Can I get re-baptized as a "spiritual refresher," even if my first baptism was biblical?

Again as to Acts 19:1-5, for it is sometimes used as a reason for any who were baptised in infancy being baptised again on having reached adult age and having trusted Christ. That the apostles baptised believers scripture definitely teaches, that they baptised households scripture just as definitely teaches. I agree that a believer who has never at any time been baptised ought to be baptised. But if a person has been baptised, be he old man, or young babe, that person is, by baptism, put in a position in which he was not before, and that, whether believing or no. If a person believes subsequent to being baptised - however long a period has elapsed - there is no need for his being re-baptised, for he would in effect, be denying the truth of baptism and be affirming that it is only valid when applied to certain persons.

I am aware that Baptists plead John's baptism, but this is too gross a confession for me to dwell on it, because John's baptism had no reference to death and resurrection - nay, was the opposite to it, for it proposed to receive Christ, and, as far as it went, that He should not therefore die at all. Of course in fact this was impossible, but then those who had received this baptism were as Christians baptised over again. (Cf. Acts 19)

The next principle asserted by those who insist on re-baptising, is that baptism is the public confession that a man is already dead and risen again in Christ. This is entirely contrary also to scripture. Baptism is the doing the thing in sign, the declaration that it is not yet done, as far as man has to say it, or make confession, not that it is. "Arise," says Ananias, "and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord"; not to be baptised in testimony that thy sins are washed away. Again "Buried with him in baptism." (Col. 2.) "So many of us as were baptised unto Jesus Christ were baptised unto his death." And so in every case. "As many of you as have been baptised unto Christ have put on Christ." They were not baptised because they had already done it. None but those who are in principle Roman Catholics suppose that the work is done in it, but it is the sign of dying and rising again - not of being dead and risen. No sacrament is a sign or profession of what is done, but of the doing of it.

p280 * The subject you refer to is one on which I so far unwillingly engage, that it is one which I feel is to be left entirely to individual consciences. If a person has never been baptised, clearly he ought to be; if he has, he cannot be again. The mere testimony - save as any honest sacrifice of self, in which sense it may be accompanied with felt blessing - is to me null, because, were I to be baptised tomorrow, no one would say I had become a Christian; they would merely say I was become a Baptist, or, at least, as it is expressed, that I saw baptism. At the first, it was a further testimony that one put on Christ, and bowed to the grace of the gospel.

I do not add any argument against baptist views. Its being obedience is given up by all who have really looked into scripture. The Lord's supper is the sign of the unity of the body, and that is the bond we own; but it is quite clear from scripture, that when people become Christians they were admitted by baptism amongst the rest: but it has nothing to do with the unity of the body, but admission by a form which expresses Christ's death as their way in. When thus admitted, they are in once for all, and cannot be admitted again. Hence, even Baptists, if they found a person, baptised by them, unconverted, who afterwards believed, they would not baptise them again; and they are right in my judgment. If a person breaking bread was found never to have been baptised at all, I should merely rectify an irregularity as quietly as possible. It is as men speak, the cart before the horse. We have a case here of a young person just brought to the Lord, and it is quite understood she was to be baptised first.

p445 Dear Mrs. Bevan, - There is only one question which this brother definitely puts which I consequently answer, quite disposed with Mr. W. to let him work his own result out. It seems to me inconsistent to bring up those held to be outside, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. But the substance of such things is far more important than the forms, and the duty is a plain one, and the Lord will bless him in it, if he does it in truth and conscience, though I recognise baptism as an ordinance of Christ. The mischief I see, is occupying people with that which is only an ordinance. If a person has not been baptised, of course he ought to be. But it is not what the Lord is occupying souls with, but separating His saints from the evil that is around them in a vast professing mass and to wait for His Son from heaven. Baptism has been pressed, and there has been a reaction: such airs pass often over the church in its present state and pass away. No one will begin the church over again. I should not rebaptise a person sprinkled in infancy; though I do not like the form, because the intended signification in the form is lost. There is an analogy between baptism and circumcision, but such analogies must be used with intelligence, as the dispensations are different. Believers do take their place no doubt in baptism; but that is not the question, to them it is only an outwardly taking it, but whether none others (as believers' children) are not admitted to that place. Taking their stand is an ambiguous term, as if a man be a believer fully he is dead and risen, and it is only the place which God has set up on earth that remains to take. The Baptist looks at it as an outward confession that he was already dead and risen; that is intelligible, but it is not taking a place. The ideas are wholly distinct.

