What I lay out below is a polemic against the rebaptism of Christians who have been baptized in a Christian Church. While I stoutly defend the paedobaptism of the children of believers, it strikes me that the requirement of rebaptism in some Christian Churches is of greater concern to me than the rejection of paedobaptism. I will lay out my reasons below.
I’ll begin by quoting from the Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 34:
So ministers, as far as their work is concerned, give us the sacrament and what is visible, but our Lord gives what the sacrament signifies— namely the invisible gifts and graces; washing, purifying, and cleansing our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts and filling them with all comfort; giving us true assurance of his fatherly goodness; clothing us with the “new man” and stripping off the “old,” with all its works. For this reason we believe that anyone who aspires to reach eternal life ought to be baptized only once without ever repeating it — for we cannot be born twice. Yet this baptism is profitable not only when the water is on us and when we receive it but throughout our entire lives. For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received…
This is one of the reasons why I appreciate Joe Rigney’s effort to express catholicity with the Reformed world of paedobaptists in July 27, 2022. At that time, he argued that an infant baptism was valid, but improper. Joe Rigney puts it well when he describes the ecclesiastical conundrum from the Baptist perspective in his article:
“At the same time, nearly all of them also believe that there are genuine Christians who have wrong baptismal theology and wrong practice… However, this position creates a number of confusions and inconsistencies. For example, this position sends conflicting messages to non-baptists. It says, “We regard you as a believer, but we cannot receive you into membership in our church, nor welcome you to the Lord’s Table without your being (re)baptized as a believer. Your baptismal error is so significant that it bars you from membership, even though it doesn’t prevent us from being ‘together for the gospel.’”
Here Rigney tackles the problem of re-baptism from the angle of catholicity. He engages with whether or not the Baptist position can logically acknowledge the members of Reformed churches as truly Christian in nature. The position of re-baptism definitely posits many problems for the unity of the Church in the most catholic sense of the word.
From a Reformed, paedobaptist perspective I would add that re-baptism renders the sovereignly administered sign & seal of the covenant meaningless. If baptism is indeed a divinely initiated sign and seal rendered by the hand of God, then it is an offense against Him to regard that sign and seal as meaningless in the form of the baptism of an infant. Even if you believe that the baptism of an infant is improper. John Calvin writes on this matter in his sermons on II Samuel: “[W]e are baptised only once, and if we return for a second baptism, this is in effect wishing to negate the true baptism which was ordained by God […]” [John Calvin, Sermons on 2 Samuel: chapters 1-13, trans. D. F. Kelly (Edinburgh, 1992), p. 56.]
I recognize that there are logical inconsistencies in all believers. I’ll happily receive a brother or sister in the Lord in spite of those logical inconsistencies. We all have error within us. Thanks be to God that He does not save us on the basis of our doctrinal correctness, but on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ.
Nevertheless, these are important issues. They involve the sacraments and ordinances that Christ has given to His church to remind us of the great work that He has done in His incarnation, suffering, death, resurrection and ascension. These are important issues. They are related to the unity and purity of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
On one hand, I seek to extend the judgement of charity to a baptist brother. And most modern baptists would extend some form of charity to me. We have worked and continue to work together in Canada for the sake of the gospel and the growth of the kingdom of Christ under His Lordship. I recognize that the arguments against infant baptism are conscientious arguments, even if I disagree with them and believe them to be in error (on the basis of God’s Word). I believe that adult baptisms (done with water and in the Triune Name) are both valid and proper, whether in a Reformed Church or a Baptist Church, and that God signs and seals His covenant with both believers and their children.
But the fact that most Baptist churches would not consider my baptism as an infant as either proper or valid is troublesome (and I would argue - the more divisive of the two errors). Both on a horizontal level as well as a vertical level. I for one cannot imagine coming forward for re-baptism. I strongly believe that it would be an insult to the sovereign sign and seal of grace and love that the Lord has marked me and my Reformed brothers sisters with in our first baptism. That baptism is “profitable not only when the water is on us and when we receive it but throughout our entire lives.” (BC, Art. 34)
Photo by kaleb tapp on Unsplash