Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[Rev Randy]

I can't make any sense out of that comment of Abp. Duncan's unless he was being awfully wry, in which case the EO obviously missed the joke. Neither he nor the EOs present were any more Calvinists than they were Buddhists, so I can only imagine that he meant to be provocative for some reason.

That could well be the case or perhaps I spoke about the wrong Bishop. Surely you're not saying that there is not Calvinism within what is called Anglicanism. I think it is within some evangelic types.

 

[shturt678]

You're welcome.

lol Funny guy. I need to keep all you fellas on your toes. I'm the only gal in here at times.

You have an advantage, ie, using both lobes. My age and mileage, only using partially one; however, with your help, help me regarding Matt.28:19, "....baptizing them of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,...", ie, in the Triune's God Personal Name. Then, indeed, absolutely no need of re-baptizing (Sorry, my rendition as tends to follow my RSV Interlinear, and other tools). All of us, ie, sorry, most, are baptizing in the Triune's God's Name ergo no issue? Just stubbed my toe, owe - sorry - ADD type of thing.

Matt.28:19, "....baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,..." requires a sort of paradigm shift, ie, "in the name" I was just curious if onoma "name" could signify the revelation of the Father, and etc.? Shifting more toward "Gospel revelation"? I view water baptism as pure grace, truth, gospel and not a legal rite. Thank you for helping me move this forward. Just ol' old toothless Jack that still has all my toes - just counted them.

 

[Albion]

That could well be the case or perhaps I spoke about the wrong Bishop. Surely you're not saying that there is not Calvinism within what is called Anglicanism. I think it is within some evangelic types.

Well sure. The Articles of Religion, the Prayerbook, and the English Reformation in general show strong Calvinistic leanings; and there is indeed an Evangelical Anglican party in the church, despite all the attention that is paid to the Anglo-Papalists these days and on these forums. BUT Abp Duncan is certainly not of that stripe. Definitely not.

 

[Colleen1]

You have an advantage, ie, using both lobes. My age and mileage, only using partially one; however, with your help, help me regarding Matt.28:19, "....baptizing them of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,...", ie, in the Triune's God Personal Name. Then, indeed, absolutely no need of re-baptizing (Sorry, my rendition as tends to follow my RSV Interlinear, and other tools). All of us, ie, sorry, most, are baptizing in the Triune's God's Name ergo no issue? Just stubbed my toe, owe - sorry - ADD type of thing.

So are you asking why would / should anyone want to get baptized again? Some of us believe that the state of one's heart matters and whether or not they are committed. If they were baptized and not sincere about it then that would have implications and a nonacceptance on the person's part. Same as salvation...doesn't change the power or ability of God but he stands at the door and knocks and we need to decide whether or not we are committed to let Him in and to see Him as our God. Our choice matters.

Matt.28:19, "....baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,..."

requires a sort of paradigm shift, ie, "in the name" I was just curious if onoma "name" could signify the revelation of the Father, and etc.? Shifting more toward "Gospel revelation"? I view water baptism as pure grace, truth, gospel and not a legal rite. Thank you for helping me move this forward. Just ol' old toothless Jack that still has all my toes - just counted them.

I'd like to give this more thought.

 

[Rev Randy]

Well sure. The Articles of Religion, the Prayerbook, and the English Reformation in general show strong Calvinistic leanings; and there is indeed an Evangelical Anglican party in the church, despite all the attention that is paid to the Anglo-Papalists these days and on these forums. BUT Abp Duncan is certainly not of that stripe. Definitely not.

Then I stand corrected as this bishop definitely was. Let me see if I can find that footage and get the correct .

 

[Rev Randy]

Well sure. The Articles of Religion, the Prayerbook, and the English Reformation in general show strong Calvinistic leanings; and there is indeed an Evangelical Anglican party in the church, despite all the attention that is paid to the Anglo-Papalists these days and on these forums. BUT Abp Duncan is certainly not of that stripe. Definitely not.

Then I stand corrected as this bishop definitely was. Let me see if I can find that footage and get the correct one.
But this was a part of a press release:"Despite this common ground, Duncan believes that there are still obstacles to overcome along the road to full communion of the two Churches. He listed three areas: The “filioque” clause, which was added to the Nicene Creed by the Western Church, stating the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, the ordination of women, which is strenuously objected to by Orthodoxy and permitted in parts of the ACNA and lastly, the Archbishop’s reference to the Calvinism of some of ACNA’s membership, prohibited by Orthodoxy and condemned as heresy."
From that I think you're correct but I definitely heard a bishop ask that question in the video.

