This paper will argue immediate baptism is the preferred method of baptism in the local church in comparison to delayed baptism. In this paper, immediate baptism refers to baptism that takes place shortly after a person has made a profession of faith, come before the church making that decision public, and been recognized as a candidate for baptism. Within a reasonable, short timeframe, that person would be baptized. Delayed baptism in this paper is understood as the purposeful delaying of baptism for a time of instruction whether that be a catechesis, baptism class, or some other type of teaching that delays a person’s baptism for a significant time. In Acts, baptism is shown to immediately follow a person’s confession of faith. While some have argued that Acts does not give a normative approach to baptism, precedence is clearly seen to lean towards immediate baptism. Despite the biblical record reflecting immediate baptism after a confession of faith, after the first century the church appears to shift to a practice of delaying baptism. Early church fathers and writings including the Didache, Tertullian, and Cyril of Alexandria argued for delaying baptism to guard against heretics and false converts. The contextual issues across the patristic era of persecution and the later legalization of Christianity appear to drive this shift; however, in the modern day these same contexts are often absent. Yet many churches and leaders still practice some form of delayed baptism. This paper will argue for immediate baptism, in disagreement with the early church, and evaluate the implications delaying baptism has on church membership and Christian life in comparison to immediate baptism.