Baptized In The Name Of....

[Josepus86]

This has been a weird thing that I have not been able to fully wrap my head around,
We are to baptize and be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost.
My question is this, what are we to do with baptism by heretics.
I brought this to my pastor, who believes that any "denomination" who holds heretical beliefs or practices should not be accepted
And any convert from them should be re-baptized in an acceptable orthodox church,
So being baptized JW does not help to be baptized LDS, etc.
My rule of thumb has always been that we protestants accept, more or less, every ecumenical council up to the Council of Trent
the council of Carthage took a stance much like my pastor and it seems to me every council after that accepted such baptism.
I have always taken a liberal view, which I am not saying is necessarily right, that it is baptism in the "Name"
But I suspect that my pastor and most Christians hold the conviction that the Name means the meaning.
The reason I hold such a liberal view is that we cannot prescribe through earthly means the true intent of the delivery or reception.
If a minister who holds the correct theology, probably by mistake, baptizes in a tradition that does not holds to a heretical view of God, what do we do?
Also, the if the recipient, who tend to be novices to the faith, receives a baptism with from a minister who is unqualified, what do we do?
(My sister's children were baptized by a man who was later defrocked, and very much deserved to be for his conduct.)

One last thing, we will never comprehend the infinite God, so to say we must have a true understanding of God to administer this sacrament is unreasonable, in my humble opinion.

 

[Tall_Timbers]

If the person doing the baptizing isn't perfect, and none are... I guess we're all in big trouble.

Regardless of who is doing the baptizing, the baptizee is demonstrating a public act/proclamation of faith in Jesus Christ and that is the meat and potatoes of getting baptized. the baptizer and whatever words he might use (within reason) are not very important.

 

[wattie]

I was baptised first in a highly charismatic church in my youth.

I didn't really know much about what it really meant at the time.

I was introduced to a far more biblically orientated church several years later through a university friend. They practiced re-baptism and I was re-baptised, understanding fully that it was a symbol of the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

It did not give eternal salvation..but pictured it. And the baptism is by immersion. It also allowed me to be voted in to be a member at that church.

Sprinkling of babies not accepted or baptism before salvation not accepted.

The right person to administer the baptism is someone who also has been baptized by immersion, as a symbol of Jesus. .. that did not save the individual. They also need to have been voted in to be a member of a church.

In the Baptist tradition, it is usually the pastor that does the baptism, but it doesn't have to be.

It is also done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the pastor usually asking if the person about to be baptized believes in deity of Christ, the Father and Spirit.

 

[Josepus86]

Just to stay on subject, I was asking about baptism administer by heretics, not what is the true method of baptism.

Mormons baptize through immersion and Catholics baptize infants, should we accept either?

I am willing to discuss the methods in another thread?

 

[Eli1]

Just to stay on subject, I was asking about baptism administer by heretics, not what is the true method of baptism.

Mormons baptize through immersion and Catholics baptize infants, should we accept either?

I am willing to discuss the methods in another thread?

Well, it would help to understand your degree of what a heretic is.
For example someone who Denies the Divinity of Jesus Christ and Baptises in the name of Christ would be a heretic for me.
Or, another good one is all the trans churches who make Jesus some sort of alien.

But with all that factored-in, the word Heretic is a bit heavy without knowing people.
I would say "Confused" would be my first guess.

 

[GWH]

This has been a weird thing that I have not been able to fully wrap my head around,
We are to baptize and be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost.
My question is this, what are we to do with baptism by heretics.
I brought this to my pastor, who believes that any "denomination" who holds heretical beliefs or practices should not be accepted
And any convert from them should be re-baptized in an acceptable orthodox church,
So being baptized JW does not help to be baptized LDS, etc.
My rule of thumb has always been that we protestants accept, more or less, every ecumenical council up to the Council of Trent
the council of Carthage took a stance much like my pastor and it seems to me every council after that accepted such baptism.
I have always taken a liberal view, which I am not saying is necessarily right, that it is baptism in the "Name"
But I suspect that my pastor and most Christians hold the conviction that the Name means the meaning.
The reason I hold such a liberal view is that we cannot prescribe through earthly means the true intent of the delivery or reception.
If a minister who holds the correct theology, probably by mistake, baptizes in a tradition that does not holds to a heretical view of God, what do we do?
Also, the if the recipient, who tend to be novices to the faith, receives a baptism with from a minister who is unqualified, what do we do?
(My sister's children were baptized by a man who was later defrocked, and very much deserved to be for his conduct.)

