Who can Baptise?

[Rosemary Lily]

Hello, I wonder if you can help.I was Baptised as a baby an hope this was ok.I do know in my heart it was,an shouldnt be done again.My young son however wasnt.He truly loves God,an understands most of the things we read in the bible.He is a remarkable child.However he is disabled an dosent want to be baptised in a church.Im not putting pressure on him either way.Thing is he really dosent want to wait,I said maybe do it in church when hes older an more able. Although he is young, he is wise beyound his ten years.Would it be ok for me to Baptise my son at home with water an correct words,with a a family gathering.It would seem to be the answer to his an my prays.We are true believers an I know it means so much to him.I cant see scripture that says I cant.Church can be a gathering at home,I feel if the word/Bible is read an songs are sung.I have been meaning to ask before but was to shy.Thanks. I am Anglican.

 

[Harry3142]

I see no problem with having the baptism in your home. Some of the wording will have to be changed if an ordained priest, vicar, or deacon isn't the celebrant, such as "The Lord be with us" rather than "The Lord be with you" being spoken by the celebrant.

You should check with your local church to see if one of their ordained ministers will make a house call. It will make it easier for the baptism to be recorded in their records if one of them is involved in the actual event.

 

[Rosemary Lily]

Thankyou so much for the advice an reply.He will be happy.My sons name is Harry too.

 

[woodpecker]

hi Rosemary Lilly,
The reason for getting baptized is not because it's necessary to get into heaven, but because Jesus commanded it.

There are several reasons why Jesus would want his new born again believers to be baptized. For one, it symbolizes publicly the death of the "old" and the birth of the "new" and formalizes that commitment.

Secondly, it is a rite of passage into the body of Christ, i.e., the Church, demonstrating your repentance to your old sinful nature, coming up out of the water, new in Christ, death and resurrection into eternal life.
So, does your son need to be baptized to get to heaven? Much of the church would say no. But whether or not Jesus commanded baptism as necessary for salvation is really irrelevant-he commanded it, and that ought to be enough for anyone claiming to be a follower of Jesus.

So yes, you can baptize your son, if He is a new person in Christ.

 

[vespasia]

If your anglican do make contact with your locl priest.

Normally baptism happens in church during a normal service but each priest is also allowed to use discretion- for example to baptise a child in hospital or to arrange another location due to the needs of the person being baptised such as a more accesible church building.
Achurchnearyou is the CofE parish finder online.

You and your child will prob' have a baptism preperation course to do. They are not long but they aim to give people a chance to learn more about what baptism is about and following Christ. The baptism will be registered and your child recieves a certificate and special candle.

 

[heymikey80]

OK, wax theological with me for a moment here. The person "performing" the sacrament is actually just assisting with it. God and the participant are the ones involved in the sacrament.

I expect that the Anglican Church hedges the sacraments by specifying they be performed by pastors, to help regulate the use of the sacraments. Who can really perform a sacrament? Anyone. But who can state whether the sacrament was actually performed? A pastor. For instance, Paul made quite a discerning move with certain people who had been baptized with John's baptism: they were rebaptized into Christ. That kind of assessment really needs to be made with someone who has all the conditions for him to review.

So -- it's not the authority of the one pouring the water that constitutes a sacrament; but it is the assessment of someone who can do so, to actually identify a sacrament as one.

 

[vespasia]

Both baptism and eucharist are sacrements in the church of england and as such are done by those who are ordained to do so.

 

[parsley]

Some verses you might find interesting...

Joh 4:2 Read Chapter
...Although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples. (Early in book of John)

1Co 1:16 Read Chapter
I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.

Mr 1:4
John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Joh 1:33 Read Chapter
I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel." And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to immerse in water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who immerses with the Holy Spirit.'

 

[Aibrean]

hi Rosemary Lilly,
The reason for getting baptized is not because it's necessary to get into heaven, but because Jesus commanded it.

That is debatable. Failure to obey a command of Jesus can be a result of lack of faith. A lack of faith does have an impact on ones salvation. It is not absolutely necessary in the case of those unable to be baptized (lack of water, nearing death, etc).

Why would someone disregard a command of Jesus?

Anyway...in our denomination they are typically done by the pastor but in emergencies, we have a rite of baptism that is printed in the back of our service book (which I have at home).

 

[xanloc]

it's all ok, as you baptize them with name of JC(Jesus Christ) and God

 

[LilLamb219]

it's all ok, as you baptize them with name of JC(Jesus Christ) and God

You forgot the Holy Spirit. It's important that we are baptized in our TRIUNE God's name (I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit).

OP, have you done anything about this yet? A pastor/priest would understand the circumstances and gladly be of service.

 

[Criada]

I think that any Chridstian can baptise another, as long as the person being baptised has faith in Christ and a desire to be baptised - which your son obviously does
My husband and I baptised all of our four children - we did so within a church meeting, but a friend whose son was very shy baptised him at home with just a few witnesses.

It is wonderful that your son wants to be baptised - make it as easy as possible for him to do so

 

[Bible2]

Rosemary Lily said (in post #1):

Who can Baptise?

Any believer can baptize any other believer, just as any believer can bury any other believer, for baptism is simply a burial (Romans 6:4, Colossians
2:12).

Rosemary Lily said:

I was Baptised as a baby an hope this was ok.

Actually, infant baptism isn't valid, because baptism is useless for salvation (and isn't even allowed) unless the one being baptized is a believer with all of his or her heart (Acts 8:36-38, Mark 16:16). Also, believers need to be not just sprinkled (as is often done with infant baptism), but water-immersion (burial) baptized (Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12) in order to be ultimately saved (Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16).

If people believe with all their heart that Jesus Christ is the human/divine Son of God (Acts 8:37), they can get baptized anywhere there's water (Acts 8:36) into which they can be fully-immersed (buried) (Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12). They need to make sure to be baptized in the name of God the Father; and of the Son, Jesus Christ; and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38). Believers can get water-immersion baptized at, for example, a Baptist church.

Besides getting water baptized, believers also need to get Holy Spirit baptized (Acts 11:15-16, cf. Acts 10:44-46). They usually have to ask to receive the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13b) baptism, because it isn't usually automatically given to them the moment they become believers; that's why Paul the apostle asked some believers: "Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?" (Acts 19:2).

Believers usually receive the Holy Spirit baptism through prayer accompanied by the laying on of hands, subsequent to water baptism (Acts 8:15-17, Acts 19:5-6). Holy Spirit baptism won't result in speaking in tongues for everyone (1 Corinthians 12:30) (as some people mistakenly claim), but for almost everyone, as speaking in tongues is one of the lesser gifts of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:8-11, 1 Corinthians 12:28, 1 Corinthians 14:5).

Many believers haven't yet experienced the Holy Spirit baptism simply because they haven't yet asked for it, under the principle of "ye have not, because ye ask not" (James 4:2b). Many believers haven't yet asked for it because they've come under the influence of mistaken teachings which say that it's no longer in effect. Believers can get hands laid on them to receive the Holy Spirit baptism at, for example, a Pentecostal or charismatic-type congregation.

 

[okiemom79]

Hi there,
I was just curious if you have done this yet? Did you happen to ask anyone, like a preacher? I wouldn't mind doing this at my home as well is why I am curious....problem is I do not think my faith is strong enough. Here is a question, a little off the OP, but still something I wonder about....is it normal to feel as though if you get baptized while you are still struggling that it would be in vain and therefore not count?

 

[paul1149]

okie, when I first got Saved I had some very serious questions remaining. They drove me to distraction. Finally I placed them on the altar and trusted the Lord to show me what I needed to know in His timing. In that way, my peace returned to me and my faith was "complete" at that level. I went ahead with the baptism, and later on the Lord did indeed show me the answers to my big questions. So I would say that if you've got the Good Confession of Romans 10 settled, even if you're struggling in other areas, go ahead and be baptized. You want to draw near to God so you can receive what you need, rather than wait until you're absolutely perfect - which if you're anything like me would probably be a pretty long time.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In theory anyone can officiate Baptism, this is because the Sacrament belongs properly to God, is efficacious because of grace, and is for us; in other words it is God's work, not our work.

In practice, under normal circumstances, a properly ordained person (pastor/priest/etc) officiates for the sake of good order in the Church. A valid Baptism simply requires that it be a Baptism. Generally this is understood to mean that it involves water and proclaiming the Word of God, "in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit". Christianity has historically recognized various methods and forms of Baptism, the preferred method in antiquity is three-fold immersion with pouring as an acceptable alternative; in the West pouring became more standard. Single immersion has become popular again in the West only in recent history, though there seems to have been local cases where this was common in the past (going by memory, I believe there was a diocese in Spain where single immersion had been common, but this was recognized as abnormal in regard to the rest of common practice).

Further, the three-fold Name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has clearly been the mainstream practice for the last two thousand years, though there is some indication that "in the name of Jesus Christ" or similar was practiced and not altogether rejected insofar as the intent remained. St. Stephen I, Bishop of Rome (3rd century) argued that Jesus-name baptism were valid. St. Basil the Great (4th century) argued that Baptism in Christ's name confesses the whole, i.e. that it still confesses the Three-fold Name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (though certainly not in any Sabellian sense). Etc. Though this is generally understood as having been a minority, especially considering the witness we have from antiquity including the Didache (late 1st century to early-mid 2nd century) and the various writings of the 2nd and 3rd century Fathers.

This was probably more expansive than it needed to be, but still. It is preferable, for good order, to be baptized in the context of the Church by one ordained to officiate. However, Baptism remains Baptism even if not officiated in such a capacity. Baptism is Baptism if there is water and the Word.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bible2]

In order to be saved ultimately, believers must get water-immersion (burial) baptized into Jesus' death for our sins (Rom. 6:3-11, Col. 2:12, Mk. 16:16, 1 Pet. 3:21, Gal. 3:27, Acts 2:38, 22:16). The original Greek noun for "baptism" (baptismos) is derived from the original Greek verb for "baptize" (baptizo), which means to immerse, for it's derived from the original Greek verb "bapto", which means to cover wholly with a fluid. We're to be "buried" in the water of baptism (Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12), & no one's buried by having some dirt merely sprinkled on his forehead. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits "In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, however, were growing common in the thirteenth century and gradually prevailed in the Western Church". On what basis did the Catholic Church (or any other church, for that matter) abandon the requirement of immersion?

