Infant baptism

[QuagDabPeg]

If someone was baptised as a baby or a young child (6 or 7 years old) and then later proclaimed Jesus, would they necessarily have to be baptised again?

 

[TwinCrier]

Since I don't believe baptism is regenerative or necessary for salvation, they wouldn't necessarily HAVE to but most Baptist churches require believers baptism (baptism made consciously as a believer in Jesus Christ) before considering someone for official membership.

 

[SumTinWong]

I guess according to our church they would have to. Something about a Believers Baptism, and it is too hard to gauge whether a 6 or a 7 year old would have the knowledge to accept such a thing.

 

[The Bad Templar]

I was Christened in the Methodist Church (Australia) as a baby but decided to be baptised as a 20-year-old in a Pentecostal church because they were offering immediate baptism...not like my Baptist church which insisted on an eight-week course and lots of other rigmarole.

I think a believer should be baptisted again because infant baptism is completely involuntary and has no bearing on an adult Christian's faith.

 

[SumTinWong]

...not like my Baptist church which insisted on an eight-week course and lots of other rigmarole.

I know, it bored me to no end. I wanted to be Baptised right away and had to wait until Thanksgiving. Bah.

 

[QuagDabPeg]

I know, it bored me to no end. I wanted to be Baptised right away and had to wait until Thanksgiving. Bah.

Although in some ways I think it's good to have to tread through the boring learning stuff first to make sure you really understand what you're doing and it's not just about emotions (which can easily fade).

 

[CFoster]

...not like my Baptist church which insisted on an eight-week course and lots of other rigmarole.

The Baptist church I was Baptised in and still attend didn't have an eight-week course. What types of Baptist churches do this practice?

 

[lucypevensie]

Eight weeks seems kind of long but whatever is necessary.... In our (baptist) church you do need to do some kind of interview with a deacon before baptism. They do this in order to make sure the person understand what they are doing. My husband is a deacon so he has done some interviews. You might be surprised at how many people think you can just walk into a church and become a member of it or get baptised, and BAM!, you're on your way to heaven.

 

[lucypevensie]

Sorry, I forgot to answer the OP. Yes, I think the person should be baptised again. It's my opinion that baptism other than believers baptism is not commanded, and therefore doesn't count .

 

[SumTinWong]

Although in some ways I think it's good to have to tread through the boring learning stuff first to make sure you really understand what you're doing and it's not just about emotions (which can easily fade).

That is true to some extent, which is why I would never personally baptise a child. But a man at the age of reason should not have to wait nine months(seven months until the classes started then two months of classes) and be forced to sit through the history and by laws of the church to know what his/her baptism means

 

[QuagDabPeg]

That is true to some extent, which is why I would never personally baptise a child. But a man at the age of reason should not have to wait nine months(seven months until the classes started then two months of classes) and be forced to sit through the history and by laws of the church to know what his/her baptism means

Maybe there could be some comprimise. Like let him be baptised after (several hours, days, week?) of consulation with the Pastor and then encourage him to go through classes or at least personal study. I feel like I've seen too many people who accept Jesus at camps or rallies or in moments of very emotional religious experiences and then once that initial excitement and novelty and emotion wears off they just go back to their old ways and turn way from Jesus again. I think that's part of the problem with the heavy emotion based evangelism, in my eyes. It just doesn't seem to last because people come to Jesus out of an emotional experience without really understanding what's behind it. Not to say that there isn't a place for that, there is also the threat of people who only get the academic side of their faith, adn that's just as much a problem, but there needs to be a balance.

 

[SumTinWong]

Maybe there could be some comprimise. Like let him be baptised after (several hours, days, week?) of consulation with the Pastor and then encourage him to go through classes or at least personal study.

That is exactly what I was loking for. I think that is a great idea.

I feel like I've seen too many people who accept Jesus at camps or rallies or in moments of very emotional religious experiences and then once that initial excitement and novelty and emotion wears off they just go back to their old ways and turn way from Jesus again.

I couldn't agree more. I have also seen people join one branch of the church just because their spouse to be wants to get married in that church. They go through all kinds of classes without the intention of joining the church. I speak from experience, as i did this ten years ago.

I think that's part of the problem with the heavy emotion based evangelism, in my eyes. It just doesn't seem to last because people come to Jesus out of an emotional experience without really understanding what's behind it. Not to say that there isn't a place for that, there is also the threat of people who only get the academic side of their faith, adn that's just as much a problem, but there needs to be a balance.

I agree. I think that people do and can get caught up in the moment, and not fully understand that this is a journey not a sprint. Good post!!!

 

[Crazy Liz]

That is true to some extent, which is why I would never personally baptise a child. But a man at the age of reason should not have to wait nine months(seven months until the classes started then two months of classes) and be forced to sit through the history and by laws of the church to know what his/her baptism means

Anabaptists tend to have a rather long catecumenate, during which both doctrine and the obligations of church membership are made clear. I don't think there's a standard, but for me, as a teenager, it was several months. Maybe LL and/or Pastor George will pipe in with other experiences. Anyway, Mennonites differ from Baptists in this area. Whereas Baptists tend to view baptism as an individual commitment to God, Anabaptists also consider baptism a rite of initiation into the church, and a function in which the whole church participates.

