

Here's an actual example of a case where a man died: unbaptized and yet fully saved.

And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
(Luke 23:42,43)

This thief that was crucified alongside Jesus was wonderfully saved only a short time before his death. He had no chance to be baptized, but Jesus made it unmistakeably clear that this thief would not be going to hell after he died. Some cults try to change the meaning of this verse by saying that the second comma is in the wrong place, and that it should actually be after the words "To day" instead of before them. But this is really clutching at straws! There are thousands of commas in the Bible, and these cults are happy to leave most of them as they are. And yet, they quibble over this one!
Far better for them would it be if they were to simply allow the Scripture to mould their doctrine, rather than the other way around.

The passage in Acts 8 now goes on to describe how baptism is to be performed.
They came unto "a certain water" (verse 36), the chariot was stopped, they "went down both into the water", and Philip baptised the eunuch (verse 3.
After that, they came "up out of the water" (verse 39).

And that is how baptism should be. The body of water should be large enough so that both the person to be baptised and the person performing the baptism are able to go down into the water, and afterwards come up out of the water. I have had the privilege of witnessing many baptisms over the years. I've seen people baptized in baptistries in church buildings (that's how I was baptized), in backyard swimming pools, at the beach, and once in a river. On one occasion, a young man made a sudden decision to be baptized after hearing a sermon on the subject at a camp meeting one evening. Rather than delay it until the following day, the decision was made to do it straight away, and we all went for a drive to the nearest body of water, which was a tidal inlet about 30 minutes drive away. And there, in the moonlight, and under the puzzled gaze of some of the locals, this young man was baptized as a public testimony of his faith in Christ. The spontaneous nature of this baptism made a joyous occasion even more special.

There are other places in Scripture where baptisms took place at large bodies of water. Here's one example:

And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. (John 3:23)

Notice how the location for the baptism was chosen "because there was much water there".

In Matthew 3:6 and Mark 1:5 and 9, John baptized people in the River Jordan. Not on the banks of the river, but in the river itself!

If the Bible said nothing about the quantity of water to be used for baptism, then any amount of water would do. But from these verses and the passage in Acts 8, the quantity of water used for baptism is large enough to fully immerse the person being baptized.

When people depart from the simple truth of a passage of Scripture like Acts 8:35-39, false teachings like infant baptism, sprinkling, and baptismal regeneration abound. These teachings are taught by many mainstream denominations today.

But there is no need for anyone to be ignorant of the truth; it's there in the Bible, plain and simple for all to see!

I am reposting this! I know with all of my heart that what Upholder is saying is correct. He backs it with scripture from the King James Bible... and, that is PROOF enough for me. Thanks, Upholder.

In His love ~

Molly

It's true that the account of Philip and the eunuch contains no reference to babies. But the fact that the candidate for baptism (the eunuch) was only baptized once he had confessed with his mouth the Lord Jesus is reasonable grounds for us to conclude that babies should not be baptized, simply because babies cannot confess with their mouths belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. No confession of belief, therefore no baptism: it's as simple as that. The same applies to any wife of children that the eunuch (hypothetically) might have had. If they were able to confess saving belief in Christ, then Philip would have baptized them. Just being members of the eunuch's family would not have automatically made them eligible for baptism. There are examples in the NT of households being baptized, but once again, this would only have taken place if all the members of those households actually believed in the Lord Jesus. As for circumcision, that's a different issue to baptism, and different criteria applied. Every male child born into an Israelite household was required to be circumcised, but baptism is an ordinance for believers only. Baptism is baptism, and circumcision is circumcision. The two should not be confused.

Right, let's have a look at Hebrews 9:10:

"Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."

Neither this verse, nor any of the other verses in Hebrews 9 contain any reference to the baptism of believers as commanded by God in the New Testament, and the many references in this chapter to the ceremonial practices of the Old Testament should not be used as a guide to the way we should perform baptism today.

Firstly, note the the verse says "divers washings". It doesn't say "divers sprinklings with heifer's blood", just "divers washings". The "divers washings" in Hebrews 9:10 is a reference to various types of washings practiced in the Old Testament. These ceremonial washings were performed with water, and there is no reason to make a link (as the Westminister Confession appears to do) between these washings and the sprinkling of blood that is mentioned in other parts of the chapter. The first part of the chapter (including verse 10) speaks of the tabernacle, and it is at the laver between the altar and the tabernacle where these washings were performed.
Here are some examples of these "washings":

17 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
18 Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal: and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein.
19 For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat:
20 When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the LORD:
21 So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations.
(Exodus 30:17-21)

30 And he set the laver between the tent of the congregation and the altar, and put water there, to wash withal.
31 And Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and their feet thereat:
32 When they went into the tent of the congregation, and when they came near unto the altar, they washed; as the LORD commanded Moses.
(Exodus 40:30-32)

In the light of this, it's hard to see how Hebrews 9:10 can be used as a proof for sprinkling.

