On who may baptize

[TryingToLearn]

So I was reading through Jim Renihan's commentary on the 1st London Confession because I knew that it authorized all "preaching disciples" (so anybody who is at least a "gifted brother", that is a lay preacher called by the church) to baptize and I wanted to get more background on this. To my surprise, I found out that it seems that most early Baptists held to this. Renihan summarizes their main argument for this:

If a “preaching disciple” may be used of the Holy Spirit to bring someone to faith, which is the greatest and most important act of preaching, then surely that same person would have the right to perform the less significant act of baptizing the convert. This is not to diminish the importance of baptism, but to recognize the unique nature of preaching.

Even John Gill uses a similar argument in his Practical Divinity in order to show that anyone who may preach may also administer the sacraments.

Another interesting argument I thought I'd add is that Matt. 28:16 speaks of the apostles as "disciples" rather than apostles, which the Baptists used to argue the Great Commission was given to all preaching disciples rather than all pastors/elders.

I feel very unsure here and I had an initial negative reaction to this view so I wanted to go back and think about why I feel that only pastors/elders are authorized to administer the sacraments. In doing this, I looked at Turretin who says that:

The former [circumcision] could be administered by private persons and nothing peculiar is ascribed to it; but the right to baptize is given to those alone who have the right to teach.”)

But the clear issue here is that Teachers obviously have the right to teach. So it seems that those who hold the office of Teacher ought to be able to baptize. And it would seem likewise that Licentiates would that right as well. In fact, when I read Turretin's argument for why only pastors can baptize:

The reasons are: (1) the right to baptize belongs only to those to whom was given by Christ the right of preaching the gospel. For these two attend each other as parts of the public ministry and are indissolubly joined together. Now Christ gave this right to the apostles alone and their lawful successors (Mt. 28:19, 20). And that it does not belong to others is evident from v. 16, where the eleven apostles are said to have departed into Galilee. But although rnany others had been present besides the apostles when Christ spoke, it does not follow that these words (“Go, teach all nations, baptizing them”) do not belong to the apostles alone, because there was nothing to hinder the command of Christ being given to the apostles alone in the presence of many witnesses. It is certain that Christ here addresses the sacred ministers whom he was calling to the preaching of the gospel. Therefore, as no one ought to have preached by public authority unless he was sent and had a peculiar call to it, so neither ought he to baptize. Therefore a woman ought not to teach in the church (1 Tim. 2:12).

What stands out to me is that all agree on this: that at least those who are licensed may preach. So why then can they not administer the sacraments if "the right to baptize belongs only to those to whom was given by Christ the right of preaching the gospel." and "no one ought to have preached by public authority unless he was sent and had a peculiar call to it, so neither ought he to baptize."? And if one holds that Teachers may preach, the same question applies (assuming of course, that one doesn't just concede that they may baptize).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Do you want answers from Presbyterians (closer to Turretin)? Because those replies will most likely differ in some respects from the Baptists (like Renihan and Gill).

The authority to baptize--a sacrament--is associated with the office of minister, who is a "steward of the mysteries" per the New Covenant. The preacher is God's authorized mouthpiece, the herald of the king. Others may certainly echo the will of the king by their speech and even do that powerfully, but not every speaker bears the emblems of the Sender.

The duty to baptize, and to administer the Lord's Supper, are consequential to the principal work of preaching the gospel. As we Presbyterians distinguish between 1) a license to preach and 2) ordination to the office of word and sacrament ministry, it does not follow that a limited authorization necessarily implies the full assignment of the office. Also in a typical Presbyterian polity, the Teacher is a minister of word and sacrament, even if his normal duties do not engage him in those aspects of ordinary ministry--the Presbyterian Teacher is authorized to administer sacraments too (in the context of worship where they are appropriate).

As an aside, I very much doubt Turretin's opinion that "the former [circumcision] could be administered by private persons," was indeed the case. Can this be proved from Scripture? I would have thought it obvious that upon the institution of the Levitical priesthood, and with the dispersion of priests and Levites in residences throughout the land, this religious duty fell to them not only for the spiritual matter of it, but for the related duty of record-keeping, of recording in the family name those associated with Israel and Temple access. (Famously, in the Roman destruction of the Temple crucial records were eliminated proving priestly ancestry and even Israelite ancestry. After the Babylonian captivity, there was some success in establishing some records of requisite heritage but not for all: see Ezra 2:59-63 and Neh.7:61-65.)

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

As an aside, I very much doubt Turretin's opinion that "the former [circumcision] could be administered by private persons," was indeed the case. Can this be proved from Scripture?

Who performed circumcision in the 400+ years between the institution of circumcision and the establishment of the Levitical priesthood?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Who performed circumcision in the 400+ years between the institution of circumcision and the establishment of the Levitical priesthood?

The same who acted as the priests (and prophets and kings) for the people of God during those 430yrs--i.e. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the Patriarchs, and their successors.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Do you want answers from Presbyterians (closer to Turretin)? Because those replies will most likely differ in some respects from the Baptists (like Renihan and Gill).

