Featured what if someone who received infant baptism joins a Baptist church?

What this 're-baptized' business? They've not been baptized. If they're believers, they need to be.

 

A Baptist distinctive is believer's baptism by immersion (amen!) so I would hope any Baptist church that a sprinkled-as-an-infant believer would want to join would insist on a proper baptism.

In fact, every Baptist church I've attended has had this policy.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

That is why some were called Anabaptists ... or re-baptizers..

 

Just joining in to agree with what has already been stated. Infant baptism, so-called, is not baptism whatsoever in biblical terms, so no "re-baptizing" is requiring from our standpoint. The person has never been baptized. Further, a valid profession of faith would be required before baptizing them.

 

The real question would be was that original one a valid baptism? i would say no, so they would be getting water baptized for the first time!

 

In my church, would be welcomed and accepted as Christians if born again, but in order to become members, would be water Baptized right way!

 

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G907&t=KJV

The KJV translates Strong's G907 in the following manner: baptize (76), wash (2x), baptist (1x), baptized (with G2258) (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
   
   
2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
   
   
3. to overwhelm
   

 

2nd Century Quote on Baptism:

"Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. And before the baptism let the one baptizing and the who who is to be baptized fast, as well as any others who are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand."

Didache, ch. 7 (early 2nd century) trans. Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).​

 

I was "Christened" in the CofE as a baby. At that time England was supposedly a Christian country & nearly all babies were Christened. I was confirmed when I was 12. I started going to a Bible class run by a Christian doctor, still in the CofE, when I was 13 or 14 & was born again at 18. I then started going to an Evangelical church. I hadn't given baptism a thought until the pastor announced a baptismal service. I was baptised in my first term at university.

I do not consider infant "baptism" to be a valid baptism, but many evangelical Christians & churches do. I would accept mature Christians as members without believers' baptism after a discussion of Scriptural baptism. A baptist church would normally have the requirement of immersion baptism for members. Our previous church did, although it accept mature Christians as members without (re)baptism. I sought to change that rule so that Christians coming from infant baptising churches would be fully accepted. Some will have been serving the Lord for many years.

I think there are many important doctrinal & practical issues that have priority over the mode & age baptism.

The independent evangelical denominations such as the FIEC were formed to bring together for fellowship dissenting congregations from the older denominations. A 9-point doctrinal basis is deliberately ambiguous about baptism. Our "new" church practises baptism only of believers, but accepts mature Christians as members.

There are many points of doctrine for Christians to disagree about. Should we welcome paedobaptist Gospel preachers like Lloyd-Jones or Wesley or the Puritans, or insist on baptising them? Their specific understanding of Scripture may be different, but their Gospel message was with saving power.

The question of the mode of baptism relates to its significance and the basis for it in the Old Covenant Scriptures.

Death to sin/washing/rising to new life is the normal picture relating to baptism of believers by immersion.

Sprinkling relates to sprinkling with the blood of Christ. 1 Peter 1:2 & Hebrews 12:24. It further correspond to the examples of Old Covenant baptisms in Hebrews 9. Heb. 9:10 ... various baptisms ... with the examples of the red heifer ritual of Numbers 19, contrasted with the blood of Christ; and of the sprinkled blood of the Old Covenant of Exodus 24.

Pouring relates to the outpouring & infilling of the Holy Spirit as in Acts 10:44-48 and also to the fact that Jesus' baptism with the Holy Spirit was contrasted with John's water baptism.

I would accept all three modes of baptism as valid.

In an antichristian situation such as converts from Islam, I would baptise whole families including infants to give a clear separation, rather than leave the children in Islam. And teach that they should be baptised as believers when they are born of the Spirit.

 

It is symbolic of death burial and resurrection of Jesus, We Baptists use a singular in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Sprinkling is not burial

 

https://www.catholic.com/tract/infant-baptism

Infant Baptism

"Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experience—that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway.

As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven."...

These paragraphs from Catholic Answers states my position very well. The article goes on to say the RCC considers baptism a sacrament while the fundamentalists consider it one of two ordinances. (The Lord's Supper being the second ordinance.)

 

They need to be baptized just like Jesus was... Brother Glen

https://www.google.com/search?q=jes...AUICigB&biw=1024&bih=734#imgrc=jb2yE6IfiE4U_M:

 

Who is "they"?

 

Infant Baptism is man made , non biblical and offers a false hope to many. Does anyone Baptized as an infant even remember the event? or the reason?

 

The ones who were not properly and biblical baptized in the first place... Brother Glen

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water

Mark 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water

To come up out of the water, the subject being baptized has to be immersed in it!