A Brief Reflection on Baptism

Different groups within Christendom have widely divergent views regarding baptism. Some sprinkle water. Others pour water. Still others employ full immersion. In addition to these variances in practice, people also disagree about the necessity and effect of baptism. In fact, bitter arguments have occurred, and still occur, regarding whether people must be baptized in order to be cleansed of their sins, i.e., saved. In light of this general background of disagreement, I find F. F. Bruce's statements in his Romans commentary (1985) regarding baptism in the first century notable. Bruce writes:   
  
"In apostolic times baptism appears to have followed immediately on confession of faith in Christ. The repeated accounts of baptism in Acts give ample proof of this; the incident of the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:1–7) is the exception that proves the rule. What is expressly related in Acts is implied in the Epistles. Faith in Christ and baptism were, indeed, not so much two distinct experiences as parts of one whole. Faith in Christ was an essential element in baptism, for without it the application of water, even accompanied by the appropriate words, would not have been Christian baptism. But when believers were baptized, what happened? This, says Paul [in Romans 6]. Their former existence came to an end; a new life began. They were, in fact, ‘buried’ with Christ when they were dipped in the baptismal water, in token that they had died so far as their old life of sin was concerned; they were raised with Christ when they emerged from the water, in token that they had received a new life, which was nothing less than participation in Christ’s own resurrection life" (pp. 140–141).
  
As Bruce says, baptism in apostolic times involved dipping (and not sprinkling or pouring), because it was a burial in water in which a person joined Jesus, in a figure, in Jesus's burial in the earth. Furthermore, while many people today think of and practice baptism as though it is something added on to saving faith, Bruce is exactly right (1) about the immediacy of baptism and (2) in his acknowledgment that faith in apostolic times so included baptism that baptism was subsumed in the very concept of saving faith. Of course, what Bruce says isn’t right merely because he says it. I disagree with several things he says in his Romans commentary, as we all might disagree with some things in any commentary. However, I affirm to all who desire to follow Christ and the teachings of his apostles that, rightly understood, baptism has the same significance now that it had when the church began and should be observed precisely as depicted in Acts and described in Romans 6:1-4. If not, why not?