Rebaptism?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I read something very interesting in the account of Paul meeting up with 12 Ephesian disciples who had been water baptised with the baptism of repentance through John the Baptizer. The baptism of John was a baptism that involved Christ, in that it was the Christ who was to come as heralded by John. Also that being baptised in the name of Christ is also a baptism of repentance, and so there is no real difference between John's baptism and baptism in the Name of Christ. This meant that the Ephesian disciples were true disciples of Christ and their baptism was a recognised Christian baptism.

What this meant was that when Paul preached the Gospel of Christ to them, they received the baptism with the Holy Spirit. They were not re-baptised in water. They didn't need to be; they were already baptised for repentance, and the baptism they received after Paul laid hands on them, was the baptism that John foretold: "I indeed baptise you with water, but the One coming after me will baptise you with the Holy Spirit."

There are religious groups that demand that those who were baptised as infants, or as adults in another church, be re-baptised in their own group. This is not required by the New Testament, and is therefore non-Biblical. Perhaps someone who was baptised as an infant may voluntarily decide to be re-baptised as an adult believer. There is nothing wrong with that. But a person baptised as a believer in a Baptist church should not have to be re-baptised when maybe joining a Charismatic group. There are groups of "oneness Pentecostals" (Jesus-only) that believe that if a person has been baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they need to be re-baptised in the Name of Jesus. This is totally non-biblical and makes a mockery out of believers baptism.

Another point I want to make about how the Holy Spirit filled the Ephesian disciples is that it appears that the Holy Spirit spontaneously fell on them as Paul preached to them. I don't believe that this was the case. Luke had a habit of giving general information about an event, then following up with the specifics. In this case he generally says that the Holy Spirit fell on the disciples, and then explains how they specifically received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands by Paul. This is different to that of Cornelius' household, because Peter didn't expect them to receive the Holy Spirit, and so He did it spontaneously for them, whereas Paul knew that the Ephesian disciples would receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands in the same way that Peter and John conferred the Holy Spirit on the Samaritan believers.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I read something very interesting in the account of Paul meeting up with 12 Ephesian disciples who had been water baptised with the baptism of repentance through John the Baptizer. The baptism of John was a baptism that involved Christ, in that it was the Christ who was to come as heralded by John. Also that being baptised in the name of Christ is also a baptism of repentance, and so there is no real difference between John's baptism and baptism in the Name of Christ. This meant that the Ephesian disciples were true disciples of Christ and their baptism was a recognised Christian baptism.

What this meant was that when Paul preached the Gospel of Christ to them, they received the baptism with the Holy Spirit. They were not re-baptised in water. They didn't need to be; they were already baptised for repentance, and the baptism they received after Paul laid hands on them, was the baptism that John foretold: "I indeed baptise you with water, but the One coming after me will baptise you with the Holy Spirit."

There are religious groups that demand that those who were baptised as infants, or as adults in another church, be re-baptised in their own group. This is not required by the New Testament, and is therefore non-Biblical. Perhaps someone who was baptised as an infant may voluntarily decide to be re-baptised as an adult believer. There is nothing wrong with that. But a person baptised as a believer in a Baptist church should not have to be re-baptised when maybe joining a Charismatic group. There are groups of "oneness Pentecostals" (Jesus-only) that believe that if a person has been baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they need to be re-baptised in the Name of Jesus. This is totally non-biblical and makes a mockery out of believers baptism.

Another point I want to make about how the Holy Spirit filled the Ephesian disciples is that it appears that the Holy Spirit spontaneously fell on them as Paul preached to them. I don't believe that this was the case. Luke had a habit of giving general information about an event, then following up with the specifics. In this case he generally says that the Holy Spirit fell on the disciples, and then explains how they specifically received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands by Paul. This is different to that of Cornelius' household, because Peter didn't expect them to receive the Holy Spirit, and so He did it spontaneously for them, whereas Paul knew that the Ephesian disciples would receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands in the same way that Peter and John conferred the Holy Spirit on the Samaritan believers.

