QUICK FACTS
Created Jan 0001
Status Verified Sarcastic
Type Existential Dread
Keywords
baptists, baptism (disambiguation), baptist (disambiguation), improve it, talk page, secondary sources, verification

Baptism

“'Baptized' and 'Baptizing' redirect here. For the denomination, see Baptists. For all other uses, see Baptism (disambiguation)) and Baptist...”

Contents
  • 1. Overview
  • 2. Etymology
  • 3. Cultural Impact

“Baptized” and “Baptizing” redirect here. For the denomination, see Baptists . For all other uses, see Baptism (disambiguation) and Baptist (disambiguation) .

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these messages )

( Learn how and when to remove this message )

Baptism by immersion in the Jordan River .

Ah, Baptism . Another one of humanity’s enduring rituals, shrouded in varying layers of water and dogma. You want to understand it? Fine. Let’s wade through the details, shall we? Just try not to drown in the theological minutiae.

Baptism, derived from the Koine Greek term βάπτισμα (váptisma), literally meaning ‘immersion’ or ‘dipping in water’ [1], stands as a fundamental Christian rite of initiation . It is, almost without exception, performed with water [2] [3]. The method itself can vary wildly, from a mere sprinkling or pouring of water upon the head to a full or partial immersion within water. Traditionally, this act is performed three times, symbolizing each person of the Trinity [4] [5] [6]. Sometimes, particularly when referring to the baptism of infants , it’s also known as christening [7] [8] [9]. Most churches recognize baptism as a sacrament , a sacred rite conveying grace, while others view it as an ordinance , a symbolic act of obedience. Regardless, its significance is deeply rooted in the synoptic gospels , which famously recount John the Baptist ’s act of baptizing Jesus [10] [11] [12] [13].

The standard Trinitarian formula for baptism, invoking the Father , Son , and Holy Spirit , is a widespread practice across most mainstream Christian denominations. This shared foundation is often seen as a crucial element for Christian ecumenism , fostering a sense of unity among Christians despite their myriad divisions [14] [15] [16]. In many significant Christian traditions, including the Catholic Churches , Eastern Orthodox Churches , Oriental Orthodox Churches , the Assyrian Church of the East , and Lutheran Churches , baptism isn’t just a ritual; it’s the very gateway to church membership , where candidates typically undertake baptismal vows [17] [18]. This foundational rite has even lent its name to entire denominations, such as the Baptist churches and denominations .

Theological perspectives on baptism diverge considerably. Certain schools of Christian thought, notably within Catholic and Lutheran theology, consider baptism an absolute prerequisite for salvation , though, as always, they’ve carved out exceptions [19]. On the other end of the spectrum, figures like Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531) outright denied its necessity, viewing it as purely symbolic [20]. And then there are those who sidestep water baptism entirely, such as the Quakers and The Salvation Army [21]. Among those who do practice it, debates persist over the specific manner and mode of baptizing and, more importantly, the precise significance attributed to the rite. While the majority of Christians adhere to the Trinitarian formula —“in the name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Spirit ” [22], following the explicit command of the Great Commission —a distinct group, the Oneness Pentecostals , choose to baptize solely “in Jesus’ name only ” [23]. Furthermore, the age of the recipient is a point of contention: most Christians baptize infants [a], while many others, particularly Baptist Churches , contend that only believer’s baptism (where the individual consciously chooses faith) constitutes a true baptism [24]. In some Eastern traditions, such as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the newly baptized individual is presented with a cross necklace , which they are expected to wear throughout their life, a practice inspired by the Third Council of Constantinople [25] [26].

Beyond the Christian sphere, the Mandaeans engage in repeated baptism, not as an initiatory rite, but purely for purification [27]. They hold John the Baptist in high esteem as their greatest prophet and refer to all rivers as yardena , a direct homage to the Jordan River [27] [28] [29]:45.

The term “baptism” itself has transcended its literal religious context, often used metaphorically to denote any significant ceremony, arduous trial, or transformative experience that initiates, purifies, or bestows a new identity or name upon a person [30]. Historically, martyrdom was recognized early in Christian tradition as “baptism by blood ,” granting salvation to martyrs who had not undergone water baptism. Later, the Catholic Church introduced the concept of a baptism of desire , extending salvation to those preparing for baptism who, through no fault of their own, died before receiving the sacrament [31]. In the Methodist tradition, “Baptism with the Holy Spirit ” has been understood as the second work of grace, leading to entire sanctification ; in Pentecostalism, however, this term is specifically associated with the phenomenon of speaking in tongues [32].

Etymology

The English word “baptism” is not a direct translation but rather a journey through linguistic layers. It arrived indirectly via Latin from the neuter Greek noun báptisma (Greek: βάπτισμα, ‘washing, dipping’) [b] [33]. Interestingly, báptisma itself was a neologism in the New Testament . It was derived from the masculine Greek noun baptismós (βαπτισμός), a term that had already been in use for ritual washing within Hellenistic Judaism texts during the Second Temple period , such as the Septuagint [34] [35]. Both of these nouns, in turn, trace their lineage back to the verb baptízō (βαπτίζω, ‘I wash’ as a transitive verb ). This verb was used in Jewish texts for general ritual washing, but in the New Testament , it took on a dual role, referring both to ritual washing and to the seemingly new rite of báptisma.

The Greek verb báptō (βάπτω), meaning ‘dip,’ is the ultimate progenitor of baptízō. Its origins are hypothetically traced to a reconstructed Indo-European root, gʷabh-, also meaning ‘dip’ [36] [37] [38].

The semantic range of these Greek words is, to put it mildly, quite broad [39]. In Hellenistic contexts, βάπτω and βαπτίζω commonly conveyed the idea of “immersion” or “going under” – much like a material absorbing a liquid dye, or a ship “perishing” by sinking, or a person “drowning.” They held the same dual meanings as the English phrases “to sink into” or “to be overwhelmed by.” The more specific meanings of bathing or washing were only occasionally employed, and typically within sacred or ritualistic contexts [40]. A rather fitting linguistic journey for a concept that has overwhelmed so many with its significance.

History

The narrative of baptism is not a uniquely Christian invention, but rather emerged from a rich tapestry of Jewish ritualistic practices prevalent during the Second Temple Period . It was within this environment that figures like John the Baptist rose to prominence. For instance, various texts found within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) corpus at Qumran meticulously describe ritual practices involving extensive washing, bathing, sprinkling, and immersion. A prime example is the DSS known as the Rule of the Community , which states: “And by the compliance of his soul with all the laws of God his flesh is cleansed by being sprinkled with cleansing waters and being made holy with the waters of repentance ” [41]. This suggests a pre-Christian tradition of water-based purification.

The Mandaeans , who consider themselves direct followers of John the Baptist , famously practice frequent full immersion baptism, known as masbuta , as an ongoing ritual of purification rather than a one-time initiation [42]. According to their own Mandaean sources , these communities migrated from the Jordan Valley as early as the 1st century AD [43]. Their practices offer a fascinating glimpse into a contemporary tradition that shares ancient roots with Christian baptism but developed along a distinct path.

John the Baptist , often regarded as a pivotal forerunner to Christianity, centered his messianic movement around baptism as its primary sacrament [44]. The apostle Paul, however, drew a clear distinction between the “baptism of John” (which he characterized as a “baptism of repentance”) and baptism performed “in the name of Jesus” [45]. This raises questions about the precise nature of the link between John’s baptism and the Christian rite [46]. Nevertheless, as recorded in Mark 1:8, John himself seemed to foreshadow Jesus’s “true, ultimate baptism” by the Spirit, connecting his own water baptism to a greater spiritual cleansing to come. Indeed, Jesus is widely considered by Christians to have formally instituted the sacrament of baptism [20].

While it is generally understood that some form of immersion was likely the most common method of baptism in the nascent church, many ancient Christian writings suggest that the mode of baptism was often deemed inconsequential. The Didache 7.1–3 (dated between AD 60–150), for example, explicitly permitted affusion (pouring) in situations where full immersion was not practical. Similarly, Tertullian (AD 196–212) displayed a surprising flexibility, allowing for various approaches to baptism, even if they deviated from what might be considered strict biblical or traditional mandates (cf. De corona militis 3; De baptismo 17). Later, Cyprian (circa AD 256) quite explicitly stated that the sheer quantity of water used was not a determining factor, defending immersion, affusion, and aspersion practices alike (Epistle 75.12). Consequently, it appears there was no singular, uniformly mandated, or consistently applied mode of baptism within the ancient church prior to the fourth century [47]. It seems that, even then, pragmatism often trumped rigid adherence to a single method.

By the third and fourth centuries, the baptismal process had evolved into a more elaborate affair. It typically involved extensive catechetical instruction for candidates, alongside other ritual elements such as chrismation (anointing with oil), exorcisms , the laying on of hands , and the communal recitation of a creed [48]. This suggests a growing complexity and formalization of the initiation process.

