Credobaptism vs Paedobaptism

[Anthony02]

Will the debate ever end? I don't think so. If it does, it more than likely will not happen in my lifetime. I'm leaning more towards the belief that one needs to believe and then CHOOSE, on their own, to get baptized.

My question is this: Is it against the bible to get baptized twice? I don't mean is it of "no effect", I mean is it a SIN? If it is of no effect, then after I get baptized the second time, I'll be in the same place I was prior to getting baptized. If it actually is of effect, then I'll have been baptized correctly. Win/win, no? What are your thoughts?

p.s. With regard to Ephesians 5:

"5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism"
​

If Paedobaptism isn't correct, then it would not count as "one." But if it is, the above passage still doesn't imply that anything negative will happen, or that it's against scripture, to get baptized again.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

p.s. With regard to Ephesians 5:

"5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism"
​

If Paedobaptism isn't correct, then it would not count as "one." But if it is, the above passage still doesn't imply that anything negative will happen, or that it's against scripture, to get baptized again.

'One' does not mean a single baptism. The 'one' in the passage means everybody in the body of Christ has been baptized into the one and only name, Jesus Christ. Everybody is baptized into the name of the one master and teacher, Christ, not the name of who you were discipled by as was common at the time. We see the problem with this kind of division in Paul's letter to the Corinthians:

'One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?' (1 Cor. 1:12-13 NIV1984)

In the church, all disciples have one and the same Lord, and Master, and Teacher, Jesus. We are all baptized and united into his name, alone. That being true, it would not be a sin to get baptized more than once.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"Will the debate ever end?"

Nope, the Catholics have got WAY too much "Vested interest" in it for it to ever go away.

"My question is this: Is it against the bible to get baptized twice ?"

Nope, it doesn't mean SPIT one way or the other.

I was baptized into the Catholic organization like any self-respecting Italian Baby (got the paperwork to PROVE IT - since I didn't have a brain yet when they did it). And when I actually BECAME a Christian 20 years later, I got Baptised as a believer.

I've known folks who were baptized as "believers" because the Church (or their folks) told 'em to - and then became Christians later, and were baptized again.

 

[Anthony02]

Thanks for the help, guys. Any other opinions?

 

[Mike]

If there is a sin in being baptized a second time, it is in the distrust in the Lord that He did His Work in you the first time. Some make being baptized an absolute must for salvation, while others make it nothing but a man-made water shower. I believe the heart of the individual is the issue. Why would he refuse baptism or why does he do it. If baptism is seen as an ordinary washing of sins, then I can see someone getting baptized every day!

But I believe we're told that baptism goes hand-in-hand when we confess and repent of our sins, giving ourselves to the Lord in obeying Him. We're told to numerous times in scripture. So when someone rejects the Power of the Holy Spirit, they are in a sense saying that His Work at their first baptism was incomplete. I believe He completes His Work in the baptism, and then it should follow that we respond by giving Him our lives; becoming a new creation. If that process doesn't continue, it's not His fault in some faulty baptism. It's on us.

I've changed my views on infant baptism. I used to be Catholic. So if someone feels Led to be baptized as an adult believer years after being baptized as an infant, and if it's well thought out, prayed on, and for the right reasons, they should respond.

 

[Anthony02]

If there is a sin in being baptized a second time, it is in the distrust in the Lord that He did His Work in you the first time.

Well there lies the problem. This entire thread is based on not having to deal with the huge "if" that this debate falls on. I mean I can respect what you say, but one of us is wrong. It's not -just- my belief. This is a very heated debate, as I'm sure you know.

I hope this question doesn't turn this thread into something it wasn't intended to be, especially considering you said below that you have changed your view on infant baptism, but I honestly don't understand how you make sense of the two below quotes - was this something you use to believe?

But I believe we're told that baptism goes hand-in-hand when we confess and repent of our sins, giving ourselves to the Lord in obeying Him.We're told to numerous times in scripture.

So when someone rejects the Power of the Holy Spirit, they are in a sense saying that His Work at their first baptism was incomplete.

You admit that we have to "feel remorse", "turn away" from our sins ("repent") and also confess our sins, and in the same breathe you basically say when I was not, at all, able to first and foremost understand the Word, believe, repent, then confess my sins (...on my own), that it's the Lord I don't trust when attempting a second baptism? Well, who is right? You or me? The thousands of theologians who say one thing, or the group of studied men and woman who say another? I don't know. And as stated above, I probably never will.

