The proper administrator for Baptism

[Tom Butler]

Well said!

At the church where I get to serve we love having others from our membership and lay leadership baptize when appropriate. Some of the best times are when a parent baptized their child. Is amazing!

I'm okay with that. From whom did you get permission to baptize?

At my church the "baptizee" is permitted to select the "baptizer", provided that the "baptizer" is a born again baptized believer. Just recently I had the privilege of baptizing a young lady who came to Christ in faith through our Starting Point class.

We had a girl in our church whose parents ask if a former pastor could baptize her. The church voted okay.

Do you require the 'baptizer" to be a member of your church? Or can it be any church? Who decided this. The church? Your pastor? You? Somebody had to give their approval to this practice. Just wondering where such authority came from.

 

[Tom Butler]

I wrote this a while back concerning the “authority” of the ordinance of baptism, and it addresses the GC “expanding its reach beyond the nation of Israel as well:

Starting with the main passages that support the POAB, 1Peter 2:9-10, we are told about individuals being a royal priesthood and as princes and priest have been consecrated to God while being told we are priest in a higher sense than the Jews. That is significant because it refers to the OT priests who were chosen by God, not self-appointed, to serve Him by offering up spiritual sacrifices.

This refers to the temple veil that only they were to pass which was torn in two by God upon Jesus’ death. It indicates the OT priesthood was no longer necessary and now believers could go directly to God through the High Priest, Jesus Christ. All this points to that as believers we have been given a freedom from the OT ways pertaining to that type priesthood:

(Hebrews 4:14) Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

(Hebrews 4:15) For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

(Hebrews 4:16) Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

We no longer have earthly mediators between God and man as existed in the OT:

(1 Timothy 2:5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Now for those quotes:


"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.”

What does this have to do with the authority to baptize? Where in the New Testament do we have any priest performing baptism on a believer; and where in the NT do we find such authority for the priests to baptize?

Jesus, the ultimate Priest, High Priest, never baptized.

 

[DHK]

We had a pastor of a sister church baptize three new converts of his own church, in our building. That is because his building doesn't have a baptistry. But I doubt if anyone would object to that.

 

[Benjamin]

From whom did you get permission to baptize?

Get permission! :laugh: If I were stranded in the middle of the desert with with a another person and I witnessed to him, and he believed and accepted Christ... and he asked to be baptized before we perished...and if all I had was my own spit I would prayfully use it across his forehead and he would be just as baptized as IF SOMEONE IN "AUTHORITY" FROM TOM BUTLER'S VERY OWN CHURCH HAD GIVEN ME PERMISSION TO DO SO! :laugh: So there! :laugh:

 

[DHK]

Get permission! :laugh: If I were stranded in the middle of the desert with with a another person and I witnessed to him, and he believed and accepted Christ... and he asked to be baptized before we perished...and if all I had was my own spit I would prayfully use it across his forehead and he would be just as baptized as IF SOMEONE IN "AUTHORITY" FROM TOM BUTLER'S HAD GIVEN ME PERMISSION TO DO SO! :laugh: So there! :laugh:

Do you mean he would perish spiritually, if he was going to perish physically if he wasn't baptized? I know the RCC believe that, but.....??

 

[Benjamin]

Do you mean he would perish spiritually, if he was going to perish physically if he wasn't baptized? I know the RCC believe that, but.....??

No, I mean if he asked/wished to baptized before he physically perished. I would not deny him...and it would be a real baptism. Now, the RCC wouldn't buy that I had the "authority" to do that...do you believe the same as them?

 

[DHK]

No, I mean if he asked/wished to baptized before he physically perished. I would not deny him...and it would be a real baptism. Now, the RCC wouldn't buy that I had the "authority" to do that...do you believe the same as them?

I believe all things should be done decently and in order and God is pleased in that.
Secondly, I believe that the ordinance of baptism is given to the local church and not individuals. Therefore if one is not there who has been given the authority by the local church to baptize I would not baptize. Remember the thief on the cross was not baptized. I don't believe he would lose any reward for not being baptized or you would lose any reward for not baptizing him.

