For Baptist churches the mode of baptism has been viewed as a very important part of the ordinance. By-in-large we believe that Scripture is clear enough that immersion--that is, submerging the candidate under the water-- (as opposed to effusion or sprinkling) is the proper way to be baptized. As a result, Baptist elders have encountered a handful of tricky theological and ecclesiological questions. For instance, when do you consider someone's previous 'baptism' as invalid and thus require a "rebaptism"?
EASY SITUATIONS:
1. He/she was baptized before conversion.
2. He/she believed the baptism was saving.
3. He/she was baptized by a non-Christian “church”.
In all of these situations I would say that his/her "baptism" (if the quotation marks haven't given it away) wasn't a genuine baptism at all. He/she should be baptized.
A DIFFICULT SITUATION
He/she was baptized as a believer by sprinkling as opposed to immersion. Here's a hypothetical situation. We have a girl named Libby Brighton who wants to join our Baptist church. She was baptized upon conversion in a PCA church by sprinkling. She had a proper understanding of the ordinance as a symbol representing a spiritual reality. Everything about her baptism fits the biblical description except for the mode. Should she be ‘rebaptized’?
MY REASONS TO SEE LIBBY'S PREVIOUS BAPTISM AS VALID
1. We wouldn’t say the Lord’s Supper is invalid simply because the mode isn't precise: grape juice instead of wine.
2. There is no EXPLICIT command in Scripture to be immersed--the Lord could have used more explicit language. We take our practice from what we consider to be very strong implicit evidence, from the physical accounts in the Gospels and Acts and the symbolism of baptism as going down into the grave and being raised with Christ. But even so, immersion isn’t explicitly commanded in Scripture.
3. She was baptized under the care and authority of her Gospel-believing elders. As a young believer she was submitting to her leaders, which in any case, we would say is the proper default (Heb. 13:17). I believe for this reason alone, this baptism was a true and genuine baptism with which the Lord was pleased.
4. There were baptisms in the first century when candidates were sprinkled because of a lack of water and these were seen as valid. Historically, immediacy has been given priority over precision of mode.
5. Out of all the details for a Christian baptism given in Scripture, mode seems to be the most inconsequential:
a. Baptized by a Gospel-preaching church under the authority of elders.
b. Had proper understanding of the ordinance as not saving, but symbolic of a spiritual reality
c. Was a believer when baptized
d. Baptized by immersion
6. A 're-baptism', even with an explanation could cause unhelpful doubt among the other members of a congregation.
7. Scripture seems to deal less severely with those lacking in knowledge: Luke 12:47-48, Matt. 11:20-22, James 3:1.
In my opinion Libby's situation is not preferable, but not enough to overturn a one-time ordinance. One caveat however: It is important to remember that conscience is key and while a good conscience doesn’t necessarily mean one shouldn’t be baptized again, a consistently guilty conscience over time would necessitate this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Good post. Hopefully I'd have some biblically and theologically minded elders around me, but I would see the baptism as valid. Though I do think the command to be baptized is an explicit command to be immersed, since that is what the word means. Last week, Dr. Wright told us that the Greek orthodox church (Greeks!) still immerse since that's what baptizo means. I found that interesting. Peace.
Concerning number 2, do we at Sojourn make people from Southeast be baptized if they want to join our body? I know that we have many people who used to go to that church.
I know that there are at least a few folks who, when baptized at Southeast, didn't believe the ordinance to be saving, even though that's what the leadership believes. Sojourn's elders did not have them rebaptized. I'm not sure if there are any folks from Southeast that we've 'rebaptized'. Good question.
Blake, wouldn't you at least say that what you call the "explicit" command to be immersed isn't as clear as some other commands in Scripture? What terminology would you use to explain this distinction?
Scott, I would agree. I am not sure of other terminology. I think yours is fine; I would just emphasize that the NT hearers probably heard a call to be immersed when they heard the call to be baptized but obviously there are exceptions. Thanks.
"Libby Brighton!" Seriously?!
In all seriousness though, this is a helpful post. I wonder if you could elaborate on the issue of conscience. What do you think a guilty conscience might look like in relation to this issue? Would "Libby" having a guilty conscience mean that she thought she was being disobedient (i.e., sinning) by not being re-baptized?
Maggie,
Yeah, I'd say that if Libby, after meeting with an elder and being shepherded through this issue, still believed she was being disobedient, then she should definitely be baptized.
Post a Comment