Hypothetical situation: Joe, aged 17, responds to the Pastor's sermon on Sunday, and feels he should give his life to Christ. He is baptized the next Sunday. Over the next few months, he begins to 'backslide', and eventually drops-out. He lives the life of a heathen and grievous sinner for the next 15 years. One night, he happens to attend a 'Crusade' in his town, and this night, he is greatly convicted of his sin. This time, with all sincerity, He asks Jesus to forgive Him, He asks Jesus to come in to his heart, and he pledges to really live for Jesus. Question: Does Joe need to be baptized again? (The first time he was baptized, was his faith 'sincere'? If it wasn't 'sincere' was it really a baptism?)
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Baptism Question
- Thread starter Jude
- Start date
In this day and age, easy believism is rampant, and some organizations are so quick to dunk everyone that along the way some are missed.
In my mind the first baptism was prolly invalid as was the so-called confession of faith. Anyone can fall prey to easy believism.
I never baptised a candidate until about three months had passed and there was some indication that the faith experience went deeper than the emotions or head.
Just my opinion. Many will differ, I suspect. One thing I liked about my Anglican experience was the stage of confirmation, the classes beforehand and the confession of faith made at that time. For example, I grew up in the church and always believed the gospel. It was at confirmation that I actually realized Christ as my personal Saviour. I was immersed in a Baptist Church some 5 years later.
Cheers,
Jim
In my mind the first baptism was prolly invalid as was the so-called confession of faith. Anyone can fall prey to easy believism.
I never baptised a candidate until about three months had passed and there was some indication that the faith experience went deeper than the emotions or head.
Just my opinion. Many will differ, I suspect. One thing I liked about my Anglican experience was the stage of confirmation, the classes beforehand and the confession of faith made at that time. For example, I grew up in the church and always believed the gospel. It was at confirmation that I actually realized Christ as my personal Saviour. I was immersed in a Baptist Church some 5 years later.
Cheers,
Jim
I think that biblical times were quite different. It was often a life and death decision then, and people were more oriented to receiving truth. In this day and age of fakery we must exercise prudence. If the desire to be baptized is there today it will be there tomorrow and if it is not, I am afraid, that would leave a lot of questions in my mind.
Cheers,
Jim
Cheers,
Jim
Brother Adam
New Member
Hrm...sticky situation. I agree with Jim about easy believism being a problem. While we really can't know if God saved the person in his first confession, it would seem that the fruits were not there, and thus the baptism may have been invalid, as we know that with faith comes fruits, for without works, faith is dead.
How, under Baptist theology/practice, would one know if the baptism was 'sincere', or 'not-sincere' in the case of a backslider?
Even if the said 'backslider' claimed his baptism was sincere (or claimed it was not)how can one trust the diagnosis? Couldn't this lead to a person having 'umpteen' baptisms? Second, under Baptist theology, what does Baptism DO/EFFECT?
Even if the said 'backslider' claimed his baptism was sincere (or claimed it was not)how can one trust the diagnosis? Couldn't this lead to a person having 'umpteen' baptisms? Second, under Baptist theology, what does Baptism DO/EFFECT?
Hi Jude,
In the first place, baptism is a testimony as well as a step of obedience. How do we know that testimony is true? We can see it in their daily lives. There is no way I would baptize a drunk no matter how strongly he said he was a believer.
Multiple baptisms should be avoided lest we make a mockery of baptism. Every case of falling away does not require a re-baptism.
Finally, baptism is not efficacious.
Cheers,
Jim
In the first place, baptism is a testimony as well as a step of obedience. How do we know that testimony is true? We can see it in their daily lives. There is no way I would baptize a drunk no matter how strongly he said he was a believer.
Multiple baptisms should be avoided lest we make a mockery of baptism. Every case of falling away does not require a re-baptism.
Finally, baptism is not efficacious.
Cheers,
Jim
Is there a restriction on the number of times one can be baptised in water?
There is ONE baptism, the baptism in the Holy Spirit! One can only be baptised once in the Holy Spirit. But, one can be baptised any number of times in water.
Remember John 3:5,6. Jesus replied: "In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God
without being born through water and the Spirit; what is born of human nature is human; what is born of the Spirit is spirit."
Water belongs with human (natural) nature. So it is only logical that water baptism has no effect on our eternal destiny.
