The 2nd Mark... Baptism of Believers by Immersion... Baptizo!

The second mark of the Apostolic Church was the baptism, the immersion of believers in water, in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost. Those giving credible evidence of a living personal faith in the Triune Jehovah were taken by the ministry, or by persons authorized by the church, and dipped, plunged, overwhelmed, or inundated in water, in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. Thus were those already born of The Spirit born symbolically of the water and initiated into the membership of the visible church, entitled to all her privileges and exposed to all her persecutions.

Thus was it clearly and beautifully and divinely indicated that they were thoroughly identified with Christ, made a part of His mystical body, “buried with Him in baptism, and risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead,” “quickened together with Christ from the death of trespasses and sins, fully and freely forgiven and washed from their sins by the blood of The lamb” (Col. 2:12-14; Rom. 6:4-5; Titus 3:5-7; Eph. 5:25-27).

Thus were powerfully and comprehensively symbolized the central, vital truths of the gospel—regeneration by the purifying power of The Spirit of God and redemption by the atoning blood of The Son of God, and the identity, as shown by the words of the administrator, of The Father with The Spirit and Son—and the personal faith of the baptized in those truths. Thus does this one divine ordinance impressively preach the entire substance of the gospel of Christ. It was instituted and commanded by Christ, and practiced by the Apostles, and is to be observed by the church in all its primitive fullness and beauty down to the end of time... From Hassells History of the Church of God... Brother Glen & Sister Charlotte

Originally posted by Tyndale1946:

It was instituted and commanded by Christ, and practiced by the Apostles, and is to be observed by the church in all its primitive fullness and beauty down to the end of time... From Hassells History of the Church of God...

Click to expand...

Ok, then, perhaps here is the statement where some would get the idea that Christ instituted a different baptism. But is this what he has done, even in commissioning the subject be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

I don't think so.

But perhaps the first thing of significance here is the mode of baptism; in speaking of the mode Hassell makes a fine argument against anything but immersion:

</font>

• the word baptizo, from bapto, to dip, being frequentative in form, but not in meaning, having an active or causative meaning, to make or cause another to dip;
  
  First, John has no recorded baptism. If it is supposed the Jews commonly practiced this, was there a difference in the purpose? The Pharisee would immerse the body in a pool after being in contact with unclean peoples; the body was ceremonially washed; but is this the same connection as the purpose of John's baptism? The Brass Laver was between the door of the Tabernacle and the altar of burnt sacrifice, placed here for the purpose of the priest to wash himself before entering into the door of the Tabernacle, was this symbolic of repentance? No. If we limit the Baptism of John to the act of repentance we do two harms to it, IMO.
  
  1. We force upon Christ the need to receive baptism; could John; or did John say of him as he did of the Pharisees to bring forth fruit meet for repentance? This is a forced restriction I am not prepared to make and is the worse of the two.
  
  2. Second is closely related to the next, it involves requiring in man the act of baptism for regeneration. This is similar, but not equal to the damage done in imposing this upon Christ. Though it is damaging to the point of being deceptive; it's false teaching can be undone by the real power of God. That which is imposed upon Christ is one that remains irreconcilable because it removes from the Anointed one of God the impeccability His diety demands.
  
  3. this leaves baptism to be but a mark of identification, a public show of the faith of the subject submitting and being identified with the body of believers and then makes baptism the entry into this body. As the baptism is visible, so too is the body. Where the body is invisible, the baptism too would be invisible.</font>
• John Wesley says: “The ancient manner of baptizing was by immersion.” The “form” of baptism was regarded by all these Protestants bodies as non-essential, as though the term “baptizm” was an indefinite one for the application of water in general, which it is perfectly certain that it is not; or as though man has the right or power to change an ordinance of Christ, which he has no more right or power to do than he has to change the course of nature.</font>

Here shows without doubt that man of himself cannot change the ordinance of Christ, none here would argue this; yet this is what is being argued I think when we assume the baptism of John is different than Christian Baptism; it is evident by John chapter 4 that Christ did not baptize any, and he permitted the disciples to baptize having only the baptism of John; why then do we suppose the commission of Christ at Matt. 28 is a change of the baptism of John? It is due to the presence of the words Christ used '...in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost...' but I would submit for your consideration that the presence of the Trinity was present in the Baptism of John; even as this presence was manifested at the Baptism of Christ. There was no need to make this change, to say it is changed is the attempt we have placed upon it for our own reasons, whatever these may be. If Paul's re-baptizing the 12 'disciples' of John, though really they were students of Appollos, signifies a different baptism then he is effectively changing this baptism.

