Is Re-Baptism Scriptural?

[Agnus_Dei]

soaking wet...

In XC
-

 

[Marcia]

Exactly. Vibrations make sounds which we associate ideas with when they create recognized words... Vibrations.

In the same way, we have actions that also have meaning. When we do these actions, we express that meaning in ourselves. In the same manner when we ascent to the Sacred Texts, we 'yoke' ourselves with it's meaning. It mingles with us, and it changes us from the inside out.

Everything we do has meaning in our Faith. Baptism is no different.

If words are just vibrations and have no objective meaning, then why does God reveal Himself through the Bible, which is all words? And those words were a revelation from God.

"Yoking" ourselves to the meaning of the text is a very subjective view, imo, if I am understanding you. This sounds neo-orthodox to me, i.e., "the meaning of the words come alive when we read them." That is incorrect. The meaning is objective and is already there, whether we read the words or not.

However, I do believe that since the Bible is God's word, it is not just a regular book, of course, so God's word does change us. But I also think that the meaning in the words is objective.

 

[Marcia]

Water baptism is representative of one's faith in Christ; it is the outward act reflecting the inner change. I think it is important, even though baptism is not salvific nor does it confer grace, because being baptized is being obedient and is making your profession of Christ very visible and public.

As for the OP, if one has been baptized but not as a believer, they should be baptized again when becoming a believer.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: But I also think that the meaning in the words is objective.

HP: Mt 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mt 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

Would you say then they what they lacked was really mere objectivity? Maybe if they would have had a Greek lexicon or dictionary to help comprehend the words they might have been able to understand and believe?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: …nor does it confer grace’

HP: Repentance does not confer grace, faith does not confer grace, worship does not confer grace, the preacher does not confer grace, the missionary does not confer grace, Sunday school does not confer grace, ordinances do not confer grace, and on and on we might go, but that is not what has been stated. The thing in and of itself does not confer grace but all the above can be 'means' by which grace is conferred. God is Sovereign you know, and can confer grace by any number of means, even by an individual, or through ordinances. The most important part is that the receiving individual’s heart is open and obedient to receive God’s grace by whatever means it might be conferred.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Double post, Sorry.

 

[Marcia]

HP: Mt 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mt 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

Would you say then they what they lacked was really mere objectivity? Maybe if they would have had a Greek lexicon or dictionary to help comprehend the words they might have been able to understand and believe?

I am talking about the issue of words being noise/vibrations vs. having an objective meaning. Yes, even parables have an objective meaning. This sentence has an objective meaning.

The reason they didn't understand Jesus' parables sometimes (because sometimes they did) is because they already were hardened against God and looking for the wrong Messiah, not that they lacked objectivity. Iow, they did not want to understand.

 

[Marcia]

HP: Repentance does not confer grace, faith does not confer grace, worship does not confer grace, the preacher does not confer grace, the missionary does not confer grace, Sunday school does not confer grace, ordinances do not confer grace, and on and on we might go, but that is not what has been stated. The thing in and of itself does not confer grace but all the above can be 'means' by which grace is conferred. God is Sovereign you know, and can confer grace by any number of means, even by an individual, or through ordinances. The most important part is that the receiving individual’s heart is open and obedient to receive God’s grace by whatever means it might be conferred.

Grace for salvation is conferred regarding belief in Christ. I was addressing water baptism as conferring or not conferring salvific grace.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: The reason they didn't understand Jesus' parables sometimes (because sometimes they did) is because they already were hardened against God and looking for the wrong Messiah, not that they lacked objectivity. Iow, they did not want to understand.

HP: I agree. Sad to say that goes on today even in the so-called church with some of the most ‘objectified’ individuals. Ever learning, full of objective truth, yet never coming to ‘the’ truth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: Grace for salvation is conferred regarding belief in Christ. I was addressing water baptism as conferring or not conferring salvific grace.

HP: I understand. No one stated that I know of that water baptism conferres 'salvic' grace. It has been stated though that baptism can certainly be a means by which God conferrs grace, just as many other things can as well. Grace is not only conferred in a salvic manner. We receive grace upon grace.

 

[DHK]

HP: I understand. No one stated that I know of that water baptism conferres 'salvic' grace. It has been stated though that baptism can certainly be a means by which God conferrs grace, just as many other things can as well. Grace is not only conferred in a salvic manner. We receive grace upon grace.

