Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Perhaps you can help me. If the personal faith, or lack thereof, is not an issue with either the individual being baptized or the person doing the baptism, and the necessity is saying the right words with the correct appurtenances and if baptism carries eternal salvific merit, then why do I not see any of the clergy of any of the denominations that profess this view out baptizing everyone they can find? If my eternal soul is at stake because I have not been baptized does it not compel you to baptize me ASAP?

 

[Albion]

Perhaps you can help me. If the personal faith, or lack thereof, is not an issue with either the individual being baptized or the person doing the baptism, and the necessity is saying the right words with the correct appurtenances and if baptism carries eternal salvific merit, then why do I not see any of the clergy of any of the denominations that profess this view out baptizing everyone they can find? If my eternal soul is at stake because I have not been baptized does it not compel you to baptize me ASAP?

Nowhere along the line has it been suggested that people be baptised AGAINST their will, has it?

 

[Pteriax]

Nowhere along the line has it been suggested that people be baptised AGAINST their will, has it?

Do you know the will of infants?

 

[Crandaddy]

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.

Well, I don't think what we see in the East is straight Donatism (as it was held back in the early history of the Church, that is). I would classify it as a variant of that heresy, though.

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

It doesn't take much for someone to effectively think, "I'm going to perform a baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the Christian Church, whatever that might mean," which is basically all that valid intent requires. (S)he might think it's all superstitious nonsense, or (s)he might even have outright hatred for Christianity, and still satisfy the requirement of valid intent.

I suppose it's possible that a baptizer might secretly intend to do something other than Christian baptism, despite all appearances to the contrary, but I really think it would take some effort to do this. I also think that just in case (s)he might succeed in this, God would make up for what is lacking.

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

Sure thing! Yes, different churches do hold different views on Apostolic Succession, the Episcopacy, etc., but the view that Anglicans, Catholics, etc. hold is very ancient, and we believe that it has been held since the very beginning of the Church.

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....

To a certain extent at least, I agree. We must not take the sacraments to be magical tokens that guarantee salvation regardless of the disposition of the recipient. Indeed, the Apostle Paul warns us about receiving Christ's Body and Blood in Holy Communion unworthily (1 Corinthians 11:27-32).

Perhaps you can help me. If the personal faith, or lack thereof, is not an issue with either the individual being baptized or the person doing the baptism, and the necessity is saying the right words with the correct appurtenances and if baptism carries eternal salvific merit, then why do I not see any of the clergy of any of the denominations that profess this view out baptizing everyone they can find? If my eternal soul is at stake because I have not been baptized does it not compel you to baptize me ASAP?

Because while Baptism does carry with it the guarantee of regenerative and salvific Grace, it is not the be-all and end-all of the Christian life. Nor is it an absolute guarantee of salvation. Someone can reject their baptism, reject God and go to hell. More important than being baptized is willfully seeking God, and the Christian's job is to show forth God's glory to the unbaptized and encourage them in this. If it is God's will that they be baptized, then it will happen in due course. Want of baptism is not an automatic ticket to hell, and forcibly baptizing people against their will would be an excellent way to turn them away from the Gospel.

Besides, while the worthiness of the minister is not required for a valid baptism, I'm not sure if a baptism would be valid if the person baptized had no interest in Christianity and strongly desired not to be baptized. In fact, I'm inclined to say that such a baptism would not be valid.

 

[shturt678]

How would you define 'Gospel revelation and power'?

For example one is baptized "in the name" in Matt.28:19 thinking that it's just the Triune's God's name - "delusion coupled with illusion." The sense is, "In connection with the revelation of the Father," etc.. Baptism takes place in the sphere of the revelation (God's power in Rom.1:16 for starters, the Word) of the Triune God. Because of the time you were born into, you and 99% of all others, will have to view the former what it thinks that it really is, only what it pretends to be. True Gospel = power. Thank you for caring anyway. Ministers of water baptism = / = power

 

[Colleen1]

It doesn't take much for someone to effectively think, "I'm going to perform a baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the Christian Church, whatever that might mean," which is basically all that valid intent requires. (S)he might think it's all superstitious nonsense, or (s)he might even have outright hatred for Christianity, and still satisfy the requirement of valid intent.

