Who can perform Baptism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, John the Baptist was a prophet raised up by God and specifically appointed by heaven (see John 1:33, Luke 20:4) to institute the rite of baptism. He was certainly more than qualified.
 
MAT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

1CO 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread.

1CO 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

HEB 5:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

...So these are the Scripture references I see for WCF 27.4 (or however y'all like to quote confessions). I'm so sorry, but I simply don't understand how these in any way demonstrate that only a minister of the gospel can administer a baptism. Just in reading the context I am left saying "Uhh..." because it appears to me that there would have to at least be a stretch to have this claim substantiated. Would any of you be willing to explain how these verses apply?

And while we are on this topic, would anyone be willing to explain how, if only ministers have authority to perform baptism, a person is still deemed "baptized" if they are "baptized" by someone who doesn't have proper authority?
 
Ideally it should be done by someone who can preach so that the sacrament is accompanied by the Word.

If it's not ideally done - e.g. by a Roman Catholic priest - it shouldn't necessarily be repeated as that takes away from the symbolism of regeneration/baptism in the Spirit being only a once for all experience - and some quite heretical churches are still part of God's Visible Church.
 
MAT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

1CO 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread.

1CO 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

HEB 5:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

...So these are the Scripture references I see for WCF 27.4 (or however y'all like to quote confessions). I'm so sorry, but I simply don't understand how these in any way demonstrate that only a minister of the gospel can administer a baptism. Just in reading the context I am left saying "Uhh..." because it appears to me that there would have to at least be a stretch to have this claim substantiated. Would any of you be willing to explain how these verses apply?

And while we are on this topic, would anyone be willing to explain how, if only ministers have authority to perform baptism, a person is still deemed "baptized" if they are "baptized" by someone who doesn't have proper authority?

All of the Scriptures quoted are in reference to called/authorized/ordained men. Men who have been set apart unto the gospel ministry. Yes, we are all to spread the gospel and yes, we are are to help in disciplining younger Christians. However, we are not all called to preach (i.e. be the undershepherd of the flock) and neither are we all called to administer the sacraments of Christ's Church. Only His properly called and authorized ministers should do so.
 
I am dittoing Andrew's questions. Also, I don't know that the wording of the confessions (particularly the LBF, which is the one to which I essentially ascribe) necessarily requires as strict an application as is being suggested here.

If I believe that any Christian capable of leading someone to the Lord is also authorized to baptize that person, then according to my understanding, that person is "qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ." So I'm not sure I understand how being confessional nullifies the debate.
 
I am dittoing Andrew's questions. Also, I don't know that the wording of the confessions (particularly the LBF, which is the one to which I essentially ascribe) necessarily requires as strict an application as is being suggested here.

If I believe that any Christian capable of leading someone to the Lord is also authorized to baptize that person, then according to my understanding, that person is "qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ." So I'm not sure I understand how being confessional nullifies the debate.

The intent of the confessional writers in mentioning someone "qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ" would seem to preclude your example. See their prooftexts (and the content) to see what they meant.
 
Andrew and Rachel,
You may be interested to know that "sacrament", which is from the Latin sacramentum is used in ecclesiastical Latin for mysterion, "mystery". Throughout its history, the church has understood 1 Cor 4:1 to refer to the sacraments. That is, even apart from the other references offered by the confession, this verse alone should establish the point.

As for your earlier question, Andrew, there is some difference of opinion on the matter, but we might consider someone baptized who was baptized improperly. Using Hodge's requirements, if the baptism had the right form (water), formula (trinitarian) and intention, then it is valid. (See Thornwell for a different view) However, that is not to say that it was appropriately done. If a woman stands and preaches, assuming she faithfully expounds the word, no one would say they had not heard the word of the Lord. Nevertheless, her doing so would be inappropriate and, itself, a violation of the word of God. What is proper or regular and what is valid are related but distinct questions. A baptism is only properly done when administered by a minister of the gospel, though it might be otherwise valid. At least that is my understanding of the matter.
 
I would think that John the Baptist had all the qualifications necessary.
Luke 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people In the remission of their sins,

John's qualification to baptise was based on his Priestly office. He could perform all of the various rituals of an old cov. priest, including the many baptisms given by Moses.

This is the reason we can have 100% certainty as to the mode (sprinkling) that he employed.
 
1. Regarding Phillip baptizing the Ethiopian, it is more than a simple matter of saying, "Look, don't you realize Phillip did it? Therefore, laymen can/should baptize." We need to remember that Phillip was an approved preacher of the gospel, performing miracles, having communication to preach the gospel from the angel of the Lord himself. He is clearly no ordinary person. See especially Acts 21:8 -- this same Phillip (one of the Seven) was an Evangelist, even as Timothy.

