Credobaptist and Multiple Immersions

[Quatchu]

Since moving to California from Canada I have found I trend that I have never seen before. What I have been noticing is churches out here even the reformed Baptist ones often have people who have been baptised by immersion multiple times. What’s often said is:
"I was baptised as a baby but that did not count, I then when I was an adult was immersed but over the years I realized I did not really believe when I was immersed the second time so I need to have it done again because I have it all together now." It just seems to me that this practice is unbiblical even to credo Baptist. I would think in credo Baptist thought if you have been immersed once then that is it.

 

[Jack K]

I'll take it a step further. I've also seen people get baptized again just as a sort of spiritual boost, like "I thought it was time for a rededication, and I was visiting Israel and had a chance to be baptized in the Jordan. What a blessing it was, the spiritual highlight of my year."

No, it doesn't seem right to me.

 

[Herald]

"I was baptised as a baby but that did not count, I then when I was an adult was immersed but over the years I realized I did not really believe when I was immersed the second time so I need to have it done again because I have it all together now." It just seems to me that this practice is unbiblical even to credo Baptist. I would think in credo Baptist thought if you have been immersed once then that is it.

Justin, the 1689 LBC says (about baptism):

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.

Baptists will not consider infant baptism valid under any circumstance, therefore baptism is necessary upon a profession of faith. As to multiple baptisms - that is clearly an abuse of the ordinance. The burden is on the elders to understand the reasons why a person is asking to be baptized. If they have previously been baptized upon a profession of faith then they should not be baptized again. If it's a matter of their assurance, the elders should counsel the individual to trust in what baptism signifies - the finished work of Christ on their behalf. There is no need to be re-baptized.

 

[Quatchu]

I mean ill warrant that even as a credo Baptist (I’m slowly leaning more towards covenant baptism) I am a black sheep as I have never believed in rebaptism. What was more worrisome was when a few months ago the pastor of the church we were attending announced he was getting baptized for a third time. I personally don’t see a shred of biblical evidence for this. I tend to get more upset about someone being immersed more than once then with someone baptized as a child later on through study decides there position has changed. Although I might disagree I can respect that they have been convince whether it is right or not. But When I hear someone has been baptized by immersion multiple times it really upsets me.

 

[Herald]

I mean ill warrant that even as a credo Baptist (I’m slowly leaning more towards covenant baptism) I am a black sheep as I have never believed in rebaptism. What was more worrisome was when a few months ago the pastor of the church we were attending announced he was getting baptized for a third time. I personally don’t see a shred of biblical evidence for this. I tend to get more upset about someone being immersed more than once then with someone baptized as a child later on through study decides there position has changed. Although I might disagree I can respect that they have been convince whether it is right or not. But When I hear someone has been baptized by immersion multiple times it really upsets me.

Justin, some Baptists (mostly Reformed) have a covenantal understanding of baptism. Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant. What makes a Baptist a Baptist is their conviction on who is an appropriate recipient of the sign. Mainline Baptist churches tend towards an Anabaptist view of baptism. Reformed Baptist churches have gone to great lengths to rightly understand the ordinance and its New Covenant implications. You're right to be concerned about the abuse of the ordinance. If you're attending a Reformed Baptist church, especially one that claims to hold to the 1689 LBC, ask the elders what their view is on baptism. See what answer you get.

 

[Edward]

Growing up in the south, it struck me that some Baptists used baptism as a substitute for the Catholic 'sacrament' of Reconciliation. They did something particularly sinful, they felt guilty, they confessed, got dipped again and everything was fine.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

One of the handful of reasons I fled the SBC after I moved out in college was 2 folks I grew up with that had been baptised 5 times between the two of them in a several year period, because the first in the lines occured "when I was not really saved...." When is enough, enough?

