Baptism, re-baptism, and church membership

[Pilgrim]

Brother Dennis,

Just to clarify, I mean no disrespect to you. You are an encouragement to my faith and have challenged me by your words here on the PB. I suppose the larger issue for me is Baptists that are ashamed to be Baptists. I would rather a Baptist go Presbyterian than to straddle the fence between both camps. I've seen the sparks fly when Baptists are actually called to subscribe to the confession they identify with. We're going through this right now in my church as we are vetting the ramifications of adopting the 1689 LBC as our doctrinal statement. The next few months should be interesting indeed.

Disrespect? Disrespect? DISRESPECT!?! I felt no disrespect. Just beware you New Joisey so-and-so, Guido is coming for YOU!

Actually, no offense taken. My point was that I ignorantly followed the procedures of my congregation, my congregation more concerned to be evangelical than Baptist, PRIOR to my becoming aware of the confessions in any meaningful way (my polity profs always said that Baptists were a non-creedal people and so we never did much reading of any confessions, including the LBCF).

BTW, it was never a case of permitting an UNbaptized person into the congregation but of allowing an irregularly baptized person to be admit upon profession of faith and testimony of a prior baptism. Still weird, I grant you.

While this mentality would seem to be less common in the Southern Baptist Convention, it does appear to be evident in the way that many churches practice the Lord's Supper. 100 years ago I think close communion would have been the norm for most Baptist churches, but many today practice what amounts to open communion, meaning that they let people come to the table who in their view haven't been scripturally baptized. While this is perhaps becoming the norm today, it really is a rather novel idea in church history. But that's probably a discussion better left another thread.

 

[KMK]

Ken, I loathe the word re-baptize in the context you used. You are either scripturally baptized (by mode and administration) or you are not. If you are not baptized by an ordained minister of the gospel via immersion you are not scriptural baptized. Therefore, you need to be scripturally baptized for the first time. Not only will this result in a scriptural baptism but it will also maintain the continuity of the ordinance and protect it from abuse. Compromise in one aspect of baptism will eventually lead to more compromise. This is why I am pleased the elders in John Piper's church opposed his recommendation.

We might disagree on whether my view is unconfessional (if that is what you are implying).

28:1. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.

28:2. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.

29:4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.

The confession deals with the proper administration of the sacrement but falls short of declaring that irregular baptisms are to be set at nought. After all, Bunyan recognized both.

Notice the difference in tone when the confession deals with the Lord's Supper:

30:8. All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.

The confession is pretty darn clear that in the case of the ignorant and ungodly, the sacrement is not only void but worthy of punishment!

I just wonder, if in the case of a new Christian who doesn't know any better and submits to his Presbyterian church elders in being sprinkled upon profession, that we should just assume that it is not indeed 'a sign of fellowship with Christ'.

I assure you my stance is not based on a desire to skirt the confession but adhere to what it says and not go beyond.

 

[KMK]

I guess I should have been more careful in my remarks. It does
seem that these folks I'm referring to have this mentality... but
because of the openness to accepting baptism of any kind as valid,
it can get worse... because then any baptism of a person who was
previously baptized (credo or paedo) is, by necessity, a re-baptism
(since the church affirmed the initial baptism the person had, credo or
paedo). If the individual suddenly comes to the conviction
that their infant baptism is invalid, they may ask for and receive
baptism by immersion.

If, too, it is seen by these churches as an act of obedience only,
do you think it may be that some people will wind up 'doing it again'
if they feel the need? After all, if it's only an act of obedience, and
not a mark of entrance into the visible church, then... all bets seem to
be off!

I think the confession provides a safeguard against this in that the focus is always upon the administrator of the sacrement and never on the 'receiver' of the sacrement.

Also, 29:2 brings repentance, faith and obedience together as one prerequisite.

29:2 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 other words,, one must not only desire baptism out of obedience, but also out of repentance and faith as well. If a man says, "I want to be rebaptized out of a new found sense of obedience." The pastor should ask what about repentance and faith? If the man says, "I already had those things," then the pastor says, there is no need for another baptism.

If baptism is a sign of our 'fellowship with Him in His death, burial and resurrection', then it is a sign of our sanctification as well. By definition we are all going to be growing in repentance, faith and obedience. The fact that we grow is confirmation of the event to which that original baptism was a sign! To be baptized over and over really cheapens what the sign signifies.

BTW, these disagreements that we Baptists have over the proper subjects, timing, mode and administration are not totally different than the Presbyterians and there disagreements over RC baptisms.

