Baptizo te

Post Reply New Topic

Ye Nicene or near-Nicene Christians:

Where stand we on baptism? To what degree essential to the Christian - if one believes but is unbaptized, does one count?

Infant baptism - is that essential / recommended / valid, or only what has been called "believer baptism"? What about anabaptists [lower case - having been baptized as an infant, is a second baptism useful / valid /required?

who should baptise - only clergy or those licensed, or anybody?

There is a story - travellers in Syria - one is converted, wants to be baptized, but they are in the middle of the desert. His companion pours sand as a water substitute. But on arriving at civilization they reran the baptism with H2O. What is the rationale / validity of that?

I know a fair number of standard statements and obviously can find others, but what think we?

Me - I was infant baptized, but on actually moving in to Christianity - after much examination of the question - went [disgusting my mother - for a real baptism. I have no problem with infant baptism, though, and no of no reason it should be invalid or ineffectual. I see no limitaton on who may or should baptize. as for the sand baptism - God can handle a little sand, and I would honor the urge to be baptized. The onlty reason I can see for repeating with water is the public function of baptism, the declaration to the church - which is not that big a motive for one so private-inclined as I am.

I'm not a Christian, but it is my understanding that no ritual of any sort is required for baptism. One can say a prayer... "Oh lawd, please baptize me, etc." It can even be done silently. One does not even have to mouth the words.

If I were still Christian, I would do it largely for symbolic reasons and to publicly showcase a covenant between me, the child, and God of my devotion to raising a good christian. The public aspect is for accountability in the presence of witnesses.

I therefore find no issue with them using sand unless the sand means death - water is life-giving.