Can anybody quantify the extent of those baptized as professing believers who subsequently seek rebaptism? What reasons do they give for seeking rebaptism?

Also, under what circumstances do you permit such rebaptisms?

In our nine years of existence I can't recall one "re-baptism."

There are no circumstances in which we would permit re-baptism. We would baptize those who were improperly baptized: paedo-baptism (including Roman baptism) and Mormons.

I currently have a member who, at this point, is convinced that he was not saved at his first baptism, and is now seeking baptism. His basis (in short) is that "he did it cause everyone else did" (he was a youth at the time). This is on his personal reflection of how he has lived his life since that time.

I cannot provide an answer to the second question at this time.

I know a person who was baptized years ago, who is not regenerate. He did it because others were doing it and he wanted to fit in with them.
He did not have to give much of a profession, since the mega-church that baptized him just signs people up for baptisms without requiring a testimony.
Should the Lord ever bring this person to repentance and a saving knowledge of Christ, I believe he should be baptized (not rebaptized). He will know that the first "baptism" wasn't valid.

Originally Posted by Herald

In our nine years of existence I can't recall one "re-baptism."

There are no circumstances in which we would permit re-baptism. We would baptize those who were improperly baptized: paedo-baptism (including Roman baptism) and Mormons.

But wouldn't the first baptism of one, say, as a teenager, who professed faith, was baptized, and then subsequently led a life of sin and debauchery, coming later to what he professed as a real conversion, in the baptist point of view, be viewed as improper?

Or is an earlier baptism not judged based on the conviction of the baptizee (and the church elders) that he was not of the faith when first baptized?

I started a new thread on a very related question. I didn't want to take this off topic of the OP, but if you credos could help, I'd appreciate it.

Bill and Tim

My youngest has Down's. He will never be able to tell people that he professes faith, because he's retarded.

He was baptised. And now his mother has rejected the Reformed faith, and is going to a baptist church.

Could you two please tell me if his baptism was valid? And if not, when you would allow him to be re-baptized?



-----Added 1/22/2009 at 08:01:53 EST-----

Sorry, I didn't check the sub-forum. I'm not supposed to post here since I'm a Presbyterian.

Originally Posted by TimV

Bill and Tim

My youngest has Down's. He will never be able to tell people that he professes faith, because he's retarded.

He was baptised. And now his mother has rejected the Reformed faith, and is going to a baptist church.

Could you two please tell me if his baptism was valid? And if not, when you would allow him to be re-baptized?



-----Added 1/22/2009 at 08:01:53 EST-----

Sorry, I didn't check the sub-forum. I'm not supposed to post here since I'm a Presbyterian.

Credo-Baptism Answers A place where only Credo-Baptists may answer questions posed regarding the Confessinal understanding of the Ordinance of Baptism.

But isn't it okay since you were asking a question?

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by Herald

In our nine years of existence I can't recall one "re-baptism."

There are no circumstances in which we would permit re-baptism. We would baptize those who were improperly baptized: paedo-baptism (including Roman baptism) and Mormons.

But wouldn't the first baptism of one, say, as a teenager, who professed faith, was baptized, and then subsequently led a life of sin and debauchery, coming later to what he professed as a real conversion, in the baptist point of view, be viewed as improper?

Or is an earlier baptism not judged based on the conviction of the baptizee (and the church elders) that he was not of the faith when first baptized?

Todd, I am trying hard not to reduce baptism to a formula, but for the sake of clarity let me respond this way. If this teenager professed faith, and then strayed into sin, only to repent, I would counsel him regarding what he believes now. I could not tell this teenager that he was or wasn't saved at the time of his baptism. The 1689 LBC does state that Christians can stray into sin, even serious sin, for a season:

1689 LBC 17.3
And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.

It is because of the above that I would concentrate more on this teens repentance and commitment to walk in obedience to Christ. Who knows? Perhaps this young man was saved near the time of his baptism. Because of that uncertainty, I would not ask him to be re-baptized.

Originally Posted by rescuedbyLove

But isn't it okay since you were asking a question?

Moderators explanation
If you are of a different persuasion, and this isn't your thread, that you started:
if your questions are questioned, proper procedure says back off.

Tim,

I think you know that I don't regard any infant baptism to be valid under any circumstances. I don't know your boy, nor do I know how much of the gospel he is able to comprehend. But I do rest in the hope of scripture as articulated in the confession I subscribe to:

1689 LBC 10.3
Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

This is another reason why Baptists hold to regeneration as entrance into the New Covenant, and not baptism. Not knowing your son, I can't comment on him. But generally speaking, a person with cognitive or mental impairment can still be called by God, outside of the normal means of the preached word of God. They may never be able to give assent to their faith, and therefore not be baptized, but that does not mean they are beyond God's saving grace.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Originally Posted by rescuedbyLove

But isn't it okay since you were asking a question?

Moderators explanation
If you are of a different persuasion, and this isn't your thread, that you started:
if your questions are questioned, proper procedure says back off.