Thread: Historic Particular Baptists and Rebaptism

The situation: A person makes a profession of faith and is baptised by immersion. Then, they live a life inconsistent with Christianity. Finally, they are either truly converted/recovered from backsliding and would like to be rebaptised, claiming that they were not truly a Christian the first time and, because of this, their first baptism was invalid.

The question: Did any historic Particular Baptists (Keach, Gill, Kiffin, LBC Signers, etc.) address this issue? I have seen them address the rebaptism of individuals who were baptised as infants, however, did they ever address rebaptism of those who believed a prior adult baptism by immersion was invalid?

Taylor, I don't have an answer for your question in regards to historic Particular Baptists. Regarding modern day Reformed Baptists; since we cannot determine whether their initial profession was real or not, most of us would not require another baptism. It would be enough that the person repents and turns to Christ.

Originally Posted by Herald

Taylor, I don't have an answer for your question in regards to historic Particular Baptists. Regarding modern day Reformed Baptists; since we cannot determine whether their initial profession was real or not, most of us would not require another baptism. It would be enough that the person repents and turns to Christ.

What about in a family context? If a child is baptized at, for example, 13. They then go through a period of fairly serious rebellion and are not manifesting the fruits of the Spirit. Then, they come to the father and express their desire to be rebaptised - do you think most Particular Baptists would agree with their decision?

Originally Posted by TaylorOtwell

Originally Posted by Herald

Taylor, I don't have an answer for your question in regards to historic Particular Baptists. Regarding modern day Reformed Baptists; since we cannot determine whether their initial profession was real or not, most of us would not require another baptism. It would be enough that the person repents and turns to Christ.

What about in a family context? If a child is baptized at, for example, 13. They then go through a period of fairly serious rebellion and are not manifesting the fruits of the Spirit. Then, they come to the father and express their desire to be rebaptised - do you think most Particular Baptists would agree with their decision?

Actually, I think most Reformed Baptist churches would not re-baptize the individual. Most RB's take great pains in ascertaining a credible profession of faith; especially with a young person. Who can say whether the 13 year was or wasn't saved at the time of their profession? the 1689 LBC 17.3 states:

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.

Thats one thing I dont understand about "rebaptizing".

At what point is a Rebaptism valid? There are various times in a believers life that they fall to sin or fall to a particular temptation. This could be early on in the teen years or perhaps later in the adult life. It seems as though if a Christian falls short at anytime that could possibly merit "rebaptizing".

I guess its the "situation" part that leaves me with questions. If we fall into a period of lackluster Christian living its easy for others viewing that struggle to dismiss that person as unsaved. Then after perhaps they repent and overcome that area of struggle of their life they need to be reimmersed again. It seems as though that would end up with a life time of baptisms.

Wasnt baptism a sign and seal of the covenant? (forgive my ignorance) I dont see how rebaptism is something found in scriptures.

Perhaps someone could help me on this?

Sorry feller baptists, but perhaps the presby company on the board is making us ashamed to speak our true positions...

If a person really feels that they were not saved at that time of baptism, then they would, under baptist principles, need to be rebaptized...err....rather, truly baptized for the first time.


There is a difference in backsliding and not being regenerate. Assuming that one has ever "slidden forward", if a person states that they have back-slidden, then there is no need for rebaptism. However, if the person is convinced that they were never truly saved, I so no other way than to baptize that peron once they are truly born again. There might be some trouble in figuring out which one applies.


If you say that "it doesn't matter" then you have just helped to prove the Presby point. If it doesn't matter at age 13 years and is okay if someone is baptized who is not a disciple, then why not 13 days!?

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Sorry feller baptists, but perhaps the presby company on the board is making us ashamed to speak our true positions...

If a person really feels that they were not saved at that time of baptism, then they would, under baptist principles, need to be rebaptized...err....rather, truly baptized for the first time.


