PCA Digest
Position Papers: 1973 - 1998
15th General Assembly, 1987, Appendix P,
pp. 416-422.
|
Action of the 15th General Assembly (1987), as recorded on page 162 of their Minutes : 15-74 Ad Interim Committee on Baptism. The Assembly returned to the report of the Committee (see 15-70, p. 156). The Minority Report's recommendations were adopted as the substitute motion and then adopted. (See Appendix P, p. 416 for the text of the report)-[http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.html] 1. That the Assembly receive both the Committee and the Minority Reports, commending them to the attention of its churches and lower courts as information. Adopted. 2. That the Assembly leave decisions in these matters to be made, on a case by case basis, by the lower courts, subject to normal review and control or judicial processes. Adopted. 3. That the Assembly discharge the Committee with thanks. Adopted. |
APPENDIX P
THE REPORT OF
THE STUDY COMMITTEE ON QUESTIONS
RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF CERTAIN BAPTISMS
PREFACE TO THE REPORT
In accordance with the action of the last General Assembly,
the Study Committee is resubmitting its report to this General Assembly.
A key factor involved in the postponement by the last Assembly of action
on this report was an awareness of the need for the elders of the denomination
to have adequate time to study the report. The Committee therefore thought
it wise, now that the Assembly has had adequate time to study the report,
to re-focus on that which the Assembly has studied and to continue to
postpone introducing another question with its new study material until
this most basic question is resolved.
Not only did the Committee think it wise to refocus only on the first
and most important question, it was also prohibited from conducting study
sessions on the remaining question by the cost restraints placed on it
by the Committee on Administration complying with the actions of the last
General Assembly. Thus the Committee respectfully re-submits its original
report and offers its recommendations for adoption. Work on the remaining
question will be aided by knowing the mind of the Assembly on the Scriptural
argument undergirding the Committee's recommendations concerning the first
main question.
In re-submitting its report and recommendations, the Committee has made
some changes which it calls to the attention of the Assembly. Other than
these changes, the report and its recommendations are the same as that
which was submitted last year. Some revisions have been made to the paragraph
reflecting the historical survey of the actions of American Presbyterian
Churches. They consist of the removal of reference to a judicial case,
because the significance of the action is technically ambiguous, and very
slight editorial changes that this removal necessitated.
The major change is the inclusion of another recommendation (numbered
in this report as 5). This recommendation was necessitated by the fact
that a question, posed by the Western Carolinas Presbytery, has not been
answered by the General Assembly as the study had originally assumed.
The Committee is recommending the answer originally proposed both by the
Sub-Committee on Judicial Business and the Committee of Commissioners
on Judicial Business. This additional recommendation has triggered a partial
rewriting of the second introductory paragraph to make reference to the
new recommendation and at the same time to clarify the paragraph.
With these words of explanation, the Committee re-submits its report revised
as indicated above.
THE REPORT
The Study Committee has had committed to it certain questions
raised by Grace Presbytery and by Western Carolinas Presbytery, and also
the proposed answers to these questions offered by the Subcommittee on
Judicial Business, a minority of that Subcommittee, and by the Committee
on Commissioners. The questions which this committee was asked to deal
with can be essentially reduced to two: (I) What, if anything, would make
the baptism of a church invalid as a Christian baptism?, and (II) Has
one who was presented for baptism or christening by non-Christian parents,
or one who was baptized as a supposed convert but without real saving
faith, received christian baptism?
The Study Committee adjudged that its task was restricted to these two
items and it adjudges that the answer to these two questions will answer
all but one of the questions of the two presbyteries. This report addresses
itself to the first question and propose three recommendations (1,2,3)
to respond to this first question. A subsequent report will address itself
to the second question after further study has attempted to reach a consensus
on the understanding of what the Scripture says on this question (recommendation
6). The Committee considers the only other two questions raised about
baptism to be adequately answered by responses on which both the Committee
of Commissioners on Judicial Business and the Sub-Committee on Judicial
Business have concurred. The Study Committee is recommending these proposed
responses as answers to these other two questions (recommendations 4 and
5).