Let's not put God in a box. I was baptised in the Holy Spirit after much seeking, on my own, Christmas Eve 1974. I had a blockage that stopped me receiving. Once I saw the problem, it was like a dam wall broke.

The reality is that the Holy Spirit has been poured out. The baptism of the Spirit is just as much a part of our salvation as being born again or having forgiveness of sins. Some people receive everything when they come to the Lord. I did not as the man who led me was a cessationist. I knew nothing of these things at the time.

I knew a Pentecostal pastor. He said that he often prayed for Baptists, only to find that they already were baptised in the Holy Spirit. That is Baptist teaching. His fellow Pentecostals were not always on board with this, but it is what the Bible says.

 

[Albion]

I read something very interesting in the account of Paul meeting up with 12 Ephesian disciples who had been water baptised with the baptism of repentance through John the Baptizer.

The baptism of John was a baptism that involved Christ, in that it was the Christ who was to come as heralded by John. Also that being baptised in the name of Christ is also a baptism of repentance, and so there is no real difference between John's baptism and baptism in the Name of Christ.

That's not the case. The New Testament makes clear that there was understood to be a fundamental difference between the baptism of John and Christian baptism.

See Acts of the Apostles 19:4-5

 

[actionsub]

There are religious groups that demand that those who were baptised as infants, or as adults in another church, be re-baptised in their own group. This is not required by the New Testament, and is therefore non-Biblical. Perhaps someone who was baptised as an infant may voluntarily decide to be re-baptised as an adult believer. There is nothing wrong with that. But a person baptised as a believer in a Baptist church should not have to be re-baptised when maybe joining a Charismatic group. There are groups of "oneness Pentecostals" (Jesus-only) that believe that if a person has been baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they need to be re-baptised in the Name of Jesus. This is totally non-biblical and makes a mockery out of believers baptism.

Even worse is when one group who practices believer's baptism demand that someone coming from another group that believes the same get re-baptised just because the two churches differ on some point of doctrine (ex. OSAS). Recently my wife and I were looking for a new church, and we thought about one of the Baptist churches around here. However, my wife was baptized by immersion in the Christian Church, but because the Christian Church holds to a form of baptismal regeneration, her baptism is unacceptable to the Baptists.

And I, who grew up Baptist, found THAT unacceptable.

 

[eleos1954]

Let's not put God in a box. I was baptised in the Holy Spirit after much seeking, on my own, Christmas Eve 1974. I had a blockage that stopped me receiving. Once I saw the problem, it was like a dam wall broke.

The reality is that the Holy Spirit has been poured out. The baptism of the Spirit is just as much a part of our salvation as being born again or having forgiveness of sins. Some people receive everything when they come to the Lord. I did not as the man who led me was a cessationist. I knew nothing of these things at the time.

I knew a Pentecostal pastor. He said that he often prayed for Baptists, only to find that they already were baptised in the Holy Spirit. That is Baptist teaching. His fellow Pentecostals were not always on board with this, but it is what the Bible says.

The Holy Spirt works in the heart/mind of man, always has, always will until Jesus returns. Baptism is evidence that we have been saved .... our public testimony of our willingness to follow Christ and His teachings.

Seek and ye shall find .... and that was your experience ;o) Amen.

He meets us where we are ... and we are all in different places.

 

[Albion]

Let's not put God in a box. I was baptised in the Holy Spirit after much seeking, on my own, Christmas Eve 1974. I had a blockage that stopped me receiving. Once I saw the problem, it was like a dam wall broke.

What you're really saying is that you were not baptized and didn't need it.

Yes, that is the POV of a small percentage of Christians who think that all the references to sacramental baptism we are given in the Bible aren't to be taken literally but the analogy which is called a "baptism" only by comparison, i.e. the "Baptism with the Holy Spirit," should be. It's like "baptism of fire" (see Matthew 3:11) in being an expression, not a substitute for Christian baptism.

And now that I think of the so-called baptism of fire, I wonder how many people have chosen to be burned alive and think that doing this makes them baptized?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Let's not put God in a box. I was baptised in the Holy Spirit after much seeking, on my own, Christmas Eve 1974. I had a blockage that stopped me receiving. Once I saw the problem, it was like a dam wall broke.

