Who Can Baptize?

[JM]

Ordained Elders or mature believers?

Wayne Grudem, for example, affirms that “there seems to be no need in principle to restrict the right to perform baptism only to ordained clergy” and that it is appropriate for “mature believers to baptize new converts” (Systematic Theology, 983-84).

 

[BryanW92]

Ordained Elders or mature believers?

Ordained, of course. I may believe that mature believers can teach, but baptizing is a sacrament. Do you have a copy of Grudem's Systematic Theology to see what context he wrote that in? I always get suspicious when I see a broken quote like that.

 

[hedrick]

The idea that anyone can baptize makes sense with a theology in which an unbaptized infant who dies is at risk. When this idea isn't present, and baptism is seen as an act of the Church as a whole it makes more sense to use the same rules as communion: a teaching elder or someone else properly authorized to celebrate the sacraments. (In some situations where there aren't many teaching elders, ruling elders can be authorized.)

However I don't think ordinary believers lack the metaphysical power to baptize. It just doesn't make sense under ordinary circumstances. If a new convert were in danger of death and wanted to be baptized, I could imagine someone else doing it. While it might not be ideal, there are situations where trying to explain to someone the reason it's not appropriate may not be the right thing to do.

 

[AMR]

This:

A Puritan's Mind » Who Administers the Sacraments? – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

The idea of "emergency baptism" is something Romish and implies some sort of baptismal regeneration is taking place. Watering does not get anyone into the Kingdom.

1689 LBC

These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.

Westminster

II. The outward element to be used in the sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

 

[faroukfarouk]

It always amazes me, since Paul himself said: 'I thank God I baptized none of you', when professed, Biblical Protestants want to make baptizing a supposed clerical preserve. I just don't get it.

 

[AMR]

No, it amazes me that some would extract a snippet of a verse to make a claim that the freight of the full context of the passage and the good and necessary consequence of Scripture does not bear. If Paul believed the Great Commission given to the ordained servants excluded him from baptizing, he had no business baptizing anyone at all. Obviously, the assumption is not correct.

The verse in question:

I Cor:
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

Baptism was not the main and principal business Paul was sent about directly by our Lord. Baptism was to be done mostly by those preachers of the word traveling with him, or followed after him: he was not sent so much about this work as to avoid those in the local church who enamored of Paul claiming "I was baptized into Paul" (see verse 13).

 

[BryanW92]

No, it amazes me that some would extract a snippet of a verse to make a claim that the freight of the full context of the passage and the good and necessary consequence of Scripture does not bear. If Paul believed the Great Commission given to the ordained servants excluded him from baptizing, he had no business baptizing anyone at all. Obviously, the assumption is not correct.

The verse in question:

I Cor:
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

Baptism was not the main and principal business Paul was sent about directly by our Lord. Baptism was to be done mostly by those preachers of the word traveling with him, or followed after him: he was not sent so much about this work as to avoid those in the local church who enamored of Paul claiming "I was baptized into Paul" (see verse 13).

He just took the part of that verse that would fit in a wrist tattoo.

 

[faroukfarouk]

He just took the part of that verse that would fit in a wrist tattoo.

Humorous, but not relevant.

 

[abacabb3]

Being that the LBC is the Confession of my church, I submit to that confession and the teaching of the elders in the church, being that my conscience is not conflicted that such a teaching would be heretical (in fact, it is mainstream).

As for me, I was baptized by someone whose pedigree was a self-ordained, college pastor. He did not teach any heresy, but he was not part of an established church. No elder ordained him an elder where I would say it would be appropriate for him to baptize. Yet, I don't see the point in being baptized again as he was sincere in the baptizing and I was sincere in my confession of faith.

My wife was baptized twice. The first time, ourselves both younger in the faith, my wife (then my girlfriend) wanted me to baptize her. She was baptized in a lake in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. While I would not do this now, I to this day do not view her baptism as null and void (as the man who does it does not make it official, this heresy was dealt with in the fourth century.)