The authority to baptize--a sacrament--is associated with the office of minister, who is a "steward of the mysteries" per the New Covenant. The preacher is God's authorized mouthpiece, the herald of the king. Others may certainly echo the will of the king by their speech and even do that powerfully, but not every speaker bears the emblems of the Sender.

The duty to baptize, and to administer the Lord's Supper, are consequential to the principal work of preaching the gospel. As we Presbyterians distinguish between 1) a license to preach and 2) ordination to the office of word and sacrament ministry, it does not follow that a limited authorization necessarily implies the full assignment of the office. Also in a typical Presbyterian polity, the Teacher is a minister of word and sacrament, even if his normal duties do not engage him in those aspects of ordinary ministry--the Presbyterian Teacher is authorized to administer sacraments too (in the context of worship where they are appropriate).

As an aside, I very much doubt Turretin's opinion that "the former [circumcision] could be administered by private persons," was indeed the case. Can this be proved from Scripture? I would have thought it obvious that upon the institution of the Levitical priesthood, and with the dispersion of priests and Levites in residences throughout the land, this religious duty fell to them not only for the spiritual matter of it, but for the related duty of record-keeping, of recording in the family name those associated with Israel and Temple access. (Famously, in the Roman destruction of the Temple crucial records were eliminated proving priestly ancestry and even Israelite ancestry. After the Babylonian captivity, there was some success in establishing some records of requisite heritage but not for all: see Ezra 2:59-63 and Neh.7:61-65.)

Yeah my question is primarily directed at Presbyterians, but I want answers from anyone so that I can be helped to think through this.

I was under the impression that most Presbyterians limit the office of teacher so that they cannot administer sacraments. But if I remember correctly, that is the Scottish position and so I guess many may differ here.

But I guess what I'm primarily wondering is this: where do we go in Scripture in order to reason this out? Like how exactly would you respond to the line of thinking among early Baptists that the great commission is given to preaching disciples so that everyone who is authorized to preach is therefore authorized to administer the sacraments since it seems the administration of the sacraments is a sort of visible form of preaching and as even Turretin points out, tied to preaching. The biblical evidence for any position feels rather limited to me and it makes it very difficult. And I guess I'm trying to make sense of their argument that preaching is in a way "higher" than the sacraments and so it seems if one can do that, then they have the authority to do the lesser.

And I guess as an aside, what do you think of this: https://archive.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/61/61-2/JETS_61.2_355-366_Strickland.pdf the early church evidence has always kept me questioning about what I think on this issue since it seems they did not really care that much about who was baptizing and there doesn't seem to be a clear limiting of the baptizer to elders until after Nicea.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Following with interest.
In my circles, baptism is seen as as intitution of the church, and no one is baptized in a local assembly where they do not intend membership. But then the Ethiopian eunuch crops up, baptized on the spot by a missionary, and continuing toward a church-less place. Tradition is hastily cited to say that he probably started the first church in Ethiopia, but that brings it own sets of irregularities to the stated rubric of vetted, called, and sent.
I have still to find a satisfactory solution of this discrepancy.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Moses wife did a circumcision

 

[TryingToLearn]

Do you want answers from Presbyterians (closer to Turretin)? Because those replies will most likely differ in some respects from the Baptists (like Renihan and Gill).

The authority to baptize--a sacrament--is associated with the office of minister, who is a "steward of the mysteries" per the New Covenant. The preacher is God's authorized mouthpiece, the herald of the king. Others may certainly echo the will of the king by their speech and even do that powerfully, but not every speaker bears the emblems of the Sender.

The duty to baptize, and to administer the Lord's Supper, are consequential to the principal work of preaching the gospel. As we Presbyterians distinguish between 1) a license to preach and 2) ordination to the office of word and sacrament ministry, it does not follow that a limited authorization necessarily implies the full assignment of the office. Also in a typical Presbyterian polity, the Teacher is a minister of word and sacrament, even if his normal duties do not engage him in those aspects of ordinary ministry--the Presbyterian Teacher is authorized to administer sacraments too (in the context of worship where they are appropriate).

As an aside, I very much doubt Turretin's opinion that "the former [circumcision] could be administered by private persons," was indeed the case. Can this be proved from Scripture? I would have thought it obvious that upon the institution of the Levitical priesthood, and with the dispersion of priests and Levites in residences throughout the land, this religious duty fell to them not only for the spiritual matter of it, but for the related duty of record-keeping, of recording in the family name those associated with Israel and Temple access. (Famously, in the Roman destruction of the Temple crucial records were eliminated proving priestly ancestry and even Israelite ancestry. After the Babylonian captivity, there was some success in establishing some records of requisite heritage but not for all: see Ezra 2:59-63 and Neh.7:61-65.)

