Posted on 10/06/2015 10:35:57 AM PDT by envisio
I have read a little and did some research on baptism and if there is a need to get baptized as an adult after being baptized as a child.
I looked for the Church’s standing on it and I looked for scripture written about it. My research left me with the half-baked conclusion, in the eyes of the Lord, one only needs baptized once.
I was baptized as a small child without any realization of what was happening. In the 40 years to follow there were plenty of times I was lost, sinning, doing the devils deeds with the liquor and the drugs and the whores and on all fours in the parkinglot puking only to repeat it again the next day for years in my 20s. I never got into any real trouble; no felonies or violence, just drunken antics of a stupid 20something year old. Of course, as we get older, we settle down and put away our childish behavior to be adults. In no way will my wild youth define my legacy since then.
Recent events have tested my faith and questioned a merciful God. Ultimately those events brought me closer to God, and it was my wife’s wish that I completely give my life to Christ. She did and I am quite sure she is sitting by His side right now, praying that I do the same.
I am a sinner. I have confessed my sins and asked for forgiveness. I have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior. I want to complete it with water. I want to get baptized again, but I don’t want it to be vain. I don’t want to do it for myself as a vain show that’s not necessary just to make me feel better. I want to do it because God wants me to do it.
So, since you folks are far more learned on the teachings of the bible, and FReepdom is unmatched in advice dealing with church and God, my question is… Even if the original baptism was done at a time when I did not know what was happening… Is a second baptism common? Is it vain? Will it make me complete in my transition to being born again? Is it necessary?
“It depends on whether you want to follow the Apostles and the consistent teaching of the Church for close to 2,000 years or not.”
There has not been one consistent teaching that is unbroken for 2,000 years. Sorry. Most catholic denomination teaching arose out of syncretic paganism, mixed in with Christianity.
“One receives forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit at the same time. Knowing that, the correct way to translate Acts 2:38 is quite clear and that is why every reputable translation has for the forgiveness of sins, not because of. See Acts 22:16 for confirmation baptism is for the remission of sins and doesn’t follow the remission of sins.”
Thanks, but without understanding the context, you will be wrong every time.
I was saved by my baptism as an infant.
I would regard a “rebaptism” as a sacrilege.
There has not been a consistent teaching?
Really?
Tell me, if a local baptist church this Sunday baptized an infant, do you think there would be any controversy? Would someone accuse the pastor of heresy? Of course there would be!!
Now, I know Church history is not the strong suit of many here, but do some research and point out to me what major controversy is recorded in the first, second or third centuries in the Church to oppose infant baptism.
The fact is every local Church that could trace its beginning to an Apostle practiced infant baptism. Every one.
This did not become an issue until the 16th century and even then, Luther and Calvin had to follow the apostolic tradition as the Scriptures command.
Does Acts 22:16 say Paul had his sins forgiven before baptism or that he needs to be baptized to wash away his sins? Context.
“Now, I know Church history is not the strong suit of many here, but do some research and point out to me what major controversy is recorded in the first, second or third centuries in the Church to oppose infant baptism.”
There are no infant baptisms recorded in the New Testament Scriptures.
Infant baptism is not taught by any Apostle or by Christ.
There are no sources before 100 ad that teach or record infant baptism - Christian, nor secular.
There is no art before 100 ad that portrays infant baptism.
Because Paul was already cleansed spiritually, these words must refer to the symbolism of baptism.
Baptism is a picture of God’s inner work of washing away sin (cf. 1 Cor. 6:11; 1 Peter 3:21).
I was baptized as an infant, just went through the motions of confirmation at the age of 13. The Holy Spirit did not regenerate my heart until I was in my 30’s. It was after then that I got baptized legitimately.
Not quite; Apollos was not baptized a second time in Acts. The text states Apollos remained in Corinth and Paul went to Ephesus where there were twelve unnamed disciples (Jews) who only knew (had) the baptism of John (not using the formula later given by the Messiah). Therefore they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The issue was in whose name one was baptized (Trinitarian formula). And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve.
Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty eight, Protestant verses eighteen to twenty,
Acts, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verses one to seven,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
bold emphasis mine
Hey brother,
Welcome to the family.
In true freeper fashion, I haven’t read any previous posts so I’m probably repeating.
Being baptized as an infant, as I also was has no basis in scripture and has no effect on your salvation.
Biblical baptism is a public affirmation of your faith and trust in Jesus Christ.
