ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
What does the Scripture prescribe on all of these subjects?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can laymen preside over church ordinances?
- Thread starter Zenas
- Start date
I don't know. Why don't you tell us?
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
I will once I find laymen in the NT.
Very clever. :laugh: Of course by laymen we all understand to mean those persons who have not had hands laid on them. Cf. 1 Timothy 4:14. Well, maybe all of us but you Reformed fellows.
Tom Butler
New Member
A little history search of Baptists will reveal that there are plenty of writings limiting the administering of baptism to ordained Baptist men. To hold otherwise is to say that they were wrong for hundreds of years.
FR7 Baptist
Active Member
To be clear, I think baptism should be performed by a minister for practical reasons. However, if it is done by someone else it does not make it invalid. I don't see anything in Scripture that indicates that it matters.
I think it's more accurate to say that the general preference has been for the ordinances to be administered by ordained men while realizing that on this question, as many others, Baptists have differed.
For example, the First London Baptist Confession (1644) says that "The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this ordinance, the Scriptures hold forth to a preaching Disciple, it being no where tied to a particular church, officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered Disciples."
The Second London Confession, on the other hand, reserves administration of the ordinances to elders and deacons: "A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons."
Edward T. Hiscox, whose 19th century "Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches" is still in print (and in use) considered administration of ordinances by the minister the usual method but acknowledged there was no explicit Scriptural command for it.
On the Lord's Supper: "The deacons usually and properly distribute the elements. But any member can be called on for that service, should occasion require, and the service would be just as lawful, valid and proper."
On baptism: "Baptism is usually administered by ordained ministers. And this is proper, regular, and orderly. But should occasion require, and the Church so direct, it would be equally valid if administered by a deacon or any private member selected for that service. The validity depends on the character and profession of the candidate, and not on that of the administrator. As to the qualifications of administrators the New Testament is silent, except that they were disciples, Nor need the churches deprive themselves of the ordinances because an ordained minister is not obtainable, as they, unwisely, often do."
To be perfectly honest, I think this is one of those muchado about nothing type of arguments. Mr. Spurgeon would be in great difficulty in that he was never ordained.
Does it really matter who administers the ordinances? Baptists had only two offices: pastors and deacons. Some pastors were not the slightest interested in ordination, and deacons were never ordained.
If a layperson baptized someone, would it render the symbol of baptism invalid? What when he served the bread and the wine? Would the symbol of remembering Christ be negated?
Let's get on with the real arguments.
Cheers,
Jim
Does it really matter who administers the ordinances? Baptists had only two offices: pastors and deacons. Some pastors were not the slightest interested in ordination, and deacons were never ordained.
If a layperson baptized someone, would it render the symbol of baptism invalid? What when he served the bread and the wine? Would the symbol of remembering Christ be negated?
Let's get on with the real arguments.
Cheers,
Jim
This is an old holdover from the RC church. As Baptists we are all Priests... NO Where in the Bible does it say that ONLY ordained Pastors can Baptize....
And we shouldn't put Baptist History and tradition on the same level as Scripture.... Or else we become like the RCC.
NOW, that said, we are instructed to do all things "in order"... so it is wise to appoint someone to Baptize and administer communion.... and in most churches, this is the pastor and deacons...
Although, when we only had one deacon in the church I pastor, I also used other men whom I felt were spiritually mature to help administer the ordinances.
And we shouldn't put Baptist History and tradition on the same level as Scripture.... Or else we become like the RCC.
NOW, that said, we are instructed to do all things "in order"... so it is wise to appoint someone to Baptize and administer communion.... and in most churches, this is the pastor and deacons...
Although, when we only had one deacon in the church I pastor, I also used other men whom I felt were spiritually mature to help administer the ordinances.
Concerning the history of the “Priesthood of all Believers” I’ll share these significant statements by men who supported this doctrine for you reformed fellers:
"All Christians are priests, and all priests are Christians. Worthy of anathema is any assertion that a priest is anything else than a Christian."~ Luther
“John Calvin applied that message by forming a polity wherein laity and clergy alike would serve in ordained offices of leadership—as peers in proclamation of the Word, peers in intercessory prayer, and peers in mission service.”
"All Christians are priests, and all priests are Christians. Worthy of anathema is any assertion that a priest is anything else than a Christian."~ Luther
“John Calvin applied that message by forming a polity wherein laity and clergy alike would serve in ordained offices of leadership—as peers in proclamation of the Word, peers in intercessory prayer, and peers in mission service.”
Just because Baptists never allowed the non-ordained to administer ordinances in our past history doesn't give us a reason not to allow it today. Many of our Baptist brethren had no problem with slavery or with Jim Crow but that doesn't make it OK. It's the same argument that the Founder's Movement uses to which I say "so?" While we are not to ignore history it doesn't mean that we have to follow its precedence especially when it has no real basis in the Bible.
Tom Butler
New Member
Sounds to me like you favor ignoring history when it doesn't square with your view. I'm not arguing that scripture demands that ordained men baptize and preside over the Lord's Supper. I just wonder why most Baptists have held that view and practiced it for 400-plus years, but now it's time to junk it.
They could have been doing it for 1000 years but that still doesn't it make it set in stone. Now if you can show in the Bible where only the ordained can administer ordinances then I'll fully agree.
With that said, I think it is best that only the pastor and deacons serve the Lord's Supper and baptize folks. But, I don't know of any verses that would cause me to be dogmatic with this belief.
With that said, I think it is best that only the pastor and deacons serve the Lord's Supper and baptize folks. But, I don't know of any verses that would cause me to be dogmatic with this belief.
Aaron gave us 1 Corinthians 4:1 earlier on this thread and while it might not give rise to dogma, it certainly points in that direction.
Tom Butler
New Member
I'm not trying to be dogmatic about it, I'm just looking for the rationale that has favored ordained men for the ordinances for several hundred years. They must have had some good reason to their practice. And they felt strongly enough to be willing to die for what they believed.
I'm not a slave to the past, but I wish we wouldn't be so quick to blow it off.
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.
It's similar to "I don't care what Baptists taught and practiced hundreds of years ago. I follow the scripture." Can anybody understand why this pushes my hot button?
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom, think of it this way.. In Europe, when the Roman Catholic church had control of all kingdoms.. the Priests had control. In the RC theology then, the only way to be saved was to be part of the the church.. and the only way to be part of the church was to submit to the Priests.. the Priest could decide who to serve Mass to, and who not to.
There are a lot of things we do as Baptists that relate to the RCC. (Altars in our churches anyone?)... This is an old holdover from the RC Days..
And even if you don't subscribe to the idea that Baptist came out of the RCC.. Baptists were still influenced by them in this matter. This is also where the concept of "Closed" communion comes from... In this way the Pastor is still acting as main priest by choosing who can be served communion, and thus who is an active part of the church.
There are a lot of things we do as Baptists that relate to the RCC. (Altars in our churches anyone?)... This is an old holdover from the RC Days..
And even if you don't subscribe to the idea that Baptist came out of the RCC.. Baptists were still influenced by them in this matter. This is also where the concept of "Closed" communion comes from... In this way the Pastor is still acting as main priest by choosing who can be served communion, and thus who is an active part of the church.
I saw this, this morning, and thought this is exactly what I am trying to explain.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/22/report-kennedy-barred-communion-stance-abortion/
To a Catholic in the mid ages, this would have been one of the worst things that could happen to them. Because they saw Salvation coming through the community of the church, and through Mass.
And in this way the clergy held control over the elements of salvation. (RCC thinking)
So people who were used to this type control naturally thought it was biblical for ONLY the clergy of the church to administer the ordinances. This is all they ever saw, and remember the Bible wasn't readily available, they HAD to trust their pastors.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/22/report-kennedy-barred-communion-stance-abortion/
To a Catholic in the mid ages, this would have been one of the worst things that could happen to them. Because they saw Salvation coming through the community of the church, and through Mass.
And in this way the clergy held control over the elements of salvation. (RCC thinking)
So people who were used to this type control naturally thought it was biblical for ONLY the clergy of the church to administer the ordinances. This is all they ever saw, and remember the Bible wasn't readily available, they HAD to trust their pastors.
Tom Butler
New Member
Tim, I understand what you're saying. And I'm really not arguing that the scripture opposes a layman's baptizing someone. I am mainly concerned with attitude, which I find a little arrogant and smug sometimes.
I see it manifested in middle of our debates with such lines as "You're a Calvinist, he's an Arminian, but I'm a Biblicist."
So when I see hundreds-of-years-old Baptist practice thrown out the window as outmoded, that gives me pause. As if none of those folks ever opened a Bible to see if their practices were scriptural.
Even today, the practice of layman baptism is extremely rare, yet here we are rationalizing it. "Well, we don't do it, but the Bible doesn't prevent it." Anybody wanna reflect on how that sounds.
To tell you the truth, I can see some situation developing where it might be necessary for an unordained man to administer the ordinances. I do find it curious, though, that few of us who think its okay are doing it, and deride our forefathers for not doing it.
I see it manifested in middle of our debates with such lines as "You're a Calvinist, he's an Arminian, but I'm a Biblicist."
So when I see hundreds-of-years-old Baptist practice thrown out the window as outmoded, that gives me pause. As if none of those folks ever opened a Bible to see if their practices were scriptural.
Even today, the practice of layman baptism is extremely rare, yet here we are rationalizing it. "Well, we don't do it, but the Bible doesn't prevent it." Anybody wanna reflect on how that sounds.
To tell you the truth, I can see some situation developing where it might be necessary for an unordained man to administer the ordinances. I do find it curious, though, that few of us who think its okay are doing it, and deride our forefathers for not doing it.
Do we have evidence that it's always been the practice that only ordained men could baptize or do the Lord's Supper? What about in the pioneer days? Or what about when the settlers first came to America? How about in other times where there wasn't always a local church with an ordained minister? Does that mean that no one was ever baptized or partook of the Lord's Supper?