Resources on Re-Baptism

[Venator Veritatis]

I'm looking for some resources that specifically deal with the notion of Re-Baptism from a Presbyterian/Paedobaptist perspective. Specifically dealing with WCF 28:7

To give some background to the question that might lend itself to the discovery of resources. I was shocked to hear a man with a very strong Presbyterian background say that if you were in a situation where:

1. You are a faithful believer, baptized as an infant, and held to the validity of infant baptism
2. Attended a Particular Baptist church due to a lack of good, faithful Presbyterian churches in your area

If you were denied membership in said Particular Baptist church, and therfore denied being able to partake in the Lord's table, then your best option was to submit to the leadership of the church and get "re-baptised" in order to be able to be a faithful member of the church and participate.

John Brown in his explication of the shorter catechism verifies that

"Q. How often is baptism to be administered to the same person.
A. Only once. Tit.3:5, 1 Pet. 3:21"

And additional, perhaps longer, treatments of the issue would be greatly appreciated.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

... submit to the leadership of the church and get "re-baptised" in order to be able to be a faithful member of the church and participate.

No Reformed Baptist who knows what they are talking about would ever counsel someone who was moistened as a baby to be "re-baptized". Although we would certainly tell someone they need to get baptized for the first time.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

No Reformed Baptist who knows what they are talking about would ever counsel someone who was moistened as a baby to be "re-baptized". Although we would certainly tell someone they need to get baptized for the first time.

I'm aware of that. The "re-baptized" language was not verbage coming from the Reformed Baptists.

I know that it's the Reformed position that you can only truly be baptized once. So I apologize if I was unclear.

 

[philomath]

I'm looking for some resources that specifically deal with the notion of Re-Baptism from a Presbyterian/Paedobaptist perspective. Specifically dealing with WCF 28:7

To give some background to the question that might lend itself to the discovery of resources. I was shocked to hear a man with a very strong Presbyterian background say that if you were in a situation where:

1. You are a faithful believer, baptized as an infant, and held to the validity of infant baptism
2. Attended a Particular Baptist church due to a lack of good, faithful Presbyterian churches in your area

If you were denied membership in said Particular Baptist church, and therfore denied being able to partake in the Lord's table, then your best option was to submit to the leadership of the church and get "re-baptised" in order to be able to be a faithful member of the church and participate.

John Brown in his explication of the shorter catechism verifies that

"Q. How often is baptism to be administered to the same person.
A. Only once. Tit.3:5, 1 Pet. 3:21"

And additional, perhaps longer, treatments of the issue would be greatly appreciated.

That is very strange. I don't know that I've ever heard any strong Presbyterian suggest something like that.
I don't know how one can get there from the Presbyterian point of view unless they trivialize the matter and think something such as "Well, I think my baptism as a baby counts, but if this is the only church that I could possibly attend, I'll let them dunk me to appease the Baptist requirement".

I'd imagine it'd be far more likely for a strong Presbyterian to suggest:
a) Moving somewhere closer to a solid Presbyterian church
b) Going without weekly (or monthly) Lord's supper until you're able to move
c) Work to see if a Presbyterian plant could come in to the area
d) Give the pastor a copy of John Bunyan's Differences in Judgment About Water-Baptism No Bar to Communion with the hope that the pastor may change his mind on denying The Lord's Table to a paedobaptist

I don't have any resources to suggest on this topic other than the WCF at this time. In essence, it seems that the suggestions of this man are blatantly contrary to Presbyterian views. The options he gives seems to be either becoming a Baptist or a Presbyterian that lies about being a Baptist.

Hopefully some of our Presbyterian brothers and sisters can offer their thoughts and resource suggestions.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

That is very strange. I don't know that I've ever heard any strong Presbyterian suggest something like that.
I don't know how one can get there from the Presbyterian point of view unless they trivialize the matter and think something such as "Well, I think my baptism as a baby counts, but if this is the only church that I could possibly attend, I'll let them dunk me to appease the Baptist requirement".