Also, if I may add this: it seems a “minister” would be one authorized to administer the sacraments. So the question is more about who counts as a minister. You’ve conceded at least Teachers are (though I know not all would), so it would not be limited just to pastors/elders on your view. So the the question just becomes why don’t Licentiates count as ministers? Is it just because they don’t hold an office? And if so, then I suppose my main question would be how we know the sacraments are tied specifically to office rather than simply to having the right to preach, since it seems even Turretin links it to the latter.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Moses wife did a circumcision

True. She fulfilled for Moses' failure. Indeed, I believe Moses was the angel of death's target (some think the target was the child) on account of his casual indifference to the covenant-sign and his failure of responsibility. His fitness for his current calling was rendered questionable by this obvious neglect. Just as plainly, God both sent the minister of wrath and stirred up a holy rescue from Zipporah, and Moses continued on his way toward fulfilling his unique mediatorial role.

Still, we shouldn't take normative instruction (in this case: who ought or may regularly perform a holy rite) solely or primarily from biblical narrative exemplars, as they often relate a condition either exceptional or muddled as the details demonstrate.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Yeah my question is primarily directed at Presbyterians, but I want answers from anyone so that I can be helped to think through this.

I was under the impression that most Presbyterians limit the office of teacher so that they cannot administer sacraments. But if I remember correctly, that is the Scottish position and so I guess many may differ here.

But I guess what I'm primarily wondering is this: where do we go in Scripture in order to reason this out? Like how exactly would you respond to the line of thinking among early Baptists that the great commission is given to preaching disciples so that everyone who is authorized to preach is therefore authorized to administer the sacraments since it seems the administration of the sacraments is a sort of visible form of preaching and as even Turretin points out, tied to preaching. The biblical evidence for any position feels rather limited to me and it makes it very difficult. And I guess I'm trying to make sense of their argument that preaching is in a way "higher" than the sacraments and so it seems if one can do that, then they have the authority to do the lesser.

And I guess as an aside, what do you think of this: https://archive.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/61/61-2/JETS_61.2_355-366_Strickland.pdf the early church evidence has always kept me questioning about what I think on this issue since it seems they did not really care that much about who was baptizing and there doesn't seem to be a clear limiting of the baptizer to elders until after Nicea.

I'm using as my standard the BCO I'm familiar with, which distinguishes between particular calling/emphasis a ministerial (pastor's) ordination confers without dividing the office itself according to "essentials." The one office is made up of all the essentials for ministry in that office. If another church body ordains a man to be a Teacher, and does not authorize him to administer sacraments, then a Teacher is not a species of the general office of Minister in their polity, but must be its own office.

I don't believe Christ proclaims the Great Commission to an undifferentiated crowd who are all of exactly the same condition within his kingdom. Some present were male, others female, which demands one kind of differentiation. Some present were apostles, and most others were not (as I take the GC event, taking place in Galilee, as 1) distinct from the Ascension event which happened near Jerusalem (Mt.Olivet), and 2) as the gathering Paul refers to in 1Cor.15:6 when there was over 500 persons). That everyone present on the occasion were "disciples" merely shows that there is a base-level identity or office belonging to everyone in the kingdom; it does not imply that there are no further evidences of distinctions.

Jesus spoke that day to the nascent gathered church, so what he disposed to the church became the responsibility of the body. However, that body was not simply a blob of cells, but a real body with limbs, instruments, special organs, and executive functions. It does not follow--unless one starts with a different conception of the church and its organization--that every word spoken by the Lord on that day was uttered without any concern (for such trivial matters? as some might suppose) for the variety of stations and callings represented in the assembly.

Let me try an analogy, by way of explaining why (some of us think) recognizing the ability to teach holy truth or even licensing to preach, does not carry along with it the authorization to administer sacraments. If you are permitted (licensed) entrance to the Library, you are free to read the books of the Library. But you may not be equally free to take books from the Library, despite having gained the fundamental access. As a local citizen, the Library may belong to you in some sense; but you still don't have authorization to do in and with the Library as you please. The Library Card is a true license to read, to take out (with a promise to return), and perhaps post your reviews of the Library's material.

Having a Library Card does not confer the right to issue Library Cards. Having the LC is one way of getting others interested in joining the Library and getting LCs of their own. The LC with its information is not a "complex read," but instead a very simple device; yet it is "packed" with all the information of the Library. Is it in the interest of the Library managers to allow this "sign" may be casually distributed by any prior Card-holder to anyone he sees fit? Is not the LC holder a veritable missionary for the Library? Does he not sing its praises on every street? When next he comes to the door of the Library, shouldn't the staff eagerly welcome him and an accompanying crowd of curiosity-seekers all waving their LCs which he issued them (all in the Library's name)?

