|
 Bro.
Turner: Who may scripturally administer baptism, and how is this
determined?
Reply:
Baptism
is not "administered" — in the commonly accepted
theological sense of the term. This concept of baptism, the
Lord's Supper, and to some denominations various other
"ordinances" of "the church", calls for
authority resident in the church, and makes the validity of the
ordinance dependent upon the exercise of that authority.
This,
in turn, necessitates an unbroken line of succession, either of
"bishops" or their equivalent, or of "the
church" itself — as in Baptist doctrine. It also calls
for some universally valid means of testing that succession. The
whole idea is shot through with fallacies long exposed, and it
is amazing that brethren will allow themselves to be drawn into
the unholy mess by arguing that any certain one must
"administer" baptism in order for it to be valid. The
person who baptized you may have been a genuinely dedicated
follower of Christ, but before you could consider your baptism
valid you would have to know who baptized him — i.e., was his
baptism valid. And who baptized the one who baptized him? And
so, on and on — If such matters make valid, or invalid,
baptism. But baptism is your response to the gospel of Christ,
and its validity depends upon your faith, repentance, and
complete giving of yourself to Christ. Note particularly
"but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine
which was delivered you. Being then make free from
|
|
sin, ye became the servants of
righteousness" (ROM.6:17-f).
The
seed of the kingdom is the word of God (LUK,8:11). The character
of the seed, not that of the sower, is what determines the crop.
If a jay bird carried an acorn over proper soil and dropped it
there, so that the seed could take root and grow, the tree would
be an "oak" -- not a "Jay Bird" tree.
Several
years back an officious, brassy young preacher refused to allow
me the use of a baptistry, saying, "Bring the person to me
and I'll baptize him into Christ". I told him that if the
boy was baptized into Christ it would be because he was truly
converted to Christ, not because he, or I, performed some act. I
then took the boy to the lake and, I trust, "baptized him
into Christ".
Sectarian
baptism is questioned, not because of who baptized, but because
of what was taught, believed, and done. One who is taught an
erroneous gospel and, believing error, practices something for
which there is no divine authority (example: be sprinkled —
with crude oil), has not received valid baptism. If the
"administrator" can validate what is not already valid
by virtue of sincere obedience to the Lord, a "proper"
administrator, backed with sword or gun, could force a nation's
population into the "fold of Christ". Believe me, it
has been tried!!
Men
go, preach, and baptize; but God gives the increase (1CO.3:6-f).
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
