|
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).
|