 

[DMcFadden]

While this mentality would seem to be less common in the Southern Baptist Convention, it does appear to be evident in the way that many churches practice the Lord's Supper. 100 years ago I think close communion would have been the norm for most Baptist churches, but many today practice what amounts to open communion, meaning that they let people come to the table who in their view haven't been scripturally baptized. While this is perhaps becoming the norm today, it really is a rather novel idea in church history. But that's probably a discussion better left another thread.

Wow! What an insightful observation! While the ABC would have a varied track record with regard to admitting members who had been baptized as infants or by other means than immersion, almost all ABC congregations would practice "open communion."

As you indicated, this amounts to admitting someone to the table who had not been baptized (according to the implications of Baptist theology, if not the univesal practice).

Well, there you go, Todd. More reasons to suspect contemporary Baptist practice. It is riddled with enigmas, contradictions, and incoherency! Man, am I glad that the Reformed camp doesn't have any of these pesky problems. All they have are a few minor and insignificant dust-ups (e.g., Clark vs. Van Til, Theonomy vs. Klineans, FV vs. non-FV, EP vs. Hymns, RPW vs. NPW, Amil vs. Post-mil, Supralapsarian vs. Infralapsarian, PCUSA vs. PCA, Women deacons vs. No women deacons, Home school vs. Non home school, TR vs. CT, Presuppositional vs. Classical Apologetics, etc.).

 

[MW]

[Man, am I glad that the Reformed camp doesn't have any of these pesky problems.

We have intramural debates, but nothing of the nature which consigns a large number of our brethren to outer darkness.

 

[DMcFadden]

If, too, it is seen by these churches as an act of obedience only,
do you think it may be that some people will wind up 'doing it again'
if they feel the need? After all, if it's only an act of obedience, and
not a mark of entrance into the visible church, then... all bets seem to
be off!

Outside of confessional Baptists (a VERY small sliver of the credo pie), Baptist practice does not lend itself to taking baptism with much integrity. Frankly, in many evangelical credo baptist churches (Baptist and otherwise), ordained pastors are not the only ones who baptize. Other staff members (male and female, ordained and lay) and even the parents of a child do the actual baptizing. So, "all bets seem to be off" would not be an unusual conclusion. Several of my friends officiated at re-baptisms for people who said that they didn't feel anything special from their earlier CREDO baptism!

("You ask me how I know he lives . . . he lives within my heart . . .")

 

[Pilgrim]

Ken, I loathe the word re-baptize in the context you used. You are either scripturally baptized (by mode and administration) or you are not. If you are not baptized by an ordained minister of the gospel via immersion you are not scriptural baptized. Therefore, you need to be scripturally baptized for the first time. Not only will this result in a scriptural baptism but it will also maintain the continuity of the ordinance and protect it from abuse. Compromise in one aspect of baptism will eventually lead to more compromise. This is why I am pleased the elders in John Piper's church opposed his recommendation.

We might disagree on whether my view is unconfessional (if that is what you are implying).

28:1. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.

28:2. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.

29:4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.

The confession deals with the proper administration of the sacrement but falls short of declaring that irregular baptisms are to be set at nought. After all, Bunyan recognized both.

Notice the difference in tone when the confession deals with the Lord's Supper:

30:8. All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.

The confession is pretty darn clear that in the case of the ignorant and ungodly, the sacrement is not only void but worthy of punishment!

I just wonder, if in the case of a new Christian who doesn't know any better and submits to his Presbyterian church elders in being sprinkled upon profession, that we should just assume that it is not indeed 'a sign of fellowship with Christ'.

I assure you my stance is not based on a desire to skirt the confession but adhere to what it says and not go beyond.

Bunyan's view was unconfessional. He was opposed in his view by several of the more prominent signatories of the 1689.

 

[Herald]

The confession deals with the proper administration of the sacrement but falls short of declaring that irregular baptisms are to be set at nought. After all, Bunyan recognized both.

Ken,

While I have a great deal of respect for Bunyan, I place more weight on the confession. Individuals speak for themselves and may/may not be right on an issue. The 1689 LBC only gives a positive command for the proper administration and mode for the ordinance of baptism. Since there is a clear positive command it would be in keeping with the confession to emphasize such in all cases. Please don't dismiss my earlier comment, when I said (about proper administration and mode):

Not only will this result in a scriptural baptism but it will also maintain the continuity of the ordinance and protect it from abuse. Compromise in one aspect of baptism will eventually lead to more compromise.

