Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[AVB 2]

As I stated before in this thread I had some water sprinkled on my head at 12 years old because my parents had joined a church and felt that their children should be "religious" like they were so the leader of the church did as they wanted. Looking back now on it, I realize that that "church" was actually a social club rather than a place where Christians met and worshipped. It all looked good to me when I was an unregenerated sinner, but once I received Jesus Christ and discovered what Christ and Christianity was really all about I quickly recognized that old church was nothing more than an institution of dead religiousity attended by dead religionists led by an unregenerated leader with a degree in religion who had no idea of what real Christianity was all about. To them it was all about looking, sounding and acting like what they thought a Christian should look, sound and act like, you know "religious" and all that stuff. Spirituality was definitely NOT a part of that organization. It was a Sunday only religion. Two weeks after I received Christ (at 27) I was baptized by immersion by a born again believer in Christ, and THAT was my actual baptism. Now there are those that say my first one was the real one, but I ask does an unregenerated non-believer have the power and/or authority to institute a sacrament of the church? I don't think so because of 2 Cor 6:15 "What harmony is there between Christ and Belial [Satan]? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?"

AVB

 

[shturt678]

If one took a 'smoke break' form one's faith, ie, enjoyed the world + Jesus, then decides to remove the 'world' and 'parties' out of the equation, the a renewal of faith is required, ie, 'instant of faith.' Since "instant of faith' is in the same sphere as 'water baptism' then one has to undergo 'anther' non-immersion water baptism in the valid revelation the Name (Matt.28:19) is based upon. :o This is not going to happen anytime too soon so thank you for hearing 'another so called outdated view.' btw even infants baptized in the Triune God's Name based upon a "different gospel" ("revelation") even need to be re-baptized and for sure this isn't going to happen in my life time.

 

[Albion]

As I stated before in this thread I had some water sprinkled on my head at 12 years old because my parents had joined a church and felt that their children should be "religious" like they were so the leader of the church did as they wanted. Looking back now on it, I realize that that "church" was actually a social club rather than a place where Christians met and worshipped. It all looked good to me when I was an unregenerated sinner, but once I received Jesus Christ and discovered what Christ and Christianity was really all about I quickly recognized that old church was nothing more than an institution of dead religiousity attended by dead religionists led by an unregenerated leader with a degree in religion who had no idea of what real Christianity was all about.

Nonetheless, it was almost certainly a valid baptism.

You later came into a better understanding of the Gospel and committed yourself to Christ...but that's what we all must do, including those like myself who were baptized as an infant. The baptism doesn't save you despite whatever else happens in life, which we've pointed out many times already.

 

[AVB 2]

So an unregenerated sinner can perform a "valid" baptism on another unregenerated sinner and the outcome is..........he is now a wet unregenerated sinner. Big difference between the two, one needs a towel, the other doesn't. Okay now that makes sense...yeah....sure. ???

I don't believe God approves or sanctions anything an unregenerated sinner does regardless of whether the unregenerated man is "religious" or not. Christ's biggest enemies were the most religious men on earth.

Things of the church of God must be done by others who are born again members of the church of God. 2 Cor. 6:15 "What harmony is there between Christ and Belial [satan]? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? Absolutely nuttin.

AVB

 

[shturt678]

So an unregenerated sinner can perform a "valid" baptism on another unregenerated sinner and the outcome is..........he is now a wet unregenerated sinner. Big difference between the two, one needs a towel, the other doesn't. Okay now that makes sense...yeah....sure. ???

I don't believe God approves or sanctions anything an unregenerated sinner does regardless of whether the unregenerated man is "religious" or not. Christ's biggest enemies were the most religious men on earth.

Kind of murdered him.

Things of the church of God must be done by others who are born again members of the church of God. 2 Cor. 6:15 "What harmony is there between Christ and Belial [satan]? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? Absolutely nuttin.

AVB

[B"Born again" in the Kingdom of God[/B], as all church settings after 1930 kind of sick.

