Paedo-Baptism Answers Is it a sin to be baptized more than once?

[TomVols]

While talking with my child, going through the catechism at age 10 during home devotions, he asked forthrightly "So is it a sin to be baptized more than once?"

Obviously, I know the WCF teaching on this. What is your view? I certainly do not advocate multiple baptisms, but is Anabaptism sin?

I realize other externalities come into play, but how would you answer the question?

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Baptism is to be administered but once. Does anyone seriously think otherwise? Aren't any subsequent baptisms administered because previous ones were considered invalid? The question then becomes what constitutes valid baptism. Once valid baptism is administered, I know of no serious thinkers who think that it ought to be repeated.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Contra_Mundum]

While talking with my child, going through the catechism at age 10 during home devotions, he asked forthrightly "So is it a sin to be baptized more than once?"

Obviously, I know the WCF teaching on this. What is your view? I certainly do not advocate multiple baptisms, but is Anabaptism sin?

I realize other externalities come into play, but how would you answer the question?

It's an error. Can someone make an innocent error in the case of religious practice? Yes, but the degree of culpability is related to an expectation of knowledge and awareness, or an attitude of less of submission than presumptuousness.

God will be the judge of whether a person has taken his error to the point of having sinned in having or conducting further and extraneous baptisms, beyond "one... baptism," Eph.4:5.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Is it not the case that a serious person baptizes or seeks baptism only because they believe that they have never been validly baptized? I grant, if you look at my original reply, that an unserious person might do such for whatever reasons, perhaps imaging that it gains more blessings and other like superstitions.

I agree with what Bruce says about "error." Surely it is wrong to baptize extraneously. But the point is that is not what most people think they are doing who do what we regard as multiple baptisms. Most people that baptize more than once don't think that they are doing such because they don't regard the earlier baptism(s) as valid. This is the point that needs to be made.

Some on this board would consider a subsequent baptism of someone baptized as a Roman Catholic to be no rebaptism, because they don't regard the RCC baptism as valid baptism. Some, who are Baptists, would require that a Presbyterian baptized as an infant be baptized by immersion upon a profession of faith because they don't require the first baptism as valid.

Peace,
Alan

 

[TomVols]

Baptism is to be administered but once. Does anyone seriously think otherwise? Aren't any subsequent baptisms administered because previous ones were considered invalid? The question then becomes what constitutes valid baptism. Once valid baptism is administered, I know of no serious thinkers who think that it ought to be repeated.

Peace,
Alan

Simplistic answer: sin?

 

[TomVols]

It's an error. Can someone make an innocent error in the case of religious practice? Yes, but the degree of culpability is related to an expectation of knowledge and awareness, or an attitude of less of submission than presumptuousness.

God will be the judge of whether a person has taken his error to the point of having sinned in having or conducting further and extraneous baptisms, beyond "one... baptism," Eph.4:5.

So simplistically, it’s not necessarily a sin?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So simplistically, it’s not necessarily a sin?

Your child (per OP) is 10yrs old. "Sin" to me, as a 10yr old, was pretty serious wrongdoing. It was serious business before I was half that, because I related sinning to receiving parental correction via corporal punishment.

So, my reply is an effort at addressing my 10yrs-old perceptions. It is an error, it's wrong, compared to what's right and good and perfect. But, sometimes it can be a really serious fail indicative of real sin, a turning from God; and other times it can be confusion either of ignorance or earnest misunderstanding; and therefore (if sin-proper can be mitigated at all) not quite that turning from God from lack of being spiritually attuned.

So, what does "Not necessarily sin" mean to this particular 10yr old? And what does he envision when he imagines "more than one baptism?" Perhaps clarity on those will help you state for him a plain and simple answer.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

@TomVols

Brother:

I would say to a ten-year-old that most people who get "baptized again" do so because they didn't think that their first baptism was truly baptism.

Is it a sin to be baptized again after a valid baptism? Yes, though it may be quite unintentional, a sin of ignorance, particularly if the first baptism is thought to be invalid (though it wasn't truly). This is the "error" of which Bruce speaks.

If the earlier baptism was actually invalid (one performed by Mormons or "in the name of Jesus only," e.g.), then the subsequent baptism is no rebaptism but simply a valid baptism.

I think any ten-year-old can understand this answer if everything in it is properly explained to him.