 

[JML]

I would be interested to see what percentage of people in Baptist churches have been baptized more than once. I think the percentage would be higher than we think. It has been 3 for me. Once as an infant in the Methodist church, once as an adult in the SBC, and once as an adult as a Reformed Baptist. My wife also has been baptized 2 times. Once in the SBC and once as a RB.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

The real issue is not re-baptism per se, but with a loss of the biblical understanding of conversion and what constitutes a "credible profession of faith." These have been lost and consequently we have baptized scores of people who give no credible evidence of a saving faith wrought in their hearts and who, if God is gracious, are brought to genuine faith in Christ at a latter date.

The more theological question that must be asked is this: is faith in the candidate requisite to the right administration of this ordinance. The Baptist Confession of Faith answers in the affirmative. So it stands to reason that if one is immersed in water at some point as a child (6 or 7 years old) by a careless pastor with no regard for the boy's lack of understanding or fruit of regeneration and then is converted at the age of 23, what transpired as a boy was no baptism at all. And his baptism as an adult would then be the only baptism in that it was the only one received in faith.

But this isn't to permit the kind of abuses mentioned in this thread (i.e. being baptized in the Jordan, or being baptized as a spiritual boost). These are aberrations of the historic Baptist position. But there are circumstances where re-baptism may be warrented. For more on this issue I would refer you to J. L. Dagg's treatment of the topic in Chapter X, Section 6 of his manual of Church Order HERE.

Here's a excerpt:

1. Men who were once baptized on profession of faith, and afterwards turned away from Christ, sometimes return with proofs of recent conversion.

Baptism was designed to be the ceremony of Christian profession. If, in the first baptism, the candidate believed himself to be a Christian, and received baptism on a credible profession of faith in Christ, no higher qualification can be obtained for a second baptism. They to whom the administration of the rite has been committed, do not possess the power to search the heart. A credible profession of faith, sincerely made, is all that fallible men can expect; and, since the ordinance has been committed to fallible men, it is duly administered on sincere and credible profession.

 

[Herald]

The real issue is not re-baptism per se, but with a loss of the biblical understanding of conversion and what constitutes a "credible profession of faith." These have been lost and consequently we have baptized scores of people who give no credible evidence of a saving faith wrought in their hearts and who, if God is gracious, are brought to genuine faith in Christ at a latter date.

The more theological question that must be asked is this: is faith in the candidate requisite to the right administration of this ordinance. The Baptist Confession of Faith answers in the affirmative. So it stands to reason that if one is immersed in water at some point as a child (6 or 7 years old) by a careless pastor with no regard for the boy's lack of understanding or fruit of regeneration and then is converted at the age of 23, what transpired as a boy was no baptism at all. And his baptism as an adult would then be the only baptism in that it was the only one received in faith.

But this isn't to permit the kind of abuses mentioned in this thread (i.e. being baptized in the Jordan, or being baptized as a spiritual boost). These are aberrations of the historic Baptist position. But there are circumstances where re-baptism may be warrented. For more on this issue I would refer you to J. L. Dagg's treatment of the topic in Chapter X, Section 6 of his manual of Church Order HERE.

Here's a excerpt:

1. Men who were once baptized on profession of faith, and afterwards turned away from Christ, sometimes return with proofs of recent conversion.

Baptism was designed to be the ceremony of Christian profession. If, in the first baptism, the candidate believed himself to be a Christian, and received baptism on a credible profession of faith in Christ, no higher qualification can be obtained for a second baptism. They to whom the administration of the rite has been committed, do not possess the power to search the heart. A credible profession of faith, sincerely made, is all that fallible men can expect; and, since the ordinance has been committed to fallible men, it is duly administered on sincere and credible profession.

Brother,

See my reasons earlier why I would suggest an adult convert not be re-baptized. Dagg is making the assumption that those who turn away and "return with proofs of recent conversion" were not saved during their initial profession. I could make an equally compelling argument that their return is proof of their genuine conversion. Indeed, the 1689 LBC states:

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.

Church discipline may be implied in 17.3. If an individual is put out of the church the purpose of such action is to call them to repentance. If they repent and return are they to be re-baptized? I'm sure that many mainline Baptist churches would require or acquiesce to a re-baptism request. Instead the individual would be best served by being counseled as to the sanctifying work of Christ in their life so as to walk in a manner worthy of their profession.

