r/TrueChristian • u/TheVoiceInTheDesert • 7d ago
What do you think of churches that require rebaptism for membership?
I recently attended an interest meeting for church membership with a friend. He has attended this church as a visitor but is interested in membership; his main reservation is that they would require him to undergo a baptism by immersion. He was baptized via pouring as a child in his parents’ Methodist church, but the church requires any of its members who have not previously been baptized as an adult by immersion to do so.
My initial advice was to consider discussing his concerns with the pastor, but I don’t think he will do so. In lieu of that, I think he will likely just find a different church.
5
u/Eq2me 7d ago
I believe in one baptism for remission of sins. I worry any church that requires rebaptism doubts the power of God and has a weak faith. That said, if it makes them feel better, and there are no other Biblical concerns then I don't know that there is any harm in it. As long as you have faith in God and your baptism then that is what matters. God is the chief actor in Baptism, not the person being baptized or performing the baptism.
3
u/Ellionwy 7d ago
Some don't consider child baptism to be valid as a child doesn't really know or is aware of what they are doing.
Depends on how old the child is. Infant baptism certainly.
2
u/Barquebe Christian 7d ago
This exactly. I was baby baptized in my parents church, and I chose to be baptized as an adult a few years ago because I felt convicted (and my current church agrees) that baptism is a step of obedience for believers.
5
u/DCalquin 7d ago
sectarian behavior to be honest, they should accept any baptism done in the name of the father, son and holy spirit as valid.
3
u/berrin122 Assemblies of God 7d ago
It's decently common to require a believer's baptism for church membership.
I don't think it's an egregious expectation, but I also don't think a church that recognizes infant baptism is egregiously wrong. Churches have the right to establish requirements for membership. It's up to your friend if they want to submit to that or not. I'd encourage them to have a conversation with the pastor.
2
u/HadeanBlands Baptist 7d ago
Obviously specifics differ wherever you go but I don't really see a problem with a church that requires believer's baptism for membership. "Whether you have to be baptized after you become a believer, or if it's okay to have been baptized before it" seems like a point of doctrine it's ok for different churches to have different opinions about.
2
u/Ill-Champion4275 7d ago
I mean he doesn’t have to do anything. But I think he should get baptized again. Tbh
3
u/TheVoiceInTheDesert 7d ago
I certainly understand that is the baptist/anabaptist train of thought, but can respect that he is convicted against it. We have discussed the subject and I know it is a source of prayer for him, but here we are today.
2
3
1
u/Aromatic-Control838 Christian 7d ago
something that many people don’t realize is that, at least in the Roman Catholic tradition, infant baptism is followed by confirmation at the age of 14. this is one of the reasons I decided not to get re-baptized in my nondenominational church. yes I was baptized as a baby. But I stood in front of the entire church and reaffirmed my faith when I was at an age to know what I was doing. I do not feel the need to undergo another baptism, and my pastor has not pressured me to do so. I remember telling my husband at the time that had that been a requirement, it would’ve been a dealbreaker for me in this particular church (edit: regarding membership, not necessarily attendance at services).
churches certainly have the right to require their own preferred rituals for membership, but likewise, churchgoers have the right to decide whether to participate or to seek out another congregation.
1
u/jivatman Roman Catholic 7d ago
Yeah, and interestingly enough I heard some people talking about how some Protestant churches a ceremony involving parents doing an infant dedication Ceremony instead of baptism.
It's in the experience of Exorcists that, essentially, parents have a sort of natural right over their parents. And that indeed is part of the logic of Baptism. We are not hyper-individualistic and the parents and community have the right to do this.
If Satanists can dedicate their children to Satan and this really does have a bad effect (sadly Exorcists have seen this) then surely we should do so to god. Even if you don't want to call it baptism.
1
u/Aromatic-Control838 Christian 7d ago
True- lots of religions/sects have dedication or naming ceremonies. Baptism as a command of Jesus to show faith was done on my behalf by my parents and godparents which I am fine with. they had the right to make medical decisions for me at that age so why not spiritual ones. And then for confirmation I made the choice to affirm it or not as a (near) adult.
I know this is a point of argument, but when the New Testament says that they went in and baptized whole households, why wouldn’t that include babies and children before the age of reason? they could’ve just said they baptized all the adults but they didn’t. and if it always a required immersion, where would they do it if it was the middle of the night and they were in a desert town? /rhetorical
1
u/wgardenhire Christian 7d ago
If I were interested, I would consult Scripture to learn if the lack of Baptism invalidates Salvation, then I would proceed accordingly. Keep in mind that there are fanatical sects in every denomination, the Baptists are the worst offenders of all, I know because I am one.
1
u/Hawthourne Christian 7d ago
Point of Clarification: Do they want him to be rebaptized because of the sprinkling vs immersion or the adult vs child issue? I don't think the two are the same.
1
1
u/bbcakes007 7d ago
I haven’t heard of a church requirement of specifically baptism by immersion to be a member. I’ve only heard of heard of requiring baptism and the method doesn’t matter. He should talk with the pastor and say that he’s already been baptized and doesn’t want to be baptized for a second time. I guess if the pastor won’t budge on their requirements, your friend could either go to a different church or he can still attend this church without becoming a member. Why is your friend interested in becoming a member at this church? What things are different for people who are members vs not?
1
u/TheVoiceInTheDesert 7d ago
They are new to the area, and this was the second church that they had attended in seeking a new regular church. Their doctrines and practices seemed to align with what he is seeking in a church, except this (which he learned only after attending the membership session).
