1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

re-baptism

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Mike McK, Jan 27, 2004.

  1. brianray

    brianray New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes Ray, a Baptist forum is definitely the wrong place to take a stand for sprinkling.
    O.K. people back to the issue at hand, heard alot about RCC, Presbyterian, etc. But what of the Church of God? This man was fully immersed at his baptism, switched to a Baptist Church after marriage because of his wife's dedication, a letter can't be sent because Church of God doesn't send letters and a decleration of faith won't work (since it isn't a Baptist Church and some only do that by like faith and practice). Would you tell this man he has to be rebaptized, even if he doesn't feel the need, just to be a member? Would you tell him the Church of God didn't have the authority to do it right? I'm afraid for those who said yes, you would probably lose him and his wife.
     
  2. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would/will rebaptize those who were baptized for the wrong reasons. CoC people believe their baptism is part of their salvation. So, once they got saved, I would then baptize them. If a person believes they must be baptized TO BE saved, he isn't saved.

    Those who have been sprinkled or anything other than immersion were never baptized to begin with; so it isn't rebaptizing them.
     
  3. brianray

    brianray New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    True Daniel, but if it was the same post I read it was the Church of God, not the COC. Two very different denominations. Why would you require them to be rebaptized?
     
  4. rbrent

    rbrent New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've never had a question like this come up in the past 35 years of working with churches across the country.

    When I was pastoring, I probably would have sat the couple down and kindly talked with them about the issues involved, including the doctrinal beliefs of the Church of God.

    My tendency would be NOT TO ACCEPT a Church of God baptism. I would think if the couple LEFT the COG, they would not object to being baptized in a Baptist Church that they thought enough of to join.

    I'm amazed at the posts disparaging those who wouldn't accept a baptism from an AG or COG or Pentacostal or Catholic or Presbyterian Church, etc.

    I thought all Baptists believed in the autonomy of the local church and its right to decide for itself, matters like whose baptism they will accept.
     
  5. brianray

    brianray New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry rbrent and to anyone else who has found my comments disparaging. I'm simply trying to find the answer as to why you would require them to be rebaptized from a scripural standpoint. I was in a similar situation, I was baptised in the Church of God and was fortunate enough to have a Baptist church not require a second rebaptism. However I have attended a couple of Baptist churces who would have required it, saying the Church of God does not have the authority to do a believers baptism, but I was never given any scriptural support. Thats what I am looking for, the sciptural proof for not accepting them. If the church came to me today and said I needed to be rebaptised as a show of faith, I would have no problem. But if their reason was the COG didnt have the right, I would hit the doors running. If for some reason you had to switch churches and they would not take your previous baptism, and the only reason they gave was your former church didn't have the authority, wouldn't you feel offended?
     
  6. rbrent

    rbrent New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    brianray-

    I think the "scriptural reason" - finding a particular verse that says a Church of God baptism by immersion is okay and must be accepted by Baptist churches - is not going to be produced.

    On the other hand, there is a scriptural precedent for "re-baptizing" a believer who had already been baptized by immersion.

    Acts 19:1-7

    This is the LAST TIME anyone ever speaks in tongues in the scriptures.

    These disciples had 'believed' and had John the Baptist's baptism BUT they hadn't received the Holy Ghost yet.

    Paul re-baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus.

    After he re-baptized them, he laid his hands on them and the Holy Ghost came on them and they spake with tongues and prophesied.

    Acts is a Transitional book - God is transitioning from Israel to the Church.

    Much of the New Testament had not been written when the events of Acts 19 took place.

    So God is still using the 'sign gifts' to help Jews accept God's program...

    So, in Acts 2:5, 14, 22, 36 - Peter's message is directed at Jews who don't believe something God wants them to believe.

    The sign of tongues is given.

    I Cor 1:22 - "For the Jews require a sign..."

    I Cor 14:22 - "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.."

    The situation in Acts 10 the situation in Acts 19 were also signs to the Jews who witnessed them, that God was doing something different than the program the Jews had been familiar with.

    I know the situations are not exactly the same as the question that started this thread but Acts 19:1-7 is a scriptural case of re-baptism of a believer who had already believed and been immersed.

    As far as the question - Why did Paul baptize them in the name of the Lord Jesus instead of the formula given in Matthew 28:19 - "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?

    The Jews who crucified their Jewish Messiah - Matthew 27:25, Acts 2:5, 14, 22, 36, 5:28 - had to accept/receive their Jewish Messiah and get baptized in His Name - to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost IMHO.

    [ February 04, 2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: rbrent ]
     
  7. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are making some blanket statements here which may not be true. Because a person 'came from' a certain church, that does not mean they necessarily accepted the doctrines of that church-- or do you not know anyone in your church who differs from some the basic doctrines taught there? Church membership often means quite little as to what a person believes. I gather you would not believe them if they (from C of C) told you they did not believe water baptism was a condition for their salvation. [And, sorry to repeat, but I have known Baptists who did believe water baptism is a condition for salvation.]

