More Than One Baptism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jinc1019
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jinc1019

Guest
I know this is going to sound like an odd question but is there any reason explained in the Bible or by the Early Church Fathers why a person cannot be baptized (in water) twice? Once as an infant and once as an adult? The reason I ask is because it seems to me like the debate over infant baptism and believer’s baptism is easily solved by simply baptizing twice. I admit that only one of the two baptisms would be valid, but if this were to happen, it wouldn’t matter which side is right on the issue. Either way, you have a proper baptism. This is, of course, all dependent on there being no prohibition on two baptisms in the Early Church and in scripture. I am not aware of any prohibition in scripture but I know that Creeds say “one baptism” in them. But that’s the beauty of this…there is still only ONE baptism. Like I said before, one of the events wouldn’t be an actual baptism, we just wouldn’t know which one (it depends on which side of the debate is correct).

I know Catholics are going to be radically opposed to this (and that’s fine), but I am just curious if there is a prohibition in scripture or the very early Church (before 300 AD). I look forward to everyone’s wisdom!
 
Invalid sacraments are sacrilegious, and obstinate doubt of the Church’s teaching on infant baptism is heretical. Both sacrilege and heresy are mortal sins, so that would be a bad idea.
 
Yes I am aware of the Catholic Church’s position on it…my question is about scripture and the early church fathers.
 
St. Paul said that there was “one faith, one baptism” in one of his pastoral letters.
 
Ok thank you for that! Does anyone know of anything else other than the comment referenced above?
 
On what basis, Scriptural or otherwise, would you presume to argue against the weight of tradition and the authority of the Church?
 
jinc1019 said:
I know this is going to sound like an odd question but is there any reason explained in the Bible or by the Early Church Fathers why a person cannot be baptized (in water) twice? Once as an infant and once as an adult? The reason I ask is because it seems to me like the debate over infant baptism and believer’s baptism is easily solved by simply baptizing twice. I admit that only one of the two baptisms would be valid, but if this were to happen, it wouldn’t matter which side is right on the issue. Either way, you have a proper baptism. This is, of course, all dependent on there being no prohibition on two baptisms in the Early Church and in scripture. I am not aware of any prohibition in scripture but I know that Creeds say “one baptism” in them. But that’s the beauty of this…there is still only ONE baptism. Like I said before, one of the events wouldn’t be an actual baptism, we just wouldn’t know which one (it depends on which side of the debate is correct).

I know Catholics are going to be radically opposed to this (and that’s fine), but I am just curious if there is a prohibition in scripture or the very early Church (before 300 AD). I look forward to everyone’s wisdom!
Click to expand...
This was a controversy that rose up in the early church and was disputed between Pope Stephen and Cyprian:
Rebaptism
Click to expand...
To complete the consideration of the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, we must give some account of the celebrated controversy that raged around this point in the ancient Church. In Africa and Asia Minor the custom had been introduced in the early part of the third century of rebaptizing all converts from heresy. As far as can be now ascertained, the practice of rebaptism arose in Africa owing to decrees of a Synod of Carthage held probably between 218 and 222; while in Asia Minor it seems to have had its origin at the Synod of Iconium, celebrated between 230 and 235. The controversy on rebaptism is especially connected with the names of Pope St. Stephen and of St. Cyprian of Carthage. The latter was the main champion of the practice of rebaptizing. The pope, however, absolutely condemned the practice, and commanded that heretics on entering the Church should receive only the imposition of hands in paenitentiam. In this celebrated controversy it is to noted that Pope Stephen declares that he is upholding the primitive custom when he declares for the validity of baptism conferred by heretics.
Click to expand...
Cyprian, on the contrary, implicitly admits that antiquity is against his own practice, but stoutly maintains that it is more in accordance with an enlightened study of the subject. The tradition against him he declares to be “a human and unlawful tradition”. Neither Cyprian, however, nor his zealous abettor, Firmilian, could show that rebaptism was older than the century in which they were living. The contemporaneous but anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate” says that the ordinances of Pope Stephen, forbidding the rebaptism of converts, are in accordance with antiquity and ecclesiastical tradition, and are consecrated as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance of all the saints and of all the faithful. St. Augustine believes that the custom of not rebaptizing is an Apostolic tradition, and St. Vincent of Lérins declares that the Synod of Carthage introduced rebaptism against the Divine Law (canonem), against the rule of the universal Church, and against the customs and institutions of the ancients. By Pope Stephen’s decision, he continues, antiquity was retained and novelty was destroyed (retenta est antiquitas, explosa novitas). It is true that the so-called Apostolic Canons (xlv and xlvi) speak of the non-validity of baptism conferred by heretics, but Döllinger says that these canons are comparatively recent, and De Marca points out that St. Cyprian would have appealed to them had they been in existence before the controversy. Pope St. Stephen, therefore, upheld a doctrine already ancient in the third century when he declared against the rebaptism of heretics, and decided that the sacrament was not to be repeated because its first administration had been valid, This has been the law of the Church ever since.
Click to expand...
From the Catholic Encyclopedia

