Should my X-Mormon wife be re-baptized?

[Stope]

My wife was baptized as a Mormon when she was 8. At that time she:
-Put no stock in the fact that her act of baptism would in any was play a part in her salvation (but those who baptized here did)
-Had no real developed concept of the "Trinity" as do most youngsters but was baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit(but those who baptized her did believe wrong on the trinity)
-Was immersed

Do you think she should be re-baptized?

(FYI Her concise is clear, but we are becoming members of a Baptist church and Im going to assume they will require another and view this one as invalid)

 

[Edward]

From the 1845 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church:

In view of the fact that several churches hold grave errors in connection with much saving truth, and that perhaps no church receives in everything the exact mind of the Spirit, it may be asked with what degree of strictness or liberality this mark of a true visible Church is to be applied. It seems to us consonant with the Scriptures and the judgment of charity to answer, that so long as any communion so retains the essential truths of God's Word and the aids of the Holy Ghost as to save souls by its ministrations, it shall be held a true, though imperfect, member of His visible body. Though it may omit or impugn some principles which we have received from God, and may even deny to our ordinances all recognition, and to our communion all church character, yet we may not imitate its uncharitableness; so long as Christ visibly entrusts it with His saving Word and Spirit, we are bound to recognize it as His visible body, notwithstanding its errors, and to pray for its attainment of a more peaceable unity in the bonds of the truth. But in judging the tendency of its ordinances to save souls, it is obviously proper that we shall estimate those ministrations as a consistent whole, as set forth by this communication. If their only tendency as a whole, taken as it expounds them to its members, is destructive to souls, then we cannot admit that it is a pillar and ground of saving truth, merely because of some disjointed fragments of the gospel verities, mixed with heresies which, if heartily accepted by the people as taught, must be fatal to souls; or because a few persons, through the special teaching of God's Spirit, leading them to select the spiritual meat and reject the poison, actually find Christ under those ministrations; for the proper function of a visible Church is instrumentally to communicate to its disciples spiritual discernment, and not to presuppose it; and the happy escape of these souls from damnable error is due to the special grace of God shielding them against the regular effect of these ministrations, rather than employing and blessing them. If this rule of judgment be denied, then might a valid church character possibly be established for an association of infidels investigating parts of God's Word only for purposes of cavil, since the Almighty Spirit might, against these purposes, employ those parts of the Word to awaken and convert some member.

The LDS are not a true church, they are bound up in heresy, and they are destructive of souls. There baptism is totally invalid and a nullity.

Indeed, because of their practice of proxy baptism, it may well be that many of us were baptized into the Mormon church. That is no reason for us to forego a Christian baptism.

 

[VictorBravo]

Do you think she should be re-baptized?

I agree with Edward, but most importantly: Take this up with the elders of the church you are joining.

Opinions on a discussion forum should not be the source of your direction in such matters.

 

[Stope]

From the 1845 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church:

In view of the fact that several churches hold grave errors in connection with much saving truth, and that perhaps no church receives in everything the exact mind of the Spirit, it may be asked with what degree of strictness or liberality this mark of a true visible Church is to be applied. It seems to us consonant with the Scriptures and the judgment of charity to answer, that so long as any communion so retains the essential truths of God's Word and the aids of the Holy Ghost as to save souls by its ministrations, it shall be held a true, though imperfect, member of His visible body. Though it may omit or impugn some principles which we have received from God, and may even deny to our ordinances all recognition, and to our communion all church character, yet we may not imitate its uncharitableness; so long as Christ visibly entrusts it with His saving Word and Spirit, we are bound to recognize it as His visible body, notwithstanding its errors, and to pray for its attainment of a more peaceable unity in the bonds of the truth. But in judging the tendency of its ordinances to save souls, it is obviously proper that we shall estimate those ministrations as a consistent whole, as set forth by this communication. If their only tendency as a whole, taken as it expounds them to its members, is destructive to souls, then we cannot admit that it is a pillar and ground of saving truth, merely because of some disjointed fragments of the gospel verities, mixed with heresies which, if heartily accepted by the people as taught, must be fatal to souls; or because a few persons, through the special teaching of God's Spirit, leading them to select the spiritual meat and reject the poison, actually find Christ under those ministrations; for the proper function of a visible Church is instrumentally to communicate to its disciples spiritual discernment, and not to presuppose it; and the happy escape of these souls from damnable error is due to the special grace of God shielding them against the regular effect of these ministrations, rather than employing and blessing them. If this rule of judgment be denied, then might a valid church character possibly be established for an association of infidels investigating parts of God's Word only for purposes of cavil, since the Almighty Spirit might, against these purposes, employ those parts of the Word to awaken and convert some member.

