RE-BAPTISM

[Mickey]

When a protestant converts to the Catholic church, they are not re-baptized. Any baptism performed under the trinitarian formula, (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), is considered to be a valid baptism. Yet I know of many baptist churches who re-baptize anyone who joins their church. Is this not an insult to the Holy Spirit? Is the baptist church proclaiming that because you were Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc, your baptism will not be recognized as valid? I know that they do not consider infant baptism to be valid, but they will re-baptize anyone, regardless of the age of their original baptism.

 

[Benadam]

Mickey:

When a protestant converts to the Catholic church, they are not re-baptized. Any baptism performed under the trinitarian formula, (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), is considered to be a valid baptism. Yet I know of many baptist churches who re-baptize anyone who joins their church. Is this not an insult to the Holy Spirit? Is the baptist church proclaiming that because you were Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc, your baptism will not be recognized as valid? I know that they do not consider infant baptism to be valid, but they will re-baptize anyone, regardless of the age of their original baptism.

Hi Mickey, I’m not an expert in Baptist theology but when I read your post the fact that the faith in question about baptism call themselves Baptists jumped out as a possible factor.

 

[4_marks]

Mickey:

When a protestant converts to the Catholic church, they are not re-baptized. Any baptism performed under the trinitarian formula, (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), is considered to be a valid baptism. Yet I know of many baptist churches who re-baptize anyone who joins their church. Is this not an insult to the Holy Spirit? Is the baptist church proclaiming that because you were Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc, your baptism will not be recognized as valid? I know that they do not consider infant baptism to be valid, but they will re-baptize anyone, regardless of the age of their original baptism.

I was “re-baptized” three (almost four times). First, at an Assembly of God congregation with the trinitarian formula. This was mandatory to become a member in good standing. Second, through an independent Oneness Pentecostal body. It was mandatory because only baptisms in “Jesus name” were considered valid. Third, at the beach last June by a Church of Christ leader. It was mandatory because the Churches of Christ believe that one isn’t a Christian until they repent and are water baptized. They said my former “baptisms” were invalid because they were symbolic, that is, they were not baptism unto salvation. Once, I almost got “baptized” at the Y by a United Methodist minister. He said one could get baptized as many times as they would like because it was just a public profession of faith in Christ and not a sacrament.

But I know that my real baptism occured when I was one month old at a Catholic church. One Lord, One Faith, ONE BAPTISM.

 

[dumspirospero]

I have oftened wondered the same thing myself…it is like a slap in the face. I also find that they do not tolerate other Christians as well…for example, coming from a Baptist background…All I remember hearing about Catholics was that they worshipped Mary over Jesus and the Pope was the Anti-Christ…now that I have made my conversion, I still have protestant friends that tell me I am going to hell…and their hatred doesn’t stop there, they also condemn other protestant religions. THeir idea of Baptism is probably the same as their idea of salvation…“there way is the only right way”…That is my guess.

Mickey:

When a protestant converts to the Catholic church, they are not re-baptized. Any baptism performed under the trinitarian formula, (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), is considered to be a valid baptism. Yet I know of many baptist churches who re-baptize anyone who joins their church. Is this not an insult to the Holy Spirit? Is the baptist church proclaiming that because you were Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc, your baptism will not be recognized as valid? I know that they do not consider infant baptism to be valid, but they will re-baptize anyone, regardless of the age of their original baptism.

 

[4_marks]

dumspirospero:

I also find that they do not tolerate other Christians as well…for example, coming from a Baptist background…All I remember hearing about Catholics was that they worshipped Mary over Jesus and the Pope was the Anti-Christ…now that I have made my conversion, I still have protestant friends that tell me I am going to hell…and their hatred doesn’t stop there, they also condemn other protestant religions. THeir idea of Baptism is probably the same as their idea of salvation…“there way is the only right way”…That is my guess.

Depends. I once worshipped with an American/Conservative Baptist congregation. The pastor was quite open to Catholics and even celebrated Advent, Lent, Palm Sunday, Holy Week, etc. Some congregation members were offended and went elsewhere. At the time, I was among these. I also worshipped at a Southern Baptist congregation that only considered other Southern Baptists to be worthy of fellowship. They shunned all the other congregations in the area: Churches of the Nazarene, Christian Reformed, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ and yes, Catholic.

