Whereneverever Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Are people rebaptized when they join the Orthodox church? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenniferB Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Some are, some are not it depends on the Bishop. My parish is under Bishop Benjamin and Metropolitan Jonah. I think I will be re-baptized because I had a "believers" baptism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myfatherslily Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Catholics, no. Anyone not baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, yes. Protestants who were baptized in the name of the Trinity, sometimes, it depends on the priest/bishop. That's the short answer. :) (I don't have a long answer!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 What do you mean you will be re-baptized because you had a believer's baptism? Isn't any baptism you have now a believer's baptism? Dawn Some are, some are not it depends on the Bishop. My parish is under Bishop Benjamin and Metropolitan Jonah. I think I will be re-baptized because I had a "believers" baptism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whereneverever Posted December 25, 2011 Author Share Posted December 25, 2011 Well, that doesn't clear it all the Way up.:tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Are people rebaptized when they join the Orthodox church? Depends on how you were baptised and, like in my families case, if the entire family wants to be baptised together. :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenniferB Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 What do you mean you will be re-baptized because you had a believer's baptism? Isn't any baptism you have now a believer's baptism? Dawn "Believer's baptism" is a term used to describe a specific type of baptism done in churches where the leadership will only allow a baptism of someone who is of the age of accountability/reason and they make the decision for themselves. Historically, this came on the scene with the Anabaptists (re-baptizers), 16th century. They called for re-baptizing of those persons who were baptized as infants, who now professed a personal/reasoned faith. I am guessing here, but I think the OCA considers this to be a heresy. :confused: Someone Orthodox, please respond. I tried Googling, but could not find the answer. Also, please correct me if I'm wrong on these things. I do admit that I'm :001_huh:. I only heard my priest ask if we were baptized with a "believer's baptism" and saying something to the effect that we would be re-baptized, as that is what the blessing of the Bishop is. I seriously don't know if I'm wording these things correctly. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Are people rebaptized when they join the Orthodox church? I was not. I had been baptized in the Trinity as a child (and again as a Charismatic ;)). I was Chrismated... which is the anointing of the Holy Spirit and it seals the baptism. I have pictures of it on my blog. It's pretty much everything in the Baptismal service except some of the baptism stuff (like renouncing Satan and all his works and the dunkin' ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 I should say that my oldest was received in a different jurisdiction which does Baptize ALL people entering the Orthodox church. So, she was baptized again. Like other's said. IT really does depend on the circumstances (Trinity baptism??), Bishop, and Jurisdiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 I do know what believer's baptism is, I received it. I don't quite see how it is heresy, but I would never be re-baptised. That (to me) would be heretical, saying that X church's baptism counted by Y church's didn't. Sorry, I am not trying to argue. If one wishes to do this, fine. I just don't get why it is necessary. Dawn "Believer's baptism" is a term used to describe a specific type of baptism done in churches where the leadership will only allow a baptism of someone who is of the age of accountability/reason and they make the decision for themselves. Historically, this came on the scene with the Anabaptists (re-baptizers), 16th century. They called for re-baptizing of those persons who were baptized as infants, who now professed a personal/reasoned faith. I am guessing here, but I think the OCA considers this to be a heresy. :confused: Someone Orthodox, please respond. I tried Googling, but could not find the answer. Also, please correct me if I'm wrong on these things. I do admit that I'm :001_huh:. I only heard my priest ask if we were baptized with a "believer's baptism" and saying something to the effect that we would be re-baptized, as that is what the blessing of the Bishop is. I seriously don't know if I'm wording these things correctly. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 I do know what believer's baptism is, I received it. I don't quite see how it is heresy, but I would never be re-baptised. That (to me) would be heretical, saying that X church's baptism counted by Y church's didn't. Sorry, I am not trying to argue. If one wishes to do this, fine. I just don't get why it is necessary. Dawn I'm not sure it is considered a heresy. But, as to the other question. Bishops and priest are accountable to God for us (Heb 13:17). It's not because they've willy-nilly decided they think they're better. In modern times some baptisms are not performed in the Trinity. This is a must. When I was received into the church I had to provide a baptismal date and confirm that mine and my children's were in the Trinity. If my parents weren't still alive I could not emphatically say that "yes, I was baptized in the Trinity as a baby." Many jurisdictions are begining to adopt a "baptize all converts" because there's so much - um- innovation going on with some churches. Instead of saying - "Episcopalians get baptized, but Baptist don't" they're just doing it to all converts so as not to play favorites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whereneverever