Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[ViaCrucis]

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?

Because Baptism isn't something we do, or something we can screw up. Baptism is God's work, and when God does something, it's always done right. See, for example, Isaiah 55:11.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

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.

It is necessary, however, for the baptism to be performed in the name of the Triune God. Since this is antithetical to the Mormon concept of God, is it possible for a Mormon baptizer to intend to baptize in the name of the God of the Bible?

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is necessary, however, for the baptism to be performed in the name of the Triune God. Since this is antithetical to the Mormon concept of God, is it possible for a Mormon baptizer to intend to baptize in the name of the God of the Bible?

Though in times past, a baptism done with the formula in Christ's name was regarded as valid insofar as the intent was the same (that is, it was still a Christian baptism, not a heretical one). Such cases, as they are mentioned, are seemingly rare in the historical record as, quite early, we see that the baptismal formula was in the triune Name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I would say that we shouldn't treat the formula as though it were an incantation, as though the phrasing itself were of issue; where formula is important is in matter of intent and substance, not just semantics.

That all said, the only ones who in the 21st century that perform "Jesus' name" baptisms subscribe to blatantly heretical teaching, as such that is problematic.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Crandaddy]

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.

Correct belief is not wanted at all. The baptizer must intend to do what the Church does in Holy Baptism, but (s)he is not required to believe what the Church believes. Even an atheist is capable of performing a valid baptism if (s)he has correct intent to baptize, and then performs it correctly.

 

[Crandaddy]

It is necessary, however, for the baptism to be performed in the name of the Triune God. Since this is antithetical to the Mormon concept of God, is it possible for a Mormon baptizer to intend to baptize in the name of the God of the Bible?

If all the externals were done correctly (Trinitarian formula, living water, etc.), then I'd still opt for a conditional baptism. Correct intent would be doubtful, to be sure, but I don't think we could be absolutely certain of incorrect intent.

 

[juleamager]

If all the externals were done correctly (Trinitarian formula, living water, etc.), then I'd still opt for a conditional baptism. Correct intent would be doubtful, to be sure, but I don't think we could be absolutely certain of incorrect intent.

As long as the baptism was by immersion and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (not in Jesus' name or in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier) it is a valid baptism. As far as I know the Community of Christ (RLDS) is a Trinitarian church, and if they baptise using immersion and the correct formula, all is well.

 

[Crandaddy]

As long as the baptism was by immersion and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (not in Jesus' name or in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier) it is a valid baptism. As far as I know the Community of Christ (RLDS) is a Trinitarian church, and if they baptise using immersion and the correct formula, all is well.

Immersion is not absolutely necessary. People on their deathbeds often can't be immersed, and must be baptized either by infusion or sprinkling. And I understand that baptism by infusion (pouring) was quite common in the early Church, because immersion was not often feasible.

 

[Albion]

Though in times past, a baptism done with the formula in Christ's name was regarded as valid insofar as the intent was the same (that is, it was still a Christian baptism, not a heretical one). Such cases, as they are mentioned, are seemingly rare in the historical record as, quite early, we see that the baptismal formula was in the triune Name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I would say that we shouldn't treat the formula as though it were an incantation, as though the phrasing itself were of issue; where formula is important is in matter of intent and substance, not just semantics.

That all said, the only ones who in the 21st century that perform "Jesus' name" baptisms subscribe to blatantly heretical teaching, as such that is problematic.

-CryptoLutheran

Not my point at all. The proper intention is necessary, so if it is performed with the intention of baptizing the candidate in the name of some other deity, there's a general understanding that this is not a valid baptism regardless of what words are used.

 

[MamaZ]

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 didn't even know who Jesus was. How was I to be baptized in Him? I was raised mormon. Their god was a man and their jesus is a brother to satan.. So therefore.. If one has not been baptized into Christ then a second baptism is what I would do.

 

[MamaZ]

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.

Not really for they preach a different gospel..

 

[Gnarwhal]

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.

You're committing the fallacy of hasty generalization; just because you felt that your baptism was invalid because it didn't fit within some preconceived set of parameters that you established later in life, doesn't mean that everyone who partakes in a baptism that resembles yours is, in fact, invalid.

