Who can baptise others in water

[Doug Melven]

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?

If you want a person to be a godparent to your child, you know something about them. And if you ask them if they were baptized there word should be adequate. If you don't feel there word is adequate, you are probably not going to ask them to do such a thing.
If you are going to put someone into a ministry position, you will already know what kind of person they are.
And if you do not know what kind of person they are, having a piece of paper saying they were baptized isn't going to qualify them for anything.

Basically what I am saying is if you can't trust a person's word, a piece of paper will not make them trustworthy.

 

[Albion]

If you want a person to be a godparent to your child, you know something about them. And if you ask them if they were baptized there word should be adequate. If you don't feel there word is adequate, you are probably not going to ask them to do such a thing.
If you are going to put someone into a ministry position, you will already know what kind of person they are.
And if you do not know what kind of person they are, having a piece of paper saying they were baptized isn't going to qualify them for anything.

Basically what I am saying is if you can't trust a person's word, a piece of paper will not make them trustworthy.

As I said, it isn't a matter of being trustworthy. Not that alone, anyway. People think they remember things that were not so. Or they are going on what some family member told them, since most people are baptized as infants. Or the actual ceremony could have been defective for some reason, even if the candidate were correct that there had been a baptism. That is much more likely with a layperson than with an experienced minister, you can appreciate.

 

[JoeP222w]

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"

Jesus gave the command to all believers to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, baptize them and to make disciples. This was not limited to just the Apostles, if it was, then the gospel would have died after the first generation. Baptism was not limited to only Apostles, Pastors or Deacons. Just because Philip was a Deacon, that does not automatically mean that only Pastors, Deacons can baptize. That is a leap in logic that is just not there.

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

I did not say that baptisms must be documented in order to be valid.

It sure seemed to be implied, so I must have misunderstood you.

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.

Only by man-made tradition. The Bible shows no evidence of documentation required for baptism.

 

[Albion]

Jesus gave the command to all believers to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, baptize them and to make disciples. This was not limited to just the Apostles, if it was, then the gospel would have died after the first generation.

You are assuming, I take it, that when he gave the Great Commission to his Apostles, it was understood that it was intended for everyone. But the Bible doesn't say it was. And, no, the church would not have died out because the Apostles created congregations, ordained ministers/pastors and so on to do the necessary work. Besides, the topic here is baptism--a sacrament. You are now talking about the spread of the Gospel instead.

 

[Doug Melven]

As I said, it isn't a matter of being trustworthy. Not that alone, anyway. People think they remember things that were not so. Or they are going on what some family member told them, since most people are baptized as infants. Or the actual ceremony could have been defective for some reason, even if the candidate were correct that there had been a baptism. That is much more likely with a layperson than with an experienced minister, you can appreciate.

In 1 Timothy 3 Paul gives a list of things that a person must fulfill before he can be a Pastor/Deacon.
One of those things is not to be a novice lest they be lifted up in pride.

So not just any believer, even if he is baptized is qualified for these positions.
But all believers are called to disciple and baptize. Matthew 28:19

 

[Strong in Him]

To be sure, if the church--any church--were to go off course, loosed from its Scriptural bearings, we would be right to address that.

I think there are a number of points on which church practice deviates from Scripture; the insistence on having an ordained member of the clergy to "do this in memory of me" for a start. The teaching seems to be that if someone were to try to preside at communion, it would not be "valid". Really? In what way?
We do not read that the early church had to wait for an ordained clergy member before they broke bread together.

Same with baptism. We, Jesus' disciples, have his instructions to proclaim, teach and baptise; nothing there about clergy only while the rest of us are off the hook.

 

[Albion]

In 1 Timothy 3 Paul gives a list of things that a person must fulfill before he can be a Pastor/Deacon.
One of those things is not to be a novice lest they be lifted up in pride.

So not just any believer, even if he is baptized is qualified for these positions.
But all believers are called to disciple and baptize. Matthew 28:19

Take off the last two words, and we've got something there!

Back up three verses there in Matthew and who does it tell us these words of Christ were directed to? Its "the eleven disciples" (Apostles).

 

[Doug Melven]

Take off the last two words, and we've got something there!

Those who Jesus told to disciple, He also told to baptize.

Back up three verses there in Matthew and who does it tell us these words of Christ were directed to? Its "the eleven disciples" (Apostles).

By your logic, the Sermon on the Mount, because it was spoke to the multitudes who were on the mount was only for them and is not for us today.
Jesus' last message in John 14-16 has no relevance for us today because Jesus spoke it to them.
Jesus gave the Communion to just those Apostles at the Last Supper, no relevance for us today because it was given to them.
Acts was written to Theophilus, so nothing for us
All of Paul's letters were directed to a specific church or person, so none of Paul's letters have any relevance for today.
Hebrews was written to Jews, nothing for us Gentiles.
James was written to the diaspora, so nothing there for us today.
Peter wrote his first book to strangers scattered throughout territories of that day, nothing for us.
1,2,3, John were written to specific churches and people of his day, so nothing for us.
Revelation was written to 7 specific churches, so nothing for us.

Leaving us with 2 Peter and Jude.

I am glad your logic is faulty. For this is what Jesus told them in 28:20
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
All disciples can baptize.

 

[OzSpen]

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?

