For Presbys; Deacons performing sacraments...

turmeric · #1 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 12:31 PM

This came up in Bible study this week - in Acts 8 there are two references to Philip the Deacon baptizing converts. It goes against Presbyterian polity I'm told for deacons to administer sacraments. How do they fit Acts 8 into this?

[Please, people, the thread is in Ecclesiology not Baptism! This is not about paedo-credo, at least not yet!]

kceaster · #2 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 01:27 PM

Although we have recorded for us when Philip was ordained a deacon, we cannot assume that he wasn't later ordained as an elder. It's probably safer to err on the side that he had been ordained as an elder previous to baptizing the eunuch than to assume that the sacraments were carried out by deacons.

Even so, if he was a deacon at the time, we can't necessarily assume that it was normative. It's the old addage of not deriving doctrine from the book of Acts.

In Christ,

KC

larryjf · #3 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 02:00 PM

And it's not only Elders, but Evangelists also who are permitted to baptize.

ADKing · #4 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 02:05 PM

Acts 21.8 describes Philip as an evangelist. Since we find him in Caesarea in Acts 21 and that is where Philip stayed as of 8.40 I think it is safe to assume it is the same individual.

etexas · #5 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turmeric

This came up in Bible study this week - in Acts 8 there are two references to Philip the Deacon baptizing converts. It goes against Presbyterian polity I'm told for deacons to administer sacraments. How do they fit Acts 8 into this?

[Please, people, the thread is in Ecclesiology not Baptism! This is not about paedo-credo, at least not yet!]

Meg, this is a great question, the Church "prefers" Baptism to be done by a Bishop/Priest/Pastor...........a Deacon can do it if access is not available, in fact in VERY EXTREME circumstances a layman may do this rite in an emergency. We have a doctor at my church who 2 times in his career has realized a newborn would not live and done a Baptism. These are extreme cases limited also to Baptized members in good standing.

ADKing · #6 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brego

Meg, this is a great question, the Church "prefers" Baptism to be done by a Bishop/Priest/Pastor...........a Deacon can do it if access is not available, in fact in VERY EXTREME circumstances a layman may do this rite in an emergency. We have a doctor at my church who 2 times in his career has realized a newborn would not live and done a Baptism. These are extreme cases limited also to Baptized members in good standing.

The OP I believe referred to Presbyterian polity. The Presbyterians and Reformed have not historically accepted baptism by deacons and especially not by lay persons. Part of the issue is that the office of deacon is rather different in Anglicanism than in Presbyterianism.

Kevin · #7 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kceaster

Although we have recorded for us when Philip was ordained a deacon, we cannot assume that he wasn't later ordained as an elder. It's probably safer to err on the side that he had been ordained as an elder previous to baptizing the eunuch than to assume that the sacraments were carried out by deacons.

Even so, if he was a deacon at the time, we can't necessarily assume that it was normative. It's the old addage of not deriving doctrine from the book of Acts.

In Christ,

KC

I know that this is the standard response, but I don't find it (very) convincing. Does anyone have something more than "he has to be an elder because he has to be an elder"?

etexas · #8 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADKing

The OP I believe referred to Presbyterian polity. The Presbyterians and Reformed have not historically accepted baptism by deacons and especially not by lay persons. Part of the issue is that the office of deacon is rather different in Anglicanism than in Presbyterianism.

Thank you, I was aware of the context, I was merely answering from my perspective.

Scott · #9 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

I know that this is the standard response, but I don't find it (very) convincing. Does anyone have something more than "he has to be an elder because he has to be an elder"?

Yes, Matt 28:19 is good precedent about who Christ authorized to baptize and have an authoritative teaching/preaching ministry. Speaking to the apostles, he says, "19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

This commission was given to the apostles (and not the laity), officers of the church. The apostles were all elders. They also directed the people to regard ministers as stewards of the mysteries of God. See 1 Cor. 4:1, for example, which speaks about how people should regard officers of the church (Paul, Peter, Apollos, etc.).

