-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Baptism?
- Thread starter John I Morris
- Start date
The operative word is "authorized." The validity is tied to the authorizer as administrators can come and go.
So does that mean there are no real NT churches among the reformed?
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Please define "Authorized Administrator." If you mean only ordained pastors, I highly disagree.
Forever Settled
Active Member
Where did their authority originate ? They weren’t around when Christ authorized his church to baptize. What is your thoughts ?
No, it's whoever a particular local church authorizes. I baptized my father. Though, ordained to the Gospel ministry, I'm not on the pastoral staff of my home church. So, I did so with the advice and consent of my pastor in the church's baptistry. I would have been out of order if I had done so on my own hook without the authorization of my home church.
Neither were we Baptists!
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
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?
IMO, it’s more of a politeness thing than a biiblical thing. Unless someone’s Church of Christ, there’s no need to rush the Baptism, because most Baptists don’t believe that baptism is needed for salvation.
In addition, baptism is considered a form of an entrance ritual. (Please excuse the clumsiness of my words. I might not be using the right jargon.) After the Baptism, the person is considered a new member of that particular local church. Leaving the local church out of this doesn’t seem right. In addition, it would make sense then that a member of that local church do the baptizing.
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.
Now some of this, like the public Baptism of followers, is in the Bible. (Acts 10:47 - notice Peter also asks if anyone objects.) Other parts are simply submission to the local authority of the elders of your local church. (Which even Paul did when he went back to Jerusalem. Act 21:23)
Of course, if you don’t like the local churches, you can always start a new one. Although, I wouldn’t do so over petty matters.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
In other words, something added to Scripture. We need to be very careful about traditions we put forth as church rules about what is or is not proper if it is not supported by Scripture.
Again, I do not believe this is the purpose of baptism. This is something we have added afterward. I'm not saying it is wrong for a church to consider a person a part of their church post-baptism, but that is not the purpose of baptism in Scripture.
I agree with public baptism. But I don't think that has to do with what we are discussing.
Not advocating that. I am saying that we need to be careful about things we have added in as tradition and then say it has to be done that way.
Politeness is a part of scripture. Sometimes offending someone is unavoidable and part of a Christian lifestyle, but one shouldn't offend other people just to do it.
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?
You still missed the part where Peter asks before Baptism, "Does anyone object?"
Just like pianos in church, it doesn't have to be that way. But if a church wants to see the Pastor do the Baptism, what are you going to do? You can either be ok with it, or move on.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
And this is precisely my point. Where do you see that this is done in a "normal" worship service in Scripture?
He wasn't asking for permission, he was making a declarative statement.
Peter's words in Acts 10:47 is a question, not a statement. I don't think he is asking permission so much as he is asking a somewhat rhetorical. He doesn't know any reason they could object neither expect anyone to, but if there is any now is the time.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Rhetorical questions are a form of making declarative statements. He was not, as the other poster suggested, in any way asking for permission. The question was a way of making a statement. The answer, obviously, is nobody. That's also why the ESV puts a cross-reference to Acts 8:36. There was water available so immediately was the time to be baptized.
Show me a “normal” worship service in scripture.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
That was kind of my point.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Typically, yes. But there is nothing to suggest that this is a biblical mandate, rather a church tradition.
Some do it wrong method and may be wrong doctrinally.
"Like Faith" is the term used for recognizing baptism
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.