Rebaptism necessary?

[Magnetic Poles]

Should Baptists insist on rebaptism of long-time Christians coming from other traditions, especially those who do not practice immersion? What about rebaptism of church members? Issues to consider, from the article LOCATED HERE.

 

[TCGreek]

Should Baptists insist on rebaptism of long-time Christians coming from other traditions, especially those who do not practice immersion? What about rebaptism of church members? Issues to consider, from the article LOCATED HERE.

If we have settled our conviction that immersion is what is biblically required, then yes.

And if we have settled our conviction that believers' immersion is a proclamation of one's faith-union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection and the signifance as applied to the believer, then yes.

But let's say that it's someone from a non-denomination, where the mode and meaning of baptist are the same as in a baptist church, then no.

Baptist churches that call for rebaptisms in these cases are mistaken.

 

[annsni]

If we have settled our conviction that immersion is what is biblically required, then yes.

And if we have settled our conviction that believers' immersion is a proclamation of one's faith-union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection and the signifance as applied to the believe, then yes.

But let's say that it's someone from a non-denomination, where the mode and meaning of baptist are the same as in a baptist church, then no.

Baptist churches that call for rebaptisms in these cases are mistaken.

I agree.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I agree.

Okay, but how about addressing some of the points the article talks about. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Jon-Marc]

While I don't know Greek, Hebrew or any other foreign languages, in my limited understanding the word "baptize" means to "immerse". If a person comes from another religion and wasn't immersed, then he/she needs to be re-baptized. If they weren't born again at the time of their baptism, then they need to be re-baptized since baptism does not save anyone. That happened to me. The only "water" that saves us is the Living Water, the Son of God, the Lamb of God.

 

[Revmitchell]

Okay, but how about addressing some of the points the article talks about. :smilewinkgrin:

Why should they be addressed? Who gives them legitimacy except the BGCT? Coming from them this is not surprising. When the word "dissent" becomes a guiding principle in all things then an underhanded agenda is most likely.

These are progressive Christians who wish to dismantle any standard at all except personal conscience. They disregard scripture as the primary standard and hold up personal experience as equal to or higher than scripture. Baptists are baptists in large part because we hold to immersion. No amount of rhetorical wrangling will ever change that. Maybe the BGCT should become honest and go ahead and slide completely over to the CBF and quit trying to act like the are SBC.

Just because someone claims to be a long time Christian does not give Satan a foothold to claim that we should accept any type of baptism that man and man alone can conjure up. Not even from the BGCT.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Magnetic Poles,

Thanks for this link. I'm currently in the early stages of researching this topic, and Knox presents some tensions that must be addressed regarding the meaning of baptism. One area I think he is wise to mention is the common practice of baptizing children between the ages of 8-12. I think this practice should be reflected on more than it is.

 

[Jerome]

Several years ago, the saints at Bethlehem Baptist rejected John Piper's attempt to impose this nonsense on them.

 

[Jerome]

"What this amendment does is create a kind of conscientious-objection clause by which a person may say, for example: “I believe and love everything this church stands for except one thing: at this point in my understanding of the Scripture my conscience is bound by the conviction that my infant baptism was a valid, biblical baptism.”" ---John Piper

 

[Revmitchell]

Several years ago, the saints at Bethlehem Baptist rejected John Piper's attempt to impose this nonsense on them.

Just what exactly did he try to impose?

 

[SBCPreacher]

If we have settled our conviction that immersion is what is biblically required, then yes.

And if we have settled our conviction that believers' immersion is a proclamation of one's faith-union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection and the signifance as applied to the believer, then yes.

But let's say that it's someone from a non-denomination, where the mode and meaning of baptist are the same as in a baptist church, then no.

Baptist churches that call for rebaptisms in these cases are mistaken.

I this this is accurate. The final decision rests in the local church. I believe that each church can (and should) require baptism by immersion after salvation as a requirement for membership.

 

[SBCPreacher]

Magnetic Poles,

Thanks for this link. I'm currently in the early stages of researching this topic, and Knox presents some tensions that must be addressed regarding the meaning of baptism. One area I think he is wise to mention is the common practice of baptizing children between the ages of 8-12. I think this practice should be reflected on more than it is.

Do you think that children under the age of 12 who are genuinely saved should not be baptized? And if so, why?

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

I think that baptism serves as a confession of faith and a sign and seal of one's entry into the new covenant, as such it is a powerful experience that someone can refer back to later in life. I was baptized at the age of ten and barely remember it. I may be the exception, but I think many kids who are baptized fail to really appreciate their commitment and God's promises in the waters. In the past, Baptists often baptized their own children in their teenage years, and the age has increasingly lowered over time. Mark Dever mentions this in his contribution to the excellent book "Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ." Of course I think God saves kids, but if that is the attitude then why not baptize toddlers who really want to go to heaven and pray the prayer with their parents?

 

[annsni]

I think that baptism serves as a confession of faith and a sign and seal of one's entry into the new covenant, as such it is a powerful experience that someone can refer back to later in life. I was baptized at the age of ten and barely remember it. I may be the exception, but I think many kids who are baptized fail to really appreciate their commitment and God's promises in the waters. In the past, Baptists often baptized their own children in their teenage years, and the age has increasingly lowered over time. Mark Dever mentions this in his contribution to the excellent book "Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ." Of course I think God saves kids, but if that is the attitude then why not baptize toddlers who really want to go to heaven and pray the prayer with their parents?

