B
bbbbbbb
Guest
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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?
I had never seen this before. Thanks for that sharing.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.
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.
Well an athiest probably wouldnt be dressed up as a minister. But then with today who knows.
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!
In Eastern Orthodoxy, at least, we consider only baptisms by immersion using the Trinitarian formula valid.
However, I don't think that baby baptism is a necessity for salvation.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for the clarification. For an outsider such as myself it can become confusing.
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?
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.
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?