Being Baptized Again

[RobertMazar]

If an individual was Baptized as an infant in a church that practices Infant Baptism and then later on they join a Fundamentalist Protestant Church it is not necessary for them to be Baptized again because their Baptism as an infant was a valid Baptism because it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And anyway Baptism does not impart salvation but is instead just a dedication of infants and adults to Christ. 8-)

 

[Guest]

Robert, you posted a very similiar post before:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=28431

Is there a reason why you posted it again?

 

[RobertMazar]

Robert, you posted a very similiar post before:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=28431

Is there a reason why you posted it again?

This is not the same as the other post. This post is about the nonsense of being Baptized again after joining a Fundamentalist Protestant Church. The other post is just about Infant Baptism. 8-)

 

[Guest]

This is not the same as the other post. This post is about the nonsense of being Baptized again after joining a Fundamentalist Protestant Church. The other post is just about Infant Baptism. 8-)

So why do you call it 'nonsense' when there are those who believe that they should follow the example of Christ and be baptized as a beleiver?

Why are you attempting to demean their commitment to the Lord?

 

[RobertMazar]

So why do you call it 'nonsense' when there are those who believe that they should follow the example of Christ and be baptized as a beleiver?

Why are you attempting to demean their commitment to the Lord?

There Baptism as an infant was a valid Baptism because it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit which is the formula that Christ gave for doing Baptism. And thus it is not necessary for them to be Baptized again when they join a Fundamentalist Protestant Church. When my late Uncle converted from the Catholic Church to the Baptist Church he chose not to be Baptized again because he believed that his Baptism as an infant was a valid Baptism because it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And my late Uncle's Baptist minister did not require that my late Uncle be Baptized again. 8-)

 

[Guest]

There Baptism as an infant was a valid Baptism because it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit which is the formula that Christ gave for doing Baptism. And thus it is not necessary for them to be Baptized again when they join a Fundamentalist Protestant Church. When my late Uncle converted from the Catholic Church to the Baptist Church he chose not to be Baptized again because he believed that his Baptism as an infant was a valid Baptism because it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And my late Uncle's Baptist minister did not require that my late Uncle be Baptized again. 8-)

Yes - I know - you have posted that same story a few times.

But that did not answer my question.

The example given by Jesus Christ is not baptism as an infant. When was Christ baptized?

Some believers believe that when they make the personal decision to follow Christ - that is when they should be baptized. Therefore, they get "re-baptized". This is not to say that if they were baptized as an infant, that that baptize was 'invalid' - rather, through the prompting of the Holy Spirit they follow the example of Christ Jesus.

Are you demeaning their decision to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit in their lives?

If your Uncle and yourself, are being obedient to the Holy Spirit - then praise God! But that does not mean that you should belittle others who are being obedient to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Heidi]

There Baptism as an infant was a valid Baptism because it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit which is the formula that Christ gave for doing Baptism. And thus it is not necessary for them to be Baptized again when they join a Fundamentalist Protestant Church. When my late Uncle converted from the Catholic Church to the Baptist Church he chose not to be Baptized again because he believed that his Baptism as an infant was a valid Baptism because it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And my late Uncle's Baptist minister did not require that my late Uncle be Baptized again. 8-)

Infant baptism as messed up so many people because when they became born again as adults, it causes confusion on whether or not to be re-baptized. But if people didn't practice the supestitious infant baptism ritual, then everyone who becomes born again later in life would be baptized and it would set apart the believers from the unbelievers. Baptism would thus have meaning for the one who was baptized instead of cultivated a false belief in the parents of the infant who was baptized, thinking that that would some how save him. Infant baptism has thus hurt many more Christians than it's helped.

 

[RobertMazar]

Infant baptism as messed up so many people because when they became born again as adults, it causes confusion on whether or not to be re-baptized. But if people didn't practice the supestitious infant baptism ritual, then everyone who becomes born again later in life would be baptized and it would set apart the believers from the unbelievers. Baptism would thus have meaning for the one who was baptized instead of cultivated a false belief in the parents of the infant who was baptized, thinking that that would some how save him. Infant baptism has thus hurt many more Christians than it's helped.

What difference does it make if infants are Baptized as well as adults? After all Baptism is just a dedication of infants and adults to Christ. Baptism does not impart salvation. 8-)

 

[francisdesales]

The example given by Jesus Christ is not baptism as an infant. When was Christ baptized?

The more correct parallel would be "when was Jesus circumcised?" Christian baptism is seen over and over as a replacement for circumcision. See Colossians 2, for example...

