ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Is Self Baptism Acceptable

Can one baptize themself, by sprinkling water on head?

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Baptism Bible Quiz
 ---emma on 5/31/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (17)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog

<5> Finally, this is not the best forum for this debate, given the message limit, but I will leave this debate with one final thought: Jesus, the Prophet of Truth taught that the way to God and Life is narrow, and few will find it, but wide is the path which leads to destruction, and many will find it. Tell me, how many people has Paul's movement attracted? Two billion adherents? Certainly this path is rather broad, as many have found.
---Adam on 9/28/07

<6> As Jesus said, many will come in the last days and deceive the multitude, and there will arise many false prophets who will declare themselves as such, even dreamers who will mislead the unwary, saying, "Follow me, as I follow the Messiah." But there will always remain a true remnant, following the ancient ways of Jesus, for God's light will not be dampened in the world. Take care. :)
---Adam on 9/28/07

<1> As to your first point, Paul is not publicly endorsed in that you can not endorse someone when you attack and undermine their message and principles. Paul did not and could not abide by the standards of the Jerusalem congregation, when they give the criteria for Gentile converts: for one of the criteria is not to eat meat offered to idols, whereas Paul allowed it. This is glaringly obvious, and is mere common sense and reason.
---Adam on 9/28/07

<2> Paul need not be named as the individual subverting others in the movement, for with such a small minority movement as the Jerusalem congregation was, each member was known to every other member. Likewise, James, Jude, and Peter did not mention directly those men who were subverting the movement: they merely mentioned that they had snuck in by stealth, and what they were doing.
---Adam on 9/28/07

<3> By your reasoning, if there were truly subversive elements, they should be mentioned by name and exposed. But, as I said, in such a small, tightly knit community, there need not be a mention of names when they and their activities are known to all. Furthermore, such contention was forbidden in the name of peace, hence, the ideas and doctrines were ridiculed publicly, not individuals.
---Adam on 9/28/07

<4> As to your other point, Paul's teachings were certainly undermined by what they wrote, and if you don't notice the contradictions between the two, then you aren't very aware of the position of each. But they were accepted as part of the canon by the Roman Pauline movement, in part because Paul was mentioned in veiled references that could have likewise applied to other Apostates as well, and the Pauline church did not recognize the blatant attack on their lawless dreamer.
---Adam on 9/28/07

Adam, that is all wishful thinking - the Bible publically endorses Paul, so inuendo does not really cut it. Peter and the Evangelists all knew that their writings would be read aloud in the Churches. If they were going to denounce Paul's teachings they would have done it in their writings and not hidden their agenda.

And if Paul's teachings were being undermined by what they wrote, he could have prevented them from being published - if he had the power you claim.
---lorra8574 on 9/27/07

<1> Paul was mentioned directly by James and Jude in their respective Epistles, and hinted at by Peter in several places. In Jude, it is mentioned that "men in their dreamings defile the flesh and reject Authority." Paul knew Jesus not directly, as did the Apostles with whom he disputed, but rather, through dreams. The defiling of the flesh was considered a rejection of circumcision, and rejecting Authority was his rejection of James and Peter as the foremost heads of the Congregation.
---Adam on 9/27/07

<2> In Jude, it is stated that he follows the way of Cain, Korah, and Balaam: Cain, because he murdered his righteous brother. Paul likewise murdered the followers of Jesus for the Sadducees. Korah, because he rejected the Mosaic tradition, as did Korah directly. Balaam, because Balaam sought to prophesy against Israel, for their assimilation. Paul, a Roman citizen, merged Gentile Paganism and Mithraism with his own version of Jesus' teachings, for the purpose of assimilation, by his "visions."
---Adam on 9/27/07

<3> James, brother of Jesus and head of the original Jerusalem congregation, disputed nearly verbatim Paul's doctrine of "faith above works." He even used the same example to refute Paul's stance, saying, "So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead," and again, "Show me faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith." The reason Paul is not directly named is due to the prohibition of slander or outright contention.
---Adam on 9/27/07

