A Valid Baptism?

The Baptism of the Ethiopian eunich is a very good example. Phillip, as a member of the church of Jerusalem did baptize this child of God, the eunich did not apply for membership at Jerusalem, nevertheless, the church at Jerusalem would have accepted his experience of Grace, and would have recieved his baptism as valid, as would all others Antioch, Thesslonica, Corinth, etc. The fact remains true the church was told by our Lord to await in Jerusalem for the enduement of power from on high, the promise of the Holy Spirit, from the Father, this body did wait, Acts 1, this promise was fulfilled, Acts 2; this body then began to embark upon the commission, each, as in Phillip's case, or Peter's case, or in the case of Ananias, all previously reveived that water baptism by that body, which was organized, and sent into the world.

We have this discussion today only because there are so many who have changed, and it is now necessary to distinguish between "scriptural and unscriptural" in these early days of the church this distinction was not so needed.

Now it would be good that we not need this distinction today, but as long as some insist on following unbiblical practices ( women pastors, deacons, salvation wholly by works, or at least insured by works and thus kept by the same etc.) it becomes necessary for us to make such distinctions between valid and invalid baptism.

Certainly Paul did not accept the baptism of John, not because of the failure of those baptized to believe in our Lord, but because of the failure to know of the Holy Spirit, through doctrinal teaching. This is why John said, in John 3.29: "Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease."

John's baptism was water baptism, it was accepted of Christ, but did not impart the Holy Spirit, this is why John said: "I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

If we receive the same baptism as the body (the church) on the day of Pentecost, Then John's baptism is invalid. Then the apostle's administered an invalid baptism, having never been baptized, (with valid water baptism) thus, would ultimately lead to the dismissal of that ordinance of the church.

John certainly knew of the Holy Spirit, but his baptism was that unto repentance and looking forward to the Messiah that John preached, the baptism of the church occurred one time, prior to this the Holy Spirit moved upon men, II Pet. 1.21; After Pentecost, the Holy Spirit is in the church, enduing that body and that body only to pursue the fulfillment of the commission; the Spirit indwells believers, but operates through the local church. As the book of Acts sufficiently shows; particularly ch. 13: where Paul and Barnabas were chosen by the Holy Spirit, but the church was made aware of this, and gave their hands, in ordaining and sending the two forth. ch. 11.19-26 also.

Bro. Dallas
Glasgow, KY

 

Matthew 28:18-20.</font>[/QUOTE]Umm... And what local body was that? First Baptist Jerusalem?

Here's my point. The Great Commission is given to the whole church, all its constituent members. The Church. Not "a" church. The authorty to baptise is given by Christ to the disciples. All of them. Matt 28 does not say anything about duly consituted authority of a local congregation delegated to an individual. To say that this passage asserts that baptism is to be done under the autority of a given congregation smacks both of eisegesis and Romanism, IMO. it isn't like jesus was making a staement about local church governance in the Great Comission...

 

Latria said,

[/qb][/QUOTE]Here's my point. The Great Commission is given to the whole church, all its constituent members. The Church. Not "a" church. The authorty to baptise is given by Christ to the disciples. All of them. Matt 28 does not say anything about duly consituted authority of a local congregation delegated to an individual. To say that this passage asserts that baptism is to be done under the autority of a given congregation smacks both of eisegesis and Romanism, IMO. it isn't like jesus was making a staement about local church governance in the Great Comission...[/QB][/QUOTE]

Latria,

There is no "church" mentioned in the New Testament other than a local body of baptized believers. The one's who smack of "eisegesis and Romanism," are those who read Romanistic concepts of "the church" into the Bible.

Anyone can read the book of Acts and quickly discern that the work of the ministry was authorized and executed through local churches. Therefore, it is clearly withint the realm of truth to assert that it was "the church" to whom the great commission was given.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Here's my point. The Great Commission is given to the whole church, all its constituent members. The Church. Not "a" church. The authorty to baptise is given by Christ to the disciples. All of them. Matt 28 does not say anything about duly consituted authority of a local congregation delegated to an individual. To say that this passage asserts that baptism is to be done under the autority of a given congregation smacks both of eisegesis and Romanism, IMO. it isn't like jesus was making a staement about local church governance in the Great Comission...[/QB][/QUOTE]

Latria,

There is no "church" mentioned in the New Testament other than a local body of baptized believers. The one's who smack of "eisegesis and Romanism," are those who read Romanistic concepts of "the church" into the Bible.

Anyone can read the book of Acts and quickly discern that the work of the ministry was authorized and executed through local churches. Therefore, it is clearly withint the realm of truth to assert that it was "the church" to whom the great commission was given.

Mark Osgatharp[/QB][/QUOTE]

Mark,

There was no "local congregation" when Jesus was speaking the words recorded in Matthew 28.

You're reading the later developments in Acts back into Matthew. That's eisegesis. When jesus speaks of church in Matthew it is "his community", without the ideas of local jursidictions.
Again, what you are doing is reading ideas of polity into Matthew, just like RCs do. You just read a differnet polity. Its wrong either way, IMO.

 

Bro Glen asked,

I agree that the authority to baptize rests in the local church and not in the moral qualifications of the baptizer. If the Church preaches the Gospel and is Trinitarian I would see no reason to reject them unless you find out the Church was preaching another Gospel and or was Modalistic in their view of the Trinity. Good question.

 

Latria.

I would say that in Mt. 28 Jesus was speaking to a local church in that the disciples make up the first congregation. Most of the epistles are written to local churches and have to be understood in a local church concept rather than a individualistic.

 

The disciples were not a "local congregatio" They were all that was. They were the whoe universal church at that point. There was no "local" as a disticnt organfrom the universal. If Jesus was speaking to the "local" it was only be default as he was addressing the church universal.

This is not an individualistic conept I advocate. It is catholicity.

 

Lateria,

There was a church already in existence when Jesus gave the great commission, the church at Jerusalem. In Matthew 16 and 18 Christ had already entrusted this church with the keys of the kingdom of God. In the great commision He gave it it's orders and authorized it to pass those orders on in new localities.

Acts gives us the historical record of the first years of the church at Jerusalem and the subsequent churches carrying out this commission. Never did the term "church" refer to any thing other than a local entity.

The only sense in which "catholicity" is a characteristic of the Lord's churches is that there is one sort of church for all ages and all societies. There are many churches of Christ but only one in kind.

Mark Osgatharp

 

You have failed, as yet, to prove the existance of any such conglomerate organism as the "catholic" church.

 

John 20:19 "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

The disciples assembled together on Sunday prior to the book of Acts. The church prior to Pentecost had all the functions of our church today.

The bible clearly tells us the pre-Pentecost church had all the necessary requirements for a true church.

It was organized.</font>

• I had a Head - Matthew 23:8</font>
• It had a Pastor - John 10:11-14</font>
• It had discipline - Matthew 18:15-20</font>
• It had business meetings - Acts 1:15-26</font>
• It had other officers, in this case a treasurer - John 29</font>

It was a Missionary church</font>

• It was commissioned - Matthew 28:18-20</font>
• It did Missionary work - Matthew 10:1-11:1</font>
• It had the Keys of the Kingdom - Matthew 16:19</font>
• It baptized those who believed - John 4:1-2</font>
• It had a membership roll - Acts 1:13-15</font>

It engaged in church activities</font>

• The Lord's Supper - Matthew 26:26-28</font>
• Singing - Compare Matthew 26:30 with Hebrews 2:12</font>
• It met for prayer - Luke 11:1-9; Acts 1:14</font>

It was added unto.</font>

• How can you "add to" something which is non-existant? Acts 2:41</font>

It was called a "Flock."</font>

• Compare Matthew 26:31 and Luke 12:32 with Acts 20:28-29 and 1 Peter 5:2-3.</font>

All of these things are observed to have taken place before the day of Pentecost. So the question, would this pre-Pentecost group satisfy the definition of a New Testament church? Organized assembly of baptized believers doing the Lord's work? Yes! Yes! A thousand times, Yes!

 

Latrele said,

I don't deny the catholicy of the Church and I would disagree they were the whole universal church at that point since Jesus had other followers besides those he gave the commission to. Mt 28 is a watershed event and I would say the New Testament church was in it's embryotic stage. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth the Apostle Paul states and this is a referance to the local Church which is the most common use of the Church which is in a local sense. To place the authority of the ordinances outside the care of the local church I would respectfully say is to invite chaos and anarchy. The Second London Confession as well as most Protestant confessions are very carefull to place the authority over the ordinaces in the visible local Church, so it is not a Romanist idea.

 

1) Can people please have the decency to spell my screen name properly?

2) "prove" that there is a universal church?

3) You concoct an arbitrary list of things that you think make up a duly constituted local church, show how those are present, and then conclusde that there was a local church?

Can you say circular?

4) YOu can add to a Church as easily as you add to a church. And I note that what was added to was the number of those being saved... that would be the Church!

Kiffin said:

"The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth the Apostle Paul states and this is a referance to the local Church which is the most common use of the Church which is in a local sense."

Yes, the Church is the ground and pillar of the truth. No, I don't belive that Paul was speaking of a generic local church but of the Church Universal. This is what makes the best sense in context. had Paul been wanting to say that local churches are the ground and pillar of the truth, he could have said it like that and removed the ambiguity.

"To place the authority of the ordinances outside the care of the local church I would respectfully say is to invite chaos and anarchy."

But I have not done that. I have simply stated that in Matthew 28 there was no diostinction between local and universal church.

"The Second London Confession as well as most Protestant confessions are very carefull to place the authority over the ordinaces in the visible local Church, so it is not a Romanist idea."

The idea that Matthew 28 refers to an institution is indeed Romanist. You can't use the confessions to justify it.

 

Interesting question. Are we baptized as a picture of what happened when we were baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ or are we baptized into the local church?

I would think that we are showing a picture of what happened when the Holy Spirit baptized us in the body of Christ (There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Eph. 4:4-6). Therefore, I would be more concerned about the feeling of the person who had been baptized. If they felt unsure about it, I would baptize them again. If they felt secure in their past baptism, I would accept it. I don't think that we need to always worry about the qualifications of everyone who has ministered to us in the past.

What if a pastor served in a church for many years and baptized hundreds of people. Later, this pastor realizes that he have not been saved. Should the church launch a mass search to see that all the people he ever baptized was re-baptized?

 

Since Scripture is the standard of our faith and practice, would someone advocating rebaptism please demonstrate from Scripture that this was the practice of the early church?

The only exception I am aware of is those who were originally baptized by John the Baptist, and this exception does not apply since the essential difference is one of intent - John baptized for repentance, and Christian baptism symbolizes identification with the New Covenant. Strictly speaking, John's baptism was not even Christian.

[ September 16, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

John's Baptism, according to the bible, was a true Christian baptism (Acts 19:4). However, if you will actually read the account in question, these folks were not baptized by John the Baptist, they were baptized by Apollos unto John's Baptism. In other words, they were baptized in John's name rather than as the Great Commission requires. Additionally, they seem to have had an incomplete gospel preached to them by Apollos, who may have been baptized by John, but had apparently moved on prior to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, so did not have the complete gospel to preach (Acts 18:25). These persons were obviously not saved for they not only didn't have the Holy Spirit, they had never even heard of Him (Acts 19:3)!

They were rebaptized for two reasons.

1. Their prior baptism, even though by immersion, was invalid for they were yet unsaved.

2. Their prior baptism, even though by immersion, was invalid for they were baptized for the wrong reason, unto John's Baptism rather than according to the Great Commission.

These people where rebaptized for the same reasons I would rebaptize a Mormon, JW, or CoC person.

 

These people where rebaptized for the same reasons I would rebaptize a Mormon, JW, or CoC person.

But I do note you don't say another Baptist, a Presbyterian, a Congregationalist, a Pentecostal, or a Plymouth Brethren.

[ September 16, 2002, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

I would rebaptize a Presbyterian for they would have been sprinkled, and not immersed. The same for Congregationalists. Some Pentecostals are baptized to get or complete their salvation. I would rebaptize them. As for "Plymouth" Brethren, there really is no such thing. In Britain they were known simply as Brethren, or Christian Brethren. Their doctrine is extremely inclusive counting all born-again believes in their numbers regardless of denominational affiliation or mode of Baptism. Any layman can baptize either in, or out of, the presense of the local assembly. They often tend to be Finnyesque in their doctrine and preaching, and are themselves divided regarding discipline into "exclusive" and "open" congregations. Just as a matter of identity, I would encourage any new comers from the Brethren to be baptized as Baptists to avoid any confusion as to their identity and doctrine.

On the other hand, their continental cousins, the German Pietists, who are now represented by the Church of the Brethren (Conservative Dunkers), Brethren Church (Progressive Dunkers), Old german Baptist Brethren (Old Order Dunkers), Church of God (New Dunkers, disbanded in 1962), and the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches stand pretty much in my heritage of faith and they are always welcome!

 

We believe that baptismal authority is vested, by the Great Commission, in the church and not in any individual. So, if it were a valid church the baptism would be, de facto, valid baptism. That raises the greater question, if a church has a woman pastor is it a valid church?