Credo-Baptism Answers When to baptize "again"?

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Looking particularly thoughts from fellow elders or those who have walked through this kind issue for themselves personally. Here's a scenario.

Someone has been loosely around Christianity most of his life. He was baptized in 5th grade upon a profession of faith, but since then hasn't really walked with the Lord, though he has been in and out of church, has done some Bible reading and praying off and on, etc. He recently made a decision (as an adult) to trust Christ for what he strongly believes is the first time in his life, and gives evidence of genuine faith.

How quick/slow are you to baptize him? Would you want to allow significant time for him to reflect on whether he was a genuine Christian who backslid? Or do you simply take his word and baptize him fairly quickly?

 

[paranymph]

I don't see why he needs time to reflect on whether he was a genuine Christian if he "strongly believes" he trusts Christ for the first time in his life. All of this depends on how well the elders know him. As a pastor I want a little time to get to know somebody and make sure they understand our church's teaching and practice before baptism.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

As a pastor I want a little time to get to know somebody and make sure they understand our church's teaching and practice before baptism.

Totally agreed here, that is what I was allowing for with the word "fairly".

 

[KMK]

The Reformed baptize not upon strong or weak faith, but upon a credible profession of faith. It's the only objective standard we have. How one "walks with the Lord" afterward, or whether "he has been in and out of church" do not necessarily change his original profession of faith. All baptized believers "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 [not baptism] in Christ Jesus to the end."

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Is there a command to re-baptize? I know ppl will run to Acts 19 for defense, but if that's their proof, they must also baptize in the name of Jesus only as well.

 

[paranymph]

Is there a command to re-baptize? I know ppl will run to Acts 19 for defense, but if that's their proof, they must also baptize in the name of Jesus only as well.

"Go and make disciples, baptizing them. . ." Baptism is for disciples alone.

 

[JvMill]

Personally I see rebaptism to be a misunderstanding in which the weight of the sacrament is inappropriately placed on my perception of my life rather than God’s mercy/work and the reality to which the sacrament points - namely Christ’s death and resurrection. (Edit: and the righteousness therein received by faith)

Such a misunderstanding, to me, leads to a lack of assurance and opens the door for further baptisms - as my assurance and self-perception of my holiness ebbs and flows.

For this individual, I would recommend a significant amount of time to consider this. I am thankful he has experienced a spiritual awakening, but not all spiritual awakenings amount to conversion, even if they are the first such awakening one can recall in their life.

-someone who was baptized twice and has regrets it.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

"Go and make disciples, baptizing them. . ." Baptism is for disciples alone.

That’s not what I asked. Is there a command to re-baptize anyone? Do we have evidence of anyone, besides Acts 19, that anyone was re-baptized?
[automerge]1745281319[/automerge]

"Go and make disciples, baptizing them. . ." Baptism is for disciples alone.

Also, note this is done as they go into the nations, those who were not believers to begin with. So, obviously they are baptized. As Doug Wilson once said (I know he is vilified around here, but he does make some occasional good points), Presbyterian and Baptist missions in the first generation would be identical, as they are witnessing to ppl who never heard the word, who never were baptized. So, every convert is baptized.

 

[paranymph]

That’s not what I asked. Is there a command to re-baptize anyone? Do we have evidence of anyone, besides Acts 19, that anyone was re-baptized?
[automerge]1745281319[/automerge]

Also, note this is done as they go into the nations, those who were not believers to begin with. So, obviously they are baptized. As Doug Wilson once said (I know he is vilified around here, but he does make some occasional good points), Presbyterian and Baptist missions in the first generation would be identical, as they are witnessing to ppl who never heard the word, who never were baptized. So, every convert is baptized.

Brother, are you a Baptist or paedobaptist?

The command to "re-baptize" is not explicit in Scripture, of course. No, we do not have evidence that anyone was re-baptized. I would never consider using Acts 19 as such a proof-text. (I think your question was rhetorical anyway). It is "necessarily contained" in, I would argue, or good and necessary consequence of, the command to baptize disciples.

 

[No Other Name]

I must say again that I do not believe in "re-baptism" at all. Either there was a false "baptism" in the past that needs addressed as to why there was never a true baptism in the first place (for whatever reason: be it infant, name-of-Jesus-only etc) but I see no evidence that the "credible profession" needs to preclude the possibility of subsequent backsliding. What evidence would that be?

