Click here to download the PDF article “Rethinking Water Baptism.”
The article is a supplement to Frank’s signature book, Insurgence: Reclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom.
About Frank Viola
Frank Viola is a best-selling author, blogger, speaker, and consultant to authors and writers. His mission is to help serious followers of Jesus know their Lord more deeply so they can experience real transformation and make a lasting impact. To learn more about Frank and his work, go to 20 Years of Projects. To invite Frank to speak at your event, go to his Speaking Page. Due to a new problem with persistent spam that we haven’t figured out how to control, comments are closed for the present time. To contact Frank, use the “Contact” page in the top menu.
Missional Living
What is your explanation of the baptism of whole households? I hear a lot of different teachings about that and find it hard to understand..
I believe those families came to Christ together. So they were baptized together.
Hello Frank,
I have red (several times) Pagan Christianity and Reimagining Church, and these books have helped me to understand and answer many of my intuitions about the Church. So first of all, thank you.
In Pagan Christianity you use the pagan background of many of the evangelical traditions as “a bad thing”. But you don’t say nothing at all about the pagan background of baptism in water. It is proved that this tradition has been there through History in every religion, culture and civilization in some way, with similar meanings. It’s not an exclusive tradition for hebrews and Christians.
What do you think about this?
PS: sorry for my English, I’m a bit limited (I’m writing from Barcelona, Spain)
Actually, I do talk about the unbiblical influences on water baptism and how the original meaning and practice was changed later in church history from what it was in the New Testament. This article explains how it was practiced and understood in the first century by the early Christians.
Just because there may have been baptisms” previous in different forms and cultures means nothing. Christian baptism was distinct in the most important elements. They didn’t borrow their practice of it from the pagans. Jesus taught about baptism Himself and so did the apostles.
In Reference to the thief on the cross not being baptized. I offer my opinion. Baptism is a representation of dying to the old and rising in newness of life. I will submit that the thief was thoroughly baptized in Christ death, burial, and resurrection…literally. Agreed, water was absent. However, water is only the type, he was baptized into the substance. Armed with this view, there is not one instance of conversion without baptism.
Where does baptism by fire come in?
Does fire replace water?
“I baptize you with water, calling you to turn away from your sins. But after me, one will come who is more powerful than I am. And I’m not fit to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” (Matthew 3:11 NIRV)
“They saw something that looked like tongues of fire. The flames separated and settled on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit. They began to speak in languages they had not known before. The Spirit gave them the ability to do this.” (Acts 2:3, 4 NIRV)
Some say it points to Acts 2; others say it speaks of the baptism of suffering.
Thank you Frank for writing this article. I finally understand water baptism.
Thank-you, Frank, for a very informed and helpful ‘re-think’. When I first saw the link, I was concerned that your re-thinking was going to diminish the importance and the significance of being baptized in water as a public confession of our repentance and faith in Jesus.
BTW, I came upon you and your site through looking up T. Austin-Sparks, whose writings have been a great inspiration in thinking upon those things which are above, etc.
Shalom.
Dear Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ,
I ask you to consider these points:
1. When God said that he would preserve his Word, what did he mean?
Did he mean that he would preserve the original papyrus and parchment upon which his Word was written? If so, then his Word has disappeared as none of the original manuscripts remain.
Did he mean that he would preserve his word in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek only? He would not preserve his Word when it was translated into all the other languages of the world?
Or did God mean that he would preserve his Word…the message/the words…the Gospel: the free gift of salvation, and the true doctrines of the Christian Faith? Would God allow his Word/his message to mankind to be so polluted by translation errors that no translation, into any other language from the three original languages, continues to convey his true words?
2. There IS no translation of the Bible, from the original ancient languages, into any language, anywhere on earth, that translates the Bible as the Baptists/evangelicals believe it should be translated.
No Bible translation on earth translates Acts 2:38 as, “Repent and believe in Jesus Christ every one of you and you will receive the Holy Ghost. Then be baptized as a public profession of your faith.”
