Who Can Baptize?
I enjoy reading John Calvin on baptism. The other day I read something that has stuck in the back of my head, so I thought I’d share it and see what you think. Here is Calvin’s comments on who should administer the sacrament of baptism.
It is here also pertinent to observe, that it is improper for private individuals to take upon themselves the administration of baptism; for it, as well as the dispensation of the Supper, is part of the ministerial office. For Christ did not give command to any men or women whatever to baptise, but to those whom he had appointed apostles. And when, in the administration of the Supper, he ordered his disciples to do what they had seen him do (he having done the part of a legitimate dispenser), he doubtless meant that in this they should imitate his example.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997). Institutes IV, xv, 20
I feel like it has become more common these days for churches to allow believers to baptize other believers, for example fathers baptizing their children. Personally, I like the idea of “protecting” the sacraments so that they don’t become “common.” But, I also wonder if this is an area that falls into the “priesthood of all believers.”
So, what do you think? Can any believer baptize? What scriptural support do you see for/against?
Photo Credit: Jeremy Nelson
I do not like the term sacrament because a sacrament is something done by someone in order to gain salvation. I would rather use the term ordinance. The ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s table are given to the church and they do not belong to individuals (pastors, etc). I baptized my mother after her profession of faith but it required church action to do so since I was no longer a member of that particular church. Calvin’s position is weak because we no longer have Apostles…
Hey Terry,
Thanks for the comment. Not sure where you’re pulling that definition of sacrament. I checked out the wikipedia entry, just to see if that was a common association with the word, but doesn’t appear to be.
As for the Apostle thought, that’s a good point. Calvin would, to solidify his argument a bit, have to make the tie between the apostles and the ministers of the church. Perhaps he could make that tie via Paul’s (apostle) instructions to set in elders for the oversight of the church. Though, after saying that, he might make that argument or tie elsewhere in Institutes.
It depends on your definition of “priesthood of all believers.” It might be fair to go back to both Luther and Calvin on their interpretation of this concept. For his time, Luther was pretty progressive of his understanding of women in the PoaB, and yet exegetically he had to deal with why women were excluded from preaching (I know we are talking about Sacraments but bear with me). Luther wrote that as priests, “he has given to everyone the right and power to weigh, decide, to lecture and preach” (ML: Word and Sacrament), but that while there is no distinction, the only people able to preach are those elected in the congregation, and they should be male (ML: Catholic Epistles). From what I gather (which is so little), Luther’s interpretation of PoaB is that “if all Christians are taught by God, all of them certainly have the Spirit and the Word of God” (ML: Word and Sacrament). This is what it means to be in the PoaB- but this doesn’t mean just anyone can administer the Sacraments, just like not anyone can preach. Even among the men, Luther states that preaching should be assigned to a “competent and chosen man.”
And lets face it, many would argue that (in a way) preaching is a sacrament (little s). Regardless, I think Luther’s aim was less democratic then how our culture has attributed the concept. I don’t think Luther’s aim in this concept was to give everyone the right to baptize or administer the Eucharist/communion. He was battling severe clericalism (via monasticism) where only the professionally ‘religious (aka priests/monks) were able to interact with the Sacred. I think he’d be appalled with just anyone dunking their friend in a bathtub. Of course, none of this speaks to the Biblical witness (aka Scripture), so who knows on that front
Those types of things are very telling of our culture though, and our democratization of everything.
Also, I agree that sacrament is not synonymous with salvation, in fact if such were the case we’d be dealing with works-based righteousness.
to summarize:
Being a part of the priesthood gives you access to Christ (one that was not available during Luther’s time), but this doesn’t necessarily give you office to preach or administer the sacraments.
sources to check out:
Martin Luther: Word and Sacrament (Luther’s Works: Volume 36), 150-151.
Martin Luther: Catholic Epistles (Luther’s Works: Volume 30), 54-55, 135.
Martin Luther: Church and Ministry (Luther’s Works: Volume 41), 154-155.
Yeah, I guess I was using PoaB in a more liberal sense then what those guys intended. Though my use is probably very much in line and reflective of how the term is used today.
Hey man, you got some mad copy and paste skills. I think this falls more on the priesthood of all believers side of things. I think the important thing is that it is administered bythe church. As long as it is under the authority of the church I think it is fine. I don’t see in scripture how it is limited to an elder/pastor. I do think it is a rite of the church to administer and maybe is a bit loose in thinking we can function outside the authority of the church these days. For me that is what is at play. For instance when you baptized your children you baptized them but it was still under and through the church. It didn’t feel like it was your thing but more symbolic of the fact that you are your childrens pastor.
(typed on iPhone so if it doesn’t make sense I blame that)
Ps I liked the tickle article too.
As long as it is done in Jesus name per the bible is seems to me Jesus deems it expectable. To say otherwise is to say Jesus doesn’t know our intentions, faith is paramount, baptism is a step in faith. It’s all about Jesus not institutions never loose sight of this!
God bless
John
If we believe that the command given by Jesus at the end of Matthew (aka The Great Commission) was to be carried out by everyone in the Church, then we have to believe that the ordinance of baptism can be administered by anyone who is a disciple of Jesus.
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
If we believe it was only the duty of the 11 to whom He was speaking, we can stop sending missionaries, stop talking to our neighbors and stop baptizing people altogether in every church in the world, whether done by the ordained or not.
Good point Pedro.
Ananias baptized Paul in Acts 9, and over 3000 were baptized by just 12 men in about 8 hours if only the apostles did the baptizing in Acts 2 (that is about 6 per minute). Priesthood of all believers gets my vote