"fake" baptism

[Uphill Battle]

Ok, just a thought.

let's say someone was a "fake" christian. IOW, they said the right things, went to church, etc... etc... but never actually repented.


they were baptised. Let's assume for the sake of argument, they were baptized in whatever appropriate formula exists for your particular church.

later in life, they realize the errors of their ways. They repent.

was their baptism "valid" in the view of your church?

this isn't meant to be a "you need baptism to be saved" "no ya don't" argument thread.

I'm just curious on the take on a situation such as this.

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

Could probably go either way. I would assume that particular individual might desire to be baptised again. The church I attend would say ok. Might ask him/her to explain the situation to the congregation.

Go Cards!

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Ok, just a thought.

let's say someone was a "fake" christian. IOW, they said the right things, went to church, etc... etc... but never actually repented.


they were baptised. Let's assume for the sake of argument, they were baptized in whatever appropriate formula exists for your particular church.

later in life, they realize the errors of their ways. They repent.

was their baptism "valid" in the view of your church?

this isn't meant to be a "you need baptism to be saved" "no ya don't" argument thread.

I'm just curious on the take on a situation such as this.

You probably know what I am going to say. Yes, the Baptism is valid. Baptism does what it does: It removes the "stain" of orignal sin, it is the means by which we are born again, and it replaces cirumcision as the means by which one enters into the covenant family of God.

 

[Uphill Battle]

thanks for your input. There are some that would think rebaptism would be wrong though. I wonder what all the takes on it would be.

BTW, you have a LOVELY family, my friend.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You probably know what I am going to say. Yes, the Baptism is valid. Baptism does what it does: It removes the "stain" of orignal sin, it is the means by which we are born again, and it replaces cirumcision as the means by which one enters into the covenant family of God.

I HAD figured what the Catholic position would be. How about someone who engaged in rebaptism because they didn't believe the first was valid? Would it be considered a grave sin in the Catholic way of thinking?

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

thank you.

Go Cards!

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

I HAD figured what the Catholic position would be. How about someone who engaged in rebaptism because they didn't believe the first was valid? Would it be considered a grave sin in the Catholic way of thinking?

I don't think it is a sin. I think they would just be getting wet and wasting their time - assuming, of course, the the first baptism was valid.

Now, when adults enter the Catholic Church coming from other denominations, sometimes they are given a "conditional" baptism if their first baptism is seen as deficient in some way. Frankly I don't know too much about that subject - I've just heard about it before.

 

[ThomasDa]

1.Repentance comes first, 2.then baptism, 3.then the laying on of hands and recieving of the Holy Spirit.
So, if they had not repented, their baptism would not be valid and yes they would need to be rebaptized. $0.02

 

[Uphill Battle]

I don't think it is a sin. I think they would just be getting wet and wasting their time - assuming, of course, the the first baptism was valid.

Now, when adults enter the Catholic Church coming from other denominations, sometimes they are given a "conditional" baptism if their first baptism is seen as deficient in some way. Frankly I don't know too much about that subject - I've just heard about it before.

thank you for filling me in on what you DO know! I appreciate it.

I wonder though, if it would be viewed as somehow wrong for someone to seek rebaptism to "play it safe." if they have no idea whether or not their first was of any effacy at all.... if they beleived it had any effect whatsoever! So many things to consider.

1.Repentance comes first, 2.then baptism, 3.then the laying on of hands and recieving of the Holy Spirit.
So, if they had not repented, their baptism would not be valid and yes they would need to be rebaptized. $0.02

I'm one of those who doesn't believed the three parts are bibically supported, however, however, that isn't the point. Lets say someone is in your church, and does this "fake" thing as mentioned before. Would that mean therefore, the laying on of hands was to no effect? How would the people doing it know? or the people administering the laying on of hands?

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

thank you for filling me in on what you DO know! I appreciate it.

I wonder though, if it would be viewed as somehow wrong for someone to seek rebaptism to "play it safe." if they have no idea whether or not their first was of any effacy at all.... if they beleived it had any effect whatsoever! So many things to consider.....

I suppose that would depend on their intent. If they are just ignorant about Baptism and the Church's teaching about it (as many Catholics are sadly) then I don't see any sin there. However, if their baptism is a way of making some sort of public statement to refute Catholicism, then that would be a sin.

 

[Sphinx777]

In Roman Catholic teaching, baptism plays an essential role in salvation. This teaching dates back to the teachings and practices of first-century Christians, and the connection between salvation and baptism was not, on the whole, an item of major dispute until Martin Luther's teachings regarding grace. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament." Accordingly, a person who knowingly, willfully and unrepentantly rejects baptism has no hope of salvation. This teaching is based on Jesus' words in the Gospel according to John: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

Catholics are baptized in water, by submersion, immersion or infusion, in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit — not three gods, but one God subsisting in three Persons. While sharing in the one divine essence, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct, not simply three "masks" or manifestations of one Person. The faith of the Church and of the individual Christian is based on a relationship with these three Persons of the one God. Adults can also be baptized, if they aren't baptized already, through the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA).

It is claimed that Pope Stephen I, St. Ambrose, and Pope Nicholas I declared that baptisms in the name of "Jesus" only as well as in the name of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" were valid. The correct interpretation of their words is disputed. Current canonical law requires the Trinitarian formula and water for validity.

The Church recognizes two equivalents of baptism with water: "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire". Baptism of blood is that undergone by unbaptized individuals who are martyred for the Faith, while baptism of desire generally applies to catechumens who die before they can be baptized. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes these two forms:

The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. (1258)

For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. (1259)

Non-Christians who seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try to do God's will as they know it through the dictates of conscience can also be saved without water baptism; they are said to desire it implicitly. (cf. Catechism, 1260). As for unbaptized infants, the Church is unsure of their fate; "the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God" (Catechism, 1261).

Link

 

[SummaScriptura]

Ok, just a thought.

let's say someone was a "fake" christian. IOW, they said the right things, went to church, etc... etc... but never actually repented.


they were baptised. Let's assume for the sake of argument, they were baptized in whatever appropriate formula exists for your particular church.

later in life, they realize the errors of their ways. They repent.

was their baptism "valid" in the view of your church?

this isn't meant to be a "you need baptism to be saved" "no ya don't" argument thread.

I'm just curious on the take on a situation such as this.

Their baptism was invalid, it never happened. There is no real baptism for those who who's sins have not been cleansed by Christ. In their case, "re-baptism" at a later date is not re-batism at all, but their first actual baptism according to how the Bible defines it, ie. concurrent with or subsequent to the new birth.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I don't think it is a sin. I think they would just be getting wet and wasting their time - assuming, of course, the the first baptism was valid.

Now, when adults enter the Catholic Church coming from other denominations, sometimes they are given a "conditional" baptism if their first baptism is seen as deficient in some way. Frankly I don't know too much about that subject - I've just heard about it before.

Is that the historic position of the RCC? I had thought the term "anabaptistism" as defined as "re-baptising" was an heretical teaching in the RCC.

 

[sunlover1]

Their baptism was invalid, it never happened. There is no real baptism for those who who's sins have not been cleansed by Christ. In their case, "re-baptism" at a later date is not re-batism at all, but their first actual baptism according to how the Bible defines it, ie. concurrent with or subsequent to the new birth.

If they were 'faking' it, then their heart wasnt towards God so..
imo, they merely got a bath.

 

[Uphill Battle]

well, let's not say fake. Let's say they believed in Jesus, and what he did, but never "repented" in that they never learned to turn away from their sin.

 

[billwald]

Bible teaches we are all fakes.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Is that the historic position of the RCC? I had thought the term "anabaptistism" as defined as "re-baptising" was an heretical teaching in the RCC.

Not if the first baptism was invalid. There are several things that can cause a baptism to be invalid, in which case the "second" baptism would actually be the first baptsm.

But, yes, the TEACHING of the need to "re-baptise" someone that has been validly baptised is heretical. But I think Uphill was asking more about some average Joe who doesn't know any better and goes gets himself baptised again to just be on the safe side. I see no malice of intent there so I wouldn't call it a sin..

 

[SummaScriptura]

In Roman Catholic teaching, baptism plays an essential role in salvation. This teaching dates back to the teachings and practices of first-century Christians, and the connection between salvation and baptism was not, on the whole, an item of major dispute until Martin Luther's teachings regarding grace.<snip>

The Waldensians, beginning four centuries before Luther, practised believers baptism by immersion, and re-baptised those who had been baptised as infants. So you see, they had it more right than even Luther!

I suspect, many "heretics" followed this manner and that this complex of ideas concerning baptism is recurring and ancient. Unfortunately, during many eras those whose practice was so, would be deemed heretics and killed and their books burned. I have a hunch the methods of John the Baptist have had a way of recurring over time; the only innovation of the Church was into whose name the baptising was done.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Ok, just a thought.

let's say someone was a "fake" christian. IOW, they said the right things, went to church, etc... etc... but never actually repented.


they were baptised. Let's assume for the sake of argument, they were baptized in whatever appropriate formula exists for your particular church.

later in life, they realize the errors of their ways. They repent.

was their baptism "valid" in the view of your church?

this isn't meant to be a "you need baptism to be saved" "no ya don't" argument thread.

I'm just curious on the take on a situation such as this.

Yeppers!

Forgive me...

 

[SummaScriptura]

Not if the first baptism was invalid. There are several things that can cause a baptism to be invalid, in which case the "second" baptism would actually be the first baptsm.<snip>

Really? I'm pretty sure the catholic Church of the third and fourth century is on record for having accepted baptisms by heretics. So you see they did not view any baptisms as "invalid", so the practice of anabaptism in all cases was considered gross heresy.