Should women be allowed to baptize?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by LillyoftheValley, Apr 16, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LillyoftheValley

    LillyoftheValley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am asking that only those who do not believe women should be ordained ministers or be allowed to preach respond to this thread.

    If the authority to administer ordinances is given to the church:

    1) Are Pastoral/ordained ministerial staff the only ones allowed to baptize?

    2) if not, then provided the "authority" to baptize/administer the ordinances belongs to the local church body, should a female member be allowed to baptize another woman?

    Personally (as a woman) every fiber of my being screams "No, they should not be allowed", but I can't find anything in scripture thus far to prove my position. What do you think?
     
    #1 LillyoftheValley, Apr 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 16, 2012
  2. HeirofSalvation

    HeirofSalvation
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    1
    As the very proud husband of this beautiful woman: She asked me this question, and I am at a total loss, I am a misogynistic jerk, she loves the fact that I am a misogynistic jerk. But heck if I can find a Biblical argument to deny a woman the permission to do so. Every fiber of mine and Lilly's collective being screams "NO!!! dear Almighty God No!!" but we simply have no Scriptural (and therein lies the rub) way of denying it!!! Any body got anwers?
    Our present position is quoted from II Opinions 4:16 "No woman shall have the authority to administer the ordinances of either the Lord's Supper or Baptism to anyone"
    Is there a better passage??
     
    #2 HeirofSalvation, Apr 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 16, 2012
  3. abcgrad94

    abcgrad94
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would say no, but as you pointed out, scripture doesn't forbid it. That said, the examples given in scripture are all of men doing the baptizing.
     
  4. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,831
    Likes Received:
    114
    I worry about people who "every fiber of the being screams" against women.

    I understand if you believe they should not, but a simple "I don't believe that they should" would suffice.
     
  5. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Absent any specific scripture dealing with the matter, then the next step is to look at the New Testament practice.

    Some may say that the culture of the times was the reason only men baptized. I don't know if that's necessarily the case.

    That said, each autonomous independent New Testament church may determine who will baptize for it.

    Given the guidelines we have from scriptural examples, let's be careful about changing our practice simply because we can.
     
  6. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    I can find no biblical reason to deny women that privilege. I can also find no biblical reason to demand that only ordained people can baptize people or serve the Lord's Supper.

    The closest principal I can think of that may be applied is the importance of thinking of those who are weak in the faith and our desire to not cause them to stumble unnecessarily.

    It does occur to me that in some cases it may be best if a woman were to baptize another woman simply for modesty's sake. I know we always, and repeatedly, tell people to wear clothes that will not be see through when they get wet but...well, the admonish gets ignored way to often. It would be good to have the means in place to protect the modesty of the woman.

    That said, at the end of the day, it is up to the local church to set its own policy on this issue. If you are a member you are implying consent to their practices.
     
  7. LillyoftheValley

    LillyoftheValley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I said:
    What Scarlett heard:
    There is a difference. Words do have meaning. I'd appreciate you either staying on track, or getting off this train.
     
  8. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,907
    Likes Received:
    363
    :thumbsup:
     
  9. LillyoftheValley

    LillyoftheValley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    :thumbsup::thumbsup: both are fantastic contributions. Thank you
     
  10. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,831
    Likes Received:
    114
    What Scarlett O. read....

    What Scarlett O. concluded.....

    Was that necessary?

    If I am responding to a post that agrees with the OP am I not on track?

    C'est la vie. I'll bow out.
     
  11. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    153
    In Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, no male nor female .....................

    Being in Christ means there are no limitations.
     
  12. LillyoftheValley

    LillyoftheValley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you implying that Christ does not see a difference between the roles of men and women? and that either sex should be allowed to preform any duty within the church?:confused:

    I thought Galatians 3:28 was explaining that anyone can receive Christ and be saved.
     
  13. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    153
    I believe it is a mistake to every try to limit God in the way he can and will use any person. [very gently said].
     
  14. LillyoftheValley

    LillyoftheValley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would agree that it is a mistake to limit God. But I find nothing wrong with following the guidelines that God himself set forth for us. We find in 1 Timothy 3:12 the qualifications for a deacon "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." According to this we shouldn't allow women to be deacons. How is obeying Him, limiting Him?
     
  15. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    153
    I Timothy 3:12 is an instruction to men. However, Phoebe, a woman, was a deacon in her church. The word used is often translated as servant, but in over 20 places in the NT the very same word is translated as deacon.

    I think God knew that men need more instruction than women when it comes to relations between the two genders. Thus, I believe that to use I Timothy 3:12 as a general instruction for all is a mistake. Also at that time it was impossible for a woman to divorce her husband, but very easy for the husband to divorce the woman. It was a male dominated culture and women counted as very little, if anything at all.

     
    #15 Crabtownboy, Apr 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 16, 2012
  16. revmwc

    revmwc
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,037
    Likes Received:
    69
    Closest thing I can find and I wouldn't say it is dogmatic is Acts 10:46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

    47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

    48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.


    Verse 47 can any man forbid that these should not be baptized. Have to really delve into the greek words but just a glance this could be taken that way by some.
     
  17. revmwc

    revmwc
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,037
    Likes Received:
    69
    Those who believe deacons can be women or pastors always say but Phebe was a deacon, Romans 16:Romans 16
    1I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

    2That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

    3Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:

    Says she was a servant one who served, which is what a true deacon does he too serves tables. However Paul says she was a servant and the greek diakonos, which means
    one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant, minister

    Phebe served the church at Cenchrea
    the servant of a king

    a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use

    Notice it says one who cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected, no spiritual teaching falls into this.

    a waiter, one who serves food and drink

    One who serves food and drink, Phebe served the church not Lead the church nor did she teach men in the church.

    Paul sais she was succouer this from the greek Prostais a feminine noun which means:

    a woman set over others

    a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources

    She was a protectress aiding them with her resources she was charged with caring for others including Paul she cared for his needs. Nowhere does it show her having SPIRITUAL authority over Paul or any other man. She had charge of their needs, that is the work of a servant a diakonos.

    The Apostles command for the deacons was that 7 men be chosen to serve tables. To distribute the physical needs of the widows and others. That was what Phebe did, she never had SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY over any man.
     
  18. LillyoftheValley

    LillyoftheValley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    would you be willing to elaborate? I'm not sure I understood what you were driving at, but it sounded like something amazing and I want to.
     
  19. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    44
    Yes, Philip, too, was a deacon, and he baptized the Ethiopian eunuch.
     
  20. revmwc

    revmwc
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,037
    Likes Received:
    69

    1 Tim. 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
    13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

    Here is the key to the reason women are not to be in SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY over a man because Adam was formed first. God's order man then woman when it comes to the SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY in the church and family for that matter.

    14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...