Charles Meadows
New Member
And what is the "gospel" according to the CoC?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Question on Church of Christ baptism
- Thread starter Snitzelhoff
- Start date
Snitzelhoff
New Member
Frank:
First, let me clarify something: I'm not a Calvinist. I'm not an Arminian, either, just for the record. There, now that we have that out of the way, we can continue.
I agree about not accepting every baptism as valid and with your statement about Biblical authorization. By "precedent," I meant "example." I suppose I could have stated that more clearly.
I disagree with your distinction between Baptist preachers and "gospel" preachers. Of course, you probably saw that coming, so let me tell you what Paul had to say on the subject and you can judge for yourself:
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures... (I Corinthians 14:1-4)
That, according to Paul, is the Gospel. Brother Frank, Baptists have never failed to preach that Gospel. If that is not the Gospel you preach, what is?
Furthermore, you have yet to show why the salvation of the baptizer doesn't matter. What Scriptural authorization do you find for a non-disciple administering a valid baptism?
Michael
First, let me clarify something: I'm not a Calvinist. I'm not an Arminian, either, just for the record. There, now that we have that out of the way, we can continue.
I agree about not accepting every baptism as valid and with your statement about Biblical authorization. By "precedent," I meant "example." I suppose I could have stated that more clearly.
I disagree with your distinction between Baptist preachers and "gospel" preachers. Of course, you probably saw that coming, so let me tell you what Paul had to say on the subject and you can judge for yourself:
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures... (I Corinthians 14:1-4)
That, according to Paul, is the Gospel. Brother Frank, Baptists have never failed to preach that Gospel. If that is not the Gospel you preach, what is?
Furthermore, you have yet to show why the salvation of the baptizer doesn't matter. What Scriptural authorization do you find for a non-disciple administering a valid baptism?
Michael
Michael,
You seem to be so focus on your point that you are missing what we are saying to you. It is as if we are not answering in the way you would have thought and now nothing we say is worth thinking about. I don't mean to harm you in saying this, I personally like these questions but It does not seem like you are listening.
Two biblical principles to consider:
Pauls attitude:
Phil 1:
" 15It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.[c] 18But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."
Gods Will:
Isaiah 55:
" 8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."
I said it earlier that sometimes we can ask so many questions with our own view in focus that will eventually take God out of the picture.
If we don't praise Him the bricks will talk!
God uses some clay for noble purposes and some for common use. HIS WILL. not our observation.
Romans 9: " 19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
In Christ,
Stefon
Snitzelhoff
New Member
Stefon (glad to have a name from you!),
It's not that nothing you say matters; it's that you have failed to answer the question. How do you Scripturally legitimize a baptism by anyone other than a disciple? The closest thing I've gotten to an answer is from Bmerr, who said that God could use the unsaved to accomplish His purposes, as in the crucifixion. I agree with that principle, but I don't think it applies because Jesus specifically authorized the disciples to baptize in the Great Commission, and never is anyone else given that authority.
I know the Church of Christ zeal for Scriptural backing for everything they believe. I was in one for ten years. So, with a shared love for the Word, I'm asking you to really consider why you believe that any non-disciple is authorized to baptize.
Michael
It's not that nothing you say matters; it's that you have failed to answer the question. How do you Scripturally legitimize a baptism by anyone other than a disciple? The closest thing I've gotten to an answer is from Bmerr, who said that God could use the unsaved to accomplish His purposes, as in the crucifixion. I agree with that principle, but I don't think it applies because Jesus specifically authorized the disciples to baptize in the Great Commission, and never is anyone else given that authority.
I know the Church of Christ zeal for Scriptural backing for everything they believe. I was in one for ten years. So, with a shared love for the Word, I'm asking you to really consider why you believe that any non-disciple is authorized to baptize.
Michael
Michael,
The scriptures I shared were clear to the point that Gods word is what does the work. The Apostles were given a command to do what they had done and to teach others to do the same. These events are recorded in scripture for us today to follow. The Authority is the Word itself, not the person (don't jump all over that one just yet).
