# yet another question on baptism



## JennyG (Jul 15, 2011)

reading another thread in this forum set me wondering about the baptism of one of my boys.
He was baptised in the Episcopal church as an infant. At the time, his father was a lapsed Catholic and I was a sort of nominal, church-going, not yet converted protestant, but with enough belief to teach them all to read the Bible and pray. My son professed faith from childhood, and never really departed from it. 
At University, though, he began attending a Baptist church, found deep fellowship with other believers and came to a much more mature and "owned" faith. That made him feel that his original baptism, happening without any conscious participation from him and long before he had any idea what it meant, was an inadequate witness. He wanted to confess his Lord as a man before men, and so he was baptised by immersion, aged 21, in the church he was attending. 
If you can't be baptised twice, which was his real baptism? Or does the answer simply depend on the beliefs of the person answering?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 15, 2011)

As a Baptist I would say his first baptism wasn't a biblical baptism. His conclusion was the correct view. So Jenny you are going to get some very different answers here. Some people who believe in infant baptism on this board consider Roman baptism to be legit. Some paedo's don't hold to that position and consider it to be invalid. So the discussion might be diverse even between persons who hold to infant baptism. 

If you consider the confession you hold to to be the biblical standard it says.



> 27Section III.–The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; *neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorising the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Jack K (Jul 15, 2011)

As a paedobaptist I would say that his first baptism was valid. So the second was unnecessary and not what the church ought to be doing.

However, at this point I don't think you or he ought to feel bad about the second baptism or feel that it is invalid either. If we accept as valid a baptism done by an apostate church to a child whose parents don't believe (which is certainly not the right way to do it), then who are we to say the second baptism (because re-baptism is not the right way to do it either) is invalid? Both are valid.

Your son was baptized twice. That's regretable in a way, but twice is far better than never. Praise God that the young man has faith and desires conscientiously to follow Christ!


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jul 15, 2011)

Of course, as a Baptist, I say the second one, because my definition of baptism is different from that of a paedobaptist.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jul 15, 2011)

Exactly. If you are a paedo baptist then one will say the first is valid. If one is credo baptist then one will say the first is not valid but the second is.


----------



## steadfast7 (Jul 15, 2011)

I'll take the middle road answer of unity and assure you that you can be confident that God does view him as _currently_ baptized. The sign of the covenant is upon him testifying of God's promises to him and warning him of the consequences of neglecting the grace that is signified. May he continue strong in the faith and the means of grace.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 15, 2011)

In the OT double circumcision was a painful option


----------



## JennyG (Jul 15, 2011)

Thank you, guys.
My husband was by then a very much *non*-lapsed RC, and he wasn't too happy with the second baptism. He agreed with what Randy quoted,


> —The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person


 though it probably must have been on different grounds. He did allow that my son should decide for himself. I didn't know enough really either to agree or disagree, except on that last bit. 
I begin to see why the whole subject is so potentially fraught.


----------



## MichaelLofton (Jul 15, 2011)

*First one*

Since I a Reformed I would say the first one was valid and sufficient. I use to be a Baptist and I was baptized once at 12 and once again at 24 after I had a radical conversion at the age of 22. Since baptism is more about what God is saying to the person being baptized than what the person being baptized is saying to God, I would say that by being baptized again, whether we realize it or not, we are in fact casting doubt upon the promises of God. In baptism, God promises us that He will be our God and we will be His people. If we are baptized again, then we are in fact casting doubt upon God's promise that He will be our God and we will be His people. Which would make baptism at the very least an error and at the very worst a sin, but a sin that can be forgiven.

However, if you are a Baptist you are going to see things very differently.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 15, 2011)

A related question: how do confessional Presbyterians view an infant baptism at which *neither* parent is a professing believer? They ask for the baptism simply because it is the standard thing to do and maybe hope it will protect their child.

And later the child comes to faith as an adult. Should he be baptised?


----------



## MichaelLofton (Jul 15, 2011)

Most Presbyterians would say that if neither parent is a professing believer then the infant is not the be baptized. The promise that God will be our God and we will be His people is made to people who are already believing in Him (Abraham for example). But if the unbaptized infant of unbelieving parents grows up and professes faith in Christ then that person is to be baptized. In other words, paedobaptists are not opposed to credobaptism, they just aren't credobaptists exclusively.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 15, 2011)

MichaelLofton said:


> Most Presbyterians would say that if neither parent is a professing believer then the infant is not the be baptized. The promise that God will be our God and we will be His people is made to people who are already believing in Him (Abraham for example). But if the unbaptized infant of unbelieving parents grows up and professes faith in Christ then that person is to be baptized. In other words, paedobaptists are not opposed to credobaptism, they just aren't credobaptists exclusively.



Thanks. That's how I read the WCF too. It's surprising how often I've run across this in the past few years.


----------



## Douglas P. (Jul 15, 2011)

Question to my Baptist brothers: What if he (the child) was in union with Christ at infancy, prior to his baptism? Does the fact that he never "actually professed repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ" disqualify the validity of the baptism?


Question moved to: http://www.puritanboard.com/f123/baptism-question-spin-off-validity-baptism-68827/


----------



## MichaelLofton (Jul 15, 2011)




----------



## Constantlyreforming (Jul 15, 2011)

What makes it valid, Jenny? Christ or the water, and who did it?

Consider Him who is able to overcome all our inadequacies, all our sins, even in how baptism is administered. 

What if, in a baptist church, one "pastor" who is not a believer, baptizes a professor of faith? Is that baptism considered invalid because of the person doing the baptism is not a believer? I think not. For if it is done in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, it is ligit.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 15, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> Question to my Baptist brothers: What if he (the child) was in union with Christ at infancy, prior to his baptism? Does the fact that he never "actually professed repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ" disqualify the validity of the baptism?



A fair enough question, Douglas, but one that I think derails the thread topic. 

Maybe start up another thread.


----------



## Herald (Jul 15, 2011)

Douglas Padgett said:


> Question to my Baptist brothers: *What if he (the child) was in union with Christ at infancy*, prior to his baptism? Does the fact that he never "actually professed repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ" disqualify the validity of the baptism?



Would you care to elaborate on this?


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Jul 15, 2011)

MichaelLofton said:


> Since I a Reformed I would say the first one was valid and sufficient. I use to be a Baptist and I was baptized once at 12 and once again at 24 after* I had a radical conversion* at the age of 22. Since baptism is more about what God is saying to the person being baptized than what the person being baptized is saying to God, I would say that by being baptized again, whether we realize it or not, we are in fact casting doubt upon the promises of God. In baptism, God promises us that He will be our God and we will be His people. If we are baptized again, then we are in fact casting doubt upon God's promise that He will be our God and we will be His people. Which would make baptism at the very least an error and at the very worst a sin, but a sin that can be forgiven.
> 
> However, if you are a Baptist you are going to see things very differently.





Radical conversion or radical repentance? Were you just the wayward son, who finally came home to the father, yet never ceased being a son?


----------



## MichaelLofton (Jul 15, 2011)

Constantlyreforming said:


> MichaelLofton said:
> 
> 
> > Since I a Reformed I would say the first one was valid and sufficient. I use to be a Baptist and I was baptized once at 12 and once again at 24 after* I had a radical conversion* at the age of 22. Since baptism is more about what God is saying to the person being baptized than what the person being baptized is saying to God, I would say that by being baptized again, whether we realize it or not, we are in fact casting doubt upon the promises of God. In baptism, God promises us that He will be our God and we will be His people. If we are baptized again, then we are in fact casting doubt upon God's promise that He will be our God and we will be His people. Which would make baptism at the very least an error and at the very worst a sin, but a sin that can be forgiven.
> ...



Radical conversion or radical repentance? Probably both. It depends on how we are defining "conversion".


----------



## JennyG (Jul 15, 2011)

VictorBravo said:


> A related question: how do confessional Presbyterians view an infant baptism at which *neither* parent is a professing believer? They ask for the baptism simply because it is the standard thing to do and maybe hope it will protect their child.
> 
> And later the child comes to faith as an adult. Should he be baptised?


That really IS my son's case, or near enough. When he was a baby I thought of myself as a believer, I think, but I'm not so sure that I really was. 
Actually, in the years between his two baptisms I sometimes wondered if I ought to be re-baptised myself.


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Jul 15, 2011)

why? did the prodigal son have to be renamed a son upon his return to his father, or was he welcomed right away as a son, and treated as such?

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 PM ----------

Joseph Allein does an admirable job distinguishing between conviction and conversion. It is an excellent book titled An Alarm to Unconverted Sinners.

