UPDATE: Lindsey Williams has added his take on the question.
NOTE: There are several IM posts on Rebaptism in an SBC context. Use the search function and they are on the first page.
The Evangelical Untouchables are seven diverse evangelicals who will give us a window into what’s happening in evangelicalism today.
Who are the Evangelical Untouchables?
Michael Patton is the director of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, blogs at Parchment and Pen and is one of the teachers on The Theology Program.
Tony Kummer is on staff at a Southern Baptist Church in the midwest and blogs at SBC Voices.
Ryan Couch is a Calvary Chapel pastor in Oregon, and blogs at Small Town Preacher.
Kirk Cowell pastors a Church of Christ in North Carolina. He blogs at A Soul In Training.
Lindsey Williams is planting a PCA Church in North Carolina, and blogs at From Acorns to Oaks.
Matt Edwards is a small groups pastor in a Non-denominational/Bible church in Washington, and blogs at Awaiting Redemption.
Darrell Young pastors a Christian and Missionary Alliance Church near Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
This episode’s question: “Evangelicals love to convert and baptize other people’s church members.
Recently, I received word that one of the elders of a church where I served as supply pastor for many years had been baptized and proclaimed himself a new Christian. This was a man I discipled, prayed with, ministered with and was constantly encouraged by in my own ministry. While I’m not God, all my understanding of the evidence of true faith says he was a Christian. Now he’s been told by his new church that all those years- including years serving as an elder- were spent as an unconverted person.
Sometimes this happens with a stress on questioning assurance. Sometimes it comes because of the claims of the church involved.
How do you process, in your own understanding of conversion, grace and baptism, the “conversion” of your own church members into “new converts” at other churches? Would you tell a person who considered themselves a Christian that they weren’t, and needed to be rebaptized?”
Michael Patton (Independent/Bible Church): How do you process, in your own understanding of conversion, grace and baptism, the “conversion” of your own church members into “new converts” at other churches? Would you tell a person who considered themselves a Christian that they weren’t, and needed to be rebaptized?
Let me start by saying that I do believe that there are a lot of unconverted people in the pews of Evangelical churches everywhere. I never assume that just because someone is a member of this or that church that they have ever truly and personally trusted in Christ. I think one of our biggest problems in pop-Evangelicalism today, ironically, is the discharge of the Gospel. I am not one to continually call people’s assurance into question, but we must realize that there is a faith that does not save, and there are a lot of people in possession of such faith. Making our calling sure is very important.
Having said that, baptism would not be the issue. Baptism is a sign of your conversion, not the conversion itself. Therefore, rarely, would baptism come up unless we were to discover that this person was never truly a believer to begin with. If, upon discovery that this person had never trusted in Christ, the issue would be their trust in Christ. After this, I would discuss baptism. At this point I would think it a good idea for that person to be rebaptized, but we would not push this too much. I think I speak in line with my tradition, but my tradition on these issues is very broad.
Kirk Cowell (Church of Christ): Churches of Christ have historically held a very high view of baptism. A proper conversion in our fellowship involves an adult (loosely defined) who is baptized by immersion as an act of faith and repentance, following a public confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. It is generally believed that a person is saved at the moment that he or she rises out of the baptismal waters. We don’t say sinner’s prayers or ask Jesus to come into our hearts. As a consequence, there is a very clear line of demarcation between sinner and saint. Although I’ve known people to leave Churches of Christ and later come to believe that they hadn’t fully received the Holy Spirit, or that they hadn’t properly understood grace, or that they had been indoctrinated into an overly restrictive and sectarian mindset, I don’t personally know of anyone who didn’t think that their conversion experience hadn’t been efficacious for salvation. One thing we’re good at is jumping through all the hoops!
And yet: The fundamental quality of a Christian is that he or she has submitted themselves to the Lordship of Jesus. I would never tell a people who have done so that they aren’t Christians. They might be misinformed–even badly so–but if the grace of Jesus doesn’t cover a person’s failure to properly grasp the normative process of conversion, then I certainly can’t trust it to cover lust, rebellion, greed and hatred–and we’re all in trouble. It’s been a long time since I could really sympathize with the mindset of folks who think that the same Jesus who said “Forgive them, for they know not what they do” in regard to the people carrying out his execution would willingly (if regretfully) send pedobaptists off to hell, unable to forgive their doctrinal error. I’ve often asked my colleagues in ministry why it is that Abraham’s faith alone was credited to him as righteousness if we have to have faith + x (for divergent values of x, depending on your denomination) to be counted righteous? How is it good news if the work of Jesus resulted in it being harder for me to be saved than for Abraham? Wouldn’t I have been better off before the cross? But, of course, Paul’s point is that our God has, through Jesus, extended to all people the opportunity to be reckoned righteous in exactly the same way that Abraham was.
