Baptism:
Preacher of Church Ordinance?
Second Treatise

"In the apostolic age baptism was administered doubtless not only by Apostles and other leaders, but widely by those charismatically eminent in the church . . . In Tertullian’s time, of giving it . . . the bishop has the right; in the next place the presbyters and deacons . . . besides these even layman have the right" (A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH — By Williston Walker - 1918, Pg. 88).

"And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel’ (1 Cor. 1:16, 17). Here it is evident that, although the pastor administers the ordinances, this is not his main work, nor is the church absolutely dependent upon him in the matter. He is not set, like an OT. priest, to minister at the altar, but to preach the gospel. In an emergency any other member appointed by the church may administer them with equal propriety, the church always determining who are fit subjects of the ordinances, constituting him their organ in administering them. Any other view is based on sacramental notions, and on ideas of apostolic succession" (SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY—By: Augustus H. Strong, Pg. 917).

In the above quote by Strong the historic faith of Baptists is well stated concerning authority to baptize, but I fear Presbyterianism with its’ preacher type of church government has made some inroads on Baptist territory, and has succeeded in diluting the faith of some Baptists by causing them to adopt the "MUST" of formal ordination as a prerequisite for valid baptism. One Presbyterian highly respected and widely read by Baptists has this to say on the subject: "Our confession also holds that no one has a right to administer the sacraments (ordinances) save a lawfully-ordained minister... The church is an organized society under laws executed by regularly-appointed officers, it is evident that ordinances can properly be administered only by the highest legal officers of the church" (COMMENTARY ON THE CONFESSION OF FAITH —Pg. 455-456, By: A.A. Hodge).

But Mr. Hodge cannot be profitably accepted as an authority on the ordinance of baptism, for he advocated the sprinkling of infants, which is to deny believer’s baptism and which is to make a mockery of the Scriptural mode of baptism.

J.W. Porter, an illustrious Baptist, makes the following comment on the subject of baptismal authority: "The speaker believes, and the more he has studied the question, the more strongly he believes that the commission to baptize was delivered to the church, and should therefore be restricted to the church... If the authority to baptize does not rest with churches, with whom does it rest? If the authority to baptize has been committed to the preachers, then they alone should authorize and administer it, and in turn the churches should cease to usurp the preachers authority" (THE BAPTIST EXAMINER —July 15, 1978).

Baptists believe that a New Testament church is a body of baptized believers, administering its own affairs under the Headship of Jesus Christ (Acts 5:14; Eph. 1:22). Under the Headship of Christ the pastor has been given a particular authority, and the church that usurps that authority rejects the wisdom of God, and flirts with spiritual disaster. On the other hand, the pastor who unduly magnifies his office, and assumes exclusive authority for himself in administering the ordinance of baptism, infringes on the independence of his church and bedims the glory which belongs to Christ in the church (Eph. 3:2 1). Such pastoral presumption is under the disfavor of God.

In the second paragraph of this chapter the following line is quoted from Augustus Strong—"In an emergency any other member may administer them (the ordinances) with equal priority." To declare or even infer that in this quote, Strong is teaching that women and children may be appointed by the church to administer baptism is to give it a generality not accorded in the context from which the quote is taken. We welcome fair and impartial criticism, but when criticism is wrought with an ill motive, then it is an offence to propriety and serves as an impediment to honest discussion.

I wrote in my first treatise on this subject—"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 a 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" (Pg. 9 & 10).

I do not know how the language of the above quote could be more explicit. Note, I said in the quote the person acting for the church in baptizing its candidates should first be the pastor, but when his service is not available; then the church may "select a godly male member to immerse its baptismal candidates." (Emphasis mine). How anyone can misconstrue these words, and contend they say something which they in no way identify with or infinitesimally relate, is to trifle with what the words actually convey. To insist the quote makes allowance for the church to appoint women and children to act for the church in administering the ordinance of baptism calls for the indulgence of the plainest nonsense. To claim that the words de-emphasize the importance of preacher ordination is "dare pondus fumo," or giving weight to smoke. Yet, this is what the Editor of the Berea Baptist Banner has in vain tried to do. (See: B.B.B. Pg. 11, Oct. 15,1984). The dear Editor knows we do not allow women or children to baptize, and the words rather than demeaning the practice of preacher ordination, reinforces it. Thus it is, I know of no reason for the Editor to make such implications, except to try and discredit all who disagree with him in the matter in the eyes of his unsuspecting readers or hearers.

