Should I be rebaptised?

[Jane_Doe22]

And my questions about the Protestant traditions surrounding Baptism and the Early Church's teachings on Infant Baptism DIRECTLY relete to this topic. It's not a "tangent" of anything.

Yours is simply a continuation of the Protestant deflection here.

You do realize that I'm not a Protestant....

 

[BreadOfLife]

You do realize that I'm not a Protestant....

Then I should clarify by saying that yours is simply a continuation of the "non-Catholic" deflection here.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Then I should clarify by saying that yours is simply a continuation of the "non-Catholic" deflection here.

Again, I have been trying to highlight the central actual difference here: whether or not a non-repentant person can be baptized. That's the core issue.

 

[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).

No, I'm saying that sickness can be the result of sin, just as I showed you.

That the leadership of the Church has authority, I do not disagree. The point here however is that the one being healed is a believer already. And if his sickness is due to sin, it shall be forgiven.

In other words this is not an example of infant baptism where the infant has no faith and is not a believer.

Stranger

 

[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.

The process of sanctification occurs after one is born-again. An infant is not born-again by water baptism.

Stranger

 

[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.

Whether an infant is immersed, or dipped, or poured, or sprinkled, makes no difference to me. That an infant is baptized and considered to be born-again because of that baptism does.

I do not believe that infant baptism results in the infants salvation. I do not believe it is implied in any way. That we are to raise up children to know the Lord, yes. That the Church should dedicate itself to teaching the children of believers, yes. That the Lord wants us to do this, yes.

Stranger

 

[VictoryinJesus]

You are adding to Scripture when you imply that sick people being spoken of in James 5:14-15 are sick because they sinned.

Questions concerning James 5:14-15
[14] Is any sick among you? 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: [15] And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.


...Let them anoint him (the sick)with oil.
a prayer of faith shall save him.
The Lord will raise him up
And his sins shall be forgiven.
How is this not a restoration to God passage? Is this ‘sickness’ not a separation from God due to sin...incomplete, not made whole, without God.

Then we say when the elders are called and the sick are anointed with oil and if God doesn’t save them from their sickness and God doesn't raise them up out of the bed to go on to live ...it wasn’t God’s will that the sick person be saved, raised up, and forgiven of their sin. So the “prayer of faith” works sometimes but not always...

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, I'm saying that sickness can be the result of sin, just as I showed you.

That the leadership of the Church has authority, I do not disagree. The point here however is that the one being healed is a believer already. And if his sickness is due to sin, it shall be forgiven.

In other words this is not an example of infant baptism where the infant has no faith and is not a believer.

Stranger

No - you're adding to Scripture what is NOT there.

James 5:14-15 says NOTHING about the sick person's illness being caused by their sins.
It simply states that while the presbyters are anointing and praying over them to heal them fro their illness - and IF they have sins, that those sins will be forgiven.

This correlates to Infant Baptism because it says NOTHING about the sick person repenting.
That sick person could be in a COMA and their sins are still forgiven by the prayers of the presbyters.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Whether an infant is immersed, or dipped, or poured, or sprinkled, makes no difference to me. That an infant is baptized and considered to be born-again because of that baptism does.
I do not believe that infant baptism results in the infants salvation. I do not believe it is implied in any way. That we are to raise up children to know the Lord, yes. That the Church should dedicate itself to teaching the children of believers, yes. That the Lord wants us to do this, yes.

Stranger

The fact t hat YOU don't believe doesn't make ONE BIT of difference. The promises of Baptism are not nullified because of YOUR lack of faith. The promise is for the children as WELL as the adults (Acts 2:39).

 

[BreadOfLife]

The process of sanctification occurs after one is born-again. An infant is not born-again by water baptism.

Stranger

WRONG.

The process of sanctification BEGINS with being born again and continues for the life of the person.
EVERYBODY is born again at Baptism (John 3:5).

 

[Stranger]

No - you're adding to Scripture what is NOT there.

James 5:14-15 says NOTHING about the sick person's illness being caused by their sins.
It simply states that while the presbyters are anointing and praying over them to heal them fro their illness - and IF they have sins, that those sins will be forgiven.

This correlates to Infant Baptism because it says NOTHING about the sick person repenting.
That sick person could be in a COMA and their sins are still forgiven by the prayers of the presbyters.

No, I'm not adding to Scripture. Why would James bring up sins in (James 5:15)? Because sins maybe the reason of the sickness. Just as I have showed you with the sin at the Lords supper. (1 Cor. 11:29-30) Just like I showed you with the man at the pool of Bethasda. (John 5:14)

And (James 5:14-15) in no way parallels your infant baptism. Because the infant is not saved. The infant cannot exercise faith. He cannot be born-again on the faith of another.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

The fact t hat YOU don't believe doesn't make ONE BIT of difference. The promises of Baptism are not nullified because of YOUR lack of faith. The promise is for the children as WELL as the adults (Acts 2:39).

The fact that you believe infant baptism causes one to be born-again doesn't make a bit of difference either. It doesn't occur just because you believe it. It occurs only if God sanctions it. And there is nothing in Scripture that supports any salvation for the infant due to water baptism.

(Acts 2:39) means nothing towards infant baptism resulting in salvation.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

WRONG.

The process of sanctification BEGINS with being born again and continues for the life of the person.
EVERYBODY is born again at Baptism (John 3:5).

Sanctification is not the same as justification. Sanctification occurs after one is born-again. And it then continues fore the life of the person.

No water baptism in (John 3:5). You are going in circles again.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, I'm not adding to Scripture. Why would James bring up sins in (James 5:15)? Because sins maybe the reason of the sickness. Just as I have showed you with the sin at the Lords supper. (1 Cor. 11:29-30) Just like I showed you with the man at the pool of Bethasda. (John 5:14)

And (James 5:14-15) in no way parallels your infant baptism. Because the infant is not saved. The infant cannot exercise faith. He cannot be born-again on the faith of another.

Stranger

James brought up sins because the person might be dying or unconscious.

Your second comment in RED is flawed because of your adherence to the false doctrine of OSAS.
WHO said that the sick person was "saved"?? AGAIN, you are adding to Scripture what is NOT there.
How do YOU know what the state of the person's soul is??

THAT'S probably the reason why James brought up the forgiveness of their sins in the first place.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sanctification is not the same as justification. Sanctification occurs after one is born-again. And it then continues fore the life of the person.

No water baptism in (John 3:5). You are going in circles again.

Stranger

Says YOU.

Your Protestant Fathers all disagree with you. They all agreed that John 3:5 WAS referring to Baptism.
WHEN did that change??

 

[BreadOfLife]

The fact that you believe infant baptism causes one to be born-again doesn't make a bit of difference either. It doesn't occur just because you believe it. It occurs only if God sanctions it. And there is nothing in Scripture that supports any salvation for the infant due to water baptism.

(Acts 2:39) means nothing towards infant baptism resulting in salvation.

Stranger

Once again - WHEN did this teaching change?
Your Protestant Fathers Luther and Calvin both agreed that Baptism regenerated the soul - even in INFANTS.

And you're lying about Acts 2:39. It follows Acts 2:38, which DOES promise the gift of the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sin - even to CHILDREN.

 

[Stranger]

James brought up sins because the person might be dying or unconscious.

Your second comment in RED is flawed because of your adherence to the false doctrine of OSAS.
WHO said that the sick person was "saved"?? AGAIN, you are adding to Scripture what is NOT there.
How do YOU know what the state of the person's soul is??

THAT'S probably the reason why James brought up the forgiveness of their sins in the first place.

What? James said the sick person was saved. (James 5:7) "Be patient therefore, brethren...." (5:10) "Take, my brethren, the prophets..." (5:14) "Is any sick among you...." Who is being addressed? The brethren. Christians. The sick among the Christians is being addressed. The born-again. Those who have exercised faith in Christ.

Who said the infant can exercise faith?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Says YOU.

Your Protestant Fathers all disagree with you. They all agreed that John 3:5 WAS referring to Baptism.
WHEN did that change??

More circles. (John 3:5) does not refer to water baptism. Go back and reread our discussion. (Note, not that it will do you any good.)

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Once again - WHEN did this teaching change?
Your Protestant Fathers Luther and Calvin both agreed that Baptism regenerated the soul - even in INFANTS.

And you're lying about Acts 2:39. It follows Acts 2:38, which DOES promise the gift of the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sin - even to CHILDREN.

You can worry about the Fathers all you want. I am going according to Scripture.

No infant baptism in (Acts 2:39). The promise is not infant baptism. And the promise is to the descendants of the Jewish people.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

You can worry about the Fathers all you want. I am going according to Scripture.

No infant baptism in (Acts 2:39). The promise is not infant baptism. And the promise is to the descendants of the Jewish people.

Stranger

More circles. (John 3:5) does not refer to water baptism. Go back and reread our discussion. (Note, not that it will do you any good.)

Stranger

This has been the constant living teaching of the Christian faith for 2000 years that includes your Protestant Fathers. It only changed at some point AFTER the Protestant Revolt by somebody who simply wanted to further divorce themselves from the Church - and the Protestant Fathers.

Once again - the fact that YOU reject the teaching of Baptismal Regeneration in John 3:5 and Acts 2:38 and Col. 2:11-12 doesn't make the teaching "invalid". It simply means that YOU lost faith in the teaching.