Team GotQuestions Blog

a Blog for Sharing Stories, Tips & Encouragement

On Baptism in a Denomination with Which You Disagree

September 12th, 2014

I am conflicted on this question. “Why is it a bad idea to get baptized in a denomination you have disagreements with?” My first thoughts is that there are not qualification on the baptizer, but on the one to be baptized. What am I missing?

  • Kris Theobald I would question why you would want to be baptized into a body you did not agree with? Certainly there may be secondary things we might differ on, but if it’s a major doctrinal disagreement, I’m not sure you’re ready to be identified with that body by making that public commitment, if church membership is tied on with baptism…
    17 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
  • Sarah Van Baale Some churches associate baptism with automatic church membership in that denomination, some do not. It might be problematic to be baptized and automatically assume membership in a denomination/church with which you disagree. Then again, I know of someone who went down the road to be baptized at another church because they wanted to be immersed, not sprinkled. I’m not sure how it all shook out afterward, but the individual was intent on being immersed and their church didn’t offer it as an option.
    17 hrs · Like · 1
  • Tim White For Baptists, baptism is typically tied to membership, but that is where I see this as extra-biblical. Baptism is in obedience to Christ after salvation, identifying with the gospel.
    17 hrs · Like · 4
  • Kris Theobald I am a SB pastor and I have struggles with this within my denomination. When we receive someone into the church from a different denomination, tradition says they need to be rebaptized to be recognized as agreeing with our body of believers. I have a difficult time seeing anywhere in scripture where someone needs to be baptized again to join a church. I believe baptism identifies you with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. As long as that persons baptism was as a believer, by immersion, and they had no misunderstanding of the gospel, I have no problem receiving them without re baptism and have yet to have anyone show me scripture stating otherwise…
    16 hrs · Like · 2
  • Tim White I have the same difficulty as a SB pastor. I changed my approach. I ask the person what they should expect from the Church if they join. I usually affirm their answer. Then I ask them what should the other Church members expect from them as a member? Encouragement usually comes up. I tell them that as an encouragement to those who are considering salvation and those who are laboring in the congregation, it would be wonderful if everyone could see their willingness to be baptized. I have never had anyone have a problem looking at it that way. They are usually eager to encourage others.
    16 hrs · Like · 2
  • Kris Theobald That is something I never considered Tim and sounds like a good approach. I have a couple that faithfully attends almost every service. I have talked with them at length. Their beliefs and baptism line up with us, but they come from a church of God background, and were baptized together 25 years ago, and feel it was a special time for them and was sufficient in God’s eyes, and therefore will not be rebaptized, and honestly, I have no argument to present against that. I would love for them to join but they are hesitant to come forward because a small, vocal minority may object and they don’t want to cause division in the church. It just pains me that two godly people want to call our local body “home” but tradition keeps them out…
    16 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
  • Sarah Van Baale I attend a Baptist church. I asked this same question of our pastors when they asked my husband and I to be re-baptized. We were of the stance that it was extra-biblical as well, so we didn’t. But now our oldest is a member because he was baptized within the church. I think re-baptism is an odd term and I’m not sure I know of any place in the Bible where it has taken place. Our only baptisms were so important and special to us that we felt it would cheapen them to “re-do” it for man’s sake. But we aren’t opposed to others doing it. It was just a personal choice for us. However if it is a qualification to agree 100% with all doctrine and by-laws of a church in order to be baptized by their pastor, 90% of the membership might not qualify. I agree with Tim, we get baptized out of obedience to Christ. I highly doubt we’ll get to heaven and be judged for being baptized by an imperfect person in an imperfect church as long as our heart and our motives were in the right place.
    16 hrs · Like · 3
  • Sarah Van Baale Sorry Kris – I didn’t see your post when I posted mine. Nevertheless, it appears we are all saying the same thing and have had similar experiences, albeit from different positions within the church.
    16 hrs · Like · 3
  • Kris Theobald Amen Sarah, I agree wholeheartedly. The only scripture anyone ever even attempted to use to justify their position was Acts 19 when the followers of Jesus were baptized again after they had only received John’s baptism, but to take that passage and use it to speak about church membership takes more theological manipulation than I am willing to do. I am hoping to change the wording in our by laws to receive members outside our denomination as long as they are understanding of the biblical gospel and are saved and immersed we will receive them. Right now, as what we have reads, I would have to overstep them to receive this couple, and I fear that would be harmful to the body…
