Denominational Baptism
A while back there was a post on denominational baptism. At the time I did not have any comments, but I’d like to re-visit that topic.
The Question: If someone’s baptism in a denomination was full immersion under water for the remission of sins, would they need to be baptized again to be added to the church of Christ?
Certainly we know that no man whether in a denomination or in the church can add someone to the church because it is the Lord that does the adding (Acts 2:47). It is the Lord that gives the increase (1 Cor 3:6). However, what I’m hung up on is the individual’s heart at the point of their baptism whether in a denomination or in the church. Someone might be correct in full immersion for the remission of sins, but where is their heart? Is their heart at that point in a denomination or in the church?
Proverbs 21:2, “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, But the Lord weighs the hearts.” (NKJV)
The other question that comes up is: Why wouldn’t someone want to make sure that their baptism was scriptural, even if they had been immersed previously? If there is the slightest chance of doubt or questioning, why wouldn’t someone want to remove that question mark on their faith?
I’m curious to hear more on this topic.
guy, 
Ron 12:38 pm on August 8, 2011 Permalink |
Richard, all you will be able to do is teach what the NT says. When another comes along and says they have done what the NT says, you can hardly call them a liar, right? Of course, you would not (you’re a gentle soul, and I appreciate you much). Your questions with regard to a person’s heart has to stay with that person. Years ago I learned this the hard way. A man (actually two of them) were baptized because I was persuasive, not because they were convinced the Scriptures said they needed to be baptized. neither one, in so far as I know, is (or even was) faithful to the Lord when I was no longer around. I resolved, at that point, to teach what the NT said, and encourage application, also teaching the consequences of one failing to meet the Lord’s standards.
I hope you find this useful, brother.
guy 2:11 pm on August 8, 2011 Permalink |
i was dunked a second time because someone managed to fill me with enough doubt about the first time (though even my first one was done in a CoC). There’s a significant psychological difference between getting dunked again because you’re unsure of your first one, and getting dunked again because you’re certain your first one was just getting wet. i believe a lot of people go through second dunkings for the former reason. This is a terrible place to be, or at least it was for me. It gave me far less general assurance, not more. It wasn’t a feeling of, “now, i’m REALLY baptized,” but rather a sense that, “well, one or the other was good and one or the other was just getting wet, but i don’t really know which. –which means, for all i know, both of them were just getting wet.” If i can’t be sure which baptism was which, how can i be sure about anything i practice or claim to believe? i’m not sure planting that kind of doubt in individuals is always helpful or fruitful.
–guy
Chad Dollahite 12:51 pm on August 9, 2011 Permalink |
This is always a tough situation. It’s amazing how often people *think* or *know* they were baptized scripturally, only to find out it wasn’t so. For instance, I know a preacher who had a lady assure him she was baptized properly. He found out the name of the denom. preacher who baptized her (a Baptist preacher). The man didn’t remember her, but he said (paraphrase, but pretty close), “I don’t remember her, but I can guarantee you I didn’t baptize her for the remission of sins, and I would not baptize her for the remission of sins. I wouldn’t baptize anyone for the remission of sins because I don’t believe baptism is for the remission of sins.” The gospel preacher relayed this conversation to her, and she was baptized into Christ forthwith.
It’s a tough situation, but it deserves every ounce of wisdom we can muster in dealing with it. I’m not saying every situation is parallel, and I’m surely not saying I always know the answer, but a quick, “Accept whatever they say” is not the answer, nor is a quick, “They absolutely need to be re-immersed.” My thoughts and prayers are always with those dealing with such a situation.
