Howdy Board...

Authority to baptize--if I decide I want to separate myself from my present assembly(without their permission) and start another assembly down the street, are baptisms I perform valid?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Yes, in the absence of someone more authorised.

 

I guess you are a Baptist Succesionist who like Apostolic Successionists believe authority comes from being the successor of another human with authority.

The two passages I am aware of that are used to support successionist theologies are:

NASB - Matthew 16:18 - I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

NASB - Matthew 28:20 - teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

I consider both verses to be misinterpreted by both Apostolic and Baptist successionists.

"The gates of Hades not overpowering" is often interpreted as saying Hades will not be able to attack and break the church or its unbroken line of succession of authority.

However, what does a gate do and how does a gate overpower? Gates are defensive structures and an overpowering gate is one that stands up to an attack.

So is Jesus talking about Hades failing to attack an line of successors of authority? Or is he talking about something else?

NASB - Matthew 28:20 - teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

For this verse, Jesus promises to be with the disciples to the end of the age. He comissions the disciples by his authority to go make disciples of all nations, baptizing, teaching, etc.

Is his promise to be with them a promise about an unbroken succession of authority? Or is it an encouragement that as they go to all the nations, possibly alone encountering difficulties, that Jesus will be there with them? I'm more inclined towards the latter.

As for separating and starting a church without authority from a previous church, I find Baptist are much more prone to this sort of thing than most denominations because of our view of local autonomy. Whether that church has authority or not to baptize is not in whether a human authority authorizes them but whether a divine authority authorizes them.

What does authority have to do with baptism anyway? Any Christian should be able to baptize someone who wants to be baptized and our authority is from the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

Scriptural address please. Whilst you search, pass by Matthew 16th and 28th--the parts where Jesus gives authority(exousia). This is crux of the question--who has scriptural authority? Anybody with a Bible and some water?

This is the same kind of question Jesus asked the Pharisees: "The baptism of John, whence is it from God or from man?" The answer is obvious.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

1 Peter 2:9

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

If we really subscribe to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, then what human authority do we need to baptize?

Matthew 28:19

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

Do we see this as a comission only for priests, pastors or those in a line of succession? Or does this comission apply to all believers?

 

Any Christian should be able to baptize...

Joseph Smith's followers say they are followers of Christ. They baptize, in fact immerse. Are their baptisms valid?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Obviously Mormons have a lot of doctrinal issues that I would say are distant enough from orthodox Christianity to be considered non-Christian. Mormon baptisms are valid as Mormon baptisms.

If you are a baptist and believe in symbolic baptism, what does validity of a baptism have to do with anything. Baptism doesn't regenerate, right? So if you were baptized by someone "unauthorized" why would that matter?

 

Bro James, it depends for me on the intent of the baptiser as to whether it is a valid baptism or not. This intent is contained for example within the Great Commission of Matt 28:18-19; baptism is done in the intentional context of preaching the Gospel and making disciples ie: the teaching of Christian doctrine. Since the LDS have a false Gospel and do not teach Christian doctrine, they lack the necessary intent and therefore their baptisms (whether for the living or for the dead) are not valid.

The issue of authority is simply a practical one: we tend to have greater confidence (yes, I know there are exceptions) that the necessary baptismal intent is there if the baptising is done by a duly-authorised/ ordained Christian minister of some kind rather than by any old Joe like me.

 

By what authority do we say the LDS do not teach Christian doctrine? How would you convince the millions of Mormons who would disagree?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Matt Black,

Then why is the largest group who claims that, the Catholic Church of Rome, filled to overflowing with idolatry, blasphemy, goddess worship, paganism, a false gospel, and the attempted cover-up of rampant decades long child molestation in the ranks of its clergy?

And ALL of the groups who make that claim are cults...

Jehovahs Witnesses
Mormons
David Koresh
Christian Science(Mary Baker Eddy)
Jim Jones
Catholic Church

etc etc etc.

Sadly,

Mike

 

Living Stone said...

It isnt. There is only one body, and there has always been only one body.

Because we disagree on some things, as God told us to expect, does not mean there are many bodies of Christ.

If "lost person A" embraces Christ through faith alone and is added to an Assembly of God fellowship, and "lost person B" embraces Christ and is added to a Baptist fellowship, both have been added to the same church.

The body of Christ.

This crazy looney tunes idea of all these different churchs is a fabrication of the Catholic Church to attempt to draw more victims into her clutches.


Nate said...

You can be happy. There is only one church here on earth.

All the born again people.

God bless all,

Mike

 

Bro James,

We speak on the authority of Almighty God, and the truth found in His scriptures.

We dont. We share the truth from Gods annointed scriptures. The Holy Spirits job is to do the "convincing", in His perfect timing.

Many times one plants seeds, another waters, and another waters, etc...until finally God gives the increase.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Perhaps it is one of the oldest cults that persecuted the true Bible believing Christians.
There were the Montanists. Before you label it a cult remember that Tertullian, one of you famed ECF was one of them.
There were the Waldensians. Before you label it a cult remember that Cardinal Hosius gives them a glowing report describing them as believers that lived as true to the Apostolic life as one could get.
There were the Cathari, the Albigenses, the Bogomils, and many others.

The Catholics did not even begin to exist until the fourth century, when Constantine tried to legalize Christianity and make it a state-religion. Thus the birth of the Catholic Church. He paganized Christianity (the Catholic state church). True Christianity always lived outside of this institution.
DHK

 

Livingstone,

You must forgive Mike (D28guy). He looks at passages in the NT regarding believers "being convinced in their own mind" about eating meat, observing certain days (etc), and concludes this justifies denominational relativism on issues such as the real presence in the eucharist; whether baptism is in any way salvific; whether salvation can be lost or not; whether infants can be baptized or not; whether God wants to save everyone or only the elect; etc... (I guess it's okay for sola scripturists to hold mutually contradictory views on these and other crucial issues--just as long as they are not Roman Catholic )

 

And what do RC historians say about that?

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic work "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century

So there we have it on two short pages (49-50) of that telling work done by a Catholic historian - revealing the ongoing evolutionary process in the church that brings us to where we are today.

Who finally stopped Rome’s persecution of the Christians?

How much influence did Emperor Constantine have on the RCC “really”. How much of a role in moving it past the point of merely “Not persecuted” ?

 

I would go further than that and suggest that Constantine didn't really understand much about doctrine, particularly all the Trinitarian nuances of the Orthodox-Arian debate. What he was primarily concerned about was the fact that both factions within the Church were pushing his empire to the brink of civil war and he accordingly wanted that sorted out; this, more than any theological concern, lay behind his calling of the Council IMO.

 

Then why is the largest group who claims that, the Catholic Church of Rome, filled to overflowing with idolatry, blasphemy, goddess worship, paganism, a false gospel, and the attempted cover-up of rampant decades long child molestation in the ranks of its clergy?

And ALL of the groups who make that claim are cults...

Jehovahs Witnesses
Mormons
David Koresh
Christian Science(Mary Baker Eddy)
Jim Jones
Catholic Church

etc etc etc.

Sadly,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, keep chanting that mantra!


I do not accept that the Catholic Church is 'overflowing' with all the things to which you refer (Living Stone has demonstrated that for you); I do accept it is in error, and that error flows from the fracturing of episcopal unity after 1054.