Executive summary

This document examines the role of immersion (baptism) in Christian theology, addressing its necessity for salvation and its relationship to faith, repentance, and the Holy Spirit. By analyzing key scriptural passages from the gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles, the text explores whether baptism is merely symbolic or an essential act of obedience integral to forgiveness of sins, spiritual transformation, and incorporation into the Christian community. The study critically evaluates the doctrine of sola fide—the idea that faith alone is sufficient for salvation—by contrasting it with the consistent scriptural emphasis on baptism as a tangible response to faith. Historical, cultural, and theological contexts are considered to clarify how early Christians understood baptism, focusing on its role in the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the early Church. Through this comprehensive analysis, the document argues that scripture consistently portrays immersion (baptism) as indispensable for entering the kingdom of God and as a foundational practice of Christian discipleship.

​

In the gospels, the role of immersion (baptism) is presented as significant, though some ambiguity remains regarding its relationship with faith and the Holy Spirit. John 3:5 introduces the necessity of being “born of water and Spirit,” likely understood by early Christian audiences as referencing water baptism followed by spiritual transformation, though symbolic interpretations persist. In Matthew’s “great commission,” Jesus explicitly commands his disciples to immerse (baptize) all nations as the first step in making disciples, emphasizing baptism’s centrality to Christian practice. Mark 16:16 highlights the connection between belief, immersion, and salvation, affirming that both belief and baptism are essential, though it leaves unanswered the fate of those who believe but are not baptized. Throughout the gospels, Jesus and John the Baptist uphold baptism as a significant act, with no indication that it was ever intended to be optional or superseded. The consistent emphasis on baptism’s necessity, paired with its integration into Jesus’s final instructions, suggests it was regarded as a core component of salvation and discipleship, requiring further exploration in the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles to fully understand its role in early Christian theology.

​

In the Book of Acts, immersion (baptism) is consistently emphasized as essential for the cleansing of sins and remains central to Christian conversion long after Pentecost, the day the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus’s followers. Immersion in water is directly associated with forgiveness, and even the single instance in which the Holy Spirit was received before baptism—Cornelius and his household—was specifically intended to demonstrate that Gentiles could be admitted into the church. When Peter defends his actions in the following chapter, he does not argue that baptism is obsolete but states that failing to baptize would hinder God’s will. Throughout scripture, baptism is never portrayed as unnecessary; instead, it is consistently presented as the required step for forgiveness of sins and the ritual through which one enters the church. Early Christian writings and practices affirm this, showing that water baptism was never replaced by spiritual baptism. This unbroken tradition reflects the apostolic teaching that baptism in water is an indispensable element of initiation into the body of Jesus.

​

Yet, according to the statement in Mark, those who are immersed must continue to have faith. This point is reinforced in Paul’s letters, which were written to established Christian communities—that is, to individuals who were already baptized. While Paul does stress the importance of faith, and many verses are taken out of context to suggest that faith alone is sufficient, his letters also affirm the fundamental nature of water immersion. Remember, Paul argued against performing any act simply to fulfill a rule that no longer applied. Had he believed immersion was obsolete (like circumcision), he would have condemned those who practiced it for deviating from the true path to salvation: faith and being baptized by the Holy Spirit. However, when we look at the gifts of the Holy Spirit—those charisms conferred on believers—they include many blessings, but none of them ever suggest that forgiveness of sins is among them.

​​

Next, we see that Paul’s writings often emphasize faith as the foundation of justification, they never present faith as an isolated or sufficient condition for salvation. Instead, Paul situates faith within a broader framework that includes grace, obedience, and baptism. Baptism, far from being a mere symbolic gesture, is portrayed as the moment when believers are united with Jesus in his death and resurrection, clothed with his righteousness, and incorporated into his body, the church. Paul’s letters also assume that the communities he addresses have already undergone baptism, as was the universal practice of the early church. From this foundation, he focuses on the sustained and active faith that aligns with Jesus’s teaching in Mark 16:16: “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.” This continual emphasis on persevering faith, coupled with the inseparable act of baptism, demonstrates that salvation is depicted in scripture as a dynamic relationship between faith, grace, and obedient action—challenging the idea that justification rests on faith alone. This document will explore how Paul’s letters and the broader Christian scriptures witness reveal the indispensability of baptism and the necessity of a faith expressed through obedience to fully realize the gift of salvation.

​

Next, we analyzes two key passages in letters not written by Paul, 1 Peter 3:18-21 and Hebrews 6:1-8, to examine their implications for salvation and sola fide. In 1 Peter, the author explicitly states that "baptism... now saves you," connecting it to Noah’s ark as a prefiguration of salvation through water. Baptism is portrayed as more than symbolic, acting as an appeal to God for a good conscience, with its saving power tied to the resurrection of Christ. While baptism is presented as an outward expression of faith rather than a legalistic work, the passage challenges sola fide by emphasizing baptism's essential role in the salvation process. Hebrews 6:1-8 warns against spiritual stagnation and apostasy, urging believers to grow beyond foundational teachings like faith and baptism toward spiritual maturity. It stresses that even those who have shared in the Holy Spirit and tasted salvation can fall away, facing judgment for unfruitfulness. The agricultural metaphor reinforces the necessity of faith bearing fruit through obedience and perseverance. Together, these passages challenge the adequacy of sola fide, presenting salvation as requiring both faith and the transformative actions of baptism, as well as ongoing faithfulness and spiritual growth.

