Can Deacon's baptize?

[Hamalas]

In family devotions tonight we were discussing the Covenant and particularly the sacraments. One question that was raised in my mind as I consulted the confession was this: The WCF clearly says that only a minister can administer baptism, but if that is the case what do we do with Phillip (a deacon) baptizing the eunuch in Acts 8:38-39? Why is it that ordained elders and deacons cannot baptize?

 

[Solus Christus]

I didn't even consider Philip to be a deacon. Wasn't he an apostle and part of the original Twelve?

 

[Tim]

In family devotions tonight we were discussing the Covenant and particularly the sacraments. One question that was raised in my mind as I consulted the confession was this: The WCF clearly says that only a minister can administer baptism, but if that is the case what do we do with Phillip (a deacon) baptizing the eunuch in Acts 8:38-39? Why is it that ordained elders and deacons cannot baptize?

Ben, for the purposes of this discussion, it might be good to indicate how many offices you would like to consider. From your original post, it seems like you recognize 1) minister, 2) elder, 3) deacon? Is this correct?

I don't know much about the number of church offices, but it may be important to the discussion if others can contribute something.

 

[Hamalas]

In family devotions tonight we were discussing the Covenant and particularly the sacraments. One question that was raised in my mind as I consulted the confession was this: The WCF clearly says that only a minister can administer baptism, but if that is the case what do we do with Phillip (a deacon) baptizing the eunuch in Acts 8:38-39? Why is it that ordained elders and deacons cannot baptize?

Ben, for the purposes of this discussion, it might be good to indicate how many offices you would like to consider. From your original post, it seems like you recognize 1) minister, 2) elder, 3) deacon? Is this correct?

I don't know much about the number of church offices, but it may be important to the discussion if others can contribute something.

Good point. As a member of the PCA I see two ordained offices in Scripture 1) Elder & 2) Deacon. With there being two categories in the office of Elder 1) Teaching Elders & 2) Ruling Elders. According to the confession, only ordained ministers (or Teaching Elders) can baptize. My question is about whether or not Ruling Elders and ordained Deacons should be able to also baptize.

I didn't even consider Philip to be a deacon. Wasn't he an apostle and part of the original Twelve?

Ed, I am drawing that from Acts 6:5, "And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch." (ESV)

 

[Glenn Ferrell]

The WCF XXVIII:2 says, "The outward element to be used in this 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."

Though this prescribes the ordinary manner of baptism, it does not invalidate baptisms done by those who are not "ministers of the gospel, lawfully called." For example, someone coming from an Anglican church, where they may have been baptized by a deacon, or even a layman, would not ordinarily be required to be baptized again. In Plymouth Brethren churches, baptisms are usually done by a layman authorized by the elders. What do we do with someone desiring to transfer from a Methodist or PCUSA congregation, where they were baptized by a woman presuming to be a “minister”? Was she lawfully called thereunto?

Some would argue Stephen and Phillip had been promoted from deacon to minister considering their extensive preaching.

One concern of the Confession is that baptism not be separated from the preaching of the word.

 

[Augusta]

Well, Philip seems to be called to preach and does signs etc. all through Acts. He does so much preaching that he must have been a preacher. He was also literally and miraculously SENT by the Holy Spirit to Azotus.

 

[Hamalas]

So this is acceptable because Philip became a Teaching Elder? Is that the consensus that I'm hearing?

 

[harvelljr]

Now, Now friends we must never take historical narative and make it didactical or instructional scripture.

The Pentecostals argue from Acts to try and prove that anyone could do miracles, but after a careful study of the book of Acts, by myself, I found that of those who done miracles who were not Apostles, they were sent by an Apostle after that the Apostle had laid their hands on them. So when Paul tells the Corinthians that the signs of an Apostle were wrought among them, then the signs of an Apostle were done only by an Apostle and identified that individual as an Apostle.

Therefore the few who done miracles had been touched and sent by an Apostle, but we cannot conclude by this that all had the ability to do the signs of the Apostles.

Therefore we must use the didactical portions of scripture, which expressly teach what we must or must not do and this will not be found in the book of Acts which gives us a history of what the Apostles did do. Hence "The Acts of the Apostles."

 

[Hamalas]

So Lee, are you saying that Philip should not have baptized the eunuch? Or are you saying that it was only acceptable for that particular time like with certain spiritual gifts?

