# May a woman baptize?



## Josh Williamson

I've got a church baptismal service coming up soon, and I've been asked by one of the ladies being baptised if another lady could baptise her (this is due to her discipling her). I'm reformed baptist in theology, and I can't find anything that addresses if this should be allowed. I was wondering, "can a woman baptise another woman during a church baptismal service?" 

Thoughts? Comments?


----------



## toddpedlar

I know that some (but I'm sure not all) baptists believe that any Christian can baptize... and if that is the case I cannot understand how they would argue for limiting the administrators of baptism to male believers only. 

It seems to me that if you're a confessional baptist, the Confession clearly answers the question in favor of elders only, in the section on the Lord's Supper and Baptism, chapter 28. As a paedobaptist who confesses the WCF, I concur.


----------



## kodos

Your confession states:



> Chapter 28. Paragraph 2:
> 2.These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.
> (Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 4:1)


----------



## TimV

It would be wrong but valid


----------



## Josh Williamson

I'm aware of 28.2 in the 1689, but I've read reformed baptists argue the priesthood of all believers, so they say it can be applied to all. Also, their is much over the term "qualified". What makes one qualified to administer baptism?


----------



## kodos

Josh Williamson said:


> I'm aware of 28.2 in the 1689, but I've read reformed baptists argue the priesthood of all believers, so they say it can be applied to all. Also, their is much over the term "qualified". What makes one qualified to administer baptism?



Are you then taking an exemption to your Confession? And if so, why? Please read the Scripture proofs given. 1 Corinthians 4:1 states:


> This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.



This is talking about those who hold office in Christ's Church. The word sacrament (if I recall correctly) comes from the Latin translation of the Gk word for mystery.

This is one area of baptism that both the Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist agree in their confession 

If you believe in the priesthood of all believers (notice the word is 'all', not 'any') then do you believe that she could then administer the Lord's Supper?


----------



## Josh Williamson

I'm not putting forward my belief. I'm trying to work out the answer. As a pastor I'm facing a request from a person who wants to be baptised by a lady who baptisted them. My questioning is trying to get to the bottom of the situation.

As for 1 Cor. 4:1, I've read that some reformed baptists argue that verse in context is given to the apostles, and therefore cannot be brought over to apply to pastors / elders.


----------



## Andres

Josh Williamson said:


> I'm aware of 28.2 in the 1689, but I've read reformed baptists argue the priesthood of all believers, so they say it can be applied to all. Also, their is much over the term "qualified". What makes one qualified to administer baptism?



The fact that all Christians are priests according to 1 Peter refers to the fact that God has given us direct access to him, so I don't see that as applicable to this question. Would you allow a woman to preach in your church based on the priesthood of all believers argument?


----------



## Josh Williamson

Andres said:


> Would you allow a woman to preach in your church based on the priesthood of all believers argument?



No I wouldn't. I've seen that argument made back to them in relation to this, and the reply that has been given was, "Preaching is expressly forbidden for females. However, the Bible is silent on the baptism issue."

I'm just trying to build an argument on how I should reply to this question.


----------



## kodos

Andres said:


> Josh Williamson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of 28.2 in the 1689, but I've read reformed baptists argue the priesthood of all believers, so they say it can be applied to all. Also, their is much over the term "qualified". What makes one qualified to administer baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that all Christians are priests according to 1 Peter refers to the fact that God has given us direct access to him, so I don't see that as applicable to this question. Would you allow a woman to preach in your church based on the priesthood of all believers argument?
Click to expand...


Precisely, and I'm glad you brought that up. If you use that argument, then certainly we can have this woman: preach the Word, administer Communion, and baptize. Things that otherwise Reformed Baptists would balk at.

---------- Post added at 08:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 AM ----------




Josh Williamson said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you allow a woman to preach in your church based on the priesthood of all believers argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I wouldn't. I've seen that argument made back to them in relation to this, and the reply that has been given was, "Preaching is expressly forbidden for females. However, the Bible is silent on the baptism issue."
> 
> I'm just trying to build an argument on how I should reply to this question.
Click to expand...


Is your church confessional? If it is, then the argument is somewhat simple, especially if this woman is a member of the church.


----------



## TimV

Tell her "You can circumcise people with a stone knife like Moses' wife, but you can't baptise them" just to relieve the tension, then say due to confessional regulations you'll have to say the words but the friend can stand with you in the pool to give her the first hug.


----------



## steadfast7

if an elder is overseer of the church and therefore its representative shepherd accountable before God, I don't see why someone would want a non-elder to baptize them. Seems to me, one's personal affinity to their discipler is taking priority over a churchly and corporate sacrament.


----------



## Marrow Man

Josh Williamson said:


> No I wouldn't. I've seen that argument made back to them in relation to this, and the reply that has been given was, "Preaching is expressly forbidden for females. However, the Bible is silent on the baptism issue."



In the NT church, do we see anyone baptizing who is not an apostle or someone directly appointed or commissioned by an apostle?

We have to be careful with the argument above. I could see someone making the same argument from the Great Commission passage (i.e., since we should all evangelize, we should all also baptize). But that commission is directly given to the disciples who told to make disciples by baptizing _and_ teaching. If women are restricted from the one office, why not the other?


----------



## Rufus

Josh Williamson said:


> I'm aware of 28.2 in the 1689, but I've read reformed baptists argue the priesthood of all believers, so they say it can be applied to all. Also, their is much over the term "qualified". What makes one qualified to administer baptism?



I've heard the priesthood of all believers used to justify female pastors.


----------



## Andres

Rufus said:


> Josh Williamson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of 28.2 in the 1689, but I've read reformed baptists argue the priesthood of all believers, so they say it can be applied to all. Also, their is much over the term "qualified". What makes one qualified to administer baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard the priesthood of all believers used to justify female pastors.
Click to expand...


