Go Back   Christian Guitar Forum > Deeper Issues > Theology
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 05-15-2005, 09:41 PM   #1
Registered User
 

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 184
Thoughts on having two Batpisms...

What are people's thoughts on baptism? Im 22 and was baptised as a baby in the anglican church, I strayed from the church for a while in my teens and did some really stupid stuff. I also have done some stupid stuff after finding God again and coming back to church (a baptist church) 3 years ago... I have spoken to a few people who have been baptised both as babies and as adults and Im unsure what my faith calls of me to do. Im pretty sure I am no where near perfect and though I try my best I know I am going to stumble time and again in the future, I just wondered what peoples' opinions are of being baptised with water twice, as a baby and then as an adult?

JWillett is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Unread 05-15-2005, 09:55 PM   #2
is faith smiling!
 

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,063
Well i was never baptised as a baby, but i was baptised as a teenager.

I say go for it. Its a very important thing, and now you are able to understand it, its meaning and its significance, something you couldnt do as as a baby.

If you didn't stumble, you wouldn't be human. We all stumble from time to time, some of us rather than stumble fall flat on our face, but as long as you keeping getting back up n turning back to God everything will work out!

Baptism doesn't come witha requirment to be perfect afterwards, it is simply a public decleration of your faith, and your commitment to keep follwoing God all of your days, if you feel your ready to make that decleration, i say go for it!
Simo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-15-2005, 10:30 PM   #3
A dreamer of pictures
 
Nathanael's Avatar
 

Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Aways west of Sugar Mountain
Posts: 3,595
Send a message via AIM to Nathanael Send a message via MSN to Nathanael
I believe you need to be rebaptsed. It's not just a public deceleration of your faith, it is the death of your old man buried with Jesus as your sins washed away. More than just a good idea, I believe it's essential to your salvation. That's why you need to make the decision to be baptised, and that can only be made as an adult.
Nathanael is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-16-2005, 02:02 AM   #4
Fifi Trixibelle
 
loriborealis's Avatar
 

Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Greenock, Scotland
Posts: 810
Send a message via MSN to loriborealis
A lot of people will come on here very soon and say two baptisms is wrong, using lots of doctrine and Covenant Theology and things which I have no problem with for the most part, but plain, reasonable reading of the text still to me shows that baptism is a sign of our faith, and it is always done after one has come to faith. (Many times whole families were baptised, but I think this is because whole families came to faith. In the early church/Biblical times, coming to faith meant literally turning from one religion to another, unlike today when people can be raised in church as a norm and then possibly turn away later. It was much more deliberate and direct, so if families were baptised at once, it was because the whole family turned to Christianity.)

Anyway, had to get that out of the way before saying I think if you are now saved, you should get baptised. Baptism is a sign to the world that you are now under God's covenant and you are a believer.

*Waits to be mauled by Covenant Theologists.
loriborealis is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-16-2005, 02:03 AM   #5
Fifi Trixibelle
 
loriborealis's Avatar
 

Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Greenock, Scotland
Posts: 810
Send a message via MSN to loriborealis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathanael
More than just a good idea, I believe it's essential to your salvation.
Do you have any Scripture to back up this claim, by the way? Do you believe that faith alone does NOT save us? What do you do with Scripture that states we can do nothing to add to what Christ has done for us, and that we are saved by faith and not of works?


This is probably a question for theology, even though I know you're asking advice. But it's a theological question through and through.
loriborealis is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-16-2005, 07:14 AM   #6
...anybody want a neaput?
 
BurntHombre's Avatar
 

Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,476
Send a message via AIM to BurntHombre
I'd also recommend you get baptised. There's certainly some doubt as to whether getting water sprinkled or poured on you as a baby even qualifies as a baptizo in the first place.
BurntHombre is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-16-2005, 08:43 AM   #7
A dreamer of pictures
 
Nathanael's Avatar
 

Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Aways west of Sugar Mountain
Posts: 3,595
Send a message via AIM to Nathanael Send a message via MSN to Nathanael
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriborealis
Do you have any Scripture to back up this claim, by the way? Do you believe that faith alone does NOT save us? What do you do with Scripture that states we can do nothing to add to what Christ has done for us, and that we are saved by faith and not of works?


