Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[Colleen1]

I find it ironic that I've heard it said it's okay to be baptized by an unbeliever. Yet if one is baptized by another orthodox Christian church it is not good enough even if they are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Just saying this thread at times has been.... interesting.

 

[PaladinValer]

I find it ironic that I've heard it said it's okay to be baptized by an unbeliever.

I don't think anyone would suggest it is "okay". It is certainly irregular and very specific conditions must exist for it to be normally permissible, but it does happen and it is considered valid. The reasons are because 1) the trust is not dependent on the baptizer but the person getting baptized and 2) since God supplies the grace, the state of grace or sinfulness of the baptizer is moot.

The only situation that would allow a non-Christian to validly baptize is if the individual seeking baptism is in grave danger of dying and there is no cleric or Christian layperson immediately available.

Yet if one is baptized by another orthodox Christian church it is not good enough even if they are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Just saying this thread at times has been.... interesting.

Mormons are orthodox Christians?

 

[Colleen1]

I don't think anyone would suggest it is "okay". It is certainly irregular and very specific conditions must exist for it to be normally permissible, but it does happen and it is considered valid. The reasons are because 1) the trust is not dependent on the baptizer but the person getting baptized and 2) since God supplies the grace, the state of grace or sinfulness of the baptizer is moot.

The only situation that would allow a non-Christian to validly baptize is if the individual seeking baptism is in grave danger of dying and there is no cleric or Christian layperson immediately available.



Mormons are orthodox Christians?

I've made reference to certain areas of the thread in general....since the beginning. It's why I did not quote any particular post.

-btw, never said that Mormons were orthodox Christians.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't think anyone would suggest it is "okay". It is certainly irregular and very specific conditions must exist for it to be normally permissible, but it does happen and it is considered valid. The reasons are because 1) the trust is not dependent on the baptizer but the person getting baptized and 2) since God supplies the grace, the state of grace or sinfulness of the baptizer is moot.

I don't believe that it is even dependent on the baptizee, we do baptize infants after all. The water and the "Word" constitute baptism, not the one administering it, nor the person receiving it.

I've made reference to certain areas of the thread in general....since the beginning. It's why I did not quote any particular post.

It's often good to quote a specific post, and it gives context to questions comments and observations.

-btw, never said that Mormons were orthodox Christians.

 

[Colleen1]

It's often good to quote a specific post, and it gives context to questions comments and observations.

That would have required quoting an awful LOT of posts.

 

[Crypto]

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.

Show me even one passage in the scriptures saying that Judas believed that Jesus was the Messiah. There's no passage stating such a thing. Judas was an unbeliever from the very start and he used to steal from Jesus' money. Nobody can lose his faith because faith is a gift of God, and God will never be mistaken. The very nature of Judas was evil from the start:

"I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me." (John 13:18)

"Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him." (John 6:70-71)

 

[Crypto]

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

- James 2:14-26

- 1 Corinthians 9:24-27

Regarding James chapter 2, James is saying that if you have faith, you'll have works, because works are the visible manifestation of our invisible faith. A faith without works is hypocrisy. So, the purpose of the passage is not to scare us and take away our assurance, but to distinguish between hypocrisy and true faith. Jesus said something similar:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15-20)

So, it is important to understand that we are saved to perform good works, not because we performed good works:

" For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:8-10)


Regarding 1 Corinthians 9, check other translations: Paul is talking about the prize (crown) for our works in Christ, not about salvation.

 

[Crandaddy]

I don't believe that it is even dependent on the baptizee, we do baptize infants after all. The water and the "Word" constitute baptism, not the one administering it, nor the person receiving it.

If a person of consenting age and competence were to knowingly and willingly reject their baptism even as they were being baptized, and then, upon subsequent repentance, were to be convicted of the invalidity of that baptism, then I would not object to a conditional baptism for that person. I would not object because I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to suppose that God would honor their wish and not baptize them if they strongly desire not to be baptized.

I should stress, however, that I most emphatically would object to an un-conditional baptism if the original baptism was performed correctly.

 

[Colleen1]

If a person of consenting age and competence were to knowingly and willingly reject their baptism even as they were being baptized, and then, upon subsequent repentance, were to be convicted of the invalidity of that baptism, then I would not object to a conditional baptism for that person. I would not object because I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to suppose that God would honor their wish and not baptize them if they strongly desire not to be baptized.

