Which of these baptisms should be considered valid?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.)

[John Dibble]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[patrick1]

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 spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[patrick1]

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?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

sola gratia

Why else would you tell the Nyjew to accept christ?

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

[patrick1]

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?

sola gratia

Why else would you tell the Nyjew to accept christ?

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?

[John Dibble]

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 spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

sola gratia

Why else would you tell the Nyjew to accept christ?

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.)

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?

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

[John Dibble]

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?

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 spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

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, I felt a lot of the same things.

[RI]

1 and 2 only.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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.

[TJ in Oregon]

1, 2, 5, 8, and 9

Edit: I can't count...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

1, 2, 5, 7, and 8

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

[TJ in Oregon]

1, 2, 5, 7, and 8

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

Whoops you're right...

[ZuWo]

2, 3, 4, 9, 10

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

1, 2, 5, 7, and 8

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

Whoops you're right...

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

2, 3, 4, 9, 10

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...

[ZuWo]

2, 3, 4, 9, 10

What is your issue with 11?

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.

[TJ in Oregon]

1, 2, 5, 7, and 8

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

Whoops you're right...

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.

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

1, 2, 5, 7, and 8

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

Whoops you're right...

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.

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.

[Zioneer]

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.