Executive summary

The gospels are ambiguous as to whether immersion in water and immersion by the Holy Spirit are meant to be two complementary events, or if the latter replaced the former. The author of John is unclear when he states that one must be “born of water and of spirit,” raising the question of whether “birth” here refers to the ceremony of immersion—where one is lifted from the water—and “of spirit” refers to the coming of the Holy Spirit. In Mark, it is emphasized that those immersed in water and who believe have salvation, but those who do not believe are condemned.

In the Book of Acts, however, immersion (baptism) is repeatedly stressed as essential for the cleansing of sins, and this emphasis continues long after Pentecost, the day when the Holy Spirit descended on the followers of Jesus. In Acts, immersion in water is consistently associated with the forgiveness of sins. Additionally, the single instance in which the Holy Spirit entered individuals before their immersion was specifically meant to show Peter that Gentiles could be admitted into the church. This is confirmed in the following chapter when he defends his actions: Peter never says immersion in water is no longer necessary; he argues that he would be hindering God if he did not immerse Gentiles such as Cornelius and his family. No one in scripture suggests that immersion in water is obsolete; it is always emphasized as the step required for forgiveness of sins and the ritual through which one enters the church. Additionally, early Christian writings and practice consistently affirm that water immersion was never superseded by spiritual baptism. This unbroken tradition underscores the apostolic teaching that baptism in water was an indispensable component of initiation into the body of Christ.

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.

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.

Within Protestantism, two major movements that emerged from sola fide roots but now require—or strongly emphasize—baptism for salvation are the Restoration (Stone-Campbell) Movement (4 million) and Oneness Pentecostalism (10-30 million). The Restoration Movement, led by figures like Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone, originated in the early 19th century from Presbyterian backgrounds and formed groups such as the Churches of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and Independent Christian Churches, all emphasizing immersion for the remission of sins. Oneness Pentecostalism, arising in the early 20th century out of the broader Pentecostal and Holiness traditions (which trace back to Methodism), includes denominations like the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) and the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW); these churches require repentance, baptism in Jesus’ name for forgiveness of sins, and the infilling of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues. Many Anabaptist sects, while rejecting infant baptism, require believer’s baptism as a symbolic act of faith and entry into the covenant community, though they generally do not view it as necessary for salvation in the same sacramental sense as some other traditions.

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.

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:

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

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

One interpretation understands “water” symbolically as cleansing or purification from sin, emphasizing inner spiritual renewal rather than an external ritual.
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.
A third view sees “water” as referring to natural birth (amniotic fluid), contrasting physical birth with the spiritual rebirth of the Spirit.
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:

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.”
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

immersing (baptizing) them, and
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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

he is not omniscience,
he is actually malevolent and intended to sow confusion among his followers for two thousand years, or
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 salvifically essential.

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.

2. The deeds of the messengers

We will now look at how immersion (baptism) is described in the Acts of the Apostles (the deeds of the messengers). We will examine each instance that immersion (baptism) is described, and see what the context suggests

Acts 1:4-5

In Acts 1:4-5, Jesus commands the disciples to wait in Jerusalem for “the promise of the Father.” He says:

“This is what you have heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

This statement distinguishes between two types of baptisms: one in water associated with John the Baptist, and one in the Holy Spirit associated with the fulfillment of God’s promise. John’s baptism in water, as described in Mark 1:4, was explicitly tied to repentance and the forgiveness of sins. However, Jesus’s reference to the baptism of the Holy Spirit introduces a new, transformative event without explicitly stating whether it replaces or supplements water baptism. This raises a pivotal question: Does the baptism of the Holy Spirit render water baptism unnecessary, or do these two baptisms serve distinct, complementary purposes in the life of a believer?

The term “baptized” or “immersed” may be understood both literally and metaphorically. The New Testament uses various descriptions for the reception of the Holy Spirit, such as “receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38), “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4), “the Holy Spirit came upon them” (Acts 10:44), “born of the Spirit” (John 3:5), “poured out” (Acts 2:17), “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49) and of course, “baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5). These descriptions suggest that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is portrayed as an all-encompassing, life-altering experience rather than merely an external ritual. However, what remains unclear in this specific passage is whether the baptism of the Holy Spirit also functions as the moment of forgiveness and cleansing from sin, similar to John’s baptism in water. Given this myriad of descriptions, it is uncertain whether the author intends for the reception of the Holy Spirit to be understood as literally replacing baptism or if the term "immersed" is being used metaphorically to describe the effect of receiving the Spirit.

This distinction invites further exploration of how early Christians understood the relationship between water baptism and Spirit baptism. While John’s baptism clearly represented the initial cleansing from sin, Jesus’s introduction of the baptism of the Holy Spirit suggests a new spiritual aspect. What must be investigated is whether water baptism continues to function as the defining moment of cleansing and initiation into the Christian life, or if the baptism of the Holy Spirit replaces it entirely as the central act of salvation.

As we continue through the Book of Acts, we will examine whether immersion in water remains the defining entry point into the Christian life, where one’s sins are forgiven, or if immersion in the Holy Spirit has taken precedence. This investigation will focus on whether or not the scriptures support sola fide—the belief that salvation comes by faith alone without any outward act of obedience such as baptism.

Acts 1:4-5 introduces the promise of the Holy Spirit as a key event in the life of believers but leaves the precise relationship between water baptism and Spirit baptism ambiguous. By continuing through Acts, we can investigate whether faith alone, without the act of baptism, is presented as sufficient for salvation or whether baptism by water remains an indispensable act in Christian conversion.

Acts 1:21-23

A secondary mention of baptism is Acts 1:21-23, where it says:

“So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.”

So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.

This passage suggests that at least two individuals—Joseph called Barsabbas (Justus) and Matthias—had followed Jesus from the time of His baptism by John up to his execution, and alleged resurrection and ascension. However, this raises an interpretive challenge, as it seems inconsistent with the timeline provided in the gospels.

In Mark 1:14-17, Jesus is depicted as beginning his public ministry in Galilee only after John the Baptist’s arrest, with no indication that He had gathered any disciples prior to that time:

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the good news of God and saying,

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.”

As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea, for they were fishers.

And Jesus said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of people.”

It is only after this proclamation that Jesus calls Simon and Andrew to follow him by the Sea of Galilee.

Similarly, Matthew 4:12-19 describes Jesus withdrawing to Galilee after John’s arrest and later settling in Capernaum before beginning His ministry and calling His first disciples. Both accounts suggest that Jesus did not immediately acquire followers after His baptism but instead began calling His disciples later, after John’s arrest.

The Gospel of Luke is more ambiguous regarding the sequence of events following Jesus’s baptism, providing no direct indication that Jesus had disciples immediately afterward. In contrast, the Gospel of John uniquely suggests that Jesus did have followers early on, including Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, and Nathanael (John 1:35-51). However, this group differs from the synoptic portrayal where Nathanael is never even mentioned, and Philip, despite being one of the first followers, is only listed as a disciple.

One possible explanation is that there was indeed a larger group of individuals who began following Jesus early but remained in the background until the later stages of His ministry. The Gospels may have focused narratively on the calling of the twelve apostles and the key events of Jesus’s ministry, omitting details about other early followers. Another possibility is that the "following" described in Acts 1:21 refers to periodic association with Jesus during His ministry, rather than full-time discipleship from the moment of His baptism.

While the reference to Jesus’s baptism in Acts 1:21-23 does not contribute directly to the discussion of the meaning or significance of baptism, it introduces an interpretive tension with the synoptic accounts. This discrepancy suggests that early Christian tradition may have preserved diverse recollections of when certain disciples began to follow Jesus, reflecting either a broader group of early adherents or differing narrative emphases. Regardless, the mention of baptism here primarily serves to define the criteria for apostolic witness, underscoring the importance of firsthand experience with Jesus’s entire ministry. The fact that baptism, along with the ascension, serves as one of the two defining milestones of this ministry highlights the seminal importance of immersion in water as the formal beginning of Jesus’s mission and a foundational marker of Christian discipleship.

Acts 2:38

If we look at Acts 2:38, Peter said to the crowd, “Repent and be immersed (baptized) every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Notice that Peter’s command contains two explicit actions and two corresponding outcomes: repentance and immersion in the name of Jesus Christ are the actions, while the promised benefits are the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Remember that John’s immersion in (baptism of) water was explicitly for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4), aligning with one of the benefits listed here. However, the second benefit —the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit—corresponds more closely to the immersion in the Holy Spirit described in Acts 1:4-5. This suggests that Peter’s message may represent a convergence of the two distinct immersions: one involving water for repentance and forgiveness, and the other involving the Holy Spirit as a divine gift.

To clarify Peter’s instruction, we can restate it as a conditional “if p, q” statement:

If you repent and are immersed in the name of Jesus Christ, your sins will be forgiven and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This makes it clear that both repentance and immersion are necessary conditions for receiving the stated benefits. However, notice that the text emphasizes immersion specifically “in the name of Jesus Christ,” not a generic immersion, which reinforces the idea that this immersion signifies a willingness to follow Jesus.

The contrapositive of this statement is

If your sins are not forgiven or you did no receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, you either did not repent or you were not baptized in the name of Jesus.

While this contrapositive highlights the necessity of both repentance and immersion for receiving these benefits, the passage does not address what happens if one is only partially obedient or abstains from immersion entirely. Thus, the question remains open as to whether immersion in water is absolutely obligatory for salvation or if it serves a symbolic or covenantal role.

This ambiguity continues in Acts 2:41-42, where it is recorded that “those who welcomed his message were immersed (baptized), and that day about three thousand persons were added. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” Here, the immersion is portrayed as an integral part of joining the community of believers, marking the formal inclusion of approximately three thousand individuals. This practice aligns with Jesus’s instruction in the “great commission” to “immerse (baptize) 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” (Matthew 28:19-20). The text provides no indication that this immersion involved anything other than water.

In summary, while Acts 2:38 explicitly ties repentance and immersion to forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit, it leaves unresolved whether the immersion in the Holy Spirit supplants, supplements, or transforms the ritual of water immersion. The consistent use of water immersion in early Christian practice, however, suggests that it was viewed as a continuing and necessary act of obedience, even if the precise relationship between water immersion and spiritual baptism remains a topic for discussion.

Acts 8:5-17

In Acts 8:5-13, it tells of the mission of Philip to Samaria:

Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them. The crowds with one accord listened eagerly to what was said by Philip, hearing and seeing the signs that he did, for unclean spirits, crying with loud shrieks, came out of many who were possessed, and many others who were paralyzed or lame were cured. So there was great joy in that city.

The passage continues by describing Simon the magician, who had previously captivated the people with his magic:

Now a certain man named Simon had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he was someone great. All of them, from the least to the greatest, listened to him eagerly, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called Great.” And they listened eagerly to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic.

However, once Philip arrived and proclaimed the good news:

But when they believed Philip, who was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Even Simon himself believed. After being baptized, he stayed constantly with Philip and was amazed when he saw the signs and great miracles that took place.

In this account, the author of Acts describes the sequence of events in a way that places significant emphasis on baptism rather than an explicit declaration of faith or personal testimony of belief. The narrative focuses on the crowd’s response to Philip’s proclamation by highlighting that both men and women were immersed in water after they believed—not that they professed their faith in any formal or public way as a standalone act of justification.

If justificatio sola fide was central to the early Christian understanding, we would expect the author of Acts to emphasize a verbal proclamation of faith or inward acceptance of Jesus as the sole means of receiving justification. However, the text instead underscores baptism as the tangible and communal response to belief. It is significant that the emphasis is not on the moment of belief as a private or cognitive event, but on the immersion as a public, embodied act that both men and women underwent.

Furthermore, the passage suggests that Simon’s astonishment at Philip’s miracles did not distinguish him from the rest of the baptized group. Despite his belief and baptism, Simon’s continued fixation on signs and wonders later leads to rebuke (Acts 8:18-24), which raises additional questions about whether mere belief, without accompanying transformation and obedience, was sufficient in the author’s framework.

This passage does not support justificatio sola fide; rather, it highlights immersion in water as the critical, visible marker of receiving the message of the kingdom of God. If justification were truly by faith alone, independent of external action, the author of Acts would presumably have emphasized the internal act of faith itself as the definitive point of reception. Instead, the narrative repeatedly underscores immersion as the primary response to belief, suggesting that immersion (baptism) is portrayed as an integral, if not essential, element in the early Christian understanding of faith and discipleship.

The narrative continues with a response in Acts 8:14-17:

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.

The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus).

Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

This passage adds an essential theological detail: the Samarians had been immersed (baptized) "in the name of the Lord Jesus," which clearly refers to immersion in water. However, they had not yet received the Holy Spirit until Peter and John laid their hands on them and prayed for them. The key phrase here—“only” baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus”—implies that water baptism was a necessary, but incomplete, step prior to receiving the Holy Spirit. The sequence of events suggests that baptism by water is a prerequisite for receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit, reinforcing its importance as an essential element of initiation into the faith.

This provides a critical insight into the nature of baptism:

To be baptized in the name of Jesus refers specifically to immersion in water, as seen in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19: “immersing (baptizing) them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Water baptism is portrayed as necessary for full inclusion in the Christian community and for receiving the Holy Spirit, though it is not, by itself, sufficient without the accompanying impartation of the Holy Spirit through prayer and laying on of hands.

If justification were truly by faith alone, the Samarians’s belief and baptism in Jesus’s name would presumably have been sufficient for receiving the Holy Spirit. Yet the text emphasizes that while belief and immersion in water are significant, they required the subsequent involvement of Peter and John for the gift of the Holy Spirit to be imparted. This sequence again underscores that baptism is not portrayed as a symbolic or secondary act but as an integral part of the initiation process into the Christian faith.

This passage does not support justificatio sola fide; rather, it underscores the importance of both belief and baptism, with baptism serving as a necessary precursor to receiving the Holy Spirit. The narrative presents baptism as a public and communal act marking one’s inclusion in the faith, followed by the Spirit’s impartation through apostolic authority. By framing baptism as one of the key markers of Christian discipleship—alongside belief and the Spirit’s indwelling—the author of Acts suggests a more holistic view of salvation and belonging than the doctrine of sola fide allows.

Acts 8:26-40

In Acts 8:26-40, Philip encounters an Ethiopian eunuch, a high-ranking court official serving the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, as he travels the road to Gaza. Philip joins the eunuch, who is reading from the book of Isaiah, and interprets the text in light of the earliest Christian beliefs. When the moment comes for the eunuch to respond, something striking happens. The eunuch does not confess his sins, openly repent, or declare that he is "surrendering his life to Christ" or "being born again." Instead, in Acts 8:36,38, the narrative reads:

As they were going along the road, they came to some water, and the eunuch said,

“Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?”

He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.

The eunuch’s immediate and intense desire to be immersed (baptized) in water is presented as the natural and sufficient response to Philip’s teachings.

Interestingly, one verse—Acts 8:37—would seem to support justificatio sola fide:

“And Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’

And he replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’”

However, this verse is not found in any 4th-century manuscripts and only appears in later manuscripts, the earliest extant example being Codex Laudianus (6th-7th century). Most biblical scholars agree that this verse was a later addition, likely inserted by scribes seeking to align the narrative with theological frameworks that emphasize a verbal confession of faith as a prerequisite for baptism.

In the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, there is no verbal confession or proclamation of faith by the eunuch. His response to Philip’s message is not words of belief but the urgent question: “What is to prevent me from being baptized?” The narrative flows directly from the eunuch’s recognition of water to his baptism, reinforcing that baptism, rather than a spoken declaration of faith, is portrayed as the key moment of initiation.

The author of Acts could have chosen to highlight a confession of faith or an inward spiritual awakening, but instead, the focus is on the outward act of baptism. The absence of Acts 8:37 in early manuscripts suggests that the earliest Christian communities understood baptism, not a verbal profession of faith or inward-only belief, as the definitive step into the faith. This passage, in its original form, supports the notion that baptism was the public and necessary rite of entrance into the Christian community, rather than a symbolic act secondary to faith.

The story of the Ethiopian eunuch emphasizes that, in the earliest Christian tradition, immersion (baptism) was not seen as a mere outward symbol of an internal change but as the critical act of initiation into the faith. The narrative presents the eunuch’s desire to be baptized as a sufficient response to the message of Jesus, without any requirement for a verbalized proclamation of faith. The addition of Acts 8:37 in later manuscripts underscores that the theological emphasis on a confession of faith was a later interpretive development, rather than an original component of the earliest Christian practice as recorded in Acts.

Acts 9 and 22 The conversion of Saul

In Acts 9, we read the account of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. However, the narrative does not center on any verbal confession of faith but instead places significant emphasis on Saul’s baptism. In Acts 9:17-19, we read:

So Ananias went and entered the house.

He laid his hands on Saul and said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

And immediately something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and his sight was restored.

Then [Saul] got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

It is striking that Saul’s immediate response is not to make a verbal proclamation of faith or repentance but to undergo baptism. The text offers no indication that Saul formally “accepted Jesus into his heart” or made a public declaration of faith. Instead, his first recorded action after regaining his sight is to be baptized, likely in water, as there is no indication of any alternative form of baptism. The author of Acts could have highlighted Saul’s personal spiritual awakening, but instead, the defining action that marks Saul’s entrance into the Christian community is his baptism.