Catholics and Orthodox believe in baptismal regeneration, that is that salvation comes through baptism or "water baptism confers salvic grace" if you wish to put it that way. Either way their belief is that baptism is a requirement for salvation, without which you cannot be saved. This is heresy. Salvation is by grace through faith. Baptism is a work. We are not saved by works.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Believers in Acts 19 were re-baptized.
It sounds like you put too much emphasis on baptism.
There are Baptist Churches that make baptism a requirement for church membership no matter if you believe you have been Scripturally baptized or not. They would also practice "closed communion".
They don't make a mockery of baptism, as you claim. They place, perhaps a greater importance on baptism than you do. They are Baptist. But because their church polity is different than what you believe, are they to be condemned?

Not condemned as in going to hell, but just as wrong. I find it ironic that I can join almost any Christian denomination with my Baptist baptism, but not some other Baptist churches. If a church wanted me to be "re-baptized", I just wouldn't be able to join that church.

 

[DHK]

Not condemned as in going to hell, but just as wrong. I find it ironic that I can join almost any Christian denomination with my Baptist baptism, but not some other Baptist churches. If a church wanted me to be "re-baptized", I just wouldn't be able to join that church.

I agree. It's a matter of soul liberty. If you can go the extra step to agree with their polity or agree to disagree and submit to any way, then one has no problem. Others have a problem with being re-baptized for any reason and would never join such a church. No one is forcing them to.

The church that I am a member of regularly re-baptizes people from other denominations that are not of life faith and order. That is especially when they are from a Charismatic background. The baptism would be more of a sign of identification. They are leaving the error of the Charismatic movement behind; making a clear break from it; starting afresh, even if they were saved and baptized previously.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I agree. It's a matter of soul liberty. If you can go the extra step to agree with their polity or agree to disagree and submit to any way, then one has no problem. Others have a problem with being re-baptized for any reason and would never join such a church. No one is forcing them to.

The church that I am a member of regularly re-baptizes people from other denominations that are not of life faith and order. That is especially when they are from a Charismatic background. The baptism would be more of a sign of identification. They are leaving the error of the Charismatic movement behind; making a clear break from it; starting afresh, even if they were saved and baptized previously.

I'm sorry if I came across as a jerk earlier. Let me explain what I think our difference is- I view baptism as identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. You seem to view it as that plus identification with Baptist churches of like faith and order with yours. Is that a fair summary?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Catholics and Orthodox believe in baptismal regeneration, that is that salvation comes through baptism or "water baptism confers salvic grace" if you wish to put it that way. Either way their belief is that baptism is a requirement for salvation, without which you cannot be saved. This is heresy. Salvation is by grace through faith. Baptism is a work. We are not saved by works.

we read in Acts 2 that evangelism wasn't enough, for the people still asked St. Peter what they must do to be saved...(1)repent AND (2) let ever one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins AND (3) receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In the incisive words of that great nineteenth century Anglican theologian Dr. E.B. Pusey:

The plain letter of Scripture says, "We are saved by baptism, .. and men say, "We are not saved by baptism." Our Lord says, "A man must be born of water and the spirit": man, that he need not, cannot be born of water. Scripture, that "we are saved by the washing of regeneration" man, that we are not, but by regeneration which is as a washing. Scripture, that "we are baptized for the remission of sins": man, that we are not, but to attest that remission. Scripture, that "whosoever has been baptized into Christ has put on Christ": man, that he has not. Scripture, that "they have been buried with Him by baptism into death": man, that they have not. Scripture, that "Christ cleansed the Church by the washing of water by the word": man, that he did not, for bare elements could have no such virtue. Scripture, "that we were baptized into one body": men, that we were not, but that we were in that body before. Surely they have entered into a most perilous path, which unless they are checked in pursuing it, must end in the rejection of all Scripture truth which does not square with their own previous opinions.​

Tract on Baptism

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

I'm sorry if I came across as a jerk earlier. Let me explain what I think our difference is- I view baptism as identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. You seem to view it as that plus identification with Baptist churches of like faith and order with yours. Is that a fair summary?

Both. I believe most importantly that it is, as you say, an identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and second;
with our death to our old life, and rising again to a new life in Christ, and
third, only in some cases when a person has been mixed up in error, identification with Baptist or Biblical doctrine and a clean separation from that which was false.

