What is a cardinal sin for Methodist preachers?
Re-baptism.
It’s one of the things that can get us in some ecclesiastical trouble. If we knowingly baptize someone who was baptized as an infant or child, we are likely to hear from Methodist higher ups.
The history behind the “rebaptism controversy” is quite long (you can read some here) and much broader than just the Methodist movement. Yet the driving distinction between those who re-baptize and those who don’t revolves around who is the main actor in a baptism. Is baptism something God does or is it the volitional choice of the person being baptized?
Historically, Methodists have believed baptism is what God does — so we don’t “re-do” what God has already done.
Our Baptist friends, among others, contend that the person being baptized is the central figure in the sacrament — that’s why in their view an infant baptism is not valid. What infant can decide from himself or herself to follow Christ? So they will eagerly re-baptized people.
Yet as I have wrestled with the issue, two other items come to mind. First, baptism in the New Testament seems to be an exclusively “after” event: it is observed “after” a person comes to faith in Christ. (Yes, Acts 16:16 and 16:33 suggest “family wide” baptisms, but those references are imprecise at best.)
The bigger argument against a firm “no rebaptism” policy is Acts 19:1-7 which I include below:
1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized into[b] the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.
What does the story describe?
A re-baptism . . . because the converts did not fully comprehend the nature of their first baptism. Once they had received full teaching about Christ and his Holy Spirit, they received it with joy and were baptized into the faith. A volitional choice made after conversion.
Hmmmm. A biblical second baptism.
Infant baptism is certainly different that “John’s baptism” (19:3) . . . yet both involve incomplete or absent knowledge & awareness.
And just like the converts in Acts 19, those who have been baptized as infants need to receive the urgent news of what Christ has done for them so they too can make a volitional choice for faith.
And after that? That’s a matter for more prayer. And conversation.
There are 16 comments
Growing up in the Nazarene church, I was taught that baptism was an outward sign of accepting and believing in Christ.
Children (myself included) were baptized (dedicated) as infants and later baptized when proclaiming salvation.
Another baptism topic to wrestle with is re-dedication.
I left the church and was running from God and his calling for a number of years.
Praise the Lord he did not give up on me!
I re-dedicated my life to the Lord and trust him fully today.
Does this mean another baptism? Another outward sign?
Do I not have the Holy Spirit? How come I feel the Holy Spirit moving in the Sunday service?
How come I feel the Holy Spirit while sharing with a friend on Facebook I’m praying for them?
How come I cry every time I watch you baptize someone?
Just my opinion, but, I feel church can take on a “business” type of mentality. I’m not so concerned with what the Methodist church “higher ups” think. What I’m concerned about is that those I come in contact with see that God is in control of my life.
All great comments and questions, Matt. So good that you are in a good place now!
Great pot to stir up. It seems like several folks on the Methoblog are thinking about sacraments this week.
I think a fundamental question has to do with what baptism is. If it is just an outward sign of a personal inner state, then baptizing people every week makes sense.
If it is the grafting on a new branch to an old vine, then you only need to do that once.
It seems to me that almost none of us have baptism exactly right. Every theology of baptism has holes that you don’t want to leave open.
For instance, my autistic son may never be able to make a public declaration of his faith. We had him baptized as an infant, and I’m not in doubt at all that he is just as much a member of the church as you or me. He may never fully understand what that means, but God does.
Fascinating pastoral issue, Talbot. Thanks for the e-mail.
Great thoughts, John. Thank you.
A question your thoughts raise: can new branch be grafted on to an old vine when it has no say in the matter?
If so, baptism is a “before” sacrament.
If not, it is an “after.”
Shortly after I came to Christ in 1973 while attending the University of Tennessee, I was baptized one Sunday at a Presbyterian church—sprinkled. But a year or so later, I was attending a Baptist church during the summer and sensed the Lord tugging at my heart to be baptized again—this time, you guessed it, by immersion. Both times I believe I was following the Lord’s direction and was obedient to His calling. Your post is definitely thought-provoking! Maybe we can sit down with Christ during His 1,000-year reign here on earth and talk about it! Couldn’t resist that last thought!
Wouldn’t you know this happened to be the class I sat in on at Candler a few weeks ago??
I can see both sides in ways. Jesus was dunked. Jesus was older. If we are trying to be like Jesus, it seems pretty clear. Then again, Jesus didn’t get baptised twice.
I guess my main issue with rebaptism is that it disregards the Holy Spirit working through the water the first time. And in the case of salvation, if you rebaptise (because the first one didn’t count), does that disregard God working in your entire life up to that point to get you where you are (i.e. do you no longer believe in prevenient grace?)
And the sprinkling vs. dunking thing… Does an electric current move just as easily through a teaspoon of water as through a lake full? (Yes, I’m comparing the Holy Spirit to an electric current which could be disconcerting, but hopefully you get the point).
By the way, the class (which was made up entirely of future and current UMC ministers) also struggled with this topic. One even said he sent one of his congregants to the Church of God down the road to get around the rules.
Well, as a former “methodist” youth pastor (haha wink wink Talbot) I have always found the practice of infant baptism to be a peculiar church practice. Exactly where is that practice demonstrated in the Bible? Where is the admonition to parents to baptize their infants?
As far as I can tell, every post pentecost Baptism mentioned in the New Testament is immediately following an individual’s salvation experience (REPENT… and be BAPTIZED). It seems as though repentance is a prerequisite for any sort of Baptism. That being said, Baptism is not a requirement for salvation (thus making our faith a grace plus works proposition) but rather an act of obedience for the person who has chosen to become a follower of Christ.
