getting baptised again

[MIZER]

I was speaking to my Fundamentalist Baptist sister last night and she mentioned that her adult son “got baptised” last week. I knew he had been Baptised in the Baptist religion as a child and so I asked her what she meant by that.

My sister said that her son had fallen into the sin of drink and carrousing and that he had been “backsliding” for a number of years. He now wanted to start living his faith and re-dedicate his life to Christ. So, as an “outward sign” of that re-commital, he chose to undergo the “ceremony of Baptism.”

Has anyone ever heard of this? Since Baptists believe baptism is merely symbolic, would we still say that this “re-baptism” is sacraligious or something like that? Is it a sin to get re-baptised?

When I asked my sister what the Bible meant when it spoke of One Baptism she agreed and stated that this wasn’t considered his baptism, but rather just a symbol, an outward sign (I guess to those who were present) that her son had re-committed his life to christ. When I said that he was “re-Baptised” she really started to back peddle, insisting that it was not a re-baptism. She seemed to understand that re-baptism is against Biblical teaching. Why would someone get re-baptised and then deny that that is what they did?

Do Baptist’s reject their roots and mis-understand that the very term ana (as in ana-baptist) means to do again? The ana-baptists were called such because they re-baptised Catholics who had been baptised as infants.

Anyway, I was hoping maybe a Baptist forum board member might be able to shed some light on this for me. I’m confused. Is this a common practice in the Baptist religion? It looks like a solution to the problem of not having the sacrament of reconciliation as we Catholics have, so Baptists must use (re)baptism to re-establish their friendship with Christ after having sinned. On the other hand they won’t let you call it re-baptism because they know that would be in error of the Bible. So I’m confused.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

I was speaking to my Fundamentalist Baptist sister last night and she mentioned that her adult son “got baptised” last week. I knew he had been Baptised in the Baptist religion as a child and so I asked her what she meant by that.

My sister said that her son had fallen into the sin of drink and carrousing and that he had been “backsliding” for a number of years. He now wanted to start living his faith and re-dedicate his life to Christ. So, as an “outward sign” of that re-commital, he chose to undergo the “ceremony of Baptism.”

Has anyone ever heard of this? Since Baptists believe baptism is merely symbolic, would we still say that this “re-baptism” is sacraligious or something like that? Is it a sin to get re-baptised?

When I asked my sister what the Bible meant when it spoke of One Baptism she agreed and stated that this wasn’t considered his baptism, but rather just a symbol, an outward sign (I guess to those who were present) that her son had re-committed his life to christ. When I said that he was “re-Baptised” she really started to back peddle, insisting that it was not a re-baptism. She seemed to understand that re-baptism is against Biblical teaching. Why would someone get re-baptised and then deny that that is what they did?

Do Baptist’s reject their roots and mis-understand that the very term ana (as in ana-baptist) means to do again? The ana-baptists were called such because they re-baptised Catholics who had been baptised as infants.

Anyway, I was hoping maybe a Baptist forum board member might be able to shed some light on this for me. I’m confused. Is this a common practice in the Baptist religion? It looks like a solution to the problem of not having the sacrament of reconciliation as we Catholics have, so Baptists must use (re)baptism to re-establish their friendship with Christ after having sinned. On the other hand they won’t let you call it re-baptism because they know that would be in error of the Bible. So I’m confused.

The Bible doesn’t talk about backsliding, as it’s commonly defined today. It just talks about carnal and spiritual men.

From what you’re describing, it certainly sounds as though the boy has never been born again. What you’re describing is a carnal man, still at emnity with God.

I don’t have a problem with somebody being baptised again under some conditions but what you’re describing is not a good reason to be baptised and I hope that the pastor is able to see that this young man has some very serious misconceptions about what it means to be born again and what baptism means.

Just going by what you’re describing, if this young man wanted to be baptised in my church, I couldn’t do it.

 

[mercygate]

The Bible doesn’t talk about backsliding, as it’s commonly defined today. It just talks about carnal and spiritual men.

From what you’re describing, it certainly sounds as though the boy has never been born again. What you’re describing is a carnal man, still at emnity with God.

I don’t have a problem with somebody being baptised again under some conditions but what you’re describing is not a good reason to be baptised and I hope that the pastor is able to see that this young man has some very serious misconceptions about what it means to be born again and what baptism means.

Just going by what you’re describing, if this young man wanted to be baptised in my church, I couldn’t do it.

How does a Pastor determine whether a person has been born again and thus is qualified for water baptism?

If the boy in the OP THOUGHT he was born again, and the person who baptized him the first time thought so also, but the boy wasn’t really born again, how might they have discerned the truth?

