The administrator of baptism

Baptists have long held that a proper subject—that is, a believer—is essential to valid baptism. Even today, the vast majority of those who would identify themselves as Baptists still view the sprinkling of unbelieving infants not merely as a defective or irregular baptism, but as no baptism at all. The mode of immersion is also widely considered to be another essential element of valid baptism, so that even believers who have been sprinkled or poured upon would be regarded as unbaptized. It has also been argued that a proper purpose is essential to valid baptism and that baptisms explicitly performed in order to impart regeneration are therefore invalid.

Some Baptists have also insisted that a proper administrator is absolutely essential to valid baptism. Under this view, even the immersion of a believer with proper symbolic intent would be invalid and no baptism at all if it were performed by anyone but a properly qualified administrator. Although this view has been argued for in a few different ways over time, it invariably makes the qualification of the administrator dependent on prior baptism. As a result, the validity of all present-day baptisms rests on an unbroken historical succession of qualified administrators, all the way back to the first church in Jerusalem.

Few Baptists today see this kind of historical succession as a requirement for the administration of baptism. Nevertheless, those who do represent a sincere and vocal minority. To them, requiring baptism to be performed by a proper administrator is simply following the scriptural pattern of the New Testament. If faithfully adhering to a biblical view of baptism logically necessitates some form of historical succession, so be it.

These concerns are often dismissed out of hand, but they ought to be taken seriously. We should be willing to ask the question—is a properly qualified administrator essential to valid baptism? Certainly, this is a question that deserves a clear, comprehensive answer on the basis of scripture.

Over the next few months, this is just what we hope to provide. This is the first in a series of blog posts in which we will be carefully considering the validity of baptism with respect to the administrator. Our aim is to develop an answer, first and foremost, from scripture itself. Whenever it may be helpful, we’ll also provide additional context through the lens of Baptist history.

Along the way, it may be necessary to challenge certain premises that are so widely accepted among Baptists that they may almost seem self-evidently true. This is not motivated by a blind antipathy to tradition. It’s simply an acknowledgment that if our reasoning is to be completely grounded in scripture, we cannot afford to take anything for granted. Rather, we must “prove all things”.

We’ll need to begin by asking, is baptism a local church ordinance? No doubt for some, the proposition is so obviously true, so eminently biblical, that it would be almost sacrilegious even to ask such a question. Nevertheless, the question is so fundamentally connected with the administrator of baptism that it cannot be avoided in our present study.

Thankfully, there is a great deal of scriptural data that can be brought to bear on this important question. We will begin to formulate an answer in our next post.