Nazarene Baptism?

[GodsGrace101]

I attended a Nazarene Church for about 10 years and liked it very much.
Very down-to-earth; no strange teachings.

My born again brother has been going to one in Queens, New York for about 5 years now. He was told that he needed to be baptized in THAT church.

He was baptized as a baby in the Catholic church. I believe baptism is baptism at whatever age it is given, IF it is then "accepted" as an adult.

Do those on this forum believe it was necessary for him to be baptized again?

 

[eleos1954]

I attended a Nazarene Church for about 10 years and liked it very much.
Very down-to-earth; no strange teachings.

My born again brother has been going to one in Queens, New York for about 5 years now. He was told that he needed to be baptized in THAT church.

He was baptized as a baby in the Catholic church. I believe baptism is baptism at whatever age it is given, IF it is then "accepted" as an adult.

Do those on this forum believe it was necessary for him to be baptized again?

"He was told that he needed to be baptized in THAT church."

What did they say the reasons were?

I was baptized in a Nazarene church. When I accepted the Lord, I was not attending any church and had very little knowledge about the Lord. After I confessed and repented a great peace fell upon me for several days. After that the Holy Spirit brought to my mind to be baptized .... and I mean BIG time, powerful. I went to several churches and most said I needed to be a member of their church to get baptized. I was very confused about that. I did not ask why, I just kept knocking on doors until I found one that opened. Required membership into a church or church system ... no I will never do that. One does need to accept Him with a sincere heart according to His teachings on the matter.

In the bible ... were the masses baptized through a church system? Not that I've found.

I believe it is up to the individual. If they are led to be baptized again there is no problem with that. If it were me I'd find out why and see if what they say stands scripturally.

God Bless.

 

[GodsGrace101]

"He was told that he needed to be baptized in THAT church."

What did they say the reasons were?

I was baptized in a Nazarene church. When I accepted the Lord, I was not attending any church and had very little knowledge about the Lord. After I confessed and repented a great peace fell upon me for several days. After that the Holy Spirit brought to my mind to be baptized .... and I mean BIG time, powerful. I went to several churches and most said I needed to be a member of their church to get baptized. I was very confused about that. I did not ask why, I just kept knocking on doors until I found one that opened. Required membership into a church or church system ... no I will never do that. One does need to accept Him with a sincere heart according to His teachings on the matter.

In the bible ... were the masses baptized through a church system? Not that I've found.

I believe it is up to the individual. If they are led to be baptized again there is no problem with that. If it were me I'd find out why and see if what they say stands scripturally.

God Bless.

I can't find any scriptural support for this. What are we going to do next...require that the person be baptized in every new church they attend?

Either the Holy Spirit is real and received at baptism, or it's all fake.

The reason was that we're supposed to be baptized as adults, not as babies. Although I do agree with this, I still believe a baptism is valid when it's done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[FireDragon76]

That doesn't sound like official doctrine but I know Nazarene churches can vary a great deal and some are somewhat autonomous in their attitudes (my S.O. had a really bad experience at one that was like that, eventually the church was shut down by the denomination), so it may just be that particular church's insistence. In the wider American evangelical context, that isn't that unusual.

More on the Nazarene doctrine of baptism:

Baptism Q&A

He could always go to a Methodist church as they don't have a problem with Catholic infant baptism.

 

[GodsGrace101]

That doesn't sound like official doctrine but I know Nazarene churches can vary a great deal and some are somewhat autonomous in their attitudes (my S.O. had a really bad experience at one that was like that, eventually the church was shut down by the denomination), so it may just be that particular church's insistence. In the wider American evangelical context, that isn't that unusual.

More on the Nazarene doctrine of baptism:

Baptism Q&A

He could always go to a Methodist church as they don't have a problem with Catholic infant baptism.

When I attended that church I was not required to be re-baptized. It might even be a particular pastor...?

 

[FireDragon76]

When I attended that church I was not required to be re-baptized. It might even be a particular pastor...?

Yes, I think that is what is going on here. Some of the churches are not getting proper oversight.

 

[Dave-W]

I came to faith in a CotN at age 7. Nothing was ever said about being baptized. It was not until I had friends in a different church that insisted on baptism that I was finally baptized.

 

[Anto9us]

I have no independent recollection of being baptized as an infant, but they say that I was.
I got baptized again at 19 after being saved.
It was not NECESSARY, neither for me or in your brother's case, GG101, but quite permissable to do so.

 

[Brother Kasper]

I attended a Nazarene church years ago with my family. During our time there, I don't recollect anyone ever being baptized, which goes against scripture.

The Word of God tells us that baptism is a part of salvation (Mark 16:16, John 3:5, etc.), but I'll get off of that for right now.

Your question concerns if this individual should be baptized once more after changing churches. If he was baptized correctly (as in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ) the first time and understood the purpose behind said baptism, then I would say, no, he doesn't have to be. However, if he was baptized incorrectly and was too young to understand the purpose of why he got in the water, then yes he should be baptized again.

In saying that, I know neither of these denominations baptize in Jesus' name.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I attended a Nazarene church years ago with my family. During our time there, I don't recollect anyone ever being baptized, which goes against scripture.

The Word of God tells us that baptism is a part of salvation (Mark 16:16, John 3:5, etc.), but I'll get off of that for right now.

Your question concerns if this individual should be baptized once more after changing churches. If he was baptized correctly (as in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ) the first time and understood the purpose behind said baptism, then I would say, no, he doesn't have to be. However, if he was baptized incorrectly and was too young to understand the purpose of why he got in the water, then yes he should be baptized again.

In saying that, I know neither of these denominations baptize in Jesus' name.

What do you mean by "baptize in Jesus' name"?

 

[Rawtheran]

I attended a Nazarene Church for about 10 years and liked it very much.
Very down-to-earth; no strange teachings.

My born again brother has been going to one in Queens, New York for about 5 years now. He was told that he needed to be baptized in THAT church.

He was baptized as a baby in the Catholic church. I believe baptism is baptism at whatever age it is given, IF it is then "accepted" as an adult.

Do those on this forum believe it was necessary for him to be baptized again?

That's very strange..... are you sure that this isn't a Baptist church that you are referring to? I've never once heard of a Nazarene Church doing this as it completely contradicts their theology regarding Prevenient Grace.

 

[Brother Kasper]

What do you mean by "baptize in Jesus' name"?

Baptisms in the New Testament were performed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter instructed as such at Pentecost (Acts 2:38), and four other places in the New Testament show us that new converts were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5; Acts 22:16)

 

[GodsGrace101]

Baptisms in the New Testament were performed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter instructed as such at Pentecost (Acts 2:38), and four other places in the New Testament show us that new converts were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5; Acts 22:16)

Are you saying that the correct form for baptism is not as Jesus instructed in Mathew 28:19.
HE said to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

When the N.T. speaks of baptism in the name of Jesus it is distinguishing from the baptism of John which was for forgiveness of sins...

Jesus' baptism is also for the forgiveness of sins but also to empower us with the dwelling of the Holy Spirit to witness and to live for Him.
Acts 1:8

 

[Methodized]

I am a Methodist. And I'm not always familiar with Nazarene theology. United Methodists don't believe in rebaptism. We believe baptism is a sacrament of God's grace and that baptism is an act of God which only happens once. God does right the first time.

Any Nazarene pastors here who can enlighten me as to what the official teachings of your Church are?

 

[GodsGrace101]

I am a Methodist. And I'm not always familiar with Nazarene theology. United Methodists don't believe in rebaptism. We believe baptism is a sacrament of God's grace and that baptism is an act of God which only happens once. God does right the first time.

Any Nazarene pastors here who can enlighten me as to what the official teachings of your Church are?

Hi M,
I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Some churches require re-baptism when joining their church. This means that baptism has ONLY value for entering a church.

Instead baptism has a real and spiritual value.
When done in the name of the Father, and Son and Holy Spirit, something real happens which should not be repeated since it will be valuable for all time.

 

[Methodized]

Hi M,
I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Some churches require re-baptism when joining their church. This means that baptism has ONLY value for entering a church.

Instead baptism has a real and spiritual value.
When done in the name of the Father, and Son and Holy Spirit, something real happens which should not be repeated since it will be valuable for all time.

Getting re-baptized would be a deal breaker for me. Any church that won't accept a valid baptism from another Christian community is too restrictive/sectarian for me.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Getting re-baptized would be a deal breaker for me. Any church that won't accept a valid baptism from another Christian community is too restrictive/sectarian for me.

Ditto.
This happens these days.
I think we've lost sight of the early church.
Even Wesley's church.
The church is becoming changed and watered down.
Strange concepts abound.
I don't know if it's the pastors/teachers that are becoming more in tune with society...IDK.

 

[Methodized]

Ditto.
This happens these days.
I think we've lost sight of the early church.
Even Wesley's church.
The church is becoming changed and watered down.
Strange concepts abound.
I don't know if it's the pastors/teachers that are becoming more in tune with society...IDK.

Well, Baptists and others who rebaptize have existed since the 1600s. So, it isn't so much that anything has been watered down. They just have a different theology than we do.

 

[Dave-W]

Baptisms in the New Testament were performed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter instructed as such at Pentecost (Acts 2:38), and four other places in the New Testament show us that new converts were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5; Acts 22:16)

The idea that “in the name of Jesus” was something other than Luke’s short-hand for Father Son and Spirit was completely debunked by Derek Prince in his booklet “Burial by Baptism.” (1972)

 

[Dave-W]

Getting re-baptized would be a deal breaker for me. Any church that won't accept a valid baptism from another Christian community is too restrictive/sectarian for me.

I agree with you.

But many Churches think they are the only VALID Christian community.