GUEST
ARTICLE
Is “Re-Baptism” Scriptural?
What about the issue of “re-baptism”? Some say
that “re-baptism” should never be practiced—no
matter what the circumstances of one’s original baptism
were. But what do the Scriptures say? Read this article and
reflect upon the nature of your own baptism, in light of
the biblical teaching regarding this divine ordinance.
Is there ever a justification for being “re-baptized”?
I have questioned my baptism. I was very young and really
did not comprehend the seriousness of what I was doing. I
have considered being baptized again, but some say that it
would not be right to be baptized a second time.
Your question is a very legitimate one. There are some people,
even among religious leaders, who oppose any form of re-baptism.
For instance, in 1996, the General Conference of the United
Methodist Church , in a convention conducted in Denver ,
Colorado , debated the matter of re-baptism. A position paper,
issued by the conference, declared that Methodists who were
baptized as infants should never be baptized again. The document
explicitly stated: “Whether a baptized infant grows
up to be a professing Christian or not, that baptism stands
valid.”
This position is flawed in many particulars, having no scriptural
support whatsoever.
New Testament Precedent
While on his third missionary campaign, the apostle Paul
came to the city of Ephesus . There, he encountered twelve
men who formerly had been baptized (with the type of baptism
administered by John the Baptizer). One might be inclined
to conclude, therefore, that the apostle would have accepted
these men as they were, and merely organized them into
a church.
Such was not the case, however. After questioning them as
to the nature of their earlier baptism, and determining that
their pre-baptism instruction on the previous occasion had
been lacking in essential particulars, Paul immersed these
men into Christ (see Acts 19:1-5).
This case clearly demonstrates that in order for one’s
baptism to be valid, accurate teaching must precede the rite.
Otherwise it is but a meaningless exercise, and not based
on faith (Romans 10:17).
True
Baptism—A One-time
Act
Genuine baptism is needed only one time in a person’s
life. Once a person has been baptized, according to the full
complement of scriptural instructions, he or she never has
the need to repeat this “new birth” process (cf.
John 3:3-5). After a person has entered the family of Christ through
baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13; cf. Galatians 3:26-27), he
or she is a part of the church, the household of God (1 Timothy
3:15; cf. Ephesians 2:19-22). The new Christian thus has
access to all of the spiritual benefits of the “in
Christ” relationship (Ephesians 1:3). As a son or daughter
of God, within that sacred environment, the Christian petitions
the heavenly Father for his or her personal needs by means
of prayer (see Acts 8:22,24; cf. James 5:16), including forgiveness
for sins as a child who will err (cf. 1 John 1:8; 2:1).
Baptismal Qualifications
Unfortunately, there are many sects in today’s world
of “Christendom” that practice a “form
of baptism,” but one that is contaminated by the accompaniment
of a variety of doctrinal errors that invalidate the process.
It is the case, therefore, that many who have been administered
what was called “baptism,” need to submit to
the ordinance again—this time with a more accurate
understanding that precedes the event.
Here are some situations in which “re-baptism” would
be warranted.
Infants
If one was “baptized” as an infant, thus was
lacking personal faith (Mark 16:16; Acts 11:21), he should
repudiate the meaningless earlier rite, in which he had no
decision-making power (even though his parents were sincere
in subjecting him to the procedure). He, in genuine faith,
should submit to the command in the proper way. Infants have
neither the need nor the ability to respond to the gospel
of Christ.
Baptism without immersion
If one was “baptized” in some fashion other than
by immersion (which actually expresses a contradictory concept,
since “baptize” means “immerse”),
then he should yield to the proper form. True baptism reflects
the candidate’s understanding that this ordinance pictures
the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The sinner is
buried in, and raised from, water (cf. Romans 6:3-4; Colossians
2:12), just as the Lord was buried, and then raised from
the dead.
True baptism validates one’s faith in the death and
resurrection events. Being sprinkled with water, or having
water poured upon the head, is no baptism at all, and such
substitutes are without sanction in the New Testament. They
are post-apostolic innovations.
Baptism without repentance
If one was “baptized” without this act having
been accompanied by genuine repentance, such a procedure
similarly was ineffectual. I once heard about a man who emerged
from the baptismal pool, turned to his wife, and said: “I
hope you’re satisfied!” No “baptism” which
lacks the proper motive (and other prerequisites) can have
validity in the divine scheme of things.
Baptism without faith
If one is “baptized” without a sound faith basis,
his ritual would be of no avail. One might feel, for instance,
that Jesus was a good man (perhaps even a “perfect
man”—as the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” allege),
but deny that Christ is the Son of God (i.e., deity), and
yet, for various other reasons, desire baptism. No baptism,
grounded upon such a spurious “faith” could be
accounted as genuine.
Baptism without purpose
If one has yielded to baptism for some purpose other than
that which is supplied by inspired teaching, he, in reality,
has not obeyed the Lord. Baptism is never defined as “an
outward sign of an inward grace”; it is not a mere
representation of redemption for those already received.
The purpose of the act is “for the remission of sins” (Acts
2:38), to have sins “washed away” (Acts 22:16),
to put the candidate “into Christ” (Romans 6:3-4;
Galatians 3:26-27), or into his “body” (1 Corinthians
12:13), at which point he is “saved” (Mark 16:16;
1 Peter 3:21). The common resistance to the biblical proposition,
namely that baptism is preliminary to salvation, constitutes
a bold rejection of the plain testimony of Scripture. One
cannot be immersed “for the remission of sins” (Acts
2:38), if he believes his sins have been remitted already.
A person’s soul is too valuable, the plan is too simple,
and the remedy too easy to access, for a person to “gamble,” hoping
that a former “baptism” will be alright—in
spite of the deficiencies associated therewith. If there
is any question in one’s mind regarding a previous “baptism,” he
should be safe and do it right.
--Wayne Jackson
christiancourier.com/articles/print/is_re_baptism_scriptural
|
