Re-Baptism, Knowledge of Remission of Sins Necessary?, Etc.

[Bon Voyage]

Check out Bobby Valentine's blog about this topic about Alexander Campbell & Re-Baptism:

http://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com/2009/02/alexander-campbell-rebaptism.html

An excerpt:

The immersion of Alexander Campbell in 1812 by Baptist preacher Mathias Luce has been long been a troublesome issue for some heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement. For some like Austin McGary, the founder of the Firm Foundation, Campbell's baptism was downright embarrassing. The cause of that embarrassment is rooted in two historical facts: 1) Alexander (and his father Thomas) was baptized by a Baptist and 2) Campbell did not understand baptism's role in the remission of sin -- and would not for quite some time after. This presented such a problem for McGary that he even suggested that Campbell was secretly rebaptized -- a notion that David Lipscomb rightly dismissed as highly dubious. Even as late as 1999 a brother wrote an article concerning "Alexander Campbell's Baptism"[1] that was another stretched attempt to remove this apparent black eye from Campbell.

[zoonance]

Perhaps really accepting the "dying to self" part might lead one to be "rebaptized"  That isn't the same as being rebaptized because of a deeper theological/doctrinal understanding or point.  We would need biblical evidence stating that God does not honor obedience performed without "all the facts" in order to also teach such.

[savedbyhim]

Check out Bobby Valentine's blog about this topic about Alexander Campbell & Re-Baptism:

http://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com/2009/02/alexander-campbell-rebaptism.html

An excerpt:

The immersion of Alexander Campbell in 1812 by Baptist preacher Mathias Luce has been long been a troublesome issue for some heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement. For some like Austin McGary, the founder of the Firm Foundation, Campbell's baptism was downright embarrassing. The cause of that embarrassment is rooted in two historical facts: 1) Alexander (and his father Thomas) was baptized by a Baptist and 2) Campbell did not understand baptism's role in the remission of sin -- and would not for quite some time after. This presented such a problem for McGary that he even suggested that Campbell was secretly rebaptized -- a notion that David Lipscomb rightly dismissed as highly dubious. Even as late as 1999 a brother wrote an article concerning "Alexander Campbell's Baptism"[1] that was another stretched attempt to remove this apparent black eye from Campbell.

I'm pretty sure that no other aspect of the "plan of salvation" is more misunderstood or maligned than that of genuine Christian baptism.

The real point that needs to be argued has nothing to do with Alexander Campbell, or the Stone-Campbell "restoration" movement...or the musings of Bobby Valentine, but it's all about whether one who approaches Jesus Christ (by faith) seeking salvation should know with certainty that what they are doing in response to the gospel of Christ is actually the way it was intended and will result in salvation, or if it is just some kind of modern day misapplication.

I do not agree with the "denominational" approach (sinner's prayer ONLY) and I also do not agree with those (CofC, etc) who put so much emphasis on baptism that it overrides heart changing faith or repentance. Both the command and the act of baptism is simple....it doesn't need to be convoluted with a bunch of modern ideas or human approaches. If a person who has real faith in Christ is to have their sins removed they must join Christ Jesus in death. His death was physical, but ours is symbolic. Jesus defeated death through His resurrection, and Romans 6 says that we too can walk in a newness of life if we are also "buried with Him" (symbolic) into His death.

And that is the real point that many, if not most, do not  understand....when a person is buried with Jesus in baptism they are putting their faith in the testimony of the gospel that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead and lives at the right hand of God. It is their hope and faith that in the end they will also have that blessed opportunity to live in the presence of God in heaven, and the testimony of the bible says that this will be the way it will be. No guessing, no ambiguity....nothing but a solid foundation to stand on....so, when a person is baptized into Christ FOR THE RIGHT REASONS they can know that they will also be with Him in eternity.

So, is it necessary for someone to understand the truth about baptism....well, if they don't, then why would they do it to begin with?   

[llewksgood]

Mmm... I've always wondered about this "re-baptism", and never quite understood what one is driving at. So it boils down to knowledge?

I have always followed the path of "believer baptism", i.e. he who believes and is baptised, and that it must be preceeded by confession of faith [and not preceeding it] "If you believe, you may", but I've never considered the term "re-baptism" as a serious doctrine; just an accusation from those who believe in infant baptism.

