Which of these baptisms should be considered valid?

[So the Heroes Fall]

I know that even people who aren't Christian often have opinions on this. Yes I know I didn't cover every possible conceivable scenario, just listed a lot of general ones that I have all heard of. I of course have actually have 1 and 10 done. Oh and obviously all but #4 are using the Trinitarian formula (unless Mormons use something different.)

[© Tweed the Younger]

have you witnessed the last one in real life?

[asexual trans victimologist]

As long as it involves the Trinitarian formula, is done by somebody who's in some vague sense in a clerical or familial position to do so, and is done on someone who's alive, I'd consider it valid for spiritual purposes, but I don't think my church would consider baptism by a relative or somebody 'ordained' only a very loose sense valid for canonical purposes. I'm not sure about the official position on Mormon baptism, but I'd consider it spiritually valid as long as the catechumen was, well, physically present, shall we say.

[So the Heroes Fall]

have you witnessed the last one in real life?

No, it's just something that supposedly happened to the ex-girlfriend of friend of a guy who posted on another message board years ago, so whether it actually occurred is quite dubious. But worth mentioning.

As long as it involves the Trinitarian formula, is done by somebody who's in some vague sense in a clerical or familial position to do so, and is done on someone who's alive, I'd consider it valid for spiritual purposes, but I don't think my church would consider baptism by a relative or somebody 'ordained' only a very loose sense valid for canonical purposes. I'm not sure about the official position on Mormon baptism, but I'd consider it spiritually valid as long as the catechumen was, well, physically present, shall we say.

I don't know of any churches that accept Mormon baptisms because the LDS view of the Trinity is viewed as too deviated. If the Episcopal one does it's the first one I know of. Mormons of course don't accept any other churches' baptisms because they aren't considered being done with a proper priesthood. I'd be surprised if the Episcopal church would reject baptisms by a Vineyard church (kind of what I was thinking of as my personal experience in "loose ordination" example, there's lots of other modern established church associations that are similar in this sense though), even though the idea of "ordination" in them is quite different and certainly wouldn't be accepted for someone wishing to convert and become an Episcopal priest.

[asexual trans victimologist]

As long as it involves the Trinitarian formula, is done by somebody who's in some vague sense in a clerical or familial position to do so, and is done on someone who's alive, I'd consider it valid for spiritual purposes, but I don't think my church would consider baptism by a relative or somebody 'ordained' only a very loose sense valid for canonical purposes. I'm not sure about the official position on Mormon baptism, but I'd consider it spiritually valid as long as the catechumen was, well, physically present, shall we say.

I don't know of any churches that accept Mormon baptisms because the LDS view of the Trinity is viewed as too deviated. If the Episcopal one does it's the first one I know of. Mormons of course don't accept any other churches' baptisms because they aren't considered being done with a proper priesthood. I'd be surprised if the Episcopal church would reject baptisms by a Vineyard church (kind of what I was thinking of as my personal experience in "loose ordination" example, there's lots of other modern established church associations that are similar in this sense though), even though the idea of "ordination" in them is quite different and certainly wouldn't be accepted for someone wishing to convert and become an Episcopal priest.

You're right. The Episcopal Church doesn't consider Mormon baptisms canonically valid.

What I'm more interested in is the folk family-member baptism example. You're probably right about Vineyard churches, too, but I honestly don't know what the Episcopal position on that is likely to be. We could say that it wouldn't count because it's not by a priest, but there has been traditionally some leeway granted to aspects of the parent-child spiritual relationship (the tradition of paedobaptism itself is an example of this type of leeway). My first instinct would be to say that it would at least have to be confirmed by a priest later, but I'm not positive. I, at least, would consider it spiritually valid if not canonically so.

[So the Heroes Fall]

The reason I brought that up is because I've heard stories that many Catholic olds will often clandestinely baptize their grandchildren or other infant children of their relatives if the parents don't plan on having them baptized soon, or even at all, due to a misunderstanding of the Catholic church's teaching on if physical baptism is necessary to salvation and Limbo (which was recently completely abandoned). The Catholic church (and most mainline churches) interestingly does consider such baptisms valid, but only if done under life threatening conditions where it's possible a clergy might not be able to baptize the recipient in time. Interestingly in such a scenario there is no requirement the baptizer be a Christian, or even baptized at all, so if you have someone who wishes to be baptized but hasn't yet and is now in a life threatening situation and their only companion is a Muslim or someone who still agrees to honor their wishes they may baptize them. Of course this is an incredibly contrived scenario not likely to ever occur.

The baptism of Claire and her son on LOST is an interesting example I probably should've included, since Eko wasn't a real priest (but of course there was none on the island.) Seen the show Nathan? I'm sure that's been discussed in more than a few seminary classes.

[Senator Napoleon]

So far I am the only vote for "Full immersion baptism of a somewhat intoxicated adult (who was probably baptized as a baby) by a somewhat intoxicated vocalist of a Christian hardcore band in a bathtub at an after show party".