Honestly, I was married 23 years ago at the age of 20 and I do not remember one part of the ceremony. We had witnesses so I know we said vows but I have no recollection of that ceremony. Does that mean I was too young to have gotten married because I don't remember it? You know what's funny? I more remember my baptism at a young age than I do my own wedding.

 

[Jim1999]

I was sprinkled at three days of age in the Church of England. I was immersed as a believer in the PB's. The first was not acceptable to Baptists, the second was. I quite agree with that. Baptism is not the equivalent of circumcision and is not a covenant promise.

A lot of what the Reformers brought with them was Romanist doctrines. Baptists continued long before the Reformers and remained stedfast on one baptism in water; one baptism in the Holy Spirit, period.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Hi Annsni,

That's a funny story, but I would imagine that you knew the commitment you were making by entering marriage at the age of twenty better than if you had made the same commitment at a much younger age, right? Of course, I shouldn't derail this thread since I don't argue for people to be rebaptized who were baptized as kids. Anyhow thanks again for the link Magnetic Poles.

 

[annsni]

Hi Annsni,

That's a funny story, but I would imagine that you knew the commitment you were making by entering marriage at the age of twenty better than if you had made the same commitment at a much younger age, right? Of course, I shouldn't derail this thread since I don't argue for people to be rebaptized who were baptized as kids. Anyhow thanks again for the link Magnetic Poles.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know because I didn't marry younger. I know that in history, people married much younger and their marriages were more successful so maybe being older doesn't mean you take your marriage vows more seriously.

I know as a parent, my children came to the Lord very young (all were 4 or 5). However, baptism didn't come to my older ones until they were older (I think they were 8 and 10). We do not push baptism but we do explain to them what it is and we are sure, after speaking to them, that they know what baptism means and that they fully understand it. It's not taken lightly because we don't believe in multiple baptisms. Your first one sticks.

 

[preachinjesus]

Should Baptists insist on rebaptism of long-time Christians coming from other traditions, especially those who do not practice immersion? What about rebaptism of church members? Issues to consider, from the article LOCATED HERE.

A good article and timely discussion imho.:thumbsup:

I believe it is the biblical tesitmony that followers of Christ should be baptized by immersion subsequent to their salvation.

I also believe that it is important for membership in a baptist church that one should have been baptized in this manner and that a requirement for church membership in a baptist church should be this qualification.

In the church where I get to serve we have this requirement. Now we gladly accept baptism from other baptist churches and all other Christian churches that practice immersion following salvation. In other words, we don't ask someone who was baptized in the Church of God up the road to be rebaptized when they ask to become members. (We see that as theologically suspect and just a way some churches boost their numbers.)

One sticky wicket that we have had major conversation about is what happens when individuals from traditions such as Church of Christ come to be received as members. My position is that we still accept their baptism so long as they now understand that baptism is not salvific. Most Christians barely understood the ceremony and why of baptism when it happened to them. We don't need to prate on their youthful credulity to follow Christ without questioning those in leadership above them. Just my opinion though.


The article did well to present the issues well. I'll reply specifically to several bullets in the middle:

• “It is a biblical act, identifying the believer with Jesus and the movement he called the kingdom of God.”

I completely agree with this point. I'll add an additional point and say that believer's baptism is an identifying act with all Christias throughout the ages.

• “Believers’ baptism is a conversion act, demonstrating the new birth of an individual and incorporating that individual into Christ’s body, the church. … For those early Baptists, baptism was public profession of faith. It still is.”

No problems here either. I'd take it as far to point out from the Scripture (specifically 1 Timothy 6:12) that there was a formal baptism ceremony that new Christians participated in once saved.

• “Believers’ baptism is a churchly act that marks the entry of believers into the covenantal community of the church. Baptism, while administered to individuals, is not an individualistic act. It is incorporation into Christ and his church.”

That is why we stand when someone gets baptized. We hope they see that we are behind them in their journey with Christ.

• “Believers’ baptism was and remains a dangerous and dissenting act that frees Christian believers to challenge the principalities and powers of church in response to the dictates of conscience.” He cited the Standard Confession of 1660, in which early Baptists acknowledged the need for “civil magistrates in all nations” but pledged they would “obey God rather than men” when conscience so dictated."

I don't know if it is a dangerous act these days but maybe in some parts of the world.

Some rather good points here. Thanks for the article and thread.:flower:

 

[Jerome]

"What would you think if I introduced six children to you whom I saw, one after another, last week, and who all came forward with eagerness to say, “We have been washed in the blood of Jesus and we want to join His Church”? I said, “Come along, my children; I am glad to see you.” When I talked with them and heard what God had done for them, I had great confidence in proposing them to the Church! I have not found young converts turn back. I usually find that these young ones who are introduced early to the Church hold on and become our best members!" ---Charles Spurgeon

 

[Jerome]

"Let the child avow its faith in Christ and, if you have not confessed Him in Baptism, yourself, stand rebuked that a child is ready to obey its Lord while you are not!" ---Charles Spurgeon