Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[Albion]

That was my thinking as well, but I wanted some other opinions on it. Thanks!

Do what you want, but that opinion is completely wrong.

Just because something is done without it being entirely "from the heart" does not, for that reason, become ineffective or invalid. What if your argument were applied to marriage?--"Oh, but I wasn't really in love with her, so it didn't count as a marriage."

Yeh, right.

 

[Pteriax]

Do what you want, but that opinion is completely wrong.

Just because something is done without it being entirely "from the heart" does not, for that reason, become ineffective or invalid. What if your argument were applied to marriage?--"Oh, but I wasn't really in love with her, so it didn't count as a marriage."

Yeh, right.

It was also in a cult of non-Christians, so the heart is not the only issue presented. Please address the whole issue or not at all thank you.

 

[Pteriax]

Correction: I am free to take 1st century interpretations over your particular 21st century interpretation over the Holy Bible.

That's what is truly happening, and I will continue to do it because it is only Christian to do so.
My interpretations are not 21st century, they are first century.


Again, hyperindividualism.

Nope.

A refutation that was quashed due to a misreading of what "living" actually means and by proven evidence that baptism=submersion was not believed in by 1st century Christians who were taught directly from the Twelve themselves.

Again, submersion was not the only issue and you said nothing to veryfy your perspective as anything more than a puffed up opinion.

This is not orthodox.

Orthodoxy has multiple connotations. One need not agree to your flavor of orthodoxy to be correct in matters of doctrine faith or morals. I would suggest that your view is unorthodox in the sense of what the Bible itself says on numerous issues.

This is Gnosticism.
No, it is not.

My response in red.

 

[PaladinValer]

My interpretations are not 21st century, they are first century.

ViaCrucis and I have proven otherwise.

Nope.

Actually, yes. Rejection of what everyone else says based on a sole and self-singular reading is most certainly hyperindividualistic.

Again, submersion was not the only issue and you said nothing to veryfy your perspective as anything more than a puffed up opinion.

I never said it was the only issue. Furthermore, I explains how the word "living" constitutes to any sort of flowing and sacred nature. Ignoring it doesn't change the fact the point was raised.

As for "puffed up opinions," that's interesting. Why don't you give that to the other individual who agrees with me?

Orthodoxy has multiple connotations. One need not agree to your flavor of orthodoxy to be correct in matters of doctrine faith or morals. I would suggest that your view is unorthodox in the sense of what the Bible itself says on numerous issues.

Correction: what you interpret the Holy Bible itself says on numerous issues. All reading is interpretation; that's a fundamental aspect of written language. The fact that mine lines up to the witnesses of the next few centuries is historic, documented evidence that my interpretation was not only present, but considered both the norm and the orthodox belief.

While orthodoxy can be flexible, that which is contrary to it is never so.

No, it is not.

I suggest a good, solid education on Gnosticism then. A fundamental key aspect of that separate religion declared heretical by Christianity is the utter necessity of knowing secret teachings in order to be saved. If you cannot comprehend or understand them, then an individual isn't saved.

That is exactly what credobaptism-only is; Gnosticism. Forget the unintelligent, poorly educated, mentally disabled, or the immature of age; they're all doomed.

Finally, I note my line "2. Please do not reply within a quote. Not only does it not work, it creates additional work for the people who are replying back to have to copy and paste. Color-coding doesn't help; it how the coding works." in post #25 and combine it with evidence that comes with this link here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7760346/#post63605588

I call spite. You and I can disagree to the ends of the world, but that's really low, especially when I've shown evidence of quote tags being used.

 

[Pteriax]

ViaCrucis and I have proven otherwise.

False.

Actually, yes. Rejection of what everyone else says based on a sole and self-singular reading is most certainly hyperindividualistic.

Sure, but that is not what I am doing, so no.

I never said it was the only issue. Furthermore, I explains how the word "living" constitutes to any sort of flowing and sacred nature. Ignoring it doesn't change the fact the point was raised.

Again, does not address the main issue.

Correction: what you interpret the Holy Bible itself says on numerous issues. All reading is interpretation; that's a fundamental aspect of written language. The fact that mine lines up to the witnesses of the next few centuries is historic, documented evidence that my interpretation was not only present, but considered both the norm and the orthodox belief.

Yours does not in fact line up with all witnesses. You see there are different views all the way back in the first century, and I am quite certain you haven't got your history right. In fact I showed how the Dediache does not allow sprinking (even though the type of water used was only a secondary issue)

I suggest a good, solid education on Gnosticism then. A fundamental key aspect of that separate religion declared heretical by Christianity is the utter necessity of knowing secret teachings in order to be saved. If you cannot comprehend or understand them, then an individual isn't saved.

I do not believe in anything from gnosticism, or any secret teaching that could in any way be classified as gnosticism. Do not misrepresent who I am or what I believe in by claiming I adhere to some ancient heresy when I clearly do not. Your own sect does not have a monopoly on authority or truth. That is in the Bible and only the Bible. And is not secret or hidden. Furthermore, I don't even believe baptism is absolutely necessary to be saved, I know exactly what the Bible says regarding salvation: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." Anything added to that is works and a part of the Galatian heresy Gal 1:6-9. I really don't even know how you came to the conclusion that I believe anything different. It's all over my profile and sig and everything I post.

 

[RisingSpirit]

The original question by the OP was:




Let's see.... the Westminster confession....




...

The Holy Spirit gives us an understanding of the Scripture that once baptized one is "already in the covenant" and thus there is no need to be re-baptized.

 

[Tangible]

I was faced with that exact question some years ago when a young man decided to reject the heresies of the RLDS and wholeheartedly embrace orthodox Christianity. He did intense Bible study, coupled with prayer, and concluded that he needed to be baptized. As a result he was baptized and continues well in his walk with God.

