Let's just run with your interpretation of Matt. 28:19 if we may? IF, as you are insisting that ALL disciples are given the warrant to teach and baptize, then it must be that women and children who profess faith in Christ are also allowed to teach and baptize. There is nothing in the passage that would restrict them from doing so. Soooooo?
My question is, who is it that appoints people to places of authority in the church? is it man or is it God? If it is man, then where do they get their authority, and how can I be sure that their selection was by divine appointment? If it is God, who is it that can question the authority God places on an individual? The problem with the church today is that the church has taken upon themselves something that belongs to God alone. They hinder those God has truly appointed and instead, set up their own lawyers and scribes.
We take from God what is His right alone. Yes, men did appoint other men to offices in the church, but that was a priviledge only for a few chosen disciples during the establishment of the early church. Today, we have no power to convey some special office or authority on anyone, but it seems the church believes they do. What is required of the church, is to recognize those individuals God has called. Recognizing and ordaining those whom God chooses, those who demonstrate they are filled with the Spirit and called of God. Sadly, the church today is blind, choices are made for many of the wrong reasons, much like the choosing of Saul as King over Israel.
Now, back to whether a woman or child can baptize, I think that goes against the set order of the church and the family, it has nothing to do with God's choosing, it is unnatural to the body of Christ. We are speaking of men only, and I believe Grace2U assumed we understood that. As for who can baptize, mortal men can not give others that authority, only God can, we can only recognize it. Would you prevent someone appointed by God from baptizing another in His Name? To do so is to act against the set purposes of God, which is dangerous indeed.
Hisalone Matt. 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. KJV
We have all received an express command from God if we are disciples. It is in Matt 28:19. If you will reply that the command was only to his Apostles, then there can be no discipling, no baptizing and no teaching for ever more, because there are no apostles today.
Let's just run with your interpretation of Matt. 28:19 if we may? IF, as you are insisting that ALL disciples are given the warrant to teach and baptize, then it must be that women and children who profess faith in Christ are also allowed to teach and baptize. There is nothing in the passage that would restrict them from doing so. Soooooo?
I believe the answer is "progressive revelation".... Hermeneutics 101: The Epistles interpret the Gospels.
I agree absolutely with you about progessive revelation. Other Scriptures prohibit women from teaching, as indeed they do novices. Under normal circumstances we wouldn't have Saul preaching, let alone baptizing, until he was trained. But these aren't normal circumstances (cf. Judges 5:6-7 ). There is no one to preach, so Saul, after seeking someone more qualified, has taken the work upon himself. Likewise, there is no one to baptize. Saul has asked for someone to come and do the job, but no one will come.
Now unless you can show me from the Scripture where new converts waited to be baptized until someone 'qualified' came, I hold to my position, and indeed, that of the 1646 Confession. Again I ask; how long should he wait? A week? A month? Six months? A year? Where is your Scripture for any delay? The guy on the spot is the one who baptizes, even if a couple of Apostles are on the way to help (Acts 8:12, 14 ).
Quote
Thus, as I and others have maintained and which the 1689 also teaches, qualified men ordained by the Church only are to administer the sacraments (Baptist terminology: ordinances).
You have not understood this portion of the 1689 Confession. With respect, go back and read it again and observe where it deviates from the WCF or the Savoy Confession. A qualified man to be sure, but Saul has preached the Gospel and the Lord has blessed his ministry by using it in the conversion of sinners. That is all the qualification he needs.
I haven't been following this thread, but that sign reminded me of this article by Dan Phillips. I think he makes a very valid point!
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
The document from which you quoted and upon which you evidently have established your view that any disciple may baptize is a spurious document written by a very small schismatic group of hyper-Calvinists who also denied the doctrine of the Trinity as formulated in the Nicene Creed. This group openly rejected the teachings of the Reformers, Puritans, etc.
Pil, you are perhaps thinking of Thomas Collier and the 1656 Somerset Confession?
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Ashamedly, I read through that entire comments section of that blog. I would have to agree that one of the Pastor's responsibilities is to "equip the saints for ministry", i.e., to be active in their congregation and without according to the gifts the Spirit of God has given to each. However, I'm with Tom Chantry who I believe saw/felt a movement to neutralize the unique OFFICE OF ELDER (and Deacon by default) so that what one is left with is one large mass of equals with a man appointed to be an "Enabler"; ya gotta love/hate that term, don't ya?
The harsh bifurcation which some denominations/churches practice, e.g., many of the Dutch Reformed varieties (cf. "Domini So-and-So") where there are Elders and all the rest is unwarranted from a biblical standpoint. However, the idea that there are no distinctive offices within the Church where men are called apart in order to serve first and foremost God and then the people of God is an equally odious trend happening today. When I read the NT, it isn't an "either/or" distinction but rather a "both/and" distinction. There IS a unique, honorable and austere OFFICE in the Church called, "Elder, Pastor, Bishop, Presbyter" who has been given by God certain distinct responsibilities and authority, who is and must also be a believer and a minister among the people.
This post was not posted for the glory of God. It is insensitive, unnecessary and thus not a Christ like form of speech. To go on it lacks charity and is without concern for the party involved. It's also quite shameful, sorry.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/embarrassed.gif)
I would have to agree that one of the Pastor's responsibilities is to "equip the saints for ministry", i.e., to be active in their congregation and without according to the gifts the Spirit of God has given to each. However, I'm with Tom Chantry who I believe saw/felt a movement to neutralize the unique OFFICE OF ELDER (and Deacon by default) so that what one is left with is one large mass of equals with a man appointed to be an "Enabler"; ya gotta love/hate that term, don't ya?
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
