Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[Rev Randy]

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

Just old Dunker myself.

 

[Pteriax]

1. Ad hom. Direct your rebuts at my positions, not my person. Check the language; I never called you yourself ANYTHING only your positions. A quick relook at the Flaming and Harassment rules is in order.
2. I have said several times knowledge=/=comprehension. You even acknowledged it once, so quite honestly this is libel as well.
3. I have said that one does not need to comprehend the Holy Trinity (no one fully can anyway) to accept the Nicene Creed; they do so on faith, like all do anyway.

Quit the vendetta. Quit the ad homs. Debate theologies, posts, and positions, not the people.

The rebuttal is null and void, as always.

I don't know how I missed this gem!!
I was addressing your position, not your person LOL! I can use the word "you" in a versatile way, as can any with a passing knowledge of the English language. That is why saying "you" isn't against forum rules. You can mean your post, what you said, your position, your beliefs, your group, your denomination, your sect, etc.

You have repeatedly equated comprehension with gnosticism (this is addressing your posts not your person), very specifically at least one time. Now you claim you must comprehend the nature of God (triune for example) to believe / baptize(addressing your post not your person). Everything your sect disagrees with is not gnosticism(addressing your post not your person). A disbelief in blind faith is not gnosticism(a general statement of fact, not addressing your person). In fact gnosticism is (was?) a specific heretical sect that had a specific doctrine! So who has a vendetta!? I only love the Truth and will not allow claims of gnosticism against sound doctrine to go unchallenged. This has nothing to do with your person and everything to do with false accusations of gnosticism - it is those accusations I am specifically addressing!

To learn about gnosticism, check out this site: The Gnostic World View: A Brief Summary of Gnosticism

Enjoy!

 

[Rev Randy]

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

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


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.

I gave the reason you even quoted it. But since that was not enough: Omission does not equal prohibition. There are references and even instructions from the 200AD era. Those references do not come off as new or a change in theology.
The Didache does not address paedobaptism in a negative or positive way. It only addresses credobaptism (believer's baptism). It also doesn't mention singing "Amazing Grace" but I don't think it prohibits it.
Now what good did Circumcision do for the eight day old male? Adult also had to endure this when it began. The Infant surely didn't understand and yet it was God's way. Baptism is the circumcision of the heart.

 

[Thekla]

Re: efficacy and understanding and the baptism of infants and children -

efficacy: my dad baptized a four year old (ie limited comprehension) who was immediately (and til now) healed of a severe behavioral problem

understanding: infants and children often 'understand' about God (and receive Him more readily) than those with "mature comprehension".
(And I can say with assurance that our pre-verbal infant clearly demonstrated his understanding not long after baptism - pointing to an ikon of Christ and then closing his fist and bringing it to his heart.)

 

[Colleen1]

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.

Good points.

 

[Colleen1]

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.

Interesting points. The fact remains that I believe God gives us free will so infant baptism, logistically speaking, is contrary to that. I find the minimal scripture on the subject to be a bit of a stumper.

 

[Thekla]

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.

One cannot draw firm conclusions from limited consideration of source/s.

Consider:

instruction would only be needed for those capable of comprehension and the report it; and, by the time of the writing of the Didache, pagan conversions presented a specific set of 'needs' (ie full re-instruction, as opposed to the needs of those converting from Judaism including pious gentiles)

one would need to define fasting (ie there is full, but also partial fasting - limitation of certain foods, and infants have been known to refuse even their mother's milk on fasting days taking only water)

 

[shturt678]

Just old Dunker myself.

You made an ol' man's day more than you can realize. I'm for dunking if can survive the dunking where I live; only adamantly against water baptism just a "sign" to the point babies are only dedicated, and etc. If that baby wasn't baptized in the name of the Triune God - 'regenerated' - and only dedicated, etc., I re-baptize splashing of course. Thanks to you and my other Lutheran partners re-evaluated my position on dunking if one chooses, No longer against 'diving' or 'dunking' and stand officially refuted. I do enjoy being in error, and God be perfectly not in error, ie, a litotes. Good job my friends. Just ol' non-official Jack.

 

[shturt678]

Interesting points. The fact remains that I believe God gives us free will so infant baptism, logistically speaking, is contrary to that. I find the minimal scripture on the subject to be a bit of a stumper.

We don't want to keep the little bald headed tiny little guilty infants out of the Kingdom do we? Matt.18:6, ie, they even believe in Jesus, and re-look at Matt.18:6b - our deepest water scuba equip. cannot even help at this depth. btw they need the Holy Spirit also, and no 'free-will,' ie, we all have an 'enslaved-will.' Just ol' old toothless 'slave' (IICor.4:7) Jack.

