Question about baptism

[Albion]

the church I go to now (i'm not an official member, I just attend) doesn't push too much on getting baptized. they do encourage everyone to be baptized (of course) but they don't keep pushing which is good. they leave it up to each individual to make the decision. It is a personal decision after all. I think you can even be a full fledged member without being baptized. it's not a prerequisite.

That wouldn't be the case in every other non-denominational church, but it's good news in this case.

 

[chilehed]

Do I need to get baptized again in this new church?...

If baptism doesn't really do anything, then why would you need to do it again?
And if it really does make an indelible mark on the soul, then it can't be done more than once.

Either way, the answer is the same.

 

[Tigger45]

If baptism doesn't really do anything, then why would you need to do it again?
And if it really does make an indelible mark on the soul, then it can't be done more than once.

Either way, the answer is the same.

Exactly

 

[jtbrock]

This is my dilemma. I was baptized as an infant in a Christian church. I joined the Mormon faith as an adult and was told that the infant baptism was not recognized as it was not done with the proper authority. Now, I realized that the Mormon church actually had no authority so it is not recognized. So does that mean the infant baptism was now recognized?

 

[graceandpeace]

This is my dilemma. I was baptized as an infant in a Christian church. I joined the Mormon faith as an adult and was told that the infant baptism was not recognized as it was not done with the proper authority. Now, I realized that the Mormon church actually had no authority so it is not recognized. So does that mean the infant baptism was now recognized?

Most traditional Christian churches would likely accept your infant baptism. Depending on the church, you could be asked to go through a confirmation process, but likely not a "re-baptism."

Baptist & similar non-denominational groups would not, since they don't accept infant baptism in the first place.

 

[Albion]

This is my dilemma. I was baptized as an infant in a Christian church. I joined the Mormon faith as an adult and was told that the infant baptism was not recognized as it was not done with the proper authority. Now, I realized that the Mormon church actually had no authority so it is not recognized. So does that mean the infant baptism was now recognized?

Well, no, guys. At least not according to the Baptistic POV which this congregation apparently agrees with. Although Baptism doesn't remit sin or confer grace or impart the Holy Spirit (according to this view), it is believed to be an obligation that demonstrates the person's decision to accept Christ as Lord and Savior. An infant or young child wouldn't be able to do that, which is why such a baptism would be seen as meaningless. This is why it's said that these people believe in "Believer's Baptism."

 

[jtbrock]

So, you're saying that the infant baptism isn't recognized because baptism is a witness to others that you have accepted Christ as our Saviour. and you can't really do that as a baby.

And the mormon baptism, even though it was a witness to others, it was done for the wrong reasons (remission of sins and first step to receiving the Holy Spirit) and wrong authority, so it isn't recognized either in Christian church settings.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm not against getting baptized again, I just get the nagging feeling that someone somewhere will come along and say, "well that baptism was done under these circumstances (...FILL IN THE BLANK...) ....so it's not actually recognized"...

What is the be-all end-all authority on this matter? Different Christian churches claim different views on such a simple basic matter (I hate to put this out there because the mormon church is false, but this is the one thing the mormon church criticizes other Christian churches for)

 

[Albion]

So, you're saying that the infant baptism isn't recognized because baptism is a witness to others that you have accepted Christ as our Saviour. and you can't really do that as a baby.

Essentially, yes.

I'd only add that it's seen not simply as a witness to other people but that Scripture is thought to support the idea of it being a religious obligation, an act by which the person puts an overt act behind his intellectual decision to accept Christ.

And the mormon baptism, even though it was a witness to others, it was done for the wrong reasons (remission of sins and first step to receiving the Holy Spirit) and wrong authority, so it isn't recognized either in Christian church settings.

Well, Mormon theology is so different from conventional Christianity that LDS Baptism can hardly be considered to be what the Bible describes. Just about every denomination, whether Protestant or Catholic, agrees on this.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm not against getting baptized again, I just get the nagging feeling that someone somewhere will come along and say, "well that baptism was done under these circumstances (...FILL IN THE BLANK...) ....so it's not actually recognized"...

