Agreed. I was baptized as an infant being catholic. By definition, it’s in my own opinion unscriptural, because infants are not able to understand sin, nor repent in full conviction. That is my take on it, but I respect those who think it is so.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Can baptism sever a marriage bond?
- Thread starter ChoosingGod
- Start date
Ephesians 4:5 says "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" and some folks think this is a limit on how many times you can be baptized.
But context means everything in language. Paul wrote this letter to the Ephesians to emphasize what they shared in common and they shared God, they shared their faith, and they shared the rite of baptism.
There is no limitation on how many times one may be baptized.
It is not uncommon for newborn children to be baptized and then to accept baptism at a later date when they're more aware of the meaning of baptism. And they can choose to be baptized yet again when they might join a particular church. Or they might go on a revival retreat and be filled with the Spirit and ask to be baptized yet again to mark this moment in their life.
For the same reason we do not limit how many times you can share communion with the faithful. By your reasoning isn't once enough?
"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under Heaven"
When the time comes for someone to seek baptism the first time or the tenth time that that is the time.
The Hollywood pagans know this and they showed it in a movie that I happen to like.
Is marriage a spiritual matter, or a practical physical matter?
The Catholics believe that marriage is spiritual - "holy matrimony" - a sacrament. That unless you get a proper marriage performed by a priest, then you are not really married, because you have not been spiritually united and have only come together carnally (physically). Accordingly, they actually do not consider any non-Catholics to be truly married.
If marriage were truly just a spiritual matter, then your position could be a little bit plausible. Maybe the sacrament of baptism could cancel the sacrament of marriage. The logic doesn't actually hold on examination, but I can see where someone could make that argument.
But we all know that marriage is not a spiritual matter, it is a physical one. You do not consider yourself married to her because you had a priest do a ritual. You consider yourself married because you were together naked in bed. Marriage is a physical matter.
Baptism has a spiritual effect, but not a physical effect. The person who has committed crimes and has thousands of dollars in fines to pay, then gets baptised, gets forgiven for the spiritual side of their situation - the sin. But they still have to pay their debts. The physical, practical reality of their situation did not change, only the way God looks at it.
If marriage is physical, then it is not changed by baptism.
Hi Megan. Oh I totally understand.
But with baptism comes knowledge of what is sin, repentance and meaning of the water baptism. With this proper knowledge, we should not baptize several times without serious reasons.
This subject of baptism touches so many topics I don’t think we can cover them all.
We are being baptized in ONE body : Christ.
Not an organization or specific church, that is my understanding of it. Baptized with one name (matt 28:19 trinity spoiler alert I will not talk about this thanks.
Baptized with one Spirit, the Spirit of God given to Christ which He sends us.
I truly been there. I been baptized as an infant.
I understand your opinion on this, and respect it. Thank you for your comment.
Imho, everything is twofold.
The law is carnal, but in essence spiritual.
Baptism is carnal (water) but also has deep spiritual meaning.
A lot of carnal observances are kept in carnal ways (example: passover meal) but we (for my part) do not slaughter a sheep, since I am under the covenant of Christ, the sheep of God. Also feast of unleavened bread, it is kept carnally, but has great spiritual meaning, leaven being likened to sin, traditions and hypocrisy.
Likewise, covenanting between man and woman is twofold. This union has carnal implications, but spiritual too. Ideally, both should be of the same Spirit, both should be of the same body.
Which is why some people end up getting baptised more than once in their life. They get baptised once into one denomination and with a particular understanding. Then later they change their understanding of scripture, change denominations, decide they didn't truly understand what baptism was about the first time around, and then get re-baptised by the "right" denomination to make a fresh and, this time, "correct" commitment to God.
And you yourself have been rebaptised for the exact same reason - because you came to the opinion that you didn't understand things enough at your first baptism, so needed to be baptised again.
If someone is baptised, then falls away from God, that in itself can be taken as evidence that they did not fully understand it the first time, and need to be re-baptised! Hence someone may end up baptised more than once in their lifetime.