 

[Mickey]

dumspirospero:

I have oftened wondered the same thing myself…it is like a slap in the face. I also find that they do not tolerate other Christians as well…for example, coming from a Baptist background…All I remember hearing about Catholics was that they worshipped Mary over Jesus and the Pope was the Anti-Christ…now that I have made my conversion, I still have protestant friends that tell me I am going to hell…and their hatred doesn’t stop there, they also condemn other protestant religions. THeir idea of Baptism is probably the same as their idea of salvation…“there way is the only right way”…That is my guess.

That saddens me.

 

[Katholikos]

Baptists don’t recognize baptism to be “valid” in the same way that a Catholic does, at all. To them, baptism is merely symbolic, a public profession of faith. They may even baptize their own members more than once. When I went to my Southern Baptist minister with my doubts about the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice, he suggested I get baptized again. I did, but it didn’t help. I have a “backsliding” (ex-Baptist, now Catholic) friend that was baptized by the same pastor three times. One can “get saved” (answer the ‘altar call’) or get baptized as many times as one feels is necessary.

And they don’t baptize babies, only older children and adults. They call it “Believer’s Baptism.” One must be old enough to “accept Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior” before one is baptized as a public demonstration of personal faith. One can “get saved” and never be baptized. It really isn’t necessary – but if you are baptized, it is essential that you be immersed, cause that’s the only true (“valid”) baptism.

Make sense? No? That’s one of the reasons why I’m not a Baptist any longer.

JMJ Jay
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[DaveBj]

Mickey:

When a protestant converts to the Catholic church, they are not re-baptized. Any baptism performed under the trinitarian formula, (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), is considered to be a valid baptism. Yet I know of many baptist churches who re-baptize anyone who joins their church. Is this not an insult to the Holy Spirit? Is the baptist church proclaiming that because you were Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc, your baptism will not be recognized as valid? I know that they do not consider infant baptism to be valid, but they will re-baptize anyone, regardless of the age of their original baptism.

It is not the denomination in which one was baptized previously that makes the baptism invalid in the eyes of the Baptists; rather it is the mode (pouring or sprinkling). Baptists take the literal meaning of the word baptizo (“to immerse”) as a requirement, meaning that baptism any other way doesn’t count. In my case, I had been baptized in the Church of God after my adult conversion, and my statement to that effect was good enough when I joined a Southern Baptist congregation.

DaveBj

 

[cestusdei]

Baptists don’t believe baptism is necessary for salvation. It is just an ordinance. But by gosh if you are baptized it had better be there way or it ain’t valid. A bit inconsistant since it supposedly doesn’t really matter anyway.

 

[chrisb]

Peace be with you all,

I am a Baptist and the HIscox “Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches” offers this for the understanding of the Christian Ordinance of Baptism.

Christian baptism is defined to be the immersion of a person in water, on a profession of his faith in Christ, in, or into, the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (Spirit). Baptism, therefore, is an immersion or dipping in water, with this meaning, and for this sacred purpose; and without this dipping there is no Scriptural baptism. The immersion is essential to the rite, and pouring or sprinkling water upon a person is not, and cannot be, baptism, as well hereafter be shown.

And this sign of the Christian dispensation is distinguished from all the ablusions, washings, and sprinklings of the Mosaic dispensation, for none of which was it a substitute. “And were baptized of Him in Jordan, confessing their sins.” - Matt. 3:6. “And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” - Acts 8:38. “Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death.” - Rom. 6:4. “Buried with HIm in baptism.” - Co. 2:12. This impressive form and manner of administration was practiced by Christ and His Apostles, and continued unchanged in the churches for generations; but finally, at the dictate of prelates, or for the convenience of priests, it underwent changes which destroyed its beauty and robbed it of its significancy, and a human device was substituted for a divine ordinance.

Baptism is to be administered to those, and to those only, whou have exercised and professed saving faith in Christ; that is, to believers. This saving faith supposes an exercise of godly repentence of sin, and a turning to the Lord with full purpose of heart. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” - mark 16:16 But “when they believed they were baptized, buth men and women.” - Acts 8:13. “Then they that gladly received His Word were baptized.” - Acts 2:41. “If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest.” - Acts 8:36. None but believers were baptized.

If it is shown that one did not express true faith in Christ or in one’s repentence of one’s sins or if such is in question Baptist will and can be done again. In the Baptist understanding of Christian Ordinances, they are not recipes or magic acts, they are fueled but one’s faith and turning to God. We cannot force Salvation on to ourselves or our children. It must be done from one’s on willful act that God’s Grace be accepted. We have freewill and God respects our choices even if they led us astray.

