Baptism:
Preacher of Church Ordinance?
Second Treatise

"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 cannot be, in the proper use of the term, delegates... The church at Corinth could not transfer her power to the church at Philippi. nor could the church at Antioch convey her authority to the church of Ephesus. Neither could all the apostolic churches combined delegate their power to an association or synod or convention. That church power is inalienable results from the foundation-principle of Independency—namely, that this power is in the hands of the people, the membership. If the power of a church cannot be transferred, church action is final. That there is no tribunal higher than a church is evident from Matt. 18:15-17" (J.M. Pendleton, CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, 338 & 340).

Churches in their aggregate, or plural part of the whole number were never given authority to baptize by the Lord. The church in the institutional sense is not the custodian of the ordinances, nor is there Scriptural precept or example which gives the least currency to the idea. The commission to baptize was not given abstractly, that is, it was not given to the church of God as an institution, but to His churches in their particular capacity and location. To guarantee the success of the baptismal commission the Lord promised His age long and sovereign presence to each and everyone of His churches (Matthew 28:18-20). As to authority every New Testament church is complete in Christ (Col. 2:10), they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Cor. 3:16; John 14:17), and thereby have the fullness of Christ dwelling in them (Eph. 1:23, 3:19; Col. 1:19). In view of this great truth, I ask how could it ever become necessary for a church so blessed with the presence of Christ to borrow any kind of authority from anything outside of itself? The Lord Himself is THE HIGHEST authority, and all ecclesiastical authority is derived from God and is in the strict sense Fully and indisputably His. To contend circumstances may develop which would necessitate the borrowing or use by one New Testament church the authority of mother New Testament church, is equal to saying, the time may come when God will need to borrow authority from Himself, False premises beget absurdities.

When dual or plural church authority is used in administering the ordinance of baptism, what oral formula is pronounced by the agent of such authority? If the contention is, although two or more churches are involved, it is yet done by singular authority. I yet ask, what baptismal formula is pronounced by the administrator? If it s done by singular authority, it is done independently of all churches involved except one. This smacks of freelanceism, and the administrator could use as his baptismal formula, "By the authority invested in me I baptize you.

Some of the pluralists contend that an ordained Baptist minister can officiate and administer the Lord’s supper in a New Testament church of which he is not a member, as long as he does not eat the bread or drink the wine. I am sure the same pluralists would loudly raise an objection to a suggestion that a hydraulic lift be installed in their baptistery whereby the candidate could be immersed and immersed without the assistance of a personal administrator. I join my objection to theirs, and say with them—There must be a personal administrator in order to meet New Testament requirements for baptism. Thus it is, we both agree that the administrator acts as the officiant of the church in administering the ordinance, and thereby takes a vital part in the ordinance. Likewise, when h Baptist preacher, ordained or not, acts as the officiant in administering the Lord’s supper in a church of which he is not a member, he takes a part in the ordinance whether or not he ingests the elements. Such an effort to observe the Lord’s supper does away with close communion, and cannot by the most liberal view be classified as a closed communion. The ordinances are local church ordinances, and not denominational ordinances or associational ordinances, even though they be only two churches in the association. If a church can vote, and thereby grant authority to baptize its converts by a person who is not a member of the voting church, it can by the same vote grant authority allowing non-members to partake of the Lord’s supper in their church. Such a thought arises only out of the blinding dust of associationalism or ..

The Lord in giving the procreant commission to Adam and Eve, gave it potentially to each respective family, for every human family of the future resided in that first family at the time the commission was given. The Lord gave the baptismal commission to the first Baptist church of Jerusalem, and in so doing He gave the commission to every one of His churches in their particular and exclusive nature. Not withstanding, they all had their residence in the first Baptist church at the time the commission was given. Holy Spirit regeneration makes the subject a member of the family of God, but it takes Scriptural baptism to add the regenerate person to a local church family. It was understood at the outset of the pro-creative commission, that each family was to add to their own membership independently of the family next door. I believe in familyism and in the good neighbor policy, but they MUST have their limits. And so it is with church families, each one is to add members to its own church family, independent of all other churches.

When the Holy Spirit regenerates one of God’s elect He brings to pass in that one what is determined for all the elect, namely, regeneration. When Christ established the first church in Jerusalem, He brought to pass in that first church what was determined for all of His churches, namely, a visible autonomous entity. The first Baptist church wash complete church within itself, and so are all churches which have emanated from that first church. The first Baptist church of Jerusalem gave birth to the first Baptist church of Antioch, and when the Antioch church came into being it was a complete church in and of itself. Paul referred to this newly originated church as, "The church of God that was at Antioch" (Acts 13:1). It is highly probable that the Antioch church along with the Jerusalem church was referred to when Paul abstractly said, "I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it" (Gal. 1:13).

