Should a Christian ever be Rebaptized?

Almost all Christians agree that baptism is an essential part of Christianity. But the question is, should someone ever be re -baptized?

Well, that's what we're going to talk about today, along with some other questions about baptism that have come in through the mailbag. So sit tight.

Your Calvinist podcast begins right now. I mix a manly drink, pepsi and shoe polish, and I hit the

YouTube link, don't say hit, that sounds violent, and I feel my troubles all melt away, oh -oh -oh -oh -oh -oh -oh -oh

It's your Calvinist podcast with Keith Boblestein Beards and bowties, laughs till sunrise

It's your Calvinist podcast with Keith Foskey He's not like most

Calvinists, he's nice Your Calvinist podcast is filmed before a live studio audience.

Welcome back to Your Calvinist podcast. My name is Keith Foskey, and I am your Calvinist, and I welcome you to this baptism -focused show.

As many of you know, I have done debates on the subject of baptism, usually focusing on the candidate for baptism, whether we should be baptizing infants or not.

But today I'm not going to be really addressing that topic as much as I'm going to be addressing questions that have come in on the subject of baptism from several of you who have been sending them in through the mailbag.

And if you want to be part of a future mailbag episode, you can go to my website, keithfoskey .com,

and you can send an email directly to me through the website. I do my best to answer them in as short a time as I can, and those that I think are going to be valuable for a wider audience,

I bring in and I do them on the show. So one other thing I wanted to mention, since it is sitting right here, is that this show is sponsored by Tiny Bibles.

Tinybibles .com will give you a discount if you want to buy the smallest printed Bible on the market.

You can go there, put in my name, Keith, and you will get a percentage off at checkout.

All right, so we want to jump right into the subject today. Why am I talking about baptism? Well, as I was looking over the questions that came in through the mailbag,

I noticed that several of them were surrounding the question of baptism. None of them were asking about infant baptism.

I think I've made my position pretty well known on that, having done several debates on the subject.

But the questions were in regard to, from a Baptist perspective, how would

I answer certain questions? And so the three questions we're going to deal with today are as follows. Number one, is it ever right to be baptized more than once?

That's a very important question, and one that I hope to clarify today. Number two, how long should the parents of a child wait before deciding that the child is fit for baptism?

Now again, that would only apply to Baptist parents, because if you're a Presbyterian or a

Lutheran or someone who baptizes as an infant, you don't really have to address that question.

And when we get there, I'm going to talk about why that is a little bit, but that's not the focus of today's show.

We're going on today's show from the perspective that the person who's asking this is probably a

Baptist, or a person who believes in what's called credo baptism, which is the baptism of believers only.

The last question we're going to ask today and answer is actually a textual question from 1

Corinthians 15 on the question of being baptized on behalf of someone else.

And when we get there, I'll explain more about that. So let's jump right into our first question, is it ever right to be baptized more than once?

All right, so we're going to address the question of should anyone ever be baptized more than once or re -baptized?

And it's interesting that the Anabaptists, that title, Anabaptists, does mean re -baptizer.

And so that was the name that was applied to them because it was believed that they were being re -baptized, even though the

Anabaptists argued that because they did not believe as infants, that their baptism that they were receiving as believers was actually their one and only true baptism.

So there's going to be a little bit of discussion throughout this as to whether or not someone being re -baptized is legitimately a re -baptism or if it's simply an example of saying that my first baptism was either illegitimate or improper and therefore

I'm receiving a proper baptism or a legitimate baptism. But before we get to that,

I do want to address this subject, and that is the subject of re -baptism from the scriptures. It is true that the

Bible never describes someone being re -baptized in Christian baptism. However, there is an example in Acts 19 of a group of men who are re -baptized because they had received the baptism of John and then later had heard the preaching of the

Apostle Paul. So let me read this to you, it's from Acts 19. And it happened that while Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus.

There he found some disciples, and he said to them, Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? And they said,

No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit. And he said, Into what then were you baptized?