No, you may have heard it used _to attempt _to justify female pastors.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The priesthood of all believers references 1 Peter 2 where Peter is calling the people of God to suffering and service. Within the context of the entire epistle, it is clear that not every person has the same role. All are called to serve, as Christians, in a way that makes them identifiably Christian to the world around them. Wives are called to be wives, slaves to be slaves, husbands to be husbands, elders to be elders: sacrificially, suffering with joy, for the glory of God, and ready to give an account for the hope that is within them.

It is an unstable twisting of Peter's intent to flatten out all roles to assume that there are no longer any roles that people play within the context of Church or society. Were this not so, Peter would address all the same but he gives specific exhortation to the roles that God has ordained. The common role of "priest" is seen as (in another passage of Scripture) presenting of our bodies as living sacrifices holy and pleasing to God as opposed to giving in to the lusts of the flesh.

While it ought to be commended that a woman in the congregation was instrumental in proclaiming the faith to this new believer, baptism is an admission to the visible Kingdom of God. It is to be performed by those who hold the keys to such things. A person ought to be presented to the leadership of the congregation to determine if the party is to be baptized and they become the responsibility of the Church's leadership. The minister, acting as God's commissioned agent, is to be the one who performs baptism on behalf of the Church.


----------



## Jack K

Perhaps the argument a typical evangelical Baptist will most readily accept is this one: Baptism in the New Testament is closely associated with teaching ministry.

- John was not only a baptizer, but also a preacher with authority to speak from God.

- In the Great Commission, Jesus associated the work of baptism with the duties of making disciples and teaching them.

- The initial Christian-era baptisms in Jerusalem (Acts 2) were connected to Peter's preaching, and the initial baptisms in Samaria (Acts 8) to Philip's preaching.

- The Corinthians apparently aligned themselves with particular teachers based on which of these teachers had performed their baptisms (1 Cor. 1).

All this points to evidence that a baptizing ministry is closely associated with preaching ministry. Therefore, baptism ought to be administered by a person we would also find qualified to preach and teach in an authoritative capacity in the church.


----------



## JonathanHunt

AS I said on facebook Josh, and as someone else has said here, you need to baptise her. If her friend wants to stand in the pool and be the first to hug her/hand her a towel etc, I see that as a valid compromise. I think the brothers here have laid out pretty clearly the ground for refusing her request.


----------



## rookie

I agree with the posts that say the elders should be the ones commissioned to the baptizing. And if the other woman wants to be in the pool ( I see this more as emotionalism, and without realizing it, taking the credit for leading someone to Christ). We are all in the priesthood, however, the priesthood doesn't mean we are priests that teach, preach and baptize.
Priesthood means that for men, women and children that are saved, no longer need a "middle" man to offer their worship and prayers.


----------



## Herald

Josh Williamson said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you allow a woman to preach in your church based on the priesthood of all believers argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I wouldn't. I've seen that argument made back to them in relation to this, and the reply that has been given was, "Preaching is expressly forbidden for females. However, the Bible is silent on the baptism issue."
> 
> I'm just trying to build an argument on how I should reply to this question.
Click to expand...

 
Josh, what do YOU believe? Don't concern yourself with what others believe or else you'll be constantly pulled in multiple directions. Do you believe the ordinances of the church are open to all to administer or only those who have been duly appointed?

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.


----------



## he beholds

If the practice of your church typically allows any believer to baptize, and not just the pastor or an elder, then I'd see why a woman would be allowed. A non-office male has no access to the Lord that a female doesn't. So if Joe Schmo can do it, I see, logically, why Jane Doe could also. However, I think unless it's an emergency situation baptism should be done by one's pastor. (Well, in my husband's family we have a couple pastors and my in-laws have had the uncle, who was not their pastor but was in the same denomination, baptize the baby so the father could take the parental vows. I think that is allowable, too.)


----------



## Mushroom

Sorry folks. Late night grumpiness. Deleted.


----------



## Josh Williamson

I honestly do not have a position. I've never thought about this. But after reading these posts and others, I'm strongly leaning towards not allowing it.


----------



## Herald

Allow me to better explain my counsel to Josh. I am not suggesting that he act as a heavy-handed tyrant in his church. If he has elders it is wise to seek their input. Congregationalism does not mean lack of structure, it means that church governance is limited to the local church. If Josh and his elders are of one mind they do not need to seek the approval of the membership. If Josh' church subscribes to the 1689 LBC they can cite 28.2:



> These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.
> ( Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 4:1 )



I would certainly use it as a teaching moment for the two women involved.


----------



## Josh Williamson

Thanks for all the advice. The situation is further complicated in that the lady who has been doing all the discipling is an elders wife, and they believe it should be OK for her to baptise. From reading, and studying, I am going with "no", but I need to make a solid argument on this.


----------



## Scott1

The whole concept of a minister of "Word and sacrament" is based on the biblical principles and explicit statements of Scripture that God calls some to be apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, etc. (Ephesians 1).

The sacraments are (holy) ordinances of corporate worship, done by those ordained and called to administer them.

"Holy" means set-apart (from the common).

The Biblical command for officers is men explicitly (II Timothy 3 and Titus 1), and the pattern of creation makes that implicit.

They are not "common" (that is anyone can do them any way they please).



> I Corinthians 12
> 
> 28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
> 
> 29Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
> 
> 30Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?


----------



## Scott1

This is one of the Scripture proof texts in the Westminster Confession of Faith for the sacraments being done by one who is a minister of the gospel, "lawfully called thereunto." In context, this makes a case that the sacraments are not to be commonly handled.

Josh, this whole area would be a good sermon series for your church, and would be beneficial to leading people to a biblical understanding of a "high" view of the church and a "high" view of the sacraments, characteristics of reformed theology!