I wasn't baptized until two years after I was saved. I never doubted my salvation. I was mixed up in an interdenominational organization that never stressed the necessity of baptism and therefore was never brought up as anything that one needed to pay attention to. I wasn't even a member of a local church during that period of time.

 

[Tom Butler]

Get permission! :laugh: If I were stranded in the middle of the desert with with a another person and I witnessed to him, and he believed and accepted Christ... and he asked to be baptized before we perished...and if all I had was my own spit I would prayfully use it across his forehead and he would be just as baptized as IF SOMEONE IN "AUTHORITY" FROM TOM BUTLER'S VERY OWN CHURCH HAD GIVEN ME PERMISSION TO DO SO! :laugh: So there! :laugh:

Well, let's see how that would work. Your new convert and you are out in the desert and he says to you "Gee, I want to be baptized, but there's no water around."

You reply, "No problem, a little spit will do ya."

You rub the spit across his forehead and say "I immerse you in spit in the name of.....etc."

Now, let's say, just for discussion's sake that before you headed for the desert, you sought permission to baptize any converts; they happily agreed.

So you return to your home church and tell them your story.

"Gee, guys, I woulda dunked him, but there was no water available, so I just rubbed some spit on his forehead. That'll work won't it?"

You continue: "I know, I know that baptize means to immerse. But I couldn't immerse because there was no water. What was I to do?"

Let's say they didn't approve. Your response would be, "Look, I'm a believer and a priest and that means I don't need either your permission or your approval. I'll baptize whoever I want to, any way I want to, anywhere I want to. So there."

Ah, you say, I'm putting words in your mouth. So I am. So you tell me what you would say.

 

[Tom Butler]

I believe all things should be done decently and in order and God is pleased in that.
Secondly, I believe that the ordinance of baptism is given to the local church and not individuals. Therefore if one is not there who has been given the authority by the local church to baptize I would not baptize. Remember the thief on the cross was not baptized. I don't believe he would lose any reward for not being baptized or you would lose any reward for not baptizing him.

I wasn't baptized until two years after I was saved. I never doubted my salvation. I was mixed up in an interdenominational organization that never stressed the necessity of baptism and therefore was never brought up as anything that one needed to pay attention to. I wasn't even a member of a local church during that period of time.

Benjamin got bent out of shape when I asked the question "From whom did you receive permission to baptize?"

You have hit on the answer: First, decently and in order. Second, it's an ordinance given to the church, not individuals.

What happens if you have more than one person who wants to baptize a new convert? What if a member simply gets up and says "I wanna dunk him." Another says "Naw, I wanna do it."

The first guy walks up the steps down into the baptistry, pushes the pastor out of the way, graves the baptizee by the scruff of the neck and pushes him under (saying the proper words at the same time).

The pastor floats to the surface, sputters and spits and says "What in the world are you doing!!?"

The first guy says, "why, I'm exercising my right as a believer to baptize. Jesus gave me the right."

The second guy arrives at the baptistry and he's not happy. He wanted to baptize, but the first guy outmaneuvered him and got there first. "I'm gonna do the next one, so step aside."

Now, I made this up to make DHK's point of decency and order. For order's sake, somebody has to decide. Nobody would really do this, would they? Benjamin?

The other point is, by claiming Jesus' Commission as your authority to baptize, you have conceded the necessity of authority. Now, we'll argue from whom the authority comes.

 

[Benjamin]

Butler, first, you've may remember a discussion with Brandon Jones about the meanings/significance of baptism; I believe similar to him (that the experience is more than simply an ordinance) therefore that is one reason I would not deny a believer that wished to be baptized... now.

Second, I don't believe in any specific power in the water, or how it is administered will make a difference of if a person recieves (whatever you believe he recieves, doesn't recieve, that it is just a local church ordinance act...whatever) but I do believe in the power of the HS and only One Mediator between me and God and what the Word tells me about access to Him.

So obviously, I also don't believe the same way you do about the church and I certainly don't recognize any authority there in your building that I would feel obligated to "ask your permission" for anything.

