What does baptism do? Who is baptism for? It should be noted that there are Christians who disagree on the
answers to these questions; genuine Christians that will all be in heaven together someday. Therefore, this is a
subject that requires extending grace to those who don’t hold the same view. When considering baptism, the
Bible should be our only source for insight and guidance. In fact, every doctrinal position that a person clings
to needs to be in strict alignment with the Word of God. This essay aims to highlight what the Scriptures say
about baptism, while examining the specific subject of infant baptism.
Terms to know
Salvation: to be rescued, or delivered from the penalty. Biblically, to be “saved” is to be rescued from the
consequence of sin, which is eternal hell. This happens when one entrusts himself to Jesus for the forgiveness
of sin; thus, receiving the free gift of eternal life in heaven where one is in the everlasting presence of the Lord.
Salvation is sometimes referred to as “being born again,” “regenerated,” or “being saved.”
Grace: unmerited favor; getting something I don’t deserve.
Faith: being convinced, or assured, of the unseen things that one expects or hopes for, because the evidence
demands it. With regards to Jesus, faith is entrusting oneself to Jesus, being convinced that He is who He
claims to be, and that He’ll do what He claims He will do.
Works: an act or deed; anything accomplished by an individual’s efforts.
Baptize: immerse, submerge; be whelmed. To be whelmed is to be submersed and to return to the surface.
You’ve heard the expression, “I’m overwhelmed,
” which is to be below the surface and unable to come up for
air. Every instance of baptize or baptized used in the New Testament are the words bapto and baptizo,
meaning immersion, or submerse. Nowhere is there an exception that says or infers sprinkling.
Ordinance: an activity which holds symbolic value. An ordinance can be a one-time event, as most Christians
see baptism. Or, an ordinance can be a continual practice, as most Christians view communion, where Jesus
said, “do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me,” 1 Corinthians 11:25. When a Christian takes
communion, he is symbolizing that he is a part of the body of Christ, having been purchased (1 Corinthians
6:20) by the bodily death and bloodshed of Jesus on the cross, which are representative of the bread (body)
and cup (blood). Regarding baptism, a Christian who practices “believer baptism” sees baptism as a step of
obedience for a convert to Christianity, where one publicly professes their faith and new identity in Jesus. This
means that baptism symbolizes that their sin has been washed away, and that one identifies with the death
and resurrection of Jesus; represented by the immersion and coming out of the water.
Sacrament: an action that one believes is a means of grace, i.e. doing this act produces something. For some,
communion and baptism are means of salvation (which is not a Biblical view).
Evangelical: a belief and practice that understands that the Bible is the ultimate authority over one’s life, that
one must be transformed by Christ, and with this transformation comes the passion and calling to proclaim
this good news to others. Some denominations are not evangelical, having little or no outreach to the lost.
Christian: a follower of Jesus Christ; one who has entrusted himself to Jesus for the forgiveness of sin.
Hermeneutics: the methodology of studying the Bible; interpreting and expounding the Scriptures. The Bible
interprets the Bible, and understanding how to view one passage within the context of the whole Scripture is
critical to understanding the Word of God.The Lord Jesus gives commands to baptize, and to be baptized. Jesus says to go into all the world and make
disciples, and to baptize them (Matthew 28:19). Later in Acts 2, on the Day of Pentecost, Peter, by the
direction of the Holy Spirit, proclaimed that his hearers should repent and be baptized. Jesus Himself was
baptized as a step of obedience. Though Jesus didn’t need to repent as He was sinless, He was baptized to
model obedience to His disciples, and to publicly make known His identity (Matthew 3). Later His disciples
would be baptized. Despite these things, a trend exists today in the Christian church where many born again
believers are not choosing to be baptized, while many unregenerate individuals (non-believers) are being
baptized; these primarily being infants. This essay will explore why these trends exist.
Infant baptism is broadly practiced by some faiths, like Catholicism, and more narrowly practiced by some
Christian denominations such as Presbyterian and Lutheran. Overall, infant baptism is not practiced at all in
many or most Christian denominations. The big question is, is infant baptism Biblical, and if not, where does it
come from? It needs to be clearly understood that infant baptism is not in the Bible. It’s not commanded,
described, instructed, or demonstrated anywhere in the Scriptures. Even some Catholic and Lutheran scholars
will attest to this reality. Lutheran Professor, Kurt Allen, remarks that there is no definite historical proof of the
practice of infant baptism until after the third century. Professor Haggelbacher, a Catholic Professor of
Theology, owns that it’s impossible to bring proof of infant baptism by arguing from the Bible without adding
human tradition. The earliest known writing to discuss the idea of baptizing children comes around 200 A.D.
by Tertullian, a prominent Christian scholar and apologist, where he argues that baptism should be for
believers, and not for children who can’t profess faith. Regarding baptizing children he adds, “If you insist upon
having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none.” Most scholars on the subject agree that infant baptism
got its start as a practice after the third century. A significant problem arises when people use history and
tradition as standards when making doctrinal claims. We should only consult the Bible when considering a
faith claim.
