Does it matter who baptized you?

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Part of the problem is the confusion between the church and the kingdom. They are different. If you want a universal entity, it's the kingdom. The church must of necessity be local, or else it is a useless fantasy with no reason for existing.

GE
It is possible to distinguish between the ideas; but impossible to separate them both meaning the Church.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Tom Butler:
""feed the flock of God, over which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers (the congregation at Ephesus) which he purchased "with his own blood."

This is why I hold that the authority to baptize resides in a local congregation and not with individuals operating independently."

GE:
This is exactly why I hold the authority to baptise resides - first, in Christ to baptised with His Holy spirit whomsoever He will; not in "a local congregation and not with individuals operating independently"; and, secondly, resided once in the commissioned Apostolic Community, because, to "feed the flock of God, over which the Holy Ghost has made you" -- the Apostles -- overseers", and "which He" -- not you or even the Apostles -- "purchased "with his own blood"".

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

'The Church' of Christ is where -- and as large as -- those whom He "with His own blood purchased". That at the same time is much bigger, yet much smaller than any or all 'local Assemblies', put together. A mark of that 'Church of Christ's', is never a baptism with water in whatever way or with whichever connotations attached. The Mark of that Church of Christ, is Christ's Baptism with the Holy Spirit, "In The Name"; as the mark, that Church is invisible and known to God only. (a name, "no one else knows", Revelation somewhere.)

 

[Darron Steele]

All of the Great Commission must be obeyed, not just a part of it.
Take the example of Paul. What did he do.
Paul de-emphasized baptism.
Here is what he said:

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Paul did baptize. He did not baptize many of the Corinthians, but he did baptize.

He was thankful he did not baptize many of the Corinthians "lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name" (ASV) per 1:15. The Corinthians had divided into boastful factions rallied around claimed allegiance to various persons. Paul wrote this as he was rebuking them for this behavior.

Paul in his letters did not `de-emphasize' baptism anywhere, nor encourage Christians not to be baptized, nor tell Christians not to baptize. Further, it is clear that he did baptize.

Paul would not baptize a person just because he led him to the Lord.
Apparently he did not baptize Onesimus, the runaway slave, though he did lead him to the Lord. That would have been the responsibilty of the church that met in Philemon's house. ...

I thought your use of "Apparently" was interesting. How do you know who baptized Onesimus or who did not? I do not recall reading that bit of information in the Bible.

Similarly, the rest of your post is just speculation.

What was your purpose in disputing the post you quoted? With you being Baptist, I find it difficult to believe you have an objection to baptism. Evidently, there is some other thing you were trying to accomplish, but I do not know what it was.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Tom Butler,

"This is why I hold that the authority to baptize resides in a local congregation and not with individuals operating independently."

I notice that you responded to my previous post to you, but you chose not to respond to my last statement in that post. Regarding your statement above that I just quoted, I'll post my statement again...

"Phillip. The Ethiopian Eunuch. Out in the middle of nowhere. No assembly. Under no authority but God."

:godisgood:

 

[Tom Butler]

Tom Butler:
""feed the flock of God, over which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers (the congregation at Ephesus) which he purchased "with his own blood."

This is why I hold that the authority to baptize resides in a local congregation and not with individuals operating independently."

GE:
This is exactly why I hold the authority to baptise resides - first, in Christ to baptised with His Holy spirit whomsoever He will; not in "a local congregation and not with individuals operating independently"; and, secondly, resided once in the commissioned Apostolic Community, because, to "feed the flock of God, over which the Holy Ghost has made you" -- the Apostles -- overseers", and "which He" -- not you or even the Apostles -- "purchased "with his own blood"".

Those whom Paul described as overseers in Acts 20:28 were the elders of the congregation at Ephesus, not the Apostles.

 

[Tom Butler]

'The Church' of Christ is where -- and as large as -- those whom He "with His own blood purchased". That at the same time is much bigger, yet much smaller than any or all 'local Assemblies', put together. A mark of that 'Church of Christ's', is never a baptism with water in whatever way or with whichever connotations attached. The Mark of that Church of Christ, is Christ's Baptism with the Holy Spirit, "In The Name"; as the mark, that Church is invisible and known to God only. (a name, "no one else knows", Revelation somewhere.)