> Hebrews 5
> 
> 1For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
> 
> 2Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
> 
> 3And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
> 
> 4And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.


----------



## [email protected]

I am surprised that anyone evangelical and reformed would ask this question! The Bible is clear on subject of male leadership. One compromise will usually lead to another; possibly, possibly female Elders. 
Dennis Fetherbay, RPCNA, Endicott, N.Y. (Reformed Baptist, would like to be totally Presbyterian and would except the Baptism issue)


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

[email protected] said:


> I am surprised that anyone evangelical and reformed would ask this question! The Bible is clear on subject of male leadership. One compromise will usually lead to another; possibly, possibly female Elders.
> Dennis Fetherbay, RPCNA, Endicott, N.Y. (Reformed Baptist, would like to be totally Presbyterian and would except the Baptism issue)



That's quite a jump from allowing a female friend to baptize to ordaining women. 

I take exception to the Confession at this point. I think an elder should oversee the baptism but would allow her to baptize. I know I among the minority on this issue (I do that a lot here).


----------



## Andres

Joseph Scibbe said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am surprised that anyone evangelical and reformed would ask this question! The Bible is clear on subject of male leadership. One compromise will usually lead to another; possibly, possibly female Elders.
> Dennis Fetherbay, RPCNA, Endicott, N.Y. (Reformed Baptist, would like to be totally Presbyterian and would except the Baptism issue)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a jump from allowing a female friend to baptize to ordaining women.
> 
> I take exception to the Confession at this point. I think an elder should oversee the baptism but would allow her to baptize. I know I among the minority on this issue (I do that a lot here).
Click to expand...


Joseph, do you care to share why you think it acceptable for the female friend to baptize the young lady?


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

Andres said:


> Joseph Scibbe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am surprised that anyone evangelical and reformed would ask this question! The Bible is clear on subject of male leadership. One compromise will usually lead to another; possibly, possibly female Elders.
> Dennis Fetherbay, RPCNA, Endicott, N.Y. (Reformed Baptist, would like to be totally Presbyterian and would except the Baptism issue)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a jump from allowing a female friend to baptize to ordaining women.
> 
> I take exception to the Confession at this point. I think an elder should oversee the baptism but would allow her to baptize. I know I among the minority on this issue (I do that a lot here).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joseph, do you care to share why you think it acceptable for the female friend to baptize the young lady?
Click to expand...


First, I see no direct command for only elders to do so. Also, I think that the 3,000 people converted and baptized would make it an impossible task for only the 12 apostles to do in one day. I assume there must have been some lay involvement.


----------



## MississippiBaptist

Interesting discussion. I'll address the 'only elders' may baptize.

First, as a non-elder in my local church, I baptized both of my older daughters. What higher privilege for a father who was commanded to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord? Once the pastor agreed that they were legitimate candidates for baptism then I do not see the actual act as holding authority over/in the church.

If the organist hands the Lord Supper sacraments to the lady next to her is she now in a position of authority?

I must admit my ignorance of the confessional aspect. Rookie. Teaching/preaching in the church inherently carries authority but I just do not see performing a baptism, sanctioned by the church elders, as carrying any authority. The pp who used the Great Commission passage brings up a valid point. If an elder believes that they are the only ones qualified to baptize then the Great Commission cannot be invoked to command the laymen to evangelize and disciple.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Joseph Scibbe said:


> Also, I think that the 3,000 people converted and baptized would make it an impossible task for only the 12 apostles to do in one day.


Joseph,
I _totally!_ agree with you...



...if they had to *dunk* each and every one.


----------



## Andres

MississippiBaptist said:


> I must admit my ignorance of the confessional aspect. Rookie. Teaching/preaching in the church inherently carries authority but I just do not see performing a baptism, sanctioned by the church elders, as carrying any authority. The pp who used the Great Commission passage brings up a valid point. If an elder believes that they are the only ones qualified to baptize then the Great Commission cannot be invoked to command the laymen to evangelize and disciple.



I am glad you understand the authoritative aspect of preaching but why do you divorce the sacraments from this? Preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments go hand and hand. As for your last comment "the Great Commission cannot be invoked to command the laymen to evangelize", many on this board, including myself, would not disagree with that statement.


----------



## MississippiBaptist

Andres said:


> I am glad you understand the authoritative aspect of preaching but why do you divorce the sacraments from this? Preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments go hand and hand. As for your last comment "the Great Commission cannot be invoked to command the laymen to evangelize", many on this board, including myself, would not disagree with that statement.



Andrew, I do not see the administration of the Lord's Supper and Baptism as something that Scripture limits to Elders. I see them married in tradition but not in Scripture.


----------



## rbcbob

John L. Dagg, the first published Southern Baptist, said this:



> “It has been held, that, in case of necessity, the rite may be administered by laymen and even by women. Some persons who are free from such superstitious reliance on the outward ceremony, have held that any one who makes a disciple, may baptize him. According to this interpretation of the commission, it would be proper for a mother, whose instructions have been blessed to the conversion of her son, to be the administrator of his baptism. But this interpretation is inadmissible. If some of the work [ i.e. preaching] to which the apostles were specially appointed, may, to some extent, be performed by other persons, it does not follow, that these persons are invested in full with the apostolic commission.”
> “The commission specifies duties, for the performance of which the apostles were to provide … they were commanded, not to make disciples and teach them the duty of being baptized; but to make disciples and baptize them. … This reasoning proves satisfactorily, that the administration was not designed to be left to any one whom the candidate might select …”
> “… although baptizing is not necessarily connected with preaching and teaching; yet the manner in which it is conjoined with them in the commission, appears to indicate that the connection is suitable. No separate class of officers is anywhere provided in the New Testament, for administering the rite, and yet, if we have reasoned correctly, the apostles were under obligation to provide for it. … we have this point established: - the authority to administer baptism is conferred in the ordinary course of the ministerial succession, when an individual, called by the Holy Spirit to the ministry of the word, is publicly set apart to this service.”