​

Following this, we examine the perspectives of early Christian leaders and the historical trajectory of baptism's role in salvation. Early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, consistently interpreted baptism as essential for spiritual rebirth, forgiveness of sins, and union with Christ, often citing John 3:5 as a scriptural basis for its necessity. Their proximity to the apostles and reliance on Gospel teachings challenge claims that the early Church fundamentally misunderstood Jesus's message. Writers like Augustine and Ambrose further reinforced baptism as a sacrament tied to salvation, a view maintained by both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions even after the Great Schism. The Protestant Reformation introduced a departure from this consensus, with Martin Luther’s sola fide doctrine asserting salvation by faith alone, though some Protestant movements, such as the Restoration Movement and Oneness Pentecostalism, later reinstated baptism as central to salvation. These historical developments highlight the early and widespread consensus on baptism's indispensable role, juxtaposed against the later reinterpretations that emerged during the Reformation and beyond.

​

Next we examines the baptism of the Holy Spirit, emphasizing its role as divine empowerment and guidance rather than the means of salvation. Scriptural descriptions, including being filled with the Spirit (Acts 2:4), sealed by the Spirit (Ephesians 1:13), and receiving the Spirit’s gifts (1 Corinthians 12:7-11), highlight the transformative and equipping work of the Holy Spirit in believers' lives. However, these actions are consistently distinct from the forgiveness of sins and salvation. Passages such as Acts 2:38 and John 3:5 make clear that the cleansing of sins through water baptism must precede the reception of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the baptism of the Spirit complements, rather than replaces, the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

​​

Next, we explore the believer's disposition, emphasizing faith as the foundational state of trust and confidence in God, which prompts repentance and baptism, yet it asserts that faith alone does not result in salvation. Baptism cleanses sin and unites the believer with Christ, while the Holy Spirit empowers believers for spiritual life and service; salvation, as outlined in Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16, requires faith paired with these transformative acts. The argument examines scriptural clarity, demonstrating that key passages consistently link salvation to baptism and works, leaving sola fide (faith alone) unsupported. The implausibility of a 1500-year gap in recognizing sola fide as truth highlights the Holy Spirit's faithful guidance of the Church, which preserved the gospel's integrity from the beginning, as evidenced by its consistent emphasis on baptism, repentance, and obedience. The discussion on discernment emphasizes the Holy Spirit's role in equipping believers to test doctrines like sola fide against scripture, ensuring fidelity to Christ’s teachings. Warnings about deception, found throughout the New Testament, underscore the dangers of doctrines that diminish baptism and repentance, distorting the path to salvation. Furthermore, denying the Spirit's ability to guide the Church faithfully for 1500 years parallels the unforgivable sin described in Matthew 12:31-32, where rejection of the Spirit’s evident work results in eternal condemnation. Finally, by analyzing how scripture could have been written to clearly support sola fide but was not, the text reveals that its exclusion is deliberate, underscoring God’s cohesive plan for salvation, which requires faith, baptism, repentance, and obedience.

​

Thus, the Christian scriptures, and the writings of the earliest followers long before the Orthodox Church was established, clearly indicate that immersion in water was the ritual required to forgive the sins of the sinner and admit that person into the church. Only after this immersion would the Holy Spirit descend upon the individual, bestowing gifts that produce the fruits of the Spirit.

​

The Great Schism of 1054 formally separated Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism after centuries of doctrinal and political tensions, chiefly over papal authority and the filioque clause. Eastern Orthodoxy centers on theosis, in which believers unite with God by cooperating with divine grace through faith, works, and sacraments; because this mystical process views salvation communally rather than solely juridically, it did not lead to sola fide. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches salvation as both justification (being made right with God) and sanctification (growing in holiness), integrating faith, works, and sacraments—an approach that drew criticism during the Reformation, especially due to abuses like the sale of indulgences. As a result, justificatio sola fide (justification through faith alone) emerged within offshoots of Roman Catholicism, notably Lutheranism, the Reformed tradition, and Anglicanism, all of which place stronger emphasis on the authority of Scripture while reducing the sacramental role in salvation. My denomination in my youth was Baptists, who primarily sprang from the Reformed tradition, sharing its emphasis on sola scriptura and a regenerate church membership, but were also influenced by English Separatists from the Anglican Church. Early Baptist leaders like John Smyth and Thomas Helwys rejected Anglican practices such as infant baptism, while retaining Reformed theological principles through Puritan and Separatist influences. Subsequent protestant movements, like the Restoration Movement and Oneness Pentecostalism, emphasize baptism as essential for salvation, with the former teaching immersion for the remission of sins and the latter requiring baptism in Jesus’ name and receiving the Holy Spirit. In contrast, Anabaptists view baptism as symbolic and not necessary for salvation.