The church for which Jesus shed his own blood is clearly the one at Ephesus, the "flock" over which the Holy Spirit had made the elders overseers.

We may also conclude that if Jesus shed his blood for the assembly at Ephesus, he also shed his blood for every other local assembly.

 

[Tom Butler]

Tom Butler,



I notice that you responded to my previous post to you, but you chose not to respond to my last statement in that post. Regarding your statement above that I just quoted, I'll post my statement again...

"Phillip. The Ethiopian Eunuch. Out in the middle of nowhere. No assembly. Under no authority but God."
:godisgood:

Philip was a deacon of the Jerusalem congregation, a servant chosen by the church. He was a man obviously filled with the Spirit. Peter and John, on behalf of the Jerusalem church, went to Samaria to verify the results of Philip's preaching, and authenticating the miracles he performed. Philip's preaching and baptizing came with the blessing of the congregation which he served.

 

[DHK]

Paul did baptize. He did not baptize many of the Corinthians, but he did baptize.

Your point is moot. The few people he did baptize is insignificant, as he himself points out, compared to the number of members that made up the church at Corinth. What does he say:
He mentions Crispus and Gaius, and the household of Stephanus. Besides those he knows of no others. Three people are mentioned out of the hundreds, possibly thousands of others. The church at Corinth was a large church, and Paul had spent one and a half years. In one and a half years he baptized only three people! Quite amazing isn't it?
Paul said distnctly that God had called him to preach the gospel, and not to baptize! (1Cor.1:17)

He was thankful he did not baptize many of the Corinthians "lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name" (ASV) per 1:15. The Corinthians had divided into boastful factions rallied around claimed allegiance to various persons. Paul wrote this as he was rebuking them for this behavior.

Yes, he rebuked their behaviour. That was only one reason. But the real reason:

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
--His calling was to preach the gospel, not to baptize.

Paul in his letters did not `de-emphasize' baptism anywhere, nor encourage Christians not to be baptized, nor tell Christians not to baptize. Further, it is clear that he did baptize.

He de-emphasized baptism in his own personal ministry. He said quite clearly that Christ did not call him to baptize. Baptism was still part of the Great Commission. It was still a commandment of Christ. But it was not Paul's duty to perform it. He was a missionary. It was the duty of the local church to perform the baptism, and thus Paul states quite clearly that God had not called him to baptize. Paul was a missionary, not a pastor.

I thought your use of "Apparently" was interesting. How do you know who baptized Onesimus or who did not? I do not recall reading that bit of information in the Bible.

Philemon 1:9-10 Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ.
10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
It is not likely (or even impossible) for a prisoner bound in chains) to baptize one who he led to the Lord. He was a prisoner. Onesimus was "begotten in his bonds (bondage or even chains). Paul was not a free man where he was able to go and baptize just anyone. Besides it was not his calling. He would not do that which God had not called him to do. He was pleading for Philemon to accept him as brother in the Lord, in which case he would be baptized in the church that was in his house. All you have to do is study the letter.

Similarly, the rest of your post is just speculation.

I don't speculate; I study. And I come to the most reasonable and Biblical conclusions.

What was your purpose in disputing the post you quoted? With you being Baptist, I find it difficult to believe you have an objection to baptism. Evidently, there is some other thing you were trying to accomplish, but I do not know what it was.

You might take up your argument with Paul. Paul said that God had not called him to baptize.
I have no objection to baptism. It is part of the Great Commission. It is commanded by our Lord. But there are some very important facts to consider about this ordinance that Christ gave to the local church to observe until he comes.

 

[Darron Steele]

You might take up your argument with Paul. Paul said that God had not called him to baptize.

Right, I read that. It was in the text you quoted.

However, it does not say that Paul did not baptize. It expressly says that he did in the very passage you took extracts from.

As a follower of Jesus Christ, he would have baptized because Christ told His followers to do so at Matthew 28:19-20.

