----------------------
It seems the author is attempting to set us up for the idea that pastors need to retain their position at the top of the church pyramid. In fact, it's the primary assumption upon which his entire article is built, that pastors are the pre-eminent leaders of the local church.
It seems the author is attempting to set us up for the idea that pastors need to retain their position at the top of the church pyramid. In fact, it's the primary assumption upon which his entire article is built, that pastors are the pre-eminent leaders of the local church.
But he never discusses this, but simply presumes it.
Apparently he is threatened by the possibility of pastors not being in charge. He likely thinks that the church is shifting away from his preferences. Thus he objects to lowly laypeople doing pastor stuff. In reality, he's simply defending his tradition.
Lastly, the author manages to quote only a couple of Bible snippets. How can he teach the Bible without quoting it? We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
Lastly, the author manages to quote only a couple of Bible snippets. How can he teach the Bible without quoting it? We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
--------------------
In our anti-institutional age that highly values equality, many Christians today are confused about who can perform baptisms. Our modern Western culture has conditioned us to dislike forms of hierarchy that prevent certain people from particular opportunities and activities. (Perhaps, but even in historically individualistic America we've always had churches led by a pastor. So if there's a problem it isn't western culture but rather a shift in the church. Traditional church is becoming an anachronism, so what the author is actually doing is defending a dying, unbiblical church structure.)
In our anti-institutional age that highly values equality, many Christians today are confused about who can perform baptisms. Our modern Western culture has conditioned us to dislike forms of hierarchy that prevent certain people from particular opportunities and activities. (Perhaps, but even in historically individualistic America we've always had churches led by a pastor. So if there's a problem it isn't western culture but rather a shift in the church. Traditional church is becoming an anachronism, so what the author is actually doing is defending a dying, unbiblical church structure.)
After all, we Christians are all one in Christ (Gal. 3:28). And if we are all baptized into Christ and so share equally in the priesthood of all believers (see 1 Pet. 2:9), then any and every Christian can baptize another Christian, right?
Many of us today would not object to this line of thinking. But just because we share an equal status in Christ does not mean we share the same responsibilities in Christ. There are biblical and theological, as well as historical, reasons why only ordained ministers should perform baptisms. (We will accept only biblical reasons. Let's see if the author will provide any.)
Many of us today would not object to this line of thinking. But just because we share an equal status in Christ does not mean we share the same responsibilities in Christ. There are biblical and theological, as well as historical, reasons why only ordained ministers should perform baptisms. (We will accept only biblical reasons. Let's see if the author will provide any.)
Apparent Exceptions to the Norm
At first, it may seem that there is insufficient biblical warrant for limiting the administration of baptisms to pastors because no passage in the New Testament overtly states such a position. (The author immediately cedes his case. The rest of his article is therefore moot.)
In fact, Scripture might seem to suggest that any Christian can participate in this noble role.
Consider Philip, who baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:36–38), or Ananias, who baptized Paul (Acts 9:19). Neither Philip nor Ananias were among the twelve apostles. But we need to consider these accounts more carefully.
Though Philip was not one of the twelve, he was set apart by them for special service in the church (Acts 6:5), (Um. No. Read the account, sir. The apostles told the church to select the deacons. The apostles did not select the deacons:
Consider Philip, who baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:36–38), or Ananias, who baptized Paul (Acts 9:19). Neither Philip nor Ananias were among the twelve apostles. But we need to consider these accounts more carefully.
Though Philip was not one of the twelve, he was set apart by them for special service in the church (Acts 6:5), (Um. No. Read the account, sir. The apostles told the church to select the deacons. The apostles did not select the deacons:
Ac. 6:3 Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.
Maybe this is an insignificant detail, but remember, the author is supposed to be a trustworthy Bible teacher.)
participating in what may be called the “proto-deaconate.” Thus, he occupied a specific office in the early church. (Oh, so he was a church official. But was he a "pastor?" Remember, the author's premise is that only pastors can baptize.)
Ananias’s exact role is less certain. Luke describes him as “a disciple at Damascus” (Acts 9:10), and Paul himself describes him as “a devout man according to the law” (Acts 22:12). There is no office tied to his name. (The author is looking to sandwich Ananias into a "role" or "office," which means the official position is the important thing. So, was Ananias a "pastor?")
