Baptism, re-baptism, and church membership - Page 2

Barnpreacher · #41 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 10:03 PM

What about very sick individuals that cannot be immersed? I once baptised an elderly lady that weighed about 60 lbs because of the cancer that ate at her body. She paniced as I went to immerse her and I never did put her all the way under. Was that an unscriptural baptism?

Herald · #42 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 10:15 PM

Ryan,

The confession states:

Quote:

Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.

I would consider dipping not to be full immersion (all of the body under the water). Baptist practice is immersion but what you did for this dear sister would be perfectly acceptable imho.

armourbearer · #43 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Was that an unscriptural baptism?

If mode is essential to the validity of a baptism, then yes, according to the Anabaptist view any individual not immersed is not baptised, be they Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, or Methodist.

Stoker · #44 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 02:33 AM

Do those who sprinkle view immersion as a valid form of baptism?

armourbearer · #45 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoker

Do those who sprinkle view immersion as a valid form of baptism?

On first recipients of Trinitarian baptism immersion is considered valid; however it is considered unnecessary as a mode.

servantofmosthigh · #46 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoker

Do those who sprinkle view immersion as a valid form of baptism?

I'm not sure about all paedobaptists, but the PCA, PCUSA and OPC do.

FenderPriest · #47 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Many churches would say that a person "baptized" as an infant was not truly baptized at all because the carrying-out of the baptism was too far from the NT example and thus there would be no "RE-baptism" invovled, only a Biblical baptism. Many churches would require baptism as a pre-requisite for membership.

Not to respond to late in the discussion, but this was my own conviction when I joined a Baptist church, and it was the counsel I received from the Elders. I joined in associate membership with the Reformed Baptist church, and then upon by baptism I became a full, card-holding member of the church with voting rights. My baptism was not a re-baptism, but a Biblical baptism.

I figured that since the original scenario described was my own situation, that it might help if I replied. Anyhow - carry on.

toddpedlar · #48 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

IOW, one must not only desire baptism out of obedience, but also out of repentance and faith as well. If a man says, "I want to be rebaptized out of a new found sense of obedience." The pastor should ask what about repentance and faith? If the man says, "I already had those things," then the pastor says, there is no need for another baptism.

So what if the person decides that he really didn't
believe before, and was repenting of his whole past?
He was previously baptized as a professor, but rejects
his older profession, and wants to be baptized again
because he now considers his faith genuine? Should such
a person be rebaptized, each time he comes to a serious
questioning of his prior faith and baptism? Can this go
on and on ad nauseum?

btw, I don't mean to be impertinent with this question - I'm
trying to be quite serious with the question and find out
what one would do in such a case...

Herald · #49 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

IOW, one must not only desire baptism out of obedience, but also out of repentance and faith as well. If a man says, "I want to be rebaptized out of a new found sense of obedience." The pastor should ask what about repentance and faith? If the man says, "I already had those things," then the pastor says, there is no need for another baptism.

So what if the person decides that he really didn't
believe before, and was repenting of his whole past?
He was previously baptized as a professor, but rejects
his older profession, and wants to be baptized again
because he now considers his faith genuine? Should such
a person be rebaptized, each time he comes to a serious
questioning of his prior faith and baptism? Can this go
on and on ad nauseum?

btw, I don't mean to be impertinent with this question - I'm
trying to be quite serious with the question and find out
what one would do in such a case...

Todd, that is a great question. If a professed believer was scriptually baptized and then fell away from he faith, followed by renewed repentance; I would oppose re-baptism. There is much to consider. Did they really fall away, or are they described by this part of the confession:

Quote:

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.

Their wandering from Christ may necessitate a public statement to the fellowship, but I would not ask them to be baptized again.

Semper Fidelis · #50 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 09:00 AM

I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.

It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.

Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.

How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?

KMK · #51 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.

It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.

Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.

How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?

First, the confession deals with administration. It lays out instuctions for the administrator. As a pastor, I am confessionally bound to baptize anyone upon a profession of repentance, faith and obedience to Christ. If a person was already baptized based upon such a profession then it matters not, from an administrator's pov, whether that profession was genuine. The baptism has already been done and needs to be done only once. The confession does not say, "Those who do genuinely profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance." The confession says, "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance."

In addition, there are no instructions regarding a 'do over' in the confession, nor the Bible, so I would avoid such things.

