We have seen that the prooftexts used for baptismal regeneration do not require that interpretation. Let us now examine the meaning and importance of baptism in the New Testament, first by looking at the historical background to baptism, next by comparing the baptism of John and Jesus, and last by setting forth the meaning of baptism in the primitive church of the first century.

Background of New Testament Baptism

Scholars are unsure of the exact origin of baptism. Undeniably some form of immersion was required of proselytes to Judaism.²⁷ Moreover, some have viewed Qumran as a possible site for John the Baptist to have acquired his baptismal practice. His call to baptism included a call for religious purity and repentance as well as a concern with the eschaton (last days), not to mention his geographical proximity to Qumran. Despite the similarities, there are important differences.

In Jewish proselyte baptism the candidate dipped himself into the water, whereas in the examples of John’s baptism (and subsequently, Christian) the verb is almost invariably passive, indicating an act performed on the candidate. This may be the reason why John received the name “the baptizer.”²⁸ Moreover, baptism in Judaism was of secondary importance, while in John’s baptism the emphasis is on the redemptive work of the Messiah and how the convert relates to Him.²⁹ A second distinction is that at Qumran the washings were regularly repeated, making them unlike John’s and Christian baptism, which was received but once, though the first ceremony of purification at Qumran did admit one into the community.³⁰

There is no certainty, then, that baptism, as seen in the New Testament, came from Qumran or larger Judaism since the earliest references to proselyte baptism within Judaism belong to the latter half of the first century³¹ and are not well-defined. It might be safer to say that Judaism and Christianity borrowed from the same source, the Levitical cleansings of the Old Testament.³²

New Testament Baptism: Comparison of John’s and Christian Baptism

John’s baptism and Christian baptism have much in common. In fact, Jesus’ baptism may be viewed as a complement and fulfillment of John the Baptist’s work. John declared to the crowds that he baptized in water, but the Messiah to come would baptize the people in the Holy Spirit and in fire (Mart. 3:11), which was fulfilled in Acts 2:1-4 and Acts 10:44-48 (cf. Acts 1:5 and 11:16).

Second, John’s baptism and Christian baptism are similar because they are both baptisms of repentance. John demanded that baptism be accompanied by sincere repentance, which it represented (Matt. 3:7-9). The people were confessing their sins as they were being baptized (Matt 3:6).

Last, John’s baptism and Christian baptism both focus on the Messiah. John’s pointed to the Messiah, who was to come, whereas Christian baptism points back to the Messiah, who did come.

New Testament Baptism: The Meaning of Christian Baptism in the Primitive Church

Baptism was an integral part of the overall experience of becoming a Christian in the earliest periods of the church. It was associated with being united with Christ (Rom. 6:4-5) and putting on Christ (Gal. 3:27). Even the forgiveness of sins is connected to baptism because it serves as the external statement of that internal event. It is even likely that baptism served analogously in becoming a member of the New Covenant community as a counterpart to the Old Testament practice of circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). The term “baptism” seemed to be used as a short form for the gospel, in which faith and repentance were expected (Matt. 28:19). At the least, it was not ancillary to the gospel, but a very real part of it. There is little question that baptism was not optional for one who named the name of Jesus Christ, and it was virtually the first thing a Christian did after responding in faith to the gospel (Acts 2:38; 8:34-38; 10:45-48; 16:31-34).

With all its importance, however, baptism was never absolutely necessary for a person to become justified before God. The New Testament insists only on the internal work of repentance/faith (e.g. John 3:15, 36; 5:24; Acts 2:21; 10:43; 15:9), this requisite given in the New Testament at least 60 times with no mention of baptism.³³

Let us now put baptism into perspective for today’s church. Baptism is a necessary initiation rite for Christians today as much as it was in the first century; the biblical text never says it will lose its importance over time. Baptism is much like circumcision, which never saved anyone in the Old Testament times; nonetheless, it was not optional for one who wanted to be a part of the covenant with Abraham and a part of the Israelite community.

Baptism is not a requirement for salvation. Rather, it is to faith what words are to ideas. One may have an idea without putting it into words, but it conveys no external reality for anyone else. One may also have faith without baptism, but this has no significance outside oneself. Sometimes an evangelical preacher may give an “altar call” for people to come to the front of the church or pulpit if they truly repent in their hearts and believe in the gospel.³⁴ This is seen as a public statement of that internal belief. This is unfortunate because in the early church the person was called to be baptized as a public statement of that faith. We have substituted the altar call (of recent origin) for Christian baptism. It was in baptism that repentance and faith in Christ were proclaimed, without which there was no divinely recognized first Christian act. To the early Christian there simply was no alternative to baptism and there was no such thing as an unbaptized Christian. To reject baptism was to reject Christ and initiation into His church.

Those who believe water baptism is necessary for salvation use several New Testament passages to support that view. In this second article, I will interact with some of those biblical texts and seek to demonstrate that the texts do not support baptismal regeneration. There are many other passages besides these that could be discussed,¹ but within the constraints of a magazine article I have chosen to analyze what I consider to be the most important.

Mark 16:16

He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.²

The first obvious problem with using this passage is that 16:9-20 is not found in the most reliable Greek manuscript tradition.³ Consequently, it is suspect to build a doctrine on the verse. A second reason for doubting that verse 16 teaches baptism for salvation is that the passage’s teaching is in a conditional form: “The one who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” In the Greek there are two expressed conditions, namely “belief” and “baptism” (known as a protasis). There is also one statement, which indicates the result from the fulfillment of the conditions, namely, “shall be saved” (known as an apodosis). The two conditions do not need to bear identical relationship to the apodosis, however. One may be a cause and the other may be the evidence.⁴ This would explain the subsequent statement, “He who does not believe will be condemned.”