Saul’s experience is particularly significant because he was not an ordinary convert—he had encountered the risen Jesus in a miraculous vision on the road to Damascus, a moment that profoundly convinced him of Jesus’s lordship. Yet, even for someone so directly chosen and called by Jesus, baptism remains a necessary step in his conversion. The narrative emphasizes that Saul’s encounter with Jesus did not itself serve as a sufficient means of entrance into the faith. Instead, his baptism, performed at the hands of another believer, marks the formal act of obedience and initiation.

This suggests that for the author of Acts, baptism was not an optional or secondary ritual but an essential step in becoming a follower of Jesus. Even Saul, whom Jesus personally called to be an apostle to the Gentiles, was not exempt from the necessity of baptism. His faith alone, born out of a divine vision, was not portrayed as complete until he had submitted to baptism.

The story of Saul’s conversion reinforces the consistent emphasis in Acts on immersion in water as the defining rite of entry into the Christian community. While Saul’s faith in Jesus was undoubtedly real following his encounter on the Damascus road, the author of Acts presents baptism as the outward and necessary response to this inner conviction. This narrative suggests that baptism was understood not as a mere symbolic gesture but as a vital act of commitment, through which even someone directly chosen by Jesus was initiated into the new faith. In doing so, the author of Acts continues to challenge the notion of justificatio sola fide, emphasizing that faith alone, even when accompanied by profound spiritual experiences, was not depicted as sufficient for becoming a disciple of Jesus.

This does not say much about the need for the baptism, but in Acts 22:14-16, Paul retells the story of his conversion, and there he says that Ananias said,

“The God of our ancestors has chosen you

to know his will,
to see the Righteous One, and
to hear his own voice,

for you will be his witness to all the world of what you have seen and heard.

And now why do you delay?

Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.”

In the Greek, the phrase βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου begins with a coordination of two aorist middle imperative statements, each in the second person singular: immerse yourself and wash away your sins. The last phrase, calling on Jesus’s name, is a participial phrase that is circumstantial, describing how the actions of immersion and washing away sins are to be carried out. This is translated into English using the phrase “be baptized”, but translated, it says “immerse yourself” in water, and consequentially, that immersion is what must therefore wash away the sins of Saul. This is the clearest statement yet that it is baptism that “washes” away sins.

Acts 10

Acts 10 tells the story of Cornelius, a Gentile centurion known for his piety, who receives a vision instructing him to send for Peter. Peter, meanwhile, receives a vision that challenges his traditional views about clean and unclean foods, which he later understands as a call to include Gentiles fully in the Christian community. When Peter arrives at Cornelius’s home and preaches the message of Jesus, something remarkable happens:

Cornelius and his household believe and receive the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:44-46:
“While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word.
The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the gentiles,
for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God.”
Peter commands them to be immersed (baptized) in Acts 10:47-48:
“‘Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’
So he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they invited him to stay for several days.”

At first glance, the fact that Cornelius and his household receive the Holy Spirit after hearing Peter’s message might seem to support justificatio sola fide: they believed the message and received the Spirit without explicitly undergoing baptism beforehand. However, several factors challenge this interpretation:

Baptism is still commanded, for even though Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit, Peter does not treat this as sufficient for full inclusion into the Christian community. He immediately commands them to be immersed in water. If faith alone were sufficient, Peter might have declared that their baptism by the Spirit was all they needed. Instead, Peter insists on their water baptism, treating it as a necessary act of obedience.
Holy Spirit is used as a sign and not a replacement for immersion, for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in this context seems to serve as a divine sign to Peter and the Jewish believers that Gentiles are to be included in the faith. It demonstrates that God is making no distinction between Jew and Gentile. However, it does not replace the need for baptism—it confirms that Gentiles, like Jews, are eligible for the same process of initiation, which includes baptism.
This account parallels other accounts throughout Acts where baptism consistently follows belief as the formal act of initiation into the Christian community (e.g., Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12, Acts 9:17-18). The same pattern appears here: belief, reception of the Holy Spirit, and baptism. The fact that Cornelius and his household are baptized despite already receiving the Spirit reinforces that baptism was not viewed as optional or symbolic.

Some proponents of justificatio sola fide may argue that Cornelius and his household were saved at the moment of faith and that baptism was simply an outward symbol of an inward reality. However, this interpretation assumes that baptism was not seen as integral to the process of salvation—an assumption not supported by the consistent emphasis on baptism throughout Acts.

Acts 10 does not support justificatio sola fide in the sense that faith alone, apart from baptism, is sufficient for salvation. Instead, the passage reinforces that while faith and the reception of the Holy Spirit are essential, baptism remains a commanded act of obedience and formal initiation into the Christian faith. The narrative suggests that baptism, rather than being a symbolic afterthought, was considered a crucial step in the full inclusion of believers into the community of faith. Cornelius’s story highlights that even extraordinary moments of divine confirmation (the gift of the Spirit) do not bypass the need for baptism as an act of obedience and incorporation.

Acts 11

In Acts 11, Peter returns to Jerusalem, where he is criticized by some Jewish believers for entering the house of Gentiles and eating with them. Peter recounts his experience with Cornelius and his household (from Acts 10), providing a detailed defense of his actions:

In Acts 11:4-10, Peter recounts the vision of the sheet descending from heaven, filled with clean and unclean animals, and God’s command to “kill and eat.” This vision symbolized the removal of distinctions between Jews and Gentiles.
Next, in Acts 11:15-17, Peter explains how, while he was preaching, the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household:
“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us at the beginning.”
Peter interprets this as evidence that God had granted the Gentiles repentance leading to life.
Finally, in Acts 11:17-18, Peter emphasizes that once the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit, he could not refuse them baptism:
“If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?”
Upon hearing this, the Jewish believers responded:
“Then God has given even to the gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”

At first glance, it may appear that Cornelius and his household were accepted because of their faith alone, as the Spirit fell upon them after hearing Peter’s message. However, Peter’s defense in Acts 11 reaffirms key points that challenge justificatio sola fide:

It is repentance that leads to life, for the text explicitly connects repentance to salvation (“the repentance that leads to life"), suggesting that salvation involves more than intellectual assent or belief. Repentance implies a change of heart and action—a theme consistently reinforced throughout Acts.
Peter sees baptism as still being essential, for while Peter emphasizes the Holy Spirit’s outpouring as divine confirmation, he still presents baptism as an essential response. In Acts 10, he ordered Cornelius’s household to be baptized after receiving the Spirit. Peter’s defense in Acts 11 does not suggest that baptism was unnecessary; rather, it demonstrates that baptism was still part of their formal inclusion, with the Spirit confirming God’s approval of Gentiles receiving baptism.
Faith and repentance are presented by Peter as as part of a process, for the phrase “the repentance that leads to life” implies that faith and repentance work together as part of the response to God’s grace. In Acts, this process consistently culminates in baptism (Acts 2:38, 8:12, 9:17-18).
Peter emphasizes that this was a matter of obedience, and not personal judgment, as he makes it clear that he did not interpret the event as granting Gentiles salvation by faith alone. Instead, he acted in obedience to what God had shown him by commanding baptism, confirming that baptism was a necessary step, not an optional one.

Most critically, however, is Peter’s use of one specific phrase: “who was I that I could hinder God?” The word “hinder" (κωλῦσαι) means to prevent, obstruct, or stand in the way. Peter's rhetorical question implies that failing to immerse (baptize) Cornelius and his household after they received the Holy Spirit would have been an act of disobedience—an attempt to block or resist what God was doing. The implications of this statement are:

Peter recognizes baptism as an act of obedience to God’s command, for he is acknowledging that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius was a clear sign of God’s approval of the Gentiles. However, despite their reception of the Holy Spirit, Peter immediately commands them to be baptized (Acts 10:48). His defense in Acts 11 makes it clear that failing to baptize them would have been an act of disobedience—hindering God’s work. This strongly suggests that baptism was not viewed as an optional add-on, but rather as an essential step in following God’s will.
Peter sees baptism a prerequisite for full inclusion in the Christian community, for Peter, as this was the formal act that signified Cornelius and his household’s full inclusion. The Holy Spirit’s presence validated their eligibility, but baptism was the formal acknowledgment of their belonging. By refusing to baptize them, Peter would have been denying their full participation in the community.
Peter’s language suggests that baptism is part of cooperating with God’s redemptive work, not just an external ritual. If baptism were unnecessary, Peter would not have feared “hindering” God by withholding it. The use of this strong language indicates that baptism was understood as more than a public declaration—it was an act of submission to God’s plan.

The very fact that Peter felt compelled to justify his actions to the Jewish believers and explain why he could not withhold baptism suggests that baptism had profound theological and communal significance. Peter was not merely baptizing for the sake of a tradition—he viewed baptism as an essential response to the work of the Holy Spirit. If failing to baptize could be considered hindering God, this suggests that baptism was seen as integral to salvation and incorporation into the faith, not a secondary or symbolic step.

Proponents of justificatio sola fide may argue that Cornelius and his household were saved when they received the Spirit, which was evidence of their faith. However, this interpretation overlooks Peter’s insistence on baptism and his emphasis on “repentance leading to life.” Acts 11 highlights that faith is demonstrated through obedience (repentance and baptism), rather than being a disembodied intellectual act. Additionally, Peter’s use of the word “hinder” (Acts 11:17) underscores that baptism was not viewed as optional but as something essential to fully cooperating with God’s will. If faith alone were sufficient, Peter would not have seen withholding baptism as an act of hindering God’s work. The need to avoid “hindrance” implies that baptism was an inseparable part of God’s redemptive process, not a mere human ritual that could be bypassed without consequence.

Acts 11 does not support justificatio sola fide. Instead, it reinforces that faith and repentance are inseparable from baptism as the defining response to the good news of Jesus. Peter’s defense emphasizes that God’s acceptance of Gentiles involved not only their belief but also their repentance and baptism. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit served as a divine sign confirming that the Gentiles were eligible for baptism and full inclusion, not as a bypass of baptism itself. Peter’s concern about “hindering” God by withholding baptism further underscores that baptism was understood as an essential act of obedience, not a mere formality. Therefore, Acts 11 presents a holistic view of salvation that encompasses faith, repentance, and baptism, challenging the notion of faith alone as sufficient for inclusion into the Christian community.

Acts 13:16-41

Proponents of justificatio sola fide use a statement of Paul in Acts 13:38-38, where he says “Let it be known to you, therefore, brothers and sisters, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you; by this Jesus everyone who believes is set free from all those sins from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.” Let us investigate the entire passage. Paul’s speech in Pisidian Antioch addresses both Jews and Gentiles and recounts God’s work throughout Israel’s history, culminating in the arrival of Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promises. Key elements include:

The parallel between David and Jesus in Acts 13:22-23 where Paul highlights that God chose David as king, calling him “a man after my heart” who would do His will. Paul then connects this to Jesus as the descendant of David, the promised Savior:
“From this man’s descendants, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, as He promised.”
The role of John the Baptist’s Role in Acts 13:24-25 where Paul references John the Baptist's ministry:
“Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel. As John was finishing his work, he said, ‘Who do you suppose I am? I am not He. No, but He is coming after me, whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.’”
Paul's declaration in Acts 13:38-39 that Jesus was the one who brings forgiveness:
“Let it be known to you, therefore, brothers and sisters, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you; by this Jesus everyone who believes is set free from all those sins from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.”

Analysis of Acts 13 in Relation to Sola Fide:

Faith is central, but not isolated, as Paul emphasizes that forgiveness of sins and freedom from the burdens of the Law come through faith in Jesus. This might seem to support justificatio sola fide at first glance. However, Paul is presenting faith as the means by which people access forgiveness, but he does not suggest that faith operates independently of repentance and other acts of obedience. By including John the Baptist’s ministry of repentance and baptism, Paul signals that faith, repentance, and baptism were understood as interconnected elements in the preparation for the Messiah.
When Paul refers to David as a “man after God’s heart” (Acts 13:22), he points to David’s willingness to do God’s will. This emphasizes not just belief but also faithful action. By paralleling David’s obedience with Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promise, Paul reinforces the biblical pattern that authentic faith manifests in obedience to God’s commands.
Paul’s inclusion of John the Baptist’s ministry of repentance reminds the audience that the preparation for Jesus required more than belief—it required a baptism of repentance. John did not preach salvation by faith alone but instead called the people to turn away from their sins and undergo baptism as an outward sign of their commitment to God’s coming work.
Paul contrasts forgiveness through Jesus with the inability of the Law of Moses to bring freedom. However, the mention of repentance and baptism in the context of John the Baptist’s ministry suggests that freedom through Jesus does not negate the importance of outward expressions of faith, such as baptism, but fulfills their true purpose.

In Paul's parallel between David, Jesus, and John the Baptist, we have the following:

David represents obedience and faithful action as evidence of being "after God’s heart."
Jesus brings the fulfillment of the promise of salvation, but even His forerunner, John, called people to prepare through repentance and baptism.
John the Baptist preached the necessity of a visible response to faith through repentance and baptism.

This parallel reinforces that true faith includes not only belief but also a response in the form of repentance and obedience.

Acts 13 does not clearly support justificatio sola fide. While Paul emphasizes belief in Jesus as the means of forgiveness, he places it within the broader biblical context of repentance, obedience, and preparation for God’s work. The references to David’s obedience and John the Baptist’s ministry of repentance and baptism suggest that authentic faith is not isolated from outward expressions of commitment. Thus, the speech in Acts 13 presents a view of salvation that, while centered on faith, does not exclude repentance and baptism as integral parts of a believer’s response to the gospel. This challenges a simplistic interpretation of justificatio sola fide by framing faith as something demonstrated through acts of obedience, not as a disembodied intellectual assent.

Acts 16:14-15

These two verses describe the response of a woman to the message of Paul:

A certain woman named Lydia, a worshiper of God, was listening to us; she was from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth.

The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul.

When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home.” And she prevailed upon us.

This passage occurs during Paul’s second missionary journey as he travels through Macedonia. Philippi is a key Roman colony, and Lydia, a wealthy merchant of purple cloth from Thyatira, is described as a “worshiper of God”—a Gentile who was already inclined toward the Jewish faith. The relevant points in this passage include:

Lydia’s openness to Paul’s message is described as an act of divine grace, with God "opening her heart" to receive the gospel. This could seem to support the idea of faith as a divine gift rather than a human achievement. However, the narrative does not stop at her inward belief.
As soon as Lydia believes, she and her household are baptized. There is no mention of a public verbal confession of faith or any internalized-only response. Instead, the emphasis is on baptism as the outward expression of Lydia's faith.
Lydia's entire household is baptized along with her, reflecting the communal nature of conversion in the early Christian movement. This baptism is presented as the formal acknowledgment of their inclusion in the faith.

This opposed the idea of justificatio sola fide, for:

While Lydia’s heart is opened by God to receive the message, the narrative strongly emphasizes that belief naturally led to baptism. The act of baptism is portrayed as a necessary part of Lydia’s response, not a secondary or symbolic formality. If justificatio sola fide were true, the story could have ended after Lydia’s belief, with no need for baptism. Instead, baptism is presented as an integral part of her conversion process.
Lydia’s invitation for Paul and his companions to stay at her house shows that her faith is demonstrated through hospitality and obedience—a theme consistent throughout Acts. This supports the broader argument that belief in the New Testament is not a passive, internal event but something manifested in outward actions of faithfulness, including baptism.
The passage does not explicitly teach that Lydia’s faith alone, apart from baptism, is what saved her. Instead, the flow of the narrative suggests that baptism was part of her inclusion into the Christian community and an essential step in her faith journey.

Acts 16:14-15 does not support justificatio sola fide. While Lydia’s belief is attributed to divine grace, the passage emphasizes that baptism was a crucial part of her response to the gospel, and indeed, the only response that is even mentioned, not merely an optional ritual. Lydia’s story follows the consistent pattern in Acts where faith leads to baptism as an outward act of obedience and incorporation into the Christian community. This passage challenges the idea that faith alone, apart from any external response, is sufficient for salvation. Instead, it portrays faith as something that naturally leads to action—especially the act of baptism.

Acts 16:11-15

In Acts 16:25-34, it recounts a story where Paul and Silas were in jail:

About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.

Suddenly there was an earthquake, so violent that the foundations of the prison were shaken;

and immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone’s chains were unfastened.

When the jailer woke up and saw the prison doors wide open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself,

since he supposed that the prisoners had escaped.

But Paul shouted in a loud voice, ‘Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.’

The jailer called for lights, and rushing in, he fell down trembling before Paul and Silas.

Then he brought them outside and said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’

They answered, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’

They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.

At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds;

then he and his entire household were baptized without delay.

He brought them up into the house and set food before them;

and he and his entire household rejoiced that he had become a believer in God.”