 

[Albion]

Then I stand corrected as this bishop definitely was. Let me see if I can find that footage and get the correct one.
But this was a part of a press release:"Despite this common ground, Duncan believes that there are still obstacles to overcome along the road to full communion of the two Churches. He listed three areas: The “filioque” clause, which was added to the Nicene Creed by the Western Church, stating the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, the ordination of women, which is strenuously objected to by Orthodoxy and permitted in parts of the ACNA and lastly, the Archbishop’s reference to the Calvinism of some of ACNA’s membership, prohibited by Orthodoxy and condemned as heresy."
From that I think you're correct but I definitely heard a bishop ask that question in the video.

I believe you, but even if it wasn't Duncan, I still am inclined to think it was meant as some sort of teaser or lead-in to something else. Obviously, we can't imagine taking seriously the idea that the EO are "Calvinists" in the usual sense of the word, even if there are Anglicans who lean in that direction on certain matters.

 

[Rev Randy]

I believe you, but even if it wasn't Duncan, I still am inclined to think it was meant as some sort of teaser or lead-in to something else. Obviously, we can't imagine taking seriously the idea that the EO are "Calvinists" in the usual sense of the word, even if there are Anglicans who lean in that direction on certain matters.

I could not imagine an Orthodox as a calvinist in an unusual sense of the word. We just don't cotton to such.

 

[Jig]

Sorry; that's false. The word does not mean to immerse.

In some sense, I agree with you.

One of the reasons the Greek word for baptism was transliterated instead of translated into English was because there doesn't exist an English word that truly encompasses it's total meaning. Immersion is only one third of it's meaning.

I agree with W. E. Vine: "Baptism is not only immersing in, but raising out of, the water. Baptism necessitates immersion, submersion and emergence."(1)

This is why many lexical works on Greek tend to translate the Greek lemma as dip or plunge (2), which is closer to the actual meaning.

Either way, it certainly does not mean to sprinkle or pour a small amount of water on top of someone's head.


1. W. E. Vine, Collected Writings of W.E. Vine (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1996). Col 2:12.
2. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 305.

 

[Rev Randy]

In some sense, I agree with you.

One of the reasons the Greek word for baptism was transliterated instead of translated into English was because there doesn't exist an English word that truly encompasses it's total meaning. Immersion is only one third of it's meaning.

I agree with W. E. Vine: "Baptism is not only immersing in, but raising out of, the water. Baptism necessitates immersion, submersion and emergence."(1)

This is why many lexical works on Greek tend to translate the Greek lemma as dip or plunge (2), which is closer to the actual meaning.

Either way, it certainly does not mean to sprinkle or pour a small amount of water on top of someone's head.


1. W. E. Vine, Collected Writings of W.E. Vine (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1996). Col 2:12.
2. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 305.

Not in the Greek language, anyway. But that does not make pouring or sprinkling invalid.

 

[Jig]

Not in the Greek language, anyway. But that does not make pouring or sprinkling invalid.

At least you recognize that the meaning of the Greek word doesn't fit the traditional methodology followed by many religious Christian organizations.

 

[Rev Randy]

At least you recognize that the meaning of the Greek word doesn't fit the traditional methodology followed by many religious Christian organizations.

Yes we dunk three times. But when it is impossible or impractical pouring can be used. I don't know of any group that sprinkles exclusively. But I could be missing one.

 

[shturt678]

Yes we dunk three times. But when it is impossible or impractical pouring can be used. I don't know of any group that sprinkles exclusively. But I could be missing one.

Good morning praise the Lord gang. If I dunked those little tiny guilty bald headed infants out of the womb, the infant's dad would permanently 'dunk' me, and the Judge would let him go free. Just ol' splasher Jack

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not in the Greek language, anyway. But that does not make pouring or sprinkling invalid.

On the other hand, if the Greek meant "immersion only", thus invalidating any other form, then the ancient Church would have (being that it was quite fluent in ancient Greek) permitted Baptisms by affusion; and yet we find in one of the earliest ecclesiastical manuals, the Didache, precisely that a three-fold pouring is permissible when immersion is not practical.

Further, the "baptism" of dining couches mentioned in Mark's Gospel probably didn't involve full immersions.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Rev Randy]

On the other hand, if the Greek meant "immersion only", thus invalidating any other form, then the ancient Church would have (being that it was quite fluent in ancient Greek) permitted Baptisms by affusion; and yet we find in one of the earliest ecclesiastical manuals, the Didache, precisely that a three-fold pouring is permissible when immersion is not practical.

