Something on "Re-baptism"

One reader is interested in the idea of “re-baptism.” How does Acts 19 play in? Is the reason for baptism important? What did earlier Christians say? Let's see if we can unpack some of this . . .

I should tell you upfront that I working against the view of Jimmy Allen, Dallas Burdette and a number of others (some friends/acquaintances that I've known and loved for a good while), here. If I cite one of these names (Allen or Burdette), just know that they are the ones that, in my view, are trying to “water down” (pardon the pun) the reason for water baptism. Enough of that. Now, to business . . .

First, I should state bluntly that I am very disinterested in what all others from Jesus' era until now had to say. Bluntly, their own thoughts or perceptions are ultimately irrelevant, as are my own. The only value that their thoughts or my own may have on a biblical issue is strictly warranted by the text. I mean to say that Campbell, Stone, McGarvey, Calvin, Wesley, Luther, etc., etc. – while perhaps quite studied – can only go as far as the biblical text will allow. I say that to insist that these men had their flaws, so citing them authoritatively is pointless; if you're curious about other errors that these fine gentlemen had in their theological views, drop me a line and see if I can't persuade you that they – like all other human beings, one exempted – have been wrong on multiple issues before. Don't you believe that?! So, whatever these fine men might have said or done on the issue of the idea of “re-baptism” is only as good as the biblical text will allow, and their take and my own must still be filtered through the biblical text.

Second, I should note that some – attempting to say that “baptism” to obey God and NOT “for [the explicit purpose of] the remission of sins” – would like to pretend that this issue is not handled by the biblical text. Some have insisted that the New Testament never addresses this issue at all, leaving the impression that those of us who might call for a “re-baptism” are “going beyond” the authority of the biblical witness. Look, that's simply incorrect on a number of points . . .

First, we ought to call attention to the fact that the first century and the present day DO have differences. There was no such thing as a “denomination” in the first century. Individuals did NOT seek baptism for unscriptural or denominational reasons. So, to act as if the apostles were simply uninterested in discussing “what to do when a person is baptized NOT for the remission of sins” is a complete slanting of the actual situation. The scenario was not a reality for them because there had been no global apostasy, falling away (cf. Acts 20:25-32; 1 Tim. 4:1ff.; 2 Tim. 3:1ff.). So, prior to the development of the Roman Catholic Church, there was no such thing as “denominationalism,” and only after the “Reformation” (headed by people like Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Zwingli, etc.) do we see an explosion of “denominations” onto the scene. Here, I am certain, it would be wise for us to TRY to put Paul or another of the apostolic crew into our own modern scenario and try to understand how he would handle such a phenomenon. The ONLY way that such can be done is by a correct reading of the New Testament and a thorough knowledge of how Paul/he works with these kinds of things. (Let's pursue that more later . . .)

Second, I should note that those trying to suggest that baptism can simply be for the purpose of “to obey God” are either 1) very inconsistent or 2) very misguided. Let me present at least two possibilities where this is quite evident . . . Burdette insists that “the reason assigned for rebaptism in Acts 19 has to do with an inadequate or false fundamental teaching concerning baptism in the name of Jesus.” Well, he's right . . . But, I'm curious, how does Burdette decide what that “inadequate or false fundamental teaching” is?! Wouldn't we like for him to comment on that . . . Later, Burdette concludes, “the overriding factor in baptism is our desire to obey God . . . One's longing to submit to God is the dominant principle for legitimacy in any baptism.” Now, look, folks . . . Who is the one “going well beyond” the authority of the New Testament at this point?! This simply will not do. Let me give my two examples . . .

First, I was in the audience when a missionary talked about a girl in Japan who wanted to be immersed to obey God. When asked about the divinity of Jesus, she denied His being “God in the flesh” and said that that question was still unsettled in her mind and that she leaned against it. I'm curious how Burdette would wrangle with such a scenario . . . Here's a girl that is “wanting to obey God” – what Burdette says is the “overriding factor” and “dominant principle,” which, I might add, is NEVER stated by the New Testament – but doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus, the same fellow who gave the command for baptism in the first place (cf. Mat. 28:18-20). Confusing? Of course! Is the girl misguided? As far as the New Testament is concerned, absolutely! BUT, per the New Testament itself, her “being dunked, fully submerged, in water” would be equivalent to her taking a bath . . . It would certainly not be an “act of faith” toward the Messiah Jesus. Now, Burdette is in a mess . . . On the one hand, we hear him saying that “rebaptism would be necessary in the case of an inadequate or false fundamental teaching concerning baptism in the name of Jesus,” but then we hear him saying that the “overriding factor” and “dominant principle” is “to obey God.” This is too much to bear . . .

