Should I be rebaptised?

[Triumph1300]

The fact of the matter is that "Backwards dunking" or ANY kind of dunking is NEVER mentioned in Scripture.

Correct.

But what IS mentioned in scripture are both methods of baptism, for instance in a river and pouring.
I'm not sure why this baptism thread is causing so much concern and strive because I believe that our Lord knows the heart of the person and gracefully would accept any baptism when it's sincere and coming from the heart.

Just my two cents on this.
Agree or disagree, feel free. :-)

 

[BreadOfLife]

Correct.

But what IS mentioned in scripture are both methods of baptism, for instance in a river and pouring.
I'm not sure why this baptism thread is causing so much concern and strive because I believe that our Lord knows the heart of the person and gracefully would accept any baptism when it's sincere and coming from the heart.

Just my two cents on this.
Agree or disagree, feel free. :)

I would tend to agree.

I've never understood the "Immersion Only" position since it has NEVER been a position of the historic Christian faith OR of Sacred Scripture.

 

[Stranger]

Once again - you are deliberately ignoring James 5:14-15, that shows explicitly, the priestly conferring of the Holy Spirit on the Baptized (John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Col. 2:11-12, 1 Pet. 3:21).

As I showed you TWICE already - this passages shows that the prayers of the presbyters not only heal the sick person - but bring about the FORGIVENESS of their sins. This is precisely what Baptism does.

I was deliberately addressing your post #(994). And there (James 5:14-15) was not the issue.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

1 Cor. 11:29-30 has to do with violating the Eucharist - the Lord's Supper.

James 5:14-15 is simply talking about sick people. It NEVER mentions WHY they got sick or issues the warnings of 1 Cor. 11:29-30. It's a message about healing and forgiveness - NOT violation and punishment.

The fact remains that the sick person in James 5:14-15 is not only physically healed by the anointing and prayers of the presbyters (priests) - their SINS are FORGIVEN by those prayers.

1 Cor. 11:29-30 has to do with violating the Eucharist - the Lord's Supper.

James 5:14-15 is simply talking about sick people. It NEVER mentions WHY they got sick or issues the warnings of 1 Cor. 11:29-30. It's a message about healing and forgiveness - NOT violation and punishment.

The fact remains that the sick person in James 5:14-15 is not only physically healed by the anointing and prayers of the presbyters (priests) - their SINS are FORGIVEN by those prayers.

Was that a sin? Violating the Lords Supper? And because it was a sin, many were sick. Which shows you don't know what you are talking about. A persons sickness can or cannot be the result of sin.

The fact remains that the person in question in (James 5:14-15) is already a Christian. Thus your example is empty and void of proving any salvation by baptism for an infant.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

I would tend to agree.

I've never understood the "Immersion Only" position since it has NEVER been a position of the historic Christian faith OR of Sacred Scripture.

Who cares? Immersion is not the issue. Infant baptism is. Nice try, Eienstein, on your attempt of diversion. Your are the diversion king.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Was that a sin? Violating the Lords Supper? And because it was a sin, many were sick. Which shows you don't know what you are talking about. A persons sickness can or cannot be the result of sin.

The fact remains that the person in question in (James 5:14-15) is already a Christian. Thus your example is empty and void of proving any salvation by baptism for an infant.

Stranger

The sacrilegious violation of the Eucharist in 1 Cor. 11:29-30 is what causes illness and death. James 5:14-15 has nothing to do with this. The problem of receiving the Lord in drunkenness was a problem in Corinth.

The person in James 5:14-15 is forgiven of their sins based on the prayer of faith of the PRESBYTERS - not the sick person. The SAME thing happens at Baptism - whether it is personal sin from an adult or the removal of the stain of Original Sin from an infant.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Who cares? Immersion is not the issue. Infant baptism is. Nice try, Eienstein, on your attempt of diversion. Your are the diversion king.

Stranger

Immersion Only is a 500 year old Protestant Christian tradition.
Infant Baptism is a 2000 year old Apostolic Christian Tradition.

That's why, Einstein . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I was deliberately addressing your post #(994). And there (James 5:14-15) was not the issue.

Stranger

Acts 2:39 correlates with Matt. 19:14, showing that God sanctifies children and NOT only adults.

This is the CONTEXT that you miss out on because you cherry-pick Scripture . . .

 

[Stranger]

The sacrilegious violation of the Eucharist in 1 Cor. 11:29-30 is what causes illness and death. James 5:14-15 has nothing to do with this. The problem of receiving the Lord in drunkenness was a problem in Corinth.

The person in James 5:14-15 is forgiven of their sins based on the prayer of faith of the PRESBYTERS - not the sick person. The SAME thing happens at Baptism - whether it is personal sin from an adult or the removal of the stain of Original Sin from an infant.

Again, the person in (James 5:14-15) is already a believer. They already have faith. Your comparison is not valid. The faith of others does not cause God to remove sin from anyone. The infant has no faith.

Abuse of the Lord's Supper is a sin. Thus sickness can result from sinning against God. See also (John 5:1-14) Jesus told the man He had healed, "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee."

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Immersion Only is a 500 year old Protestant Christian tradition.
Infant Baptism is a 2000 year old Apostolic Christian Tradition.

That's why, Einstein . . .

Who cares? The subject is not about the method one baptizes. I have no problem with any of the methods. The key question is the faith of the believer coming to be baptized.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Acts 2:39 correlates with Matt. 19:14, showing that God sanctifies children and NOT only adults.

This is the CONTEXT that you miss out on because you cherry-pick Scripture . . .

Sanctification is not the removal of sin which is what you say occurs when an infant is water baptized.

Go back and reread #(997)

Stranger

 

[tabletalk]

The sacrilegious violation of the Eucharist in 1 Cor. 11:29-30 is what causes illness and death. James 5:14-15 has nothing to do with this. The problem of receiving the Lord in drunkenness was a problem in Corinth.

The person in James 5:14-15 is forgiven of their sins based on the prayer of faith of the PRESBYTERS - not the sick person. The SAME thing happens at Baptism - whether it is personal sin from an adult or the removal of the stain of Original Sin from an infant.

(1Corinthians 11) 29. "For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves."

You said:"The sacrilegious violation of the Eucharist in 1 Cor. 11:29-30 is what causes illness and death."

Wouldn't Protestants be automatically subject to this 'violation of the Eucharist' since they do not discern the body of Christ as your Church teaches?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Again, the person in (James 5:14-15) is already a believer. They already have faith. Your comparison is not valid. The faith of others does not cause God to remove sin from anyone. The infant has no faith.

Abuse of the Lord's Supper is a sin. Thus sickness can result from sinning against God. See also (John 5:1-14) Jesus told the man He had healed, "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee."

Stranger

Are you saying that EVERY time YOU got a cold or a flu - it's because you committed some grave sin??
OR, is it simply because of our fallen nature?

You are adding to Scripture when you imply that sick people being spoken of in James 5:14-15 are sick because they sinned. It's a desperate reach on your part because you can't admit that Christ gave His Authority to be handed down to others (2 Tim. 2:2).

 

[BreadOfLife]

(1Corinthians 11) 29. "For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves."

You said:"The sacrilegious violation of the Eucharist in 1 Cor. 11:29-30 is what causes illness and death."

Wouldn't Protestants be automatically subject to this 'violation of the Eucharist' since they do not discern the body of Christ as your Church teaches?

Actually, no.
The "Lord's Supper" in a Protestant service is not the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, so there s no violation. It's just grape juice and oyster crackers.

The Eucharist, however, IS the Lord, by His own words (Matt. 26:26–28, Mark 14:22–24, Luke 22:19–20, 1 Cor. 11:23-25).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sanctification is not the removal of sin which is what you say occurs when an infant is water baptized.

Go back and reread #(997)

Stranger

WRONG.

The process of sanctification INCLUDES the forgiving of sins. How can a person be sanctified if they aren't forgiven??
YOU will continue to sin and, if you repent, continue to be forgiven in your journey of sanctification. So will that baby as he grows up.

 

[Marymog]

I think I must have missed something as I don't understand the reference to 'what they believe' and 'swimming pools'. Also I'm not sure about what you refer to as 'Protestant churches'. They would include Methodists and Church of England who practise infant 'baptism' not the believers baptism of full immersion.

Hey Pearl,

Scholars, historians, Webster's dictionary and in common language between two persons a "Protestant Church" would not be Catholic or Eastern. Since BOL and I are Catholic my "what they believe" statement would be inferred as 'what Protestants believe'.

Definition of PROTESTANT

The swimming pool reference is simple: when you jump off a diving board into water you can't avoid it and you are going to become fully immersed in water. It doesn't matter if you are jumping off a diving board into the water or being dunked backwards as long as you are fully immersed for some Protestant baptisms.

Hope that helps....Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

Who cares? The subject is not about the method one baptizes. I have no problem with any of the methods. The key question is the faith of the believer coming to be baptized.

Stranger

WHO cares??
YOU care. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this debate.

The ENTIRE debate is about the Tradition of Infant Baptism. The Catholic position is that it is an Apostolic Tradition - handed down by the APOSTLES themselves. I have presented several writings from the Early Church testifying to this fact.

Just because the method of full immersion is NOT explicitly mentioned i Scripture doesn't mean that it is invalid. The SAME goes for Baptism by Pouring and Infant Baptism.

Baptism by full immersion may be IMPLIED by Scripture - but so is Infant Baptism.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

WHO cares??
YOU care. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this debate.

The ENTIRE debate is about the Tradition of Infant Baptism. The Catholic position is that it is an Apostolic Tradition - handed down by the APOSTLES themselves. I have presented several writings from the Early Church testifying to this fact.

Just because the method of full immersion is NOT explicitly mentioned i Scripture doesn't mean that it is invalid. The SAME goes for Baptism by Pouring and Infant Baptism.

Baptism by full immersion may be IMPLIED by Scripture - but so is Infant Baptism.

BOL, the biggest issue here is "*why* should a person be baptized?".


The then "How should such a person go about being baptized" is a secondary issue.

 

[Pearl]

Hey Pearl,

Scholars, historians, Webster's dictionary and in common language between two persons a "Protestant Church" would not be Catholic or Eastern. Since BOL and I are Catholic my "what they believe" statement would be inferred as 'what Protestants believe'.

Definition of PROTESTANT

The swimming pool reference is simple: when you jump off a diving board into water you can't avoid it and you are going to become fully immersed in water. It doesn't matter if you are jumping off a diving board into the water or being dunked backwards as long as you are fully immersed for some Protestant baptisms.

Hope that helps....Mary

Thanks for clearing that up Mary. I hope you are well.

 

[BreadOfLife]

BOL, the biggest issue here is "*why* should a person be baptized?".

The then "How should such a person go about being baptized" is a secondary issue.

Yup - and the "WHY" is spiritual regeneration - even for infants.

This is what Jesus taught (John 3:5), this is what Peter taught (Acts 2:38), this is what Paul taught (Col. 2:11-12). This is what the Early Church taught and has been the constant living teaching of the historic Christian faith for 2000 years. This is what your Protestant Fathers like Luther and Calvin taught.

This ONLY came into question over the last few hundred years.
I wonder why that is??