Rebaptism necessary?

Good grief.

Baptism is an act of obedience and a testimony of faith, after the fact.

I have never seen any one toss a handful of dirt into a grave and everyone say "OK he's buried lets go home."

Mark 1:10
And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

 

Baptism [by immersion only] is an ordinance of the local church. Anyone wishing membership in that body should be baptized again unless they come from a church of like faith and order.

 

Question for those who say re-baptism is necessary. Why?

Is immersion necessary for salvation?

Is the immersion necessary as a public symbol of death to the old life and resurrection to the new?

Some other reason?

Just curious.

 

Crabby, you know the answers to these questions as well as anyone does. Re-baptism is not necessary for salvation. But, as a sign of agreement and alignment with the Baptist church that he or she wishes to join, having come from a different tradition, it is not too much to ask.

 

Which naturally raises the question, why would any church baptize anyone, regardless of age without a throrough instruction of what was about to happen to them? And thorough questioning to make sure he understands that salvation is more than walking the aisle, saying the prayer and signing a card.

 

Scripturally, if one has been baptized [dipped] as a believer in Christ, no rebaptism is necessary. Requiring such puts tradition superior to scripture.

 

Most Christians barely understood the ceremony and why of baptism when it happened to them.

It is an incompetent church or minister that would baptize anyone who has no idea at all of the reason for it. I would have to assume that's very rare. But if you mean "most Christians" don't understand it at the time as well they will come to understand it later with more maturity and experience-- there's nothing wrong with that. Certainly that was the case with the early Christians, but prompt obedience to the command to repent and be baptized were obviously high importance. And John Mark and Apollos, and most of the Corinthians had much yet to learn [or 'straighten out'], but there was no command for them to be rebaptized.

A big part of all this comes down to so much emotionalism in the youth camps and crusades in Vacation Bible School in which so many 'decisions' are made, then the same kids that made the decisions grow up a little and then many do want to do it over again, simply because they have learned a little more. The irony of these type of meetings is that they are pressed to make their decisions for Christ with the assurance of his being lord and savior 'for life;' but for other who have already made such a deicision, at the same meetings it seems they try to instill doubt ["You may have gone forward and got baptized, but you really know all it did was get you wet!..."] To the former group, the message comes out 'get saved and don't doubt it,' while for the latter it's 'doubt it and get saved.'

 

That is one opinion and I agree. I expect there are other opinions. There are people who, in good consciousness, refuse to be baptized saying it makes a mockery of their original commitment to Christ. While you and I might not agree with that reason it is a closely held one.

I have met a few Baptist who believed that baptism by immersion was necessary for salvation. When I was a kid there were some Baptist churches that refused membership to anyone not baptized in their church. There were other Baptist churches that refused membership to anyone not baptized in an SBC church ... and some who accepted anyone baptized by immersion from any church, Baptist or others denomination.

There is not complete agreement on this among Baptists, that is why I asked the question.

 

Jesus established his church during his ministry, died for it and commissioned it to make disciples, teach and baptize. He invested in each local New Testament church the authority and responsibility to carry out that commission.

Anyone who would seek membership in a local church, but insist that the church change its beliefs to accommodate his "baptism" is diminishing the importance of the local church. And any church which would let him is abdicating its responsibility to protect the integrity of the ordinances.

Does anyone really think it's cool to accept the immersion of a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon, or Church of Christ, based on their statement that they are saved despite their group's teaching to the contrary?

 

Here is the answer. Baptists will generally agree on the mode (immersion), the subject (a regenerated believer) and the design (picture of the gospel, identification with Jesus, death to sin, rising to new life). Where we disagree over the administrator, and whether it is a church ordinance or a Christian ordinance.

The administrator is a New Testament church. To demand re-baptism is an implication that the original baptizing group is not a New Testament church--or that it does not administer biblical baptism. In this cum-bah-yah age. we are much to gentle to suggest that some groups out there are not New Testament churches. It expresses itself this way: Shoot, they ain't wrong, their just different.

The local church is the arbiter of what is Biblical baptism, not the individual.

We ought not to have a low view of baptism or the local church for whom Jesus shed his blood.. Too many of our progenitors have died horrible deaths because they would not baptize infants, and who baptized only confessing believers.

 

When have you really known that to happen? Churches [local Baptist churches, as we're speaking of] that change their bylaws to accept as full members anyone who has been baptized as a believer do not do it for one person only-- or if there are any that have, then they are really playing loose with the ordinance. Besides, if a person wants to join a church and he must come from a another Baptist church which believes absolutely exactly as the one he is joining, then any new member would have to be rebaptized.

Certainly not just their statement. But questioning them as to what they believed then, and what they believe now, might lead to the only conclusion that they have been saved in spite of the bodies they had joined. Salvation is individual-- if you think it must come through an ordained authority in a direct line from the apostles at Pentecost, then you should be a Catholic. But obviously, if a person desired membership who had been in a cult and claims to still have the same beliefs, either he was a Christian and really a non-cultist, or else he is cultist and still a nonChristian. The latter is far more likely, but the former is not impossible.

 

Several years ago I knew a church that would not accept someone for membership unless they were baptized by immersion and had led someone to Christ. There are churches that baptize the person by dunking them three times before they call it baptism. So which tradition are you talking about?

 

I don't question the right of an autonomous Baptist congregation to decide its requirements for membership. I'm questioning the wisdom of starting what has the potential to be a slippery slope. I fear that down the road, those churches which will accept alien immersion will decide to accept sprinkling. In fact, I bet we can find some who have already done it.

I then asked:

You replied:

I'm not clear here. Are you saying that you would accept a JW or LDS baptism with the right salvation testimony?