Baptism:
Preacher of Church Ordinance?
Second Treatise

At the outset of this chapter I want to set the record straight concerning some matters and men. It is NOT my purpose in the least to destroy or diminish the ministry of any of the Lord’s churches or God called preachers and pastors. On the contrary, I believe the contention that baptismal validity goes wanting unless the ordinance is performed by a formally ordained minister is hurting the Lord’s churches and pastors. By challenging this contention I hope to help their churches rather than hinder them. Many pastors who know me personally will attest to the fact that I have oft times without official status tried to settle disputes between churches and pastors, and especially is this knowledge familiar to the principals involved in this controversy.

Likewise, I am convinced that the plural church authority practice is detrimental to the health of the Lord’s churches. And because the practice is not susceptible to Scriptural proof I oppose it in this rejoinder, along with the claim that an official council of elders is essential to the proper ordination of ministerial candidates.

Contrary to what the Editor of the B.B.B. has said, I oppose the three above mentioned postulates without respect of persons. All one need do is to read my former treatise on this issue to see that over half of the book was spent in refuting the argument in favor of plural church authority. At the time I sent the copy of my first book on the baptismal question to Brother Cockrell, I also sent copies to Elders Joseph M. Wilson, James Hobbs, and Fred Halliman. Whether or not Brother Halliman received the copy I mailed him, I cannot say, but I do know Elders Wilson and Hobbs received their copies; for they in quick succession wrote me stating their objection to my objection of plural church authority. Nevertheless, as for as I know, neither Brother Wilson nor Brother Hobbs has ever published any writing in defense of the plural church authority position. Nor has either brother written anything favoring the contention that formal ordination of the administrator of baptism is necessary to the validity of the ordinance, and that for the simple reason, they disagree with the contention.

Conversely, Brother Cockrell has on numerous occasions set forth in public print statements and articles propagating and attempting to defend both plural church authority in baptism, and the unbaptistic idea that baptism is invalid unless administered by a formally ordained Baptist preacher. Some samplings of his statements are now submitted for consideration by the reader. In a pamphlet which he gave the title, A MESSAGE FROM THE PASTOR, Brother Cockrell says: "Scriptural baptism is the immersion of a saved person in water by an ordained Baptist minister as an act of obedience upon the authority of Christ transmitted through a true New Testament church." We agree with this definition per se, but the term in the quote which states "by an ordained Baptist minister," is seen to mean from an overall study of what the Brother has written on the subject, that a person who meets all the requirements except that of being immersed by an ordained Baptist preacher is yet unbaptized.

In support of my interpretation of the above quote I offer as a witness another statement by our dear brother, i.e., "Our people contend that there are five things essential to Bible baptism. First, there must be Divine authority as given to Baptist churches (Matthew 28:1 9-20). Second, THERE MUST BE a Scriptural administrator—AN ORDAINED BAPTIST MINISTER (Acts 13:1-3; 1 Cor. 1:16). Third. there must be a Scriptural actor—a born again believer in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31-33). Fourth, there must be a Scriptural action—a complete immersion in water (Rom. 6:4). Fifth. there must be a Scriptural aim—not in order to be saved, but because you seek to declare salvation already obtained by faith in Christ (Gal. 3:26-27)." This quote taken from a pamphlet with the title WHO ARE WE? Page 7 (Caps mine). In telling us what he thinks constitutes Scriptural baptism, Brother Cockrell uses the word "must" five times, and to him what the word demands in one instance is just as essential in every other instance. The unavoidable conclusion being, an ordained Baptist minister is as necessary to baptism as the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. One thing for sure, he leaves no room to misunderstand what he says, and that is according to him, unless a person is baptized by an ordained Baptist preacher all the person gets out of the immersion is wet.

Speaking of those who were baptized by New Testament Baptist church authority without an ordained administrator, Brother Cockrell says: "I personally do not want a person in my church who was baptized by a male member, or a female member, any more than I would want my church to use grape juice in the observance of the Lord’s Supper" (BBB. Pg. 11,10/15/84). Here it is said by Brother Cockrell that he would as soon have a person in his church that was baptized by "a female member" as he would a person who was baptized by an unordained, but godly male member who administers the ordinance in the absence of the pastor. In this broad and sweeping statement he in our present time eliminates a lot of faithful brothers and sisters from ever being members of his church, and makes them unworthy of membership in any of the Lord’s churches. Then too, it is a great probability that the apostle Paul, Cornelius, or many of the three thousand who were baptized on the day of Pentecost could never be members of his church, for it CANNOT be proved from Scripture that these people were baptized by the hands of an ordained preacher.