There is no translation that translates, into any language, Acts 22:16 as, “ And now why tarriest thou? arise, believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Then be baptized.” Not a single translation in the entire world translates that verse in any way remotely resembling the manner in which Baptists believe it should be translated.
Isn’t that a problem?
And this verse, I Peter 3:21 as, “Asking Christ into your heart in a spiritual baptism, which water Baptism symbolizes, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”
And Mark 16:16 as, “He that believes will be saved, and then baptized, but he that does not believe will be condemned.”
Why would God allow EVERY English translation of the Bible throughout history to be mistranslated or use such confusing language as to suggest that God forgives sins in Baptism? And not only all English translations, ALL translations of the Bible have retained these “mistranslations or confusing wording”.
Do you honestly believe that God would allow his Word to be so polluted with translation errors that EVERY Bible in the world, if read in its simple, plain interpretation, would tell all the people of the world that God forgives sins in water baptism??
3. Why is there not one single piece of evidence from the early Christians that indicates that ANYONE in the 800-1,000 years after Christ believed that: Water baptism is ONLY a public profession of faith/act of obedience; sins are NOT forgiven in water baptism? Yes, you will find statements by these early Christians that salvation is by faith, but do Baptists and evangelicals really understand how a sinner obtains saving faith? THAT IS THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION, MY FRIENDS! Does the sinner produce faith by his own free will or does God provide faith and belief as a gift, and if God does provide faith and belief as a free gift, with no strings attached, when exactly does God give it?
4. Is it possible that: Baptist-like believers, at some point near or after 1,000 AD, were reading the Bible and came across verses that read “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” and “Call upon the name of the Lord and you will be saved” and established their doctrine of Salvation/Justification first, based on these and similar verses alone, and then, looked at the issue of water baptism, and since the idea that God forgives sins in water baptism doesn’t seem to fit with the verses just mentioned, re-interpreted these verses to fit with their already established doctrine, instead of believing the “baptism verses” literally?
Is it possible that BOTH groups of verses are literally correct?? If we believe God’s Word literally, he says that he saves/forgives sins when sinners believe/call AND when they are baptized? Why not believe that God can give the free gift of salvation in both situations: when a sinner hears the Gospel and believes and when a sinner is baptized?
Should we re-interpret God’s plain, simple words just because they don’t seem to make sense to us?
Dear Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters, your doctrine is very well thought out and very reasonable…but it is wrong. Do you really believe that God would require an education in ancient Greek or a Greek lexicon to understand what he really wants to say to you? And do you really believe that Baptist “Greek” scholars understand Greek better than the Greeks themselves? If the Greek language, correctly translated, states in the Bible that Baptism is only a public profession of faith as Baptists say, then why do the Greek Orthodox believe that the Greek Bible plainly says, in Greek, that God forgives sins in water baptism? Somebody doesn’t know their Greek!
Please investigate this critical doctrine further. Do you really want to appear before our Lord in heaven one day and find out that you have been following a false doctrine invented in the sixteenth century by Swiss Ana-baptists?
God bless you!
Gary
Very well said Gary. Thanks for posting this.
This viewpoint begs the question that the Spirit was received by people *before* they were baptized, thus showing they belonged to Christ (Acts 10; Rom. 8). The arguments used by some about this being an exception isn’t convincing.
My article preserves the absolute important of water baptism while not making water baptism into a legalistic doctrine, condemning millions of people who trusted in Jesus but didn’t make it to the water. Again, understanding the word “salvation” is critical here.
I’m encouraged that those who have stressed the importance of baptism in history — the Church of Christ for instance — have been encouraged by the article and have shared it with many of their friends. As a supplement, listen to my message given in a Church of Christ conference – For God So Loved the World vs. Love Not the World – on the podcast. https://www.frankviola.org/podcast
I don’t belong to a church. I want to be baptized. Where can I have this done?
Most people in your situation would seek-out Christians in their city who understand conversion and baptism. There are genuine Christians in every city. Pray and then seek them out.
Frank,
Thank you for your articles. They are definitely a blessing.
