Who can baptise others in water

[Albion]

Hi albion,

I'll bite. What makes a baptism invalid that would be under the control of the person performing the baptism?

OK, here are a few possible scenarios.

The layman doing the baptism announces, with a verbal flourish, that he is baptizing the candidate into the spiritual family of the Higher Power that is acknowledged by all mankind.

Or he doesn't say anything along those lines at all, but asks if the candidate is sorry for the wrong he has done, pours water on him, and announces that by the power vested in him by the state of California that the candidate is now baptized! (to the applause of the onlookers, as it is in a wedding when the minister says that he introduces for the first time Mr. and Mrs. Joe Smith).

Its not a Christian baptism.

 

[Phil 1:21]

The great commission tells us to saying "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you"

I fail to see where we need to bring the believer back to an established faith community and let the leader of the community to baptize so that they have documentation and to ensure the baptism was done "properly". Sometimes I think the church sorely misses the point.

Excellent answer. I wish more folks would simply give the scriptural answers instead of whatever their church told them or what they "think" it is.

 

[DW1980]

Interesting. I have just been looking it up.

I was remembering the clear instruction of what should be done: "baptizing them in the name of the father etc.." Matthew 28:19

Which is also the formula used in the didache - so was therefore early church tradition.

And is also the form used in catholicism, in the catechism.

The question then - Are other forms valid? As per your references?

I have yet to find a definitive statement on it elsehwere, presumably somewhere in canon law, but things I just read imply "in the name of Jesus" (only) may be acceptable PROVIDED that the church in which it was administered is trinitarian. Ie not modalist like oneness pentecostals for examples. I will see if I can find a definitive magisterial statement.

I read the Acts ones - and while I have never seen it done (as I say, every baptism I have ever seen has been in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) if someone was baptised in Jesus' name only, they certainly have Scripture to support them!

I did see something that suggested that this was shorthand - that if they are Trinitarian then baptising in Jesus name would be the same as invoking each member of the Trinity. I'm not sure though, I have not read enough into this - but as I've never seen it done, it's not something that is likely to be an issue!

 

[Albion]

I did see something that suggested that this was shorthand - that if they are Trinitarian then baptising in Jesus name would be the same as invoking each member of the Trinity.

The only churches that prefer that "Jesus only" language are ones that officially reject the Trinity, however. That is the reason they baptize that way, not for any other reason.

 

[DW1980]

The only churches that prefer that "Jesus only" language are ones that officially reject the Trinity, however. That is the reason they baptize that way, not for any other reason.

So how does that work in the Book of Acts? It seems like it was possible the early Church was doing this.

 

[Albion]

Frankly, I do not know how to answer that well. We do seem to have two different formulas, although I will say that I have always seen the one which uses the fuller language as being a specific instruction from Christ whereas the shorter one seems, when you read it, to be a general reference to Christian baptism, not a formula for administering it.

Because the church (RC, EO, & Protestant) seems always to have used the longer one, from what we can tell, and only a handful of small churches that are widely considered to be cults use the shorter one, I have no reason to think that the longer one is not the one to use.

 

[DW1980]

Frankly, I do not know how to answer that well. We do seem to have two different formulas, although I will say that I have always seen the one which uses the fuller language as being a specific instruction from Christ whereas the shorter one seems, when you read it, to be a general reference to Christian baptism, not a formula for administering it.

Because the church (RC, EO, & Protestant) seems always to have used the longer one, from what we can tell, and only a handful of small churches that are widely considered to be cults use the shorter one, I have no reason to think that the longer one is not the one to use.

That's actually a good explanation! Likewise, I have never seen a shorter form used. That said, I know that the Mormons and JWs also use the same language, though most Churches don't recognise their baptisms - probably because they're not Trinitarians. So I wonder (speculating!) if it's simply to do with the faith of the one being baptised (EDIT - or their parents!). Hmmm

 

[megan_26]

Can only Pastor's or every believers have the right to give water baptism to other

I was baptized by my parents and not my pastor. I think that any believer can perform a baptism.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was baptized by my parents and not my pastor. I think that any believer can perform a baptism.