As the Early Middle Ages progressed, infant baptism became increasingly widespread and normalized. Concurrently, the rite itself underwent significant simplification, with a heightened emphasis placed on its core spiritual meaning [49] [50]. In Western Europe, affusion (pouring water over the head) gradually became the prevalent mode of baptism between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries, though full immersion continued to be practiced in some areas well into the sixteenth century [51]. The medieval period also saw the rise of various radical Christian groups that openly rejected the practice of baptism as a sacrament. Sects such as the Tondrakians , Cathars , Arnoldists , Petrobrusians , Henricans , Brethren of the Free Spirit , and the Lollards were all condemned as heretics by the formidable Catholic Church for their differing views. In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformation brought further theological upheaval. Martin Luther chose to retain baptism as a foundational sacrament [52], but the Swiss reformer Huldrych Zwingli took a more radical stance, considering both baptism and the Lord’s Supper to be purely symbolic acts, devoid of inherent salvific power [20]. The Anabaptists went even further, outright denying the validity of infant baptism and insisting on the “rebaptism” of adult converts [53]. One might observe that for a rite meant to unify, it has certainly managed to divide.

Mode and manner

Ah, the endless debate over how to get wet for God. Baptism is, as you might expect, practiced in a delightful variety of ways. Aspersion , for instance, involves the rather gentle act of sprinkling water on the head, while affusion is the slightly more vigorous pouring of water over the head [4]. But for those who truly commit, tradition often dictates that a person be sprinkled, poured, or even immersed three distinct times, each representing a person of the Holy Trinity . This venerable Christian practice is known as trine baptism or triune baptism [4] [6].

For a glimpse into early Christian flexibility, consider The Didache , a text dating from the first or second century, which offers rather pragmatic instructions:

This is how you should baptize: Having recited all these things, [the first half of the Teaching , “The Way of Life and the Way of Death”] baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in running water. If you do not have running water, then baptize in still water. The water should be cold, but if you do not have cold water, then use warm. If you have neither, then just pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Both the one who is baptized and the one who baptizes should fast beforehand, along with any others who are able, the one that is baptized being told to fast for a day or two. [54]

— J. B. Lightfoot, Stephen Tompkins, Dan Graves, The Didache, Christian History Institute

One can almost hear the exasperated sigh of an early church leader: “Just get it done, whatever water you have, however you can manage it.” This pragmatic approach contrasts sharply with later rigid interpretations.

The term “immersion ” itself is derived from the late Latin immersio, a noun stemming from the verb immergere (combining in – “into” + mergere “dip”) [55]. In the context of baptism, some use “immersion” broadly to encompass any form of dipping, whether the body is fully submerged or merely partially dipped in water, thus speaking of total or partial immersion. Others, particularly within the Anabaptist traditions, reserve the term “immersion” exclusively for the act of plunging someone entirely beneath the water’s surface [56]. There’s also a third, less common, use of “immersion” to describe a form of baptism where water is poured over an individual who is standing within water, without the person being fully submerged [57] [58]. For a deeper dive into these nuanced definitions, one might consult the entry on Immersion baptism .

When “immersion” is specifically contrasted with “submersion” [59], it delineates a form of baptism where the candidate stands or kneels in water, and water is then poured over the upper portion of their body. This specific method of immersion has been utilized in both Western and Eastern traditions since at least the 2nd century and is frequently depicted in early Christian art. In the West, this particular form began to be supplanted by affusion (pouring over the head) around the 8th century, yet it steadfastly remains in use within Eastern Christianity [57] [58] [60].

The word “submersion,” originating from the late Latin (combining sub- “under, below” + mergere “plunge, dip”) [61], is also sometimes referred to as “complete immersion.” This is the method of baptism where the water fully envelops the candidate’s entire body. Submersion is the standard practice in the Orthodox and several other Eastern Churches [62]. In the Latin Church of the Catholic Church, baptism by submersion is employed within the Ambrosian Rite and is one of the approved methods for the Roman Rite of infant baptism [63]. Among certain groups that emerged after the Protestant Reformation , such as the Baptists , submersion is considered not just preferable, but obligatory [64].

Meaning of the Greek verb baptizein

Let’s dissect the very word that started all this fuss: baptízein. The venerable Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott, a truly exhaustive work, lists the primary meaning of the verb baptízein (from which our English “baptize” is derived) as “dip, plunge.” It even offers rather vivid examples, like plunging a sword into a throat or an embryo, or simply drawing wine by dipping a cup into a bowl. For its use in the New Testament , the lexicon provides two meanings: “baptize” (connecting it with the Septuagint account of Naaman dipping himself in the Jordan River ) and “perform ablutions,” citing Luke 11:38 [65].

While it’s true that baptízein doesn’t exclusively mean to dip, plunge, or immerse—it dabbles in literal and figurative senses such as “sink,” “disable,” “overwhelm,” “go under,” “overborne,” or “draw from a bowl” [65] [66]—lexical sources consistently identify “dip” or “immerse” as a core meaning, both in the Septuagint [67] [68] [69] and the New Testament [70].

A. N. S. Lane, with a touch of weary resignation, pointed out that while the basic root meaning of the Greek words for “baptize” and “baptism” is indeed “immerse/immersion,” it’s a mistake to reduce the words solely to this meaning. He cited passages such as Mark 10:38–39, Luke 12:50, Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16, and 1 Corinthians 10:2 as evidence of broader usage [71].

Two specific passages in the Gospels are often highlighted to demonstrate that the verb baptízein wasn’t always synonymous with complete submersion. The first, Luke 11:38, describes a Pharisee’s astonishment that Jesus “did not first wash (ἐβαπτίσθη, aorist passive of βαπτίζω—literally, “was baptized”) before dinner.” This is the very passage Liddell and Scott cite for “perform ablutions.” Jesus’s omission here aligns with that of his disciples, who were criticized for not “washing (νίπτω, the ordinary word for washing) their hands when they eat bread” (Matthew 15:1–2) [72]. The second passage, Mark 7:3–4, states: “The Pharisees… do not eat unless they wash (νίπτω) their hands thoroughly, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves (literally, “baptize themselves”—βαπτίσωνται, passive or middle voice of βαπτίζω)” [73].

Scholars from various denominations [74] [75] [76] interpret these passages as indicating that invited guests or individuals returning from the marketplace would not be expected to fully immerse themselves (“baptize themselves”) but rather to perform a partial immersion, such as dipping their hands in water, or to pour water over them—a practice consistent with present Jewish custom [77]. In the second passage (Mark 7:3–4), it is explicitly the hands that are “washed” [78], not the entire person, despite the verb baptízomai being used for the person, literally meaning “be baptized” or “be immersed” [79]. This nuance is often lost in English translations that use “wash” for both verbs. Spiros Zodhiates concludes that, in this context, the washing of the hands was indeed accomplished by immersing them [80]. The Liddell–Scott–Jones Greek-English Lexicon (1996) specifically cites Luke 11:38 as an instance where baptízein means “perform ablutions,” not “submerge” [81]. References to the cleansing of vessels using βαπτίζω also point to immersion as the method [82].

Revisiting Spiros Zodhiates ’s lexicographical work, he posits that in the second case (Mark 7:4), the verb baptízein suggests the Pharisees cleansed their hands by immersing them in collected water after returning from the market [80]. Balz & Schneider further understand βαπτίζω, when used in place of ῥαντίσωνται (sprinkle), to carry the same meaning as βάπτω—to dip or immerse [84] [85] [86]. This latter verb is used for actions like partially dipping a morsel of food into wine or a finger into spilled blood [87].

Another potential use of baptízein in relation to ritual washing is suggested by Peter Leithart (2007). He proposes that Paul’s phrase “Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead ?” [88] might refer to Jewish ritual washing practices. In Jewish Greek, the verb baptízein (“baptized”) indeed possessed a broader semantic field than just “baptism,” primarily applying to the masculine noun baptismós (“ritual washing”) within a Jewish context [90].

The verb baptízein appears four times in the Septuagint specifically in the context of ritual washing, or baptismós. These instances include Judith cleansing herself from menstrual impurity, and Naaman washing himself seven times to be purified from leprosy [91].

Crucially, in the New Testament alone, baptízein can also relate to the neuter noun báptisma (“baptism”). This báptisma is considered a neologism , entirely unknown in the Septuagint and other pre-Christian Jewish texts [92].

This inherent breadth in the meaning of baptízein is reflected in English Bible translations. They often render it as “wash” when referring to Jewish ritual washing (for example, Mark 7:4 states that the Pharisees “except they wash” – Greek “baptize” – “they do not eat”) [93], and as “baptize” when referring to báptisma, the distinct new Christian rite [94]. It seems even translators had to pick their battles.

Derived nouns

From the verb baptízō (βαπτίζω), two distinct nouns emerge in the New Testament : the masculine noun baptismós (βαπτισμός) and the neuter noun báptisma (βάπτισμα). And yes, the subtle differences are apparently very important.

