PDA

View Full Version : Should I get baptized (again)?



Colossians 3:17
Jul 10th 2008, 11:11 PM
I was baptized as a baby (grew up in Methodist church).

I didn't become a REAL believer until about November of 2006. I have thought a few times about whether I should get baptized or not, but I really don't think it's a big deal.

Just like circumcision, I know it isn't required of us to be believers or to get into heaven. However, at the same time, what could it really hurt to do it again?

Thanks for any input.

keck553
Jul 10th 2008, 11:34 PM
There's nothing wrong with your pronouncement of surrendering your life to the Holy One through water immersion. It's a symbolic gesture of your obedience, the fruit of your salvation! Obedience is a sweet aroma to God. We love God! Nothing wrong with expressing it!

All God wants is that we don't replace our worship of Him with the worship of rituals or the worship of actions in obedience. I think His heart was broken (Oh Jeruslam, Oh Jerusalem....) the first time He came as one of us and He saw His chosen people doing that.

Let's not do that.

revrobor
Jul 11th 2008, 05:58 AM
Your question leads me to believe that perhaps the Spirit of God is nudging you in that direction. If you feel He is then do it. If not, nothing is lost.

godsgirl
Jul 11th 2008, 10:55 AM
Basically, your baptism as a baby meant nothing at all. If you have decided to follow Christ-it is time to be baptised by immersion.

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 12:06 PM
I was baptized as a baby (grew up in Methodist church).

I didn't become a REAL believer until about November of 2006. I have thought a few times about whether I should get baptized or not, but I really don't think it's a big deal.

Just like circumcision, I know it isn't required of us to be believers or to get into heaven. However, at the same time, what could it really hurt to do it again?

Thanks for any input.

Rebaptism is a sacrilege and should be avoided at all costs. Rebaptism is slap in the face of God as it tells him that the One Baptism is not a sufficient statement of faith and your membership in the Body of Christ. Baptism is not just a thing a church does. Baptism is something that Christ himself established as a sign of being incorporated into the Body of Christ. A person can only be incorporated once in their life.

If you wish to affirm the faith from your baptism, the appropriate thing to do is to seek Confirmation by the laying on of hands.

DeafPosttrib
Jul 11th 2008, 12:31 PM
Absolutely, yes. You need to be baptized.

I was water baptism as infant baby at Lutheran Church. But, that infant baptism doesn't count as salvation. Because, infant babies' knowledge are not yet developing, and know nothing of Jesus, and sin.

Godparents do confession for infant baby's sins. That is unbiblcal.

Bible teaches us, a person must hear the gospel, and make DECISION, then have to repent of sins, then to be baptize that is of obedience because of God's commandment.

Yes, you do need to be baptize as obedience, because you accepted Christ last year. So, therefore, you have to be baptize follow God's commandment.

I suggest you go to Christian church like, Church of Christ, Baptist, Assembly of God, which follow the Bible on baptism as God's commandment.

I urge you, better to obeyt God's Word according Matt. 28:19-20; and Mark 16:15 too. God will blessing you, if you do baptizing by obey Him.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

Slug1
Jul 11th 2008, 01:02 PM
I know that when I rededicated myself to Jesus Christ I was led to be baptized again. This time my entire family (wife and daughter) did it as well. We were all baptized as infants but we all felt led to do it again as Christian's who now consciously proclaimed our faith in Jesus Christ.

theleast
Jul 11th 2008, 01:05 PM
Matthew 3:11 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+3:11&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+3&version=9)
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Water baptism is as well and good if it leads you to Christ.

But baptism of the Holy Ghost is where it's at.

daughter
Jul 11th 2008, 01:06 PM
An adult born again believer can, if led to, choose to be baptised as an outward sign of obedience. This is NOT sacrilege, and you'll find no protestant would suggest that it was.

You don't have to get baptised - it's not a requirement. I got baptised because I was so happy to have found Christ (been found by Him) that I wanted to make a public declaration of my love for Him. But it is between you and God what you do. Just remain happy with Him, and trust Him.

DeafPosttrib
Jul 11th 2008, 01:16 PM
Understand,

Being to be baptized is part of action of obedience. Yes, it is required for converts have to be baptize.

Myself was as Lutheran, was baptized as infnat baby.

Then, later I accepted Christ in August 17, 1988. But, not till over a year later, I finally got baptized in November 1989 by obedience.

I urger you better to obey Christ's commandment, Christ would be please if you do it by obey Him.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 01:44 PM
Baptism is the sign of one's incorporation into the Body of Christ. A person can only be incorporated once. A rebaptism cannot reincorporate. Therefore, it serves no purpose and belittle's God's great work when you were actually incorporated into the Body of Christ.

(Although Daughter said that this is not a Protestant belief, I do not think that is accurate. I will admit, and I think it would be more accurate to say, that my position is held by those who also hold to pedobaptism.)

Studyin'2Show
Jul 11th 2008, 02:01 PM
Baptism is the sign of one's incorporation into the Body of Christ. A person can only be incorporated once. A rebaptism cannot reincorporate. Therefore, it serves no purpose and belittle's God's great work when you were actually incorporated into the Body of Christ.

(Although Daughter said that this is not a Protestant belief, I do not think that is accurate. I will admit, and I think it would be more accurate to say, that my position is held by those who also hold to pedobaptism.)There would be no RE-baptism. Baptism occurs when a person CHOOSES to follow Messiah. The OP has just recently made this choice so it would follow that they are baptized as an outward symbol of the inward change that has occur to this believer. Any ritual done while an infant had nothing to do with any CHOICE to follow Messiah.

I was baptized as an infant but had absolutely no personal relationship with my Savior. It was not until 31 years later that I was saved by grace through faith. I read in scripture that we are to 'believe' and be baptized. Because I now believe, I was baptized. I don't consider it being rebaptized because how could I have ever really been baptized if I did not first believe? :hmm:

God Bless!

Buck shot
Jul 11th 2008, 02:07 PM
I was baptized as a baby (grew up in Methodist church).

I didn't become a REAL believer until about November of 2006. I have thought a few times about whether I should get baptized or not, but I really don't think it's a big deal.