 

[Archlute]

This is a prime example of where I think Reformed practice, in the interest of order and as an historical reaction against issues then extant in the Medieval Church, ignores passages of Scripture that might direct otherwise in our church practice.

 

[Solus Christus]

Therefore we must use the didactical portions of scripture, which expressly teach what we must or must not do and this will not be found in the book of Acts which gives us a history of what the Apostles did do. Hence "The Acts of the Apostles."

You bring up a good point here Lee. Since Acts records the acts of the apostles, wouldn't this mean that Philip (in Acts 8) is the apostle Philip and not the deacon Philip (in Acts 6)?

So if that's the case, it wouldn't be the situation where we have a deacon actually baptizing anyone.

Though I still appreciate you pointing out another Philip in Acts 6 Ben

 

[harvelljr]

Hamalas asked:

"are you saying that it was only acceptable for that particular time like with certain spiritual gifts? "




Yes, I am saying this. Titus was commanded by Paul in Titus 1:5 Titus "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:"

As the church grew there was a need in every city for elders. Until this time there were things done by individuals who were not apostles, but were ordained by the apostles to do these things. This is similar to the Old Testament event whereby part of Moses' annointing was given to others to help aide Moses.

But when Titus and Timothy set out to appoint these elders, then there was an order that was laid down. At the beginning of the church age, as we know it now, there was a need for men like Philip to move into areas of ministry until men be appointed, but in today's society there is no excuse for not going through the proper channels and find a minister that will baptize an individual.



Archlute stated:

"This is a prime example of where I think Reformed practice, in the interest of order and as an historical reaction against issues then extant in the Medieval Church, ignores passages of Scripture that might direct otherwise in our church practice."


I disagree my friend. I agree that we should use all of scripture to build our doctrines on and yes we might have certain traditions passed onto us through what was traditional in the early church, but one must be very careful to distinguish between what is specifically stated and commanded and what was just narrative.

Luther developed what is known as the perspicuity of scripture or he believed that scripture is clear. Does this mean that he believed that all scripture was clear and plain? No. He said there are some scriptures that will leave one scratching there head because they are so unclear, but he believed that scripture was plain enough in places to tell us what we must do to be saved.
So what I am stating is exactly what he did and that is that the implicit should be interpreted by the explicit.

We should never ever make or build a doctrine on portions of scripture that doesn't clearly express a certain thing. Believe me this was an enlightening concept to me about five years age because I was in the Pentecostal persuasion since 1992 and believe me we had all kind of weird doctrines based on many unclear and not to plain scriptures, so now to be able to understand that we should build our doctrines only on the clear text is very refreshing and enlightening to me because I see that many things I once held to was mere superstitional and occultic nonsense.

-----Added 4/14/2009 at 06:13:14 EST-----

Solus Christus brings up a very good point in the post above.

 

[DonP]

One thing I have found. Being of a very independent nature and very studious and self- taught, as well as taught by others:

the older I get and the more I study and learn,

The more I am amazed at how accurate the wCF is and how smart our puritan fathers were by God's amazing Grace on them in that time.

When I am tempted to disagree with the WCF if I study enough and all sides of the issue, I am persuaded they were guided by God for the good of the church.

I also generally find where people tend to want to disagree, it is with a tendency for more worldliness not less.

How interesting?

Wouldn't you think once in a while we would be more strict and them loose??

Why is that??

Good guideline, until you know the word, the world, history and languages and culture better than the authors of the WCF, it may be wise to consider with weight what they all agreed to.

 

[Archlute]

Therefore we must use the didactical portions of scripture, which expressly teach what we must or must not do and this will not be found in the book of Acts which gives us a history of what the Apostles did do. Hence "The Acts of the Apostles."

You bring up a good point here Lee. Since Acts records the acts of the apostles, wouldn't this mean that Philip (in Acts 8) is the apostle Philip and not the deacon Philip (in Acts 6)?

So if that's the case, it wouldn't be the situation where we have a deacon actually baptizing anyone.

Though I still appreciate you pointing out another Philip in Acts 6 Ben

The title of the book is post-apostolic, with a number of modern (and Reformed) scholars arguing that it is more reflective of the theme of Acts when taken as a whole that it should be labeled "The Acts of the Holy Spirit". So that doesn't have a bearing either way, since both the Philip in Acts 6, and the Philip in Acts 8 (assuming that they are even different men) are both described as being filled with the Holy Spirit.