 

[Abbot David]

I'll be praying for you and Harry.

If you are a faithful practicing Anglican, I would at least go and talk with your priest about this. I'm sure most Anglican Priests wouldn't mind coming to your home in a situation like this.

But... Myself and my Order of Ecumenical Benedictines believe that any believer can baptize another believer, according to the example given to us in the book of Acts, (Acts 9:10-18). In this example, we see the Apostle Paul himself being baptized by Ananias, identified only as a disciple.

We also believe in the Priesthood of all Believers (1 Peter 2:5,9 and Revelation 1:6 and 5:10) and that our Lord is our only Mediator, (1 Timothy 2:5).

Baptism is a Sacred Rite in which we are purifying and consecrating someone as a new member into the Father's New Covenant Family, His Church.

Baptism itself does not "save" anyone. (example, thief on the cross) It is only salvific when it is received through faith, (1 peter 3:21). In your own case, it is salvific when you entered into your own personal faith and looked back on your infant baptism. I was baptized as a baby and I do the same, I've never been re-baptized and I am perfectly comfortable with receiving my own infant baptism as efficacious and valid.

Jesus commanded His disciples to go out and make other disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost/Spirit, (Matthew 28:19).

So I believe that it needs to be done in normal circumstances. But I believe that every disciple is a priest and has the authority to Baptize. I also believe that through the example of the Ethiopian Eunuch, Baptism can be between just 2 people.

Hope this helps, you have any more questions, please PM me and I will be glad to talk with you.

 

[LilLamb219]

In order to be saved ultimately, believers must get water-immersion (burial) baptized into Jesus' death for our sins (Rom. 6:3-11, Col. 2:12, Mk. 16:16, 1 Pet. 3:21, Gal. 3:27, Acts 2:38, 22:16). The original Greek noun for "baptism" (baptismos) is derived from the original Greek verb for "baptize" (baptizo), which means to immerse, for it's derived from the original Greek verb "bapto", which means to cover wholly with a fluid. We're to be "buried" in the water of baptism (Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12), & no one's buried by having some dirt merely sprinkled on his forehead. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits "In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, however, were growing common in the thirteenth century and gradually prevailed in the Western Church". On what basis did the Catholic Church (or any other church, for that matter) abandon the requirement of immersion?

You might not have done complete research yet...in the NT they "baptized" tables to clean them and other furniture...so they weren't fully "immersed".

 

[Bible2]

The Bible doesn't say the thief on the cross hadn't been baptized. He could have been baptized before Lk. 23:42-43 happened, but then backslid & committed theft. Also, baptism is only a New Covenant/New Testament (NT) requirement for ultimate salvation (Mk. 16:16, 1 Pet. 3:21, Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3-11, Gal. 3:27, Col. 2:12), & the NT wasn't put into legal effect until Jesus died (Heb. 9:16-17, Mt. 26:28). But Lk. 23:42-43 happened before Jesus died, so baptism wasn't yet a requirement for ultimate salvation. But now that Jesus' death is past, believers have to obey all his NT commandments (Jn. 14:21-24) if they want to obtain ultimate salvation (Heb. 5:9, Rev. 22:14, Rom. 2:6-8), including his commandment every believer get baptized (Mt. 28:19-20, Mk. 16:16, Acts 2:38), & by immersion/"burial" in the water of baptism (Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12, cf. 1 Cor. 14:37). Also, a saved person can in the end lose his salvation if he wrongly employs his free will to commit unrepentant sin (Heb. 10:26-29, 1 Cor. 9:27, Lk. 12:45-46), which includes unrepentant sins of omission (Jas. 4:17), which would include refusing without repentance to get baptized, & by immersion.

--

Infant baptism isn't valid, for baptism is useless for salvation (& isn't even allowed) unless the one being baptized is already a believer with all his heart (Acts 8:36-38, Mk. 16:16). Also, believers need to be not just sprinkled (as is often done with infant baptism), but water-immersion (burial) baptized (Rom. 6:3-11, Col. 2:12) in order to be ultimately saved (Mk. 16:16, 1 Pet. 3:21, Gal. 3:27, Acts 2:38, 22:16).

--

Mk. 7:4's reference to the "washing" (baptismos, G0909) of tables could have involved their immersion in pools of water, for baptismos (G0909) is from baptizo (G0907), which means to immerse. Also, believers' "baptism" (baptismos, G0909) (& baptisma, G0908) is when they're "buried" in the water of baptism (Col. 2:12 & Rom. 6:4), & no one's buried by having a few drops of water sprinkled on his forehead. Also, even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits "In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, however, were growing common in the thirteenth century and gradually prevailed in the Western Church". On what basis did the Catholic Church (or any other church, for that matter) abandon the requirement of immersion? On the basis of Mk. 7:4, which doesn't refer to Christian baptism, & which was used by Jesus to warn against replacing God's commandments with our own man-made traditions (Mk. 7:8-9)?