There is a difference in backsliding and not being regenerate. Assuming that one has ever "slidden forward", if a person states that they have back-slidden, then there is no need for rebaptism. However, if the person is convinced that they were never truly saved, I so no other way than to baptize that peron once they are truly born again. There might be some trouble in figuring out which one applies.


If you say that "it doesn't matter" then you have just helped to prove the Presby point. If it doesn't matter at age 13 years and is okay if someone is baptized who is not a disciple, then why not 13 days!?

Pergy, the RB position has noting to do with informal influence from our Presbyterian brethren. Understand first that there is a difference between non-confessional Baptists and confessional Baptists. The confessional Baptist (commonly referred to as Particular or Reformed Baptist) has a more covenantal view of God's dealings with mankind than the non-confessional Baptist. I am speaking in general terms. Believers baptism is a sign of the New Covenant, administered to those who profess faith in Christ. I quoted earlier in this thread an excerpt from the 1689 LBC that deals with falling into sin or "back sliding." I think it bears repeating.

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.

How long is, "for a time"? It's undetermined. It may be weeks, months, or even years. When would the cut off be for determining whether or not this errant brother should be re-baptized? What is the one area of our salvation that is weakened when we continue in sin "for a time"? Assurance. It is easy for a Christian to doubt their assurance when they have continued in disobedience for a period of time. That can be a good thing if it drives them to repentance. The lack of faith in assurance can also be one of the reasons why individuals say they weren't saved the first time they professed. As a minister of the gospel I am not terribly concerned with this. I am more interested in whether they understand their sin and display the first aspect of repentance, which is a godly sorrow for their sin and a willingness to submit to the process of restoration. Restoration is not just for those who have fallen into immorality. Any period of continued sin effects the whole person, and it often takes time to make the brother whole emotionally, spiritually and socially (relationships within the body). I am not willing to allow reapplication of the sign to be a prerequisite to their sanctification.

Correction: I am thankful for the zeal my Presbyterian brethren have for God's covenants. While I differ with them on different points, it was because of them that I explored covenant theology. I know that while I was still a "Baptist in Crisis" they were having side bets on how long it would take before I would become a Presbyterian. While that hasn't happened, I do owe them a debt of gratitude for helping steer me further away from dispensationalism.

Particular (or Primitive) Baptists do not call themselves Reformed. They believe and teach they did not come from the Reformation. I have recently discovered I work with a PB. I was delighted to learn we share many things in common--anti-images of God, Lord's Day, anti-instrumentation in worship, etc.

According to my co-worker, PB's will "re-baptize" you even when you change congregations. If one PB leave a congregation he must be baptized into the new congregation because of their views of fellowship among the saints. Same with the Lord's Supper--only members of the congregation.

He also mentioned the PB denial of perseverance of the saints (defined as one confessing Christ until he dies) yet affirmed once one is regenerated he cannot fall away from salvation (defined as preservation of the saints).

See http://pb.org/

Originally Posted by CDM

Particular (or Primitive) Baptists do not call themselves Reformed. They believe and teach they did not come from the Reformation. I have recently discovered I work with a PB. I was delighted to learn we share many things in common--anti-images of God, Lord's Day, anti-instrumentation in worship, etc.

According to my co-worker, PB's will "re-baptize" you even when you change congregations. If one PB leave a congregation he must be baptized into the new congregation because of their views of fellowship among the saints. Same with the Lord's Supper--only members of the congregation.

He also mentioned the PB denial of perseverance of the saints (defined as one confessing Christ until he dies) yet affirmed once one is regenerated he cannot fall away from salvation (defined as preservation of the saints).

See Primitive Baptist Web Station

I am not aware of this practice among Particular Baptists. It is my understanding that most Particular Baptists are found in the UK. I am glad to be corrected on that if I am misinformed.

Originally Posted by CDM

Particular (or Primitive) Baptists do not call themselves Reformed. They believe and teach they did not come from the Reformation. I have recently discovered I work with a PB. I was delighted to learn we share many things in common--anti-images of God, Lord's Day, anti-instrumentation in worship, etc.