 

[Colleen1]

As I stated before in this thread I had some water sprinkled on my head at 12 years old because my parents had joined a church and felt that their children should be "religious" like they were so the leader of the church did as they wanted. Looking back now on it, I realize that that "church" was actually a social club rather than a place where Christians met and worshipped. It all looked good to me when I was an unregenerated sinner, but once I received Jesus Christ and discovered what Christ and Christianity was really all about I quickly recognized that old church was nothing more than an institution of dead religiousity attended by dead religionists led by an unregenerated leader with a degree in religion who had no idea of what real Christianity was all about. To them it was all about looking, sounding and acting like what they thought a Christian should look, sound and act like, you know "religious" and all that stuff. Spirituality was definitely NOT a part of that organization. It was a Sunday only religion. Two weeks after I received Christ (at 27) I was baptized by immersion by a born again believer in Christ, and THAT was my actual baptism. Now there are those that say my first one was the real one, but I ask does an unregenerated non-believer have the power and/or authority to institute a sacrament of the church? I don't think so because of 2 Cor 6:15 "What harmony is there between Christ and Belial [Satan]? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?"

AVB

Thanks for your honesty. I wish you many blessings along the way. It can be difficult when one has experienced what you have described but it is great when we come away from it and appreciate Christianity all the more.

 

[Crandaddy]

So an unregenerated sinner can perform a "valid" baptism on another unregenerated sinner and the outcome is..........he is now a wet unregenerated sinner. Big difference between the two, one needs a towel, the other doesn't. Okay now that makes sense...yeah....sure. ???

I don't believe God approves or sanctions anything an unregenerated sinner does regardless of whether the unregenerated man is "religious" or not. Christ's biggest enemies were the most religious men on earth.

Things of the church of God must be done by others who are born again members of the church of God. 2 Cor. 6:15 "What harmony is there between Christ and Belial [satan]? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? Absolutely nuttin.

AVB

So God would deny his salvific, regenerative Grace to someone who earnestly desires it for no other reason than that the minister is "unworthy" to convey it? This is what many Eastern Orthodox believe about Baptism (and the sacraments, generally), and of all heresies ever devised, this surely is one of the most vile.

 

[Colleen1]

...This is what many Eastern Orthodox believe about Baptism (and the sacraments, generally), and of all heresies ever devised, this surely is one of the most vile.

Can you expound? Are you suggesting this is what you believe in regards to the sacraments being given by someone who doesn't believe? Are you saying this is what the Eastern Orthodox church believes along with yourself? ...just wanting to understand your view point better.

 

[shturt678]

So God would deny his salvific, regenerative Grace to someone who earnestly desires it for no other reason than that the minister is "unworthy" to convey it? This is what many Eastern Orthodox believe about Baptism (and the sacraments, generally), and of all heresies ever devised, this surely is one of the most vile.

...."born anew" in Truth whether he is an unbeliever, make-believer, or sometimer believer. An unbeliever can administer the call of one's instant of faith with basics of Nicene Creed. Just look around us today.

 

[Colleen1]

...."born anew" in Truth whether he is an unbeliever, make-believer, or sometimer believer. An unbeliever can administer the call of one's instant of faith with basics of Nicene Creed. Just look around us today.

I think it can be difficult to judge another's heart. In that we can all have moments of more faith, less faith, real struggle.... I think however our intentions to do God's will / live a good Christian life and being truly repentant make a difference. As humans we are so fallible...even as Christians. I think we can have good intentions and still err needing forgiveness. Thankfully God is gracious and forgiving.

 

[Crandaddy]

Can you expound? Are you suggesting this is what you believe in regards to the sacraments being given by someone who doesn't believe? Are you saying this is what the Eastern Orthodox church believes along with yourself? ...just wanting to understand your view point better.

Heavens no, I don't believe such contemptible filth! Indeed, I absolutely reject and utterly condemn it! I consider it tantamount to outright denial of the Holy Spirit!

 

[shturt678]

It was the Gospel revelation and power which is full of grace and truth that makes the sacraments efficacious, ie, not a religious highly paid righteous Minister with clean seductive vestments on?

 

[Colleen1]

Heavens no, I don't believe such contemptible filth! Indeed, I absolutely reject and utterly condemn it! I consider it tantamount to outright denial of the Holy Spirit!

So then you think one can be given the sacraments (baptism / communion) from, for instance, a minister that is not 'right' with God? Interested in your views regarding this topic.

 

[Colleen1]

It was the Gospel revelation and power which is full of grace and truth that makes the sacraments efficacious, ie, not a religious highly paid righteous Minister with clean seductive vestments on?

How would you define 'Gospel revelation and power'?

 

[Crandaddy]

So then you think one can be given the sacraments (baptism / communion) from, for instance, a minister that is not 'right' with God? Interested in your views regarding this topic.

