The Catholic Church differs from many Protestant sects concerning certain aspects of Baptism. For instance, Protestant sects often hold that Baptism isn’t necessary for salvation, while the Church teaches that it is. Exactly which sins are forgiven at Baptism? Can baptism be administered to infants? Is Baptism to be done by immersion only? All of these questions arouse disagreement between the Church and certain Protestants.

To define Baptism, I cite Dr. Ludwig Ott: "Baptism is the Sacrament in which man being washed with water in the name of the Three Divine Persons is spiritually reborn." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 350). Baptism is prefigured my multiple Old Testament types. Namely, and to give a few examples: the Flood (cf. 1 Pet 3:20 et seq), circumcision (cf. Col 2:11 et seq), and the marches through the Red Sea and the Jordan (cf. 1 Cor 10:2, Jos 3:14). A more explicit prophecy of Baptism is found in Exodus 36:25, which reads: "I will pour upon you clean water and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness: and I will cleanse you from all your idols."

Catholic Tradition has always taught that Baptism is the first sacrament of initiation; that is, it is the first sacrament by which a man becomes part of the Church (cf. CCC 1212, 1250-1252). Furthermore, Catholicism has upheld the doctrine of infant baptism (cf. CCC 1231). Moreover, the Church has always declared that Baptism is necessary for salvation (cf. CCC 1257). And finally, unlike many Protestant denominations, Catholicism teaches that Baptism need not be administered by immersion alone (cf. CCC 1278).

In Baptism, all sins are forgiven. Both original sin and all personal sins are forgiven. Furthermore, all eternal punishment connected with these sins eliminated. After Baptism, there remains absolutely nothing that would prevent a believer from inheriting the Kingdom of God. For this reason Baptism is so thoroughly described as a washing or a rebirth (cf. Exo 36:25, John 3:5, 1 Cor 6:11, Rom 6:3 et seq, Acts 22:16).

This does not mean, however, that we no longer have the will to sin. This will, called concupiscence, is not washed away during Baptism. Indeed, this will, which has been traditionally called "the tinder of sins", remains, even after Baptism, to the very end of a person’s life. Furthermore, Baptism does not eliminate temporal punishment for sin. Baptized believers may still experience temporal punishments (sickness, injury, etc.) for their sin.

The debate of whether or not all sins are forgiven at Baptism can be ended by the simple citation of several passages from the Sacred Scriptures. "Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon His name." (Acts 22:16). The "sins" referred to here and in all other cited passages are non-exclusive. From the texts at hand we can assume only that "sins" refers to all sins; hence, the popular portrayal of Baptism as a washing or rebirth. We see in the prophetical passage from Exodus the explicit usage of the phrase "all filthiness" (36:25). "We were indeed buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life." (Rom 6:4). Truly, we die and are reborn at baptism—nothing of our old self remains—all has been washed and done away with.

The Sacrament of Baptism is indeed mandatory for salvation. It was administered with an unrelenting fervor to all the new Christians in the Apostolic age (see the entire book of Acts), showing its recognized importance. Christ Himself proclaimed Baptism necessary for salvation when addressing Nicodemus. "Jesus answered, ‘Amen, Amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." (John 3:5).

Although there have been innumerable explanations of the term "born of water," many of which are ridiculous, the most natural and obvious explanation is Baptism. This makes perfect sense, of course, when we consider the large correlation of Baptism with a rebirth in the New Testament (again, see Romans 6:3-4).

One popular, opposing theory is that the water in John 3:5 refers to the water of a womb. Because we are born of the womb, we are also, in a way, born of the water inside the womb. This idea, however, is preposterous in the New Testament context. Christ could very well have simply said, ‘You must be born of your mother’ or ‘You must be born physically’. But Christ chose nothing of the like; rather, he requires that all men who endeavor salvation be born of water. A simple use of common sense and rudimentary Biblical knowledge suffices to discover the true meaning of Christ’s words—Baptism.

Another important Biblical text is 1 Peter 3:21: "This [the Flood] prefigured Baptism, which now saves you." The verse is very clear. It need not be twisted nor strained—its message is obvious. Baptism now saves us. It is part of the great economy of salvation—and is a significant element in our justification. Furthermore, the Sacrament of Baptism is shown to be necessary in its very New Testament nature. In the book of Acts, Baptism goes hand in hand with faith and repentance. Peter does not command the people to repent of their sins; he commands them to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38). It is not he that believes that will be saved, but he who believes and is baptized (Mark 16:15).

The Catholic Church has also taught, however, a baptism by will. That is, a baptism not necessarily by water, but one of will and of faith. A person’s faithful will to become part of the Church and to be reborn in Christ our Lord will suffice as a replacement for the ordinary Sacrament of Baptism (cf. CCC 1259). Furthermore, the Church teaches a baptism by blood. In defining this, I cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "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." (CCC 1258). John Chrysostom affirms baptism by blood in the following way: "Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a baptism, for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is the taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul, and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood" (Panegyric on St. Lucian 2 [A.D. 387]).