Peace,
Alan

 

[TomVols]

@TomVols

Brother:

I am sorry to be unhelpful to you. I am not sure why what I've said isn't clear, but I would say to a ten-year-old that most people who get "baptized again" do so because they didn't think that their first baptism was truly baptism.

Is it a sin to be baptized again after a valid baptism? Yes, though it may be quite unintentional, a sin of ignorance, particularly if the first baptism is thought to be invalid (though it wasn't truly). This is the "error" of which Bruce speaks.

If the earlier baptism was actually invalid (one performed by Mormons or "in the name of Jesus only," e.g.), then the subsequent baptism is no rebaptism but simply a valid baptism.

I think any ten-year-old can understand this answer if everything in it is properly explained to him.

Peace,
Alan

No one said you were unhelpful nor unclear except your allusion to the possibility. I simply was seeking to pose the OP. Thank you.

 

[TomVols]

Your child (per OP) is 10yrs old. "Sin" to me, as a 10yr old, was pretty serious wrongdoing. It was serious business before I was half that, because I related sinning to receiving parental correction via corporal punishment.

So, my reply is an effort at addressing my 10yrs-old perceptions. It is an error, it's wrong, compared to what's right and good and perfect. But, sometimes it can be a really serious fail indicative of real sin, a turning from God; and other times it can be confusion either of ignorance or earnest misunderstanding; and therefore (if sin-proper can be mitigated at all) not quite that turning from God from lack of being spiritually attuned.

So, what does "Not necessarily sin" mean to this particular 10yr old? And what does he envision when he imagines "more than one baptism?" Perhaps clarity on those will help you state for him a plain and simple answer.

I appreciate your response.
Generally, the perception is something is right or wrong. Permissible or not. Concrete thinking is default and nuance relative to morality or obedience and fidelity to the Bible is a matter of clarity. Truthfully, I don’t know too many people who are prepared to go all the way on this question save most credobaptists. Thanks again.

 

[TomVols]

I’ll offer this because it’s a response from credos: “What’s the harm in rebaptism or multiple baptisms?”

 

[RobertPGH1981]

Personally I was baptised three different times and I will explain the circumstances on this one.

1. At the age of 2 in the Roman Catholic Church
2. At 16 in a Youth Group at a Christian Missionary Alliance Church
3. At the age of 30 when I believe fully understood and became a believer

For #1 I couldn't remember this nor understood what was happening at the time. #2 I believe I did this because I felt compelled to by the youth leadership but then turned back to the world and a life of sin until 27. At around 30 I was looking for a new church and was truly repentant. Wanted to dedicate my life to Christ and saw baptism as a means to proclaim this truth. The aforementioned baptisms didn't have this same mindset.While I can appreciate the views of our presbyterian brothers and sisters I would argue that #1 would be invalid in their view. #2 is questionable.

I do not believe #3 would be viewed as sinful in God's eyes. #2 would be sinful since I completely turned away hence never was born again nor christian.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

I’ll offer this because it’s a response from credos: “What’s the harm in rebaptism or multiple baptisms?”

Anyone who takes that position, Tom, is making light of baptism. He does not understand its nature as a sacrament of initiation and solemn admission into the visible church.

My experience as a former credo, and knowing many credos, is that few take this position, unless not serious-minded and failing to understand the role of holy baptism.

Robert, immediately above, does not take such a position, for instance. He regards his RCC baptism as invalid and also his baptism at 16 as invalid. The reason that he pursued baptism at 30 is not that he believes in "multiple baptisms," as you put it, but because he believed that he'd never been validly baptized.

What do I think? I think that RCC baptism is valid (see Charles Hodge on the matter). But other Presbyterians, especially in the Southern tradition, do not. All Presbyterians, however, would agree that Robert's baptism at 16 in an evangelical setting was valid.

What's my point? My point is that most "rebaptisms" occur because the baptisand did not regard his previous baptism(s) as valid. I grant that some may adopt the "what's the harm?" view, and, while they are misguided theologically, this is a more serious error than credos baptizing again due to their conviction that a true profession of faith must accompany such and that what turns out to be a false profession renders the baptism invalid.