Just like circumcision, I know it isn't required of us to be believers or to get into heaven. However, at the same time, what could it really hurt to do it again?

Thanks for any input.

Howdy,

When you were baptized as a baby it did you no harm but also no good. Your parents were being obedient to what they were taught. You did not have any saving faith in the Lord at that time.

Now you have chosen to accept the gift that God gave to pay for your sins and are trying to follow Christ's example. Jesus was baptized as an adult by John. You need to decide if you want to do as Jesus or if you believe your traditional infant baptism is enough for you.

I was baptized many years ago but one of my dreams is to be baptized in the Jordan.

We will be baptizing a lady next week that was baptized with several other teenage girls about 40 years ago to fit in, without truly being saved. She has come forward and says that God has pressed upon her to be baptized again since she was not saved when she was baptized before. She had me close to tears as she re-shared her testimony.

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 02:09 PM
There would be no RE-baptism. Baptism occurs when a person CHOOSES to follow Messiah. The OP has just recently made this choice so it would follow that they are baptized as an outward symbol of the inward change that has occur to this believer. Any ritual done while an infant had nothing to do with any CHOICE to follow Messiah.

I was baptized as an infant but had absolutely no personal relationship with my Savior. It was not until 31 years later that I was saved by grace through faith. I read in scripture that we are to 'believe' and be baptized. Because I now believe, I was baptized. I don't consider it being rebaptized because how could I have ever really been baptized if I did not first believe? :hmm:

God Bless!

This is part of a much larger discussion that has been had hundreds of times on this board as to when baptism ought to occur. I do not want to derail this thread on this issue, but allow me to say the following:

(1) considering that Christians of all stripes are divided over the issue of the age of baptism, it is safe to say that the Bible is not clear on the issue;

(2) after the first generation of Christians, the historically normative form of baptism was with infants until the Reformation;

(3) after the Reformation, some Protestants (certainly not the majority), rejected pedobaptism in favour of so-called "believer's baptism";

(4) a person can be a faithful Bible-based Christian and hold to either pedobaptism or believer's baptism.

Of those who Christians who hold to pedobaptism, an adult baptism after being pedobaptized is rebaptism.

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 02:11 PM
Let's say someone becomes saved as an adult and is baptized at age 35.

Let's say that 20 years later, through all the trials and tribulations of life, the person wants to be baptized again, as an adult, at age 55.

Should the second baptism occur?

Buck shot
Jul 11th 2008, 02:24 PM
Let's say someone becomes saved as an adult and is baptized at age 35.

Let's say that 20 years later, through all the trials and tribulations of life, the person wants to be baptized again, as an adult, at age 55.

Should the second baptism occur?

Did you read my post? One of my dreams is to be baptized in the Jordan. I have been scriptural baptized before but I would love to do it again where Jesus did.

Just to make sure we are all on the same page, we are talking about water baptism and not spiritual baptism on this thread.

When John was baptizing, he was preaching to repent and be baptized. A baby cannot repent yet, can't even eat beans at the time most are baptized.

BroRog
Jul 11th 2008, 02:25 PM
Basically, your baptism as a baby meant nothing at all. If you have decided to follow Christ-it is time to be baptised by immersion.

It meant something to his parents. :)

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 02:37 PM
Did you read my post? One of my dreams is to be baptized in the Jordan. I have been scriptural baptized before but I would love to do it again where Jesus did.

Just to make sure we are all on the same page, we are talking about water baptism and not spiritual baptism on this thread.

When John was baptizing, he was preaching to repent and be baptized. A baby cannot repent yet, can't even eat beans at the time most are baptized.


Yes, water baptism.

I guess a very basic question needs to be asked here: does water baptism demonstrate/signify/initiate one's incorporation into the Body of Christ?

Studyin'2Show
Jul 11th 2008, 02:39 PM
It meant something to his parents. :)And thus it might have something to do with the parents' faith but clearly not the child. How can the child repent which is the precursor to baptism as preached by John the Baptist and Messiah?

BTW, I see nothing in scripture that would prohibit a second baptism if that is the wish of the believer. As I do not feel my baptism as an infant hurt me, nor do I believe that someone who does what Buck shot hopes to do would be hurt.

God Bless!

Buck shot
Jul 11th 2008, 02:53 PM
Yes, water baptism.

I guess a very basic question needs to be asked here: does water baptism demonstrate/signify/initiate one's incorporation into the Body of Christ?

A view verses should prove that water baptism does not initiate anyone into the Body of Christ...


Luke 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Faith is whatinitiates us into the Body of Christ.

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 02:59 PM
A view verses should prove that water baptism does not initiate anyone into the Body of Christ...


Luke 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Faith is whatinitiates us into the Body of Christ.


The Good Thief is the exception rather than the rule. We should use what is typical to be the standard of Christian practice, not a one time only circumstance of a conversion on a cross next to Jesus.

Would you agree that baptism has replaced circumcism as the sign of initiation?

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 03:03 PM
A view verses should prove that water baptism does not initiate anyone into the Body of Christ...


Luke 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Faith is whatinitiates us into the Body of Christ.


What do you believe baptism represents if not initiation into the Body of Christ?

Buck shot
Jul 11th 2008, 03:04 PM
The Good Thief is the exception rather than the rule. We should use what is typical to be the standard of Christian practice, not a one time only circumstance of a conversion on a cross next to Jesus.

Would you agree that baptism has replaced circumcism as the sign of initiation?

Not as an infact, nor as a requirment. If one is baptized without being saved what is the gain? The high priest whom Jesus talked to were all circumcised, what did they gain by it? I'll answer, the respect of men who thought like them. Baptism is a sign to the world that we have changed. How can an infant baptism show this?

Buck shot
Jul 11th 2008, 03:07 PM
What do you believe baptism represents if not initiation into the Body of Christ?

You will not agree with the term but it shows that I chose to die (the old man) and be born again.

In other words it is a visual for the world of death, burial, and resurrection.

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 03:27 PM
Not as an infact, nor as a requirment. If one is baptized without being saved what is the gain? The high priest whom Jesus talked to were all circumcised, what did they gain by it? I'll answer, the respect of men who thought like them. Baptism is a sign to the world that we have changed. How can an infant baptism show this?

