The person baptizing is secretly a satanist. Does your baptism count?

[Desert Snake]

So, you're getting baptized. But there is a problem. The person baptizing you is a Satanist, and their intention is to secretly perform a satanic baptism.

Does your baptism 'count'?
If your baptism 'counts', then does it not follow that the ''ritual'' of baptism is meaningless, and the belief of the one being baptized is all that matters?

 

[Breathe]

I'd imagine so. I imagine it's your intention that matters.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

So, you're getting baptized.

But there is a problem. The person baptizing you is a Satanist ...

... and their intention is to secretly perform a satanic baptism.

How exactly does one manage to perform a "satanic baptism?" How does it differ from a regular baptism? Does the satanist merely think bad thoughts? Keep a live chicken in his underwear? Cross his fingers during the dunking?

Does your baptism 'count'?

I dunno. Does the Bible say that any baptism performed by a satanist is invalid?

If your baptism 'counts', then does it not follow that the ''ritual'' of baptism is meaningless, and the belief of the one being baptized is all that matters?

What if God has sent the satanist a strong delusion so that they believe that they're performing invalid baptisms when in fact they're actually just performing regular old baptisms?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

In Christian theology, any Christian layman may baptise, but only a Christian can do it. So, the answer would be that it wouldn't be a valid baptism, any more than an ordination would be valid if performed by someone who wasn't actually a bishop. That's why Anglican priests are re-ordained if they enter the Catholic or Orthodox Churches, and the Orthodox Church may give a conditional re-baptism to some Protestant converts "just to play safe".

 

[Desert Snake]

In Christian theology, any Christian layman may baptise, but only a Christian can do it. So, the answer would be that it wouldn't be a valid baptism, any more than an ordination would be valid if performed by someone who wasn't actually a bishop. That's why Anglican priests are re-ordained if they enter the Catholic or Orthodox Churches, and the Orthodox Church may give a conditional re-baptism to some Protestant converts "just to play safe".

Is this an indication that the churches giving 'new baptisms', don't think the previous ones were legit? Ie, not done by Xians? That's the only reason I can think of as to why they would do that.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

In Christian theology, any Christian layman may baptise, but only a Christian can do it.

You must mean a professed Christian, correct?

What if the person performing the baptism wasn't a professed Christian that was secretly a satanist, but merely a professed Christian harboring severe doubts regarding their faith? Would that baptism still count? What about a baptism performed by a professed Christian who later leaves the faith and declares themselves to be an atheist?

Are any of the baptisms performed by a former Christian retroactively invalidated? Or does one need to be re-baptized just to be safe?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So, you're getting baptized. But there is a problem. The person baptizing you is a Satanist, and their intention is to secretly perform a satanic baptism.

Does your baptism 'count'?
If your baptism 'counts', then does it not follow that the ''ritual'' of baptism is meaningless, and the belief of the one being baptized is all that matters?

Any (christian, right?) baptism made in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is a valid baptism. Mothers have baptized their children if they werent able to do so at a church. Some denominies still consider that a valid baptism because she did in the father, son, and holy spirit.

The person that does the baptism has no influence over the baptisee being born again. The baptism is not valid unless the baptisee has a change of heart.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'd imagine so. I imagine it's your intention that matters.

That seems to make sense to me as well.

Any (christian, right?) baptism made in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is a valid baptism. Mothers have baptized their children if they werent able to do so at a church. Some denominies still consider that a valid baptism because she did in the father, son, and holy spirit.

The person that does the baptism has no influence over the baptisee being born again. The baptism is not valid unless the baptisee has a change of heart.

Yep, agreed.

 

[Sapiens]

You can always get the Mormons to rebaptise all Satanists by proxy ... just send them a list.

 

[Desert Snake]

Any (christian, right?) baptism made in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is a valid baptism. Mothers have baptized their children if they werent able to do so at a church. Some denominies still consider that a valid baptism because she did in the father, son, and holy spirit.

The person that does the baptism has no influence over the baptisee being born again. The baptism is not valid unless the baptisee has a change of heart.

One issue here, some Xians baptize in the name of Jesus only.

 

[Quintessence]

Oh dear gods. Schisms have occurred in Christianity over what is and isn't a "valid" baptism. There is not going to be any consensus on this within that religious demographic, much less among the opinions of outsiders.

 

[Riverwolf]

Baptism is a type of tribal initiation ritual. It's valid if everyone in the given tribe (read: church) accepts it, regardless of who gave it.

At least based on my admittedly outsider understanding; I've never been baptized.

 

[ChristineES]

So, you're getting baptized. But there is a problem. The person baptizing you is a Satanist, and their intention is to secretly perform a satanic baptism.

