Southeast 2

Thanks to all that commented. Interesting points were brought out.

I think that my sarcasm found at the end of my previous post confused the point that I was trying to make. Right now, I could easily turn this into a debate of infant baptism vs. "age of consciousness" baptism, but that would take away from the point of this post. Let me try to better explain my point as I originally intended it:

The World Council of Churches discourages rebaptism. Many churches, such as Southeast, encourage rebaptism. Should these churches listen to this council of churches or is The World Council of Churches a failing attempt for "one catholic and apostolic church?"

The World Council members who do not practice infant baptism understand that fellow council members practice infant baptism- such as Presbyterian, Episcopal, and Lutheran churches. When churches who do not practice infant baptism say, with the understanding that other Churches interpret baptism differently than they do, that "Baptism is an unrepeatable act", they are creating an idea of "one Christian baptism;" that baptism should occur only once. I could understand that if there were no churches on the council who practiced infant baptism, that this statement of unrepeatable baptism might not include infant baptism, but there are churches on the council that do. So what does this mean? Three hundred Christian faiths from around the world say that not being baptized again is more important than being re-baptized by one's preferred method. Powerful.

Ming pointed out that this is to "refrain from any practice which might call into question the sacramental integrity of other churches or which might diminish the unrepeatability of the sacrament of baptism." A church who encourages rebaptism because someone did not remember it (implying infant baptism) is calling into question the sacramental integrity of the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church, all who practice infant baptism. Rebaptism says that the first one didn't count and this re-baptism will- the very idea that the World Council is explicitly discouraging.


On a side note...

Melodie-
"Taking his hand is not what saves you, your rescuer is what rescues you."
Do you think that infant baptism better manifests this idea?


Yeiser-
I didn't think that I was taking it out of context because I don't think that the two sentences relate to one another. I think they are separate statements, one encouraging those who don't remember their baptism (for example) to be rebaptized and the other discouraging those who do remember their baptism from being rebaptized. If the two sentences do relate, then who are they encouraging to be rebaptized? If those who have "fallen into sin after having been baptized" do not need to be re-baptized, then they must be encouraging those who have NOT fallen into sin after having been baptized AND those who lack confidence in their initial baptism experience because they don't remember it (for example) to be re-baptized. This doesn't make much sense.

Ming-
Baptism, as a baby or adult, is the first step towards the Catholic understanding of full Christian initiation. If one is coming into the Catholic Church baptized, their Christian baptism is recognized. After baptism, there are two more steps in the Catholic Church for Christian initiation: the reception of Jesus' body and blood through the Eucharist and a public and private proclamation of faith through Confirmation. Here we see the public and "personal response" follow-up to the baptism that the World Council recommends.