The Catholic Church defends and practices infant baptism. Why? The Catholic Church has claimed through the
ages to be the exclusive correct and holy Church, believing that they are the unique recipient of post-Biblical
revelation which carries equal weight with Scripture. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church not only asserts that
it is the ongoing recipient of divine revelation, but that it is also the only and infallible interpreter of all
revelation, Biblical or traditional. The Catholic commitment to itself, and not to the authority of Scripture, is
one reason the Protestant reformation came about, and why many began leaving the Catholic faith in the 16th
century. Protestants differ from Catholics in several areas, and a key significance being that Protestants believe
in the commitment to “Sola Scriptura,” which means that the Bible is the singular supreme authority in matters
of faith and doctrine, and not human tradition. History and tradition are not hermeneutics, which is the
process of interpreting the Bible.
Despite the absence of infant baptism in the Bible, those who practice infant baptism use several arguments to
suggest that infant baptism is Biblical. One argument are the household baptisms, such as those seen in Acts
and 1 Corinthians. Of the five households mentioned to have been baptized, none mention babies at all. Take
for example the baptisms at Cornelius’ house (Acts 10), all who were present heard the Word, then the Holy
Spirit fell on them all, and finally all were baptized. These details are critical. In Acts 10:33, Cornelius describes
the people that were gathered together in his household as being those ready to hear the Word of God, “we
are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.” In this context, “all”
is defined as those who gathered to hear the Word, and upon whom the Spirit fell. These things insist that
before baptism be applied, mental cognition must be present as well as faith be expressed; neither of which
could apply to an infant.In Acts 16:31-34 where the jailer’s household is baptized, it says that all who were in the house heard the
gospel, believed, and were baptized. Again the “all” is defined as those who heard and believed. The jailer,
“rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.” In Acts 18, the household of Crispus, all
believed and all were baptized. So, the prerequisite expressed in household baptisms is believing.
In the accounts of the household baptisms of Lydia (Acts 16), and Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1), much less
information is provided, but hermeneutics (principles in which the Bible is to be studied) insists that we view
their household baptisms in the context of other household baptisms where more detail is provided; where all
who were baptized had heard, believed, and received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. No infants
can do this, nor are any mentioned.
In the case of those baptized in Stephanas’ household, 1 Corinthians 16:15-16 says, “Now I urge you, brethren
(you know the household of Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted
themselves for ministry to the saints), that you also be in subjection to such men and to everyone who helps
in the work and labors.” Paul commends “such men” as in Stephanas’ household who “devoted themselves
for ministry to the saints.” These comments couldn’t possibly be said of infants or even children. Additionally,
in John 4:53, of the royal official’s household it says, “And he himself believed and his whole household.”
There’s no mention of baptism in the royal official’s account, but belief is the dominant condition for the
representation of the household; that all who believed were those capable of hearing and receiving.
Some who practice infant baptism believe that a parent can operate as a delegate, a stand-in, for the faith of
their child. They believe infant baptism provides salvation for their child. This is a heretical belief, meaning it
contradicts the teachings of the Bible. In short, a parent’s decisions cannot cause any sort of spiritual
condition, present or future, in the life of their child. Parental influence is limited to prayer, counsel, and
modeling, but spiritual change requires an act of the Holy Spirit and the belief of the individual.
Did Apostles Like Paul or Peter Require Baptism for Salvation?
Some verses are used as “prooftexts” for those believing baptism is necessary for salvation. The term
“prooftext” refers to verses that are misused in order to “prove” a desired point. A prooftext argues a point
without the use of context to add support, which is why it’s a bad way to understand the authors intent.
Looking at Paul’s writings in their entirety, it’s critical to know that the Apostle Paul treats baptism as an
expression of faith. This means that the decisive act that unites a person to Christ is faith, and this faith is later
expressed outwardly in baptism. One of Paul’s statements that is used as a proof text is Acts 22:16, “Now why
do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins….” If you stop there and don’t go any
further, at a quick glance it looks like baptism is the thing that produces salvation. That’s not where the verse
stops though.
“Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His
name.” The sense of the text seems to be that baptism is the outward expression of one who has called on
the name of the Lord in faith. It’s not the water that saved, but the water is a picture of the cleansing that
already took place by faith.
This is similar to what Peter says in 1 Peter 3:20-21, when he talks about the great flood of Noah’s day, and
Noah’s rescue through the water, “the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the
construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you.” Again, if we stop here, at first glance it looks as though
baptism is what saves you, “Corresponding to that (the salvation of Noah’s family), baptism now saves you.”But Peter continues and immediately clarifies that it’s not the water that saved. The whole of verse 21 says,
“Corresponding to that (the salvation of Noah’s family), baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from
the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience -through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” As fast as
Peter says “baptism now saves you,” he immediately says that water removes dirt from the body, but an
appeal to God is the source of the salvation. It’s as though Peter knows that stopping at “baptism now saves
you,” would compromise salvation by faith. It’s the call of faith from the heart, not the water, that saves. The
outward cry signifies the appeal of the heart.