To argue the Baptism of Christ, and thus the christian Baptism is one that is of the Holy Spirit cannot stand because believers are not baptized by the Holy Spirit, nor into the Holy Spirit, we are indwelt by the spirit. To me at least, these are different things. Note:

From Hassell's:

In Mark 7:4 and Luke 11:38 the Greek verb rendered “wash” is baptizo (immerse); and this meaning of immersion exactly agrees with superstitious traditions of the Jewish Rabbis, as shown by Mr. Gill from the Talmud and the writings of Maimonides. “The Pharisees, upon touching the common people or their clothes, as they returned from market, or from any judicature, were obliged to immerse themselves in water before they ate; and Scaliger observes that the more superstitious of them, everyday before they sat down to meat, dipped the whole body. And not only cups, pots and brazen vessels were washed by dipping, but even beds, pillows and bolsters, unclean in a ceremonial sense, were washed in this way, according to the traditions of the Elders.” In regard to the doubtful statement in the Apocryphal book of Judith (12:7), the writer says that is was night when Judith “dipped” herself in the fountain of water. —An object that has only a few drops of water sprinkled or poured cannot be said to be washed. It was a rule with the Jews that where the law required the washing of the flesh or the clothes, the whole body must be dipped; for said they, “If any man dips himself all over except the tip of the little finger, he is still in his uncleanness”

Click to expand...

Was the baptism of John based upon superstition as was commonly practiced baptism among the Jews?

Next:

Baptism is a figure, not of the mode of The Spirit’s operation, to which there can be no likeness, but of the burial and resurrection of Christ, which may be represented by natural things, because it respects the objects of sense. Baptism or immersion in the Spirit does not represent the mode of The Spirit’s conveyance, but such complete subjection to The Spirit’s influence as an object immersed in a fluid experiences from the fluid.”—Alex Carson. —Not water-baptism, but the Holy Spirit, is the seal of the new covenant (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30).

Click to expand...

This speaks for itself and answers to why I believe the 'baptism of the Spirit' is not equal to the idwelling of the Spirit.

This is enough right now.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

[ April 12, 2003, 04:02 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

Just trying to generate some interest in this subject with the following quotes from Hassell's 12 marks and a few comments.

Bro. Dallas

If baptism can be represented by pouring water out of a cup, it can just as scripturally be represented by the falling of water in rain, its springing out of the earth, its running in a stream, its distilling in dew, or by the drinking of water, or the anointing with oil, or the blowing of the wind, or the blazing of fire, or the flying of a dove, or the exhalation of breath. These various terms are adapted to each special emblem, and do not explain The Spirit’s mode of operation. Baptism, then, can not be either pouring or dipping for the sake of representing the manner of the conveyance of The Holy Spirit; for there is no such likeness.

Click to expand...

I believe Hassell makes a very good point here that he will elaborate at the end of his 2nd mark. I agree with him, as to what he appears to be saying as I read here that the baptism of John and that of Jesus (the first being water baptism and the latter being with the spirit) are not to be considered figures. Or that the water baptism is not to represent the baptism of the Spirit onto the church which is collective. The indwelling of the Spirit of a believer is that which occurs at the moment of salvation. If we are to say the 'baptism of the Spirit' is this action, then we justify every and any doctrine anyone wants to go 'into all the world' and teach, why should they not teach as such? Are they not 'baptized with the same Spirit as the 'supposed' church and thus possess the same authority? I would think the making of Spirit baptism an individual thing and a mysterious cause of being placed into the 'mysterious' church is such a declaration. Tell me why it is not....then tell me I possess the baptism of the Spirit....then tell me I am wrong in doctrine when I claim a new revelation from Christ....for this is most definitely from his Spirit....we may as well extend our communion to any who have over the years who have claimed such new and extra-Testament revelation---historically and at present. What we are effectively doing is granting such authority by accepting such Spiritual baptism to be something other than the historical out-pouring of the Holy Spirit on the assembled church at Pentecost.

