I have never felt that we should completely divorce the church from baptism. To the contrary – the church is the place in which baptism most often will occur. But like your “one loaf” argument, a baptism would not be nullified because it was performed outside the jurisdiction of the church. It might not be normal, but it would not be disqualifying.

I like the analogy.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Three Big Outs =-.

If so, I follow you better.

I also see the Biblical strength in what you say about the symbolism of baptism. And I appreciate your exegetical effort to reinforce that.

The difficulty is following you to your application–that baptism isn’t valid without local church oversight. (I agree with David Miller–that our normal practice should be baptism in a local church context, but that it isn’t required for a baptism to be valid.)

I don’t see how you’re bridging the gap between “the symbolism is baptism into the body” to “an official local church representative is required”.

As a parallel: In the Lord’s Supper, the symbolism includes the Body of Christ all partaking of one bread. (1 Cor 10:17) Not individual crackers–a loaf broken and shared. One body, partaking of one bread.

Actually using one loaf preserves more of the symbolism. I understand saying, “Therefore, it should be the normal practice.” But can we really say, “Therefore, we have not actually participated in the Lord’s Supper if we use individual crackers”?

Perhaps you would say that. But if not, why? Why do you go from symbolism to application in one case, but not the other?
.-= Jugulum´s last blog ..Bible Study, Community, and Orthodoxy =-.

That being said, the only example we have in the Bible is baptisms by ordained men. In practice, I submit to the authority of my pastor on this issue, who welcomes you to join him in the baptismal when you lead a person to Christ.
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Prayer in Business =-.

“I gather that a disciple enabled to bring down God to a soul, and to bring a soul again up to God, is a lawful Minister of Baptism. For that is the tenor of the New Covenant, Heb. 8:10. ‘I will be to them a God, and they shalt be to me a people…”

Think about the contrast between the tenor of the New Covenant and the tenor of the Old Covenant:

O.C.

1. “Ordained” Levitical male priests.
2. Unbelieving covenant community [with a believing remnant].
3. High ecclesiology with only priests doing ministry.

N.C.

1. Everyone (including grandmothers) are priests [1 Peter 2:9].
2. Believing covenant community [Hebrews 8:11].
3. Low ecclesiology with all the priests doing ministry [Matt. 23:1-11, 1 Peter 2:5].

Personally, when the tenor of the New Covenant is seen as the theological backdrop of Matthew 28:19-20, then I think this shifts the evidence towards elect grandmothers being legitimate administrators of baptism.
.-= Benji Ramsaur´s last blog ..Principles of Faith of The Sandy Creek Association-1816 =-.

Actually I am using what I have been taught at Southwestern, letting the text drive the point.

Which brings us back to the GC. In my original post and my recently posted rebuttal, I give two explanations where the text drives us to church oversight. The command given to the group as a whole and Jesus presence in connection to the command through the church which was constituted at Pentecost. Yet, nothing shows Ananias baptizing Paul.

I have also given other evidences also: 1Tim 3:15; 1 Cor 12:13.

I saw how you and CB carried on at SBCToday. While good, it was quite taxing. I don’t want to carry on here like that as I am enjoying time with my mom and dad. So you can have the last word and we can let others decide. Thanks.
.-= Robin Foster´s last blog ..Podcast Episode 9 =-.

Touché. You´re using a little of my own medicine on me there. You are correct. The text does not actually say that Ananias did the baptizing, nor what else may or may not have happened behind the scenes. I think it is likely, given what I read, that Ananias baptized him. You think it is likely that Jesus, in the Great Commission, implied local church supervision. Which leaves us back at square one. The Bible doesn’t tell us for sure, one way or another, on these questions. Though, in my fallible opinion, the evidence is more probable in the case of Ananias than in the Great Commission. I guess we need a pope, or some church magisterium, to decide on this one.

How do we know that Philip in Acts 8 isn’t Philip the Apostle? Am I reading past the verse that says it isn’t?

Because if he’s Philip the Apostle, then it’s easy to assume he’s ‘approved’ to baptize.

Just wondering on that. Can’t find definite statements either way. Eusebius says that there is only one Philip, and someone simply says Eusebius is wrong. So I was just wondering…
.-= Doug Hibbard´s last blog ..Thoughts today, September 23 =-.