Who's authorized to baptize whom?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

strikes me that the first baptizer who gets some piece of paper, and then later cleans the church's clock financially, is presenting another pov, wadr. Paper does not equal "knowing" iow. Personally in that position i would sue the ordinator as a matter of responsibility, but never mind that for now.

Pointing to abusers who will be lost with the devil and his hordes, in spite of the intentions of the purpose of such things and the myriads of people that are honest and do it for the right reasons is disingenuous.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by shag

There MUST be a Spiritual minimum(standard) for folks....to be proven to be rooted and grounded in the faith, for doing the baptism. Else anyone can baptise anyone, even if they daily battle porn, Copenhagen, anger physically and verbally-management, and lusting after another persons spouse...on and on...
Be proven.

I agree that it is best that the baptizer be someone who is rooted and grounded in their faith. However, how many of us have known pastors, evangelists, teachers and even "lay-ministry" who have been found living in adultery or involved in any number of "sins," (even what you have listed above); would this negate the baptisms that they performed?

It is impossible for us to know a man's heart so how can we judge who should do the baptizing? The act of baptism is the person's decision to put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. It is an outward sign of their profession that Jesus is their Savior and the remission of their sins. IMO, it is all on the new believer and Jesus - not the person doing the baptism. I have even read of people in foreign countries who received the revelation of baptism in Jesus name having no one there to baptize them - they baptized themselves. So personally, I believe that anyone who is grounded in their faith can baptize. I've seen fathers (who were not ministers in any shape, form or fashion) baptize their children and it is a beautiful sight!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

I agree that it is best that the baptizer be someone who is rooted and grounded in their faith. However, how many of us have known pastors, evangelists, teachers and even "lay-ministry" who have been found living in adultery or involved in any number of "sins," (even what you have listed above); would this negate the baptisms that they performed?

It is impossible for us to know a man's heart - the act of baptism is the person's decision to put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. It is an outward sign of their profession that Jesus is their Savior and the remission of their sins. IMO, it is all on the new believer and Jesus - not the person doing the baptism. I have even read of people in foreign countries who received the revelation of baptism in Jesus name having no one there to baptize them - they baptized themselves. So personally, I believe that anyone who is grounded in their faith can baptize. I've seen fathers (who were not ministers in any shape, form or fashion) baptize their children and it is a beautiful sight!

Because of some wicked exceptions to the rule, we can't dispose of things intended to help narrow down those whom we can trust. But that does not say papers are required, as I indicated in my first post. It doesn't mean others cannot baptize. It just means it's a means to do our best in knowing those who labour among us.

[shazeep]

ya, or a way to establish authority where none exists. Both are true imo. It is the assurance that you may know something that you do not know at all, in the end; the very first time there is an exception.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ya, or a way to establish authority where none exists. Both are true imo. It is the assurance that you may know something that you do not know at all, in the end; the very first time there is an exception.

Of course! After all, no one can really know if they're saved right now, right?

Not.

1 John 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Pointing to abusers who will be lost with the devil and his hordes, in spite of the intentions of the purpose of such things and the myriads of people that are honest and do it for the right reasons is disingenuous.

might seem so at first, but this is obviously another iteration of They Are All Lost, them what had no priest with a paper to dunk them in water, when He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Of course! After all, no one can really know if they're saved right now, right?

Not.

1 John 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

yet when i quote His Word, we have issues, even when Paul, your High Priest, obviously backs Him up. You don't see a disconnect there?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Pointing to abusers who will be lost with the devil and his hordes, in spite of the intentions of the purpose of such things and the myriads of people that are honest and do it for the right reasons is disingenuous.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

yet when i quote His Word, we have issues, even when Paul, your High Priest, obviously backs Him up. You don't see a disconnect there?

Prove it. When you quote and use it out of context and are shown what context is and are asked to provide your response in turn, you don't show.

Let's do this and see if that's correct or not?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by shazeep

yet when i quote His Word, we have issues, even when

Paul, your High Priest

, obviously backs Him up. You don't see a disconnect there?

Well, looky here we have an Apostle Paul hater in our midst.

That's new little buddy, I didn't know who were one of those Paul dissenters?

The more you post, the more you toast.