Water baptism was already present, what was lacking was the '...being imbued with power from on High...' this is what happened to the church on the day of pentecost. Were all members present? We must rightly answer, I don't know...if not, were the absent members likewise baptized? No, why you ask? because this was an action upon the body of believers, the church, local and visible at Jerusalem.

Pouring of The Spirit is a phrase, which is itself a figure, not to be represented by another figure.

Click to expand...

Baptism is Baptism. It figures the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and the believer participant's identification with Christ as being dead, buried, and resurrected with Him. Was the church 'baptized' on the day of Pentecost as such? True they were overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit, but was this a figure likened to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? No. It was and is likened to the resurrection power of Christ, having '...ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.'

This last quote ends the 2nd mark. Hoping for some discussion.

The apostolic churches were Baptist Churches, because composed of baptized believers; and, even if no intervening links were discoverable, it would be absolutely certain that the churches of the Bible Baptist of the nineteenth century originated from, and are the only spiritual successors of, the apostolic churches. The learned Mosheim said of the Baptist of his day that “their origin was hidden in the remote depths of antiquity.” This was quite complimentary to them as coming from a Lutheran historian, of course, but not complimentary enough after all; for, although they originated in the remote depths of antiquity, their origin was not hidden at all. It was apparent and conspicuous as the noonday sun. Did that bright luminary of heaven cast his brilliant rays in the first century over Asia, Africa and Europe? So was the progress of these Primitive Baptist as clearly seen in, Palestine, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, Galatia, Cappadocia, Mysia, Macedonia, Greece, Italy, and the islands of the Sea. Nay, verily they were not hidden, but were as a city set on a hill which could not be hid

Click to expand...

I have placed in italics what I believe to be a statement biblically correct concerning the historical perpetuation of the church.

Hope this stimulates some discussion of these points. Even in disagreement discussion is better than merely talking to oneself. (There is only so much of looking at myself in the mirror I can handle.)

God Bless all and have a great and wonderful day in the Lord!!!

Bro. Dallas

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
The second mark of the Apostolic Church was the baptism, the immersion of believers in water, in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost. Those giving credible evidence of a living personal faith in the Triune Jehovah were taken by the ministry, or by persons authorized by the church, and dipped, plunged, overwhelmed, or inundated in water, in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. Thus were those already born of The Spirit born symbolically of the water and initiated into the membership of the visible church, entitled to all her privileges and exposed to all her persecutions.

Click to expand...

I did not grow up in a "Baptist Bride" church but I joined one for a couple of years(not knowing fully what they believed). I ended up leaving that church over the issue of the Universal Church and Baptismal Authority.

I don't believe "We are baptized into a local church" as was stated many times. This has no scriptual merit whatsoever. Certainly it is Biblical to say believers baptism should precede membership in a local visable body, but we are not Baptized into ABC church.

Also on the issue of Baptism while I see people being ordained and what not - I do not see any command in the New Testament that someone must have "authority" to Baptize.

Any believer may Baptize and I am not so sure that self Baptism is wrong. Believer's baptism is something between himself and God.

Now over they centuries we have added all kinds of literical things to Baptism, even we as Baptists say "it is an outward confession of a inward change" and that Baptism must be done before the church.

Was the Ethopian unichs Baptism done before a local visible church? Did anyone vote on it? These are all traditions of men.

I already know some passages some may throw at me and I am prepared - give me your best shot.

The Baptist Bride church I attended felt you needed church authority to do anything - even evangelistic endevours. Non-Baptist churches
and organizations did not have "the authority" to preach the Gospel let alone Baptize people.

I will leave you with one passage.

Galatians 1:15-19(NIV)
"But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother."

The reason I bring this passage up is that I have been challenged many times by Baptist Briders for my website and my feelings of a mission toward my fellow IFB brothers who are deceived by things like KJVOnlyism and Baptist Bridism.

