R
rcwitness
Guest
From an Anabaptist’s point of view! 
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
ltwin
Guest
Yep. They were called “rebaptizers” during the Reformation by Catholics and pedobaptist Protestants due to baptizing adults who had been baptized as infants. This is because they rejected infant baptism as invalid and therefore not actual baptism. In their eyes, they never “rebaptized” anyone.
I have never taught Anabaptism… But the right baptism of Christ, which is preceded by teaching and oral confession of faith, I teach, and say that infant baptism is a robbery of the right baptism of Christ.
— Hubmaier, Balthasar (1526), Short apology.[7]:204
Last edited:
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Oh, how wrong they were.
T
twf
Guest
Interesting. I was originally baptized in a Mennonite church (which is a subset of Anabaptist). I was baptized with the Trinitarian formula and with water. We fully professed the Trinity. It was the intent of the minister and of myself that I be baptized in the same manner that Christians in the New Testament were baptized. I had everything documented.
Yet I was conditionally baptized by the bishop when received into the Church. He wasn’t certain at first, but ultimately made the decision to go the conditional route.
Looking back, I wonder why my baptism was suspect when the baptisms of so many other Protestant converts who were baptized in the same manner and with the same intent, to the best of my knowledge, are accepted. It doesn’t bother me…at the time I was grateful as I didn’t realize how loose the Church’s understanding of required intent is and feared that the lack of a sacramental theology may have invalidated my original baptism. We certainly professed the orthodox understanding of the Trinity.
Yet I was conditionally baptized by the bishop when received into the Church. He wasn’t certain at first, but ultimately made the decision to go the conditional route.
Looking back, I wonder why my baptism was suspect when the baptisms of so many other Protestant converts who were baptized in the same manner and with the same intent, to the best of my knowledge, are accepted. It doesn’t bother me…at the time I was grateful as I didn’t realize how loose the Church’s understanding of required intent is and feared that the lack of a sacramental theology may have invalidated my original baptism. We certainly professed the orthodox understanding of the Trinity.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
In my best judgment, it really seems as if your “first” baptism was valid. But I guess the bishop was taking every step to ensure you had a valid baptism probably because Anabaptist seem to vary so much in their baptismal formulas.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
As it was a conditional baptism I also made my first confession at the same time- immediately after. So I was covered either way. That was the evening before my confirmation / reception in a private service.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.