Talk Elections

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.)

have you witnessed the last one in real life?

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...


See what dead0man said.

^ Bizarre BRTD hypothetical #82,093.

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

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.

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?

My church doesn't believe in baptism of babies or by sprinkling. They teach that baptism should only be given by immersion and to adults (anyone old enough to understand the Gospel.)  I personally don't object to using a sprinkling or immersion baptism on a baby as a symbolic gesture of dedication (like what was done with me.)

I don't think any of them are valid - regardless of how much water you involve or who is performing the ritual, I see no evidence of some special magic status being conferred.

Most Protestants do not believe baptism gives some type of "special magic status". I certainly don't believe that I now have some type of "special magic status" that I did not have prior to February 12.

Then why do it?

I did it primarily because I wanted to make an affirmation for myself and not for my parents (which is basically what my confirmation 15 years earlier was.) Essentially what dead0man said about it being a public declaration you've accepted Christ in your heart.

And from this affirmation and acceptance of Christ, don't you think you get some more consideration in your ledger at the proverbial pearly gates? Why else would you tell the Nyjew to accept christ?

sola gratia


He too can be freed of his bigotry as I was.

Certainly one can free themselves of bigotry with reason of their own.  So what be the redemptive powers?  -Believe in the Lord, do kinda what you want, hope for Grace?

Suggesting what worked for me, and that can free him from being trapped in legalism as he is (mind you many Christians are too, focused on rules, not Christ.)


Already been explained. I wanted to make an affirmation for myself, not just because my parents wanted me to like my childhood's confirmation.

That's not an answer to the question. Why hold this bizarre ritual at all if it doesn't somehow get you in good standing with your deity?

I could say the same thing about say graduation ceremonies. Why hold them since they aren't what you get you diploma or degree? (I didn't attend my college graduation yet still have my degree.)

The Duluth Vineyard church's site actually sums this up well: http://www.duluthvineyard.org/get-connected/10-about-us/faqs/60-what-does-the-vineyard-believe-about-baptism

I also like what the people say in the videos near the bottom of this page (http://www.urminneapolis.org/mediaVideo.php?year=2011), I felt a lot of the same things.

1 and 2 only.

If it's acceptable to do sprinkling baptism of a baby why not an adult? Doesn't the Catholic Church do sprinkling on even adult converts?

I think any church should baptize their adherents at an age they can make a conscious decision to join.  But... I don't know, they can do whatever they want I guess, it's all just symbolic. 

Personally, I just hate that my parents gave me to some old creep so he could dunk my head in water in front of a bunch of other old creeps in some bizarre rite of passage ceremony as a 2 week old infant.

1, 2, 5, 8, and 9

Edit: I can't count...

7 is Mormons baptizing dead people. Did you mean 8 and 9?

Whoops you're right... :P

2, 3, 4, 9, 10

I ended up agreeing with the same ones as you. I'm pretty sure this is roughly the standard broad-view officially taken in our respective churches.

What is your issue with 11?

For the record I voted 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11. I'm not too fond of infant baptism but I don't want to be dictating that the majority of Christians were not truly baptized and figure if you're OK with that then you are, though if you aren't option 3 is always available (as I took it.) 5 is slightly less of an issue, I don't see any reason for non-full immersion for an adult unless there's medical issues (considering what baptism is defined as everywhere in the Bible and what the word means literally), but to insist that someone already baptized as an adult be rebaptized because of that is rather legalistic (thinking of a girl I know who was raised in a non-religious family but got curious about church and ended up baptized in a Methodist church at 13, an "adult" for these purposes, but probably in sprinkling.)

In all honesty though I'd prefer the minimum age for it be something like 16...

I think baptisms should be performed with a certain level of seriousness and dignity. A baptism isn't something one should take very lightly as it is a very important symbol in one's faith life. Thus the people who are involved in a baptism should make sure they are not intoxicated during a baptism. On the contrary, it is essential that they are fully aware of what they are doing.

Yes and that's largely to be expected. For a baptism to be valid:
-It must be done with the Trinitarian formula
-It must use water (sprinkling and total immersion are both acceptable)
-It must use the verb baptize or something similar if in another language there is another word for it, ie. "I baptize you..."
-The person being baptized must not already be baptized.

Exactly. Normatively in Anglicanism (and I'd certainly assume Roman Catholicism too) it's supposed to be done by a priest, but there are exceptions for emergencies or unique situations.

Well, I'm a Mormon, so it's kind of obvious which ones I'd pick. A quick correction though; live LDS baptisms aren't done in an LDS temple. They're done in either certain founts in church buildings, or in any convenient body of water (lake, ocean, or river). I should know; I was baptized as an eight year old in one of those founts.

You are correct on the proxy baptisms though.

Are those the founts that have the oxen or bison (I forget which they're meant to be) on them sometimes? If so, those are some nice founts.

No, those are the temple ones (which I have also seen and been in. They're very roomy.). The ones I'm speaking of are simple and small, almost bathtub like founts that have just enough room for a large person (Taft-sized) and another person to comfortably do the baptism.