Can A Believer Baptise Anothre Believer

[Meowzltov]

Yes. In fact, in an emergency, even an atheist can baptize someone with the proper intent in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

"Now the eleven disciples. . ."

We risk misreading the Bible when we draw a straight line from the text to ourselves.

Jesus was addressing the future leaders of the church, not each individual Christian. This is a historical account, not prescriptive instruction.

The church has the authority to baptize and teach.

 

[bbbbbbb]

"Now the eleven disciples. . ."

We risk misreading the Bible when we draw a straight line from the text to ourselves.

Jesus was addressing the future leaders of the church, not each individual Christian. This is a historical account, not a prescriptive instruction.

The church has the authority to baptize and teach.

It all depends on what you mean by "the church". If you mean your own denomination, then you would be quite wrong. The Book of Order for the PCUSA states unequivocally that any person who has been baptized can become a member of the PCUSA. It does not state how or who performs the baptism. Thus, if I were to baptize another Christian, they could become a member of your denomination without undergoing rebaptism.

 

[Albion]

It all depends on what you mean by "the church". If you mean your own denomination, then you would be quite wrong. The Book of Order for the PCUSA states unequivocally that any person who has been baptized can become a member of the PCUSA. It does not state how or who performs the baptism. Thus, if I were to baptize another Christian, they could become a member of your denomination without undergoing rebaptism.

Except that it's not unusual for a church to question the correctness of some other church's baptismal rite, even when there's a certificate available, so imagine what could happen if a person asked for membership based upon a claim that some nice layman of a different denomination performed the baptism. As has been noted before, baptisms by nurses or other laypersons are valid, but they're normally done when death is likely and no one is thinking about transferring church memberships, etc.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Except that it's not unusual for a church to question the correctness of some other church's baptismal rite, even when there's a certificate available, so imagine what could happen if a person asked for membership based upon a claim that some nice layman of a different denomination performed the baptism. As has been noted before, baptisms by nurses or other laypersons are valid, but they're normally done when death is likely and no one is thinking about transferring church memberships, etc.

Imagine the horror and shame when it is discovered that the valid baptism accepted by the Roman Catholic Church turned out to be, in reality, a baptism performed in an emergency situation by the parent of a baby who was on the verge of death, but recovered. I rather think that the PCUSA would accept the baptism, not because of who performed it, but because of which denomination approved it. OTOH, they would probably reject all baptisms by many of the Fundamental, Independent Churches even if they were performed by the pastor of the church.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Imagine the horror and shame when it is discovered that the valid baptism accepted by the Roman Catholic Church turned out to be, in reality, a baptism performed in an emergency situation by the parent of a baby who was on the verge of death, but recovered. I rather think that the PCUSA would accept the baptism, not because of who performed it, but because of which denomination approved it. OTOH, they would probably reject all baptisms by many of the Fundamental, Independent Churches even if they were performed by the pastor of the church.

 

[Hank77]

Personally I believe this scripture answers the question.

Mat 18:19 `Again, I say to you, that, if two of you may agree on the earth concerning anything, whatever they may ask--it shall be done to them from my Father who is in the heavens,
Mat 18:20 for where there are two or three gathered together--to my name, there am I in the midst of them.'

 

[Albion]

Imagine the horror and shame when it is discovered that the valid baptism accepted by the Roman Catholic Church turned out to be, in reality, a baptism performed in an emergency situation by the parent of a baby who was on the verge of death, but recovered. I rather think that the PCUSA would accept the baptism, not because of who performed it, but because of which denomination approved it. OTOH, they would probably reject all baptisms by many of the Fundamental, Independent Churches even if they were performed by the pastor of the church.

I'm missing something here, because I thought the issue concerned seeking membership in some denomination based upon a claim of the person having being baptized but not in any church and not by a clergyman. It might go through all right, but there is a very good possibility of any major denomination saying it couldn't presume that the baptizer performed the ceremony properly.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm missing something here, because I thought the issue concerned seeking membership in some denomination based upon a claim of the person having being baptized but not in any church and not by a clergyman. It might go through all right, but there is a very good possibility of any major denomination saying it couldn't presume that the baptizer performed the ceremony properly.

Actually, it becomes a very gray area. The stipulations for baptism by some major denominations such as the RCC are much looser than by others such as the LCMS. Now, the problem arises not so much as to whether or not the denominations recognize the baptisms performed in other denominations as being valid, but ultimately whether or not the baptism meets the particular stipulations of the denomination, which, indeed, might exclude such things as baptisms performed by non-clergy. Thus, you have the RCC which has an extremely broad policy of accepting all trinitarian baptism without serious questions raised, to some denominations which recognize baptisms performed only by their ordained clergy.

