MUST GUSTAVO BE REBAPTIZED?

Hugo McCord

Gaustavo, an Indian living beside the Amazon River in the southeastern corner of Peru, was taught by an American denominational missionary, after he believed in Jesus, not that he “must” (Acts 9:6; 22:16) be baptized to be “saved” (Mark 16:16), but that he should be baptized because he was saved.

A correspondent writes that, after reviewing “scriptures pertaining to salvation,” and after reading from A. Campbell, David Lipscomb, J.W. McGarvery, J.A. Harding, Austin McGary, K. C. Moser, and Jimmy Allen, his “conclusion” is that Gustavo was “saved” before his baptism and is not “required by God to be re-baptized.”

It would please me if the correspondent is right, not only for the sake of Gustavo, but also for the sake of my kinfolks, and for the sake of millions of good people who have been taught the faith-only doctrine.

If I am my brother’s keeper, and I know, by God’s providence, that baptism is not because of, but in order to, the forgiveness of sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; I Peter 3:21), and I do not share that Bible truth, do I really love my brother?

Since God did not overlook an error about the baptism of 12 disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7), but required rebaptism, who am I to overlook an error about baptism today? I would advise Gustavo to take no chances, and be rebaptized to “wash away” (Acts 22:16) his sins.

Actually, however, there is no such thing as “rebaptism.” One can get wet twice, but there is only “one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5) that puts one “into Christ” (Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3).

When I was young, an old gospel preacher gave me a sermon outline on “Make It As Sure As You Can” (cf. Matthew 27:65), with applications to atheism, infidelity, infant baptism, sprinkling, the design of baptism, the name to wear, the Lord’s Supper, instrumental music in worship, divorce and remarriage, etc. That preacher is dead now. Did he advise me well? Is his outline out of date?