CH, another church can choose to just not recognize the baptism.  It would be similar if a Canadian couple decided they were married, without an officiant or legal documents.  To the couple they might be married, but the government wouldn't see it that way.

As for the second part of your question, I'm not sure, but my guess is that the first one would be valid.  Can a person become baptized in the UCC if they were previously baptized elsewhere, but weren't happy with it?

CH - It seems to me that when you decide to join a fundamentalist congregation, you are considered to be a "born again Christian." Since you've been reborn, I guess you would need to be rebaptised too.

If you then decide to go back to the United Church, it seems to me that since you'd already been baptised there once, there shouldn't be a need to do it again - a simple rededication of the membership vows should suffice, in my opinion.

Chemgal - sorry, I'm not sure what the answer to your question is.

Not that I go to a Fundamentalist church, but I do go to one that baptizes believers by immersion. The FEBCC doesn't recognize any other kind of baptism as being valid. It isn't that it makes your previous baptism null and void, it just considers that you have never yet been baptized. 

A good Fellowship Baptist would say that it's the one done by immersion.

During my time in South Korea, away from my home church, I was able to think over a few things. Now, not only am I okay with women as pastors, I also "get" infant baptism. I would say that, really, it's probably your first baptism that is the valid one. For me that took place when I was an infant in the United Church of Canada. Just nobody please tell my pastor that I said that.  

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

They would be welcome back to the UC of C and no further baptism needed.

Trust me-I've done it. For most of my life I've been at the UC of C but during first year of University I did attend a Pencostal assemblies of Canada Church in North Vancouver. I was baptised by Immersion there as it was a requirement for membership.

I moved and attended an Anglican church the next 2 years. Then back to Uc of C for me (except for the year I was in Inuvik and there wasn't one and we attended Baptist for a year).

Anyhow after the Anglican church I moved to Edmonton and began attending a united church. I asked about becoming a full member and we did a "profession of faith" because as the Minster said-I didn't have current membership anywhere to transfer. The question of Baptism never came up!

Baptism is just a ritual that was developed when society changed enough so that threatening to murder people wasn`t kosher anymore.

There are habits in us that are really, really hard to change, that can only be changed by something like death -- being `reborn`.  Psychedelics can also change these habits.

I`ve been hit by baptism oversplash and once in reaction to my jackanapery to a lapsed Catholic friend who took some tap water and blessed me and said `There, you`re baptised.`` :3

I guess baptism could also be seen as a copyright stamp, that ``There you go, you are now one of us``-type dealie.

I wonder if Islam has baptism?

Hi crazyheart,

And that assumption is shared by the many different branches of Christianity which recognize that other Christians belonging to other denominations are fundamentally no different, in the faith, than anyone else is.

They cannot make them null and void.  They simply refuse to recognize that they happened properly.  And this despite the fact that Donatism was declared heretical in the early 300's.  Either the baptism did not happen in enough water (how much water is needed for baptism?  spit in your hand.  That much) but baptism means immersion and literalism means more to the Christian fundamentalist than anything legitimately Christian.  Plus clergy in the mainstream might believe differently and as we all know Jesus was very rigid about how exactly everyone must believe therefore anyone who believes differently cannot have access to the Holy Spirit or invite God to participate in anykind of covenant that God is desireous to participate in.

Baptism is valid period.  So what if they have two?  We don't discount one and validate the other.  The second was clearly unnecessary according to our understanding of how sacraments work.  Sometimes, the pastoral thing to do is not take such a rigid approach to the sacraments but understand that individuals may be prompted by the Holy Spirit to go further than what our sacraments offer.

I've been baptized twice.  Once as an infant (Presbyterian) and once as a young adult (The United Church of Canada).  I was confirmed by the United Church at some point in between.  For me personally it was very much an urging from the Holy Spirit.  Not to be done properly (I never for a moment doubted the validity or the efficacy of my baptism as an infant.  My baptism as an adult is very much a part of my whole calling to ministry.  I did talk about it with my minister at the time.  He ruled out a second baptism on very legitimate theological grounds and we went with a re-affirmation of faith. (so I've done that between the confirmation and Adult baptism) it did not speak to the calling I was receiving.  Adult Baptism did.

I don't look upon my Adult baptism as being superior to my infant baptism or my confirmation or my re-affirmation or even all three combined.  It was simply part of my response to God's call.

I wouldn't demand that anybody be baptized a second time and yet, if they came to me and told me they felt called to be baptized a second time I would happily preside over a second baptism (making sure that in the process we don't pretend it is superior to the first).

Grace and peace to you.

John

Related questions (not to highjack yur thread, Crazyheart, but to perhaps expand upon it) - Does the UCC ever do baptisms by immersion?   I seem to remember some time ago, one of our churches (we have six in the city) had a baptism service on the banks of a tributary and several adults and/or older children were baptised by immersion.  I wasn't thre so I'm not sure of the details.

If the answer to my first question is 'yes', then would it be possible for a UCC member, perhaps one who had fallen away and then came back, to renew their baptism by immersion even though they were aware that their parents had had them baptised by sprinkling as infants. 

For myself, I am not concerned about how much water is used - it is symbolic - but I can see the symbolism of baptism by immersion (I would want it in a river or lake - not in a little tank not much bigger than the basin where my hairdresser washes my hair).

Hi seeler,

Adults sure.  Infants . . . .not so much.

Yes.  So long as it was made clear that it was a reaffirmation and not a re-baptism.  And even without being so obvious the answer would be yes.  I just think without the obvious clarification would lead folk to think that by re-baptizing there was an attempt to correct something that went wrong.

Grace and peace to you.

John

seeler, if I may take the liberty of flipping your question around to the B side, the FEBCC never performs baptisms by any other method but immersion. Not sprinkling, not pouring, nothing.

I like the idea of being baptized in a river or lake. Our baptismal at church comfortably holds two people, with one standing, and the other being lowered into the waters.

Rich blessings.

---

M© jae

MC - I guess I didn't make it clear in my post but the context of my question (and the six churches I referred to) were UCC congregations. 

The two churches I'm thinking of (neither is UCC or Baptist) with the baptismal font for adult immersion have a large basin in which an adult could indeed be slipped under (just barely and I don't know about a six foot seven, 300 lb person).  I'm presuming the clergy person doing the baptising stands beside and guides them down and back.

I know I'm not in the "im" crowd ;-), but....

Wouldn't it seem to be that the baptism between you and God was the one that mattered?

And who could say that the one you had, wasn't valid, if God was in attendence?

The UC of canada can baptize by sprinkling, pouring or immersion.

as for size of baptism by immersion tanks-usually the one be baptized bends their knees and leans back-like a backfloat-just a little deeper. The minister/pastor has a hand under them-tho sometimes it is the elders that assist with the dip and the minister does the talking and blessing

Is baptism meant for the body, the 'soul', both, neither, the congregation, bueller?

In a word, yes.

Well, maybe for the soul more than body, but it is for the one being baptized and the community doing the baptizing.  Traditionally, the baptize-ee makes promises (or has promises made on her/his behalf) of faithfulness;  and the faith community makes promises of support and companionship. 

EDIT: Redbaron beat me and I like his answer better than mine.

Mendalla

In the Baptist tradition, Inanna, the baptism is done as an outward sign of what is being testified to as an inward reality. It is a public profession of faith. It is meant to say "Here I am. I have accepted Christ. I am a follower of Christ." It is meant to be a witness for others.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

I served a First Nations congregation where many people sought baptism each time they were trying to get their life back in a healthy state.  My liturgics professor said we should hesitate about opposing the work of the Spirit.  If someone is seeking baptism, assume it may be a response to prodding by the Spirit.