Ananias’s exact role is less certain. Luke describes him as “a disciple at Damascus” (Acts 9:10), and Paul himself describes him as “a devout man according to the law” (Acts 22:12). There is no office tied to his name. (The author is looking to sandwich Ananias into a "role" or "office," which means the official position is the important thing. So, was Ananias a "pastor?")
Yet even if Ananias was not ordained in the conventional sense, God called him to carry out a specific task: to go to Paul (called Saul in this passage) and minister to him. Still, it is possible that Ananias was a leader of sorts among the disciples in Damascus. (The author speculates, again based on trying to conform the biblical narrative to his preconceptions.)
But we don’t have all the details. This part of the book of Acts recounts a time when the church was still in its infancy stage, and overseers may not have been installed yet in many places where local churches were beginning to form. (Oh. An excuse. The early church wasn't up to the author's standards. It just didn't have the development time needed to install a professional clergy to preside over each church.
This finally began to develop many decades later with the nascent Roman Catholic Church. Catch that? The author is advocating for the church form we inherited from the Catholics.
But the problem isn't that the early church had not yet evolved a hierarchy with pastors as the top dog, but rather the author's premise, that pastors as the high authority are the only ones who should baptize. This is derived from something other than the Bible.
Further, he cites two cases which are clear evidence against his position, but also completely ignores the balance of the NT's mentions of baptism:
Who baptized the three thousand?
Ac. 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
The Bible doesn't say.
Who baptized the people at Cornelius' house?
Ac. 10:48 So he [Peter] ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
The Bible doesn't say.
Who baptized Lydia?
Ac. 16:15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home.
The Bible doesn't say.
Who baptized the jailer?
Ac. 16:33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.
The Bible doesn't say.
Who baptized Paul?
Ac. 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’
The Bible doesn't say.
In fact, Paul makes a big deal out of the fact that he wasn't a baptizer:
1Co. 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel — not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
How strange that this apostle would reject what the author insists is an apostle's duty!
It is on the basis of lack of biblical evidence that the author pleads his case.)
The Norm of the New Testament
When we consider the New Testament as a whole, we detect a pattern that only ministers should baptize. (Unlike the author, we have cited the biblical evidence for the NT practice of baptism.)
The most obvious starting point for unearthing this doctrine is the Great Commission. Just before Jesus ascended to his Father, he instructed the eleven apostles to make disciples of all people by baptizing them and teaching them (Matt. 28:19–20). The apostolic mission of the church is boiled down to these two activities, and it is on this foundation that the church is built (see Eph. 2:20). (Let's quote it:
Ep. 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
We don't find the two things of the "apostolic mission" in this verse.)
Moreover, pastor-teachers continue this apostolic ministry (see Eph. 4:11). (That pastors are included in the five-fold ministry is not under dispute. That pastors can baptize is not under dispute. This issue is, of course, is is the ability to baptize restricted to pastors?)
Consider also 1 Corinthians 4:1, where Paul declares that he and his fellow “servants of Christ”—those carrying out the apostolic mission of the early church—are “stewards of the mysteries of God.” Some have understood “mysteries” here to include the sacraments (or ordinances) in addition to the gospel message. (Another assumption. Let's quote the verse, since the author seems reluctant:
Consider also 1 Corinthians 4:1, where Paul declares that he and his fellow “servants of Christ”—those carrying out the apostolic mission of the early church—are “stewards of the mysteries of God.” Some have understood “mysteries” here to include the sacraments (or ordinances) in addition to the gospel message. (Another assumption. Let's quote the verse, since the author seems reluctant:
1Co. 4:1 So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God.
"Secret things" is the Greek word mustérion, the counsels of God, once hidden but now revealed in the Gospel or some fact thereof; the Christian revelation generally; particular truths or details of the Christian revelation.
Paul wrote of this mystery:
Ep. 3:8-9 Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
The unveiling of the mystery of the Gospel and the riches of Christ was certainly the privilege of the apostles and others in the early church. But it has nothing to do with who has authority to baptize.)