According to my co-worker, PB's will "re-baptize" you even when you change congregations. If one PB leave a congregation he must be baptized into the new congregation because of their views of fellowship among the saints. Same with the Lord's Supper--only members of the congregation.

He also mentioned the PB denial of perseverance of the saints (defined as one confessing Christ until he dies) yet affirmed once one is regenerated he cannot fall away from salvation (defined as preservation of the saints).

See Primitive Baptist Web Station

In the large picture that is correct. But, Primitive Baptists and Particular Baptists are not the same thing. Primitive Baptists come from split in Baptist churches in North America over the inclusion of 'new methods' in the 1800's. There are Primitive Baptists that do not rebaptise for congregational reasons. The Primitive Baptists are not a denomination so practices vary. And, most of them would not be Reformed. They are Calvinistic, but they are not Reformed.

Originally Posted by Quickened

Thats one thing I dont understand about "rebaptizing".

At what point is a Rebaptism valid? There are various times in a believers life that they fall to sin or fall to a particular temptation. This could be early on in the teen years or perhaps later in the adult life. It seems as though if a Christian falls short at anytime that could possibly merit "rebaptizing".

I guess its the "situation" part that leaves me with questions. If we fall into a period of lackluster Christian living its easy for others viewing that struggle to dismiss that person as unsaved. Then after perhaps they repent and overcome that area of struggle of their life they need to be reimmersed again. It seems as though that would end up with a life time of baptisms.

Wasnt baptism a sign and seal of the covenant? (forgive my ignorance) I dont see how rebaptism is something found in scriptures.

Perhaps someone could help me on this?

Good point, Brian. As far as I know, Baptists (including Reformed Baptists) believe that a genuine profession of faith is necessary for the valid administration of the sacrament. So if baptism was administered upon a false profession of faith, there was no valid baptism administered. The recipient only got immersed. He only got wet. He was not a proper subject of the ordinance since he didn't really profess faith in and obedience unto the Lord Jesus at the time of his immersion.

This belief is evidently central to the Baptist argument against infant baptism. Since infants can't profess faith, they shouldn't be baptized. Baptism, Baptists say, is only for those who already have the realities signified by the sign. They contend that it is only for those who know the Lord, have their sins forgiven and have the law written on their hearts (Jer. 31:31-34).

From a consistent Baptist perspective, a person who discovers that he wasn't a true believer yet when he was immersed as an adult but is now truly repentant of his sins should receive baptism. This isn't a re-baptism. Assuming that the repentance and faith of the person (who used to be a false professor) are genuine this time, his next immersion would be his first and only valid baptism.

From a Paedo-Baptist perspective, this is a case of re-baptism. The Reformed standards hold that the sacrament of the OT (circumcision and the Passover) and the sacraments of the NT (baptism and the Lord's Supper) are one and the same (WCF 27:5). A Christian can't be re-baptized anymore than a Jew could be re-circumcised. Baptism (like circumcision) is the sign of initiation and should be administered once to a person. It is the Lord's Supper that is to be administered repeatedly since it is the sign of covenant renewal (like he Passover).

Faith is necessary (as it has always been) to receive the promises signfied by baptism (regeneration and cleansing from defilement, the righteousness which is received by faith, and union with Christ in His death and resurrection). But even the faithlessness of the person doesn't make the administration of the sacrament invalid. As far as God is concerned, a sign given to a hypocritical professor (e.g., Simon the magiciaion) or a reprobate (like Esau) is validly administered. But since an unbelieving person rejects Christ as He is freely offered in the gospel, the sign will not be a sign of blessing to him. It will be to him a sign of curse or judgment (Gen. 17:14; Rom. 2:25-29; 1 Cor. 10:1-4; 1 Peter 3:19-22). It would have been better for him not to have received the sign at all that to have received it but reject the gospel to which it points.

