Can Women Baptise Men?

GB,

What is your source on this? I have never heard this before.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Hello Marcia,

I have been away and am surprised to see a resurrection of this thread w/o Ichthus's input. However, in answer to your post here would be my reply.

Your argument:

P1: Priscilla is always mentioned with
Aquila

P2: If a husband and wife work together than it is okay for a woman to teach a man.

Conclusion: ?????????

I don't see how you can get from P1 to P2, if you are approaching this issue differently let me know. But the way I see it so what if Priscilla is working with Aquila or if they are always mentioned together. Some on this thread dogmatically claim that NO women are to exercise authority over a man or teach a man (no concessions like whether or not the woman does this with her husband). I would assume that they mean this in the broadest way possible so my point about Priscilla should still stand against such a broad interpretation.

Let me know what you think...I'll be back in a few days or so.

BJ

 

I'm trying to figure you what you are saying I said. And I am not sure what you are saying, either.

My post on Priscilla was in response to someone referring to her as teaching Apollos as an example to show women can have authority over men (at least I thought that was their implication).

I posted a response against that, saying that Priscilla is only mentioned with her husband, Aquila.

Also, this is the only passage I can find that might have teaching in it, and I think it's more correction which Aquila and Priscilla did together:

I don't know where you get that I'm saying women can teach men. I was saying the opposite.

 

Sorry for the confusion, but you responded to me (not some other poster) and my discussion was with someone else.

I brought up the point regarding Priscilla in an effort to show how one should not overextend the prohibition for women to teach men (or to "share the gospel" if you go up this thread). Your response seemed to say that this example of a woman teaching a man is either: a. no example at all because Priscilla is always mentioned with her husband and it is assumed that the husband did all the work or b. it's okay that Priscilla did what she did because she is always mentioned with her husband.

I know that you did not make your point to say that it's okay for a woman to teach a man, but I was just trying to figure out why it mattered to you that Priscilla was always mentioned with her husband (a, b, or c provided by you--just let me know). Hence, the statements in my last post. This is quite OT and I'm willing to drop it if you are. I just figured I would respond to what you said when you quoted me.



BJ

 

Hello, Brandon,

Sorry if I confused you when I posted my response. I guess I was responding to your example of Priscilla, partly because I see that used a lot. What bothers me is that no one mentions Priscilla and Aquila, but just Priscilla, as though she was running around on her own doing teaching.

I lean towards a, but will give c: I do not think there is a clear passage about what either Aquila or Priscilla were doing; we only have that one verse re Apollos which does not state clearly what their normal roles were.

I am not sure we can take that one verse in Acts 18 to "prove" that Priscilla did teach men, even with her husband. The fact that Aquila and Priscilla pulled Apollos aside to explain or correct him on something (perhaps just one point, we don't know) does not necessarily mean they were teaching, or it could mean Aquila was teaching and maybe Priscilla was just with him, perhaps to instruct women. Her role with Aquila in the Apollos issue is not clear as we do not even know exactly what this was about.

In Acts 18, though it makes references to Aquila and Priscilla being with Paul, twice it then follows this with stating that Paul went to the synagogue and to "reason" with the Jews. It says nothing about Aquila or Priscilla being with him (Paul).

I don't know how one can substantiate women teaching men from anything in Acts 18. In Romans 16, Aquila and Priscilla are mentioned by Paul as "fellow workers," but this does not mean that Priscilla was teaching. She could have been cooking for the men, or accompanying her husband while he taught. What she was actually doing is not made clear in the text, and therefore is not substantive enough, imo, to use to show that women can teach men. It might hint at it, but I don't think that's enough, especially in light of other passages.

Does "fellow workers" indicate anything specific?

The only other passages mentioning P & A are in the context of giving greetings from or to Priscilla and Aquila (1 Cor. 16 and 2 Tim. 4).

That's my assessment, but I'm open to other views if they can be shown clearly to be based on principles from the biblical text.

 

Joseph,

I did not claim it as a mandate for all Christians but for myself. Also, I have already answered you about your second question.

I try never to be arrogant and say "my why or the high way". I like you base my opinion on what I can take from scripture as a whole.

 

Hello Marcia,

Thanks for the clarification. The argument from silence works both ways, moreover, it is a little too much of a stretch for me to say that someone "corrects" another person doctrinally without "teaching" being part of the process.

That being said, there is much more explicit evidence that perhaps women should not teach men than to the issue at hand in this thread.

I still see no passages that mandate that women cannot baptize nor have I seen a cogent argument that shows how Scripture teaches that there is a difference between the part of making disciples that involves sharing the gospel with someone and the part that involves baptizing a new believer. If you go up this thread you will see that my argument revolves more around this than women "teaching" or using Priscilla as an example.

nice to hear back from you, have a happy 4th

BJ

 

It has been so long I cannot remember. I do remember a few professors mentioning it when I was a student at SWBTS. Also, I moved so my books are not here with me so I cannot check.

Here are some sites to read:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jorh/2003/00000027/00000002/art00001

http://www.bsmvt.org/baptism2.html

 

Marcia goes around the sun moon and stars to put Priscilla back in the kitchen where she thinks women belong. She goes so far as to limit Priscilla's involvement to cooking. (Nothing wrong with women being homemakers, but God has gifted some women for other positions as well.) The text makes it pretty clear she was a teacher. In fact, some references put Priscilla's name first, implying that she was the lead teacher of that husband/wife team.
That doesn't mean she wasn't in submission to her husband. It just means that her husband was godly enough to see that his wife had gifts and wasn't going to make her bake cookies when she ought to be teaching.

 

My view on Priscilla's ministry coincide with Marcia's.

 

I realized mentioning the cooking thing was a mistake after I posted it. I could have said she was an encourager or something like that.

But the point is that I do not think the text is clear at all that she was teaching. Correcting someone on a point is not necessarily teaching, and it was done with her husband. I think that's a more important point. Correcting someone does not mean she had a regular role as a teacher -- for men or women -- with or without her husband --and so I do not see how this text can be used to support a position that Priscilla was a teacher.

I am not going around "the sun and moon and stars" (actually kind of funny you should say that since I am a former astrologer ), but simply letting the text speak for itself, and the text does not tell us enough to support a view that Priscilla was teaching. Even if one thought it did so, then one would have to reconcile this with other passages that seem to go against having a woman teach.

 

Aside from the pastoring issue, which does have some scriptural support, this view is completely unscriptural.

 

IF Jesus wanted to have women in any of the roles that y'all fus about all the time don't ya think He would have had a woman Apostle? Would the Spirit have led Paul to write 1 Tim 2 & 3? Men lead, women support. Supply Battalions are just as important as Infantry and Tank Battalions. Without support the fighers fail. Without support no leader can lead. If the ones who are ordaine dto elad would lead and the ones ordained to support would all do their jobs we would have a far larger membership in the Kingdom of Christ and a stronger influence on the wordld, but because been suckered by the secular hoo-ha men abdicate and women take leadership and we have chaos and ruin. Isa. 3:12 indicates that when a country is under the curse or judgment of God, as was Israel at the time, women rule and children are opperessors and they which LEAD them cause the people to err. Well, welcome to church life in the good ol' USA in the 21st Century. Rather than applaud "the advances" of women in the Church we should be in sackcloth and ashes seeking revival before we are destroyed. We think we are so cool and civilized in our thinking when we are being whipped by God. We actually seem to enjoy it because we keep asking for more. We are so enlightened that we are dumb and blind dogs. Isa 56:10

 

Maverick,

Can you show me any scripture that says that women are forbidden from Baptizing? If not, then your post is off topic and irrelevant.

Joseph Botwinick

 

there are no scriptures that say women cannot baptize. if a baptism done by women are not valid, what about female missionaries?.......you know the big names in this catagory.......what about them. I don't think women should baptise (i like my wife to hand me the towel ...just kidding ...well sort-of), but a baptism by a woman will work if needs be.
thankyou and God bles

 

Joseph, I think your statement is an argument from silence.

There are no scriptures that say abortion is wrong, either. And Jesus never did say homosexuality was wrong. Those are just 2 examples of how an argument from silence can be wrong.

We don't have to find a scripture forbidding something to say that it is wrong. In fact, the lack of examples of any woman baptizing indicate that it might be best to conclude women should not baptize men.

 

Marcia,

Here are the flaws with your argument:

1. The Bible tells us not to murder. That is what abortion is. The Bible is not silent on abortion.

2. The Bible is not silent on Homosexuality. Look at Romans sometime.

3. When scripture is silent, that is not an argument not to do something. That is about the silliest, most desperate argument I have heard in a long time.

4. Is the Great Commission for all Christians or only for men?

5. If you are going to argue that baptizing a man is showing authority over a man, as others have tried to do on this same thread earlier, and therefore women should not do so, would you also say that John the Baptist had authority over Jesus? Of course not.

6. If scripture is silent, then you may have your own cultural personal preference. But, in no way should you confuse that with a mandate from God that is for all believers.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph,

Point no. 1. I agree with your reasoning -- I was just trying to make a point by saying something many say to try to prove that abortion is okay since it is not mentioned in the Bible.

Point no. 2. I didn't say the Bible was silent on homosexuality, I said that Jesus never said it was wrong.

Point 3. Your violated your own point no. 3 when you said to another poster, "Show me where scripture forbids a woman from baptizing." You are saying that because there is no scripture (scripture is silent on it) against women baptizing men, then it's okay.

4. The Great commission does not mean all of us have to baptize. I can give the gospel but does that mean I must or should baptize someone? I don't think I should pastor a church, but planting and pastoring a church would be fulfilling the great commission. Besides, Jesus said this to his disciples -- all men. (I am not saying women can't give the gospel or be missionaries; I am just showing that you don't have a good argument here, imo).

5. I am not arguing that baptizing a man is showing authority over a man, I was responding to your statement that I quoted in my post because I thought it was a faulty argument. Aside from this, I think John the Baptist baptizing Jesus was a non-normative situation. Someone had to baptize Jesus; he couldn't baptize himself. Therefore, I don't think this example can be used.

 

I am not one of those people.

Point no. 2. I didn't say the Bible was silent on homosexuality, I said that Jesus never said it was wrong.[/QUOTE]

Since I believe in the diety of Jesus, as well as his humanity, I also believe he did address the issue in his word.

Point 3. Your violated your own point no. 3 when you said to another poster, "Show me where scripture forbids a woman from baptizing." You are saying that because there is no scripture (scripture is silent on it) against women baptizing men, then it's okay.[/QUOTE]

The only problem with your argument here is that the Scripture is not silent on this, unless you believe that women are exempt from the Great Commission, or even part of it. If you believe that, you should realize that you are basing your belief on a personal cultural bias as there is nothing within the Scripture that indicates as much.

4. The Great commission does not mean all of us have to baptize. I can give the gospel but does that mean I must or should baptize someone? I don't think I should pastor a church, but planting and pastoring a church would be fulfilling the great commission. Besides, Jesus said this to his disciples -- all men. (I am not saying women can't give the gospel or be missionaries; I am just showing that you don't have a good argument here, imo).[/QUOTE]

a.) The Great Commission says to Baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It makes no caveats about gender within that statement. If you believe that parts of the Great Commission are for men only, then show me from Scripture where it specifically says that. Otherwise, it is merely your opinion and nothing more, and should not be confused as a mandate from God for all Christians.
b.) Nowhere in the Great Commission do I see the words plant and pastor a church. Therefore, it is not part of the Great Commission. It might be a way of fullfilling the Great Commission. But, it is certainly not the Great Commission itself.
c.) Either the whole of the Great Commission is for all Christians, regardless of gender, or else it is not. Choose one, or show me where the Bible says women are responsible for some parts of the Great Commission specifically and are not responsible for others.

5. I am not arguing that baptizing a man is showing authority over a man, I was responding to your statement that I quoted in my post because I thought it was a faulty argument. Aside from this, I think John the Baptist baptizing Jesus was a non-normative situation. Someone had to baptize Jesus; he couldn't baptize himself. Therefore, I don't think this example can be used.

[/QUOTE]

Jesus is God and could do anything he wishes. He does not need man to fullfill his will. He does choose through his sovereign grace and mercy to use man for his will. The example stands.

Joseph Botwinick