English
Português
Español
Français
Answer
In Matthew 28, we find the final words of Jesus on earth recorded: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (verses 18–20). The Great Commission includes a directive to baptize disciples.
Baptism holds significance, yet the New Testament provides limited direct guidance on it. There exists no manual on “how-to,” which may explain the varied perspectives on baptism.
Concerning the method of baptism, some churches practice sprinkling or pouring water over the head, while others fully immerse the body in water. Variations include triple immersion or a single immersion; some baptize backward, others forward, meaning face-first.
Regarding suitable candidates for baptism, certain churches observe believer’s baptism (credobaptism—from the term creed, related to a statement of faith), while others baptize infants (pedobaptism or paedobaptism—from the Greek word paidia, meaning “children”) who lack the capacity to comprehend the event. In numerous churches, infant baptism symbolizes the New Covenant and the parents’ faith, akin to circumcision in the Old Covenant. In the Roman Catholic Church, this baptism is deemed to cleanse original sin and enable the infant to commence from a state of innocence and grace.
Regarding the effectiveness of baptism, some view it as an external symbol of an internal truth. Conversely, for some, the rite itself purifies from sin. Certain teachings assert that baptism is a crucial act of compliance, essential for salvation, while others advocate that baptism must be exclusively in the name of Jesus to be efficacious.
For salvation.
It would be best to simply follow the teaching of Scripture regarding baptism; however, most of those who hold any of the above positions believe that they are following Scripture. In reality, many beliefs about baptism are based on theological presuppositions and tradition, as are many beliefs on other issues.
This article will attempt to clarify some of the confusion.
Regarding the mode of baptism: the Greek word baptizo simply means “immerse.” The word was not a theological term in the first century but a common word used in daily conversation. When speaking of dyeing cloth, people would say it was “immersed” in the dye. The reason that English versions transliterate the word as “baptize” instead of translating the word as “immerse” is that, by the time the Bible was being translated into English, various other modes of baptism were popular, and the translators did not want to cause too much controversy. That tradition has continued to this day. When the Bible commands baptism, immersion in water is the most natural understanding.
There is no passage in the New Testament that speaks of baptism that does not allow for or require immersion in water. One example is John 3:23: “Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were coming and being baptized.” If sprinkling or pouring were in view, John’s baptism could have been done anywhere with a well or even the tiniest stream—“plenty of water” would not have been necessary. Another example is the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. Philip explains the gospel to him and then, “as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?’ And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him” «And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what prevents me from being baptized?»
Does the Bible require immersion to be baptized?
«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? », (Acts 8:36,38) «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. », (Acts 8:36,38). If sprinkling or pouring were sufficient, Philip could have done so while traveling in the chariot, using drinking water. There would have been no need to pause at a location with water, and certainly no need to go “down into the water.”
Beyond immersion, the Bible does not specify if immersion is forward, backward, or straight down. The most common practice is single immersion, as triple immersion is not mentioned in Scripture. Those who practice triple immersion do so because baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—emphasizing the three Persons of the Trinity. The command to be baptized does not suggest anything other than single immersion, and if triple immersion were the only correct method, it would likely have been clearly stated. Additionally, Matthew 28:19 (“baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”) uses the singular name, highlighting unity in the Trinity. Ultimately, triple immersion appears to be an acceptable, though not obligatory, way to baptize.
Regarding suitable candidates for baptism: in the New Testament, there is no indication that infants were baptized as a symbol of the covenant or their parents’ faith. When Peter preached on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), those who believed were baptized. Some may mention that the entire household of the Philippian jailer was baptized «And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. », (Acts 16:33);
However, we do not know if his household included infants. Furthermore, the passage indicates that faith was the driving force: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household” «And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. », (Acts 16:31).
