OK for a woman to baptize?

[D28guy]

Tom Butler,

"And you would be usurping the authority of your church in doing so."

I most certainly would not. Any believer can water baptize a new believer.

Others have posted the scriptures.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[Tom Butler]

Tom Butler,



I most certainly would not. Any believer can water baptize a new believer.

Agreed, provided his church authorizes it.

 

[Brother Bob]

Agreed, provided his church authorizes it.

 

[gerald285]

The person needs no church authorization. The Lord has already done so. They can go to the river or creek.

Agreed, provided his church authorizes it.

 

[gerald285]

All right let's use your last statement first.
"How many women were in that bunch the Lord was talking to?"

If this does not include all then it only is being spoken too those who were present and the church today can ignore it. However in every church i know of the passage is sppeaking to all and that includes women. We know thta they cannot be pastors/elders or deacons, but there is nothing forbidding them from baptising a new believer and they should be allowed. If thhey lead someone to Christ then they should be the one to baptise them.

It is a serious downfall of the church because the church is overiding the Lord making women of lower value. Churches that do not allow the regular male membership to baptise do the same.

How many churches you know of where the women baptize, is a good place to start? Why is it a serious downfall for the church?
So as Paul and the brethren went throughout Asia, I am sure there were times there was not many brethren around but somehow Paul seem to always follow the example layed down by The Lord and John the Baptist. To try to justify women baptizing, you come up with some story about some land I never been, have you?


How many women were in that bunch the Lord was talking to?

 

[Brother Bob]

gerald285 ;

Please do me a favor and ask your Pastor and then report back what he said about any member can baptize without the knowledge of the church, will you?

BBob,

 

[TCGreek]

It is a serious downfall of the church because the church is overiding the Lord making women of lower value. Churches that do not allow the regular male membership to baptise do the same.

Your argument that because a woman is not allowed to baptize means that her value has been lowered does not follow. To be consistent, where you have supported the biblical view that she cannot be an elder or deacon, must follow the same lowered-value argument. But you have not, therefore your argument is self-destructing.

As we all know, there are different roles in the Lord's scheme of things. The roles do not speak to a person's ontology but rather to a person's responsibilities and functions.

A woman is still an image-bearer of God, still loved by God, still redeemded by the blood of the Lamb, despite her role distinctions in and out of the home, including the ability to administer Christian believer's baptism.

 

[saturneptune]

The person needs no church authorization. The Lord has already done so. They can go to the river or creek.

If everyone free lanced the ordinances (sacraments) as you advocate, the result would be a disorganized mess. In addition to that, the authority of the local church being involved ensures that the one who is administering the ordinances and been examined and their life is worthy to do so.

God is not a god of chaos. He is a God of order. He established the New Testement local churches, and put the ordinances under their authority. It is the right of every local church to decide on who can baptise and how. It is the right of every local church to decide on open or closed communion. The bottom line is that the ordinances falls under the authority of the local church.

 

[gerald285]

Bob,
why would I do that? I have scripture and I do not care what any pastor says if it disagrees with the word.
This is another problem with the church today. Pastors who want to be god and who overrule the Lord and a church that loves it.

gerald285 ;

Please do me a favor and ask your Pastor and then report back what he said about any member can baptize without the knowledge of the church, will you?

BBob,

 

[gerald285]

That is a crock and you know it. I know of MANY pastors who baptize and then are shown to be in sin. The only authority needed to baptize is to be saved, not the ordination of men. By the way, not worthy? how is that? Are you saying that women are not worthy? Or that Christ does not make us white a snow? Are we not washed? I think that you are trying to defend tradition of men, not biblical truth.

If everyone free lanced the ordinances (sacraments) as you advocate, the result would be a disorganized mess. In addition to that, the authority of the local church being involved ensures that the one who is administering the ordinances and been examined and their life is worthy to do so.

God is not a god of chaos. He is a God of order. He established the New Testement local churches, and put the ordinances under their authority. It is the right of every local church to decide on who can baptise and how. It is the right of every local church to decide on open or closed communion. The bottom line is that the ordinances falls under the authority of the local church.

 

[gerald285]

No you are incorrect. We have scripture on why a woman cannot be a pastor/elder or deacon. (God's word) We do not have any command against a woman baptizing someone. What we have is men making women less to support and protect their bias.

Your argument that because a woman is not allowed to baptize means that her value has been lowered does not follow. To be consistent, where you have supported the biblical view that she cannot be an elder or deacon, must follow the same lowered-value argument. But you have not, therefore your argument is self-destructing.

As we all know, there are different roles in the Lord's scheme of things. The roles do not speak to a person's ontology but rather to a person's responsibilities and functions.

A woman is still an image-bearer of God, still loved by God, still redeemded by the blood of the Lamb, despite her role distinctions in and out of the home, including the ability to administer Christian believer's baptism.

 

[saturneptune]

That is a crock and you know it. I know of MANY pastors who baptize and then are shown to be in sin. The only authority needed to baptize is to be saved, not the ordination of men. By the way, not worthy? how is that? Are you saying that women are not worthy? Or that Christ does not make us white a snow? Are we not washed? I think that you are trying to defend tradition of men, not biblical truth.

Wrong again oh winged one. The fact is that baptism and the Lord's Supper were administered by local churches in Acts. As to your question about women baptizing, that is up to the local church. Is there a pattern here?

 

[webdog]

fact is that baptism and the Lord's Supper were administered by local churches in Acts.

That's one example, but not the only. Paul baptized the ethiopian individually.

As to your question about women baptizing, that is up to the local church. Is there a pattern here?

I thought it was up to God?

 

[TCGreek]

No you are incorrect. We have scripture on why a woman cannot be a pastor/elder or deacon. (God's word) We do not have any command against a woman baptizing someone. What we have is men making women less to support and protect their bias.

How does that follow? When does a woman not being able to do something in the context of the life of the church lowers her value, whether we have a clear word from Scripture or not? That is the issue at hand.

 

[Brother Bob]

It seems that some people don't realize that the Church has to have order to function, without order it is in array and I guess everyone who had a urge could run out and stick someone under water, but Jesus said "what soever you bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven".

1Corth 14:

33: For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35: And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36: What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37: If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38: But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39: Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
40: Let all things be done decently and in order.

Amazing how God forsaw the troubles we would be facing!

 

[webdog]

If baptism is purely the outward symbol of the inward heart...that has nothing to do with the person doing it, but the symoblic nature of the person being baptized. There is no order to follow except "believe and be baptized". The Bible doesn't say "believe...interview with the Sr. Pastor to see if your conversion is legit...go up for a vote amongst members of a church...schedule it far enough in advance to allow for a huge pot luck to follow...be baptized". As someone already pointed out, baptisms were done in the nude. Men didn't baptize nude women.

 

[Brother Bob]

If baptism is purely the outward symbol of the inward heart...that has nothing to do with the person doing it, but the symoblic nature of the person being baptized. As someone already pointed out, baptisms were done in the nude. Men didnt' baptize nude women.

Where and when Web;, I read where some who had apostisied from the church, baptized, preached, pastored they did it all and were considered heretics in 3rd AD. We got quite a few of those today. I don't think you would want the whole membership going out and baptizing would you?

It strikes me as strange that they were baptizing in the nude to start with.

 

[webdog]

I don't think you would want the whole membership going out and baptizing would you?

Isn't that what the Great Commission says to do? The Great Commission was not for the church only. It is for believers first. We are to go out and make disciples (learners) of the Gospel. When God saves them, they are to be baptized. Baptisms were initially done in rivers, as crowds gathered to hear the apostles, and were then immediately baptized upon conversion.

 

[Brother Bob]

Isn't that what the Great Commission says to do? The Great Commission was not for the church only. It is for believers first. We are to go out and make disciples (learners) of the Gospel. When God saves them, they are to be baptized. Baptisms were initially done in rivers, as crowds gathered to hear the apostles, and were then immediately baptized upon conversion.

No women here baptizing.

I thought the GC was given to the Apostles, who were to teach all nations and ordain Elders. Again, God is not the author of confusion and I see nothing but confusion if you have no leadership.

nude baptism;
This statement has occasioned some response, and requires further explanation. The nudity was probably not symbolic of some higher truth, such as coming closer to the Creator, or of being reborn from the womb. It was simply a byproduct of the need to change one's garments from the believer's everyday clothing to the white garment that was worn by the newly baptized. In those days people did not have underwear as we know it, and amongst the lower socio-economic strata from which the church drew a large proportion of its converts, many people probably did not have extra sets of clothing to wear into the baptismal pool. It was the white garment that was symbolic, not the nudity. Looking at the Scriptural background for this, we note that the white, or linen, robe was the garment of an Israelite priest. Possibly the use of the white garment in baptism relates to the calling of all Israelites to be priests to the Lord (Exod. 19:6, etc.), a calling reiterated for Christians in the New Testament (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 5:10).
Regarding any virtue being attached to nudity as such, the Bible indicates that priests going up on the altar — they had to go up a set of steps to offer sacrifices — were to be sure that they were wearing "breeches," or underwear of a sort, so that their private parts would not be exposed to the altar which represents God's holiness. The relevant passage is Exod. 28:42-43, "And you shall make for them linen breeches to cover their naked flesh; from the loins to the thighs they shall reach; and they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they go into the tent of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister in the holy place; lest they bring guilt upon themselves and die. This shall be a perpetual statute for him and for his descendants after him."
Therefore, the phrase we sometimes hear, "naked before the Lord," referring to an open expression of our thoughts and shortcomings in prayer or meditation, is an image contrary to the Bible's understanding of what is proper in the presence of the Lord. From the Christian standpoint it is proper and necessary to appear before the Lord not "naked" in our own inadequacies but rather "clothed" with the righteousness of Christ. As the apostle Paul says, we are to "put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires" (Rom. 13:14). The tenor of these words suggests that literal nakedness would not have been viewed as an appropriate symbol of a positive spiritual truth.

 

[TaterTot]

It strikes me as strange that they were baptizing in the nude to start with.

Early church fathers recorded that people were baptized in the nude. This was not the apostates. They were following Christ. And the women baptized the naked women.