I suppose it's possible that a baptizer might secretly intend to do something other than Christian baptism, despite all appearances to the contrary, but I really think it would take some effort to do this. I also think that just in case (s)he might succeed in this, God would make up for what is lacking.

My point being is how would they clearly know and understand the concept of the Holy Spirit and a relationship with God if they have not experienced such. Again it amounts to 'going through the motions' ...and why would any church be in favour of this.... I believe God is sovereign and He can use various people and situations beyond our comprehension but I don't think we as Christians should easily forgo the importance of being 'right' with God and not just while being part of / receiving various sacraments. I realize you understand the importance of this. However, there is a reason why ordained minister / pastors / priests are the ones performing these sacraments in church etc and not others. I am aware of the scriptures in the New Testament that address this issue. Nevertheless, imo, we as Christians need to consider the entire Bible and what it is saying and not a single verse alone to justify a rather involved subject. ....just expressing my view regarding this issue. Thanks for being honest about yours.

Sure thing! Yes, different churches do hold different views on Apostolic Succession, the Episcopacy, etc., but the view that Anglicans, Catholics, etc. hold is very ancient, and we believe that it has been held since the very beginning of the Church.

Yes, there are different doctrines among orthodox Christian churches. Whether or not the Anglicans, Catholics, etc. hold to the 'correct' view according to the first church is debatable in my opinion.

To a certain extent at least, I agree. We must not take the sacraments to be magical tokens that guarantee salvation regardless of the disposition of the recipient. Indeed, the Apostle Paul warns us about receiving Christ's Body and Blood in Holy Communion unworthily (1 Corinthians 11:27-32).

I agree. It is God who is powerful and the biblical passage you've used here is one I think is relevant here. One of my favourites regarding this issue.

 

[Albion]

My point being is how would they clearly know and understand the concept of the Holy Spirit and a relationship with God if they have not experienced such.

It doesn't really require that.

Again it amounts to 'going through the motions' ...and why would any church be in favour of this....

Going through the motions WITH THE INTENT to validly baptize is what is needed.

I believe God is sovereign and He can use various people and situations beyond our comprehension but I don't think we as Christians should easily forgo the importance of being 'right' with God and not just while being part of / receiving various sacraments.

You apparently cannot get beyond the idea that the sacrament is made effective BY the understanding of the recipient.

However, there is a reason why ordained minister / pastors / priests are the ones performing these sacraments in church etc and not others. I am aware of the scriptures in the New Testament that address this issue. Nevertheless, imo, we as Christians need to consider the entire Bible and what it is saying and not a single verse alone to justify a rather involved subject. ....just expressing my view regarding this issue. Thanks for being honest about yours.

I'd say to bear in mind that we've been describing emergency measures and no one is exactly sure how God judges in each and every case. Normally, of course, non-believers aren't baptizing people moments before their death just to be kind, but you asked.

 

[Colleen1]

For example one is baptized "in the name" in Matt.28:19 thinking that it's just the Triune's God's name - "delusion coupled with illusion." The sense is, "In connection with the revelation of the Father," etc.. Baptism takes place in the sphere of the revelation (God's power in Rom.1:16 for starters, the Word) of the Triune God.

Are you suggesting that some believe it is the Triune God's name that is powerful?
So you are saying, according to your view, that baptism is God revealing Himself to us?
Never disagree that baptism is about God's power and NOT man's but and God can work in our lives in various ways. My point is in order for it to be effective as it was meant to be, we need to be accepting.

