# "Rebaptism" of those who previously made a false profession



## Pilgrim

I've posted this in the Credo-Baptism Answers forum because I want to limit responses to Baptists only. We already know what our paedobaptist friends think about this issue. 

As most of you longtime members know, I took about a two year hiatus from the board. Since I resumed posting, I have come across some recent closed threads in which there was some discussion and disagreement among Baptists on the question of (re)baptism of those who don't think they were saved before they first went under. 

Some appear to have argued that there should be no (re)baptism under any circumstances. I do remember reading a book by a British Calvinistic Baptist a few years ago that basically took this position. Admittedly I'm no renowned authority on Baptist history. However, it would surprise me to learn that the idea that baptism is only to be performed once whether or not the person was a believer when he went under was anything but a very small minority position among Particular Baptists. 

My view is that the elders should examine those in this situation to as best as possible try to ascertain whether the individual in question made a false profession or if it was a case of backsliding. At least one poster asked those who would (re)baptize those who had previously made a false profession whether or not they are "covenantal baptists." I have to admit that this question has me somewhat baffled, so I'm seeking further elucidation here. I would be surprised if any Baptist here believes that baptism places someone in the covenant of grace even in an outward sense. There are visible churches of course, but I'm not familiar with any argument from Baptists who would consider that to be an outward administration of the covenant of grace. If there are any theologians or books of note that teach this, I would appreciate being directed to those resources. 


No doubt there are difficult cases in which it is very hard to tell if it was a case of false profession or backsliding. To move the discussion along let's take what I would consider to be an easy example and one that regrettably is not a rare occurrence in Southern Baptist churches, fundamentalist churches and maybe various other evangelical baptistic groups. 

Little Johnny at age 7 wants to get baptized mainly because some of his close friends are doing it. His parents encourage him, and the pastor of their church which is very loose in its practice asks him a few questions. Johnny says he loves Jesus and doesn't want to go to hell but otherwise doesn't have much else to say. But that's good enough for the pastor, so he baptizes Johnny. 

20 years later Johnny realizes that he never understood the gospel, never understood his sinful state and wasn't saved. In the meantime he has lived a wicked life and publicly blasphemed our Lord and Savior, among other sins. He says that he only came forward when he was 7 because his friends were doing it and because his parents encouraged him. The Lord saves him and a few months later (or even a few years later) he demonstrates the fruits thereof. Since he wasn't saved when he was 7, he believes that he should now be baptized subsequent to his conversion. At this point he is attending a covenantal Baptist church that adheres to the 1689. Should he be baptized?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I did it. I was baptized believing my sins were washed away by my baptism at age 15 I believe in a Christian Church which is very similar to a Church of Christ. I was not a Christian and didn't understand the issue at all. And it was a heretical view of something I partook of. I was truly Baptized by a Reformed Baptist Pastor in the Brackish waters of VA. Beach knowing what it was all about and testifying to the wonderful matchless grace of Jesus. 

The SB Church I belonged to required one to be baptized if they had been baptized in the same setting of the Church of Christ type teaching considering it to be no baptism at all.

In the situation above that you mention I would consider the same thing to be no baptism. One must understand Baptism and it must be administered with an understanding and a credible profession of faith.


----------



## Pilgrim

Thanks Randy. 

I was not immersed but I was sprinkled at 12 in a United Methodist congregation. Since it was on the occasion of my confirmation, I did at least make some rudimentary profession which as best as I can recall was an affirmation of the basics of Christ's death, burial and resurrection and maybe that He died for our sins. While I didn't feel overwhelming pressure, it was something I was expected to do. When I was converted in my 20's, I was baptized in a Wesleyan church. Their polity allows for paedoism but the pastor held to baptistic views. It didn't take much discussion for me to want to be baptized.


----------



## elnwood

Ditto PuritanCovenanter. I've known others also who were baptized after they had already given a profession as a child and was baptized upon that profession of faith. I think it's helpful to do so because it makes it clear that getting baptized, making a profession of faith, walking the aisle, etc. does not save you. It also testifies to the work of God that took place in a person after a false conversion.