They say "By what authority are you doing this - what local church is supporting you and sending you out to do this? If you are not doing this under the authority of a New Testament church than it can not be of God".

IFBReformer

[ April 14, 2003, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: IfbReformer ]

Bro. Dallas, sorry to get in so late.

What do you make of this passage:

Acts 19
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.

Click to expand...

This is similar to the formulation of the Helwys confession (1611):

54. That John Baptist and Christ are two persons, their ministries are two ministries several, and their baptisms are two baptisms, distinct the one from the other (John i. 20; Acts xiii. 25; Acts i. 4, 5; Matt. iii. II).

55. That John taught the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, baptizing with water to amendment of life (Matt iii. II), thus preparing a way for Christ and His baptism (Luke iii. 3, 6), by bringing men to repentance and faith in the Messias, whom he pointed out with the finger (saying), behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world (John i. 31, 29; Act xix. 4).

56. That Christ is stronger, and hath a more excellent office and ministry than John (Matt. iii. II); that He baptizeth with the Holy Ghost and fire; that He cometh and walketh in the way which John hath prepared; and that the new creature followeth repentance (Luke iii. 6).

Click to expand...

The concept of the universal church is a common one in the early Baptist confessions, which does not necessarily mean it is correct, but it has been a historic position:

London Baptist Confession (1644):

And although the particular congregation be distinct and several bodies, every one a compact and knit city in itself; yet are they all to walk by one and the same Rule, and by all means convenient to have the counsel and help one of another in all needful affairs of the church, as members of one body in the common faith under Christ their only Head.

Click to expand...

The Second London Confession (1689):

The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Click to expand...

The Philadelphia Confession (1742):

The catholic or universal church, which, with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace, may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.

Click to expand...

[ April 14, 2003, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]

Galatians 1:15-19(NIV)
"But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother."

Click to expand...

It is interesting that you end your citation before you get into ch. 2 which indicates that Paul did communicate with these apostles to determine whether he had been pursuing his work in vain.

It is also interesting to note that you fail to mention that Paul is not recorded to have baptized any in the N.T. until after Acts 13.

Now, back to Galatians Ch. 2 check out vs. 9.

Then you do bring up a very good point, that of the Ethiopian Eunuch. Certainly he was not baptized in the presence of a local body, but at this time there was but one local body and that was in Jerusalem.

BTW, I do agree that you are able to do activities such as your web-site apart from church authority, you may even preach without having this authority, but I do agree with the 'briders' that performance of baptism requires an ordained member of the church. As I said above, Paul did preach as soon as he was called, but he is not recorded in scripture to have baptized any until after having been sent or "ordained" by the church in Antioch, who ordained Barnabas at the same time.
RSR, I do not have time right now to answer your post, but I will. Thanks for posting guys.

God Bless.
Bro.Dallas

Bro. Dallas, I apologize for not making the connection between this thread and your other one under theology.

I will try to limit this to the historical aspects, which would include the creeds and confessions.

Originally posted by Frogman:
It is interesting that you end your citation before you get into ch. 2 which indicates that Paul did communicate with these apostles to determine whether he had been pursuing his work in vain.[/QB]

Click to expand...

Yes Paul did communicate with the other apostles "14 years later" in Jerusalem. Apparently he was going through some doubt about his ministry. But getting council from Christian brothers and getting "authority" are two entirely different things.

Originally posted by Frogman:
It is also interesting to note that you fail to mention that Paul is not recorded to have baptized any in the N.T. until after Acts 13.
[/QB]

Click to expand...

The key phrase is "not recorded" - we do not know that he he did not Baptize anyone before this.

Even for sake of conversation - if Paul did not baptize anyone before this, there is no command of the New Testament that a person must be ordained to perform Baptism.

Originally posted by Frogman:
Now, back to Galatians Ch. 2 check out vs. 9.

Then you do bring up a very good point, that of the Ethiopian Eunuch. Certainly he was not baptized in the presence of a local body, but at this time there was but one local body and that was in Jerusalem.
[/QB]

Click to expand...

