Re-baptized?

[LilLamb219]

No one here is devaluing God's promises in baptism. As Lutherans, we all know the glorious gifts that God gives to us by water and Word. That's something I just need to reiterate in this thread.

 

[DaRev]

The Confessions must never be interpreted apart from the Scriptures by which they are normed. Yes, the Confessions speak of the necessity of Baptism for salvation as do the Scriptures. This is precisely why we Baptize infants. But we must also understand the context of the Confessional texts, that being applying Scriptural teachings against the false teachings (in this case of Baptism) of the Anabaptists who consider Baptism a trivial work of man. We are Baptized because God commands it. We are Baptized because of the promise attached to it. But we must also realize that it is faith that receives the promise and blessings of Baptism. We receive faith as a gift of God by His grace. Baptism is one of the means of grace, not the only one. Saving faith can come from God by other means as He wills. This is expressed in Exodus 33:19, "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy." This is the basis of the Lutheran teaching. To say that no one can be saved without Baptism prevents God from being God. It prevents Him from being gracious and showing mercy on whom He wills as He wills by His means. The authors of the Confessions knew and understood this basic Scriptural truth. This is why Lutherans teach that Baptism is necessary but not absolutely necessary for salvation. If someone comes to saving faith by the hearing of the Gospel (Romans 10:17) but dies before he can be brought to Baptism, he is not necessarily lost. Scripture does not teach this. And Lutheransim has never traditionally taught this. What is absolutely necessary for salvation is grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

 

[HereIStand]

I was re-baptized as an adult (in a Baptist church). I don't want to say it was mistake, since it was blessing in some ways. Re-baptism does make it more difficult though to appreciate one's baptism, especially in a sacramental sense. It is as if you don't know which baptism to look to. All things considered though, I would not be re-baptized.

 

[Basil the Great]

Thank you for your response.

My issue is with the word necessary. It's been brought up in this thread that you can't know the fate of unbaptized stillborn children or infants. However, AC IX specifically addresses this issue and condemns as an Anabaptist heresy that children can be saved without Baptism. As to adults, I would point out the with Philip the Deacon, he seemed to not have a problem with Baptism right away, neither did Paul in Acts 19.

I know that Mark 16:16 says unbelief damns (getting beyond the issue that Mk 16:16 is not part of the original text), but it shows that faith and baptism (which are profoundly interconnected) saves. I'm saying, just in terms of logic, that you can't infer that that means lack of Baptism doesn't damn. True faith in Christ is always accompanied by Christian Baptism, there's no reason to really delay this and the Bible knows of no such practice, that's one of the reasons Confirmation developed in the early church, so that a man who had been baptized could make confession of Christ and Him crucified for himself.

I doubly agree with you about the thief on the cross. That's why when people try to bring him up as an example of Baptism not being necessary, it's invalid. It's just like arguing that Daniel or Jeremiah wasn't baptized, well, duh, Christian baptism wasn't instituted yet.

My argument is simply that: "Baptism is necessary for salvation." And "necessary" means "necessary." There's been a dangerous trend not just in the Lutheran church but in other churches that teach the Biblical doctrine of Baptismal regeneration. The RCC, to given an example, has even systematized it into something called "Baptism of desire" after Vatican II, people that would want baptism already have it. That's why most RCC bishops and even the pope make these completely heretical statements that non-Christians and unbaptized people can be saved. Now, if the Baptists are right, and Baptism is just a token, or a symbol, or a representation of faith already given to a man, then sure, Baptism isn't necessary for salvation. But if Baptism actually does something, and the Scriptures make it obvious that it does, then it has to be necessary for salvation. It's not optional. It's why I have no problem telling someone that isn't Baptized, "No, you're not a Christian." There's really no middle ground here, either it's necessary or it's not.


"Necessary for salvation" means "necessary for salvation." Just like when I tell the reformed "is" means "is" or when I mention to my RCC friends "not by works" means "not by works." I'm a simple man, I let the words of the Bible and the Confessions mean what they say, no need to qualify them in light of 20th century liberalism and 15th century Anabaptism. Not saying that those who hold otherwise are Anabaptists or liberals, but that's where that view comes from. Christians before the 15th century are unanimous that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Augustine certainly believed and taught that Baptism was necessary for salvation, as he held that unbaptized babies would go to Limbo (aka the Outer Edge of Hell). It would appear that the majority of Chirstians prior to the 15th Century held to said view and possibly the vast majority, at least in the West. Remember the recent controversy in Ireland about stillborn babies having to be buried outside of "hallowed ground" and not next to their parents, as it was taught and believed (even if taught in a non-infallible manner by the RCC) until very recently by the RCC that unbaptized babies could not go to Heaven. The Irish RCC did issue an apology for said practice a few years ago.

However, it would be wrong to say that all Christians believed this teaching prior to the 15th Century. There were supposedly a few Early Church Fathers (a distinct minority unless someone can prove me wrong) who believed and taught in "baptism by desire". I cannot quote which ones off the top of my head. However, I believe that it is fair to say that by and large, bach90 is correct re: his claim about Baptism being held to be necessary for salvation prior to the 15th Century, at least in the Latin Church. However, just because such was apparently the prevaiing view back then does not mean that it was necessarily the right teaching.