Posted December 25, 2011 Author Share Posted December 25, 2011 I'm not sure it is considered a heresy. But, as to the other question. Bishops and priest are accountable to God for us (Heb 13:17). It's not because they've willy-nilly decided they think they're better. In modern times some baptisms are not performed in the Trinity. This is a must. When I was received into the church I had to provide a baptismal date and confirm that mine and my children's were in the Trinity. If my parents weren't still alive I could not emphatically say that "yes, I was baptized in the Trinity as a baby." Many jurisdictions are begining to adopt a "baptize all converts" because there's so much - um- innovation going on with some churches. Instead of saying - "Episcopalians get baptized, but Baptist don't" they're just doing it to all converts so as not to play favorites. It's not playing favorites, though, to go by what actually happened. I'm kinda surprised to find out there's rebaptizing going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whereneverever Posted December 25, 2011 Author Share Posted December 25, 2011 Depends on how you were baptised and, like in my families case, if the entire family wants to be baptised together. :001_smile: But, what does it say about baptism if you have to do it again? Just so everyone can do it together?:confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Do you mean were the words "baptized in the name of the Father, son, and Holy Spirit" said???? Rebaptising would actually be a deal breaker for me. In fact, when DH wanted to change denominations I knew the particular denomination we were considering changing to sometimes required re-baptism and I was adamant that I would not do it as I feel very confident the one I had was sufficient. But I also believe that baptism is an outward sign of your inward conversion, so to me it is purely symbolic. BTW: They church we switched to did NOT require or even suggest I needed a rebaptism. However, they were quite concerned that I had been dunked, which I thought was ridiculous. I do not have any disrespect for the Orthodox church. I honestly don't know that much about them, but I do have a cousin who is an Orthodox priest. I don't know him well though. Dawn I'm not sure it is considered a heresy. But, as to the other question. Bishops and priest are accountable to God for us (Heb 13:17). It's not because they've willy-nilly decided they think they're better. In modern times some baptisms are not performed in the Trinity. This is a must. When I was received into the church I had to provide a baptismal date and confirm that mine and my children's were in the Trinity. If my parents weren't still alive I could not emphatically say that "yes, I was baptized in the Trinity as a baby." Many jurisdictions are begining to adopt a "baptize all converts" because there's so much - um- innovation going on with some churches. Instead of saying - "Episcopalians get baptized, but Baptist don't" they're just doing it to all converts so as not to play favorites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 It's not playing favorites, though, to go by what actually happened. I'm kinda surprised to find out there's rebaptizing going on. yes. I guess I didn't phrase that well. I was stating it the way it may be perceived by some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Do you mean were the words "baptized in the name of the Father, son, and Holy Spirit" said???? Rebaptising would actually be a deal breaker for me. In fact, when DH wanted to change denominations I knew the particular denomination we were considering changing to sometimes required re-baptism and I was adamant that I would not do it as I feel very confident the one I had was sufficient. But I also believe that baptism is an outward sign of your inward conversion, so to me it is purely symbolic. BTW: They church we switched to did NOT require or even suggest I needed a rebaptism. However, they were quite concerned that I had been dunked, which I thought was ridiculous. I do not have any disrespect for the Orthodox church. I honestly don't know that much about them, but I do have a cousin who is an Orthodox priest. I don't know him well though. Dawn Yes, the words "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" must be said. You should contact your cousin and ask him - he'd definitely have the skinny on all this. I do not claim to be an expert at all. I bet he'd be thrilled to talk with you about it - just knowing that pastors/priest generally love to talk about this kind of stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Well, he didn't seem to want to talk about it at all at the reunion when I tried to talk to him. His wife seemed more willing to talk, but we didn't get that much time together. I have only met her that one time. Dawn Yes, the words "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" must be said. You should contact your cousin and ask him - he'd definitely have the skinny on all this. I do not claim to be an expert at all. I bet he'd be thrilled to talk with you about it - just knowing that pastors/priest generally love to talk about this kind of stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whereneverever Posted December 25, 2011 Author Share Posted December 25, 2011 Rebaptizing someone with a Trinitarain baptism seems very weird in relation to the Nicene creed to me.:confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 (edited) But, what does it say about baptism if you have to do it again? Just so everyone can do it together?:confused: I am not sure what you mean by "have to?" Most of my kids had not been baptised, I had viewed it as purely symbolic before and now viewed it as a sacrament, my views had changed. Also, an EO baptisim is not just being dunked in the name of the 3 persons of the trinity. It is about a 45 ceremony that usually starts the day before with first confession, then the day of there are various