I have been reading Baptist authors for more than thirty years, and particularly their views on the ordinances of the church. But at this date I do not remember one of these authors who dogmatically and undeviatingly held to the FIVE essentials which Brother Cockrell says is necessary for Scriptural baptism. The Baptist mainstream, historically and contemporary, enjoy a near perfect consensus as to the Scriptural prerequisites constituting valid baptism. These prerequisites are four, not five as the Editor of the B.B.B. acrimoniously contends for.

I will now delineate the four prerequisites which comport with Scripture and Baptist history. I am confident that every Baptist from milk to meat know these four prerequisites by heart, but at the risk of being monotonous I set them before the readers eyes again.

FIRST: A Holy Spirit regenerated person.

SECOND: Proper authority, a local New Testament Baptist church.

THIRD: The correct mode — total immersion of the baptismal candidate in water.

FOUR: The right motive-, to show that his faith is in Christ, His atoning blood, and resurrection.

Elder T. P. Simmons in his great book entitled A SYSTEMATIC STUDYOFEIBLE DOCTRINE sets forth the four prerequisites which I have referred to as constituting Scriptural baptism (Pages 368-392). Brother Simmons refers to the four prerequisites as: THE ADMINISTRATOR, THE SUBJECT, THE DESIGN, and the MODE. As to the administrator Brother Simmons made the following comments, "Baptism is a church ordinance . . . baptism is the ceremonial door into the church. This being true, and it also being true that the church is a democratic body, it follows that it has charge of its own door . . . Of course the church as a whole cannot baptize. It must perform the ordinance through those whom it authorizes . . ."

The predominant position of Landmark Baptists agree with Brother Simmons’ four prerequisites, and they who advance a fifth essential, such as preacher ordination, are in a minority void of solid arguments to defend their position.

The fifth prerequisite contention is like any other spiritual error, when it goes to the Bible for aid, it is like going to the Sahara Desert in search of vegetation, it finds none. It is a door to further error, leading deeper and deeper into the error of diotrepheism, a consequent to be despised and shunned with all the strength of being. It is but the pouring of wine into old bottles, the bottles are sure to break. The Baptist poet, John Milton, secretary to Oliver Cromwell, said in objecting to the over-lordship of Presbyterian elders in their churches, said: "Presbyter was only priest writ large" (Presbyterians, Pg. 51). The fifth prerequisite as to validity in baptism may not in great degree compare to the priesthood of Anglicanism, but it is a distant cousin to it.

Brother Cockrell, like his mentor, J.M.C. Breaker; after strenuously contending that baptism performed by a church without the benefit of an ordained Baptist preacher is invalid, states: "Like Brother Breaker, I would not say that baptism authorized by a church and administered by a male member is invalid... I would say that such should be a rare exception" (B.B.B. — Page 11,10/15/84). Well now, I thought, this is a monumental concession on the part of our Brother. But on second thought, and after considering contextually what he has said on the subject, I knew it was but reasoning in a circle.

If Brother Cockrell would consistently adhere in teaching and practice to what he expressed in the above quote, much of the variance between our views on baptism would disappear, for he in the quote expresses precisely what we have been contending for all along; and that is, a true church may baptize its candidates by an unordained man on rare exceptions. The rare occasion being, when its pastor is not able or available. "O consistency thou art a jewel," and in this case a very rare and yet unobtained jewel.

In a letter to me under the date of February 24, 1984, Bro. Cockrell tells me I can anticipate a reply in the EBB to my former treatise on the baptismal question, he also says In the same letter that his "Views on baptism being confined to church authority and an ordained Baptist preacher," has caused a campaign to be waged against him. Note the word "and" in the quote referred to in this paragraph. The word is a function word to indicate connection or addition. The sense of the word as used by Brother Cockrell in this quote is, church authority without being added to or connected with preacher ordination as regards baptism is null and void.

While I agree with Brother Cockrell that the pastor should when able and available administer the ordinance of baptism for the church he pastors, because the pastor is ,the primary teacher in the church, and there is no betterway to proclaim the Gospel in symbol than by administering the ordinance of baptism. We have never said or thought as Brother Cockrell has accused us of saying or thinking that baptism ‘performed by an unordained male member of a New Testament church is better than .baptism performed by the pastor. It is he who says that baptism performed by the pastor is the "best" baptism. (See: B.B.B. - Pg. 11,10/15/84). 1 did not know there were degrees in validity, nor that there is a good baptism, a better baptism, and a baptism that is "best" of all baptisms.

