"Rechristening"

[Hestha]

If a person is christened at birth and slowly loses faith in Jesus Christ and then returns to the Christian life, would this person have to seek a priest's permission to be rechristened and re-admitted into the Christian community?

 

[drich0150]

If a person is christened at birth and slowly loses faith in Jesus Christ and then returns to the Christian life, would this person have to seek a priest's permission to be rechristened and re-admitted into the Christian community?

It would depend on what 'brand' of the christian community you were seeking to pledge.

 

[Cappadocious]

If a person is christened at birth and slowly loses faith in Jesus Christ and then returns to the Christian life, would this person have to seek a priest's permission to be rechristened and re-admitted into the Christian community?

Not in Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism or Orthodox Christianity.

That person would repent and be healed by the body and blood of Christ.

 

[berachah]

Christening is not a sound doctrine.

As a child, you are under the covering of your parents. (their destiny is your destiny)
As you reach understanding and stand spiritually before God (no longer under your parents covering - this is about early teen stage) you have to make your own decision for Christ...

If you accept Christ as 'your' Lord and Saviour, you make the decision to be baptised into Christ. No parent can do this for you - it is a personal decision before God.

I would get repent of your sins and get baptised asap...

 

[Publius]

If a person is christened at birth and slowly loses faith in Jesus Christ and then returns to the Christian life, would this person have to seek a priest's permission to be rechristened and re-admitted into the Christian community?

Christians only have one priest: Jesus. The role of priests was done away with when the temple veil ripped in two. The purpose of priests was to intercede to God on man's behalf. Now that Christ and has torn the veil, why do we need priests?

Second, there is a difference between christening and baptism. If you're christened as a baby, you still have to be baptised after you get saved.

 

[hedrick]

Almost no Christians believe that you should be baptized a second time. So your question has two answers:

* For Catholics and Protestants from Lutheran, Reformed or Anglican traditions your original baptism continues to be valid. Baptism is a sign of entry into the family. According to the Prodigal Son parable, you can run away from home, but your Father still considers you part of the family, and will be happy to welcome you back.

If you weren't confirmed as a child, most of these churches would recognize your return by confirmation or the equivalent. How much preparation you would be asked to do depends upon the church. Your posting implies a Catholic context. A Catholic church today would ask you to go through the RCIA (rite of Christian initiation for adults) program. This is a fairly substantial study of the faith, often taking a year. At the end, I would expect you would be confirmed and received into the church. If you had been confirmed as a child, I'm guessing they would still want you to go through RCIA, and would find some other way to recognize your return. Protestant churches normally don't have that kind of formal study period for adults, so it would be up to the pastor to recommend an approach. We would still formally welcome you, through confirmation if you hadn't been confirmed as a youth, or through reaffirmation of faith and joining the church if you had.

* For Protestants from a Radical Reformation heritage, baptism is a sign of your acceptance of Christ. They do not accept infant baptism, because the infant doesn't accept Christ. Thus you would be asked to profess your faith in Christ and would be baptized. The amount of preparation depends upon the congregation. Many congregations will baptize you on the spot as soon as you indicate that you have accepted Christ.

Sometimes people have been baptized (and confirmed, if appropriate) but fall away. They then return, and want to recognize that return formally. Exactly how that is done will depend upon the church. In a few cases it might involve rebaptism. But that is rare. Normally it would be a reaffirmation of baptismal vows or reaffirmation of faith in some form.

 

[Cappadocious]

Christians only have one priest: Jesus. The role of priests was done away with when the temple veil ripped in two. The purpose of priests was to intercede to God on man's behalf. Now that Christ and has torn the veil, why do we need priests?

In English, the word "priest" comes from "prest" which is short for "presbyter", the elder in a Christian community.

The kind of priest you are referring to is "heiros".

 

[Catherineanne]

If a person is christened at birth and slowly loses faith in Jesus Christ and then returns to the Christian life, would this person have to seek a priest's permission to be rechristened and re-admitted into the Christian community?

Nobody has to have any minister's permission to attend church, and that is the first step. After that it is a matter of building relationships; with God and with the Church.

You would not need to be baptised again because the Church only recognises one baptism; it can't be done twice to anyone. Anyone who is baptised is a member of the Christian community, but not necessariy part of any given community of believers; that bit would have to start again.

Anyone in this position just has to look around them, choose a church and pay a visit. Then if they like what they find, speak to the minister and find out more about how it works, and how they can contribute to it. Very often the best way to feel at home in a church is to start to help out with something. It is a very good way to make friends, and to feel a part of the wider community.

In relation to Sacraments other than Baptism, the person would need to talk to the minister to find out what that particular church would require. My own would probably require confirmation, or at least strong intention to become confirmed, before receiving the Eucharist, for example, but other denominations will be different.

 

[Publius]

In English, the word "priest" comes from "prest" which is short for "presbyter", the elder in a Christian community.

The kind of priest you are referring to is "heiros".

Gee, how lucky for me that I have you to tell me what I really meant.

 

[ViaCrucis]

When we have been baptized into Christ, rinsed and washed by the regenerative Word of God that proclaims us and adopts us as children of God the Father; that clothes us with the very righteousness of God, crucifying our flesh, burying all our sin in the grave with Christ and imparting in us the Holy Spirit who is the promise and guarantee of the Resurrection--when all of this has happened, it is the indelible, irremovable, most solemn mark of God upon us.

Christ Himself has been etched on our very souls, and nothing can erase that. Once baptized, always baptized.

As the Apostlen Paul writes,

"What shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the One who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, 'For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.' No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Romans 8:31-39

What God has done, no one can undo.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hestha]

When we have been baptized into Christ, rinsed and washed by the regenerative Word of God that proclaims us and adopts us as children of God the Father; that clothes us with the very righteousness of God, crucifying our flesh, burying all our sin in the grave with Christ and imparting in us the Holy Spirit who is the promise and guarantee of the Resurrection--when all of this has happened, it is the indelible, irremovable, most solemn mark of God upon us.

Christ Himself has been etched on our very souls, and nothing can erase that. Once baptized, always baptized.

As the Apostlen Paul writes,

"What shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the One who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, 'For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.' No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Romans 8:31-39

What God has done, no one can undo.

-CryptoLutheran

Not even yourself? Hmmm...

Let's say you, CryptoLutheran, in a hypothetical situation, are raised Christian in a happy environment, until one day your life turns upside down. You begin to perceive that God is hateful and irrational and bigoted and starts hating God for all the hurt and atrocities he has led people to do. So, all your life you dedicate yourself to destroying the image of God by making explicitly anti-Christian comments and burning churches down and destroying bibles, because you perceive Christianity is harmful and should be dealt away with. In this situation, when you die as a staunch atheist but a supporter for human rights, does that mean your baptism has been etched away?

Think of yourself in his shoes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Phelps

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not even yourself? Hmmm...

Let's say you, CryptoLutheran, in a hypothetical situation, are raised Christian in a happy environment, until one day your life turns upside down. You begin to perceive that God is hateful and irrational and bigoted and starts hating God for all the hurt and atrocities he has led people to do. So, all your life you dedicate yourself to destroying the image of God by making explicitly anti-Christian comments and burning churches down and destroying bibles, because you perceive Christianity is harmful and should be dealt away with. In this situation, when you die as a staunch atheist but a supporter for human rights, does that mean your baptism has been etched away?

Think of yourself in his shoes: Nathan Phelps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, my baptism hasn't been etched away. I've walked away from Christ, from the faith, I've rejected my baptism. But my baptism isn't nullified, nothing--not even myself--can nullify my baptism.

If I turn away from my baptism, away from Christ, and actively pursue a life of active rebellion against God I have thrown away everything God has given me--but nothing has changed on God's side. I'm still baptized.

Now, if I do all these things I may find myself among the goats and tares come Judgment, but that doesn't mean my baptism was of no effect, it's because I actively pursued a life to be counted among the tares and the goats.

Or, as C.S. Lewis puts it, there are those who come Judgment God says, "Very well, have it your way"

If I hate God that much, then He might just let me have my way, and have nothing but myself. That is one way of looking at Hell. Hell is myself, forever.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hestha]

We should be entirely too busy dealing with our own sins to be wasting time pointing out the sins of our neighbor.

Your signature is thought-provoking. However, I think it implies on a deeper level that you emphasize moral purity, which is typical of any Christian. There is another member on Christian Forums, whom I think would disagree with the statement that one has to worry about one's own sins - hedrick. I think hedrick, as a Presbyterian, would think that one could not be morally pure and thus it was useless trying to. The best way was to try one's best to do good, which is what humans are capable to do, and serve the community, without emphasizing so much on one's own moral purity or another's moral purity. However, since you are a Lutheran, I suppose you'll disagree with this sort of thinking, huh?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your signature is thought-provoking. However, I think it implies on a deeper level that you emphasize moral purity, which is typical of any Christian. There is another member on Christian Forums, whom I think would disagree with the statement that one has to worry about one's own sins - hedrick. I think hedrick, as a Presbyterian, would think that one could not be morally pure and thus it was useless trying to. The best way was to try one's best to do good, which is what humans are capable to do, and serve the community, without emphasizing so much on one's own moral purity or another's moral purity. However, since you are a Lutheran, I suppose you'll disagree with this sort of thinking, huh?

It's not really about moral purity, or personal piety, it's about recognizing that I am, myself, a strong sinner. That I have my own shortcomings, my own flaws, my own litany of imperfections by which I betray God and fail at being a good neighbor and servant to everyone. Thus, who am I to stand in the judgment of my neighbor, who am I to point out the speck in my brother's eye all the while having this massive log in my own.

It's recognizing one's own sinfulness, and realizing that I need to be on my knees daily in repentance and sorrow for my sin. And, as such, I should be entirely too busy in repentance to stand in condemnation of anyone else.

I think it's really a universal Christian sentiment.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Cappadocious]

Gee, how lucky for me that I have you to tell me what I really meant.

Sorry, did you mean presbyter?

 

[Cappadocious]

In this situation, when you die as a staunch atheist but a supporter for human rights, does that mean your baptism has been etched away?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Phelps

The baptism would then be unto damnation, not salvation. Being baptised into Christ and then hating him is a worse state than the unbaptised.

 

[Hestha]

It's not really about moral purity, or personal piety, it's about recognizing that I am, myself, a strong sinner. That I have my own shortcomings, my own flaws, my own litany of imperfections by which I betray God and fail at being a good neighbor and servant to everyone. Thus, who am I to stand in the judgment of my neighbor, who am I to point out the speck in my brother's eye all the while having this massive log in my own.

It's recognizing one's own sinfulness, and realizing that I need to be on my knees daily in repentance and sorrow for my sin. And, as such, I should be entirely too busy in repentance to stand in condemnation of anyone else.

I think it's really a universal Christian sentiment.

-CryptoLutheran

Right. So, if a person does not believe in God or the supernatural but values the importance of being humble and recognizing that he has his own faults to consider before he either blames it on other people or looks for faults in other people, then does that mean that person is a good atheist? You do know humility is an universal virtue, right? What I am saying is, a person learns the value of humility, not from religion, but from science. As a biology major, I am humbled by the fact that I do not have the knowledge right now to answer today's questions. So, it's best for all scientists to remain humble about their lack of knowledge of the world, because if scientist is not and is in error, then people will make fun of you for not recognizing or correcting your faults. Like the Dunning-Kruger effect, the more you know, the more you realize that you do not know. The less you know, the more you realize you think you know but do not know. To be on the safe side, I think it's best to remain humble, because you may never know if your knowledge is total and absolute and thinking that you know everything would make you sound very arrogant. If one can be a good atheist, then what is the purpose of being a Christian? I suppose it's just a way of life. Nothing better, nothing worse.

