Featured Art: The Baptism of Christ by Jacopo Bassano (Jacopo da Ponte)
Baptism is a key sacrament in Christianity, but the way it’s practiced has sparked many debates throughout church history. Two major issues have stood out: The method of baptism (whether it should be done by immersion or by pouring or sprinkling) and the practice of infant baptism (whether or not to baptize infants). While these debates became more intense during the Protestant Reformation, they were largely unchallenged in earlier centuries.
In this article, I will explore how the earliest forms of Christianity practiced baptism using various methods, with no single, universally accepted approach.
The Two Most Common Perspectives On Baptism; Credobaptism and Paedobaptism.
Simply put, credobaptism (from the Latin credo, meaning “I believe”), view holds to the belief, that baptism should only be given to those who have made a personal profession of faith in Christ—typically adults or older children who are capable of understanding and choosing to follow Him.
In contrast, paedobaptism is the practice of baptizing infants or young children.
Historically, credobaptists argued that baptism should be a conscious decision made by the believer, and they typically emphasize immersion (fully submerging the person in water) as the proper method, rejecting practices like pouring or sprinkling.
What Does The Bible Say About of Baptism?
First, to address the concerns of the “Bible-only” or “Sola Scriptura” and “Prima Scriptura” communities, let’s explore what the Bible says on the subject of baptism.
To be fully transparent, the Bible is, at best, ambiguous on the topic.
Lets first look to infant baptism.
To be upfront, the New Testament does not explicitly mention infant baptism. However, the concept of household baptisms has been interpreted by many scholars as an indication that children, including infants, were baptized. A commonly cited example is in Acts 16:15, where the Philippian jailer and his entire household were baptized. Also note, the same is said about the household of Stephanas in 1 Corinthians 1:16.
While the text does not specifically mention infants, the cultural context of the time makes it highly likely that the “household” would have included children, and possibly infants. This ambiguity has led to differing interpretations, but the concept of household baptisms strongly suggests that the early church practiced the baptism of entire families when the head of the household converted.
We see another example in Acts 2:38-39 where the author tells us, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children…” Supporters of infant baptism interpret “your children” as indicating that the promise of salvation through baptism is extended not only to the adult hearers of Peter’s message but also to their children.
Now, regarding the mode of baptism, there are verses in the Bible that describe baptism in a way that suggests immersion.
In Matthew 3:16, it says:
“As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water.”
This phrase “went up out of the water” implies that Jesus was immersed, as it suggests He was in the water before He came out of it. Similarly, in Mark 1:10, it says:
“Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.”
Once again, the phrase “coming up out of the water” suggests that Jesus was fully immersed before He was lifted out. Additionally, in Acts 8:38-39, we find another example of immersion. This passage describes the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip:
“And he [Philip] commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more.”
In this case, both Philip and the eunuch “went down into the water” and “came up out of the water,” further suggesting immersion as the method used.
While these verses strongly point to immersion as the practice, it’s important to note that the Bible does not explicitly state that immersion is the only correct way to baptize. The text does not specify who should be baptized, and it does not provide an exact prescription for the method of baptism in every case. Any conclusions drawn about immersion being the sole valid method or about specific requirements for baptism are arguments from silence, as the New Testament is not definitive in giving these details.
What Evidence Is There? The Didache.
To see what available evidence we have we look to the Didache, a first-century text written around (50-70 CE), showing early Christian practices that included both immersion and pouring as acceptable forms of baptism, depending on the available water. This evidence supports the flexibility of baptismal practices and the widespread nature of baptism in early Christianity.
The Didache illustrates that the early church was more concerned with the act of baptism itself rather than with strict ritualistic details, meaning the practice was adaptable to different circumstances. In the Didache, we read the following:
“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.”
The idea of pouring as a valid form of baptism points to the general acceptance of baptism as a critical part of Christian life, with less concern over its exact mode. This is a critical piece of evidence showing that from the beginning, early Christians were willing to adapt the ritual based on availability and circumstances.
