Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[Colleen1]

If those little guilty ones don't need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and not in need of being in the Kingdom of God due to being too young + there is no need of their remission of sin, then I may possibly join your view point. Note Jesus wasn't holding an adult in his bosom. Just ol' old funny toothless Jack.

I believe that those of innocence / unable to understand at a young age will be accepted by heaven. I know not all Christians are of this view but I am. Yes, we are in a fallen world but God is gracious and I believe His grace is extended in these cases. Yes, this issue has come up before in the thread....

2 Samuel 12:21-23
21 His attendants asked him, “Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!”
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.”

 

[Colleen1]

It's Christ's logic Mark 16:16

I would pose it's your logic. The verse says:

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Romans 5:1-11
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we[c] also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. 6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

We are not saved by works including baptism. Yes, I believe baptism most definitely enhances our spiritual life if done with the right heart etc. but it is not what saves us.

Ephesians 2:8-10
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

 

[Colleen1]

Except Christ did not say that.Pteriax did. Who cares what it takes to be damned. I have no interest in being damned.
Now exactly what did Peter say baptism was for?(Acts 2:38) A sign? Nope. The remission of sins? And what shall you receive with it?(same verse)
Now if you can point me to the verse that says "baptism is but an outward sign of an inward belief", this old bald fat man will do a backflip for ya.

Again we have the example of the thief on the cross so from this and the scriptures in Romans 5:1-11 & Ephesians 2:8-10 etc. we can surmise that baptism is not that simple. It enhances our faith and can empower us with the a deeper sense of the Holy Spirit but considering all scripture in context...it does not save us.

 

[Colleen1]

I don't know of any church that accepts paedobaptism that is not also heavily invested in traditionalism.

Let's face it, without the traditional practice of infant baptism (and using solely the Bible for baptismal instruction), not many churches would subscribe to infant baptism.

Interesting point.

 

[Colleen1]

I don't know of any church that accepts paedobaptism that is not also heavily invested in traditionalism.

Let's face it, without the traditional practice of infant baptism (and using solely the Bible for baptismal instruction), not many churches would subscribe to infant baptism.

Truth is that the majority of Christians do!

Do they.

 

[Colleen1]

No fallacy; fact. Numerically this practice continues to this day, not because it's wrong BTW.

There is nothing wrong with Adult baptism, but if it's being done as a profession of faith, recite the Creed; it's dryer.

Is it just a profession of faith... How about profession, renewal, regeneration and enhancement of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

If it's a means of grace, and Scripture does not forbid it, then withholding it from infants and Children is a sin.

Can we not also reason that someone experiencing a certain act without consent / acceptance and understanding of God could not also be considered wrong.

7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. Matthew 7:7-8

Philippians 1:9-11
9 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.

 

[Colleen1]

Since these guys don't believe in the efficacy of grace in the sacraments; from their POV, it should not matter.

Should not worry about alcohol either, as most of them use grape juice too.

 

[Colleen1]

What makes me laugh (not that this is a humorous topic) is that Luther's own words show his folly and misuse of the scriptures. Yes, after citing Luke 18:15-17 earlier in his sermon as his "proof text"...

"And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called then unto him, and said, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." - Luke 18:15-17

...a "proof text" which only speaks of "infants" being brought to Jesus that He "would touch them" or lay His hands upon them and bless them, Luther wrongly concluded that "This can only be done in baptism", even though none of these "infants" were baptized by Jesus or by anybody else, for that matter. As such, Mr. "Sola scriptura" (Luther) has only botched the scriptures and employed the error of eisegesis.

I noticed that too.

He also says that one can not be saved by another's faith etc as well. ...and on that point I agree.

 

[Colleen1]

Excellent point. The circumcision=baptism argument fails on many levels.

agree

 

[Colleen1]

Let me put it this way: Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, and others believe that Holy Baptism is actually efficacious of the grace that it signifies. It is analogous to praying the "sinner's prayer" and being "saved" in evangelical Protestant churches. It is by being baptized that we are cleansed of the stain of original sin, and are born again and quickened by the Holy Spirit. We believe that Baptism is the sacrament whereby this is ordinarily accomplished.

Hmmm... considering the following: #107

However, I don't think that baby baptism is a necessity for salvation.

I don't think so either. Anglicans understand baptism to be generally necessary for salvation, but not absolutely necessary. God is quite capable of saving someone who hasn't been baptized, and I personally don't believe that any unbaptized infants go to hell--not even Limbo.

If a person who holds this view intentionally (i.e. with knowledge of the original baptism) re-baptizes someone or submits to re-baptism him/herself, then that person is basically willfully and knowingly denying and rejecting the Spiritual rebirth of the person being baptized.

This is why it's such a serious sin.

I guess it would depend in part whether or not you thought baptism was necessary for salvation.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I believe that those of innocence / unable to understand at a young age will be accepted by heaven. I know not all Christians are of this view but I am. Yes, we are in a fallen world but God is gracious and I believe His grace is extended in these cases. Yes, this issue has come up before in the thread....