The sacrament of baptism operates on similar lines to the old covenant practice of the circumcision of Jewish male babies. Infant baptism is in many ways a better portrait of what baptism is than an adult baptism, because it shows the grace being poured out on somebody that is certainly in no way capable of receiving it on their own. A good bit of the controversy between infant baptism vs child/adult baptism is stemmed from a poor understanding of the Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject. While it is impossible for one to be sacramentally baptized twice, and while it is a requisite to salvation, Catholic teaching has always been that one absolutely must continue to pursue the faith and make penance when needed, and in that, salvation and damnation are both very much of a choice. This is also reflected when a person later in life undergoes their Confirmation, which perfects their water baptism.

Catholics cannot accommodate the controversy on the subject by allowing a rebaptism, as it wouldn’t be a baptism at all, and would be a sacrilegious insult towards the first valid baptism.
 
St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
(Source: newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article9)

I answer that, Baptism cannot be reiterated.

First, because Baptism is a spiritual regeneration; inasmuch as a man dies to the old life, and begins to lead the new life. Whence it is written (John 3:5): “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, He cannot see [Vulgate: ‘enter into’] the kingdom of God.” Now one man can be begotten but once. Wherefore Baptism cannot be reiterated, just as neither can carnal generation. Hence Augustine says on John 3:4: “‘Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born again’: So thou,” says he, “must understand the birth of the Spirit, as Nicodemus understood the birth of the flesh . . . . As there is no return to the womb, so neither is there to Baptism.”

Secondly, because “we are baptized in Christ’s death,” by which we die unto sin and rise again unto “newness of life” (cf. Romans 6:3-4). Now “Christ died” but “once” (Romans 6:10). Wherefore neither should Baptism be reiterated. For this reason (Hebrews 6:6) is it said against some who wished to be baptized again: “Crucifying again to themselves the Son of God”; on which the gloss observes: “Christ’s one death hallowed the one Baptism.”

Thirdly, because Baptism imprints a character, which is indelible, and is conferred with a certain consecration. Wherefore, just as other consecrations are not reiterated in the Church, so neither is Baptism. This is the view expressed by Augustine, who says (Contra Epist. Parmen. ii) that “the military character is not renewed”: and that “the sacrament of Christ is not less enduring than this bodily mark, since we see that not even apostates are deprived of Baptism, since when they repent and return they are not baptized anew.”

Fourthly, because Baptism is conferred principally as a remedy against original sin. Wherefore, just as original sin is not renewed, so neither is Baptism reiterated, for as it is written (Romans 5:18), “as by the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation, so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life.”
 
jinc1019 said:
I know this is going to sound like an odd question but is there any reason explained in the Bible or by the Early Church Fathers why a person cannot be baptized (in water) twice? Once as an infant and once as an adult? The reason I ask is because it seems to me like the debate over infant baptism and believer’s baptism is easily solved by simply baptizing twice. I admit that only one of the two baptisms would be valid, but if this were to happen, it wouldn’t matter which side is right on the issue. Either way, you have a proper baptism. This is, of course, all dependent on there being no prohibition on two baptisms in the Early Church and in scripture. I am not aware of any prohibition in scripture but I know that Creeds say “one baptism” in them. But that’s the beauty of this…there is still only ONE baptism. Like I said before, one of the events wouldn’t be an actual baptism, we just wouldn’t know which one (it depends on which side of the debate is correct).

I know Catholics are going to be radically opposed to this (and that’s fine), but I am just curious if there is a prohibition in scripture or the very early Church (before 300 AD). I look forward to everyone’s wisdom!
Click to expand...
If there were anyone alive, who knew that the person had been baptized as an infant, or if there were a certificate, or if for any another reason the person knew that they were already baptized with water, in the name of the Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit, (the formula for valid baptism), then what is the point of the second baptism. It has already been done. There are cases where someone doesn’t know, but they are rare. If one has been baptised, they were relieved of original sin, and simply need the sacrament of confession from then forward. There is no need for any kind of back up plan, or conciliatory arrangement unless the person truly doesn’t remember, nor do they have any papers or witnesses to their baptism. Just my 2 cents. There’s excellent material on the CCC and it is foreshadowed in scripture. Remember the need for baptism, to begin with, and it’s importance. Christ said, “We must fulfill all righteousness” to John the Baptist, and then also commissioned the apostles to go out and baptise with the formula we use today. Remember that the Jews had babies circumcised as infants, as a covenant. In the new covenant, baptism fulfilled this forshadowing of covenant.