-A TREATISE ON CHURCH ORDER by J.L Dagg 1858


----------



## ericfromcowtown

No.

I can't see how anyone could look at this hypothetical baptism and not see a woman in a leadership / authoritative role in the church.

On another thread it was discussed if a trinitarian-formulated baptism by a male leader in the church, who was not ordained, was valid. The consensus seemed to be that while the baptism was valid, the situation was not normative, and was quite odd. 

The situation in this post is one dangerous leap away from the odd and not normative of that previous post.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

Contra_Mundum said:


> Joseph Scibbe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I think that the 3,000 people converted and baptized would make it an impossible task for only the 12 apostles to do in one day.
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph,
> I _totally!_ agree with you...
> 
> 
> 
> ...if they had to *dunk* each and every one.
Click to expand...


Wel, I guess if he stood up really high and threw buckets of water over the crowd...


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Joseph Scibbe said:


> Wel, I guess if he stood up really high and threw buckets of water over the crowd...


*Sssssssploooooosh!*




Or maybe it was more similar to what is described Heb.9:19 (Ex.24:8),
"For when *Moses* had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law,
he *took* the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and
*hyssop, and sprinkled* both the book, and
*all the people*"​

(one of, or the most significant of, the "various _baptisms_," v10).


----------



## Brandon1

In the history of the Church the answer is, yes.

This is what the deaconesses were commonly set apart to do. Reformed Confessions seem to restrict the officiant as an ordained officer bearer but the early church did not have such criteria. Part of this is because it was not uncommon to baptize in the nude, and so as not to incur the charge of immorality, women baptized women and ordained men (either deacons or priests) baptized men.

If your church is not bound by a confession and you would like to pursue this avenue, you have historical precedent, though not Reformed confessionalist precedent.


----------



## jogri17

I would consider it to be a valid baptism, that being said, it is unwise and sinful.


----------



## MississippiBaptist

rbcbob said:


> John L. Dagg, the first published Southern Baptist, said this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It has been held, that, in case of necessity, the rite may be administered by laymen and even by women. Some persons who are free from such superstitious reliance on the outward ceremony, have held that any one who makes a disciple, may baptize him. According to this interpretation of the commission, it would be proper for a mother, whose instructions have been blessed to the conversion of her son, to be the administrator of his baptism. But this interpretation is inadmissible. If some of the work [ i.e. preaching] to which the apostles were specially appointed, may, to some extent, be performed by other persons, it does not follow, that these persons are invested in full with the apostolic commission.”
> “The commission specifies duties, for the performance of which the apostles were to provide … they were commanded, not to make disciples and teach them the duty of being baptized; but to make disciples and baptize them. … This reasoning proves satisfactorily, that the administration was not designed to be left to any one whom the candidate might select …”
> “… although baptizing is not necessarily connected with preaching and teaching; yet the manner in which it is conjoined with them in the commission, appears to indicate that the connection is suitable. No separate class of officers is anywhere provided in the New Testament, for administering the rite, and yet, if we have reasoned correctly, the apostles were under obligation to provide for it. … we have this point established: - the authority to administer baptism is conferred in the ordinary course of the ministerial succession, when an individual, called by the Holy Spirit to the ministry of the word, is publicly set apart to this service.”
> 
> 
> 
> -A TREATISE ON CHURCH ORDER by J.L Dagg 1858
Click to expand...



“The commission specifies duties, for the performance of which the apostles were to provide … they were commanded, not to make disciples and teach them the duty of being baptized; but to make disciples and baptize them. … This reasoning proves satisfactorily, that the administration was not designed to be left to any one whom the candidate might select …”

In building his defense Dagg reveals that indeed the administration of baptism was not assigned or regulated in to a specific office.

To me, a good analogy to baptism is the reading of a verdict in a courtroom. When Karen Delpilar read the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial she was meeting the requirement that the verdict be read in open court; however, Delpilar carried absolutely no authority in the case other than executing the reading. If she decided to say 'guilty' instead of 'not guilty' to the charge of murder it would be have been meaningless. Same is true in a non-confessional church if a person is given permission to baptize. They are executing the will of the church leaders however they carry no authority in the matter. I'm trying to see both sides of this argument but I just do not see a scriptural prohibition against laymen baptizing in the church.


----------



## Herald

rbcbob said:


> John L. Dagg, the first published Southern Baptist, said this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has been held, that, in case of necessity, the rite may be administered by laymen and even by women. Some persons who are free from such superstitious reliance on the outward ceremony, have held that any one who makes a disciple, may baptize him. According to this interpretation of the commission, it would be proper for a mother, whose instructions have been blessed to the conversion of her son, to be the administrator of his baptism. But this interpretation is inadmissible. If some of the work [ i.e. preaching] to which the apostles were specially appointed, may, to some extent, be performed by other persons, it does not follow, that these persons are invested in full with the apostolic commission.
> The commission specifies duties, for the performance of which the apostles were to provide  they were commanded, not to make disciples and teach them the duty of being baptized; but to make disciples and baptize them.  This reasoning proves satisfactorily, that the administration was not designed to be left to any one whom the candidate might select 
>  although baptizing is not necessarily connected with preaching and teaching; yet the manner in which it is conjoined with them in the commission, appears to indicate that the connection is suitable. No separate class of officers is anywhere provided in the New Testament, for administering the rite, and yet, if we have reasoned correctly, the apostles were under obligation to provide for it.  we have this point established: - the authority to administer baptism is conferred in the ordinary course of the ministerial succession, when an individual, called by the Holy Spirit to the ministry of the word, is publicly set apart to this service.
> 
> 
> 
> -A TREATISE ON CHURCH ORDER by J.L Dagg 1858
Click to expand...

