Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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.

I'm not the only one with a touch of sarcasm.

 

[Crandaddy]

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).

The Church values doing things right over doing them efficiently, and so healthy babies can wait until the priest or bishop can baptize them at the church in a formal ceremony.

And although circumcision is a custom that Christian cultures have adopted, it is not a Christian sacrament. The Church rejected the need for circumcision very early on (and replaced it with Baptism), as is recorded in the Bible, and so Christian clergy would not perform circumcision as Christian clergy (though they might as, say, workers in the medical profession, if they have that as a side job).

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.

Whenever it is reasonably certain that the person has received a proper Trinitarian baptism with proper intent to baptize from anyone at all, nothing more than a conditional baptism could possibly be justified. And I would argue that even a conditional baptism would not be justified in such cases.

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.

Good for them. Intentional re-baptism, with understanding of what Holy Baptism is and what it does, is downright blasphemous and evil any way you look at it.

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.

It's all good!

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

Correction: They re-baptize Trinitarian Christians from other churches. Make no mistake, this is exactly what they do, and there is no excuse for it.

[youtube]CBlMwJvB3ws[/youtube]

"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." - 1 Corinthians 12:3

"We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath a believer with an infidel?" - Orthodox Apostolic Canon XLVI

“And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, 'He has Beelzebub,' and, 'By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.' . . . 'Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation'— because they said, 'He has an unclean spirit.'” - Mark 3:22, 28-30

So then, is it by Belial that non-Orthodox who confess that Jesus is Lord are baptized? I'm not saying that this is the only possible way of looking at the matter, nor would I ever accuse anyone of the unpardonable sin, no matter how strongly I might suspect such a thing--but the very least I can say is that this does run just a bit too close for comfort...
​

This is why I react so strongly against the Orthodox practice of re-baptizing Trinitarian Christians.

 

[Colleen1]

If that were the case, then sanctifying the water in a swimming pool would be more effective. However, as we all know baptism is not about getting people wet. It is about getting them wet with the correct words said while they are getting wet and, ideally, a compatible environment.

I once knew an older minister who made regular rounds in the local hospital, baptizing old, sick folks. He presented it in such a way as to have them understand that by getting baptized they would receive spiritual benefits and not doing it would result in penalties. He seemed to be fairly successful in his endeavors.

penalties such as?

 

[Bjornke]

Getting rebaptised is not the main issue.The issue is, what prompted it?Is it an instruction from the Holy Spirit?Baptism is a sacred part of christianity, we must be careful that we do not abuse it.

This is how I view it. My first Baptism, I do not feel very good about, and I am currently praying that I may be forgiven and then possibly God will want me to be baptized again, I pray about it.

My first baptism I sinned terribly that morning, and accepted on a last minute basis. I don't feel as if I was truly baptized at all. I argued with my parents about it, didn't tell anyone, and felt pressured to do it. It was a terrible idea. I was not ready to be baptized that day and I do not feel as if I even truly believed then either, after having delved deep into sexual sin 2 hours before. How was I suppose to prepare myself? How was I suppose to be baptized without even praying that morning? I did nothing to prove my willingness to follow Christ that morning. I only proved I was still selfish and a sinner and not willing to truly give myself to Christ.

I seek prayer for this with God, because I feel very guilty about my first Baptism. It didn't feel right to me. I felt very fake the entire time. Such is why now, years later, I am seeking to be baptized again, if it is God's will, and this time, with my heart truly set on the Lord.

 

[Colleen1]

[SIZE=+1]
...By "Means of Grace" it's meant that the recipient receives benefit
of non-salvific grace... [/SIZE]

Agree, for it is God / Christ's sacrifice that removes our sins all we have to do is be truly repentant and accept that and God as our Savior. Imo, sacraments enhance our faith and relationship with God and serve as a reminder and deeper commitment.

 

[Colleen1]

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.

I think a person can leave church for a spell etc and be rebaptized. I guess it would depend on the particular churches doctrine.

 

[Colleen1]

Tbh, I'm a fair bit disconcerted because I've heard a lot of discussion about the 'right' wording and process of baptism in this thread lately ...and some previously and not a lot of discussion concerning God's spirit. I do believed one should be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit but at the same time.... the power and saving grace is from God. One can muddle along and say a whole lot but if there is no love and God is not at the Center...just words and motions. It's about God and our relationship to God and His might is what is responsible for this regeneration. Imo, God works through the word....otherwise...just words. Just as the Bible speaks to us, imo, it's God speaking to us through the Bible. To God be the glory...not to 'words' be the glory.

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.

 

[Crandaddy]

Tbh, I'm a fair bit disconcerted because I've heard a lot of discussion about the 'right' wording and process of baptism in this thread lately ...and some previously and not a lot of discussion concerning God's spirit. I do believed one should be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit but at the same time.... the power and saving grace is from God. One can muddle along and say a whole lot but if there is no love and God is not at the Center...just words and motions. It's about God and our relationship to God and His might is what is responsible for this regeneration. Imo, God works through the word....otherwise...just words. Just as the Bible speaks to us, imo, it's God speaking to us through the Bible. To God be the glory...not to 'words' be the glory.

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.

Let me be quite clear: Loving God and seeking Him is, above absolutely everything else, what is most important in the Christian life. This is the first and greatest commandment, after all. But this does not dispense with the fact that the Sacraments of the Church are the ordinary means that He uses to convey His Grace (though they are not necessarily the only means).