  • baptismós (βαπτισμός): This noun typically refers to a water-rite performed for the purpose of purification, washing, or cleansing. In Mark 7:4, it describes the cleansing of dishes [95] [96]. The same verse, and Hebrews 9:10, use it to denote Levitical cleansings of vessels or the body [97]. Hebrews 6:2 might also refer to baptism, though it could equally refer to the washing of an inanimate object [96]. According to Spiros Zodhiates , when baptismós (βαπτισμός) refers merely to the cleansing of utensils, it is equated with rhantismós (ῥαντισμός, “sprinkling” ), a noun found only in Hebrews 12:24 and 1 Peter 1:2, which indicates the symbolic cleansing performed by an Old Testament priest [80]. So, a practical washing.
  • báptisma (βάπτισμα): This term is considered a neologism that appears to have originated specifically within the New Testament . It’s crucial not to confuse it with the earlier Jewish concept of baptismós (βαπτισμός) [98]. Subsequently, báptisma is found exclusively in Christian writings [95]. In the New Testament , it appears at least 21 times:
    • 13 times in relation to the rite performed by John the Baptist [99].
    • 3 times specifically referencing the Christian rite [100] (or 4 times if one includes its use in some manuscripts of Colossians 2:12, though it’s more likely to have been altered from the original baptismós there than the other way around) [101].
    • 5 times in a purely metaphorical sense [102]. Apparently, even baptism has its poetic moments.
  • Manuscript variation: In the book of Colossians, some manuscripts indeed contain the neuter noun báptisma (βάπτισμα), but others feature the masculine noun baptismós (βαπτισμός). Modern critical editions of the New Testament generally favor the latter reading [103]. If this reading is accurate, then this would be the sole instance in the New Testament where baptismós (βαπτισμός) clearly refers to Christian baptism, rather than a general washing. The only other possibility is if some interpretations of Hebrews 6:2 are correct, suggesting it too might refer to Christian baptism [96]. Such is the joy of ancient texts.
  • The feminine noun baptisis [104], along with the masculine noun baptismós [105], both appear in Josephus ’s Antiquities (J. AJ 18.5.2) in connection with the murder of John the Baptist by Herod [106] [107]. This feminine form, however, is not found elsewhere in Josephus’s writings, nor does it appear in the New Testament [108]. Perhaps it was just a fleeting linguistic fancy.

Apparel

Before the Middle Ages , a rather striking custom prevailed: most baptisms were performed with the candidates completely naked. One can observe this in the majority of early portrayals of baptism (some of which are, conveniently, right here in this article), and it’s well-documented by the early Church Fathers and other Christian writers. To maintain at least a semblance of decorum, deaconesses often assisted female candidates, presumably to alleviate some of the awkwardness [109].

A prime example comes from Cyril of Jerusalem , who penned “On the Mysteries of Baptism” in the 4th century (circa 350 AD). He describes the process with an almost poetic, if somewhat uncomfortable, frankness:

Do you not know, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death? … for you are not under the Law, but under grace.

  1. Therefore, I shall necessarily lay before you the sequel of yesterday’s Lecture, that you may learn of what those things, which were done by you in the inner chamber, were symbolic.
  2. As soon, then, as you entered, you put off your tunic; and this was an image of putting off the old man with his deeds. [110] Having stripped yourselves, you were naked; in this also imitating Christ, who was stripped naked on the Cross, and by His nakedness put off from Himself the principalities and powers, and openly triumphed over them on the tree. For since the adverse powers made their lair in your members, you may no longer wear that old garment; I do not at all mean this visible one, but the old man, which waxes corrupt in the lusts of deceit. [111] May the soul which has once put him off, never again put him on, but say with the Spouse of Christ in the Song of Songs, I have put off my garment, how shall I put it on? [112] O wondrous thing! You were naked in the sight of all, and were not ashamed; for truly ye bore the likeness of the first-formed Adam, who was naked in the garden, and was not ashamed.
  3. Then, when you were stripped, you were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.
  4. After these things, you were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism, as Christ was carried from the Cross to the Sepulchre which is before our eyes. And each of you was asked, whether he believed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and you made that saving confession, and descended three times into the water, and ascended again; here also hinting by a symbol at the three days burial of Christ … And at the self-same moment you were both dying and being born; [113]

— Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 20 (On the Mysteries. II. of Baptism), Romans 6:3–14

The symbolism, as Cyril so eloquently lays out, is threefold, a rather elaborate justification for public nudity:

  1. Rebirth and Innocence: Baptism is conceptualized as a form of rebirth, a being “born of water and the Spirit” [114]. The nakedness during baptism (the second birth) was seen as a direct parallel to the vulnerable, unadorned state of one’s original physical birth. John Chrysostom , for instance, refers to baptism as “λοχείαν” (giving birth) and a “new way of creation… from water and Spirit” (in his speech “to John” 25,2). He later expands on this:

    For nothing perceivable was handed over to us by Jesus; but with perceivable things, all of them however conceivable. This is also the way with the baptism; the gift of the water is done with a perceivable thing, but the things being conducted, i.e., the rebirth and renovation, are conceivable. For, if you were without a body, He would hand over these bodiless gifts as naked [gifts] to you. But because the soul is closely linked to the body, He hands over the perceivable ones to you with conceivable things. (Chrysostom to Matthew, speech 82, 4, c. 390 AD) It seems the physical act was merely a clumsy metaphor for the profound spiritual event.

  2. Shedding the Old Self: The removal of clothing was understood as an “image of putting off the old man with his deeds,” as Cyril put it. The act of stripping the body before baptism symbolized shedding the trappings of one’s sinful self, making way for the “new man” bestowed by Jesus to be “put on” [110] [111]. A rather dramatic wardrobe change, if you think about it.
  3. Return to Primal Innocence: Cyril further asserts that, much like Adam and Eve in scripture, who were naked, innocent, and unashamed in the Garden of Eden , nakedness during baptism was viewed as a renewal of that innocence and a return to a state of original sinlessness. Other parallels could also be drawn, such as the exposed condition of Christ during His crucifixion , mirroring the “crucifixion” of the “old man” of the repentant sinner in preparation for baptism.

Of course, changing customs and growing concerns regarding modesty eventually intervened. These factors likely contributed to the shift towards allowing or requiring baptismal candidates to either retain their undergarments (as often seen in Renaissance paintings of baptism by artists like da Vinci , Tintoretto , Van Scorel, Masaccio , and de Wit ) or to wear specially designed baptismal robes, a practice that is almost universally observed today. These robes are most frequently white, a color symbolizing purity. Some contemporary groups are more relaxed, permitting any suitable attire, such as trousers and a T-shirt , with practical considerations like how easily the clothes will dry (denim is generally discouraged) and whether they will become transparent when wet [citation needed].

In several Christian denominations, the newly baptized individual receives a cross necklace , which is then worn for the remainder of their life. This is intended as a “sign of the triumph of Christ over death and our belonging to Christ” (though, pragmatically, it is replaced if lost or broken) [25] [26]. This enduring practice among baptized Christians is rooted in Canon 73 and Canon 82 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Synod) of Constantinople , which declared:

… all the Church (Sunday) School children [must] wear a cross knowing how spiritually beneficial it is for them. By wearing a cross the child is protected from evil forces, it invites the grace of the Holy Cross of Christ, it brings His Divine blessing upon the child, it gives the child a sense that he or she belongs to Christ, that he or she has a special identity, that of a Christian, it is a reminder that Christ is always with him/her, it reminds the child that Jesus died on the Cross to save him/her, that Jesus Christ is our Only Savior and the True God. By wearing a cross the child feels the love of God and gives the child hope and strength to overcome any obstacle in his or her life. [26]

— Konstantopoulos, 2017

One might wonder if a simple necklace truly wards off evil, but the symbolism, at least, is quite clear.

Meaning and effects

The implications of baptism for a Christian are, predictably, a point of considerable theological debate and nuanced interpretation. Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and most mainline Protestant groups firmly assert that baptism is a fundamental requirement for salvation and a true sacrament , speaking quite explicitly of “baptismal regeneration .” [115] This perspective is intrinsically linked to their understanding of the “Mystical Body of Christ” as articulated in the New Testament [116]. This view is consistently held by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox denominations, as well as by many churches that emerged early in the Protestant Reformation , such as Lutheran and Anglican traditions [117]. Martin Luther himself, in his typically blunt fashion, stated:

To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to “be saved”. To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever.

— Luther’s Large Catechism , 1529

Similarly, the Churches of Christ [118]:66 [119]:112, Jehovah’s Witnesses , Christadelphians , and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints all espouse the belief that baptism is indeed necessary for salvation [120] [121] [122].

For Catholics, baptism by water is more than just a ritual; it is a sacrament of initiation that ushers an individual into the very life of God’s children (Catechism of the Catholic Church , 1212–13). It is believed to spiritually “configure” the person to Christ (CCC 1272), thereby obligating the newly baptized Christian to participate in the church’s apostolic and missionary endeavors (CCC 1270). The Catholic understanding, however, is not entirely monolithic; it recognizes three distinct pathways to salvation that are considered forms of baptism: sacramental baptism (the traditional water baptism), baptism of desire (an explicit or implicit desire to be a part of the church founded by Jesus Christ ), and baptism of blood (martyrdom for the faith). In his encyclical Mystici corporis Christi of June 29, 1943, Pope Pius XII elaborated on baptism and the profession of true faith as the defining characteristics of membership in the one true church, which is understood as the mystical body of Jesus Christ himself, as taught by God the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul :

18  … Through the waters of Baptism those who are born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church, but being stamped with a spiritual seal they become able and fit to receive the other Sacraments. … 22 Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. ‘For in one spirit’ says the Apostle, ‘were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.’ As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered—so the Lord commands—as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

— Mystici corporis Christi [123]

In stark contrast, Anabaptist and Evangelical Protestants generally perceive baptism as an outward, public sign of an internal spiritual transformation, a direct consequence of an individual believer’s personal experience of forgiving grace. Reformed and Methodist Protestants, while maintaining a connection between baptism and regeneration, emphasize that this link is neither automatic nor mechanical; regeneration, they believe, can occur independently of the precise moment of baptism [124]. The Churches of Christ teach that baptism represents a believer’s act of surrendering their life in faith and obedience to God. They assert that through baptism, God, “by the merits of Christ’s blood, cleanses one from sin and truly changes the state of the person from an alien to a citizen of God’s kingdom. Baptism is not a human work; it is the place where God does the work that only God can do.” [118]:p.66 Thus, for them, baptism is a passive act of faith, not a meritorious deed; it “is a confession that a person has nothing to offer God” [119]:p. 112. It’s a subtle distinction, but one they cling to fiercely.