I have to go, I will finish this later. But the scriptures I shared with you should give you your answer.
Stefon
Take care.
Snitlehoff:
I was not implying you were Arminian or Calvinistic. By the way, neither was Campbell. I was making the point that some things are so stated that are not real simple to answer, and these things are implied, not declared.
The new testament of Christ declares, provides and example and implies the following:
1. Baptism was performed by human administrators. Mat. 28:19.
2. It was to be perfomed this way until the end of time. Mat. 28;20.
3. One baptized must understand the authroity and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ. Acts 19.
4. One may not be taught wrong an believe unto righteousness. Romans 10;17, Romans 14:23.
5. Baptism must be in the name of Christ. Acts 19.
6. Baptism may be performed that is INVALID.
7. All examples of baptism in the new testament have a Christian man administering the baptism.
I can rationally conclude that baptism is to be adminsitered to a believer( one who understands the need based on Christ and his sacrifice). a Chrisitan man should administer this act unitl the end of the world. I can rationally conclude
I cannot ratinally conclude that the faithfulness of the one administering the baptism makes the one being baptized invalid. Deut. 29:29.
I was not implying you were Arminian or Calvinistic. By the way, neither was Campbell. I was making the point that some things are so stated that are not real simple to answer, and these things are implied, not declared.
The new testament of Christ declares, provides and example and implies the following:
1. Baptism was performed by human administrators. Mat. 28:19.
2. It was to be perfomed this way until the end of time. Mat. 28;20.
3. One baptized must understand the authroity and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ. Acts 19.
4. One may not be taught wrong an believe unto righteousness. Romans 10;17, Romans 14:23.
5. Baptism must be in the name of Christ. Acts 19.
6. Baptism may be performed that is INVALID.
7. All examples of baptism in the new testament have a Christian man administering the baptism.
I can rationally conclude that baptism is to be adminsitered to a believer( one who understands the need based on Christ and his sacrifice). a Chrisitan man should administer this act unitl the end of the world. I can rationally conclude
I cannot ratinally conclude that the faithfulness of the one administering the baptism makes the one being baptized invalid. Deut. 29:29.
Snitzelhoff
New Member
Frank,
So, then, baptism SHOULD be administered by a Christian, but there is no reason why it MUST be so? Is that your view?
Stefon,
I don't quite understand your answer, but if you're saying that the command to baptize (along with the rest of the Great Commission) was given to the disciples exclusively in the Word, then I agree.
I agree that the authority is the Word, so that would mean that the only people who could legitimately baptize were those to whom the Word gave such authority, right?
Michael
So, then, baptism SHOULD be administered by a Christian, but there is no reason why it MUST be so? Is that your view?
Stefon,
I don't quite understand your answer, but if you're saying that the command to baptize (along with the rest of the Great Commission) was given to the disciples exclusively in the Word, then I agree.
I agree that the authority is the Word, so that would mean that the only people who could legitimately baptize were those to whom the Word gave such authority, right?
Michael
eschatologist
New Member
I too am a Church of Christ member!
Snitzelhoff, I detect some attempt by you to trap someone by some type of word game. Yes WHO did baptize John, by whom Jesus declared He must be baptized by? Who cares??? Jesus laid out by His example of baptism what we need to do and how we should do it. We are told what this baptism means and does for us(Rom.6:3f; Acts 2:38; Gal.3:27; etc.). What is of the MOST importance is why it is needed! This point has been argued on this board over and over again causing more damage than good. Many fail to grasp the 'spiritual' meaning and necessity by getting caught up by the 'physical' act. That too is a shame and Paul may have faced the same type of denial by the Roman church and therefore he needed to explain its meaning to them. What we do know about baptism is this: Prior to baptizing Jesus John did a baptism of 'repentance' throughout the area, a baptism which necessitated Paul and the other disciples to baptize them in the name of Jesus Christ. And Philip must have relayed this impotance about baptism to the Eunuch because after Philip preached the the Word about Jesus Christ to him, and when he saw water, the Eunuch said to him, "see, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" Apparently he new it was needed because philip requested it.
