Why Rebaptism is Considered Heretical
Baptism is an important sacrament in which you are born again, and the “old you” dies off. The apostle Paul says in Romans 6:4–6 NKJV
Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be [a]done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
In Colossians 2:12, it also emphasizes:
12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
John 3:5 emphasizes:
Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
The whole process of baptism is both spiritual and physical. It leaves a permanent mark on the soul. Even Catholics themselves have a similar view to the Oriental Orthodox churches in regards to the permanency of a legitimate baptism:
“Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all Baptism cannot be repeated”
The Catholic Catechism no. 1272.
These and many more reasons I will go over, are why the apostolic churches don’t believe in the concept of rebaptism.
Even Pelagius and Celestius (which I talked about earlier) were great heretics. They made a variety of different heretical claims, but one I want to emphasize is them denying that infants must be baptized to be cleansed from original sin, or the importance of infancy baptism.
While at any age, one who has not been baptized should get baptized, it is important to not undermine the legitimacy of infant baptism.
Many protestant and non-denominational churches (which are protestant in nature), go over certain controversial ideas in regards to baptism. Many Lutherans and (OPC) Presbyterians only sprinkle the head. The whole baptism is necessary — but not absolutely necessary — to salvation is a Lutheran argument, and one I don’t fully agree with given baptism is already listed as a condition for salvation.
However, even Lutherans still have a stricter view in regards to larger protestant errors in relation to baptism.
That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God.
~The Large Catechism on Infant Baptism
While I must emphasize that I don’t believe in the by faith through grace argument (I believe through faith, you must have good works as a response to faith and that the combination of faith and good works are a response to God’s grace), the rest of Luther’s argument in this section make sense. Many protestants take into context Ephesians 2:8–9, but don’t take into context verse 10. Christ didn’t save us because we did good works so he decided to save us, but since he decided to save us we must live out good works as these are his commands. This is further emphasized in Ephesians 4:1–3, Ephesians 4:17–32, Ephesians 5:7–12 and Ephesians 6:1–6. Anyways, I am going off on a tangent, so back to the primary topic, “Baptism”.
Something that the LCMS mentions is,
Luther goes to the heart of the foundational theological questions at issue over against errant understandings of Baptism present among those involved in the Anabaptist movement of his time.
The whole movement of being against infant baptism was heretical at the time, and still is. Even you need to consider a variety of verses in the bible to see otherwise:
The Apostle Peter states,
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the [a]remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
There are also examples of the disciples baptizing entire households, and in response to where infants can believe, I suggest you look at: Matthew 21:16 and Luke 18:15–16. Even baptism was compared to circumcision (Look at Colossians 2:11–12), and consider the abrahamic covenant. If a baptized baby died, in their innocence they have inherited the holy faith.
Many anabaptist movements try illegitimatizing infant baptism, and many people either “dedicate” their children than practice “Believers baptism” or even re-baptism. Both of these practices are heretical. While we went over what true baptism is, it is important to note that apostolic and orthodox churches practice rebaptism in a single specifically rare occasion: heretical or schismatical baptism. In the case of schismatical baptism, there has now been many ecumenical resolutions in terms of going over how the baptism was performed and how to go about accepting its originality. The really absolutely required occasion was, was the baptism heretical?
The acceptance into the Church should correspond to the reality. What was the individual before? What was his faith and churchly life? Did he consider himself a sinner? Did he believe with his priest and with others in the real transformation of the Holy Gifts? Did he believe in the apostolic laying on of hands? Was and is this laying on of hands, as such, historical? Was the baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity and was water used?
~Basil (Rodzianko) of San Francisco (Russia Orthodox “Eastern”)
Lots of these questions in regards to infant baptism, can be based off the role of the church and how they performed the baptism. Many baptisms have been performed heretically including many non-denominational churches to even say baptism is a symbolical sacrament.
Infact, even many reformist imply, “The British Congregationalist New Testament scholar and theologian H. T. Andrews, after an examination of five texts (1 Cor. 6:11, 1 Cor. 15:29, Eph. 4:5 and 5:26, Titus 3:5), concluded: “In the light of these statements it is difficult to believe that the more neutral phrases, e.g. ‘baptized into Christ,’ ‘baptized into one body,’ imply a merely symbolical interpretation of baptism.”, source seen here.
A non-denominational church quotes, “Water baptism is the symbol used to describe our salvation experience and to publicly declare our commitment to Christ. We practice baptism by immersion — in the manner Jesus was baptized and in the manner the Bible commands.”, which you can see here. Using the word “symbol” and “to describe” implies opposite to even what H.T. Andrews have said, and this is actually heretical. The same heretical nature in “symbolic baptisms” is that with claiming Holy Eucharist as symbolic. The Holy Eucharist is entirely the body and blood of Christ just as Baptism is fully spiritual and physical.
In a case like this, this is one of the examples of a Baptism likely not considered as full by an Oriental Orthodox Church. After John the Baptist baptized Christ and Christ restored salvation to the whole world w/ his death and resurrection, the whole sacrament of Baptism was introduced,
19 Go [a]therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” [b]Amen.
This was what the resurrected Christ commanded his disciples to do. This is why it is important to follow the true baptism, which is non-heretical. This is also why it is important that once one is baptized once, they don’t go back. You are already considered belonging to Christ.
The final question I want to answer is for the people under the impression that they can get baptized apostolic then receive “symbolic baptisms” when they grow older. Believe it or not, there are groups of people out there that believe that if they already received a real baptism when they were infants, receiving a baptism that isn’t actually a baptism when they are older, is just them reaffirming their belief in Christ. This is illogical. It is like saying, because I want to confess my faith, I am going to baptize myself as protestant infront of already protestant people. They think that since they are doing a believer’s baptism when they are older and it is “symbolic” it doesn’t count or undermine the true baptism they done previously. This can’t be further from the truth.
This new age idea of theological and dogmatic thinking undermines the idea of what baptism was intended for and the permanency of baptism. If people can get symbolic or believer’s baptisms haphazardly after they got a true baptism, though those baptisms don’t count, the statement is otherwise heretical. It undermines the traditions of the apostles, the sacrament of baptism and how one was already physically becoming belonging to Christ and reborn, and it is an assault on the teachings of the church. Ideas like these are meant to draw confusion and division.
This article by the way is a call to reaffirm traditional apostolic theology on the matter, not meant to be taken as a direct insult or attack on anybody. The purpose of this article is to reaffirm such teachings and warrant intellectual discussions on the importance of such teachings.