I am dealing with one such situation myself currently, with a man who is in hospice care. We’ve talked and studied, and I’m convinced he needs to be baptized properly, but he doesn’t seem to think so thus far. I have emphasized that it has to come from him, but I’ve reminded him that he’s already told me earlier that he was baptized “because he was saved” (in spite of his thinking now that he was baptized for the remission of sins). It’s a tough situation, but I’ve stepped back to let him make his decision without pressure from me. Thanks for a though-provoking subject, Richard.
guy 1:08 pm on August 9, 2011 Permalink |
In order for baptism to be for the forgiveness of sins, is that the purpose that must be in the mind of the immerser, in the mind of the one immersed, or both? i tended to think it mattered only what was in the heart/mind of the one immersed, not the one doing the immersing.
–guy
Ron 1:14 pm on August 9, 2011 Permalink |
At the very least it has to be in the mind of the one immersed. This gets to a larger question, however: Does the one immersing need to be a Christian. Since we have no example to the contrary than that which is in the NT, it seems to me to be a question answered, though I am quite aware that some think differently. The question was spawned, in so far as I know, back to the time of both Thomas and Alexander Campbell.
Richard S. Reinhardt, Jr. 1:29 pm on August 9, 2011 Permalink |
Thank you all for your comments. It seems like, “the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart,” as a friend of mine likes to put it. The parable of the wheat and the tares comes to mind.
It seems that the best thing to do in situations like these is let the New Testament speak on its own. The preacher who evangelized me shared with me the truth and the Scripture and it took time for me to see what needed to be done.
I was immersed on February 23, 2008, but it was in a non-denominational/Southern Baptist congregation that preached an outward sign of an inward grace. I still haven’t found that in Scripture though. I thought for sure that baptism was sufficient but after months of contemplation and study I knew that I needed to be baptized according to Scripture. So, I brought it up to the preacher who had been teaching me and on May 21, 2009 I was immersed for the remission of sins.
It is certainly something that the one being baptized needs to understand, not because they were manipulated, but rather because it became a matter of the heart for them to be baptized according to the truth of the New Testament.
guy 1:37 pm on August 9, 2011 Permalink |
i know of teenagers who went to the baptistry intending to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and fully aware that this was contrary to what their parents/denomination believed and taught, but they went to that denominational baptistry nonetheless because that is the only place their parents would allow it to be done. What of them?
Wouldn’t it be a strange position to think that others could somehow ‘cancel-out’ or ‘disqualify’ my personal obedience to God?
i suppose i understand why someone might want to argue that point if they believed that submitting to baptism (or communion for that matter) necessarily implied a submission to or legitimizing of the institution administering that practice. i can see why there might be intuitive pull in that direction. But it also seems like a position eerily and uncomfortably similar to Catholicism.
guy
guy
Chad Dollahite 5:25 pm on August 10, 2011 Permalink |
I agree, Guy…I don’t think the one baptizing can “cancel out” my salvation if I knew what I was doing & did it for the right reasons. Of course, at the same time, it’s so easy to forget after something is done, so a lot of soul-searching must be done by one in that situation. Even youths with Christian parents, when I am able to be involved, I STRONGLY encourage them to go home & write themselves a letter stating what they did today & WHY. I then tell them (if younger) to give it to their parents for safekeeping or (if older) to put it somewhere that they know it won’t get lost or be misplaced because, as I tell them, I can almost guarantee that the time is coming 10, 15, 20 years down the road when you will look back & wonder, “Did I *really* know what I was doing that day?” With that letter, you can look back & say, “Absolutely!” and never give it a 2nd thought.
Richard S. Reinhardt, Jr. 5:48 pm on August 10, 2011 Permalink
I like the idea of having them write a letter. Thank you for sharing that. Of course, my original question had to do more with those baptized outside of the church of Christ in a denomination. Are they still added to the church upon being immersed for the remission of sins, even if it is a denomination? This would suggest that if they did come to the truth someday that they would have to confess and repent of the error of being in a denomination… right? Or would someone in this situation need to be immersed again?
guy 6:45 pm on August 10, 2011 Permalink
Chad,
i think writing a letter is a very brilliant idea! But of course, you still may accidentally leave out the crucial bit of info you need. In my case, i knew at the time it was for ROS. It was the repentance part i had doubts about.