What are your thoughts about baptizing babies in the church? I understand it, but I feel like it’s almost done on behalf of the parents as a dedication. Is there any NT evidence behind it? I feel like babies should be dedicated and brought up in the Church and then the person can be baptized later in life if they choose to. I was baptized as a baby but never really accepted Jesus until high school. As I have faith in my salvation through Jesus Christ, I don’t feel like I have to be re-baptized, but I guess I always think about it when it is brought up or a baby is baptized at church.
Thank you for your time and keep up the posts.
I don’t see dedicating babies this way to be wrong. But it’s not what baptism is in the NT. A baby cannot understand the gospel, repent, and believe.
Wonderful read. Love the example of Noah and the exodus. I had never connected those events with the renewal of baptism before.
Looking forward to reading the Theography, especially after this post. All copies were out and there is a waiting list at my local library. Sad for me, but this is good news!
I tried to read the article and every comment so please correct me if I’m wrong…. The first ? for me is that the thief on the cross never got wet but Jesus said He would see him in paradise. So my thinking goes….their was a spiritual exchange taking place for the thief surrendering his will to “the name” or the Nature of JESUS. The thief repented and was emersed into JESUS’ nature, glory, redemptive work and becoming part of the ekkesia. So Frank I agree with the water event is a type of confession to leave all for Christ but it is not mandatory.
We are emersed/baptised into the ekklesia, made alive in Christ when we repent and turn from our sin, the world and the devil.
Gregory. Western Christians think in terms of mandatory vs. not mandatory. The early Christians didn’t have those sorts of thoughts thus so very little that’s presented in the NT is couched in those specific terms.
The issue of the post is what is baptism and why is it important. So the question ought not to be, “Can I and others still go to heaven if we’re not baptized?” but rather, “why wouldn’t I or anyone else NOT want to be baptized given what it is and how the early Christians viewed it including Jesus?” . . . “why would I want to opt for the ‘sinner’s prayer’ to lead people to Christ when the entire NT tells me it’s baptism that should have that place?”
I realize that this is a profoundly different approach than how most believers look at these subjects. So I hope it’s helpful to you. Note that the first-century Christians who have never had the thought, “what happens if I’m not baptized” because baptism is what everyone did when a person came to Christ. And I’m arguing — from the NT — that it should be that way again.
I’m a little confuse by the “mandatory or not” thought….I guess I’m questioning the word “baptism”. Do we read back into the word “baptism” the JESUS event with John the Baptist, with water? Or do we get emersed into Christ. Our dead human spirit is made alive in Christ. Like the theif did. A spiritual transaction first. Then we confess Christ in our life with the water as long as we’re still alive physically to do it.
BTW I’m not trying to opt out of the water event that is a great public confession of faith, a symbol of what took place in the spiritual. It can also become a religious ritual imposed by well meaning religious folks who like to impose the Lord’s table and Sunday morning lectures as periodic roman protestant sacraments.
The idea that baptism is something other than with water is an idea that came much later in church history. In the first century, it meant with water. I wouldn’t feel comfortable using the thief on the cross as some sort of proof text to overturn the rest of the NT on baptism, which is overwhelming. In short, when I lead someone to Christ, I (like Philip) tell them about baptism, what it is and means, then I take them out to the water not long after, preferably with a body of believers as witnesses. That’s the practical handle to which this post leads.
Hi Gregory,
When Jesus died and was resurrected, the Old Covenant was done away with, and the New Testament began. Shortly after this, Jesus gave this knowledge to many of His disciples, including (new) instructions to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. Indeed, in Romans 6, baptism into Christ is described as a sharing in His death, burial, and resurrection.
The thief that was crucified with Jesus did indeed surrender his life and will to Jesus and so was saved. However, at that time the Old Covenant was still in affect. There was no baptism into Christ yet because He had not yet died and been resurrected, and therefore there was no way for him to “share in His death” (Rom 6) in baptism, because this only came about in the New Covenant.
I don’t know if I explained this very well, but I do hope it sheds some light. 🙂
Like some others, I also come from with the churches often accused (sometimes with full justification) of teaching magical water regeneration. While I’m still trying to get my head around the idea of being saved from the world (fallen) systems, the explanation of baptism is at least hitting the subject with a broad assessment of both biblical images and texts.
