Water Baptism, Purely Based On What The Bible Says

The debate over infant baptism versus believers’ baptism has long been a point of tension among Christian denominations. Some traditions, such as Roman Catholicism and many Protestant branches, practice infant baptism as a sign of the covenant between Man and God, and even as a means of grace. Others, like Baptists and many evangelical groups, uphold believers’ baptism, emphasising the necessity of personal faith and repentance before undergoing the rite. 

This tension arises from differing interpretations of Scripture, theological assumptions, and historical practices. I respect both views and practices. However, in this post I wanted to draw a conclusion purely based on what the Bible says about water baptism, excluding assumptions and traditions.

The Act Of Water Baptism

In the original biblical texts, different words related to baptism are used, primarily in Hebrew and Greek. 

In the Old Testament in Hebrew, the word Tabal is used, meaning to dip, immerse, or plunge. The word is used to describe various ceremonial washings or immersions in the Old Testament, like when Naaman “dipped” himself in the Jordan River for healing (see 2 Kings 5:14). 

Another Hebrew word in the Old Testament related to baptism is Rachatz, which means to wash or bathe. This word refers to washing for purification, often in a ritualistic sense, such as the washing of the priests before performing their duties (Exodus 30:18-21). 

In the New Testament in the Greek, the word Baptisma is used to describe a ceremonial washing or immersion. 

This is the most common word for baptism in the New Testament, and it refers to the Christian rite of initiation and purification. For instance, in Acts 2:38 Peter said to the people at a gathering, “Repent [change your old way of thinking, turn from your sinful ways, accept and follow Jesus as the Messiah] and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” 

In other places, the word Baptizō is a verb that is used to describe the act of baptising, such as when John the Baptist was baptising people in the Jordan River (see Matthew 3:6, Mark 1:9). 

In summary, Baptisma specifically denotes the rite of baptism, emphasising the ritualistic aspect of the practice as a key element of the Christian faith, while Baptizō specifically refers to the ritualistic act of baptism, including the connotation of full immersion and spiritual significance. 

Even so, this does not mean that those who are proponents of infant baptism with the sprinkling of water do not have reason for embracing this practice. We will therefore evaluate the reason for this tradition in this post as well, weighing it up against baptisma and baptizo used in the original text.

Why We Baptise

In Mark 1:4 we read that “John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins [that is, requiring a change of one’s old way of thinking, turning away from sin and seeking God and His righteousness].” Similarly, Peter called on people in Acts 2:38 to repent, and to be baptised. 

Baptism reflects repentance and the forgiveness of sins, and is symbolic of the believer’s new life in Christ. 

Through baptism, Christians are seen as dying to their old selves and being raised to a new life in Christ. Romans 6:3 says that all of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into His death. Romans 6:4 continues by saying that “we have therefore been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory and power of the Father, we too might walk habitually in newness of life [abandoning our old ways].” 

We also read in 1 Corinthians 12:13 the significance of being baptised: “For by one [Holy] Spirit we were all baptized into one body, [spiritually transformed – united together] whether Jews or Greeks (Gentiles), slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one [Holy] Spirit [since the same Holy Spirit fills each life].” 

Baptism therefore symbolises the union we have in Christ, marking the individual’s formal entry into the body of Christ, and even the Christian Church. 

Apart from the spiritual significance of baptism, to be baptised is a commandment from Jesus Christ, as seen in Matthew 28:19-20. Based on this instruction, baptism is universally recognised as a foundational act of faith and obedience to Christ. 

Peter emphasised this act of obedience in Acts 2:38: “Repent [change your old way of thinking, turn from your sinful ways, accept and follow Jesus as the Messiah] and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” 

In summary, the Bible shows us that baptism is a sign of repentance, and that it symbolises a believer’s initiation into the Christian faith. The act of baptism involves the use of water as an outward sign of inward spiritual cleansing and revival. 

How We Baptise

While most Christians agree that being baptised is important, there is a tension as to what baptism should look like for believers today. Some say that the sprinkling of water is enough, while others say the act of baptism should be a full immersion in water. 

While I respect the view of those who say that the sprinkling of water is an act of baptism, we do not see any example of this when we purely look at the Bible. To the contrary, every act of baptism recorded in the Bible (as in the demonstration of the verb) involved full immersion in water. 

For instance, in Acts 8:26-39, we read how the Angel of the Lord guided Philip to meet an Ethiopian eunuch on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza. The eunuch, a high-ranking official, was reading from the book of Isaiah but didn’t understand it. Philip, prompted by the Holy Spirit, approached the official and explained that the passage speaks of Jesus, the Messiah.  

Upon hearing the gospel, the eunuch expressed a desire to be baptised. We then read in Acts 8:38-39 that “he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away...” 