...
I don't speculate; I study. And I come to the most reasonable and Biblical conclusions.
....

With no intent to be unkind, that has not been what I have seen in your posts on this particular topic.

I see a lot of assertions made that are not supported by the text. I see a lot of extra-biblical suppositions read into the text.

Further, I still have not the foggiest idea what exactly you are trying to get across with these posts of yours.

 

[DHK]

Right, I read that. It was in the text you quoted.

However, it does not say that Paul did not baptize. It expressly says that he did in the very passage you took extracts from.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
--Why do you bang your head against a wall of bricks? :BangHead:
Paul was very clear in what he said:

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

--There are no "buts" as in "But Paul did baptize." Read the passage and consider what it says, not what you want it to say.

As a follower of Jesus Christ, he would have baptized because Christ told His followers to do so at Matthew 28:19-20.

You are reading your own theology into Scripture. You make assumptions. You are being like the RCC who prove infant baptism by saying that there must have been infants in the Philippian jailors household, and thus they too were baptized. You are making inferences and assumptions that are not in the Scriptures.

The Great Commission is an important command.
In context it was given to the Apostles first. That is who Christ was speaking to. Secondly, the primary application is that it is given to the local church.
Third application, it is in part only, given to us personally. But an individual cannot carry out the Great Commission by himself.

With no intent to be unkind, that has not been what I have seen in your posts on this particular topic.

I see a lot of assertions made that are not supported by the text. I see a lot of extra-biblical suppositions read into the text.

Further, I still have not the foggiest idea what exactly you are trying to get across with these posts of yours.

You were the first one to post to the OP. Here is what you said:

If a "deceived Christian" baptized you, a Christian still baptized you. If a Christian baptized you, you are baptized.

When Jesus Christ commanded that Christians be baptized, He never commanded that we examine who baptizes us before we obey that command. He simply commanded that it be done just like following His other precepts. Per Matthew 28:19-20, the order He intended was make disciples, baptize them, and teach them. You would have to be taught before you could obey the command to be baptized. A new Christian does not have the tools to examine suitability of a `candidate baptizer.' A new Christian has the responsibility to get baptized. You did that.

Your answer is unbiblical and cannot be supported by Scripture. In fact there is no Scripture to back it up. It is simply an opinion. Like someone who posted after you said: The person in the OP, might as well have received his baptism from a Mormon or J.W. if what you say is true. After all, it really doesn't matter if the "Christian" is deceived does it?
Yes, it does matter.
God gave the ordinance of baptism to the local church.
God gave the ordinance of the Lord's Supper to the local church.
Just as we would not have just anyone administer the elements of the Lord's Supper to anyone, at anytime, and just anywhere, the same is true of baptism. The authority of doing so beloongs to the local church. The Great Commission is certainly there in Mat.28. But the authority to baptize is given to the local church. Jesus did not have the time in his three years of ministry to spell out the full doctrine of ecclesiology.

 

[Tom Butler]

The scri;ptures say Jesus did not baptize anybody, but his disciples did. That doesn't mean that Jesus de-emphasized baptism.

Jesus placed a high priority on the administrator of baptism--so high that he walked a long way to submit to the baptism of John the Baptist.

 

[Darron Steele]

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
--Why do you bang your head against a wall of bricks? :BangHead:
Paul was very clear in what he said:

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

--There are no "buts" as in "But Paul did baptize." Read the passage and consider what it says, not what you want it to say.

I did -- I read the whole passage, including a part you keep wanting to go on as if it is not there:

1Co 1:11 For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Co 1:12 Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos: and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?
1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius;
1Co 1:15 lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name.
1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void. (ASV)​

It expressly says "I baptized also the household of Stephanus."

You were the first one to post to the OP. Here is what you said:

I am going to quote the whole thing:

If a "deceived Christian" baptized you, a Christian still baptized you. If a Christian baptized you, you are baptized.

When Jesus Christ commanded that Christians be baptized, He never commanded that we examine who baptizes us before we obey that command. He simply commanded that it be done just like following His other precepts. Per Matthew 28:19-20, the order He intended was make disciples, baptize them, and teach them. You would have to be taught before you could obey the command to be baptized. A new Christian does not have the tools to examine suitability of a `candidate baptizer.' A new Christian has the responsibility to get baptized. You did that.