prayers, annointing of all the senses, the actual going in the water, chrismation, dedicating and bestowing the baptismal crosses, (somewhere in here you leave to get changed into white clothing) lighting the baptismal candles for the newly illuminied, and first communion. This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the layers involved in an eo baptisim, there is the blowing on the waters, sanctifying of the waters, prayers for the holy spirit and guardian angels. All the while you are surrounded by members of the church who are literally singing quite a bit of the baptismal service. The priest's have prayers and the people have songs, similar to the EO divine liturgy. And lest I forget to mention, there are the Godparents.These wonderful people help their Godchildren out of the baptismal waters, wrap them in white towels, help goddaughters with their hair during the tonsure and chrismation, place the baptismal crosses, light the baptismal candles...this is all after they have basically agreed to pray for them for the rest of their lives, literally become family as they cannot intermarry (the kids), purchased the crosses, candles and sometimes Icons. Then for the next 40 days the newly illumined (newly baptized) and their godparents will be the first to partake of communion. This is done by relighting the Baptismal candles and processing to the front as a group. The newly illumined receive while the godparents hold their candles. There just really is not any comparison. There are layers and layers of meaning. I am thankful that EO recognizes baptisims from other traditions, but am so thankful I decided to participate in the entire sacrament. Also, as a protestant I always felt weird when people were rebaptised as some sort of rededication. This was nothing like that. Edited December 25, 2011 by simka2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alenee Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 One thing I didn't see mentioned in regards to being re-baptised is this: when I asked our priest about it, he asked me what was believed about my baptism, both by me and the one performing it. It was done in the name of the Trinity yes, but not as anything more than a symbol. He then said he would advise baptism for me coming into the Church because of that belief. Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Orthodox believe that baptism is so much more than just a *symbol*. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Rebaptizing someone with a Trinitarain baptism seems very weird in relation to the Nicene creed to me.:confused: how so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Well, he didn't seem to want to talk about it at all at the reunion when I tried to talk to him. His wife seemed more willing to talk, but we didn't get that much time together. I have only met her that one time. Dawn Well darn... that's too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Yeah, we grew up in different countries and he is quite a bit older than I am, so we haven't had a lot of interaction through the years. When I go visit that side of the family, he isn't there because he lives 1000 miles from family. Just one of those cousins who isn't close. However, I really enjoyed his wife and his kids. But we only had 2 days together at a family reunion where we mingled with others too so not a lot of time together. Dawn Well darn... that's too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whereneverever Posted December 25, 2011 Author Share Posted December 25, 2011 how so? The whole, "one baptism for the remission of sins" part seems contradictory with multiple baptisms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whereneverever Posted December 25, 2011 Author Share Posted December 25, 2011 One thing I didn't see mentioned in regards to being re-baptised is this: when I asked our priest about it, he asked me what was believed about my baptism, both by me and the one performing it. It was done in the name of the Trinity yes, but not as anything more than a symbol. He then said he would advise baptism for me coming into the Church because of that belief. Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Orthodox believe that baptism is so much more than just a *symbol*. Many non-Orthodox believe it's more then a symbol, too, though, and it's being implied that all Protestant converts are rebaptized by some bishops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milovany Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 (edited) Many non-Orthodox believe it's more then a symbol, too, though, and it's being implied that all Protestant converts are rebaptized by some bishops. Just a sentence earlier, in the Nicene Creed, we say "I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church," though. When we say this part of the Nicene creed, together as a Church, it means the Orthodox church -- that is, we say it believing that the Orthodox church is the "one holy, catholic and apostolic church" of the Nicene Creed. That's not to say we don't think other churches aren't churches in God's eyes; we're not speaking to that at all. We just think that this is the Church that wrote the Creed (and was the only church in existence at the time), so we just mean what the church fathers meant when they wrote it -- all Christians were "Orthodox" back then because it was the only church. That's an understood as we proceed through the creed, so when we next say, "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins," it means "a baptism in the Orthodox church." It's not speaking to other baptisms (which didn't exist when the Creed was written and accepted in a council); it's just saying what we believe the church and baptism to be based on this historical context. What God does now outside of that is His business, but the Orthodox church's concern, when people want to become Orthodox, is whether or not the baptism is a sacramental baptism into the Orthodox church. As stated above, some exceptions are made for