Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

There are but two reasons:
1: The convert is unsure if his/her baptism is valid.
2. The Church is unsure (cannot confirm) his/her baptism is valid.
It boils down to whether the baptism was in the Name of the Trinity and other factors.
It is not a second baptism. I'm pretty sure Rome and others do this as well.

Our Church is the same.

 

[Albion]

Our Church is the same.

Generally agree, but I'm not so sure about that "convert is unsure" stuff. We've seen on this thread that there's a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of Baptism among Christians, and it would be wrong to let that determine the issue. If it was a valid Baptism, the rest of this handwringing would have to be gently set aside and the original Baptism upheld.

But maybe you two only meant that the convert had good reason to suspect that there was something irregular about the circumstances of the original ceremony--the words used, etc.

I remember when one of LBJ's daughters converted to the RCC and was rebaptized. Her original baptism had been in an Episcopal ceremony, so it was a great wrong for the RCC to have doubted the validity of that Baptism, whether it was because of the thinking of some Catholic cleric or the young woman herself.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Generally agree, but I'm not so sure about that "convert is unsure" stuff. We've seen on this thread that there's a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of Baptism among Christians, and it would be wrong to let that determine the issue. If it was a valid Baptism, the rest of this handwringing would have to be gently set aside and the original Baptism upheld.

But maybe you two only meant that the convert had good reason to suspect that there was something irregular about the circumstances of the original ceremony--the words used, etc.

I can't speak of other Churches, but that is what I meant.

I remember when one of LBJ's daughters converted to the RCC and was rebaptized. Her original baptism had been in an Episcopal ceremony, so it was a great wrong for the RCC to have doubted the validity of that Baptism, whether it was because of the thinking of some Catholic cleric or the young woman herself.

I doubt that such would happen today.

 

[shturt678]

Sorry, didn't notice this before...

Baptism is the ordinary means whereby we receive the initially justifying and sanctifying Grace of regeneration (i.e. of being "born again"). It washes away the stain of original sin, as well as all other sins previously committed, and it leaves an indelible "mark" on the baptized person, which is why once a person has been validly baptized, that person cannot ever be "re"-baptized. We can't (always) see that "mark," but it's there.

Because Baptism washes away sin and justifies a person before God, it can serve to effect someone's salvation, and it does do so unless that person forsakes his/her baptism by turning to sin and does not repent.

......"re"-baptized. In light of Matt.18:6, keep splashing those tiny guilty babies. Yes, 'instant of faith' + water baptism is 'regeneration. Good thread and praise the Lord gang.

 

[Crandaddy]

There are but two reasons:
1: The convert is unsure if his/her baptism is valid.
2. The Church is unsure (cannot confirm) his/her baptism is valid.
It boils down to whether the baptism was in the Name of the Trinity and other factors.
It is not a second baptism. I'm pretty sure Rome and others do this as well.

Yes, Romans, Anglicans, and at least some Lutherans have conditional baptism. There might be others as well, I don't know.

Reason I ask is because I'm not sure why you'd use it if you know that the person has never received an Orthodox baptism. Some Orthodox would not hesitate to (re)-baptize even converts who've already received Trinitarian baptisms from other churches (closely-related schismatic groups like Old Calendarists being the only possible exceptions).

I remember when one of LBJ's daughters converted to the RCC and was rebaptized. Her original baptism had been in an Episcopal ceremony, so it was a great wrong for the RCC to have doubted the validity of that Baptism, whether it was because of the thinking of some Catholic cleric or the young woman herself.

I did not know that. That's against their own rules, and the clergy who made that call should have been defrocked.

 

[Albion]

I did not know that. That's against their own rules, and the clergy who made that call should have been defrocked.

Given the high-profile wedding that this was, I think it was the bishop of somewhere.

Mark said he doubts that this would happen today, but I'm not so sure. I was shocked that it happened THEN, considering the rules that all of us are aware of.

