Featured Baptism?

You are making a lot of assumptions here. We aren't talking about anyone specific church, we are talking about a universal principle. Nobody said anything about breaking with the elders of a church or going behind a church's back. You brought all of that into the conversation.

 

I don't think we are too far apart on this. My original point to your original statement was that it is, grammatically, a question, not a statement. When you ask a question, even a rhetorical one, you may get an answer you don't expect.

Not a lot of difference, perhaps, but I think the question as conceived by Peter expected the answer "Surely not!" (Rather than nobody.) Why would the outward sign of the inward grace be refused, when the inward grace was evident? Nevertheless, when Peter got back to Jerusalem there were those who were not nearly as confident about the incident as he. He recounts the matter to them and concludes with an enthusiastic and forceful, "what was I, that I could withstand God?"

How would you develop this argument?

 

Simple, the great commission says to go and make disciples but it does not stop there. It then says to baptize those disciples. It doesn't say "Go and make Disciples then take them to the church to have an authorized member of the clergy baptize them."

 

To whom does it say this?

 

Did the church as such even exist at the time of delivery of the great commission? Not if it didn't begin until Pentecost. Just a thought.

 

The original audience was the 11 disciples. These 11 were told to go out and make disciples. What were they to do with those disciples? Two things:

1. Baptize them
2. Teach them to observe everything Christ commanded to them.

It is simple to understand that observing everything Christ commanded them includes the great comission. That means every believer is authorized to make disciples, to baptize, and to teach.

There is no indication from the text that this was for the organization of the church, you would have to read a lot into it to make that work.

 

Thank you, David, for explaining your reasoning. It appears that you agree in principle that there are authorized administrators, just not the same ones some others think.

 

Yes, which is why I asked for clarification. Of course, not anyone on earth can baptize, that would be absurd. The London Confession, which I hold to, states the following:

It then uses the great commission as the proof text for that article.

 

Considering they also use 1 Corinthians 4:1, combined with the statement of Chapter 26.8, I believe they intend ministers by "those who are qualified and thereunto called."

 

I read it that way if the sacrament is being administered within the church, but it is not always done so. I still believe that any Christian, based on Matthew, is authorized for this work.

 

Regardless of how we read it, I suppose it meant what the writers thought it meant. The best way to discern this would be to see whether the signers of the Confession – such as Knollys, Kiffin, Collins, Keach, et al. – addressed who could administer the ordinances (even then, they might not all be agreed.)

Having none of that at hand now, here are two quotes chronologically from either side, which suggest these thought ministers were the proper administrators of baptism.

Benjamin Cox, in his appendix to the 1646 London Confession wrote:

His explanation, taken with the words of the Confession, suggest they thought disciples who preach the gospel were the proper administrators – but not necessarily tied to a particular church.

The messengers of the Philadelphia Baptist Association in 1744 (using basically the same confession as 1689) took a stronger position toward ministers ordained and in a particular church:

 

Correct, the words recorded in Matthew 28:18-20 were spoken to the apostles (e.g.: v. 16 – “Then the eleven disciples went...”).

Jesus was speaking only to the apostles, but the command to these apostles has been extrapolated by Baptists in the following ways – Jesus’s command was given (1) to the apostles as apostles; (2) to the apostles as church representatives; (3) to the apostles as preachers/ministers; and (4) to the apostles as individual believers. (And maybe some others of which I am not aware.)

When we inspect the New Testament cases of baptism, we find that the command was not understood as given to the apostles exclusively, because not all administrators were apostles (e.g. Phillip, Ananias). The examples that are certain or somewhat certain in knowing who actually performed the baptism point to church officers, ministers or apostles as the administrators of baptism. They do not show all believers indiscriminately were performing baptisms.

Those who baptized in early New Testament times were believers who had been baptized and were part of Jesus’ gathered church. All known cases were persons acting in a sort of “ministerial/official” capacity – apostle, evangelist (or preaching deacon), and one directly commissioned to baptize (Ananias, possibly an elder at Damascus). In my understanding, taken together, the command and example favor this as the normative practice of the church.

 

Exactly, that is the point I am trying to make.

I think we are actually in agreement. Remember, my initial pushback was over whether or not an administrator had to be an ordained pastor.

 

I think, then that I have misunderstood you. By “disciples” I thought you meant any Christian individual whatsoever (e.g., your post #28).

 

I'm confused because what he said was actually almost verbatim what I said in #28. Any disciple, not necessarily tied to a particular church.

 

I'm confused also. I thought when you said all disciples you meant any and all Christians. The Confession and Cox, on the other hand, I think mean preacher but not necessarily an officer of a church.

 

I would agree with that.