When either John the Baptist, or Mark, calls the ministry of John the Baptist’ baptism “a baptism of
repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4), it means a baptism signifying repentance, which brings
forgiveness. Repentance is simply the way of describing the change of mind that gives rise to faith. Again, the
water doesn’t “do” anything beyond symbolizing what’s taken place in the heart of the individual. When a
Jewish person received John’s baptism, it was an act of commitment to belong to the true God, and not on the
corporate identity with Israel through birth.
The Apostle Paul gives an analogy between circumcision and baptism when he says the following to believers
in Colossians 2:11–12, “and in Him (Jesus) you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without
hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in
baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him
from the dead.” Here, a believer is described as one who has received a type of circumcision, not a
physical/bodily circumcision done by the hand, but spiritually, done to the heart. This spiritual act removes, or
puts off, the old body of the flesh. Along with the circumcision of the heart, a believer has been buried with
Christ and raised with Christ in baptism, through faith. The burial and rising with Christ in and out of the water
are not what unites you to Christ. It is by faith that you are decisively united to Christ; by faith you share in the
baptism of Christ.
Paul uses an interesting analogy here by bringing circumcision into view with baptism in Colossians 2. Keep
that in mind, and now look at what Paul says in Romans 4:11, about Abraham, who was saved by faith before
he was circumcised,
“and he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the
faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being
circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them.
” Paul is clarifying that Abraham’s righteousness
came through his faith in God, and his righteousness was not a result of his later act of circumcision.
Circumcision had no part in salvation. If you take the analogy between baptism and circumcision in Colossians
2, which is all it is, just an analogy, the Colossians text shows that baptism is a sign of the righteousness that a
believer had already obtained before baptism, since we have righteousness through faith alone.
Yes, the Bible makes clear that salvation is not a matter of doing anything first, but only having faith, such as
Acts 16:31, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” No work or deed, like baptism, plays a part in
one’s salvation, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of
God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast,” Ephesians 2:8-9. Other verses that clarify this point
are, Romans 3:28, “man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law,” and Romans 4:5, “But to the one
who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,” and
Romans 5:1, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus
Christ.” And the Bible’s most popular verse, John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” Jesus reiterates thesetruths to the thief on the cross, who had no baptism, and in the final moments of the thief’s life, Jesus affirms
that the man’s newfound faith had secured his eternal life, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in
Paradise,
” Luke 23:43.
Another portion of Scripture that is used as a prooftext, is Acts 2:38-39, “Peter said to them, “Repent, and
each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the
Lord our God will call to Himself.” Two things are important to address here; why baptism is mentioned
before the receiving of the Spirit, and the intention of the phrase “you and your children.”
At first glance, it might appear that Peter provides steps to follow in order to receive the Holy Spirit; first
repent, then be baptized, and finally you will receive the Holy Spirit. There are a few possible ways to view
Peter’s statement. First, Peter may not have water baptism in view. Peter describes being “baptized in the
name of Christ Jesus,” in that, when you repent of your sin, believing Jesus is the Messiah, at that moment the
forgiveness of Jesus baptizes you (i.e. covers you). As His forgiveness removes your sin, you simultaneously
receive the Holy Spirit. All of these things happen in a single moment; one’s belief, one’s forgiveness, and
one’s indwelling of the Holy Spirit are all instantaneous. There are no steps at all.
Another view is that water baptism is in fact what Peter refers to. In this case, Peter is essentially saying that
after you repent, you ought to be baptized in water, and this baptism is done in the name of Jesus. In your
decision to repent, you will receive the Holy Spirit. Peter lumps these together, not as a process, but because
of their relation; belief is conjoined with receiving the Spirit, and baptism is an expectation of those who turn
in faith. Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ meant these people were severing ties with Judaism. Baptism
was the line of demarcation. A pastor whose ministry I respect very much is John Piper. He provides a simple
way to look at Acts 2:38. Piper says, “Suppose that you want to go from Phoenix to LA on a train, and it’s about
to leave. I say to you, “Grab your hat and run, or you’ll miss the train.” Now, I just gave you two commands like
Peter gave two commands: repent and be baptized. But only one of them is a cause of getting to the train on
time — namely, running. I said, “Run,” but I also said, “Grab your hat.” Grabbing your hat is an accompanying
act, not a causative one. It may be very important now; there may be all kinds of reasons why you should have
a hat. “Why did you tell him to grab a hat?” Well, I’ve got my reasons, all kinds of reasons. But grabbing the
hat does not help you in the least get on the train on time. Now, that’s the way I think we should hear Peter
when he says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you, or you’ll miss the train of forgiveness.” You get on the
train of forgiveness if you repent and are baptized. The repentance, the change of mind that includes faith,
gets you to the train. And baptism is important for all kinds of reasons, but it’s not causative in the same way
that repentance is. Here’s my bottom-line, faith precedes baptism.”
