Can Women Baptise Men?

Hello Joseph,

I apologize for including a real long sentence that is somewhat ambiguous. I agree with you and find no implication in Scripture that part of the Great Commission is only for men (perhaps I should refrain from stating things in parentheses in my posts ).

BJ

 

Our church has recently begun having the husbands/ fathers who are being baptized turn around and baptize the wife and children. It doesn't 'sit well' with me but I can find no scripture to dissuade or discourage it.

 

Might be better to have the father be baptized first, then remain in the pool as the others are baptized. Reminds all of his responsibility to lead his family.

Or had he led each of his family to Christ, maybe then he would also baptize them.

The way you are describing made me feel that the public declaration of our inward spirit of obedience is to the father, not to the FATHER.

A friend lead me to Christ in 2002. In 2004 it was time for me to be baptized. I knew that friend was supposed to be the one to do it. He had never done it and was shocked that I asked.

I felt it was supposed to be in the river on my friend's ranch. Not fancy, just water.

Talked to his pastor who thought not, but his pastor asked his own pastor who said if my friend is a Christian, and has been baptized, and was sure that I was a Christian, that it was ok. My friend was talking it over with others he respects in faith and praying about it for quite a while.

I drove from Orlando, FL to Oklahoma in June 2004.
The river was at flood stage. Even though we had offers of friend's swimming pools, church baptismal pools, the country club, etc, I was baptised in the city lake.

We still felt that we had done what I was supposed to do.

You can read about my friend leading me to Christ at www.FibroFix.com/testimony.html

At the very bottom are is a link to photos of the baptism.

Lots of people from around the world have seen this story and the photos, as it's a busy web site. Many say they didn't understand about being saved and baptised meant until they read it.

In HIS grip,

Annie

 

In what role does a woman baptise a man? Since they can neither be a Pastor or Elder in the Church, I cannot see how they can actually baptise anyone who come to Christ. This is not a role for a Deaconess. Though there is no Scripture evidence to show that women cannot baptise, yet, from the fact that all baptisims were carried out by men in the New Testament, it is IMO to keep this for the male leadership of the Church. We cannot allow things just because the current "trend" in the world is to allow for equal everything for the woman, which is NOT what the Bible teaches.

 

Ichthus, your argument does not follow:

P1:Women can neither be a pastor or elder in the church
P2: There is no Scripture evidence to show that women cannot baptise
P3: All baptisms were carried out by men in the NT

C:Baptism is kept for the male leadership of the Church.

See how your conclusion does not even begin to follow from your premises?

To get somewhere you would need to alter P3 to P3*

P3*: All baptisms were carried out by pastors or elders in the NT

But even then I don't think your conclusion would follow. You would need P3**

P3**: The NT prescribes that baptism is kept for the pastors or elders in the Church.

However, P3** would directly contradict your P2 above, and besides P3** is not true.

So now we could try a moden tollens:

P1:If one has the authority to baptize, then there is an example of such a person (or group of persons) baptizing in the NT.

P2:There is no example of women baptizing in the NT

Therefore, women do not have the authority to baptize.

But I think many would have issues with the P1 because it makes no sense. P1 places the authority to administer baptism in whether or not there are examples of it in the NT. What we find in the NT, though, is examples of men baptizing but not any particular group of men (elders, pastors, deacons)--at least it's not obvious that baptism was reserved for a particular group.

Here would be my argument:

P1: Christ gave the authority to make disciples to every believer

P2art of making disciples is baptizing new believers.

P3: Everyone who has the authority to make disciples also has the authority to baptize.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. The authority to baptize comes from Christ, not the church. If one can make a case that group X is allowed to make disciples and preach the gospel, then group X also can baptize because that is a subset of "making disciples."

Thus, the attempt to bifurcate one's authority to preach the gospel and one's authority to administer baptism is unfounded. The authority for both comes from the same source: Christ.

BJ

 

Brandon, but you are arguing from "silence", since there is no Scripture support to show that women can baptise anyone. We do read in John's Gospel, that Jesus' disciples (4:1-2) did baptise on His authority. It is noteworthy that Jesus did not include any women among His 12, who not only preached the Gospel, but also baptised. We have no Biblical authority to allow for women to baptise, even though they may indeed lead a person to Christ. In which case they would have done so as part of a Church, where then the pastor or an elder would baptise the new believer. The command to go and make disciples does not mean that this is authority for women to baptise, since this command is given to the whole Church, including both men and women, where each has their role to play. I see no evidence in the early (sub Apostolic) Church, where any women baptised anyone.

 

Good point. I would consider his baptism valid. It was administered by a believer in the company of believers. The baptism may not have been physically performed by the Pastor, but it was witnessed and endorsed by him.

 

Good point. I would consider his baptism valid. It was administered by a believer in the company of believers. The baptism may not have been physically performed by the Pastor, but it was witnessed and endorsed by him. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't see where the good point is. In such a situation, supposing there are elders in the Church, then it would be their job to do what the pastor cannot. Or, if the Church has no elder, there is no reason in using another Church to carry out the baptisms, as I have seen done many times here in London.

Its like saying that since the pastor has lost his voice, his wife preaches the Sunday message, and also leads the Bible study.

This sort of human reasoning does not work!

 

Ichthus,

Regarding this: "Brandon, but you are arguing from "silence", since there is no Scripture support to show that women can baptise anyone."

I thought I showed support and exposed, through logic, that you have not and in fact you are the one arguing from silence.

Where does the authority to baptize come from: Christ or the Church?

If you say Christ, but that He gave it to the Church, then does it follow that only pastors/elders can lead someone to Christ? You rightly say no, but why? Does it follow that making disciples is given to the Church as a whole, but it is implied (through lack of examples in the NT of women baptizing) that only men (or pastors/deacons) can baptize? This is a leap of logic on your part.

Be consistent: say that either women cannot lead people to Christ or say that they can baptize too, enough with this superimposed division of making disciples into "leading one to Christ" and baptizing...it is not a wise division to make.

BJ

 

Brandon, I cannot see how you can conculde, that, since a woman can witness to someone, and then see that person come to Christ, that they are then allowed to also baptise them? What "logic" are you following here? Since there is not even a single example from Scripture where a woman baptises, you said that they could; and since it is plain that the normal practice throughout the Church age, is for all baptisims to be carried out by men, I see no resason to suppose that the history of the Church from the earliest times is wrong. Don't let the present world dictate to you what it Biblically right.

 

Luke 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. (KJV)

I believe this would qualify as a sinner's prayer.

 

Ichthus,

Do you see anything in my arguments that base my beliefs on modern thoughts toward women or modern practices?

You have failed to answer any questions and continue the bogus argument of placing authority to baptize on whether or not there are examples in the NT. Would you stop believing that women cannot preach the gospel or "lead someone to Christ" if there were no examples of that in the NT? I doubt it.

BJ

 

too many nots above....change cannot to can in the last sentence

 

We don't have all of the information about this situation. Given the information we have, is the baptism of this person rendered invalid because a Christian woman performed the baptism? That's the bottom line question. If we require this person to be re-baptized, then we are telling this person that their original baptism had no spiritual value, cannot be connected to their public confession, and was utterly worthless.

 

Brandon, your arguments are pointless, and to the wind. By accepting that women can share the Gospel with someone, is not the same as her then baptising the person when they accept Jesus. Again I refer you to Scripture. I can give references where men indeed baptised, but you cannot give me a single one to show where women did baptise, even one would do for me.

Your argument that women "preach the Gospel", depends on where she is doing the preaching. Scripture clearly forbids this is a Church, and also in any gathering where men are present.

 

Ichthus,

You fail to address anything too. I tried to show the defeciency in your logic and still in your last post you speak of Scripture to refute me because of something that it does not have! You keep on saying that there is a difference between allowing one to share the gospel and allowing one to baptize and that there is Scripture to support you--well, where is it?

Your quote: "Scripture clearly forbids this is a Church, and also in any gathering where men are present."

So you're going to apply those verses to the act of sharing the gospel. Do you see where your argument is going: women can't even publicly share the gospel to anyone during a church meeting? Women cannot publicly share the gospel if there are men present? This is another logical leap: if women cannot be elders/deacons, then women cannot publicly share the gospel during church meetings or anywhere where men are present. The conclusion does not follow once again.

Show me specifically where in Scripture one has the authority from God to "make disciples" but only to the point of sharing the gospel and not to the point of baptizing. To quote you from the my old C/A days "show me Scripture, not theology (or tradition)."

Waiting for many answers...you're right my arguments have gone to the wind because you have not answered any of them.

BJ

 

Brandon, are you hard of understanding? I have NEVER sais that women cannot "share the Gospel" in Church or anywhere. I am speaking of women "preaching" and "teaching" in Church or where men are present. There is a very big difference here.

You keep on coming back to me about the same things. I have said, that there is NO Scripture evidence of women ever baptising anyone. Do you agree or not with this? I have also said that there is very clear evidence showing that ALL baptisims carried out in the NT are by men ONLY. On this alone I stand, and will NOT be drawn into speculative theology. We have to deal with the facts from Scripture.

 

Interestingly enough, I think if a woman can witness to a man who accepts Christ by the banks of a river... and the man asks to be baptized, there is no scriptural prohibition for the woman doing it.

You might could make a case that this places the woman in authority over the man but I don't see how. John baptized Jesus and was by no means an authority over Him... in fact, John tried to argue that he shouldn't baptize Jesus for this very reason.

Those who argue that this is a church or clergy function: Where is your scriptural proof?

John didn't have a church.

Peter and John didn't have a church until they baptized a bunch of people.

The Ethiopian eunuch wasn't baptized by a pastor nor as a function of a church nor as a means of being accepted into a church.

I am not sure why so many people want to speak where God has remained silent or demand silence where He has spoken.

God did say that women should not teach men. As I argued consistently in the other thread, this means something... it can't just be dismissed because it is contrary to our culture.

OTOH, God did not say that women could not win men to Christ and baptize them.

 

Ichthus, this is it for me. My first post of the day addressed your argument and you ignore it. Yes, I know where you rest your argument on: silence. However, you refuse to show how your argument is valid or sound (it is neither).

Refer to my first argument of the day, I will not repost it here. You seemingly read it, but then you post asking me for my logic...it's in the first post. Did you really read the first post of today from me? I answer most of your questions from your last post in my FIRST post. Go over the questions I ask you in each post and attempt to answer them. Then, we can continue this "conversation."

I will paste this quote of your since you seem to contradict yourself: "Your argument that women "preach the Gospel", depends on where she is doing the preaching. Scripture clearly forbids this is a Church, and also in any gathering where men are present."

Are you not saying that women cannot share the gospel in certain places or situations?

BJ