The notion of “infant baptism” evolved after Augustine’s elaborations on “original sin” which caused theologians to question the salvation of any who died before baptism thus the policy of infant baptism for the salvation of the children was instituted. It is my opinion, that this is an error of divine revelations being trumphed by philosophy (i.e. human conjecture).

Peace.

 

[Malachi4U]

There really is no such thing as a “RE”(ANA)-Baptism. You can only be baptized once. Not even the Baptists are more powerfull then our God. They can pretend to ANA/RE-Baptize but what God has performed the Baptists cannot declare invalid then do on their own again.

Besides, its only symbolic eh? Just like the Eucharist?

 

[Mickey]

I agree with you Malachi. I am not impressed with “Priciples and Practices For Baptist Churches”, published by Edward T. Hiscox in 1859. St Polycarp confirmed infant baptism around the year 100 A.D. I think I’ll stick with St Polycarp, the countless other church fathers, and the magisterium of the Catholic church. Though many thanks to Chrisb for explaining the reasoning behind the heretical practice of re-baptism.

Peace

 

[Benadam]

In reference to our Baptist brother who generously offered an explanation of Baptism as it is understood by the Baptist Church’s

am a Baptist and the HIscox “Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches” offers this for the understanding of the Christian Ordinance of Baptism.

Thank you for sharing the theology of your faith as it concerns the ordinance of Baptism.
Sacred Scripture reveals a metaphysical reality as well. I’ll demonstrate it in brief.

When asked about John the Baptist Jesus said of him " he is a perfect ‘pattern’ of righteousness. John’s life of perfect righteousness is a human life manifesting a ‘perfect’ pattern. Through that human life and the spirit we all share in common that life can be joined to any human soul.

John himself attests to this when he say’s " there is someone who follows me who is more powerfull than " I ". His righteousness enables all people the opportunity to be able to share in that pattern of righteousness in that through it they can repent sincerely and reject their sinfull lives and take on the pattern of life that John wrote onto the earth of mans flesh.

This is how his life makes a staight way for Christ. It opens a fully human path to Christ’s pattern of life which comes from above as Paul said " We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life".

Baptism offers the power of John the Baptist’s pattern of righteousness for repentence in order that we can be joined to Christ’s pattern of death and resurrection.

This life through the Sacrament of Baptism the sign of which is water, stamps as it were, the perfect pattern of Christ’s life onto our souls so that it can recieve the grace that was lost when Adam sinned.

As a sidenote I would like to point out that John leaped in the womb when Mary’s voice reached his mothers ears. There is a wealth of implications in this passage. Following the theme of perfect human life offering to humanity a straight road to Christ’s divine life it can be suggested that what happened to John in the womb was a baptism into Mary’s perfect pattern of sinlessness from conception. Offering John the perfect pattern of a righteous life. From a sinless life of Mary, John is given a righteous life. Elizibeth shared in the experience and expressed praise of Mary’s meaning in the Father’s plan of salvation.

 

[Malachi4U]

Benadam,

Great job, Sacred Scripture is allways solid proof of the Catholic Church’s taechings on Faith and Morals. Thats why Scripture dictates we remain loyal and of one body and mind. You can not find that unity outside the Catholic Church.

 

[Benadam]

Malachi4U:

Benadam,

Great job, Sacred Scripture is allways solid proof of the Catholic Church’s taechings on Faith and Morals. Thats why Scripture dictates we remain loyal and of one body and mind. You can not find that unity outside the Catholic Church.

Thank you Malachi4U,

absolutely right, that unity isn’t found elsewhere on earth because it’s source is not of the earth. It’s said that shared life experiences create bonds that didn’t exist before and strengthens bonds that do. Through the Sacraments Catholics are offered Grace that enables them to meet the challenges of their various vocations in life no matter how great the challenge. This Sacramental experience is shared by no other people on earth. So if shared experiences are the fabric that bonds humanity how much more those experiences will bond when their source is divine.

 

[af3983]

Where does it mention re-baptism in the bible? I had 2 friends join the baptist church just recently and both were re-baptised because thier catholic baptism was not valid. One was an infant baptism and the other claimed she didn’t believe when going through RCIA. I felt insulted that they would not acknowledge thier baptism as Catholic’s to be valid. They didn’t even recognize my baptism and claimed I needed to be re-baptised. Karl Keating’s Catholicism vs. Fundamentalism has a great section on Baptism, I read this and it helped me through the ordeal. It is a slap in the face. To me it is as if the person is rejecting who you are as an individual if they can not accept a catholic baptism to be valid. It is very sad when people turn away from something they do not understand rather then research the meaning of baptism and why the catholic’s hold the view that they do!