Another interpretation is that Peter’s choice of phrase, being baptized “for the forgiveness of your sins,” may
imply that the preposition “for” ought to be understood as “because of” or “on the basis of,”, like in Matthew
3:11 when John the Baptist said, “I baptize you with water for (because of, your) repentance”, or Mark 1:4,
“John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for (on the basis of) the
forgiveness of sins.” Peter’s statement could be understood as, “Repent and you will receive the gift of the
Spirit. Be baptized because your sins are forgiven.”
The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is baptism of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit immediately baptizes (whelms,
envelops, indwells) those who believe, as in Acts 11:15, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell uponthem just as He did upon us at the beginning.” John the Baptist foretold about the baptism of the Holy Spirit
that would come to those who believe in Jesus, Matthew 3:11, “As for me, I baptize you with water for
repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will
baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” So, when Peter says, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” a
baptism of Jesus’ forgiveness washing over you and the baptism of the Holy Spirit indwelling you, are both
simultaneously experienced when one turns in faith. But, for further evidence that Peter did not mean that
one must be baptized in order to be saved and/or receive the Holy Spirit, is what follows Peter’s sermon. Acts
2:41 says, “So then, those who had received his (Peter’s) word were baptized.” About 3,000 people became
saved following Peter’s sermon, and the passage assures us that before they were baptized they had first
“received” (accepted) Peter’s message. This makes clear that belief had preceded all who were baptized.
Back to what Peter said in verse 39, where he said that this promise, “is for you and your children and for all
who are far off.” Some might say, “See this baptism applies to our babies.” I believe what Peter means is, in
the same way that you have received the Spirit, which came by hearing and believing, this will be the same
way that your children now, and your offspring afar, will also come to faith. In other words, this is the way for
both you and all future generations to come to salvation.
Speaking of offspring, another interesting passage that is sometimes pulled into the baptism discussion, even
though it doesn’t speak of baptism, is 1 Corinthians 7, where it speaks of marriage and offspring. It refers to
believers who convert to Christianity after they are married, but their spouse is still an unbeliever. What is the
Christian to do in this situation, and how does it impact their kids? 1 Corinthians 7:13-14, “And a woman who
has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the
unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her
believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.” This says that the
unbelieving spouse is sanctified through the believing spouse, and as they remain married their kids are holy.
So, in what sense can unregenerate spouses be sanctified, or how can unregenerate kids be holy? This
certainly cannot imply that by the faith of one family member, salvation automatically comes upon the other
members of the family. Scripture is clear that salvation can’t be imparted by the will of another person.
Therefore, the type of sanctification and holiness spoken of here is obviously limited, and does not refer to
salvation. The words sanctified and holy mean that a person is set apart or distinguished; acknowledged,
recognized. This means that as God hears the prayers of the saved spouse, and when God dispenses blessings
on the that saved individual, those blessings will also fall upon the family unit as a whole. The unsaved spouse
and kids will be recognized and partakers of some earthly temporal blessings. The hope is that as the
unbelieving members of the family see and enjoy the blessings of God, that they too would turn in faith and
themselves be saved. With regards to infant baptism, it’s not even hinted at here. In fact, nothing in said here
about baptism at all.
Sprinkling or Immersion?
Regarding the idea that sprinkling is a Biblical form of baptism, it needs to be understood that the word baptize
in the New Testament literally and only means immersion, and never anything else. Secondly, we read that
people went into water to be baptized, which would denote immersion. In Matthew 3:13, 16 it reads, “Then
Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John…As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up
out of the water.” If sprinkling was in view, there would be no need to go down to the Jordan river to baptize,
as one could simple do so at home with a cup of water. As soon as Jesus body was fully immersed, He wentback up out of the water. This is not the description of sprinkling. In Acts 8:36-39, we see an Ethiopian man
has just converted to Christianity. After hearing and believing, he professes his faith and expresses his desire
to be baptized. He was with Philip in a traveling caravan when, “As they went along the road they came to
some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” [And Philip said,
“If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the
Son of God.”] And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as
the eunuch, and he baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip
away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.” Clearly, they spot some kind of
stream or pond where the opportunity presents itself for the man to enter the water to be baptized. They
“went down into the water…they came up out of the water.” Obviously sprinkling is not in view, nor was it an
option. If sprinkling had been an option there’d be no need to get out of the chariot, but the man could have
simply taken some of the water he’d be traveling with and ask Philip to baptize him using that. No example of
sprinkling a person with water for baptism is demonstrated or instructed in the Bible.
