|
Baptism, Preacher Or Church Ordinance - Part II Elder
Oscar B. Mink INTRODUCTION
It is the second time that anguish of heart
toward brethren is felt in this matter. Yet, with a profound longing to
serve my Lord and Master, I take up pen to write an introduction to this
book, which is entitled, BAPTISM: PREACHER OR CHURCH ORDINANCE? SECOND
TREATISE.
When viewed through eyes, mind, heart and
emotion, it would immediately come to my thoughts - avoid this writing.
But, when viewed as an opportunity to speak the truth of God's Book to men,
seeking to aid them in their great need to be recovered from the grievous
error and irregular practice that I fear many of them are presently caught
up in, I bow to the task. And I pray God will be my guide and will help
me, yea, cause me to be compassionate to those who are deeply imbedded in
this error. At the same time, I trust Him to make me desirous of being found
faithful to "contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the
saints." (Jude 3). Brethren, please love me enough to help me
with my many errors, as I now seek to help you with yours.
Error is such a subtle and provocative thing.
And it is so easy our entrance into its clutches, and so difficult and painful
our extraction therefrom, that we must be ever vigilant to eschew its pitfalls.
Error is very damaging to the well-being of all its adherents, whether they
be individuals or churches.
Error is exemplified frequently by the errorist
being found walking in darkness. By the departure from the light that God
has given to safeguard the pilgrim journey of His saints, the sure portion
of those saints will be to stumble at best, and to fall from their steadfastness
at worst. Remember Psalms 119:105? Note this good and wholesome
word: "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path."
This marvellous verse of Scripture sets forth
truth. It plainly declares that God, having seen through His omniscient
eye the grave dangers to be faced by His people, most wisely and kindly
provided for their protection. "Thy word ..." The psalmist announces
the safeguard, "Thy word". Is there any other? Where is it, if there
be another?
It is true that we have the Paraclete - the
Comforter to direct us. But He leads us into the truth, for He is the Spirit
of truth. (John 16:13). It is also true that He does so by using
the word of God, instrumentally in His work And Jesus declared, "Sanctify
them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17).
God has said, through the psalmist, that His
word is a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path. His word sheds
light to illuminate the path that lies before His journeying pilgrims as
they travel upon the by-ways of this world's total darkness. His word "lights
up" what lies ahead of us in order to provide for our over all good. Thus,
the general tenor of Scripture must be ours, and it must be adhered to.
We must never call up one Scripture to contest another, for "no prophecy
of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." (II Peter 1:20).
God has also said that His "word is a lamp
unto our feet". The lamp of God's word is not only to shed "general
illumination", but is to provide "specific illumination", in order to expose
each and every individual potential stumbling point, or pitfall that lies
in our path. Think of it! God provides safety for us. His word is that place
of safety.
Now, brethren, exactly WHERE in God's Book
is the teaching that authority to keep and administer the ordinance (baptism
and the Lord's Supper) has been placed, even once, in the hands of the men
whom God has sent to be proclaimers? Remember, the church was brought into
existence, was commissioned, and THEN was given to the churches the various
gifts. "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists;
and some, pastors and teachers;" (Ephesians 4:11).
It was to the church at Corinth that Paul
wrote these words, "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in
all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." (I
Corinthians 11:2) The ordinances must be kept. They must be
guarded. They must be observed AS THEY WERE DELIVERED. To let down the barriers
that Christ has placed is to act treasonably, and each person or church
who has so acted is a traitor to the cause of God and truth.
If error has been our downfall into this treacherous
conduct, then we need to be recovered from that error, to repent of our
misconduct, to seek God's forgiveness, and then to seek His permission to
set in order what we have profaned. May we receive grace to be made to fall
upon our unworthy faces in the dust, prostrate before our Sovereign, pleading
His forgiveness, being assured that "He is faithful and just to forgive
us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (I John
1:9). This sin, having been perpetrated by error, is NOT the unpardonable
sin. God does forgive. He does cleanse. But, He does so "If we confess
our sins ..."
Having been taught that baptism is a church
ordinance, let us forsake foolish pride and admit that God set everything
in order, and that He has not abdicated His position, nor has He given us,
or anyone permission to set aside what He has ordained. Let us come down
from our high-horse of ecclesiastical prominence, our self-esteemed position
of grandeur, and confess the fact that EVERY preacher, and EVERY pastor
is subordinate to the church OF WHICH HE IS A MEMBER, and that each and
every church is subordinate to Jesus Christ, our Sovereign Head.
Brethren, let us not think more highly of
ourselves than we ought to think Let us not measure ourselves by ourselves.
Each and every haughty, egotistical preacher who fancies himself to be superior
to the saints, or to his peers is acting in a most ungodly, unchristian, unhumble servants manner. And he is exposing himself to the rebuke and chastening
of God.
Dear brethren, please flee from this danger.
Do you imagine that God will forever tolerate you as you seek to usurp authority
that He never gave you? Do you imagine that God will reward you for seeking
to "lord it over God's heritage."?
No matter how highly you have elevated yourself
among men, always remember that you too are but a man, and that God will
allow NO FLESH, not mine, not yours, not anyone's, to glory in His presence.
And if the right to determine who shall be allowed to observe the ordinances
that Christ gave to His church is ever taken by a mere man, then that man
is seemingly placing himself in a position to take glory to himself. And
God will not allow it!
I state openly and plainly that God's Book
declares that the authority has been given to His churches in the matter
of the two ordinances. I am not vindictive toward anyone who takes an opposing
view. But I do state, in print, to be read and remembered by all, that you
are in error. I'm not mad at you, but you are wrong. Will this cause a loss
of fellowship? I don't know. I hope it doesn't, but I don't know. I know
that pride is a powerful and tenacious enemy. Whether it is my pride, or
yours, it must be put under control; it must be subdued if there is to be
unity. An evasion of the truth that pride is present will greatly hinder
unity. An admission of pride and the errors thusly will aid in bringing
about unity.
I desire fellowship and I desire unity "in
the faith" among all Baptist brethren and churches.
Brethren, I love you in the Lord. But I love
God more! And I love His churches more! This is not said with any rancor
toward anyone, nor with any self-righteousness on my part intended. But
it is said because I believe that the time has come to stand up like men
and be counted. If division must come because of difference over this doctrine, then I go on record as being desirous of being found on the side of God's truth, rather than being found with men against God. Brethren, this is my conviction, and upon this principle I stand.
Pastor Wm. Doyal Thomas
CHAPTER -1
CHAPTER -2
CHAPTER -3
CHAPTER -4
CHAPTER
-5
CHAPTER -6
We yet have true Baptist churches,
So, cheer up, Baptist pilgrim,
Chapter One
Since writing the former treatise on the subject
which is also the title of this Book, with the above suffix (SECOND
TREATISE), there has been much published and spoken in opposition
to it by a few men who are of the contrary opinion. But the poverty of their
arguments may be seen from both Scripture and Baptist history. This book
solicits no man's favor who is unwilling to make the most strenuous search
for truth. It is not written to draw forth or bring out contempt from the
opposition. Some will say hard things about it - this is already anticipated,
so it causes me no vexatious concern. The efforts of the contrary part to
obviate or nullify the evidence presented in my first book against their
position, was as exhibition of weakness. But there is not dogma, true or
false, that does not have its friends.
I do not consider myself a polemicist, and
confrontational theology not involving a cardinal doctrine does not appeal
to me in a great way. But the subject matter under consideration in this
writing, is I believe, of such import as to demand the strictest attention
of every New Testament Baptist church and pastor. While the moral integrity
of a church is to be at all times beyond reproach, the touchstone is orthodoxy
of teaching. The moral standards of the Amish and Mennonites are without
a doubt worthy of emulation, but their orthodoxy leaves much to be desired,
and it is this deficiency in orthodoxy that has created the impassable chasm
between them and New Testament Baptists. Hence, it is the responsibility
of every true church to use all the strength within their prevail to keep
their orthodoxy intact, "Lest at anytime we should let them slip"
(Hebrews 2:1).
Every Baptist should with frequency ask himself,
Why do I believe the doctrines that I believe? (II Corinthians 13:5).
Especially is this true as applies to Baptist ministers, for they must give
an account, not only of their christian life, but as "stewards of the
manifold grace of God" (I Peter 4:10). In light of this awesome
truth, the logical and necessary questions which follow are: Is my belief
in any sense or degree owing to the fact it affords me a wider range of
fellowship and ministerial exercise? Or because it is accepted in certain
circles and advocated by men in high places? Or does popularity with my
peers have anything to do with what I believe? Do I believe what I believe
because a contrary position would cause me to lose favor with some men of
powerful influence? Or do I believe what I do because it is easy theology,
inoffensive, and pleasing to the masses? I am confident as relates to Landmark
Sovereign Grace Baptists, all of the above questions can be summarily and
negatively dismissed. But even so, this does not alleviate the need of Baptist
pastors to periodically examine themselves as to their doctrine and practice.
A re-editing of our doctrine and practice cannot hurt, but may be helpful.
And in the chronological reevaluation of our theology, the ordinance of
baptism should be second only to the regeneration of the soul (Acts 2:41,42).
In the final analysis, we should be able to say in truth: I believe what
I do because it is the unequivocal teaching of the Word of GOD.
Salvation of the soul is strictly the work
of the sovereign God. It is a transaction between the three persons constituting
the Divine Trinity, into which NO fourth party can ever enter. Men cannot
contribute to the work which must eternally bear the impress of the one
almighty hand. Salvation is the peculiar and exclusive work of God, and
man in his native state is so utterly depraved he cannot have the first
correct or decent thought concerning redemption, much less have a desire
for it. Christ appeared once "to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself"
(Hebrews 9:26). The death of Christ fully and forever accomplished
the redemptive purpose of God, and there shall never arise the need for
Christ to die the second time (Romans 6:9). But the need for the
believer to remember His atoning death is constant. Hence, the glorious
ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Christ needed no help giving
the ordinances to the local church, and every true church being indwelt
by the Sovereign Holy Spirit, needs no external help in preserving and perpetuating
those two glorious pictures of His cruel, but triumphing death.
Scriptural baptism is the cross work of Christ
translated by symbol. Every time a person is baptized by the authority of
a New Testament church he sets forth symbolically what in reality has taken
place in his soul. That is, his death in Christ is vividly and silently
rehearsed. The Lord's churches are not only commanded to "keep the ordinances,"
but they are commanded to "keep the ordinances" without deviation
from the practice of the original and model church. The prototype church
Jesus established in Jerusalem was for a number of years the only church
in existence, and was for that time and during its entire existence fully
able to administer the ordinances.
The painting is most praise-worthy which is
most like the thing represented by it. Baptism being a picture or symbol
of the atoning work of Christ, should in all detail be kept by New Testament
churches as it was originally given them. There was not anything external
to God which contributed to the redemption of His people, for the good works
(?) of man neither helps to obtain nor retain salvation. The baptismal picture
of the glorious and exclusive work of redemption was inviolably committed
to each and every New Testament church, and synchronous with this commitment
came the responsibility and ability to keep the picture in its original
state.
In light of the fact that a symbol must resemble,
sprinkling or pouring for baptism is an inexplicable aberration. With this
all Baptists agree. In light of the fact "Christ appeared once to put
away sin by the sacrifice of Himself," ana-baptism comes under the heading
of misnomers. With this all Baptist agree. In light of the fact Christ by
His vicarious suffering became the unassisted Savior of His people, and
gave the picture of His passion with no details omitted to everyone of His
churches to keep point by point. And whereas, Christ needed no help in procuring
the baptismal picture, and seeing He gave it to His churches with guaranteed
ability to keep unto the end of the age. Therefore, for any of His churches
to seek help beyond their own entity in administering the ordinances would
be to question the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, or at least it would be
a substantial departure from the normal and right way. With this I hope all
Baptists agree.
When the Lord gave the baptismal commission
to the first Baptist church of Jerusalem, He potentially and equally gave
it to all of His churches, and they as distinct and independent bodies were
vested with power to administer the ordinances unaided from without. Governmentally
there is perfect equality between all of the Lord's churches. There may
be and often are inequities in other areas of church life, but the divine
blessing of autonomy guarantees parity of government in all of His churches
at all times. Thus it is, not only is every New Testament church with constancy
able to baptize its own candidates, but is also able to safeguard the ordinances
from trespass and profanation.
Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptists do err,
but for the most part they are sufficiently judicious to distinguish between
truth and error. Their divinely anointed discretion has for two thousand
years protected them from demeaning the ordinances of the church, and this
same discretion shall continue to enable them to keep the ordinances pure,
even as they were delivered by their Head and Groom, Jesus Christ.
I disagree with much of what some of my Baptist
brethren hold to be correct doctrine, but it cannot be found in any of my
writings where I maliciously or even by innuendo vilified the character
of any of them. Believing my convictions of what Scripture teaches is the
result of Holy Spirit tutelage, I am firm in the same, and will with every
spiritual atom of my strength defend them. But I do not hold contempt for
every brother who differs with me as to Scripture interpretation, nor will
I be driven to such a soul dwarfing state.
It is my prayer as I further pursue this work
that I may not be presumptuous and haughty, but perceptive and humble. That
I may be bold, but not belligerent. That I may not lean to my own understanding,
but wholly trust in the Spirit of truth. That I may be at all times acutely
aware that I must give an account of every word contained herein unto Him
Who loved the church and gave Himself for it. In a word, that I may not
pretend to comprehend all there is to know about the blessed ordinance of
baptism.
While there is perfect accord with Baptists
as to baptism being utterly void of saving efficacy, some, I fear have let
the God honoring ordinance suffer diminution of importance by not putting
enough stress upon the proper observance of it. Thus it is, I send forth
this feeble effort with the hope God may use it, at least in measure, where
the ordinance is esteemed lightly, to restore it to its rightful excellence.
This book holds the position that the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's
Supper are strictly local church ordinances.