For the record, it's not the Lord I distrust, but rather man. Having said that, we can both agree on the fact that one of us is wrong, so (assuming you're pro-IB, which having just woken up, I am not sure of at the moment) where would you suggest I go from there? Should I wait for my next life to make a choice?

I've changed my views on infant baptism. I used to be Catholic. So if someone feels Led to be baptized as an adult believer years after being baptized as an infant, and if it's well thought out, prayed on, and for the right reasons, they should respond.

I agree. I've been thinking about this a lot and feel, in my heart, that I've come to a good (non-impulse-based) decision.

 

[Webb]

Eph. 4 teaches "one" baptism. One means one, singular, not two or three, etc. That is plain.

Baptism must done in the WAY the Bible teaches and also FOR the reason the Bible teaches. If not, it can't be the "one baptism" of Eph.4:5. Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism are not the same. If Eph.4:5 is true, and I believe it is, Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism do not co-exist. We must then study to learn which baptism ( Spirit or water) Paul had in mind in Eph.4.

If there is "one baptism" it cannot be all that men teach today; spiritual, sprinkling, pouring or immersion.

If there is "one baptism'' it is either for the remission of sins or it is not. So we must study the scripture to learn.

Paul told Timothy we must "rightly divide the word of truth" II Tim.215. This is most important if we are to learn what the "one baptism" is.

Is it wrong to be baptized again? In Acts 19, the disciples of John who had been baptized with John's baptism upon learning the truth about baptism "were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" vs. 5.

There is but "one baptism" today. You either have been or you haven't.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Some make being baptized an absolute must for salvation, while others make it nothing but a man-made water shower.

And then there are the very few of us somewhere in the middle where the truth about baptism is actually found.

Hard, black or white polarizations to either side of the Biblical themes we debate in Church is what makes them the problem they are in the church.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Paul told Timothy we must "rightly divide the word of truth" II Tim.215. This is most important if we are to learn what the "one baptism" is.

Is it wrong to be baptized again? In Acts 19, the disciples of John who had been baptized with John's baptism upon learning the truth about baptism "were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" vs. 5.

There is but "one baptism" today. You either have been or you haven't.

Rightly dividing the Word means when you lift a single portion of scripture out for examination you consider the whole it came from.

I shared the 1 Corinthians passage to show how the Bible itself shows us the problem that existed in the day of how the people of God would divide themselves under various teachers. The custom was to be baptized in the name of the teacher you were discipled under and be a faithful follower and defender of their teachings.

Paul is correcting this problem in the church and teaching us that there is only one name into which we are baptized. That is the one baptism Paul is referring to being baptized into the name of Christ, not many names/baptisms. He is not referring to a single instance of (water) baptism where all the baptisms the Bible speaks of gets completed for the one being baptized.

This being true, we can see it would not be a sin to be re-baptized if one felt the need to do that. Why would it be a sin to be baptized again into the name of Christ? Especially if that re-baptism represents a sincerity of heart that was not present in the person at the first baptism.

 

[Webb]

There are numerous black and white polorazations in scripture. Baptism is one of them.

As for I Cor. 1 folks were troubled with preacheritus as are many today. That was the problem, and Paul further addresses the matter in I Cor.3 begining with vs.1. Note please, they of I Cor.1 were not commanded to be re-baptized. Baptism is to be done in the name of Jesus Christ. The fact that they were not required to be rebaptized as was the case with the disciples of John in Acts 19 definiteliy shows I Cor.1 was a matter of people following their favorite preacher over other men of God. I have taught many people myself and as Paul did I usuallly asked another to baptize them. Same principle, same reason. See again I Cor. chapter 3 vs. 1---

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There are numerous black and white polorazations in scripture. Baptism is one of them.

The essentials are black and white. The disputable things we argue and divide ourselves about in the church, we are the ones who make them black and white with no consideration in between for the strengths found on both sides of the argument.

It's really quite amazing how we are all predisposed by our humanness to believe that all things have to be either black or white to be true. Growing up in Christ means resisting our natural propensity to do that and start looking at things in a more reasonable, level-headed, unemotionally charged kind of way.