They said, Into John's baptism. And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is

Jesus. On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when

Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

There were about twelve men in all. Now, this text doesn't prove one way or the other.

This text is not a text that I would run to and I would say, here's an example of someone receiving re -baptism, therefore it automatically proves re -baptism is valid.

But what it does show is that there was an instance in Scripture where someone had received a form of baptism which was not a proper baptism, and therefore

Paul baptized them properly. Now, again, the argument from those who would disagree with me would say something to the effect,

Well, this was not Christian baptism, this was John's baptism. And they would make a distinction between the two, and a distinction should be made between the two.

However, at the same time, I want to say that we do have an example here of someone who was improperly baptized, and then they were properly baptized, and of course there was the giving of the

Spirit. And there's a lot of things in this text that we could talk about. For instance, the triune name is not invoked, even though I would say it was probably used.

It's not mentioned in the text, even though I would say that Christian baptism is in the name of the

Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit. But this simply says, in the name of Jesus Christ. So there's some discussion, or excuse me, in the name of the

Lord Jesus, that's verse 5. So there's some questions that can be made there. But also the question of the

Holy Spirit coming upon them, and one of the things we have to remember about the book of Acts is the book of Acts is a book of transition, transitioning from the

Old Covenant to the New Covenant. And so the events that happen in the book of Acts are meant to be instructive about what was happening, not necessarily are they telling us what would be the norm for all time.

And so, for instance, we see people in the book of Acts believing and then later receiving the

Holy Spirit. We see people in the book of Acts receiving the Holy Spirit and then later being baptized, such as,

I believe, was Cornelius in Acts chapter 10. They received the Holy Spirit, and Paul says, What preventeth water for them to be baptized?

Or Peter said that. So the point that I'm making is that using

Acts as a standard to say this is how it must be for all time, I think is a little difficult, because Acts is a transitional period in covenantal history, and so there are going to be times where we see things and we say, okay, there's principles here, but not necessarily setting down hard and fast standards for all of church history.

So with that being said, I want to tell my story for a moment. I was introduced to the church around the age of seven, same church

I'm in now, grown up in the same church, pastor of the church I grew up in. I've told that story before.

So I'm in the church I grew up in, and when I was eight years old, I decided

I wanted to be baptized. I told my stepmom, who'd be bringing me to church, I wanted to be baptized. She called our reverend, who was

Joe Jones at the time. Joe Jones came to the house, talked to me about baptism. I told him I wanted to be baptized, and so he scheduled me to be baptized, and I was baptized shortly thereafter.

And I remember that event. I remember it very well. Well, one thing I also know is

I was not a believer at the time, and I would have confessed to believe in Jesus Christ, but I was not regenerate, and that would demonstrate itself very much throughout my teenage years.

There was no evidence of a desire for Christ or regeneration in my life. So fast forward to the age of 12.

At the age of 12, I was baptized at the request of my mom. Now again,

I have a mom and a stepmom. My mom was a part of the Holiness Church, and in the

Holiness Church that she was a part of, re -baptism was fairly common, and it probably had to do with the theology that one could lose their salvation, and so being re -baptized was fairly common within that church.

And so mom also believed in the age of accountability. She said, at the age of 12, you are now accountable for your sin, and if you die, you're going to go to hell, so I want you to be baptized in my church.

I did it. I remember the day it happened. I remember when it happened, and I did it more because my mom wanted me to, not necessarily because I wanted to, even though I wasn't necessarily opposed to it.

It wasn't something that I desired myself. But I did it, and so that's two.

That's two baptisms for me, both of which were in the Triune name, both of which were done in the context of a church service.

Fast forward to the age of 19. Nineteen is when I actually became a believer in Jesus Christ, and when

God saved me, opened my heart to believe, I remember where I was. I've told the story.

I was in my truck on Broward Road in Jacksonville, pulled off to the side of the road, crying over the steering wheel, crying out to God to save me, and I'm thankful that He did.

And that led me to a desire for ministry, led me to a desire for serving

Christ. I can look back to that as being a point in time where my life changed.

