Self Baptism???

[mont974x4]

While I see no reason that it needs to be done by any ordained person or official leader (as we are all members of the royal priesthood) I would be leary to say it is correct to baptise yourself. However, baptism doesn't save us, but faith alone and the baptism is merely being obedient to make a public profession. Remember the thief on the cross never had the chance to be baptised but he was saved.

 

[PaladinValer]

I Didn't realise that Anglicans Hold the similar to Baptist that Baptism is simply a public proclaimation of one's faith.

We don't. You've completely skewed my words, twisting them into something entirely different.

We simply recognize a more sacramentalist system. You cannot administer sacraments onto yourself. You must always have witness. A priest who celebrates the Eucharist alone has done nothing. A person who baptizes herself has simply made herself get wet. A person who confesses to himself that he sinned finds no absolution.

The Baptism of Desire and the Baptism of Blood apply in the situations that deem them necessary. That includes being stranded alone on a 50 sq mi island.

While I see no reason that it needs to be done by any ordained person or official leader (as we are all members of the royal priesthood)

Um, no we are not.

We are all hierarchs, not priests. The word used is hiereus, which is the OT priest, which is better translated as hierarch. We are absolutely not presbuteros, which is the NT priest, to which signifies an ordained person beyond the diaconate or, at times, refers to any ordained person (ie: "clergy").

I would be leary to say it is correct to baptise yourself. However, baptism doesn't save us, but faith alone and the baptism is merely being obedient to make a public profession.

Believe and be Baptized is what Jesus says. And not or is used. You are completely incorrect.

Remember the thief on the cross never had the chance to be baptised but he was saved.

1. Before the Church, so he was still under the OT
2. Even if so, Baptism by Desire.

Bringing into discussing the good thief doesn't dismiss the necessity of Baptism.

 

[Melethiel]

Acording to Lutheran theology, it isn't the person who does the physical act that matters, or even thier heart. it is what God does THROUGH that person in the act of Baptism that matters. As a result, yes, technically, any beleiver may perform the sacriment, I suppose, even to one's self!

That's only half of it. The Confessions also state that the Sacraments should be performed by one who is properly called - ie., someone who is ordained. Although, any Christian can perform a baptism in extremis - this is common with other Christian traditions.
So no, a baptism performed by oneself would not, IMO, be valid. To do so would take away the passive, Sacramental aspect and make it into a work.

 

[mont974x4]

YLT
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore, also, it is contained in the Writing: `Lo, I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone, choice, precious, and he who is believing on him may not be put to shame;'
1Pe 2:7 to you, then, who are believing is the preciousness; and to the unbelieving, a stone that the builders disapproved of, this one did become for the head of a corner,
1Pe 2:8 and a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence--who are stumbling at the word, being unbelieving, --to which also they were set;
1Pe 2:9 and ye are a choice race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people acquired, that the excellences ye may shew forth of Him who out of darkness did call you to His wondrous light;
1Pe 2:10 who were once not a people, and are now the people of God; who had not found kindness, and now have found kindness.


If we are His children we are a members of a royal priesthood and Christ alone is our High Priest.

 

[PaladinValer]

YLT
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore, also, it is contained in the Writing: `Lo, I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone, choice, precious, and he who is believing on him may not be put to shame;'
1Pe 2:7 to you, then, who are believing is the preciousness; and to the unbelieving, a stone that the builders disapproved of, this one did become for the head of a corner,
1Pe 2:8 and a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence--who are stumbling at the word, being unbelieving, --to which also they were set;
1Pe 2:9 and ye are a choice race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people acquired, that the excellences ye may shew forth of Him who out of darkness did call you to His wondrous light;
1Pe 2:10 who were once not a people, and are now the people of God; who had not found kindness, and now have found kindness.


If we are His children we are a members of a royal priesthood and Christ alone is our High Priest.

Straw Man.

I am talking about the actual Greek used, not an English mistranslation.

 

[mont974x4]

Tardition of men does not make it right. No where in Scripture is there a basis for the NT church to have earthly priests for confession or that only certain people are allowed to baptise or serve communion.


BTW
G2406
ἱεράτευμα
hierateuma; from G2407; a priesthood: - priesthood (2).



