Re-baptism - Should a Pastor do so?

The visible and invisible church, its role, practices, sacraments, organization, mission.
Ask Mr. Religion
Site Founder
Joined: July 28th, 2008, 9:13 am

June 29th, 2011, 5:07 pm #11

[mod]All,

The topic of the OP is not related to infant baptism per se. We have two forums for credo or paedo baptism. This is not one of them. Let's stay on topic.[/mod]
AMR (a.k.a. Patrick)
Do You Confess?
Faculty PRBS
My Randomata Blog
Quote
Like
Share

bodhisattva
Inactive Account
bodhisattva
Inactive Account
Joined: July 30th, 2008, 5:27 am

June 30th, 2011, 12:29 am #12

AMR and forum,

Not an effort or indication of preferance on credo/paedo, just acknowledging circumstances under which a second baptism occurs. Actually I have no dog in the paedo/credo fight, I can see each point of view, and don't presume to know the answer. I lean to the point of view of:
Ephesians 4:4-5:
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling;
One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all,
and through all, and in you all.



Once again, just a statement of fact, nothing more.

Larry
"... I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C Clarke
Quote
Like
Share

Ask Mr. Religion
Site Founder
Joined: July 28th, 2008, 9:13 am

April 26th, 2013, 4:30 am #13

This came across my desk this afternoon and it is worth a read:

http://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress. ... portunity/
AMR (a.k.a. Patrick)
Do You Confess?
Faculty PRBS
My Randomata Blog
Quote
Like
Share

marno
Invested Member
marno
Invested Member
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 4:27 am

April 28th, 2013, 4:37 pm #14

AMR brought out the connection between NT baptism and OT circumcision. I think this is further borne out in the WCF (28.4): that "one, or both" parents must be (professed) believers. As Paul pointed out in Rom. 4:11 circumcision was a sign of Abraham's faith that he had while uncircumcised. In some way then, those who hold to infant baptism (the WCF view, and mine) similarly consider the baptism of infants as a sign of the parent's faith and commitment to instill the same in their child (as the children of Abraham were circumcised as a sign not of their faith but of the covenant with Abraham). Hence the pledges on their parts to raise their child according to the the Christian faith, etc.

If then the minister is duly ordained, and baptizes a child where neither parent is a professed believer (and I cannot imagine such a scenario actually happening, but these are strange days), the baptism is not valid. There is no accord with Abraham and circumcision here. So it is not only the ordination of the minister but the faith of one or both parents as well.

The baptism of an adult of course is another matter. As a minister I would not automatically refuse re-baptism, but help the person understand the circumstances of their previous baptism, and whether a second were called for. I would explain that there is no true "re-baptism," only a first legitimate baptism.

I myself was baptized as an infant by a priest in the RCC. My father was a practicing Catholic and my mother, not particularly religious, went along with it. Many years later they both came to true faith (praise the Lord). When I too came to the Christian faith (and Reformed) I was re-baptized into membership in the church. Accordingly, I consider it my only true baptism.
Quote
Like
Share

rbftheiii
Member
Joined: June 25th, 2018, 8:16 am

July 1st, 2018, 8:22 pm #15

marno wrote: AMR brought out the connection between NT baptism and OT circumcision. I think this is further borne out in the WCF (28.4): that "one, or both" parents must be (professed) believers. As Paul pointed out in Rom. 4:11 circumcision was a sign of Abraham's faith that he had while uncircumcised. In some way then, those who hold to infant baptism (the WCF view, and mine) similarly consider the baptism of infants as a sign of the parent's faith and commitment to instill the same in their child (as the children of Abraham were circumcised as a sign not of their faith but of the covenant with Abraham). Hence the pledges on their parts to raise their child according to the the Christian faith, etc.

If then the minister is duly ordained, and baptizes a child where neither parent is a professed believer (and I cannot imagine such a scenario actually happening, but these are strange days), the baptism is not valid. There is no accord with Abraham and circumcision here. So it is not only the ordination of the minister but the faith of one or both parents as well.

The baptism of an adult of course is another matter. As a minister I would not automatically refuse re-baptism, but help the person understand the circumstances of their previous baptism, and whether a second were called for. I would explain that there is no true "re-baptism," only a first legitimate baptism.

I myself was baptized as an infant by a priest in the RCC. My father was a practicing Catholic and my mother, not particularly religious, went along with it. Many years later they both came to true faith (praise the Lord). When I too came to the Christian faith (and Reformed) I was re-baptized into membership in the church. Accordingly, I consider it my only true baptism.
In my situation, I have been baptized as a child (around the age of 8) by a minister within a non-denominational church (Horizon Southbay Christian Fellowship; I can ask my parents for the mans name, they would definitely remember) under the Trinitarian formula by parents who both professed the Christian faith: is this a true baptism?

My concerns would have to be with the mans ordination who baptized me, but AMR's post (#8) makes me consider the providence of the LORD.

[EDIT]: Just opened the link AMR shared in post #13:  this also makes me want to consider my initial baptism as the baptism.
Quote
Like
Share

Reformed Baptist
Leading Member
Reformed Baptist
Leading Member
Joined: November 20th, 2015, 5:59 pm

July 5th, 2018, 1:35 pm #16

The answer to this question is dependent on one's view of baptism. I'm a reformed Baptist, so I define baptism as: 

"1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

2. 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."

BCoF 1689 - ch 28

In this view baptism is an outward sign of a gracious work of salvation, therefore I would suggest that the only valid baptism is that of a person who already has faith (I realize the Presbyterian model is different).

So, whilst I am not too worried about who did the baptizing, I am concerned about the person being baptized. If a person was baptized without faith, upon a proper profession of faith I would re-baptize. However I would never actually say it was a 're-baptsim' as that assumes some sort of validity to the previous 'ceremony' the person experienced.     
 
"George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists." Spurgeon
Quote
Like
Share