There are some that believe that because the church has the authority to baptize, she also has the authority to choose who can and will administer the baptism. As justification for this view, some will say that in Matthew 28:18-20 where Jesus tells the church to, among other things, baptize people, that this commission gives the church all authority, which would include choosing the administrator for a baptism. But, in verse 18 Jesus said HE had all authority and because of that he was giving SOME authority to the church,
“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
Jesus did not give ALL authority to his church. The church only has the authority to carry out what Jesus said they were to carry out.
The Bible teaches that only a God-called, ordained minister can administer baptism. Some use the example of Philip to deny that teaching, so let’s take a moment to examine the work of Philip in baptism.
In Acts 8, Philip is instructed by the Holy Spirit to join up with the Ethiopian eunuch to help him in understanding the scriptures. During their conversation, the eunuch accepts Jesus as his Savior and wanted to be baptized. In Acts 8:38 the Bible says, “…and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”
The controversy revolves around Philip’s position as a deacon in Acts 6:1-6. “And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.” We can plainly see that Philip was one of the seven chosen to fulfill a need within the church. This verse plainly states the apostles needed to focus on the spiritual matters and deacons were chosen to serve in the physical matters to the membership within the church.
Let’s look at the work Philip was doing just prior to being sent to the eunuch. In Acts 8:5 it says, “Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.” The city of Samaria was more than 30 miles away from Jerusalem, more than a days walk from where the church is located where he had been ordained as a deacon. So, why was Philip in the city of Samaria? Verses 12-17 show Philip is baptizing and that the apostles are accepting this baptism. “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and the signs which were done. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them. That they might receive the Holy Ghost: (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” After Philip baptized, these two apostles came from Jerusalem (the same church that selected Philip to help the apostles in Jerusalem) and organized these people into a church based on the baptism they received of Philip.
In verse 26 of this same chapter we find, “And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.” Philip is now being instructed to go from Samaria to Gaza, approximately 80 miles away, and still roughly 40 miles away from Jerusalem. If Philip was ordained to be a worker within the church in Jerusalem, why is he being led by God to go all over the country? In fact, after the encounter with the eunuch, we see in verse 40 that he ends up in Caesarea, “But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.” Again, if he’s a deacon in Jerusalem, why isn’t he in Jerusalem?
Let’s now look at Acts 21:8, “And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven: and abode with him.” Quite some time has passed since we read about Philip in chapter 8, but as chapter 8 ended, Philip had stopped in Caesarea, and is still there when we get to this passage. Many will argue that this verse shows that Philip was one of the seven, that he was a deacon, called by the church and that he was baptizing: therefore, the church can choose whoever they want to administer baptism. The question to be asked then is whether Philip was still a deacon while he administered baptism.
As I stated, the Bible teaches that only a God-called ordained man has the ability to properly administer baptism, and yet here it seems that a church-called man has been baptizing and it’s being accepted. One of the key points involves the phrase “which was one of the seven”; was Philip a deacon or was this a former office? The word “of” comes from the Greek word “ek”, which means “out of”. When we rightly divide this verse, we see that Philip had come “out of” the seven and at the time he was baptizing he was not a deacon.
The other key point of this verse is the label given to Philip while here at Caesarea, Philip the evangelist. What is an evangelist and what does an evangelist do? The word “Evangelist” simply means “a preacher of the gospel”, but to find what an evangelist does we need to dig a little deeper into God’s word. In Ephesians 4:11-14 we can find the answer to what the work of an evangelist is,
“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.”
As we can see here, the label “evangelist” is given to a God called, ordained man. This man is called and ordained by God to edify and work to perfect the saints through the preaching and teaching of the Word of God. In Acts 6:1-4, we can see that the duty of the “ministry of the word”, or the edifying, was something that the God called apostles were charged with, not something the church-called deacons were responsible to do. In fact the duty of the deacons was only to take care of the “daily ministration”, or the physical needs of the members of that local church. At the time Philip was baptizing and being led through the country by the Lord away from the church in Jerusalem, we can see that he was performing the duties of a God called man because he was no longer one the seven deacons; he had been called by God to do another work and ultimately was being led to be the bishop, or pastor of the church in Caesarea.
It is true that we have no written record that plainly states that God called him to the ministry, that he was sent out by the church and authorized by the church to baptize. However, what we do have is the overwhelming evidence that this is exactly what had taken place. God does not contradict himself; when He sets a pattern and a principle, we can be sure that the pattern will be followed throughout the teachings of His word. Plainly stated, Philip did not baptize anyone while he was in the office of deacon. To continue to fit within God’s established pattern, we can be sure that he only baptized after the Lord had called him and after the church had ordained him to fulfill this ministry.
In Acts 18:24-28 we have an account of a man baptizing that was neither qualified to administer baptism, nor did have the proper authority to baptize.
“And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue; whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.”
Here we have Apollos trying to do a good thing. He’s teaching, preaching and baptizing. Yet when shown the “way of God more perfectly” he accepts his error, then adapts his thinking and practice to that of the true way of God. We know the baptism he performed was not authorized and okayed by God by reading the next chapter. We find Paul coming to the same place, to the same people and after investigating, he baptizes them properly, since he had the authority to do so.
Acts 19:5, “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
Look at another example of administrators of baptism. Remember the jailer that accepted Jesus while Paul & Silas were in jail in Acts 16? After the jailer accepted Jesus as his Savior in verse 33 we see, “And he (the jailer) took them (Paul & Silas) the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he (the jailer) and all his, straightway.” There is no doubt that Paul & Silas were God-called men, and what we see here is that they were the ones that administered the baptism.
The final example to consider is John the Baptist. We’ve already established the fact that while he was here, God gave him the authority to prepare a people. Look at both John 1:6, “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John” and Matthew 3:3, “For this is he that was spoken by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” In fact, the importance in this was confirmed by the effort taken by Jesus himself in seeking out John to administer water baptism.
At this time, not only did John have the proper authority, but he was the only qualified administrator at the time. John was a God-called man, ordained to do a specific work for the Lord. With the issuing of what we call the “Great Commission” in Matthew 28:19,20, Jesus gave the authority of baptism to his New Testament church. However, the instruction as to who can administer baptism has always been the same, only a God-called, ordained man is allowed to perform this ordinance and only by the authorization of a New Testament church. Baptism administered by the proper individual that does not have the authority of the church is just as wrong as one that tries to baptize without being God-called or ordained.
In these few examples, it is quite clear to see that only a proper administrator is authorized to perform a scriptural baptism. This administrator must meet standards and qualifications set up by God and His word, not by man or even the Lord’s church. God has already established the instructions, we must simply follow them.
