Baptism:
Preacher of Church Ordinance?
First Treatise

The chief purpose of this writing is to irrefutably prove from Scripture and church history that the authority to baptize does not merely reside in the local New Testament Baptist church, but that the authority to baptize is unalterably restricted to the local church. If Baptists surrender this principle, they surrender all. The acceptance as valid baptism which has been performed beyond the immediate authority of a local New Testament Baptist church, or by a supposed admixture of plural church authority is to open the door to many absurdities and hurtful errors.

No ecclesiastical authority higher than that of the local church is recognized in the New Testament. But even this authority has its limits; it is restricted to the confines of the immediate church. And since the church has NO authority outside of its own body, the church must receive the candidate for baptism by its own independent authority. The doctrine of absolute church independence is to be guardedly cherished, and the least infringement thereon is to be considered a crime of great magnitude.

It is accepted as an axiom by all true Baptists that the church which Jesus organized during the time of His incarnation on earth was vested with the power and authority to administer the ordinances, and there is no record in the New Testament where any of the Lord’s churches ever lost the ability or authority to administer the ordinances.

It is revealed in holy writ that some of the churches which were properly organized imbibed many grievous errors, of which the church at Corinth seems to have surpassed them all. Yet, it was to the weak and unstable church at Corinth, Paul said; "Keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you" (1 Corinthians 1 1:2).

Seeing then that the commission was given to the original church, that is to a particular and individual church. And seeing that this church is the model for all others and that it did not go outside of its own membership for assistance in carrying out the ordinances; it would be to say the least a demeaning deviation for a church in the succeeding line of the original model to solicit the aid of another church in administering the ordinance of baptism.

When a Baptist church is organized it assumes responsibility for carrying out the commission, and the baptizing of disciples is a paramount part of that commission. John the Baptist had a special and direct commission from God to baptize, and John’s commission was not transferable or delegable. John zealously assumed his divinely bestowed mission to baptize, and never once asked any other person to take any part of his Ministry or to be come a substitute for him in his work of baptizing. Like John, the church received a special and direct commission to baptize from no less of an authority than that from which John received his. Jesus appointed a mountain where He would meet with H is church, and being clothed with all the authority of heaven and earth, He met with and gave the geographically unlimited commission to baptize to His church (Matthew 28: 17-20). And like John, not once did any of the New Testament churches deny or claim impairment of ability to discharge their obligation to baptize, and it is highly unreasonable to suppose that two or more of the New Testament churches held a union meeting to which the churches involved brought their baptismal candidates, and had one of the more famous preachers of their time to do the baptizing for them. Yet, this is precisely the biblical precedent that is needed and goes wanting in what is being practiced by some contemporary New Testament Baptist churches.

There is not, never was, nor can ever be such a thing as bilateral independence or autonomy. What ever the enterprise may be, bilateralism demands a measure of compromise of the independence of the parties involved in it. The government of the Lord’s churches is independently democratic, and allows for no official inroads or out-roads. As to polity, the church never needs to consult but one party, and that is the voting majority of its membership. All the governmental actions of a Baptist church are unilateral. Official bilateralism is not only incongruous to the nature of the Lord’s churches, but is a big step toward the undoing of the churches who suppose it to be effected.

No assignment was given to the church by its Head, which the local church cannot discharge in and by its own strength. Each and every New Testament church has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (John 14:17), and to seek help as though necessary to perform that which has been peculiarly and exclusively committed to the local church would be to question the wisdom of God, and would border on a denial of the sufficiency of the Holy Spirit. Such action, to say the least, is extremely dangerous, and calls for a rebuke from the Head of the church. A church set up by Jesus Christ and honored with His unfailing presence will without a single hiatus have ability to baptize all who apply to it for baptism.

When two churches take official parts in administering the ordinance of baptism to one candidate, whether intended or not, the two churches become an ecclesiastical association. If two churches can Biblically function in this manner, what is wrong in three, five, ten, etc. etc. churches doing the same? If two churches can do it, so can two hundred churches, all having voted in their respective capacitance to have a member of another church act for them in administering the ordinance of baptism.

Pluralistic church authority in administering baptism could greatly reduce the need of foreign missionaries, for one missionary with the approval of his home church coupled with that of all his supporting churches, could baptize for and organize churches for his home church and all supporting churches. If the practice of pluralistic church authority in administering the ordinance of baptism has Scriptural support, it does not seem fair that all the churches which the foreign missionary organizes be out of his home church, when as a rule ninety percent of his financial support comes from outside his home church. If pluralistic authority is valid, why not make all the supporting churches more directly involved in the missionary’s work by baptizing for them all, and if possible organize at least one church for each of the supporting churches?

Is baptism a picture or symbol of the redeeming work of Christ? True Baptists everywhere answer with a resounding affirmative. Then I ask, did Christ have a co-sponsor in His work of redemption? The answer of Baptists to this question is a vociferous and unequivocal, No! Then I ask, why should the local Baptist church to whom is committed the keeping of the ordinance of baptism go outside of its own membership to seek an agent to act for it in administering the ordinance, which is divinely given to its jurisdiction? The baptismal symbol being thusly forced portrays more than what is necessary, and spawns an unintended, but nevertheless a degrading inference as to the perfect and unassisted redemption of Christ.

