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?
Btw, where does the Bible teach that baptism:
1. Is done out of obedience?
2. Is a testimony for others?
Both statements are foreign to the Scriptures.
The tradition of the one holy catholic apostolic church is to baptize whole families (households), adults as well as children, follows the example of circumcision, albeit it is not circumcision. The tradition to withhold baptism from children is modern. Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
First Corinthians, Catholic chapter ten, Protestant verses one to five,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
Sad.
At a Catholic Baptism for an adult, the person already believes, all the sins of the adult’s past life are forgiven as they are baptized. And they don’t have to wait for the Holy Spirit. They are baptized “In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
“What does “he and his” mean?? “His” means his whole family and every translator realizes that.”
No. Some say household. Some say something else. The word doesn’t exist in the inspired Scripture. There is absolutely no indication of a single infant in the passage.
“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.”
Here, we are talking about your one passage and I pointed out it does not say what you claim.
“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.”
Which the Apostles are never recorded doing.
This is another distraction from the passage that never says infants were baptized.
“The Apostolic Tradition can only be kept by those who have Apostolic Succession.”
The Scriptures nowhere teach Apostolic succession.
This is another distraction from the passage that never says infants were baptized.
“Of course we live in an age where anything goes and since the two witnesses are dead, the world rejoices at their corpses.”
The two witnesses have not come yet. This is another distraction from the passage that never says infants were baptized.
“We were told false teachers would arise, so we aren’t surprised.”
They arose before John the Apostle was dead. They were prevalent and infiltrated the church, bringing pagan customs which are not “apostolic tradition.”
“Btw, where does the Bible teach that baptism:
1. Is done out of obedience?”
It is commanded of believers. If they don’t follow the command, they are not being obedient. I am not aware of any church that sneaks up on people and throws them into a baptismal pool
“2. Is a testimony for others?”
They stand in the presence of others and follow the Lord by obediently being baptized with water.
“Both statements are foreign to the Scriptures.”
You need to read more FRiend.
“The tradition of the one holy catholic apostolic church is to baptize whole families (households), adults as well as children, follows the example of circumcision, albeit it is not circumcision. The tradition to withhold baptism from children is modern.”
The tradition was not declared in Scripture, nor before 100ad in any Christan writing. As such, it is not an apostolic tradition. It came later. I do agree that as the Scriptures were examined after the Renaissance, it became clear it was made up at a later date.
“Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.”
This was identification. It was not Christian baptism.
Totally unnecessary if the first Baptism was valid...it would have no official church meaning whatsoever...that’s what the Sacrament of reconciliation is for, followed by the Eucharist of course.
It is commanded of believers. Yes, but that is not a reason we are to be baptized. Believers are commanded to keep the Apostolic Tradition, and look how many today reject it but privately interpreting the Scriptures. NO ONE was ever told in the Scriptures to be baptized as an act of obedience.
Is a testimony for others. Again, no one was ever told to be baptized as a testimony to others. Who was Paul standing before when he was baptized to wash away his sins? What about the eunuch in Acts, who was his baptism a testimony to?
Biblically, we are baptized to:
1. Remit sins
2. Receive the Holy Spirit
3. Be placed into Christ.
Once the Biblical reasons for baptism were rejected in the 16th century, other reasons had to be invented for baptism, hence obedience and public testimony.
I am willing to read any Scriptures you can provide where anyone was told to be baptized out of obedience or as a testimony. I have never come across any such verses, and I suspect neither have you.
Baptism is a witness to others that shows them you have become a born again Christian...Baptism is a witness to God that you have trusted in his Son to be your Savior...
And Baptism is a witness to yourself...When Satan comes along, and he will, to try to convince you that you never accepted Jesus, all you have to do is point to your baptism and say, 'yes I did...And I got baptized to prove it'...
In times of doubt you can ask Jesus to save you again...It won't change anything since you have already been saved but it will ease your mind in those times of doubt...
Go ahead and get baptized again...It certainly won't hurt anything...
.
>> “Believers are commanded to keep the Apostolic Tradition” <<
.
The apostles preached only Torah (”the teaching” as Irenaeus called it) and the resurrection of Yeshua.
.
Some say household. Lol, household is even more likely to include babies as not only is the entire family included in the household, but in those days household would also include extended family, friends and servants.
I am still waiting to read about the Church controversy that ensured in the first and second century when infant baptism was invented by the apostate Catholic Church and the “true” Christian Church opposed this false teaching.
