Is Re-Baptism Scriptural?

[dcorbett]

I received the Holy Spirit to indwell when I was saved, not when I was baptized. The thief on the cross was never baptized, and he believed and was saved. You will never convince me otherwise, and I don't know why you try. That would mean I was saved by WORKS and not by GRACE.


Baptism was only a picture of his burial and resurrection, and I was "buried with Him and rose in the new likeness of Him" i.e. my salvation, it would do nothing but get me wet if I hadn't wanted to share this picture of what already had happened with my church family.

So Agnes, what do you do with the word "Baptize" since it means "immerse" ? How do you justify "sprinkling" when it is nowhere in the Holy Bible? What do you do with the verses where they "went down" into the water and were baptized? Do you just overlook them?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

So Agnes, what do you do with the word "Baptize" since it means "immerse" ? How do you justify "sprinkling" when it is nowhere in the Holy Bible? What do you do with the verses where they "went down" into the water and were baptized? Do you just overlook them?

I'm an Orthodox Christian...we practice baptism by immersion...

In XC
-

 

[lori4dogs]

I received the Holy Spirit to indwell when I was saved, not when I was baptized. The thief on the cross was never baptized, and he believed and was saved. You will never convince me otherwise, and I don't know why you try. That would mean I was saved by WORKS and not by GRACE.


Baptism was only a picture of his burial and resurrection, and I was "buried with Him and rose in the new likeness of Him" i.e. my salvation, it would do nothing but get me wet if I hadn't wanted to share this picture of what already had happened with my church family.

So Agnes, what do you do with the word "Baptize" since it means "immerse" ? How do you justify "sprinkling" when it is nowhere in the Holy Bible? What do you do with the verses where they "went down" into the water and were baptized? Do you just overlook them?

Orthodox Catholics get real wet when they are baptized. Lets not forget there are a whole lot of other Christians that believe it is necessary (not a suggestion to be baptized) to be born again. Lets not forget the Lutherans, Anglicans, CoC, the Roman Church, etc. Read the Early Church Fathers and see if they thought Baptism was necessary. The bible says it, I believe it and for me that settles it. With all the wiggling you do with scriptures that plainly state baptism is necessary you won't convince me that Christianity from it's beginning has taught differently. History is just not in your favor.

 

[DHK]

Orthodox Catholics get real wet when they are baptized. Lets not forget there are a whole lot of other Christians that believe it is necessary (not a suggestion to be baptized) to be born again. Lets not forget the Lutherans, Anglicans, CoC, the Roman Church, etc.

Orthodox and Anglican are both off-shoots of the RCC. It is no wonder that their beliefs are similar. Anglicans are being welcomed back into the RCC fold. It is likely that the Orthodox someday will also.
Luther came out of the RCC and no doubt carried some of his RCC baggage with him. But Luther did not believe in baptismal regeneration. He was at the forefront of the Reformation if you remember history. His great proclamation to the RCC was "Justification by faith." So strongly did he believe in this doctrine that he wanted to remove the Book of James from the Bible because he thought that it taught contrary to justification by faith. He certainly didn't believe in baptismal regeneration as you suppose.
The Church of Christ is considered a cult by most, along with the J.W.'s and Mormons. They teach salvation by works, baptism being one of those works. So join a cult if you truly believe that salvation is necessary for salvation. It is a cultish belief.

Read the Early Church Fathers and see if they thought Baptism was necessary.

I have. They contradict themselves. Even Tertullian changed his mind on baptism more than once during his lifetime.

The bible says it, I believe it and for me that settles it.

The Bible says it has nothing to do with salvation. It is only symbolic. Does that settle it for you?

With all the wiggling you do with scriptures that plainly state baptism is necessary you won't convince me that Christianity from it's beginning has taught differently.

Christianity began at the Day of Pentecost. What did they do?

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
1. They heard the Word (and were saved).
2. Then they were baptized.
3. Then they were added to the church (at Jerusalem).
--This was the order all throughout the Book of Acts.
(salvation, then baptism, then church membership).