Regarding your citing of the Lord's Supper:

...whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.

The recipient of baptism is adjoining himself to the visible church and giving testimony of being in the invisible church. They are not partaking of the mystery; the body and blood of the Lord. A strong negative command was necessary (regarding the Lord's Supper) because it dealt with individual behavior of a Christian, who was partaking of the mystery. There is no call for a new believer to examine themselves prior to baptism because baptism is supposed to be administered immediately after a credible profession. It is not based on what the new believer does or does not do.

I just wonder, if in the case of a new Christian who doesn't know any better and submits to his Presbyterian church elders in being sprinkled upon profession, that we should just assume that it is not indeed 'a sign of fellowship with Christ'.

With all due respect to my Presbyterian brethren, this scenario is not germane to Baptists. If the new Chrsitian is in a Presbyterian church and has submitted to Presbyterian baptism, that is a Presbyterian issue. If this person decides to leave the Presbyterian church and become a Baptist, he should be required to be scripturally baptized.

 

[KMK]

The 1689 LBC only gives a positive command for the proper administration and mode for the ordinance of baptism. Since there is a clear positive command it would be in keeping with the confession to emphasize such in all cases.

I agree, and as an administrator, I immerse when I baptize. But for the layman who was sprinkled upon profession, does that mean that his baptism was not ever a sign of fellowship with Christ? Has he been missing out on the blessings of the sign in the years proceeding his sprinkling because the mode was incorrect?

 

[Herald]

The 1689 LBC only gives a positive command for the proper administration and mode for the ordinance of baptism. Since there is a clear positive command it would be in keeping with the confession to emphasize such in all cases.

I agree, and as an administrator, I immerse when I baptize. But for the layman who was sprinkled upon profession, does that mean that his baptism was not ever a sign of fellowship with Christ? Has he been missing out on the blessings of the sign in the years proceeding his sprinkling because the mode was incorrect?

Ken, mmmm. What do you make of this drive-by comment earlier in this thread?

We have intramural debates, but nothing of the nature which consigns a large number of our brethren to outer darkness.

You asked an interesting question:

Has he been missing out on the blessings of the sign in the years proceeding his sprinkling because the mode was incorrect?

No. Even if the mode is incorrect it doesn't necessarily follow that an adult convert is missing out on anything. He should be enjoying the fellowship of the saints, the preaching of the word and communion with Christ and the saints in the Lord's Supper. Pastoral counsel and church discipline are there in order to keep the individuals walk with Christ healthy. I quoted Matthew Winzer's quip because the same question can be asked of the children of Baptists. Are they missing out on the blessings of the sign? If they are raised in a home where the parents model Christ, and are consistently exposed to the word of God, what blessing are they missing? I know what the Presbyterian would say, but the Baptist should be able to say (confidently) that their children have the blessing of hearing the gospel, which prayerfully and hopefully will blossom into regeneration by the same Father who calls all of us through Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Barnpreacher]

What about very sick individuals that cannot be immersed? I once baptised an elderly lady that weighed about 60 lbs because of the cancer that ate at her body. She paniced as I went to immerse her and I never did put her all the way under. Was that an unscriptural baptism?

 

[Herald]

Ryan,

The confession states:

Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.

I would consider dipping not to be full immersion (all of the body under the water). Baptist practice is immersion but what you did for this dear sister would be perfectly acceptable In my humble opinion.

 

[MW]

Was that an unscriptural baptism?

If mode is essential to the validity of a baptism, then yes, according to the Anabaptist view any individual not immersed is not baptised, be they Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, or Methodist.

 

[Stoker]

Do those who sprinkle view immersion as a valid form of baptism?

 

[MW]

Do those who sprinkle view immersion as a valid form of baptism?

On first recipients of Trinitarian baptism immersion is considered valid; however it is considered unnecessary as a mode.

 

[servantofmosthigh]

Do those who sprinkle view immersion as a valid form of baptism?

I'm not sure about all paedobaptists, but the PCA, PCUSA and OPC do.

 

[FenderPriest]

Many churches would say that a person "baptized" as an infant was not truly baptized at all because the carrying-out of the baptism was too far from the NT example and thus there would be no "RE-baptism" invovled, only a Biblical baptism. Many churches would require baptism as a pre-requisite for membership.

Not to respond to late in the discussion, but this was my own conviction when I joined a Baptist church, and it was the counsel I received from the Elders. I joined in associate membership with the Reformed Baptist church, and then upon by baptism I became a full, card-holding member of the church with voting rights. My baptism was not a re-baptism, but a Biblical baptism.