The reality is that the Holy Spirit has been poured out. The baptism of the Spirit is just as much a part of our salvation as being born again or having forgiveness of sins. Some people receive everything when they come to the Lord. I did not as the man who led me was a cessationist. I knew nothing of these things at the time.

I knew a Pentecostal pastor. He said that he often prayed for Baptists, only to find that they already were baptised in the Holy Spirit. That is Baptist teaching. His fellow Pentecostals were not always on board with this, but it is what the Bible says.

My comment was about Luke's description of how Paul went about imparting the baptism with the Spirit to the Ephesian disciples. It is not always reliable to base a significant doctrine about any example reported by Luke in Acts. This example is not the only one. The Holy Spirit fell spontaneously on the household of Cornelius, while the Spirit was imparted to the Samaritans by Peter and John laying hands on them.

There is ample evidence that the baptism with the Spirit happened at the same time as conversion to Christ. I don't have a problem with that. Paul's instruction to the Corinthians was to pursue love and desire spiritual gifts. So, if conversion to Christ (and I mean genuine conversion, not just saying a sinners prayer at the front of a church and thinking that one is saved just because of that prayer) is receiving the baptism with the Spirit, then the person should be encouraged that seeing that he or she is baptised with the Spirit, they have the potential to manifest any of the gifts as the Spirit decides to prescribe for them.

Let's face it, it doesn't matter how a person receives the Holy Spirit, but it does matter what he or she decides to do next. If they decide to do nothing and manifest nothing, how can they show that they are actually Spirit-filled? Now, we can't say that they will demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit because that is the evidence of true conversion, not the enduement of power. But if a person preaches the Gospel to the unsaved and people get instantly healed along with that preaching, then we can say that the person is indeed endued with the power of the Holy Spirit. But if a person says they are Spirit-filled and all they do is sit on the couch and watch soap operas and turn up on Sunday to church just to warm a pew, how can they say they are actually Spirit-filled. They can't.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Even worse is when one group who practices believer's baptism demand that someone coming from another group that believes the same get re-baptised just because the two churches differ on some point of doctrine (ex. OSAS). Recently my wife and I were looking for a new church, and we thought about one of the Baptist churches around here. However, my wife was baptized by immersion in the Christian Church, but because the Christian Church holds to a form of baptismal regeneration, her baptism is unacceptable to the Baptists.

And I, who grew up Baptist, found THAT unacceptable.

Rebaptism for those reasons is as ridiculous as saying that if a person is converted to Christ in one denominational group, they have to be re-converted to Christ in the denominational group they are joining.

Seeing that there is only one God, one faith, and one baptism, then however a person is baptised, whether it be the baptism of John for repentance, baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or baptism for regeneration, or whatever, that one baptism is all they need, because God looks at the heart of the person for the reason why they want to be baptised. But if they join a church that demands re-baptism, they should walk right out the door and brush the dust off their shoes against them, and find another church down the road who will recognise the one baptism that covers all believers in the body of Christ.

 

[Aussie Pete]

My comment was about Luke's description of how Paul went about imparting the baptism with the Spirit to the Ephesian disciples. It is not always reliable to base a significant doctrine about any example reported by Luke in Acts. This example is not the only one. The Holy Spirit fell spontaneously on the household of Cornelius, while the Spirit was imparted to the Samaritans by Peter and John laying hands on them.

There is ample evidence that the baptism with the Spirit happened at the same time as conversion to Christ. I don't have a problem with that. Paul's instruction to the Corinthians was to pursue love and desire spiritual gifts. So, if conversion to Christ (and I mean genuine conversion, not just saying a sinners prayer at the front of a church and thinking that one is saved just because of that prayer) is receiving the baptism with the Spirit, then the person should be encouraged that seeing that he or she is baptised with the Spirit, they have the potential to manifest any of the gifts as the Spirit decides to prescribe for them.