Where does the line sit between sin unto "re-baptizing" vs. sin not unto "re-baptizing"?

Or (re: this particular case), why would we not find evidence of God's grace being an effectual means of ultimately keeping this precious soul on his path and one of his gracious means that brings him here and now for what he feels is the first time ever being evidence of his genuine baptism at a tender young age?

Certainly the receiver of baptism need not have more than the faith of a child, yes? Certainly it is permissible that the receiver need not be consuming spiritual meat yet still only milk, yes?

I am genuinely asking here. I am only an elder candidate and not an elder myself, but if this guy needs "re-baptizing" then do I? Do a couple of other people I know?

 

[paranymph]

I must say again that I do not believe in "re-baptism" at all. Either there was a false "baptism" in the past that needs addressed as to why there was never a true baptism in the first place (for whatever reason: be it infant, name-of-Jesus-only etc) but I see no evidence that the "credible profession" needs to preclude the possibility of subsequent backsliding. What evidence would that be? Where does the line sit between sin unto "re-baptizing" vs. sin not unto "re-baptizing"? Or why would we not find evidence of God's grace being an effectual means of ultimately keeping this precious soul on his path and one of his gracious means bringing him here and now being his genuine baptism at a tender young age?

Certainly the receiver of baptism need not have more than the faith of a child, yes? Certainly it is permissible that the receiver need not be consuming spiritual meat yet still only milk, yes?

I am genuinely asking here. I am only an elder candidate and not an elder myself, but if this guy needs "re-baptizing" then do I? Do a couple of other people I know?

I think we are going in circles here. I understand some of you don't like "re-baptizing." That's fine, but it's not like my position is uncommon. I cannot address your personal situation, which is between you and your elders. I would need to know a lot more about you.

You mentioned "credible profession." What we are really disagreeing about is what makes a "credible profession." Again, I would not baptize a person who is on the fence as to whether profession was legitimate. I'm talking about someone who is convinced they did not have a credible profession. In other words, the profession was not credible at all, yet a baptism took place anyway.

Consider also whether there is a place for taking into account false conversions. Yes, many times someone may credibly profess and be regenerate and then "backslide," with his previous baptism being a promise unto the party baptized. However, are there not other times where someone makes a profession and is baptized, but is a false convert? If the individual knows the conversion was false, then what gives that baptism any effectiveness? Again, the command is to be baptized as a disciple, not as an infant and not as a false convert. I find this to be a much, much more common scenario than the "backslider" who was baptized years ago.

I know I'm not exactly answering your questions as to where is the line with "re-"baptism vs. not. That is because these are pastoral situations, dealing with individuals, not merely working through a flow chart.

 

[No Other Name]

I think we are going in circles here. I understand some of you don't like "re-baptizing." That's fine, but it's not like my position is uncommon. I cannot address your personal situation, which is between you and your elders. I would need to know a lot more about you.

You mentioned "credible profession." What we are really disagreeing about is what makes a "credible profession." Again, I would not baptize a person who is on the fence as to whether profession was legitimate. I'm talking about someone who is convinced they did not have a credible profession. In other words, the profession was not credible at all, yet a baptism took place anyway.

Consider also whether there is a place for taking into account false conversions. Yes, many times someone may credibly profess and be regenerate and then "backslide," with his previous baptism being a promise unto the party baptized. However, are there not other times where someone makes a profession and is baptized, but is a false convert? If the individual knows the conversion was false, then what gives that baptism any effectiveness? Again, the command is to be baptized as a disciple, not as an infant and not as a false convert. I find this to be a much, much more common scenario than the "backslider" who was baptized years ago.

I know I'm not exactly answering your questions as to the line with "re" baptism vs. not. That is because these are pastoral situations, dealing with individuals, not merely working through a flow chart.

I must disagree respectfully. We are not going in circles here.

What is the difference between a false convert and a backslider? I contend a false convert cannot be known at all outside of Scripture. We know all the disciples sinned at the arrest and trial of Jesus in losing faith, and we also know their lack of faith was a backsliding that did not end in a free-fall scenario except one.