Promiscuous additional baptisms are one thing: they are clearly wrong and misguided. Additional baptism(s) due to convictions of the invalidity of previous one(s) is a different matter, however. Still an error, to be sure. But also part of what distinguishes paedo- from credo-baptism. And I want to be optimally fair with my baptist brethren and not imagine that their insisting on baptism on a valid profession of faith is a mere whimsy but part of their core conviction that prompts them to differ from me as a Presbyterian.

Peace,
Alan

 

[RobertPGH1981]

The reason that he pursued baptism at 30 is not that he believes in "multiple baptisms," as you put it, but because he believed that he'd never been validly baptized.

Alan you are correct. I sought baptism not because I wanted to be re-baptised and took this lightly, but because I viewed my past baptisms as invalid. I was holding true to the idea that a valid baptism is a Believers Baptism. I didn't see myself as being born again at the age of 2 or 16. I recognize that this can NOW be a problem theologically and haven't figured out all the details on this. Great discussion. It is not something I fully understood or considered at 30 since I was new to the faith.

 

[Delahunt]

Another personal baptist perspective on understanding of baptism and potential need to be rebaptized: I was baptized at age 14. I understood clearly that I was a sinner, repented of my sin, and trusted in Christ as the only One Who could pay that sin. However, I recall coming up from the waters of baptism and feeling the same as I had before. I felt so guilty and wasn't sure if I was saved, for I assumed that I should now feel different (Baptismal regeneration may be RCC and others, but no one has a corner on the Baptismal assurance like us Baptists). It was not until later as my faith and understanding deepened that I understood the nature and relationship of baptism to saving faith more clearly. I have been encouraged in the past to consider rebaptism, but I believe that the validity of my baptism stands. It is because of this clearer understanding that I am content with my baptism. The grace of God, not my baptism experience, saves me. His grace is stronger than my understanding, Amen!

 

[Jack K]

Not all sin is equally grievous. In some cases, it may even be more helpful, pastorally, to speak of "error" or "poor understanding" rather than of "sin," which usually sounds like an accusation of willful defiance.

A person who knows it is wrong to be baptized again but does so anyway in order to please men, or out of superstition, or for the novelty of the experience ("Here I am at the Jordan River, and I want the Jordan-baptism thrill/blessing") is sinning quite grievously. He is willfully searing his conscience and defying God.

A person who has not been taught that baptism is a one-time event, and who gets baptized again either for the thrill or because of doubts or out of superstition or due to carelessness in not learning about the rite, is not sinning as egregiously. But he is still sinning in his thrill-seeking or doubt or superstition or carelessness.

A person who is a convinced credobaptist and believes that obedience to God requires a valid (re)baptism is still in error, and he too has surely come to that error because of some hard-to-see-and-eradicate sin in his life. If we speak honestly, we must say there is probably some lurking doubt or legalism or arrogance or some other hard-to-see sin that has contributed to his deception. BUT... his complicity is less than that of the person who is willfully or carelessly sinning. Don't we all have lurking doubt and legalism and arrogance that lead us to error and sinful behavior? Pastorally, the best way to counsel such a person is surely not to treat him as a willful sinner who just needs to buckle down and submit. Rather, it is to affirm with joy the rightness of our brother's desire to obey God, and then to patiently teach him the glories of grace and covenant and God's time-defying decrees, and to compassionately examine with him the idols of his heart, until his error dissolves. That process will include a repentance that gets at those hard-to-see sins, but it takes place on a deeper level than where the open defiance or carelessness exist, and so it is often unhelpful to speak of them as if they were the same thing.

So on the one hand, I know there is always sin where there is error. But more importantly, I know that I too am still in the process of discovering and repenting of deep-seated sin that leads to much error in my life. And so, I hesitate to speak of my credobaptist brothers and sisters as if they were people who are practicing sin in ways that I am not. And I remind myself that Scripture prefers to speak of all of us as those who are obeying our Father, even though we are still learning and we do it imperfectly.

 

[TomVols]

Not all sin is equally grievous. In some cases, it may even be more helpful, pastorally, to speak of "error" or "poor understanding" rather than of "sin," which usually sounds like an accusation of willful defiance.

A person who knows it is wrong to be baptized again but does so anyway in order to please men, or out of superstition, or for the novelty of the experience ("Here I am at the Jordan River, and I want the Jordan-baptism thrill/blessing") is sinning quite grievously. He is willfully searing his conscience and defying God.

