Baptism

by Chad Shaffer and Mike Stine

Is baptism a necessary part of Christianity? By both biblical standards and historical ones, yes indeed. The Bible repeatedly calls for baptism to be done by the believer and shows many instances of this being practiced. Acts 8 contains the story of the Ethiopian eunuch who asked Philip to baptize him right after he became saved. Likewise, church history strongly attests to baptism being practiced from its very beginning.

The Bible uses the word baptize 73 times. The Greek term can mean numerous different things. It can mean: a washing, to cover wholly with a fluid, to moisten a part of ones person, to stain, or to dip. To sink a ship was also known as to baptize it. How do these meanings help us in our study of baptism? It leaves us with a very open ended book with numerous interpretations available. Church history shows us that baptism has been practiced in many forms, all stemming from different interpretations of this term.

Not only has the time of when it is proper to baptize been    questioned, the mode of baptism has also been of debate. Even today, entire denominations have split over matters such as the mode by which one is to be baptized. It is the purpose of this study to better understand the context of biblical passages concerning baptism and to see how the church has dealt with the issue throughout history.

To top of page

Infant Baptism

Infant baptism is a topic of debate that has raged for centuries within the church. Numerous churches hold to this practice. Some of these include, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and other churches from a Reformed background.

Proponents of infant baptism count history on their side as mentioning infant baptism. By the time of Origen infant baptism was supposedly widely used. Origen records in 244 that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants.” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11)

It is also argued that in Acts 16:15, 33 the entire household was baptized. Those who hold to infant baptism argue that this would include infants and children from the household. Also used is 1 Corinthians 7:14 that states children are sanctified through a believing parent. This is also used as an argument for infant baptism.

Thirdly, Mark 10:13-16 records Jesus’ dealings with little children. He blesses them and tells his disciples to let them come to him. Those for infant baptism cite Jesus’ dealing with this issue would allow it.

Finally, the strongest argument for infant baptism stems from God’s covenant with His people. In the Old Testament, the covenant of Genesis 17:7 was passed on through the rite of circumcision. This was on the eighth day, while they were still infants. Those who hold to infant baptism see baptism as simply being in place of circumcision. Through baptism, the new covenant is passed on, they argue.

Those who do not believe that infant baptism is a valid form of baptism also cite numerous reasons for believing as they do. The first argument that is used is that there is no scriptural support for infant baptism. In the numerous references to baptism, there is no mention of infants ever being baptized in the Bible. In passages referencing the entire household being saved, there is no indication that these households included infants. Indeed even if they did, a reference to the entire household may not actually include infants. The entire household is also recorded as to have heard the gospel and believed as well as rejoiced at the news, neither of which infants could do.

History, or its silence, also attests to having only a believer’s baptism. Despite many references to baptism by earliest of church fathers, there is no mention of infants being baptized. Origen, more than 200 years removed from the time of Christ, is the first to mention infant baptism.

Those who hold to a believer’s only baptism will refute the idea of circumcision being passed on. The argument is made that circumcision is a requirement of the ceremonial law only and that there is no need for it to be continued. Indeed this controversy is addressed numerous times in the New Testament in Acts and in the Epistles. In Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council it was agreed upon that there was no need for Gentile Christians to be circumcised. Just as circumcision was eliminated, those against infant baptism argue that there is no need for it because it is simply another circumcision which is unneeded.

To top of page

Believers' Baptism 

The second form of baptism that is performed by the church is believer’s baptism. It is clearly illustrated throughout the New Testament that people were baptized after they professed a belief in Christ.  This is illustrated most vividly in Acts 8, when the Ethiopian eunuch asked Philip to baptize him after he put his faith in Christ. Though believer’s baptism is given as a sign of conversion it is by no means a means of salvation. The only way to be saved is by trusting in what Christ has done for us on the cross. This is illustrated for us as we look at the thief on the cross.  Here Christ tells the thief that today he will be with Him in paradise, but the thief dies and never has a chance to be baptized. Believer’s baptism is also mentioned repeatedly throughout the writings of the early church fathers. Nearly every church father agreed on believer’s baptism. 

To top of page

Three Modes of Baptism

Now that we have looked at the forms of baptism we must look at the methods of baptism. This topic is a very hotly debated topic within the church. Many methods are used but which methods are the correct methods of baptism?

The Bible itself is silent on the methods of baptism. We know that Jesus himself was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan River . Beyond this we know very little about the methods of baptism used in the New Testament.

The earliest statement of how baptism was performed came from the Didache. The Didache was a manual that was written around 70 AD. In the Didache it says this:

This is the earliest writing that we have on the method that baptism is supposed to use.

Let us look at the three different methods of baptism that are used. These methods are sprinkling, pouring, and immersion. So which one of these is the proper method? Let us look first at sprinkling. We can find no real explicit reference of this method of baptism. Those who adhere to this method of baptism note in the Old Testament that the priest sprinkled blood on the altar and see this as a foreshadowing of baptism. There is little to no reference to sprinkling being used as a method of baptism until the Middle Ages though.

The next method of baptism that we will look at is pouring. Here again there is no explicit reference to this in the New Testament. It is very likely though that in Acts 8 when the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized by Phillip there would not have been enough water for him to be baptized by immersion. Pouring would have been more likely to have been used but we cannot be sure of this. We can see from the writings of the early church father’s that pouring could be substituted for immersion if the person was not able to be immersed on account of extenuating circumstances.

The third and final type of baptism is immersion. This method has the most scriptural basis of all the methods of baptism. It is probable that Jesus was baptized by immersion in the Jordan River by John the Baptist. As well as having scriptural support this method of baptism also has almost unanimous support from the church fathers. This method gives us the best picture of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.

Surrounding immersion is also the debate concerning triune immersion. This is just as heated a topic as any surrounding baptism and churches have split over this as well. There is no indication from scripture one way or another as to whether a person should be immersed three times or one. What is plain is that a person is to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The question is whether a person should be immersed once in all three names or once for each name. From the records of the early church fathers, there would appear to be strong evidence that a person who was baptized was done so three times, once for each name.

To top of page

Our Conclusions 

In our research we have discovered a lot of the attitudes which the early church fathers recorded. We also come from very different backgrounds as far as baptism is concerned. Mike was baptized as an infant (although it was pretty much a dedication) and was later triunally immersed as a believer. His church is open to all forms of baptism. Chad comes from an Anabaptist and was immersed once. Neither of us find anything contra scripture with any method of baptism. We neither hold to infant baptism as a necessary thing. We find scripture to be very permissive on baptism but we hold it to be a commandment that is to be observed by believers. This is NOT a requirement for salvation however. Finally, baptism is a matter of the heart as so many things are in the Christian life. In baptism we associate ourselves with Christ and make a public statement that we are his followers. This is truly what baptism is about and it matters not what form it takes.  

To top of page