One last thing, we will never comprehend the infinite God, so to say we must have a true understanding of God to administer this sacrament is unreasonable, in my humble opinion.

Your ecumenical desire is good and I share your concern, which is why I encourage everyone to agree on a Christian creed
that includes the essential orthodox elements, such as this:

Notice that the kerygma/Gospel fulfills and supersedes OT revelation, but does not contradict its correct interpretation (HB 8:6-13). However, the NT revelation of GRFS will never become obsolete (PHP 2:9-11, RV 22:12-13). Thus, new revelations from God’s Holy Spirit will not contradict the Gospel, although they may express its truth in a different way or form, or else God would be inconsistent or tricky. There may be new wine skins, but no new wine (MT 19:17). Post-NT inspiration must be didachaic information regarding contemporary moral or political issues.

The kerygma/GRFS should be every Christian’s creed, and only belief in this crucial truth should be viewed as a test for orthodoxy or heresy. As Paul wrote in Romans 10:9, “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Conversely, judgments concerning a person’s spiritual orientation or ultimate destiny should not be made on the basis of didachaic or secondary doctrines. (If any judgment is made, it should begin with a self-examination per MT 7:1&5, 2CR 13:5-8).

A major reason many Christians throughout history have not manifested the love and unity of God’s Spirit (EPH 4:3) as well as they should is because of failure to realize this truth. If they did, it would free them to speak honestly and fellowship without becoming unduly upset about relatively minor issues. They would receive God’s blessing as peacemakers, who draw inclusive circles around people based on the kerygma rather than denominational lines between them due to didachaic differences. Jesus prayed for spiritual unity (cf. JN 17:20-23, “May they be one…”). Thus, unity regarding the Gospel is more important than accuracy regarding doctrinal details.

The normative way of stating the kerygma/GRFS in the NT is “Accept Christ Jesus as Lord” (as in 2CR 4:5 & CL 2:6). The main points of Christian orthodoxy implicit in this statement can be explained or elaborated as follows:

1. There is a/one all-loving and just Lord or God (DT 6:4, JN 3:16, 2THS 1:6), who is both able (2TM 1:12) and willing (1TM 2:3-4, EZK 33:11) to provide all morally accountable human beings salvation or heaven—a wonderful life full of love, joy and peace forever.
2. Human beings are selfish or sinful (RM 3:23, 2TM 3:2-4, CL 3:5), miserable (GL 5:19-21), and hopeless (EPH 2:12) or hell-bound at the judgment (MT 23:33 & 25:46) when they reject God’s salvation (JN 3:18, RM 2:5-11).
3. Jesus is God’s Messiah/Christ and incarnate Son, the way that God has chosen (JN 3:16, ACTS 16:30-31, PHP 2:9-11) of providing salvation by means of his atoning death on the cross for the payment of the penalty for the sins of humanity (RM 3:22-25 & 5:9-11), followed by his resurrection to reign in heaven (1CR 15:14-28).
4. Thus, every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent and accept God’s justification in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (LK 2:11, JN 14:6, ACTS 16:31), which means trying to obey His commandment to love one another (MT 22:37-40, JN 13:35, RM 13:9)—forever (MT 10:22, PS 113:2).
5. Then God’s Holy Spirit will establish a saving relationship with those who freely accept Him (RV 3:20) that will eventually achieve heaven when by means of persevering in learning Truth/God’s Word/sanctification everyone cooperates fully with His will (JN 14:6, 17&26, RM 8:6-17, GL 6:7-9, EPH 1:13-14, HB 10:36, 12:1, JM 1:2-4).

 

[Gideon300]

This has been a weird thing that I have not been able to fully wrap my head around,
We are to baptize and be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost.
My question is this, what are we to do with baptism by heretics.
I brought this to my pastor, who believes that any "denomination" who holds heretical beliefs or practices should not be accepted
And any convert from them should be re-baptized in an acceptable orthodox church,
So being baptized JW does not help to be baptized LDS, etc.
My rule of thumb has always been that we protestants accept, more or less, every ecumenical council up to the Council of Trent
the council of Carthage took a stance much like my pastor and it seems to me every council after that accepted such baptism.
I have always taken a liberal view, which I am not saying is necessarily right, that it is baptism in the "Name"
But I suspect that my pastor and most Christians hold the conviction that the Name means the meaning.
The reason I hold such a liberal view is that we cannot prescribe through earthly means the true intent of the delivery or reception.
If a minister who holds the correct theology, probably by mistake, baptizes in a tradition that does not holds to a heretical view of God, what do we do?
Also, the if the recipient, who tend to be novices to the faith, receives a baptism with from a minister who is unqualified, what do we do?
(My sister's children were baptized by a man who was later defrocked, and very much deserved to be for his conduct.)

One last thing, we will never comprehend the infinite God, so to say we must have a true understanding of God to administer this sacrament is unreasonable, in my humble opinion.

When LDS and Mormons say "Jesus", they are not talking about the true Jesus as revealed in God's word. That's my objection. I see no harm in being baptised again if there is doubt. My wife was talked into being baptised before she was born again. She was baptised as a for real believer a few years later.

As to the spiritual condition of the one baptising, that is a different issue. I'd leave that decision to the individual. If they were comfortable, that's fine. God sees if we were in faith when we were baptised. If we are not sure, then perhaps being baptised again is the way to go. My son was baptised when he was six (against my wishes). If he gets saved, I'd advise him to be baptised again.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

This has been a weird thing that I have not been able to fully wrap my head around,
We are to baptize and be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost.
My question is this, what are we to do with baptism by heretics.

Precious friend, Scriptural answer?: Nothing, since God Only Has:

ONE [ Spiritual ] Baptism​

Today, Under Grace. Therefore, we are to preach God's Gospel Of Grace to the lost.

When they believe, then they should next be taught, imho, not the Confusion of
(Many) denominational traditions of water ( truth is "the [water] baptism of repentance
Was for Israel in the previous Dispensation! ), but The Plain And Wonderful Truth Of:

God's OPERATION On All New-born babes In Christ!
+
Updates: (of # 11) + (of #14)
+
God's Eternal Life Assurance
+
God's Eternal Life Insurance

This way (obliterating TWO Confusing traditions with ONE Solid Biblical Truth) they will
then Never have to be confronted with Neither the Confusion of water NOR that of "losing"
God's Eternal Salvation! This way they can begin to Confidently "serve God faithfully!"
Amen?

Precious friend, @Josepus86, Please Be Very Richly Encouraged And
Edified In Christ, and In His Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided! ( to be taught next After God's OPERATION? = imho ):

And Amen.

PS: If you wish More Plain And Clear Bible study:

UnScriptural or UNdispensational? (Win Johnson)

 

[Eli1]

To add to my previous post, here's one example.



Baylor University receives $643K grant to foster LGBTQ+ inclusion | Education

Factoring-in that this whole LGBT thing is all political-driven i would say that this "church" is confused.
But if you go in there and you're met with the default leftist stance which is claws out, screaming on your face and they try to hit you, then yeah you can use the word Heretic.

 

[GWH]

To add to my previous post, here's one example.

View attachment 277548

Baylor University receives $643K grant to foster LGBTQ+ inclusion | Education

Factoring-in that this whole LGBT thing is all political-driven i would say that this "church" is confused.
But if you go in there and you're met with the default leftist stance which is claws out, screaming on your face and they try to hit you, then yeah you can use the word Heretic.

Yes, confused people have convinced society that sexual perversion is a viable alternative lifestyle,
but finally the trans issue is prompting more people to realize that it is a mental illness that needs to be cured.

 

[wattie]

Just to stay on subject, I was asking about baptism administer by heretics, not what is the true method of baptism.

Mormons baptize through immersion and Catholics baptize infants, should we accept either?

I am willing to discuss the methods in another thread?

Well, I think you'd need to do some rewinding with people to establish salvation itself before going on to how they were baptized.

A heretics would usually associate baptism with salvation.