 

[Albion]

Actually, it becomes a very gray area. The stipulations for baptism by some major denominations such as the RCC are much looser than by others such as the LCMS. Now, the problem arises not so much as to whether or not the denominations recognize the baptisms performed in other denominations as being valid, but ultimately whether or not the baptism meets the particular stipulations of the denomination, which, indeed, might exclude such things as baptisms performed by non-clergy. Thus, you have the RCC which has an extremely broad policy of accepting all trinitarian baptism without serious questions raised, to some denominations which recognize baptisms performed only by their ordained clergy.

But most accept any valid baptism without attaching any creedal requirement. The problem is that a baptism performed by an unknown layman, while capable of being valid, is often questioned, like it or not. Was water used? Was there a Trinitarian invocation? What was the baptizer's intention? These are presumed to not pose a problem if you have a certificate, it's on record in some church, the denomination is known, and the one doing the baptism is a cleric. Otherwise, there often is an unwillingness to presume that all conditions were met.

 

[bbbbbbb]

But most accept any valid baptism without attaching any creedal requirement. The problem is that a baptism performed by an unknown layman, while capable of being valid, is often questioned, like it or not. Was water used? Was there a Trinitarian invocation? What was the baptizer's intention? These are presumed to not pose a problem if you have a certificate, it's on record in some church, the denomination is known, and the one doing the baptism is a cleric. Otherwise, there often is an unwillingness to presume that all conditions were met. Sometimes it even gets ridiculous as, for instance, when one of Lyndon B. Johnson's daughters converted to the the Roman Catholic Church and they refused to accept her baptism in the Episcopal Church, saying that the church couldn't presume that there was no problem.

There are also problems raised which are non-creedal in nature. Was the person a Christian when he was baptized? Was he immersed in the water or was the water poured on him or was he merely sprinkled with water (remember here the Pope Gregory went on record as accepting baptism with dust or sand in a desert environment)? Was he baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?

I like the Orthodox practice in this regard. They dip the baby three times in the water, pour the water over the head of the baby, sprinkle the water on the baby, and then anoint the baby with oil. By the end of the baptism, one cannot deny that the baby was really and truly baptized.

I do remember the Johnson imbroglio. IMO it was politics pure and simple that was at play in the situation. Politics frequently intervenes in spiritual matters, as we all know.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

It's largely a matter of how one views baptism. A lot of non-catholic churches, especially Baptist, do not see baptism as either salvific or a metaphysical rite- it is largely seen as a rite concerning one's conversion of faith and fraternal identity into a congregation.
In which case, the power of baptism rests in witness.

Now, if you believe that it is salvific, or is something more then an identity to a church, then their probably is no need for witness, which would make it plausible for any setting of baptism legitimate, even insofar as having your Christian friend take you to the pond near your house and doing it.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

It's largely a matter of how one views baptism. A lot of non-catholic churches, especially Baptist, do not see baptism as either salvific or a metaphysical rite- it is largely seen as a rite concerning one's conversion of faith and fraternal identity into a congregation.
In which case, the power of baptism rests in witness.

Now, if you believe that it is salvific, or is something more then an identity to a church, then their probably is no need for witness, which would make it plausible for any setting of baptism legitimate, even insofar as having your Christian friend take you to the pond near your house and doing it.

Good point, Crowns&Laurels.

The irony is that the Baptists who, on the one hand seem to hold a low view of baptism, actually make it a much higher bar to jump for membership. Because they believe baptism is an ordinance rather than a sacrament, they can tend to make baptism into a work. At least that's what I've come across at the Baptist churches I've attended. They don't consciencely do this, of course, but if you read the language in their baptismal statements, it's there.

The language that is used in describing baptism in the Baptist churches I've attended is all about what the believer does. It's all about the believer's "obedience" and "public profession of faith" or, "following the example of Jesus". I've heard pastors challenge people to be baptized with, "If you are serious about your commitment to the Lord. . ." IMO, this is backward thinking.

Looking at the Great Commission, it is clear that Baptism is something that is done *to* you, not *by* you. Also, baptism is about what Christ has done in obedience for you, not what you do in obedience for Him. According to the text, the only obedience in question is the obedience of the baptizer not the baptizee. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them. . ."

I may be slightly derailing this thread, which I apologize for, but I think this helps further explain the why.

 

[RDKirk]

Was he baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?

I know what you mean here, but I think the baptismal formula is irrelevant at that point. That is not a magical incantation--the words themselves have zero power. The person being baptized is usually a pretty new Christian who probably had little personal understanding of that distinction at the time. But since he is becoming a member of your congregation, you have the opportunity to teach him the distinction you believe is important.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Good point, Crowns&Laurels.

The irony is that the Baptists who, on the one hand seem to hold a low view of baptism, actually make it a much higher bar to jump for membership. Because they believe baptism is an ordinance rather than a sacrament, they can tend to make baptism into a work. At least that's what I've come across at the Baptist churches I've attended. They don't consciencely do this, of course, but if you read the language in their baptismal statements, it's there.