Let's face it, it doesn't matter how a person receives the Holy Spirit, but it does matter what he or she decides to do next. If they decide to do nothing and manifest nothing, how can they show that they are actually Spirit-filled? Now, we can't say that they will demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit because that is the evidence of true conversion, not the enduement of power. But if a person preaches the Gospel to the unsaved and people get instantly healed along with that preaching, then we can say that the person is indeed endued with the power of the Holy Spirit. But if a person says they are Spirit-filled and all they do is sit on the couch and watch soap operas and turn up on Sunday to church just to warm a pew, how can they say they are actually Spirit-filled. They can't.

One of the many things I've learned over the last 50 years is that gifts are not fruit. I've met people who know nothing of the baptism of the Holy Spirit who are loving, gracious, generous and kind. I've met many Pentecostals who are an embarrassment to Christianity - hard, cold, proud and self righteous. They have gifts, but little fruit.

The high priest's garment had gold bells and pomegranates alternating sewn to the hem. This represents fruit and gifts. I'd rather spend time with someone who manifests the fruit than a gifted but fruitless person. Some Pentecostals don't realise that being gifted does not make them a superior being. It's a gift, not a reward.

Another problem I have is with people who speak in tongues who are not in fact born again. I was a member of a Pentecostal church for 5 years and a Charismatic Baptist for 3 years prior. I've seen a lot. And that's part of the reason why I'm not denominational now.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

One of the many things I've learned over the last 50 years is that gifts are not fruit. I've met people who know nothing of the baptism of the Holy Spirit who are loving, gracious, generous and kind. I've met many Pentecostals who are an embarrassment to Christianity - hard, cold, proud and self righteous. They have gifts, but little fruit.

The high priest's garment had gold bells and pomegranates alternating sewn to the hem. This represents fruit and gifts. I'd rather spend time with someone who manifests the fruit than a gifted but fruitless person. Some Pentecostals don't realise that being gifted does not make them a superior being. It's a gift, not a reward.

Another problem I have is with people who speak in tongues who are not in fact born again. I was a member of a Pentecostal church for 5 years and a Charismatic Baptist for 3 years prior. I've seen a lot. And that's part of the reason why I'm not denominational now.

My view is that if the person is not exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, any gifts he manifests is not of the Holy Spirit. In other words if a person is not walking in the Spirit and exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, then he is in the flesh and exhibiting the works of the flesh and therefore is not pleasing God. Paul is quite clear that those who exhibit the works of the flesh will not enter into the kingdom of God.

I can quite believe that many of these ones who don't exhibit the fruit of the Spirit will be the ones who will appear before Jesus at the judgment saying, "Lord, Lord, haven't we prophesied in Your name, cast out demons and done mighty works?" And the Lord will say to them, "I never knew you. Depart from Me you workers of iniquity."

 

[Aussie Pete]

What you're really saying is that you were not baptized and didn't need it.

Yes, that is the POV of a small percentage of Christians who think that all the references to sacramental baptism we are given in the Bible aren't to be taken literally but the analogy which is called a "baptism" only by comparison, i.e. the "Baptism with the Holy Spirit," should be. It's like "baptism of fire" (see Matthew 3:11) in being an expression, not a substitute for Christian baptism.

And now that I think of the so-called baptism of fire, I wonder how many people have chosen to be burned alive and think that doing this makes them baptized?

I don't know how you got that from what I said. I believe baptism in water by immersion is important, but it does not save people. Same with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It's unfortunate that translators were too fearful of Rome to translate the word correctly. It literally means "to immerse". Usage in ancient Greek included describing sunken ships.

 

[Aussie Pete]

My view is that if the person is not exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, any gifts he manifests is not of the Holy Spirit. In other words if a person is not walking in the Spirit and exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, then he is in the flesh and exhibiting the works of the flesh and therefore is not pleasing God. Paul is quite clear that those who exhibit the works of the flesh will not enter into the kingdom of God.

I can quite believe that many of these ones who don't exhibit the fruit of the Spirit will be the ones who will appear before Jesus at the judgment saying, "Lord, Lord, haven't we prophesied in Your name, cast out demons and done mighty works?" And the Lord will say to them, "I never knew you. Depart from Me you workers of iniquity."

