# Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?

Why or Why Not?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Baptism is to be performed by ministers of the Church duly appointed with the authority to perform it. Baptism isn't something that we do to ourselves. Baptism is something done to us.


----------



## sotzo

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?
> 
> Why or Why Not?



Not being rude, but why is this even in question?


----------



## KMK

If only the Great Commission had been, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations to baptize themselves in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost..."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

sotzo said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?
> 
> Why or Why Not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not being rude, but why is this even in question?
Click to expand...


Ever seen _The Apostle_? It's a movie but it's pretty representative of many Pentecostals and Charismatics who might not baptize themselves but they certainly annoint themselves for ministry.


----------



## CDM

sotzo said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?
> 
> Why or Why Not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not being rude, but why is this even in question?
Click to expand...




Also, is this actually going on now? Who is doing this?

..............................
..............
......
..
.
I smell a trap


----------



## Contra_Mundum

As Rich points out, baptism happens to a person. It is an act of the church. Insofar as it is emblematic of salvation, the recipient is passive. It is God who acts upon us to make us, revive us, reform us, and fit us for heaven. Self-baptism is a pretty strong statement in favor of Pelagianism and its cousins.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SemperFideles said:


> Baptism is to be performed by ministers of the Church duly appointed with the authority to perform it. Baptism isn't something that we do to ourselves. Baptism is something done to us.





If someone pronounced the name of the Trinity when washing their forehead, then those in favour of self-baptism would have to accept it as valid.

Moreover, baptism is a sign of God's sovereign regenerating grace - it is something which is done to us - not something we do ourselves.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> As Rich points out, baptism happens to a person. It is an act of the church. Insofar as it is emblematic of salvation, the recipient is passive. It is God who acts upon us to make us, revive us, reform us, and fit us for heaven. Self-baptism is a pretty strong statement in favor of Pelagianism and its cousins.





Very well put Pastor Bruce.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?
> 
> Why or Why Not?




Tell me, how can infants baptise themselves?


----------



## JoeRe4mer

It is VERY encouraging to see that everyone said "NO" to the survey question.


----------



## CDM

Daniel Ritchie said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?
> 
> Why or Why Not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, how can infants baptise themselves?
Click to expand...


----------



## tdowns

*shipwrecked!!!*

Maybe the poster is just pondering hypothetical situations, man is shipwrecked alone on an island, finds Bible in wreckage, reads it, repents, and wants to be baptized?


----------



## Davidius

Daniel Ritchie said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?
> 
> Why or Why Not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, how can infants baptise themselves?
Click to expand...


Excellent point!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The part about "infant baptizing self" really isn't especially relevant or helpful here. Let's keep the subject _off_ infant baptism, since the question relates to a grown man, regardless.

Now on to:


tdowns007 said:


> Maybe the poster is just pondering hypothetical situations, man is shipwrecked alone on an island, finds Bible in wreckage, reads it, repents, and wants to be baptized?


This is a valid question, one we have addressed on this board before.

My response: (blunt and pointed, although I'm not really being harsh or critical, just making a point) 
"It really doesn't matter what the shipwrecked guy wants." 

No, really, it doesn't matter at all. Since God has yet to bring the church to him, to allow him to join it, this Christian man must simply wait until he does. What is he "missing" out on, in term of the spiritual blessings that baptism signifies? Nothing personal. However, he is lacking that attachment to the Christian body, the actual connection and fellowship the church provides--one of the very things that the rite of baptism signifies.

Now, if your ecclesiology is weak or defective, then I suppose this observation might not be so strong an argument against such a thing. Still, this sort of individual action really exalts the flesh. And it brings into question the necessity of the church and its offices and ordinances. The activity says that really those things aren't necessary at all, they may be dispensed with, provided some person *thinks* his situation is "exceptional" enough.

Really? Then under what conditions _must_ a person WAIT?


