Tricky Situation - Should I be baptized again?

[Alexander]

I was baptized by my Father in my swimming pool multiple years ago. However, I was not baptized out of a desire to profess faith in Christ. However, though I was already saved at the time, I was being tripped up by a few Oneness Pentecostals that told me that baptism was a necessary prerequisite for salvation. I am incredibly scrupulous and have OCD, so out of complusion I told my father to baptize me. Then, a moment later, I was doubting whether or not we got the formula right, and told him to baptize me in the name of Jesus only. My father is not a minister of the Gospel. I have a desire, multiple years later, to now get baptized for real in a real church.

Which of these invalidates these previous baptisms, if any:

1. Baptism was not being used for the right purpose (I was trying to be mechanically saved by it)
2. My dad is not "a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto," (WCF).
3. Etc.

Am I allowed to get baptized again or would it be a sin?

 

[Romans922]

You can’t be baptized again if you were baptized. The question isn’t should you be baptized again but rather “Were you baptized in the first place?”

If you were (it being a valid baptism), then you have your answer. No you do not need to be baptized, you’ve already been baptized.

If you were not, then yes you need to be baptized.

If you were not (the first water bath was not a valid baptism), then yes you need to be baptized.



To answer this question, go join a church and tell them what happened and ask them if you need to be baptized. Local elders are the ones who answer this question, not the court of public opinion on the puritanboard.

If you need guidance on where you should join, then PM me or make a new Post asking that question. The PB is good generally for helping find good churches for people.

 

[Dachaser]

I was baptized by my Father in my swimming pool multiple years ago. However, I was not baptized out of a desire to profess faith in Christ. However, though I was already saved at the time, I was being tripped up by a few Oneness Pentecostals that told me that baptism was a necessary prerequisite for salvation. I am incredibly scrupulous and have OCD, so out of complusion I told my father to baptize me. Then, a moment later, I was doubting whether or not we got the formula right, and told him to baptize me in the name of Jesus only. My father is not a minister of the Gospel. I have a desire, multiple years later, to now get baptized for real in a real church.

Which of these invalidates these previous baptisms, if any:

1. Baptism was not being used for the right purpose (I was trying to be mechanically saved by it)
2. My dad is not "a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto," (WCF).
3. Etc.

Am I allowed to get baptized again or would it be a sin?

I would say that you were confused on what water baptism represented, and that your father was not a duly authorized agent to baptize you, so would have your current pastor do it for real now.

 

[Gforce9]

I agree wholeheartedly with Andrew and disagree wholeheartedly with David on this. God has appointed offices and officers of the church to judge such matters. When the rugged individualist pulls an "end run" around the officers of the church and judges such matters by and for himself, he stands in disobedience to his King. This rugged individualism is very much a part of American culture, but has no place in Christ's church.....

 

[Dachaser]

I agree wholeheartedly with Andrew and disagree wholeheartedly with David on this. God has appointed offices and officers of the church to judge such matters. When the rugged individualist pulls an "end run" around the officers of the church and judges such matters by and for himself, he stands in disobedience to his King. This rugged individualism is very much a part of American culture, but has no place in Christ's church.....

The OP was asking us to give what we think he should do, and I just gave to him what my understanding of the scriptures in regards to Water Baptism would be now.
I am pretty sure that my pastors ans Elders would be in agreement with me on this issue, as given in the OP.

 

[Gforce9]

The OP was asking us to give what we think he should do, and I just gave to him what my understanding of the scriptures in regards to Water Baptism would be now.
I am pretty sure that my pastors ans Elders would be in agreement with me on this issue, as given in the OP.

The point you miss, however, is that it isn't the individual Christian's decision, it is a sessional matter.

 

[Dachaser]

The point you miss, however, is that it isn't the individual Christian's decision, it is a sessional matter.

The Christian is not allowed the freedom to decide if they fell convicted that they never had a real baptism, so want to square that away now?

 

[Gforce9]

The Christian is not allowed the freedom to decide if they fell convicted that they never had a real baptism, so want to square that away now?

See post #4

 

[KMK]

What does your Pastor say? Your profile says you belong to a Primitive Baptist church. It might be they are more concerned with the mode (immersion) than the administrator (your father). Let your elders help you.

 

[Gforce9]

The Christian is not allowed the freedom to decide if they fell convicted that they never had a real baptism, so want to square that away now?

Matters of conscience in a situation like this may be legitimate or they may be illegitimate.

Example: If a person comes to the session and says he believes his 4 previous "baptisms" were not valid because of his own backsliding, a now apostasized minister, one was a Roman Catholic baptism at birth, and one was a "Pentecostal health-wealth" baptism. I would fully expect his session to instruct this foolish one in his flawed thinking in all these areas rather than to let his foolish thinking and improper theology hijack the church. If or when the session told this one they would not "rebaptize" him, any of the previous baptisms were valid, and that they were going to come along side him with instruction (doctrine and life), his duty would be to see this as from God and submit to them and not press the matter further.