In Matthew 16:18 the Lord used the word "ecclesia" in the abstract or generic sense, but not to the exclusion of the concrete or specific use of the term. The abstract and concrete use of the term "ecclesia" in the New Testament are not antagonistic, but complimentary. The utility of the term is not adversely affected by New Testament usage, for in everyplace where it is used the sense or construction placed on the term is made plain. We often speak of the "elect of God" in the abstract or generic sense, but we do not mean all the "elect of God" are one body or organism. The concrete sense of the term is preserved, for there is no way that any two of God’s elect can become one organic whole. Siamese twins is a genetic abnormality, but not any more so than two churches officially united are an ecclesiastical abnormality.

Every church having Jesus as its Head, is an autonomous entity, authoritative deficiency is alien to its nature, and there can never in the existence of such a church arise the need of borrowing authority from anything outside of itself. This truth is attested to by the fact there is nothing in the ecclesiastical sense bigger than a New Testament Baptist church. There is no need to borrow among equals, arid when such is effected, the loaning church claims a superiority which does not exist, and the borrowing church assumes an inferiority for itself which does not exist. The practice of borrowing authority calls for a compromise of all churches involved, a compromise which is an affront to the Headship of Jesus Christ. This is why two Baptist churches cannot join in official or organizational union. The need does not, nor has ever existed, for the obvious reason a Baptist church has the ultimate ecclesiastical structure in its immediate being, and this structure remains intact as long as Jesus is the Head of the church. For a church to go outside of itself for baptismal authority is an attempt to improve upon the self propagation ability which Christ gave to His churches. God forbid!

Baptist churches can, and they should cooperate in achieving common goals, but they cannot be coerced to do so by legislation or intimidation. Baptist churches for the sake of their individual independency must reject every overture made toward them which would in any way whatsoever violate or restrict their autonomy. Baptists believe in the independence of the local church, and this independence necessitates self government and self propagation. These are the vitals of every New Testament church. All any person need do is to give a brief and unbiased study of Baptist history to see that Baptists have been competent in both of these church sustaining areas. Wherever then there is a New Testament church there is union with God, and whenever a church is in union with God there is nothing in its divinely given commission that it is not at all times authorized to do.

May a church who authorizes a non-member to baptize for it, also authorize a non-member to vote in their church business meetings? If a church can use a man who is not a member to baptize for it, and thereby give voting status to the subject of the non-member’s baptism, it would not seem inconsistent for the church to allow their borrowed administrator a vote in granting the candidate admission to its membership. Just how far does the authority of a church extend in allowing non-members to act officially in church affairs? All legislation of the New Testament is committed to the local church, and each church is empowered or given executive ability by the Holy Spirit to carry out every precept of that legislation. Every New Testament church is an executive an efficient administrator of God’s spiritual government on earth, and this executive status and efficiency enables every church to conduct all of its affairs by or from within its own membership. For a church to go beyond its immediate membership for official help, is to go beyond the Scriptures.

There is a wide and ever present need for cooperation of churches. The need for church cooperation is more pressing in mission work than in any other area. But there are other areas where churches may, and should if able, cooperate one with another. Areas such as publication work, radio ministry, Bible conferences, revivals, etc. Yet, while cooperation in various endeavors by churches is Scriptural and a tremendous blessing, it is to be clearly understood that all cooperative work is under the exclusive authority of one church. Cooperation of churches, yes. Plural authority, NO!

When a church has an ordained minister of another church baptize for it, does the church for whom the minister baptizes have any ecclesiastical or disciplinary authority over the minister? If not, then the church has a man officially acting for it over whom it has no authority whatsoever. On the other hand, if the church for whom the borrowed minister baptizes claims to have authority over him, then the borrowing church claims to have authority over a person who is not a member of their church, but who is in fact a member of another church. This is a dilemma I would rather not be confronted with. It is an imposture that can be straightened only by practicing restricted baptism. That is, by keeping baptismal authority where God put it, that is within the boundaries or governmental limits of the local church.

Beloved brethren, would it not be folly on our part to demand for the local church disciplinary authority over every person who sits at its table in observance of the Lord’s supper, and then use means over which the church has no authority to get supper participants? Namely, extra church baptism. While the church as an institution is to evangelize the whole world (Matthew 28:18-20), official interdependence of churches is not necessary to this end, nor is it warranted in the commission.

