OK for a woman to baptize?

[Brother Bob]

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.
__________________

Could you give some references or something to verify. I know you don't have no scripture for John the Baptist is the first who came baptizing. They certainly were not in the nude. Below you will find what they called "nude" baptism, when if fact it was a changing of clothes to a robe or gown of white, which many still practice.

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.

 

[Tom Butler]

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.

Couldn't have said it better, myself. Let me add that the local congregaton has not only the right but the responsibility guard the ordinances, and thus the doors of the church.

 

[EdSutton]

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

I thought it was up to God?

Actually, it was Philip who baptized the Ethiopian, I believe.

Ed

 

[Tom Butler]

Basically, the debate has centered, without saying so, on who is the proper adiministrator of baptism. My contention is that it belongs to the local New Testament congregation, given the authority by Jesus himself and reinforced by Paul.

John the Baptist was authorized directly by God Himself to baptize those who gave evidence of repentance.

Jesus walked many miles to submit to John's baptism, recoginizing his authority and identifying himself with it. At least two of Jesus disciples, possibly all of them, were baptized by John. One of the qualifications to be eligible to replace Judas was that he had to have been baptized by John.

Jesus himself said John's baptism was of God.

The twelve disciples formed the first New Testament church. Jesus ordained them and authorized them to baptize. It was this same congregation (now11) to whom Jesus commissioned to baptize, to teach others to observe the things he had taught them.

Paul was baptized by a small congregation in Damascas. Later, he wrote the congregation at Corinth to guard the ordinances, and instructed them on the proper observance of the Lord's supper.

Peter took a committee from the church (now at Jerusalem) with him to see Cornelius. He has for their approval before baptizing Cornelius.

Those whom Paul and his missionary companions baptized did so by the authority of church at Antioch. Paul returned to report to them on his first two journeys.

The point is, the administrator is important. The first church, and its successors were given that responsibility. Not individuals.

The widespread consense among Baptists is that ordained men may baptize under the church's authority. But the scripture does leave room for others, including women, to do so. But never on their own authority.

Baptism is the first step toward church membeship. The church is the sole judge of who shall be its members This preclude individual believers from usurping that function by substuting their judgment for the church's. Lone Rangers do not make for good order.

 

[TaterTot]

read any of the anteNicene fathers and their baptismal practices

In just one google search, I found this:
Rev. Rousas J. Rushdoony, an ultra-conservative Reformed theologian:

Since baptism meant in part the believers' death and rebirth or resurrection in Christ, it was very early associated with the Easter season, although not exclusively so. This same aspect, rebirth, led to an interesting custom which survived for some centuries as basic to baptism, namely, baptism, usually by immersion, in the nude. Sprinkling and immersion were both used by the church, which recognized sprinkling, after Ezekiel 36:25, as the mark of the new covenant. Aspersion was also very early a common practice. The emphasis on death and rebirth led to a stress on immersion as symbolically representative of this fact. Men were born naked; hence, they were reborn naked in baptism. No works of the unregenerate man could be carried into heaven; therefore, the candidate symbolically stripped himself of all clothing to indicate that he had nothing save God's grace. There were two baptistries thus in churches for some generations, since men and women were baptized separately. Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 were passages cited to confirm this practice of symbolic burial and resurrection. This practice of naked baptism indicates how seriously the Biblical symbolism was taken by the early church; nothing was avoided, and sometimes over-literal applications resulted.


http://www.grailchurch.org/nudism.htm

 

[EdSutton]

No you are incorrect. We have scripture on why a woman cannot be a pastor/elder or deacon.

I almost agree with you here.

Let's reword it to say "We have Scripture on why a woman cannot be a bishop/elder or a deacon.", and I will agree fully. I see pastor and teacher as being one of some twenty spiritual gifts ennumerated in Scripture. I do not see that any gift is "gender specific", that all are given at the point of salvation, in conjunction with the baptism, the sealing, and the receiving the earnest of the Holy Spirit, and these all are simultaneous with about forty other Biblical things that 'happen' when one becomes a Christian by faith, and that the gift, as are all gifts, is 'irrevocable', and does come with any 'qualifications', save the discretion of the Holy Spirit.

The offices are not that same way. They come with a whole passel of duties and qualifications, and IMO, one qualification is not more important, even if more visible, than is any other. (BTW, I see one of those duties is the administration of the use of the spiritual gifts among the body.) And I would add, just because one is qualified at some time to be a bishop/elder, does not mean that he will always be qualified, or just because one is not qualified at some point, does not mean that he cannot be qualified at some future point. Two examples of a qualification should suffice.
One example would be "not a novice".
Another would be the desire for the office, itself.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

In just one google search, I found this:
Rev. Rousas J. Rushdoony, an ultra-conservative Reformed theologian:

He was hardly one of the Elder Fathers of the Church.

