Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[Crypto]

The Bible Text do say OSAS, however the Bible Context + IIPet.1:20, 21 say that even Judas was saved.

Jn.10:27-29 must be viewed in the light of Jn.15:6, ie, gong!

Check this:

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you." (John 15:16)

Judas wasn't saved because he didn't believe:

"But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)" (John 6:64)

 

[Andrea411]

I was baptized by sprinkling as an infant. Once I grew up and learned what the Bible said about baptism, I realized that my sprinkling was invalid for several reasons. Since it really didn't count for anything, I got a real baptism in college. I still count it as only being baptized once. I do not know of any reason to get re-baptized if the first one is valid though.

I was baptized as a Mormon, I was clear who and why I was being baptized but when I came out of LDS I was re-baptized. But I know a pastor who is being re-baptized as he said, Jesus was baptized before he started a new ministry and he is starting something new and wants to dedicate himself anew.... there is no scriptural reason for only being baptized only once, and no scriptural reason for being baptized twice.... it is a matter of the heart

 

[PaladinValer]

I don't believe a baby / young child will go to hell if they are not baptized. I believe in the age of accountability.

So God is a respecter of persons? God shows partiality?

No original/ancestral sin? Kiddos can save themselves?

 

[PaladinValer]

I was baptized as a Mormon, I was clear who and why I was being baptized but when I came out of LDS I was re-baptized.

That wasn't a "rebaptism" because Mormons cannot validly baptize due to their erroneous belief about God. Your real baptism was the Christian one.

 

[Rick Otto]

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!

My opinion is that it's a matter of conscience,
The "one baptism" mentioned, I think of as referring to regeneration.
I was infant baptized, too & it never felt like something I did, more like something that was done to me without my knowlege or consent.

 

[Pteriax]

That wasn't a "rebaptism" because Mormons cannot validly baptize due to their erroneous belief about God. Your real baptism was the Christian one.

Is it your position then that anyone with an "erroneous belief about God" cannot validly baptize? The RLDS are basically trinitarian Mormons who baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... Seems like you are saying that the words do not matter, nor does the faith of the people involved if they have a wrong belief about God. So you must COMPREHEND who God is to perform a baptism (a belief I share)! By your own definition, that is (gasp!) GNOSTICISM!! For shame!

 

[Rick Otto]

So God is a respecter of persons? God shows partiality?

No original/ancestral sin? Kiddos can save themselves?

Can you help me find a citable source for Anglican soteriology?
All I found on my first attempt was this:
"Interestingly Stephen Sykes, experienced as a senior professor of theology, an Anglican bishop, and a college principal, recently argued that the history of Anglican “reflection upon sin and original sin . . . has yet to be written,”[6] which indicates just how extensive the reflective task of any church actually is; indeed, it may always be an ongoing task. Certainly, there are lively debates amongst some Anglican thinkers over whether, for example, there are or should be “core” doctrines and whether actual adherence to doctrine is related to salvation.[7] As distinguished a theologian as John Macquarrie, while wondering if there is such a distinctive entity as “Anglican Christology,” can even express his “hope that there is not,” since he sees such doctrines as belonging more to the Christian world at large than to any particular denomination."

Sounds uncomfortably nebulous.

 

[Colleen1]

So God is a respecter of persons? God shows partiality?

No original/ancestral sin? Kiddos can save themselves?

1. I see generational sin as differently that others may.

2. Yes, I'm going to offer the passage in II Samuel 12:22-23:

22 He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ 23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”

On a logical note, I believe we have free will. How could an infant possibly choose.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's correct--and well stated.

It's about the same as with Catholics although there are Anglicans who reject the idea that Baptism is regenerative. "Christening" is just slang and seldom heard anymore.

I'd just say that these children have now been admitted to the ranks of communicants.

That's essentially true because those churches go all sorts of different ways on this issue.

Yes, that is the usual mainline Protestant POV.

Yes--in those churches where there is infant baptism but no "first communion" Catholic-style. Confirmation does that, usually in one's teens. But in churches that don't practice infant baptism, this is where the baptism comes in and there is no need for any Confirmation.

Thank you for your excellent response.

 

[Albion]

Is it your position then that anyone with an "erroneous belief about God" cannot validly baptize? The RLDS are basically trinitarian Mormons who baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... Seems like you are saying that the words do not matter, nor does the faith of the people involved if they have a wrong belief about God. So you must COMPREHEND who God is to perform a baptism (a belief I share)! By your own definition, that is (gasp!) GNOSTICISM!! For shame!

I think you've misunderstood, although this is a tricky subject. The baptizer's intention matters, but the ceremony doesn't become a Christian baptism or the God in whose name it's performed become the God of the Bible merely because the words (i.e. names) used are the same.

