Featured Alien Baptism

For the record, I was saved and baptized in a non-Calvinist church and then moved to a Calvinistic one, but I was not asked to be re-baptized and I would not have joined had I been so asked. I was Scripturally baptized on my profession of faith in Jesus Christ, and no one is going to make me undergo a ritual which I find nowhere in Scripture.
Thjplgvp, your church has a perfect right to refuse membership to whomever it wants; I have no problem with that at all. But someone who will lie about his true beliefs in order to get membership in your church will also falsely submit to re-baptism. Re-baptism of a believer is unscriptural and has no place in the life of a church.

 

Yes. Absolutely. There are no grounds for re-baptism. There may or may not be grounds for not receiving you into membership, but that's a different question.

 

'Re-Baptizing' in order to feel secure that a person will heed authority, or heed doctrine, or not cause problems are man made precepts and have absolutely no authority from the Word of God. You simply cannot state you are 'Sola Scriptura' and practice this within the church and remain Sola Scriptura. Nonetheless some will state they are Sola Scriptura but as seen it is categorically not true in this case. Something to consider for some folk.

 

Hi Brother IT,

I agree rebaptism for the purposes you stated such as so one will "heed authority", "doctrine", or not "cause problems" is not scriptural. Rebaptism itself however is sometimes warranted for church membership in instances when one is coming from another order that doesn't possess the true gospel or has an incomplete gospel. Rebaptism in such instances is scriptural. Paul rebaptized 12 who previously submitted to baptism based on an incomplete gospel. It also appears they were baptized by one who assumed authority based on John's ministry, rather than the charge to baptize that originated with Christ. Apollos' message, while containing good news, was not the true gospel inasmuch as it was incomplete. This is indicated by the reaction of Aquila and Priscilla when they heard his teaching. They “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” (Acts 18:26). Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines “perfectly” as “greater accuracy, more precision” The phrase “knowing only the baptism of John” suggests Apollos' understanding of scripture was limited to what he knew with respect to John's baptism and, by inference, John's message. If this is so, Apollos' teaching amounted to an incomplete gospel. The true significance of the good news of John's message could not be understood apart from the teachings and finished work of Jesus Christ. His message did not and could not, in light of John's death, present a Messiah who had finished the work He came to do. Nor did it even explain how Jesus would save sinners. It announced God's intention to save, but stopped short of pronouncing it accomplished by Christ's finished work.

Acts 19 continues the account of Paul rebaptizing the twelve people at Ephesus. Like Apollos, they knew only about John's baptism. “And it came to pass that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.” (Acts 19:3) The fact these people had never heard of the Holy Ghost strongly suggests they had never heard the one true Gospel. Furthermore, it is likely they were taught John's baptism by someone other than John, since he preached Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost.

 

Hi Brother,

No, I am not saying John's disciples were not saved, nor am I saying Apollos was unsaved, or the 12 Paul rebaptized in Acts 19, but rather they needed to be rebaptized as they were baptized with an incomplete gospel. "25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly." (Acts 18:25-26) and "2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism." (Acts 19:2-3) The fact these people had never heard of the Holy Ghost strongly suggests they had never heard the one true Gospel. Furthermore, it is likely they were taught John's baptism by someone other than John, since he preached Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost.

 

Right, I agree with baptizing under the truth of the Gospel. I wouldn't count the other baptism, done under a false gospel Scriptural baptism, nor would you, but to take it a step further I then wouldn't say they were baptized then and are now being re-baptized. For me it is not re-baptizing at that point, but simply baptizing Scripturally.

 

Yes you are correct brother.

 

Brother InternetTheologian,

In addition to baptizing those who were previously dunked under the pretense of a church that adheres to a false doctrine, do you also agree with my position in baptizing one who was previously dunked under an incomplete gospel such as was the case for Appolos in Acts 18 who was baptized initially under John's baptism and thus was subsequently needing to be baptized again? I do not believe Appolos was unsaved knowing only the baptism of John, but he did not have the complete gospel taught to him is apparent from what we read of Appolos " And he (Appolos) began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:26). Apollos knew only John's baptism. From which I infer he lacked details and understanding of the person and finished work of Christ Jesus. This left Apollos with an imprecise and incomplete message concerning God's purpose to save. This was not the same gospel preached in the New Testament Church to which Aquila and Priscilla belonged. The true significance of the good news of John's message could not be understood apart from the teachings and finished work of Jesus Christ. His message did not and could not, in light of John's death, present a Messiah who had finished the work He came to do. Nor did it even explain how Jesus would save sinners. It announced God's intention to save, but stopped short of pronouncing it accomplished by Christ's finished work.