 

[Rev Randy]

I'm not the only one with a touch of sarcasm.

 

[Rev Randy]

Tbh, I'm a fair bit disconcerted because I've heard a lot of discussion about the 'right' wording and process of baptism in this thread lately ...and some previously and not a lot of discussion concerning God's spirit. I do believed one should be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit but at the same time.... the power and saving grace is from God. One can muddle along and say a whole lot but if there is no love and God is not at the Center...just words and motions. It's about God and our relationship to God and His might is what is responsible for this regeneration. Imo, God works through the word....otherwise...just words. Just as the Bible speaks to us, imo, it's God speaking to us through the Bible. To God be the glory...not to 'words' be the glory.

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.

You bring up a good point. In our tradition if the priest goofs up the wording (I'm not speaking of leaving out the trinity)or order it does nothing to negate the validity. It only makes that clergyman in error. God does the cleansing not the words or order it's spoken in.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

In my limited understanding of Catholicism (I am open to correction here) baptism washes away the stain of Original Sin, first and foremost. Secondarily, in doing so it places the individual in the Church. What is the Anglican understanding? It has struck me that in many Anglican circles baptism is called christening and is the rite in which a child's name is officially conferred, first and foremost, and by that name he/she is known as a member of the church.

First Communion in the Catholic Church is the first public participation in the mass by an individual and, as such, signifies that the individual is now an active participant in this aspect of the Church. I know that there is no such thing in Orthodox, Anglican or other Protestant denominations.

Confirmation in many denominations is the point where the individual formally becomes a member of that denomination of their own volition and understanding. It is at that point that a public profession of faith is made.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Thank you, Mark.

 

[bbbbbbb]

penalties such as?

Nothing terribly specific, as I recall. It was on the order of you ought to be baptized because in case you haven't been you may (or will) end up in hell. Mind you, he did not tell them that they would assuredly end up in heaven if they were baptized.

 

[Colleen1]

Let me be quite clear: Loving God and seeking Him is, above absolutely everything else, what is most important in the Christian life. This is the first and greatest commandment, after all. But this does not dispense with the fact that the Sacraments of the Church are the ordinary means that He uses to convey His Grace (though they are not necessarily the only means).

God can convey his grace in other ways to us every day... in various ways he works in our lives...not just sacraments.

 

[Rev Randy]

Nothing terribly specific, as I recall. It was on the order of you ought to be baptized because in case you haven't been you may (or will) end up in hell. Mind you, he did not tell them that they would assuredly end up in heaven if they were baptized.

I would certainly hope Baptism is never taught as a guaranteed ticket to heaven. I can't think of a place in scripture where Baptism stands alone.

 

[Colleen1]

Nothing terribly specific, as I recall. It was on the order of you ought to be baptized because in case you haven't been you may (or will) end up in hell. Mind you, he did not tell them that they would assuredly end up in heaven if they were baptized.

I'd have to disagree with this manner of doing things.

 

[Rev Randy]

God can convey his grace in other ways to us every day... in various ways he works in our lives...not just sacraments.

When you use that term Sacraments it's limited to seven . If you use the term Mysteries, it's not limited to those seven. So as you wrote sacraments, I agree with your comment completely. Those are not the only means of grace. We even have a witness in the thief on a cross.

 

[Rev Randy]

I'd have to disagree with this manner of doing things.

I'd need to hear more about it before agreeing or disagreeing.

 

[Colleen1]

You bring up a good point. In our tradition if the priest goofs up the wording (I'm not speaking of leaving out the trinity)or order it does nothing to negate the validity. It only makes that clergyman in error. God does the cleansing not the words or order it's spoken in.

Thanks for your honesty and clarifying.

 

[Crandaddy]

In my limited understanding of Catholicism (I am open to correction here) baptism washes away the stain of Original Sin, first and foremost. Secondarily, in doing so it places the individual in the Church. What is the Anglican understanding? It has struck me that in many Anglican circles baptism is called christening and is the rite in which a child's name is officially conferred, first and foremost, and by that name he/she is known as a member of the church.

I don't know of any significant difference between the Catholic understanding of Baptism and the Anglican understanding. Anglicans also believe that Baptism washes away the stain of Original Sin, renews and regenerates the fallen man, and grafts one into the Church.

First Communion in the Catholic Church is the first public participation in the mass by an individual and, as such, signifies that the individual is now an active participant in this aspect of the Church. I know that there is no such thing in Orthodox, Anglican or other Protestant denominations.

I believe that Anglicans used to have First Communion following Confirmation (which we take to be a true sacrament, apart from Baptism) after a period of catechesis, but I'm not sure how widely this is practiced anymore.

In my parish, you must be validly baptized in order to be communed, but you needn't necessarily be confirmed. My parish is small, and we don't have any young children; so I confess to being ignorant of our custom with them. I'll need to talk to my priest about this and find out what we do...

Confirmation in many denominations is the point where the individual formally becomes a member of that denomination of their own volition and understanding. It is at that point that a public profession of faith is made.

Yes, it is customary for candidates for Anglican Confirmation to renew their baptismal vows during the rite and before the Bishop lays his hands on them for them to receive the Holy Ghost.