I absolutely love a baptism service! Some might imagine a quiet version of “Holy, Holy, Holy” as the soundtrack to baptism, but I hear rousing, triumphant versions of “How Great Is Our God” or “Crown Him with Many Crowns” in the background. I get a little excited! Just ask my church. They have laughingly said, “Bro. Ben doesn’t immerse. He body slams people in the water!” One time I even sloshed water out of the baptistery onto the top choir pew. I can’t help it. I’m overcome with enthusiasm by the reality that the person standing in the water with me is announcing to the entire world that Jesus is their new Savior and Lord. They’ve just been brought from death to life, and they’re unashamedly making their profession public through the ordinance of baptism. Yeah, we should get excited!
However, there is a troubling baptism trend that is afoot in the Southern Baptist Convention. Given that baptism is the initial public profession of faith for a believer, it should happen only once in a believer’s life, but Dr. Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has stated here and here that he believes as many as 50% of baptisms in our Southern Baptist churches are rebaptisms. Although his figures are based on anecdotal evidence and informal polling, even if the rebaptism rate is more like 30% or 40%, rebaptism is a serious problem any way you look at it. We’re already seeing baptisms declining across our convention, but given the insight from this statistic, the reality is probably even bleaker.
Why are so many rebaptisms happening? By rebaptisms, we mean the act of being biblically baptized more than once. A biblical baptism has these three criteria:
- Baptized by immersion
- Baptized after a profession of faith in Jesus
- Baptized as a symbol and not as a requirement of salvation
So, what we’re seeing is people doing this more than once, and we want to know why. I believe blame can be laid on these four things:
1) Landmarkism
Many churches operate under Landmark doctrine and probably don’t realize it. That’s the way it was when I came to my church in 2008. We were functionally a Landmark church.
Here’s the test to see if your church is doing so: does your church make somebody from another denomination get rebaptized in order to join your church, regardless of the nature of their first baptism? If so, your church is most likely practicing Landmark doctrine.
The primary baptism doctrine linked to Landmarkism is to not accept what is called alien immersion (ie, being baptized under a denomination other than Baptist) and stems from the belief that only baptisms done in a Baptist church are valid because the Baptist church is the only valid church. Therefore, many Baptist churches are rebaptizing people. They might not realize the theology behind the practice but continue it out of tradition. Again, this is the way my church operated when I first arrived, but I quickly led them away from this practice.
Landmarkism arose in our Baptist churches here in the South around the 1850s through the leadership of James Robinson Graves, James Madison Pendleton, and Amos Cooper Dayton. In this time of great spiritual growth and frontier spirit following the Second Great Awakening, there arose a strand of Christianity led by Alexander Campbell that we know as the Church of Christ. Campbell and his Churches of Christ began to teach that their churches were the only true churches. In fact, they went as far as to teach that salvation was only possible through the Church of Christ.
Baptists desired to not be outdone. So, they developed the Landmark doctrines, one of which is that Baptist churches are the only true churches. Basically, they told the Campbellites, “Nuh-uh, we’re the only true church!” To add weight to their claim, Landmarkers began to trace the history of the Baptist church all the way back through the centuries to John the Baptist himself. This idea, called “Baptist successionism,” has been explained famously in a booklet called “The Trail of Blood” by James Milton Carroll but is pseudo-history at best. Nevertheless, those who hold these doctrines are convinced of their teaching. Therefore, they make all who desire to join the Baptist church from another denomination be rebaptized.
The residue of Landmark teaching is still prevalent in Tennessee and Kentucky where I’ve pastored, probably due to the fact that these two states were ground-zero for the Landmark controversy. The headquarters of Landmark teaching was Nashville, TN. Bad habits die hard! Therefore, many churches in my home state and my current state add to the problem of rebaptism in our convention due to their Landmark practices.