Factious Christians and church people often like to claim that the baptisms done by `those other disdain-worthy people' are `tainted' and not valid. Please do not let sectarian strifes dampen this experience to you. You did something Christ specifically ordained to be done in His Name by new Christians. Congratulations. You have cause to celebrate.

Being baptized should not have changed anything about you. Water does not have magic powers. If an unbeliever comes under water, s/he comes up an unbeliever; if you went under a faithful Christian, you should come up a faithful Christian.

Your answer is unbiblical and cannot be supported by Scripture. In fact there is no Scripture to back it up.

Matthew 28:19-20 is cited in that post.

It says “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations|. Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach them to obey everything I have taught you,| and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (NASB|NCV|NASB).

...
God gave the ordinance of baptism to the local church.
God gave the ordinance of the Lord's Supper to the local church.
Just as we would not have just anyone administer the elements of the Lord's Supper to anyone, at anytime, and just anywhere, the same is true of baptism. The authority of doing so beloongs to the local church.

Scripture please?

I appreciate the clarification about where you have been going with your posts. Still, WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY THIS? I have yet to see this.

Where does it say we are not to obey the Lord in baptizing unless the local congregational leadership okays it?

Regarding Matthew 28:19-20, if a person approaches you and asks how to become a Christian, do you say `Wait here while I ask my local pastor and deacon board if I can tell you?' If you see that a couple of new Christians have a gap in knowledge about Christ's teaching that needs immediate attention, do you go away and ask your local pastor and deacon board to chase down the new Christians to tell them? I sure hope not.

I have cited Scripture that expressly says Christ told His followers to baptize. You have cited no passages supporting your assertions that we are not always to obey this directive.

You said I am "reading your own theology into Scripture" but as evident, I am simply going with the text at face value.

The Great Commission is certainly there in Mat.28. But the authority to baptize is given to the local church. Jesus did not have the time in his three years of ministry to spell out the full doctrine of ecclesiology.

So evidently, you are trying to `help' Him.

I think He did just fine in His teaching.

 

[DHK]

Darron,
There are 27 books in the NT, not just four. The NT did not stop at the gospels. In fact there are 26 books that follow after Matthew where the Great Commission is given in detail. Why do you ignore them? There is more to the Bible than the Great Commission, given in just two verses of the Bible.

Here is a pattern to follow in the NT.
Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

This is speaking of the church in Jerusalem of which the pastor is James (Acts 15).
They frist heard the Word of God and then were baptized,
Upon their baptism they were added to the church, that is became members of the church at Jerusalem. This church started just before Pentecost.

Consider:
Acts 1:13-15 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
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,)

--The expression "the number of names" indicate that names were written down, as in a membership roll. These, one might say, were the founding members of the church at Jerusalem. It doesn't say that there simply a 120 present. It says "the NUMBER of NAMES" not the number of people present. There is a difference.
And to that number, there were 3,000 added after they were saved and then baptized by those given authority to do so that were in the church.

What happend after they became members of the church? They acted according to the Great Commission:

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
--They were discipled. They "were taught all things whatsoever Christ had taught them." And they were taught daily. That is discipleship. This is what Jesus had in mind. It was a local church program, which also is taught and expanded on in "the pastoral epistles."

Paul taught Timothy, the pastor of the church at Ephesus:

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
--This was the church in Jerusalem; there were no other churches at that time. The Lord added to that local church. The local church had the authority to baptize.

 

[Darron Steele]

Darron,
There are 27 books in the NT, not just four. The NT did not stop at the gospels. In fact there are 26 books that follow after Matthew where the Great Commission is given in detail. Why do you ignore them?

I do not ignore them.

There is nothing in the rest of the New Testament that says we are not to do as Christ told us without the say-so of the local pastor and deacon board. This is true of any subject.

No Scripture you cited substantiates your claim. That makes perfect sense: no part of the written Word of God is going to tell us not to do as Jesus Christ told us to do. This is true of any subject.