Rich, don't Presby churches deal with the same issues? Do you ever have a man who was baptized as an adult come back 20 years later with a new sense of obedience and ask to be baptized again?

Semper Fidelis · #52 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.

It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.

Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.

How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?

First, the confession deals with administration. It lays out instuctions for the administrator. As a pastor, I am confessionally bound to baptize anyone upon a profession of repentance, faith and obedience to Christ. If a person was already baptized based upon such a profession then it matters not, from an administrator's pov, whether that profession was genuine. The baptism has already been done and needs to be done only once. The confession does not say, "Those who do genuinely profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance." The confession says, "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance."

In addition, there are no instructions regarding a 'do over' in the confession, nor the Bible, so I would avoid such things.

I don't see a response to the question. It only seems to confirm that the important thing is the externals to the event.

Quote:

Rich, don't Presby churches deal with the same issues? Do you ever have a man who was baptized as an adult come back 20 years later with a new sense of obedience and ask to be baptized again?

Well, sure, but mode or age or profession is not what makes a baptism valid according to the WCF.

toddpedlar · #53 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.

It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.

Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.

How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?

This was exactly my question that I just posted this morning. Thanks for asking it so much more cogently!

toddpedlar · #54 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.

It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.

Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.

How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?

First, the confession deals with administration. It lays out instuctions for the administrator. As a pastor, I am confessionally bound to baptize anyone upon a profession of repentance, faith and obedience to Christ. If a person was already baptized based upon such a profession then it matters not, from an administrator's pov, whether that profession was genuine. The baptism has already been done and needs to be done only once. The confession does not say, "Those who do genuinely profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance." The confession says, "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance."

In addition, there are no instructions regarding a 'do over' in the confession, nor the Bible, so I would avoid such things.

Rich, don't Presby churches deal with the same issues? Do you ever have a man who was baptized as an adult come back 20 years later with a new sense of obedience and ask to be baptized again?

As a elder and member in the PCA from 92 to 03, that never once came up that I was aware of... it's hard to imagine such a question ever occuring in those circles (except by fairly recently-transitioned ex-baptists, perhaps)

toddpedlar · #55 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Todd, that is a great question. If a professed believer was scriptually baptized and then fell away from he faith, followed by renewed repentance; I would oppose re-baptism. There is much to consider. Did they really fall away, or are they described by this part of the confession:

But what if their original profession was credibly false, and they
were now coming to what appears to be a new discovery of truth, and a new faith and repentance?

KMK · #56 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.

It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.

Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.

How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?

First, the confession deals with administration. It lays out instuctions for the administrator. As a pastor, I am confessionally bound to baptize anyone upon a profession of repentance, faith and obedience to Christ. If a person was already baptized based upon such a profession then it matters not, from an administrator's pov, whether that profession was genuine. The baptism has already been done and needs to be done only once. The confession does not say, "Those who do genuinely profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance." The confession says, "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance."

In addition, there are no instructions regarding a 'do over' in the confession, nor the Bible, so I would avoid such things.

I don't see a response to the question. It only seems to confirm that the important thing is the externals to the event.

Quote:

Rich, don't Presby churches deal with the same issues? Do you ever have a man who was baptized as an adult come back 20 years later with a new sense of obedience and ask to be baptized again?

Well, sure, but mode or age or profession is not what makes a baptism valid according to the WCF.

How do I escape the issue you bring up? I stick to the confession.

Semper Fidelis · #57 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 09:53 AM

...and, according to your Confession, God cares most about the externals in the ordinance?

Herald · #58 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 10:00 AM

Rich, baptism by immersion is representative of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is why mode is important to Baptists. Baptism following profession is the other component that is distinctively Baptist. There is no need to defend these views since they are explained adequately in the confession.

I quoted an excerpt from the 1689 LBC about individuals who once professed faith and then spent a period of time away from the Lord. To keep it germane to the discussion, I'll post it again:

Quote:

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 difficult for any minister to make the call as to whether a individuals profession was real or not. The only tangible we have to go on is the evidence of faith. I would gravitate towards the generosity contained in 17:3 of the LBC and welcome them back to the fold and not question their baptism. Baptism is not a formula, and if the letter and spirit of the confession is considered, it need be thought of in that way. As a minister of the gospel, I would err on the side of grace.