This, I believe, is a fair conclusion to draw since the apostles were tasked with advancing God’s kingdom through the preaching of God’s Word and administering of the sacraments, which Protestants have historically regarded as the two primary marks of the true church (to which some add church discipline). (It seems like the author is attempting to equate the first century apostles with present-day pastors. That is very nearly offensive.)
And when we consider the entire narrative of Scripture, we see that baptism and communion are analogous to—or better, the fulfillment of—Old Testament washings and sacrifices. Both Augustine and John Calvin, to name a few, taught that the water and the blood that flowed from Christ’s side (John 19:34) represent cleansing and atonement, the two chief benefits that were mediated through washings and sacrifices under the old covenant and that were secured for us by Christ once and for all. And these benefits—cleansing and atonement—are signified and sealed in the new covenant sacraments of baptism and communion.[1] Therefore, just as the ceremonial activities under the old covenant were stewarded by the priests, so the sacraments of the new covenant are administered by pastors. (Wow, that's quite a leap. The only way that the author could arrive here is to presume pastors are the CEO leaders of the churches. But even if we concede this [and we won't], this doesn't establish pastors as the exclusive administrators of this or any sacrament.)
And when we consider the entire narrative of Scripture, we see that baptism and communion are analogous to—or better, the fulfillment of—Old Testament washings and sacrifices. Both Augustine and John Calvin, to name a few, taught that the water and the blood that flowed from Christ’s side (John 19:34) represent cleansing and atonement, the two chief benefits that were mediated through washings and sacrifices under the old covenant and that were secured for us by Christ once and for all. And these benefits—cleansing and atonement—are signified and sealed in the new covenant sacraments of baptism and communion.[1] Therefore, just as the ceremonial activities under the old covenant were stewarded by the priests, so the sacraments of the new covenant are administered by pastors. (Wow, that's quite a leap. The only way that the author could arrive here is to presume pastors are the CEO leaders of the churches. But even if we concede this [and we won't], this doesn't establish pastors as the exclusive administrators of this or any sacrament.)
The Norm in Church History
While Scripture is rightly the first place we should turn to when making decisions about matters like this one, we would be wise to consider church history as well. After all, Christ has promised to be present to his church and lead her by his Spirit (see Matt. 28:20; John 16:12; Rom. 8:14). And the norm practiced by the one, holy, catholic (universal), apostolic church throughout the ages is that baptisms are performed only by ordained ministers. (We summarily reject the faulty and unbiblical practices of the historical church.)
Vanguard Protestant theologians and classic Protestant confessions have affirmed this. Martin Luther, for example, explained that “although we are all priests on the same level, not all can serve [in the pastoral office] or administer [the sacraments] or preach.”[2] The Westminster Confession of Faith states that baptism and the Lord’s Supper may be dispensed only by “a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.”[3] The London Baptist Confession likewise teaches that these should be “administered by those only, who are qualified and thereunto called according a to the commission of Christ.”[4] The church leaders who drafted and approved these two documents saw themselves as upholding a biblical truth embraced by the historic church, and they pointed to Scriptures such as Matthew 28:19, 1 Corinthians 4:1, and Ephesians 4:11–12 for support. Yet they also took into account the full trajectory of Scripture, which clearly teaches that God sets apart certain people for the administration of the means of grace. (Sigh. He can quote statements of faith, but not the Bible.
And he throws out a phrase, "means of grace," left undefined, and puts it in under pastor's duties. We have no idea where he is getting this stuff, aside from the "trajectory of Scripture." We long for a single verse that proves the author's point.)
The Practical Norm
Moreover, our Christian ancestors believed (rightly) that God maintains the order of his church through those he has commissioned as overseers. (A pastor is not an overseer. It's the other way around:
1Pe. 5:1-2 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers — not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be...
The elders are called to be the pastors and overseers.)
There is therefore also a practical reason why only ministers should baptize. As Kevin DeYoung explains, “The sacraments (or ordinances) involve the administration of grace and exercise of church power which belong to the office bearers of the church.”[5] (Sigh. He can quote theologians and pastors, but not the Bible.)