 

[Weston Stoler]

I was baptized once in a random church after I told them I had never been baptized and they just wanted me to be baptized right then and their and then I was baptized when I was 15 after I told them it didn't count because I wasn't saved yet (this was an IFB turned SBC). Now I plan on baptizing my children

 

[Kevin]

Hey Justin. This practice is common here at home as well. As a Maritimer that grew up in the local baptist culture I can assure you that the practice is common here as it is in California.

In my humble opinion, this is endemic to the entire baptist experiment. Once you start the practice of looking to the recipient of baptism, rather then to the One that baptizes then this result is inevitable. I love those baptist brothers that try to stem the tide of re-baptism by pointing to the (original) baptist confessions, but those brothers are fighting a rear-guard action. Chapter 29 is a dead letter as far as most baptists are concerned. As much as we might wish otherwise.

Please bring your wife the next time you pass through. God bless.

 

[Quatchu]

Hey Justin. This practice is common here at home as well. As a Maritimer that grew up in the local baptist culture I can assure you that the practice is common here as it is in California.

In my humble opinion, this is endemic to the entire baptist experiment. Once you start the practice of looking to the recipient of baptism, rather then to the One that baptizes then this result is inevitable. I love those baptist brothers that try to stem the tide of re-baptism by pointing to the (original) baptist confessions, but those brothers are fighting a rear-guard action. Chapter 29 is a dead letter as far as most baptists are concerned. As much as we might wish otherwise.

Please bring your wife the next time you pass through. God bless.

I'm not really surprised at all Kevin. Its just I have heard numerous people here in California in the last month talk about there newest baptism.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

There are abuses in any tradition but much of what's being posted here is anecdotal.

Dagg is making the assumption that those who turn away and "return with proofs of recent conversion" were not saved during their initial profession. I could make an equally compelling argument that their return is proof of their genuine conversion.

Yes you could! And I don't think Dagg would disagree with you. But he would place the responsibility of deciding if re-baptism was necessary with three parties: the individual, the administrator (or pastor), and the church as a whole:

In deciding the question, the first responsibility devolves on the candidate. He is bound to make a baptismal profession of faith, according to the revealed will of Christ; and if he has not properly complied with his duty, the obligation to obey rests on him

A responsibility is brought on the administrator, to whom the candidate may apply for rebaptism. It is clear from the Scriptures, that, in ordinary cases, baptism was designed to be administered but once; and the administrator, as a servant of Christ, is bound to decide, in the fear of God, whether the case before him justifies a repetition of the rite.

Besides the two parties that have been named, and that have the immediate responsibility in the case, the church to which an individual of doubtful baptism may apply for membership, has the responsibility of judging whether his baptism has fulfilled the divine command. If baptism is a prerequisite to membership, the church is not at liberty to throw the entire responsibility of the question on the candidate or the administrator.

J. L. Dagg
Manual of Church Order
Chapter X, Section 6

So, if an individual, a pastor, and a church all agree that an individual's initial profession of faith lacked credibility, they may justly conclude that re-baptism is necessary. In godly and responsible churches this kind of approach will greatly reduce the number of re-baptisms we see today.

One aspect of this conversation that I think makes us all uncomfortable is the subjective aspect of believer's baptism. But it is there and cannot be ignored. This is why the corporate witness of the church is so valuable in these matters. But at the end of the day, there are people who are baptized without any work of grace in their hearts. But this ordinance received without faith is nothing but and empty symbol. And to insist otherwise, that baptism is baptism even if one lacks repentance and faith is tantamount to the Roman Catholic position.

 

[Herald]

So, if an individual, a pastor, and a church all agree that an individual's initial profession of faith lacked credibility, they may justly conclude that re-baptism is necessary. In godly and responsible churches this kind of approach will greatly reduce the number of re-baptisms we see today.

C.M.,

I agree that Dagg's proposal would be a step in the right direction and greatly reduce the number of re-baptisms.



sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.

