Re-baptism

[SnowyMacie]

So, I grew up in a church that doesn't practice infant baptism and was baptized at the age of 11. I made the decision partially because I was ready to be baptized and knew what I was doing, and if I am being a bit honest, partially because my friends were doing it. The thing that I look back on most negatively about it is that I decided on the date because I wanted to be the first baptism in my church's new building. I had no qualms about it, I meant what I said during the profession of my faith and the action of being baptized. In fact, to this day I still see that as my baptism and public confirmation of my faith.

However, this really lasted until I was in high school, during which I had a form of Depression that caused me to go in a psychotic state. Anyway, I was at a summer camp and after witnessing another baptism I had this thought that my first baptism "didn't count" because I was baptized for the wrong reasons. I opened up about this and it was arranged that I would be baptized, and I was.

I had no concerns anymore until college, matured, and learned more about Christianity and what it meant to be a Christian. I felt this urge to be baptized again, not because I wasn't saved or anything, but that I was sort, for lack of a better term, robbed, of the experience of truly professing my faith to God and desire to follow Christ because I was immature and then delusional. I never actually did that, and eventually found my way to Anglicanism.

Since leaving that version of Christianity to a more traditional one, I came to learn that re-baptism isn't necessarily a sin, but a "no" because it's seen as undoing your previous commitment. I've personally never seen my own experience that way, especially considering the mental state I was in for my second baptism. While I was received recently and in many ways still feel that that was the right decision, I still have these thoughts that I didn't do right, that I missed out on the sacrament of baptism and confirmation.

 

[Philip_B]

Hi TX.

The reason why the Anglican (and as far as I am aware any mainstream) Church does no re-baptise is because it is un-biblical, Ephesians 4:5, and because it is in opposition to the Nicene Creed, in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Confirmation is certainly likely to be available to any adult who returns to the Church in faith, being already baptised. This would normally involve anointing with the Holy Oil of Chrism. You should talk to your Parish Priest or adviser about this stuff.

In light of you baptism you may be now able reflect on the ways God was with you in the dark times or rebellion and struggle.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

 

[Paidiske]

The thing is, from an Anglican point of view at least, what you do in baptism isn't so much the point. (Ie. your concerns that "I didn't do right.")

The key agent in baptism is God; it is God who is faithful to God's promises and acts in your heart and in your life from your baptism. And to be baptised again would be to say that God didn't do right the first time, which would be very problematic...

You do, however, always have the option of re-affirming your baptismal vows. Traditionally that's done at Easter, but it could be done at any time if there's pastoral necessity. If you really feel you want to "do it right" I'd suggest talking to your priest about that.

 

[FireDragon76]

What the pastor said is exactly right.

One thing I appreciate about the Lutheran tradition is that baptism is a frequent subject. It's hammered home what baptism is, in the sermons, in the hymns. Because we are very dense, I guess, and don't want to believe salvation is a gift. Everything else in the world actively works against it.

At the Episcopal church I went to the message was often about the "invitation" to follow Jesus, not baptism. Lots of former Baptist clergy. They had the theoretical understanding of baptism of the Episcopal church (which isn't necessarily the same as the Lutheran one, Episcopalians emphasize the "baptismal covenant" in a way Lutherans never would), but didn't really articulate well how it fit with the evangelical message, IMO.

I don't even remember my baptism, and I was baptized at age 2 1/2 after a long series of surgeries and hospital stays. But I know I'm baptized. That's all that matters. I think its more problematic for you because you remember choosing to be baptized. But even though it was your choice, it was also God's gift to you, the mental health problems and petty human concerns of peer pressure don't change that. God works through all that stuff.

 

[ByronArn]

I had a similar experience. I was baptized in my teens in the creek by my house by the pastor of the charismatic non denominational church i grew up in. A couple years later, i became deist, then atheist. When i returned to Christianity, i felt like i needed to be baptized again. You see, the church i grew up in taught that if you turned away from God, then you had never been saved to begin with. The pastor of the church i started attending after i canner back to Christianity (an United Church of Christ) told me there was only supposed to be one baptism, and i had already been baptized. He did compromise though and gave me a conditional baptism (something along the lines of "If you haven't been baptized, i baptize you in the name of the....").

As my faith has evolved and matured, i now see that my "second baptism" was unnecessary and pointless.

 

[SnowyMacie]

The thing is, from an Anglican point of view at least, what you do in baptism isn't so much the point. (Ie. your concerns that "I didn't do right.")

The key agent in baptism is God; it is God who is faithful to God's promises and acts in your heart and in your life from your baptism. And to be baptised again would be to say that God didn't do right the first time, which would be very problematic...

I don't believe that God didn't do right the first time, it was that I didn't, and the second I see as almost completely irrelevant due to my psychological state at the time. Personally, I still believe that baptism is a personal choice and should be done when a person makes the choice to follow Christ as opposed to infancy, but I'm not necessarily opposed to infant baptism.

You do, however, always have the option of re-affirming your baptismal vows. Traditionally that's done at Easter, but it could be done at any time if there's pastoral necessity. If you really feel you want to "do it right" I'd suggest talking to your priest about that.

My parish does baptisms during service every few months or so, and we always re-affirm our baptismal vows.

 

[Fish and Bread]

One thing worth throwing in here is the Nicene Creed. The first version was approved at the Council of Nicea in 325AD, with the final version codified at the Council of Constantinople in 387AD. Christians from liturgical backgrounds have been reciting it weekly at masses, divine liturgies, Sunday services, and so on and so forth ever since. It isn't all that long, and it make a point of saying "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness (or remission) of sins". Most of those churches also baptize infants.

Do you think infants remember their baptisms?

Baptism isn't something you do, it's a form of grace you receive. And it's not so much about the experience itself as what the fact of it happening conveys- membership in the church and the remission of sins.

The vast majority of Christians alive today and historically do not remember their baptisms, and that's alright.

I think with some many non-creedal evangelical Protestant denominations holding sway in American Christian circles, suddenly the whole thing about being the center of attention and having this sort of great experience and professing your faith is the center of it, and people feel like they are missing out if they don't remember that or if it didn't go perfectly. But that's not really historic Christianity. The ironic part is that those non-creedal evangelical denominations only view baptism as a symbol, which is why they have to sort of upsell the ancillary stuff surrounding it. The historic denominations view it as a sacrament, a means of God's grace that keeps on giving and that means something day to day.

I mean, which would you rather have, a good wedding, or a good marriage?

See what I'm saying?

I wouldn't dwell on this too much.

The whole thing really sounds like the product of a religious culture that isn't the one you've chosen.