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

[Deidre]

Pursuing my own ends, I was told by the Archbishop of the Kansas City diocese "once a Catholic always a Catholic." To the church, your baptism would thus still be valid. The thing that you'd seek to do would be confirmation.

I was confirmed too when I was a teenager, so all the bases are covered. lol

From a ''technical'' church type of view point, all Christian denominations ''accept'' Catholic baptism as valid, and there's not need to go through it again as an adult, for their church purposes, like joining their church or wanting to get married in their church. But, those are church rules, and sometimes I wonder if we get lost between what Jesus would have wanted and man made church rules. Idk. What do you think?

 

[Deidre]

Are you looking for baptism specifically, or would other ways of marking your newfound faith do?

Another way of putting it: it's hard to say whether you should get baptized without knowing what you want to accomplish with the baptism.

If I'm honest, growing up Catholic...it's hard to shake some of the ''sacramental'' ways of thinking. Like, baptism seems like a ritual that maybe I should do, but don't feel called to do? I think the biggest thing is to be baptized spiritually...which was lacking before I left Christianity. I was baptized as a baby, but not until returning to faith over a year ago did I feel ''born again,'' which is like being baptized in the spirit. (to a Christian) Good question, you ask.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

From a ''technical'' church type of view point, all Christian denominations ''accept'' Catholic baptism as valid,

Mmm, not all of them. My sister, for instance, had to be baptized again when she converted to Southern Baptist, as her baptism in the Catholic church wasn't her choice, and therefore wasn't "valid" as her spiritual effort to be saved.

But, those are church rules, and sometimes I wonder if we get lost between what Jesus would have wanted and man made church rules. Idk. What do you think?

I tend to agree, very much so. As someone who's studied a lot of different Christian denominations - and even seeing them bicker and vie for population amongst themselves - they're all the same thing arguing about how to go about the same idea. As my wife put it, if Jesus came back today, he likely wouldn't recognize Christianity at all.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Excellent point. Most of what is taught in churches today is different from what Jesus taught or what is in the Bible.

 

[Deidre]

Mmm, not all of them. My sister, for instance, had to be baptized again when she converted to Southern Baptist, as her baptism in the Catholic church wasn't her choice, and therefore wasn't "valid" as her spiritual effort to be saved.

Ah, really? I've been attending a baptist church, but they seem rather non-denominational in their services. That said, if I join this church, I wonder if I'd have to go through this, but see, to me that seems like a man-made ''thing'' ...church rules and rituals.

I tend to agree, very much so. As someone who's studied a lot of different Christian denominations - and even seeing them bicker and vie for population amongst themselves - they're all the same thing arguing about how to go about the same idea. As my wife put it, if Jesus came back today, he likely wouldn't recognize Christianity at all.

I so agree with your wife.

 

[Deidre]

Christ came to fulfil the Law, not abolish it. It has been changed, not made redundant. Did Christ not command us and His disciples of many things throughout the Gospel - and did his Apostles not do the same throughout the New Testament, on His authority, informed by His oral tradition communicated to them?

To follow Christ is to be Law-abiding; to submit totally to Him.

Are you speaking of when Jesus told Peter that upon him, He will build His church? I happen to think that was not a cue for the Catholic Church to be ''born,'' but rather a man-made RCC interpretation. But, that's just my way of thinking now that I'm more objective about Catholicism. lol

 

[Deidre]

It really isn't at all necessary, especially since you can renew your vows of commitment that you made through your confirmation without going through either ritual again. If you are still Catholic, a priest will help you through this.

I'm not a practicing Catholic anymore, and don't intend to be. My faith is really non-denominational now, but I've prayed my new commitment to Jesus, directly.

 

[Deidre]

Yes. When I was "born again" I performed a second baptism for the same exact reasons that your friend mentioned.

Theoretically, now that that I am not "born again" anymore, I should perform the first of my two funerals, just to keep the sequence of events clean. But I think i will pass on that.

My husband is an ex-Catholic atheist who thought to make a point by unbaptizing himself. But I think that it was a bit silly, too.

Ciao

- viole

lol I like this, viole...I didn't know that you were once born again. Interesting, everyone's ''journeys'' on here. Thank you for sharing this.

 

[Thief]

i noticed in scripture.....Jesus did not baptize
His disciples did

and He spoke of a baptism.....not of water

 

[Glaurung]

No thanks. I'll rely on my ThD instead while thinking for myself.

Fair enough, but the fact that you continue to demonstrate flimsy knowledge of Catholicism means that whatever you learnt studying your degree doesn't at all qualify you to speak about Catholicism. As far as this subject goes, degree is worth nothing. Because your OP is demonstrably wrong.

