Baptism and the Archaeological evidence

Five professional archaeological studies carried out in the last twenty five years which are cited widely and regularly in the relevant scholarly literature (Sanford La Sor, 1987; Lothar Heiser, 1986; Jean-Charles Picard, 1989; Malka Ben Pechat, 1989; Everett Ferguson, 2009), agree on the same conclusions on the archaeological and literary evidence, baptism is by immersion. On the basis of archaeological and textual evidence, Sanford La Sor (1987), considers it likely that the archaeological evidence favours total immersion. Lothar Heiser (1986), likewise understands the literary and pictorial evidence to indicate total immersion. Jean-Charles Picard (1989), reaches the same conclusion, and so does Malka Ben Pechat (1989). The latest comprehensive survey of previous studies and examination of the archaeological and literary evidence in combination, a study by Everett Ferguson (2009), confirms the findings of La Sor, Heiser, Picard, and Pechat.

The same view is found in various reference works commenting on early church practice. A recent Bible encyclopedia speaks of the "consensus of scholarly opinion" that the baptismal practice of John the Baptist and the apostles was by immersion. An encyclopedia of Roman Catholicism specifies that the immersion was total, noting that the preference of the Early Church was total immersion in a stream or the sea or, if these were not available, in a fountain or bath-sized tank, and a standard Bible dictionary says that baptism was normally by immersion. Among other sources, Old says that immersion (though not the only form), was normally used, Grimes says "There is little doubt that early Christian baptism was adult baptism by immersion.", Howard Marshall says that immersion was the general rule, but affusion and even sprinkling were also practiced, since "archaeological evidence supports the view that in some areas Christian baptism was administered by affusion". His presentation of this view has been described by Porter and Cross as "a compelling argument". Laurie Guy says immersion was probably the norm, but that at various times and places full immersion, partial immersion and affusion were probably in use. Tischler says that total immersion seems to have been most commonly used. Stander and Louw argue that immersion was the prevailing practice of the Early Church.
Although stating that the New Testament does not state specifically what action the baptizer did to the person baptized, when both were in the water, Grenz states "Nevertheless, we conclude that of the three modes immersion caries the strongest case – exegetically, historically, and theologically. Therefore under normal circumstances it ought to be the preferred, even the sole, practice of the church.". Most scholars agree that immersion was the practice of the New Testament church.

I want to be careful and state clearly that I believe all genuine Christian Churches should immerse (only!); however I will not go so far as to say that affusion baptisms or having-water-poured-over-you baptisms are not genuine baptisms. I would leave that to those Church of Christ/Christian Church heretics who teach that Baptism is a Good Work you do to earn your Salvation. I would personally rather have 100 sprinkled children than support those who are "christian" in denominational name only. Although I would say that sprinkling - or spritzing water on the face - is no Baptism at all, because it rapes the word itself and the doctrine and symbolism (death, burial and resurrection) of all of its meaning. For everyone who calls themselves a Protestant - who holds Sola Scriptura - exegetically, historically, and theologically - Baptism is Immersion.