Why do some Christians get baptized more than once?

[Believe_85]

I was watching one of the TBN type channels and saw hordes of people being “re-baptized” one Sunday. This wasn’t their entry into Christianity, but seemed to be some sort of cleansing or recommitment in the belief system they already held. Where does this come from? Why do they do it and is there a scriptural basis? I have read a little about the Jewish Mikvah, ritual cleansings for spiritual benefits…but traditionally Christian Baptism has been a one time only sacramental entry and symbol of acceptance into the faith community. Anybody know about these repetitive baptisms?

 

[Believe_85]

Do Baptists, evangelicals or pentacostals do this?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Do Baptists, evangelicals or pentacostals do this?

I’ve heard of Baptists and Pentecostals doing this, but overall, I don’t think it’s very common (among Baptists in particular).

 

[historyb]

Do Baptists, Evangelicals or Pentecostals do this?

Some do because they say one might not understand why they were Baptized. To them baptism is just a mere sign, nothing more. Some Protestants don’t believe Baptism is a sacrament

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I always wondered the same thing.
A friend of my DH has been saved/baptized about 3 times now. Weirds me out…

 

[Believe_85]

Any evangelicals or baptists or anybody out there who knows?

 

[fbl9]

this is part of the explaination given by my local non-denom group…one has to have faith in the first place to be baptised hence infant baptism is useless…baptism has to be administered by full immersion…reference to Jesus’s baptism(when He came up from the water) is interpited as baptism is by full immersion…when one is baptised they are dead to sin so they liken baptsim to a burial: full immersion is burying deep but pouring is akin to lightly covering the grave…

 

[Believe_85]

this is part of the explaination given by my local non-denom group…one has to have faith in the first place to be baptised hence infant baptism is useless…baptism has to be administered by full immersion…reference to Jesus’s baptism(when He came up from the water) is interpited as baptism is by full immersion…when one is baptised they are dead to sin so they liken baptsim to a burial: full immersion is burying deep but pouring is akin to lightly covering the grave…

I’ve heard of people feeling their infant baptisms weren’t valid, but what I heard was people saying “This is my sixth baptism tonight. I just wanted to renew my commitment to Jesus.” It was like they could go get baptised every Sunday if they wanted to. I’m curious what this is all about. Is it like their version of confession or just commitment or what? And what about the Tradition of only one Baptism? Just curious.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’ve heard of people feeling their infant baptisms weren’t valid, but what I heard was people saying “This is my sixth baptism tonight. I just wanted to renew my commitment to Jesus.” It was like they could go get baptised every Sunday if they wanted to. I’m curious what this is all about. Is it like their version of confession or just commitment or what? And what about the Tradition of only one Baptism? Just curious.

I think a lot of this comes from the false altar call decision theology rampant in neo-evangelicalism nowadays. People feel they “didn’t repent right” and so it “didn’t work.” So they go back, time and again and again.

Those of us who believe baptism saves don’t have this problem. Baptism is the work of God and so doesn’t depend on me.

 

[historyb]

I’ve heard of people feeling their infant baptisms weren’t valid, but what I heard was people saying “This is my sixth baptism tonight. I just wanted to renew my commitment to Jesus.” It was like they could go get baptised every Sunday if they wanted to. I’m curious what this is all about. Is it like their version of confession or just commitment or what? And what about the Tradition of only one Baptism? Just curious.

I think a lot of this comes from the false altar call decision theology rampant in neo-evangelicalism nowadays. People feel they “didn’t repent right” and so it “didn’t work.” So they go back, time and again and again.

Those of us who believe baptism saves don’t have this problem. Baptism is the work of God and so doesn’t depend on me.

For me I used it more as a membership thing, I was Baptized in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) when I was a boy, then when my parents went to the AOG Church and when I went up to the alter in an alter call I was baptized again because I was to young the first time I was told. Then when I went to College and came back I went to a Baptist Church and got Baptized there. When I converted I was told one would do.

 

[fbl9]

I think a lot of this comes from the false altar call decision theology rampant in neo-evangelicalism nowadays. People feel they “didn’t repent right” and so it “didn’t work.” So they go back, time and again and again.

Those of us who believe baptism saves don’t have this problem. Baptism is the work of God and so doesn’t depend on me.

i think perhaps it is the belief that baptism confers NO actuall grace but is merely a sign/symbom,that allows one to be rebaptised,over and over…

 

[Believe_85]

i think perhaps it is the belief that baptism confers NO actuall grace but is merely a sign/symbom,that allows one to be rebaptised,over and over…

That’s what I’m thinking is the reason behind it…So I wonder now if that is so, if they believe sacraments are unbiblical or something, if it’s some sort of rebellion. …?

 

[fbl9]

That’s what I’m thinking is the reason behind it…So I wonder now if that is so, if they believe sacraments are unbiblical or something, if it’s some sort of rebellion. …?

there are many who do believe that sacraments are unbiblical…some refer to baptism as an ordinence as is the Lord’s supper as they call communion.its their belief that the sacrements do not confer grace unto the recipent…

 

[TriuneUnity]

For me I used it more as a membership thing, I was Baptized in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) when I was a boy, then when my parents went to the AOG Church and when I went up to the alter in an alter call I was baptized again because I was to young the first time I was told. Then when I went to College and came back I went to a Baptist Church and got Baptized there. When I converted I was told one would do.

