I haven’t read it (I should), so it is kind of hard to state one way or the other if he was “required” to be baptized.
nonsense…Yeah, really.It’s getting to the point where we need a score card for all of this stuff…
harassment).Sounds familiar
harassment).its possible that perhaps his past denomination didn’t practice a proper Baptism and therefore he would have been needed to be baptized the right way. not all Protestant denominations would baptize the same way. i think the major ones would have valid baptism
I have encountered cases like this in the recent past.
I was baptised as a child (one month old baby) in the Roman Catholic Church and last August I was baptised again as a non-denominational Christian, so I decided share my thoughts on this subject.
The Church recognizes all baptism that are done in accordance with the Apostolic (Catholic) Teaching. It must have both the proper form, and matter. Water is used, and the Trinitarian formula (“in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”).
Sometimes if they have no documentation that they were baptized (like a certificate), then they are given a “conditional baptism”. Since there is only “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” then the form is used “if you have not already been baptized, then I baptize you…”
It does not hurt anything for you to get wet again, and the experiential phenomenon of being joined with Chirst in his death and resurrection is always good. Unfortunately you have fallen away from the Apostolic Teaching in this matter.
Thats how we/I do it. Before we submerge them in water we say I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Spirit. While they are being submerged we say baried with him and raised to a new life.
That’s correct. My husband was raised Southern Baptist, and baptised at about age 7 (or maybe it was 9? I can’t remember). When he joined the Catholic Church 3 years ago he just made a profession of faith and was confirmed (and received the Eucharist, of course!), not rebaptized.
What can I say, thats how we do it.
That is very Catholic of you!
But thanks for the complement. The biggest difference between LDS baptisms, and those of any Christian religion is their view of Who/what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are is completely different. They believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are 3 different personages, and that God the Father was at one time a man with flesh and bones.
This is a good point. Most of our separated brethren suffer from a deficient understanding of baptism. However, they do “intend” that the person be joined to Christ in His death and resurrection, and that they become members of Him. Although they think it is just an empty form, they still practice it out of obedience to Christ, because He commands it. They see it as a public declaration of faith, which it can be, as well as all the other things the Apostles believed and taught. In any case, it is Jesus who is the baptizer, working through the water.
The Baptists have retained one important element of the Apostolic Teaching on Baptism. That is that when one is Baptized, they are baptized INTO something, or someone. It has become distorted, in that baptism is to bring us into Christ, but they see it as bringing people into conformity with the local ecclesial community.
I was only baptized once, at age 21. That was when I returned to the faith. I had become a believer at 12 (or thereabouts – I’m terrible with dates) but wasn’t baptized at that time. All during my teen years I wandered away, and explored all possible spiritual paths and secular philosophies. At 18 I was an agnostic, and at 19 a Zen/Taoist. At 21, with a little help from C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien and friends, I had decided the Gospel story was in fact true and became a Christian again, and still am, 34 years later. I joined a home church, led by a young and very Christ-like pastor, and was baptized in a pond in a city park in Florida. Looking back, that was one of the happiest times in my life.