This analysis also conforms to logical construction, as elucidated by Millard Erickson: “It is simply absence of belief, not of baptism, which is correlated with condemnation. According to the canons of inductive logic, if a phenomenon (e.g., salvation) occurs on one occasion but not on another, the one circumstance in which they differ is the cause of the phenomenon.”⁵

John 3:3-5

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say unto you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he? Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Interpretations of the phrase “born of the water and of the Spirit” abound in Christian circles, focusing primarily on what is meant by “born of the water.” Following are some of the ways in which this phrase has been interpreted:

1. Christian water baptism.

2. Synonym for the Holy Spirit (born of water, even the Spirit).

3. The Word of God.

4. Physical birth.

5. John’s baptism.

6. A symbol, along with “wind,” for the work of God from above.

Those who advocate baptismal regeneration favor view 1, but the passage is open to several other legitimate understandings. Views 1, 2, and 3 depend on later New Testament teaching being read back into the passage, lessening the likelihood of their correctness. Some might believe interpretation 4 is the proper one, since Nicodemus brought up the issue of physical birth (3:4), and because of Jesus retort (3:6), but this view is not likely since this would fail to advance the argument of the passage and render Jesus’ subsequent words as trivial.⁶ Position 5 has merit since it is found within the historical context of familiarity with the baptism of John and previous references to the coming spiritual baptism by the Messiah (e.g., John 1:33). In this case, Jesus would be saying the Pharisees should accept John’s message of repentance and baptism to prepare for the Messiah, who would then give the Holy Spirit.

Position 6, however, may be the best choice in view of the context.⁷ Jesus tells Nicodemus that he, being a teacher of Israel, should be able to recognize the fulfillment of biblical truth (3:10). Nicodemus acknowledges Jesus as a teacher sent from God (3:2), but Jesus wanted Nicodemus to recognize Him as the Son of God (3:15-16). He adds that Nicodemus must be born from above.⁸ Nicodemus ponders an earthly birth while Christ leads him to a heavenly understanding. Jesus then contrasts the birth to which the teacher of Israel speaks to a birth that comes from God.

In order to teach this teacher, Jesus moves to imagery with which Nicodemus should have been familiar, that of water and wind (not the Spirit), elements of this earth. Though Christians have become accustomed to pairing “water and Spirit,” as Zane Hodges says, “it is hardly the most natural semantic association for these two words. Rather, the association of ‘water and wind’ as elements in the physical world is one that is both readily and frequently made.”⁹

These figures were used in the Old Testament to speak of spiritual renewal and should have been familiar to Nicodemus. The Jews were quite familiar with, and desirous for, the refreshment of the waters from heaven and the winds that blow in heaven, necessary for human life.¹⁰ The Old Testament prophets used such physical elements to speak of spiritual nourishment from above. Jesus then chides Nicodemus for his failure to comprehend His words and leads him to understand that he should embrace the Son of God as the One who came down from heaven.

In His teaching to Nicodemus, Christ picks up two renewal themes in the Old Testament: the “water” of Isaiah 44:3 and the “wind” of Ezekiel 37:9-10. Moreover, Nicodemus should have compared this imagery with the riddle given in Proverbs 30:4: “Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, If you know?” (NKJV). Nicodemus, being a teacher of Israel, should have known that God gives spiritual renewal (from above) and that God’s Son, who was standing before him, brought this spiritual birth. For this reason Christ continued in His discourse with Nicodemus to interpret the riddle of Proverbs 30:4: “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man [a title understood for deity in Judaism, cf. Dan. 7:13, 14; Mark 14:61-64] be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

Acts 2:38-39

And Peter said to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall 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 shall call to Himself.”

Acts 2:38 appears to indicate that baptism has as its purpose the forgiveness of sins. Note the various translations:

· “so that your sins will be forgiven” (TEV).

· “so that your sins may be forgiven’ (NRSV).

· “for the remission of sins” (KJV, NKJV).

· “for the forgiveness of your sins” (NAB, NASB, NJB, RSV, NIV).

These translations would seem to teach that baptism brings about forgiveness of sins.

In reality, there are several alternatives available to the translations offered above. The issue is one of Greek grammar and word meaning; namely, how the Greek words for repentance and baptism relate to the phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” and what the meaning of the preposition “for” (eis) is within the verse.

A view offered by several New Testament Greek grammarians is that Acts 2:38 does not teach that baptism brings forgiveness because the Greek word eis should be translated “because of” rather than “for the purpose of.” J. R. Mantey argued that eis could be used to express cause in various passages in the New Testament, among them Matthew 3:11 and Acts 2:38. Mantey believed, as do many others, that salvation by grace would be violated if a causal eis was not true in Acts 2:38.¹¹

Premier Greek grammarian A. T. Robertson also argued that eis in 2:38 should be understood as “because of,” similar to its reasonable usage in Matthew 12:41: “They repented because of [eis] the preaching of Jonah.”¹² Kenneth Wuest contended the same, but mentioned a comment by Josephus that “John baptized people only after they had repented (Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 5, section 2).¹³ Interestingly, Robertson concluded his analysis by saying that one “will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not.”¹⁴

Yet, this suggestion for eis to be understood as “because of” brings more problems than it solves for nonsacramentarians, since repentance then would also be “because of the forgiveness of sins,” and not only baptism. Such a measure to correct the interpretation of baptismal regeneration is unacceptable because it flies in the face of Lucan theology where repentance, rather than baptism, brings forgiveness of sins (Luke 13:3; 24:47; Acts 3:19ff; 5:28-32; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20).¹⁵

One alternative is to repunctuate the passage to read “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins,” or “Repent for the remission of sins, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” If this were the correct understanding, the eis is subordinate to “repent” alone and not to “be baptized.”¹⁶ What favors this interpretation is that “repent” here is a second person plural verb, which would be in proper accord with “remission of your sins,” while “let each…be baptized” is a third person singular verb.¹⁷ The text would read literally, “You [command] repent…for the remission of your sins.”

