Not open for further replies.


New Member
I was caught very off guard this weekend by a friend of the family (she's basically an aunt, she's known me since I was born) who was at our house vehemently expressed her disdain for a local Baptist church because they require members to be baptized by full immersion in order to join. Her daughter and son-in-law were considering joining but they didn't want to be baptized because they both grew up Methodist and they didn't want their original "sprinkling" baptism to be rendered "meaningless" by a full-immersion baptism just to join a church.

Having grown up baptist, I don't get this.

Can someone clarify WHY they would think that a full immersion baptism might render their previous one meaningless?
depending on denominations there is technically 2 baptisms, sometimes considered one, but anywho, one being water baptism and baptism of the holy spirit. methodists they see it as a religious ceremonial thing and by the sounds of it, they have a misplaced view on what baptism means and represents. The belief in full immersion baptism is something that was lifted from scripture when they described baptisms as, either in the river or in a pool, referencing or implying full immersion.

for one baptism to over ride each other, that makes no sense and seems like just a religious thing that doesnt make sense. As for the baptist church, for them its a way to make sure everyone is serious about their christianity by only having baptised folks in. someone might be able to clarify some of my points since its pretty bare bones but i hope that helps u
No offense to your aunt but this sounds like her sin nature talking. The main reason someone would have a problem with this is if they are being self-centered and not God-centered. She is wrongfully taking pride in her earlier work of baptism. If you are attending a church and feel called by God to join it as a member then whatever they say is necessary should be a no-brainer. If they say you should have a full immersion baptism you should jump at the chance. What does it matter if an earlier baptism took place. If the elders there feel it is necessary you should submit and do it. I can promise you God takes no offense in a 2nd baptism (at least He never says so anywhere) and they should rest assured that they now have walked in obedience.

However if someone truly has a theological problem with immersion baptism then they should not be asking to be a member anyways as they will "most likely" never be able to fully submit to the elders there if they can't agree on a major doctrine like baptism.
Last edited:
So where I come from here is baptism as portrayed in the New Testament is something that occurs after belief in God, done as a statement of faith. The word "baptize" is from the Greek "baptizo" which means literally "to immerse."

More info here:

Basically I would say that the most literal interpretations of the Bible say immersion is the way it should be done.

Baptism is a matter of obedience, it doesn't save you. Jesus himself was baptized by John, and he "went down into the water" and "came up out of the water." If we are to be followers of Christ, why not follow in every way possible?

Our preacher (David Platt) preached on Baptism here a couple of months ago for anyone interested.

Video -
Audio -
PDF notes -
Locking thread. It has caused unintended side effect and it's not worth my curiosity to cause others grief.

I'm sorry.
Not open for further replies.