Because of the time you were born into, you and 99% of all others, will have to view the former what it thinks that it really is, only what it pretends to be. True Gospel = power. Thank you for caring anyway. Ministers of water baptism = / = power

You mean if it doesn't coincide with your doctrinal beliefs?

 

[Colleen1]

You apparently cannot get beyond the idea that the sacrament is made effective BY the understanding of the recipient.

Again it amounts to 'going through the motions' ...and why would any church be in favour of this.... I believe God is sovereign and He can use various people and situations beyond our comprehension but I don't think we as Christians should easily forgo the importance of being 'right' with God and not just while being part of / receiving various sacraments.

I have been stating the importance of that from the beginning. It's been one of my main points. ...as it has been with others here discussing things.

I'd say to bear in mind that we've been describing emergency measures and no one is exactly sure how God judges in each and every case. Normally, of course, non-believers aren't baptizing people moments before their death just to be kind, but you asked.

When and where has it been stated that we were discussing 'emergency' measures.

 

[shturt678]

Are you suggesting that some believe it is the Triune God's name that is powerful?
So you are saying, according to your view, that baptism is God revealing Himself to us?
Never disagree that baptism is about God's power and NOT man's but and God can work in our lives in various ways. My point is in order for it to be effective as it was meant to be, we need to be accepting.



You mean if it doesn't coincide with your doctrinal beliefs?

It's the 'revelation' the Triune's God's NAME is based upon, ie, the Word. Each view baptism differently, eg, water baptismal rebirth, spiritual baptismal rebirth, etc., ie, my doctrinal belief aligns with those of "water baptismal rebirth" based upon the Genuine Gospel (note a "different gospel" at IICor.1:4) hence I'm not the lone Ranger in this operation. still lol with you and not at you. God can work in the lives of those truly reborn again, but God cannot alter his means of grace and baptism is one of the means.

 

[Colleen1]

It's the 'revelation' the Triune's God's NAME is based upon, ie, the Word. Each view baptism differently, eg, water baptismal rebirth, spiritual baptismal rebirth, etc., ie, my doctrinal belief aligns with those of "water baptismal rebirth" based upon the Genuine Gospel (note a "different gospel" at IICor.1:4) hence I'm not the lone Ranger in this operation. still lol with you and not at you. God can work in the lives of those truly reborn again, but God cannot alter his means of grace and baptism is one of the means.

Imo, God it the power. God uses the Bible, people, sacraments but He is the One... nothing else to be praised... it is Him.

 

[Colleen1]

My point being as it has been from that start. There is more to this all (Christianity) than going through the motions.

II Timothy 3:5-9
5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people. 6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.

 

[shturt678]

My point being as it has been from that start. There is more to this all (Christianity) than going through the motions.

II Timothy 3:5-9
5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people. 6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.

God's power however is the Word (Rom.1:16) and the Triune God's Personal Name must be core-based on the Word (Matt.28:19). Thank you again, especially your caring.

 

[Colleen1]

God's power however is the Word (Rom.1:16) and the Triune God's Personal Name must be core-based on the Word (Matt.28:19). Thank you again, especially your caring.

Again, I think we need to take the entire Bible and then we see that it is Jesus sacrifice and God's power that saves. Are faith and acceptance is also a factor, imo.

So then taking the following 2 scriptures along with your scripture we can see there is more involved.

Romans 5:1-2
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God.

I Corinthians 6:11
And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 1:16
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

 

[shturt678]

Again, I think we need to take the entire Bible and then we see that it is Jesus sacrifice and God's power that saves. Are faith and acceptance is also a factor, imo.

Unfortunately that "faith and acceptance" also must be based upon the Word.

So then taking the following 2 scriptures along with your scripture we can see there is more involved.

The only thing really involved is one's 'instant of faith' followed with "born again" (Jn.3:3, 5; Matt.28:19) then one in the Kingdom then more involved with other passages. Cannot jump to Rev.20, 9, 10 until "born again."

Romans 5:1-2
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God.

