Today's readings (May 9) ...rebaptism?

[Mary1103]

Seems like todays readings indicated a rebaptism.
What am I not seeing here?

 

[RyanL]

they were baptized with the “baptism of repentance” of john the baptist, and not with the “trinitarian formula” of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. as such, their batism was invalid (and they did not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit). thus, st. paul had to baptize them correctly (and they received the Holy Spirit).

the catholic church recognizes the same, considering all trinitarian baptisms as valid, and rebaptizing those who were not baptized with the trinitarian formula (for example, the “Jesus only” churches who do not recognize the Father or Holy Spirit as being distinct persons of the Holy Trinity).

does that help?

RyanL

 

[Mary1103]

OK, so those who were baptized by John had to be rebaptized then.

 

[RyanL]

…it would seem so. without further mention of the topic in the NT, it’s hard to say for certain; this does seem the most likely answer, however. this is, of course, with the exception of our Lord and Savior, who clearly received the Holy Spirit at His baptism by St. John the Baptist!

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Malachi4U]

The LDS and JW baptisms are also invalid since they do not believe in the Trinity nor Baptize in Him. They need a valid Baptism.

This is not a re-baptism since they never got baptized to begin with. Baptist RE-baptisms are also not valid if the first one was correct. I’ve seen some Baptists get REbaptized every year in the same church by the same preacher!

 

[Shlemele]

Malachi4U:

The LDS and JW baptisms are also invalid since they do not believe in the Trinity nor Baptize in Him. They need a valid Baptism.

This is not a re-baptism since they never got baptized to begin with. Baptist RE-baptisms are also not valid if the first one was correct. I’ve seen some Baptists get REbaptized every year in the same church by the same preacher!

You miss a fundamental difference in babtism between the Catholic church and the Anababtist church. While most don’t babtize repeditively (I have never seen it and I havee been raised in the Anababtist tradition) the action of babtism is more like a Catholic confirmation. We view it as a sign that we intend to follow the Lord and are making a public record of this decision.

While I don’t think I have ever heard of repeditive babtism I do know of several converts who were babtized as infants and rebabtized as adults. Babtism is also seen as a requirement for membership in some churches, although most do not require it for membership.

 

[Mary1103]

I’m just wondering now why Jesus “allowed” John to baptize in the “wrong” way?

 

[RyanL]

IMHO (read: pure speculation), it was because those present weren’t ready for Trinitarian theology. This was a huge shift for the Jews. The Shema, or “Cry of the Jewish Heart” (more or less the Lord’s Prayer for Jews), is “Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is **one **Lord.” (Deu 6:4.) If you know any observant Jews, they will tell you the same.

To answer your question, God had spent so much time impressing on His people that He is one, that to jump out and say “God is three distinct and separate persons in one divine nature” would have blown some minds, and they weren’t ready for that yet. In fact, it took christianity some 400 years to really describe this in precise language - St. John couldn’t have even attempted this in one event without turning away all of the Jews, who Jesus Christ came to reconcile. In reading it, however, that is exactly what God was revealing without explicitly saying it. You have the scene with the Son (being baptized), the Father (saying, “this is my Son”), and the Holy Spirit (decending like a dove). God is crafty like that - He shows us things that we slowly come to understand later, so that He won’t grind our mental gears with a profound paradigm shift (without a clutch…so to speak). Ok, lame joke, but it was worth the try…

This seems to make a lot of sense to me, but if I’m doing a poor job of conveying this…simply ask, and I’ll rephrase.

God bless,
RyanL

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

Mary1103:

I’m just wondering now why Jesus “allowed” John to baptize in the “wrong” way?

John wasn’t really baptizing in the “wrong” way. His baptism was a baptism of repentance, and his message was designed to prepare the way of the Lord. He acknowledged that his baptism was not the baptism of the Lord. His baptism was intended as a preparation for the baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Jesus had to bring the baptism with the Holy Spirit because Jesus was the one who was ushering in the New Covenant. John was just preparing the way for it.
I hope this makes sense; I can’t seem to express this they way I want to.

 

[speedy5]

but what if you feel that your original baptism was invalid? i was baptised at 9 years old in a baptist church. it was trinitarian, but i think i was way too young to even know what baptism really was for a few reasons i won’t get into right now.

 

[RyanL]

speedy5:

but what if you feel that your original baptism was invalid? i was baptised at 9 years old in a baptist church. it was trinitarian, but i think i was way too young to even know what baptism really was for a few reasons i won’t get into right now.

If you were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with the intention of bringing you into a church family, and you presented no obstacle to God’s grace (i.e., you didn’t disbelieve in God) you were validly baptized. It really doesn’t matter how you “feel” about it afterwards. This is how we validly baptize babies, regardless of how the baby “feels” about it. This is the “free gift” of salvific grace spoken of in Eph 2:8. There is nothing you can do to **deserve **this grace (including “taking Christ as your Personal Lord and Savior”), so don’t worry if you don’t feel “worthy” - none of us were!

Hope this helps,
RyanL

 

[speedy5]

thanks, that’s a monkey off my back. maybe it WAS just a feeling of humility that made me think my baptism was invalid. you’re a good guy for helping me see that. keep on keepin’ on brother.