[So the Heroes Fall]

So far I am the only vote for "Full immersion baptism of a somewhat intoxicated adult (who was probably baptized as a baby) by a somewhat intoxicated vocalist of a Christian hardcore band in a bathtub at an after show party".

I haven't voted yet though. Some of these are kind of borderline for me. I'm not a fan of infant baptism but I don't like saying that every Christian who was baptized as one and not later has an invalid baptism. I think I'll vote for all but the Mormon ones, family one and non-Trinitarian one.

[Redalgo]

I'm going along with all of the methods listed except for baptism of a dead person by proxy in a Mormon temple and full immersion baptism of a somewhat intoxicated adult (who was probably baptized as a baby) by a somewhat intoxicated vocalist of a Christian hardcore band in a bathtub at an after show party, though in all seriousness it probably would not be difficult to convince me to change my mind about the latter of these two.

[BushKenya]

Options 2 and 5 for me.  In June I will baptize a 12-year-old boy by full immersion as a public display that he has accepted Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.  I led him to Christ yesterday after church.

[asexual trans victimologist]

How on Earth did we end up with an overlap between people who think that 1 and 3 are valid? Do we have people who actually believe that one can get validly baptized multiple times?

[So the Heroes Fall]

How on Earth did we end up with an overlap between people who think that 1 and 3 are valid? Do we have people who actually believe that one can get validly baptized multiple times?

I think both can be valid. It's largely up to the person later if they think an infant baptism is sufficient and valid (that's basically what my pastor said when he announced baptisms the next month in one sermon about the baptism of Jesus, if you were baptized as a baby and are OK with that, fine he is too, but they'll baptize anyone who signs up for it and if you're interested it's heavily encouraged.)

[asexual trans victimologist]

How on Earth did we end up with an overlap between people who think that 1 and 3 are valid? Do we have people who actually believe that one can get validly baptized multiple times?

I think both can be valid. It's largely up to the person later if they think an infant baptism is sufficient and valid (that's basically what my pastor said when he announced baptisms the next month in one sermon about the baptism of Jesus, if you were baptized as a baby and are OK with that, fine he is too, but they'll baptize anyone who signs up for it and if you're interested it's heavily encouraged.)

Okay, that makes sense, in terms of the 'outward sign'.

But in terms of the 'mark of inward grace', I'd definitely say baptism's a one-time thing, pretty much by definition.

[So the Heroes Fall]

How on Earth did we end up with an overlap between people who think that 1 and 3 are valid? Do we have people who actually believe that one can get validly baptized multiple times?

I think both can be valid. It's largely up to the person later if they think an infant baptism is sufficient and valid (that's basically what my pastor said when he announced baptisms the next month in one sermon about the baptism of Jesus, if you were baptized as a baby and are OK with that, fine he is too, but they'll baptize anyone who signs up for it and if you're interested it's heavily encouraged.)

Okay, that makes sense, in terms of the 'outward sign'.

But in terms of the 'mark of inward grace', I'd definitely say baptism's a one-time thing, pretty much by definition.

Unless you're a memorialist. Then there isn't really any "mark of inward grace" coming into play.

I actually know a guy who considered being baptized twice, even though he was first baptized as a teenager, he wanted to mostly to represent his reawakening in progressive Christianity after he drifted to agnosticism being raised a conservative evangelical, but opted not to because he decided it would be disrespectful to his mother. So there's a guy who would consider a rebaptism OK even with the paedobaptist/credobaptist thing not being an issue.

[dead0man]

2,3,4,9,10,11

"sprinklin'" isn't baptism and baptising a baby is stupid.  Baptising doesn't get you into heaven, it's just a public declaration that you've accepted Christ into your heart. Thus, 11 might not work depending on how "public" it is.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Nathan did you watch LOST? The baptism of Claire and her son is interesting compared to that theology.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Nathan did you watch LOST? The baptism of Claire and her son is interesting compared to that theology.

No, how did the baptism in that go?

I was unaware that one could be a memorialist about baptism.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Basically Claire was a girl with a very late term pregnancy when the plane crashed, she gave birth near the end of season 1. In season 2 some drug addled rock star believed he was getting visions to baptize the baby in the ocean and kidnapped him to try it, before being stopped by the rest of the people. After this Claire, who was implied to be raised in a non-religious family asked Eko, a "priest" from Nigeria about what baptism is and means and if her baby was baptized and she wasn't if that meant they couldn't be together if they didn't live, and Eko agreed to baptize them both.

The issues:

-Eko wasn't a real priest. He was a drug smuggler who obtained forged ordination papers to make it easier to smuggle heroin into the US and had been using this to live in hiding when he left Australia. Of course there was no real priest on the island.
-When asked by Claire what baptism meant, he replied that "It is said that after baptizing Jesus John the Baptist said he knew he had cleansed this man of sin." which goes against any Christian denomination's view that Jesus never sinned, perhaps to give hints that Eko wasn't a real priest.
-No Christian denomination would ever allow the baptism of an adult who did not express belief in Christ, and at no point did Eko ask Claire if she believed, nor did she ever imply it.