What is the be-all end-all authority on this matter? Different Christian churches claim different views on such a simple basic matter (I hate to put this out there because the mormon church is false, but this is the one thing the mormon church criticizes other Christian churches for)

Just about all Christian denominations agree on the invalidity of Mormon Baptism.

The division among them over infant baptism vs "Believer's baptism" boils down to whether this Christian sacrament/ordinance is something God does to -- or for -- us (marks us as a member of his church, imparts the Holy Ghost, etc.) OR, on the other hand, that it's something we do for God (witnessing, confirming, as previously described).

Which approach you take, we can't really decide for you, but it's only the Baptist and Baptist-influenced denominations that take the latter approach, which was unknown until the Reformation and considered shocking by everyone else when it was introduced by the early Baptists, Amish, and other small groups. And if you want to decide the issue by turning to Scripture (which everyone on all sides says to do), you'll find support there for both arguments.

One thing appears certain. Almost every other local church you might consider joining considers your infant Baptism to be valid. The one you are attending, apparently won't, so how do you handle this in your own personal life?

 

[jtbrock]

Thanks for your response, Albion. this explanation is the clearest one yet and I think I understand what you are saying. I will have to think about this some more. I have not officially joined this church. The church was originally Forward Baptist Church (they took the word "baptist" out of their name a number of years ago). It is now just Forward Church. Not sure if it was the negative connotation of the Baptist name or not.
they certainly do baptism by immersion, holding special "baptism Sundays" periodically. But whether I will come to that point or not, I'm still undecided. I am a follower of Christ and have been most of my life. Someday it might be important to me to make a public declaration according to this church's views. or I might decide that my infant baptism was sufficient.
I don't go to this church because it's Baptist, I just like the music and the pastor is a real down to earth likable guy. A refreshing change from the extremely staid (*read downright boring*) mormon church meetings that I endured for almost 18 years.

 

[Thursday]

I have a question about baptism. Not about whether it is necessary or important. I understand that is it.
the issue is, is I was baptized when I was a baby (sprinkling) in the Presbyterian church. I was told that didn't count because it wasn't my decision and don't remember it.
Later in life I joined the Mormon faith and was baptized by full immersion into that church when I was 28. I have left that church and now attend a mainstream Christian church (loosely Baptist affiliation). I realize now that the Mormon church does have the proper authority so the baptism didn't really count, (or so I've been told)
Do I need to get baptized again in this new church? It seems wrong to keep getting baptized just because the last 2 times I got baptized it "didn't count".
I'm not against getting baptized again it's just I keep thinking "how many times do I have to go through this before it sticks?" (don't mean to sound facetious but that's what if feels like sometimes)

Your first baptism was valid.

The sanctification of Baptism is due to God's grace, not your understanding.

 

[Albion]

Thanks for your response, Albion. this explanation is the clearest one yet and I think I understand what you are saying. I will have to think about this some more. I have not officially joined this church. The church was originally Forward Baptist Church (they took the word "baptist" out of their name a number of years ago). It is now just Forward Church. Not sure if it was the negative connotation of the Baptist name or not.

There's been something of a trend among a lot of mainline denominations lately to drop the denominational name in the belief that this will broaden their appeal by side-stepping old stereotypes. Often, it doesn't result in making them more attractive but, rather, just confuses people as to what the identity of that church is anymore!

That's not your problem, but it does suggest to me that Forward is still a Baptist church and, as such, will be committed to Believer's Baptism by immersion. This is a big thing among Baptists.

However, there's an interesting footnote to that issue among Baptists that might be worth your consideration. The Baptists are almost unique among Christians in allowing members to not be baptized at all!

While some congregations will say it's got to be done, I know Baptists in good standing who simply refuse. How can this be? Well, Baptists not only are known for adult Baptism and it by Immersion, but they're also known for not putting any barriers like Creeds, membership tests, or priests between God and Man. It's the individual's conscience that is championed.

