Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I find it ironic that I've heard it said it's okay to be baptized by an unbeliever.
Yet if one is baptized by another orthodox Christian church it is not good enough even if they are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Just saying this thread at times has been.... interesting.
I don't think anyone would suggest it is "okay". It is certainly irregular and very specific conditions must exist for it to be normally permissible, but it does happen and it is considered valid. The reasons are because 1) the trust is not dependent on the baptizer but the person getting baptized and 2) since God supplies the grace, the state of grace or sinfulness of the baptizer is moot.
The only situation that would allow a non-Christian to validly baptize is if the individual seeking baptism is in grave danger of dying and there is no cleric or Christian layperson immediately available.
Mormons are orthodox Christians?
I don't think anyone would suggest it is "okay". It is certainly irregular and very specific conditions must exist for it to be normally permissible, but it does happen and it is considered valid. The reasons are because 1) the trust is not dependent on the baptizer but the person getting baptized and 2) since God supplies the grace, the state of grace or sinfulness of the baptizer is moot.
I've made reference to certain areas of the thread in general....since the beginning. It's why I did not quote any particular post.
-btw, never said that Mormons were orthodox Christians.
It's often good to quote a specific post, and it gives context to questions comments and observations.
Great! Now we have to move fast forward to Jn.6:70, 71 (including Jn.15:16) and see that Judas was one of the 12 resulting in Judas was one of the "elect" meaning at some point he lost his faith. This is why when I bump into a Judas type once in a great while, I ask them if they want to renew their faith? If affirmative then tell them this will require moving out the antichrist from your heart (IIThess.2:4) and replace with the Holy Spirit at a re-baptism. Then their response is: "I thought once I was baptized that even if I'm a Judas, I cannot lose my salvation." My response is: "This is why we have to purge out 'deception' (antichrist) and merge in 'Truth.' Jesus = Truth of course. Good study my friend.
Don't remember any that (s)he used, but I have a couple of passages to throw atcha:
- James 2:14-26
- 1 Corinthians 9:24-27
I don't believe that it is even dependent on the baptizee, we do baptize infants after all. The water and the "Word" constitute baptism, not the one administering it, nor the person receiving it.
If a person of consenting age and competence were to knowingly and willingly reject their baptism even as they were being baptized, and then, upon subsequent repentance, were to be convicted of the invalidity of that baptism, then I would not object to a conditional baptism for that person. I would not object because I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to suppose that God would honor their wish and not baptize them if they strongly desire not to be baptized.
I should stress, however, that I most emphatically would object to an un-conditional baptism if the original baptism was performed correctly.
If a person of consenting age and competence were to knowingly and willingly reject their baptism even as they were being baptized, and then, upon subsequent repentance, were to be convicted of the invalidity of that baptism, then I would not object to a conditional baptism for that person. I would not object because I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to suppose that God would honor their wish and not baptize them if they strongly desire not to be baptized.
I should stress, however, that I most emphatically would object to an un-conditional baptism if the original baptism was performed correctly.
Regarding James chapter 2, James is saying that if you have faith, you'll have works, because works are the visible manifestation of our invisible faith. A faith without works is hypocrisy. So, the purpose of the passage is not to scare us and take away our assurance, but to distinguish between hypocrisy and true faith.
So what do we make of the boldfaced sentence?Jesus said something similar:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15-20)
The notion that we could ever earn our salvation through our own works is heresy, and “faith and works” soteriologies of the sort that Anglicans and Catholics hold do not make this error. What we hold, rather, is that true faith is lived, and not merely believed. It is by living a life of faith in God's Grace that we both are saved and receive our crowns. Thus, faith and works are two sides of the same coin.So, it is important to understand that we are saved to perform good works, not because we performed good works:
" For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:8-10)
Regarding 1 Corinthians 9, check other translations: Paul is talking about the prize (crown) for our works in Christ, not about salvation.
What would you consider a correctly performed baptism to be?
The baptism must meet the following conditions:
1) The baptizer must use water to wash the person being baptized, whether by immersion, by infusion (pouring), or by sprinkling.
2) The baptizer must say something like the following while making the washing gesture: I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Invocation of the Christian Trinity is necessary for a valid baptism.
3) The baptizer must intend to perform a Christian baptism in the name of the Christian Trinity by 1 and 2. (S)he is not required to have any understanding beyond what is necessary in order to have this intent; nor is (s)he required to have orthodox belief, be a member of the correct ecclesial body, be free of serious sin, or even be baptized him/herself.
So why then do certain churches then believe that unless they are baptized within that certain church the baptism in not valid.
Because they've rejected the Church's understanding of what constitutes valid baptism.
You'd need to ask those certain churches. I would suspect some think their way is the only possible way. Or they see infant baptism as not valid. i don't really understand that as most who would unconditionally re-baptize do not truly find it as salvic or necessary.So why then do certain churches then believe that unless they are baptized within that certain church the baptism in not valid.
You've just describe what you would consider a valid baptism and to my knowledge most orthodox churches would describe it in a very very similar way. So it leaves one with the same question.
It is a great wrong to re-baptize. The Lutheran Parish into which i was born, in the early 1800's released a Pastor from his call (fired him) for rebaptizing a child which had been baptized by it's father in the absence of a Pastor.
Good for them. Intentional re-baptism, with understanding of what Holy Baptism is and what it does, is downright blasphemous and evil any way you look at it.
Some Churches baptize only in the name of Jesus; since we believe Christ's words to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and we believe that it is the water and the Word which makes a valid baptism; re-baptizing members of these Churches would not be "re-baptizing" as such, since we believe that the original baptism is invalid.
Those who don't know if they were baptized, where they were baptized, how they were baptized could be conditionally baptized; better to be safe than sorry.
For a Church to believe in the efficacy of baptism is not required for the validity of the baptism; since it's not a work done by mankind, but a work done by God through water and the Word.
Our confessions state the the sacraments remain efficacious even when administered by evil men.
It's all good!
I don't think anyone has suggested two baptisms. It's always best not to determine one as invalid but to admit we are not sure which one was valid. Unless it was obviously not a Christian baptism. Conditional baptism is a "just in case" thing rather than a 'I don't like that denomination" thing.So on one hand it's being suggested that rebaptism is downright blasphemous and evil....
Yet, despite the possible fact that someone may have actually had a legitimate baptism but don't remember...getting rebaptized is okay...
This is part of my point. There seems to be a very very fine line between perfectly fine and evil. Since some churches don't allow people of other orthodox churches to take communion in their church unless they are baptized into the particular church... apparently any valid baptism as has been defined, in not actually considered valid.
I'd be lying if I said I wasn't seeing contradiction in some of the things I've been reading here in this thread.
I'm in reasonable agreement with this.
So what do we make of the boldfaced sentence?
The notion that we could ever earn our salvation through our own works is heresy, and faith and works soteriologies of the sort that Anglicans and Catholics hold do not make this error. What we hold, rather, is that true faith is lived, and not merely believed. It is by living a life of faith in God's Grace that we both are saved and receive our crowns. Thus, faith and works are two sides of the same coin.
At no point could we ever merit God's Grace, but it is by walking in faith that we accept his free gift of it. By so doing, he sanctifies us and re-forms us into his likeness, so that ultimately, we can look upon him as he is, in his full glory, in the Beatific Vision.
The baptism must meet the following conditions:
1) The baptizer must use water to wash the person being baptized, whether by immersion, by infusion (pouring), or by sprinkling.
2) The baptizer must say something like the following while making the washing gesture: I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Invocation of the Christian Trinity is necessary for a valid baptism.
3) The baptizer must intend to perform a Christian baptism in the name of the Christian Trinity by 1 and 2. (S)he is not required to have any understanding beyond what is necessary in order to have this intent; nor is (s)he required to have orthodox belief, be a member of the correct ecclesial body, be free of serious sin, or even be baptized him/herself.
That is too broad a statement and to assuming to be truth. How do you know what's in the heart of an Anglican or Catholic let alone all. Perhaps we've just met different Anglicans and Catholics. I have a healthy fear of the Lord but that is not why I serve Him. But I'm Orthodox which I noticed you didn't include.As you said, nobody can deserve God's grace, neither before nor after becoming a Christian. So, claiming that you need to behave in a certain way in order for your honest and true faith to be efficient is heretical. Regarding the trees that don't give good fruits, who said they were Christians? The whole purpose of the passage is to differentiate between the nature (not the conduct) of those who follow Christ and those who don't. Catholics and Anglicans live in fear and serve God because they fear him, not because they are thankful for God's gratuitous salvation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?