Albion,

Could this be a statement about your church background?

In none of the churches in which I've been involved have I been asked to produce my baptismal certificate for:

• getting married in a church;
• acting as a sponsor or godparent for someone's baptism.

I have a baptism certificate from 1962 but I've never, ever been asked to supply it for my marriage. I've married a good number of people down through the years and there was no requirement for me to ask to see their baptismal certificate.

I married secular people to secular people and Christian to Christian. I would not marry a Christian to a non-believer. I never asked for baptism certificates.

Oz

 

[Monk Brendan]

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

According to the Catholic Church, any baptized Christian can baptize another in water.

 

[miamited]

According to the Catholic Church, any baptized Christian can baptize another in water.

Hi brendan,

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that either you don't know what you're talking about; or, we don't have any representatives from the Catholic organization represented in this discussion.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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

Philip was only a deacon when he baptized the Ethiopian Official.

Nowhere in scripture is this rite confined to only ‘pastors’. Anyone who believes can baptize anyone else.

If I recall correctly the first anabaptists baptized one of their number who went on to baptize all the others.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Technically, any believer can, especially in emergencies. But this usually leaves the person baptized without any documentation. And, the one performing the baptism had better know what in the ceremony might make the baptism invalid.

I imagine Jesus climbing up out of the Jordan and one of John’s followers handing him a signed certificate.

Did he still have the certificate after fourty days in the wilderness.

Perhaps Jesus’ baptism is invalid because he lost his certificate!

We worship someone who can’t prove he was baptized. Oh woe! Oh woe!

 

[Strong in Him]

Back up three verses there in Matthew and who does it tell us these words of Christ were directed to? Its "the eleven disciples" (Apostles).

As I, and someone else, have said; you'd then have to say that all of Jesus' teaching was to the 12, so where does that leave us today?

Jesus told the 11 disciples to "teach them everything I have taught you", Matthew 28:20.
He told them to baptise. They would have then said "Jesus said to go into the world, teach and baptise".
Neither they, nor Jesus, said anything about being ordained first.

 

[Heavenhome]

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.

What is a oneness Pentecostal?
Thank you

 

[Athanasius377]

Hi brendan,

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that either you don't know what you're talking about; or, we don't have any representatives from the Catholic organization represented in this discussion.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Hi Ted,

Maybe I can help here. While I am not RC I do know a thing or two about what Rome teaches and according to the most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) the following is stated:

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 320). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.

 

[miamited]

Hi Ted,

Maybe I can help here. While I am not RC I do know a thing or two about what Rome teaches and according to the most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) the following is stated:

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 320). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.

Hi athanasius,

Thanks! I would agree. I'm not so tied up that we need formal documentation of baptism either. It establishes a relationship between God and any individual who has declared faith in what He has done in providing the way of salvation. I can't imagine anyone understanding that, and being much concerned with whether or not some man or other body of men, believes that they have been baptized. Once we become children of God, we don't have to prove ourselves to men. One would like to think that if two children of God meet and one asks the other, "have you been baptized?", that the one asking would believe the one answering.

As others have pointed out, there doesn't seem to be any record that the many baptisms shown in the Scriptures were ever followed up with some written formal recognition of the event. This would then be one of those questionable traditions of men, in my understanding.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Albion]

Those who Jesus told to disciple, He also told to baptize.

In this case, yes. Those whom he told there were the Apostles, and he told them to preach, convert, and baptize. That does not mean that we are at liberty to say that he was speaking to someone else.

By your logic, the Sermon on the Mount, because it was spoke to the multitudes who were on the mount was only for them and is not for us today.

Not at all. But there is no parallel. In the Sermon on the Mount he was speaking to many different people--all those who were following him on his journeys (or speaking tour, as we might call it today).

Jesus gave the Communion to just those Apostles at the Last Supper, no relevance for us today because it was given to them.

The Apostles, however, were the first clergy of Christs church. They then went on to install others--and that is recorded in Scripture. They of course officiated at the Lords Supper thereafter, raise other ministers, and so on.

And this is not a matter of my logic. It is all very much the testimony of the New Testament.

 

[Albion]

As I, and someone else, have said; you'd then have to say that all of Jesus' teaching was to the 12, so where does that leave us today? .

That other post was in error on that point, and I have since responded to it.

 

[Mountainmike]

What is a oneness Pentecostal?
Thank you

A section of pentecostals fundamentally believe in what is called "modalism" which was a heresy identified as such in the very early church. 3rd? century. Mentioned in passing by iraneus, associated with sabellius, but athanasius ( in constantines time) was a leader of the debate against that view from the side of catholic christianity

Modalists do not believe in the trinity, they believe that "father son and holy ghost" are in effect behaviour modes of the same person. Just as a humanperson can be a father and a son - the mode of "father" "son" expresses those roles and aspects. (PS dont ask me to define it or defend it.....I dont understand it totally! - and certainly I dont believe in it!)

The "united pentecostals" I gather still believe this, as part of their tradition and arguably are not eligible then to declare as christians on this forum because of lack of belief in the trinity which I gather is one of the key common elements the forum demands.

But just as I would much rather people left it to catholics to explain what catholics believe (there are so many misconceptions) - I would prefer if a pentecostal could clarify it and replace my guess with their real doctrine!