is my infant baptism enough?

[bling]

Okay so, I was baptized as an infant by the Catholic church in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I was wondering if that baptism was valid or if I should get baptized full immersion by a Protestant pastor.

It's been made aware to me that this might be considered heretical because I was already baptized as an infant. I don't want to be a heretic I just wanted to make a public confession of faith because as an infant I obviously couldn't make a public confession of faith and, I didn't even come to Christ until over 20 years later. So, I want to be baptized in the "correct" way.

Should I get rebaptized? Or is my infant baptism enough? I know different denominations will tell me different things But, I feel like Christ didn't accept me when I was baptized as an infant and he would accept a "proper" baptism more. What do you think?

I want to start with your concerns about your own personal baptism.

I do not know of people who believe the water itself saves you, since all believe it is God who saves and God is not limited by water.

Water baptism is not a “requirement” for salvation since God does the saving, but is something Christians get to do in order to help them.

New Christians may not tap into everything that is available to them to help them experience the transformation:


I know that I needed everything God could provide to assure me of my conversion, both outwardly and mentally. God wants you to physically feel the experience of what is going on Spiritually.

You need to add to your conversion a definite time place and physical experience, which God has provided for you. We talk about being “Born again”, which comes from Nicodemus encounter with Christ (John 3 :1-21):


Being “born again” is what Jesus told Nicodemus he need to do. This requires some thinking, because Jesus does not address the questions or comments that are verbalized, but directs his comments to the persons next step in their personal spiritual development (what is on their heart spiritually). Jesus is not making some general philosophical statement (like Buddha might make) but is always addressing the audience He is talking to. We have to get into the context.

What did Nicodemus need to do next in his spiritual development?

What does Nicodemus need to be doing next? (study the Old Testament, become one of the followers of Jesus right then and there, Confess, repent, etc.)

The first thing Nicodemus might do at least is what he already knows he should do? Is that not where you would start? So what is that?

Since Nicodemus is still part of the Sanhedrin, he would not have been immersed baptized by John’s baptism. That would have got him thrown out of the Sanhedrin, but being smart Nicodemus would know he should be baptized.

John’s baptism would have been a hot topic among the religious scholars, yet the answer was obvious and they all know it (remember Jesus using it against them and causing them to quit asking him questions?)

Jesus is not going to hand out the answer to Nicodemus, since Nicodemus knows the answer, but he will make Nicodemus think about it hard, since it would already be on his mind.



Christian water baptism as seen in scripture seems to fit the “born again” scenario Christ was talking about since it: Is always adult (there are only two examples that “might include infants” but nothing definite, all the others are adult believers) water immersion to be a physical outward representation of what had or is happening spiritually in the person being baptized. It is mainly to help the individual being baptized to better grasp what is going on, but it can “witness” to others observing the baptism. It has the elements of going down under the water (burying the old man), placing your dependence in another; the person baptizing you (surrendering your life to God), being washed (having your sins washed away), rising out of the water (rising from the old dead body), and stepping forth out onto the earth (a new person). The person is walking out into the hugs of his new family. It is also a sign of your humility, since it is a humbling act anyone can simple allow someone to do it to them (so not a work) and since humility has been shown in the accept of charity (God’s free gift of undeserving forgiveness) it should just support and add to the memory of that acceptance. To refuse Christian water baptism when it is readily available might mean you are not ready to handle other responsibility like having the indwelling Holy Spirit and you are hurting yourself.

Why not be baptized again (there is no rule against this) to experience all you can from being baptized?

Yes, Ro. 10 is silent about baptism, but silence is not a proof for anything and baptism was not the topic being discussed, the Jews had to believe first, so baptism would be down the road.

Is the real problem with humility, since adult water baptism is a humbling act?

Is the problem with “witnessing” since baptism help other Christians remember what they went through?

The whole “argument” about the “one” baptism having to be “spiritual baptism” so we do not need to (or even shouldn’t) be water immersed is not supported by scriptural examples, since everyone that was “baptized” by the Holy Spirit seems to have also been water baptized.

In an effort to emphasis God’s unconditional (salvation), water baptism of believers has been avoided as a subject. People have “argued” that water baptism is a work and since “works” are not required for salvation, water baptism must be avoided. Most “Christian” religious groups “allow” immersion of believers if they want it.