It really cannot be decided from the title, or from anything explicit in the text. The most certain that can be said about it is that when you read a book, and someone is given mention at one point, who has also been mentioned just previous to that episode, the most natural way to take that reference is to the closest antecedent. That would be Philip the deacon of Acts 6. If Luke was going to have Theolophilus understand that he was speaking of Philip the apostle from his earlier gospel, it is probable that he would have made note of it in the narrative.

That being said, it is interesting to note that when Philip is mentioned again in Acts 21:8 he is described as "Philip the Evangelist, who was of the seven". Luke thinks it significant to make that connection back with the calling of the seven back in chapter six, so it is possible that the apostle is being spoken of in chapter eight.

However, I think what would move me to continue with my affirmation regarding the Philip of chapter eight being the deacon/evangelist is that just prior to that comes the martyrdom of Stephen, who was one of the seven, and then the description of the church in Jerusalem being scattered, and preaching the gospel wherever they went. The next scene Luke gives us is that of Philip preaching the gospel as he went. It would seem a strong connection is drawn by Luke in the way he laid out the narrative cues between that Philip who was deacon and witness to the martyrdom of Stephen in Jerusalem, and that Philip who then went out preaching along with the rest of the dispersed church.

Have at it.

-----Added 4/14/2009 at 06:31:02 EST-----

Archlute stated:

"This is a prime example of where I think Reformed practice, in the interest of order and as an historical reaction against issues then extant in the Medieval Church, ignores passages of Scripture that might direct otherwise in our church practice."


I disagree my friend. I agree that we should use all of scripture to build our doctrines on and yes we might have certain traditions passed onto us through what was traditional in the early church, but one must be very careful to distinguish between what is specifically stated and commanded and what was just narrative.

Luther developed what is known as the perspicuity of scripture or he believed that scripture is clear. Does this mean that he believed that all scripture was clear and plain? No. He said there are some scriptures that will leave one scratching there head because they are so unclear, but he believed that scripture was plain enough in places to tell us what we must do to be saved.
So what I am stating is exactly what he did and that is that the implicit should be interpreted by the explicit.

We should never ever make or build a doctrine on portions of scripture that doesn't clearly express a certain thing. Believe me this was an enlightening concept to me about five years age because I was in the Pentecostal persuasion since 1992 and believe me we had all kind of weird doctrines based on many unclear and not to plain scriptures, so now to be able to understand that we should build our doctrines only on the clear text is very refreshing and enlightening to me because I see that many things I once held to was mere superstitional and occultic nonsense.

I appreciate your caution, as you have brought it from your experience, but that statement is just not true. I've been five years in seminary, good brother, and I've sat through a lot of lectures, and I've read through a lot of books, and if I may be so bold, I will assert that all theologians, whether broad Evangelicals, Pentecostals, or Reformed, use narrative passages of Scripture (including the book of Acts) in building up, proving, disproving, or otherwise, doctrinal theses.

-----Added 4/14/2009 at 06:42:04 EST-----

Good guideline, until you know the word, the world, history and languages and culture better than the authors of the WCF, it may be wise to consider with weight what they all agreed to.

It should also be understood that the Westminster Assembly drew up a consensus document for the church in that place and time, regarding which there were significant differences of opinion on various matters held by its framers.

That is why there have been revisions in the time since governments have changed, and a better grasp of certain theological truths have been gained. That is why, although I am strong confessionalist, I would never support the strict subscriptionist platform that has at times been pushed within the PCA.

Peter Lillback wrote an essay on this very point, in fact, as part of a collection of essays regarding confessional subscription, and is very clear in pointing out that Calvin allowed leeway among confessionalists, and that he himself would not have qualified as being a strict confessionalist by his approach to the Reformed and Lutheran confessions of his day.

Enjoy the writings of the Puritans, but realize that if you stop there in your study of Scriptures and theology, you will be missing out on a bit. The theological endeavor of the church most often comes about as a (good, and pro-active) reaction against the errors, circumstances, and temperature of the times. What they studied and wrote upon then, although much of it was good and still applies, does not necessarily address in an effective manner the pastoral issues and cultural particulars unique to the place and time in which God has set us. Enjoy the confessions, but keep your mind also attuned to the issues of the day, and how the Scripture can address them.