I have struggled for years with a simple way to explain what I think I understand about baptism in terms that do not automatically raise fears of abandoning by grace through faith. My conclusions come surprisingly (or not) close to what is presented in your very thorough treatment:
Baptism is how people in the apostolic church said “yes” to Jesus.
I realize it may be simplistic, in light of your more nuanced and biblically rich article. But, for the sake of simplicity, I have found it at least moves water regeneration (would the sinner’s prayer be suggesting “verbal regeneration?”) off the table and allows a more civil dialogue.
I think this statement of yours — Baptism is how people in the apostolic church said “yes” to Jesus — is a great summary of my conclusion.
Thank you for this article.
I am a member of a local church of Christ, so I think everyone thinks they know what I think of baptism. But I have to say, that as I grow older, I see the nonsense we manage to make of God’s word in the quest to be “right”. Even here, I see some responses that others feel compelled to add just so we know what they believe in this matter. Being right has not made one man or woman righteous. Knowledge is meaningless in a system where we will be judged by our hearts.
As age fills my life, even the arguments concerning baptism seem like a slap in God’s face. What would Jesus think if his disciples were arguing in such a way while he hung on the cross?…Oh yeah, we are his disciples…and if that image of Him is not before us daily, we have missed the mark.
Personally, I don’t think it is an issue, nor is it one we can fully understand, it has its roots in the spirit world. A realm where we have but brief glimpses and some understanding, but only some.
My brothers and sisters would cringe at my words, but I think it is more important that I love ALL my brothers and sisters…that is anyone who calls on the name of our savior Jesus the Christ and honestly seeks His favor.
Honestly, I don’t care when the actual power of God restores me, I just have faith the He will accomplish what He says he will do.
Again, thank you for this article. The importance of baptism is evident in the urgency expressed by the Ethiopian eunuch, Paul and Apollos and all the other examples set before us to see. Are we better than them? Never. We will hopefully never know the physical suffering they endured for the cause.
Whatever your belief, if you call on the name of the Lord, we are all in the same body…and I’m pretty sure some of my brothers and sisters will be floored to see all you denominationals there. (Satirical Statement)
We will stand better in unity, if we could just lose the rhetoric…on both sides.
Peace to you.
Mark: Thank you, brother. Your comment expresses great spiritual insight. May your tribe increase!
Brother Mark, You’re not alone!!! I too am from the church of Christ in India and I must say that I share what you have expressed here. Let’s just emphasize Christ (not doctrines), as Frank is doing, to our respective congregations. God bless you and your journey! Love.
Maybe I’m missing it, but I still don’t see the connection of being saved from this world. I only thought we were being saved from the enslavement of sin. I know we are admonished to not be conformed to the ways of this world, but nowhere do I see in Scripture that one of the purposes of salvation is to be saved from this world. Naturally, when we begin our residency in the kingdom of God, we no are no longer citizens of this world. We have essentially migrated from one kingdom to another. But, nowhere do I see this as salvation. Do you have specific Scripture passages that clearly show this to be?
I listed them. Acts 2:40-41, Gal. 1:4, and 2 Peter 2:5 are examples. In addition, the whole narrative in 1 Pet. 3 & 2 Pet. 2 and 1 Cor. 10 make it plain – read the section of the post on Egypt and the world under Noah.
God “saved” Israel out of Egypt (a picture of the world) by being “baptized unto Moses in the Red Sea.” In like manner, God “saved” Noah and his family from the old corrupt world via the ark through water burying the old world behind. Peter links this to salvation from the world through baptism.
Unfortunately there are some denominations that say that unless you are baptized you are not saved. I take it that you do not hold to this view. It has gotten to the point in some churches where your entire body must be immersed and if one part of you remains above the water, they say you are not saved. Really and truly, it is what Christ did for us and His work on the cross and His resurrection Life IN US alone which saves. Adding anything else to His completed work is error and is a returning to legalism.
