Pastor-only-administered ordinances/sacraments?

[Thomas Helwys]

DHK and I have been having a running battle over this question, so I wanted to take a poll on it. And I am posting it in this section so non-Baptists may participate.

So, is the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper restricted to only the pastor or ordained clergy?

This should be fun!

 

[Matt Black]

Communion, yes, baptism, no.

 

[12strings]

I'm wondering what Matt Black's scriptural support for this is....


Also...it may be helpful to ask if the ordinances can be administered only by the Pastor/Elder, or if they merely need to be OVERSEEN/APPROVED by the pastor/elder, or congregation?

So many churches might let a lay man baptize his son, but he doesn't just do it at home, he does it at church, under the church's umbrella of approval. In addition, many church's have deacons serve communion.

The question is, if I decide I want to have my own communion with my wife at home, is it really no different?

Also, there is question of: "Is baptism the entrance into the church, or merely a public proffession of following Jesus, apart from any connection to a local church?

 

[12strings]

btw, my answer is that it is not limited to the clergy, but it IS something that should be done by the local church. (ie, if a church spends 6 months between pastors...they can still baptize new members and have communion.)

 

[annsni]

btw, my answer is that it is not limited to the clergy, but it IS something that should be done by the local church. (ie, if a church spends 6 months between pastors...they can still baptize new members and have communion.)

Yep - this. I've served communion and I'm sure someday I will do a baptism as well. When we are on the ladies' retreat, we don't have any men around to lead these things and so we've had women do it. If we were to do baptisms on the retreat, it would be the same thing - women. If we had any of our deacons or pastors, I would defer to them but I believe that it can be performed by any believer under the leadership of the local church.

 

[Matt Black]

I'm wondering what Matt Black's scriptural support for this is....

Jesus gave the command re communion primarily to the Apostles, not to any old Joe or Joanna.

 

[Jerome]

I've served communion and I'm sure someday I will do a baptism as well. When we are on the ladies' retreat, we don't have any men around to lead these things and so we've had women do it. If we were to do baptisms on the retreat, it would be the same thing - women. If we had any of our deacons or pastors, I would defer to them but I believe that it can be performed by any believer under the leadership of the local church.

"It is not absolutely necessary, that the administration of the Supper should be performed by some officer of the church; and therefore because in Christ there is neither male nor female, it may in like manner be performed by all. Where that order obtains, that some officer should perform the administration, that order is to be kept for peace-sake, and reverence of the order. Where the officer is not present, or cannot be present in the public assembly, it is lawful for any man, especially a meet man, to perform that administration. . . .I add, where no men meet, but only women religious and godly, that there is no cause why they may not teach one another, and celebrate the Lord's Supper among themselves, seeing that the precept of celebrating the remembrance of Christ's death, and of testifying our mutual communion, belongs not less to women than to men, Gal. 3.28. Verily if we view the ancient custom of the Church, which Grotius hath alleged out of Tertullian and Cyprian, we we cannot doubt but that the administration of both sacraments were granted to laymen, and sometimes to women." —Simon Episcopius, Responsio ad Quaestiones Theologicas

 

[Matt Black]

Administration, yes; consecration of communion, no.

 

[12strings]

Jesus gave the command re communion primarily to the Apostles, not to any old Joe or Joanna.

Does that mean we don't even have to do it? Paul re-commanded it to the church, to take it seriously...

AND...how does it differ, then, from baptism, which was also a command (matt. 28) given to the apostles?

Administration, yes; consecration of communion, no.

What is "consecration." Are you saying if my pastor prays over the juice & crackers, then anyone can give them out because they are magically blessed? but if he doesn't pray over them, it's not really communion?

 

[Matt Black]

If he's ordained by a successor of said Apostles, then yes; hence how the Church can and does do this today.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yep - this. I've served communion and I'm sure someday I will do a baptism as well. When we are on the ladies' retreat, we don't have any men around to lead these things and so we've had women do it. If we were to do baptisms on the retreat, it would be the same thing - women. If we had any of our deacons or pastors, I would defer to them but I believe that it can be performed by any believer under the leadership of the local church.

If we look at the biblical accounts regarding the ordinances of the Church...

Seems that God puts a MUCH greater emphasis on the fact they only Christians should be partaking, and those in 'good standing", not really just who administers it!

 

[Thomas Helwys]

If he's ordained by a successor of said Apostles, then yes; hence how the Church can and does do this today.

Best not to try to speak for "the Church", as the Diocese of Sydney of the Anglican Communion believes in, as they term it, "lay presidency".

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Jesus gave the command re communion primarily to the Apostles, not to any old Joe or Joanna.

Denigrating the laity and enthroning prelacy, are you?

As I have said to your cousin DHK, nowhere in scripture is the administration (and I'll add "consecration" for your benefit) of the ordinances/sacraments restricted to pastors or clergy.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

It's delightful to see so many good Baptists upholding scriptural and historic Baptist principles on this matter!

 

[12strings]

It's delightful to see so many good Baptists upholding scriptural and historic Baptist principles on this matter!

I suspect you would take it even farther than I would, since you seem to think 3 people sitting at home constitute "the church."

In your view, do you see small local churches forming and unforming everytime a small group of christians meets?

 

[12strings]

If he's ordained by a successor of said Apostles, then yes; hence how the Church can and does do this today.

So if a Bible get's dropped out of an airplane in a tribal area, and some people find it, believe in Christ, and form a church, then they can do baptisms but not communion, because no ordained successor has consecrated it?

(And perhaps an interesting aside...would they realize this restriction from their plain reading of scripture?)

And finally, (again), are there any scriptures to back up what you are saying?

 

[Yeshua1]

So if a Bible get's dropped out of an airplane in a tribal area, and some people find it, believe in Christ, and form a church, then they can do baptisms but not communion, because no ordained successor has consecrated it?

(And perhaps an interesting aside...would they realize this restriction from their plain reading of scripture?)

And finally, (again), are there any scriptures to back up what you are saying?

There cannot be any, for the Bible does NOT support at all this notion of an "Apostolic sucession!"

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I suspect you would take it even farther than I would, since you seem to think 3 people sitting at home constitute "the church."

In your view, do you see small local churches forming and unforming everytime a small group of christians meets?

Is this a serious question?

 

[Matt Black]

Denigrating the laity and enthroning prelacy, are you?

No, but there is such a thing as church order and discipline, is there not?

As I have said to your cousin DHK, nowhere in scripture is the administration (and I'll add "consecration" for your benefit) of the ordinances/sacraments restricted to pastors or clergy.

Yes this is how the Church has done it (++Peter Jensen's personal opinion notwithstanding) since the beginning.

 

[Matt Black]

So if a Bible get's dropped out of an airplane in a tribal area, and some people find it, believe in Christ, and form a church, then they can do baptisms but not communion, because no ordained successor has consecrated it?

They can do whatever they want; whether it would be licit or not is another matter...

(And perhaps an interesting aside...would they realize this restriction from their plain reading of scripture?)

Again, one can realize anything one wants from a 'plain reading' of Scripture, which is of course why we have so many disagreements here. Whether your 'plain reading' , DHK's or mine is correct or not is, again, another matter...

And finally, (again), are there any scriptures to back up what you are saying?

Your question assumes that my theology is based on Scripture operating in a vacuum. It isn't: I don't subscribe to sola Scriptura as, as I have hinted above, it is clearly not a workable theological methodology - and, ironically, is not actually Scriptural. The New Testament is not and was never intended to be a 'How to do Church' manual; rather, some of us 'do Church' in a certain way because our spiritual ancestors have done it that way, and their spiritual predecessors have too, right back to the Apostolic Age.