Baptism:
Preacher of Church Ordinance?
Second Treatise

Since writing the former treatise on the subject which is also the title of this Book, with the above suffix (SECOND TREATISE), there has been much published and spoken in opposition to it by a few men who are of the contrary opinion. But the poverty of their arguments may be seen from both Scripture and Baptist history. This book solicits no man’s favor who is unwilling to make the most strenuous search for truth. It is not written to draw forth or bring out contempt from the opposition. Some will say hard things about it—this is already anticipated, so it causes me no vexatious concern. The efforts of the contrary part to obviate or nullify the evidence presented in my first book against their position, was as exhibition of weakness. But there is not dogma, true or false, that does not have its friends.

The only motive I had at the first and yet have for writing on the issue before us in this work is to present what I believe to be insuperable proof against the practice of plural church authority in administering the ordinance of baptism, and the contention that the agent appointed by the church to administer the baptismal ordinance for it, MUST be formally ordained. It is not from a lack of charity for those who take variance with me in the matter, but it is from a need to pronounce at once against errors which they teach and practice concerning the glorious ordinance of baptism. Ergo, this SECOND TREATISE on the issue.

I have, since writing the first Book on the subject at hand, received a lot of correspondence, some positive and some negative. However, by far, the greater part has been positive. I appreciate both the oral and literary feedback which my first Book generated, but regret to say, those on the negative side of the response were not always kind in expressing their sentiments. But truth never needs the support of a malignant attitude, and they who manifest such an attitude do more to hinder their cause than to help it.

I do not expect my persuasive efforts to extirpate the doctrinal errors opposed by this writing from the hearts of all who hold them, for I know from what has been publicly and privately written they are deeply imbedded in the theological framework of some beloved brethren. Conversely, I also know many brethren who favor and are contending for the position on the ordinance of baptism as presented and defended in the former treatise and this sequel.

I yet hope to dissuade some who hold to either one or both of the baptismal errors mentioned in the second paragraph of this chapter. There are some who of late have become suspicious of the practice of plural or extra church baptism, and are no longer convinced that it is the orthodox position. Contemporaneously or historically, few they be among Baptists who have held/hold to the "MUST’ of formal ordination of the agent acting for the church in administering the ordinance of baptism.

It is not my expectation that every reader of these pages will pronounce the shibboleths herein, or see eye to eye with me in all that is presented, but I do ask the readers to forebear in rendering a verdict until after a diligent study of the succeeding chapters have been made. Knowing that the English language at its best has many defects, defects which a strongly biased and ingenious mind can avail itself of to distort what has been said or written, has necessitated the use of the plainest words in stating what I believe to be the truth concerning the baptismal question dealt with in this book, and in the former treatise.

I do not consider myself a polemicist, and confrontational theology not involving a cardinal doctrine does not appeal to me in a great way. But the subject matter under consideration in this writing, is I believe, of such import as to demand the strictest attention of every New Testament Baptist church and pastor. While the moral integrity of a church is to be at all times beyond reproach, the touchstone is orthodoxy of teaching. The moral standards of the Amish and Mennonites are without a doubt worthy of emulation, but their orthodoxy leaves much to be desired, and it is this deficiency in orthodoxy that has created the impassable chasm between them and New Testament Baptists. Hence, it is the responsibility of every true church to use all the strength within their prevail to keep their orthodoxy intact, "Lest at anytime we should let them slip" (Heb.2:1).

Every Baptist should with frequency ask himself, Why do I believe the doctrines that I believe? (2 Cor. 13:5). Especially is this true as applies to Baptist ministers, for they must give an account, not only of their Christian life, but as "stewards of the manifold grace of God" (Pet. 4:10). In light of this awesome truth, the logical and necessary questions which follow are: Is my belief in any sense or degree owing to the fact it affords me a wider range of fellowship and ministerial exercise? Or because it is accepted in certain circles and advocated by men in high places? Or does popularity with my peers have anything to do with what I believe? Do I believes what I believe because a contrary position would cause me to lose favor with some men of powerful influence? Or do I believe what I do because it is easy theology, inoffensive, and pleasing to the masses? I am confident as relates to Landmark Sovereign Grace Baptists, all of the above questions can be summarily and negatively dismissed. But even so, this does not alleviate the need of Baptist pastors to periodically examine themselves as to their doctrine and practice. A re-editing of our doctrine and practice cannot hurt, but may be helpful. And in the chronological reevaluation of our theology, the ordinance of baptism should be second only to the regeneration of the soul (Acts 2:41,42). In the final analysis, we should be able to say in truth: I believe what I do because it is the unequivocal teaching of the Word of GOD.

Salvation of the soul is strictly the work of the sovereign God. It is a transaction between the three persons constituting the Divine Trinity, into which NO fourth party can ever enter. Men cannot contribute to the work which must eternally bear the impress of the one almighty hand. Salvation is the peculiar and exclusive work of God, and man in his native state is so utterly depraved he cannot have the first correct or decent thought concerning redemption, much less have a desire for it. Christ appeared once "to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb. 9:26). The death of Christ fully and forever accomplished the redemptive purpose of God, and there shall never arise the need for Christ to die the second time (Rom. 6:9). But the need for the believer to remember His atoning death is constant. Hence, the glorious ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Christ needed no help giving the ordinances to the local church, and every true church being indwelt by the Sovereign Holy Spirit, needs no external help in preserving and perpetuating those two glorious pictures of His cruel, but triumphing death.

