Should I be rebaptised?

[bbyrd009]

I hope if I ever do get saved that I would be immune to the bottom rows myself :)

 

[Acolyte]

I hope if I ever do get saved that I would be immune to the bottom rows myself :)

;):)

 

[Taken]

This is something I tried to ask my mom about. I was baptised as a baby, is it all I need? I don't want to put Jesus back on the cross, I just want the salvation, cleansing, filled with the spirit.. my faith in Him is strong, my repentence true.

Wasn't sure where to put this, please move if it's in the wrong forum. Ty

John's Baptizing was John Baptizing others with Water: FOR the Remission / pardoning / forgiving of sins.

We KNOW, Jesus had "no sin", nor Committed "sin", yet as our example revealed and partook in John's Water Baptism.

Water, did not, does not, "REMOVE" sin, OR "KEEP" one "FROM" committing sin.

Water, did not, does not, BAPTIZE a person with the Internal Holy Spirit (nor does Scripture reveal Jesus "received the Internal Holy Spirit",) when John Baptized Jesus with Water.

Scripture, Even John himself, revealed, Baptism of the Holy Spirit, is a Spirital (not visual) ACT of Christ Jesus, When a person received the Internal Holy Spirit.

One receiving the Internal Holy Spirit, IS One becoming Forgiven of ALL Sin, Freed from All Sin, and Forever Sealed Unto God.

So, to your wondering;
Baptized as a BABY;
1) Was not your own choice.
2) Was the Baptism of John.
3) Typically in modern times, Allows one to be a member of THAT Church.

Nothing in Scripture reveals the need for anyone to repeatedly by Baptized with John's Baptism of Water, or that a repeated Water Baptism shames the Lord.

(IFY - A membership of one in a particular Church, can be Transfered to another Church, BY LETTER, and not a repeated Water Baptism).

Once a man HAS BECOME BAPTIZED with the Internal Holy Spirit....AND the Individual "AGAIN" asks for the "Holy Spirit" to Baptize him....that Individual has Shamed the Lord.

Basically, the individual has revealed he did not Trust the Lords Word to be True and Sufficient Once and Forever.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[farouk]

Did he say this to the church or his disciples prior to Pentecost?

Before Pentecost there was the baptism of John, unto repentance.

 

[Acolyte]

I don't want to shame our Saviour. If he recognizes my infant baptism, I do also.
Mostly, I want Him to know I love and believe Him. Obedience is the only reason I asked, as I know that who I once was has died and His spirit dwells in me. There is no other way to explain it. :)

 

[Marymog]

I have no "dogma" unlike the RCC which has official dogma. I have the Bible as interpreted by the Holy Spirit as the basis of understanding faith and the practice thereof. Calling me a hypocrite is not very becoming of you. And it is one lie too many. Enough.

You don't have an established opinion on Scripture? You don't have a formally stated doctrine concerning faith or morals? You don't have a principle or position or the body of principles? That is what dogma is.

I suspect you do have dogma because you have been articulating them on this forum.

BTW.....I didn't call you a hypocrite. I asked you if you are being hypocritical. Only you can answer that QUESTION. A QUESTION is NOT an accusation.

 

[Marymog]

Didn't say He baptized them.

(Col. 2:11-12) says nothing of infant baptism.

Makes sense because that is the way it is supposed to be. One believes and then one is baptized. Pretty straight forward.

Stanger

I agree with you and the CC agrees with you. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that infants were baptized. Also, Nowhere in scripture does it say DON'T baptize them.

So we have to look at other passages from Scripture and historical writings; what did the 1st and 2nd century Christians practice. For 2,000 years Christians have baptized infants. Instead you and your ilk practice in the 16th century teaching which has become a tradition of men for the last 500 years.

You practice a tradition of men. Catholics practice what is in Scripture: Entire families are baptized (acts 16:33, Acts 2:38-39) and baptize all nations/people (Matthew 28:19). The Catholic Church (and other churches) let the chidren come to him just like Scripture says (Matt. 19:14). In Scripture Baptism is equated to circumcision.

The earliest historical writings from your church show they were arguing if waiting 8 days after birth was to LATE. (Cyprian of Carthage 253 AD)

Scripture and your own Christian history show that you are wrong.

Historical Mary

PS....@Breadoflife post 166 covers deflates your theory also

 

[Marymog]

He told me last night..."Don't listen to marymog" I asked why? He said, 'She is crazy as a bed bug'. I said, I know but she is always in stitches. He said, 'what do you expect'.