A second alternative is that baptism incorporates both a spiritual reality and a physical symbol. Daniel Wallace has suggested that this may be seen in the account of the conversion of Cornelius and his family in Acts 10-11. They were not refused baptism because they had received the Spirit. In other words, since they had the internal testimony through spiritual baptism, they also should have the public testimony through water baptism.¹⁸

Repentance and faith are opposite sides of the “coin” of conversion and are the internal workings of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the person who comes to God. In this writer’s opinion, Acts 2:38 teaches that one should believe in Jesus Christ unto forgiveness of sins and seal that confession of the heart with the outward confession of baptism.

The incident at Cornelius’s house poses serious problems for baptismal regeneration. Acts 10:44 reveals that on hearing the gospel preached by Peter, the house of Cornelius received the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt. 3:11; Acts 2:39). Reception of the Spirit showed Peter that God had already worked inwardly in the house of Cornelius, demonstrating the legitimacy of baptism for these newly regenerated believers. Interestingly, the issue is faith and not baptism when Peter recounted the event to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem; he did not even mention water baptism (Acts 11:15-18).¹⁹ This passage is in agreement with another text in Acts (16:30-31), where a Philippian jailer asks what he must do to be saved. Paul told him to believe in Christ and he would be saved. Only later (after the jailer washed Paul’s and Silas’s wounds) did Paul baptize him.

Acts 22:16

And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.

Some have read Acts 22:16 as though it said, “Arise, and wash away your sins by being baptized and call on the name of the Lord.” This English rendering of the text would lead one to think that the verse has two conjunctions (kai in Greek) rather than one. This is, however, quite different from the actual Greek syntax. In reality, there are two distinct ideas being stated in the verse, the text having two separate clauses, each with an imperatival verb and its modifying participle. A more literal translation is, “After you arise be baptized²⁰ and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” The calling on the name of the Lord would be a confession of Christ similar to those found in Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, and Romans 10:13. The baptismal act would be a visual statement that one is “calling on the name of the Lord” and becoming a Christian, similar to how “altar calls” function today (see below).

Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Colossians 2:11-12

These biblical texts speak of baptism into Christ or into His body. They are often taken as teaching that baptism is a necessary component to being in Christ. They do not teach that salvation comes through baptism, but they convey an important symbolism of what happens in baptism. It is the public statement that the individual makes of identification with Jesus Christ, an outward expression of what has occurred inwardly through the operation of the Holy Spirit. For example, the reference in 1 Corinthians 12:13 speaks not only of being baptized in the Spirit but also of drinking into the Spirit. Both of these symbolically refer to the individual’s participation in the life of God. When a person is baptized, he or she comes into unity with all other believers in Jesus Christ. This unity transcends social distinctions.

Titus 3:5

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.

In the context of Titus 3, the “washing of regeneration” does not need to be viewed as speaking of baptism. Instead, it uses a common word for the cleansing process to express a spiritual reality. This is similar to how water is used in Ezekiel 3 6:25-27. The joining of water and the work of the Spirit found in the Ezekiel passage leads to another possibility on the construction of the phrase, “washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” It may be understood in an appositional way with the conjunction “and” (kai) being translated as “even.” This verse would then be translated, “washing of regeneration, even the renewing of the Holy Spirit.”

1 Peter 3:19-21

…He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when 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. And corresponding to that, 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.

Some have viewed 1 Peter as a baptismal tract, lending support to a high view of baptism in the salvation event. David Hill, however, countered this perspective by simply observing that “baptism” occurs only once in the letter and virtually in a parenthetical way (3:21).²¹ In reality, Peter’s letter addressed the suffering of believers (1 Pet. 1:6-7; 3:13-18; 5:10). A Christian’s suffering and his or her baptism were linked because in accepting baptism, he or she affirmed willingness to share in the known experience of baptized persons, who were commonly treated with suspicion and hostility.²²

The wording of 3:21 may seem to support baptismal regeneration, but a careful look at the parallels by Peter, and the Greek syntax, reveals that his typological comparison points in another direction. The Greek language, unlike English, has what is known as concord, in which a modifying word will agree in gender and number with its antecedent. The first word in this verse is the neuter pronoun translated “which,” referring back to “water,” a neuter noun, not to “ark,” which is a feminine noun. Wuest translates it, “which (water) as a counterpart now saves you, (namely) baptism.”²³ Thus, the water of Noah’s day is a type of the water of baptism. Note the New Jerusalem Bible: “It is the baptism corresponding to this water which saves you now — not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience given to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The ark would more accurately refer to salvation, since the ark delivered Noah and his family as it was lifted by the flood waters, but “[Peter] was centering upon the issue of water in order to use baptism as an analogy to Noah’s deliverance through the suffering and judgment of his day.”²⁴

The apostle Peter continued in this vein by stressing that baptism saves not through the removal of dirt but rather as an appeal to a good conscience before God, or, as Bo Reicke translates, “a pledge of good will to God.”²⁵ David Hill expresses the sense of the Greek word eperoteime as meaning “a response or assent to a covenant obligation, an agreement to maintain righteousness, through obedience, in the future. . .The characterization of baptism in 3:21 would then be as follows: not so much the abandonment of the moral failures of the pre-Christian life as a firm response to God, a commitment to maintain before the world an upright life of which one need not be ashamed.”²⁶ In other words, Peter is not teaching that baptism confers forgiveness of sins (“removal of dirt”) but rather it is the initiation of a life of obedience that demonstrates true conversion and salvation.

1. The word baptizo in Greek, translated “baptize” in the New Testaments, meant to “dip” or “immerse.” It is sometimes argued that in Mark 7:4 and Luke 11:38 the word means “to wash by pouring,” not “immerse”; but in those texts the actual meaning (as historical information substantiates) is to “wash by dipping or immersing in water.”

