Resources for Explaining why Christians should not get rebaptized in the Jordan River

[Bill The Baptist]

As you are probably aware, many Christians who visit the Holy Land stop to get baptized in the Jordan River. Almost all of these people have already been baptized, and so his strikes me as silly and unneccesary (at best). However, how do you explain this to people? I mean, it just seems so pious and amazing to be baptized where Jesus was baptized. Paedobaptists are welcome to respond so long as there is no debate on mode or subject of baptism. I want to consider why this would be wrong from a credobaptist position.

 

[KMK]

The argument against rebaptism in the Jordan is the same as that against rebaptism in general, isn't it?

Who does the baptizing at the Jordan river? Are they "qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ?"

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

The argument against rebaptism in the Jordan is the same as that against rebaptism in general, isn't it?

It is, but unfortunately many Baptists (especially non-Monergistic types but even some RBs as well) are weak in their understanding in this area. Many Baptists see Baptism as nothing more than an outward dedication of their lives to Jesus. The mindset being, "if I have made this commitment once, why can't I make the same commitment again?" They don't have a good grasp of what Baptism IS or WHY we are Baptized the first time. Once these things are understood, it makes it easier to understand why re-Baptism is inappropriate.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

These are suggestions from an outside observer. Maybe...

1) Place more emphasis on the fact that Scripture teaches "...one baptism," Eph.4:5. In other words, believers should be taught that even a "symbolic" rebaptism or reenactment runs contrary to the principle of baptism as a singular or unitary event. As a Baptist, you might have to distinguish between a "first" baptism that is subsequent to an earlier ritual which was improper (in the Baptist sense); and sentimental play-acting that basically trivializes a holy ordinance.

2) Counter the reduction of Christianity to a variety of religious experience. If Christianity is "real" only to the extent that it is "felt," then increasing the "feels" by almost any means seems justified. As doctrine is further denigrated; and as deep instruction in the things of God in Scripture is reduced, in favor of emphasis on emotion and the use of Scripture primarily as a "manual for living;" baptism-as-theater makes sense. From my limited perspective, it appears to me that many Baptists no longer place great emphasis on obedience as the motive for baptizing. Faith and Duty are the basic elements (and basic order) of Christianity.

3) And with that fresh incentive to believe and conform, reemphasize the doctrine of Scripture alone as the rule of our religion; but especially of our religious and worship practice. All that is "holy" in that sense is still designed (as was evident in the OT tabernacle institution) to be both regulated and unique to the church institution. Separating baptism from the church, so that it becomes an "outsourced commodity" (like ordering up a specialty wedding) makes it a spectacle. It may leave some who didn't experience such a high-flying event feeling a bit déclassé. Hence, like some who put on a second wedding (the way they wished it was), some Christians go to the Jordan. This is a wealthy or privileged conceit, and not "common" Christianity.

4) Resist a radical division of sign and signification. Even admitting the major differences between Baptist's and Presbyterian's regard of the connection between water and Spirit, I think many Christians across the board (thus not merely the Baptist) have lost the connection, be it designedly a thick or a thin "sacramental union" (to use the old Reformed language). If there is no true connection between something men are doing on earth, and God's work in the spiritual realm, then by all means refurbish the sign at will.

The Baptist might wish to spruce up his memorial, making it fresh and relevant in a new moment; so: "Go Jordan on that thing, baby!" <splash>. And as for the non-Baptist, they are more likely simply to disregard what to them is also theologically nothing but a "bare sign" and forgotten unused, being rather faded, tilted, and obscured by the vegetation.

 

[lynnie]

OP, this is the same reasoning why I am extremely uncomfortable with 25 year ( or whatever) marriage vow renewals where there is essentially a second wedding ceremony. (and they hadn't split and then reconciled). We didn't do it and I don't like attending them and find excuses not to. If you don't think I am too off topic I'd be curious to get feedback on my attitude, but if it is too much thread drift just say so. Thanks. If you can renew covenantal wedding vows, why not baptismal? Am I missing something here?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Am I incorrect that this sounds like Idolatry? It is downplaying the significance of any baptism that took place first. It almost sounds like relic worship. I am not opposed to being baptized in the Jordan but to do it because it is the Jordan River just sounds like Idolatry.

 

[ZackF]

Am I incorrect that this sounds like Idolatry? It is downplaying the significance of any baptism that took place first. It almost sounds like relic worship. I am not opposed to being baptized in the Jordan but to do it because it is the Jordan River just sounds like Idolatry.

You said it. It’s completely superstitious.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Am I incorrect that this sounds like Idolatry? It is downplaying the significance of any baptism that took place first. It almost sounds like relic worship. I am not opposed to being baptized in the Jordan but to do it because it is the Jordan River just sounds like Idolatry.

Exactly. And it’s quite the money maker because they charge something like $25 per person for the privilege.

 

[Phil D.]

It is rather ironic how so many non-confessional Baptists can be so "shallow" about the significance of baptism...

 

[Seeking_Thy_Kingdom]

I heard of a woman who had herself baptized over 170 or so times. As sad as that is, apparently during all those baptisms there wasn’t a single pastor who was willing or able to tell her why it was inappropriate.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

It is rather ironic how so many non-confessional Baptists can be so "shallow" about the significance of baptism...