But I was not immediately rebaptized, because at that point I said, well, I've already been baptized twice.

Why do I need to do it again? And so I didn't for quite a while.

But while I was in school, Bible school at the time, actually seminary, I began to be really convicted about the fact that I had not been baptized since becoming a believer, therefore

I had not experienced believer's baptism. And so I went to my friend

Jim Dutton, who was a pastor. I asked him to baptize me, and he was a little hesitant, to be honest, and I understand his hesitancy.

He wanted to know why I wanted to be baptized. I was training for ministry.

And I told him I was convinced that I had not been properly baptized, and I wanted to be properly baptized.

So he baptized me, and it was a wonderful day. Ever since then

I have not had any inkling in my heart for a desire to be baptized again. And so that's my story, and I thought it important to share it as part of what

I'm going to explain. Because when it comes to the question of baptism,

I think there's a difference between a baptism being invalid and a baptism being improper.

And so you've heard me use those terms. So for instance, when I was doing a debate recently, I asked my debate opponent—we were debating infant baptism—

I said, would you receive baptism from a Roman Catholic church?

Because he believed in infant baptism, and Roman Catholics baptize infants. Now, he said that he would, but he also knew of ministers that wouldn't, because they would not see it as a valid Christian baptism, because of the issues with Rome and the

Gospel. Now, I understand that, but that's where the issue of valid and invalid come in, because I believe that when we talk about baptism for infants,

I don't believe it's proper. But I would also say there have been hundreds of years of church history where infant baptism was the norm, and almost all believers only experienced infant baptism.

And I'm not willing in my heart to simply say all of those baptisms are invalid, but I can say

I think they were improperly administered, because I don't believe baptizing an infant is a proper administration of that sacrament or ordinance, as Baptists usually prefer the term ordinance.

So I would say that the proper administration of baptism is to administer to a person who has experienced genuine faith, which is expressed through confession.

They confess and they believe, or they confess that they believe, and based upon that confession and desire to repent and follow

Christ, they would then be baptized. So if a person came to our church and had never had baptism as a believer, we would ask them to be baptized as a believer, and we would explain to them why.

We would say that the proper administration of the ordinance, as we understand it, is that it would follow a confession of faith.

It would follow a change of heart. A person going from being a believer, or excuse me, from being an unbeliever to a believer, would then be marked by baptism.

And so the proper candidate for baptism is a person who has confessed they are a sinner and confessed a desire to follow after the

Lord Jesus Christ. And that is why I would say, yes, we would be willing to administer baptism to someone, even if they had already received a quote -unquote

Christian baptism as an infant or as a child who did not understand what they were doing, such as I was when

I was 8 and 12 years old. I didn't do it with understanding or desire. I did it because, at the time, it was something social that I wanted to be a part of, or because my mom was encouraging me to do it.

So with that being said, this is where one of the objections that is often raised

I want to preemptively respond to, because whoever listens to this, if you hold to infant baptism, you may disagree with me, that's fine.

We can disagree on this. But one of the places that often is brought up is the issue of, well, baptism is more about God's promise to us than it is about our faith in him, and therefore, when you ask someone to be rebaptized, you're questioning the promise of God in their life.

And you're, in that sense, calling into question God's integrity.

If I'm not expressing that 100 % the best way, I want to apologize, because I'm not trying to misrepresent it.

I'm saying that as a person who has heard

Dr. R .C. Sproul say something very similar. So if I'm missing it at all, I'm not trying to.

I'm simply saying that they would say, because it's God's promise, then it shouldn't be redone because it's calling into question the promise of God.

And I would simply say I disagree. I don't think that that is true. I don't think that in any way we're calling into question

God's integrity in this. We are simply saying that there is a proper method and a proper candidate, and the candidate is the person who believes.

The proper method, of course, we would believe is immersion. That's a secondary issue, because if a person's not been immersed, that wouldn't necessarily be something we would say needs to be repeated, because we do understand that there are—we would say a preferred method, and then other methods are available, such as if a person is in a hospital or something and we can't immerse them, we would pour water on them and believe it to be true baptism.