The lines are clearly drawn. They are deep,
broad and distinct. It would probably be naive on my part to think that
the lines would be obliterated any time soon, but I take hope in knowing
they are not irremovable. I only ask that what I submit herein be subjected
to the most vigorous test by an honest heart. If after so doing, you conclude
what I have presented is sufficiently correct as to out weigh the tenets
which are contrary to it, then you can join me in prayer for those dear
brethren who hold the errors opposed by this volume. If you deem they are
right and I am in error, then I beseech you, pray for me. Either way, I
am confident some good will be accomplished by my expressed objection to
the sentiments of those who hold the position that plural or ultra church
authority may be merged or exercised in baptism. Or that baptism is invalid
unless administered by a formally ordained Baptist preacher.
"Fear not, little flock ..." Fear not
ostracism, intimidation, nor intolerance, for the truth knoweth no shame.
"And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap,
if we faint not" (Galatians 6:9). Baptism and the Lord's Supper,
the official pictures of the Gospel of Christ, shall be preserved and perpetuated
unto the end of the age; and that by the Lord's churches and their unadulterated
independence.
Chapter Two
"In the apostolic age baptism was administered
doubtless not only by Apostles and other leaders, but widely by those charismatically
eminent in the church ... In Tertullian's time, of giving it ... the bishop
has the right; in the next place the presbyters and deacons ... besides
these even layman have the right" (A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
- By Williston Walker - 1918, Page 88).
"And I baptized also the household of Stephanas:
besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not
to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (I Corinthians 1:16, 17).
Here it is evident that, although the pastor administers the ordinances,
this is not his main work, nor is the church absolutely dependent upon him
in the matter. He is not set, like an Old Testament priest, to minister
at the altar, but to preach the gospel. In an emergency any other member
appointed by the church may administer them with equal propriety, the church
always determining who are fit subjects of the ordinances, constituting
him their organ in administering them. Any other view is based on sacramental
notions, and on ideas of apostolic succession" (SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
- By: Agustus H. Strong, Page 917).
In the above quote by Strong the historic
faith of Baptists is well stated concerning authority to baptize, but I
fear Presbyterianism with its preacher type of church government has made
some inroads on Baptist territory, and has succeeded in diluting the faith
of some Baptists by causing them to adopt the "MUST" of formal ordination
as a prerequisite for valid baptism. One Presbyterian highly respected and
widely read by Baptists has this to say on the subject "Our confession also
holds that no one has a right to administer the sacraments (ordinances)
save a lawfully - ordained minister ... The church is an organized society
under laws executed by regularly-appointed officers, it is evident that
ordinances can properly be administered only by the highest legal officers
of the church" (COMMENTARY ON THE CONFESSION OF FAITH - Pages
455-456, By: A.A. Hodge).
But Mr. Hodge cannot be profitably accepted
as an authority on the ordinance of baptism, for he advocated the sprinkling
of infants, which is to deny believer's baptism and which is to make a mockery
of the Scriptural mode of baptism.
J. W. Porter, an illustrious Baptist, makes
the following comment on the subject of baptismal authority: "The speaker
believes, and the more he has studied the question, the more strongly he
believes that the commission to baptize was delivered to the church, and
should therefore be restricted to the church ... If the authority to baptize
does not rest with churches, with whom does it rest? If the authority to
baptize has been committed to the preachers, then they alone should authorize
and administer it, and in turn the churches should cease to usurp the preachers
authority" (THE BAPTIST EXAMINER - July 15, 1978).
Baptists believe that a New Testament church
is a body of baptized believers, administering its own affairs under the
Headship of Jesus Christ (Acts 5:14; Ephesians 1:22). Under
the Headship of Christ the pastor has been given a particular authority,
and the church that usurps that authority rejects the wisdom of God, and
flirts with spiritual disaster. On the other hand, the pastor who unduly
magnifies his office, and assumes exclusive authority for himself in administering
the ordinance of baptism, infringes on the independence of his church and
bedims the glory which belongs to Christ in the church (Ephesians 3:21).
Such pastoral presumption is under the disfavor of God.
In the second paragraph of this chapter the
following line is quoted from Agustus Strong - "In an emergency any other
member may administer them (the ordinances) with equal priority." To declare
or even infer that in this quote, Strong is teaching that women and children
may be appointed by the church to administer baptism is to give it a generality
not accorded in the context from which the quote is taken. We welcome fair
and impartial criticism, but when criticism is wrought with an ill motive,
then it is an offence to propriety and serves as an impediment to honest
discussion.
I wrote in my first treatise on this subject
- "It is readily and correctly conceded that the pastor is the MOST proper
person to baptize for the church, and when the pastor is willing, able,
and available, to function in immersing the baptismal candidates for the
church, he should NEVER be by-passed in this high honor. It is first the
pastor's privilege and obligation to act as the agent of the church in administering
the ordinance of baptism, and this particular agency does not pass from
the pastor's province except he becomes physically unable or spiritually
disqualified. But when such a liability deprives the church of its pastor,
then and during the pastorless interim the church may exercise its heaven
bestowed authority, and select a godly male member to immerse its baptismal
candidates" (Pages 9 & 10).
I do not know how the language of the above
quote could be more explicit Note, I said in the quote the person acting
for the church in baptizing its candidates should first be the pastor, but
when his service is not available; then the church may "select a godly
male member to immerse its baptismal candidates." (Emphasis mine).
How anyone can misconstrue these words, and contend they say something which
they in no way identify with or infinitesimally relate, is to trifle with
what the words actually convey. To insist the quote makes allowance for
the church to appoint women and children to act for the church in administering
the ordinance of baptism calls for the indulgence of the plainest nonsense.
To claim that the words de-emphasize the importance of preacher ordination
is "dare pondus fumo," or giving weight to smoke. Yet, this is what the
Editor of the Berea Baptist Banner has in vain tried to do.
(See: B.B.B. Page 11, Oct. 15, 1984). The dear Editor knows
we do not allow women or children to baptize, and the words rather than
demeaning the practice of preacher ordination, reinforces it Thus it is,
I know of no reason for the Editor to make such implications, except to
try and discredit all who disagree with him in the matter in the eyes of
his unsuspecting readers or hearers.
The supposed reply of the BBB Editor
to my first book dealing with baptismal authority was a caricature. Our
opposing Brother, says: "Now the idea is that a church cannot baptize as
I believe unless the ordained minister is willing" (BBB,
Page 11). This is an evasion of the issue. The issue is not the
willingness or unwillingness of the pastor to administer the ordinance,
but the contention of the Editor that formal ordination of the administrator
is absolutely essential to the validity of the ordinance.
It is this doctrine I oppose. I certainly
agree with the BBB Editor when he says the pastor should be
willing to baptize for his church. To say otherwise would be to border on
the ridiculous. But there is a difference, the position of the BBB
Editor shuts the church up to one will, that is, the will of the
pastor. The difference is, the church has a second and superior will to
that of its ordained ministry, which will is the final authority. Where
the NEED is such, the church may exercise its will, and choose a faithful
brother to administer the ordinance for it. This liberty has been given
the local church by its Head, Jesus Christ. But our opposing brother's position
would negate that God honoring and church edifying liberty.
The BBB Editor says "I hasten
to point out that a church cannot baptize a candidate unless he agrees to
be baptized ... Does this make baptism a candidate ordinance? ... Does it
take baptism 'out of the hands of the church'? I would be pleased to hear
my brethren explain this problem to my satisfaction." First, let me state,
the "candidate" question poses no "problem" for us. The "problem" referred
to in the quote must apply to the advocates of the absolute "must" of formal
ordination in administering the ordinance, for the contention is the father
of a multitude of problems. The willingness of a person to be baptized is
not unalterably binding on a New Testament church. Baptism is as we have
contended all along a church ordinance, not a preacher or candidate ordinance.
It is the church in its collective and official capacity that determines
the fitness or unfitness of the applicant, and this is done by a vote of
the church. A church does not HAVE TO administer baptism to a person simply
because the person is willing to be baptized. If that were the case, then
baptism would be a candidate ordinance, and not a church ordinance. No person
within the church is allowed to dictate policy to the church, much less
a person without the benefit of church membership. John the Baptist refused
to baptize the willing Pharisees and Saducees (Matthew 3:7,8),
and New Testament churches of today would with the same deliberateness as
that of John, refuse to baptize a person be he ever so willing to be baptized,
if they had the least suspicion the person was yet unregenerate or practicing
sin, which he refused to denounce. Let us ever be aware that the government
of the church is democratic, rather than autocratic.
If formal ordination is absolutely essential
to the validity of baptism, it indisputably follows, if the administrator
is later discovered to have a fault which existed previous to his ordination
which would invalidate his ordination; such as divorce and re marriage,
which the BBB Editor contends prohibits proper ordination
(BBB, Editorial Comment - 9/15/84, DIVORCE-
Page 15). Or if the ordained administrator was unregenerate at the time
of his ordination, etc. Then all of the faulted administrator's baptisms
would be invalid, for the simple reason his ordination was invalid. This
is a dilemma confronting the advocates of the "MUST' of ordination for baptismal
validity. But knowing the Scriptures teach that baptism is strictly a local
church ordinance, rather than a preacher ordinance we have no problem recognizing
as valid the baptism of those persons baptized by a man unqualifiedly ordained.
J. M. Pendleton says in his church manual,
and in his book entitled: CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, A Compendium Of Theology,
in reference to the administrator of the baptismal ordinance -
"As to a proper administrator there may be some difference of opinion. By
a proper administrator, in the foregoing definition, is meant a person who
has received church authority to baptize" (Manual, Page 65; Christian
Doctrines - Page 342). The generic term "person" as used by Pendleton
in the above quote extends beyond ordained persons, and leaves the administration
of the ordinance in the power of the whole church, where it has always been.
For some years John Spilsbury, a well educated
minister, had been pastor of one of the Calvinistic Anti-pedobaptist congregations.
He repudiated with great earnestness the theory that baptizedness is essential
to the administrator of baptism, maintaining that it was popish in its tendency"
(A MANUAL OF CHURCH HISTORY Volume 2 - Page 289 - Judson Press,
A. H. Newman). To further highlight Newman's statement concerning Spilsbury's
church (1633 - London), and views of his church on baptismal authority;
I submit the following from W.A. Jarrel's - BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY
"As now, owing to sickness or other causes, pastors have others
baptize for them, so Blalock may have baptized for Spilsbury" (page 356).
When Paul said to the church at Corinth, "I
thank God that I baptized none of you save Crispus and Gaius" (I
Corinthians 1:14). He did not mean to minimize the importance of baptism
or devalue the ordinance. Nor was it his intention to lower the honor of
the apostolic or pastoral office, but his motive in making the statement
was to teach the Corinthians not to place excessive power or virtue in the
person administering the ordinance. Paul clearly states his reason for saying
what he did in verse 14, the next verse - "Lest any should say
that I baptized in my own name" (verse 15). Let us give honor
where honor is due. The authority to baptize is sovereignly rooted in the
Headship of Him Who said, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it." And Christ in the exercise of His Headship
(Ephesians 1:22), has delegated the responsibility of baptism to
His church (Matthew 28:18-20). So, let us extol, praise highly, and
glorify our Head, Jesus Christ; for it is He Who has given the baptismal
ordinance to the church and He gave it to glorify Himself in the church
and to edify the church. This is the truth Paul builds a bulwark around
in I Corinthians 1:13-17.
Surely, the baptized person is to be thankful
to the church, and toward the administrator for being faithful in carrying
out the baptismal part of the church commission, but his glorying must be
limited in its entirety to Christ. Paul said: "For Christ sent me not
to baptize, but to preach the gospel ..." (I Corinthians 1:17).
In this statement Paul does not mean the baptismal part of the commission
did not apply to him, but that the ordinance did not belong to the apostleship,
and that it was not his primary or special work. He knew the ordinance belonged
to the church, and he would not take it from the hand of the church, and
put it in his own hand. Paul, under the authority of the Antioch church
(Acts 13:1-2) baptized a few into his home church, but as soon as
a church was organized, be it blessed with a pastor or pastorless at the
time, Paul refused to do any of her baptizing, as is seen from Acts 18:8.
The text reads - "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed
on the Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians hearing believed,
and were baptized." To read into the account which Paul and Luke gives
of the origin or beginning of the Corinthian church an ordained administrator
who baptized the "many Corinthians" who believed, would be to render a judgment
wholly in consistent with the text. It is certain Paul did not baptize them:
"A matter that produced considerable confusion
in some parts of the Association was now considered, viz., whether baptism
was valid when administered by an unordained person. To which the Association
replied: 'that in cases where the ordinance had been administered in a solemn
and religious manner, that it might be considered as valid, and that persons
so baptized might be admitted as members of the church" (Dover Association
- Hanover County Virginia. HISTORY OF VIRGINIA BAPTISTS -
Pages 122, 123. By: Robert Baylor Semple).
It is the overwhelming consensus of Landmark
Baptists that the baptismal commission was given to the local church(es),
and that the perpetuation of the ordinance was not conditioned upon the
church having an ordained pastor. This being most certainly the case, the
ordinance entrusted to the local church by none other than Christ, I ask;
is there ever a time in the history of a true church when its responsibility
to baptize is null? What circumstances can there be which can abrogate or
even abridge that which God has decreed? There are no circumstances, be
they ever so adverse, which can for a moment make void the authority and
responsibility of a New Testament church to baptize.
It logically follows (not theologically),
if a church cannot baptize without an ordained minister, and the pastor
of a church resigns his office for the pastorate of another church, leaving
his former church without an ordained minister, that he takes the authority
to baptize from the church he resigned to the new church of his pastoral
labors. Perish the thought, for such is a flagrant abuse of church authority.
As long as a church has a New Testament status, (and many they be who for
extended periods of time suffer the vacancy of their pastoral office) yet,
they are at all times "the pillar and ground of the truth," and baptism
is an indispensable doctrinal rock in the foundation of every New Testament
church, One of the vitals of every New Testament church is its ability to
baptize.