I should stress, however, that I most emphatically would object to an un-conditional baptism if the original baptism was performed correctly.

What would you consider a correctly performed baptism to be?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

If a person of consenting age and competence were to knowingly and willingly reject their baptism even as they were being baptized, and then, upon subsequent repentance, were to be convicted of the invalidity of that baptism, then I would not object to a conditional baptism for that person. I would not object because I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to suppose that God would honor their wish and not baptize them if they strongly desire not to be baptized.

I should stress, however, that I most emphatically would object to an un-conditional baptism if the original baptism was performed correctly.

I see your point. Free will allows us to reject God's grace, which includes Baptismal grace. However, I believe that an unwitting (likely even an unwilling recipient) receives that grace through baptism; if they reject it, that's their call. If the state of mind of the person being baptized determines the efficacy, that would impose conditions on God, and make the recipient a cooperator in that grace. Likewise, because we see admonitions against the unworthy reception of the Eucharist, we know that believer and unbeliever alike receive the Eucharist receive Christ's body and blood; the believer receives forgiveness of sins; the unbeliever, damnation.

 

[Crandaddy]

Regarding James chapter 2, James is saying that if you have faith, you'll have works, because works are the visible manifestation of our invisible faith. A faith without works is hypocrisy. So, the purpose of the passage is not to scare us and take away our assurance, but to distinguish between hypocrisy and true faith.

I'm in reasonable agreement with this.

Jesus said something similar:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15-20)

So what do we make of the boldfaced sentence?

So, it is important to understand that we are saved to perform good works, not because we performed good works:

" For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:8-10)

Regarding 1 Corinthians 9, check other translations: Paul is talking about the prize (crown) for our works in Christ, not about salvation.

The notion that we could ever earn our salvation through our own works is heresy, and “faith and works” soteriologies of the sort that Anglicans and Catholics hold do not make this error. What we hold, rather, is that true faith is lived, and not merely believed. It is by living a life of faith in God's Grace that we both are saved and receive our crowns. Thus, faith and works are two sides of the same coin.

At no point could we ever merit God's Grace, but it is by walking in faith that we accept his free gift of it. By so doing, he sanctifies us and re-forms us into his likeness, so that ultimately, we can look upon him as he is, in his full glory, in the Beatific Vision.

What would you consider a correctly performed baptism to be?

The baptism must meet the following conditions:

1) The baptizer must use water to “wash” the person being baptized, whether by immersion, by infusion (pouring), or by sprinkling.

2) The baptizer must say something like the following while making the washing gesture: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Invocation of the Christian Trinity is necessary for a valid baptism.

3) The baptizer must intend to perform a Christian baptism in the name of the Christian Trinity by 1 and 2. (S)he is not required to have any understanding beyond what is necessary in order to have this intent; nor is (s)he required to have orthodox belief, be a member of the “correct” ecclesial body, be free of serious sin, or even be baptized him/herself.

 

[Colleen1]

The baptism must meet the following conditions:

1) The baptizer must use water to “wash” the person being baptized, whether by immersion, by infusion (pouring), or by sprinkling.

2) The baptizer must say something like the following while making the washing gesture: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Invocation of the Christian Trinity is necessary for a valid baptism.

3) The baptizer must intend to perform a Christian baptism in the name of the Christian Trinity by 1 and 2. (S)he is not required to have any understanding beyond what is necessary in order to have this intent; nor is (s)he required to have orthodox belief, be a member of the “correct” ecclesial body, be free of serious sin, or even be baptized him/herself.

So why then do certain churches then believe that unless they are baptized within that certain church the baptism in not valid.

 

[Crandaddy]

So why then do certain churches then believe that unless they are baptized within that certain church the baptism in not valid.

Because they've rejected the Church's understanding of what constitutes valid baptism.

 

[Colleen1]

Because they've rejected the Church's understanding of what constitutes valid baptism.

You've just describe what you would consider a valid baptism and to my knowledge most orthodox churches would describe it in a very very similar way. So it leaves one with the same question.

 

[Rev Randy]

So why then do certain churches then believe that unless they are baptized within that certain church the baptism in not valid.

You'd need to ask those certain churches. I would suspect some think their way is the only possible way. Or they see infant baptism as not valid. i don't really understand that as most who would unconditionally re-baptize do not truly find it as salvic or necessary.