The question of "can" should be very different from "should", at least in ordinary circumstances. Can any Christian deliver a sermon? Of course. Does that mean pastors are superfluous and we shouldn't reserve the ordinary act of preaching to the pastor? Of course not.

The Apostle St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians that the Church is to have good order, it's not a free-for-all. It is precisely for the sake of good order that, under ordinary circumstances, we divvy up certain things in certain ways. The Apostles ordained and instituted pastors in the churches to continue the apostolic ministry of pastoring the flock, and this is done through preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments.

A properly trained monkey could administer a Baptism. That doesn't mean we should have trained monkeys administering Baptisms though.

Recognizing ordinary and extraordinary is important. Ordinarily things are done a certain way because it preserves good order that benefits everyone, and this good order honors God. We can also recognize there are extraordinary circumstances and extraordinary circumstances means accommodating those circumstances in ways which are faithful to what we have received. But extraordinary does not negate the ordinary.

In the Book of Daniel we encounter the story of the three friends of Daniel being thrown into a fiery furnace and left unscathed. By the extraordinary power of God fire did not harm them. The lesson to be learned from this, however, is not that fire does not burn, because ordinarily fire will most definitely burn. The extraordinary does not negate the ordinary.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JoeP222w]

Can only Pastor's or every believers have the right to give water baptism to other

Any believer in Jesus Christ.

Not really a "right" but it is a precedent in the Bible that new believers were baptized by believers.

 

[JoeP222w]

Technically, any believer can, especially in emergencies.

Where in the Bible are we given the model for "emergency baptisms"?

But this usually leaves the person baptized without any documentation.

Again, where is it found in the Bible that Baptisms must be documented to be valid?

And, the one performing the baptism had better know what in the ceremony might make the baptism invalid.

The only requirement for any ceremony in the Bible is to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Any other ceremony is man-made and not a Biblical requirement. A ceremony does not make a baptism valid or invalid.

 

[Albion]

Any believer in Jesus Christ.

Not really a "right" but it is a precedent in the Bible that new believers were baptized by believers.

Maybe we need actual examples. We know, for example, that Philip who baptized was a deacon. We discused him earlier. So what other baptisms that are recorded in the Bible are described as having been performed by "any believer", meaning people who were not clergy/pastors/ministers/ordained, etc.?

 

[Albion]

Again, where is it found in the Bible that Baptisms must be documented to be valid?

I did not say that baptisms must be documented in order to be valid. In fact, I said the opposite, and you referred to my answer in your post here.

What I said was that if the baptism is not documented, the person would likely encounter some difficulties later on when it is necessary for him to show that he had been baptized.

 

[Doug Melven]

No. They commissioned others who commissioned (ordained ) others and so on.

But I was basically just saying that, whatever ones view of divine callings and baptisms by laymen etc. might be, the particular verse you referred to had Jesus speaking to his Apostles, not to everybody.

We were discussing Matthew 28:19-20.
This is for all believers/disciples of Jesus.

Well, suppose the person later wanted to join a church...or get married in a church...or act as a sponsor or godparent for a someone else's baptism. He would (in many churches) be told that baptism was a pre-requisite. What then?

Wouldn't that person's word be good enough? Would you just call a believer a liar? If someone wants a particular person to fulfill one of these spots you have mentioned, would't they have already known what kind of person they were?

 

[Albion]

Wouldn't that person's word be good enough? Would you just call a believer a liar? If someone wants a particular person to fulfill one of these spots you have mentioned, would't they have already known what kind of person they were?

It isn't a matter of knowing what kind of person they are, but whether or not they have been baptized.

