Is there any sense in being baptized as an adult after being baptized as an infant?

Question

Around the time I was born, my parents were going to a Lutheran church. As such, I was baptized as an infant. In most cases in the Bible, baptism is connected with receiving the Holy Spirit. If so, then that may explain why I don't remember when I became a believer. However, there ARE verses such as those in Mark and Luke (below) that make a reference to believing as well, which I couldn't have done as a baby.

Mark 16:16 (NLT)
Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned.

Luke 3:3 (NLT)
Then John went from place to place on both sides of the Jordan River, preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven.

(Emphasis mine.)

As such, I am considering being baptized again as an adult. After all, I can now say that I believe and that I have repented, but there is little or nothing in the Bible about being baptized twice. Also, infant baptism doesn't seem to have become widespread until at least a century after Christ (Wikipedia).

I consider myself non-denominational on the side of Wesleyan, but I'll take answers from any viewpoint.

Answer 1

What you are describing is Anabaptism, or Re-baptism, and has been a well accepted practice, and even the basis of an entire movement shortly after the Protestant reformation. Today, Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, and a few other smaller groups, that grew out of this original Anabaptist movement, still exist.

Historically, these groups held to the belief of re-baptism as an adult. Today, most people in these groups grow up in these groups, and therefore are not baptised as infants, so when they get baptized as an adult, it is no longer a re-baptism. However, re-baptism of new members is still often (but not always) practiced.

As a Mennonite myself (I'm a member of a church in the Mennonite Brethren denomination, and have in the past been a member of the General Conference Mennonite denomination--now called the Mennonite Church USA denomination), I can tell you that within these circles, the common approach is to leave the decision of whether to be re-baptized up to the individual.

In other words, re-baptism is not considered a requirement for a Catholic, Lutheran, or someone from another infant-baptism-believing denomination, when they join the Mennonite church. But when the new member desires re-baptism, it is fully supported.

I am sure there are some Mennonite and other Anabaptist churches/denominations that do require re-baptism.

There are some (even in modern day Anabaptist circles) who consider re-baptism to be completely ridiculous, along the same lines as re-marrying your spouse, if you realized you weren't truly in love when you got married, and have since fallen in love. Whether that (either re-baptism, or re-marriage) is actually ridiculous, I would leave as a decision for the parties involved.

Answer 2

I'm Catholic, but I think this is sort of normal Christian advice, let me know if it doesn't make sense (logically at least)

If you believe that baptism leaves an indelible mark on your soul that cannot be removed, then you wouldn't want to get baptized again.

It would be a sign of a lack of faith in God.

But, if for whatever reason you had reason to believe that your original baptism was not valid (not just insufficient), then you'd probably want to get baptized (you don't need to call it re-baptized because the first baptism wouldn't be a baptism.

(the same logic is applied to Marriage and Annulment of Marriage)

But, the best advice is to follow the advice of your spiritual advisor. Don't go into baptism for the 'feeling' of it.

Answer 3

There is a vast difference between an infant baptism and the baptism of a child. An infant is baptized as the result of someone else's belief, not their own. At age 5 1/2, I had a true understanding that Christ was the Son of God, lived, died and arose for me, and was asking for my repentance and a home in my life, my heart. That is when I accepted Him as my personal Savior. It took much more growth in understanding to give Him His place as Lord. I was baptized at age 7 as a result of my own faith and obedience to Him. I believe that, according to the Scriptures, the only true baptism by water must stem from one's own faith, not that of another.

To expand: Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. . ." Repentance was to precede baptism. Belief in Christ came first.

Acts 18:8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corintians, hearing believed and were baptized." Again believing in Christ Jesus came first.

Although Acts 16:33 as pointed out says ". . .he and his family were baptized." however, this too is prefaced by believe as stated in Acts 16:31 "So they (Paul and Silas) said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." For each, believing was the prequisite to being baptized.

An infant is simply not capable of his/her own belief. Infant baptism in one denomination is much the same as infant dedication in another. It is a public committment made by the parent(s) to "train up a child in the way he should go". It is not a guarantee of that child's salvation or acceptance into heaven. That must come from the child's own confession of need and acceptance of Christ gift of the sacrificial spanning of the gap between man and God. Thus, although it may be a physical re-baptism, spiritually this would be the initial baptism, the outward profession of an inward committment to Christ.

Answer 4

See Acts 19, where it makes it clear that if baptism is performed incorrectly or without the person having a correct understanding of what's going on, the baptism is invalid and needs to be done again. This applies here as infants are incapable of understanding baptism.

Acts 19:3-5 (KJV)

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Answer 5

There are two different ways to look at this. I've lived in both: I grew up in the Campbell-Stone "Restoration" Movement, which practices believers' baptism, and I was baptized as a teenager. Now I'm Eastern Orthodox, which practices infant baptism, and I had both of my children baptized as infants.

Consider these two verses (taken from the NKJV in both cases)

Acts 2:38

Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Romans 3:23

...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...

The anabaptist side would say, looking at scriptures like Acts 2:38, that it makes no sense to baptize infants because infants can't repent. Of course, scriptures like Romans 3:23 say that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Anabaptists would say that that scripture obviously doesn't refer to infants, because infants can't sin.

The paedobaptist side would turn the logic the other way. All have sinned, as Romans 3:23 says, and therefore all are in need of baptism for the forgiveness of sin. But when Acts 2:38 says to repent, it's obviously not referring to infants, since infants can't repent.

In other words:

Anabaptists:

• Acts 2:38 means all must repent
• Romans 3:23 means only those who can have sinned, have sinned

Paedobaptists:

• Romans 3:23 means all have sinned
• Acts 2:38 means only those who can repent, must repent

Clearly this is something of a simplification and only looks at two verses, but I hope it helps to explain how Christians of good will can hold two such contradictory positions. It's not always possible to determine one clear theological position on an issue using scripture. This is why, throughout history, there have been other means for settling these matters, from the Pope to the ecumenical councils to confessional documents to the "brotherhood journals" that were popular in the Campbell-Stone Movement.

Answer 6

I was surprised to find that nobody here mentioned authority. In many denominations, authority is not a big deal, mostly because they believe that the faith/action of the individual being baptized is enough to validate the baptism.

As far as I know, many denominations accept baptisms from other religions based on this assumption.

For other denominations, however, authority is all-important. They will ask you from whom the person who baptized you received their authority. If this is brought into question, then proper baptism is necessary (assuming you believe that the next baptism will be done with the proper authority).

There is a reason certain people baptized while others did not. John was chosen to baptize, so we can assume that he was given authority (the present Bible doesn't make this absolutely clear). Because of this, Christ went to him to get baptized before He started His ministry.

Christ himself brought up this point with the scribes: Mark: 10:30

The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.

Also, it depends on the interpretation of Ephesians 4:5

One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

If we can ascertain that a person has authority (by whatever means we feel is sound), then we must make sure that it is done in the correct way. Someone with true authority will surely perform the ordinance correctly, and this is another way to tell if someone holds the authority.

Here are some resources that detail how we should be baptized:

• Christ's baptism- Matt. 3:16
• Baptism of the Eunuch- Acts 8:37-39
• Baptism as symbol of death (support for immersion)- Romans 6:1-6 (see also Colossians 2:12)

If we feel we were baptized improperly, then we should seek to be baptized again, because a baptism is of no worth if not done properly. For example, a person has the authority to arrest you if and only if they have jurisdiction in that area as a legal officer of the peace, and if they do it properly (in the US, this means reading of rights for normal arrests).

We all know that we need to be baptized to be saved, so it is our responsibility to ensure that we are baptized correctly, under the correct authority and in the correct manner.