Its a good book I suggest anyone here read. Very practical and helps the Christian with avoidance of sin.


----------



## MichaelLofton (Jul 15, 2011)

Constantlyreforming said:


> why? did the prodigal son have to be renamed a son upon his return to his father, or was he welcomed right away as a son, and treated as such?



The prodigal son was accepted as a son right away but there's alot more involved to the issues of salvation and baptism than the simple answer you seek. But I think we are getting off topic here.

It is interesting you mention Alleine. I have Alleine's Alarm to the Unconverted right in front of me on my desk.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 15, 2011)

JennyG said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> > A related question: how do confessional Presbyterians view an infant baptism at which *neither* parent is a professing believer? They ask for the baptism simply because it is the standard thing to do and maybe hope it will protect their child.
> ...



That's what I was thinking, Jenny. It certainly was my case too.

I will take a stab at speaking for the Presbyterians, but I am ready to defer on any point. I think under WCF chapter 28, paragraph 4, the key question is whether one of the parents believes.



> IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.



Now I understand the Presbyterians to presume belief of a baptized parent if he or she was baptized and does not show evidence to the contrary. I am not sure, but I believe an actual profession is required on the part of one of the parents.

But I'm wondering if there is a place for the church that holds to the WCF to exam the subjective belief of a parent of the infant who is to be baptized.

Of course, the Baptist has it easy in such cases because he, as our friends point out, are *anti*paedobaptist.


----------



## Douglas P. (Jul 15, 2011)

VictorBravo said:


> Douglas Padgett said:
> 
> 
> > Question to my Baptist brothers: What if he (the child) was in union with Christ at infancy, prior to his baptism? Does the fact that he never "actually professed repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ" disqualify the validity of the baptism?
> ...


 


Herald said:


> Douglas Padgett said:
> 
> 
> > Question to my Baptist brothers: *What if he (the child) was in union with Christ at infancy*, prior to his baptism? Does the fact that he never "actually professed repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ" disqualify the validity of the baptism?
> ...



Moved question here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f123/baptism-question-spin-off-validity-baptism-68827/


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 15, 2011)

> A related question: how do confessional Presbyterians view an infant baptism at which neither parent is a professing believer? They ask for the baptism simply because it is the standard thing to do and maybe hope it will protect their child.
> 
> And later the child comes to faith as an adult. Should he be baptised?



No. He's already been solemnly admitted to the visible catholic Church.

Baptism is a "one-off" sacrament. We are only regenerated once and we should only be baptised once.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 15, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> > A related question: how do confessional Presbyterians view an infant baptism at which neither parent is a professing believer? They ask for the baptism simply because it is the standard thing to do and maybe hope it will protect their child.
> >
> > And later the child comes to faith as an adult. Should he be baptised?
> 
> ...



Richard, I was suspecting that there would be another view.

To summarize the implications of how I understand your point, a confessional Presbyterian church:

1. Will *not* baptize an infant if the parents are not believers and 

2. Will accept as valid the irregular baptism of an infant from another church, even if the parents were not believers.


Is that a fair statement?


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 15, 2011)

> To summarize the implications of how I understand your point, a confessional Presbyterian church:
> 
> 1. Will not baptize an infant if the parents are not believers and
> 
> 2. Will accept as valid the irregular baptism of an infant from another church, even if the parents were not believers.



Re 1.

There may be different approaches by different denominations and ministers/kirk sessions.

Some will baptise an infant if the grandparents profess to be believers, if the parents are churchgoers and not flagrantly immoral and if they undertake to take their child to church.

It depends on the establishment, maintenance or breaking of a covenant line.

Others are more baptistic and will only give infant baptism to one or more parents who are communicant members in good standing.

Re 2.

The Presbyterians recognise the existence of the visible catholic Church as an imperfect but valid entity. It is not possible to examine people's hearts.

If someone claims that he/she knows for sure that his/her parents were unbelievers at the time they brought him for baptism, how does that invalidate the baptism itself if it is Christian baptism? 

How many Jews who believed had parents that were themselves unbelievers?

The kirk session is to refuse baptism for the children of those that it deems to be outwith the covenant i.e. who do not have a credible profession of faith. 

It is not their function to try to correct mistakes of the past by making another mistake. If the person knows he was baptised he should be encouraged to improve his baptism. The fact that he believes - or knows - his parents were unbelievers doesn't invalidate his baptism.


----------

