Baptism:
Preacher of Church Ordinance?
First Treatise

In matters of discipline, the Lord said, "Tell it to the church" (Matthew 18:17). This immutable mandate is applicable to all the Lord’s churches, and is to be adhered to by them during their earthly existence. The question which logically follows is, does the disciplinary responsibility of the church cease at the time it becomes pastorless? To be consistent, all who insist that baptism performed by a Baptist church without the benefit of an ordained minister is invalid, would have to answer the question with an explicit, "Yes." For to say that the commission was given to the church, and that the church which is devoid of an ordained pastor cannot of itself add to its membership by baptism, is in essence to say, being without the benefit of an ordained pastor the church cannot practice excisive discipline. Which would in effect, soon bring the church to ruin. In order to preserve the purity of His church, and to guarantee its perpetuity unto the end of the age, the Lord endowed it with the power to attract all who will be a part of His blemishless bride and power to repel or purge from the bride every spot or person that would bedim her glory. The exercise of the aforementioned powers is not conditioned upon the church having an ordained pastor, but upon the faithfulness of the church to Him who purchased her with His own blood. Offending members of the church who snub the law of reconciliation as delineated in Matthew 18:15-17, must answer to the church, and they who would become members of the Lord’s church can only realize their desire by making petition to the church. All Baptists agree it would be better for the church to have a pastor to baptize for it, and to lead the church when invoking its disciplinary authority, but an ordained minister is not absolutely essential to the receiving of members by baptism, or the exclusion of offending and irreconcilable members.

The church which wittingly or unwittingly restricts its baptismal agency to formally ordained ministers forfeits its own authority in determining who shall or shall not be baptized into its membership. If a church cannot baptize without an ordained minister, it unavoidably follows that the church cannot baptize with an ordained minister unless he agrees to do so. Thus, in strict and final analysis it is clearly seen that the ordinance of baptism is taken out of the hands of the church, and given to the pastor. The church is to see that it does not usurp the authority of the pastor, on the other hand and vitally more important, the pastor is to exercise the utmost care in seeing that he does not usurp the authority of the church. The viability of the church depends on keeping the authority of the pastor and church in proper balance, and the pastor who acknowledges that his authority is subordinate to that of the church and submits thereto greatly enhances his leadership calling.

The ordinance of baptism was not given to the eleven (Matthew 28:19), as ordained elders, but as baptized disciples in official church capacity. This is no hypothesis, but a maxim accepted everywhere by Landmark Baptists. Therefore, it can be said without fear of contradiction, all Scriptural baptism administered in New Testament times was by a regularly baptized church member. But it cannot be said without depending greatly upon assumption, that all Scriptural baptism administered in New Testament times was performed by an ordained minister. And let us remember, a thousand assumptions does not equal one truth.

The contention that Annias who baptized Paul (Acts 9) was an ordained minister has for its ultimate defence, assumption only. It is pure assumption to say the twelve apostles baptized the three thousand that was added to the church on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41), but it is perfectly safe to say they were baptized by authorized members of the church. To say that Peter baptized Cornelius and his household is to read something into the Scripture that is not there. It is not clear from the record (Acts 10) whether Peter or the six brethren which accompanied him did the baptizing. But it is within Scriptural bounds to say, Cornelius and his household was baptized by church authority whether or not it was Peter that immersed them.

Who baptized the twelve disciples referred to in Acts 19? Was it Paul or Apollos, or some other brother? The Scriptures do not say who, it was that administered Scriptural baptism to them, but in light of 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 the strong probability is that Paul did not baptize them. We are left to assumption as to who the person or persons was that actually baptized them, but no assumption is needed to affirm that church authority was in place, and whether or not Paul baptized them or some unordained brother, their baptism was Biblically administered.

There are other cases in the New Testament where people were Scripturally baptized without a positive declaration that the administrator was an ordained minister. But further multiplying of doubtful cases where assumption must be depended upon for baptismal validity would be vain if the foregoing mentioned is not sufficient to gender doubt as to the imperative need of an ordained administrator to effect proper baptism. The plea or argument made in this treatise is not that the church can justly or deliberately shun its willing, able, and available pastor and habitually opt for another male member, be he ordained or not, to administer the ordinance of baptism for the church. While there is, indeed, no explicit divine precept which disallows the church in unusual circumstances to select a male member in good standing to administer the ordinance for it, the New Testament example, while not complete and invariable, is of such magnitude as to leave the church without an alternative in the matter while it has a qualified pastor.

It is true that some early American Landmark Baptists contended that the validity of baptism necessitated an ordained administrator, but this was the time of Baptist associational beginnings in this country, and in the main it was the Associations and their ministerial hierarchies that resolved disputes in the churches, and handed down to the churches official answers to all their theological questions.

These associations made up primarily of ordained ministers, lorded it over God’s heritage by dictating much of the policy of the churches comprising their Associations. Ecclesiastical mission boards, conventions, and associations are not merely extra-Scriptural or unscriptural, but are anti-Scriptural. There is no basis in Scripture for their existence, and i n the exercise of their power over the churches they assume much of the Headship that belongs exclusively to Jesus Christ. A church cannot belong to an association and be autonomous at the same time. An associational edict cannot be handed down to the local church without contravening the law of God, and any legislation in violation of God’s law is perilously illegal and should be consistently opposed.

