Water Baptism In The New Testament

In the minds of some of even the later fathers baptism was not enough in itself for salvation. Tertullian called for repentance to accompany it (De poenitentia, 6) and Origen stated that sin must be forsaken (Homily 21, on Luke). Yet we know that in a real sense Tertullian believed in baptismal regeneration.

As to the mode used, Schaff gives two very revealing citations. One quotes Marriott (in Smith and Cheetham, I, 161) as saying: “Triple immersion [italics Schaff’s], that is thrice dipping the head while standing in the water, was the all but universal rule of the church in early times,” and he quotes in proof Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Jerome and Leo I. But Schaff points out that Marriott later admits (p. 168ff) that affusion and aspersion were exceptionally used, especially in clinical baptism. The second citation is from Dean Stanley’s Christian Institutes, who states that immersion was thrice dipping the head of the candidate, who stood nude in the water; but some claim the entire body was plunged under three times. The significant force of these citations is that while baptism may have been by immersion in many cases, it in all probability was not the entire plunging of the body as is practiced today, the claims of some not withstanding.

Most all of the fathers believed that baptism was to “complete and seal the spiritual process of regeneration…” And in both East and West baptism served three purposes, “forgiveness of sins, communication of the Spirit, and the obligation to fulfill the commandments of Christ.”

It does strike me as funny that Tutullian found no difference between the baptism of John and that of the apostles, as Acts gives very clear evidence in Acts 19:2-7 that they were not the same. The baptism into the Lord Jesus came after accepting him, and being baptized into his name, then the Holy Spirit worked within them.

Be Vier observes that there are no real standards but all indications to the early practices continually come back to immersion baptism as the preferred mode other than extraordinary circumstances which might prevent it. Be Vier rightly observes the following suggested order of preference, yet due to his background he points to perceived vagaries:

“About baptism, baptize in this way: After first repeating all these things, baptize in living (running) water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If you have no running water, baptize in other water, and if you cannot use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour (e[kceon) water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. And before the baptism let the baptizer and the one who is to be baptized and any others who can do so fast. And you must order the one who is to be baptized to fast one or two days beforehand.” This passage should make all the advocates of any mode today take notice. Nothing is made hard and fast about the mode used and the only thing actually commanded is the previous fast. The concept appears to be that any mode can be used, just so water is applied. The immersionists can well point out that their mode seems to have first choice (but one cannot even be dogmatic here), and it must also be noted that “cold” and “running” water would have precedence over any other, which excludes the modern heated baptistry. One fact is clear, very few Christians of this generation can be found who practice the teaching of the Didache to the letter, and indeed the very tone of the Didache seems to allow a great amount of freedom as to mode and amount of water used.