Now, to Burdette's credit, I THINK – but I'm speaking FOR him, now, and don't know exactly how he'd express himself – that he would “reconcile” his two remarks . . . BUT, then one of his earlier “takes” would not be exhaustive, now, would it?! See, now, he's going to “back off” of his claim that “to obey God” is the “overriding factor” and “dominant principle.” NOW, he's going to “slip in” some little bit about having to know about the divinity of Jesus or something about that . . . which, per the New Testament, is correct!

Why do I tell you all of that??? Burdette needs to be more exhaustive, in light of the biblical witness, with WHAT all precisely is required for scriptural baptism. Burdette insists, rightly, that “the reason assigned for rebaptism in Acts 19 has to do with an inadequate or false fundamental teaching concerning baptism in the name of Jesus.” BUT, my curiosity, now, rests with WHAT, precisely, is to be considered as “inadequate or false fundamental teaching concerning baptism in the name of Jesus.”

Let me hit you with my second example . . .

I've met and studied with those of the Mormon faith a number of times. Did you know that they, too, baptize “for the remission of sins”?! And, it gets better, they believe in the “deity” of Jesus . . . But, do you think it ends there? No, they also believe in the divinity of Joseph Smith and render him and Satan as the two brothers of the second member of the Godhead, Jesus Christ. Now, follow my argument . . . I'm curious what Dallas Burdette would have to say about a Mormon who was baptized 1) to obey God, 2) in the name of Jesus Christ and 3) for the remission of sins . . . You think that's an appropriate “baptism.”

Look, Burdette is right to say (implicitly) that we need an appropriate understanding of “baptism” for it to be legitimate; I simply find it interesting that we're supposed to take his arbitrary, certainly “going beyond the New Testament” explanation and be satisfied to say that that is what it is. Per his own view and definition, I'm interested to hear how Burdette would respond to the Mormons. Would he encourage “rebaptism” of Mormons that need to convert to authentic Christianity? If so, why and on what basis?

But, Burdette's problems are compounded when we throw his own arguments back at him . . . What if Burdette DID tell Mormons – for whatever reason he might select! – that they need to be “rebaptized”? AND, if he did, what if I reminded him that he is now “going beyond the New Testament” and that the biblical text NEVER addressed such a case . . . Do you see the problem? Do you see how Burdette has slanted the facts in a very specific and misguiding way? Earlier, he acts as if the apostles side with him because there's never a case where they talk about a “person in denominationalism”'s needing to be rebaptized – that's true! – but it doesn't mean what Burdette would like it to mean; we don't have a case where Paul said that Mormons should convert (and be appropriately baptized with a correct understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ, His church/kingdom and the purpose of baptism) either, but if you know your New Testament . . . Well . . .

Now, let me move into third subpoint as to why I think that this issue IS handled by the biblical text. For the New Testament individuals, all of the “reasons” for baptism were “wrapped up together” and not pitted against each other. You didn't have “Christians” that we saying that they were baptized to obey God but NOT for salvation purposes. I might just remind you, the reader, that the New Testament is the document arguing that baptism IS “for the remission of sins” (do read Acts 22:16 about Paul). There was only one Christianity, so the reasons for baptism (remission of sins, to “put on” or enter into the Christ, that is, His family, to obey God, etc., etc.) were all “bundled up together.” I'm simply saying that a comprehensive understanding may not have been required for those requesting to be baptized into the Messiah Jesus and His family of faith(fulness), but there was no phenomenon present, like we have today, where there were factions, groups, arguing various things about baptism. AND, if there were, how do you think Paul would have responded? Given what we know about Paul, he would have eviscerated any argument about the matter. Let me show you . . .

We come now to this part of the discussion where it is important for us to understand the method of Paul. In both 2 Corinthians and Galatians, Paul is “up against” rivals, opponents. In BOTH cases, he sharply charges them as bringing a “false gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Cor. 11:4,13-15). He makes sure to avoid the ambiguity. A casual knowledge of these texts reveals exactly how “set against them” he is. Why is this important?