The LDS are not a true church, they are bound up in heresy, and they are destructive of souls. There baptism is totally invalid and a nullity.

Indeed, because of their practice of proxy baptism, it may well be that many of us were baptized into the Mormon church. That is no reason for us to forego a Christian baptism.

Many Catholics are bound up in heresy and false teaching yet there are some saved Catholics, and in the same way, could there not be some young Mormons (who all they know is "Jesus saves me from my sins" and are not yet introduced to the damnable heresies) are saved?

 

[VictorBravo]

Many Catholics are bound up in heresy and false teaching yet there are some saved Catholics, and in the same way, could there not be some young Mormons (who all they know is "Jesus saves me from my sins" and are not yet introduced to the damnable heresies) are saved?

Possibly. God saves whom he chooses and brands can be plucked from many fires. But that has nothing to do with the question of baptism.

 

[Stope]

Do you think she should be re-baptized?

I agree with Edward, but most importantly: Take this up with the elders of the church you are joining.

Opinions on a discussion forum should not be the source of your direction in such matters.

As mentioned we have an interview with the pastor, where, as I mentioned, Im all but positive they will request her be baptized again. I was just curious as to the boards thoughts

 

[SolaScriptura]

I don't even like referring to it as a "re-baptism." The "baptism" of a heretical pseudo-Christian cult is no baptism at all.

 

[Edward]

Many Catholics are bound up in heresy and false teaching yet there are some saved Catholics, and in the same way, could there not be some young Mormons (who all they know is "Jesus saves me from my sins" and are not yet introduced to the damnable heresies) are saved?

There have been several threads dealing with re-baptism of Catholics over the years (search rebaptism Catholics in the search box to find some of them, if interested.)

That said, I'll refer you to Mr. Bottomly's responses.

 

[OPC'n]

Yes

 

[jambo]

Baptism is administered in the name of the Trinity otherwise in the biblical sense it is not a valid baptism. The Mormon view of the Trinity is not orthodox Christian belief as a defective view of Christ means a defective view of the Trintiy. According to Mormon teaching baptism is a declaration of the intention of serving God until you die. Christians serve God all their lives and on into eternity. I was reading a Mormon scholar on baptism who states that the Book of Mormon gives the clearest teaching on baptism than all the other ancient scriptures. As he expounds the doctrine he uses the book of Mormon throughout without any reference to the bible.

The teaching also states that baptism has to be administered by someone who has "God's priesthood authority for the remission of sins."

Dodgy baptism adnministered by dodgy people with dodgy beliefs.

 

[Stope]

I don't even like referring to it as a "re-baptism." The "baptism" of a heretical pseudo-Christian cult is no baptism at all.

As far as i can tell it comes down to 2 things:
1. Is it invalid because those who administered it?
2. because the recipient held sound beliefs

 

[Stope]

Baptism is administered in the name of the Trinity otherwise in the biblical sense it is not a valid baptism. The Mormon view of the Trinity is not orthodox Christian belief as a defective view of Christ means a defective view of the Trintiy. According to Mormon teaching baptism is a declaration of the intention of serving God until you die. Christians serve God all their lives and on into eternity. I was reading a Mormon scholar on baptism who states that the Book of Mormon gives the clearest teaching on baptism than all the other ancient scriptures. As he expounds the doctrine he uses the book of Mormon throughout without any reference to the bible.

The teaching also states that baptism has to be administered by someone who has "God's priesthood authority for the remission of sins."

Dodgy baptism adnministered by dodgy people with dodgy beliefs.