Both are a sign of the person's membership and affiliation with the Most High.

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 03:28 PM
You will not agree with the term but it shows that I chose to die (the old man) and be born again.

In other words it is a visual for the world of death, burial, and resurrection.

Ok, so once you have made the choice and shown everyone you have made the choice through beliver's baptism, if you get rebaptised, you are telling the world what? That you have chosen again and are showing the world that you have been born again again?

Studyin'2Show
Jul 11th 2008, 03:29 PM
Both are a sign of the person's membership and affiliation with the Most High.Is it a club that one needs membership into? :hmm: Or a faith that one shows by repenting AND being baptized?

Buck shot
Jul 11th 2008, 03:35 PM
Ok, so once you have made the choice and shown everyone you have made the choice through beliver's baptism, if you get rebaptised, you are telling the world what? That you have chosen again and are showing the world that you have been born again again?

Many feel that after they backslide they want to rededicate their lives and be baptized again to show they are humble enough to admit they had need to repent again. I do not see it as a necessity for salvation, but I will not say they should not do it if they feel they need to.

As so many other things, it is a matter of ones heart. The question to me is not should we or should we not but, why do you want to? Is it because you want to humble yourself before all mankind or is it because you want to gain the respect of men?

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 03:39 PM
Many feel that after they backslide they want to rededicate their lives and be baptized again to show they are humble enough to admit they had need to repent again. I do not see it as a necessity for salvation, but I will not say they should not do it if they feel they need to.

As so many other things, it is a matter of ones heart. The question to me is not should we or should we not but, why do you want to? Is it because you want to humble yourself before all mankind or is it because you want to gain the respect of men?


To use an analogy, for me being rebaptised would be like getting recircumcised. I am sure you can imagine what would happen on circumcision number 2, no? I think the same thing would happen spiritually with a rebaptism.

Buck shot
Jul 11th 2008, 03:46 PM
To use an analogy, for me being rebaptised would be like getting recircumcised. I am sure you can imagine what would happen on circumcision number 2, no? I think the same thing would happen spiritually with a rebaptism.

I feel you are well rooted in your belief so I think it's a good time to say we can disagree without being disagreeable ;)

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 03:51 PM
I feel you are well rooted in your belief so I think it's a good time to say we can disagree without being disagreeable ;)

Agreed.

So, I think in the final analysis of this thread, I think we can safely say that the answer to the OP's question depends upon his view of baptism. If his view is of baptism consistent with a more sacramental view of baptism (and probably believed by his Methodist family and the Methodist church of his baptism) then he ought not be rebaptised. If his view of baptism is consistent with the more Anabaptist view of baptism as symbolic then being rebaptised is up to him if he feels led to do so.

Studyin'2Show
Jul 11th 2008, 04:06 PM
I'm glad we, as believers, were able to discuss this rationally and end up agreeing to disagree. :) Not to open back up a can of worms but.... :D I mentioned that I don't see anything in scripture that even implies that baptism can be done only once. :hmm: Why would we read that into things if it is not there?

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 04:23 PM
I'm glad we, as believers, were able to discuss this rationally and end up agreeing to disagree. :) Not to open back up a can of worms but.... :D I mentioned that I don't see anything in scripture that even implies that baptism can be done only once. :hmm: Why would we read that into things if it is not there?

First: this post makes the assumption that the Bible must have the answer for every single question or contingency that crops up. This is an incorrect assumption as it does not have to do so.

Second: if one understands the nature of baptism in a traditional sacramental way, the reason why one should not be baptised more than once makes sense. Relatedly, the Bible also does not say that circumcision ought to be done only once, however I highly doubut you would argue that it would be permissable to do it a second (or third, etc) time.

Third: the Bible does not say that it should or could be done more than once either. Why assume you can do it without the textual mandate?

Studyin'2Show
Jul 11th 2008, 04:46 PM
First: this post makes the assumption that the Bible must have the answer for every single question or contingency that crops up. This is an incorrect assumption as it does not have to do so.

Second: if one understands the nature of baptism in a traditional sacramental way, the reason why one should not be baptised more than once makes sense. Relatedly, the Bible also does not say that circumcision ought to be done only once, however I highly doubut you would argue that it would be permissable to do it a second (or third, etc) time.

Third: the Bible does not say that it should or could be done more than once either. Why assume you can do it without the textual mandate?Things that are 'prohibited' are laid out for us. This doesn't qualify as anything that would be 'prohibited' so it should be up to the believer themselves to follow as the Holy Spirit leads with this issue. Which is absolutely fine with me. But when you make 'absolute' statements like the one you make below, IMO there should be some scriptural foundation to such a claim. :dunno:
Rebaptism is a sacrilege and should be avoided at all costs. Rebaptism is slap in the face of God

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 06:04 PM
Things that are 'prohibited' are laid out for us. This doesn't qualify as anything that would be 'prohibited' so it should be up to the believer themselves to follow as the Holy Spirit leads with this issue. Which is absolutely fine with me. But when you make 'absolute' statements like the one you make below, IMO there should be some scriptural foundation to such a claim. :dunno:

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I would never say the opinion above makes you not a Christian.

There are two things you do not seem to be conscious of in making your above statement:

(1) you admonish me for making an "absolute" statement allegedly without scriptural support however, you, in turn, make the absolute statement that "[t]his doesn't qualify as anything that would be 'prohibited' so it should be up to the believer themselves to follow as the Holy Spirit leads with this issue." Where is this premise stated in Scripture? You have made the absolute statement that rebaptism is acceptable. What Scriptures do you have to support that absolute statement?

(2) By making your statement you are, in effect, mandating the following as your interpretive framework: "this doesn't qualify as anything that would be 'prohibited' so it should be up to the believer themselves to follow as the Holy Spirit leads with this issue." You essentially have said that your interpretive frame work is "if it is not prohibited, it is permitted." By what authority did you require this to be your interpretive framework? WHere is that framework stated in Scripture? Where is it required? I could argue that your interpretive framework is backwards; that your framework should be: "if it not permitted, it is prohibited."