[zoonance]

coc does not place so much emphasis on baptism that it overrides heart changing faith or repentance.  It does place so much emphasis on baptism because so many refute its association with heart changing faith and repentance.  Overtime, the desire to prove a point has driven the emphasis in teaching but not at the expense of faith and repentance.   I am sure that there may be exceptions as there are always the exceptions in every broad brush paintings.

[savedbyhim]

coc does not place so much emphasis on baptism that it overrides heart changing faith or repentance.  It does place so much emphasis on baptism because so many refute its association with heart changing faith and repentance.  Overtime, the desire to prove a point has driven the emphasis in teaching but not at the expense of faith and repentance.   I am sure that there may be exceptions as there are always the exceptions in every broad brush paintings.

Point well taken, thanks!

[Bon Voyage]

coc does not place so much emphasis on baptism that it overrides heart changing faith or repentance.  It does place so much emphasis on baptism because so many refute its association with heart changing faith and repentance.  Overtime, the desire to prove a point has driven the emphasis in teaching but not at the expense of faith and repentance.   I am sure that there may be exceptions as there are always the exceptions in every broad brush paintings.

Some do, some don't.  It isn't a monolithic fellowship.

[Jaime]

I would say if a cofc or any other fellowship is "hellbent" on getting someone wet without heartchanging faith and repentence, they are doing that someone a great disservice. Personally that concept is foreign to me, and I have come from a long line of super conservative cofc's. I had heard countless sermons on Godly sorrow leading to repentence as a youth. It was understood that if one had heartchanging faith and repentence and delayed in water baptism, then their would be a collective concern because of what Savedbyhim so eloquently stated in the reason for water baptism in post #2. Leaving it "undone" was not an option, as it was not an option in the first century. Hence the resulting "tenacity in pestering" that many have experienced from family members or inlaws, etc.

My wife was re-baptized about 28 years ago after studying with a friend. She felt llike she didn't know what she was doing when she got baptised the first time. The friend told her "If you get re-baptized, then one of the two times you just wet." He didn't encourage her to do it, in fact he kinda did the opposite. She went ahead and got re-baptized and felt better about the whole thing. Who knows which one really "took".

 

[Jaime]

coc does not place so much emphasis on baptism that it overrides heart changing faith or repentance.  It does place so much emphasis on baptism because so many refute its association with heart changing faith and repentance.  Overtime, the desire to prove a point has driven the emphasis in teaching but not at the expense of faith and repentance.   I am sure that there may be exceptions as there are always the exceptions in every broad brush paintings.

Some do, some don't.  It isn't a monolithic fellowship.

I agree with Zoo on this. Sometimes the detractors of scriptural baptism are so adamant, it seems we, (the cofc) have lost our focus. It seems to us that others were unduly deleting an important part of the whole process. In our aggressive defense of baptism, it appeared that's all we were concerned about. To us, leaving out baptism as part of the plan of salvation would be like leaving out faith, or confession, or repentence.

People mistook our zeal as thinking faith was secondary to baptism. No cofc person I know of thinks that. Baptism is important to our total FAITH response, but does not minimize faith. I can understand the rub though.

[Bon Voyage]

coc does not place so much emphasis on baptism that it overrides heart changing faith or repentance.  It does place so much emphasis on baptism because so many refute its association with heart changing faith and repentance.  Overtime, the desire to prove a point has driven the emphasis in teaching but not at the expense of faith and repentance.   I am sure that there may be exceptions as there are always the exceptions in every broad brush paintings.

Some do, some don't.  It isn't a monolithic fellowship.

I agree with Zoo on this. Sometimes the detractors of scriptural baptism are so adamant, it seems we, (the cofc) have lost our focus. It seems to us that others were unduly deleting an important part of the whole process. In our aggressive defense of baptism, it appeared that's all we were concerned about. To us, leaving out baptism as part of the plan of salvation would be like leaving out faith, or confession, or repentence.

People mistook our zeal as thinking faith was secondary to baptism. No cofc person I know of thinks that. Baptism is important to our total FAITH response, but does not minimize faith. I can understand the rub though.

Because no person you know of thinks that doesn't mean there aren't some.  I know personally of CofC folks who put baptism as equal to faith.

[yogi bear]

I have a question that I do not really know how to answer to where it satisfies everyone so I will ask it here and maybe someone can give a satisfactory answer that all can accept.

Lets say everyone agrees that Christ through his Apostles commanded everyone to be baptized. The question is how can one say that it is not a salvation issue regardless of the belief of just what it entails.
 