 
Bob, leave it to Dagg. Thanks. 

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.


----------



## Marrow Man

> Wel, I guess if he stood up really high and threw buckets of water over the crowd...



Or dipped a hyssop branch in water and sprinkled it on the new converts. That could be done fairly quickly. Tying up what may have been the only water source inside Jerusalem for most of the day seems rather unlikely.


----------



## KMK

Benjamin Keach, one of the signers of the LBC 1689:



> [Ministers] have the charge of God's ordinances, or the holy sacraments of baptism, and the Lord's supper. (Matt 28:19,29; 1Cor 11:23,24) They must not corrupt the ordinances, nor administer them otherwise that the plain rule, left in the Word of God, directeth. Preaching from the Types and Metaphors of the Bible; pg. 834



I suppose it could be argued that because of LBC 26:11, which says..



> Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.



Those who aren't ministers of the word, but are gifted, fitted, approved and called might also administer the sacraments. That is a far cry from saying that just anyone can administer baptism.

BTW, which 'Reformed' Baptists are advocating that 'anyone' can administer baptism?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Brandon1 said:


> Reformed Confessions seem to restrict the officiant as an ordained officer bearer but the early church did not have such criteria.


We need to distinguish between what the church was doing, three-to-four-hundred years after the apostolic era, and what the Bible itself says and teaches.

In between the apostolic era and the post-Nicene era (both which may be classed as "early church") there is no small factors for change in church structure and practice. We have for example the influence of political organization: the "efficiency" and "glory" of the empire are borrowed by the church. And pertinent to the issue of the sacraments, there is the pressure of the Gnostic "mystery-religions" and the extravagant ritual of the idolaters.

Because of the "simplicity" of Christian rites--both baptism and the Lord's Supper--there was a carnal desire to elaborate the "Christian-mysteries," in order to make them just as "exciting" and imbued with magic as the rites of the "competition" (mainly the mystery-religions). The elaboration of the L.S. into the mass is knowledge common enough. Likewise, baptism underwent a similar elaboration.

From a simple rite, that could be performed instantly, described simply by standing up (Act.9:18), or the bringing of water (Act.10:47); baptism became a huge event, a showpiece for Christianity--or rather, in richly endowed settings it was removed to its own adjacent site, where nudity (and other extravagances) was added as part of the ritual. In that context, I'm sure women-assistants (including the "deaconesses") were much to be appreciated.

Just because we can find the church, even the early church, doing certain things doesn't mean that such things defy analysis, or withstand critique on biblical grounds. The plain fact that there had to be women for this task (instead of a proper church-officer to perform his ministry for a female member) calls the whole issue into question, precedent or no.


----------



## TimV

Marrow Man said:


> Or dipped a hyssop branch in water and sprinkled it on the new converts. That could be done fairly quickly. Tying up what may have been the only water source inside Jerusalem for most of the day seems rather unlikely



That's good, I'd never thought of that. And the hygiene factor if they were dunked into that precious water. People would have gotten bent out of shape.


----------



## itsreed

Look a this from the angle of worship. Is it biblically proper to administer the Lord's Supper apart from a worship service duly constituted under the elder's authority? Us Presbyterians would say no.

Similarly we would look at baptism. It is not properly administered outside of a worship service duly constituted under the authority of the elders. This at least tells us that the baptism must in some manner be noticeably administered on the basis of the authority of the elders.

But how about the question of the woman administering the water alongside, or in the presence of the pastor. Well, consider the similar situation with the Lord's Supper. Would it be biblically proper for the pastor to be standing at the table while an elder's wife gives the words of institution or prays for the consecration of the elements, or then initiates the distribution? Clearly such actions cannot be divorced from the exercise of spiritual authority that is only given to elders. One might attempt to make a verbal argument that the woman officiating is acting under the pastor's authority, but that is mere sophism no matter how well intentioned.

The same applies here. The act of baptism, from beginning to end, is a symbolic act picturing the person and ministry of Christ. It is only proper in worship (no private baptisms). It is only rightly administered in the same manner that the Lord's Supper is rightly administered. If you believe a woman cannot officiate in the Lord's Supper, ditto baptism.


----------



## MississippiBaptist

Good, and informative discourse. Concerning laymen executing a baptism, it seems to me that those who are deeply steeped in the confessions, this is a no brainer but to those who may not be so informed about the confessions but have a high view a Scripture show some reservations. When going against the Reformers I will concede to their position until proven otherwise.

Standing next to a Senior pastor and being told, "You may baptize person _____________", I still find it difficult to say that is wrong. I'm a creado and I consider it a blessing that I can, with the church's approval, baptize my children. I'm still searching the Scriptures and open to guidance.


----------



## steadfast7

speculation on whether 12 apostles could possibly baptize 3000 people is as fruitless as how 12 apostles could possibly serve an afternoon lunch of bread and fish to 5000 men, plus women and children.

I believe a baptism does not HAVE to be done by certain individuals in order to be written in heaven's logs, we are not instructed on so much as that. But we should ask not what is minimally permissible, but what is most appropriate and best as a testimony in the church.


----------



## Brandon1

Bruce,

You are right about needing to analyze why the Church did what it did. For example, Tertullian argues that baptism was not restricted to the clergy (although it was to be preferred). Hey says,



> To round off our slight treatment of this subject it remains
> for me to advise you of the rules to be observed in giving and
> receiving baptism. The supreme right of giving it belongs to the
> high priest, which is the bishop : after him, to the presbyters and
> deacons, yet not without commission from the bishop, on account
> of the Church's dignity: for when this is safe, peace is safe.
> Except for that, even laymen have the right: 'for that which is
> received on equal terms can be given on equal terms : unless per-
> haps you are prepared to allege that our Lord's disciples were
> already bishops or presbyters or deacons: that is, as the word
> ought not to be hidden by any man, so likewise baptism, which is
> no less declared to be "of God", can be administered by all.'
> Yet how much rather are the rules of humility and restraint
> incumbent upon laymen, seeing they apply to greater persons,who must not arrogate to themselves the function of the bishop.