It does not matter if at that time there was one local body or 50 local bodies. Here we see what Baptism is really for - it is between the individual and God. It does not have to be done before a local church assembly.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying it is wrong to be baptized in front of a church or to be baptized by an ordained minister - but these things are not required in the New Testament.

It is amazing once we peel away the layers of tradition how simple things really are.

IFBReformer

My take on the question of who has the "authority" to baptize new believers (or even "old" ones that have never been "immersed" is bound up in my understanding of the primacy of a local church's authority. In other words:

Within the limits of Scriptural propriety, anything can be done on the vote.

Click to expand...

For example:

A teenager (let's say an 18 year old) repents (to use the Russian terminology) and requests to be baptised by his soon-to-be church. His grandfather has been a stalwart member of this church for many years. In my way of thinking: </font>

• To honor the lad's grandfather, for the church in question to vote to have the grandfather do the "dunking"; is in line with good Baptist practice.</font>
• For the grandfather upon hearing of the lad's new birth to take him out to the backyard pool and immerse him, is not in line with proper practice.</font>

Click to expand...

In fact, a church would be well within her prerogatives and responsibilities to question as valid a baptism as outline in the second set of circumstances.

[ April 15, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Squire Robertsson ]

Originally posted by Squire Robertsson:
My take on the question of who has the "authority" to baptize new believers (or even "old" ones that have never been immersed" is bound up in my understanding of the primacy of a local church's authority. In other words: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Within the limits of Scriptural propriety, anything can be done on the vote.

Click to expand...

For example:

A teenager (let's say an 18 year old) repents (to use the Russian terminology) and requests to be baptised by his soon-to-be church. His grandfather has been a stalwart member of this church for many years. In my way of thinking: </font>

• To honor the lad's grandfather, for the church in question to vote to have the grandfather do the "dunking"; is in line with good Baptist practice.</font>
• For the grandfather upon hearing of the lad's new birth to take him out to the backyard pool and immerse him, is not in line with proper practice.</font>

Click to expand...

In fact, a church would be well within her prerogatives and responsibilities to question as valid a baptism as outline in the second set of circumstances. </font>[/QUOTE]Squire,

What New Testament command would prohibit the Grandfather from baptizing his grandson in the backyard pool? Or as my father taught me growing up -book chapter verse?

Lets face it - having clergy baptize or being baptized in front a church is tradition. It is not rooted in Biblical command.

IFBReformer

I said nothing about Grandpa being a "clergyman". Further, in the Russian tradition, baptisms are held outdoors in a natural body of water. Locally, some churchs think it's neat to go to the Russian River for their baptisms. The last one I attended was held on the south bank of the American River.

The key to the my illustrations is the need for the authorization of the local church (however that may be expressed by a particular church). Or as Dr. Weeks used to say in Baptist Polity Class

Young people, as Baptists, we don't carry the ordinances of the local church around in our hip pockets.

Click to expand...

One of the situations that must be dealt with is the "missionary" situation. It is here that I put the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch. And Grandpa wasn't on the mission field (at least in my illustration)

Originally posted by Squire Robertsson:
I said nothing about Grandpa being a "clergyman".

Click to expand...

Squire,

That was my point! He was not a clergy man. I am saying you don't have to be a clergy man or be authorized by a church or perform the baptism in front of church. The New Testament does not make any commands about who administers or where baptism is administered.

IFBReformer

Smyth's Confession:

That the church of Christ has power delegated to themselves of announcing the word, administering the sacraments, appointing ministers, disclaiming them, and also excommunicating; but the last appeal is to the brethren of body of the church.

Click to expand...

Helwys Confession:

That Christ hath set in His outward church two sorts of ministers: viz., some who are called pastors, teachers or elders, who administer in the word and sacraments, and others who are called deacons, men and women: whose ministry is, to serve tables and wash the saints' feet.

Click to expand...

The First London Confession, however takes a different tack:

The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this ordinance (baptism), the Scriptures hold forth to a preaching Disciple, it being no where tied to a particular church, officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered Disciples.

Click to expand...

The 1698 London Confession leaves the matter a bit ambiguous, as do later confessions based upon it (such as the Philadelphia and New Hampshire Confessions):

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.
( Matthew 28:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 11:26 )

These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.