BroRog
Jul 11th 2008, 06:27 PM
And thus it might have something to do with the parents' faith but clearly not the child. How can the child repent which is the precursor to baptism as preached by John the Baptist and Messiah?

BTW, I see nothing in scripture that would prohibit a second baptism if that is the wish of the believer. As I do not feel my baptism as an infant hurt me, nor do I believe that someone who does what Buck shot hopes to do would be hurt.

God Bless!

I totally agree. Those who teach infant baptism assert that infant baptism in the New Covenant replaces circumcision of the Old Covenant. And they are the same in this respect: each is done by the parents in obedience to God, as they see it.

I think, perhaps, what godsgirl intended to say was that infant baptism means nothing with respect to the prerequisites for salvation.

Studyin'2Show
Jul 11th 2008, 06:45 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I would never say the opinion above makes you not a Christian.

There are two things you do not seem to be conscious of in making your above statement:

(1) you admonish me for making an "absolute" statement allegedly without scriptural support however, you, in turn, make the absolute statement that "[t]his doesn't qualify as anything that would be 'prohibited' so it should be up to the believer themselves to follow as the Holy Spirit leads with this issue." Where is this premise stated in Scripture? You have made the absolute statement that rebaptism is acceptable. What Scriptures do you have to support that absolute statement?

(2) By making your statement you are, in effect, mandating the following as your interpretive framework: "this doesn't qualify as anything that would be 'prohibited' so it should be up to the believer themselves to follow as the Holy Spirit leads with this issue." You essentially have said that your interpretive frame work is "if it is not prohibited, it is permitted." By what authority did you require this to be your interpretive framework? WHere is that framework stated in Scripture? Where is it required? I could argue that your interpretive framework is backwards; that your framework should be: "if it not permitted, it is prohibited."I would NEVER say you are not a Christian. I hope you didn't feel like that was anything I said. I believe that we ALL who have accepted Messiah as Lord and Savior are different parts of the Body of Christ. With that said, how can you say it is something that is prohibited? That's like saying it's sacrilege to wear purple just because you say so. God tells us clearly what is prohibited. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc. Plus Apostles like Paul and Peter and John tell us what NOT to do. That's what I mean when I say it's not prohibited. But for the sake of discussion let me rephrase, it is not biblically prohibited to re-baptize so as I stated previously, IMO it is something that each believer should follow as the Holy Spirit leads them and none of us should make judgments against our brother regarding. Hopefully that explains my position better. ;)

God Bless!

daughter
Jul 11th 2008, 06:51 PM
There are certainly false baptisms out there... if someone was baptised by a Jehovah's Witness for example, would they still be commiting sacrilege if they became a true believer, and desired to be honestly baptised?

I have seen some video footage of plenty of blasphemous baptisms in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost even... but I'm not sure that this is the place to post them.

If someone is convinced that their original baptism was not done in accordance with Scripture, and they wish to be baptised to honour Christ... then I don't see how that is heresy.

judi<>><
Jul 11th 2008, 07:03 PM
Wow... I hope that this thread has been of some use to the OP. It certainly has run the gamut!

As you can see, there are a variety of viewpoints on this matter. Speaking from the (United) Methodist perspective, we do not rebaptize, because we believe that it is God who acts in the sacrament of baptism. Most pastors will willingly go through the "Renewal of Baptismal Covenant" service with any individual who is troubled either by not remembering their baptism, or the fact that this baptism took place before their conversion to Christ. It did not take place before their redemption--that was accomplished at Calvary!

On a personal note, I was rebaptized in college--to assure my then-boyfriend that he was, in fact, not "unequally yoked" (since he believed that you did have to be baptized by immersion as a believer to be saved). My parents took the vows they made at my baptism seriously, and brought me up "in the way that leads to life eternal"-- although the decision was ultimately mine. The boyfriend... when he decided to move on... claimed that I hadn't been a believer at all--so the baptism was worthless.

Can you guess which of the two baptisms I claim as effective? :saint:

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 07:11 PM
Wow... I hope that this thread has been of some use to the OP. It certainly has run the gamut!

As you can see, there are a variety of viewpoints on this matter. Speaking from the (United) Methodist perspective, we do not rebaptize, because we believe that it is God who acts in the sacrament of baptism. Most pastors will willingly go through the "Renewal of Baptismal Covenant" service with any individual who is troubled either by not remembering their baptism, or the fact that this baptism took place before their conversion to Christ. It did not take place before their redemption--that was accomplished at Calvary!

On a personal note, I was rebaptized in college--to assure my then-boyfriend that he was, in fact, not "unequally yoked" (since he believed that you did have to be baptized by immersion as a believer to be saved). My parents took the vows they made at my baptism seriously, and brought me up "in the way that leads to life eternal"-- although the decision was ultimately mine. The boyfriend... when he decided to move on... claimed that I hadn't been a believer at all--so the baptism was worthless.

Can you guess which of the two baptisms I claim as effective? :saint:

Yeah I forgot about this. The OP can certain receive a conditional baptism. That is when someone is baptised because they are not sure if they were already. This allows someone to be baptised if they were not already but avoids the problem of intentionally receiving an additional baptism.

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 07:12 PM
I would NEVER say you are not a Christian. I hope you didn't feel like that was anything I said. I believe that we ALL who have accepted Messiah as Lord and Savior are different parts of the Body of Christ. With that said, how can you say it is something that is prohibited? That's like saying it's sacrilege to wear purple just because you say so. God tells us clearly what is prohibited. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc. Plus Apostles like Paul and Peter and John tell us what NOT to do. That's what I mean when I say it's not prohibited. But for the sake of discussion let me rephrase, it is not biblically prohibited to re-baptize so as I stated previously, IMO it is something that each believer should follow as the Holy Spirit leads them and none of us should make judgments against our brother regarding. Hopefully that explains my position better. ;)

God Bless!

No I hear what you are saying, but there is no Biblical basis for your position. It is fine to take your position, but nowhere in the BIble does it say that we should assume something is permissable simply because it is not explicity prohibited in the BIble.

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 07:12 PM
daughterThere are certainly false baptisms out there... if someone was baptised by a Jehovah's Witness for example, would they still be commiting sacrilege if they became a true believer, and desired to be honestly baptised?

No because a JW baptism is not a valid baptism as it lacks both the words and intent of a Christian baptism.

Studyin'2Show
Jul 11th 2008, 07:15 PM
(1) you admonish me for making an "absolute" statement allegedly without scriptural support however, you, in turn, make the absolute statement that "[t]his doesn't qualify as anything that would be 'prohibited' so it should be up to the believer themselves to follow as the Holy Spirit leads with this issue." Where is this premise stated in Scripture? You have made the absolute statement that rebaptism is acceptable. What Scriptures do you have to support that absolute statement?

(2) By making your statement you are, in effect, mandating the following as your interpretive framework: "this doesn't qualify as anything that would be 'prohibited' so it should be up to the believer themselves to follow as the Holy Spirit leads with this issue." You essentially have said that your interpretive frame work is "if it is not prohibited, it is permitted." By what authority did you require this to be your interpretive framework? WHere is that framework stated in Scripture? Where is it required? I could argue that your interpretive framework is backwards; that your framework should be: "if it not permitted, it is prohibited."I just read your post again and wanted to address your questions scripturally. As to point one, where is it said that the Holy Spirit will be what leads us?

John 16:12-13
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

And to point two, why I would say if it's not prohibited, it's permitted?

I Corinthians 6:12 - All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

God Bless!

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 07:20 PM
I just read your post again and wanted to address your questions scripturally. As to point one, where is it said that the Holy Spirit will be what leads us?

John 16:12-13
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

And to point two, why I would say if it's not prohibited, it's permitted?

I Corinthians 6:12 - All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

God Bless!

Obviously there are boundaries to 1 Cor. 6:12 right? Not EVERYTHING is permissable. I do not think Paul here is saying that, for example, blasphemy or sacrilidge is lawful or permissable, would you agree?

Studyin'2Show
Jul 11th 2008, 07:26 PM
Obviously there are boundaries to 1 Cor. 6:12 right? Not EVERYTHING is permissable. I do not think Paul here is saying that, for example, blasphemy or sacrilidge is lawful or permissable, would you agree?Everything that God has not prohibited. Blasphemy is outlined for us in scripture. You are claiming that something that scripture does not expressly speak about is sacrilege. Why? According to Paul it may not be good for you but it is not unlawful just because someone says so. What about John 16?

seamus414
Jul 11th 2008, 07:54 PM
Everything that God has not prohibited. Blasphemy is outlined for us in scripture. You are claiming that something that scripture does not expressly speak about is sacrilege. Why? According to Paul it may not be good for you but it is not unlawful just because someone says so. What about John 16?

PLease answer this question: would getting a second circumcision be acceptable?

daughter
Jul 11th 2008, 08:06 PM
Well, it would certainly be physically challenging... :rolleyes:

Scripture tells us to circumcise our HEARTS. This is not achieved at baptism, but when we become true believers. So I don't think the analogy fits, personally.

Studyin'2Show
Jul 11th 2008, 10:54 PM
PLease answer this question: would getting a second circumcision be acceptable?Go ahead, get circumcised as much as you want (you'd eventually run out of skin though :D) but to my knowledge I have NEVER known anyone who felt the Holy Spirit was leading them to get circumcised again. While I have known MANY (myself included) that have felt led to be baptized after they have been born again (repented). It's like apples and oranges. They're both round yet completely different. Baptism and circumcision are both ceremonial yet completely different. There was never any repentance required for circumcision. There was no command to repent and be circumcised.

losthorizon
Jul 12th 2008, 02:44 AM
I was baptized as an infant but had absolutely no personal relationship with my Savior. It was not until 31 years later that I was saved by grace through faith. I read in scripture that we are to 'believe' and be baptized. Because I now believe, I was baptized. I don't consider it being rebaptized because how could I have ever really been baptized if I did not first believe?

Very wise point from personal experience. It can't be stated any better than that. God bless. :)

revrobor
Jul 12th 2008, 05:13 AM
Absolutely, yes. You need to be baptized.

I was water baptism as infant baby at Lutheran Church. But, that infant baptism doesn't count as salvation.!

No baptism counts as salvation. Jesus bought our salvation with His suffering and crucifixion. Baptism is an act of obedience but it does not save you.

Roelof
Jul 12th 2008, 11:15 AM
With ANY baptism, infant or adult, you have the following spiritual experiences:

Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:4)

But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. (1Jn 1:7)

in whom also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, (Col 2:11)

RogerW
Jul 12th 2008, 05:23 PM
Yes, water baptism.

I guess a very basic question needs to be asked here: does water baptism demonstrate/signify/initiate one's incorporation into the Body of Christ?

No! Like circumcision, it is a sign of incorporation into the covenant body; i.e. the church. Since Christ has given His church His Word, and mandated His church to preach the gospel of salvation, it is as natural for believing parents to baptize (water) their infants and young children, as it was for the Jews to circumcize eight day old infants, who had no faith. For it is through the faithful preaching and teaching from the church that Christ's people become saved.

Just as circumcision was the OT sign of inclusion as God's covenant people, so too water baptism is the NT sign of inclusion as God's covenant people. Just as even reprobate infants like Ishmael, and Esau recieved the covenant sign, so too infants of believers receive the covenant sign.

Believing parents perform the sign claiming Christ's promise that salvation is unto us, and to our children. Does this mean that every baptized infant is saved? No, it does not! It means that believing parents take seriously the fact that we are in covenant with Almighty God, and through our faithful instruction to our children, i.e. through the church, we pray that in time they too will demonstrate saving faith, and love for our Lord. After they have shown love for the Lord and saving faith, there would not be another baptism, for they have already come into covenant with Christ, first outwardly through the sacramental sign, and now inwardly through Holy Spirit baptism.

Many Blessings,
RW

daughter
Jul 12th 2008, 06:17 PM
Baptism and circumcision are both ceremonial yet completely different. There was never any repentance required for circumcision. There was no command to repent and be circumcised.
Excellent point! I'm sure that in time to come I will quote you often, and I wish I'd thought to put it this way myself. In the mean time... OUCH.

