Do I need to be rebaptized?

Baptistism is the first act of obedience in the Christian life.

If you do not believe you were saved at the first when you were baptised because of the false belief and misplaced trust/faith (and I would agree), then you need to be baptised in light of the fact you yourself see it as a false view of salvation and thus no real salvation at all compared with the truth you now know scripturally.

Do you believe you were saved after that? If yes, then submit to 'believers' baptism my friend.

In short, yes I would say so.

 

I was raised in one of those churches, and when about ten my mother shoved me out into the aisle when the invitation was given. I stepped back in. I knew she wanted me to be baptized but I had no idea what it was about.

Finally I asked to be baptized and was. No one explained anything. Several years later I met the Lord. I was in college when it dawned on me that baptism was a sign of inward change - rebaptism was clearly needed. :thumbs:

Sad part was after spending years in that church and being baptized in it When 17 I was up early for a sunrise service watching a movie of Christ's crucifixion - I wondered to myself why we were up early watching the movie and why Christ was killed. :tear: Took a girlfriend's father making me go to a Bible church to be able to take her out Sunday night after church to get me into a position to hear the Gospel.

 

As much as I have been involved in Baptist life there is one thing I will never understand. If baptism is only symbolic of dying to the old life and rising in the new, why do we pay so much attention to the minutiae of this ordinance? We won't accept infant baptism; we won't accept sprinkling no matter when it is done; we won't even accept believer's baptism by immersion unless the believer believes it is only symbolic. I have a friend who has attended our church for several years but won't join because he would have to be baptized again. He was sprinkled as a child and believes he became a Christian at that time, and he is unwilling to renounce his previous baptism. Too bad, because he is a wonderful Christian and would make a really fine deacon if we would accept his baptism. What ever happened to "one lord, one faith, one baptism?

 

Allan is right in that it is an act of obedience. But it goes even further than that. It is your public declaration of your having committed your life to Christ. Through the rich symbolism of baptism, you are announcing to everyone who sees that the old you has died, and a brand new you has been raised to new life in Christ.

 

Nothing happened to it, IF your friend wasn't baptised AFTER he believed (and knows the truth now) he stands in obstinant disobedience to our Lords command of being baptised AFTER your saved. As a pastor his refusal would bring questions to mind of his sincerity? (though not specifically denying his salvation) There is no baptism before salvation it is just getting wet to fulfill a religious observance that has absolutely no meaning biblically.

Salvation is in Christ alone. If one believes that baptism is part of ones salvation then then your salvation isn't dependant upon the finished work of Christ alone and therefore according to scripture is a false gospel. If it is a false gospel they received it is not the gospel that saves.. Baptism does not save the infant and that is why it is rejected. Baptism does not save nor is it part of or an aspect in salvation whereby we are saved, and that is why it is also biblically rejected.

Baptism is sybolic but it still must be done in accordance with the biblical model and mandate set forth. It is to be done after one has placed their faith in Christ and that by immersion.

 

Baptism is far more than this. Baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is an identification with Him. It is much like my wedding ring. You can tell that I am married when you look at my left hand. I am wearing a wedding band. I am not ashamed in the least for others to know that I have a wife. I am proud of the fact that she is my wife (for 25 years now). However, if I do not have my wedding band on, I am still married, you just can't tell because I have not chosen to identify myself with my wife.

Baptism is the same. When you are publicly, scripturally baptized, you are identifying with the Lord Jesus Christ. You are stating publicly that you are not ashamed to be identified as a Christian. If you choose not to be baptized, you're still saved, you just chose not to identify with Christ.

 

Good point. :thumbs:

I usually put that into the same catagory when I exaplain it, thank you for bringing it out specifically.

 

Well stated.

 

What denomination did you leave because of heresy? (If you don't mind telling us )

 

My friend was baptized in the Methodist church. He attends the Baptist church with his wife, is very active and to the best of my knowledge contributes financially in a very generous way. He is not ashamed to be identified as a Christian, but will not admit to the invalidity of his baptism. His position is that consenting to be rebaptized is somehow acknowledging the insufficiency of his Methodist baptism. This he will not agree to and I believe he has a good point. Are we Baptists so smug as to really deny the validity of the baptism of all Methodists? I certainly hope not.

 

We are not so smug, but we stand on the what the bible declares. That is not being smug that is being biblical.

If your friend was not saved before he was baptised, his baptism is absolutely meaningless. As you stated he was baptised as an infant which is completely contrary to both the biblcal reason FOR baptism and the mode OF baptism. Your friend is biblcally wrong in his opinion.

A person is identified with Christ by and through believers baptism not by being active (in what sense though - attendence or ministry) nor by generous giving. The world can do those things and in fact does. Again I'm not saying your friend isn't saved but the criteria you give is the same thing we find many in the world doing.

 

nunatak, I'm late in this discussion, but I'm in agreement Allan's first comment.

Because your faith was misplaced, your baptism was meaningless.

Now that your faith is correctly placed in Christ, your baptism will be meaningful.

I say, "Run to the River!"

 

I would suggest that you don't need to be re-baptized. You need to be baptized. If I have understood you correctly, and you have become a Christian in the last year, putting your faith in Christ alone, then no matter what the ceremony you went through before might have been called, it was not baptism in the biblical sense.

My parents were Church of England, so they had me "baptized" as a baby, according to that denomination's beliefs. Obviously at that stage, I knew nothing about sin, salvation, or the Lord Jesus Christ. When I was converted some 19 years later, I was baptized. I certainly don't look upon it as a re-baptism.

 

Please don't think I am being critical of typos - I am probably the worst offender on the BB.

This one gave me a chuckle thought. I think "baptistism" is a neologism that all good Baptists should adopt into their vocabulary, and that your sentence above should be the sample sentence .

Please, I know this can be a volatile place, but there is NO criticism intended because of your typo.

 

Excellent post David. Thanks for that.

 

Amen brother David. I am not sure this is an English expression but "you nailed it" with that post.