How in the world did they determine you were too young as a boy? LOL

 

[historyb]

i think perhaps it is the belief that baptism confers NO actual grace but is merely a sign/symbol, that allows one to be re baptized, over and over…

Yep, and that’s what I thought too.

That’s what I’m thinking is the reason behind it…So I wonder now if that is so, if they believe sacraments are unbiblical or something, if it’s some sort of rebellion. …?

No, not really. There are only two that some Protestants affirm as Biblical and they are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but they don’t view sacraments like Catholics do. They see them as being ordained of Christ, but do not infer grace themselves.

Now that doesn’t include all Protestant denominations and can vary, some consider marriage a sacrament.

How in the world did they determine you were too young as a boy? LOL

Because I wasn’t at the age of reason yet.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Because I wasn’t at the age of reason yet.

My online searchable Bible turns up 0 hits on age of reason

 

[historyb]

My online searchable Bible turns up 0 hits on age of reason

Basically they were saying I wasn’t old enough to make the decision about giving my Life to Christ for myself so I may not have understood baptism. I said it wrong, I should say age of accountability.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Basically they were saying I wasn’t old enough to make the decision about giving my Life to Christ for myself so I may not have understood baptism. I said it wrong, I should say age of accountability.

Hmm…therein I suppose lies the problem. According to Scripture the age of accountability is conception. Ultimately, the theology of symbolic baptism based on an age of reason is a denial of the doctrine of original sin.

 

[fbl9]

Basically they were saying I wasn’t old enough to make the decision about giving my Life to Christ for myself so I may not have understood baptism. I said it wrong, I should say age of accountability.

perhaps you may have missed the piont of triune’s post regarding that there is “no biblical” reference to an age of reason…this was made in refernce to baptist’s insistence that they follow only scripture in regards to all they teach…but because baptism (baptist teaching)does nothing for the soul i don’t think they can really apply an age of reason to baptism…

 

[historyb]

perhaps you may have missed the piont of triune’s post regarding that there is “no biblical” reference to an age of reason…this was made in refernce to baptist’s insistence that they follow only scripture in regards to all they teach…but because baptism (baptist teaching)does nothing for the soul i don’t think they can really apply an age of reason to baptism…

First I misspoke it is called the age of accountability, secondly there is such that maybe in Scripture.

I goggled it and got this:

**Question: “Where do I find the age of accountability in the Bible? What happens to babies and young children when they die?”

Answer: ** The Bible tells us that even if an infant or child has not committed personal sin, all people, including infants and children, are guilty before God because of inherited and imputed sin. Inherited sin is that which is passed on from our parents. In Psalm 51:5, David wrote, “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” David recognized that even at conception, he was a sinner. The very sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam’s original sin.

Each person, infant or adult, stands guilty before God; each person has offended the holiness of God. The only way that God can be just and at the same time declare a person righteous is for that person to have received forgiveness by faith in Christ. Christ is the only way. John 14:6 records what Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” Also, Peter stated in Acts 4:12, “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.” Salvation is an individual choice.

What about babies and young children who never reach the ability to make this individual choice? The “age of accountability” is a concept that teaches those who die before reaching the “age of accountability” are automatically saved, by God’s grace and mercy. The “age of accountability” is a belief that God saves all those who die before reaching the ability to make a decision for or against Christ. Thirteen is the most common number given for the age of accountability based on the Jewish custom that a child becomes an adult at the age of 13. However, the Bible gives no direct support to the age of 13 always being the age of accountability. It likely varies from child to child. A child has passed the age of accountability once he or she is capable of making a faith decision for or against Christ.

With the above in mind, also consider the following: Christ’s death is presented as sufficient for all of mankind. 1 John 2:2 says Jesus “is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” This verse is clear that Jesus’ death was sufficient for all sins, not just the sins of those who specifically have come to Him in faith. The fact that Christ’s death was sufficient for all sin would allow the possibility of God applying that payment to those who were never capable of believing.

The one passage that seems to identify with this topic more than any other is 2 Samuel 12:21-23. The context of these verses is that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, with a resulting pregnancy. The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to inform David that because of his sin, the Lord would take the child in death. David responded to this by grieving, mourning, and praying for the child. But, once the child was taken, David’s mourning ended. David’s servants were surprised to hear this. They said to King David, “What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” David’s response was, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” David’s response can be seen as an argument that those who cannot believe are safe in the Lord. David said that he could go to the child, but that he could not bring the child back to him. Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted over this. In other words, David seemed to be saying that he would once again see the child (in heaven), though he could not bring him back.

Though the Bible leaves open the possibility, the one problem with saying that God applies Christ’s payment for sin to those who can’t believe is that the Bible does not specifically say that He does this. Therefore, this is a subject for which we should not be adamant or dogmatic. We can, however, be dogmatic about the fact that God ALWAYS does what is right.

Knowing the love and grace of God, God applying Christ’s death to those who cannot believe would seem consistent with His character. It is our position that God applies Christ’s payment for sin to young children and those who are mentally handicapped, since they were not mentally capable of understanding their sinful state and their need for the Savior. Of this we are certain, that God is loving, holy, merciful, just, and gracious. Whatever He does, it is ALWAYS right and good.

Source