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Philip preached the gospel to the Ethiopian Eunuch. He got saved, and confessed that "Jesus is the Son of God." Then, after salvation, he was baptized. Baptism had nothing to do with his salvation.

Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
--The Philippian jailor heard the Word; he believed the Word (was saved), and then later after salvation was baptized.

Matthew 28:19-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined you. And behold, *I* am with you all the days, until the completion of the age. (Darby)
1. Make disciples. Making disciples includes salvation. One cannot be a disciple without first being saved.
2. Then baptize them.
3. Then teach them to observe what Christ had taught them.
--The order: salvation; baptism; obedience.

The order is the same all throughout the Bible. It never changes.
The above passage is called the Great Commission. It is the last command that Christ gave his disciples before he ascended up into heaven. It is one of the most important commands in the Bible, therefore. That is the order he gave: salvation first; baptism second; obedience in all other things third.

History is just not in your favor.

History is in our favor; you look at the wrong places. The history of Christianity starts in the Bible and does not go through the RCC. The history of Christianity is not the history of the Catholic Church. That is another history. Shouldn't that be obvious to you?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Orthodox and Anglican are both off-shoots of the RCC. It is no wonder that their beliefs are similar...It is likely that the Orthodox someday will also.

you really are clueless aren't you? instead of being told what to think...try thinking for yourself sometime...

in XC
-

 

[DHK]

you really are clueless aren't you? instead of being told what to think...try thinking for yourself sometime...

in XC
-

Is that the best you can do Agnus--a personal attack.
The above was all my own. No one told me what to write, unlike the RCC who has the Magesterium dictate everything to them. They are not allowed to think for themselves. You are mixed up aren't you. So you are defeated in your argument and have nothing but slurs to throw. Pitiful!

 

[Darron Steele]

He might have delivered his point in a way that was not clear, but you were wrong.

The Roman Catholics split from the Orthodox, not the other way around. The split of 1054 was initiated from Rome's end.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Is that the best you can do Agnus--a personal attack.
The above was all my own. No one told me what to write, unlike the RCC who has the Magesterium dictate everything to them. They are not allowed to think for themselves. You are mixed up aren't you. So you are defeated in your argument and have nothing but slurs to throw. Pitiful!

that's b/c we have covered this in class numerous, numerous times DHK and you still fail to comprehend basic early church history 101. You fail...do you believe the church in Ephesus was call "Roman Catholic" in 500 AD? or the Christian Church in Constantinople called "Roman Catholic" in 200 AD? or the Christian Church in Alexandria or Jerusalem in 600 AD for that matter?

So yes, you were told what to think...period, b/c you are wrong...i too was told what to think as a baptist once...

in XC
-

 

[annsni]

Orthodox Catholics get real wet when they are baptized. Lets not forget there are a whole lot of other Christians that believe it is necessary (not a suggestion to be baptized) to be born again. Lets not forget the Lutherans, Anglicans, CoC, the Roman Church, etc. Read the Early Church Fathers and see if they thought Baptism was necessary. The bible says it, I believe it and for me that settles it. With all the wiggling you do with scriptures that plainly state baptism is necessary you won't convince me that Christianity from it's beginning has taught differently. History is just not in your favor.

Sorry Lori. Unless every time in the Bible when someone said "How shall I be saved?" they were answered "Be baptized", your stance is wrong. There is no wiggling. Scripture just does not support baptismal regeneration.

 

[DHK]

that's b/c we have covered this in class numerous, numerous times DHK and you still fail to comprehend basic early church history 101. You fail...do you believe the church in Ephesus was call "Roman Catholic" in 500 AD? or the Christian Church in Constantinople called "Roman Catholic" in 200 AD? or the Christian Church in Alexandria or Jerusalem in 600 AD for that matter?

So yes, you were told what to think...period, b/c you are wrong...i too was told what to think as a baptist once...

in XC
-

Since this thread is about "Is Re-Baptism Scriptural" the history of it really doesn't matter to me. What I posted was a sentence or two about what your denominations believed, and you jumped on the historical aspect. You completely ignored the bulk of the post which concentrated on why baptismal regeneration is not only unbiblical but anti-biblical. The Bible is my authority here, not the ECF, nor Tradition, nor your church.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You completely ignored the bulk of the post which concentrated on why baptismal regeneration is not only unbiblical but anti-biblical.