 

[PaladinValer]

Is it your position then that anyone with an "erroneous belief about God" cannot validly baptize?

It is the position of basically every single "big name" Christian church and denomination.

The RLDS are basically trinitarian Mormons

Are they?

Latter Day Saints is the umbrella term, not Mormon. The Community of Christ, as they are known now, has distanced itself from the largest subset of the LDSs, which is the commonly-called Mormon religion.

The person who I replied to said Mormon, not LDS or Community of Christ/RLDS.

who baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...

So do Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons; yet they don't accept the Nicene Creed. The words themselves are not enough.

Seems like you are saying that the words do not matter, nor does the faith of the people involved if they have a wrong belief about God. So you must COMPREHEND who God is to perform a baptism (a belief I share)! By your own definition, that is (gasp!) GNOSTICISM!! For shame!

1. Ad hom. Direct your rebuts at my positions, not my person. Check the language; I never called you yourself ANYTHING only your positions. A quick relook at the Flaming and Harassment rules is in order.
2. I have said several times knowledge=/=comprehension. You even acknowledged it once, so quite honestly this is libel as well.
3. I have said that one does not need to comprehend the Holy Trinity (no one fully can anyway) to accept the Nicene Creed; they do so on faith, like all do anyway.

Quit the vendetta. Quit the ad homs. Debate theologies, posts, and positions, not the people.

The rebuttal is null and void, as always.

 

[Crandaddy]

Once I was very worried about that, since I am not exactly a constant person. So, I said to God "How will I manage to be faithful to you my whole life, if I even let myself down all the time". He made me understood that he will take care of my. It is not my strength (thanks God), it's his.

"even to your old age I am he,
and to gray hairs I will carry you.
I have made, and I will bear;
I will carry and will save." (Isaiah 46:4)

I once saw someone (I've forgotten who) put it this way: When Christ comes back, will he find you wallowing content in sin, or will he find you struggling to get back up? That's the difference.

 

[Colleen1]

None of us are immune to sinning even if we have good Christian intentions.

 

[Crandaddy]

Can you help me find a citable source for Anglican soteriology?

Here's an article you might like to check out. You can find the Book of Common Prayer online here (Fr. Hart references the 1928 version).

 

[Crandaddy]

Mormons don't merely have mistaken beliefs about the Christian God. They believe in a different god altogether, and so the problem with their baptism would be that the "Trinity" they would invoke would quite plausibly be an altogether different trinity than the Christian Trinity.

 

[Crypto]

I once saw someone (I've forgotten who) put it this way: When Christ comes back, will he find you wallowing content in sin, or will he find you struggling to get back up? That's the difference.

Can he support that with the Scriptures?

 

[Rev Randy]

None of us are immune to sinning even if we have good Christian intentions.

I so wish you were wrong but you are correct. To say otherwise is to call God a liar.
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

 

[Crandaddy]

Can he support that with the Scriptures?

Don't remember any that (s)he used, but I have a couple of passages to throw atcha:

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

- James 2:14-26

Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

- 1 Corinthians 9:24-27

 

[shturt678]

Check this:

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you." (John 15:16)

Judas wasn't saved because he didn't believe:

"But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)" (John 6:64)

Great! Now we have to move fast forward to Jn.6:70, 71 (including Jn.15:16) and see that Judas was one of the 12 resulting in Judas was one of the "elect" meaning at some point he lost his faith. This is why when I bump into a Judas type once in a great while, I ask them if they want to renew their faith? If affirmative then tell them this will require moving out the antichrist from your heart (IIThess.2:4) and replace with the Holy Spirit at a re-baptism. Then their response is: "I thought once I was baptized that even if I'm a Judas, I cannot lose my salvation." My response is: "This is why we have to purge out 'deception' (antichrist) and merge in 'Truth.' Jesus = Truth of course. Good study my friend.

 

[Crandaddy]

Is it your position then that anyone with an "erroneous belief about God" cannot validly baptize? The RLDS are basically trinitarian Mormons who baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... Seems like you are saying that the words do not matter, nor does the faith of the people involved if they have a wrong belief about God. So you must COMPREHEND who God is to perform a baptism (a belief I share)! By your own definition, that is (gasp!) GNOSTICISM!! For shame!

I think you've misunderstood, although this is a tricky subject. The baptizer's intention matters, but the ceremony doesn't become a Christian baptism or the God in whose name it's performed become the God of the Bible merely because the words (i.e. names) used are the same.

The names must have the same definite referents as the Christian Trinity, under whatever definite description the baptizer might wish to employ (all while invoking the proper names, "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit/Ghost").