Furthermore, in Robin M. Jensen’s Living Water Images, Symbols, and Settings of Early Christian Baptism, we see the following,
“Based on available documents, historians have sometimes assumed that baptism was
usually accomplished by full immersion—or submersion—of the body (dunking).297. However, the archaeological and iconographic evidence is ambiguous on this point. Many—if not most—surviving baptismal fonts are too shallow to have allowed submersion. In addition, a significant number of depictions show baptismal water being poured over the candidate’s head (affusion), either from a waterfall, an orb, or some kind of liturgical vessel” (p.137). This suggests that while immersion may have been common, affusion was already a widespread and practical method in early Christian communities.
Jensen continues, explaining that the Latin term for immersion, derived from mergo, does not necessarily imply submersion but simply being “fully drenched.” In contrast, the Greek terms baptō and baptizō were traditionally associated with immersion but could also encompass pouring or other forms of washing. In this first century period, there was no universally accepted “right” way to perform baptism, which allowed for flexibility in how it was administered based on local customs and available resources.
What Did The Early Church Fathers Have To Say?
While the New Testament narrative is somewhat ambiguous regarding the baptism of infants, and if the Didache is not compelling enough, there is strong evidence that infant baptism was not only practiced early in church history but was also widely accepted. Let us look to the Patristics.
Irenaeus
In Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 22) written around 180 AD, Irenaeus, one of the most influential early Christian theologians, addresses the universal scope of Christ’s salvation. After discussing the transformative power of baptism, he writes:
“He came to save all through means of Himself – all, I say, who through him are born again to God – infants, and children, and boys and youths, and old men” (Against Heresies 2.22.4).”
While this passage does not directly mention baptism itself, the phrase “born again to God” is widely interpreted by scholars to refer to the process of baptism, especially in the context of the early Church’s understanding of salvation. Also, see John 3:5 . Irenaeus highlights that salvation through Christ is meant for all people, regardless of age. His inclusive language – “infants, and children, and boys and youths, and old men” – implies that baptism is for everyone, regardless of their stage in life, and therefore supports the idea that infants, as part of the broader human condition, are included in this salvific process.
Hippolytus
The Apostolic Tradition (c. 215 AD) by Hippolytus, one of the earliest Christian writings on baptism, clearly bears witness to the baptism of children, even infants. Hippolytus writes:
“⁴And first baptize the little ones; if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them. “
It is also translated as such:
“The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” (Additional Source) and Here
This practice suggests that the baptism of infants was an established tradition, not a novelty of later centuries.
Tertullian
Even though Tertullian (c. 190-220 AD) suggested that baptisms, particularly those of young children, should be delayed, his view was not a rejection of infant baptism. In his work On Baptism, Tertullian advocated for a delay until children reached an age where they could understand the significance of baptism. However, his writings do not prohibit the practice of baptizing infants outright. He acknowledges that infants could indeed be baptized, but his preference was to wait until they were older.
Cyprian of Carthage
Cyprian also supported infant baptism in his writings To Fidus, on the Baptism of Infants (c. 250 AD). In his letter to Fidus, Cyprian argues that God’s mercy should not be denied to anyone, including infants. I want to highlight, that the argument in Cyprian’s letter To Fidus, on the Baptism of Infants is concerned with when to baptize infants, not whether or not infants should be baptized.
He writes the following:
“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man.”
This suggests that, in Cyprian’s time, the idea that infants could be baptized was so widely accepted that it was seen as an essential part of Christian mercy and salvation. Looking further into Cyprian, we see an early defense of “clinical” baptisms, which were often performed by sprinkling or pouring water on the sick or dying. Cyprian wrote, “sprinkling with water had the same effect as immersion baptism, provided that it was performed within the ‘true church.’” He specifically cited Old Testament passages like Ezekiel 36:25 to support the notion that sprinkling was a valid form of cleansing from sin (Jensen’s Living Water Images, p.141).
Origen
We see another early church theologian, went even further, stating in his Commentaries on Romans, (c. 248 AD), that the church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.
“On this account also the church had a tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were given knew that there is in all persons the natural stains of sin which must be washed away by the water and the Spirit. On account of these stains the body itself is called the ‘body of sin’”
Origen believed that infants, though not personally sinful, required baptism for the remission of original sin. His statement reflects the growing theological consensus that baptism was not only for adults but was essential for infants as well.