Christian traditions

The liturgy of baptism across various Christian traditions – including Catholics , Eastern Orthodox , Lutherans , Anglicans , and Methodists – consistently frames baptism as more than just a symbolic burial and resurrection. It is presented as an actual, profound supernatural transformation. This transformation often draws explicit parallels to ancient biblical narratives, such as the deliverance of Noah through the flood and the miraculous passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea , led by Moses . Consequently, baptism is understood both literally and symbolically as not only a cleansing from sin but also a spiritual death and subsequent rising again with Christ . Catholics, for instance, believe baptism is essential to cleanse the stain of original sin , which is why infant baptism is a common practice within their tradition [125].

The Eastern Churches, encompassing both the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy , also routinely baptize infants. Their rationale stems from interpretations of biblical texts like Matthew 19:14, which they see as supporting full church membership for children from an early age. In these denominations, baptism is immediately followed by Chrismation (akin to confirmation in the West) and then the reception of Communion at the very next Divine Liturgy , regardless of the child’s age. Orthodox Christians similarly believe that baptism expunges what they refer to as the ancestral sin of Adam [126]. Anglicans, too, hold that baptism serves as the formal entry into the church. Most Methodists and Anglicans further agree that it cleanses the stain of what Western theology terms original sin and Eastern theology calls ancestral sin [citation needed].

Regarding the mode of baptism, Eastern Orthodox Christians typically perform complete threefold immersion. This is understood as both a powerful symbol of death and rebirth into Christ, and a literal washing away of sin [248]:277–278. Within the Latin Church of the Catholic Church, baptism is generally administered by affusion (pouring), while Eastern Catholics more commonly practice submersion or at least partial immersion. However, full submersion is experiencing a resurgence in popularity within the Latin Church, with many newer church sanctuaries designing their baptismal fonts specifically to accommodate immersion [127]. Anglicans, for their part, offer a choice between immersion or affusion [128] [129].

Historical evidence, traceable back to approximately the year 200, indicates the presence of sponsors or godparents at baptisms. These individuals undertake vows to support the Christian education and spiritual life of the baptized [131].

Baptists maintain that the Greek word βαπτίζω inherently means “to immerse.” They interpret certain biblical passages concerning baptism as explicitly requiring the complete submersion of the body in water [132]. Furthermore, they contend that only submersion adequately reflects the profound symbolic significance of being “buried” and “raised” with Christ [133] [non-primary source needed]. Baptist Churches perform baptism in the name of the Trinity —the Father , the Son , and the Holy Spirit . However, a crucial distinction in Baptist theology is that they do not believe baptism is necessary for salvation; rather, they view it as an act of Christian obedience and public declaration of faith [134].

Some “Full Gospel ” charismatic churches, such as Oneness Pentecostals , choose to baptize exclusively “in the name of Jesus Christ.” They cite Peter ’s preaching of baptism in the name of Jesus as their scriptural authority for this practice [135] [non-primary source needed]. It seems everyone has their own interpretation of the divine instructions.

Ecumenical statements

In 1982, the World Council of Churches released a pivotal ecumenical document titled Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry . The preface to this document, with perhaps a touch of optimistic self-congratulation, highlights its significance:

Those who know how widely the churches have differed in doctrine and practice on baptism, Eucharist and ministry, will appreciate the importance of the large measure of agreement registered here. Virtually all the confessional traditions are included in the Commission’s membership. That theologians of such widely different denominations should be able to speak so harmoniously about baptism, Eucharist and ministry is unprecedented in the modern ecumenical movement. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the Commission also includes among its full members theologians of the Catholic and other churches which do not belong to the World Council of Churches itself. [136]

— World Council of Churches , Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry—Faith and Order Paper No. 111, 1982

A later document from 1997, Becoming a Christian: The Ecumenical Implications of Our Common Baptism, further articulated the consensus views of a commission of experts convened under the auspices of the World Council of Churches [131]. It states:

… according to Acts 2:38, baptisms follow from Peter’s preaching baptism in the name of Jesus and lead those baptized to the receiving of Christ’s Spirit, the Holy Ghost, and life in the community: “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” [137] as well as to the distribution of goods to those in need. [138] [non-primary source needed]

Those who heard, who were baptized and entered the community’s life, were already made witnesses of and partakers in the promises of God for the last days: the forgiveness of sins through baptism in the name of Jesus and the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on all flesh. [135] Similarly, in what may well be a baptismal pattern, 1 Peter testifies that proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and teaching about new life [139] lead to purification and new birth. [140] This, in turn, is followed by eating and drinking God’s food , [141] by participation in the life of the community—the royal priesthood, the new temple, the people of God [142] —and by further moral formation. [143] At the beginning of 1 Peter the writer sets this baptism in the context of obedience to Christ and sanctification by the Spirit. [144] So baptism into Christ is seen as baptism into the Spirit. [145] In the fourth gospel Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus indicates that birth by water and Spirit becomes the gracious means of entry into the place where God rules. [114] [146]

It’s a lovely sentiment, this pursuit of unity, almost as if centuries of theological squabbling could be neatly resolved by a well-worded document. One can only hope.

Validity considerations by some churches

The vast majority of Christian denominations, in their earnest theological frameworks, consider baptism to be a profound sacrament that carries actual spiritual, holy, and salvific effects. For these effects to genuinely manifest, however, certain key criteria must be meticulously met for the baptism to be deemed valid. Should these fundamental criteria be satisfied, any deviation from prescribed ritual forms—such as altering the authorized ceremony—might render the baptism illicit (i.e., contrary to the church’s specific laws) but, crucially, still valid in its spiritual efficacy [147]. A subtle distinction, but one that avoids endless re-baptisms.

One of the foremost criteria for validity is the precise use of the correct words. The Catholic Church, for instance, explicitly teaches that the use of the verb “to baptize” is absolutely essential [51]. Catholics within the Latin Church , along with Anglicans and Methodists, typically employ the active voice: “I baptize you in the name of…”. In contrast, Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics prefer the passive voice: “The Servant of God is baptized in the name of…” [148].

The use of the Trinitarian formula (“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”) is also universally considered essential for validity by most mainstream churches. Consequently, these denominations do not recognize as valid the baptisms performed by non-Trinitarian churches, such as Oneness Pentecostals , who baptize solely in the name of Jesus [149].

Another non-negotiable condition for validity is the use of actual water. A baptism performed with any liquid not ordinarily recognized as water—such as wine, milk, soup, or even fruit juice—would be considered invalid [150]. It seems the divine mandate has its practical limits.

Furthermore, it is required that the celebrant administering the baptism intends to perform baptism. This intention is understood as the desire “to do what the Church does” [151], not necessarily possessing a profound personal Christian faith. The theological reasoning here is that the spiritual effects of the sacrament are not produced by the human baptizer, but by the Holy Spirit working through the sacrament itself. Therefore, any doubt regarding the personal faith of the baptizer should not, in principle, cast doubt upon the validity of the baptism [152].

Interestingly, some conditions are expressly stated not to affect validity. For example, whether submersion , immersion , affusion (pouring), or aspersion (sprinkling) is employed generally does not invalidate the rite [153]. However, if sprinkling is the chosen method, there remains a critical concern: the water must actually make contact with the skin of the unbaptized individual. As has been stated, “it is not sufficient for the water to merely touch the candidate; it must also flow, otherwise there would seem to be no real ablution. At best, such a baptism would be considered doubtful. If the water touches only the hair, the sacrament has probably been validly conferred, though in practice the safer course must be followed. If only the clothes of the person have received the aspersion, the baptism is undoubtedly void.” [150] So, a bit of moisture might count, but a damp shirt certainly doesn’t. For many communions, validity is also not affected if a single submersion or pouring is performed rather than the traditional triple method, though this remains a point of contention and discussion within Orthodoxy [citation needed].

According to the Catholic Church, baptism imprints an indelible “seal” upon the soul of the baptized. This means that a person who has been validly baptized can never be validly baptized again. This doctrine was staunchly defended against the Donatists in early church history, who advocated for rebaptism. The grace conferred in baptism is believed to operate ex opere operato (by the work having been worked), and is therefore considered valid even if administered within groups deemed heretical or schismatic [154]. It seems some things, once done, cannot be undone, no matter how much one might wish.

