Baptism and rebaptism...

Would you object to a person being baptized both as an infant and as an adult? (ie. do you see anything wrong with it - rather than just something unusual?)

Basically the reason that I'm posing this question is that outside of the Reformed Churches, people keep pointing me to baptist churches if looking for depth in sermons. There are, of course, a number of different Baptist denominations - from the kind I have a hard time taking seriously (the KJV people) to the extreme liberal variety (and of course others in between).

This evening, I met someone from Bowness Baptist Church (probably the closest baptist church to here) while attending a presentation at Centre Street Church (the closest thing in Calgary to a mega-church) on a outreach program in downtown Calgary. Anyways, the church as he described it seemed fairly conservative.

You heard my thoughts on baptism here on Rotundus before, although I'm too lazy to dig up the references. Basically, the idea being that I can see things from both infant and believer baptist perspectives, and at this point don't reject either (while at the same time not really having a strong preference for one over the other).

Comments

If you're wondering where I was at today, it was Kensington Road Church (a member of the Evangelical Covenant denomination).

Rev. Visscher had a sermon on baptism yesterday afternoon, and he brought up the fact that the baptism argument is still very much a point of discussion. He also put forth a point I never thought of before which is really good proof that infants should also be baptized. If baptism were only for adults, the Jews never would have gone for it. Circumcision was for infants, so baptism had to have been too. Jewish parents would not have been comfortable with waiting for their children to become adults before they can be baptized.

As for being baptized twice, it can depend. If the person was not baptized properly the first time (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), a second proper baptism would be right. If the first baptism was proper, I think baptizing again might be wrong. That would be like saying your first baptism wasn't good. In the Canadian Reformed Churches, when people come from outside and do profession of faith, we only baptize them if they were not properly baptized before.

If baptism were only for adults, the Jews never would have gone for it. Jewish parents would not have been comfortable with waiting for their children to become adults before they can be baptized.

On the other hand they might have understood that baptism was symbolic - that physical things like circumcision were no longer a requirement. That's the problem with having a lot of missing information about the time.

As for being baptized twice, it can depend. If the person was not baptized properly the first time (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), a second proper baptism would be right. If the first baptism was proper, I think baptizing again might be wrong. That would be like saying your first baptism wasn't good. In the Canadian Reformed Churches, when people come from outside and do profession of faith, we only baptize them if they were not properly baptized before.

I'm aware of how it's practiced inside the CanRC, I'm just sort of looking for scriptural justifications for the practice. I think that there are a subset of baptists who think that people should be baptized whenever they change to a new congregation (not 100% sure about that though).

One of the main things you have to look at is the reason behind why said person is being baptised. Parents who baptise their children to so because they believe they are part of the covenant. However, I dont' believe there is no child on earth that does not have that promise that is given to children of believing parents - that God will always to what He knows best for them. So, baptism (of infants) is not a declaration of the promises, but is merely a sign and seal. Furthermore, the child is only baptised after the parents promise to bring the child up to fear of God. That is why they are baptised. They are then part of the covenant because of what his/her parents promised. Furthermore, you have to look at why others (baptists and the like) don't baptise their children. They basically promise to do the same things are parents is our church do, but people don't get baptised until (using what we say, not necessarily what they say) they choose to become a christian. I think that is the crux of the matter. I also realize that this is not necessarily what people in those churches say. One would have to see what both the church and the people in the church have to say on that matter.

If they say they wait until the person chooses to join the church, then they are in the wrong because that choice is made by God. Otherwise, there is no bilbical reason to call it wrong, per se. Many will argue, "why wouldn't you given them the sign and seal", an argument that I sort of agree with, yet don't like on the principle (I don't like the "why not" argument, in general).

However, I dont' believe there is no child on earth that does not have that promise that is given to children of believing parents - that God will always to what He knows best for them

I'm trying to figure out if I'm interpreting the double-negative correctly, but (assuming I am) aren't you advancing some form of universalism?

Basically, what I'm trying to figure is whether or not there are any theological objections to baptism being conducted twice - or if that's largely custom.

I'm not really sure what I believe (or more appropriately, what Scripture says) about this. Part of me thinks that anyone who "wants" (that is, to whom God gives His Spirit) to be saved can be saved. That being said, God gives His Spirit to whom He wishes, and only a subset of those will be saved (not necessarily a strict subset - the two sets could well be the same), so then the promise could only be for those to whom He sent His Spirit to. On the other hand again, "...God so loved the world that He sent His One and Only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." I interpret that to mean Christ came for everyone, but only the believed will be saved. On a different hand again, God planned exactly how many people would be saved before creation was formed. Then, it could also easily be that Christ died for an exact number of people. I think each interpretation is valid, and furthermore next to irrelevant. As many people will be saved as are saved. God has always known that number. Whether Christ's blood could have saved more does not matter.

As you can tell...my thoughts regarding this are not exactly clear.

This came up at Bible Study a few months ago. God only chose a certain number of elect, but Christ's death was sufficient to save everyone.

