"Water" Rededication

While the search was not terribly successful in my library, my first thought was something along the lines of "renewal baptismal vows" which is usually accompanied by sprinkling.Does that phrase spark any more Protestant terminology? I would also search for a phrase from the ritual and see if it comes from a related ritual.

I searched my Bible and is not there, so I guess is a later invention someone decided to come up with for "accommodation" purposes, like you said. I don't think "accommodation" should be a practice of the church, but then again, where I meet, we don't have a "book of church order" besides the Bible, because the Bible is the only one we strive to follow. Just food for thought...[:)]

DAL

Edit: You could wait for the "Presbyterian Base Package" and run a search there to see if you get any hits [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589619#Comment_589619

Just food for thought..

Which is precisely what the OP asked we not be drawn into. Please edit your post to respect the request of the OP. Otherwise it discourages people from asking legitimate questions.

Rich DeRuiter

My church, which belongs to a presbyterian denomination, recently began allowing people who want to rededicate their lives to Christ to undergo what I will call "water" rededication. Instead of baptizing them in the name of our triune God, water is applied once (by sprinkling) and the pastor makes a different declaration than the declaration made to a person presenting for baptism according to our book of church order.

This practice appears to be an accommodation to people who were baptized as infants but want to be rebaptized. Our denomination does not generally rebaptize individuals. The candidates for baptism and rededication undergo these "rites" at the same time on stage. Let's just say the experience was unlike anything I have ever seen.

I don't want this to turn into a theological discussion or debate. I would simply like to know if there are any searches I can conduct in Logos that you would advise or any resources in Logos that I can consult to learn if there is any historical basis or precedent for this practice in any denomination.

Bill, it would be difficult for this not to generate some theological discussion. What you want to look for is the theological basis for/against rebaptism. IMHO, it's pretty sketchy (I'm also from a reformed denomination). The second thing to look for is the theological basis for accepting a sacrament as legitimate or not. In my denomination (Christian Reformed Church in North America), any baptism done in the Triune Name, in a Christian church by someone authorized to do so, is valid. Specific resources to search would be those that deal with the sacraments from a Reformed perspective.

Pastorally, our denomination has made some concessions for those who believe that the church that they were baptized in was not Christian. The above sounds to me like a pastoral concession. I have mixed feelings about it, as it calls into question the legitimacy of a sacrament your denomination recognizes, and seems to me to be a further concession to the individualism of our culture. On the other hand, pastoral considerations are real and genuine and sometimes a persons conscience is troubled, regardless of any theological assurances. In that case, I think about another practice we engage in from time to time: the renewal of wedding vows. That practice doesn't negate the value or reality of the original wedding vows, but says again what was said before. (I'm not sure which Logos resources are available to help in this area, but if you're interested I could look up and recommend a recent study reports from our denomination.)

Historically, Reformed denominations in response to the Anabaptists, have asserted an insistence in not rebaptizing. You could also research the history of rebaptism and the arguments against it. While I submit to the denominational rules on this as a matter of integrity, I wouldn't die on the hill of "no rebaptism" per se. I'm not well versed in the history of theology resources in Logos, as it is an area of little interest to me. Maybe others can make some recommendations.

Your mileage may vary.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589624#Comment_589624

Just food for thought..

Which is precisely what the OP asked we not be drawn into. Please edit your post to respect the request of the OP. Otherwise it discourages people from asking legitimate questions.

Sorry MJ, request denied. It's food for thought for the O.P. not a theological discussion or debate. If there's anything unbiblical about what I wrote, point it out and I'll delete the post altogether.

Thanks!

DAL

Edit: For the record, we "rebaptize" people (or better said, "baptized them correctly") once they learn what the Bible actually teaches concerning baptism. We do not baptize infants either.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589626#Comment_589626

The Anabaptists would agree with that, and we Baptists re-baptize people as well... But then were not Paedobaptists like the Presbyterians.

It sounds like your reformed pastor is dabbling in credobaptism.

I'll see what I can turn up.

