OK for a woman to baptize?

No, I don't. We have done that here at our church.

 

Lucy, you got some 'splainin to do.

 

What if Lucy came to your church and said, I have baptized these people and now they want membership at your church? What would you do. Would you have the church administer a baptism by an ordained authority, or would you just accept the work that Lucy had performed. Would Lucy be lording anything over on the church or not? I sure could see a lot of problems developing myself.

Those two men out in the wilderness that baptized each other. What if they showed up at your church and said: "we baptized each other" and now we would like membership, what would you do?

 

That is a whole different situation, than a faithful member of a church having a part in the baptism.

 

Only an "ordained authority" can baptize a person or else it doesn't count?

 

We also practice a father or lay member "helping" an Elder with a baptism.

In our church and Association, it must be an ordained authority. We consider a baptism to be an ordinance of the Church. It is one of our Articles of Faith.

 

If I were in a position to make the call, I'd ask them about their baptism (mode, what they thought of it, etc.). If I saw no red flags, I'd let them in.

It's a symbol, not a sacrament.

 

Okay, I see. Every organization can make its own rules.

It seems to me that the plethora of hundreds and hundreds of Christian denominations has more to do with whose rules rule more than anything else.

 

Amen :thumbs:

I would have a problem with a church that wouldn't take my word that I was already baptized.

 

We consider it more than just a symbol. Its a "confession" before the whole world that Jesus is your Savior. It shows the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord. Also, there is who's name you baptize in, "The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost".

We don't hold to "dry land Baptist". But that is just us.

We believe our rules to be supported by scripture, or we would not do it. It would be nice if everyone followed the same Articles of Faith, but they do not.

Unless you were of the same faith and order of our Church and Association, it wouldn't matter if you had been baptized, we would not accept it.

 

I understand. Most, if not all, Christian churches believe that.

 

Interesting. I don't think that even most Churches of Christ are that strict anymore.

 

I'd accept them into our membership process without reservation so long as their baptisms were after salvation and by immersion. We don't rebaptize people when they join our church if they meet the qualifications of immersion after salvation.

For what it's worth as long as people have been baptized by immersion after salvation I don't care if the Pope did it, we would accept them into our membership process.

Also I don't see your issue with "Lucy" lording something over the church. When they join our church they fall under our authority, not Lucy's and if she starts causing problems we simply ask her to leave. I don't know why someone is automatically suspicious if they are baptizing faithful believers and bringing them to church...that is the heart of the Gospel afterall.

Welcome them with open arms and let them begin our membership process.

 

Let's face it guys, the only work a woman can do in the church is that which is hard, thankless, and untitled.

Or at least that's what you make of it.

 

Thanks for that insight. Oh, right, it's supposed to be thankless. Sorry.

 

Well, if you accept the work of the Pope then I guess you wouldn't mind who baptized them.

same here.

Next time those baptized by the snake handlers are looking for a church, I will send them your way.

 

Please give Scripture to back up this claim.

 

Interesting thought.

 

I was asking a question, not making a statement.

 

Another question, what if an "ordained" minister has been committing adultery without the knowledge of the church? Are all of his baptisms then re-done?

I would say no. Catholics, even with their sacramental understanding of the work, say that the wickedness of the administrator of the baptism, the eucharist, etc. does not affect the power of the rite. That is, they function "ex opere operato," or the sacraments function by virtue of being performed rather than by the status of the administrator.

Though I do not recognize the doctrine of ex opere operato because I am not a sacramentalist, my personal standard is similar. If someone is baptized by immersion (the Scriptural mode) after trusting in Christ for their salvation, then I believe the baptism is valid regardless of the administrator.