Why multiple baptisms?

[Raven]

Thank you all for your clarifications.

 

To answer Ezra.

All my adulthood baptisms were done in absolute faith in Christ, God, and Holy Spirit. Each baptism was experienced as a cleansing of my soul - like a sudden inspiration.

These days I get the same inspiration through loving the Love (Trinity) that loves me. It is my daily practice.

I know that the Holy Spirit quickens me as long as my reference to life is through the Holy Spirit. 

[lovetruth]

there is a saving baptism and it is not water baptism

[thereselittleflower]

In the past I have been baptized four times. Once as an infant, and other times due to involvement with various denominations in my adulthood.

Each denomination, or church, wanted me to be baptized again. They seem to think that my previous baptisms were bogus or not as meaningful as their own 'authority' to do so.

Recently, another denomination has been visiting me. I always welcome Truth seekers, regardless of church. Now, one of these young/new evangelists want me to be baptized again.

When I explained that I already have been baptized, I was ignored. It soon became apparent that I was seen as a prize for this person's need for favour by his peers.

The baptism was not for my benefit but for his. His lack of discernment has been more of a barrier than an opening gate to their church.

 

Can anybody tell me why (it seems) that denominations do not recognize a baptism, outside their own denomination, as a baptism?

 

Raven, here is an interesting discussion of baptism, including infant baptism which you might be interested in given you were baptized as an infant.

 

http://www.theopedia.com/Infant_baptism

[Floatingaxe]

We are to submit to full immersion water baptism as a point of identity with Jesus Christ when we are saved. Other than that, there is no other reason for being baptized. Infants don't qualify, nor do unbelievers, and it is not a means to gain salvation, or an ordinance to enter into church membership. Anyone who has come to receive Jesus Christ as Saviour needs to be taught what baptism is all about, and every Christian needs to know, so that we can obey the great commission and lead the lost to Christ, discipling them and baptizing them.

[JohnD]

In the past I have been baptized four times. Once as an infant, and other times due to involvement with various denominations in my adulthood.

Each denomination, or church, wanted me to be baptized again. They seem to think that my previous baptisms were bogus or not as meaningful as their own 'authority' to do so.

Recently, another denomination has been visiting me. I always welcome Truth seekers, regardless of church. Now, one of these young/new evangelists want me to be baptized again.

When I explained that I already have been baptized, I was ignored. It soon became apparent that I was seen as a prize for this person's need for favour by his peers.

The baptism was not for my benefit but for his. His lack of discernment has been more of a barrier than an opening gate to their church.

 

Can anybody tell me why (it seems) that denominations do not recognize a baptism, outside their own denomination, as a baptism?

 

It's because they do not understand the one baptism that counts is the baptism of the Holy Spirit (i.e. saving faith in Jesus Christ).

 

John the Baptiste said contrasting water baptism to saving faith baptism:

 

Matthew 3:11 (AV)

¹¹I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

 

Baptism of the Holy Ghost (salvation)

Baptism of fire (judgment / condemnation)

 

All other baptisms are for various purposes (Jesus referred to his death, burial, and resurrection as a "baptism" he must undergo). 

 

Luke 12:50 (AV)

⁵⁰But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

 

Now I am sure I will be scoffed at, lambasted, shown many verses that seem to undermine this simple and totally biblical perspective on baptism. But I am convinced by the word of God not people or their extrabiblical reasonings...

[Ezra]

Seeing that several baptisms have been referred to in post #15, we need some clarity:

 

1. The baptism with and by the Holy Spirit -- if we are clear that the Greek verb baptizo means *to immerse* then it also becomes clear that two spiritual baptisms occur simultaneously at the New Birth --  Christ baptizes us with the Holy Ghost (pours the Holy Spirit as a Gift upon the sinner who repents), and the Holy Spirit then immerses us (connects us) into the Body of Christ (which obliterates all differences of race, ethnicity, social status, etc.) . 

 

While speaking in tongues was manifested with this baptism from time to time in Scripture, it was not a necessary outcome, as we see from Saul's conversion to Paul.  Unfortunately Pentecostalism has made tongues the evidence of this baptism, and an experience which follows conversion.  But Paul tells us that "not all speak in tongues" therefore that is false doctrine.

 

2. Believer's Baptism -- identifies the believer with the death, burial and resurrecton of Christ.  It is commanded, and ideally should occur when a sinner is saved by grace (not water).  It was also by immersion, since the translators could have translated the word as "immersion" but they chose to transliterate baptisma as "baptism".  Had they translated it as "immersion" all the Reformed Churches would have had to make some serious changes to their mode of baptism, and possibly even had to stop infant baptisms.

 

3. Christ's "Baptism" at the Cross -- This was a "baptism" of suffering and indescribable agony when Jesus was made Sin for us.  He also told the apostles that they would participate in this "baptism" and they did by becoming martyrs who suffered for their testimony.