​​​

Introduction

I’m in an awkward position: I’m finding myself suddenly defending the beliefs of the Catholic church over the beliefs of the Baptist church. Well, at least one in particular. The belief of justificatio sola fide states that faith alone is sufficient to achieve salvation, and not other “works of the law.” This contrasts with many Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and some anabaptist (e.g., Mennonite) faiths, but is central to the beliefs of many protestant churches, including Baptists. For Catholic and Orthodox churches, while faith is required, so are baptism and participation in the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist (communion), confession (reconciliation), and other acts of penance. They emphasize that salvation involves a combination of God’s grace, faith, and good works. These works are not just moral actions but include acts of love, charity, and adherence to the teachings of the Church, as part of living a life transformed by faith. For some Anabaptists, only faith and baptism are required for salvation, but their interpretation of “faith” often includes a strong emphasis on discipleship and living a life that visibly reflects the teachings of Jesus. They view baptism as an outward sign of an inward transformation and commitment, typically reserved for believers who can consciously choose to follow Christ (hence their practice of adult baptism). For Baptists, like Anabaptists, who practice adult baptism, baptism is only required for membership in the church and is not considered necessary for salvation. According to Baptist beliefs, one can attain salvation and go to heaven through faith alone. Within evangelical Protestant churches, being “saved” is generally understood as a mental and spiritual exercise that involves personally acknowledging one’s sinfulness, believing in one’s mind (and “heart,” however that works) that Jesus’s death and resurrection provide forgiveness and eternal life, and committing internally to a relationship with Him. It is often emphasized that this salvation is a gift of grace from God, received through faith alone, and does not require any physical action.

​

This contrast in beliefs was suddenly made much more pronounced when someone I know was baptized. The pastor made a clear attack on those faiths that require baptism for salvation, and this was more awkward given that there were people I knew to be Catholic and Mennonite in the audience. What was more interesting was that during the service, the pastor was referring to John 3, especially “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.” However, as he was speaking, I was reading John 3:5 where Jesus answered “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.” My initial goal was to show that faith indeed was sufficient, as this was what I was taught and believed for twenty years, but John 3:5 got me to start questioning that fundamental assumption. No one likes to be wrong, and so I was hoping that my belief, even if that was over three decades ago, was correct. We will start by examining this statement, and then using a similar analysis for other references to salvation and baptism in Christian scriptures. A contents is provided here:

​

1. The gospels

2. Acts of the Apostles

3. Paul's letters

4. Other letters

5. Early church followers

6. Being filled with the Holy Spirit

7. The character of the follower

8. Analysis

9. Verses allegedly supporting sola fide

10. Arguments supporting sola fide

11. Summary

12. Epilogue

​​​

However, before we begin, it is critical to understand the origins of the word “baptism”. the The word for baptism in koine (common) Greek is the neuter noun βαπτίσμα that is pronounced bap'-tis-mah. Consequently, baptism is simply a transliteration of this Greek word. However, this word comes from the koine Greek verb βαπτίζω, bap'-tiz-ō, which is translated as meaning “to immerse” or “to submerge,” the implication, of course, being in water or some other liquid. The verb “to dip” is translated to the βάπτω (báp'-tō), a clear cognate, but still a distinct word. The word is also distinct from verbs meaning to “to wash” or “to clean” (νίπτω or níp-tō), “to bathe”  (λούω or loo-ō), or “to wash clothes” (πλύνω or plún-ō). Josephus uses the verb to describe the sinking of ships or drowning solders, implying literal submersion in water. Plutarch used the word metaphorically in phrases such as being “submerged in misfortunes,” and other instances of its use include being “immersed in calamities” or “buried in debt.”​ Consequently, throughout this document, we will use the translation and only place the transliteration in parentheses.

​

1. The gospels

We must now determine what the phrase “no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit” actually says. Consider the following equivalent mathematical statement:

“No one can calculate the area of a circle without knowing both its radius and the value of π.”

Notice that for the first statement to be true (being able to calculate the area of a circle), you must know the radius of that circle and you must know the value of π. We can write each of these in the more traditional form of an implication:

1. “If one is not born of water and Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

2. “If one does not know both the radius of a circle and the value of π, one cannot calculate its area.”

​

A logical implication is a statement of the form “if p, q” and such a statement is considered true or valid if whenever p is true, q must also be true. For example, consider the statement: “If it is raining, there are clouds in the sky.” This statement is true or valid because rain requires sufficient atmospheric humidity to allow precipitation to occur, and this humidity must first condense into clouds. In other words, rain cannot happen without clouds.

Two different logical statements are considered to be equivalent if either statement cannot be true without the other statement being true. For example, the statements “she is over five foot and ten inches tall” and “she is over 1778 mm tall” are equivalent, as are the statements “x > 2” and “x³ > 8,” this later example requiring algebra and properties of the real numbers. The converse of the implication about clouds and rain is the statement “If there are clouds in the sky, it is raining.” Unlike the previous statement, this statement is false or invalid: one need only observe the sky on most days to see clouds without rain. This demonstrates that “if p, q” is not equivalent to its converse, “if q, p.”

What is logically equivalent to “if p, q” is its contrapositive: “if not q, not p.” Returning to the example, the contrapositive of “If it is raining, there are clouds in the sky” is “If there are no clouds in the sky, it is not raining.” This is also true and valid because, without clouds, there is no source of precipitation. ​By understanding the equivalence between a statement and its contrapositive, we can better analyze the validity of logical arguments. Conversely, understanding that a statement is not equivalent to its converse highlights the importance of carefully examining the direction of logical implications. 

