The ordination model of baptism
This is the ninth 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’re still considering the question, is baptism an act of a local church? Some Baptists have argued that it is, and they have proposed three distinct models of how baptism could be a congregational action:
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.
In our last post, we assessed the direct church action model most notably advanced by J.R. Graves, ultimately concluding that it was unscriptural. In this post, we will consider the second of these models, which I have termed the ordination model.
Unlike the direct church action model, which requires the personal presence and action of a local church in every instance of baptism, the ordination model recognizes the validity of baptisms that are administered by a duly authorized agent of a congregation, even when that congregation may not be physically present. In this model, the authority to admit candidates to baptism does not require the action of a local church in each case, but rather this authority may be delegated to individual agents who are empowered to act on behalf of a particular local church.
However, the ordination model requires more than just the specific authorization of a local church for the valid administration of baptism. In order for a baptism to be valid, the administrator must be both validly baptized himself and an ordained minister. These additional requirements mean that even if a local church were to authorize one of its unordained members to administer baptism, all of the baptisms he might perform would nevertheless be invalid.
The ordination model of baptism was widely held by Baptists in America in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was most notably advocated by several prominent Baptist associations, and the clearest definitions of this model can be found in various associational minutes.
For example, the Philadelphia Baptist Association—perhaps the most influential Baptist association in America—ruled in 1788 that a baptism can only be valid if it is performed by an administrator who is both baptized and ordained:
In answer to a query from the first church in New York, of last year, held over to this time, respecting the validity of baptism, administered by a person who had never been baptized himself, nor yet ordained; we reply, that we deem such baptism null and void:
First. Because a person that has not been baptized must be disqualified to administer baptism to others, and especially if he be also unordained.
Second. Because to admit such baptism as valid, would make void the ordinances of Christ, throw contempt on his authority, and tend to confusion: for if baptism be not necessary for an administrator of it, neither can it be for church communion, which is an inferior act: and if such baptism be valid, then ordination is unnecessary, contrary to Acts xiv. 23; 1 Tim. iv. 14; Tit. i. 5, and our Confession of faith, Chap. XXVII.
Third. Of this opinion we find were our Associations in times past; who put a negative on such baptisms in 1729, 1732, 1744, 1749, and 1768.
Fourth. Because such administrator has no commission to baptize, for the words of the commission were addressed to the apostles, and their successors in ministry, to the end of the world, and these are such, whom the church of Christ appoint to the whole work of the ministry.
(Gillette, Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association, 1851, p. 238, https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_ad-gillette-am_1851_ia40330206-02)
This statement is so clear as to be unmistakable. It explicitly addresses the validity of baptism—not merely its regularity—and it unequivocally denounces any baptism performed by an administrator who is either unbaptized or unordained as invalid.
Fourteen years later, in 1802, the Elkhorn Baptist Association in Kentucky was asked essentially the same question and provided essentially the same answer:
Query from South Elkhorn.—What constitutes valid Baptism?
Answer.—The administrator ought to have been baptized himself by immersion, legally called to preach the gospel, [and] ordained as the Scriptures dictate; and the candidate for baptism should make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ, and be baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, by dipping the whole body in water.
(Spencer, A History of Kentucky Baptists, Vol. 2, 1885, p. 16, https://books.google.com/books?id=_6zVAAAAMAAJ)
Again, the validity of baptism is explicitly in view, and it is made to depend on both the personal baptism and ordination of the administrator.
These determinations of our Baptist forefathers are certainly worthy of our respect. We ought to take them seriously. Nevertheless, we are also bound to subject even these historic statements to the test of scripture. As Baptists, we proudly affirm the Bible as our only rule of faith and practice. Therefore, even the statements of godly men whom we love and respect are insufficient in themselves to establish doctrine. We must always ask, what saith the scripture?
For our present discussion, we’ll need to ask two questions:
Does the validity of baptism depend on the baptism of the administrator?
Does the validity of baptism depend on the ordination of the administrator?
First, does the validity of baptism depend on the baptism of the administrator?
Obviously, there is no verse in the New Testament where the personal baptism of the administrator is explicitly given as a requirement for the administration of valid baptism. That said, we do have sufficient scriptural evidence to give a definitive answer to this question.
In fact, a substantial number of the baptisms described in the New Testament were performed by an administrator who was himself unbaptized. I’m speaking, of course, of John the Baptist. John was sent by God to baptize, but as the first administrator of baptism, he himself had never been baptized by anyone. Were the baptisms that John administered nevertheless valid? Of course they were.
Now, this isn’t to say that an unbaptized administrator is normal or ordinary. We have every reason to believe that all of the other administrators of baptism in the New Testament were themselves baptized. John the Baptist is clearly an exceptional case. But his case furnishes sufficient scriptural evidence to falsify the blanket assertion that “a person that has not been baptized must be disqualified to administer baptism to others”. According to the New Testament, that statement is false.
We also need to understand that a subtle but very serious problem is created if the validity of baptism absolutely depends on the personal baptism of the administrator.
If a validly baptized administrator is essential to valid baptism, then if you were baptized by a pastor who later apostatizes or turns out to be a hypocrite, you suddenly discover your baptism was never valid in the first place. This is because if the pastor who baptized you was at that time truly unregenerate, his own baptism was invalid, as it was administered to an unbeliever.
It even follows that, if the pastor who baptized your pastor later apostatizes, then your own baptism also turns out to be invalid. And the same is true for the one who baptized him, and so on. If anyone in that historical succession of baptisms was actually an unbeliever, everyone downstream of him would not be validly baptized.
The result of these strange implications is that, since the validity of your baptism depends on the unseen spiritual condition of your administrator, there’s simply no way you can ever know that you’ve received valid baptism. This view inevitably reduces to these absurdities.
The good news is that scripture has imposed no such absurdities upon believers. They are merely the phantoms of a traditional rule created by men with good intentions. We can be very thankful that the New Testament does not make the validity of our baptism dependent on the baptism of our administrator. We are free to obey Christ in baptism and to know that we have done so.
Finally, we might ask, does the validity of baptism depend on the ordination of the administrator?
We should briefly define a term. Here we understand ordination in the common sense of a solemn setting apart of a man gifted to preach to the full gospel ministry. This is clearly how the associations we cited above understand the term—those who are “called to preach the gospel” and appointed “to the whole work of the ministry”. According to the ordination model, only men who have been so ordained may administer valid baptism.
Again, there is no verse in the New Testament where ordination is explicitly made a requirement for the valid administration of baptism. Nevertheless, we have enough scriptural data to answer this question. Aside from the example of John the Baptist, a careful reading of the Gospel of John reveals that the disciples of Jesus were administering valid baptism prior to the ordination of the apostles.
We learn in John 3 that the disciples of Jesus were actually administering baptism simultaneously with John the Baptist, prior to John’s imprisonment:
After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison. (John 3:22-24, cf. John 4:2)
However, according to Mark and the other synoptic gospels, the ordination of the twelve apostles occurred after the imprisonment of John:
Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, (Mark 1:14)
And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, (Mark 3:13-14)
Thus, it’s very clear that there were disciples of Jesus who were administering baptism before the ordination of the apostles—indeed, before the existence of any ordained church office. Were the baptisms performed by these early disciples valid, despite the fact that they were not then ordained to the whole work of the ministry? Of course they were.
In the end, we are compelled to reject the idea that the validity of baptism is dependent on either the baptism or the ordination of the administrator. We have no doubt that those who first pronounced these rules had the best of intentions. But these rules simply do not originate from the text of scripture, and we are therefore forbidden to invest them with divine authority.