Ecclesiastical associationalism is the product of a departure from the plain, simple, independent, self-governing polity of the local church. This departure has found near full expression in the Roman and Anglican churches, and Baptist Associationalism is close akin to the episcopacy of these heretical churches. A brief and honest study of the history of Baptist Associationalism in America will bring the student to the conclusion that it was and is a government of preachers or bishops, and rest assured no ruling party is going to legislate laws or hand down decisions contrary to their own ambition, or exalted status.

So it was, when the early American Baptist Associations were asked the question of Scriptural authority in baptism, many of them said it was necessary that the administrator be a formally ordained Baptist minister. The Concord Association of Louisiana, says in Article 4 of their Confession of Faith: "We believe that believers are the only proper subjects; and immersion the only Scriptural action of baptism; and the only legal administrators of the ordinance are the regularly ordained ministers of the gospel in full fellowship in and with the United Baptists." This they said in 1832, History Louisiana Baptists, Page 246. In this article the power of the Association over its churches is clearly demonstrated. Not only does the Association hinge the validity of baptism upon the extra-Scriptural requirement of an ordained administrator, but the article demands that the administrator be in FULL fellowship with the Association. It is this kind of Associationalism that spawned the Southern Baptist Convention, and its despotic rule over member churches. But in the beginning it was not so, as is seen from the following quote:

"During the rise and growth of these corruptions, the churches for three centuries remained as originally formed, independent of each other, and were united by no tie but that of charity: while they were so constituted, corrupt practices did not prevail in some to the same extent as in others, particularly in those communities situated in the country, where objects stimulating ministers to rival-ship, seldom presented themselves" (A Concise History of Baptists, Pg. 31—G. H. Orchard).

Associationalism being anti-Scriptural is in the spiritual sense a Pandora’s Box out of which comes all kinds of church ills. This is not to say all that the associations did was evil, but it is to say, all that any organization does to circumscribe the independence of the local church is an attempt to rob God of the glory which belongs to Him in His blood bought churches (Acts 20:28; Eph. 3:21). The local church is "the pillar and ground of the truth," not the Association, (1 Tim. 3:15).

Independent Baptists endeavor to discourage pomp and ceremony within their churches. They are exceedingly careful in keeping their dogmatism out of shaded areas. Over and against these safeguards is the imperativeness placed on formal ordination of the administrator of baptism. The absoluteness of the formal ordination position places on the shoulders of Baptists a historical burden they cannot bear. It makes the claim of Baptist church succession or perpetuity to carry the back breaking proof, not only of an unbroken line of baptisms, but also link by link connection in the chain of formal ordination of administrators of baptism. Baptist history has never shackled itself with this unnecessary burden, and the Baptist wide, age long, and consistent disclaimer of Baptist history, is: "All that Baptists mean by church ‘succession,’ or church perpetuity, is: There has never been a day since the organization of the first New Testament church in which there was no genuine church of the New Testament existing on earth." (Baptist Church Perpetuity, Page 3, Chapter 1—W. A. Jarrel)

"Every minister is equal in point of privilege with every other member of the church; but as minister in his official capacity, he is subject to, and inferior to the church. H is individual acts or decisions have no more binding force than those of any other member" (D. B. Ray—Baptist Succession, page 234).

As to the administrator of baptism, A. C. Dayton says: "We have, on our part, taken it for granted that the Church may appoint any member she pleases to administer the rite. We only contend that she shall not go outside the Church . . ." (Alien Baptism—page 166).

Speaking of baptism and the Lord’s supper, J. R. Graves comments, "They can be administered only by the organization as such, and when duly assembled, and by its own officers or those she may appoint, pro tempore" (Old Landmarkism, page 39). In the same volume, he further says, "A church is alone authorized to receive, to discipline, and to exclude her own members. This power with all her other prerogatives, is delegated to her, and it is her bounden duty to exercise it; she cannot delegate her prerogatives . . . What is delegated can not be delegated . . . A minister, therefore, has no right, because ordained, to decide who are qualified to receive baptism and to administer it . . . A distinguished scholar in the South, in order to find a ground upon which to unite the advocates of ministerial authority to baptize whom they will, and the advocates of church authority alone, proposes that the pastor be allowed the veto power—i.e., the right to reject whom he pleases. This would virtually place the keys of the church door, and all the ordinances of the church in the hands of the pastor, and put the whole church at his feet. He would be a petty pope indeed, and no pope ever had more control of the ordinances than he would have. Nor would he be long in making his power felt-his arrogance and self-sufficiency as well." (Pages 37 & 38)

Hezekiah Harvey (1821-1983), a Baptist of great repute, says: "There is no express command, nor absolutely decisive example, restricting the administration of the ordinances to the ministry" (The Church, Page 71).

It behooves Baptist churches to lay aside every weight and shackle that doth so easily beset them, and to go on with the business of making and baptizing disciples. This is the responsibility of every New Testament church. The local church is to keep the ordinances as they were delivered, and the least modification is disallowed. It is more especially the duty of every God called minister to see to it that he does not become the vitiator of the ordinances, for to pervert that which he is, above all other people called to protect, would border on treasonable conduct.