Additionally, if the word baptize is going to be redefined, and reduced to sprinkling, then it radically reduces
what is said of Jesus’ sacrifice in Romans 6:3, “do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into
Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?” When speaking of the idea of changing the literal meaning
of words, Pastor John McArthur says, “It’s like the people who want to deny eternal hell, they just denied
eternal heaven at the same time because if you’re going to redefine what eternal means in terms of perdition,
you’ve just redefined it in terms of glory also.”
Is Baptism a Sign that Replaces the Sign of Circumcision?
Another argument by those who believe in infant baptism, is that infant baptism is a New Covenant
replacement for the Old Covenant sign of circumcision. Their argument, in summary, would be that as
circumcision was the Old Covenant sign of a covenant with God, and as baptism is the New Covenant sign of a
covenant with God, and since circumcision was applicable not only to adults, but also to infants and children,
therefore, the same should be true of a New Covenant sign. All of this being said, infant baptism is not a
replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision. The Bible never connects the two, not in any context.
Those practicing infant baptism infer this connection, without Scriptural evidence. Here are some of the
challenges with connecting circumcision to baptism.
Circumcision wasn’t a sign of faith, at least not exclusively. It was a marker that created an ethnic identity.
Meaning, many people who received the sign of circumcision had no faith in God whatsoever. This mark was
done to those who were aliens brought into the nation of Israel, to those who never professed any faith, and
to infants who never professed any faith. Circumcision never created a spiritual condition in those that
received it. It only created an ethnic identity; marking a person as part of the nation of Israel, allowing the
person to enjoy the temporal earthly blessings of God; blessings related to land, harvest, peace, etc., at least
so far as the nation of Israel was obedient to God. Circumcision never changed one’s spiritual condition, or
revealed one’s spiritual identity. On the other hand, New Covenant baptism only has spiritual implications;
identifying someone as having been spiritually transformed by Christ. Water baptism provides no temporal
earthly blessing, which is only what circumcision provided. New Covenant baptism is also applied to both
males and females alike, which was not the case with circumcision which only applied to males. Additionally,
water baptism is Biblically never administered to non-professors of faith.While it’s true that believers are described as being a spiritual son of Abraham, this is not because a person has
been circumcised, but only because a person, male or female, has been born again through faith in Jesus. This
community of spiritual sons and daughters are the Church. The Church is a limited bunch, having nothing to
do with ethnic identity, whether Jew or Gentile. One is simply a son of Abraham because he shares the same
faith in God as he did. That’s it. Circumcision never created spiritual identity, even though some who received
it did in fact have faith, but their faith was a separate issue. Old Covenant circumcision was applied to all
males who chose to identify with ethnic Israel, while only a remnant of the Israelites had real faith. This is why
the Scriptures say that not all Israel is Israel, Romans 6:9. In the Old Covenant the remnant was the smaller
portion of Israelites that held real faith. The Lord speaks through the profit Jeremiah of the major distinction
between the Old Covenant and the coming New Covenant, when in Jeremiah 31:31-34 he says, “Behold, days
are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the
house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers…But this is the covenant which I will
make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD…I will be their God, and they shall be My
people…for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.” Those who partake of the
New Covenant will all be believers, meaning, there is no remnant within New Covenant participants. So, a sign
(circumcision) that created an ethnic covenant is not parallel at all to a sign (baptism) that identifies a saving
covenant. Baptism is entirely distinct with no Biblical connection with circumcision.
Covenant Identity
A covenant is an alliance between God and man. There is no room for argument that the Christian Church is
the body of Christ; those who have entrusted themselves to Jesus for the forgiveness of sin. Nobody else
qualifies to be in the Christian Church. One becomes a member of this covenant by faith alone. From Adam
until today, a person has only ever been saved by faith alone. With these truths in view, it’s easy to understand
that infant baptism is not consistent with the identity of the Christian Church. One simply cannot argue that
infant baptism brings the child into a covenant relationship with Jesus. Apart from believers, nobody is a part
of the Body of Christ, whether baptized or not.
Creating Confusion
A major problem with inferring something, is that once you do so, you have to continue to tack on additional
inferences in order to explain and justify the original inference. It’s like ripples in a pond that spread out
further and further. In other words, when the original inference isn’t strictly measured against an objective
truth like the Bible, then there’s no telling how far reaching and distorted subsequent inferences can become.
This is what we continue to see with infant baptism. The original inference is that infant baptism is Biblical.
