Baptism

[TomUK]

I was chatting with a friend recently about baptism, and he said that he didn't regard his baptism as a baby valid as at the time his parents weren't christians, and he therefore felt that he should be 'baptised' again. I promptly, and in no uncertain terms told him i thought he was misguided, but couldn't really justify my claim other than reference to the Ephesians passage that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and a few mumblings on the church fathers. Am i wrong in thinking this, or is my friend mistaken?

[Zacharias]

I was chatting with a friend recently about baptism, and he said that he didn't regard his baptism as a baby valid as at the time his parents weren't christians, and he therefore felt that he should be 'baptised' again. I promptly, and in no uncertain terms told him i thought he was misguided, but couldn't really justify my claim other than reference to the Ephesians passage that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and a few mumblings on the church fathers. Am i wrong in thinking this, or is my friend mistaken?


You are correct! :thumbsup: Just because his parents aren't Christians doesn't invalidate his baptism.

[chalice_thunder]

The Church says there is one baptism. I can certainly understand your friend's idea.

A couple of things: First - Is there an inquiry/formation series in your friend's congregation where he can come to a deeper understanding of baptism?
Additionally - Does he realize that Holy Eucharist is the repeatable part of his baptism? He can receive the gifts and "re-member" himself in the Body of Christ.

Second: If he really needs to get wet again, the next time his congregation renews their baptismal vows (should be Nov. 7th since it's transferred All Saints') they should splash a whole lot of water around after the vows. We do that EVERY time we have renewal of vows - and people LOVE to make contact with the water. We use copious amounts of it!!

Third: I know of some people who were "provisionally" baptized as adults because they could not remember (and/or there was no record of) infant baptism.

Peace out, bro!
CT

[benedictine]

TomUK, suggest a "conditional baptism"

[AveMaria]

Is your friend Anglican?

[PaladinValer]

The baptism is valid. As the Scriptures (and Holy Tradition) state, we believe in "One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism."

To receive a "second baptism" is to suggest the first one was invalid. Unless that baptism was indeed invalid (ie: a "Jesus-only" baptism or a baptism done by a heterodox/heretical denomination like the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses), there is no need to be "baptized" again.

The Sacrament of Confirmation is, in most ways, the "second half" of our Sacrament of Baptism. In it, we do make a mature commitment and acknowledgement of our baptismal vows. In this way, we are "baptized" again, this time not of water but of fire and the Holy Spirit (see St. John 3).

I also disagree that the baptism received could be, in any way, "conditional." Although this individual's parents may not have been Christian, that in no way invalidates the baptism, which wasn't done in their names but in the individual's name (in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit though, of course!). As such, the religious orientation of the parents is inconsequential.

To provide a reason for why, it is conceivable for a non-Christian cleric to administer Christian Extreme Unction (last rites) to a dying individual if a Christian cleric is not able to be there. The sacrament, so long as it is done properly, would not be invalid due to the fact that this cleric isn't Christian. The fact alone that it was properly done, that the recepient wishes it, and that the recepient understands the rite in an orthodox fashion is what validates it.

[thejesusfish90]

I was always thought that the true baptism IE the baptism which saves oneself occurs when you put your trust in jesus... Also isn't baptism an outward sign of an inward grace (i think im quoting the BCP here??)...thus the baptism its self is only a sign of the spiritual baptism which occurs when one believes.... Or have I got it all completely wrong.... Im also a little unsure about infant baptism... In the bible the only baptisms that are mentioned are from those who have made the conscious reasoned decision and have come of their own will to be baptised... Why then do we baptise as infants... I once asked my mother about this and she said that when you are baptised as a baby your parents faith saves you if you die at an age not yet of reason (eg an infant).... has she got it wrong as well?.... Oh and Wigglesworth (and any other pentecostal out there) I was once talking to a pentecostal who suggested that I be re-baptised of the spirit... Would you happen to know what he was talking about by this?

Your Brother in Christ

Chris

[PaladinValer]

I was always thought that the true baptism IE the baptism which saves oneself occurs when you put your trust in jesus...That is what the Sacrament of Baptism is. :)

Also isn't baptism an outward sign of an inward grace (i think im quoting the BCP here??)...thus the baptism its self is only a sign of the spiritual baptism which occurs when one believes....According to Holy Tradition, baptism regenerates, or "washes away" original sin through the proclaimation of faith in the Christ.

Or have I got it all completely wrong.... Im also a little unsure about infant baptism... In the bible the only baptisms that are mentioned are from those who have made the conscious reasoned decision and have come of their own will to be baptised...Not true. Entire households were baptized, which would include any children and/or infants within.

Why then do we baptise as infants... I once asked my mother about this and she said that when you are baptised as a baby your parents faith saves you if you die at an age not yet of reason (eg an infant)....Not really. Basically, why should infants and children be denied the full grace of baptism? Jesus said let children come to Him; baptism of infants and children is the key way to do this, as it seals them as the Christ's own.

has she got it wrong as well?....Essentially. We are not saved by anyone else's faith or deeds, but our own faith and deeds give us Grace, of which we are finally saved by.