Judas was a false convert but that doesn't really help us in ministry does it? I mean, no one else walking around the earth has Scripture testifying as to the nature of their heart the same way Judas did.

See, I think we are not going in circles because we have not touched on the issue yet dealing with real-world people in the pews here due to possible real-life scenarios which would be indecent to even bring up - never mind doing a deep dive into specifics.

 

[paranymph]

I must disagree respectfully. We are not going in circles here.

I was referring to the responses of "all re-baptism is wrong" to the OP. I think it's been made clear that some people think that and others don't. The question of false conversions is a path worth treading, though.

What is the difference between a false convert and a backslider? I contend a false convert cannot be known at all outside of Scripture. We know all the disciples sinned at the arrest and trial of Jesus in losing faith, and we also know their lack of faith was a backsliding that did not end in a free-fall scenario except one.

What do you mean here? A false convert does not exist, or we cannot determine if a false convert exists, apart from particular examples in Scripture?

Judas was a false convert but that doesn't really help us in ministry does it? I mean, no one else walking around the earth has Scripture testifying as to the nature of their heart the same way Judas did.

See, I think we are not going in circles because we have not touched on the issue yet dealing with real-world people in the pews here due to possible real-life scenarios which would be indecent to even bring up - never mind doing a deep dive into specifics.

I don't know, I can think of plenty of examples. Jimmy says, "I went to a revival when I was 8. A guy up front was yelling a lot and told me I should raise my hand. I peeked (he told us to close our eyes) and saw lots of other people raising their hands. I raised my hand and then I was led like cattle to someone to sign a card, and then I was directed to a pastor who told me next week I should get baptized. So I did it and had absolutely no idea what I was doing. Absolutely nothing about my life changed and I continued to love sin for all of my childhood, teenage years, and young adult life. I didn't really believe any of the doctrines of Christianity, I just sat through church as a kid staring at ceiling tiles. As a young adult I was a convinced agnostic. Finally, when I was 30 years old, I had a clear conversion. It was like I was dead and then was made alive. It's like I became a totally new creation. Now that I'm a Christian, I want to be baptized."

 

[No Other Name]

I was referring to the responses of "all re-baptism is wrong" to the OP. I think it's been made clear that some people think that and others don't. The question of false conversions is a path worth treading, though.

You seem to have tied re-baptism to the case of false conversion though, but I may be wrong. Can you clarify what is the difference between someone who is convinced they did not have a credible profession and a false convert? You seem to separate these cases as evidenced here:

I'm talking about someone who is convinced they did not have a credible profession. In other words, the profession was not credible at all, yet a baptism took place anyway.

Consider also whether there is a place for taking into account false conversions.

Would we not need evidence that the profession was not credible in the first place? And what is the primary marker of a credible profession: the judgment of the minister, the congregant, both?

In the case of the OP, what would the minister say about the 5th grade boy who professed faith in Christ? Is that even possible to be known here? I am sure that is not likely to be possibly knowable in most cases.

What do you mean here? A false convert does not exist, or we cannot determine if a false convert exists, apart from particular examples in Scripture?

Yes that is what I mean to say. Unless you know of a Scriptural application that can be used to determine a person is in sin but still saved (disciples at Gethsemane) vs. a person in sin due to being a false convert and is lost despite his baptism history (Judas). The only way we know Peter is saved while sinning in his three-time denial while Judas is not saved in his sinning of the betrayal is by special revelation.

We don't have a series of verses to apply like an EKG to determine "genuinely saved but currently backsliding" vs. "only appeared saved and never was".

Jimmy says, "I went to a revival when I was 8. A guy up front was yelling a lot and told me I should raise my hand. I peeked (he told us to close our eyes) and saw lots of other people raising their hands. I raised my hand and then I was led like cattle to someone to sign a card, and then I was directed to a pastor who told me next week I should get baptized. So I did it and had absolutely no idea what I was doing. Absolutely nothing about my life changed and I continued to love sin for all of my childhood, teenage years, and young adult life. I didn't really believe any of the doctrines of Christianity, I just sat through church as a kid staring at ceiling tiles. As a young adult I was a convinced agnostic. Finally, when I was 30 years old, I had a clear conversion. It was like I was dead and then was made alive. It's like I became a totally new creation. Now that I'm a Christian, I want to be baptized."