 

[bbbbbbb]

"But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 19:14

Being born again and claimed for Christ is for everyone--even infants.



Baptism is not so urgent that it must be done immediately and at once even to healthy babies.

Besides, remember that clergy are the ones who should perform Holy Baptism, even though they're not the only ones who can, and ordinarily, baptism is not so urgent that they need to station themselves at hospitals in order to baptize every baby just as soon as it comes into the world. Persons other than clergy should perform Baptism only under emergent circumstances.

I merely suggested doing it at hospitals as being the most logical location. It seems rather unproductive to have to sit in a church and wait for parents to bring their baby to you when the possibility is that the babies could be easily baptized after birth, much like many get circumcised. It is not a difficult or lengthy procedure and entails no physical threat to the life of a baby (unless the baby is held under water, which really never happens).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Sorry, didn't notice this before...

Baptism is the ordinary means whereby we receive the initially justifying and sanctifying Grace of regeneration (i.e. of being "born again"). It washes away the stain of original sin, as well as all other sins previously committed, and it leaves an indelible "mark" on the baptized person, which is why once a person has been validly baptized, that person cannot ever be "re"-baptized. We can't (always) see that "mark," but it's there.

Because Baptism washes away sin and justifies a person before God, it can serve to effect someone's salvation, and it does do so unless that person forsakes his/her baptism by turning to sin and does not repent.

Thanks. So there is a very clear reason to baptize babies.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't approve of that approach. I don't believe people should be coerced into being baptized. Nor do I believe that Baptism should be presented as conferring benefits on the baptized, as some sort of reward for good behavior.

Those of consenting age and competency should be baptized only if they desire to forsake their life of sin and enter into the new Life of the risen Christ as sons and daughters of God, and Baptism should be presented to them as the initiation into this new Life.

I sincerely doubt that he ever coerced anyone into being baptized or told them that baptism was a reward for good behavior. It was merely part of the Last Rites for those who had delayed joining the Catholic Church. In fact, John Wayne did this very thing on his deathbed in the hospital. I cannot speak for his motives, but the new life he entered (assuming that was his desire) was one in heaven where no sin dwells.

 

[shturt678]

Most unknowingly water baptized in the "another name" that the Triune God's Name is based upon, unknowingly of course, and absolutely forget the ol' old conditional baptism with the ol' old indelible mark routine. But remember one's renewal of faith in the renewal-'instant of faith.' What follows an "instant of faith" for non-spiritual baptismal rebirthers. No reflection on sane modern Lutherans as I'm a, let's say, non-modern Lutheran that does raise Mr. Martin Chemnitz pretty high up there where I'm not even in charge of the latrine cleaners. No false humility here.

 

[Crypto]

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!

I think it will be nice, especially if the second baptism is not obligatory, since in that case only those who really believe would go through it. However, no church will accept two baptisms because that would be tantamount to accepting that they don't know when and why a person is to be baptized.

 

[Rev Randy]

Generally agree, but I'm not so sure about that "convert is unsure" stuff. We've seen on this thread that there's a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of Baptism among Christians, and it would be wrong to let that determine the issue. If it was a valid Baptism, the rest of this handwringing would have to be gently set aside and the original Baptism upheld.

But maybe you two only meant that the convert had good reason to suspect that there was something irregular about the circumstances of the original ceremony--the words used, etc.

I remember when one of LBJ's daughters converted to the RCC and was rebaptized. Her original baptism had been in an Episcopal ceremony, so it was a great wrong for the RCC to have doubted the validity of that Baptism, whether it was because of the thinking of some Catholic cleric or the young woman herself.

