A very good friend and long-time sponsor, Robby, recently wrote to share some incredibly great news—his mother, who had for many years identified herself as a Jehovah’s Witness, was now professing the true Christ and His gospel of grace. What is more, she wanted to be baptized in the Snake River here in Idaho Falls and for Robby, who is neither a pastor nor a church elder, to perform this sacred Christian ordinance. Interestingly, Robby’s mother is married to a Latter-day Saint who argues that Robby has no scriptural authority to baptize his mother. Robby also asked me to share my opinion on this matter and it is my privilege to do so.
My reply was as follows:
Robby,
The first thing that needs to be understood is that your step-dad, being a Mormon, likely bases his position on that of the LDS Church. The official position of the LDS Church is that one must at the very least hold the Aaronic priesthood “under the direction of the greater or Melchizedek priesthood” in order to effectively perform the ordinance of baptism for the remission of sins (Doctrines of the Gospel–Student Manual, 2000, p. 68). Of course, the LDS Church imposes its alleged modern-day revelation onto biblical Scripture to bolster this doctrine (cf. Joseph Smith–History 1:66-73 in The Pearl of Great Price; see also Hebrews 7:1-24).
I have written elsewhere on the LDS Church’s misinterpretation/perversion of the biblical doctrine of the Melchizedek priesthood. (See the PDF file below.) Therefore, what remains is a perspective that is gained solely through the lens of the Bible.
My understanding as to whether or not you may, as a lay Christian, baptize your mother in good conscience is that New Testament (NT) Scripture explicitly teaches neither that one must be a pastor or church elder to baptize nor may be a lay Christian and baptize. I also understand that implicit NT evidence, and even compelling arguments from silence, may be adduced to support both sides of the debate. Consequently, we must be careful to not “go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6 NIV) by dogmatizing a restrictive doctrine that the Spirit Himself apparently chose NOT to explicate.
Therefore, as long as the conscience of neither party is at risk of being violated, I am inclined to believe that a lay Christian may baptize another Christian assuming both have genuinely made the “good confession” (1 Ti. 6:12 NIV). In addition to the aforementioned rationale, I humbly offer the following thoughts for your consideration.
1. Jesus often took issue with the Jewish leaders who nullified the spirit of God’s laws by their man-made traditions. For example, Jesus and His disciples ate food with unwashed hands (e.g. Mk. 7:1-13); Jesus allowed His disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath because they were hungry (e.g. Mt. 12:1-8); Jesus commanded the blind man He had healed to “pick up [his] mat and walk” on the Sabbath (Jn. 5:1-16); and Jesus healed a crippled woman on the Sabbath (e.g. Lk. 13:10-17).
Suffice it to say, it is not hard for me to imagine new believers following Christ in baptism at the hands of lay Christians to the delight of Jesus and to the disapproval of some clergy.
2. I find it interesting, if not perhaps telling, that “it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples” (Jn. 4:2 NIV). One might reasonably conclude that if special roles, offices or divisions of authority to baptize were intended to be a significant church doctrine, Jesus, “the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20 NIV) and “head of the church” (5:23 NIV) would have led His church by example.
3. When the apostle Peter refers to Christians as “a royal priesthood” (1 Pe. 2:9 NIV), and this with no inference as to special offices, roles or divisions of authority, one might reasonably conclude that all believers are now ordained to mediate God in Christ to the nations (so Karen H. Jobes, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament–1 Peter, 2005, p. 160).
This notion fits nicely with Jesus’ Great Commission: “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” (Mt. 20:18-19 NIV). Although the injunction is given at least to the eleven, it is implicit to all believers who are to “make disciples” in part by “baptizing” with Christ’s authority (so D.A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary–Matthew, CD-ROM).
This notion fits nicely with Jesus’ Great Commission: “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” (Mt. 20:18-19 NIV). Although the injunction is given at least to the eleven, it is implicit to all believers who are to “make disciples” in part by “baptizing” with Christ’s authority (so D.A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary–Matthew, CD-ROM).
In conclusion I offer these final thoughts. It might be argued: “Aren’t there inherent advantages of reserving the performance or overseeing of baptisms for Christian clergy?” You bet—quality assurance is a big one! Nevertheless, it is one thing to make manifest the primary benefits of a sound biblical doctrine; it is quite another to base a biblical doctrine primarily on its apparent benefits.
It might also be argued: “Weren’t the apostles (in addition to Philip the deacon/evangelist–see Acts 6:5 and 8:12) the key, if not sole, persons known to have performed baptisms in the NT, particularly in the Book of Acts?” Yes. Nevertheless, the wise biblical exegete would also take into account the transitional nature and infantile state of the new covenant Church as recorded in Acts when “quality assurance” through apostolic authority was of paramount importance and when much of NT Scripture that would later codify the Christian gospel, govern the Church and carry on apostolic tradition had yet to be written, let alone widely circulated.
I hope this helps shed some light on the subject, Robby. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.
Charis kai eirene, (Grace and peace), Mike