----------



## MW

Pilgrim said:


> I would be surprised if any Baptist here believes that baptism places someone in the covenant of grace even in an outward sense. There are visible churches of course, but I'm not familiar with any argument from Baptists who would consider that to be an outward administration of the covenant of grace. If there are any theologians or books of note that teach this, I would appreciate being directed to those resources.



I'm not antipaedobaptist so I'm not sure if I'm entitled to answer on this forum, but I have read the literature relative to the 17th and 19th century debates on this subject. There was a somewhat significant amount of common ground on the subject. The Baptist churches have probably suffered from the same kind of anarchy which has invaded paedo churches, and so the current climate is no real indicator of what the churches have historically maintained. The English movement of the 17th century was not monolithic but it is safe to say there was an attempt by those holding to the doctrines of grace to demonstrate their orthodoxy to their paedobaptist brethren. This is seen in the adaptation of the Westminster/Savoy confession and in Keach's catechism. Again, in the 19th century there was a serious "ecclesiastical" development in which Baptist practice sought to demonstrate that it belonged to the mainline Christian tradition.

Within these contexts there is a strong emphasis on baptism as an objective act and as belonging in some sense to an integrated covenant theology. Consider Keach's catechism. On the objective nature of the ordinance:



> Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?
> 
> A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.



On the integrated connection with the covenant of grace:



> Q. 100. What is Baptism?
> 
> A. Baptism is an holy ordinance, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, signifies our ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's.



It is probably a simple matter that the more mainline the Baptist tradition has sought to become the more it has taken on the characteristics of the mainline paedobaptist churches.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Interestingly enough, my pastor performed just such a baptism today. This person had been baptized at age seven, but didn't feel that they were really saved until recently. Despite our stated beliefs, the truth is that many baptists are practicing a form of delayed paedobaptism by baptizing young children who have made some sort of profession of faith, but have not really meant it. I can not tell you how many baptists I have met who have the same testimony, "I was baptized when I was 7 ,but I don't feel like i was really saved until..."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

In my case conversion did play a part of my true baptism and confession when I was baptized at age 20. I think I was 20. But the bad thing is that the first time I underwent the first so called heretical view of baptism I was just plain duped into thinking that was how I could be cleansed from my sin. It was no Christian baptism at all.


----------



## Redness

Seeing that many of our great Reformers were likely baptized as infants in the RCC, is there any evidence that they were re-baptized?


----------



## Pilgrim

armourbearer said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be surprised if any Baptist here believes that baptism places someone in the covenant of grace even in an outward sense. There are visible churches of course, but I'm not familiar with any argument from Baptists who would consider that to be an outward administration of the covenant of grace. If there are any theologians or books of note that teach this, I would appreciate being directed to those resources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not antipaedobaptist so I'm not sure if I'm entitled to answer on this forum, but I have read the literature relative to the 17th and 19th century debates on this subject. There was a somewhat significant amount of common ground on the subject. The Baptist churches have probably suffered from the same kind of anarchy which has invaded paedo churches, and so the current climate is no real indicator of what the churches have historically maintained. The English movement of the 17th century was not monolithic but it is safe to say there was an attempt by those holding to the doctrines of grace to demonstrate their orthodoxy to their paedobaptist brethren. This is seen in the adaptation of the Westminster/Savoy confession and in Keach's catechism. Again, in the 19th century there was a serious "ecclesiastical" development in which Baptist practice sought to demonstrate that it belonged to the mainline Christian tradition.
> 
> Within these contexts there is a strong emphasis on baptism as an objective act and as belonging in some sense to an integrated covenant theology. Consider Keach's catechism. On the objective nature of the ordinance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?
> 
> A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the integrated connection with the covenant of grace:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. 100. What is Baptism?
> 
> A. Baptism is an holy ordinance, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, signifies our ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is probably a simple matter that the more mainline the Baptist tradition has sought to become the more it has taken on the characteristics of the mainline paedobaptist churches.
Click to expand...

 
Rev. Winzer,

Thank you for your post. I had asked that only Baptists post in this thread and placed in the credo answers forum, but that was because I didn't want it to turn into yet another debate over the subjects (or objects if you prefer) of baptism. That being said, if anyone has any *historical* information to contribute as you have here, it is most welcomed, whether the poster is Baptist or paedobaptist. 

