Who can baptise others in water

[SwordmanJr]

When Christ gave the commission we read in Matthew, it was apparently to all the Apostles as they were at that time. Paul was not yet numbered among them.

Yeah. So? The command still states that they were all to go out into "all the world." Is there some part of that you don't understand?

Later, when he was called by God, he was given a special assignment which we all know about and which he pursued vigorously. In the passage you cite, he says that his particular role is to evangelize...which is true. That doesn't mean that he never baptized anyone, but if he did not, it still doesn't mean that any and every lay person in the early church routinely went about baptizing converts rather than the deacons and presbyters and of course "the Twelve."

It also doesn't mean any and all didn't go about baptizing in Holy Spirit and fire, as did Christ Jesus. Why not believe what is written as opposed to denominational, religious teachings?

Jr.

 

[Albion]

Oh, man. Are you serious? You've got to be joking since nobody said anything about there being a moral crisis with your so-called "clergy" class doing the baptisms.

What's this?

Oh? So, does that make it a moral crisis if you don't obey that teaching from your religion, if that's really the position of your religion's leadership (since you provided no reference)?

Jr.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Oh, man. Are you serious? You've got to be joking since nobody said anything about there being a moral crisis with your so-called "clergy" class doing the baptisms. They can and do whatever you people hire them to do. That's why they're hirelings. Nothing more. When you hire them to do the baptisms for you, then they will do just that. When they teach their gullible followers and hiring authorities that THEY are the only ones authorized to baptize, that's where the problem lies.

Jr.

The clergy in my Church are ordained. Their job consists of, among other things, baptizing people. My position has been that they are the best choice to perform a baptism in ordinary circumstances. I don't understand why this is a troubling notion, especially since I said from the start that they're not only ones capable of performing the task; they're simply the ideal people to perform the task.

Believers can baptize other believers. It is possible.

But at the same time, the fact that you can do it doesn't mean it's to be done. Best practice is for a clergyman to perform the procedure, unless circumstances demand otherwise.

 

[Albion]

Yeah. So? The command still states that they were all to go out into "all the world." Is there some part of that you don't understand?

Nope. I understand it well. The APOSTLES, the duly appointed leadership of the new church, were to baptize.

It is the direct opposite of the do-it yourself, every member a de facto clergyman idea.

It also doesn't mean any and all didn't go about baptizing in Holy Spirit and fire, as did Christ Jesus. Why not believe what is written as opposed to denominational, religious teachings?

Jr.

If there were even a hint that everybody went around fire-baptizing (or sacramentally baptizing, for that matter) all converts as they encountered them...THEN I WOULD believe your theory.

Of course, the Bible is completely absent any such information while, at the same time, it identifies the ranks of ministry and some of the duties assigned to them. I am therefore, required to go with the Bible's witness.

 

[FireDragon76]

In most Reformed churches, baptism is only done as part of the worship community.

In the Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, and Lutheran traditions, baptism is normally practiced within the church liturgy but it is also acceptable, in emergencies, to be performed by the laity.

 

[SwordmanJr]

What's this?

You quoted a second statement from me as if it was evidence for the first where I asked about where I allegedly stated that clergy could not baptize. That second statement simply recognized that SOME in the clergy class believe that ONLY THEY should baptize. I simply called that into question. How did you correlate my question about believing ALL that your clergy class teach with the idea that I was allegedly claiming that they were not allowed to baptize? You're doing a shuck and jive dance here that has no rhythm.

Jr.

 

[Albion]

You quoted a second statement from me as if it was evidence for the first where I asked about where I allegedly stated that clergy could not baptize. That second statement simply recognized that SOME in the clergy class believe that ONLY THEY should baptize. I simply called that into question. How did you correlate my question about believing ALL that your clergy class teach with the idea that I was allegedly claiming that they were not allowed to baptize? You're doing a shuck and jive dance here that has no rhythm.

Jr.

I confess that I have had a hard time figuring out the meaning of some what you have posted; and I don't know who these mysterious clergy that you refer to might be since you have never given any hint.

 

[SwordmanJr]

I confess that I have had a hard time figuring out the meaning of some what you have posted; and I don't know who these mysterious clergy that you refer to might be since you have never given any hint.

Hmm. I have been accused of writing at too high a level for many people. My usual response to that is that it's not so much that I'm writing at such a high level, but rather that my thoughts move along faster than my fingers can keep up. That gets me in trouble sometimes because of it being easier for others to misinterpret/misunderstand my meaning (although it's the fault of individuals for jumping to conclusions rather than asking what I meant).

I do appreciate your stating what you did, and I hope my clarification came through ok.

Jr.

 

[Ecclesiastian]

The Universal Priesthood of Believers grants us all the authority to baptize as long as it's done as Christ prescribed. However if you have a pastor within reach, why not have a pastor do it?

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Can only Pastor's or every believers have the right to give water baptism to other

I don't think it matters so long as the baptism is done in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Since it's actually God doing the baptism, the human agent is quite secondary.

 

[SwordmanJr]

The Universal Priesthood of Believers grants us all the authority to baptize as long as it's done as Christ prescribed. However if you have a pastor within reach, why not have a pastor do it?

