Why Is Baptismal Authority Necessary?


Recommended Posts

Mormons are, as far as I know, unique in that they are the only Christian denomination that I am aware of that requires a special priesthood for baptism. In every other denomination, all one needs to have a valid baptism is another Christian who was validly baptized.

One of the potential problem areas I see with this view of baptismal authority for Mormons is that in the New Testament, it is quite clear that St. Paul was NOT baptized by someone who had any sort of a special priesthood or apostolic succession (Acts 22:16). How do Mormons explain this? If Paul did not receive his baptism from someone who had authority, according to Mormon teachings, was it a valid baptism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mormons are, as far as I know, unique in that they are the only Christian denomination that I am aware of that requires a special priesthood for baptism. In every other denomination, all one needs to have a valid baptism is another Christian who was validly baptized.

One of the potential problem areas I see with this view of baptismal authority for Mormons is that in the New Testament, it is quite clear that St. Paul was NOT baptized by someone who had any sort of a special priesthood or apostolic succession (Acts 22:16). How do Mormons explain this? If Paul did not receive his baptism from someone who had authority, according to Mormon teachings, was it a valid baptism?

I don't quite follow you. Ananias most certainly had authority; and it was he who admonished Paul to be baptized in the verse you cite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To baptize, Ananias didn't need to be an apostle; he just needed to be (in Mormon parlance) a "priest" in the Aaronic order of priesthood.

Shortly after his conversion Paul presented himself to the Apostles in Jerusalem; and we would presume that that is when he received his formal ordination as an apostle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To baptize, Ananias didn't need to be an apostle; he just needed to be (in Mormon parlance) a "priest" in the Aaronic order of priesthood.

Shortly after his conversion Paul presented himself to the Apostles in Jerusalem; and we would presume that that is when he received his formal ordination as an apostle.

I didn't say Ananias had to be an apostle, I said he was never given any authority from the apostles.

What makes you think he was a "priest" in the Aaronic order of priesthood? There is no mention of this anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say Ananias had to be an apostle, I said he was never given any authority from the apostles.

Apologies; I must have misinterpreted you.

What makes you think he was a "priest" in the Aaronic order of priesthood? There is no mention of this anywhere.

Oh, it's extrapolation, to be sure--partly from Paul's description of him as a disciple and devout man living according to the law, and frankly (and this is circular logic, which will bug the snot out of you!) partly because of the Mormon church's practice of ordaining all worthy men to the priesthood and my assumption that the primitive church would have acted similarly.

Further, overwhelming evidence from the early church shows that they never taught that someone needed any kind of special authority to baptize others.

I'll defer the historical exposition on that point to others with more time and scriptural knowledge than myself, other than to point out that I'm not aware of any Christian church that lets random members baptize new converts (though my understanding is that Catholicism will allow a non-priest to perform a baptism of a child if it appears the child will not survive long enough for a priest to do the ritual).

The basis for my reply, though, would be our Fifth Article of Faith:

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies; I must have misinterpreted you.

Oh, it's extrapolation, to be sure--partly from Paul's description of him as a disciple and devout man living according to the law, and frankly (and this is circular logic, which will bug the snot out of you!) partly because of the Mormon church's practice of ordaining all worthy men to the priesthood and my assumption that the primitive church would have acted similarly.

I'll defer the historical exposition on that point to others with more time and scriptural knowledge than myself, other than to point out that I'm not aware of any Christian church that lets random members baptize new converts (though my understanding is that Catholicism will allow a non-priest to perform a baptism of a child if it appears the child will not survive long enough for a priest to do the ritual).

The basis for my reply, though, would be our Fifth Article of Faith:

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

First, the circular logic does bug me, lol! But I understand that from your position, you have the benefit of starting with the belief that Smith is a true prophet and working backwards.

To address your point about Christian churches allowing "random members" to baptize...It is true that most Christian churches do have some kind of a process for baptism, which usually occurs at a church. However, I am not aware of a single Christian church other than LDS which would deny the baptism of a Christian regardless of who did the baptism. So long as the baptism was completed by an actual baptized Christian, the baptism is considered valid. There are very, very limited exceptions to this.

Thank you for providing your response though!

Edited by jinc1019
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As applepansy pointed out, there were other ways to receive the authority to baptize at that time period. John the Baptist was baptizing people with the authority through his lineage and according to the law of Moses, his father being a priest. The apostles weren't the apostles at the time he was baptizing and so he could not receive their authority, but he had authority all the same. But as JAG has already pointed out, our logic is quite circular in this regard. We believe that one must have priesthood authority to baptize and so assume that Ananias did even though it's not explicitly stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an example of the Early Christian Church that performed a re-baptism with proper authority:

Acts 19:1-6

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an example of the Early Christian Church that performed a re-baptism with proper authority:

Acts 19:1-6

Yes, but Skippy, you will notice that the re-baptism occurred because it wasn't done in the name of Christ, not because of WHO did the baptism. This is why re-baptism is suggested as soon as it is clear that the baptism wasn't done in Christ's name.