This is probably a question for theology, even though I know you're asking advice. But it's a theological question through and through.
Baptisim is not a "work". (Acts 22:16) It's an essential part of the salvation process. (Acts 2:38) Jesus commands it. (Matt.28:19) We cannot be cleansed without it. (Eph.5:26) In it we enter the body of Christ. (I Cor.12:13) Jesus was implicit in how important it was. (John 3:5) You're right that we're not saved by works, but baptism isn't part of that. (Titus 3:5) It's important to rid ourselves of sin through baptism. (Romans 6)

Faith is the belief that through this behavior we are saved. The knowledge of God is the obedience to his word.
Nathanael is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-17-2005, 07:04 AM   #8
Registered User
 

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathanael
Baptisim is not a "work". (Acts 22:16) It's an essential part of the salvation process. (Acts 2:38) Jesus commands it. (Matt.28:19) We cannot be cleansed without it. (Eph.5:26) In it we enter the body of Christ. (I Cor.12:13) Jesus was implicit in how important it was. (John 3:5) You're right that we're not saved by works, but baptism isn't part of that. (Titus 3:5) It's important to rid ourselves of sin through baptism. (Romans 6)

Faith is the belief that through this behavior we are saved. The knowledge of God is the obedience to his word.
That leaves alot for me to think about. I dont know what I am leaning towards. Cheers
JWillett is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-17-2005, 07:28 AM   #9
Registered User
 
3e3c3e's Avatar
 

Joined: May 2001
Location: PA
Posts: 2,000
I was baptized as a small child in a Methodist church. At the age of 15 I came to Christ and was baptized again. My feeling was that it was my outward public expression of my inward change because of Christ. I do not see any problems with doing this.


~3e3c3e
__________________
| Journal | 3e3c3e.com |

3e3c3e is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-17-2005, 08:25 AM   #10
Geezer
Administrator
 
Leboman's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 59,854
paid
I was baptized at the age of 11. The only reason I did it was a fear of going to hell. I wasn't "giving my life to Christ" or anything like that. I was doing something that I was told I needed to do. When I was 24 I really felt as if I neede to be baptized again. Some people told me that it wasn't necessary and others told me that it was absolutely necessary. In the end, I prayed about it and felt as if I really needed to do it.
__________________
Not everyone can carry the weight of the world.
Leboman is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-17-2005, 03:07 PM   #11
It's not easy being green
 

Joined: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,548
There is absolutely no reason for you to be rebaptised. I was baptised 6 times and that was 5 times too many. Your reasoning for getting rebaptised as far as I can see is because you wandered from God and have now come back. Well are not we all prone to wander from the God we love? There's no need to get baptised again every time we walk away from God and then come back.

Concerning some of the other responses, I'll move this to theology and let that part be hashed out there. Especially the "baptizo" post where the other possible uses of the word are ignored. The word is used to mean immerse and used to mean pour over.
__________________
Chris Harbison
http://chrisharbison.blogspot.com
ChrisHarbison is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-17-2005, 06:19 PM   #12
Still true to this day...
 
Luke's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 23,569
paid
This is a very important question, and because the Church is far from united as to how to answer it, it's a question with which many sincere Christians struggle.

It is my belief that not only do you not need to be baptized twice, but that it would be dishonoring to our Lord to undergo baptism again. Was Christ's once-for-all work on the cross insufficient, such that He needed to undergo it a second time? No. Did the Holy Spirit need to regenerate you twice? No. Did God fail in making you alive with Christ, such that you died in your trespasses and sins again and had to again be made alive? No. Baptism represents a justification imparted to you a single time that covers over all your sins. It represents a crucifixion that was done once to redeem mankind. It represents a regeneration affected in you once to make you alive to Christ. With all this in mind, how can you undergo baptism twice?

Of course, others will raise the question of whether your original baptism was valid. After all, you were baptized as an infant, and you didn't know what was going on. You probably weren't regenerate at the time (although you may have been). Is it right to baptize an infant who may or may not share in eternal life? I will endeavor to answer this question positively with Scripture. I will also take some time to address Nathanael's argument, as he attempted to support his ideas with Scripture. I will assume until shown otherwise that you will ignore "I feel..." arguments for their utter lack of basis in anything substantive.

Baptism may precede a cognative decision for Christ
The key reason why every Christian ought to believe that baptism may precede a cognative decision and declaration for Christ is because there is simply no reason to believe that baptism can't precede these things. In fact, it is a completely Biblical idea through and through that the covenant seal precede a cognative demonstration of faith.

