Can laymen preside over church ordinances?

No. The RCC teaches that only an ordained person can administer the elements.

 

We agree on that...but maybe not on the scriptural qualifications of those who "would" restrict layman? Seems contrary to me for both to be true.

 

Speaking strictly from a Baptist POV here, and in accordance with the distinctives of autonomy and liberty, each church or fellowship is permitted to decide for itself whom to allow to administer ordinances. As long as that church doesn't claim that all churches are supposed to do it that way, then there is no problem here.

 

Wow! Seems a fine line between the RCC ordained and the Baptist church approved though.

I got to get some work done...later guys.

 

I sense that there is general agreement that a congregation may authorize who shall baptize. But I also sense that this does not mean the congregation has carte blanche in this matter.

For instance, is there anyone here on the BB who would permit an unbaptized person to perform the ordinance of baptism or preside over the Lord's Supper? Is there anyone here who would permit a RC priest to baptize for your church? Or a Jehovah's Witness elder? Or an unbeliever? Is there anyone here who would allow your pastor to sprinkle instead of immerse?

So there are restrictions after all, some of which are not necessarily spelled out unequivocally in the scriptures.

Just saying, be careful in pushing for layman baptism. It can open the door to all sorts of mischief.

 

Makes sense, and it's consistent with the "priesthood of the believer" Distinctive.

 

Must they also be a baptized believer?

Ann, this might be grist for a separate thread, but does the priesthood of believers really mean what you're trying to make it mean?

Here's where I'm going with this. Romans 12:4 "For as we have many members of one body, and all members have not the same office:...."

And I Cor 12:5 "And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord..."

I think the case can be made that we all stand on level ground at the foot of the cross. But the scriptures also tell us that God has set apart some to be evangelists, pastors and teachers, etc. That suggests that not everyone has the same role, and there are some things that we should not try to do.

Just because we are a kingdom of priests doesn't mean we're all pastors, teachers, or have the same administrative functions in our churches.

I think the priesthood of believers mainly makes it clear that we do not need a priest to intercede for us before God---that we have the right to go directly to him because we are priests in that sense. I'm not sure it gives us the right to do every function in the church.

 

We can split hairs with this issue all day long and create all kinds of what if's. I prefer to exercise what might be called a Biblical common sense. Certainly my church would not allow a RCC priest to baptize nor a Christian who has never been baptized himself or herself. duh!!

 

Why not? If the RCC priest is a believer, and if he was baptized post-conversion, then what's the problem? That said, it's certainly permissible for any church/fellowship/congregation to decide for themselves whom they want to administer the ordinances. Scripture does not give any requirements or restrictions on who can or cannot administer ordinances. Each church is permitted to decide for themselves who can and can't do so.

 

The RCC thought to teach they were the only church and only they had the “authority” to not only administer the ordinances but had the power to ordain/authorize who could and also form restrictions against other believers that they could not according to their “authority”. THOSE self imposed powers are unscriptural.

Ah, but, It most certainly does in the sense I'm thinking; it gives authority to every individual who is a believer and thereby a priest:
1 Peter 2:9-10…
(9) But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:
(10) Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

…we are told about individuals being a royal priesthood and as princes and priest have been consecrated to God while being told we are priest in a higher sense than the Jews. That is significant because it refers to the OT priests who were chosen by God, not self appointed, to serve Him by offering up spiritual sacrifices.

This refers to the temple veil that only they were to pass which was torn in two by God upon Jesus’ death. It indicates the OT priesthood was no longer necessary and now believers could go directly to God through the High Priest, Jesus Christ. All this points to that as believers we have been given a freedom from the OT ways pertaining to that type priesthood:

(Hebrews 4:14) Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

(Hebrews 4:15) For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

(Hebrews 4:16) Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

We no longer have earthly mediators between God and man as existed in the OT:

(1 Timothy 2:5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Maybe within the “owned” four walls of a gathering of believers (I'll grant that) they might decide in an orderly way who might administer the ordinances. But personally, as a believer I give little regard to any such man made walls which would attempt to restrict my access to and through the Mediator at any time or in any place.

The Church to which I belong first and foremost is the Body of Christ and I would not give any church the authority to restrict my freedom or ability to offer up spiritual sacrifices other than to keep order while within those physical walls of a congregation that I belong to. If for "any reason" I was called upon to administer those ordinances outside of those walls that church would have NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to restrict my ability to do so. Agree?

P.S. To preclude that this type of mindset would lead to mischief (Tom Butler) is beside the point, an attempt to hold on to authority/authorizing powers which do not belong to men, and precariously resemble what the RCC was trying to do within their “walls”.
.

 

It's not as far-fetched as you might think. If you'll search the Baptist Board for threads on baptism, you'll find that there are some who hold that it's okay to accept the baptism of a Church of Christ minister as valid. Some Baptist churches in this part of the country are already divided since some of them accept "alien immersion," that is, immersion by another denomination.

The bottom line is that while most Baptists insist that baptism must be by immersion of a believer, to picture the gospel, there are a significant number of Baptists--some on this board--who hold that the administrator is not important. That's when the mischief creeps in.

 

WHich doesn't change the fact that there's nothign unscriptural if a Baptist church wants to let a Catholic riest, or, for that matter, a cleric from any other denomination, administer the ordinances.

So you don't believe in the Baptist Distictive of local autonomy?

 

Thanks, Johnv, for helping me make my case.

 

Some reply! I get so sick of oneliners from people who just want to argue...So you you don't believe in the Priesthood of all Believers?!

Nevermind! ...That was a sarcastic rhetorical question!

 

Tom if you and John want to spilt theological hairs and come up with all kinds of far fetched senerios then have fun. Mose of us have common sense and understand the automomy of the local church and respect their right to baptize who they will. It doesn't mean that I have to be in cooperation with them though.

 

Good for you sag38. That is exactly what's happening in my area of Western Kentucky. Those churches which accept alien immersion have been separated from their associations, and in some cases, those churches have voluntarily left their associations.

Ceasing cooperation is really the only response you can have if you invoke church autonomy. But there are larger issues than that. For instance, will your church accept letters of transfer from an alien immersion church?
How will you determine if that transfer candidate was scripturally baptized according to your congregation's belief.

When a congregation does not guard the integrity of the ordinances, there are ripple effects all over. Live and let live is not the complete answer.

 

That is a good question~I've attended an ABC for 5 years but never joined, and have begun attending an SBC on Wed nights. I was baptized in a Churches of God (General Conference) congregation. Do SBC generally rebaptize those that already underwent a believer's baptism?

 

That's exactly my point.

I'm surprised that would even be an issue for a Baptist church. A believer's baptism is a believer's baptism, regardless of whether it was a native baptism or alien baptism. But yes, I've known a few churches that insist on rebaptising a person when they join their church. I found it to be legalistic, so I steered clear. But that doesn't mean those churches aren't entitled to practice the ordinance as they see fit.

The SBC adheres to a believer's baptism, which is immersion following a profession of belief. It doesn't matter if that immersion is done in a presbyterian church, reformed church, nondenominational church, etc. If it's a believer's baptism, it's a believer's baptism, and is valid according to SBC standards. So to answer your question, SBC churches generally accept alien baptism, so long as it is a believer's baptism. I myself was baptised in a church other than the SBC, and attended an SBC church for years before planting my current church, which is an independent reformed baptist congregation.