Confirmation Or Baptism

[eclipse123]

Guy's I was confirmed in an Anglican Cathederal 20 or so years ago! I now attend a different church which is a Pentecostal type church after finding God again.
My question is should I now be Baptised or is being confirmed enough in his eyes.

I'm so confused

 

[Peripatetic]

God's eyes are looking at your heart first and foremost. If you've invited in the Holy Spirit, He is already there. There is nothing wrong with being Baptized into a new church, but doing so or not doesn't affect your salvation. Only your faith and His grace is required for that...

 

[tansy]

You know, you could get many answers to your question.
I' for example was baptsed age 7 in the Catholic Church, then confirmed age 9...but not really understanding any of it, or who Jesus is. I came to know Jesus at age 37, and really felt I should get rebaptzed, as this time it was done of my own volition, not foisted on me (to put it in a nutshell). I wouldn't say it was necessarily NECESSARY for me to do this (that is affecting my salvation or anything), but it was rather for my benefit, and saying to the earthly and the spiritual world, that I was now a follower of Christ.
I've heard of many different scenarios regarding different individuals, church practices and doctrines....and I think, as a previous poster said, God looks first and foremost at the heart. You might ask God what HE would have you do, also read the Scriptures...I don't think you have to be in a hurry about a decision, just wait and see what happens and what for you is right. You could maybe also read up a bit on Baptism from different points of view, and then your decision will be more informed.
Hope I've not confused you even more.

 

[tansy]

Also, I would add (in my understanding), that you are baptized into Christ, rather than into the church.

 

[seashale76]

Guy's I was confirmed in an Anglican Cathederal 20 or so years ago! I now attend a different church which is a Pentecostal type church after finding God again.
My question is should I now be Baptised or is being confirmed enough in his eyes.

I'm so confused

You would not have ever been confirmed unless you had been baptized at one point. One can only be baptized once for the remission of sins.

 

[reigningfish]

The Baptism of believers is a Scriptural command. So, whether or not you believe baptism is essential to God's plan of salvation, it is a command you should obey. Why? Because Jesus desires it (Mt. 28).

Personally, I would not consider infant baptism (if they do that in the Anglican church) to be legitimate expression of Biblical baptism, as 1) infants are not baptized because they believe -- it is involuntary; and 2) there is no Scriptural basis for it.

If you have not been baptized as a believer, you should.

In fact, why would you possibly NOT want to?

 

[FatherHaveMercy]

The Baptism of believers is a Scriptural command. So, whether or not you believe baptism is essential to God's plan of salvation, it is a command you should obey. Why? Because Jesus desires it (Mt. 28).

Personally, I would not consider infant baptism (if they do that in the Anglican church) to be legitimate expression of Biblical baptism, as 1) infants are not baptized because they believe -- it is involuntary; and 2) there is no Scriptural basis for it.

If you have not been baptized as a believer, you should.

In fact, why would you possibly NOT want to?

Well said, I also want to add that if you are baptized you want to make sure its for the right reasons. I was baptized when i was 13 and it was for the wrong reasons so I am being re baptized because now i am a full fledged believer.

 

[tansy]

Well said, I also want to add that if you are baptized you want to make sure its for the right reasons. I was baptized when i was 13 and it was for the wrong reasons so I am being re baptized because now i am a full fledged believer.

Yes, this was one of the reasons I got rebaptized

 

[heymikey80]

Guy's I was confirmed in an Anglican Cathederal 20 or so years ago! I now attend a different church which is a Pentecostal type church after finding God again.

So you were also baptized, because confirmation is for those who have been baptized.

My question is should I now be Baptised or is being confirmed enough in his eyes.

There's no reason to be baptized again.

Look, Scripture doesn't say the baptism of children is invalid; it doesn't comment on their baptism at all. Scripture does talk about children being Christians, though (e.g., Ep 6:1).

Every early mention of the practice of baptism in the Apostolic churches confirms that the Apostolic churches baptized children, even "in-fants" -- that is, children unable to speak.

Further, normally when people approach a practice they look for citation -- but failing a specific citation, they look for a general citation of support. Scripture doesn't talk directly about baptizing infants -- but there are two different general citations of support.

The most important support to me is from baptism being a sign of faith. Generally people claim that because baptism is a sign of faith, it should only be applied to people who have professed faith. This is a general argument, based on the silence of Scripture.

The question I'd have is, is that how God treats all signs of faith? In other words, is Scripture supportive of this principle?

In fact it's not.

There's another sign of faith that's directly stated as such in Scripture. Circumcision is directly cited as a sign of faith (cf. Romans 4:11). So how does God specify application of this sign of faith? In fact, God requires its use at eight days of age (Gen 17:12).

So if God demands the use of one sign of faith at eight days, it's unlikely that we can conclude from silence that God has demanded the use of another sign of faith in adulthood.

I don't think you should just look inside and "feel" whether you need another baptism -- this isn't just about you, it's about God and His promises being applied to you. You receive baptism, you "are baptized" you don't "do baptism".

How critical is this issue? I don't think it's horrifically critical. There're a number of different ideas about it.

For more information about the view represented in this posting:

Francis Schaeffer: Baptism

 

[BridgetsMom]

I am a Catholic, baptised as an infant, who is currently struggling with the idea of a rebaptism, a baptism as a faithful believer, now. What I find very inhibiting is the way that the Catholic church, if you've had a baptism that maybe didn't "count", or if no one knows whether or not you were baptised, is careful to only do a _conditional_ baptism -- essentially saying, "if she isnt baptised, then we baptise her now" -- to be sure that they're not doing a _second_ baptism. Is this because it would be a sin to be baptised twice? Is it rude to God to rebaptise? Is it denying grace?