RLDS is a nonChristian religion. The first "baptism" was not a baptism into Christ.

 

[Hentenza]

Tertullian, the only example we have of someone who believed children and infants shouldn't be baptized from the Patristic period, doesn't deny the efficacy of Baptism, just the opposite. It is because Tertullian believes Baptism is efficacious for infants and children that he says it shouldn't be done--because Tertullian considers sins committed after Baptism as risking one's soul to hell, and thus Baptism should be postponed for as long as possible. Tertullian also recognizes the baptism of infants and children as an ancient and common practice in his own time.

"And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, "Forbid them not to come unto me." Let them "come," then, while they are growing up; let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the "remission of sins?" More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given "to him that asks." For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation." - Tertullian, On Baptism, ch. 18

And, further, Patristic sources readily acknowledge infants and young children as being joined to the Church,

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." - St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, ch. 22:4

"And they shall baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." - St. Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21

"Therefore children are also baptized." - Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." - Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9

-CryptoLutheran

Anything from the 1st or early second century? How about from scripture?

 

[Pteriax]

RLDS is a nonChristian religion. The first "baptism" was not a baptism into Christ.

Yes, I think so too. The confusion I think comes from them being a trinitarian religion that uses all the same terms that Christians do.

 

[bbbbbbb]

RLDS is a nonChristian religion. The first "baptism" was not a baptism into Christ.

I never meant to imply that it is not. One might say that other religious bodies which proclaim themselves as Christian are, in reality, non-Christian. For example, our mutual friend, Stryder, belongs to one such body. Do you think his baptism was not a baptism into Christ?

 

[Crandaddy]

I have a question related to the OP actually. Say someone is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy spirit by immersion; but they were coerced to do it by their family and didn't mean it in their heart. This person is also a member of the RLDS a trinitarian sect of Mormonism. Later in life, the person leaves the RLDS sect, accepts the one true Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior, thus becoming Christian. Does that person need to get baptized again or not, and why?

This is a true story, by the way. It is not my story, but someone close to me. I am genuinely seeking an answer to this.

Where there is any doubt of the validity of a baptism, a conditional baptism may be performed. I forget the exact formula for it in the Book of Common Prayer, but it goes something like this:

"If you have not already been baptized, then I baptize you, [name], in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Where there is any doubt as to whether or not someone has already been validly baptized, Anglicans do not perform un-conditional baptism. We believe that it is God himself who actually accomplishes the baptism, and that he only uses the "outward and visible signs" of the sacrament as the means to do it. To intentionally un-conditionally re-baptize someone who is understood to already have been validly baptized is therefore blasphemous, and a very serious sin.

 

[Pteriax]

Where there is any doubt of the validity of a baptism, a conditional baptism may be performed. I forget the exact formula for it in the Book of Common Prayer, but it goes something like this:

"If you have not already been baptized, then I baptize you, [name], in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Where there is any doubt as to whether or not someone has already been validly baptized, Anglicans do not perform un-conditional baptism. We believe that it is God himself who actually accomplishes the baptism, and that he only uses the "outward and visible signs" of the sacrament as the means to do it. To intentionally un-conditionally re-baptize someone who is understood to already have been validly baptized is therefore blasphemous, and a very serious sin.

That makes sense.

 

[Albion]

That makes sense.

Yes, but it's so often misunderstood.

As said, that's the situation when and if there's a good reason to think that the first baptism was not performed validly. This second one then is a "conditional" baptism. It doesn't automatically assert that the first one was not properly performed because, for example, no water was used or the name of God was not invoked. These mainly occur when there is no evidence of a first baptism or it occurred under peculiar circumstances.

What we were discussing here is what's usually called a "rebaptism" and is predicated upon the idea that the first baptism was not a real baptism because you didn't know what you were doing, the church that did it isn't recognized by the one you're now joining, etc. All "rebaptisms" are improper.

The two are quite separate and different events.

 

[Albion]

I never meant to imply that it is not. One might say that other religious bodies which proclaim themselves as Christian are, in reality, non-Christian. For example, our mutual friend, Stryder, belongs to one such body. Do you think his baptism was not a baptism into Christ?

I can't answer for Tangible, of course, but there's quite a different between LDS and SDA. I don't know anyone who considers the latter to be non-Christian. Some other words might apply, but not that one.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Anything from the 1st or early second century? How about from scripture?

Scripture speaks of entire households being baptized. It's a pretty safe bet that small children were included.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

Scripture speaks of entire households being baptized. It's a pretty safe bet that small children were included.

-CryptoLutheran

In fact, it's almost impossible that they were not included. The claim, sometimes made, that this would be a bunch of adults living in one house, plus servants but no children, is possible in theory only in theory.

 

[MamaZ]

If one was baptized as a member of a church and not into Christ then I say one needs a second baptism

 

[ViaCrucis]

If one was baptized as a member of a church and not into Christ then I say one needs a second baptism

A baptism is a baptism. If the water was applied to you, in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, you are baptized into Christ. God's word will not return to Him void,

"so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." - Isaiah 55:11

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MamaZ]

Actually no a baptism is not a baptism. For one can be baptized in water for many things. With some baptisms you just get wet. Means nothing. But when has accepted Christ and wants to be associated with Him then they get water Baptism. Some get baptized for the dead. I have never understood this.

 

[Albion]

Actually no a baptism is not a baptism. For one can be baptized in water for many things. With some baptisms you just get wet. Means nothing. But when has accepted Christ and wants to be associated with Him then they get water Baptism. Some get baptized for the dead. I have never understood this.

A baptism is a baptism. If it's something else like baptism for the dead or playacting with water as with a Tom Thumb "wedding, there's no baptism at all.