I. Is the baptism of certain "church" bodies invalid?
The committee approached this question constrained by the biblical teaching
Eph. 4:5; cf. Westminster Confession of Faith xxviii, 7) that there is
one baptism. Thus it addresses the question of valid or invalid baptism
not as one of rebaptism. In approaching the subject of a valid or invalid
baptism, the Committee was instructed by the analogy of Acts 19:1-7. In
this account, the disciples of John the Baptist are not rebaptized with
a second Christian baptism, even though of course one may speak in some
sense of a rebaptism, since they had been baptized into John the Baptist's
baptism, but when baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Jesus they
were baptized for the first time with Christian baptism. Even though the
baptism of John is not regarded as invalid but as not the baptism of Jesus,
this passage does provide the church an example, by analogy, of evaluating
a previous baptism and then proceeding to Christian baptism if that former
baptism is not regarded as Christian. It should thus be agreed that it
is an appropriate act to administer Christian baptism if a previous baptism
is regarded as invalid, and it should also be agreed that this is not
a second Christian baptism or a rebaptism.
In conducting its study the Committee sought to be guided by our supreme
standard, the Scriptures, and by our subordinate standards, the Westminster
Confession and Catechisms, which we have sincerely received and adopted
as containing the system of doctrine of the Scriptures. Since the Scriptures
do not deal directly with our question, we have followed the hermeneutical
rule of our Confession of deducing "good and necessary" consequences (Westminster
Confession of Faith, I, 6) from the Scriptures in solving this question
and have especially utilized these consequences already drawn by our confessional
standards.
In addition, we have consulted writers on the subject from various ages
of the church, study reports in various presbyteries of our own and sister
Presbyterian churches, and we have reflected again on a number of concrete
situations ranging from the ancient Donatist controversy up to and including
the concrete situations in a local congregation.
In particular, we have been especially constrained to consider the decisions
of our spiritual predecessors, i.e., the highest courts of American Presbyterian
churches (cf. Westminster Confession of Faith, xxxi, 2) who have dealt
with the same question. Two considerations guided the historical research.
The first was to cite the actions of "spiritual predecessors." Thus later
decisions of main-line Presbyterian bodies which the PCA (or the RPCES)
had left were not cited. The second was to cite decisions where the assemblies
made a judgment on the question since the presbytery had asked for such
a judgment and therefore not to cite any postponement or any decision
in which the assembly simply referred the matter back to sessions with
or without reference to the Standards or earlier assembly decisions.
In its historical survey, the Committee found that with one exception
the General Assemblies of American Presbyterian churches where making
a judgment on the matter have taken the position of non-validity for Roman
Catholic baptism. This was done in 1845 by the Old School Assembly and
the reasons given in the report have prevailed until today. The Cumberland
Presbyterian Church took the same position in 1876. The United Presbyterian
Church in North America, in various actions from 1869 to 1871, took the
same position. The Presbyterian Church, U.S., commonly referred to as
the Southern Presbyterian Church, had consistently taken the same position
of the non-validity of Romish baptism. The Southern Church referred to
the action of the General Assembly, Old School, of 1845, but took a full
action of its own in 1871. The Assembly of 1884 reaffirmed the action
of 1871 and the Assembly of 1914 declined to rescind its action of 1884.
The one exception is the action of the 1981 Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church, Evangelical Synod, espousing and reiterating the objections of
Charles Hodge to the decision of the 1845 General Assembly.
As this historical survey has indicated, the question of the non-validity
of baptism has often become the question of the validity or non-validity
of Roman Catholic baptism. In the question posed by the presbytery this
is the group first named and this group was mentioned on the assembly
floor as that which presents to our churches at home and abroad through
the conversions of previous members the most pressing pastoral concern.
These historical and pastoral concerns, coupled with the unique historical
and theological perspective that this church presents, convinced the Committee
that its study should focus on the baptism of this group as a test case
without presuming to restrict its study or the principles discovered to
this group.