Edit: Having searched across my reformed collection for "anabaptist", "anabaptism", "credobaptism", credo-baptist, rebaptism, re-baptism, and a few other terms, I've come to the conclusion that desipte having a number of baptist, reformed, and reformed baptist titles I don't have anything that deals directly with re-baptism.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589634#Comment_589634

For the record, we "rebaptize" people (or better said, "baptized them correctly") once they learn what the Bible actually teaches concerning baptism. We do not baptize infants either.

That is a very controversial position. Talking about it as if you and your church know the right answer to something that has divided sincere and thoughtful Christians for centuries is not the kind of behavior that fosters healthy threads on the forum. You may think you know that it's right and wish other people would see it your way, but the Logos forums are not the place to assert that. You did not see Bill trying to convert you to see his church's rite as legitimate, so you shouldn't push back at him in the other direction. If he's wrong, God will show him in due time. And if you're wrong, God will open your eyes. And if neither happens, then it's OK to go on agreeing to disagree. But not in the Logos forums.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589644#Comment_589644

For the record, we "rebaptize" people (or better said, "baptized them correctly") once they learn what the Bible actually teaches concerning baptism. We do not baptize infants either.

That is a very controversial position. Talking about it as if you and your church know the right answer to something that has divided sincere and thoughtful Christians for centuries is not the kind of behavior that fosters healthy threads on the forum. You may think you know that it's right and wish other people would see it your way, but the Logos forums are not the place to assert that. You did not see Bill trying to convert you to see his church's rite as legitimate, so you shouldn't push back at him in the other direction. If he's wrong, God will show him in due time. And if you're wrong, God will open your eyes. And if neither happens, then it's OK to go on agreeing to disagree. But not in the Logos forums.

I heard a preacher joke once that "God is sovereign enough to bring everyone around to my point of view eventually".

Made me chuckle.

what I will call "water" rededication

I applaud you for your terminology. Some would hold that those who were sprinkled as infants were not baptised, But dedicated.

Our denomination does not generally baptize individuals.

If the individual made a conscious decision to be baptised, There should be no need to re-do it.

I would simply like to know if there are any searches I can conduct in Logos that you would advise or any resources in Logos that I can consult to learn if there is any historical basis or precedent for this practice in any denomination.

I would suggest you consult the Bible. Acts 8:36,37 For instance. It seems that "believing with all your heart" is a pivotal requirement. Did the infants believe? Were they baptised, or dedicated?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589644#Comment_589644

For the record, we "rebaptize" people (or better said, "baptized them correctly") once they learn what the Bible actually teaches concerning baptism. We do not baptize infants either.

That is a very controversial position. Talking about it as if you and your church know the right answer to something that has divided sincere and thoughtful Christians for centuries is not the kind of behavior that fosters healthy threads on the forum. You may think you know that it's right and wish other people would see it your way, but the Logos forums are not the place to assert that. You did not see Bill trying to convert you to see his church's rite as legitimate, so you shouldn't push back at him in the other direction. If he's wrong, God will show him in due time. And if you're wrong, God will open your eyes. And if neither happens, then it's OK to go on agreeing to disagree. But not in the Logos forums.

I think you and MJ are over reacting. I never claimed "my church" (which I don't own one because I never died for one), was the one that was right and the OP's was wrong. I stated we "baptize them correctly" because there's obviously a wrong way to baptize people regardless of what others think or believe. Acts 19 is a proof of that. If you and MJ want to over react, go ahead, but I never tried to convert Bill either - And yes, God will show him, me or anybody in due time. Meanwhile, the best thing is to ease off the "forum police" attitude and let the thread carry its natural course, since no "crime" has been committed here for the "forum police" to show and try to solve it. [;)]

Thank you and MJ for your comments, though; but like I said, you two are over reacting and reading too much into my post. It's a common mistake made here in the forums -- reading too much into posts, that is. [:)]

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589646#Comment_589646

For the record, we "rebaptize" people (or better said, "baptized them correctly") once they learn what the Bible actually teaches concerning baptism. We do not baptize infants either.

That is a very controversial position. Talking about it as if you and your church know the right answer to something that has divided sincere and thoughtful Christians for centuries is not the kind of behavior that fosters healthy threads on the forum. You may think you know that it's right and wish other people would see it your way, but the Logos forums are not the place to assert that. You did not see Bill trying to convert you to see his church's rite as legitimate, so you shouldn't push back at him in the other direction. If he's wrong, God will show him in due time. And if you're wrong, God will open your eyes. And if neither happens, then it's OK to go on agreeing to disagree. But not in the Logos forums.

I heard a preacher joke once that "God is sovereign enough to bring everyone around to my point of view eventually".
Made me chuckle.

That's a spirit! No need to sweat it. Laugh at it, I think it'll save a lot of arguments. Thanks abondservant. That can actually be used as a good quote/illustration. I'll put it in my file.

DAL

David A Egolf

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589644#Comment_589644

That is a very controversial position.

While we are not supposed to start theological discussions on this forum it is interesting that Michael Heiser has produced some interesting material on this topic. It might have been included in his podcast series. If it is not there, then it is on youtube. He suggests that both sides of the traditional debate have incorrect views on what baptism "is". His presentation talks about what baptism "is" and what it "isn't". He proposes that N.T. baptism is the analog to O.T. circumcision. It leads to some interesting observations and at least softened my view of it by allowing me to see the other side.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589656#Comment_589656

It leads to some interesting observations and at least softened my view of it by allowing me to see the other side.

Yes, I think both sides have some validity. I don't hold strongly to either side, and think we must be charitable to all others who view this differently than we do, precisely because it has been so divisive in the past.

I didn't mean to be a "forum police" (I resigned as an MVP partly because of the reputation MVP's had for doing that when it was not their position to do it and I was tainted with that brush even though I usually didn't step into the fray like some others did). So I'm sorry I did this time. None of my business.

fgh

historical basis or precedent for this practice in any denomination

The traditional 'rededication' takes place during the liturgy for the Easter Vigil. Here is an excerpt from the Roman Missal (but many churches have something similar) (sorry for the formatting):

The Renewal of Baptismal Promises

55. When the Rite of Baptism (and Confirmation) has been completed or, if this has not taken place, after the blessing of water, all stand, holding lighted candles in their hands, and renew the promise of baptismal faith, unless this has already been done together with those to be baptized (cf. no. 49).

The Priest addresses the faithful in these or similar words:

Dear brethren (brothers and sisters), through the Paschal Mystery

we have been buried with Christ in Baptism,

so that we may walk with him in newness of life.

And so, now that our Lenten observance is concluded,

let us renew the promises of Holy Baptism,

by which we once renounced Satan and his works

and promised to serve God in the holy Catholic Church.

And so I ask you:

Priest:

Do you renounce Satan?

All:

I do.

Priest:

And all his works?

All:

I do.

Priest:

And all his empty show?

All:

I do.

Or:

Priest:

Do you renounce sin,

so as to live in the freedom of the children of God?

All:

I do.

Priest:

Do you renounce the lure of evil,

so that sin may have no mastery over you?

All:

I do.

Priest:

Do you renounce Satan,

the author and prince of sin?

All:

I do.

p 383 If the situation warrants, this second formula may be adapted by Conferences of Bishops according to local needs.

Then the Priest continues:

Priest:

Do you believe in God,

the Father almighty,

Creator of heaven and earth?

All:

I do.

Priest:

Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,

who was born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered death and was buried,

rose again from the dead

and is seated at the right hand of the Father?

All:

I do.

Priest:

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy Catholic Church,

the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and life everlasting?

All:

I do.

And the Priest concludes:

And may almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

who has given us new birth by water and the Holy Spirit

and bestowed on us forgiveness of our sins,

keep us by his grace,

in Christ Jesus our Lord,

for eternal life.

All: Amen.

56. The Priest sprinkles the people with the blessed water, while all sing:

p 384 Antiphon

[Didn't paste]

Or:

[Didn't paste]

Ant. I saw water flowing from the Temple,

from its right-hand side, alleluia;

and all to whom this water came were saved

and shall say: Alleluia, alleluia.

Another chant that is baptismal in character may also be sung.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589656#Comment_589656

He proposes that N.T. baptism is the analog to O.T. circumcision.

Which is why the first recorded theological quarrel over Baptism debated whether it should take place on the 8th day, or directly after birth.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589656#Comment_589656

That is a very controversial position.

While we are not supposed to start theological discussions on this forum it is interesting that Michael Heiser has produced some interesting material on this topic. It might have been included in his podcast series. If it is not there, then it is on youtube. He suggests that both sides of the traditional debate have incorrect views on what baptism "is". His presentation talks about what baptism "is" and what it "isn't". He proposes that N.T. baptism is the analog to O.T. circumcision. It leads to some interesting observations and at least softened my view of it by allowing me to see the other side.

Is there a book by him on the subject or just the "youtube/podcast" presentation? I wonder if that's included in the views presented in the counterpoints volume or any other volume.

DAL

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589619#Comment_589619

I searched my Bible and is not there

Acts 19:1-5 is one case of re-baptising.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589669#Comment_589669

Which is why the first recorded theological quarrel over Baptism debated whether it should take place on the 8th day, or directly after birth.

Would you share with me the details of this first recorded quarrel?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589732#Comment_589732

As we drift OOT (off original topic), we realize we need Logos to hurry up on this Restorationist resource Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries by Everett Ferguson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589682#Comment_589682

I searched my Bible and is not there

Acts 19:1-5 is one case of re-baptising.

Yes indeed! And they did so because they had it wrong not to recommit or rededicate themselves - that's all. That's why I said we "re-baptize" people too or better said baptize them correctly not to claim we have the truth, but because there are instances where people have been baptized wrong or for the wrong reasons; hence, the need to be baptized "again" (or the right way).

DAL

William Gabriel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589732#Comment_589732

Which is why the first recorded theological quarrel over Baptism debated whether it should take place on the 8th day, or directly after birth.
Would you share with me the details of this first recorded quarrel?

Yeah, I have not heard of this [the first recorded baptism quarrel], and cannot tell if it's sarcastic. If this is a real thing, I'd love for someone (fgh) to link to a resource.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589766#Comment_589766

Prior to fgh's return,

Augustine logosres:npnf04;ref=Augustine.De_bapt._4.24 has an interesting logic.

Plus Cyprian earlier: logosres:npnf05;ref=Augustine.Contra_duas_epist._Pelag._4.8.24;off=1803 (essentially take no chances)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589768#Comment_589768

I can't access the links. Are you asserting that this first debate took place in the time of Augustine?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589775#Comment_589775

Not sure why they're not active, though they're easily decipherable (Post-Nicene Fathers).

I'm not asserting anything; that was fgh (and presumably an expert she has access to, that would track back through quite a bit of writings).

Cyprian is considerably earlier than Augustine (but Cyprian is quoted).

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589776#Comment_589776

Not sure why they're not active

a) For some reason the forum doesn't automatically turn logosres: links into live links, even if you type space after them (which you have to do for web URLs). But you can work around this by selecting the text after you paste it, then clicking the chain-link icon and pasting the link in again. So here they are as live links:

logosres:npnf04;ref=Augustine.De_bapt._4.24

logosres:npnf05;ref=Augustine.Contra_duas_epist._Pelag._4.8.24;off=1803

b) If in the forums you come across a logosres link that is not clickable, you can copy it and paste it into the command line in Logos, and Logos will know what to do with it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589777#Comment_589777

Thanks, Rosie! I learned two things that will be handy (links on the forum and links in Logos!).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589777#Comment_589777

Thanks, Rosie

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589682#Comment_589682

I searched my Bible and is not there

Acts 19:1-5 is one case of re-baptising.

Note that the first baptism was "John's baptism" and not Christian baptism. Normally, there is only one baptism in the name of the triune God

⁴There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, ⁵one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ⁶one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Eph 4.4-6

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589667#Comment_589667

The Episcopal formulary is rather similar to the Roman

The Renewal of Baptismal Vows

Celebrant Do you reaffirm your renunciation of evil and renew your commitment to Jesus Christ?
People I do.
Celebrant Do you believe in God the Father?
People I believe in God, the Father almighty,      creator of heaven and earth.
p 293 Celebrant Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
People I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.      He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit        and born of the Virgin Mary.      He suffered under Pontius Pilate,        was crucified, died, and was buried.      He descended to the dead.      On the third day he rose again.      He ascended into heaven,        and is seated at the right hand of the Father.      He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
Celebrant Do you believe in God the Holy Spirit?
People I believe in the Holy Spirit,      the holy catholic Church,      the communion of saints,      the forgiveness of sins,      the resurrection of the body,      and the life everlasting. Celebrant Will you continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
People I will, with God’s help.
p 294 Celebrant Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
People I will, with God’s help.