Snitzelhoff, I detect some attempt by you to trap someone by some type of word game. Yes WHO did baptize John, by whom Jesus declared He must be baptized by? Who cares??? Jesus laid out by His example of baptism what we need to do and how we should do it. We are told what this baptism means and does for us(Rom.6:3f; Acts 2:38; Gal.3:27; etc.). What is of the MOST importance is why it is needed! This point has been argued on this board over and over again causing more damage than good. Many fail to grasp the 'spiritual' meaning and necessity by getting caught up by the 'physical' act. That too is a shame and Paul may have faced the same type of denial by the Roman church and therefore he needed to explain its meaning to them. What we do know about baptism is this: Prior to baptizing Jesus John did a baptism of 'repentance' throughout the area, a baptism which necessitated Paul and the other disciples to baptize them in the name of Jesus Christ. And Philip must have relayed this impotance about baptism to the Eunuch because after Philip preached the the Word about Jesus Christ to him, and when he saw water, the Eunuch said to him, "see, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" Apparently he new it was needed because philip requested it.
Michael,
bmerr here. Can I hazard a guess at the point you're trying to get at? If I'm wrong, it won't be the first time, but maybe we can save some time
.
Would your point be that if:
A. Alexander Campbell was immersed by a Baptist preacher, and
B. if we (the COC) would contend that a Baptist is not a Christian, and
C. if only Christians have the authority to administer baptism, then
D. none of the COC are really Christians either.
Am I close?
In Christ,
bmerr
bmerr here. Can I hazard a guess at the point you're trying to get at? If I'm wrong, it won't be the first time, but maybe we can save some time
Would your point be that if:
A. Alexander Campbell was immersed by a Baptist preacher, and
B. if we (the COC) would contend that a Baptist is not a Christian, and
C. if only Christians have the authority to administer baptism, then
D. none of the COC are really Christians either.
Am I close?
In Christ,
bmerr
The Who question about baptism is a question that borders on the absurd. One who baptizes another would rationally understand why he is doing so. and would believe in what he was doing. However, let me make this as clear as the word clear could ever be clear.
In I Cor. 1:10-13, Paul places emphasis on the purpose of baptism. CF. 12,13. He does not place any inportance on the WHO. In fact Paul says, he was glad he baptized Crispus and Gaius only not anyone else. Paul states this to the best of his inspired recollection. The importance of baptism is that it puts one in Christ. I Cor. 1:10-13. This is hardly an endorsement for specific authority to exclude all others.
When Jesus made the command in Mat. 28 18-20, did the word disciple mean Christian only or a learner or follower of Christ. Was Aninias, the one sent to baptize Paul, a Christian, or a Jewish disciple. How do we know specifically?
It is apparent to me from the evidence that the who is a matter of expedience. I Cor. 6:12. Expedience requires the practice to be lawful to carry out a command.
In I Cor. 1:10-13, Paul places emphasis on the purpose of baptism. CF. 12,13. He does not place any inportance on the WHO. In fact Paul says, he was glad he baptized Crispus and Gaius only not anyone else. Paul states this to the best of his inspired recollection. The importance of baptism is that it puts one in Christ. I Cor. 1:10-13. This is hardly an endorsement for specific authority to exclude all others.
When Jesus made the command in Mat. 28 18-20, did the word disciple mean Christian only or a learner or follower of Christ. Was Aninias, the one sent to baptize Paul, a Christian, or a Jewish disciple. How do we know specifically?
It is apparent to me from the evidence that the who is a matter of expedience. I Cor. 6:12. Expedience requires the practice to be lawful to carry out a command.
Snitzelhoff
New Member
First, I apologize for my absence over the weekend. I didn't have access to a computer where I was.
Bmerr, you're pretty much on target, but I was taking a slightly different route with my point. I actually plainly stated the direction of my inquiries earlier on in the thread.