But I say no more, as this occupation with the forms of Christianity (though bowing to them as such) I find has little edification and much wearying of the mind. Only of course one is the servant of others, if they have it on their minds. Our brother could not do better than wait on the Lord. My mind is clear, but I should accept him as cordially if he walk close with Christ, whatever his views may be: and with the Lord close to him he will be guided. I do not rebaptise those sprinkled as children, because if a person has been he cannot be again, though I do not like the form. The Lord give our brother peace in his spirit by His own presence.

If anyone is anxious to be baptized as an adult, who has already been baptized, he must settle that for himself.

But now we have to meet the perverse reasoning of the human mind in Romans 6:1: "If our sin does but magnify the grace of God, we will go on sinning that grace may abound." Such is the flesh; but it is much more sad when professing Christians speak thus. How often, when the blessed truth of the believer's security in Christ is spoken of, we hear such expressions, "Dangerous doctrine; if you know you are saved, you can go and sin, and do just as you like!" But how does the Spirit of God meet such objections? In a way that at once completely refutes the wretched reasonings of the flesh, and at the same time, brings out a most blessed truth which many believers even have never laid hold of. "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (v. 2.) It is a contradiction of terms. How can you live in a thing to which you have died? The very profession of their faith as Christians denied such a doctrine: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?" It is to a Christ that had died to sin (v. 10) that they were baptized, and we are buried with Him by baptism unto death. John baptized to a living Messiah on earth; Christian baptism is to a Christ that has died and risen again. For this reason the disciples of John in Acts 19 had to be baptized again in the name of the Lord Jesus - the one who had died and was risen, and that God had made Lord and Christ. It is not "we that ought to be dead to sin," but "we that are dead to sin." If you were to ask the majority of Christians the question, "Are you dead to sin?" what would be the answer? "Oh, no, I am sure I am not dead to sin! I find it in me every day, and it is a great trouble to me." But this verse states the fact: "We that are dead to sin."* Scripture always looks at a Christian as having died to sin, and this is how we are delivered from the sinful nature - from ourselves and the apostle goes on to speak of it in this chapter. In Romans 4 we see how we are delivered from sins; in this chapter how we are delivered from the old nature - sin: F. K.

It is evident that John's baptism had a serious import in men's minds, since, without a single sign or other miracle, it awakened the question whether the Baptist were the Christ. It intimated the close of the old state of things and a new position, instead of being the familiar practice which traditionalists would make it. On the other hand, scripture is equally plain that it is quite distinct from Christian baptism: so much so that disciples previously baptized with John's baptism had to be baptized to Christ when they received the full truth of the gospel (Acts 19). The Reformers and others are singularly unintelligent in denying this difference, which is not only important but plain and certain. Think of Calvin's calling it a foolish mistake, into which some had been led, of supposing that John's baptism was different from ours! The confession of a coming Messiah widely differs from that of His death and resurrection; and this is the root of differences which involve weighty consequences.

It is quite true that some who had been baptized with John's Baptism were afterwards re-baptized in the Name of the Lord, but this does not touch the question of the significance of Baptism itself. There was evidently a personal reason for Paul's action, for, as far as we know, the Apostles and others who had submitted to the Baptism of John were never baptized a second time.

250 I will not dwell upon it; but John's baptism was so far from being a symbol of Christ's death that, so far as it would be received, Christ would not be put to death at all, but received by faith. Hence (Acts 19) those who had received it had to be baptized over again.