“Re-Baptism”
According to what God has made known in Christ through the Spirit, immersion in water in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sin represents the point at which a believer has put on Christ, is baptized into the Spirit and receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, and is reckoned as in Christ (Acts 2:38-39, Romans 6:1-11, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:27). Since this experience is so fundamental and foundational to growth and development in faith, a lot of significance is attached with such a baptism. For all sorts of reasons, people might be concerned their baptism was not done appropriately and might seek to be immersed again, or to thus seek “re-baptism.” Can, or should, such a one submit to another baptism and get “re-baptized”?
In order to properly consider the question of “re-baptism,” we must first better understand “baptism.” Baptism is a transliteration of the Greek baptizo; in English, according to the Oxford Dictionary, baptism has come to mean “the religious rite of sprinkling water onto a person’s forehead or of immersion in water, symbolizing purification or regeneration and admission to the Christian Church.” The Greek term originally meant “to dip, immerse”; it was well and appropriately used to describe washings of religious purifications, but the term had plenty of “secular” uses as well, including describing laundry and bathing.
The New Testament betrays no understanding of “baptism” as sprinkling or pouring water upon a person; the examples given indicate immersion (e.g. Acts 8:36-39), and Paul’s association between baptism and death and resurrection necessitates immersion over sprinkling or pouring (Romans 6:3-7). “Baptism” by pouring can only first be found in the Didache 7, and even then only in situations in which flowing water could not be found for immersing.
Much of our conversation about “baptism” and “re-baptism” presuppose the English definition in which baptism is a Christian ritual. The Anabaptists, for instance, are thus named because they were condemned for “baptizing again,” insisting on the immersion of believers in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins, since the powers that be in the early modern period would never countenance any questioning of the legitimacy of the sprinkling of infants. When we talk of “re-baptism,” we generally do so because a person has already experienced a Christian ritual that involved getting sprinkled, poured, or immersed in or with water, and now wonder if the experience was truly legitimate or valid.
Yet in the usage of Koine Greek at the time of the New Testament, “baptism” happened all the time. People “baptized” their clothes. People “baptized” themselves for ritual purification, or just as a bath. Such is why Peter’s witness in 1 Peter 3:21 is worth consideration:
And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you – not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God – through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
We should note well how Peter affirms what baptism is not: the washing off of physical dirt. Peter was not attempting to deny the existence of immersion to cleanse from dirt as a valid and appropriate definition of the Greek baptizo; instead, Peter wished to emphasize how such an immersion would not save them or anyone.
Perhaps this scenario remains entirely hypothetical, but based on 1 Peter 3:21, if a person came forward and desired baptism, and their real intention was to get a bath, they would certainly have accomplished their purpose: they got a bath. Yet that bath would not save them in Christ.
Therefore, not every immersion is the “baptism” which brought a person into Christ. “Baptism,” like almost everything else in the Christian faith, is determined by the purpose and meaning associated with the event by the person who submits to baptism: as Peter put it in 1 Peter 3:21, submitting to immersion as a pledge of a good conscience to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Peter described baptism in Acts 2:38 as immersion in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Jesus had previously commanded the Apostles to go out and baptize believers in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:18-20).
Thus, the baptism in which one puts on Christ, is baptized into and receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, and is now in Christ is an immersion done in the name of, understood as by the authority of, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and for the purpose of the remission of sins. In baptism a believer makes his or her appeal to God in faith to receive the cleansing from sin which was made possible by Jesus’ death on the cross, and God will faithfully thus reckon them as cleansed from sin (1 Peter 3:21).
Furthermore, the Scriptures consistently speak of the experience of baptism in Jesus as a unique, one-time event. The Scriptures never speak of anyone getting “re-baptized” or “baptized again.” Luke spoke of disciples of John the Baptist who had been baptized “into John” in Acts 19:3-4, but did not say they were “re-baptized” in Acts 19:5:
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Yes, the disciples of John were submitting to a baptismal ritual for a second time, but they had previously been immersed in John’s baptism, which was not the same as the baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. Thus these disciples were baptized once into Jesus and had no need for baptism again.
Baptism takes place once because it is the point at which one “dies to sin” and walks in “newness of life” according to Romans 6:1-11. Jesus died to sin and was raised once; Jesus has no need to continually die again and be raised again. Likewise believers can only die to sin and be raised again once by means of baptism; at that point they are in Christ and have put on Christ, and have no need to continually attempt to put on Christ again and again. When Christians sin, the response is not “re-baptism,” but confession of sin and repentance (cf. 1 John 1:7-9).
Therefore, the first question anyone considering a “re-baptism” must ask involves what they experienced as their first “baptism.”
Were they “baptized” as infants by means of sprinkling? If so, is sprinkling immersion? No. Even if sprinkling could be legitimated, does any baby submit to such an experience in faith in God in Christ for the cleansing of their sins? They have committed no sin or fault for which such remission would be required. No baby has therefore ever truly experienced the baptism which brings one into Christ; they have been made wet. Anyone who has experienced sprinkling as a baby should submit to immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins. In truth they would not be “baptized again”; they are being baptized into Christ for the first time.
