Who's authorized to baptize whom?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Disciple4life

I am just giving you some playful grief.

Lol

[Esaias]

Wasn't this issue dealt with back in the 4th or 5th century? I think there was a big ruckus over it...

[votivesoul]

The merit of one's immersion is not dependent upon the immerser or the immersed, but upon the ONE who is summoned by invocation of His name. Jesus sanctifies an immersion by responding to the faith of the immersed, offering remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit as evidence and seal of repentance.

John the Baptist said he wasn't worthy to crouch down and take off the Lord's sandal, yet he still immersed. Paul called himself the least of all the apostles and of sinners, the chief, yet he still immersed. Nothing of their personal righteousness or lack thereof, had there been any lack, affected those they immersed. The righteousness that was imparted to the immersed was solely the grace of God imparting righteousness to them, as those who were immersed acted in good faith toward the message of the messenger.

Think of it...

I can trust in the Lord, believe and receive the Gospel, repent of my sins, desire to be immersed, then realize I need to meet with the immerser for a number of weeks or months in order to get to know him intimately enough in order to determine if he is worthy to baptize me?

I don't think so.

[shazeep]

amen. "If you then, being evil..." was Spoken to the original baptizers, even if a more general meaning was intended.

[Godsdrummer]

The question is not does God ordain authority, we all know he does. But what that authority looks like is the question.

Is the type of authority Apostolic or Roman Catholic. Yes the question was established in the 4th or 5th century, by Roman Catholic, and it was wrong. Ephesians 4 says God gave gifts of ministry for the equipping of the saints to do the work of ministry. Nowhere does it say the ministry gifts have the authority in the manner in which we have today in most churches.

The hierarchy in the church is given in Ephesians 5.

Eph 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

And if that is not good enough how about...

1Co 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

As Paul said, be followers of him as he follows Christ. Note in both these cases, it does not say, Christ, minister, husband, wife.

As Ephesians states, the saints are to be equipped to do the work of ministry, which would include baptism.

Finally baptism is dependent on the faith of the being baptized not the baptizer. Rapist? How many were baptized by pedophiles, sexual deviants, adulterers etc. that came out years later. Men that held papers with organizations.

Baptism is the profession of ones faith, not the profession of the faith of the one doing the baptism. I should not matter who does the baptism so long as the one being baptized gets baptized and professes their faith.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

The question is not does God ordain authority, we all know he does. But what that authority looks like is the question.

The very act of authority was questioned in this thread, hence the last several pages. As I said before, the scope and nature of the authority is up for debate, but the existence of authority is not.

Is the type of authority Apostolic or Roman Catholic. Yes the question was established in the 4th or 5th century, by Roman Catholic, and it was wrong.

I was referring to the early medieval question about 'if a person is baptised by a heretic or someone in mortal sin is their baptism invalid?' And the answer that was given was 'no, it is not invalid, because the efficacy and efficiency of a divine command/sacrament is not dependent on the morality of the person performing the action, but on the divine authority of the action itself.'

Ephesians 4 says God gave gifts of ministry for the equipping of the saints to do the work of ministry. Nowhere does it say the ministry gifts have the authority in the manner in which we have today in most churches.

The hierarchy in the church is given in Ephesians 5.

Eph 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

And if that is not good enough how about...

1Co 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

As Paul said, be followers of him as he follows Christ. Note in both these cases, it does not say, Christ, minister, husband, wife.

As Ephesians states, the saints are to be equipped to do the work of ministry, which would include baptism.

Finally baptism is dependent on the faith of the being baptized not the baptizer. Rapist? How many were baptized by pedophiles, sexual deviants, adulterers etc. that came out years later. Men that held papers with organizations.

Baptism is the profession of ones faith, not the profession of the faith of the one doing the baptism. I should not matter who does the baptism so long as the one being baptized gets baptized and professes their faith.

What do you think about this?

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
(1 Corinthians 12:27-28 KJV)

1. Why does he say 'first... secondarily... thirdly... after that...'? Do those terms imply any sort of hierarchy, and if so, of what kind? If not, why not?

2. What does he mean that God has set in the church 'governments'? Why is that listed as a gifting of certain members of the body? How does that gift operate?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1. Why does he say 'first... secondarily... thirdly... after that...'? Do those terms imply any sort of hierarchy, and if so, of what kind? If not, why not?

2. What does he mean that God has set in the church 'governments'? Why is that listed as a gifting of certain members of the body? How does that gift operate?

Those are excellent questions! But I will have to come back to them, as the time to address them currently eludes me. Be back later!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jito463

My question is, what kind of dessert? Pie, cake? And why are you walking through it, instead of eating it?



Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Anywho, baptism is about the faith of the believer, not the baptizer; so I believe God would honor the baptism, if the baptizee's faith was sincere.

baptizee's faith?

Really?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What does he mean that God has set in the church 'governments'? Why is that listed as a gifting of certain members of the body? How does that gift operate?

by invention, mostly, it seems. That's like only in the KJV? Not that that ruins your premise here...gotta check.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1. Why does he say 'first... secondarily... thirdly... after that...'? Do those terms imply any sort of hierarchy, and if so, of what kind? If not, why not?

yes to heirarchy, hence "greater gifts."

Originally Posted by Esaias

2. What does he mean that God has set in the church 'governments'? Why is that listed as a gifting of certain members of the body? How does that gift operate?

ok, the lex seems to bear "governments" out closely enough, so i would attack the premise that because God set these out in the Church does not mean that God set them out in a church...i guess unless your church government is...chosen by lot? Or even by the prescribed method, which the passage is eluding me at the moment. Pretty sure there is one...