The books, and more importantly the books' contents, are the essence of the Library. Zeal and even skill in conveying the value of the Library, in conveying a description of the books, in rehearsing some of the rich content from the books; and above all, being recognized by the Library as an asset--yet for all of this, the bestowal of a LC belongs to the office of the Librarian. The paperwork for a LC is distributed from the circulation desk. It is turned in filled out at the same place it was issued; and from the Library comes the sign of belonging. Your locally issued LC may not be enough to allow you the same liberties in the library the next town over--those sorts of arrangements require networking between the Libraries.

Analogies are imprecise comparisons. But let's try to boil down some of those comparisons I intended to make between the institutions of the Church and the Library. Words (in packages) are close to the essence of each. The Bible is one book, or conversely it is a library between two covers; and those who preach the Bible's content are its missionaries, official and unofficial. You don't always need a LC to make use of your local Library, but you typically do need a LC if you intend to parade any of the Library's physical books as an advertisement, or if you mean to prove your legitimacy as an apostle for the Library. Hence, the analogy between a license to preach and a license to check books out. In both cases, some form of recognition has been obtained from the institution. But though the content of the message is essential, authorization to bear that content for distribution does not automatically carry with it a full authorization to grant signs of membership, signs packed with the whole content of the Library (as it were).

The LC is not "more than" the books of the Library. But it does not follow that being "less than" the books means those who have certain freedom to and with the books also must have the power to give the LC-sign. A proper sign is the property of the institution issuing it, as baptism is the property of the church. Preaching, too, is properly the church's ownership, and not a private possession. Licensing to preach--as distinguished from ordination to office--is recognition the church wills to grant some party, admitting sufficient gift on display in rhetoric or argument or just spiritual effect. This license is commonly a prelude to investment by the same party in actual office by ordination. Which ordination carries along with it: the power of the church to give its signs, the sacraments by the hands of the preacher.

In the article you linked, I find this sentence on top of the third page: "the source of the baptizer’s authority to baptize was a concern by the early second century." The language seems plain enough: that inside of a century of the apostles, possibly within a single generation of the death of the last apostle, the church (through its leaders) was writing and discussing a potentially vexed question about baptismal authority. Not so important was the figure of the baptizer, but rather if the church (by a lawful agent) was in fact baptizing. In other words, it doesn't appear to me that the church in its original form under direct living apostolic oversight was vexed with questions of authority; but as soon as they left the scene, examples arose of taking the sign of Christian identity (baptism) outside of the church's supervision. So then, how ought the church to respond? This question further bled over into questions that arose from church-divisions, from controversies such as the Donatists fomented on account of "lapsed bishops" and the effect their failure might have on those who had taken their mark of identity from them.

Tertullian is certainly an author who must be studied and reckoned with, but he cannot be judged without admission of his at-times heterodox positions. That he asserts: "even laymen have the right; for what is equally received can be equally given.... Baptism, which is equally God's property, can be administered by all," must be qualified both by the deference he clearly shows to the church institute and its officers; as well as his known willingness to write confidently his own opinions. Who did he provide as instances of his theory? This is just as much an argument from silence as the author's conclusion that, despite Tertullian's scorn of "baptism" done by any woman, yet "However, there was no explicit command that one baptized by a woman be rebaptized." Perhaps Tertullian thought it superfluous to write an extra line? He clearly thought "there is no small peril to those that undertake it.. it is dangerous..., wicked and impious." So, why does the author not conclude Tertullian might have insisted any such persons (he merely suggests a thing like it could have happened) be piously and safely baptized?

There is simply massive presumptions made of supposed widespread approval of baptisms done by almost anyone, so long as the church figured out some way to sanction them; all made on the narrowest of historical appeal. Somehow, the church went from laissez-faire to furious micro-management in about one century? I find this analysis tendentious, but perhaps mine is as well.... I regard the context of Cyprian's statements as one in which the decline of standards makes re-asserting those (ancient) standards paramount. Insistence on the oversight of the presbyters in the matter of baptism should not be viewed (in my opinion) as strictly the imposition of a new centralization; but witness to the importance of the church as the sphere and its ministry as vital to questions of legitimacy. By the fourth century, theological and ecclesiastical crisis has forced plain statements of who may baptize (or under whose authority) from men like Basil, speaking of clergy judged to have lapsed, became "laymen, possessed the power neither of baptizing nor of ordaining,... [those being] baptized by laymen, [ought] come to the Church and be purified by the true baptism of the Church." Though there are cases he relents to allow such a baptism to stand, it is not because it was a lay-baptism, but because the baptisms had been done innocently through the auspices of the church.

The bottom line for me is a conclusion quite different from the article's author, that from the NT and writing such as Didache, that there is a "practical indifference toward the baptizer continued throughout the early centuries of the Christian church, with notable exceptions." He makes of the absence of identifying the majority of the baptizers by name or by office into proof the matter began as an adiophoron. I cannot see why he should reason thus, other than he begins with a very different a priori than do I. I do not accept that the early church is marked by a condition of relative laxity in doctrine and practice, and organizational fluidity. I neither accept Rome's (and the EO) perspective: that Jesus instantiated the hierarchical form of prelacy and bestowed all of Rome's (etc.) theories of doctrine and practice hence preserved; nor do I accept the evolutionary hypothesis that supposes a diffuse succession or diverse "schools" of various disciples of Jesus, eventually by gravity or by force being brought into uniformity of doctrine and practice by a centralized creation after several centuries of wild-flower growth.

