CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hi:
Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?
Why or Why Not?
Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?
Why or Why Not?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hi:
Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?
Why or Why Not?
Hi:
Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?
Why or Why Not?
Not being rude, but why is this even in question?
Hi:
Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?
Why or Why Not?
Not being rude, but why is this even in question?
Baptism is to be performed by ministers of the Church duly appointed with the authority to perform it. Baptism isn't something that we do to ourselves. Baptism is something done to us.
As Rich points out, baptism happens to a person. It is an act of the church. Insofar as it is emblematic of salvation, the recipient is passive. It is God who acts upon us to make us, revive us, reform us, and fit us for heaven. Self-baptism is a pretty strong statement in favor of Pelagianism and its cousins.
Hi:
Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?
Why or Why Not?
Hi:
Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?
Why or Why Not?
Tell me, how can infants baptise themselves?
Hi:
Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?
Why or Why Not?
Tell me, how can infants baptise themselves?
This is a valid question, one we have addressed on this board before.Maybe the poster is just pondering hypothetical situations, man is shipwrecked alone on an island, finds Bible in wreckage, reads it, repents, and wants to be baptized?
The part about "infant baptizing self" really isn't especially relevant or helpful here. Let's keep the subject off infant baptism, since the question relates to a grown man, regardless.
Now on to:This is a valid question, one we have addressed on this board before.Maybe the poster is just pondering hypothetical situations, man is shipwrecked alone on an island, finds Bible in wreckage, reads it, repents, and wants to be baptized?
My response: (blunt and pointed, although I'm not really being harsh or critical, just making a point)
"It really doesn't matter what the shipwrecked guy wants."
No, really, it doesn't matter at all. Since God has yet to bring the church to him, to allow him to join it, this Christian man must simply wait until he does. What is he "missing" out on, in term of the spiritual blessings that baptism signifies? Nothing personal. However, he is lacking that attachment to the Christian body, the actual connection and fellowship the church provides--one of the very things that the rite of baptism signifies.
Now, if your ecclesiology is weak or defective, then I suppose this observation might not be so strong an argument against such a thing. Still, this sort of individual action really exalts the flesh. And it brings into question the necessity of the church and its offices and ordinances. The activity says that really those things aren't necessary at all, they may be dispensed with, provided some person thinks his situation is "exceptional" enough.
Really? Then under what conditions must a person WAIT?
Maybe the poster is just pondering hypothetical situations, man is shipwrecked alone on an island, finds Bible in wreckage, reads it, repents, and wants to be baptized?
Baptism brings us into fellowship (covenant) with the baptized community of God. One person does not a communion make.
Acts 2:41 "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them."
1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free -- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit."
Not being critical but seeking validation; please give scriptural support for the requirement of baptism being performed by a minister.
I have witnessed young men being baptized by their fathers, fellow believers and never questioned whether it was wrong. I'm speaking as a credobaptist. As long as the baptism is by a believer and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit why would it not be acceptable?
Not everyone is designated a steward. It is a special trust. You don't get to be a steward simply by generating a son or daughter. So, no, a father is no proper baptizer of his child. Neither is he a proper dispenser of communion. It is always a matter of the church's judgment whether a person is entitled to receive either of the sacraments, an act of their ministerial power, the use of which they will have to give an account of before God (Heb. 13:7).
Thanks so much for the helpful info on this topic! One more consideration based on your comment:
Not everyone is designated a steward. It is a special trust. You don't get to be a steward simply by generating a son or daughter. So, no, a father is no proper baptizer of his child. Neither is he a proper dispenser of communion. It is always a matter of the church's judgment whether a person is entitled to receive either of the sacraments, an act of their ministerial power, the use of which they will have to give an account of before God (Heb. 13:7).
If the pastor counseled the father prior to the baptism would it then be acceptable and 'within the church's judgment' or not? If the pastor delegated such does that make it acceptable?(I did not witness this at my home church but another)
Again, thanks!
From the Westminster Directory of Public Worship on Baptism:
He is also to admonish all that are present, "To look back to their baptism; to repent of their sins against their covenant with God; to stir up their faith; to improve and make right use of their baptism, and of the covenant sealed thereby betwixt God and their souls."
The part about "infant baptizing self" really isn't especially relevant or helpful here. Let's keep the subject off infant baptism, since the question relates to a grown man, regardless.
If Smyth considered that he could baptize Believer's only, then he would have done so without baptizing himself. It seems to me that Smyth's baptism was illegitimate, and, concurrently, all other "Believer Only Baptisms" as well up to today.This famous baptism is known to historians as Smyth's "se-baptism" (baptism of one's self). The mode of baptism used in this case was the pouring of water on the head, pg. 14.
If Smyth considered that he could baptize Believer's only, then he would have done so without baptizing himself. It seems to me that Smyth's baptism was illegitimate, and, concurrently, all other "Believer Only Baptisms" as well up to today.
If Smyth considered that he could baptize Believer's only, then he would have done so without baptizing himself. It seems to me that Smyth's baptism was illegitimate, and, concurrently, all other "Believer Only Baptisms" as well up to today.
No. As a "Minister of Word and Sacrament", to administer baptism is of the essence of the office, and may not be delegated away. In fact, since we no longer are receiving special revelation (as they were in Acts), we cannot create any new church officers beside the ministers, elders, and deacons we have, and all those functions which are essential will remain in those offices. For my part, I can no more conceive of failing in my duty to baptize proper subjects, than I can of failing to get up and preach.Thanks so much for the helpful info on this topic! One more consideration based on your comment:
Not everyone is designated a steward. It is a special trust. You don't get to be a steward simply by generating a son or daughter. So, no, a father is no proper baptizer of his child. Neither is he a proper dispenser of communion. It is always a matter of the church's judgment whether a person is entitled to receive either of the sacraments, an act of their ministerial power, the use of which they will have to give an account of before God (Heb. 13:7).
If the pastor counseled the father prior to the baptism would it then be acceptable and 'within the church's judgment' or not? If the pastor delegated such does that make it acceptable?(I did not witness this at my home church but another)
Again, thanks!
Since I am arguing that any self-baptism is illegitimate, I do not see how bringing in the question of the baptism of persons who can in no wise baptize themselves has much bearing. It only has any relevance if all persons under any circumstances may self-baptize. The question "is it allowed?" does not actually relate to any situation where a person is submitted to the rite (adult or infant, credo or paedo). If we state the obvious: "No infant can baptize itself," we have said nothing at all about the legitimacy of self-baptism.Bruce, since the question is "is self baptism legitimate" - with no mention of adult or infant baptism - then I don't see how we can't bring infant baptism into it.
However, even if we do restrict it to adults, then what happens if an ungodly pagan pronounces the Trinitarian formula when he is in the shower - would that count as a legitimate baptism if self-baptism is to be accepted.
If Smyth considered that he could baptize Believer's only, then he would have done so without baptizing himself. It seems to me that Smyth's baptism was illegitimate, and, concurrently, all other "Believer Only Baptisms" as well up to today.
That is a bit of a jump your making there brother; surely there are other Baptist ministers who were lawfully baptized.