In some cases, you will be proven right. I have met people who are saved but have allowed the demon of spiritual pride to take over. It's common with Pentecostals. If you can get past that to the real person, it becomes obvious that they are born again. I received much help from a Pentecostal pastor. About 20 years later, I met him again. He'd changed, and not for the better. Pride is a terrible thing.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don't know how you got that from what I said. I believe baptism in water by immersion is important, but it does not save people. Same with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It's unfortunate that translators were too fearful of Rome to translate the word correctly. It literally means "to immerse". Usage in ancient Greek included describing sunken ships.

The Koine Greek word "Βαπτίζω" means "To dip", which agrees with what you are saying.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

In some cases, you will be proven right. I have met people who are saved but have allowed the demon of spiritual pride to take over. It's common with Pentecostals. If you can get past that to the real person, it becomes obvious that they are born again. I received much help from a Pentecostal pastor. About 20 years later, I met him again. He'd changed, and not for the better. Pride is a terrible thing.

Something like that is really sad. If he was a really effective pastor, then it is no surprise that the devil has worked to neutralise him. The devil does that to those who threaten his purposes. If the pastor had an issue of pride right from the start, the devil would have left him along because he would have been no threat. We have to pray that the pastor, down deep in his heart, is teachable, and is willing at some stage to realise that he has been deceived by the devil and seeks help to be delivered.

 

[Albion]

I don't know how you got that from what I said. I believe baptism in water by immersion is important, but it does not save people.

Then there should not be a disagreement here.

I mean, what church DOES say that baptism saves people? No one on these threads has said that to the best of my recollection. And yet, I often read from people who favor rebaptisms or don't believe in baptism at all that they don't believe it saves the person being baptized. They might just as well make the point that it doesn't make you immune to Covid, either.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Then there should not be a disagreement here.

I mean, what church DOES say that baptism saves people? No one on these threads has said that to the best of my recollection. And yet, I often read from people who favor rebaptisms or don't believe in baptism at all that they don't believe it saves the person being baptized. They might just as well make the point that it doesn't make you immune to Covid, either.

There are a surprising number of people who believe in what is known as baptismal regeneration. Denominations include Lutheran, Methodist and some Anglicans. Some Pentecostals also teach it.

I've had a number of discussions on this subject. I was told by a Lutheran theologian that I was robbing children of spiritual blessing because of my stand. I'm not a baby sprinkler either, which added to the wrath. I did not have the heart to point out that the Lutheran church is withering away. H didn't need me to point out the obvious.

 

[Albion]

There are a surprising number of people who believe in what is known as baptismal regeneration.

Yes. But does Baptismal Regeneration mean Salvation is guaranteed? Well, no. Yet that's what is so often alleged--that Baptism saves. In those words.

So is this a misunderstanding between branches of Christianity? Or it is an improper use of terminology by some of them?

I've had a number of discussions on this subject. I was told by a Lutheran theologian that I was robbing children of spiritual blessing because of my stand.

That seems harsh to say, but his point is correct. The sacraments give grace among other benefits. But getting back to our topic here, he didn't say that baptizing children meant that they were forever safe from damnation, did he? Or that it didn't matter what they did in later life 'cause...salvation had been accomplished?"

I'm not a baby sprinkler either, which added to the wrath.

Well, neither am I, nor is your Lutheran colleague.

It seems that you're piling up a number of different misunderstandings here!!

 

[ViaCrucis]

St. Paul came upon a group of "disciples" who were unfamliar with anything beyond what John the Baptist had taught and done. So they were not members of the Christian Church. Paul had to preach to them, and then baptize them with Christian Baptism, and afterward he laid hands on them (Chrismation).

That's what the passage says and means.

Christian Baptism is the Sacrament of Holy Baptism instituted by Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sin, which He commands His Church to do "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Even worse is when one group who practices believer's baptism demand that someone coming from another group that believes the same get re-baptised just because the two churches differ on some point of doctrine (ex. OSAS). Recently my wife and I were looking for a new church, and we thought about one of the Baptist churches around here. However, my wife was baptized by immersion in the Christian Church, but because the Christian Church holds to a form of baptismal regeneration, her baptism is unacceptable to the Baptists.

