In family devotions tonight we were discussing the Covenant and particularly the sacraments. One question that was raised in my mind as I consulted the confession was this: The WCF clearly says that only a minister can administer baptism, but if that is the case what do we do with Phillip (a deacon) baptizing the eunuch in Acts 8:38-39? Why is it that ordained elders and deacons cannot baptize?

__________________
Ben Franks

I attend: Ketoctin Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC)
in Purcellville, Virginia
I'm a member of: Heartland Community Church (PCA)
in Wichita, Kansas
I blog here (along with my Dad): http://rrfranks.blogspot.com/
And I'm a student here: www.phc.edu

"Remember the speeches we have spoken so often over our mead, when we raised boast on the bench, heroes in the hall, about hard fighting. Now may the man who is bold prove that he is."-Aelfwine at the Battle of Maldon

I didn't even consider Philip to be a deacon. Wasn't he an apostle and part of the original Twelve?

__________________
Ed Asano
Member, Center Grove Presbyterian (PCA)
Edwardsville, IL

Lord, I am willing to --
Receive what you give,
Lack what you withhold,
Relinquish what you take.

Ben, for the purposes of this discussion, it might be good to indicate how many offices you would like to consider. From your original post, it seems like you recognize 1) minister, 2) elder, 3) deacon? Is this correct?

I don't know much about the number of church offices, but it may be important to the discussion if others can contribute something.

__________________
Tim Lindsay
member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, Halifax, NS, Canada
Living in Cape Town, South Africa
"under the Southern Cross, at the foot of Table Mountain, not far from the Cape of Good Hope"

Good point. As a member of the PCA I see two ordained offices in Scripture 1) Elder & 2) Deacon. With there being two categories in the office of Elder 1) Teaching Elders & 2) Ruling Elders. According to the confession, only ordained ministers (or Teaching Elders) can baptize. My question is about whether or not Ruling Elders and ordained Deacons should be able to also baptize.

Ed, I am drawing that from Acts 6:5, "And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch." (ESV)

The WCF XXVIII:2 says, "The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto."

Though this prescribes the ordinary manner of baptism, it does not invalidate baptisms done by those who are not "ministers of the gospel, lawfully called." For example, someone coming from an Anglican church, where they may have been baptized by a deacon, or even a layman, would not ordinarily be required to be baptized again. In Plymouth Brethren churches, baptisms are usually done by a layman authorized by the elders. What do we do with someone desiring to transfer from a Methodist or PCUSA congregation, where they were baptized by a woman presuming to be a “minister”? Was she lawfully called thereunto?

Some would argue Stephen and Phillip had been promoted from deacon to minister considering their extensive preaching.

One concern of the Confession is that baptism not be separated from the preaching of the word.

__________________
Glenn Ferrell
Pastor, Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Boise, Idaho

http://sovereignredeemer.org

http://www.sermonaudio.com/source_de...formationidaho


Nec Tamen Consumebatur


The duty of magistrates...extends to both tables of the law, ... those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men. - Calvin, Institutes, IV:20:9

Well, Philip seems to be called to preach and does signs etc. all through Acts. He does so much preaching that he must have been a preacher. He was also literally and miraculously SENT by the Holy Spirit to Azotus.

__________________
Traci
Lynnwood OPC
"I have taken all my good deeds, and all my bad deeds, and cast them through each other in a heap before the Lord, and fled from both, and betaken myself to the Lord Jesus Christ, and in him I have sweet peace."--David Dickson

So this is acceptable because Philip became a Teaching Elder? Is that the consensus that I'm hearing?

So Lee, are you saying that Philip should not have baptized the eunuch? Or are you saying that it was only acceptable for that particular time like with certain spiritual gifts?

This is a prime example of where I think Reformed practice, in the interest of order and as an historical reaction against issues then extant in the Medieval Church, ignores passages of Scripture that might direct otherwise in our church practice.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon

Soli Deo Gloria

You bring up a good point here Lee. Since Acts records the acts of the apostles, wouldn't this mean that Philip (in Acts 8) is the apostle Philip and not the deacon Philip (in Acts 6)?

So if that's the case, it wouldn't be the situation where we have a deacon actually baptizing anyone.

Though I still appreciate you pointing out another Philip in Acts 6 Ben

One thing I have found. Being of a very independent nature and very studious and self- taught, as well as taught by others:

the older I get and the more I study and learn,

The more I am amazed at how accurate the wCF is and how smart our puritan fathers were by God's amazing Grace on them in that time.

When I am tempted to disagree with the WCF if I study enough and all sides of the issue, I am persuaded they were guided by God for the good of the church.