If a baptism must be performed BY someone who knows its significance and is, himself, saved, then in order to ascertain one's own salvation, one would have to trace an unbroken line of valid baptisms back to the days of the Apostles. After all, if the person who baptized the person who baptized the person who baptized the person who baptized (...) the person who baptized me wasn't baptized, then none of the subsequent baptisms were valid. If that is the case, then most Church of Christ members are illegitimately baptized and, therefore, unsaved.
Eschatologist:
You detect a trap. I detect a cynic. There is no attempt to "trap" here, because several posts ago I made plain my intentions with this line of inquiry. Also, I do not play "word games" with a subject as important to the question of salvation as this one. Furthermore, your post does not answer my questions. John baptized because he was specifically authorized by God to do so. The disciples baptized because they were authorized by Jesus to do so. No one else, Scripturally, has that authority.
Frank:
You're getting much closer to answering my questions. Paul emphasizes that it doesn't matter if Peter or himself or Apollos or whoever baptizes, but he does not make such an absurd statement as allowing an infidel to baptize.
Aninias was almost certainly a Christian. You're the first person I've ever heard question that. "Disciple" is used interchangeably with "Christian" throughout the book of Acts. When it's used otherwise, it's specificed (cf. Acts 19--"disciples of John").
Not to detract from the subject that I started, but I Corinthians 6:12 doesn't say anything like what you're saying it does. It says, "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient." What does "all things" mean to you? You're not non-instrumental by any chance, are you? I'm not looking to debate that subject right now (one at a time is enough)--I'm just curious.
Michael
Bmerr, you're pretty much on target, but I was taking a slightly different route with my point. I actually plainly stated the direction of my inquiries earlier on in the thread.
If a baptism must be performed BY someone who knows its significance and is, himself, saved, then in order to ascertain one's own salvation, one would have to trace an unbroken line of valid baptisms back to the days of the Apostles. After all, if the person who baptized the person who baptized the person who baptized the person who baptized (...) the person who baptized me wasn't baptized, then none of the subsequent baptisms were valid. If that is the case, then most Church of Christ members are illegitimately baptized and, therefore, unsaved.
Eschatologist:
You detect a trap. I detect a cynic. There is no attempt to "trap" here, because several posts ago I made plain my intentions with this line of inquiry. Also, I do not play "word games" with a subject as important to the question of salvation as this one. Furthermore, your post does not answer my questions. John baptized because he was specifically authorized by God to do so. The disciples baptized because they were authorized by Jesus to do so. No one else, Scripturally, has that authority.
Frank:
You're getting much closer to answering my questions. Paul emphasizes that it doesn't matter if Peter or himself or Apollos or whoever baptizes, but he does not make such an absurd statement as allowing an infidel to baptize.
Aninias was almost certainly a Christian. You're the first person I've ever heard question that. "Disciple" is used interchangeably with "Christian" throughout the book of Acts. When it's used otherwise, it's specificed (cf. Acts 19--"disciples of John").
Not to detract from the subject that I started, but I Corinthians 6:12 doesn't say anything like what you're saying it does. It says, "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient." What does "all things" mean to you? You're not non-instrumental by any chance, are you? I'm not looking to debate that subject right now (one at a time is enough)--I'm just curious.
Michael
Mike:
I answered the question from the bible. You just do not like the answer. The new testament of Christ requires the one being baptized to do so in meeting the conditions given by God. There is not enough info to answer the question the way you would like for it to be.
Furthermore, the disciples of Christ as found in the gospels had not been baptized in his name. Therefore, The term disciple has contextual meanings.
In John 6:66, the bible says, from that time many of his DISCIPLES went back and followed him no more. These DISCIPLES of Christ were not CHRISTIANS because Jesus had not been put to death, buried nor raised at this time. Therefore, no Christians existed at this time. Furthermore, the new name was not fulfilled until Acts 11:26, some 12 years after the Lord's church began in Jerusalem on Pentecost. cf. Isaiah 62:2. Therefore, context must be in view to understand the meaning of any term. Are you willing to take the position that for twelve years no one could baptize because the disciples of Christ had not been identified as Christians for twelve years. If you disagree, how do you harmonized John 6:66 with Acts 11:26?