However common or unique the above situation may be, it demonstrates the fact that an individuals conviction (conscience) may be completely wrong. It is for this reason (and many others) that Christ has given the offices and officers of the church, with authority, to rule his church and to come alonside the church as shepherds for the benefit (instruction, maturity) of his people.

 

[timfost]

@Dachaser,

Your advice may very well indeed be the correct advice for the situation. I think Andrew and Greg realize that this decision is best handled by a local session, not for an online forum. I think it is better to lay out some general principles as Andrew does then to give advice in the specific situation.

Does this make sense?

 

[Ben Mordecai]

There are two separate issues here. The first is whether Alexander's baptism was administered rightly, the second is whether Alexander's baptism was legitimate. There is a difference between the two. Just because something was done in error or in sin does not mean it is illegitimate.

I consider my own baptism. I got a believer's baptism when I was 8 after being raised going to church. When I was baptized, I thought it was merely a sign of my obedience after I accepted Jesus into my heart from the sinner's prayer. You could say that my baptism was erroneous for these reasons, but it was still a legitimate baptism. As an adult, I understand it better than I did then and I would have wished I were baptized as an infant, but it's still a real baptism.

I think we all agree that Alexander's baptism was administered incorrectly. The question is whether it was legitimate.

My opinion is that it was not legitimate because it was not done in a Trinitarian fashion. I understand that in the book of Acts there were many people who were baptized, "In the name of Jesus," but we see no examples of their baptismal formula excluding the Trinity and there are better explanations for why this phrase is used. More importantly, the rationale for modern "Jesus name only" baptisms is an explicit denial of the Trinity and the disobedience of the words of Jesus in the Great Commission.

In my opinion, Alexander's so-called baptism was significantly enough out of order that it warrants being ruled out so that a true baptism can occur.

Nevertheless, I do not believe your salvation is in jeopardy in either case and I concur with the recommendation to consult the elders.

 

[Edward]

My opinion is that it was not legitimate because it was not done in a Trinitarian fashion.

Clearly the second shot falls within that. The first, there is not enough information to determine. And the burden should be on his elders, not us, to tease out the facts.

 

[brendanchatt]

I would want to be baptized at a church since it was not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and also because it was not a minister of any sort.

 

[lynnie]

If you are wavering between two uncertain errors, one to have an extra baptism and one to have no baptism, wouldn't you want to err on the side of an extra baptism?

 

[Gforce9]

I would want to be baptized at a church since it was not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and also because it was not a minister of any sort.

If you are wavering between two uncertain errors, one to have an extra baptism and one to have no baptism, wouldn't you want to err on the side of an extra baptism?

With both of these concerns noted, the right thing is for a session to be involved. Circumventing them is unwise, whatever the individual may wish........

 

[Dachaser]

See post #4

if He belongs to a PB church, would not be running though in a traditional reformed Presbyterian way though in regards to this issue.

 

[Dachaser]

Matters of conscience in a situation like this may be legitimate or they may be illegitimate.

Example: If a person comes to the session and says he believes his 4 previous "baptisms" were not valid because of his own backsliding, a now apostasized minister, one was a Roman Catholic baptism at birth, and one was a "Pentecostal health-wealth" baptism. I would fully expect his session to instruct this foolish one in his flawed thinking in all these areas rather than to let his foolish thinking and improper theology hijack the church. If or when the session told this one they would not "rebaptize" him, any of the previous baptisms were valid, and that they were going to come along side him with instruction (doctrine and life), his duty would be to see this as from God and submit to them and not press the matter further.

However common or unique the above situation may be, it demonstrates the fact that an individuals conviction (conscience) may be completely wrong. It is for this reason (and many others) that Christ has given the offices and officers of the church, with authority, to rule his church and to come alonside the church as shepherds for the benefit (instruction, maturity) of his people.

Based upon the Op, seems to be an issue on if the baptism was done in the right mode, in the Trinitarian fashion, and if the dad would be seen as being a qualified party.

 

[Dachaser]

@Dachaser,

Your advice may very well indeed be the correct advice for the situation. I think Andrew and Greg realize that this decision is best handled by a local session, not for an online forum. I think it is better to lay out some general principles as Andrew does then to give advice in the specific situation.

Does this make sense?

I can just suggest what would be the normal way that a Baptist church would handle the OP as given to us.

 

[Dachaser]

There are two separate issues here. The first is whether Alexander's baptism was administered rightly, the second is whether Alexander's baptism was legitimate. There is a difference between the two. Just because something was done in error or in sin does not mean it is illegitimate.