Further, the "baptism" of dining couches mentioned in Mark's Gospel probably didn't involve full immersions.

-CryptoLutheran

Agreed. Not so sure about baptizing Couches. Didn't know they needed it. But as they were used for dining a good rinse might help. I am joking.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes we dunk three times. But when it is impossible or impractical pouring can be used. I don't know of any group that sprinkles exclusively. But I could be missing one.

I'm not aware of any group that teaches sprinkling/pouring as the only valid method.

The West came into the custom of affusion as the normative baptismal form by the late medieval period; one could possibly imagine mass baptisms of western, northern European peoples during times of mass conversion to have been chiefly done through either affusion or aspersion, and thus attaching such form to the general consciousness of We stern Europe (though that's just a guess on my part).

What is noticeably absent, however, is single immersion. The only instance of single immersion that I am aware of historically was that it was the custom of the Mozarabic Christians in the region of Toledo, Spain. Apart from this, three-fold immersion was the standard for the whole ancient and medieval Church (East and West), with three-fold affusion becoming normative by latter medieval period in the West.

Of course, the distinctive lack of single immersion doesn't invalidate single immersion as a valid method of Baptism. Baptism is Baptism, in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[shturt678]

On the other hand, if the Greek meant "immersion only", thus invalidating any other form, then the ancient Church would have (being that it was quite fluent in ancient Greek) permitted Baptisms by affusion; and yet we find in one of the earliest ecclesiastical manuals, the Didache, precisely that a three-fold pouring is permissible when immersion is not practical.

Further, the "baptism" of dining couches mentioned in Mark's Gospel probably didn't involve full immersions.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jig]

On the other hand, if the Greek meant "immersion only", thus invalidating any other form, then the ancient Church would have (being that it was quite fluent in ancient Greek) permitted Baptisms by affusion; and yet we find in one of the earliest ecclesiastical manuals, the Didache, precisely that a three-fold pouring is permissible when immersion is not practical.

Further, the "baptism" of dining couches mentioned in Mark's Gospel probably didn't involve full immersions.

-CryptoLutheran

I find it interesting that you're willing to accept the Didache as a valid source to build such baptismal dogma on when it seemingly goes against another one of your baptismal positions - infant baptism.

"In fact, the Didache stated that the one being baptized should be instructed in this regard. “Instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before” implies that the one being baptized was of the age and mental capacity to comprehend and obey the instruction. It would seem entirely unlikely that an infant would be able to obey this command. Moreover, if the Didache envisioned an instance in which infant baptism would be practiced, instructions for such a ceremony would surely have been included in the manual. The absence of specific instructions for baptizing infants in the liturgies and church orders into the fourth and fifth centuries imply that infant baptism was a liturgical innovation that did not find universal acceptance."(1)

1. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 170.

 

[Rev Randy]

I find it interesting that you're willing to accept the Didache as a valid source to build such baptismal dogma on when it seemingly goes against another one of your baptismal positions - infant baptism.

"In fact, the Didache stated that the one being baptized should be instructed in this regard. “Instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before” implies that the one being baptized was of the age and mental capacity to comprehend and obey the instruction. It would seem entirely unlikely that an infant would be able to obey this command. Moreover, if the Didache envisioned an instance in which infant baptism would be practiced, instructions for such a ceremony would surely have been included in the manual. The absence of specific instructions for baptizing infants in the liturgies and church orders into the fourth and fifth centuries imply that infant baptism was a liturgical innovation that did not find universal acceptance."(1)

1. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 170.

It does not imply such. The parents make the decision for the child and are bound to instruct the child when the time comes that he/she is able to begin to understand. The Didache in no way forbids infant baptism. Nor does scripture or oral tradition. If my history reminds me correctly, it was a later group that first began to teach a doctrine against it. Luther believed in it as did Calvin. So it was post reformation that this became an issue.

 

[Jig]

It does not imply such.

It's okay to disagree, but at least explain why. I told you my reason for believing it does.

The parents make the decision for the child and are bound to instruct the child when the time comes that he/she is able to begin to understand.

Interesting choice of words..."is able to begin to understand".

The Didache in no way forbids infant baptism. Nor does scripture or oral tradition. If my history reminds me correctly, it was a later group that first began to teach a doctrine against it. Luther believed in it as did Calvin. So it was post reformation that this became an issue.

Explicitly, no. It surely doesn't endorse it though. However, it strongly implies the one being baptized have some ability to understand what is happening to him/her.