Even though I believe the situation you are describing is about as common as an eskimo being found in Ethipoia, it is possible to be baptized for the remission of sins by an unfaithful Christian and a non-Christian when the conditions of faith are met in accordance with the terms of the new testament of Christ. In fact, the world is so taken by denominationalism you would be hard pressed to find anyone, to baptize another for the remission of sins.
The conversation might go something like this. Hello, I am Joe Jones. I am trying to contact Rev. Smith of the First Methoidst, Baptist, Lutheran etc. Church. Smith responds, this is he. Jones asks, do you baptize for the remission of sins? Smith says, No!! Jones asks, would you baptize me for the remission of sins. Smith states, we do not baptize for the remission of sins. Sorry, I cannot not help you.
Finally, the application of hemeneutical concepts require the scholar to examine all the evidence before making his conclusion. In particular, CONTEXT trumps lexical definitions. This could help you in your efforts to understand the redemptive plan of God for man.
I answered the question from the bible. You just do not like the answer. The new testament of Christ requires the one being baptized to do so in meeting the conditions given by God. There is not enough info to answer the question the way you would like for it to be.
Furthermore, the disciples of Christ as found in the gospels had not been baptized in his name. Therefore, The term disciple has contextual meanings.
In John 6:66, the bible says, from that time many of his DISCIPLES went back and followed him no more. These DISCIPLES of Christ were not CHRISTIANS because Jesus had not been put to death, buried nor raised at this time. Therefore, no Christians existed at this time. Furthermore, the new name was not fulfilled until Acts 11:26, some 12 years after the Lord's church began in Jerusalem on Pentecost. cf. Isaiah 62:2. Therefore, context must be in view to understand the meaning of any term. Are you willing to take the position that for twelve years no one could baptize because the disciples of Christ had not been identified as Christians for twelve years. If you disagree, how do you harmonized John 6:66 with Acts 11:26?
Even though I believe the situation you are describing is about as common as an eskimo being found in Ethipoia, it is possible to be baptized for the remission of sins by an unfaithful Christian and a non-Christian when the conditions of faith are met in accordance with the terms of the new testament of Christ. In fact, the world is so taken by denominationalism you would be hard pressed to find anyone, to baptize another for the remission of sins.
The conversation might go something like this. Hello, I am Joe Jones. I am trying to contact Rev. Smith of the First Methoidst, Baptist, Lutheran etc. Church. Smith responds, this is he. Jones asks, do you baptize for the remission of sins? Smith says, No!! Jones asks, would you baptize me for the remission of sins. Smith states, we do not baptize for the remission of sins. Sorry, I cannot not help you.
Finally, the application of hemeneutical concepts require the scholar to examine all the evidence before making his conclusion. In particular, CONTEXT trumps lexical definitions. This could help you in your efforts to understand the redemptive plan of God for man.
MIke:
Expedient means lawful or using a thing for lawful exercise. The all things includes only those things that are lawful. SEE CONTEXT. A cup is lawful to use in partaking of the fruit of the vine. A dish would be lawful. A bucket would be expedient. All of those things are lawful or expedient in partaking of the Lord's Supper. In short Paul could use what he desired as long as it did not violate the will of God. Again, context.
Expedient means lawful or using a thing for lawful exercise. The all things includes only those things that are lawful. SEE CONTEXT. A cup is lawful to use in partaking of the fruit of the vine. A dish would be lawful. A bucket would be expedient. All of those things are lawful or expedient in partaking of the Lord's Supper. In short Paul could use what he desired as long as it did not violate the will of God. Again, context.
Snitzelhoff
New Member
Frank:
It's not that I don't like your answer. In fact, it would make Church of Christ doctrine more believable. I disagree with your answer on the grounds that I find it unbiblical.
Context does determine the definition of words like "disciple." So, let me rephrase it: Jesus only authorized His own to baptize. If you can find Scriptural evidence for authorization for anyone to baptize who did not belong to Jesus, please share it.