HP: This thread is not about baptismal regeneration, it is about re-baptism alone and if IT is biblical.

 

[DHK]

HP: This thread is not about baptismal regeneration, it is about re-baptism alone and if IT is biblical.

Why were the "Anabaptists" called "Anabaptists"?

 

[dcorbett]

I'm an Orthodox Christian...we practice baptism by immersion...
In XC

Oh sorry, I forgot that Greek Orthodox immerses, but you still think that the WORK of baptism saves, and that is against the Bible, and therefore is false and unacceptable in this forum, in my opinion. The false doctrine you espouse could hurt a young Christian, so you need to stop preaching it here.

The catholic and orthodox religions are false and unacceptable here. If you are truly saved, you will find a church that preaches the truth.

 

[fbcodr]

It's interesting to me that none of you have noted that the Lord Jesus never baptized one person!!! Since He came to seek and save the lost, and numerous times pronounced people forgiven how can you follow a dead false religious Church belief that water baptism is essential for salvation? Sometimes people are rebaptized as Jon Marc has stated because he wasn't saved the first time. It's the first step of obedience for showing what the Lord has already done in the heart!!! It paints a picture of what truly saves. Saving faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. A person like me who was raised Lutheran and then saved was never rebaptized because I was sprinkled on as a baby. That's not New Testament baptisim to begin with!!! People sometimes are rebaptized because non New Testament administrators emerse and the baptisim is not scriptural.:BangHead::thumbsup:

 

[Zenas]

It's interesting to me that none of you have noted that the Lord Jesus never baptized one person!!!

Maybe not, but John 3:22 sure sounds like He did.

After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing.

The only thing that seems to contradict this is John 4:2 but if you look at that verse it is in the past tense and seems to apply strictly to that time and place. I believe Jesus baptized his disciples. Scripture does not say so but it is certainly inferred in John 3:22.

Since He came to seek and save the lost, and numerous times pronounced people forgiven how can you follow a dead false religious Church belief that water baptism is essential for salvation?

Maybe because Jesus said so? Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. Mark 16:16.

A person like me who was raised Lutheran and then saved was never rebaptized because I was sprinkled on as a baby. That's not New Testament baptisim to begin with!!! People sometimes are rebaptized because non New Testament administrators emerse and the baptisim is not scriptural.

By not scriptural, do you mean like using grape juice in the communion cup is not scriptural? or like playing musical instruments in church is not scriptural? Actually we do a lot of things that aren't scriptural but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

HP: This thread is not about baptismal regeneration, it is about re-baptism alone and if IT is biblical.

From an Orthodox perspective:

Re-Baptisms are not permitted, unless the first apparent “Baptism” was canonically defective. There is only one Baptism for each person. Baptism frees us from the old, sinful condition of life and brings us into the new condition in Christ (Romans 6:4). As a result, “there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). The New Testament teaches that on this one Baptism, the old, sinful man dies and is buried with Christ, and then we are raised out of the font into a new life with Christ (read Romans 6:3 – 11 and Colossians 2:12 – 15). Thus, since this change takes place at baptism, it does not, and indeed, may not take place again. A genuine re-baptism is an impossibility.

Thus, the 47th Apostolic Canon (late 4th Century) clearly states: “If a Bishop or a Presbyter baptize anew anyone that has had a true baptism….let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and the death of the Lord…………”

“True” baptisms have been distinguished from “false” baptisms in particular cases by the Church over the years. Thus, in the 7th Canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Council (381), persons from certain heretical churches, such as the Sabbatians, the Cathars and the Apollinarians, who wished to join the Orthodox Catholic Church, were received by a confession of faith and anointing with oils of Chrismation. Because they baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, their Baptism was acknowledged. The same procedure is followed today in reference to Roman Catholics, and most main-line, Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants.