I figured that since the original scenario described was my own situation, that it might help if I replied. Anyhow - carry on.

 

[toddpedlar]

In other words,, one must not only desire baptism out of obedience, but also out of repentance and faith as well. If a man says, "I want to be rebaptized out of a new found sense of obedience." The pastor should ask what about repentance and faith? If the man says, "I already had those things," then the pastor says, there is no need for another baptism.

So what if the person decides that he really didn't
believe before, and was repenting of his whole past?
He was previously baptized as a professor, but rejects
his older profession, and wants to be baptized again
because he now considers his faith genuine? Should such
a person be rebaptized, each time he comes to a serious
questioning of his prior faith and baptism? Can this go
on and on ad nauseum?

btw, I don't mean to be impertinent with this question - I'm
trying to be quite serious with the question and find out
what one would do in such a case...

 

[Herald]

In other words,, one must not only desire baptism out of obedience, but also out of repentance and faith as well. If a man says, "I want to be rebaptized out of a new found sense of obedience." The pastor should ask what about repentance and faith? If the man says, "I already had those things," then the pastor says, there is no need for another baptism.

So what if the person decides that he really didn't
believe before, and was repenting of his whole past?
He was previously baptized as a professor, but rejects
his older profession, and wants to be baptized again
because he now considers his faith genuine? Should such
a person be rebaptized, each time he comes to a serious
questioning of his prior faith and baptism? Can this go
on and on ad nauseum?

btw, I don't mean to be impertinent with this question - I'm
trying to be quite serious with the question and find out
what one would do in such a case...

Todd, that is a great question. If a professed believer was scriptually baptized and then fell away from he faith, followed by renewed repentance; I would oppose re-baptism. There is much to consider. Did they really fall away, or are they described by this part of the confession:

1689 LBC 17:3

And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.

Their wandering from Christ may necessitate a public statement to the fellowship, but I would not ask them to be baptized again.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.

It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.

Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.

How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?

 

[KMK]

I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.

It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.

Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.

How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?

First, the confession deals with administration. It lays out instuctions for the administrator. As a pastor, I am confessionally bound to baptize anyone upon a profession of repentance, faith and obedience to Christ. If a person was already baptized based upon such a profession then it matters not, from an administrator's pov, whether that profession was genuine. The baptism has already been done and needs to be done only once. The confession does not say, "Those who do genuinely profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance." The confession says, "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 addition, there are no instructions regarding a 'do over' in the confession, nor the Bible, so I would avoid such things.

Rich, don't Presbyterian churches deal with the same issues? Do you ever have a man who was baptized as an adult come back 20 years later with a new sense of obedience and ask to be baptized again?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.

It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.

Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.

How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?

First, the confession deals with administration. It lays out instuctions for the administrator. As a pastor, I am confessionally bound to baptize anyone upon a profession of repentance, faith and obedience to Christ. If a person was already baptized based upon such a profession then it matters not, from an administrator's pov, whether that profession was genuine. The baptism has already been done and needs to be done only once. The confession does not say, "Those who do genuinely profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance." The confession says, "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 addition, there are no instructions regarding a 'do over' in the confession, nor the Bible, so I would avoid such things.

I don't see a response to the question. It only seems to confirm that the important thing is the externals to the event.

Rich, don't Presbyterian churches deal with the same issues? Do you ever have a man who was baptized as an adult come back 20 years later with a new sense of obedience and ask to be baptized again?

Well, sure, but mode or age or profession is not what makes a baptism valid according to the WCF.

 

[toddpedlar]

I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.

It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.

Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.

How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?

This was exactly my question that I just posted this morning. Thanks for asking it so much more cogently!

 

[toddpedlar]

I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.

It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.

Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.

How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?

First, the confession deals with administration. It lays out instuctions for the administrator. As a pastor, I am confessionally bound to baptize anyone upon a profession of repentance, faith and obedience to Christ. If a person was already baptized based upon such a profession then it matters not, from an administrator's pov, whether that profession was genuine. The baptism has already been done and needs to be done only once. The confession does not say, "Those who do genuinely profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance." The confession says, "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 addition, there are no instructions regarding a 'do over' in the confession, nor the Bible, so I would avoid such things.

Rich, don't Presbyterian churches deal with the same issues? Do you ever have a man who was baptized as an adult come back 20 years later with a new sense of obedience and ask to be baptized again?