As uncommon as the situation I presented may be, some alledge that it did actually happen in the case of Alexander Campbell (and, actually, most of the other early Restorationists--Stone, Scott, the Haldenses, etc.). There is, admittedly, debate over the understood purpose in his baptism, since his published views on the subject did not conform to current Church of Christ beliefs until later in his life.
Essentially, I guess we're both arguing from silence. I say that Jesus didn't authorize it so it wouldn't be valid. You say Jesus (or the Apostles) didn't specifically prohibit it, so it's not invalid.
As to the expedience of a thing, "expedient" means "helpful" or "beneficial" more than "lawful." In that light, the verse makes sense: "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not beneficial." In saying that "all things" refers to "all lawful things" and "expedient" means "lawful," you are essentially saying that the verse should be taken as, "All lawful things are lawful, but not all lawful things are lawful."
Michael
It's not that I don't like your answer. In fact, it would make Church of Christ doctrine more believable. I disagree with your answer on the grounds that I find it unbiblical.
Context does determine the definition of words like "disciple." So, let me rephrase it: Jesus only authorized His own to baptize. If you can find Scriptural evidence for authorization for anyone to baptize who did not belong to Jesus, please share it.
As uncommon as the situation I presented may be, some alledge that it did actually happen in the case of Alexander Campbell (and, actually, most of the other early Restorationists--Stone, Scott, the Haldenses, etc.). There is, admittedly, debate over the understood purpose in his baptism, since his published views on the subject did not conform to current Church of Christ beliefs until later in his life.
Essentially, I guess we're both arguing from silence. I say that Jesus didn't authorize it so it wouldn't be valid. You say Jesus (or the Apostles) didn't specifically prohibit it, so it's not invalid.
As to the expedience of a thing, "expedient" means "helpful" or "beneficial" more than "lawful." In that light, the verse makes sense: "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not beneficial." In saying that "all things" refers to "all lawful things" and "expedient" means "lawful," you are essentially saying that the verse should be taken as, "All lawful things are lawful, but not all lawful things are lawful."
Michael
Snitzelhoff
New Member
I want to add (since it won't let me edit that post) that I am not saying liberty and lawfulness should be taken as license. That is the point of that verse--not abusing our liberty as Christians. Just wanted to clear that up.
Michael
Michael
Snitzelhoff
New Member
Stefon,
It's not the purpose of baptism that we're discussing in this thread; it's who is authorized to baptize. Biblically, I believe only those who belong to Jesus Christ are authorized to baptize. You four (Bmerr, Tazman, Eschatologist, and Frank) believe the opposite--that all people, regardless of their own salvation, are authorized to baptize. My question seeks Biblical evidence for that assertion.
Michael
It's not the purpose of baptism that we're discussing in this thread; it's who is authorized to baptize. Biblically, I believe only those who belong to Jesus Christ are authorized to baptize. You four (Bmerr, Tazman, Eschatologist, and Frank) believe the opposite--that all people, regardless of their own salvation, are authorized to baptize. My question seeks Biblical evidence for that assertion.
Michael
What biblical evidence do you have that the effectiveness of baptism is dependant upon the person administering it?
When you say "Authorized", please explain. Does this mean that only a select few may perform this baptism for it to be acceptable to God?
Is this authority of the baptizer a salvation issue for the one being baptized?
Snitzelhoff
New Member
Stefon,
Example: Every example of baptism in the New Testament was performed BY a Christian. There is absolutely no example of disciples saving time by saying, "Ok, now baptize each other!" or even permitting that to be done.
Michael
"Authorized" means that one has the authority to perform the baptism. Christ conferred that authority to the disciples (defined as "those who belong to Him") in the Great Commission. No one else was given that authority.
If, by "select few," you mean all saved people (disciples of Jesus Christ), then yes.
Command: The Great Commission
Example: Every example of baptism in the New Testament was performed BY a Christian. There is absolutely no example of disciples saving time by saying, "Ok, now baptize each other!" or even permitting that to be done.
It would be if you're Church of Christ and believe that you're only saved at the point of valid baptism.