Sometimes, determining the truth of an implication is easier if you examine its contrapositive. I realized this when I once said something in the form “If you are a good student, you get good grades.” The contrapositive of this statement is, “If you do not get good grades, you are not a good student.” ​Upon reflection, I recognized that the contrapositive is false: there are many reasons a student may not achieve good grades while still being a good student. These reasons might include external challenges, systemic biases, or personal circumstances unrelated to their ability or effort. Since the contrapositive is false, the original statement, “If you are a good student, you get good grades,” must also be false because a statement and its contrapositive are logically equivalent. ​This example illustrates the value of examining the contrapositive when assessing the validity of an implication. It can help uncover assumptions or biases embedded in the original statement, leading to a deeper understanding of the situation.

​​

Returning to our previous statements by Jesus and that concerning the area of a circle, the contrapositive statements are

1. “If one can enter the kingdom of God, one has been born of water and Spirit.”

2. “If one can calculate the area of a circle, one knows both its radius and the value of π.”

We will now focus on what the first statement is really saying: In this context, the word “can” suggests possibility or capability, implying that that being able to enter the kingdom of God is contingent on having been “born of water and Spirit.” The word “can” suggests that the opportunity or capability to enter exists but is conditional. It also means permission or allowance, but it it presupposes that access to the kingdom of God requires meeting the specific criterion of being “born of water and Spirit” and that without this condition, the possibility does not exist.

​

Thus, the question is what does it mean to be “born of water”? The obvious answer, and one supported by Catholics, Orthodox and Anabaptists, is immersed in water (or baptized in water). There are, however, arguments against this:

1. One interpretation understands “water” symbolically as cleansing or purification from sin, emphasizing inner spiritual renewal rather than an external ritual.

2. Another sees “water and Spirit” as a unified metaphor for the transformative work of the Holy Spirit, where water imagery highlights the Spirit's cleansing power.

3. A third view sees “water” as referring to natural birth (amniotic fluid), contrasting physical birth with the spiritual rebirth of the Spirit.

4. Lastly, some interpret “water” as the Word of God, aligning with passages like Ephesians 5:25-27, where the Word plays a role in spiritual regeneration.

​

The first and second are symbolic and metaphoric, but we can argue against the third and fourth:

1. Jesus is allegedly speaking to a member of the Sanhedrin, someone well versed in Jewish scriptures. Nowhere in the Tanakh does it associate birth with the release amniotic fluid. There are many associations the Judean scriptures make with birth, highlighting its natural, spiritual, and symbolic significance. Birth is portrayed as the direct work of God, as seen in Psalm 139:13, where he is described as knitting a person together in the womb. It is also seen as a divine blessing, with children regarded as a gift from God, exemplified in Psalm 127:3. At the same time, the pain of childbirth is acknowledged as part of the human condition, stemming from the consequences of the fall in Genesis 3:16. The physical and ceremonial aspects of birth are described vividly, such as the cutting of the cord and washing of the newborn in Ezekiel 16:4. Naming a child is deeply connected to birth, symbolizing identity and destiny, as illustrated in Genesis 21:3 with the naming of Isaac. Birth also serves as a powerful metaphor for renewal, creation, and national identity, as in Isaiah 66:8, where a nation is poetically described as being born in a day. Finally, it is presented as the fulfillment of divine promises, such as the birth of Isaac fulfilling God’s covenant in Genesis 18:10. These perspectives together emphasize the sacred, multifaceted role of birth in the narrative and theology of the Tanakh, yet none of them refer to the release of the amniotic fluid or describe a birth as being “of water.”

2. The idea that “born of water” in John 3:5 refers to the Word of God, based on Ephesians 5:26, doesn’t hold up for several reasons. First, Ephesians was written much later, likely by a follower of Paul, and reflects ideas that came after Jesus’s time and the apostolic era. It’s unlikely that this later interpretation would influence the author of John, which focuses on Jesus’s teachings. In John 3:5, Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus in a Jewish context, where water was clearly understood as a symbol of purification and cleansing, such as in ritual immersion (mikveh) or prophetic references like Ezekiel 36:25-27. That gospel’s focus on being “born of water and Spirit” is about renewal and entering the kingdom of God, ideas that are tied more to immersion (baptism) and transformation than to later theological metaphors about “the Word”. Additionally, the synoptic gospels, which are closer to Jesus’s time and teachings, never connect water with the Word of God—they focus on baptism and repentance. Trying to read the imagery from Ephesians back into John 3:5 forces a later Christian idea onto a text rooted in a different time and context. It is better to interpret “born of water” in line with the Jewish practices and symbols of Jesus’s time, rather than through a lens developed decades later.

We will therefore continue to investigate other references to immersion (baptism) to determine whether “born of water” in John 3 should be understood literally (the physical immersion of baptism), symbolically (e.g., representing spiritual cleansing), or metaphorically (e.g., a figure of speech for a broader spiritual truth). If “born of water” is interpreted literally, as immersion (baptism), it aligns with the consistent emphasis on physical acts of faith and purification in Jewish traditions and early Christian practices, such as John the Baptist’s ministry and Jesus’s own immersion (baptism) in the Jordan. However, if it is symbolic or metaphorical, it requires support from other passages in scripture that interpret water as representing something beyond its tangible reality, like spiritual cleansing or the Word of God. To resolve this, we will examine how water and immersion (baptism) are used throughout the New Testament and whether the broader context of Jesus’s teachings supports one interpretation over another. This investigation will also consider the historical and cultural practices of Jesus’s time, as well as the theological implications of these interpretations within early Christian communities.

