Should baptism be refused?
Question:
Hi Jeff,
Greetings to you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I would need your insights on two questions.
We are currently studying baptism, which may seem an unlikely topic for members of the Church of Christ. However, we aim to target some young people who may have lost interest in becoming Christians. Many of our young people continue to question some of our positions in the church, and thus, we have opened ourselves up to a rather transparent discussion.
I wish to share some of the questions we had to answer. I tried to provide some answers, but I want to conduct some form of peer review. Below, I will list the questions and give some background and my answers.
Question 1:
Peter asked, “Can any man forbid water?” in Acts 10:47 while preaching to Cornelius' household. Is this question mandatory? Are there Yes or No answers to this question?
Background
Many members of the churches of Christ in this country typically ask this question when someone is about to be baptized. Some have insinuated that the question is important because someone in the audience may have information about the candidate (e.g., whether the candidate is currently a polygamist or a member of some secret cult or society).
The Answer I Provided
The question is rhetorical following the impartation of the Holy Spirit. The question does not need to be asked, but acquiring proper information about baptism candidates is important before the event. I have never heard a No answer to this question, but I imagine what ramifications this could spell for the church. I prefer to ask the questions (where there are doubts) directly to the candidate to ascertain his or her candidature for baptism. I do not think a "No" answer would be biblical since the faith and decision of a candidate solely resides in him or her
Question 2:
While we preach, we meet some individuals who claim they have already been baptized in a denomination exactly in the way we describe from the New Testament. Is it necessary for these persons to be baptized again in the church of Christ to become members? If yes, is Acts 19:5 a proper authority for this position?
Background
The general position of the churches of Christ in this country is that they should be baptized again in the church of Christ before they become members, and we cite Acts 19:5. The principle – so far that they were worshiping wrongly in denominations, their baptism even if done in accordance to the New Testament is wrong. (Basically, wrong by association.)
Answer I Provided
Just mentioning this question caused some division among my brothers. Most of my brothers agree with the general position of the Church presented in the background, but I am known for deviating when I am not satisfied.
I responded that I have yet to come across such a scenario of someone correctly baptized in a denomination. Oftentimes, when I meet these people, I find out that they were baptized not for salvation but because they have already been saved. Some have been worshiping in these denominations and chose to become baptized to earn some spiritual role (deaconship, bishop pastorship, etc). Some were baptized as infants, and their later baptisms essentially confirmed their salvation. In all these cases, the baptism itself is wrong. I added that if we have any among us (especially the teens) who were forced to be baptized by their parents but when they grew up and decided that their baptism was not based on their faith, they may also decide to be baptized again. So my principle is if the baptism is wrong (not based on the faith of the candidate, not performed in the manner prescribed by the New Testament, and was for the wrong purpose), the candidate should choose to be baptized again.
However, in the rare event that the candidate has been properly and correctly baptized (based on his or her faith, performed in the prescribed manner, and for the right purpose), he or she need not be baptized again. I can admit to fellowshipping with such an individual.
May God Bless you, sir.
Answer:
Prior to Acts 10, no Gentile had become a Christian. The church was composed solely of Jews who had accepted Christ. The belief that Jews should not have any dealings with Gentiles was still strongly held, even by Peter. God sent a vision to Peter, commanding him to kill an unclean animal of his choice and eat it, but Peter refused (Acts 10:9-16). When three men from a Gentile arrived to invite Peter to teach their master, the Holy Spirit told Peter directly that He had sent the men (Acts 10:19-20). Peter concluded that the vision indicated that the separation of Jew and Gentile because of perceived uncleanness was to end. "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him" (Acts 10:34-35).
What may be overlooked is that Jewish Christians from Joppa had journeyed with Peter (Acts 10:23). They heard the account of Cornelius' visit by an angel. They listened to Peter's lesson along with Cornelius' household. They saw the Holy Spirit descend on the Gentiles, and the Gentiles began speaking in tongues. Their reaction was one of shock. "All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also" (Acts 10:45).
Thus, Peter challenged the Jewish Christians. Would they oppose the baptism of these people in the face of what they had seen? "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" (Acts 10:47). The implication is that some of these Jewish Christians probably would have objected, but the evidence from God was too clear. God had accepted the Gentiles, and they could not stand in the way.
This was not a request of the audience to see if they knew something against those who believed and were about to be baptized. These people knew nothing about these Gentiles. They didn't associate with them. Peter dared them to say that Gentiles cannot become Christians in the face of the evidence they saw. No one said a word.
When Peter returned to Jerusalem, there were objections from Jewish Christians who had not been there. "And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him, saying, 'You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them'" (Acts 11:2-3). Peter recounted what happened. He pointed out that there were six witnesses to these things (Acts 11:12). He then concluded, "Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?" (Acts 11:17). The Jewish Christians realized that they could not oppose God either. "When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, 'Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life'" (Acts 11:18).
The question Peter asked was circumstantial, and you don't see such a question asked on any other occasion. It is not a proper inference to conclude that this question is required at every baptism. For most baptisms, you don't have a hostile audience who thinks the people baptized cannot become Christians.
The question your fellow Christians are asking is for a different purpose. They have turned an individual's decision to follow Christ into one where they decide who can enter the kingdom. It is not their decision. It is Christ who adds, not men. "And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved" (Acts 2:47).
I agree that a discussion of sin and the need to repent must be done prior to offering baptism (Acts 2:38). However, it is not up to those watching to decide if the one accepting the offer has actually repented. They cannot look into a person's heart.
Regarding whether a person who was baptized in a denomination needs to be baptized again, see:
