Sorry I just can't get used to saying paedobaptism yet!! I didn't even know what that word meant until I came here and I had to look it up in my dictionary a while ago!!!
Anyways I know there is this answer somewhere in some thread already, but I'm curious of one thing.
For those of you who believe in infant baptism, do you believe then that the infant (who gets baptized) should later get re-baptized as an adult when they actually believe and make a profession of Christ??
No, they would not. The issue of baptism is in relation to how the paedo understands the nature of the New Covenant. Children born into a house with a set of believing parents baptize their children to identify them with partaking in the NC. Obviously, there will be paedos who will help clarify what I am saying, but the issue basically boils down to how one understands the NC in relation to the OC. Circumcision was the outward sign of participating in the OC, baptism in like manner, is the sign of the New. In both cases, infants receive that sign.
Fred Staunch Water Baptized Dunkard
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
Ok. So how about a child who is baptized (let's say in the Roman Catholic church) to religious, but unbelieving parents at the time of the baptism. So this baptism is null and void? and the child later as an adult becoming a true Christian should then get baptized??
No. We cannot know if his parents were regenerate or not. Notice the two are not always the same. Baptists uphold professors baptism. Not all professors are Christians. To clarify Fred a bit, we believe children of believing parents are identified with the visible covenant and are therefore administered the sign of that covenant. The other side of the issue is if a profession is commanded prior to baptism within scripture. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Well that's interesting. I'm not sure what to think. The situation above is actually my situation. My mother baptized me in the roman catholic church (but she wasn't a believer at that point). She was saved when I was about 4 and thankfully left the RCC and I was brought up in a protestant christian church. I later was saved at 17 1/2 and had a prompting to get baptized later. I was going to get baptized at my church and spoke with my pastor about it and then he asked me if I was baptized as a baby. At the time I had to go ask my mother if I was baptized in the RCC because I didn't know. She never mentioned it, because it really wasn't important since she wasn't a believer then and being in the RCC, etc. So when I told my pastor about this he told me that he really wasn't sure if he'd baptize me then. Well I was really thrown for a loop here and upset about this. It was clear to me that this baptism didn't mean anything because my mother did it out of religious conviction, wasn't a believer at the time, and my dad wasn't a believer (and still isn't). He was trying to tell me that the faith of my parents brought me to be baptized, etc. What faith??? (as I described) and one cannot give any salvation to one's child by baptism. Well I wound up going to another church to be baptized with some friends who were getting baptized 7 years after my conversion. Honestly I was kind of shocked to see that some here believe in infant baptism. But I read Pilgrim's responses in the other post and he made it pretty clear about some other questions I had and where he stands about it. Some day I'll read about this Covenant Theology just out of curiousity. Seems like differences in theologies with baptism are even MORE difficult than I thought.
So isn't immersion of the baptism important?? Just for the adult?? Well this does leave me with some more questions like this, maybe I'll ask another day.
If you are interested in reading about CT from a Reformed Baptist perspective, I would recommend you reading 'The Baptism of Disciples Alone' by Dr. Fred Malone.
By all means however, I encourage you to read about CT from both a Credo & a Paedo perspective.
The situation above is actually my situation. My mother baptized me in the roman catholic church (but she wasn't a believer at that point). She was saved when I was about 4 and thankfully left the RCC and I was brought up in a protestant christian church. I later was saved at 17 1/2 and had a prompting to get baptized later. I was going to get baptized at my church and spoke with my pastor about it and then he asked me if I was baptized as a baby. At the time I had to go ask my mother if I was baptized in the RCC because I didn't know. She never mentioned it, because it really wasn't important since she wasn't a believer then and being in the RCC, etc. So when I told my pastor about this he told me that he really wasn't sure if he'd baptize me then. Well I was really thrown for a loop here and upset about this. It was clear to me that this baptism didn't mean anything because my mother did it out of religious conviction, wasn't a believer at the time, and my dad wasn't a believer (and still isn't). He was trying to tell me that the faith of my parents brought me to be baptized, etc. What faith???
I totally understand. I was baptized twice as a youngster. Once when i was six by a homosexual pentecostal. The second into the mormon church. When I became a Christian I decided neither of these were performed by what I would call true ministers. I decided to be rebaptised. My pastor said that he was willing to accept the pentecostal baptism but I was adamant about being rebaptised. He understood and performed the act.
Quote
What faith??? (as I described) and one cannot give any salvation to one's child by baptism.
Agreed. Although those children within the visible covenant surely have access to more than those outside. Nobody here holds to baptismal regeneration. We baptize children because they are covenant children.
Quote
So isn't immersion of the baptism important?? Just for the adult??
Not prescribed in scripture. Not necessarily described in scripture.
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the first pastor. There is a fundamental misunderstanding among many (not all) protestants concerning baptism. Perhaps, like them, you think that baptism is merely a sign, or public statement that one has received Christ, but according to the Bible it's much more than that. I invite you to study all scriptures in regard to water baptism such as Matt 28:19, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:39, 22:16, 1Corin 12:13, Gal 3:27, and 1Pet 3:21. These clearly indicate that baptism is intrinsically tied into our salvation and is a critical part of our conversion.
Which vindicates the pastor's position that it ought not be taken so lightly that it is done repeatedly; for to repetitiously undergo baptism is tantamount to recrucifying our Lord (as if the first time was insufficient). And we know that this is impossible as we read in Hebrews:
Quote
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away to renew them again to repentence, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and put Him to an open shame." Hebrews 6:4-6 NKJV
No doubt your pastor (correctly) believes baptism to be a sacred sacrament to be performed only once even as Christ was only once crucified for all our sins. And he is also evidence that this isn't some estranged Catholic belief, but is strongly held by all Christians who rightly divide the word of truth.
Another point I want to touch upon is your mother's departure from the Catholic Church. It is true that many people could not develop a close relationship to Christ in the Catholic Church, but more often than not, it's because of lack of adherence to devotional practice. The Church teaches us to not only show up for mass weekly, but to also participate in the many devotions, adorations, meditations, contemplations, Bible studies, and sessions of spiritual and thoughtful prayer. The Church not only encourages us to develop a close and enduring relationship to Jesus, they provide ample opportunity to do so corporately as well as privately.
Many Catholics don't take advantage of these opportunities, and typically, those who don't are not regular even in their attendance of the mass. Then they find Jesus outside of the RCC and they think that the Church had failed them and had to leave the Church to find Jesus. Many of these former Catholics then begin practices that they should have been doing to begin with, such as praying, reading the Bible, fellowship, and public and private worship.
A Catholic never needs to leave the Church to find Jesus, but with that said, for those who believe that it was necessary, more power to them, for if they have attained Christ by any means, I cannot but rejoice. Paul was of the same attitude, becoming a Jew to Jews and a gentile to gentiles; becoming all things to all men that he might win some to Christ. He knew what was most important.
"Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen." Eph 6:24
I'll briefly comment on two points you made and asked questions about:
1) Rebaptism: There is a difference of opinion within the Reformed camp as to whether the Roman State Church is a true church or not. I am on the side that does not recognize Rome; it fails as to the necessary "marks" of a true Church which are: a) The preaching of the pure gospel, b) the right administration of the sacraments, and c) proper church discipline. It is my view that Rome is apostate. Thus, any baptism performed by Rome is invalid.
2) Immersion: Contrary to some of my Baptist brethren, I find no warrant in Scripture to believe that immersion is the ONLY valid mode for baptism. I do believe that it is one of three that can rightly be administered: a) Aspersion, b) Effusion, and c) Immersion. In fact, it is doubtful that immersion was practiced during the time of Christ. For a succinct article on this subject see here: The Token of the Covenant by Rev. William MacIntyre.
On a personal note, I was baptized as an infant in a very liberal Methodist church. Neither of my parents were believers. When I was converted many years later, I came under conviction as to the validity of my former baptism and chose to be rebaptized by a believing pastor and according to my own personal faith. There are those who would object for various reasons and I do respect their opinion on the matter. However, I find no solid biblical teaching that would prohibit rebaptism when one's initial baptism was pagan with respect to everything involved; church, pastor, parents, etc.
Well honestly I am not surprised to hear your response. As far as my Mother goes, she has quite an amazing testimony. It was simply from reading the book of John one night that Christ came to her. Her upbringing and membership in the RCC was religion only. And she was quite devout for several of those years and contemplated becoming a nun at one point. Over the course of about a year she read the Bible over and over and saw the manys errors of the RCC (and not from reading any anti-catholic material or such from anyone - just from scripture alone) All of the "battles" and discussions you have run into here of what many here on this site are trying to tell you are the same issues that my mother saw because she was born again and the Holy Spirit revealed them to her.
you said
Quote
A Catholic never needs to leave the Church to find Jesus
Well for my mother Jesus found her and as a result she left the Catholic church. Personally I find it hard to believe of a true born-again Christian remaining in the RCC. I believe that God will eventually lead them out of it like He did with my Mother. (Please don't take this as a personal attack on you - you seem to be quite sensitive to this issue) But that's what I really believe. I don't know where you really are with God and what he's doing in your life. Only He does.
Like I said I'm not surprised with your disagreement. Too bad I can't get my Mom to get on this discussion board and add to things, but she has bad arthritis and she's too afraid of computers!!!
"It is my view that Rome is Apostate, thus any baptism performed by Rome is invalid."
Funny that the Catholic Church is the non exclusive one. Any adult convert who has been baptized in any Christian faith in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, (the only scriptural requirements) will not have to be rebaptized in the Catholic faith.
Quote
"I find no solid biblical teaching that would prohibit rebaptism when one's initial baptism was pagan in respect to everything involved; church, pastor, parents, etc."
Well, sir, you will also not find any scripture allowing the practice or a precident of rebaptism. But the opposite may be clearly deducted from scripture; that baptism is a holy sacrament and crucial part of our conversion, and therefore rebaptism (or why not stop there, let's get baptized every week) cheapens it.
Funny that the Catholic Church is the non exclusive one.
Pilgrim addressed the RCC specifically in response to me and my infant baptism which happened to be in the RCC. There many other churches and cult groups out there that also are considered apostate. What about (for example) the Mormon church?? I would assume they may also baptize in the name of the Father, Son and HS. Now should we accept a baptism from that church??
catholicsoldier retorts: Well, sir, you will also not find any scripture allowing the practice or a precident of rebaptism.
As far as I'm concerned a non-valid baptism is no baptism. And thus "re-baptism" is actually the initial valid baptism. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Thus, in such situations, there is no "re-baptism" but an initial baptism which is warranted.
Quote
Any adult convert who has been baptized in any Christian faith in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, (the only scriptural requirements) will not have to be rebaptized in the Catholic faith.
I don't have a problem with a baptism which was done "in any Christian faith". What I do have a problem with is with baptism performed outside the Christian faith. As I made clear, it is my firm belief that Rome is apostate and is not to be included in "the Christian faith". Thus baptisms performed by Rome don't qualify.
Well, sir, you will also not find any scripture allowing the practice or a precident of rebaptism. But the opposite may be clearly deducted from scripture; that baptism is a holy sacrament and crucial part of our conversion, and therefore rebaptism (or why not stop there, let's get baptized every week) cheapens it.
Catholicsoldier, you have much gall in speaking about "cheapening" anything! You (and the Catholic Church) have cheapened the work of Christ making claim that it is not efficient and sufficient to grant one salvation without baptism. You cheapen grace and faith embracing a work of man. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />
What about (for example) the Mormon church?? I would assume they may also baptize in the name of the Father, Son and HS. Now should we accept a baptism from that church??
Definitely not! Their Jesus (a mere angel) is a different Jesus then the one you believe in, et. al.