I would have to know all the circumstances of his case in order to answer that. Basically, Orthodox churches consider baptisms performed in other Christian churches to be valid, whether or not they are by immersion.
First, I'm a member of laity, not clergy, so I do not speak with any authority of the church.I dug up an old quote from a well-known poster now absent from CF
perhaps it's my perspective but triple immersion or single immersion seems arbitrary and if it's the latter it shouldn't be a reason to call a baptism invalid, yet it seems to be, at least from the posters pov. I don't see why this is any different in spirit among evangelicals.
I understand it may be flexible but it also seems it's based on who you are talking with. The end result is that there are rebaptisms happening because of how many times a person is immersed by a body that rejects rebaptisms. It's different language, it's different criteria but it's the same spirit. The issue is really what makes a baptism legitimate and if the way you got baptized doesn't meet the criteria of x-tradition than rebaptism is required in order to be a part of x-tradition. They may never call it rebaptism but it's the same values.First, I'm a member of laity, not clergy, so I do not speak with any authority of the church.
I think there's some leeway given to each Bishop on this. Our Bishop will accept baptisms done "in the name of The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" whether it's single or triple immersion. I was Chrismated into the church. The Independent Baptist church I attended as a child never presented baptismal certificates but I was able to get witnesses to my baptism to write a letter verifying that it occured and it was accepted. fwiw
The Didache does offer alternatives to immersion if water is scarce/unavailable. So even the a single full immersion can have an alternate.
I'm not disagreeing with your point; I do think that there is an effort to avoid re-baptizing, based on what I know of the church. ymmvI understand it may be flexible but it also seems it's based on who you are talking with. The end result is that there are rebaptisms happening because of how many times a person is immersed by a body that rejects rebaptisms. It's different language, it's different criteria but it's the same spirit. The issue is really what makes a baptism legitimate and if the way you got baptized doesn't meet the criteria of x-tradition than rebaptism is required in order to be a part of x-tradition. They may never call it rebaptism but it's the same values.
What is your goal in posting this?Baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration.
Regeneration is a saving act of God wherein man is totally passive. God removes the heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh. Man cannot regenerate himself nor participate in his own regeneration. Baptism is an outward sign of regeneration. That is its meaning.
But baptists say that only adults may be baptized because only adults have the ability to understand the gospel, repent, and believe. This emphasizes not God's monergistic action in regenerating a person, but man's response to God and his participation in his salvation.
The Reformed view of baptism captures the meaning of baptism much better. Seeing an infant who has no ability to repent and believe be baptized testifies to us that regeneration is an act of God alone which does not require man's participation.
I think across the board this should be a greater focus to avoid re-baptizing and I applaud efforts toward this.I'm not disagreeing with your point; I do think that there is an effort to avoid re-baptizing, based on what I know of the church. ymmv
I understand the True meaning of the water Baptism much more clearly than at a much earlier time in my life. The question I think one might ask is about the thief on the cross by Christ. That is a Glorious and Loving Passage for those who are included in Mathew 11:28. I pray that I’m included.Baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration.
Regeneration is a saving act of God wherein man is totally passive. God removes the heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh. Man cannot regenerate himself nor participate in his own regeneration. Baptism is an outward sign of regeneration. That is its meaning.
But baptists say that only adults may be baptized because only adults have the ability to understand the gospel, repent, and believe. This emphasizes not God's monergistic action in regenerating a person, but man's response to God and his participation in his salvation.
The Reformed view of baptism captures the meaning of baptism much better. Seeing an infant who has no ability to repent and believe be baptized testifies to us that regeneration is an act of God alone which does not require man's participation.
Read every verse in the NT actually 'referencing' baptism and you can't deny it's a means of grace directed by Christ Himself which is no where negated by a single event of a repentant sinner who receives 'that' grace from Christ face to face.I understand the True meaning of the water Baptism much more clearly than at a much earlier time in my life. The question I think one might ask is about the thief on the cross by Christ. That is a Glorious and Loving Passage for those who are included in Mathew 11:28. I pray that I’m included.
Matt.11
- [28] Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
is there a verse that says baptism is a seal?
the Holy Spirit is a seal for believers - the Bible says that.
Romans 4:11 says that circumcision was a sign and a seal. Circumcision was an OT sacrament. We believe the same terms apply to the NT sacraments.
They were never truly baptized to begin with, they did not believe in Christ repent of their sins and confess that Christ is God before going into the water(full immersion). That being the case they were never truly baptized, baptizing an infant seeks to destroy the whole process of Baptism laid forth by the Apostles and Christ. An infant has not yet reached an age of understanding to even be accountable for sin, they have no need for baptism as they have not yet sinned nor do they understand sin.Furthermore, baptists will say that a person who was baptized as an infant should be baptized again as an adult professing their faith.
But baptism is a sign of regeneration, and regeneration is something that only happens once.
Thus rebaptism also destroys the meaning of baptism.
Even though Jesus Christ said..." He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;"?It can happen that way. That does not mean that Baptism is doctrinally, Scripturally, necessary for salvation.
I agree completely !They were never truly baptized to begin with, they did not believe in Christ repent of their sins and confess that Christ is God before going into the water(full immersion). That being the case they were never truly baptized, baptizing an infant seeks to destroy the whole process of Baptism laid forth by the Apostles and Christ. An infant has not yet reached an age of understanding to even be accountable for sin, they have no need for baptism as they have not yet sinned nor do they understand sin.
There are some things a person must do to receive the gift of Salvation in Yahshua the Christ and the remission for sin.
We must believe that God became flesh, John 1:1,14. We must believe that Yahshua the Christ lived a Sinless Life, 2 Corinthians 5:21. We must believe that Yahshua the Christ died on the cross for us and the sins of the world. Then raised himself from the grave on the third day, John 10:17-18. We must repent of all past sins, and ask the Lord God forgiveness for our past sins in the name of Yahshua the Christ Luke 24:47, 1 Timothy 2:5. We also must forgive all whom have sinned against us or we will not be forgiven, Matthew 6:14-15. We must all do exactly as Acts 2:38 says to do to receive forgiveness and remission for sins, Luke 24:47. This must be done in the(name) of Yahshua the Christ(only) as it was in every account of water Baptism by immersion in water for the remission of sin in the New testament. (One Name, Acts 4:10-12,Matt 28:18-20,Acts 10:48) (full submersion, Romans 6:3-11,John 3:2-7,Galatians 2:19-20,2 Colossians 2:10-15,19-23)
By doing these things we will receive forgiveness and remission for sins. NO other way is written in the word of God under grace, Galatians 1:6-9, Acts 4:12, 1 Peter 3:21.
Even though Jesus Christ said..." He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;"?
The thief on the Cross was under the Old Testament Law and not under grace in the New Testament as Christ had not yet died or ascended on Sunday to sprinkle his blood on the Altar in heaven as a blood offering for sin.If I said that according to Scripture the person who believes is saved, would you disagree with me? Then what if I say the person who believes and keeps himself from the world will be saved? It is not then the baptism, but the belief. When it later says the unbeliever is condemned, it doesn't cite the lack of baptism as a cause for condemnation.
But it goes much farther than that. The cause-effect is not established in this verse, any more than simple coincidence. It may well be, (and I can show good reason to think), that belief is not what saves, but the regeneration by the Spirit according to the choice that God makes --not that we make; i.e. our choice does not save us/ we cannot save ourselves. The regeneration causes the faith, and the faith the belief --not the other way around. (I parse it thus for the purpose of showing who does what. I don't actually differentiate that way between faith and belief, unless, like here, I do it to show OUR act, or decision, to believe is not what saves us.)
But wait, there's more! The thief on the cross was never given the opportunity to be baptised, yet he was promised paradise.
But wait, don't answer yet!
Mark 16:9-20 doesn't appear in many of the oldest ancient manuscripts. It seems it may have been added to the originals.
You're right. I'm also Reformed. However, the Reformed view is based on the old and new covenant, which has God's sovereign actions which we don't deserve at all and human believers' response of faith to raise the child with the gospel. That's why in the Christian Reformed Church, parents make vows to that effect. To have only God's part without parents' vows is a fatalism that's not taught in Scripture.Baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration.
Regeneration is a saving act of God wherein man is totally passive. God removes the heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh. Man cannot regenerate himself nor participate in his own regeneration. Baptism is an outward sign of regeneration. That is its meaning.
But baptists say that only adults may be baptized because only adults have the ability to understand the gospel, repent, and believe. This emphasizes not God's monergistic action in regenerating a person, but man's response to God and his participation in his salvation.
The Reformed view of baptism captures the meaning of baptism much better. Seeing an infant who has no ability to repent and believe be baptized testifies to us that regeneration is an act of God alone which does not require man's participation.