8 Common Misconceptions About Baptism

Some subjects in the Bible are more difficult to comprehend than others. Even Peter said that Paul wrote about themes that are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16). But it should be obvious that matters about the plan of redemption should be the easiest subjects to grasp.

The topic of water baptism is mentioned dozens of times in the New Testament. It is intimately connected to the divine plan of salvation. Instructions regarding this sacred obligation are very precise. So it is truly amazing that this topic has been so grossly misunderstood in so many ways.

In this study, let's consider some of the false ideas about baptism that have risen across the centuries.

"Baptism Is Obsolete Today"

Some have been taught that although water baptism played a role in the divine scheme of things during the first century, it eventually became obsolete and is therefore not appropriate today.

An Anglican clergyman named E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913) originated a doctrine now known as Ultra-Dispensationalism. Basically, ultra-dispensationalism alleges that the water baptism of the New Testament was a Jewish ceremonial ritual that was a part of the Mosaic economy. Further, he contended that the Mosaic system was not abrogated until the end of the book of Acts. Accordingly, when the law of Moses was terminated, water baptism became obsolete.

How, then, are the numerous references to baptism in the epistles explained (e.g., Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27)? According to this view, those references are said to refer to a form of "Spirit baptism," which occurs the moment a person trusts in Christ. It is denied that these references have anything to do with water baptism.

What shall we say to these matters?

First, the law of Moses was terminated at the cross (Ephesians 2:15-16; Colossians 2:14), not at the end of the book of Acts, which occurred a third of a century after Christ's death. The water baptism mentioned in the book of Acts (cf. 8:36ff) was thus not a Jewish ceremony.

Second, the most obvious refutation of this false idea appears in Matthew's account of the Great Commission. In that account, the Lord commands his followers: "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them ... and lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:19).

Now here are two important facts about this passage. First, the "baptizing" clearly refers to water baptism, because it has a human administrator — "Spirit baptism" does not (Matthew 3:11).

Second, this command contains a promise that the Lord will always (unto the end of the world) be with those carrying out this commission. In other words, the water baptism contemplated will endure until the end of time. Water baptism is thus a permanent feature of the Christian system.

Then consider this. If there is no water baptism today, then there is no way to enter the kingdom. Why? Because it is by the birth of "water" (i.e., baptism) that one enters the kingdom of God (John 3:5; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13).

The ultra-dispensational view of baptism contradicts New Testament teaching.

"Baptism Is for Babies and Young Children"

Another common error associated with baptism is the notion that it can be administered to infants or young children, as well as adults. It is suggested, for instance, that baptism was symbolically pictured by circumcision. Colossians 2:11-12 is employed as a proof-text for this position. Since circumcision was for infants, it is contended that baptism is similarly for infants today. This argument has several major flaws.

First, if circumcision typifies baptism, as pedobaptists argue, then only males should receive baptism because only males were circumcised.

Second, the only analogy between circumcision and baptism, as per Colossians 2:11-12, is that both involve "putting off the flesh." Circumcision literally severs the flesh. But in baptism, one determines to sever oneself from fleshly pursuits. That exhausts the connection between circumcision and baptism.

Thirdly, since baptism is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38), it is not appropriate for infants or young children, because they have no sin (Matthew 18:3; 1 Corinthians 14:20). Infant baptism is unknown in the New Testament. As J. L. Jacobi, a Lutheran theologian, confessed: "Infant baptism was established neither by Christ nor the apostles" (287).

For more on children and baptism, see: What About the Baptism of Young Children?.

"Sprinkling Is an Acceptable Mode of Baptism"

It is a well-known fact that many religious groups, in the administration of what they call "baptism," do not immerse. Rather, they either pour water or sprinkle it on the candidate's head. But this procedure ignores the following facts.

The Greek word bapto means to "immerse"—nothing else. So the standard Greek lexicons affirm (Balz & Schneider, 192). Note that the word is translated "dip" in passages where there is no theological bias (cf. Luke 16:24; John 13:26).

Next, the New Testament makes it quite plain that baptism involves both burial and resurrection (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12). Sprinkling and pouring certainly do not require this.

History is also explicit that sprinkling and pouring are post-apostolic innovations. The historian Mosheim declares that baptism, in the first century, "was performed by an immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font" (36).

"Baptism Is Just a Symbol of Salvation"

A common denominational declaration regarding the purpose of baptism is this: "Baptism is a mere symbol of salvation. It is an outward sign of an inward grace." Frequently, 1 Peter 3:21 will be employed in an attempt to prove this assertion. Baptist writer B. H. Carroll, in his discussion of 1 Peter 3:21, declared that baptism "saves us in a figure, not reality" (218).

But there is absolutely no New Testament support for this allegation. Consider the following.

First, the Bible plainly teaches that baptism is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38), that it is to "wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16), and that it puts one "into Christ" (Romans 6:4, Galatians 3:27).

Second, in every New Testament passage where baptism and salvation are mentioned together, baptism always comes before salvation (cf. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21).