So, in contrast to the usual Baptist interview with a pastor, elder or deacon, someone who wants to be baptized in a Mennonite church will typically be asked to give their testimony in a church service, and the whole congregation will accept their candidacy by some kind of "vote" or congregational affirmation before the person is actually baptized. A person is never baptized without becoming a member of the church. Church membership includes the obligation to give and receive counsel. The obligations are quite extensive, so the catecumenate is usually longer, so as to be sure these obligations are undertaken seriously and advisedly. You might compare the period of catecumenate (when a person is "officially" seeking baptism and church membership) to the engagement period before a marriage. The commitment of church membership in a Mennonite church is taken just as seriously, and the length of the period of preparation is similar.

 

[JMandrell]

Personally I don't believe in baptizing infants. Baptism is a way of showing your loyalty to God after being saved. Baptizing an infant, in my opinion, is really just a waste of time because the baby has no idea what is going on. When a person accepts Jesus, then thru faith they should be baptized.

I don't agree with the waiting period. At my church, if I went to my preacher and told him that i think I need to be baptized he would ask me when I wanted to do it. If I said right now, he would take me to the baptistry after church and baptize me. There has been many occassions where people were baptized the day they accepted Jesus. My church preaches that baptism is a way of giving a public showing that you are washed in the blood of the lamb.

 

[Matthan]

Baptism as a believer is important for church membership. But waiting two months is just a little much. A discussion with the pastor will quickly determine what the decision to be baptized is based on. If it is true belief, nothing more is necessary.

Matthan <J>< (Mods, I'm not trolling, really I'm not!)

 

[The Bad Templar]

The Baptist church I was Baptised in and still attend didn't have an eight-week course. What types of Baptist churches do this practice?

It varies from church-to-church. My current church has a much shorter course.

It was very conservative at the previous church I mentioned and a couple of very legitimate young Christians pulled out of the course. The recipient had to wear white and there was also an expectation that after the baptism the recipient would host a big lunch or supper.

I always cite Philip baptising the Ethiopian eunich in Acts. The baptism was immediate, but it was obvious Philip thought he was ready.

 

[ZiSunka]

If someone was baptised as a baby or a young child (6 or 7 years old) and then later proclaimed Jesus, would they necessarily have to be baptised again?

Necessary? No. A blessing? Yes. There is no baptism like a Believer's baptism. I was baptized as an infant, and that baptism didn't really have anything to do with me, it was really all about my parents and godparents, I was a spectator more than a participant, it was something done to me more than something done as a result of faith on my part. I had no choice, I was dressed up and taken to church where I was baptized.

My second baptism was all about me and God, about the faith I found in him when I was 30 years old, and about the salvation he gave me when I believed. It was an act of obedience, a deliberate act on my part, something I did so all other people would know that I was siding up with God. I was a participant, the participant, not the spectator this time.

 

[ZiSunka]

And yes, there was a "proving period" between my asking to be baptized and the actual baptism. Most monnonite churches require a period of time when a person learns the basics of the faith through classes, participates fully in the life of the church, and demonstrates a regenerated life, good character, and the heart-felt desire to grow in the Lord. Some churches even hold congregational meetings to vote on whether or not a person should be baptized and admitted as a member of the church. No unbaptized person can be a member of a mennonite church, and most require a Believer's baptism, not an infant baptism.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

I feel like I've seen too many people who accept Jesus at camps or rallies or in moments of very emotional religious experiences and then once that initial excitement and novelty and emotion wears off they just go back to their old ways and turn way from Jesus again. I think that's part of the problem with the heavy emotion based evangelism, in my eyes. It just doesn't seem to last because people come to Jesus out of an emotional experience without really understanding what's behind it. Not to say that there isn't a place for that, there is also the threat of people who only get the academic side of their faith, adn that's just as much a problem, but there needs to be a balance.

These people are in every church, not just the evangelical ones. There will always be those Christmas and Easter kinda people who are not really living thier life the best way God would want them to. This is a problem in every denomination and most likey every religion.
As far as waiting to be baptized, I think that is bogas. I do not recall anyone having to wait to take a class in the NT so they would fully understand what they were doing. That is all church propaganda, having people take classes. There is no reason that it could not take no more than just one hour or less to understand what the meaning of baptism is for the believer. I don't agree with this at all. Most the time people are too afraid to make a committment like baptism because they think they are agreeing with the churches doctrines. This should not be the case. Baptism should be just as free as salvation. Seems to me like the church is demanding membership before the person is allowed to be baptized and that is bondage that no believer really needs after being freed from thier sin.
GEL

 

[Mary of Bethany]

and the whole congregation will accept their candidacy by some kind of "vote" or congregational affirmation before the person is actually baptized.

Something like this used to be done in the SBC I grew up in. The membership "voted" whether or not to receive a person into the church. (I don't think the vote was ever "no" ). Do Baptists still do this?