When I say the convert is unsure, I'm not so much speaking of the doctrine believed in the previous denom. But whether it was done properly (ie; in the name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit but not completely limited to that).If a convert feels it necessary, we honor that. Only one of the immersions will be valid and we don't determine which one. Beliefs don't enter in until after Baptism (for us) as we see water Baptism as being born again with old things being passed away. I would suspect the young woman made the decision as I think Rome accepts Anglican Baptism as valid. But when a young woman comes with a doubt or perhaps even a thought that it may not have been valid, her request should be honored. Conditional baptism is not a disparaging of the previous groups baptisms validity. It's a "just in case" thing. That's why it's spoken, " if thou are not already baptized". The church would not want to deny something already done of God.

 

[Albion]

When I say the convert is unsure, I'm not so much speaking of the doctrine believed in the previous denom. But whether it was done properly (ie; in the name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit but not completely limited to that).If a convert feels it necessary, we honor that. Only one of the immersions will be valid and we don't determine which one. Beliefs don't enter in until after Baptism (for us) as we see water Baptism as being born again with old things being passed away. I would suspect the young woman made the decision as I think Rome accepts Anglican Baptism as valid. But when a young woman comes with a doubt or perhaps even a thought that it may not have been valid, her request should be honored. Conditional baptism is not a disparaging of the previous groups baptisms validity. It's a "just in case" thing. That's why it's spoken, " if thou are not already baptized". The church would not want to deny something already done of God.

Thank you for that information. I have to say I'm interested to learn all this because I was always taught that to attempt a "rebaptism" was a great wrong.

Same for letting the convert determine that a perfectly good baptism in a previous church was defective. In fact, to have the church go along with such misguided understanding of the nature of the sacrament on the part of a new member still seems stunning to me. What else does the church permit merely because the person makes his own theological judgments, I wonder?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thank you for that information. I have to say I'm interested to learn all this because I was always taught that to attempt a "rebaptism" was a great wrong.

Same for letting the convert determine that a perfectly good baptism in a previous church was defective. In fact, to have the church go along with such misguided understanding of the nature of the sacrament on the part of a new member still seems stunning to me. What else does the church permit merely because the person makes his own theological judgments, I wonder?

It is a great wrong to re-baptize. The Lutheran Parish into which i was born, in the early 1800's released a Pastor from his call (fired him) for rebaptizing a child which had been baptized by it's father in the absence of a Pastor.

Some Churches baptize only in the name of Jesus; since we believe Christ's words to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and we believe that it is the water and the Word which makes a valid baptism; re-baptizing members of these Churches would not be "re-baptizing" as such, since we believe that the original baptism is invalid.

Those who don't know if they were baptized, where they were baptized, how they were baptized could be conditionally baptized; better to be safe than sorry.

For a Church to believe in the efficacy of baptism is not required for the validity of the baptism; since it's not a work done by mankind, but a work done by God through water and the Word.

Our confessions state the the sacraments remain efficacious even when administered by evil men.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Given the high-profile wedding that this was, I think it was the bishop of somewhere.

Mark said he doubts that this would happen today, but I'm not so sure. I was shocked that it happened THEN, considering the rules that all of us are aware of.

I am aware that there are some jurisdictions in Orthodoxy that baptize everyone.

I merely suggested doing it at hospitals as being the most logical location. It seems rather unproductive to have to sit in a church and wait for parents to bring their baby to you when the possibility is that the babies could be easily baptized after birth, much like many get circumcised. It is not a difficult or lengthy procedure and entails no physical threat to the life of a baby (unless the baby is held under water, which really never happens).

Well, it can be; but we like to do it in Church, because Baptism makes one part of the body of Christ, and a member of the Communion of the Saints; so being welcomed into the Chruch by the Church is a good thing.

In the event that an emergency baptism takes place, the Pastor is to be immediately notified so that re-baptism will not occur. We have a rite of affirmation of baptism, where one who was baptized in an emergency is welcomed formally by the Church.

From our Catechism:

Holy Baptism - In Cases of Emergency
In urgent situations in the absence of the pastor, any Christian may administer Holy Baptism.