Are all believers’ baptism theologies tied up with eternal security?

 

[Pastor_Jim]

How does a Pastor determine whether a person has been born again and thus is qualified for water baptism?

We talk to them. We look at the fruit that they produce. We examine the Biblical criteria to see whether or not they meet them.

If the boy in the OP THOUGHT he was born again, and the person who baptized him the first time thought so also, but the boy wasn’t really born again, how might they have discerned the truth?

For most folks, the part about “fallen into the sin of drink and carrousing and that he had been “backsliding” for a number of years” would have tipped them off.

Are all believers’ baptism theologies tied up with eternal security?

Baptism has nothing to do with eternal security.

 

[mercygate]

We talk to them. We look at the fruit that they produce. We examine the Biblical criteria to see whether or not they meet them.

For most folks, the part about “fallen into the sin of drink and carrousing and that he had been “backsliding” for a number of years” would have tipped them off.

But that would be after the fact. Initially, we presume, the pastor DID check to see if the guy met the Biblical criteria – don’t we?

Baptism has nothing to do with eternal security.

Thank you. Maybe that should be another thread: Eternal Security 101 for Catholics.

Ah: I should have known that eternal security has nothing to do with baptism since I have an acquaintance who is Freewill Baptist. They don’t believe in eternal security, even if you’re “born again.”

 

[TriuneUnity]

But that would be after the fact. Initially, we presume, the pastor DID check to see if the guy met the Biblical criteria – don’t we?

All you will find here, mercy, is unending subjectivism. If a pastor deems that I have been born again, should I get a second opinion?

On the contrary, the apostles used a different criteria for being born again that didnt require their personal, subjective judgment (hint, it had something to do with water and the Trinitarian name).

 

[mercygate]

All you will find here, mercy, is unending subjectivism. If a pastor deems that I have been born again, should I get a second opinion?

On the contrary, the apostles used a different criteria for being born again that didnt require their personal, subjective judgment (hint, it had something to do with water and the Trinitarian name).

OK. But you’re a Lutheran. You (gasp) baptize babies! I want to hear from a responsible believers’ baptism person how they discern.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Not to start huge debates, but this is another reason for Reconciliation. It is a way to say, I am done with that life. I want to start over.

As far as re-baptizing, I guess if they just see it as a symbol, it isn’t against the rules, but it calls into question what baptism is a symbol of. It is the reception of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot leave a person, once they accept him. So to get re-baptized, even just symbolically, seems like an affront to The Spirit

 

[MIZER]

Pastor Jim,

Isn’t determining weather a person is born again, by your understanding of what it is to be born again, making a judgement that is to be reserved for God alone?

This is another question I have always had about my sister’s Baptist faith. How is it that you are able to judge the soul of another?

Pastor, you state:

From what you’re describing, it certainly sounds as though the boy has never been born again. What you’re describing is a carnal man, still at emnity with God.

So is it impossible for one who is “born again,” again by your understanding, to fall into a state of serious sin for a given period of time?

Aren’t we all carnal men while we live in this world?

Aren’t we all at emnity with God whenever we commit sin?

Don’t we all sin? Isn’t that what the Bible says, that we all sin? Can you offer me a verse that states that all those who are born again will forever more be without sin?

As you can see, I am still confused. I hope you will indulge my questions and not see them as disrespecting you as a Pastor. On the contrary, I see your presence here as a great opportunity to speak with a Pastor and perhaps gain some much longed for insight into the mind and heart of my Baptist sister. May I ask, are you by chance a Baptist Pastor?

Also from your first reply to my OP:

I don’t have a problem with somebody being baptised again under some conditions

What conditions allow us to go against the Bible and re-Baptise someone?

What does the Bible mean when it says, “one baptism”?

My main question to anyone who can answer this is, is it sacrilegious to perform a Baptism on someone who has already been Baptised. I asked a Catholic friend this question, pointing out that Baptists consider Baptism to be merely symbolic (does that mean it is not a sacrament of God?), and she said that the entire Baptist faith is sacrilegious and so the answer is yes.

I wonder how a Baptist or any non-Catholic for that matter, would answer this question. Is it sacrilegious to re-baptise people? Why is this done in some denominations when the Bible clearly says, “one baptism”?

 

[mercygate]

Not to start huge debates, but this is another reason for Reconciliation. It is a way to say, I am done with that life. I want to start over.