Certainly, the promise to the jailer was not that his entire household, including infants, would be saved based on the jailer’s faith; instead, the promise of salvation through faith in Christ was for the jailer and anyone else in his household—anyone else in the whole world, for that matter—who would believe. The following verse states, “Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house” «And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. », (Acts 16:32). Here it is assumed that those in the house were old enough to hear, understand, and respond to the Word. “Then immediately he and all his household were baptized” «And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. », (Acts 16:33). Did that include infants? “He was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his entire household” «And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. », (Acts 16:34). This last verse indicates that his entire household had come to faith, so either 1) his household did not include infants, or 2) the infants were not able to respond to the Word and were therefore not included in the count. (If a man says, “My entire family drives pickup trucks,”
It goes without saying that he does not intend to include his 2-year-old.
From Acts 16:31–34, it appears clear that the promise of salvation was for the entire household, the entire household heard the Word and believed, and the entire household was baptized. There is nothing in this passage that indicates, much less commands, infant baptism.
Evangelicals who practice infant baptism (pedobaptists) equate baptism in the New Testament with circumcision in the Old Testament. Every male child under the Old Covenant was circumcised because his parents wanted him to be included in the community and they wanted to be obedient to God. Evangelical pedobaptists desire the same for their infant children, realizing that their children will have to later accept Christ on their own. The baptism ceremony serves much like a “baby dedication” in churches that practice believer’s baptism (credobaptism).
Pedobaptists also highlight that the New Testament was written for first-generation Christians, so it is logical that everyone baptized in the New Testament was a new believer. While this may be true, it is inconceivable that none of the people who came to faith in the early church had any children. Yet, there is no example of any children being baptized because their parents believed, no command for believing parents to have their children baptized, and no passage explicitly linking baptism to circumcision. Pedobaptism is a theological inference based on analogy.
Regarding the efficacy of baptism: the Bible does not teach, and evangelicals do not believe, that baptism brings about salvation or that it is required for salvation. The Roman Catholic view that infant baptism removes original sin and returns the child to a “neutral” state of grace is simply not found in Scripture but is based on church teaching that Roman Catholics believe has the same authority as Scripture. Others who believe that baptism is necessary for salvation point toA couple of verses that connect baptism and salvation can be found in Acts 2:38: “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” Peter clearly instructs the crowd to be baptized; however, this is the sole instance where baptism appears to be mandated in a presentation of the gospel. It is plausible to interpret baptism here as merely a means to publicly declare their faith, as if Peter were urging them, “Repent and openly acknowledge Christ.” In the early church, baptism served as the public declaration of allegiance to Christ. It also marked the moment when a believer was taken seriously and when facing persecution became a genuine prospect. Someone claiming to believe but refusing baptism would not have been taken seriously within or outside the church.
Furthermore, most groups advocating baptismal regeneration also assert that baptism is just the initial step in a life of obedience essential for salvation. Therefore, it is the obedience of the believer that ultimately ensures salvation, not just faith in Christ. For them, baptism is merely one of several works required for salvation.
Some stress that baptism must be performed solely in the name of Jesus. These groups typically adhere to some form of modalism. Although Jesus commanded baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in Acts, individuals are at times baptized in the name of Jesus. This likely suggests that the specific wording used is not as critical as the intent behind it. The aspect of Trinitarian doctrine that is frequently challenged (both historically and presently) is the divinity of Christ. In the New Testament, being baptized in the name of Christ affirmed one’s belief in His divinity. Modalism and exclusive Jesus teachings emerged later and were not a concern in the New Testament. The fact that Jesus prescribed the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28 appears to refute the “Jesus only” stance as the sole correct formula.
Ultimately, we uphold the belief that
At the most biblical way to baptize is the immersion of believers who have put their faith in Christ and who are being baptized as a public confession of their identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Those who make baptism or a particular mode of baptism essential for salvation are corrupting the gospel. Evangelicals who differ on the mode of baptism or the proper candidates for baptism may still agree on the essential points of the gospel, fellowship with each other, and even join in ministry while still maintaining their distinct practices within their own churches.