----------



## VictorBravo

Contra_Mundum said:


> The part about "infant baptizing self" really isn't especially relevant or helpful here. Let's keep the subject _off_ infant baptism, since the question relates to a grown man, regardless.
> 
> Now on to:
> 
> 
> tdowns007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the poster is just pondering hypothetical situations, man is shipwrecked alone on an island, finds Bible in wreckage, reads it, repents, and wants to be baptized?
> 
> 
> 
> This is a valid question, one we have addressed on this board before.
> 
> My response: (blunt and pointed, although I'm not really being harsh or critical, just making a point)
> "It really doesn't matter what the shipwrecked guy wants."
> 
> No, really, it doesn't matter at all. Since God has yet to bring the church to him, to allow him to join it, this Christian man must simply wait until he does. What is he "missing" out on, in term of the spiritual blessings that baptism signifies? Nothing personal. However, he is lacking that attachment to the Christian body, the actual connection and fellowship the church provides--one of the very things that the rite of baptism signifies.
> 
> Now, if your ecclesiology is weak or defective, then I suppose this observation might not be so strong an argument against such a thing. Still, this sort of individual action really exalts the flesh. And it brings into question the necessity of the church and its offices and ordinances. The activity says that really those things aren't necessary at all, they may be dispensed with, provided some person *thinks* his situation is "exceptional" enough.
> 
> Really? Then under what conditions _must_ a person WAIT?
Click to expand...



What Bruce said ^. Really, I was going to say basically the same thing. There is no reason to be baptized until there is an opening to be a member of a church. We don't view baptism as some sort of magic water that saves us (at least I hope not!)


----------



## christiana

Not being critical but seeking validation; please give scriptural support for the requirement of baptism being performed by a minister.

I have witnessed young men being baptized by their fathers, fellow believers and never questioned whether it was wrong. I'm speaking as a credobaptist. As long as the baptism is by a believer and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit why would it not be acceptable?


----------



## Poimen

Baptism brings us into fellowship (covenant) with the baptized community of God. One person does not a communion make. 

Acts 2:41 "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were _added_ to them."

1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit we were all baptized _into one body_ -- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free -- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit."


----------



## tdowns

*Great point.*

Excellent! Great re-focus for me on the purpose of baptism, Vic and Bruce!


----------



## Amazing Grace

tdowns007 said:


> Maybe the poster is just pondering hypothetical situations, man is shipwrecked alone on an island, finds Bible in wreckage, reads it, repents, and wants to be baptized?



If he is one of the chosen, he need not worry about baptism. Unless of course the only legible verse in the waterloged Bible is "What must I do to be saved?" "Repent and be baptized"..


----------



## VictorBravo

Poimen said:


> Baptism brings us into fellowship (covenant) with the baptized community of God. One person does not a communion make.
> 
> Acts 2:41 "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were _added_ to them."
> 
> 1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit we were all baptized _into one body_ -- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free -- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit."



Adding to this is the fact that some are called to be "ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God." 1 Cor. 4:1. This is consistent with what Rev. Kok posted above. Baptism brings one into the community of God. That community has several parts, one of which is a called minister. It's a matter of recognition of gifts, calling, and order.

I'll add that the London Baptist Confession expressly agrees that "only those who are qualified and thereunto called" are to administer baptism. (Chapter 28). This is in acknowledgement of the teaching of scripture outlined above.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

christiana said:


> Not being critical but seeking validation; please give scriptural support for the requirement of baptism being performed by a minister.
> 
> I have witnessed young men being baptized by their fathers, fellow believers and never questioned whether it was wrong. I'm speaking as a credobaptist. As long as the baptism is by a believer and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit why would it not be acceptable?



Christiana:
I will try to condense this somewhat. So, feel free to ask the board for elaboration (others may chime in as I have duties to attend).
1. Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Mark 1:8 This is the truth behind what is signified by physical stuff like water. Therefore, he is the fount from which all gifts and grace flows.

