The crucial question

This is the eleventh 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.

We have finished our review of the various ways that baptism has been thought of as an act which is performed by a local church, and we’re now ready to ask the most central question of our present study—is an administrator who has been authorized by a local church essential to the validity of baptism?

Since the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice, this is a question that can only be settled by scripture. Therefore, we will seek to answer it by considering a different but very closely related question—does scripture command that baptism be performed only by an administrator who has been authorized by a local church?

If it is a scriptural command that baptism must be performed by an administrator who has been authorized by a local church, then baptisms performed by administrators who are not so authorized may very well be invalid.

On the other hand, if this is not a scriptural command, then there is no biblical basis for invalidating baptisms solely due to the lack of an administrator authorized by a local church. In fact, we would be bound to consider such baptisms valid, since we are forbidden to impose requirements beyond those which are revealed in scripture.

Those who have argued that this is a scriptural command have done so in two ways:

First, many have made the case that it is an explicit scriptural command that arises from the imperatives of the Great Commission. They propose that the entirety of the Great Commission was given exclusively to the local church as an institution, and therefore only local churches may lawfully administer baptism through their duly authorized representatives.

Second, some have argued that it is an implicit scriptural command that can be inferred from the clear and consistent pattern of the New Testament. In other words, from Pentecost on, the baptisms recorded in scripture can be seen to have been performed only by administrators who were specially authorized by local churches, and this constitutes a binding precedent which is functionally equivalent to a command.

As we move forward, we’re going to assess both of these arguments. In our next post, we’ll begin to consider the evidence for the claim that there is a discernable pattern in the New Testament of baptism being performed by specially authorized representatives of local churches. From there, we will proceed to an exegesis of the Great Commission and related texts.