reasons of economia. Our family of nine was baptized into Orthodoxy two years ago next month -- several of us having been previously baptized into evangelical churches with a believer's baptism (not a sacramental one). We're in a jurisdiction that baptizes all converts: Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, evangelical, Methodist, atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, etc. We appreciated this as we were converting, because it really sealed it for us that this was a different thing -- we were just learning about the sacramental life. This is our story; not everyone's. Edited December 26, 2011 by milovaný Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 (edited) Do you mean were the words "baptized in the name of the Father, son, and Holy Spirit" said???? Rebaptising would actually be a deal breaker for me. In fact, when DH wanted to change denominations I knew the particular denomination we were considering changing to sometimes required re-baptism and I was adamant that I would not do it as I feel very confident the one I had was sufficient. One thing I didn't see mentioned in regards to being re-baptised is this: when I asked our priest about it, he asked me what was believed about my baptism, both by me and the one performing it. Just an example of someone who would need to get baptized, to give you something to compare to. I was baptized at 14 years old. I had to study quite a bit and answer a lot of questions in order to be allowed. At the time of baptism I believed that Christ was the only Son of God, and that he created all other things. I also believed that Christ was Michael the Archangel. These are the questions I answered in the affirmative: 1) On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will? 2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization? I will be baptized again. Into the real Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4) and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Carmen Edited December 26, 2011 by Lovedtodeath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alenee Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 Many non-Orthodox believe it's more then a symbol, too, though, and it's being implied that all Protestant converts are rebaptized by some bishops. Keep in mind as you read my responses, I am still in the process of conversion. I get where you're coming from as I was in that same place. I asked the question of my priest because I've been baptized three times already. Once as a 3yo in the Lutheran church, once as a teen doing what everyone else was doing, and once as an adult making a sincere profession of faith. When I asked about it, in my mind I was saying, "I don't need a fourth baptism!" But after hearing what my priest said about it and after two years of inquiring into the Church, I came to a point where I realized that all that the Church has for me is for my good. I have always believed the bible and the apostles who wrote the NT. If I trust what they have to say, then I can trust the Church which God built through them. I believe it has been held together by God and so I will trust those that God has placed in authority. If you're interested in getting more answers, I suggest finding a parish and starting a relationship with the priest. Conversion can take a few months up to several years. There's no hurry. The priests are very willing to take the time to teach and answer questions. And asking questions doesn't mean you will convert. But they're there for you to ask and seek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whereneverever Posted December 26, 2011 Author Share Posted December 26, 2011 Keep in mind as you read my responses, I am still in the process of conversion. I get where you're coming from as I was in that same place. I asked the question of my priest because I've been baptized three times already. Once as a 3yo in the Lutheran church, once as a teen doing what everyone else was doing, and once as an adult making a sincere profession of faith. When I asked about it, in my mind I was saying, "I don't need a fourth baptism!" But after hearing what my priest said about it and after two years of inquiring into the Church, I came to a point where I realized that all that the Church has for me is for my good. I have always believed the bible and the apostles who wrote the NT. If I trust what they have to say, then I can trust the Church which God built through them. I believe it has been held together by God and so I will trust those that God has placed in authority. If you're interested in getting more answers, I suggest finding a parish and starting a relationship with the priest. Conversion can take a few months up to several years. There's no hurry. The priests are very willing to take the time to teach and answer questions. And asking questions doesn't mean you will convert. But they're there for you to ask and seek. To be clear, I am not looking into conversion. I'm very happy in my church. I am more asking for curiosity sake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 Just a sentence earlier, in the Nicene Creed, we say "I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church," though. When we say this part of the Nicene creed, together as a Church, it means the Orthodox church -- that is, we say it believing that the Orthodox church is the "one holy, catholic and apostolic church" of the Nicene Creed. That's not to say we don't think other churches aren't churches in God's eyes; we're not speaking to that at all. We just think that this is the Church that wrote the Creed (and was the only church in existence at the time), so we just mean what the church fathers meant when they wrote it -- all Christians were "Orthodox" back then because it was the only church. That's an understood as we proceed through the creed, so when we next say, "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins," it means "a baptism in the Orthodox church." It's not speaking to other baptisms (which didn't exist when the Creed was written and accepted in a council); it's just saying what we believe the church and baptism to be based on this historical context. What God does now outside of that is His business, but the Orthodox church's concern, when people want to become Orthodox, is whether or not the baptism is a sacramental baptism into the Orthodox church. As stated above, some exceptions are made for reasons of economia. Our family of nine was baptized into Orthodoxy two years ago next month -- several of us having been previously baptized into evangelical churches with a believer's baptism (not a sacramental one). We're in a jurisdiction that baptizes all converts: Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, evangelical, Methodist, atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, etc. We appreciated this as we were converting, because it really sealed it for us that this was a different thing -- we were just learning about the sacramental life. This is our story; not everyone's. The early Christians accepted the baptisms of heretical sects though, even ones who were outside the Creed. To me, unless the baptism itself is irregular, it really shouldn't be redone - it goes against the witness and practice of the early Church. On another note, with regard to believers baptism - I think there are some Protestant groups that actually separate that from water baptism. If so then that would never count for baptism in any Nicene Church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 The whole, "one baptism for the remission of sins" part seems contradictory with multiple baptisms. not to mention: There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Eph. The whole idea of re-baptism bothers me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 I'm not sure it is considered a heresy. But, as to the other question. Bishops and priest are accountable to God for us (Heb 13:17). It's not because they've willy-nilly decided they think they're better. In modern times some baptisms are not performed in the Trinity. This is a must. When I was received into the church I had to provide a baptismal date and confirm that mine and my children's were in the Trinity. If my parents weren't still alive I could not emphatically say that "yes, I was baptized in the Trinity as a baby." Many jurisdictions are begining to adopt a "baptize all converts" because there's so much - um- innovation going on with some churches. Instead of saying - "Episcopalians get baptized, but Baptist don't" they're just doing it to all converts so as not to play favorites. I'm only aware of one denomination that baptizes in the "name of Jesus" instead of "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." It's a branch of Pentecostalism sometimes referred to as "Jesus only" Pentecostalism precisely because of this teaching. What other historically orthodox denominations do NOT baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Doesn't seem common at all to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangermom Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 OK, now I'm really curious about this. I am LDS and was baptized "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" so that would seem to count. But we are not Trinitarian/Nicene Creed Christians and don't accept other churches' baptism, and we don't expect them to accept ours, and I'm pretty sure no one does accept ours. My brother converted to Orthodoxy years ago and was baptized, but then it turns out that he actually joined some tiny odd sect of Orthodoxy, so when he married a nice Russian girl and went to Russia to do the church wedding, he was baptized again (for a lifetime total of 3!). None of my family thought that this was in the least odd--I think we all assumed that the Russian priest wanted to make sure it was done right or something, and we didn't find out about the tiny odd sect part of it until several years later when I mentioned it to an Orthodox guy and he was utterly shocked. So: I guess an LDS baptism would not count in the Orthodox church, right? Any opinions on my weird family? :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 I'm only aware of one denomination that baptizes in the "name of Jesus" instead of "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." It's a branch of Pentecostalism sometimes referred to as "Jesus only" Pentecostalism precisely because of this teaching. What other historically orthodox denominations do NOT baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Doesn't seem common at all to me. I don't know which ones do it in the name of Jesus, but I know for a while there it was a fad to use "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier" instead of the traditional formulation, among some more progressive groups, and even progressive parts of mainstream denominations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 OK, now I'm really curious about this. I am LDS and was baptized "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" so that would seem to count. But we are not Trinitarian/Nicene Creed Christians and don't accept other churches' baptism, and we don't expect them to accept ours, and I'm pretty sure no one does accept ours. My brother converted to Orthodoxy years ago and was baptized, but then it turns out that he actually joined some tiny odd sect of Orthodoxy, so when he married a nice Russian girl and went to Russia to do the church wedding, he was baptized again (for a lifetime total of 3!). None of my family thought that this was in the least odd--I think we all assumed that the Russian priest wanted to make sure it was done right or something, and we didn't find out about the tiny odd sect part of it until several years later when I mentioned it to an Orthodox guy and he was utterly shocked. So: I guess an LDS baptism would not count in the Orthodox church, right? Any opinions on my weird family? :tongue_smilie: LDS seems to be the exception to the rule - I don't know any Nicene Church that unqualified accepts LDS baptism. It's a kind of complicated issue but I think essentially it says that what is meant by the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just too different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 So, here is another thing to consider. (I hope I'm not out of line by posting here, but have been reading this thread, interested.) The Bible does show an example of 're-baptism.' Acts 19 1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7And all the men were about twelve. The disciples had been baptized, but it seems Paul is telling to do it again-differently. I find it fascinating that Paul always does it in 'the name of Jesus Christ' or in 'the name of the Lord Jesus.