I also generally find where people tend to want to disagree, it is with a tendency for more worldliness not less.

How interesting?

Wouldn't you think once in a while we would be more strict and them loose??

Why is that??

Good guideline, until you know the word, the world, history and languages and culture better than the authors of the WCF, it may be wise to consider with weight what they all agreed to.

__________________
DonP

The title of the book is post-apostolic, with a number of modern (and Reformed) scholars arguing that it is more reflective of the theme of Acts when taken as a whole that it should be labeled "The Acts of the Holy Spirit". So that doesn't have a bearing either way, since both the Philip in Acts 6, and the Philip in Acts 8 (assuming that they are even different men) are both described as being filled with the Holy Spirit.

It really cannot be decided from the title, or from anything explicit in the text. The most certain that can be said about it is that when you read a book, and someone is given mention at one point, who has also been mentioned just previous to that episode, the most natural way to take that reference is to the closest antecedent. That would be Philip the deacon of Acts 6. If Luke was going to have Theolophilus understand that he was speaking of Philip the apostle from his earlier gospel, it is probable that he would have made note of it in the narrative.

That being said, it is interesting to note that when Philip is mentioned again in Acts 21:8 he is described as "Philip the Evangelist, who was of the seven". Luke thinks it significant to make that connection back with the calling of the seven back in chapter six, so it is possible that the apostle is being spoken of in chapter eight.

However, I think what would move me to continue with my affirmation regarding the Philip of chapter eight being the deacon/evangelist is that just prior to that comes the martyrdom of Stephen, who was one of the seven, and then the description of the church in Jerusalem being scattered, and preaching the gospel wherever they went. The next scene Luke gives us is that of Philip preaching the gospel as he went. It would seem a strong connection is drawn by Luke in the way he laid out the narrative cues between that Philip who was deacon and witness to the martyrdom of Stephen in Jerusalem, and that Philip who then went out preaching along with the rest of the dispersed church.

Have at it.

-----Added 4/14/2009 at 06:31:02 EST-----


I appreciate your caution, as you have brought it from your experience, but that statement is just not true. I've been five years in seminary, good brother, and I've sat through a lot of lectures, and I've read through a lot of books, and if I may be so bold, I will assert that all theologians, whether broad Evangelicals, Pentecostals, or Reformed, use narrative passages of Scripture (including the book of Acts) in building up, proving, disproving, or otherwise, doctrinal theses.

-----Added 4/14/2009 at 06:42:04 EST-----

It should also be understood that the Westminster Assembly drew up a consensus document for the church in that place and time, regarding which there were significant differences of opinion on various matters held by its framers.

That is why there have been revisions in the time since governments have changed, and a better grasp of certain theological truths have been gained. That is why, although I am strong confessionalist, I would never support the strict subscriptionist platform that has at times been pushed within the PCA.

Peter Lillback wrote an essay on this very point, in fact, as part of a collection of essays regarding confessional subscription, and is very clear in pointing out that Calvin allowed leeway among confessionalists, and that he himself would not have qualified as being a strict confessionalist by his approach to the Reformed and Lutheran confessions of his day.

Enjoy the writings of the Puritans, but realize that if you stop there in your study of Scriptures and theology, you will be missing out on a bit. The theological endeavor of the church most often comes about as a (good, and pro-active) reaction against the errors, circumstances, and temperature of the times. What they studied and wrote upon then, although much of it was good and still applies, does not necessarily address in an effective manner the pastoral issues and cultural particulars unique to the place and time in which God has set us. Enjoy the confessions, but keep your mind also attuned to the issues of the day, and how the Scripture can address them.

Can deacons baptize? Sure. The question is should they?

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

Amen, and it is precisely for that reason that I am asking. If I did not value the confessions then I would simply dismiss them without looking at this issue.

We discussed this awhile back in the Deacons' Forum.

While it is clear that Philip (one of the first deacons, Acts 6) baptized the Ethiopian, it is a debated point that it should follow that the administration of the ordinance belongs to all deacons. I do not believe that it is the ordinary function of the diaconal office to perform such tasks. If he was still in his office as a deacon, Philip's baptizing of the Eunich was a special case in the early days of the church.

However, one should consider whether Philip was still but a Deacon on this occasion.

Some would argue that Philip "would not have performed the function of an Evangelist if he were not occupied in that office."

They posit that it is "reasonable to conclude that the once-Deacon Philip demonstrated gifts for further use in the church, and was made an Elder".

