There are different ways of getting baptised and this subject has caused a lot of conflict between different Christian groups. This post looks at this dilemma.
I had to learn a lesson many years ago involving water baptism and I want to pass this on to you.
Here you can see me involved in a baptism at a nearby river and I was fully committed to ‘believers baptism’.
But then I met someone who had come the Anglican route of infant baptism and then ‘Confirmation’ …
Initially I saw them as not being baptised – well it wasn’t believers baptism was it?
But they truly saw themselves as being baptised, so why would they want to be baptised again?
And if they went through with this new act of baptism it would be just performing some kind of rite or ritual.
They felt baptised, but another Christian group wanted them to be baptised according to their custom.
They believed that they were baptised, so what right had I, or anybody else, to force a ceremony onto them?
I’ve seen this the other way round as well, where someone had been baptised as a believer and then had joined an Anglican church and they had to get baptised and confirmed their way, according to their tradition.
So no one side is to blame, both camps can push people to get re-baptised.
Yes I personally see ‘believers baptism’ as being the ideal in that someone comes to faith and then they can be baptised as an act of obedience and as an outward sign of that confession.
But for someone who believes in their heart that they are truly baptised by complying to a denominations teaching, I can see that it would be wrong to not accept them and wrong to force them to redo it.
Surely this whole baptism thing should not be a legalistic act – complying to law, but rather the spirit of the act.
I am sure Jesus is much more accepting of people and their baptism than many Christians are.