I was sucked into the black hole that is Reddit the other day. In one particular group I saw a post with this little joke:
Baptists: If a Presbyterian was married as an unbeliever wanted to join your church, would he have to be “re-married” to become a member?
The joke here is that we Baptist will not accept into membership those who were “baptized” as infants. We require them to be “re-baptized”.
Except we don’t.
I understand from the position of an outsider looking in that we are requiring someone to do something that they’ve already done. And so it’s fitting to ask why aren’t we consist and require someone to be re-married if they were married before belief. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of our actual position.
Think of it this way. If a child acquires 1,000 dollars in Monopoly money and then attempts to purchase the latest gaming system, he’ll be leaving the store empty handed. If later on the child comes to actually possess 1,000 dollars of legal tender, his previous attempted transaction is not suddenly valid. You can never purchase a gaming system with monopoly money. It isn’t legal tender. Likewise you can never be baptized as an unbeliever. It isn’t baptism.
Now I understand that those who believe in paedobaptism will have qualms with my analogy. That’s not my point. I’m not attempting to argue credo v. paedo baptism. I’m simply trying to say that the argument isn’t about whether or not you should be re-baptized. The crux of the argument is about what constitutes baptism. Is infant baptism valid. If it is valid, then we as Baptists have no rights to require someone to be “re-baptized”. But if it isn’t valid, then we aren’t requiring “re-baptism” we are requiring initial baptism. If you’ve never actually been baptized then you need to be baptized. According to our position, being sprinkled as an infant, being immersed as an unbeliever, or any such thing is not an actual baptism.
So, Baptists don’t re-baptize. We baptize.
—
Photo by Jong Marshes on Unsplash
I have to admit I am confused by the article, sorry! Thank you for your articles.
Sorry it wasn’t clear.
Any particular questions that you have that might help clear it up?
Goodness, thank you. I was baptized at the age of 5 by an Episcopalian priest and confirmed in the Dutch Reformed Church in my 20’s. So if I were to want to become Baptist would I not be considered baptized? I guess I am being a little dense.
I think you’ve got it.
We believe that the word baptism means immersion. And we believe that such a thing takes place after faith. So yes, we would say that you haven’t been baptized according to the Scriptures. That’s not to say that we would believe you aren’t a believer or that you can’t be a faithful follower of Jesus.
And I think it can be a pretty emotional thing. I get why it’s offensive for us Baptists to say that your baptism wasn’t valid. But that’s just the way we understand the Scriptures. My article today is just trying to make the point that we aren’t calling people to be re-baptized as if the first one didn’t take. It’s that we’re saying you need to be baptized because that first thing that happened to you isn’t what the Scriptures mean by baptism.
Thank you! Now it makes sense to me. I’m not offended by what you believe, I am still learning and looking and asking so any information from a true believer like you is most welcome! I read your articles and the others that you put up almost every day.
So many churches outside now scare me because they seem to be going into apostasy and I have been asking God to guide me to one that is true. May He bless you abundantly!
Thanks! Appreciate your readership.
You are certainly true about many churches not teaching truth. Praying that you find a solid church (if you aren’t already in one). This is a pretty helpful tool if you are looking for a church: https://www.9marks.org/church-search/
Great article. I’ve had to explain that before to prospective church members. Are there any other considerations besides mode and the conversion of the subject that would be necessary for a legitimate baptism? Our bylaws require a baptism to be 1) after conversion, 2) by immersion, and 3) understood symbolically, to be biblical. Would a Church of Christ baptism be valid, since they hold to baptismal regeneration?
For me I think it’s more important what the baptizee believes and not the baptizer. So I believe it’s a case by case basis. And it also depends on what they mean by baptismal regeneration.
This from a person baptized in a Baptist church at age 11, but now a Lutheran who believes in infant baptism: What does baptism mean or accomplish in the Baptist church or Baptist tradition?
I think this is a great question. And it perfectly highlights something we Baptiste struggle with. We are often so passionate about saying it’s only a symbol that we don’t explain how powerful a symbol it is.
What does baptism accomplish? It is a public profession of faith. It is a chance to proclaim the gospel. It’s much like a wedding ceremony. A powerful symbol showing our covenanting with God.
The reason I ask this question is…if it’s only a symbol, what difference does it make if it’s not done in a way that a Baptist would say is valid? A “valid” profession of faith and symbol? What does that even mean?
The Lutheran view is that God “works” to give faith (faith is a gift) during baptism, and baptism is one way we receive that gift of faith and receive forgiveness. We also receive it through preaching and hearing His Word.
I don’t know that I would sign off on saying “only a symbol”. I don’t tend to use that language because I prefer to say something like, “It’s a powerful symbol”.
I’d say what I mean by valid is “accurately accomplishes its purpose”. To give a ludicrous example, is a middle finger a valid symbol of peace? Not at all. Likewise, is sprinkling an infant a valid picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? Is it a valid picture of the death to self and newness of life of a new follower of Jesus? I’d say no. And I’d say that baptism means immersion. It’s impossible, in my view, to baptize apart from immersion. Words have meaning. I cannot say I went to the store when I stayed on the couch the whole time. Went means to go. Baptism means to immerse.
Just stating my position as a Baptist. Also, I actually agree that baptism is a way in which God grants faith and repentance, though not necessarily to the person being baptized. But here is my nuance to that. I believe this happens not through the act itself but because baptism proclaims/displays the gospel. And the gospel proclaimed and displayed is the means God uses to bring people to himself. This is why I’m not comfortable saying something like, “only a symbol”.