Those who infer infant baptism as a Biblical, then have to attach other inferences to explain what it
accomplishes. For example, the following are actual ripples/inferences tied to infant baptism, “My child is now
saved,” or, “Infant baptism guarantees that our child will come to faith at a later point in his life,” or, “My child
is now a part of a union with Christ,” or, “My child is now more fortunate and more blessed by God.” Different
faiths and denominations claim various results because inferences continue ungoverned. Doing this creates
dangerous doctrinal errors that mislead people away from truth. In short, infant baptism is not efficacious; it
doesn’t do anything. An infant who is baptized has experienced no change in any way; not in a spiritual sense,
nor in any earthly sense, other than being wet. Infant baptism communicates false securities. As a pastor
myself, when I’m asked to officiate a child/infant dedication, I always do so without the element of water. I tell
the parents that using a water element only serves to confuse the family and/or the audience that something
spiritual has happened to the child.Back to the Beginning
Back to one of the original questions posed in this essay. If baptism is for a believer to publicly identify with
Jesus, then why would a believer choose to not get baptized? There may be many reasons. Perhaps the
believer is ignorant as to the expectations about baptism. They may not know Jesus commands believers be
baptized and to baptize other believers. Other reasons for putting off baptism might be one’s pride; having no
desire to be humbly obedient. Perhaps their too concerned about what friends and family might think of their
faith in Jesus. Or, one might be indifferent and not consider obedience as a priority. Perhaps too, that
individual might not really be a Christian, despite their claim to be.
I Was Baptized as an Infant, Now What?
If you were baptized as an infant, and you are now a born-again believer in Jesus, then the Scriptures instruct
you to take the step of obedience, known as baptism, and publicly proclaim your identity in Jesus Christ. If you
were baptized as an infant, but you have never entrusted yourself to Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins,
then I would urge you to consider doing so, as it’s the most important decision you can ever make. According
to the Bible, you won’t get to heaven otherwise.
Clarifying Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the initial one-time indwelling of the Holy Spirit that occurs when a person comes
to faith. Paul describes baptism in the Holy Spirit with regards to one’s conversion in 1 Corinthians 12:13, “For
by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we
were all made to drink of one Spirit.” Apart from this indwelling/baptism of the Spirit, there are times in a
believer’s life when one may experience subsequent “fillings” of the Holy Spirit. I believe “filling” is the
appropriate word, as I think referring to these events as “additional baptisms” is likely to cause confusion.
These fillings describe a time when a believer receives a unique empowering of the Spirit to enable the
believer to engage a difficult moment. Take Paul for example, who is already indwelt with the Spirit, when he
is on the island of Cyprus, and encounters an evil magician. Paul is, “filled with the Holy Spirit,
” and is given an
extraordinary power to deal with this magician (Acts 13:8-12). Peter, who is also already indwelt with the Holy
Spirit as seen in Acts 2, is later said in Acts 4:8 to have been “filled with the Holy Spirit,
” so as to speak
powerfully to the governing body of the Jews. Stephen, when he was being stoned to death for his faith, was
already indwelt with the Spirit of God, but received a unique filling of the Spirit where he was allowed to look
into heaven moments before his death, and see the Lord. Acts 7:55-56, “But being full of the Holy Spirit, he
gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he
said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” These
subsequent “fillings” of the Holy Spirit, which come after conversion, insist that there is something uniquely
special happening through the believer in the moment, by an operation of the Spirit.
Baptism by Fire
John the Baptist mentions a baptism of fire. Matthew 3:7-12, “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and
Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the
wrath to come? Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to
yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father ‘; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up
children to Abraham. The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear
good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He
who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you withthe Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor;
and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
”
A sense could be that “and fire” is meant to communicate that the work of the Holy Spirit’s baptism will serve
to refine a person as fire refines metal; purging out the pollution. Although it’s true to say that we’re made
pure by God’s redemptive work in our lives, that may not be the sense of John’s words here. I believe that
John’s words are aimed at two groups of people, believers and unbelievers. Jesus will baptize believers with
the Holy Spirit and unbelievers with fire. This seems to be the sense when verse 11 is considered with verse
12, which say, 11 “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is
mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12
“His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His
wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
The baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of fire appear to be contrasting events. The baptism with fire
completes John’s analogy of the evil tree where fire refers to punishment and not the Holy Spirit’s redemptive
work in the life of a believer.
A popular phrase in society, “baptized by fire,” or “trial by fire,” speaks to the trials and tribulations that one
goes through, with the hopes of coming out stronger and having a greater resolve in one’s character. That’s
not a bad use of the phrase, but it doesn’t seem to be the sense here in the Bible. Consider that when Jesus
instructs His disciples in Acts 1:5, the Lord references John the Baptist’s statement, “for John baptized with
water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” Notice that Jesus doesn’t
include the words, “and fire,” the way John spoke to the Pharisees. Jesus doesn’t apply the baptism of fire to
His disciples.
As we see in Matthew 3, John the Baptist speaks to large crowds which included some hypocrites – the
Sadducees and Pharisees. These men simply believed they were heirs to the kingdom of heaven due to being
a part of the bloodline of Abraham (verse 9, “We have Abraham for our father”). These people would not be
entering the kingdom of heaven unless they repented and in faith entrust themselves to the Lord for
forgiveness. The two groups of people in the crowd; those who believe, and will be baptized in the Holy Spirit,
and those who remain in unbelief, will be baptized (immersed) in the fire of hell.
