Rebaptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dirk_Skene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dirk_Skene

Guest
I had a Skype conversation tonight with a young Protestant woman I used to work with at a scientific tourist venue a few years ago. I was her mentor. She went on to be an animal research scientist.

She was very excited that she had decided to get rebaptized. Now I can say I understand the proper Christian concept of baptism because in the class on sacrementology I made an A in baptism. The whole “indelible mark on the soul thing”. (Of course all properly trained Christians know we can lose our salvation by mortal sin. That is what confession if for.)

I wanted very much to tell her that “yeah, you can do that, but it is kind of like washing your shirt, taking it out & right away washing it again. Rebaptism does not wash away original sin for a 2nd time. It does not “retattoo” the indelible mark.

Just so happens I had another Skype conversation scheduled with a Baptist buddy tonight as well. I do not know exactly which version of Baptist he is, but since they teach exactly how the Church teaches, he at least understands baptism perfectly. I asked him about it. He relayed what his understanding of the erroneous concept was, & it started to at least help me get the idea as he understood it. But not fully enough to be able to help me explain to this girl why the whole idea was a bit silly.

Here is what I am asking. Have you heard of this concept? I had not till tonight. How has the idea been explained to you? If I understand it I should be able to refute it in a way she will “get it”. We go back a long way. We are very close. I know her “logic buttons.” She & I are supposed to Skype again soon. I want to be ale explain why this is not necessary. BUT 1st I have to “get it”. Of course my ultimate goal is to bring her into the True Church of Jesus Christ. But one step at a time.
 
From wiki:

Rebaptism is the baptism of a person who has previously been baptized, usually in association with a denomination that does not recognize the validity of the previous baptism.[1][2] When a denomination rebaptizes members of another denomination, it is a sign of significant differences in theology. Churches that practice adult baptism, including Baptists, Churches of Christ and Christian Churches, rebaptise people who were baptised as infants because they do not consider infant baptism to be biblically valid.

The above could be the reason why she is being rebaptized.

But for Catholics, as long as the baptismal formula is valid, even if the baptizer is a heretic, the baptism is considered valid as it is not dependent on the validity of the baptizer.

We don’t rebaptized perhaps our Creed says “we confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. One baptism , not two. So if their creeds agree with the Catholic, then the issue rest on the validity of infant baptism which some have objected to per the wiki.
 
Ron_in_minden said:
Ephesians 4:5.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know Ron. But we are talking about a weird verity of Protestism (I can’t spell this morning) here. Thanks for the reference, it was spot-on, I will use it next time I Skype with her. I just want additional ammo. Got anything else?

They do not take the Bible as a whole & like my “Protestant pest” take small sections totally out of context & use them to support heretical claims.
 
ericc said:
From wiki:

Rebaptism is the baptism of a person who has previously been baptized, usually in association with a denomination that does not recognize the validity of the previous baptism…The above could be the reason why she is being rebaptized…
Click to expand...
Hot dog! Yes. And she did mention joining a new congregation. The next thing I need to do is figure out where her particular denomination gets its theology. Of course the obvious answer is the “father of lies”, but I have to get a little more specific in my understanding.

Thanks again. You & Ron are helping. Anybody else?
 
It could also be rebaptism to have recommitment to the faith. I went to a very low church UMC, and they did rebaptism for teenagers if they really wanted to (even if they were baptized before in the same church) as a sign they want to dedicate themselves to Christ again. There was one youth who was baptized 3-4 times during their stay at this church (just know this isn’t characteristic of UMC, my UMC specifically was VERY low church).

Although this usually goes in conjunction with being in a new congregation (they may recognize their previous baptism, but see the new recommitment to Christ because they were nonpracticing Christians, but now find a reignited faith and join a church finally, and they get baptized again). This has been my experience as a protestant.
 
Dirk_Skene said:
She was very excited that she had decided to get rebaptized.
Click to expand...
The real question is why she thinks that her first baptism didn’t ‘take’? Or if it was efficacious, what did it mean (that is, what effects did it have)?

Similarly, then, what would the meaning of ‘re-baptizing’ be to her? What effects would it have?

