What Is Baptism and Why Is It Important?

Many evangelicals in the United States think that Christian baptism occurs when a believer is immersed in water in the Trinitarian name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is seen as a public testimony and symbol of the person’s prior acceptance of the gospel. It occurs after their profession of faith in the completed work of Christ, and it functions as the initiatory rite into the local or visible church. This is referred to as believer’s baptism. Matthew 28:19–20 is central for this doctrine: “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.” This text highlights that one first must be a follower of Jesus—a disciple—before baptism should occur. The public-identification aspect is implied in the public nature of the rite, along with the invocation of the Trinitarian formula. The initiatory aspect is assumed from the person’s embrace of the teaching or catechizing ministry of the church.

The Debate in Church History

Nearly every part of this definition has been debated in church history, and this continues among evangelicals today. In regard to the mode or the particular way of baptizing, some churches practice sprinkling, or even effusion or pouring, rather than immersion. Most agree that baptism is the initiatory rite into the church but disagree if this is reserved for believers (credobaptists), or if it can properly be practiced on infants (paedobaptists). Others question if baptism is only a symbol; they instead see it as a means of grace. Still others extend this to the point where they teach that it effects a saving work of the Holy Spirit; this is known as baptismal regeneration. While it is important to come to a reasoned biblical-theological conclusion on the theology and practice of baptism, we ought to expect diversity in regard to this rite and to practice hermeneutical hospitality toward those who differ.

Sacrament and Ordinance

Two additional terms relate to one’s view of both baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Some writers prefer the term sacrament, which has come, following Augustine, to mean a visible sign of an invisible grace. Among evangelicals, these sacraments are seen as effective only when accompanied by God’s Word and faith. (It isn’t seen as effective only by the act itself, as in the Roman Catholic sacramental system.) Others, seeking to distance themselves from such sacramental approaches, prefer the term ordinance, since it doesn’t include the idea that the rite conveys grace; it is only a symbol. Often those using the term “ordinance” do so since they conclude that Christ ordained baptism (Matt. 28:18–20) and the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:26–29). So, these terms may be used synonymously in practice; however, they do represent two differing approaches to baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Method of Baptism

Immersion is the most appropriate mode for baptism. The Greek word for “baptize” (baptizo-) in differing contexts in the New Testament can mean to dip, immerse, or plunge in water. This seems to be what occurred in Jesus’ baptism (Matt. 3:16), as well as the Ethiopian eunuch’s baptism by Phillip (Acts 8:38–39). Immersion also best symbolizes the believer’s identification with Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3–5; 1 Cor. 15:3–4; Col. 2:12).

Those who support sprinkling as the primary mode do so by noting that immersion would have been improbable in several locations (Acts 2:41; 8:38; 16:33). This at least suggests more than one practice at this early stage (Heb. 6:2a). The typological connections warrant sprinkling rather than immersion (Ex. 24:6–7; Lev. 14:7; Heb. 9:10). The lexical support for baptizotends toward circularity.

Still others see effusion or pouring as the preferred mode. Pouring out seems most appropriate to the eschatological ministry of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17–18). The prepositional phrases in Jesus’ baptism, as well as the Ethiopian eunuch’s baptism, can be understood to reflect pouring rather than immersion (see also Didache 7:1–4). The scenes from the catacombs in Rome offer early evidence of diversity of practice in regard to baptism.

Believers are the most appropriate candidates for baptism in light of Matthew 28:19. Acts 2:38 further substantiates this as Peter instructs those desiring salvation to be baptized subsequent to their repentance. The broader context of Acts 2:38–47 also highlights these baptized believers as becoming members of the Christ-group. It also makes sense in light of the way salvation washes away sins and removes God’s judgment (Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:20–21).

The infant-baptism position is undergirded by the idea that baptism is a sign of the covenant. Support for this is partly based on Colossians 2:11–12, which typologically links circumcision with baptism. Infants under the old covenant were circumcised, so it follows that under the new covenant infants should be baptized. If this typological relationship holds, then it is likely infant baptisms were practiced in the New Testament era.

There is some evidence of early Christian baptism of infants in Origen and Cyprian, and in the catacombs, though the practice didn’t become widespread until the late fourth or early fifth centuries. The household context is also an important argument for the paedobaptism position. The passage most often pointed to is 1 Corinthians 7:14, since it highlights the idea that the children of a believing household are considered “holy.” There are several clear examples of household baptisms in the New Testament more broadly (Acts 16:5, 30–31; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16). It is important to note that both sides of this debate have scriptural support for their positions. Worshiping only as Scripture prescribes is crucial for those in Reformed churches, so it is unlikely they would not seek to support their position from Scripture.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, it is important to listen with open-minded humility to those who differ on this issue. This doctrine matters since it is the initiatory rite into the church, and we need to be clear on what we think about it. But it also matters as a good test case for the way we practice unity amid diversity within the body of Christ.