Who Can Baptize?

[hedrick]

The Reformed tradition has never maintained, as far as I know, that only pastors have the power to baptize. The concept of ordination conferring special metaphysical powers is not a Reformed one. However as a matter of church order, baptism is done in a public service, by a pastor or an elder who has been authorized to conduct sacraments for a church. (Elders are sometimes authorized in rural areas with few pastors available.) We think that particular order is consistent with what Scripture has to say with about church organization.

The PCUSA normally accepts baptisms from other churches when done in the way authorized by their church, as long as the baptism is a Christian baptism, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, done in accordance with that church’s rules. We have typically not accepted Mormon baptisms, for example, because their rejection of the Trinity makes it unclear that they are actually baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

For this reason “who can baptize” really has two meanings: In a PCUSA Church, only the pastor, in public worship, authorized by the Session. (However I've known of an unusual situation in which a pastor was prepared to baptize with an elder representing the congregation. This wasn't a typical "emergency baptism," but a more complex situation.) But if you’re asking about baptisms in other churches, things are more flexible, because this is a matter of church order, and other churches have made different decisions on that. In reference to a posting above, I would consider a self-ordained pastor to be authorized to conduct baptisms as long as he is accepted as pastor by a Christian congregation. The PCUSA (though not AMR’s PCA) would accept emergency baptisms done by a lay person in accordance with Catholic rules, though we wouldn’t do that ourselves. We have a formal agreement with the Catholic Church to accept each other’s baptisms.

 

[AMR]

The WLC, Q 176 clearly states who may administer the sacraments, so any discussions of what the "Reformed Tradition" "never maintained" must assume a tradition spanning nearly 450 years.

As the sacraments of the church are entrusted to her ministers they should not be administered apart from the church's authority. Lay baptisms usually display a denial of the relationship between baptism and church membership. Just anyone cannot visibly baptize someone into the invisible church.

If we speak about the Reformed Tradition, then we are bound to consider their accurate summary of the teachings of Scripture on the matter included in said Confessions and Catechisms: Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:23; Rom. 6:3-4; 1 Cor. 10:16; Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:12; Matt. 26:27-28; John 1:33; Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:23; 1 Cor. 4:1;Heb. 5:4; Matt. 28: 19-20; 1 Cor. 11:26.

Lastly, the matter of Reformed acceptance of baptisms from outside the Reformed Tradition is a matter of consideration of lawfully administered baptisms. The fact that some churches accept or do not accept said baptisms is another topic entirely.

 

[hedrick]

I said: "The Reformed tradition has never maintained, as far as I know, that only pastors have the power to baptize. The concept of ordination conferring special metaphysical powers is not a Reformed one."

The WLC, Q 176 clearly states who may administer the sacraments, so any discussions of what the "Reformed Tradition" "never maintained" must assume a tradition spanning nearly 450 years.

As far as I know, WLC is referring to who is authorized in a Reformed church, not who has the power. I believe I was clear that I was distinguishing authorization from power in the sense of the Catholic tradition where only an ordained person has certain metaphysical powers. If you have evidence in the Reformed tradition that limitations are anything other than a matter of church order, I'd like to see it.

I agree that emergency baptism is a bad idea, because it suggests a superstitious view of baptism. However that doesn't mean that it's invalid, in the sense that someone that had been baptized in that way should be re-baptized. See Institutes 4.15, starting around section 15. These justify acceptance of Catholic baptisms, even though there are serious defects in the Catholic understanding of baptism. Historically, Calvin and other Reformed did not exempt lay baptisms from this acceptance, even though Calvin clearly prohibited doing them in the section the Institutes I just referred to. Calvin argued (in a commentary, not this section of the Institutes) that the circumcision of Moses by Zipporah was valid, even though she was certainly not authorized to conduct a circumcision, and didn't even have the right intention. Historically, Reformed churches are known for not rebaptizing people, though it appears that some Presbyterians began to rebaptize Catholics in 1845 (a change that Hodges objected to).