    16 hrs · Like · 3
  • Tim White One of my problems with the question is that it is specifics poor. I would probably end up writing a thesis to cover all the possibilities.
    16 hrs · Like · 2
  • Kris Theobald I agree Tim. Sorry to hijack your original post with my rambling’s. lol
    16 hrs · Like · 1
  • Stuart Mattfield Okay, I’ll take the opposing view…3 things: 1) as we recognize believer baptism as an ordinance, with immersion as the proper mode, 2) we recognize the call and importance to maintain purity in the church, and 3) we know that some denominations do not baptize in the way that we believe Scripture leads, then why not require rebaptism as a form of membership. Membership classes are extrabiblical too, yet we require them in many churches, and for good reason. Also, for the sake of unity, why do we push against it when our churches ask for it? Unless what their asking is contra-Scripture…is it worth the division? For the record, the church I attend and was ordained in does not ask for members to be rebaptized, but I would have no issue if they did.
    16 hrs · Like · 1
  • Tim White Stuart, I can buy requiring the proper method, the proper candidate, but when we get to the proper motive, we seem to differ. Baptism is not a tool to maintain purity in a fellowship. If there is scriptural support for that, I would like to see it. There are miles between the ideas of new member classes and baptism. Baptism as an ordinance, as you also described, does not provide us an option of altering the purpose of it. It’s purpose is clearly laid out and rebaptism is not a biblical idea surrounding an ordinance of God. That is where we differ, I guess.
    15 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
  • Stuart Mattfield I would respectfully submit that we do not disagree, Tim. I do not submit that baptism is a tool by which we maintain purity. I am saying that we are called to maintain purity in the church, and that as such we should not take baptizing people lightly. Now, I am not saying that you have done either. But, as we see in every instance of Baptism in Scripture, it is preceded by acceptance of Jesus in faith. That tells us that the early church did not take the practice of baptism lightly either. All I am saying is that if we don’t take it lightly, and we are focused on maintaining purity, then I don’t have issue with a church that would ask me to rebaptize for membership.
    15 hrs · Like · 1
  • Stuart Mattfield Also, my point about the new member class…in context…was that as a practice it too is extra-biblical. The point being that an argument that another baptism for membership should not be followed because it is not in Scripture is irrelevant.
    15 hrs · Like · 2
  • Robert Pristoop Mikveh, or as you all call it Baptism, was and is a very Jewish practice. Obviously John was baptizing before Jesus even started his ministry. Jewish mikveh occurred when you converted to Judaism, after a woman had her cycle or a man had a nocturnal emission and for a multitude of reasons listed in the OT. We know that baptism is a public statement and commitment to our faith in Messiah. I have done re-baptisms for people who were sprinkled or who wanted to rededicate themselves to the Lord. The person who asked the question doesn’t say what their disagreement with the church is. Could it be a church they don’t believe in–maybe they are being forced to be baptized in the Mormon church? Maybe the church believes that baptism is required for salvation and the person doesn’t believe that. It is difficult without knowing what the disagreement is about. I know children who have gone through baptism because their parents are making them as opposed to them experiencing a faith ordinance. So I would want to know the age of the person, the denomination and the disagreement before trying to guess.
    15 hrs · Like · 2
  • Tim White Robert, isn’t there disagreement among scholars as to whether Jewish ceremonial cleansing was what John was practicing? Do not some fairly reliable theologians say that what John did was from heaven, from God as something new, and not from Judaism at all? I have read both sides of this and ended up on John introducing something new from God in preparation for something totally new from God, the Church.
    15 hrs · Like · 2
  • Robert Pristoop John’s baptism may have been new in the sense of meaning but not in practice. It is impossible for 21st century western culture to look back at 1st century Jewish culture and decide what it meant to those of the 1st century. John baptized to spiritually cleanse people which was the biblical practice of mikveh. It was a public proclamation of what the person believed but I doubt that the people baptized early on by John, especially before Jesus even started his ministry, really understood that the mikveh they were taking was some how different in meaning than what they had always done. Mikveh is still very much practiced by many Jews today all over the world because it represents spiritual and physical cleansing. It made a person ritually clean. That is why non-Jews had to go through a mikveh before they could become Jews or join the commonwealth of Israel. The act of Christian baptism is actually very a Jewish ritual which sadly the “church” has lost sight of the history. That is why Gentiles CONVERT to Christianity and Jewish people complete. Your faith is predicated on the truths and prophecy of Biblical Judaism and so you are grafted in and Jewish believers are completed.
