Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[MamaZ]

A baptism into Christ is so different than being baptized just to be baptized. I was baptized when I was 8 years old. I didn't even know what baptism was all about. When I came to know Christ I sure was baptized again. For then it was from my heart unto Christ and not just some random act.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

It's either a baptism or it's not. If it's a baptism then it's a baptism.

Baptism isn't about our accepting Christ, but about His gracious acceptance of us. That's the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

A baptism into Christ is so different than being baptized just to be baptized. I was baptized when I was 8 years old. I didn't even know what baptism was all about. When I came to know Christ I sure was baptized again. For then it was from my heart unto Christ and not just some random act.

Just because you didn't know what was going on doesn't mean it wasn't a valid baptism.

God's promises are not conditional on our reason or cognitive abilities. When God makes a promise, He keeps His promise.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MamaZ]

So I take it then that some don't take baptism very seriously.. Okay then, I happen to take it seriously.

 

[Albion]

A baptism into Christ is so different than being baptized just to be baptized.

Being baptized into Christ is what the sacrament is all about.

I was baptized when I was 8 years old. I didn't even know what baptism was all about.

But you were baptized.

When I came to know Christ I sure was baptized again.

You reenacted your baptism, but it was just for your own sense of well being. Your baptism at 8 years of age is the one that made you a member of Christ's church.

For then it was from my heart unto Christ and not just some random act.

Random? You mean that someone just picked you out of the crowd at the mall and baptised you against your will? I doubt it.

 

[MamaZ]

Of course it was not valid.. I didn't know diddly squat about what true baptism was. Some people still believe you need to be baptized to be considered a member of a church organization.. This is not true baptism. For there is one baptism and one faith. One has to have the faith before they are baptised.

 

[MamaZ]

I stand amazed sometimes. But then not shocked. lol

 

[Albion]

Of course it was not valid.. I didn't know diddly squat about what true baptism was.

When you receive an immunization at the doctor's office, does it's effectiveness depend upon you understanding all there is about immunology?

And by the way, do we baptize people only if they are theologians and completely understand all that is implied in God's relationship with Man?

Do you?

If that were required--and actually enforced--there wouldn't be very many baptized people in the churches you or I frequent.

Besides, 8 year olds are baptized as "adults" in Baptist churches every week. Should they wait until they're 11? What exactly IS the level of understanding all the things of God that is needed?

 

[ViaCrucis]

So I take it then that some don't take baptism very seriously.. Okay then, I happen to take it seriously.

I take the promises of God attached to Baptism very seriously, that's why I will not and cannot call what God does in Baptism invalid.

Instead of saying what God has done in Baptism invalid because we do not always fully understand it, we should instead cling all the more to it and seek to live our lives in the faith we have so graciously been given in Baptism. To live a baptized life.

When I confess baptismus sum, I'm not simply saying that at one point in my life I was baptized; I am saying that I stand, right now, in the present, a baptized person. Clothed in Christ and all His righteousness, for which I have hope and salvation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Of course it was not valid.. I didn't know diddly squat about what true baptism was. [/quoite]
When you receive an immunization at the doctor's office, does it's effectiveness depend upon you understanding all there is about immunology?

And by the way, do we baptize people only if they are theologians and completely understand all that is implied in God's relationship with Man?

Do you?

If that were required--and actually enforced--there wouldn't be very many baptized people in the churches you or I frequent.

Besides, 8 year olds are baptized as "adults" in Baptist churches every week. Should they wait until they're 11? What exactly IS the level of understanding all the things of God that is needed?

I'd say there wouldn't be any at all.

Indeed, if being a Christian were about having it all figured out, I'd say there weren't a Christian at all--or ever.

The mysteries of God's grace will never be fully understood in this lifetime, and we will be forever, in eternity, glorifying the One who so saved us and whose mercies will be forever refreshingly new.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Pteriax]

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.

Actually that is not what we were discussing. I posed a specific question about a specific baptism that was clearly not valid.

 

[Pteriax]

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,

Except if it happens in an RLDS church for example. They do baptisms exactly like that, but they are a sect (trinitarian sect) of Mormonism. So no, a baptism is NOT a baptism.

 

[Albion]

Except if it happens in an RLDS church for example. They do baptisms exactly like that, but they are a sect (trinitarian sect) of Mormonism. So no, a baptism is NOT a baptism.

Well, we've already agreed that something looking like a baptism doesn't necessarily amount to a baptism--children playing at baptizing a doll, for instance. So making a point of denying this wording: "a baptism is a baptism," is just wasting time, isn't it?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Except if it happens in an RLDS church for example. They do baptisms exactly like that, but they are a sect (trinitarian sect) of Mormonism. So no, a baptism is NOT a baptism.

If they baptize in the Christian manner, then I'm not sure it would be right to say their baptisms are invalid.

The Donatist error is in attributing the efficacy of the Sacraments to those who are administering them, rather than to God who makes them what they are.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

It seems to me that you are both right.

Depending...

If a church is baptizing but doesn't accept Christ as Lord and Savior, it obviously would not be a Christian baptism.

The issue here is how to assess the LDS or RLDS. If you think they are unique and on the fringe, but it's still Christ, you'd probably say yes.

But if you feel that they are, as many do, followers of an ersatz "Christ," a being that is not Jesus of the Bible although made to seem similar and called the same, then you'd say no.

 

[Pteriax]

But if you feel that they are, as many do, followers of an ersatz "Christ," a being that is not Jesus of the Bible although made to seem similar and called the same, then you'd say no.

They follow a different Christ, to be sure, yet claim to believe the Bible, yet hold the book of mormon, the d&c, and the pearl OVER the Bible and each of these contradicts fundamental doctrines of Christianity and the nature of God.

So what I mean by "a baptism is not always a baptism" is that these cultic groups still call what they do a baptism even though it is not what we would consider one. In other words, calling it a baptism does not make it so.

 

[Albion]

They follow a different Christ, to be sure, yet claim to believe the Bible, yet hold the book of mormon, the d&c, and the pearl OVER the Bible and each of these contradicts fundamental doctrines of Christianity and the nature of God.

Then, to consider those baptisms not to be real Christian baptisms would be appropriate, I agree. In the end, only God is going to know; all that we're doing is deciding how WE should look upon them.

So what I mean by "a baptism is not always a baptism" is that these cultic groups still call what they do a baptism even though it is not what we would consider one. In other words, calling it a baptism does not make it so.

Understood.

 

[Pteriax]

Then, to consider those baptisms not to be real Christian baptisms would be appropriate, I agree. In the end, only God is going to know; all that we're doing is deciding how WE should look upon them.

Very true.

 

[jinc1019]

The views of the Church were rather consistent since apostolic times. They would have found the notion of getting baptized "again" perplexing. Jesus spoke of being born again, not being born again and then being born again again. And Patristic sources are consistent in attaching the new birth to Holy Baptism.

-CryptoLutheran

They would have found it "perplexing" because they knew of one baptism or the other. The point I am making, once again, is not that two baptisms occur...One is valid and one isn't (at least from my understanding of the Bible), but where is the prohibition of doing two in the hopes that you get it right?

 

[jinc1019]

Very true.

Nowhere does it say exactly to what degree one must believe in order for the baptism itself to be valid. Thus, even if Mormons are wrong (and I believe they are), so long as they believe and baptize according to the Bible, it is absolutely a valid baptism.