As a young man I was baptized in a Campbellite Church thinking God would save me from my situation. I became a Christian 3 years later in a Navy barracks reading the four gospels. I was baptized again by my Papa in the faith because I was sure my first baptism was invalid. I had no idea what salvation was nor did I know Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.

I can understand why some people would be baptized again in our theological climate. As Lynnie noted above there are reasons why people want to renew their wedding vows when they have certain anniversaries. They want to testify to things that they feel are important and they want to share the emotional attachments they believe are significant. A lot of people believe that baptism is a testimonial to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. People who get baptized again are most likely wanting to share their emotional attachment and testimony to God's goodness. The problem with rebaptism in the Jordan is that it is self willed worship in a way. It comes from the normative principle of worship. This Jordan thing is a step farther into something similar like relic worship though as I see it. I can understand why people do the things they do in this theological climate.

I have been fortunate to have been given a heritage of Puritan and Reformed understanding through the past 4 decades. It is a gift. Not everyone has that blessing. I hope someone is able to write an expose' on this. Who wants to end up in the sin of Aaron's sons who presumed upon God and offered strange fire that was not commanded by the Lord. We have been given mercy and grace brothers and sisters that we didn't deserve. Maybe the Lord will bring knowledge to help others.

I don't know of any resources on this.

 

[usernamecrtamil]

It is, but unfortunately many Baptists (especially non-Monergistic types but even some RBs as well) are weak in their understanding in this area. Many Baptists see Baptism as nothing more than an outward dedication of their lives to Jesus. The mindset being, "if I have made this commitment once, why can't I make the same commitment again?" They don't have a good grasp of what Baptism IS or WHY we are Baptized the first time. Once these things are understood, it makes it easier to understand why re-Baptism is inappropriate.

So much for our trip to the Holy Land to be re-baptized

 

[W.C. Dean]

Well I would say the rules apply about re-baptism to being re-baptized in the Jordan, however I would contend it's worse as some as said. Not only are you charged $25 to be baptized (woe unto the person charging for baptisms), but if your goal is somehow be more pious or closer to God because of the waters of the Jordan, that's idolatry.

Ephesians 4:5 - "... one baptism"

"The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person." WCF 28.7 citing Romans 6:3-11

 

[Pergamum]

OP, this is the same reasoning why I am extremely uncomfortable with 25 year ( or whatever) marriage vow renewals where there is essentially a second wedding ceremony. (and they hadn't split and then reconciled). We didn't do it and I don't like attending them and find excuses not to. If you don't think I am too off topic I'd be curious to get feedback on my attitude, but if it is too much thread drift just say so. Thanks. If you can renew covenantal wedding vows, why not baptismal? Am I missing something here?

Israel had covenant renewal ceremonies, though, right?

 

[Jack K]

There are many things we might say. But I think the one that gets most clearly at the hub of the issue, and will cause a typical experience-driven evangelical to stop and think for a moment, is this:

"Do you think God's word spoken to you when you were baptized is not good enough and must be repeated? Or maybe you have failed to see that baptism involves God at all, and you are making it an experience that is all about you, and only you. Baptism is not only your pledge to God but also his pledge to you, and you affirm that his word is fully trustworthy when you declare that once is sufficient, as he says it is ("one baptism"). So, take a strong stand for the trustworthiness of God's claim on you! Be baptized once and only once, and stand on that sure promise of God."

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Israel had covenant renewal ceremonies, though, right?

Isn't that what we do when we examine ourselves at the Lord's table? Try repeating circumcision. That would be sorely unpleasant especially the second time around. OUCH

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Israel had covenant renewal ceremonies, though, right?

Rev. Winzer once responded to something I wrote on this board, in which I used the language of "covenant-renewal," he called it infelicitous terminology. And as was usually the case, I ended up agreeing with him.

"Renewal" language (which is still one more neologism of the late 20th century) sounds rather more like another covenanting moment, than it is an entering in to solidarity with the original covenant. It sounds like the original covenant-moment has lost its luster, and needs to be rejuvenated. But that is quite the improper regard for the event. A more biblical term is "memorial," which in the sense intended is more than simply a gathering to recall an historical past, or to feel thankful.

So, depending on what one means by "renewal," one might say that the annual feasts of the nation were such things; but more properly were memorials, that involved affirmation of solidarity with the original covenanters. The covenant itself was not being re-engaged, because God was not handing down this covenant to be redone. It had been done, and it was firm.

One incident often appealed to as a true "covenant-renewal" moment is the rehearsal of the covenant blessings and curses found in Josh.8 (cf. Dt.27). Well, this misses two calendric connections to the Israelite feasts. First, the people held Passover just after entrance to the land, Josh.5; this would place the battles of Jericho and Ai in the following weeks; and leave just about the right amount of time (50days) until the Feast of Weeks.