 

[DMcFadden]

In my humble opinion, this is endemic to the entire baptist experiment. Once you start the practice of looking to the recipient of baptism, rather then to the One that baptizes then this result is inevitable. I love those baptist brothers that try to stem the tide of re-baptism by pointing to the (original) baptist confessions, but those brothers are fighting a rear-guard action. Chapter 29 is a dead letter as far as most baptists are concerned. As much as we might wish otherwise.

Anecdotal or not, my 58 years were exclusively in Baptist churches where I witnessed the re-baptism abuse in a number of congregations.

On my last trip to Israel, I vainly tried to persuade the pastor of the inappropriateness of re-baptisms in the Jordan (Plus, Israel's Yardenit Jordan River site in February is cold enough to scare away polar bears). The best I could get from my colleague was to say that this is NOT an actual baptism, merely a re-enactment of what a baptism in the Jordan would look like. Yech!!! During my pastoral (baptizin' days), I strongly resisted the re-baptism fervor, but tend to agree that it is a nearly inevitable consequence of non-covenantal, non-Reformed Baptist, understandings of the "ordinance."

 

[Herald]

In my humble opinion, this is endemic to the entire baptist experiment. Once you start the practice of looking to the recipient of baptism, rather then to the One that baptizes then this result is inevitable. I love those baptist brothers that try to stem the tide of re-baptism by pointing to the (original) baptist confessions, but those brothers are fighting a rear-guard action. Chapter 29 is a dead letter as far as most baptists are concerned. As much as we might wish otherwise.

Please bring your wife the next time you pass through. God bless.

Kevin, I couldn't disagree with you more. The majority of Baptists are not confessional. However, the Reformed confessional Baptist movement does not consider itself fighting a rear guard action. We have a fundamental disagreement with mainline Baptist churches. We are a separate entity that is loosely connected to the larger Baptist community. You're not a Baptist, so certainly you're free to dismiss us. But I can state emphatically that Reformed Baptists are not a "baptist experiment" as you put it. We're a reality.

 

[extolHIM]

This thread caught my eye since I've been baptized more than once, so I figured I'd share a little of my "why". I'm Reformed Baptist, and obviously, if I was Paedo, I could certainly see the issue you guys would take. In fact, I can see the issue any Christian should take, regardless if you side with Paedo or Credo. There should only be one time in a person's lifetime when they should be baptized. In saying that though, I've personally been baptized 4 times. However, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it won't happen a 5th time. Why? Because being Reformed Baptist, we believe, as you all know, that there must be a true profession of saving faith before the baptism is considered valid, or "in order". Before I explain that more, here is my story...

I was originally baptized at age 14. I said a "prayer" when I was around 5 and always considered myself a Christian, even though there was no fruit whatsoever. I went to church and that was it. I actually got baptized that Sunday cause my best friend got baptized. Then I was baptized again at age 21. I constantly battled with assurance, and I said a "prayer" to accept Christ after a crazy night of arguing when my wife almost left me. More of an attempt to get her to stay than anything heart changing as was evident of me continuing to wallow in my sin from that next day forward. I was baptized again at age 22. This time I made a more serious profession of faith after a revival at church. I was baptized the next Sunday and appeared to change for a few months. However, in classic stony ground way, I went right back to my sin and then some and completely turned my back on the things of Christ. I continued going to church to keep up appearances, but had no desire whatsoever for the things of God for the next 12 years. There was no fruit of the Spirit at all, and I was a horrific husband, dad, friend, and was the classic hypocritical "Christian". In fact, I was not a Christian at all. Then in 2009, God totally changed my heart. My testimony is very long, but by the sovereign grace of Christ, He truly saved me and to Him I give all the glory! Two and a half years later and my desire for Christ grows daily and He has changed my life in every way you could imagine. Regardless of what others may have went through in their journey, I was NOT saved and then "came back to Christ". The truth is, I was lost and then I was found! So to keep this from getting crazy long...a few months ago, I felt very strongly that I should be baptized, in my mind for the first time, and I believe, in God's eyes for the first time since this would be the first time after true repentance. I feel that it was an act of true, Biblical obedience to be baptized after my conversion.

