Water Baptism

[Jocose]

Thoughts on water baptism?

I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit around ten years ago maybe, in a non Orthodox Church.

I've heard Thru the grapevine that I may be baptized again in the Orthodox Church eventually after my prospect, er, um, after the traditional 1-3 year catechumen period, not necessarily because my original baptism is not valid but rather the fullness of my faith might be experienced.

Nothing wrong with this in my mind really but I was also thinking what's the point of another baptism, other than being a part of how the ancient church has taught.

[Fainn]

I've been baptized 4 times.
Once when I was 7 because I thought it got you into Heaven. The second time was when I was 12 when I really got saved. The third time was washing away a bad relationship. The fourth time was in 2015 when I heard G-d tell me to immerse myself in the pool because it was the sign of a covenant he was making with me. I say go ahead and be baptized as part of the new covenant you will be making with your faith.

[Jocose]

I've been baptized 4 times.
Once when I was 7 because I thought it got you into Heaven. The second time was when I was 12 when I really got saved. The third time was washing away a bad relationship. The fourth time was in 2015 when I heard G-d tell me to immerse myself in the pool because it was the sign of a covenant he was making with me. I say go ahead and be baptized as part of the new covenant you will be making with your faith.

Cool, thanks for sharing.

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

Since, along with Catholics, the Orthodox don't believe that one can be baptized more than once, then it sure seems like they think that your first baptism may not be valid, but they don't want to use the term "valid" since that might sound too Latin.

Just a thought.

[Jocose]

+JMJ+

Since, along with Catholics, the Orthodox don't believe that one can be baptized more than once, then it sure seems like they think that your first baptism may not be valid, but they don't want to use the term "valid" since that might sound too Latin.

Just a thought.

I've wondered about this. Like I said, I've just heard thru the grapevine and have not talked with my priest about this yet.

[Thunktank]

Thoughts on water baptism?

I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit around ten years ago maybe, in a non Orthodox Church.

I've heard Thru the grapevine that I may be baptized again in the Orthodox Church eventually after my prospect, er, um, after the traditional 1-3 year catechumen period, not necessarily because my original baptism is not valid but rather the fullness of my faith might be experienced.

Nothing wrong with this in my mind really but I was also thinking what's the point of another baptism, other than being a part of how the ancient church has taught.

Most Orthodox jurisdictions recognize any baptism done with water and in the name of the Holy Trinity at this time. Christmation is given to all "convert" Christians to Orthodoxy from other Non Orthodox Christian churches. There was some debate several years ago that rebaptism might be in order because some believed that the belief about the Trinity in some churches was too far removed from the Orthodox belief. Unless something rather drastic has changed, I doubt it went very far. Or perhaps you attend an Orthodox Church with irregular status? Or did you not in fact get baptized with water?

And do not listen to wosbald about the Orthodox Church refusing to use the word "valid" because it sounds too Latin. That's hogwash and only evidenced on Internet forums. What wosbald often refuses to acknowledge is that Orthodox tradition really doesn't use words like "valid" even if it uses certain concepts similar to it. The Orthodox have their own Traditions and use of words. He might be used to Uniate Catholic Churches that have added Latin concepts to Orthodoxy.

[Jocose]

Thoughts on water baptism?

I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit around ten years ago maybe, in a non Orthodox Church.

I've heard Thru the grapevine that I may be baptized again in the Orthodox Church eventually after my prospect, er, um, after the traditional 1-3 year catechumen period, not necessarily because my original baptism is not valid but rather the fullness of my faith might be experienced.

Nothing wrong with this in my mind really but I was also thinking what's the point of another baptism, other than being a part of how the ancient church has taught.

Most Orthodox jurisdictions recognize any baptism done with water and in the name of the Holy Trinity at this time. Christmation is given to all "convert" Christians to Orthodoxy from other Non Orthodox Christian churches. There was some debate several years ago that rebaptism might be in order because some believed that the belief about the Trinity in some churches was too far removed from the Orthodox belief. Unless something rather drastic has changed, I doubt it went very far. Or perhaps you attend an Orthodox Church with irregular status? Or did you not in fact get baptized with water?

And do not listen to wosbald about the Orthodox Church refusing to use the word "valid" because it sounds too Latin. That's hogwash and only evidenced on Internet forums. What wosbald often refuses to acknowledge is that Orthodox tradition really doesn't use words like "valid" even if it uses certain concepts similar to it. The Orthodox have their own Traditions and use of words. He might be used to Uniate Catholic Churches that have added Latin concepts to Orthodoxy.

I've heard so much here (mostly in the past) I've heard from other "converts" and from online stuff but I have not heard from my priests and spiritual father.
Anyway, I trust God to guide and lead me thru his Church.

[Thunktank]

Thoughts on water baptism?

I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit around ten years ago maybe, in a non Orthodox Church.

I've heard Thru the grapevine that I may be baptized again in the Orthodox Church eventually after my prospect, er, um, after the traditional 1-3 year catechumen period, not necessarily because my original baptism is not valid but rather the fullness of my faith might be experienced.

Nothing wrong with this in my mind really but I was also thinking what's the point of another baptism, other than being a part of how the ancient church has taught.

Most Orthodox jurisdictions recognize any baptism done with water and in the name of the Holy Trinity at this time. Christmation is given to all "convert" Christians to Orthodoxy from other Non Orthodox Christian churches. There was some debate several years ago that rebaptism might be in order because some believed that the belief about the Trinity in some churches was too far removed from the Orthodox belief. Unless something rather drastic has changed, I doubt it went very far. Or perhaps you attend an Orthodox Church with irregular status? Or did you not in fact get baptized with water?

And do not listen to wosbald about the Orthodox Church refusing to use the word "valid" because it sounds too Latin. That's hogwash and only evidenced on Internet forums. What wosbald often refuses to acknowledge is that Orthodox tradition really doesn't use words like "valid" even if it uses certain concepts similar to it. The Orthodox have their own Traditions and use of words. He might be used to Uniate Catholic Churches that have added Latin concepts to Orthodoxy.

I've heard so much here (mostly in the past) I've heard from other "converts" and from online stuff but I have not heard from my priests and spiritual father.
Anyway, I trust God to guide and lead me thru his Church.

If you got baptized with water and in the name of the Holy Trinity and if do not now attend a small Orthodox Church with a bishop having irregular status, you will not be rebaptized. You will be Christmated.

Usually before one's Christmation they will be asked to complete a period as a catechumen and then they will give a confession before the big day. After your Christmation you, along with any other newly baptized and Christmated members will be first in line for the Eucharist Sunday morning. I spent nearly three years as a catechuman by choice. Most jurisdiction require about a year for most folks, some take longer.

[Jocose]

Thoughts on water baptism?

I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit around ten years ago maybe, in a non Orthodox Church.

I've heard Thru the grapevine that I may be baptized again in the Orthodox Church eventually after my prospect, er, um, after the traditional 1-3 year catechumen period, not necessarily because my original baptism is not valid but rather the fullness of my faith might be experienced.

Nothing wrong with this in my mind really but I was also thinking what's the point of another baptism, other than being a part of how the ancient church has taught.

Most Orthodox jurisdictions recognize any baptism done with water and in the name of the Holy Trinity at this time. Christmation is given to all "convert" Christians to Orthodoxy from other Non Orthodox Christian churches. There was some debate several years ago that rebaptism might be in order because some believed that the belief about the Trinity in some churches was too far removed from the Orthodox belief. Unless something rather drastic has changed, I doubt it went very far. Or perhaps you attend an Orthodox Church with irregular status? Or did you not in fact get baptized with water?

And do not listen to wosbald about the Orthodox Church refusing to use the word "valid" because it sounds too Latin. That's hogwash and only evidenced on Internet forums. What wosbald often refuses to acknowledge is that Orthodox tradition really doesn't use words like "valid" even if it uses certain concepts similar to it. The Orthodox have their own Traditions and use of words. He might be used to Uniate Catholic Churches that have added Latin concepts to Orthodoxy.

I've heard so much here (mostly in the past) I've heard from other "converts" and from online stuff but I have not heard from my priests and spiritual father.
Anyway, I trust God to guide and lead me thru his Church.

If you got baptized with water and in the name of the Holy Trinity and if do not now attend a small Orthodox Church with a bishop having irregular status, you will not be rebaptized. You will be Christmated.

Yep, thats what I've heard as well. But I've heard otherwise also.

Glad to hear all replies and thoughts on the matter.

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

What wosbald often refuses to acknowledge is that Orthodox tradition really doesn't use words like "valid" even if it uses certain concepts similar to it.

"Refuses to acknowledge"???

Rather, you just made my point for me. Much obliged.

[Roadmaster]

I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit..

In God's eyes I think you are good to go. No idea what your church will think.

[Cleon]

+JMJ+

Since, along with Catholics, the Orthodox don't believe that one can be baptized more than once, then it sure seems like they think that your first baptism may not be valid, but they don't want to use the term "valid" since that might sound too Latin.

Just a thought.

+1
One baptism should be enough. Yours was done in the trinitarian formula with water. I don't see where it would be invalid unless I'm missing something. I'm assuming y'all acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, a la Nicaea.

[coco]

+JMJ+

Since, along with Catholics, the Orthodox don't believe that one can be baptized more than once, then it sure seems like they think that your first baptism may not be valid, but they don't want to use the term "valid" since that might sound too Latin.

Just a thought.

+1
One baptism should be enough. Yours was done in the trinitarian formula with water. I don't see where it would be invalid unless I'm missing something. I'm assuming y'all acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, a la Nicaea.

As baptism is, biblically, an outward testimony of one's faith, it doesn't make sense to do it a second time, provided that the original baptism was valid. Certainly, the NT does not indicate that rebaptism is a thing.

[A_Morley]

So long as one is baptized with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, then that baptism is valid in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the Church. While some baptisms can be declared invalid by deliberation of ecclesiastical authorities, anyone who is rebaptized simply because they feel like it is a pernicious and disgusting heretic.

[FredS]

Furthering A-Morely's comment . . .Is a second (or fourth as may be the case) baptism a prohibited act?

Multiple baptisms, to me, smack of the image of human works leading to salvation. If we understand that Christ's work was perfectly finished in an original, valid baptism, what more can we add by doing it multiple times? Most church's have other means of reaffirming ones original baptism that are certainly worthwhile and a more appropriate activity for publicly proclaiming a newer or truer level of faith. To build on the original baptism, not re-do it.

[Thunktank]

+JMJ+

What wosbald often refuses to acknowledge is that Orthodox tradition really doesn't use words like "valid" even if it uses certain concepts similar to it.

"Refuses to acknowledge"???

Rather, you just made my point for me. Much obliged.

Don't do that. You know darn well the snark you used even if no one else here caught it.

You wrote:

+JMJ+

Since, along with Catholics, the Orthodox don't believe that one can be baptized more than once, then it sure seems like they think that your first baptism may not be valid, but they don't want to use the term "valid" since that might sound too Latin.

Just a thought.

You falsely charged above that the Orthodox "don't want to use the term "valid" since that might sound too Latin."

No, that isn't why they don't use the term. The Orthodox don't use the term because "valid" is a Latin construct of their own determination and Orthodox Tradition has not traditionally used it themselves. It isn't a judgement on the word "valid" at all, it's simple a matter of fact that the Orthodox do not use the theological constructs of validity or invalidity as the Latin church has done. If their own words are insufficient to deal with the question and "valid" was a better word, they might well choose to use that instead. But they don't and it has nothing to do with Latins.

[hugodrax]

+JMJ+

What wosbald often refuses to acknowledge is that Orthodox tradition really doesn't use words like "valid" even if it uses certain concepts similar to it.

"Refuses to acknowledge"???

Rather, you just made my point for me. Much obliged.

Don't do that. You know darn well the snark you used even if no one else here caught it.