In baptizing the Ethiopian, Philip "acts for the whole church as an individual (to perform a baptism) , and this "is indicative of his authority he bore as an Evangelist, which is the title that church history has accorded him."

__________________
Sterling Harmon
Presbyterian Church of Coventry (PCA)
Coventry, CT
Deacon
________________

"Whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God."
-- John Calvin, Institutes III:xv.3.

"Our Lord God must be a good man, to be fond of worthless fellows. I cannot like them, and yet I, myself, am one."
-- Martin Luther, Table Talk
Interim Pulpit Supply of New England

My Facebook

Owner/Administrator @ Reformed Theology Institute

Wouldn't the apparent unusual calling and sending of Phillip, whoosh, mean he was an apostle at that moment by the Spirit ?? Under direct inspiration.

I think if this ever happens to a deacon and you end up on a Eunuch's chariot who is reading and asks you to explain then whooshed gone back to Azotus you could baptize or whatever.

Acts 8:26 Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, "Arise and go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza."

29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go near and overtake this chariot."

Acts 8:39-the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus.
NKJV

But isn't that something that every hippie/charismatic claims when it comes to lay baptism? "The Spirit made me do it, so all rules are suspended." I'm just not sure I buy that.

I am saying that this would mean Phillip was an inspired Apostle not just a deacon.

And the person you described will claim this anyway whether the deacon can baptize or not.

Because not enough ministers are required to hold to the RP and sound doctrine. Our seminaries are allowed to teach this, and true ministers are afraid to denounce this stuff as a false gospel and not Christianity and you better get to a sound church or you may be on the broad path going to the wrong place

Harvel, you're giving me a headache. I'm not sure what you are trying to drive at, but I am sure that your convoluted stringing together of quotes from our larger conversation does not accurately reflect what was being addressed in the above dialogue (especially as you omitted some of the pertinent statements toward which I had been directing my comments).

I am not going to bite, especially when I am not certain that your motives are worthy of engagement.

I followed you. Yea not bad.

But watch out for that triple method you have there. It is not Confessional

Just the Grammatical Historical is. Good book to read is The Imperative of Preaching by Carrick.

And we do use narrative to interpret scripture. But as you rightly say we might not use it as a direct 1 to 1 command to obey now.
I don't think most reformed people would make this mistake. It violates other principles. Only someone with an agenda would do this.

Notice part of some narratives contains things we would do also.

So I think where this warning about narratives comes to play is for those who choose to study the liberal theologians to find their Biblical Theology and Redemptive Historical, and poetic structures that may not have actually been meant to be in there or interpreted if they were; rather they are more of a bible code some seek out.

Those liberal may use narrative as you have said because they are such bad theologians.

So I would say watch out more for even going to them. What need?

There is indeed a historic flow of the plan of Redemption and it is exposed and explained in Covenant Theology.
Be ware of this C T is flat you need to see Jesus in every verse of the OT which is actually pointing to Him and or the Culmination. I think that can get you into a lot of trouble.

Just "my experience" from decades of reading, listening to sermons, and reading and listening to audios of others and seeing the lives of people under them.

Don,

This is beginning to get off subject a bit, but since you seem to be quite opposed to a redemptive-historical hermeneutic I would briefly address your concern.

A properly handled RH hermeneutic is both confessional and Scriptural. Read closely WCF 1.6 and 1.9, and then think about those sections in light of Luke 24, and the interpretive method of the epistle (sermon, as many argue) to the Hebrews, and you will see that it is not only an allowable method, but would be required in light of apostolic examples of interpretation.

RH theology is not driven by a liberal agenda (not sure where you picked that up, unless you are confusing some of the OT biblical theology of Von Rad, and others with that).

A very good book to read, one that will help you to flesh out your thoughts a little better, and will also allow you to see a well presented argument from a confessional Reformed minister, is the recent publication (2007) by the Rev. Dr. Dennis Johnson of Westminster Seminary in California entitled Him We Proclaim. It is an outstanding work on homiletics/applied hermeneutics. Pick it up and read it carefully, and I guarantee that you will not be disappointed with that use of your time.

I know Carrick's work, and it is decent so far as it goes, but he was writing that work as a polemic against one particular strain of RH preaching that was widely perceived to have been restrictive of sermonic application. I also have his four part lecture series in which his primary focus is on the recovery of application in preaching. Good RH preaching does not omit application, but it does always make connection with Christ and his work in some manner. Preaching any OT passage apart from Christ is indeed a moralistic use of Scripture, and does not fulfill the many passages of apostolic address in which the focus of their preaching and teaching was always centered in this fashion upon Christ Jesus - thus the title of Johnson's work Him We Proclaim, which is take from a statement given by the apostle Paul in Colossians 1:28.

