Featured Baptism?

And if a particular local church says all its members are qualified administrators? What then?

 

I happen to think that every believer is qualified to administer baptism.

On a side note, I don't believe in "Revs", at least not in the title-istic sense.
Each and every person in the body of Christ has talents, and God is the one who makes bishops, elders and deacons ( Acts of the Apostles 20:28 ) in the local body, not men.

A pastor is simply a senior, spiritually mature believer whose function in the body is one of oversight and guidance...they have no more or less authority to baptize anyone than the "least" of the local body.
Any "reverence" is with regard to honor ( 1 Timothy 5:17 ), not with regard to putting them on a pedestal and hanging on their every word as the "head of the church."

Yet, that is how I've often seen it done for the entire 40+ years I've been a believer.

I do believe that the elders should establish the validity of the confession of faith, and that the person being baptized, by anyone performing said baptism, should first have the confidence of the body of elders that they believe that God's grace has been given to the baptized.

In other words, let the elders decide if the person is genuinely saved or not, before allowing the baptism to be administered.

 

And then you replied.

I didn't bring it into the conversation. It was there at the beginning.

However, since you seem to have come around and now believe it is perfectly fine for a church to do this, the point is moot.

 

No, you were the one who started talking about going behind people's backs etc... You proved that in the post I am now replying to.

 

If your now trying to make this about the "going behind people's back" specifically. Yes, I did say that but more as a question. A question which you did not answer but also specifically did not object to until after your argument was failing.

Let's go through the entire thing for you.

He's talking specifically about his church. This is the part of Robertsson's passage you quoted.

You're objecting to what is happening at his church.

We may be getting our wires crossed and misunderstanding each other.

Notice - I'm giving options! I'm trying to figure out what your meaning.

You replied with no objection to the first question.

Once again, I am giving choices. What do you suggest someone do? In a real-life situation?

I'm not saying that you are suggesting that people Baptize behind a church's back. I'm listing the many options available.

And now this thread has been made about me and not Baptism.

 

Well, we saw the apostle Philip present the Gospel to the Ethiopian viceroy who believed it & requested to be baptized soon as they came to a creek, & Philip obliged. I believe any experienced Christian can baptize new believers in any convenient body of water. (I can't say how long one must be a Christian to be "experienced".)

 

Initially accepting your identification of this Philip as an apostle, I fail to see how you draw your conclusion. How do you get from one directly commissioned to baptize (Matt. 28:18-20) proving any experienced Christian can baptize? Nevertheless, I believe the broader context shows this to be the Philip who is one of the seven, and later called an evangelist.

Even by your own admission, this becomes an unworkable premise (i.e., you can't say how long one must be a Christian to be experienced).

 

We have discussed the subject of the administrator of baptism primarily as a scriptural matter, in the context of who or what is or is not authorized to baptize. That is as it should be. Perhaps a particular consideration might not be out of order. Best not to authorize someone to administer baptism that might make the candidate later question the validity of his baptism, or perhaps other churches to question the validity of the baptism.

 

Before Jesus died, at least some of His disciples were baptizing people. (But Jesus Himself didn't baptize.) (John 4:1-2) Most new Christians don't question the "qualifications" of whomever baptizes them. And it's the SPIRIT of baptism that matters, not the nutz-n-boltz of the act itself.

 

Exactly. I don't even remember who it was that baptized me, but I remember being baptized. I was making a statement to the world about what had taken place in my life testifying to the work of Christ. I wasn't worried about who was placing me in the water.

 

Your post (#69) put forward the idea "any experienced Christian can baptize," with you being unable to define "experienced." I don't see how this addresses that premise.

 

And what if a presumably "qualified administrator" later apostasizes, rejects even the existence of God, and abandons the ministry and church altogether (a known actual event) - - are those he baptized no longer valid?

 

Any local assembly who holds to the historical doctrines of the Christian faith, as in the true Gospel!
I hold that we Baptists have the best and most biblical way to water baptize, but not only one God would recognize!