<4> Instead of attacking Paul directly, as Paul did with Peter, they undermined his doctrines and, without needing to mention him by name, refuted his teachings directly in their respective letters, even going so far and being so bold as to use Paul's very examples and analogies against him. Even in the censored and edited text of Acts, written by a follower of Paul, you'll see that Paul goes against James' teachings regarding the consumption of meat offered to idols, and numerous other issues, also.
---Adam on 9/27/07

<6> As for those texts outside of the accepted Roman canon, I am greatly attached to the Clementine literature, also known as the Preaching of Peter, which is a group of texts compiled in the 2nd century from earlier sources concerning the teachings of Peter, James, and the rest of the Jerusalem congregation.
---Adam on 9/27/07

<7>I know this seems odd to you, but it would be nearly impossible to find anything but acceptance of Paul in a Church which he himself founded among the Gentiles, combining his own lawless visions with the native Paganism of the land in order to find acceptance with Gentile Pagans. The "Church" we see today is not the same as what was founded by Jesus and his Apostles, and for those within this structure, this is unacceptable to their sentiments. To each their own.
---Adam on 9/27/07

Adam, who is Torra? If you are referring to me, "Lorra", I never mentioned Acts at all. I referred to the Gospel according to Matthew and Peter's own epistle. Yours must be a very streamlined Bible - or is it no Bible at all?
---lorra8574 on 9/26/07

Ramon, Acts was written by an individual that was a Gentile convert, the same who wrote Luke, in other words, a Gentile convert under Paul that accepted Paul's teachings to begin with. It is through this lens that you "see" that Peter accepted Paul. If you look at history and the schism between the two, the disagreements between James and Paul, and Peter's disputes with Paul and his theology in the Clementia, then you'll see that this simply isn't the case.
---Adam on 9/26/07

Besides, the argument that "The scripture does not agree with you" is absurd, as the Catholic Church is the authority that set the Canon as it is. This same "authority" is Pauline in origin in that its members and founders were separate and distinct from the Jerusalem congregation under James and Peter, and who took most of their doctrine from their own Gentile Pagan past. To see anything less is not only incorrect, it is revisionist.
---Adam on 9/26/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes

Adam * Because of the apostasy of Paul and his Pagan elements foreign to the doctrines taught by Jesus*

How so? His writings were accepted as Scripture by the Apostle Peter and Saint Luke wrote about His conversion and vision of the Lord in Acts. He was given authority by God Himself. Are you saying they were lieing? You must not accept Paul, Luke, and Peter writings then . . .

You are not the first to suggest this, but Scriptures simply do not agree with you Adam!
---Ramon on 9/26/07

<1> Torra, I respect your views on the matter, but Acts can not be accepted as definitive for a number of reasons. One of which is that Acts was written by a Gentile Christian for Gentile community, which was led by Paul, hence its views would be more in line with Paul and his views. The early Congregation was led by James, brother of Jesus, and Peter, and was what one may call "Jewish Christian."
---Adam on 9/26/07

<2>If you read the Clementine literature, you'll see Peter's true views and his denunciation of Paul as an Apostate. This is because these documents and its views were written not for the Gentile, Pauline audience, but instead for the original community which Jesus founded. Besides, it's historical fact that there was a schism between Paul and the Jerusalem Church over the difference in teaching, with Paul "rebuking Peter to his face."
---Adam on 9/26/07

<3>As for the formula of baptism, there is no indication that such views were truly "Trinitarian," this doctrine being declared as such in the 300's, after the hold of Paganism had taken over the Church due to Paul's Greek influence. This is a later innovation, at any rate, the earliest formula in use in Jesus' community being, "In the name of the Father, through the son, in the Holy Spirit."
---Adam on 9/26/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Depression

<4>The idea of the Trinity is one of those conceptions that seeped in not through Jesus' original teachings, but in Paul's Gentile branch which later became the dominant form of Christianity after the destruction of Jerusalem. Is it not surprising that, with a movement being led by former Gentile Pagans, elements of Paganism should not sneak in?
---Adam on 9/26/07

Now there's an interesting thought and you are not the first to suggest it. But I know that Paul was not apostate, because his epistles were endorsed by the Apostle Peter. Further, Jesus prescribed the official Trinitarian Baptismal formula personally in Matthew 28:19.