2. Jesus alone can authorize who may act in his name. Hence, the Apostles were endowed with such power as was necessary for the establishment of the church (Acts 1:8; compare Rom 1:11, Rome a church that had not yet been "established" by any direct apostolic presence; and 15:20, Paul's wish not to "build" on another apostle's foundation).

3. The church becomes the main organ by which Jesus continues his kingdom work. He dilutes his gifts by giving them to "first" the apostles (1 Cor. 12:28) and then to the rest _through_ the apostles. One thing this doctrine teaches is that the "lesser" and "ordinary" offices are subsumed into the higher. So Jesus has ALL gifts, but delegates down. So, Acts 6:2, the elders delegate duties to a new office--the Deacon. Those duties would otherwise be put to the elders. And in churches today, without deacons, the deacon duties don't *disappear*! They fall back into the elders' laps!

4. Finally, Note I Cor. 4:1, which speaks of certain persons who are denominated "stewards" of the mysteries of God. Clearly, in the context, those "stewards" are none other than the "servants of Christ" which elevated _personalities_ those Corinthians had been squabbling over, as far as being each one's followers. A steward was a person in whom a boss has reposed special trust. That special trust in this case are those "mysteries of God." What are they? The mystery of Christ is his gospel revelation (something once hidden, but now no more).

But what of this plural? The gospel is the special (granted, not unique) provenance of the Minister, who is the preacher (herald) of Christ. The sacraments are also special gospel presentations; they belong to the church which has its administration (though not its existence, as Rome might say) through its ministry. They are to accompany and follow the gospel presentation. They support and strengthen the faith which has been imparted by the gospel.

Not everyone is designated a steward. It is a special trust. You don't get to be a steward simply by generating a son or daughter. So, no, a father is no proper baptizer of his child. Neither is he a proper dispenser of communion. It is always a matter of the church's judgment whether a person is entitled to receive either of the sacraments, an act of their ministerial power, the use of which they will have to give an account of before God (Heb. 13:7).


----------



## christiana

Thanks so much for the helpful info on this topic! One more consideration based on your comment:



> Not everyone is designated a steward. It is a special trust. You don't get to be a steward simply by generating a son or daughter. So, no, a father is no proper baptizer of his child. Neither is he a proper dispenser of communion. It is always a matter of the church's judgment whether a person is entitled to receive either of the sacraments, an act of their ministerial power, the use of which they will have to give an account of before God (Heb. 13:7).



If the pastor counseled the father prior to the baptism would it then be acceptable and 'within the church's judgment' or not? If the pastor delegated such does that make it acceptable?(I did not witness this at my home church but another)

Again, thanks!


----------



## KMK

christiana said:


> Thanks so much for the helpful info on this topic! One more consideration based on your comment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is designated a steward. It is a special trust. You don't get to be a steward simply by generating a son or daughter. So, no, a father is no proper baptizer of his child. Neither is he a proper dispenser of communion. It is always a matter of the church's judgment whether a person is entitled to receive either of the sacraments, an act of their ministerial power, the use of which they will have to give an account of before God (Heb. 13:7).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the pastor counseled the father prior to the baptism would it then be acceptable and 'within the church's judgment' or not? If the pastor delegated such does that make it acceptable?(I did not witness this at my home church but another)
> 
> Again, thanks!
Click to expand...


To add to what Rev Buchanon already said, and to add a baptist pastor's 

If you are asking about 'household' baptisms: The Lord ordained 3 institutions: the family, the church, and the state. The ordinance of baptism was given to the church, not the family or the state. Baptism is a church ordinance and should be performed by a minister of the church and for the benefit of the whole church. Baptism is not just a blessing to the individual, but the whole church.



> From the Westminster Directory of Public Worship on Baptism:
> 
> He is also to admonish all that are present, "To look back to their baptism; to repent of their sins against their covenant with God; to stir up their faith; to improve and make right use of their baptism, and of the covenant sealed thereby betwixt God and their souls."



What reason would there be to deprive the church of the blessing of a baptism by abrogating the authority to the parent.

Another way to look at it is this: Preaching is also an ordinance given to the church. Do we give that authority to each father in the congregation and expect them to preach to their own families? "OK, Mr. Davis, now that you are done preaching to your family it is time for Mr. Smith to come up to the pulpit and preach to his family." We must embrace biblical patriarchy without diminishing the role of the church.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> The part about "infant baptizing self" really isn't especially relevant or helpful here. Let's keep the subject off infant baptism, since the question relates to a grown man, regardless.



Bruce, since the question is "is self baptism legitimate" - with no mention of adult or infant baptism - then I don't see how we can't bring infant baptism into it.

However, even if we do restrict it to adults, then what happens if an ungodly pagan pronounces the Trinitarian formula when he is in the shower - would that count as a legitimate baptism if self-baptism is to be accepted.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*The Reason for the question*

Hi:

On another thread I had to pull out my copy of "Baptists and the Bible" in order to look up a reference. This is a publication of the Southern Baptist Founders ministry and was written by two prominent Founders: L. Russ Bush, and Tom J. Nettles. The Book details the beginnings of the modern-day Baptist movement.

The original founder of the Baptists, according to Bush and Nettles, was a man named John Smyth. Because there was no one who had the authority to baptize, including himself, he consequently baptized himself,

In their own words:



> This famous baptism is known to historians as Smyth's "se-baptism" (baptism of one's self). The mode of baptism used in this case was the pouring of water on the head, pg. 14.


If Smyth considered that he could baptize Believer's only, then he would have done so without baptizing himself. It seems to me that Smyth's baptism was illegitimate, and, concurrently, all other "Believer Only Baptisms" as well up to today.

One does not need to be baptized in order to be saved. God's saving grace is given to all of the Elect.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> If Smyth considered that he could baptize Believer's only, then he would have done so without baptizing himself. It seems to me that Smyth's baptism was illegitimate, and, concurrently, all other "Believer Only Baptisms" as well up to today.



That is a bit of a jump your making there brother; surely there are other Baptist ministers who were lawfully baptized.


----------



## KMK

CalvinandHodges said:


> If Smyth considered that he could baptize Believer's only, then he would have done so without baptizing himself. It seems to me that Smyth's baptism was illegitimate, and, concurrently, all other "Believer Only Baptisms" as well up to today.



So you believe that an adult credo baptist who *repents* of his views and wishes to join a paedo baptist church needs to be rebaptized?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

christiana said:


> Thanks so much for the helpful info on this topic! One more consideration based on your comment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is designated a steward. It is a special trust. You don't get to be a steward simply by generating a son or daughter. So, no, a father is no proper baptizer of his child. Neither is he a proper dispenser of communion. It is always a matter of the church's judgment whether a person is entitled to receive either of the sacraments, an act of their ministerial power, the use of which they will have to give an account of before God (Heb. 13:7).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the pastor counseled the father prior to the baptism would it then be acceptable and 'within the church's judgment' or not? If the pastor delegated such does that make it acceptable?(I did not witness this at my home church but another)
> 
> Again, thanks!
Click to expand...

No. As a "Minister of Word and Sacrament", to administer baptism is of the _essence_ of the office, and may not be delegated away. In fact, since we no longer are receiving special revelation (as they were in Acts), we cannot create any new church officers beside the ministers, elders, and deacons we have, and all those functions which are essential will remain in those offices. For my part, I can no more conceive of failing in my duty to baptize proper subjects, than I can of failing to get up and preach.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Bruce, since the question is "is self baptism legitimate" - with no mention of adult or infant baptism - then I don't see how we can't bring infant baptism into it.
> 
> However, even if we do restrict it to adults, then what happens if an ungodly pagan pronounces the Trinitarian formula when he is in the shower - would that count as a legitimate baptism if self-baptism is to be accepted.