Yes I am aware of these cases. And I would pump the brakes hard here and ask a lot of follow-up questions. He feels it wasn't credible, but what he feels and reports may or may not be credible even now at this moment.

If I believe that baptism is an effectual means of salvation (BC # 96) and if I believe that faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom. 10:17) and if I believe that the Word of God preached shall not not return to Him void, but shall accomplish that which He pleases, and it shall prosper in the heart into which He sent it (Is. 55:11)

then - at the very least with all charity to your difference of opinion - the "burden of proof" lies within this poor fellow's testimony as to why this is a special case where this did not happen contra Scripture. Why is this precious soul different from the truth that it is baptism that doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21).

Is he mistaken that there is some kind of time limit? Some kind of expiration date in which this must occur so that his evidence of faith in the answer of a good conscience in "the now" is separated from his actions in the past?

Does he imagine that it is his own faith that must give the increase rather than God? (contra 1 Cor. 3:6-7: "Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.")

This is why I do not feel we are going in circles but have never dove deep into these issues surrounding this novel concept of re-baptism which I find neither a necessary consequence nor good (even if I were obliged to acknowledge "good consequence" which I do not acknowledge in any way).

Submitted with brotherly love and respect for you both as a poster here on PB and also a pastor in our Lord's church.

 

[paranymph]

You seem to have tied re-baptism to the case of false conversion though, but I may be wrong. Can you clarify what is the difference between someone who is convinced they did not have a credible profession and a false convert? You seem to separate these cases as evidenced here:

I did not intend a separation. An incredible professor is a false convert.

Would we not need evidence that the profession was not credible in the first place? And what is the primary marker of a credible profession: the judgment of the minister, the congregant, both?

Sure, as much as fallible humans can make such determinations (which, I know, is one of your hang-ups). Baptism is a church's act, under the authority of the elders. So it is the judgment of the elders in conversation with the candidate (both).

In the case of the OP, what would the minister say about the 5th grade boy who professed faith in Christ? Is that even possible to be known here? I am sure that is not likely to be possibly knowable in most cases.

Yes that is what I mean to say. Unless you know of a Scriptural application that can be used to determine a person is in sin but still saved (disciples at Gethsemane) vs. a person in sin due to being a false convert and is lost despite his baptism history (Judas). The only way we know Peter is saved while sinning in his three-time denial while Judas is not saved in his sinning of the betrayal is by special revelation.

We don't have a series of verses to apply like an EKG to determine "genuinely saved but currently backsliding" vs. "only appeared saved and never was".

Yes I am aware of these cases. And I would pump the brakes hard here and ask a lot of follow-up questions. He feels it wasn't credible, but what he feels and reports may or may not be credible even now at this moment.

If I believe that baptism is an effectual means of salvation (BC # 96) and if I believe that faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom. 10:17) and if I believe that the Word of God preached shall not not return to Him void, but shall accomplish that which He pleases, and it shall prosper in the heart into which He sent it (Is. 55:11)

then - at the very least with all charity to your difference of opinion - the "burden of proof" lies within this poor fellow's testimony as to why this is a special case where this did not happen contra Scripture. Why is this precious soul different from the truth that it is baptism that doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21).

Is he mistaken that there is some kind of time limit? Some kind of expiration date in which this must occur so that his evidence of faith in the answer of a good conscience in "the now" is separated from his actions in the past?

Does he imagine that it is his own faith that must give the increase rather than God? (contra 1 Cor. 3:6-7: "Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.")

This is why I do not feel we are going in circles but have never dove deep into these issues surrounding this novel concept of re-baptism which I find neither a necessary consequence nor good (even if I were obliged to acknowledge "good consequence" which I do not acknowledge in any way).

Submitted with brotherly love and respect for you both as a poster here on PB and also a pastor in our Lord's church.

This is a good path (although I don't have a lot of time). We agree on baptism as an effectual means. Here is BapCat 96:
"Baptism and the Lord's supper become effectual means of salvation, not for any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ (1 Pet. 3:21; Mt. 3:11; 1 Cor. 3:6, 7), and the working of the Spirit in those that by faith receive them (1 Cor. 12:3; Mt. 28:19)."

