Authority to Baptize

[TCGreek]

I'm not quite sure whether you are disagreeing with what I said, or simply adding to it, but for sake of clarity, I should say that my post was referring back to the question raised in the OP:

"However, Aresman has raised very valid points with regards to baptism. If the Great Commission was only to the apostles, then the authority to baptize stops after the apostolic period."​

I was saying that it is highly unlikely that Paul was baptised by an apostle.

If we deem baptism as an ordinance, it must be under the authority of the leadership of the local church.

We must be faithful stewards of what has been entrusted to us. At best, the argument for ordain males or males to baptize only is circumstantial.

It is now quite reasonably demonstrated that baptism could not have been of the apostles only. Others did baptize (Acts 9, either Ananias or someone at Damascus). For that matter, why do we baptize?

1. Baptism was ordained by Jesus for the life of church.

2. Baptism was administered by males from the NT data.

3. Baptism must be regulated by the church.

4. Since the church must exercise male leadership, it is only reasonable to conclude that males only must administer baptism. Whether they must be ordained or not, is not clear, but they must be in leadership.

 

[Brother Bob]

Amen TC;............

 

[EdSutton]

If we deem baptism as an ordinance, it must be under the authority of the leadership of the local church.

We must be faithful stewards of what has been entrusted to us. At best, the argument for ordain males or males to baptize only is circumstantial.

It is now quite reasonably demonstrated that baptism could not have been of the apostles only. Others did baptize (Acts 9, either Ananias or someone at Damascus). For that matter, why do we baptize?

1. Baptism was ordained by Jesus for the life of church.

2. Baptism was administered by males from the NT data.

3. Baptism must be regulated by the church.

4. Since the church must exercise male leadership, it is only reasonable to conclude that males only must administer baptism. Whether they must be ordained or not, is not clear, but they must be in leadership.

Lots of conclusions; not much Scripture cited. How is one to know which is which, unless the Scripture is actually posted??

Ed

 

[TCGreek]

Lots of conclusions; not much Scripture cited. How is one to know which is which, unless the Scripture is actually posted??

Ed

1. Matt. 28:18-20 must be understood in the life of the church or it would not make sense. The Historical/Narrative of Acts bears witness to that, with all of its baptismal-accounts.

2. Whenever a gender is specified in administering baptism, it is always a male (Acts 8, Philip; 16:14ff, Paul and Silas; 19, Paul). Now, I think that the Scriptures reference to males only administering baptism regulates who is to perform the baptism. Unless we think that the Scriptures silence on females baptizing, allows them to baptize.

 

[EdSutton]

1. Matt. 28:18-20 must be understood in the life of the church or it would not make sense. The Historical/Narrative of Acts bears witness to that, with all of its baptismal-accounts.

2. Whenever a gender is specified in administering baptism, it is always a male (Acts 8, Philip; 16:14ff, Paul and Silas; 19, Paul). Now, I think that Scriptures reference to males only administering baptism regulates who is to perform the baptism. Unless we think that the Scriptures silence on females baptizing, allows them to baptize.

Thanks for posting Scripture.

Ed

 

[Tom Butler]

You blame them? Paul's reputation was not really Church friendly... :laugh:

Don't blame the folks at Jerusalem at all. In fact, their example is a good one for us to follow.

I suspect that's probably the rationale for joining a church "by letter." A proper letter from a new member's previous church will vouch for them. Or, it will warn the new church about them.

 

[David Lamb]

If we deem baptism as an ordinance, it must be under the authority of the leadership of the local church.

We must be faithful stewards of what has been entrusted to us. At best, the argument for ordain males or males to baptize only is circumstantial.

It is now quite reasonably demonstrated that baptism could not have been of the apostles only. Others did baptize (Acts 9, either Ananias or someone at Damascus). For that matter, why do we baptize?

1. Baptism was ordained by Jesus for the life of church.

2. Baptism was administered by males from the NT data.

3. Baptism must be regulated by the church.

4. Since the church must exercise male leadership, it is only reasonable to conclude that males only must administer baptism. Whether they must be ordained or not, is not clear, but they must be in leadership.

I fully agree with you.