Is baptism the act of a local church?
This is the seventh in a series of blog posts in which we are seeking to answer one overarching question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? The first post introducing the series can be found here.
Baptism is commonly understood as a local church ordinance in two respects.
First, baptism is seen as the act which unites a believer to a particular local church. That is, baptism is the “door of the church”, and in every case, the immediate result of baptism is church membership.
Second, baptism is also considered to be an act which is performed by a local church. Although the actual immersion is performed by an individual—typically, the pastor—baptism is viewed as the act of the congregation itself.
In our last four posts, we challenged the notion that baptism is the act which inherently joins a believer to a particular church. After carefully considering the scriptural evidence, we concluded that it is more accurate to understand baptism as a prerequisite for orderly admission to a local church.
Next, we will be asking the question, is baptism an act of a local church? The question is deceptively simple. In fact, it will take us several posts to fully unpack it.
To begin with, we may easily observe that baptism is not inherently the act of a local church. In other words, congregational action is not part of the essential nature of baptism. The career of John the Baptist is sufficient scriptural evidence to prove this.
It is clear that John was administering baptism before the existence of local churches. He did so, not as the agent of any congregation, but rather in his own individual capacity as “a man sent from God” (John 1:6). Nevertheless, as we have argued before, the baptisms administered by John were in all essentials the same as those later administered by the disciples of Jesus. We therefore conclude that baptism is not inherently the act of a local church.
We may also conclude here that, if baptism is not the act which inherently unites a believer to a local church, and baptism is not inherently the act of a local church, then it follows that baptism is not inherently a local church ordinance. That is, the essential nature of baptism is not so dependent on a local church that it cannot be validly practiced apart from one. Again, this explains how John’s baptism could be valid despite the fact that he baptized at a time when local churches did not exist.
Nevertheless, our study is far from over. Although it might be admitted that baptism is not inherently a local church ordinance, some Baptists adamantly insist that baptism was made a local church ordinance by Jesus Christ when he delivered the Great Commission. According to them, Christ gave the Great Commission specifically and exclusively to local churches, and therefore from Pentecost onward, baptism can only be validly administered by a local church.
As we move forward, it will be necessary for us to very carefully consider the Great Commission. But before we dive into detailed exegesis, it will be helpful to begin by discussing how various Baptists have thought of precisely how baptism is performed by a local church. Three distinct models of congregational action have been proposed:
The direct church action model - Local churches may not delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism. The validity of baptism is dependent on the personal presence and action of the congregation in each case.
The ordination model - Local churches may delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism, but only to ordained ministers. The validity of baptism is dependent on the baptism and ordination of the administrator.
The appointment model - Local churches may delegate their authority to admit candidates to baptism to any member appointed by the church. The validity of baptism is not dependent on the baptism or ordination of the administrator.
We will assess each of these proposed models in our next three posts.