Taylor the Missionary Baptists regularly re baptize those baptized as adults, and it has as much to do with their views of the church as it does their views of baptism.

The last time I attended a baptism in one of their churches the woman was being baptized for the second time, and the formula included being baptised by "a New Testament church".

You see, they have a doctrine very much like the Roman Catholics about their continuity, and the authority it gives them. As the only True Protectors of orthodoxy it stands to reason that they are the true protectors of the Sacraments as well.

Thank you for your post Albert. It did get me thinking about things!

There were a couple of things that i read that triggered more questions. So i hope you dont mind that i address those right away!

Good point, Brian. As far as I know, Baptists (including Reformed Baptists) believe that a genuine profession of faith is necessary for the valid administration of the sacrament.

From a consistent Baptist perspective, a person who discovers that he wasn't a true believer yet when he was immersed as an adult but is now truly repentant of his sins should receive baptism. This isn't a re-baptism. Assuming that the repentance and faith of the person (who used to be a false professor) are genuine this time, his next immersion would be his first and only valid baptism.

Ok bear with me because i sometimes word things goofy!

This much i do understand. I myself was baptized as an infant in the RCC. Upon coming to faith in Christ and discussing baptism during the Acts era I decided that it would be good to be baptized again.

This in my opinion (as it is developing) is the only valid "rebaptizing". I didnt feel comfortable with the RCC baptism frankily because after coming out of the RCC i didnt want to have anything to do with it. I thought i would start fresh and when i saw people coming to faith in the bible i saw baptism linked there.

That said the word i bolded in your first quote brought forth an additional question.

What makes the profession of faith genuine? I think Herald asked a good question when refering back to the 1689

Originally Posted by Herald

Who can say whether the 13 year was or wasn't saved at the time of their profession?

Originally Posted by 1689

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 quite easy for a Christian to look at another who has fallen into grievous sin and say that perhaps their profession of faith is not genuine because of what their actions or lifestyle at that particular time displays.

The outsider would call into question whether or not that person had a genuine conversion. The person themselves because of this mentality might call their own salvation into question and then decide to get baptized again in connection with their repentence.

I've heard of this before. Where a baptism could be just as numerous as an altercall for a christian seeking repentence. A sign of rededication.

But in scripture baptisms usually happen as a one time event.

Perhaps in my studies of the paedo position i picked up the covenant part of this sign. As you stated.....

The Reformed standards hold that the sacrament of the OT (circumcision and the Passover) and the sacraments of the NT (baptism and the Lord's Supper) are one and the same (WCF 27:5). A Christian can't be re-baptized anymore than a Jew could be re-circumcised. Baptism (like circumcision) is the sign of initiation and should be administered once to a person.

I do see the connection to that now and I think that perhaps I am thinking in this particular mindset which is causing these questions.

It was earlier on in this thread that my initial question (to myself) was "How many times can a jew be circumcised"

Perhaps I have become the Baptist In Crisis?

This is a very interesting discussion. I find myself intersecting with three different posts. I was immersed in a Missionary Baptist church when I was around age 10. The church split a year or so later because of a disagreement over a pastor. My parents stopped going to church altogether, and I was a regular heathen during my teenage years. I became a Christian at age 21, began attending that church again for a while, but later joined a PCA church. I was not required to be "re-baptized" at any step along the way. I am also sure that my baptism at age 10 for for completely the wrong reason, and I had only a confused idea about Christianity (very much a "works-righteousness" thing) prior to my conversion at age 21.

I'm getting a couple of different feedbacks here. Bill, speaking from a RB perspective, seems to be saying I would not need to be "re-baptized." Yes, I understand that this has nothing to do with joining a RB church, but I speak only in terms of my baptism being a valid baptism. A.J. seems to be saying otherwise. I know I have run into RB (or Baptists who are Reformed) who have told me that my initial baptism was invalid because I was unconverted. If I am misunderstanding, please correct me.

