Re-baptism

[Salty]

If you are of the belief that a valid baptism is (normally) sufficient I would like to hear from you.
In general, we would re-baptize an individual who was sprinkled or possible a person coming from a COC (baptismal regeneration).

Suppose an individual who at one point was properly baptized in a Baptist church, and then later joined a COC- and was re-baptized.
This individual now wants to join your Baptist church, would you insist he be baptized a third time?

 

[Bro. James]

If someone thinks their baptism helps save them, they have never been scripturally baptized. Most of Christendom believes in baptismal regeneration.

The biggest problem with the re-baptizers was they repudiated the authority of the religious powers in control. This included the reformers.

Scriptural baptism has been a bone of contention all the way back to the early churches. Millions have died refusing to baptize their infants.

Even, so come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Salty]

If someone thinks their baptism helps save them, ...

But suppose the individual referred to in the OP did not believe that baptist saved them, but was only rebaptized to "satisify" the COC
Would you then re-baptise them?

 

[Herald]

If a person received professor-only, trinitarian baptism by immersion I probably would not re-baptize them. On the other hand, if their baptism was not trinitarian I would not re-baptize them, I would baptize them scripturally for the first time.

RCC and Presbyterian paedobaptism are not valid forms of baptism, therefore I would likewise baptize scripturally for the first time.

 

[USN2Pulpit]

If a person received professor-only, trinitarian baptism by immersion I probably would not re-baptize them. On the other hand, if their baptism was not trinitarian I would not re-baptize them, I would baptize them scripturally for the first time.

RCC and Presbyterian paedobaptism are not valid forms of baptism, therefore I would likewise baptize scripturally for the first time.

Don't mean to hijack, but is there any scriptural limitation on how many times? What if they met the criteria, but still wanted to be baptized after being away from the path because it would be meaningful to them?

Other than people's opinions and preferences - are there any prohibitions against being baptized more than once?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Don't mean to hijack, but is there any scriptural limitation on how many times? What if they met the criteria, but still wanted to be baptized after being away from the path because it would be meaningful to them?

Other than people's opinions and preferences - are there any prohibitions against being baptized more than once?

I've actually had a wayward church member request to be "baptized" again after getting his heart right with God after spending several months in a backslidden condition. I explained to him that true baptism is like salvation - it is a one-time event. To go through the motions of being "re-baptized" after you're saved is as meaningless as being "baptized" before you are saved. You are simply getting wet. There are no biblical references to being baptized more than once.

I do, however, understand the need to do something personally meaningful at such times, and encourage them to make their re-dedication public. When that happens, the church embraces and welcomes them back with open arms. The outpouring of love and acceptance by the church family is, in my opinion, more lasting and meaningful than a "re-baptism."

 

[Salty]

Don't mean to hijack, ...

I don't think you are - you have brought up an interesting question.

My first thought is that Christ died only once - and baptism is a symbol of the death and resurrection of Christ.

 

[Tom Butler]

To answer the OP, I would not dunk them again.

So, how do we determine valid baptism? This is not original with me, but I think it serves well. Valid baptism requires:
1. Proper subject. A born-again believer
2. Proper mode. Immersion in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
3. Proper design. To picture the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and to identify oneself with Him. To me, this is one's public profession of faith.
4. Proper administrator. A New Testament church.

Number 4 is where we tend to have the most discussion, because it leads to the question, "what is a true New Testament church?" And the corollary question, "is such-and-such a church a New Testament congregation?"

I'll stop here, because I don't want to further derail the thread. In fact, it might be worth a separate thread on the identifying marks of a true New Testament church.

 

[agedman]

Frankly, I think the "immersion" aspect of baptism is over played as much as the "infant" baptism.

Baptism adds NOTHING to salvation, but is an indication of starting out a new life lived for Christ.

This is NOT to argue against it being "the first act" of following Christ - which may or may not be true.

BUT, just because Baptists view baptism as immersion, and others view baptism in another mode, does not deteriorate the central or foundation of the Baptism - the indication of a changed life.

I would accept anyone with such a changed life into the assembly, and let the Word of God work on the heart and IF the leading of the Holy Spirit urged that person to come to be immersed, then I would immerse that person. But, I would not try to run interference with the Word of God nor prevent in any way the Holy Spirit doing the work.

Immersion is great. Immersion is right. Immersion is an appropriate picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Of those things, there is no doubt.

But just like the "typical baptismal formula" (buried in the likeness of Christ, raised to walk in newness of life) it is NOT found in the Scriptures, neither is the EXACT mode stated in Scriptures. Was a person laid down forward, backward, dunked, everyone stand around splashing water on them as if covering up a grave....

What IS important, is the concept of WHY the person was baptized.

If it was to join the church, then it is as worthless as a whole lot of SBC baptisms that happen because some child wants to take the juice and cracker like the adults do.

Is the "WHY" not the very cry of John the Baptizer against the religious heathen of his day?

 

[Gorship]

I would dunk a sprinkler as I think baptism is immersion. But from a baptist church to church i dont think thats necessary. I do know of a church that will re baptize new members if they were part of a fringe church as they would say they did not have proper biblical authority.

 

[agedman]

I would dunk a sprinkler as I think baptism is immersion. But from a baptist church to church i dont think thats necessary. I do know of a church that will re baptize new members if they were part of a fringe church as they would say they did not have proper biblical authority.

Just because you THINK baptism is immersion, is no reason to "re-baptize" anyone.

Again, Baptism (in any form) is a picture of a changed life.

Baptists, consider immersion by putting the whole body under water the appropriate form. However, that doesn't mean that is the ONLY form acceptable.

In fact, there is no proof (other than some tradition) just exactly HOW baptism was carried out both by the apostles and by John the Baptizer.

Baptism is important - no doubt.

Baptism being the indicator of a changed life is important - no doubt.

The mode of baptism for the typical Baptist church is immersion - no doubt.

BUT the picture is to be the same - that of a changed life NO MATTER the form of baptism.

Unless there is a real change and love of all things of Christ, then it really doesn't matter if a person is sprinkled, dunked, or wiped down with wet wipes, the Baptism is meaningless.

That is the point John the Baptizer what making to the religious self-righteous folks. Change life - baptize.

 

[Benjamin]

Just because you THINK baptism is immersion, is no reason to "re-baptize" anyone.

Again, Baptism (in any form) is a picture of a changed life.

Baptists, consider immersion by putting the whole body under water the appropriate form. However, that doesn't mean that is the ONLY form acceptable.

In fact, there is no proof (other than some tradition) just exactly HOW baptism was carried out both by the apostles and by John the Baptizer.

Wow! I'm shocked...and you might be interested to know we are in total agreement in something.

I was re-baptized after only being sprinkled, but only at the insistence of my Baptist pastor and good friend that I would be the first to be baptized in our new church and baptismal - ahh, brain freeze - "tub" - the one with the (traditional) non-living chlorinated water . It really meant very little to me other than it made my friend happy - for I know I was already baptized.

P.S. I should add that OTOH I was glad that my children were also re-baptized as confessing believers rather than just in commitment that they would be raised with Christian upbringing.