So there's differences there, and that's going to be different among different Baptists.

It may hold to slight differences on that. So I hope that this has answered the question at least, would

I administer baptism again? Yes, I would. I have. I have received baptism more than once, but I believe only once as a proper candidate for baptism.

And therefore, when I read the Scripture, when it says one faith, one baptism, I do believe I only had one baptism.

I believe two times I got wet, and one time I received true Christian baptism as a believer in Christ.

And so that's how I make the distinction when we talk about one faith, one baptism. That's the true baptism that I received.

So I hope that's helpful in answering that question. And again, if you disagree with me, maybe coming from a different perspective,

I respect you, I love you, but this is how I understand the

Scriptures as a Baptist. All right, so now we're going to move on to our second question, and this one deals with the subject that is kind of related to the stories

I told you earlier, and that is the question of how long should a parent wait for a child to be baptized?

If, again, we're looking at this from a Baptist context, because if a person believes in infant baptism, then this question isn't super relevant.

All right, so again, they ask this question, how long should the parents of that child wait, or a child wait, before deciding that the child is fit for baptism?

Practically, what is your advice on this matter? Now, I mentioned before that I did a previous podcast called

When Should Little Johnny Be Baptized? It was a 15 -minute show back when I was doing Coffee with a Calvinist, which was a daily program

I did when I first started the podcast. So if anybody's interested in that, I can link it below.

But my answer is basically going to be the same now, and that is that this is an issue that I understand the struggle with, because I think it depends on the child's age and maturity.

When we talk about being a credo Baptist, we're saying that a person is being baptized based on the fact that they say they believe.

But we have to ask the question about children, especially small children, number one, what do they believe?

And number two, how much of what they believe do they really understand? Because most little children, especially of believers, would affirm some type of faith in Jesus because Mommy and Daddy believe in Jesus.

As they see Mommy and Daddy believing in Jesus, they're going to say, well, I believe in Jesus, too, because that's what we do in this house.

And I can hear right now my Presbyterian friends screaming, see, see, covenant family.

I get it. I get the argument. And I appreciate what you're saying. But looking at this from a

Baptist perspective, we would say, okay, it's natural that a child would assume the beliefs that their parents have.

And that's one of the things we want to foster. We don't want to squelch that. We don't want to say, don't believe what we believe.

We want you to believe what we believe. But we want that belief to be based upon a work that God has done in their heart, not simply their desire to please us as parents.

And generally, smaller children do want to please their parents. That's a desire of children.

They want to have their parents say, well done. They want to have their parents say they did a good job.

And so if the attitude of the child is to please the parent to be baptized, then that's probably not a good reason for the child to be baptized.

But the question is, how do you know for sure? And this is where I think something like a catechism can be a very good tool.

Because if a child comes and says, well, I believe in Jesus and I want to be baptized, we say, okay, well, let's begin to learn what it means when we say we believe in Jesus.

What does that actually mean? And going through a catechism with a child takes them through the basics of the faith, helps them to understand who

God is, who Jesus is, who the Holy Spirit is, what baptism is supposed to mean, what it means to be a follower of Jesus.

And if they go through that time of catechesis, when they're finished, if they continue to desire to follow after Christ, that's a good indicator that God has done a work in their life.

If there is no interest in following through, if there's no interest in doing those things, if there's no interest in learning about Jesus, it may be a time where you want to wait and see.

Again, not saying that you know for certain the condition of the child's heart, or if the child, you know, somebody may say, well, what if my child just isn't necessarily inclined to doing a catechism?

I'm not saying that's the only answer. I am saying there are certain things that we would want to look for in our children before offering them baptism.

And now I want to speak to those who might be a Presbyterian whose heads are about to explode because you're saying, well, why would you wait?

Why not just give the child baptism if they ask for it? We would take the same process or similar process that you would use if you're a

Presbyterian and you don't practice infant communion. Because before you would serve that child communion for the first time, you would take them to a time of ensuring that they understand the faith before giving them communion.