You wrote:

+JMJ+

Since, along with Catholics, the Orthodox don't believe that one can be baptized more than once, then it sure seems like they think that your first baptism may not be valid, but they don't want to use the term "valid" since that might sound too Latin.

Just a thought.

You falsely charged above that the Orthodox "don't want to use the term "valid" since that might sound too Latin."

No, that isn't why they don't use the term. The Orthodox don't use the term because "valid" is a Latin construct of their own determination and Orthodox Tradition has not traditionally used it themselves. It isn't a judgement on the word "valid" at all, it's simple a matter of fact that the Orthodox do not use the theological constructs of validity or invalidity as the Latin church has done. If their own words are insufficient to deal with the question and "valid" was a better word, they might well choose to use that instead. But they don't and it has nothing to do with Latins.

Pagan, my ass.

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

What wosbald often refuses to acknowledge is that Orthodox tradition really doesn't use words like "valid" even if it uses certain concepts similar to it.

"Refuses to acknowledge"???

Rather, you just made my point for me. Much obliged.

Don't do that. You know darn well the snark you used even if no one else here caught it.

You wrote:

+JMJ+

Since, along with Catholics, the Orthodox don't believe that one can be baptized more than once, then it sure seems like they think that your first baptism may not be valid, but they don't want to use the term "valid" since that might sound too Latin.

Just a thought.

You falsely charged above that the Orthodox "don't want to use the term "valid" since that might sound too Latin."

No, that isn't why they don't use the term. The Orthodox don't use the term because "valid" is a Latin construct of their own determination and Orthodox Tradition has not traditionally used it themselves. It isn't a judgement on the word "valid" at all, it's simple a matter of fact that the Orthodox do not use the theological constructs of validity or invalidity as the Latin church has done. If their own words are insufficient to deal with the question and "valid" was a better word, they might well choose to use that instead. But they don't and it has nothing to do with Latins.

Pagan, my ass.

[Thunktank]

+JMJ+

What wosbald often refuses to acknowledge is that Orthodox tradition really doesn't use words like "valid" even if it uses certain concepts similar to it.

"Refuses to acknowledge"???

Rather, you just made my point for me. Much obliged.

Don't do that. You know darn well the snark you used even if no one else here caught it.

You wrote:

+JMJ+

Since, along with Catholics, the Orthodox don't believe that one can be baptized more than once, then it sure seems like they think that your first baptism may not be valid, but they don't want to use the term "valid" since that might sound too Latin.

Just a thought.

You falsely charged above that the Orthodox "don't want to use the term "valid" since that might sound too Latin."

No, that isn't why they don't use the term. The Orthodox don't use the term because "valid" is a Latin construct of their own determination and Orthodox Tradition has not traditionally used it themselves. It isn't a judgement on the word "valid" at all, it's simple a matter of fact that the Orthodox do not use the theological constructs of validity or invalidity as the Latin church has done. If their own words are insufficient to deal with the question and "valid" was a better word, they might well choose to use that instead. But they don't and it has nothing to do with Latins.

Pagan, my ass.

Baptized in the name of The Holy Trinity Non Theist Pagan.

Aka apostate.

I cannot believe, if however I am mistaken, Lord have mercy on me a sinner!

[Fainn]

Furthering A-Morely's comment . . .Is a second (or fourth as may be the case) baptism a prohibited act?

Multiple baptisms, to me, smack of the image of human works leading to salvation. If we understand that Christ's work was perfectly finished in an original, valid baptism, what more can we add by doing it multiple times? Most church's have other means of reaffirming ones original baptism that are certainly worthwhile and a more appropriate activity for publicly proclaiming a newer or truer level of faith. To build on the original baptism, not re-do it.

First time I wasn't saved, so it was invalid in the eyes of G-d. The fourth time G-d told me as a sign of a new covenant he was making with me. Immersion could mean separation into the priesthood or for uncleaniless. However, baptism does not save and as for the outward showing of baptism, only one is nessecary upon being saved. But when G-d tells you to something, you ought to do it.