Another question: since my initial baptism was by immersion, how would this affect a discussion we had recently on whether a non-Baptist could come to the Lord's table at an RB church? Would I be able to (since it was by immersion), even though I was unconverted at the time?

A final wrinkle: after I became a Christian in 1988 in college, two of my roommates took me down to a local swimming pool one night and "baptized" (immersed) me therein. They, of course, were unauthorized to do so, it was not in a church/worship setting, etc. We were young and stupid, but I am curious as to whether this would have an bearing on "baptismal authenticity" among Reformed Baptists.

This verse in 1PET.3 comes into this equation

21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Believer's baptism answers this. It answers the original post. When the person Publically identifies himself with Christ he is by baptism giving a public declaration that he identifies with Christ. He or she declares publically that God has done a work of new birth.
They know that they have been made new by a work of God,all things have become new 2cor5:17.
Their conscience can look to Jesus without the guilt and condemnation of when they were dead in Adam. They can now find rest in the Saviour because of what the work of the Spirit has done in drawing them savingly to Christ. Believer's baptism gives a public testimony of this. Unbeliever's baptism brings the judgement of God if not repented of.
A false baptism-not the putting away of the filth of the flesh- does not reflect any saving activity of the Spirit, so no proper Identification with Christ has taken place.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

This is a very interesting discussion. I find myself intersecting with three different posts. I was immersed in a Missionary Baptist church when I was around age 10. The church split a year or so later because of a disagreement over a pastor. My parents stopped going to church altogether, and I was a regular heathen during my teenage years. I became a Christian at age 21, began attending that church again for a while, but later joined a PCA church. I was not required to be "re-baptized" at any step along the way. I am also sure that my baptism at age 10 for for completely the wrong reason, and I had only a confused idea about Christianity (very much a "works-righteousness" thing) prior to my conversion at age 21.

I'm getting a couple of different feedbacks here. Bill, speaking from a RB perspective, seems to be saying I would not need to be "re-baptized." Yes, I understand that this has nothing to do with joining a RB church, but I speak only in terms of my baptism being a valid baptism. A.J. seems to be saying otherwise. I know I have run into RB (or Baptists who are Reformed) who have told me that my initial baptism was invalid because I was unconverted. If I am misunderstanding, please correct me.

Another question: since my initial baptism was by immersion, how would this affect a discussion we had recently on whether a non-Baptist could come to the Lord's table at an RB church? Would I be able to (since it was by immersion), even though I was unconverted at the time?

A final wrinkle: after I became a Christian in 1988 in college, two of my roommates took me down to a local swimming pool one night and "baptized" (immersed) me therein. They, of course, were unauthorized to do so, it was not in a church/worship setting, etc. We were young and stupid, but I am curious as to whether this would have an bearing on "baptismal authenticity" among Reformed Baptists.

Tim, there is one caveat I want to inject. If you came to my church and told me, "I was baptized in the first Nazarene Methodist Missionary Eclectic church and I want to me a member of your church" I may have a problem with your previous baptism. Was it a trinitarian baptism? Did that church have the marks of a true church? What was your understanding of your conversion at that time? If it turned out you were baptized contrary to scriptural command, it's quite possible that I may ask you to be scripturally baptized.

Originally Posted by Quickened

This much i do understand. I myself was baptized as an infant in the RCC. Upon coming to faith in Christ and discussing baptism during the Acts era I decided that it would be good to be baptized again.

This in my opinion (as it is developing) is the only valid "rebaptizing". I didnt feel comfortable with the RCC baptism frankily because after coming out of the RCC i didnt want to have anything to do with it. I thought i would start fresh and when i saw people coming to faith in the bible i saw baptism linked there.

That said the word i bolded in your first quote brought forth an additional question.