The key points in the passage are:

The jailer’s question "What Must I Do to Be Saved?" is direct, and Paul and Silas’s answer is also direct: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” At first glance, this may seem to support justificatio sola fide, as Paul and Silas highlight belief in Jesus as the path to salvation.
However, the narrative does not stop at the jailer’s belief. After hearing the word of the Lord, the jailer immediately takes action:
- He washes the wounds of Paul and Silas, demonstrating repentance and hospitality.
- He and his entire household are baptized “without delay.”
The emphasis on immediate baptism strongly suggests that baptism was seen as part of the process of becoming a believer. The jailer’s household rejoices after the baptism, not before, indicating that the act of baptism was seen as a key step in their response to faith.
As with Lydia’s household earlier in the chapter, the baptism of the entire household reflects the communal nature of faith in the early Church. The household’s inclusion through baptism reinforces the idea that faith was expressed and formalized through baptism as part of salvation.

Does this passage support or challenge justificatio sola fide?

While faith is proclaimed, it is baptism that is practiced, for while Paul and Silas say, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,” the immediate follow-up is the preaching of the gospel and the baptism of the entire household. This suggests that belief and baptism were inseparable components of conversion. The narrative presents belief not as a disembodied mental assent but as something that naturally leads to outward action.
Faith is demonstrated by actions, as the jailer’s belief is evidenced through concrete actions: showing mercy, washing wounds, and undergoing baptism. These acts reflect a transformed heart and demonstrate that faith is lived out through obedience and ritual.
Baptism is performed without any delay, and the urgency of baptism challenges the idea that it was a secondary or symbolic act. If justificatio sola fide were true in the sense of belief being sufficient apart from action, there would be no reason for immediate baptism in the middle of the night.
There is no separation between faith and baptism, as the jailer’s story follows the same pattern seen throughout Acts—belief is proclaimed as essential, but baptism is consistently portrayed as the tangible expression of that belief. Faith and baptism are never separated in practice.

Thus, Acts 16:25-34 does not support justificatio sola fide. While Paul and Silas initially highlight faith in Jesus as the means of salvation, the narrative shows that this faith was inseparable from baptism. The jailer’s faith led him to immediate action, culminating in his baptism and that of his entire household. The text suggests that belief and baptism were viewed as an integrated response to the gospel, with baptism serving as a necessary outward expression of faith. Rather than supporting faith alone as sufficient for salvation, this passage reinforces the consistent message in Acts that faith is demonstrated and completed through obedience, repentance, and baptism.

Acts 18:8

Here we have a story summarized as a single verse:

Crispus, the official of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord, together with all his household, and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul became believers and were baptized.

In this chapter, Paul is in Corinth preaching to both Jews and Gentiles. After facing opposition in the synagogue, he shifts his focus to the Gentiles, though some Jews, like Crispus, the synagogue leader, also believe. Paul’s preaching leads to a significant number of Corinthians converting and being baptized. The key points in this verse include:

Crispus, as a synagogue official, would have been a respected religious leader within the Jewish community. His conversion to belief in Jesus is presented as significant, especially as his whole household also follows him in faith.
The text emphasizes that many Corinthians not only “became believers” but were also “baptized.” The mention of baptism alongside belief suggests that baptism was considered a natural and essential response to belief in Jesus.
While the passage highlights that belief in the message of Jesus is key, it immediately follows with the statement that those who believed were baptized. As there is no mention of “faith alone”, this implies that belief and baptism were inseparable actions in the early Christian community.

Thus, we observe that:

If belief alone were sufficient for salvation, there would be no reason to mention baptism as a necessary follow-up to belief. Instead, the passage treats baptism as the expected and immediate next step for those who believe.
This verse continues the established pattern seen throughout Acts: belief in Jesus leads to baptism as an essential outward sign of faith and inclusion into the Christian community. Belief is never presented as something that exists independently of action, particularly baptism.
The reference to household baptisms (both here and in earlier passages like Acts 16) underscores that baptism was not viewed as a private, optional ritual but as an integral part of the conversion process for the entire community of believers.

Acts 18:8 does not support justificatio sola fide. While the verse emphasizes belief in Jesus as central, it also underscores that baptism was a necessary and immediate response to that belief. The mention of baptism as the common practice for new believers in Corinth reinforces the idea that faith and baptism were closely linked, challenging the notion that faith alone, apart from any outward action, was sufficient for salvation. Instead, baptism is presented as an essential part of responding to the gospel message.

Acts 18:24-28

This passage introduces Apollos, a Jew from Alexandria who arrives in Ephesus:

Now there came to Ephesus a Jew named Apollos from Alexandria.

He was an eloquent man, well-versed in the scriptures.

He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord,

and he spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus,

though he knew only the baptism of John.

He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately.

And when he wished to cross over to Achaia,

the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him.

On his arrival he greatly helped those who through grace had become believers,

for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus.

He is described as an eloquent speaker, passionate, and knowledgeable in the Hebrew Scriptures. Apollos effectively teaches about Jesus, but he is only familiar with the baptism of John—a baptism of repentance—and seems unaware of the baptism associated with faith in Jesus Christ. When Priscilla and Aquila—two early Christian leaders—hear him, they privately instruct him in “the Way of God" more fully. After this, Apollos becomes an even more effective advocate for Jesus, boldly refuting his opponents in public and strengthening believers. The key points are:

Apollos is described as “knowing only the baptism of John", which suggests that he understood baptism as a preparatory act of repentance for the coming Messiah but lacked knowledge of the Christian baptism associated with Jesus’s death, resurrection, and the giving of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). The emphasis on the word “only" implies that Apollos’s understanding was incomplete, not that baptism itself was unnecessary. This distinction suggests that what Apollos needed to understand was the new baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), which represents full initiation into the Christian faith.
Rather than dismissing Apollos for his partial knowledge, Priscilla and Aquila take him aside and explain the gospel to him more fully. Their correction does not appear to focus on the necessity of baptism—which Apollos already seemed to accept—but rather on ensuring that Apollos understood the significance of Christian baptism as tied to Jesus’s identity as the risen Lord and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The fact that they do not correct Apollos’s belief in baptism itself reinforces that baptism was already accepted as essential, with the issue being the specific understanding of the new baptism associated with Jesus.
The next chapter in Acts 19:1-7 describes Paul encountering disciples in Ephesus who, like Apollos, only knew of John’s baptism. In that case, Paul explicitly re-baptizes them “in the name of the Lord Jesus”, and they receive the Holy Spirit. This shows that Christian baptism was considered necessary even for those who had undergone John’s baptism. While Acts 18 does not mention whether Apollos was re-baptized, the parallel suggests that understanding and practicing Christian baptism was crucial.
Apollos’s story illustrates that faith involves more than intellectual belief or passion—it requires proper knowledge and public action. After his correction, Apollos’s ministry becomes even more impactful: he boldly proclaims Jesus as the Messiah and strengthens believers. This demonstrates that true faith is lived out through both belief and outward actions of obedience, including accurate teaching and public witness.

Thus, we observe that:

The focus on Apollos’s incomplete understanding of Christian baptism suggests that faith alone, without proper understanding and action, was insufficient. Apollos needed to be corrected and further instructed, reinforcing the idea that obedience and outward expressions of faith, such as baptism, are integral to Christian discipleship.
If baptism were merely symbolic or unnecessary for salvation, there would be no reason for Priscilla and Aquila to take Apollos aside to correct his teaching. Their concern for instructing him more accurately implies that baptism, as part of “the Way of God," was significant for properly understanding and living out the gospel.
Apollos’s post-instruction actions—boldly refuting opponents and strengthening believers—illustrate that faith involves not only belief but also visible acts of faithfulness and proclamation. This reinforces that faith in the New Testament is not a static, internal belief but a dynamic, active trust demonstrated through public and communal acts.

Thus, we conclude that Acts 18:24-28 does not support justificatio sola fide. Although Apollos was fervent in his belief and eloquent in teaching about Jesus, he lacked a complete understanding of Christian baptism. Priscilla and Aquila’s intervention underscores that knowledge and obedience—including baptism—are essential to fully proclaiming and living out the Christian faith. This passage, like others in Acts, suggests that true faith is not merely intellectual assent but involves faithful action and proper understanding, challenging the notion that faith alone, apart from obedience, is sufficient.

Acts 19:1-7

This passage occurs in Ephesus after Paul arrives there during his third missionary journey:

While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through the interior regions and came to Ephesus, where he found some disciples.

He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?”

They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

Then he said, “Into what, then, were you baptized?”

They answered, “Into John’s baptism.”

Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.”

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

When Paul had laid his hands on them,

the Holy Spirit came upon them,

and they spoke in tongues and prophesied,

altogether there were about twelve of them.

Paul encounters a group of disciples—people who had some knowledge of Jesus but only knew John’s baptism. Their limited understanding of Christian teaching becomes apparent when Paul questions whether they had received the Holy Spirit. Upon realizing they had only undergone John’s baptism, Paul instructs them about Jesus, baptizes them “in the name of the Lord Jesus", and lays hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. The key points here are:

The disciples in Ephesus are described as believers, but they had only experienced John’s baptism, which was a baptism of repentance pointing forward to the coming of the Messiah. Their response—“we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit"—reveals that their understanding of the Christian message was incomplete. This demonstrates that belief alone in the limited teachings they had received was insufficient for receiving the full blessings of the Christian faith.
Paul explains that John’s baptism was intended to prepare people to believe in Jesus, the one who would come after John. However, this preparatory baptism was replaced by Christian baptism—an act that symbolized faith in Jesus's death and resurrection and involved the reception of the Holy Spirit. After hearing this, the disciples undergo Christian baptism, signifying their full participation in the new covenant.
After their baptism in Jesus’s name, Paul lays hands on the disciples, and they receive the Holy Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues and prophesying. This pattern—faith, baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit—echoes earlier events in Acts (e.g., Acts 2:38, Acts 8:17) and underscores that the Christian life involves a visible, tangible response to faith, rather than faith alone being sufficient.

Thus, we observe that:

Faith alone is not sufficient, for the disciples in Ephesus already had some form of belief in God and Jesus, yet Paul sees their faith as incomplete without proper baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit. This directly challenges sola fide, as their belief alone did not grant them the fullness of Christian salvation—they needed to undergo baptism in Jesus’s name and receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands.
On the other hand, baptism in Jesus’s name was necessary, for Paul’s response—immediately baptizing them—emphasizes that John’s baptism was no longer sufficient after the resurrection of Jesus. The disciples’ belief in Jesus was not enough until it was sealed by their baptism into the name of Jesus. If sola fide were true, there would have been no need for re-baptism.
This passage presents a clear connection between belief, baptism, and the Holy Spirit. Faith is central, but baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit are portrayed as necessary parts of the disciples’ full participation in the faith. The reception of the Spirit after baptism reinforces that the outward act of baptism was not just symbolic but an essential part of the Christian initiation process.
The disciples’ actions after their baptism—speaking in tongues and prophesying—demonstrate that faith in the New Testament is not a private, internalized experience but one that involves visible and active responses. This reinforces that faith is inseparable from action, including baptism, receiving the Spirit, and public witness.

Acts 19:1-7 challenges justificatio sola fide by demonstrating that belief alone, without proper baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit, was insufficient for full participation in the Christian faith. The disciples in Ephesus already believed in Jesus to some extent, but Paul emphasized that belief had to be accompanied by Christian baptism and the impartation of the Holy Spirit. The necessity of re-baptism in Jesus’s name underscores that Christian baptism was not an optional or symbolic ritual but a necessary part of the process of salvation and incorporation into the Christian community. This passage reinforces the consistent message in Acts that faith must be embodied in obedience, including baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit, challenging the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation.

Acts 19:1-7

We get to the last mention of baptism in the record of the deeds of the messengers, and this is where Paul recounts his conversion:

A certain Ananias, who was a devout man according to the law and well spoken of by all the Jews living there,

came to me, and standing beside me, he said, ‘Brother Saul, regain your sight!’

In that very hour I regained my sight and saw him.

Then he said, ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will, to see the Righteous One, and to hear his own voice, for you will be his witness to all the world of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you delay?

Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’

From this, we get:

The sequences of events proceed as follows: Ananias calls Saul (Paul) to action: “Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away." The imperative commands—“be baptized” (βαπτίσθητι) and “wash away” (ἀπόλουσαι)—are closely linked. The washing away of sins is clearly associated with the act of baptism. If belief alone were sufficient, Ananias would not have insisted on baptism as the necessary step for cleansing Saul of his sins.
The phrase “calling on his name" (ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ) occurs in conjunction with the act of baptism. In koine Greek, this phrase is grammatically linked to the baptismal act—it is something done during baptism, not as a separate declaration of faith prior to or apart from it. This matches the early Christian understanding of baptism as an appeal to God (see also 1 Peter 3:21: “baptism... as an appeal to God for a good conscience”). The calling on Jesus’s name represents a surrender to his lordship, but it is within the context of the baptismal act that this appeal takes place.
Ananias’s command, “Why do you delay?”, emphasizes the necessity and immediacy of baptism. There is no suggestion that Saul’s sins were forgiven at the moment of his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-6), despite his vision and repentance. Instead, the forgiveness of sins is explicitly tied to the act of baptism.

Thus, we observe that:

This is one of the strongest challenges to justificatio sola fide, as the phrase “be baptized and have your sins washed away” directly connects the forgiveness of sins to the act of baptism. This challenges justificatio sola fide, as it presents baptism not as a symbolic act but as the means by which sins are washed away. If faith alone were sufficient, there would be no reason to link the forgiveness of sins so explicitly to baptism.
The structure of the Greek text suggests that “calling on his name” is something that happens during the baptismal act. This aligns with early Christian practice, where baptism was understood as a public declaration of faith in Jesus's name. However, the act of calling on Jesus’s name is not separated from baptism but embedded within it, reinforcing that baptism is an essential part of conversion.
Ananias’s directive to Saul shows that baptism was not a passive ritual but an act of obedience and submission to God’s will. The washing away of sins is not portrayed as something that happens merely through intellectual belief but through active participation in baptism.

In Acts 22:16, the key verbs are:

βαπτίσθητι (be baptized), an aorist middle imperative, indicating a one-time action that Saul himself must undertake.
ἀπόλουσαι (wash away), another aorist imperative, reinforcing that the washing away of sins occurs as a result of baptism.
ἐπικαλεσάμενος (calling on), a participle connected to the imperatives, indicating that the “calling on his name” accompanies and is performed during baptism.

The grammar supports the interpretation that the appeal to Jesus’s name is part of the baptismal act, not an independent or preliminary step.

Thus, we conclude that Acts 22:12-16 strongly challenges justificatio sola fide. Ananias’s instructions to Saul emphasize that the washing away of sins is accomplished through baptism, not through faith alone. The Greek phrasing ties the calling on Jesus’s name to the act of baptism, reinforcing that baptism was viewed as the means by which believers appealed to God for forgiveness and full incorporation into the faith. This passage aligns with the broader message in Acts that faith, repentance, and baptism are inseparable elements of conversion and discipleship, directly opposing the notion that faith alone is sufficient for the forgiveness of sins.

Summary of Acts of the Apostles

The book of Acts consistently presents baptism as an essential component of Christian conversion, directly connected to the forgiveness of sins, the reception of the Holy Spirit, and inclusion in the faith community. There is no serious support for justificatio sola fide in Acts:

Baptism is presented as the mechanism for the forgiveness of sins:
- Acts 2:38: Peter commands repentance and baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins” and promises the gift of the Holy Spirit.
- Acts 22:16: Ananias tells Saul: “Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.” The washing away of sins is explicitly tied to baptism, not merely to belief.
Baptism as shown to be an integral part of belief or faith in Jesus:
- Acts 8:36-38: The Ethiopian eunuch’s immediate request for baptism shows that belief led naturally to baptism without delay.
- Acts 16:30-33: The Philippian jailer, after asking how to be saved, is baptized along with his household the same night, demonstrating that faith included obedience through baptism.
Baptism in Jesus is necessary even after partial belief:
- Acts 19:1-7: Disciples in Ephesus who only knew John’s baptism were re-baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus” and received the Holy Spirit, showing that Christian baptism was indispensable for full inclusion.
Finally, there is no support for justificatio sola fide, for even when the Holy Spirit precedes baptism (e.g., Acts 10:44-48), baptism remains necessary, as Peter still commands it, indicating that withholding it would hinder God. Faith alone is never portrayed as sufficient—baptism is consistently part of the prescribed response to the gospel.

In conclusion, baptism in Acts is not optional or symbolic; it is the act through which sins are washed away, believers receive the Holy Spirit, and they are formally incorporated into the faith. Every conversion account pairs belief with baptism, challenging the notion of salvation by faith alone.

3. The letters of Paul

We will now explore how immersion (baptism) is described in Paul’s epistles (letters) to early Christian communities. It is essential to consider the context of these letters: Paul is writing to groups of believers who, according to the practice described in Acts and the Gospels, had already undergone baptism in water as part of their conversion. This means that Paul is addressing people who, in principle, have already accepted both faith in Jesus and baptism as essential elements of their spiritual journey.

A key passage often referenced in this discussion is Mark 16:16, where Jesus says, “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.” If Paul shared this understanding, then his primary concern in these letters would not be to reintroduce baptism as a requirement for salvation, but to encourage believers to remain steadfast in their faith and live according to their baptismal identity.

