OK for a woman to baptize?

[Tom Butler]

If baptism is done under the authority of the local church, what local church authorized the baptism of Williams and Hollyman? And if they were not Scripturally baptized, and most of us as Baptists trace our lineage back to Roger Williams, would it not be fair to say that no one since has been Scripturally baptized, either, since we cannot trace this line of baptism back to the Apostles?

I submit that while in practice, baptism is usually done under "the authority of a local church", Biblically that is nowhere stated. And what church can we say gave Philip the authority to baptize the Ethiopian eunech, whether or not by 'determining if the candidate gave evidence of salvation'? Seems to me he was in an awful hurry to get baptized, if I remember my Scripture correctly. "See? Water! What does hinder me from being baptized?" I don't see that Philip took him before the church; rather, he baptized him right then and there!

Likewise, the twelve disciples Paul found at Ephesus when he arrived there for the first time. What church did they go before? Seems they were baptized at the time, and BTW, it does not say Paul actually did the baptizin'! Only says he did the preachin'! You can find these in Acts 8 and 19, I believe.

Ed

Greetings, Bro. Ed from a fellow Kentuckian.

I derive my view of local church authority to baptize from a couple of scriptures. First, the Great Commission, which I hold was given to the 11 disciples, who made up the first congregation. Second, Paul, in I Cor 11, counseled the congregation to "guard the ordinances."

The mutual baptisms of Williams and Holloman were highly irregular, of course, but it does not automatically follow that subsequent baptisms were invalid. But, in fairness, it does raise a sticky question.

Re: Philip, since only one congregation existed at the time, finally located in Jerusalem, it would make sense that Philip evangelized and baptized under the authority of that church. And the eunuch then became a member of the church at Jerusalem, until one could be established in Ethiopia. The Jerusalem church sent Peter and John to Samaria where Philip preached and baptizd. Philip welcomed their oversight.

Paul was sent out by the Antioch church, and reported back to it when he returned from his first two missionary journeys.

Peter took a committee with him from Jerusalem to visit Cornelius, and actually sought their approval for Cornelius' baptism.

The overall point is that the local church is the "pillar and ground of the truth," the recipient of the Great Commission, and the guardian of the ordinances. All sorts of mischief happens when those facts are ignored.

 

[TCGreek]

Greetings, Bro. Ed from a fellow Kentuckian.

I derive my view of local church authority to baptize from a couple of scriptures. First, the Great Commission, which I hold was given to the 11 disciples, who made up the first congregation. Second, Paul, in I Cor 11, counseled the congregation to "guard the ordinances."

The mutual baptisms of Williams and Holloman were highly irregular, of course, but it does not automatically follow that subsequent baptisms were invalid. But, in fairness, it does raise a sticky question.

Re: Philip, since only one congregation existed at the time, finally located in Jerusalem, it would make sense that Philip evangelized and baptized under the authority of that church. And the eunuch then became a member of the church at Jerusalem, until one could be established in Ethiopia. The Jerusalem church sent Peter and John to Samaria where Philip preached and baptizd. Philip welcomed their oversight.

Paul was sent out by the Antioch church, and reported back to it when he returned from his first two missionary journeys.

Peter took a committee with him from Jerusalem to visit Cornelius, and actually sought their approval for Cornelius' baptism.

The overall point is that the local church is the "pillar and ground of the truth," the recipient of the Great Commission, and the guardian of the ordinances. All sorts of mischief happens when those facts are ignored.

I am in agreement with several points that you have made. But having been baptized by the Spirit in the one universal church, the invinsible church, a person must be water-baptized to be added to the local church. But where there is no local church, are we to be legalists?

I agree that given the circumstances of Rogers and Halloman there baptisms were legitimate. I see no need to question the activities of God in this instance.

We must also agree that there has always been through the ages a link back to the early church, for Jesus says that the gates of hades will not overpower it. There may not have been a local church, but there was always the invinsible church to which we are first added. Let us keep the Spirit of grace in the gospel and not allow ourselves to become legalists.

 

[HankD]

Thank you HankD;
But is there anywhere mentioned the qualifications of a sheppard or Pastor, except feed my sheep, or feed my lambs.

I don't think so in the NT but there may be one or two in the OT which may be useful for application purpose.

HankD

 

[HankD]

For example

Zechariah 11:17

Woe to the idol shephard that leaveth the flock! the sword [shall be] upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened. ​

Ezekiel 34:8

[As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because [there was] no shephard, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock; ​

HankD

 

[Brother Bob]

Besides that, someone else is eating your sheep! :laugh:

 

[HankD]

Besides that, someone else is eating your sheep! :laugh:

Or your goats.

HankD

 

[Brother Bob]

 

[charles_creech78]

I just say love the lord with all they heart, soul, mind and stranght. For this is the only way you can love him.

 

[charles_creech78]

I love all of you to, Prey for me. Please

 

[EdSutton]

I love all of you to, Prey for me. Please

I will "pray" for you, and in fact, just did. raying:

But the lion in your picture just might well "Prey" on you!

