All right, so now we're going to move into questions regarding infant baptism and rebaptism. The first question here by Cynthia Conrad. Having grown up in the Anglican Church in Canada, I was baptized as a baby, then as a teenager, sorry, I'm going to put this up for everybody. I forgot to do that. Then as a teenager was confirmed in the church by the bishop. To be confirmed, we had to take a course taught by the Rector of the Church on the basics of Christianity.
If I know that anabaptism, I know that anabaptism requires adult baptism. Do you think that someone in my situation should be rebaptized? And if so, for what reason? OK. And if Clark, if I could get you to go ahead and read Derek's right after that, because they're very similar. I can answer them together. Yeah, so with Derek as well, I'm not sure how to pronounce your last name, but I'll say Sullyot. Does a born-again Christian who was baptized as an infant need to be rebaptized as an adult?
Would this be a salvation issue for the Christian who is baptized only as an infant? Does it matter who is baptizing them as long as they are genuine professing Christian denomination, pastor, elder, standing, et cetera? OK, so yeah, Cynthia, I really found your question exciting because I spent a few years in the Anglican Church, not the more liberal one, but what were called the continuing Anglicans, who were the conservatives who left because of so many liberal godless things happening among the Anglicans.
And so I understand exactly your situation. In the early church, and this is one of the things, probably one of the very few things I haven't been able to fully reconcile or bring it all together in my mind. In the early church, you had some who practiced infant baptism, and you had those who didn't. And I don't know how widespread infant baptism was. I don't know when it started. The earliest clear references are around the year 200, and they're actually in the writings of Tertullian, who was opposed to it.
On the other hand, he did not call it heresy, and there were no church splits over it, which it really surprised me when I read, because in my experience, that was always something you could not possibly compromise. I mean, you know, you would definitely form a new church over that issue one way or the other. So I don't know fully what God's answer is on that. I can just tell you my own feelings and what I would be comfortable with.
I would definitely want to get rebaptized without having to judge others whose only baptism has maybe been as an infant. Throughout the history of Christianity, so many of my heroes of the faith, that was the only baptism they had. I mean, John Wesley, William Law, Jeremy Taylor. I mean, Francis of Assisi, you can go down the line. The Waldensians, the Moravians. I mean, wow, it would be a long list. That was the only baptism they ever had was as an infant.
I kind of reconcile that in my mind, that God in His graciousness, once somebody comes to their own personal faith, that he can revive that water baptism and make it valid at that time. That's my own personal, you know, trying to figure out how do I look at all of these, you know, great men and women through the centuries. Having said that, like I said, I would recommend getting baptized as an adult on a profession of faith. Not just so you can join the Anabaptists, but to remove any doubt.
I mean, to me, when you're dealing with something, we just saw how vital baptism is, that do I want to take a chance on that? In my own case, I was baptized as an adult, well, as a teenager on a profession of faith with full understanding, full commitment to Christ. But it was as a Jehovah's Witness. I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, but their understanding of the Trinity is defective.
And so I wondered years later, when I came to a correct understanding, plus they wouldn't teach, you know, the correct meaning of baptism. Yeah, should I get rebaptized? Am I missing anything out? Was my baptism valid? And I finally decided it's too vital of a thing. I'm going to get baptized anew. So I did, and there was absolutely no change in my life. So in my own situation, I would say it evidence to me that God accepted my first baptism, but it was a believer's baptism.
Infant baptism, yeah, I would recommend that. I'm not saying that judgmentally towards somebody who hasn't done that. You know, John Wesley or William Law, I'm just saying, with something that important, I would do it. Now, talking about the Anglicans, as you may know, something they have, which I think is a really nice practice. It's called conditional baptism.
And the minister, when he's baptizing someone who doubts their first baptism, he will say, " If you have not already been validly baptized, I hereby baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. " To make it clear, we're not, you know, practicing a second baptism, but if your first one was not, then we are baptizing you now. And we did that a lot in our church back in Texas of people who had doubts. So, and Derek, that, I think, answers directs your question. Does it matter who does it?
Well, obviously, I would prefer to be baptized by somebody who has a correct understanding of baptism and shares my, you know, the apostolic historic faith. But no, I think if I'm baptized by a Baptist minister, by, you know, some other minister who is himself a Christian, I think that's certainly acceptable to God. There was, in fact, the early Christians, I mean, they would hardly never rebaptize. The question came up, what about baptism by heretics?
And most churches said that's still a valid baptism because the true minister at baptism is not the man who brings you into the water, immerses you, or pours on you. It is Jesus Christ. He is the minister at baptism. So even if it's a heretic who baptizes you, it's still valid. Now, other churches said, yeah, but the Gnostics, they're hardly even Christians. And so I think they rebaptized you if you came from the Gnostics. And not every church, like I say, some did and some didn't under rebaptism.
But normally it would be a church leader who would baptize, but definitely any brother could baptize. Normally a sister would not, I would say if it's a life and death issue, I mean, you're in a situation where there is no brother available and it has to be done right then. I think God would accept that, but you know that's not a common situation. Thank you for that.
Yeah, and I guess almost what Paul said there that Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel, almost infers that there wasn't more power in a Paul baptism versus a Silas baptism versus the man doing the baptism wasn't the working agent within that action. I really appreciate that.
No materials available for this lesson.