 

[Katholikos]

The teachings of the Catholic Church do not derive from the New Testament. Rather, the New Testament derives from the teachings of the Catholic Church who wrote it.

The Catholic Church baptizes infants because she learned it from the Apostles.

Addressing adults, St. Peter said: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. * For the promise is to you and to your children* and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” Acts 3:38-39.

Polycarp (A.D. 69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. “Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (*Martyrdom of Polycarp *9: 3).

“He came to save all through himself, – all, I say, who through Him are reborn in God, – infants and childlren, and youths and old men . . .” Irenaeus Against Heresies, A.D. 180-199.

“Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” St. Hippolytus of Rome, A.D. 215.

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit”* Origen, A.D. 244.*

JMJ Jay

 

[Katholikos]

af3983:

Where does it mention re-baptism in the bible? I had 2 friends join the baptist church just recently. . . It is very sad when people turn away from something they do not understand rather then research the meaning of baptism and why the catholic’s hold the view that they do!

Yes, it is very, very sad. They have traded the Truth for a sermon and a song and worship for fellowship. Now they have no life within them (Jn 6:53). They have been deceived.

Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament, never let me be parted from You!

JMJ Jay
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[oudave]

Mickey:

When a protestant converts to the Catholic church, they are not re-baptized. Any baptism performed under the trinitarian formula, (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), is considered to be a valid baptism. Yet I know of many baptist churches who re-baptize anyone who joins their church. Is this not an insult to the Holy Spirit? Is the baptist church proclaiming that because you were Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc, your baptism will not be recognized as valid? I know that they do not consider infant baptism to be valid, but they will re-baptize anyone, regardless of the age of their original baptism.

The catholic church is so far off when it comes to baptism. I think scripture is very clear on the subject. First in the baptizing of infants and second baptizing by sprinkeling, The greek definition is to submerse or to emerse, ie under water. It is very symbolic of the death, burriel and reserection of Christ. Besides, It is the way Christ was baptized. If he is the example, i am to follow. I ate to say it but most catholic’s have not been baptized, therefore have not recieved the gift of the Holy Spirit. Read Math 7:13-14, it’s very scary. Don’t take the chance, do it the right way. Put your trust in the scriptures, not in man.

 

[Benadam]

oudave:

The catholic church is so far off when it comes to baptism. I think scripture is very clear on the subject. First in the baptizing of infants and second baptizing by sprinkeling, The greek definition is to submerse or to emerse, ie under water. It is very symbolic of the death, burriel and reserection of Christ. Besides, It is the way Christ was baptized. If he is the example, i am to follow. I ate to say it but most catholic’s have not been baptized, therefore have not recieved the gift of the Holy Spirit. Read Math 7:13-14, it’s very scary. Don’t take the chance, do it the right way. Put your trust in the scriptures, not in man.

When Jesus was babtized something real happened to His soul. In fact it seems the pattern of John’s life was imitated by Christ.

He went immediately into the desert where John the Baptist lived his life of righteousness. It was John’s baptism that is marked by his righteousnss. That’s why Jesus said: " in order to fulfill ‘all’ righteousness" when John questioned Him. John’s righteousness was perfect also and to fulfill ‘all’ righteousness Jesus took on John’s Baptism.

There was a Baptism Jesus was distressed about. There is more than one in the Scriptures. There is the Baptism into death and resurrection from Jesus’ life. John’s Baptism… Mary’s…well I won’t go there now…and the Baptism Jesus got on the cross…what perfect life do you suppose He was recieving from that baptism?

I can guarantee you that a baptism changes the soul, it reforms it to the life it’s baptized into so that that person can actually begin to live that life. Like Jesus going out into the desert fulfilling ALL righteousness, even John’s.

Just as an interesting thought; I believe Satan tempted John out there as well, trying to get him to say he was the messiah.
John said in reference to Christ; " there is one who follows me’

Scroll up and check out my post on baptism, you’ll find this theology on Baptism very Scriptural and it helps to understand the metaphysical aspect of Baptism.

I find that most non-catholic christians get tripped up with the actual metaphysics of Christ’s work. The power of our religion. It causes the baptism mix up, all the Sacraments, the Mass, they all seem to boil down to non acceptance of the power of our religion.