I think the answer to my question was given previously...namely, the LDS Church assumes everyone in the Bible who baptized had proper priesthood authority to do so. This is not the traditional understanding of those passages or of baptismal authority, as I have already pointed out, but it seems Mormons argue, using circular logic, that the baptisms HAD to have proper administrators even though the text never mentions anything about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what happens when I don't use The Book of Mormon.

3 Nephi 11:18-28

18 And it came to pass that he spake unto Nephi (for Nephi was among the multitude) and he commanded him that he should come forth.

19 And Nephi arose and went forth, and bowed himself before the Lord and did kiss his feet.

20 And the Lord commanded him that he should arise. And he arose and stood before him.

21 And the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven.

22 And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you.

23 Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them—Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them.

24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:

25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

26 And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

27 And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.

28 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mormons are, as far as I know, unique in that they are the only Christian denomination that I am aware of that requires a special priesthood for baptism. In every other denomination, all one needs to have a valid baptism is another Christian who was validly baptized.

One of the potential problem areas I see with this view of baptismal authority for Mormons is that in the New Testament, it is quite clear that St. Paul was NOT baptized by someone who had any sort of a special priesthood or apostolic succession (Acts 22:16). How do Mormons explain this? If Paul did not receive his baptism from someone who had authority, according to Mormon teachings, was it a valid baptism?

You claim "it is quite clear that St. Paul was NOT baptized by someone who had any sort of a special priesthood or apostolic succession". I challenge you to back up this claim; demonstrate that Ananias had no special authority or commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but it seems Mormons argue, using circular logic, that the baptisms HAD to have proper administrators even though the text never mentions anything about that.

Please demonstrate how the logic is circular. (The logic is not circular, so you will fail in the demonstration, but I want to see how you came to this false conclusion.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Book of Acts shows the importance of individuals having authority to perform particular ordinances. Phillip baptized in Samaria, but had to send to Jerusalem for John and Peter to lay hands on people for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Paul asked a dozen men who had been baptized if they had received the Holy Ghost. When they said they never heard of the HG, he then questioned who baptized them. They received a baptism similar to John the Baptist's baptism, they replied. Paul explained that John the Baptist spoke of the Holy Ghost, implying that whoever baptized them did not have proper authority. Paul then rebaptized them and gave them the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

So the Bible does show the importance of priesthood authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You claim "it is quite clear that St. Paul was NOT baptized by someone who had any sort of a special priesthood or apostolic succession". I challenge you to back up this claim; demonstrate that Ananias had no special authority or commission.

There is absolutely no mention of it anywhere. There is no reason at all to believe that he did. It's as simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please demonstrate how the logic is circular. (The logic is not circular, so you will fail in the demonstration, but I want to see how you came to this false conclusion.)

First of all, several other LDS supporters referred to it as circular first, so you should take this up with them as well.

And the reason it's circular is quite clear. The ONLY reason to believe that he has some sort of valid priesthood right is because you believe one must have that right in order to give a valid baptism. You know the baptism was valid because it was given to St. Paul (and I am sure you are not going to argue Paul didn't have valid authority to baptize). The reason you know Paul had a valid baptism is because the Bible gives that impression and you believe the Bible. In essence...You are starting with an assumption and relying on that assumption to read facts into the Bible that aren't there. There must have been a valid priesthood right given because without it the baptism would have been false.

I suppose TECHNICALLY it's not really circular (in a strict sense), but you get the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, it may very well be that baptismal authority is not directly mentioned for certain people in the Bible, not because they did not have the authority, but simply because it was assumed by the author.

It's just as likely, in fact more so, that they never had it.

You have absolutely no evidence at all in the New Testament to support your position about Paul. Even the examples you mentioned above don't address Paul and Catholics have long argued that those passages have nothing to do with baptism, but instead with their sacrament of confirmation or Holy Orders (depending on the passage you want to reference).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You're using an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Fact is, there is not enough information to really say one way or the other, though i'm of the opinion that the implications are in the favor of the authority being there.

Edited by Connie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You're using an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Fact is, there is not enough information to really say one way or the other, though i'm of the opinion that the implications are in the favor of the authority being there.

That's not accurate. Based on the logic you use, virtually ANYTHING is possible then. We could argue that Paul was really from Mars and dropped off on planet earth by aliens...Why? Because it doesn't say he wasn't. We have to weigh the evidence we have and make decisions on what we know. It doesn't make sense to assume they had priesthood rights that are never mentioned anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no mention of it anywhere. There is no reason at all to believe that he did. It's as simple as that.

The fact that it is not mentioned does not mean it doesn't exist. That is ludicrous. How do we know that Peter was married? Only because of ONE passing reference to his mother-in-law, from which we infer his married state. What John married? Was James? Matthew? Philip? Jesus?

You are arguing that because the New Testament does not specify that Ananias was specifically authorized to baptize, therefore he was not.

This is nonsense. I can argue anything -- ANYTHING -- from silence. The scriptures don't mention that Paul was a human being, so therefore it's highly unlikely that Paul was a human being. The scriptures don't mentioned that Jesus ever peed, so therefore we can safely assume that Jesus never had to pee.

It's useless. Worse than useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share