Under the heading of BAPTISM,
Hastings Dictionary Of The Bible makes the following comments
on the subject. "The commission to baptize was given in the first instance
to the eleven (Matthew 28:16-20), but we are not sure no others were
present. Moreover, it is in virtue of Christ's presence ('Lo I am with
you always') that they have the right to baptize; and this presence
cannot be confined to the apostles. We are not told who baptized the three
thousand at Pentecost; and the apostles, if they baptized any, can hardly
have baptized them all. Apparently, Ananias baptized Paul, but this is not
clear (Acts 22:16). He was 'a certain disciple' (Acts 9:10),
and presumably a layman. Peter commanded Cornelius and his company to be
baptized (Acts 10:48); and we assume that it was done by the brethren
from Joppa, who are not said to be presbyters or deacons. From the silence
of Scripture respecting the minister on these and other occasions, we may
infer that an ordained minister is not essential" (Pages 242-243).
I call your attention to these words in the
quote from Hastings "Moreover it is in virtue of Christ's presence ('Lo
I am with you always') that they have the right to baptize." Who would
be so crass as to deny the veracity of these words? I sincerely doubt that
one Baptist could be found who would not gladly affirm the statement.
The inescapable conclusion drawn from this
fact is, it is the presence of Christ that enables a church to baptize.
and not necessarily that of an ordained minister. We are determined to give
due honor to the ordained ministry of the church, and to own its heavenly
bestowed authority, but never can we equate ministerial authority in the
church with that of Him Who purchased the church with His own blood.
We will have more to say on the theory which contends that the validity of baptism depends on the administrator being formally ordained, in the fifth chapter, under the heading: MORE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
Chapter
Three
"That the power of a church cannot be transferred
or alienated, and that church action is final. The power of a church cannot
be delegated. There may be messengers of a church, but there cannot be,
in the proper use of the term, delegates ... The church at Corinth could
not transfer her power to the church at Philippi, nor could the church at
Antioch convey her authority to the church of Ephesus. Neither could all
the apostolic churches combined delegate their power to an association or
synod or convention. That church power is inalienable results from the foundation-principle
of Independency - namely, that this power is in the hands of the people,
the membership. If the power of a church cannot be transferred, church action
is final. That there is no tribunal higher than a church is evident from
Matthew 18:15-17" (J. M. Pendleton, CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES,
pages 338 & 340).
Churches in their aggregate, or plural part
of the whole number were never given authority to baptize by the Lord. The
church in the institutional sense is not the custodian of the ordinances,
nor is there Scriptural precept or example which gives the least currency
to the idea. The commission to baptize was not given abstractly, that is,
it was not given to the church of God as an institution, but to His churches
in their particular capacity and location. To guarantee the success of the
baptismal commission the Lord promised His age long and sovereign presence
to each and everyone of His churches (Matthew 28:18-20). As to authority
every New Testament church is complete in Christ (Colossians 2:10),
they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 3:16; John
14:17), and thereby have the fullness of Christ dwelling in them (Ephesians
1:23, 3:19; Colossians 1:19). In view of this great
truth, I ask how could it ever become necessary for a church so blessed
with the presence of Christ to borrow any kind of authority from anything
outside of itself? The Lord Himself is THE HIGHEST authority, and all ecclesiastical
authority is derived from God and is in the strict sense fully and indisputably
His. To contend circumstances may develop which would necessitate the borrowing
or use by one New Testament church the authority of another New Testament
church, is equal to saying, the time may come when God will need to borrow
authority from Himself, False premises beget absurdities.
When dual or plural church authority is used
in administering the ordinance of baptism, what oral formula is pronounced
by the agent of such authority? If the contention is, although two or more
churches are involved, it is yet done by singular authority. I yet ask,
what baptismal formula is pronounced by the administrator? If it is done
by singular authority, it is done independently of all churches involved
except one. This smacks of freelanceism, and the administrator could use
as his baptismal formula, "By the authority invested in me I baptize you."
Some of the pluralists contend that an ordained
Baptist minister can officiate and administer the Lord's supper in a New
Testament church of which he is not a member, as long as he does not eat
the bread or drink the wine. I am sure the same pluralists would loudly
raise an objection to a suggestion that a hydraulic lift be installed in
their baptistery whereby the candidate could be immersed and emersed
The Lord in giving the procreant commission
to Adam and Eve, gave it potentially to each respective family, for every
human family of the future resided in that first family at the time the
commission was given. The Lord gave the baptismal commission to the first
Baptist church of Jerusalem, and in so doing He gave the commission to every
one of His churches in their particular and exclusive nature. Not withstanding,
they all had their residence in the first Baptist church at the time the
commission was given. Holy Spirit regeneration makes the subject a member
of the family of God, but it takes Scriptural baptism to add the regenerate
person to a local church family. It was understood at the outset of the
pro-creative commission, that each family was to add to their own membership
independently of the family next door. I believe in familyism and in the
good neighbor policy, but they MUST have their limits. And so it is with
church families, each one is to add members to its own church family, independent
of all other churches.
When the Holy Spirit regenerates one of God's
elect He brings to pass in that one what is determined for all the elect,
namely, regeneration. When Christ established the first church in Jerusalem,
He brought to pass in that first church what was determined for all of His
churches, namely, a visible autonomous entity. The first Baptist church
was a complete church within itself, and so are all churches which have
emanated from that first church. The first Baptist church of Jerusalem gave
birth to the first Baptist church of Antioch, and when the Antioch church
came into being it was a complete church in and of itself. Paul referred
to this newly originated church as, "The church of God that was at Antioch"
(Acts 13:1). It is highly probable that the Antioch church along
with the Jerusalem church was referred to when Paul abstractly said, "I
persecuted the church of God, and wasted it" (Galatians 1:13).
In Matthew 16:18 the Lord used the
word "ecclesia" in the abstract or generic sense, but not to the exclusion
of the concrete or specific use of the term. The abstract and concrete use
of the term "ecclesia" in the New Testament are not antagonistic, but complimentary.
The utility of the term is not adversely affected by New Testament usage,
for in every place where it is used the sense or construction placed on
the term is made plain. We often speak of the "elect of God" in the
abstract or generic sense, but we do not mean all the "elect of God"
are one body or organism. The concrete sense of the term is preserved, for
there is no way that any two of God's elect can become one organic whole.
Siamese twins are a genetic abnormality, but not any more so than two churches
officially united are an ecclesiastical abnormality.
Every church having Jesus as its Head, is
an autonomous entity, authoritative deficiency is alien to its nature, and
there can never in the existence of such a church arise the need of borrowing
authority from anything outside of itself. This truth is attested to by
the fact there is nothing in the ecclesiastical sense bigger than a New
Testament Baptist church. There is no need to borrow among equals, and when
such is effected, the loaning church claims a superiority which does not
exist, and the borrowing church assumes an inferiority for itself which
does not exist. The practice of borrowing authority calls for a compromise
of all churches involved, a compromise which is an affront to the Headship
of Jesus Christ. This is why two Baptist churches cannot join in official
or organizational union. The need does not, nor has ever existed, for the
obvious reason a Baptist church has the ultimate ecclesiastical structure
in its immediate being, and this structure remains intact as long as Jesus
is the Head of the church. For a church to go outside of itself for baptismal
authority is an attempt to improve upon the self propagation ability which
Christ gave to His churches. God forbid!
Baptist churches can, and they should cooperate
in achieving common goals, but they cannot be coerced to do so by legislation
or intimidation. Baptist churches for the sake of their individual independency
must reject every overture made toward them which would in any way whatsoever
violate or restrict their autonomy. Baptists believe in the independence
of the local church, and this independence necessitates self government
and self propagation. These are the vitals of every New Testament church.
All any person need do is to give a brief and unbiased study of Baptist
history to see that Baptists have been competent in both of these church
sustaining areas. Wherever then there is a New Testament church there is
union with God, and whenever a church is in union with God there is nothing
in its divinely given commission that it is not at all times authorized
to do.
May a church who authorizes a non-member to
baptize for it, also authorize a non-member to vote in their church business
meetings? If a church can use a man who is not a member to baptize for it,
and thereby give voting status to the subject of the non-member's baptism,
it would not seem inconsistent for the church to allow their borrowed administrator
a vote in granting the candidate admission to its membership. Just how far
does the authority of a church extend in allowing non-members to act officially
in church affairs? All legislation of the New Testament is committed to
the local church, and each church is empowered or given executive ability
by the Holy Spirit to carry out every precept of that legislation. Every
New Testament church is an executive an efficient administrator of God's
spiritual government on earth, and this executive status and efficiency
enables every church to conduct all of its affairs by or from within its
own membership. For a church to go beyond its immediate membership for official
help, is to go beyond the Scriptures.
There is a wide and ever present need for
cooperation of churches. The need for church cooperation is more pressing
in mission work than in any other area. But there are other areas where
churches may, and should if able, cooperate one with another. Areas such
as publication work, radio ministry, Bible conferences, revivals, etc. Yet,
while cooperation in various endeavors by churches is Scriptural and a tremendous
blessing, it is to be clearly understood that all cooperative work is under
the exclusive authority of one church. Cooperation of churches, yes. Plural
authority, NO!
When a church has an ordained minister of
another church baptize for it, does the church for whom the minister baptizes
have any ecclesiastical or disciplinary authority over the minister? If
not, then the church has a man officially acting for it over whom it has
no authority whatsoever. On the other hand, if the church for whom the borrowed
minister baptizes claims to have authority over him, then the borrowing
church claims to have authority over a person who is not a member of their
church, but who is in fact a member of another church. This is a dilemma
I would rather not be confronted with. It is an imposture that can be straightened
only by practicing restricted baptism. That is, by keeping baptismal authority
where God put it, that is within the boundaries or governmental limits of
the local church.
Beloved brethren, would it not be folly on
our part to demand for the local church disciplinary authority over every
person who sits at its table in observance of the Lord's supper, and then
use means over which the church has no authority to get supper participants?
Namely, extra church baptism. While the church as an institution is to evangelize
the whole world (Matthew 28:18-20), official interdependence of churches
is not necessary to this end, nor is it warranted in the commission.
There is merit in official synergism as relates
to secularism, but to apply this same principle to the mission work of the
Lord's churches is to set the wisdom of man above that of God (Isaiah
55:8,9; I Corinthians 1:21,3:19). Mission work, including baptism,
which is done under the official direction of plural churches is unscriptural,
be they two or two hundred churches. Officiality for ecclesiastical mission
work is restricted to the local independent church, and no part of it can
with Scriptural approval be farmed out to any cooperative, no matter how
reasonable it may seem.
The Scriptures will not lend themselves to
the service of carnal reason. Men may endeavor to bend, warp, distort, and
use every conceivable guise to elicit from the Scripture support for their
false theories, but Scripture cannot be made to ally itself with error.
On the contrary, Scripture is the indefeasible and untiring enemy of all
religious error. The Scripture never takes a benign view of error, even
though the error be judged nominal by men.
Cooperation between churches is to be sought,
but not at the expense of ecclesiastical usurpation. The surrender of any
measure of church independence is by far too great of a price to pay for
cooperation which from the outset runs counter to Scripture, and is under
the frown of God. Cooperation bought at such high expense is to invite the
sowing of thorns in the participating churches, which will in due season
choke out other truth, and demand further surrender of church independence.
There is plenty of room for churches to practice unofficial bi-formity,
but it is absolute nonsense to speak of bi-autonomy.
There is plenty of ground upon which New Testament
churches can fellowship, and this fellowship should be sought and cultivated.
But when fellowship between churches takes on an official nature, it at
that point falls below Scripturally authorized fellowship, and is not only
worse than no fellowship, but is a fellowship which cannot but promote perniciousness.
Any fellowship that takes baptism, the Lord's supper, or any part of mission
work out of the hands of the local church, or makes the local church dependent
on anything outside of itself for the administration of the ordinances or
circumscribes its missionary authority is a fellowship that is fallacious
and devoid of Scriptural endorsement.
Baptism is a definite ordinance which is by
the Head of the church, clearly and unmistakably restricted to the precincts
of the local church. For a church to ask a sister church for help in performing
the ordinance is to give baptism an abstract nature, a nature which is utterly
incongruous to it, and detracts from it. Such inadmissible handling of the
ordinance will weaken rather than strengthen the churches.
The United States sends Ambassadors and diplomatic
agents to other countries, and other countries reciprocate by sending like
officers to the United States. The diplomats can take no official part in
the government of the countries which they visit, nor can they help in executing
the laws or ordinances of the country they visit. Neither are they subject
to the laws of the country they visit, but enjoy diplomatic immunity from
the laws of all nations, except their own. Some nations with the same political
philosophies or ideology exchange teachers, and as with the diplomats the
teachers have no authority which they can exercise in the country they visit.
Nations, especially those allied in a common cause may recognize the judicial
acts of those nations as long as they do not contravene the laws of its
own government or infringe on its national independence. Example, if the
British government charged and convicted one of its citizens of a capital
crime, mutuality of immigration laws prohibit any sister nation from granting
the convicted person citizenship as long as the penalty goes wanting in
any part.
A Baptist church is the purest democracy on
earth, and Baptist churches are the only heavenly mandated authority on
earth sending forth ecclesiastical ambassadors. But it is to be clearly
understood that in contemplating authority, none can be correctly given
to the ambassadors which extends beyond their immediate church. They may
preach, teach, or act as an advisor to and for a sister church, but he has
no de facto power beyond the church body of which he is a part. The rule
of respect and love for sister churches should ever be so strong as to honor
their discipline of and over their own members. Otherwise every member will
be a law unto himself.
