Baptism in the New Testament (3)

“Re-Baptism”

In the last two bulletin articles, we learned that baptism by immersion (into water) results in one having his (or her) sins forgiven. This is New Testament teaching; one must submit this teaching of the Lord, as He taught it, to be saved. What if one is convinced their baptism was in accordance with the Lord’s teaching, even though the church from which he or she came does not teach expressly what the New Testament teaches? How is that handled?

On the Friends of the Restoration page (Facebook), a post had been made by one wherein a preacher that lived two centuries ago said even if one was not baptized in the express way the Lord taught, let that baptism (of theirs) stand.

Baptism is no where proposed as an expiatory rite. He that regards it as such–he who goes to the water as a Jew to the altar, and is baptized MERELY {sic} to obtain the remission of sins, mistakes the whole matter … I know some will say that the candidates which they immersed a second time did not rightly understand baptism the first time. Well, I am persuaded they did not understand it the second time; and shall they be baptized a third time! (“Rebaptism” MH vol 2#11 {November 1831}, 481-485 for the whole article).

This topic has generated a lot of controversary through the years. To begin, it must be understood that to be immersed biblically, one must submit to the teaching of the New Testament as expressly taught. Second, it is imperative that one understands the New Testament on the matter and has an understanding what he or she is doing. When people allow others to teach, even when it is done in all sincerity, what the New Testament does not teach, then understanding is not in place.

So, with the New Testament teaching in place, one is genuinely convinced he or she obeyed the Lord exactly as the Lord taught (even though the preacher / teacher has doubt concerning that), what then? It seems to me there are three options to consider: 1) one can deny the validity of that person’s baptism, insisting he or she was not taught in accordance with New Testament doctrine, perhaps damaging that relationship gained in discussion, 2) the teacher / preacher can accept all that is said and pursue the issue no more, allowing that person’s conviction on the matter to be the truth, 3) the teacher / preacher can set the matter to the side for the moment and let the elders take the lead in how they want to handle it. That which they decide to do, respect it, and be what positive influence you can be going forward.

It is worth remembering here that if one learns the necessity of baptism from the gospel of Mark, John, even Matthew and obeys what is taught in any one of those three, without knowing or understanding additional teachings of the New Testament, then who of us is in position to deny the validity of what was done? Speaking for myself, I won’t.

Getting back to the options to consider, here is how I handle it; I take the third option. In the end, one must decide based on a personal conviction, not a perceived “heavy-handed” pressure application from a preacher / teacher. 

-Ron Thomas