1. Baptism is specifically stated in the New Testament to represent the Christian’s spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6:3-7), which is remarkably and dramatically pictured in immersion. To this it is usually pointed out that baptism may also serve as a picture of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17, 33, 38; 10:45-48), and also of the sprinkling, either of the blood of Jesus for forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:19-22; 10:22, 12:24; I Peter 1:2), or of the “clean water” representing the impartation of the new nature and the giving of the Holy Spirit (Ezekiel 36:25-27). It is true that in Acts, Peter makes a connection between the pouring of the Spirit and the rite of baptism, but the connection is not as direct as the kind found in Romans 6:3-7; and the Bible never connects baptism with the imagery of sprinkling.

1. Whenever the act of baptism is described in the New Testament (which is rarely), the one who is baptized actually goes into the water. Thus, after Jesus was baptized, He “came up out of the water” (Mark 1:10), and when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, “they both went down into the water” (Acts 8:38). These descriptions do not quite prove complete immersion, however, since they could have stood, let us say, ankle-deep in water while one of them scooped up some water and poured it over the other’s head. Furthermore, we are not told in Scripture that we must baptize in exactly the same way as John or Philip.

1. The mode used by the early Church in the first few centuries was immersion, with affusion reserved for occasions when immersion was impossible due to lack of sufficient water, and aspersion used for individuals too sick or weak for either immersion of affusion. Thus, immersion was the norm and the other two modes were substitutes in exceptional circumstances. This situation, however, began to change fairly early and by the 13th century was actually reversed, with aspersion the norm. Even after the Reformation, immersion as the norm became accepted only by a segment of Protestantism and only after a period of transition during which affusion was the norm.

1. Those who believe that all three modes are valid would point out that only in the most ritualistic view of baptism can the amount of water be considered important. The immersion-only view, they say, appears absurd: What if one hair fails to be immersed? What if a finger or a hand? Where does one draw the line? But the opposing argument can be made to appear absurd also: If a small amount of water is permissible, is one drop enough? How about no water at all (not a view to be laughed away, since the “Quakers” take this exact view)? Where does one draw the line at this end? Therefore, the better approach is to realize that it is the general form of the act and the intention of those involved that matter, not the precise amount of water used. The issue is: Shall we obey the command of Christ as He intended or shall we obey the command in a way that pleases us?

What shall we conclude from these observations? It seems clear to us that immersion is the biblical norm, but that it is not an inflexible norm. That is, Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances. God accepts the believer on the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized. The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based on Scripture. The Church should welcome into its fellowship all those whom Christ has accepted (Romans 15:7, I John 1:3).

A. Serious Deviation from Doctrine of Grace. Often in the discussion of how baptism relates to forgiveness of sins, Christians are like ships passing in the night. We use different words but mean the same things. This is sometimes the case when discussing sola fide (faith alone) with those believers in a more confessional or ritual-oriented community; these people usually do not hold to the absolute necessity of baptism in affirming faith in Christ, and even when they emphasize baptism, they are speaking of it as a work of God in which a person believes.

On the other hand, there are those who hold a more rigid requirement of water baptism, such as the UPC and the ICC. As evidenced by the absolute statements given above, they hold to baptism as a work that repentant sinners must do before they will be forgiven of their sins by God. They may do this honestly through their misinterpretation of the biblical texts. Nonetheless, they reject the biblical and Reformation doctrine that a person is saved by grace through faith alone apart from any works that we may perform, and so they pervert the gospel.

B. Inconsistency Regarding the Doctrine of Grace. The Lutheran theology of baptism could cause some within that tradition to become guilty of placing undue confidence in the sacramental act to the detriment of a genuine faith in Jesus Christ unto salvation. This is not to say, however, that a person holding to the efficacy of baptism for the forgiveness of sins cannot believe in faith alone. Certainly Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation doctrine, should not be maligned in this regard. As indicated earlier, if we view baptism as the work of God, and not man’s, and if a person places his or her faith in the work of God, not the water itself, for the forgiveness of sins, surely one should not declare this an addition of human merit to faith. There also must be the recognition, however, that baptism is not necessary to salvation; for God works in various ways to save people by the gospel apart from baptism.

Anabaptists are open to criticism for sometimes viewing baptism as merely a symbol of the inner work of God that can be observed or not dependent on the individual conscience of the believer. This is a gross distortion of the New Testament teaching that joins baptism with repentance and faith; they should never be separated as an expression of the reception of the grace of God. The New Testament does not speak in terms of an unbaptized Christian. To deny the outward manifestation of the inner work of the Spirit is a serious contradiction of the biblical teaching and should cause reflection on the genuineness of the faith claimed by the person who rejects or neglects water baptism.

Reformed theology does not equate baptism with actual forgiveness, but only as a sign of the inner work of grace and an outward initiation into the community of Christ. Yet they practice infant baptism. If baptism is connected to repentance in the New Testament, then it should not be used as a public statement for children who have not repented.

The Christian church today is divided between Christians who believe that baptism is necessary for salvation and those who view it only as an ordinance symbolizing the inward work of salvation. To put it another way, the theological camps differ on whether God performs a divine work in baptism or whether baptism is a human response to a divine work.⁵

Views of Christian baptism are too diversified to set forth all of the variations. I will, therefore, depict baptism in broader strokes, examining many of the major divisions and groups within the Christian religion as well as two groups that fall short of orthodoxy.

Baptism Theology- Roman Catholicism.