Baptism administered by a local New Testament
Baptist church is Scriptural, whether or not the agent acting for the church
is formally ordained. Therefore, NO NEED can ever exist which makes borrowing
of authority expedient, much less compulsory. Borrowed authority is a spurious
substitute, a mean imitation at best, for which there is no Biblical warrant
or sound reason to use.
When we leave the governmental confines of
a local New Testament church, or try to amalgamate church authority, we
have left off proper church authority, and have taken the license of unlimited
sanction and may use it in doing whatever suits our fancy. All that is needed
for every official church action is, authority that is primary and ordinary,
and not authority that is secondary and extraordinary.
"To each local church is committed the SOLE
administration and guardianship of the ordinances" (JR. Graves - The
Lord's Supper, Page 11 - 'SOLE' - Caps
mine).
"The church of God in a city, means the whole
church of God is there, and if the whole church of God is there, then none
of it is anywhere else ... THOSE DESPISE THE CHURCH OF GOD WHO APPEAL FROM
HER AUTHORITY. There is no higher court. Every appellant says by his actions,
which speak louder than words, there is a higher court of Authority than
the church of God. Christ says in Matthew 18:17: "Tell it to the
church, and if he neglects to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a
heathen man and publican." That settles the case. There is no higher
tribunal and no other tribunal. The church of God is the Supreme Court of
heaven on earth ... THOSE DESPISE THE CHURCH OF GOD WHO USURP HER FUNCTIONS.
The church is the steward - the custodian of the faith. The doctrines and
ordinances were committed to her. All authority was left with her. (J. B.
Moody - MY CHURCH, Chapter on Church Loyalty).
Baptism is the door by which a saved person
enters the church, and the autonomous church does not need help apart from
its own entity to open its baptismal door. If one prop is needed from without
the immediate church, who is to say how many props may be needed? Administering
of the ordinances has been specifically assigned to each and every New Testament
church by their omniscient Head, and any delegating of this assignment or
the adding of any supplement thereto is to misread the Scriptures and mismanage
the ordinances. The particular church is a body of Christ, in which dwells
"the Spirit of God" (I Corinthians 3:16; 12:27), and
it was to the particular church at Corinth, Paul said: "Keep the ordinances,
as I delivered them to you" (I Corinthians 11:2). The Corinthian
church was doctrinally weak, and it is not certain they had a pastor at
the time of the Pauline admonition, but it is sure the Sovereign Holy Spirit
was with the Corinthian church, and His presence makes every church functionally
complete.
Concerning baptismal theory opposed in this
volume, some may ask, What does it matter if we believe it? It matters much.
What caused the universal visible concept of the church, with its hierarchical
and tyrannical church government? The universal invisible concept of the
church is an off-spring of Rome's universalism. Rome's ecclesiasticism is
owing to exaltation of its priests., whereby preacher and people are separated
by an unalterable gulf. Protestantism, with its bogus baptismal practice,
and heretical forms of church government is lame in both feet It has set
down in Rome's ecumenical wheel-chair, and is being gently wheeled back
to its harlot mother. The point is, both Romanism and Protestantism deny
the entity autonomy, and independence of the local church, this cannot be
done with any degree of success apart from undue preacher exaltation, and
prostitution of the baptismal ordinance.
There is an old proverb which says, "A bird
in the hand is worth two in the bush." The implication in this saying is
to plain to be missed. One Scripture revelation in the heart is worth more
than a thousand theological hypothesises in a book. One baptism performed
by the exclusive authority of one New Testament church is not merely better
than all baptisms administered by plural church authority, but is the "one
baptism," alluded to by Paul in Ephesians 4:5.
While in this chapter I have written at great
length, I could yet append it with a favorable anthology from Baptists and
other historians which would in volume surpass this chapter. But instead,
I have elected to conclude it with a quote from a contemporary and scholarly
brother, who has made a serious and in-depth study on the subject of authority
to baptize. The author of the quote is Elder Doyal Thomas - of Wayne, West
Virginia; and it is used by his permission.
"Now when Christ established His church, He
placed each and every member in that one body, (not one universal body,
but one body AT JERUSALEM) and then commissioned that one body to do all
those things that He would ever be pleased to assign His churches the duty
and privilege to perform. I'm saying that that church at Jerusalem was equipped
and enabled to do everything that any church would ever be equipped and
enabled or AUTHORIZED TO DO! Just as His church did not "evolve" from an
embryo into a living, vibrant, active body, neither did it need to "develop"
the order of its acting. It did not need to, nor did it, learn how to do
the things that God ordered by learning process. He gave His church explicit
instructions as to functionary procedures. Nor did it draw upon outside
resources! What resources were available for this church to draw upon, seeing
there was no other church in existence! It was an autonomous body. It
did the Lord's work!
I'm saying that every true church today can
do all those things that our Lord has commanded, that every one of those
churches MUST do those things, or else be out of the order that He established.
What needs to be done that His church cannot do? Why must 'expediency" be
put ahead of authority? If His church cannot do what He established that
church to do, then is there not a deficiency present? What a shame and travesty
to even suggest such a thing.
In short, the authority to baptize, and to
administer the Lord's Supper is not, nor has it ever been in the hands of
a preacher. The authority has been duly assigned by the Lord Jesus Christ
Himself, and what He has assigned cannot be, in any way, further delegated.
One church cannot authorize another to function in the matter without going
outside the authority that Christ gave her. To do so is to be in subordinate
to the Lord and Master. That's plain, but I believe it is true!
It is recognized, and I believe all will agree,
that when a church has one to be baptized, or when the Lord's Supper is
to be administered, that the pastor, would properly be the human agent to
perform for the CHURCH this duty - this privilege. But, if there be no pastor,
then a male member of the church can, and must be authorized to administer
the ordinance ... A true church is not left at the mercy of those outside
the body to function! If so, then the church is not an autonomous body,
but is a "dependent" body." (End quote). Brethren, let us express our sentiments rather than suppress them. Timidity, as a rule is a virtue, and silence at times is golden, but they are something else when used in curtailing truth.
Chapter
Four
IS IT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LOCAL CHURCH
TO ORDAIN ITS MINISTERIAL CANDIDATES, OR DOES THE RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY
OF ORDAINING MEN TO THE GOSPEL MINISTRY BELONG TO A COUNCIL OF ORDAINED
MINISTERS MADE UP FROM VARIOUS CHURCHES?
Brother Cockrell, the Editor of the Berea
Baptist Banner, has clearly stated what he believes to be the answer
to the above question. He says in his reply to my first Book on the question
of baptismal authority: "It is my candid opinion that some men run away
from appearing before an ordaining council because they fear they cannot
meet the qualifications and hence be ordained. They may have problems with
their double or triple marriage. They may have some moral problems, or even
some doctrinal problems. I can think of but a few reasons for their shunning
a council of good and godly men by which they are to be examined and ordained.
It might be well to ask some men who downgrade being an ordained Baptist
minister if they ever appeared before an ordaining council, or, in other
words, were they ever ordained to the ministry." (B.B.B. Page
10, Oct. 15, 1984).
Why the esteemed Editor would inject this
self defeating statement into the baptismal authority controversy is an
enigma to me. However, he has made his position unmistakably clear as to
where he believes the responsibility of ordaining ministers lies, and that
is not with the local church, but with a council of preachers made up from
various churches. Three times in the above quote the Editor plainly says,
the formal setting apart a man to the gospel ministry is done by what he
calls "an ordaining council." He goes as far to say, or at least he glaringly
implies, if a preacher has not been ordained by a council as defined above,
he is, just simply, not ordained. So as to show I am not reading more into
his words than what is in the quote, I resubmit one of his misconstruable
statements, i.e. "I can think of but a few other reasons for their shunning
a council of good and godly men BY WHICH THEY ARE TO BE EXAMINED AND ORDAINED.
It might be well to ask some men who downgrade being an ordained Baptist
minister if they have ever appeared before AN ORDAINING COUNCIL, or, in
other words, were they ever ordained." (Caps mine). Note: the last four
words of the quote is not a question, but a subtle denial of the validity
of minister ordination performed by a local church independently of the
officialdom of an extra-church council. The local church does not need a
Sanhedrin to direct its functions.
It is the "candid opinion" of the BBB
Editor, "that some men run away from appearing before an ordaining
council because they fear they cannot meet the qualifications and hence
be ordained." I ask, who is better qualified to judge of a ministerial candidate's
qualifications, the church which holds his membership and with whom he has
spent an extended part of his church life, and in most cases all of it,
or a council of preachers; of whom some may have never seen the candidate
before the date of ordination? We are NOT OPPOSED to a church asking other
ministers to act as advisors in ordination procedure. We do not object to
visiting ministers interrogating the candidate, but what we do object to
is the usurpation of the authority of the ordaining church by a mock council.
We never ask a Baptist pastor, By which council
were you ordained? But we ask him, By the authority of which church were
you ordained? If we ask, By what council, he might think we were a little
popish, or tainted with Episcopalianism, and I would not blame him for thinking
thusly. The custom of official councilorship as relates to the ordination
of Baptist ministers comes from within the whited walls of pseu-do associationalism,
and is nothing more than traditional rubbish which should be tossed into
the scrap heap of anti-scriptural innovations, along with everything else
that encroaches on the autonomy and independence of the local church.
We readily and gladly admit that a council
made up of pastors from other churches may advise and assist the ordaining
church in many and varied ways, but the council CANNOT assert any authority
or officiality in or over the ordaining church. As to the officialdom, it
is strictly a local church function. To say otherwise, is to unlawfully
take the prerogative and liberty which God has given and placed in His particular
churches, and place it in the hands of a tribunal who is not amenable to
any ecclesiastical authority. Where is the wisdom in the vote of a local
church to ordain its ministerial candidate, and then subject itself to a
council which has veto power and may abort the design and determination
of the local church? Such veto power does not Biblically exist, and the
council necessity doctrine suffers the same extreme barrenness as that of
the "MUST' doctrine of formal ordination of the administrator of baptism.
The errors of absolute essentially of formal
ordination of the baptismal administrator, and the imperative need of an
authoritative council in order to ordain men to the gospel ministry, arrogates
for the ministry that which belongs to the Lord's churches. While these
errors are not injuriously equal to the sacerdotalism of Romanism and Protestantism,
they are akin to it, and certainly not as innocent as their proponents would
have us believe (I Peter 5:1-3).
A Baptist church has no judicatures, except
that of the membership. The voting majority determines the polity of the
church, and not the pastors or officers of the church. This being true with
the officers of the immediate church, how much more is it true concerning
officers who are not members of the particular church, even though they
organize themselves into an impressive council. Which is the lesser of the
two evils, to make too much of ordination or too little of it? I cannot
say, nor do I need to say, for the Bible clearly reveals what the measure
of respect, honor, and authority is to be accorded the bishopric. The church
is to acknowledge and manifestly own the authority which God has vested
in the pastoral office, but in so doing the church is to be careful not
to compromise its own authority. What a glorious thing it is when both pastor
and church see the demarcation lines which God has drawn to regulate their
respective authority.
The pastor and all other officers are amenable
to their membership church, and this subservience does not deprecate the
authority or bedim the unequaled honor inherent in the pastoral office.
The amenability of the pastor to his church should not be grievous, but
joyous, lest a rivalry between the church and the pastor be developed. The
pastor and his church are not in competition as to who can exercise the
most authority, but when their peculiar authority is held in proper perspective
it will serve to stimulatize the church rather than schismatize it.
No God honoring pastor wants his people goose-stepping
before him, because he knows heavens marching orders were not despotically
given to him, but to the democratic power of the church. Nor will a God
honoring church want to enervate their Holy Spirit given pastor, and have
him cowering at their feet. Neither church nor pastoral authority can long
endure abuse, for God will not allow His appointments to suffer prolonged
impediment, and whatever is necessary to correct the abuse will be rapidly
and efficiently meted out by the Head of the church.
It appears from the B.B.B. that
Brother Cockrell subscribes to Brother J. M. C. Breaker's "general authority"
theory, for he borrows the term from Brother Breaker, and uses it approvingly
in the B.B.B. (Page 7 - 10/15/84). Whence cometh this supposed "general
authority"? It must come from and by the arbitration of a spurious ordaining
council, for it cannot be Scripturally given by a local church. Some generals
are just too general, and the one under consideration is a case in point.
This supposed "general authority" is exceedingly
wide. Sufficiently so as to allow pastors and ordained Baptist preachers
to baptize for their respective churches, and other Baptist churches without
specific authority from their membership church. The basis or justification
for this unregulated practice is the inherent virtue or intrinsic merit
claimed for preacher ordination by an official (?) council. The logical
order contended for is, formal council ordination begets general authority,
and general authority begets preacher liberty, so as he may baptize whenever
and wherever he may find a candidate and a church that will receive the
baptized person. Or as with Brother Breaker, a receiving church is not necessary
in every case. This is the practice J. M. C. Breaker advances in his article.
He contends in a given situation as that of the Ethiopian eunuch a person
may be baptized and not admitted to or added to any church (Breaker's Article,
Page 251 - Paragraph 2). Brethren, is not this a strange brand of Landmarkism?
Such a practice cannot be supported by Scripture nor Baptist history, and
it should be abrogated by or expurgated from every church afflicted with
it.
The above statement correctly charged to Brother
Breaker is but a sampling of the errors which are in his whole article on
The Administrator of Baptism. And yet Brother Cockrell says: "My disagreement
with Brother Breaker was not of any serious nature. There were some weak
statements in my opinion in the original article, and a few of these were
omitted from the original article which appeared in the BBB"
(Page 7 - 10/15/84). There were and are a lot of, not only weak statements
in Brother Breaker's original article, but a lot of glaring errors; some
of which will be referred to later in this book.
The J. M. C. Breaker's ordination credential
authority is seen in the embryonic state in the first century, but it did
not gain any great strength until the churches of various provinces began
to do away with church separation and independence. This resulted in the
coming together of various churches in official union, out of which was
born the prelacy, and out of the prelacy came Rome's hierarchy. There is
historical unanimity attesting to the veracity of the contention that the
greater part of the churches of the second, third, and fourth centuries
apostatized by sacrificing their independence upon the altar of God defying
synergism.
