Is Re-Baptism Scriptural?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: is a normal practice in our church (now bite your tongue) to re-baptize another believer who has been in a movement not in agreement with our church--especially one coming out of the Charismatic movement.

HP: Here is one for a those castigated by DHK and several others on the issue of infant baptism. Let the debate begin. :thumbs:

 

[Zenas]

Before answering this question, we must agree on what we mean by baptism. There are several variations:

1. Believer's baptism vs. infant baptism.

2. Immersion vs. sprinkling.

3. Trinitarian baptism (Matt. 28:19) vs. Non-Trinitarian baptism.

In my view the only critical distinction is in No. 3 but most people here would disagree. So before we head out in all different directions, HP, perhaps you should tell us what kind of baptism you want to talk about. Perhaps in order to draw in as many contributers as possible, can we say baptism means believer's baptism by immersion in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I would believe you are correct, for I cannot imagine any Baptist Church or Christian church of any flavor baptizing believers any other way, other than those normally sprinklers, could you? Hopefully DHK or others that practise such re-baptisms can fill us in.

I have not considered #3's much so I have no clue how they operate. Baptist's are trinitarian (are not they all?) so lets stick with them.

 

[RAdam]

Yes it is according to Acts 19.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Thanks Adam. Are you and DHK part of the same denomination?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: especially one coming out of the Charismatic movement.

HP: This has really got my curiosity up knowing many in that movement. Was the water dirty the first time or what? Did they say the wrong words, or posssibly baptized the first time by someone not 'authorized' to baptise, or is it something else?

 

[bound]

Is an 'efficacious' Baptism Scriptural? That is the 'real' question.

No one goes to Baptize on who they believe has been Baptized in an 'efficacious' manner. It's only when that is in question that one looks to Baptize another in a manner deemed 'efficacious'. Agreed?

 

[annsni]

We just rebaptized two people when my son was baptized. Both of them were not told they needed to be but it was their choice to be rebaptized. With both, they felt that they were not in the right "heart state" when they were first baptized and now they really were and thus they wanted to have a baptism reflecting a heart fully turned to the Lord. As far as we knew, their first baptism was valid but we agreed that if they wished to, they could be rebaptized.

The only time we would say that someone would need to be rebaptized would be if they did not have a "believer's baptism". That's pretty much it. If they were sprinkled because of necessary reasons (some of the handicapped have been sprinkled instead of immersed due to medical reasons), we don't force them to be rebaptized. If they were not immersed, we do recommend they get rebaptized.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Re-baptism is scriptural if you weren't born again the first time. I was baptised before being saved and had to be baptised again afterward--not FOR salvation but because I WAS saved and was showing my desire to follow Jesus.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

It is obvious that I first need to start off by learning when to use an 's' or a 'z' concerning this topic.:thumbsup:

By the way, so far it appears we certainly have some well behaved and kind Catholics on board!:applause:

Maybe they have simply not found the thread yet.:smilewinkgrin:

I will let the list in on a little secret if you promise not to tell DHK. I was baptized twice myself. :tonofbricks:

 

[Zenas]

Re-baptism is scriptural if you weren't born again the first time. I was baptised before being saved and had to be baptised again afterward--not FOR salvation but because I WAS saved and was showing my desire to follow Jesus.

Weren't you showing your desire to follow Jesus the first time you were baptized?

 

[Zenas]

It is obvious that I first need to start off by learning when to use an 's' or a 'z' concerning this topic.:thumbsup:

By the way, so far it appears we certainly have some well behaved and kind Catholics on board!:applause:

Maybe they have simply not found the thread yet.:smilewinkgrin:

I will let the list in on a little secret if you promise not to tell DHK. I was baptized twice myself. :tonofbricks:

And why was that?

