Authority to Baptize

[Tom Butler]

I believe that the Great Commission was given to the Church. The Apostles were acting as representatives of what would be the church. So I believe that baptism ought to only be done by someone as authorized by the local church.

We have allowed a dad to baptize his children, but it was done by the authority of our church.

The interesting Scripture is Philip baptizing the Ethiopian even though the treasurer would not be going back to a church and Philip was a "deacon" who was serving as an evangelist. That's one reason why I would not take a hard stand on this.

Tom, I, too, believe that the Great Commissioin was given to the Apostles, who made up the church that Jesus established during his earthly ministry. The authority to baptize was given to that church and each church established thereafter. Individuals who baptize must do so only by the authority of the local congregation.

In Acts 8, Philip went down to Samaria and baptized several folks. Peter and John were dispatched from the Jerusalem congregation to Samaria to observe what was happening, and give their approval to Philip's evangelistic efforts.

BTW, this was a literal fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy (Acts 1:8) that they would be "witnesses in Jerusalem, all of Judea, and in Samaria....."

The point here is that the authority to baptize is given to the local church, not to individuals.

Even though I think a baptism may be done by an unordained person, I would point out that the only baptisms we know of in the NT were done by ordained men. All of them had either a direct commission from Jesus (John the Baptist, The 12), or from a local congregation (Jerusalem, Antioch).

 

[EdSutton]

If there is no gift of evangelism then on the basis of Roman 10:14 how can there be a gift or preaching.

"How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?"

FTR, there is no gift of "evangelism" spoken of, in the Scripture. In fact that English word does not appear in the KJV, RV or ASV. However the Greek "το ευαγγελιον" or 'euaggelion' which means good news or gospel, is the base word for the derivation of 'evangelist', 'evangelism', etc.

There is a gift of "evangelist" spoken of in Scripture. (Eph. 4:11)

One who had this gift, apparently, was Philip, the evangelist. (Acts 21:8) He had four daughters, BTW, who apparently had the gift of prophet ( Eph. 4:11) or prophecy (Rom. 12:6) (if there may be some slight difference actually, here), for they did indeed prophesy. (Acts 21:9) Just thought I'd throw the last bit about the daughters prophesying in for free.

One who apparently did not have the gift of evangelist was Timothy, for it is not mentioned, yet he was told to "do the work of an evangelist". (II Tim. 4:5)

I would offer that this is consistent with one of the qualifications for a bishop/elder, in that he must be "able to teach" (I Tim. 3:2, c.f. Tit. 1:9), but without saying that an elder necessarily has the 'gift' of teacher, or pastor/teacher. In fact, is appears some elders, although they do 'rule', do not labor in the word and doctrine, by course. (I Tim. 5:17)

And what exactly does Rom. 10:14 have to do with the gift of evangelist?? IN fact, that verse says nothing about any gift, let alone a non-existent one of "preaching!" Can not anyone proclaim or 'preach' the 'euaggelion' or the gospel or good news, depending on how you wish to render these words? Paul 'preached', Peter 'preached', others 'preached', people 'preach' today, and I would suggest that not all of them have the "gift" of "evangelist", nor is it necessary to have that specific gift. I have neither the gift of evangelist, nor that of pastor/teacher (by any stretch, I add), yet I have and do proclaim the good news. If that gift were required, I could not do this, at all.

Ed

 

[LeBuick]

Tom, I, too, believe that the Great Commissioin was given to the Apostles, who made up the church that Jesus established during his earthly ministry.

One small note, there were more in the Church than his Apostles;

Acts 1:15-22 (KJV)
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

 

[LeBuick]

He had four daughters, BTW, who apparently had the gift of prophet ( Eph. 4:11) or prophecy (Rom. 12:6) (if there may be some slight difference actually, here), for they did indeed prophesy. (Acts 21:9) Just thought I'd throw the last bit about the daughters prophesying in for free.
Ed

Women speaking up in Church? Where did you get that page from, it can't be in my bible :BangHead: :BangHead: :laugh:

 

[EdSutton]

Tom, I, too, believe that the Great Commissioin was given to the Apostles, who made up the church that Jesus established during his earthly ministry. The authority to baptize was given to that church and each church established thereafter. Individuals who baptize must do so only by the authority of the local congregation.

