P. Resby wrote:The concept that every millimetre of the flesh must be touched by water in Baptism, (to make it genuine), is contrived and not Scripturally valid.
Perhaps it is taken from the following where the Greek word βαψη, βαψας and βεβαμμενον which is derived from the root word βάπτω are used and translated dip, dipped.
(Luk 16:24) And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
(Joh 13:26) Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
(Rev 19:13) And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
I think you are right though, more emphasis is placed on the mode rather what it symbolizes, union with Christ. We are buried with Him by baptism, His Spirit is poured out on us and our sins were washed by the sprinkling of His precious blood on the alter as the atonement for our sins.
1Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (NOT the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
In baptism the sign is water, but the important thing is the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ and the mortifying of the flesh. The institution of Christ includes these two things. Don't allow the sign to dominate or take away the other.
I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 1 Corinthians 1:14-16
When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. Acts 18:5
Faithful Remnant wrote:A believer, whether an ordained pastor or ordinary layman, can baptize another believer.
Some time ago I once encountered a Presby here who accused Baptists of "plagairizing" the WCF, instead of rejoicing.
"In an important book, Baptist theologian James William McClendon Jr. has argued that small-b Baptists, a group that includes the Baptists; have produced little theology.
He defines theology as the discovery, understanding, and transformation of the convictions of a convictional community, including the discovery and critical revision of their relation to one another and to whatever else there is.
Baptists have not done much of this kind of work, McClendon says, because through much of their history they have been involved in a struggle for survival, and when they have been secure they have allowed the agenda for their theology to be set by other groups such as the eighteenth-century Reformed theologians whose major concerns were expressed in the Calvinist/Arminian controversies and the twentieth-century Fundamentalists whose major concerns were expressed in controversies with modernists about the Bible.
The issues in these controversies, McClendon says, did not arise naturally from Baptists' own identity with its origins in the radical wing of the Reformation but were borrowed by Baptists from outside their own life."
Amazin' what these Baptists get up to isn't it.
That was referring to the layman in the congregation in contrast to those who hold an ordained office in the church (elder, bishop, deacons).
Sorry for the confusion.
As far as Ananias is concerned, if the Lord commissioned him to baptize through Paul, then I don't see the problem.
Where the problem is is that people are taking it upon themselves the privilege to baptize other believers who are not in the leadership of the local church.
Baptism and the Lord's supper is the two ordinances of the local church and since the pastor, elder is God's undershepherd of the church, he is the only one qualified to perform those ordinances or ordain assisstants to help out.
Why would Ananias need to hand this duty over to anyone else? After what the Lord has just enabled him to do with Paul, the baptism would be easy.
Therefore I nominate Ananias!!_______________
BTW Discerned Believer referred to a "Lay Believer" below.I've come across a Lay Preacher but the only Lay Believer I've found are Buddhists???
(answer to Discerning Believer)
I note that Paul, an apostle, denied that Christ sent him to baptize despite Matt. 28:19 (1 Cor. 1:17), though that did not mean he had no right to (vv. 14,16). May we infer that non-apostles baptized in his place?
Another question: what if an independent church selects Biblically unqualified elders (divorced, too young, etc.)? Is their baptism valid or not?
These are not leading questions; I'm genuinely interested in a good answer.