A person who has not been taught that baptism is a one-time event, and who gets baptized again either for the thrill or because of doubts or out of superstition or due to carelessness in not learning about the rite, is not sinning as egregiously. But he is still sinning in his thrill-seeking or doubt or superstition or carelessness.

A person who is a convinced credobaptist and believes that obedience to God requires a valid (re)baptism is still in error, and he too has surely come to that error because of some hard-to-see-and-eradicate sin in his life. If we speak honestly, we must say there is probably some lurking doubt or legalism or arrogance or some other hard-to-see sin that has contributed to his deception. BUT... his complicity is less than that of the person who is willfully or carelessly sinning. Don't we all have lurking doubt and legalism and arrogance that lead us to error and sinful behavior? Pastorally, the best way to counsel such a person is surely not to treat him as a willful sinner who just needs to buckle down and submit. Rather, it is to affirm with joy the rightness of our brother's desire to obey God, and then to patiently teach him the glories of grace and covenant and God's time-defying decrees, and to compassionately examine with him the idols of his heart, until his error dissolves. That process will include a repentance that gets at those hard-to-see sins, but it takes place on a deeper level than where the open defiance or carelessness exist, and so it is often unhelpful to speak of them as if they were the same thing.

So on the one hand, I know there is always sin where there is error. But more importantly, I know that I too am still in the process of discovering and repenting of deep-seated sin that leads to much error in my life. And so, I hesitate to speak of my credobaptist brothers and sisters as if they were people who are practicing sin in ways that I am not. And I remind myself that Scripture prefers to speak of all of us as those who are obeying our Father, even though we are still learning and we do it imperfectly.

Jack, you’re really getting at the heart of it and your response is most helpful. I don’t know if time allows the probing of “How grievous is the error of multiple baptisms?” for surely it is a worthy topic. I agree that something - even if it is a mere lack of understanding of the one baptism concept - causes one to lapse into sin in failing to believe truth. Again, thank you for your response.

Edited to add: I think it is beyond helpful to call this what it is: (re)Baptisms. Regardless of conscience, etc., multiple baptisms are occurring.

 

[TomVols]

Anyone who takes that position, Tom, is making light of baptism. He does not understand its nature as a sacrament of initiation and solemn admission into the visible church.

My experience as a former credo, and knowing many credos, is that few take this position, unless not serious-minded and failing to understand the role of holy baptism.

Robert, immediately above, does not take such a position, for instance. He regards his RCC baptism as invalid and also his baptism at 16 as invalid. The reason that he pursued baptism at 30 is not that he believes in "multiple baptisms," as you put it, but because he believed that he'd never been validly baptized.

What do I think? I think that RCC baptism is valid (see Charles Hodge on the matter). But other Presbyterians, especially in the Southern tradition, do not. All Presbyterians, however, would agree that Robert's baptism at 16 in an evangelical setting was valid.

What's my point? My point is that most "rebaptisms" occur because the baptisand did not regard his previous baptism(s) as valid. I grant that some may adopt the "what's the harm?" view, and, while they are misguided theologically, this is a more serious error than credos baptizing again due to their conviction that a true profession of faith must accompany such and that what turns out to be a false profession renders the baptism invalid.

Promiscuous additional baptisms are one thing: they are clearly wrong and misguided. Additional baptism(s) due to convictions of the invalidity of previous one(s) is a different matter, however. Still an error, to be sure. But also part of what distinguishes paedo- from credo-baptism. And I want to be optimally fair with my baptist brethren and not imagine that their insisting on baptism on a valid profession of faith is a mere whimsy but part of their core conviction that prompts them to differ from me as a Presbyterian.

Peace,
Alan

I agree with you about our brother’s RCC baptism and the poor view of baptism that leads to a “what’s the harm” position. At some point, I think we have to be more precise about the nature of our ecclesiology and sacramentology. Jack stated it well I think. Deviations may not be sin in action but may be birthed by such. 28.6 of WCF does indeed refer to a “right use” of the ordinance which would by necessity stand in opposition to the “wrong” use. Also coming from a credo background gives me insight into this as it does you. But at the same time we sort of reach the point of question-begging.