Here is a clear demonstration of the word Baptisma. As we can see, the Bible states that “as they came up out of the water...”, meaning they were immersed in water when Philip baptised him, in line with the meaning of the word baptisma in the original text.

Who Can Be Baptised

The next point to clarify is who can be baptised. 

We already saw that baptism reflects repentance and the forgiveness of sins, and is symbolic of the believer’s new life in Christ. In Acts 2:38 already mentioned, Peter instructed the people to repent, and be baptised. 

We see this in action in Acts 8:12 which says that when they believed Philip as he was preaching the good news concerning God’s Kingdom and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised, both men and women. 

In Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus gave His disciples the Great Commission, saying “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you.” 

Again, we see the preaching of the gospel and the act of baptism go hand in hand. Those who choose to become followers of Jesus after hearing the gospel (those who repent from sin and embrace a new life in Christ), are to be baptised as well, serving as a sign of their repentance and new life in Christ. 

While it would seem to be clear that baptism is supposed to accompany salvation, there are those who believe that infants can be baptised as a sign of the New Covenant between Man and God. While I respect this view, let’s see if we can find support for this view, purely based on what the Bible says. 

Arguments For Infant Baptism

A Sign Of The New Covenant

One of the primary arguments for infant baptism is that baptism under the New Testament is a sign of the New Covenant between Man and God. The argument is that, just as circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant between God and His people, baptism serves as the sign of the New Covenant.

In Genesis 17:12, God commanded every male child to be circumcised at eight days old as a sign of the covenant between Him and Abraham’s descendants. In the New Testament, Colossians 2:11-12 draws a parallel between circumcision and baptism, stating, “In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands... having been buried with him in baptism.”

While this parallel is deemed by many as a theological continuity between the Old and New Covenants, it is important to note that this continuity is only a conjecture, and not clearly founded on Scripture. The argument relies on the assumption that, because circumcision was applied to infants in the Old Covenant, baptism should similarly be applied to infants in the New Covenant.

However, this assumption is an interpretative assumption, and not a direct biblical instruction. When we examine the text, we can see that Paul is not equating baptism with physical circumcision, but rather with the spiritual circumcision of the heart – a transformation that takes place through faith in Christ.

This is consistent with what Jesus teaches in John 3:3, where He states that one must be “born again” to see the kingdom of God, referring to a spiritual rebirth rather than a physical act.

Paul further clarifies in Romans 2:29 that “circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.” This underscores that the true mark of belonging to God’s covenant people is not an external ritual but an internal change – a circumcision of the heart brought about by the Holy Spirit, signifying a new life in Christ.

The physical act of circumcision in the Old Testament was a foreshadow and merely symbolic of the greater spiritual reality that would manifest after the cross. Baptism, according to Colossians 2, does not replace the Old Testament circumcision, but symbolises the inner transformation that happens when one turns to Christ for salvation.

It is the faith and regeneration (becoming born again) that hold the true covenantal significance, not the baptism itself.

To be sure about the next point, I did check what I am about to say with someone who has a doctorate degree in theology: Nowhere in the New Testament is baptism explicitly described as the sign of the New Covenant, and nowhere does the New Testament explicitly command the baptism of infants. 

To the contrary, Jesus clearly identified the sign of the New Covenant during the Last Supper. In Luke 22:19-20, Jesus took the bread and wine, and said, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me... This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

Here, Jesus established communion, or the Lord’s Supper, as the sign of the New Covenant, symbolising His sacrificial death and the believer’s participation in His grace.

Therefore, the argument that infant baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign is not rooted in Scripture, and instead Jesus Himself designated communion for this purpose.

Household Baptisms In The New Testament

Another argument for infant baptism is the mention of household baptisms in the New Testament. For instance, Acts 16:15 records the baptism of Lydia and “the members of her household,” and Acts 16:33 describes how the Philippian jailer “and all his family were baptised.” Similarly, 1 Corinthians 1:16 mentions the baptism of the household of Stephanas. 

Based on these verses, proponents argue that these household baptisms likely included infants and children, thus supporting the practice of infant baptism.  

However, this is again only a conjecture, as the Bible does not specify the presence of infants in these households, nor does it explicitly state that infants were baptised. 

While the assumption that households included infants is plausible, it is definitively NOT proven by Scripture. Rather, since the instruction for baptism is clearly for those who believe, there is more support for assuming that infants were not counted as part of those who were baptised, as in the case of the Philippian jailer. Acts 16:31-34 emphasises that his entire household believed in God before being baptised, suggesting that those baptised were capable of personal faith.