What is to stop the woman we are discussing deciding that her baptism by you was wrong, because it wasn't done by a proper church minister and before witnesses, or because your theology is wrong, or that she didn't understand it correctly at the time, or for whatever other reason, and choosing to get baptised in a normal church ceremony in the future? Nothing. It would not be sinful. She could easily get baptised again. Whether you think it's necessary or not is irrelevant.
And if you're right, that future baptism would cancel her purported "marriage" to you.
See how this makes a mockery of marriage and prohibitions on divorce?
But let's stop discussing rebaptism. That was a side observation to simply show how ridiculous your position was, and you like to discuss it instead of the core issue because it's less confronting, which is why you have written so much about it above. Stick to the topic of whether baptism ends marriage.
And in what way would baptism cancel the carnal side of marriage?
Please respond to what I said in my first post of this thread:
Also, I consider that I was naked in bed with a woman because she is Christ’s. She is a believer. I would not share my nakedness with any other than my wives.
As for your example of debts to pay, yes there is a spiritual effect, but it has physical implications as well. True repentance will make amends to whom sin was hurtful. The law specifies that a thief repay back twice what he stole. So everything is linked and affects the two sides.
One that gets baptized in water get cleansed from past sins but also has an engagement to stop living a sinful life, directly leading how physically this one will act, think, live.
I appreciate that. My point was that you should have sought counsel prior to taking her to bed. It is very clear that you did not ask anyone "I think baptism ends marriage, am I right?" of anybody with any degree of spiritual maturity before acting on this assumption, as you would have been corrected. Learn from this. Seek counsel before you act next time, not afterwards.
Maybe even the title of this thread is part of the problem?
There are multiple threads here discussing what makes a marriage bond in the first place, with no final agreement or consensus.
All seem to agree that natural procreative sex with a virgin obligates a man to marry a marry the virgin he seduced, if her father consents.
With a woman with a past it gets interesting trying to determine what her previous relationships were as far as biblical laws are concerned.
It may be my female nature, but it seems there is a tendency to want to get sticky and legalistic on the subject of sex, and act like that makes the woman bound to whatever man first had his way with her FOR LIFE!
This is a reasonable standard in a culture that understands that is best...where people are serious about sex, have good role models, and parents guiding them.
Men also have duties to each wife, this soul (or souls) that has subjected herself to his rule, to provide for her, protect her, and give her chances to procreate.
The men in ancient Israel lived in a culture that would have DEPORTED a man (he got cut off from Israel) if his wife complained that he did not do his duty toward her, and her allegations were found to be true.
He was also expected to OWN (take responsibility for) his sexual relationships from the start! You went all the way last night?
BETTER GO TALK TO HER DAD TODAY!
Now days many have sex and live together for weeks, months, YEARS EVEN, but would not call the person they are living with and having sex with their husband or wife.
This can NOT be construed to be "marriage" biblically speaking!
It would still be wise for men to apply the golden rule, be respectful of relationships already formed, and avoid trespassing or alienating a woman from a man who is lawfully "possessing" her.
That is just some of my thoughts on this.
There are multiple threads here discussing what makes a marriage bond in the first place, with no final agreement or consensus.
All seem to agree that natural procreative sex with a virgin obligates a man to marry a marry the virgin he seduced, if her father consents.
With a woman with a past it gets interesting trying to determine what her previous relationships were as far as biblical laws are concerned.
It may be my female nature, but it seems there is a tendency to want to get sticky and legalistic on the subject of sex, and act like that makes the woman bound to whatever man first had his way with her FOR LIFE!
This is a reasonable standard in a culture that understands that is best...where people are serious about sex, have good role models, and parents guiding them.
Men also have duties to each wife, this soul (or souls) that has subjected herself to his rule, to provide for her, protect her, and give her chances to procreate.
The men in ancient Israel lived in a culture that would have DEPORTED a man (he got cut off from Israel) if his wife complained that he did not do his duty toward her, and her allegations were found to be true.
He was also expected to OWN (take responsibility for) his sexual relationships from the start! You went all the way last night?