Some might say, “But a type of baptism of fire did happen to believers at the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, where
the Spirit descended upon them appearing as tongues of fire.” That event did happen to a select group, but I
don’t think that event is what John the Baptist prophesied about when he spoke of baptism of fire. I say this
because the audience John spoke to about the baptism of fire was not the group of people who experienced
the unique event in Acts 2. So, John’s not referring to them. Secondly, the dispensing of the Spirit in Acts 2,
appearing as “tongues of fire,” didn’t happen to anyone else or group in Scripture. So, if that type of Acts 2
baptism of fire was what John intended for believers to experience, I believe we’d see that occurring to other
believers in the Bible. So, there doesn’t seem to be a connection with what John the Baptist said, and the
event in Acts 2.
The following is an excerpt from my essay, “The Holy Spirit,” but I see fit to add it here, as sometimes people
confuse the events associated with the laying on of hands, as a type of baptism as well. So, I hope this
inclusion serves to clarify further what baptism is and what it isn’t.The Holy Spirit, and the Laying On of Hands
Sometimes, the Holy Spirit will work through the laying on of hands by the apostles. This can be somewhat
confusing, as some wrongly assert that the apostles inputted the Holy Spirit into people, which has never
happened. Let’s look at what’s really happening when we see instances of laying on of hands. Sometimes, the
laying on of hands was done by the apostles to confirm an office onto someone. Acts 6 speaks of Stephen as
he was conferred as a deacon within the church. It describes him as, “a man full of faith and of the Holy
Spirit,” (6:5). The next verse says, that Stephen and other believers were, “brought before the apostles; and
after praying, they laid their hands on them.” So here, the laying on of hands is limited to conferring an office,
as the laying on of hands served no other purpose in this instance.
In a similar circumstance, but one that can appear more confusing if read at a surface level, comes in Acts 8,
where apostles are deployed to the Church in Samaria for the purpose of endowing Christians with the gifts of
offices. This passage can be wrongly understood as though the apostles were dispensing the regenerative
action of the Holy Spirit. Here’s what the passage says in Acts 8:14-17, “Now when the apostles in Jerusalem
heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and
prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they
had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and
they were receiving the Holy Spirit.” Let’s unpack what’s happening here.
In Samaria, the church is growing as a result of Christians having left Jerusalem and evangelizing in Samaria.
However, the disciples who evangelized in Samaria were unable to confer the gifts of offices to the Samaritan
believers. These offices were needed to establish and strengthen the local churches, and at this time, those
offices were administered at the hands of the apostles. Therefore, the apostles John and Peter are called, who
come to Samaria, and lay hands on some believers as the Spirit directed. Bringing in apostles from Jerusalem
for this ratifying act was important so that the Jewish and Samaritan converts saw that God had united them,
and for the apostles to have confirmation that God was indeed now moving in Samaria, as the Lord prophesied
(Acts 1:8).
It would be wrong to imply that these converts to Christianity didn’t already have the indwelling of the Spirit,
as indwelling is a central act in conversion. Luke, who writes Acts, expects his readers to know this, given the
context he’s provided in prior chapters. This same passage in Acts 8 makes another curious statement when it
says, “they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” This means that the baptisms they’d
already experienced were the indwelling of the Spirit (at their conversion) and water baptism as a profession
of their newfound faith. “Simply been baptized” infers that none yet had experienced the Spirit’s conferring
gifts of office. With no apostles at the time in Samaria, none were their presently who were qualified to confer
these gifts. Thus, the Spirit had not yet descended on them for such purposes. The phrase, “simply baptized
in the name of Jesus”, doesn’t refer to a limited type of water baptism, as if this water baptism excluded the
Father & Spirit. These disciples were no doubt baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. It only
means they were yet lacking certain giftings of the Spirit, as represented in a type of baptism of the Spirit
which was not yet administered to them. In fact, the phrase “baptized in the name of Jesus” is common; Acts
2:38, 10:48, 19:5. In summary, the Samarian church was increasing in the number of regenerate/indwelt
believers whose water baptism showed a desire to follow Jesus, but who were yet unfurnished with
demonstrative gifts and offices. We see in 1 Timothy 4:14 even more clearly that the laying on of hands is forconferring gifting, “Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through
prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.”
Other accounts in Acts regarding the conferring of offices can be found in Acts 13:3, “Then, when they had
fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away,” and in Acts 19:6, “And when Paul
had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and
prophesying.” Here, the speaking of tongues was a visual confirmation that these offices had indeed been
confirmed by the Spirit. Today, the laying on of hands continues to be a common practice for the conferring of
church offices, as pastors and elders may lay hands and pray over a new pastor on staff.