To investigate whether Paul’s writings support the doctrine of justificatio sola fide, we will examine his letters in the generally accepted chronological order of their authorship. This approach will help us trace Paul’s teachings and observe whether he presents baptism as a foundational but past event or as an ongoing, integral aspect of Christian salvation alongside faith.

Galatians 3

In Galatians 3:1-22, Paul addresses the Galatians’ shift from faith in Christ to reliance on the works of the Law, rebuking them for their foolishness in trying to achieve righteousness through human effort rather than by the Spirit. He presents Abraham as the model of justification by faith, emphasizing that God credited Abraham’s belief as righteousness long before the Law was given. Paul explains that the promise to Abraham—that all nations would be blessed through him—predates the Law by 430 years, underscoring that the promise rests on faith, not the Law.

Paul further asserts that the Law cannot justify but instead reveals humanity’s sinfulness and the need for a savior. Those who rely on the Law for righteousness are under a curse because no one can fully uphold it. However, Jesus redeems humanity by becoming a curse on our behalf. The purpose of the Law, Paul explains, served as a guardian (παιδαγωγός) until Christ came, enabling justification by faith him him. He concludes by affirming that scripture has imprisoned all under sin, so that the promise of salvation is available only through faith in Jesus.

One of the most frequently cited verses to support justificatio sola fide is Galatians 3:11 where Paul says “now it is evident that no one is reckoned as righteous before God by the law, for ‘the one who is righteous will live by faith.’” At first glance, this verse in isolation appears to establish faith alone as the means of justification. However, a fuller reading of Paul’s argument, particularly, verses 23-26, adds complexity to his interpretation:

Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed.

Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be reckoned as righteous by faith.

But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.

In this passage, Paul explains that before the coming of faith in Christ, humanity was held captive under the guardianship of the Law, which acted as a disciplinarian, preparing the way for Christ. With the arrival of faith, believers are no longer under the Law’s authority. Instead, through faith in Jesus Christ, they become children of God, signifying a transition from legal guardianship to the full status of sons and daughters of God.

In Galatians 3:27, immediately after emphasizing faith, Paul writes:

As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

This verse is pivotal because it explicitly ties baptism into Christ with being clothed with Christ, establishing a direct relationship between the two. While some may interpret baptism as a symbolic act secondary to faith, the phrasing “as many of you as” (Greek: ὅσοι) suggests a more exclusive connection. Paul does not say “some” or “many,” but “all who”—indicating a universal and exact correspondence.

The phrase “as many of you as were baptized into Christ” creates an exact correspondence between those baptized and those clothed with Christ. This suggests that being clothed with Christ happens only to those who are baptized. Therefore, baptism is presented as both necessary and sufficient for being clothed with Christ, symbolizing a transformation of identity and a union with Christ that is essential to the Christian life. This interpretation aligns with Paul’s use of the same phrase ὅσοι in Romans 6:3, where he writes: “Do you not know that all who (ὅσοι) were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” In both cases, Paul presents an exact equivalence: to be baptized into Christ is to be united with his identity, whether as participants in his death (Romans 6) or as those clothed in him (Galatians 3).

Paul continues:

There is no longer Jew or Greek;

there is no longer slave or free;

there is no longer male and female,

for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Paul expands the significance of baptism by explaining its communal implications. Baptism into Jesus erases divisions of ethnicity, social status, and gender. Believers are united in their identity as one in Christ, transcending earthly distinctions. He concludes in Galatians 3:29:

And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.

This progression—baptism into Christ, unity in Christ, and belonging to Christ—demonstrates that baptism is foundational to being counted as Abraham’s heirs. Without this transformation, the unity and inheritance Paul describes would not be possible.

Paul’s choice of phrasing in Galatians 3:27 stands out in contrast to his use of conditional statements elsewhere in the chapter:

Galatians 3:7: “Those who believe are descendants of Abraham” presents an implication.
Galatians 3:29: “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring” follows a conditional “if-then” structure.

In contrast, ὅσοι in Galatians 3:27 specifies an exact correspondence between the group being baptized and those clothed with Christ. By using this construction, Paul emphasizes that baptism, rather than being optional, is the defining event that enacts the believer’s new identity in Christ.

While Paul upholds faith as the basis for justification, he presents baptism as the means through which faith is enacted. Baptism marks the believer’s participation in Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4) and their adoption as children of God (Galatians 3:26-27). To suggest that Galatians 3:11 supports sola fide is to isolate one verse from the broader argument. Instead, Paul’s discussion of faith and baptism aligns more closely with Mark 16:16:

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

Faith is necessary for salvation, but baptism serves as the defining point at which believers are united with Jesus, washed clean, and transformed into heirs of the covenant promise.

In Galatians 3, Paul emphasizes that salvation—becoming heirs to Abraham’s promise—comes through faith enacted through baptism. Baptism is presented as the moment in which believers are clothed with Christ and united in his righteousness and identity. By tying salvation directly to being clothed in Christ through baptism, Paul underscores the indispensability of baptism as the means by which faith is outwardly expressed and believers enter God’s covenant family. Far from supporting justificatio sola fide, Galatians 3 demonstrates that baptism is not an optional act but an essential component of Christian salvation.

A question of translation

One may also ask if the translation is correct: perhaps this is not what Paul actually meant. The phrase is ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε. The first word, ὅσοι, is a nominative plural reflexive pronoun that can be translated as either “as many as” or “all who.” The use of ὅσοι emphasizes that the statement applies universally to everyone within the specified group—all who were baptized into Christ. It specifies that the subsequent action (being clothed with Christ) is true only of those who meet the condition (being baptized into Christ). This contributes to the argument’s logical progression: baptism is the entry point into being “clothed with Christ.” Additionally, the pronoun excludes ambiguity; all who are baptized into Christ are clothed with Him, and implicitly, only those baptized share this identity.

To give another example, Paul uses this same word in Romans 6:3. Interestingly, the translators here chose to use the “all who” translation, for here it says “Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” Yet, here, too, this is an case of an exact correspondence: those who are baptized into Jesus Christ are baptized into his death, and vice versa.

On the other hand, in many cases Paul does state an implication in Galatians 3, and nowhere does Paul use ὅσοι. For example:

In Galatians 3:7, the implication is implied: those who believe are the descendants of Abraham.
In Galatians 3:14, the implication is presented using so that or therefore, one that equivalently says if one is in Christ and has faith, then they receive the blessing of Abraham and the promise of the Spirit
In Galatians 3:18, an explicit “if p, q” construction is used: if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise.
In Galatians 3:29, another “if p, q” construction is used: if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring.

Thus, Paul specifically uses ὅσοι in this situation, and its usage suggests he is indicating an exact correspondence. Elsewhere where he uses this word, he also clearly indicates an exact correspondence. However, where he is giving an implication , he uses other terminology.

One may may ask if the phrase “as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” is correctly interpreted as “you are baptized into Christ if and only if you have clothed yourself with Christ” as opposed to “if you are baptized into Christ, you have clothed yourself with Christ,” leaving the possibility of there being other conditions when one is clothed in Jesus. Consider the following statement: “as many real x such that x > 2 have the property that x³ > 8.” This is reasonable, for “x > 2 if and only if x³ > 8.” However, can you say “as many real x such that x > 2 have the property that x² > 4”? This is not correct, for if x = −2, then x ≤ 2 and yet x² > 4, and thus it is false that “as many real x such that x > 2 have the property that x² > 4” for there are more real x that have the property that x² > 4 than just those values that are greater than two.

1 Corinthians 1:10-17

Paul writes to the Corinthian church, which was facing significant divisions based on allegiance to different leaders (Paul, Apollos, Cephas, or Christ). These divisions were fracturing the community, and Paul addresses this issue head-on in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17:

Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,

that all of you be in agreement

and that there be no divisions among you

but that you be knit together in the same mind and the same purpose.

For it has been made clear to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters.

What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”

Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name.

I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel—

and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power.

The key points in Paul’s argument are:

Paul’s concern is division, not baptism itself, Paul’s focus in this passage is on the divisions in the church, not on diminishing the practice or significance of baptism. The Corinthians were associating their faith with the individual who baptized them rather than with Christ, which led to factionalism. Paul responds rhetorically:
- “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
  By emphasizing Christ as the one who was crucified for them, Paul redirects their focus from human leaders to Jesus, the true source of their salvation.
Paul’s statement in verse 17—“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to proclaim the gospel”—is often misunderstood. Paul is not saying that baptism is unimportant or unnecessary. Instead, he is emphasizing that his primary mission is to proclaim the gospel, while baptism is the natural outcome of belief in that gospel message (as seen throughout Acts). Paul’s ministry strategy reflects the division of labor: his task is to preach Christ crucified, while others may handle the act of baptism. This division of tasks does not devalue baptism; it highlights the urgency of spreading the message of salvation.
Throughout Paul’s letters and the Christian scriptures as a whole, baptism follows belief as a natural and expected response:
- Acts 16:14-15 (Lydia) and Acts 16:31-33 (the Philippian jailer) show that after receiving the message of Christ, believers were immediately baptized.
- Romans 6:3-4 explicitly connects baptism to dying and rising with Christ, reinforcing that baptism signifies union with Him in His death and resurrection.
Therefore, Paul’s point is not that baptism is irrelevant but that baptism follows the proclamation of the gospel. The act of baptism is the outward expression of an inward faith and is not to be seen as a reason for boasting about the baptizer.
Paul has serious concerns about misplaced allegiances, for Paul thanks God that he baptized only a few people in Corinth because the church’s divisions showed that they were turning baptism into a status marker tied to specific leaders. By distancing himself from the act of baptizing, Paul removes himself from their allegiances and centers their faith where it belongs—on Christ.

Paul’s mission was to proclaim the gospel, and the purpose of that proclamation was to lead people to faith in Christ. However, Paul assumes that those who believe the gospel will be baptized as an expression of their faith, as is evident from his teachings in other letters (e.g., Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27). His statement in 1 Corinthians 1:17 does not undermine baptism but instead underscores that baptism is not meant to be a source of division or misplaced loyalty—it is an act that follows faith, not a badge of allegiance to human leaders.

Why this does not support justificatio sola fide:

Paul assumes that faith will result in baptism. He does not deny the necessity of baptism but rather focuses on the necessity of faith as the starting point. If baptism were unnecessary, Paul would have explicitly stated that belief alone is sufficient, yet he never argues this. Instead, he treats baptism as an essential outcome of genuine belief.
Paul wants to prevent followers from boasting in human leaders, for the context of this passage is not a theological argument for justification by faith alone but a pastoral concern about disunity. Paul’s concern is that no one should boast in who baptized them, as this detracts from the centrality of Christ. By saying, “Christ did not send me to baptize,” Paul is emphasizing that the message of the cross, not the baptizer, is what saves.

In conclusion, in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, Paul emphasizes that the proclamation of the gospel is his primary mission because faith comes by hearing the word of Christ (Romans 10:17). However, this does not mean that baptism is unnecessary; rather, it is the natural response to belief in the gospel. Paul distances himself from performing baptisms to prevent factionalism, not to devalue the significance of baptism. His concern is that the Corinthians’ faith remains centered on Christ, not on the human agents involved. Therefore, this passage does not support sola fide but reinforces that belief and baptism are interconnected, with baptism serving as the expected outward expression of inward faith.

1 Corinthians 10:1-5

In 1 Corinthians 10:1-5, Paul writes:

I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were

all under the cloud,

and all passed through the sea,

and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

and all ate the same spiritual food,

and all drank the same spiritual drink.

For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.

Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness.

In this passage, Paul warns the Corinthians by using the story of the Israelites in the wilderness. He draws a parallel between the experiences of Israel during the Exodus and the experiences of Christian believers. Paul recounts how the Israelites passed through the Red Sea, were led by the cloud of God’s presence, and received sustenance from God. Despite these spiritual “baptisms” and blessings, many of them failed to remain faithful and suffered judgment.

Paul states that the Israelites were “baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” This metaphorical baptism corresponds to the Israelites' passage through the Red Sea and their submission to Moses as their leader under God’s covenant. Paul appears to be using this imagery to draw a parallel between their experience and Christian baptism:

“In the cloud” refers to the presence and guidance of God (Exodus 13:21).
“In the sea” refers to the Israelites’ miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, which symbolized deliverance from slavery.

From this text, we may see the following:

This is neither a refutation nor direct support for sola fide, for this passage does not explicitly address this question but instead uses baptism imagery to illustrate God’s saving acts and the necessity of ongoing faithfulness. Paul emphasizes that even though the Israelites experienced a symbolic “baptism” and divine provision, most of them ultimately failed to remain obedient and were judged. This serves as a warning to the Corinthians that initial participation in God’s blessings (through baptism, communion, etc.) does not guarantee perseverance without faith and obedience.
This is a warnings against complacency, for by referencing the Israelites' baptism “into Moses,” Paul underscores that participation in symbolic acts of salvation (baptism, spiritual sustenance) must be accompanied by ongoing faithfulness and obedience. The Israelites’ downfall was not due to a lack of ritual participation but due to rebellion, idolatry, and unfaithfulness. In this sense, the passage challenges any interpretation of faith or baptism as a one-time event sufficient for salvation regardless of subsequent behavior.
The implications for faith and baptism are as follows:
1. Paul’s analogy to the Israelites implies that Christian baptism similarly marks a significant spiritual reality: a new identity and relationship with Christ.
2. However, like the Israelites who were “baptized into Moses,” believers must not assume that the mere act of baptism secures salvation without continued faith and commitment. This seems to challenge an overly simplistic interpretation of sola fide that might separate faith from perseverance in righteous living.

Paul’s primary concern in this passage is not to debate the mechanics of salvation but to warn believers against complacency and spiritual pride. The Corinthians are reminded that:

Baptism and participation in the Lord’s Table (symbolized by “spiritual food and drink”) connect believers to Christ.
However, just as many Israelites failed to reach the Promised Land due to rebellion, Christians must remain vigilant, faithful, and obedient.

Paul’s argument seems to imply that faith must be active and persevering, rather than a passive belief disconnected from action. While this passage does not reject faith as the basis for justification, it does caution against viewing faith as an isolated moment rather than an ongoing relationship with God.

To conclude, 1 Corinthians 10:1-5 neither explicitly supports nor refutes sola fide. Instead, it emphasizes that participation in baptism and the blessings of faith must be accompanied by ongoing faithfulness and obedience to avoid falling away. The passage suggests that baptism signifies entry into a covenant relationship but does not guarantee perseverance without genuine faith and commitment. Therefore, this passage warns against any interpretation of salvation—whether focused on baptism, ritual, or faith alone—that neglects the necessity of living out that faith through obedience and reliance on God’s grace.

1 Corinthians 12:12-31

In 1 Corinthians 12:12-31, Paul says:

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.

For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

The context of this passage is where Paul describes the Church as the body of Christ, composed of diverse members with different roles and gifts but united by their shared relationship with Christ. Paul’s emphasis is on the unity of believers, regardless of ethnicity, social status, or individual function within the Church. The key phrase is “baptized into one body”, which underscores how baptism symbolizes entry into this unified community under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The key points about baptism in this passage are:

Baptism is an act of inclusion, for Paul writes that “in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” and “we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” This suggests that baptism marks the point of incorporation into the body of Christ, the Church. The act of baptism signifies both spiritual rebirth and communal belonging.
This unity is across social and cultural divides, as he mentions of Jews or Greeks, slaves or free parallels Galatians 3:27-28, where Paul argues that baptism into Christ erases divisions and creates equality in Christ. This reinforces that baptism signifies a spiritual leveling where all believers are equal members of Christ’s body.
Finally, he describes spiritual transformation and a shared identity, as the phrase “made to drink of one Spirit” conveys the idea of receiving the Holy Spirit as part of the believer’s participation in Christ’s body. This reinforces that baptism is not merely symbolic but marks a real spiritual transformation and union with Christ and His Spirit.

As to whether this this passage supports or refutes sola fide, we may observe:

This passage suggests that faith alone does not fully encapsulate the believer’s entry into the Christian life. Baptism in the Spirit (and likely water baptism, as Paul assumes their inseparability) is presented as the defining act of incorporation into the body of Christ. The phrasing “baptized into one body” emphasizes that participation in Christ’s body—the Church—requires more than individual faith; it involves a formal, outward act of obedience.
Faith is expressed through baptism, for while Paul emphasizes faith as the foundation of salvation in other contexts, here he shows that baptism is the means by which believers are united with Christ and each other. This suggests that baptism serves as a public expression of faith and the mechanism for becoming a full participant in the body of Christ.
Paul also emphasizes the communal aspect of faith, for if sola fide is interpreted to mean that individual faith alone is sufficient without any outward expression, this passage refutes that idea. Baptism, as described here, is essential for entering into the community of believers and receiving the shared identity of the Church. Faith is never portrayed as a purely personal, internal experience but one that manifests through baptism and participation in the life of the Church

It is necessary, also to clarify spiritual and physical baptism. Some proponents of sola fide might argue that Paul is referring to spiritual baptism (the inward reception of the Holy Spirit) rather than water baptism. However, Paul’s consistent pattern in his writings and in the broader Christian scriptures suggests that baptism in the Spirit and baptism in water are not separate realities but intertwined experiences (see Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27). The assumption that those baptized in the Spirit are also baptized in water is prevalent throughout Paul’s epistles and the early Christian community.