Baptism is administered in the name of the Trinity otherwise in the biblical sense it is not a valid baptism.
---This baptism was administered in the name of the Trinity

The Mormon view of the Trinity is not orthodox Christian belief
---True, the ones who administered it were not orthodox, but the recipient was orthodox

According to Mormon teaching baptism is a declaration of the intention of serving God until you die.
---What you have said is not accurate. They maintain:
"Baptism in water is an ordinance essential to our salvation."
"By being baptized, we show God that we are willing to be obedient to His commandments"



I was reading a Mormon scholar on baptism who states that the Book of Mormon gives the clearest teaching on baptism than all the other ancient scriptures. As he expounds the doctrine he uses the book of Mormon throughout without any reference to the bible.
---Such a shame

The teaching also states that baptism has to be administered by someone who has "God's priesthood authority for the remission of sins."
---Perhaps one of Josephs most deplorable inventions (next to his doctrine of exaltation)

Dodgy baptism adnministered by dodgy people with dodgy beliefs.
---Yet tin this case your first two points are correct but not the last...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The LDS has no--as in zero--connection to the historic Christian church. This datum isn't remotely contestable. The LDS itself repudiated ALL connections to the whole of "Christendom" when it came into existence de novo in the middle of the 19th century. They clearly taught the church ceased to exist after Christ, and resumed through the prophet J.Smith.

LDS has the status of a cult on virtually any true church's gauge. It's source of authority is ultimately their triple canon (beyond the Bible)--BookofMormon, Doctrines&Covenants, PearlofGreatPrice. In this, they resemble the religion of Islm: the Bible is "good as far as it goes, which isn't far enough." LDS is polytheistic (non-Christian enough yet?)! And there are multiple instances wherein this organization believes contrary to the Apostle's Creed, and other ecumenical identifiers.

Baptism is not what it is simply on the basis of an individual person's profession; there is a doctrinal basis which is bound to a particular church's confession of the apostolic faith, that church which through baptism receives this person as (outwardly, visibly) a Christian.

That certain mainline LDS these days want "parity" recognition with/from other Christian denominations is as meaningful as a man who wants the rest of humankind to acknowledge him as a woman. Both are cases of the repudiation of the fixity of being and history. For true believers, and the true church to which they belong (in various outward dress) neither fixity is negotiable, being foreordained by God.

For LDS baptism to have any standing for Christians, this body would have to have begun as part of the church, which it manifestly did not do. Even if swathes of the whole were to adopt core Christian tenets, and discard their abundance of error, they would have to also reject their history and the identity attached to it. This would be manifestation of repentance. They would be self-consciously rejecting their fathers and mothers steeped in error, and forever parted from Christ and these who now wish to belong to him.

Just because (for various reasons) some in the LDS might like to be interpreted by outsiders (and by some insiders) as just another Christian denomination, doesn't--outside of a post-modern, relativistic framework--require others to play along with the fiction.

 

[brendanchatt]

Although some concerns are similar, I wouldn't compare the Mormon and Catholic ceremonies on this matter.

 

[py3ak]

No, someone baptized in the Mormon church should not be re-baptized. They have never been baptized, and ought to be.

"We may not receive Baptism twice or thrice; else it might be said, Though I have failed once, I shall set it right a second time: whereas if thou fail once, the thing cannot be set right; for there is one Lord, and one faith, and one baptism: for only the heretics are rebaptized, because the former was no baptism."

Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures” (emphasis added)

 

[MW]

As far as i can tell it comes down to 2 things:
1. Is it invalid because those who administered it?
2. because the recipient held sound beliefs

Whether it can be shown to be invalid is not at issue. There only needs to be a lack of evidence that it is valid. In this case there is no evidence that a valid baptism has been administered. The heresies of the cult in fundamentals of the faith means no judgment of Christian charity can be extended to it. Therefore baptism will be required as part of a credible profession of faith in order to be admitted a member of a true church.

The beliefs of the recipient are irrelevant to the baptism question. They only become relevant to the credible profession of faith required to join a true church.

 

[Edward]

but most importantly: Take this up with the elders of the church you are joining.

Opinions on a discussion forum should not be the source of your direction in such matters.

My initial reaction was to agree with you on this, but on further reflection, I'd suggest that if the elders of a church were out of accord with the consensus shown thus far on this thread, the proper reaction would be to flee that church rather than submit to the elders.

 

[VictorBravo]

but most importantly: Take this up with the elders of the church you are joining.

Opinions on a discussion forum should not be the source of your direction in such matters.

My initial reaction was to agree with you on this, but on further reflection, I'd suggest that if the elders of a church were out of accord with the consensus shown thus far on this thread, the proper reaction would be to flee that church rather than submit to the elders.

