Should I be rebaptised?

[Deborah_]

The fact of the matter is that "Backwards dunking" or ANY kind of dunking is NEVER mentioned in Scripture.
Immersion WAS the preferred method by the Early Church - as we see in The Didache. However, as The Didache ALSO reveals, Baptism by Pouring was ALSO an accepted method - which MOST Protestants reject as "unbiblical".

I don't know which churches refuse to recognise baptism by 'pouring'.
Many years ago, I witnessed a 'baptism by pouring' in a Baptist church. (The candidate had a serious heart condition and could not be 'dunked'.)
I have always understood that the main idea was to get the candidate completely wet. Dunking is simply the method that most clearly represents 'burial and resurrection' (Romans 6:3,4) (and it doesn't have to be backwards, that's just the way most people seem to do it). But there are some circumstances where it isn't practical.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am an active and practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for over 30 years. I am extremely well versed in the doctrine therein, as you are with your Catholic faith.
As I explained before, this quote is emphasizing that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three divine persons, hence the words "personages" and little 'g' gods. Other quotes emphasizing the oneness of these three include (emphasis mine):

"21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen." 2 Nephi 31

"27 And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one." 3 Nephi 11

"21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." John 17

The doctrine of “Eternal progression” in the Mormon Church is how you get around this kind of double talk regarding the nature of God and “gods”. The very origins of Smith’s teachings show that he taught that his plurality of “gods” were once mortal men who “developed” into gods through this false doctrine of eternal progression.

This is a quote from the Book of Mormon, where Smith writes about an “eternal” God:
“I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity” (Moroni 8:18).

Here us an excerpt from one of his very last sermons before his death at the funeral of fellow Mormon, King Follet:

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another” (King Follett Discourse).

Also from the same Sermon:
“I will preach on the plurality of gods. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see” (King Follett Discourse).

This is a glaring example of the double talk that is represented by Smith’s teachings.
YOU say that I am “misrepresenting” the trinity of Mormonism – but I am simply giving you the words of your founder.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't know which churches refuse to recognise baptism by 'pouring'.
Many years ago, I witnessed a 'baptism by pouring' in a Baptist church. (The candidate had a serious heart condition and could not be 'dunked'.)
I have always understood that the main idea was to get the candidate completely wet. Dunking is simply the method that most clearly represents 'burial and resurrection' (Romans 6:3,4) (and it doesn't have to be backwards, that's just the way most people seem to do it). But there are some circumstances where it isn't practical.

If you just go back and red the posts of this thread alone - you will see that MANY of the arguments posted are against pouring and argue for "Immersion Only". In fact - in the 15 or so years of my online debating - THIS topic is one of the top 3 that I have discussed over the years.

As for the "backwards" dunking - I didn't say that it was "required".
I simply asked where the tradition originated. because it is so prevalent in Protestant Baptismal services.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

The doctrine of “Eternal progression” in the Mormon Church is how you get around this kind of double talk regarding the nature of God and “gods”. The very origins of Smith’s teachings show that he taught that his plurality of “gods” were once mortal men who “developed” into gods through this false doctrine of eternal progression.

This is a quote from the Book of Mormon, where Smith writes about an “eternal” God:
“I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity” (Moroni 8:18).

Here us an excerpt from one of his very last sermons before his death at the funeral of fellow Mormon, King Follet:

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another” (King Follett Discourse).

Also from the same Sermon:
“I will preach on the plurality of gods. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see” (King Follett Discourse).

This is a glaring example of the double talk that is represented by Smith’s teachings.
YOU say that I am “misrepresenting” the trinity of Mormonism – but I am simply giving you the words of your founder.

You know how there are anti-catholic sites out there that exist to completely pretzel Catholic beliefs to make them look ridiculous? Because for some reason these people can't be bothered to disagree with the *actual* Catholic beliefs?

There are the same type of people who make stuff sites out there that exist to completely pretzel LDS Christian beliefs to make them look ridiculous because for some reason these people can't be bothered to disagree with the *actual* LDS Christian beliefs. This page you grabbed these quotes from is doing such pretzeling by getting wires crossed about three different subjects: who the Father/Son/Spirit are, God's potential to completely redeem His people, and speculation about possible past events.

If you want I can un-preztel these things for you. Just say the word.

But that does not change the LDS Christian belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons in one God. Differing from Athanatain Christians in *how* 3 are 1.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You know how there are anti-catholic sites out there that exist to completely pretzel Catholic beliefs to make them look ridiculous? Because for some reason these people can't be bothered to disagree with the *actual* Catholic beliefs?

There are the same type of people who make stuff sites out there that exist to completely pretzel LDS Christian beliefs to make them look ridiculous because for some reason these people can't be bothered to disagree with the *actual* LDS Christian beliefs. This page you grabbed these quotes from is doing such pretzeling by getting wires crossed about three different subjects: who the Father/Son/Spirit are, God's potential to completely redeem His people, and speculation about possible past events.

If you want I can un-preztel these things for you. Just say the word.

But that does not change the LDS Christian belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons in one God. Differing from Athanatain Christians in *how* 3 are 1.

I'm not posting anti-Mormon/LDS opinions. I simply posted excerpts from the writings of Joseph Smith himself on his views of WHO or WHAT God is.

HE uses the term "plurality of gods" to describe what he believes - NOT me.
HE uses the term "three distinct gods" to describe what he believes - NOT me.

He also used the term "Plural Marriage" - not "Polygamy" as it is known by the rest of the world.
This is his brand of double-talk - and this is what you're trying to use to explain away Mormon polytheism.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I'm not posting anti-Mormon/LDS opinions. I simply posted excerpts from the writings of Joseph Smith himself on his views of WHO or WHAT God is.

HE uses the term "plurality of gods" to describe what he believes - NOT me.
HE uses the term "three distinct gods" to describe what he believes - NOT me.

He also used the term "Plural Marriage" - not "Polygamy" as it is known by the rest of the world.
This is his brand of double-talk - and this is what you're trying to use to explain away Mormon polytheism.

Execept that it's not polytheism at all: it's multiple divine persons being ONE God.

"21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen." 2 Nephi 31

"27 And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one." 3 Nephi 11

"21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." John 17

 

[Stranger]

WRONG on all counts.

For a another Biblical example of what I'm talking about - let's go to James 5:14-15.
James 5:14-15
Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

The sick person is prayed over by the Presbyters - and the prayers - and their prayers saved the sick person and that person's sins are forgiven them. This is part of the power that Jesus gave the leaders of His Church on the night He was resurrected:

THREE times in the Gospels (Matt. 16:19, 18:18 and John 20:23), we read where Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins or to hold them bound. This is not a something that Jesus took lightly. In John 20:21-23, Jesus (who is God) breathes on the Apostles as he is giving them this power:
John 20:21-23
(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU retain are retained."

The fact that Jesus "breathed" on the Apostles when entrusted them with this ministry is highly significant because he doesn’t do this anywhere else in the New Testament. In fact, there are only TWO times in ALL of Scripture where God breathes on man:

a) The first is when he breathed life into Adam.
b) The second is here in John’s Gospel when he is giving them the power to forgive or retain sins.

Now - a lot of Protestants make the claim that Jesus was merely telling them that they now had the power to recognize sins – but that is NOT what he said (Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained). The Greek word used here for the word “forgive” is aphiemi, which means: to send away, to send forth, yield up, to expire, to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit.

Just as the prayers of the Presbyters can bring about the forgiveness of sins in the sick and dying (James 5:14-15) - the Baptized Infant is ALSO regenerated in Baptism in Christ by the Presbyter (John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Col. 2:11-12, 1 Pet. 3:21).

We are not talking about a person being healed from a physical sickness. We are talking about the method used to obtain eternal life. When Christ walked this earth there were several methods He used for healing. But there is only one way to eternal life. And water baptism isn't it. And infant baptism is empty as there is no faith of the one being baptized.

So, just as I said before, you misrepresent what I said as I said 'faith' went before all.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Hi Mary - the reason that NOBODY will address my question about the origins of the Protestant traditions surrounding Baptism is really quite simple:

If they answer the question in ANY way other than by using Scripture - they will violate their position on Sola Scriptura and will no longer be able to argue against the Apostolic Tradition of Infant Baptism.

The fact of the matter is that "Backwards dunking" or ANY kind of dunking is NEVER mentioned in Scripture.
Immersion WAS the preferred method by the Early Church - as we see in The Didache. However, as The Didache ALSO reveals, Baptism by Pouring was ALSO an accepted method - which MOST Protestants reject as "unbiblical".

THIS is why there has been such a reluctance to answer the question .
It's a gigantic hypocrisy . . .

What a load of bs. I have no problem with immersion. I have no problem with pouring or sprinkling. The only problem is 'infant baptism' where the infant cannot exhibit faith.

Baptize with water anyway you like. Just don't baptize infants, or rather, quit pouring water on them.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

We are not talking about a person being healed from a physical sickness. We are talking about the method used to obtain eternal life. When Christ walked this earth there were several methods He used for healing. But there is only one way to eternal life. And water baptism isn't it. And infant baptism is empty as there is no faith of the one being baptized.

So, just as I said before, you misrepresent what I said as I said 'faith' went before all.

Stranger

WRONG.

We're not just talking about people being healed from physical sickness.
James explicitly states:
James 5:15
And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he (the sick person) has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

This is talking about the spiritual sacramental efficacy - not physical healing.
The SAME is true for Baptism.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What a load of bs. I have no problem with immersion. I have no problem with pouring or sprinkling. The only problem is 'infant baptism' where the infant cannot exhibit faith.

Baptize with water anyway you like. Just don't baptize infants, or rather, quit pouring water on them.

Stranger

You sound JUST like what Jesus was speaking against . . .
Matt. 19:14
"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: INFANTS, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an INFANT for infants, sanctifying INFANTS; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
"Baptize first the CHILDREN, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The APOSTOLIC Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to INFANTS. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an INFANT CHILD? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the INFANT be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine
"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing INFANTS is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except APOSTOLIC" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

 

[Stranger]

WRONG.

We're not just talking about people being healed from physical sickness.
James explicitly states:
James 5:15
And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he (the sick person) has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

This is talking about the spiritual sacramental efficacy - not physical healing.
The SAME is true for Baptism.

That the one in the book of James is forgiven is not about eternal life. It is about sins that caused the believers sickness. He is already a believer.

Baptism is not the issue here.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

You sound JUST like what Jesus was speaking against . . .
Matt. 19:14
"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: INFANTS, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an INFANT for infants, sanctifying INFANTS; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
"Baptize first the CHILDREN, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The APOSTOLIC Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to INFANTS. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an INFANT CHILD? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the INFANT be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine
"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing INFANTS is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except APOSTOLIC" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

I have already told you that (Matt. 19:14) says nothing of infant baptism. All you have done is jump on the merry go round and start all over. You have nothing more to offer.

If any of your so called church fathers believe infant baptism results in the salvation of the infant, then they are just as mistaken as you are.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

That the one in the book of James is forgiven is not about eternal life. It is about sins that caused the believers sickness. He is already a believer.

Baptism is not the issue here.

Stranger

Sins that CAUSED his sickness??

People get sick and it has NOTHING to do with how much they sin. Are YOU one of those self-righteous hypocrites who goes around judging peoples' souls based on their health?? You actually believe that little children are dying in the hospital from terminal cancer because of the level of sins they committed?? What a patently idiotic and Scripturally-bankrupt position.

James 5:14-15 has absolutely nothing to do with a person's sins having CAUSED their sickness.
James 5:14-15
Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. IF they have sinned, they will be forgiven.

"IF" they have sinned. This is in addition to their physical healing - NOT the cause.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have already told you that (Matt. 19:14) says nothing of infant baptism. All you have done is jump on the merry go round and start all over. You have nothing more to offer.

If any of your so called church fathers believe infant baptism results in the salvation of the infant, then they are just as mistaken as you are.

Stranger

I didn't say it had anything to do with Baptism.
However - it has EVERYTHING to do with God taking children seriously, whereas YOU don't.

He sanctifies children - just as He sanctifies adults.
Acts 2:39
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

 

[Deborah_]

If you just go back and red the posts of this thread alone - you will see that MANY of the arguments posted are against pouring and argue for "Immersion Only". In fact - in the 15 or so years of my online debating - THIS topic is one of the top 3 that I have discussed over the years.

As for the "backwards" dunking - I didn't say that it was "required".
I simply asked where the tradition originated. because it is so prevalent in Protestant Baptismal services.

Online debates rarely bear much resemblance to the 'real' world. How many people here actually represent churches?
I would presume that the tradition originated when people 're-discovered' believers' baptism after the Reformation. By then, of course, there was no collective memory of how the early church did it. But I'm not bothered to investigate, because I don't see that the method matters in the slightest. Surely we don't have to do everything exactly as it was done in the first century (or we'd have no church buildings or baptistries, and we'd be dunking people in the river!).

 

[Stranger]

Sins that CAUSED his sickness??

People get sick and it has NOTHING to do with how much they sin. Are YOU one of those self-righteous hypocrites who goes around judging peoples' souls based on their health?? You actually believe that little children are dying in the hospital from terminal cancer because of the level of sins they committed?? What a patently idiotic and Scripturally-bankrupt position.

James 5:14-15 has absolutely nothing to do with a person's sins having CAUSED their sickness.
James 5:14-15
Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. IF they have sinned, they will be forgiven.

"IF" they have sinned. This is in addition to their physical healing - NOT the cause.

As said, this pertains to a believer. And why would would we be told that "If they have sinned, they will be forgiven". Why? Because it is possible that the sins may have caused the sickness.

(1 Cor. 11:29-30) "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself....For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep."

So the point is this. The elders praying over a sick believer is not proof of elders or leaders in the Church baptizing an infant into salvation.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

I didn't say it had anything to do with Baptism.
However - it has EVERYTHING to do with God taking children seriously, whereas YOU don't.

He sanctifies children - just as He sanctifies adults.
Acts 2:39
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

If it has nothing to do with infant baptism, why do you use it?

You say (Matt. 19:14) or (Luke 18:16) it has nothing to do with water baptism. I agree, it does not. But you use it to support your infant water baptism.

You identify infant water baptism with circumcision which you say brings infants into the covenant. #(262) You say water baptism is necessary for to be saved. #(285) Therefore infants are saved by being water baptized on the faith of others.

We have discussed (Acts 2:39) already. Go back and read #(251) (259).

Now, if you want to tell me that infant water baptism does not save the infant, does not born him again, but only dedicates the churches responsibility to do all they can to raise such an one up to know God and Jesus Christ, I have no problem with infant baptism. But, both you and I know you are not saying that.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Online debates rarely bear much resemblance to the 'real' world. How many people here actually represent churches?
I would presume that the tradition originated when people 're-discovered' believers' baptism after the Reformation. By then, of course, there was no collective memory of how the early church did it. But I'm not bothered to investigate, because I don't see that the method matters in the slightest. Surely we don't have to do everything exactly as it was done in the first century (or we'd have no church buildings or baptistries, and we'd be dunking people in the river!).

This is precisely my point.

For some reason - Protestant traditions going back only for the last 50-500 years are somehow "valid" - yet Catholic Apostolic Traditions going back 1500-2000 years are NOT.

How is it that an Early Church Father is to be believed when it comes to doctrinal matters that Protestants agree with such as the Eternal Security, the Trinity, Sola Fide, etc - yet they are all "LYING" when it comes to their teachings that Infant Baptism was handed down to them by the Apostles??

This is the hypocrisy I'm talking about.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If it has nothing to do with infant baptism, why do you use it?

You say (Matt. 19:14) or (Luke 18:16) it has nothing to do with water baptism. I agree, it does not. But you use it to support your infant water baptism.

You identify infant water baptism with circumcision which you say brings infants into the covenant. #(262) You say water baptism is necessary for to be saved. #(285) Therefore infants are saved by being water baptized on the faith of others.

We have discussed (Acts 2:39) already. Go back and read #(251).

Now, if you want to tell me that infant water baptism does not save the infant, does not born him again, but only dedicates the churches responsibility to do all they can to raise such an one up to know God and Jesus Christ, I have no problem with infant baptism. But, both you and I know you are not saying that.

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.

 

[BreadOfLife]

As said, this pertains to a believer. And why would would we be told that "If they have sinned, they will be forgiven". Why? Because it is possible that the sins may have caused the sickness.

(1 Cor. 11:29-30) "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself....For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep."

So the point is this. The elders praying over a sick believer is not proof of elders or leaders in the Church baptizing an infant into salvation.

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.