The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum HowWouldYouAnswerThis?

This post came up on Gideons Sword a small forum I frequent.



We have learned that Saul lives in a remote town in Packistan, about two hundred miles from the nearest city. He and his little group are without help and/or teachers.
I was suspicious at first but it seems to be on the up and up, I'll be asking ya all for your advice and of course prayers for this man and his little group.

Below in red is my response.


Welcome sir.

It is important you follow the disipline of the group/church you are affiliated with.

I suggest that you give that organization every oppertunity to get to your area with proper leadership. If we say we wish to follow our Lord in baptism is it certainly a good thing , but how can we say we wish to follow our Lord if we do not follow those He has sent to teach us?

Would you mind telling me a few things?

Where are you located ?

What church/organization are you affiliated with?

What is the distance to the city you spoke of ?

Thank you so much for the care and love you have demonstrated for your ' 27'.

Hitch

Hitch it almost sounds to me that this person hasn't a church that he belongs to in the area. I would inquire as to what church he is attending.

Yup. We're trying to find out some of these specifics. Right know it looks as though he is too far removed ,churches are widly scattered in Packistan.

There are are 8 mosques in Oregon ,5 are in the Portland metro area, assuming Saul's situation is the reverese it could be that no organized church is in his town. Hard to imagine... We have learned that the city he mentions is almost 200 miles away.


Thanx
H

Just based on the little information we have here, my advice would be for him to get in touch with an ordained minister, even if it is the one he mentions 200 miles away. Arrangements should be made, if possible, for the minister to come to baptize these people. Or, if that is not possible, perhaps Mr. Masih can travel to the city & seek ordination? Then he could come back & baptize these people.

My question is, why is it necessary to have a trained person perform the baptism? Is there some grace confired on the person baptized that only a trained/ordained individual is able to give? I know I'm throwing myself into the lion's den on this newsgroup, but I believe we err when we believe only a trained or ordained person can baptize. I'm guessing the answer will be that only elders have authority to include individuals into the covenant people, or church, but I say, only the Holy Spirit has the authority to do that. As you probably already know my view of baptism from previous posts, I believe it is the believer's responsibility to take this first step of faith. The only responsibility of the bapizer is to provide the opportunity for the believer to take this step of obedience. We have elevated baptism into something it isn't, and in doing so have limited it to only certain individuals being authorized to perform. I would even say that many of the trained or ordained are less qualified than many believers. Maybe it is the college degree/seminary degree that gives the authority, I honestly don't know on what the criteria is really based.

I'm only giving my view, so be kind in you responses, I'm not asking you to agree. I realize that because of my Baptist background, I'm not in the majority on this newsgroup.

hisalone,

VERY briefly, this is a matter of the biblical teaching re: "ecclesiology", the doctrine of the Church. Most Reformed believers, at least in the past as this is not the case now unfortunately, held to a high view of the Church. The Bible provides the definition of the Church as well as how it is to function (aka: church order). One of the elements of that order is the ordination of men to the offices of Elder and Deacon. It is through these men that the Holy Spirit works. It is through these men that the Word is preached and taught, worship is to be conducted and the sacraments (notice the terminology here) are to be administered. They are responsible for proper worship and practice in their respective assemblies over which God has appointed them "overseers" and "under shepherds".

It matters not, in regard to administering the sacraments; not ordinances as some would prefer to call them, whether the man has a seminary education nor that he is in your estimation "qualified". I may agree that many men should not even be Elders/Pastors today. But nonetheless, it is God's will that such men administer the sacraments as part of the official corporate worship of God; either as preparatory to entrance into the visible Church or for the edification of true believers who are already members of the Church.

In His grace,

Pilgrim,

I know we are in disagreement on this issue because we disagree on what baptism represents, however, I appreciate your answer, you are staying true to your view. I do want you to understand, I do hold a very high view of the church not that you implied I didn't. I believe God calls individuals to the ministry, who the church should have no say on removing. Then there are individuals who mistake disire for calling and enter the ministry uncalled. One of the failures of the baptist denomination is their autonomy. I agree with the government of the Presbyterian, and Reformed churches and would like it if more churches (especially ours) followed that method. What happens for us is that we have carnal believers or even non-believers making decisions in the church by vote I do believe that candidates for baptism must be interviewed, and the interviewer needs to be knowledgeable to determine if the person is a proper candidate for baptism (this is because I hold to believers baptism). That I guess would be about as close to trained I would come on this issue. Something that really turned me off this past year was the statement by baptists that their goal was to baptize 1 million, talk about wrong focus!! Anyway, sorry I got off topic, I did appreciate the person's concern, which showed maturity in questioning his qualification to perform a baptism, too bad more are not as thoughtful before doing something church related.

Hisalone,

Treading lightly so as not to steer this too far away from Hitch's question, but I think it is not off-topic because the principles at stake are what this Pakistani believer is facing, I wanted to add something to what Pilgrim said. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) and Acts 2:42 are two of several passages that strongly link baptism and teaching, which means that the one baptizing should be recognized by the church--that is, ordained--as a man called, trained and able to teach.

Has Mr. Masih been baptized?Has anyone heard his christian testimony?Was the true gospel of the Lord Jesus conveyed to the 27? If it was and both Mr. Masih and the 27 have been regenerated I see no reason why he couldn't baptize them.
God knows the hearts of these people and whether or not Mr. Masih's ordination papers are in order or not will not interfere with completing their outward statement of faith.
I write this post having been ordained as a Baptist deacon.I accepted the post of a deacon only after attending a class on spiritual gifts and being made aware that my gift is the one of "service".I have never thought about being in charge of a baptizmal service until seeing this post today but after reading about Mr. Masih and his group my feeling is that he would be in God's favor to complete this work.

sojourner,

The immediate problem I have with your approach is that I cannot find in Scripture where a sole believer baptized anyone, not even a Deacon. I am more than reluctant to plunge head-on according to what "I" may think works, aka: pragmatism or is appropriate, aka: egalitarianism in matters of how the Lord Jesus Christ would have His Church function. Perhaps I have missed that portion of Scripture where a non-Apostle or non-Elder/Bishop/Pastor baptized someone AND where (if there is such a recorded incident) this is said to be paradigmatic, i.e., something to be practiced in all the churches universally.

In His grace,

Paul, your answer implies that you believe that the great commission was only given to the called/ordained people of the church, which I'm sure you don't really believe. I do believe in a special calling of the pastor/teacher, but I also believe that "ALL" born again believers should be able to teach one on one, making disciples, teaching them to obey all that Christ commanded. baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Now, I'm not completely ignorant, and I do see where this could lead into abuses as well as gross error, so it isn't that I don't respect the position about the qualifications. I believe like anything, opening baptism up to anyone performing it without some type of overseer (elders etc.) is dangerous and unwarranted, but if people are approved by a qualified elder or pastor, any person should be able to perform it. In the case we are discussing, if someone has observed what the man is teaching, seeing that he is orthodox and that he understands what baptism is about, then there is no reason he shouldn't be able to do it on his own.

Pilgrim,

Philip was a deacon, & he baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39). But as you indicate, this is not really a paradigmatic case. In fact, all of the circumstances surrounding it are unique, and we even see Philip "preaching" in all the cities from Azotus to Caesarea (v. 40). (He is also denoted the "evangelist" in 21:8.)

Does Matt 28:19, 20 REALLY teach that any believer is to make disciples and then to baptize them in the name of the Triune God?

CONTEXT, context, context... I cannot deny that this text has been sorely abused and misused by the modern "church" to teach an errant view of evangelism but now also the administration of Christ's sacraments. That individual believers are to "witness" of the goodness of God in Christ and call men to repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is a truth taught in Scripture. HOWEVER, there is a special calling of some to the service of "Evangelist", which it seems were under the authority of the Church and sent out for the purpose of conducting themselves itinerantly, i.e., while traveling about preaching the Gospel. The point here is that the mandate to "make disciples" matheteusate and to "baptize" baptizo was given specifically to the disciples; the 11 who Christ Himself had set apart for the establishment of the Church. And they in turn appointed Elders in the churches they helped establish through their preaching who then were delegated with the responsibility of administering the sacraments.

As I responded to "sojouner" I do likewise to you... Can you show from Scripture any occurrence where a sole believer, i.e., a non-Apostle or Elder baptized anyone AND where that single occurrence is paradigmatic, i.e., a universal teaching to be practiced in the Church?

In His grace,

Pilgrim,
Your point is well taken and I certainly did not mean to circumvent scripture when the word "I" was used.What would you have this man do assuming all was in order concerning the salvation of these people?

1. Seek the counsel of godly men who are ordained in a reputable denomination/congregation.
2. Submit to the authority of those men:
- a. to be examined by them to discern his confession, life and knowledge of Scripture.
- b. to seek to be authorized by those men to continue in his evangelistic efforts, i.e., accountability.
- c. oversight in the work he is doing and joining with them
3. Petition those men to come and examine those who have allegedly professed in Christ.
4. Allow those men to baptize them this time IF warranted and any time thereafter until he could be ordained.

The salvation of those who have true faith in Christ is not dependent upon baptism; ala Rome and some cults. So, it is not expedient that these alleged believers be baptized now. It is more expedient that God's will be obeyed in these manners. Faithfulness has abundant rewards attached to it.