I consider my own baptism. I got a believer's baptism when I was 8 after being raised going to church. When I was baptized, I thought it was merely a sign of my obedience after I accepted Jesus into my heart from the sinner's prayer. You could say that my baptism was erroneous for these reasons, but it was still a legitimate baptism. As an adult, I understand it better than I did then and I would have wished I were baptized as an infant, but it's still a real baptism.

I think we all agree that Alexander's baptism was administered incorrectly. The question is whether it was legitimate.

My opinion is that it was not legitimate because it was not done in a Trinitarian fashion. I understand that in the book of Acts there were many people who were baptized, "In the name of Jesus," but we see no examples of their baptismal formula excluding the Trinity and there are better explanations for why this phrase is used. More importantly, the rationale for modern "Jesus name only" baptisms is an explicit denial of the Trinity and the disobedience of the words of Jesus in the Great Commission.

In my opinion, Alexander's so-called baptism was significantly enough out of order that it warrants being ruled out so that a true baptism can occur.

Nevertheless, I do not believe your salvation is in jeopardy in either case and I concur with the recommendation to consult the elders.

It seems that he was water baptized into the Oneness Pentecostal way, Jesus only, and do not think any Baptist church would regard that as being a valid one, even if one of their ministers had done it.

 

[Dachaser]

If you are wavering between two uncertain errors, one to have an extra baptism and one to have no baptism, wouldn't you want to err on the side of an extra baptism?

Just to give to him peace of mind on this issue.

 

[Grant]

if He belongs to a PB church, would not be running though in a traditional reformed Presbyterian way though in regards to this issue.

Brother let’s not complicate this thread. This is not a routine Puritan board post. Baptism is a very serious matter and it would appear that Alexander’s situation is unique indeed And requires a somewhat quick resolution.
No matter if you come from a Presbyterian or a Baptist background the best answer for this specific situation hands-down is for him to go and sit down with his elders to discuss the personal details of the situation. To Withhold baptism is a great sin. Likewise to keep administering baptism after a valid baptism, is also sin.

Alexander, please talk to your elders my friend. Also please let us know and keep us updated on your situation so that we can pray for clarity and discernment for you and you Elder(s).

 

[Dachaser]

Brother let’s not complicate this thread. This is not a routine Puritan board post. Baptism is a very serious matter and it would appear that Alexander’s situation is unique indeed And requires a somewhat quick resolution.
No matter if you come from a Presbyterian or a Baptist background the best answer for this specific situation hands-down is for him to go and sit down with his elders to discuss the personal details of the situation. To Withhold baptism is a great sin. Likewise to keep administering baptism after a valid baptism, is also sin.

Alexander, please talk to your elders my friend. Also please let us know and keep us updated on your situation so that we can pray for clarity and discernment for you and you Elder(s).

Indeed, needs to consult with his Elders, or with the pastor Himself on this issue, but does still seem to require a valid Baptism to be administered to him.

 

[Gforce9]

if He belongs to a PB church, would not be running though in a traditional reformed Presbyterian way though in regards to this issue.

What??? No, presbyterian government is not like independency.

Just to give to him peace of mind on this issue.

Ones peace of mind should come from a session, who knows his situation and has his best in mind.

I can just suggest what would be the normal way that a Baptist church would handle the OP as given to us.

I guessing it is not so cut and dried as this....

Based upon the Op, seems to be an issue on if the baptism was done in the right mode, in the Trinitarian fashion, and if the dad would be seen as being a qualified party.

And for a session to decide.....

Indeed, needs to consult with his Elders, or with the pastor Himself on this issue, but does still seem to require a valid Baptism to be administered to him.

This is not for us to decide. Your surety in these matters is quite troubling.....

 

[Dachaser]

What??? No, presbyterian government is not like independency.


Ones peace of mind should come from a session, who knows his situation and has his best in mind.


I guessing it is not so cut and dried as this....


And for a session to decide.....


This is not for us to decide. Your surety in these matters is quite troubling.....

I am just suggesting that His procedure for this in the PB not as elaborate and extensive as in Presbyterian church, as their government is handles different fashion. The PB does not recognize formal pastors, nor Sunday school teachers, based upon my dealings with them.

 

[Dachaser]

What??? No, presbyterian government is not like independency.


Ones peace of mind should come from a session, who knows his situation and has his best in mind.


I guessing it is not so cut and dried as this....


And for a session to decide.....


This is not for us to decide. Your surety in these matters is quite troubling.....

Not at all completely sure, just seems to be the way to go here, based upon the OP.

 

[Gforce9]

Not at all completely sure, just seems to be the way to go here, based upon the OP.

The way to go should be determined by the session and not by David on a forum.....

 

[brendanchatt]

With both of these concerns noted, the right thing is for a session to be involved.

No doubt. I wanted to give him some thoughts to digest as that's happening. A few posters have been pretty clear on that point.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

We are done here.

Alexander, please seek the advice of your Pastor and Elders.