There is merit in official synergism as relates to secularism, but to apply this same principle to the mission work of the Lord’s churches is to set the wisdom of man above that of God (Isa. 55:8,9; 1 Cor. 1:21; 3:19). Mission work, including baptism, which is done under the official direction of plural churches is unscriptural, be they two or two hundred churches. Officiality for ecclesiastical mission work is restricted to the local independent church, and no part of it can with Scriptural approval be farmed out to any cooperative, no matter how reasonable it may seem.

The Scriptures will not lend themselves to the service of carnal reason. Men may endeavor to bend, warp, distort, and use every conceivable guise to elicit from the Scripture support for their false theories, but Scripture cannot be made to ally itself with error. On the contrary, Scripture is the indefeasible and untiring enemy of all religious error. The Scripture never takes a benign view of error, even though the error be judged nominal by men.

Cooperation between churches is to be sought, but not at the expense of ecclesiastical usurpation. The surrender of any measure of church independence is by far too great of a price to pay for cooperation which from the outset runs counter to Scripture, and is under the frown of God. Cooperation bought at such high expense is to invite the sowing of thorns in the participating churches, which will in due season choke out other truth, and demand further surrender of church independence. There is plenty of room for churches to practice unofficial bi-formity, but it is absolute nonsense to speak of bi-autonomy.

There is plenty of ground upon which New Testament churches can fellowship, and this fellowship should be sought and cultivated. But when fellowship between churches takes on an official nature, it at that point falls below Scripturally authorized fellowship, and is not only worse than no fellowship, but is a fellowship which cannot but promote preciousness. Any fellowship that takes baptism, the Lord’s supper, or any part of mission work out of the hands of the local church, or makes the F local church dependent on anything outside of itself for the administration of the ordinances or circumscribes its missionary authority is a fellowship that is fallacious and devoid of Scriptural endorse merit.

Baptism is a definite ordinance which is by the Head of the church, clearly and unmistakably restricted to the precincts of the local church. For a church to ask a sister church for help in performing the ordinance is to give baptism an abstract nature, a nature which is utterly incongruous to it, and detracts from it. Such inadmissible handling of the ordinance will weaken rather than strengthen the churches.

The United States sends Ambassadors and diplomatic agents to other countries and other countries reciprocate by sending like officers to the United States. The diplomats can take no official part in the government of the countries which they visit, nor can they help in executing the laws or ordinances of the country they visit. Neither are they subject to the laws of the country they visit, but enjoy diplomatic immunity from the laws of all nations, except their own. Some nations with the same political philosophies or ideology exchange teachers, and as with the diplomats the teachers have no authority which they can exercise in the country they visit. Nations. especially those allied in a common cause may recognize the judicial acts of those nations as long as they do not contravene the laws of its own government or infringe on its national independence. Example, if the British government charged and convicted one of its citizens of a capital crime, mutuality of immigration laws prohibit any sister nation from granting the convicted person citizenship as long as the penalty goes wanting in any part.

A Baptist church is the purest democracy on earth, and Baptist churches are the only heavenly mandated authority on earth sending forth ecclesiastical ambassadors. But it is to be clearly understood that in contemplating authority, none can be correctly given to the ambassadors which extends beyond their immediate church. They may preach, teach, or act as an advisor to and for a sister church, but he has no de facto power beyond the church body of which he is a part. The rule of respect and love for sister churches should ever be so strong as to honor their discipline of and over their own members. Otherwise every member will be a law unto himself.

Baptism administered by a local New Testament Baptist church is Scriptural, whether or not the agent acting for the church is formally ordained. Therefore, NO NEED can ever exist which makes borrowing of authority expedient, much less compulsory. Borrowed authority is a spurious substitute, a mean imitation at best, for which there is no Biblical warrant or sound reason to use.

When we leave the governmental confines of a local New Testament church, or try to amalgamate church authority, we have left off proper church authority, and have taken the license of unlimited sanction and may use it in doing whatever suits our fancy. All that is needed for every official church action is, authority that is primary and ordinary, and not authority that is secondary and extraordinary.

"To each local church is committed the SOLE administration and guardianship of the ordinances" (J.R. Graves - The Lord’s Supper, Pg. 11 - ‘SOLE’ — Caps mine).