 

[hedrick]

Your signature is thought-provoking. However, I think it implies on a deeper level that you emphasize moral purity, which is typical of any Christian. There is another member on Christian Forums, whom I think would disagree with the statement that one has to worry about one's own sins - hedrick. I think hedrick, as a Presbyterian, would think that one could not be morally pure and thus it was useless trying to. The best way was to try one's best to do good, which is what humans are capable to do, and serve the community, without emphasizing so much on one's own moral purity or another's moral purity. However, since you are a Lutheran, I suppose you'll disagree with this sort of thinking, huh?

Just to be clear. I agree with the quotation, when interpreted sensibly. And knowing Via Crucis, I'm sure he does everything sensibly. My problem is with people (you see this all too often in Christian advice) who are so concerned about being pure that they focus their lives on their own sins, typically things like "impure thoughts" and related things, rather than on worshipping God and serving their neighbor. I doubt that Via Crucis is doing that.

I also have technical problems with the term "purity." Jesus speaks of obedience but not purity. The difference is that purity tends to focus on our own moral perfection, which tends to lead to the problem mentioned in the previous paragraph. Jesus doesn't think humans can be good or pure, although we are called to obey him, and will be held accountable for whether we do.

 

[Hestha]

My problem is with people (you see this all too often in Christian advice) who are so concerned about being pure that they focus their lives on their own sins.

Aren't you supposed to focus on your own sins rather than the sins of others? Maybe some people take it to the extreme and that's a problem? So, a Christian should not take things to the extreme, but maintain a healthy balance, right?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Aren't you supposed to focus on your own sins rather than the sins of others? Maybe some people take it to the extreme and that's a problem? So, a Christian should not take things to the extreme, but maintain a healthy balance, right?

There is a distinction between the hopeless despair one experiences when they hear a religious proclamation that confuses the Law and Gospel, which presents the situation of them needing to accomplish X, Y, and Z in order to be on God's good side.

This is what Martin Luther talks about when he discusses his own experiences as being a priest and monk, who felt so utterly unworthy, seeing his sins, and ultimately hating the God who punishes us for failing time and again to do what is impossible.

It's also something I can recall from my own experiences when I was younger. Especially during puberty and adolescence, when I found myself seeing the opposite gender as not a yucky cootie-carrying creature, but as much more desirable, and having an abundance of hormones and sexual thoughts, I felt incredible dread and despair. In fact, I was convinced that such vices were evidence of my own damnation, and no matter how hard I tried to suppress them, no matter how hard I tried to accept Jesus in my life, I just continued onward. I sought out prayer over years, we'd have these youth events where we would privately write down our sins we wanted forgiveness and freedom from and we'd fold them up and put them in a bag or a container, and set it on fire to symbolically say we were giving up our sins to God. And then, for a day or a week, I'd have a spiritual high, feeling good, and then inevitably that would decline and I'd be where I was before.

It was a message of pietism and moralism that I was receiving, not the Gospel.

This isn't healthy, because there's no Gospel in it.

However honest reflection of oneself, an honest and stark look at oneself as a sinner actually is a liberating thing. Not because you should be comfortable or tolerant of your sins (heaven forbid!) but rather because hearing the Gospel rightly preached, the sinner encounters the loving and gracious God who forgives us.

It's not self-loathing, but self-honesty. I am a sinner. I'm a big sinner, an incredible sinner. I don't like being a sinner, I don't want to be a sinner, but I am one. So, rather than going to myself to try and see how I can reach the heights of God through my efforts; I encounter the just and merciful God who presents Himself in Jesus Christ as Friend and Savior. I encounter the friendly heart of God who seeks me out, and comes to me intimately by His Word and Sacraments.

Am I a sinner? Most assuredly. But a baptized sinner. And for me that is a world of difference, it's the cool water of refreshment in the arid desert of despair. It's the Living Water of Christ.

-CryptoLutheran