At this church members can hold leadership positions, represent the church at denominational conferences, and vote on matters of financial interest and similar. It sounds like they intend to limit communion to members based on their beliefs about baptism, but not very effectively - my friend said when he attended a service in which communion was served, they did not specify this limitation so he partook.
1
u/HadeanBlands Baptist 7d ago
I would be surprised if they restricted communion to members. That is a pretty uncommon practice. I would certainly be concerned if so though.
4
u/fudgyvmp United Methodist 7d ago edited 7d ago
Over 60% of Christian denominations restrict communion to members of their denomination, or at a church that's in full communion with them (Catholicism and orthodoxy).
It's not unheard of in protestant denominations either.
Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod practice closed communion among Lutheranism.
American Baptist Association churches are very strict on communion, and don't considered even other ABA's to be in communion with each other so if you go from one ABA to another you need to join the new ABA before you can take communion.
3
u/jivatman Roman Catholic 7d ago
Early Calvinism and Presbyterianism even required showing a token to receive communion. They gave them to those that who passed a Catechism test and were in good standing, and could be taken away.
0
u/TheVoiceInTheDesert 7d ago
It seems to be not terribly uncommon based on comments here and elsewhere. It does sound like it’s not entirely closed to members only, but it is not open to those who have not been baptized validly per their beliefs.
1
u/HadeanBlands Baptist 7d ago
I feel pretty confident advising your friend not to attend a church where his choices are "violate his own convictions about baptism" or "never take communion." If he's convinced that he shouldn't get rebaptized as a believer then he needs to find a church where that's okay, right?
1
u/TheVoiceInTheDesert 7d ago
I agree, though I do think he would be better served to have a discussion with the pastor on the subject either way.
1
u/allenwjones 7d ago
I have.. They took transfers from other church denominations only if they qualified from a set of codified beliefs.
1
u/HeFirstLovedUs 7d ago
If it was child-baby baptism then it wasn’t really a true believers immersion baptism so the church does have every right to require that their member has the same biblical beliefs.
1
u/Grandaddyspookybones Reformed 7d ago
Your friend’s original baptism is valid.
People didn’t start “re-baptizing” until the anabaptist movement started in 1525, so roughly 500 years ago.
1
u/CaptainChaos17 Christian 7d ago
One baptism, baby or otherwise, should be sufficient for any church someone is seriously considering. Find a more authentic, original, and/or traditional church.
-1
u/Cepitore Christian 7d ago
I don’t think it’s right to call it rebaptism because your friend was never actually baptized.
1
u/TheVoiceInTheDesert 7d ago
This is likely the core of the issue, as he considers his baptism valid and you (and likely this church by doctrine) do not. It seems one that can't be reconciled without significant compromise on this from one side or the other; as it is, he cannot sincerely accept a second baptism as valid, and they cannot accept the first.
-2
u/RealAdhesiveness4700 Christian 7d ago edited 7d ago
They're not following the nicean creed and thus not Christian
4
u/ResoundingGong 7d ago
Uh, almost every church that considers themselves Christian follows the Nicene Creed.
1
u/RealAdhesiveness4700 Christian 7d ago
I confess one Baptism
Sorry but those that practice rebaptism do not confess one baptism
2
u/ilikedota5 Christian 7d ago
Typically it's more like child baptism isn't a true baptism because the child isn't making the decision for a public declaration of faith.
-1
u/RealAdhesiveness4700 Christian 7d ago
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
People (Baptists) who take this position often see baptism as a symbol and not forgiving sins which is also against the nicean creed
2
u/ilikedota5 Christian 7d ago
Well... The thief on the cross wasn't baptized but his sins were forgiven by Jesus.
-1
u/jivatman Roman Catholic 7d ago
The great commission hadn't happened yet. By the time of the Nicene Creed, it had.
-2
u/RealAdhesiveness4700 Christian 7d ago
The thief on the cross received baptism by desire.
So yes he was
3
u/ilikedota5 Christian 7d ago
That's an atextual addition.
0
u/RealAdhesiveness4700 Christian 7d ago
Yes and?
2
u/ilikedota5 Christian 7d ago
It's creating a new category of baptism and an unnatural reading to justify the idea that baptism is required for salvation and forgiveness of sins.
→ More replies1
u/ResoundingGong 7d ago
Maybe you could tell me which are the “real” Christian churches that do not affirm the Nicene Creed?
1
u/RealAdhesiveness4700 Christian 7d ago
People that do multiple Baptism are going against the nicean creed and thus not Christian
2
u/ResoundingGong 7d ago
Ah. Your original comment said they were following the Nicene creed and thus not Christian.
1
2
5
u/0260n4s 7d ago
I experienced the same thing. I came from Methodists roots and wanted to join the Baptist church. They of course welcomed me with open arms, but to become a full member, they require baptism by immersion.
Rather than view the request in a negative light, perhaps it's a positive thing, because it shows they want to be true to the Word, rather than take shortcuts out of convenience or appeasement. Granted there's some interpretive components surrounding baptism, but I think Scripture more accurately supports immersion over sprinkling:
That last point is why I agreed, and looked forward, to being re-baptized. When I was a kid, I had no idea what it all really meant, so as an adult, I wanted to consciously affirm my faith and obedience to the Lord. If your friend approaches it from that perspective, I think it could be a deeply meaningful and positive experience.