What’s sad is this is a real issue that must be dealt with. Daniel Akin and others have pointed out the errors of multiple baptisms on a theological and pastoral level from a credo perspective. People are forced to wrestle with this because they’ve been taught error which leads to strife and division within churches and individual believers. I suppose I’ll leave it at that

 

[TomVols]

I’m having issues on my phone unintentionally putting in quotes I don’t intend. Am I in error or sinning? LOL

 

[TomVols]

Another personal baptist perspective on understanding of baptism and potential need to be rebaptized: I was baptized at age 14. I understood clearly that I was a sinner, repented of my sin, and trusted in Christ as the only One Who could pay that sin. However, I recall coming up from the waters of baptism and feeling the same as I had before. I felt so guilty and wasn't sure if I was saved, for I assumed that I should now feel different (Baptismal regeneration may be RCC and others, but no one has a corner on the Baptismal assurance like us Baptists). It was not until later as my faith and understanding deepened that I understood the nature and relationship of baptism to saving faith more clearly. I have been encouraged in the past to consider rebaptism, but I believe that the validity of my baptism stands. It is because of this clearer understanding that I am content with my baptism. The grace of God, not my baptism experience, saves me. His grace is stronger than my understanding, Amen!

Great post. Not all credos believe in multiple baptisms and that’s a head scratcher for many. I believe you have acted wisely. Grace and peace!

 

[bookslover]

The ten-year-old made an automatic leap, in his mind, from something being an error to that something being a sin.

As has already been helpfully pointed out, nuances need to be pointed out between something being wrong and something being a sin. Not everything that is wrong is automatically a sin.

 

[wcf_linux]

@TomVols

Brother:

I would say to a ten-year-old that most people who get "baptized again" do so because they didn't think that their first baptism was truly baptism.

Is it a sin to be baptized again after a valid baptism? Yes, though it may be quite unintentional, a sin of ignorance, particularly if the first baptism is thought to be invalid (though it wasn't truly). This is the "error" of which Bruce speaks.

If the earlier baptism was actually invalid (one performed by Mormons or "in the name of Jesus only," e.g.), then the subsequent baptism is no rebaptism but simply a valid baptism.

I think any ten-year-old can understand this answer if everything in it is properly explained to him.

Peace,
Alan

What of the following kind of case: someone was baptized in a questionable setting or manner. (Whether because it was a Roman Catholic baptism, or done at a chaplaincy that wasn't part of a local church, or by a free church pastor who was really sloppy with the formula.) Years later, when joining a confessional Presbyterian church, the session deliberates and rules it valid. A few years later, they are joining a different confessional Presbyterian church and the session rules the baptism invalid. Should that person accept (re)baptism by that church with a clean conscience?

 

[J.L. Allen]

This is an interesting topic and is one that hits home for me. I was baptized as an infant in the United Methodist Church (late 1980s, Southern, and conservative), but it was never brought to my attention in my upbringing. I found out about 4 years ago when I was going through a box of old photographs. It was a huge shock because I was a Baptist at the time. I was baptized after a profession of faith at age 17. I believed for many years that it was the only one. Shocker. I knew it happened, but I honestly don't have a recollection of it (or many other things from that time) because I had engaged in substance abuse for my teenage years up to that point.

So, I've had two baptism, neither of which I remember. I don't believe the second one at 17 was necessary at all. I have talked with my children about this specifically, and I've told them basically that; the second one wasn't necessary and shouldn't have happened. Many of our conversations (corrective, encouraging, etc.) revolve around their baptism and what it means.

Your 10 year old is sharp for putting things together. You've received thoughtful responses here.

 

[TomVols]

What of the following kind of case: someone was baptized in a questionable setting or manner. (Whether because it was a Roman Catholic baptism, or done at a chaplaincy that wasn't part of a local church, or by a free church pastor who was really sloppy with the formula.) Years later, when joining a confessional Presbyterian church, the session deliberates and rules it valid. A few years later, they are joining a different confessional Presbyterian church and the session rules the baptism invalid. Should that person accept (re)baptism by that church with a clean conscience?

I’d want to see written evidence of the first session’s deliberation and/or speak to them. I see no reason not to consider the adjudication of the first session. And I’d be hard pressed to find greater wisdom unless externalities weren’t considered or ignored. Also I’m assuming you’re switching denominations, because otherwise we are ignoring our ecclesiology and I’d really be hard pressed to toss you from the denomination over this issue.