The problem with this reasoning is adult believer immersion is not something you “do” (work), but is something you allow to be done to you. It is not something “done” as some requirement, but is something you get to do for your sake (to help you) and the sake of others.

 

[Strong in Him]

Okay so, I was baptized as an infant by the Catholic church in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I was wondering if that baptism was valid

Yes.

Should I get rebaptized? Or is my infant baptism enough?

Enough for what? Salvation? Salvation isn't dependent upon baptism - ie non baptised people can be saved - and baptism isn't required for salvation - ie people who are saved but die before they can be baptised, are still saved.

But, I feel like Christ didn't accept me when I was baptized as an infant and he would accept a "proper" baptism more.

No, that would make baptism a "work" - ie "which baptism is more acceptable to you, Lord, and would allow me to be really saved/get into heaven.

I must admit that I was baptised again, by immersion, as an adult. In hindsight, I wonder if that was for ME though. I wanted to confess my faith and publicly say that I had repented of my sins and accepted Jesus. Baptism was the outward sign to people that this new birth had taken place. I do think it's possible, though, that had I just given my testimony in church and made my baptismal vows for myself, it might have satisfied me. I know that is the idea behind confirmation, but I wasn't a Christian when I was confirmed.

God loved me, accepted me, sent Jesus to die for me before I was even born or could make any response to him at all. I think, like you, I didn't FEEL that; but that didn't make any difference to how God saw it. He didn't show me more love and acceptance after my infant, or adult, baptisms than before them.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Yes.



Enough for what? Salvation? Salvation isn't dependent upon baptism - ie non baptised people can be saved - and baptism isn't required for salvation - ie people who are saved but die before they can be baptised, are still saved.



No, that would make baptism a "work" - ie "which baptism is more acceptable to you, Lord, and would allow me to be really saved/get into heaven.

I must admit that I was baptised again, by immersion, as an adult. In hindsight, I wonder if that was for ME though. I wanted to confess my faith and publicly say that I had repented of my sins and accepted Jesus. Baptism was the outward sign to people that this new birth had taken place. I do think it's possible, though, that had I just given my testimony in church and made my baptismal vows for myself, it might have satisfied me. I know that is the idea behind confirmation, but I wasn't a Christian when I was confirmed.

God loved me, accepted me, sent Jesus to die for me before I was even born or could make any response to him at all. I think, like you, I didn't FEEL that; but that didn't make any difference to how God saw it. He didn't show me more love and acceptance after my infant, or adult, baptisms than before them.

Thanks for your reply. I know baptism isn't required for salvation but is an infant baptism accepted by Christ? After all, Christ was baptized as an adult. I just don't want to get left behind because I was baptized the "wrong" way.

 

[~Anastasia~]

is an infant baptism accepted by Christ? After all, Christ was baptized as an adult. I just don't want to get left behind because I was baptized the "wrong" way.

Just remember, God isn't looking for technicalities on which He can condemn people. After all, He DESIRES the salvation of all.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just remember, God isn't looking for technicalities on which He can condemn people. After all, He DESIRES the salvation of all.

It's unfortunate how often it seems this is how we speak about God or think about God. As though we think God's chief MO is to figure out how He can avoid saving people and condemn as many as possible--when the exact opposite is revealed to us: that He is the God who graciously throws Himself at us in love to save us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Neostarwcc]

Just remember, God isn't looking for technicalities on which He can condemn people. After all, He DESIRES the salvation of all.

That's true. I had forgotten about that.

 

[Tigger45]

Thanks for your reply. I know baptism isn't required for salvation but is an infant baptism accepted by Christ? After all, Christ was baptized as an adult. I just don't want to get left behind because I was baptized the "wrong" way.

The Christian baptism hadn’t been instituted yet at Christ’s birth. You have to read the gospels through the lens of the transitional period between the Old and New covenants. In fact the church wasn’t officially launched until Pentecost as recorded in The book of the acts of the apostles.

 

[LinkH]

If it were me, I would get baptized. Peter says baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. How can you experience that if you have not heard the Gospel? You can sit down and read every verse on baptism in the Bible and pray about it.