The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
If it were just me making the call (and it isn’t), folks whose conversion process differ from the template we teach would be welcomed as full, participating members of our congregation, but we would simulatenously continue to teach that our tradition is believer’s immersion and it is our belief that such practice is in harmony with the best reading of the scripture. That might be a tricky balance to maintain, but I don’t know how else to live out the fruit of the Spirit in this regard: love for all who confess Jesus, joy in our mutual service, peace in spite of our differences, patience while Jesus leads all of us more fully into his truth, kindness to people who read the Bible differently than I do, goodness (not doctrinal conformity) as our calling, and yet faithfulness to my Lord and to the scriptures as I understand them. In a lot of ways it would be easier to say clearly “you’re in” or “you’re out,” but I see more wisdom in saying “I love you in the Lord; let’s walk together and keep talking about this one.”
Tony Kummer (Southern Baptist): There’s a joke down in Louisville that the largest Baptist church in the city is actually Southeast Christian Church. Maybe that’s just seminary humor, but something about it rings true. Our little town is similar. All the churches take turns loosing membership to whichever church has momentum (newest buildings, dynamic preacher, cool music).
I don’t call that conversion, just church-shopping. The current hot church is a Christian church that blends Campbellite doctrine with attractional church growth techniques. It’s a bit eclectic, but they still like to baptize former Southern Baptists. We believe this is an invalid use of the ordinance. Baptism should be a one-time symbolic act of public confession to faith in Christ. It’s a testimony to conversion, and it does not contribute to justification.
We discourage re-baptizing, mainly because it confuses the symbolism of the resurrection, which is a one-time deal. We make exception for people not literally “dunked†since we insist (with pompous Greek exegesis) that Baptism = dunked. I would counsel people to find assurance in personally knowing Jesus, not in the ordinance of Baptism.
Lindsey Williams (Presbyterian Church in America):First of all, I would say that as a pastor I can never guarantee someone’s conversion. I know plenty of people who have shown all the evidences of faith, and yet years later seem to have turned away from that faith which they professed (1 John 2:19). As pastors we are called to investigate and see if people give a credible profession of faith and show the fruits of such a faith before we admit them as communing members in a church. We are then called to treat those people as “believers” and encourage them in their faith and in the assurance of that faith. But it is entirely possible that an elder in my own church could end up not being a believer down the road. 1 Corinthians 3:6-9 helps to keep me from being too consumed with whether or not previous people in my church were believers or not should they be “new converts” in a church that preaches the true gospel. Regardless, the credit goes to God and it doesn’t diminish God using me whether as a planter or as one who waters (either way, I can be confident God used me!). Obviously, the key issue is whether or not this new church is actually preaching the gospel and not some heresy. There are Christian traditions that confuse assurance of salvation with salvation itself, so it is possible that there is merely a poor teaching as it relates to these respective terms, and that is the cause for their “new conversion”
I would most certainly tell someone they aren’t a Christian if they don’t assent to the truths of the gospel. However, it gets trickier when it comes to addressing their Christian experience. There must be some evidence of “good works” in their life, but it is difficult to get a clear picture depending on how long you have known this person (and allowing for the reality of temporary backsliding). I would actually never rebaptize someone if they had already been baptized by an ordained minister in the name of the Trinity with water. In my denomination there is some debate as to the question of someone baptized in a Catholic church. The basic denominational position (which I tend to agree with) is that as long as the baptism meets the criteria above, then it is a legitimate baptism (Ephesians 4:5). The basic reformed position is that baptism is not ultimately about what we have to say to God, but what God has to say about us. It is God’s sacrament to us, not our sacrament given to God. We baptize those who profess faith, but we also baptize the children of those who profess faith precisely because God has declared that he has a special interest in the children of those in the covenant community (1 Cor. 7:14; Genesis 17; Acts 2:38,39; Colossians 2:11-12). This may be a whole other discussion topic on the question of infant baptism, but we’ll just assume I’m right on this and move on. A person’s actual conversion is not necessary for baptism, only the profession of faith on in the case of an infant (the profession of their parent’s faith). This is a good thing, because the whole point is that we can never be totally sure of someone’s conversion. Only God can. Furthermore, infant baptism has the exact same meaning as an adult baptism. Baptism does signify the signs of conversion like the remission of sins, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the only difference is that with a child we look to that from a different perspective in time. We hope that he will one day embrace all that baptism signifies. With an adult, he simply is baptized as one who has already embraced its significance. The difference between the two is only a matter of chronology (not unlike Abraham’s faith in the coming Christ as compared to our faith in the Christ who has already come). I’m writing this now at 2am, so pardon me if I have not sufficiently addressed this topic from my theological position.
Darrell Young (Christian and Missionary Alliance): I will leave it to some of the other Untouchables to articulate the theological nuances of this. I’ll just relate how some of this has worked out for me. The Internet Monk’s frustration over his friend is understandable. I had seen a man and his family through conversion, baptism, growth, membership, the whole deal, only to have him leave over an awkward conflict. He began reporting real spiritual progress in his next church. Then, during that same season, other fringe people left us for that same church and promptly became drawn right into it. While I didn’t like any of this, and doubted myself, it did give me a greater sensitivity when the opposite happened.