My purpose in starting this thread was to attempt to engage those Baptists who would see baptism as unrepeatable and/or would view rebaptism as unnecessary. But I'm also very interested in delving into what Baptists (especially Particular Baptists) have historically believed on the subject. Are there any books or even online articles that come to mind that you could refer me to? 

I'm much more well read with regard to 19th Century Baptists, particularly Baptists from the Southern USA, but I'm no expert there either. But it appears that in the USA at that time there wasn't the impetus to emphasize what all Protestants had in common. It seems to me that in that era of denominational controversy that it was quite the opposite, with the development of Landmarkism as well as Baptist successionism. The Landmark controversy started over the question of whether or not paedobaptist ministers should be allowed in Baptist pulpits. Even men like Broadus and Dagg who opposed the Landmarkers and who did not oppose paedobaptist ministers occasionally filling Baptist pulpits nevertheless did not think that paedobaptist churches were true churches, a position that many Baptists today would view as somewhat extreme. (Likewise the view that some of the Reformed hold that Baptist churches aren't true churches is viewed by many as being extreme as well, right or wrong.)

I've just downloaded even more material from Google Books from that era, including some 19th Century Northern Baptists. But I'm also very interested to know what 17th and 18th Century Baptists believed. I have had some interaction with some Calvinistic Southern Baptist church history professors as well as some pastors who have done doctoral work in that field, so I will attempt to contact them as well.

The portion of Keach's catechism from which you quote does seem to echo the WCF's language on baptism, but I'm not sure how much we should read into that, especially absent some other writing of his on the issue. It does indicate that both ordinances are to be viewed as means of grace. What is not included is something like the WCF's "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered." It seems to me that something like that would be the argument of those Baptists who would discourage rebaptism. 

Here are the relevant questions from Spurgeon's catechism, which I understand is derived from Keach's:



> 74 Q How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become spiritually helpful?
> 
> A Baptism and the Lord's Supper become spiritually helpful, not from any virtue in them, or in him who does administer them (1Co 3:7 1Pe 3:21), but only by the blessing of Christ (1Co 3:6) and the working of the Spirit in those who by faith receive them (1Co 12:13).
> 
> 75 Q What is Baptism?
> 
> A Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ (Mt 28:19) to be to the person baptised a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death, and burial, and resurrection (Ro 6:3 Col 2:12), of his being ingrafted into him (Ga 3:27), of remission of sins (Mr 1:4 Ac 22:16), and of his giving up himself to God through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life (Ro 6:4,5).


I don't know if there is any difference in meaning between Keach's "effectual means of salvation" and Spurgeon's "spiritually helpful" or if that was just an attempt at clarification on Spurgeon's part. There is also no mention of the Covenant of Grace in Spurgeon's Q. 75 on Baptism. He believed in the Covenant of Grace but for whatever reason did not make mention of it here. 

Although it's not really related to the subject this thread, I did recently acquire Keach's _Marrow of True Justification, _which has a forward by Dr. Joel Beeke_. _


----------



## Pergamum

I do not think it is proper to charge baptists, or for baptists to allow, the statement to stand that we believe in "RE-baptism"; for baptists only believe in the baptism of disciples; those other wettings with water are not properly to be called baptisms.


----------



## Herald

Pilgrim said:


> That being said, if anyone has any historical information to contribute as you have here, it is most welcomed, whether the poster is Baptist or paedobaptist.



Chris, with that being the case I am going to move this thread to the "Baptism" forum so all may participate.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> I do not think it is proper to charge baptists, or for baptists to allow, the statement to stand that we believe in "RE-baptism"; for baptists only believe in the baptism of disciples; those other wettings with water are not properly to be called baptisms.



Pergy, agreed, but then you're getting at the heart of the paedo-credo debate. Most paedos are going to consider Baptists as re-baptizers and that's not likely to change. Disagree as I do, I accept it as part of the debate.