Since I am arguing that *any* self-baptism is illegitimate, I do not see how bringing in the question of the baptism of persons who can in no wise baptize themselves has much bearing. It only has any relevance if *all* persons under *any* circumstances _may_ self-baptize. The question "is it allowed?" does not actually relate to any situation where a person is submitted to the rite (adult or infant, credo or paedo). If we state the obvious: "No infant can baptize itself," we have said nothing at all about the legitimacy of self-baptism.

As to what happens to a showering pagan, I've already denied the first premise, so... nothing more to say.


Re. Smyth: I wondered if this question would come back to this individual... 
I suppose from the baptist perspective, this was an "extraordinary condition" to top all. Clearly, this act draws Smyth ever-so close to the anabaptist movement, which taught that the true church had disappeared for nearly a thousand years, and was being reborn anew in the radical reformation.

Additionally, his choice to "pour" rather than immerse would call his success (in actually being "Scripturally baptized") into question by all those who consider the mode a non-negotiable and essential to the symbolism of union to the death/resurrection of Christ.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Daniel Ritchie said:


> If Smyth considered that he could baptize Believer's only, then he would have done so without baptizing himself. It seems to me that Smyth's baptism was illegitimate, and, concurrently, all other "Believer Only Baptisms" as well up to today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bit of a jump your making there brother; surely there are other Baptist ministers who were lawfully baptized.
Click to expand...


There were no other "Baptist" ministers - he was the first - according to Bush and Nettles.

-CH


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

CalvinandHodges said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Smyth considered that he could baptize Believer's only, then he would have done so without baptizing himself. It seems to me that Smyth's baptism was illegitimate, and, concurrently, all other "Believer Only Baptisms" as well up to today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bit of a jump your making there brother; surely there are other Baptist ministers who were lawfully baptized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were no other "Baptist" ministers - he was the first - according to Bush and Nettles.
> 
> -CH
Click to expand...


But what about Baptist ministers now?


----------



## VictorBravo

CalvinandHodges said:


> There were no other "Baptist" ministers - he was the first - according to Bush and Nettles.
> 
> -CH



And I assume you are aware that this position is controversial, in that many think Bush and Nettles are wrong. Besides, the idea that there can be no legitimate Baptists because there were never any legitimately Baptized Baptists is fallacious: It doesn't account for believers who were baptised in their adulthood who were later called to the ministry.

Mod On:

Nevertheless, let's keep the thread on topic. We don't need a discussion in this thread about whether Baptists can claim legitimacy.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Vic,
You do realize it this is where CH was taking this thread _he_ started...


----------



## VictorBravo

Contra_Mundum said:


> Vic,
> You do realize it this is where CH was taking this thread _he_ started...



Actually, no, but I'm a bit slow. I thought it was an innocent and maybe even ingenous question.  At least that was my operating presumption. :


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> On another thread I had to pull out my copy of "Baptists and the Bible" in order to look up a reference. This is a publication of the Southern Baptist Founders ministry and was written by two prominent Founders: L. Russ Bush, and Tom J. Nettles. The Book details the beginnings of the modern-day Baptist movement.
> 
> The original founder of the Baptists, according to Bush and Nettles, was a man named John Smyth. Because there was no one who had the authority to baptize, including himself, he consequently baptized himself,
> 
> In their own words:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This famous baptism is known to historians as Smyth's "se-baptism" (baptism of one's self). The mode of baptism used in this case was the pouring of water on the head, pg. 14.
> 
> 
> 
> If Smyth considered that he could baptize Believer's only, then he would have done so without baptizing himself. It seems to me that Smyth's baptism was illegitimate, and, concurrently, all other "Believer Only Baptisms" as well up to today.
> 
> One does not need to be baptized in order to be saved. God's saving grace is given to all of the Elect.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
Click to expand...


Sorry I have not responded in the last baptism thread yet. I will. I am not able to spend much time on the net right now but I promise I will respond to your last post in our last discussion. I have not read Nettle's. I haven't read anything by him as a matter of fact. I just read about John Smyth the other day.