Regards

 

[stranger]

What difference does it make if infants are Baptized as well as adults? After all Baptism is just a dedication of infants and adults to Christ. Baptism does not impart salvation. 8-)

Hi Robert,

Here is the text that settled all my questions about baptism:

Romans 6: 1-4
Believers Are Dead to Sin, Alive to God
1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

 

[ThreeInOne]

If an individual was Baptized as an infant in a church that practices Infant Baptism and then later on they join a Fundamentalist Protestant Church it is not necessary for them to be Baptized again because their Baptism as an infant was a valid Baptism because it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And anyway Baptism does not impart salvation but is instead just a dedication of infants and adults to Christ. 8-)

Robert, I don't agree with this at all and I doubt many born-again bible believing Christians would, either.
I was baptized as an infant. Did I have any say so? No! It's just a ritual performed so the church can get even richer.
AFTER I became a believer, I was baptized and to me, it was for the first time. My infant baptism I don't validate because Jesus said I need to believe first. As an infant I only believed in eating, sleeping, wetting my pants, crying and having some gas!
My real baptism after my salvation, I wasn't being baptized into the church, I was now a child of God's doing what He said I needed to do next in my CHRISTIAN walk.

I think you might be trying to justify your not being baptized as a believer because you just have a problem setting foot in a bible believing church.
And no, baptism does not save. I agree 100% with that.

 

[ThreeInOne]

There Baptism as an infant was a valid Baptism because it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit which is the formula that Christ gave for doing Baptism. And thus it is not necessary for them to be Baptized again when they join a Fundamentalist Protestant Church. When my late Uncle converted from the Catholic Church to the Baptist Church he chose not to be Baptized again because he believed that his Baptism as an infant was a valid Baptism because it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And my late Uncle's Baptist minister did not require that my late Uncle be Baptized again. 8-)

The problem with that is he never was baptized AS A BELIEVER.
And as far as the minister, did he even know? Even if he did, he can't MAKE someone follow what Christ taught. That's on us to follow through with. We will be accountable.
Again, if your uncle was truly saved (and only he and God knows) then he IS in heaven. For not being baptized as a believer, I don't know what happens then. Maybe some rewards are lost.
Do any other Christians here know what happens in a case like this?

 

[mondar]

What difference does it make if infants are Baptized as well as adults? After all Baptism is just a dedication of infants and adults to Christ. Baptism does not impart salvation. 8-)

Robert (the man who is a Catholic but is also a born again Christian),
I am puzzled by your statements on Baptism. Most (but not all) of we who are protestants are baptized because we believe it is a command of Christ. You continue to say that "it does not save." To most of us, this is a statement that is so obviously true that we will ignore it.

Somehow I get the feeling you are saying that as long as adult Baptism does not save you don't have to do it. If that is what you are saying, I will have to disagree. Obedience does not save, but this does not mean that obedience is meaningless. Obedience to the commands of Christ are always important. Do you agree that obedience to the commands of Christ are important?

Sincerely,
One of those brain dead people that cannot reason--- mondar

 

[cyberjosh]

If an individual was Baptized as an infant in a church that practices Infant Baptism and then later on they join a Fundamentalist Protestant Church it is not necessary for them to be Baptized again because their Baptism as an infant was a valid Baptism because it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And anyway Baptism does not impart salvation but is instead just a dedication of infants and adults to Christ. 8-)

I don't believe sprinkling is biblical water baptism (but rather immersion), however you are correct that water baptism does not impart salvation.

~Josh

 

[handy]

Before I was born, my family were members of a denomination that practiced infant baptism. My two sisters and my brother were all baptized as babies. This was no mere 'infant dedication' but rather as francisdesales mentioned, the replacement for circumcision; the sign and seal of God for His people.

My family fell away from faith but later came back. This is when the infant baptisms of my siblings came into play. My brother became part of a Baptist congregation that baptizes people 'into the church'. So, everyone who became a member of that fellowship was baptized no matter what. When my brother and s-i-l moved to a different state, they were baptized yet again. I think my brother has been baptized four different times now. I (as well as a few other members of my family) had several conversations with him about the fact that this is a false practice and he refuses to be baptized ever again.

My sisters started going to the same fellowship I attended. Now, my eldest sister, upon her regeneration, considered her infant baptism. She talked with my mom and dad, and learned of the vows that were spoken, and the reasons why they had baptized her as an infant. She looked at her regeneration as the fulfillment of God's promise that baptism is His sign and seal, 'a circumcision made without hands', and that He had been faithful to His promise to be 'raised up with Him through faith in the working of God" . So, she finds her infant baptism as effectual as a symbol of her death in Christ and her life in Christ. With the consideration that there is but ONE baptism, she was not rebaptised.

My other sister though looked at her baptism differently. She feels strongly in the believer's baptism. She doesn't disagree that baptism replaces circumcision as God's sign and seal, but just as God changed His sign from circumcision to baptism, so also He changed the 'rules' as it were, about who is to receive this sign. True, the Hebrews were commanded to circumcise their infant boys, as Jesus was circumcised. But, just as Jesus, although being circumcised, was also baptized at an age of understanding, my sister believes that baptism is for believers who understand and agree with the proceeding.