The supposed reply of the BBB Editor to my first book dealing with baptismal authority was a caricature. Our opposing Brother, says: "Now the idea is that a church cannot baptize as I believe unless the ordained minister is willing" (BBB, Pg. 11). This is an evasion of the issue. The issue is not the willingness or unwillingness of the pastor to administer the ordinance, but the contention of the Editor that formal ordination of the administrator is absolutely essential to the validity of the ordinance. It is this doctrine I oppose. I certainly agree with the BBB Editor when he says the pastor should be willing to baptize for his church. To say otherwise would be to border on the ridiculous. But there is a difference, the position of the BBB Editor shuts the church up to one will, that is, the will of the pastor. The difference is. the church has a second and superior will to that of its ordained ministry, which will is the final authority. Where the NEED is such, the church may exercise its will, and choose a faithful brother to administer the ordinance for it. This liberty has been given the local church by its Head, Jesus Christ. But our opposing brother’s position would negate that God honoring and church edifying liberty.

The BBB Editor says "I hasten to point out that a church cannot baptize a candidate unless he agrees to be baptized . . . Does this make baptism a candidate ordinance? . . . Does it take baptism ‘out of the hands of the church’? I would be pleased to hear my brethren explain this problem to my satisfaction." First, let me state, the "candidate" question poses no "problem" for us. The "problem" referred to in the quote must apply to the advocates of the absolute "must" of formal ordination in administering the ordinance, for the contention is the father of a multitude of problems. The willingness of a person to be baptized is not unalterably binding on a NT. church. Baptism is as we have contended all along a church ordinance, not a preacher or candidate ordinance. It is the church in its collective and official capacity that determines the fitness or unfitness of the applicant, and this is done by a vote of the church. A church does not HAVE TO administer baptism to a person simply because the person is willing to be baptized. If that were the case, then baptism would be a candidate ordinance, and not a church ordinance. No person within the church is allowed to dictate policy to the church, much less a person without the benefit of church membership. John the Baptist refused to baptize the willing Pharisees and Saducees (Mt. 3:7,8), and N.T. churches of today would with the same deliberateness as that of John, refuse to baptize a person be he ever so willing to be baptized, if they had the least suspicion the person was yet unregenerate or practicing sin, which he refused to denounce. Let us ever be aware that the government of the church is democratic, rather than autocratic.

If formal ordination is absolutely essential to the validity of baptism, it indisputably follows, if the administrator is later discovered to have a fault which existed previous to his ordination which would invalidate his ordination; such as divorce and remarriage, which the BBB Editor contends prohibits proper ordination (BBB, Editorial Comment - 9/15/84, DIVORCE - Pg. 15). Or if the ordained administrator was unregenerate at the time of his ordination, etc. Then all of the faulted administrator’s baptisms would be invalid, for the simple reason his ordination was invalid. This is a dilemma confronting the advocates of the "MUST" of ordination for baptismal validity. But knowing the Scriptures teach that baptism is strictly a local church ordinance, rather than a preacher ordinance we have no problem recognizing as valid the baptism of those persons baptized by a man unqualifiedly ordained.

J.M. Pendleton says in his church manual, and in his book entitled: CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, A Compendium Of Theology, in reference to the administrator of the baptismal ordinance—"As to a proper administrator there may be some difference of opinion. By a proper administrator, in the foregoing definition, is meant a person who has received church authority to baptize" (Manual, Pg. 65; Christian Doctrines - Pg. 342). the generic term "person" as used by Pendleton in the above quote extends beyond ordained persons, and leaves the administration of the ordinance in the power of the whole church, where it has always been.

"For some years John Spilsbury, a well educated minister, had been pastor of one of the Calvinistic Anti-pedobaptist congregations. He repudiated with great earnestness the theory that baptizedness is essential to the administrator of baptism, maintaining that it was popish in its tendency" (A MANUAL OF CHURCH HISTORY, Vol. 2 - Pg. 289 - Judson Press, A.H. Newman). To further highlight Newman’s statement concerning Spilsbury’s church (1633 - London), and views of his church on baptismal authority; I submit the following from W.A. Jarrel’s —BAPTIST CHURCH PERPITUITY: "As now, owing to sickness or other causes, pastors have others baptize for them, so Blalock may have baptized for Spilsbury" (pg. 356).