I baptized my 11 year old daughter because she had the knowledge of sin and the need to be forgiven by Christ. It was a difficult thing to do at first because of her age. However, since she understood she had sinned, and needed to be forgiven, I could not, as a matter of faith, tell her no. If she decides later in life, the first time was simply a " getting wet experience" she can always obey the Lord with the right heart about it. The fact of the matter is only God and the person being baptized know if it is for the right reason, unless of course, the individual does not know right from wrong and see the need for forgiveness.
So you are equating water baptism to forgiveness of sins?
What then could John the Apostle mean when He said, "if we confess our sins, He is faithful and Just to forgive us our sins, AND to cleanse us from All unrighteousness.
No I do not see an equity between water baptism and forgiveness of sins.
What then could John the Apostle mean when He said, "if we confess our sins, He is faithful and Just to forgive us our sins, AND to cleanse us from All unrighteousness.
No I do not see an equity between water baptism and forgiveness of sins.
No one (biblically) is equating being sprinkled, dipped or poured with gaining God's grace. That just isn't how one gets to heaven!
But on topic, IF a person is dipped or sprinkled or poured BEFORE genuine conversion, all they are is "wet". They are NOT baptized.
If a person shows no indication of true regeneration, they ought NOT to be "wet". If we followed the policy of true discipleship and real conversion, there might be fewer baptisms, but more genuine!
But on topic, IF a person is dipped or sprinkled or poured BEFORE genuine conversion, all they are is "wet". They are NOT baptized.
If a person shows no indication of true regeneration, they ought NOT to be "wet". If we followed the policy of true discipleship and real conversion, there might be fewer baptisms, but more genuine!
Hi Jude, nice to run into you again.
The answer to your question is no. Joe does not "need" to be baptized again and did not "need" to be baptized the first time. Need and baptism do not go together. Could Joe choose to show what has changed on the inside by an act done to his outside? Sure. God will judge a man by his heart and not by something that happens externally.
Hope you are well Jude!!!
In Christ,
Brian
The answer to your question is no. Joe does not "need" to be baptized again and did not "need" to be baptized the first time. Need and baptism do not go together. Could Joe choose to show what has changed on the inside by an act done to his outside? Sure. God will judge a man by his heart and not by something that happens externally.
Hope you are well Jude!!!
In Christ,
Brian
Debby in Philly
Active Member
We need to be baptized in obedience to God's command as a follower of Jesus. But the baptisim does not save us.
Age has nothing to do with it. I was 7, but I was saved and determined.
In the example given, a rebaptism would not "hurt", especially if the candidate were convinced that the first was not sincere, but this time was.
Age has nothing to do with it. I was 7, but I was saved and determined.
In the example given, a rebaptism would not "hurt", especially if the candidate were convinced that the first was not sincere, but this time was.
Debbie:
Baptism is an essential part of salvation ( I Pet. 3:21). However, it is a part, not the whole. If one studies the conversions in the Bible, those obeying the gospel of Christ understood sin and the need for forgivness. This implies cognition. Therefore, one who needs forgivness must understand right from wrong and the sacrifice of Christ on the cross ( II Cor. 2:2, I Cor. 15:1-4, Col. 1:20). I do not know at what age this takes place with any specific individual, nor would I be so arrogant as to arbitrarily state such an age for individuals as a whole. However, at some point in one's life, one does become accountable for one's conduct of life. My concerns for anyone, my daughter by example,is, do they understand the words of life?
Some pre-teens do know sin and salvation. Others do not. For example, If one asks why do you need to be baptized; why do you need to confess; why do you need to repent; or even believe, one would expect to be answered with the message of the sacrifice of Christ for our sins. If one does not have the ability to do this, he is not subject to salvation as a lost alien sinner. Again, the ultimate and righteous judge in this matter is God.
Baptism is an essential part of salvation ( I Pet. 3:21). However, it is a part, not the whole. If one studies the conversions in the Bible, those obeying the gospel of Christ understood sin and the need for forgivness. This implies cognition. Therefore, one who needs forgivness must understand right from wrong and the sacrifice of Christ on the cross ( II Cor. 2:2, I Cor. 15:1-4, Col. 1:20). I do not know at what age this takes place with any specific individual, nor would I be so arrogant as to arbitrarily state such an age for individuals as a whole. However, at some point in one's life, one does become accountable for one's conduct of life. My concerns for anyone, my daughter by example,is, do they understand the words of life?
Some pre-teens do know sin and salvation. Others do not. For example, If one asks why do you need to be baptized; why do you need to confess; why do you need to repent; or even believe, one would expect to be answered with the message of the sacrifice of Christ for our sins. If one does not have the ability to do this, he is not subject to salvation as a lost alien sinner. Again, the ultimate and righteous judge in this matter is God.
