Of Bald Men and Bears

My sophomore year of college, my roommate decided to join NWA's largest Baptist megachurch. She was informed that she would need to be baptized into membership, even though she had been baptized at her Baptist church in Kansas not five years earlier. It became a rather large ordeal, and eventually her pastor in Kansas was communicating with the pastor of this church in Arkansas, discussing whether or not her membership required re-baptism. In the end, it did. She withdrew her decision to join. Apparently every member of this church (and membership was in the thousands) had to be baptized, so I wondered how many of these were re-baptisms, and if any, or how many truly balked at this. Perhaps the better question to ask is how the concept of baptism was understood at this church.

My question to you is this, and the answer may be simple. Say you are the pastor of a church and you have a person who was raised Catholic and thus baptized as an infant. They want to know if they need to be baptized again in your church. Do they? Does it matter whether or not their family would be considered devout or non-practicing?

That's a fascinating story. I think that really shows what this pastor was getting at in the article. I didn't quote another part of his article, but he also talked about how baptism becomes nothing more than a social club membership prerequisite (rather than a holy sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ) when Baptists require rebaptism to join a church, especially when your friend had already been baptized as a believer by immersion!

To answer your question, the Westminster Confession of Faith says, "The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any one person" (28.7). They are following a long church history precedent that was especially fortified by Augustine during the Donatist Controversy. Augustine said that, unless a person were baptized by a heretic or was not baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they should not be rebaptized. I see no biblical reason to go against this tradition, so I would be extremely hesitant to rebaptize that person.

I think I read somewhere that, one certain occasions under extenuating circumstances, PCA churches sometimes do rebaptize their new members from Catholic churches, but I am not exactly sure what those circumstances would be.

So, I hope that answers your question.

It does. I was merely asking because I know some people don't consider the Catholic or even Greek Orthodox to be truly Christian, and thus are worthy of "real baptism that'll count" as I once heard. I don't believe that, but I can see how they might get there, especially if these children were baptized and then raised in non-practicing families. Such people need to go back and read their doctrines (and oh, Scriptures).

Practice varies a bit in the PCA. I was astonished at Presbytery once to hear one of our men say he would always baptize a Catholic since the Roman Catholics are not a true church and their baptisms are invalid. I disagree absolutely, but there it is. You will run across a minority in the PCA that insists on true baptism. (not "re-baptism" since that earlier thing doesn't count as a baptism).

The question for ordination candidates is always "what constitutes a valid baptism?" The 'right' answer is always, "use water and the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." The next question is always about Mormons, and the right answer is their baptism are not valid because they are not Trinitarian.

I don't know how some guys justify excluding Roman Catholic baptism. Calvin was absolutely clear: RC baptism was fine with him because it doesn't depend on the minister because it is God who is working here - in spite of any errors and faults of the ministers.

I was baptized when I was 12 years old in a PCA church. It was a believers baptism but I was sprinkled. I guess I'm really weird. I approached an elder in my new home church in Sioux City (Baptist, because my parents are basically reformed baptists) and asked him if, should I desire membership in the church, I would have to be re-baptized. He said that I would.

I don't think this is right at all. The church is then taking the spiritual sign (whatever this spiritual sign is--baptists and PCA'ers will disagree) and making it about the process of baptism (ie my head didn't go all the way under water!)

If I find myself pastoring a baptist church someday, you can be sure that I will not follow this or re-baptisms in general.

Gray--
Which Baptist organization are you thinking about joining? Or maybe you haven't much thought about it yet. Which one is John Piper a member of?

Also, here's an issue that I can't remember if Wilson raised, or if I thought about it while reading something only marginally unrelated, or read it somewhere else (I've been doing a lot of research lately): if Baptists insist that baptism is only a symbol, why should the amount of water matter? Baptists talk about a baptism not "taking" because a person wasn't submerged, but what's to "take" in a symbol?

It seems that the whole idea of an "defective" baptism would mean that there is more involved than a person making a public profession of faith through water.

Just a thought to anyone who might be interested...