What makes the profession of faith genuine? I think Herald asked a good question when refering back to the 1689

You are welcome. Baptists admit that it is perfectly possible for Baptist ministers to baptize the unregenerate. They accept the fact that in some cases, they do immerse people upon a false profession of faith. A genuine profession of faith thus is something we can't infallibly determine. There are people who were immersed but later discover and confess that they didn't actually believe the gospel yet at the moment of their first immersion. These are the ones who upon consistent Baptist grounds desire to be immersed a second time (i.e., be baptized as believers) now that they know and believe Christ. They reject their previous immersion and would like to undergo a believer's baptism. Note that the first time they were immersed, they were still unbelievers. They made a false profession of faith. In short, their first immersion wasn't a believer's baptism. Assuming that they genuinely repent this time, their second immersion would be counted as a valid baptism.

Let me use an example. When I was an infant, a Roman Catholic priest poured water upon my head in the Name of the Trinity. So we had a similar experience. Baptists universally reject what happened to us as infants and wouldn't consider it as a valid baptism at all. When I was a teenager, I made a profession of faith. It was a false profession of faith. I was living in sin at that time and was thinking that I could presume my standing before God. I was then immersed by a Trinitarian Pentecostal pastor but my heart was not right before God. I was an unbeliever then. From a Baptist perspective, was my immersion a valid baptism? By no means. I was immersed as an unbeliever. So no believer's baptism took place in the pool where I got immersed. I only got wet.

Elder Brown has noted in a baptism thread that he wouldn't baptize a person (who was previously immersed) who now believes that he was an unbeliever at the time of his first immersion. I believe that Bill disagrees with most Baptists on this (as the comments of the Presbyterians in that thread would indicate). At any rate, it is clear that Baptists baptize people who profess faith upon the presumption that the one to be immersed is regenerate. Here is the thread: How does baptism affirm our faith?

Originally Posted by Quickened

It is quite easy for a Christian to look at another who has fallen into grievous sin and say that perhaps their profession of faith is not genuine because of what their actions or lifestyle at that particular time displays.

The outsider would call into question whether or not that person had a genuine conversion. The person themselves because of this mentality might call their own salvation into question and then decide to get baptized again in connection with their repentence.

I've heard of this before. Where a baptism could be just as numerous as an altercall for a christian seeking repentence. A sign of rededication.

But in scripture baptisms usually happen as a one time event.

Perhaps in my studies of the paedo position i picked up the covenant part of this sign. As you stated.....

The Reformed standards hold that the sacrament of the OT (circumcision and the Passover) and the sacraments of the NT (baptism and the Lord's Supper) are one and the same (WCF 27:5). A Christian can't be re-baptized anymore than a Jew could be re-circumcised. Baptism (like circumcision) is the sign of initiation and should be administered once to a person.

I do see the connection to that now and I think that perhaps I am thinking in this particular mindset which is causing these questions.

It was earlier on in this thread that my initial question (to myself) was "How many times can a jew be circumcised"

Perhaps I have become the Baptist In Crisis?

Exactly, Brian. The moment I read your post, I quickly noticed that you sound more like a Reformed paedobaptist than a Covenantal Baptist. It is true that there are no examples of re-baptisms in Scripture. And considering that it is the belief of Reformed people that there are only two sacraments (one for initiation and another for covenant renewal), it becomes clear why they detested attempts by other people during the Protestant Reformation to baptize adults who have been previously baptized as infants. It was like re-circumcising a professing Jew who was circumcised as an infant. Paedobaptists are not so much concerned as to when exactly God regenerated them. They are more concerned as to how they are going to improve their baptism whether adminstered to them as infants or little children, or as adults.