Did they submit to some kind of “baptismal ritual” which involved sprinkling or pouring? Are sprinkling or pouring immersion? Can one “die to sin” and “walk in newness of life” if one has not been really “buried”? Does such a person feel sufficiently confident in what they experienced as truly bringing them into Christ? In such circumstances we would encourage such people to submit to immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins; and it would also be baptism into Christ for the first time.
Were they immersed, but immersed because other people were getting immersed, or succumbed to parental pressure, or to join a church, without any regard for believing in Jesus and obtaining the remission of sins? They certainly got immersed; yet, as we have seen, the value of the immersion is dependent on the reason why the person has submitted to it. If a person was immersed for reasons other than the remission of sin, he or she should submit to immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins; such also would be baptism into Christ for the first time.
In all such situations, the people involved must be comfortable understanding their previous experiences as “getting wet,” and confident in the reconciliation of their relationship with God and His people as fully inaugurated in the moment when they were immersed in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins.
But what about someone who is concerned they did not really understand what they were doing when they submitted to immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins? Or perhaps they second guess themselves and the reasons why they submitted to baptism? Or maybe they are on a pilgrimage or having some kind of religious experience and want to get baptized again?
The significance of baptism testifies to the power of the moment of baptism, and we do well to respect and honor its significance and power. In a very real way, if we submit to baptism over and over again, we diminish the importance and power of baptism. We do not appropriately honor it as a sacred moment in that way.
We can understand baptism as the sign of the new covenant (cf. Colossians 2:11-13): when we are baptized, we obtain full membership in the covenant between God and all mankind in Christ Jesus, and obtain all the blessings which attend to that covenant. A human covenant which provides significant corollaries would be the marriage covenant (cf. Malachi 2:14, Matthew 19:4-6). In this way we can understand getting baptized into Christ in terms of a wedding ceremony: at baptism we enter into the covenant with Christ, just as in a wedding ceremony a man and a woman enter into a covenant of marriage.
Anyone who has been married for any length of time comes to recognize they had no idea to which they were committing themselves when they uttered their wedding vows. Such a lack of understanding, however, does not delegitimate the integrity or the commitment established in those vows. Likewise, anyone who has been a Christian for any length of time comes to recognize they had little idea to which they were committing themselves when they were baptized into Christ. Likewise, that lack of understanding does not delegitimate the integrity of the appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
We can also note how Paul wrote to the Romans and explained to them how their baptism was a type of death and resurrection in Romans 6:1-11, and to the Galatians regarding how they put on Christ in baptism in Galatians 3:27. Maybe some of the Roman or Galatian Christians fully understood these concepts and import of their baptism as they experienced it; yet it is quite likely many did not have such an understanding until later, perhaps even learning about it from these very letters. Yet that lack of full understanding did not delegitimate their baptism: their baptism was a type of death and resurrection whether they understood that or not, and they put on Christ whether they understood it or not.
There are likely a few people who have legitimate reasons for questioning whether they were immersed in the name of Jesus for the remission of sin or for some other reason. Yet the majority of those who experience such doubt are likely bedeviled with other forms of anxiety, doubt, or insecurity in their relationship with God. Many such people submit to a “re-baptism,” but the anxieties, doubt, or insecurities remain. They may even get “baptized” few more times!
Anyone who has been immersed in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins has committed themselves to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to cast aspersions on the integrity of that baptism is to cast aspersions on the integrity of their relationship with God in Christ. We can again illustrate the premise with the corollary of marriage: imagine going to a spouse to which you have been “married” for a few years, or even many years, and telling them you have come to wonder if you really meant anything you said in your vows, and you think you need to have another wedding ceremony to make sure the vows are legitimate. How well do you think that would go for you? How would your spouse respond? Would they not justifiably feel quite put out and dishonored? Would they not feel as if you had just delegitimated the entire relationship to that point? Why would such a spouse even want to go through another wedding ceremony with you? What confidence would they have in your commitment to that wedding ceremony, any more or less than the first one?
Thus, if we truly wish to honor the integrity, power, and sanctity of immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of sin, we must reject any notion of “re-baptism.” True baptism into Christ can only happen once, just like wedding vows only happen once. Perhaps a person went through a Christian ritual, but they were not being immersed in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of sin as an appeal to God for a clean conscience through the resurrection of Jesus; such people should submit to baptism, which would become their one baptism into Christ. But once one has thus submitted to baptism into Christ, they are in Christ, and any thought of “re-baptism” would be like thinking of “redoing wedding vows,” and creates as much relational damage between a person and their God and His people as it would between a husband and wife. Growing in understanding of our commitment to God in Christ through the Spirit does not invalidate our commitment; instead, it deepens it. Many who remain anxious about their relationship with God do better to focus on that relationship in confession, lamentation, and repentance rather than seeking “re-baptism,” as would be true for a spouse who is anxious about his or her marital relationship. May we all seek to live our lives to glorify God in Christ through the Spirit, and thus obtain the resurrection of life!
Ethan R. Longhenry
The post “Re-Baptism” appeared first on de Verbo vitae.