The error of arbitrary class distinction between
pastor and people survived the dark ages, but so did the Lord's churches.
The error has survived Protestantism, Southern Baptist Conventionism, multifarious
Baptist associationalism, and is now trying to penetrate New Testament Landmark
Sovereign Grace Baptist churches. But it is with these Landmark churches
the error meets its Waterloo, for it cannot survive the hell defying fiat
of their Sovereign Head, the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18; Ephesians
1:20-23).
Mosheim, a Lutheran historian says: "The people
were undoubtedly, the first in authority: for the apostles showed by their
own examples, that nothing of the moment was to be carried on or determined
without the consent of the assembly; and such a method of proceeding was
both prudent and necessary in those critical times" (Mosheim's Church
History, Page 21). In this statement Mosheim refers to the
apostolic and first century churches, and it is not coincidental, but providential
that there are a people by the name Baptist in the twentieth century contending
for the same faith. That is, democracy and not clergy rule.
The BBB Editor says: "Since
my uniting with Sovereign Grace, Independent, Landmark Baptists, I have
gleaned here and there a weakness upon the importance of the ordination
of Baptist preachers" (Page 10- 10/15/84). I cannot affirm or deny what
the Editor claims to be his experience since uniting with Scriptural Landmarkers,
but I can speak for myself. I have been with Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptist
churches for thirty three years, and have taken part in more Preacher and
Deacon ordination services than I can remember. In all this time I have
never heard one of our kind of churches or pastors speak lightly of the
practice of ordination. It is gladly admitted, the churches with whom I
have had the blessing of fellowshipping have discouraged pomp, and unnecessary
ceremony; but I know not one church amongst them all who would not rejoice
to have a ministerial candidate in their membership, and take special delight
in broadcasting the date of his public ordination to the gospel ministry.
The Editor also speaks of "some men who downgrade
being an ordained Baptist minister (Page 10 - 10/15/84). Again I do not
know who the Editor refers to in this statement, but I have not met one
pastor or preacher in any of the Lord's churches who have not highly esteemed
the ministry to which God had called them. If the Editor's reference to
some men who downgrade being an ordained Baptist minister is meant to include
me, it is an unjust reference, for he in person; along with Elder Doyal
Thomas, and myself attended a preacher ordination service less than two
years ago. In my preaching assignment in this ordination service, I said:
"NO MATTER HOW NEGATIVE AND UNATTRACTIVE THE OFFICE MAY APPEAR TO THE WORLD,
THE SPIRITUAL COMPENSATION HERE, AND THE ETERNAL REWARD HEREAFTER IS SUFFICIENT
INCENTIVE FOR FAITHFULNESS IN THE OFFICE. SATAN'S EXPERTISE IN BELITTLING
AND DEGRADING THE OFFICE HAS NOT IMPAIRED GOD'S ABILITY TO CALL MEN UNTO
THE OFFICE. THERE ARE SOME MEN, EVEN IN THIS ERA WHEN SOVEREIGN GRACE BAPTISTS
ARE RELIGIOUSLY OBNOXIOUS TO SO-CALLED CHRISTENDOM, IN WHOM GOD CREATES
A DESIRE FOR THE OFFICE OF
FOR THE TRUE BAPTIST PASTOR TO TRADE OFFICES
WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WOULD BE A SHAMEFUL DEMOTION FOR
THE BAPTIST PASTOR. THERE IS NO GREATER INSTITUTION IN THE WORLD THAN A
LOCAL NEW TESTAMENT BAPTIST CHURCH. BE ITS MEMBERSHIP THREE OR THREE THOUSAND,
AND WHILE THE WORLD LOOKS UPON ITS PASTORAL OFFICE AS IGNOBLE, IT IS BY
DIVINE RECKONING
HE PASTOR'S OFFICE IS A CHURCH OFFICE. HIS
SPHERE OF AUTHORITATIVE SERVICE IS RESTRICTED TO THE CHURCH WHICH HE PASTORS.
I Timothy 3:5 TELLS HIM HE HAS BEEN CALLED TO "Take care
of the church of God." THIS DOES NOT MEAN HE CANNOT HELP SISTER CHURCHES.
IN FACT PASTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO ASSIST AND PROMOTE OTHER TRUE CHURCHES
WHENEVER THEY CAN, BUT NEVER IS THE PASTOR TO FORSAKE HIS OWN FLOCK. HE
HAS BEEN SET OVER A PARTICULAR FLOCK TO TAKE CARE OF IT, AND THAT FLOCK
IS EVER TO BE HIS PRIMARY CONCERN."
In another ordination sermon I said: "I
Timothy 5:17 tells us the Pastor is to receive 'double honor'
from the church. Scripture commands honor be paid to father and mother,
but it commands 'double honor' be paid to the God fearing Pastor.
To give 'double honor' to the Pastor as commanded by the Lord means:
"WHO ARE TO ORDAIN? Ordination is the act
of the church, not the act of a privileged class in the church, as the eldership
has been sometimes wrongly regarded, nor yet the act of other churches,
assembled by their representatives in council. No ecclesiastical authority
higher than that of the local church is recognized in the New Testament,
This authority, however, has its limits; and since the church has no authority
outside of its own body, the candidate for ordination should be a member
of the ordaining church" (A. H. Strong - SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY Page
920).
"What is the truth? This: A man is properly
ordained to the work of a preacher when he is approved and appointed to
that position by the Baptist church of which he is a member. That church
is the only organization in the world that has the authority to ordain or
appoint him to that work. I don't say it is wrong for him to submit to the
questioning of a council of preachers or brethren, but I do say it is surely
not required. So if there were only one remaining true church in the world,
the ordaining of God called preachers could still continue. That church,
regardless of size could issue a certificate of ordination if the preacher
desired one. The man would be as scripturally ordained as if he sat under
a thousand councils" (THE BAPTIST PREACHER, James F. Crace,
Editor).
Now I will present a quote of a professed
Baptist, who is very highly esteemed by the ministerial elite of the Baptist
Bible Fellowship group, the offices of which are in Springfield, Mo. The
man says: "I do not believe a local church (if it is Biblical) can be a
pawn in the hands of a denominational hierarchy, nor is it a 'spiritual
democracy'. Biblically the local church is an autonomous THEOCRACY - God
ruling the local assembly through the pastor" (GOD GIVEN PASTORAL
AUTHORITY, Page 25- Dr. Kenny McComas).
Every New Testament church is to be theocentric,
but their God given form of government is democratic or congregational,
if you please. The church is not a theocracy, nor is the pastor a theocrat.
Israel was a theocracy, and had their God given priests and judges through
whom God ruled the nation. If the church was a theocracy as contended by
Elder McComas, then the church would have no recourse whatsoever from the
pronouncements of the pastor. Such a doctrine and practice cannot help but
lead to Diotrepheism (3 John 9-1 1), and reduce the membership of
the church to governmental passiveness. While the church is to make SURE
it accords the pastor all the honor which the Scriptures claim for the office,
and set in place every defence necessary to keep out Korahism (Numbers
16:1-3; Jude 11), it is not to equate the pastoral office with
that of the High Priest of Israel. A pastoral executive order is as much
out of place in a New Testament Baptist church, as that of a Deacon Board
with its supposed decretal power. The all wise God vested his governmental
power in the membership of each local church, and in so doing He protects
His churches against any and all who aspire to arbitrary authority within
His churches.
The framework of church government is quite
simple. Actually all official decisions belong to the membership of the
church, and the judgment of the voting majority is final. There are no higher
powers, such as Associational President, State Missionary, cliques, committees,
Deacon Boards, Board of Elders, etc., which the church must go through for
ratification of its majority action. To adhere to this simple rule is to
own the governmental Headship of Christ, and any divergence therefrom is
to contravene the law of Christ and diminish His preeminence in the church.
The pastor may disagree with the majority rule, but he is as much bound
by it as the most feeble member. This does not mean the church is infallible
and never errs in its conclusions, but what it does mean is, they who take
variance with the majority decision of the church are to humbly submit to
it while awaiting an opportunity to courteously reintroduce his variance
to the official church.
There can be no central government in a New
Testament church, for the whole church is the executive body. Christ is
the conceptualist of this form of church government, and every member should
be satisfied with it.
An honest and thorough etymological study
of the word "democracy" will discover that it has its roots in the Greek
word "ekklesia". It was in the ancient government of the Greek city-states
that democracy was first practiced, and this government was administered
by the free citizens duly assembled for the purpose. This assembly was called
"the ekklesia," and in those early times there was no misunderstanding as
to what the term meant. The word in its Greek verb form "ekkaleo" means
to "call out," or "summon." "Ekkaleo" is a compound verb' formed from two
Greek words, "ek" and "kaleo". These two words in their composite being
meant to "call out." The purpose of this calling out or calling forth was
to convene an assembly to transact official city business. In view of the
foregoing and correct definition of the term "ekklesia," it would be tautological
nonsense to say. "This ekklesia was the official assembly." It would be
tantamount to saying, "Water is wet."
How the Lord's Ekklesia (church) can be confused,
and made to mean a theocracy, ruled over by the pastor; is not only beyond
me, but out-curves the universal invisible church theory. Let us be reminded
the people who originally practiced ekklesia form of government were already
Greek citizens, they were not called out in order to make them what they
already were by birth and citizenship. The universal invisible church theory
confuses soteriology with ecclesiology, and thereby leaves no room for any
complete ekklesia of God on earth. Ekklesia has not so much to do with the
inward call of the Holy Spirit in regeneration of God's People, as with
the calling out unto baptism those who are already saved. Notwithstanding,
evangelism and witness are the first duties of the Lord's churches.
The theocracy theory confuses the church with
Israel and its ancient priesthood. The invisible theory of the church confuses
it with the unrealistic notion of a body utterly dismembered, invisible,
scattered over all the earth, whose parts are diverse and antagonistic to
one another. Both theories are outrageous, absurd, and steals the attention
which belongs to the true churches of Christ.
One church historian says: "In the matter
of church polity, Baptists also attempt to take the New Testament as their
guide, and to follow the simplicity of apostolic times. In the apostolic
period, the believers of any locality formed an assembly or church. There
were no officers in these churches, except elders or bishops, and deacons.
Each church enjoyed an ABSOLUTE AUTONOMY, AND NO EXTERNAL AUTHORITY EXISTED.
In cases of need, a church called on others for help, and the other churches
recognized their obligation to render aid. In doubt and difficulty a church
asked advice, and other churches acknowledged their duty to give counsel"
(Henry C. Vedder - THE BAPTISTS - Pages 15 & 16).
Caps in the above quote are mine. I call your attention to the spelling
of the last word in the quote, it is "counsel," not "council. Loving and
humble counsel, yes, a thousand times yes! But official and dictatorial
council, no, a thousand times no! The autonomous church needs no governmental
auxiliary from without, but heartily welcomes the hand of sister churches
which is empty of officiality.
E. H. Bancroft, speaking of the apostolic
churches says: "There were positive relations of churches to each other
involving noteworthy points of contact and cooperation. It appears from
the preceding discussion that the mutual relation of the apostolic churches
was that of independence and equality, and this view is confirmed by the
general tenor of Scripture teaching, and by the way in which the churches
are mentioned. Yet there was a certain union and interdependence of these
local bodies. It was not organic nor governmental, but rather that of a
community of life and interests."
Speaking of apostolic authority the same author
says: "Of course, all churches were under the supreme headship of Christ
and under the superintendence delegated by Him to the apostles, but this
authority was moral and advisory rather than controlling and mandatory,
and was exercised with marked moderation" (CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
By: Bancroft - Page 276).
The churches of the apostolic era enjoyed
a relationship that was most intimate, but "was not organic or governmental,"
nor did the apostles exercise any controlling or mandatory power over the
churches. So it is, churches which claim they can through their ordained
ministry form a council in which is vested the authority to ordain or reject
ministerial candidates, claim more for themselves than did the apostles
of Christ.
"In Acts 12:23 it is said that "they
ordained them elders in every church," having reference to Paul and
Barnabas; this does not mean that Paul and Barnabas did as modern bishops,
etc., do now, but it means that the churches, by a show of hands, elected
elders as is proven by the original Greek" (J. E. Cobb - A NEW MANUAL
FOR BAPTIST CHURCHES, Page 148).
Every person who is a member of one of the
Lord's churches has been made to drink of "the one Spirit," and was
admitted to the "one body" by the "one baptism" which the
Lord gave to everyone of His churches (Ephesians 4:4-5). The above
mentioned experiences makes one a member of the "body of Christ, and
members in particular" (I Corinthians 12:27). This being so,
they will have the "same care one for another" (I Corinthians
12:25) which is demonstrated in and by the members of a living organism.
Pastoral aloofness or failure to fellowship with all the members can never
be reconciled with the spirit of the New Testament, nor with the history
of Baptist churches. The camaraderie of members in the body of Christ can
and should infinitely surpass all carnal organizations, even the most fraternal.
Inasmuch as the church is likened to a human
body, each part being necessary for the proper functioning of the whole;
there can therefore be no independent members in the body. The spiritual
health of the church is unalterably connected to harmonious interdependence
of all its members. For the limbs, eyes, ears, etc. of Christ's body to
lose the desire for power of mutual edification will have the ill effect
of spiritual stagnation or arrested development.
