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

[earl40]

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.

Good thoughts. Of course if one is a Pastor and has a firm conviction that a RC baptism is valid I wonder what he would do if a member came to him to be "rebaptized".

 

[TomVols]

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

What you said. I was trying to say that but being briefer. Phooey on brevity

 

[TomVols]

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

As I stated to our brother Alan previously, I think this is a crucial question and one that we have been very conciliatory in answering. That said, you raise the "elephant in the room" which must eventually be answered even on microlevels: "Can we be faithful to Scripture and allow for divergent sacrementologies to exist without compromising Scriptural fidelity? Or for that matter, even confessional fidelity?" Some tend to think of ecclesiology, sacrementology, etc., to be less essential doctrines than others (pointing to Lloyd-Jones, et.al.) But it does beg the question does it not? As I said, it is not in keeping with the OP but it's a worthy topic and invariably makes its way back to the foundation and outcome of the OP.

 

[TomVols]

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.

I'll just ask for clarification: do you see a distinction as something being "of" faith/sin, vs something being "faithful/sinful"? Is the "of" in the clause relating to the motivation for the act or the act itself, in your view?

 

[TomVols]

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.

Would we not have to expand it past the RCC, then? What about Landmark baptisms, for example?

 

[alexandermsmith]

I would say the Anabaptists were sinning and ministers who rebaptise are sinning because they should know better. But ignorant Christians who have been led to believe they need to be rebaptised by the faulty theology of their teachers probably aren't sinning, though they are in error.

 

[TomVols]

The act but according to revelation.

Briefly explain. Thanks!

 

[Edward]

As I stated to our brother Alan previously, I think this is a crucial question and one that we have been very conciliatory in answering

This is the Paedo subforum for Baptism. The Credos have their own subforum to discuss and defend their views, or open exchanges are available elsewhere.

In other words, there are other places for conciliatory discussion. This is a location for robust defense of the issues.

 

[TomVols]

This is the Paedo subforum for Baptism. The Credos have their own subforum to discuss and defend their views, or open exchanges are available elsewhere.

In other words, there are other places for conciliatory discussion. This is a location for robust defense of the issues.

Agreed. But am I the only one that sees Paedos almost tripping over ourselves to be genial? To go a step further, are we that willing to relegate sacramentology to a non-essential? Gentleness and meekness is called for. But why do some virtually apologize?

 

[wcf_linux]

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

What you said. I was trying to say that but being briefer. Phooey on brevity

Thanks, that was helpful. I just want to add that the question wasn’t due to a session actually rejecting a baptism accepted by another session. It was because of someone I know being concerned that the question of their baptism might be reopened when joining a new church.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Here’s a case of rebaptism:

A Presbyterian couple want to join a Baptist church because their Presbyterian church has gone in a bad direction in doctrine and practice. The husband was baptized as an adult but the wife was baptized as an infant in a Greek church; they both considered her baptism to be true. She would not be allowed to become a member of the Baptist church and would be denied all the benefits of membership unless she were baptized as an adult. She would, in effect, be unchurched. The husband said that although they both reckoned her infant baptism was a true baptism, for the sake of the consciences of the Baptists she would submit to going under the water.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Well, J.L., it ended up working out well. For years they were a blessing to the church, and they were blessed in turn. The church operated in its integrity (though erring), and the couple operated in theirs, the Lord bearing witness to their service.

The primary issue was the mandate to be joined to a sound local church. Thankfully the Lord is very gracious to us all.