Baptism? Public or Private?

Well to be perfectly honest in Christ's time it was done in a river.

IF I remember correctly in John there is an occasion of when a man was walking along and got saved. He immediately went to the river and was baptized. I think it's whichever it is. If people are around fine if not fine. At least that is what scripture says. If I remember correctly. If not I do apologize

 

Lacy I would have to agree with this statement.

 

I was baptized in a pond, by my Dad(preacher/pastor), publicily. That is what baptism is about, showing the world publicly what Christ has done in your heart.

 

Public---anytime two people are involved(Philip and that Eunich) its public, isn't it??

Read the first chapters of the gospels where John is bapitzin'---- the verses are filled with "What shall WE do"---then look at Luke 3:7, "Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized . . ." Verse 12, "Then came also publicans to be baptized saying . . . what shall we do"

Verse 14, "And the soldiers also"

There was always a good crowd---I believe it should be as public as possible

 

That, of course, begs the question "if there is such an exclusive right, then what of all those people who were baptized outside of that authority, and what of those who were then baptized by them, and so on ad nauseum."

-Pluvivs

 

public

 

Public Also.

Matthew 10:32 "Whoever confesses me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven".

Matthew 5:14-16 "You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand and it gives light to all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your father in heaven.

Mark 1:5 "Then all the land of Judea and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptised by him in the Jordan river confessing there sins.

 

Absolutley.

 

interesting point. Phillip baptized the eunuch in the desert immediately with no one around. Then again he was riding in a caravan and there may have been witnesses.

 

Any one have any idea of what happens to the Christian that is not water baptized?

 

The commission was left to the Lord's church and part of that commission was to baptise believers and then to teach them. The Lord said go, make believers, baptise, then teach them to observe all things, and lo I am with you . . . However, for the Lord to be with His church always, the first three items have to be accomplished.

Only the Lord's Church has the authority to baptise. In the case of Phillip and the Eunuch, it could be assumed that Phillip was acting on behalf of the church at Jerusalem, although I know there are some that may dispute that. Regardless, baptism always precedes being aligned with a church body. Another point of dispute is always the definition of the "proper administrator" of the ordinance.

A church cannot fulfill part of the commission and expect to receive the Lord's blessings (lo I am with you alway, etc.), and no one can individually fulfill the commission outside the authority of the Church.

 

That is a good point also, Phillip was an "ordained" deacon, that is he was recognized and commissioned by the laying of hands.

It's also important to note that the reason for baptism, as stated by baptists everywhere, is that it is an outward showing of an inner faith. If this is true then it implies that you are to do baptism before the fellowship of the believers. After all who else would you make a profession of faith to?

 

Yet what happened to the authority of the church when the Papacy was being sold for profit, and the Church had become corrupt? It may well have been revived when Knox and Calvin came along, yet it is not unreasonable to assume that any divine appointment to Baptise that the church had, dissapeared when it went after things that were not right.

The modern Church according to some has no Apostles, hence the right to Baptise would be with the laity.

 

Baptism is never going to be private because one cannot baptize onesself. Therefore there is always going to be at least one witness.

I believe the Bible (speaking on other matters) says there should be two or three witnesses to an event to make it a fact that can be proven. I believe we can apply that principal to baptism.

Also I would question why a person would want to be baptised without witnesses. The Bible say that we are to proclaim Christ before men if we expect Christ to proclaim us before God. Baptism is the first step in that proclaimation.