2 Samuel 12:21-23
21 His attendants asked him, “Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!”
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.”

Read your proof text more carefully; no where does it state anything more that the child was physically dead.

I would pose it's your logic. <snip>
We are not saved by works including baptism. Yes, I believe baptism most definitely enhances our spiritual life if done with the right heart etc. but it is not what saves us.

Baptism saves us; you are great at selective quoting, but what about all the places in Scripture that tells us things like "baptism now saves us".

Baptism does indeed save us, but Baptism in not the only thing that saves us. One without faith who is baptized is not saved.

Likewise, works are what we do, the Church calls these things "sacrificial acts"; Prayer is a sacrificial act. God does not need our prayer, but we are commanded to pray because we need to pray.

Baptism is a Sacrament, not a work. Sacraments and sacramental acts are not about what we do, but about what God does.

Is it just a profession of faith... How about profession, renewal, regeneration and enhancement of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

No, you should have read the rest of my posts, and I should have been clearer in this one; it is a means of grace. If one is baptized as an adult as a profession of faith, that does not negate the grace that is imparted through the sacrament.

Can we not also reason that someone experiencing a certain act without consent / acceptance and understanding of God could not also be considered wrong.
<snip>

No, I don't think so because none of us (reformed protestants and Roman Catholics would somewhat disagree here) come to faith willingly. We are born sinful, and sin comes easy to us. Our sinful nature continues to rebel against God.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'm also aware of a Lutheran minister who would agree. That baptism is not necessary for salvation.

As Crandaddy states below, the Anglican position is the same as our Lutheran position; necessary, but not absolutely necessary.

I don't think so either. Anglicans understand baptism to be generally necessary for salvation, but not absolutely necessary. God is quite capable of saving someone who hasn't been baptized, and I personally don't believe that any unbaptized infants go to hell--not even Limbo.

Actually, there is only a remnant of the Catholic Church which still believes in Limbo; I believe that officially, they have dropped that dogma, and admitted it was in error.

I noticed that too.

He also says that one can not be saved by another's faith etc as well. ...and on that point I agree.

It's not our faith that saves in baptism, it is the water and the word. It is not conditional on the faith of the one administering it, it is not conditional on the faith of the parents. It imparts the Holy Spirit and plants the seed of faith in the recipient.

 

[Colleen1]

Read your proof text more carefully; no where does it state anything more that the child was physically dead.

....2 Samuel 12:21-23
21 His attendants asked him, “Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!”
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.”

Baptism saves us; you are great at selective quoting, but what about all the places in Scripture that tells us things like "baptism now saves us".

Baptism does indeed save us, but Baptism in not the only thing that saves us. One without faith who is baptized is not saved.

Likewise, works are what we do, the Church calls these things "sacrificial acts"; Prayer is a sacrificial act. God does not need our prayer, but we are commanded to pray because we need to pray.

On the contrary, I emphasize the importance of taking all scriptures in context and weighing them against one another....as mentioned multiple times by myself in GT.

You are basing your definition of works on whose definition of works...

Baptism is a Sacrament, not a work. Sacraments and sacramental acts are not about what we do, but about what God does.

You are basing your definition of works on whose definition of works...

No, you should have read the rest of my posts, and I should have been clearer in this one; it is a means of grace. If one is baptized as an adult as a profession of faith, that does not negate the grace that is imparted through the sacrament.

expound your view?

No, I don't think so because none of us (reformed protestants and Roman Catholics would somewhat disagree here) come to faith willingly. We are born sinful, and sin comes easy to us. Our sinful nature continues to rebel against God.

Would depend on whether or not one believed that God allows us free will. If God allows us free will why would he required that a baby be baptized when they are not able to decided / practice faith. ..by practice I don't mean works... I mean belief and comprehension.

 

[Colleen1]

As Crandaddy states below, the Anglican position is the same as our Lutheran position; necessary, but not absolutely necessary.

Imo, that in itself is contradictory and illogical.

It's not our faith that saves in baptism, it is the water and the word. It is not conditional on the faith of the one administering it, it is not conditional on the faith of the parents. It imparts the Holy Spirit and plants the seed of faith in the recipient.

The Bible is clear on the point that one is saved by faith. And if one believes that baptism is a necessary for salvation, then faith must be an even more important requirement if taking the Bible seriously. The water and the word are not what saves.... God simply works through them with His might (saving grace) and our faith.

Ephesians 2:8-10
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

On the contrary, I emphasize the importance of taking all scriptures in context and weighing them against one another....as mentioned multiple times by myself in GT.
<snip>
You are basing your definition of works on whose definition of works...

The traditional historic definitions use by theologians before our churches even existed.

expound your view?