----------



## Herald

I am one of those "covenantal Baptists" Chris mentioned in his OP. I understand the difficulty a person has when they request to be, dare I say it, "rebaptized", later in life. Did they really mean it when they "got saved" at an earlier time? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Did their baptism stick? Was it valid? I am convinced that the only valid recipient of baptism is a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. As such, I would require someone who was baptized as an infant to submit to baptism if they wished to join my church. I don't believe any of my Baptist brethren would disagree with me on that requirement. The question is whether I would acquiesce to a request (or insist on it) for re-baptism for those who claimed their first profession was not real. Unless I am convinced the individual is accurate in their assessment of their spiritual condition at the time of their previous baptism I would prefer to counsel them on the nature of baptism and what it represents, and not require another baptism. However, my position is not water-tight. The Scriptures do not speak about re-applying the sign of the New Covenant. It's both a pastoral and theological gray area for Baptists.


----------



## Grillsy

PuritanCovenanter said:


> But the bad thing is that the first time I underwent the first so called heretical view of baptism I was just plain duped into thinking that was how I could be cleansed from my sin. It was no Christian baptism at all.



I saw your earlier post about being baptized in the Christian Church/Churches of Christ. Praise be to God for rescuing from that error. 

They tend to pray on those who do not know theology or Church history. Indeed they often discourage the study of both.

Like you mentioned, you were very young and did not know. I think that is part of the reason they are gaining so many young members.


----------



## deleteduser99

I was re-baptized, as well as another I know, the reason simply being we believed our previous professions were false, and so could not be Biblical baptisms. At least for myself at the time of my first one, I didn't have a clue what true baptism was about, nor did I have a matching understanding of the Gospel. It seemed disqualified at every point.


----------



## elnwood

Herald said:


> The Scriptures do not speak about re-applying the sign of the New Covenant. It's both a pastoral and theological gray area for Baptists.



It's an ambiguous passage, but I would argue that Acts 19:1-7 is a rebaptism. They had been baptized by John upon repentance, and were baptized again by Paul.

Some have argued that John's baptism was not New Covenant baptism and therefore invalid, but it was going on concurrently with the baptism of Jesus' disciples. I can't imagine that John's baptism wasn't valid when it was concurrent with Jesus' ministry (would Jesus' disciples rebaptize John's disciples?), and it's tough to argue Jesus' baptism wasn't valid.


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> I do not think it is proper to charge baptists, or for baptists to allow, the statement to stand that we believe in "RE-baptism"; for baptists only believe in the baptism of disciples; those other wettings with water are not properly to be called baptisms.



Pergy,

That's why I put "rebaptism" in quotes in the thread title. The terminology is liable to confusion, but all I mean by it is going under for a second time. I think it should be clear from my OP that I only believe in the baptism of disciples.

---------- Post added at 10:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------




Herald said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> That being said, if anyone has any historical information to contribute as you have here, it is most welcomed, whether the poster is Baptist or paedobaptist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris, with that being the case I am going to move this thread to the "Baptism" forum so all may participate.
Click to expand...


Bill,

I put it in the credo answers forum to avoid another debate between paedobaptists and Baptists. As I understand it, the main baptism forum is basically a debate forum. With regard to the theological issues, I'm only wanting to discuss this with Baptists. There are a multitude of other threads in which the paedobaptist view of this subject is set forth and that position is clearly stated in the WCF. 

Since the first sentence of the post notes that I'm looking only for Baptist input, hopefully that will be enough to keep things from getting out of hand.

---------- Post added at 10:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------




Redness said:


> Seeing that many of our great Reformers were likely baptized as infants in the RCC, is there any evidence that they were re-baptized?



There is no evidence that any of them rejected the validity of Rome's baptism. (Calvin's wife was from an anabaptist background and I understand her baptism was accepted as valid baptism as well.) While that's an important question that has been debated among Presbyterians (with most of them accepting the validity of Rome's baptism) it is a rabbit trail that is off topic in this thread. If that's an issue you're looking to discuss, opening a new thread would be helpful, especially for those who may be new here and might not familiar with that issue.


