s/o Baptism

[BakersDozen]

When one of our dd's expressed the desire to be saved/baptized we prayed with her and her daddy baptized her in the bathtub at home that evening. We had just our family and a close friend in attendance and it was awesome.

 

My question is, does one really need to be in an actual church environment for baptism to be done? Does baptism need to be done by an ordained pastor/priest? If one believes this, is there Scripture to support this? I think of Philip and the Ethopian and while Philip was a disciple there was no body of believers present in a church building; Philip heard the Ethopian's declaration and the baptism happened immediately.

 

Just curious as to what others believe.

[pfamilygal]

Well, dh and I are a mixed marriage. So the children were all baptized as infants in the UMC church as a sign of God's prevenient grace.

 

But dh baptized the older girls a few weeks ago in the Paluxy River because they wanted to do something to show that they wanted to follow Jesus.

[ktgrok]

Even the more liturgical churches, (Catholic, Episcopal) admit that all that is needed is water (or liquid of some kind) and the right words (trinity mentioned). In fact, I remember learning in confirmation classes that in an emergency you were certainly allowed to baptize someone..say someone was in a horrible accident, dying in the street, and wanted to be baptized, you could do it yourself with some form of liquid (nothing gross...but I got the impression that say, orange juice would work in a pinch) and the right words.

[Ellie]

Even the more liturgical churches, (Catholic, Episcopal) admit that all that is needed is water (or liquid of some kind) and the right words (trinity mentioned). In fact, I remember learning in confirmation classes that in an emergency you were certainly allowed to baptize someone..say someone was in a horrible accident, dying in the street, and wanted to be baptized, you could do it yourself with some form of liquid (nothing gross...but I got the impression that say, orange juice would work in a pinch) and the right words.

The key phrase is "in an emergency."

 

If at some point this child wanted to become Catholic, baptism by a parent in the bathtub would not be considered a valid baptism.

 

Phillip was an ordained bishop (or elder, depending on your translation) of the church. He had the authority to baptize anyone.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Ellie

[Whereneverever]

In need, anyone with water and the Word can baptize. I'm part of a confessional and liturgical Lutheran tradition, and part of having baptism in church is the promises made by the congregation to the person being baptized.

[Hwin]

"For where two or three gather together as my followers, I am there among them." That said, I think baptism is meant to be a public declaration, so I feel it should take place in church for those people whose churches baptize adults (and teens, and older children :tongue_smilie:)

 

But I'm talking ideally and in the spirit of things... not "or it doesn't count." ;)

[Juniper]

The key phrase is "in an emergency."

 

If at some point this child wanted to become Catholic, baptism by a parent in the bathtub would not be considered a valid baptism.

 

Phillip was an ordained deacon of the church. He had the authority to baptize anyone.

 

:iagree:

[gardenmom5]

my beliefs are, if you want God to recognize a baptism, it needs to be performed by someone who has the authority from God to do it.

[Chelli]

Anyone can baptize someone else. The Bible does not place parameters on this as far as I can tell.

It does not have to take place in a church, nor does it have to be some kind of special water. The true act of baptism takes place on the inside as God washes us clean spiritually.

 

And congrats to your dd! :001_smile:

[Parrothead]

 

My question is, does one really need to be in an actual church environment for baptism to be done?

It is going to depend on one's faith tradition. Being Catholic we believe Baptism washes our souls clean. The ordinary means of baptism is by a priest in a church in front of witnesses. This is a sacrament.

 

My good friend's husband was baptized in a lake by his pastor. They are Baptist. Their daughter was baptized this spring at their church in a tub of water by the new pastor.

 

If your faith tradition says that it is acceptable for your dh to do the baptizing then all is good. If water was used and the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirt," it would be considered a valid baptism in most Christian faiths.

 

Later in your dd's lifetime if she were to convert some denominations may do a "contingent" baptism just in case the correct formula was not used. It does not make the first baptism any less valid. Only makes sure that the baptism was correctly done.