That's false.

 

[Crandaddy]

Not really for they preach a different gospel..

Mormons do believe in a radically different god than the God of orthodox Christianity, so even if a Mormon were to baptize in the name of the "Trinity," it is probable that (s)he would have a sufficiently different intent to constitute invalid baptism. For the "Trinity" that the Mormon baptizer would invoke would very likely not be the same as the Christian Trinity.

 

[MamaZ]

I take baptism a little more seriously than, even an athiest can preform a baptism. One has to have Faith in Christ for one to be truly baptised. For one needs to repent and be baptised. So any ole baptism just isn't a baptism that scripture speaks about. For it is not the words that count but the heart.. If one does not believe in Christ when baptised what was the baptism for?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I take baptism a little more seriously than, even an athiest can preform a baptism. One has to have Faith in Christ for one to be truly baptised. For one needs to repent and be baptised. So any ole baptism just isn't a baptism that scripture speaks about. For it is not the words that count but the heart.. If one does not believe in Christ when baptised what was the baptism for?

The problem with this is that it places the locus on ourselves, rather than the work of God. Faith, says St. Paul in his letter to the Romans, comes "by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" and in the first chapter says, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God to save all who believe".

It is not we, who by our strength, come to Christ and then do the righteous works of God; it is God who places us into Christ whereby He becomes our righteousness. Baptism accomplishes this very thing. That's why when an infant or a small child, when baptized, is made a Christian even though they have no cognitive understanding of what is happening.

It is God who works, God who accomplishes. Not by our strength, our will, or our works, but the working, the will, and the power of God who makes this all happen by His Gospel preached and administered by His Word and Sacraments.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Pteriax]

I didn't even know who Jesus was. How was I to be baptized in Him? I was raised mormon. Their god was a man and their jesus is a brother to satan.. So therefore.. If one has not been baptized into Christ then a second baptism is what I would do.

This is the same situation I was describing earlier, and I agree with you, saying the right words mean nothing when they define those words to mean something entirely different.

 

[Crandaddy]

I take baptism a little more seriously than, even an athiest can preform a baptism. One has to have Faith in Christ for one to be truly baptised. For one needs to repent and be baptised. So any ole baptism just isn't a baptism that scripture speaks about. For it is not the words that count but the heart.. If one does not believe in Christ when baptised what was the baptism for?

For the remission of sins. For being "born again." For being claimed for Christ, and being brought into the Church. Since the beginning of the Church, Christians have believed that it is Holy Baptism that accomplishes this, and Christians have also believed since the beginning that even infants can (and should) be baptized. For as your own signature says:

"But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

And if an atheist can't perform a valid baptism, then what about baptisms performed by these guys? How do you know the minister who performed your baptism wasn't one of them?

 

[MamaZ]

I do not believe being water baptized is being born again..But I do believe that being water baptized is important. But one must be baptised with faith in Christ and not just a dunking in water.

 

[MamaZ]

For the remission of sins. For being "born again." For being claimed for Christ, and being brought into the Church. Since the beginning of the Church, Christians have believed that it is Holy Baptism that accomplishes this, and Christians have also believed since the beginning that even infants can (and should) be baptized. For as your own signature says:

"But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

And if an atheist can't perform a valid baptism, then what about baptisms performed by these guys? How do you know the minister who performed your baptism wasn't one of them?

Well an athiest probably wouldnt be dressed up as a minister. But then with today who knows. I believe baptism needs to be done with the one being baptised knowing what they are doing. For just dunking someone in water does not mean that the one being dunked even knows what is going on and for what reason the are being dunked. Kind of like a duty. Not the way to go for me.

 

[juleamager]

Immersion is not absolutely necessary. People on their deathbeds often can't be immersed, and must be baptized either by infusion or sprinkling. And I understand that baptism by infusion (pouring) was quite common in the early Church, because immersion was not often feasible.

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

 

[bbbbbbb]

I can't answer for Tangible, of course, but there's quite a different between LDS and SDA. I don't know anyone who considers the latter to be non-Christian. Some other words might apply, but not that one.

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.