The problem? Is not necessarily being baptized more than once, although that is not how it should be. The problem, as some above have alluded to, is the fact that I was baptized in the first three cases without any proof of true conversion. In the first instance, I was made to take a class about it, but was not talked to by my pastor and he had no clue what my life was truly like outside of church. The 2nd and 3rd times, no talks with my pastor at all. Period. All three churches were Arminian Baptist churches, and all three took my profession of faith at my word and did nothing whatsoever to look into whether or not there was any change in my life since I was "saved", or to even ask me the details of my conversion. My current church is a Reformed Baptist church and my pastor wanted to hear my entire testimony, came to my house to talk with me, and also met with me on multiple occasions in his office at the church. Plus he has been my friend for a few years before we even joined the church and he knows the life I lead and the change that Christ has done in my life. He was completely assured that the profession I was making was completely real and therefore he agreed to baptize me.

I know the Paedo's will have problems with this and many may think this post to be nonsense, but then again, I have problems with the Paedo view that I find disturbing and/or problematic too. But you know, I have looked into it and will continue to, and do see some of the positives of that view and do not in any way think that it is sinful, or even "devilish" as MacArthur said recently (which I think was very stupid to say and I think he really needs to publicly apologize).

Anyways...just my two cents from my own experience. As a Reformed Baptist in beliefs, I believe that my last baptism was the ONLY Biblical baptism of the four.

 

[Pergamum]

Dagg says,

If baptism is a prerequisite to membership, the church is not at liberty to throw the entire responsibility of the question on the candidate or the administrator.

I suppose he means local church membership. But how does this jibe with the NT practice of immdiate baptism upon a profession of faith?

 

[Weston Stoler]

When I was a baptist I had always worried that my baptism was null in void because maybe I made a false confession. it is why I was baptized twice (and almost 3 times). I think this is the offshoot of the baptism that is based on man's competences of his own conversion. Instead of being dependent on God it was focused on what I could do for God.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Justin,

First off you didn't disclose what Church you are referencing. Also you didn't enlighten us enough about the reasons for why these people hold to their understanding about baptism that they hold to. Concerning the Pastor you are referencing, what is his reasoning? What is his background? You could be referencing someone that is heretical or holds to many abberations that aren't biblical. In that case you are just holding up a straw man to beat up.

Now for a few questions and then a comment. What if someone was circumcised for an idolatrous religion and then sought to be covenanted in the true religion of Moses which sought faith in the coming Messiah and inclusion with the covenant people of Israel? What practice would he have to undergo? What sacrament would be performed? Was his first circumcision accounted as a sign and seal of his inclusion in the covenanted people of God? Now that might seem to be a messy question and one that seems to be historically impossible. But it was done in some of the mystery religions. It is noted to be a right of passage in some of them and something that enhanced one with spiritual abilities as I understand it from reading something on Wikipedia. I know, what a great point of reference. LOL.

My question is, when is the practice considered to be truly sacramental? I have been baptized a couple of times. I was baptized under very unsound theological teaching supposing that I had to be baptized for the forgiveness of sin. I understood nothing about who Christ was or what he did on the cross when I was baptized under heretical teaching.

Something you also need to consider Justin is that there are Reformed Churches that require baptism when one is baptized in the Roman Church because they consider Roman baptism to be no baptism at all. I adhere to this position as do many others on the Puritanboard. Here is James Henry Thornwell concerning this position.
The Collected Writings of James ... - James Henley Thornwell - Google Books

I hope I am not being ungracious here but I truly find your attitude unloving and rather self righteous and self affirming Justin. While there may be ignorance on the part of many your attitude seems to betray your lack of understanding how people come to truth and struggle with faith. Your quote here...

I mean ill warrant

rather alarms me. I would plea with you to obtain this attitude.

(2Ti 2:23) But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

(2Ti 2:24) And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,


(2Ti 2:25) In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;


(2Ti 2:26) And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

And please remember that you really don't know all that is surrounding the arguments. You evidently have a few things to learn.