If you see fit to refer anyone requesting baptism to your local pastor and deacon board, go ahead -- just as long as s/he gets baptized. For my part, if any Christians ask me to baptize them, I will do as Christ told us to do.

I am not going to do this forever. Unless you have something more substantial to offer, I am done with this.

 

[Alive in Christ]

"If you see fit to refer anyone requesting baptism to your local pastor and deacon board, go ahead -- just as long as s/he gets baptized. For my part, if any Christians ask me to baptize them, I will do as Christ told us to do."

Me too.

The scriptures clearly teach the concept of the "priesthood of the believer". What that means is that every christian is a "minister" of God.

If you or I were to baptize someone who asks us to, they will be baptized by as much of a "minister" of God as the Pastor of a Christian fellowship. And the baptism will be every bit as biblical.


:godisgood:

 

[Tom Butler]

Me too.

The scriptures clearly teach the concept of the "priesthood of the believer". What that means is that every christian is a "minister" of God.

If you or I were to baptize someone who asks us to, they will be baptized by as much of a "minister" of God as the Pastor of a Christian fellowship. And the baptism will be every bit as biblical.


:godisgood:

The priesthood of believers means simply that we do not require a priest to intercede for us with God. We may go directly to him. It's not a license to be the Lone Ranger. Or to eschew accountability by operating independently of a local New Testament Church.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Tom Butler,

"The priesthood of believers means simply that we do not require a priest to intercede for us with God. We may go directly to him. It's not a license to be the Lone Ranger. Or to eschew accountability by operating independently of a local New Testament Church."

I fellowship regularly at a local New Testament fellowship.

But if I were to share Christ with someone, and they were to embrace Christ and be born again, and if they then asked me if I would baptize them right then, I would of course gladly do just that. We would find a tub, or a creek, or something and I would water baptize them.

I would not be eschewing anything, there would be no accountability issue, nor any problem regarding any "operating independently".

I would be doing as Christ instructed me to do, if the opportunity arises.

I would of course encourage them to find a christian fellowship where they can gather with other christians and grow accordingly. If not mine, some other one.


:godisgood:

 

[DHK]

I fellowship regularly at a local New Testament fellowship.

But if I were to share Christ with someone, and they were to embrace Christ and be born again, and if they then asked me if I would baptize them right then, I would of course gladly do just that. We would find a tub, or a creek, or something and I would water baptize them.

I would of course encourage them to find a christian fellowship where they can gather with other christians and grow accordingly. If not mine, some other one.

If a person got saved in a Billy Graham Crusade, would it be acceptable by your standards for him to go back to his church and be baptized by his Mormon elder.

How do I know if you don't believe the same thiing?
The OP stated "being baptized by a 'deceived Christian'" whatever that may mean. One of the many reasons that the local church has the authority to baptize is that believers know what the church stands for. Take a good look around the board. See the many and varied views. Are you sure you could recommend a new Christian to be baptized by just anyone on the board? Perhaps not. But you probably could recommend the pastor of your church to baptize them.

Ephesians 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

These two verses were written to the church at Ephesus, and thus to every local church. Our church was built first on the apostles and prophets, the writers of the Scriptures. They are the foundation of every church. After that God has given to every church, as they have need, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. The local church is the place where we are fed the Word of God. The reason for the pastor, evangelist, and teacher is that we, each in our own church, might be mature saints, complete and ready for the work of Christ, and to edify the others that are in our fellowship, that is our assembly or church.

 

[Tom Butler]

Let's assume that you hold the correct view of baptism: It is a picture of the gospel, it is an outward testimony of what has happened to you spiritually, it is an act of obedience. Would any of you submit to baptism by any of the following:

One who will only sprinkle you.
One who believes baptism has saving efficacy (is sacramental).
A Mormon or Jehovah's Witness elder
A Muslim imam
A professed witch or warlock
Some man or woman you grabbed off the street
A professed atheist
Any inmate at the county jail.

The point of the question is, is your view, the correct one, the only one that matters. Or does it make a difference how the administrator views baptistm?