At a recent regional fellowship meeting within my denomination the ministers were discussing whether Christians baptized in water in a different denomination have been properly baptized - do they need to be baptized again. This is not a question that we're alone in asking.
In 2007 Pope Benedict caused a stir by claiming Christian denominations outside Roman Catholicism were not full churches of Jesus Christ because they did not submit to their sacraments. Check out the fourth point of the Catholic doctrine of "Dominus Iesus" (which is what he was quoting):
Those Churches which do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome [insert any hierarchical leadership structure here] remain united to the Catholic Church by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church. On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Catholic Church.
I don't want to condemn the RCC too harshly because many Christian religious sects, including my own, make similar claims (some more overtly than others). Does any Christian sect have a right to require a Christian to be re-baptized? If so, under what circumstances? I will not answer these questions here, but will address more the inclination of humanity in many contexts to create silos and to categorize others.
What is the motivation for setting this kind of requirement? (Acts 19 is probably the only text that can be used to justify the action and it does not appear that it was so much Apollos' spiritual condition and understand as much as it was those who were baptized). For now I will set aside Acts 19 and think about the root of why Christian leaders in general may tend to set up this kind of dogma.
How did Jesus address situations where people were working outside of what he was doing? He didn't seem to put the same emphasis on these things as Christians have for the last 1700 years. In the passage below notice how closely tied personal supremacy is with forbidding people or invalidating others work for God:
Mark 9:33 And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?
34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.
35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and said unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.
36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,
37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receives me: and whosoever shall receive me, receives not me, but him that sent me.
38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he follows not us: and we forbad him, because he follows not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
Does this not seem to indicate that Christ tolerates Christian laborers that do not necessarily gather together? Can there not be disparate groups of disciples working on the Kingdom project? Of course, I would have rather gathered with the disciples. But it is interesting in this chapter that the disciples were not able to cast out a devil for which they were reprimanded by Christ (Mark 9.18,19); but the guy they tried to shut down was apparently having success (v.38). It's funny that they couldn't cast out the devils, tried to stop another from doing it, and then sat around fighting about who was the greatest! Some things never change.
Baptism, like all phases of salvation, is dependent on the individual relating and responding to God not necessarily the ministry (I've known people who have been saved under the ministry of a disreputable man – Baker, Swaggart, et al ad nauseum). Of course a person cannot believe without hearing, but ultimately it is the person hearing, believing and responding. A servant of God is to speak and let God do the rest. I recognize that ministers within the Baptist, Methodist, Assemblies of God, etc., preach their revelation and people are saved and do receive the H.S. So, how can I take the act of baptism in water and say that it is invalid if administered by one of them? Christ was not as fastidious in his dispensing of his Spirit – he pours his Spirit onto people under every Christian endeavor. I want to be reasonable – Christ is less concerned about the ministry than I have been. He pours out his Spirit on more people outside my denomination 1,000,000:1 and I have the audacity to demand that these are re-water baptized!!! The current reality of the Christian world is that it is expanding at an unprecedented rate. There are now more Spirit-filled Christians in Africa and Asia than in all Europe and US. Instead of asking whether I'm the greatest I should be seeking the Lord for more faith to spread his vision for his new creation.