The verses you have quoted (Hebrews 10:22, 12:24, 1 Peter 1:2), speak about the wonderful truth of salvation by the cleansing blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. But no attempt is made in these verses to make a connection between the sprinkling of the blood of Christ and the water of baptism. There is simply no mention of the ordinance of believer's baptism in these verses.
Not that this should come as any surprise, for we as Christians already have a means by which we remember the sacrificial blood of Christ, as the following verses show:

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
(Matthew 26:27,28)

This, of course, is part of the Lord's Table, the other part being the bread which represents the broken body of our Lord.

There is, however, some Scriptures that do make a clear connection between baptism and the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ:

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
(Romans 6:3,4)

It could be argued that sprinkling and immersion are both ways to represent death. But burial and resurrection would only be accurately depicted by immersion. The symbolism of immersion is so strong, it seems hard to miss: We die to the old life and are buried with Christ in baptism (down into the water!), and then we are raised up with Christ (up out of the water!) to walk in newness of life.

And here are more verses:

1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
(1 Corinthians 10:1,2)

Notice: They "were all baptized unto Moses"...how? By being sprinkled by the cloud and sprinkled by the sea? No! They were "under the cloud" and passed "through the sea" (verse 1), and "in the cloud" and "in the sea" (verse 2).
"Under", "through", and "in"; those words describe immersion.
Of course, this is not a description of the believer's baptism of the New Testament, but it is nevertheless interesting to note that the word "baptized" is used by these verses to describe an immersion in something - in this case a cloud and the sea.

As I have already shown, there are no grounds for making a connection between the sprinkling of the blood of the heifer in Numbers 19, and the "divers washings" of Hebrews 9:10.
In Numbers 19, there are references to both sprinkling and immersion. Sprinkling is mentioned in verses 4, 13, 18,19, 20,and 21. Descriptions of cleansing by immersion appear in verses 7, 8, 10, 19, and 21. All of these verses contain the words "wash his clothes", verses 7 and 8 say "bathe his flesh in water", and verse 19 says "bathe himself in water". Would a man's clothes be clean if he only washed them in a sprinkle of water? If a man was told to "bathe" himself, would he be obeying the commandment if he only sprinkled water on his flesh? Obviously, these references to washing and bathing are references to immersion.

There is nothing in Numbers 19 or anywhere else in the Old Testament that "questions" immersion. There are many references to immersion, and there are many references to sprinkling.
But there appears to be no mention in the Old Testament of believer's baptism as commanded by God and practiced by believers in the New Testament. To know the correct mode of baptism, we can only read the many examples of baptism in the New Testament, (such as in Acts 8:35-39), and simply put into practice what these passages teach. And I believe that the most simple and plain reading of these passages will ultimately lead the reader to conclude that the correct mode of baptism is immersion, and immersion only.

As for the LXX, that is of little benefit to me. I don't speak Greek. Like multitudes of other Christians, I only speak my native tongue of English, and I find it a strange notion that I must know the meaning of words in a foreign language in order understand the true mode of baptism. I am not saying that it is a bad thing to learn Greek and Hebrew. I am merely saying that the knowledge of a foreign tongue should not be considered essential for a correct understanding of doctrine in God's Word.

I will simply let the Bible speak.

Note that the verse immediately before Isaiah 53 reads:
Isa 52:15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for [that] which had not been told them shall they see; and [that] which they had not heard shall they consider.

In Isaiah 44, he would have read:
Isa 44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:

Hebrews is systematic theology, & he introduces the teaching on baptism thus:
Hbr 6:1 ¶ Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, [baptismos] and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.

Hbr 9:10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, [baptismos]

This verse and the chapter that follows it is clearly speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ and the suffering and death that he would endure for the sins of many. The Lord Jesus would not come to die only for the sins of Jews, but his blood would be shed also for the sins of people all across the world. And thus, verse 15 of chapter 52 says: "So shall he sprinkle many nations". In Hebrews 12:24 (a verse you have already quoted) we read:

"And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."

The blood of Christ is sprinkled on the sinner, and the sinner is saved. But notice, it is the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ that is sprinkled, not the water of baptism. Both Isaiah 52:15 and Hebrews 12:24 speak of the sprinkled blood of Christ, and his blood only.
There is absolutely no mention in either of these verses of the water of believer's baptism being sprinkled, nor can I find any place in the Scriptures where the water of baptism is said to represent the sprinkled blood of Christ.

In Romans 6:3,4, baptism is likened to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ:

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

As I showed before, immersion is by far the more obvious picture of this death, burial, and resurrection - not sprinkling.

The water that is spoken of here is the same water that the Lord Jesus told the woman at the well about in John chapter 4.

13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.
(John 4:13-15)

This is the figurative water of salvation, not the literal water of baptism. The same goes for Isaiah 44:3; it is speaking only of the water of salvation, and not the water of New Testament believer's baptism.

