Rebaptism

Churches associated with the 19th-century Restoration Movement[1] are once again on the precipice of a doctrinal split. In some ways, the split is practically an accomplished fact. No one has intended to cause or participate in such a split, but it is happening nonetheless. The primary issue centers on the doctrine of baptism for (Gk, eis[2]) the remission of sins. Differences in how this doctrine is understood are not, in reality, the factor threatening our unity. Rather, the true threat lies in how those who hold them view one another.

This writer stands with the traditional Restoration Movement understanding that the New Testament teaches that immersion (baptisma, baptizo) in water in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:47-48), into[3] the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), is in fact the moment when one’s faith in Christ and repentance from sin brings that person, by the grace of God (Eph. 2:8), into union with Christ (Rom. 6:3-4; see also Gal. 3:26-27; Acts 2:38; 5:32; Col. 2:12; 1 Pet. 3:21), at the same time receiving the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 5:32) and the promise of eternal life (2 Tim. 1:1; Tit. 1:2). The immersed believer thus formally becomes a disciple of Jesus (Matt. 28:19) and a functioning (ministering) member of the body of Christ, the church (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 12:13).

In every study, and no less in this one, we need to exercise care in applying the Restoration Movement principle of speaking where and as the Bible speaks, while allowing for differences of opinion where the Bible does not speak. We should make sure that we all accept the express teachings of God’s word while forming conclusions about what those teachings imply. Our procedure: in faith (express teachings of Scripture), unity; in opinions (our inferences), liberty; and in all things love.

Two Views of This Biblical Doctrine

(1) The first view under consideration is the one that probably prevailed among Christian Churches and Churches of Christ in the twentieth century. In this view, baptism for the remission (forgiveness[4]) of sins is to be understood as requiring the candidate for baptism to be aware at the time of baptism that his/her sins are being forgiven at that moment and not before. Usually, those who hold this position understand “for the forgiveness of sins” to mean that the forgiveness of sins must be the candidate’s purpose or reason for being baptized. Accordingly, if the person being baptized thought that he/she had been saved and forgiven at some time before being baptized, then the baptism is not valid, and the person should be baptized again. (Some would not use the word “rebaptized” or “baptized again” because they do not accept the first immersion as real baptism.)

Some who hold this view allow that such persons might be saved if they never learned any differently (based on the doctrine of “available light”). Also, some of those who hold this view opine that God may grant exceptions even to those who have never been baptized (in the scriptural sense) if they have never become acquainted with the Biblical teaching.[5]

Those who hold the first view would generally count as non-Christians millions of people who have been immersed because of their faith in Christ (“in the name of Jesus Christ”) and their desire to obey the command to be baptized. Under this view, even the person from whom our movement learned that the Bible teaches that the design of baptism is for the remission of sins, viz., Alexander Campbell himself (see below), would be counted as never having been scripturally baptized since his immersion upon the basis of faith in the gospel occurred about 10 years before his proper understanding of the design of baptism.

(2) A second view also sees the forgiveness of sins as being granted at the time of baptism, period. However, in discussing the concept of the design or purpose of baptism, it asks the question, just whose design is it? The person’s being baptized, the person’s performing the baptism, or God’s? Is the design man’s or God’s?

Those who hold this second view would affirm that even those who believe they were saved before they were baptized still receive in baptism the forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and a true relationship with Christ. How is that? This viewpoint insists that baptism is God’s design or purpose for baptism, and the promise is given to all who are baptized in obedience to His command (Acts 5:32) because they trust in Christ for salvation, even though they misunderstand the point at which that salvation is granted.

Alexander Campbell and Rebaptism

How much must a person understand for baptism to be scripturally valid? Certainly, we should teach that baptism is for the remission of sins as well as other NT teachings about baptism. But what should we do about those who have already been immersed? When Alexander Campbell was baptized in 1812, his biographer, Richardson, makes it clear that Campbell did not then know the true relationship between baptism and salvation. Richardson argues that the highest motive for anything—and therefore sufficient for pleasing God—is obedience to God’s commands regardless of the benefits incurred by the individual.[6]

When a movement arose several years after the true connection between baptism and grace was recovered, several, especially one Dr. John Thomas of Virginia, started insisting that those who had come into the movement from the Baptists should be rebaptized.[7] Campbell himself addressed the “reimmersion” of those who had left the Baptists to become Christians only. On one such occasion, he wrote[8]:

. . . the only thing which can justify re-immersion . . . is a confession on the part of the candidate that he did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God—that He died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day, at the time of his first immersion—that he now believes the testimony of the Apostles concerning Him, and desires to be buried and rise with Christ in faith of a resurrection to eternal life. The instant that re-baptism is preached and practiced on any other ground than that now stated—such as deficient knowledge, weak faith, a change of views . . . then have we abandoned the principles of the present reformation [emphasis added, cea].

This outstanding leader of the Restoration Movement claimed that reimmersing Baptists because they were deficient in their knowledge of the meaning of baptism amounted to an abandonment of the principles of the movement!

Conclusion

Would you accept A. Campbell into your congregation without insisting on his being rebaptized? Let us make sure that the word actually teaches what we think it does. Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is indeed the point at which one’s sins are forgiven. Is it not possible that God’s promise comes in baptism to those who obey the command, even if they had thought they were saved by faith before they were baptized?