2. The connection of the Word and sacrament ought to give anyone pause here: just as it does not belong to anyone to preach in the church, much less does it belong to anyone to administer the sacred signs and seals which confirm and are necessarily accompanied by the word. This belongs to the ministers of the gospel.

3. The teaching and ministry of private persons is far different from the public ministry of the Word. Out of charity, private men and women exhort, encourage and direct the other members of the body; the stated, sacred ministry, however, belongs to those commissioned to preach. Therefore, yes, all disciple, but in different manners.

4. The fact that the Great Commission extends to the whole church in no way indicates that every member of the church has the same duties or responsibilities in carrying it out. Those who pray and support the ministers of the Word in their preaching play just as large and important a role in the great commission as the preachers themselves; especially when they help my exhorting, praying for and encouraging their brothers who have received the preached word.

5. As these things belong to the church to dispense, it ought to fall to the shepherds of the church to prudently dispense them in and before the congregation. A private man cannot take judgment of these matters upon himself. These things fall on (as Paul describes them) "the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God."
 
just as it does not belong to anyone to preach in the church,

The LBF actually disagrees with this, as well. It says that those ordained to do so should preach, but that this does not preclude others in the church from doing so, as well. (Let me see if I can find the reference.)

I'm not sure of the conventional method of citing this, so hopefully this will be understandable. :)

XXVI. 11. Although it be incumbent on the Bishops or Pastors of the Churches to be instant in Preaching the Word, by way of Office; yet the work of Preaching the Word, is not so peculiarly confined to them; but that others also (a) gifted, and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved, and called by the Church, may and ought to perform it.
 
It should be noted, as Lance suggested above, that drawing "sacraments" out of "mysteries" in 1 Cor. 4:1 is a big assumption. I think that is one of the poorer proof-texts in the WCF, and that what is being spoken of by Paul is not the sacraments at all, but the mystery of the whole of the Gospel and incarnation. I think the context makes that pretty clear (as well as the fact that equating mystery/sacraments comes from a later period in church history, and is therefor an anachronistic application).

Thankfully, at least in the PCA, we are not required to subscribe to the proof-texts. I do think that the principles of that section are more or less sound, however, it should also be noted that outstanding Reformed theologians of the past have not restricted baptism and the supper to the formally ordained ministry only and on every occasion. You can find this opinion among Turretin, Perkins, Owen, and others.
 
Thankfully, at least in the PCA, we are not required to subscribe to the proof-texts. I do think that the principles of that section are more or less sound, however, it should also be noted that outstanding Reformed theologians of the past have not restricted baptism and the supper to the formally ordained ministry only and on every occasion. You can find this opinion among Turretin, Perkins, Owen, and others.

Here is Turretin:

19.XIV.II On the other hand we contend that the baptism by laymen (of whatever sex they may be) is a nullity and think that it cannot be rightly administered by anyone except by a pastor lawfully called, whether in a case of necessity or not.

Also, I don't deny that Owen may say that, but, can you please produce such a statement from him? The only place I can think of at the moment where he address the matter is in his catechism, wherein he states:
Q. 2. What is baptism?
A. An holy action, appointed of Christ, whereby being sprinkled with water in the name of the whole Trinity, by a lawful minister of the church, we are admitted into the family of God, and have the benefits of the blood of Christ confirmed unto us.
 
just as it does not belong to anyone to preach in the church,

The LBF actually disagrees with this, as well. It says that those ordained to do so should preach, but that this does not preclude others in the church from doing so, as well. (Let me see if I can find the reference.)

I'm not sure of the conventional method of citing this, so hopefully this will be understandable. :)

XXVI. 11. Although it be incumbent on the Bishops or Pastors of the Churches to be instant in Preaching the Word, by way of Office; yet the work of Preaching the Word, is not so peculiarly confined to them; but that others also (a) gifted, and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved, and called by the Church, may and ought to perform it .

Please note the very direct statements in that section of the confession which I bolded above. Those who drafted that section still had in mind people who were publicly, externally called by the church to preach. This is of a different sort than the instruction and edification which the laws of charity and prudence make incumbent upon all in accordance with our own stations.
 
I will get back with you later on Turretin. He has a clear statement in book three that I think you have missed.
 
2.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. (Matt. 3:11, John 1:33, Matt. 28:19–20)
3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person. (Heb. 9:10,19–22, Acts 2:41, Acts 16:33, Mark 7:4)
-Westminster confession chapterxxviii



The confessions never say when however historically presbyterians have done it either very briefly in the church service (for time's sake) or in minority traditions at homes of the family and invite anyone who wants to come in the case of infants. For those who are drafted into the covenant (as opposed to those born to believers BUT NOT BORN BELIEVERS) such as myself public is usually seen as best infront of the local congregation after a profession of faith.
 