Go ahead, get circumcised as much as you want.

I WON'T be quoting that one! :rofl:

losthorizon
Jul 12th 2008, 09:29 PM
No! Like circumcision, it is a sign of incorporation into the covenant body; i.e. the church. Since Christ has given His church His Word, and mandated His church to preach the gospel of salvation, it is as natural for believing parents to baptize (water) their infants and young children, as it was for the Jews to circumcize eight day old infants, who had no faith. For it is through the faithful preaching and teaching from the church that Christ's people become saved.


Baptism is the initiatory rite by which believers of all nations were to be added to the Lord's church - baptized “into Christ Jesus”. All of the conversion in the NT are only those who are mature enough to hear the gospel message and respond with a confession of faith that Jesus is the Christ - the Son of God - infants are not capable of doing this and are therefore not candidates for baptism. There are no examples of infants being "sprinkled" in the NT - why - because it never took place.
Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. Acts 8:35-38 (KJV)

markedward
Jul 13th 2008, 06:45 AM
Rebaptism is a sacrilege and should be avoided at all costs. Rebaptism is slap in the face of God as it tells him that the One Baptism is not a sufficient statement of faith.How can the first baptism be a "sufficient statement of faith" if the person baptized isn't making a statement of faith? An infant can't make a "statement of faith."

ImmenseDisciple
Jul 13th 2008, 09:13 AM
If getting a second baptism is inappropriate because baptism represents entering into the body of Christ, which only happens once - why is it not similarly the case that we should only have communion once, being that it too represents an event which only took place once? The number of times we show rememberance of what Christ did is not determined by how many times it happened, there is no reason to assume that baptism as an outward display of faith should be limited by the number of times we are born again as a member of Christ's body.

I see that someone mentioned the idea of a baptism being "effective", I think this is the crux for me. You need to decide whether you feel that a baptism acheives something, or simply represents something. If it acheives something, you need to determine whether it was succesfully acheived first time around, and if it wasn't - you need to go again. If it was, then certainly, to get baptised again would show ignorance of all that had been accomplished with your first baptism. If, however, you don't feel it carries any "power" with it, and recognise it solely as a demonstration / declaration of faith, then there can clearly be no harm or disrespect in having a second, third, fourth or twenty-fifth baptism. It may also be worth considering whether what you feel it represents was accurately, meaningfully demonstrated first time around.

losthorizon
Jul 13th 2008, 01:14 PM
If getting a second baptism is inappropriate because baptism represents entering into the body of Christ, which only happens once - why is it not similarly the case that we should only have communion once, being that it too represents an event which only took place once?

Because the Lord’s Supper was designed by the Lord to be a weekly observance - “In remembrance of me”. Scriptural baptism was designed by the Lord as a one-time event - a burial in water, into the body of Christ.

ImmenseDisciple
Jul 13th 2008, 01:31 PM
Because the Lord’s Supper was designed by the Lord to be a weekly observance - “In remembrance of me”. Scriptural baptism was designed by the Lord as a one-time event - a burial in water, into the body of Christ.
Where does it say we should make the act of rememberance weekly? I've never heard before that it should be a weekly event, both churches I attend it's monthly. Are we doing it wrong? ;)

More significantly, though, where does it say we must only be baptised once?! Clearly, if it said as much, we wouldn't be having this conversation...

Regardless - I was specifically addressing the suggestion that the reason we should only be baptised once is because it's representative of an event which only happens once.

losthorizon
Jul 13th 2008, 01:51 PM
Where does it say we should make the act of rememberance weekly? I've never heard before that it should be a weekly event, both churches I attend it's monthly.
"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread…” Acts 20:7

"...the celebration of the Lord's Supper was still held to constitute an essential part of divine worship every Sunday, as appears from Justin Martyr (A.D. 150)..." History Of Christian Religion And Church (Neander)

More significantly, though, where does it say we must only be baptised once?! Clearly, if it said as much, we wouldn't be having this conversation...
I think from example in the NT and from common sense one would conclude the ordinance of baptism is a one-time event. We certainly see no one who submitted to the ordinance ever needing to be re-baptized. Why would you think someone would need to be immersed more than once?

ImmenseDisciple
Jul 13th 2008, 02:12 PM
I think from example in the NT and from common sense one would conclude the ordinance of baptism is a one-time event. We certainly see no one who submitted to the ordinance ever needing to be re-baptized. Why would you think someone would need to be immersed more than once?You misunderstand me - I don't think that anyone needs to be baptised twice. I think that there is clearly no harm nor disrespect in doing so, if you deem the event to be symbolic and not of practical purpose in your salvation. If you consider it to be a "saving act", then, clearly, getting baptised twice is to doubt the validity and wholeness of your salvation based on your first immersion.

I also consider the infant baptism to carry none of the symbolism it was intended to, because the child has not decided to die to their old life and live for Christ, a member of His body. Just to make clear my position :)

losthorizon
Jul 13th 2008, 06:02 PM
You misunderstand me - I don't think that anyone needs to be baptised twice. I think that there is clearly no harm nor disrespect in doing so, if you deem the event to be symbolic and not of practical purpose in your salvation. If you consider it to be a "saving act", then, clearly, getting baptised twice is to doubt the validity and wholeness of your salvation based on your first immersion.


It appears to me from what is presented in the NT the ordinance of baptism (immersion in water) was instituted and commanded by Christ - until He comes again. To me it would logically follow that if Jesus instituted and commanded baptism as part of the gospel of grace then it must not only be symbolic it must also be essential to God’s plan to redeem a fallen race. I am not sure what you mean by a "saving act” but I would submit that baptism is an act of obedience just as belief and repentance are acts of obedience and it is an emblem of an inner purification where our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ.


I also consider the infant baptism to carry none of the symbolism it was intended to, because the child has not decided to die to their old life and live for Christ, a member of His body. Just to make clear my position.
I would agree with you - a proper candidate for baptism is a child or adult who can understand the gospel message and commit to obeying and serving the Lord.

RogerW
Jul 13th 2008, 06:14 PM
Baptism is the initiatory rite by which believers of all nations were to be added to the Lord's church - baptized “into Christ Jesus”.

Water baptism is a sign, or symbol of covenant relationship with God. It (water baptism) points to the true baptism (HS) that actually saves. Water baptism is NOT necessarily an outward sign of an inward conversion. Though is sometimes can be, because believers baptism, i.e. when one comes to faith through faithful preaching of the Word after being grown, is seen throughout Scripture. So for those like we find in Scripture, who hear the Word, receive faith and believe, water baptism is commanded after profession of faith. You see believers baptism is Biblical, but infant baptism is also Biblical. To deny either is to deny the sign of convenantal inclusion to our children. This is an idea that is foreign to Scripture.

Circumcision was the sign of covenant identification in the OT and water baptism is the sign of covenant identification in the NT. Everyone coming into the covenant body receive the covenant sign/symbol. Just as eight day old male infants, who had no faith received the covenant sign of circumcision under the old covenant, so too in the new covenant every infant of believing parents receive the covenant sign of water baptism.

What does circumcision symbolize? Redemption; i.e. circumcision of the heart.

De 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
De 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

What does water baptism symbolize? Redemption; i.e. washing away of sin.

Why would eight day old reprobate males, like Ishmael and Esau receive the sign that symbolizes redemption? Because, like water baptism, circumcision is a sign of covenantal relationship. Under the new covenant God's covenant is through the church. Just as the nation was given the oracles (Word) of God, that through faith gave eternal life to all who believe, now the church is given the Holy Scriptures that impart eternal life to all who believe. Therefore coming into the covenant body through the sacrament of water baptism is no small thing. Believing parents take seriously the command to bring our children under the protection, and benefits that God bestows upon His covenant body (the church), just as the nation took seriously the act of circumcision.



All of the conversion in the NT are only those who are mature enough to hear the gospel message and respond with a confession of faith that Jesus is the Christ - the Son of God - infants are not capable of doing this and are therefore not candidates for baptism.

We find examples of whole families being baptized in Scripture. We can argue that none of these included infants, but the real question is where do you find exclusion of infants? In the following passage Christ is displeased when His disciples try to prevent bringing young children to Him, and says "forbid them not: for such is the kingdom of God." Young children in this passage can be interpreted infants, half-grown boys and girls, or immature Christians. If Christ does not deny inclusion of young children what gives us the right to deny covenantal inclusion to them?

Mr 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
Mr 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Profession of faith, prior to baptism is required when speaking of those who become saved after they are grown. Scripture is speaking to people who can discern, and therefore it is necessary to tell them to repent and believe. This does not mean that we are not to bring our infants and young children into the covenantal body through water baptism because they cannot make a public profession of faith. Of course we want to bring our infants into the covenant body, and raise them clingling to God's covenant promise that salvation is unto us and our children.

Many Blessings,
RW

losthorizon
Jul 13th 2008, 06:53 PM
We find examples of whole families being baptized in Scripture. We can argue that none of these included infants, but the real question is where do you find exclusion of infants?



And why do reasonable folks argue that infants were not included when “whole families” were immersed in water? They argue thus because the NT contains not one command for, nor one example of infants ever being baptized in water. Your logic that we do not find an exclusion for baptizing infants is completely defeated by the fact that the apostolic church did not baptize infants.

Baptism is an act of obedience preceded by hearing God’s word, believing that Jesus is the Christ, repenting of one‘s sins and confessing He is the Son of God before men - all acts of obedience that infants cannot comprehend nor perform. The very language of the Great Commission, "...go...teach...baptize..." contains special instructions that must accompany baptism and the requirement to comprehend what is being instructed disqualifies an infant from being baptized. The truth is baptizing (sprinkling) infants is a doctrine conceived by man - not God.

RogerW
Jul 13th 2008, 06:59 PM
And why do reasonable folks argue that infants were not included when “whole families” were immersed in water? They argue thus because the NT contains not one command for, nor one example of infants ever being baptized in water. Your logic that we do not find an exclusion for baptizing infants is completely defeated by the fact that the apostolic church did not baptize infants.

Baptism is an act of obedience preceded by hearing God’s word, believing that Jesus is the Christ, repenting of one‘s sins and confessing He is the Son of God before men - all acts of obedience that infants cannot comprehend nor perform. The very language of the Great Commission, "...go...teach...baptize..." contains special instructions that must accompany baptism and the requirement to comprehend what is being instructed disqualifies an infant from being baptized. The truth is baptizing (sprinkling) infants is a doctrine conceived by man - not God.

Then why does Christ say allow the little children to come unto Me?

Mr 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

If you think infant baptizing was not a doctrine in the early church, you have not read church history, or you have read it very selectively.

Blessings,
RW

losthorizon
Jul 13th 2008, 07:07 PM
Then why does Christ say allow the little children to come unto Me?

Mr 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

If you think infant baptizing was not a doctrine in the early church, you have not read church history, or you have read it very selectively.

Blessings,
RW
I have read church history and I do not find by example or command where the apostolic church baptized infants - I do find many non-biblical doctrines of men (infant baptism, etc) introduced into the church shortly after the apostolic age and your dogma is without apostolic sanction. Why - simply because God does not require infants to be “baptized”.

threebigrocks
Jul 13th 2008, 07:19 PM
Then why does Christ say allow the little children to come unto Me?

Mr 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

If you think infant baptizing was not a doctrine in the early church, you have not read church history, or you have read it very selectively.

Blessings,
RW

Repent, believe and be baptized. I've never seen an infant to show evidence to be able to do the first two in order to obtain the third.

Little children are quite able to know and understand the simple grace of Christ and the way of the cross. Don't think they can't, and I think that's Christ's message in that passage. When a young child gets it - they are not shy about telling you about it! Our family didn't walk the faith until our kids were 2, 8 and 11. It is evident with our kids that the younger they are taught and exposed to the gospel the younger they can understand. Today my youngest came in all upset because of what another kid told her about God and discipline. :rolleyes: She gets it, where as my older two are working on it to "really get it".

