Re-Baptism

[Reformed1689]

Scriptures against?
No.
Scriptures in favor?
No.

Scriptural precedent:

Not one of the apostles was ever baptized twice.
Jesus Himself was only baptized once.
No mention of anyone in any of the epistles ( excepting 1 Corinthians ) ever speaks about re-baptism as being customary, "required", or anything close.

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.

 

[Reformed]

I'm not sure (new church for me). I've seen it done in the past, and I disagreed with it because it redefines 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

 

[JonC]

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

I agree.

I think Scripture would indicate those who have backslidden and want to rededicate their lives need to come before the church, confess their state and seek the support of the church. Too often I have seen members rededicate their lives to Christ, but what about the role of the church in discipling and uplifting her members?

 

[Dave G]

Then we need to be clear that we are going on inference and not command or instruction.

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?

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

 

[HankD]

Come on, Hank. You were only baptized once; the first time you only got wet.

right

 

[rlvaughn]

If an individual in your church had been scriptually baptized in the past - and for whatever reason wanted to be re-baptized - would you / your church do so?...This would refer to someone who may have backslid and needed to rededicate their life to the Lord, or other such situation...

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

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I was re-baptized, Don't remember my first "baptism", I was an infant

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”

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If an individual in your church had been scriptually baptized in the past - and for whatever reason wanted to be re-baptized - would you / your church do so?

I am not referring to someone who thought they were saved in the past - and needs to be baptized.

This would refer to someone who may have backslid and needed to rededicate their life to the Lord, or other such situation.


Note: Just edited - I had initially put spiritually baptized - corrected to scriptural baptized.

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

 

[rsr]

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

Yes, and that's one of my beefs with the Primitives, with whom I have many affinities. I have been scripturally baptized, but they would require I be baptized, which in my estimation would be no more than getting wet to prove something that is already settled in my mind. Were I to convert to Catholicism, my Baptist baptism would be sufficient.

 

[rlvaughn]

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

Yes, and that's one of my beefs with the Primitives, with whom I have many affinities. I have been scripturally baptized, but they would require I be baptized, which in my estimation would be no more than getting wet to prove something that is already settled in my mind. Were I to convert to Catholicism, my Baptist baptism would be sufficient.

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 felt compelled to be re-baptized when I realized I had not truly repented of an addiction which has caused pain and suffering to my family.

I was re-baptized in the Jordan River, the same river Jesus was baptized in.

I was re-baptized because I was unfaithful to God for most of my life. I recommitted my life to Him alongside my husband.

Got re-baptized with my son at the exact time in honor of our 10 yr anniversary of doing it on the same day.

I was re-baptized last year. I had re-dedicated my life to God and wanted to show my dedication to changing my life to myself , my family and friends.

I was re-baptized because God called me to do it.

I was re-baptized because of recurring problems I was experiencing.

 

[HankD]

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”

I don't remember my response.

 

[The Biblicist]

If an individual in your church had been scriptually baptized in the past - and for whatever reason wanted to be re-baptized - would you / your church do so?

I am not referring to someone who thought they were saved in the past - and needs to be baptized.

This would refer to someone who may have backslid and needed to rededicate their life to the Lord, or other such situation.


Note: Just edited - I had initially put spiritually baptized - corrected to scriptural baptized.

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.

 

[David Kent]

Were I to convert to Catholicism, my Baptist baptism would be sufficient.

I doubt it.

 

[David Kent]

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

 

[Squire Robertsson]

David, those would be in the minority. I speak as someone who has been a part of the IFB movement for over forty years and have a BA with a minor in Pastoral Theology from an "IFB" college. For the vast majority of Baptist churches (IFB or not), membership is acquired in three ways: baptism, letter of transfer, and statement of faith/baptism. The first happens soon after salvation, the second upon moving to a new location, and the last in situations where a letter is impossible to acquire in a timely manner. My home church has folks from all over the world settling in San Francisco. So, acquiring a letter from a church in the Philippines gets problematical.
The only time I know of a church not accepting a believer's immersion\baptism is the case of a classmate who came from a Primitive Methodist church and wanted to join an IFB church. The rub being the Primitive Methodists also accepted pouring and anointing as valid modes of baptism.

Some of the IFB's I have conversed with on Forums, believe 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.

 

[rsr]

I doubt it.

No, it's true. Baptisms performed through immersion or pouring and that use the Trinitarian formula are considered valid.

https://www.colsdioc.org/Portals/0/Departments/DIVW/Valid Baptisms Reference List.pdf

 

[Salty]

A friend of mine had been baptized in a "Bible" church. After arriving in Germany, he started to attend a
Landmark Baptist church. They informed him that in order to join- he had to be re-baptized - he refused as
he believed that his baptism was valid.
So he packed - and went to the Southern Baptist church on the other side of town - and of course with his wife and six kids!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, and that's one of my beefs with the Primitives, with whom I have many affinities. I have been scripturally baptized, but they would require I be baptized, which in my estimation would be no more than getting wet to prove something that is already settled in my mind. Were I to convert to Catholicism, my Baptist baptism would be sufficient.

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

 

[Reformed]

A friend of mine had been baptized in a "Bible" church. After arriving in Germany, he started to attend a
Landmark Baptist church. They informed him that in order to join- he had to be re-baptized - he refused as
he believed that his baptism was valid.
So he packed - and went to the Southern Baptist church on the other side of town - and of course with his wife and six kids!

Good for your friend.