One Lord, one faith, one baptism.....

[ALAYMAN]

Christ commissioned the apostles to baptize (Matt. 28:19), and so by extension we can infer the same of the Lord's Supper as well. According to the 1689 Baptist Confession, "these holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ" (LBCF 28.2). It is they who are "entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed" (1 Cor. 4:1).

The ordinances belong to the church--and baptism specifically is the sign of initiation into the New Covenant community--and should be administered by its officers, or at least those whom they have appointed to the task.

Exactly right.

 

[AverageJoe]

Christ commissioned the apostles to baptize (Matt. 28:19), and so by extension we can infer the same of the Lord's Supper as well. According to the 1689 Baptist Confession, "these holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ" (LBCF 28.2). It is they who are "entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed" (1 Cor. 4:1).

The ordinances belong to the church--and baptism specifically is the sign of initiation into the New Covenant community--and should be administered by its officers, or at least those whom they have appointed to the task.

Using that same logic, then, wouldn't soulwinning, etc only be for the clergy? Matthew 28 would make it seem so if that's the case.

 

[Ekklesian]

Nice dodge...as usual....UGH!

It's not a dodge. To whom did circumcision belong?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Using that same logic, then, wouldn't soulwinning, etc only be for the clergy? Matthew 28 would make it seem so if that's the case.

A good read on this topic…

What it does it mean is that we have to understand its significance for us by implication, not by immediate application. It sounds like a strong argument to say, “Well, if we don’t all baptize, then I guess we shouldn’t all do discipleship!?” But this argument proves too much. If every aspect of the Great Commission is directly for every individual believer, then 99% of us are disobeying the Great Commission by not going to the unreached nations of the world. Instead, on good instincts, we operate with the assumption that we can still obey the Great Commission if we participate as a church body in sending others to the nations. Link

 

[Ransom]

Using that same logic, then, wouldn't soulwinning, etc only be for the clergy? Matthew 28 would make it seem so if that's the case.

It's not quite the same logic.

In the Scriptures we have examples of believers, e.g. Apollos or Priscilla and Aquila, doing evangelism despite apparently not being church leaders. So there are approved examples of laymen doing evangelism on their own.

At the same time, does your church lay hands on missionaries to commission them? Then there's a recognition that some evangelists are sent out in the name of the local assembly. They are "appointed to the task" by the leadership.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Using that same logic, then, wouldn't soulwinning, etc only be for the clergy? Matthew 28 would make it seem so if that's the case.

"Soulwinning" would be within the context of a local Church would it not? If you were out "Publickly" proclaiming the gospel, you are marking yourself as a "Follower of Christ" and therefore affiliated with a local body to which you are accountable. I would say that such a body would give tacit approval of your endeavors or otherwise confront and see what you were up to. At the very least, this is how things OUGHT to be right?

Baptism is DEFINITELY within the context of a local Church assembly and as such, should only be performed under the umbrella of its authority. A Church may determine that only ordained clergy should baptize and this is their prerogative and so long as we are under such authority, we are compelled to obey. I have already said a great deal about it and I believe a local assembly has the latitude to delegate this task to whomever they desire so long as it reflects "decency and order" (1 Cor 14:40).

Ransom's statement: "at least those whom they have appointed to the task" gives ample room for this.

What would be absolutely UNSCRIPTURAL is for some "Free-Lance Christian" who believes all other Churches to be apostate to take it upon himself to start "Baptizing" people in the ocean or their backyard swimming pool but then would such activity ultimately lead to the establishment of a "Church?" I guess the argument then is whether such baptisms should be considered valid or would they be considered "Alien" baptisms which I guess opens up another area for debate?

 

[Ekklesian]

"Soulwinning" would be within the context of a local Church would it not? If you were out "Publickly" proclaiming the gospel, you are marking yourself as a "Follower of Christ" and therefore affiliated with a local body to which you are accountable. I would say that such a body would give tacit approval of your endeavors or otherwise confront and see what you were up to. At the very least, this is how things OUGHT to be right?

Baptism is DEFINITELY within the context of a local Church assembly and as such, should only be performed under the umbrella of its authority. A Church may determine that only ordained clergy should baptize and this is their prerogative and so long as we are under such authority, we are compelled to obey. I have already said a great deal about it and I believe a local assembly has the latitude to delegate this task to whomever they desire so long as it reflects "decency and order" (1 Cor 14:40).

