Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[bbbbbbb]

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

Indeed it has. I have yet to encounter a single baby that was baptized because it asked to be. In fact, I have observed many infant baptisms where the baby acutely expressed his unwillingness.

If baptism is salvific for babies which are there no priests and ministers posting themselves in the maternity wards of hospitals to baptize those little folks as soon as they enter the world as we know it?

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

I see. So baptism is the first step on the treadmill of religious works which might result in the salvation of a person.

If so, then why withhold it from people and restrict it only to those who meet the church's standards for baptism? After all, if this is the first step, then it should be given to everyone possible, don't you agree?

 

[Crandaddy]

Indeed it has. I have yet to encounter a single baby that was baptized because it asked to be. In fact, I have observed many infant baptisms where the baby acutely expressed his unwillingness.

Babies have no idea what's going on. They don't understand that they're being baptized. They might not like getting wet and make a fuss about that, but I don't think that's quite the same thing as forcibly baptizing someone of consenting age, even as they knowingly and willingly reject that baptism.

If baptism is salvific for babies which are there no priests and ministers posting themselves in the maternity wards of hospitals to baptize those little folks as soon as they enter the world as we know it?

Because most babies brought into the world under the care of modern medicine are not in acute danger of dying shortly after birth. For those that are, clergy might indeed be called in to administer emergency baptism.

But again, even without clergy, anyone at all can administer an emergency baptism, should the need arise.

 

[Crandaddy]

I see. So baptism is the first step on the treadmill of religious works which might result in the salvation of a person.

Our works can never earn our salvation. No church or denomination that I know of teaches that. Not even the Catholic Church (which is often accused of it) teaches that. We can choose to cooperate with Divine Grace or reject it, but we can never merit it by ourselves. That's a heresy called Pelagianism.

If so, then why withhold it from people and restrict it only to those who meet the church's standards for baptism? After all, if this is the first step, then it should be given to everyone possible, don't you agree?

If we go around forcibly baptizing even non-mentally-infirm adults who knowingly and willingly reject it, then what good could that possibly do? Baptism is not an automatic ticket to heaven, nor is lack of baptism an automatic ticket to hell.

Forcibly baptizing people would turn people away from the Gospel, and so would probably result in more people going to hell.

 

[Albion]

Our works can never earn our salvation. No church or denomination that I know of teaches that. Not even the Catholic Church (which is often accused of it) teaches that. We can choose to cooperate with Divine Grace or reject it, but we can never merit it by ourselves. That's a heresy called Pelagianism.

Correct. Our works could never earn salvation by themselves. However, that isn't what it meant. It is understood that they would be meaningless if Christ's sacrifice had not made them "count" with God and, with that, it is now up to you to earn your salvation. That's the teaching that is being referred to.

 

[Albion]

if this is the first step, then it should be given to everyone possible, don't you agree?

In effect, it is.

That is to say, we try to reach everyone with the Gospel which, if accepted by them, would be followed by a baptism. I assume that no one is recommending that we just run around throwing water on crowds in the street.

 

[shturt678]

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

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

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 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.

I always thought a lie stood on one let, and the Truth stood on two? Oh well, back to IIPet.1:20, 21, Scriptura undoubtedly ex Scriptura explicanda est, oh, that's all Greek to me. Anyway, prophecy governs the interpretation, ie, supplies it's own interpretation. Scriptures interpret themselves. The context rules the interpretation after the former understood - most of the time, eg, I've run into a few passages where the grammar ruled. My rule is interpret going from the ancient languages forward to the English. Just ol' old ex-ruling Jack However thank you again for caring for the Word.

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.

 

[VolRaider]

Judging from the Anglican growth in Africa, I would say the Anglican Communion is doing a pretty bang-up job in the "fishers of men" department.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Judging from the Anglican growth in Africa, I would say the Anglican Communion is doing a pretty bang-up job in the "fishers of men" department.

Agreed.

 

[Rev Randy]

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!

One cannot be baptized twice. one can be dunked, poured over or sprinkled twice. Only one time will it be a baptism.
When it is unsure if a Baptism is valid, there is something called a conditional baptism in which it is spoken, "If thou be not baptized".
Eph.4:5" one Lord, one faith, one baptism,"

 

[AVB 2]

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

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

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 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.

Wrong legs, my bad. I wasn't paying too much attention when I first heard this a number of years ago as I was too busy praising the Lord because I only had to dump my former Churchianity Protestant denomination and not also man's traditions dressed up to look spiritual.

C.S. Lewis, a great author. My older sister is a big fan and has read a number of his books but IMHO she is not a Christian based on her views of a number of things like abortion (she's had four of them and thinks more should be done to promote even more murdering of unwanted babies), homosexuality (they are special people and should be granted special privileges), Jesus Christ (was not the Son of God and probably never actually even lived except in the minds of his followers, and there are hundreds of other ways to heaven, like Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, keeping the 10 commandments, Hinduism and on and on.) Not saying there isn't anyone out there that may have received Christ after reading one of his books its just I have never talked to one of them.

AVB

 

[Crandaddy]

Correct. Our works could never earn salvation by themselves. However, that isn't what it meant. It is understood that they would be meaningless if Christ's sacrifice had not made them "count" with God and, with that, it is now up to you to earn your salvation. That's the teaching that is being referred to.