Ed

 

[TCGreek]

I will "pray" for you, and in fact, just did. raying:

But the lion in your picture just might well "Prey" on you!

Ed

Forgive me, but I too found it funny. Thanks for the medicine for the heart. I am no saint:BangHead:

 

[EdSutton]

Forgive me, but I too found it funny. Thanks for the medicine for the heart. I am no saint:BangHead:

Thanks and greetings, O great saint! O holy one! O Sanctified one! :thumbs:

Actually, when you have believed in Jesus Christ as your Savior, according to the NT you, in fact, are now and are called either a saint, holy, or sanctified some 60 times. And all three of these words are from the same Greek root, as I would guess you know, given your 'handle.'

I know a lot of folks love to say they are "just an old sinner, saved by grace." That may be true, in a sense, but it is very, very far from 'the whole truth.' In fact, the only times a NT believer is ever referred to as a sinner, as far as I know, is Paul's lone reference to himself as 'the chief of sinners,' and possibly one other time.

So I offer that if one persists in seeing himself as 'just an old sinner', as opposed to a saint, he or she has missed almost 95% of what the Scriptures say about how God sees them.

Ed

 

[moondg]

I do not under stand why people want to trace things back. My salvation comes from Jesus Christ. The church does not save me. Nor does the denomination save me. Why does it matter who baptizes me man or woman. It is just a sign to the world that I have been born again. Who better to be born by a man or woman. As Hank says we can debate it but we do not have to divide over it;

 

[EdSutton]

Why does it matter who baptists me ...

As I said previously, it is a Baptist only forum! So do feel free to post here. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[moondg]

I am a member of a Southern Baptist Church. Sorry for my mis spellings.

 

[Brother Bob]

Who better to be born by a man or woman.

What is this? You better be born again before you go to the water. Also, Jesus gave us an example to follow and I will continue to teach and preach to have a ordain brother to baptize you when you are ready. It is better to live a quite and meek life which is acceptable with the Lord and to do something that may get you in trouble even before you are a member of a church, just doesn't make good sense.

 

[moondg]

What is this? You better be born again before you go to the water. I am sorry I thought I said I was saved by Jesus Christ. This means born again! Oh I did maybe it is not my fault. What is this? Who were you born by the first time ? You know when you were gave birth to. A woman or a man? I was baptized by a man (a preacher). But if I were not Baptized I would be just as saved. So what I am trying to say is I would rather have a male be the preacher and do the Baptizing. In the end what does it matter. It is just a sign that you have been born again. It does not save YOU.

 

[Brother Bob]

It matters to me because Jesus sent men to baptize and it is a door to the visible church, in other words it is a work of the church, of which I believe is to be preformed by men. I consider a baptism a part of the Ministry. As someone previously posted, this question probably would not of even been asked before the "women's movement".
If a women preformed the baptism and then they came to the church, the church would have to receive "her" work of baptizing that person, which most churches would not. I agree that if you were not baptized, you would still be saved, except if you were not baptized you would not be allowed membership in a visible church. I also do not believe in "dry land" Baptist. If someone were not baptized and had no intention of doing so, then I would doubt their salvation. But thats just me.

We are "Baptist" by the way.

 

[TCGreek]

Thanks and greetings, O great saint! O holy one! O Sanctified one! :thumbs:

Actually, when you have believed in Jesus Christ as your Savior, according to the NT you, in fact, are now and are called either a saint, holy, or sanctified some 60 times. And all three of these words are from the same Greek root, as I would guess you know, given your 'handle.'

I know a lot of folks love to say they are "just an old sinner, saved by grace." That may be true, in a sense, but it is very, very far from 'the whole truth.' In fact, the only times a NT believer is ever referred to as a sinner, as far as I know, is Paul's lone reference to himself as 'the chief of sinners,' and possibly one other time.

So I offer that if one persists in seeing himself as 'just an old sinner', as opposed to a saint, he or she has missed almost 95% of what the Scriptures say about how God sees them.

Ed

Yeah, you're right. I know what every believer is a saint by spiritual birth. I was just using it in the loose sense of it, not the biblical, technical sense and far from the sense of Rome.

 

[TCGreek]

It matters to me because Jesus sent men to baptize and it is a door to the visible church, in other words it is a work of the church, of which I believe is to be preformed by men. I consider a baptism a part of the Ministry. As someone previously posted, this question probably would not of even been asked before the "women's movement".
If a women preformed the baptism and then they came to the church, the church would have to receive "her" work of baptizing that person, which most churches would not. I agree that if you were not baptized, you would still be saved, except if you were not baptized you would not be allowed membership in a visible church. I also do not believe in "dry land" Baptist. If someone were not baptized and had no intention of doing so, then I would doubt their salvation. But thats just me.

We are "Baptist" by the way.

A reasoned response. I am on board, BTW.:thumbs: