Featured Re-Baptism

Then we need to be clear that we are going on inference and not command or instruction. That is the same thing that Presby's use to justify infant baptism.

 

Agreed. As Baptists we should agree on trinitarian baptism and baptism by immersion. I had to wrestle with the issue of re-baptism with someone who was baptized as an infant. As elders we held the position that the individual was never scripturally baptized and so they needed to be baptized on their profession of faith.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

This is something that has hit home with me and has affected me personally.

I recently felt rejected by a Sovereign Grace assembly near me because they wanted to re-baptize me to identify with their teachings, when I had already been baptized ( albeit in a "Traditionlist" church ) to identify with my Saviour when I believed on Christ at the age of 12 in 1978.
Yes, I agree that in all things we need to go by the declaration of Scripture, and not with inference.

But I see no command to re-baptize someone that has been Scripturally baptized by immersion and in the name of Jesus Christ.
I also see no need to practice re-baptism for any reason, if the above criteria have been met.

What do you think?

 

I don't have a position on this actually. I can see both sides.

 

right

 

No, not if we deemed the person to be scripturally baptized. Baptism is not re-dedication.

 

If you were referring to a catholic baptism prior to Vat 2, you were not baptized, you were exercised....as in exorcism. Like, “the power of Christ compels you”

 

Go to the Primitive Baptist Church and they will baptize you... gladly

 

Even so, that is really a different question than what Salty asked. What he is asking, if I understand correctly, is about a church re-baptizing someone even when the church recognizes the person's previous baptism as scriptural. This happens sometimes in cases like the example he gave. A person was saved and baptized but lives many years in a backslidden condition. That person comes back to church, rededicates himself or herself,and wants to be baptized again. Or someone who is saved and baptized wants to be re-baptized in the Jordan River. Or someone wants to be baptized again at the same time their child (parent, sibling, spouse, etc.) is being baptized.

Here are a few of those types of re-baptisms I found online.

 

I don't remember my response.

 

Take note of where the command to baptize fits in the order of events listed in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20.

It follows the command to "go" with the gospel (Mk. 16:15) which is an aorist tense participle that infers that it is already a completed action prior to the action of "teach" or "make disciple." Thus, gospelization has already been completed and the pronoun "them" in verse 19 refers to those already having been gospelized. Hence, baptism is not for infants but for believers. If a person is not a believer than they just got wet but never baptized.

Second, it precedes the command to "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." This defines the authorized administrator as one who can "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Anyone who is not like faith and order with Christ has no authority to administer baptism, as the very ones authorized to administer baptism are authorized to make them disciples in like faith and order with Christ. Hence, all others simply make people wet but not baptized.

So, baptism is designed not only to identify with Christ of the gospel (v. 19a) but is designed to identify the believer with the faith and order of Christ (v. 20).

This should be obvious because Christ authorized them to make disciples, followers, not inovators and heretics and the only possible administrator that can obey this is one who has already been taught to observe all things Christ has commanded.

Finally, the authorized administrator is a church member. First, because they already "have" been discipled and that includes becoming a believer, being baptized and gathered into a teaching observing assembly as proven by Acts 1:21-22. Second, the third aspect of the Great Commisison - "teaching to observe all things whatosever I have commanded" requires physical assembling of newly baptized believers together with the teacher either as an already existent church assembly as in Acts 2:1, 40-41 or a newly organized assemblies as in Acts 14-18.

Why? Because it is not possible to teach them to "observe all things...commanded" apart from church membership as observing Matthew 1815-20 requires membership in a church body. Matthew 26:12-30 requires actual physical assembling together. Failure to be "added" to a congregation is an abnormality not the norm of Scripture.

 

I doubt it.

 

Some of the IFB's I have conversed with on Forums, believet that there is only the local church and you are baptised into the local church. so if you go to another local church you have to be baptised into that.

Someone asked "What local church was Paul baptised into?"

I wasn'y popular when I said that was unscriptural and that we are not baptised into a church, but inro Christ

 

Not without your wallet. Comparing the Catholic Church to Baptists of any ilk is dangerously nieve.

 

Good for your friend.