So, I'm afraid you simply wouldn't understand how I see the baptism working and I will certainly never understand what makes you think I would need to bow to your (or a local church) authority to fullfil the GC.

edit: BTW, I know DHK's view on the church, he is a dispensationalist, I am not and don't time to begin that battle, and as far as I know you are not a dispensationalist but just to say if we did go there (this area) I don't see your local churchthingy holding water at all without you holding to dispensationalism. Seems to me you have picked an allie out of convenience on this one, but would have big problems if we time to go through all this.

 

[Tom Butler]

Benjamin, I'm sorry I don't remember the Brandon Jones discussion. It's my advanced age. I can remember events of 50 years ago, but not events of last month. So feel free to refresh my memory.

The fact that you do not believe baptism is a local church ordinance explains the basis for your Lone Ranger view of baptism. I hope that my view that it is a local church ordinance will help explain my opinion.

Speaking of bowing to authority, you may not think you need to do so, but if you visit my church (or thousands of other Baptist churches), you will indeed need specific permission baptize their new converts. Even our pastor could not baptize in our church without specific authority from the congregation.

You my test my view by walking into your own church tomorrow and telling your pastor you intend to baptize the next convert. Let me know what his reaction is. If he says no, be sure to tell him you need neither his permission nor that of the church. Let the Baptist Board folks know how it comes out.

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin, I'm sorry I don't remember the Brandon Jones discussion. It's my advanced age. I can remember events of 50 years ago, but not events of last month. So feel free to refresh my memory.

Here is some, sorry don't have the links:

I would be among those Baptists that employ the word sacrament to speak of the Lord's Supper and Baptism. To be sure, some people may think that the word itself involves some sort of "saving efficacy" as you put it, but that is not what the word means or why the church employed it in the past. The word comes from "mystery" and if I recall it precisely means an outward sign (or symbol if you like) of an inward grace.

I prefer the word because I think it is a better description of Baptist views than "ordinance." I don't quibble with those who avoid the wordsacrament, but I do think Baptists have a knack for purposely avoiding things because they may look too "Catholic." Unfortunately, they can avoid meditating on some marvelous things like partaking of the Lord's Supper and Baptism and how the experience of performing these acts give the person some grace by participating in them (feeling the water bury them as a token of dying with Christ; crunching on the bread that represents His body and feeling the wine that represents His blood go down the throat to nourish him; meditating on what these things represent). I'm not arguing for a Tridentine "ex opere operato," but I am saying that Baptists of all people should enjoy how the experience of performing actions themselves should lead to mysterious and grace-filled experiences. After all, we only allow believers to partake of them.

I could perhaps clarify what I'm saying by appealing to the sacrament of the Word. I don't think Baptists have ever abandoned this sacrament. Sure, Baptists usually avoid the word sacrament, but they listen to the preaching the Word and read it and by doing so can experience nothing other than mysterious and grace-filled experiences. God speaks to them in the Word and presents things to them in the Word that He would not have otherwise without their attentive listening, reading, and meditating. People in the Christian tradition included the Word as asacrament for precisely this reason. Baptists today still use the Word in this way, but avoid the terminology. The Reformed tradition, for one, will even speak of the Lord's Table as the "visible Word."

I don't think this undermines grace as a gift from God. Surely God has chosen to use different things as "means of grace" and perhaps the greatest among them are the Word and Sacraments. Baptists emphasize God using the experience of the action itself while other branches of Christianity emphasize God using the action itself with varying degrees in between. This borders on splitting hairs, admittedly, but I think it is a wise distinction to make when discussing this.

Hello Tom Butler,

I don't think my view is unique in the Baptist tradition, especially our forefathers from two to three hundred years ago in England. For further reading let me recommend two voumes from Paternoster's excellent series "Studies in Baptist History and Thought": First is Baptist Sacramentalism (a fine collection of essays edited by Cross and Thompson) and the second is More Than a Symbol: The British Baptist Recovery of Baptismal Sacramentalism by Stanley K. Fowler (Fowler's thesis is a little bit overstated and there are helpful critiques in subsequent editions of The Baptist Quarterly). Even Baptists in the past like Gill and Spurgeon, while using the word ordinances, have quite a "sacramental" understanding of baptism and the Lord's Supper when you study what they say about them.