Baptism can be performed by any believer in Christ. Infant baptism is not a legitimate baptism. Chime in on that.

Stranger

@Nancy likes it when you call your fellow Christians crazy....I feel sad for both of you and will pray that both of you obtain more grace and kindness....

Ummmm.....If a baptism can be performed by any believer in Christ then that means I can perform baptisms. Sooooo if I choose to baptize a infant it would be a legitimate baptism. ;)

BTW....The Church agrees with you....Baptism can be performed by any believer in Christ. Does it bother you that you and the CC have the same belief?

Curious Mary

 

[Stranger]

I agree with you and the CC agrees with you. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that infants were baptized. Also, Nowhere in scripture does it say DON'T baptize them.

So we have to look at other passages from Scripture and historical writings; what did the 1st and 2nd century Christians practice. For 2,000 years Christians have baptized infants. Instead you and your ilk practice in the 16th century teaching which has become a tradition of men for the last 500 years.

You practice a tradition of men. Catholics practice what is in Scripture: Entire families are baptized (acts 16:33, Acts 2:38-39) and baptize all nations/people (Matthew 28:19). The Catholic Church (and other churches) let the chidren come to him just like Scripture says (Matt. 19:14). In Scripture Baptism is equated to circumcision.

The earliest historical writings from your church show they were arguing if waiting 8 days after birth was to LATE. (Cyprian of Carthage 253 AD)

Scripture and your own Christian history show that you are wrong.

Historical Mary

PS....@Breadoflife post 166 covers deflates your theory also

Scripture provides the purpose and reason to be baptized. One believes and is baptized. (Acts 2:34-38) Anyone baptized in Scripture was a believer.

Entire families would have been baptized as they would have believed. Infants are not in the place to make a decision.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

@Nancy likes it when you call your fellow Christians crazy....I feel sad for both of you and will pray that both of you obtain more grace and kindness....

Ummmm.....If a baptism can be performed by any believer in Christ then that means I can perform baptisms. Sooooo if I choose to baptize a infant it would be a legitimate baptism. ;)

BTW....The Church agrees with you....Baptism can be performed by any believer in Christ. Does it bother you that you and the CC have the same belief?

Curious Mary

You mockingly asked me if God told me this . I mockingly replied to you. Don't be too sad for me, I am not affected by your 'sadness'.

If you or anyone else performs an infant baptism, the infant is not baptized.

I agree with many things the Roman Church says. But, I disagree with many also. Same with Protestant and other churches.

Stranger

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Before Pentecost there was the baptism of John, unto repentance.

True but, if you will recall, John's baptism did not confer the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. When Paul inquired as to whether a group of believers had received the Holy Spirit baptism, they responded that they had only received John's baptism.

It seems to have been normative to lay hands on the newly converted for the conferral of spiritual gifts stemming from the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. (see 1 Timothy 4:14)

 

[Waiting on him]

True but, if you will recall, John's baptism did not confer the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. When Paul inquired as to whether a group of believers had received the Holy Spirit baptism, they responded that they had only received John's baptism.

It seems to have been normative to lay hands on the newly converted for the conferral of spiritual gifts stemming from the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. (see 1 Timothy 4:14)

Are you suggesting a person can receive the Holy Spirit without water baptism?

 

[Marymog]

Scripture provides the purpose and reason to be baptized. One believes and is baptized. (Acts 2:34-38) Anyone baptized in Scripture was a believer.

Entire families would have been baptized as they would have believed. Infants are not in the place to make a decision.

Stranger

Hi Stranger,

Sooooo let me see if I understand you correctly and I apologize in advance if I don't understand you.

You are saying entire families would have been baptized but only the members that have the mental capacity to understand what they were told would be baptized. At what age does a person become old enough to understand what they have been told about Jesus so they can start believing? What is the age of accountability? For the sake of discussion is it ok if we say that infants are 5 yoa and younger?

I agree with you. Scripture is rife with examples of adults being preached to, believing and then being baptized. You gave a very good example with your Acts 2:34-38 reference. Why did you not completely quote that passage??? For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” You didn't fully quote scripture because the rest of that passage doesn't fit what you believe.


Mary

 

[Marymog]

You mockingly asked me if God told me this . I mockingly replied to you. Don't be too sad for me, I am not affected by your 'sadness'.

If you or anyone else performs an infant baptism, the infant is not baptized.

I agree with many things the Roman Church says. But, I disagree with many also. Same with Protestant and other churches.