And the process that we would take our children through would be very similar. Now a big question that is often asked is the question of, well, what age is too young?

I made this, I made a joke about this in my first video, my first denominational video rather, when

I said that the Big Eva character was baptizing children as young as three years old.

And the Baptist character said to the Big Eva, if you keep baptizing children that young, you're going to have to apologize to the

Presbyterian. And the joke is there is a certain point at which the child is obviously too young to make a profession that is meaningful.

But the question is how young is too young? And I cannot give you an absolute answer. I know men who are in the ministry who say that they believed on the

Lord Jesus Christ at six years old, were baptized at six years old, and they have never had a time where they felt like they weren't a follower of Jesus Christ ever since they were six years old.

So I'm not saying there is a magic number. But I am going to say this.

Baptism is the sign of entrance into the

New Covenant community. That's what we believe baptism is. It's the visible outward sign that you're receiving forgiveness of sins, that you're receiving the

Holy Spirit. It doesn't cause those things, at least we don't believe it causes those things, but it is the sign of those things.

And therefore, it would accompany church membership. So when a child is baptized, they're confessing to be believers and confessing a desire to follow

Christ, and they're becoming a member of the visible body of Christ, the local church.

And therefore, at that point, they are, in a sense, subject to the responsibilities of church membership.

And so part of that has to play into it as well. And so all of that,

I think, should be considered before a small child is welcomed into the waters of baptism.

But again, I can't give you an exact age. I am working through this with my own children.

My daughter, my oldest daughter, was baptized at 16. And I waited—this is one thing

I'll say— I waited for her to request baptism. I did not try to push it on her.

I did not try to force it on her. I didn't even really try to encourage her. I tried to encourage her to believe, and I did.

I called her to repentance and faith. She heard me preach the gospel hundreds of times. But it was only when she came to me and said,

Daddy, I want to be baptized, that I then began with her that time and process of taking her through it.

And I took her through a period of counseling for baptism, and I baptized her. And by the way, that is something that goes back even to the early

Church. If you go back and you read the Didache, which is one of the first early Christian writings, you'll notice one of the things that they did for baptismal candidates is they actually encouraged them to fast prior to baptism, which is something that indicated a desire, something within them that they would want to fast and be able to fast.

Again, something that infants wouldn't do. Even small children probably would not do.

So this would indicate an understanding, a desire, and a— and again, the

Didache is not Scripture. It's just giving an example of how the early Church practiced it. Also, it says that they practiced the method of immersion.

Not that I'm arguing for that, but they would allow for pouring when there wasn't enough water to immerse.

So, it's interesting that these conversations have been going on within the Church for a long time.

All right, so that's my answer to that. I hope it was helpful. Okay, our last question on baptism today actually deals with a text of Scripture from 1

Corinthians chapter 15. And the person who asked this question said, can you clarify 1

Corinthians 15? We just read it in our family reading, and having been involved in rebuking Mormon doctrine, we didn't know how to interpret this.

All we could come up with is what it doesn't mean. And that's what we're going to talk about. 1

Corinthians 15 verse 29 says this in the ESV. Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead?

If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? So, I want to say from the outset, this is a difficult passage primarily because of the

Mormon issue. The Mormons take this passage to indicate that we are supposed to be baptized for dead people.

Meaning, if you have a relative who has died, and they didn't have a chance to be baptized in the

Mormon Church prior to death, you could be baptized in their place, therefore securing their salvation on their behalf.

Again, I'm not trying to misrepresent. If you're a Mormon, you're watching this, and I said that the wrong way, clarify it in the comments.

But I believe that's what is taught, that you're baptized for them. In fact, I have a friend who had Mormon family members who said that his

Mormon family members had been baptized for him. He hadn't even died, but they were baptized in his stead, or in his place.

So, is that what Paul is referring to here? I don't think so.

And this is one of those times where I'm going to offer up an interpretation that's slightly different than what is usually interpreted here.