The Committee considered it one of its first responsibilities to ascertain
what is involved in true Christian baptism. The form comprises water and
the name of the Trinity (Mt. 28:19, sometimes expressed, however, by the
name of the Savior Jesus alone as the mediatorial representative of the
Trinity; cf. Acts 2:38 and elsewhere in Acts and the New Testament, Westminster
Confession of Faith xxviii, 2; Larger Catechism 165; Shorter Catechism
94). The basic assumption, intention or design is that the Christian rite
or sacrament of baptism is being performed. The Westminster Confession
of Faith (xxviii, 1) summarizes the biblical truths in reference to baptism
when it says that it is a sacrament "not only for the solemn admission
of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also, to be unto him
a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ,
of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through
Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life" (cf. Larger Catechism 165; Shorter
Catechism 94). Thus baptism teaches the doctrine of union with Christ
and its implications for the believer and also union with Christ's people,
both His spiritual body and the visible Church ("for the solemn admission
of the party baptized into the visible Church, Westminster Confession
of Faith, xxxviii, 1, reflecting such biblical passages as Acts 2:38-42,
cf. also Larger Catechism 165). Furthermore, baptism is given as a sacrament
to Christ's Church to be administered by the Church in its ministry ("which
sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church
until the end of the world" (Westminster Confession of Faith xviii, 1
reflecting Mt. 28:19, 20; cf. xxvii, 4, and xxviii, 2, and Larger Catechism
164). With this generally agreed upon conception of what baptism is, according
to the Scriptures and the summary of the Scriptural truth provided by
the confessional documents, the committee examined the two approaches
to the question of the validity of baptism using the Roman Catholic baptism
as a test case as previously indicated.
A. An Analysis of the Arguments for the Validity of Roman Catholic
Baptism.
The committee considered the arguments presented by the RPCES Synod's
committee report. In doing so, it followed the advice and urging of that
committee to read and consider the arguments of the most vigorous American
exponent of that position, C. Hodge. The article by Hodge, written in
opposition to the 1845 Assembly's decision on the matter, which Hodge
himself felt constrained to note was by a vote of 169 to 8, with 6 abstaining,
appeared in the Princeton Review of 1845, pp. 444, ff., and has been reproduced
in Hodge's Church Polity, pp. 191 ff. The writer argues that three things
are necessary for there to be a valid baptism, i.e., washing with water,
in the name of the Trinity, and with the ostensible professed design to
comply with the command of Christ, i.e., intent. The conclusion reached
by Hodge was that the three elements are present in Roman Catholic baptism
and therefore that it is valid.
The committee was convinced that this case was both inadequate and also
at points in error in reference to Roman Catholic baptism. Its inadequacy
is seen by the fact that this appraisal or system of analysis would also
of necessity declare as valid the baptism of certain professedly Christian
but sectarian groups, such as the Mormons. Usually those arguing for the
Roman Catholic baptism would agree that these other baptisms are not valid
because in the second and third aspects, in the name of the Trinity and
with true design or intent, these other baptisms are not really Biblical
and Christian in their use of the Trinity or in their understanding of
the design or intent of baptism. But it is just this objection with respect
to the true design or intent that the committee thinks applies also to
Roman Catholic baptism. At this point we see both an inadequacy and an
error.
Although the three elements are present in Mormon baptism, they are now
seen to be inadequate as formal and external items. They may now only
function as significant items when they are controlled by and expressions
of the overarching truth of the Gospel. Without the truth of the Gospel,
there is no true and valid baptism even when these elements are present.
It is this larger perspective which is necessary and which is lacking
in Hodge's application of the three elements to the Roman Catholic church.
As one step forward to this necessary larger perspective, one can see
further the inadequacy and error of this three-element approach by comparing
it with our confessional evaluation of the other sacrament, the Lord's
Supper, as it is administered in the Roman Catholic Church as the mass.