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whereneverever Posted December 26, 2011 Author Share Posted December 26, 2011 The early Christians accepted the baptisms of heretical sects though, even ones who were outside the Creed. To me, unless the baptism itself is irregular, it really shouldn't be redone - it goes against the witness and practice of the early Church. On another note, with regard to believers baptism - I think there are some Protestant groups that actually separate that from water baptism. If so then that would never count for baptism in any Nicene Church. :iagree: not to mention: There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Eph. The whole idea of re-baptism bothers me. :iagree: And none of the explanations that I've seen offered here make me less bothered. I'm honestly shocked and it has negatively impacted my view of Orthodoxy quite a bit. :( I don't know which ones do it in the name of Jesus, but I know for a while there it was a fad to use "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier" instead of the traditional formulation, among some more progressive groups, and even progressive parts of mainstream denominations. That's the main one I've heard of, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whereneverever Posted December 26, 2011 Author Share Posted December 26, 2011 So, here is another thing to consider. (I hope I'm not out of line by posting here, but have been reading this thread, interested.) The Bible does show an example of 're-baptism.' The disciples had been baptized, but it seems Paul is telling to do it again-differently. I find it fascinating that Paul always does it in 'the name of Jesus Christ' or in 'the name of the Lord Jesus.' My understanding is that their original baptism was not Trinitarian. That's why they hadn't heard of the spirit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whereneverever Posted December 26, 2011 Author Share Posted December 26, 2011 LDS seems to be the exception to the rule - I don't know any Nicene Church that unqualified accepts LDS baptism. It's a kind of complicated issue but I think essentially it says that what is meant by the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just too different. I think most churches don't accept JW baptisms, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangermom Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 LDS seems to be the exception to the rule - I don't know any Nicene Church that unqualified accepts LDS baptism. It's a kind of complicated issue but I think essentially it says that what is meant by the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just too different. And as I said, we wouldn't expect them to. I was just curious. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 (edited) I'm only aware of one denomination that baptizes in the "name of Jesus" instead of "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." It's a branch of Pentecostalism sometimes referred to as "Jesus only" Pentecostalism precisely because of this teaching. What other historically orthodox denominations do NOT baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Doesn't seem common at all to me. There are also some historically orthodox churches that have begun to baptize in more liberally interpretive names for God, as Bluegoat has expressed. I know this has become an issue with certain episcopal baptism's. As a result I do think you have EO priests begininng to need verification that the baptisim was trinitarian and performed by an ordained minister. Since much of this information is difficult to track down, there is an increase in rebaptisim's to dot the I's and cross the T's. ;) I know that our priest was not insistive that dh or I be rebaptised. The decision was ours. Edited December 26, 2011 by simka2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmericanMom Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 (edited) The Orthodox churches around here do not baptize converts who have already been baptized in Trinitarian form. I think it depends on the bishop. I know this because I am an inquirer and am attending a church that is majority-convert, and this would likely have been a deal-breaker for me. (At least at first -- the longer I experience the Orthodox church, the more I trust what is going on, so I can imagine I might feel differently one day. But not now. :)) I know one of the last straws at my previous (protestant) church was one Sunday when we recited the Nicene Creed and then sat down for an infant baptism and the pastor gave a speech basically saying it wasn't for the forgiveness of sins and I was like ??? Didn't we just say "one baptism for the remission of sins"?? (Also there was a pretty big typo in the Creed and no one noticed it, everyone just read it and I was the only one who appeared shocked to read/hear people recite that Jesus was born of the "Holy Spirit OF the Virgin Mary"! Didn't know she had a Holy Spirit of her own...it may seem like a petty thing, but it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me. No one was paying attention to what they were reading, not even the pastor. So I do see where people may be wary of the baptismal practices of certain churches.) One thing a priest told me, the Orthodox