But it must be added that Tertullian also rejects the idea of a woman baptizing immediately following this by saying,



> Opposition to the episcopate is the mother of schisms. The holy
> apostle has said that all things are lawful but all things are not
> expedient:1 which means it is enough that you should use <this
> right> in emergencies, if ever conditions of place or time or person
> demand it. The boldness of a rescuer is acceptable when he is
> constrained to it by the necessities of the man in peril, since he
> will be guilty of a man's destruction if he forbears to give the
> help he is free and able to give. *But the impudence of that
> woman who assumed the right to teach is evidently not going to
> arrogate to her the right to baptize as well - unless perhaps some
> new serpent appears, like that original one*,2 so that as that woman
> abolished baptism, some other should of her own authority confer
> it. But if certain Acts of Paul, which are falsely so named,
> claim the example of Thecla for allowing women to teach and
> to baptize, let men know that in Asia the presbyter who com-
> piled that document, thinking to add of his own to Paul's
> reputation, was found out, and though he professed he had
> done it for love of Paul, was deposed from his position. *How
> could we believe that Paul should give a female power to teach
> and to baptize, when he did not allow a woman even to learn by
> her own right? Let them keep silence, he says, and ask their husbands
> at home*.3



Furthermore if you read Ch. 7 of the Didache, it is not clearly stated who the proper officiant of baptism is, but what is prescribed is that they ought to fast. 
The question of laity baptizing in rare circumstances is permitted very early. 

However, it seems that the use of women in the baptismal rite occurs later and is not as widespread. Certainly clergyman are always to be preferred.

But the question that some (including the WCF) raise about only ordained men being allowed to baptize is not as readily apparent in Scripture or tradition in my opinion. It is normative, but I'm not convinced universal. Perhaps better minds can convince me.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

steadfast7 said:


> speculation on whether 12 apostles could possibly baptize 3000 people is as fruitless as how 12 apostles could possibly serve an afternoon lunch of bread and fish to 5000 men, plus women and children.
> 
> I believe a baptism does not HAVE to be done by certain individuals in order to be written in heaven's logs, we are not instructed on so much as that. But we should ask not what is minimally permissible, but what is most appropriate and best as a testimony in the church.



The difference is that no one here is arguing that church potlucks can be served by elders only. In fact you kind of show my point. 12 apostles could not have baptized the 3,000 in one which, to me, indicates lay baptisms under the authority of the elders. I am not advocating that people just baptize each other whenever but that; in a local church setting, under the authority of the elders, a lay person can baptize.


----------



## Marrow Man

steadfast7 said:


> speculation on whether 12 apostles could possibly baptize 3000 people is as fruitless as how 12 apostles could possibly serve an afternoon lunch of bread and fish to 5000 men, plus women and children.



If you simply mean that we are not told specifically how the baptisms and distributions took place and that to guess is speculative, I would agree. But I do not belong to a denomination that insists that baptism be administered in one and only way in order to be valid, either.

The question that was asked, however, was a good one. Did only the Twelve administer the sacrament/ordinance of baptism that day of Pentecost or didn't they? Questions about logistics do arise, which is why the question was raised in the first place (otherwise this would be ). Is it possible for only the Twelve to have done this on one day in Jerusalem? Absolutely, and the text does not suggest otherwise. If we do not have a good textual reason for for thinking that unordained laymen were involved, then we should not read that into the text.




steadfast7 said:


> I believe a baptism does not HAVE to be done by certain individuals in order to be written in heaven's logs, we are not instructed on so much as that. But we should ask not what is minimally permissible, but what is most appropriate and best as a testimony in the church.



If you are saying that there may arise extreme circumstances where a baptism might need to be performed by a non-ordained person (such as a remote location on the mission field where a missionary might not be available), then that might be a possible scenario where I would agree with you. It would be an extreme situation, of course. Obviously the situation cited in the OP does not apply.


----------



## Marrow Man

Joseph Scibbe said:


> 12 apostles could not have baptized the 3,000 in one which, to me, indicates lay baptisms under the authority of the elders.



I disagree. They could have done so, if one does not hold to baptism having to be done in one particular manner. There are other logistics questions that would also need to be explored (e.g., why would the powers that be in Jerusalem allow limited water sources in the city to be tied up in such a way by the disciples for most of the day) for this to be a valid argument, but that goes beyond the bounds of this thread. A new thread can be started, however.


----------



## Phil D.

Tim, in keeping with the terms of my self-imposed exile here I'll likely not offer a response  -- but could you explain what you mean by, and then provide the basis for your statement about Jerusalem's "only water supply"? 

Thanks, brother!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Brandon,
I'm going to assume we're pretty much on the same page. And I don't think I have the arguments that today would overwhelmingly persuade you of the normative prescription of Scripture on the matter. 1Cor.4:1 seems too clear to me. I'd trust your pastor (whom I know) to teach you with far more facility than I.


in my opinion, Tertullian's case 100+yrs removed from the apostles' days only reveals what a mixed-bag the church (largely cut-off from its Jewish heritage) became, in short order. At least, by the grace of God, their main efforts were put toward defining and defending the main things in the early-going.

A couple other things are worthy of attention. Tertullian's contributions to our perceptions of the church in his day are invaluable. But they have to be evaluated in both a parts-and-whole fashion. His (and presumably a good portion of the church's) understanding of the "magical" (used advisedly) properties of baptism and the sacraments generally leads to views that are decidedly consistent with those starting notions.