If Christ said that we are to if we do not is our faith where it should be? If we do not would it not be considered rebellion against Christ will?

It seems to me that regardless of what we think baptism is or for or whatever the simple fact that Christ said to do it would make it a salvation issue would it not?

[yogi bear]

I guess no one can answer it either. Oh well at least I am not alone.

[HRoberson]

I have a question that I do not really know how to answer to where it satisfies everyone so I will ask it here and maybe someone can give a satisfactory answer that all can accept.

Lets say everyone agrees that Christ through his Apostles commanded everyone to be baptized. The question is how can one say that it is not a salvation issue regardless of the belief of just what it entails.
 
If Christ said that we are to if we do not is our faith where it should be? If we do not would it not be considered rebellion against Christ will?

It seems to me that regardless of what we think baptism is or for or whatever the simple fact that Christ said to do it would make it a salvation issue would it not?

If Christ commanded everyone to be baptized, then yes.

The question to me seems to be whether the practice is a local Jewish practice, or something necessary for every non-Jew to do.

[Mere Nick]

I have a question that I do not really know how to answer to where it satisfies everyone so I will ask it here and maybe someone can give a satisfactory answer that all can accept.

Lets say everyone agrees that Christ through his Apostles commanded everyone to be baptized. The question is how can one say that it is not a salvation issue regardless of the belief of just what it entails.
 
If Christ said that we are to if we do not is our faith where it should be? If we do not would it not be considered rebellion against Christ will?

It seems to me that regardless of what we think baptism is or for or whatever the simple fact that Christ said to do it would make it a salvation issue would it not?

If Christ commanded everyone to be baptized, then yes.

The question to me seems to be whether the practice is a local Jewish practice, or something necessary for every non-Jew to do.

Acts 2:39 says "The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

It seems to me that if someone reads the first gospel and at the end sees Jesus saying for folks to get baptized, then it seems getting baptized for the simple reason Jesus said so is a faithful response.  But then, I've had folks, maybe some like the folks Gary knows, who figure that still ain't good enough.  There does seem to be a very vocal (probably) minority that isn't ever satisfied unless you are in total agreement with them on all things, and then if you are they figure you're trying to pull something.

[llewksgood]

I have a question that I do not really know how to answer to where it satisfies everyone so I will ask it here and maybe someone can give a satisfactory answer that all can accept.

Lets say everyone agrees that Christ through his Apostles commanded everyone to be baptized. The question is how can one say that it is not a salvation issue regardless of the belief of just what it entails.
 
If Christ said that we are to if we do not is our faith where it should be? If we do not would it not be considered rebellion against Christ will?

It seems to me that regardless of what we think baptism is or for or whatever the simple fact that Christ said to do it would make it a salvation issue would it not?

I'm not CoC, and, as I have already said, don't know a lot about this re-baptism issue; but I do believe it is a salvation issue, and am personally convinced by Scripture that someone who refuses water baptism really has no grounds for claiming they are saved [note I said, refuses].

The question was raised, is water baptism only a religious ritual? Does it actually do anything?

It has been said that, since Jesus commanded it, it cannot be a "religious" ritual, because Jesus is God. And that would be sufficient argument for me.

The emphasis given is that baptism is "for the remission of sins" as Peter claimed on the day of Pentecost. So, does water baptism actually remit your sons, or no? It is this issue I would like to adress using an example from the Bible concerning Namaan the leper.

As you may recall, Namaan, a Syrian commander, had leprosy, and through the testimony of a child servant girl found himself confronted by Elisha's servant who told him to go and dip in the Jordan 7 times. If you have read, or heard the story, you know that Namaan objected, and refused to do so.

Now I ask you, if Namaan had refused to do as commanded, would he have been healed? The answer from the telling of his story would obviously be, no. His leprosy would have remained. So we can say that the Jordan waters healed him, even though we know that it was not the water, but the power of God. Remember, if he had gone back to the mountains of Syria and tried the same thing he would not have been healed.

This same can then be said of water baptism. Even though we know that it is the power of God, through Jesus Christ that makes us clean by faith, the waters of baptism actually do remit your sins, because the power of the act is in the command of Christ. It is not merely a Jewish ritual. By faith, when we are baptised, our sins are washed away.

In the same manner we lay hands on the sick, and they are healed. Do I possess the healing? No, it is the gift of God, but God has commanded it to happen that way.