The Fathers of the Early Church confirm the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Hermas, early in Christian history, wrote: "'I have heard, sir,' said I [to the Shepherd], 'from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.' He said to me, 'You have heard rightly, for so it is'" (The Shepherd 4:3:1-2 [A.D. 80]). Tertullian, who wrote a great deal about Baptism, said it rather flatly: "Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (Baptism 12 [AD 203]). Pope Siricius wrote: "It would tend to the ruin of our souls if, from our refusal of the saving font of baptism to those who seek it, any of them should depart this life and lose the kingdom and eternal life" (Letter to Himerius 3 [A.D. 385]).

As the years went on, statements became even clearer. Fulgence of Ruspe confirmed both the necessity of Baptism and the doctrine of Baptism by blood in one sentence: "From that time at which our Savior said, `If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:5], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).

Infant Baptism has become a doctrine increasingly attacked by non-Catholic Christians. Generally, only one argument can be made against it: How can Baptism be administered to someone who has not yet reached the age of accountability, much less formed a mature faith in God?

But this challenge is easily refuted. I cite the graceful words of David Ashford: "Jesus also required belief, or faith, in His miraculous power to heal before he would work such a cure. (Matthew 9:28, 29; 13:58; Mark 5:34; 10:52) Nevertheless, Jesus also healed children when a parent showed faith on their behalf. (Matthew 15:28; Mark 9:23-27; John 2:46-53) Similarly, parents can bring their children the saving blessings of baptism by believing on their behalf."

Christ’s commands to baptize were universal—He never restricted the Sacrament to adults. There is certainly no Biblical reason to deny infants the right to Baptism. What one person merits through faith can be applied to another, as shown in the above paragraph. But moreover we must remember Christ’s great love for children. We must remember that children too can have salvation. "People were bringing even infants to Him that He might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. Jesus, however, called the children to Himself and said, ‘Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." (Luke 18:15-16). Indeed, Christ’s great love for infants is so significant that in their innocence, Christ grants them the kingdom of God: heaven itself.

In this great love, He also grants them the right to Baptism. And so finally, we come to the vital question: Did any infant baptisms take place in the New Testament? Is there any evidence for the doctrine of infant Baptism?

We have first of all the very mandate of Christ: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…" (Matthew 28:19). In Christ’s words we sense a very universal command; a command that does not set boundaries; a command that includes children. "All nations", after all, is an extremely wide and expansive term. Of crucial importance is Acts 2:38-39:

Peter said to them, "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. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call. (NAB, emphasis mine)

Peter’s command to be baptized was made not only to adults, but also to every single human being in the crowd, including their children and even "those far off". Should we not obey the command of Peter? Should we not take his advice? Should we not heed the words of the Holy Spirit? We have not only this one command, but also several probable New Testament examples of infant baptism.

"She was baptized, with all her household." (Acts 16:15)

"He [the jailer of Paul and Silas] and all his family were baptized at once." (Acts 16:33)

"Yes, and I [Paul] did baptize the household of Stephanas." (1 Cor 1:16)

All three of the above are examples in which an entire family or household is baptized. The wording ("all her household" and "all his family") tells us that these verses do not speak of simply a husband and a wife. They indicate a greater number of people. What is left? The children, of course. It is of little doubt that the above verses refer to the baptism not only of husband and wife, but also of children, and very possibly small children; that is, infants. The "household", in Paul’s literature, regularly included children (cf. 1 Tim 3:4), furthering the evidence for infant Baptism in 1 Corinthians 1:16.

Lastly, we have Colossians 2:11-12:

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. (KJV)

The above passage makes it clear that baptism is a New Testament replacement of circumcision. Circumcision, like baptism, indicated a covenant promise of commitment to God and to His People. And yet it was administered to infants (see Gen 17:12). Therefore, Baptism, as a replacement and fulfillment of circumcision, can also be administered to infants, without losing its important ecclesiastical and covenantal significance.

Again, the early Church Fathers are in favor of the Catholic position on infant baptism. Hippolytus writes: "Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]). Ambrose of Milan writes: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant." (Abraham 1:3:21 [A.D. 387]).

John Chyrsostom continues the Catholic Tradition, writing: "You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ's] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine proclaims the Catholic position explicitly, writing: "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]). Finally, the Council of Mileum II, convening in AD 416, ended the issue, stating the unquestioned Catholic position: "[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]." (canon 3)

Like the case of infant baptism, many non-Catholic Christians also attack the Catholic doctrine of Baptism by pouring or sprinkling. All of the New Testament baptisms were by immersion, they say, and Jesus Christ Himself was baptized by immersion. While Christ was probably baptized by immersion, we can’t be positive about the rest of the New Testament baptisms (we will address this later). And even if the New Testament contains no examples of non-immersion baptism, it never condemns such a thing, and nowhere are we explicitly commanded to baptize by immersion alone.

