Baptism? Public or Private?

[JonC]

I think that baptism is a command, but not necessary for salvation. We do it as a public confession of faith.

I suppose it could be done with a couple of people in the river. Would you then make a public confession of faith? Or would that surfice?

When we have individuals baptised at a night service, they make a statement of faith the following Sunday. I like that because it involves the church family, and allows us to rejoice along with the person being baptised.

 

[MTA]

Originally posted by Ben W:

Yet what happened to the authority of the church when the Papacy was being sold for profit, and the Church had become corrupt? It may well have been revived when Knox and Calvin came along, yet it is not unreasonable to assume that any divine appointment to Baptise that the church had, dissapeared when it went after things that were not right.

The modern Church according to some has no Apostles, hence the right to Baptise would be with the laity.

I honestly do not believe one has anything to do with the other. I make that statement believing that, even with all the persecution realized down through the ages, the church that the Lord established has never gone out of existence. Hence, it did not become corrupt in totality, although certain specific "churches" may have fell by the wayside. The church has never depended on Calvin, Knox, or anyone to revive it because the Lord alone has preserved it.

The authority to baptise does not rest with the administrator, only the body that he serves. The apostles were the first church. (I know many believe it did not come into existence until Pentacost, but I believe the Lord established his called out assembly with the twelve.)

 

[Pastor J]

Baptism is a picture of the gospel. 1 Cor. tells us that the Gospel is the death, burial, resurrection, and the appearances. If Baptism is to be a true picture, then it must be public.

 

[Lacy Evans]

MTA:
A church cannot fulfill part of the commission and expect to receive the Lord's blessings (lo I am with you alway, etc.), and no one can individually fulfill the commission outside the authority of the Church.

Ben W:
The modern Church according to some has no Apostles, hence the right to Baptise would be with the laity.

This is the question I was really getting at. This is getting good. I tend to agree with Ben W. The priesthood of the believer is a related doctrine. I know Baptists who believe that your baptism is not valid unless a "baptist preacher" dunks you in "baptist water" in a "baptist church".

Lacy

 

[MTA]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:

I know Baptists who believe that your baptism is not valid unless a "baptist preacher" dunks you in "baptist water" in a "baptist church".

Baptists do believe that immersion is the only scriptural mode of baptism, but this is the first I've heard about "baptist water?" Regardless, if it is deep enough to totally immerse the candidate, then I suppose that would constitute "Baptist water"!

 

[rufus]

[/QB][/Quote]The modern Church according to some has no Apostles, hence the right to Baptise would be with the laity. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Not if the ordiance was given by Jesus to the church. IMHO.

 

[Ben W]

Hello Lacy, I think that we are on the same page on this one, the church leadership failed big time, get hold of a Halleys Bible Handbook (an older one) and have a read of the history of the Roman Catholic Church and what exactly went on over centuries, and is the main reason why Islam flourished.

I see it that through people like Calvin, God brought revival to the church. Yet the spiritual line of Apostolic succession had been broken, thus the responsability to Baptise would logically rest with the believers in Christ. Their commision being there response to the Great Commision.