is my infant baptism enough?

[bbbbbbb]

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?

Having been in your situation I will share my decision with you in this matter.

First, I came to the conclusion that what happened when I was a baby was not baptism at all, but just someone in a fancy robe getting my head wet. The reason I say this is because there was absolutely no faith on my part and without faith no deed is worth anything at all.

Second, I realized that, in order for baptism to be valid it needs to be accompanied by personal faith. Now some folks will put their faith in the baptism to accomplish something for them - maybe save them, or put them in favor with God in some way. I believe that to be a serious error. Faith ought to be in Jesus Christ alone as He alone is worthy of our faith and is the author and finisher of it. Thus, baptism is the outworking of genuine faith.

If you have placed your faith in Jesus Christ and wish to obey Him in His command to be baptized, then I heartily encourage you to do so.

 

[Phil 1:21]

If you were baptized in the Catholic Church, then your baptism is fully valid. Getting a second baptism would be a very serious sin.

For the sake of clarity, could you please show he scripture that states a second baptism would be a very serious sin? I can understand how it may be seen as insulting to the denomination that performed the first baptism, but a very serious sin?

 

[bbbbbbb]

For the sake of clarity, could you please show he scripture that states a second baptism would be a very serious sin? I can understand how it may be seen as insulting to the denomination that performed the first baptism, but a very serious sin?

Scripture does not say that at all.

Acts 19:19 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7 There were in all about twelve men.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Scripture does not say that at all.

Acts 19:19 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7 There were in all about twelve men.

In this example, the right baptism was prescribed.

Question
How did we know if the first baptism was wrong?

Question
How do we know if the next baptism will be right?

 

[Neostarwcc]

For the sake of clarity, could you please show he scripture that states a second baptism would be a very serious sin? I can understand how it may be seen as insulting to the denomination that performed the first baptism, but a very serious sin?

I'm wondering the same thing.

 

[bbbbbbb]

In this example, the right baptism was prescribed.

Question
How did we know if the first baptism was wrong?

Question
How do we know if the next baptism will be right?

I have two related questions:

Question: Do we know that the first event was actually baptism?
Question: What is baptism?

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

In this example, the right baptism was prescribed.

Question
How did we know if the first baptism was wrong?

Question
How do we know if the next baptism will be right?

Wrong is maybe wrong question! What did it accomplish would be my question? No where can you produce 1 verse that would support infant baptism as scriptural baptism. Baptism is to picture the death burial and resurrection of our old self and being raise to walk in newness of life. Being identified with Jesus having died for our sins and resurrection of our Lord. Only the person will know if they gave their heart to the Lord, you may know if they grow up around you when you see a transformed life, but then you will have to judge if its for real, point is you cannot tell what is right for someone else because you will never know what God only knows about each person, that is His business. We can only follow scriptures to know why we do what we do, so that we will all know the answer to the first question, show scripture to support infant baptism. Thanks

 

[~Anastasia~]

The very serious sin of rebaptizing wasn't discussed in those terms in any of the Epistles. We have "one baptism" mentioned (one Lord, one faith, one baptism).

At first there was simply the Church. There were no other baptisms, no denominations, etc. But of course people began to teach heresy right away (it is documented in Scripture) so the Church had to decide how to deal with things.

Just as the Apostles met at Jerusalem to discuss judaizing, they and their successors continued to meet to discuss questions that came up. How to receive someone who had been given a different baptism was a very important topic to them.

It was those Church councils that affirmed that to re-baptize someone who had received a Christian (or close enough) baptism would be a serious sin.


Nearly every question asked in this thread can be broken down between two camps, depending on how you see baptism.

The early Church considered baptism to be regenerating. (I realize some of you probably won't agree with that statement, but all you have to do is go back and read what the earliest Christians said about it in many writings to find that. I'm not into arguing.)

If you consider that baptism DID something, as they did, that the grace of God reached man through the baptism He instituted, then you might begin to see why it shouldn't be repeated. The Nicene Creed also lists "one baptism for the remission of sins" ... that is saying it is not to be repeated AND it "does something". This is why infant baptism is practiced as well. It's a work of GOD, not of man, and God can bestow grace upon an infant.