    14 hrs · Like · 1
  • Tim White Another source even states that the practice of Jewish immersion mikveh did not begin until the second or third century, possibly as an answer the Christian baptism.
    14 hrs · Like
  • Robert Pristoop That source would be very wrong as we know that mikveh is command in Torah and John was doing it before Jesus. I am never surprised what some people believe but to believe that would require one to suspend truth and archeological facts in evidence.
    14 hrs · Like · 1
  • Ed Chait I’m wondering if John’s baptism was different in meaning from the spiritual cleansing of the Mikveh as John’s baptism was specifically for repentance from sin, not ritual spiritual cleansing.
    13 hrs · Like · 1
  • Tim White I just believe that to take everything back into Judaism is a mistake that Judaizers began doing from the start and were opposed by Apostles. Jesus came at a time to show that there was no sanctity in the Jewish language or redemption in the Jewish culture. Now we have so many trying to put more emphasis back on it when all of Jesus’ teachings were to pull people out of it.
    3 hrs · Like
  • Robert Pristoop I am certainly not a Judaizer as I know that salvation is by faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone. However the “church” has introduced many traditions that Jesus never inculcated too. The Apostles never stopped being Jewish and never stopped living a Jewish life–not that it is better to be Jewish over Gentile. But Jesus was clear that he came to fulfill the Law so that we wouldn’t have too. But that doesn’t mean living in opposition to the commands either. Jesus wasn’t resurrected and then starting eating ham and cheese sandwiches or pulled pork BBQ. The Apostles and Jesus still followed the commands of God. Clearly they did not follow the commands for salvation but in honor to God. All I am saying is that we have to try and understand what was said/written and what was understood by the intended audience. It is difficult-in my humble opinion- to decide what 1st century people understood 2000 years later. What we do know is that while Gentiles were not held to the strict Jewish standards-the Jewish leadership never stopped living as Jews. Just think about how words have changed over time. If I said to you 100 years ago that “Last night I went to a gay party and this morning I feel a bit queer” you would have understood that I went to an exciting party and this morning I feel a bit sick. But those same words mean something completely different today. I guess I am just saying that we should not jump to conclusions about what we think we know of Jesus’ intentions. It is not about redemption in a culture but of every culture. Good discussion guys, thanks!
    3 hrs · Like
  • Tim White Yes, the Apostles continued to practice Jewish Cultural ceremonies. However, we should also note that these were not the instructions of God to be placed upon the Gentile Church. “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” And we see in Acts 21, Paul was encouraged to do a Jewish ceremony to alleviate some of the opposition who sought to kill him for turning from his old faith. Throughout the NT, the Jew converts practiced some of the rituals to not disqualify themselves or their message in the eyes of those they were trying to reach, but that was the extent of it. Today, I am seeing a return to Jewish culture among Gentiles so they can be super-spiritual. It is as if having Christ alone has suddenly become not enough of what we need. I have had it in my Churches that I have pastored, and the attitude that if I don’t Judaize myself, use the words Mikveh instead of baptism, Yahweh instead of God, etc…I am not as spiritual as the ones who do. This has been such a dividing point and distraction to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, even in a place where we do not have cultural Jews living among us.
    Robert Pristoop I agree Tim that Gentiles should not “act” like Jews. As a Rabbi of a Messainic congregation, I have seen Gentiles who desire to find that they have Jewish blood or insist on doing and using Jewish instruments. I remind them that God has different obligations for Jews and Gentiles so they should rejoice in their calling from God. I remain very Jewish myself that I may win my brethren according to the flesh to their Messiah. However I only preach grace and Christ crucified. I still celebrate the festivals of Lev. 23 because they are worshipful to me-not for salvation or legalism. I use the Jesus or Yeshua depending on my audience. I am not trying to be more spiritual than my Gentile brothers. I grew up Jewish and I enjoy worshipping Jewish just as many on this list prefer the worship of their denomination over another. I can relate to Jesus as the Jewish Messiah when I worship the same way he did while he was on the earth. I actually preach against the very stuff you have complained about. Many of those modern Judaizers are preaching bad theology and doctrine. SO I believe that we are in agreement. People need to be who God created them to be so that they may serve him in the appropriate capacity.

Team GotQuestions Blog

a Blog for Sharing Stories, Tips & Encouragement