2) A low view of conversion
People with the right heart have undoubtedly led many to believe that they are saved when in fact they are not, particularly with children. They use methods based on or similar to Charles Finney’s “new measures,” which sought to manipulate people into making a “decision” for God or to, at least, make it as easy as possible. Methods like “every head bowed and every eye closed,” “just repeat this prayer and you’re saved,” and “ask Jesus into your heart” invitations are good examples. Conversion becomes less about repentance and faith and more about praying a prayer and walking an aisle. Many invitations and evangelistic efforts are prone to false conversion.
It wasn’t too long ago that I witnessed a very good example of what I’m talking about at a major youth conference. The speaker told a heartbreaking story about how he’d been abused and mistreated as a child. Admittedly, it was a very sad story. He told us how Jesus had healed his hurts and how Jesus wants to heal our hurts. He said that Jesus would heal our hurts if we would simply pray a prayer to get saved. He then led the entire assembly—about 4,000 people in our session—to repeat a prayer of salvation after him and invited all of those who prayed that prayer and meant it to come forward. Honestly, he never touched the gospel, but many young people left their thinking they had responded to the gospel and had been saved. I’m not saying that nobody was genuinely saved. I’m just saying that this moment was pregnant with the opportunity for false conversion.
Undoubtedly, many of those who prayed that prayer and went forward that evening have been baptized by now in their respective churches. But, I’m guessing that many of them will be baptized again somewhere down the road when they hear the true gospel, and God begins to deal with them. A low view of conversion, which systematically leads to false conversion, is undoubtedly raising our rebaptism rate in the SBC.
So, what’s the answer? We cannot deviate from the biblical gospel call. The gospel calls us to understand that we are sinners. The gospel doesn’t say, “You’re a victim. Come to Jesus for healing.” The gospel says, “You’re a perpetrator. Come to Jesus for forgiveness.” In fact, I fully believe that a person cannot be saved unless they understand that they are a sinner deserving Hell. The gospel calls us to repent of our sin, which means to hate and turn from that sin. The gospel calls us to place our faith in Christ alone, which means that we set our hope for Heaven only on what Jesus did at the cross. The gospel must have the cross and the reason for the cross in it! The gospel calls us to a lifetime of faith evidenced by obedience. In other words, Jesus is your Savior only if Jesus is your Lord. We must rid ourselves of a low view of conversion. Otherwise we will continue to bring into the water those who are not really saved.
3) Baptizing children at very young ages
It’s clear that we as Baptists are not for the baptism of infants, but in many instances, we’re not too far away from baptizing toddlers. Many children from godly homes make professions of faith at a very early age, and they follow this profession up with baptism. However, we are finding that as these children grow older, we are seeing a couple of things happen. One is that sometimes they desire to be baptized again because they don’t really remember their baptism. They were so young and didn’t have the fullness of understanding that they now possess. They desire for the occasion to be memorable and meaningful. Hence, they seek to enter the water again.
Two is that sometimes as they get older, children who made professions of faith when they were younger come to realize through the preaching of the Word and the conviction of the Holy Spirit that they are not actually saved. At that younger age, they had no conviction of sin. They had no moment when they really actively wanted to follow Jesus, and now the Holy Spirit is dealing with them, calling them to salvation. After they truly repent and trust Christ, they want to get back into the waters of baptism and rightly so. This testimony is shared by many Christians I know.
The baptism of young children is always tough for pastors because we know the Scripture teaches that we should baptize only those who are converted, but it’s so hard to discern true conversion in children. It’s for this reason that some congregations have a policy of putting off baptism of children until they are older. Perhaps the most famous example of this policy comes from First Baptist Dallas under the leadership of Dr. W. A. Criswell, who would not baptize a child under the age of 10. I have to admit that I’m uncomfortable setting an age but see great wisdom in putting off baptism for young children, especially given our Baptist belief that baptism is not necessary for salvation. By putting off their baptism until they can further mature will certainly cut down the number who would desire or need to be rebaptized.
4) Biblical ignorance
Unfortunately, many simply do not understand what baptism is. Therefore, they get into the water repeatedly. We especially see rebaptism happening when a person backslides for a period and then repents and returns to the Lord. Baptist churches usually call this “rededication.” I personally don’t like that word and simply prefer the biblical word “repentance,” but whatever you call it, people sometimes feel like they need to get into the water again and be rebaptized. Unfortunately, churches are allowing them to be baptized again, which totally confuses New Testament baptism.