Here also one can devise a formal and external description of the elements
necessary for a valid Lord's Supper which is properly analogous to that
given for a valid baptism, i.e., the prescribed material, bread and wine,
the prescribed formula, the words of institution, and the intent, "with
the ostensible professed design to comply with the command of Christ"
(Minutes, RPCES, 1981, p. 45). But notice, in spite of the fact that these
three analogous elements are present, our confessional standards adjudge
the Roman Catholic observance of the Lord's Supper, the mass, to be invalid.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (xxix, 2) says "that the Papist sacrifice
of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's
one, only sacrifice " The Confession (xxix, 6) goes on to say that the
doctrine of the mass "overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath
been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries"
(italics added).
With this question of doctrine we have come to a larger aspect of the
question. It is not only the doctrine of the sacrament itself that is
in view, but also the question of the doctrine concerning the church as
one faithful or degenerate with respect to the Gospel. It is this larger
perspective concerning the church which has already brought Presbyterians
in fact to recognize the invalidity of Mormon baptism, even when the three
elements are present, and the invalidity of Unitarian baptism (Minutes
of General Assembly, 1814; Minutes of General Assembly
B. The Presentation of the Arguments for the Invalidity of Roman Catholic
Baptism.
Although the arguments for this view have surfaced in part in the preceding
section and especially in the immediately preceding paragraph, the committee
felt it appropriate to present these arguments given in 1845, and also
in 1871, in a compact summary form, and then both evaluate and expand
that summary for the benefit of the church. The committee is convinced
that the essence of the argument was and is persuasive and should guide
the church in its decision. The following is our schematic summary of
the report of the committee presented to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church (Old School) and adopted by that Assembly in 1845 (Minutes, 1845,
pages 34-37). This summary of ours also reflects similar aspects of the
1871 report (Minutes, p. 30). Since these reports are not readily available
to the church today, the 1845 report in its entirety and the central portion
of the 1871 report relating to Roman Catholic and Unitarian baptism are
made available in two appendices at the end of this report.
(1) The Romish communion is not a true church and therefore its
sacraments cannot be true and valid sacraments. (2) The Romish
priests are not ministers of Christ and therefore the rites administered
by them cannot be regarded as the ordinances of Christ.
(3) The doctrine or meaning of the sacrament of baptism is so corrupted
by the Romish communion that it invalidates the sacrament of baptism.
These arguments now need to be set forth in greater detail and evaluated.
The force of them is, of course, cumulative, but any one of them, if true,
would in itself make the baptism invalid.
(1) The first argument is considered one of the most compelling
by the committee. There is an inseparable relationship between the church
and the ordinances. The Westminster Confession of Faith (xxv, 3) aptly
summarizes the truth of Matthew 28:19, 20, and other Biblical passages
in indicating that "unto this Catholic visible Church Christ hath given
the . . . ordinances of God..." Further, the Westminster Confession of
Faith (xxviii, 1) speaks of baptism as ordained by Jesus Christ "for the
solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church" (cf.,
e.g., Acts 2:38-42) and as a sacrament "to be continued in His church
until the end of the world" (cf. Mt. 28:19, 20). This relationship is
further demonstrated by the fact that the confession appropriately indicates
that the administration of the ordinances is one of the marks by which
one determines the fidelity of a church or its degeneration so that it
is no longer a church of Christ (xxv, 4, 5). It is this perspective that
has uniformly persuaded our church, and other true churches of Christ,
to regard the baptism of the Unitarian church or the Mormon church as
invalid even when a trinitarian formula may have been used, and even when
a design or intent of relating the person in some way to Jesus Christ
and His death is asserted.
The decision of the 1845 General Assembly made reference to the decision
of the 1835 General Assembly (Minutes, p. 490) which "Resolved, That it
is the deliberate and decided judgment of this Assembly that the Roman
Catholic Church has essentially apostatized from the religion of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, and therefore cannot be recognized as a Christian
Church." The General Assembly of 1879 in reaffirming this decision of
1835 wisely reminded the Assembly that this decision was in accord with
the Confession of Faith in its evaluation of the headship of the Roman
Catholic Church, and thus of that Church itself. (This evaluation is true
for all the variant forms of the Westminster Confession of Faith, xxv,
6). The decision of 1879 (Minutes p. 630) reads as follows:
Resolved, That this Assembly, in full accordance with the words of our Confession of Faith respecting the Church of Rome and its so-called spiritual head, do now reaffirm the deliverance, upon this subject, of the Assembly of 1835, as applying to that Roman hierarchy headed by the pope, falsely claiming to be the Church; which, opposed absolutely and irreconcilably to the doctrines of Holy Scripture, is corrupting and degrading a large part of Christ's Church over which it has usurped supreme control. |
Further evidence for this appraisal of the Roman Catholic
Church would be the appraisal of the mass already referred to as "most
abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice," as "contrary to
the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ" and as
a doctrine which "over-throweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath
been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries"
(Westminster Confession of Faith, xxix, 2, 4, 6). The committee thinks
that this apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church does not need to be further
established.
A summary statement in the decision of 1845 states the matter with perceptiveness
in regard to the implication for baptism: "As certainly then, as the dogmas
and practices of papal Rome are not the holy religion of Christ, must
it be conceded, that the papal body is not a Church of Christ...; and
if not, then ... the rite they call baptism, is not, in any sense, to
be regarded as valid Christian baptism." In making this appraisal, the
committee reminded the Assembly that as long ago as 1790 the Assembly
had made the correlation between true church and true ordinances with
the corollary of a false church and invalid ordinances. Although Hodge
vigorously challenged this appraisal of the Roman Catholic Church by the
General Assemblies of 1835 and 1845, insisting that even Rome's doctrine
of salvation manifested that it was a church of Christ, the General Assembly
held to its evaluation of 1845, in the reaffirmation of 1879. The Southern
Assembly of 1871 took the same position in regard to the Roman Catholic
Church as these other assemblies did.
The study committee turned to the book of Galatians because it dealt with
a situation analogous to that of the Roman Catholic Church. The false
teachers at Galatia taught that one is saved only by a combination of
faith and works (Gal. 3:1-5, 11; 5:1- 11; 6:12-15). This is also the teaching
of Roman Catholicism as evidenced by the decision of the Council of Trent,
decisions still in effect. The Apostle Paul called such a message "a different
gospel which is really not another," indicated that they did "distort
the gospel of Christ," and said that those who taught and held it were
"accursed" by God (Galations 1:6-9). Paul sought to rid the congregation
of their presence and teaching.
The Apostle John says that the false teachers and leaders that he opposed
"went out from us ... in order that it might be shown that they all are
not of us" (1 John 2:19). John's verdict covering a group existing alongside
of his own fellowship as not part of the apostolic fellowship or communion,
made us realize such a verdict would also have to be rendered on a group
like that of the Galatian false teachers who were adjudged with equal
severity by Paul, if and when they existed as a separate entity. The similarity
between the false teachers in the book of Galations and the Roman Catholic
Church is so close that the committee was compelled by the Scripture to
come to the same verdict on that group that the Apostle Paul had, and
also by implication as the Apostle John had, in an analogous situation.
The effect of this Scriptural perspective for the validity of baptism
should be evident. If the message is no gospel, indeed, a distortion of
the gospel, and they are accursed by God (Gal. 1:6-9), then any such church
group would come under the same indictment. John says that those who leave
the teaching of Christ "do not have God" (2 John 9); and Paul says of
those who embrace the doctrine of the false teachers of Galatia that "Christ
will be of no benefit" (Gal. 5:2) and that they are "severed from Christ"
and not in the sphere of grace (Gal. 5:4). Would their baptism be valid,
even if with water, in the name of the Trinity, and with the intent to
comply with Christ's Command? May those who are severed from Christ, from
grace, and from God, administer Christ's ordinance of baptism? The committee,
on the basis of this consideration of Scripture, joins with the early
unanimous verdict of the courts of American Presbyterianism on the Roman
Catholic Church and its baptism. It is constrained to answer in the negative.
One of the problems remaining is the fact that John Calvin resisted the
urging of the Anabaptists that he, having been baptized by the Roman Catholics,
should be (re-) baptized (Institutes 4.15.16-18). His response must be
understood in terms of the uniqueness of the situation and not wrongly
generalized. He, of course, resisted the Anabaptists' desire to have him
repudiate his infant baptism and receive baptism as an adult believer.
The effect that this situation had upon him can be seen in his insisting
that Paul did not really baptize the disciples of John the Baptist in
Ephesus and in his insisting that the baptism of John the Baptist is Christian
baptism. This insistence, contrary to the text of the Scriptures, is so
that he can assert that those were not "re- baptisms" at all in opposition
to the Anabaptists. The denomination in which Calvin was baptized was
a church in flux, and coming to but not yet beyond the crossroads (cf.,
Institutes 4.2.11). It is not yet the church of the counter-reformation,
the Council of Trent and its anathemas on the doctrine of justification
by faith alone (see H. J. Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council
of Trent, "Sixth Session, Decree Covering Justification" and particularly
"Canon 9," "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,
meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain
the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.") That pre-Reformation
church in flux is the church in which Calvin and many of the other Reformation
believers had been members. Thus Calvin and the church of today stand
at different vantage points in evaluating the Roman Catholic Church, i.e.,
the church of his infancy, the pre-reformation church, and the Roman Catholic
church post-reformation and postCouncil-of-Trent. The analogy could be
drawn between certain congregational churches in New England before and
after the transition to Unitarianism. The study committee is convinced
that this first argument is a firm and true principle and should be followed
in regard to the Roman Catholic Church as it is followed in regard to
such groups as the Unitarian Church and the Mormon Church. Just as we
have not received members by letter of transfer from the Roman Catholic
Church because we do not believe it to be a true church, so we should
not receive its baptism, which we acknowledge admits one into the visible
church (Westminster Confession of Faith, xxviii, 1) as a true and valid
baptism.
(2) The second reason given by the General Assembly of 1845 was
that the Romish priest are not ministers of Christ and the Word, and therefore
the rites administered by them cannot be regarded as the ordinances of
Christ. Although your study committee acknowledges the truth of this reason,
it regards it as a corollary of reason number (1) and an application of
that conclusion and not actually an independent argument.
The perspective of our Confession, which reflects the outcome of the early
Donatist controversy, when it says that the efficacy of a sacrament does
not depend upon the piety of the one that administers it (Westminster
Confession of Faith, xxvii, 3), is really dealing with a different situation.
That earlier Donatist controversy dealt with the question of a minister
who succumbed momentarily to the pressure of persecution. The church in
which he ministered was more or less pure in upholding the Gospel. His
succumbing to the pressure of persecution did not thus invalidate the
sacraments he had administered.
The situation in view in the Roman Catholic priesthood is not that which
our Confession and the Donatist controversy addresses. It is that of a
ministry and a church which, in the words of Paul describing the false
teachers of Galatia, preach "a different gospel, which is not another,"
"distort the gospel of Christ" and thus lie under the Apostolic judgment,
"let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:6-9). Therefore, inevitably, in this case,
Romish church and Romish ministry are evaluated alike.
(3) The doctrine or meaning of the sacrament of baptism is so corrupted
by the Romish communion that it invalidates the sacrament of baptism.
The committee is persuaded that this argument like argument number (2)
is really a sub-point or corollary of argument number (1). When the Gospel's
doctrine of justification is repudiated, then the church, its ministry,
and its sacraments, all stand under the judgment of the Apostle Paul of
"no gospel," of distortion of the Gospel of Christ and of being accursed
by God (Gal. 1:6-9). Although the doctrine of the mass can itself directly
challenge the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ and its sufficiency and
thus by itself be so corrupting that it invalidates that sacrament, and
although there are many erroneous features to the doctrine of baptism
in the Roman Catholic Church (e.g., baptismal regeneration and forgiveness
solely through the operation of the sacrament), in the case of the sacrament
of baptism it is not these errors that invalidate the sacrament but rather
the overarching repudiation of the Gospel of grace alone through faith
alone that invalidates the Roman Catholic Church, its message, and its
sacraments.
The committee is persuaded that our church is not being called on to make
a relative judgment here of how theologically and biblically erroneous
the Roman Catholic Church's view of baptism may be. Rather, it is at each
and every place confronted with the heart question of the Scriptures,
the Gospel, and with the Apostle Paul's radical and absolute judgment.
In coming to this conclusion, we are provided a perspective from which
to address the specific question of the Grace Presbytery. It raised the
question whether "the recipients of so-called baptism, by a religious
body, which claimed the sacraments as a part of a process of justification
(as in the case of Roman Catholic, Church of Christ, or Lutheran churches)
The three arguments given are in essence one - is the church a true church
of Christ. And that question is finally one of fidelity to the Gospel.
Christ's Apostle Paul speaks the verdict of the Head of the Church when
he says that those, are "severed from Christ,
RECOMMENDATIONS:
(1) That the Assembly adopt the following recommendations with respect
to Roman Catholic baptism:
A. that the General Assembly counsel that the baptism of those churches
that have so degenerated from the Gospel of Christ as to be no churches
of Christ (cf., Westminster Confession of Faith, xxv, 5; e.g., Unitarian,
Mormon, Roman Catholic) is not to be regarded as valid Christian baptism;
and
B. that converts from those groups be instructed in this matter and be
given Christian baptism; and
C. that sessions and pastors deal with any of those converts
who have difficulties with this matter in the same way that they deal
with converts from a non-religious background who have difficulties with
baptism for themselves.
(2) That the Assembly adopt the following recommendation as a further
answer to the question of Grace Presbytery:
A. that erroneous views of baptism, which do not absolutely contradict
and overturn the Gospel, do not invalidate the baptisms in these true
churches.
(3) That the Assembly consider and vote upon the answer given by both
the Committee of Commissioners on Judicial Business and the Sub-Committee
on Judicial Business to the question of Western Carolinas Presbytery which
is now also recommended by the Study Committee with the addition of citations
from the confessional standards, as follows:
Q. May baptisms properly be administered to individuals making profession
of faith, but who do not intend to become members of the requested congregation?
If so, under what circumstances?
A. Baptism should not be administered to those individuals making profession
of faith but who do not intend to become members of the requested congregation
("Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ...
for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church..."
Westminster Confession of Faith xxviii, 1; "Baptism is a sacrament of
the New Testament ... whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted
into the visible church . ." Larger Catechism 165; "Baptism is not to
be administered to any that are out of the visible church..." Larger Catechism
166). (4) That the Assembly consider and vote upon the answer given by
both the Committee of Commissioners on Judicial Business and the Sub-Committee
on Judicial Business to the question of Western Carolinas Presbytery,
which is now also recommended by the Study Committee as follows: Q. May
infant baptism properly be administered to covenant children of persons
who are not members of the particular congregation asked? (For personal
reasons they have not joined Trinity, but hold membership in the CRC where
they formerly resided.) If so, under what circumstances? A. Ordinarily
infant baptism should be administered only to covenant children of persons
who are members of the requested congregation. However, baptism is not
to be unnecessarily delayed (BCO 56-1); therefore, it would be proper
for a minister to baptize the child of members of another church where
those members find it impossible or impracticable to return to their home
church due to an occupational assignment (military, business, etc.). In
every case such baptism should be administered only with the consent of
the home Session, with proper notification of the baptism in order that
due spiritual oversight may be given and accurate records kept.
Respectfully submitted:
Frank M. Barker, Jr.
Carl W. Bogue, Jr.
George W. Knight, III, Chairman
Paul G. Settle