I was baptized unbiblically. Do I need to be rebaptized?

But how would you deal with those who have been baptized as children, and do not think it baptism now?

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

A. — It would be hazardous to undertake explaining why the apostles were not baptised with Christian baptism, though some or all may have had John's baptism; which Acts 19 proves not to be equivalent. But we can gather from it what a comfort the fact is to such as from a variety of circumstances had not been baptised duly, and did not feel it well or wise to go through the form after enjoying church fellowship for ever so many years, when the initiatory sign of a Christian would have lost its meaning or conveyed a false one.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You have given the true reasons for not re-baptising: if it is initiatory, and reception into the house or public professing assembly on earth, you cannot introduce him if he has been. If this has been bonâ fide done, done with this object, hence called christening, it is done; and a second service cannot be this, but only on the ground of being declaratory and obedience, which you yourself reject, as indeed baptising brethren themselves do generally now, and which are clearly unscriptural. The only question then is, are the children of believers entitled to be so received? Now the rejecting them as infants was clearly not God's way of old, nor Christ's mind. It is the question, are they entitled to be received into the habitation of God by the Spirit, or are they to be left in the world of which Satan is prince? Now in Matthew the general character of infants in God's sight is clearly stated: their angels behold the face of His Father. It is not His will that one should perish, and that referred to His saving like a lost sheep. This clearly refers to infants as such, not those who have as Christians a character like them - it would be poverty itself as to them; He had the child in His arms. It is said this is not baptism. Clearly not. But it is not merely or at all Jewish, "of such is the kingdom of heaven." Now the kingdom of heaven was not then set up; now it is, and such belong to it. They are of it, and ought to be admitted to its privileges. I know no administrative entrance to it on earth but baptism. It was the prescribed order down on earth. But when I come to 1 Corinthians 7:14, I think I get the question specifically decided. It is directly the subject. If a Jew married a Gentile he was profaned (not profane, a profane thing cannot be profaned) and was to send away his wife and children (see Ezra and Nehemiah): was it so under grace? No, the converse; the unbeliever was sanctified (opposite to profaned, not holy) and the children were holy, to be received, not cut off. Hence the word is "unclean," the force of which as precluding approach to the house of Jehovah in Israel is well known. There is a place where God sets His blessings besides individual conversion, I mean down here. Thus Romans 11 and the sacramental place on earth (1 Cor. 10) answers to this in Judaism; hence, as you recognise, special judgment on it, and it is called the house of God, though spoiled with false doctrine in man's hand, still judged as God's house and temple, though wood and hay and stubble be in it. Without this indeed there could not be apostasy. Hence the Lord, and the faith (not personal, but the "one faith") and baptism are associated. In the baptism of a child there is plain testimony to the need of Christ's death for its admission. I trust you will not press -'s conscience the least. Should you even feel bound to do it, leave her quite at liberty not even to be present if she is not free, or a mere looker on if she wish to be it. Your own conscience God will direct. Take it quietly for yourself and for her. I trust and pray, nor do I doubt His goodness, that the gracious Lord will be with her in her hour of need, and may He give her to rest as a child in His arms, and trust His gracious care. …

Ques.—If a person has been baptized, on the profession of faith, in the name of the triune God at the administration of the ordinance, is it necessary to be baptized again on any plea whatever? Is not being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Christian baptism?

Arts.—Assuredly it is, and Eph.4:5 affirms there is “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” To repeat it therefore is contrary to the Word, and the destruction of its meaning. Imagine a foreigner coming to this country, renouncing all allegiance to the Power he was under, and pledging solemn allegiance to the Power of this land, then after doing this asking to have it done over again. It could only cast ridicule upon the solemn ordinance.

As to the Baptist sect, I see, beloved brother, that God has guided you in your views and actions. This question has caused agitation (by means of some one who has laboured at it) in a department in France where the work of brethren has been blessed. But by being firm, and leaving to every one full liberty of conscience, it has passed away, and God has granted full peace to the brethren, and the storm has passed by without doing harm. I do not wonder at people being in doubt in the state of confusion in which the church is, so that I have no difficulty in respecting the consciences of brethren who believe that they ought to be baptised. If their conscience tells them that they have not been baptised, they do well to get baptised, if they do it peaceably. I say peaceably, because it is no longer the confession of Christianity, but an act which seeks to repair a fault of negligence. But if one makes it a sect, it is a very great evil: baptism becomes the centre of union instead of Christ.

Of course, it should be by a Christian. I may not reject or repeat what has been done bonâ fide in christian profession nor seek individual judgment of the state of souls when it was done. But clearly it ought to be done in faith, true prayer, and on the part of the Lord in His name; and who should do that but a believer? I should most assuredly seek the baptism of my child by a believer and none else. I do not say it is not valid else when done, but it is not what I would seek, or accept when I had to seek it.