Baptism is a sacrament in the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).⁶ Though others use the word sacrament, the RCC and Eastern Orthodox (EO) perspective is different in that they believe the sacraments are effective simply by the completion of the sacrament (known as ex opere operato).⁷ Ludwig Ott explains the meaning of this view of grace: “The formula ‘ex opere operato’ asserts, negatively, that the sacramental grace is not conferred by reason of the subjective activity of the recipient, and positively, that the sacramental grace is caused by the validly operated sacramental sign.”⁸ One should not understand from this RCC teaching that the faith of the adult person is excluded in the act of baptism, only that it is not “an efficient cause of grace.”⁹ Thus, the sacrament of baptism can save a person (as in the case of an infant) apart from faith.¹⁰

Against the teachings of the Reformation, the Council of Trent declared that “there could be no justification without Baptism or the desire for the same….”¹¹ This alternative to water baptism includes baptism by blood or of desire. The former relates to martyrdom on the part of an unbaptized person by reason of his or her confession of Christian faith or that person’s practice of Christian virtue.¹² The latter relates to the desire of a person to be baptized who is somehow hindered in being baptized.¹³ RCC dogma has extended this baptism of desire since Vatican II to allow even those outside the pale of Christianity to be saved if they would have been baptized if they had known the truth.¹⁴

In RCC theology, baptism takes away all sins, original sin and all personal sins, as well as punishment for sin. Baptism also restores sanctifying grace to the soul. It does not, however, take away all the consequences of original sin such as death, suffering, ignorance, and the inclination to sin.¹⁵

Baptism Theology- Eastern Orthodox

Similar to the RCC, the Eastern Orthodox churches (EO)¹⁶ (e.g., Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Rumanian, and Serbian) believe baptism causes forgiveness of sins: “Through Baptism we receive a full forgiveness of all sin, whether original or actual; we ‘put on Christ,’ becoming members of His Body the Church.”¹⁷ The EO affirm that through baptism sins are washed away and the baptized share in the death and resurrection of Christ and also in His nature.¹⁸ For adults, however, there must be awareness and repentance of sins.¹⁹

When one is immersed²⁰ into water, the believer “communes with God in a mystical way; thus the Church uses the word ‘Mysteries’ to designate the sacraments by which the grace humans need in life to commune with God, is given to them. The sacraments are the means by which man experiences salvation in this world as a taste of the eternal life and kingdom which is to come.”²¹

Baptism Theology- Anglican/Episcopalian

The Church of England (CE) and the Episcopal Church (EC) consider baptism as the time when one renounces the sources of sin (devil, world, and flesh), confesses faith, and receives forgiveness of sins, according to The Book of Common Prayer.²² The Anglican 39 Articles indicates that baptism is not only a sign of profession but is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. Baptism serves as an instrument that grafts the baptized into the church and is the means by which the promises of forgiveness of sin and adoption as sons of God by the Holy Spirit are visibly signed and sealed.²³

Baptism Theology- Lutheran

For Lutherans, baptism is a sacrament that conveys forgiveness of sins and gives eternal salvation to those who believe.²⁴ The reasoning, however, differs from that of the RCC and the EO. Each certainly believes the Holy Spirit works through the act of baptism (not the water in itself) to effect salvation, but Lutherans stress the importance of the combination of the Word with the sacrament to cause this spiritual work to occur. ²⁵

Lutherans, therefore, do not consider the act of baptism to be a human work of merit bringing forgiveness but a work of God, through human hands, whereby He conveys grace to the believing and repentant soul: “To be baptized in God’s name is to be baptized not by men but by God himself. Although it is performed by men’s hands, it is nevertheless truly God’s own act. From this fact everyone can easily conclude that it is of much greater value than the work of any man or saint. For what work can man do that is greater than God’s work?”²⁶

Consequently, even though the Spirit uses baptism to convey forgiveness, the water apart from the Word is no different than bath water.²⁷ It is required that the work be God’s work, but faith is necessary to receive God’s work, which is necessary for salvation.²⁸ C. F. W. Walther clarifies this doctrine: “It is of paramount importance that I believe, that I regard, not the water in Baptism, but the promise which Christ has attached to the water. It is this promise that requires the water; for only to it has the promise been attached.”²⁹

When one thinks of Lutheranism, one turns to the great doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) as advocated by Martin Luther and the Lutheran church. Lutherans do not believe, then, that baptism saves in addition to faith. In the words of Walther in his comment on Mark 16:16: “He does not say: ‘He that is baptized and believeth,’ but the reverse. Faith is the primary necessity; Baptism is something to which faith holds. Moreover, the Lord continues: ‘But he that believeth not shall be damned.’ This shows that even if a person could not have Baptism administered to himself, he would be saved, as long as he believed.”³⁰ The person’s response to the act of baptism, then, is the same as the person’s response to the spoken gospel. The Word of God enters the ears and baptism enters the eyes. It is, as Augustine said, “a visible word.” Neither the Word nor the sacrament is a work in addition to faith but the means by which faith is created and in which the unredeemed believes unto salvation.³¹

Baptism Theology- Reformed Churches

The sixteenth-century Reformers who did not follow the Lutherans on the sacraments are generally the originators of Reformed Theology. Though these men used the term “sacrament” for baptism, they nonetheless perceived the meaning of baptism differently from both the RCC and the Lutheran Church.

While Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli agreed on much regarding baptism while in opposition to the RCC, they also differed on important points. For example, they agreed that the forgiving grace of God imparted in the sacraments related to the guilt of sin due to Adam’s fall and not the inherited sin nature. Moreover, they agreed that the sacraments are signs and seals attached to the Word, having no virtue apart from the Word. Lastly, they concurred that the sacrament did not have any fruit apart from faith in the recipient (in contrast to ex opere operato).³²

The difference pertained to Luther’s struggles with the Anabaptists, which led him to put greater emphasis on the nature of the divine institution of the sacrament than on the subjective state of the recipient. Moreover, Calvin and Zwingli both agreed that baptism was a sign and proof of faith, but they differed in emphasis. The former saw the benefit of baptism as an instrument of God to provide nourishment to the believer. The latter saw the sacrament as a memorial of profession, in which a person could look to baptism for a reminder of God’s saving work apart from human effort.³³