Although it seems to me that many of them are overly cautious, there are many clergy/ministers/priests who want a baptismal certificate. That's because their denominations have a policy that only baptized persons can do X or Y, such as become a voting member of the congregation or receive Holy Communion, etc.

And, really, how are they to know the details of that persons baptism years earlier if it was done by a parent or some other friend, not a pastor?

 

[miamited]

OK, here are a few possible scenarios.

The layman doing the baptism announces, with a verbal flourish, that he is baptizing the candidate into the spiritual family of the Higher Power that is acknowledged by all mankind.

Or he doesn't say anything along those lines at all, but asks if the candidate is sorry for the wrong he has done, pours water on him, and announces that by the power vested in him by the state of California that the candidate is now baptized! (to the applause of the onlookers, as it is in a wedding when the minister says that he introduces for the first time Mr. and Mrs. Joe Smith).

Its not a Christian baptism.

Hi albion,

Agreed. I was, however, assuming that the fellow believer (keep that in mind that I did say it had to be a fellow believer) would know not to be baptizing in the name of Ford Motor Co. or Satan or Jolly Old St. Nicklaus. For me, a believer, again keep the understanding of that word in mind, is going to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit just as Jesus' command to believers instructed them to do.

Now, if a believer, were to baptize in the name of the higher power or General Motors, then that would bring into question as to whether or not they were a believer.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi albion,

In reply to another point that you made:

What I said was that if the baptism is not documented, the person would likely encounter some difficulties later on when it is necessary for him to show that he had been baptized.

I'm 62 years old and I've gone through quite a few fellowships in my life and I've never been asked for a hard copy of proof of my baptism. I'm not sure I'd be able to provide one even if I did need one. I'm not sure that most fellowships even give some hard copy of verification of baptism. That's likely something that only your fellowship, and others so aligned, provide.

I've got my original SS card and a copy of my birth certificate and marriage license that I keep in a file of important papers because those are things that the world might ask me to provide verification of. Baptism is between the believer and God and I'm pretty sure God doesn't need a hard copy. LOL!

Maybe that's something we could poll on this thread. How many people have ever had to provide written proof of their baptism? How many people have written proof of their baptism?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Albion]

Hi albion,

Agreed. I was, however, assuming that the fellow believer (keep that in mind that I did say it had to be a fellow believer) would know not to be baptizing in the name of Ford Motor Co. or Satan or Jolly Old St. Nicklaus.

Certainly. That is why I used examples that are much more likely.

For me, a believer, again keep the understanding of that word in mind, is going to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit just as Jesus' command to believers instructed them to do.

Now, if a believer, were to baptize in the name of the higher power or General Motors, then that would bring into question as to whether or not they were a believer.

I see your point, but the problem is that it still requires the church or pastor in charge of a wedding or transfer of church membership or something else like that--many years later, perhaps--to be guessing about it.

Given the seriousness with which most clergy approach their responsibilities, they are often reluctant to guess. In fact, when President Lyndon Johnsons daughter converted to the Catholic church, she was rebaptized by the priest although she had been baptized in the Episcopal Church and had, I believe, a baptismal certificate. The RCC recognizes baptisms performed there, as it does with most other denominations, BUT the priest said (as I recall) that he could not be sure that there had not been some defect in the ritual. Imagine, then, what would happen if a person had nothing to present.

 

[Albion]

Hi albion,

In reply to another point that you made:


I'm 62 years old and I've gone through quite a few fellowships in my life and I've never been asked for a hard copy of proof of my baptism. I'm not sure I'd be able to provide one even if I did need one. I'm not sure that most fellowships even give some hard copy of verification of baptism. That's likely something that only your fellowship, and others so aligned, provide.

It probably deepens on what kind of fellowships those of your experience were. Most mainline denominations are not that casual about this matter. And yes, there are records. The congregations or parishes of most denominations have the records and can attest to the baptism if the person his lost his copy.

 

[Albion]

NM