1 Corinthians 12:12-31 challenges justificatio sola fide by presenting baptism as the means by which believers are united into the body of Christ. The passage emphasizes that believers do not merely enter the faith individually but are incorporated into a collective identity through baptism, both spiritually and communally. Baptism is presented as the visible entry point into the Christian life and the Church, reinforcing that faith alone, apart from the outward expression of baptism, does not fully define participation in the life of Christ. Therefore, this passage supports the idea that faith must be accompanied by baptism to fully express one’s unity with Christ and His body, challenging the notion of faith alone as sufficient for salvation and inclusion in the Christian community.

1 Corinthians 15:29

In 1 Corinthians 15:29, Paul references the practice of being “baptized on behalf of the dead” as part of his defense of the resurrection. Although the exact meaning of this practice is unclear, Paul’s primary point is that the act itself presumes belief in an afterlife and resurrection. Without the resurrection, such a practice would be meaningless.

There are several interpretations of “baptism for the dead”:

Vicarious baptism: Some believe it refers to a practice where living believers were baptized on behalf of deceased individuals.
Baptism in the face of death: Others interpret it as referring to baptism of individuals who embraced faith despite the threat of death, symbolizing their hope in resurrection.
Continuity of faith: A third view is that baptism symbolizes the continuation of the faith community, honoring those who died in Christ by continuing to live out their legacy of belief.

Regardless of the exact practice, Paul’s point remains the same: baptism is tied to the hope of resurrection. If there were no resurrection, the symbolic and spiritual meaning of baptism would be void.

This passage neither explicitly supports nor refutes justificatio sola fide by presenting baptism as the means by which believers are united into the body of Jesus. The passage emphasizes that believers do not merely enter but highlights that baptism is an outward act that expresses faith in resurrection and eternal life. It reinforces Paul’s broader view that Christian rituals, including baptism, are not empty gestures but meaningful acts of faith tied to the hope of new life in Jesus.

Romans

Paul’s letter to the church in Rome, written around 57 CE, was addressed to a diverse community of Jewish and Gentile Christians living in the capital of the Roman Empire. Paul had not yet visited Rome but hoped to gain the church’s support for his planned mission to Spain. The letter serves both as a theological treatise and as an introduction to Paul’s gospel, addressing tensions between Jewish and Gentile believers over the role of the Law, faith, and grace. Paul emphasizes the universality of sin, justification by faith in Christ, and the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s covenant promises, while also reaffirming God’s continuing faithfulness to Israel.

In the first few chapters of Paul’s letter to the church in Rome, there are two passages in particular that are used to support justificatio sola fide:

Romans 3:28, which says “For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.”
Romans 4:3-5, which says “For what does the scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.”
Romans 5:1, which says “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, ...”

However, just as we examined Galatians 3:11 in the context of the totality of Galatians 3, we will now examine these verses in the context of the totality of the arguments being made by Paul, starting from Romans 1 and ending with Romans 6 and beyond.

Paul establishes that all humanity, both Jew and Gentile, is sinful and in need of salvation. He explains that justification comes not through the works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ, who provides redemption through his sacrificial death. Using Abraham as an example, Paul shows that righteousness has always been based on faith, not works. The result of justification is peace with God, hope in his promises, and reconciliation through Jesus Christ, whose act of obedience triumphs over the sin brought into the world by Adam.

Covering the first five chapters in detail, we have:

Romans 1:18-3:20 where Paul describes universal sinfulness, where he demonstrates that all humanity, whether Jew or Gentile, is sinful and accountable to God. Paul dismantles any notion of moral or ethnic superiority, preparing the way for his argument about justification by faith. Paul’s argument unfolds as follows:
1. In Romans 1:18-32, he describes the sinfulness of gentiles by declaring that God’s wrath is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. He asserts that Gentiles are without excuse because God’s divine nature is evident in creation (1:19-20). Despite knowing God, they turned to idolatry, leading to moral corruption. God “gave them over” to their sinful desires, resulting in a cascade of vices (1:24-32).
2. In Romans 2:1-29, Paul describes the sinfulness of Jews. Paul shifts his focus to the Jews, arguing that having the Law does not exempt them from judgment. He rebukes those who judge others while practicing the same sins (2:1-3) and states that God’s judgment is impartial and based on righteousness, not ethnicity or possession of the Law (2:6-11). Paul concludes by claiming that true circumcision is not outward but inward, of the heart, by the Spirit (2:28-29).
3. In Romans 3:1-20, Paul summarizes the universality of sin. Paul concludes that both Jews and Gentiles are under the power of sin (3:9). He supports this claim with a series of quotations from the Tanakh, emphasizing that no one is righteous (3:10-18). He then claims that the Law cannot justify anyone; its purpose is to reveal sin (3:19-20).
Romans 3:21-31 where Paul describes that righteousness comes through faith. He establishes that righteousness is a gift of grace, made possible through faith in Jesus Christ, and is available to both Jews and Gentiles. Paul transitions from humanity’s universal sinfulness to God’s provision of righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ:
1. In Romans 3:21-26, Paul states that the righteousness of God is revealed apart from the Law but attested by the Law and the Prophets (3:21). He claims that righteousness comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe, regardless of ethnicity (3:22). He concludes that Christ’s atoning sacrifice demonstrates God’s justice and mercy, allowing him to be both just and the justifier of those who have faith (3:25-26).
2. In Romans 3:27-31, Paul argues that boasting is excluded because justification is by faith, not works (3:27-28). God is the God of both Jews and Gentiles, and justification comes through faith for all (3:29-30). He then claims that the Law is not nullified but fulfilled through faith (3:31).
Romans 4:1-25 where Paul uses Abraham as the example of faith. Abraham’s faith, not his works or circumcision, serves as the model for how all believers—Jews and Gentiles—are justified by faith. Paul uses Abraham to illustrate justification by faith:
1. In Romans 4:1-12, Paul states that Abraham was justified by faith, not works, as Scripture says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness” (4:3). This justification occurred before he was circumcised, making him the father of both circumcised and uncircumcised believers.
2. In Romans 4:13-25, Paul claims that the promise to Abraham and his offspring was based on faith, not the Law (4:13-15). He says Abraham’s faith in God’s promise was unwavering, and his belief was credited as righteousness (4:20-22) and that this example applies to all who believe in Jesus, whose resurrection secures their justification (4:23-25).
Romans 5:1-11 where Paul introduces the results of justification. Justification by faith results in peace, hope, joy in suffering, and reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ. Paul describes the benefits of justification by faith:
1. In Romans 5:1-2, Paul states that justification brings peace with God and access to grace, allowing believers to rejoice in the hope of sharing God’s glory.
2. In Romans 5:3-8, he says believers can rejoice in suffering because it produces endurance, character, and hope (5:3-5) and that God’s love is demonstrated in that Christ died for sinners while they were still powerless and ungodly (5:6-8).
3. In Romans 5:9-11, he discusses reconciliation through Christ, where justification by Christ’s blood ensures salvation from God’s wrath (5:9) and believers are reconciled to God through the death and life of Jesus, giving them reason to rejoice (5:10-11).
Romans 5:12-21 where Paul contrasts Adam and Christ. Paul contrasts Adam and Christ to explain how Christ’s act of righteousness reverses the effects of Adam’s sin:
1. In Romans 5:12-14, Paul discusses Adam’s Sin and its consequences: Sin entered the world through Adam, bringing death to all humanity (5:12) and death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way as Adam (5:14).
2. In Romans 5:15-21, Paul describes Christ’s act of righteousness, where Christ’s gift of grace is far greater than Adam’s trespass (5:15-16). Through Adam’s disobedience, many were made sinners, but through Christ’s obedience, many are made righteous (5:18-19), concluding that grace reigns through righteousness, leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ (5:21).

If this is all Paul said, one may perhaps claim that Paul supported the idea of justificatio sola fide; however, we must now move on to Romans 6. Here Paul discusses baptism and its connection to Jesus’s death emphasizing the profound transformation that occurs through baptism. The text implies that baptism is not only symbolic but is presented as the means by which believers are united with Christ’s death and resurrection. Let us look at the critical text in Romans 6:3-4, which says

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Therefore, we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

Examining what Paul writes:

Paul emphasizes that baptism links believers to Jesus’s death and resurrection. He states that those who are baptized into Christ Jesus are baptized into his death. This union with Christ’s death is not merely metaphorical but foundational for the believer’s spiritual transformation. It is through baptism that believers participate in Christ’s burial and resurrection, symbolizing the death of the old self and the birth of a new life in Christ.
He claims that baptism is a means of transformation. Baptism is described as the act through which believers are “buried with [Christ] into death” (6:4). This burial is necessary for believers to share in the resurrection life of Jesus. The transformative purpose of baptism—walking in newness of life—hinges on this connection to Jesus’s death and resurrection.
Paul view emphasizes the necessity of baptism. His language implies that baptism is the means by which believers are united with Christ’s death and resurrection. Without baptism, this union would not occur in the manner Paul describes. This necessity is reinforced by the sequence: baptism leads to burial with Christ, which then leads to the believer’s new life.

Within Paul’s argument, baptism is presented as essential for participating in Christ’s death and resurrection. The language is not optional or secondary but integral to the transformation described. Without baptism, the believer would lack the burial with Christ that leads to newness of life. While faith is the basis for justification (Romans 5:1), baptism is the outward and enacted means through which the believer’s union with Christ’s death and resurrection is realized.

To emphasize that we are not taking Romans 1 through 6 out of context, we will look at the balance of Paul’s letter to the Romans. Romans 7 and 8 sees Paul describe the nature of the believer’s life. His discussion remains related to sin and salvation, but the focus is now on the Christian experience of living in the Spirit and the ongoing struggle with sin. These chapters transition from the theological foundation of justification to its practical implications. In Romans 7, Paul describes the believer’s internal struggle with sin, even after justification. The Law reveals sin but cannot save; instead, it highlights humanity’s need for grace (7:7-13). Paul expresses the tension between the desire to obey God and the power of sin in the flesh: “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do” (7:19). In Romans 8, Paul contrasts life in the flesh with life in the Spirit, emphasizing that those who are in Christ are no longer condemned (8:1). He states that the Spirit enables believers to live righteously, assures their adoption as children of God, and provides hope of future glory (8:14-17). Paul concludes with a triumphant declaration that nothing can separate believers from the love of God in Christ Jesus (8:38-39). Romans 9 is the start of a major thematic shift, where Paul turns to the question of Israel’s role in God’s plan of salvation. This represents a significant shift from the universal discussion of sin and salvation to a specific focus on God’s sovereignty and Israel’s rejection of the gospel.

In conclusion, Romans 5 emphasizes justification by faith, which brings peace with God, and it is this faith is the foundation for salvation. Romans 6 builds on this foundation, showing that baptism is the point where faith becomes enacted and visible, uniting the believer with Christ in his death and resurrection. To claim that specific verses in Romans 1 through 5 support justificatio sola fide is to, once again, take those verses out of context. A complete reading of Romans 1 through 6 once again, like Galatians 3, aligns more closely with Mark 16:16, which states “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.” In his letter to the church in Rome, Paul presents faith as essential for justification and reconciliation with God, but it also emphasizes baptism as the means by which believers are united with Christ’s death and resurrection, marking the beginning of their new life in him.

Colossians

In the letter to the church at Colossae, we have

As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord,

continue to walk in him,

rooted and built up in him

and established in the faith,

just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.

Watch out that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit,

according to human tradition,

according to the elemental principles of the world,

and not according to Christ.

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority.

In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision,

by the removal of the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ;

when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God,

who raised him from the dead.

And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh,

God made you alive together with him,

when he forgave us all our trespasses,

erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands.

He set this aside, nailing it to the cross.

He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it.

The key verse here is Colossians 2:12:

When you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

The context and key themes are:

Spiritual circumcision, for Paul draws a parallel between circumcision and baptism. He explains that believers receive a spiritual circumcision, which is not a physical cutting of the flesh but the removal of the sinful nature through Christ.
There is a union with Christ’s death and resurrection, for baptism is described as the moment when believers are “buried with Christ” and “raised with Him”. This mirrors the imagery in Romans 6:3-4, where baptism represents participation in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Importantly, Paul emphasizes that this resurrection is accomplished “through faith in the power of God”—connecting baptism to an act of faith rather than a ritualistic work.
There is forgiveness and a new life, as Paul reminds the Colossians that before coming to Christ, they were spiritually dead due to their sins. Through Christ’s sacrifice, their sins were forgiven, and they were made alive. This underscores that their salvation is due to God’s action—His power and grace—not human effort.

Does Colossians 2:6-15 support or refute sola fide?

It is a challenge to sola fide, as Paul’s description of baptism as the moment of “being buried and raised with Christ” challenges the idea that faith alone, apart from any outward expression, is sufficient for salvation. Baptism is presented as a decisive, faith-filled act where believers are spiritually united with Christ’s death and resurrection. The phrase “through faith in the power of God” suggests that baptism is not a human work to earn salvation but an act of faith and submission to God’s saving power.
Paul establishes faith as the foundation, for although baptism is essential, Paul makes it clear that the resurrection life believers receive in baptism is activated “through faith.” This supports the view that faith is the core of justification. However, baptism is portrayed as the context in which that faith is enacted—a moment where believers are transformed and publicly express their trust in God’s power.
Baptism is presented as spiritual circumcision, for by calling baptism a “spiritual circumcision”, Paul reinforces that baptism is a sign of entering the New Covenant, just as circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant. However, unlike physical circumcision, which was a legalistic requirement, baptism represents the removal of sin and rebirth in Christ. This suggests that baptism is not a work of the Law but an act of grace through faith.

The key takeaways are:

Baptism and faith are inseparable, as Paul’s language in Colossians 2:12 shows that baptism and faith work together rather than in isolation. Baptism is the outward sign and inward reality of the believer’s participation in Christ’s death and resurrection.
Baptism as more than symbolic, as Paul does not treat baptism as a mere symbol but as a profound, spiritual event that marks the believer’s new life in Christ.
If sola fide is understood as "faith alone" without any outward act of obedience, this passage challenges that interpretation. Paul’s depiction of baptism assumes that faith finds its fulfillment and expression in the act of baptism.

In conclusion, Colossians 2:6-15 presents baptism as a pivotal moment in the believer’s salvation, where they are buried and raised with Christ. Paul emphasizes that this transformation occurs “through faith in the power of God”, demonstrating that baptism is an act of faith, not a human work to earn righteousness. However, because baptism is presented as the means through which faith is expressed and salvation is experienced, this passage challenges the notion of sola fide if it excludes baptism as part of the believer's response. Instead, Paul presents faith and baptism as interconnected, reinforcing that salvation involves both an internal trust in God and an outward expression of that faith through baptism.

Ephesians

The letter to the church in Ephesus, traditionally attributed to Paul, is considered by many scholars to be pseudepigraphal—written by a later follower in Paul’s name—due to differences in style, vocabulary, and theology. Unlike Paul’s undisputed letters, Ephesians features longer, more formal sentences and unique phrases, such as “heavenly places,” not found elsewhere in his writings. Its emphasis on the church as a universal, eternal body of Christ and its focus on cosmic reconciliation diverge from Paul’s earlier writings, which prioritize justification by faith and the imminent return of Christ. Furthermore, Ephesians lacks personal greetings and specific references to the Ephesian church, raising questions about its intended audience and whether it reflects Paul’s direct interaction with that community.

Scholars also note parallels with Colossians, as Ephesians often expands on or reuses material from that letter, suggesting a derivative or later authorship. The historical context of Ephesians points to a more institutionalized church, characteristic of a post-Pauline era in the late first or early second century. Despite these considerations, evangelical churches and other traditions continue to accept Ephesians as an authentic Pauline letter, emphasizing its theological richness and alignment with Paul’s core teachings. Whether written by Paul or a later follower, Ephesians remains a profound text that reflects the evolving understanding of the church’s unity and Christ’s cosmic work.

Ephesians 2:8-9, where Paul allegedly writes, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast.” is an oft-used passage to justify justificatio sola fide. After all, what could be more clear than the statement, “for by grace you have been saved through faith.” We will, however, examine Ephesians 2:1-10 to understand these two verses, once again, in context, and we will look at other references to baptism in this letter.

Before we begin, we must however examine the context with respect to Ephesians 1. The author opens this letter with a greeting to the believers in Ephesus, followed by a rich doxology praising God for every spiritual blessing found “in Christ.” Paul highlights how God chose his people before creation, destined them in love to be adopted as his children, and redeemed them through Christ’s blood, all for the praise of his glorious grace. He underscores that God’s grand plan is to unite all things in heaven and on earth under Christ’s lordship. Paul then prays that the Ephesians would grasp the immeasurable power of God at work in believers—demonstrated supremely in Christ’s resurrection and exaltation above every authority—so they would know the hope of God’s call, the riches of their inheritance, and the greatness of his power. Essentially, Ephesians 1 celebrates the believer’s identity in Christ and the divine purpose that enfolds and empowers them.