Let's go back first to Genesis 17, where God institutes His covenant with Abraham. Along with the covenant is a sign--circumcision. Abraham was circumcised after already a believer (Genesis 15, 17, Romans 4). When God made the pact with Abraham, He instructed Abraham to circumcise his entire household, and he also instructed Abraham to circumcise children born into his household in infancy.

Why is this important, you may ask? It is important circumcision represents regeneration, the removal of sin from the person. For instance, in Deuteronomy 10, God uses the picture of circumcision to present the idea of regeneration. "Circumcision of the heart" is the picture given to explain a reborn or regenerate heart. Physical circumcision is a picture of spiritual circumcision. In other words, physical circumcision points to an individual's regeneration, and yet physical circumcision was commanded to be administered to infants before they had made a confession or decision to believe in God. Why should baptism be different? This is an especially important question when one considers that Colossians 2 (see vv.11-12 and context) links circumcision and baptism together, pointing out (possibly more clearly than any other passage) that the meaning of the old rite of circumcision and the new rite of baptism is, in fact, the same.

Key point: It is a completely Biblical idea to administer the sign of regeneration to an infant child of a regenerate family. In fact, the Bible has commanded this practice. Furthermore, if this practice is Biblical, then you should consider your baptism valid.

Nathanael's arguments are either incorrect or inapplicable.
- Acts 22:16 says absolutely nothing about whether or not baptism is a work. Furthermore, it is irrelevant to this discussion whether baptism is a work or not.
- Acts 2:38 does teach that baptism is necessary (interestingly, 2:39 includes children). However, the necessity of baptism itself is not under debate. You've already been baptized.
- Matthew 28:19 does teach that Jesus commanded us to be baptized. That is irrelevant to this discussion, however, as you already have been.
- Ephesians 5:26 may or may not refer to baptism; I'm not sure myself which is the case. However, it's not relevant. You've been baptized already.
- 1 Corinthians 12:13 does teach that baptism is the entry rite into the Church. You, however, have been baptized, so this is unimportant to this discussion. Furthermore, it should be noted that baptism is an entry rite into the new covenant in the same way as circumcision was into the old. Hmm.
- John 3:5 does not refer to baptism at all. The context makes it very clear that being "born of water" refers to natural birth from the mother's womb, and has nothing to do with baptism. (Even if it did, that isn't relevant to the situation at hand.)
- Titus 3:5 does not address baptism in any way.
- Romans 6 does teach about the role of baptism, but contains no teaching that contradicts anything that I have said above.

Look up the passages (I did not wish to quote them all inline as this post is already quite long) and read them for yourself, and you will see that the arguments Nathanael is making are both not correct and do not address the situation at hand. You've been baptized already; the necessity of being baptized at all is not up for discussion here; we're trying to ascertain whether or not you should be rebaptized, which is a completely different ball game. I believe that I have made an argument both for the validity of your current baptism and against being rebaptized.

An Anecdote: Experience
There is a lot of emphasis when discussing baptism on experiencing your own baptism for yourself. This is a nice idea, but it's laden with a very modern and not necessarily Biblical mindset. Nowhere in the Scriptures is any notion of experiencing your baptism present. We aren't baptized so that we can remember being baptized. Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture is there a word saying that it is necessary or even better that we understand our baptism as it occurs. Certainly that isn't the case for infant circumcision, yet God commanded infants to be circumcised (and nearly killed Moses' baby when Moses failed to circumcise him in a timely manner--God took infant circumcision seriously!). To say that it is better that you experience your own baptism and understand what is going on is, in fact, not a Biblical notion. It's a notion that sounds good, but in fact we are imposing it on the text.

I, therefore, beseech you to be content with your first baptism and not reinact a rite that should be done only once. Being rebaptized will not make you more holy, nor will not being rebaptized make your current repentance less genuine. You have repented of your sins as you have been commanded, now continue to walk in the new life that your baptism represents.
__________________
Luke Sneeringer
Luke is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-17-2005, 06:27 PM   #13
Still true to this day...
 