I'd imagine it'd be far more likely for a strong Presbyterian to suggest:
a) Moving somewhere closer to a solid Presbyterian church
b) Going without weekly (or monthly) Lord's supper until you're able to move
c) Work to see if a Presbyterian plant could come in to the area
d) Give the pastor a copy of John Bunyan's Differences in Judgment About Water-Baptism No Bar to Communion with the hope that the pastor may change his mind on denying The Lord's Table to a paedobaptist

I don't have any resources to suggest on this topic other than the WCF at this time. In essence, it seems that the suggestions of this man are blatantly contrary to Presbyterian views. The options he gives seems to be either becoming a Baptist or a Presbyterian that lies about being a Baptist.

Hopefully some of our Presbyterian brothers and sisters can offer their thoughts and resource suggestions.

Thank you. I appreciate your input.

The emphasis seemed to be placed on the importance of church membership, and the ability to exercise ones gifts and partake of the Lord's Supper over the importance of the baptism issue.

Is it a wrong or misguided train of thought to conclude that by advising someone in such a manner they are downplaying the importance of the sign and seal of Baptism? If the person followed through, and submitted to the Particular Baptist leadership and got baptized, they would essentially be publicly repudiating the validity of their infant baptism?

Thank you for the reminder of Bunyan's work. I've been meaning to read it for some time.

 

[De Jager]

Thank you. I appreciate your input.

The emphasis seemed to be placed on the importance of church membership, and the ability to exercise ones gifts and partake of the Lord's Supper over the importance of the baptism issue.

Is it a wrong or misguided train of thought to conclude that by advising someone in such a manner they are downplaying the importance of the sign and seal of Baptism? If the person followed through, and submitted to the Particular Baptist leadership and got baptized, they would essentially be publicly repudiating the validity of their infant baptism?

Thank you for the reminder of Bunyan's work. I've been meaning to read it for some time.

Your conclusion is not wrong or misguided. What you described in the OP is not something that any P&R person should be suggesting, as proven by his own confession.

 

[DNM300]

If the person followed through, and submitted to the Particular Baptist leadership and got baptized, they would essentially be publicly repudiating the validity of their infant baptism?

Yes - it seems to me that is the statement being made. And that’s why it should not be done.

 

[philomath]

Thank you. I appreciate your input.

The emphasis seemed to be placed on the importance of church membership, and the ability to exercise ones gifts and partake of the Lord's Supper over the importance of the baptism issue.

Is it a wrong or misguided train of thought to conclude that by advising someone in such a manner they are downplaying the importance of the sign and seal of Baptism? If the person followed through, and submitted to the Particular Baptist leadership and got baptized, they would essentially be publicly repudiating the validity of their infant baptism?

Thank you for the reminder of Bunyan's work. I've been meaning to read it for some time.

Sure thing!

Yes, from a Presbyterian standpoint it is absolutely downplaying the importance of the sign and the seal of Baptism. A person following through would necessarily be publicly repudiating the validity of their infant baptism, even if they still believed it was valid (that's where it would get into deceitfulness).

Now if they just became a covinced Reformed Baptist, they wouldn't be deceiving others, but I don't know of any solid Presbyterians who would tell people "hey, you should become Reformed Baptist instead of Prebyterian". I know many Reformed Baptists who would though.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Okay, here's something different:

While in NYC, around 2014-15 or so, the Presbyterian churches in our area departing from soundness too severely to remain in, my wife and I started going to a 1689 Baptist church. Shortly after that one of the elders (pastors) stepped down, and the remaining pastor was havng a hard time (about 100-120 attenders weekly), so I offered to co-pastor with him until suitable elders coud be raised up. Everyone knew I was staunchly Presbyterian (Continental Reformed, actually, as at some point I had switched) yet respected their doctrines.

My wife, however, had been baptized as an infant in the Greek Orthodox Church. She was much loved in the Baptist church – serving in many areas, wherever a need was – though when they wanted her to help in teaching women's Bible studies, they said she had to be baptized.

And this is what I told them – one and all – I know her baptism as an infant was a true baptism, genuine and acceptable to God, but for the sake of your consciences I will allow her to go under the water. Our consciences were at rest in this. She'd already been baptized.

There may be some here on PB who will condemn this, I know. But I wanted to share it.

 

[njen]

Okay, here's something different:

While in NYC, around 2014-15 or so, the Presbyterian churches in our area departing from soundness too severely to remain in, my wife and I started going to a 1689 Baptist church. Shortly after that one of the elders (pastors) stepped down, and the remaining pastor was havng a hard time (about 100-120 attenders weekly), so I offered to co-pastor with him until suitable elders coud be raised up. Everyone knew I was staunchly Presbyterian (Continental Reformed, actually, as at some point I had switched) yet respected their doctrines.

