I have a question regarding a man who was baptized in my local church for the forgiveness of his sins. We found out later that this man did not know about the passage in Romans 6:1-7 when he was baptized. How does this lack of knowledge of Romans 6:1-7 affect his baptism? Should this person be re-baptized?

I am not sure exactly what you mean by this question.  There were 3000 baptized on the Day of Pentecost, and Romans 6:1-7 had not even been written yet!!!  Obviously, one does not have to know about the meaning of Romans 6:1-7 in order to be properly baptized.

Let me guess.  You do not mean to ask what you asked but a different question.  My guess is that you are asking whether a person needs to be aware of the idea expressed in Romans 6:1-7 before one’s baptism for it to be valid (as opposed to this specific passage).  In other words, I am guessing you are asking me whether a person needs to understand that a baptism is a participation in the death and resurrection of Christ, and that baptism is the moment in time when we come into Christ in order for that baptism to be effective.  Let me assume that is your actual question.

I will put it this way.  The Bible does not say specifically that one must be aware of the significance of baptism in order for it to be valid.  According to Acts 2:36-41 (and several other passages which can be quoted if needed) a person must have accepted the message of the death of Jesus for our sins and his resurrection before baptism.  Also, a person must make Jesus the actual Lord of their life before baptism, and one must repent of their sins before baptism.  Neither in this passage, nor in any other passage is it specifically stated that one must understand the actual relationship between baptism and salvation in order for the baptism to be effective.

The only passage I am aware of which might just possibly refer to what one believes about baptism and the efficacy of baptism itself is Colossians 2:11-12, which discusses the connection between baptism and our being “raised with him.”  Here, the passage mentions that “you also were raised with him through your faith in the working of God…”  Apparently, one who is baptized must have faith in the working of God for salvation in order for that baptism to be effective.  Whether this involves an understanding of the role of baptism itself is possible but not proved by this passage.

I conclude that a Christian may have the conviction that an understanding of the purpose and place of baptism is essential to the actual working of that baptism for salvation, but this is rather difficult to prove from the Scriptures.  It would amount to a not-completely-unjustified speculation, but not a well-documented doctrine of the New Testament.  Therefore, I believe that it is debatable at best that a person who did in fact understand the things listed above about who Jesus is, and who did in fact make Jesus Lord and did in fact repent of his/her sins, but who did not fully understand the exact role baptism plays in salvation would need to be rebaptized upon more fully learning that baptism is the point in time when one is actually saved.

By the way, there is only one rebaptism recorded in the Bible, but this one passage does show that rebaptism of a person whose understanding was incorrect may in fact be biblically advised. This passage is Acts 19:1-7.  However, the context is rather different than the one your question is referring to.  In this case, people had undergone John’s baptism, they were not baptized into Christ and they did not even know about the Holy Spirit.  This is a MUCH higher level of lack of knowledge than the one you are asking about.  So, it is a rather weak proof text with regard to your question, but it may have at least some relevance to the question.

One can argue, and I have heard this argument, that if a person was not aware of the purpose of baptism when baptized, then out of an abundance of caution, despite the lack of biblical statement in that regard, that person ought to be rebaptized just in case.  This is not a crazy argument.  Who knows, it may even be valid.  However, it is not a biblically based argument, and I find it interesting, but not compelling.  You will have to reach your own conclusion in that regard.

John Oakes