Baptism,Yes; rebaptism, No?

[Gregory Matthews]

http://www.adventistreview.org/2001-1505/story2.html

The above link focuses on what I believe is an important issue in the SDA Chruch today. I invite you to read and comment on it.

[Beryl]

Yes, Greg, I read that last night and was horrified to think some pastors are so keen to play the "numbers game" that they would lay the guilt feeling on young people like that! If this is happening to the extent that it seems, then maybe some Conference Presidents should take a good look at the figures, and do some brisk talking -- especially to the offenders.

Let's have honesty in the numbers.

Beryl

[cricket]

Quote:

---

Baptism doesn’t supernaturally transform a person. There’s nothing mystical or magical about the water or about the immersion itself. Baptism is a ritual, a symbol, a role play. I’m not saying that baptism doesn’t make a difference. It certainly does. To the degree that a person gets into the spirit of the role play, the life is affected.

---

Then, isn't re-baptism making a difference in the lives of these people to the degree that they "get into the spirit of role play"? Can't it be said that for these people who choose rebaptism, it is making a difference?

[Gregory Matthews]

1) I serioiusly doubt that this is being done to inflate chuch membership numbers (i.e. by double counting). I also doubt that many Conference Presidents would take a major interest in this.

2) In some places financial issues have placed relatively untrained lay people in charge of churches, and a chaplains of our schools. Denominational policy allows such to be given permission to baptize, which may not be often done, but may be done more often in our schools than elsewhere. These people may not have a full sense of the meaning and place for baptism. Personally, I believe that this is being done more often at our Summer Camps and schools than elsewhere, although it may be done elsewhere.

3) I have a major issue with the implied Theology behind doing such, and I do not do it myself.

[David_McQueen]

I still think rebaptism makes a mockery of both salvation and communion. Once you are baptised into the body of Christ, it is the covering of grace that is with you whenever and however you fall.

Confession and remission of that sin has been covered once and for all by the atonement on Calvary and the singular act of baptism reflects that. I just cant get my head around the fact that without a biblical precedent we still practice this unfounded nonsense!

[jasd]

QT Frame:

Bit of disconcertedness for the reader – moi… Per rebaptism: Am I mistaken to think that I have seen evangelists (and others) after their Revelation series, or other such… arrive at the impassioned plea to be baptized and join the .Org?

What of those who’ve already been baptized into another .Org? does the impassioned plea for baptism in the above example distinguish between those having never been baptized and those who’ve, let’s say, been baptized as an infant? I seem to recall

the ‘pleas’ to have been inclusive… So, what is it,

‘tis good and proper to be rebaptized? or ‘tain’t?

In the one instance good, in the other not-so-good?

[Jeannieb43]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Gregory Matthews said:

3) I have a major issue with the implied Theology behind doing such

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

My feelings exactly. Baptism doesn't "purify" us. It's merely the public expression of our commitment to accept God as our personal Saviour. Further re-dedication is marked by other methods.

When someone is rebaptized, it sets up a picture in the congregation's minds that there's been a really bad, PUBLIC sin somewhere. The baptism then becomes more of a spectacle than the dignified, sacred ceremony it was intended to be.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Cricket said:

Can't it be said that for these people who choose rebaptism, it is making a difference?

---

It may make the one desiring rebaptism feel better, and it isn't seen by this disciple as a sinful practice. However it seems not to further the gospel as it is not an instructed practice from the Word.

It can be replaced by something more closely allied to the Word's instruction.

[:"red"] "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.." [/] 1 John 2:1 KJV

[Gregory Matthews]

David, I basicly agree with you.

I think that there may be rare occasions when rebaptism is appropriate. A person, in my thinking, may be part of the body of Christ, and then choose to leave. This is not a single act of sin. It is not a series of repeated sins. Rather, it is a choice to give it up, depart from Christ, and leave the body of Christ. This will typically be a public witness to that departure from Christ.

In such a case, when that person return to Christ, which I believe Salvation allows, I believe it is appropriate to give public witness to that return to Christ by rebaptism. This is rare, and not the typical situation.

I also think that there is another Biblical precedent for rebaptism--which is when one undergoes a major change in faith. For example, if one came from a Godly, but non-Christian background, rebaptism would be appropriate. (Yes, folks, there are such.) I also believe that the Biblical example of this is the case where people were rebaptized when they learned of the agency and work of the Holy Spirit. In cases like this, I am somewhat willing to accept the choice of the person involved.