I’ve answered this question in one of the other comments re: taking a legalistic view of baptism. I gave an example of people who had the Spirit in the NT before they were baptized. As I said at the front of the post, Christians have historically taken one of two positions on the subject. Either baptismal regeneration or making it something that’s optional and merely symbolic and nothing more.
Appreciated Frank!
I find it very odd that so many Christians believe that Jesus is present and living in their hearts…but yet those same folks can’t believe that Jesus could be present in a bowl of water that has His Word of promise attached to it, in an act that He commands that we do.
He never commanded us to do anything where He would not be present in it, for us.
God has chosen to work His will, in Baptism, for sinners. Can God save apart from Baptism? Sure He can. But He can also save and bring people to Himself in it.
Thanks.
Hi Frank!
What a great article! I am one of those that hold to the belief that baptism is an outward confession of an inward faith. I came out of a Oneness Pentecostal background and once believed that my sins are remitted in the act of baptism. I now believe that regeneration precedes faith, and we are saved by grace through faith, apart from our works, including obedience to religious rituals, I believe Christ perfectly obeyed in everything for me, yet I do believe that baptism is mandatory. I feel like baptism is a little weightier than an outward sign of an inward faith, but I just don’t know how to reconcile what you are saying with what sounds alot like what I was taught in the Oneness Pentecostal church. How is baptism connected to regeneration and justification? Does baptism play a role whatsoever in either? If not, then isn’t baptism really an outward sign of something that is taking place apart from baptism? These are sincere questions, no arguing here. I would like to subscribe to your view but am having difficulties doing so in good conscience because I have these unanswered questions. Thanks.
It’s the nature of humans to make laws out of everything, as I’m sure you’ve observed in your former denomination. The early Christians didn’t think in terms like that. They simply understood baptism to be the way that people *confessed* their faith in Christ initially and all that’s bound up with it. That’s why after Philip preached to the eunuch, the eunuch’s response was, “Here’s some water. What prevents me from being baptized?” Clearly, Philip included baptism in his message of the gospel.
I would never say that a follower of Jesus who wasn’t taught to be baptized isn’t justified. We know that the Gentiles received the Spirit *before* they were baptized in water (see Acts 10). However, Peter immediately baptized them afterwards.
The take-away from this article is that if you lead someone to Jesus, explain what baptism is to them (use this article if you like) and then bring them to the water before witnesses. Baptism, and not “the Sinner’s prayer,” is both the example and the command that we have in the NT for leading people to the Lord. Equally so, if a person has believed in Christ and they’ve never been baptized, the waters of baptism await them.
Thanks for this Frank.
Frank,
I find this fascinating, revelatory, and challenging for me, to say the least. For instance, I have been taught that baptism does NOT need to be a public declaration, performed in the presence of others.
Based on my understanding, Jesus, for instance, did not have a group witnessing His baptism. However, I opened up my Bible and re-read each account of Christ’s baptism in the Gospels just now and was surprised to realize that scripture doesn’t actually say whether Jesus was alone with John or not. If anything, it suggests that the crowds who were always present at the Jordan would have, in fact, been there.
All that to say, I’m excited to have received a new understanding of baptism thanks to this post, the Word, and His Spirit. Thank you.
Thanks Nicole. I appreciate this.
You mention you’re going to hit on the baptism of the Spirit in the comments. Are you also going to talk about rebaptism? (or you might have already and I missed it)
The turning point for me in my own study was Peter’s words that baptism is a “pledge of a good conscience” (NIV). Meaning, you should know what you’re getting yourself into. Denominational traditional baptism ceremonies miss out on this I fear. But does that mean one should be rebaptized?
And I’m glad you talk about what “salvation” means. It is too easy to get hung up on “salvation is by faith alone!” when we limit the definition to heaven/hell. But when we consider what Peter wrote about Noah we recognize that Noah wasn’t saved from the flood (judgement, ergo hell) but was rather saved by the flood from the sinful world in which he lived. Salvation, hence baptism, takes on a new (and Biblically correct IMO) meaning.
Anyway, great post!