The movement and its "Dominion Theology" are relatively new, dating from the publication in 1973 of The Institutes of Biblical Law by the late Rousas John Rushdoony. A man of widely acclaimed brilliance and near-encyclopedic knowledge, Rushdoony claimed to descend from a long line of aristocratic Armenian clerics reaching back to the year 315. He himself was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, not be confused with the generally liberal Presbyterian Church (USA).

Rev. Rushdoony was no liberal. Though gentle in his personal demeanor, he and his Chalcedon Foundation preached nothing less than a holy war "to demolish every kind of theory, humanistic, evolutionary, idolatrous, or otherwise, and every kind of rampart or opposition to the dominion of God in Christ."
As early as 1963, Rushdoony wrote a "Christian revisionist" historical account called The Nature of the American System, in which he rejected the separation of church and state. The authors of the Constitution, he wrote, intended "to perpetuate a Christian order." He similarly opposed the secular bent of American public schools, becoming an early proponent of Christian home-schooling, which he defended as a First Amendment right of their parents.

Much more on the man.

 

[TaterTot]

it still showed historical practices that you are continuing to deny for some reason. Why is it so hard to believe that that practice occured?

I am not sayign that I want to baptize anyone. And I would feel very uncomfortable watching a woman baptize, but I cant say that its for Biblical reasons. Its jsut the way i was brought up. And the way we were brought up aint always right.

 

[Brother Bob]

it still showed historical practices that you are continuing to deny for some reason. Why is it so hard to believe that that practice occured?

I am not sayign that I want to baptize anyone. And I would feel very uncomfortable watching a woman baptize, but I cant say that its for Biblical reasons. Its jsut the way i was brought up. And the way we were brought up aint always right.

TT; I don't doubt that many things have taken place through time. Were they accepted of the Church and God. Naked Baptism I do not believe was, being that God was so protective of our nakeness, that even the preists had to have something to hide their nakeness when they went up the steps. Noah's son was dealt with by God for looking upon his father's nakeness. This guy you quoted talks about standing before the church naked. Now, I don't think you would accept that.
I am just saying what I believe and practice. If you feel comfortable doing something else, then that is between you and your church, you don't have to be concerned about me at all. I am just defending what I believe, right or wrong. God Bless,

BBob,

 

[EdSutton]

He was hardly one of the Elder Fathers of the Church.

The movement and its "Dominion Theology" are relatively new, dating from the publication in 1973 of The Institutes of Biblical Law by the late Rousas John Rushdoony. A man of widely acclaimed brilliance and near-encyclopedic knowledge, Rushdoony claimed to descend from a long line of aristocratic Armenian clerics reaching back to the year 315. He himself was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, not be confused with the generally liberal Presbyterian Church (USA).

Rev. Rushdoony was no liberal. Though gentle in his personal demeanor, he and his Chalcedon Foundation preached nothing less than a holy war "to demolish every kind of theory, humanistic, evolutionary, idolatrous, or otherwise, and every kind of rampart or opposition to the dominion of God in Christ."
As early as 1963, Rushdoony wrote a "Christian revisionist" historical account called The Nature of the American System, in which he rejected the separation of church and state. The authors of the Constitution, he wrote, intended "to perpetuate a Christian order." He similarly opposed the secular bent of American public schools, becoming an early proponent of Christian home-schooling, which he defended as a First Amendment right of their parents.

Much more on the man.

You mean Rousas John Rushdoony traces his lineage back to before the time of Augustine and within 70 years of Origen? Now that is really old.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

You mean Rousas John Rushdoony traces his lineage back to before the time of Augustine and within 70 years of Origen? Now that is really old.

Ed

It was his claim, maybe you can give him proof. I think he died in the 1990's, not sure.

Rev. Rousas J. Rushdoony, founder of the Christian Reconstuctions, who would replace the US Constitution with "Biblical Law."
He wanted to go back to stoning people to death. He has indeed authored many books.

 

[TCGreek]

Basically, the debate has centered, without saying so, on who is the proper adiministrator of baptism. My contention is that it belongs to the local New Testament congregation, given the authority by Jesus himself and reinforced by Paul.

John the Baptist was authorized directly by God Himself to baptize those who gave evidence of repentance.

Jesus walked many miles to submit to John's baptism, recoginizing his authority and identifying himself with it. At least two of Jesus disciples, possibly all of them, were baptized by John. One of the qualifications to be eligible to replace Judas was that he had to have been baptized by John.

Jesus himself said John's baptism was of God.

The twelve disciples formed the first New Testament church. Jesus ordained them and authorized them to baptize. It was this same congregation (now11) to whom Jesus commissioned to baptize, to teach others to observe the things he had taught them.