Recognition by other denominations

The intricate dance of inter-denominational recognition of baptism is, as one might expect, rather complex. The Catholic , Orthodox , Lutheran , Anglican , Presbyterian , and Methodist Churches generally accept baptisms performed by other denominations within this specific group as valid, provided certain conditions are met—most notably, the use of the Trinitarian formula [155]. Since baptism is considered a singular, unrepeatable event, individuals with valid baptisms from other denominations are not to be baptized again upon conversion or transfer. For Catholics, this principle is enshrined in Canon Law 864 [156], which explicitly states that “[e]very person not yet baptized and only such a person is capable of baptism.” [157] Such individuals are typically welcomed into the Catholic Church after making a profession of faith, and if they have not yet validly received the sacrament/rite of confirmation or chrismation, they are then confirmed. Methodist theologians, for example, have historically argued that “since God never abrogated a covenant made and sealed with proper intentionality, rebaptism was never an option, unless the original baptism had been defective by not having been made in the name of the Trinity.” [158]

However, discerning the validity of an original baptism can sometimes be a challenge. In cases of doubt, a “conditional baptism ” is administered, using a formula along the lines of “If you are not yet baptized, I baptize you…” [159] [160]. It’s a pragmatic approach to avoid both sacrilege and unnecessary repetition.

The Catholic Church, for its part, generally recognizes as valid the baptisms performed by Christians of the Eastern Orthodox, Churches of Christ, Congregationalist, Anglican, Lutheran, Old Catholic, Polish National Catholic, Reformed, Baptist, Brethren, Methodist, Presbyterian, Waldensian, and United Protestant denominations. Converts from these traditions are received into the Catholic Church through the sacrament of Confirmation [161]. However, individuals from some Mennonite, Pentecostal, and Adventist traditions who seek to join the Catholic Church may be required to undergo a conditional baptism , owing to existing concerns [which?] regarding the validity of sacraments within those specific traditions [161]. Notably, the Catholic Church has explicitly deemed the baptism conferred in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as invalid [162].

The Reformed Churches similarly recognize as valid baptisms administered in the Catholic Church , as well as those from other churches that employ the Trinitarian formula [163] [164]. A sensible approach, one might say, acknowledging common ground.

The practice within the Eastern Orthodox Church for converts from other communions is not entirely uniform. Nevertheless, generally speaking, baptisms performed in the name of the Holy Trinity are accepted by the Orthodox Christian Church. Christians from Oriental Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Old Catholic, Moravian, Anglican, Methodist, Reformed, Presbyterian, Brethren, Assemblies of God, or Baptist traditions can be received into the Eastern Orthodox Church through the sacrament of Chrismation [165]. If a convert has not received the sacrament (mysterion) of baptism, they must be baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity before being admitted into communion with the Orthodox Church. If a previous baptism from another Christian confession (outside Orthodoxy) is deemed valid (i.e., performed in the name of the Holy Trinity ), it is considered retroactively filled with grace by chrismation or, in rare cases, solely by a confession of faith . The precise procedure, however, is subject to local canons and remains a point of some controversy [citation needed]. It appears even within Orthodoxy, perfect harmony is elusive.

Oriental Orthodox Churches recognize the validity of baptisms performed within the Eastern Orthodox Communion. Some also extend this recognition to baptisms performed by Catholic Churches. Any supposed baptism not conducted using the Trinitarian formula is considered invalid [166].

Both the Catholic Church and all Orthodox Churches, along with Anglican and Lutheran Churches, consider the baptism conferred by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be invalid [167]. An article accompanying the official declaration from the Vatican on this matter elucidated the reasons, summarizing them thus: “The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it.” [168] It seems fundamental theological differences are not easily bridged.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , conversely, places significant emphasis on baptism being administered by someone possessing the proper authority. Consequently, they do not recognize the baptism performed by any other church as effective [169].

Jehovah’s Witnesses take an even more exclusive stance. They do not recognize any other baptism occurring after 1914 [170] as valid [171], as they believe themselves to be the one true church of Christ since that year [172], and consequently, view the rest of “Christendom” as false religion [173]. A rather definitive line in the sand, wouldn’t you say?

Officiant

Ah, the question of who gets to do the dunking. There’s a persistent debate among Christian churches regarding who is authorized to administer baptism. Some argue that the examples provided in the New Testament exclusively depict apostles and deacons performing baptisms [citation needed]. Ancient Christian churches interpret this to mean that baptism should primarily be performed by clergy, with exceptions made only in extremis—that is, when the individual to be baptized is in immediate danger of death [citation needed]. In such dire circumstances, anyone may baptize, provided, in the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the baptizer is a member of that church, or, in the view of the Catholic Church, that the person (even if unbaptized themselves) intends “to do what the church does” in administering the rite [citation needed]. Many Protestant churches, however, perceive no specific biblical prohibition and therefore permit any believer to baptize another [citation needed]. It seems divine authorization can be quite flexible, or quite rigid, depending on who you ask.

In the Catholic Church , canon law for the Latin Church stipulates that the ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, priest, or deacon [174]. However, its administration is among the functions “especially entrusted to the parish priest ” [175]. If the person to be baptized is at least fourteen years old, their baptism is typically referred to the bishop, who may then decide to confer the baptism personally [176]. Should no ordinary minister be available, a catechist or another individual appointed by the local ordinary for this specific purpose may licitly perform the baptism. Indeed, in a genuine case of necessity (meaning imminent danger of death due to illness or external threat), any person—regardless of their own religious affiliation—who possesses the requisite intention may confer the baptism [177]. “The requisite intention,” at its most fundamental level, is simply the intention “to do what the Church does” through the rite of baptism [citation needed]. A rather generous provision, born of necessity.

Within the Eastern Catholic Churches , a deacon is not considered an ordinary minister of baptism. The administration of the sacrament is reserved for the parish priest, or another priest who has been granted permission by the parish priest or the local hierarch . Such permission can be presumed if it aligns with canon law . Nevertheless, “in case of necessity, baptism can be administered by a deacon or, in his absence or if he is impeded, by another cleric, a member of an institute of consecrated life, or by any other Christian faithful; even by the mother or father, if another person is not available who knows how to baptize.” [178]

The discipline of the Eastern Orthodox Church , Oriental Orthodoxy , and the Assyrian Church of the East largely mirrors that of the Eastern Catholic Churches. They maintain that the baptizer, even in cases of dire necessity, must be of their own faith. Their reasoning is straightforward: a person cannot impart what they themselves do not possess, in this instance, membership in the church [179]. The Latin Catholic Church, as noted, does not insist on this condition, believing that the sacrament’s effect (such as church membership) is produced by the Holy Spirit , not by the individual administering the baptism. For the Orthodox, while baptism in extremis may be administered by a deacon or any layperson, if the newly baptized individual survives, a priest is still required to perform the remaining prayers of the Rite of Baptism and to administer the Mystery of Chrismation [citation needed]. It seems even a near-death experience doesn’t completely circumvent the bureaucracy.

The discipline within Anglicanism and Lutheranism generally aligns with that of the Latin Catholic Church. For Methodists and many other Protestant denominations, the ordinary minister of baptism is an ordained or appointed minister [citation needed].

Newer movements within Protestant Evangelical churches, particularly those that are non-denominational, often allow laypeople to administer baptism [citation needed]. A democratic approach to spiritual initiation.

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , the authority to administer baptism is strictly limited. Only a man who has been ordained to the Aaronic priesthood and holds the priesthood office of priest , or a higher office within the Melchizedek priesthood , is permitted to perform a baptism [180].

A Jehovah’s Witnesses baptism is carried out by a “dedicated male” adherent [181] [182]. It’s only under truly extraordinary circumstances that an unbaptized “dedicated” individual would act as a baptizer (as detailed in the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” section below) [183]. The rules, it seems, are rather specific.

Practitioners

Protestantism

Anabaptist

The early Anabaptists earned their rather descriptive name because they famously “re-baptized” individuals whom they did not recognize as having been validly baptized, holding the firm conviction that infant baptism was, in fact, invalid [184].

The traditional mode of Anabaptist baptism, reflecting the prevailing practices in Western Christianity in the early 16th century when they emerged, was pouring . This method continues to be normative in Mennonite , Amish , and Hutterite traditions of Anabaptist Christianity [185] [186]. However, some Anabaptist denominations, such as the Mennonite Brethren Church , Schwarzenau Brethren , and River Brethren , practice immersion [187]. The Schwarzenau church, in particular, performs immersion three times in a forward-leaning position, symbolizing each person of the Holy Trinity and reflecting their belief that “the Bible says Jesus bowed his head (letting it fall forward) and died. Baptism represents a dying of the old, sinful self.” [188] Today, one can find a variety of baptismal modes, including pouring, sprinkling, and immersion, among Anabaptists [189].

Conservative Mennonite Anabaptists count baptism as one of their seven ordinances [190]. In Anabaptist theology , baptism is understood as an integral part of the process of salvation [191]. For Anabaptists, “believer’s baptism consists of three parts, the Spirit, the water, and the blood—these three witnesses on earth.” [192] This means: (1) During believer’s baptism, the Holy Spirit bears witness to the candidate entering into a covenant with God [192]. (2) In this same act, God “grants a baptized believer the water of baptism as a sign of His covenant with them—that such a one indicates and publicly confesses that he wants to live in true obedience towards God and fellow believers with a blameless life.” [192] (3) Finally, and crucially, an integral aspect of believer’s baptism is the candidate’s commitment to bear witness to the world, even to the point of martyrdom , echoing Jesus ’s words that “they would be baptized with His baptism, witnessing to the world when their blood was spilled.” [192] A rather demanding commitment, one might say, beyond merely getting wet.