The church I belong too baptize those upon a confession of faith for membership into our church for all those who come to us who were baptized previously under what I would consider an "incomplete gospel" that is often taught by other orders. Mainly those that previously baptized them did not know or teach the five points of the doctrines of grace. Please note, I by no means mean to infer, nor do I believe all those who do not embrace the five points of the doctrines of grace are unsaved, but rather they have believed an "incomplete gospel" regarding how one becomes born again by a sovereign quickening prior to gospel conversion and faith, how a person comes to faith in Jesus Christ as their savior by God imparting His Spirit into the person thereby giving them faith to believe, and the fact that Christ's death actually accomplished, not just made salvation possible, for His people and His people alone. These are all important parts of the gospel in my view, thus those who receive a baptism from a teacher who does not know or teach these truths are being baptized unto an incomplete gospel with incomplete knowledge much as Appolos was and for membership need gospel baptism by one who his ordained to do such. If you have the time, I would be interested in hearing your views on these matters.

 

Well, don't anybody beat me up for asking either, but isn't according to the original OP, the same as the Baptist Briders who believe same as the Campbellites, that salvation can only be found in their flavor of church?

Now, I personally wouldn't accept a member who came from a protestant church and most definitely a Roman catholic background without re-baptism and a clear profession of faith. Neither would my congregation. They've been taught better. The same could and would be said about the charismatic and even many of the holiness folks baptisms.

 

Hi Brother,

Good question. Every instance of baptizing recorded in scripture indicates the ordinance was administered by a preacher of the gospel. The first example of a preacher baptizing is John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1-6). Peter preached and baptized (Acts 2:14-41, 10:34-48), as did Ananias (Acts 22:12-16), so also did Paul (Acts 16:13-15, 16:30-33, 18:8, 19:4-7, I Corinthians 1:14-17) and Philip preached and baptized (Acts 8:12, 8:35-38). However, this does not explain how men who came after the Apostles are qualified to baptize.

Ordaining elders (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5) by means of laying on of hands (Acts 13:3, 1 Timothy 4:14, 5:22 ) by a presbytery is the means God gave His church to recognize a man's call to preach and be able to baptize believers. Beginning with the Apostles in Jerusalem, the ordination service has included laying hands on the candidate.

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

A scriptural baptism must have a scriptural method – Immersion in water. Pouring and sprinkling cannot be scriptural methods because neither one can be found in the Bible. Immersion in water is the only scriptural method of baptism. Jesus was immersed in water; see Mark 1:9-10 we read, "
that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 0 And straightway coming up out of the water" , with sprinkling one can not be said to be "coming up out of the water", thus that obviously isn't the scriptural mode. Also, notice John the Baptist needed “much water” for baptism (John 3:23). Sprinkling requires little water. In Acts 8:26-39, in the story of Philip and the Ethiopian, we are taught that baptism is by immersion. It says, "they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch,” and Philip “baptized him,” (Acts 8:38)

Baptism pictures a burial, (Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12) which sprinkling can not do. All Greek scholars admit that “baptism” or “baptizo”, as it is in the Greek, the language of the New Testament, means to immerse, plunge, or dip. The Greek word for sprinkling is entirely different and is never used in connection with baptism in the New Testament.

 

___________________________________________________________________________

Authority to baptize is still the crux of the argument. Jesus said He has all power and authority in heaven and in earth. Mt. 28. He has delegated certain authority(exousia)--orders to march, preach, baptize and teach to the first Church, not started in Rome by the way. He also delegated the Holy Spirit to empower the Church and bear witness to the Word. These bible truths have been watered down, in fact apostasized from the beginning, by certain wolves dressed like sheep. They changed scriptural Baptism to something regenerational which is also applied to infants. Such things have never been followed by New Testaments Churches, some of which are called Baptist. However some have chosen to remove "Baptist" from their names. Curious!! Perhaps that is an honest statement: they are not True Baptists.

The authority to baptize was given to the Church as an institution, not to Peter the Apostle. The Church (not universal) delegates this authority to individuals. This is not apostolic succession. This authority has been usurped by the holy see or not.

If the holy see has the authority, the rest of us have a problem: Rome has never delegated any authority. See council of Trent, also Vatican II. No one has authority to leave the auspices of the RCC. If the holy see has usurped authority, all those who would reform Rome have usurped authority.

This does not leave many scripturally authorized administrators of baptism. This was the big bone of contention with the so-called Anabaptists and others--they regarded the authority of Rome null and void. Millions were exterminated. See: the inquisitions.

How soon we forget.

"Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." This does not mean having ecumenical councils with the apostate.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought the O.P. was asking whether someone who has been scripturally baptized should be re-baptized if he joins a certain type of church.

However, my definition of 'scriptural baptism' is that the baptism is done by immersion in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that the one baptized should have openly and credibly professed repentance of sins and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

Beyond that, I think every church should examine new applicants for membership to ensure that they are truly regenerate and that they are in sympathy with the church constitution, but I see no scriptural warrant for re-baptizing people every time they join a church of a different denomination.