​

Christians always insist that scripture should always be read “in context.” Thus, the oft-sited statement “so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life,” must be​ read in the context of John 3, and prior to this statement, the author had Jesus state the logical equivalent of “if one is not born of water and Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Let us therefore look elsewhere to see if there is support for the idea of justificatio sola fide.

​​​

1.1 Matthew

Perhaps the best place to start is the great commission that appears at the end of the gospel of Matthew. Here, Jesus is instructing the disciples:

​“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, immersing (baptizing) them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.”

Here, Jesus gives two commands regarding the making of new disciples by​

1. immersing (baptizing) them, and

2. instructing them to follow all the teachings and commands Jesus had given them. 

This statement is after the execution of Jesus and his alleged resurrection. When this event takes place in relation to the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descends upon the disciples, is debated (in Matthew, it takes place in Galilee, but in Luke, the disciples never leave the vicinity of Jerusalem before the resurrected Jesus ascends into heaven); however, the instruction itself seems to be a clear and unambiguous statement. There is no opportunity for it to be understood as symbolic or metaphoric because the commands Jesus gives are explicitly practical and directive in nature: ​The disciples are told to “go,” “make disciples of all people or ethnic groups (ἔθνη),” “immersing them” (the word βαπτίζοντες means immersing, but Christians use the transliteration of baptízontes to get baptizing, as opposed to using the literal translation immersing), and “teach them.” These are concrete actions that involve physical acts (e.g., immersing involves water) and verbal instruction (teaching requires communication). Unlike other passages where Jesus uses parables or symbolic language to convey deeper spiritual truths, this directive is part of a farewell address where clarity would be paramount. Prior to this, the only references to immersion (baptism) are the actions of John the Baptist, who fully immersed people in the River Jordan. Nothing in Jesus’s words during the great commission, nor in the narrative provided by the author of Matthew, suggests that the immersion (baptism) commanded by Jesus differed in form from John’s practice of full immersion—and if the author intended to indicate a new form of immersion (baptism), this would have been the appropriate moment to clarify it. The lack of clarifying instructions, figurative language or illustrative comparisons suggests that Jesus intended these instructions to be taken at face value and carried out as described.

​​

​In the “great commission” recorded in Matthew, Jesus delivers his parting instructions to the disciples—instructions that bear considerable theological weight for understanding the early follower’s view of immersion (baptism). At such a critical juncture, it is unlikely that Jesus would leave a core and central command ambiguous or purely symbolic. While it is possible for Jesus to speak figuratively, the nature of this farewell discourse—commissioning the disciples for worldwide mission—strongly suggests he is being straightforward and direct in a practical manner.

Indeed, Jesus had ample time with the disciples after the resurrection, though the gospel of Matthew provides only a concise summary of these final teachings, presumably the highlights. Had Jesus intended immersion (baptism) to be merely symbolic or secondary, he could have clarified or redefined it accordingly. Given that he could have clarified or modified the rite of baptism if it were secondary or purely symbolic, his explicit initial command to “immerse (baptize) them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” underscores its importance. Moreover, this instruction follows the same physical form of immersion already known through John the Baptist’s practice but now is expanded, emphasizing that this is no longer the immersion (baptism) of John, but the immersion (baptism) in the name of god, his son and the spirit of god, rather than into John’s immersion (baptism) of repentance.

If the author was divinely inspired to transmit Jesus’s authoritative teaching, we have no indication that the mode or necessity of baptism was abandoned or diminished; rather, the text portrays it as a central and indeed primary aspect of making disciples, alongside ‘teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded.’ Finally, if Jesus had considered the act of immersion secondary to the belief advanced by proponents of justificatio sola fide, it seems unlikely that his foremost instruction would be to immerse (baptize) “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

​​​

1.2 Mark

We can also look at the words of Jesus in Mark 16:16:

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is immersed (baptized) will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.”

This appears in the most common ending of Mark, but this text does not appear in the oldest manuscripts. You will note the parallel to the great commission recorded in Matthew. The statement is as follows:​

1. The one who believes and has been immersed (baptized) will be saved.

2. The one who does not believe will be condemned.

The word translated as believes is πιστεύω, which generally means “to believe,” “to have faith,” or “to trust.” This is negated in the second part by prefixing the word with an “a”, so ἀπιστήσας, thus, meaning the opposite of believing, having faith or trusting. Reinterpreting these as an implication, we have:

1. If one believes and has been immersed (baptized), one will receive salvation.

2. If one does not believe, one will be condemned.

In Mark 16:16, the term “condemned” most likely refers to divine judgment for unbelief. The Greek word κατακριθήσεται emphasizes being judged guilty or sentenced, which strongly suggests separation from God as the result of rejection of the gospel. While the text itself does not explicitly describe “hell” or eternal punishment, the broader biblical context supports the idea that condemnation entails eternal consequences. For instance, John 3:18 connects condemnation to unbelief, stating that those who do not believe are already condemned, while Matthew 25:46 explicitly links judgment to eternal punishment for the unrighteous. In the immediate context of Mark 16:16, salvation and condemnation are presented as contrasting outcomes. Salvation is understood as reconciliation with God and eternal life, so condemnation logically points to the opposite: estrangement from God. This dichotomy aligns with the overall message of the Christian writings regarding faith and judgment. Additionally, many Christian traditions interpret this condemnation as referring to hell—eternal separation from God—given the consistency of this theme across scripture. However, it’s also important to note that some scholars suggest “condemnation” could encompass broader consequences, including spiritual and temporal judgment, not limited strictly to hell. Thus, under the assumption that the author is trying to present a dichotomy then the second statement is “If one does not believe, one will be condemned.” We still have an issue, for the contrapositive of each of these is:

1. If one does not receive salvation, one does not believe or has not been immersed (baptized).

2. If one receives salvation, one does believe.

The first has the statement that “one believes and has been immersed (baptized).” The negation of this is “it is false that one both believes and has been immersed (baptized)”, but the negation of a conjunction is a disjunction of the negation of each of the terms. For example, the statement “I am over 6' tall and I weigh at least 270 lbs” is false if I am either not over 6' tall or I do not weigh at least 270 lbs. Rewritten, “It is false that I am over 6' tall and weigh at least 270 lbs” is equivalent to saying “I am either 6' tall or shorter or I weigh less than 270 lbs.” We have done the same with the statement “It is false that one both believes and has been baptized,” rewriting it as “one does not believe or one has not been immersed (baptized).”

​

You will notice, however, it does not what happens if one believes but has not been immersed (baptized). This is analogous to the two statements:

1. If you pass the mid-term and final examinations, you will pass the course.

2. If you fail the final examination, you will not pass the course.

This does not indicate what happens if you pass the final examination, but fail the mid-term. For example, the grading scheme may be as follows:

1. The final examination has twice the weight of the the mid-term.

2. However, if you fail the final examination, your maximum grade possible is 49.

Under such circumstances, if you achieved a grade of 60 on the final, then achieving a 40 on the mid-term means you still pass with a 53, while achieving a 20 on the mid-term means you fail the course with a 47. The first two statements describe many, but not all possible cases.

​

Similarly, these two statements in Mark do not indicate what happens if you “believe” but have not been immersed (baptized). From these two statements, we cannot conclude whether or not one will receive salvation or one will be condemned if one believes but has not been immersed (baptized). Thus, this does not support justificatio sola fide, it does not deny it, either.

​

As with Matthew, it is also important to ask if the author of Mark ever meant for immersion (baptism) to mean anything else other than immersion in water. Apart from one question about the immersion of John the Baptist in Mark 11, the last reference to immersion (baptism) in the book of Mark prior to Jesus’s execution is found in Mark 10:35-40, where two of Jesus’s disciples demonstrate they are two self-serving or opportunistic Galileans, following Jesus to further their own presumptuous and overconfident ambitions:

James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to him,

“Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.”

And he said to them,

“What is it you want me to do for you?”

And they said to him,

“Appoint us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.”

But Jesus said to them,

“You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink or be immersed (baptized) with the immersion (baptism) that I am immersed (baptized) with?”

They replied,

“We are able.”

Then Jesus said to them,

“The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the immersion (baptism) with which I am baptized you will be baptized, but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to appoint, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

Jesus was baptized through immersion, and when he speaks to James and John about their future immersion (baptism), there is no indication that he means anything other than a similar immersion. His reference to their immersion (baptism), in the context of his impending suffering and death, may symbolize a deeper participation in his fate, but it is still framed using the same terminology and imagery of physical immersion. Nothing in this interaction or elsewhere in Mark suggests that baptism has taken on a different form or meaning apart from immersion in water. Furthermore, the author of Mark 16, even in the longer ending, provides no indication that the ritual of immersion (baptism) has changed from the practice consistently described earlier in the Gospel. This consistency reinforces the idea that the author of Mark intended "baptism" to be understood in the same way throughout the text—as an act of immersion, continuing the precedent set by John the Baptist and practiced by Jesus.

​

In Mark 16:16, Jesus’s final words parallel his commission in Matthew by highlighting the centrality of immersion (baptism). Had baptism been merely optional for salvation, he could have omitted it from his directive: “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; the one who does not believe will be condemned.” Instead, its inclusion underscores the importance of this ritual. If Jesus intended baptism to be symbolic or metaphorical, this passage would have been the ideal moment to offer an alternative interpretation.

​

1.3 What John the Baptist said...

Let us next look at the statements of John the Baptist. First, it is important to note that John’s immersion in (baptism of) water, while superficially was similar to that of mikveh (מקוה) is fundamentally different. First, the word baptism originates from the Greek βάπτισμα, derived from the verb βαπτίζω, meaning “to immerse” or “to dip.” This, in turn, comes from βάπτω, which also means “to dip” or “to submerge.” In classical Greek, these terms were used in non-religious contexts, such as dipping cloth into dye or immersing objects in water, and metaphorically to describe being overwhelmed. In the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, baptizō was used to describe acts of ritual washing, as in 2 Kings 5:14, where Naaman dipped himself in the Jordan River.