Ransom's statement: "at least those whom they have appointed to the task" gives ample room for this.

What would be absolutely UNSCRIPTURAL is for some "Free-Lance Christian" who believes all other Churches to be apostate to take it upon himself to start "Baptizing" people in the ocean or their backyard swimming pool but then would such activity ultimately lead to the establishment of a "Church?" I guess the argument then is whether such baptisms should be considered valid or would they be considered "Alien" baptisms which I guess opens up another area for debate?

Sounds like apostolic succession for Baptists. Your likening of Christ's ownership of the ordinance to the extremes of a rogue sectarian belies your appeal as Scriptural.

The question was, Where was the congregation when Philip baptized the eunuch? And I will pose the question again. Where was the congregation when Ananias baptized Saul of Tarsus?

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Sounds like apostolic succession for Baptists. Your likening of Christ's ownership of the ordinance to the extremes of a rogue sectarian belies your appeal as Scriptural.

The question was, Where was the congregation when Philip baptized the eunuch? And I will pose the question again. Where was the congregation when Ananias baptized Saul of Tarsus?

I answered the question as did Ransom. Those in attendance for the Ethiopian Eunuch's baptism were his "Entourage" as well as other travelers who were on this specific route. I am adamantly opposed to Baptist succession and Baptist perpetuity but I believe that Baptism identifies one with Christ and with his people so it is a matter that should be public and should be administered under the authority of a local Church congregation. I believe it is fair to state that Philip was doing evangelistic and Church-planting work so his authority to baptize would be under this sort of context.

 

[Ekklesian]

I answered the question as did Ransom. Those in attendance for the Ethiopian Eunuch's baptism were his "Entourage" as well as other travelers who were on this specific route. I am adamantly opposed to Baptist succession and Baptist perpetuity but I believe that Baptism identifies one with Christ and with his people so it is a matter that should be public and should be administered under the authority of a local Church congregation. I believe it is fair to state that Philip was doing evangelistic and Church-planting work so his authority to baptize would be under this sort of context.

When you said 'congregation', you meant congregation of believers; not merely the public. So your answer is, the congregation was present in spirit?

 

[Baptist Renegade]

When you said 'congregation', you meant congregation of believers; not merely the public. So your answer is, the congregation was present in spirit?

Philip was there as a representative of the Church. We have no idea if any other believers were present. Philip's activities were in the context of what one may refer to as "Pioneer Missions" where the Ethiopian Eunuch was first among converts. He was on his way back to Ethiopia where he had his "Life" and where there was no Church yet established yet he requested to be baptized and to identify himself with Christ and his people. Seeing that there were very few (if any) "Churches" outside of Jerusalem and Judea during this time (this event actually marks the first time that the Gospel extended OUTSIDE the realm of Judaism and OUTSIDE the borders of Israel so we have to factor in this as well), Philip really had no other options than to have an impromptu "Baptism Service." It is safe to say that Christianity was established in Ethiopia and this Eunuch was the very beginning of this.

What exactly are you trying to assert? That ANYONE can baptize ANYWHERE at ANYTIME? This is what I would adamantly disagree with.

 

[AverageJoe]

Philip was there as a representative of the Church. We have no idea if any other believers were present. Philip's activities were in the context of what one may refer to as "Pioneer Missions" where the Ethiopian Eunuch was first among converts. He was on his way back to Ethiopia where he had his "Life" and where there was no Church yet established yet he requested to be baptized and to identify himself with Christ and his people. Seeing that there were very few (if any) "Churches" outside of Jerusalem and Judea during this time (this event actually marks the first time that the Gospel extended OUTSIDE the realm of Judaism and OUTSIDE the borders of Israel so we have to factor in this as well), Philip really had no other options than to have an impromptu "Baptism Service." It is safe to say that Christianity was established in Ethiopia and this Eunuch was the very beginning of this.

What exactly are you trying to assert? That ANYONE can baptize ANYWHERE at ANYTIME? This is what I would adamantly disagree with.

So, what you're saying is that the command to baptize was moved from those in the congregation to only a pastor/elder by the Bible? Hogwash!

 

[ALAYMAN]

So, what you're saying is that the command to baptize was moved from those in the congregation to only a pastor/elder by the Bible? Hogwash!