Second, the traditional dating of the original giving of the Law falls very nearly that same date according to the timeline of the Exodus, and probably was intended for that connection. Thus, the timing of the rehearsal fell at the same time of year as the original oath of the people, "all that the Lord has spoken we will do," Ex.19:8; 24:3,7. There is every reason to associate the event on Mt.'s Ebal and Gerizim with the memorial festal duty of the people.

 

[Pergamum]

Isn't that what we do when we examine ourselves at the Lord's table? Try repeating circumcision. That would be sorely unpleasant especially the second time around. OUCH

Good point. I was referring to the principle in general. I also oppose re-baptism. I would support re-circumcision for some jerks I know, though....every month a little more.

 

[Pergamum]

Rev. Winzer once responded to something I wrote on this board, in which I used the language of "covenant-renewal," he called it infelicitous terminology. And as was usually the case, I ended up agreeing with him.

"Renewal" language (which is yet another neologism of the late 20th century) sounds rather more like another covenanting moment, than it is an entering in to solidarity with the original covenant. It sounds like the original covenant-moment has lost its luster, and needs to be rejuvenated. But that is quite the improper regard for the event. A more biblical term is "memorial," which in the sense intended is more than simply a gathering to recall an historical past, or to feel thankful.

So, depending on what one means by "renewal," one might say that the annual feasts of the nation were such things; but more properly were memorials, that involved affirmation of solidarity with the original covenanters. The covenant itself was not being re-engaged, because God was not handing down this covenant to be redone. It had been done, and it was firm.

One incident often appealed to as a true "covenant-renewal" moment is the rehearsal of the covenant blessings and curses found in Josh.8 (cf. Dt.27). Well, this misses two calendric connections to the Israelite feasts. First, the people held Passover just after entrance to the land, Josh.5; this would place the battles of Jericho and Ai in the following weeks; and leave just about the right amount of time (50days) until the Feast of Weeks.

Second, the traditional dating of the original giving of the Law falls very nearly that same date according to the timeline of the Exodus, and probably was intended for that connection. Thus, the timing of the rehearsal fell at the same time of year as the original oath of the people, "all that the Lord has spoken we will do," Ex.19:8; 24:3,7. There is every reason to associate the event on Mt.'s Ebal and Gerizim with the memorial festal duty of the people.

So,

Would you say that "covenant remembrances" or "memorials" would be a better term than covenant renewals?

But if the Lord's Supper fits into this category, then does this logic make this sacrament into a mere memorial?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So,

Would you say that "covenant remembrances" or "memorials" would be a better term than covenant renewals?

But if the Lord's Supper fits into this category, then does this logic make this sacrament a mere memorial?

1) Indeed, I agree with Rev. Winzer as I wrote above. "Renewal" in the proper sense would have God also making a fresh purpose of keeping his promises. There is no need whatever that he should do this, any more than he should resacrifice the Son for the sake of "renewing" the New Covenant.

2) I gave reason above why "memorial" should be taken in its full, biblical sense; and not reduced to a "mere" memorial: a historic recollection or moment of thankfulness. In the sacrament of Communion, we who partake actually sit down with the original disciples to reenact (and engage ourselves in) the First Supper.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Good point. I was referring to the principle in general. I also oppose re-baptism. I would support re-circumcision for some jerks I know, though....every month a little more.

Now you’re sounding like Paul in Galatians

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

So,

Would you say that "covenant remembrances" or "memorials" would be a better term than covenant renewals?

But if the Lord's Supper fits into this category, then does this logic make this sacrament into a mere memorial?

I would posit that there is a big difference between "only a memorial" and "AT LEAST a memorial".

Whatever else the Lord's Supper might be, you certainly can't say that it ISN'T a memorial.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

(woe unto the person charging for baptisms)11

Just to be clear, the pastor or whoever is performing the baptism isn’t charging money. It’s just that you are only allowed to be baptized in certain places in the Jordan, and these places have been “enhanced” by the addition of steps with rails into the water. Whoever builds these stairs is the one charging the fee.

 

[W.C. Dean]

Just to be clear, the pastor or whoever is performing the baptism isn’t charging money. It’s just that you are only allowed to be baptized in certain places in the Jordan, and these places have been “enhanced” by the addition of steps with rails into the water. Whoever builds these stairs is the one charging the fee.

Ah so bad, but not as bad as it could be. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[jwithnell]

Well I would say the rules apply about re-baptism to being re-baptized in the Jordan, however I would contend it's worse as some as said. Not only are you charged $25 to be baptized (woe unto the person charging for baptisms), but if your goal is somehow be more pious or closer to God because of the waters of the Jordan, that's idolatry.

Ephesians 4:5 - "... one baptism"

"The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person." WCF 28.7 citing Romans 6:3-11

That's my thought on many aspects of "holy land" tours. I'd love to see the area to increase my understanding of Biblical geography and history, but the gospel has gone out to all the world, and no one spot is holier than any other for baptism, worship, prayer ....

 

[Bill The Baptist]

That's my thought on many aspects of "holy land" tours. I'd love to see the area to increase my understanding of Biblical geography and history, but the gospel has gone out to all the world, and no one spot is holier than any other for baptism, worship, prayer ....

Exactly. John 4:21 " Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father."