"The church of God in a city, means the whole church of God is there, and if the whole church of God is there, then none of it is anywhere else . . . THOSE DESPISE THE CHURCH OF GOD WHO APPEAL FROM HER AUTHORITY. There is no higher court. Every appellant says by his actions, which speak louder than words, there is a higher court of Authority than the church of God. Christ says in Matthew 18:17: "Tell it to the church, and if he neglects to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and publican." That settles the case. There is no higher tribunal and no other tribunal. The church of God is the Supreme Court of heaven on earth . . . THOSE DESPISE THE CHURCH OF GOD WHO USURP HER FUNCTIONS. The church is the steward — the custodian of the faith. The doctrines and ordinances were committed to her. All authority was left with her. (J.B. Moody - MY CHURCH, chapter on "Church Loyalty").

Baptism is the door by which a saved person enters the church, and the autonomous church does not need help apart from its own entity to open its baptismal door. If one prop is needed from without the immediate church, who is to say how many props may be needed? Administering of the ordinances has been specifically assigned to each and every New Testament church by their omniscient Head, and any delegating of this assignment or the adding of any supplement thereto is to misread the Scriptures and mismanage the ordinances. The particular church is a body of Christ, in which dwells "the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 3:16; 12:27), and it was to the particular church at Corinth, Paul said: "Keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2). The Corinthian church was doctrinally weak, and it is not certain they had a pastor at the time of the Pauline admonition, but it is sure the Sovereign Holy Spirit was with the Corinthian church, and His presence makes every church functionally complete.

Concerning baptismal theory opposed in this volume, some may ask, What does it matter if we believe it? It matters much. What caused the universal visible concept of the church, with its hierarchical and tyrannical church government? The universal invisible concept of the church is an off-spring of Rome’s universalism. Rome’s ecclesiasticism is owing to exaltation of its priests, whereby preacher and people are separated by an unalterable gulf. Protestantism, with its bogus baptismal practice, and heretical forms of church government is lame in both feet. It has set down in Rome’s ecumenical wheel-chair, and is being gently wheeled back to its harlot mother. The point is, both Romanism and Protestantism deny the entity autonomy, and independence of the local church, this cannot be done with any degree of success apart from undue preacher exaltation, and prostitution of the baptismal ordinance.

There is an old proverb which says, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." The implication in this saying is to plain to be missed. One Scripture revelation in the heart is worth more than a thousand theological hypothesises in a book. One baptism performed by the exclusive authority of one New Testament church is not merely better than all baptisms administered by plural church authority, but is the "one baptism," alluded to by Paul in Ephesians 4:5.

While in this chapter 1 have written at great length, I could yet append it with a favorable anthology from Baptists and other historians which would in volume surpass this chapter. But instead, I have elected to conclude it with a quote from a contemporary and scholarly brother, who has made a serious and in-depth study on the subject of authority to baptize. The author of the quote is Elder Doyal Thomas—of Wayne, West Virginia; and it is used by his permission.

"Now when Christ established His church, He placed each and every member in that one body, (not one universal body, but one body AT JERUSALEM) and then commissioned that one body to do all those things that He would ever be pleased to assign His churches the duty and privilege to perform. I’m saying that that church at Jerusalem was equipped and enabled to do everything that any church would ever be equipped and enabled or AUTHORIZED TO DO! Just as His church did not "evolve" from an embryo into a living, vibrant, active body, neither did it need to "develop" the order of its acting. It did not need to, nor did it, learn how to do the things that God ordered by learning process. He gave His church explicit instructions as to functionary procedures. Nor did it draw upon outside resources! What resources were available for this church to draw upon, seeing there was no other church in existence! It was an autonomous body. It did the Lord’s work!

I’m saying that every true church today can do all those things that our Lord has commanded, that every one of those churches MUST do those things, or else be out of the order that He established. What needs to be done that His church cannot do? Why must "expediency" be put ahead of authority? If His church cannot do what He established that church to do, then is there not a deficiency present? What a shame and travesty to even suggest such a thing.

In short, the authority to baptize, and to administer the Lord’s Supper is not, nor has it ever been in the hands of a preacher. The authority has been duly assigned by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and what He has assigned cannot be, in any way, further delegated. One church cannot authorize another to function in the matter without going outside the authority that Christ gave her. To do so is to be insubordinate to the Lord and Master. That’s plain, but I believe it is true!

It is recognized, and I believe all will agree, that when a church has one to be baptized, or when the Lord’s Supper is to be administered, that the pastor, would properly be the human agent to perform for the CHURCH this duty—this privilege. But, if there be no pastor, then a male member of the church can, and must be authorized to administer the ordinance . . . A true church is not left at the mercy of those outside the body to function! If so, then the church is not an autonomous body, but is a "dependent" body." (End quote). Brethren, let us express our sentiments rather than suppress them. Timidity, as a rule is a virtue, and silence at times is golden, but they are something else when used in curtailing truth.