And I, who grew up Baptist, found THAT unacceptable.

It always seems strange to me that those who are most legalistic about Baptism are the same ones who don't believe that Baptism actually accomplishes anything anyway.

As a Lutheran I believe that sinners are born again in the waters of Holy Baptism. Also, we accept Christian Baptism as Christian Baptism--meaning it doesn't matter what you did or didn't believe when you received your baptism, it doesn't matter what church it was in, it doesn't matter who facilitated it. It doesn't matter what the mode was--immersion (single or triple), or affusion (aka pouring), etc. What matters is that it is Christian Baptism: Water and word connected together as a Holy Sacrament, as instituted by Jesus which He gave to His Church, and which He commanded His Church to do by His authority--to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit".

As long as it is normative Christian Baptism, water and word, in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit it is valid Christian Baptism. Even heretics who were baptized by heretics, if they come to the true faith, do not need to be baptized if their baptism was valid.

There are cases where a baptism can be invalid, for example so-called "Jesus-name only" baptisms are invalid; not so much because of the wording but rather because the underlying intent of "Jesus-name only" baptisms is a rejection of the Holy Trinity. As such, baptisms in the various "Oneness" churches are not valid, and as such such persons are not regarded as having been baptized at all. We don't speak of this as "re-baptism", since there was no baptism in the first place.

There is never such a thing as "re-baptism", because one is either baptized or they aren't. If they have received baptism, they are baptized.

Thus, from the perspective of mainstream, historic Christian churches, the "re-baptism" of persons already baptized is regarded as enormously offensive and sacrilegious. God doesn't make mistakes. And re-baptism, while it certainly doesn't confer anything nor does it remove anything, communicates false gospel, false teaching, and causes injury to faith by engendering doubts about God's word and promises.

The God who gives Himself away freely in Jesus Christ, in love, to freely justify sinners by His grace is not some kind of divine lawyer who is waiting for us to trip up on something, and then deny us because we somehow didn't get all our i's dotted and t's crossed. That would be ludicrous.

So the Church has always pointed to God's word, to God's promise, to the hope and salvation that is found in Jesus and no where else; and thus to the revealed means of God's grace: His word and Sacraments. Because it is here, in the external and objective works of God--outside of ourselves--that we can look and trust.

To look inward is to find only faithlessness; because faith is external from us. We do not naturally have faith in Jesus, faith in Jesus is the work and power of God--we are given faith, we receive faith. Faith is God's gift (Ephesians 2:8-9), not of ourselves, not of our works, not of our efforts, or abilities, or power of will or mind or reason. The Sower sows the seed of the word, and the word takes root--and our faith comes from this word. And thus the word causes life to happen, the word produces life which sprouts--and it is continually watered and fed by the word--i.e. Word and Sacrament.

When Baptism is taken away, when Word and Sacrament is set aside, the natural man instinctively looks to himself, he looks to his own thoughts and feelings. The natural man's way of doing things is through the Opinion of the Law: i.e., the notion that holiness, righteousness, intimacy with God, etc can be accomplished through our own power, our own efforts, our own abilities. Hence the natural man is drawn to seek assurance in himself; and when he does not find it (because it doesn't exist), then comes despair--the despair of the utter hopelessness of the sinner before God's righteous and holy Law. If not despair, the natural man is puffed up by his pride and sin; he looks to himself and convinces himself that he is good enough, holy enough, righteous enough. And thus denies that he is a sinner, denies that he is a wretch, denies that he has failed God and his neighbor, denies that he needs to repent, denies that he needs faith.

Take away the Gospel, take away Christ, take away the Sacraments, take away the word--there's nothing left to salvage. There is only empty, cold, dead religion: A form of godliness but the denial of the power thereof.

That is why it is desperately necessary for the Church to remember her first love: Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

It always seems strange to me that those who are most legalistic about Baptism are the same ones who don't believe that Baptism actually accomplishes anything anyway.

Yes. I've wondered that myself.