That some baptizers are not identified should make us attentive to those men who ARE identified. We should be concerned to note that the pattern of the church was to verify the conduct of matters like baptism, and to see whether or not the church (with permission of Christ and his Spirit) should recognize the power and grace of God. This is the exact manner of the church in Act.8, when report was made to Jerusalem of the excitement in Samaria. They sent two apostles thence to judge the work and its merit; which resulted in approval, and the church's extension of its recognition and authority over the establishment of a Samaritan outpost. There is no "indifference" at all to who conducted the labor, even if the greater focus of the narrative is on the expansion of the church and the inclusion (by then) of half-Jews by the thousands. If the text of Holy Scripture does not care to explain who performed the baptism, it may not be concluded that it is of no matter who (or under which authority) said baptism comes. What is the ecclesiology, the theology of the church and of the sacraments, as it comes forth from Scripture?

Why do men conclude various matters of the church are of no practical significance, unless they have the most explicit, positive warrant? It is their a priori, their stance before they even come to the pages of the Bible. I myself have a prioris, which I admit and consent to having. I think it inconceivable that Jesus did not care if his kingdom organization was haphazard and ad hoc, and only took form as history and the needs of the hour dictated. I think it is absurd to begin by imagining the church was originally a wild and unruly place--but also a pure, innocent, pristine-primitive culture--which over time got infested with a rules-culture and a demanding conformity per dogma-doctrine. Jesus is a King who set up a kingdom, and runs it as he has for almost 2K yrs. according to a strong pattern set down once for all in the NT, but not without roots in the OT that aid in shaping and stabilizing the NT superstructure.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Also, if I may add this: it seems a “minister” would be one authorized to administer the sacraments. So the question is more about who counts as a minister. You’ve conceded at least Teachers are (though I know not all would), so it would not be limited just to pastors/elders on your view. So the the question just becomes why don’t Licentiates count as ministers? Is it just because they don’t hold an office? And if so, then I suppose my main question would be how we know the sacraments are tied specifically to office rather than simply to having the right to preach, since it seems even Turretin links it to the latter.

Right, licentiates are not Minsters of Word and Sacrament. The latter is ordained office, along with (in our polity) Elders and Deacons. All together they form "the ministry" or governmental organs of the church/congregation. Jesus is King and Head, and he is surrounded by functionaries who are ministers in another Man's government, executors of his Will--which they know only by studying his word, not by intuiting it or catching it on the breeze or in a dream.

The licentiate has had recognized a special dispensation to preach--most often as a precursor to his eventually taking on the full-sized role of a minister of word and sacrament. He is encouraged to preach, to practice and develop his skill in studying, and handling the word of God both to know it and to hold it forth in terms of judgment (law) and mercy (gospel). The people are encouraged, by the fact the church has made an effort to evaluate and recognize the beginning of a gift to the church, thus to listen and endeavor to profit from the licentiate's efforts. At the same time, this man is not ready, and the church has not called him to all the power and duties of office, plainly designated or marked by that labor in the signs and seals of Christ and his gospel. Sacraments serve to identify a truly Christian gathering, more than words on a sign outdoors or a steeple or a symbol like a cross. Even powerful or passionate or pure sermon-delivery alone does not mark the true church, but the right administration of Christ in sign and seal. Write it all down, and maybe you cannot miss the Author; but as an added assurance he puts his signet to it by means of one of his ministers.

If a congregation, or the whole church, blesses the licentiate who enriched them from the storehouse of God's word, rather than deploring the fact he is not admitted to the minister's office in order to further bless them--they should instead plead with God to open up one of his offices to this man, that they might have a full blessing from the One through the other specifically.

Turretin, et al, ties sacramental administration to the preached word because it is necessary that the signs of the gospel go together with the plain word of the gospel. One may have the word preached without the sacraments, but one should never have the sacraments without the word preached. The sacraments do not "function" in and of themselves. They are adjuncts to the word, and the word rendered "visible" or accessible to the senses (sensible signs, as the WCF describes them). Further, the sacraments are signs of the church, they are not simply "things Christians do." They are not law, they are not "obedience," though we obey the Lord who appointed them to us that we should perform them and participate in them. They are gospel, and they are a proof of sorts of the presence of the church in a certain locale. In an individualistic culture like ours, we tend to think of property as all private. It is hard to wrap the mind around the idea that I possess this common thing, and so does my neighbor; not I have 1/10 of it, and he also has 1/10, but we each have full 100% possession of it through our common identity. But this is how we ought to think of that which we possess through our incorporation in the church. One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