The Lord's churches are distinct entities
and autonomous bodies, yet they need and desire the fellowship of other
churches. Persecution has often forced reclusion or abstention of fellowship
upon and between the flocks of God, but Baptist history reveals that with
each interval or respite from persecution the churches would once again
seek and cultivate sweet intercourse with their ecclesiastical equals. However,
(and it is a vitally important however) the corporate life of each church
was restricted to its own membership. The term ecclesia fitly expresses
the authoritative extent or limit of a New Testament church. The called
out and assembled church are members one of another, but they can never
Scripturally be members of any ecclesiastical organization external to their
own church, even though it be an ordaining council formed out of or from
beloved sister churches. And it is certain a New Testament church cannot
Scripturally be a part of the ultra, mundane, and powerful organizations
who falsely claim to be Baptists, while denying in doctrine and practice
the things which give vitality to the church. Co-operation with sister churches,
yes. Coercion from without, no. Paul, knowing that the cause of Christ could
be best served in and by the immediate church, and that officiality of service
was restricted to the local church, exultingly says: "Unto Him be glory
in the church ... " (Ephesians 3:21).
Let mutual love and loyalty exist and be fervently
cultivated by all of the Lord's churches. But it is vain to talk about loyalty
to Christ unless our official service is restricted to one particular church,
for it is in the local church the ecclesiastical Headship of Christ is exercised,
and all other ecclesiastical organizations are bereft of that blessed Headship
and have in place of it set up human authorities.
There is a Spanish proverb which says that
a bird may fly to the ends of the earth, but only in a nest can it raise
a family. A church may representatively go to the ends of the earth, but
only and by the exclusive authority of the home church can members be added
to its family or ministers ordained in it. Devotion to sister churches,
YES! Dictatorship from sister churches, CERTAINLY NOT!
As we said before and repeat for the sake
of clarity. We approve of asking the elders of sister churches to unofficially
assist in the ordaining of preachers to the Gospel ministry, Their advice
and counsel is oft times most helpful, and their encouragement of the candidate
is of inestimable value. We have no objection whatsoever to the visiting
preachers questioning the candidate concerning doctrine and deportment.
And we appreciate it when they accept the invitation of the ordaining church
to lay loving hands upon the head of the God called and church ordained
preacher. But what we do object to is hierarchical like council, even if
it goes by the name Baptist, which wrests from the local church the power
to ordain its own ministerial candidates.
The church at Antioch ordained Paul and Barnabas
to the Gospel ministry without the aid of a multi-church council (Acts
13:1-3). The notion that only men who have been formally ordained may
lay hands on the ordination candidate is without basis in Scripture. In
the ordination of Paul and Barnabas, Symeon, Lucius, and Manaen; laid hands
on them, and these three men were not apostles and far as Scripture information
extends, not even ordained ministers of the Gospel. Nor are we to suppose
they acted in private, but in the presence of the congregation whom they
represented.
Timothy was ordained to the Gospel ministry
by the church in which he was a member (I Timothy 4:14). It is evident
that the church which ordained Timothy had a plurality of elders at the
time who represented the whole church in laying hands on Timothy. The fanciful
notion that Paul ordained Timothy on the recommendation of two or more churches,
is read into the text by those who assume it to be there. The Scripture
which Brother Cockrell refers to as proof that Paul laid hands on Timothy
in ordaining him to the ministry (II Timothy 1:6), has nothing to
do whatsoever with ordaining him to the ministry, but has reference to a
spiritual gift which Paul had at sometime imparted to Timothy by the laying
on of his hands.
Brother Cockrell says: "Paul and Barnabas
officiated for the churches in ordaining elders or pastors in Asia Minor
(Acts 14:23)." The word "ordained" in Acts 14:23 is
a translation of the Greek word "cheirotoneo," and is in some versions translated
by the word "appointed." The word means to appoint by a show of the hands.
For further study of the word see any good Greek lexicon, but for now I
refer the reader to WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by
A. T. Robertson - from whom I quote in regard to Acts 14:23 and the
word "ordained" as used in the text.
"Cheirotoneo is an old verb that originally
meant to vote by a show of the hands, finally to appoint with the approval
of an assembly that chooses as II Chronicles 8:19."
No doubt Paul and Barnabas influenced the
churches to follow the example of the Antioch church in the ordaining of
men called of God to the ministry, and that they along with other men of
the church laid hands on them. It is in this sense only can it be correctly
said that Paul and Barnabas ordained elders or pastors for the churches.
To say Paul and Barnabas ordained men by their own power is to say far too
much, for it would mean that they had no respect for the authority of the
local church. The authority of and respect for the local church is honored
by the apostles throughout the New Testament era of the church.
"The second divine prerogative of a church of Christ is - to elect and commission - i.e., ordain - her own officers ... and that she is absolutely independent of all other bodies, she must be authorized to elect and to commission her officers without being required to call upon some outside party" (J. R. Graves - OLD LANDMARKISM, Pages 36-37).
Chapter
five
At the outset of this chapter I want to set
the record straight concerning some matters and men. It is NOT my purpose
in the least to destroy or diminish the ministry of any of the Lord's churches
or God called preachers and pastors. On the contrary, I believe the contention
that baptismal validity goes wanting unless the ordinance is performed by
a formally ordained minister is hurting the Lord's churches and pastors.
By challenging this contention I hope to help their churches, rather than
hinder them. Many pastors who know me personally will attest to the fact
that I have oft times without official status tried to settle disputes between
churches and pastors, and especially is this knowledge familiar to the principals
involved in this controversy.
Likewise, I am convinced that the plural church
authority practice is detrimental to the health of the Lord's churches.
And because the practice is not susceptible to Scriptural proof I oppose
it in this rejoinder, along with the claim that an official council of elders
is essential to the proper ordination of ministerial candidates.
Contrary to what the Editor of the B.B.B.
has said, I oppose the three above mentioned postulates without
respect of persons. All one need do is to read my former treatise on this
issue to see that over half of the book was spent in refuting the argument
in favor of plural church authority. At the time I sent the copy of my first
book on the baptismal question to Brother Cockrell, I also sent copies to
Elders Joseph M. Wilson, James Hobbs, and Fred Halliman. Whether or not
Brother Halliman received the copy I mailed him, I cannot say, but I do
know Elders Wilson and Hobbs received their copies; for they in quick succession
wrote me stating their objection to my objection of plural church authority.
Nevertheless, as for as I know, neither Brother Wilson nor Brother Hobbs
has ever published any writing in defense of the plural church authority
position. Nor has either brother written anything favoring the contention
that formal ordination of the administrator of baptism is necessary to the
validity of the ordinance, and that for the simple reason, they disagree
with the contention.
Conversely, Brother Cockrell has on numerous
occasions set forth in public print statements and articles propagating
and attempting to defend both plural church authority in baptism, and the unbaptistic idea that baptism is invalid unless ad ministered by a formally
ordained Baptist preacher. Some samplings of his statements are now submitted
for consideration by the reader. In a pamphlet which he gave the title,
A MESSAGE FROM THE PASTOR, Brother Cockrell says:
"Scriptural baptism is the immersion of a saved person in water by an ordained
Baptist minister as an act of obedience upon the authority of Christ transmitted
through a true New Testament church." We agree with this definition per
se, but the term in the quote which states "by an ordained Baptist minister,"
is seen to mean from an over all study of what the Brother has written on
the subject, that a person who meets all the requirements except that of
being immersed by an ordained Baptist preacher is yet unbaptized.
In support of my interpretation of the above
quote I offer as a witness another statement by our dear brother, i.e.,
"Our people contend that there are five things essential to Bible baptism.
First, there must be Divine authority as given
to Baptist churches (Matthew 28:19-20).
This quote taken from a pamphlet with the
title WHO ARE WE? Page 7 (Caps mine). In telling us what
he thinks constitutes Scriptural baptism, Brother Cockrell uses the word
"must" five times, and to him what the word demands in one instance is just
as essential in every other instance. The unavoidable conclusion being,
an ordained Baptist minister is as necessary to baptism as the work of the
Holy Spirit in regeneration. One thing for sure, he leaves no room to misunderstand
what he says, and that is according to him, unless a person is baptized
by an ordained Baptist preacher all the person gets out of the immersion
is wet.
Speaking of those who were baptized by New
Testament Baptist church authority without an ordained administrator, Brother
Cockrell says: "I personally do not want a person in my church who was baptized
by a male member, or a female member, any more than I would want my church
to use grape juice in the observance of the Lord's Supper" (B.B.B.
Page 11, 10/15/84). Here it is said by Brother Cockrell that he
would as soon have a person in his church that was baptized by "a female
member" as he would a person who was baptized by an unordained, but godly
male member who administers the ordinance in the absence of the pastor.
In this broad and sweeping statement he in our present time eliminates a
lot of faithful brothers and sisters from ever being members of his church,
and makes them unworthy of membership in any of the Lord's churches. Then
too, it is a great probability that the apostle Paul, Cornelius, or many
of the three thousand who were baptized on the day of Pentecost could never
be members of his church, for it CANNOT be proved from Scripture that these
people were baptized by the hands of an ordained preacher.
I have been reading Baptist authors for more
than thirty years, and particularly their views on the ordinances of the
church. But at this date I do not remember one of these authors who dogmatically
and undeviatingly held to the FIVE essentials which Brother Cockrell says
is necessary for Scriptural baptism. The Baptist main stream, historically
and contemporary, enjoy a near perfect consensus as to the Scriptural prerequisites
constituting valid baptism. These prerequisites are four, not five as the
Editor of the B.B.B. acrimoniously contends for.
I will now delineate the four prerequisites
which comport with Scripture and Baptist history. I am confident that every
Baptist from milk to meat know these four prerequisites by heart, but at
the risk of being monotonous I set them before the readers eyes again.
FIRST: A Holy Spirit regenerated person.
Elder T. P. Simmons in his great book entitled
A SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF BIBLE DOCTRINE sets forth the
four prerequisites which I have referred to as constituting Scriptural baptism
(Pages 368-392). Brother Simmons refers to the four prerequisites as: THE
ADMINISTRATOR, THE SUBJECT, THE DESIGN, and the MODE. As to the administrator
Brother Simmons made the following comments, "Baptism is a church ordinance
... baptism is the ceremonial door into the church. This being true, and
it also being true that the church is a democratic body, it follows that
it has charge of its own door ... Of course the church as a whole cannot
baptize. It must perform the ordinance through those whom it authorizes
... "
The predominant position of Landmark Baptists
agree with Brother Simmons' four prerequisites, and they who advance a fifth
essential, such as preacher ordination, are in a minority void of solid
arguments to defend their position.
The fifth prerequisite contention is like
any other spiritual error, when it goes to the Bible for aid, it is like
going to the Sahara Desert in search of vegetation, it finds none. It is
a door to further error, leading deeper and deeper into the error of Diotrepheism,
a consequent to be despised and shunned with all the strength of being.
It is but the pouring of wine into old bottles, the bottles are sure to
break. The Baptist poet, John Milton, secretary to Oliver Cromwell, said
in objecting to the over lordship of Presbyterian elders in their churches,
"Presbyter was only priest writ large" (Presbyterians,
Page 51). The fifth prerequisite as to validity in baptism may
not in great degree compare to the priesthood of Anglicism, but it is a
distant cousin to it.
Brother Cockrell, like his mentor, J. M. C.
Breaker; after strenuously contending that baptism performed by a church
without the benefit of an ordained Baptist preacher is invalid, states:
"Like Brother Breaker, I would not say that baptism authorized by a church
and administered by a male member is invalid ... I would say that such should
be a rare exception" (B.B.B. - Page 11, 10/15/84). Well now,
I thought, this is a monumental concession on the part of our Brother. But
on second thought, and after considering contextually what he has said on
the subject, I knew it was but reasoning in a circle.
If Brother Cockrell would consistently adhere
in teaching and practice to what he expressed in the above quote, much of
the variance between our views on baptism would disappear, for he in the
quote expresses precisely what we have been contending for all along; and
that is, a true church may baptize its candidates by an unordained man on
rare exceptions. The rare occasion being, when its pastor is not able or
available. "0 consistency thou art a jewel," and in this case a very
rare and yet unobtained jewel.
In a letter to me under the date of February
24,1984, Brother Cockrell tells me I can anticipate a reply in the BBB
to my former treatise on the baptismal question, he also says
in the same letter that his "Views on baptism being confined to church authority
and an ordained Baptist preacher," has caused a campaign to be waged against
him. Note the word "and" in the quote referred to in this paragraph. The
word is a function word to indicate connection or addition. The sense of
the word as used by Brother Cockrell in this quote is, church authority
without being added to or connected with preacher ordination as regards
baptism is null and void.
While I agree with Brother Cockrell that the
pastor should when able and available administer the ordinance of baptism
for the church he pastors, because the pastor is the primary teacher in
the church, and there is no better way to proclaim the Gospel in symbol
than by administering the ordinance of baptism. We have never said or thought
as Brother Cockrell has accused us of saying or thinking that baptism performed
by an unordained male member of a New Testament church is better than baptism
performed by the pastor. It is he who says that baptism performed by the
pastor is the "best" baptism. (See: B.B.B. - Page 11, 10/15/84).
1 did not know there were degrees in validity, nor that there is a good
baptism, a better baptism, and a baptism that is "best" of all baptisms.
There are no half-Baptists or Baptists-and-a-half,
there are only Baptists. There are no inferior and superior baptisms. It
must be the "one baptism" which the Scriptures demand or it is not
valid baptism. Baptism performed by an unordained man when the services
of the pastor cannot be obtained, having New Testament authority, is as
valid as baptism can be. Would it not pose an ongoing and grievous problem
for a church if it had some members who had what Brother Cockrell calls
the "best" baptism, and some members who had a baptism which according to
Brother Cockrell was less than best? But thank God, this problem cannot
arise in churches that hold to the "one baptism" of Ephesians
4:5, that is, baptism administered by the exclusive authority of one
of the Lord's churches.
The four prerequisites constituting Scriptural
baptism simplifies and systematizes the ordinance. The supposed fifth prerequisite,
that is, formal ordination of the agent acting for the church gives it a
transcendence which puts it in an orbit that is beyond full control of the
church. The fifth prerequisite stigmatizes the ordinance by giving it a
mark which elevates the preacher, and detracts from the glory of the church.