 

[Hamalas]

One thing I have found. Being of a very independent nature and very studious and self- taught, as well as taught by others:

the older I get and the more I study and learn,

The more I am amazed at how accurate the wCF is and how smart our puritan fathers were by God's amazing Grace on them in that time.

When I am tempted to disagree with the WCF if I study enough and all sides of the issue, I am persuaded they were guided by God for the good of the church.

I also generally find where people tend to want to disagree, it is with a tendency for more worldliness not less.

How interesting?

Wouldn't you think once in a while we would be more strict and them loose??

Why is that??

Good guideline, until you know the word, the world, history and languages and culture better than the authors of the WCF, it may be wise to consider with weight what they all agreed to.

Amen, and it is precisely for that reason that I am asking. If I did not value the confessions then I would simply dismiss them without looking at this issue.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

Was Philip a deacon when he baptized the Ethiopian?

We discussed this awhile back in the Deacons' Forum.

While it is clear that Philip (one of the first deacons, Acts 6) baptized the Ethiopian, it is a debated point that it should follow that the administration of the ordinance belongs to all deacons. I do not believe that it is the ordinary function of the diaconal office to perform such tasks. If he was still in his office as a deacon, Philip's baptizing of the Eunich was a special case in the early days of the church.

However, one should consider whether Philip was still but a Deacon on this occasion.

Some would argue that Philip "would not have performed the function of an Evangelist if he were not occupied in that office."

They posit that it is "reasonable to conclude that the once-Deacon Philip demonstrated gifts for further use in the church, and was made an Elder".

In baptizing the Ethiopian, Philip "acts for the whole church as an individual (to perform a baptism) , and this "is indicative of his authority he bore as an Evangelist, which is the title that church history has accorded him."

 

[DonP]

Wouldn't the apparent unusual calling and sending of Phillip, whoosh, mean he was an apostle at that moment by the Spirit ?? Under direct inspiration.

I think if this ever happens to a deacon and you end up on a Eunuch's chariot who is reading and asks you to explain then whooshed gone back to Azotus you could baptize or whatever.

Acts 8:26 Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, "Arise and go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza."

29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go near and overtake this chariot."

Acts 8:39-the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus.
NKJV

 

[Hamalas]

Wouldn't the apparent unusual calling and sending of Phillip, whoosh, mean he was an apostle at that moment by the Spirit ?? Under direct inspiration.

I think if this ever happens to a deacon and you end up on a Eunuch's chariot who is reading and asks you to explain then whooshed gone back to Azotus you could baptize or whatever.

Acts 8:26 Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, "Arise and go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza."

29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go near and overtake this chariot."

Acts 8:39-the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus.
NKJV

But isn't that something that every hippie/charismatic claims when it comes to lay baptism? "The Spirit made me do it, so all rules are suspended." I'm just not sure I buy that.

 

[DonP]

Wouldn't the apparent unusual calling and sending of Phillip, whoosh, mean he was an apostle at that moment by the Spirit ?? Under direct inspiration.

I think if this ever happens to a deacon and you end up on a Eunuch's chariot who is reading and asks you to explain then whooshed gone back to Azotus you could baptize or whatever.

Acts 8:26 Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, "Arise and go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza."

29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go near and overtake this chariot."

Acts 8:39-the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus.
NKJV

But isn't that something that every hippie/charismatic claims when it comes to lay baptism? "The Spirit made me do it, so all rules are suspended." I'm just not sure I buy that.

I am saying that this would mean Phillip was an inspired Apostle not just a deacon.

And the person you described will claim this anyway whether the deacon can baptize or not.

Because not enough ministers are required to hold to the RP and sound doctrine. Our seminaries are allowed to teach this, and true ministers are afraid to denounce this stuff as a false gospel and not Christianity and you better get to a sound church or you may be on the broad path going to the wrong place

 

[harvelljr]

Someone please follow this. I quoted Archlute:


Archlute stated:

"This is a prime example of where I think Reformed practice, in the interest of order and as an historical reaction against issues then extant in the Medieval Church, ignores passages of Scripture that might direct otherwise in our church practice."


Then I said:

"I disagree my friend. I agree that we should use all of scripture to build our doctrines on and yes we might have certain traditions passed onto us through what was traditional in the early church, but one must be very careful to distinguish between what is specifically stated and commanded and what was just narrative."