As a elder and member in the PCA from 92 to 03, that never once came up that I was aware of... it's hard to imagine such a question ever occuring in those circles (except by fairly recently-transitioned ex-baptists, perhaps)

 

[toddpedlar]

Todd, that is a great question. If a professed believer was scriptually baptized and then fell away from he faith, followed by renewed repentance; I would oppose re-baptism. There is much to consider. Did they really fall away, or are they described by this part of the confession:

But what if their original profession was credibly false, and they
were now coming to what appears to be a new discovery of truth, and a new faith and repentance?

 

[KMK]

I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.

It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.

Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.

How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?

First, the confession deals with administration. It lays out instuctions for the administrator. As a pastor, I am confessionally bound to baptize anyone upon a profession of repentance, faith and obedience to Christ. If a person was already baptized based upon such a profession then it matters not, from an administrator's pov, whether that profession was genuine. The baptism has already been done and needs to be done only once. The confession does not say, "Those who do genuinely profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance." The confession says, "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 addition, there are no instructions regarding a 'do over' in the confession, nor the Bible, so I would avoid such things.

I don't see a response to the question. It only seems to confirm that the important thing is the externals to the event.

Rich, don't Presbyterian churches deal with the same issues? Do you ever have a man who was baptized as an adult come back 20 years later with a new sense of obedience and ask to be baptized again?

Well, sure, but mode or age or profession is not what makes a baptism valid according to the WCF.

How do I escape the issue you bring up? I stick to the confession.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

...and, according to your Confession, God cares most about the externals in the ordinance?

 

[Herald]

Rich, baptism by immersion is representative of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is why mode is important to Baptists. Baptism following profession is the other component that is distinctively Baptist. There is no need to defend these views since they are explained adequately in the confession.

I quoted an excerpt from the 1689 LBC about individuals who once professed faith and then spent a period of time away from the Lord. To keep it germane to the discussion, I'll post it again:

1689 LBC 17:3

And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.

It is difficult for any minister to make the call as to whether a individuals profession was real or not. The only tangible we have to go on is the evidence of faith. I would gravitate towards the generosity contained in 17:3 of the LBC and welcome them back to the fold and not question their baptism. Baptism is not a formula, and if the letter and spirit of the confession is considered, it need be thought of in that way. As a minister of the gospel, I would err on the side of grace.

 

[Wannabee]

Good observations Rich.

For a Baptist to be consistent there really is no such thing as "rebaptism." But your observations bring up an interesting quandary that some can find themselves in, usually because of incosistencies in regard to their perception on baptism. It's not a matter of a formula but, rather, obedience. For the Baptist baptism is an act of obedience and identification. If one was "dunked" as an unbeliever then it wasn't truly baptism. It's a matter of an obedient heart, not a formula, mantra, etc.
The challenge is in discerning what is the truth. This gets back to something I mentioned earlier, that we fail to include baptism in the Gospel. It's usually tacked on after we "get" someone to repent, pray, profess or whatever. However, for the Baptist (and I would think paedos as well) it's an integral and inseparable aspect of the Gospel.
If someone applied for membership in our church then we would begin the process, which includes a testimony. Based on this testimony and subsequent interview we would decide whether or not to grant membership. This is based on credible profession (a clear understanding of the Gospel) and the applicant's baptism according to Scripture (granting a credo understanding). If they are convinced that they were baptized accordingly, I would not question their conviction as long as their testimony revealed a clear understanding of salvation.
On the other hand, if someone later was convicted that their profession and baptism were not genuine and desired to be baptized, neither would I refuse them. We would study the doctrine together so as to avoid the "ad nauseum" example Todd brought up. This is usually the result of poor teaching, leading to a poor and insufficient understanding of baptism. One question I ask is, "Are you willing to die for Jesus Christ." The death to self that baptism signifies may require us to renounce our physical life for His glory, and they need to understand the reality and significance of this. These things, hopefully, serve to help avoid the "insurance policy" profession.

 

[Pergamum]

We all follow some sort of formula don't we Rich. Baptizing in water, for instance, instead of a dip in jello. We also baptize in the name of the Trinity.

Our respective formulas just differ as to what makes or breaks the deal (i.e. how much leeway is possible before we count the exercise not as baptism bt as not merely irregular but invalid altogether).

If you jump on the baptists for being too picky on the externals, make sure you remember this the next time you argue for wine instead of grape juice in the Lord's supper or even juice at all instead of orange drink or Fanta Orang soda. Insistance on bread and wine sounds so formulaic, after all, doesn't it?