The word מקוה, however, has the root meaning of “a gathering” or “a collection,” specifically referring to a collection of water. The Jewish equivalent is ritual immersion, typically performed in a mikveh, which served various purposes rooted in the Torah. Immersion was primarily a means of achieving ritual purity, required after events such as contact with a corpse, menstruation, or childbirth, as outlined in Leviticus 15:13 and Leviticus 16:26. It symbolized both physical and spiritual cleansing, allowing individuals to approach God in a state of holiness. Immersion was also central to conversion to Judaism, signifying a complete transformation and entry into the covenant community of Israel. Additionally, priests were required to immerse before performing their duties in the Temple, as described in Exodus 29:4, highlighting its importance in preparing for sacred service. Beyond these mandated uses, immersion became a regular practice for devout Jews, emphasizing personal piety and spiritual readiness. Passages like Ezekiel 36:25, which speaks of God sprinkling clean water to cleanse His people, reflect the symbolic and transformative significance of water in Jewish thought. Thus, ritual immersion in Jewish tradition emphasized purification, renewal, and readiness to enter into deeper communion with God. 

​

The immersion of John the Baptist, however, was not one that provided ritual purity. In his words, the purpose of his immersion was stated as follows:

1. Mark 1:4-5 has John the Baptist proclaim “an  immersion (baptism) of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And the whole Judean region and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him and were baptized by him in the River Jordan, confessing their sins.”

2. Matthew 3:11 has John the Baptist say “I baptize you with water for repentance.”

3. Luke 3:3 has John the Baptist proclaim “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”

The gospel of John, however, gives a different reason for his immersion, for in John 1:31, he says “I myself did not know him, but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel.” What is critical here, however, is that his immersion was not there to satisfy the requirements of the Jewish law, but was an innovation: the introduction of an immersion for the purpose of repentance with the ultimate goal of the forgiveness of sins. This differed from the mikveh, which was for ritual purity, and from the instructions in the Tanakh, where sacrifices were made for the forgiveness of sins. These sacrifices included the sin or purification offering (קרבן חטאת) and guilt offering (אשם), which address individual or specific transgressions, often unintentional, as described in Leviticus 4-6. However, the sacrifices made on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), detailed in Leviticus 16, are unique as they provide collective atonement for the sins of the entire nation of Israel. This ritual involves the high priest offering a bull for his household, a goat for the people, and sending a scapegoat into the wilderness (Azazel), symbolically carrying away the nation’s sins. While individual offerings focus on specific offenses, Yom Kippur’s sacrifices emphasize communal cleansing and a complete removal of transgressions, making it central to the biblical concept of atonement. It is critical to note that the sacrifices for atonement were on Yom Kippur and not on the Passover. The sacrifice on Passover, as described in Exodus 12, was to commemorate the deliverance from Egypt, with the lamb’s blood marking their homes to spare them from the final plague. 

​​

Next, John the Baptist contrasts his immersion with that of Jesus:

1. Mark 1:7-8: He proclaimed, “The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the strap of his sandals. I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

2. Matthew 3:11 where he says that Jesus will “baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”

3. Luke 3:16 John answered all of them by saying, “I baptize you with water, but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”

This contrast presents the first potential argument that only John baptized with water, while Jesus’s baptism was intended to be a symbolic immersion in the Holy Spirit and fire. The imagery in Matthew 3:12 reinforces this interpretation: “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” In this metaphor, the wheat symbolizes the followers and believers of Jesus, the granary represents the community of the faithful, and the chaff refers to unbelievers destined for judgment. The fiery aspect of this baptism could thus signify the refining and purifying power of the Holy Spirit, as well as the ultimate judgment of unbelief.

​

However, understanding whether Jesus’s baptism is entirely distinct from John’s practice of immersion in water requires further exploration. The narrative in Acts and the letters of the early apostles shed light on how Jesus’s followers interpreted and practiced baptism. These writings suggest that, while Jesus’s baptism includes the promise of spiritual empowerment through the Holy Spirit, the outward ritual of immersion in water continued as a defining practice of initiation into the Christian faith. Therefore, determining the relationship between John's baptism and Jesus’s baptism involves recognizing both continuity in form and transformation in spiritual significance.

​

1.4 Details in the gospel of John

John the Baptist’s ministry began with his own act of baptism, immersing his disciples as a sign of repentance and preparation for the coming Messiah. Those who were baptized by John, in turn, baptized others, spreading his message of spiritual renewal. Similarly, the Gospel of John mentions that Jesus’s disciples baptized others, even though Jesus himself did not perform baptisms directly. This suggests that the disciples, having been commissioned to baptize, were themselves baptized—likely by John the Baptist or possibly even by Jesus during their time with him. At least one of Jesus’s disciples—Andrew—was originally a follower of John the Baptist, which strongly implies that at least he participated in John’s baptism of repentance.  Let us look at the baptism of Jesus's disciples in John 3:22-24:

After this Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, and he spent some time there with them and baptized.

John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim because water was abundant there, and people kept coming and were being baptized.