Consider the relation between baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and church discipline: if officers in a local church decide that a baptized member living in egregious, unrepentant sin needs to be placed under church discipline and barred from the Lord’s Table, then it is only consistent that they, as the ones exercising God’s authority in this manner, are the ones who perform baptisms. (The author shifted from pastors to officers and leaders.)
Consider the relation between baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and church discipline: if officers in a local church decide that a baptized member living in egregious, unrepentant sin needs to be placed under church discipline and barred from the Lord’s Table, then it is only consistent that they, as the ones exercising God’s authority in this manner, are the ones who perform baptisms. (The author shifted from pastors to officers and leaders.)
Baptism is, after all, the rite of initiation into the church. Similarly, if a new convert wants to be baptized but evidences that he or she is still living in ways contrary to the gospel, then church leaders need to discern carefully whether the individual is ready to be baptized and admitted into full fellowship with the church, and therefore admitted to the Lord’s Table. (The author shifted from pastors to officers and leaders.)
Order is good, and order is maintained when various responsibilities are delegated to specific people. This is certainly the case when it comes to who is able to perform baptisms. (Which brings up another obvious assumption the author has, that baptisms must be performed in a church. But he hasn't even discussed this.)
God has granted all Christians an equal status in Christ, yet he sets apart some people for specific duties in the oversight of his church. Scripture and history support this, and we should delight in it, knowing that God is all-wise and all-good and that he knows best how to care for his people.
Note: The views in this article do not necessarily represent any official position of Gospel-Centered Discipleship on the matter, but the article does offer a view we believe is worth consideration.
[1] Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John, trans. John Gibb, NPNF1 7:434 (120.2); John Calvin, The Gospel according to St. John 11–21 and the First Epistle of John, ed. David W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance, trans T. H. L Parker, CNTC 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1961), 186. See also Kevin P. Emmert, The Water and the Blood: How the Sacraments Shape Christian Identity (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023), 7–8; The Westminster Confession of Faith 7.5–6, in Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms: A Reader’s Edition, ed. Chad Van Dixhoorn (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022), 196–97.
[2] Martin Luther, The Freedom of a Christian: A New Translation, trans. Robert Kolb (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023), 54–55.
[3] Westminster Confession of Faith, 26.4 (CCC 228).
[4] London Baptist Confession 28.2 (CCC 283).
[5] See Kevin DeYoung, “Who Can Baptize?,” The Gospel Coalition (website), DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed (blog), February 20, 2014, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/who-can-baptize/.
Kevin P. Emmert (PhD, London School of Theology) is an academic book editor at Crossway and the author of The Water and the Blood: How the Sacraments Shape Christian Identity and John Calvin and the Righteousness of Works. He is married to Ashley, and they have three sons: Jack, Charlie, and Noah.
Note: The views in this article do not necessarily represent any official position of Gospel-Centered Discipleship on the matter, but the article does offer a view we believe is worth consideration.
[1] Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John, trans. John Gibb, NPNF1 7:434 (120.2); John Calvin, The Gospel according to St. John 11–21 and the First Epistle of John, ed. David W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance, trans T. H. L Parker, CNTC 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1961), 186. See also Kevin P. Emmert, The Water and the Blood: How the Sacraments Shape Christian Identity (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023), 7–8; The Westminster Confession of Faith 7.5–6, in Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms: A Reader’s Edition, ed. Chad Van Dixhoorn (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022), 196–97.
[2] Martin Luther, The Freedom of a Christian: A New Translation, trans. Robert Kolb (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023), 54–55.
[3] Westminster Confession of Faith, 26.4 (CCC 228).
[4] London Baptist Confession 28.2 (CCC 283).
[5] See Kevin DeYoung, “Who Can Baptize?,” The Gospel Coalition (website), DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed (blog), February 20, 2014, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/who-can-baptize/.
Kevin P. Emmert (PhD, London School of Theology) is an academic book editor at Crossway and the author of The Water and the Blood: How the Sacraments Shape Christian Identity and John Calvin and the Righteousness of Works. He is married to Ashley, and they have three sons: Jack, Charlie, and Noah.
No comments:
Post a Comment