As far as re-baptizing, I guess if they just see it as a symbol, it isn’t against the rules, but it calls into question what baptism is a symbol of. It is the reception of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot leave a person, once they accept him. So to get re-baptized, even just symbolically, seems like an affront to The Spirit

Footnote to your post, Salsa: Are you aware that in the East, the Sacrament of Confession is sometimes called “the Mystery of Second Baptism?”

But the premise of a second baptism is not that the first water baptism was defective but that it was done in the belief that the person was born again when, in fact, he had not been born again.

 

[MIZER]

Mercygate posted:

OK. But you’re a Lutheran. You (gasp) baptize babies! I want to hear from a responsible believers’ baptism person how they discern.

Yes, I too am waiting with baited breath for an answer to this from someone who believes in believers’ only baptism.

 

[MIZER]

SenorSalsa posted:

As far as re-baptizing, I guess if they just see it as a symbol, it isn’t against the rules, but it calls into question what baptism is a symbol of. It is the reception of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot leave a person, once they accept him. So to get re-baptized, even just symbolically, seems like an affront to The Spirit

But you are Catholic and have a Catholic understanding of Baptism. I don’t think the Baptists believe that Baptism involves the reception of the Holy Spirit. I will grant you that this is error in and of itself and an affront to the Spirit so I’m thinking that invincible ignorance may come into play here and the secondary affront to the spirit which would occur upon getting re-baptized might not in fact be an affront. That’s what I’m trying to find out.

 

[josephdaniel29]

It looks like a solution to the problem of not having the sacrament of reconciliation as we Catholics have, so Baptists must use (re)baptism to re-establish their friendship with Christ after having sinned. On the other hand they won’t let you call it re-baptism because they know that would be in error of the Bible. So I’m confused.

That’s exactly the reason for multiple baptisms. There is a man in our parish who is a convert from Protestantism who was baptized over a dozen times! They have no real mechanism with which to cope with sin so some of them baptize over and over again.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[MIZER]

Hi Mercygate,

You make an interesting point:

Footnote to your post, Salsa: Are you aware that in the East, the Sacrament of Confession is sometimes called “the Mystery of Second Baptism?”

But the premise of a second baptism is not that the first water baptism was defective but that it was done in the belief that the person was born again when, in fact, he had not been born again.

I didn’t know that confession is called “the Mystery of Second Baptism” but it does make sense so I’m not surprised.

Also, everytime we bless ourselves with holy water, making the sign of the cross, we are physically recalling our Baptism. It is this richness of faith that the Baptists (among others) are missing and so I wonder if they don’t adopt these other beliefs (such as re-baptism under certain circumstances) to make up for that which they have rejected from the one true faith. That, to me is sad.

Why don’t they see that God gave us the gift of wholeness in faith? Why are they willing to, essentially, make it up as they go? Why don’t they see the illogic of requiring a pastor to discern whether a soul is “born again” before baptising it if another pastor down the road may discern that the soul was not in fact born again the first time and now is, and so is in need of a second baptism? Are some people baptised a third and even a fourth time under this line of reasoning?

I fear there will be no answers to these questions as the answers come in conversion to the true faith, that is Catholicism.

 

[MIZER]

While I was typing the question, josephdanial was answering it:

That’s exactly the reason for multiple baptisms. There is a man in our parish who is a convert from Protestantism who was baptized over a dozen times! They have no real mechanism with which to cope with sin so some of them baptize over and over again.

So why don’t all protestants see this as a problem when the Bible clearly says one baptism? I would think there would be an exodus from churches that baptise multiple times. How can they miss the fact that this was not Christ’s plan?

 

[mercygate]

That’s exactly the reason for multiple baptisms. There is a man in our parish who is a convert from Protestantism who was baptized over a dozen times! They have no real mechanism with which to cope with sin so some of them baptize over and over again.

Yours in Christ
Joe

I have a friend who was a Pentecostal pastor for some years before becoming Catholic. He told me that there were people who suffered from the Pentecostal equivalent of what Catholics know as scrupulosity. They would ask to be rebaptized whenever they sinned or whenever they got the idea that it hadn’t been done “right” the first time.

Your OP is more complex – or is it? I am staying tuned.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Isn’t determining weather a person is born again, by your understanding of what it is to be born again, making a judgement that is to be reserved for God alone?

While we cannot judge the state of someone’s soul in eternity, the Bible does give us numerous criteria by which to judge whether or not someone is exhibiting fruit compatible with being born again.

So is it impossible for one who is “born again,” again by your understanding, to fall into a state of serious sin for a given period of time?

Not just by my standard, but according to 1 John 4.

Aren’t we all carnal men while we live in this world?

No.