Again, if someone attends a church that practices what is called “believers baptism”.........imagine this Sunday walking into the morning service and the pastor is dunking a baby in the baptismal pool. Would you just shrug your shoulders and say “ oh, that’s different” or would the pastor be fired on the spot?
The Church in the first century was no different. Infant baptism was not a point of contention until the 16th century and even then, the majority of Protestants kept to the Apostolic Tradition.
The Apostles only preached the Torah and the resurrection of Yeshua.
Really?
The Torah commands circumcision does it not? Did the Apostles preach circumcision?
‘It is commanded of believers. Yes,’
You can either obey or not. Your call.
“Is a testimony for others. Again, no one was ever told to be baptized as a testimony to others.”
I did not say we do it to be a testimony to others. Our baptism is a testimony to others. If it were not, we would baptize ourselves.
“Who was Paul standing before when he was baptized to wash away his sins? What about the eunuch in Acts, who was his baptism a testimony to?”
At least to the one who baptized them and to all they told. Clearly, they told or we would not know.
“Biblically, we are baptized to:
1. Remit sins
2. Receive the Holy Spirit
3. Be placed into Christ.”
No.
No.
No.
You confuse Baptism in/with/by the Holy Spirit with water baptism. Catholicism is not the only denomination to make this error.
“Once the Biblical reasons for baptism were rejected in the 16th century, other reasons had to be invented for baptism, hence obedience and public testimony.”
Ha. Oh, contraire.
“Some say household. Lol, household is even more likely to include babies as not only is the entire family included in the household, but in those days household would also include extended family, friends and servants.”
Your invisible baby is crying so very loudly, “waaa! I am never named in Scripture!!! waaaaa”
“I am still waiting to read about the Church controversy that ensured in the first and second century when infant baptism was invented by the apostate Catholic Church and the “true” Christian Church opposed this false teaching.”
It didn’t come from the Apostles. Never recorded. In this argument, you have nothing but air.
The only alternative is the source was non-Apostolic.
“Again, if someone attends a church that practices what is called “believers baptism”.........imagine this Sunday walking into the morning service and the pastor is dunking a baby in the baptismal pool. Would you just shrug your shoulders and say “ oh, that’s different” or would the pastor be fired on the spot?”
If it were a bible believing Church, he would be spoken to, if he portrayed it as believers baptism. If he argued that it was, he should be fired/
“The Church in the first century was no different.”
Again, your invisible, assumed baby needs a change quickly. He “stinketh.”
“Infant baptism was not a point of contention until the 16th century and even then, the majority of Protestants kept to the Apostolic Tradition.”
I agree. It is amazing how returning to the Scriptures cuts through a millenia of pagan practices.
Ha, another 16th century tradition of men has just been introduced, namely that there are two baptisms:
1. Spirit baptism
2. Water baptism
This is totally unscriptural as the Bible is clear there is only ONE baptism, just as there there is only ONE LORD and only ONE FAITH.
The Scriptures only speak of baptism and never refer to spirit baptism and never refer to water baptism.
The Bible is clear, “baptism” is for:
1. Remission of sins
2. Receiving the Holy Spirit
3. Being placed into Christ.
Period, end of story.
If someone uses the term “water baptism” , run run run. It is a sure sign you are dealing with a false teacher. Baptism is never qualified by any other term such as water in the Bible, because there is only one baptism.
Here you go proving that you do not understand the word!
Read Matthew 5 and 7 as many times as it takes to grasp what Yeshua is saying.
Then you can read the epistles which all declare Torah to be the gospel.
Romans 2 can clear your mind up WRT “circumcision.”
.
There you have it, the Church was “pagan” for 1,500 years.
Just amazing.
Yeah, I guess I need to listen to many more hours of Michael Rood to really “understand the word”.
in the eyes of the Lord, one only needs baptized once.
Ah, you keep making the same claims over and over and over. They remain wrong.
You’ve attempted to use an invisible baby as a prop.
You’ve attempted to make this about anabaptists as a distraction.
You’ve attempted to claim Apostolic tradition as a source, without Apostolic action, nor evidence in Scripture of a command.
I’ll stop there.
“This is totally unscriptural as the Bible is clear there is only ONE baptism, just as there there is only ONE LORD and only ONE FAITH.”
There is just One Lord Jesus.
There is one faith that unites all believers of all time in this Savior.
There is one baptism in/with/by the Spirit that places every believer in Christ into the Body of Christ.
Water baptism is an outward expression of this inward reality.
I an only assume your study of the Scriptures has been limited up to this point.
I wish you the best. Be like the Bereans and continue to study to show yourself approved.
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.