The Faith Of The Parents & Jesus’ Attitude Toward Children

Proponents of infant baptism argue that infant baptism reflects the faith of the parents and their promise to raise their children in the ways of God. In this view, the faith of the parents and the Church plays a crucial role in bringing the child into the covenant community. This perspective is supported by passages such as Mark 10:14, where Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”  

While this verse shows Jesus’ love and openness toward children, and while I agree that parents and a community play an integral part of leading children to Christ, it does not specifically endorse infant baptism. 

In another instance as found in Mark 10:13-16, Jesus rebuked His disciples for hindering children from coming to Him and declared, “Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 

Again, while this passage underscores Jesus’ love for children and His affirmation of their place in the kingdom of God, this passage does not directly address baptism. Instead, it highlights the need for all believers, regardless of age, to approach God with childlike faith. 

The New Testament consistently presents baptism as a response to personal faith and repentance, as seen in passages like Acts 8:12 and Acts 18:8, where individuals who believed were baptised. This is in line with Acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” 

This instruction is given to those who can understand and respond in faith, implying that baptism is intended for believers who consciously choose to follow Christ.

A Sacrament Of Grace

In many Christian traditions, baptism is viewed as a sacrament of grace, believed to wash away original sin, incorporate the individual into the body of Christ, and confer the Holy Spirit. While not all proponents of infant baptism hold this view, this understanding is particularly prevalent in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and some Protestant denominations. 

However, the New Testament consistently emphasises that salvation comes through personal faith in Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:8-9 states, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast.” 

Therefore, while I respect this view, I believe it is at odds with the biblical emphasis on faith as the basis for salvation. Baptism, instead, is an act of obedience after salvation, a public declaration of your repentance and new life in Christ.

Tradition & Historical Practice

Furthermore, the practice of infant baptism has deep roots in Christian tradition. Church Fathers such as Augustine and Origen supported the practice, and it became widespread in the early centuries of Christianity. The continuity of this practice across centuries is seen by proponents as evidence of its validity and importance. 

However, the same argument can be made against infant baptism and for the believers' baptism, as the believers' baptism also has deep roots in Christian tradition. 

It is essential to recognise that tradition, while valuable, is not equivalent to Scripture. As Jesus warned in Mark 7:8, “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” In Mark 7:13 Jesus warned those who were “making the word of God of no effect” through their traditions. 

While there is certainly a place and a time for traditions, it should not supersede the clear teachings of Scripture.

The Believers' Baptism

I want to make it clear that the debate is not infant baptism versus adult baptism, but the belief that baptism is reserved for those who have repented of their sins and professed their faith in Jesus Christ, regardless of their age. 

Those who hold on to the tradition that infants can be baptised, base their belief on the conjecture that baptism has replaced the circumcision of babies in the Old Testament, and that repentance and confession of faith is not a prerequisite for baptism. 

By now it should be clear that this is not what the Bible teaches. Instead, regardless of age, baptism is for those who have repented of their sins, and who have put their trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. 

This is something an infant or even a toddler is not able to do. 

The instruction regarding baptism has always been clear: repent and be baptised. If you are born again because you have truly repented of sin, you can be baptised as an outward sign or public declaration of your faith in Jesus Christ, regardless of your age. 

If You Believe, You May Be Baptised

This brings us to Acts 8:26-39, where the Angel of the Lord guided Philip to meet an Ethiopian eunuch on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza. As mentioned earlier, the eunuch was reading from the book of Isaiah, but didn’t understand it. Philip then explained that the passage speaks of Jesus, the Messiah. 

Upon hearing the gospel, the eunuch expressed a desire to be baptised. Acts 8:36 says that as they continued along the road, they came to some water. Upon noticing the water, the eunuch exclaimed, “Look! Water! What forbids me from being baptized?” 

Here is where it gets interesting. In verse 37 Philip said to him, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I do believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” And he was baptised. 

For many, this is an “ah-ha” moment, especially for those advocating that salvation and a belief in Jesus as the Son of God is a requirement for baptism. However, there is a catch: Many Bible translations do not contain this verse, while those that do contain it usually include a footnote stating that the earliest manuscripts do not have this verse. 

As a result, Acts 8:37 is considered a later addition by some scholars. It appears in some later manuscripts, particularly those from the Western text-type tradition, but not in the oldest or most widely used early manuscripts, like the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. 

Despite its absence in early manuscripts, Acts 8:37 was included in the Textus Receptus, a Greek text that was the basis for the King James Version (KJV) and other early Protestant translations. As a result, it has been part of the biblical tradition for centuries, leading some to argue that it should remain included.

Arguments For And Against Acts 8:37

While many believe this verse was added later, there is an argument to be made that Acts 8:37 could have been deliberately omitted from earlier manuscripts instead. This argument is less common among scholars but has been considered by some who advocate for the verse’s inclusion. 