Hmmm, interesting. I have not thought of baptism as meant to witness to a non-Christian. Mike, do you have Bible verses to support that position.
I come back to 1 Peter 3:21 – Baptism…now saves. And Acts 2:38 – be baptized….for the forgiveness of your sins.
Again, my position is that God, in baptism, is working and giving faith to the person being baptized – it’s His work.
In my area there are a number of believers in the evangelical Mennonite community that have been baptized as believing adults/youth but not by immersion (instead by sprinkling/pouring) and Baptist church memberships are wrestling with whether or not the baptism is valid due to the lack of immersion.
Many pastors seem to have no issues with extending membership even with the other form of baptism (although they would never perform it themselves) but some members take the stance of “We’re Baptists. Therefore you need to be immersed (i.e. re-baptized) to be a member of a Baptist church”.
Yep. But again I wouldn’t use the language “recapture”. Sprinkling isn’t baptism. Immersion is.
I also find these conversations interesting regarding how baptism is practiced with the typical SBC church. I grew up in a SBC church and I have seen children as young as 4 being baptized after a manipulative “if you were to die tonight” scare tactic at the end of VBS. I have seen these same children who were baptized at a very young age go off to summer camp as teens to come back from their mountain top experiences to claim to have not been really “saved” before when they were baptized but now they have been, so the church will “re-baptize” them again. a 2nd baptism. I have also seen adults that want to “recommit” their lives after years of back sliding get baptized a 3 time.
It is amazing to me that Baptist would claim some kind of high road on this given the practices I described above.
And if a Ligon Duncan and RC Sproul when he were alive want to be a baptist, do you really question their salvation and say their initial baptism was not valid?
You are correct. Many Baptiste don’t do a good job of truly looking for regeneration. In practice we are often hypocritical. Doesn’t change, though, our position on baptism. Just means we stink at truly applying.
As far as Duncan and Sproul. I would never once question their salvation. Their “baptism” however I would say was not what the Bible calls baptism
My experience with baptism went a step further. I was baptized as an infant in an Episcopal church, became a Christian in college and was baptized by immersion (single dip). I later tried joining a Grace Brethren Church but was denied membership until I was “properly baptized” by triple immersion. My single dip as an adult was supposedly not how Jesus taught us to baptize (Matt. 28:19-20). I left that church after much sorrow, angst and soul searching. I share this so you baptists realize there are other churches that take baptismal requirements to an insane and ridiculous level. I left behind many good friends because of this.
Sorry for your experience. I think many Baptist churches take it too far as well.
Maybe you could use their analogy against them: If an infant is married to someone, that marriage is not valid. You have to be a certain age to consent to marriage for that marriage to be valid. The idea is that you have to know what decision you are making. The same is true for credo-baptists. Baptism is only valid if you knew your decision to be baptized. An infant who is married to someone is never actually married to that person. That marriage is void ab initio. Void from the start. A later marriage to the same or a different person when they are of appropriate age would be valid.
Good thoughts, Shawn.
Some confusion exists because how some SBC’s I know apply baptism: they consider it a marriage to the church. These pastors rebaptize constantly – not because the prior baptism was invalid somehow – it was only invalid because it didn’t happen in their tank! I have seen this happen many times. I know that many church’s pretend that what happened to someone before they got to their church really didn’t count in some way. Perhaps this is where some of the confusion comes from.
I think you are absolutely right. I think some Baptists actually do “re-baptize” and do it wrongly. Of course I think I’d argue that what they are doing the second time isn’t baptism either if the first one was valid. I’d call that padding the stats, taking a Pharisee bath, or something similar.
Baptism, in part, is a symbol pointing to something that happens to Christians only once. Christ doesn’t save us more than once, so we shouldn’t be baptized more than once.
Except this IS arguing credo vs paedo baptism, by ruling all paedobaptisms invalid. By contrast, paedobaptists acknowledge the legitimacy of believers baptism if performed by a minister with the intent to baptize and in the Trinitarian name. Likewise credobaptism is by a wide margin the more recent and innovative position from the standpoint of church history. You are ruling out centuries of believers as unbaptized. I wish your article focused more on particular texts you find convincing. We all agree scripture commands us to baptize believers, and that baptism itself doesn’t save, but is an outward sign of an inward grace. I’d be interested in your take on the parallels you see or dont see between the Lord’s Supper and Baptism (as both a sign and a seal) as well as between circumcision and Baptism, and God’s new covenant family. I’ve had really great discussions with Baptist brothers who articulated their convictions well, and we often conclude that our positions are similar on the most important things. I dont think you meant to be dismissive, but perhaps your brevity here led to oversimplification? I also think a more relevant response to the original joke would be to point out that marriage is not a sacrament.
Cordially, your brother in Christ,
Rob.
Thanks for your comment. My intention isn’t to give a full defense of my position. This is just one tiny little blog post. My sole purpose is to say that from our perspective we aren’t rebaptizing. That’s it. I’m not trying to dismiss any of the great points paedos make…just ignore them so as to make this one point (lol).
This teaching (baptism is only baptism if by immersion) can become a “gospel” unto itself. There are countless Christian giants of the past who were not immersed. This is is focusing on an act of man rather than the work of God to save and seal a people as His own. I was raised in the SBC, baptized (immersed) after profession of faith at age 12. Who knows if that was a credible profession of faith. All that God has done since that time in my life validates and assures me that I am His. Currently, I am a part of the PCA but my validity is found in my identity – being found in Christ as a child of God. I love covenant baptism – sprinkling the infants of believers in our church. We are looking to God to seal this sign of the covenant just as the Old Testament people of God looked to him in the act of circumcision. Validation is God’s work!