Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[bbbbbbb]

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?

It isn't in my Bible. In fact, the passage I cited from Acts 19 demonstrates that it was no problem for Paul to rebaptize these twelve men.

 

[MamaZ]

It isn't in my Bible. In fact, the passage I cited from Acts 19 demonstrates that it was no problem for Paul to rebaptize these twelve men.

I had never seen this before. Thanks for that sharing.

 

[Albion]

There is no doubt at all that there are vast differences between the two groups. There are quite a few who seriously doubt the orthodoxy of the SDA. As we all know here, they do not adhere to the Nicene creed, or any creed for that matter. Their understanding of the gospel is significantly flawed by their insistence on works, specifically Sabbath keeping, which are necessary for salvation. Concerning the Trinity, they seem to be relatively orthodox, although the person and work of the Holy Spirit is questionable given their view of prophet(esse)s. They also reject the baptism of all other denominations as invalid.

I confess to not knowing enough to render a firm opinion, but I do believe there are some who would see their baptism as invalid.

That's all true, but this ^ is the critical issue when it comes to the validity of the baptism.

 

[Crandaddy]

Well an athiest probably wouldnt be dressed up as a minister. But then with today who knows.

But they are, and they even act as ministers incognito, as the Clergy Project demonstrates. They do this because they're afraid of the backlash they'd encounter from the faithful were they to "come out of the closet."

 

[Colleen1]

I know this is going to sound like an odd question but is there any reason explained in the Bible or by the Early Church Fathers why a person cannot be baptized (in water) twice? Once as an infant and once as an adult? The reason I ask is because it seems to me like the debate over infant baptism and believer's baptism is easily solved by simply baptizing twice. I admit that only one of the two baptisms would be valid, but if this were to happen, it wouldn't matter which side is right on the issue. Either way, you have a proper baptism. This is, of course, all dependent on there being no prohibition on two baptisms in the Early Church and in scripture. I am not aware of any prohibition in scripture but I know that Creeds say "one baptism" in them. But that's the beauty of this...there is still only ONE baptism. Like I said before, one of the events wouldn't be an actual baptism, we just wouldn't know which one (it depends on which side of the debate is correct).

I am just curious if there is a prohibition in scripture or the very early Church (before 300 AD). I look forward to everyone's wisdom!

I don't think scripture prohibits this...directly that I'm aware. However, I would not get baptized because of fear. I would get baptized because I love God and wish to have a deeper relationship with Him and wish to witness and share with the world what I believe. That being said...I'm not totally opposed to baby baptism either. ...I think there is some scriptural support for that in part. ... I think it important the parents agree to raise the child according to the Bible etc. and I think it is good that the child has Christian mentors (godparents) ... However, I don't think that baby baptism is a necessity for salvation. ...just my opinion at present according to what I've read in scripture.

 

[Crandaddy]

In Eastern Orthodoxy, at least, we consider only baptisms by immersion using the Trinitarian formula valid.

I understand that triple lavation is insisted upon by at least some Orthodox. I also understand that immersion is the preferred Orthodox method of baptism. But I think that at least some Orthodox will accept at least infusion as a substitute method for in extremis cases.

 

[Crandaddy]

However, I don't think that baby baptism is a necessity for salvation.

I don't think so either. Anglicans understand baptism to be generally necessary for salvation, but not absolutely necessary. God is quite capable of saving someone who hasn't been baptized, and I personally don't believe that any unbaptized infants go to hell--not even Limbo.

 

[jinc1019]

I don't think scripture prohibits this...directly that I'm aware. However, I would not get baptized because of fear. I would get baptized because I love God and wish to have a deeper relationship with Him and wish to witness and share with the world what I believe. That being said...I'm not totally opposed to baby baptism either. ...I think there is some scriptural support for that in part. ... I think it important the parents agree to raise the child according to the Bible etc. and I think it is good that the child has Christian mentors (godparents) ... However, I don't think that baby baptism is a necessity for salvation. ...just my opinion at present according to what I've read in scripture.

It isn't out of fear at all! I don't believe my salvation rests on baptism. I do, however, want to do what God wants. Unfortunately, I don't know for sure what that is because the teachings of the apostles are not clear on this matter. For me then, the choice seems to be to do both, as odd as it may seem to many. I just don't feel confident or certain on either side of the issue.