As for the person who thinks they are saved, I certainly would not base my opinion on which church they were from. I would simply get to know them, and should be able to get a good sense of their understanding and acceptance of the Gospel. From a church leadership standpoint this becomes important to discern if they want to get baptized and become a member. We hope to take only the truly converted through this. Our denomination requires “believer’s baptism” for membership. This can be frustrating for those baptized as infants, but its who we are and what we believe. We don’t twist arms for people to get rebaptized, but will do it if they want. At the same time, we don’t think this says anything about when they became converted. We would not take someone in from another denomination and insist they were not saved, must now convert and be rebaptized. In our tradition you can attend and even be involved in certain ways, and even for years, without becoming a member. We would simply start to walk along together and let the Lord work it all out.
Matt Edwards (Independent/Bible Church): he number one question we get about our church is “You guys aren’t some kind of cult, are you?†There is no offering plate passed, no baptismal, no membership, and no senior pastor. It’s weird for a lot of people, but it’s who we are. We are “Low Church Gone Wild.†So, there is no doubt in my mind that former attendees are asked to get doubled dipped when they join other churches. It’s sad, but I’m not losing any sleep over it. I grew up in the Baptist church. We double dipped people with extreme prejudice. If you wanted to be a part of our church, your baptism needed to be “on the right side of your salvation.†My dad is a Baptist and my mom is a Roman Catholic. If my mom was ever to join my dad’s church, she’d have to get double dipped (and that’s not going to happen).
I taught Sunday school to young married couples at an SBC church years ago. This great young couple joined our class—the wife was from an SBC background and the husband was from a Methodist background. The husband had a kind of religious awakening when he got married and had kids. When they joined our church, he was asked to get re-baptized. He initially responded, “I was baptized as a baby. Why do I need to get baptized again?â€
Fair question.
He eventually consented to the baptism, not because he felt he needed it, but because the church required it. Our class all joined him at the baptismal, and as he was drying off I heard his wife ask him, “Did it take this time?†He laughed and said, “I hope so.†The whole experience turned me off to the practice of re-baptism. My friend obviously didn’t feel the need to be re-baptized, but he did it because it was best for his family. It wasn’t an act of faith; it was ecclesiastic hoop-jumping.
How do I respond to other churches converting and/or re-baptizing former attendees of my church? I don’t let it get to me. It says more about that church than it does the legitimacy of that person’s faith or baptism. I have zero expectations of most churches. Churches are controlling and sometimes abusive. But, I would also admit that perhaps the person did find something in this church that they didn’t find in my church. Different strokes for different folks. Maybe God is doing something new in their life. Does my understanding of conversion lead me to convert people of other denominations? Yes and no. There are people who have been sitting in the pews of my church for 30 years who need to be converted. Obviously we are not reaching them. If the Presbyterian church down the street can convert them, praise God. If we can reach their members better than them, praise God. Like I said, different strokes for different folks. But do we feel the need to convert and re-baptize members of other denominations? Not if that church affirms the Nicene Creed. In my mind, if someone believes in the Trinity and the death and resurrection of Jesus, and if they have “faith,†then they don’t need to be converted. I allow for re-baptism if someone thinks that their first baptism was not an act of faith, but I would not try to persuade someone to get double dipped.
Ryan Couch (Calvary Chapel): Like most church planters, I’ve never set out to “steal†people from other churches. But like all church plants we’ve had many people come to us from other churches over the last 7 years. That being said I have never told any Christian that they need to be re-baptized into our church or our brand of Christianity. However if someone who believed themselves to be a Christian because they were raised in the church or went forward during an altar call yet later realized that they were never truly converted; I would not hesitate to ratify that revelation by praying with them for salvation, baptizing (or re-baptizing) them in obedience to Scripture, and discipling them so that they can truly bear fruits worthy of repentance.
In my opinion it is the height of arrogance to assume that people are not truly converted unless they make that decision in your church. It reeks of sectarianism and it is exactly what is wrong with the Church. There is only one baptism into one Church (1 Cor. 12:13). Granted there are many wacko “churches†and religious groups that sadly attach Jesus’ name to their idiocy. When “converts†arrive to our church from those cults and pseudo-churches we do not hesitate to let them know that they were fed a false gospel and are in need of true conversion, baptism into Jesus’ Church, and discipleship to strip away all the heresy and root them in the essentials of Christianity.
This arrogant sectarianism stems from a general misconception regarding salvation in evangelical circles. Responding to an altar call, raising your hand (while everyone’s eyes are closed and head is bowed) apparently to join some secret club does not equal conversion. Conversion happens when election and faith working in tandem revolutionize a life which is then substantiated by works that were already prepared by God and now made possible to walk in (Ephesians 2:8-10). True conversion is not a onetime response, it is a life of faith (Romans 1:17) that perpetually abides in Christ and rests in the finished work of the cross. A church with poor soteriology that wrongly believes that a person must get re-saved every time they sin will make these unbiblical demands of their people so that they can inflate their numbers to impress headquarters.
…We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins…
The ones that insist on re-baptizing are making it into a work.
Amen BillyHW!
The ones doing “re-baptism” are unsure as to whether there was ever a first baptism, properly so-called. Even the Catholics have “conditional baptism” (for those who think they might have already been baptised, but aren’t sure, and can’t readily find out).