Then Archlute quoted me:

""I disagree my friend. I agree that we should use all of scripture to build our doctrines on and yes we might have certain traditions passed onto us through what was traditional in the early church, but one must be very careful to distinguish between what is specifically stated and commanded and what was just narrative."

Then Archlute disagreed with me and stated that what I said was not true, but then critiqued me with what I actually said:

"I appreciate your caution, as you have brought it from your experience, but that statement is just not true. I've been five years in seminary, good brother, and I've sat through a lot of lectures, and I've read through a lot of books, and if I may be so bold, I will assert that all theologians, whether broad Evangelicals, Pentecostals, or Reformed, use narrative passages of Scripture (including the book of Acts) in building up, proving, disproving, or otherwise, doctrinal theses."

Anyone catch that?


Now again I assert that it is not safe to take narrative scripture and build doctrinal practises on them. I am pretty sure that God does not want me to make it a habitual practise of taking my child up on to Mount Moriah to sacrifice them as Abraham was commanded to do to Isaac.

It is because people use narrative scriptures to build doctrines on that we have Arminianism and Open theism in the church today. Open theist will go over to Genesis and say that God doesn't know every thing because the text says that God came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. Genesis 11:5

or they say that God does not know anyones freewill decisions because freewill decisions can't be known until the person makes that decision and so Open theist will say that God did not know what Abraham would do when he commanded him to sacrifice his son, until he done what he did and the Open Theist appeal to Genesis 22:12 to prove their point, which reads " And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God,

Now you see the didactical scriptures teach us that God is eternal and that God knows everything from the beginning. God knows everything that is to happen in time because he decreed whatsoever will happen in time, not because he saw that it would happen in time, his decrees are not based upon finite events but his decrees are determined upon what he so chose to happen in time or they are determined according to his own good pleasure.

Now I have never been to a seminary and I thank God that you have been to a seminary, I wished to God that I could go to a seminary, but if in seminary I am not taught proper hermeneutical methods, then going to seminary will not help me in the study of God's word.

I am sure that you have been taught that there are many literary devices in scripture just as there are in other pieces of literature. The Bible carries these different devices and should be intepreted as such, in other words the Bible contains, narrative, didactical, hyperbole, simile, metaphors, idioms, poetry [there are different types of poetry such as: parallelism, antithetic, synthetic, etc...] typology, apocalyptic, figurative, symbolical, etc..... When interpreting the Bible we must recognize these different literary devices and when interpreting they must be interpreted using methods that interpret such devices and interpreting them in the context of the chapter, the context of the history, and the context of the entire Bible or in other words when a word is used one way in one scripture that does not mean the same word can and should be interpreted the same way in another portion of scripture. Hence the word "world" is a favorite word of the Arminian, but the word itself carries seven different definitions as interpreted in the context where the worrd world is used.

I always interpret using the grammatical, historical, redemptive method, but the instructional [didactical] portions of scripture must be the guide by which we interpret all else. If the Bible states that God is not a man that he should lie or repent, then we cannot say,as the Open theist do when we read in the narrative that states God repented, as being an act whereby God changes his mind. The statement God repented is just speaking in human terms and so there you go again, the Bible uses anthromorphisms, anthropopathisms, etc.....

I believe that Calvin had it right when he used Romasn as a door. In other words the New Testament interprets the old, not the other way around and
specifically the epistles interpret not only the Old Testament, but also the gospels. The Gospels only record the events surrounding Christ' life, death, and resurrection, but the epistles interpret for us what these events mean and interpret what the Old Testament stated about these events. This is why pre-millennialist are still looking for a thousand year reign and thatis because they do not understand the interpretation given by the writer of Hebrews concerning the land promised to Abraham.

So as I was stating Calvin believed that Romans was an open door. If one understands this book and uses this book to interpret then the rest of scripture will make sense and a matter of fact Calvin interpreted Genesis and many other Old Testament books and events with Romans.

Now this is not bad for someone who has no seminary and only an eighth grade education and that cherishes the writings of the Reformation and later the Puritans.

 

[Archlute]

Harvel, you're giving me a headache. I'm not sure what you are trying to drive at, but I am sure that your convoluted stringing together of quotes from our larger conversation does not accurately reflect what was being addressed in the above dialogue (especially as you omitted some of the pertinent statements toward which I had been directing my comments).

