Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[jinc1019]

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!

 

[Pteriax]

I was baptized by sprinkling as an infant. Once I grew up and learned what the Bible said about baptism, I realized that my sprinkling was invalid for several reasons. Since it really didn't count for anything, I got a real baptism in college. I still count it as only being baptized once. I do not know of any reason to get re-baptized if the first one is valid though.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Acts 19:1-7 tells us of twelve men who were baptized in water twice and they were commended for doing so. I personally was sprinkled as an infant and immersed as an adult - the first time without my consent, of course, and the second time as an act of faith.

Today there are many credo-baptist churches that substitute infant dedication as a form of infant baptism sans water. I attended a service in such a church one Sunday where the young pastor went to great lengths to explain to his congregation why he and his wife chose to have their adopted infant dedicated in his father's church and not this particular church. I was rather amused by the seriousness of this man. It was if he seriously believed that God would condemn him if he dedicated his child more than once. One dedication is probably one too many in light of the fact that there is no scriptural warrant for it, but, then, multiple dedications can only do harm if people believe that they provide some form of spiritual merit for the infant.

 

[PaladinValer]

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?

Because Holy Baptism is a sacrament, and a sacrament is defined as an outward and visible sign of (an) inward and spiritual grace(s). Since only God is the only source of grace, then it is God, not just the baptizer, Who is being told did it wrong.

Needless to say, that is pretty blasphemous and is a grave sin.

Once as an infant and once as an adult?

Never; it is fundamentally impossible.

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.

Sadly, that cannot be a solution because it still says God failed the first time.

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.

It does matter because 1) the Holy Writ mentions only one, 2) it is always tied with water, 3) it has always been interpreted to be sacramental and regenerative.

Either way, you have a proper baptism.

The first one only. The second time not only just gets the person wet but directly tells God "You failed, Lord" and, I would argue, automatically excommunicates.

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!

The prohibition is that to baptize twice is to tell God "You failed."

I was baptized by sprinkling as an infant. Once I grew up and learned what the Bible said about baptism, I realized that my sprinkling was invalid for several reasons. Since it really didn't count for anything, I got a real baptism in college. I still count it as only being baptized once. I do not know of any reason to get re-baptized if the first one is valid though.

Asperges baptisms are valid in so long as water rolls down the skin. The Didache may not mention that method by name, but it does make it clear that the water must be living, which has the double meaning of not only being holy but flowing. That fact that affusion (pouring) is declared valid is proof that submersion was never considered the only way. Immersion was preferred, but not necessary, and many were baptized immersion but by affusion, and many icons and pictures of Christ's own baptism actually depict this.

Your first and only baptism was valid.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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!

May I asked how you were baptized?

http://www.christianforums.com/f718/
Sacramental/Ordinance Theology A forum for the discussion of the theology of sacraments.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7505731/
Being Baptised a second time after infant Baptism?

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Hi everyone,[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]I was originally baptised as a baby in a Greek Orthodox church. I spoke to two Greek Orthodox priests about being baptised as an adult. They both see the infant/baby baptism I had as valid but I am feeling doubts about this. We are called to repent and be baptised and am not sure if we can do things the other way round. I know someone stood in on my behalf to say I will be raised a Christian but do I not have to personally make the decision to be baptised?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]I feel like people will think this guy has been coming here all this time (at my current church) and is only getting baptised now or why is he getting baptised a second time. I suffer from OCD so this also gives me doubts about having to perform actions. I would like to get baptised maybe in private and not infront of a 600 congregation.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]I am not sure if I can still take communion in a Greek Orthodox Church (having been baptised in one as a baby) if I am baptised as an adult in a non Orthodox church. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]I've posted that as well on an Orthodox forum but if anyone knows please let me know.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]I know that non Orthodox Christians are not allowed to take communion in Greek Orthodox churches but not sure if a second baptism changes things for original Greek Orthodox Christians. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Sorry if my thinking is all over the place, lots of love x[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Mike x[/FONT]

Baptism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mode and manner

Baptism is practiced in several different ways. Aspersion is the sprinkling of water on the head, and affusion is the pouring of water over the head.
The word "immersion" is derived from late Latin immersionem, a noun derived from the verb immergere (in – "into" + mergere "dip"). In relation to baptism, some use it to refer to any form of dipping, whether the body is put completely under water or is only partly dipped in water; they thus speak of immersion as being either total or partial.
Others, of the Anabaptist tradition, use "immersion" to mean exclusively plunging someone entirely under the surface of the water (submersion).[47][48] The term "immersion" is also used of a form of baptism in which water is poured over someone standing in water, without submersion of the person.[49][50] On these three meanings of the word "immersion", see Immersion baptism.