Ephesians 2:1-10 transitions from describing a grand, overarching plan to showing how it applies personally. Here, those who were once “dead” in wrongdoing have been brought to life with Christ, emphasizing that this transformation comes as an unearned gift. The passage points to “faith” as the way this new life is embraced, underscoring that it is not achieved by any individual merit. Finally, the text portrays those who receive this gift as shaped to carry out good actions that align with a greater purpose prepared in advance.

You were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once walked,

following the course of this world,

following

the ruler of the power of the air,

the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient.

All of us once lived among them in the passions of our flesh,

doing the will of flesh and senses,

and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else,

but God,

who is rich in mercy,

out of the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead through our trespasses,

made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

For by grace you have been saved through faith,

and this is not your own doing;

it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast.

For we are what he has made us,

created in Christ Jesus for good works,

which God prepared beforehand so that we may walk in them.

The verses starting with “For by grace you have been saved through faith, ...” are those that are used to support justificatio sola fide. But consider the words that are written by the author before this, and we will reflect on similar language used previously by Paul in his authentic letters.

Ephesians 2:1-3 describes humanity’s state of spiritual death, paralleling Galatians 3:22, where scripture "imprisoned all things under the power of sin."

Ephesians 2:4-6 states that we are “made alive with Christ...and raised us up with him.” This parallels Paul's words in Romans 6:4, where he says “Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.” Paul’s letters are not each a complete theological description, and so when this author speaks of being “made alive with Christ” and “raised...up with him” parallels the burial through baptism into death so that we also might walk in newness of life. The author of Ephesians is simply giving the higher-level overview without going into the details. Similarly, Galatians 3:27 says “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ,” where Paul established an exact correspondence between those who are baptized, and those who have clothed themselves with Christ. Who are those that are walking in newness of life? Those who have clothed themselves in Christ, and thus those who have been baptized. In Romans 6:5, Paul says “for if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his,” the consequence of which also parallels making those who are baptized alive together with Christ and raising them up with him.

Ultimately, Ephesians 2:4-6 portrays the transformative power of grace, which aligns with Galatians 3:27 and its imagery of being clothed with Christ through baptism.

The author of Ephesians than says those are seated with “him in heavenly places in Christ Jesus so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward” those. This parallels the statement in Galatians 3 describing those who “belong to Christ” being Abraham’s “offspring” and “heirs.”

Thus, while the author does not explicitly mention baptism, one must remember that all of these letters are being sent to churches where all members have already been baptized. It is not necessary to spell out each connection with each action and consequence, as the audience is already aware of the importance of the baptismal event.

Thus, Ephesians 2:8-9 underscores that salvation is by grace through faith, not by works. Similarly, baptism is not a "work" that earns salvation but the God-ordained means by which believers receive and participate in his grace. This complements Galatians 3:26, where faith is the foundation of becoming children of God, but baptism is the act that establishes this identity. These verses highlight salvation as a gift of grace, echoing the inseparability of faith and baptism found in Galatians 3:26-27.

While Ephesians 2:1-10 does not explicitly mention baptism, its themes of death in sin, resurrection with Christ, and salvation by grace align closely with Paul’s baptismal theology in Romans 6 and Galatians 3. Baptism emerges as the means through which believers are united with Christ in his death and resurrection, clothed with his righteousness, and transformed into children of God. These passages together highlight the profound connection between grace, faith, and baptism in the believer’s journey from death to life and inclusion in God’s covenant family.

We will look at two other passages in this letter that explicitly refer to baptism. We start with the most explicit, Ephesians 4:1-6, where the author writes

I [Paul], therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace:

there is

one body and
one Spirit, just as you were called to the
one hope of your calling,
one Lord,
one faith,
one baptism,
one God and Father of all, who is
1. above all and
2. through all and
3. in all.

Let us go through each of these:

The church, which is the unified body of Christ. This metaphor appears throughout Paul’s writings (e.g., 1 Corinthians 12:12-27), describing how all believers, though diverse, form one interconnected entity. Despite differences in ethnicity, background, or spiritual gifts, all believers are part of the same spiritual body, unified under Christ.
The Holy Spirit, who indwells and empowers all believers. The spirit is the source of spiritual life and gifts (e.g., 1 Corinthians 12:4-13). The same Spirit works in every believer, uniting them in purpose and mission.
The shared hope of eternal life and salvation in Christ. This hope is central to the gospel, as seen in Romans 8:24 and Titus 1:2. All believers share the same ultimate destination—resurrection and eternal fellowship with God—reinforcing their unity.
Jesus Christ, the lord of all believers. Paul emphasizes Christ’s lordship (e.g., Romans 10:12) and his central role in salvation. Submission to the Christ is a unifying factor among believers, transcending divisions.
The shared belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior and the core truths of the gospel. This refers to the faith that brings justification and salvation (e.g., Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:8). A common faith binds believers together, providing a foundation for unity.
The single act of baptism that signifies entry into the body of Christ. Baptism symbolizes union with Christ in His death and resurrection (e.g., Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27). Baptism is a universal practice among Christians, marking a shared experience of initiation into the faith.
The one true God, who is the Father of all believers. Paul frequently refers to God as “the Father” of believers (e.g., Romans 8:15). God’s fatherhood unites believers as His children, emphasizing their shared identity as part of His family.

Note that baptism is placed on par with every other aspect of Christian belief

Paul’s view of works of the law and the act of baptism

Paul’s references to the “works of the Law” (Greek: ἔργα νόμου) appear primarily in Romans and Galatians, where he argues that justification comes through faith in Jesus Christ rather than adherence to the Mosaic Law. The phrase “works of the Law” generally refers to the specific deeds and rituals required under the Jewish Law recorded in the Torah, such as:

circumcision (Genesis 17:10, Galatians 5:2-6),
dietary regulations (Leviticus 11, Galatians 2:12), and
observance of holy days and festivals (Leviticus 23, Galatians 4:10).

Paul contends that these practices, while central to Jewish identity, cannot justify or make someone righteous before God. Instead, they serve to reveal humanity’s sinfulness and point to the need for a Savior (Galatians 3:24). The “works of the Law” emphasize external conformity to religious obligations that were part of the Jewish covenant, not the internal renewal that comes through faith in Christ. Paul’s critique is not of good works or righteous deeds in general but of the belief that following the specific commandments of the Mosaic Law could earn salvation.

Paul’s main argument is that salvation has always been based on faith, not legal observance. He points to Abraham, who was declared righteous because of his faith long before the Law was given (Romans 4:3). Thus, Paul asserts that justification comes by grace through faith, not by performing ritual acts prescribed by the Torah.

Baptism is seen as a new covenant ritual, and not a “work of the Law,” for while Paul critiques the “works of the Law” as insufficient for justification, baptism is not part of the Mosaic Law. Instead, baptism was introduced by John the Baptist as a symbolic act of repentance and preparation for the coming of the Messiah (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3). Jesus later sanctified and redefined baptism as the means by which believers enter into His death, burial, and resurrection (Matthew 28:19-20, Romans 6:3-4). Baptism is thus not a work of the Law but a New Covenant sacrament, initiated as part of the gospel and distinct from Jewish legal requirements.

Unlike circumcision or dietary restrictions, which were markers of adherence to the Jewish covenant, baptism is a ritual that signifies an internal transformation and union with Christ. Paul himself describes baptism not as a legal obligation but as a transformative moment in which believers “put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27) and participate in His death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4). This is consistent with Jesus’s command in Matthew 28:19 to baptize disciples in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

A summary of reasons why baptism is not a “work of the Law” is as follows:

It is not part of the Mosaic covenant, as baptism was never part of the Law given to Moses. Instead, it was introduced as part of the New Covenant established by Christ. John’s baptism of repentance prepared the way for Jesus, who instituted Christian baptism as the outward sign of inward faith and transformation.
It is faith-based and not Law-based, for baptism is an act of obedience flowing from faith, not a legalistic ritual meant to earn righteousness. It symbolizes the believer’s response to God’s grace, not an attempt to adhere to legal requirements for justification. Paul criticizes attempts to earn righteousness through the Law, but he never critiques baptism as an expression of faith in Christ.
It is a spiritual union, and not a mark of identity, as the “works of the Law” were meant to mark the Jewish people as God’s covenant nation, distinguishing them from Gentiles. Baptism, by contrast, is a public declaration of union with Christ and entrance into the universal body of believers—Jews and Gentiles alike (1 Corinthians 12:13). It does not function as a ritual of exclusivity but as a unifying sacrament of the New Covenant.

Baptism is distinct from the “works of the Law” that Paul critiques in his letters. It was not part of the Mosaic covenant but introduced by John the Baptist and sanctified by Jesus as an essential part of the Christian covenant. While Paul rejects the notion that external rituals like circumcision can justify a person, baptism is not merely a work but a profound act of faith and obedience that signifies union with Christ. Rather than being a legalistic observance, baptism represents the believer’s identification with Christ’s death and resurrection and serves as a visible sign of the inward grace received through faith. Therefore, baptism complements faith rather than competing with it, standing apart from the legalism Paul condemns in the “works of the Law.”

While baptism is indeed an “action” and could be considered a “work” in the sense that it involves a physical response, it is not a work of the Law. It was not commanded under the Mosaic covenant but introduced as part of the covenant in Christ. When Paul rejects “works of the Law” as a means of justification, he is addressing rituals such as circumcision, dietary restrictions, and other legal observances meant to define Jewish identity under the Old Covenant—not baptism, which signifies entry into the body of Christ and participation in His death and resurrection. Therefore, Paul’s rejection of the works of the Law does not extend to the sacrament of baptism, and his critique of legalism cannot be used as support for sola fide in a way that excludes the necessity of baptism. Instead, baptism remains a divinely instituted act of faith and obedience that unites believers with Christ and His redemptive work.

A summary of Paul’s letters

Many proponents of justificatio sola fide—the belief that salvation comes through faith or belief alone—frequently cite key verses from Paul’s letters as proof texts:

Romans 3:24-26: They are now justified by his grace as a gift...effective through faith and that God justifies the one who has the faith of Jesus
Romans 4:4-5: Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.
Galatians 2:16: We know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through the faith of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.
Ephesians 2:8-9: For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast.
That I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.

These passages, when read in isolation, seem to support the idea that faith alone, apart from any external act, secures salvation. However, this conclusion becomes problematic when examined alongside Paul’s explicit and repeated emphasis on baptism as a necessary, transformative act for believers:

Romans 6:3-4: Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
Galatians 3:27: As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
1 Corinthians 12:13: For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
Colossians 2:12: When you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
Ephesians 4:5: ... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ...

Paul’s letters align with the consistent practice of baptism by water described throughout Acts, even after the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Every recorded conversion involves water baptism:

Acts 2:41: Three thousand were baptized after Peter’s Pentecost sermon.
Acts 8:36-38: The Ethiopian eunuch immediately asked for water to be baptized after hearing the gospel.
Acts 10:47-48: Cornelius and his household were baptized in water after receiving the Holy Spirit.
Acts 16:15: Lydia and her household were baptized after responding in faith.
Acts 16:33: The Philippian jailer and his household were baptized without delay after believing in Christ.

These examples demonstrate that baptism was not merely a symbolic gesture but an essential step in entering the Christian community. Even after Cornelius and his family received the Holy Spirit, Peter insisted on water baptism, reinforcing that this was not optional but required.

If Paul had intended to replace baptism with a mere internal statement of faith, he would have done so explicitly. Paul did not shy away from condemning practices he deemed unnecessary or harmful:

Circumcision: “If you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you.” (Galatians 5:2)
Factionalism: “Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:13)
Sexual immorality: “Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers... will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
Lawsuits among believers: “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?” (1 Corinthians 6:7)
Abuse of the Lord’s Supper: “Do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?” (1 Corinthians 11:22)
False gospels: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed, let that one be accursed!” (Galatians 1:8)

Paul’s sharp condemnation of these practices shows that he was clear and uncompromising in refuting anything that deviated from the truth of the gospel. Yet nowhere does Paul denounce baptism. Instead, he upholds it as the moment of spiritual transformation and unity with Christ. If Paul believed that baptism in water had been replaced by baptism in the Holy Spirit and was no longer necessary, he would have argued against its continued practice, just as he opposed circumcision. For Paul, continuing a practice that was no longer required for salvation—like circumcision—was not merely unnecessary but a dangerous regression that nullified the grace of Christ (Galatians 5:2-4). Therefore, the absence of any such denunciation of baptism strongly indicates that Paul saw it not as an obsolete ritual but as an essential expression of faith and a means by which believers entered into Christ’s death and resurrection.

There is an irony in how Baptist and evangelical pastors handle these texts. When atheists or skeptics point to the numerous verses in scripture that seem to condone or regulate slavery, they are often told that these verses are being taken out of context. Yet, these same interpreters frequently extract Paul’s statements about faith and justification from their larger context, ignoring his repeated emphasis on baptism and the clear examples of conversion recorded in Acts.

In doing so, they overlook the consistent biblical narrative that baptism is the point of entry into Christ—a physical immersion in water that signifies death to sin and new life in him (Romans 6:4). If they applied the same interpretive standards that they demand of others, they would see that their exclusion of baptism from the salvation process is just as much an interpretive distortion.

Paul consistently presents faith in Christ as the foundation of justification, but he never divorces faith from the outward, obedient response of baptism. He condemns reliance on works of the law (such as circumcision) but never condemns baptism, which he describes as the moment when believers are buried with Christ and raised to new life. To claim that Paul supports justificatio sola fide—faith apart from any external act—requires selectively ignoring the numerous passages that link baptism to salvation. Rather than diminishing baptism, Paul elevates it as the very means by which faith is expressed and salvation is realized. In short, while faith is the root of justification, baptism remains the divinely appointed act through which faith takes tangible form and unites believers with Christ's death and resurrection.

‘’

4. Other letters

We will conclude by looking at two references to baptism in other letters: one from Peter and one addressed to Jewish Christians.

1 Peter 3:18-21

In this letter, often considered pseudepigraphal, the author draws a connection between Christ’s redemptive work, the story of Noah’s flood, and baptism:

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all,

the righteous for the unrighteous,

in order to bring you to God.

He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,

in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison,

who in former times did not obey,

when God waited patiently in the days of Noah,

during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight lives, were saved through water.

The author then links this event to baptism as follows:

And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Key observations and analysis of this passage include:

The symbolism of the flood and baptism, as the author explicitly states that the floodwaters during Noah’s time “prefigured” baptism. Just as Noah’s family was saved through water, Christians are saved through baptism. The floodwaters served as both an instrument of judgment and deliverance—eradicating sin while preserving the righteous. This parallel suggests that baptism functions similarly as a moment of spiritual purification and renewal for believers.
The nature of salvation through baptism, for the text states directly: “and baptism... now saves you.” The author clarifies that this is not about a physical cleansing (“removal of dirt from the body”) but a spiritual action—an appeal to God for a good conscience. This phrase implies that baptism involves a conscious, faith-based commitment to God, relying on the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Resurrection as the source of efficacy, for the author emphasizes that the saving power of baptism is tied to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This suggests that baptism is not a ritualistic work that earns salvation on its own but an act that participates in the reality of Christ’s victory over death. Thus, baptism’s power is derived from what Christ has accomplished, not from the physical act alone.

Does 1 Peter 3:18-21 support or refute sola fide?

This passage challenges sola fide, for the statement “baptism... now saves you” seems to challenge the doctrine of sola fide if interpreted to mean that salvation is contingent upon the act of baptism. The analogy to Noah’s ark reinforces the idea that just as Noah’s physical survival depended on the ark amid the waters, a believer’s spiritual deliverance involves passing through the waters of baptism. This suggests that baptism is more than symbolic—it is depicted as a necessary step in the salvation process.
However, faith is expressed through baptism, for the phrase “an appeal to God for a good conscience” suggests that baptism is an outward expression of faith and repentance rather than an independent work that earns salvation. Baptism is described as the moment when the believer, with a clear conscience, appeals to God based on faith in Christ’s resurrection. In this way, the passage does not separate faith from baptism but presents baptism as the visible enactment of faith.
It also distinguishes baptism from legalistic works, for unlike the “works of the Law” that Paul critiques (e.g., circumcision), baptism was introduced as part of the New Covenant, not the Mosaic Law. The author of 1 Peter presents baptism as an essential part of responding to God’s grace, not as a ritualistic effort to earn righteousness. Therefore, baptism, while a “work” in a physical sense, is not a legalistic work of the Law but an act of obedience tied to faith in Christ.

The analogy between Noah’s ark and baptism underscores the indispensable role of baptism in the believer’s spiritual journey. Just as the ark was the only means of salvation during the flood, baptism is presented as an essential step for the believer. The flood did not cleanse humanity in a metaphorical sense—it physically removed unrighteousness. Similarly, the author’s portrayal of baptism suggests that it functions not as a mere symbol but as the moment in which salvation is enacted through Christ’s resurrection.

