Rebaptism? The response to Christians from other traditions.

I am in general agreement with both Mark and Chip and Dave; however, I do raise the question of baptism being a public profession of faith. If I read the book of Acts the general pattern is that new believers are baptised straight away. This appears to be contrary to the practice of many [UK] credo-baptism churches which require attendance on some form of baptismal course and then organise a baptismal service with an outreach/evangelistic element. In the book of Acts I do not see Peter or Paul (or others) delaying a baptism so that others (either non-believers or the rest of the church) can be present. I am not saying that getting baptised in front of an ‘audience’ is wrong, but I am saying that it does not appear to be a requirement or the practice of the early church.

If we link believers baptism to the need for a public declaration of faith (be that in front of the church and/or non-believers) then this element is fulfilled in the confirmation service (which is effectively where the person being confirmed links their faith in Christ to the baptism they received as an infant/child).

The NT does not address the subject of invalid baptisms directly; there is not passage in Paul (for example) that says what should happen to believers that have not been baptised following the pattern of believer’s baptism [we may add by full immersion here too]. I suspect that this is because the practice of paedo-baptism was not in existence at that time.

If I may, can I make the following points for consideration?

(1) Is believer’s baptism an essential requirement for salvation? If so this creates a salvation by faith and a “work” scenario and also negates the faith of - for example - the thief on the cross or OT believers.

(2) If we accept that baptism is not essential for salvation the implication is that people can be Christians who have not been baptised as believers and may have been baptised as infants, albeit that we would argue that they are mistaken in their practice (be they theologians who have studied the issue or others who have followed the incorrect teaching of the church). This list would include notable reformers such as Luther and Calvin.

(3) If we accept that people can be Christians with a believer’s baptism, albeit having a mistaken understanding and practice of baptism, can we have fellowship with them? Or should their practice of baptism exclude fellowship? [As an aside would we distinguish between a person baptised as an infant and someone within such the same denomination baptised as an adult?]

(4) If we accept that it is possible to have fellowship with them to what degree should we try to correct their understanding of baptism? Is there a position where we can accept that (although believing their position to be wrong) we can accept that they may hold this position in good conscience? (We may think of the weaker brother in Romans 14 or 1 Corinthians 8.)

(5) If we accept that we may have fellowship with them should there be limitations on what the person can do within the congregation? We may make a list to include participation in breaking of bread, making tea/coffee for after service refreshments, playing the piano in worship, assisting or leading in Sunday school, involvement in outreach etc.

(6) If we allow involvement in some/all of these activities is the de facto circumstances that we are treating them as members (whether or not they are on a formal membership list)?

Ideally the person would see that their baptism is not a believer’s baptism and she will seek to be baptised again (albeit that this is two decades since conversion); however one of the challenges is that in the twenty-or-so years since the confirmation service the validity of the christening/confirmation situation has been accepted without challenge by all the churches that she has attended, including churches that practise credo-baptism.

I would welcome any comments anyone may have.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Richard,

The element that is missing in your last post is that of obedience. This is the reason most churches have historically required baptism before accepting people into membership. The thinking is that it does not good to accept someone into membership if they are immediately going to face church discipline for some blatant, open disobedience to scripture. Hence, the requirement that baptism precede membership. At this point, the woman you described has not been obedient to scripture even as you say she has come to understand the teaching of scripture which is baptism by immersion following salvation for those who profess salvation.

Chip, thank you for your comments. I do not disagree with the need for obedience, but I think this over simplifies things from a pastoral perspective. To you and I this is a question of the right way to practice baptism and the wrong way; to not submit to the correct form of baptism is disobedience. My point is to investigate a wider question in that not every Christian will have been baptised upon belief by full immersion and how we should respond to that situation in regard to both general fellowship and (as is the case here) if they start attending a church that is credo-baptist.

I think it is fair to say that my theology and understanding of baptism has developed (and is still doing so) over a long period of time; although I was baptised by full immersion as a believer after coming to faith, I did not at that time regard a non-full immersion baptism or christening followed by confirmation as wrong, albeit that I thought that credo-baptism was the better option. (It is only by the grace of God that I went to a church practicing believer’s baptism by full immersion.) Should I have been excluded from membership because I held views that encouraged or supported or allowed disobedience?

The lady in question now agrees that baptism by immersion is preferable. However she is still in a quandary as to whether her infant baptism followed by confirmation is completely invalid (she would currently regard a further baptism as being unnecessary); there are several Christians who would regard christening followed by confirmation as valid even if this is not their preferred option; there are (as I point out in my points above) several reformed theologians who also hold to infant baptism and therefore see no further need to be baptised again on profession of faith.

So do we treat her (or others in the same situation) as an unbeliever (so no participation in the breaking of bread for example), do we allow her the full benefits of membership or do we treat as some form of ‘weaker’ believer? (Albeit that our hope is that ultimately she may see that she should submit herself to a new baptism.)

Chip,

Please understand that I am not disagreeing with you, I am merely trying to get a better understanding of the arguments and considerations in this case so that I can put the case more strongly.

You have made the situation very black and white which is a perfectly valid position: however, the question that has not been answered is what do we do with the lady? Hence my question at the bottom of the last post. Do we simply shut the door in her face and tell her to go away? Do we treat her as an unbeliever? Where do we draw the line? What course of action is best to help her see the error of her ways and repent (and to do so in such a manner that doesn’t harm the gospel or undermine the correct understanding of Baptism for the remainder of the congregation)?