In Acts 8, Philip went down to Samaria and baptized several folks. Peter and John were dispatched from the Jerusalem congregation to Samaria to observe what was happening, and give their approval to Philip's evangelistic efforts.

BTW, this was a literal fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy (Acts 1:8) that they would be "witnesses in Jerusalem, all of Judea, and in Samaria....."

The point here is that the authority to baptize is given to the local church, not to individuals.

Even though I think a baptism may be done by an unordained person, I would point out that the only baptisms we know of in the NT were done by ordained men. All of them had either a direct commission from Jesus (John the Baptist, The 12), or from a local congregation (Jerusalem, Antioch).

Uh, I thought John the Baptist was already baptizing before he even saw Jesus, let alone "have a direct commission" from Jesus.

28 These things were done in Bethabara[h] beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
The Lamb of God
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ 31 I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.” (Jn. 1:28-31 - NKJV)
1 In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea,
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.[b]
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him.(Matt. 3:1, 11, 13 - NKJV)

Yep, that's how I read it. I am no more! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I have used the large ones they have in hospitals and believe it or not, I have used the ones in a home when the person was dying. I would sit them in the tub and then have someone pull their legs forward as I lay his head and top part of his body under the water, being very careful to not hit their head on the spout. It is very difficult but the result is very joyful. I thank God for always helping me in this travel.
Since the two heart surgeries, it is very hard for me in the winters in the creeks and rivers. I only have half my heart working and when I step in the water in January, sometimes in ice, I have to step in the cold water and just stand there forever until I can get my breathe back, then I ease on out in the deep water, struggling for breath. After I put them under and raise them back up, believe it or not but I am no longer cold at all, but warm all over. I thank God again for always helping me through my travel in my ministry.

Not making fun of anyone, but you might inquire about arranging to use another church's baptistry. Our church used to do that, and since we have our own, now, we have allowed several others, who did not have a baptistry, to use ours, as well. Sure beats a creek or pond, in January, I'd say.

Incidentally, two times back in the 'teens, according to my folks, my late dad, and two of my late aunts were all baptized in January, in a pond, where they cut the ice in order to baptize the candidates. AND they had to walk a half mile to the '"baptizin'" and back in wet clothes, to the nearest house of a church member. One of my aunts once told me that the wet clothes froze on her, and my dad, as well, when he was baptized, for it was well below freezing. Brrrrr!!

I bet they might have settled for "sprinkling." :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[LeBuick]

Not making fun of anyone, but you might inquire about arranging to use another church's baptistry. Our church used to do that, and since we have our own, now, we have allowed several others, who did not have a baptistry, to use ours, as well. Sure beats a creek or pond, in January, I'd say.

Incidentally, two times back in the 'teens, according to my folks, my late dad, and two of my late aunts were all baptized in January, in a pond, where they cut the ice in order to baptize the candidates. AND they had to walk a half mile to the '"baptizin'" and back in wet clothes, to the nearest house of a church member. One of my aunts once told me that the wet clothes froze on her, and my dad, as well, when he was baptized, for it was well below freezing. Brrrrr!!

I bet they might have settled for "sprinkling." :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

Should have picked better weather to come to Christ :laugh: :wavey:

 

[EdSutton]

To be "done in order" hardly says anything about who should be doing it in order, and I've yet to see a verse which identifies baptizing as a spiritual gift.

He do have a good point, here!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I didn't say baptizing is a spiritual gift. Preaching is. And I think Paul was telling the Corinthian church to do all things in order, beginning with speaking in tongues. I suppose all would also include baptizing, and preaching.

Big leap of logic here, I think. And where exactly does Scripture say "preaching" is a gift??

Ed

 

[Tom Butler]

Uh, I thought John the Baptist was already baptizing before he even saw Jesus, let alone "have a direct commission" from Jesus.

Thanks for catching that. I should have said that John the Baptist received his commission directly from God. (John 1:6 "....there was a man sent from God...")