I think Baptists should endorse the sacraments as a means of grace and explain what that means to clear up any misconceptions whether they be Baptist or Roman Catholic misconceptions. There is nothing wrong with saying they are "means of grace" without having a hint of what you call "salvific efficacy." I would appeal again to my discussion of the Word above.

As for precision, I can't think of a more precise term for baptism and the Lord's Supper thansacrament, but it may just be preference. When I think of ordinances, I think of the official acts of city councils not mystery or signs of inward grace. Too often we talk of obedience and what the ordinances are not rather than relishing and meditating in what they are, in my opinion.

BJ

However, I love how this is worded: "Since receiving this sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant and Christ, it also reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ." The old Baptist John Gill once lamented at how the act that was to show the unity of Christians had become such a cause of conflict, but he was hopeful of the day in the future where it will once again be an act of Christian unity. Of course he had in mind the "spiritual reign of Christ" and his eschatology was a little eccentric. However, if we have in mind the time that Jesus refers to when he will drink of the vine again with his people in the kingdom, then I say it's a great hope to have.

I think Baptists would do well to rethink how God can communicate grace through the preaching of the Word and observing of the sacraments. It is my suspicion that many Baptists have kept the concept of the sacrament of the Word but have merely dropped the terminology.

Sacramentalism fell on hard times not just among Baptists but among many branches of Christianity in the eighteenth century partially because of changes that are now outdated in metaphysics, science, and philosophy. In a bit of irony, British Baptists became less sacramental in this time to appear more ecumenical and get into less hot water with other denominations and the state. Today you get charged with being ecumenical for having a sacramental view as a Baptist.

Anyhow I'm just rambling now. For more good reading on the Eucharist I also recommend Thomas a Kempis's, Imitation of Christ in which he devotes a chapter to it that has some great and challenging thoughts.

BJ

 

[Tom Butler]

Okay, friend, thanks for the refresher.

If you agree with Brandon on communion, it helps explain your view of baptism.

 

[Benjamin]

The fact that you do not believe baptism is a local church ordinance explains the basis for your Lone Ranger view of baptism. I hope that my view that it is a local church ordinance will help explain my opinion.

Speaking of bowing to authority, you may not think you need to do so, but if you visit my church (or thousands of other Baptist churches), you will indeed need specific permission baptize their new converts. Even our pastor could not baptize in our church without specific authority from the congregation.

See Butler, this is where we are so far apart, the converts don't belong to "them" and neither does the authority.

 

[Benjamin]

Okay, friend, thanks for the refresher.

If you agree with Brandon on communion, it helps explain your view of baptism.

Read his first sentence in the first quote I gave you. He is giving more than a veiw on communion.

 

[Tom Butler]

Read his first sentence in the first quote I gave you. He is giving more than a veiw on communion.

So he doesn't see sacraments as having saving efficacy. Interesting, because just about every faith group I know which calls them sacraments do assign saving efficacy to them, or call them a "means of grace."

He seems to have redefined the word to make it more palatable to Baptists.

So I read the refresher posts. Now refresh my memory as to your point. Old age is a wonderful excuse for not remembering.

 

[Benjamin]

So he doesn't see sacraments as having saving efficacy. Interesting, because just about every faith group I know which calls them sacraments do assign saving efficacy to them, or call them a "means of grace."

He seems to have redefined the word to make it more palatable to Baptists.

So I read the refresher posts. Now refresh my memory as to your point. Old age is a wonderful excuse for not remembering.

One, I'm not going pick up BJ's argument all over again here (which BTW, I think you got your Butler kic...err ...Nevermind... ) because seems how you say you don't remember these things and by my previous observations of you constantly repeating things that have already been answered, as if you haven't heard it before... (remember when I told you that before?) ... like when he said words to the effect that Baptist have moved away from the deeper meanings in baptism to avoid reference to RCC and cannot "palate" anything more than it being an ordinance. Enough of this...