Don’t we all sin? Isn’t that what the Bible says, that we all sin? Can you offer me a verse that states that all those who are born again will forever more be without sin?

This is a good example of a Catholic strawman. I never said that those who are born again do not sin and the Bible doesn’t say that those who are born again do not sin.

What the OP described is not merely a sin in the context of a momentary moral lapse, but an abandonment to sin. That is, a decision to openly and unrepentedly serve sin.

I have already cited 1 John 4 for you, which shows that one cannot do this and claim to be born again.

May I ask, are you by chance a Baptist Pastor?

Yes.

What conditions allow us to go against the Bible and re-Baptise someone?

This is a logical fallicy commonly known as “poisoing the well”.

There’s nothing in scripture to indicate that one cannot be baptised more than once.

Among the reasons I might go along with someone’s desire to be baptised again would be that he realizes that he wasn’t saved the first time he was baptised, that he comes from another denomination and wants to show his identification with out denomination (rebaptism in this case isn’t required or even suggested, but a lot of people still seem to want to do it), if the person wants to commemorate a special event, etc.

What does the Bible mean when it says, “one baptism”?

The phrase commonly rendered “one baptism” is en baptisma, which refers to the result of baptism, not the number of baptisms one is allowed to have.

I would strongly suggest that you read Ephesians 4:2-16 in it’s entirety, rather than focusing on that one particular phrase.

My main question to anyone who can answer this is, is it sacrilegious to perform a Baptism on someone who has already been Baptised. I asked a Catholic friend this question, pointing out that Baptists consider Baptism to be merely symbolic (does that mean it is not a sacrament of God?), and she said that the entire Baptist faith is sacrilegious and so the answer is yes.

No, there is nothing sacreligious about it.

We do not consider it a sacrement, but an ordinance.

Why is this done in some denominations when the Bible clearly says, “one baptism”?

Please cite your source where the Bible says that somebody is only allowed to be baptised once.

 

[MIZER]

Hi again Pastor Jim,

I’m glad to read that you are a Baptist Minister. Perhaps I will finally find some answers to my questions that my sister has been unable to reasonably answer.

You asked:

Please cite your source where the Bible says that somebody is only allowed to be baptised once.

From reading the rest of your post I’m assuming you already know what I am referring to, it’s Eph 4:4-5

**“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” **

Now I admit this doesn’t explicitly say that being baptized more than once is problematic but 1 Tim 3:15 says that the Church (that would be the one Church (as in one body in the above verse from Ephesians), which Christ established is the pillar and ground of truth and Corinthians 1:10-13 says: **“I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you.” **

I think when we put these verses together and recognize the authority Christ gave His one Church to teach the one truth (as in one faith from Ephesians) then we can deduce from scripture that we are to be Baptized once for the forgivness of sins. After that we have the sacrament of reconciliation as well as opportunities within Christian life to renew our Baptisimal vows but I don’t see where the Bible says we are to be baptised over and over again. Do you?

My understanding is that Baptists follow the Bible exclusively. Doesn’t that mean the Bible must say specifically or at least implicitly that re-baptism is the way to deal with either sinfulness or a “born again” experience that was deemed inauthentic either by the Pastor or the congregant?

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Now I admit this doesn’t explicitly say that being baptized more than once is problematic

But that’s what your whole argument is based on. You need to get that straightened out.

I don’t see where the Bible says we are to be baptised over and over again. Do you?

I’ve already stated that the Bible does not tell us to be baptised again. However, not telling us to do something is entirely different than telling us not to do something.

My understanding is that Baptists follow the Bible exclusively. Doesn’t that mean the Bible must say specifically or at least implicitly that re-baptism is the way to deal with either sinfulness or a “born again” experience that was deemed inauthentic either by the Pastor or the congregant?

What Baptist believes this? Please stop with the strawmen. It only makes your side look bad.

 

[mercygate]

“One baptism” is not about being baptized only one time. It refers to the authentic baptism of the Church. If you’re baptized by a gnostic sect, then you are not participating in the “one” baptism but in “another” baptism – as Paul says: another Gospel.

The idea that it can be done only once lies in the belief that Baptism is EFFECTIVE. This is the belief of the Ancient Apostolic Churches and it is not shared by those who have re-defined it as an “ordinance.”

For those who believe in the efficacy of sacraments, “doing it again” is to disbelieve and to “insult” the action of God. It is therefore a sacrilege – especially if the second baptism is in a tradition that rejects the Church.

For those who do not believe that Baptism is effective, then it stands to reason that it might be done any number of times as people experience the successive, ever-deeper conversions that mark the life of all committed Christians.