BETTER GO TALK TO HER DAD TODAY!
Now days many have sex and live together for weeks, months, YEARS EVEN, but would not call the person they are living with and having sex with their husband or wife.
This can NOT be construed to be "marriage" biblically speaking!
It would still be wise for men to apply the golden rule, be respectful of relationships already formed, and avoid trespassing or alienating a woman from a man who is lawfully "possessing" her.
That is just some of my thoughts on this.
Hi, I'm Megan and I am an ASD1 autistic. This means I will sometimes say things that might come off as rude or insensitive.
This might be one of those times.
First, you don't understand my opinion or respect my opinion when your response is filled with passive aggressive word choices that betray your actual feelings.
LOL. That's #1.
So my knowledge is not proper. That's #2.
And you make clear that your opinion is set in stone, immutable, and immortal. That's #3.
The Apostle John Mark was baptized twice. Seems the first effort fell a bit short of the mark. The second worked fine.
Apollos in the Bible was likely baptized twice and for much the same reason.
Those two examples are sufficient to make clear that baptism is defined more by need than by number.
Like for instance if you were to be sprayed by a skunk you'll likely need more than one bath or shower to remove the stink from yourself. Similar to how some people need more than one baptism to remove the stink of pride from their heart that they themselves may not smell yet everyone else does.
Please accept my apologies for the way I expressed myself and hurt you. This was not my intention.Hi, I'm Megan and I am an ASD1 autistic. This means I will sometimes say things that might come off as rude or insensitive.
This might be one of those times.
First, you don't understand my opinion or respect my opinion when your response is filled with passive aggressive word choices that betray your actual feelings.
LOL. That's #1.
So my knowledge is not proper. That's #2.
And you make clear that your opinion is set in stone, immutable, and immortal. That's #3.
The Apostle John Mark was baptized twice. Seems the first effort fell a bit short of the mark. The second worked fine.
Apollos in the Bible was likely baptized twice and for much the same reason.
Those two examples are sufficient to make clear that baptism is defined more by need than by number.
Like for instance if you were to be sprayed by a skunk you'll likely need more than one bath or shower to remove the stink from yourself. Similar to how some people need more than one baptism to remove the stink of pride from their heart that they themselves may not smell yet everyone else does.
That hits home.
I totally understand your argument and how it could affect marriage in a nefarious way.
I will still try to explain my actual understanding like you suggested, but I also seriously consider what you wrote above.
No, that’s absurd.
There’s a substantial lack of reason in the original post. Divorce severs marriage, and death does too. If both husband and wife are still living, and he hasn’t both kicked her out and given her a certificate of divorce, they’re still married.
End of discussion.
Here's one that's gonna upset a lot of people...
Baptism is a lot like circumcision. It is a SIGN (an "ot" in Hebrew) - an outward manifestation of an inward condition.
Scripture specifies BOTH, arguably in more than one place, and by more than one witness.
And - "circumcision of the heart" is no more overtly visible than whether or not one has been 'baptized' (and whether it fits some denominational spec or not.)
And - ponder this - NEITHER is a 'pre-condition' for acceptance of the completed work of Yahushua HaMashiach.
And of the two, circumcision is arguably the one which can only be done once.
Baptism is a lot like circumcision. It is a SIGN (an "ot" in Hebrew) - an outward manifestation of an inward condition.
Scripture specifies BOTH, arguably in more than one place, and by more than one witness.
And - "circumcision of the heart" is no more overtly visible than whether or not one has been 'baptized' (and whether it fits some denominational spec or not.)
And - ponder this - NEITHER is a 'pre-condition' for acceptance of the completed work of Yahushua HaMashiach.
And of the two, circumcision is arguably the one which can only be done once.
Nah, those of the katatome can keep on apokopto-ing all they want. Keep on snipping!
Or, they could just get put in the Kalifornia Public Skools. They'll learn to cut all kinds of things off.Nah, those of the katatome can keep on apokopto-ing all they want. Keep on snipping!