The Larger Catechism

Q167: How is our Baptism to be improved by us?
A167: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others;[1] by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein;[2] by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements;[3] by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament;[4] by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace;[5] and by endeavoring to live by faith,[6] to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness,[7] as those that have therein given up their names to Christ;[8] and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.[9]

1. Col. 2:11-12; Rom. 6:4, 6, 11
2. Rom. 6:3-5
3. I Cor. 1:11-13; Rom. 6:2-3
4. Rom. 4:11-12; I Peter 3:21
5. Rom. 6:3-5
6. Gal. 3:26-27
7. Rom. 6:22
8. Acts 2:38
9. I Cor. 12:13, 25-27

This is consistent with the view that God may regenerate His elect before or during or after receiving the sacrament of initiation, as He wills.

The Westminster Confession - Chapter 28

6. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;a yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.b

a. John 3:5, 8. • b. Acts 2:38, 41; Gal 3:27; Eph 5:25-26; Titus 3:5.

Originally Posted by Herald

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Sorry feller baptists, but perhaps the presby company on the board is making us ashamed to speak our true positions...

If a person really feels that they were not saved at that time of baptism, then they would, under baptist principles, need to be rebaptized...err....rather, truly baptized for the first time.


There is a difference in backsliding and not being regenerate. Assuming that one has ever "slidden forward", if a person states that they have back-slidden, then there is no need for rebaptism. However, if the person is convinced that they were never truly saved, I so no other way than to baptize that peron once they are truly born again. There might be some trouble in figuring out which one applies.


If you say that "it doesn't matter" then you have just helped to prove the Presby point. If it doesn't matter at age 13 years and is okay if someone is baptized who is not a disciple, then why not 13 days!?

Pergy, the RB position has noting to do with informal influence from our Presbyterian brethren. Understand first that there is a difference between non-confessional Baptists and confessional Baptists. The confessional Baptist (commonly referred to as Particular or Reformed Baptist) has a more covenantal view of God's dealings with mankind than the non-confessional Baptist. I am speaking in general terms. Believers baptism is a sign of the New Covenant, administered to those who profess faith in Christ. I quoted earlier in this thread an excerpt from the 1689 LBC that deals with falling into sin or "back sliding." I think it bears repeating.

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.

How long is, "for a time"? It's undetermined. It may be weeks, months, or even years. When would the cut off be for determining whether or not this errant brother should be re-baptized? What is the one area of our salvation that is weakened when we continue in sin "for a time"? Assurance. It is easy for a Christian to doubt their assurance when they have continued in disobedience for a period of time. That can be a good thing if it drives them to repentance. The lack of faith in assurance can also be one of the reasons why individuals say they weren't saved the first time they professed. As a minister of the gospel I am not terribly concerned with this. I am more interested in whether they understand their sin and display the first aspect of repentance, which is a godly sorrow for their sin and a willingness to submit to the process of restoration. Restoration is not just for those who have fallen into immorality. Any period of continued sin effects the whole person, and it often takes time to make the brother whole emotionally, spiritually and socially (relationships within the body). I am not willing to allow reapplication of the sign to be a prerequisite to their sanctification.

You are being inconsistent. There is no true "reapplication" of the sign if a person is not baptized as a believer. And, there is no need for this to be a "prerequisite to their sanctification" - instead this is a sign that they desire to walk in obedience.

Again, it may be difficult to know whether one has "backslid" or is newly saved, but this is a key question. And if a person is convinced that they are newly saved, I see no other choise than to baptize them for the first time as a disciple.

Again, if we give up this ground, we might as well turn presby.

Pergy, what are we giving up on? We baptize only upon a credible profession of faith. Our own confession clearly explains situations in which a person who has displayed a credible profession may fall into sin, even grievious sin, for a time. If they return I take that has evidence that they are regenerate. John recognized that falling away without repentance is a sign of being unregenerate, "The went out from us because they were never really of us."

But if the person themself insists that they were NOT saved previously but just got newly saved whereas before they were only playing religion and fooling themselves into thinking that they were saved, I see no choice but to baptize them for real for the first time.

Albert,
In your last post on this thread you said this;

Paedobaptists are not so much concerned as to when exactly God regenerated them. They are more concerned as to how they are going to improve their baptism whether adminstered to them as infants or little children, or as adults.