Two, don't use that excuse too often, some might begin to believe it is being used as a cover-up for some poor behavior while trying to impress the audience with little persuasive inserts that have been hashed out in detail many times before and ignoring past discussions in a disingenuous way.

Three, here's the point:
(I'll highlight it for you, cuz I got empathy for your situation...:saint

Butler, first, you've may remember a discussion with Brandon Jones about the meanings/significance of baptism; I believe similar to him (that the experience is more than simply an ordinance) therefore that is one reason I would not deny a believer that wished to be baptized... now.


Second, I don't believe in any specific power in the water, or how it is administered will make a difference of if a person recieves (whatever you believe he recieves, doesn't recieve, that it is just a local church ordinance act...whatever) but I do believe in the power of the HS and only One Mediator between me and God and what the Word tells me about access to Him.

 

[DHK]

Benjamin,
You said:

Second, I don't believe in any specific power in the water, or how it is administered will make a difference of if a person recieves (whatever you believe he recieves, doesn't recieve, that it is just a local church ordinance act...whatever) but I do believe in the power of the HS and only One Mediator between me and God and what the Word tells me about access to Him.

I don't understand your position here. You first say that you don't believe that there is any specific power in the water, or in how it is administered, etc. But then you say, "I do believe in the power of the HS...and what the Word tells me about access to Him."

What does the Holy Spirit have to do with baptism, the water, who administrated it, etc.?

In any Baptist Polity book, or book that teaches Baptist distinctives, one would find this distinctive:
Baptists believe that there are two ordinances given to the local church: baptism and the Lord's Supper.
That distinctive has been standard fare for Baptists throughout centuries.

We use the word "ordinance" because the word "ordinance" as in the ordinances of a city simply means command. The Lord commanded it; we obey it. It is the first command of obedience that a believer should do after he is saved. Thus we do not use the word sacrament which does have the meaning "means of grace." There is no grace that can come through the ordinance of baptism.

What does baptism do for a person?
It gets him wet. That is all.
It is obedience to a command.

The significance is in the symbolism of obeying the command, in that it pictures the death of a believer to his old life and his resurrection to a new life in Christ. It is purely symbolic. It is not a means of grace, and thus the word sacrament should not be used. It is an ordinance, a command to be obeyed, and one that has symbolic meaning.

 

[Benjamin]

What does baptism do for a person?
It gets him wet. That is all.
It is obedience to a command.

DHK, we’ll have to disagree on baptism being mere naked symbolism in an ordinance as well as the uniformity of belief involving Baptist polity. This is another topic that not only do I not have time for but it has been discussed here before (Tom Butler, seems to have forgotten) by someone with more knowledge about the Baptist history (some sources and scriptures listed below) and is more articulate about the subject of a “means of grace/not salvific but another kind of grace” than I can be without doing a lot of homework that I don’t have the time for now to open another tread and discuss.

Hi Tom Butler,

You raise an issue that has come up in recent scholarship. Many Baptist historians have argued that Baptists embraced sacramentalism in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, but for various reasons they abandoned the position. Thus, there is no "traditional" view, but rather different views that are historically Baptist and not just "catholic."

There are many good resources out there that talk about this if you're interested in it. My guess is you are not.

I've tried to make it clear above that God's sovereignty and unilateral gift or however you want to word it is kept intact by Baptist sacramental views. Thus, rather than "do this and you'll get grace" it is God has ordained to meet you here. We don't want to call it salvific grace because we don't hold the view that the sacraments bestow salvific grace, but rather another kind of grace.

The whole debate is what does Scripture teach regarding the theology of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Some see the ordinance, naked symbol position to fail to do justice to the biblical witness while others think a sacramental view makes too much of it. I don't presume to persuade anyone to change their views. I changed to sacramentalism after studying Scripture. Others have remained with the ordinance, naked symbol view too after studying Scripture. It's one of the many areas where Baptists will have to agree to disagree.