Orthodox are very interesting about this. The Ecumenical Patriarch says that a baptism is valid regardless of who did it, as long as it was done in the name of the Trinity (or by a church that believes in the Trinity). But other Orthodox churches insist that only Orthodox baptism is valid. A further controversy is over whether (and when) an ordinary person can perform a baptism. The Catholics for their part accept laymen performing it, and also accept other denominations provided they “intend to do what the Church actually does.”
Matt Edwards is correct when he said if “It wasn’t an act of faith; it was ecclesiastic hoop-jumping.”
Thankfully Jesus’ true universal church doesn’t set up the road blocks that so many evangelical so-called credo-baptist churches do. Too many write off baptism done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as wrong because it wasn’t done in their “style”. Many of us baptized in the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, Anglican etc churches value our baptism and cannot denigrate our baptism by being “re-done”.
Thanks iMonk and Untouchables for this discussion.
I was baptized as an infant in the LCA (the old Lutheran Church in America, now part of ELCA). When I was about 14 I was “confirmed”, that is to say, I affirmed my baptism, which involved study of Luther’s Catechism and making a public profession of faith. I fell away from the church and several years later (after a spiritual kick in the pants), sought to return. Of course, the ELCA by that time was unrecognizable to me, so we tried the United Methodists (where my wife was raised) and found them drifting away as well.
I considered both SBC and Church of Christ but ran into one key problem with rebaptism — how do I reject a baptism the Spirit led me to affirm many years ago?
Great questions and thought-provoking answers! I don’t believe folks should have to get re-baptized as adults if they seem to have had a valid conversion experience _at an age where they could understand what they were doing_, and were subsequently baptized… I was baptized as an infant & brought up in a strong Roman Catholic family. At 8th grade graduation, I received the prize for “Excellence in Christian Doctrine.” (This was because I had memorized most of the catechism questions, got high marks on religion tests, and I suspect, because the nuns did not ever catch me holding hands with boys like some of the other girls…{sigh!}
I “knew right from wrong”, but never really knew Jesus Christ “personally”, I had just memorized a bunch of facts about Him, His Father, and the Holy Spirit. In college, I met a group of real Christian believers who invited me to InterVarsity meetings. (Confession: I went because I had a crush on one of the guys, not because I was seeking God. But God is humble enough to use whatever bait He knows will get your attention, in order to get the message of salvation to you at the right time…) Shortly thereafter we all went on a retreat, and it was then that I actually had what I consider my conversion experience, meeting the living Christ, repenting of my sins, and accepting/professing Jesus’ claims as Lord and Savior. Some other girls were baptized in the lake the first evening of the retreat, after the leaders taught the gospel message. I knew the girls were Catholics, and was troubled because I kept remembering what I had memorized in catechism: “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”… but I was simultaneously very happy for those girls… I sat on the back steps and pondered this troubled/happy confusion, and then seemed to sense the Lord clearly in my spirit saying, “You are struggling with this re-baptism thing because you don’t want to admit you need it yourself.” No one else argued with me or convinced me; I believe it was the Lord speaking to me inside. The next day, I was baptized in the lake, too, and I know that something profound happened to me as I emerged from the water, that had not happened when I was baptized as an infant. I had agreed to be re-baptized because it seemed that the whole point of real baptism was an understanding of the claims of Jesus and personal identification with His death & resurrection, something which babies cannot do, and no one else can do for them…~Shalom.
Clarification on Catholics accepting lay baptism. Lay baptism is intended to be used only in emergency circumstances (i.e. the baby is deathly ill or believed near death, and ordained Clergy is not immediately available.). The person doing the baptism doesn’t even have to personally believe in God, let alone Jesus, or be Catholic. That person only has to baptise using the trinitarian form and intend to do what the Church intends in baptism. When, after the baptism, Clergy is available, there is a “Rite of Completion” so to speak of the baptism, that includes the minor exorcism, annointing with the oil of catechumens and chrism, etc. Also, they document it at that point. You know how big we Catholics are on documenting.
Question for Tony Kummer. You wrote, “We discourage re-baptizing.” I’m not sure who you mean by “we” — all Southern Baptists or just your individual church. It’s my understanding that the International Mission Board (IMB) of the Southern Baptists requires that a person be baptized as a Southern Baptist (other baptisms by immersion don’t count) before they can be a missionary within the Southern Baptist church. True, or am I misinformed? I’m in the midst of sorting out my own beliefs about baptism, and this issue came up.