Stranger

Dear, dear Stranger,

You said that Baptism is real only if it is in accordance with God. You also stated that YOUR view of baptism is the view of Scripture. The only way you could KNOW if your view of baptism is in accordance with God is if God told you. Sooooo asking you a question to clarify what you are saying is NOT mocking. A question is at times meant for clarification. Instead of clarifying.....you called me crazy. How sad for you.

For you to suggest that the 1 billion plus people around the world who practice infant baptism and the greatest Christian theologians in the 2,000 year history of Christianity are wrong about infant baptism and that you are right is because YOUR view of infant baptism is supported by Scripture very prideful on your part.

Calling someone crazy is mocking them???? In my life and the life of most kind, caring, loving Christian people calling someone crazy is a hurtful thing to say. Maybe you lack those qualities?

So what you meant to say is that any Christian can baptize another person as long as the person being baptized is not an infant?

WOW.....You disagree with everyone?? The truth must have been revealed to you since the men of ALL those other Churches are wrong....

Praying for ya'....Mary

Hopefully @Nancy is praying for you also. I find it hard to believe she is since she liked your hurtful statement.

 

[Stranger]

Hi Stranger,

Sooooo let me see if I understand you correctly and I apologize in advance if I don't understand you.

You are saying entire families would have been baptized but only the members that have the mental capacity to understand what they were told would be baptized. At what age does a person become old enough to understand what they have been told about Jesus so they can start believing? What is the age of accountability? For the sake of discussion is it ok if we say that infants are 5 yoa and younger?

I agree with you. Scripture is rife with examples of adults being preached to, believing and then being baptized. You gave a very good example with your Acts 2:34-38 reference. Why did you not completely quote that passage??? For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” You didn't fully quote scripture because the rest of that passage doesn't fit what you believe.


Mary

I only quoted the passages that had direct meaning to baptism. (Acts 2:39) is talking about the promise God has given. Yes, it is for the children of Israel and of all of the Gentiles who God may call. It means nothing to proving any infant baptism. The promise is directly given to Israel and his descendant's. The rest of the passage does not affect in any way what I believe.

I haven't said anything about any age of accountability. You can choose whatever age you like. I have said there is no such thing as infant baptism.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Dear, dear Stranger,

You said that Baptism is real only if it is in accordance with God. You also stated that YOUR view of baptism is the view of Scripture. The only way you could KNOW if your view of baptism is in accordance with God is if God told you. Sooooo asking you a question to clarify what you are saying is NOT mocking. A question is at times meant for clarification. Instead of clarifying.....you called me crazy. How sad for you.

For you to suggest that the 1 billion plus people around the world who practice infant baptism and the greatest Christian theologians in the 2,000 year history of Christianity are wrong about infant baptism and that you are right is because YOUR view of infant baptism is supported by Scripture very prideful on your part.

Calling someone crazy is mocking them???? In my life and the life of most kind, caring, loving Christian people calling someone crazy is a hurtful thing to say. Maybe you lack those qualities?

So what you meant to say is that any Christian can baptize another person as long as the person being baptized is not an infant?

WOW.....You disagree with everyone?? The truth must have been revealed to you since the men of ALL those other Churches are wrong....

Praying for ya'....Mary

Hopefully @Nancy is praying for you also. I find it hard to believe she is since she liked your hurtful statement.

Scripture Mary...Scripture. You want to mock me because I hold to Scripture. So, I mocked your insinuation. Get over it.

It's not pride to say infant baptism is worthless. It is being true to Scripture.

Oh, I guess you are telling me you are kind, and caring, and loving? Glad you told me. I mean...I'm sure you are. You know Mary, you like to dish it out, but you can't take it.

What I meant to say is what I said. Any believer can baptize. There is no such thing as infant baptism.

No, I don't disagree with everyone. I do disagree with you.

Are you Mary? Are you really praying for me? Do you go to bed at night and pray for me? Do you? What do you pray?

Stranger

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Scripture Mary...Scripture. You want to mock me because I hold to Scripture. So, I mocked your insinuation. Get over it.

It's not pride to say infant baptism is worthless. It is being true to Scripture.

Oh, I guess you are telling me you are kind, and caring, and loving? Glad you told me. I mean...I'm sure you are. You know Mary, you like to dish it out, but you can't take it.

What I meant to say is what I said. Any believer can baptize. There is no such thing as infant baptism.

No, I don't disagree with everyone. I do disagree with you.

Are you Mary? Are you really praying for me? Do you go bed at night and pray for me? Do you? What do you pray?

Stranger

I have Marymog on "ignore" but I got the gist of her arguments from your post, Stranger. They refuse to answer the questions: 1) If Jesus said that His followers should make disciples of all people [groups] and then baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit--how does infant baptism fit into that paradigm? How does one make a disciple of an infant? 2) If infants have not sinned (and they haven't according to Romans 9:11--they have done neither right nor wrong) why baptize them as a symbol of turning from sin and turning toward God? She is using the argument that "50,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong" when she says you "disagree with everyone". I would point her to the Anabaptists who did not believe in infant baptism and were horribly persecuted for it by the RCC.

 

[Stranger]

I have Marymog on "ignore" but I got the gist of her arguments from your post, Stranger. They refuse to answer the questions: 1) If Jesus said that His followers should make disciples of all people [groups] and then baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit--how does infant baptism fit into that paradigm? How does one make a disciple of an infant? 2) If infants have not sinned (and they haven't according to Romans 9:11--they have done neither right nor wrong) why baptize them as a symbol of turning from sin and turning toward God? She is using the argument that "50,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong" when she says you "disagree with everyone". I would point her to the Anabaptists who did not believe in infant baptism and were horribly persecuted for it by the RCC.

You make some very good points. I will remember them.

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

I only quoted the passages that had direct meaning to baptism. (Acts 2:39) is talking about the promise God has given. Yes, it is for the children of Israel and of all of the Gentiles who God may call. It means nothing to proving any infant baptism. The promise is directly given to Israel and his descendant's. The rest of the passage does not affect in any way what I believe.

I haven't said anything about any age of accountability. You can choose whatever age you like. I have said there is no such thing as infant baptism.

Stranger

Oh goodness.......This is confusing.

I agree with you that you never said anything about the age of accountability. You did say that “One believes and is baptized” and that “Anyone baptized in Scripture was a believer” further saying that “Infants are not in the place to make a decision’. All of YOUR statements suggest that a person has to be rationale enough to make their own decisions and know right from wrong before they can AGREE to being baptized. Hence a person would have to be acccountable for their decision and in most societies we hold children accountable for their decisions before their teen years. Scripture says NOTHING about a persons age concerning baptism. It does say that the decision for the family to be baptized was made by the head of the family. Jewish and Christian history tells us that the decision is made by the head of the family. What YOU are preaching does not match up with what scripture or your own Christian history says.

You have told me any Christian can baptize another person BUT THEN you told me if I baptize an infant it wouldn’t be valid which means I really can’t baptize another person.....VERY CONFUSING.

You are now telling me I can choose whatever age I like but IN THE NEXT SENTENCE you say their is no such thing as infant baptism.....VERY CONFUSING!!!

You have now disregarded the promise to MY CHILDREN as stated in Acts 2:39. You have taken that very clear passage that says “your children” and changed it to the children of Israel and/or Gentiles......VERY CONFUSING and dishonest.

YOU won’t allow me to have my entire family baptized. Scripture allows it.

YOU won’t allow all my children to be baptized. Scripture says it is for me and my children.

YOU won’t allow infant baptism to be valid but 2,000 years of Christian teaching says it is. You side on the 500 year teaching of the Reformers.

You have produced ZERO evidence from Scripture that says not to baptize infants. You have given me ZERO evidence from history that shows that infant baptism was argued against in the first 300 years of Christianity. If you gave me one shred of evidence to support your belief I would switch to your side.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Scripture Mary...Scripture. You want to mock me because I hold to Scripture. So, I mocked your insinuation. Get over it.

It's not pride to say infant baptism is worthless. It is being true to Scripture.

Oh, I guess you are telling me you are kind, and caring, and loving? Glad you told me. I mean...I'm sure you are. You know Mary, you like to dish it out, but you can't take it.

What I meant to say is what I said. Any believer can baptize. There is no such thing as infant baptism.

No, I don't disagree with everyone. I do disagree with you.

Are you Mary? Are you really praying for me? Do you go to bed at night and pray for me? Do you? What do you pray?

Stranger

Hmmm....and still no apology for insulting me.....how sad.

Yes, I am really praying for you. Not only for the insult that you refuse to apologize for but also when given the chance to say you oppose child sex slavery you refused to say it. That DEEPLY concerns me. I wonder if @Lady Crosstalk or @Nancy “like” your stance on that???

I believe in the past you have stated that baptism is not symbolic. You agree with the 2,000 year teaching of The Church.

Soooooo how did the men of The Church (and some Protestant churches) get infant baptism wrong and you got it right????

Are you able to interpret scripture better than them????

Praying and Curious Mary