The idea of that baptism is most probably needful to eradicate original sin (and cleanses actual sins committed up until a baptismal rite performed) leads to the consideration of "emergency" baptism, which leads to the principle that it is better for a layman to perform it than it not be performed _in extremis_. But even he is abundantly clear that the *rule* is to be followed:


> But how much more is the rule96 of reverence and modesty incumbent on laymen - seeing that these powers97 belong to their superiors - lest they assume to themselves the specific98 function of the bishop! Emulation of the episcopal office is the mother of schisms.


In the limited cases where lay-baptism is encouraged, it seems to me it is for theologically deficient reasons.

We can see where the improper premises lead to another theological conclusion respecting baptism. Tertullian also counsels delay of baptism, as long as possible, for its presumed benefits. This, in fact, is the _pragmatic_ reason why he counsels against the common practice of baptizing infants--because it dissipates the supreme efficacy of the rite on those who have none or hardly any actual sins beside their original-sin to dispose of. Tertullian's theological method isn't wrong (sound theological premises lead to equally certain theological conclusions); but if one premise is deficient or simply wrong, the conclusion will also be deficient or completely false.

My point is simply this: its possible to use Tertullian to show that lay-baptism (when it may have been performed in the 2nd-3rd century) was both extraordinary on his own terms, and irresponsibly predicated, at least according to our "mature" theological reflection.
_______________________________________________________


As to the Didache, I don't find the argument from silence at all compelling (if by non-designation, we are asked to conclude that who should officiate might be an open issue). Neither does the text (SFAIK) indicate that the prophets/teachers, bishops or deacons even have the sole authority to administer the eucharist (but note the encouragement of 10.7, in which the extraordinary officer appears desired to perform the function). Baptism is occasional, the L.S. regular. Bottom line, I can't see the omission of reference to a designated officiant for the service as indicating anything of an open question.

But I am willing to acknowledge the evidence (from Tertulliam) that lay-baptisms in extremis were considered (however often they may have happened) as early as the late 2ndC.


----------



## Marrow Man

Phil D. said:


> Tim, in keeping with the terms of my self-imposed exile here I'll likely not offer a response -- but could you explain what you mean by, and then provide the basis for your statement about Jerusalem's "only water supply"?
> 
> Thanks, brother!



Phil, I will respond via PM. Such a discussion is way off topic for this thread.


----------



## Brandon1

Bruce,

Thanks for the interaction (you are right to assume we are basically on the same page). In no way was I trying to argue for the ordinary practice of lay baptism--Tertullian would protest too.

I just wanted to point out that the early church did not have unanimous opinion on the topic.

I also just wanted to include the Didache to show that it did not specify who the baptizer's were to be. Obviously the Didache is an early expression of the faith and by no means complete or universal. I just wanted to point that the issue of the officiant was not a concern of the author. There are varying reasons why this could be, but given Tertullian's comments thought I would mention it as additional early testimony on baptism because these are the two earliest sources.


----------



## HoldFast

Marrow Man said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim, in keeping with the terms of my self-imposed exile here I'll likely not offer a response -- but could you explain what you mean by, and then provide the basis for your statement about Jerusalem's "only water supply"?
> 
> Thanks, brother!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phil, I will respond via PM. Such a discussion is way off topic for this thread.
Click to expand...


I would be interested in knowing the support for this claim as well. I'm not sure how explaining a statement that was considered "on topic" is considered being "off topic."


----------



## Marrow Man

HoldFast said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim, in keeping with the terms of my self-imposed exile here I'll likely not offer a response -- but could you explain what you mean by, and then provide the basis for your statement about Jerusalem's "only water supply"?
> 
> Thanks, brother!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phil, I will respond via PM. Such a discussion is way off topic for this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be interested in knowing the support for this claim as well. I'm not sure how explaining a statement that was considered "on topic" is considered being "off topic."
Click to expand...


The thread is about whether an unordained woman may baptize. It is not about mode of baptism. The "on topic" post earlier was the one speculating whether the the Twelve performed the baptisms themselves or had others assisting. But we are not -- and consider this to be a mod warning -- going to have a thread about that subject matter devolve into a discussion about mode of baptism, when that is not even remotely the concern of the OP.


----------



## HoldFast

Marrow Man said:


> But we are not -- and consider this to be a mod warning -- going to have a thread about that subject matter devolve into a discussion about mode of baptism, when that is not even remotely the concern of the OP.



Quite right.


----------



## Robert Truelove

With the absence of a single example in the New Testament of a non-ordained person administering baptism and the logical inferences surrounding both the nature of the sacrament and the particular duties of elders, I would have to answer "no" to the Ops question. At least as it relates to what is normative.


----------



## he beholds

Robert Truelove said:


> With the absence of a single example in the New Testament of a non-ordained person administering baptism and the logical inferences surrounding both the nature of the sacrament and the particular duties of elders, I would have to answer "no" to the Ops question. At least as it relates to what is normative.


 
Were people ordained in the NT?


----------



## Marrow Man

he beholds said:


> Were people ordained in the NT?



Yes (e.g., Acts 7:6; 1 Timothy 4:14).


----------



## JennyG

I remember being taught that more or less anyone at all could validly baptise if it was a case of urgency - say a baby likely to die, and only the mother there.

---------- Post added at 09:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 PM ----------

....does that sound reasonable? It wouldn't set a precedent for a case like the OP


----------



## ericfromcowtown

JennyG said:


> I remember being taught that more or less anyone at all could validly baptise if it was a case of urgency - say a baby likely to die, and only the mother there.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 09:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 PM ----------
> 
> ....does that sound reasonable? It wouldn't set a precedent for a case like the OP



I think that this is tied to Rev. Buchanan's comment (#58) above about the belief in "emergency baptisms" being a consequence of an improper understanding of what baptism is (if I understood Rev. Buchanan correctly).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I think the idea of "emergency baptism" comes wholly from theological error about the nature of signs, what baptism means, what it's supposed to do, etc.

