# Was Ananias Ordained, Since he baptized Paul?



## RamistThomist (Nov 10, 2017)

I saw a reconstructionist make this argument in favor of fathers baptizing their kids.

_It may be said concerning Ananias that because he administered the sacrament of baptism for Paul, he must have therefore been ordained. This is, unfortunately, nothing more than begging the question, where the argument assumes the answer it ought to be proving. This creates a vicious circle of circular reasoning that has no proof given whatsoever._


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 10, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I saw a reconstructionist make this argument in favor of fathers baptizing their kids.
> 
> _It may be said concerning Ananias that because he administered the sacrament of baptism for Paul, he must have therefore been ordained. This is, unfortunately, nothing more than begging the question, where the argument assumes the answer it ought to be proving. This creates a vicious circle of circular reasoning that has no proof given whatsoever._




Since he probably denies the normal way in which one has the qualification to baptize, this doesn’t surprise me. The Lord Himself tells ananias to go to Paul (Saul). The qualification of being ordained in order to administer the sacraments is the norm. The absence of mentioning he was ordained or the absence of him being ordained doesn’t take away from the standard principle or the fact that he was ordained.



"The minister or pastor only may baptize, as he only may preach the word (as Matt 28:19; Jn. 4:2; 1 Cor. 1:14-16). Our baptizing is conjoined with the Word preached going before (as the charter has the seal added to it and as the apostolic church practiced, Acts 10:44 48; 8:35-39; 19:4-6) and the prayers of the pastor and people going before, for a blessing to the ordinance (as the just analogy which it has with the other sacrament of the Lord’s Supper requires, which has prayer going before, Matt 26:26, and because the very nature of so blessed a sacrament requires prayer). No other element is used but nature (as Acts 8:39; Jn. 3:23; Matt 5:16)."
(Rutherford, A Peaceable Plea, Ch. 20 5th Article: Baptizing)


“None but ministers of the gospel have any warrant from Christ to administer his sacraments pertaining to it.
1. He authorizes them, and them only, to administer them (Matt 28:19; 1 Cor 11:2,23; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Heb 5:4).
2. All those that administered them in the apostolic age had either an ordinary or extraordinary call to the ministerial office (Luke 1; Luke 3; 1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11-12).”
(John Brown of Haddington, Systematic Theology, pg. 534.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Nov 10, 2017)

Ordination is the church's recognition that a man has been called _by God_ to a particular spiritual task. Ordained men perform baptisms because we want the rite done by those God has called, who represent the leadership of Christ's church in that area. Today, ordination in the church is how we indicate that a man is equipped, called, and ordained _by God_.

Was Ananias called by God to the task given? Undoubtedly. We have the Spirit's written record of the fact. So Ananias was ordained at the highest level, the God-himself level, whether or not there had been a church declaration to acknowledge the fact.

I say that if any man can provide Scriptural documentation that God names him personally as ordained to the task, that man should be allowed to baptize. Barring such Scriptural documentation, the man should follow the procedures his church has set up to get him acknowledged as called to the task. Churches will have widely varying standards, but the authority from Christ must come through his church.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## richardnz (Nov 21, 2017)

Reformed churches have gone to great lengths to makes sure that the sacraments are administered with an accompanying exposition of the word of God.
As Calvin says,”it is known that, from the very beginning of the world, whenever God offered any sign to the holy Patriarchs, it was inseparably attached to doctrine, without which our senses would gaze bewildered on an unmeaning object. Therefore, when we hear mention made of the sacramental word, let us understand the promise which, promised aloud by the minister, leads the people by the hand to that to which the sign tends and directs us.”

So the focus is not on the person who administers the sign of baptism, but on the preaching that must accompany it. And who better to deliver that necessary preaching but an ordained minister, a minister of the Word and Sacraments? Reformed churches like ours usually insist on the inclusion of a teaching form to make sure that even if the preaching is deficient that the basics of the meaning of the sacrament are taught. There may be some peculiar situation by which someone other than a minister might administer the sign and the word, but it is hard to imagine what this might be. Ordinarily a church has a minister so it naturally follows that he does the baptising. I cannot see why a father would want to baptise his own children in the light of these truths. Can he do a better job of the necessary preaching than an ordained minister?


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Nov 21, 2017)

I mean in a sense Anninias was 'ordained' by God himself to administer the sacrament.


----------