A man who is officially preaching, being recognized as the church's preacher, is not preaching out of some personal investment that has been deeded to him (and in some accompaniment, also the power to lay a sign of baptism or serve the Lord's Supper). I may err, but that seems more like a Roman conception of the power one of its priests takes possession of. No, but the official preacher preaches from that store which is the church's spiritual treasury, a store which he has access to and freedom to trade with, but which is not his own by a special deed. In like manner, the sacraments of the church are not vessels of grace, measured out from the gross vat into smaller barrels and parceled out for distribution, being marked to the account of each new recipient from the bishop, to the priest, on down to the layman--his ownership. Our administration of the sacraments is akin to the preaching, in that we are inviting those who have a right to the common possession to partake in the common distribution, those who gather little not gathering too little, those who gather much not gathering too much. The treasure is yours because you are Christ's, and as his bride all of his is yours. His aim is not to keep you coming back to take your weekly allowance, but to give you his whole bank each and every meeting, as much as you can bear.

Ultimately, I think if you recalibrate your regard for how the person with the "right" to preach uses his gift and recognition from the church, it should help you in terms of understanding how (a Presbyterian) understands the church and office and license and preaching and sacrament, all elements of the church's or the kingdom's possession from her Lord, who is heir and owner of all things.

 

[Ed Walsh]

One may have the word preached without the sacraments, but one should never have the sacraments without the word preached.

This one sentence quote stands for your whole post, to which I give my hearty Amen.

Thanks, as usual.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Turretin, et al, ties sacramental administration to the preached word because it is necessary that the signs of the gospel go together with the plain word of the gospel. One may have the word preached without the sacraments, but one should never have the sacraments without the word preached. The sacraments do not "function" in and of themselves. They are adjuncts to the word, and the word rendered "visible" or accessible to the senses (sensible signs, as the WCF describes them).

Right, but this is kind of what is making me unclear here since the sacraments only function due to the preached Word, so it seems that preaching is in that way above the sacraments insofar as it effects them and establishes the form of the sacrament. And so because of that it seems natural to assume that if one can preach, therefore one can administer. So I guess I'm still stuck on my last question: how we know the sacraments are tied specifically to office rather than simply to having the right to preach?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

This following is for a differing situation, but still, I think, relevant:

On Extraordinary Calling and Ministry, Puritan views.

John Owen, Works (Banner of Truth), Volume 13, chapter VII, on extraordinary callings, page 38

“Come we now to the THIRD and last way whereby men, not partakers of any outward ordinary vocation, may yet receive a sufficient warrant for the preaching and publishing of the gospel, and that by some outward act of Providence guiding them thereunto. For example: put case a Christian man should, by any chance of providence, be cast, by shipwreck, or otherwise upon the country of some barbarous people that never heard of the name of Christ, and there, by His goodness that brought him thither, be received amongst them into civil human society, may he not, nay, ought he not, to preach Christ unto them? and if God give a blessing to his endeavors, may he not become a pastor to the converted souls? None, I hope, makes any doubt of it; and in the primitive times nothing was more frequent than such examples. Thus were the Indians and the Moors turned to the faith, as you may see in Eusebius; yea, great was the liberty which in the first church was used in this kind, presently after the supernatural gift of tongues ceased amongst men.”


William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying (Banner of Truth, Puritan Paperbacks: 1996), “The Calling of the Ministry”, pages, 113, 114)

“I admit that, if there is no minister, God blesses the labors of private individuals who have knowledge, sometimes in conversion as well as in bringing comfort at the hour of death. On such occasions God gives a strength and power to the promise they give to someone who is penitent. But these are unusual circumstances when there are no ministers. In these circumstances a knowledgeable and godly individual becomes a minister either to himself or to someone else.

“There is a parallel situation in civic life. In a situation of extreme danger when there is no magistrate present, a private individual becomes a magistrate to defend his own life. Under these circumstances, the sword of the magistrate is put into the hands of a private individual. In the same way, when there are no ministers, the authority of the ministry is committed to the hands of private men (in days of persecution, for example). At such a time they may give comforting admonition and advice as well as authoritatively pronounce mercy and forgiveness to one another when there is true repentance.

“But remember that in these circumstances a private man acts as a minister during that time and in this circumstance only. Normally (always in settled churches) this power is part of the work of the ministry alone. This is implied in ordination. To the minister belongs the promise and the blessing that when he has ‘declared to a man his righteousness, then God will have mercy on him.’ ”


Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol 3 (P&R, 1997), Eighteenth Topic, Question 23, “Of how many kinds is the call to the ministry and is an ordinary call always necessary? We distinguish.” Sections XIII – XXIII, pages 219–223.