Baptist

For the vast majority of Baptists , Christian baptism is understood as the immersion of a believer in water, performed in the name of the Father , the Son , and the Holy Spirit [193] [194]. Crucially, Baptists do not believe that baptism itself accomplishes anything inherently salvific; rather, it is viewed as an outward, personal sign that the individual’s sins have already been washed away through the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross [195].

For a new convert, the general practice is that baptism also serves as the means by which the person becomes a registered member of the local Baptist congregation. Although, it is worth noting that some churches have introduced “new members classes” as an additional, mandatory step for achieving full congregational membership [citation needed]. It seems even spiritual rites can have their administrative hurdles.

Regarding the contentious issue of rebaptism, the general rules within Baptist circles are typically: [citation needed]

  • Baptisms performed by methods other than immersion are not recognized as valid, and therefore, rebaptism by immersion is required.
  • Baptisms by immersion performed in other denominations may be considered valid, provided they were administered after the individual had professed faith in Jesus Christ . However, among more conservative groups, such as Independent Baptists , rebaptism might still be mandated by the local congregation if the original immersion occurred in a non-Baptist church—and, in extreme cases, even if it happened within a Baptist church that wasn’t specifically an Independent Baptist congregation. The nuances are, frankly, exhausting.

For newborns, Baptists do not practice baptism but instead hold a ceremony called child dedication [196].

The Tennessee antebellum Methodist circuit rider and newspaper publisher William G. Brownlow , in his 1856 polemic The Great Iron Wheel Examined; or, Its False Spokes Extracted, and an Exhibition of Elder Graves, Its Builder, famously asserted that the immersion baptism practiced by Baptist churches in the United States did not trace a “regular line of succession…from John the Baptist—but from old Zeke Holliman and his true yoke-fellow, Mr. [Roger] Williams .” Brownlow’s claim was that in 1639, Holliman and Williams first immersion-baptized each other, and then proceeded to immersion-baptize the ten other members of the first Baptist church in British America at Providence, Rhode Island [197]. A rather humble, if disputed, origin story for a major denomination.

Churches of Christ

In Churches of Christ , baptism is performed exclusively through full bodily immersion [198]:107 [199]:124. This practice is rooted in their interpretation of the Koine Greek verb baptizo, which they understand to mean “to dip, immerse, submerge, or plunge” [200] [201]:139 [202]:313–14 [203]:22 [204]:45–46. Submersion is seen as the mode that most accurately reflects the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus [200] [201]:140 [202]:314–16. Churches of Christ argue that historically, immersion was the primary mode in the 1st century, and that pouring and sprinkling emerged later as secondary modes only when immersion was impractical [201]:140. Over time, these secondary methods, they contend, unfortunately supplanted immersion [201]:140. Furthermore, only individuals who are mentally capable of belief and repentance are baptized; thus, infant baptism is not practiced, as they find no precedent for it in the New Testament [199]:124 [200] [202]:318–19 [205]:195.

Historically, Churches of Christ have maintained the most conservative stance on baptism among the various branches of the Restoration Movement , consistently understanding baptism by immersion as an indispensable component of conversion [118]:61. The most significant internal disagreements have revolved around the precise extent to which a correct theological understanding of baptism’s role is necessary for its validity [118]:p.61. David Lipscomb , a prominent figure, argued that if a believer was baptized out of a sincere desire to obey God , the baptism was valid, even if the individual did not fully grasp its salvific role [118]:61. In contrast, Austin McGary contended that for a baptism to be truly valid, the convert must also comprehend that baptism is specifically “for the forgiveness of sins” [118]:62. McGary’s view largely became the dominant perspective in the early 20th century, though Lipscomb’s more lenient approach never entirely vanished [118]:62. As a result of this strict interpretation, the general practice among Churches of Christ is to require rebaptism by immersion for converts, even those who were previously baptized by immersion in other churches [citation needed]. A rather uncompromising position, one might say.

Churches of Christ consistently teach that in baptism, a believer actively surrenders their life in faith and obedience to God. They believe that God, “by the merits of Christ’s blood, cleanses one from sin and truly changes the state of the person from an alien to a citizen of God’s kingdom. Baptism is not a human work; it is the place where God does the work that only God can do.” [118]:66 Thus, they view baptism as a passive act of faith, rather than a meritorious work; it “is a confession that a person has nothing to offer God.” [119]:112 While Churches of Christ refrain from describing baptism as a “sacrament,” their understanding of it can legitimately be characterized as “sacramental” [118]:66 [203]:186. They locate the power of baptism in God, who chooses to utilize baptism as a vehicle for grace, rather than in the water or the act itself [203]:186. They understand baptism as an integral, rather than merely symbolic, part of the conversion process [203]:184.

A more recent trend within Churches of Christ emphasizes the transformative aspect of baptism. Instead of merely describing it as a legal requirement or a symbol of a past event, it is increasingly seen as “the event that places the believer ‘into Christ’ where God does the ongoing work of transformation.” [118]:66 While a minority downplays baptism’s importance to avoid sectarianism, the broader movement is “to reexamine the richness of the biblical teaching of baptism and to reinforce its central and essential place in Christianity.” [118]:66 It seems even the most rigid interpretations can evolve.

Because of the belief that baptism is a necessary part of salvation, some Baptists have accused the Churches of Christ of endorsing the doctrine of baptismal regeneration [206]. However, members of the Churches of Christ vehemently reject this label. They argue that since both faith and repentance are indispensable prerequisites, and since the cleansing of sins is ultimately achieved by the blood of Christ through the grace of God , baptism itself is not an inherently redeeming ritual [201]:133 [206] [207]:630–631. Instead, they often refer to the biblical passage in which Peter , drawing an analogy between baptism and Noah ’s flood, states that “likewise baptism doth also now save us” but then parenthetically clarifies that baptism is " not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the response of a good conscience toward God" (1 Peter 3:21) [208]. One author from the Churches of Christ succinctly describes the relationship between faith and baptism: " Faith is the reason why a person is a child of God; baptism is the time at which one is incorporated into Christ and so becomes a child of God" (emphasis added in original) [205]:170. For them, baptism is understood as a confessional expression of faith and repentance [205]:179–82, rather than a “work” that somehow earns salvation [205]:170. A distinction that, to an outsider, might seem rather academic, but to them, is everything.

Lutheranism

In Lutheran Christianity , baptism is not merely a symbolic gesture but a profound sacrament believed to regenerate the soul [209]. Upon baptism, an individual is said to receive the Holy Spirit and become an integral part of the church [209]. As articulated in Martin Luther ’s Small Catechism , the power of baptism resides in the word and command of God acting “in and with the water.” This divine act, Luther asserts, “works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare” [210]. In Lutheran theology, baptism is emphatically not viewed as a human work performed in obedience to the law, but rather as a divine work of God that is received through faith, a faith that “clings to the water” [211]. It’s a gift, not a chore.

Methodism

A baptistry in a Methodist church

The Methodist Articles of Religion , in their rather concise manner, lay out their understanding of baptism: [212]

Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The Baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church. [212]

While Methodists believe that baptism indeed imparts grace, they unequivocally teach that a personal acceptance of Jesus Christ (what they term the “first work of grace”) is absolutely essential for one’s salvation [213] [214]. Furthermore, during the “second work of grace”—entire sanctification —a believer is purified of original sin and made holy [215] [216]. Consequently, in the Methodist tradition, the phrase “Baptism with the Holy Spirit ” has historically referred to this second work of grace, namely entire sanctification [32].

Within the Methodist Churches , baptism is recognized as a sacrament that initiates an individual into the visible Church [217]. Wesleyan covenant theology further posits that baptism serves as both a sign and a seal of the covenant of grace [218]:

Of this great new-covenant blessing, baptism was therefore eminently the sign ; and it represented “the pouring out " of the Spirit, “the descending " of the Spirit, the “falling” of the Spirit “upon men”, by the mode in which it was administered, the pouring of water from above upon the subjects baptized. As a seal, also, or confirming sign, baptism answers to circumcision. [218]

Methodists, ever practical, recognize three valid modes of baptism: “immersion, sprinkling, or pouring,” all performed in the name of the Holy Trinity [219]. A flexible approach, perhaps to ensure everyone gets wet one way or another.

Moravianism

The Moravian Church teaches that baptism functions as both a sign and a seal, acknowledging the validity of three modes of baptism: immersion, aspersion , and affusion [220]. A rather accommodating view, allowing for various degrees of dampness.

Reformed Protestantism

In Reformed baptismal theology , baptism is fundamentally understood as God ’s gracious offer of union with Christ and all the benefits derived from it, extended directly to the baptized individual. This divine offer is believed to remain intact, even if it is not immediately received in faith by the person being baptized [221]. Reformed theologians hold that the Holy Spirit is the active agent who brings into effect the promises signified in baptism [222]. Almost the entire Reformed tradition maintains that baptism effects regeneration, even in infants who are not yet capable of conscious faith, by initiating a faith that will later come to fruition [223]. Furthermore, baptism serves as the formal initiation into the visible church and the covenant of grace [224]. It is also seen as the New Testament replacement for circumcision , which was the rite of initiation into the covenant of grace in the Old Testament [225]. It’s all rather neatly tied together, isn’t it?