Look, according to Paul's own testimony, his baptism was to have his “sins washed away” (Acts 22:16) and he, having once destroyed/resisted Peter's message (see Acts 2:38, including that baptism was “for the remission of sins” and “so that your sins might be blotted out” [Acts 3:19]), insists that he is now teaching precisely the same thing (cf. Gal. 1:23). If Paul and Peter were both teaching that baptism was the act in which one “put on Christ” and received “remission of sins” and etc., etc., etc. – again, all of these “spiritual blessings” are “bundled up” in the Messiah and inseparable (cf. Eph. 1:3)! – would Paul have tolerated for a moment any view that tried to argue against the necessity of this?!

Look, nobody in the New Testament ever disputed the PURPOSE of baptism! That much is true! But, if they had, the apostles would've gutted the view! They knew what they were doing! They knew what it was for! They knew what it meant! So, where did we ever get the idea that the PURPOSE for baptism is a flexible issue of non-importance?! WE DIDN'T GET IT FROM THE APOSTLES! WE DIDN'T GET IT FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT!

In both 2 Corinthians and Galatians, when the churches are being infiltrated by Paul's rivals, he insists that the churches don't give them a hearing even for a moment (cf. Gal. 2:1-5; 2 Cor. 10-13). He calls for their expulsion and non-toleration. What is my point? . . . If a fellow is being taught “gospel” from a person that doesn't align with the New Testament on the fundamental issues, then this (modern) idea that virtually any reason for baptism (to obey God, as the base line) should probably be held in question, too. That simply didn't arise from New Testament teaching, and to suggest that it's not altogether important undercuts the very text that is saying to be baptized in the first place.

Now, let me offer a few closing things . . .

First, Acts 19 – like Burdette says – does suggest that “the reason assigned for rebaptism in Acts 19 has to do with an inadequate or false fundamental teaching concerning baptism in the name of Jesus.” But, I and the New Testament also is differing with Burdette on what constitutes such an “inadequate or false fundamental teaching.” Yes, I know Burdette is asserting that baptism's being for the remission of sins is not one of those things, but (as above) isn't that arbitrary and interesting? And, what of those scenarios that I raised about the Japanese girl and the Mormons, too? Maybe, Acts 19 shows exactly that there's more to “(legitimate) baptism” than a mere dunking? And, maybe, it is up to us to try to locate precisely what significance a “dunking in water” has? Like Namaan (cf. 2 Kings 5), maybe, the act of “dunking in water” isn't where the power rests? Maybe, it simply becomes the “act of faith” because it is what God said?

Now, thinking of Namaan (cf. 2 Kings 5), what if Namaan had dunked in water “to obey God” but did NOT dunk in water because he actually thought God could cleanse his leprosy? Worded another way, what if Namaan DID dunk in water but doubted God's ability to cleanse and thus didn't do it for the purpose of cleansing? Now, we can only speculate, but I'd add that this ceases to be an “act of faith” because it'd have a misunderstanding.

As a parallel, can we really tolerate the view of a dunked-in-water “believer” that says that his/her baptism was “not for the remission of sins” when it's the New Testament's view that such an act certainly is (cf. Acts 2:38; 22:16)? Can we really say that “baptism,” in that case, is the act of faith? And, what of the fallout? Wouldn't we have people regarding themselves as “saved” PRIOR TO BAPTISM teaching others that they can be saved without baptism (though this view would have them actually and accidentally saved by baptism, though they didn't know it)? Bless me, but this creates massive problems . . . And, I might add . . . these problems all are being generated by a clear denial of what the New Testament explicitly states. These problems go away when we cleanly admit and accept that the New Testament teaches that water baptism is an act of faith to obey God, to have sin remitted, to become part of the Messiah's family.

I should add that Acts 8:5,12 needs a remark. They were baptized after being taught “Jesus, His name and things concerning the kingdom.” There's more to “(legitimate, scriptural) baptism” than a mere dunking in water, and I'm certain that “to obey God” is simply insufficient in light of all of the misinformation from “churches” that have diverged from the New Testament pattern. We need to get back to the New Testament pattern, call for others to conform to the New Testament pattern and these sorts of problems will resolve themselves. This kind of complex problem was never to be generated, and it wouldn't have, had we, the human people, not “goofed it up.” In humble submission, we'll take the New Testament at face value and like the people of Acts 2 “repent and be baptized in the name of the Messiah Jesus for the remission of sins.”

What's your hangup?! Shouldn't you, too, ask, “What shall I do?” (Acts 2:37).

Still hungup on something? Pursue me at drewleonard@live.com; I'd be happy to hear from you, help if I can and change if wrong.

God's blessings . . .