 

Congratulations to your dd. :grouphug:

 

As to emergency baptisms, in the Catholic faith living water should be used. Spit would work in a true emergency. Not sure about OJ. I'll have to ask Father.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Parrothead

[magnificent_baby]

Anyone can baptize someone else. The Bible does not place parameters on this as far as I can tell.

It does not have to take place in a church, nor does it have to be some kind of special water. The true act of baptism takes place on the inside as God washes us clean spiritually.

 

And congrats to your dd! :001_smile:

 

:iagree:

 

Dh is in the medical field and our pastor gave him the "how to" for emergency situations. However we do not believe you need to be baptized in order to be saved.

[Joker]

Our non-denom. church has a day a few times a year where they do baptisms in the ocean. I'm not sure why, but I feel something 'more' when they take place there than inside the church.

[twoxcell]

It never crossed my mind to baptize our own children, so I guess I can't give you an answer.;) There is just something special about being baptized in the river by the pastor in front of others.

[vonfirmath]

When one of our dd's expressed the desire to be saved/baptized we prayed with her and her daddy baptized her in the bathtub at home that evening. We had just our family and a close friend in attendance and it was awesome.

 

My question is, does one really need to be in an actual church environment for baptism to be done? Does baptism need to be done by an ordained pastor/priest? If one believes this, is there Scripture to support this? I think of Philip and the Ethopian and while Philip was a disciple there was no body of believers present in a church building; Philip heard the Ethopian's declaration and the baptism happened immediately.

 

Just curious as to what others believe.

 

In my belief, baptism is not necessary at all. It is an outward showing of an inward faith.

 

So... its not wrong. But to my way of thinking it is a bit pointless. There's no public confession by a bathtub baptism. Though I guess there was that one friend there. :) I have seen churches I've been at where the father moved into the baptismal to baptize their own child, but still did it in front of the congregation. So that could be another option if the father wants to be the one to do it.

 

To join certain churches without being rebaptized, they will ask you if your baptism was in a "church of like mind and practice" If not, you will need to be rebaptized at that church before you can join.

Edited August 14, 2012 by vonfirmath

[Parrothead]

What about the thieves on the crosses next to Jesus? They weren't baptized. So is there ever a need for an emergency baptism? I think a deathbed profession of faith is far more important. I guess which side of the fence you are on theologically is going to make up your mind on this.

I know it is unlikely but if one is hit buy a bus or shot in the head there is no time for a deathbead profession. ;)

[Bluegoat]

The key phrase is "in an emergency."

 

If at some point this child wanted to become Catholic, baptism by a parent in the bathtub would not be considered a valid baptism.

 

Phillip was an ordained bishop (or elder, depending on your translation) of the church. He had the authority to baptize anyone.

 

I don't think this is correct. It would be valid (assuming it was done with water and the Trinitarian formula), but illicit.

[RoughCollie]

My question is, does one really need to be in an actual church environment for baptism to be done?

 

My boys were born 13 weeks early. I baptized them in the NICU immediately. (I also baptized DD when she was born.) I did it the exact same way that I was baptized by an Episcopal priest, except I used the sterilized water available in the NICU. I said, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

 

Frankly, it made me feel better to know my boys had been baptized.

 

DH and our preacher decided to act on the safe side, so all four kids were baptized again when the boys were about 4 years old.

Edited August 14, 2012 by RoughCollie

[Bluegoat]

I belong to a liturgical church. It is certainly possible to baptize in almost any situation, but normally one wouldn't. We baptize within the parish community, withing the Church. We don't see Christianity as an individualistic endeavor, but rather it is joining the Body of Christ, so we do it together as part of that Body.

[Ellie]

I don't think this is correct. It would be valid (assuming it was done with water and the Trinitarian formula), but illicit.