church in the US is grappling with this situation where you have baptized people who aren't Orthodox, and what do you do with them when they want to join, when traditionally it has been baptism & chrismation together. So I think the differences are probably the various bishops dealing with what they are mostly seeing (whether it is questionable baptisms or not) in their own area and trying to figure out the best way to handle it. Just my not so knowledgeable opinion, though. Edited December 26, 2011 by AmericanMom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 There is one other issue to consider here. That is the issue of threefold immersion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 There are also some historically orthodox churches that have begun to baptize in more liberally interpretive names for God, as Bluegoat has expressed. I know this has become an issue with certain episcopal baptism's. As a result I do think you have EO priests begininng to need verification that the baptisim was trinitarian and performed by an ordained minister. Since much of this information is difficult to track down, there is an increase in rebaptisim's to dot the I's and cross the T's. ;) I know that our priest was not insistive that dh or I be rebaptised. The decision was ours. To me this is very odd. I was told the decision lay with the Bishop... not me. I've known a few people who also wanted to be baptized again and were told by the priest "You're baptism was fine." So it surprises me that you could decide. I guess I'll chalk that up to jurisdictional differences. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 I'm going to make a poor attempt at responding to the OP question and to many other points that have been made within the thread. I doubt it will be satisfying as an answer, but I believe it is true, nonetheless. The Orthodox faith is a rich and complex tapestry, one which we get to see only in small bits and over time. But to pull one thread from that tapestry, and examine it for the entire picture is a fairly futile exercise. The thread only matters as part of the tapestry, and frankly, as a thread in itself, it might not be a very pretty color, or of a pleasing texture in its own self. It is only in context of the entire picture that the thread makes sense. The way the Orthodox Church does things will make sense only in terms of Orthodox ecclesiology. That is, in the way one answers the question, "What is the Church?" If the Church is who she claims to be, then the rest of the answers make sense. If not, then they won't. It's the Church that provides the weft and warp into which all the tapestry is woven. If you choose a different warp and weft than the Orthodox Church's, the threads will not fit the same way, and they will look strange and ... wrong. It seems to me that for most people I have known, the first question that has to be answered is related to ecclesiology. It was for me. After I got the weft and warp straight, the rest of the picture--and the threads used to make it--started to make sense. Without that, however, the threads were all a-tangle and somewhat...confusing, to say the least. I hope this analogy helps a little. If not, let it go. :0) Kind regards, Patty Joanna I think it is a very beautiful analogy... and certainly explains why, when talking to non-Orthodox, we get stuck on words and semantics (and run down bunny trails) rather than looking at the big picture. (And - as a weaver I love the weaving illustration :001_smile:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 To me this is very odd. I was told the decision lay with the Bishop... not me. I've known a few people who also wanted to be baptized again and were told by the priest "You're baptism was fine." So it surprises me that you could decide. I guess I'll chalk that up to jurisdictional differences. ;) Hmmmmm.....interesting. :D I know this is becoming more and more of an issue in America as the Orthodox church is grappling with so many different types of converts. It will be interesting to see how it develops. I wonder what other denominations, that view Baptism as a sacrament, have as a requirement for rebaptism? From what I can ascertain it does not seem (for the most part) that EO is that different from other sacramental churches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmericanMom Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 I wonder what other denominations, that view Baptism as a sacrament, have as a requirement for rebaptism? From what I can ascertain it does not seem (for the most part) that EO is that different from other sacramental churches. The 3 mainstream protestant denominations I have been part of (that view baptism as a sacrament and regularly recite the Nicene Creed) don't baptize people who have already been baptized in the Trinity. Unless for some reason they ask to be, maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 The 3 mainstream protestant denominations I have been part of (that view baptism as a sacrament and regularly recite the Nicene Creed) don't baptize people who have already been baptized in the Trinity. Unless for some reason they ask to be, maybe? So, that is the same as EO correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmericanMom Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 So, that is the same as EO correct? Oh I'm definitely not the one to answer that! :lol: But it seems to be the case around here, as far as I can tell... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 Oh I'm definitely not the one to answer that! :lol: But it seems to be the case around here, as far as I can tell... Me neither! ;) I was just trying to understand the point of this thread. Granted, I am sure there is some variance in interpretaion among EO leaders (as there would be in any denomination), but for the most part if you were baptized (talking sacramentaly not believer's) in the name of the Trinity, your baptism is kosher. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.