Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
As a pastor, I was sometimes asked to re-baptize another who felt he or she was not a believer when baptized. I am not one who advocates multiple baptisms. Why? It was the providence of God that your baptism occurred when it did. Now that you are sure you have saving faith, the contemplation of your water baptism and the sacramental union between it and your regeneration can be blessed. For me, a re-baptism would only mar this.
In the Old Covenant, the nature of the sacrament meant repetition was impossible, and yet the sacrament was also a typification of the same thing as baptism. What were the Old Testament priests to do if a man who had been circumcised as an adult came to them and said, "Well, I didn't really believe in Yahweh when I was circumcised"? Would they respond, "Surely now you believe in Yahweh, improve your circumcision"? I don't think so.
The important issue here is who gives validity to baptism? Is it God or is it man? I think Scripture is clear that it is God who gives validity to baptism through the Scriptural Trinitarian formula and the lawfully ordained pastor.
This is why I believe this and don't baptize more than once. The recipient of baptism is not the one who decides which baptism is valid. Given that baptism is really a sign and seal, it is God who is the signer and the sealer. In which case an unbeliever doesn't need to be rebaptized, for God's promises don't become void just through human weakness, sinfulness, and unbelief. God's promises stay no matter what. Therefore, if belief comes afterward, the sacrament is still valid. This, by the way, if you follow its logical conclusion, leads to paedo-baptism. But even for those who don't believe in paedo-baptism, it is definitely a way to think about baptism that leads away from constant re-baptizing based on the mood-swing of the person.
AMR
In the Old Covenant, the nature of the sacrament meant repetition was impossible, and yet the sacrament was also a typification of the same thing as baptism. What were the Old Testament priests to do if a man who had been circumcised as an adult came to them and said, "Well, I didn't really believe in Yahweh when I was circumcised"? Would they respond, "Surely now you believe in Yahweh, improve your circumcision"? I don't think so.
The important issue here is who gives validity to baptism? Is it God or is it man? I think Scripture is clear that it is God who gives validity to baptism through the Scriptural Trinitarian formula and the lawfully ordained pastor.
This is why I believe this and don't baptize more than once. The recipient of baptism is not the one who decides which baptism is valid. Given that baptism is really a sign and seal, it is God who is the signer and the sealer. In which case an unbeliever doesn't need to be rebaptized, for God's promises don't become void just through human weakness, sinfulness, and unbelief. God's promises stay no matter what. Therefore, if belief comes afterward, the sacrament is still valid. This, by the way, if you follow its logical conclusion, leads to paedo-baptism. But even for those who don't believe in paedo-baptism, it is definitely a way to think about baptism that leads away from constant re-baptizing based on the mood-swing of the person.
AMR