Is the Administrator of Baptism Important

?

I am sorry if this is off subject, just curious?

What is more important water Baptism or a clear conscience toward God?

Did the thief on the cross who will be in paradise did he have a clear conscience toward God?

 

we would do it, as fulfilling Bible command to those who were saved already...

 

If as some of you contend it is for the local church only how would you deal with Philip baptizing the Eunuch?
Acts 8: 26And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

27And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

28Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

29Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

33In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Nowhere in this does it say that the Eunuch joined the church or for that matter that Philip was a member of a local church. He was doing missions work. We know that Philip had been appointed as a deacon of the church.

Acts 6:4-6 (King James Version)

4But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

5And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

6Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them

But one of the Apostles was named Philip. Most believe this was Philip the deacon of the church. But again this Eunuch is never said to have associated with the local church, but he was baptized.

 

Since the word Baptism is transliterated from the Greek Baptizo and means identification, then how would water baptism be and identification with the local church. Water baptism is representative on one having died to the domination of sin and being buried to the old way of life and being born into a new nature a spiritual life. It is an outward showing of the inward faith. If that be case then water baptism is symbolic of a persons belief on Jesus Christ and their new life in Him. It is normally performed in a local New Testament church after one has received Christ as Saviour, not connected with salvation and is followed as commanded in scripture. Normally the Administrator is an ordained person, either a deacon or pastor. So baptism is an ordinance of the church for all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as saviour.

 

Tom writes:
"Paul, writing to the church at Corinth admonished it to "guard the ordinances." He then proceeded to give them instructions on exactly how to do that. He ripped the congregation big-time for their behavior, then showed them the right way.

It was this same congregation which Paul told to kick out a member involved in an illicit relationship. He told them "don't even eat with him." I think could also imply denying him the Lord's Supper.

If, therefore, the ordinances were committed to the local church, then the local church has the authority to determine who will participate in them, and who will administer them. And the local church determines what is and what is not valid baptism."

Your scripture on "guard the Ordinances" is in Cor. 11:2 of the KJV Bible. While a few other translations also use the word "ordinances", most translations use the words "traditions" or "teachings". The word ordinances in the KJV Bible means much more than communion and baptism; it also means traditions and all teachings. So it appears that you over interpreted the word ordinance in the KJV.

So you say what was written to the Corinthians applies only to the local church and not to individual Christians. Every Christians is to guard the teachings, not only the local church. I Cor. 11:28 says "Let each man examine himself" for taking communion; it does not say "Let the church examine each man" as Tom is suggesting concerning water baptism. The local church determining whether a baptism is valid at another church; and who can participate in the traditions, sounds very much like the Roman Catholic Church to me. Hmmm...

If things written to the Corinthians about the "traditions and teachings" only applies to the local church, then the rest of what is written to the Corinthians only applies to the church at Corinth, and not to all Christians. What about what is written to the Romans, Galatians, etc. It follows that you are suggesting that most of the New Testament does not apply to other Christians such as us, but only applies to the churches to which it was written. I know that you are not suggesting this, but your rationale is not consistent.

 

Bob, if understand what you are saying and if only a select certain ones can baptized using your formula then only the same select few can go and tell. I suggest every pastor stop telling anyone to go and tell using the great comminson as their reasoning because they are not allowed to baptize and if they cannot baptize then they cannot go and tell as the sentence structure links those going to tell as the same ones doing the baptizing.

 

Going back to the questions in the OP:
We as Old Regular Baptist people are much more conservative and fundamental than just about everyone else you will encounter on the Baptist Board. A fact that is causing me to evaluate my being on the board. But that is another story. Now to answer your questions:

I would have told him that any person desiring membership in the Old regular Baptist is required baptism. We accept no “alien” baptism. What I mean by that is we will not accept baptism unless it is from another Old Regular Baptist church that we are in correspondence with.

We require an ordained minister if a minister is not available an ordained deacon may perform the baptism. The original Philadelphia association received queries 1744 and again in 1749, concerning this subject the advice given was that baptism performed by an un-ordained man is invalid .

I would not baptize someone who is not willing to take up fellowship with the Old Regular Baptist.

If you want to see an Old Regular Baptist Baptism visit my webpage at Old Regular Baptist.

 

I would agree with this to a certain point. If this person has come around us for a long time, and they really showed the "fruit", I would have no problem taking them in by recommendation. In the Indian Bottom assoc.(Bro. OUB and I are both ORB's, but our associations do not correspond due to the fact that we in the IB use men as preachers who have been divorced/remarried, and the Union assoc does not), we can only take in those who have been in our correspondence from years ago by recommendation, and any other people must go through the water.....I really have a hard time swallowing this. I am not for taking someone in by recommendation the first time the come there. I think there should be a "feeling out" by both sides, the local church, and prospective member(s). If things go well for six months, then by all means, take them in, if both parties are happy.

I concur with this....but I would see nothing wrong with two of our "liberated" Brethern baptizing them, either. By "liberated", I mean those who preach after divorce/remarriage....whether this happened in their sinner days, or their spouse left them for another man. In the IB, they are liberated to preach only. They can not set in any presbyteries to examine a deacon or elder for ordination, to organize a church, etc.

Now, I would really like to see someone come to the ORBs, but if they wanted me to baptize them, and they wanted to go to the FWs, I'd still do it. I'd thank God that they saw something in me, that made them had enough confidence in me to place them in their "liquid grave".

Please, Bro. Jeff, do not take this as me cutting you, or my fellow Brethern in the other ORB associations. I just wanted to give my thoughts and beliefs on this matter. I am thankful to hear about you wonderful day sunday!! I love you!!

I am I AM's!!

Willis

 

Bless you again brother & I wish you all the happiness that God will give you when your daughter is back this w/e. Praise Him for all blessings.:love2:

 

Thanks EWF....

 

Disclaimer:

What I posted here does not reflect the majority of the ORBs view, and is what I believe, and should not reflect in any way, the majority of my ORB Brethern.