From Calvin's Commentaries on 1 Cor. 4:1 (this text was commonly used by the reformers to limit the adminstration of the sacraments and other pastoral duties to pastors - you see it in confessional proof texts, commentaries, and the like):

Quote:

1. Let a man so account of us As it was a matter of no little importance to see the Church in this manner torn by corrupt factions, from the likings or dislikings that were entertained towards individuals, he enters into a still more lengthened discussion as to the ministry of the word. Here there are three things to be considered in their order. In the first place, Paul describes the office of a pastor of the Church. . . . Now the medium observed by Paul consists in this, that he calls them ministers of Christ; by which he intimates, that they ought to apply themselves not to their own work but to that of the Lord, who has hired them as his servants, and that they are not appointed to bear rule in an authoritative manner in the Church, but are subject to Christ’s authority
. . .
As to what he adds — stewards of the mysteries of God, he expresses hereby the kind of service. By this he intimates, that their office extends no farther than this, that they are stewards of the mysteries of God In other words, what the Lord has committed to their charge they deliver over to men from hand to hand — as the expression is 210210 Our Author makes use of the same expression when commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:23, and 1 Corinthians 15:3. — Ed. — not what they themselves might choose. “For this purpose has God chosen them as ministers of his Son, that he might through them communicate to men his heavenly wisdom, and hence they ought not to move a step beyond this.” He appears, at the same time, to give a stroke indirectly to the Corinthians, who, leaving in the background the heavenly mysteries, had begun to hunt with excessive eagerness after strange inventions, and hence they valued their teachers for nothing but profane learning. It is an honorable distinction that he confers upon the gospel when he terms its contents the mysteries of God. But as the sacraments are connected with these mysteries as appendages, it follows, that those who have the charge of administering the word are the authorized stewards of them also.

Scott

Kevin · #10 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 03:40 PM

Thanks Scott. I am not doubting the teaching that only elders may perform the sacraments, I am only looking for a better theory on St. Philip.

Scott · #11 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

Thanks Scott. I am not doubting the teaching that only elders may perform the sacraments, I am only looking for a better theory on St. Philip.

Oh, got you. I have not considered the issue myself but would be curious to see responses.

kceaster · #12 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 05:07 PM

Perhaps I don't really want to open this can of worms, but if it is the standard response, why wouldn't it be correct? Why is it not convincing?

I do know that the RCC broke from the long held traditions when they gave the more priestly duties to those they called deacons. The Reformers obviously, and I believe, rightly, reversed this.

In Christ,

KC

Archlute · #13 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kceaster

Although we have recorded for us when Philip was ordained a deacon, we cannot assume that he wasn't later ordained as an elder. It's probably safer to err on the side that he had been ordained as an elder previous to baptizing the eunuch than to assume that the sacraments were carried out by deacons.

Even so, if he was a deacon at the time, we can't necessarily assume that it was normative. It's the old addage of not deriving doctrine from the book of Acts.
In Christ,

KC

Of course, this means that the Presbyterian's most cherished proof passage for broader issues of polity will have to stay out of the debate, whoops....

Scott · #14 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Of course, this means that the Presbyterian's most cherished proof passage for broader issues of polity will have to stay out of the debate, whoops....

Acts is just as valid a source of precedent as any other book of the Bible. I have never heard the adage about ignoring that part of the Bible.

etexas · #15 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott

Acts is just as valid a source of precedent as any other book of the Bible. I have never heard the adage about ignoring that part of the Bible.

Amen...........Acts is a VERY important part of Holy-Writ......I have never heard that old adage myself, where did it come from........Marcion?

kceaster · #16 (**permalink**) 07-14-2007, 07:33 AM

It means that we don't build our doctrines on just Acts and nothing else. We'll end up making it a requirement to speak in tongues if that is the case.

In Christ,

KC

etexas · #17 (**permalink**) 07-14-2007, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kceaster

It means that we don't build our doctrines on just Acts and nothing else. We'll end up making it a requirement to speak in tongues if that is the case.

In Christ,

KC

We have 66 Books in the canon it would be wrong to try to build doctrine on any one book, on that I agree. I misunderstood you and felt you were stating Acts to somehow be a lesser Book in Holy-Writ.

bookslover · #18 (**permalink**) 07-14-2007, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kceaster

It means that we don't build our doctrines on just Acts and nothing else. We'll end up making it a requirement to speak in tongues if that is the case.