This is why I said that the question of who has the power to baptize has two answers: Who is authorized to under our understanding of church order, and whose baptisms we would accept.

 

[Hokma]

As the sacraments of the church are entrusted to her ministers they should not be administered apart from the church's authority. Lay baptisms usually display a denial of the relationship between baptism and church membership. Just anyone cannot visibly baptize someone into the invisible church.

What is "usual" isn't what is in question. I am asking in extreme situations. Specifically, if the elder is unable to perform the rite for an extended period of time and there is little to no availability of nearby elders within the same presbytery.

It is not out of the ordinary for a PCA church, especially when it is small or in a new area, to have only one ordained elder while having an ordained deacon or two. Suppose you have a new convert who has not been baptized but has been examined and seeking baptism for an extended period of time. Will he delay baptism? My guess is this is a matter of the BCO rather than catechisms for this particular policy.

I'm going to have to look it up.

Lastly, the matter of Reformed acceptance of baptisms from outside the Reformed Tradition is a matter of consideration of lawfully administered baptisms. The fact that some churches accept or do not accept said baptisms is another topic entirely.

True, but what is "lawfully administered"? Baptism in the three-fold name, profession (or confirmation) of faith, performed by one ordained, ... and?

 

[AMR]

What is "usual" isn't what is in question. I am asking in extreme situations. Specifically, if the elder is unable to perform the rite for an extended period of time and there is little to no availability of nearby elders within the same presbytery.

It is not out of the ordinary for a PCA church, especially when it is small or in a new area, to have only one ordained elder while having an ordained deacon or two. Suppose you have a new convert who has not been baptized but has been examined and seeking baptism for an extended period of time. Will he delay baptism? My guess is this is a matter of the BCO rather than catechisms for this particular policy.

I'm going to have to look it up.


True, but what is "lawfully administered"? Baptism in the three-fold name, profession (or confirmation) of faith, performed by one ordained, ... and?

From the BCO:

56-1. Baptism is not to be unnecessarily delayed; not to be administered, in any case, by any private person; but by a minister of Christ, called to be the steward of the mysteries of God.

56-2. It is not to be privately administered, but in the presence of the congregation under the supervision of the Session.

For those keen to look to the variations in the LBCF:

It seems that there continues to be a misunderstanding of the 1644/46 doctrine on the administrators of baptism.


Here is an edited portion of a post that I made in 1997:

The text of the 1644 edition is as follows (taken from Lumpkin, page
167): "The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this Ordinance, the
Scriptures hold forth to be a preaching Disciple, it being no where tyed
to a particular Church, Officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the
Commission injoyning the administration, being given to them under no
other consideration, but as considered Disciples."

The text of the 1646 edition is: "The person designed by Christ to
dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being
no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily
sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as
considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel."

The [1646] revisions came largely due to the strictures published by
Daniel Featley in his book "The Dipper's Dip't and Plunged over Head and Heels. . ." Featley said "A preaching disciple, sounds as harshly as a
Scholar Master, or a Lecturing hearer. . . ." (pg. 183). This was the
fifth of his strictures aimed at the 1644 Confession. The Baptists
revised their statements in response to Featley and published the 1646
edition.

Now, notice carefully what they did in the revision. The 1644 edition
stated that the adminstrator of baptism was to be a "preaching
disciple." This was a reference to the individuals described in article XLV, who later came to be known as "gifted brethren."

[brief digression: there was a controversy between the high presbyterians and
the Independents and Baptists over who could properly preach. The HP's
said that only educated ordained clergy could preach. The I's and B's
said that gifted men, tried and approved by the church, could rightly
preach. These were the gifted brethren. Under NO circumstances was
anyone allowed to preach who had not been tried and approved by the
churches. They all had a very high view of the preaching office.]

