Many people -- Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox -- have been baptized as infants. Protestant churches that practice infant baptism include most Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian, Anglican and Reformed churches.

Protestant Churches that only baptize adults or children who have repented include Baptist, Pentecostal, Nazarene, Charismatic, Wesleyan, Church of God, Assembly of God and Adventist.

The question one might ask then, is which is right?

As we look at the Bible, we see that the word "baptize" always follows repentance or belief in the Bible ("Repent and be baptized," Acts 2:38, "believes and is baptized" Mark 16:16).

Similarly, when we see people baptized in the Bible it always followed their repentance or belief. Most Protestants therefore believe that baptism confirms our decision to repent. Therefore, if a person has not repented, then their baptism confirms nothing and is invalid. This is what John the Baptist was apparently referring to when a crowd of unrepentant persons came to him seeking baptism, in Matt. 3. He refused them baptism, stating that they first must, "bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance."

The apostle Peter also linked baptism with repentance in 1 Peter 3:21, defining baptism as "a pledge of a good conscience toward God." (NIV). It is a pledge to do what? To repent, of course, and live for God.

Repentance and baptism are always linked in the scripture. Baptism provides the person with the chance to publicly confess Christ, as the Lord said in Luke 12:8-9:

"I tell you , whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. but he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God."

In line with this understanding, we find no case in scripture of an infant being baptized, since an infant is unaware of right and wrong and therefore has nothing of which to repent. Further, we see that even Jesus waited until he was 30 to be baptized.

What then shall we say of those who were baptized as infants? Do they need another baptism?

By way of answer, we see in Acts 19:1-7 Paul baptizing 12 men who had previously been baptized. Many Protestants believe that re-baptism is necessary at times, since infant baptism, as practiced, is more similar to the dedication of a child to God than it is of baptism. Infant dedication is good and scriptural (Samuel, for instance, was dedicated to God and it really worked). But Protestants do not believe that such a dedication justifies us to God. A person who has been baptized as an infant but is living without repentance may mistakenly rely upon their baptism to guarantee them eternal life. Accordingly, most evangelical Protestants believe that infant baptism thus provides a false assurance and is a deception. In fairness, persons who are baptized but have not repented are no different than those Protestants who pray a two-minute prayer followed by baptism, and yet continue to live in sin. Both types of persons are in serious danger if they do not live in repentance. They cannot be living in sin, regularly getting drunk, committing adultery or such and call themselves a Christian. Paul said the same in 1 Corinthians. 6:9:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

I am sure you agree with me that persons who live like that are not going to heaven no matter how many times they have been baptized and in which churches.

There are yet two more questions I would like to discuss with you on baptism. The first is whether baptism is unimportant.

The second is whether baptism saves us (baptismal regeneration).

There is one scripture that relates to both questions. Those who say that baptism is a meaningless ritual sometimes refer to scripture about the thief on the cross (Luke 23:40-43) to support their point. The thief repented on the cross, and died before he could be baptized.

But Jesus clearly said he went to heaven (v. 43).

So baptism wasn't necessary for his salvation. If we correctly understand the apostle Peter's definition of baptism as a pledge of repentance, then we can understand this. However, a person who refuses to be baptized when it is possible to be baptized -- the thief on the cross couldn't -- is in rebellion against God's command and one can truly question their salvation because they have not really repented.

We should be baptized because God commanded us to be, but only as he said to be: after repentance, and in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, etc.

Some, however, argue that baptism itself saves us. Many Orthodox and Catholic theologians say that a person is saved at the very moment they receive the sacrament of baptism.

This position is understandable, as in the scripture the relationship between repentance and baptism is so close that they seem to be the same thing. For instance, baptisms recorded in the New Testament show that as soon as a person repented, they were baptized. The Philippian jailer was baptized in the middle of the night after he repented (Acts 16:33) and the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized immediately on the side of the road (Acts 8:36-39).

However close baptism may follow repentance, it is still important to realize that salvation comes at repentance and not at baptism. Peter recognized this in Acts 10:47-48. Here an entire household was filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues before they were baptized. Peter recognized this as evidence of salvation and ordered that they be baptized. Peter's logic is clear: God does not give the baptism of the Holy Spirit to an unrepentant sinner. It only is given to those who are saved and in union with Christ.

Some believe that baptism is essential to salvation, since in John 3:5, Jesus said: "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

This scripture seems to teach that baptism is essential to salvation, assuming that "born of water" means water baptism. Supreme importance is therefore placed on this ritual by some churches.

And yet the Apostle Peter describes baptism in 1 Peter 3:21: "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God." Here Peter is saying it is not the physical act of baptism that saves us ("the removal of dirt"), but the mental repentance ("pledge of a good conscience") to live right before God with a good conscience. That is simply what repentance is.

Others note that born of water in John 3:5 may refer to the water sac that surrounds all unborn children. Under this interpretation, the point that Jesus is making is that physical birth (born of water) is not enough for salvation, but spiritual birth (born of the Spirit) is needed.

Additional articles by this author may be found at Orthodox Light