When Paul said to the church at Corinth, "I thank God that I baptized none of you save Crispus and Gaius" (1 Cor. 1:14). He did not mean to minimize the importance of baptism or devalue the ordinance. Nor was it his intention to lower the honor of the apostolic or pastoral office, but his motive in making the statement was to teach the Corinthians not to place excessive power or virtue in the person administering the ordinance. Paul clearly states his reason for saying what he did in verse 14, the next verse—"Lest any should say that I baptized in my own name" (v. 15). Let us give honor where honor is due. The authority to baptize is sovereignly rooted in the Headship of Him Who said, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." And Christ in the exercise of His Headship (Eph. 1:22), has delegated the responsibility of baptism to His church (Mt. 28:18-20). So, let us extol, praise highly, and glorify our Head, Jesus Christ; for it is He Who has given the baptismal ordinance to the church and He gave it to glorify Himself in the church and to edify the church. This is the truth Paul builds a bulwark around in 1 Corinthians 1:13-17.

Surely, the baptized person is to be thankful to the church, and toward the administrator for being faithful in carrying out the baptismal part of the church commission, but his glorying must be limited in its entirety to Christ. Paul said: "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel . . ." (1 Cor. 1:17). In this statement Paul does not mean the baptismal part of the commission did not apply to him, but that the ordinance did not belong to the Apostleship, and that it was not his primary or special work. He knew the ordinance belonged to the church, and he would not take it from the hand of the church, and put it in his own hand. Paul, under the authority of the Antioch church (Acts 13:1-2) baptized a few into his home church, but as soon as a church was organized, be it blessed with a pastor or pastor-less at the time, Paul refused to do any of her baptizing, as is seen from Acts 18:8. The text reads — "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." To read into the account which Paul and Luke gives of the origin or beginning of the Corinthian church an ordained administrator who baptized the "many Corinthians" who believed, would be to render a judgement wholly in consistent with the text. It is certain Paul did not baptize them.

"A matter that produced considerable confusion in some parts of the Association was now considered, viz., whether baptism was valid when administered by an unordained person. To which the Association replied: ‘that in cases where the ordinance had been administered in a solemn and religious manner, that it might be considered as valid, and that persons so baptized might be admitted as members of the church" (Dover Association—Hanover County Virginia. HISTORY OF VIRGINIA BAPTISTS - Pages 122, 123. By: Robert Baylor Semple).

It is the overwhelming consensus of Landmark Baptists that the baptismal commission was given to the local church(es), and that the perpetuation of the ordinance was not conditioned upon the church having an ordained pastor. This being most certainly the case, the ordinance entrusted to the local church by none other than Christ, I ask; is there ever a time in the history of a true church when its responsibility to baptize is null? What circumstances can there be which can abrogate or even abridge that which God has decreed? There are no circumstances, be they ever so adverse, which can for a moment make void the authority and responsibility of a New Testament church to baptize.

It logically follows (not theologically), if a church cannot baptize without an ordained minister, and the pastor of a church resigns his office for the pastorate of another church, leaving his former church without an ordained minister, that he takes the authority to baptize from the church he resigned to the new church of his-pastoral labors. Perish the thought, for such is a flagrant abuse of church authority. As long as a church has a New Testament status, (and many they be who for extended periods of time suffer the vacancy of their pastoral office) yet, they are at all times "the pillar and ground of the truth," and baptism is an indispensable doctrinal rock in the foundation of every New Testament church, One of the vitals of every New Testament church is its ability to baptize.

Under the heading of BAPTISM, Hastings Dictionary Of The Bible makes the following comments on the subject. "The commission to baptize was given in the first instance to the eleven (Mt. 28:16-20), but we are not sure no others were present. Moreover, it is in virtue of Christ’s presence (‘Lo I am with you always’) that they have the right to baptize; and this presence cannot be confined to the apostles. We are not told who baptized the three thousand at Pentecost; and the apostles, if they baptized any, can hardly have baptized them all. Apparently. Ananias baptized Paul, but this is not clear (Acts 22:16). He was ‘a certain disciple’ (Acts 9:10), and presumably a layman. Peter commanded Cornelius and his company to be baptized (Acts 10:48); and we assume that it was done by the brethren from Joppa, who are not said to be presbyters or deacons. From the silence of Scripture respecting the minister on these and other occasions, we may infer that an ordained minister is not essential" (Pages 242-243).

I call your attention to these words in the quote from Hastings "Moreover, it is in virtue of Christ’s presence (‘Lo I am with you always’) that they have the right to baptize." Who would be so crass as to deny the veracity of these words? I sincerely doubt that one Baptist could be found who would not gladly affirm the statement. The inescapable conclusion drawn from this fact is, it is the presence of Christ that enables a church to baptize, and not necessarily that of an ordained minister. We are determined to give due honor to the ordained ministry of the church, and to own its heavenly bestowed authority, but never can we equate ministerial authority in the church with that of Him Who purchased the church with His own blood.

We will have more to say on the theory which contends that the validity of baptism depends on the administrator being formally ordained, in the fifth chapter, under the heading: MORE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.