If on the other hand you believe baptism is merely a public show of faith, accomplishing nothing, then it shouldn't matter if you repeat it dozens of times, could argue that infants shouldn't be baptized, and could begin to argue that it isn't even necessary at all as some denominations now teach.

But I would ask where in the New Testament (since that is the usual golden standard) it actually says "baptism is a public profession of faith"? I am aware that people put together various verses and explain it this way, but it doesn't actually say that. However, there IS a passage that directly says "baptism now saves you". So if you're going to be honest with yourself, you have to admit that you're having to build up interpretations to prop up the "public profession" position while dismissing what Scripture actually says.

I was raised Baptist. This was one of the hardest things for me to face. I didn't believe it, didn't WANT it to be true.

But anyway, the way you choose to approach what baptism IS will pretty much determine your outlook on all the questions here. We can discuss it for 30 pages, but that's really what it will come down to.

Peace to all.

 

[Phil 1:21]

It was those Church councils that affirmed that to re-baptize someone who had received a Christian (or close enough) baptism would be a serious sin.

OK, I can respect that there isn't a scriptural reference. But could you provide a source for this statement?

 

[~Anastasia~]

OK, I can respect that there isn't a scriptural reference. But could you provide a source for this statement?

The quickest way would be for me to ask. I will do a little research first though.

Canon law (which is what that would be) is not something I concern myself with to the point where I can give quick references, because it will never be my call to decide if someone needs to be rebaptized. (There's a joke there actually.) But as a point of interest I've read it here and there and I do I know it's there.

It may take me some time, but I'll try to get some references for you.

 

[~Anastasia~]

This doesn't answer the question and surprised me a bit regarding Reformed thought (the author is listed as Presbyterian) but might be of interest.

The Sins of Adult Rebaptism

And I will probably have to ask as my searches are not proving fruitful other than it being apparently addressed in the first council of Nicea and maybe some local councils prior to that.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

No where does it mention a baby ever being baptized. But it does say in Acts 2:41-42 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Have you ever seen a baby that said they gladly received His word? Luke 3:7-9 Then he said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 9 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” These were wanting to be baptized but you see what John the Baptist told them, bear fruit worthy of repentance, has anyone ever heard a baby say they had repented(of what I ask) and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior? Matt 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. Jesus himself said these words, v20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you, how long would someone have to wait in order to carry out the teachings of Christ to that little baby? One of the first statements that Jesus said when He began in Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Has anyone ever heard of a little baby that followed His command? One has to be able to know they need a Savior before they can believe on Him and receive him as Lord, don't you think? There is good reason why Baptist would require someone to be baptized when they came to join their local church, not because it saves them, but Jesus said to do it when He allow JTB to baptize Him, to fulfill all that is righteous.

It might be thought provoking for those who believe in infant baptism to ask, where do we get that teaching if its not in the word of God?

 

[Phil 1:21]

The quickest way would be for me to ask. I will do a little research first though.

Canon law (which is what that would be) is not something I concern myself with to the point where I can give quick references, because it will never be my call to decide if someone needs to be rebaptized. (There's a joke there actually.) But as a point of interest I've read it here and there and I do I know it's there.

It may take me some time, but I'll try to get some references for you.

Thanks. I appreciate your time and thoughts.

 

[Wordkeeper]

I have two related questions:

Question: Do we know that the first event was actually baptism?
Question: What is baptism?

Wrong is maybe wrong question! What did it accomplish would be my question? No where can you produce 1 verse that would support infant baptism as scriptural baptism. Baptism is to picture the death burial and resurrection of our old self and being raise to walk in newness of life. Being identified with Jesus having died for our sins and resurrection of our Lord. Only the person will know if they gave their heart to the Lord, you may know if they grow up around you when you see a transformed life, but then you will have to judge if its for real, point is you cannot tell what is right for someone else because you will never know what God only knows about each person, that is His business. We can only follow scriptures to know why we do what we do, so that we will all know the answer to the first question, show scripture to support infant baptism. Thanks.

