Baptism

Good questions.

In Acts Philip baptized the Ethiopian even though he would not be joining any church in Ethiopia. Maybe Philip was "under the authority" of the church in Jerusalem, but I think that's pushing the idea.

We separate Baptism from church membership. For us, Baptism is an outward sign of your salvation. We believe the only requirement for Baptism is salvation. Although a person must be immersed after salvation to be a member of our church, there are other requirements.

I think the issue about Chaplains in Iraq baptizing soldiers would be more complicated. It would depend on what the Baptism meant to both the soldier and the Chaplain, but especially to the soldier. In Viet Nam lots of guys did lots of religious stuff before they went in country.

 

I believe the ordained Minister is the authority to baptize. If a church then will not receive his work, they should get rid of the minister. I think Phillip was the authority to baptize. We are supposed to:2Cr 13:1¶This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

If you are an ordained Minister, I think you have yourself and the Lord, to witness it. I want church witnesses, and always have had them, but I can see a case, where maybe I would not, and I would expect my church to receive my work.

Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ as our example. I believe you have to have a spiritual baptism, before the water baptism.

BBob,

 

Doesn't that refer to being a Jew??

 

I think the intended word was Semantics.

The Archangel

 

1. Yes, and Philip in Acts was under the authority of the church at Jerusalem in discharging his ministry.

2. It interesting how we all understand baptism in varied forms. But I believe water baptism adds the believer to body of Christ and then to a local church.

Yes, the believer is already added to the body of Christ by the baptism of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13), but as a visible sign, water baptism is administered for membership in a local church.

3. Supposing that the chaplain is someone like a Philip, havin been commissioned by a local church. But the soldier would only be portraying what is seen in baptism and not be added to a local church (that would have to be worked out between the soldier and a local church).

4. Remember, baptism is not just to be part of a local church. Water baptism is so rich in its portrayals.

5. Should the baptizer be authorized by a local church to do so? Yes, I believe so, but grace allows for exceptions.

6. What is a sacrament? In the Roman Catholic language, baptism is not a sacrament. Baptism is an ordinance.

 

So if you were alone could you baptise yourself?
There would be the person being baptised, the person doing the baptising, and the Lord...three witnesses! :laugh:

Must baptism be observed under the authority of the local church?

If the great commission was given to all believers, then isn’t it the responsibility of all believers to make disciples and baptize? Are we not all priests? [Rev 1:6]

If a military chaplain preforms a baptism in Iraq, does that solider become a member of a local church.?

The person would be a member (or more accurately a constituent) of the body of believes in that location.

When they relocate, they become participants of another local body.

Specific rules or obligations are developed by a local church leaders to help them govern the body of believers under their authority.
These rules differ from place to place.

Rob

 

If I were and am a ordained minister, I would have already been baptized. Get it???

We in our association of churches only allow ordained authority to baptize.

BBob,

 

My direction has changed with maturity and anti legalism.

I hold to the concept that baptism is a result of salvation. It should be a requirement for church membership, but not a door to church membership. It should be tied to salvation and done when a person receives Christ as his/her Savior.

I don't hold that it should be tied to a pastor. I believe any believer can and should baptize others.

 

It is an ordinance TC, I just wasn't thinking.

7th: We believe that repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are necessary previous to baptism, and that by immersion is the only right way of administering the ordinance.

Be careful they will accuse you of water salvation. (natural water).

 

Hi all,

I also believe this and my church also practices this.

I do have a question. In Acts chapter 8, Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them. Verse 12 says:
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Now, if we notice verses 15-17
Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

I have always (And still do) believed that being born again is being born of the Spirit of God which preceeds water baptism. Yet here, this was not the case. The Apostle Philip baptized them. The Apostles in Jeruselum heard that they received the Word but went down there to pray for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. If they knew that they had not received the Holy Ghost, then so should have Philip. If so, then why did he baptize them without them being born again?

He (Philip) told the Eunuch that the requirement to being baptized was if he believed with all his heart(8:37).
We all know what we believe, but I am wondering how others view this. I have always questioned this.
I would love some feedback on this.

 

BBob,
I don't see why they should accuse me.

Salvation as you know is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone (Eph 2:8).

Water-baptism however portrays our union with Him and what already took place in conversion (Rom 6:3-4; Acts 2:38; 22:16).

 

I agree, just kidding you a little.

I believe it goes along with "if you are shame to confess me before the sinful and adultereous generation, I will be ashame to confess you before my Father and His Holy Angels.

BBob,

 

This was doing the time of conversion from John's baptism for the remission of sins unto the receiving of the Holy Ghost by Corneilus (sp). IMO. It was different until after the day of Penecost. I am sure there were some straglers still out there.

BBob,

 

I quite agree with your reasoning here, BBob: Are we willing to confess Jesus in Baptism?

 

I am confessing Him in Baptism. It shows the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, and we baptize in the creeks and rivers still for the most part, so it is before the world. Never thought of that before, good reason to stay in the creeks.........

BBob,

 

That is why I cannot understand why some Christian groups do not baptize in water at all.

In fact, some groups have said that Spirit-baptism has replaced water-baptism.

Have you ever heard that one?

 

No, I don't believe I have. I mostly hear about salvation being in the water or as we say, answering a good conscious towards God.

 

Well, among churches of Christ and some other groups salvation obtained at the point of water-baptism. But this would not do.

I believe God has always saved one way and one way alone: saved by grace through faith (Abraham is the prime example, Rom 4:11, 12).