The Reformed thinkers also saw baptism as an initiation into the community of the faithful, similar to the function of circumcision in the Old Testament. James Bordwine succinctly states the Reformed view found in the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life….Although it is a great sin to contemn [sic] or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.³⁴

Baptism Theology- Anabaptists

The Anabaptists were a threat to Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and the Reformed alike in post-Reformation Europe. Among other doctrinal matters, they challenged infant baptism and the sacramental nature of baptism, even in the mild form found in Reformed theology. They viewed baptism as important in that it publicly identifies a new believer’s spiritual transformation and publicly affirms that the believer has placed himself or herself under Jesus Christ. The baptism of Jesus is viewed as a model: “Following the Lord in baptism.”³⁵

Anabaptists favored the term ordinance over sacrament. They believed sacrament carries some kind of magical understanding, while ordinance (from ordain) suggests the rite is ordained by Jesus and therefore participation expresses obedience to the Lord.³⁶

Baptism Theology- Churches of Christ/Christian Church

The Churches of Christ (COC) and the Christian Church (CC) have been among the most adamant in holding that baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins.³⁷ These two groups are composed of individual congregations that may vary on a number of issues but have historically tended to join on the importance of baptism in salvation. Unlike others discussed earlier, who view baptism as a divine work wrought through human hands, the COC and the CC have viewed baptism as a human act of obedience embracing the meaning of faith. Jack Cottrell says, “It is so important to note the close conjunction of faith and baptism….It should cause us to re-examine our preconceptions about baptism and to realize that it is not so different from faith after all.”³⁸ Speaking of the focus of saving faith on Christ’s death and resurrection, he adds, “Faith has a natural affinity with baptism, viz., because baptism in its very action symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ….God’s word of promise, which we believe, is visualized in Christian baptism, so that baptism itself becomes a kind of visualization of faith.”³⁹

The perspective of the Churches of Christ and the Christian Church has been evolving through the years with more latitude often being expressed toward the possibility of a person being saved without baptism. (This was true when I attended Abilene Christian University for a graduate degree in Greek: even though I disagreed with their position, I was accepted as a believer by the professors.) For example, Cottrell comments regarding a possible interpretation of Mark 16:16:

A second possible explanation has been suggested, however, distinguishing between what is absolutely necessary for salvation as compared with what is only relatively necessary. The idea is that even if baptism has been appointed by God as a necessary part of the salvation process in the New Testament age, it still has only a relative necessity and can be dispensed with in extraordinary circumstances. The only absolutely and inherently necessary condition for salvation is faith; thus it alone is mentioned in the second clause. It is conceivable that one could be saved without baptism, but not without faith.⁴⁰

Baptism Theology- International Churches of Christ

The International Churches of Christ (ICC), also known as the “Boston movement” because of the central role of the Boston Church of Christ, is different from the COC and the CC, even though it originated out of the COC. Along with the United Pentecostal Church, to be discussed below, it holds to a very rigid view of the necessity of baptism for the forgiveness of sin — even more than that found in the RCC and EO. The writings of the ICC are relatively sparse. It is, therefore, difficult to present a comprehensive statement of their beliefs. Jerry Jones emphasizes this point in his study of the movement: “Throughout the Churches of Christ, there is a reluctance to commit anything doctrinal to writing. The rationale is that ‘we follow the Scripture, not the doctrine of men.’”⁴¹ He recounts the story of Eugene Borland, a pastor who has had many confrontations with ICC: “As I have met with leaders in the group oftentimes they would say, ‘Well, we don’t put anything into writing because once you put it into writing then it is man’s works. Anything that has to do with man’s works, whether it’s his work or denominationalism, is false and it quickly degenerates into heresy.’”⁴²

Nonetheless, their views on baptism may be found in their personal discipleship booklets Making Disciples and the Boston Church of Christ Acts Study Series. The comments reveal unambiguous statements affirming baptismal regeneration. Note a few of those comments by editor Randy McKean on the subject of baptism:

Jesus shed this blood when he died. In Baptism we share by faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Thus we contact the blood in baptism and are forgiven of our sins and SAVED. (emphasis in original)⁴³

Acts 2:38 teaches that sin is forgiven at baptism — one is saved at the point sin is forgiven.⁴⁴

Romans 6:2-4 states that baptism is an actual participation in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. It is not merely a sign, seal, or symbol.⁴⁵

1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism DOES save you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (emphasis in original)⁴⁶

Refuting false doctrines…”the thief on the cross was not baptized.”…Jesus had not even died yet, and baptism is participating in his death (Romans 6:2-4); also on earth, he had the power to forgive sins (Matthew 9:2-6).⁴⁷

In their guide to the Book of Acts, regarding baptism, we find the following statements:

The blood of Jesus saves us….When we share His death by faith in baptism it is at that point in time we contact His blood and thus our sins are forgiven. (emphasis added)⁴⁸

Colossians 2:12 teaches we are saved by FAITH in the working of God at baptism. (emphasis in original)⁴⁹

There is little question, therefore, that the ICC adheres to the view that baptism is a necessary component of salvation.

Baptism Theology- United Pentecostal Church/Oneness Churches

Similar to the baptismal regeneration emphasis of the International Churches of Christ is the United Pentecostal Church. In reality, there are several “Oneness-type” Pentecostal groups, but the UPC is by far the largest and most significant. David Bernard, possibly the best-known theologian in the UPC, speaking of the purpose of water baptism, says, “We should remember that water baptism is administered because of our past life of sin; it is for the ‘remission of sins’ (Acts 2:38).”⁵⁰ He identifies the nature of the repentant person’s baptism with that of Christ’s: “First, we must ask what was the purpose of Jesus’ baptism. Certainly He was not baptized for remission of sin as we are, because He was sinless (I Peter 2:22). Instead, the Bible says He was baptized to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). He is our example and He was baptized to leave us an example to follow (I Peter 2:21).”⁵¹ Unlike the Lord, however, the sinner must repent, but it is insufficient apart from baptism: “Scripture portrays repentance and baptism as being inextricably bound together in the process of remitting sins (Mk 16:16; Lk 24:47; Acts 2:38).”⁵²

1. The word baptizo in Greek, translated “baptize” in the New Testaments, meant to “dip” or “immerse.” It is sometimes argued that in Mark 7:4 and Luke 11:38 the word means “to wash by pouring,” not “immerse”; but in those texts the actual meaning (as historical information substantiates) is to “wash by dipping or immersing in water.”