I just reasd the CT interview with Rick Warren which mentions 800 Saddleback baptisms in one day, and Rick’s assurance that Saddleback is the standard for evangelism in the world – or was it just the U.S.? I honestly do not know whether to laugh, cry, or repent. When you can run an ad offering salvation, full catechism (such as it is in the Saddleback way), church membership, including water baptism by immersion with a picture with Rick and get 800 people to bite, I wonder how many of those were being rebaptized. Warren says, “It had to be a record. You know, it says in Acts that at the day of Pentecost, 3,000 were baptized and added to the church that day. We had 2,400 added to the church that day. The world belongs to Saddleback.” Yes, it does Rick – even if you came up 600 shy of Peter. My, my! What would Paul think. My question to you, Imonk, after having read your previous posts on rebaptism (archives), what happens if one or two of these 800 newly baptized Christians happen into the fellowship where I pastor and ask for membership? Do we rebaptize? If the world belongs to Saddleback, why ask Peter or Paul, or Jesus for that matter? Probably this is a silly question. Why would they come our way after having been at Saddleback? I think Warren must be the expert in all of this. Shall we ask him? This is not meant lightly or sarcasticlly, but as a real concern out of a heavy heart. Until reading CT’s interview with Warren I have never felt myself in the Post-Evangelical wilderness. But suddenly…move over. Is there room?
I would never rebaptize unless the elders instructed me to do so, and even then I’m not sure I could do it.
It’s a big deal to me. Very big. Christ is at work in what Baptism proclaims. We don’t summon him for a redo.
It’s as unacceptable as refusing a Christian at the Lord’s Table. No excuse.
ms
I see a problem in almost every response in that those who practice “believer’s baptism” see it as a sign of the person’s faith, decision, joining the church, or whatever. Now that I have moved out of evangelicalism with its emphasis on decisionalism to a Lutheran understanding, I see baptism as the sign of God’s work for us.
If that is what it is, there is truly no reason to re-baptize anyone who was baptized as an infant because anyone coming to a new spiritual awakening later in life is still doing so on the basis of Christ’s finished work, not his own decision.
Chaplain Mike:
Since I know you’re my #1 reader, I know you are aware that some of us in the credo camp have what I hope is richer, more comprehensive expression of what credobaptism represents than some of what’s here. Obviously, we don’t accept the purely Lutheran view, but neither are we all compelled to choose between an individual pledge-moment, a corporate witness and an action of the Holy Spirit.
Peace
ms
Kirk,
“How is it good news if the work of Jesus resulted in it being harder for me to be saved than for Abraham?”
That’s golden, and I’m going to hold onto that one.
All this “not really converted” talk puts a great deal of emphasis on a particular moment or crisis. Maybe I have an experience later in life that draws me into a closer relationship with God? Does that mean I was unconverted before? I might begin to think so if my church pushed that sort of ideology on me. I remember hearing a sermon illustration at a Reformed Baptist church about a long-serving Deacon’s wife who was “never really converted.” Another popular Reformed Baptist evangelist likes to talk about how his wife, who grew up as a Christian was “never really converted.” I’ve later learned that such stories are a common motif in certain circles, but at the time, it made me break down into morbidly introspective, naval gazing despair.
I must say that the Rod Rosebladt sermon you link to is a good balm for those who have undergone this sort of sheep torturing. The very heart of this issue is why I am now probably more on the Gangsta’s’ team.
I think C.S. Lewis said it best:
“It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense….When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.”
Kudos, Chaplain Mike. Kudos!
Kudos to you too, IMonk. I love your blog more all the time.
Eleven Reasons for not rebaptizing those who have already been baptized as believers.
1. Baptism is for profession of faith. Those previously baptized have already professed faith.
2. Baptism is an initiatory rite. Those previouly baptized have already been baptized into Christ as a believer, and have already been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A case a second baptism can’t mark the beginning of Christian discipleship for someone who has been a disciple for many years already.
3. To rebaptize someone who has already had a profession of faith and baptized into Christ, is to change it to mean something far different from what scripture intended it to be.
4. In scripture, those who were already active in the church were not rebaptized, even if they had only experienced John’s baptism, and had not been baptized into Christ.
5. Baptists believe in open communion. That is, all who are believers in Christ are welcome at the communion table. If a prior baptism is sufficient for participation at the table, why not membership in the church.
6. Regarding mode of baptism – Baptists believe that changing the symbols of communion does not change its meaning. All evidence both biblically and from the early church shows that the cup was either wine, or later on, wine mixed with water. Most Baptists today use grape juice. Does grape juice significantly change what communion is all about? Does moving from a common cup to individual cups make a difference? Does using bread baked with yeast, rather than unleavened bread, as our church does, in anyway change the significance of what we are remembering. If we answer “no†to these questions, then how can we say that sprinkling or pouring of water can significantly invalidate the baptism of the believer?
8. There can be good reasons for exceptions when it comes to the mode of baptism. Sickness being one.
9. The mode of baptism is less important than the purpose of baptism. The Apostle Peter writes that “this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ†What is important in Peter’s mind in not the actual washing, but the heart attitude of the believer.
10. Baptists strongly believe in freedom of conscience. Baptist theologian Beasley-Murray asks: ”
[I]n respect for the conscience of our fellow-Christians and the like charity, which we trust will be exercised towards us, could we not refrain from requesting the baptism of those baptized in infancy who wish to join our churches and administer baptism to such only where there is a strong plea for it from the applicant?”
11. Requiring a re-baptism before allowing someone to minister within a church may significantly restrict their use of the spiritual gifts that they have been given by the Holy Spirit.