We may conclude that 1 Peter 3:18-21 presents baptism as an essential part of salvation, explicitly stating that baptism now saves you. However, it also clarifies that baptism’s saving power comes through faith in the resurrection of Christ and is an appeal to God for a good conscience, indicating that it is not a meritorious work but an act of obedience that flows from faith. While this passage challenges the view that faith alone, apart from any outward expression, is sufficient for salvation, it does not depict baptism as an independent means of justification. Instead, baptism is presented as the means by which faith is visibly expressed, connecting believers to Christ’s resurrection and securing their salvation. This suggests that, rather than supporting sola fide, the passage supports the idea that salvation involves both faith and the obedient response of baptism, making baptism an integral, rather than optional, component of the believer’s journey toward salvation.

Hebrews 6:1-8

The letter to the Jewish Christians has the message in Hebrews 6:1-8:

Therefore let us go on toward perfection,

leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ and not laying again the foundation:

repentance from dead works and faith toward God,

instruction about baptisms and laying on of hands,

resurrection of the dead

and eternal judgment.

And we will do this, if God permits.

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have

once been enlightened

and have tasted the heavenly gift

and have shared in the Holy Spirit

and have tasted the good word of God

and the powers of the age to come

and then have fallen away,

since they are crucifying again the Son of God to their own harm and are holding him up to contempt.

Ground that drinks up the rain falling on it repeatedly and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is cultivated

receives a blessing from God.

But if it produces thorns and thistles,

it is worthless and on the verge of being cursed; its end is to be burned over.

The author of Hebrews addresses an audience that has become spiritually stagnant and warns them about the consequences of apostasy (falling away from the faith). In this passage, the author urges believers to move beyond basic teachings—such as repentance, faith, and baptisms—and progress toward spiritual maturity. The warning in verses 4-6 is severe: those who have experienced the gifts of salvation but deliberately fall away cannot be easily restored to repentance, as they are “crucifying Christ again.” This metaphor is followed by an agricultural analogy, where fruitful ground is contrasted with barren land destined for destruction.

The key themes and their implications for sola fide are:

There is a progression from basic teachings to maturity, for the passage emphasizes that faith is not merely about initial repentance and belief but involves growing toward spiritual perfection. The foundational teachings include faith toward God and baptisms, but believers are expected to move beyond these basics to live out their faith in obedience and maturity. This implies that faith must lead to visible growth and obedience rather than being static.
There is a warning against falling away. The passage explicitly warns that it is possible for those who have:
- been enlightened (brought to spiritual awareness),
- tasted the heavenly gift (experienced salvation),
- shared in the Holy Spirit,
- and tasted the word of God and his power
to still fall away. The warning is not about ordinary mistakes or struggles in faith but a decisive rejection of Christ after experiencing salvation. This challenges sola fide if interpreted as the idea that initial faith alone guarantees salvation regardless of future actions.
The agricultural metaphor gives imagery of the land that drinks rain and either produces a fruitful crop or thorns and thistles reinforces the idea that faith must bear fruit. Faith that does not lead to obedience and a transformed life is barren and headed toward judgment. This supports the view that genuine faith must result in ongoing faithfulness and obedience, rather than a passive reliance on an initial profession of belief.

Does this passage support or refute sola fide?

This passage presents a challenge to the doctrine of sola fide if sola fide is interpreted as “faith alone at one point in time guarantees salvation." The author warns that even those who have experienced the fullness of Christian life can fall away and face judgment. If salvation is based solely on an initial act of faith, this warning would be unnecessary. Instead, the passage suggests that faith must remain active and grow, with persistent obedience as evidence of salvation.
While the passage does not directly reject the importance of faith, it reinforces that faith must lead to a life of spiritual growth and fruitfulness. The reference to producing crops versus thorns implies that salvation involves ongoing transformation and perseverance.

To conclude, Hebrews 6:1-8 challenges justificatio sola fide by emphasizing that initial faith is not sufficient if it does not lead to spiritual maturity and enduring faithfulness. The passage warns that it is possible for believers who have experienced salvation to fall away and face judgment if they reject Jesus. Faith must result in perseverance and obedience, as barren faith that produces “thorns and thistles" leads to condemnation. Therefore, this passage supports the view that faith and continued faithfulness are inseparable in the Christian life, raising questions about the adequacy of “faith alone" without evidence of transformation.

5. Early Christian leaders

Some modern Protestants—particularly in certain Baptist circles—argue that the early Church Fathers, and indeed much of the historic Christian community, fundamentally misunderstood Jesus’s teachings. They liken this to the disciples’ own initial confusion about Jesus’s identity and the purpose of his execution, suggesting that true insight into the gospel emerged only later. However, dismissing virtually all ancient Christian leaders and theologians in this manner is historically challenging: those early believers were closer in time and culture to the apostles themselves, and their writings consistently draw on, and align with, the Gospels and apostolic letters.

If one claims that nearly everyone from the post-apostolic age onward erred in interpreting biblical statements—especially regarding baptism—one must also contend with the fact that these same Fathers cite or echo scriptural passages (like John 3:5, Matthew 28:19, and others) as clear directives for baptism’s central role in the faith. Ignoring or discounting their consensus requires more than proposing that they “simply got it wrong”—it demands explaining how such widespread agreement took hold despite their proximity to the apostolic era. Consequently, any argument that negates the unanimous early testimony about baptism must account for both the historical evidence of the Fathers and the explicit scriptural texts to which they refer.

It is generally accepted that infant baptism did not become widespread until the late second or early third century. Prior to that, baptism appears to have been administered primarily to adults who made a conscious decision to embrace the Christian faith. In what follows, we will examine some of the earliest Church Fathers’ writings on baptism, exploring how they understood and practiced this foundational rite. Their testimonies, dating from the generations after the apostles, illuminate the significance of baptism as both a public commitment and a spiritual transformation in the nascent Christian community.

Early Fathers such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus present baptism as more than a mere external ritual. Justin, in his “First Apology”, explains how water immersion is tied to spiritual rebirth and forgiveness; Irenaeus, in “Against Heresies”, highlights that believers must experience both the Spirit’s inner transformation and the outward sign of baptism to be fully united with Christ. Moving into the early third century, Tertullian explicitly quotes John 3:5 in “On Baptism” and argues that Jesus’s words indicate a literal requirement of water immersion. Hippolytus, in “The Apostolic Tradition”, outlines baptismal rites in early Roman churches that are presumed to fulfill Jesus’s command to be “born of water and Spirit.”

Writers like Origen and Cyprian continue this thread. Origen’s surviving commentary on John points to an indispensable link between water baptism and the Spirit’s work, while Cyprian, in his letters, insists that no one enters God’s kingdom without the “water of rebirth” mandated by Jesus. By the fourth century, catechetical teachers like Cyril of Jerusalem explicitly instruct new converts that John 3:5 establishes baptism as the normative means of salvation, distinguishing it from any purely symbolic interpretation. Influential bishops such as Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo reinforce the necessity of water baptism for Christian initiation. Ambrose’s works (On the Mysteries, On the Sacraments) tie water immersion to the gift of the Spirit, while Augustine’s numerous references—especially in his sermons on John—frequently cite John 3:5 as the definitive scriptural basis for baptismal regeneration.

Taken together, these Fathers demonstrate the early and widespread view that being “born of water and Spirit” was fundamentally tied to the sacrament of baptism. While details may differ—some emphasize repentance (John the Baptist’s model), others the indwelling Holy Spirit—virtually all consider water baptism integral to entering the Christian community and receiving new life in Christ. Their writings offer a window into how the post-apostolic Church interpreted John 3:5, typically rejecting any notion that “water” referred only to a metaphorical or non-literal practice.

6. Immersion in the Holy Spirit

One point that was previously raised, that has not yet been fully addressed, is what is the relationship between immersion in water and immersion in the Holy Spirit. Is there some mechanism by which salvation, through the forgiveness of sins, be delivered by the Holy Spirit without John’s immersion in water, his baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

First, we must look at terminology. There are many different ways that immersion in water is described:

Birth in John 3:5: “Jesus answered ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.’”
Death and resurrection in Romans 6:3-4: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.”
A washing away of sins in Acts 22:16: “And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.”
Being clothed with Jesus in Galatians 3:27: “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”
Burial and circumcision in Colossians 2:11-12: “In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.”
The salvation that appeal to God for a good conscience in 1 Peter 3:21: “And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
The incorporation into one body in 1 Corinthians 12:13: “For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.”

Thus, in addition to immersion in water, we have birth, death, resurrection, renewal, being washing clean, being clothed, being circumcised, appealing to God, and being incorporated into the church. However, it is never likened to drowning.

Let us contrast this with the different ways that immersion in the Holy Spirit is described:

Born of the Holy Spirit in John 3:5-6: “Jesus answered, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.’”
Receiving the Holy Spirit in John 20:22: “When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’”
Being immersed in (baptized with) the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:5: “for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Being filled with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4: “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.”
Having the Holy Spirit come upon you in Acts 1:8: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
Having the Holy Spirit dwell in you in Romans 8:9: “But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.”
Being sealed with the Holy Spirit in Ephesians 1:13: “In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit.”

Baptism in water is consistently described in the Christian scriptures using imagery of personal transformation and events occurring to the individual. This language emphasizes what happens to the person being immersed in water, focusing on their internal experience and spiritual renewal. It is often described as rebirth, as in being “born of water and Spirit” (John 3:5-6), or as a cleansing, as seen in Acts 22:16, where baptism “washes away sins." Additionally, water baptism is portrayed as an act of death and resurrection, with the individual symbolically dying to sin and rising to new life in Christ (Romans 6:3-4). These descriptions highlight the deeply personal nature of water baptism, where the focus is on the transformation of the believer’s identity, character, and spiritual state.

In contrast, baptism in the Spirit is described as an external action performed by God or as the Holy Spirit acting upon the believer. The language here emphasizes divine agency and the empowerment of the individual. For example, Jesus promises in Acts 1:5 that his followers will be “baptized with the Holy Spirit,” and Acts 1:8 describes the Holy Spirit “coming upon” believers, enabling them to witness to the ends of the earth. In other instances, the Spirit is said to “fill” individuals (Acts 2:4) or “dwell in” them (Romans 8:9). This depiction focuses less on internal transformation and more on divine empowerment and equipping believers for spiritual growth, mission, and service.

The ways these two immersions are described reflect distinct categories of action. Immersion in water involves reflexive events happening to the individual, signifying internal transformation and spiritual renewal. It symbolizes cleansing from sin, being born again, and dying and rising with Jesus. In contrast, immersion in the Spirit is active, with God or the Holy Spirit performing an action upon the person, emphasizing external empowerment and divine presence. While water baptism centers on the individual’s personal relationship with God, Spirit baptism highlights the role of the Holy Spirit in enabling believers to live out their faith and participate in the work of the Church.

These distinct descriptions suggest complementary theological emphases. Immersion in water marks the believer’s entry into the faith, representing their personal commitment, renewal, and transformation. Spirit baptism, on the other hand, signifies God’s active presence, equipping the believer with power for ministry, witness, and spiritual growth. Together, these baptisms reflect both the personal and communal dimensions of the Christian faith, uniting the believer’s internal renewal with their external calling and mission.

In the gospels, baptism in the Holy Spirit is described as including fire, particularly in the proclamations of John the Baptist in Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16. John contrasts his own baptism with water to the one Jesus will bring, stating that Jesus will baptize “with the Holy Spirit and fire.” This imagery connects the Holy Spirit’s baptism with a powerful, transformative, and purifying experience. Fire in scripture often represents purification (e.g., Malachi 3:2-3), suggesting that this baptism cleanses and refines the believer’s spirit. It may also symbolize judgment, as the surrounding passages refer to separating wheat from chaff and burning the latter with “unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12). Thus, the mention of fire highlights the dual aspects of purification and divine authority associated with the coming of the Spirit.

On the day of Pentecost, described in Acts 2:3-4, the baptism in the Holy Spirit takes on a vivid, almost literal manifestation of fire. The passage recounts that “divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages.” Here, fire symbolizes the empowering and visible presence of the Holy Spirit, equipping the disciples to proclaim the gospel in languages they had not previously known. Unlike the metaphorical references in the Gospels, this account depicts a tangible, extraordinary event where fire-like imagery accompanies the outpouring of the Spirit. This connection between fire and the Spirit on Pentecost reinforces the themes of empowerment, divine presence, and transformation foretold in the Gospels.

Interestingly, Jesus’s baptism uniquely combined his identification with humanity and the affirmation of his divine mission. By submitting to John’s baptism of repentance, he demonstrated a oneness with sinners, fulfilling all righteousness and symbolizing his role as the source of redemption. Though sinless, Jesus declared that this immersion was necessary for him, signifying the importance of baptism not just for himself but also for all believers as a step of obedience and alignment with God’s will (Matthew 3:15). At the same time, the visible descent of the Holy Spirit and the voice of the Father declared him as the son of God and the annointed one, marking the beginning of his public ministry. This event also foreshadowed the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, where the Spirit empowered the apostles to spread the gospel. Both moments highlight the Spirit’s transformative and commissioning role in equipping individuals for God’s work.

When one is immersed in the Holy Spirit, there are several gifts that may be granted to the believer:

Speaking with wisdom in 1 Corinthians 12:8: “To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom.”
Speaking with knowledge in 1 Corinthians 12:8: “And to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit.”
Extraordinary Faith in 1 Corinthians 12:9: “To another faith by the same Spirit.”
Healing the sick in 1 Corinthians 12:9: “To another gifts of healing by the one Spirit.”
Performing miracles in 1 Corinthians 12:10: “To another the working of miracles.”
Proclaiming prophecy in 1 Corinthians 12:10: “To another prophecy.”
Discerning spiritual forces in 1 Corinthians 12:10: “To another the discernment of spirits.”
Speaking in different tongues in 1 Corinthians 12:10: “To another various kinds of tongues.”
Interpreting tongues in 1 Corinthians 12:10: “To another the interpretation of tongues.”
Apostolic leadership in Ephesians 4:11: “The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles.”
Proclaiming as prophets in Ephesians 4:11: “Some prophets.”
Sharing the gospel as evangelists in Ephesians 4:11: “Some evangelists.”
Shepherding as pastors and teachers in Ephesians 4:11: “Some pastors and teachers.”
Serving in ministry in Romans 12:7: “Ministry, in ministering.”
Teaching others in Romans 12:7: “The teacher, in teaching.”
Encouraging and exhorting in Romans 12:8: “The exhorter, in exhortation.”
Giving generously in Romans 12:8: “The giver, in generosity.”
Leading with diligence in Romans 12:8: “The leader, in diligence.”
Showing compassion with cheerfulness in Romans 12:8: “The compassionate, in cheerfulness.”

Not all believers will receive all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but every believer will receive at least one gift to contribute to the Church. As Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 12:7, “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” These gifts are distributed uniquely by the Holy Spirit to ensure diversity within the body of Christ, as emphasized in 1 Corinthians 12:29-30: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?” This rhetorical series highlights that no one believer has all the gifts, but together, they fulfill the church’s mission, each playing a vital role as part of the body of Jesus.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit are distinct from the consequences of immersion in water in their purpose, timing, and theological focus. Water baptism and its consequences primarily concern an individual’s personal salvation, transformation, and entry into the body of Christ, whereas the gifts of the Holy Spirit are bestowed to empower believers for service and the building up of the Church community.

The purposes of these differ, for the consequences of baptism in water include the forgiveness of sins (Acts 22:16: “Be baptized, and have your sins washed away”), rebirth (John 3:5: “Born of water and Spirit”), and incorporation into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13: “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body”). These outcomes signify a personal transformation and the believer’s entry into the Christian faith. In contrast, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as described in 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4, and Romans 12, are given for the common good (1 Corinthians 12:7: “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good”), enabling believers to serve others and fulfill specific roles within the Church.
The timing also differ, for the consequences of water baptism are immediate, tied to the act of baptism itself, signifying the moment of spiritual cleansing and rebirth. The gifts of the Holy Spirit, however, may be given at different times, and with only one exception, always subsequent to immersion in water, as the Spirit determines (1 Corinthians 12:11: “All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses”).
Finally, theological focus differ, for immersion in water focuses on the believer’s relationship with God, marking their personal acceptance of Christ, repentance, and new life in the Spirit. The gifts of the Holy Spirit focus on equipping believers to contribute to the Church, reflecting God’s work through them to edify others, teach, lead, or provide encouragement.

In summary, water baptism signifies personal salvation and transformation, while the gifts of the Spirit are given to equip believers for service, emphasizing their role in the broader mission and unity of the Church.