----------



## Pilgrim

Herald said:


> I am one of those "covenantal Baptists" Chris mentioned in his OP. I understand the difficulty a person has when they request to be, dare I say it, "rebaptized", later in life. Did they really mean it when they "got saved" at an earlier time? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Did their baptism stick? Was it valid? I am convinced that the only valid recipient of baptism is a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. As such, I would require someone who was baptized as an infant to submit to baptism if they wished to join my church. I don't believe any of my Baptist brethren would disagree with me on that requirement. The question is whether I would acquiesce to a request (or insist on it) for re-baptism for those who claimed their first profession was not real. Unless I am convinced the individual is accurate in their assessment of their spiritual condition at the time of their previous baptism I would prefer to counsel them on the nature of baptism and what it represents, and not require another baptism. However, my position is not water-tight. The Scriptures do not speak about re-applying the sign of the New Covenant. It's both a pastoral and theological gray area for Baptists.



I'm not sure if the "really mean it" terminology is the clearest unless it includes the idea that a man knew he really didn't mean it and was basically lying at the time he was first "baptized" for one reason or another. It seems to me that being deceived is a somewhat different issue because deception does not equal a lack of sincerity. In my example, I think it's possible that Johnny at age 7 was sincere and thought he was doing a good thing based on the information he had at the time, especially if the gospel was not clearly preached. 

An example would be the church we visited yesterday. The pastor gave a strong exhortation to follow Christ as Lord and Savior. But in discussing the message immediately following the service, my wife and I were not sure that the pastor gave a clear explanation of the gospel and _sola fide. _(Were we to review a recording of the message, perhaps we would find that he did at some point, but it definitely wasn't the main thrust of the message.) I would hope that anyone coming forward as a result of such a call to discipleship would have the gospel clearly explained at that time. But in cases in which there is no membership class or some other forum in which things are explained in some detail, that may or may not happen. 

To me the issue is what the individual's object of faith was. Was he trusting in his baptism, a "sinner's prayer," walking down an aisle, etc? In other words, was he trusting in some kind of work performed at some point? Or was he trusting in Christ alone? Did he understand the gospel or did he think that you go to heaven by being a good person and living a good life? etc. It seems to me that the question is whether the profession included the classic expression of knowledge, faith and trust. As you note, it can sometimes be somewhat difficult to ferret out whether it was a false profession or a long season of backsliding. But in a good many cases I think it can be done. 

Bill, in the case of Johnny that I gave in the first post, knowing that background that I described would you baptize (or would you require it) if he were attending your church and wanted to join? Your answer here seems to me to indicate that you would. I chose an example that is as much of a "slam dunk" as possible so that there is basically no gray area.


----------



## VictorBravo

I may be in a minority, but my view is that baptism is a statement by the visible church to the glory of Lord Christ, not a statement by an individual unto the church in professing faith. The individual's profession is essential, but is not the focus.

If that is the case, it seems that the individual's subjective understanding should not control. Otherwise, the weak believer who is susceptible to double-minded doubt could be seeking baptism every time he repented of some sin--reasoning that he must not really have been a believer before.

I would approach a "re-baptism" very cautiously. If one has been baptized on profession and has backslidden, (and even claim he was not a sincere believer), but then repented and returned, we should treat him as a prodigal son who was always part of the family.


----------



## Pilgrim

VictorBravo said:


> I may be in a minority, but my view is that baptism is a statement by the visible church to the glory of Lord Christ, not a statement by an individual unto the church in professing faith. The individual's profession is essential, but is not the focus.
> 
> If that is the case, it seems that the individual's subjective understanding should not control. Otherwise, the weak believer who is susceptible to double-minded doubt could be seeking baptism every time he repented of some sin--reasoning that he must not really have been a believer before.
> 
> I would approach a "re-baptism" very cautiously. If one has been baptized on profession and has backslidden, (and even claim he was not a sincere believer), but then repented and returned, we should treat him as a prodigal son who was always part of the family.



Vic,

Thank you for your response. 