In Christ,

KC

I don't think that old adage, if such it be, is valid at all. Acts is just as legitimate a source of doctrine as any other book of the Bible. The fact that Acts is mostly narrative makes no difference. The gospels are mostly narrative, and they are a rich source of doctrine. Of course, we don't build doctrine using just any one book of the Bible. Building doctrine consists of comparing Scripture with Scripture, taking the Bible all together, as best we can.

tcalbrecht · #19 (**permalink**) 07-14-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turmeric

This came up in Bible study this week - in Acts 8 there are two references to Philip the Deacon baptizing converts. It goes against Presbyterian polity I'm told for deacons to administer sacraments. How do they fit Acts 8 into this?

While Philip may have been a deacon on the Jerusalem church based on the wording of Acts 6, that does not preclude him from being called by God to the role of evangelist in the larger church, which is apparently the case.

Also, in most Presbyterian and Reformed circles the administration of the sacraments is restricted to teaching elders/ministers of the word. Ruling elders may not administer the sacraments.

Jerusalem Blade · #20 (**permalink**) 07-14-2007, 02:11 PM

The Charismatics / Pentecostals seek to use Acts to substantiate their doctrine of Subsequence, referring to the supposed subsequent Baptism in the Holy Spirit after their conversion, as in Samaria. It is well known among commentators that this seeking to use such historical events in Acts to base doctrines of normative Christian experience upon is illicit. Pentecostals use the fact that the (about) 120 in Acts 1 and 2 were converted / regenerated prior to receiving the baptism with the Holy Spirit to support their doctrine.

Were I, as a layman, in prison for the crime of being a Christian, and on my way to execution along with other believers, one unbaptized person desired to be baptized, I would have no reluctance whatever to baptize that soul using saliva from my tongue, using the standard formula.

I know to Whom I have to answer for my words and deeds.

Contra_Mundum · #21 (**permalink**) 07-14-2007, 02:32 PM

Philip is (as was previously mentioned) more than likely commissioned at a later point to the office of elder/evangelist. He is, after all, so referred to later, and not later on as "Philip the deacon".

This is entirely in accord with common practice among us even to this day. Men are frequently chosen as deacons (a lesser office, with fewer and more restricted duties) and later, having performed those duties faithfully and well, are chosen for greater responsibility. In this way the deaconate can sometimes serve as a proving ground for future elders. After all, if there are no deacons, the deacon-duties do not disappear but are resumed by the elders; IOW, the deacon-duties are also elder-duties. Of course not every deacon will make a good elder, nor do they always wish to move to the above office, even (or even especially) when they are an outstanding specialist in that area. And not every elder must first be ordained a deacon (although he must be able to function as a deacon at the elementary level).

For Philip, the deaconate was a beneficial starting point for usefulness in the church. It gave him a place of prominence, slight though it was, to be recognized for additional giftedness. Deacons, as we understand the office, simply are not officially qualified to conduct official business beyond the scope of their commission. It really is that simple. The creation of the office of deacon very clearly takes out of the elder duties specific, secular works of service and mercy--that is delegateable tasks. Sacrament, tied to the ministry of the Word, is not a delegateable task, but an essential function of the Ministry.

When we (as Presbyterians) start granting that there are "extremities" (no offense to our Anglican brothers) in which baptism (or the L.S.) may be administered by one not lawfully ordained, we seem to be in much danger of attributing to baptism (or the L.S.) "intrinsic grace". We are assuming that it belongs to unofficial pronouncements to declare that which God has specifically given the Ministry for the purpose of declaring.

Thus, we are forced to the conclusion that where GOD has delayed the application of baptism and the partaking of the L.S., he is for his own wise and holy ends causing certain of his people to wait until his Church (in the form of his Ministers) has arrived among them in order to officially receive such persons into His fellowship.

In the last few years, the OPC's magazine New Horizons had an incredibly moving account of HUNDREDS of believers (yes, and their children, sorry baptist-brothers) being baptized in a church-founding ceremony in Uganda. The ground was plowed, seed was planted, converts made, a church begun, instruction given, elders trained,--and still all was prepared in readiness for the "official" reception of these people into the Church. Because baptism (in our understanding) is not about MY decision to follow Jesus, but about the official mark of ownership being accorded those who swear allegiance to God.

(and I didn't mean to send this in the direction of paedo-credo)

turmeric · #22 (**permalink**) 07-14-2007, 06:39 PM

This is an interesting discussion, thanks guys!