 

[Crandaddy]

You've just describe what you would consider a valid baptism and to my knowledge most orthodox churches would describe it in a very very similar way. So it leaves one with the same question.

Every orthodox (as in correctly-believing) church understands that you can't put the Holy Spirit in a box and tell him where he may or may not go, and that it is God himself who renews and regenerates the fallen man in Holy Baptism, irrespective of the minister outwardly performing the baptismal act. Besides that, however, I don't see how I've not already answered your question. Churches that believe that they're the only ones who have valid baptism are not orthodox (i.e. correctly-believing) churches for this very reason.

 

[Colleen1]

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.

So on one hand it's being suggested that rebaptism is downright blasphemous and evil....

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!

Yet, despite the possible fact that someone may have actually had a legitimate baptism but don't remember...getting rebaptized is okay...

This is part of my point. There seems to be a very very fine line between perfectly fine and evil. Since some churches don't allow people of other orthodox churches to take communion in their church unless they are baptized into the particular church... apparently any valid baptism as has been defined, in not actually considered valid.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't seeing contradiction in some of the things I've been reading here in this thread.

 

[Rev Randy]

So on one hand it's being suggested that rebaptism is downright blasphemous and evil....





Yet, despite the possible fact that someone may have actually had a legitimate baptism but don't remember...getting rebaptized is okay...

This is part of my point. There seems to be a very very fine line between perfectly fine and evil. Since some churches don't allow people of other orthodox churches to take communion in their church unless they are baptized into the particular church... apparently any valid baptism as has been defined, in not actually considered valid.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't seeing contradiction in some of the things I've been reading here in this thread.

I don't think anyone has suggested two baptisms. It's always best not to determine one as invalid but to admit we are not sure which one was valid. Unless it was obviously not a Christian baptism. Conditional baptism is a "just in case" thing rather than a 'I don't like that denomination" thing.
Yes we consider Trinitarian Baptism to be the proper way. How God decided, we are not willing to say. But God knows which event was the baptism.

 

[Crypto]

I'm in reasonable agreement with this.

So what do we make of the boldfaced sentence?

The notion that we could ever earn our salvation through our own works is heresy, and “faith and works” soteriologies of the sort that Anglicans and Catholics hold do not make this error. What we hold, rather, is that true faith is lived, and not merely believed. It is by living a life of faith in God's Grace that we both are saved and receive our crowns. Thus, faith and works are two sides of the same coin.

At no point could we ever merit God's Grace, but it is by walking in faith that we accept his free gift of it. By so doing, he sanctifies us and re-forms us into his likeness, so that ultimately, we can look upon him as he is, in his full glory, in the Beatific Vision.



The baptism must meet the following conditions:

1) The baptizer must use water to “wash” the person being baptized, whether by immersion, by infusion (pouring), or by sprinkling.

2) The baptizer must say something like the following while making the washing gesture: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Invocation of the Christian Trinity is necessary for a valid baptism.

3) The baptizer must intend to perform a Christian baptism in the name of the Christian Trinity by 1 and 2. (S)he is not required to have any understanding beyond what is necessary in order to have this intent; nor is (s)he required to have orthodox belief, be a member of the “correct” ecclesial body, be free of serious sin, or even be baptized him/herself.

As you said, nobody can deserve God's grace, neither before nor after becoming a Christian. So, claiming that you need to behave in a certain way in order for your honest and true faith to be efficient is heretical. Regarding the trees that don't give good fruits, who said they were Christians? The whole purpose of the passage is to differentiate between the nature (not the conduct) of those who follow Christ and those who don't. Catholics and Anglicans live in fear and serve God because they fear him, not because they are thankful for God's gratuitous salvation.

 

[Rev Randy]

As you said, nobody can deserve God's grace, neither before nor after becoming a Christian. So, claiming that you need to behave in a certain way in order for your honest and true faith to be efficient is heretical. Regarding the trees that don't give good fruits, who said they were Christians? The whole purpose of the passage is to differentiate between the nature (not the conduct) of those who follow Christ and those who don't. Catholics and Anglicans live in fear and serve God because they fear him, not because they are thankful for God's gratuitous salvation.

That is too broad a statement and to assuming to be truth. How do you know what's in the heart of an Anglican or Catholic let alone all. Perhaps we've just met different Anglicans and Catholics. I have a healthy fear of the Lord but that is not why I serve Him. But I'm Orthodox which I noticed you didn't include.