.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

there's more than one water baptism because there's more than one denomination . i recall reading once upon joining the Eastern Orthodox you even get a complimentary exorcism as a precaution .

 

[Pteriax]

Asperges baptisms are valid in so long as water rolls down the skin. The Didache may not mention that method by name, but it does make it clear that the water must be living, which has the double meaning of not only being holy but flowing. That fact that affusion (pouring) is declared valid is proof that submersion was never considered the only way. Immersion was preferred, but not necessary, and many were baptized immersion but by affusion, and many icons and pictures of Christ's own baptism actually depict this.

Your first and only baptism was valid.

Renaissance art is not a source of truth, but of the artist's own mind or fantasy. If I am too young to know what a commitment is, let alone make a commitment to Christ, it is not a baptism. I know there are 'church teachings' that say different, but the Bible is my source of authority not some church. My first baptism was not only invalid, it was not a baptism at all by definition on at least two criteria found in the Bible: Immersion and commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ. If you want to believe that you had a valid baptism before you could walk or talk, fine, but do not tell me that mine was - that is between me and God.

 

[Jb9]

Aight sorry to interrupt all, but I just needed to be clarified about this. Is this a Christian network or available for other religions? Like I'm not that new but I don't know much about CF so.. And im not trying to be biased like forreal. It's cuz I've been getting reported for attacking others faith..? So yeaaa. Help me out here and once again I'm not been biased.

 

[miamited]

Because Holy Baptism is a sacrament, and a sacrament is defined as an outward and visible sign of (an) inward and spiritual grace(s). Since only God is the only source of grace, then it is God, not just the baptizer, Who is being told did it wrong.

Needless to say, that is pretty blasphemous and is a grave sin.

I strongly disagree with that illogical result.

Never; it is fundamentally impossible.

Only to one who doesn't understand the fundamentals of what baptism is all about.

Sadly, that cannot be a solution because it still says God failed the first time.

Again, that is an illogical conclusion. No one is saying that God did it wrong. The overarching question is whether the one being baptized did it right.

It does matter because 1) the Holy Writ mentions only one, 2) it is always tied with water, 3) it has always been interpreted to be sacramental and regenerative.

Wrong again, my friend.

The first one only. The second time not only just gets the person wet but directly tells God "You failed, Lord" and, I would argue, automatically excommunicates.

Another unsound argument.

The prohibition is that to baptize twice is to tell God "You failed."

Please read previous comments.



Asperges baptisms are valid in so long as water rolls down the skin. The Didache may not mention that method by name, but it does make it clear that the water must be living, which has the double meaning of not only being holy but flowing. That fact that affusion (pouring) is declared valid is proof that submersion was never considered the only way. Immersion was preferred, but not necessary, and many were baptized immersion but by affusion, and many icons and pictures of Christ's own baptism actually depict this.

Your first and only baptism was valid.

Not so, but it is obviously what you believe to be the truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[PaladinValer]

there's more than one water baptism because there's more than one denomination . i recall reading once upon joining the Eastern Orthodox you even get a complimentary exorcism as a precaution .

Um, I believe you are confusing things here. They use the Oil of Catechumens, which is something used in the West as well.

Renaissance art is not a source of truth, but of the artist's own mind or fantasy.

Who is talking about Renaissance art? I mentioned icons as well, which is NOT Renaissance and predates it by hundreds of years and was mostly a religious expression of the EAST.

If I am too young to know what a commitment is, let alone make a commitment to Christ, it is not a baptism.