Pope Cornelius
Furthermore, St. Cornelius’ Letter To Fabius of Antioch, describes the baptism of a man on his deathbed and reflects on the use of affusion for those who could not be baptized by immersion. The New Advent website describes the situation as such: “We know little of his life. St. Cornelius in his letter to Fabius of Antioch relates that Novatian was possessed by Satan for a season, apparently while a catechumen; for the exorcists attended him, and he fell into a sickness from which instant death was expected; he was, therefore, given baptism by affusion as he lay on his bed.”
In the Letter To Fabius of Antioch we see the following situation just described:
” But Satan, who entered and dwelt in him for a long time, became the occasion
of his believing. Being delivered by the exorcists, he fell into a severe sickness; and as he seemed about to die,
he received baptism by affusion, on the bed where he lay; if indeed we can say that such a one did receive it.”
The Rise of Augustine and the Doctrine of Original Sin
By the 4th and 5th centuries, the doctrine of original sin, as articulated by Augustine, became more prominent. Augustine’s writings emphasized that all humans, including infants, were born with original sin and therefore needed baptism for salvation. In his Sermon 213, Augustine states that Christ is the Savior of infants, as they are born with the inherited sin of Adam. This theological development further reinforced the practice of infant baptism and led to a greater urgency around baptizing infants as soon as possible after birth.
In summary, infant baptism and the practice of sprinkling were widespread and virtually unchallenged before the Protestant Reformation. While early debates existed—such as Tertullian’s calls for a delay in baptism, or the differing views on baptismal practices in the Didache—the overall consensus in early Christianity was clear: infants were baptized as part of the broader community of believers, with the sacrament seen as essential for both adults and children. These practices were fully integrated into the church’s teaching and ritual, reflecting a long-standing tradition that would continue to evolve but not be fundamentally challenged until the Reformation.
Sources for Further Study:
During the medieval period, infant baptism was widely practiced and largely unquestioned. It was seen as the normal means of initiating children into the Church and imparting grace. Theological reasons for infant baptism were primarily grounded in the understanding of original sin and the belief that baptism was necessary for salvation.
• The Second Council of Milevum (416) formally condemned the idea that infants should not be baptized, further solidifying the practice within the Church.
• Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) strongly defended infant baptism in his theological writings, particularly in the Summa Theologica, where he argued that infants receive the grace of baptism and are freed from original sin, even if they cannot personally express faith.
- The Architectural Setting of Baptism, by John Gordon Davies, (p.72-73) notes that by the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries, affusion became the dominant method in Europe for infant baptisms.
Conclusion: Comparing Two Scholarly Views, Robin M. Jensen & Everett Ferguson
To conclude, I want to look at two sources on infant baptism and immersing baptism. In the debate over early Christian baptism, two scholars Robin M. Jensen and Everett Ferguson provide differing but complementary perspectives, especially concerning immersion and infant baptism. I want to address how these views are sometimes misused by “quote miners” who cherry-pick statements to support their own agendas. See the following Here
In Living Water, Jensen argues that early baptism was flexible, with both immersion and pouring (affusion) being practiced. She emphasizes the spiritual significance of baptism over the specific method used. Early Christians adapted their practices based on available resources and local customs, as reflected in sources like the Didache. Jensen’s approach suggests that the practice was not rigid but shaped by the circumstances of the time.
Ferguson, in Baptism in the Early Church, takes a more cautious approach to infant baptism. He acknowledges that there is no firm evidence for the practice before the late second century, and suggests its origin may be linked to emergency baptisms for sick children. Over time, this grew into a more common practice, but Ferguson notes that debates over its propriety continued well into the fifth century. On the mode of baptism, Ferguson emphasizes that immersion was the norm, particularly in the fourth and fifth centuries, backed by strong historical and archaeological evidence.
In summary, both scholars agree on one key point: early Christian baptism was adaptable and evolved over time. Jensen highlights the flexibility of baptismal methods, while Ferguson traces the gradual development of infant baptism. By comparing these views, we can clear the waters and avoid the misuse of their words by quote miners who ignore the broader context. Both perspectives acknowledge the diversity of baptism practices in early Christianity, with no single, unchanging method dominating the early church.