 

4. The unbeliever's "fiery baptism" in Hell and/or under the awful judgments to come -- John the Baptizer spoke about this in Mt 4:11,12:  I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:  Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.  There is only one place with unquenchable fire, and that is the Lake of Fire.  Those who do not obey the Gospel and receive the baptism with the Holy Ghost will face another "baptism" which is too awful to contemplate.

 

If there is one who reads this and knows that he or she does not have the indwelling Holy Spirit, then it is time for that person to repent and be saved,  Then follow up with believer's baptism.

[missmuffet]

I know that the RCC and the Lutherans believe that a baby has to be baptized or they will not go to heaven if they die.I was sprinkled many years ago.I am ok with that.It is not a salvation issue.

[Ezra]

I know that the RCC and the Lutherans believe that a baby has to be baptized or they will not go to heaven if they die.I was sprinkled many years ago.I am ok with that.It is not a salvation issue.

bopeep,

So long as a Christian undergoes believer's baptism, infant baptism can be disregarded.  While baptism is not a salvation issue, it is a sanctification and obedience issue.  That is why Peter commanded the household of Cornelius to be baptized (Acts 10:48).

[thereselittleflower]

 

I know that the RCC and the Lutherans believe that a baby has to be baptized or they will not go to heaven if they die.I was sprinkled many years ago.I am ok with that.It is not a salvation issue.

bopeep,

So long as a Christian undergoes believer's baptism, infant baptism can be disregarded.  While baptism is not a salvation issue, it is a sanctification and obedience issue.  That is why Peter commanded the household of Cornelius to be baptized (Acts 10:48).

 

 

Yes, Peter did command that entire households be baptized.  It would be a reasonable conclusion then that entire households would include children and infants as well.  If entire households were baptized, which would include infants and children, there must be an important reason.

 

Something I find very interesting is that entrance into the Old Covenant was not withheld from infants.  In fact, quite the contrary was the case.  Infants were made participants in the Old Covenant through the rite of initiation of circumcision.   Baptism in the New Covenant is called the circumcision without hands, directly relating it to the circumcision of the Old Covenant.  When we speak of convenants, it is very interesting that convenants, and their attendant obligations and promises, are entered into through a sign, a rite.  In the Old Covenant that sign, that rite of entrance was circumcision.  The Old Covenant foreshadowed the New Covenant, so in the New Covenant, we would see circumscision foreshadowing something, and we do in Baptism.  In the Old Covenant, the rite of circumcision of the flesh foreshadowed the rite of circumcision made without hands, baptism.   If the Old Covenant foreshadowed the New Covenant, and the Old Covenant made full provision for infants to be included  as full participants in the obligations and promises of that covenant, would God then make the New and better covenant yet exclude infants from becoming full participants in it by denying them access to the rite of entrance, Baptism? It would be reasonable to answer now. Infant participation in the Old Covenant would foreshadow infant participation in the New Covenant, and  would find its fulfillment as all foreshadows in the Old Covenant do.  Nothing is lost in the Old Covenant.  All is fulfilled.  

 

The argument I have seen frequently made against infant baptism is that baptism can only be given to those who repent, and infants cannot repent because they don't understand and can't make such a conscious decision.  This argument, however, neglects to account for the fact that neither did the infants in the Old Covenant - they could make no conscious decision to be part of the covenant of God anymore than infants can today.  But that did not exclude them from full participation in the obligations and promises of the Old Covenant.  They were included on the basis of their parents' faith and understanding and choice.   I can find no reasonable reason to believe that the same would not be true of infant baptism.  Just as these infants from the Old Covenant would have to make a conscious choice when they were old enough, so do infants in the New Covenant.  But as infants, I can see no reason God would exclude them from the benefits of being included in the New Covenant relationship with God given how God included them in the Old Covenant.   We are to suffer the little children/infants to come to Him, not push them away.

 

Peter, in Acts, says:

 

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38)

 "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39).

 

And in his epistle, he says again:

 

1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 

 

In Matthew, Jesus says

 

"Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14). 

 

In Luke we read:

 

"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16). 

 

Notice He says specifically - "to such"  -  to such as these - to these infants and children - "belongs the Kingdom of heaven."

 

In Col. 2:11–12 Paul speaks of baptism as the circumcision made without hands:

 

11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[a] was put off when you were circumcised by[b] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

 

When reading scripture, I find I must remind myself when Paul wrote this, there were no chapters or verses.  It is a letter.  Chapters and verses were added later as a means of reference for easy finding, so verses 11 and 12 are one continuous sentence and need be read as such.  When we do so, we more easily see circumcision in Christ being directly related to baptism.

 

 From everything I have learned in my Christian walk of faith, as infants or children we may enter into the New Covenant relationship with God through baptism through the faith and actions of our parents, but we must affirm this covenantal relationship for ourselves when we are old enough to be accountable for our choices and actions; we must experience our own conversion to God.   There was only one rite of initiation into the Old Covenant. There is only one rite of initiation into the New Covenant .  But our walk of faith only begins there - it does not end there.  Our life is to be one of continual conversion to God.

Edited July 5, 2015 by thereselittleflower