It is true that we are baptised both with water and the Holy Spirit, which is conferred by the laying on of hands by a properly ordained minister - a successor to the Apostles.
---lorra8574 on 9/26/07

John offered a baptism of water for the purification of the body from sin. It marked the desire of the individual to cease their former sins and begin anew. He also taught that while he baptised with water, the True Prophet Jesus would baptise with spirit and purify with fire. Baptism is not by water alone, which we may accomplish ourselves, but by spirit through the cleansing of the fires of trial and temptation.
---Adam on 9/25/07

God alone, the Father of All, through Jesus the True Prophet, is the only one in heaven or earth who may baptise or recognise baptism as valid. Nothing else matters: not your Church, not your Pastor, and not your "tradition of men."
---Adam on 9/25/07

Shop For Church Fundraisers

Indeed, the founders of Jesus' congregation, his Apostles and his brother, James, were to be the ones who perform baptism, them and their followers. But a schism soon arose because of the actions of the wicked Apostate, Paul, who taught many things in contradiction to Jesus' teachings, the most important of which was the lack of sacrificial efficacy, and the prohibition to eat meat offered to idols. But his original congregation was destroyed and replaced by Paul, the Gentiles, and his innovations.
---Adam on 9/25/07

Because of the apostasy of Paul and his Pagan elements foreign to the doctrines taught by Jesus, the current "Church" and its institutions is not acceptable to those who ardently desire the "old wine" of Jesus' earliest followers, for they baptise in the doctrines of Paul, into the death of Greek mystery traditions, whereas Jesus' followers baptised according to the dictates of the True Prophet, by which the altar flame of the previous era of sacrifice has been quenched.
---Adam on 9/25/07

denna7667 *Was Philip a member of the clergy at this time?*

Did you notice that the man didn't baptize Himself, but was rather Baptized by Philip? Wonder why . . .

Second, Philip was an Apostle. Did He not have the authority to Baptize? That power was bestow upon Him and all the Apostles by Jesus Christ. So Yes......
---Ramon on 9/25/07

Correction: Philip in Acts 8 was a Evangelist. Nonetheless, the man in Acts 8 did not Baptize Himself, but was rather baptize by another member in the Body of Christ given Authority. "Self-Baptism" is no where taught in Scriptures nor was the teaching of the Early Church.

According to Acts 6, Philip was chosen to serve (a Deacon). They were Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons within the Early Church.
---Ramon on 9/25/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study

Did Jesus babties him self.I think not John babtised Jesus to show us how to be babtise You don't hear of anyone in the New testement babtise there self's And when some one is sprinked that is not bible teaching.Every part of our body has to be completle under water .if not we are not obeing the bible People just belive they can do there on thing and make it to heaven not so.
---Betty on 9/25/07

You cannot baptize yourself, because Jesus said Go ye into the world and preach............and whoever beilives and be Baptized shall be saved". You can not save youself you need to be saved, so does baptism you need someone to actually baptize you and you need witnessess as the bible says.
---Peter_Mafohla on 9/24/07

No. It goes agaisnt Scriptures and The Early Church Teachings. Will you ignore God's Word just because "everyone" seems to agree its o.k? I am amaze at how many people are ignoring the truth in this blog [site].....
---Ramon on 9/24/07

* Is baptism less effective by oneself? If we say that another is required to administer it, then we are to say that the power of God depends upon mortal man.*

How so? Both the Bible and Church History does not agree with "self baptism". Second, God has ordained man to work as ministers in the Church. He has ordained Man to become Bishops and Bishops are granted the power to ordained other members. Thus, it not about "mortal man", but the gifts impose upon them.......
---Ramon on 9/24/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses

Is clergy really required to perform a baptism?

Acts 8:37-38 And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 38 And he ordered the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.