Does your baptism 'count'?
If your baptism 'counts', then does it not follow that the ''ritual'' of baptism is meaningless, and the belief of the one being baptized is all that matters?

What would be the purpose of a Satanist baptizing someone? As to whether it counts or not, I am not sure. I can say it's my intentions that count, yet, at the same time, I just am not sure.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Meh, I was baptised, and I'm not a believer.
So assuming I'm wrong, and God actually exists, and he's all keen on burning unbelievers in the way some folks think he is, would I rationally think my baptism would 'save' me, despite not having ever believed, and more than once telling my mum she shouldn't have done it?

And what would it say about a God if he burned the next atheist, since he wasn't baptised, but he saved me because I was, regardless of how we lived, and in spite of our common non-belief?

*shrugs*

They say God moves in mysterious ways, but that would just be...err...<insert whatever word you like, since forum rules prevent me typing what I was thinking>

 

[McBell]

So, you're getting baptized. But there is a problem. The person baptizing you is a Satanist, and their intention is to secretly perform a satanic baptism.

Does your baptism 'count'?
If your baptism 'counts', then does it not follow that the ''ritual'' of baptism is meaningless, and the belief of the one being baptized is all that matters?

I would find one of the millions of Christians who have a close personal relationship with god and ask them to ask god and see what the answer is.

 

[Desert Snake]

Baptism is a type of tribal initiation ritual. It's valid if everyone in the given tribe (read: church) accepts it, regardless of who gave it.

At least based on my admittedly outsider understanding; I've never been baptized.

Yeah. I'm not baptized either. This topic is one of interest, however, because the implications are many, if the only person making the baptism legit is the person being baptized.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yeah. I'm not baptized either. This topic is one of interest, however, because the implications are many, if the only person making the baptism legit is the person being baptized.

I'd say there's more assumptions than that to be made, if the amount of implications is as high as you imply.

Besides, I said that it's legit if everyone in the church agrees that it's legit. I don't really see what other implications there are. This sort of thing is normal social behavior. Joining any kind of social organization requires some degree of ritualized initiation, whether that be dunking oneself in water, or the various steps needed to be hired somewhere.

 

[Shiranui117]

So, you're getting baptized. But there is a problem. The person baptizing you is a Satanist, and their intention is to secretly perform a satanic baptism.

Does your baptism 'count'?
If your baptism 'counts', then does it not follow that the ''ritual'' of baptism is meaningless, and the belief of the one being baptized is all that matters?

The intent of the one being baptized and the one doing the baptism both matter. If the intent is to baptize someone into God's Church, anyone can baptize. To quote Catholic Answers...

Anybody—even an atheist—can administer baptism if he has the proper intention. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1256) "the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula." The reason anybody can baptize is that it is, in fact, Jesus Christ who performs the baptism. Once again, baptism is God’s grace to us, not our work for him.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

One issue here, some Xians baptize in the name of Jesus only.

I personally agree with baptising in all three. I had been baptised in the name of Jesus; but I agree with scriptures when baptising a person in all three.

Born again through Father, since He is the main person.

Born again in the Son, since a christian can only reunite with the Father through His Son

Born again throuh thr Holy Spirit. Once baptized, a christian has the holy spirit.

Baptizing only in Jesus name seems as if some things are missing. However, since everything is through Christ anyway, I dont see that as a problem.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The intent of the one being baptized and the one doing the baptism both matter. If the intent is to baptize someone into God's Church, anyone can baptize. To quote Catholic Answers...

Anybody—even an atheist—can administer baptism if he has the proper intention. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1256) "the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula." The reason anybody can baptize is that it is, in fact, Jesus Christ who performs the baptism. Once again, baptism is God’s grace to us, not our work for him.

I have a bone to pick with that, though. I was baptised in the name of Jesus. The person baptising me had the right intentions. Twenty some odd years ago, I had the right intentions. However, I was not sealed in all three.

So I was rebaptised in the Catholic Church where God (not the priest) and the Holy Spirit (not water) let me have a change of heart. Our intentions could mean the world, but if we are sealed with the trinity, we can be atheist and the Church will "never" rebaptise.

If it was based on intentions and beliefs, it would be contradictory to prevent a non christian to be baptised in the Church given he was baptised in another without intentions of being born again.

EDIT

Also, if intentions mattered, an athiest couldnt logically baptise someone. Their intentions has to be based on God existing and their own salvation. Without that, there is no union between the believer (baptisee) and the non believer.

Think of it. If thats the case, an atheist can consecrate the Eucharist. Since no one can but male priests, there is more than intentions involved.