Luke's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 23,569
paid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lori
plain, reasonable reading of the text still to me shows that baptism is a sign of our faith, and it is always done after one has come to faith.
"Plain, reasonable" does not always mean "correct". Furthermore, one person's "plain...reading" may not match another's. The arguments I made in the preceding post are objective, not subjective. If they are sound, then my conclusions stand and "plain" readings to the contrary are also incorrect readings. Conversely, if my arguments are false, then the reading I find plain is, in fact, incorrect. Infant baptism must be argued on the basis of logical analysis, not what seems "plain" to one particular reader.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lori
(Many times whole families were baptised, but I think this is because whole families came to faith. In the early church/Biblical times, coming to faith meant literally turning from one religion to another, unlike today when people can be raised in church as a norm and then possibly turn away later. It was much more deliberate and direct, so if families were baptised at once, it was because the whole family turned to Christianity.)
1. Are you assuming that nobody ever turned from Christianity in the first century? Not only is this proposition so extremely unlikely that it is epistemically irresponsible to follow conclusions made on its basis, but the Scripture contradicts it in several places by speaking of those in the church who have left (1 John 2:19, for instance).
2. The Scripture does not explicitly state that in all family baptisms that it is the case that every person in the baptized family made a cognative confession. You are assuming your conclusion. Furthermore, you're assuming that none of these families had any small/infant children whatsoever, which is culturally unlikely and also simply not a responsible assumption.
3. Coming to faith now still means turning from one religion to another.
__________________
Luke Sneeringer
Luke is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-17-2005, 06:28 PM   #14
A dreamer of pictures
 
Nathanael's Avatar
 

Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Aways west of Sugar Mountain
Posts: 3,595
Send a message via AIM to Nathanael Send a message via MSN to Nathanael
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke
Nathanael's arguments are either incorrect or inapplicable.
- Acts 22:16 says absolutely nothing about whether or not baptism is a work. Furthermore, it is irrelevant to this discussion whether baptism is a work or not.
- Acts 2:38 does teach that baptism is necessary (interestingly, 2:39 includes children). However, the necessity of baptism itself is not under debate. You've already been baptized.
- Matthew 28:19 does teach that Jesus commanded us to be baptized. That is irrelevant to this discussion, however, as you already have been.
- Ephesians 5:26 may or may not refer to baptism; I'm not sure myself which is the case. However, it's not relevant. You've been baptized already.
- 1 Corinthians 12:13 does teach that baptism is the entry rite into the Church. You, however, have been baptized, so this is unimportant to this discussion. Furthermore, it should be noted that baptism is an entry rite into the new covenant in the same way as circumcision was into the old. Hmm.

...

- Romans 6 does teach about the role of baptism, but contains no teaching that contradicts anything that I have said above.

Look up the passages (I did not wish to quote them all inline as this post is already quite long) and read them for yourself, and you will see that the arguments Nathanael is making are both not correct and do not address the situation at hand. You've been baptized already; the necessity of being baptized at all is not up for discussion here; we're trying to ascertain whether or not you should be rebaptized, which is a completely different ball game. I believe that I have made an argument both for the validity of your current baptism and against being rebaptized.
.
Note the arguments I made were in response to loriborealis' questioning on the necessity of the act.
Quote:
- John 3:5 does not refer to baptism at all. The context makes it very clear that being "born of water" refers to natural birth from the mother's womb, and has nothing to do with baptism. (Even if it did, that isn't relevant to the situation at hand.)
You got me here; I simply wasn't thinking my post through.
Quote:
- Titus 3:5 does not address baptism in any way.
Does "the washing of regeneration" not refer to baptism? Or is it part of that experience?
Nathanael is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-17-2005, 06:32 PM   #15
Still true to this day...
 
Luke's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 23,569
paid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathanael
Note the arguments I made were in response to loriborealis' questioning on the necessity of the act.
Fair enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathanael
Does "the washing of regeneration" not refer to baptism? Or is it part of that experience?
I don't see any reason to believe that "the washing of regeneration" refers to outer baptism as opposed to inward baptism (in other words, actual regeneration). Remember that one of the pictures used for regeneration is that our sins are "washed away" and that although we are red as scarlet, we will be made white as snow (another picture of washing). You can't take every instance of "water" or "washing" in the New Testament and assume that baptism is what's in view. I don't see any textual evidence in Titus to suggest that baptism rather than regeneration is being discussed here.
__________________
Luke Sneeringer
Luke is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:04 AM.


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2