Baptism?

[Ziggy]

And if a particular local church says all its members are qualified administrators? What then?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

In that unlikely occurrence, there'll be a traffic jam at the baptistry.

And if a particular local church says all its members are qualified administrators? What then?

 

[Dave G]

I happen to think that every believer is qualified to administer baptism.

On a side note, I don't believe in "Revs", at least not in the title-istic sense.
Each and every person in the body of Christ has talents, and God is the one who makes bishops, elders and deacons ( Acts of the Apostles 20:28 ) in the local body, not men.

A pastor is simply a senior, spiritually mature believer whose function in the body is one of oversight and guidance...they have no more or less authority to baptize anyone than the "least" of the local body.
Any "reverence" is with regard to honor ( 1 Timothy 5:17 ), not with regard to putting them on a pedestal and hanging on their every word as the "head of the church."

Yet, that is how I've often seen it done for the entire 40+ years I've been a believer.

I do believe that the elders should establish the validity of the confession of faith, and that the person being baptized, by anyone performing said baptism, should first have the confidence of the body of elders that they believe that God's grace has been given to the baptized.

In other words, let the elders decide if the person is genuinely saved or not, before allowing the baptism to be administered.

 

[MartyF]

You are making a lot of assumptions here. We aren't talking about anyone specific church, we are talking about a universal principle. Nobody said anything about breaking with the elders of a church or going behind a church's back. You brought all of that into the conversation.

I would have been out of order if I had done so on my own hook without the authorization of my home church.

And then you replied.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I think we can make an argument from Scripture, particularly the Great Commission, that all disciples are authorized to baptize. Where do we find in Scripture you must be authorized by the local church?

I didn't bring it into the conversation. It was there at the beginning.

However, since you seem to have come around and now believe it is perfectly fine for a church to do this, the point is moot.

 

[Reformed1689]

However, since you seem to have come around and now believe it is perfectly fine for a church to do this, the point is moot.

No, you were the one who started talking about going behind people's backs etc... You proved that in the post I am now replying to.

 

[MartyF]

No, you were the one who started talking about going behind people's backs etc... You proved that in the post I am now replying to.

If your now trying to make this about the "going behind people's back" specifically. Yes, I did say that but more as a question. A question which you did not answer but also specifically did not object to until after your argument was failing.

Let's go through the entire thing for you.

I would have been out of order if I had done so on my own hook without the authorization of my home church.

He's talking specifically about his church. This is the part of Robertsson's passage you quoted.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I think we can make an argument from Scripture, particularly the Great Commission, that all disciples are authorized to baptize. Where do we find in Scripture you must be authorized by the local church?

You're objecting to what is happening at his church.

In addition, Baptists traditionally baptize in public. It’s what got the early Baptists murdered by the Reformed Church. There should be witnesses to the Baptism who know what is going on.

I agree with public baptism. But I don't think that has to do with what we are discussing.

We may be getting our wires crossed and misunderstanding each other.

Well, if you are trying to baptize behind the Church's back outside the normal worship service, it's not exactly public, is it?

If you insist on baptizing someone during the worship service, and the church says no, what are you going to do?

Notice - I'm giving options! I'm trying to figure out what your meaning.

And this is precisely my point. Where do you see that this is done in a "normal" worship service in Scripture?

You replied with no objection to the first question.

Show me a “normal” worship service in scripture.

That was kind of my point.

And this goes back to my point. You can either agree with or tolerate your own church’s practices, go to another church, or start your own. But breaking with the Elders and trying to break apart a current church is not the appropriate action if you can’t convince them of your reasoning. Also, going behind a church’s back is not an appropriate action.

Personally, I would want a leader of the church to do the Baptism and not someone who insists on doing it to prove a point.

Once again, I am giving choices. What do you suggest someone do? In a real-life situation?

I'm not saying that you are suggesting that people Baptize behind a church's back. I'm listing the many options available.

You are making a lot of assumptions here. We aren't talking about anyone specific church, we are talking about a universal principle. Nobody said anything about breaking with the elders of a church or going behind a church's back. You brought all of that into the conversation.

And now this thread has been made about me and not Baptism.

 

[John I Morris]

What then if an "authorised administrator" has performed many baptisms but then apostasizes and denies the faith? This has happened many times before, and I personally have been in one such otherwise conservative Baptist church where the pastor resigned because he could no longer believe in God.

Obvious it has to be something more than just the administrator.

The administrator is "authorized" by a valid "church", that is where the administrator gets his authority. No valid church, no authorization.

 

[John I Morris]

I happen to think that every believer is qualified to administer baptism.

On a side note, I don't believe in "Revs", at least not in the title-istic sense.
Each and every person in the body of Christ has talents, and God is the one who makes bishops, elders and deacons ( Acts of the Apostles 20:28 ) in the local body, not men.

A pastor is simply a senior, spiritually mature believer whose function in the body is one of oversight and guidance...they have no more or less authority to baptize anyone than the "least" of the local body.
Any "reverence" is with regard to honor ( 1 Timothy 5:17 ), not with regard to putting them on a pedestal and hanging on their every word as the "head of the church."

Yet, that is how I've often seen it done for the entire 40+ years I've been a believer.