Third, 1 Peter 3:21 does not say that baptism merely saves figuratively. What it does teach is this. Noah and his family were saved through water. What does that mean? They were transported by means of water from a world of sin to a cleansed environment. Our salvation is the anti-type ("like-figure" — Greek: antitupos) of that. The anti-type refers to the reality that the figure represents. By baptism, we are conveyed from the state of guilt to the state of redemption.

Robert Stein, a Baptist scholar, has recently acknowledged: "At times salvation is said to come about through baptism. Here once again we can mention 1 Peter 3:21, where baptism is clearly said to save. The only way that we can separate baptism from salvation in this statement is by attributing to the word baptism a meaning different from which it usually bears" (335). Elsewhere, Dr. Stein declares that any attempt to spiritualize the water of 1 Peter 3:21 "drowns in the flood waters mentioned in verse 20!" (330).

"Baptism Is a Work of Human Merit"

Another twist to the foregoing error is the charge that baptism is excluded from the plan of redemption because it is a "work." And since no one is saved by "works" (Ephesians 2:9), baptism cannot be a part of our salvation. Our response is as follows.

First, baptism is a divine command (Acts 10:48) given by the Lord. To classify it as a work of human merit, as disdained in Ephesians 2:9, is a gross form of wickedness.

Second, if baptism is a work of human merit, then those who receive it, believing it is "for the remission of sins," have trusted in the wrong Savior and thus remain lost. No one can therefore patronizingly say: "We believe you are wrong about baptism, but we still accept you as a brother in Christ." That is nonsense.

Third, the New Testament clearly denies that baptism is a work of human merit. Paul declared that we are saved not by works of human righteousness, but by the washing of regeneration—or water baptism (Titus 3:5). Even Baptist scholar A. T. Robertson admits that the expression "washing of regeneration" is probably a "reference to baptism." However, he denies the plain language of the passage that connects the washing with salvation (607).

Simply put, human works of merit and water baptism are not in the same category. When one is raised in baptism, it is a "working of God" (Colossians 2:12), not a meritorious act of human effort.

"We Are Saved Through Baptismal Regeneration"

The Roman Catholic Church holds to the dogma of "baptismal regeneration." This is the idea that the rite of baptism itself has merit, separate from any preliminary obedience (e.g., faith or repentance). This is why the Roman Church administers what it calls "baptism" (it is rarely immersion) to infants, aborted fetuses and even the insane (Attwater, 45).

This is a woefully erroneous theology. The Scriptures teach that both faith in Christ (Mark 16:16) and repentance of sin (Acts 2:38) are conscious acts of obedience that must precede immersion. Baptism is not a magical ritual that automatically confers redemption. It is simply the appointed means by which God cleanses the alien sinner through the blood of his Son. Those who accuse the churches of Christ of practicing "baptismal regeneration" do so either ignorantly or maliciously.

"Baptism Must Be Administered in the Name of Jesus Only"

Preachers of the "oneness" Pentecostal persuasion argue that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same person, and that person is Jesus. Thus, they contend that, for the baptismal rite to be valid, the words "in the name of Jesus" must be uttered when baptism is administered.

Actually, no passage mentioning baptism gives instructions on what, if anything, should be said when immersing a person. Matthew 28:19 connects baptism with the phrase "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," but this verse does not suggest a verbal formula to be spoken during baptism. The Lord is simply declaring that when one is immersed, he is entering into a relationship with the Godhead three.

The phrase "into the name" signifies becoming the "possession of" and coming under "the protection of" the one whose name he bears (Arndt & Gingrich, 575). A comparison of several passages in which the term "name" is associated with baptism will certainly reveal that no precise verbal pattern of words is indicated (cf. Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). Several of these verses merely indicate that immersion is to be performed by the "authority" of Christ.

Here's a similar passage. "And whatsoever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus ..." (Colossians 3:17). Is there any difficulty understanding that when we are required to do anything "in the name of the Lord Jesus," no demand is being made for a vocalized formula? Then why can't the same principle be applied to baptism?

"It's Not Necessary to Understand the Purpose of Baptism"

It is becoming increasingly common for some to argue that one's baptism is valid as long as it was done "to obey God," regardless of whether the candidate understood its specific design or not. In other words, it really doesn't matter if someone wasn't baptized "for the remission of sins" (or some equivalent expression) as long as they had a good motive.

We believe this to be a mistaken viewpoint. The following questions put this issue in sharper focus.

1. If understanding the design of baptism is unnecessary, why is the purpose so frequently attached to the command in the New Testament?
2. If it is essential to understand that Jesus died "for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28), why isn't it necessary to understand that immersion is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38)?
3. If "obeying God" is the sole intellectual criterion for validating one's baptism, would not virtually everyone who has been immersed be a Christian, since all who submit to baptism do so to obey (certainly not to disobey) the Lord?
4. Does not obeying "from the heart" (Romans 6:17) imply that true obedience involves a correct understanding in the heart (cf. Matthew 13:15)?

Conclusion

Baptism is a very serious matter. Every person who truly wants to be well-pleasing to God should carefully consider whether they've been mistaken on this vital issue. The time to correct this is now.