QUESTION:
If you were baptized for the remission of sins
in any denomination, is it acceptable?
ANSWER:
The controversy over the rebaptism issue has been long and often heated. One of the
early debates that I have in my library between J.N. Cowan and Daniel Sommer
covered this topic. Sommer took the liberal view that those coming from
denominations, who understood what baptism was for, did not need to be rebaptized.
Cowan believed they did. He and others referred to the process of receiving these
people without baptism as "shaking them in." David Lipscomb, who also took the more
liberal view, came under attack from a number of more conservative brethren. Just as
then, so now, the controversy continues. Many today claim that so long as a person
being baptized understands what they are doing and why, their baptism is
acceptable. Others, who are somewhat more conservative, believe that the baptism
must be for the remission of sins, but is acceptable even though it was a part of
joining a denomination. Finally, there is the view that not only must one be
baptized for the remission of sins, but must also be aware of the fact that he /
she is being baptized into Christ i.e. his spiritual body, and not some
denomination. It is the last view that this writer supports. Before giving the
reasons why, let me point out that even though many feel their baptism was for the
remission of sins, in reality it may not have been. I have talked with several who
devoutly claimed that "their preacher" or "their church" baptized for the remission
of sins. However, when checking they learned the very opposite. But what about a
denomination that does baptize for the remission of sins? Can we accept that
baptism? Are those people added to the church (Acts 2:47) against their will and
without their knowledge? I personally do not think so. A careful study of the
scripture reveals that Bible baptism is not only for the remission of sins, to wash
away sins, to save, but also includes "some things concerning the Lord's kingdom."
Peter taught this very thing in Acts 2:29-36. Again in Acts 8:5, "Then Philip went
down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them." What all did preaching
Christ include? Note verse 12, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things
concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ ,they were baptized,
both men and women." Thus preaching Christ includes "the things concerning the
kingdom of Christ and the name or authority of Jesus. When Philip "preached Jesus"
to the Ethiopian (Acts 8:35) he also preached about baptism (Acts 8:36). To
preach "Jesus" or "Christ unto them" is to preach what one must do to be saved and
some "things concerning the kingdom." I deny that denominational preachers who
preach baptism for the remission of sins are preaching the gospel. There is more to
the gospel than preaching baptism. If a denominational preacher were preaching
the gospel, he wouldn't be in the denomination, since the Bible condemns such. When
he baptizes someone, he does so with the idea that they are becoming a member of
his church i. e. denomination. Were you do ask that person after their baptism what
church they were a member of, they would reply by naming the denomination into
which they had been baptized. They certainly would not say "I am now a member of
the church of Christ." Were you to ask the denominational preacher who did the
baptizing if he was a member of the one church he would more than likely reply
"yes", because he believes the denomination of which he is a part is the one true
church. However, such is not the case. No denomination is the one true church.
Years ago Brother Tom Smith of Healdton, OK, used the following illustration,
which I think is as good as I have ever heard on this subject: A man wants to join
the Masonic Lodge and goes through all the requirements to do so. In the process he
passes the morals requirements, he recites certain passages from their books and
undergoes initiation rites required by them. Finally, he is granted membership in
the lodge. Some years later he decides he would like to become an Oddfellow. So he
goes to them and gets the requirements for joining their lodge. To his surprise he
finds that they require some of the very things he did to become a Mason. He tells
them that he has already done those things and wants to be accepted as an Oddfellow
on that basis. They refuse telling him that becoming a Mason did not make him an
Oddfellow even though some of the requirements may have been the same. Brethren,
the same is true with the church of our Lord. Even though a denomination may
baptize for the remission of sins, when you go into that body, the Lord does not
add you to his church (Acts 2:47). If he does, you are added to the church of
Christ, without your knowledge and against your will, for you had no intention of
becoming a member of the body of Christ when you joined the denomination. Who can
believe it?