1. Baptism is specifically stated in the New Testament to represent the Christian’s spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6:3-7), which is remarkably and dramatically pictured in immersion. To this it is usually pointed out that baptism may also serve as a picture of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17, 33, 38; 10:45-48), and also of the sprinkling, either of the blood of Jesus for forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:19-22; 10:22, 12:24; I Peter 1:2), or of the “clean water” representing the impartation of the new nature and the giving of the Holy Spirit (Ezekiel 36:25-27). It is true that in Acts, Peter makes a connection between the pouring of the Spirit and the rite of baptism, but the connection is not as direct as the kind found in Romans 6:3-7; and the Bible never connects baptism with the imagery of sprinkling.

1. Whenever the act of baptism is described in the New Testament (which is rarely), the one who is baptized actually goes into the water. Thus, after Jesus was baptized, He “came up out of the water” (Mark 1:10), and when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, “they both went down into the water” (Acts 8:38). These descriptions do not quite prove complete immersion, however, since they could have stood, let us say, ankle-deep in water while one of them scooped up some water and poured it over the other’s head. Furthermore, we are not told in Scripture that we must baptize in exactly the same way as John or Philip.

1. The mode used by the early Church in the first few centuries was immersion, with affusion reserved for occasions when immersion was impossible due to lack of sufficient water, and aspersion used for individuals too sick or weak for either immersion of affusion. Thus, immersion was the norm and the other two modes were substitutes in exceptional circumstances. This situation, however, began to change fairly early and by the 13th century was actually reversed, with aspersion the norm. Even after the Reformation, immersion as the norm became accepted only by a segment of Protestantism and only after a period of transition during which affusion was the norm.

1. Those who believe that all three modes are valid would point out that only in the most ritualistic view of baptism can the amount of water be considered important. The immersion-only view, they say, appears absurd: What if one hair fails to be immersed? What if a finger or a hand? Where does one draw the line? But the opposing argument can be made to appear absurd also: If a small amount of water is permissible, is one drop enough? How about no water at all (not a view to be laughed away, since the “Quakers” take this exact view)? Where does one draw the line at this end? Therefore, the better approach is to realize that it is the general form of the act and the intention of those involved that matter, not the precise amount of water used. The issue is: Shall we obey the command of Christ as He intended or shall we obey the command in a way that pleases us?

What shall we conclude from these observations? It seems clear to us that immersion is the biblical norm, but that it is not an inflexible norm. That is, Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances. God accepts the believer on the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized. The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based on Scripture. The Church should welcome into its fellowship all those whom Christ has accepted (Romans 15:7, I John 1:3).

The Protestant churches which practice infant baptism (notably Anglicans and Lutherans) generally regard baptism as a part of the salvation process, but not necessarily an indispensable part. Most other Protestant churches regard baptism as a command which all new Christians are expected to obey, and without which full membership in the church is denied, but not as an absolute requirement for salvation. And a very few churches (notably the Friends, or Quakers) do not even practice the ordinance of baptism, on the premise that water baptism was for the Jews and that it is baptism in the Spirit that “counts.”

The biblical teaching on this subject would seem to indicate that the extreme positions of baptism as absolutely essential to salvation (as taught by some in the Church of Christ) and as an outmoded ritual that need not be practiced at all (as taught by the Friends) are aberrations that should be rejected as unbiblical and divisive (though many in both those churches may be acknowledged as genuine Christians).

To begin with, the Bible is very clear in its teachings that all Christians are expected to be baptized in water. Jesus told His disciples that they were to baptize new disciples of all nations, not just Jews (Matt. 28:19), and since it is Christ alone who baptizes men in the Spirit (Mark 1:8), the baptism administered by the disciples must be in water. This means that to dispense with water baptism is to disobey Christ.

On the other hand, the New Testament makes it equally clear that men can become saved as Christians prior to receiving water baptism. Cornelius’s family received the Holy Spirit and was manifesting the gifts of the Spirit after hearing the gospel but before being baptized (Acts 10:44-48). This observation must be balanced, however, by the fact that baptism was not an “optional extra” for Cornelius’s family; it was a command (10:48) that they were expected to obey. However, it was not obedience to this command that saved them, but their believing in Christ (10:43). Baptism is the expected initial outward response to the gospel, but it is not a part of the gospel itself (1 Cor. 1:17).

There are a number of prooftexts which are often cited to prove that the Bible makes baptism mandatory for salvation. Some of the most common such prooftexts are Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Romans 6:4, and 1 Peter 3:21. A careful examination of each of these texts in context will show that none of them prove that baptism is necessarily prerequisite for salvation, though they do prove that baptism was an assumed initiatory response to the gospel of salvation.

In other words, these texts prove only that baptism is regularly associated with conversion and salvation, rather than absolutely required for salvation. A helpful analogy is the marriage ceremony as the initiatory rite of commitment to marriage. It is an expected precursor to married life, and is even required by law (in most countries), but the state often recognizes marriages as valid without the benefit of a ceremony (as in common-law marriages), and thus the ceremony is not absolutely necessary for the marriage to be valid.