Peace to you,

Steve
 
StevenFrancis said:
If there were anyone alive, who knew that the person had been baptized as an infant, or if there were a certificate, or if for any another reason the person knew that they were already baptized with water, in the name of the Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit, (the formula for valid baptism), then what is the point of the second baptism. It has already been done. There are cases where someone doesn’t know, but they are rare. If one has been baptised, they were relieved of original sin, and simply need the sacrament of confession from then forward. There is no need for any kind of back up plan, or conciliatory arrangement unless the person truly doesn’t remember, nor do they have any papers or witnesses to their baptism. Just my 2 cents. There’s excellent material on the CCC and it is foreshadowed in scripture. Remember the need for baptism, to begin with, and it’s importance. Christ said, “We must fulfill all righteousness” to John the Baptist, and then also commissioned the apostles to go out and baptise with the formula we use today. Remember that the Jews had babies circumcised as infants, as a covenant. In the new covenant, baptism fulfilled this forshadowing of covenant.

Peace to you,

Steve
Click to expand...
I am really just interested in whether it is prohibited or not…Not whether it should/should not be done? I can’t find anything in scripture or in tradition which says it is prohibited. In early tradition, there were arguments over whether it SHOULD be allowed in certain cases, but is there any mention of it being forbidden expressly in the first 200 years of Christianity? I honestly don’t know.

I do appreciate all of the replies!
 
jinc1019 said:
I am really just interested in whether it is prohibited or not…Not whether it should/should not be done? I can’t find anything in scripture or in tradition which says it is prohibited. In early tradition, there were arguments over whether it SHOULD be allowed in certain cases, but is there any mention of it being forbidden expressly in the first 200 years of Christianity? I honestly don’t know.

I do appreciate all of the replies!
Click to expand...
The Nicene Creed (completed in AD 381) says the following to combat the heretics that taught re-baptism:
“I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins…”
 
St Cyprian of Carthage (c. AD 200 – 258):
“For it has been delivered to us, that there is one God, and one Christ, and one hope, and one faith, and one Church, and one baptism ordained only in the one Church, from which unity whosoever will depart must needs be found with heretics; and while he upholds them against the Church, he impugns the sacrament of the divine tradition.”
Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiii.html
 
Thanks for the posts. Yes I understand that only one baptism is valid. No one is arguing that it isn’t. The argument is that only one of the two baptisms is really a baptism at all.
 
jinc1019 said:
Thanks for the posts. Yes I understand that only one baptism is valid. No one is arguing that it isn’t. The argument is that only one of the two baptisms is really a baptism at all.
Click to expand...
99.99999999% of those that teach adult baptism believe that baptism is a symbolic gesture (that is, baptism does not wash away sins). The Church Fathers did not ever have to deal with heretics teaching that adult baptism is the only baptism.
 
Since I started this thread, I felt compelled to return and reveal my findings of recent research on infant baptism.

After looking quite extensively into the issue, I decided that the best way to try and approach this problem is to address it from the Jewish perspective, since of course, Jesus and all early Christians were Jews. After reading a lot about the Jewish Mikveh, which is essentially an earlier form of baptism, I have come to realize that it is highly likely, assuming of course that the early Christians continued their Jewish practices, that the Apostles baptized infants and that they believed the baptism did in fact cause some kind of spiritual cleansing.

Even to this day, Jews, when converting families to Judaism or even just a baby (because of adoption or something similar), they immerse the baby in a Mikveh as part of the conversion process. It is required in order to be considered a Jew (for both adults and infants).

Jews also require that all converts have faith in their Jewish religion in order to convert. So then, how can a baby convert and be immersed in the Mikveh without faith? Jews traditionally have understood that all initiation rites for infants are a sign of a faith that has not yet come.

Thus, if the Apostles did in fact continue this understanding, modern Baptists would be on the completely wrong side of this issue.

However, and this is important…Jews also completely rejected and reject the concept of original sin. They believe we are born holy and blameless and that all humans were made to be fallible, including Adam and Eve. This is their ancient understanding of the Genesis narrative. So, while they do accept that the Mikveh provides a very real spiritual cleansing, they completely reject that it is needed for salvation, which they also hold a different view on, and they don’t believe babies are capable of having any sin. So, if we are also to extend that view out to the Apostles, they would have rejected the modern conception of original sin and the need for baptism to go to heaven.

I wanted to post this since it is a major reversal of my original thoughts on the issue. I think it is, at the very least, very interesting.

Justin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top