I think you are right. My main concern was that this question was put in the form of a poll asking for opinions. I should have made it clear "it should go without saying..." that there is no baptism in the LDS.

 

[Justified]

I agree with the sentiments of many others. Mormon baptism is not valid. Please don't even compare it either to a Roman Catholic baptism. There is no comparison. Rome may be in error, but they're not a pseudo-Christian cult.

 

[Jack K]

Mormon doctrine rejects Christ as he is revealed in the Scriptures to a far greater extent than any error you may find in Catholicism, and stands in opposition to many tenets of the historic Christian creeds. Therefore, a Mormon baptism is no true baptism. Supposing your church agrees, your wife should not hesitate to be baptized.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Supposing your church agrees, your wife should not hesitate to be baptized.

And if your church has no issue with her Mormon baptism, find another church.

 

[Djenks]

My wife was baptized as a Mormon when she was 8. At that time she:
-Put no stock in the fact that her act of baptism would in any was play a part in her salvation (but those who baptized here did)
-Had no real developed concept of the "Trinity" as do most youngsters but was baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit(but those who baptized her did believe wrong on the trinity)
-Was immersed
Do you think she should be re-baptized?

(FYI Her concise is clear, but we are becoming members of a Baptist church and Im going to assume they will require another and view this one as invalid)

Not long ago I was praying through the same choice. I was baptized a Mormon at the age of 18. As God saved me from the Mormon Church I began to wonder about my baptism. After reading the proceeding verse I did get re-baptized in the name of the Triune God.

Acts 19:3 (NASB) 3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism."

Acts 19:4 (NASB) 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

Acts 19:5 (NASB) 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

You have to remember that Mormons may say Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, however they mean very different things than what the Bible teaches.

 

[lynnie]

Mormons believe God created all things. We are his children. Jesus and Satan were both sons of God in the beginning, and thus it is technically correct that Mormons believe Jesus and Satan once were brothers–in this sense. However, Jesus chose to honor and glorify his Father while Satan chose to rebel against and dishonor Him. Jesus and Satan are polar opposites–literally as different as any two individuals can possibly be. We too are all sons and daughters of God, though you are just as related to Mother Theresa as you are to Adolf Hitler.

http://mormonvoices.org/1/Jesus-brother-of-satan

Any baptism into the Mormon trinity has such a different understanding of Jesus as to be another religion entirely.

 

[jwithnell]

To clarify, while the Roman Catholics embrace serious error, they affirm the historical creeds of the faith. Receiving a second baptism was a question answered by the reformers in the negative and that is stated in the Westminster standards and other documents. As others have well stated, the Mormons themselves refute Christian dogma and so any ritual they perform is invalid. When it comes to baptising someone from a church that affirms the historic creeds, many Baptist churches have answered this question differently, generally only accepting a believer's, immersion baptism, and not seeming too uncomfortable with people being baptised several times to make sure a person has gotten it "right" particularly in independent Baptist circles.

 

[timfost]

For the most part, biblical names represent one's nature. This is especially true for God.

The gods (yes, it's a pantheon) of Mormonism are not the God of scripture. Calling Zeus and Hermes Father and Son does not mean they have the same nature as the biblical Father and Son.

Paul opposes baptizing in any other name:

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1Cor. 1:13)

Ruben is right- this is not a re-baptism. A Mormon baptism could be likened to a bath, which would never be considered a Christian sacrament.

 

[Dachaser]

I am a Baptist, so we would see believers baptism as the biblical mode/way to administer it, but more important than even that, I would see thefact that a false cult administered it, and she held to false Mormon theology as reason to be rebaptized now!

 

[Romans922]

Option 5: Should be baptized because she was never baptized to begin with (Just like a papist washing - dirtifying?)

 

[puritanpilgrim]

And if your church has no issue with her Mormon baptism, find another church.

That was gold

 

[Stope]

Djenks!!! Great!!!!!!!!! So so helpful! I agree

 

[Bill The Baptist]

And if your church has no issue with her Mormon baptism, find another church.

That was gold

As a Baptist church, I am pretty sure they would want your wife to be re-baptized even if she had been baptized in a Presbyterian church, and so I am pretty sure a Mormon baptism won't make muster in their eyes.