With regards to re-baptism, I have no idea why it is often commanded; but, as to whether it is a salvation issue, yes, I do believe it is.

Remember when Jesus challenged the pharisees concerning their traditions? They had decided, if you give your money to the church you are free from obligation to your parents. Jesus plainly stated that this was contrary to the command of God. That is the way I see those who teach no need to be baptised. What they teach is not the command of God, but the tradition of men that contravenes the command of God. I pay no attention to such.

[Jaime]

coc does not place so much emphasis on baptism that it overrides heart changing faith or repentance.  It does place so much emphasis on baptism because so many refute its association with heart changing faith and repentance.  Overtime, the desire to prove a point has driven the emphasis in teaching but not at the expense of faith and repentance.   I am sure that there may be exceptions as there are always the exceptions in every broad brush paintings.

Some do, some don't.  It isn't a monolithic fellowship.

I agree with Zoo on this. Sometimes the detractors of scriptural baptism are so adamant, it seems we, (the cofc) have lost our focus. It seems to us that others were unduly deleting an important part of the whole process. In our aggressive defense of baptism, it appeared that's all we were concerned about. To us, leaving out baptism as part of the plan of salvation would be like leaving out faith, or confession, or repentence.

People mistook our zeal as thinking faith was secondary to baptism. No cofc person I know of thinks that. Baptism is important to our total FAITH response, but does not minimize faith. I can understand the rub though.

Because no person you know of thinks that doesn't mean there aren't some.  I know personally of CofC folks who put baptism as equal to faith.

I don't doubt that you do. It has just been my experience that sometimes non-cofc folks misunderstand what they think they know about cofc folks; however, I do know that you have some interesting personal experiences in that regard.

[HRoberson]

I have a question that I do not really know how to answer to where it satisfies everyone so I will ask it here and maybe someone can give a satisfactory answer that all can accept.

Lets say everyone agrees that Christ through his Apostles commanded everyone to be baptized. The question is how can one say that it is not a salvation issue regardless of the belief of just what it entails.
 
If Christ said that we are to if we do not is our faith where it should be? If we do not would it not be considered rebellion against Christ will?

It seems to me that regardless of what we think baptism is or for or whatever the simple fact that Christ said to do it would make it a salvation issue would it not?

If Christ commanded everyone to be baptized, then yes.

The question to me seems to be whether the practice is a local Jewish practice, or something necessary for every non-Jew to do.

Acts 2:39 says "The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

It seems to me that if someone reads the first gospel and at the end sees Jesus saying for folks to get baptized, then it seems getting baptized for the simple reason Jesus said so is a faithful response.  But then, I've had folks, maybe some like the folks Gary knows, who figure that still ain't good enough.  There does seem to be a very vocal (probably) minority that isn't ever satisfied unless you are in total agreement with them on all things, and then if you are they figure you're trying to pull something.

I don't know why someone, having been recently convinced of Gospel's truth and being urged to be baptized, would not be. I suppose that happens.

On the other hand, it is the promise that is for all people, not necessarily a Jewish ritual cleansing.

It is more difficult to get around the Great Commission where disciples are told to go baptize people in response to those people's conviction by the Gospel. The question remains though, whether in absolute terms, a Jewish rite was intended to be bound on Gentiles.

It does seem instructive though, that early converts, including Gentiles, were baptized.

[Mere Nick]

It is more difficult to get around the Great Commission where disciples are told to go baptize people in response to those people's conviction by the Gospel. The question remains though, whether in absolute terms, a Jewish rite was intended to be bound on Gentiles.

It does seem instructive though, that early converts, including Gentiles, were baptized.

Yes they were.  And baptism is certainly seems a prefered rite, imo, to having some dude take something sharp to the tallywacker.

[yogi bear]

OK this thread has brought up another question I have that I would like to see answered.

I keep reading wording such as "not necessarily a Jewish ritual cleansing.

When I see the bold part above it says to me that we think that the Jews was the one to dream up this but when I read the word of God it screams out that it was God that planned this.

Just what is it that is being said? Are we trying to give the Jews credit for baptism or what are we saying when we word it like above.

[HRoberson]

Well, since I said it, let me explain what I meant.

It is quite possible that God uses things that make sense to us, to make his points.

The Jews developed a ritual of washing themselves before going to Temple, or synagogue, as a sign of repentance and becoming clean before entering the presence of God.

