Shouldn't you have to get 'baptized again', every time you leave/ reenter/Xianity?

[Desert Snake]

The baptism is obviously conditional... As such, should not a person have to get baptized again ,every time they leave the faith, then join it again?

 

[sojourner]

No, not according to any church I've been acquainted with. There is one baptism. There's no such thing as "rebaptism." Once you're baptized, you're baptized. That's it. When I came to the RCC from Protestantism, I wasn't required to be baptized "again." The denomination in which I work now accepts baptisms from any tradition.

I don't see why you think that baptism is "conditional."

 

[Thana]

A baptism is symbolic. So you can have none, or as many as you like.
It's not conditional.

 

[sojourner]

A baptism is symbolic. So you can have none, or as many as you like.
It's not conditional.

Actually, according to the historic/confessional traditions, you can't "have as many as you like." Baptism is like ordination. No one is "reordained." There's only ordination. That's because Christian ministry is, at its base, a baptsimal ministry. Once one has undergone that sacrament, it's done. It can't be taken away.

 

[Desert Snake]

A baptism is symbolic. So you can have none, or as many as you like.
It's not conditional.

If the baptism is symbolic, then why is it done in the pretext that the Bible ''demands', one to be baptized? Ie, the wording as the baptism takes place is also the prescribed 'wording', or how people interpret that command to baptize. Seems a tad confused. Are people ''required'', to be baptized, or not?

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't see why you think that baptism is "conditional."

Because people have told me it is? Try telling someone who has left Xianity, that their baptism is still in affect.

 

[Desert Snake]

A baptism is symbolic. So you can have none, or as many as you like.
It's not conditional.

I do agree with this, I btw. /technically/.

 

[Thana]

If the baptism is symbolic, then why is it done in the pretext that the Bible ''demands', one to be baptized? Ie, the wording as the baptism takes place is also the prescribed 'wording', or how people interpret that command to baptize. Seems a tad confused. Are people ''required'', to be baptized, or not?

Because there is a difference between getting your head dunked under water and being baptized in the Spirit.

 

[Thana]

Actually, according to the historic/confessional traditions, you can't "have as many as you like." Baptism is like ordination. No one is "reordained." There's only ordination. That's because Christian ministry is, at its base, a baptsimal ministry. Once one has undergone that sacrament, it's done. It can't be taken away.

Well you can, because people do. I believe my sister has had it done atleast twice.
As to it's validity or efficacy, that's not for me to say.

 

[Sees]

A do-over because the first didn't seem to take?

I think there are some denominations/sects that want you to have a baptism in their way, under their authority, regardless of your past experiences. Can't see how it makes any sense though.

 

[psychoslice]

My church that I use to belong made me get baptised twice, when I left and returned, but I don't personally agree, there is only one baptism, more than that is calling God a liar.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Because people have told me it is? Try telling someone who has left Xianity, that their baptism is still in affect.

I left Christianity, and according to everything I have ever heard, my baptism is still in effect according to the Church.
It is mildly annoying to know I can't get it annulled actually, but since I think it has no physical or spiritual effect, I'm not losing sleep over it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The baptism is obviously conditional... As such, should not a person have to get baptized again ,every time they leave the faith, then join it again?

I personally believe so. I had to "fight" the Church to get baptized again. I was baptized in water the first time; and, they didn't consider it a real baptism anyway because I didnt have records and they didn't know if I baptized in father/son/holy spirit.

It took awhile. My thoughts is when you go into any faith, say Christianity, you make a vow. You make a vow that you want to and will have a relationship with God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. You give yourself to your Savior and you follow Him by scripure (and whatever means that helps you, by Church, solo, however).

When you leave Christianity and any faith, you break that vow. It's like getting divorced and you think you can just get married without signing a marriage cirtificate. Doesn't work that way. Instead you renew your vows by being baptized again. You take the same spoken oath as I just mentioned and continue as a Christian.

The water represents your cleaning. The words represent your vow. Your action represents your practice. All of this is part of baptism.

So, yes. Without being baptized again, to me, that's like saying you're married but never signed anything to say you are as such. You may be engaged. Lived together for years. But not married.

Huge difference.

 

[picnic]

I've heard the Catholic church has a ritual of reconciliation. I've never been Catholic, so I don't know the details.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Ive heard that the baptism is "unabwaschbar" which means "un-wipeable". So once youre baptized youre baptized for life, even though you might not believe in christianity.

 

[sojourner]

Because people have told me it is? Try telling someone who has left Xianity, that their baptism is still in affect.

What's it supposed to be conditional upon? The baptism is a sacrament of the church -- not a personal ceremony. It is administered by the church and is celebrated within the community. Therefore, if the church considers one to be baptized -- they're baptized, no matter what they do afterward. Baptism isn't contingent upon subsequent action.

 

[sojourner]

If the baptism is symbolic, then why is it done in the pretext that the Bible ''demands', one to be baptized? Ie, the wording as the baptism takes place is also the prescribed 'wording', or how people interpret that command to baptize. Seems a tad confused. Are people ''required'', to be baptized, or not?

No, not "required." They're generally not considered to be "members" of the church until they are baptized; sometimes considered "unbaptized members" if they're not. But I've never seen any judicatory, with the exception of some extremely conservative and tightly-controlled groups, who see baptism as "mandatory."

 

[sojourner]

Well you can, because people do. I believe my sister has had it done atleast twice.
As to it's validity or efficacy, that's not for me to say.

In the churches I've been part of (including the RCC and Anglican), the formula is different. "Rebaptism" just isn't a thing. If one is in question as to whether they have been baptized, or if there is question that their baptism was valid, the officiant will say, "If you are not already baptized, I baptize you now..." Because in most of Xy, there is only one baptism. My children were baptized twice. We had them baptized as infants in the EC, then my ex wife had them baptized "again" when they were "of age" in a river. Were they really baptized twice? No. There is only one baptism. Therefore, one or the other wasn't really a "baptism."

 

[Muffled]

I believe a true baptism is much better than a pretend one. I tripped over the baptismal classes thinking that I had to believe all the doctrine before I could get baptized. Thank God later I realized that my Baptism was just a confirmation of my accepting Jesus and not a testimony that I adhered to a churches doctrine. I could have been baptized under the false pretense of filing a church requirement but the holy Spirit led me into a true baptism instead.

 

[Muffled]

No, not according to any church I've been acquainted with. There is one baptism. There's no such thing as "rebaptism." Once you're baptized, you're baptized. That's it. When I came to the RCC from Protestantism, I wasn't required to be baptized "again." The denomination in which I work now accepts baptisms from any tradition.

I don't see why you think that baptism is "conditional."

I believe I could understand the position of one baptism if people really did that isstead of doing make believe baptisms. I agree that a true baptism does not need another.