Just my two cents.
I had G.R. Beasley-Murray as a teacher in seminary. Took him for Advanced NT and Baptism.
I tell people i have been covered, smothered and buttered. Baptized as an infant in the Methodist church, confirmed as a Presbyterian, and dunked as a baptist. Everyone should be so lucky. Well maybe I am just confused.
There’s a difference here between the issue of re-baptizing other Christians who were baptized as infants (whether or not they are deemed to have been “really” converted at some point), and re-baptizing other “believer’s Baptism” Christians from other churches that join your church. I take it that most here have no problem with scenario #1, but do take issue with #2.
The Baptist-turned-Lutheran in me, while annoyed at claims that Baptism (considered to be God’s gift, “for the forgiveness of sins” and not merely “for the profession of faith”) is for the intellectually competent and sufficiently “sincere” only, rather than for being joined to Christ through faith… is equally annoyed if credobaptist churches are accepting members into their midst *without* rebaptizing, contrary to their own historic practice, just for the sake of getting more people in the pews. Not all have this reason, but many do and appeal to pure subjectivity: “If they think their Baptism was beneficial to them, though I think it wasn’t, who am I to take that away from them?” Forget the relativism: teach one thing or the other, please. I respect those who insist on re-Baptism more than I respect the relativists.
I was baptized in a Methodist church about 3 1/2 years ago. I was in my early 40s.
It was sad in a way that most everyone around me had been baptized as an infant and never had any kind of ‘born again’ experience.
It’s against UMC doctrine, and scripture as I read it, but I bet a large number of them would redo their baptisms just to experience it as adults.
My brother-in-law was rebaptized as an adult in his fundamentalist church after being baptized as an infant in the Methodist church, and it caused a great deal of hurt feelings between he and his mother.
It’s strange how a sacrament, or symbol if you will, can be so divisive.
Good stuff guys…provocative topic. I am really enjoying writing for this series.
“It was sad in a way that most everyone around me had been baptized as an infant and never had any kind of ‘born again’ experience.”
Of course, those baptized as infants absolutely do hold that they’ve had what you call a “born again experience” in their own baptisms. Not all Christians hold that memories and feelings are what validates Baptism.
iMonk, thanks for your good words. I practiced believer’s baptism for 30 years and totally agree with you that there are much richer understandings of it than some of those represented here.
I shouldn’t have been, but I guess I was surprised at the diversity of views expressed by your guests, and in some cases their near dismissal of baptism’s importance or reinterpretation of its meaning. Is baptism a Biblical but ultimately unnecessary practice? A necessary part of the salvation act itself so that without it no one can be saved? Not really necessary unless performed via the wrong mode? Necessary only for membership and full involvement in the church? Etc?
My head spins.
Once again, although all the answers are thoughtful and good, I think Ryan gets it most precisely. I would probably still be at a Calvary Chapel if he had been my pastor.
Glenda,
The “we” means the pastors at my own local church. The SBC mission board had a big stink about some policy that I didn’t even understand.
I should note, while in Seminary I had a class where we learned how to do baptism. We went to a local church and took turns dunking one another to get the hang of it. So, I was baptized something like 8 times then.
Can anyone say HARD CORE SOUTHERN BAPTIST?
The real point, that was not “baptist” but just taking a bath in a robe. The same with re-baptism.
I miss the liturgical gangstas.
If I said anything I would only echo Dave138 and Michael Bell.
It’s that “weren’t genuinely saved before” or “weren’t genuinely baptized before” loophole that lets so much weirdness in.
Let me be clear to those of you sending me notes: I will not be sitting up the same question to both groups. I have quite different agendas for both groups. I do not want to create a debate or “teams.” We all can easily research these basic differences. Members of either group can comment on the discussion threads. thanks
ms
Thanks iMonk.
We’re all on the same “team.” Baptism debates are old and I don’t feel like converting anyone.
The question was about how we feel about others converting our church members (and vice versa), not our theology of baptism.
I prefer credo-baptism, but I think it is one form of Christian baptism, not the form.
I can see the rationale for re-baptising someone who was baptised as an infant (leaving the whole sacrament versus ordinance idea out of it for the moment), but yes – what about someone who was baptised as an adult after a conversion experience (or what he/she thought at the time was a conversion experience), then either feels the need to be re-baptised because they weren’t sufficiently converted the first time round, or have joined a different church?
Is there any limit? How many times can you be baptised? I think there has to be a point at which you say “Stop”, otherwise it becomes ridiculous. And if there are questions for the child-baptising ones of us about our practice, this kind of thing definitely raises questions about adult baptisms for those who hold with ‘believer’s baptism’ – when is belief not belief, or rather, how much belief is the right amount? is this just a denominational or church badge, rather than a means of grace? do you really think church X is that far off the radar of Christianity, they can’t even get baptism right?
Anglican Michael Green has an interesting book “I believe in Baptism”. In it he essentially argues that we need to have three events in our Christian walk. 1. An experience of trusting Christ as our Saviour. 2. An experience of water Baptism. 3. An experience of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. All three need to occur, but he believes that the order may vary.