To contrast the immersion of John the Baptist with the immersion in the mikveh, the next verse continues with  “Now a discussion about purification arose between John’s disciples and a Jew.” Following this, they point out to John the Baptist that more are flocking to Jesus than to him. This is a critical point, and likely a fictional narrative, for later, when John the Baptist is in jail, he sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the one: “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?” or “...or should we expect someone else?” depending on whether you read Matthew or Luke. In the gospel of John, however, it is clear that John the Baptist knows exactly who Jesus is, for in John 3:27-30, John answered,

“No one can receive anything except what has been given from heaven.

You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, ‘I am not the Messiah, but I have been sent ahead of him.’

He who has the bride is the bridegroom.

The friend of the bridegroom who stands and hears him rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice.

For this reason my joy has been fulfilled.

He must increase, but I must decrease.”

In the next paragraph, there is a statement in John 3:36 that parallels Mark 16:16:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life;

whoever disobeys the Son will not see life but must endure God’s wrath.

This also parallels a previous statement in John 3:18:

Those who believe in him are not condemned, but

those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

One point is that this previous text is ambiguous as to who performed the baptisms, but this is clarified at the start of the next chapter in John 4:1-3:

Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, “Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John”

(although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized),

he left Judea and started back to Galilee.

As the author is making no differentiation between the baptism performed by John the Baptist and that by the disciples, we must assume that both groups baptized by immersion.

​​

1.5 What could Jesus have said?

If Jesus intended baptism to be purely secondary to faith or belief—just a nice, optional touch—wouldn’t he have inspired the gospel writers to spell that out more clearly? For instance, Mark 16:16 could have read:

“The one who believes will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

The one who is baptized will be doubly blessed both on earth and in heaven.”

Ὁ πιστεύσας σωθήσεται,

ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται.

Ὁ δὲ βαπτισθεὶς διπλὴν εὐλογίαν ἕξει
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.

Is this, therefore, the purpose of baptism? Does it confer some sort of blessing on the individual that is not conferred on a believer who choses not to be baptized? Are those who are baptized given greater benefits both on earth and later in heaven? Do they share a connection with others who have been baptized? Will their witness to others be greater? And if so, why wouldn’t Jesus—knowing of and foreseeing this very debate—supply a clearer explanation of baptism’s role? A similar dynamic appears in Matthew’s so-called “great commission.” If Jesus truly meant for baptism to be a footnote rather than a cornerstone of discipleship, perhaps we would have read:

​“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,
teaching them the belief and faith required for salvation,
teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you,
and baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit any who choose to follow my lead.”

πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη,
διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τὴν πίστιν τὴν εἰς σωτηρίαν,
διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν,
καὶ βαπτίζοντες ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ Πατρὸς
καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ
καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος
πάντας τοὺς βουλομένους ἀκολουθεῖν μοι.

Indeed, perhaps Jesus could have offered what is given in Islam:

“The one who believes will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

To the one who is baptized, which of your Lord’s favors will you deny?

In all gardens will be noble, pleasant mates—maidens with gorgeous eyes—reserved in pavilions and untouched by human or angel.

To the one who is baptized, you will recline on white cushions and splendid carpets.”

But these hypothetical instructions are not what the gospels record. Instead, the text elevates immersion (baptism) alongside teaching, portraying them both as integral to making disciples. Given Jesus’s omniscience—knowing that nearly two millennia later, we’d debate whether immersion (baptism) is essential—why wouldn’t he leave an unequivocal note dismissing the need for immersion (baptism) if it were merely symbolic? The fact that he did not suggests that either

1. he is not omniscience,

2. he is actually malevolent and intended to sow confusion among his followers for two thousand years, or

3. immersion (baptism) was not intended as a casual afterthought but rather a core component in Christian practice.

​

In short, the gospels are replete with explicit statements about immersion’s (baptism’s) significance—statements that would presumably be worded differently if immersion (baptism) had been meant as optional. The absence of such disclaimers challenges the view that being “born of water” is merely symbolic and urges us to think more carefully about what both Jesus and the evangelists intended.

​

1.6 Summary of the gospels

We have looked at whether immersion (baptism) is necessary for salvation or whether faith alone suffices, focusing primarily on John 3:5, Matthew 28:19-20, and Mark 16:16. Catholics, Orthodox, and certain Anabaptist communities often view immersion (baptism)—and sometimes other sacraments—as intrinsic to salvation, while Baptists and many evangelical Protestants insist that faith alone saves, with immersion (baptism) remaining important but not essential for salvation.

​​​

In John 3:5 (“no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit”), we presented reasons that early Christian audiences would likely have understood “water” as indicating literal immersion (baptism), though symbolic interpretations exist. In the “great commission” of Matthew, Jesus instructs his followers to make disciples specifically by first stating that they must be immersed (baptized) while teaching them is named second, which would be counterintuitive if immersion (baptism) were peripheral or merely symbolic. Jesus, being completely aware of the strife and division this would cause in his church for the next two thousand years, could and should have clarified that at this climactic moment. Mark 16:16 likewise stresses the connection between belief, immersion (baptism), and salvation but does not explicitly address believers who remain unbaptized, leaving open some ambiguity. Lastly, the ministry of John the Baptist demonstrates an earlier form of water baptism for repentance, which Jesus upheld yet transformed. The text concludes that while baptism figures prominently in these Gospel passages, the question of justificatio sola fide requires further study of Acts and the epistles to gain a complete picture of early Christian belief and practice.

​​​​​​