/christianity/ - Christian Theology

Rebaptism should never happen. The only reason you would repeat the ceremony is is the first one was invalid, which sounds if might have been your situation.

Were you saved as a teen or as a child?

The validity of baptism is not based on who is being baptized. OP if you received the sacrament in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Christian Church from a validly ordained minister, do not seek it again. Rebaptism is a sin.

The Amish are Anabaptist.

>>2149

>pic

Cringe

>lemme guess, its whatever your particular flavor is?

Um, no

>good to know there's no necessity to beleive in Christ too, very lovely

Until there's a way to read men's minds and know what is in their heart, it will never be required to believe in Christ, even if some churches pretend otherwise. Profession of faith and faith are not the same thing.

>which one?

The one with Jesus Christ as its head

>fucking

Watch your language, show some maturity

>John the baptists followers were rebaptised

>John was not a yet validly ordained as a Christian minister

John's baptism was not the ordinary sacrament commanded by Christ.

And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

>>2151

Meanwhile in 1Peter 3:21,

καὶὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦνσῴζει βάπτισμα, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν, δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

Although the verb ἐπερωτάω is common enough in the New Testament and wider literature, the passive cognate noun ἐπερώτημα is very rare. However based on early papyri that we got(i.e such as in P.Oxy. 9.1200, the registration of a deed dated to 266 CE,and in P.Oxy. 9.1208, the public acknowledgement of a contract of sale in 291 CE) it carries the sense of a contract or covenant, perhaps also equivalent to the Latin applicatio ad patronum, whereby one entered into a client–patron relationship.

Also at issue is how one should take the genitive συνειδήσεως.If objective, then it would refer to the pledge of a Christian to maintain a good conscience, but if subjective, it would be the good conscience from which a Christian makes a commitment to God in baptism. The present consensus seems to be in favor of an objective genitive, with the ἐπερώτημα understood as consisting of the commitment or ‘pledge’ made at baptism to preserve a good conscience, that is, mindfulness of God or proper conduct, in one’s subsequent life.

For instance see:

Achtemeier, 1 Peter,pp.271–72; Elliott, 1 Peter,p.681. Also taking it as an objective genitive, referring to the baptizand’s pledge to maintain a good conscience, are Reicke, Disobedient Spirits,p .185; J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (BNTC; London: Black, 1969), p. 162; Roger Omanson, ‘Suffering for Righteousness’ Sake (1 Pet 3:13–4:11)’, RevExp 79 (1982), p. 444; Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter, trans. John E. Alsup (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 258; R. T. France, ‘Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples’, in I. H. Marshall (ed.), New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 275. However, Michaels, 1 Peter,p.216, holds out for a subjective genitive.

On this reading the συνείδησις ἀγαθή refers to the content of the ‘pledge’ undertaken at baptism. Hence, the view of baptism as a formal and public contract with subsequent binding force on the parties involved

>>2154

Not interested in your commentary copypastas, Malaysiafag. Filtered

>>2156

>t. Assmad Baptist

>>2159

This. Why do Baptists do this bullshit?

>>2151

>Um, no

<so your stance is bullshit, good to know

>telepathy route since your retarded

<didnt know people needed to be telepathic to read their own mind and heart, amazing

>Christ at its head

<FUCKING LOL

>not citing specific sources

<still didnt address Christ's own baptism

<still doesnt change the fact that they were baptised

Still, ascribing spiritual changes caused by physical actions IS sorcery; a sin and something forbidden.

>>2238

>bullshit

>your retarded

>FUCKING

I'll wait until you're an adult to reply

>>2251

<as if you would have anyways.

Ascribing spiritual changes due IS sorcery; a sin and forbidden.

Re-baptism is not a sin. Baptism does not "save" you, and therefor re-baptism does not bring guilt on you. The thief on the cross was not baptized (Luke 23:43) and Jesus promised him salvation. Baptism is an outward demonstration of your commitment to Christ. It is showing that we have died to sin (buried by being submerged under water) and have been raised up in the new life of Christ (coming out of the water). Study Romans 7 and Galatians 2.

Galatians 2:19

19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.

We practice baptism because Jesus told us to. It is the first thing that he commands us to do as Christians. We do it because we love him, want to obey him and we want to be a witness to others.

Ideally we should make the decision to be baptized for ourselves (not by our parents). That is why it is called the "believers baptism". If you were not part of that decision years ago, and you want to publicly let others know that you are committing your life to Christ, then go for it and be re-baptized. If you are not worried about it, then don't be baptized again. Either way will not effect your salvation.

>>2374

Baptism isn't something men do of their own authority for their own enjoyment, it is done because God commanded it, only as God commanded it. And since baptism was ordained to represent the circumcision of the heart, we may only be baptized as many times as we have hearts to cleanse.