Well, they would say that when we screw up, we need to be forgiven. But they denied that because of sin, there's anything wrong with our nature, so they'd say that we could, in principle at least, pick ourselves up by the bootstraps, as it were, and make it to heaven on our own.

By contrast, the orthodox camp held that we could never make it to heaven on our own because sin infects our very nature. Every Christian body that I know of (including the Catholics) holds the orthodox view on this.

One cannot be baptized twice. one can be dunked, poured over or sprinkled twice. Only one time will it be a baptism.
When it is unsure if a Baptism is valid, there is something called a conditional baptism in which it is spoken, "If thou be not baptized".
Eph.4:5" one Lord, one faith, one baptism,"

Under what circumstances would you perform a conditional baptism, Randy?

Wrong legs, my bad. I wasn't paying too much attention when I first heard this a number of years ago as I was too busy praising the Lord because I only had to dump my former Churchianity Protestant denomination and not also man's traditions dressed up to look spiritual.

So do you think that formal liturgy and spirituality are incompatible?

C.S. Lewis, a great author. My older sister is a big fan and has read a number of his books but IMHO she is not a Christian based on her views of a number of things like abortion (she's had four of them and thinks more should be done to promote even more murdering of unwanted babies), homosexuality (they are special people and should be granted special privileges), Jesus Christ (was not the Son of God and probably never actually even lived except in the minds of his followers, and there are hundreds of other ways to heaven, like Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, keeping the 10 commandments, Hinduism and on and on.) Not saying there isn't anyone out there that may have received Christ after reading one of his books its just I have never talked to one of them.

AVB

I've met countless people who've been profoundly nourished and encouraged in the Christian faith by Lewis. I'm one of them. He isn't known as the greatest Christian apologist of the twentieth century for nuthin'. Still, that doesn't mean that everyone who reads him will embrace Christianity. I have a very dear pagan friend who simply adores Lewis, for example, and Lewis's closest personal friend, Arthur Greeves, was homosexual, even though Lewis himself did not condone homosexuality.

 

[Albion]

Well, they would say that when we screw up, we need to be forgiven. But they denied that because of sin, there's anything wrong with our nature, so they'd say that we could, in principle at least, pick ourselves up by the bootstraps, as it were, and make it to heaven on our own.

By contrast, the orthodox camp held that we could never make it to heaven on our own because sin infects our very nature. Every Christian body that I know of (including the Catholics) holds the orthodox view on this.

It sounds like we're speaking of two different "theys."

 

[shturt678]

.....'s name is based upon hence most need a renewal of faith in the true revelation that the Genuine Jesus ("another Jesus," IICor.11:4) is based upon resulting in a needed second baptism. Don't hold your breath on this one, ie, not going to happen.

 

[Hentenza]

Our works can never earn our salvation. No church or denomination that I know of teaches that. Not even the Catholic Church (which is often accused of it) teaches that. We can choose to cooperate with Divine Grace or reject it, but we can never merit it by ourselves.

If works can never earn our salvation and since we must choose to cooperate with divine grace, and cooperating with divine grace is a work, then how can our works not earn our salvation?

Forcibly baptizing people would turn people away from the Gospel, and so would probably result in more people going to hell.

What does "forcing" entail?

 

[Colleen1]

If works can never earn our salvation and since we must choose to cooperate with divine grace, and cooperating with divine grace is a work, then how can our works not earn our salvation?

What does "forcing" entail?

When I think of works and salvation, I think in terms of nothing we can do can bring apart salvation. It's through the power of God and Jesus sacrifice. We can accept and commit or decline. But, imo, it is God that the credit is due. So when the topic salvation by works comes up I say nay. However, works develop our relationship with God, discernment, character, etc. and being part of God's plans for our lives so in that sense they work for our eternal good...but nothing I have done nor any man is where my salvation comes from imo.

 

[Colleen1]

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."



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





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

Also... not soley. Yes, the Bible most certainly should be taken seriously and the power in speaking in Jesus name etc. but still I owe God the glory for it is of Him.

 

[Hentenza]

When I think of works and salvation, I think in terms of nothing we can do can bring apart salvation. It's through the power of God and Jesus sacrifice. We can accept and commit or decline. But, imo, it is God that the credit is due. So when the topic salvation by works comes up I say nay. However, works develop our relationship with God, discernment, character, etc. and being part of God's plans for our lives so in that sense they work for our eternal good...but nothing I have done nor any man is where my salvation comes from imo.

Then how can baptism regenerate?

 

[Colleen1]

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

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.

If you're not in favour of it why are you presenting such. I just think that this take on baptism shouldn't be as generally applied as I've seen it explained. Again, pretty tricky business presenting that a nonchristian is capable of having 'Christian intention'.

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!

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.

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."

Yes, the Bible is important along with discernment.

Differing orthodox churches have differing doctrinal / theological views.

 

[Colleen1]

Fact remains that each orthodox Christian church has varying views regarding theology, doctrine, etc. Imo, each church has made err and needs correction. All we have to do in order to see this is to study some history / church history and we can see this. That's why it is good to come together and 'sharpen' one another. To test things, to learn and to explain, to share....