Credo or Paedo?

[The Liturgist]

In Mormonism a different Jesus is presented.....the spirit brother of Lucifer. And also Jesus with the Father and the Spirit are just three gods in a pantheon of gods.

It is not the SOUND of the name F, S, and HS that gives meaning and validity to baptism, but the MEANING of the sound....F, S, and HS that gives validity to baptism.

Futhermore, the public intent and witnesses of mormon baptisms declare the Mormon doctrine of god(s), rather than historic Trinitarianism.

Credos tend to see an invalid baptism with reference to age and mode. I seriously doubt God is pleased with one mode over another. But the one mode of baptism such as immersion is certainly man pleasing to some Christians.

Indeed. In so far as the Mormons are Tritheists, following the progression from the heretic Eutyches to the heretical tritheist philosopher John Philoponus, the Mormons are the actual sole monophysites, since as we have discussed the accusation of Monophysitism made against the Oriental Orthodox by people ignorant of their theology as expressed in both scholarly and, more importantly, central liturgical compositions in the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian and Ethiopian liturgies, as my friends @dzheremi and @coorilose can attest, is unsupported and unsupportable, and thus the severe persecutions historically inflicted on them based on a false accusation of Christological heresy are unsupported.

 

[The Liturgist]

I see people getting baptized both ways. I do have the desire to be re-baptized.

Why out of curiosity? What undermines your confidence in your original? There are cases where a baptism can be conditionally repeated if there are doubts as to, for example, the Trinitarian orthodoxy of the original baptizer and the formula they used.

 

[The Liturgist]

If you were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit in a Trinitarian church, then there's no reason for you to do so. God's promises don't depend on us, but rather on Himself. What He gave you, what He promised you, and has done for you in your baptism is His work, His gift, His grace for you.

Instead, when you think on your baptism (whether you can remember it or not), be encouraged by the words of Scripture: Christ died for you, your sins are forgiven, the Holy Spirit lives in you, you are a new creation in Jesus Christ, you are born again by the grace of God, adopted as God's child and heir, united to Christ's death and resurrection. You have died to the world, and have been made alive with and in Christ, to God, that you might walk in faith and live by carrying your cross as the disciple of Jesus.

We don't get baptized as an outward symbol for the sake of ourselves, for the sake of others in the congregation, for pastors, or parents, or even for God. We are baptized because God has invited us to have life from Him. Consider what Paul writes in Titus 3:5, that it is not by works of righteousness we have done, but rather the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, God saves us by His mercy alone.

Thus baptism is God's seal and promise to you of what Christ has done, and what you have in Christ, that you might trust and believe, and be bold in your faith that God has saved you, is saying you, and will save you. That you are freely justified by His grace, apart from your own works, because of what Christ has already done for you, for me, and for every sinner.

To get "re-baptized" is, in a way, saying to God, "What you did for me isn't enough, I need to do something more". I know that isn't your intent, I know you don't mean it to be ill-intended. But it is important to know what baptism is and means, because we aren't baptized for God. Rather God baptizes us out of His love and grace. The human person who conducts the baptismal rite isn't the one baptizing you, it is God who is baptizing you. That is why baptism is God's work, not our own. And because it is God's work, we can be confident in what He has done and told us. Believing in His promises, and resting in His word.

Abide and be comforted in Him, who has given you Himself in your once-and-for-all baptism. For God placed His very Name in that water, to call you His own.

If you want a symbol of faith you can express, profess, there are many ways we can do that, every day of our lives. Through prayer, through singing our hymns, through icons, by reading and believing the Scriptures, by holding firm to what we confess in the Creeds. Every day is filled with opportunity to profess and confess our faith, we don't need to "redo" what God has already done to have that.

-CryptoLutheran

Absolutely. Indeed rejection of the efficacy of a sacrament based on the sinfulness or unworthiness of who performed it is Donatism, and it is a heresy because we cannot assume any presbyter is at any time actually worthy to officiate a sacrament.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I do have the desire to be re-baptized.