Another confusing text, associated with Acts 19, comes in verses 1-6, specifically in verse 2, “Did you receive
the Holy Spirit when you believed?” Both verses 1-2 indicate that Paul is talking to Christians. So, by default,
this type of receiving of the Spirit couldn’t be the act of regeneration/indwelling, which already took place.
The Christians remarked, “No, we have not yet even heard if there is a Holy Spirit.” This doesn’t mean that
they’ve not heard of the Person of the Holy Spirit, which they’d have known about by either the Old Testament
or from the ministry of John the Baptist teachings, which had reached them according to verse 3. John the
Baptist was of course well acquainted with the Holy Spirit, as he was uniquely indwelt by the Holy Spirit since
his conception. Additionally, John the Baptist had seen the manifestation of the Spirit at Jesus’ baptism,
appearing as a dove. These believers here talking to Paul may also have known of the promise of the Holy
Spirit to come, from Joel’s prophecy in Joel 2:28-29, which Jesus said would come after Him, and which Peter
preached had been fulfilled (Acts 2:16-18). Some had heard the Spirit had come at Pentecost and other
believers had not. Furthermore, it has to be understood that even if these believers literally mean, “Who is
this Holy Spirit you speak of? The words ‘Holy Spirit’ has never crossed our ears!” Even if that was the case,
their lacking knowledge of the existence of the Holy Spirit would have nothing to do with them being indwelt
by the Holy Spirit, as one doesn’t need to understand the Spirit to be indwelt by Him. For example, if I’m
sharing the gospel with a person who has no knowledge of the Bible at all, and I tell him about the work of
Jesus and Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, and then the man entrusts himself to Jesus for the forgiveness
of his sins, then that man is immediately indwelt with the Holy Spirit, even if I don’t mention the Holy Spirit at
all in my presentation. So, we must apply context when studying Acts 19, and remind ourselves that these
believers are already indwelt before Paul lays hands on them.
Like the believers in Samaria, the gospel had been preached, received, and submitted to. Now believers in
Ephesus were ready to function as a church and needed the bestowing of offices and the gifts that enjoined
the calling at this time. When Paul asks “Into what then were you baptized?” The men said they were only
baptized “into John’s baptism.” Realizing they had not yet taken the step of obedience to get baptized as
born-again believers, Paul sees fit that they are baptized as professing believers in the name of Jesus. John’s
baptism, was a confession of sin but didn’t acknowledge the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. It was
important before Paul conferred offices upon them in verse 6, that they first take an important step in
obedience, publicly acknowledging their allegiance to the Father in heaven, and being baptized in the name of
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which took place in verse 5. After their water baptism as professing believers,
then Paul saw it fit to confer offices to some for the establishment of the organized church in this region. To
demonstrate that these offices had indeed been conferred, those with offices conferred onto them spoke in
tongues and prophesied.External demonstrations like tongues were not an uncommon demonstration at this time, as it often marked
that one had been conferred with the gifts of offices. We ought not be confused to think that the speaking of
tongues is an expected experience that one has at the moment of regeneration. When someone comes to
saving faith in Jesus there aren’t outward supernatural signs that validate one’s salvation, at least not typically.
That being true, tongues were used to validate the salvation moment in Cornelius’ house in Acts 10, for the
purpose of showing Peter that Gentiles were now indeed indwelt. Outward demonstrations like at Cornelius
household, and at Pentecost in Acts 2, show the Holy Spirit had done something unique to introduce a new
reality, but in both of these cases there was no laying on of hands, as again, no apostle has ever imputed the
Spirit into another person.
Before moving on, several things need to be understood. We would be wrong to assume that the Holy Spirit
couldn’t operate within an individual until an apostle was present to lay hands. That would simply be false.
God sometimes uses laying on of hands, and other times no apostle is used at all, such as in Acts 10:44.
Regarding Samaria, with Peter and John (Acts 8), and much later at Ephesus with Paul (Acts 19), it’s fair to say
that laying on of hands was in part to illustrate the oneness of the church, as the apostles could ratify and
bring word back to Jerusalem that Jesus’ prophecy of taking the kingdom to Samaria and into the remotest
parts of the earth was being fulfilled (Acts 1:8). Additionally, it would be wrong to assert that Samaria and
other nations beyond, had their own separate “Pentecost.” This means that what happened at Pentecost in
Acts 2, was the official and global mark of a new outpouring of the Spirit onto believers. Pentecost was not
simply a regional act for Jerusalem which would be replicated elsewhere as the gospel spread.
Sometimes the Spirit operates through the laying on of hands for the purpose of healing. In Acts 9:17, we see
that both the conferring of Apostleship and the physical healing of eyesight were achieved by the laying on of
hands through Ananias, “So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said,
“Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so
that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Another example of the Spirit operating
through the laying on of hands is in Acts 28:8, “And it happened that the father of Publius was lying in bed
afflicted with recurrent fever and dysentery; and Paul went in to see him and after he had prayed, he laid his
hands on him and healed him.”