Featley criticized the expression, so they changed it by moving it to
the end of the article "being given to them as considered disciples,
BEING MEN ABLE TO PREACH THE GOSPEL." It is simply a more elegant way of saying the same thing. They did not believe or practice that any church
member could baptize; nor did they restrict the administration of the
ordinance to elders alone; they believed and practiced that the men who
were recognized by the church as officers, teachers and preachers were
allowed to baptize, but not all of the members.

To confirm this, notice the words of Hanserd Knollys, writing in his
1646 book "The Shining of a Flaming Fire in Zion" (page 9): "We do not
affirm, that every common disciple may baptize, there was some mistake
[by his opponent--JMR] in laying down our opinion. . . . Where it is
conceived, that we hold, Whatsoever Disciple can teach the word, or make
out Christ may Baptize, and administer the ordinances. We do not do so;
for though believing Women being baptized are Disciples, Act. 9.36. and
can make out Christ; yea, and some of them (by their experimental
knowledge and spiritual understanding of the way, order, & faith of the
Gospel) may be able to instruct their teachers, Acts 18.26. Rom. 16.3.
yet we do not hold , that a woman may preach, baptize, nor administer
other Ordinances. Nor do we judge it meet, for any brother to baptize,
or to administer other ordinances; unless he have received such gifts of
the spirit, as fitteh or enableth him to preach the Gospel. And those
gifts being first tried by, and known to the church, such a brother is
chosen, and appointed thereunto by the suffrage of the church."

The administration of the ordinances was not tied to office, but to
recognized preachers. Thus, the 1st LCF does not endorse the notion
that any disciple may baptize.

This is the same doctrine as the 1677/89 LCF.

Jim Renihan​

See also:
Historical and Theological Context

As to the matter of lawfully admininstered baptisms, see:

PCA Position Papers: Baptism (1987); Validity of Certain Baptisms; Minority Report

The PCA voted 4 to 1 against receiving the validity of the baptisms discussed in the report above. The majority and minority reports were received by GA as guidance for due and serious consideration. So, if you are PCA, the matter rests with your local presbytery.

 

[Hokma]

So, assuming the baptism is public, not privately administered, in front of the church by a deacon (an ordained minister)...

Valid, invalid...? Improper yet valid?

 

[AMR]

So, assuming the baptism is public, not privately administered, in front of the church by a deacon (an ordained minister)...

Valid, invalid...? Improper yet valid?

If said baptism is performed by a lawfully ordained minister, it would be valid.

And before you may ask, "lawfully ordained" is someone who is gifted and fitted by the Spirit and called {context: to the ministry of Word and Sacrament} and approved by the church.

 

[abacabb3]

Does anyone have an article on the history of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration?

 

[hedrick]

If said baptism is performed by a lawfully ordained minister, it would be valid.

And before you may ask, "lawfully ordained" is someone who is gifted and fitted by the Spirit and called {context: to the ministry of Word and Sacrament} and approved by the church.

I trust you will accept the judgement of the church that approved the call on fitness. Otherwise we have the Donatist position.

 

[AMR]

I trust you will accept the judgement of the church that approved the call on fitness. Otherwise we have the Donatist position.

As you know, the issue of what constitutes a "church" is subject to discussion, even in my own denomination as relates especially to Romanism.

With that caveat, in general I would answer "yes" to your implied question.

 

[tulipbee]

The idea that anyone can baptize makes sense with a theology in which an unbaptized infant who dies is at risk. When this idea isn't present, and baptism is seen as an act of the Church as a whole it makes more sense to use the same rules as communion: a teaching elder or someone else properly authorized to celebrate the sacraments. (In some situations where there aren't many teaching elders, ruling elders can be authorized.)

However I don't think ordinary believers lack the metaphysical power to baptize. It just doesn't make sense under ordinary circumstances. If a new convert were in danger of death and wanted to be baptized, I could imagine someone else doing it. While it might not be ideal, there are situations where trying to explain to someone the reason it's not appropriate may not be the right thing to do.

There's no risks on the elected elects.

Could be a elected infant.

 

[tulipbee]

I ended up learning I can baptize but I'm neither deacon or pastor.