The Bible doesn’t address rebaptism because it assumes a right understanding of baptism to begin with. The confusion set in later. Many of God’s people have been rebaptized because they felt they had no understanding of what their first baptism was, so to their minds they were just getting wet. In Revelation, Jesus talks about doing the first works over again. Some have taken this principle to apply to baptism. Some have been baptized again to break addictions in their adulthood and it’s been successful for them.
So when it comes to being rebaptized, that’s between the person and the Lord. Nothing in the NT prohibits it and no one should make it a law one way or the other.
Note that the main audience of the article is new converts. I’ve given to them before baptizing them so they understand what it is they’re doing.
Dear Frank,
I was so blessed by your post today. It’s a funny thing, since around 2010 I have been wanting to be re-baptized. I too belonged to a denominational background such as yours and I feel like I I was cheated or missed out because I didn’t really understand the true meaning of water baptism and the importance attached to it. So many things I really didn’t get or understand til many many years later. How sad is that?
I also liked the way you brought out our switching allegiance from this world system to a new nation. You have such a gift in communicating spiritual truths to the Body of Christ.
People ask me sometime what I think about all that’s going on and what is my take on the political arena and all, who is politically correct or politically not correct… I always answer with, “This system is not what God ever intended for His people and therefore it will never be efficient or good or run smooth.” I never could really explain what I felt was in my heart, you know what I really meant to convey. But as I read your post today I said, “That’s it!” Light bulbs and buzzers seemed to go off in my spirit. You state it perfectly. It’s this world system. That’s what is totally wrong. Switching allegiance, esp the 2nd paragraph sums it all up quite beautifully, in my estimation anyhow.
I love reading your posts! I just started reading “Jesus A Theography.” I am so excited and blessed.
Your Sister In Christ,
L.B.
This is great Frank. Baptism is a clouded subject for many, when it seems so clear in the Bible. Thanks for helping to clear it up.
Excellent! Will use and pass on.
This will be a great way for me to help explain this to the kids at the orphanage. Thank you for providing a clear way for us to understand the importance and the reason for baptism. I am sure deep down it is what we know. However, some of us (me in particular) may not have been able to put it into words.
I concurred pretty much with everything you have said. I would like to just add that we are a priesthood of all believers. That being said in looking at the consecration of the Levitical priests there was a God ordained process which included a washing before the adornment of the priestly garments. How then would we become priests without the washing? I think God establishes consistent patterns and in Exodus 19:6 when He declared that His people would be a kingdom of priests He saw its fulfillment in the Church. Let not man try to alter what God has ordained.
Brother Frank,
Thanks for republishing this. It reminds me of what N. T. Wright discusses in a section of his chapter on “Believing and Belonging” in his book “Simply Christian” in which he traces the story baptism tells. He says it is a story “from creation and covenant to new covenant and new creation, with Jesus in the middle of it and the Spirit brooding over it.” Wright uses the phrases for each sub section such as “Through the water to freedom”, “Through the water to new life”, “Through the water into God’s new world”, “Through the water into new life belonging to Jesus”, and finally “Through the water to become part of God’s purpose for the world”
Love,
brother kent
2. Growing up fundamentalist, I feared the words – Baptism of the Spirit. Later in my life becoming an Anabaptist with a Closet Charismatic self, I’ve wondered if some of these verses weren’t talking about a baptism that happens with the spirit.
I’ll be posting “Rethinking the Baptism of the Holy Spirit” in the future. 🙂
1.) First Off. You really did your homework on the socio-political implications of baptism, within the early church. When you stated…
[If you were baptized in the first century, you were signing your death warrant. You had renounced everything for another kingdom. And you were paying your allegiance to another king . . . one that was in competition with Caesar.]
It immediately coinsided with,once again, The Anabaptists for me. During the reformation, Baptism was not that much different act of ‘rebellion’ and switching of alliances for them, and with the same consequences.
Randolf Gomes
Brother this article has given me a clear insight to the importance of immersion Baptism within the Church. I truly believe that every christian should follow the Path of Jesus Christ and not any Denomination.