As such, since your childhood baptism was of no effect to your faith, as the Ethiopian Eunuch asked Phillip, “What hinders me from being baptized?” Absolutely nothing.
Man says baptism does not save you.
The Holy Spirit thru Peter says it does.
Who is one to believe?
No where does the Bible say baptism is a picture, symbolic nor do be done as an act of obedience.
The Bible does say Paul was told to arise and be baptized washing away his sins.
No amount of Greek gymnastics can twist it to say otherwise.
The Bible does not teach anywhere that infants are not to be baptized.
It does say whole families were baptized. Did the Apostles baptize infants? The answer is absolutely yes. How do we know? The Church witnessed them do it and followed their practice for close to 2,000 years now.
I can only feel sorry for those who think no one understood baptism before the 16th century.
“Are you saying that Baptists don’t follow the Bible where one baptism is stipulated?”
There IS only one baptism that unites us to Christ and justifies us: the baptism of the Holy Spirit, done by Jesus Christ.
“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” - 1 Cor 12
Water baptism is symbolic. It saves no one and unites no one to Christ. It is just water. Done in response to belief, it does have a role in sanctification - our separation from the world. It “saves” us like the Flood “saved” Noah - by separating him from the evil world he lived in.
“Baptism, which corresponds to this [The Flood], now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...”
Or do Catholics reject the clear teaching of the Word of God that it is baptism in the Spirit that saves. As Peter put it:
As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.” - Acts 11
BELIEVE
REPENT
BE BAPTIZED
AWAIT THE SPIRIT
Three of the four require a conscious awareness and decision by YOU personally. If the conscious decision was not there as a child, how then can it be valid?
If it is in your heart to do it, do it. And while you are at it, do it right - Full submersion in running water.
I’m “Bible does not teach anywhere that infants are not to be baptized.”
If that is your standard of truth, you might as well argue that potatoes bring saving grace, since the bible never denies it.
Theology isn’t built on air. It is built on revelation. There is none for infant baptism.
“does say whole families were baptized. Did the Apostles baptize infants? The answer is absolutely yes. How do we know? The Church witnessed them do it and followed their practice for close to 2,000 years now.”
Never does it say “whole families were baptized”
Never does it say an Apostle baptized an infant.
You have nothing but air to argue your case, which is false.
Whole families never baptized? Hmm, that would be news to the jailer and his family in Acts 16:33.
Christian theology is based on revelation and that revelation came from the Apostles. Christians are commanded to hold firm to this Apostolic Tradition, whether received by letter or word of mouth. The Church has followed the Apostolic Tradition of baptizing infants.
The Church received the commission to teach and baptize from Jesus Christ............it can’t force anyone to listen.
“Whole families never baptized? Hmm, that would be news to the jailer and his family in Acts 16:33.”
It would not, since the passage does not say “family”, nor “infant”, nor “child”. It literally says, “he and his” with no following word.
“Christian theology is based on revelation and that revelation came from the Apostles.”
The inspired parts are clearly written in Scripture.
“Christians are commanded to hold firm to this Apostolic Tradition, whether received by letter or word of mouth.”
We do not know what those traditions were. I’ve requested the list numerous times here. I you have the official list of Pauline traditions he referred to, please, for the sake of all Christians, post it here. But of course, there is not official list. Nor can one be produced in an unbroken chain from Paul.
“The Church has followed the Apostolic Tradition of baptizing infants.”
Than you should be easily able to produce one instance of an infant being baptized by an Apostle. Please show us for the sake of all. But there are none in Scripture. Nor are there any in Christian writings, secular writings, nor art before 100 ad.
“The Church received the commission to teach and baptize from Jesus Christ............it can’t force anyone to listen.”
Baptism is always right for a person who comes to saving faith in Christ, as an act of obedience and testimony to others.
What does “he and his” mean?? “His” means his whole family and every translator realizes that.
The Holy Spirit wrote the Bible in such a way that anyone who wants to reject the authority Jesus gave to His Church can pull a verse or two out of context and start a whole movement as history will attest. Such is the case with the anabaptists in the 16th century. Those that follow this tradition of men demand the Church show them where the Apostles baptized babies. The Apostolic Tradition can only be kept by those who have Apostolic Succession. Of course we live in an age where anything goes and since the two witnesses are dead, the world rejoices at their corpses.
We were told false teachers would arise, so we aren’t surprised.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.