 

[jinc1019]

I don't think so either. Anglicans understand baptism to be generally necessary for salvation, but not absolutely necessary. God is quite capable of saving someone who hasn't been baptized, and I personally don't believe that any unbaptized infants go to hell--not even Limbo.

Agreed. I love a great deal about Anglicanism and this is one of the things I love about it...I just wish a great Anglican church still existed in America.

 

[Colleen1]

I don't think so either. Anglicans understand baptism to be generally necessary for salvation, but not absolutely necessary. God is quite capable of saving someone who hasn't been baptized, and I personally don't believe that any unbaptized infants go to hell--not even Limbo.

I agree. One example of this is the man on the cross next to Jesus.

 

[Colleen1]

It isn't out of fear at all! I don't believe my salvation rests on baptism. I do, however, want to do what God wants. Unfortunately, I don't know for sure what that is because the teachings of the apostles are not clear on this matter. For me then, the choice seems to be to do both, as odd as it may seem to many. I just don't feel confident or certain on either side of the issue.

I understand. I was never baptized an an infant but I have been baptized twice. In my mind once but literally twice. I did water immersion when I was 15 years old but it was someone elses idea...the question posed to me was why aren't you getting baptized and I said I don't know and it was posed to me well if there is no reason not to then you should be. This was the wrong choice for me. I should have done it in my time and God's time and not because of this faulty reasoning etc. I later in my life dedicated my life to God and living in such a way and wanted to exhibit this with baptism as it does suggest in the Bible. Exhibiting our life choice etc. ...it was just the right time and way. Well, the second time it was water immersion too and it was much different spiritually than the time before. In my heart, I feel that I was really baptized once. That's my rather personal experience. This is therefore, in part, why I suggested being baptized for the reasons of a deeper relationship with God and to show the world what you have chosen.

 

[Crandaddy]

Agreed. I love a great deal about Anglicanism and this is one of the things I love about it...I just wish a great Anglican church still existed in America.

Well, what's wrong with the Anglican churches there are in America? If your concern is one of liberalism, there are still quite conservative Anglicans both here and elsewhere in the world.

 

[Crandaddy]

I agree. One example of this is the man on the cross next to Jesus.

Yep.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, what's wrong with the Anglican churches there are in America? If your concern is one of liberalism, there are still quite conservative Anglicans both here and elsewhere in the world.

Quite true. I live across the Mississippi River from the Diocese of Quincy, Illinois which left the Episcopal Church in America to join the Anglican communion. It is a bold step of faith when an individual church takes such an action, but for an entire diocese, it is really quite amazing. I have a very high respect for this diocese.

 

[Albion]

Quite true. I live across the Mississippi River from the Diocese of Quincy, Illinois which left the Episcopal Church in America to join the Anglican communion. It is a bold step of faith when an individual church takes such an action, but for an entire diocese, it is really quite amazing. I have a very high respect for this diocese.

Note: the Diocese of Quincy left TEC (which belongs to the Anglican Communion), and joined ACNA, which would LIKE TO be accepted into the Anglican Communion as a second American province.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Note: the Diocese of Quincy left TEC (which belongs to the Anglican Communion), and joined ACNA, which would LIKE TO be accepted into the Anglican Communion as a second American province.

Thank you for the clarification. For an outsider such as myself it can become confusing.

 

[Albion]

Thank you for the clarification. For an outsider such as myself it can become confusing.

You bet. And what I decided to give was a somewhat simplified version of the matter.

 

[jinc1019]

It isn't in my Bible. In fact, the passage I cited from Acts 19 demonstrates that it was no problem for Paul to rebaptize these twelve men.

After reading this interesting passage...I had a question for you. What makes you think this incident is a second baptism? It seems like this is the FIRST time the 12 are baptized in the name of Jesus. Prior to this, they were only baptized by John, before Jesus. Were John's baptisms considered valid still?

 

[Albion]

After reading this interesting passage...I had a question for you. What makes you think this incident is a second baptism? It seems like this is the FIRST time the 12 are baptized in the name of Jesus. Prior to this, they were only baptized by John, before Jesus. Were John's baptisms considered valid still?

That was my first thought, too.

 

[jinc1019]

Well, what's wrong with the Anglican churches there are in America? If your concern is one of liberalism, there are still quite conservative Anglicans both here and elsewhere in the world.

Not where I live in Chicago. The closest ACNA Church is in Wheaton, which is not very close at all...and it's a little too charismatic.