So, what if the individual feels that his conversion experience is all that God demands of him and he's not sympathetic to any church officials telling him how to read the Scripture on this matter? This may depend upon which Baptist convention Forward Church is affiliated with, but if you decide to stay with this congregation and want to be a regular member yet do not want to renounce your earlier (non-Mormon) baptism--which is, in effect, what you'd be doing if you submit to a new Baptism....

 

[jtbrock]

From my experience you are correct about the Baptists not requiring baptism at all. They don't push it at all at this place and even though they took the name Baptist out of the church name, they talk about it being a Baptist congregation as was the history of the church in our city.
They talk about baptism every once in a while and like I mentioned they have special Baptism Sundays. but at no time do I feel pressured into getting baptized. my take on it is that they leave it up the individual to decide the right time--if ever, to be baptized. An older couple in our bible study group were baptized last year and they have been going to church for years. another man was baptized a few weeks ago who had been attending for years as well. so there is no pressure--it's a personal choice according to this congregation.
it's quite a popular church with over 1000 people attending on any given Sunday. they had to split the services into 2 because it was getting overwhelming and crowded (it's also a theater style service with a stage and a band). its a very progressive church as well with upbeat music with drums/bass guitars/keyboard band on stage. I LOVE the music. that is why my wife and i started attending there because of the music. the pastor is good as well, comical and humorous and serious when he needs to be. a lot of younger people like it but there are also the older members who have been going for years, so a mix of all ages.(don't know how some of the older people like the music, but they understand you need to move with the times to keep the youth to keep coming).
i like it that they don't pressure you about anything. Including baptism.

 

[Albion]

I'm guessing, of course, but it sounds, after all this discussion, that there probably won't be any reason you shouldn't feel right at home there without having to worry unduly about the church leaning on you for a decision regarding baptism.

I'd call that good news and wish you well there!

 

[jtbrock]

I'm guessing, of course, but it sounds, after all this discussion, that there probably won't be any reason you shouldn't feel right at home there without having to worry unduly about the church leaning on you for a decision regarding baptism.

I'd call that good news and wish you well there!

Thanks for your remarks. You've helped me understand the different views of baptism. this question came up when my wife and I were discussing baptism. I have a clearer picture of the issue now.

as for the church, yes I feel comfortable there and there is no pressure (which I had to endure in the LDS church) and this is a nice change.

thanks again. I really appreciate it.

 

[aiki]

This is my dilemma. I was baptized as an infant in a Christian church. I joined the Mormon faith as an adult and was told that the infant baptism was not recognized as it was not done with the proper authority. Now, I realized that the Mormon church actually had no authority so it is not recognized. So does that mean the infant baptism was now recognized?

Recognized by whom? It makes no difference whatever whether or not a particular Christian denomination recognizes your baptism. The only thing that matters is what the Bible says. For it is in the Bible that the doctrine and practices of all faithful disciples of Christ are prescribed. Now, some church organizations have taken it upon themselves to add to the Scriptures or make modifications to it and then defend those additions and modifications on the basis of "historic tradition". But child baptism, as I already noted in an earlier thread, is no where found in Scripture. And in light of what the Bible tells us baptism symbolizes, infant baptism is nonsensical.

Selah.

 

[Job8]

I'm not against getting baptized again it's just I keep thinking "how many times do I have to go through this before it sticks?" (don't mean to sound facetious but that's what if feels like sometimes)

The only valid baptism is believer's baptism in a Gospel preaching church that does not teach that baptism can save you. See Acts 2 and the entire book of Acts. Infant baptism is invalid and the Mormons have another gospel and another Jesus.

 

[hedrick]

From my point of view there is a difference in what people think baptism means. The Reformation churches (Lutheran and Reformed) thought that God takes the initiative in calling us. For them Baptism is a sign of incorporation into Christ's body. Children are a very real part of it, as Jesus himself made clear. Thus they see Baptism as a sign as much of God calling us and making us his own as our own decision. The Baptist approach sees Baptism as a sign of a "decision for Christ." Sometimes I've said that the traditional churches see it as a sign of Christ's decision for us, something that happens before we're able to respond.