If time permits the following may precede the baptism
Jesus said, "Assuredly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it." And He took them up in His arms, put His hands on them, and blessed them - Mark 10:15-16 NKJV
Eternal God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, give __name(s)___ Your grace through rebirth by the Holy Spirit. Receive ___him/her/them___ according to Your promise: "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door it will be opened to you," that through this heavenly washing ___he/she/they___ may receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of all __his/her/their______ sins and come to the eternal kingdom which You have prepared for _him/her/them___ through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen. Matthew 7:7
Lord's Prayer
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For Thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the glory forever and ever. Amen
The Apostles’ Creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the quick and dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Christian Church, the Communion of Saints, the Forgiveness of sins, the Resurrection of the Body, and the Life everlasting. Amen
Take water, call the child or adult by name, and immerse,or pour/sprinkle the water on the head of the candidate while saying:
___Name____, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen

Holy Baptism administered by a layperson shall immediately be reported to the pastor for its recognition by the congregation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I am aware that there are some jurisdictions in Orthodoxy that baptize everyone.



Well, it can be; but we like to do it in Church, because Baptism makes one part of the body of Christ, and a member of the Communion of the Saints; so being welcomed into the Chruch by the Church is a good thing.

In the event that an emergency baptism takes place, the Pastor is to be immediately notified so that re-baptism will not occur. We have a rite of affirmation of baptism, where one who was baptized in an emergency is welcomed formally by the Church.

From our Catechism:

If I am not mistaken there are other means by which members are formally welcomed into the Church by the Church. In the Catholic Church there is First Communion and in many denominations, including the Catholic Church there is Confirmation. I see admission into the Church as a secondary aspect of baptism and not primary.

 

[Albion]

If I am not mistaken there are other means by which members are formally welcomed into the Church by the Church. In the Catholic Church there is First Communion and in many denominations, including the Catholic Church there is Confirmation. I see admission into the Church as a secondary aspect of baptism and not primary.

Baptism makes one a member of the church, theologically speaking...and as for First Communions and Confirmations, those aren't means by which anyone is received into the Catholic Church. IOW maybe I'm a bit confused by what you're saying.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

If I am not mistaken there are other means by which members are formally welcomed into the Church by the Church. In the Catholic Church there is First Communion and in many denominations, including the Catholic Church there is Confirmation. I see admission into the Church as a secondary aspect of baptism and not primary.

Baptism makes one a member of the church, theologically speaking...and as for First Communions and Confirmations, those aren't means by which anyone is received into the Catholic Church. IOW maybe I'm a bit confused by what you're saying.

Albion, you are correct; Baptism is THE way that one joins the Church.

B7, you are correct, there are other ways of joining a particular Church... If one were baptized in another Synod or Church with which we are not in fellowship with, one may 'join' through Confirmation or Profession of faith; these are man made rites which "confirm" one's baptismal vows and faith.

Those of another Synod which are in full fellowship with us would join one of our Congregations by "Transfer of Membership".

None of these are substitutions for baptism; baptism is the common denominator.

 

[shturt678]

A water baptismal rebirth admits to the Kingdom of God, providing one under goes baptism in the valid revelation that the Triune's God's personal Name is based upon.

 

[Rev Randy]

Thank you for that information. I have to say I'm interested to learn all this because I was always taught that to attempt a "rebaptism" was a great wrong.

Same for letting the convert determine that a perfectly good baptism in a previous church was defective. In fact, to have the church go along with such misguided understanding of the nature of the sacrament on the part of a new member still seems stunning to me. What else does the church permit merely because the person makes his own theological judgments, I wonder?

I would agree that to attempt a re-baptism would be a great wrong. Conditional baptism is not rebaptism. There is but one baptism.
If the Lady you mentioned did indeed have a valid baptism before she chose the RCC then it is that Episcopal baptism that is valid and Rome only got her wet. I'm quite sure some if not many conditional baptisms are nothing more than a formality. But I'm also sure that sometimes it's the only true Baptism a believer has had.