Richard,
Maybe others can shed more light on this than me, but i guess i don’t see the relevance. i take it that anyone, anywhere who repents and is baptized in the name of Christ for ROS is a Christian. Period. They obeyed. God did the saving. End of story. Could that person after her conversion end up in error in practice or tenets of faith? Sure. And that would need to be dealt with. But i don’t see how the fact that the event of her conversion took place in some building with a different name on it somehow ‘cancels out’ their conversion.
Now as i mentioned above, i can kind of see why someone might want to make the argument that allowing someone to administer a ritual may involve some implicit acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the beliefs of the institution which they represent. But as i said, even if we find that argument compelling, i think if we get on board that train, it eventually leads at least to a very high-church ecclessiology (at least something akin to a clergy/laity distinction, and something nearing a magisterium). It’s at least a slippery slope. At the end of the day, i take it that what you’re questioning is, what all is necessary in order to make the ritual of baptism efficacious? That’s a terribly important question. i just fear that if we start saying that “administered by the right church” is a necessary condition, then we’re not far away from Catholicism or something close to it.
–guy
Chad Dollahite 10:52 am on August 11, 2011 Permalink
Good discussion, guys, & thanks for letting me take part! Richard R., I know I still didn’t really get to the heart of what you were asking, but that was at least partly intentional because I just don’t know. I’m not quite ready to demote that great, supremely significant act of baptism (the dividing line between being lost & saved) to just something that I need to know is needed, but I’m not ready to aver that a person must know everything, either. Still, we know there was some teaching done *prior* to baptism, so a person needs to understand something. Regarding denominational baptism, Acts 8:12 really gives me a lot to think about – “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” That tells me that these people knew something about the church, too. I’ve met some who were baptized for the remission of sins, but they’d just as quickly admit that their baptism was to “join” the Baptist church (or some other denomination). In light of Acts 8:12, I tend to think that person ought to be baptized again scripturally, with the understanding that he/she is having his/her sins washed away AND being *added* by the Lord to His one church (Acts 2:47). This is a tough situation, for sure, & I still emphasize that it is something that we must not pressure, lest a person do it for the wrong reason(s).
Chad Dollahite 10:58 am on August 11, 2011 Permalink
Sorry…another thought just came to me. Do you all think Acts 19:1-5 might have any significance here? Those people were baptized under John’s baptism, which actually was “for the remission of sins” (Mk. 1:4), but they still needed to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. “In the name of” is not just calling His name, of course, but the idea of authority (Mt. 28:18-20). I may be comparing apples & oranges here, but I think there could possibly be a connection. Baptism “in the name of” Christ is more than just “for the remission of sins” (if my analogy here holds, that is…I’m admittedly thinking out loud to some extent). Thanks again for some great discussion!
guy 11:07 am on August 11, 2011 Permalink |
Chad,
i think Acts 19 shows at least that there is more at stake than just ROS.
i find it interesting that very soon after the NT, the early church began a catachumen system–that sometimes took . i’m not saying we should jump on board with that, but it is interesting, isn’t it? i tend to think they would’ve had far less of the problem we’re describing because of a catachumen process.
The other thing we’re keying on is, how much is enough? What level of learning is sufficient? i’m afraid that if we run with some of our intuitions, a person may never know enough and might always be able to doubt her immersion at any level of learning. (And, in fact, this does happen in some cases, and you get redunkings several times over.) Doesn’t that seem more like a failing in our teaching rather than a strength? It certainly won’t hurt people to know more rather than less, but i can’t help but think we probably expect them to know more than they truly need to just to get started.
–guy
Chad Dollahite 9:44 pm on August 12, 2011 Permalink |
Guy, I believe I’d agree with every point you made…well put. This has been being discussed on another list I’m on, although more from the standpoint of exactly what one must know before baptism (as opposed to the denominational baptism principle that actually started this thread). Thanks again for the good thoughts.