As for I Cor. 1 folks were troubled with preacheritus as are many today. That was the problem, and Paul further addresses the matter in I Cor.3 begining with vs.1. Note please, they of I Cor.1 were not commanded to be re-baptized. Baptism is to be done in the name of Jesus Christ. The fact that they were not required to be rebaptized as was the case with the disciples of John in Acts 19 definiteliy shows I Cor.1 was a matter of people following their favorite preacher over other men of God. I have taught many people myself and as Paul did I usuallly asked another to baptize them. Same principle, same reason. See again I Cor. chapter 3 vs. 1---

You don't seem to be able to see that the problem Paul is addressing there is the body of Christ dividing over who they follow, and, as we know was the custom of the day what teacher's name they had been baptized into and identify themselves with. In Christ we are baptized into the one and only name of Christ. That is the singularity of baptism Paul is referring to, for we know the Bible says there is more than one type of baptism, and that they may or may not happen at the same time. So we know 'one baptism' can't mean one literal baptism.

 

[Webb]

We know those of I Cor.1 were not literally baptizing people in the baptizers names (Cephas, Apollos) for they were NOT required to be rebaptized as were those of Johns disciples as I have already stated, and you have not dealt with that. Had they been baptizing in their own names Paul would not have asked: "Who then is Paul, and whois Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed--" I Cor.3:5. Paul includes himself in this number of preachers of whom people were choosing as favorites. Thats why he baptized few himself.

The idea that there can be 2 (or even more ) baptisms going on at the same time is contrary to scripture. Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit said "one baptism", Eph.4:5. In the same context he said "one God", "one body", "one Spirit", "one hope", "one faith" and "one God." ONE means ONE, singular, not plural, not several, not "Gods", not "bodies", not "Spirits", not "hope", not "faiths" but ONE, and ONE is always singular and singular is always ONE. Thus Paul said One baptism. At the time he wrote Ephesians John's baptism was voided, Holy Spirit baptism has served its mission and the baptism of fire is yet future. This leaves only water baptism which only men can perform and which is to last unto the end of the world, Matt.28:19-20. (The word "hope" in the 4th sentence above should have been "hopes" )

 

[Jethro Bodine]

We know those of I Cor.1 were not literally baptizing people in the baptizers names (Cephas, Apollos) for they were NOT required to be rebaptized as were those of Johns disciples as I have already stated, and you have not dealt with that.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that we can see even from the Bible itself that there was this problem of people dividing themselves according to who they had been discipled by and baptized into. Corinthians is where we see the matter brought up, serving as the evidence of that custom existing at the time...not because these people themselves had done that. We don't know that for sure. But to confirm that it was a custom of the day simply because Paul brings it up.

And it's easy to see, since this is how people divided themselves at that time, why Paul would make a point in his letters of the singularity of the name and ministry and body of Christ for all of us who believe where there is no division whatsoever...no being baptized into this name or that, no following this teacher or that teacher, etc. Paul shows the evidence of this matter of baptismal division again in the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians:

"...what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?" (1 Cor. 15:29 NIV1984)

So, do you understand now? I'm not saying the Corinthians had been baptized into various names of teachers (but perhaps some of them did--it doesn't say). I'm pointing out that even from the scriptures we can see that there was this problem in the first century of people dividing themselves into various factions of baptisms. To counter the custom of the day Paul teaches that there is only one name that Christians are baptized into. One name/ one Lord/ one teacher/ one baptism. It fits the context of the rest of the passage there in Eph. 4 perfectly. To try to make it mean God accomplishes all baptisms in a single water baptism, or that there is only a water baptism (not a spiritual baptism, etc.) doesn't even fit what Paul is talking about there.

Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit said "one baptism", Eph.4:5. In the same context he said "one God", "one body", "one Spirit", "one hope", "one faith" and "one God." ONE means ONE, singular, not plural, not several, not "Gods", not "bodies", not "Spirits", not "hope", not "faiths" but ONE, and ONE is always singular and singular is always ONE.

That is exactly what I'm saying. The singularity Paul is speaking of is Christ. And in the case of baptism, there are not divisions of baptisms into many names as was the custom of the day (proven to exist from scripture itself as I have pointed out). That meaning fits. Your's does not.