In 'A History of the Baptists by Torbet, on page 35 he discusses John Smyth and what you are talking about. It reports that he became an anabaptist by the influence of Mennonites. It is then reported that he was not ready to turn to the Mennonite theologically so he did baptise himself by affusion and then baptised the rest of his congregation which was about 40. It is then said that it was not long before he reached the conclusion that private baptism was an error and he told his congregation that he had acted to hastily in baptizing himself and them. He and his group then petitioned the Mennonites, confessing their error in baptizing themselves and requested membership in the Mennonite Church. 
ref..._A History of the Baptists by Robert G. Torbet. Judson Press. It has a forward by Kenneth Scott Latourette._

As I noted before in the other thread that it is contested that the 1640 Particular Baptists are not of this mans variety. They were not anabaptists nor were they separatists as the anabaptists were. 


I do have one more thing to add to this thread. 

God sure did put Peter into quite a quandary by making him go to Cornelius' house to baptise him in Acts chapter 10. And it may also be noted that God sent Ananias to Paul. I am not sure if Ananias was an Elder but the scriptures do say he was a devout man and he was a disciple. These Great men who needed to be baptized had people sent to them by God's providence to Baptise them. They were not self baptized even though they were great men. And even John Smyth who was referenced quickly saw his error.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

CalvinandHodges said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Smyth considered that he could baptize Believer's only, then he would have done so without baptizing himself. It seems to me that Smyth's baptism was illegitimate, and, concurrently, all other "Believer Only Baptisms" as well up to today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bit of a jump your making there brother; surely there are other Baptist ministers who were lawfully baptized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were no other "Baptist" ministers - he was the first - according to Bush and Nettles.
> 
> -CH
Click to expand...


I don't know what you are reading but the above proves he was not the first to become a credo. The Mennonites influenced him on this position. And actually Ulrich Zwingli held to credo position for a brief period with other anabaptists. He recanted. John Smyth is not the first.


----------



## VictorBravo

victorbravo;330147[COLOR="Red" said:


> Mod On[/COLOR]:
> 
> Nevertheless, let's keep the thread on topic. We don't need a discussion in this thread about whether Baptists can claim legitimacy.



Moderator Reconsideration

CH, I'm sorry about my heavy-handed "decree". I think the discussion about Baptist history is fine, even the topic you introduced after the thread began. I would have preferred it to be introduced in a more transparent manner, but the subject of Baptist history is not off-limits as far as I'm concerned. (Others may differ).

My concern is to balance recognition of the allowed Confessions on the board with a decent discussion. Nothing more.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

It is true that the Mennonites were prior to John Smyth, and Bush and Nettles do, in fact, point this out. Bush and Nettles:



> What eventually became the first modern Baptist church was established in Amsterdam in 1609 as a result of the meeting of a group of English Separatists with the Dutch Anabaptists, the Mennonites. The leader of this group of pioneering individuals was John Smyth, pg. 12.


The "modern Baptist" views concerning Baptism for Believers only was unknown in history prior to the late 1500's. There was no one "qualified" to Baptize in this mode, and, thus they had to re-baptize themselves to begin with.

The Baptist formula is "Believer's Only" this type of Baptism is no where found in the Baptism formulas of those who are even baptized when they were not infants during the Reformation. Those who started the practice, like John Smyth, were not qualified to do so. Paedo-Baptists will baptize an adult if he/she comes to faith and was not baptized as an infant.

That Zwingli held to Believer's Only does not qualify him to baptize Believer's only when he himself was not so "properly" baptized. The conundrum is on the part of the Baptist Only position.

The Mennonites (Anabaptists) actually did start out Baptizing themselves.The Mennonites trace their history to Felix Manz and Conrad Grebel. Both men never finished their education nor did they ever receive ordination. It was Felix Manz who "Believer Only Baptized" Conrad Grebel, and Grebel who continued the practice. Manz did this not only contrary to the Word of God, but, also in defiance of an edict from the Council of Zurich. Earlier Manz and Zwingli had debated on the subject of infant baptism, and the Council declared Zwingli the victor, and ordered all unbaptized infants to be baptized within 8 days.

