non-pastors baptizing

There are general statements on baptizing and then specific statements and examples of baptizing.

Matthew 28 would be an example of the former, but Acts 8 would be of the latter.

Then we come to a passage like 1 Cor 1 where members were gravitating to those who had baptized them. With the names given I see only one gender before me.

Whenever a gender is mentioned it is obvious who is in mind.

In what way is my hermeneutic flawed?

 

as to the baptizer getting wet, the church I was a deacon in in Randleman, NC several years ago had a combination pulpit/communion table/baptism pool. A company in the piedmont triad sold them.

The baptizer could baptize the convert without getting his pants wet at all as he stood outside the pool to do the baptizing.

Wish I could remember the company's name, I could post a link.

 

Just found a site in danville, va that sells the baptistry. BUI

here are some of the features:

• Can be used as a fiberglass baptistry, pulpit, communion table or business table. • Compact for storage if necessary. • Conserves water & heating because of small size. • Steps store inside Fiberglass Baptistry when not in use or when used as communion table or pulpit. • Free standing & self supporting. • Requires only 100 gallons water. • No plumbing required. • "Uniglass" molded fiberglass baptistry interior construction. • Only 32" wide for access through most doors. • Candidate baptized from sitting position. • Minister remains outside fiberglass baptistry. • Hardwood cabinet (unfinished). • Lecturn Optional. • Wheel Kit Optional.

 

IMO it is flawed because it was not the author's intent to direct us as to who could or could not baptize.

Therefore, to draw that conclusion from such a passage is poor hermeneutics.

 

That's awesome! That is a dream of mine, too, to baptize both of my children (and any future ones)!

 

I see your point.

How then do we establish authorial intent? What elements must we look for?

 

I was a proud dad and pastor to baptize both my children. I think it is a beutiful thing to allow others to experiance it.

 

By studying the passage in the overall context of the book. By examining the lexical, grammatical, syntatical, and historical issues in play with that particular passage and book.

Is there anything in 1 Cor 1 that would lead us to believe Paul was attempting to determine who could and could not baptize? I do not see it at all if it is there. Therefore, I do not think we can make that conclusion.

 

You have convinced me to withdraw my argument for male baptizers on the use of 1 Cor 1. Thank you. :thumbs:

 

No....but some in the very early church (1st & 2nd century) equated baptism to a "new birth." (or, at least, it gave evidence of it). Well....so one would wear one's "birth clothes."

This tradition is obviously extra-biblical. I'm not endorsing it. Just answering. :thumbs:

My source: Justo Gonzales' book on History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1.

 

Jewish people still baptise that way. There is only one person to witness it (obviously of the same gender) and the candidate removes every strip of clothing including all jewelry before squatting beneath the water.

As to the OP. I think it is a matter for the local church to decide, as the authority to baptise lies with them, therefore there is no necessity for only an ordained minister to perform the ordinance.

 

I've never heard of this Ulsterman...I was raised Reform Jewish but my grandparents were Orthodox and they never mentioned anything like that. Do they do this in the UK? I would assume that it might be done by the Ultra Orthodox and Hassidic Jews. It's called "Mikvah" but I haven't heard of this being done in the U.S. Do you have more information about it?

 

When I had classes at SWBTS more than one professor mentioned that was the custom.

When I studied the role of women in the church a few years ago I came across documentation that clearly showed that the pastor did not talk with women in the church. That was one of the roles of the older women in the church. A friend of mine who recently left the mission field in Ethiopia after about 25 years told me that it was that way in the churches he attended.

 

I'm sure that in many churches, small ones in particular, it's in the constitution or by-laws that it must be the acting pastor who baptizes any new converts coming for membership [but the membership angle is another debate]. The church I was in 20+ years ago had a revival during a time it was without a pastor, even an interim; and there were 2 or 3 who professed faith and desired baptism that week, so a special called business meeting had to be convened to authorize the one preaching that week (a pastor at another, larger church) to perform the baptisms.

This also reminds of another time concerning the Lord's Supper at a nursing home ministry. There was an old retired farmer & part time preacher who did that weekly ministry, until it fell to me for while, and there had to be a business meeting and passed motion to give communion to the attendees, even though some (maybe most) of them had not had believer's baptism [immersion].

I know these cases are not specifically what was being asked in this thread, but they are part of the answer: a church can authorize whoever do whatever it chooses. It may lead to a different status among it associations (if any), but each congregation acts independently.

 

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]

Ed
[/FONT]

 

Wow!! If you could just get three more options available on this, namely, 'foldable walls', to go around the unit, with 'inflatable pews', and a 'Pianner' (electronic keyboard) to fit inside,
>
>
>
Presto! Your basic "goes anywhere", portable, and BYOH "Church on Wheels"! :thumbs:

(BYOH - Bring your own Hymnal.)

Ed

 

Hi Linda, it is indeed part of the Mikveh immersion ceremony. Proper immersion in a mikveh requires that a woman’s entire body, including all of her hair, must be submerged in the water at one time. In general, anything which adheres to the body or hair and prevents contact with the water invalidates the immersion. Such a barrier is called a chatzitzah.

It is part of the conversion process, since you were reared Jewish it may not be something that you encountered, but my understanding is that it is practiced world wide, and has been done this way for centuries. I am not sure if only certain branches of Judaism or all Jewish groups practice it, but I am certain it is practiced in the USA as elsewhere.

You can read more about here:

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/lif...toRealization/RabbinicRequirements/Mikveh.htm

 

Thank you Ulsterman. I'll check that out. I've heard of Gentiles who are involved in the Messianic Jewish movement go through a "conversion" to Judaism (I never could understand why a born again Gentile would go through this) and I guess that this Mikvah is necessary. What I have heard from Jewish missionaries is that this "conversion" is much stricter in Israel than it is in the United States.

 

The Great Commission

I would say it depends on your take on the Great Commission. If you happen to believe that it was given to the local church, then you have to believe that the church has the authority to baptize. Whoever does the baptizing is acting on behalf of the church.

Therefore, the church can authorize anyone to be the baptizer. Theoretically, the church could call anyone in from the street and invest in them the authority to baptize. It would not be a wise thing to do, imho, but afterall, the church would have that authority.

In my church, I seldom baptize anyone. I have an associate who normally does the baptizing. At times I have asked others to baptize, especially when the candidate was one of their children or grandchildren.

I have never used a woman as a baptizer, not because I think it would be unscriptural, but because I think men should take the lead in such matters.

 

Hmmmm.

Traditionally, most of the churches I have been in have had the pastor baptize. Honestly, they have had so few baptisms in a year, so why not honor the pastor with this privilege.

In one or two others that I have seen other than the pastor baptize, it has been usually another staff member or even "some authorized other".

Honestly, it all kind of gags me.

I am currently attending a new church start that had a baptism recently. The pastors did baptize, but others who were instrumental in leading the people being baptized to the Lord baptized the people.

Watching this was freeing to me.

I still haven't figured out the big fat hairy deal why other churches haven't picked up on this.