Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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 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.
Being baptized into Christ is what the sacrament is all about.A baptism into Christ is so different than being baptized just to be baptized.
But you were baptized.I was baptized when I was 8 years old. I didn't even know what baptism was all about.
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.When I came to know Christ I sure was baptized again.
Random? You mean that someone just picked you out of the crowd at the mall and baptised you against your will? I doubt it.For then it was from my heart unto Christ and not just some random act.
When you receive an immunization at the doctor's office, does it's effectiveness depend upon you understanding all there is about immunology?Of course it was not valid.. I didn't know diddly squat about what true baptism was.
So I take it then that some don't take baptism very seriously.. Okay then, I happen to take it seriously.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Understood.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.
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
Very true.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?