I do believe that the elders should establish the validity of the confession of faith, and that the person being baptized, by anyone performing said baptism, should first have the confidence of the body of elders that they believe that God's grace has been given to the baptized.

In other words, let the elders decide if the person is genuinely saved or not, before allowing the baptism to be administered.

But the "buck stops here" Hebrews 13:7, 17, God appoints one "under shepherd" not everyone in the church has the responsibility of giving an account for the church during their time of leading it except the pastor. Hebrews 13:17

 

[robycop3]

Well, we saw the apostle Philip present the Gospel to the Ethiopian viceroy who believed it & requested to be baptized soon as they came to a creek, & Philip obliged. I believe any experienced Christian can baptize new believers in any convenient body of water. (I can't say how long one must be a Christian to be "experienced".)

 

[John I Morris]

Well, we saw the apostle Philip present the Gospel to the Ethiopian viceroy who believed it & requested to be baptized soon as they came to a creek, & Philip obliged. I believe any experienced Christian can baptize new believers in any convenient body of water. (I can't say how long one must be a Christian to be "experienced".)

And we would agree to disagree on that. Without the authorization of a "true" church, you have no authority, side point Phillip was not an apostle.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Back in the day, the consensus of my Baptist Polity class was Philip was acting in a missionary capacity and the Eunuch was the founding member of a church in Ethiopia.

And we would agree to disagree on that. Without the authorization of a "true" church, you have no authority, side point Phillip was not an apostle.

 

[rlvaughn]

Well, we saw the apostle Philip present the Gospel to the Ethiopian viceroy who believed it & requested to be baptized soon as they came to a creek, & Philip obliged.

Initially accepting your identification of this Philip as an apostle, I fail to see how you draw your conclusion. How do you get from one directly commissioned to baptize (Matt. 28:18-20) proving any experienced Christian can baptize? Nevertheless, I believe the broader context shows this to be the Philip who is one of the seven, and later called an evangelist.

I believe any experienced Christian can baptize new believers in any convenient body of water. (I can't say how long one must be a Christian to be "experienced".)

Even by your own admission, this becomes an unworkable premise (i.e., you can't say how long one must be a Christian to be experienced).

 

[rlvaughn]

We have discussed the subject of the administrator of baptism primarily as a scriptural matter, in the context of who or what is or is not authorized to baptize. That is as it should be. Perhaps a particular consideration might not be out of order. Best not to authorize someone to administer baptism that might make the candidate later question the validity of his baptism, or perhaps other churches to question the validity of the baptism.

 

[John I Morris]

Back in the day, the consensus of my Baptist Polity class was Philip was acting in a missionary capacity and the Eunuch was the founding member of a church in Ethiopia.

With this I totally agree! Have a great week!

 

[robycop3]

Initially accepting your identification of this Philip as an apostle, I fail to see how you draw your conclusion. How do you get from one directly commissioned to baptize (Matt. 28:18-20) proving any experienced Christian can baptize? Nevertheless, I believe the broader context shows this to be the Philip who is one of the seven, and later called an evangelist.
Even by your own admission, this becomes an unworkable premise (i.e., you can't say how long one must be a Christian to be experienced).

Before Jesus died, at least some of His disciples were baptizing people. (But Jesus Himself didn't baptize.) (John 4:1-2) Most new Christians don't question the "qualifications" of whomever baptizes them. And it's the SPIRIT of baptism that matters, not the nutz-n-boltz of the act itself.

 

[Reformed1689]

Before Jesus died, at least some of His disciples were baptizing people. (But Jesus Himself didn't baptize.) (John 4:1-2) Most new Christians don't question the "qualifications" of whomever baptizes them. And it's the SPIRIT of baptism that matters, not the nutz-n-boltz of the act itself.

Exactly. I don't even remember who it was that baptized me, but I remember being baptized. I was making a statement to the world about what had taken place in my life testifying to the work of Christ. I wasn't worried about who was placing me in the water.

 

[rlvaughn]

Before Jesus died, at least some of His disciples were baptizing people. (But Jesus Himself didn't baptize.) (John 4:1-2) Most new Christians don't question the "qualifications" of whomever baptizes them. And it's the SPIRIT of baptism that matters, not the nutz-n-boltz of the act itself.

Your post (#69) put forward the idea "any experienced Christian can baptize," with you being unable to define "experienced." I don't see how this addresses that premise.

 

[Ziggy]

And what if a presumably "qualified administrator" later apostasizes, rejects even the existence of God, and abandons the ministry and church altogether (a known actual event) - - are those he baptized no longer valid?

 

[John I Morris]

And what if a presumably "qualified administrator" later apostasizes, rejects even the existence of God, and abandons the ministry and church altogether (a known actual event) - - are those he baptized no longer valid?

The authority to baptize was given to the church as one of the two ordinances (as we call them). Baptism and the Lord's Supper (Communion) are the two given to the church. So, whoever the church authorizes is an acceptable administer of the ordinance. At least in my humble opinion. Thank you all who participated in the discussion.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree......point was the poster I replied to said Baptists were Not the only ones with authority to baptize.

So who else Was given the authority is my point.

Any local assembly who holds to the historical doctrines of the Christian faith, as in the true Gospel!
I hold that we Baptists have the best and most biblical way to water baptize, but not only one God would recognize!