How can a man be re-re-born? Can he enter again again into a pool and receive baptism baptism?

 

[The Liturgist]

How can a man be re-re-born? Can he enter again again into a pool and receive baptism baptism?

If a baptism was invalid due to incorrect form or other problems, strictly speaking they haven’t received it. The Roman Catholic Church for example will baptize or conditionally baptize converts in certain circumstances, for example, if they are converting from a non-Trinitarian cult like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Oneness Pentecostals or Mormons.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If a baptism was invalid due to incorrect form or other problems, strictly speaking they haven’t received it.

Amen, it isn't baptism if it isn't licit.

 

[The Liturgist]

Amen, it isn't baptism if it isn't licit.

Interestingly, in contrast to the idea of Sacramental illicity, the Eastern Orthodox churches use in this context the concept of oikonomia (economy, dispensation, stewardship, governance) by which stringent canons and practices can be waived or applied less severely when conducive to the maximum salvation of souls, in contrast to those cases when akribeia (strictness) is required for the maximum salvation if souls.

This reflects I think the primary difference between the Latin and Eastern approach to theology.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Interestingly, in contrast to the idea of Sacramental illicity, the Eastern Orthodox churches use in this context the concept of oikonomia (economy, dispensation, stewardship, governance) by which stringent canons and practices can be waived or applied less severely when conducive to the maximum salvation of souls, in contrast to those cases when akribeia (strictness) is required for the maximum salvation if souls.

This reflects I think the primary difference between the Latin and Eastern approach to theology.

I've been the chanter for a number of baptisms. Generally, we will accept baptisms from a Nicene church and simply chrismate them. However, if there is doubt about a legit baptism, we will go ahead and baptize the individual. That being said there are some flavors of Orthodox that prefer to baptize no matter what.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This reflects I think the primary difference between the Latin and Eastern approach to theology.

lenient application is common in Catholic theology.

 

[The Liturgist]

lenient application is common in Catholic theology.

Oh certainly, I am not disputing that, but rather the Orthodox way of thinking about a canonical or liturgical requirement is distinct from the Scholastic Latin approach.

 

[The Liturgist]

I've been the chanter for a number of baptisms. Generally, we will accept baptisms from a Nicene church and simply chrismate them. However, if there is doubt about a legit baptism, we will go ahead and baptize the individual. That being said there are some flavors of Orthodox that prefer to baptize no matter what.

Indeed, the Old Calendarists come to mind.

Among the major Orthodox churches however, the stricter ones simply insist on propriety of form, for example, in the Oriental Orthodox communion the Coptic Church wants people baptized with three full immersions, whereas the Syriac church is seemingly less strict.

GoArch, which I believe is your jurisdiction, used to have on its Archdiocesan website a convenient page listing those churches whose members could be received through Chrismation vs. Baptism.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

the Orthodox way of thinking about a canonical or liturgical requirement is distinct from the Scholastic Latin approach.

Scholastic?
Would you explain what you mean more precisely, please.

 

[The Liturgist]

Scholastic?
Would you explain what you mean more precisely, please.

I refer of course to those epochs of Latin theology regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as Scholastic, until the present (there are post-Scholastic theologians, and we also have the vibrant works of Pope Benedict XVI, memory eternal, which have Scholastic and neo-Patristic elements, but on the whole a Scholastic ethos permeates the Roman church). The Roman church considers the last Patristic theologian to have been St. John Damascene, interestingly enough, and most would probably agree that the greatest scholastic theologian was St. Thomas Aquinas.

Interestingly there is a widespread view in the Orthodox churches that does not consider the Patristic era as having ended, so one could refer to St. Gregory Palamas as a Church Father of the 14th century or St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite and St. Macarius of Corinth as 18th century fathers. This is because the Eastern churches value the preservation of tradition and have a splendid opposition to change.