Baptism, Re-Baptism & Infant Baptism (Part 1)

I was recently confronted with the question of whether adults should seek to be re-baptised if they are not confident about their earlier, perhaps infant, baptism. Here is a preliminary response which I will do in 3 parts.

1. Baptism is not a primary matter in salvation as it has no redemptive benefits, it is rather an outside [visible] sign of inward [invisible] change. I argue that though important Baptism does not save anyone in and of itself. Traditionally [like John's Baptism] it was a public ritual to declare one's denouncement of former ways/philosophy and to take on a new teacher. The Lord Jesus ordained baptism as an external/public marker of his people. Since it is a sign, it must not be confused with the object it signifies. Ref: Romans 4:9-12, 1 Peter 3:21(notice the use of language in 1 Peter)

2. Baptism is an ecclesiastical [to do with church/christian community] function rather than a redemptive function. As argued above, baptism is a sign/identity of the covenant people in the NT. Those who belong [in the covenant community] have therefore been baptized in the Name of the Trinity and hence made public their declaration to follow. [Matthew 28: 19,20] [1 Cor 1:13 -17]

3. Baptism in the NT is patterned after circumcision in the old covenant. Both are outward signs of a complete covenant. Perhaps this is the most controversial bit as many do not see parallels between the two. As circumcision was the sign for covenant people in the old covenant, baptism is the ordained sign in the latter covenant [Colossians 2: 6-15, especially V11]. Some traditions strongly oppose this position and argue that there is no connection between the two.

Now to the question of re-baptism. Unless one is not baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit or they were not saved and they knew it, then re-baptism may not be a good practice to embrace. I do not think it has any salvific consequences [I argued above it is not a redemptive act, though the 1 peter passage might imply so] but I suggest it might cause ecclesiastical confusion. Case in point- whenever one moves from one congregation to another, or when a believer falls in sin - would they need to be baptised afresh? If there is a pattern between OT circumcision and NT baptism, then the former was permanent and irreversible and the latter could be taken as such.

But here we must allow for the liberty of conscience. There are those who were baptised as infants and do not consider that to have been proper baptism. I think one should be free to seek 'proper' baptism if only to satisfy their conscience that they truly belong among God's covenant people through their public, adult, conscientious decision. As I said, it is a matter where Christians could differ.

One last note on the NT treatment of sacraments [Baptism & Holy Communion]. Though they are symbols, it appears they are more than mere symbols [some call them means of grace]. Any abuse of them seems to have consequences [1Cor 11: 27 - 32] and hence the need for caution in dealing with them. Perhaps this is why some are hesitant to dunk people under water without due diligence or to bless that Coke and Cookie in the Cafe as their act of communion.