I agree with her. We didn't have our kids as infants, and have no knowledge about whether they were ever baptized. If we had them as infants, we would not have baptized them. Our daughter was baptized soon after her first confession of faith, at the age of 6. At 6 years of age, she believed in God, she understood her own sinfulness, and she believed that Jesus died for that sin and was raised up again. While the belief was basic, it was sincere. My son is 7 now, and understands and believes these things as well. He has made his confession of faith and readily shares his faith with others. The only reason why he isn't baptized yet is because the fellowship we were going to had only one baptism service a year, and we missed it due to family conflicts. While no date is set, he will be baptized this summer.

I agree that practising infant baptism can create confusion. But, the decision to be baptized again is a serious one and requires prayer, study in the word, and some practical advice from one's pastor and elders probably isn't a bad idea either. It is also a personal decision and whichever way a believer decides to handle their own infant baptism should be treated with respect by others.

 

[RobertMazar]

Before I was born, my family were members of a denomination that practiced infant baptism. My two sisters and my brother were all baptized as babies. This was no mere 'infant dedication' but rather as francisdesales mentioned, the replacement for circumcision; the sign and seal of God for His people.

My family fell away from faith but later came back. This is when the infant baptisms of my siblings came into play. My brother became part of a Baptist congregation that baptizes people 'into the church'. So, everyone who became a member of that fellowship was baptized no matter what. When my brother and s-i-l moved to a different state, they were baptized yet again. I think my brother has been baptized four different times now. I (as well as a few other members of my family) had several conversations with him about the fact that this is a false practice and he refuses to be baptized ever again.

My sisters started going to the same fellowship I attended. Now, my eldest sister, upon her regeneration, considered her infant baptism. She talked with my mom and dad, and learned of the vows that were spoken, and the reasons why they had baptized her as an infant. She looked at her regeneration as the fulfillment of God's promise that baptism is His sign and seal, 'a circumcision made without hands', and that He had been faithful to His promise to be 'raised up with Him through faith in the working of God" . So, she finds her infant baptism as effectual as a symbol of her death in Christ and her life in Christ. With the consideration that there is but ONE baptism, she was not rebaptised.

My other sister though looked at her baptism differently. She feels strongly in the believer's baptism. She doesn't disagree that baptism replaces circumcision as God's sign and seal, but just as God changed His sign from circumcision to baptism, so also He changed the 'rules' as it were, about who is to receive this sign. True, the Hebrews were commanded to circumcise their infant boys, as Jesus was circumcised. But, just as Jesus, although being circumcised, was also baptized at an age of understanding, my sister believes that baptism is for believers who understand and agree with the proceeding.

I agree with her. We didn't have our kids as infants, and have no knowledge about whether they were ever baptized. If we had them as infants, we would not have baptized them. Our daughter was baptized soon after her first confession of faith, at the age of 6. At 6 years of age, she believed in God, she understood her own sinfulness, and she believed that Jesus died for that sin and was raised up again. While the belief was basic, it was sincere. My son is 7 now, and understands and believes these things as well. He has made his confession of faith and readily shares his faith with others. The only reason why he isn't baptized yet is because the fellowship we were going to had only one baptism service a year, and we missed it due to family conflicts. While no date is set, he will be baptized this summer.

I agree that practising infant baptism can create confusion. But, the decision to be baptized again is a serious one and requires prayer, study in the word, and some practical advice from one's pastor and elders probably isn't a bad idea either. It is also a personal decision and whichever way a believer decides to handle their own infant baptism should be treated with respect by others.

Well I consider Infant Baptism and Infant Dedication to be the same because Infant Baptism is just a dedication of infants to Christ. Just as Adult Baptism is just a dedication of adults to Christ. When I get married and have children I am going to have them Baptized as infants in the Catholic Church and raise them as Catholics and they will be educated in Catholic Parochial Schools but they will be told that going to Individual Confession is wrong and that there are some unscriptural Catholic doctrines and some unscriptural parts to the Mass. When I get married and have children and they are Baptized as infants in the Catholic Church I am going to consider their Baptisms as Infant Dedications to Christ. Only someone who has a non functioning brain and is incapable of logical and analytical thinking would believe that Baptism has anything to do with salvation. :icecream:

 

[Guest]

RobertM - why must you restort to infatile name calling to make your point?

 

[RobertMazar]

RobertM - why must you restort to infatile name calling to make your point?

Well it is the truth that if someone believes in the unscriptural RCC doctrines and the unscriptural parts to the Mass then they have a non functioning brain and are incapable of logical and analytical thinking. That is logic. :morning:

 

[Solo]

RobertM - why must you restort to infatile name calling to make your point?

You had to ask! 8-)

 

[ThreeInOne]

Well it is the truth that if someone believes in the unscriptural RCC doctrines and the unscriptural parts to the Mass then they have a non functioning brain and are incapable of logical and analytical thinking. That is logic. :morning:

Robert,
I'm going to buy you a t-shirt that says:
"I think everyone has a non-functioning brain and are incapable of logical and analytical thinking!"

I've only been on these boards a few days and must have read that comment from you about a million times already.
It's old and it holds no value anymore. :silly: