AUTHORITY IN THE BAPTISM
By Rosco Brong
THE BAPTISM COMMANDED FROM HEAVEN IS COMMITTED ONLY TO BAPTISTS
Having
been buried with him in the baptism in which also ye were raised with (him)
through the faith of the energy of the God, the one having raised him from the
dead?
(Col. 2:12, literal translation.)
Our text describes the one
baptism of the New Testament authorized as a continuing ordinance of God. First
administered by the first Baptist on direct command from Heaven, it was
continued under the direction of Jesus by the disciples constituting the first
Baptist church, and finally committed to that same church for administration to
the end of the age. ?The baptism
of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?? (Matt.
21:25). A right answer to this question must lead to a
recognition of the authority of Jesus as Head of His church, even as
Jewish priests and elders reasoned long ago.
ONLY ONE BAPTISM
In a literal sense the
Bible teaches only one baptism, that is, one kind of baptism, as a New
Testament ordinance. This is immersion in water of a born-again believer by the
ministry of a New Testament church for the purpose of providing a symbol or
figure of the faith professed.
Other literal immersions,
bathings, or washings are mentioned in the New Testament, but the Greek uses a
different noun from the one used for New Testament baptism.
Jesus spoke of His
sufferings as a baptism, but of course this is figurative language. John said
that Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit and in fire, but this too is figurative,
as baptism is properly a dipping in water. The first Baptist church in
It remains true that for
New Testament purposes there is literally one baptism (Eph. 4:5), and therefore
our text (Col. 2:12) refers to it literally as ?the
baptism.? The definite article is used also in Romans 6:4,
?We were buried with him through the baptism with
reference to the death.?
BOGUS BAPTISMS
As our text makes clear,
the baptism of the New Testament involves a burial in water and a raising of the buried body as a picture of the burial and
resurrection of Christ. Obviously pouring or sprinkling do
not afford such a picture, and if men call such rites baptism the term is bogus
when so applied.
Baptism is done through the
faith of the operation or energy of the very God Who raised Christ from the
dead. This rules out Campbellite and other so-called
baptisms of false faiths. The one baptism is an expression of one faith in one
Lord. (Eph. 4:5.)
Now, to demand this faith
in the person being baptized while denying its necessity in the administrator
of baptism is a gross inconsistency.
Any man, woman, or child
with physical ability can imitate in word and deed the outward form of
scriptural baptism, regardless of the religious or irreligious character of anyone involved, but if the act is not
performed by divine authority it is bogus.
AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATION
Certainly the only ultimate
and absolute Authority is God Himself, and certainly all Christians will agree
in theory that baptism, as well as every other act of Christian service, must
be in submission to His authority to be acceptable in His sight. Differences
arise, however, with regard to subordinate authority in administration.
John the Baptist was a man
sent from God with authority to baptize (John 1:6, 33), and the first disciples
of Jesus got their authority directly from Him (John 4:1, 2). When Jesus went
back to Heaven did He commit administrative authority to anyone in particular,
or did He leave it to be assumed by anyone in general?
Subordinate authority may
be explicit, implicit, or assumed. Both explicity and implicity Jesus committed
to His church the responsibility of making disciples, baptizing them, and
teaching them to observe all His commandments. (Matt. 28:18-20.) Attempts by
other persons to exercise this authority are assumption based on presumption.
Practically all Christendom
has substantially agreed for over 19 centuries that Jesus committed to His
church the administrative authority for carrying on His work.
In recent years, the most
destructive attacks upon church authority have been made by advocates of the
universal invisible church theory, according to which all saved persons are
members of this imaginary church. But if Jesus commissioned disciples merely as
disciples to administer baptism, then sprinklers, pourers, and Campbellites, not
to mention Catholics (or at least genuine disciples among them), have equal
authority with Baptists, since there are almost certainly some saved people in
all these groups.
On the other hand, if by
some feat of mental acrobatics the Baptist apologist for alien immersion
insists that only the authority is unimportant, while the scriptural form,
subject, and motive of baptism must be maintained, it need only be said that
both subject and motive are unscriptural where divine authority is flouted. In
alien immersion nothing remains but empty form.
DISPUTED CASES
Some disputants have tried
to build an argument on the fact that inspired history in Acts does not give
details of church procedure in connection with recorded baptisms. So they
assume that at least some of these baptisms were administered by individual
disciples without church authority.
One answer to this problem,
if it is a problem, is simply that in some exceptional cases God the Holy
Spirit could have, if He so wished, given personal direction to an individual
to administer baptism rather than directed through church action, which is His
more normal procedure. Upon any person claiming such authority today lies the burden of proof to show that he is prompted by the
same Holy Spirit in harmony with apostolic doctrine. More likely he is prompted
by his own fleshly pride to promote his own heresy.
Another answer, conclusive
for saints who honor God?s Word, is that if we are going to assume something
beyond what is written concerning the generally faithful servants of God, let
us assume that they were obedient rather than disobedient with reference to
service which God approves in His Word. It is just as easy, and much more
honoring to Christ and His body, the church, to assume that all baptisms
recorded in Acts with divine approval were performed with church authority,
explicit or implicit, as to assume that Philip or Ananias, for instance, acted
without such authority (Acts 8:38; 9:10-18) just because the details are not
recounted in the scripture.
A MATTER OF DOCTRINE
We are told in Acts 19:1-4
something of baptism without authority. At
The Bible does not say that
these men had John?s baptism. The Bible says that ?they said, Unto John?s baptism.?
That is, they claimed to have, perhaps they really believed they had, John?s baptism.
Attempts to distinguish
between John?s baptism and later Christian baptism,
attempts to make the doctrine of John the Baptist and of the apostle Peter
different from the doctrine of Paul---such attempts are mere hogwash.
When these disciples showed
their ignorance of New Testament doctrine while claiming the baptism of John,
Paul immediately summarized the teaching of John as identical with that of all
true New Testament teachers, ?saying unto the people, that they should
believe. . .on Christ Jesus.?
The point is that New
Testament doctrine must accompany New Testament baptism. Only so do we have the
baptism of our text, ?through the
faith of the energy of the God that raised him (Christ) from the dead.?
So instructed, the
disciples at
It is always so. Where
Christ is honored, His Word is believed, His body is respected. The authorized
administrator of the baptism that pictures His gospel is the church that he
instituted and that He promised to be with to the end of the age. This is the
only kind of church that believes and obeys His Word and so can teach other
disciples to obey Him.