I do get upset when my church wants to rebaptize my wife before they will accept us into membership. As there is no other church close by that is similar to our own theological beliefs, it does have the feel of excommunication. We have no church body with which we can truly belong.
Here is a question for all of you who believe in rebaptism. (Especially if the previous baptism was believers baptism.)
If I am a member of Jesus’ church. That is, I have a relationship with Jesus Christ and am confident of my eternal status. If I am already a member of his church, having been baptized into Christ, why do you insist on rebaptizing me before you will let me join your church?
Rebaptism according to all the REformation Churches is a major sin.
Comment to Kirk: I live in Austria, and the US CoC missionaries here definitely stresss the necessity of baptism for salvation, even baptism with a proper understanding. A year after my conversion but before my credobaptism I met Otis Gatewood, an elder statesman of CoC missions in Europe. He was utterly convinced and convincing in his efforts to communicate to me that if I were run over by a car as I left his office that day, I would go to hell. About six months later I was baptized in a church in the Mennonite tradition; Otis and others from the CoC would not accept that baptism as valid because it was not done “for the remission of sins” but merely as a sign of that remission and my salvation.
Comment to Tony: There are currently no SBC FMB missionaries working with Austrian Baptist Churches, but when there were, it was quite common that they would insist on re-baptism of people who came to the congregations they served from other credobaptist churches such as Pentecostals or independent Evangelicals.
Both of these comments are not to dispute or denigrate what Kirk and Tony said, but to point out that in these Evangelical traditions there is such a wide spectrum of positions on almost any topic.
Also, I don’t suppose that the real hardliners (both of the CoC or SBC variety, or for that matter any other variety) would consent to participate in such an exchange of ideas on the iMonk’s blog.
I also note that, from what I know, iMonk’s friend had possibly been initially baptized as a child or an infant; whereas what the group addresses seems to be the rebaptizing of people who had already undergone believers’s baptism. Where I live, the controversy (except for the past situations with SMB missionaries I mentioned) is the insistence of Baptists, Pentecostals, and most independent Evangelical and Charismatic churches on believer’s baptism, and thus not at all recognizing the paedobaptism most of their converts had undergone. It is a major bone of contention between these groups and even Evangelical Lutherans and Reformed groups, not to mention the Catholic Church (Actually “evangelical Catholics” in the renewal movements here are more understanding of the problem than the Lutherans).
A huge problem for me:
Rejecting the Church of Jesus because it’s not your congregation. You don’t evangelize your fellow Christian. You don’t say that you have the only “Really real Jesus” franchise in the county. You see THE church and you see MANY congregations. If an elder from my church comes to your church you treat him as a Christian FOR JESUS SAKE. If you evangelize him, cause him to reject his previous decades of Christian experience and start over with your church, you are making Jesus, scripture and the Holy Spirit into a liar. You’re an opportunist, not a shepherd. You’re arrogant and unloving. You are treating years of Christ’s work through others as nonexistent. I actually want to punch you in the face. In love, of course.
It’s why I don’t allow evangelism or outright rejection of other Christians on this board.
The church where I serve has become an independent/bible church type of church, being lead by Dallas Seminary grads since 1969. Before 1969, the church was German Reformed before that denomination folded into the United Churches of Christ. The church continued to baptize infants until about 20 years ago. Through a decade long process of teaching, the church gradually moved away from the practice of infant baptism.
This puts us in an interesting position as many of our congregants were baptized as infants, and most of our newer members were baptized as confessing believers. We teach “believer’s” baptism, and about every other year or so, our senior pastor will preach on the topic, at which point there are some tense feelings expressed. We do not require re-baptism, though some of our previously baptized congregants request it. We still put our teens through a somewhat traditional catechism at age 12. They can choose to be baptized at that point. For us, the issue at hand is the whether or not a person has made a public profession of Christ by choice. Mode is of lesser importance to us. We do not require re-baptism of those who come to us from other churches, though we do encourage them to consider it.
We don’t baptise anyone, but I would make a point of confirming their faith and understanding of the Gospel.
After that though, there would be no further hoops to jump through unless they wished to become a uniformed member.
Yeah I didn’t really address the issue of paedobaptism. Now that I think of it we have re-baptized several people who were baptized as infants. Not because we demanded it or made them feel unsaved but because they desired to make that public demonstration as an adult.
“It’s as unacceptable as refusing a Christian at the Lord’s Table. No excuse.”
Not to derail the topic, but this seems to be a not-so-subtle slam at Catholics.
Just as baptism is a “very big deal” to you (as it is to me), so is the Eucharist.
I would submit that Roman Catholics are taking very seriously the admonitions in I Corinthians 11:23-30 regarding the true Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, not simply refusing someone at the Lord’s Table willy-nilly.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
Grateful for Graces:
This is not the weekend to bring this up.
It’s not a slam at Catholics. It’s the truth to anyone who treats Christ’s invitation to himself and his table as an invitation to their personal table. If I notice that I’ve been excluded, then blame me.
It’s just as relevant to my LCMS friends, so don’t take it personally.
ms
Thanks Matt Edwards for giving me a new term for re-baptism: double-dipping.