 

[Brother Bob]

Not making fun of anyone, but you might inquire about arranging to use another church's baptistry. Our church used to do that, and since we have our own, now, we have allowed several others, who did not have a baptistry, to use ours, as well. Sure beats a creek or pond, in January, I'd say.

You do not understand the Old Regulars and others. Many will not be baptized in a baptistry and insist on being baptized in running water as Jesus was.

 

[David Lamb]

Hello, all:


Now, I would like input from you all. And please, no sarcasm, no insinuations, no anything that will turn the discussion into negative.

I personally believe the "Great Commission" was given only to the church, that is, the command to preach the gospel, to make disciples.

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.

Now, that part I do not agree with.

When, and where in Scripture did the authority to baptize transfer to elders ?

I am asking this question because I am willing to let go of the belief that the "Great Commission" was given only to the apostles, if Scriptures plainly show otherwise.

Of course, the third option Aresman presented I did not consider at all, but can also be tackled if you want.

Thanks for your input.

In Acts 9.17-19, Saul/Paul's baptism is described:

17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.
19 So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus. ​

No indication there that an apostle had to be sent for. Indeed, if that had been the case, Acts 9.26-27 would surely not say:

26 And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple.
27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.​

If an apostle had baptised Paul, formerly one of the greatest enemies of the early church, it would be strange indeed if he had not passed on that information to his fellow-apostles straight away.

 

[lbaker]

Acts 18 and 19, and 1st Cor. 1 give the impression that Apollos was also baptizing, and there's no record of him being authorized by a church or set of elders.

Les

 

[EdSutton]

You do not understand the Old Regulars and others. Many will not be baptized in a baptistry and insist on being baptized in running water as Jesus was.

So turn a hose on in the baptistry! :laugh: :laugh:

But seriously, what is the real difference between a baptistry and a large bathtub??

That part sounds like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, to me, although I admit its just me.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

So turn a hose on in the baptistry! :laugh: :laugh:

But seriously, what is the real difference between a baptistry and a large bathtub??

That part sounds like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, to me, although I admit its just me.

Ed

I did not say I would not use a baptistry. When you pastor a church Ed; if you do not understand that "change" must come very slow, or you lose those of old. If you do not change, then you lose the young.
I believe in changing as long as you can stay with scripture.

 

[Tom Butler]

In Acts 9.17-19, Saul/Paul's baptism is described:

17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.
19 So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus. ​

No indication there that an apostle had to be sent for. Indeed, if that had been the case, Acts 9.26-27 would surely not say:

26 And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple.
27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.​

If an apostle had baptised Paul, formerly one of the greatest enemies of the early church, it would be strange indeed if he had not passed on that information to his fellow-apostles straight away.

Since there were disciples at Damascas, it is likely that there was a congregation there, and he was baptized there. Maybe by Ananias himself, who knows?

Note also that the congregation at Jerusalem refused Paul membership, even though he desired to join them there. Only when Barnabas vouched for him was he received.

 

[LeBuick]

Note also that the congregation at Jerusalem refused Paul membership, even though he desired to join them there. Only when Barnabas vouched for him was he received.

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

 

[David Lamb]

Since there were disciples at Damascas, it is likely that there was a congregation there, and he was baptized there. Maybe by Ananias himself, who knows?

Note also that the congregation at Jerusalem refused Paul membership, even though he desired to join them there. Only when Barnabas vouched for him was he received.

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.

 

[EdSutton]

Acts 18 and 19, and 1st Cor. 1 give the impression that Apollos was also baptizing, and there's no record of him being authorized by a church or set of elders.

Les

Someone else here, do make a good point!

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by lbaker
Acts 18 and 19, and 1st Cor. 1 give the impression that Apollos was also baptizing, and there's no record of him being authorized by a church or set of elders.

Les

Seems to me we are assuming something that might not be true. Apollos did teach, but if he baptized, I can't find it.

1Cr 3:5¶Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?





If you are using this Scripture for support that Apollos baptized, it also mentions Christ, and I don't think He baptized any did he?

1Cr 1:12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.