My question or concern with this type of statement is that when you say;

Paedobaptists are not so much concerned as to when exactly God regenerated them.

The concern should be not "when" but "if". If God has regenerated them.
If God has not regenerated them- there can be no growth in grace,or "improvement of ones baptism".
Paul said-

5Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates

This does not suggest the Idea of covenant inclusion [internal administration]

I listened to a sermon by Pastor Ben Miller OPC, this week in which he said that we should never tell our children that Jesus is not their Saviour, we should never have them doubt that they are saved? Sometimes it sounds like the new birth ,or the indwelling of the Spirit is an after thought.
When pressed on this point every bible believing padeo will defend that obviously the Spirit's work is needed. But if you listen to the actual sermons they preach you would think they were those disciples in Acts 19 who had been baptized unto John's baptism who said we have not even heard if there be any Holy Ghost.

2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

When I listen to some of the padeo sermons on sermonaudio sometimes it sounds like ;

2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye received the sign of baptism? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost, nevertheless we will work on improving our baptism with getting a better intellectual handle on it in our own strength.
As I said, I know that biblically they cannot believe this to be true. If the truth be known a Padeo parent is praying and looking for the signs an indications of the work and grace of the Spirit in their childrens lives as the credo parent is.
Albert, go on sermonaudio and listen to one sermon after another,on Gen.17 and see what you hear,and compare it to what you know to be true.

Originally Posted by Herald

Tim, there is one caveat I want to inject. If you came to my church and told me, "I was baptized in the first Nazarene Methodist Missionary Eclectic church and I want to me a member of your church" I may have a problem with your previous baptism. Was it a trinitarian baptism? Did that church have the marks of a true church? What was your understanding of your conversion at that time? If it turned out you were baptized contrary to scriptural command, it's quite possible that I may ask you to be scripturally baptized.

That's not a caveat, Bill, that's good old-fashioned horse sense. Obviously, if the person did not undergo a Trinitarian baptism that was no baptism (e.g., Mormons, JWs, Oneness Pentecostals, etc.). Presbyterians would agree here, of course. A sticking point might be with Roman Catholics; this was a big controversy in the mid-19th century b/t the northern and southern Presbyterians. But I understand the point behind your caveat, even though we might disagree with the application to some degree. I was not trying to trick you, just trying to get an RB perspective!

I like Thornwell on Catholic Baptism...

Here is something that might be of interest here.

Baptists shared with Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists, their protest against the totalitarianism of the papacy and their zeal to recover the spirituality of the Church. They were Calvinists standing within the covenant theology expressed in the Westminster (putting aside paedo baptism). On the other hand, the General Baptist (which were mostly pelagian) were originally English separatists or Puritans who broke with the Church of England, which they regarded as a false church, perverted by error. Their sectarian spirit and point of view was carried over into their church life. On the other hand the Particular Baptists arose out of a non-Separatist independency. They were Congregational in polity but more ecumenical in spirit. They did not renounce the Church of England as being entirely corrupt. They sought to maintain some bond of unity between themselves and Christians of other Communions. Among these Particular Baptists were those who were willing to admit into its membership, without rebaptism, those of other communions.

p.22 A History of the Baptists By Robert G. Torbet
Kenneth Scott Latourette did the forward to the book.

The above is taken from Torbets History of the Baptists.

Here is John Tombes Catachism question 34. He was not a particular Baptist but he was a credo Puritan.

Question 34 of Tombes Short Catechism about Baptism.

What is the chief end of Baptism?

To testifie the Repentance, Faith, Hope, Love, and Resolution of the Baptized to follow Christ, Gal. 3.27. Rom. 6.3,4. 1 Cor. 15.29. calling upon the Name of the Lord, Acts 22.16.

Here is a link where I explained my thoughts concerning my re-baptism. Transfer members - what baptism do you accept?