I believe Ray has been fairly clear, that he believes that the authority to preside over the administration of the ordinances is within the delegated power Christ has given to the church. That makes sense, rather than believing that Christ was authorizing any single person to baptized at their own desire. Such restrictions are often part and parcel of the admonitions of Scripture. For instance, James 3:1 says "Not many of you should become teachers". The implication is clear, that though we all should be ready to give witness (1 Peter 3:15) of the gospel so that others may be saved not all are called to formally be didaskalos.

 

[Ekklesian]

Philip was there as a representative of the Church. We have no idea if any other believers were present. Philip's activities were in the context of what one may refer to as "Pioneer Missions" where the Ethiopian Eunuch was first among converts. He was on his way back to Ethiopia where he had his "Life" and where there was no Church yet established yet he requested to be baptized and to identify himself with Christ and his people. Seeing that there were very few (if any) "Churches" outside of Jerusalem and Judea during this time (this event actually marks the first time that the Gospel extended OUTSIDE the realm of Judaism and OUTSIDE the borders of Israel so we have to factor in this as well), Philip really had no other options than to have an impromptu "Baptism Service." It is safe to say that Christianity was established in Ethiopia and this Eunuch was the very beginning of this.

So, the congregation is present in spirit, if not physically. I agree.

I'll say it in a way you probably have not thought of. The Apostle, after his enumeration of the lineage of faith in Hebrews 11, says that that believers are surrounded by this "cloud of witnesses." It is not only Christ who is present where two or more are gathered in His name, but those who also are present with Him, for to be absent in the body is to be present with the Lord.

Isn't it a wonderful thought, that Paul was present at your baptism? And not only him, but also Moses and Elijah, and John the Baptist? John, btw, was a greater prophet than Moses or Elijah, and yet the least of the believers is greater than he was.

So where circumstances are extreme, the one who fills the role of Evangelist, also fills the role of Baptizer.

What exactly are you trying to assert? That ANYONE can baptize ANYWHERE at ANYTIME?

Of course not. I'll refer you to post number 34.

 

[Agent P]

While I agree with Baptist renegade on much of what he says, I would differ in a couple of areas. The mode of baptism is very important for a Baptist, and I could not therefore, in good conscience, accept a Methodist adult sprinkling baptism as a proper candidate for transfer of membership.

Secondly, for adults, those who make a profession of faith and desire immediate baptism there is no need for any kind of catechism or waiting period. I would further point out that I think it appropriate when somebody makes a profession of faith to encourage them to be baptized as soon as they are ready. If they would like to enroll in some class to make sure they understand what they’re about to do that’s fine too.

How about a Methodist post-profession of faith immersion? That was what our daughter had.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

I'll say it in a way you probably have not thought of. The Apostle, after his enumeration of the lineage of faith in Hebrews 11, says that that believers are surrounded by this "cloud of witnesses." It is not only Christ who is present where two or more are gathered in His name, but those who also are present with Him, for to be absent in the body is to be present with the Lord.

Isn't it a wonderful thought, that Paul was present at your baptism? And not only him, but also Moses and Elijah, and John the Baptist? John, btw, was a greater prophet than Moses or Elijah, and yet the least of the believers is greater than he was.

The Eastern Orthodox Church speaks in similar fashion regarding the "Communion of the Saints" and some of what they say is actually quite fascinating!

Baptism is your "Initiation" or "Rite of Passage" into the Church which implies that the church ought to be involved. To the Church, you are saying "I am now one of you!" and to the world, you are saying "I am one of them!" For this reason, I really like baptismal services out in the open where the public may be present at places like the beach, lake, river, or perhaps a backyard jacuzzi during a small-group fellowship (local Church sanctioned. of course)!

So where circumstances are extreme, the one who fills the role of Evangelist, also fills the role of Baptizer.

I would say the account of the Ethiopian Eunuch would qualify as an extreme circumstance. No churches present where they were and he was in-transit back to Ethiopia. Definitely pioneer missions. I believe it is safe to say that the Church was ultimately established in Ethiopia and perhaps this was the very beginning?

 

[Baptist Renegade]

How about a Methodist post-profession of faith immersion? That was what our daughter had.

I would accept it. It is a trinitarian baptism, by immersion, and upon public profession of Christ. Seems to me this a biblical baptism that the Church should recognize but other Baptists tend to disagree.