I have written many posts defending the salvific efficacy of water baptism (baptismal regeneration) in both the Bible and early Christian literature, including the following:
James Barker, in his 1946 book, The Protestors of Christendom, wrote the following addressing various arguments to defend (1) infant baptism (via the “household baptisms” defence) and (2) the purported biblical basis for the validity of other means of baptism than just immersion:
The jailer and his “house” were baptized (Acts XVI:23-24), but there is no reason for believing that there was any infants in the “house” or that any infants were baptized: Paul and Silas did not preach to infants, and they had first spoken unto him (the jailer) the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his “house,” neither did they baptize infants. In the few cases where a whole family was baptized, there is no reason to believe that the family included infants. If the baptism of the “house” of the jailer is sometimes alleged in support of infant baptism of the “house” of the jailer is sometimes alleged in support or infant baptism, it is only because the defenders of infant baptism cannot cite an example of infant baptism in the New Testament.
“Unless a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” ([John] III:3.) Neither may it be inferred from this statement of the Savior that infants should be baptized. As here quoted from the King James’ version of the Bible, “man” is used to render the Greek indefinite person tis. Though tis may usually be rendered on the German indefinite pronoun man or by the French indefinite pronoun on, there is in English no corresponding indefinite pronoun and no single word or phrase that may be used in all cases to translate the meaning of tis. Tis may mean a, an, a certain one; somebody; any one; all of a class (of which one is speaking), etc. If John desired to quote the Savior as meaning everyone of the (adult) class to which [Nicodemus] belonged, then he very properly used it tis. If he desired to quote the Savior as meaning all persons whatsoever, then he chose a word that did not have that meaning. Moreover he could have chosen the Greek word pas, sometimes combined with tis, pas tis, which would have said what some defenders of infant baptism would like us to believe he intended to say. As evidence for infant baptism, this statement of the Savior to [Nicodemus] has no bearing whatever.
In the New Testament times immersion is the only form of baptism known to have been used. It is sometimes argued that Paul baptized the jailer by sprinkling or pouring, but the text says nothing about sprinkling or pouring and nothing in regard to the manner of his baptism may be inferred from the text. The jailor was not baptized in the jail: before the baptism, the jailer “had brought out” Paul and Silas from the jail; and after the baptism, he “brought them into his house” (Acts 16:30, 34), consequently, Paul and Silas had been free to baptize him wherever they could find enough water.
It has been argued that the Apostles must have baptized by sprinkling or aspersion since there was not much water in Jerusalem, and yet they baptized three thousand persons on the day of Pentecost. Concerning this, E. Jacquier (Catholique) (Les Actes des Apotres, p. 85) says: “About three thousand persons were baptized; it is not said that it was on the same day or in the same place, or whether they were baptized by Peter alone (seul). It has been objected that it would have been very difficult to baptize three thousand persons, even in a certain lapse of time, considering the form, immersion, in which baptism was administered in this period of time, and the scarcity of water in Jerusalem. The public authorities would have been aroused by this demonstration. But all around Jerusalem there was a sufficient number of pools (piscines) to enable them to baptize such a large number of persons without even attracting attention” . . . In defence of pouring, attention is sometimes called to the seventh chapter of Mark’s gospel (3): “And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen (aniptois), hands, they found fault. (4). For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash (nipsontai) their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash (baptisontai), they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing (baptismous) of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables (couches—klinon).” Lightfoot “had supposed that (in verse 4) they plunged or bathed the hands” “instead of having them moistened by pouring as in the preceding verse.” Lagrange does not think the interpretation of verse 4 impossible, but says concerning verse three: “It is a question of a ritual formality . . . they touched the water with the end of the fingers.” And for Lagrange, kai klinon (and tables—couches), though added “by serious authorities” “must have been suggested by the legislation of Leviticus xv,” Evangile selon saint Marc, pp. 180-183, and he does not admit it into his text. There is nothing here on which to base an argument for baptism by sprinkling. (James L. Barker, The Protestors of Christendom [Independence, Miss.: Zion's Printing and Publishing Company, 1946], 47-48 n. 30, 49 n. 33)