If her take on baptism is merely that it’s an outward expression of an inner commitment – that is, that it’s merely a symbol of something that’s already happening within her – then you and she are talking about completely different things when you say ‘baptism.’ 🤷
 
THE WORK OF ST. OPTATUS
BISHOP OF MILEVIS
AGAINST THE DONATISTS
Translated BY THE REV. O. R. VASSALL-PHILLIPS, B.A.
BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD
PRIEST OF THE CONGREGATION OF THE MOST HOLY REDEEMER

Lest anyone should say that without thought I call them brethren, I would reply that such they are, for we cannot escape from the words of the prophet saying: You who fear the Word of the Lord, hear ye the Word of the Lord. To those who detest and curse you, and are unwilling to be called your brethren, say ye nevertheless: “You are our brethren.”
They therefore are without doubt brothers, though not good brothers. Wherefore let no one marvel that I term those brothers, who are unable to escape being our brethren. They and we have one spiritual birth, though widely differing is our conduct.
(They could not escape this, because by Baptism they had become Sons of God, and therefore brethren of all the brothers of Christ.)
Concerning the sins of these our brethren, I will speak in another place. For they, sitting over against us, speak evil things about us. They consort with that Thief who robs God, and share their lot with adulterers (that is, with heretics), and make their sins an object of praise, and plan reproachful words against us Catholics.
They all each in his own district make a great noise with wicked words. To some of their statements I may reply when opportunity arises. …
For what can be more to our purpose than your argument from the fact that there was only one Flood the type of Baptism? And, in maintaining that the one Circumcision availed for the salvation of the people of the Jews, you have written in defense of our doctrine, as though you were one of us. For this is our argument, who defend the Unity of Baptism conferred in [the Name of] the Trinity.
It is not an argument in favor of you, who dare to repeat, against the laws, that Baptism, of which the one Flood and one Circumcision are typical. And this, although you yourselves would not deny that what has been commanded to be done once only, ought not to be repeated.
But whilst you have praised with acuteness that which is worthy of all praise, you have by a quibble introduced your own persons, as if since it is only lawful once [to baptise] for you it were lawful, for others unlawful.
If it be unlawful for Betrayers to baptise, it cannot be lawful for you, for we can prove that your first fathers were Betrayers. If it be unlawful for schismatics to baptise, it must therefore be unlawful for you, for you originated the Schism.
If it be unlawful for sinners to baptize, we can prove from divine testimony that you are sinners also. Finally, since the validity of Baptism does not depend upon the character of the man who has been chosen to baptize, but upon an act which lawfully is done but once, for this reason we do not set right baptisms which have been administered by you, because both amongst us and amongst you the Sacrament is one.

Peace
 
Dirk_Skene said:
Hot dog! Yes. And she did mention joining a new congregation. The next thing I need to do is figure out where her particular denomination gets its theology. Of course the obvious answer is the “father of lies”, but I have to get a little more specific in my understanding.

Thanks again. You & Ron are helping. Anybody else?
Click to expand...
IIRC, there are some Orthodox that will rebaptize converts, even Catholics.
It isn’t just a phenomenon of certain so-called Protestant groups

Jon
 
Dirk_Skene said:
Here is what I am asking. Have you heard of this concept? I had not till tonight. How has the idea been explained to you? If I understand it I should be able to refute it in a way she will “get it”. We go back a long way. We are very close. I know her “logic buttons.” She & I are supposed to Skype again soon. I want to be ale explain why this is not necessary. BUT 1st I have to “get it”. Of course my ultimate goal is to bring her into the True Church of Jesus Christ. But one step at a time.
Click to expand...
It’s actually pretty common. The historical denomination Anabaptists were actually named so because they were re-baptizers (“ana” mean again).

Different Christian groups have different understandings of baptism: why do it, what it does, who does it, validity of it, etc. Some view baptism as the washing away of some version of original sin. Others as a re-birth in Christ by a believer. Others believe that baptism doesn’t actually do anything, but is an optional physical sign of inward change. Some groups only accept baptism from their own denomination, some from all denominations, some from denominations ABC but not XYZ.

If you want to understand your friend’s beliefs on baptism and why she’s doing what she’s doing, the simplest and most effective way is to just ask her.
 
Kmon23 said:
It could also be rebaptism to have recommitment to the faith. I went to a very low church UMC, and they did rebaptism for teenagers if they really wanted to (even if they were baptized before in the same church) as a sign they want to dedicate themselves to Christ again. There was one youth who was baptized 3-4 times during their stay at this church (just know this isn’t characteristic of UMC, my UMC specifically was VERY low church).

Although this usually goes in conjunction with being in a new congregation (they may recognize their previous baptism, but see the new recommitment to Christ because they were nonpracticing Christians, but now find a reignited faith and join a church finally, and they get baptized again). This has been my experience as a protestant.
Click to expand...
Kind open concept for me a bit. I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. I got several things to try to think about in order to get it straighten in my head before I talk to her again. This has helped.
 
ericc said:
From wiki:

Rebaptism is the baptism of a person who has previously been baptized, usually in association with a denomination that does not recognize the validity of the previous baptism.[1][2] … .
Click to expand...
I read the whole thing, I just clipped to save space. Between you & the other fine folk that answered I think I can work this up. It will be a bit tougher than I thought though based on what you gave me 😛 … that’s my way of saying “thanks a lot bro” 😛

This would be a lot easier if I could just get her out of Protestantism. But I am working on it 😃
 
Gorgias said:
The real question is why she thinks that her first baptism didn’t ‘take’? Or if it was efficacious, what did it mean (that is, what effects did it have)?

Similarly, then, what would the meaning of ‘re-baptizing’ be to her? What effects would it have?. … 🤷
Click to expand...
I read the whole thing.

All good questions to ask her. This has helped.
 
ericc said:
From wiki:

Rebaptism is the baptism of a person who has previously been baptized, usually in association with a denomination that does not recognize the validity of the previous baptism.[1][2] When a denomination rebaptizes members of another denomination, it is a sign of significant differences in theology. Churches that practice adult baptism, including Baptists, Churches of Christ and Christian Churches, rebaptise people who were baptised as infants because they do not consider infant baptism to be biblically valid.

The above could be the reason why she is being rebaptized.

But for Catholics, as long as the baptismal formula is valid, even if the baptizer is a heretic, the baptism is considered valid as it is not dependent on the validity of the baptizer.
Click to expand...
Very good post. Some protestant denominations listed above believe in “Believer’s baptism”, meaning that baptism is the outward sign of an inner transformation in the person that has already taken place, presumably after they repented and accepted and received Jesus into their life as Lord and Savior.

Therefore, according to this position, if a person was baptized as an infant, they obviously didn’t consent to it nor did they understand or realize what was going on at the time, so therefore when they become a believer, they are baptized when they are able to consent to it, therefore making it a more meaningful expression of their faith in Christ.

As I study Catholicism, the “Believer’s baptism” reminds me in a way of Confirmation in the sense it is an expression of faith and commitment that is done when the person is able to consent on their own and are at an age when they presumably understand what is happening.

I am not claiming the “Believer’s Baptism” is the proper way to look at baptism, especially in the eyes of Catholicism. I just want to help Dirk possibly better understand why someone in such a faith tradition might rationalize doing a rebaptism.
 
GOod topic.

My mother was baptized as a young adult in the Catholic church. She wasn’t really anything prior to being catholic.

Awhile ago, after getting divorced, she started going to other churches. Now she is scheduled to get baptized again. I tried understanding why she feels the need to do this but all I can come up with is that it is pretty superficial and selfish. Not selfish in the sense that it is a bad thing but that it really has nothing to do except present an outward sign of faith for oneself.

I’m trying to figure out how to let her know that I won’t be attending
 
not sure if I missed it , but is your friend just recently been “born again” , come to faith in Christ as her savior ? That is when many folks get "re baptized’’ as to differentiate from any baptism that was done before being made anew (infancy or adult baptism). Otherwise not sure I agree with rebaptism due to denomination, or a new church requirement.

Blessings
 
CatholicSooner said:
GOod topic.

My mother was baptized as a young adult in the Catholic church. She wasn’t really anything prior to being catholic.

Awhile ago, after getting divorced, she started going to other churches. Now she is scheduled to get baptized again. I tried understanding why she feels the need to do this but all I can come up with is that it is pretty superficial and selfish. Not selfish in the sense that it is a bad thing but that it really has nothing to do except present an outward sign of faith for oneself.

I’m trying to figure out how to let her know that I won’t be attending
Click to expand...
I would suggest that being there for your mom is extremely important (in this and all things), and trumps the fact that you don’t understand. Family is critical.
 
jane_doe said:
I would suggest that being there for your mom is extremely important (in this and all things), and trumps the fact that you don’t understand. Family is critical.
Click to expand...
It is…its not just that i don’t understand but I don’t agree with it and I feel that by going, it is endorsing it.

It’s a tough spot to be in. Maybe I should ask my pastor.
 
Used to be said of some folk that they had been baptised so often the fish knew them…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top