PS: I posted not too long ago a very rough sketch on why I think the naked symbol view took hold among Baptists if anyone's interested. What I put here could change depending on how my research in the primary sources goes.

I think what I'm getting at is what Henri Blocher asks: "what do [they] give us that we cannot obtain otherwise." God may meet you all the time, but why did he ordain his people to do these specific things as opposed to other things or not doing anything at all? That's the whole ordain part. God may meet us anywhere, but he has promised that he will meet us in these faithful acts. Baptist sacramentalists would say that it is precisely through the Spirit's work that the sacraments are a means of grace.


If I recall we've discussed this issue on the board before. You are right that the post I linked to lacks a biblical argument by design. The texts that have struck me are: Matt 28:18; Acts 2:38; Rom 6:1-11; Gal 3:27; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Cor 10:14-22 among others. Of course, you can interpret them to strengthen the naked sign/ordinance view too. I can do no better than George Beasley-Murray's Baptism in the New Testament. I don't agree with all he says, but that's the best work I can recommend that offers exegesis of the pertinent passages from the baptismal point of view. For exegesis of passages on the Lord's Supper, I really appreciated the chapter on that topic in John Colwell's Promise and Presence .

The sources I mentioned above make good defenses in my opinion, but I understand many will find them unpersuasive. Perhaps this can be an opportunity to look afresh at what Scripture says about baptism and the Lord's Supper. I enjoyed studying them and know others will too, even if they don't end up agreeing with me.

Other resources are:
Anthony Cross and Philip Thompson, eds Baptist Sacramentalism and Baptist Sacramentalism2

One SBC work that I liked is Thomas Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, eds. Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. The editors of this volume do not embrace sacramental terminology, but I think some of the authors, namely Robert Stein and Ardel Caneday, embrace some sacramental concepts. Either way, I think it is a good collaborative effort on baptism and hope to see more like it from North American Baptists.

Blessings,
Brandon

There are only two things I would die for regarding baptism. First, that it is believer baptism. Second, that it is done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I believe that immersion in living water is the best way, but I recognize that there are many irregular ways out there (sometimes for good reason, sometimes for convenience, and sometimes for other reasons) and I see no need to make them invalid because they are irregular.

As for what's "biblical" (a useless word on this board), one could make the case that the practice of making baptism only a naked symbol of obedience doesn't match up very well with what Scripture says about baptism.



Hello Tom Butler,

I don't think my view is unique in the Baptist tradition, especially our forefathers from two to three hundred years ago in England. For further reading let me recommend two voumes from Paternoster's excellent series "Studies in Baptist History and Thought": First is Baptist Sacramentalism (a fine collection of essays edited by Cross and Thompson) and the second is More Than a Symbol: The British Baptist Recovery of Baptismal Sacramentalism by Stanley K. Fowler (Fowler's thesis is a little bit overstated and there are helpful critiques in subsequent editions of The Baptist Quarterly). Even Baptists in the past like Gill and Spurgeon, while using the word ordinances, have quite a "sacramental" understanding of baptism and the Lord's Supper when you study what they say about them.

I think Baptists should endorse the sacraments as a means of grace and explain what that means to clear up any misconceptions whether they be Baptist or Roman Catholic misconceptions. There is nothing wrong with saying they are "means of grace" without having a hint of what you call "salvific efficacy." I would appeal again to my discussion of the Word above.

As for precision, I can't think of a more precise term for baptism and the Lord's Supper than sacrament, but it may just be preference. When I think of ordinances, I think of the official acts of city councils not mystery or signs of inward grace. Too often we talk of obedience and what the ordinances are not rather than relishing and meditating in what they are, in my opinion.

BJ

 

[Tom Butler]

Benjamin,
You said:
[/U]I don't understand your position here. You first say that you don't believe that there is any specific power in the water, or in how it is administered, etc. But then you say, "I do believe in the power of the HS...and what the Word tells me about access to Him."

What does the Holy Spirit have to do with baptism, the water, who administrated it, etc.?

Whew! I am so relieved. I thought I was the only one who didn't understand what Benjamin was saying.