HiDoes a christian who is baptizing have to be baptized themself in order to baptize the other? In other words if a christain has not been baptized does this christian still have the power to baptize others ?
The Authority To Baptize
- Thread starter musicworld
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
Hi musicworld,I think there is a more fundamental question to be asked here. Why would a professing believer who refuses baptism want to administer baptism to others? And what does this person's refusal say about his spiritual condition?
Hi Nomad, i never mentioned once anything about refusing baptism, my question was if a christian has not been baptized do they still have authority to baptize others?
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
Hi again,Yes... I realize that you didn't say explicitly that such an individual has refused baptism, but the implication is clear. If an unbaptized person is baptizing others, then barring unusual and extraordinary circumstances, the only answer is that this person refuses to obey Jesus' command to be baptized. In any case, one who has not submitted to the "entrance rite" of the Church, instituted by Christ himself, has no business administering the rite to others simply because he demonstrates a lack of respect for an institution of Christ and clear New Testament commands. This calls into question the spiritual maturity and faith of such a person.I hope that's helpful.musicworld;71112][FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=4]Hi Nomad said:
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
Hello Martin, Generally speaking, there are exceptions to every rule. Obviously, the first person to baptize would unavoidably be unbaptized himself. The fact that John the Baptist was an inspired prophet commissioned by God to inaugurate the New Testament era should be kept in mind with regard to your question. Again, there's a problem here that is much bigger than failing to submit to a "ceremony." The real problem, as I mentioned before, is what the unbaptized person in question is demonstrating about himself. The blantant disrespect for an institution of Christ and willful disobedience to His command in Matthew 28, is an indication of spiritual immaturity at best or rebellion/false faith at worse. Either way, this person shouldn't be baptizing others.Remember, Christ issued a command with regard to baptism, not a suggestion. Jesus himself submitted to baptism to, as he said, fulfill all righteousness. Are we better than our Lord? Are we at liberty to allow an exception to undermine the rule?Martin W.;71144 said:
MickinEngland
New Member
- Dec 15, 2006
- 339
- 1
- 0
- 76
Water-baptism is just a pretty traditional ceremony for those who want it, and if it makes them feel closer to God that's good.I haven't been water-baptised because I never felt the calling, even though some baptists tell me i'll therefore be going to hell.We'll see..
MickinEngland
New Member
- Dec 15, 2006
- 339
- 1
- 0
- 76
I have a feeling MickinEngland that you will never "feel" a calling to be baptised for the same reason that you will never "feel" a calling to pray. Both are instructed in scripture so that is the only "feel" you and I need.
Hi Mick, very good question about the H20 but as you say baptism is just a pretty traditional ceremony for those who want it, also it being a symbol of dedication. However it is said that once a Christian has dedicated themselves through baptism they receive the gift of the holy spirit, so there is a reward through baptism.
I would say no. You must be baptized first to have the authority to baptize another.musicworld;71095 said:
MickinEngland
New Member
- Dec 15, 2006
- 339
- 1
- 0
- 76
MickinEngland
New Member
- Dec 15, 2006
- 339
- 1
- 0
- 76
I'm not against water-baptism if people want it, but let's remember the Holy Spirit can come without baptism-"The Caesareans have received the holy spirit, so let's baptise them" (Acts 10:47)musicworld;71233][SIZE=3]..[/SIZE][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=4][SIZE=3]it is said that once a Christian has dedicated themselves through baptism they receive the gift of the [B]holy spirit said:
MickinEngland
New Member
- Dec 15, 2006
- 339
- 1
- 0
- 76
Yes, in order to have the priesthood authority to have the authorization from the Lord to baptize, you must be a member of His church by having faith, repenting of your sins, being baptized, and receive the Holy Ghost. Then when you receive the priesthood, you can then baptize.
FHII
Well-Known Member
- Apr 9, 2011
- 4,833
- 2,494
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Interesting question! First if you are talking about water baptism.... I'm of the camp that doesn't believe that water baptism is necessary unless you are talking about Jesus giving you the water he spoke of to the Samaritan woman (obviously not literal water). There is nothing wrong with it as it was done in the NT (even after John). But it isn't necessary.
Consider that John the Baptist himself said that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Lots of people get baptized in literal water, but not many with literal fire.... Wonder why? :lol: My point is that the water baptism is great... It must be uplifting and a good feeling thing. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. But it isn't necessary in a literal sense.
But you to need to baptized (immersed and covered) into Christ. In John 4:14 he spoke of his water.... Now with that, if you are asking if someone needs to be baptized to baptize you.... That's a tough question. In short, do they need to be saved to save you?
My answer is no. Though it'd be real hard. I can't think of a "hard proof" example in the Bible where it happened. However, I can think of one where it may have happened. That would be Judas. Before Satan was manifested in him, he was sent out to spread the Word. He had power over unclean spirits and was given all authority the others were given. However, the Bible doesn't say Judas was or was not successful. Just that he was sent with another (see mark 6).
In short... I think it'd be real hard for someone to baptize you into Christ without them having it themselves. I absolutely believe they can lead you and then fall away themselves (meaning they never were in it to begin with). But I can't say it's impossible.
Consider that John the Baptist himself said that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Lots of people get baptized in literal water, but not many with literal fire.... Wonder why? :lol: My point is that the water baptism is great... It must be uplifting and a good feeling thing. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. But it isn't necessary in a literal sense.
But you to need to baptized (immersed and covered) into Christ. In John 4:14 he spoke of his water.... Now with that, if you are asking if someone needs to be baptized to baptize you.... That's a tough question. In short, do they need to be saved to save you?
My answer is no. Though it'd be real hard. I can't think of a "hard proof" example in the Bible where it happened. However, I can think of one where it may have happened. That would be Judas. Before Satan was manifested in him, he was sent out to spread the Word. He had power over unclean spirits and was given all authority the others were given. However, the Bible doesn't say Judas was or was not successful. Just that he was sent with another (see mark 6).
In short... I think it'd be real hard for someone to baptize you into Christ without them having it themselves. I absolutely believe they can lead you and then fall away themselves (meaning they never were in it to begin with). But I can't say it's impossible.
FHII said:
There are two literal ordinances that are performed by authorized priesthood holders. The first is the literal immersing of people in water who have repented of their sins. Though the immersing is literally happening, the symbolic aspect is a cleansing of your sins and admittance into the kingdom of God on the earth. In Old Testament times it is called washings, in NT times it is called baptism. This was not a new concept to the Jews of the time, as they willingly went to John to receive this ordinance. Jesus also went to fulfill the commandment to be born of the water and spirit. I know you know John 3:5, and I can see how you think that it is a symbolic baptism, by water and by fire. The meaning behind the ordinances are symbolic, but the ordinances themselves are literal. Sort of like when you take the bread and the wine, you are literally eating and drinking, but you are symbolically partaking of the flesh and blood in order to remember.
So, does the literal water cleanse you? No, but the repentance of your sins and the literal act of baptism does. In fact, a thorough reading of the book of Acts shows that the Apostles at some points did question the mode and reasons of some who had been previously baptised, and since they couldnt ascertain if they had done the literal ordinance properly, they had them do it again so the literal baptism was done for sure. After repentance and baptism by water, then baptism by fire was accomplish by a literal ordinace of one in authority (the apostles in this case) laying their hands on the baptized person's head and giving them the holy ghost, which would finish the cleansing as if by fire. Again, a literal ordinace is performed to symbolically teach.
I dont think Jesus was baptized just because it seemed like a nice thing to do. If anyone had a reason to not go down into the cold water to cleanse sins, He did! He did it to keep the commandments of His Father.
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
it seems that you are posing an either or situation but the scriptures does not entertain the idea. In the first gospel preaching on the day of pentecost the hearers were told....MickinEngland said:
Act 2:37 And hearing, they were stabbed in the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men, brothers, What shall we do? And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, each of you on the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
If we believe that all scripture was given by God for........then we have to assume that this scripture was given by God, so what does it say to the first converts to "The Way" as they were known?
Repent...be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ (not the trinity)...for remission of sins...gift of the Holy Spirit.
I cannot for the life of me understand why we need to revise or change this. If that is what God said, why do we need to challenge his words? If we do not accept them as being from God, that means we can pick and choose or reject any scripture that suits our take on things.
To me, it is the foundation for all new life in Christ and without it people are either not christians or they are powerless christians.
I agreesoulja boy said:
What do you mean by receiving the priesthood?Robertson said:
Could you explain to me what are authorised priesthood holders?Robertson said:
One. On the day of Pentecost, Peter said repent and be baptised in the the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.....in answer to the question "what must we do." He didn't say "Repent and be baptised in you want to..."FHII said:
The question wasn't "what must we do if we feel like it" and the response wasn't "I don't mind the repentance bit but can we give the baptism but a miss."
No, it was as plain as day..."Repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ" and the Greek word for baptize means to immerse in water.
Two. There is not one scripture which says that baptism in water is an optional extra.
Similar threads
