Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should I get baptized (again)?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Buck shot View Post
    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.
    “What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14).

    Comment


    • #32
      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.... I mentioned that I don't see anything in scripture that even implies that baptism can be done only once. Why would we read that into things if it is not there?
      II Timothy 2:15
      Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
      Read My Testimony sigpic Visit Our Website

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Studyin'2Show View Post
        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.... I mentioned that I don't see anything in scripture that even implies that baptism can be done only once. 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?
        “What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14).

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by seamus414 View Post
          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.
          Originally posted by seamus414 View Post
          Rebaptism is a sacrilege and should be avoided at all costs. Rebaptism is slap in the face of God
          II Timothy 2:15
          Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
          Read My Testimony sigpic Visit Our Website

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Studyin'2Show View Post
            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.
            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."
            “What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14).

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Studyin'2Show View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by seamus414 View Post
                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!
                II Timothy 2:15
                Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
                Read My Testimony sigpic Visit Our Website

                Comment


                • #38
                  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.
                  Please could everyone pray for Mieke and Charles.

                  My testimony http://bibleforums.org/forum/showthr...ight=testimony

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    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?
                    Disconnection is not an option!

                    I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. ~ John 15:5-8

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by judi<>>< View Post
                      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?
                      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.
                      “What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Studyin'2Show View Post
                        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.
                        “What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14).

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          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.
                          “What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14).

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by seamus414 View Post
                            (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!
                            II Timothy 2:15
                            Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
                            Read My Testimony sigpic Visit Our Website

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Studyin'2Show View Post
                              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?
                              “What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14).

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by seamus414 View Post
                                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?
                                II Timothy 2:15
                                Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
                                Read My Testimony sigpic Visit Our Website

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X