Is it necessary to be baptized as an adult, if you were baptized as a baby?

[Deidre]

Just curious on something. I was baptized in the Catholic Church as a baby, but when I left Christianity a few years ago and returned to it over a year ago, I feel like my faith is different for me, now. Like I ''own'' it, like it is truly a representative part of my life, without all the nonsense I had been indoctrinated to believe, growing up. Talking with a friend recently, she said that it would be good to be baptized again, because as a baby, we don't have the ability to offer our consent, but as adults, we do.

What do you think? For those who have been baptized as infants, did you go through another baptism when you were ''born again?''

*I posted this in the Christianity DIR section, but thought I'd post it here too in case there are people who wish to add their thoughts but my not do so if it's in the DIR section

 

[Thief]

I got 'oiled' toward the end of grade school
there were some cursory educational items and then a ceremony

I happen to believe the gesture is more for church and belonging there

I don't think heaven has regard

Born again refers to chore the angels do.....as they lead you about in heaven
I believe there are greater disciplines in the next life
we have to be instructed on the language, the territory and the scheme of things
we have to learn to walk......in grace

and the angels bear us

 

[Neo Deist]

Baptism is symbolic.

For Catholics, you are saved by faith + deeds.
For Protestants, you are saved by faith.

Neither are saved by ceremony. But if it makes you feel better, there is no harm in being baptized again.

 

[pearl]

I was a convert to the Catholic Church, I was baptized in the Methodist Church. No, there was not a 2nd baptism required, as the Church believes one baptism in Christ. Our faith ought to be different, as we grow faith deepens, you 'own' it. While one does not give consent as an infant, one must give free consent for confirmation.

 

[Deidre]

Baptism is symbolic.

For Catholics, you are saved by faith + deeds.
For Protestants, you are saved by faith.

Neither are saved by ceremony. But if it makes you feel better, there is no harm in being baptized again.

Thank you both for your comments, and I like how you condense this down pretty much to that no one is saved by ceremony. I think that my Catholic upbringing still causes me to question myself ''is this a sin, is that a sin'' ugh. I probably won't be baptized, to be honest. I don't feel like it's necessary. It might be nice, I guess...since I left faith and returned to it, so for me now, my faith is more meaningful.

 

[Deidre]

I got 'oiled' toward the end of grade school
there were some cursory educational items and then a ceremony

I happen to believe the gesture is more for church and belonging there

I don't think heaven has regard

Born again refers to chore the angels do.....as they lead you about in heaven
I believe there are greater disciplines in the next life
we have to be instructed on the language, the territory and the scheme of things
we have to learn to walk......in grace

and the angels bear us

Really? This is so interesting, that you say that you don't thin heaven has regard. lol Well, Jesus was baptized, and I believe the Bible talks about being baptized by water and the spirit. The spirit seems most important, perhaps that is what is missing with many people who go through the motions of being ''religious.''

 

[Thief]

Really? This is so interesting, that you say that you don't thin heaven has regard. lol Well, Jesus was baptized, and I believe the Bible talks about being baptized by water and the spirit. The spirit seems most important, perhaps that is what is missing with many people who go through the motions of being ''religious.''

when approached, John said to Him....
it is You that should baptize me!

and He replied.....let this be so

it was in this event I saw that baptism by water is seen by those at hand
the Carpenter was already aware....people see first and then judge
would anyone follow Him?.....not having been baptized

but following in spirit is begun at the water's edge
it begins with the anointing of oil

it takes hold right after your last breath

 

[Neo Deist]

Thank you both for your comments, and I like how you condense this down pretty much to that no one is saved by ceremony. I think that my Catholic upbringing still causes me to question myself ''is this a sin, is that a sin'' ugh. I probably won't be baptized, to be honest. I don't feel like it's necessary. It might be nice, I guess...since I left faith and returned to it, so for me now, my faith is more meaningful.

Could you imagine what it would be like if baptism was required for salvation?

St. Peter at the Pearly Gates: Deidre, let's see here... Ok, you lived a good life, you were law abiding and moral, you helped others, donated to charity, repented, accepted Jesus and kept the faith. Oh, wait a second...no baptism? To Hell you go!

Next!

Adolf Hitler... yeah, quite a track record there, huh? But it looks like you were baptized and confirmed as a child, so you're good. Welcome to paradise!

 

[pearl]

Thank you both for your comments, and I like how you condense this down pretty much to that no one is saved by ceremony. I think that my Catholic upbringing still causes me to question myself ''is this a sin, is that a sin'' ugh. I probably won't be baptized, to be honest. I don't feel like it's necessary. It might be nice, I guess...since I left faith and returned to it, so for me now, my faith is more meaningful.

The purpose of baptism is not salvation but forgiveness, it symbolizes the destruction of sin and new life. It is only through baptism, at whatever age, that one may belong, enter into, the body of Christ, the community, no matter what denomination. No matter what our religion we know in our gut what sin is, an action or inaction that comes between us and our covenant with God.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Jesus said you must repent and then be baptized. No baby is able to repent and so no baby should be baptized. This is an invention of the church to try to indoctrinate people at an early age so they will stay in the church. There is no record in the Bib;e of babies being baptized.