    This leads to tremendous irony. Inform new member candidate from a C of C that he believed falsely in baptism as a means of salvation... \

    "Alright, so it's not necessary."

    "So come on and have it done-- or you can't join our fellowship."

    "I've already been baptized as a beliver."

    "But you believed you had to do it to be saved... You don't-- so now, do it!"

    "So my baptism didn't save me-- neither did yours, according to you. We're both believers, we've both been baptized, but that's not what saved either of us."

    "But you believed it saved you, therefore it's invalid."

    "Actually I did not believe that. But 'invalid' for what?"

    "Invalid as a public statement of your faith in Christ."

    "But I did have faith in Christ when it was done!"

    "Alright, maybe you didn't believe in the doctrine of the church which baptized you-- but they did. So now have it done for the right reason."

    "MY reason was the right reason!"

    "But do it in a church which does it for the right reason."

    In the end, what you are trying to put on such a person is denominationalism. If you talk around it like that, you would just be trying to skip over what you really mean: "If your baptism wasn't in a Baptist church, then we won't accept it." You might as well be plain.

    But if I have left any doubt, I think the hypothetical C of C person does not need to be baptized again. He was a believer and he was baptized [immersed]. That is all scripture commands (in the scope of baptism).
     
  8. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    If a person came out of a CoC group, I would rebaptize them no matter what.

    If they believed their doctrine, they would get rebaptized.

    If they didn't know why they went there (and were thus ignorant), they would get rebaptized.

    Baptism carries a significant meaning. To be ignorant of it isn't a good thing. So regardless, I would rebaptize them.
     
  9. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Rebaptizing someone regardless of the biblical faith they had, possibly for years, in order to promote denominationalism, is not scriptural. If you can see that sprinkling or pouring are not scriptural (by omission), why can you not see this?
     
  10. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alcott, I won't do it for denominationalism. I do it because I believe it is the correct course of action according to the N.T. Why can you not see that?
     
  11. brianray

    brianray New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    rbrent
    I wasn't really looking for why they should be accepted, but why they shouldn't. I also believe Acts 19:1-7 does show rebaptism is scriptural, but not in this circumstance. I also stated earlier noone spoke in tounges where I attended, so using that as grounds for heretical teaching before baptism does no good, I simply said the COG believed they "can" be given, same as phrophesy or any other gift. We could go on and on about this but I see no need, In the end I still have to accept the autonomy of your church. It would really only be a problem to me if I did attend your church, a problem that would be easily fixed, I would just find another church. Isn't autonomy great. :D :D
     
  12. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Denominationalism is exactly what you do it for. If not, answer this simple question: Will you accept as full member a person who professed his faith in Christ and then was baptized by immersion, but in a church other than Baptist?

    Then the question: Where in the NT is it taught that any person who was a true believer and was baptized [immersed] has a requirement to be rebaptized if he changes churches [local bodies of believers]?
     
  13. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alcott, here is the criterion I use:

    1. The person must be able to give a reasonable answer of his profession.

    2. They must understand what baptism is.

    3. They must understand that it has nothing to do with salvation.

    4. They need to have been immersed.

    Now, are you still saying that this is about denominationalism? I am not a Landmark baptist.
     
  14. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, I still think it is denominationalism. If not, then have you [your church] put new members on the roll who were baptized in churches other than Baptist?
     
  15. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, what letters am I holding up?

    Y
    O U
    C A N
    T R E A D

    If someone was of like faith and practice, I wouldn't rebaptize them. That isn't denominationalism, that is biblical. Btw, why is denominationalism wrong? You people are hilarious. You are part of a denomination you don't trust. Classic.
     
  16. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How would I know if you are holding up any letters? The question remains: ...have you [your church] put new members on the roll who were baptized in churches other than Baptist? The question is not what you would or would not do.
     
  17. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    rbrent said:

    On the other hand, there is a scriptural precedent for "re-baptizing" a believer who had already been baptized by immersion.

    Your example (John's baptism contrasted with Paul's) won't wash, because John's baptism wasn't Christian: while it signified repentance, it was not a sign of the New Covenant.

    Paul didn't re-baptize John's disciples, since, technically, they were never baptized the first time in a Christian sense.
     
  18. Mike McK

    Mike McK New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK. I apologize for going AWOL from my own thread. I know I hate it when others do that. I wasn't ignoring you guys. To tell you the truth, sometimes I just forget where I posted. Some of you know that I suffer from CRS so I ask your patience.

    Thank you for all of your answers and replies. Most of my questions have been answered by reading what's gone on in the thread since I posted last.

    Basically, I guess it boils down to me being wrong. I know, I know what you're thinking but, evidently, it is possible.

    Thank you all again for your thoughts.
     
  19. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Denominationalism isn't wrong--unles it becomes more important than being a Christian, which it apparently is for some people.
     
Loading...