What if a minister delegates someone to perform the actual washing? This seems to be what happens in Acts 10:48.
 
MAT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

1CO 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread.

1CO 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

HEB 5:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

...So these are the Scripture references I see for WCF 27.4 (or however y'all like to quote confessions). I'm so sorry, but I simply don't understand how these in any way demonstrate that only a minister of the gospel can administer a baptism. Just in reading the context I am left saying "Uhh..." because it appears to me that there would have to at least be a stretch to have this claim substantiated. Would any of you be willing to explain how these verses apply?

And while we are on this topic, would anyone be willing to explain how, if only ministers have authority to perform baptism, a person is still deemed "baptized" if they are "baptized" by someone who doesn't have proper authority?

Only ministers or elders should baptize because there is a teaching element in baptism.
 
What if a minister delegates someone to perform the actual washing? This seems to be what happens in Acts 10:48.

Ruben, I would certainly have a better exegete than myself answer this. But here are my preliminary reservations about using that passage to address the matter:

1.) It requires the "he commanded them" to mean that "he commanded them to be baptized by another." John could command, "Repent and be baptized," and it clearly meant "be baptized by me." I certainly do not deny the possibility that the intention here is that others baptized Cornelius & co., and such has been asserted by numerous expositors, Calvin included, prudently citing Paul's apparent practice from 1 Corinthians of leaving baptism to others.

2.) It also assumes that there was not a minister among the six brethren from Joppa which accompanied him, if indeed it was one of the these commanded to baptize them.

3.) Finally, it assumes that the command to baptize was carried out immediately in the house, and not as soon as practical within the church, or by a minister.

In short, I don't deny that such could be the meaning; but I would want to see more support from other places that non-ministerial administration of the sacrament was accepted before leaning toward that meaning.
 
No, I understand that by itself Acts 10:48 doesn't really advance any position. I am just wondering what people's views are on what seems to have occurred in the text.
 
It should be noted, as Lance suggested above, that drawing "sacraments" out of "mysteries" in 1 Cor. 4:1 is a big assumption. I think that is one of the poorer proof-texts in the WCF, and that what is being spoken of by Paul is not the sacraments at all, but the mystery of the whole of the Gospel and incarnation. I think the context makes that pretty clear (as well as the fact that equating mystery/sacraments comes from a later period in church history, and is therefor an anachronistic application).

Thankfully, at least in the PCA, we are not required to subscribe to the proof-texts. I do think that the principles of that section are more or less sound, however, it should also be noted that outstanding Reformed theologians of the past have not restricted baptism and the supper to the formally ordained ministry only and on every occasion. You can find this opinion among Turretin, Perkins, Owen, and others.

I do not believe that the Reformers and Puritans directly equated the "mysteries of God" in 1 Cor. 4:1 with the sacraments. The argument seems to have been a bit more nuanced than simply anachronistically applying a medieval definition to a first century term. Scott Roberts brought this out from Calvin's commentaries in a previous thread:
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):
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.

As the visible Gospel displayed in water, wine, and bread, the Sacraments are included in the stewardship of which 1 Corinthians 4:1 speaks.
 
Paul,

Thank you for waiting patiently for my answer. I have been quite busy these past few days.

The relevant section in Turretin's work is 18.23.13-23. He does a very good job of speaking about practical situations, and with the understanding that this would not be the ordinary circumstance. Although I cannot write out those passages in full, and would highly recommend all who can to read them (as they are both thoughtful and rich), I will mention one statement that I think very important to sacramental trends in the Reformed churches, some of which begin to veer off toward Rome, in my opinion.

He writes:

"Rather we ask whether an ordinary call is so simply and absolutely necessary that without it there can be no lawful preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments. This the Romanists hold; we deny."

But that is just an opening polemic. Read it all if you are able, for it is very good ecclesiology.
 
Adam, thanks for getting back with me; and please do not worry about taking time. I'd much rather take days and be sure we're getting things right, than speak quickly in search of simply winning a quick argument. I'm actually quite familiar with the chapter, and wholly affirm what is said therein: we are not sacerdotalists. It is important to understand what he is talking about in this passage, however: he is talking about whether an ordinary call is necessary in those most extreme cases of the entire church being overcome with idolatry, or all ministers being removed through persecution. His answer to this is that in such extreme cases, the Christians may together appoint ministers for themselves to execute the office. This is important -- he is arguing that the people can create for themselves pastors in such situations so that these things may be properly carried out. I am unsure as to how this passage addresses the situation at hand, when he clearly stands firmly against such types of actions when there is a duly constituted church already in existence; and when there is not, the people are supposed to select ministers for themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top