 

[Glaurung]

Neither are saved by ceremony. But if it makes you feel better, there is no harm in being baptized again.

To clear up a misconception, Catholicism does teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Adolf Hitler... yeah, quite a track record there, huh? But it looks like you were baptized and confirmed as a child, so you're good. Welcome to paradise!

Baptism is necessary for salvation, but it doesn't guarantee it. You still have to live a Christian life in a state of grace.

 

[Neo Deist]

To clear up a misconception, Catholicism does teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Baptism is necessary for salvation, but it doesn't guarantee it. You still have to live a Christian life in a state of grace.

I am not debating, merely pointing out that the Bible never says that baptism is necessary for salvation, as only Jesus saves. You quoted part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) so I'd like to quote part of it as well.

CCC 100: The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

So that means that I, someone that spent 30 years as a Christian and has a doctorate in theology, can't interpret the Word of God? All because someone else said so?

 

[Stalwart]

If your infant baptism was valid (presumably it was), then you cannot possibly be baptised again. Your consent was offered by your parents on your behalf. If you have doubts as to the validity of your baptism (dodgy church, if it was performed by a now-laicised priest, nobody else has any memory of it or the details of it, etc.) then you can petition to be baptised again before receiving Holy Communion again. The priest will merely add 'in case you have not been baptised...' to the beginning of the necessary words for its validity. You can't be re-baptised if it was valid, though, and you can't ask for a renewal of baptism because of some romantic sentiment. Instead, read on the baptismal promises, and prayerfully vow to renew them.

Edit: Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, without exception.

 

[Glaurung]

So that means that I, someone that spent 30 years as a Christian and has a doctorate in theology, can't interpret the Word of God? All because someone else said so?

The ironic thing, is that the very acceptance of the Christian canon at all is a tacit acceptance of the authority of the Chruch whether you realise it or not. Where do you think the Bible even comes from? By whose authority were any writings given credence as inspired?

Jesus did not leave any Scripture, but instead founded the Chruch. The principal authority thus belongs to that Chruch, not to any one person's reading of Scripture. It doesn't matter how qualified you imagine yourself to be, to the degree that you're out of line with the teaching of Magisterium, you're wrong. It's that simple.

Of course, since you're not Catholic you can believe whatever you like. But why should I take your interpretations at all seriously? I should trust you over the Chruch because, you say so? My point isn't to debate with you, but to demonstrate that your assertion about what the Catholic Chruch teaches concerning baptism is wrong. Heck, most mainline Protestant Churches (traditionally at least) asserted the utter necessity of baptism. Both Luther and Calvin asserted it.

 

[Neo Deist]

The ironic thing, is that the very acceptance of the Christian canon at all is a tacit acceptance of the authority of the Chruch whether you realise it or not. Where do you think the Bible even comes from? By whose authority were any writings given credence as inspired?

Jesus did not leave any Scripture, but instead founded the Chruch. The principal authority thus belongs to that Chruch, not to any one person's reading of Scripture. It doesn't matter how qualified you imagine yourself to be, to the degree that you're out of line with the teaching of Magisterium, you're wrong. It's that simple.

Of course, since you're not Catholic you can believe whatever you like. But why should I take your interpretations at all seriously? I should trust you over the Chruch because, you say so? My point isn't to debate with you, but to demonstrate that your assertion about what the Catholic Chruch teaches concerning baptism is wrong. Heck, most mainline Protestant Churches (traditionally at least) asserted the utter necessity of baptism. Both Luther and Calvin asserted it.

Yet, the Bible never states it, which means it is not biblical, only traditional. It is therefore ceremonial.

This concludes my discussion on this matter.

 

[Stalwart]

Yet, the Bible never states it

It doesn't state that the Trinity is a thing either.

The Bible is a Church document. If you accept its authority, you accept the authority of the Apostolic Church.

 

[Neo Deist]

It doesn't state that the Trinity is a thing either.

The Bible is a Church document. If you accept its authority, you accept the authority of the Apostolic Church.

I don't.

 

[Stalwart]

I don't.

Then your position is paradoxical, and in need of revision.

 

[Neo Deist]

Then your position is paradoxical, and in need of revision.

Nah, my position is good. And based on facts. Thanks though!

 

[Stalwart]

Nah, my position is good. And based on facts. Thanks though!

The Church gave you the Bible. You recognise the Bible as divinely inspired in terms of both content and assembly (I presume - otherwise, why not refer to those Books deemed fallible, and which stand in opposition to those deemed infallible?). Yet, you do not recognise the authority of the Church, which exercised its authority in determining what was worthy of being recognised as Biblical canon. It is nonsensical, and you know it. Sorry to ruin your day. (Not really.)