Reasons For/Against Rebaptism

[Heirbyadoption]

After a brief MennoNet search, there doesn't seem to be a specific thread on this, other than the RE Baptism thread touching on it a bit, so I'll give it a shot. Laying aside any differences in interpretation on whether Scriptural water baptism consists of effusion or immersion (at least for now, lol), and leaving infant "baptism" out of the question entirely, I would like to hear from anybody willing on why you believe:

A. it is acceptable, or even recommended, to be rebaptized when joining a new fellowship/conference/denomination/etc if someone has previously submitted to a believer's baptism?
B. it is unacceptable, or even wrong, to be rebaptized when joining a new fellowship/conference/denomination/etc if someone has previous submitted to a believer's baptism?

For now, I'd just like to see simple lists of reasons for/against, and if you have them, supporting Scriptures. Please keep it limited to that at this time for simplicity/clarity. Thank you.

[CADude]

A quote from Menno Simons:

"The Scripture does not teach that we are baptized into one body by any mere sign, as water, but that we are baptized into one body by one Spirit, 1 Cor. 12:13" (Taken from The Complete Works of Menno Simon 1871 Edition, A Humble and Christian Defense, Page 301)

A second point I think gets overlooked sometimes is that nowhere in the scripture are we commanded NOT to rebaptize. I understand it's still offensive when you hold to a belief such as the one above, but the church/denomination you're joining has a different belief and requires you to be rebaptized.

The early Anabaptists struggled with this same issue, especially after Menno Simons was gone and the church experienced schism. The article at Gameo.org on baptism has this towards the bottom:

Vos (Doopsgezinde Bijdragen 1911) has clearly shown that while the earliest form in Holland was for the elder to dip a handful of water in one hand, as early as 1567 the Old Flemish had the custom of having the elder pour water three times from a stone jug while holding his left hand on the head of the candidate. (He also points out that the Old Flemish rebaptized those transferring to their group from other Mennonite groups.)

[lesterb]

I can only think of three possible reasons for rebaptism...

1. My baptism is invalid because I was not a believer when I was baptized.

2. My baptism is invalid because the person / group who baptized me were not believers.

3. My baptism is invalid because a wrong method was used.

I can go along with the first one, but I'm not convinced about the second one or the third one. The second one assumes that baptism is a sacrament that depends on who administrates it. But I believe that it is a covenant between me and God and that covenant doesn't depend on another person. Groups who claim to be the only church, or who believe they have been recipients of an apostolic succession will ask you to be rebaptized. Also groups who believe that only their method of baptism is valid (as in number 3). I would have a struggle accepting any of these as valid assumptions.

All of this would keep me from joining a group that required me to be rebaptized.

[mike]

After a brief MennoNet search, there doesn't seem to be a specific thread on this, other than the RE Baptism thread touching on it a bit, so I'll give it a shot. Laying aside any differences in interpretation on whether Scriptural water baptism consists of effusion or immersion (at least for now, lol), and leaving infant "baptism" out of the question entirely, I would like to hear from anybody willing on why you believe:

A. it is acceptable, or even recommended, to be rebaptized when joining a new fellowship/conference/denomination/etc if someone has previously submitted to a believer's baptism?
B. it is unacceptable, or even wrong, to be rebaptized when joining a new fellowship/conference/denomination/etc if someone has previous submitted to a believer's baptism?

For now, I'd just like to see simple lists of reasons for/against, and if you have them, supporting Scriptures. Please keep it limited to that at this time for simplicity/clarity. Thank you.

Good question. I have a friend in this position at the moment. It would be acceptable to me to be rebaptized when joining a new fellowship if:
- There were limited fellowship options and this issue was the only one standing in the way of joining the fellowship.
- That fellowship would allow me the liberty to believe otherwise on the subject while submitting to their practice for the sake of joining the fellowship as a member.
- That fellowship would accept the idea that those who do not hold their particular belief and practice are in fact true followers of Jesus.

[cmbl]

Is there a difference between "believer's baptism" and "baptism shall be given to those who have learned repentance and the amendment of life?"

If so, one reason for rebaptism could be that a person had "just believed," and had not repented, at their first "baptism".

[Neto]

Is there a difference between "believer's baptism" and "baptism shall be given to those who have learned repentance and the amendment of life?"

If so, one reason for rebaptism could be that a person had "just believed," and had not repented, at their first "baptism".

I think that the Biblical term "believe" involves repentance, but perhaps our common use of it does not necessarily, so this is a good point. Also, there are those who reject a re-baptism because they say that although they had not made a confession of Christ as their own Savior, Master, & King, they had made a true confession that Jesus Christ is the only Savior, Master, and King, a sort of doctrinal confession. I personally know some who, upon becoming saved after their baptism, hold to this position. I do not think it matters if they are still in the church tradition in which they were first baptized, or not, but baptism is for those taking a step of obedience, not for those merely making a right doctrinal confession.

I agree with what Lester says above, and I do not think that any group should require re-baptism because of difference of mode. (For the first 100 years of the Mennonite Brethren, they required baptism by immersion, and changed this position only when the KMBs merged with the MBs. It is my heritage, but I think they were wrong to have required this of those who had been baptized by other means.)

[JimFoxvog]

[bible]Eph 4,1-6[/bible]
There is one baptism. The primary meaning of this passage is the unity of the body of Christ. But it seems to me a valid secondary meaning is one can only have one valid water baptism.

I had an infant baptism as a Lutheran. I had a believer baptism years after my rebirth when I was fellowshipping with a church of Christ/Christian Church group. I did not need another baptism when I officially became an Anabaptist, and I would have had trouble with doing so.

The reason against a rebaptism is that is a statement that previous baptisms were invalid. That is why rebaptism after infant "baptism" is an offense to many that practice it.

[Josh]

Old German Baptist Brethren (New Conference) do not hold to one true church teaching or apostolic succession, yet they will still require a new convert to be baptised, even if they were previously immersed thrice at eg a Grace Brethren type of church as an adult and as a believer.

[Hats Off]

We do not consider infant baptism as a valid baptism so we would require believer's baptism of one that had infant baptism. Any other form of re-baptism does not sit well with me. I know someone that feels she was not born again when she was baptized twenty years ago and yet I know she believed. She would consider re-baptism now and I would go along with it if it is the only way she feels comfortable, but to me that is saying everything she and her church had stood for up until this time was in fact nothing. To me it feels that she is invalidating the church she was part of for twenty years, that she communed with. She was baptized even if she now feels she wasn't ready all this time.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Old German Baptist Brethren (New Conference) do not hold to one true church teaching or apostolic succession, yet they will still require a new convert to be baptised, even if they were previously immersed thrice at eg a Grace Brethren type of church as an adult and as a believer.

Maybe they like an excuse for a fellowship picnic?

J.M.