Rather, the important aspect of Baptism is its symbolism of the "washing" away of our sins. And we know, of course, that immersion in not necessary for "washing." Therefore, it makes little sense to say that baptism must be by immersion for it to be truly symbolic. And indeed, Christ did not immerse apostles in the Holy Spirit, but poured the Holy Spirit out upon them (Acts 2:33). That same Spirit that we receive in Baptism. Why, then, should the water not be poured, since it symbolizes the work of the Holy Spirit? Besides, what about the bedridden and dying? They can't be immersed in water, so is baptism to be denied them? What about desert nomads and the Eskimos? Are they to be denied the sacrament because baptism by immersion is nearly impossible for them? Of course not.

Supporting baptism by means other than immersion, we have the fact that three thousand people were baptized in Jerusalem after Peter’s Pentecost speech. On the matter, I quote Catholic Answers: "On the occasion of Peter's first sermon, three thousand people were baptized in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41), yet archaeologists have demonstrated there was no sufficient supply of water for these baptisms to have been by immersion. Even if there had been one, the natives of Jerusalem would scarcely have let their city's water supply be polluted by having three thousand sweaty bodies plunged into it. These people, like the others, must have been baptized by pouring or sprinkling." (Baptism: Immersion Only?)

Supporting Baptism by sprinkling, we have the baptismal imagery used in Hebrews 10:22: "Let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean form an evil conscious and our bodies washed in pure water" (emphasis mine). The word used here is significant—sprinkled clean. Following the symbolism, the Catholic Church often sprinkles clean the conscious of a believer through Baptism.

It is highly doubted that Paul’s baptism was by immersion. The text (Acts 9:18-19) suggests that Paul was baptized standing up and in a building—both of which situations rule out the plausibility of baptism by immersion. Furthermore, Paul was hardly in the condition for baptism by immersion. He hadn’t eaten for three days and had been blind for quite a while.

What proof is there for the opposing side, then? Why do people believe that baptism is by immersion only? Two passages often appealed to are Acts 8:38 and 39 (the baptism of the eunuch) and Matthew 3:16 (Christ’s own Baptism). Acts 8:38-39 reads: Philip . . . baptized him [the eunuch]. And when they came up out of the water. . ." Some Protestants insist that the phrase "came up out of the water" must mean that the eunuch was baptized by immersion and had arisen from under the water. First of all, even if this is true, it certainly does not mean that Baptism should be restricted only to immersion. Even if the eunuch was baptized by immersion, so what? Many Catholics are also baptized by immersion. The text does not condemn, in any way, forms of Baptism other than immersion. But the fact is that the passage at hand actually never mentions that the eunuch’s baptism was by immersion. It says that "they" came up out of the water. If this was meant to portray a baptism by immersion, why on earth was Philip immersed? No, the phrase means something altogether different—it is referring to their departure from the water itself (not from being under it). In other words, Philip and the eunuch came up out of the water, after they had been in it waist deep or so. The water may very well have simply been poured over the eunuch as both of the two stood in it waist-deep.

Christ’s baptism was not very different: "And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water [and the Spirit descended on him]." Does not the fact that Jesus "went up" from the water necessarily signify that he had been immersed in the River Jordan? No. The expression may simply explain how after Jesus' baptism, he went back out of the water back onto dry land. It is entirely possible that Jesus stood waist deep in the Jordan while John the Baptist poured water over him. This is shown by the parallel in Luke 3:21, where it was after the baptism when he was at prayer that the Spirit descended, not the instant after an immersion in the water.

The final piece of evidence against non-immersion Baptism is the word "baptism." Protestant scholars often claim that the word itself means to "dunk" of "immerse", and therefore, baptism is necessarily by immersion only. The fact is, however, that the Greek word baptizo does not necessarily mean to dunk or to immerse. In the Bible, baptizo sometimes means bathing the whole body, as when Naaman "went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan" (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint Greek Old Testament). But sometimes it just meansto wash up or to pour, as when Luke 11:38 explains that Jesus went to dine with a Pharisee and "The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [the Greek word for "washed" is baptizo] before dinner." No one in ancient Israel practiced immersion before dinner, but the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash their hands" (Mark 7:3).

Once more, the early Church Fathers are in favor of the Catholic position of Baptism. The Didache, an extremely early Christian document (dating at AD 70!) instructs: "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." (Chapter 7)

Pope Cornelius testified that when Novation was about to die "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch, A.D. 251; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:43:11).