I can not say it any better than this; from the Small Catechism:

IV. The Sacrament of Holy Baptism
As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

First.​

What is Baptism?--Answer.​

Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God's command and connected with God's Word.​

Which is that word of God?--Answer.​

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.​

Secondly.​

What does Baptism give or profit?--Answer.​

It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.​

Which are such words and promises of God? Answer.​

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.​

​

Thirdly.​

How can water do such great things?--Answer.​

It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.​

Fourthly.​

What does such baptizing with water signify?--Answer.​

It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.​

Where is this written?--Answer.​

St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.​

Would depend on whether or not one believed that God allows us free will. If God allows us free will why would he required that a baby be baptized when they are not able to decided / practice faith. ..by practice I don't mean works... I mean belief and comprehension.[/quote]

This may be one place where we are getting hung up. Our Church teaches that we are Gods, and God wills salvation for all; however our human sinful nature does not allow us to come to God, rather we have free will only to the extent that we can defy and turn away from God.

Imo, that in itself is contradictory and illogical.

The Bible does speak of the foolishness of men being the wisdom of God.

The Bible is clear on the point that one is saved by faith. And if one believes that baptism is a necessary for salvation, then faith must be an even more important requirement if taking the Bible seriously. The water and the word are not what saves.... God simply works through them with His might (saving grace) and our faith.

Ephesians 2:8-10
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

No question, we are closer on this than either of us think, I think.

 

[bornofGod888]

Baptism saves us; you are great at selective quoting, but what about all the places in Scripture that tells us things like "baptism now saves us".

Baptism does indeed save us, but Baptism in not the only thing that saves us. One without faith who is baptized is not saved.

And who are you, PaladinValer or anybody else, then, to change the contextual, Biblical definition of "faith" from "faith" in Christ's resurrection from the dead to "trust" in one's parent (s)?

Speaking of "selective quoting", here's your "selective quote" in context:

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." - I Peter 3:19-22

The "faith", which you admit, which must accompany baptism for anyone to be saved is clearly a "faith" in regards to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (which is why one is being baptized in the first place...burying their "old man" that they might be "resurrected" or "raised up in newness of life" and be "seated together in heavenly places in Him") Who has gone into heaven and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him. Not only this, but the resulting baptism is directly related to "the answer of a good conscience" of the individual who is being baptized. Seeing how the word "conscience" literally means "with knowledge", who are you, PaladinValer or anybody else to say that baptism can be performed by proxy, totally bypassing the conscience of the one being baptized? Again, who are any of you to change the "faith" which must accompany baptism from "faith" in Christ's resurrection from the dead to an infant's "trust" in its parent (s)? It's heresy, man! Don't any of you have any fear of God?!? Seriously, I tremble for some of you as I watch in horror while you so casually and foolishly wrest the scriptures, as if somehow God approves of the same. He doesn't.

 

[Hentenza]

Baptism saves us;

Then we are saved by works not by faith.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Actually, there is only a remnant of the Catholic Church which still believes in Limbo; I believe that officially, they have dropped that dogma, and admitted it was in error.

I doubt that the Catholic Church has admitted that the belief in Limbo was an error. According to Catholics I have talked with, Limbo was never an official doctrine, so it does not need to be rejected as an error. I am not aware of any "official" doctrine of the Catholic Church that has ever been rejected as erroneous. It seems to me that a lot of stuff finds its way into the dustbins of the Vatican.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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 baptised (in water) twice?

Yes. The Lord's words to Nicodemus tell us that one is born from above by means of water and the Spirit and just as one is born of one's earthly parents only once so one is born of God only once.

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 baptising twice.

credo baptism assumes that one cannot be born of God unless one is old enough to make a credible profession of faith; this belief is not correct, one is born into this world without one's consent and without any profession of any kind. In a similar way, one is born of God by God's action not because of one's profession of faith.

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.

You are correct that one and only one of the baptisms would be valid the other would be a ceremony without effect. If one were to be baptised as a professing believer after having received valid baptism as an infant it would imply that one had abandoned the faith of the church in which one was baptised in infancy and that abandonment would imply a descent into error on at least the matter of 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!

 

[Colleen1]

Would depend on whether or not one believed that God allows us free will. If God allows us free will why would he required that a baby be baptized when they are not able to decided / practice faith. ..by practice I don't mean works... I mean belief and comprehension.

This may be one place where we are getting hung up. Our Church teaches that we are Gods, and God wills salvation for all; however our human sinful nature does not allow us to come to God, rather we have free will only to the extent that we can defy and turn away from God.

The Bible is clear on the point that one is saved by faith. And if one believes that baptism is a necessary for salvation, then faith must be an even more important requirement if taking the Bible seriously. The water and the word are not what saves.... God simply works through them with His might (saving grace) and our faith.

Ephesians 2:8-10
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith&#8212;and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God&#8212; 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God&#8217;s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

No question, we are closer on this than either of us think, I think.

And babies are capable of this type of faith...are they?

-I'll respond to the rest of your original post later. Need to go for now.