Michael
Mike:
I am not arguing from silence. I believe the question is absurd an invalid. Salvation is not dependent upon the one adminsitering the act. It requires the faith of the one being immersed. No one can know if the person adminsitering the act of baptism is a faithful Christian. God will decide our salvation. No one can know if the person who may proclaim to be a Christian is, in fact a Christian, unless the candidate has seen a baptismal certificate. The certificate may or may not be authentic. Even at this, they do not know the heart of the one administering the act of baptism. If your belief is followed to it's logical conclusion, no one can know if they have had a valid baptism. This is irrational.
Finally, as I said, the question could not be answered the way you desired. For example, Paul became a Christian. Please provide the evidence from the new tesatament he ever repented of his sins. You can search today, tomorrow and until eternity with the mind of Einstein and never be able to answer the question of: When did Paul repent of his sins?
As for the question of expedience, An expedient must not violate the law of God. I do not see where the person administeing baptism violates the will of God. Is it a sin to do what God commands? Therefore, it is an expedient.
The cup does not determine the faith of the one partaking of the fruit of the vine. The plate does not determine the faith of the one partaking of the bread. The one adminstering baptism does not determine the faith of the one being baptized. God can use men both good and evil to achieve his purpose. I believe Bmerr made the best commentary that could be made on this from the bible.
Yes, one is cleansed from his sins at the point of a valid baptism. Acts 19:1-9. The conditions of a valid baptism do not require what you are attemtping to establish. Funny, you do not even believe in baptism for the remission of sins. Why make such an absurd argument about it's validity?
The term disciple has more than one meaning. You cannot refute the argument, so you ignore it. You did not answer my question about Acts 11:26 and John 6:66. See Is. 62;2. If I held your position, I would ignore it, too!!
Hemeneutics is not restricted to EXAMPLES. Else, it would unlawful to meet in a "church building". By example, there are no such things as church buildings in the new testament. However, I can prove to the rational mind, they are lawful for our use in meeting on the first day of the week.
One's salvation is based upon one's faith in the blood of Christ, not the faith of another person.
I am not arguing from silence. I believe the question is absurd an invalid. Salvation is not dependent upon the one adminsitering the act. It requires the faith of the one being immersed. No one can know if the person adminsitering the act of baptism is a faithful Christian. God will decide our salvation. No one can know if the person who may proclaim to be a Christian is, in fact a Christian, unless the candidate has seen a baptismal certificate. The certificate may or may not be authentic. Even at this, they do not know the heart of the one administering the act of baptism. If your belief is followed to it's logical conclusion, no one can know if they have had a valid baptism. This is irrational.
Finally, as I said, the question could not be answered the way you desired. For example, Paul became a Christian. Please provide the evidence from the new tesatament he ever repented of his sins. You can search today, tomorrow and until eternity with the mind of Einstein and never be able to answer the question of: When did Paul repent of his sins?
As for the question of expedience, An expedient must not violate the law of God. I do not see where the person administeing baptism violates the will of God. Is it a sin to do what God commands? Therefore, it is an expedient.
The cup does not determine the faith of the one partaking of the fruit of the vine. The plate does not determine the faith of the one partaking of the bread. The one adminstering baptism does not determine the faith of the one being baptized. God can use men both good and evil to achieve his purpose. I believe Bmerr made the best commentary that could be made on this from the bible.
Yes, one is cleansed from his sins at the point of a valid baptism. Acts 19:1-9. The conditions of a valid baptism do not require what you are attemtping to establish. Funny, you do not even believe in baptism for the remission of sins. Why make such an absurd argument about it's validity?
The term disciple has more than one meaning. You cannot refute the argument, so you ignore it. You did not answer my question about Acts 11:26 and John 6:66. See Is. 62;2. If I held your position, I would ignore it, too!!
Hemeneutics is not restricted to EXAMPLES. Else, it would unlawful to meet in a "church building". By example, there are no such things as church buildings in the new testament. However, I can prove to the rational mind, they are lawful for our use in meeting on the first day of the week.
One's salvation is based upon one's faith in the blood of Christ, not the faith of another person.