It burdens the ordinance with superfluity by making it demand more than
what the Scriptures require.
n the strict sense there is no authority
but God. All earthly authority is derived from or delegated by the one absolutely
sovereign God. Noah's commission to build the Ark was divinely delegated,
and Noah could not sublet or sublate any part of his God given contract.
The same was true with John, and his commission to baptize. John's baptismal
authority was derived from God (John 1:6), and he could not subcontract
it. During his imprisonment by Herod, John did not appoint an interim baptizer,
for he knew his authority could not be delegated. As with John, so it is
with the church. The Lord gave the commission to baptize to His churches,
and He shut it up authoritatively to the collective membership of each church.
The church cannot reassign its God given commission
to its pastor, nor can the church delegate any part of its baptismal commission
to a sister church. To do so would be to assume a liberty not granted by
the Head of the church, and it would be laying of the pruning knife to the
principles and rules of interpretation which our Baptist champions have
held to in study and debate. The Lord has specifically given the ordinances
of baptism and the memorial supper to His churches, and no admixture of
authority can be found in the New Testament whereby we can say the divine
specific has been abrogated by the inclusion of something else.
Before and after we published our first book
opposing plural church authority and the "must" of formal ordination of
the agent acting for the church in administering the ordinance of baptism,
Brother Cockrell has written and printed articles in his paper against the
position taken by the book. He has also in the interval of time between
the publication of my first treatise and the date of this publication written
a number of letters to various preachers wherein he raises objections to
the stand which the book took on the ordinance of baptism. In one of the
letters which he sent to a number of preachers he made the following statement,
"I would like very much to hear the answers of Pastor Oscar Mink to these
questions, but I am sure I shall never see them."
Brother Cockrell did not send me a copy of
the letter, even though in making the above statement he was ethically bound
to do so. However, we will forgive him this, and overlook his audacity and
cock sureness. But I do believe if he would take an open eyed second look
at the first book we published on the subject, he might see that which he
never expected to see. Nevertheless, we will answer them again, even though
the ingredients be much the same as before, except for a seasoning which
prevents benumbing of the spirit. Re-capitulation can be made interesting,
and I will try fervently in this case to make it so.
In support of preacher baptism Brother Cockrell
appeals to the case of John the Baptist, and his commission to baptize.
He says, "John the Baptist - a non-church member (I John 3:29) -
baptized many of the members who went into the organization of the Jerusalem
church ... What church was John the Baptist a member of when he baptized
Christ? Did John practice 'preacher authority in baptism'? We answer: John
the Baptist is the only man, the only Baptist preacher to baptize with direct
God given authority. While the members of the first Baptist church had John's
baptism, and through or by succeeding Baptist churches, John's baptism has
been perpetuated; yet since the death of John the Baptist there has been
no preacher authority like that which God gave unto him. Since the days
of John all authority to baptize has been restricted to the Lord's churches
in their singular, respective, or peculiar capacity.
Since the first Baptist church which Christ
established in Jerusalem, Baptist preachers have all down through the centuries
baptized people, but they have done it by the authority of their membership
church, and not by their own authority. Brother Cockrell admits John's baptism
"is not the ideal case" to refer to for support of extra or accessory church
authority. I ask, where in the New Testament is the "ideal case"?
The more a preacher lifts himself up above
the authority of the church, the lower he sinks into the quagmire of self
importance and egotism. We contend for church autonomy, not preacher autonomy.
We do well to remember that God Himself is the final authority, and that
the divine library reveals that all ecclesiastical authority is restricted
to "The church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"
(I Timothy 3:15). The church is God's spiritual illuminating company
in this evil age, and the preacher who assumes officiality beyond the exclusive
authority of his membership church has in measure obscured the light. Preacher
baptism commenced and ended with the ministry of John the Baptist, and was
superseded by the authority which Christ gave to His churches.
A strong loyalty to the pastor should at all
times be manifested by all members of the church, but the pastor who is
determined to glorify God in the church, neither solicits nor will tolerate
a blind loyalty, for then he would be a little pope with a Baptist name.
There can only be one final authority in a Baptist church, and that is the
majority rule of the church, and every member, including the pastor, is
bound by that rule. The authority of the pastor is a distinct authority,
and unique in some respect, yet it is never superior to the majority rule
of the church. Democratic rule, yes! Autocratic rule, no!
The strong emphasis which Landmark Baptists
place on the church has greatly disturbed and troubled other groups going
by the name, Baptist. They charge Landmarkers with over-emphasizing the
church. They say, Landmarkers talk about the church when they should be
talking about Christ. The truth is, Landmarkers stress the importance of
the church because of the ill concept which so-called Baptists have of the
church, and because they know the church of the living God is the glorious
bride of Christ. All true Baptists are determined to manifestly own the
high and lofty position which the Scriptures accord the blood bought church
of Jesus Christ.
In an effort to support extra church or augmented
authority in baptism, Brother Cockrell, says - speaking of the transfer
of membership by church letter: "By receiving the letter that church is
saying that the other church baptized someone into their church." This is
a penury objection at best, but we will in brief consider it. A valid baptismal
certificate can never bear the name of but one church, and that is the church
that baptizes the person and not any of the churches which he may later
be a member of. It is by baptism a person enters a Baptist church family,
and they enter it without official assistance from any other church family.
To receive into church membership a person by letter from a sister church,
simply means that the receiving church recognizes and honors the official
action of the sister church as relates to baptism of the person they are
receiving.
It cannot be said in any realistic sense,
that when a family officially adopts a child that they are adopting it for
another family. The adopting family would dismiss such a contention as utterly
absurd, and rightfully so. The name of the adoptee is legally entered in
the family register, and while he or she may become part of another family,
the family of which the adoptee becomes a part of will never claim that
the adoption was for their family. Baptism is performed for and by one church
only. The officiality of the baptism being Scriptural can never be canceled,
nor does it ever need to be repeated, and in view of this fact, all true
churches are bound to honor the action of the church which originated it,
and henceforth the baptized person shall give the name of the baptizing
church when asked, WHOSE BAPTISM DO YOU HAVE? The baptized person may have
had membership with a number of other churches in the meantime, but none
of their names can be used correctly to answer the above question.
Baptists have all through their history contended
for believer's baptism, and in so- doing have tenaciously withstood the
heresy of infant baptism. With equal tenacity they have denounced all forms
of proxy baptism, and its kindred evils, such as baptismal sponsors and
godparents. There is no room for spiritual surrogation in the economic relationship
of Baptist churches.
The most belaboured objection raised by Brother
Cockrell against the practice of restricting baptismal authority to one
church is, that baptism and teaching are authoritatively co-equal as given
in the commission, and that an ordained minister has as much right to baptize
for a church as he does to preach for it. In impeaching this argument all
the principles which he alleges in favor of it falls apart, for they are
inseparably connected. In disproof of this supposed irrefutable argument,
I submit to the concerned and diligent searcher of church truth the following
propositions for consideration.
First: baptism and teaching are not in the
commission authoritatively co-equal. If it was so, then every sermon or
Bible lesson taught in the church would need immediate and specific authority
of the church. That is, every single sermon or lesson delivered in the church
would require particular approval of the church, and at the very time of
delivery.
Second: all authority for preaching and teaching
in this age has been given to the Lord's churches. But this authority is
not as detailed or specific as the authority which regulates baptism. In
every instance where baptism is to be performed, an approving vote of the
church is necessary, but not so with preaching or teaching.
hird: there is a broad distinction between
the two terms "teach" and "teaching," as used in the commission (Matthew
28:19-20). The term "teach" as first used in the commission has to do
with the discipling of "all nations." This discipling was to bring
a person to Christ in the relationship of pupil to teacher, and this discipleship
is in the main accomplished by individual witnessing, whose authority is
inherent in their membership. This discipling enterprise is incomparably
sublime, and is the first and primary work of the church. The whole inhabited
earth is the "field" of baptistic evangelism, and in realizing this
divinely assigned end, unofficial cooperation of the Lord's churches has
no limit.
The discipling chronology as delineated in
the commission, is as follows - the church either directly or by the personal
witness of its membership makes disciples or pupils of all who believe their
testimony. The second step in the order is, those who have believed and
desire membership in the church, are upon approval of the church, baptized
and thereby added to the church. Then following through with the discipling
of the baptized, even though they are yet "babes in Christ," the
church begins to teach them "all things" of the commission. That
is, "the whole counsel of God." When this outline is faithfully and
wisely adhered to, the effect will be, the making of mature disciples, i.e.
pupils, learners, and followers of Christ.
In the discipling process stated above the
only action necessitating a specific vote of the church is baptism. The
first teaching is the common responsibility of the membership of the church.
The second teaching phase is in great part done by the pastor. The vote
of the church to call a pastor is a vote for him to teach the church, and
he does not need the vote of the church every time he enters the pulpit.
However, he does need the approving vote of the church every time he baptizes
a person. Thus it is, officiality as respects teaching and baptism are not
the same, but varies in application to church functions, and time or times
of invoking it.
Fourth: one thing is profoundly sure, and
that is, New Testament churches have Scriptural precedents for inter-church
preaching and fellowship. But the New Testament is void of precept and precedent
authorizing inter-church or plural church baptism. Plural church authority
in baptism is an innovation predicated upon human tradition. But let us
remember antiquity of tradition or custom, being logically pleasing and
expeditious, does not necessarily make it right. Too much (any measure is
too much) of what some Baptists are preaching was received by vain conversation
and tradition from Convention and Association fathers, and serves to deface
the authority of the local church. God forbid!
In Acts 15:1-12 is given the record
of Paul and Barnabas preaching for churches other than their membership
church, including the church at Jerusalem, but there is nothing said about
them baptizing for any of these churches. Acts 9:31-32 tells of Peter
going through all quarters of the country where churches were located, and
no doubt preached for them, but no where is it said he baptized for the
churches he visited. What has been said of Peter, Paul and Barnabas as relates
to baptism, may also be said of Silas, Timothy, Titus, etc. They visited
many churches, but never baptized for any of them.
It does not usurp the authority of a church
to have a visiting preacher speak for it, but when it comes to baptism,
that is altogether different; for baptism is the official door into church
membership, and the power to open and close the baptismal door belongs in
its entirety to each church. There is no such thing as partial authority
to baptize, which would be the case if two churches contributed authority
in forming the sum and whole which is needed to baptize. The Lord's churches
being made up of finite, fallible, and failing people, are bound to have
short comings, but let them not admit of a weakness that does not exist;
namely, inability to baptize.
Luke 24:47-49 and Acts 1:8 is
a reiteration of the preaching part of the commission, and there is nothing
in these Scriptures which militates against preaching fellowship of the
Lords churches. Nay, the contrary is strongly implied, for the carrying
of the Gospel to all ends of the earth is a joint effort of all true churches,
and nothing is more conducive in attaining that glorious result than being
exhortatively preached to by the pastor of a beloved sister church.
Chapter
Six
Baptism is vitally important. Every believer
or regenerate person is commanded to be baptized (Acts 10:48). Therefore,
it is incumbent upon all who would be baptized to make absolutely sure they
are baptized by the proper authority. Baptism is either of man or of God's
appointed agency, which agency resides exclusively in the Lord's churches.
"The ordinances of baptism and the Supper
were not entrusted to the ministry to administer to whomsoever they deem
qualified, but to the churches, to be observed by them - as they were delivered
unto them -" (I Corinthians 11:2). (J. R. Graves - PILLARS
OF ORTHODOXY Page 217 - Published by B.M. Bogard).
Brother J. M. C. Breaker and the venerated
J. R. Graves are often poles apart on the doctrine of Landmarkism, and never
more apparent than on the question of authority in baptism. Brother Breaker
says: "The intimation is plain, that the practice of baptizing belonged
exclusively to the ministry" (Page 249, ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM).
Note the word "exclusively" as used by Brother Breaker in the
above quote, it is a strong term, and as used in the quote makes the authority
of the ministry superior to that of the church. Brother Graves says; "To
each local church is committed the sole administration and guardianship
of the ordinances. This will not be questioned, save by a few who hold that
baptism, at least was committed to the ministry as such; that they alone
are responsible for its proper administration" (THE LORD'S SUPPER
A CHURCH ORDINANCE, Page 11).
Baptist perpetuity does not mean there has
never been a day since John the Baptist wherein there was not a Baptist
preacher (although I doubt there has been such a day), but that there has
not been a day since Christ established His church in Jerusalem while on
earth, wherein there has not been the same kind of a church somewhere in
the earth. When Christ said, "I will build my church; and the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18), He plainly
meant that His church would triumph against all the forces of evil which
would assail it, and would be found faithful unto the end of the age. It
is the perpetuity of the church which is divinely mandated, and this mandate
includes baptism, for without baptism a church cannot come into being, nor
exist indefinitely. But it is not so with the ministry, for many a church
has been organized without even a prospect of a pastor, and churches may
endure an extended hiatus without a pastor, but they cannot long survive
without administering the ordinance of baptism.
Let us pray that God will give all of His
churches pastors, for a God given pastor greatly enhances the maturity of
the church (Ephesians 4:11-12). But let us not deny nor negate the
baptismal authority of a pastorless church, and thereby consign the already
handicapped church to a slow, but sure death.
