I’ve shared posts on Why Many Churches Don’t Baptize Infants and the crucial difference between Baptists and Reformed believers on this issue. But you could be convinced that being baptized as a believer is the ideal and still not be sure what to do now that you’ve come to that understanding. Should a person who was baptized as an infant be baptized again when they understand and respond to the gospel? Paul’s interaction with the Ephesian disciples provides an interesting parallel.
The Ephesians disciples are an important test case for rebaptism
The place to start is probably in Acts 19:1-5, where Paul meets some religious folk in Ephesus. They’re called disciples in verse 1, and it’s probably an indication that they gathered together regularly for prayer and the study of the Scriptures. But religion alone—even religion centred around the Bible—isn’t evidence in itself that all is well. Paul proceeds to question these disciples.
They were baptized but hadn’t received the Holy Spirit
In verse 2, he asks whether they received the Holy Spirit when they believed. The incredible promise of the gospel is that when a person repents of their sin and trusts in Jesus, God comes into the person’s life by His Spirit and begins to shape and mature them from the inside out. Strangely, not only had these disciples not received the Holy Spirit, but they hadn’t even heard about Him.
They were baptized without a full understanding of the gospel
Next, Paul asks more about their baptism, “Into what then were you baptized?” They explained that they had received “John’s baptism” (verse 3). It seems that they were exposed to John the Baptist’s ministry second-hand because they hadn’t even heard his teaching about the promise of the Holy Spirit (John 1:33). Paul then explains that John’s baptism was to prepare people to trust in Jesus when He came (verse 4), and he appears to clarify the gospel for them. Their response is immediate: “On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (verse 5).
Sincere, religious conviction doesn’t make a baptism valid
What are we supposed to learn from this passage? You can find people who are sincere in their devotion to God and the Scriptures. They may have participated in a water ritual they called baptism. But if it wasn’t an expression of their faith in Jesus, then it wasn’t Christian baptism. Notice that verse 5 doesn’t say, “On hearing this, they were baptized again.” Their immersion in water in response to the gospel was so unlike what they had previously experienced that it wasn’t seen as a second baptism but a first.
People who have experienced infant baptism are like the Ephesian disciples
Because of the widespread practice of infant baptism, many people today are like the Ephesian disciples. They have taken part in a ceremony that involved water and was called baptism, but it wasn’t an expression of their faith. It may have been a sincere expression of their parents’ faith, but the faith of parents can’t save their children, and so the assurance that baptism represents is inappropriate and potentially dangerous.
Baptism without a faith response to the gospel isn’t baptism at all
Water without the gospel or a response of faith in Jesus isn’t Christian baptism; it’s just getting wet. And so a person who was baptized before they heard or responded to the gospel should receive Christian baptism when they do.
The experience of the Ephesian disciples should encourage us to see this whole process as natural. Paul never condemns them for getting it wrong, nor is there ever a question of their sincerity. Their previous baptism was likely sincere and meaningful—it just wasn’t Christian baptism. The same is true for many today. To be baptized as a believer isn’t to reject your past or your parents’ faith or their intentions in seeking it, but it is to declare your own faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.
May God give all of us wisdom in applying God’s Word to our experience as we journey with Him in faith.
In awe of Him,
Paul