This is diferent than elders and deacons, which we see the qualifications for in letters to Timothy and Titus.

 

[PaladinValer]

Tardition of men does not make it right.

When did I bring up "traditions of men?" I asked you to note the Greek in Scripture. How the heck is that a "tradition of man"?

No where in Scripture is there a basis for the NT church to have earthly priests for confession or that only certain people are allowed to baptise or serve communion.

Oh yes there is!

Who administered Baptism and the Eucharist in the Bible? What were their titles? They were all either: diaconos, presbuteros, or episcopos. Deacons, priests, or bishops.

Presbuteros -> presbyter -> prester -> priest. Entymology proves it.

BTW
G2406
ἱεράτευμα
hierateuma; from G2407; a priesthood: - priesthood (2).



This is diferent than elders and deacons, which we see the qualifications for in letters to Timothy and Titus.

Note what I bolded and put in pink. They were not diakonoi, presbuteroi, or episcopoi. They were hiereus.

Everyone is a hiereus but not everyone is a member of the broader sense of presbuteroi (ie: ordained clergy).

 

[mooduck1]

[/color][/size][/b]

We don't. You've completely skewed my words, twisting them into something entirely different.

Umm... I didn't 'skew' your words, I misunderstood them. Thank you for clarifiying!

 

[mont974x4]

ELders and deacons are the leaders in teh NT church and other people, that were basically missionaries performed them. Nothing in Scripture says that only select people are allowed or ordained to perform baptisms or serve communion.

 

[PaladinValer]

ELders and deacons are the leaders in teh NT church and other people, that were basically missionaries performed them. Nothing in Scripture says that only select people are allowed or ordained to perform baptisms or serve communion.

Who administered Baptism and the Eucharist in the Bible? What were their titles? They were all either: diaconos, presbuteros, or episcopos. Deacons, priests, or bishops.

Does Scripture say anything about non-deacons/priests/bishops performing those sacraments?

By your own sola scriptura doctrine, it isn't therefore allowed.

 

[mont974x4]

Was the great commission only given to a select few?

 

[PaladinValer]

Straw Man.

We're not talking about the Great Commission, we are talking about celebrating the sacraments.

Find me a place where a non-deacon/priest/bishop administers the sacraments in Scripture, please.

 

[mont974x4]

Answer the question was the command to go and make diciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy SPirit only for a select few?

This is why I mentioned the traditions of men earlier, there is nothing that says you have to be a set rank in the church to do those things, that is the duty and privelage of us all.

As to Communion, the only person we know by name that served it is Christ, but we know they had Communion in the churches because Paul tells us in 1 Cor 11 that some are partaking of it incorrectly.


There is nothing in Scripture that says "no you can't do those services unless you are A, B, or C.

 

[PaladinValer]

Answer the question was the command to go and make diciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy SPirit only for a select few?

Who did Jesus say it to? The Apostles, all whom were episcopoi; bishops!

This is why I mentioned the traditions of men earlier, there is nothing that says you have to be a set rank in the church to do those things, that is the duty and privelage of us all.

Sorry, but this is all sola-scriptura.

As to Communion, the only person we know by name that served it is Christ, but we know they had Communion in the churches because Paul tells us in 1 Cor 11 that some are partaking of it incorrectly.

Who consecrated? Presbuteroi and episcopoi.

There is nothing in Scripture that says "no you can't do those services unless you are A, B, or C.

It doesn't say anyone can either.

 

[Jig]

Hmmmm....self baptism goes agaisnt Scripture. No example is found of anyone baptizing themselves. We are to imatate Christ, right? He had someone baptize Him. Follow suit...

 

[Kristos]

I think that the EOC would say the self-baptism would be valid in an extreme circumstance - near death, nobody else around, etc. If someone miraculously survived this situation, then the expectation of the EOC would be that a complete baptism including exorsism, etc be performed by a priest. But that's the EOC.

 

[mooduck1]

I think that the EOC would say the self-baptism would be valid in an extreme circumstance - near death, nobody else around, etc. If someone miraculously survived this situation, then the expectation of the EOC would be that a complete baptism including exorsism, etc be performed by a priest. But that's the EOC.

Agreed