Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[PaladinValer]

As I've already said, I was referring to the trend throughout the thread and don't see the logic in quoting an enormous amount of it.

There are several trends.

Nor am I unfamiliar with referencing. It is actually possible that women are educated now days.

Pardon me? I never suggested or implied that women aren't educated. A little research in my posting history should quash any sort of idea that I think women are lesser, dumb, shouldn't be educated, etc.

agree

Ideal and what one experiences in reality can be two rather differing things.

Except official positions trump experience. Experience can vary; truth does not. It is very postmodern to suggest that "okay, the official stance is x but I've experienced those that disagree and are ~x so really, it depends". It doesn't depend; there are folks within my own church that sadly disagree and don't believe in the Trinity dogma; does that mean my church teaches that? No; I can cite official statements, let alone the Book of Common Prayer, to quash any such idea.

On the contrary, it's saying 'people' screwed up.

That isn't the position of historic theology theology however.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Using that logic, perhaps we should be baptized weekly. We could say that each time it's done, the meaning is made stronger in our minds and we appreciate Jesus all the more, etc. <snip>

Or we can, and some of us do make the sign of the Holy Cross many times a day in remembrance of our baptism.

<snip>
I agree with the first three points without question: water, Word (since God administers the grace), and not the one administering it (otherwise we'd be Donatists or Montanists!). However, there is one issue about the one receiving it. I do get what you mean; but there is the issue of what faith in God or sometimes more specifically Jesus are we talking about. If the church is Trinitarian but the individual is not (or if the religion is non-Trinitarian but the individual is - strange situation perhaps, but very possible still), the what then? Both of our churches reject non-Trinitarian baptisms so if the individual isn't Trinitarian but is getting baptized, is it valid?

One could hardly call a new-born baby a "Trinitarian"; but I believe that baptism has a part in that. If the Holy Spirit is bestowed as we believe it is in baptism, then we can rely on the work of the Spirit to do what He does best which is, as Luther stated in his explanation of the third article of the Apostles Creed:

The Third Article.​

Of Sanctification.​

I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.​

What does this mean?--Answer.
I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.

 

[Albion]

Or we can, and some of us do make the sign of the Holy Cross many times a day in remembrance of our baptism.

If you wish...but that's not a baptism.

 

[Crandaddy]

If a Catholic has ever told you that you have to be baptized by the Catholics themselves in order to be communed in a Catholic Church, then that Catholic is dead wrong. I'm composing this on my phone, so I can't easily cite the sources right now to prove my point. I will when I get the chance, though.

As promised, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[l]" 1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57[bless and do not curse]In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. the Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation."[/I] (source)

" 1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.82[bless and do not curse]Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated." (source)

There ya have it. What this means is that if you have to be baptized by the Catholics themselves in order to be communed by them, then those validly baptized by non-Catholics can't ever be communed in a Catholic Church, and it would take a pretty stupid Catholic to make a claim like that.

 

[Crandaddy]

Someone needs to tell those silly Catholics to take the curse words out of their catechism. Tsk tsk...

 

[Colleen1]

A necessary condition for blasphemy or any other sin is knowledgeable and willful intent. It is impossible to accidentally commit sin. If someone performs an un-conditional baptism on an already baptized person, but (s)he is perfectly ignorant of that previous baptism without any reasonable means of learning of it, then (s)he does not commit the sin of re-baptism, because (s)he does not re-baptize intentionally.

Similarly, I don't think someone who honestly does not understand the nature of Holy Baptism sins by re-baptizing or being re-baptized, if (s)he honestly does not see anything wrong with it. I, for example, was baptized in the Methodist Church by sprinkling as a child, but a few years later, as a teenager, I chose to be re-baptized in a Baptist church by immersion, because at the time, I wanted a "believer's baptism" and believed that baptism is supposed to be by immersion. I now realize that I was in fact re-baptized in that Baptist church, but I don't lose any sleep over it because I was perfectly ignorant of any wrongdoing when I agreed to that second baptism.

The condition "If thou art not already baptized" renders null the baptismal formula proper if the person has in fact already been baptized, so a conditional baptism can never be a re-baptism.

I think at this point I need to agree to disagree with some of the reasoning. I've expressed my views and the reasons why throughout the thread and we have differing views. ...which is fine. I can allow you to have your view and same regarding myself.

If a Catholic has ever told you that you have to be baptized by the Catholics themselves in order to be communed in a Catholic Church, then that Catholic is dead wrong. I'm composing this on my phone, so I can't easily cite the sources right now to prove my point. I will when I get the chance, though.