We as Baptists are really good at arguing about the mode of baptism, but we’re poor at teaching what baptism really is. Baptism is a symbol and proclamation of salvation, and that’s it. Biblically speaking, baptism is the Christian’s public profession of faith. Therefore, you should be baptized only as many times as you get saved, which is once. One salvation equals one baptism. It’s just not a symbol of ongoing repentance or “rededication” as some try to use it. If we will properly teach what baptism is, I believe our rates of rebaptism will decrease.
Conclusion
I pray that pastors and churches everywhere will think seriously about the problem of rebaptism. First, I pray that they would agree that it’s indeed a problem. Second, I pray that they’ll take steps to be as biblical as possible and thus honor the Lord Jesus Christ in baptism. May our rebaptism rates rapidly decrease and our true baptism rates explode in increase!
Now it’s your turn to respond. Do you agree that rebaptism is a problem in the SBC? Have I gotten any reasons wrong? Would you add any others?
January 16, 2013 at 2:23 pm
Ben, I like this article. In fact just yesterday I was contemplating a post here about this very subject. Question, I don’t think you explicitly covered this: a person is baptized upon their POF at say 10. Later in life, after decades of living with the pigs, they believe that they come to a true saving faith. What then? Were they not properly baptized (or truly baptized) at 10? What would you do?
Thanks brother.
Les
January 16, 2013 at 3:01 pm
Certainly a tricky question. I remember a time in Bible college when a good friend of mine said he had just gotten saved. He was a ministerial student, serving as I recall as a youth minister, but at a special event he felt he realized he was lost and walked the aisle. I didn’t contest what he thought had happened, but did encourage him to consider that instead of being saved, the message he heard was a call to ensure his life was focused as it should be. From what I knew of him, his Christianity prior to this experience was not in doubt, but he felt it was so he made it known that he was just saved and he followed it with baptism. If he was right that he had not previously been saved, then his baptism was the right call, I’m just not sure this was the case.
In my own life, things are not so different – sort of. Born in a Christian family, I professed faith at a very young age and grew up in the church. In my high school and college years I had my fair share of “living with the pigs” before having my head screwed on straight. Some time after getting my head screwed on straight, I remember talking with a pastor who was convinced I could not be saved because of some of the things I had done. In his estimation, I needed to get saved and baptized. In this case, the baptism issue was even trickier. I grew up Presbyterian and became Southern Baptist after I worked through my pig years, so when I was baptized in a Baptist church I was already more or less back on track but this baptism was not immediately following salvation but was in order to be biblically baptized.
January 16, 2013 at 3:13 pm
Good answer Chris to a tricky issue for sure. Or as one of my profs at Covenant Seminary likes to say, a “sticky wicket.”
SAs you know, I’m in the PCA now but was a SB pastor for 5 years before that. My own experience is walked the aisle in a SB church at age 12. Baptized. Went on with the pigs for most of the next 14 years and then had what I truly believe was a born again experience at age 25. Baptized again. Then off to NOBTS. In a conversation with one of the pastors one day he asked me when I was saved. I said I wasn’t sure of the day/time…sometime between November 1981 and May 1982 I thought. He then asked if I was sure now (at that time we were talking). I said yes. He said if I couldn’t pinpoint the day/time that I needed to be baptized again just to make sure it was properly AFTER salvation since I was sure now.
So, I’ve been immersed three times! Now I hope and don’t think mine is a common experience. But maybe it is.
And as you know, the PCA doesn’t regard the time of the new birth experience to be tied to the time of baptism.
So, that is what I’m getting at. I think by the nature of what SB believe that if one really thinks his new birth has just occurred, then he needs to be baptized again, right?
Thanks brother.