It is preferable that ordained clergy perform Holy Baptism, but in case of necessity, anyone at all can perform it--even a heretic or an atheist. For a baptism to be valid, all that's required is that it be performed correctly (the baptizer must invoke the Trinity and use water in a washing capacity, for example), and the baptizer must intend to perform a Christian baptism. It is not required that the baptizer have correct beliefs, or that (s)he be sufficiently "pure," "worthy," or free of serious sin.

Unlike Baptism, Holy Communion (as well as some other sacraments) does require validly-ordained clergy. Not just anyone can consecrate a valid Eucharist. But still, just as in Baptism, having correct beliefs, being sufficiently "pure," etc. are not required.

The Church does not believe in a God who is so weak that he can't deliver his Grace in spite of flawed ministers, or who is so indifferent to the salvation of souls that he chooses not to.

 

[Albion]

Nicely explained, Crandaddy. It strikes people as odd sometimes, but Donatism was addressed in the early church (as you know) and the sacrament was held to be superior to the officiant. IOW, it's a well-established understanding in the history of Christ's Church.

It is preferable that ordained clergy perform Holy Baptism, but in case of necessity, anyone at all can perform it--even a heretic or an atheist. For a baptism to be valid, all that's required is that it be performed correctly (the baptizer must invoke the Trinity and use water in a washing capacity, for example), and the baptizer must intend to perform a Christian baptism. It is not required that the baptizer have correct beliefs, or that (s)he be sufficiently "pure," "worthy," or free of serious sin.

Unlike Baptism, Holy Communion (as well as some other sacraments) does require validly-ordained clergy. Not just anyone can consecrate a valid Eucharist. But still, just as in Baptism, having correct beliefs, being sufficiently "pure," etc. are not required.

The Church does not believe in a God who is so weak that he can't deliver his Grace in spite of flawed ministers, or who is so indifferent to the salvation of souls that he chooses not to.

 

[Colleen1]

It is preferable that ordained clergy perform Holy Baptism, but in case of necessity, anyone at all can perform it--even a heretic or an atheist. For a baptism to be valid, all that's required is that it be performed correctly (the baptizer must invoke the Trinity and use water in a washing capacity, for example), and the baptizer must intend to perform a Christian baptism. It is not required that the baptizer have correct beliefs, or that (s)he be sufficiently "pure," "worthy," or free of serious sin.

Would be rather impossible for the baptizer to 'intend' to perform a Christian baptism when he / she doesn't believe....

Unlike Baptism, Holy Communion (as well as some other sacraments) does require validly-ordained clergy. Not just anyone can consecrate a valid Eucharist. But still, just as in Baptism, having correct beliefs, being sufficiently "pure," etc. are not required.

That would depend upon one's doctrinal beliefs. Different churches would vary on that issue but thanks for being honest regarding your beliefs.

The Church does not believe in a God who is so weak that he can't deliver his Grace in spite of flawed ministers, or who is so indifferent to the salvation of souls that he chooses not to.

I agree that God is bigger than us but I do believe we who are receiving need to be willing and accepting in order for it to be effective. God does... but do we accept....

 

[Albion]

Would be rather impossible for the baptizer to 'intend' to perform a Christian baptism when he / she doesn't believe....

It's an interesting point you raise, Colleen. The standard answer is that it is indeed possible for a valid baptism to be administered by a non-believer. For example, a nurse who has no particular religion may (and actually has done so) baptize a newborn she knows is about to die...because she knows the preference of the parents. That might seem to be lack of intention, but in reality the intention is there and correct. It's just the personal faith of the baptizer that is absent. In any case, this is the answer that mainline Christian churches have often given.

 

[Colleen1]

It's an interesting point you raise, Colleen. The standard answer is that it is indeed possible for a valid baptism to be administered by a non-believer. For example, a nurse who has no particular religion may (and actually has done so) baptize a newborn she knows is about to die...because she knows the preference of the parents. That might seem to be lack of intention, but in reality the intention is there and correct. It's just the personal faith of the baptizer that is absent. In any case, this is the answer that mainline Christian churches have often given.

I'm not talking about God's power. I'm talking about a nonchristian having Christian 'intention'.

 

[Albion]

I'm not talking about God's power. I'm talking about a nonchristian having Christian 'intention'.

Well, I just explained that, Colleen. The intention need only be that of administering a Christian baptism.