They who advocate pluralistic authority in administering the ordinance of baptism, and the necessity of a formally ordained Baptist minister to act as agent in the immersion of the baptismal candidate; must show or give evidence from Scripture that the authority to baptize is transferable from church to its ordained ministry and hence unto another church. Any effort to provide the scriptural evidence for such. an action would be an exercise in futility, for the necessary proof which would give authentication to the practice is not even hinted at in Scripture.

The nature of the Lord’s churches is such that they never need to borrow officiality from any sister church. The church who attempts to do so openly admits that it is not at the time an autonomous entity, and for the time they are without an officially ordained ministry are deprived of the authority to disciple and to baptize, for discipling and baptism are inseparably connected in the commission given the church by its omniscient Head.

Baptists believe that a New Testament church is a body of baptized believers, ecclesiastically independent of all other religious bodies, and fully able to administer its own affairs under the Headship of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1 :22). J. M. Pendleton says, "That the power of a church cannot be transferred or alienated, and that church action is final. The power of a church cannot be delegated. There may be messengers of a church, but there can be no delegates in the ordinary sense of the term . . . No church can empower any man, or body of men, to do anything which will impair its independency" (Pendleton’s Church Manual, Page 102 - Item 3). The contention for pluralistic authority in administering baptism is to contend for and promulgate a doctrine that is close akin to the repulsive doctrine of universal churchism. The pluralistic authority doctrine teaches that the authority to baptize was given to the institutional church, that is to the aggregate bodies of Christ. Such a teaching may not be intended by those who baptize outside of their immediate church, but there is a sense wherein the erroneous doctrine is commended by the practice of pluralistic authority.

"Baptism is an ordinance of, and in, each local church-not of the kingdom" (J. R. Graves, Old Landmarkism - Pg. 28). The term "kingdom" in this statement by Graves is meant the institutional church, and is thusly stated in the context from which the quote is taken. So it is in this particular, all who believe that baptism is strictly a local church ordinance can identify with this great champion of the faith, the illustrious, J. R. Graves.

I have with the utmost diligence searched the Scriptures. and nowhere in them have I found where the local church needed or asked for any help outside of its immediate membership in administering the ordinance of baptism. All the ability necessary to Scripturally baptize comes with the organization of each New Testament church, and this ability inherently resides with all of the Lord’s churches. It is agreed by true Baptists, even unto the uttermost peripheral that the church has the power and authority to ordain its own officers, and that official church existence is an absolute prerequisite to the call of a pastor. With this premise I know of no variance among Baptists, and acknowledging that it is Scripturally supported, I ask; seeing then that a church must need exist before it can call a pastor, is the church at the time of its organization to assume full responsibility for carrying out the commission given it by none other than the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20)? To ask the question is to answer it in the positive.

The day a true church is conceived is the day it becomes responsible to preach all the counsel of God, and baptism is an emphatic part of the divine counsel which every New Testament church is to preach. The responsibility to baptize comes with day one of the existence of every Holy Spirit wrought church, and this God given responsibility is not to be held in abeyance until the church is given a formally ordained pastor. The interim as a rule between church inception and that of an ordained pastor in place is brief, but regretfully there are many exceptions to this rule, and to further compound the problem of rule exceptions, many of the Lord’s pastor-less churches are hundreds of miles removed from all sister churches. To contend in such cases as the exception stated above that the pastor-less church has not the authority to baptize those whom it has effectually discipled would be to stultify or be repressive of the evangelistic spirit of the church. Not only would the delay in baptizing those who have applied to the church for baptism be fearfully detrimental to the spiritual health of the church, but it would be an unwarranted setting aside of an inflexible Scriptural rule and example, the rule and example whereof I speak being, all New Testament believers upon profession of their faith were immediately baptized.

However, there is no need for the above mentioned delay in administering the ordinance of baptism, for the authority lies with the church, and not in its ordained ministry. This does not mean, even by the farthest stretch of the imagination that it is not important who the agent is that baptizes for the church. It is readily and correctly conceded that the pastor is the MOST proper person to baptize for the church, and when the pastor is willing, able, and available, to function in immersing the baptismal candidates for the church, he should NEVER be by-passed in this high honor. It is first the pastor’s privilege and obligation to act as the agent of the church in administering the ordinance of baptism, and this particular agency does not pass from the pastor’s province except he becomes physically unable or spiritually disqualified. But when such liability deprives the church of its pastor, then and during the pastor-less interim the church may exercise its heaven bestowed authority, and select a godly male member to immerse its baptismal candidates. Again, let me say for emphasis sake, all honor accorded the pastoral office by the Scriptures should be gladly and at once granted the pastor whom the Lord has given the church. The superior distinction conferred on the pastoral office by the Head of the church would be immeasurably negated by a church who passes over their pastor for another man to stand in his place in the baptistery, that is, when the pastor is qualified and able to perform this duty. Such action by the church, even though the pastoral substitute be highly esteemed in the church, would be an affront to God, infinitely humiliating to the pastor, and would reduce the pastoral office of said church to a mere figurehead. God forbid that any of His churches would act so unwisely.