Getting back to the baptism issue, I'd like to put forth the following for discussion: just as Christ only needed to die once, Christians only need to be baptized once.

Christians only need to be baptized once.

They may only need to be baptized once, but is it problematic for them to be baptized more than once.

Considering John 3:5, it seems a might difficult to keep the CanRC method of baptism, rather than the Roman Catholic mechanism of "emergency baptisms," while at the same time holding a position against multiple baptisms.

but is it problematic for them to be baptized more than once

We have already responded to this question. Instead of continuing to fish for responses, how about addressing the ones we already gave you?

Considering John 3:5, it seems a might difficult to keep the CanRC method of baptism, rather than the Roman Catholic mechanism of "emergency baptisms," while at the same time holding a position against multiple baptisms.

This is in conflict with the belief that baptism is only a sign and seal of the convenant. If you are looking to reject that, parents of children who die in infancy would have no comfort. As you are so fond of saying, I find your support text to be lacking in support of your argument.

We have already responded to this question. Instead of continuing to fish for responses, how about addressing the ones we already gave you?

Thus far, as far as I can tell, the only answers received are stuff along the lines of "it might be wrong", and also that people need only be baptized once. The first isn't a particular convincing argument (I haven't seen much support for it [yet]), and the second seems to be answering a different question.

(BTW, I also forwarded this same question on to one of the Langley pastors, and I will try to remember to post whatever response I might happen to receive back).

This is in conflict with the belief that baptism is only a sign and seal of the convenant.

Basically the Canadian Reformed argument is that people (generally infants) do not need to be baptized to be saved. If baptism is thus only a sign, then it would seem to me to be irrelevant whether someone is baptized 0, 1, or 500 times. Think of the priests in the OT and their ceremonial washings - if you take that as an analogy then it would seem that there is no real reason to say that baptism shouldn't be practiced more than once.

If you are looking to reject that, parents of children who die in infancy would have no comfort.

Well, first of all, appeals to emotion aren't really valid arguing techniques. Secondly, other ideas - eg. an age of accountability - do exist, and might offer comfort to parents. (I've been meaning to meet with a baptist I met Sunday evening to ask him what he believes about this particular situation amongst other things).

Thus far, as far as I can tell, the only answers received are stuff along the lines of "it might be wrong", and also that people need only be baptized once. The first isn't a particular convincing argument (I haven't seen much support for it [yet]), and the second seems to be answering a different question.

Ok now we are getting somewhere. Since of course we would not consider ourselves well-educated in theology (at least, not as much as ministers), sometimes we need to qualify our statements with "might" to allow for the possibility that we are misinterpreting or misunderstanding.

Basically the Canadian Reformed argument is that people (generally infants) do not need to be baptized to be saved. If baptism is thus only a sign, then it would seem to me to be irrelevant whether someone is baptized 0, 1, or 500 times. Think of the priests in the OT and their ceremonial washings - if you take that as an analogy then it would seem that there is no real reason to say that baptism shouldn't be practiced more than once.

You've brought up a good point. My example of Christ's death is a determining factor in salvation, whereas baptism is not. Perhaps this does open the door to the possibilty that rebaptism might not be wrong after all, but I still stand by my point that rebaptism is not necessary if the first baptism was done in the Trinity. (Although it may seem like my argument is now losing ground, I don't see your argument gaining ground just yet either. I will even go so far now as to say that I know someone who has been baptized more than once, though the subsequent times were not official but for practice.)

Well, first of all, appeals to emotion aren't really valid arguing techniques. Secondly, other ideas - eg. an age of accountability - do exist, and might offer comfort to parents. (I've been meaning to meet with a baptist I met Sunday evening to ask him what he believes about this particular situation amongst other things).

Indeed, comfort is tied to emotion, but not 100%. Either children who die in infancy are sanctified by the believing parents, or they are not. The former allows us to have comfort, the latter does not.

With regards to the age of accountability, I know someone who goes to Southgate Fellowship here in Langley. I had a bit of a discussion with him about baptism, and I can tell you what he told me. He agrees that children who die in infancy are sanctified through their believing parents, but once they reach the age of accountability this is no longer the case. At some point, the child public professes his or her faith and then starts attending baptism classes. At baptism class, they learn all about baptism such that they may fully appreciate it. It can take several years to go through these classes. Once finished, the person is baptized. The big problem with this of course is that salvation is now dependant on the person choosing God, rather than God choosing them. Arminianism, anyone?

But how is this different from our pre-confession classes and then profession of faith?

Of course, we believe that God leads us through our entire lives, and brings us to make that confession in front of His congregation. But how can we claim that those who don't baptize their children (and "require" them to be baptized as adults) don't have the same view?

But how is this different from our pre-confession classes and then profession of faith?

Basically it's backwards. We do baptism first, profession of faith second. They do profession of faith first, baptism second. Of course, their profession of faith is not until at least six years old, and their baptism may not be until early 20's.

In talking with people who believe in adult baptism only, it has been more of a unity of the two: you profess your faith and are baptized - kind of like a 20-year old joining our church without ever having attended before. They get baptized and then immediately profess their faith.