With all this being true, it is not a sin to get re-baptized if a person felt they should do that, for 'one baptism' does not mean only getting baptized once. It means all are baptized into the one and only and singular kingdom, and name, and faith of Jesus Christ. And if you feel the need to do that twice...go for it.

 

[Webb]

Hi Jethro
Your post # 13 read in part: "I'M POINTING OUT THAT EVEN FROM THE SCRIPTURES WE CAN SEE THAT THERE WAS THIS PROBLEM IN THE FIRST CENTURY OF PEOPLE DIVIDING THEMSELVES INTO VARIOUS FACTIONS OF BAPTISMS.''

It is agreed there were divisions over favorite preachers which exists to this day. I DO deny there were "factions of baptisms.'' You have no evidence of that. If Cephas and Apollos had actually been baptizing in their own names they would have been disobedient and it would not have been in Jesus name and therefore a false baptism and they would have had to be baptized properly and you have no evidence of that.

You wrote: "---IT IS NOT A SIN TO GET - REBAPTIZED IF A PERSON FELT THAT THEY SHOULD DO THAT---."

To be ablolutely technical there is no such thing scripturally as being "rebaptized." You have either been baptized or you have not. But I know what you mean and in the sense we generalliy use it I agree with you. In my own case I was christened as a baby a thing of which I had no remembrance and therefore personalliy did me no good at all. Later I was sprinkled for baptism in the Methodist church, thinking surely the preacher would not do wrong. Upon study I learned baptism was a burial and was immersed because I loved Jesus and He was baptized. Upon further study I learned baptism was for the remission of sins and I had not been baptized (immersed) for that reason. We must do what God says for the REASON God says to do it and in the WAY He says to do it and thats not only by immersion but "for the remission" of sins. After all, John's disciples were baptized (immersed) a second time when they realized their baptism was not then valid.

I may not be able to continiue on the internet as my pc has problems and if its the motherboard I may not be financially able to purchace another. Please understand if this is the case.
God bless

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Hi Jethro
Your post # 13 read in part: "I'M POINTING OUT THAT EVEN FROM THE SCRIPTURES WE CAN SEE THAT THERE WAS THIS PROBLEM IN THE FIRST CENTURY OF PEOPLE DIVIDING THEMSELVES INTO VARIOUS FACTIONS OF BAPTISMS.''

It is agreed there were divisions over favorite preachers which exists to this day. I DO deny there were "factions of baptisms.'' You have no evidence of that.

The 1 Cor. 15 passage shows it even better. Historically, we know this matter of being baptized into the name of your teacher was the custom of the day.

If Cephas and Apollos had actually been baptizing in their own names they would have been disobedient and it would not have been in Jesus name and therefore a false baptism and they would have had to be baptized properly and you have no evidence of that.

You'd have a point if it said who had baptized them. You have no argument from me that the disciples would know better than to baptize someone into any other name than Jesus. But we don't know who baptized any, most, or all of the Corinthians. We know that it isn't even possible for anyone to say they were baptized into Paul's name even if they were to misunderstand their baptism that way (he didn't do baptism's), but by the same token we don't know who they might say they were baptized into.

You wrote: "---IT IS NOT A SIN TO GET - REBAPTIZED IF A PERSON FELT THAT THEY SHOULD DO THAT---."

To be ablolutely technical there is no such thing scripturally as being "rebaptized." You have either been baptized or you have not. But I know what you mean and in the sense we generalliy use it I agree with you. In my own case I was christened as a baby a thing of which I had no remembrance and therefore personalliy did me no good at all. Later I was sprinkled for baptism in the Methodist church, thinking surely the preacher would not do wrong. Upon study I learned baptism was a burial and was immersed because I loved Jesus and He was baptized. Upon further study I learned baptism was for the remission of sins and I had not been baptized (immersed) for that reason. We must do what God says for the REASON God says to do it and in the WAY He says to do it and thats not only by immersion but "for the remission" of sins. After all, John's disciples were baptized (immersed) a second time when they realized their baptism was not then valid.

It's clear to me, then, that you agree that the OP is free to be water baptized again if they feel they need to be, and that it would not be a sin to do so.

I may not be able to continiue on the internet as my pc has problems and if its the motherboard I may not be financially able to purchace another. Please understand if this is the case.
God bless

Understood. God bless.