There are no half-Baptists or Baptists-and-a-half, there are only Baptists. There are no inferior and superior baptisms. It must be the "one baptism" which the Scriptures demand or it is not valid baptism. Baptism performed by an unordained man when the services of the pastor cannot be obtained, having New Testament authority, is as valid as baptism can be. Would it not pose an ongoing and grievous problem for a church if it had some members who had what Brother Cockrell calls the "best" baptism, and some members who had a baptism which according to Brother Cockrell was less than best? But thank God, this problem cannot arise in churches that hold to the "one baptism" of Eph. 4:5, that is, baptism administered by the exclusive authority of one of the Lord’s churches.

The four prerequisites constituting Scriptural baptism simplifies and systematizes he ordinance. The supposed fifth prerequisite, that is, formal ordination of the agent acting for the church gives it a transcendence which puts it in an orbit that is beyond full control of the church. The fifth prerequisite stigmatizes the ordinance by giving it a mark which elevates the preacher, and detracts from the glory of the church. It burdens the ordinance with superfluity by making it demand more than what the Scriptures require.

In the strict sense there is no authority but God. All earthly authority is derived from or delegated by the one absolutely sovereign God. Noah’s commission to build the Ark was divinely delegated, and Noah could not sublet or sublate any part of his God given contract. The same was true with John, and his commission to baptize. John’s baptismal authority was derived from God (John 1:6), and he could not subcontract it. During his imprisonment by Herod, John did not appoint an interim baptizer, for he knew his authority could not be delegated. As with John, so it is with the church. The Lord gave the commission to baptize to His churches, and He shut it up authoritatively to the collective membership of each church.

The church cannot reassign its God given commission to its pastor, nor can the church delegate any part of its baptismal commission to a sister church. To do so would be to assume a liberty not granted by the Head of the church, and it would be laying of the pruning knife to the principles and rules of interpretation which our Baptist champions have held to in study and debate. The Lord has specifically given the ordinances of baptism and the memorial supper to His churches, and no admixture of authority can be found in the New Testament whereby we can say the divine specific has been abrogated by the inclusion of something else.

Before and after we published our first book opposing plural church authority and the "must" of formal ordination of the agent acting for the church in administering the ordinance of baptism, Brother Cockrell has written and printed articles in his paper against the position taken by the book. He has also in the interval of time between the publication of my first treatise and the date of this publication written a number of letters to various preachers wherein he raises objections to the stand which the book took on the ordinance of baptism. In one of the letters which he sent to a number of preachers he made the following statement, "I would like very much to hear the answers of Pastor Oscar Mink to these questions, but I am sure I shall never see them."

Brother Cockrell did not send me a copy of the letter, even though in making the above statement he was ethically bound to do so. However, we will forgive him this, and overlook his audacity and cocksureness. But I do believe if he would take an open eyed second look at the first book we published on the subject, he might see that which he never expected to see. Nevertheless, we will answer them again, even though the ingredients be much the same as before, except for a seasoning which prevents benumbing of the spirit. Re-capitulation can be made interesting, and I will try fervently in this case to make it so.

In support of preacher baptism Brother Cockrell appeals to the case of John the Baptist, and his commission to baptize. He says, "John the Baptist—a non-church member (1 John 3:29)—baptized many of the members who went into the organization of the Jerusalem church . . . What church was John the Baptist a member of when he baptized Christ? Did John practice ‘preacher authority in baptism’? We answer: John the Baptist is the only man, the only Baptist preacher to baptize with direct God given authority. While the members of the first Baptist church had John’s baptism, and through or by succeeding Baptist churches, John’s baptism has been perpetuated; yet since the death of John the Baptist there has been no preacher authority like that which God gave unto him. Since the days of John all authority to baptize has been restricted to the Lord’s churches in their singular, respective, or peculiar capacity.

Since the first Baptist church which Christ established in Jerusalem, Baptist preachers have all down through the centuries baptized people, but they have done it by the authority of their membership church, and not by their own authority. Brother Cockrell admits John’s baptism "is not the ideal case" to refer to for support of extra or accessory church authority. I ask, where in the New Testament is the "ideal case"?

". . . Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. Though Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples" (John 4:1-2). The worthy of the worthiest was not worthy to untie the shoes of John the Baptist, yet John was a mere man as all are which are born of the flesh. While Christ was (sinless) man, He was at the same time, God manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16). Christ, the Head of the church granted authority to his churches to baptize, and it goes without saying, He who grants authority has in himself authority to do that which he grants. Jesus had the authority in and of Himself to baptize, but He deliberately refrained therefrom. The most probable reason Jesus refused to baptize was, it might have made unhappy divisions among His followers. Some who had the Baptism of John might have considered themselves less honorable than those who had the Master’s baptism. Christ guarded against this division, and Paul followed His example (1 Cor. 1:12-17). I do not mean to infer that pastors or preachers should not baptize, on the contrary, I contend that they should, but they should not baptize by their personal authority, lest they take to themselves the preeminence which belongs to the church.

The more a preacher lifts himself up above the authority of the church, the lower he sinks into the quagmire of self importance and egotism. We contend for church autonomy, not preacher autonomy. We do well to remember that God Himself is the final authority, and that the divine library reveals that all ecclesiastical authority is restricted to "The church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). The church is God’s spiritual illuminating company in this evil age, and the preacher who assumes officiality beyond the exclusive authority of his membership church has in measure obscured the light. Preacher baptism commenced and ended with the ministry of John the Baptist, and was superseded by the authority which Christ gave to His churches.

A strong loyalty to the pastor should at all times be manifested by all members of the church, but the pastor who is determined to glorify God in the church, neither solicits nor will tolerate a blind loyalty, for then he would be a little pope with a Baptist name. There can only be one final authority in a Baptist church, and that is the majority rule of the church, and every member, including the pastor, is bound by that rule. The authority of the pastor is a distinct authority, and unique in some respect, yet it is never superior to the majority rule of the church. Democratic rule, yes! Autocratic rule, no!

The strong emphasis which Landmark Baptists place on the church has greatly disturbed and troubled other groups going by the name, Baptist. They charge Landmarkers with over-emphasizing the church. They say, Landmarkers talk about the church when they should be talking about Christ. The truth is, Landmarkers stress the importance of the church because of the ill concept which so-called Baptists have of the church, and because they know the church of the living God is the glorious bride of Christ. All true Baptists are determined to manifestly own the high and lofty position which the Scriptures accord the blood bought church of Jesus Christ.

In an effort to support extra church or augmented authority in baptism, Brother Cockrell, says—speaking of the transfer of membership by church letter: "By receiving the letter that church is saying that the other church baptized someone into their church." This is a penury objection at best, but we will in brief consider it. A valid baptismal certificate can never bear the name of but one church, and that is the church that. baptizes the person and not any of the churches which he may later be a member of. It is by baptism a person enters a Baptist church family, and they enter it without official assistance from any other church family. To receive into church membership a person by letter from a sister church, simply means that the receiving church recognizes and honors the official action of the sister church as relates to baptism of the person they are receiving.

It cannot be said in any realistic sense, that when a family officially adopts a child that they are adopting it for another family. The adopting family would dismiss such a contention as utterly absurd, and rightfully so. The name of the adoptee is legally entered in the family register, and while he or she may become part of another family, the family of which the adoptee becomes a part of will never claim that the adoption was for their family. Baptism is performed for and by one church only. The officiality of the baptism being Scriptural can never be cancelled, nor does it ever need to be repeated, and in view of this fact, all true churches are bound to honor the action of the church which originated it, and henceforth the baptized person shall give the name of the baptizing church when asked, WHOSE BAPTISM DO YOU HAVE? The baptized person may have had membership with a number of other churches in the meantime, but none of their names can be used correctly to answer the above question.

Baptists have all through their history contended for believer’s baptism, and in so-doing have tenaciously withstood the heresy of infant baptism. With equal tenacity they have denounced all forms of proxy baptism, and its kindred evils, such as baptismal sponsors and godparents. There is no room for spiritual surrogation in the economic relationship of Baptist churches.

The most belabored objection raised by Brother Cockrell against the practice of restricting baptismal authority to one church is, that baptism and teaching are authoritatively co-equal as given in the commission, and that an ordained minister has as much right to baptize for a church as he does to preach for it. In impeaching this argument all the principles which he alleges in favor of it falls apart, for they are inseparably connected. In disproof of this supposed irrefutable argument, I submit to the concerned and diligent searcher of church truth the following propositions for consideration.

First: baptism and teaching are not in the commission authoritatively co-equal. If it was so, then every sermon or Bible lesson taught in the church would need immediate and specific authority of the church. That is, every single sermon or lesson delivered in the church would require particular approval of the church, and at the very time of delivery.