Gnosticism, not Christianity. Salvation and sacraments are NEVER dependent on comprehension or understanding but faith; trust, which is something unintellectual and far, far more basic.

I know there are 'church teachings' that say different, but the Bible is my source of authority not some church.

Correction; your interpretation, and one that the Didache, a 1st century Apostolic Witness, counters. I trust the writings and interpretation of the Apostolic Fathers which has remained the same over that of any individual whose interpretation is any different.

My first baptism was not only invalid, it was not a baptism at all by definition on at least two criteria found in the Bible: Immersion and commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Sorry; that's false. The word does not mean to immerse.

If you want to believe that you had a valid baptism before you could walk or talk, fine, but do not tell me that mine was - that is between me and God.

Hyperindividualism is also not a Christian belief.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Um, I believe you are confusing things here. They use the Oil of Catechumens, which is something used in the West as well.

that's good to know . was just repeating the phrasing i read . what's the Oil of Disciples do anyway?

 

[Pteriax]

Um, I believe you are confusing things here. They use the Oil of Catechumens, which is something used in the West as well.



Who is talking about Renaissance art? I mentioned icons as well, which is NOT Renaissance and predates it by hundreds of years and was mostly a religious expression of the EAST.



Gnosticism, not Christianity. Salvation and sacraments are NEVER dependent on comprehension or understanding but faith; trust, which is something unintellectual and far, far more basic.



Correction; your interpretation, and one that the Didache, a 1st century Apostolic Witness, counters. I trust the writings and interpretation of the Apostolic Fathers which has remained the same over that of any individual whose interpretation is any different.



Sorry; that's false. The word does not mean to immerse.



Hyperindividualism is also not a Christian belief.

You have no right to say that my baptism is more or less valid than anyone else's, not here not anywhere. Your claims are false as well. Most of what you wrote is not in the Bible, and even contrary to the Bible so it is totally invalid from the perspective of Biblical Christianity, of which you are not an authority by the way.

If you want to show that you are right in the future, use sources other than 'because you say so' Your proclamation does not make it so.

 

[jinc1019]

I certainly wasn't expecting such a heated response on this issue...I don't have time to reply to everyone but I assure you all I am reading it.

Just to clarify, because I already see some people have not read or understood (by my own fault) what I originally wrote...I am NOT saying both baptisms are valid. I am saying ONE is valid and ONE isn't. Because I don't know which side of the argument has it right (infant vs. believers), it seems logical to me to get baptized twice, even though one (I don't know which one) will be valid and one will not.

Secondly, I am not saying that God is incapable of anything. If infant baptism is wrong, it's not because God somehow failed in the baptism, it's because man stopped practicing what God commanded us to do in the first place.

Again, I have no idea which side is right despite a lot of time spent on the issue. So, it seems only logical to me to be safe and get "baptized" twice. Why risk it?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

baptism is representative of the death from the old life and birth in the the new . some believe it to be part of the journey of redemption . and some do not . but all hold it precious as the holy spirit blesses those who are baptized .

so an emotional attachment to the teaching of baptism is expected . especially for those who have been baptized .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Aight sorry to interrupt all, but I just needed to be clarified about this. Is this a Christian network or available for other religions?
Like I'm not that new but I don't know much about CF so.. And im not trying to be biased like forreal. It's cuz I've been getting reported for attacking others faith..? So yeaaa. Help me out here and once again I'm not been biased.

Yes, CF is a Christian based network, but more specifically, some boards on CF are devoted to just Christians.





.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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!

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

 

[New_Wineskin]

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!

It is a Jewish ritual concerning repentance and forgiveness and being resurrected/reborn . Do it every day ... nothing wrong with that .

 

[Hentenza]

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

Every single baptism depicted in scripture follow the same pattern: believe->be baptized. It is the same pattern in Patristic sources.

 

[abysmul]

Mark 16:16

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.






Acts 2:38

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.




Believe, repent, then be baptized.




If a person was baptized and didn't believe and repent.... were they really baptized?

 

[RisingSpirit]

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!

It a violation to be baptised twice as stated in the Westminster confessions.