Only for those "born anew" God's way or is it ways?

I Corinthians 6:11
And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 1:16
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

Now you've got it - takes God's power to save those born anew his way or ways then in the Kingdom then etc.

 

[Crandaddy]

My point being is how would they clearly know and understand the concept of the Holy Spirit and a relationship with God if they have not experienced such.

They wouldn't have to. That's what Albion and I keep saying. God is not handicapped by flawed ministers.

...and why would any church be in favour of this....

We're not in favor of it. As I said before, it's preferable that ordained clergy baptize, but still, we recognize that baptisms performed by anyone are nonetheless valid baptisms, as long as they're done correctly with correct intent.

I believe God is sovereign and He can use various people and situations beyond our comprehension but I don't think we as Christians should easily forgo the importance of being 'right' with God and not just while being part of / receiving various sacraments.

Of course we shouldn't forgo the importance of being right with God! Indeed, that above all else is of paramount importance! The sacraments are not magical acts that mechanistically confer Grace and salvation, and should not be looked upon as such!

I realize you understand the importance of this. However, there is a reason why ordained minister / pastors / priests are the ones performing these sacraments in church etc and not others.

And that reason is one of rightful authority. They're the ones who rightfully ought to minister the sacraments (and for some sacraments, like Holy Communion, they're the only ones who can minister them) because they're the leaders of the Church, but the reason is not because they have more knowledge or are more worthy.

I am aware of the scriptures in the New Testament that address this issue. Nevertheless, imo, we as Christians need to consider the entire Bible and what it is saying and not a single verse alone to justify a rather involved subject. ....just expressing my view regarding this issue. Thanks for being honest about yours.

Yes, we need to consider the entire Bible as it has always been understood by the Church, by properly using our God-given faculties of right reason. This is the Anglican "three-legged stool."

 

[AVB 2]

Ah yes I have heard of the old three legged stool. The church, the scriptures and traditions. The "Protestant" stool has only one leg you say and one cannot sit on a one legged stool now can one. Well we are told to "stand fast" six times in the NT and "stand" an additional 10 times. I couldn't find where we are commanded to "sit fast" anywhere. Protestants don't sit on our buns on a stool doing nothing we are winning the world for Christ.

AVB

 

[Albion]

Ah yes I have heard of the old three legged stool. The church, the scriptures and traditions.

The three legs are scripture, tradition, and reason.

 

[shturt678]

The three legs are scripture, tradition, and reason.

The Scriptures - tradition - reason + the pure Word X God's reasoning = the foundation the stool rests upon.

 

[Crandaddy]

Ah yes I have heard of the old three legged stool. The church, the scriptures and traditions.

You must not have heard very much, because as Albion's noted, you've gotten the legs wrong.

The "Protestant" stool has only one leg you say and one cannot sit on a one legged stool now can one. Well we are told to "stand fast" six times in the NT and "stand" an additional 10 times. I couldn't find where we are commanded to "sit fast" anywhere.

And by butchering the metaphor, you wish to make what point, exactly? That it's a sin to sit down?

Protestants don't sit on our buns on a stool doing nothing we are winning the world for Christ.

1) Since the Reformation, we Anglicans have considered ourselves both Protestant and Catholic. Our reformers strove to reform the Church in England without dispensing with the essentials of the Catholic faith.

2) Just what does "winning the world for Christ" entail, besides never sitting down? I don't imagine that C.S. Lewis--an Anglican--stood on his feet for much of the time that he was composing his works, so apparently, he made no contribution toward "winning the world for Christ."

The Scriptures - tradition - reason + the pure Word X God's reasoning = the foundation the stool rests upon.

The Scriptures don't interpret themselves. To be properly understood, they must be interpreted within the context that they were written, and that context is the Tradition of the Church.

And human beings always use reason. Anything we could possibly do or think would have to have some reason or other behind it. The only choice we have in this regard is whether we reason wisely or poorly, but we always reason.