Again I quote J. M. C. Breaker, whom Brother
Cockrell contends is a staunch Landmarker, and whom he commends to readers
of the B.B.B. Breaker says: "The law of baptism, thus far
considered, and which we have seen requires the administrator to be the
accredited agent of a gospel church, IS INTENDED TO APPLY WHERE SUCH A CHURCH
IS TO BE FOUND, or where access can be had to such a church, and to such
an administrator; BUT WE MAY SUPPOSE A CASE (as that of Roger Williams and
his friends) where persons desire to receive the rite, and WHERE THERE IS
NO QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATOR to perform it. CAN IT BE LAW FULLY ADMINISTERED
UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES? I THINK IT CAN, and for the following reasons;
John the Baptist was not baptized, and yet the rite was lawfully administered
by him ... under certain circumstances, then, I THINK BAPTISM BY AN UNBAPTIZED
AND UNACCREDITED PERSON WOULD BE VALID; that is,
Beloved Baptists, can we say the above statement
by Brother Breaker is merely a "weak statement," and yet be honest with
our churches, and what we have taught them concerning Landmarkism? Is Breaker's
Landmarkism, your brand? Do you consider Breaker's statement quoted above
to be of no serious nature, or do you consider it to be heresy? One of the
best ways to teach is to ask questions which contain the answer or part
of the answer. To ask the questions posed in this paragraph of an informed
Landmarker is to imply the absence of ignorance in the matter on the part
of the Landmarker. The questions are asked to further highlight the grievous
error Brother Breaker glaringly propagates in the statement. Re-read the
statement, and rejoice that God has delivered you from deep water protestantism.
Brother Breaker says on page 245 of his article
referred to above, "It is certain that the commission to baptize was addressed
exclusively to the eleven." If so then, the commission to baptize was coterminous
with the lives of the "eleven," and the Quakers are correct in contending
baptism ceased with the death of the apostles. Or the Roman Catholic church
is right in contending for apostolic succession. But it is not so, Baptists
have never been faced with such an unreasonable dilemma, for the simple
reason, the commission was not given "exclusively to the eleven," but to
the whole church at Jerusalem. The commission was not given to the "eleven"
as apostles whereby general authority was granted them to act independently
of the church. The "eleven" at the time the commission was given were meeting
in official church capacity, or they were official representatives of the
church. Either way, the commission with its ordinance of baptism belongs
to the local independent landmark church, and the importance of this truth
cannot be overemphasized.
Baptism is not a nose of wax, which can be
modified to fit every circumstance. Baptism, as respects regeneration has
no merit, but it is yet a high and lofty ordinance, and is crucial to holy
living, or proper dedication unto God. So it is, we should give serious
attention to the doctrine of baptism, and make sure our baptism is the "one
baptism" which God honors.
"The practical evil that is cropping out of
the theory, in some quarters, to the great disturbance of the churches,
is that ministers claiming to be officers of the kingdom are assuming control
of baptism, and baptizing whom they please, whether in a Baptist Church
as was the immersion of Dr. Weaver, of Louisville, Ky., by Prof. James P.
Boyce, without consulting the church, - or fifty miles away. But the unscripturalness
of this is evident from the fact that the ordinances, both, or all, were
delivered to the churches and not to the ministry; and ministers, therefore,
have no more authority to administer baptism, to whom they please, and where
they please, than to administer the Supper to whom and where they please.
It is presumptuous and unscriptural assumption of power that does not belong
to them. Our churches should be admonished that "Eternal vigilance is the
price of their safety," in this regard, as well as others" (J. R. Graves,
PILLARS OF ORTHODOXY, Page 223 - Published By Ben
M. Bogard).
Graves says in referring to the three thousand
who were baptized on the day of Pentecost, "There were more than twelve
administrators, for it is written that in that upper chamber at Jerusalem
there were "an hundred and twenty" present, and on the day of Pentecost
"they were all with one accord and in one place" (Same Work as quoted from
above, Page 191). It is plain to see, Brother Graves did not believe baptism
was shut up to the ministry, and his position is amply supported by the
scriptures and Baptist history.
These questions will be answered variously
according to the different interpretations of the passages upon which the
answers are based. Suffice it for us to say in general that these are church
ordinances and are therefore not to be administered or observed in promiscuous
assemblies, and according to the pattern furnished by the Lord Jesus Christ.
The church is the custodian of the two ordinances, and is responsible for
their administration" (ELEMENTAL THEOLOGY, By E. H.
Bancroft - Page 243).
"We believe that all Christian converts under
regular process were baptized. But, it seems under Christ and the apostles,
the underlings did the baptizing in the main. Christ did not baptize personally.
The apostle Paul baptized only a few ... Peter commanded the household of
Cornelius to be baptized, but did not do it himself. The Eunuch was baptized
by Philip, one of the seven deacons on an Evangelistic tour. In the remainder
of the instances of baptisms, it is not stated who did the baptizing. It
seems to me, in view of the above facts, to confine the right to baptize
to the bishops or elders and such as they may deputize, is a reversal of
the apostolic order. Are not apostolic practices safe?" (CHRISTIAN
BAPTISM, by W. O. Baker - Page 18 - 1893).
As to Brother J. M. C. Breaker's article -
Administrator of Baptism. It cannot with any degree
of certainty be determined where he is coming from in his treatise, or to
where he is going, but contradictions galore arise in the process. At one
point and then another it appears as if he is pro-Landmarkism, and it is
"full steam ahead," but then as you read on, there is discovered in his
arguments a gaping hole like that in the side of the Titanic, and he proceeds
to sink his own ship. He quotes Scripture, and then later on out argues
them a hundred fold. In the over-all article Brother Breaker renders a grave
disservice to Landmarkism and the Lord's churches, for the heaven given
authority regulating baptism is left in utter disarray. The quotations taken
from the article as given in this book should suffice in convincing the
reader that Brother Breaker is not a dependable guide in the matter of baptism.
Nevertheless, Brother Cockrell promotes the article, and says that his variances
with Brother Breaker were not serious
Baptism is an extremely serious matter, so
much so that omniscience sent a vanguard in the person of John the Baptist
to prepare by baptism the people whom Christ would later form His church
from. The same absolute or unalterable prerequisites divinely fixed to safeguard
John's baptism are in place today, only the authority has changed from John
to the Lord's churches. The Lord's churches by undeviating adherence to
the baptismal pattern given them by their Head through the Scriptures, have
provided heaven with more martyrs than all else combined.
Can Baptists of today, who have so great an history and heritage, say as Brother Breaker does without dangerously diminishing the importance of baptism; that Philip did not baptize the Eunuch into a church, but baptized him with the hope he would whenever the opportunity presented itself join a church? I THINK NOT! Or in circumstances like those faced by Roger Williams, who knowingly had an unbaptized man (Ezekiel Holliman) to administer immersion to him, and he in turn immersed Holliman and ten others? I THINK NOT! This is Breaker's kind of Landmarkism, but it is most certainly not Baptistic. It is the kind of practice which Brother Cockrell says, is of no "serious" consequence. (Ibid.). Baptism is important, for hinged on it is intimate fellowship with Christ, His church, brideship, and the coveted "well done" at the mercy seat of Christ.
With all sincerity, generosity, concern for
and a good feeling toward all, and antipathy toward none; this indictment
is sent forth. I am aware of its many defects, nevertheless I submit it
to all who will expend the laborious effort required to read it, and pray
God to vouchsafe it His blessing. But also let me be emphatic in saying
I know nothing in this treatise, especially that which relates to doctrine,
that I desire to recall.
I have tried to avoid being clumsy and rambling,
and come to close grips with the subject matter, rather than do a long distance
analysis. The doctrine of baptism, as far as so-called christendom is concerned
is in chaotic blackness, and it is for this reason, Baptists need to make
their position on the ordinance lucid and unquestionably distinct. This
I have tried to do herein, and hope to have erased some of the obscurity
from the ordinance.
Some may consider this reply to be a volley
of denunciation or redundant. I plead guilty to the charge, but it is a
guilt of no ill to which I plead, for in the arsenal from which this volley
was taken, there remaineth; as it seems, the whole. Redundance, yes. But
it is sent forth with the hope of turning aside all who would mishandle
the authority of the church, and thereby dilute its independence..
To formulate this remonstrance I needed not
to ask Brother Cockrell's permission, for he, assuming his arguments were
insuperable, invited me to try and unravel them. But what he did not see
in his conclusions was, near to all of them was clamoring for not only examination,
but rejection. Thus it is, in caring for our souls we are to know "no
man after the flesh." In light of this truth, I strongly urge every
reader to carefully weigh all that is advocated in these pages. In a commercial
flight from one city to another, a few do the thinking for the many (Pilots,
Co-pilot, Engineer, etc.), and that is as it should be. But in our flight
from the city of destruction to the celestial city, we cannot safely trust
our spiritual welfare to the thinking of a few men or any number of men,
no matter how deft they may seem to be in charting the course. "Do not
err, my beloved brethren - everyone of us shall give an account of
himself unto God" (James 1:16; Romans 14:12). One lesson
Baptists learned a long time ago is, they who speak the loudest do not necessarily
speak for the majority.
The controversy under consideration has not
to do with morals or integrity, but with the doctrine of baptism, And so
it is, vilifying or defamation of character serves no purpose where arguments
are not convincing. Truth needs not to resort to vicious invectives to make
it acceptable, all it needs to make it both admirable and acceptable is
to be presented fairly, and free from the dark clouds of sophistry. If arguments
are to be rejected, the one and only valid basis for rejection is the infirmity
of the arguments. Any other motive for rejection of said arguments, is but
an effort to hide the real facts involved.
My aim in sending forth this book is to be
constructive rather than destructive. My desire is for unity among Baptists
rather than division, and I am willing to allow all the latitude which can
honestly be allowed to maintain or achieve this cherished unity. However,
we must realize that aggressiveness for unity, is not per se aggressiveness
for correctness in doctrine, and unity obtained at the expense of orthodoxy
is unprofitably high priced.
Fellowship is not a verb, nor can it ever
be a verb, for the simple reason; fellowship is something we have, and not
something we do. True churches are sisters in the faith, not because they
hold the same opinions about every minute detail of doctrine and practice,
but because they have the same Father and Head, Jesus Christ. the Jerusalem
church being older and wiser in the things of the Lord than the church at
Corinth, made allowances for the infantile conduct of the Corinthian church;
and the Corinthians were used of the Lord to aid in the relief of "the
poor saints" at Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26; I Corinthians
16:1-3). Paul rebuked the Galatian churches, but in so doing he said,
"I have confidence in you" (Galatians 5:10).
Paul was dogmatic on all the Lord had revealed
to him, and there was no price so great which could induce him to knowingly
transgress the least commandment of His glorious redeemer. Paul knew how
to deal with the Lord's churches and people without sanctioning their errors,
and he stood ready to make every innocent concession necessary to the enhancement
of the ministry to which the Lord had called him.
Paul was willing to go along with Jewish traditions
as long as they did not lead toward Sinai or the Mosaic law. He would go
along with the Gentiles in their abstaining from meats sacrificed to idols,
so as not to offend their weak consciences, Simply, Paul was willing to
circumscribe his christian liberty in matters of no moral significance,
where no doctrinal compromise was called for. He would do this so as to
"save some" from being unnecessarily offended, and thereby "gain"
them or preserve his opportunity to declare unto them "all the counsel
of God".
Paul would do anything this side of Scripture
violation which would contribute to the furtherance of the Gospel, but he
would not compromise doctrine nor christian principle to curry favor with
any man, be he the great apostle Peter, or his beloved missionary companion
Barnabas (Acts 15:36-39; Galatians 2:11-14).
I believe it is good to have and hold unyielding
inflexibility on what the Scriptures teach relative to doctrine and practice,
and it may be an occasion would arise making a break in fellowship unavoidable
(God forbid). But the evidence prompting such an action should be indisputable
and overwhelming, so as to leave no doubt the action was correct and warranted.
Pride is the mother of an exaggerated sense
of self-importance, and the intolerance of such egotism will not allow for
the least infraction of its preconceived opinions. The proud man says, Every
person who expresses variance with what I hold to be truth, attacks me personally.
When in fact, all the while, the blame does not rest with his brethren,
but with his own stubbornness and cantankerousness.
Baptist history proves they have known all
along that Divine grace and human pride were antagonistically exclusive.
The history of their humility and self abnegation is proven by their pacific
demeanor or sedate life style. Surely, it is conceded some have been afflicted
with churlishness and acrimony, but these have been rare exceptions to the
rule, and in the main Baptists have come down to the present time with their
dogmatism and humbleness unruffled. Someone may say, But that is paradoxical.
Paradoxical, Yes. But thank God, Baptists have proven it to be true by their
millions of yielding martyrs.
While Baptists are neither arrogant or bigoted,
they will not compromise that which has been revealed to them by the Spirit
of truth. They will not surrender their convictions to sentiment or fear,
and punctuate their preaching with apologetical words or gestures. Baptists
take all pain so as not to be unnecessarily offensive, but they would rather
a multitude be offended, than to give up any element of the Gospel which
they have been called to defend. They know the pastor who bends to accommodate
the errors of others, cannot make those people in his own congregation straight
who are bent. But they are not unscrupulous, and will assiduously consider
all viewpoints which run counter to their own. This courtesy they expect
from their would-be gainsayers, but regretfully it goes wanting in the main.
In climax, let me once again assert, we believe
in "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5). Scriptural
baptism consists of the following, no more or no less:
First, a Scriptural subject - a Holy Spirit
regenerated person.
I urge the reader to take all circumstances
into account, and judge accordingly. Our Lord said: "Judge not according
to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
I will now close this Second Treatise on baptismal
authority by quoting Elder LeRoy Pack - Pastor of Mount Pleasant Baptist
Church of Chesapeake, Ohio.
"Who baptizes? The preacher doesn't baptize,
the church baptizes. I don't know how you folks feel about it, but I feel
very strongly about it. I wouldn't baptize any of you folks here into this
church, for I am not a member of this church. The only way I would baptize
you would be for our church to receive you, I would baptize you into our
church, and then you could ask for and we would get you a letter down here.
I wouldn't baptize anybody into this church, I don't have that authority,
YOU CAN'T AUTHORIZE ME TO, for I am not a member of this church, you see.
Not a member at all, it is none of my business, I am just preaching for
you."
(Taken from a sermon preached in the Sovereign
Grace Baptist Church of Hazard, Ky. 11/28/ 1983. Used by permission of Brother
Pack. Caps mine).
|