I agree that we shouldn't let the individual's subjective understanding be the deciding factor, and certainly not without some substantial probing beyond just accepting a statement like "I know I wasn't saved back then." That being said, I would make a distinction between a weak believer prone to double-minded doubt and someone who previously had a works-based concept of salvation. There are a lot of churches that teach what amounts to a works-based salvation or whose teaching is often susceptible to that interpretation, even if orthodox doctrine is officially affirmed. Legalistic and/or works based understandings of salvation and Semi-Pelagianism are widespread, especially it seems in the so-called "Bible Belt." 

What would you advise in the case that I gave at the end of my initial post?


----------



## KMK

VictorBravo said:


> I would approach a "re-baptism" very cautiously. If one has been baptized on profession and has backslidden, (and even claim he was not a sincere believer), but then repented and returned, we should treat him as a prodigal son who was always part of the family.



This is what I believe as well.


----------



## VictorBravo

Pilgrim said:


> What would you advise in the case that I gave at the end of my initial post?



Without knowing more, I'd say Johnny was baptized. It was a profession of faith in the context of a (presumably) church that sought to preach Christ crucified and act to his glory. I'm also presuming it was a Trinitarian church, not a bunch of Mormons, etc. 

I'm thinking the pastor's ignorance or sloppy practice, or a weak church, cannot render the baptism invalid. The church publically acted on the profession of faith. To do otherwise would encourage running down blind alleys, examining whether the teaching and practice of a particular church was really Scriptural. Satan would be happy enough with us diverting our time and energy in those back alleys instead of worshipping Lord Christ. 

If Johnny had not been baptized in the context of a church, (as, say, in a roving itinerant revival festival), then I'd probably say he was merely dunked in water and never baptized--unless that particular festival was sponsored by a church and it brought baptized professors in as members--and on and on the hypotheticals can go. . . .


----------



## Pilgrim

Any other baptists have anything to add?


----------



## VictorBravo

Pilgrim said:


> Any other baptists have anything to add?



You could open it up to the paedobaptists, seeing that they also hold to credobaptism for converts who were not children of believers. I've run into a lot of folks who were never raised in a church and whose parents are unbelievers, so I think the same sort of issue would come up in a Presbyterian church too.


----------



## Romans922

I'd like to ask a few questions. Where in Scripture do we see the concept of REbaptism or it implied? What was the purpose of the first baptism, if the second has to occur as well? 

"The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person."


----------



## VictorBravo

Romans922 said:


> I'd like to ask a few questions. Where in Scripture do we see the concept of REbaptism or it implied? What was the purpose of the first baptism, if the second has to occur as well?
> 
> "The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person."



Andrew, I think the original question was asking whether the first "baptism" was really a baptism.

Looking at the WCF and the LBCF, leaving aside the question of infants, the confessions say almost the same thing:

Ch 28 paragraph 4 WCF



> Not only those that do actually profess faith in
> and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of
> one or both believing parents are to be baptized.



Ch 29 paragraph 1 LBCF



> Those who do actually profess repentance
> towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord
> Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this
> ordinance.



In both cases, the phrase "actually profess" occurs. So I think the issue boils down to how we understand what that means. Does "actually profess" mean the person objectively spoke words but may or may not have meant it? Or does it mean that the church investigates whether the person's profession is "actual," as in credible?

I go with it being a duty of the church to evaluate credibility, and I understand many Presbyterian pastors believe the same thing when dealing with an adult convert. But the grey area is when some new person comes into your church and says something like, "me and Ernie came across a revival meeting when I was 10 and got baptized. I don't think I ever believed in Christ--it just seemed like the thing to do. Now I'm a believer, should I be baptized?"


----------



## elnwood

Romans922 said:


> Where in Scripture do we see the concept of REbaptism or it implied?



Acts 19:1-7.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

elnwood said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in Scripture do we see the concept of REbaptism or it implied?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 19:1-7.
Click to expand...


Don,
I don't think this can be equated as what you are implying. There are many Old Covenant washings (baptisms for cleansing and repentance). Hebrews 6 speak of them. 



> (Heb 6:1) Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of *repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,*
> *(Heb 6:2) Of the doctrine of baptisms*, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.



John's was not a Christian baptism necessarily. I also raised the fact that I am not sure the Apostles were baptized many years ago. They were given the commission and charge to baptize. And I am not really sure it matters not if they were. They were the foundation for teaching and setting up upon Christ the Cornerstone.