Thus, when we say that baptism is not essential for salvation, we do not mean that it may be dispensed with or that God does not expect new converts to be baptized. He does. We may go even further and say that if a person claims to be a Christian, understands that the Lord Jesus Christ commanded every Christian to be baptized, and yet refuses to submit to baptism, it may very well be (though we cannot say absolutely in every case) that his profession of faith is a sham and that he is not truly saved. (Returning to our illustration, under normal circumstances for a person to say they wish to be married but to refuse to be wed in a legal ceremony indicates insincerity on that person’s part.)

We therefore urge all unbaptized believers to repent of their disobedience in this matter and to be baptized immediately. Since baptism is the first act of obedience which Christ expects of every believer, no one who has not been baptized may be considered a fully-functioning member in good standing of the church, and we would say should not be invited to participate in communion or allowed to hold any office or teaching position within the church. One the other hand, we refuse to condemn all those who for various reasons have failed to be baptized, and we certainly disagree most strongly with those who assert that only those who have been baptized according to their doctrinal understanding of baptism are genuinely saved.

In sum, baptism is necessary in that Christ commands it, and all genuine Christians who understand this fact must either be baptized or be considered to be in a state of disobedience and rebellion against Christ. But baptism is not prerequisite to being born again or forgiven of one’s sins, and it is possible, however irregular, for persons who have not been baptized to be saved nevertheless through faith in Jesus Christ.

The mode of baptism is often as hotly contested as the meaning of baptism. In the early Christian church submersion or immersion was the primary mode. If water was scarce, pouring or splashing was permitted. In the early Middle Ages, however, sprinkling became the prevalent mode for baptism.¹²

Those who believe that we should be baptized by sprinkling rather than submersion maintain that baptism in Scripture is often portrayed as a cleansing or washing, and therefore does not require submersion. They point to passages such as Ezekiel 36:25¹³ in the Old Testament and Hebrews l0:22¹⁴ in the New Testament.

Those who believe we must be submerged rather than sprinkled or splashed point to the fact that the Greek word for “to baptize” (baptizein) in classical usage means “to immerse.”¹⁵ They also appeal to passages such as Romans 6:4-6 and Colossians 2:12 “to express the symbolism of the Sacrament.”¹⁶ Being submerged represents being buried with Christ and coming up out of the water indicates being resurrected ns a new creation in Christ.

Not only are the subjects of baptism (babies or believers) debated, but the significance of baptism is debated as well. Doctrinal divergence runs the gamut from Quakers, who do not believe in physically baptizing followers, to Catholics, who believe in baptismal regeneration.

Among those who hold to baptismal regeneration, there is a variety of opinion. The Church of Christ holds that believers must be baptized to be saved; the Roman Catholic Church holds that baptism con­fers the grace of justification,¹⁰ thus dealing with the problem of original sin; and Lutherans hold that the sacrament of baptism involves a nonverbal communication of the gospel, which newborn babies can choose to accept or reject.

Reformed churches (Presbyterian Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church) hold to baptism as a sign of God’s election and calling. As Israel was separated unto God through circumcision, so children of the covenant are separated unto God through baptism. Those who mature to an age of reason ratify their baptism through a public profession of faith.

Many contemporary evangelical churches, including Baptists, Pentecostals, and Calvary Chapels, opt for a symbolic rather than sacramental¹¹ view of baptism. In their view being submerged in baptism is symbolic of dying to our old lives and being buried. Emerging up out of the waters of baptism is symbolic of being raised with Christ to newness of life (Rom. 6:4-6).

While evangelicals debate secondary concepts surrounding baptism, there are essential teachings regarding baptism that must never be compromised. First, baptism is not necessary for salvation, but it is necessary to obey the command of Christ (Matt. 28:19-20). Furthermore, while baptism does not save us, it does publicly set us apart as those who are part of the community of faith (Rom. 6:5). Finally, a key passage concerning the significance of baptism is found in Romans 6:4-6. Here Paul pointed out that we are buried with Christ “through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” Thus baptism represents our saving union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

As we have seen, those who teach that baptism is necessary for salvation undermine an essential doctrine of the historic Christian faith. The same cannot be said regarding those who baptize babies as well as adult-convert believers. Here we would do well to remember the maxim: “In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity.” While we may debate this issue vigorously, we must never divide over it. Many, including the Roman Catholics, members of many Reformed churches, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, and Eastern Orthodox believers, baptize infants as well as adult converts.

My father, who is a pastor in the Christian Reformed Church, baptizes babies. I, on the other hand, believe baptism should be reserved for those who are old enough to have a biblical understanding of salvation, a conscious commitment to Christ, and a knowledge of the significance of baptism. Neither one of us, however, doubts the other’s salvation. As Bruce Milne puts it, “God has signally blessed and honored the ministry of his servants on both sides of this divide, whether paedobaptists [those who believe in infant baptism] like Luther and Wesley, or Baptists like Spurgeon and Billy Graham. One need but recall the mutual esteem between the Anglican John Newton and the Baptist William Carey to recognize the needlessness of bitter division over this issue.”⁶

Having said this, I would be remiss if I did not point out how deeply divided biblical scholars are on this issue of baptism. Spurgeon said, “As long as you give baptism to an unregenerated child, people will imagine that it must do the child good. They will ask, ‘If it does not do the child any good, why is it baptized?’ The statement that it puts children into the covenant, or renders them members of the visible church, is only a veiled form of the fundamental error of Baptismal Regeneration.”⁷

Reformed theologian R. C. Sproul, on the other hand, argues that those who dispute the validity of infant baptism make [the new covenant less inclusive than the old covenant] with respect to children, despite the absence of any biblical prohibition against infant baptism.”⁸ Sproul is correct in contending that there is no biblical prohibition against infant baptism. He and others equate the New Covenant’s baptism with the Old Covenant’s circumcision. However, there is no clear and compelling teaching or example supporting infant baptism either. On the contrary, where the Bible does speak clearly concerning baptism it emphasizes the faith of those who are baptized.⁹