XIII. These things have been posited in order that we may come down to the proposed question. (1) It is not inquired whether a call to the ministry is necessary. For this was proved in the former question. Rather we ask whether an ordinary call is so simply and absolutely necessary that without it there can be no lawful preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments. This the Romanists hold; we deny. (2) The question is not whether, notwithstanding a want of an ordinary call, it is lawful for anyone in every case and at all times and in a constituted and well-ordered state of the church to preach the word publicly and to perform the other functions of the sacred office. This we have proved before (against the Fanatics and Enthusiasts) cannot rightly be done. Rather we ask, whether in a case of unavoidable necessity and in a perturbed and corrupted state of the church it would be lawful for no one to undertake any parts of the sacred office, except for those who are ordinarily called and have a commission from the rulers of the church. This we deny; the Romanists assert.

XIV. ....we think that although the ordinary call is necessary in a constituted church, still it is not necessary in one to be constituted or corrupted, but that believers may undertake those parts from an extraordinary call which is such, if not from the public authority and as to solemn rite, still from private love imposed upon individuals by God from their general call.

XV. That this is so, we gather from many arguments. First, each one is bound to embrace and defend the truth, and to reject falsehood and error; not only from his own heart, but also from the hearts of his neighbors and from the society in which he lives.... [Turretin gives Scripture proofs.] This power is not properly a public office with authority, but the general office of love by which we are bound to one another that we may in turn provide for each other’s salvation. And the necessity for this office increases so much the more when the public office (which ought to serve this purpose) is either not as yet constituted; or if it has been constituted, is so corrupted and depraved as to teach a lie in place of the truth. Then anyone, in such a state of things, ought not only to care for those things that belong to his own salvation by retaining the known truth and manfully rejecting received errors, but also with all zeal to carry forward those things which pertain to the salvation of his neighbor.

XVI. Second, the necessity of the case makes many things lawful which otherwise would be unlawful, in domestic affairs as well as in politics.... [Turretin gives examples.]

XVII. [Turretin gives examples from church history.]

XVIII. If today believers, carried by a tempest to the most distant regions of the earth, should be shipwrecked upon the shore among barbarous people, entirely strangers to religion, and pressed by necessity should be compelled to remain there without any hope of returning to their homes, who does not confess that from the law of love they ought to teach the pagans the faith of Christ? And if many of them should perchance be converted, would it not be lawful for them to choose for themselves pastors to constitute a church and provide for its edification and instruction?....

XXIII. ....it is not necessary that mission from God should always be in the ordinary and received mode....The duty of piety and love (which rests upon all) and necessity (or God himself, who has thrown men into that necessity) not only do not forbid, but enjoin and give the power to provide for what will contribute to personal salvation and the edification of neighbors, although the received rites and orders cannot be observed.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Right, but this is kind of what is making me unclear here since the sacraments only function due to the preached Word, so it seems that preaching is in that way above the sacraments insofar as it effects them and establishes the form of the sacrament. And so because of that it seems natural to assume that if one can preach, therefore one can administer. So I guess I'm still stuck on my last question: how we know the sacraments are tied specifically to office rather than simply to having the right to preach?

I don't know why for you it just seems natural that preaching entails sacrament administration. Except it just sits right with you? But that could be a function of your manner of thought, and not a logically necessary or reasonable conclusion when more considerations are introduced.

Based on our limited interaction, I'd guess it might have some to do with difference in how we think about the church as an institution. The church is not just what appears when several Christians assemble. It is also in my mind an existence that, while impossible to separate from its membership, yet has institutional existence independent of the collective of individual members. The whole is more than the sum of its parts.

 

[TryingToLearn]

I don't know why for you it just seems natural that preaching entails sacrament administration. Except it just sits right with you? But that could be a function of your manner of thought, and not a logically necessary or reasonable conclusion when more considerations are introduced.

Based on our limited interaction, I'd guess it might have some to do with difference in how we think about the church as an institution. The church is not just what appears when several Christians assemble. It is also in my mind an existence that, while impossible to separate from its membership, yet has institutional existence independent of the collective of individual members. The whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Sorry, I've probably been unclear. It isn't that I think/feel that preaching entails sacramental administration (remember, I was previously under the impression that it does not and only just discovered opposition to this), but that Turretin says this.

The reasons are: (1) the right to baptize belongs only to those to whom was given by Christ the right of preaching the gospel. For these two attend each other as parts of the public ministry and are indissolubly joined together. Now Christ gave this right to the apostles alone and their lawful successors (Mt. 28:19, 20). And that it does not belong to others is evident from v. 16, where the eleven apostles are said to have departed into Galilee. But although rnany others had been present besides the apostles when Christ spoke, it does not follow that these words (“Go, teach all nations, baptizing them”) do not belong to the apostles alone, because there was nothing to hinder the command of Christ being given to the apostles alone in the presence of many witnesses. It is certain that Christ here addresses the sacred ministers whom he was calling to the preaching of the gospel. Therefore, as no one ought to have preached by public authority unless he was sent and had a peculiar call to it, so neither ought he to baptize. Therefore a woman ought not to teach in the church (1 Tim. 2:12).

and

The former [circumcision] could be administered by private persons and nothing peculiar is ascribed to it; but the right to baptize is given to those alone who have the right to teach.”)