I was baptized as an infant, and it was simply an expression of my parents faith and statement of their intention to raise me according to what they believed. To assume that I also immediately came to an understanding of faith at that moment of water baptism is rediculous. I slept through it. I plan to be baptized scripturally hopefully in the not too distant future. I am certain that my husband will follow and most likely at least our youngest child.

Repent, confess, believe through faith and then baptism.

seamus414
Jul 13th 2008, 11:56 PM
If getting a second baptism is inappropriate because baptism represents entering into the body of Christ, which only happens once - why is it not similarly the case that we should only have communion once, being that it too represents an event which only took place once? The number of times we show rememberance of what Christ did is not determined by how many times it happened, there is no reason to assume that baptism as an outward display of faith should be limited by the number of times we are born again as a member of Christ's body.

I see that someone mentioned the idea of a baptism being "effective", I think this is the crux for me. You need to decide whether you feel that a baptism acheives something, or simply represents something. If it acheives something, you need to determine whether it was succesfully acheived first time around, and if it wasn't - you need to go again. If it was, then certainly, to get baptised again would show ignorance of all that had been accomplished with your first baptism. If, however, you don't feel it carries any "power" with it, and recognise it solely as a demonstration / declaration of faith, then there can clearly be no harm or disrespect in having a second, third, fourth or twenty-fifth baptism. It may also be worth considering whether what you feel it represents was accurately, meaningfully demonstrated first time around.

I a agree. I essentially said this in mu summary way above.

- To answer your question, thing that happens once is different in baptism than communion. The action in baptism happens upon the baptised whilst the origional communion is commanded to be perpetually remembered.

seamus414
Jul 13th 2008, 11:57 PM
When Paul says we have One Baptism why do you think you ought to get more?

seamus414
Jul 14th 2008, 12:02 AM
This thread is really not about whether pedobaptism or adult baptism is appropriate.

In saying that, allow the following statements:

(1) the fact that the BIble contains no example of one does not mean it is an illegitmate practice as the Bible need not contain every single detail;

(2) teh universal practice of the church was pedobaptism until 16th century innovation and still, today, only a small portion reject pedobaptism.

(3) The Bible does not contain pedobaptism (allegedly - although it does in the form of household baptsim) because the faith was new in the NT. An infant will not be baptised by unbelievers. The NT is about that first set of believers, it is not about what those believers did with their children. If you note, the Bible contains no story of the practice of a first generation believer with his/her children. Therefore, the Bible is silent on essentially the matter of pedobaptism with the exception of household baptism.

revrobor
Jul 14th 2008, 12:55 AM
Because the Lord’s Supper was designed by the Lord to be a weekly observance - “In remembrance of me”.

There is no place in Scripture where we are told to take communion every week. Jesus said "...as often as you do this..." NOT "do this often". It is Christian religious tradition that has many churches doing it weekly. And the fact that He and the Disciples gathered on the first day of the week was reported as a fact and NOT a command to meet on the first day of the week and take communion. To use that as a "proof" verse is reading way too much into it.

Studyin'2Show
Jul 14th 2008, 10:18 AM
When Paul says we have One Baptism why do you think you ought to get more?That scripture has nothing to do with this topic. Paul was speaking of unity within the church. For example even today we have people who will say things like, "I'm baptized Lutheran" or "I was baptized Methodist". There is not more than one faith or more than one baptism. It's about unity not whether to get baptized after you repent. It must be read in context. ;)

Ephesians 4:1-6
1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, 2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, 3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

God Bless!

ProjectPeter
Jul 14th 2008, 01:56 PM
Acts 19:1 *And it came about that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found some disciples,
2 *and 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 *And 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 *And 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 *And there were in all about twelve men.

Don't think it can be spinned as sacrilege to be second baptized. Keep in mind that even Paul recognized these men as disciples.

The Parson
Jul 14th 2008, 02:39 PM
First: this post makes the assumption that the Bible must have the answer for every single question or contingency that crops up. This is an incorrect assumption as it does not have to do so. Actually, the scriptures are profitable for all things and they are the answer to all problems, situations, and dilema's facing all Christians in all situations. From birth, to Salvation, and to death. Search the scriptures to find the answers my friend.


Second: if one understands the nature of baptism in a traditional sacramental way, the reason why one should not be baptised more than once makes sense. Relatedly, the Bible also does not say that circumcision ought to be done only once, however I highly doubut you would argue that it would be permissable to do it a second (or third, etc) time.Now you are treating baptism as a sacrament. A sacrament is something necessary for salvation is it not? Then the only sacrament we need is the Blood of the Lamb. Baptism is an outward showing to the world of what has happened to the inner man. The death, burial, and ressurection of the Lord Jesus. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not save you, it shows your testamony. Collosians 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

And a baby doesn't know his right hand from his left. How would he or she understand the need to make an outward showing of Salvation when there is no law on that child. Romans 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,


Third: the Bible does not say that it should or could be done more than once either. Why assume you can do it without the textual mandate?Hey, I though you said the scriptures weren't the authority of this matter. Now I'm confused. Are the scriptures an authority or are they not.


PLease answer this question: would getting a second circumcision be acceptable?If you make that comparison, then the woman cannot participate in baptism because she most certainly cannot participate in circumcism. Think about it. Collosians only made a comparision to the old covenant and the new. And that anology is a papal ploy, not a biblical one. I thought you had told me you were Church of England.

This thread has been somewhat muddled. A simple question became a complicated one. And it can be answered in two simple and easy to understand verses: Phillipians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

It is the individual choice of the one who was saved, not the edict of any church. And as many as have already said this, I repeat it. Hey, it is your choice. But if it were mine and my situation, I would choose to be biblically baptized to show my trust in the Lord to others.

threebigrocks
Jul 14th 2008, 03:36 PM
This thread has been somewhat muddled. A simple question became a complicated one. And it can be answered in two simple and easy to understand verses: Phillipians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

It is the individual choice of the one who was saved, not the edict of any church. And as many as have already said this, I repeat it. Hey, it is your choice. But if it were mine and my situation, I would choose to be biblically baptized to show my trust in the Lord to others.


Sticking with the notion of this thread having become muddled and made complicated, which it has, it is now closed.