The language that is used in describing baptism in the Baptist churches I've attended is all about what the believer does. It's all about the believer's "obedience" and "public profession of faith" or, "following the example of Jesus". I've heard pastors challenge people to be baptized with, "If you are serious about your commitment to the Lord. . ." IMO, this is backward thinking.

Looking at the Great Commission, it is clear that Baptism is something that is done *to* you, not *by* you. Also, baptism is about what Christ has done in obedience for you, not what you do in obedience for Him. According to the text, the only obedience in question is the obedience of the baptizer not the baptizee. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them. . ."

I may be slightly derailing this thread, which I apologize for, but I think this helps further explain the why.

You make some excellent points here. Concerning the Great Commission there are several views of it, as follow:

1. It was given to the Apostles and to the Apostles only.
2. It was given to the Apostles and to their anointed successors (i.e. either the Popes and/or Cardinals and/or bishops and/or priests/clergy) only.
3. It was given to all Christians until the end of the age.

I hold to the third view and, therefore, believe that all believers are to baptize others in order to fulfill the Great Commission.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I know what you mean here, but I think the baptismal formula is irrelevant at that point. That is not a magical incantation--the words themselves have zero power. The person being baptized is usually a pretty new Christian who probably had little personal understanding of that distinction at the time. But since he is becoming a member of your congregation, you have the opportunity to teach him the distinction you believe is important.

I agree. However, some denominations make it into a point of division so that if a member of the other denomination wishes to join them they must be baptized with the "proper" incantation.

 

[Albion]

There are also problems raised which are non-creedal in nature. Was the person a Christian when he was baptized? Was he immersed in the water or was the water poured on him or was he merely sprinkled with water (remember here the Pope Gregory went on record as accepting baptism with dust or sand in a desert environment)? Was he baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?

Of course. All these can come into play--with some denominations. But not most. And the ones that have been named in the course of this discussion--RC, PCUSA, TEC, are "mainline" and among the "most" that I'm referring to. However, that's not necessarily going to be the case if the person says that some stray layman did the baptizing.

I like the Orthodox practice in this regard. They dip the baby three times in the water, pour the water over the head of the baby, sprinkle the water on the baby, and then anoint the baby with oil. By the end of the baptism, one cannot deny that the baby was really and truly baptized.

...and the RCC, Anglicans, and most other historic churches accept those baptisms without question, even though the ceremony is quite different from their own.

Anyway, it does appear that we two have been trying to emphasize somewhat different aspects of the matter, and that's confused things a bit.

 

[Albion]

Good point, Crowns&Laurels.

The irony is that the Baptists who, on the one hand seem to hold a low view of baptism, actually make it a much higher bar to jump for membership. Because they believe baptism is an ordinance rather than a sacrament, they can tend to make baptism into a work. At least that's what I've come across at the Baptist churches I've attended. They don't consciencely do this, of course, but if you read the language in their baptismal statements, it's there.

I don't think that's accurate, although I don't share the Baptists' understanding of the sacrament/ordinance. It would be a "work," theologically speaking, only if it were thought to be meritorious, i.e. part of what saves the person. Baptists clearly do not see it that way.

The language that is used in describing baptism in the Baptist churches I've attended is all about what the believer does. It's all about the believer's "obedience" and "public profession of faith" or, "following the example of Jesus".

Yes, but doing something doesn't make it a work. Of course, every Christian, regardless of denomination, believes in living as Christ taught. That doesn't mean they are piling up good works in order to earn their salvation. In the case of the Baptists, to be baptized is to comply with Christ's command and to show oneself committed.

I've heard pastors challenge people to be baptized with, "If you are serious about your commitment to the Lord. . ."

See? There's just been a misunderstanding of what they meant when you heard them say that.

 

[Meowzltov]

It all depends on what you mean by "the church". If you mean your own denomination, then you would be quite wrong. The Book of Order for the PCUSA states unequivocally that any person who has been baptized can become a member of the PCUSA. It does not state how or who performs the baptism. Thus, if I were to baptize another Christian, they could become a member of your denomination without undergoing rebaptism.

The Catholic church similarly accepts any baptism done in the name of the Father, son and Holy Spirit, regardless of who does the baptism. Such a person is a Christian. They are not automatically a Catholic, but they are certainly welcomed into the Catholic church should they convert and would not need to be baptized again.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Catholic church similarly accepts any baptism done in the name of the Father, son and Holy Spirit, regardless of who does the baptism. Such a person is a Christian. They are not automatically a Catholic, but they are certainly welcomed into the Catholic church should they convert and would not need to be baptized again.

Yes, I knew that and I consider that to be a biblical and orthodox Christian belief. As I tell my Catholic friends, there is really much more that I agree with them on than the things which I disagree with.