To go all folksy on it, ya don’t do it with food (if you’re polite) and ya don’t do it with Christians.
Incidentally, I was re-baptized, but if you asked me about it today, I’d say that was totally unnecessary.
This may make the more traditional Presbies on the comment board want to lynch me, but, although I do not consider myself “Reformed,” I just recently downloaded the audio for the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference, and I must say that those guys have been hugely helpful to me on this issue. The audio’s still available on the website of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church. Unfortunately, it’s not free, but I’d say it’s worth the nominal fee.
Sorry Dave138. but you no longer believe the WCF on justification and several PCA presbyteries have just demanded your head on a plate.
“Of course, those baptized as infants absolutely do hold that they’ve had what you call a “born again experience†in their own baptisms. Not all Christians hold that memories and feelings are what validates Baptism.”
I’m sorry – I didn’t mean to imply that memories and feelings are what validates Baptism. I just meant that there is an emotional difference between being baptized as an infant and growing in Christ one’s entire life, and having God grab an unbeliever by the neck with adult baptism as the result.
For most of my life, as a result of childhood experiences with fundamentalism, I thought Christians were hypocrites, brainwashed fools who thought they were better than everyone else. I had absolutely no use for them and wouldn’t even allow my my daughter go to church with my in-laws. Then I was dragged into church by my wife for the sake of our child. I amused myself by finding passages from Paul about women submitting to men and passing them to my wife during the sermon.
Long story short, six months or so later, my heart opened to God and He came into my life in a very powerful way. Almost too powerful. Everything changed. I was on fire with the Holy Spirit and I was baptized a couple of weeks later. The baptism itself was actually pretty boring compared to what had preceded it.
That’s all I was trying to get at – the experience of becoming a Christian as an adult, with baptism following, in a church where infant baptism is the norm. People were like “WHAT???” because they weren’t used to seeing something like that.
But you know, the week before last we baptized the former senior pastor’s triplet babies and it was a very emotional experience too. She was the one who helped me find God, and baptized me, and now she’s leaving the ministry for an indefinite time to stay home and take care of 3 infants and a 2 year old. As the congregation welcomed her children into the family of God, and said goodbye to her, there weren’t too many dry eyes in the crowd.
I think that evangelicals need to learn from what the mainline churches teach about the necessary disposition for baptism. The RCC (and I believe, Anglicans and Orthodox too) teaches that one only needs imperfect faith and imperfect contrition (ie. faith the size of a mustard seed) for the sacrament to be completely valid (same goes for Reconciliation, too), which basically everyone except those directly opposed to the faith. So if you “sort of believe” and you “think you’re sorry for your sins”, then guess what, you never need worry again! This is a great relief to me.
(Of course, we’ve had our groups that tried to poo-poo this idea, which is where poor Dr.Luther got the idea that he couldn’t get forgiven. Also see the Jansenists and the whole “Communion only at Easter” period we went through. It’s “Domine non sum dignus” without the “sed”.)
This would save evangelicals the problem of constantly doubting the perfection of their faith, their conversion, their contrition, etc… which I think is the root cause of all this re-baptizing.
Michael Bell, you wrote: “4. In scripture, those who were already active in the church were not rebaptized, even if they had only experienced John’s baptism, and had not been baptized into Christ.”
You might want to read Acts 19:1-7
Tim
Imonk, LOL!
Hi Tim B,
These were people who “had not yet experienced the Holy Spirit”. They were obviously new to the faith and needed to be baptized into Christ. I was referring to the immediately preceeding passage from Acts 18:
It is too bad that we have the chapter divisions where we do, because I think that Luke is contrasting the two situations. Apollos, already teaching boldly about Christ in the temple is clearly a believer and is already part of the faith. As such he does not need to be initiated into it.
The disciples of John that we find in Acts 19 are clearly new to the faith. They had not even heard of the Holy Spirit. They heard, believed, and were baptized.
When I stated “active in the church”, I probably should have said “active in their faith”. I think that contrasting Acts 18 and 19 helps to support my point.
Mike
In reading all this, there is one point I don’t understand: If for credobaptists Baptism is not a sacrament (that is to say, a material means by which God works directly on the believer, infusing him/her with His grace and remitting his/her sins), but only a symbol of internal conversion, then why the unease among many credobaptists here against re-baptism?
I mean, if you have the feeling that you haven’t been sufficiently close to God before and now you have “converted”, then why not have yourself rebaptized? I don’t really get the theological rationale of this.
And also, curiously, I haven’t yet read about any theological background of this here – all the argument seems to revolve around “well, that’s not very nice”…
Joseph,
Not every one has had the kind of experience that you did. In fact, most of us haven’t.
While I can only give my testimony, I can say that I never did. Perhaps it was because I was baptized at a early age (20 days and 8 or 9 years.) Or was raised in the Baptist Church, or just my personality.
That is not saying that God hasn’t knocked me down once or twice or that I haven’t screamed at Him once or twice. But that has all been in His servce, loving him and trying to love (if not like) my fellow Christians.