However, when my wife applied for membership in the local PCA church, it was explained to us that only Elders can baptize and only their baptisms carry significance (the former I agree with and the latter to this day I cannot.) Being that Christ could not be crucified twice for our sins, and we already died to our sins the moment we believed (and the outward baptism is a reflection of the inward baptism of the Holy Spirit), I was not keen on his teaching. Nonetheless, we felt it important to submit to those put in authority over us, so my wife was baptized in the church by sprinkling.

When my wife and I were married, the issue came up because we attend a reformed baptist church. We were asked if we were baptized. Both of us told the above stories. To this day, I am not sure which baptism of my wife's was the official one being that neither of our baptisms was required for membership. I would be interested in everyone's view here.

 

[AMR]

Folks, we can relate all manner of anecdotal stories about this or that matter of the faith. None override the teachings of Scripture on the matter, but only serve to show how the local church is prone to depart from that which was and for all delivered to her. Rather it should be our prayer and act to be obedient where obedience is commanded and act according to our Christian conscience where it is not.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Well, I'm dispensational so I guess for me in my corner, some of the questions being asked are somewhat moot.

 

[abacabb3]

Anyone care to way on which was my wife's official baptism?

 

[BryanW92]

Anyone care to way on which was my wife's official baptism?

Does it really matter? I "may" have been baptized as an infant. People think that my grandmother took me off to church to be baptized when my mother was staying in another state where my dad had been in a horrific car crash. But, there was no record and the church closed decades ago and my grandmother died in 2000.

I didn't become a Christian until I was 45, so I asked if I had been baptized and heard the story of my possible, but unconfirmed, secret baptism. Just to be sure, I had myself baptized. Now, if I was baptized as an infant and my parents didn't know and I didn't know, was I baptized? Keep in mind that baptism doesn't change you or "save" you.

My adult baptism was my official baptism, as far as I'm concerned. If there was an infant baptism and God considers that one the official baptism, then I'll defer to his judgement.

The bottom line is that I was baptized and I know it.

 

[JM]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64o9rBx-vcI

 

[abacabb3]

Against my better judgment I watched that video. Even a baptism as indecent as that one will be for that young woman "official," because if God were to discriminate between baptisms based upon the bad motivations of the baptizers and the imperfect methods that are used (living water, versus still water, versus sprinkling, etc) then no one's baptisms would be official.

But, that church just comes across as creepy. There's other places to practice baptisms than a bathroom in vegas packed with teenaged girls. Being that Vegas is a desert, a public pool would have been much more appropriate.

 

[Hokma]

This:

A Puritan's Mind » Who Administers the Sacraments? – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

The idea of "emergency baptism" is something Romish and implies some sort of baptismal regeneration is taking place. Watering does not get anyone into the Kingdom.

1689 LBC

These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.

Westminster

II. The outward element to be used in the sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

Thank you for the article and the references from both the WCF and LBC.

Regarding the article, would you agree where the author writes the following?

The Belgic Confession in Article 31 on “The Ministers, Elders and Deacons” says this; “We believe that the ministers of God’s Word, the elders, and the deacons ought to be chosen to their respective offices by a lawful election by the Church, with calling upon the name of the Lord, and in that order which the Word of God teaches. Therefore every one must take heed not to intrude himself by improper means, but is bound to wait till it shall please God to call him; that he may have testimony of his calling, and be certain and assured that it is of the Lord.” Here we see that elders and deacons are to be chosen to their respective offices. They must take heed not to intrude on the office, but in due time, as God, through the church, they may be called to function in those offices. These officers are to be defined and installed by biblical standards. 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 demonstrate the non-negotiable character of the minister of the Gospel, and the deacon. Most of what is listed in those two areas relate to the character of the men, though we know from those passage and others that elders are to be “apt to teach” and are the “heralds” of the Word of God (2 Tim. 2:24Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). By authoritative extension, elders or pastors are to baptize (Matthew 28:19Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)), administer the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:1ffOpen in Logos Bible Software (if available)), and give themselves wholly to ministry of the Word and prayer (Acts 6:4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).

