Can laymen preside over church ordinances?

[Zenas]

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".

Ann, I've been thinking about this ever since you posted it several days ago and of course you are correct. However, ordination is more than this. It appears to involve the transmission of grace through laying on of hands. If it doesn't, then Paul was great exaggerating in 1 Timothy 4:14,

Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.

and in 2 Timothy 1:6,

For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

Doesn't this dovetail with 1 Corinthians 4:1, which has already been discussed on this thread? And if so, doesn't this militate against lay persons administering the ordinances?

 

[Tom Butler]

Tom, would your church accept,
1. A baptism from a non SBC Baptist church?
2. A baptism from a Disciples of Christ church?
3. A baptism from a Presbyterian church?
4. A baptism from a Church of Christ?
5. Any form of infant baptism?
6. A sprinkling baptism of any form?
The reason I ask is that a few years ago our church voted to accept believer's baptism by immersion from any other church. We expected problems in the association but there were none. We haven't had a former Church of Christ member present himself for membership yet and I don't know what will be the course of action if that happens. Under a literal reading of our bylaws, that person would be entitled to membership without baptism.

1. Yes, under the right circumstances. We already exchange letters with IFB churches in our area. I would also favor receiving members of congregations which do not carry the Baptist name, but are baptistic in both doctrine and practice.
2-through-6. No.

In your church, this is what happens when the church authority becomes irrelevant. When the individual is the sole arbiter of whether his baptism is valid, this is what you get. To ignore an individual church's design and mode of its baptism is to get this kind of mischief.

 

[rsr]

The SBC adheres to a believer's baptism, which is immersion following a profession of belief. It doesn't matter if that immersion is done in a presbyterian church, reformed church, nondenominational church, etc. If it's a believer's baptism, it's a believer's baptism, and is valid according to SBC standards. So to answer your question, SBC churches generally accept alien baptism, so long as it is a believer's baptism. I myself was baptised in a church other than the SBC, and attended an SBC church for years before planting my current church, which is an independent reformed baptist congregation.

As you've already noted, SBC churches are autonomous on this matter; thus, there is no "SBC policy" to speak of. Areas in which the Landmark tradition is stronger (such as here in the Southwest) can be much more strict on the requirements. For example, the pianist in the church where I grew up originally was baptized in a Pentecostal denomination and was required to be rebaptized to become a member of our church many years after she began playing the piano for us regularly.

I'm sure that you're familiar with the SBC's International Mission Board rules on candidates for missionaries:

Baptism must take place under the authority of a local church that practices believer’s baptism alone, embraces the doctrine of the security of a believer’s salvation and does not view baptism as sacramental, regenerative or essential to salvation.


A candidate who has not been baptized under the authority of a local church, which meets the standards listed above, is expected to request baptism in his or her Southern Baptist church

 

[Tom Butler]

rsr,

Both the church you grew up in and the SBC International Mission Board policy are practicing correct policy.

 

[queenbee]

Well, I've seen both occur in my local church. Generally, it is our pastor and deacon board who administer communion, but we have had a couple of occasions when a visiting pastor (woman) administered the elements. As for baptism, several years ago, we had a young woman being baptized, who specifically requested that her friend who led her to the Lord be the one to baptize her. This young woman by her own testimony, had been into a life of drugs and rebellion and save for the steadfast love & prayers of this one friend who stuck by her, openly admitted she would likely have overdosed and died. She clearly wanted to not only acknowledge Gods' saving grace, but honor her friend in front of God and church family. There wasn't a dry eye in the house and it was a very precious time for all.

 

[Benjamin]

As for baptism, several years ago, we had a young woman being baptized, who specifically requested that her friend who led her to the Lord be the one to baptize her. This young woman by her own testimony, had been into a life of drugs and rebellion and save for the steadfast love & prayers of this one friend who stuck by her, openly admitted she would likely have overdosed and died. She clearly wanted to not only acknowledge Gods' saving grace, but honor her friend in front of God and church family. There wasn't a dry eye in the house and it was a very precious time for all.

Yet, some would insist she be re-baptized into "their" church. Very problematic from my perspective.

 

[jaigner]

This requirement regarding baptism is theologically bizarre, especially the one about the church having to believe in security of the believer. The Southern Baptists have completely lost their minds.

Furthermore, since Southern Baptists have such a low view of the sacram...excuse me, ordinances, I wouldn't think it would matter who "officiated" or played lifeguard or waiter.

 

[annsni]

This requirement regarding baptism is theologically bizarre, especially the one about the church having to believe in security of the believer. The Southern Baptists have completely lost their minds.

Furthermore, since Southern Baptists have such a low view of the sacram...excuse me, ordinances, I wouldn't think it would matter who "officiated" or played lifeguard or waiter.

First of all, this section of the bulletin board is called "Baptist Debate Forums (Baptist Only)" so if you are Methodist, you should not be posting in this section. There is a "All Other Christian" section that you're welcome to post in. Maybe start a thread over there.

Secondly, please post your thoughts more fully. I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with: that a church should be sure someone is saved, that there is the belief of eternal security or what.

Finally, your last paragraph is quite offensive and not really a kind of comment you would make as a brand new member of a bulletin board. How about reading a bit more before you begin to attack anyone on a site that you are basically a visitor on, OK?

 

[Salty]

This requirement regarding baptism is theologically bizarre, especially the one about the church having to believe in security of the believer. The Southern Baptists have completely lost their minds.

Furthermore, since Southern Baptists have such a low view of the sacram...excuse me, ordinances, I wouldn't think it would matter who "officiated" or played lifeguard or waiter.

What is the difference between a sacrament and an ordinance?
(please to not answer in this forum as so we will not hijack the subject at hand)

I am starting a thread in the "Other Christian Denominations" section, so non Baptists can be part of the discussion.

Salty