 

[heymikey80]

I think it's a great question. To me the first issue is whether you're actually doing anything in baptism. If you are -- then it's done with your first baptism. And yeah, in Presbyterianism you are actually involved in something real in your baptism. It's not merely a picture of what's done for you.

There are real theological issues implying rebaptism. But if you're being baptized to the same God, He's specified one baptism.

Part of the problem is that people like to see changing denominations as a defection from another -- possibly failed in their eyes -- relationship with a church. But it's a relationship with God that's instituted, not with the specific church. In point of fact God may be working in people's lives to move them out of one church and into another -- on the basis of His relationship with them. And that relationship was signed-off in baptism.

This unity of everyone who relies on Christ is reflected in "one baptism" (Ep 4:5). But it's a very difficult thing to keep in mind when people are disaffected from one church, and switch to another.

 

[BridgetsMom]

So, what about when people tell me that my baptism didn't count because God tells believers to go be baptised, and that couldn't have been what happened since I was a baby in arms, and hence could not have been a believer at the time?

I want to make sure that I do what God asks of me, but I freely admit that I often can't easily figure out what that might be.

 

[seashale76]

So, what about when people tell me that my baptism didn't count because God tells believers to go be baptised, and that couldn't have been what happened since I was a baby in arms, and hence could not have been a believer at the time?

I want to make sure that I do what God asks of me, but I freely admit that I often can't easily figure out what that might be.

Christianity has so much confusion these days that it is ridiculous. So many groups and denominations say so many different things, yet all claim to share the same beliefs.

I'll just tell you about baptism in the Orthodox Church (apostolic, ancient, and historically proven to be so- and we have always practiced infant baptism). Infant baptism (full immersion and trinitarian) is fine because when infants are baptized it is with the understanding that the child will be raised in the faith, and we do the same with those who are mentally handicapped. We commune infants as well. One can only be baptized once for the remission of sins. It is not necessary to remember one's baptism- what is necessary is that the person who was baptized decides when they have the reasoning skills to do so- to keep living their faith out daily. If a person was never baptized as an infant, is a convert to the faith, and/or they were baptized by a group that holds beliefs that are incompatible with Christianity- then there is nothing wrong with being baptized as an adult.

Read about baptism here: OCA - The Orthodox Faith

 

[Memento Mori]

I am a Catholic, baptised as an infant, who is currently struggling with the idea of a rebaptism, a baptism as a faithful believer, now. What I find very inhibiting is the way that the Catholic church, if you've had a baptism that maybe didn't "count", or if no one knows whether or not you were baptised, is careful to only do a _conditional_ baptism -- essentially saying, "if she isnt baptised, then we baptise her now" -- to be sure that they're not doing a _second_ baptism. Is this because it would be a sin to be baptised twice? Is it rude to God to rebaptise? Is it denying grace?

The Catholic Church calls it a conditional baptism because the priest may or may not be baptizing the person. If he or she was validly baptized the first time, no baptism takes place during the conditional baptism and vice versa. It's not rude to God to "re-baptize"; it's actually impossible to "re-baptize" because--as the Nicene Creed says--we acknowledge ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Baptism leaves a mark on the soul, and the baptized person is adopted as a son or daughter of God the Father. That is not something you can redo (or undo).

 

[heymikey80]

So, what about when people tell me that my baptism didn't count because God tells believers to go be baptised, and that couldn't have been what happened since I was a baby in arms, and hence could not have been a believer at the time?

They're not looking carefully at what they're saying, nor have they looked at Scripture very carefully.

Genesis 17:12 says eight-day-olds must be circumcised. Yet it's a sign of faith (Rom 4:11). God certainly tells believers to be circumcised in the Old Testament -- that's precisely why Abraham received the sign of faith (see Romans 4). But it's infants who end up receiving circumcision. The fact is, God telling believers to be baptized doesn't exclude the baptism of infants any more than it excluded the circumcision of infants.

The question emerges whether the New Testament ever baptized infants. Scripture is silent on an explicit example of infant baptism. However, it's also silent on an explicit rejection of infant baptism. It's simply silent. It's silent.

The fact is, by 200 AD it's pretty well-known that the catholic churches all baptized infants, too. All of them. That's quite a defection, if all of the churches defied an Apostolic rejection of baptism in a scant 100 years. It's much more reasonable to see that the Apostles baptized infants along with a family conversion.

And there are indeed references to small children being Christians (and implicitly, Christians are baptized). Ephesians 6 (Colossians does too) has instructions to young Christian children to obey parents. So baptism isn't an adulthood thing. Acts and 1 Corinthians also cites four families being baptized, implicitly as a group. For all four families to have no small children is something of a stretch -- again, an argument from silence, but still a stretch. Baptism clearly has precedence for being a family thing, too. Yet there are no explicit prohibitions against baptizing infants, even though Acts commends family baptism.

Acts 2:39ff points out the family succession of the new covenant, in much the same way as the old covenant among Jewish people as well. So in this silence it's really more appropriate to apply how the old covenant was instituted in families. Genesis 17 points it out: the old covenant sign of faith -- circumcision -- was applied to infants.

I want to make sure that I do what God asks of me, but I freely admit that I often can't easily figure out what that might be.

Yes, it can be really tough to extract what God's saying, in comparison with what the world's saying.

There are a number of theologies that disagree with me, as you well know. But know that there are Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox who agree that baptism is for infants.