Primarily, that deacons can baptized in extreme situations? What kind of situations are in mind? Wouldn't a PCA church rather just wait or grab a pastor from a nearby town? Or does the extremity have to be that there is no elder anywhere, and it has been an extended period of time?

Or is the author actually saying rather opposite, that the Deacons may not do it until he has been ordained to become an elder (though once was a deacon)?

 

[Chris12]

Anyone care to way on which was my wife's official baptism?

You know, its almost crazy but I was thinking of having my husband baptize me.

He is the best Christian I have ever known.. and we had become freinds basically (we still had never met in person) and I was under spiritual attack and so I asked him to pray for me, and on the phone we began praying together that time..

And then I had a vision in which I saw two halves of a circle come together without seam, and then I heard the words and the two meet (as in come together) and immediately after hearing that I heard, whosoever God has joined together let no man tear asunder..

It was crazy, we were married two months later on the day we met for the first time face to face. That was two years ago... and God did the best job ever for a husband! Could not have been a better man!

Plus, he is a spirit filled believer.. and I think God gave me the man first and then revealed himself to me, so I was not in such shock when He revealed HIMSELF..my husband and I both think that was why anyway..He is Calvinist.. I dont know if that makes any difference though..

So I have been thinking of just asking my husband to baptize me, we have no church at the moment.. but oddly, I have already been baptized in the Holy Spirit.. so I am not sure where I stand yet on any necessity of water baptism, and I have had more pressing things to learn yet..

 

[AMR]

Thank you for the article and the references from both the WCF and LBC.

Regarding the article, would you agree where the author writes the following?


Primarily, that deacons can baptized in extreme situations? What kind of situations are in mind? Wouldn't a PCA church rather just wait or grab a pastor from a nearby town? Or does the extremity have to be that there is no elder anywhere, and it has been an extended period of time?

Or is the author actually saying rather opposite, that the Deacons may not do it until he has been ordained to become an elder (though once was a deacon)?

Article 31 is not asserting Deacons may baptize, rather it is pointing out church offices with distinct roles, roles that should not be intruded upon.

Note BC, Article 30, to avoid any misunderstandings about the sacraments, clearly states

"We believe that this true Church must be governed by that spiritual polity which our Lord has taught us in His Word; namely, that there must be ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God and to administer the sacraments; also elders and deacons, who, together with the pastors, form the council of the Church; that by these means the true religion may be preserved, and the true doctrine everywhere propagated, likewise transgressors chastened and restrained by spiritual means; also that the poor and distressed may be relieved and comforted, according to their necessities. By these means everything will be carried on in the Church with good order and decency, when faithful men are chosen, according to the rule prescribed by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy.”

Article 31 teaches that Pastors properly called and ordained belong to the whole church. They should be respected for the office and God’s calling more than their own actions. There are mechanisms in place for men who fail their call or who have sneaked in by ungodly methods or for ungodly motivations. Among men this will be part of the ministerial scene and places no stigma on the office which the Bible demands all respect and to listen to these God ordained officers in ordering the worship and activities of the church.

 

[Hokma]

By article I meant the link you provided, from which I quoted, not an article from the confessions.

In my question I did not ask if pastors were dropping the ball due to ungodliness. I am asking in cases of the elder not being available to perform sacraments, are the sacraments not valid if the deacon is asked to perform in his stead?

 

[AMR]

By article I meant the link you provided, from which I quoted, not an article from the confessions.

In my question I did not ask if pastors were dropping the ball due to ungodliness. I am asking in cases of the elder not being available to perform sacraments, are the sacraments not valid if the deacon is asked to perform in his stead?

Perhaps you have missed the fact that the section of the article you quoted actually contains Art 31 of the BC. The section you quoted also contains some of the author's comments. I agree with all of the extracted portion you posted.

None of that extracted portion you quoted argues or even hints that deacons may administer the sacraments no matter how "extreme" someone may think the situation may be.

So, if I am not being clear here or previously: the article's section you extracted clearly implies deacons may not baptize because only the ordained heralder may do so. This also means that a former deacon who has been ordained as pastor can certainly baptize.