Oh and Wigglesworth (and any other pentecostal out there) I was once talking to a pentecostal who suggested that I be re-baptised of the spirit... Would you happen to know what he was talking about by this?
This is not the forum for this question. Such would be a Pentecostal belief, not an Anglican one.

[Songspinner]

Why then do we baptise as infants

My Priest once told me that it was so they could grow up in the full family of God. IT certainly can't hurt, and I can't think of a better way to bring up a child. In the early church you were not even allowed to watch communion never mind partake if you weren't baptised.


I have several friends who have been "re-baptised" as well...can't say as I agree with the practice. the sacrament is with God not with your parents.

[TammyG]

In speaking with my Reverend she informed me that even though his parents were not Christians, his Baptism as a baby is valid. But your friend might want to discuss this with his/her own Church on their views. Peace be with you.

[gtsecc]

I think there are examples of infant Baptism in the Bible. Look for verses on circumcision and Baptism. I think that is traditionaly understood to mean infants were Baptised since we hope not too many adults had to be circumcisized.

[AveMaria]

Has your friend been confirmed? I have friends who were baptized as infants who cherish the memory of their confirmation.

[ahab]

Hi Jesusfish90



was always thought that the true baptism IE the baptism which saves oneself occurs when you put your trust in jesus...

Jesus says we must be born of water and the Spirit. Jesus commands us to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus told the disciples Acts 1 “For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."



The Anglican communion recognises baptism as one of the sacraments.:)

[Wigglesworth]

Oh and Wigglesworth (and any other pentecostal out there) I was once talking to a pentecostal who suggested that I be re-baptised of the spirit... Would you happen to know what he was talking about by this?:preach:

As with many distinctions in the practice of Christianity, people of different traditions will play a word game with baptism, from the Greek word baptiso, which literally translates to immerse, overwhelm, or saturate.

When the average Roman Catholic speaks of baptism, he normally means the occasion of receiving the sacrament of baptism with water. When the average Pentecostal Christian speaks of "the baptism," he normally means the occasion of receiving the fullness of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other languages or speaking prophetically. What your Pentecostal acquaintance is probably talking about is known as the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and not a baptism in water. It's not a re-baptism like the Anabaptists practice. It's not a replacement for something done wrong. It's a second, additional outpouring of God's grace. Pentecostals also normally practice water baptism as a requirement of the Christian walk.

Answers to questions about the Baptism in the Holy Spirit can be found here (http://ag.org/top/beliefs/baptism_hs/baptmhs_00_intro.cfm).

Although we receive the Holy Spirit when we are saved, the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a separate event entirely. When we receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit, He pours forth from us into the lives of those around us. Do you know anybody who has been baptised in water but is not an effective witness for the Lord? I do. We need the full empowerment of the Holy Spirit to live the Christian life.

Baptism with water is a baptism of salvation. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is a baptism of empowerment. From a sacramental perspective, the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is more closely related to confirmation than with baptism in water.

To say that the Baptism with [or in] the Holy Spirit is not Anglican is incorrect. It is Christian, and it is Scriptural. Christians of all traditions, including Episcopalians like Rev. Dennis Bennett (http://www.healmylife.com/articles/holy%20spirit/bennett%20-%20charismatic%20movement.htm), believe in the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as an experience distinct from baptism in water.

An illustration:

Picture a glass that is half full of water. That glass has received water. At salvation, we receive the Holy Spirit as He comes to dwell within us.

Picture the same glass that someone pours more water into until it is full and water flows over the rim onto the table. The outside of the glass is now completely wet. That glass has been baptised in water from within. It has been immersed, overwhelmed, and saturated in the water. When we receive the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, He who dwelled within us since our salvation increases within us to fully saturate our being. We now have the power of God to walk in the Spirit and not in our carnal desires.

See the difference?

When you read the word "baptism" in the Scriptures, determine what the subject is being immersed in. It's not always water. A mud wrestler is baptised in mud, but that's not the sacrament of baptism. Similarly, the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not the sacrament of water baptism. It is a saturation with the Spirit of God.

[Father Rick]

I was chatting with a friend recently about baptism, and he said that he didn't regard his baptism as a baby valid as at the time his parents weren't christians, and he therefore felt that he should be 'baptised' again. I promptly, and in no uncertain terms told him i thought he was misguided, but couldn't really justify my claim other than reference to the Ephesians passage that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and a few mumblings on the church fathers. Am i wrong in thinking this, or is my friend mistaken?Your friend's baptism was valid.

Now it is true that an infant has no understanding of baptism and the work that it does. This is the reason for confirmation. In the early church ( and still in the EO churches), baptism and confirmation were part of one rite. With time, the two were separated for this very reason-- So that when one who was baptized as an infant was old enough to fully understand what it meant to live a life for Christ, he/she would have the opportunity to publicly affirm one's faith. At confirmation, one is 'confirmed' in the faith into which he/she was baptized.