Why do Protestants re-baptize?

[BlackSaab52]

I absolutely disagree...you just won't see it, and this going around and around solves nothing. You take the verses for what you wish to believe, it is none of my buisness.

You need to make more clear your understanding of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and explain why you think that the verses you quoted promote your view. We don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[water_ripple]

This is common sense....it is like telling God the Holy Spirit.... "Your baptism by the Holy Spirit I am sure it worked God, but just in case, just to MAKE SURE, I did the water thingy too".

Sorry, but I am not into denying the work of God, like the work of baptism of the Holy Spirit is second rate, that would be total and complete arrogance of me, and Blasphemous, not to mention a sin. Sin of PRIDE...Gods number 1 biggest sin He detests in man.

Apparently Christ Himself was baptized in water, and it was John the baptist's job to baptize believers in water..and I believe Peter baptized the first gentile...

to be born of both..spirit and water.

John 1:25-33 KJV
(25)And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, not Elias, neither that prophet? (26) John answered them saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (27) He it is, who coming after me is prefered before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. (28) These things were done in Behtabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. (29) The next day John seeth Jesus coming, and s8aith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (30) This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. (31) And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. (32) And John bore record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. (33) And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remainig on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

And for the baptisim of the Holy Spirit

John 3:5-7 KJV
(5)Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (7) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


Edited..for typographical errors.

 

[MikeMcK]

I absolutely disagree...you just won't see it, and this going around and around solves nothing. You take the verses for what you wish to believe, it is none of my buisness.

I'm open to correction.

If you think I'm wrong, then don't you think the scriptural solution would be to correct me and show me where the baptism of the Holy Spirit is found in these verses?

 

[Celticflower]

That seems odd to me. ARe you in a very populated area?
I live in Phoenix area (suppose to be #5 in populatin in the US) and we associate with a number of nondenoms around us.

I am living in a well populated area of NE TN -- right in the "Bible Belt". This area's non-denoms seem to have a real problem with denominational churches. Many of the non-denoms call themselves "Christian" churches, so any church other than theirs is non-Christian, and some of the folks mean it literally. One church we attended here had a habit of condemning books or Bible translations (they were KJ only) as "too Methodist". It took me 2 years and a trip to a play about John Wesley to convince one friend that Methodists are Christians and do not need to be saved or converted.

Other than the disagreement about Baptism, I can't find fault with the teachings of the church we attend now. I just cannot be a member, teach a Sunday School class or be on a committee. I still hold membership in the Methodist Church in PA that we were at before the move south.

I'm glad to here you live in an area where the churches get along.

 

[Joykins]

Water baptism is part of the Great Commission and I believe it is therefore something we all should do even if we can't agree on what it means. Unless you believe that the disciples were capable of baptizing in the Holy Spirit?

 

[Ainesis]

Scripture tells us that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". The Nicene Creed states that there is "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". Even the Catholic and I believe Orthodox Churches accepts the baptism of Christian's entering their faith as valid. Of course, it must meet the trinitarian formula and the individual's prior faith must have a biblical/historical belief in what the Trinity means. Therefore, Mormon baptism is not accepted.

So why do Protestants routinely re-baptize Christian's when it's contrary to the bible?

Are you saying that if a Protestant were to join the catholic church they would not be baptized into that church?

 

[Veritas]

Are you saying that if a Protestant were to join the catholic church they would not be baptized into that church?

Correct. We accept all Trinitarian baptisms. This is so for a variety of reasons. First, because God through the power of the Holy Spirit is at work in the Sacrament, we don't need to re-do what He has already done. Secondly, a soul is baptized into the Christian family, not a particular "church". Therefore, a baptized Protestant is still a Chrisitian who has already received the grace of the Holy Spirit through the Sacrament. Upon entering the Catholic Church, a Protestant convert will receive other Sacraments such as Confirmation, first Eucharist, etc. Hope this helps.

 

[Ainesis]

Correct. We accept all Trinitarian baptisms.

Actually, my question was not about Trinitarians and neither was the OP. The question is does the catholic church re-baptize Protestants? The answer is "Yes."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VII

Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration.

Does this mean that the catholic church is breaking God's commands in the same sense as posed in the OP?

Upon entering the Catholic Church, a Protestant convert will receive other Sacraments such as Confirmation, first Eucharist, etc. Hope this helps.

It does. However, perhaps you are a little to concrete in your answer. The catholic church does in fact re-baptize Protestants. So, in such times, do they also break God's commands?

 

[Melethiel]

One church we attended here had a habit of condemning books or Bible translations (they were KJ only) as "too Methodist". It took me 2 years and a trip to a play about John Wesley to convince one friend that Methodists are Christians and do not need to be saved or converted.

Methodists need to be saved? I guess Lutherans must be from the pits of hell!

 

[Veritas]

Actually, my question was not about Trinitarians and neither was the OP. The question is does the catholic church re-baptize Protestants? The answer is "Yes."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VII


Does this mean that the catholic church is breaking God's commands in the same sense as posed in the OP?

It does. However, perhaps you are a little to concrete in your answer. The catholic church does in fact re-baptize Protestants. So, in such times, do they also break God's commands?

Did you read the entire passage from New Advent? Here it is:

"From the foregoing it is evident that not all baptism administered by heretics or schismatics is invalid. On the contrary, if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really "intends to perform what the Church performs" the baptism is undoubtedly valid. This is also authoritatively stated in the decree for the Armenians and the canons of the Council of Trent already given. The question becomes a practical one when converts to the Faith have to be dealt with. If there were one authorized mode of baptizing among the sects, and if the necessity and true significance of the sacrament were uniformly taught and put in practice among them, there would be little difficulty as to the status of converts from the sects. But there is no such unity of teaching and practice among them, and consequently the particular case of each convert must be examined into when there is question of his reception into the Church. For not only are there religious denominations in which baptism is in all probability not validly administered, but there are those also which have a ritual sufficient indeed for validity, but in practice the likelihood of their members having received baptism validly is more than doubtful. As a consequence converts must be dealt with differently. If it be certain that a convert was validly baptized in heresy, the sacrament is not repeated, but the ceremonies which had been omitted in such baptism are to be supplied, unless the bishop, for sufficient reasons, judges that they can be dispensed with. (For the United States, see Conc. Prov. Balt., I.) If it be uncertain whether the convert's baptism was valid or not, then he is to be baptized conditionally. In such cases the ritual is: "If thou art not yet baptized, then I baptize thee in the name", etc. The First Synod of Westminster, England, directs that adult converts are to be baptized not publicly but privately with holy water (i.e. not the consecrated baptismal water) and without the usual ceremonies (Decr. xvi). Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated."

I think the last statement pretty much answers your question. So now we know that IF a person's baptism can be determined to be invalid, then and only then are they re-baptized. Heresy, ie Protestantism in and of itself is not the determining factor. Further, I know for a fact (and you can ask the numerous Protestant converts on OBOB whether they were re-baptized) that very few Protestant converts are re-baptized. Those that can produce baptismal certificates or other evidence of their proper, valid baptism, will not be re-baptized. IF someone is re-baptized, you can see a caveat is added to the normal formula and it is referred to a "conditional" baptism.

So.....yes, if one is re-baptized unnecessarily, then the sacrament is repeated "sacrilegiously". Fortunately, the Church makes every effort to determine the validity of the initial baptism.

As an aside, I'm a little disappointed that you tried to set me up on this. What point did it serve?

 

[Ainesis]

Did you read the entire passage from New Advent?

Yes, I did. I invite you to as well, for it goes to the heart of the matter.

Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated."

I think the last statement pretty much answers your question. So now we know that IF a person's baptism can be determined to be invalid, then and only then are they re-baptized.

And yet, it goes on to say how it is "generally impossible" to determine whether a person had been properly baptized. That the "intention" of the administrator or the "mode" of administration can make it invalid. Even by the text you highlight, it is clear that the baptism is considered valid only if the administrator "intends" to convey what the church performs. How exactly do they determine the "intent" of the administrator? Again, as stated in the article, such is generally impossible.

Heresy, ie Protestantism in and of itself is not the determining factor. Further, I know for a fact (and you can ask the numerous Protestant converts on OBOB whether they were re-baptized) that very few Protestant converts are re-baptized.

You know for a fact based on what? I know of others who have been. Nonetheless, it all begs the question. If in fact they do re-baptize, even in a minority of cases, are they then breaking God's commands?

IF someone is re-baptized, you can see a caveat is added to the normal formula and it is referred to a "conditional" baptism.

Yes, I see that. I just see no evidence in Scripture of a "conditional" baptism. Does this "condition" then mean that the church is not going against what God says when they re-baptize someone conditionally who has already been baptized into the faith?

So.....yes, if one is re-baptized unnecessarily, then the sacrament is repeated "sacrilegiously". Fortunately, the Church makes every effort to determine the validity of the initial baptism.

Yes, which they also acknowledge as a general impossibility.

As an aside, I'm a little disappointed that you tried to set me up on this. What point did it serve?

Set you up? Not at all. Perhpas you are taking things a little too personally?

The point, since you ask, is that the catholic church does exactly what the OP accuses Protestants of doing. Regardless of how rare you believe such to be and regardless of how much effort you believe the church goes through to validate a previous baptism, the bottom line is that they do re-baptize.

The catholic church reserves the right to rebaptize those who they feel may have been baptized invalidly before. Protestants reserve those same rights. If Protestants are wrong for doing so, then so is the catholic church.

 

[Veritas]

Set you up? Not at all. Perhpas you are taking things a little too personally?

The point, since you ask, is that the catholic church does exactly what the OP accuses Protestants of doing. Regardless of how rare you believe such to be and regardless of how much effort you believe the church goes through to validate a previous baptism, the bottom line is that they do re-baptize.

The catholic church reserves the right to rebaptize those who they feel may have been baptized invalidly before. Protestants reserve those same rights. If Protestants are wrong for doing so, then so is the catholic church.

Believe me, I don't take anything at CF personally unless it's meant to be so.

I do think the "rare" issue is important. The Catholic Church does not routinely re-baptize as a matter of course. That is a fact you must concede. They at least make the attempt to determine the validity of the individual's baptism. SOME Protestant denoms do so routinely particularly if the person was either baptized as an infant or was Catholic. This is the heart of what I'm trying to address here. It really boils down to an anti-Catholic practice. The reason behind the re-baptism is important. The truth be known and don't try to deny it, is that many "non-donoms" do not consider Catholics Christian and therefore their baptism not valid. The Catholic Church on the other hand considers those baptized with the proper formula to be Christian however imperfectly formed their faith may be.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I am living in a well populated area of NE TN -- right in the "Bible Belt". This area's non-denoms seem to have a real problem with denominational churches. Many of the non-denoms call themselves "Christian" churches, so any church other than theirs is non-Christian, and some of the folks mean it literally. One church we attended here had a habit of condemning books or Bible translations (they were KJ only) as "too Methodist". It took me 2 years and a trip to a play about John Wesley to convince one friend that Methodists are Christians and do not need to be saved or converted.

Other than the disagreement about Baptism, I can't find fault with the teachings of the church we attend now. I just cannot be a member, teach a Sunday School class or be on a committee. I still hold membership in the Methodist Church in PA that we were at before the move south.

I'm glad to here you live in an area where the churches get along.

Well, I wouldn't say we all get along. And I am sure there are a few independent type churches that are KJV only or think everyone else is heathen in the Phoenix area.

That is too bad about your church. Sure is odd that they don't accept a baptism by the Methodists. In our area, it is the Mormons who rebaptise people.

 

[Joykins]

I am now coming to the conclusion that any church will rebaptize if it thinks the previous baptism is or may be invalid.

Fair enough.

 

[ForgivenToo]

Wow this thread turned into a battle ground.

When a person posts a question, I feel that they are doing that to get a couple different opinions on what they are thinking about.

That's the great thing about opinions they are all different cause different people post them. Instead of posting our opinions this has turned into a right or wrong thing and i don't feel that this is about who is right and who is wrong wrong. It is about gathering opinions.