Paul was baptized by a small congregation in Damascas. Later, he wrote the congregation at Corinth to guard the ordinances, and instructed them on the proper observance of the Lord's supper.

Peter took a committee from the church (now at Jerusalem) with him to see Cornelius. He has for their approval before baptizing Cornelius.

Those whom Paul and his missionary companions baptized did so by the authority of church at Antioch. Paul returned to report to them on his first two journeys.

The point is, the administrator is important. The first church, and its successors were given that responsibility. Not individuals.

The widespread consense among Baptists is that ordained men may baptize under the church's authority. But the scripture does leave room for others, including women, to do so. But never on their own authority.

Baptism is the first step toward church membeship. The church is the sole judge of who shall be its members This preclude individual believers from usurping that function by substuting their judgment for the church's. Lone Rangers do not make for good order.

Good use of the Scriptures. Baptism is a pillar of unity that must be preserved (Eph.4:4). Therefore, it should not be treated lightly. Good point, Tom.:thumbs:

 

[EdSutton]

It was his claim, maybe you can give him proof. I think he died in the 1990's, not sure.

Rev. Rousas J. Rushdoony, founder of the Christian Reconstuctions, who would replace the US Constitution with "Biblical Law."
He wanted to go back to stoning people to death. He has indeed authored many books.

Although I am somewhat familiar with the late R. J. Rushdoony, what you posted was the first I'd heard of any lineage. It was not a subtle dig, but I was simply amazed that one could even start to attempt to trace their lineage back almost 1700 years.

R. J. Rushdoony died at the age of 84 on Feb. 8, 2001.

His widow, Dorothy Barbara Ross Rushdoony, died at the age of 87 on Oct. 30, 2003.

Ed

 

[D28guy]

Tom Butler,

"The twelve disciples formed the first New Testament church. Jesus ordained them and authorized them to baptize. It was this same congregation (now11) to whom Jesus commissioned to baptize, to teach others to observe the things he had taught them."

Then why did God want Ananius...NOT one of the twelve...to baptise Paul? God could just as easily sent Paul to one of the 12, could He not?

But He deliberatly chose not to.

Mike

 

[Brother Bob]

Ananias was a disciple of Jesus and is traditionally listed as one of the Seventy Disciples whose mission is recorded in Luke 10. He also was the man reported in the Bible to have been sent by God to heal Paul's blindness and join him with the Church. (According to Saint Dorotheus). I don't think there is a "list" of the Seventy, but Stephan was considered one of them and so was Barnabus.

 

[TCGreek]

Tom Butler,



Then why did God want Ananius...NOT one of the twelve...to baptise Paul? God could just as easily sent Paul to one of the 12, could He not?

But He deliberatly chose not to.

Mike

But isn't it instructive how God sent him to Ananias, a male, who no doubt was a leader in the church at Damascus? Does this lend any credence to whether a woman ought to baptize or not?

 

[EdSutton]

Ananias was a disciple of Jesus and is traditionally listed as one of the Seventy Disciples whose mission is recorded in Luke 10. He also was the man reported in the Bible to have been sent by God to heal Paul's blindness and join him with the Church. (According to Saint Dorotheus). I don't think there is a "list" of the Seventy, but Stephan was considered one of them and so was Barnabus.

Barnabas is also an apostle, according to Scripture.

Just thought I'd toss that one in for free!

(Helping me get my post count up, you understand!)

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Barnabas is also an apostle, according to Scripture.

Just thought I'd toss that one in for free!

(Helping me get my post count up, you understand!)

Ed

You got a ways to go to catch me. Can't wait for reply.

 

[Tom Butler]

Then why did God want Ananius...NOT one of the twelve...to baptise Paul? God could just as easily sent Paul to one of the 12, could He not?

But He deliberatly chose not to.

Mike

We don't how much time passed between the time the traveling church (the disciples) settled in Jerusalem and the time of Paul's conversion. Ananias was part of a congregation already established in Damascus. (Acts 9:19). That's why Saul and his posse were on their way there--to wreak havoc on the saints there.

So it would be a natural thing to have Ananias, a member of that congregation, to go see about Paul.

BTW, here's an interesting example of church autonomy. Eventually Paul went up to Jerusalem to visit the church there, and join it. But he was refused because they feared he had faked conversion. Barnabas came and told of his conversion, how Paul preached Jesus boldly at Damascas. The church at Jerusalem finally accepted him. (Acts 9:26-27)

 

[Maverick]

No. Just registering my vote as I know that if you want a woman to do something you will find a way to justify it and no amount of Scripture or Church History will change anyone's mind. It is all part of the effeminization of the church.