 

[Apex]

...baptism is baptism.

Only if it is truly a baptism.

I had water poured on my head when I was an infant. I don't believe it was a baptism. As such, when I was baptized (fully immersed and as a believer) as an adult, I did not call it a re-baptism. I was never baptized to begin with.

The same can be said about communion. If it is not unleavened bread and wine, it is not communion. Close enough is not close enough. If Pepsi and an M&M doesn't count, neither does grape juice and a bread roll.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Okay so, I was baptized as an infant by the Catholic church in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I was wondering if that baptism was valid or if I should get baptized full immersion by a Protestant pastor.

It's been made aware to me that this might be considered heretical because I was already baptized as an infant. I don't want to be a heretic I just wanted to make a public confession of faith because as an infant I obviously couldn't make a public confession of faith and, I didn't even come to Christ until over 20 years later. So, I want to be baptized in the "correct" way.

You self-identify as a non-denominationalist. I cannot offer counsel in that tradition.

But assuming you were a cradle Catholic, your baptism is probably valid. So you do need Confirmation (eg, strengthening/confirming for yourself the promise made on your behalf when you were an infant)... which includes a public profession of faith.

 

[Christie insb]

Okay so, I was baptized as an infant by the Catholic church in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I was wondering if that baptism was valid or if I should get baptized full immersion by a Protestant pastor.

It's been made aware to me that this might be considered heretical because I was already baptized as an infant. I don't want to be a heretic I just wanted to make a public confession of faith because as an infant I obviously couldn't make a public confession of faith and, I didn't even come to Christ until over 20 years later. So, I want to be baptized in the "correct" way.

Should I get rebaptized? Or is my infant baptism enough? I know different denominations will tell me different things But, I feel like Christ didn't accept me when I was baptized as an infant and he would accept a "proper" baptism more. What do you every day but I kind of regret it. think?

I was re-baptized and I don't think about it every day, but I kind of regret it. I have become more sacramental as I have gotten older and I think that was sufficient. But I was trying really hard to figure out what the right thing to do was, and I don't think God holds it against me. (To me, it is a disputable matter, and it depends on what God impresses upon your conscience). The denomination I grew up in, not the one I was baptized in, has a ceremony for adults to affirm their baptism, and if I had known about that, I like to think I would have done that.

 

[RDKirk]

It's not that I badly want to be Baptist It's just that I agree with mostly everything they teach about scripture and they seem to be a really good fit for me. But, if they're going to force me to get re-baptized their way especially when that baptism is valid I don't think I want to join their church. Especially when all churches are essentially the same.



So Baptists have to get re-baptized again and again? Forget that.

Most people here are pointing out that the form of baptism is not salvationally significant.

It is more important to be connected to the congregation the Lord wants you connected to.

If the Holy Spirit has made certain to you that this is the congregation He wants you in, then join it--because being where He wants you is the more important thing.

And since the form of baptism is unimportant, then then do what they do.

How can we say something is unimportant and then gripe about doing it?

 

[RDKirk]

If you will research the roots of the English word baptism, you will see that it meant "immersion" not sprinkling. Of course a baby has no clue what is going on in a sprinkling and is not participating in the spirit, in any way, with what is going on. But again, it is also not being immersed.

The accurate meaning of the Greek baptizmo was gained, interestingly, from a Greek recipe for pickles. The writer's method included both pouring hot water over the pickles to blanch them and then fully immersing them in brine. He used baptizmo to describe the full immersion, a different word to describe pouring.

 

[RDKirk]

Just remember, God isn't looking for technicalities on which He can condemn people. After all, He DESIRES the salvation of all.

This needs to be repeated.

God is not looking for technicalities on which He can condemn people.

Salvation is not a densely worded insurance contract with loopholes and codicils God can use to get out of saving people. Folks, God is biased toward salvation.

 

[~Anastasia~]

If it is not unleavened bread and wine, it is not communion. Close enough is not close enough. If Pepsi and an M&M doesn't count, neither does grape juice and a bread roll.

I agree on Pepsi, grape juice, m&ms, etc.

But I just wanted to point out there is a historical precedent and theological reason for LEAVENED bread. Most Protestants would insist on unleavened bread because they are descended from Catholicism and they have their own reasons for using unleavened. But the Orthodox Church has from the time of the early Christians used leavened bread in our Eucharist ... leavened because it is the RISEN Christ Who is present.

Just a quick bit of info - not arguing. I just enjoy sharing.

God be with you!

 

[Apex]

I agree on Pepsi, grape juice, m&ms, etc.

But I just wanted to point out there is a historical precedent and theological reason for LEAVENED bread. Most Protestants would insist on unleavened bread because they are descended from Catholicism and they have their own reasons for using unleavened. But the Orthodox Church has from the time of the early Christians used leavened bread in our Eucharist ... leavened because it is the RISEN Christ Who is present.

Just a quick bit of info - not arguing. I just enjoy sharing.

God be with you!

I actually knew this. We might disagree about what the exact elements are, but we seem to agree that the exact elements matter and what they represent is important. They lose their symbolism when another element is used as a replacement. Jesus didn't use random scraps of food and drink. He choose what he used carefully.

Some might take my position as legalistic, but I'm not saying this is a rule. I'm saying this is reality. It isn't legalistic to say a square has four sides when someone is saying it only has three.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I actually knew this. We might disagree about what the exact elements are, but we seem to agree that the exact elements matter and what they represent is important. They lose their symbolism when another element is used as a replacement. Jesus didn't use random scraps of food and drink. He choose what he used carefully.

Some might take my position as legalistic, but I'm not saying this is a rule. I'm saying this is reality. It isn't legalistic to say a square has four sides when someone is saying it only has three.

Cool.

I agree that we have normal forms and that we can't just choose to deviate from them at our whim.

I say that because I think in extreme circumstances, God would accept necessary substitutes (IMO) ... in truly extreme and needful circumstances.

I realize not everyone will agree on every detail, and as I said I'm not here to argue. So my main point is that we agree on the essential point you make.

 

[Christie insb]

Only if it is truly a baptism.

I had water poured on my head when I was an infant. I don't believe it was a baptism. As such, when I was baptized (fully immersed and as a believer) as an adult, I did not call it a re-baptism. I was never baptized to begin with.

The same can be said about communion. If it is not unleavened bread and wine, it is not communion. Close enough is not close enough. If Pepsi and an M&M doesn't count, neither does grape juice and a bread roll.

I am not sure what you mean about Communion. In the Last Supper, the bread which Jesús said "this is my body" was the afikomen, a special piece of Matzoh which is broken into three pieces and then the middle piece is hidden throughout the meal. This is what Jesus was talking about when he said "This is my body, broken for you." At the end of the meal the afikomen is brought out and served as dessert. The wine was the third cup in the Seder meal, the Cup of redemption. Do these details need to be included in Communion to make it "real"? Why or why not? To pick the details of unleavened bread and fermented wine out of all the details of the Passover doesn't seem clear to me. We have learned certain traditions from our churches and our families, but to say that the way I do it is the only right way seems less than a full expression of Holy Communion to me. If Pepsi and M&Ms were all you had to celebrate Communion, maybe God could (and I say could as someone who believes God could do basically anything He wanted to) bless it in its unconventionality and make it especially memorable. Here is a reference about the Passover Seder and Holy Communion. Mysterious Passover Symbols - Jews for Jesus
Similarly, baptism was very different in the Jewish communities of the first century. Nonetheless I believe God honors our desire to obey His commandments, whether our understanding of it is not exactly the same as the particulars of the original baptisms of the New Testament (which would have been mandated to be in running water).

 

[StillGods]

I did both, I got baptised later in life, I was unaware I had been baptised/dedicated as a baby until after being baptised later in life. I am glad to have had both.

 

[Neostarwcc]

You self-identify as a non-denominationalist. I cannot offer counsel in that tradition.

But assuming you were a cradle Catholic, your baptism is probably valid. So you do need Confirmation (eg, strengthening/confirming for yourself the promise made on your behalf when you were an infant)... which includes a public profession of faith.

Hello! I was Catholic as a kid and I never received my Confirmation only my first communion. My wife on the other hand, received both. I mean, obviously Catholics would believe that my baptism is valid since the Catholic church are the ones that baptized my wife and I when we were babies in the first place.