January 16, 2013 at 3:48 pm
Les,
Great question! I alluded to your answer in my second paragraph under #3: “After they truly repent and trust Christ, they want to get back into the waters of baptism and rightly so.” I believe it is always right to be baptized after conversion, even if it means getting into the water a second time. Certainly, I would counsel with them to sort through whether or not this is really a conversion or something more of repenting of waywardness, but if they were convinced that this later profession of faith was their true conversion, I would have no problem baptizing them a second time because they would have proven their baptism at 10 to have been invalid. The only valid baptism is the one after conversion.
Baptism, among a few other things, is the sign of the New Covenant, which means it must be experienced after a person has entered into the New Covenant by grace through faith in Jesus.
January 16, 2013 at 3:54 pm
“Baptism, among a few other things, is the sign of the New Covenant, which means it must be experienced after a person has entered into the New Covenant by grace through faith in Jesus.”
Did you peer into my brain to see a planned future post? I haven’t gotten around to it yet, but anticipate writing about this very thing.
January 16, 2013 at 3:56 pm
You know the cliché: Great minds… :o)
January 16, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Outstanding post.
One more I’d throw in, and it’ll make many cringe, is this: baptismal regeneration. This is tied to the Campbellite movement you cited in your post, but it still has an effect on a lot of folks who’ve never been a part of a church of Christ. I think you hinted at this with the section on backsliding and re-dedication, but I’m not sure that many can separate re-dedication from baptismal regeneration, at least not if they think that re-baptism is essential to the getting-saved-all-over-again, or the getting-saved-for-real-this-time event.
Aside from any Campbellite connections, this line of thinking comes much easier from a climate of decisional regeneration than a climate of regeneration-precedes-faith. And decisional regeneration is certainly a long-term problem in SBC churches.
January 16, 2013 at 4:02 pm
Thanks for the encouragement and for throwing out another potential reason, Doc B! Certainly, the idea that baptism saves us pushes some folks in our communities to want to be baptized initially and subsequently.
January 16, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Here’s a question for everybody…
Given the fact that Southern Baptists love numbers, should a church knowingly report a rebaptism in their baptism stats to the convention?
I’ll reserve my answer for now.
January 16, 2013 at 5:17 pm
I was initially baptized in the Disciples of Christ church which believes in baptismal regeneration. Upon becoming a Baptist I was re-baptized to demonstrate my act of confession and obedience and to renounce baptismal regeneration.
January 17, 2013 at 10:35 am
Walt,
I believe that that Baptist church certainly did the right thing to biblically baptize you for the first time. As I stated in my article, biblical baptism has three components:
1. Baptized by immersion
2. Baptized after a profession of faith in Jesus
3. Baptized as a symbol and not as a requirement of salvation
Any person whose prior baptism doesn’t meet all three requirements should seek to be biblically baptized.
Thanks for sharing your story!
January 17, 2013 at 10:41 am
I haven’t noticed any takers on my question above in the comment stream: should a church knowingly report a rebaptism in their baptism stats to the convention?
My flesh wants to say “yes” because let’s be honest: SBC churches are judged by their baptism number (nobody ever talks about Baptism ratio, which is a much better measure of how fruitful a church has actually been, but that’s a different conversation).
But, my head says “no.” It’s simply inaccurate (dishonest??)to count a baptism twice.
What say you?
January 17, 2013 at 11:02 am
Ben, I’m not currently in a SB church, though I was once a SB active pastor. But I’ll make a comment.
If, as you and other SBs say, that in cases where you believe the re-baptism is justified (say as in Walt’s case above), then I think you should report it. i.e. if you believe that the re-baptism is really the first true baptism, then it should be noted.
But as in my three baptisms might indicate, this can surely be abused. A solution might be to have another reporting category: Re-Baptisms. Or columns like:
First time Baptisms Other Baptisms
I don’t really expect, though, that this would ever come about. But just an idea.
Les
January 17, 2013 at 11:42 am
I pretty much agree with Les. In the case of a church that is careful who it baptizes, and feels that it has performed a biblical baptism (which means the first baptism by immersion following salvation – anything else is just a dip in the water) then it is fine to report the stat – particularly if the church itself does not see numbers as a sign of status but as a way of help keep records updated.