In addition to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, there are also the fruits of the Holy Spirit that are born of the believer in Galatians 5:22-23, where it lists love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. The fruits of the Spirit can be understood as the outward manifestations of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, serving as evidence of the Holy Spirit’s transformative work in those who have been baptized by the Holy Spirit. While the gifts are specific abilities or empowerments granted by the Holy Spirit, such as wisdom, prophecy, or healing (1 Corinthians 12:8-10), the fruits reflect the moral and spiritual character that results from living in alignment with the Holy Spirit. For instance, the gift of prophecy, when exercised in love, reveals the fruit of kindness; the gift of leadership, when carried out with humility, demonstrates gentleness and self-control. These fruits are how believers manifest the Holy Spirit’s presence in their lives, serving as visible evidence to others of their baptism by the Holy Spirit. In Matthew 7:16, Jesus taught that “you will know them by their fruits,” suggesting that the spiritual character and actions of individuals reveal their connection to God. Thus, the fruits of the Holy Spirit are not only the natural consequences of the gifts but also the markers by which Spirit-filled believers are recognized.

To conclude, nothing associated with the Holy Spirit—neither baptism by the Spirit, the gifts, nor the fruits—directly conveys the forgiveness of sins. Immersion in water is the event consistently associated with the forgiveness of sins and entry into salvation, as seen in Mark 16:16: “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.” It is not faith alone that forgives, but immersion in water, which unites the believer with Christ, washing away sins and bringing new life (Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4). Faith, belief, and trust, however, are essential for maintaining the believer’s standing with Jesus and preventing condemnation, as salvation requires ongoing faithfulness. The gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as wisdom, prophecy, and healing, and the fruits of the Holy Spirit, like love, joy, peace, and self-control (1 Corinthians 12:7-11; Galatians 5:22-23), reflect the work of the Holy Spirit in empowering, guiding, and sanctifying believers. These manifestations of the Holy Spirit build up the church and reveal the transformation in those who walk in alignment with God. However, they are not the means of forgiveness, which is accomplished through immersion in water, the act that both symbolizes and enacts the cleansing of sins.

7. Analysis

Several verses in the New Testament indicate that baptism serves as the initiation into the faith, marking the beginning of the believer’s life in Christ

7.1 Baptism as an initiation rite

Several verses in the New Testament indicate that baptism serves as the initiation into the faith, marking the beginning of the believer’s life in Christ and entry into the Christian community. Below are key verses and their significance:

Matthew 28:19-20: “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. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” In the Great Commission, Jesus commands baptism as part of making disciples. Baptism is portrayed as the entry point into the community of faith and the covenantal relationship with God.
Acts 2:38: “Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” This call of Peter at Pentecost links repentance and baptism as the starting point for receiving forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. This passage emphasizes baptism as the initiation into the new covenant community.
Romans 6:3-4: “Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.” Here, Paul describes baptism as the means of uniting believers with Christ in His death and resurrection, marking the beginning of their new life in Him.
Galatians 3:27-28: “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” Baptism is presented as the act through which believers are clothed with Christ, symbolizing their inclusion in the covenant family and the breaking down of divisions within the faith community.
1 Corinthians 12:13: “For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” Baptism is described as the initiation into the body of Christ, uniting believers through the Spirit regardless of their backgrounds.
Colossians 2:11-12: “In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by the removal of the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” Paul equates baptism with a spiritual circumcision, marking the initiation into the new covenant in Christ and the beginning of a transformed life.
Acts 8:12-13: “But when they believed Philip, who was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Even Simon himself believed. After being baptized, he stayed constantly with Philip and was amazed when he saw the signs and great miracles that took place.” This narrative highlights baptism as the immediate response to belief, indicating its role as the initiation into the faith.
Acts 22:16: “And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.” Baptism is directly associated with the washing away of sins and the public calling on Jesus’s name, marking the point of entry into the faith.

These verses consistently present baptism as the act through which believers are:

united with Christ in his death and resurrection,
forgiven of sins and receive the Holy Spirit,
clothed with Christ and incorporated into the body of Christ (the church), and
initiated into the new covenant community of faith.

Baptism is thus foundational as the outward, God-ordained sign of a believer’s entry into the Christian faith and life in Christ.

7.2 Statements of faith taken out of context

Alternatively, the argument that verses supporting justificatio sola fide are taken out of context can be substantiated by examining the broader context in which the letters of Paul were written. These letters were addressed to Christian communities where baptism was already assumed as the foundational act of initiation into the faith. Paul, or another author writing in his name, addressed these congregations not to debate the necessity of baptism but to emphasize the continued importance of faith and its role in the Christian life.

In letters like Romans and Galatians, Paul addresses believers who have already been baptized into Christ, as indicated in passages such as Romans 6:3-4 (“all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death”) and Galatians 3:27 (“as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ”). Baptism is presented as the initial, essential act through which believers are united with Christ in His death and resurrection and incorporated into the body of Christ. Since this foundational act had already been completed for the audience, Paul focuses on faith as the means of sustaining their relationship with Christ and living out their salvation.

When verses such as Ephesians 2:8-9 (“by grace you have been saved through faith”) or Romans 3:28 (“a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law") are isolated, they appear to support justificatio sola fide. However, these statements assume the audience's prior baptism, as seen in Acts 2:38, where repentance and baptism are tied to forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the context of Mark 16:16 reinforces this pattern: “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.” Faith is indispensable for salvation, but it assumes baptism as the entry point into the faith.

Thus, Paul’s focus on faith in his letters does not negate the necessity of baptism but presupposes it. His emphasis on faith addresses the need for perseverance in belief and obedience among already baptized believers. Interpreting these verses as excluding baptism misreads their context and the assumed understanding of the early church, where baptism was the normative and essential initiation into the Christian faith.

7.3 Immersion in water is distinct from immersion in the Holy Spirit

In the Gospels, there is an open question as to whether baptism in water in the name of Jesus would be replaced by baptism in the Holy Spirit. The Gospels leave room for ambiguity, potentially suggesting that the latter might supplant the former and become the sole requirement. However, as we have seen throughout the Book of Acts, even after the Day of Pentecost, the disciples and apostles continued to baptize converts in water.

Although baptism in the Holy Spirit was central to the early Christian experience, water baptism consistently remained part of the conversion process. In most cases, believers were baptized in water before receiving the Holy Spirit. The exception is the case of Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:44-48), where they received the Holy Spirit first. However, Peter insisted on water baptism immediately afterward, reinforcing that water baptism was still essential.

The writings of Paul further defend the necessity of water baptism, presenting it as the point at which the convert is cleansed of sin and united with Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4). Baptism is portrayed not as a symbolic afterthought but as an integral part of salvation.

Therefore, while one might argue that baptism in the Holy Spirit supplants water baptism if one focuses solely on the Gospels, the narrative of Acts and the epistles demonstrates otherwise: new converts are expected to be baptized in water as part of their initiation into the Christian life. This act is consistently described as cleansing the convert of sin. Only after this act of baptism is the believer called to continue in faith and discipleship, growing in their relationship with Christ.

7.4 Protestant motivations

Some protestant denominations’ emphasis on justificatio sola fide stems from a variety of theological, practical, and historical motivations. These can be broadly categorized into altruistic, theological, and practical/selfish reasons.

Altruistic reasons include a simplified the path to salvation, making it attainable to all by emphasizing faith rather than works or sacraments. This approach aligns with an altruistic desire to bring as many people as possible into heaven. By removing requirements like baptism or specific rituals, it broadens the potential reach, making it easier for diverse individuals and groups to embrace Christianity without cultural or logistical barriers. Finally, protestants often emphasize a direct, unmediated relationship with God, and a focus on faith alone highlights the personal, internal act of faith over external actions, aligning with this vision.
Theological reasons such as protestant reformers like Martin Luther pointing to passages such as Romans 3:28 (“For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law”) to argue that salvation is through faith alone, not through works or rituals. It also emerged as a direct response to the Catholic church’s emphasis on works, sacraments, and the intercession of clergy in salvation. Reformers sought to return to what they viewed as the original, scriptural basis for salvation. By emphasizing faith alone, Protestants reduce the role of priests and the Church in mediating salvation. This was a deliberate move to reject clerical authority and to dismantle the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church.
Practical and selfish reasons include the ease of conversion, making Christianity more appealing by eliminating rituals like baptism or penance as preconditions for salvation, simplifying the process of conversion. Without stringent requirements for salvation, it’s easier to attract and retain followers, leading to larger congregations and potentially more financial contributions. By emphasizing faith alone, Protestant leaders and communities gained greater independence from the centralized authority of the Catholic Church, allowing for more localized control of doctrine and resources. Finally, a less rigid theology made it easier to expand into new regions and cultures, allowing Protestantism to grow rapidly, especially during colonial and missionary efforts.

In summary, the adoption of justificatio sola fide by Protestant denominations was driven by a mix of theological convictions about biblical truth, altruistic goals to make salvation universally accessible, and practical motivations to simplify conversion and expand influence. These factors collectively shaped its central place in Protestant doctrine.

To give an interesting contrast, some Protestant churches, particularly those rooted in the Stone-Campbell/Restoration Movement, such as the Churches of Christ and Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), were founded by leaders who argued that immersion in water is essential for salvation. Influential figures like Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone emphasized the necessity of baptism by immersion as a response to faith and an essential step in salvation, based on their interpretation of Christian teachings, including Paul’s writings. These churches continue to uphold the belief that baptism is not merely symbolic but a required act of obedience through which believers receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, citing passages such as Acts 2:38 and Romans 6:3-4.

In contrast to denominations that view baptism as an outward sign of inward faith, the Churches of Christ, in particular, maintain that baptism is an essential part of salvation. They argue that if Paul had believed the spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit rendered water baptism unnecessary, he would have explicitly condemned it as he did circumcision. Instead, they highlight that Paul consistently spoke of baptism as integral to entering into Christ's death and resurrection, rather than dismissing it as a non-essential ritual.

This belief remains a defining characteristic of these churches, setting them apart from other evangelical groups that emphasize salvation by faith alone without requiring baptism as a condition of salvation.

8. Summary

In summary, the Christian scriptures provides no examples of individuals becoming followers of Jesus—whether before or after his execution and alleged resurrection—through the modern evangelical formula:

"My friends, you must accept Jesus Christ into your heart by faith, repent of your sins, and confess that He is Lord. It’s only through God’s grace, by faith alone, in Christ alone, that you can be saved, and by trusting in His sacrifice and resurrection, you receive forgiveness for your sins. Embrace Him today, and be welcomed into the family of God, receiving eternal life in His name.”

Instead, whenever someone decides to follow Jesus in Scripture, that person is always immersed in water. To claim that a person who simply believes but is never baptized will be saved cannot be directly inferred from the biblical text; it can only be hoped for, since such a scenario never appears.

In Mark 16:16, Jesus is quoted as saying, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Yet this statement does not appear in the earliest surviving manuscripts of Mark, making its textual authenticity disputable. Even so, in the Great Commission recorded in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus instructs his disciples to “make disciples of all nations” by first baptizing them and then teaching them. After the Resurrection and Pentecost, the practice remains the same: Paul was immersed in water after his conversion (Acts 9:17-19; 22:16); the Ethiopian eunuch actively sought baptism (Acts 8:36-38); and when an audience at Pentecost asked Peter, “What shall we do?” he answered, “Repent and be baptized every one of you” (Acts 2:38).

Some point to Luke 23:42-43—where Jesus promises the repentant thief on the cross that he will be with him in paradise—as an example of salvation apart from baptism. However, that event occurred before the resurrection, which for many interpreters marks the shift from the old covenant to the new (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:17). Others highlight the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10), overlooking the fact that Peter immediately ordered him and his household to be baptized afterward. They miss the point that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in this case was a unique sign from God, demonstrating that Gentiles were to be admitted into the Church. This was a singular event, not a redefinition of baptismal practice, but a divine confirmation that the Church would no longer be restricted to Jews. In Acts 11, where Peter defends his actions, nowhere does he mention that baptism is no longer required; instead, he emphasizes how God showed no partiality, affirming the inclusion of Gentiles into the faith and recounts how the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it did upon the apostles at the beginning, leading him to conclude that baptism in water was a necessary step in response to God's gift of salvation.

Some evangelical ministers often cite passages like Romans 10:9-10 or Ephesians 2:8-9 to argue for salvation by faith alone, yet these letters were addressed to communities already baptized into Christ (Romans 6:3-4, Ephesians 4:4-5). In the context of the earliest Christian writings and church fathers, water immersion was consistently understood as the initiation rite into the Christian faith. Any suggestion that baptism is unnecessary ignores the teachings, practices, customs, and established precedents presented in the Christian scriptures and early Christian tradition, and this has been argued by other protestant churches, including Churches of Christ and Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

8. Epilogue

Evangelical and Baptist ministers who claim that “faith or belief alone” is needed for salvation—claiming all one needs is a “sinner’s prayer”—should remember the words of Jesus in Luke 17:2, “It would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea than for you to cause one of these little ones to sin.” Teaching children that salvation doesn’t require immersion (baptism) is not just a minor oversight—it’s a direct path to damnation. These ministers are essentially leading young souls straight into hell, allowing them to perish without ever being cleansed of their sins. If Jesus is true to his word, the destiny awaiting these evangelical and Baptist leaders is grim: they will follow those condemned children into that lake that burns with fire and sulfur, but unlike the children, they will be additionally burdened with a millstone around their necks (Revelation 21:8).

It’s not merely a theological debate—it’s a matter of eternal consequence. By neglecting the foundational initiation rite of baptism, these ministers are setting up their flock for failure, ensuring that neither they nor their followers escape the fiery judgment that awaits the unrepentant and the false prophets. So, the next time a “sinner’s prayer” is offered without the accompanying call to baptism, remember: it's not just a missed step in spiritual discipline, but a deliberate misleading away from heaven and towards everlasting torment.

Of course, I believe in none of this. But if Baptist and evangelical ministers claim to take the scriptures seriously, perhaps they should actually read what their scriptures say about baptism. In my opinion, Baptists and evangelicals did to Christianity what the early Christians did to Judaism: they made it easier for converts. The early Christians removed the most frustrating aspects of Judaism—such as dietary restrictions, circumcision, Sabbath observance, and more generally, adherence to the Jewish covenant—while simultaneously adding elements that made the religion more palatable and familiar to their Greek and Roman audience: the idea of divine offspring; a form of polytheism (a father, son and holy spirit); a substitute for a goddess (Mary); a shift from Temple worship to personal and communal worship; the adoption of the replacement of ritual purity with moral purity; the adoption of philosophical language and concepts such as the word (logos), wisdom (sophia), the creator god (demiurge), the image of god (eikon), spirit (pneuma), divine impassability (aptheia), a cosmic struggle, and the beginning and end (arche and telos or alpha and omega); and replacing the Jewish belief in a future bodily resurrection with the Greek concept of an afterlife that included a spiritual body ascending to heaven or, for the unbeliever, to hell. Similarly, Baptists and evangelicals removed the last physical act of conversion—immersion in water—from the essential requirements for salvation, making entry into their churches even easier. This “faith-only” model of conversion facilitated rapid growth, contributing to the spread of the Baptist movement from virtually nothing in the early 1600s to over 15% of the North American population today.

Upon reflecting on this, I had an important realization: the phrase “once saved, always saved” is deeply flawed. The origin of this expression likely stems from an attempt to comfort a grieving loved one after the passing of someone who had, by all appearances, abandoned their faith. However well-intentioned, this notion collapses under the weight of Mark 16:16, which unequivocally states: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” According to this verse, faith and belief in Jesus are indispensable for salvation, and without them, condemnation is the only outcome.

In moments of grief, people are understandably inclined to accept comforting but unfounded assertions, particularly when faced with the harsh reality of a loved one’s perceived spiritual estrangement. However, the desire to ease emotional pain does not transform sentimental claims into theological truth. The idea of “once saved, always saved” may offer temporary solace, but it stands in stark contrast to the clear teachings of scripture regarding the necessity of ongoing faith and commitment.

Executive summary

Introduction

1. The gospels

1.1 Matthew

1.2 Mark

1.3 What John the Baptist said...

1.4 Details in the gospel of John

1.5 What could Jesus have said?

1.6 Summary of the gospels

​​​2. The deeds of the messengers

Acts 1:4-5

Acts 1:21-23

Acts 2:38

Acts 8:5-17

Acts 8:26-40

Acts 9 and 22 The conversion of Saul

Acts 10

Acts 11

Acts 13:16-41

Acts 16:14-15

Acts 16:11-15

Acts 18:8

Acts 18:24-28

Acts 19:1-7​

Acts 19:1-7​

Summary of Acts of the Apostles

3. The letters of Paul

​​Galatians 3

1 Corinthians 1:10-17

1 Corinthians 10:1-5

1 Corinthians 12:12-31

Romans

​​​Colossians​

Ephesians​

Paul’s view of works of the law and the act of baptism​

A summary of Paul’s letters

4. Other letters

1 Peter 3:18-21

Hebrews 6:1-8

5. Early Christian leaders

6. Immersion in the Holy Spirit

7. Analysis

7.1 Baptism as an initiation rite

7.2 Statements of faith taken out of context

7.3 Immersion in water is distinct from immersion in the Holy Spirit​

7.4 Protestant motivations

8. Summary

8. Epilogue

2. The deeds of the messengers

Acts 19:1-7

Acts 19:1-7

Galatians 3

Colossians

Ephesians

Paul’s view of works of the law and the act of baptism

7.3 Immersion in water is distinct from immersion in the Holy Spirit