Reformed Christians do not consider immersion necessary for a proper baptism, affirming that pouring or sprinkling are perfectly acceptable [226]. Only ordained ministers are permitted to administer baptism in Reformed churches, with no provision for emergency baptism , though baptisms performed by non-ministers are generally still considered valid [227]. While Reformed churches reject the specific baptismal ceremonies of the Catholic Church, they do accept the validity of baptisms performed within that tradition and do not practice rebaptism [228]. A pragmatic recognition of shared ground, despite lingering disagreements.

United Protestants

In United Protestant Churches , such as the United Church of Canada , Church of North India , Church of Pakistan , Church of South India , Protestant Church in the Netherlands , Uniting Church in Australia , and United Church of Christ in Japan , baptism is unequivocally considered a sacrament [229].

Catholicism

Baptism using a scallop

In Catholic teaching, baptism is unequivocally stated to be “necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire” [230]. Catholic discipline mandates that the baptism ceremony be performed by deacons, priests , or bishops. However, in an emergency, particularly when there is danger of death, anyone can licitly baptize. This teaching finds its basis in the Gospel according to John , where Jesus famously proclaimed: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” [231] This understanding dates back to the practices of 1st-century Christians, and the intrinsic link between salvation and baptism remained largely undisputed until Huldrych Zwingli challenged it, viewing baptism as merely a symbolic sign of admission to the Christian community [20]. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clarifies that “Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.” [232] The Council of Trent further affirmed the necessity of baptism for salvation in its Decree Concerning Justification from session six [233]. A person who knowingly, willfully, and unrepentantly rejects baptism is understood to have no hope of salvation. However, if knowledge is absent, “those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.” [234]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also explicitly states: “Since Baptism signifies liberation from sin and from its instigator the devil, one or more exorcisms are pronounced over the candidate” [235]. In the Roman Rite for the baptism of a child, the prayer of exorcism is worded thus: “Almighty and ever-living God, you sent your only Son into the world to cast out the power of Satan, spirit of evil, to rescue man from the kingdom of darkness and bring him into the splendour of your kingdom of light. We pray for this child: set him (her) free from original sin, make him (her) a temple of your glory, and send your Holy Spirit to dwell with him (her). Through Christ our Lord.” [236] It seems the process is quite thorough.

In the Catholic Church, baptism is believed to forgive all sins—both original sin and all personal sins [237]. Baptism not only purifies from all sins but also transforms the neophyte into “a new creature,” an adopted son of God , who becomes a “partaker of the divine nature,” a member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit . Given once for all, baptism cannot be repeated; just as a person is born only once, they are baptized only once. For this reason, the holy Fathers added the words “We acknowledge one Baptism” to the Nicene Creed [238]. The sanctifying grace, the grace of justification, bestowed by God through baptism, is believed to erase both original sin and any personal actual sins [239].

The power of Baptism consists in cleansing a man from all his sins as regards both guilt and punishment, for which reason no penance is imposed on those who receive Baptism, no matter how great their sins may have been. And if they were to die immediately after Baptism, they would rise at once to eternal life. [238]

Masaccio , Baptism of the Neophytes [it], 1425–1426 (Brancacci Chapel , Florence ). This painting depicts baptism by affusion . The artist may have chosen an archaic form for this depiction of baptism by St. Peter .

In the Latin Church of the Catholic Church, a valid baptism, according to Canon 758 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law , requires the baptizer to pronounce the formula “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” while the baptized individual is brought into contact with water. This contact can be through immersion, “affusion” (pouring), or “aspersion” (sprinkling) [153]. The formula specifically mandates the singular “name,” emphasizing the monotheism of the Trinity [240]. It has been claimed that Pope Stephen I , Ambrose , and Pope Nicholas I declared baptisms performed solely in the name of “Jesus” as well as those in the name of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” to be valid, though the precise interpretation of their statements is disputed [51]. Current canonical law , however, unequivocally requires the Trinitarian formula and water for validity [230]. The formula also specifies “I baptize” rather than “we baptize,” a distinction clarified by a responsum issued on June 24, 2020 [241]. In a rather telling incident in 2022, the Diocese of Phoenix accepted the resignation of a parish priest whose use of “we baptize” had inadvertently invalidated “thousands of baptisms over more than 20 years” [242]. Contrast this with the Byzantine Rite , where the formula is in the passive voice: “The servant of God N. is baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” [243] A subtle grammatical difference, but one with significant theological implications.

Children of practicing Catholic parents are, predictably, typically baptized as infants. Baptism is also a central component of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA), designed for converts from non-Christian backgrounds and adults who were not baptized as infants [244]. Baptisms performed by non-Catholic Christians are recognized as valid if the correct formula and water are used, meaning converts from other Christian denominations are not re-baptized into the Catholic Church.

The Church also acknowledges two equivalents to baptism with water: “baptism of blood ” and “baptism of desire .” Baptism of blood refers to the experience of unbaptized individuals who are martyred for their faith, while baptism of desire generally applies to catechumens who die before they can actually receive the sacrament. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes these two forms: [245]

The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood , like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

— 1258

For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity , assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

— 1259

The Catholic Church also maintains that those who are ignorant of Christ ’s Gospel and of the church, yet sincerely seek the truth and strive to do God ’s will as they understand it, may be presumed to possess an implicit desire for baptism and can indeed be saved: “‘Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.’ Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.” [246] As for the rather unfortunate case of unbaptized infants, the church remains uncertain of their ultimate fate; “the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God” [247]. A rather vague, if compassionate, conclusion.

Eastern Orthodoxy

An Orthodox baptism

In Eastern Orthodoxy , baptism is far more than a mere ritual; it is regarded as a profound sacrament and sacred mystery. This mystery is believed to fundamentally transform the old, sinful person into a new, pure individual, where the former life, its sins, and any past mistakes are entirely erased, and a pristine spiritual slate is granted. Within Greek and Russian Orthodox traditions, it is taught that through Baptism, a person is united to the Body of Christ , thereby becoming an official member of the Orthodox Church. During the service, the Orthodox priest performs the blessing of the water that will be used. The catechumen (the one being baptized) is then fully immersed in the water three times, each immersion performed in the name of the Trinity . This act is understood as a symbolic death of the “old man,” participating in the crucifixion and burial of Christ , and a subsequent rebirth into new life in Christ, participating in his resurrection [248]:277–278. Customarily, a new name is bestowed upon the individual during this rite, which then becomes their Christian name [citation needed].

An Orthodox baptism of an adult

Infants born into Orthodox families are typically baptized shortly after birth. Older converts to Orthodoxy, depending on their prior religious background and the validity of any previous baptism, may be rebaptized if deemed necessary. Those converting from a different religion to Eastern Orthodoxy commonly undergo Chrismation , which is recognized as confirmation in the Catholic Church [249].

Properly and generally, the Mystery of Baptism is administered by bishops and other priests. However, in emergency situations, any Orthodox Christian is permitted to baptize [248]:278. In such cases, should the person survive the emergency, it is customary for a priest to later perform the remaining prayers of the Rite of Baptism. This is not considered a second baptism, nor does it imply the person was not already Orthodox, but rather serves as a fulfillment of the proper liturgical form [citation needed]. One might see it as tidying up the divine paperwork.

The service of baptism in Greek Orthodox (and other Eastern Orthodox) churches has remained remarkably consistent for over 1500 years. This historical continuity is attested by Cyril of Jerusalem (died 386), whose Discourse on the Sacrament of Baptism describes the service in a manner strikingly similar to current practice [250]. A testament to tradition, or perhaps just a reluctance to change.

Other groups

Jehovah’s Witnesses

Jehovah’s Witnesses firmly believe that baptism should be performed by complete immersion (submersion) in water and only when an individual has reached an age where they can fully comprehend its profound significance. They view water baptism as an outward, public symbol of an unconditional dedication made through Jesus Christ to fulfill the will of God . Only after baptism is an individual considered a full-fledged Witness and an official member of the Christian Congregation. They further consider baptism to constitute ordination as a minister [251]. A rather serious undertaking, one might observe.

Prospective candidates for baptism are required to express their desire to be baptized well in advance of any scheduled baptismal event. This allows congregation elders sufficient time to assess their suitability, evaluating their true repentance and conversion [252]. Elders approve candidates for baptism only if they are deemed to understand the expectations for members of the religion and to demonstrate sincere dedication to the faith [253].

Most baptisms among Jehovah’s Witnesses occur at their scheduled assemblies and conventions. These are performed by elders and ministerial servants, typically in specially constructed pools, though sometimes in oceans, rivers, or lakes, depending on the circumstances [254] [255] [256]. Baptisms rarely take place at local Kingdom Halls [257]. Before the baptism, at the conclusion of a pre-baptism talk, candidates must publicly affirm two questions [258]:

  • On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ , have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
  • Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?