Acts 8:37 explicitly ties belief in Jesus as the Son of God to the act of baptism. Some proponents of this argument suggest that early scribes or church leaders might have had doctrinal reasons to remove this verse. As already discussed, even during the times of the early church there were debates about the nature of baptism (e.g., infant baptism vs. Believers' baptism) and the confession of faith. It is therefore possible that a scribe who disagreed with the implications of this verse might have omitted it to align with a particular theological stance. 

Another argument is that the verse might have been accidentally omitted during the transcription process. Given the meticulous work of early scribes, accidental omissions were rare but not impossible. If an early manuscript that omitted Acts 8:37 became widely used or copied, its absence could have spread through subsequent copies. Not an impossibility, considering that the Bible was not divided into chapters before the 13th century, and the New Testament was divided into verses only by 1551. 

However, the primary challenge to the argument for intentional removal is the strong manuscript evidence against it. The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not include the verse, which makes the case for its omission weaker, according to textual critics. 

The view that this verse was later added rather than omitted is especially strong in the eyes of those who advocate for infant baptism. If salvation is a requirement for water baptism as Acts 8:37 states, then its removal is warranted if you believe in infant baptism, especially since the earliest and what is considered to be the most reliable manuscripts do not include the verse. 

So, if we want to know what the truth is about water baptism, purely based on what the Bible says, I will not advocate for nor against its inclusion. Rather, I want to ask a different question: 

Does Acts 8:37 contradict what the rest of the Bible says about baptism, or does it support it?

Acts 8:37 In Context Of The Bible

Acts 8:37 explicitly links the act of baptism with a confession of faith in Jesus Christ. Philip’s response to the Ethiopian eunuch, “If you believe with all your heart, you may,” and the eunuch’s confession, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” emphasises that baptism is an outward expression of an inward belief. 

From a theological standpoint, Acts 8:37 does not contradict the rest of the Bible and can be seen as supporting the biblical understanding of baptism, particularly as it relates to faith and belief. This becomes evident when we explore how this verse fits within the broader biblical context, especially in light of passages like Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 1:23 and 1 Peter 3:21. 

In John 3:3, Jesus said that unless a man is born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 1 Peter 1:23 then states that those who are saved have been born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God. This verse highlights the spiritual rebirth that comes from accepting the message of the Gospel. 

Then, in response to this, 1 Peter 3:21 says, “This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you – not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” This verse shows us that baptism is more than just a ritual. It is a “pledge” or response to God made possible through the resurrection of Jesus. The verse underscores the importance of a conscious, faith-based decision, which aligns with the message of Acts 8:37, where the eunuch makes a personal confession of faith before being baptised. 

In the Amplified Bible, 1 Peter 3:21 is translated as follows: “Corresponding to that [rescue through the flood], baptism [which is an expression of a believer’s new life in Christ] now saves you, not by removing dirt from the body, but by an appeal to God for a good (clear) conscience, [demonstrating what you believe to be yours] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The footnote elaborates on this verse by saying that baptism is a public representation of that which actually saves the believer – one’s personal faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. 

In the context of Acts 8:37, the eunuch’s confession of faith and subsequent baptism symbolise this new birth. The eunuch’s baptism served as a public declaration that he has been “born again” through faith in Christ. 

Furthermore, regardless of whether Acts 8:37 was part of the original text or not, it is a clear and direct example of the execution of the instruction found in Acts 2:38. Peter said, repent, and be baptised. Acts 8:37 supports this command, and does not contradict it. 

Therefore, in light of the broader biblical context, Acts 8:37 supports the New Testament’s teachings on baptism, particularly its emphasis on belief and confession. The verse aligns with passages like 1 Peter 1:23 and 1 Peter 3:21, which highlight the transformative nature of faith and the significance of baptism as an outward expression of that faith. While the verse’s inclusion in the biblical text is debated based on manuscript evidence, it resonates with other New Testament teachings that affirm baptism as a response to the gospel, signifying a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (as seen in Romans 6:3-4, for instance).

Conclusion

Water baptism, purely based on what the Bible teaches, is an inseparable doctrine of the Christian faith. It is a powerful symbol of the believer’s identification with Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, marking the end of the old self and the beginning of a new life in Him. 

Through baptism, the believer publicly affirms their repentance and faith, outwardly expressing their inward transformation. Baptism unites the believer with the body of Christ, signifying their entrance into the community of faith. 

As commanded by Jesus and practiced by the early church, water baptism is an essential step of obedience, and it serves as a testimony of God’s redemptive power and the believer’s commitment to follow Him wholeheartedly.