Before I get into what this question is and how I would answer it, it is worth saying this is one of those peculiarly baptistic questions. Paedobaptists don’t have to worry about this at all. They have a simple answer: most the people they baptise don’t understand their baptism (at the point it takes place). This is no problem to them because of what they understand baptism to be and what they believe it signifies.

For credobaptists, however, this potentially represents a problem. We believe baptism is supposed to outwardly symbolise the Spirit’s work that has already taken place in the heart. Baptism is the visible outward sign of the already present invisible inner work of regeneration. For credobaptists, if there is no pre-existing faith, there has not been a proper baptism.

The question, then, is what level of understanding is required for a baptism to be valid (as credobaptists might judge it)? ‘Why does determining a valid baptism matter?’ I hear you cry. It matters because, if there has been no actual baptism, a baptism must take place in order for an individual to be welcomed into church membership. Conversely, it matters because if a valid baptism has taken place we don’t want to be re-baptising those whose baptism was entirely legitimate. In short, it matters so far as accessing any of the benefits of church membership is concerned.

There are three broad approaches to these questions among baptistic types. Before I outline them, let me just note that these are broad brush answers. I appreciate there are nuances within and between these positions. One of those broad positions might shake out into two versions of the same position.

First, there are those who would argue that any prior baptism, in almost any form, is legitimate so long as the individual is convinced it is legitimate. It doesn’t matter if there was no understanding on their part  i.e. it could have even happened as an infant with no knowledge of the significance of the event nor what was taking place at all. As long as the individual is convinced it is a legitimate baptism, it is a legitimate baptism. The same would similarly be true of an individual who was baptised as a believer, isn’t sure if they were a believer at the time, but are convinced the prior baptism was nevertheless a baptism. We might call this the subjective understanding position.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, there are those who would argue no valid baptism has taken place unless the candidate is able to both articulate a clear understanding of their faith, the gospel and – perhaps most significantly – the act of baptism itself. It doesn’t matter if the person was a believer at the time and they had a reasonable grasp of the gospel, if they aren’t fully convinced that they properly understood what they were undertaking as they were baptised. We might call this the total understanding position.

Inbetween those two views are those who argue that the essential bottom line of a baptism, along with the presence of some water – some of whom also demand total immersion whilst others would reckon an improper but valid baptism has taken place if sprinkled, poured or some such –  is faith and gospel understanding. This last position could potentially be split into a third and fourth position. Some would argue the presence of faith in Christ, without much gospel understanding, is enough. Others would argue faith in Christ and gospel understanding are two sides of the same coin and are both required for a baptism to be rendered valid. What these positions would have in common is that understanding the significance of baptism itself is less important than understanding essential gospel truth. We might call this the partial understanding position.

The problem with the first view is it can lead to perpetual rebaptism. The person who is unsure by nature may constantly worry about exactly what they thought, felt or believed and, as such, keep asking to be rebaptised because they were not convinced the first one was valid. This is a particular problem for those of an Arminian bent and often leads to the phenomenon of being regularly rebaptised after summer camps and whatnot, as the altar calls and decisionism tend to lead to a decision of a moment and then doubts later on. The benefit of this position, however, is that it does not demand constant rebaptism of those who are convinced (for whatever reason) their baptism was valid. Unfortunately, it makes the church’s view (and, dare I say, the people biblical authorised to judge) essentially irrelevant. So long as the person feels it is valid, then it is. The logic would be rejected in almost every other sphere and is, ironically, accepted on baptism by some who would be quickest to reject its same application in current culture war debates.

In my opinion, the second position is the worst of all possible worlds. The problem with the second view is it can lead to both of the potential problems we might want to avoid. On the one hand, it can lead to the perpetual rebaptism of people who are convinced their former baptism was invalid, as they remain unsure that their understanding was ever quite enough each time. On the other hand, it can put those who state their baptism was valid but the church disagrees into a position whereby we guarantee their disobedience (as baptists may judge it).

Further, this position can tend towards a refusal to acknowledge any baptism that does not tick all the theological boxes of the church at hand. It can similarly make it impossible for some, who are willing to undergo biblical credobaptism by immerison (as baptists judge it) but insist they are doing it to ‘jump through the hoop’, to join the church. I find this position perverse. I understand the desire for people to really want to be baptised for all the right reasons (as we judge it). But I am far more concerned with them actually being obedient to Christ and being baptised validly (cf. Matthew 21:28-32). I think obedience without understanding is better than disobedience due to misunderstanding or rank wilful disobedience.

I, personally, take the third position (the second form of it). I would view faith in Christ and some basic gospel understanding to be two sides of the same coin. I would, therefore, consider a baptism valid if it was undertaken on the basis of faith in Christ and basic gospel belief; I would be less troubled if an individual did not understand the reality of what they were doing in baptism at the time.

The benefit of this latter position is it allows us to recognise previous baptisms even though the individual might have been uncertain about their understanding. If there was any sense in which they had expressed faith in Christ at the time, and we are clear they certainly have faith in Christ now, we can trust such saving faith was present at the point of their baptism. It also allows us to baptise properly those who have been “baptised” invalidly as infants without faith. Those who are willing to obey Jesus (as baptists understand obedience) can be obedient without fear of a rebaptism. It also allows us to baptise those who remain convinced of the validity of what happened earlier, the church disagrees, but they are willing to submit to the position of the church and undertake the rite for the sake of membership. Understanding in such cases may not have moved but the act of obedience, particularly in one who is a genuine believer, matters.