Only baptized males (elders or ministerial servants) are permitted to baptize new members. Both baptizers and candidates wear swimsuits or other informal clothing for the ceremony, but are instructed to avoid attire deemed undignified or overly revealing [259] [260] [261]. Generally, candidates are individually immersed by a single baptizer [259], unless special circumstances, such as a physical disability , necessitate a different approach [262]. In extreme cases of extended isolation, a qualified candidate’s dedication and stated intention to be baptized may serve to identify them as a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses , even if the physical immersion must be delayed [263]. In rare historical instances, unbaptized males who had expressed such an intention have reciprocally baptized each other, with both baptisms being accepted as valid [183]. Furthermore, individuals who were baptized in the 1930s and 1940s by female Witnesses due to extenuating circumstances, such as in concentration camps, were later re-baptized, yet their original baptism dates were still recognized [181]. A rather intricate set of rules for a seemingly simple act.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

A Mormon baptism, circa the 1850s

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), baptism is recognized as the first of several crucial ordinances (rituals) of the gospel [264]. Within Mormonism , the primary purpose of baptism is the remission of the participant’s sins . It is immediately followed by confirmation , which formally inducts the person into church membership and is considered a baptism with the Holy Spirit . Latter-day Saints believe that baptism must be performed by full immersion, and according to a precise, ritualized ordinance: if any part of the participant is not fully immersed, or if the ordinance’s words are not recited verbatim, the entire ritual must be repeated [265]. This typically takes place in a dedicated baptismal font [citation needed].

Furthermore, members of the LDS Church hold that a baptism is only valid if it is performed by a Latter-day Saint who possesses the proper authority—specifically, a priest or elder [266]. This authority is believed to be passed down through a form of apostolic succession . Consequently, all new converts to the faith must be baptized or, if previously baptized in another faith, re-baptized . Baptism is understood to be symbolic of both Jesus ’s death, burial, and resurrection [267], and also of the baptized individual shedding their “natural” self to embrace a new identity as a disciple of Jesus [268].

According to Latter-day Saint theology, faith and repentance are indispensable prerequisites for baptism. The ritual, however, does not cleanse the participant of original sin , as Latter-day Saints do not subscribe to the doctrine of original sin. Mormonism explicitly rejects infant baptism [269] [270], maintaining that baptism must occur after the age of accountability , which is defined in Latter-day Saint scripture as eight years old [271] [272].

Latter-day Saint theology also includes the unique practice of baptism for the dead , wherein deceased ancestors are vicariously baptized by living members. They believe this practice aligns with what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:29. These proxy baptisms are performed in Latter-day Saint temples [273] [274]. A rather elaborate system for ensuring everyone gets their chance, living or dead.

Freemasonry

Following the significant tensions that arose between the Catholic Church and Freemasons in France in the aftermath of the French Revolution , French Freemasons began to develop their own rituals designed to replace those of the Church. These included, rather surprisingly, a form of baptism. Chrétien-Guillaume Riebesthal’s Rituel Maçonnique pour tous les Rites (Masonic Ritual for All Rites), [275] published in Strasbourg in 1826, notably contains one such baptismal rite. Lodges in Louisiana and Wisconsin reportedly performed baptism ceremonies in 1859, though these practices were met with widespread condemnation from their respective Grand Lodges .

In 1865, Albert Pike , a prominent figure in American Freemasonry, publicly conducted a ceremony of Masonic baptism in New York City. This event, however, was met with considerable skepticism by many American Masons, including Albert Mackey . A formal ceremony for Masonic baptism was later published by Charles T. McClenechan in 1884 [276]. It seems even fraternal organizations aren’t immune to the allure of ritualistic water.

Nonpractitioners

Quakers

Quakers , members of the Religious Society of Friends , do not believe in the baptism of either children or adults with water. They fundamentally reject all forms of outward sacraments in their religious life. Robert Barclay ’s Apology for the True Christian Divinity (a foundational explanation of Quaker theology from the 17th century) articulates their opposition to water baptism:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. [277] Here John mentions two manners of baptizings and two different baptisms, the one with water, and the other whereof he was the minister of, the other whereof Christ was the minister of: and such as were baptized with the first were not therefore baptized with the second: “I indeed baptize you, but he shall baptize you.” Though in the present time they were baptized with the baptism of water, yet they were not as yet, but were to be, baptized with the baptism of Christ.

— Robert Barclay , 1678 [278]

Barclay argued that water baptism was merely a practice belonging to the era preceding Christ . Now, he contended, individuals are baptized inwardly by the spirit of Christ , rendering the external sacrament of water baptism unnecessary and, in their view, meaningless [citation needed]. A rather direct approach to spiritual matters, bypassing the ceremonial entirely.

Salvation Army

The Salvation Army similarly does not practice water baptism, nor indeed any other outward sacraments . William Booth and Catherine Booth , the founders of the Salvation Army , held the conviction that many Christians had fallen into the trap of relying on the outward signs of spiritual grace rather than cultivating grace itself. They believed that the spiritual grace itself was what truly mattered. However, while The Salvation Army does not practice baptism internally, they are not opposed to baptism as it is practiced within other Christian denominations [279]. A pragmatic stance, acknowledging differing paths to the same spiritual goal.

Hyperdispensationalism

( Learn how and when to remove these messages )

There exist certain Christians, somewhat controversially termed “Hyperdispensationalists ” (specifically, Mid-Acts dispensationalists), who accept only the Epistles of Paul as directly applicable to the church in the present age. Consequently, they do not consider water baptism a practice for the church today, arguing that Paul , as God ’s apostle to the nations, was explicitly not sent to baptize. A more extreme subset, Ultradispensationalists (Acts 28 dispensationalism), who even reject the practice of the Lord’s Supper , similarly do not practice baptism, as these rites are not found in the later “Prison Epistles” [280]. Both these sects, however, believe that water baptism was a valid practice for covenant Israel. Hyperdispensationalists further assert that Peter ’s gospel message was distinct from Paul ’s [281]. Hyperdispensationalists propose: [citation needed]

  • The Great Commission [282] and its associated baptism were directed specifically towards early Jewish believers, not the Gentile believers of the mid-Acts period or later.
  • The baptism described in Acts 2:36–38 is interpreted as Peter ’s call for Israel to repent of their complicity in the death of their Messiah , rather than a Gospel announcement of atonement for sin, which they consider a later doctrine revealed through Paul .

Water baptism, as found early in the Book of Acts , is, according to this view [citation needed], now supplanted by the “one baptism” [145] [non-primary source needed] that John the Baptist had foretold [283] [non-primary source needed]. Other proponents [who?] of this view distinguish between John’s prophesied baptism by Christ with the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit ’s baptism of the believer into the body of Christ ; the latter, they contend, is the “one baptism” relevant for today [citation needed]. This “one baptism” for the contemporary believer, it is asserted [by whom?], is the “baptism of the Holy Spirit ” that incorporates the believer into the Body of Christ, the church [284] [non-primary source needed].

Many within this group [who?] also argue that John’s promised baptism by fire is still pending [citation needed], referring to the eventual destruction of the world by fire [285] [non-primary source needed].

Other Hyperdispensationalists [which?] hold the belief that baptism was indeed necessary up until the mid-Acts period [citation needed]. It’s a testament to how many ways one can interpret ancient texts, often leading to more division than clarity.

Debaptism

Most Christian churches, clinging to the doctrine of the sacramental character , view baptism as a singular, once-in-a-lifetime event that can neither be repeated nor undone. They maintain that those who have been baptized remain baptized, regardless of whether they later renounce the Christian faith by embracing a non-Christian religion or by completely rejecting religion . However, some organizations and individuals, in a rather futile gesture, are now engaging in the practice of “debaptism” [286]. One might wonder what they expect to achieve; a spiritual erasure isn’t quite as simple as removing a record from a dusty parish book.

Comparative summary

A brief comparative summary of the practice of baptism across various Christian denominations is provided below [287] [verification needed] [288] [289]. (This section, for obvious reasons, is not an exhaustive listing of every denomination, and therefore, it mentions only a fraction of the churches that practice “believer’s baptism”.)

DenominationBeliefs about baptismType of baptismBaptize infants?Baptism regenerates / gives spiritual lifeStandard
AnabaptistBaptism is considered by the majority of Anabaptist Churches (anabaptist means to baptize again) to be essential to Christian faith but not to salvation. It is considered to be an ordinance . [290]Traditionally by pouring or sprinkling, since the 18th century also immersion and submersion.NoNo. Faith in Christ is believed to precede and follow baptism.Trinity
Anglicanism“Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.” [288]Immersion or pouring. [128] [129]YesYesTrinity
BaptistsA divine ordinance, a symbolic ritual, a mechanism for publicly declaring one’s faith, and a sign of having already been saved, but not necessary for salvation.Submersion onlyNoNoTrinity
Brethren [291]Baptism is an ordinance performed upon adults in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is a commitment to live Christ’s teachings responsibly and joyfully.Immersion onlyNoYesTrinity
Calvary Chapel [292]Baptism is disregarded as necessary for salvation but instead recognizes as an outward sign of an inward changeImmersion onlyNoNoTrinity
ChristadelphiansBaptism is essential for the salvation of a believer. [293] [unreliable source?] It is only effective if somebody believes the true gospel message before they are baptized. [294] [unreliable source?] Baptism is an external symbol of an internal change in the believer: it represents a death to an old, sinful way of life, and the start of a new life as a Christian, summed up as the repentance of the believer—it therefore leads to forgiveness from God, who forgives people