Click to expand...

I think the historical Baptist position is that the ordinances should be administered by the elders, with the understanding that what was assumed was a multiplicity of elders.

Originally posted by rsr:
Smyth's Confession:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this ordinance (baptism), the Scriptures hold forth to a preaching Disciple, it being no where tied to a particular church, officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered Disciples.

Click to expand...

I think the historical Baptist position is that the ordinances should be administered by the elders, with the understanding that what was assumed was a multiplicity of elders. </font>[/QUOTE]rsr,
I would say you are correct in saying it is the historical position of modern Baptists(at least from 1600's on) that the person who baptizes must be a "preaching" disciple. But even most of them did not believe he had to be ordained and most rejected an successionist idea that he had have authority passed down.

Having said that, before that 1600's there are reported cases of self baptism. I personally do not have a problem with it because I believe Baptism is between the individual and God, just like Salvation is.

It it true that Jesus was baptized publically but then the ethopian eunich was not baptized before a church. In fact he was not even baptized by a Pastor(preaching disciple) but by a deacon.

Even with the position of Baptists from the 1600's who say it must be a preaching disciple I say where does the New Testament specify the qualifications for the administer of Baptism? The answer is it does not.

IFBReformer

In a broad sense I would have to agree that the New Testament does not specifically outline the qualifications for those who baptize.

However, I cannot think of an instance in which the baptizer did not have some authority from the church to do so, whether through the function of evangelist, apostle or elder.

I do not hold to successionism, but I also think se-baptism is very problematic. Smyth's example is probably the best, but I think we all would admit it is outside the mainstream of Baptist practice. And I think it is a short step from se-baptism to self-proclaimed authority to baptize without reference to the church.

Several of the early confessions make it clear the that baptism is an ordinance of Christ, not strictly of the church, but there is an unwillingness to take the church out of the process because of baptism's central role in the faith.

Regardless of the issue we take concerning this question we should recognize that the Apostles and men such as Steven were operating from the Jerusalem church, they did not have the heresies to deal with etc. that plague our modern day churches.

Having said this it is also noted in Scripture that Steven was a deacon and not a 'preaching brethren' yet God no doubt worked in his 'message' of which Saul was a member of the audience.

I believe as I do not because of the witness of history, though history is important it is a convenience as well. It can hardly be said that a clear or distinct example can be given because for centuries the majority view worked to stamp out any opposition to their teaching on baptism etc.

Baptism early became a point of contention and remains so today. Why? Because we fail to note that Christ never baptized, he left this as it is today among the Baptists, an ordinance of the church. If Christ had baptized then certainly he would have re-baptized the apostles. This would not mean he would require a second baptism, but to change the baptism would imply the disapproval of God concerning John's Baptism, then because God the Father and God the Son are one, could the Son have submitted to the Baptism of John while the Father did not approve it?

Then there is the Biblical testimony of the presence of the Trinity in Christ's baptism; would the Godhead not have been present also in all of John's baptism?

You are welcome to believe as you are able to see from the Scripture to be true. But I cannot but believe the baptism is the tie to NT authority; I believe all other doctrine can be true and yet the baptism be wrong.

If we place baptism in the hands of men as some suggest we declare the baptism of many heretics and the resultant denominations they have formed as valid, thus making the truth that God is not the author of confusion to be untrue.

A prominent case that comes to my mind is the Campbellite error.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

I would have to agree with Bro.Dallas,baptism is a commission of the church not individuals.Not one person has the right to baptize without the authority of the local body.I am a pastor and do not have that authority to baptize out side the church. Just because grandpa wants to baptize jr. doesn`t cut it.Our problem is we think to much without considering Gods direct word and bible principle. Some things are not spelled out in chapter and vs. Bible principle may only be found by studying the subject and not just one vs. The book of ACTS is a great missionary outreach under the authority of the JERUSALEM church until chp.13 and then the outreach comes from ANTIOCH. BOTH of which were led by "ORDAINED MEN OF GOD",who under the authority of the church did the baptizing. We as individuals need to submit to that authority (church) and the word of GOD. MAY GOD RICHLY BLESS!!!