The problem is with the church who wants the high numbers and wants the status, but in that case, they will report anything they can. I heard a story about a church that went an extended period where they had a baptism every week, either in the morning or at night. One Sunday they realized they had no one to baptise and the pastor went into crisis mode, sending out all staff members that afternoon to find one person they could baptize that evening. Lo and behold, they found someone and their baptism streak continued. But was anyone truly saved and rightly baptized? Unlikely.
January 17, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Wow! Just a few years back at the TBC Pastors Conference, we had a speaker from AZ who was introduced as performing over 20,000 baptisms. That’s great, but his church only had a little over a 1,000 at it. Hmmmm…
January 17, 2013 at 1:54 pm
That’s the question I always want to ask. One of the larger churches in the area often likes to broadcast how many people professed faith at a given event. I always want to ask how many of these showed up again – let alone were baptized – let alone remained committed to the church!
January 22, 2013 at 8:45 am
Your paragraph under “Landmarkism” has several historical mistakes and misunderstandings. The practice of rejecting alien immersion and the belief in Baptist succession did not arise with J.R. Graves or come about as a response to Alexander Campbell. I hear so many seminary graduates saying this, but it is just flat wrong!
Consider this quote from Jesse Mercer in 1811: “Our reasons, therefore for rejecting baptism by immersion when administered by Pedobaptist ministers are: I. That they are connected with churches clearly out of the apostolic succession, and therefore clearly out of the apostolic commission…”
http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/1811cl_mercer.html
1811 is long before J.R. Graves or Alexander Campbell made their mark on Baptist life. And Jesse Mercer is not some backwoods Baptist, but rather the father of organized Baptist life in Georgia. I can easily provide hundreds of quotes from this time period to further prove my point.
The truth is Baptists have long believed baptism is a church ordinance. (The Baptist Faith and Message says as much.) Non-Baptist churches are not New Testament churches in their doctrine. Therefore their baptisms should be rejected. This is the policy of the International Missions Board and multitudes of Southern Baptist churches throughout all 50 states.
I also thought it was telling you didn’t address Acts 19. Why were these disciples rebaptized?
1. The most common answer is because they had John’s baptism. But Apollos wasn’t rebaptized and neither were the apostles, so that doesn’t hold water.
2. Because they were saved under Paul’s preaching? All 12 of them? I don’t think so. Apollos was their teacher and he was a mighty man in the O.T. Scriptures.
3. The right answer is authority. They had been baptized by Apollos and he didn’t have the authority to baptize. For baptism to be valid you must have the right authority.
January 23, 2013 at 3:56 pm
Ben,
Thanks for the comment!
While Graves, Pendleton, and Dayton may not have been complete innovators and were drawing upon concepts already afoot, they are nevertheless the framers and popularizes of the Landmark movement. I appreciate you helping us see that Mercer and probably others influenced these men.
As for Landmarkism being a response to the Restoration Movement through Stone and Campbell, you very well might be right in that some Baptist churches were already claiming the Kingdom of God for their denomination alone. It very well might be that the Restoration Movement was responding to the pre-Landmarkers. Or, it could be there’s no correlation at all between Landmarkism and the Restoration Movement, but I doubt that’s the case given how much they rubbed elbows and exchanged polemics as the vied for the same people in the same region of the country. Whatever the case may be, the Restoration Movement unquestionably preceded the Landmark movement.
I agree with you that baptism is a church ordinance. However, I disagree with you that non-Baptist churches are automatically not New Testament churches. The preaching of the true gospel and the right celebration of the ordinances of baptism and Lord’s Supper make a New Testament church. Therefore, there are many churches that are non-Baptist that are true churches.
As for the right celebration of baptism, I would point you back to my original article. Right celebration of baptism is by immersion, after a profession of faith in Jesus, and as a symbol of salvation instead of as a requirement of salvation. Therefore, there are some cases where a person coming from a non-Baptist church needs to be biblically baptized for the first time because their prior “baptism” was not biblical. However, there are others coming from a non-Baptist church that are just fine because they meet the criteria.