There are several descriptions of baptism and the first baptism meets the requirements of one of those descriptions: the believer left the works of the devil.

Out of the several descriptions, the above is the most definitive.

To sum up, anyone who has left the works of the devil has been baptised.

Babies left Egypt. They passed through the water and the cloud. They joined, were baptised into the camp of Moses.

Hence they were baptised. Ask any EO what happens at baptism. The same happens with baptised babies.

 

[~Anastasia~]

No where does it mention a baby ever being baptized. But it does say in Acts 2:41-42 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Have you ever seen a baby that said they gladly received His word? Luke 3:7-9 Then he said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 9 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” These were wanting to be baptized but you see what John the Baptist told them, bear fruit worthy of repentance, has anyone ever heard a baby say they had repented(of what I ask) and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior? Matt 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. Jesus himself said these words, v20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you, how long would someone have to wait in order to carry out the teachings of Christ to that little baby? One of the first statements that Jesus said when He began in Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Has anyone ever heard of a little baby that followed His command? One has to be able to know they need a Savior before they can believe on Him and receive him as Lord, don't you think? There is good reason why Baptist would require someone to be baptized when they came to join their local church, not because it saves them, but Jesus said to do it when He allow JTB to baptize Him, to fulfill all that is righteous.

It might be thought provoking for those who believe in infant baptism to ask, where do we get that teaching if its not in the word of God?

Like I said, I'm not here to argue.

Where do we get the teaching if not from the word of God? (I'm assuming you mean the canon of Scripture.)

From the Apostles. "Hold fast to the teachings you received from us, whether by word (in person) or epistle (by letter)." That's in the Bible actually. The Church and the practices established by the Apostles predate any of the epistles by some years.

 

[Bro Hansen]

Please be encouraged to know the Word, Jesus, God says "There is also an antitype which now saves us - baptism......
Therefore since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God."
(1 Peter 3:21, 4:1,2)

By the Word I 'behold' as a Christian Jesus came as John the Baptist witnessed "The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29)
And that he shed His blood to death vicariously dying in my place
Although I remain weak and insufficient to ever present anything righteous in thought or deed He by His word gave me the faith in knowing He meeting John the Baptist fulfilled "..... all righteousness." (Matthew 3:15)
Him fulfilling the Law of atonement adorned not only me but all who believe with the Grace of heaven.

 

[Silentdecay]

For the sake of clarity, could you please show he scripture that states a second baptism would be a very serious sin? I can understand how it may be seen as insulting to the denomination that performed the first baptism, but a very serious sin?

It was decided at the 1st ecumenical council. The decision was based partially on scripture (Christ never said to be baptized more than once), writings of the early Church Fathers and Holy Tradition that had been passed down.

You have to be careful when asking "where is it in scripture". 90% of Christianity is not contained in scripture

 

[Phil 1:21]

It was decided at the 1st ecumenical council. The decision was based partially on scripture (Christ never said to be baptized more than once), writings of the early Church Fathers and Holy Tradition that had been passed down.

Thanks again. Could you possibly direct me to a source for that information?

 

[Silentdecay]

Thanks again. Could you possibly direct me to a source for that information?

While I'm at the office, there is little I can do other than tell you, there are many books that go into very detailed accounts of the 1st eccumenical council. There are probably also youtube documentaries.

Be *VERY* careful when looking for the information on Youtube. There are so many videos that merely copy-and-paste the fictional information that was stated in the Divinci Code

 

[Phil 1:21]

While I'm at the office, there is little I can do other than tell you, there are many books that go into very detailed accounts of the 1st eccumenical council. There are probably also youtube documentaries.

Be *VERY* careful when looking for the information on Youtube. There are so many videos that merely copy-and-paste the fictional information that was stated in the Divinci Code

Thanks. I did a Google search and checked a few sites, including the one below, and found nothing concerning re-baptism. If you locate a source, please let me know. Thanks again.

First Ecumenical Council - OrthodoxWiki