Can laymen preside over church ordinances?

[Dr. Bob]

Famous Baptist mantra:

"We've always done it that way"

I am thankful for the heritage and example of the past. But I look beyond 1610 and the first English Baptist churches. I look to the Word, to Acts and the Epistles and think that is all that folks who truly believe in the priesthood of the believer and local church authority are promoting on this thread.

 

[Tom Butler]

Famous Baptist mantra:

"We've always done it that way"

I am thankful for the heritage and example of the past. But I look beyond 1610 and the first English Baptist churches. I look to the Word, to Acts and the Epistles and think that is all that folks who truly believe in the priesthood of the believer and local church authority are promoting on this thread.

Dr. Bob, you are the first one to raise the point of the priesthood of believers. I think it is a good point to make in this discussion. Up to now, the main argument for baptism by a layman has been that the scriptures don't forbid it. That seems to me to be a weak argument from silence, when balanced again Baptist practice for hundreds of years.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Because of my Baptist upbringing, I still think the baptism by the pastor is my first choice, ordained deacons in the same church, an ordained preacher authorized by the local church; and finally, whoever the church may authorize. Still, I can't bring myself to include women in that group. I guess the point is, the local congregation may choose anyone to baptize on its behalf--but I don't have to like the choices.

 

[annsni]

Dr. Bob, you are the first one to raise the point of the priesthood of believers. I think it is a good point to make in this discussion. Up to now, the main argument for baptism by a layman has been that the scriptures don't forbid it. That seems to me to be a weak argument from silence, when balanced again Baptist practice for hundreds of years.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Our pastor used that same argument just two weeks ago when he preached on baptism and why we do it. No need to only have "ordained" ministers since we believe in the priesthood of the believer.

 

[Zenas]

Our pastor used that same argument just two weeks ago when he preached on baptism and why we do it. No need to only have "ordained" ministers since we believe in the priesthood of the believer.

At the risk of derailing my own thread, I must ask, "If we are all priests (and I agree that we are), why ordain at all?" Or to put it another way, "What can an ordained minister do that we can't do?" You can't say it is mere ceremony and surplusage because we have very clear Biblical examples of this practice. 1 Timothy 4:14; 5:22; and 2 Timothy 1:6.

 

[Benjamin]

Dr. Bob, you are the first one to raise the point of the priesthood of believers.

Uh-uh...post #30, and I gave a quote from Luther about it which afterwards you said this:

I guess I don't react very well to statements like, "I don't care what Martin Luther taught, I follow scripture." Most of us couldn't sit in Martin Luther's shadow when it comes to exegeting scripture.

And may I ask in my best chopped-liver voice: What did Luther teach about layman not performing the ordinances?

I think it is a good point to make in this discussion.

:thumbsup: I will still humbly take that as a compliment though...thanks!

 

[Tom Butler]

Uh-uh...post #30, and I gave a quote from Luther about it which afterwards you said this:-------------

And may I ask in my best chopped-liver voice: What did Luther teach about layman not performing the ordinances?

Benjamin, forgive me. My reference to Martin Luther was not aimed at your post, since I somehow missed it completely. It was pure coincidence that I picked Luther for my comment. The point of my post was not to knock Luther, but to criticize the attitude expressed in a comment such as "I don't care what (fill in the blank) taught, wrote or believed, I believe the Bible."

That's all I meant.

 

[annsni]

At the risk of derailing my own thread, I must ask, "If we are all priests (and I agree that we are), why ordain at all?" Or to put it another way, "What can an ordained minister do that we can't do?" You can't say it is mere ceremony and surplusage because we have very clear Biblical examples of this practice. 1 Timothy 4:14; 5:22; and 2 Timothy 1:6.

Well, with ordination, we are setting apart men for the ministry. We are approving of their training and giving them the "stamp of approval" that they are worthy of being called "pastor".

However, it was not just ordained men who baptized and I don't see a condition placed anywhere in Scripture regarding Baptism and/or the Lord's Supper.

