As Reformed people we have correctly insisted upon sprinkling as a valid mode of baptism. “The dipping in or sprinkling with” says the old Form (whether by immersion or sprinkling according to the new translation). It seems, however, that we have been so anxious to make the point that we have gone beyond sprinkling to mere “moistening.” It almost appears that the less water we use the more Reformed we are. But I am of the opinion that if we are going to insist that sprinkling is a (not the) valid mode of baptism (and it is), then let it be sprinkling indeed, and not something less than that.

I have seen ministers moisten two fingers and lay them upon the forehead of the child. I honestly question whether that is valid baptism. Water is not a dispensable item in baptism, it is essential. Without water there is no baptism. The symbolical meaning of water touches the very heart of baptism, ‘“thereby signifying to us, that as water washes away the filth of the body when poured upon it, and is seen on the body of the baptized when sprinkled upon him, so does the blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit internally sprinkle the soul, cleanse it from its sins . . .” (Belgic Confession, Art. 34). Note the italicized words. No one “sees” a thing when a moistened finger is laid on the forehead of a baby. And “moistening” doesn’t do much to wash away the filth of the body.

So again, if we’re going to insist upon sprinkling, then let it be sprinkling, and not what Kline calls “the familiar imposition of moistened finger tips which is generously called sprinkling” (By Oath Consigned, p. 83). For although it is “evident that the quantity of water used in the administration of the sacrament is not of essential importance, . . . yet ministers should not sprinkle the water too sparingly in baptism for it should symbolize the washing away of sin” (Kooistra, By Grace Through Faith, p. 149).