You mentioned the IMB’s baptism policy. You can read their position paper on baptism at http://www.imb.org/main/news/details.asp?LanguageID=1709&StoryID=3840. You will see that they agree with my three points of biblical baptism, but they do add a fourth, stating that the missionary candidate must have been baptized in a church that holds to eternal security. That fourth point goes too far in my opinion.
You said that rejecting baptisms from a non-Baptist church is the policy of the IMB, but that’s not exactly true. There’s more to it than that. The IMB paper clearly says that “Baptist” doesn’t have to be on the door. They conclude, “Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.” That policy leaves plenty of room for lots of non-Baptist baptisms to be valid.
You have an interesting point concerning Apollos and the apostles. I’ll have to look more into what you are saying. I will say that while their baptisms may not be recorded, we’re not told they were never baptized in Jesus’ name. They constantly told others to repent and be baptized in Jesus’ name. So, why would they not also have been baptized in Jesus’ name?
As for Acts 18, although Apollos was preaching well concerning John’s baptism, I don’t believe he actually believed on Jesus until v26 when Priscilla and Aquila took him aside and explained the way of God to him more accurately. These men that Paul encountered in Acts 19 must have been discipled by Apollos before the ladies had set him straight and he had believed on Jesus. Therefore, they had not yet believed on Jesus either. So, after believing on Jesus, they were baptized in His name, and then the Holy Spirit fell on them, which does have an authority aspect to it. However, it is a misnomer to say that they were “rebaptized.” They had never been baptized in the name of Jesus.
Thanks for the conversation!
January 24, 2013 at 8:05 am
Bro. Simpson,
Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that J.R. Graves and company were the popularizers of Landmarkism through the Tennessee Baptist newspaper, but there were not innovators of any new doctrine or really even framers. It can easily be historically demonstrated that all of the doctrines of Landmarkism existed before the Cotton Grove Resolutions of 1851. Prior to 1851 the idea of Baptist perpetuity / successionism was a universal belief among Baptists and the majority of them rejected alien immersion. This wasn’t just true of Baptists in the south, but in the north as well. Consider this quote by the pastor of the First Baptist Church of New York City:
http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/cone.unimmersed.baptism.html
And the idea that Campbellism was the driving force behind Landmarkism is one of the biggest myths in Baptist History. Campbellism was there , but Methodistism was more of a factor. I don’t know of any books written by Graves, Pendelton, or Dayton against Campbellism, but there were several written against the Methodists. All of this denominational warfare helped Graves promote landmarkism rapidly, but it did not create it.
I am glad you agree that baptism is a church ordinance. I agree with you that it takes the preaching of the true gospel and the right celebration of the ordinances to make a New Testament church. Most theologians have said as much (Calvin, Luther, etc.) But think about it. That definition unchurches all pedobaptists and Campbellites. Infant baptism, sprinkling, and baptismal regeneration are not the right “celebration of baptism.” Therefore Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. churches are not New Testament churches and when they do occasionally immerse, it should be rejected by Baptist churches. I would consider eternal security part of the true gospel and likewise reject Pentecostal baptisms as well. (This is where the IMB is coming from)
All you have left is Baptist and baptistic churches. Many of these baptistic / non-denominational churches will accept sprinkling and infant baptism and some will not. Some are New Testament churches and some are not.
As to Acts 19 and John’s baptism, do you really believe all of the disciples of John the Baptist (and there were a lot!) needed to be baptized again after Pentecost? I understand that Apollos didn’t know about Jesus of Nazareth, but he did know about the coming Messiah. I believe he was saved long before Acts 18, for John didn’t baptize people who were lost. The point of Acts 19 is authority. Apollos didn’t have the authority to baptize. I believe in your three points of biblical baptism, but I believe in a fourth point just as strongly. Scriptural baptism must be administered by a New Testament church to be valid.
January 24, 2013 at 2:24 pm
I believe this is a problem because pastors are not studying the Word faithfully as they should. This is also why we have many pastors preach “rededication” rather repentance.