 

[Tom Butler]

Well, with ordination, we are setting apart men for the ministry. We are approving of their training and giving them the "stamp of approval" that they are worthy of being called "pastor".

However, it was not just ordained men who baptized and I don't see a condition placed anywhere in Scripture regarding Baptism and/or the Lord's Supper.

Ann, I don't dispute your statement. But are you saying that Baptists who have limited to ordained men the practice of baptizing or presiding over the Lord's Supper are wrong, and have been for hundreds of years.

Why do you think they adopted that practice?

 

[Johnv]

Dr. Bob, you are the first one to raise the point of the priesthood of believers. I think it is a good point to make in this discussion. Up to now, the main argument for baptism by a layman has been that the scriptures don't forbid it. That seems to me to be a weak argument from silence, when balanced again Baptist practice for hundreds of years.

The OP question, though, isn't whether or not a practiced way is the best way or established way, it's the question of whether or not it is permitted. Scripturally, there isn't any restriction on who can or cannot practice an ordinance (communion or baptism). It is not, therefore, a violation of scripture to allow layersons, both male and female, to administer those ordinances.

Now, that doesn't mean that all church "must" allow layperson to do so. If a church has a particular custom or practice in place whereby only pastors administer the ordinances, then by all means, it is not unscriptural for a church to choose to restrict that practice to persons of such offices. It's a matter of autonomy and liberty. Each church is permitted to practice the administration of ordinances as it sees fit.

 

[annsni]

Ann, I don't dispute your statement. But are you saying that Baptists who have limited to ordained men the practice of baptizing or presiding over the Lord's Supper are wrong, and have been for hundreds of years.

Why do you think they adopted that practice?

? I don't know. But I know that our church has never practiced that it is only ordained men who do baptism or the Lord's Supper. I also know that my husband was not baptized by an ordained minister and I have often seen a child be baptized by his father.

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin, forgive me. My reference to Martin Luther was not aimed at your post, since I somehow missed it completely....
That's all I meant.

I was just kidding and razzing you a bit, I figured you had missed my post. :smilewinkgrin:

I was wondering though, since you were taliking about tradition and used Luther as an example if you had anything supporting that tradition from him---apparently not though---it was just a name you picked.

 

[Benjamin]

Now, that doesn't mean that all church "must" allow layperson to do so. If a church has a particular custom or practice in place whereby only pastors administer the ordinances, then by all means, it is not unscriptural for a church to choose to restrict that practice to persons of such offices.

I think our forefathers, who broke away from the RCC would strongly disagree with you about it not being unscriptural to restrict those practices...

 

[Johnv]

I think our forefathers, who broke away from the RCC would strongly disagree with you about it not being unscriptural to restrict those practices...

If that were so, then it would have been incorporated into the Baptist Distinctives. I can find nothing in Baptist history that suggests the issue of who adminsiteres ordinances was a contributive reason for the forming of Baptist faith and practice.

 

[Benjamin]

If that were so, then it would have been incorporated into the Baptist Distinctives.

Really??? Ever heard of the reasons Matin Luther went and nailed a letter to the door of the RCC? Did you also not read the strong words in the quote I gave from him. :tonofbricks:

Maybe it depends WHO we are talking about?

Originally posted by Benjamin:
I think our forefathers, who broke away from the RCC would strongly disagree with you about it not being unscriptural to restrict those practices...

 

[Johnv]

Really??? Ever heard of the reasons Matin Luther went and nailed a letter to the door of the RCC?

Im well acquainted with them. None of the 95 Theses address the administration of ordinances by laypersons.

Did you also not read the strong words in the quote I gave from him.

Since you're referring to Martin Luther in regards to the breaking away from the RCC, I can find nothign in any of Luther's writings saying that the issue of administration of ordinances and the laity was one of the reasons for his breakign away. Further, I can find nothign in the writings of John Calvin. Lastly, I can find nothing in the writings of Baptist theologians that indicate this is a part of Baptist faith and practice, or a reason for separating over, either from the RCC, or one church from another.