I am not going to bite, especially when I am not certain that your motives are worthy of engagement.

 

[DonP]

Someone please follow this. I quoted Archlute:

I always interpret using the grammatical, historical, redemptive method,

Now this is not bad for someone who has no seminary and only an eighth grade education and that cherishes the writings of the Reformation and later the Puritans.

I followed you. Yea not bad.

But watch out for that triple method you have there. It is not Confessional

Just the Grammatical Historical is. Good book to read is The Imperative of Preaching by Carrick.

And we do use narrative to interpret scripture. But as you rightly say we might not use it as a direct 1 to 1 command to obey now.
I don't think most reformed people would make this mistake. It violates other principles. Only someone with an agenda would do this.

Notice part of some narratives contains things we would do also.

So I think where this warning about narratives comes to play is for those who choose to study the liberal theologians to find their Biblical Theology and Redemptive Historical, and poetic structures that may not have actually been meant to be in there or interpreted if they were; rather they are more of a bible code some seek out.

Those liberal may use narrative as you have said because they are such bad theologians.

So I would say watch out more for even going to them. What need?

There is indeed a historic flow of the plan of Redemption and it is exposed and explained in Covenant Theology.
Be ware of this C T is flat you need to see Jesus in every verse of the OT which is actually pointing to Him and or the Culmination. I think that can get you into a lot of trouble.

Just "my experience" from decades of reading, listening to sermons, and reading and listening to audios of others and seeing the lives of people under them.

 

[Archlute]

Don,

This is beginning to get off subject a bit, but since you seem to be quite opposed to a redemptive-historical hermeneutic I would briefly address your concern.

A properly handled RH hermeneutic is both confessional and Scriptural. Read closely WCF 1.6 and 1.9, and then think about those sections in light of Luke 24, and the interpretive method of the epistle (sermon, as many argue) to the Hebrews, and you will see that it is not only an allowable method, but would be required in light of apostolic examples of interpretation.

RH theology is not driven by a liberal agenda (not sure where you picked that up, unless you are confusing some of the OT biblical theology of Von Rad, and others with that).

A very good book to read, one that will help you to flesh out your thoughts a little better, and will also allow you to see a well presented argument from a confessional Reformed minister, is the recent publication (2007) by the Rev. Dr. Dennis Johnson of Westminster Seminary in California entitled Him We Proclaim. It is an outstanding work on homiletics/applied hermeneutics. Pick it up and read it carefully, and I guarantee that you will not be disappointed with that use of your time.

I know Carrick's work, and it is decent so far as it goes, but he was writing that work as a polemic against one particular strain of RH preaching that was widely perceived to have been restrictive of sermonic application. I also have his four part lecture series in which his primary focus is on the recovery of application in preaching. Good RH preaching does not omit application, but it does always make connection with Christ and his work in some manner. Preaching any OT passage apart from Christ is indeed a moralistic use of Scripture, and does not fulfill the many passages of apostolic address in which the focus of their preaching and teaching was always centered in this fashion upon Christ Jesus - thus the title of Johnson's work Him We Proclaim, which is take from a statement given by the apostle Paul in Colossians 1:28.

I'll let you pick up the work and see what you think. But, to be clear, the confessions in no way restrict preaching and interpretation to a purely historical-grammatical approach. That is enlightenment influenced thinking (again, read Johnson), and does not take into its scope the full analogia fidei of the Scriptures regarding the preaching practices of the apostolic church.

Enjoy!

 

[DMcFadden]

Adam,

Thanks for an exceptionally clear post. That was probably the most helpful delineation I have ever seen on this topic! And, I find myself agreeing with you on the value of Johnson AND on the danger of over generalizing Carrick's critique beyond the appropriate bounds.

I have listened to a single lecture by Carrick (not the four that you have) and reached the same conclusion as to what he is opposing. While the warning against leveling out the OT in its pointing always to Christ is valid, Luke 24 drove me to a RH-like position without knowing the technical term given it in Reformed circles.

As to the issue of application, it is interesting to remember in this year of Calvin that his sermons often include 50% application.

 

[Kevin]

We discussed this awhile back in the Deacons' Forum.