Was Philip a member of the clergy at this time?
---denna7667 on 9/24/07

I have never heard of this before.
---catherine on 9/24/07

Is baptism less effective by oneself? If we say that another is required to administer it, then we are to say that the power of God depends upon mortal man. If we say that there are no witnesses, we deny the witness of the Father of all, or, if we say that no corporeal man has seen, we deny the witness of the Prophets Enoch and Elijah, who entered heaven whole, without tasting death. But God, who sees in secret, will reward openly.
---Adam on 9/24/07

Jesus wants us to have life more abundantly. How can you fault Jesse for putting God's plan for us in action? It's not paying for a blessing. It's giving the Lord his first fruits (tithe). Tithing is very important in the bible. We give to the Lord, showing we put him first, so he may bless us. Look up Leviticus 27:30, and Malachi 3:8-10.
---Jerry on 6/28/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis

Jesse baptized himself and helped himself to a lot of poor peoples money that believed the prosperity doctrine he was preaching,teaching
you have to pay God for his blessings, What a slap in Jesus face to say his blood has to be bought with money, all the blessings are yea and amen in the cross of Christ, freely we receive and freely we give like our father
expecting nothing in return.
---exzucuh on 6/21/07

Jesse Duplantis baptized himself and the Lord has blessed him with a worldwide ministry.
---Jerry on 6/20/07

One of the reasons we get Baptised is to join into the Christian Community as part of the mystical body of Christ. This is why Jesus was also baptized by John the Baptist. It is important to be baptised into the community and not just off by yourself. Christ desires unity for all of His followers. To be one as He and the Father are One. 1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27.
---lorra8574 on 6/2/07

well jesus went to john to be baptised,and john said it is you who should be baptising me.and he would john just didn,t know how at the time.
---tom2 on 6/2/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma

Though sprinkling is a perfectly valid form of Baptism self administration is not acceptable, seek the assistance of ordained clergy.
---Phil_the_Elder on 6/2/07

**there was noone else to perform the cerimony,what is the harm**

This person has a computer. Are we to believe there is no telephone available to contact a minister?
---Jack on 6/1/07

**However, if you do it because you are embarrassed or ashamed to do it publically, there may be a problem on a spiritual level as Christ may not confess you before the angels or His Father if you are ashamed of Him.**

Would any point be served in drawing jody's attention to the historical fact that, following the precedent of the rite of Mikveh which was always done in the nude, Christian baptisms were semi-private events for the same reason?
---Jack on 6/1/07

I don't know about sprinkling of water but if it means to you that you are dieing to yourself and rising in Christ and there was noone else to perform the cerimony,what is the harm? It means the same thing. You could do it in your bathtub. However, if you do it because you are embarrassed or ashamed to do it publically, there may be a problem on a spiritual level as Christ may not confess you before the angels or His Father if you are ashamed of Him. Use caution thers. Blessings
---jody on 6/1/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol

But emma, why is it that you would want to baptize yourself?
---Jack on 6/1/07

I don't see why not. Will it send you to Hell? NO. Have you been saved by Jesus Christ's blood, that is all that counts.
---catherine on 5/31/07

Ed. What Scriptural evidence would you have in your statement that baptism is a church ordinance? I thought the great commission is given to "the church" meaning every believer, not "a church" meaning an organization. What church baptized Jesus? What church baptized 3,000 people on the day of Pentecost? As a believer we are all commissioned and authorized to baptize, teach, and make disciples.
---john on 5/31/07

Jack is correct, baptism is recieved. We see no evidence that anyone did it to themselves. And seeing that baptism, Scripturally, is a picture of washing, regeneration, a burial, and resurrection, would sprinkling be a good picture? Although Scripture doesn't give direct instruction to immerse, sprinkle, or pour, immersion certainly is a better picture of your new life in Christ.
---john on 5/31/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery

The bible tells us to be summersed. (go down under) Mt 3:16, Acts 2:38-39. So I don't see how a person can baptize themselves.
---Rebecca_D on 5/31/07

No. First, the etymology of the word "baptism" demands immersion. Second, baptism is a church ordinance (not sacrament) used to identify one as a follower of Christ. This suggests, at the very least, that an officer of a Biblical church administer the ordinance. Since this person would already be baptised... (You might recall that Jesus established the churches.)
---Ed_the_other_one on 5/31/07

I have heard of bathtub baptisms when someone is near death and cannot leave the hospital or home.
If it was a near death situation, I think it would be better than the alternative, no baptism at all. If you are well and able, it would be better to have someone of the clergy/ministry baptize you.
---Jenny on 5/31/07

You do not baptize yourself. If you did, THEN it would be considered a work.

But you don't.

You RECEIVE baptism at the hands of another.
---Jack on 5/31/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion

Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.