You could very well be right. :-) I still get "illicit" and "invalid" mixed up. :-)

[mommaduck]

The key phrase is "in an emergency."

 

If at some point this child wanted to become Catholic, baptism by a parent in the bathtub would not be considered a valid baptism.

 

Phillip was an ordained bishop (or elder, depending on your translation) of the church. He had the authority to baptize anyone.

:iagree:

 

Also, I don't consider the Bible to be the sole source for direction.

[Kathryn]

In my belief, baptism is not necessary at all. It is an outward showing of an inward faith.

 

 

I belong to a liturgical church. It is certainly possible to baptize in almost any situation, but normally one wouldn't. We baptize within the parish community, withing the Church. We don't see Christianity as an individualistic endeavor, but rather it is joining the Body of Christ, so we do it together as part of that Body.

 

:iagree:

[AnnaM]

I glanced through the responses so this may be a repeating. Since baptism is meant to be a step of obedience and a symbolic public profession of faith, I would say that it should be done in front of the church. It is also a sort of "formal" welcoming into the church body. Since baptism is not a means of salvation, I don't think that a bathtub baptism is necessarily wrong but I do think it misses the point. I am baptist and we only baptize once, after a profession of salvation is made. Even if it happened at a different church. Generally our pastor or assistant pastor does the baptisms but we have had non-ordained men in leadership perform the baptisms as well.

[Ellie]

I glanced through the responses so this may be a repeating. Since baptism is meant to be a step of obedience and a symbolic public profession of faith, I would say that it should be done in front of the church. It is also a sort of "formal" welcoming into the church body. Since baptism is not a means of salvation, I don't think that a bathtub baptism is necessarily wrong but I do think it misses the point. I am baptist and we only baptize once, after a profession of salvation is made. Even if it happened at a different church. Generally our pastor or assistant pastor does the baptisms but we have had non-ordained men in leadership perform the baptisms as well.

Not all churches agree that baptism is a "step of obedience," nor that it is only a "symbolic profession of faith."

 

You could do a search on "baptism" and "saves" to see where they appear together. Kind of puts a different light on that.

[Seasider]

"For where two or three gather together as my followers, I am there among them." That said, I think baptism is meant to be a public declaration, so I feel it should take place in church for those people whose churches baptize adults (and teens, and older children :tongue_smilie:)

 

But I'm talking ideally and in the spirit of things... not "or it doesn't count." ;)

 

I agree that it is a public declaration, so there should be witnesses.

 

I don't think it needs to take place inside a church, unless that is the tradition the person being baptized desires to follow. Beach baptisms are lovely.:D Pics of soldiers in Iraq being baptized in plastic-bag-lined-water-filled holes in the sand are cool. The persecuted church around the world doesn't usually have buildings, they've got to be creative. So I believe the location options are many.

 

DH baptized our daughter with her family, our pastor and church family as witnesses to the occasion.

 

OP, I admire your ingenuity in respecting and following up on your dd's wishes. (IMO) if in the future she ever expresses that she doesn't feel she had a "real" baptism, I don't think it would hurt to let her have a do-over in a different venue.

[JenniferB]

My understanding is that the idea of the "invisible church" was popularized due to the teachings of the Radical Reformers of the 16th century. I believe this is where the idea that anyone can baptize came from. However, even in the "invisible church," I don't think "anyone" can baptize. For instance, I don't think a non-believer can or should baptize in this tradition, but only those who are part of the elect and the invisible church. But because of the invisible nature of the church in this tradition, there's no physical way to know who would be "in" and who would be "out," so maybe that's where the idea of "anyone" can baptize came from? I would be interested to know if anyone has further understanding or knowledge on this subject. I'm kind of obsessed with church history right now. :D

 

My personal belief is that the Church is both visible (here on earth) and invisible (in Heaven). I also believe that history shows a faithful Church from Christ to today, the Orthodox Church. A baptism done in an historical fashion following this line of Church history would be officiated by a priest, with full immersion (whenever possible) and he would say particular prayers and conduct the service in a particular way with the congregation present and followed by first communion. I've seen variations in location, such as the church building or in a river. Exceptions are made whenever necessary such as an emergency baptism, and in that case there is a prescription for that as well with particular prayers. For example, an infant who is part of my congregation, born at 22 weeks gestation (who is doing awesome and is expected to be released from the hospital soon :D) was given an emergency baptism by his father.

Edited August 14, 2012 by JenniferB

[AnnaM]

Not all churches agree that baptism is a "step of obedience," nor that it is only a "symbolic profession of faith."

 

You could do a search on "baptism" and "saves" to see where they appear together. Kind of puts a different light on that.

 

I have looked them up and studied them in depth but that is an entirely different thread ;)

 

As I glanced through I noticed opinions from Catholics, Lutherans and so on. I never said she had to agree with me. Just putting in my 2 cents. Since she didnt say what sort of church she went to I figured that was the best I could do.

[Seasider]

It is interesting to see how the responses fall on either the orthodox or nonorthodox side of the fence.

[Hwin]

I agree that it is a public declaration, so there should be witnesses.

 

I don't think it needs to take place inside a church, unless that is the tradition the person being baptized desires to follow. Beach baptisms are lovely.:D Pics of soldiers in Iraq being baptized in plastic-bag-lined-water-filled holes in the sand are cool. The persecuted church around the world doesn't usually have buildings, they've got to be creative. So I believe the location options are many.

 

I was thinking along the lines of having your church family there, if you had one. Not necessarily in a building. Even though I basically said that :lol:

[DawnM]

This is going to sound awful as I am a Protestant Christian, but I have never thought baptism was that big of a deal. I haven't pushed it with my kids. I have pushed salvation (meaning I have talked a lot about its importance) but not baptism.

 

Dawn

[ktgrok]

In the Episcopal church we don't feel it is just symbolic, and believe you can only be baptized once. Once you are you are, there is no redo. But, if there is question as to if it was done you can be conditionally rebaptized. Bascially the same thing as a baptism, but the priest says the words, "if you were not baptized previously, I baptize you....."

[vonfirmath]

This is going to sound awful as I am a Protestant Christian, but I have never thought baptism was that big of a deal. I haven't pushed it with my kids. I have pushed salvation (meaning I have talked a lot about its importance) but not baptism.

 

Dawn

 

Doesn't sound awful to me. Two of my sister's kids have made professions of faith. Only one is baptized. They are waiting for the 2nd to make the decision on his own to follow.

[SnowWhite]

As a child I was baptized by my dad in our backyard creek. We were sort of home-churched, so that made sense. I did go ahead and get rebaptized in a church as a young adult. Both of my older sons have been baptized in church, upon their confession of faith. Our belief is that baptism is a step of obedience that shows of an inward work of grace. Missionaries often have their converts baptize one another, so that the church continues to grow and thrive in the absence of seminary trained ministers.

[Juniper]

I have looked them up and studied them in depth but that is an entirely different thread ;)

 

As I glanced through I noticed opinions from Catholics, Lutherans and so on. I never said she had to agree with me. Just putting in my 2 cents. Since she didnt say what sort of church she went to I figured that was the best I could do.

 

 

I think Ellie commented, because you stated it as fact. So, she was pointing out that isn't "fact."

 

Opinions, beliefs, convictions....those are wonderful. :)

[Seasider]

I was thinking along the lines of having your church family there, if you had one. Not necessarily in a building. Even though I basically said that :lol:

 

 

Haha! I get it. And you could probably guess that I'm a big fan of natural-water baptisms!

[Bluegoat]

My understanding is that the idea of the "invisible church" was popularized due to the teachings of the Radical Reformers of the 16th century. I believe this is where the idea that anyone can baptize came from. However, even in the "invisible church," I don't think "anyone" can baptize. For instance, I don't think a non-believer can or should baptize in this tradition, but only those who are part of the elect and the invisible church. But because of the invisible nature of the church in this tradition, there's no physical way to know who would be "in" and who would be "out," so maybe that's where the idea of "anyone" can baptize came from? I would be interested to know if anyone has further understanding or knowledge on this subject. I'm kind of obsessed with church history right now. :D

 

 

Well, most of the Reformers also believed in an institutional Church, so I am not sure your analysis is accurate, unless you meant to include much later Protestants as well.

 

Even today, I think you would find that most Protestants would say that it is normally the duty of some sort of authority figure to do the baptizing, while you'll also find Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and other liturgical types will allow more leeway in very unusual situations like real danger of death or a lack of other Christians in the community. So I think that in general, there is not a huge divergence on this issue. There are some groups who do take quite a different view, but they are not particularly representative of a "Protestant position."

 

I would suggest that at least a large part of the reason for some of the differences of opinion here has to do with where they identify authority in the Church. In apostolic churches it would normally be a bishop, priest, or deacon. In others it might be a pastor or elder. In other cases it is the head of the household. Sometimes it could be a sort of mentor in the faith. But I wouldn't really say those roles are examples of the idea of the invisible Church.

[AnnaM]

I think Ellie commented, because you stated it as fact. So, she was pointing out that isn't "fact."

 

Opinions, beliefs, convictions....those are wonderful. :)

 

 

I stated it as fact because I believe it to be fact. If I didn't believe it to be fact why would I believe it? I don't play the it's all relative game :) . I understand people will disagree with me. Anyways, not going to hijack the thread.

 

 

OP I think it is important to baptize in the church, however, I don't believe that it is Null because you didn't.

[happyhomemaker25]

my beliefs are, if you want God to recognize a baptism, it needs to be performed by someone who has the authority from God to do it.

 

I think the dad is a good authority for that. Our two older girls were baptized in a church by my husband. He looks forward to baptizing the rest of our children as they become believers.

[Singingmom]

Well, most of the Reformers also believed in an institutional Church, so I am not sure your analysis is accurate, unless you meant to include much later Protestants as well.

 

Even today, I think you would find that most Protestants would say that it is normally the duty of some sort of authority figure to do the baptizing, while you'll also find Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and other liturgical types will allow more leeway in very unusual situations like real danger of death or a lack of other Christians in the community. So I think that in general, there is not a huge divergence on this issue. There are some groups who do take quite a different view, but they are not particularly representative of a "Protestant position."

 

I would suggest that at least a large part of the reason for some of the differences of opinion here has to do with where they identify authority in the

Church. In apostolic churches it would normally be a bishop, priest, or deacon.

In others it might be a pastor or elder. In other cases it is the head of the

household. Sometimes it could be a sort of mentor in the faith. But I

wouldn't really say those roles are examples of the idea of the invisible

Church.

 

I believe any believer, male or female can baptize any person who has made a conscious decision to follow Christ ( believing as I do in the priesthood of all believers) . I do think that the Biblical narrative shows that baptism was a public declaration of the decision to follow Christ.

[Embassy]

Whether it is valid to a church organization depends on who you ask. If it was done in sincerity I personally believe it was valid to God.

[Parrothead]

I don't think this is correct. It would be valid (assuming it was done with water and the Trinitarian formula), but illicit.

:iagree:

This is going to sound awful as I am a Protestant Christian, but I have never thought baptism was that big of a deal. I haven't pushed it with my kids. I have pushed salvation (meaning I have talked a lot about its importance) but not baptism.

 

Dawn

It isn't awful. For orthodox/liturgical Christians baptism is an integral part of becoming Christian. Which is one of the reasons "we" baptize infants and small children.

 

For other Christians baptism is symbolic. For still others it is optional entirely.

 

:grouphug:

[JenniferB]

Well, most of the Reformers also believed in an institutional Church, so I am not sure your analysis is accurate, unless you meant to include much later Protestants as well.

 

Even today, I think you would find that most Protestants would say that it is normally the duty of some sort of authority figure to do the baptizing, while you'll also find Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and other liturgical types will allow more leeway in very unusual situations like real danger of death or a lack of other Christians in the community. So I think that in general, there is not a huge divergence on this issue. There are some groups who do take quite a different view, but they are not particularly representative of a "Protestant position."

 

I would suggest that at least a large part of the reason for some of the differences of opinion here has to do with where they identify authority in the Church. In apostolic churches it would normally be a bishop, priest, or deacon. In others it might be a pastor or elder. In other cases it is the head of the household. Sometimes it could be a sort of mentor in the faith. But I wouldn't really say those roles are examples of the idea of the invisible Church.

 

I did specify "Radical Reformation," which from what I read was composed of those who opposed not only the Catholic Church, but the Magisterial Protestant groups as well. It's quite possible I misunderstood what I read, and/or how it applies to some of the things stated in this thread. It seemed logical to assume that this is where the idea of "anyone" can baptize, as has been stated several times in this thread, may have originated. I was just wondering where this specific teaching of "anyone" can baptize came from, not to lump all Protestants together. I hope I didn't come off as lumping all Protestants together in that way. I realize there is a very large group, maybe more than the other group, who recognize hierarchy.

 

The application of the invisible church made sense in my mind, but I could very well be misapplying it. It makes sense the way you stated it as a difference of the recognition of authority. However, a few did say that "anyone" can baptize. I still can't pinpoint where that idea comes from in history if not from the idea of an invisible church. If anyone knows who first taught this, and in what time period and setting, please explain.

[Dobela]

Anyone can baptize someone else. The Bible does not place parameters on this as far as I can tell.

It does not have to take place in a church, nor does it have to be some kind of special water. The true act of baptism takes place on the inside as God washes us clean spiritually.

 

And congrats to your dd! :001_smile:

:iagree: The Bible doesn't tell us that a specific place must be used or a specific person must baptize us. In the Greek language, baptizo (sp?) means literally 'immersion' so I believe that one must be fully immersed in the water, but that water can be a bathtub, a ditch, a pool, or anywhere the water is deep enough to completely cover someone.

[Lovedtodeath]

In my belief, baptism is not necessary at all. It is an outward showing of an inward faith.

 

So... its not wrong. But to my way of thinking it is a bit pointless. There's no public confession by a bathtub baptism.

Then why did Philip baptize the Ethiopian man? That was a private affair wasn't it?

 

I am still reading through the thread-- sorry if this was already answered.

[Singingmom]

Then why did Philip baptize the Ethiopian man? That was a private affair wasn't it?

 

I am still reading through the thread-- sorry if this was already answered.

 

Hmmmm...that's a good point! I forgot about that!

[Juniper]

Then why did Philip baptize the Ethiopian man? That was a private affair wasn't it?

 

I am still reading through the thread-- sorry if this was already answered.

 

 

Why do you think it was private? :)

[Singingmom]

And, there would have been at least one witness, besides Philip...the chariot driver. No one else is mentioned. It is a desert road...not sure how much traffic would have been on it? Maybe someone else will have some idea :) .

[Juniper]

And, there would have been at least one witness, besides Philip...the chariot driver. No one else is mentioned. It is a desert road...not sure how much traffic would have been on it? Maybe someone else will have some idea :) .

 

Sorry for the hijack!

 

Tradition holds that the Ethiopian was a very important official (In fact I believe he was in service for the Queen). In those days, there is no way he would have been traveling without a caravan/retinue for protection.

 

Orthodox tradition believes that Phillip the Protodeacon, eventually settled in Ethiopia and you have the beginning of the Ethiopian or Coptic Orthodox Church.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Church

[Singingmom]

Interesting! That makes sense about the Eunich traveling with a caravan.

