Did Philip the deacon not follow proper protocol when baptizing the Ethiopian?

[Pergamum]

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Here is from the OPC Q and A site discussing proper baptism. When asked who can administer baptism, the responder even volunteers this opinion:

I am even of the opinion that the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) by the deacon Philip (in a time of severe persecution)—outside the context of any congregation—was irregular. Yet there is no question that it was fully valid.

This seems like a bold claim. What are we to think? Also, should we call him "Philip the deacon" or "Philip the evangelist" and should we assume that he had his local church's consent and sending to go...or did he just take off on his own accord into the desert? I would like to study more about Philip and his work...does anyone have any links or sermons?

 

[One Little Nail]

Philip was an Evangelist when he baptised the Ethiopian Eununch, which would have made him lawful to baptise, as an
evangelist was one of the 5 fold Ascension gift Ministries that the Lord gave to the Church for its Edification.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Just a reminder from Calvin.

The importance of the Church in Sovereign Grace | RPCNA Covenanter

Calvin’s Commentary Isaiah 54:13
13. For all thy children. I consider that the copulative v (vau,) “and,” here, as in many other passages, denotes for; and hence we may easily conclude that Isaiah spoke not of doctrine, but of men, of which the spiritual building of the Church is reared. It is by doctrine, indeed, that the Church is built; but, the building of it is effected by assembling men together, and reducing them to a state of obedience to God. The difference then between Paul and Isaiah is this, that Paul makes those “precious stones” relate to doctrine, and Isaiah makes them relate to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are bestowed on men, in order that the Church may be built of them. It is proper to observe the diversity of gifts with which the Lord adorns his Church; for all are not “emeralds,” and all are not “carbuncles,” but the Lord assigns to everyone his rank according’ to his own pleasure. (Ephesians 4:11)

Philip was gifted as an Evangelist to do the work of the ministry. We see many manifestations in the Early Church that we are not called upon to rely upon today. Jesus rightly noted, "But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:"Mat_12:39

What protocol do you see he violated considering the time and ordinances he was under?

 

[bookslover]

It almost seems as if the OPC responder is forgetting that, in this earliest period of the church, things were still pretty fluid regarding the offices - there were no books of church order yet with full-fledged detailed definitions regarding the offices. Besides, the Bible records Philip's baptizing the eunuch without any suggestion that he should not have done it. Since Scripture records the incident without comment either way, it's hard to say that it was "irregular." To use that language is an anachronism.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

I think that the OPC responder here is misguided. As one who teaches polity not only in my seminary but also for my denomination (MTIOPC), I think that he is not taking into account how Philip is an evangelist here. Furthermore, the evangelist today (insofar as we have such: I realize the dispute with respect to this, though the OPC regards a missionary as an evangelist) would have both the right and the calling to baptize "outside of the congregation" as he puts it.

When a man appointed to the missionary task by the church goes into an area in which no church has been established or is contiguous, he begins to labor for such, including baptizing, as part of gathering a congregation (this goes into making up such), as well as appointing the first elders. Much more could be said about all this, but the commenter is misguided, lacking some of the important parts of this discussion.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Pergamum]

Thanks.

Yes, I thought it strange that he would choose to address Philip as a deacon rather than as an evangelist.

 

[whirlingmerc]

There is no hint of Philip doing anything wrong. If fact, the Ethiopian was headed home and there would be no opportunity for him to go to an existing local congregation.
So there should be flexibility in this.

God picked up the Eunich from a successful evangelistic revival in Samaria and plopped him on the road. It was God's idea in the end. The eunich did help found the Coptic church according to some traditions. Mark also is credited under some traditions with founding the coptic church, so he would be eventually connected to a church more strongly

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I'm not sure that the gentleman's use of the word "irregular" isn't meant to denote "extra-ordinary." In which case, I would agree with him. It was extra-ordinary and not a normative (i.e. "regular") pattern for the church.

 

[Peairtach]

It shows that all that was needed for baptism to be administered was an uncontradicted profession of faith, whereas admission to the Lord's Supper was by an accredited profession of faith (see e.g. "The Days of the Fathers in Ross-shire" by John Kennedy)