Re-Baptism

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 45]

     All that we can rationally and scripturally say of those who believe in Jesus on the testimony of the apostles, and who understand not the doctrine of Christian immersion (of which there are very many persons, I presume, immersed and nonimmersed), is that they cannot here have that confident enjoyment of the remission of sins, that "peace of God which passes all understanding," enjoyed by the primitive Christians and by those who now understand and obey the apostolic gospel; but we cannot say that they never can be pardoned here nor hereafter. This can be said of those only who despise the salvation of God, and who know, but will not do, the will of our heavenly Father.

     Let me once more say, that the only thing which can justify re-immersion into

[Page 46]

the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is a confession on the part of the candidate that he did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God--that he died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day, at the time of his first immersion--that he now believes the testimony of the apostles concerning him, and desires to be buried and rise with Christ in faith of a resurrection to eternal life.

     The instant that re-baptism is preached and practiced on any other ground than that now stated--such as deficient knowledge, weak faith, a change of views-- then have we contradicted in some way and made void the word of the Lord, "He who will believe and be immersed shall be saved," then have we abandoned the principles of the present reformation, instituted experience meetings, committees for examining candidates, changed the bond of union, and made something else than the belief of the gospel facts the faith of the gospel.

     A scene of confusion, such as was never excelled in any community, will obtain in our churches: persons with whom we have communed at the Lord's table for seven or ten years will occasionally take it into their heads that they did not understand baptism at the time of their immersion-- that they were hypocrites all the while, and must now get up from the Lord's table and go to the water, confess the Lord, and be immersed. Thus all confidence will be destroyed; and these twice and thrice immersed persons, fond of making converts to their practice, will be agitating the minds of other brethren, urging the weak and credulous to be baptized as a substitute (in fact) for walking more closely with God: for every member of a church who thinks of improving his experience, or increasing his enjoyments by going to the water of baptism, has been living in disobedience or wilful neglect of his duty, not coming daily and constantly to the throne of grace, not walking with God, not keeping his commandments. Reformation, and not immersion, is wanting in all such cases.

     "To single one motive or blessing and make the understanding of this the one necessary condition of remission, to the neglect of others, is on a par with selecting faith as the one condition of salvation, ignoring all others. Indeed, it is worse, because faith is the great leading principle of all obedience, and more fully embraces all the duties man owes to God, and obligates to all acts of obedience, than any other requirement of man. So if any one act alone justified, it would be faith. But to take one promise that involves what God obligates himself to do and make the understanding of it the sole condition of acceptable baptism, ignoring other ends and promises embodying man's duty to God, is to do violence to the word of God and become a factionist. I repeat that a baptism submitted to because some preacher or church thinks you ought to be baptized is not a whit better than infant baptism performed because the parents think it right. To get every one to have a faith of his own, and to act upon it, is the end to be sought."