GreenEyedLady said:
Liz-
I think it is very important when a believer is unscriptually baptized that they understand WHY they need to be rebaptized. There are many many churchs that preach that salvation is through baptism. This is unscriptual.
My problem with this, GEL, is that many Christians, even many members of Baptist churches, do not necessarily see things as you do. The example of the brother whose parents wanted to join a Baptist church after being lifelong Methodists is not an unusual example. In their situation, they were being asked to be re-baptized in order to accommodate the requirements of people who believe the way you do. It probably was explained to them that yours is the traditional Baptist belief, and therefore their church requires you do all these things for membership, but you do not have to believe it is necessary. Often, it is simply an act of obedience to show your submission to the wishes of the congregation you are joining. This is why many Baptist churches (and Mennonite Brethren, and I don't know what other denominations) will accept for membership anyone who was baptized as a believer, no matter what the mode, but require their ministers to be re-baptized by immersion if their first baptism was as a believer but not by immersion.
For Mennonites, as I have said before, a large part of the significance of baptism is as a means of initiation into the full responsibilities of church membership. I think this is scriptural. Now, if a person was baptized as a believer with this understanding, to require them to be baptized again is like saying they didn't really make that commitment to God and to the Church when they did it the first time. This causes unnecessary confusion and distress for many people. Others, like ministers who are required to be rebaptized, simply think of it as going through the motions to assure others that they have met the requirements.
What I'm trying to say is that whether a person feels his or her previous baptism was a
real baptism will greatly affect his/her attitude toward being required to do it a different way. Some, like George Blaurock and Michael Sattler, believed their infant baptism was no baptism because it was done to them without their consent. (BTW, they baptized each other by pouring, I believe. Definitely not by immersion. Baptism by immersion was introduced into the Anabaptist movement much later.) The individual's attitude toward their current church's requirements and their previous church's requirements, as well as many other factors will have a profound effect on that person's spirituality. I think to re-baptize a person who is reluctant for any reason can do a lot of spiritual harm.
There are "requirements" to be marrried to someone. If one of these requirements are not met, then the couple is not married according to the Law of that state or country. The same is with baptism.
This may be a good analogy, but it doesn't exactly work the way you are thinking. If I get married in one state and move to another, my marriage will be recognized, even though the requirements for marriage are different in the two states. For example, one state may require a blood test and a waiting period and another may not. If a couple marries in a state with less stringent requirements, they will not have to get a license and go through a new marriage ceremony in the new state. I realize this is a very small difference between requirements from one state to another, but there are bigger ones. Of course, right now we have a big political and legal controversy over just how far this recognition will stretch. (Please, lets not get into a discussion of gay marriage here. This is just an analogy.) Another example, though, that I have seen several people ask about here in CF and other Christian forums, has to do with whether God recognizes marriages by a justice of the peace, or only church weddings. Do you see where this analogy can lead?
It should be scriptual and the person who is being baptized should fully understand what is scriptual from unscriptual baptism. I understand that there are also many many church that preach that you have to be a member of that church to get baptized. That is also unscriptual. Baptism should be open to any one any time as long as they are saved just like communion is. It should have nothing to do with membership or the Blood of Christ and everything to do with that person publically confessing that Christ is thier Lord and Saviour.
GEL
Actually, I'm not aware of any church that requires someone to be a member of the church to be baptized. Most require one to be baptized before becoming a church member. However, it is true that most Mennonite churches will not baptize anyone who is not a
candidate for church membership. They will immediately upon baptism become members of the church. Their point is that if someone is publicly confessing Christ as their Lord and Savior, the same obedience that leads them to be baptized also leads them to join a body of believers. The two are inseperable. It would be like delivering a baby and waiting for the baby to decide whether or not to be part of the family. This is not a requirement for baptism
per se, but if a person claims to be a believer wanting to obey the Lord by being baptized, but does not want to obey the Lord by being part of the church, they still have more to learn about obedience before they are ready to be baptized.