From the beginning the "Believer's Baptist Only" movement has defied Scripture by using "Self-Baptism" and they defied lawful government. It would follow that the descendents of the "Believer's Baptist Only" are not baptized in a legitimate fashion.

Baptism does not save a person, and a person can live his whole life without being baptized and go to heaven.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## CalvinandHodges

PuritanCovenanter said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> On another thread I had to pull out my copy of "Baptists and the Bible" in order to look up a reference. This is a publication of the Southern Baptist Founders ministry and was written by two prominent Founders: L. Russ Bush, and Tom J. Nettles. The Book details the beginnings of the modern-day Baptist movement.
> 
> The original founder of the Baptists, according to Bush and Nettles, was a man named John Smyth. Because there was no one who had the authority to baptize, including himself, he consequently baptized himself,
> 
> In their own words:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This famous baptism is known to historians as Smyth's "se-baptism" (baptism of one's self). The mode of baptism used in this case was the pouring of water on the head, pg. 14.
> 
> 
> 
> If Smyth considered that he could baptize Believer's only, then he would have done so without baptizing himself. It seems to me that Smyth's baptism was illegitimate, and, concurrently, all other "Believer Only Baptisms" as well up to today.
> 
> One does not need to be baptized in order to be saved. God's saving grace is given to all of the Elect.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I have not responded in the last baptism thread yet. I will. I am not able to spend much time on the net right now but I promise I will respond to your last post in our last discussion. I have not read Nettle's. I haven't read anything by him as a matter of fact. I just read about John Smyth the other day.
> 
> In 'A History of the Baptists by Torbet, on page 35 he discusses John Smyth and what you are talking about. It reports that he became an anabaptist by the influence of Mennonites. It is then reported that he was not ready to turn to the Mennonite theologically so he did baptise himself by affusion and then baptised the rest of his congregation which was about 40. It is then said that it was not long before he reached the conclusion that private baptism was an error and he told his congregation that he had acted to hastily in baptizing himself and them. He and his group then petitioned the Mennonites, confessing their error in baptizing themselves and requested membership in the Mennonite Church.
> ref..._A History of the Baptists by Robert G. Torbet. Judson Press. It has a forward by Kenneth Scott Latourette._
> 
> As I noted before in the other thread that it is contested that the 1640 Particular Baptists are not of this mans variety. They were not anabaptists nor were they separatists as the anabaptists were.
> 
> 
> I do have one more thing to add to this thread.
> 
> God sure did put Peter into quite a quandary by making him go to Cornelius' house to baptise him in Acts chapter 10. And it may also be noted that God sent Ananias to Paul. I am not sure if Ananias was an Elder but the scriptures do say he was a devout man and he was a disciple. These Great men who needed to be baptized had people sent to them by God's providence to Baptise them. They were not self baptized even though they were great men. And even John Smyth who was referenced quickly saw his error.
Click to expand...


Hi Martin:

That is interesting, and I thank you for that. However, the Mennonites had about as much authority to baptize as did John Smyth had of doing it himself. Neither Smyth nor the Mennonites had proper justification to baptize in the fashion that they did.