So this is what is forming the basis for my question here.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Because the Bible doesn't directly answer this, I believe God has given us freedom in this area. I wouldn't draw hard dogmatic lines over it. With that being said, it practically makes sense that elders connected to the local church would be the ones administering baptism. There is generally teaching connected with baptism, though not always in churches that aren't reformed. But does it have to be that way, and can only elders baptize? Ultimately I don't think God puts limits there.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Sorry, I've probably been unclear. It isn't that I think/feel that preaching entails sacramental administration (remember, I was previously under the impression that it does not and only just discovered opposition to this), but that Turretin says this.



and


So this is what is forming the basis for my question here.

When Turretin invokes "preaching by public authority," he is focused right there on institutional authority. An average Christian's glad declarations with respect to gospel truth are akin to a proud citizen-of-Arizona proclaiming the Grand Canyon the greatest natural history site in the country. That could be the actual truth known to God, but there's a difference between the citizen declaring it, and a Presidential Declaration that it is so. The latter is a declaration bound up in Public Authority.

Baptism is also a matter of public authority, and in the Presbyterian polity there is no informal dispensing of the signs of that authority. Revisit my earlier analogy to the sign of the Library Card, LC. There can be every manner of book-promotion you can think of, some formally put on by the Library and Librarians, others informally by patrons. But the issuance of a LC is the exclusive domain of the those "of" the institution, and formally speak in its name. Christ has many eager proclaimers, and he is surely glad in most of them; but he also has an ordained ministry who are most formally his mouth in the world, and his hands--this, in ways that supersede the general proof of one's identity shown in common words and deeds of Christian grace.

People in our culture have come to hate and despise such lack of democratic leveling. The idea that there are people who have position, office, even that which has been sent down from above, and not passed upward (so to speak) from the body politic--what an offense to today's outlook! Yet, it was normal in the ancient world, is still not so uncommon outside of western reaches, and it is the biblical picture of Christ's authority and the way he institutionalized it in his church.

Let me put it this way: if there be no institutional church as we conceive it, then surely it would have to be said that demonstration of preaching/teaching authority would, on a natural reading of Mt.28:18ff, entail the authority to conduct baptism by default. But we see that Christ institutes his church previous to the Great Commission event. The NT church, built on the foundation of the prophets (OT) and the apostles, has Jesus himself as its cornerstone. He was the Kingdom incarnate as its King. He called his prime ministers, trained, prepared, and organized them. He famously took Peter's confession, and witnessed it as a kind of groundbreaking or ribbon-cutting ceremony. Pentecost was like opening day. It is for these reasons (among others) that we don't read the GC in isolation, or assume there is no organization in place even as Jesus speaks for a kind of commencement exercise.

To sum: when Turretin writes concerning "the right to teach," he is speaking in the very same way--that certain office holders have been designated, and as bearers of the right & duty to teach in the church, to them alone (and not to those who have the opportunity or privilege to teach granted on lesser terms) has been given the signs of authority and identification to dispense them, so marking receivers with a passport of sorts, a certificate of recognition that has come through the institution, meaning it has come to them from the Head of that institution, and the institution acknowledges its own.

It would be a very different perspective on the church, if it even was thought of in institutional terms, if with little or no concern for the organization as priority everyone went about preaching when the Spirit moved him, and baptizing on the basis of his assumed authority. The same person he baptized could, possibly the very next day, witness to a fresh conversion and turn and baptize that convert. Why not? What principled objection could be raised, if the act of proclamation and seeing its effect made both the teacher and the baptized?

I will admit: there are people now, and probably have ever been, who have drawn that same conclusion. Falsely, in my opinion, but they have done. They are the Levelers, Independents of the most radical camp. We can even find them in the NT, looking to make factions and seeing no reason to adhere to the apostles. They have new customs, fresh traditions, another gospel. They are super-apostles and eminence-seekers. To take organization from the one, holy, apostolic church would mean accepting a place beneath and within the institution that is prior to them and in which they must conform, not form.

I too am trying to be clear, as I aim to answer your question and to add insight. In our view, the sign of baptism belongs not just to an ethereal, spiritual church and incorporating its members one addition at a time (who are then part-owners, so to speak, of baptism because they are the church); but baptism belongs to the institutional church.

 

[MW]

Please correct me if I have misunderstood the argument. Preaching has primacy over sacraments. Yes? On that basis it is claimed that a preacher, though not ordained to the ministry, should be permitted to administer the sacraments. Yes?

Has it been considered that the reason why a non ordained minister is permitted to preach but not to administer the sacraments is because of the primacy of the Word? That is, the Word is so essential, that we will even allow non ordained men to preach it for various reasons. The same kind of necessity does not apply to the sacraments because they are NOT primary.

The key text for the primacy of the Word is 1 Corinthians 1, where Paul says he was sent to preach, not baptise. He could omit administering the sacrament. He could not omit preaching.