When we speak of the priesthood of all believers, what, then, is a "pastor"? Those of us who are mature in the faith, are we not all responsible for discipling the less mature and the babes in Christ?

The modern, professional hirlings most call their "pastor" is mostly a beast not known to scriptures. Eph 4:11 is the only NT mention of the function of pastoring, and it is only SOME who serve that function, especially considering that no job description was offered in the writing of that text.

What I submit to everyone is that the professional hirlings within institutional church organizations are purely man-made, not God-breathed. It's most of those hirlings who feel the greatest threat from the many spiritual giants walking this earth. Dare one darken the doorway of one of those guy's institutional buildings, and the giant is shunned, and asked to leave much of the time.

So, where I agree with you that we have the right to grab one of those hirlings to do the job of baptizing for us, it's better to do it ourselves, or we can grab a man who is the REAL DEAL as a pastor, or if we prefer, a giant among men in Christ Jesus. Standing behind a pulpit and yammering out endless numbers of sermons to an audience of mostly perpetual babes is nothing more than Aristotilian style rhetoric derived from books containing sermon notes and references much of the time.

Jr.

 

[Albion]

The Universal Priesthood of Believers grants us all the authority to baptize as long as it's done as Christ prescribed. However if you have a pastor within reach, why not have a pastor do it?

That's not what the "priesthood of all believers" means. All members do not have the right or the calling to function as if ordained or called by the church itself in accordance with Biblical principles.

 

[Ecclesiastian]

That's not what the "priesthood of all believers" means. All members do not have the right or the calling to function as if ordained or called by the church itself in accordance with Biblical principles.

And yet it's the official doctrine of all historical denominations, Catholics, Lutherans, etc. that any believer can baptize if it is done properly and preferably reported to a congregation afterward.

 

[SwordmanJr]

That's not what the "priesthood of all believers" means. All members do not have the right or the calling to function as if ordained or called by the church itself in accordance with Biblical principles.

I hope you don't mind my interjecting here to ask where that principle is located in the Bible. Lots of people claim Abraham established the principle of tithing, which is easily disproved when all we have to do is read the account with honest indifference to the injections the tithing crowd claims is allegedly in the text.

Jr.

 

[Albion]

And yet it's the official doctrine of all historical denominations, Catholics, Lutherans, etc. that any believer can baptize if it is done properly and preferably reported to a congregation afterward.

Yes, but not because of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.

Plus, those churches accept baptisms performed by laypersons if they are correctly administered and the circumstances constitute an emergency, but they certainly do not encourage it. All of that falls on deaf ears in the case of at least some contributors whenever this topic comes up.

 

[Albion]

I hope you don't mind my interjecting here to ask where that principle is located in the Bible. Lots of people claim Abraham established the principle of tithing, which is easily disproved when all we have to do is read the account with honest indifference to the injections the tithing crowd claims is allegedly in the text.

Jr.

Look at who was instructed to baptize. Look at who is recorded as actually performing baptisms.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Look at who was instructed to baptize. Look at who is recorded as actually performing baptisms.

That's it? That situational image is what you've hung your hat of theology upon for batpism?

Please tell me, was God utterly incapable of having articulated that doctrine with succinct clarity to ensure our understanding of it beyond any shadow of a doubt? After all, the Lord made it abundantly clear that ONLY the priests were to light fires of sacrifice unto the Lord, and the two foolish sons of a priest decided to violate the clear and unmistakable instructions to the priest class and the people by lighting what was described as "strange fires." But here, we have nothing but the situational recounting of the new leadership being told to do baptisms for the even NEWER converts, and THAT is the basis for baptism being allegedly limited, by the Lord, strictly to the full-fledged, modern clergy class of hirelings?

I hope you don't mind my saying that such a foundation is as strong as many of the things I've heard coming from Mormon missionaries. They too hold to that same belief about baptism, and many other beliefs, all of which rest upon the shifting sands of situational innuendo.

Sorry, but I would have to see a more solid grounding for such a belief to accept it as being biblical. I accept that YOU believe it, and I hope you appreciate my lack of total acceptance on the basis of what you have presented thus far.

Jr.

 

[Albion]

That's it? That situational image is what you've hung your hat of theology upon for batpism?

Yes. That's it--what the Bible tells us.

Please tell me, was God utterly incapable of having articulated that doctrine with succinct clarity to ensure our understanding of it beyond any shadow of a doubt?

That could be said of most of the doctrines we believe, couldn't it? Couldn't God have simply said, through Scripture, that his nature is triune? Was he utterly incapable of just saying, flat-out, that Jesus of Nazareth was God in the flesh? Couldn't God have been explicit about all those things that divide Christians?

I suppose he could have, but I have always been fascinated by people who insist that the Bible is their guide, that they believe the Bible implicitly, that it is crystal clear and cannot be wrong, and so on...until it comes to something they do not want to believe. Then it becomes "Well, could not God have done X if he wanted to?" "Don't you believe that he is able to anything? He is all-powerful!"

And just like that, what the Bible actually teaches is trumped by what God might, in theory, have chosen to do but, to the best of our information, did not.