Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON

I just deleted 3 pages worth of posts. Why, you may ask? It's because some folks think flaming is an acceptable form of debate. It's not, at least here at CF. So, consider this the shot across the bow. Any more will result in the thread being closed and members actioned.

Carry on.
MOD HAT OFF
​

 

[bbbbbbb]

MOD HAT ON

I just deleted 3 pages worth of posts. Why, you may ask? It's because some folks think flaming is an acceptable form of debate. It's not, at least here at CF. So, consider this the shot across the bow. Any more will result in the thread being closed and members actioned.

Carry on.
MOD HAT OFF
​

Thanks. I noticed that the discussion had been getting more heated than I thought necessary.

I sense a general view that baptism is a singular event, even for those of us who have been baptized as adults after having been sprinkled as babies. The sacramentarians would say that my infant baptism was the one and only actual baptism and I would say it merely got my head wet and that the one and only actual baptism was when I was an adult. Ultimately, it is not our views which will prevail, but God's. I will not murmur if I discover I was wrong or crow if I discover I was right. I simply want to do what God commands, which is a far better thing, I think, than those who wish to slink into heaven under the guise of works being evil manifestations of a lack of true faith.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And babies are capable of this type of faith...are they?

No one is capable of this type of faith. It is the gift of God.

When it comes to the gracious work of God in creating and sustaining faith in us, there is no difference between the eight day old and the eighty year old; for grace is always grace.

Our Lord taught us not to prohibit the little ones--that includes infants--from coming to Him. He even says, "To such as these belongs the kingdom"; how can a little one know of God's kingdom? By reason or the intellect? Of course not, but neither do you or I know or partake of God's kingdom by reason or intellect, but--as our Lord says in John chapter 3--by being born from above, "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God".

The kingdom isn't meant only for the adults, but for children and infants as well, it's for all. Indeed, St. Peter in his sermon to the Jews at Pentecost said, "this promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

It would seem to me, then: if Christ invites the little ones to be brought to Him, and if the kingdom is for them, and the kingdom is entered through the new birth, then certainly faith and regeneration is freely available to them as much as it is for us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

No one is capable of this type of faith. It is the gift of God.

When it comes to the gracious work of God in creating and sustaining faith in us, there is no difference between the eight day old and the eighty year old; for grace is always grace.

Our Lord taught us not to prohibit the little ones--that includes infants--from coming to Him. He even says, "To such as these belongs the kingdom"; how can a little one know of God's kingdom? By reason or the intellect? Of course not, but neither do you or I know or partake of God's kingdom by reason or intellect, but--as our Lord says in John chapter 3--by being born from above, "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God".

The kingdom isn't meant only for the adults, but for children and infants as well, it's for all. Indeed, St. Peter in his sermon to the Jews at Pentecost said, "this promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

It would seem to me, then: if Christ invites the little ones to be brought to Him, and if the kingdom is for them, and the kingdom is entered through the new birth, then certainly faith and regeneration is freely available to them as much as it is for us.

-CryptoLutheran

No, we are not. The Holy Spirit drags me daily, despite my flesh kicking and screaming; protesting and rebelling.

 

[Thekla]

And who are you, PaladinValer or anybody else, then, to change the contextual, Biblical definition of "faith" from "faith" in Christ's resurrection from the dead to "trust" in one's parent (s)?

Speaking of "selective quoting", here's your "selective quote" in context:

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." - I Peter 3:19-22

The "faith", which you admit, which must accompany baptism for anyone to be saved is clearly a "faith" in regards to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (which is why one is being baptized in the first place...burying their "old man" that they might be "resurrected" or "raised up in newness of life" and be "seated together in heavenly places in Him") Who has gone into heaven and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him. Not only this, but the resulting baptism is directly related to "the answer of a good conscience" of the individual who is being baptized. Seeing how the word "conscience" literally means "with knowledge", who are you, PaladinValer or anybody else to say that baptism can be performed by proxy, totally bypassing the conscience of the one being baptized? Again, who are any of you to change the "faith" which must accompany baptism from "faith" in Christ's resurrection from the dead to an infant's "trust" in its parent (s)? It's heresy, man! Don't any of you have any fear of God?!? Seriously, I tremble for some of you as I watch in horror while you so casually and foolishly wrest the scriptures, as if somehow God approves of the same. He doesn't.

To note that "conscience/joint knowledge (it is the knowledge of the soul, not the mind per se); it is that which is given by God to mankind to distinguish right from wrong ( a joint knowledge between God and man given by God). See its use, for example, in 2 Corinthians 8 and Romans 2:15: " Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another". In the Romans passage, it is distinguished from "thoughts" (logismoi, and paralleled with the heart (as a spiritual organ).

The conscience becomes distorted, and then seared by falsehood, etc.:
"Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron ..." 1 Timothy 4:2

The conscience, God given, becomes distorted by disuse and practicing, rationalizing and justifying sin: this process (which undermines faith) is not in force in infants as with adults (as they do not yet use reason to undermine faith, nor to deny God).

The conscience is "maintained" through relationship with God. (Thus, the capacity for relationship is crucial for not only the conscience, but faith as well.)

The "old man" is the "person" created by repeated sin, the rule of the passions (feeding the belly), and whose conscience has been overtaken by the fleshly nous. (None of this is the realm of infancy, as infants have not yet become ruled by fallen passions and repeated sin, especially if they are raised in a Christian household. They certainly can develop this way ... but in baptism are joined to God instead of away from the world and its ruler - who certainly thrives on undermining the conscience ...).

Consider: if the maintenance and development of the conscience is dependent on relationship with God (as it is God given) - then how can this really be done without "putting on Christ" ? Otherwise, the training of children is training in law ( a legal phenomenon), not faith. If the 'rational mind' and the exercising of reasoning is what is required for baptism, how then is baptism not a work (as it is dependent upon a biological faculty) ? If grace can "change" a deadened mind or conscience, how can grace not be able to act upon one not yet sullied by embedded practice ?

 

[Jig]

MOD HAT ON

I just deleted 3 pages worth of posts. Why, you may ask? It's because some folks think flaming is an acceptable form of debate. It's not, at least here at CF. So, consider this the shot across the bow. Any more will result in the thread being closed and members actioned.

​

I decided to look back a few pages and see what you took out exactly. I was pleasantly surprised. I agree with the deletes.

Now, I can turn my attention to the other conversation in this thread - it's more interesting anyway.

 

[Andrea411]

MOD HAT ON

I just deleted 3 pages worth of posts. Why, you may ask? It's because some folks think flaming is an acceptable form of debate. It's not, at least here at CF. So, consider this the shot across the bow. Any more will result in the thread being closed and members actioned.

Carry on.
MOD HAT OFF
​

turkeys do fly......

 

[jinc1019]

Since I started this thread, a fact which may have been completely lost by now, I felt compelled to return and reveal my findings of recent research on infant baptism.

After looking quite extensively into the issue, I decided that the best way to try and approach this problem is to address it from the Jewish perspective, since of course, Jesus and all early Christians were Jews. After reading a lot about the Jewish Mikveh, which is essentially an earlier form of baptism, I have come to realize that it is highly likely, assuming of course that the early Christians continued their Jewish practices, that the Apostles baptized infants and that they believed the baptism did in fact cause some kind of spiritual cleansing.

Even to this day, Jews, when converting families to Judaism or even just a baby (because of adoption or something similar), they immerse the baby in a Mikveh as part of the conversion process. It is required in order to be considered a Jew (for both adults and infants).

Jews also require that all converts have faith in their Jewish religion in order to convert. So then, how can a baby convert and be immersed in the Mikveh without faith? Jews traditionally have understood that all initiation rites for infants are a sign of a faith that has not yet come.

Thus, if the Apostles did in fact continue this understanding, modern Baptists would be on the completely wrong side of this issue.

However, and this is important...Jews also completely rejected and reject the concept of original sin. They believe we are born holy and blameless and that all humans were made to be fallible, including Adam and Eve. This is their ancient understanding of the Genesis narrative. So, while they do accept that the Mikveh provides a very real spiritual cleansing, they completely reject that it is needed for salvation, which they also hold a different view on, and they don't believe babies are capable of having any sin. So, if we are also to extend that view out to the Apostles, they would have rejected the modern conception of original sin and the need for baptism to go to heaven.

I wanted to post this since it is a major reversal of my original thoughts on the issue. I think it is, at the very least, very interesting.

Justin

 

[Rick Otto]

To note that "conscience/joint knowledge (it is the knowledge of the soul, not the mind per se); it is that which is given by God to mankind to distinguish right from wrong ( a joint knowledge between God and man given by God). See its use, for example, in 2 Corinthians 8 and Romans 2:15: " Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another". In the Romans passage, it is distinguished from "thoughts" (logismoi, and paralleled with the heart (as a spiritual organ).

The conscience becomes distorted, and then seared by falsehood, etc.:
"Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron ..." 1 Timothy 4:2

The conscience, God given, becomes distorted by disuse and practicing, rationalizing and justifying sin: this process (which undermines faith) is not in force in infants as with adults (as they do not yet use reason to undermine faith, nor to deny God).

The conscience is "maintained" through relationship with God. (Thus, the capacity for relationship is crucial for not only the conscience, but faith as well.)

The "old man" is the "person" created by repeated sin, the rule of the passions (feeding the belly), and whose conscience has been overtaken by the fleshly nous. (None of this is the realm of infancy, as infants have not yet become ruled by fallen passions and repeated sin, especially if they are raised in a Christian household. They certainly can develop this way ... but in baptism are joined to God instead of away from the world and its ruler - who certainly thrives on undermining the conscience ...).

Consider: if the maintenance and development of the conscience is dependent on relationship with God (as it is God given) - then how can this really be done without "putting on Christ" ? Otherwise, the training of children is training in law ( a legal phenomenon), not faith. If the 'rational mind' and the exercising of reasoning is what is required for baptism, how then is baptism not a work (as it is dependent upon a biological faculty) ? If grace can "change" a deadened mind or conscience, how can grace not be able to act upon one not yet sullied by embedded practice ?

That grace isn't dependant upon sacrament.
1Peter3:21 says baptism is the answer of a good conscience.

 

[Rick Otto]

Since I started this thread, a fact which may have been completely lost by now, I felt compelled to return and reveal my findings of recent research on infant baptism.

After looking quite extensively into the issue, I decided that the best way to try and approach this problem is to address it from the Jewish perspective, since of course, Jesus and all early Christians were Jews. After reading a lot about the Jewish Mikveh, which is essentially an earlier form of baptism, I have come to realize that it is highly likely, assuming of course that the early Christians continued their Jewish practices, that the Apostles baptized infants and that they believed the baptism did in fact cause some kind of spiritual cleansing.

Even to this day, Jews, when converting families to Judaism or even just a baby (because of adoption or something similar), they immerse the baby in a Mikveh as part of the conversion process. It is required in order to be considered a Jew (for both adults and infants).

Jews also require that all converts have faith in their Jewish religion in order to convert. So then, how can a baby convert and be immersed in the Mikveh without faith? Jews traditionally have understood that all initiation rites for infants are a sign of a faith that has not yet come.

Thus, if the Apostles did in fact continue this understanding, modern Baptists would be on the completely wrong side of this issue.

However, and this is important...Jews also completely rejected and reject the concept of original sin. They believe we are born holy and blameless and that all humans were made to be fallible, including Adam and Eve. This is their ancient understanding of the Genesis narrative. So, while they do accept that the Mikveh provides a very real spiritual cleansing, they completely reject that it is needed for salvation, which they also hold a different view on, and they don't believe babies are capable of having any sin. So, if we are also to extend that view out to the Apostles, they would have rejected the modern conception of original sin and the need for baptism to go to heaven.

I wanted to post this since it is a major reversal of my original thoughts on the issue. I think it is, at the very least, very interesting.

Justin

"Original sin" is the cause of a condition, it is not an inherited sin. So the baby doesn't have sin, but it is still possibly unregenerate.

 

[bornofGod888]

Jews traditionally have understood that all initiation rites for infants are a sign of a faith that has not yet come.

Jews also hold to "traditions" in relation to circumcision and we know what the Bible says about that, don't we? Yes, we sure do.

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." - Romans 2:28-29

Although many Jews put stock in outward circumcision, God still sees uncircumcised hearts (and ears) in multitudes of them. Did "faith come" after the "initiation rites" of the same? Don't kid yourself. You're certainly not kidding me. Salvation has always been a matter of the heart. For those of you who think that you can save others by proxy, well...

Anyhow, if I'm reading you correctly, then you've opted to go with "tradition" as opposed to the actual teachings of scripture. Not a very wise decision, in my estimation, but one that you're certainly entitled to make.

 

[Thekla]

That grace isn't dependant upon sacrament.
1Peter3:21 says baptism is the answer of a good conscience.

What are the problems with an infants conscience ?

As the conscience is "joint knowledge" (for Christians, that which is given by God to man, and is to direct the actions of man), why are infants incapable of a good conscience ? How does the infant child maintain "joint knowledge" without being joined to Christ ? After all, conscience does not arise from/have its origin in humans. It is given to humans ...

The origin of grace, God, commanded baptism ...

 

[Rick Otto]

What are the problems with an infants conscience ?

As the conscience is "joint knowledge" (for Christians, that which is given by God to man, and is to direct the actions of man), why are infants incapable of a good conscience ? How does the infant child maintain "joint knowledge" without being joined to Christ ? After all, conscience does not arise from/have its origin in humans. It is given to humans ...

The origin of grace, God, commanded baptism ...

No problem with baby having one, but definite problem with baby knowing what it is & using it, as in "giving an answer". We're not even sure baby understands the question.
So the whole thing is an exercise in ignorance.
That isn't a condemnation, tho.

 

[Thekla]

No problem with baby having one, but definite problem with baby knowing what it is & using it, as in "giving an answer". We're not even sure baby understands the question.
So the whole thing is an exercise in ignorance.
That isn't a condemnation, tho.

So in this, do you mean to equate the conscience with a biological function (re: the brain) ?

 

[Andrea411]

Since I started this thread, a fact which may have been completely lost by now, I felt compelled to return and reveal my findings of recent research on infant baptism.

After looking quite extensively into the issue, I decided that the best way to try and approach this problem is to address it from the Jewish perspective, since of course, Jesus and all early Christians were Jews. After reading a lot about the Jewish Mikveh, which is essentially an earlier form of baptism, I have come to realize that it is highly likely, assuming of course that the early Christians continued their Jewish practices, that the Apostles baptized infants and that they believed the baptism did in fact cause some kind of spiritual cleansing.

Even to this day, Jews, when converting families to Judaism or even just a baby (because of adoption or something similar), they immerse the baby in a Mikveh as part of the conversion process. It is required in order to be considered a Jew (for both adults and infants).

Jews also require that all converts have faith in their Jewish religion in order to convert. So then, how can a baby convert and be immersed in the Mikveh without faith? Jews traditionally have understood that all initiation rites for infants are a sign of a faith that has not yet come.

Thus, if the Apostles did in fact continue this understanding, modern Baptists would be on the completely wrong side of this issue.

However, and this is important...Jews also completely rejected and reject the concept of original sin. They believe we are born holy and blameless and that all humans were made to be fallible, including Adam and Eve. This is their ancient understanding of the Genesis narrative. So, while they do accept that the Mikveh provides a very real spiritual cleansing, they completely reject that it is needed for salvation, which they also hold a different view on, and they don't believe babies are capable of having any sin. So, if we are also to extend that view out to the Apostles, they would have rejected the modern conception of original sin and the need for baptism to go to heaven.


I wanted to post this since it is a major reversal of my original thoughts on the issue. I think it is, at the very least, very interesting.

Justin

in which case you might find this interesting... bbyrd009 linked me to it God bless, andrea

How to Recognize the Fallacy of Death Centric Western Christian Models

 

[Rick Otto]

So in this, do you mean to equate the conscience with a biological function (re: the brain) ?

It would be a mistake to equate, but it would also be a mistake not to correlate. The brain is just a vessel, but it is never the less mission essential.

 

[Rick Otto]

in which case you might find this interesting... bbyrd009 linked me to it God bless, andrea

How to Recognize the Fallacy of Death Centric Western Christian Models

I'm finding it interesting, but...

"The concept of Original Sin and the fall/redemption model are primary in Western Christianity (born a sinner); yet they are unknown to Judaism and the rest of Christianity," as strange as this might seem to you. "This is strong language; to call a doctrine 'alien' that Christians believe they found in Jewish Scriptures. But today, Biblical scholars who are themselves Christian agree that original sin is not found in the Bible."

Original sin being foreign to Judaism is not at all a problem for me, & I can only imagine why this author might think it would be. What this person means by "the rest of Christianity" sounds open ended as if being ill defined gives it a larger appearance. Biblical scholars are a dime a dozen, so them not finding something in scripture is pretty rote. I'll continue a bit further, but I'm somewhat discouraged by what appear to be underpinnings for this critique. It is my opinion that 'the culture of death' is worldwide, it just manifests in the West with an amplification that makes the East look tame by comparison, & a lot of that can be attributed to the growth of mass media along with 'the culture of freedom' that fostered it.

 

[Rick Otto]

"The doctrine of original sin is not found in any of the writings of the Old Testament. It is certainly not in chapters one to three of Genesis." Herbert Haag, former president of the Catholic Bible Association of Germany, Is Original Sin in Scripture?; "Most Orthodox theologians reject the idea of 'original guilt'...Men automatically inherit Adam's corruption and mortality, but not his guilt." Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (Middlesex, England 1963)"

Yes, Original sin is not guilt, it is this "corruption" that unregenerate nature that will resist even the providence of natural moral law (an eye for an eye, for eg.)

Semantic confusion.