[ByGrace3]

A few disclaimers. I believe baptism is a sacrament required as a step of faith demonstrating to the world what God has already done in your heart. I do not believe it saves you, but it is a required step of obedience in the Christian walk.

 

That said, ;) Matthew 28 says "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." I am always slightly confused when believers are adamant that only pastors or ordained ministers have the authority to baptize. Is only the first part of this verse applicable to believers and the second for ordained ministers?

 

We have spoken with our oldest dd who has made a profession of faith and told her that when she chooses to take that step of obedience she will have a choice. She can be baptized at our church by one of the pastors or her dad and I can do it. Many at our church would think it scandalous despite the fact that dh and I are seminary graduates and he is both licensed and ordained.

 

However, we do believe it is a public event and even if her dad and I do our children's baptism it will be with other family and friends around to celebrate. While I certainly think the bathtub is acceptable, I don't think it would be my preference just for the difficult of immersion and the lack of public statement. However, that is personal preference and would not diminish the acceptability of the act at all. There are plenty of places where a bucket of water suffices because more water than that is not available...

 

I also think I would take into account the reasoning for doing it at home/not in church. If it was an issue of embarrassment or lack of desire to step out and be in front of the church, it would be a deal breaker. The whole "if you deny me before others I will deny you before my Father" thing. (paraphrase mine) :tongue_smilie:

 

I have a dear minister friend that has his youth baptize those they lead to Christ to demonstrate the discipleship process. It is a beautiful thing.

 

I do think the public aspect while not required (what to do if there is only one other believer in your area?) is a positive aspect and I desire that. I believe baptist is a public profession of your faith. But public can be believers gathered in celebration anywhere. For me I would desire that to be more than my immediate family, but it certainly is only a personal not a biblical thing.

 

Congrats on your dd's decision! :001_smile:

[Bluegoat]

I did specify "Radical Reformation," which from what I read was composed of those who opposed not only the Catholic Church, but the Magisterial Protestant groups as well. It's quite possible I misunderstood what I read, and/or how it applies to some of the things stated in this thread. It seemed logical to assume that this is where the idea of "anyone" can baptize, as has been stated several times in this thread, may have originated. I was just wondering where this specific teaching of "anyone" can baptize came from, not to lump all Protestants together. I hope I didn't come off as lumping all Protestants together in that way. I realize there is a very large group, maybe more than the other group, who recognize hierarchy.

 

The application of the invisible church made sense in my mind, but I could very well be misapplying it. It makes sense the way you stated it as a difference of the recognition of authority. However, a few did say that "anyone" can baptize. I still can't pinpoint where that idea comes from in history if not from the idea of an invisible church. If anyone knows who first taught this, and in what time period and setting, please explain.

 

Yes, you're right, you did say the Radical Reformers. They would be the ones who rejected the whole idea of an institutional church if any did, though even then I don't think they went nearly as far as many do today. The groups that trace themselves to the Radical Reformation do have a concept of the church as institutional - they aren't individualists.

 

I think you need to define more closely what is being said when someone says "anyone can baptize". I might say that anyone, or at least any Christian, can, but in most cases they shouldn't. That is a pre-Reformation idea - non-clergy have been allowed to baptize in case of emergency since before the Reformation.

 

So if it is possible to baptize without a priest, a good Reformation-type question might be, why are requiring a priest to do a baptism? A big part of the questions the Reformers were asking is what, of the things the Catholic Church tells us we have to do, are really necessary? There was a tendency to be very suspicious of requirements to do "extra" things, and I think in many cases that suspicion has intensified over time and also lost the original context for asking the question.

 

As well, for those groups that did or do not believe in sacraments, the idea of needing a priest to baptize doesn't make much sense.

 

And for some, there is a lot of emphasis on the idea of the priesthood of all believers as being the only real priesthood. In which case, it would seem logical that any believer could baptize.