Can laymen preside over church ordinances?

What does the Scripture prescribe on all of these subjects?

 

I will once I find laymen in the NT.

 

A little history search of Baptists will reveal that there are plenty of writings limiting the administering of baptism to ordained Baptist men. To hold otherwise is to say that they were wrong for hundreds of years.

 

To be clear, I think baptism should be performed by a minister for practical reasons. However, if it is done by someone else it does not make it invalid. I don't see anything in Scripture that indicates that it matters.

 

To be perfectly honest, I think this is one of those muchado about nothing type of arguments. Mr. Spurgeon would be in great difficulty in that he was never ordained.

Does it really matter who administers the ordinances? Baptists had only two offices: pastors and deacons. Some pastors were not the slightest interested in ordination, and deacons were never ordained.

If a layperson baptized someone, would it render the symbol of baptism invalid? What when he served the bread and the wine? Would the symbol of remembering Christ be negated?

Let's get on with the real arguments.

Cheers,

Jim

 

This is an old holdover from the RC church. As Baptists we are all Priests... NO Where in the Bible does it say that ONLY ordained Pastors can Baptize....

And we shouldn't put Baptist History and tradition on the same level as Scripture.... Or else we become like the RCC.

NOW, that said, we are instructed to do all things "in order"... so it is wise to appoint someone to Baptize and administer communion.... and in most churches, this is the pastor and deacons...

Although, when we only had one deacon in the church I pastor, I also used other men whom I felt were spiritually mature to help administer the ordinances.

 

Concerning the history of the “Priesthood of all Believers” I’ll share these significant statements by men who supported this doctrine for you reformed fellers:

"All Christians are priests, and all priests are Christians. Worthy of anathema is any assertion that a priest is anything else than a Christian."~ Luther

“John Calvin applied that message by forming a polity wherein laity and clergy alike would serve in ordained offices of leadership—as peers in proclamation of the Word, peers in intercessory prayer, and peers in mission service.”

 

Just because Baptists never allowed the non-ordained to administer ordinances in our past history doesn't give us a reason not to allow it today. Many of our Baptist brethren had no problem with slavery or with Jim Crow but that doesn't make it OK. It's the same argument that the Founder's Movement uses to which I say "so?" While we are not to ignore history it doesn't mean that we have to follow its precedence especially when it has no real basis in the Bible.

 

Sounds to me like you favor ignoring history when it doesn't square with your view. I'm not arguing that scripture demands that ordained men baptize and preside over the Lord's Supper. I just wonder why most Baptists have held that view and practiced it for 400-plus years, but now it's time to junk it.

 

They could have been doing it for 1000 years but that still doesn't it make it set in stone. Now if you can show in the Bible where only the ordained can administer ordinances then I'll fully agree.

With that said, I think it is best that only the pastor and deacons serve the Lord's Supper and baptize folks. But, I don't know of any verses that would cause me to be dogmatic with this belief.

 

Still, no room to be dogmatic about it.

 

I'm not trying to be dogmatic about it, I'm just looking for the rationale that has favored ordained men for the ordinances for several hundred years. They must have had some good reason to their practice. And they felt strongly enough to be willing to die for what they believed.

I'm not a slave to the past, but I wish we wouldn't be so quick to blow it off.

I guess I don't react very well to statements like, "I don't care what Martin Luther taught, I follow scripture." Most of us couldn't sit in Martin Luther's shadow when it comes to exegeting scripture.

It's similar to "I don't care what Baptists taught and practiced hundreds of years ago. I follow the scripture." Can anybody understand why this pushes my hot button?

 

Tom, think of it this way.. In Europe, when the Roman Catholic church had control of all kingdoms.. the Priests had control. In the RC theology then, the only way to be saved was to be part of the the church.. and the only way to be part of the church was to submit to the Priests.. the Priest could decide who to serve Mass to, and who not to.

There are a lot of things we do as Baptists that relate to the RCC. (Altars in our churches anyone?)... This is an old holdover from the RC Days..

And even if you don't subscribe to the idea that Baptist came out of the RCC.. Baptists were still influenced by them in this matter. This is also where the concept of "Closed" communion comes from... In this way the Pastor is still acting as main priest by choosing who can be served communion, and thus who is an active part of the church.

 

I saw this, this morning, and thought this is exactly what I am trying to explain.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/22/report-kennedy-barred-communion-stance-abortion/

To a Catholic in the mid ages, this would have been one of the worst things that could happen to them. Because they saw Salvation coming through the community of the church, and through Mass.

And in this way the clergy held control over the elements of salvation. (RCC thinking)

So people who were used to this type control naturally thought it was biblical for ONLY the clergy of the church to administer the ordinances. This is all they ever saw, and remember the Bible wasn't readily available, they HAD to trust their pastors.

 

Tim, I understand what you're saying. And I'm really not arguing that the scripture opposes a layman's baptizing someone. I am mainly concerned with attitude, which I find a little arrogant and smug sometimes.

I see it manifested in middle of our debates with such lines as "You're a Calvinist, he's an Arminian, but I'm a Biblicist."

So when I see hundreds-of-years-old Baptist practice thrown out the window as outmoded, that gives me pause. As if none of those folks ever opened a Bible to see if their practices were scriptural.

Even today, the practice of layman baptism is extremely rare, yet here we are rationalizing it. "Well, we don't do it, but the Bible doesn't prevent it." Anybody wanna reflect on how that sounds.

To tell you the truth, I can see some situation developing where it might be necessary for an unordained man to administer the ordinances. I do find it curious, though, that few of us who think its okay are doing it, and deride our forefathers for not doing it.