 

[Benjamin]

Im well acquainted with them. None of the 95 Theses address the administration of ordinances by laypersons.

Since you're referring to Martin Luther in regards to the breaking away from the RCC, I can find nothign in any of Luther's writings saying that the issue of administration of ordinances and the laity was one of the reasons for his breakign away. Further, I can find nothign in the writings of John Calvin. Lastly, I can find nothing in the writings of Baptist theologians that indicate this is a part of Baptist faith and practice, or a reason for separating over, either from the RCC, or one church from another.

Quit trying to change the argument...

Originally posted by Benjamin:
I think our forefathers, who broke away from the RCC would strongly disagree with you about it not being unscriptural to restrict those practices...

Originally Posted by Benjamin
Really??? Ever heard of the reasons Matin Luther went and nailed a letter to the door of the RCC?

The Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences (Latin: Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum), commonly known as The Ninety-Five Theses, were written by Martin Luther in 1517 and are widely regarded as the primary catalyst for the Protestant Reformation.

[From Article 4:] Furthermore, it is taught that we cannot obtain forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God through our merit, work, or satisfactions, but that we receive forgiveness of sin and become righteous before God out of grace for Christ’s sake through faith when we believe that Christ has suffered for us and that for his sake our sin is forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are given to us ... [From Article 5:] To obtain such faith God instituted the office of preaching, giving the gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit who produces faith, where and when he wills, in those who hear the gospel ... [Article 14:] Concerning church government it is taught that no one should publicly teach, preach, or administer the sacraments without a proper [public] call.

Since you're referring to Martin Luther in regards to the breaking away from the RCC, I can find nothign in any of Luther's writings saying that the issue of administration of ordinances and the laity was one of the reasons for his breakign away.

It is a foundational concept of Protestantism.While Martin Luther did not use the exact phrase "priesthood of all believers," he adduces a general priesthood in Christendom in his 1520 To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation in order to dismiss the medieval view that Christians in the present life were to be divided into two classes: "spiritual" and "temporal." He put forward the doctrine that all baptized Christians are "priests" and "spiritual" in the sight of God:

 

[Tom Bryant]

My thought as to why the church started practicing it was to protect the truth of baptism and the Lord's Supper. So that the person doing the baptizing and the person "presiding" at the Lord's Supper would really know what Baptists believed and practiced.

We practice that the church is the authorizing authority and anyone the church authorizes can baptize or handle the elements.

I think the idea that only an ordained person can hand out the bread and juice is a leftover from the Catholic days, when they were falsely taught that the elements actually became the body and blood of Jesus.

 

[Johnv]

Quit trying to change the argument...

Huh? The topic is "Can laymen preside over church ordinances?" You, not I, brought the 95 Theses into the argument. There's nothing in the 95 Theses that suggest it is unscriptural for laypesons to preside over the administering of communion or baptism.

There isn't any scriptural restriction on who can or cannot practice an ordinance (communion or baptism). It is not, therefore, a violation of scripture to allow layersons to administer those ordinances.

 

[Benjamin]

We practice that the church is the authorizing authority and anyone the church authorizes can baptize or handle the elements.

Wouldn't that be the same thing the RCC practiced?

 

[Benjamin]

Huh? The topic is "Can laymen preside over church ordinances?" You, not I, brought the 95 Theses into the argument. There's nothing in the 95 Theses that suggest it is unscriptural for laypesons to preside over the administering of communion or baptism.

Although Luther may have not made direct reference to the "Preisthood of all Believers" it was a foundational concept which lead to the reformation-> I addressed "Our forefathers who broke away from the RCC and the reasons why.

"I" am certainly not saying it is unscriptural for lay persons to preside over the ordinances! You said:

If a church has a particular custom or practice in place whereby only pastors administer the ordinances, then by all means, it is not unscriptural for a church to choose to restrict that practice to persons of such offices.

To which I addressed the aforementioned reasons for separation from the RCC.

Sheesh