----------



## elnwood

PuritanCovenanter said:


> John's was not a Christian baptism necessarily. I also raised the fact that I am not sure the Apostles were baptized many years ago. They were given the commission and charge to baptize. And I am not really sure it matters not if they were. They were the foundation for teaching and setting up upon Christ the Cornerstone.



I would echo Jack K.'s comment:


Jack K said:


> Paul's epistles speak of how all believers share one baptism and were baptized into Christ: "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12:13); "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27); "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:5). So in light of this, it would seem very odd if the other apostles were not baptized. It's safe to assume they were.



I would also add that I would think that the apostles themselves would have been disobedient if they had not been baptized, and hypocritical if they were calling others to repent and be baptized if they had not done so themselves.

But regarding John the Baptist's baptism: Do you think Jesus' baptism in the gospels was Christian baptism? I can't imagine that Christ's baptism was not Christian baptism.

I also can't imagine Jesus' baptism being Christian baptism and John's baptism not being Christian baptism. Their ministries overlapped; John the Baptist's ministry would have been null and void if all those he baptized were to be baptized again by Jesus.

We know that at least two of Jesus' disciples were formerly John's disciples (John 1:35ff). They would have been baptized by John.


----------



## Particular Baptist

KMK said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would approach a "re-baptism" very cautiously. If one has been baptized on profession and has backslidden, (and even claim he was not a sincere believer), but then repented and returned, we should treat him as a prodigal son who was always part of the family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I believe as well.
Click to expand...


Make that three here. Just as Baptists' believe that baptism is an ordinance of positive and sovereign institution, so I think that the issue of 're-baptism' should be approached in the same manner. If we have no command to rebaptize, then I think it would be wrong to rebaptize. The only time in scripture that we have an explicit, individual history of a person who was baptized and later was found to be unregenerate is Simon the Magician. I find it interesting that Luke says that Simon was baptized, though clearly he later proved unregenerate. Baptism is primarily an objective sign of Christ's work and secondarily a subjective sign of the recipient's union with Christ. Baptism is to be given to visible saints who are joining the visible church, not exclusively to the regenerate.


----------



## Pilgrim

I once saw an old "Sovereign Grace Baptist" preacher refer to Reformed Baptists as being "High Water Presbyterians." I think the idea that no one should ever be "rebaptized" or immersed a second time, even in a clear case like I laid out in the OP, is one example of what he had in mind. That alone doesn't mean the position is wrong, but that it's a little more clear in my mind what the brother meant. 

I would be somewhat surprised if the man that is Spencer's current avatar (I believe it is John A. Broadus) would agree with what he posted as I don't think that's generally the 19th Century Southern Baptist view (or American Baptist for that matter.) But we're not likely to agree 100% with anyone and shouldn't be bound merely by what some worthies of the past thought. While the LBCF doesn't speak directly to the issue one way or another, from my reading of it, it seems that it's more both/and rather than either/or with regard to the church's testimony and the recipient's. 

Due to a number of reasons I'm not going to be able to spend much time on the board in the foreseeable future. So I likely won't post any more on this at this time unless anyone has anything new to add. Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## timmopussycat

Harley said:


> I was re-baptized, as well as another I know, the reason simply being we believed our previous professions were false, and so could not be Biblical baptisms. At least for myself at the time of my first one, I didn't have a clue what true baptism was about, nor did I have a matching understanding of the Gospel. It seemed disqualified at every point.



A similar instance recently occurred at my church. (Not me.)


----------



## KMK

Redness said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There is no evidence that any of them rejected the validity of Rome's baptism. (Calvin's wife was from an anabaptist background and I understand her baptism was accepted as valid baptism as well.) While that's an important question that has been debated among Presbyterians (with most of them accepting the validity of Rome's baptism) it is a rabbit trail that is off topic in this thread. If that's an issue you're looking to discuss, opening a new thread would be helpful, especially for those who may be new here and might not familiar with that issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well excuuuuuuuuuuuse me!
Click to expand...


Redness, please fix your signature. Click on 'Signature Requirements' below my signature to learn how.

Thanks


----------