Of course after everything else that happened on the show later whether the baptism was valid upon leaving the island would be pretty low on the list of concerns...

I was unaware that one could be a memorialist about baptism.

See what dead0man said.

[oakvale]

Basically Claire was a girl with a very late term pregnancy when the plane crashed, she gave birth near the end of season 1. In season 2 some drug addled rock star believed he was getting visions to baptize the baby in the ocean and kidnapped him to try it, before being stopped by the rest of the people. After this Claire, who was implied to be raised in a non-religious family asked Eko, a "priest" from Nigeria about what baptism is and means and if her baby was baptized and she wasn't if that meant they couldn't be together if they didn't live, and Eko agreed to baptize them both.

The issues:

-Eko wasn't a real priest. He was a drug smuggler who obtained forged ordination papers to make it easier to smuggle heroin into the US and had been using this to live in hiding when he left Australia. Of course there was no real priest on the island.
-When asked by Claire what baptism meant, he replied that "It is said that after baptizing Jesus John the Baptist said he knew he had cleansed this man of sin." which goes against any Christian denomination's view that Jesus never sinned, perhaps to give hints that Eko wasn't a real priest.
-No Christian denomination would ever allow the baptism of an adult who did not express belief in Christ, and at no point did Eko ask Claire if she believed, nor did she ever imply it.

Of course after everything else that happened on the show later whether the baptism was valid upon leaving the island would be pretty low on the list of concerns...

I was unaware that one could be a memorialist about baptism.

See what dead0man said.

^ Bizarre BRTD hypothetical #82,093.

[Vasall des Midas]

7, 11. None of the others. This ought to be obvious.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Basically Claire was a girl with a very late term pregnancy when the plane crashed, she gave birth near the end of season 1. In season 2 some drug addled rock star believed he was getting visions to baptize the baby in the ocean and kidnapped him to try it, before being stopped by the rest of the people. After this Claire, who was implied to be raised in a non-religious family asked Eko, a "priest" from Nigeria about what baptism is and means and if her baby was baptized and she wasn't if that meant they couldn't be together if they didn't live, and Eko agreed to baptize them both.

The issues:

-Eko wasn't a real priest. He was a drug smuggler who obtained forged ordination papers to make it easier to smuggle heroin into the US and had been using this to live in hiding when he left Australia. Of course there was no real priest on the island.
-When asked by Claire what baptism meant, he replied that "It is said that after baptizing Jesus John the Baptist said he knew he had cleansed this man of sin." which goes against any Christian denomination's view that Jesus never sinned, perhaps to give hints that Eko wasn't a real priest.
-No Christian denomination would ever allow the baptism of an adult who did not express belief in Christ, and at no point did Eko ask Claire if she believed, nor did she ever imply it.

Of course after everything else that happened on the show later whether the baptism was valid upon leaving the island would be pretty low on the list of concerns...

I was unaware that one could be a memorialist about baptism.

See what dead0man said.

^ Bizarre BRTD hypothetical #82,093.

To be fair, this was apparently J.J. Abrams's bizarre hypothetical before it was BRTD's.

[oakvale]

Basically Claire was a girl with a very late term pregnancy when the plane crashed, she gave birth near the end of season 1. In season 2 some drug addled rock star believed he was getting visions to baptize the baby in the ocean and kidnapped him to try it, before being stopped by the rest of the people. After this Claire, who was implied to be raised in a non-religious family asked Eko, a "priest" from Nigeria about what baptism is and means and if her baby was baptized and she wasn't if that meant they couldn't be together if they didn't live, and Eko agreed to baptize them both.

The issues:

-Eko wasn't a real priest. He was a drug smuggler who obtained forged ordination papers to make it easier to smuggle heroin into the US and had been using this to live in hiding when he left Australia. Of course there was no real priest on the island.
-When asked by Claire what baptism meant, he replied that "It is said that after baptizing Jesus John the Baptist said he knew he had cleansed this man of sin." which goes against any Christian denomination's view that Jesus never sinned, perhaps to give hints that Eko wasn't a real priest.
-No Christian denomination would ever allow the baptism of an adult who did not express belief in Christ, and at no point did Eko ask Claire if she believed, nor did she ever imply it.

Of course after everything else that happened on the show later whether the baptism was valid upon leaving the island would be pretty low on the list of concerns...

I was unaware that one could be a memorialist about baptism.

See what dead0man said.

^ Bizarre BRTD hypothetical #82,093.

To be fair, this was apparently J.J. Abrams's bizarre hypothetical before it was BRTD's.

Oh, right, that makes sense considering Lost seemed like it was written by a BRTD with even more severe ADHD.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As long as it involves the Trinitarian formula...

what, exactly, is the trinitarian formula, again?

[So the Heroes Fall]

As long as it involves the Trinitarian formula...

what, exactly, is the trinitarian formula, again?

"In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As long as it involves the Trinitarian formula...

what, exactly, is the trinitarian formula, again?

"In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"

and what, exactly, is that one singular name?