The answer of #96 presupposes a genuine faith. "The working of the Spirit in those that by faith receive them." The texts cited make this clear. The Spirit worked in the person to give faith to profess Christ as Lord (cf. Rom 10:9–10). They also cite the command to baptize disciples, as I have done previously. Thus, #96 is speaking of genuine believers. Unto them baptism is a means of effectual salvation. So, no, baptism does not have efficacy apart from personal faith. (The paedobaptist views it differently). Therefore, we are back at square one. Was there faith at the baptism?

I agree with you that the burden of proof is to show an incredible profession. Yes, it is often the case that someone was baptized as a child and had a "child-like faith." They often will question whether their baptism is legitimate, and the elders should affirm that child-like faith and the effectual means of baptism. In fact, I have personal examples of the harm that comes from inappropriately doubting such child-like faith in the question of "re-baptism." Unfortunately I cannot give details.

 

[Logan]

Personally I see rebaptism to be a misunderstanding in which the weight of the sacrament is inappropriately placed on my perception of my life rather than God’s mercy/work and the reality to which the sacrament points - namely Christ’s death and resurrection. (Edit: and the righteousness therein received by faith)

As someone growing up Baptist in John MacArthur circles, this resonates with me. I was baptized upon confession of faith at age of 6. Over the years I struggled with knowing whether it was a credible confession of faith. Did I truly understand the gospel? Was it really a valid baptism and did I need to be baptized again (or for the first time, depending upon your view)? I had a written statement to look at and it seemed good, but did my past self truly believe it or just parrot what it had heard? This was a genuine source of anxiety for me, especially because there was never any way to know for certain.

Looking back upon that (and with a different view of baptism) I see that my focus was inward, upon myself and my own subjective perception of my past self, rather than outward and forward, to the work of Christ in me. It robbed the sacrament of all comfort and meaning, really.

 

[No Other Name]

Your post does not really engage with my point, particularly the hypothetical case of Jimmy.

and the working of the Spirit in those that by faith receive them (1 Cor. 12:3; Mt. 28:19)."

Agreed, but Jimmy's concern seems to be that "the working of the Spirit" requires the Word of God be attended with full conditions of a Biblical service. As if the preacher in the past proclaiming the gospel needs to be in full comportment with the RPW. So that if the gospel is framed as "making a decision", raising a hand or signing a card does not remove the efficacy of the gospel of the Word of God and the working of the Spirit. (I think you affirm this but hypothetical Jimmy seems to be confused as he specifies these details as if these are exhibits of evidence to deny an initial credible profession and lead you where he wants to go: re-baptism. Would you then affirm Jimmy's concern or would you guide him in how God works and increases in our lives as we profess faith and received baptism?).

So, no, baptism does not have efficacy apart from personal faith. (The paedobaptist views it differently). Therefore, we are back at square one. Was there faith at the baptism?

Of course baptism does not have efficacy outside of saving faith as a work of the Spirit. We are not "back at square one" here because that was never detached from my comments.

Was there faith at the baptism? It is a question answered by the preaching of the gospel in the Word and a profession of faith, not by his memory of what he felt or did not feel at that time in the past.

I agree with you that the burden of proof is to show an incredible profession.

I am happy to hear that, but it seems like all it takes for there to be proof of an incredible profession is the subjective negative feelings of the soul in question. Usually a lack of credibility is shown by outward sin that is demonstrable (like someone coming in asking for baptism and professing faith in Christ while holding the hand of his "husband").

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Brother, are you a Baptist or paedobaptist?

The command to "re-baptize" is not explicit in Scripture, of course. No, we do not have evidence that anyone was re-baptized. I would never consider using Acts 19 as such a proof-text. (I think your question was rhetorical anyway). It is "necessarily contained" in, I would argue, or good and necessary consequence of, the command to baptize disciples.

If I am paedobaptist or credobaptist, either would make me a baptist of some sort, no? I am a paedobaptist of course. I cannot find any instance where anyone was re-baptized (other than Acts 19), so I would not advocate it. However, if someone really wanted to be re-baptized, even if they want to after I explained to them it is not necessary, then I would go ahead with it, for their conscience's sake. But I would never make it necessary to be re-baptized.