There are varying views within the Catholic Church as there is within other orthodox Christian churches. I'm aware of the differences among some.

Okay, this has had me a bit confused: When you say "orthodox," do you mean that as in correctly-believing, or do mean it as in the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox churches? I think you mean the former, but I'm not sure. It is certainly true that different churches have different views on a wide variety of matters.

orthodox Christian churches.... small 'o'. Nicene Creed believing churches.

 

[Colleen1]

Except official positions trump experience. Experience can vary; truth does not. It is very postmodern to suggest that "okay, the official stance is x but I've experienced those that disagree and are ~x so really, it depends". It doesn't depend; there are folks within my own church that sadly disagree and don't believe in the Trinity dogma; does that mean my church teaches that? No; I can cite official statements, let alone the Book of Common Prayer, to quash any such idea.

I disagree. Reality of the situation and one's experiences matter a great deal because it is that which is exhibiting the realities of that church. EG. is what one church says really how the church is functioning. Not just talking the talk.

 

[Crandaddy]

I think at this point I need to agree to disagree with some of the reasoning. I've expressed my views and the reasons why throughout the thread and we have differing views. ...which is fine. I can allow you to have your view and same regarding myself.

Fair enough.

There are varying views within the Catholic Church as there is within other orthodox Christian churches. I'm aware of the differences among some.

Well, if they insist that their church has to baptize you for it to be valid, then they're at odds with their own church's official teaching, as I've demonstrated from their own official catechism.

orthodox Christian churches.... small 'o'. Nicene Creed believing churches.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Rev Randy]

I was being facetious when I used the term fine line.

Are you assuming I'm evangelical?

Yes, salvation is important. So considering this, if you believe baptism is a part of salvation then why would it be so very wrong to be baptized twice / rebaptized. I'm aware you did not call it blasphemous but .... to think it so very wrong.... I don't exactly agree with some of the reasoning that has been presented in this thread at times.

As you have the generic faith icon I can't do any assuming. Your position seems to lean evangelic.
So are you Liturgical?

 

[Colleen1]

As you have the generic faith icon I can't do any assuming. Your position seems to lean evangelic.
So are you Liturgical?

I define my beliefs simply as Christian. I have experienced and learned about several different orthodox Christian churches. So yeah, I'm aware of the differences among many etc. I see strengths and weakness in each of them. My beliefs are based to a very great degree on Bible.

 

[PaladinValer]

I disagree. Reality of the situation and one's experiences matter a great deal because it is that which is exhibiting the realities of that church.

I'm sorry, but just because, for example, a Baptist minister who teaches Real Presence theology and Apostolic Succession doesn't mean that his or her denomination teach those as well, especially if it can be proven otherwise with official statements from that said denomination. This is called the Fallacy of Composition; just because part of the whole has a certain quality does not mean the whole also is of that quality.

Experience means absolutely nothing if official practice or belief show otherwise. One bad apple does not spoil the whole tree; one United Methodist minister who is caught abusing children does not mean all United Methodist ministers are the same or that their denomination doesn't condemn such behavior.

EG. is what one church says really how the church is functioning. Not just talking the talk.

"Is what Christian says really how Christianity is functioning"

Think carefully; all I did was essentially exchange words, and there is absolutely no denying that Christians behave poorly; this is your argument, given back to you. Do you still agree with it?

It is illogical; the quality of the few does not automatically represent the quality of the whole.

 

[Rev Randy]

I define my beliefs simply as Christian. I have experienced and learned about several different orthodox Christian churches. So yeah, I'm aware of the differences among many etc. I see strengths and weakness in each of them. My beliefs are based to a very great degree on Bible.

So somewhere in between?

 

[Colleen1]

So somewhere in between?

lol It depends on the subject.

 

[Rev Randy]

lol It depends on the subject.

Oakey doakey.

 

[Colleen1]

Oakey doakey.

lol I guess that means there will be lots to debate here in GT.

 

[shturt678]

Or we can, and some of us do make the sign of the Holy Cross many times a day in remembrance of our baptism.

