drfuss said:
I became a Christian over 55 years ago and was baptized by immersion as a witness to my conversion and commitment to Christ. IMO, for me to be rebaptized would be, in effect, rejecting my conversion.
I believe that this is an extreme position.
The practice of baptism is dependent upon the local church, the pastor, his beliefs, and the statement of faith and constitution of the church. Primarily it is the decision of the pastor.
I remember while on deputation as a missionary, the pastor of a church (though I had known him for a long time) refused to allow me to speak in his church. I asked why? He asked who baptized me? (he knew). The person that baptized me was my pastor, the pastor of an IFB church. But he had come out of an Alliance Church, and that is where he was baptized. Thus, because I was not baptized by a baptist who wasn't baptized by a baptist who wasn't baptized by a baptist, etc., I was not allowed to speak or present my mission field in his church. I don't agree with it. But there is soul liberty among Baptists, and as a missionary on deputation I have learned that I have to put up with many odd beliefs.
I was a member of a church who would re-baptize any saved individual that came from a "questionalbe" church, that is one that was not of "like faith and order. This would apply especially to those of Charismatic backgrounds. It would signify both to them and to others that they would be making a clean break with their Charismatic background, even if they were Scripturally baptized in a Pentecostal church. This was more a matter of association. I believe we have a Biblical precedent for a practice like this.
Acts 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
Acts 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
Paul was goint to take Timothy with him, disciple him. Timothy would go in grace, eventually become a pastor, and a man mightily used of God. So why circumcise him? Circumcision has nothing to do with salvation? It has nothing to do with discipleship. It has nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever. Paul circumcised Timothy for the reason of association. His mother was a Jew but his father was a Greek, an unsaved individual. To make a clean break from his heathen background, and associate himself with his Christian mother, and Jewish heritage he had Timothy circumcised (though it was not necssary). He also would be of more value to Paul who often preached in the synagogues, and sometimes went in the Temple.
Different churches have different views on re-baptism. It is a matter of soul liberty. The local church cannot be condemned for its stand and belief on the matter. If an individual thinking of joining that church is repulsed by the practice, then they don't have to join it. They can go elsewhere. A church is a
voluntary association of baptized believers. No local church would want a member who is being forced against their will to be a member not agreeing with the statement of faith.
