The Sacraments belong to the Church...

Now since this charge is expressly given to the apostles along with the preaching of the word, it follows that none can lawfully administer baptism but those who are also the ministers of doctrine. When private persons, and even women, are permitted to baptize, nothing can be more at variance with the ordinance of Christ, nor is it any thing else than a mere profanation. - Calvin on Matthew 28:16-20

Increasingly, the session of ClearNote Church of Bloomington has been receiving applicants for membership who have been baptized by Cru girlfriends, their parents, a parachurch aquaintance, or almost anyone other than a church officer administering the Sacraments as a fulfillment of his office.

We've worked through this carefully, finally coming to the conclusion that baptisms done privately by friends and relatives are not true baptisms. There are many issues, here, and the arguments are long and involved, but at the end of it there was no doubt in our minds that the Sacraments are given by our Lord to the Church--not to individuals and families--and that to be a fulfillment of our Lord's commands, they must be administered by the officers our Lord has called and set apart to lead His Church.

For those with ears to hear...

only those who have been baptized into the Church may eat at the Lord's Table. From the beginning, baptism has been the initiation rite marking a man's flesh with the sign of his entry into the Covenant by faith. Those who have not been marked with this sign have never been allowed to eat at the Family Table and ought not to be allowed to do so today.

Which is to say what Calvin writes above is boringly normal Protestant doctrine, at least where Protestantism is not in bondage to those errors commonly known as sacramentalism and sacerdotalism which are contrary to the Word of God.

(TB: from son JTB)

Comments

I am interested in this. What is Calvin's and your view on Philip, the deacon, who baptized the Ethiopian eunuch?

Dear Rich,

Earlier in chapter 8 we read that Philip preached and baptized the Samaritans who believed. Stephen was also a deacon and he preached. Two thoughts.

First, we have too low a view of deacons, today. Watch them in the Early Church and note their authority.

Second, this baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch is not normative in several ways. It's not done publicly in the way other New Testament baptisms are done. It's not done as a recognition of the Eunuch's entry into a particular church. And it's done by a deacon. There are all kinds of similar exceptional acts of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. We have women judges. We have midwives lying to protect the Hebrew babies. We have the Apostle Paul circumcising Timothy.

A large part of wisdom in studying God's Word consists of knowing that exceptions to the rule prove the rule. They don't disprove it.

Love,

As I recall, even the Roman Catholics, who are as sacerdotalist as anybody, allow for emergency exceptions in which laymen can baptize.

>>Roman Catholics, who are as sacerdotalist as anybody, allow for emergency exceptions in which laymen can baptize...

Yes, their sacramentalism trumps their sacerdotalism.

Love,

>>There are all kinds of similar exceptional acts of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. We have women judges...

On Deborah, do you think God approved of her being the leader in Israel for a time? I think Calvin seemed to think that her role was of God, but I have come across an interesting verse the other day that makes me not so sure:

1 Sam12:11: "And the Lord sent Jerubbaal and Barak and Jephthah and Samuel and delivered you out of the hand of your enemies..."

No mention of Deborah being 'sent' by the Lord? And no mention of Deborah in the Hebrew hall of faith where Barak is commended? Not to mention Isaiah 3:12 and the NT verses.

I think Deborah must be viewed as a gifted lady who ended up assuming a de-facto leadership position because the men did not step up to the plate, but this was not the Lord's perfect will. Perhaps similar to a situation where a husband abdicated his responsibilities and the wife has to assume much more leadership over the household than is fitting. It is too much to say that she is sinning, but it is certainly less than ideal, and she would yearn, as we see glimpses of Deborah doing, for the man/men in her life to 'arise' and discharge the duties of their office. And like Deborah, if she was spiritual, she would exhort the man in her life to discharge his duty before God (Judges 4:4).

>>this baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch is not normative in several ways. It's not done publicly in the way other New Testament baptisms are done. It's not done as a recognition of the Eunuch's entry into a particular church.

Are most NT baptisms done as recognition of entry into a particular church? Also, when the jailer and his household were baptised, was this particularly public?

I'm not sure I'd lay it down hard with this.

I'd take the lowest common denominator approach - must be male and preferably some kind of leader in the church (elder/deacon etc). I think it is a good way to affirm masculine leadership to always have men do the baptisms, just like I have noticed in a few conservative presbyterian churches in Scotland they always have men on the doors at the front. I think that is a nice touch, and it signals that masculinity is allowed in the church by giving the men a sense of responsibility and honor of their station.

Add new comment