So for instance, what does that mother (or midwife, or nurse, etc.) think she's doing, when she "baptizes" the child? What would that act have to do with the true purpose of baptism? If the act is contrary to the intent of the institution as defined by Scripture, how is it the means-of-grace it supposed to be (according to Ref. theology)?

I hope that everyone reading would see the futility of baptizing a stillbirth, right? OK, but that stillbirth--if God's elect--is surely in heaven. So, the baptism isn't something indispensably necessary for entrance into bliss. Furthermore, what more could the mother (or doctor, or even a pastor or elder) do for that child as it struggles, perhaps ineffectually as it turns out, for life--more than handling him, loving him, praying for him, murmuring Christ's Word in his ears (more or less what they had been doing for about 9 months already)?

Baptism is principally and publicly, "for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church" (WCF 28.1). Beside which, it is a sign to the baptized of his faith. Obviously, a child entered into the place where his faith is sight, had never any time to reflect or even be thankful for his faith in this world. What then of the parents' faith? Is it not strengthened in the administration of the sacraments? Certainly, but the place for them is in the gathered church. The elect child, dying in infancy, is folded abruptly (from our vantage) into the church triumphant.

We were providentially denied the opportunity to do for him what we would have done (for his benefit, and that of all the rest of us) if he had remained with us long enough to publicly receive him. It's OK. The rite is a consequence of his natural birth, not the efficient cause of his new birth. It would have been an occasion of blessing him; it would not have been the reason God blessed him.

If we could possibly do it the right way, if I were present and had an elder with me, if we could have a few minutes with our members for genuine worship--including Word (most important) and Sacrament--I can see the church reaching out to this one to acknowledge him, before he slips away. But that's how it should be done, if we are going to go to extraordinary lengths to make the most of that brief earthly life. Baptism is a sign that the church enfolds its faithful ones. The church marks those to whom it comes (even when some individuals appear to come to the church); as well as those who are born within its walls (so we confess in the WCF).

Concern that someone (old or young) is going to miss "the blessing that can only come by baptism" confuses the whole issue, I am afraid.


----------



## elnwood

itsreed said:


> Look a this from the angle of worship. Is it biblically proper to administer the Lord's Supper apart from a worship service duly constituted under the elder's authority? Us Presbyterians would say no.
> 
> Similarly we would look at baptism. It is not properly administered outside of a worship service duly constituted under the authority of the elders. This at least tells us that the baptism must in some manner be noticeably administered on the basis of the authority of the elders.



Baptism is not administered properly outside of a worship service? As far as I know, there are no instances of baptism in the New Testament administered during a Sunday worship service.

Those in the RPCNA can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Reformed Presbyterians have their baptisms outside of the regular worship service because of the Regulative Principle of Worship: baptism is never explicitly commanded as part of the worship service.


----------



## Marrow Man

elnwood said:


> Baptism is not administered properly outside of a worship service? As far as I know, there are no instances of baptism in the New Testament administered during a Sunday worship service.
> 
> Those in the RPCNA can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Reformed Presbyterians have their baptisms outside of the regular worship service because of the Regulative Principle of Worship: baptism is never explicitly commanded as part of the worship service.



"The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as, also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God ..." (WCF 21:5)

"Baptism, as it is not unnecessarily to be delayed, so it is not to be administered in any case by any private person, but by a minister of Christ, called to be the steward of the mysteries of God. Nor is it to be administered in private places, or privately, but in the place of publick worship, and in the face of the congregation, where the people may most conveniently see and hear; ... (Westminster Directory of Public Worship)


----------



## JennyG

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think the idea of "emergency baptism" comes wholly from theological error about the nature of signs, what baptism means, what it's supposed to do, etc....


I see. Thank you for explaining so clearly


----------



## KMK

Marrow Man said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism is not administered properly outside of a worship service? As far as I know, there are no instances of baptism in the New Testament administered during a Sunday worship service.
> 
> Those in the RPCNA can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Reformed Presbyterians have their baptisms outside of the regular worship service because of the Regulative Principle of Worship: baptism is never explicitly commanded as part of the worship service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as, also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God ..." (WCF 21:5)
> 
> "Baptism, as it is not unnecessarily to be delayed, so it is not to be administered in any case by any private person, but by a minister of Christ, called to be the steward of the mysteries of God. Nor is it to be administered in private places, or privately, but in the place of publick worship, and in the face of the congregation, where the people may most conveniently see and hear; ... (Westminster Directory of Public Worship)
Click to expand...


Don't forget LBC 22:5...



> The reading of the Scriptures, preaching, and hearing the Word of God, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord;18 as also the administration of baptism,and the Lord's supper, are all parts of religious worship of God, to be performed in obedience to him, with understanding, faith, reverence, and godly fear; moreover, solemn humiliation, with fastings, and thanksgivings, upon special occasions, ought to be used in an holy and religious manner.


----------



## Marrow Man

Thanks, Ken. I posted that late (and because of the mention of Presbyterianism and the RPW), but since the OP is dealing with a confessional Baptist context, the LBC is more appropriate to cite.


----------



## J Miles

> Section 20. To whom the dispensation of baptism belongs. Not to private individuals or women, but to the ministers of the Church. Origin of the baptism of private individuals and women. An argument in favour of it refuted.
> 
> It is here also pertinent to observe, that it is improper for private individuals to take upon themselves the administration of baptism; for it, as well as the dispensation of the Supper, is part of the ministerial office. For Christ did not give command to any men or women whatever to baptise, but to those whom he had appointed apostles. And when, in the administration of the Supper, he ordered his disciples to do what they had seen him do, (he having done the part of a legitimate dispenser), he doubtless meant that in this they should imitate his example.



Calvin's Institutes Book 4, Chapter 15

My


----------