 

[TomVols]

This is an interesting topic and is one that hits home for me. I was baptized as an infant in the United Methodist Church (late 1980s, Southern, and conservative), but it was never brought to my attention in my upbringing. I found out about 4 years ago when I was going through a box of old photographs. It was a huge shock because I was a Baptist at the time. I was baptized after a profession of faith at age 17. I believed for many years that it was the only one. Shocker. I knew it happened, but I honestly don't have a recollection of it (or many other things from that time) because I had engaged in substance abuse for my teenage years up to that point.

So, I've had two baptism, neither of which I remember. I don't believe the second one at 17 was necessary at all. I have talked with my children about this specifically, and I've told them basically that; the second one wasn't necessary and shouldn't have happened. Many of our conversations (corrective, encouraging, etc.) revolve around their baptism and what it means.

Your 10 year old is sharp for putting things together. You've received thoughtful responses here.

Praise be to God that you’re being didactic about this. I’m kind of in a similar situation. I struggled unnecessarily with the “proper order” for years and am using it as an illustration of what not to do.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Years later, when joining a confessional Presbyterian church, the session deliberates and rules it valid. A few years later, they are joining a different confessional Presbyterian church and the session rules the baptism invalid. Should that person accept (re)baptism by that church with a clean conscience?

Kevin:

According to proper Presbyterian polity, the determination of the first receiving session, insofar as it exercised due discretion in the matter, should be regarded as decisive. Any subsequent sessions, while perhaps taking issue with the original sessional ruling, sure that they would have ruled otherwise, can satisfy themselves that proper process obtained in the ruling of the first receiving session.

A person should not be received with his baptism regarded as valid, only to be told subsequently that it was not and that he must now submit to baptism. This is disorderly and should be considered only in a case where any session would regard the previous baptism as invalid (Mormon baptism, non-Trinitarian baptism, etc.), not in the case where sessions may differ. For example, if a Presbyterian church admits someone on profession of faith, who was baptized in an RCC, a subsequent Presbyterian session that regards RCC baptism as invalid would not properly, on transfer, require the one whom the previous session regarded as validly baptized to submit to rebaptism.

More could be said about why that original session's decision, unless it can be shown to be manifestly wrong (in a way that would withstand scrutiny at appeal), ought to be accepted, but that may be enough for now. Such an action bespeaks congregationalism and not Presbyterianism, which respects decisions of judicatories with which it may disagree as long as those decisions involved a proper act of discretion by the previous judicatory.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Edward]

I do not believe #3 would be viewed as sinful in God's eyes. #2 would be sinful since I completely turned away hence never was born again nor christian.

Based on your signature, you are Baptist, so I wouldn't expect you to have a proper understanding of the sacraments.

 

[User20004000]

I’m not as willing as others to hedge on whether it’s sin to rebaptize. It’s hard for me to imagine religious “error” either in the prelapsarian state or in the world to come. I have no reason to doubt that such error is a result of the fall and not our creatureliness. At the very least, if to rebaptize is not of faith, then what is it?

I’ll extend this principle even further. I don’t think souls made perfect will get answers wrong. Nor do I think that violates the creator-creature distinction. It merely underscores that in our perfected state we will know when not to speculate. We will know our limits. We will refrain from acting without certainty.

Bringing this full circle, if to rebaptize is error, then to make such error is to act without certainty, which is not of faith in the religious realm.

 

[earl40]

I'll tell you something. It is interesting how when one comes to the correct view of baptism (paedo) and comes to this conclusion after one gets rebatized in a baptist church after coming from the RC church, such was myself. To keep in line what Pastors Bruce and Alan said I view my sin of rebaptism in a baptist church as an unfortunate event. What is funny is that I now can be viewed as being baptized in both northern and southern Presbyterian churches.

 

[User20004000]

I'll tell you something. It is interesting how when one comes to the correct view of baptism (paedo) and comes to this conclusion after one gets rebatized in a baptist church after coming from the RC church, such was myself. To keep in line what Pastors Bruce and Alan said I view my sin of rebaptism in a baptist church as an unfortunate event. What is funny is that I now can be viewed as being baptized in both northern and southern Presbyterian churches.

I appreciate and still embrace the historic view that Protestants accept RC baptism. However, given that baptism is to continue in the church and to be administered by a minister of the gospel who has been lawfully called, I would not object to one rejecting Rome’s ceremonial washing on thoughtful ecclesiastical grounds.