 

[Colleen1]

We don't want to keep the little bald headed tiny little guilty infants out of the Kingdom do we? Matt.18:6, ie, they even believe in Jesus, and re-look at Matt.18:6b - our deepest water scuba equip. cannot even help at this depth. btw they need the Holy Spirit also, and no 'free-will,' ie, we all have an 'enslaved-will.' Just ol' old toothless 'slave' (IICor.4:7) Jack.

With this logic it seems one is saying that one must be baptized to be saved. I'm not of this view. It has come up earlier in the thread. ....but yeah, I'm not of that stance. I've also mentioned previously that I believe in the age of accountability.

 

[shturt678]

With this logic it seems one is saying that one must be baptized to be saved. I'm not of this view. It has come up earlier in the thread. ....but yeah, I'm not of that stance. I've also mentioned previously that I believe in the age of accountability.

If those little guilty ones don't need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and not in need of being in the Kingdom of God due to being too young + there is no need of their remission of sin, then I may possibly join your view point. Note Jesus wasn't holding an adult in his bosom. Just ol' old funny toothless Jack.

 

[Thekla]

This Evangelical Lutheran Church newsletter recounts some of the archeological evidence for baptism of infants in the early Church:

http://www.holycrossdakotadunes.org/newsletter/2010/05-10CN.pdf

 

[shturt678]

This Evangelical Lutheran Church newsletter recounts some of the archeological evidence for baptism of infants in the early Church:

http://www.holycrossdakotadunes.org/newsletter/2010/05-10CN.pdf

Was my study for today, great!

 

[Jig]

This Evangelical Lutheran Church newsletter recounts some of the archeological evidence for baptism of infants in the early Church:

http://www.holycrossdakotadunes.org/newsletter/2010/05-10CN.pdf

The issue isn't whether our not some early Christians practiced infant baptism. The issue is whether our not baptizing infants is Biblical.

 

[Thekla]

The issue isn't whether our not some early Christians practiced infant baptism. The issue is whether our not baptizing infants is Biblical.

As the Didache was quoted in the thread but is not considered Scripture, it seemed more than Biblical evidence was being considered in the thread.

 

[rockytopva]

I don't have the issue with water baptism...

If you want to sprinkle... That's fine with me!
If you want to dunk... That's fine with me!
If you want it in a baptistry... That's fine with me!
If you want it in a river.. That's fine with me!
If you want to baptize babies... That's fine with me!
If you want to baptize adults... That's fine with me!

I may have been baptized at birth in a Catholic church as dad was Catholic. I was baptized in a Baptistry as a Baptist and in a river as a Pentecostal. I feel Baptism is a lot like communion where heart motive is 95% of the ritual.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. - I Cor 11:29-31

There was a party years ago along side the Little River in Floyd County where the people got drunk and some guy thought it was fun to have a baptizing. They had the guitars out and thought it was all in fun. The guy who did the baptizing was also a fisherman. One day while fishing a terrible storm arose, the waters got violent (and Little River is not that big by the way), and swept the poor man to his death. When I heard this story my mind immediately went back to the baptizing they had earlier around that same spot.

 

[Jig]

As the Didache was quoted in the thread but is not considered Scripture, it seemed more than Biblical evidence was being considered in the thread.

I meant biblical in a boarder sense. That which is proper and true doctrine. I should have been clearer.

 

[shturt678]

Long ago use to pick topics for essays for students to build a framework around. I once gave a student the 1960 or so Gov't. census regarding denom./non-denom. in the U.S. The theme: "Spiritual baptismal rebirth" vs. "Water baptismal rebirth" [All those under "spiritual" were those that viewed water baptism purely as a 'sign,' and those of "water" viewed as God's means of grace including being a 'sign.'] It was my criteria at that time whether valid or not? He gave me a copy of his "A" paper and he's available for anyone today to contact, ie, his "A" as I only set things up where he did the work. My point: I was shocked to see most, although a lot also viewed water baptism as a means of grace, held to a "spiritual baptismal rebirth," ie, 'sign' only. Since that time always has been two issue, ie, 1) "water baptism a requirement"? and 2) "Spiritual baptismal rebirth" or "water baptismal rebirth"? Hope not too many more issues? Just ol' old bald headed infant splasher Jack so I don't get dunked by a mad parent. For parents more flexible, dunking O.K., just won't hold them under too long. My end point: All that underwent a "spiritual baptismal rebirth" must undergo a "water baptismal rebirth" based upon the true Name (revelation the Triune's God's name based on).

 

[Rev Randy]

With this logic it seems one is saying that one must be baptized to be saved. I'm not of this view. It has come up earlier in the thread. ....but yeah, I'm not of that stance. I've also mentioned previously that I believe in the age of accountability.

It's Christ's logic Mark 16:16

 

[Pteriax]

It's Christ's logic Mark 16:16

Believed and baptized is a sequence of events. Belief saves and baptism shows that salvation. Note that the only requirement to be condemned is to not believe, not to not be baptized. Thus belief alone saves, in Christ's logic.