Need help from the paedo & credo's: baptism no ordinance for the church ?

[Mayflower]

Someone wrote this to me:

Baptism is normally practise by the local church, but we can not say it is an ordinance only for the church, because Philip baptist the eunoch outiside the local church, and did not went back to Jerusalam him there:

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Can someone help me this ?
Or is the argument, that at that place was not a local church enough ? But than he will say, yea but Philipus could take him with him to Jerusalm to be baptist there.

Thoughts ?

 

[RamistThomist]

The person is confusing ordinance with place of baptism. Phillip could have been under the authority of the church which would allow him to baptize outside of the church. Baptism (including Jesus') doesn't have to take place within a church.

It is a logical stretch to say that Philip didn't baptise in a church to mean "we shouldn't baptize in the church."

 

[Raj]

-Philip's case is a kind of special one here in the event.
-Philip is on the mission under the guidence of the Holy Spirit.
-Church does not mean building, it means people (two or three or more).
-place or location does not matter but the purpose and whose name it is instituted.
-Philip was authorised to do the evangelism, and Baptism, bringing Enuch to Jerusalem might have been unneccessary.


Most of us in our field do not have building, a baptism tank etc, we do it in the rivers, most of the time.

It is good to do it in the presence of the congregation, but if not as cercumstances do not allow it, can be done another ways.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hay:

Outside of the bad grammar the person you are talking to is incorrect. Philip was an ordained Deacon in the Church, Acts 6:5. Thus, he had authority to Baptize.

Blessings,

-CH

 

[Amazing Grace]

Someone wrote this to me:

Baptism is normally practise by the local church, but we can not say it is an ordinance only for the church, because Philip baptist the eunoch outiside the local church, and did not went back to Jerusalam him there:

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Can someone help me this ?
Or is the argument, that at that place was not a local church enough ? But than he will say, yea but Philipus could take him with him to Jerusalm to be baptist there.

Thoughts ?

we must remember that Christ never intended for every believer to be splashing water on people. Regardless if it takes place in a building or in a lake, not all believers are commanded to go and baptize.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

What is a church ordinance? To us Protestants, I believe, it is something specifically ordained, prescribed, or set forth to be obeyed on a recurring basis by Christ.

How does Phillip baptizing the Eunuch prevent baptizing from being an ordinance for believers (i.e. the church)?

Edit. I misunderstood the point of the OP. Must baptism be into a local church or may it be into the body of Christ at large -- and done apart from a local church?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Here is an excellent blog by Sam Waldron.

Why Baptism Must Be into the Membership of a Local Church!
Pt.1
- » Why Baptism Must Be into the Membership of a Local Church!
Pt.2
- » Why Baptism Must Be into the Membership of a Local Church!
Pt.3
- » Why Baptism Must Be into the Membership of a Local Church!


Here is point 9 in Sam Waldrons third blog concerning Baptism and Membership.

9. Because there is no proof that any believer was not baptized into the local church.

The Ethiopian Eunuch is often cited as an example of someone who was not baptized into a local church. His baptism is then made the precedent for overturning everything else that the New Testament teaches about the coincidence of baptism and church membership. Several important objections must be made against this use of the passage. First, if the Ethiopian Eunuch indeed was not baptized into a local church, it was only because no such church existed in Ethiopia. This was clearly an exceptional circumstance that must not be made into a normative principle of the church or applied to situations where a local church does exist. Second, it is not, in fact, clear that the Ethiopian Eunuch was not baptized into a local church. This assumption on the part of interpreters is nowhere stated in the passage. It is possible and even probable given the teaching of the rest of the New Testament that he was baptized into the membership of the church in Jerusalem or that he was the first member of the church in Ethiopia. One thing is for sure this is no instance of happy-go-lucky evangelism where believers are made and then left to fend for themselves. We cannot attribute such a practice to Philip or the church in Jerusalem.

 

[Mayflower]

Hay:

Outside of the bad grammar.........
-CH

Dutch is my first language, so iam sorry for my bad engelish gramma !!!!

 

[Mayflower]

But the piont that this person was making, that it does not means that baptism has always a relationship with the local church, because Eunoch was baptize while he did not at that time became a member of a local church.
So what do you think with the comment, that a baptism can take place without being a member of the local church ?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Ralph,

There is nothing to be sorry for. I don't know any other language but English and I am mostly Dutch. LOL

You asked a Great question? Thanks.

 

[Pergamum]

Baptism must be INTO the membership of a local church?

This completely ignores the initial stages of church planting when the church planter baptizes to creates a local church, the first set of local believers which then gather together. I.e. baptims precedes the church rather than occurring in the midst of the church.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

But the piont that this person was making, that it does not means that baptism has always a relationship with the local church, because Eunoch was baptize while he did not at that time became a member of a local church.
So what do you think with the comment, that a baptism can take place without being a member of the local church ?

AS Sam said in the quote above.

First, if the Ethiopian Eunuch indeed was not baptized into a local church, it was only because no such church existed in Ethiopia. This was clearly an exceptional circumstance that must not be made into a normative principle of the church or applied to situations where a local church does exist.

I do believe the full quote of point 9 above addressed your questions brother.

Why would anyone want to argue away from being baptized into Church membership? Where are the ordinances of the Lord's Table and Baptism administered? Outside of the church? I don't think so. Where are the bodies discipline and family ties attached to if not a local assembly?

As Dr. Waldron's blog made mention of the Eunoch's tie to Ethiopia, we must assume the Eunoch was attached to something. It was probably first in Jerusalem to where he was going. And he was probably sent out by that local assembly to go home. Either way it is not normative. It is one situation that is mentioned and out of character from the others. He was obviously baptised into Christ and would have been fit by the Spirit of God for a local body. God doesn't have any Lone Rangers as 1 Corinthians illumines for us. We are a body that is fit together.

Anyways I will end with the beginning of the third blog entry by Dr. Waldron.

Let me introduce them with a qualification or caution. By arguing so strongly for baptism into church membership I do not mean to teach that a baptism which was not into the membership of a local church is not true baptism. I make a distinction between errors which invalidate baptism and administrative irregularities which do not invalidate it. For instance, I would argue that baptism should be performed by an authorized representative of a local church. This does not mean, however, that a baptism performed by someone who is not such an authorized representative is invalid. Similarly, a baptism not into the membership of a local church is irregular, but not invalid.

Christ knows who are his.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Baptism must be INTO the membership of a local church?

This completely ignores the initial stages of church planting when the church planter baptizes to creates a local church, the first set of local believers which then gather together. I.e. baptims precedes the church rather than occurring in the midst of the church.

I am not so sure about this......

Pentecost was in the midst of the Church. When the New Testament records new congregations it is usually at the hand of someone who is already in the midst of the Church as an outreach of another local congregation. Just like Paul and Barnabas were sent by the Church in Antioch.

 

[Mayflower]

Dear Martin,

Thanks for your comments.

I was just reading Samuel Waldron, and he wrote:

"....Second, it is not, in fact, clear that the Ethiopian Eunuch was not baptized into a local church. This assumption on the part of interpreters is nowhere stated in the passage. It is possible and even probable given the teaching of the rest of the New Testament that he was baptized into the membership of the church in Jerusalem or that he was the first member of the church in Ethiopia...."

I don't understand this, because how could the Ethiopian Eunuch be baptized into the membership of Jerusalem, while he was on his way to Gaza ?
Maybe you can shed some light on this ?

 

[KMK]

Dear Martin,

Thanks for your comments.

I was just reading Samuel Waldron, and he wrote:

"....Second, it is not, in fact, clear that the Ethiopian Eunuch was not baptized into a local church. This assumption on the part of interpreters is nowhere stated in the passage. It is possible and even probable given the teaching of the rest of the New Testament that he was baptized into the membership of the church in Jerusalem or that he was the first member of the church in Ethiopia...."

I don't understand this, because how could the Ethiopian Eunuch be baptized into the membership of Jerusalem, while he was on his way to Gaza ?
Maybe you can shed some light on this ?

I don't want to put words in Dr. Waldron's mouth, but he is not stating emphatically that the Ethiopian was baptized into either church. He is saying that we are not told one way or the other whether he was baptized into a church or not. However, as Dr. Waldron explains there is good reason to believe that he was baptized into a church. Therefore, the inference that "obviously the Eunuch was not baptized into a church" is neither good nor necessary.

 

[Pergamum]

Baptism must be INTO the membership of a local church?

This completely ignores the initial stages of church planting when the church planter baptizes to creates a local church, the first set of local believers which then gather together. I.e. baptims precedes the church rather than occurring in the midst of the church.

I am not so sure about this......

Pentecost was in the midst of the Church. When the New Testament records new congregations it is usually at the hand of someone who is already in the midst of the Church as an outreach of another local congregation. Just like Paul and Barnabas were sent by the Church in Antioch.

Okay,

Then what happens when there is no church to baptize into?

Like this ethiopian?

Or in new foreign works?

It appears that we would then have extra-church baptisms, even before a local body is incorporated (or this baptism being part of the process of forming the initial body).

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Okay,

Then what happens when there is no church to baptize into?

Like this ethiopian?

Or in new foreign works?

It appears that we would then have extra-church baptisms, even before a local body is incorporated (or this baptism being part of the process of forming the initial body).

What is your point? I just referred you to Paul and Barnabas. Are you saying the Gospel operates in a an empty environment? Is it going somewhere from nowhere?

I liked and appreciated Sam Waldron's blogs. He makes some good points.

 

[hollandmin]

I would have to agree with pergamum. If referring to the church you mean a actual community of believers that meet on any given Sunday then I would have to disagree with your position. Now if you mean Church as the body of Christ on earth then I would agree with your position. I think that it is reaching to make the assumption that someone has to be sent by a recognized congregation in order that a baptism be considered valid. As Christians we are priests and therefore, if called upon by the Holy Spirit to evangelize and baptize then that is what we should be doing. Missionaries have done this for 2000 years. I'm quite certain that it is much more important for an individual to come to repentance and faith, then be baptized into the body of Christ than it is for that person to be part of a recognized ecclesiastical body. The next thing you know we will begin hearing "repent for the Ecclesiastical church is at hand." Lets not discount those who are making a difference in the lives of people all over the world because of the ministry that GOD not man has called them to.

Blessings,