In the same canon, members of other groups, such as the Eunomians, the Montanists and the Sabellians, who wished to become Orthodox, it is said “we receive as pagans.” That is, they are baptized, because the form and content of their “baptisms” were “false.”

Today, persons who wish to become Orthodox, who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Unification Church members, and other sect and cult groups, must be baptized. It is not a “re-baptism” since they are not considered by the Orthodox Church as having been baptized at all.

In XC
-

 

[fbcodr]

Maybe not, but John 3:22 sure sounds like He did. The only thing that seems to contradict this is John 4:2 but if you look at that verse it is in the past tense and seems to apply strictly to that time and place. I believe Jesus baptized his disciples. Scripture does not say so but it is certainly inferred in John 3:22. Maybe because Jesus said so? Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. Mark 16:16. By not scriptural, do you mean like using grape juice in the communion cup is not scriptural? or like playing musical instruments in church is not scriptural? Actually we do a lot of things that aren't scriptural but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

John 4:2 is an explanation of John 3:22. It may sound like it to you but He never baptized one person. Being born of the water and Spirit has nothing to do with water baptism at all!!! He who believes in his heart and thus is baptized by the Holy Spirit shall be saved!!! The other posts are not worth responding to.:BangHead::tonofbricks::jesus:

 

[Zenas]

John 4:2 is an explanation of John 3:22. It may sound like it to you but He never baptized one person.

What makes you so sure of your position and so quick to reject my position? Were you there?

Being born of the water and Spirit has nothing to do with water baptism at all!!!

So I've been told many times, although no one ever got that message until after the Reformation was well under way. Do you really think everyone in the Christian world would misunderstand the meaning of this verse for more than 1,500 years?

The other posts are not worth responding to.

I'm sorry you feel that way because I have wondered for a long time why we must be "scriptural" concerning the mode of baptism, yet we are free to observe the Lord's Supper with whatever elements we choose to use. A friend of mine is on the cutting edge of this issue right now. He has been attending a large CBF Baptist church several years, is active in the Sunday School, tithes, and participates in their many charitable activities. His wife is a member but he is not. He was baptized by sprinkling in the Methodist church and the Baptist church where he attends requires rebaptism for membership. He says he is not willing to admit that his prior baptism was defective, which he would be doing by consenting to being rebaptized. He has also posited the question of the communion elements (just like I did to you) and says the deacons and pastor have not been able to explain the difference.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Baptism gets you wet I remember taking out a loan off a money lender to buy some light grey cords and a white shirt to be baptised in. It was like a wedding day to me back then.

Odd thing was the the money lender was a Presbyterian and Calvinist. He had been coming to our house for years and never told us the Gospel. I heard about Christ from the Street.

 

[fbcodr]

What makes you so sure of your position and so quick to reject my position? Were you there? So I've been told many times, although no one ever got that message until after the Reformation was well under way. Do you really think everyone in the Christian world would misunderstand the meaning of this verse for more than 1,500 years? I'm sorry you feel that way because I have wondered for a long time why we must be "scriptural" concerning the mode of baptism, yet we are free to observe the Lord's Supper with whatever elements we choose to use. A friend of mine is on the cutting edge of this issue right now. He has been attending a large CBF Baptist church several years, is active in the Sunday School, tithes, and participates in their many charitable activities. His wife is a member but he is not. He was baptized by sprinkling in the Methodist church and the Baptist church where he attends requires rebaptism for membership. He says he is not willing to admit that his prior baptism was defective, which he would be doing by consenting to being rebaptized. He has also posited the question of the communion elements (just like I did to you) and says the deacons and pastor have not been able to explain the difference.

I didn't have to be there to know the truth. Evidentially the many times haven't gotten through very well. By the way you don't seem to know very much about the "Christian world". Or maybe you do, the lost "Christian world".
Your friend has never been baptized. The word in the greek means emersion.
I'm sure that's why the deacons and pastor are not explaining the difference since he's not a member. You say your friend is on the cutting edge. Not being baptized means God says he is living in disobedience!!! I didn't respond to the elements as that is not what this thread is about!!!:tonofbricks::tongue3: