Should I be rebaptised?

[BreadOfLife]

I have no problem with anointing oil to heal per (James 2:14). The faith and the oil can produce the healing.

I have no problem with lying on of hands to be healed. The faith and the laying on of hands can produce the healing.

I have no problem with water baptism saving (as in sanctification, not justification) us. The faith of the believer and the water produce a good conscience toward God. (1 Peter 3:20-21)

I have a problem with you identifying water baptism with spirit baptism and ones initial salvation. Water is not the means by which we receive the Holy Spirit. It is the individuals faith.

Because there is nothing in the water, then an infant is not saved by infant baptism because his faith was not present.

I have been baptized. How am I disobedient?

Stranger

WRONG again.

Oil doesn't heal the person - and neither does touching them.
Those are simply the MEANS of healing that GOD prescribed.

Water is simply the MEANS by which GOD prescribed that we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit at Baptism (John 3:5, Acts 2:38). YOUR lack of faith in the process doesn't change this Biblical fact.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I've been asking you many times if you were infant baptized. You have danced around the question but refuse to answer. If you have only been infant baptized, then you have not yet been obedient in being baptized into the Christian faith.

Stranger

ALL who have been Baptized in the Trinitarian Baptism have been Baptized into the Christian faith.
Whether or not they continued in faith is another story.

Now - a Mormon Baptism is NOT a Trinitarian Baptism - even though they baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit because they don't believe that they are all God.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What is your big secret? Were you infant baptized or not?

Is the baptism pictured by immersion not good enough for you?

Stranger

I already told you.
And I will GLADLY tell you again - just as soon as YOU tell ME where the Protestant tradition of dunking people backwards during Baptism came from.

I honestly don't understand what the big secret is . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

More crickets . . .

WHAT is the big secret??
Can ANYBODY tell me where the tradition of dunking people backwards in the water during Baptism came from?

Anybody at all . . .

 

[Triumph1300]

If they fall forward they might drown?
Fcol, who cares?

 

[Stranger]

WRONG again.

Oil doesn't heal the person - and neither does touching them.
Those are simply the MEANS of healing that GOD prescribed.

Water is simply the MEANS by which GOD prescribed that we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit at Baptism (John 3:5, Acts 2:38). YOUR lack of faith in the process doesn't change this Biblical fact.

You misrepresent what I said. In all instances of oil, laying on of hands, and water, I added before it, the faith of the believer. Without the faith, the oil is just oil. The laying on of hands is powerless. The water does nothing.

But all these work due to God setting them up as the method which moves Him to work on the believers behalf. Your problem is that God has not set up water baptism to initiate the baptism of the Spirit. It occurred that way at times in the book of (Acts) because that period was unique in that the believers were believers under the Old Testament Law, and then were believers under the New Testament period.

And without the faith of the believer, nothing works. Thus no infant baptism.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

ALL who have been Baptized in the Trinitarian Baptism have been Baptized into the Christian faith.
Whether or not they continued in faith is another story.

Now - a Mormon Baptism is NOT a Trinitarian Baptism - even though they baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit because they don't believe that they are all God.

An infant never exhibited any faith to continue in and was never saved due to that infant baptism. Thus that baptism was no baptism.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

I already told you.
And I will GLADLY tell you again - just as soon as YOU tell ME where the Protestant tradition of dunking people backwards during Baptism came from.

I honestly don't understand what the big secret is . . .

No you haven't. You have only stated that you were baptized and by your interpretation, that means you were born-again. But if infant baptism is all you got, then you were not baptized as you had no faith at that time. No faith, no Holy Spirit, no water baptism.

Stranger

 

[Triumph1300]

Still don't got an answer.
Backwards or forwards? And why/

 

[Marymog]

Since it appears that @Pearl has me on “ignore” – can ANY of you out there tell me where the tradition of dunking a person backwards in the water came from during Baptism?

Just curious . . .

Hi BOL......

I am not answering for @Pearl but my experience in Protestant churches is that as long as one is immersed then they have satisfied what THEY BELIEVE Scripture says; immersion only. I can’t find immersion only in Scripture but I know it is the “preferred” method.

I guess one could jump off a diving board into a swimming pool and swim to the person doing the baptism and it would be valid as long as they were fully immersed. The method (diving or dunking backwards) doesn’t matter.

My two cents worth....Mary

 

[Pearl]

Hi BOL......

I am not answering for @Pearl but my experience in Protestant churches is that as long as one is immersed then they have satisfied what THEY BELIEVE Scripture says; immersion only. I can’t find immersion only in Scripture but I know it is the “preferred” method.

I guess one could jump off a diving board into a swimming pool and swim to the person doing the baptism and it would be valid as long as they were fully immersed. The method (diving or dunking backwards) doesn’t matter.

My two cents worth....Mary

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.

 

[Deborah_]

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.

Although many 'evangelical' Anglican churches (I don't know about the Methodists) also baptise new believers by immersion if they were not christened in infancy.

 

[Pearl]

Although many 'evangelical' Anglican churches (I don't know about the Methodists) also baptise new believers by immersion if they were not christened in infancy.

Yes they do. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Now - a Mormon Baptism is NOT a Trinitarian Baptism - even though they baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit because they don't believe that they are all God.

For a point of clarification: LDS Christians 100% believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all one God and completely divine.. They are also three different persons. This disagreement with the Athanasian Creed is on the *how* they are one: LDS Christians pointing to unity. Athanasian Christians to consubstantiality.

 

[BreadOfLife]

For a point of clarification: LDS Christians 100% believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all one God and completely divine.. They are also three different persons. This disagreement with the Athanasian Creed is on the *how* they are one: LDS Christians pointing to unity. Athanasian Christians to consubstantiality.

Yes, thank you for the clarification.
I should have been clearer in my description.

The "Trinity" of Mormonism is polytheistic, not monotheistic, making their "Trinitarian" baptism invalid.

From Joseph Smith:
"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a spirit; and these three constitute three distinct personages and three distinct gods" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370).

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Yes, thank you for the clarification.
I should have been clearer in my description.

The "Trinity" of Mormonism is polytheistic, not monotheistic, making their "Trinitarian" baptism invalid.

From Joseph Smith:
"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a spirit; and these three constitute three distinct personages and three distinct gods" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370).

This quote is referring to the Father, Son and Spirit being three different persons-- aka personage or little 'g' gods (which is a divine person). They are united as one God (big G).
Like the Athanasian Trinity, it is monotheism, that's often misunderstood (like the Athanasian Trinity). Neither view is the super-simple monotheism of say Islam.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You misrepresent what I said. In all instances of oil, laying on of hands, and water, I added before it, the faith of the believer. Without the faith, the oil is just oil. The laying on of hands is powerless. The water does nothing.

But all these work due to God setting them up as the method which moves Him to work on the believers behalf. Your problem is that God has not set up water baptism to initiate the baptism of the Spirit. It occurred that way at times in the book of (Acts) because that period was unique in that the believers were believers under the Old Testament Law, and then were believers under the New Testament period.

And without the faith of the believer, nothing works. Thus no infant baptism.

An infant never exhibited any faith to continue in and was never saved due to that infant baptism. Thus that baptism was no baptism.

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).

 

[BreadOfLife]

This quote is referring to the Father, Son and Spirit being three different persons-- aka personage or little 'g' gods (which is a divine person). They are united as one God (big G).
Like the Athanasian Trinity, it is monotheism, that's often misunderstood (like the Athanasian Trinity). Neither view is the super-simple monotheism of say Islam.

Sorry Jane - but that is NOT what Joseph Smith taught.

Whereas, he does refer to them as three distinct personages - he ALSO confesses three distinct gods.
He taught a polytheistic trinity:

"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a spirit; and these three constitute three distinct personages and three distinct gods" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370).

What part of "Three distinct gods" are you having difficulty with?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Sorry Jane - but that is NOT what Joseph Smith taught.

Whereas, he does refer to them as three distinct personages - he ALSO confesses three distinct gods.
He taught a polytheistic trinity:

"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a spirit; and these three constitute three distinct personages and three distinct gods" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370).

What part of "Three distinct gods" are you having difficulty with?

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

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hi BOL......

I am not answering for @Pearl but my experience in Protestant churches is that as long as one is immersed then they have satisfied what THEY BELIEVE Scripture says; immersion only. I can’t find immersion only in Scripture but I know it is the “preferred” method.

I guess one could jump off a diving board into a swimming pool and swim to the person doing the baptism and it would be valid as long as they were fully immersed. The method (diving or dunking backwards) doesn’t matter.

My two cents worth....Mary

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 . . .