 

[DHK]

we read in Acts 2 that evangelism wasn't enough, for the people still asked St. Peter what they must do to be saved...(1)repent AND (2) let ever one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins AND (3) receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
-

It wasn't in this thread but another recent thread that I went very carefully through the meaning of Acts 2:38 and demonstrated how your interpretation of it is absolutely wrong. There is no need to regurgitate the same things over and over again when you have been shown to be wrong on these things. There is no Scripture that demands baptism before repentance, including this one; and no Scripture that states baptism brings remission of sins including this one.
Your lack of understanding the verse, even as it has been previously explained to you, is your problem.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

It wasn't in this thread but another recent thread that I went very carefully through the meaning of Acts 2:38 and demonstrated how your interpretation of it is absolutely wrong. There is no need to regurgitate the same things over and over again when you have been shown to be wrong on these things. There is no Scripture that demands baptism before repentance, including this one; and no Scripture that states baptism brings remission of sins including this one.
Your lack of understanding the verse, even as it has been previously explained to you, is your problem.

no, it's YOUR lack of understanding...you've been shown time and time again that your interpretation is wrong.

Acts 2 CLEARLY states to repent AND...AND...be BAPTIZED for the remission of sins...the text doesn't say...repent for the remission of sins and be baptized.

your interpretation and what you've been taught and what you preach are all in error.

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

no, it's YOUR lack of understanding...you've been shown time and time again that your interpretation is wrong.

Acts 2 CLEARLY states to repent AND...AND...be BAPTIZED for the remission of sins...the text doesn't say...repent for the remission of sins and be baptized.

your interpretation and what you've been taught and what you preach are all in error.

In XC
-

Here I found it for you:
http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1509037&postcount=165

I'll even paste it in for you to save you the trouble of going there:

No enough has not been said since you have a complete misunderstanding of this verse. Let's look at it.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
--The Greek word "for" is "eis" which has a variety of meanings. It is one of the most common Greek prepositions used in the Greek language. Let's look at another passage which has a parallel construction:

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance...
--Here the word "unto" is the same Greek word "eis".
But what does it mean? Does it mean that the water will produce repentance? No. John required repentance before he would baptize them. In fact he said plainly:

Matthew 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
--He wanted the fruit of repentance, and then he would baptize them.
First repentance, and then baptism. That was the order. Thus in Matthew 3:11 one could translate it: "I indeed baptize you with water because of repentance."

The same is true in Acts 2:38
Acts 2:38 ...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
--be baptized...because your sins have been remitted or forgiven. The word "eis" having the same meaning, and using the same construction as Mat.3:11 means on account of, or because of, or on the basis of. Because their sins were remitted they could be baptized. That is the meaning of the verse.

Scripture harmonizes with Scripture.
One must take the totality of Scripture into consideration. Your view contradicts the rest of the Bible. You hang your theory on just one or two misunderstood verses in the Bible while ignoring the rest of the Bible.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Here I found it for you:
http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1509037&postcount=165
Scripture harmonizes with Scripture.
One must take the totality of Scripture into consideration. Your view contradicts the rest of the Bible. You hang your theory on just one or two misunderstood verses in the Bible while ignoring the rest of the Bible.

sorry, but i believe the Church's 2,000 years of consistent teaching on the subject of baptism is quite clear...regardless of what some modern day prophet has to say...

The whole "...because of..." argument of baptism/remission of sins in regard to Acts 2 as i learned it from adult sunday school as a former baptist, was first suggested by the Baptist scholar, Dr. John A. Broadus. Broadus had been writing articles critical of the Campbell-Stone movement since the mid 1800's. It was Broadus new found correct interpretation from the Greek that was furthered by A.T. Robertson, yet another influential scholar among baptist.

but any way...IF baptism accomplishes nothing but a 'public profession of faith in Christ, and a testimony of the change that has previously taken place...IF baptism was for the saved, to demonstrate what they had already had in Christ...then WHY do people receive the Holy Spirit AFTER their baptism in the Book of Acts?

in Acts 8:12, Philip went and preached to those in Samaria. When they believed the Gospel they were baptized. interestingly enough they did not receive the Holy Spirit until the Apostles Peter and John came and laid their hands upon them (Acts 8:14-17).

so much for "believer's baptism" huh? Here they believed and were baptized and yet did not receive the Holy Spirit until three days later. Baptism here clearly was not to show publicly what they had already received, for they had yet to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

moreover, why was the Holy Spirit given through the Apostles and not just any believer? One man seeing that it was through the Apostles that the Holy Spirit was given even offered money for this power. This authority, however, was not for sale (Acts 8:18-23).

and simply why in 2010 would this be any different? was this just a NT deal that the resurrected Christ appeared to the Apostles and breathed on them the Holy Spirit and granted them authority to remit and retain sins (Jn. 20: 21-23)? even St. Paul had this authority (Acts 19: 3-7).

in XC
-