While it is clear that Philip (one of the first deacons, Acts 6) baptized the Ethiopian, it is a debated point that it should follow that the administration of the ordinance belongs to all deacons. I do not believe that it is the ordinary function of the diaconal office to perform such tasks. If he was still in his office as a deacon, Philip's baptizing of the Eunich was a special case in the early days of the church.

However, one should consider whether Philip was still but a Deacon on this occasion.

Some would argue that Philip "would not have performed the function of an Evangelist if he were not occupied in that office."

They posit that it is "reasonable to conclude that the once-Deacon Philip demonstrated gifts for further use in the church, and was made an Elder".

In baptizing the Ethiopian, Philip "acts for the whole church as an individual (to perform a baptism) , and this "is indicative of his authority he bore as an Evangelist, which is the title that church history has accorded him."

I find it instructive that the deacons on the board are most conservative, when it comes to this question.

For the record, I believe that Philip was a deacon at the point he baptised, and that his example is not normative.

 

[DonP]

We can take up the RH distinctives on another thread. Suffice it to say that I sat in the OPC under BT men who were trained by Denison and Kline.

I think Dennison is more balanced in his preaching the little I have heard.

My pastors were exactly what you read in Carricks book.

And they openly sought to create a haven for like minded men so they could be accepted with their unconfessional views and not run out as was happening in So Cal pres.

They always spoke of the others who were the extreme BTers and RHers too. I came to find they were the extreme.
Now I do not mean to compare them to Dutch liberal RH.

And I do believe one can have a proper balanced use of BT.

Nuf Said.
If Baptism can occur outside the church, as a norm, and a deacon could perform it apart from the authority of a minister, and the preaching of the gospel, then Hamalas' "Charismatic hippie" has every right to do it in the Jordan or his bathtub at home with his new decisionist.

As long as he would only sprinkle of course

I Love diligently working through the scriptures with you all !! Thanks

 

[harvelljr]

I do apologize for getting this thread off topic and I am not trying to stir a controversy with Archlute. I also realized after I made that last post that this thread was strictly for Paedo-baptist and again for interfering I do apologize.

I will say that as I have no seminary training and I do consider myself a Reformed Baptist and not a Padeo Baptist, I will state that most of my Reformed understanding and learning comes from R. C. Sproul who is a Padeo Baptist. I have many books by him and have over 400 lectures by him and download new ones every day off the web and take these to work and listen to them all day long. It was he that introduced me to Reformed Theology and I can say that I have a great fondness for him and his ministry. Matter of fact I was kicked out of an Arminian church because of my Reformed Theology and I have paid my tithes to R. C. Sproul's ministry even until this day. I have been searching for Reformed Baptist church, but the closest one is 50 miles away. All I have around me is Arminian Baptist and Charasmatics. There are a few Presbyterian churches and Methodist churches.

Since I can't stomach the Arminian churches because of the Romanism in them, then all is left are the Presbyterian churches, to which I have thought of attending, but I am unsure of how they are towards Reformed Baptist.

Again forgive me for the interfrence into this topic between Padeo-Baptist.

If the RH method is taking up on another thread I would like to follow that, so please notify me if it is started.

 

[Archlute]

No offense taken, Lee. I wish you the best as you continue your progress in growing in the knowledge of Christ, and the doctrine of his Word.

 

[Edward]

Since I can't stomach the Arminian churches because of the Romanism in them, then all is left are the Presbyterian churches, to which I have thought of attending, but I am unsure of how they are towards Reformed Baptist.

You should be welcome to attend any PCA church, and I would think that you would have no problem with membership at most of them. (see below) You would not be eligible for church office (elder or deacon) with your current views. Teaching, and any restrictions thereon, would need to be determined by the session. Unfortunately, I don't see a PCA church in your community.

PCA membership questions:

1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of
God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save
in His sovereign mercy?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God,
and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him
alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon
the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as
becomes the followers of Christ?
4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and
work to the best of your ability?
5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline
of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

 

[Hamalas]

Originally Posted by harvelljr View Post
Since I can't stomach the Arminian churches because of the Romanism in them, then all is left are the Presbyterian churches, to which I have thought of attending, but I am unsure of how they are towards Reformed Baptist.

What denomination are they? I can't imagine any PCA church being unfriendly to you because you disagreed on baptism. As Edward pointed out you could not serve as an officer but I'm sure you would be welcome to worship with them! I hope you can find a good church soon!