If we were to use a verse like Isaiah 44:3 as a guide to the mode of baptism, the we would have to conclude the the correct mode of baptism is to pour water down the throat of the person being baptized, because the water in this verse is poured on "him that is thirsty"! If the water was only poured on his head, it would not quench his thirst!

No matter which way you look at it, these verses give no support to sprinkling as the mode of baptism.

I've already shared some thoughts on Hebrews 9:10. Did you consider what I wrote? In case you missed it, here it is again:

It appears to me that the various texts which tell of Baptism and water, that immersion is implied.

However I should think that would not rule out pouring or sprinkling in areas where there is very little water.

I was once told that there is a film which shows John baptizing Jesus in the Jordan where they were up to their waists in water and John poured water on Jesus. That seems a rather odd interpretation to me.

There probably have been situations where new believers have desired to be baptized, but have had no access to a suitable quantity of water. A situation like this could arise when someone is saved while in prison. In that case, they would have to just do the best they can with whatever water they can find. Ultimately, the state of the person's heart is of more importance than any outward ordinance.

I agree, that does seem a bit odd!

Let me also just say that while I believe very strongly that the Scripture teaches immersion as the true mode of baptism, I realise that there have been multitudes of true Bible-believing Christians over the years who believe that the Bible teaches sprinkling or pouring. Many of the Reformed people take this view. I believe that this view is wrong, but it is not a heretical teaching that should prevent our having fellowship with them. These people are true Christians, and they will be in heaven along with the immersionists. I would not call a person a Christian if he denied the inspiration of the Scriptures, the Deity of Christ, or the truth of salvation by grace through faith alone. But baptism is a different issue, and it is not wrong to show some grace in this area.

I spoke on Acts 8 at our midweek meeting this evening. I spoke on the whole chapter. When I got to Simon, I could not help comparing him to some of today's charismatic leaders such as Hinn, Bentley and many others.

Acts 8:9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

We see that although he believed and was baptized he was looking at the signs and miracles.

When Peter and John came and laid hands on the converts and they received the Holy Spirit, Simon offered Peter money so he could have the gift.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.

But wait a minute, this is a man who recently believed and was baptized. Did Philip get it wrong?

He then asked Peter to pray for him.

24 Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.

I have met people at work who have asked me to pray for them, and when I say they should pray also, they said that they could not pray.

Upholder, There is One thing you missed as a requirement for baptism, Repentance.

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

"Those who are afar off" includes us.

Let's keep it simple. From reading various Bible verses, I have concluded that baptism is a public display of one's belief in CHRIST, and salvation by Him. I believe one SHOULD be baptized AFTER SALVATION, if at all possible, but that a person who is saved but dies unbaptized dueta circumstances beyond his control is still saved. Now, it's not known if some people such as the Roman Cornelius, or Paul & Silas' jailer & family in Acts 16 were baptized by immersion or not. But it SHOULD be by immersion if at all possible.

You are absolutely right, Davo; I agree 100%. A person who wishes to be baptized must have repented of sin. Repentance is an integral part of salvation. A person is not saved if he professes Christ and yet refuses to acknowledge that he is a sinner.
Simon the sorcerer "believed" in Jesus, but his belief was nothing more than an empty "head knowledge", with no repentance in his heart. When Peter told him that he had sinned and needed to repent, Simon was only concerned about avoiding the consequences of his sin. He didn't care about repentance. Cain was like that, too. When God pronounced judgement upon Cain for the murder that he had committed, all Cain could say was "My punishment is greater than I can bear" (Genesis 4:13). Again, no concern about sin, and no repentance.

There was a discussion about belief and repentance here recently: http://www.fundamentalpreaching.com/repe...-1521.html

When Philip said to the eunuch, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest", the belief he was speaking about included repentance. Anything less would have meant the eunuch was not saved, and he would not have been baptized.

Sadly, there are many people who profess salvation, say all the right things, and ask to be baptized. They are baptized, but eventually show by their lifestyles, words, and actions that they have never truly been saved.

John 8:31 says: "Then said Jesus to those Jews who believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;"

Later in the chapter, Jesus is still speaking to the same group of people, and he says to them in verse 44: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do."

These people were "believers" of a sort, but they were the devil's children, i.e. not saved!

Baptism signifies the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

Immersion is the proper mode and without referring to the many instances mentioned above in previous posts allow me to add the following.

When was the last time you attended a funeral and the body that was placed in the grave was not completely covered with earth or dirt?

The reason for the complete covering is because it is a BURIAL. It would seem rather foolish if the undertaker only sprinkled a few hand fulls of dirt on the grave site now wouldn't it............................

Burial is a complete covering, immersion is a complete covering, baptism is supposed to represent the death, BURIAL and resurrection of Christ.......

Amen! That's a good point you have made, Elder Moore; thanks for sharing it.
You are quite right. A sprinkling of dirt is not a burial, and a sprinkling of water is not baptism.