Scriptural baptism is the cross work of Christ translated by symbol. Every time a person is baptized by the authority of a New Testament church he sets forth symbolically what in reality has taken place in his soul. That is, his death in Christ is vividly and silently rehearsed. The Lord’s churches are not only commanded to "keep the ordinances," but they are commanded to ‘keep the ordinances" without deviation from the practice of the original and model church. The prototype church Jesus established in Jerusalem was for a number of years the only church in existence, and was for that time and during its entire existence fully able to administer the ordinances.

The painting is most praise-worthy which is most like the thing represented by it. Baptism being a picture or symbol of the atoning work of Christ, should in all detail be kept by New Testament churches as it was originally given them. There was not anything external to God which contributed to the redemption of His people, for the good works(?) of man neither helps to obtain nor retain salvation. The baptismal picture of the glorious and exclusive work of redemption was inviolably committed to each and every New Testament church, and synchronous with this commitment came the responsibility and ability to keep the picture in its original state.

In light of the fact that a symbol must resemble, sprinkling or pouring for baptism is an inexplicable aberration. With this all Baptists agree. In light of the fact "Christ appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself," ana-baptism comes under the heading of misnomers. With this all Baptist agree. In light of the fact Christ by His vicarious suffering became the unassisted Savior of His people, and gave the picture of His passion with no details omitted to everyone of His churches to keep point by point. And whereas, Christ needed no help in procuring the baptismal picture, and seeing He gave it to His churches with guaranteed ability to keep unto the end of the age. Therefore, for any of His churches to seek help beyond their own entity in administering the ordinances would be to question the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, or at least it would be a substantial departure from the normal and right way. With this I hope all Baptists agree.

When the Lord gave the baptismal commission to the first Baptist church of Jerusalem, He potentially and equally gave it to all of His churches, and they as distinct and independent bodies were vested with power to administer the ordinances unaided from without. Governmentally there is perfect equality between all of the Lord’s churches. There may be and often are inequities in other areas of church life, but the divine blessing of autonomy guarantees parity of government in all of His churches at all times. Thus it is, not only is every New Testament church with constancy able to baptize its own candidates, but is also able to safeguard the ordinances from trespass and profanation.

Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptists do err, but for the most part they are sufficiently judicious to distinguish between truth and error. Their divinely anointed discretion has for two thousand years protected them from demeaning the ordinances of the church, and this same discretion shall continue to enable them to keep the ordinances pure, even as they were delivered by their Head and Groom, Jesus Christ.

I disagree with much of what some of my Baptist brethren hold to be correct doctrine, but it cannot be found in any of my writings where I maliciously or even by innuendo vilified the character of any of them. Believing my convictions of what Scripture teaches is the result of Holy Spirit tutelage, I am firm in the same, and will with every spiritual atom of my strength defend them. But I do not hold contempt for every brother who differs with me as to Scripture interpretation, nor will I be driven to such a soul dwarfing state.

It is my prayer as I further pursue this work that I may not be presumptuous and haughty, but perceptive and humble. That I may be bold, but not belligerent. That I may not lean to my own understanding, but wholly trust in the Spirit of truth. That I may be at all times acutely aware that I must give an account of every word contained herein unto Him Who loved the church and gave Himself for it. In a word, that I may not pretend to comprehend all there is to know about the blessed ordinance of baptism.

While there is perfect accord with Baptists as to baptism being utterly void of saving efficacy, some, I fear have let the God honoring ordinance suffer diminution of importance by not putting enough stress upon the proper observance of it. Thus it is, I send forth this feeble effort with the hope God may use it, at least in measure, where the ordinance is esteemed lightly, to restore it to its rightful excellence. This book holds the position that the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are strictly local church ordinances.

The lines are clearly drawn. They are deep, broad and distinct. It would probably be naive on my part to think that the lines would be obliterated any time soon, but I take hope in knowing they are not irremovable. I only ask that what I submit herein be subjected to the most vigorous test by an honest heart. If after so-doing, you conclude what I have presented is sufficiently correct as to out weigh the tenets which are contrary to it, then you can join me in prayer for those dear brethren who hold the errors opposed by this volume. If you deem they are right and I am in error, then I beseech you, pray for me. Either way, I am confident some good will be accomplished by my expressed objection to the sentiments of those who hold the position that plural or ultra church authority may be merged or exercised in baptism. Or that baptism is invalid unless administered by a formally ordained Baptist preacher.

"Fear not, little flock . . ." Fear not ostracism, intimidation, nor intolerance, for the truth knoweth no shame. "And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not" (Gal. 6:9). Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the official pictures of the Gospel of Christ, shall be preserved and perpetuated unto the end of the age; and that by the Lord’s churches and their unadulterated independence.