What does the Bible say about how to get baptized / how to baptize?

Christian Baptism was instituted by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ after His resurrection and before His ascension. The occasion is recorded in the gospel by Matthew chapter 28, where in verses 18 to 20 it is written: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach [lit: make disciples of] all nations, baptising them in [to] the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

The fuller revelation of the Godhead as Father, Son and Spirit — one Name — one God — Three Persons — the ever-blessed Trinity, and the giving of a wider commission to His Apostles, are the circumstances under which Christian Baptism was commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ. How the Apostles understood the charge is seen by their action in the Acts of the Apostles, where, to mention but one instance of many, "He [Peter] commanded them to be baptised in the Name of the Lord." Acts 10:48.

It is therefore by the authority of the Lord, and according to the example of His Apostles, that believers are now to be baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Pious persons sometimes baptise unconscious infants, and unbelieving households; but there is no word in the New Testament to warrant such practices, believers alone being the proper subjects of Christian Baptism. This to an unprejudiced reader is demonstrated by the fact that in every New Testament instance, baptism follows upon the hearing of faith. "He that believes and is baptised" — note the order. Baptism is in contrast with circumcision generally and not a complementary rite carried over into Christianity from Judaism; although by way of likeness, this may be noted, that as every circumcised Jew of necessity had natural life before circumcision, so in every case now real spiritual life precedes true Christian Baptism. But in the consideration of Christian Baptism it is absolutely essential that we keep the Lord Jesus Christ Himself clearly before us, so that the ordinance does not hide the Saviour, Whose death and burial, alone give point and meaning to it.

To sum it up. Baptism in Christian times is to the name of the Trinity. It is by the authority of the risen Lord Jesus. Those who baptize therefore do so in His name. Baptism in His name may be spoken of, either as to the name of the Lord Jesus, or to the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In Matthew 28:19 we have the risen Lord conferring authority upon his disciples to baptize. He authorizes them to baptize “to (eis) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This is the only place where the authorization is mentioned. The authority for Christian baptism is found here, and here alone. The risen Lord in issuing a commission to the eleven to go and disciple all the nations, authorizes them to formally identify the disciples of Christ with the confession of “the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” It is thus plain that baptism is a token, or mark, or badge, of discipleship to Christ. The badge of discipleship is put on by the baptism. The baptism signifies that the one baptized is connected with the profession of “the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” Hence the formula “to,” (or “unto”) the name, and so forth.

Now in Acts 2, Peter, as one who had received authority to give the token or badge of discipleship to Christ, counsels the Jews (convicted of, and realizing their guilt in, having rejected and crucified Jesus the Christ) to accept the badge which he has authority to give them. He says, “Be baptized for (epi) the name of Jesus Christ.” This he urges, too, as the one only door open to them for forgiveness. Hence he goes on to say, “with a view to (eis) the remission of sins.” The One they have rejected is the only One who can forgive them. It plainly is not a question of the formula used in the act of baptizing, for as yet no one had been baptized. They were under conviction and had asked, “What shall we do?” They are told, “Take shelter under the name of Jesus Christ.” Peter and his fellow-apostles stood ready to put that name upon them. Subsequently the name of Jesus Christ was put on a great number of them. In baptizing them the apostles acted in the name of the risen Lord; He having authorized them to do so. This authorization we have seen was given in Matthew 28:19. Matthew 28:19 was not suspended, but carried out. They were baptized “to the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” The apostles in so baptizing them were doing what they had authority for, and doing it by the authority of risen Lord: they acted in His name. For these conscience-stricken Jews, it was being authoritatively put under the shelter of the name of Jesus Christ with a view to the remission of their sins.

In Acts 8:16 and 19:5 we have the expression, when rightly rendered, “baptized to the name of the Lord Jesus.” But it is not a substitution of another formula. It is simply the fact that Christian baptism is to the name of the Lord Jesus, and it is necessarily so, since He is the One by whom the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were fully revealed. Baptism “to the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost,” is necessarily baptism to Him by whom the three persons of the Godhead were distinctly revealed. The expression, “baptized to the name of the Lord Jesus” cannot then be a new formula substituted in place of that of Matthew 28:19.

If true, they are certainly feeble, believers. With the Ethiopian all was simple and assured. For they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him (ver. 38). There was no thought of going before the assembly in Samaria. Baptism is individual, no matter how many souls might be baptized. The church has nothing to do with it. The Lord directed His servants (not the church as such) to baptize; and for this they are responsible to Him, as they are for the preaching of the word. The church does not baptize, any more than preach and teach; the evangelist does, though he may ask another to do it for him, as Peter when he directed Cornelius and the rest to be baptized in the name of the Lord on a later day.

Here, whatever his old prejudices might have been, even Peter bowed. And they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, it would seem, not by Peter, but at his direction by one or more of the brethren who accompanied him (ver. 48). There was neither vanity nor superstition in getting it done by Peter, though he took care in obedience to the Lord that it was duly done. It was of moment that they of the circumcision should go thoroughly with the mighty work of God's grace in sealing Gentile no less than Jew that believed. It was not too soon to be of moment that all may know that a simple brother may lawfully baptize even in a great apostle's presence, and that the act derived no value from office or gift. Only the evangelist should see that it be done after an orderly sort. No room was left for circumcision or the law. All is of grace reigning through righteousness. But a disciple is not on the external ground of a Christian till he is baptized. It is a privilege conferred on him who confesses Christ, and a sign of salvation through His death and resurrection.

Observe another fact (which, indeed, Scripture abundantly proves elsewhere), that baptism was never meant to be the prerogative of an official in the Church. Peter was there. Had it been a question of superior dignity, surely an apostle could have baptized them. The plain, simple inference of the language is, that the act was not his personally. He took care that they should be baptized; for he commanded them to be baptized; but it is nowhere said that he baptized them himself. So Paul was glad to record about his work at Corinth, thanking God that he had not baptized any, except a very few. Peter, I do not doubt, was here led of God, although for a different reason, to abstain from baptizing. Had it been otherwise, how men would have seized on the circumstance? what endeavours to extract from it something to glorify man where God was working for His own praise? But it was not so. Even the blessed apostle Paul was baptized by a simple disciple; and surely, if there had been anything involved in the person that baptized, we might expect it peculiarly guarded, when an apostle was the subject. But Ananias, at God's word, goes and says "Brother Saul," and baptizes him at once. There was no waiting for an official personage. Is it not a wonderful proof of men's unbelief, that they should overlook and explain away a fact so patent and overwhelming? Do moderns or ancients flatter themselves that they can improve on Scripture? Do they know, or can they impart the will of the Lord for His servants and the Church better than the inspired writers? There is no warrant from God for making ministers of the gospel the only persons competent to baptize. The greatest care is taken to prove the contrary; and this too when it was no question of necessity. There was no need of seeking one in high office for Cornelius: for an apostle was on the spot. Had due order, according to God, called for any such form as men have urged since, why was it omitted on so grave an occasion, which could not but be a precedent for all time to come to those who are ruled by apostolic example? As Paul, so the Gentile centurion and his household were baptized by those who, now-a-days, would be designated as laymen. Apostles and evangelists sometimes did baptize; but it was in no way regarded as an official rite: other brethren might and did baptize, even when the apostle was present. But this by the way.

On this occasion they of the circumcision see that the Gentiles receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; for they hear them speak with tongues and magnify God, and they were astonished. Then Peter says to them, "Can any man forbid water?" It was a public privilege he was warranted to confer on the Gentiles thus baptized of the Spirit. Water baptism is neither slighted nor is it put forward as a command or condition. The previous gift of the Spirit without the intervention of any human hand was the most effectual stopper on the mouths of the brethren of the circumcision who were ever prone to object, and would surely have forbidden water, if God had not undeniably given them the unspeakable gift of the Spirit. But this manifestation and fruit of gracious power silenced even the unruly and hard spirits of the circumcision. "And he commanded them to be baptized."

It may be observed passingly, that thus plainly baptizing is in no way a necessarily ministerial act. It may be all right and in perfect keeping that one preaching the gospel should baptize; but occasion might well arise where he who preached would avoid it himself. We know that Paul thanked God that so it was with himself at Corinth; and we see that Peter here did not baptize, but simply "commanded them to be baptized." God is always wise. It is too familiar how soon human superstition perverted this blessed institution of the Lord into a sacramental means of grace, duly administered by one in the line of succession.

How wise are the ways of God! I remember well reading some years ago a book by a living dignitary of the Anglican establishment, in which he speaks of the absurdity of men in office claiming to be the sole persons to baptize. This he argued from this very case of Ananias, as well as from Cornelius, etc. He pointed out that it was a layman, as people would call it now-a-days, an unofficial disciple, who was used purposely to baptize and lay hands on the greatest apostle the Lord ever gave to the church. It seems to have been just the same principle on the day of Pentecost; for, although Peter and the rest of the apostles no doubt baptized many, it may be doubted whether only they baptized three thousand in a day. So, when Peter went down to Caesarea (Acts 10), instead of his baptizing as if it were his sole prerogative, "he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." The other brethren — the unofficial brethren that accompanied him — must have baptized on that grave occasion.

Of course, it should be by a Christian. I may not reject or repeat what has been done bonâ fide in christian profession nor seek individual judgment of the state of souls when it was done. But clearly it ought to be done in faith, true prayer, and on the part of the Lord in His name; and who should do that but a believer? I should most assuredly seek the baptism of my child by a believer and none else. I do not say it is not valid else when done, but it is not what I would seek, or accept when I had to seek it.

It is the act of the baptiser, not of the baptised. The latter cannot do it for himself, he is outside, and cannot receive himself in. So it is written, "He commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord." (Acts 10:48.) Hence there is no trace of the one hundred and twenty being baptised at all. Where was the place they were to be received into? or who was to do it? They were made the place, and in this case the body too, by the descent of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:1-4.) It is not obedience; first, like the hundred and twenty, man could not obey; he cannot baptise himself: but more, Peter says, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" and commanded them to be baptised. It was a privilege conferred. Who could refuse to receive them, seeing God had put this seal upon them. So with the Ethiopian - "here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptised." You are aware probably that the verse following - that is, Acts 8:37 - is not genuine, and has been foisted in, though long ago, by those who thought confession of faith needed. No such confession, or examination if it was with all the heart, was ever made in the apostolic times. The Lord did take care it should be pure at first - added such as should be saved (Acts 2:47), sealing them with the Holy Ghost. Nor is baptism the sign of what we have received. People are baptised to something, not because of their having it - to (not into) Christ's death, to Moses, to John's baptism, buried to death, to (it is the same word) the remission of sins. Hence it is always, "Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16), not because the sins have been: to Christ's death, not because they have died: "The like figure whereunto baptism does also now save us … by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:21) Hence, when one entered believingly, he got the blessing, as far as forgiveness went, administratively here below, and was thereupon sealed by the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2.) It is not a testimony to others (though it may turn to such) as the case of the Ethiopian shews, nor is it ever spoken of as such.