Paedo-Baptism Answers Question about my own baptism according to reformed theology

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 14306
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 14306

Guest
So, I have a question about my baptismal status. I grew up in a Roman Catholic family, and was baptized as a baby as is their custom. My family later left the church, and we all joined different non-denominational churches. My dad and I both got baptized by full emersion in one of these churches. This is way before I discovered reformed theology and all that. Now though I am reformed, and I'm in the process of looking for a reformed church but I'm kinda lost. What's my baptismal status? Was the baptism as an infant still legal even if it was done by the Roman Catholics and was my full-emersion baptism unnecessary, or was my baptism in the non-denominational church the one that really counts since my infant baptism was done at a Roman Catholic Church? Or do neither count? Please help.
 
The Reformation position is that your first baptism was valid and the second unnecessary. Those who adopt the position of later Reformed such as Thornwell say that it was invalid and the second valid. Sounds like you're covered either way.
Christ4Ever said:
So, I have a question about my baptismal status. I grew up in a Roman Catholic family, and was baptized as a baby as is their custom. My family later left the church, and we all joined different non-denominational churches. My dad and I both got baptized by full emersion in one of these churches. This is way before I discovered reformed theology and all that. Now though I am reformed, and I'm in the process of looking for a reformed church but I'm kinda lost. What's my baptismal status? Was the baptism as an infant still legal even if it was done by the Roman Catholics and was my full-emersion baptism unnecessary, or was my baptism in the non-denominational church the one that really counts since my infant baptism was done at a Roman Catholic Church? Or do neither count? Please help.
Click to expand...
 
Some reformed Presbyterians would not accept an RC baptism, while others would, (on the basis that it is trinitarian in nature).

If the second baptism was indeed also trintarian in nature, I see no reason why you would be considered as "unbaptized", even if someone discounts the RC baptism, as Chris said.

Ultimately it would be something that would be evaluated by your session.
 
The church of Rome is a whore, meaning she had the gospel and played the harlot. This is different from say the Mormons of JW's who have never had the true gospel. For this reason I would deem your RCC baptism valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top