I'll let you pick up the work and see what you think. But, to be clear, the confessions in no way restrict preaching and interpretation to a purely historical-grammatical approach. That is enlightenment influenced thinking (again, read Johnson), and does not take into its scope the full analogia fidei of the Scriptures regarding the preaching practices of the apostolic church.

Enjoy!

Adam,

Thanks for an exceptionally clear post. That was probably the most helpful delineation I have ever seen on this topic! And, I find myself agreeing with you on the value of Johnson AND on the danger of over generalizing Carrick's critique beyond the appropriate bounds.

I have listened to a single lecture by Carrick (not the four that you have) and reached the same conclusion as to what he is opposing. While the warning against leveling out the OT in its pointing always to Christ is valid, Luke 24 drove me to a RH-like position without knowing the technical term given it in Reformed circles.

As to the issue of application, it is interesting to remember in this year of Calvin that his sermons often include 50% application.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I find it instructive that the deacons on the board are most conservative, when it comes to this question.

For the record, I believe that Philip was a deacon at the point he baptised, and that his example is not normative.

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB

We can take up the RH distinctives on another thread. Suffice it to say that I sat in the OPC under BT men who were trained by Denison and Kline.

I think Dennison is more balanced in his preaching the little I have heard.

My pastors were exactly what you read in Carricks book.

And they openly sought to create a haven for like minded men so they could be accepted with their unconfessional views and not run out as was happening in So Cal pres.

They always spoke of the others who were the extreme BTers and RHers too. I came to find they were the extreme.
Now I do not mean to compare them to Dutch liberal RH.

And I do believe one can have a proper balanced use of BT.

Nuf Said.
If Baptism can occur outside the church, as a norm, and a deacon could perform it apart from the authority of a minister, and the preaching of the gospel, then Hamalas' "Charismatic hippie" has every right to do it in the Jordan or his bathtub at home with his new decisionist.

As long as he would only sprinkle of course

I Love diligently working through the scriptures with you all !! Thanks

No offense taken, Lee. I wish you the best as you continue your progress in growing in the knowledge of Christ, and the doctrine of his Word.

You should be welcome to attend any PCA church, and I would think that you would have no problem with membership at most of them. (see below) You would not be eligible for church office (elder or deacon) with your current views. Teaching, and any restrictions thereon, would need to be determined by the session. Unfortunately, I don't see a PCA church in your community.

PCA membership questions:

1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of
God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save
in His sovereign mercy?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God,
and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him
alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon
the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as
becomes the followers of Christ?
4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and
work to the best of your ability?
5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline
of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

__________________
Edward
Deacon
PCA
Texas

What denomination are they? I can't imagine any PCA church being unfriendly to you because you disagreed on baptism. As Edward pointed out you could not serve as an officer but I'm sure you would be welcome to worship with them! I hope you can find a good church soon!

I don't mean to pick unnecessarily at words, but I'm uncomfortable with your use of the word "promoted" here. It is a different calling entirely.

__________________
Clark Brooking
Pastor
Living Hope Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Clarksville, MD

After discussing this subject last night with my pastor in a Leadership training class, he felt this was an exceptional case. What he pointed out is that as a teaching elder, they (teaching elders) are to preach the Word and administer the sacraments. The two functions should be kept together.

It also makes sense to give some kind of "positional right", since it would be odd have just anybody in a church be able to administer baptisms. So generally speaking, a deacon shouldn't baptize.

With that being said, if you happened to be on a deserted island (or remote location) and shared the Gospel with someone and they wanted to place their trust in Christ and be baptized, I don't see the reason why you shouldn't. I know this really is a hypothetical situation, but the point is, I don't believe we need to hold to an absolute rule, like, ONLY pastors and such can baptize. If anything, the situation in Acts 8 shows that there can be extraordinary circumstances.

I think your pastor was wise. And to your point I think

Baptism is not required for entrance to heaven.

Therefore I would not baptize him until God in His providence shipwrecked another vessel with an ordained minister on it who preached a sermon from the word with several members present.

Else when men will not step up to be elders, women would be justified in doing so.
We have seen this kind of thinking lead to a liberal mess

Then why didn't Philip take the eunuch to an ordained minister?

Then why didn't Philip take the eunuch to an ordained minister? [/QUOTE]

Do you mean to say you think baptism is required for salvation?

Heavens no!!!

I was referring to this part:

Exactly!

So unless an Angel whisks you off to a chariot and tells you to go teach someone then whisks you back to town, I wouldn't do it.