This is an irrelevant concern, it has nothing to do with the present discussion. Nobody is arguing this woman is stuck with the first man she was with, that man (whoever he was) is not under discussion and nobody is suggesting she go back to him.
This is relevant however. This woman has a man who she has made informal commitments to, and lived with in a marriage-like relationship for four years. He considers her to be his woman, and she (until leaving) would have considered him her man. Biblically that is concubinage, which is a form of marriage. So she had a man. We are pointing out that @ChoosingGod was wrong to take her from that man. I am not sure what your point is - I don't think you're suggesting it was ok for him to take her from that man, since you say people should "be respectful of relationships already formed". So although the point is on topic I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with anyone.
Can you specifically apply whatever your point is to the situation we are discussing?
True, you are however claiming that the last man she lived with has a legitimate claim on her.
Your conclusion at the end there is of course based on who you believe....about what was said.. ..about what actually happened, which none of us were actual witnesses to.
It may be far from wise....it may be wrong.
With what information we have I am not comfortable reaching that point of judgement.
Violation of the golden rule maybe? Maybe not!
Getting to it.
The OP said in the other thread ...
This speaks to HIS intent (ChoosingGod's) to be commited to her and be her husband. The other man is not here sharing his point of view, but as I am unaware of what if any vows were spoken...or what commitment was made....or even what word the other man would have used to describe the previous four year relationship, I really don't know if she was wrong to leave him, or if what she did should be called adultery....though ChoosingGod is putting it in that catagory.
This is the op trying to explain the language issue as the woman that left him is fluent in French not English, but that is a significant point here.
This is another important detail.
Yet another witness that their "marriage of sorts" (concubinage????) Was never actually consummated. Natural, procreative sex, is biblically required for each to be fulfilling their obligations.
So there is a ton of missing information here. I highly doubt she was a mail order bride who agreed to be married before moving in. Is the former man still legally bound to a previous partner? Did he intend to be in a commited relationship and introduce her as his wife....or even feel she WAS his wife without actually having sex with her? Or did the former man start off interested....let her live with him... and now that he has invested time and energy want to claim "squatters rights" over her?
If biblically a runaway slave was NOT to be returned, did ChoosingGod actually sin in giving her a place to stay....and offering her sincere COMMITMENT?...offering to be her husband?
It is human nature to want to judge ourselves by our intent, and others by how they impact us or by our perception of the outcome.
The fact that she went back to the former man doesn't mean she is repenting....it may only mean she sees that as possible....and less complicated than trying to navigate a bunch of interpersonal relationships in ChoosingGod's family and home. To someone broken with hang ups, being in intimate contact (I don't mean sex or nudity here) with others, just sharing a home, could cause her to feel very scrutinized and judged, misunderstood, betrayed, etc.
So....my point is that while we all want to be careful in our own lives and decisions, and avoid sticky, complicated, confusing situations like this.. .we might go easy on someone (in the support thread) who dared to try and help.
I dispatched for the fire dept. here for 11 years. Had people who were "too busy" to volunteer judge me and the others that did....FROM THEIR POSITION OF SAFE NON PARTICIPATION!
"If you're going to ...you should take it serious!" When that individual has no idea how seriously I did take my volunteer....never got paid....did it around the clock 24 hours a day for full weeks at a time "job."
Since we get judged by how we judge others....I tend to withhold judgement on matters I have limited information on. Also on people who are suffering loss, pain or hardship because of their choice or action. Example....a child drowns.....tell the parent what they should have done different? THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THAT TO THEMSELVES!
I just don't want to walk a mile on a path like some do...and are... because YHWH decides I need to learn mercy or empathy.
This thread is of course for the debate and discussion of a half framed idea.... and his definitions of sex might be good PERSONAL BOUNDARIES, wisdom as you (FolliwingHim) have often said. But unless we take "uncover nackedness" literally, instead of as a euphemism for sex, nakedness or other "touching" does not equal marriage...one flesh....or covenant. Just sayin'
That's my unpublished book that may not deserve the time it took to read. An end of the day thing.