Second: all authority for preaching and teaching in this age has been given to the Lord’s churches. But this authority is not as detailed or specific as the authority which regulates baptism. In every instance where baptism is to be performed, an approving vote of the church is necessary, but not so with preaching or teaching. Third: there is a broad distinction between the two terms "teach" and "teaching," as used in the commission (Matthew 28:19-20). The term "teach" as first used in the commission has to do with the discipling of "all nations." This discipling was to bring a person to Christ in the relationship of pupil to teacher, and this discipleship is in the main accomplished by individual witnessing, whose authority is inherent in their membership. This discipling enterprise is incomparably sublime, and is the first and primary work of the church. The whole inhabited earth is the "field" of Baptistic evangelism, and in realizing this divinely assigned end, unofficial cooperation of the Lord’s churches has no limit.

The discipling chronology as delineated in the commission, is as follows—the church either directly or by the personal witness of its membership makes disciples or pupils of all who believe their testimony. The second step in the order is, those who have believed and desire membership in the church, are upon approval of the church, baptized and thereby added to the church. Then following through with the discipling of the baptized, even though they are yet "babes in Christ," the church begins to teach them "all things’ of the commission. That is, "the whole counsel of God." When this outline is faithfully and wisely adhered to, the effect will be, the making of mature disciples, i.e. pupils, learners, and followers of Christ.

In the discipling process stated above the only action necessitating a specific vote of the church is baptism. The first teaching is the common responsibility of the membership of the church. The second teaching phase is in great part done by the pastor. The vote of the church to call a pastor is a vote for him to teach the church, and he does not need the vote of the church every time he enters the pulpit. However, he does need the approving vote of the church every time he baptizes a person. Thus it is, officiality as respects teaching and baptism are not the same, but varies in application to church functions, and time or times of invoking it.

Fourth: one thing is profoundly sure, and that is, New Testament churches have Scriptural precedents for inter-church preaching and fellowship. But the New Testament is void of precept and precedent authorizing inter-church or plural church baptism. Plural church authority in baptism is an innovation predicated upon human tradition. But let us remember antiquity of ‘tradition or custom, being logically pleasing and expeditious, does not necessarily make it right. Too much (any measure is too much) of what some Baptists are preaching was received by vain conversation and tradition from Convention and Association fathers, and serves to deface the authority of the local church. God forbid!

In Acts 15:1-12 is given the record of Paul and Barnabas preaching for churches other than their membership church, including the church at Jerusalem, but there is nothing said about them baptizing for any of these churches. Acts 9:31-32 tells of Peter going through all quarters of the country where churches were located, and no doubt preached for them, but no where is it said he baptized for the churches he visited. What has been said of Peter, Paul and Barnabas as relates to baptism, may also be said of Silas, Timothy, Titus, etc. They visited many churches, but never baptized for any of them.

It does not usurp the authority of a church to have a visiting preacher speak for it, but when it comes to baptism, that is altogether different; for baptism is the official door into church membership, and the power to open and close the baptismal door belongs in its entirety to each church. There is no such thing as partial authority to baptize, which would be the case if two churches contributed authority in forming the sum and whole which is needed to baptize. The Lord’s churches being made up of finite, fallible, and failing people, are bound to have short comings, but let them not admit of a weakness that does not exist; namely, inability to baptize.

Luke 24:47-49 and Acts 1:8 is a reiteration of the preaching part of the commission, and there is nothing in these Scriptures which militates against preaching fellowship of the Lords churches. Nay, the contrary is strongly implied, for the carrying of the Gospel to all ends of the earth is a joint effort of all true churches, and nothing is more conducive in attaining that glorious result than being exhortatively preached to by the pastor of a beloved sister church.

No where in all of Holy Writ is para-church authority exemplified, much less textually stated. In this present age all ecclesiastical authority has been placed in local New Testament churches, and nothing in this age shall ever supersede that authority. That authority, while localized and restricted in exercise to each body of Christ, is in its aggregate nature or quantity efficiently suited to the broad purpose given in the commission (Acts 1:8).

Further proof could be adduced from Scripture nullifying the contention that teaching and baptism are authoritatively co-equal as given in the commission, but Baptists untrammeled by human tradition, bias, or fear of man, will no doubt see the error of this teaching, and not be confounded by it. And what the Holy Spirit has made obvious, needs not the reaffirmation of man.