 

[padredurand]

2. In the first place, then, it is a well-known doctrine, and one as to which all the pious are agreed - that the right consideration of signs does not lie merely in the outward ceremonies but depends chiefly on the promise and the spiritual mysteries, to typify which, the ceremonies themselves are appointed. He, therefore, who would thoroughly understand the effect of baptism - its object and true character - must not stop short at the element and corporeal object, but look forward to the divine promises which are therein offered to us, and rise to the internal secrets which are therein represented. He who understands these has reached the solid truth, and, so to speak, the whole substance of baptism, and will thence perceive the nature and use of outward sprinkling. On the other hand, he who passes them by in contempt, and keeps his thoughts entirely fixed on the visible ceremony, will neither understand the force, nor the proper nature of baptism, nor comprehend what is meant, or what end is gained by the use of water. ~ INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION Book 4 Chapter 16 Paedobaptism. Its accordance with the Institution of Christ, and the nature of the sign by John Calvin.

32. Doubtless, the design of Satan in assaulting paedobaptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, that attestation of divine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes. In this way, not only would men be impiously ungrateful for the mercy of God, but be less careful in training their children to piety. For it is no slight stimulus to us to bring them up in the fear of God, and the observance of his law, when we reflect, that from their birth they have been considered and acknowledged by him as his children. Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to him our infants, to whom he has assigned a place among his friends and family that is, the members of the Church. INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION Book 4 Chapter 16 Paedobaptism. Its accordance with the Institution of Christ, and the nature of the sign by John Calvin.

Interesting read.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Zenas: And why was that?

HP: First, it had nothing to do with joining an assembly, nor did anyone counsel or ask me to do it. I had been baptized as a young teen but drifted far from the Lord for several years. When I came back to the Lord those I associated knew nothing about my past other than I was a sinner, and I desired to make a public confession of my faith to those around me. It did not culminate with me being accepted by that group for I never ‘joined’ due to irreconcilable differences with their manual. I simply did what I felt the Lord would have me to do at the time. Again, I had no pressure from anyone for any reason to do it.

 

[Tom Butler]

No, re-baptism is not scriptural, but baptism is. Real baptism, that is.


It is by immersion.
It is for believers only
It's design is to show the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. In other words, to picture the gospel.
And it must be done by the right administrator.

If you come to my church from the Methodists, having been sprinkled, we'll require you to be immersed. Not re-baptized, since you were never scripturally baptized in the first place.

If you come to my church from the Mormons, who immerse, we'll require you to be baptized (not re-baptized), since it was done by one from a false church.

The administrator is important. Jesus thought so, since he walked a long way just to be baptized by John the Baptizer.

 

[David Michael Harris]

HP: Here is one for a those castigated by DHK and several others on the issue of infant baptism. Let the debate begin. :thumbs:

I think if a young person was baptised and then later in life wanted to be baptised again because they never really knew what they were doing and that under peer pressure etc and have come to really understand what it is to become a Christian. I would have no problem here.

Today's fellowships are a bit of a mess I think.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DMH: I think if a young person was baptized and then later in life wanted to be baptized again because they never really knew what they were doing and that under peer pressure etc and have come to really understand what it is to become a Christian. I would have no problem here.

HP: Certainly I agree with what you say here, but the problem lies when fellowships or denominations demand that to be in fellowship with ‘them’ they demand re-baptism, as if the ordinance of baptism was instituted on behalf of membership into a particular group. What would you have to say then?

 

[David Michael Harris]

HP: Certainly I agree with what you say here, but the problem lies when fellowships or denominations demand that to be in fellowship with ‘them’ they demand re-baptism, as if the ordinance of baptism was instituted on behalf of membership into a particular group. What would you have to say then?

Well, if they demand, then I would say they are a bit odd I guess.

Stay clear?

Baptism is something you do before God, not any church leadership I guess?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DMH: Well, if they demand, then I would say they are a bit odd I guess.

HP: That would be a clear indication that God was telling me to stay clear.

DMH: Baptism is something you do before God, not any church leadership I guess?

HP: It certainly was for myself. It mattered not to me if others accepted me or not, or whether I could join any particular group or not, I was following my Lord in baptism and if others accepted that well and good and if they did not let them take that up with God.

 

[David Michael Harris]

After I got saved, I wanted to be baptised very very much. I even felt it was part of my Salvation. Hard for the thief on the cross to do that though. So not necessary, but I would say when able, it should be done. Quite biblical to me. And yes, before God not because of some fellowship requirement.