"Re"baptism can be a farce. So can 'original' baptism, of course. If there are any cases where it is 'up to me' (and so far, there are none), it would take a lot of convincing that a person needs another baptism. In scripture, the only 2nd water baptisms were of those who were not believers at the time of the first one.
And if one must believe/have faith-- repent-- then be baptized---- in that order-- Peter should have been baptized more than once, since he denied Christ, then contradicted God in his vison of the sheet ["Not so, Lord"], then he was reprimanded by Paul for reverting to his biases against non-Jews at Antioch.
In the case where a person, probably still a 'young' person, says he "believed" before his baptism, but "didn't REALLY know what he was doing," I would tell him he was doing what was required-- believing. If he has sins that need dealing with, then confess them and repent of them. We should all need to be baptized hundreds or thousands of times if another baptism is required. And certainly we do not have need of another baptism just because we take another step in our understanding of the gospel, which inevitably means we didn't fully understand it at the time we became a believer.
And if one must believe/have faith-- repent-- then be baptized---- in that order-- Peter should have been baptized more than once, since he denied Christ, then contradicted God in his vison of the sheet ["Not so, Lord"], then he was reprimanded by Paul for reverting to his biases against non-Jews at Antioch.
In the case where a person, probably still a 'young' person, says he "believed" before his baptism, but "didn't REALLY know what he was doing," I would tell him he was doing what was required-- believing. If he has sins that need dealing with, then confess them and repent of them. We should all need to be baptized hundreds or thousands of times if another baptism is required. And certainly we do not have need of another baptism just because we take another step in our understanding of the gospel, which inevitably means we didn't fully understand it at the time we became a believer.
Jude writes:
"""""Matt. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
No NEED for baptism????? """""
I can give you two arguments here Jude. First, Baptizing here may very well not be the best verse rendering. When discussing "teaching" we think of immersing oneself in study. The word in Greek that is translated Baptism or baptizing can simply mean immerse, it does not have to mean anything to do with water. The statement as a whole makes more sense in this case because all we see in the sentance is teaching, not believing, faith, works, etc...
If baptizing in water was the intent here then we go back to what was happening at that time. Baptism was for repentance in some cases, even when the church was just being established (Act 2:38) is the main example. The Baptizing could mean to clear oneself to be open to salvation. If believer baptism was meant then it was an association issue that was such a huge thing in the early church. You proved that you were a follower of Christ by public Baptism. It was a sure way to stand behind Jesus and thus take the persecution that went with it. Baptism was joining the group, "The Way". It was the proof of a changed heart because of what it opened the person up to.
OK, Jude, bash away but really think through what I wrote before you do. Thanks,
In Christian Love,
Brian
"""""Matt. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
No NEED for baptism????? """""
I can give you two arguments here Jude. First, Baptizing here may very well not be the best verse rendering. When discussing "teaching" we think of immersing oneself in study. The word in Greek that is translated Baptism or baptizing can simply mean immerse, it does not have to mean anything to do with water. The statement as a whole makes more sense in this case because all we see in the sentance is teaching, not believing, faith, works, etc...
If baptizing in water was the intent here then we go back to what was happening at that time. Baptism was for repentance in some cases, even when the church was just being established (Act 2:38) is the main example. The Baptizing could mean to clear oneself to be open to salvation. If believer baptism was meant then it was an association issue that was such a huge thing in the early church. You proved that you were a follower of Christ by public Baptism. It was a sure way to stand behind Jesus and thus take the persecution that went with it. Baptism was joining the group, "The Way". It was the proof of a changed heart because of what it opened the person up to.
OK, Jude, bash away but really think through what I wrote before you do. Thanks,
In Christian Love,
Brian
What am I missing in the Great Commission? Matthew 28:18-20 begins with the participle:
"Having gone" - since the believers were scattered
Then a single, simple command:
"Make disciples of all"
Then a couple more participles (accompanying the command)
THEN "baptizing"
THEN "teaching all things"
Baptism IS important, but ancillary action to "make disciples" and not part of that conversion process.
"Having gone" - since the believers were scattered
Then a single, simple command:
"Make disciples of all"
Then a couple more participles (accompanying the command)
THEN "baptizing"
THEN "teaching all things"
Baptism IS important, but ancillary action to "make disciples" and not part of that conversion process.