And I'm going to look at this two ways. One, a lot of people will say, well, what

Paul is addressing here is Paul is addressing an aberration that's happening in Corinth, that people were doing what the

Mormons are doing, being baptized on behalf of the dead. And Paul is using that as an example, saying if you're baptized on behalf of the dead, then you are...why

would you do that if there's no resurrection for the dead? And so, he's not saying you should do this.

He's asking them, why would you do this if, in fact, the dead are not raised? The whole promise of 1

Corinthians 15 is the future hope of the resurrection. And so, a lot of people interpret this as saying that what

Paul is saying is why would you be baptized on behalf of the dead if there's no resurrection? He's simply using something that they're doing, not endorsing it.

And that's fine if that's the way you want to interpret that. It still doesn't make it an endorsement, and certainly doesn't make it something that we should be doing.

However, I believe that there's another way to understand this text where it doesn't have anything to do with what the

Mormons are doing, and I think this is a helpful way to understand it. And that is this.

One of the things that we know happened in the early Church is people were baptized because they saw other

Christians being martyred. They would see a Christian standing for their faith.

They would see a Christian standing for their faith unto death, and based upon that strength of their faith, their death, and the hope of the resurrection, someone else would see it who wasn't a believer, and they would say,

I want to follow that person. That person is an inspiration to me. And therefore, they go and be baptized.

They become a Christian because of that person who was martyred.

So, in that sense, they would be baptized because of the dead. They would be baptized because of someone who died.

Someone who died essentially through their death functioned as an evangelist for this person.

And what Paul could be asking the Corinthians is, why would someone be baptized on behalf of a martyr or somebody who died?

Why would somebody be baptized for that if there's no hope of a resurrection? If all they have is martyrdom, then there's no hope.

The whole reason why they're following after the martyr is because they believe that martyr has a better hope of an eternity with God in Christ.

And so, the idea of the argument that Paul's making is, why would someone's death inspire you to be baptized if, in fact, death is all there is, if there is no resurrection?

I think that fits within the argument of 1 Corinthians 15. I think that that eliminates having to deal with the

Mormon argument because that's not what Paul's talking about. So, that to me is a solution to the issue, and I think it's a justifiable interpretation based upon the language.

But again, if you think that what Paul is dealing with here is the Mormons baptizing for the dead in the sense of baptizing on behalf of somebody to baptize in their place,

I don't think that that's what the text is saying, but even if it is, it's not an endorsement of that. So, my answer is no.

It's never right to be baptized for someone else in the sense of, they weren't baptized, so I'm going to be baptized in their place.

No matter if the Mormons do it or not, it doesn't make it right, and I don't believe this text endorses that. One way or another,

I don't believe the text would endorse that practice. So, no, we do not endorse being baptized on behalf of someone else.

The only person that we can be baptized in place of is ourselves. That doesn't even sound right, so let me say that again.

The only person we can be baptized for is ourselves. We cannot be baptized for someone else, because the baptism that we receive is that sign that we are receiving of God's promise in us, or for us, in Christ.

And so, the Mormon doctrine of being baptized for someone else is not biblical and certainly not endorsed by this text.

So, I hope that's helpful. So, that's all the questions I'm going to deal with today. I've got some more in the mailbag. I'll do another mailbag episode in a few days.

I just wanted to get this out, because all of these questions dealt with the subject of baptism. Keep in mind, again, if you have questions you want to send, you want me to answer, you can go to KeithFoskey .com

and send me an email there. If you'd like to support the show, you can do so, one, by joining the

Superior Theology Club on YouTube. You can do that, and that's a huge help. Or, you can just go and send us a donation directly at buymeacoffee .com

slash yourCalvinist. Or, as I said before, continue to support tinybibles .com. Tiny Bibles is our partner, and by supporting them, you are supporting us.

One last thing, please subscribe, if you haven't already, and hit the thumbs -up button if you liked this episode, and if you didn't, hit the thumbs -down button twice.

Thank you for listening to Your Calvinist Podcast. My name is Keith Foskey, and I've been your Calvinist. May God bless you.