The Celebrant concludes the Renewal of Vows as follows

May Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has given us a new birth by water and the Holy Spirit, and bestowed upon us the forgiveness of sins, keep us in eternal life by his grace, in Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.

The Episcopal Church, The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church (New York: Church Publishing Incorporated, 2007), 292–294.

Note that there is no mention of water or rebaptising though the congregants will sometimes dip their fingers into the font and moisten their own foreheads..

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589787#Comment_589787

Back on topic: http://kengcrawford.com/2012/05/04/a-service-of-recommitment-and-rededication-to-christ/ gives an example of a rededication service with water. Google gives several results for "Christian rededication service water" (without quotes) - some theological, some suggested services.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589786#Comment_589786

I searched my Bible and is not there

Acts 19:1-5 is one case of re-baptising.

Note that the first baptism was "John's baptism" and not Christian baptism. Normally, there is only one baptism in the name of the triune God

⁴There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, ⁵one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ⁶one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Eph 4.4-6

Yes, and though John's baptism was "correct" at one point, later on it was "incorrect" (not valid) when the "One Baptism" entered into effect. [Y]

Bill Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589945#Comment_589945

Back on topic: http://kengcrawford.com/2012/05/04/a-service-of-recommitment-and-rededication-to-christ/ gives an example of a rededication service with water. Google gives several results for "Christian rededication service water" (without quotes) - some theological, some suggested services.

M.J,

Thanks for the link.

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/589786#Comment_589786

I searched my Bible and is not there

Acts 19:1-5 is one case of re-baptising.

Note that the first baptism was "John's baptism" and not Christian baptism. Normally, there is only one baptism in the name of the triune God

⁴There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, ⁵one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ⁶one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Eph 4.4-6

There are some interesting ideas on the Internet about Christian Baptism being an adaptation of Hebrew ritual cleansing (Tevilah) including when one converts to Judaism. Logos forums are not a place to debate theology, but the OP raised some good questions about the use of water in religious rites.

Willard Scott

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/590001#Comment_590001

There are some interesting ideas on the Internet about Christian Baptism

Yes. ... For instance:

“If I was in charge,” Palin said Saturday in Indianapolis, “they would know, waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/590102#Comment_590102

Nice way of taking half of my sentence to hijack it in a new direction. [:S]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/590102#Comment_590102

There are some interesting ideas on the Internet about Christian Baptism
Yes. ... For instance:
“If I was in charge,” Palin said Saturday in Indianapolis, “they would know, waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

As much as I like Palin, she should have said "If I WERE in charge …" since it is a contrary-to-fact statement.

Bill Coley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/590102#Comment_590102

es. ... For instance:

“If I was in charge,” Palin said Saturday in Indianapolis, “they would know, waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists

Nicely done, Willard.

Mike Childs

Bill, my denomination - the United Methodist - introduced a ritual very similar to what you describe, which is called "Remember Your Baptism". It is in our hymnal, and is many of our pastors use it. United Methodists do not re-baptize, but I think, as you well said, that this is "an accommodation to people who were baptized was infants but want to be re-baptized.". United Methodists practice infant baptism, but do not require it. United Methodist will baptize by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, as the individual requests.

I don't like this ritual (despite its popularity) and never use it. (How does someone baptized as an infant "remember" his baptism?) I know of no historical basis for the ritual.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/590132#Comment_590132

http://www.interpretermagazine.org/interior.asp?ptid=43&mid=14625 is one of many decent explanations of this Methodist practice.

Scott E. Mahle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/590136#Comment_590136

As far as the Methodist’s, I find Wesley spoke on the matter quite well:

logosres:workswesley10;ref=Page.p_188;off=254

Also Raymond:

logosres:mraymondsystheo03;ref=Page.p_289

And let’s not forget Pope:

logosres:cmpdmct;ref=VolumePage.V_3,_p_311;off=1060