So, these Protestant churches are all saying that the Pope is the head of their churches? Interesting.

It's about time! Now they can renounce their errors, begin their penances and officially come back into full communion with the Catholic Chruch.

 

[Neo Deist]

Fair enough, but the fact that you continue to demonstrate flimsy knowledge of Catholicism means that whatever you learnt studying your degree doesn't at all qualify you to speak about Catholicism. As far as this subject goes, degree is worth nothing. Because your OP is demonstrably wrong.

The OP was not about Catholicism. The OP was asking if baptism was necessary for salvation, which it is not. Some of you took the Catholic angle and ran with it. I never claimed to be Catholic.

 

[Glaurung]

The OP was not about Catholicism. The OP was asking if baptism was necessary for salvation, which it is not. Some of you took the Catholic angle and ran with it. I never claimed to be Catholic.

You did make a claim about Catholicism . You said that the Church's position is one of faith and works, claiming that baptism is symbolic.

Secondly, what gives you the right to declare your opinion with such authority when it is in contrast to what almost all forms of mainstream Christianity have always taught? "My Bible, my degree! So I know better."

Sorry, but it's laughable. Even moreso in that you're not even a professing Christian.

 

[Neo Deist]

You did make a claim about Catholicism . You said that the Church's position is one of faith and works, claiming that baptism is symbolic.

Secondly, what gives you the right to declare your opinion with such authority when it is in contrast to what almost all forms of mainstream Christianity have always taught? "My Bible, my degree! So I know better."

Sorry, but it's laughable. Even moreso in that you're not even a professing Christian.

Maybe because after spending 30 years in Christianity, I realized that it was mostly traditional teachings, not biblical

 

[Glaurung]

Maybe because after spending 30 years in Christianity, I realized that it was mostly traditional teachings, not biblical

The assertion that all Christian belief and practice must be explicitly spelled out in Scripture simply doesn't work. It is ahistorical, never actually stated in Scripture, and as has been pointed out by both Stalwart and myself, circular. There is no canon without an outside authority, an extra-biblical tradition. Your arbitrary distinction is thus incoherent and betrays your Protestant background. You have not addressed this at all.

Notwithstanding, I simply don't trust you to be much of an authority on what is and isn't "biblical".

 

[metis]

I have not said a Catholic baptism is not legitimate. Any baptism made in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is a legitimate baptism. I only said the
Catholic church can't impose anything on non-Catholics.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[metis]

But, those are church rules, and sometimes I wonder if we get lost between what Jesus would have wanted and man made church rules. Idk. What do you think?

Good question.

The rule of thumb I work with when it comes to trying to understand what Jesus might have meant or done is see how people in the 1st and early 2nd century church believed and taught as they were closer to the scene that we are today.

In the case of baptism, it was only done once during one's life, normally done as an adult, but we also know that entire families were sometimes baptized, which also shows up in one case in Acts.

Sorry, but I gotta cut this short.

 

[metis]

Are you speaking of when Jesus told Peter that upon him, He will build His church? I happen to think that was not a cue for the Catholic Church to be ''born,'' but rather a man-made RCC interpretation.

I would like to respond to this later, so please respond to this post as a reminder.

I'm not a practicing Catholic anymore, and don't intend to be.

Ditto, but that's largely because I'm not a Christian (see my signature statement at the bottom of this post).

But if I was Christian, I would be Catholic, largely because the Protestant claims, including the Baptists, are largely bogus and relatively easy to prove wrong based on both what's in the scriptures and also what the very early church believed to be true.

However, even belonging to the "wrong church" should not at all interfere with one's "salvation".

 

[viole]

lol I like this, viole...I didn't know that you were once born again. Interesting, everyone's ''journeys'' on here. Thank you for sharing this.

Yes, and I was a heaven of an apologist....

Ciao

- viole

 

[Neo Deist]

The assertion that all Christian belief and practice must be explicitly spelled out in Scripture simply doesn't work. It is ahistorical, never actually stated in Scripture, and as has been pointed out by both Stalwart and myself, circular. There is no canon without an outside authority, an extra-biblical tradition. Your arbitrary distinction is thus incoherent and betrays your Protestant background. You have not addressed this at all.

Notwithstanding, I simply don't trust you to be much of an authority on what is and isn't "biblical".

Translation: when in doubt, the Church can just make up whatever it wants to and feed it to the masses.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Actually, yeah. They've changed the official Canon Law multiple times, for various reasons from serious revision to frivolity.