One could hardly call a new-born baby a "Trinitarian"; but I believe that baptism has a part in that. If the Holy Spirit is bestowed as we believe it is in baptism, then we can rely on the work of the Spirit to do what He does best which is, as Luther stated in his explanation of the third article of the Apostles Creed:

This is where brother Mark and I agree in totality. My "sanctification" take off verse always has been ICor.6:11, to be water baptized, even those just out of the womb, are to be sanctified. Agape that small Catechism, ie, biggg to me. Just ol' old toothless Jack gumming some Hawaiian poi this morning.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Renaissance art is not a source of truth, but of the artist's own mind or fantasy. If I am too young to know what a commitment is, let alone make a commitment to Christ, it is not a baptism. I know there are 'church teachings' that say different, but the Bible is my source of authority not some church. My first baptism was not only invalid, it was not a baptism at all by definition on at least two criteria found in the Bible: Immersion and commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ. If you want to believe that you had a valid baptism before you could walk or talk, fine, but do not tell me that mine was - that is between me and God.

You were too young to make all sorts of decisions, which were made for you by your parents. They're responsible for the condition of your soul, too. Also, your parents have the power to speak for you. Therefore, they have the power to have you baptized.

If the Bible is your only authority of your faith, then you are accepting the authority of the Catholic Church to decide which books are in the Bible. Why would you accept their authority in one thing, and not other things regarding faith? Otherwise, why not accept the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Judas, and so on as Scriptural?

 

[willlowbee]

Perhaps there is no scripture that answers this question directly. However I do not think God would hold it against you if you felt in your heart of hearts that you needed to be Baptized again.

God being sovereign and omniscient would know what compels your heart to action in this way. And when doing so for the love of God and to renounce your sins or as you see fit for what you feel it necessary that this be done, I do not think it could be wrong.

God Bless.

I know this is going to sound like an odd question but is there any reason explained in the Bible or by the Early Church Fathers why a person cannot be baptized (in water) twice? Once as an infant and once as an adult? The reason I ask is because it seems to me like the debate over infant baptism and believer's baptism is easily solved by simply baptizing twice. I admit that only one of the two baptisms would be valid, but if this were to happen, it wouldn't matter which side is right on the issue. Either way, you have a proper baptism. This is, of course, all dependent on there being no prohibition on two baptisms in the Early Church and in scripture. I am not aware of any prohibition in scripture but I know that Creeds say "one baptism" in them. But that's the beauty of this...there is still only ONE baptism. Like I said before, one of the events wouldn't be an actual baptism, we just wouldn't know which one (it depends on which side of the debate is correct).

I am just curious if there is a prohibition in scripture or the very early Church (before 300 AD). I look forward to everyone's wisdom!

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm sorry, but just because, for example, a Baptist minister who teaches Real Presence theology and Apostolic Succession doesn't mean that his or her denomination teach those as well, especially if it can be proven otherwise with official statements from that said denomination. This is called the Fallacy of Composition; just because part of the whole has a certain quality does not mean the whole also is of that quality.

Experience means absolutely nothing if official practice or belief show otherwise. One bad apple does not spoil the whole tree; one United Methodist minister who is caught abusing children does not mean all United Methodist ministers are the same or that their denomination doesn't condemn such behavior.

"Is what Christian says really how Christianity is functioning"

Think carefully; all I did was essentially exchange words, and there is absolutely no denying that Christians behave poorly; this is your argument, given back to you. Do you still agree with it?

It is illogical; the quality of the few does not automatically represent the quality of the whole.

That is why I hold out hope for the Anglican communion. I see quite a few bad apples in it, but I also see the 39 Articles. If Anglicanism were to dispose of those Articles and all that flows from them, then I might lose hope.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

lol I guess that means there will be lots to debate here in GT.

Indeed!

This is where brother Mark and I agree in totality. My "sanctification" take off verse always has been ICor.6:11, to be water baptized, even those just out of the womb, are to be sanctified. Agape that small Catechism, ie, biggg to me. Just ol' old toothless Jack gumming some Hawaiian poi this morning.

You were too young to make all sorts of decisions, which were made for you by your parents. They're responsible for the condition of your soul, too. Also, your parents have the power to speak for you. Therefore, they have the power to have you baptized.

If the Bible is your only authority of your faith, then you are accepting the authority of the Catholic Church to decide which books are in the Bible. Why would you accept their authority in one thing, and not other things regarding faith? Otherwise, why not accept the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Judas, and so on as Scriptural?

Praise and thanks be to God for parents who brought us to the font, so that the old Adam may be drowned in the waters of baptism!

That is why I hold out hope for the Anglican communion. I see quite a few bad apples in it, but I also see the 39 Articles. If Anglicanism were to dispose of those Articles and all that flows from them, then I might lose hope.

Truth is in Anglicanism, that there are few who hold to the 39 Articles, just as there is only a remnant of Lutherans who hold to the unaltered 1580 Book of Concord.