I don’t think there are any clear steps mentioned about joining the church other than salvation. Whether a person comes down the aisle, goes through a member class, or adheres to a code of conduct are more of a preference according to the leadership of the church.
We do an infant dedication at our church which is a time for the church and the parents to covenant together to partner in the spiritual care of that child. We understand that it does not in anyway guarantee the salvation of the child but rather it affirms our desire to provide an atmosphere and environment where the child will be able to receive and grow in the Gospel (think the good soil).
Anyway, it is a good discussion and I hope it will cause people to go to God’s Word for the truth on this and salvation!
Isn’t it pretty egotistical to think that we can comprehend God’s grace for us? That we can in a moment in life, truly understand, 100% what God has done for us and why? I think if we think we can than we are kidding ourselves and limiting the awesomeness of God.
What I love about infant baptism is the presence of prevenient grace. Yes the baby doesn’t have a clue of the grace that is offered in that moment, but neither does a 65 year old. Yet God’s grace is there, always before us, always ready to give us a small taste of that glory.
During confirmation, when a person professes their faith and joins the church, the United Methodist hymnal offers a time for the confirmand to remember his/her baptism. Baptism renewal services are a wonderful time to remind people of what God did at their baptism, whether it was as an infant or adult.
I have rambled enough but what is boils down to is, even if you don’t think YOU had it right at your baptism (as an adult or infant) GOD got it right and that is all that matters.
Warren —
Good thoughts and thanks for checking in!
Acts 16:15 and 16:34 at least hint at child or infant baptism. Like I said in the post, those are nearly as clear as the kind of passages you reference.
Also, we know from church history that by 150-200 AD Christian parents were baptizing their babies. For whatever reason, those early followers of Jesus believed baptism to be something given to the next generation, much like circumcision for Jews.
Email me at talbotdavis@gsumc.org so we can catch up on other stuff!
Jim —
Thanks for your insights.
What if all your understandings of grace are true — and I believe they are — but baptism is not the appropriate rite to celebrate it?
In other words, even though prevenient grace is an active force in the world, it does not follow logically that it must be expressed through infant baptism.
I would actually say that believer baptism by immersion is a more appropriate, dramatic, and biblical response to what God has done through previent grace.
Your words provoke much thought and reflection. Thank you.
“Martyrs were many – probably more than those who died during the three centuries of persecution before the time of Constantine. The manner of their death varied from region to region, and even from case to case. With ironic cruelty, many were drowned. Others were burned to death as had become customary with heretics centuries earlier. Some were tortured to death and drawn and quartered. The stories of heroism in such a difficult circumstance would fill several volumes. And still, the more fiercely it was persecuted, the more the movement grew.”
Justo Gonzalez “The Anabaptist Movement.” The Story of Christianity. pg. 56 – 57
After reading about the Anabaptist movement and the Mennonite movement, I developed a great respect for the faith shown by our Anabaptist and Mennonite brothers and sisters. I’m glad the Catholic church and the Protestant church has changed their notion of tolerance today when compared to the 16th century.
If our Anabaptist brothers and sisters believe Jesus has called them through faith to be baptized again into His redemptive kingdom…then let each one who displays this faith be rebaptized.
I do not share the same opinion, however I respect their Christian faith.
Keith
Talbot, thanks so much for posting this…I wish Tchetter was still in town to get his take.
I have posted a response on my blog.. (link) and challenged others to comment here on your blog.
Did you have class with Bishop Ole Borgen, or read his book on sacraments?
Cheers!
Ole Borgen was not at Asbury when I was there, though I remember reading his little booklet on holiness.
Thanks for the cyber shout out!
Great post, Talbot! I agree that this is a pot that is good to be stirred every now and then.
I’ve thought about this over the years, as my sister was infant-baptized, but I was allowed to choose (I chose at 6 yrs old and went through the class at home with Dad before being sprinkled in front of the church). Mom was raised Baptist and always cherished her baptism at the river near the small country church she was a member of, Dad being a UMC pastor wanted to baptize my sister as an infant. So Dad won out with her and when I came along Mom got her wish. The thing is…both my sister and I are committed Christians to this day. So I’ve never settled on this issue one way or another. As you pointed out, the disciples of the first Apostles were baptizing their infant children from what we know of history…I think if that were heretical, they would be in a much better position to know than we are and it would’ve been denounced early during the various doctrinal controversies in the first few centuries of Church history. But it isn’t. That is peculiar indeed (especially given how quick to debate other issues they were!).
But on the flip side, as you note, there is no command to do this in the NT and no clear unambiguous instance of it occurring in Scripture. So those who favor believer-Baptism have that as a strong point in their favor. I remember my prof., Doug Stuart, used to have a flyer on his office door that said “Everything the Bible says about Infant Baptism” on the outside…and it was blank when you opened it. 🙂
I guess when it comes down to issues like this, I fall back on the opinion that if the Holy Spirit left something ambiguous or not clearly defined in Scripture, it’s okay for us to embrace multiple approaches. If it were an either/or–especially regarding something so central to the faith as the sacrament of Baptism–I believe God would’ve seen to it that it be communicated clearly.
My 2,
JM
he must have come the year after you left..he lived in our building
If you understood baptism as any Jew did in Jesus’s day the question would be moot. It was a regular form of worship and renewal. That’s why there are pools enough for the 3,000 of Acts 2:41 in Jerusalem. Those same pools can be seen today by the Wall.