This ritual cleansing - in hewn tubs large enough to wade into - was not commanded by God, but developed over time. It became to be a normative behavior for Jews and could very well simply have been incorporated as the expected method of responding to God - for Jews.

Similarly, shepherding isn't a God-demanded behavior, but the stories that Jesus told had quite a bit to do with that way of life. That is so, though, because it was familiar, not because it was God-ordained that they or anyone else should pursue that line of work.

[yogi bear]

OK I see what you are saying but I thought that God started it back in the old covenant even. kinda like if you had defiled your self you had to cleanse your clothes and self before you be part of the tribe. I know I am wording this all wrong and may be way off cue I will have to go back to the old testament and reread it. I do not remember off the top of the head just where i read it so give me some time and I will get back to you on this.

[HRoberson]

OK I see what you are saying but I thought that God started it back in the old covenant even. kinda like if you had defiled your self you had to cleanse your clothes and self before you be part of the tribe. I know I am wording this all wrong and may be way off cue I will have to go back to the old testament and reread it. I do not remember off the top of the head just where i read it so give me some time and I will get back to you on this.

Cleansing is in the Old Testament. Wading into a pool before approaching God isn't.

[yogi bear]

So you are saying that the Jews took the cleansing and transformed it to ritual dipping then God took that and changed it to baptism?

[HRoberson]

So you are saying that the Jews took the cleansing and transformed it to ritual dipping then God took that and changed it to baptism?

I'm saying God incorporated something that made sense to the folks to whom He was talking.

[yogi bear]

Oh I see but how does that line up with he had his plan before they were even in the playing field?

[HRoberson]

Oh I see but how does that line up with he had his plan before they were even in the playing field?

I don't know that I believe that baptism was "in the plan," except perhaps as God may have known that the Jews were going to develop ritual ablution.

[yogi bear]

OK I see but really do not understand. I had always thought God had it all planned out and would have already known that he would use this means to connect us to the cross. I have a lot of learning to do I guess.

[HRoberson]

OK I see but really do not understand. I had always thought God had it all planned out and would have already known that he would use this means to connect us to the cross. I have a lot of learning to do I guess.

I don't buy the entirety of God sees all of history and the future as though it's on video tape that He can look forward and back on whenever He cares to. I have Open Theology leanings and therefore believe that God gets to make stuff up as He goes along.

[yogi bear]

I can relate to that but I thought that I had read that God had known How he was going to redeem man before he even created man. I see somewhat the same line of thinking that you mentioned also but did not think that it was on redemption. I just for some reason had thought that God knew that before hand.

[HRoberson]

I can relate to that but I thought that I had read that God had known How he was going to redeem man before he even created man. I see somewhat the same line of thinking that you mentioned also but did not think that it was on redemption. I just for some reason had thought that God knew that before hand.

God knew He was going to send/come as Jesus.

The specifics of our expected response may be locally determined.

[yogi bear]

That may be so but it gives me something to try to figure out now.

[jessbuds]

I don't buy the entirety of God sees all of history and the future as though it's on video tape that He can look forward and back on whenever He cares to. I have Open Theology leanings and therefore believe that God gets to make stuff up as He goes along.

But do you believe that God knew beforehand that you would wrote that kind of line here?

Remember that God is out of time; video tape viewing and rewinding requires time.
In God; all those whom he redeemed are already in His presence but still future to us and if we are indeed one of those then our future are already in God.

The thing is; we view and understand God in our limited understanding as human being.  

[HRoberson]

That may be so but it gives me something to try to figure out now.

Okie dokie.

[HRoberson]

I don't buy the entirety of God sees all of history and the future as though it's on video tape that He can look forward and back on whenever He cares to. I have Open Theology leanings and therefore believe that God gets to make stuff up as He goes along.

But do you believe that God knew beforehand that you would wrote that kind of line here?

I do not.

Remember that God is out of time; video tape viewing and rewinding requires time.
In God; all those whom he redeemed are already in His presence but still future to us and if we are indeed one of those then our future are already in God.

No, we are not in God's presence. We are here, on this planet.

That is why Paul urges us to hold fast to our faith. Because there is the possibility that we will lose it.

The thing is; we view and understand God in our limited understanding as human being.  

I can agree with that.

[Bon Voyage]

Back to topic please.

Is believing baptism is the point at which sins is remitted necessary or not for salvation?