My wife, however, had been baptized as an infant in the Greek Orthodox Church. She was much loved by the church – serving in so many areas, wherever a need was – though when they wanted her to help in teaching women's Bible studies, they said she had to be baptized.

And this is what I told them – one and all – I know her baptism as an infant was a true baptism, genuine and acceptable to God, but for the sake of your consciences I will allow her to go under the water. Our consciences were at rest in this. She'd already been baptized.

There may be some here on PB who will condemn this, I know. But I wanted to share it.

Steve, thank you for posting this. I always appreciate hearing your perspective.

 

[De Jager]

Okay, here's something different:

While in NYC, around 2014-15 or so, the Presbyterian churches in our area departing from soundness too severely to remain in, my wife and I started going to a 1689 Baptist church. Shortly after that one of the elders (pastors) stepped down, and the remaining pastor was havng a hard time (about 100-120 attenders weekly), so I offered to co-pastor with him until suitable elders coud be raised up. Everyone knew I was staunchly Presbyterian (Continental Reformed, actually, as at some point I had switched) yet respected their doctrines.

My wife, however, had been baptized as an infant in the Greek Orthodox Church. She was much loved by the church – serving in so many areas, wherever a need was – though when they wanted her to help in teaching women's Bible studies, they said she had to be baptized.

And this is what I told them – one and all – I know her baptism as an infant was a true baptism, genuine and acceptable to God, but for the sake of your consciences I will allow her to go under the water. Our consciences were at rest in this. She'd already been baptized.

There may be some here on PB who will condemn this, I know. But I wanted to share it.

Pastor Steve,

This is an interesting situation. I wouldn't be quick to condemn you in it, I'd have to personally give it a lot of thought (which I don't have time to do). A couple observations: 1) at the very least everyone was open and honest about the situation, 2) Everyone's consciences were respected in that particular case.

Thank you for sharing.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

Okay, here's something different:

While in NYC, around 2014-15 or so, the Presbyterian churches in our area departing from soundness too severely to remain in, my wife and I started going to a 1689 Baptist church. Shortly after that one of the elders (pastors) stepped down, and the remaining pastor was havng a hard time (about 100-120 attenders weekly), so I offered to co-pastor with him until suitable elders coud be raised up. Everyone knew I was staunchly Presbyterian (Continental Reformed, actually, as at some point I had switched) yet respected their doctrines.

My wife, however, had been baptized as an infant in the Greek Orthodox Church. She was much loved by the church – serving in so many areas, wherever a need was – though when they wanted her to help in teaching women's Bible studies, they said she had to be baptized.

And this is what I told them – one and all – I know her baptism as an infant was a true baptism, genuine and acceptable to God, but for the sake of your consciences I will allow her to go under the water. Our consciences were at rest in this. She'd already been baptized.

There may be some here on PB who will condemn this, I know. But I wanted to share it.

Thanks for sharing Steve.

Given the significance of Baptism it seems odd to me that a Baptist would allow and even encourage someone to go through it, knowing that they didn't think it meant anything significant.

I would not condemn that action, as I'm just a layman and relative novice in the Faith, it just seems inconsistent with the beliefs of both sides.

I am grateful for everyone's input. Thank you.

 

[No Other Name]

Historically, legality vs. validity matters. It is possible to see a baptism as forensically legal but procedurally invalid. In this case, "re-baptism" is unwarranted.

And it is possible for a "baptism" to be neither legal nor valid. Making it not a baptism at all. In this case, "re-baptism" is not even possible.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

And it is possible for a "baptism" to be neither legal nor valid. Making it not a baptism at all. In this case, "re-baptism" is not even possible.

Hello Brad, I would say you hit the nail on the head. What my wife underwent was not a baptism at all. And I said as much, just she went "under the water". For her baptism was when she was an infant.

The thing is this: it would have broken her heart – and many in the church – were she not allowed to enter into communion with the church she loved, and was loved by, as a result of – in my eyes – an erroneous understanding. In the church's eyes it was simply a re-baptism, although I said it couldn't be. But their consciences were satisfied, and she was received into membership. It was a matter of love, and truth – for she was a genuinely baptized person, though you may not agree with that, being a Baptist.