Thread: My Bogus (?) Baptism

Through some serendipitous circumstances, I've discovered that, when I was baptized nearly 28 years ago (in a broadly evangelical church, not a Reformed church), the person who baptized me was probably not a licensed or ordained minister. He was, I think, a student who was sort of "on staff;" since he was a student, the church's pastor at that time let him participate in such things.

I was unaware of this at the time.

I have no way to confirm this information - as I said, it was nearly 30 years ago and everyone involved in leadership in the church at that time has scattered to the four winds. Some of them are dead now, also.

So, my question is: assuming that he was not licensed or ordained in that particular church or its denomination - do I need to be re-baptized?

As a credo-baptist I say no.

As a paedobaptist I also say no.

No.

Originally Posted by bookslover

So, my question is: assuming that he was not licensed or ordained in that particular church or its denomination - do I need to be re-baptized?

Richard,

Christ is the only one that baptizes.

That said, Christ has likewise established the Church as the only institution commissioned to baptize. This is seen by the fact that the Apostles were the ones to baptize while Christ was on earth (John 4:1-2), and by the fact that they were given the commission to baptize in Matthew 28. Note that even when the Apostles baptized, it was Jesus Who was considered to have "done" the baptism; teaching that baptism is Christ's when done through His appointed ministers.

The Apostles were also considered Presbyter-Bishops of the congregations over which they presided. This is clear from Peter calling himself a "fellow elder" (1 Peter 5:1), putting himself on par with the elders in the churches he wrote to. Also, Judas' office or "bishopric" (Acts 1:20) was filled by Matthias after the casting of lots.

All that to say, Scripture only identifies certain offices as those to which baptism is given, because such men are Christ's representatives.

Who are they? I would argue:

1. Presbyters
2. Evangelists
3. Maybe Deacons

The first is easily established by the gospels and the book of Acts (Peter and Paul baptizing). The second by the fact that Philip, while also a deacon was an Evangelist as well (see Acts 21:8 where his dual office is noted), and therefore baptized. You could argue for deacons to baptize, but I take this as a function of his office as Evangelist.

Be that as it may, not every Moondoggy the Hippie can baptize, but only those ministers of Christ's Church delegated with such authority.

I would not scruple too much if you can't confirm any facts of the case. But if you have doubts (and you're probably already in process of doing this) bring it up to your Session, and see what they say. If the man was not lawfully called to the ministry as a Presbyter or Evangelist, then I would seek out baptism, since you have never received it.

Godspeed,

Adam

the church's pastor at that time let him participate in such things

Ordained or not, he was acting under the color of authority. In Baptist churches, for example, those licensed to preach also do baptisms considered valid by the church. Many Baptist churches license students during their college/seminary years. While some Baptist pastors insist on doing all of the baptisms in the church, the last two congregations I have attended had the various pastors on staff baptize people in the Sunday morning service. In our current church, the youth pastor was not ordained, but was licensed, when he conducted several of his baptisms. They were considered completely in order and not a "Moondoggy" or Hippie rump baptism.

Speaking of hippie ministerial functions, I love the clip of Rev. Jim from the old Taxi program.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUabqUOlmWw&feature=related"]YouTube - Taxi: Reverend Jim: A Space Odyssey Part 1/3[/ame]

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

...Hippie rump baptism.

A "rump baptism"? Now, there's an image...

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

the church's pastor at that time let him participate in such things

Ordained or not, he was acting under the color of authority. In Baptist churches, for example, those licensed to preach also do baptisms considered valid by the church. Many Baptist churches license students during their college/seminary years. While some Baptist pastors insist on doing all of the baptisms in the church, the last two congregations I have attended had the various pastors on staff baptize people in the Sunday morning service. In our current church, the youth pastor was not ordained, but was licensed, when he conducted several of his baptisms. They were considered completely in order and not a "Moondoggy" or Hippie rump baptism.

Speaking of hippie ministerial functions, I love the clip of Rev. Jim from the old Taxi program.

Ahh! Rev. Jim, My all time favorite TV preacher. Good times, Good times. <sigh>

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

If the man was not lawfully called to the ministry as a Presbyter or Evangelist...

This is the part that bothers me. But, as I said, I can't confirm or not confirm his status at this historical distance.

I say no.

I say no also; while mayhaps your baptism was irregular, yet you have had fruits of this baptism.

If my memory serves me correctly, BL, you would have been baptized as an infant by a RC priest. I'm one of those people that considers it valid because it was done "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

When I was in my late 20's, I had mistakenly concluded that my infant baptism (1946), administered by a Dutch Reformed pastor, was not valid because I conjectured that he was a liberal.

I was also confused because I had applied for a staff position with Campus Crusade and one of the requirements was that you had to be baptized. I didn't know that they would accept infant baptism.

So I asked to be baptized by the pastor of the local C&MA church where I had been attending evening services. That was my bogus baptism.

I have since repented of my misunderstanding of my infant baptism when I finally understood the implications of being in the covenant, etc.

Conclusion: No. Don't do it.

Irregular, but valid (and effective).

No