Blessings,

-Rob


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> 
> The "modern Baptist" views concerning Baptism for Believers only was unknown in history prior to the late 1500's. There was no one "qualified" to Baptize in this mode, and, thus they had to re-baptize themselves to begin with.
> 
> The Baptist formula is "Believer's Only" this type of Baptism is no where found in the Baptism formulas of those who are even baptized when they were not infants during the Reformation. Those who started the practice, like John Smyth, were not qualified to do so. Paedo-Baptists will baptize an adult if he/she comes to faith and was not baptized as an infant.
> 
> That Zwingli held to Believer's Only does not qualify him to baptize Believer's only when he himself was not so "properly" baptized. The conundrum is on the part of the Baptist Only position.
> 
> The Mennonites (Anabaptists) actually did start out Baptizing themselves.The Mennonites trace their history to Felix Manz and Conrad Grebel. Both men never finished their education nor did they ever receive ordination. It was Felix Manz who "Believer Only Baptized" Conrad Grebel, and Grebel who continued the practice. Manz did this not only contrary to the Word of God, but, also in defiance of an edict from the Council of Zurich. Earlier Manz and Zwingli had debated on the subject of infant baptism, and the Council declared Zwingli the victor, and ordered all unbaptized infants to be baptized within 8 days.
> 
> From the beginning the "Believer's Baptist Only" movement has defied Scripture by using "Self-Baptism" and they defied lawful government. It would follow that the descendents of the "Believer's Baptist Only" are not baptized in a legitimate fashion.
> 
> Baptism does not save a person, and a person can live his whole life without being baptized and go to heaven.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH





> It would follow that the descendents of the "Believer's Baptist Only" are not baptized in a legitimate fashion.




And I would contest that there are many on this board who may not be baptized legitimately. What makes baptism legitimate? There are varying views of this on this board. Those baptized in the Roman Religion are considered to be legitimately baptized while there are some who do not think so. I am one of those, but I think one needs to repent and be able to be cognizant of certain things first before baptism is valid. At this point I am wondering... Did John the Baptist need to be baptized? Or did any of the Apostles need to be baptised before they could be given the commission to baptise. I am not advocating self baptism. But inquiring minds are leading to these questions. 

And there are many who would disagree with you that credo-baptism had no foot in history before the 1500s. I am not sure to what extent I would agree with them but they are there. 

Getting back to the Particular Baptists let me show you some things written in Torbets book.

Baptists shared with Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists, their protest against the totalitarianism of the papacy and their zeal to recover the spirituality of the Church. They were Calvinists standing within the covenant theology expressed in the Westminster (putting aside paedo baptism). On the other hand, the General Baptist (which were mostly pelagian) were originally English separatists or Puritans who broke with the Church of England, which they regarded as a false church, perverted by error. Their sectarian spirit and point of view was carried over into their church life. On the other hand the Particular Baptists arose out of a non-Separatist independency. They were Congregational in polity but more ecumenical in spirit. They did not renounce the Church of England as being entirely corrupt. They sought to maintain some bond of unity between themselves and Christians of other Communions. Among these Particular Baptists were those who were willing to admit into its membership, without rebaptism, those of other communions.

The above is a summary I did taken from Torbets History of the Baptists. 

I would disagree with the rebaptism part. I do not believe baptism saves either, but I do think it should be practised as per the scriptures and Apostles. I don't think it is Historically accurate to say that covenantal paedo-baptism was a practice of the Early church and scriptures. But we have been through this before when we discussed Baptism in the Early Church. I still understand that paedo-baptism was practiced a few centuries later because of the attachment the early church of that period put between the forgiveness of sin and baptism, thus leading to their decision to baptise infants based upon the degree of necessity (the death bed), as it is mentioned in the early fathers. An unbaptized person could not experience the forgiveness of sin without baptism in their thought. And I think you know this is true of the early church. We have discussed this before also.

Well enough rambling for now. 

Was John the Baptist Baptised? I don't think he needed to be to be commissioned to go Baptise. And I am not so sure the Apostles needed to be to be commissioned either. Just my thoughts.


----------



## Kevin

If I remember corectly didn't at least some early English Baptists "baptise" themselves? In the absence of anyone else who had been "properly" baptised to perform their (re)baptism did not some immerse themselves, after being convinced of this "doctrine"?


----------



## Pilgrim

SemperFideles said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?
> 
> Why or Why Not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not being rude, but why is this even in question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever seen _The Apostle_? It's a movie but it's pretty representative of many Pentecostals and Charismatics who might not baptize themselves but they certainly annoint themselves for ministry.
Click to expand...


I thought of this movie when I saw the thread, and of the scene where Duvall baptizes himself in the river.


----------

