PCA HISTORICAL CENTER
|
||||||||||||
Documents of Synod: REPORT OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE ON [159th General Synod Minutes, 22 May 1981, pp. 32-45; Documents of Synod, pp. 101-114.] The Rev. David Linden presented the following report: The report is in response to the action of the 157th General Synod where a study committee was erected to provide some guidelines or principles by which local sessions may decide whether previous baptisms with water in the name of the Triune God are to be deemed valid. The overture to the 157th Synod gave as an example Roman Catholic infant baptism. The overture informs us of a decision of Midwestern Presbytery in declaring that if a session deems a previous baptism to be valid, then baptism is not to be repeated. This committee report agrees to a high degree, but counsels a flexible response in certain situations. I. A Typical Expression of the Problem What is a man faithful to the Word to do when he sees a "baptism" as valid and yet it was so defective that the one who received it cannot be contented that the sign was truly applied? II. Is Saving Faith Essential to Baptism? The case for an affirmative answer: The Confession states, "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered. . . ." [XXVII:VI] This statement is directed to the condition of the recipient of baptism. It does not settle whether saving faith may be absent in child, parents and minister—all three—and the ceremony still be valid. Charles Hodge, in the section of his Systematic Theology entitled "Validity of the Sacraments," held that "the ordinance must be administered and received in the faith of the Trinity."[1] Scripture contains many examples of divine disgust for ceremonies lacking faith and good works [Isaiah 1:11-17]
How can we say anything is valid if it clearly violates the biblical ideal? Do we have the right to see the chief spiritual element on our part in the ritual detached and still declare such a ritual valid? It appears, thus, that the church sides with the Pharisees against the Lord! When the Confession declares that "the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered,"[2] it is referring to the fact that the one baptized [in this case a child], though not then having faith, will, if one of the elect, in God's appointed time, indeed receive the promised grace. It is not declaring valid all baptisms regardless of saving faith on the part of those responsible for the decision of baptism. And when the Confession holds to one administration[3] of the sacrament, it means of course one valid baptism. If a previous baptism is not valid and thus is replaced by a genuine one, then and only then would the Confession prohibit another. The case for a negative answer: If lack of faith invalidates a ceremony, what is to prevent lack of faith from invalidating the gospel itself? It is probably this line of reasoning that provoked such a strong reaction from the apostle Paul:
If we ask Paul what made circumcision efficacious, he would reply, ". . .In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6). Another reason circumcision had value no longer – in Romans 3 it is presented as having value in the past – is that it is surpassed as a superior sacrament. However, the same principle still applies. In Christ Jesus the ritual of baptism detached from faith, or the lack of the ritual does not determine one's relationship with God. In short, saving faith is the chief element on the human side that demonstrates efficacy. Validity, however, is determined by the fact that baptism is God's seal, a witness to the truth of the gospel whether that witness is heeded or not. In this world, a check is a valid contract or promise; it is not efficacious, however, if the signer is unrighteous and does not back up his word with sufficient funds. In Romans 3, God's faithfulness is not blemished by our lack of faith. The real contrast is between our unrighteousness and God's righteousness, not validity versus lack of it. The seal of baptism is a genuine, honest, and sincere attachment that God adds to His word which He will carry out as promised if His conditions are met. Validity does not stand or fall on human response! It is valid because it is given by God. The Old Testament sacrifices, feasts, and rituals, all of which were frequently distorted by human sin, and their purpose in Christ ignored by the bulk of Israel, became repulsive even to God. But they still had their validity as His institution. The miracles of Christ, which, like sacraments, are objectifications of the gospel, did not create faith. Indeed, they were so resisted at times that they were purported by some of the leaders of Israel to be works of Satan. Such unbelief did not damage the miracles themselves, however, or enable the observers to escape from increased responsibility to believe. The miracles are so objectively of God that they made the sins of Bethsaida more heinous than those of Sodom. Wedding rings do not make marriages, but they add witness to the covenantal relationship and stand to support vows whether taken in sincerity or not. What pastor involved in counseling a couple whose marriage is in a condition of advanced deterioration has not heard this argument: "Well, pastor, marriages are made in heaven, you know, and neither of us were Christians at the time. We had not real spiritual foundation to our marriage—why are we still bound by those vows now?" The effort here is to escape an objectively binding ceremony by refuge in subjectivity. The reasoning goes, "We are married only if we meant it! we did not mean it; therefore, we were not validly married!" But God who joined them together meant it, and God holds them to the compact. Cannot God also, in the day of judgment, hold up the witness of the defective, insincere, unenlightened baptismal ceremony as rightfully increasing His claim upon the baptized sinner who would not bow before Christ as Lord? Can he not treat that sin as not only the rebellion common to the fallen world, but also one aggravated by the witness of the covenantal sign, so that the sin now is more explicitly treasonous? If saving faith determines validity, then covenant obedience must be present prior to administration. But the sign like the gospel witness may also call to obedience even before it exists. If we fuse validity and efficacy into the same concept, we would be unable to appeal as Scripture does in Hebrews 10:26-31. There the blood of the covenant truly and externally had sanctified unregenerated people (verse 29) who were part of His people to be judged (verse 30). The call of Hebrews is to make efficacious by faith and repentance what God had made valid and binding by His sovereign institution. God shows no hesitation to expect covenant compliance from these unregenerate people. This He could not do if saving faith had to be present to make the covenant binding. III. Who Determines Whether a Baptism is Valid? This determination is most definitely to be made by the church. Some reasons to support this: 1. It is the church's role both to teach God's people to be baptized and to baptize them. Matthew 28:18-20 is addressed to the church. If laymen can declare a church's administration valid or invalid, the role of administration assigned by Christ to His ministers is superceded by the declaratory powers of those receiving baptism. If a baptism is pronounced invalid by an individual Christian, the church then in a severe role reversal, must, at the church member's insistence, baptize again. If the determination of validity remains with the individual, he may insist on a third or fourth baptism as well, and the church would be forced to acquiesce. We will do well not to yield our role and our authority. Determination of validity is actually superior to administration. 2. Christ has assigned the church the authority to make such decisions. Christ Himself possesses all authority in heaven and in earth, but delegates to His servants certain tasks where the church acts in His name. The Great Commission, preceded by the affirmation of Christ's authority, is then a delegation of responsibility to act in His name while supported by His presence (Matthew 28:18-20). This is clear also from those passages spelling out the meaning of the keys.[5] The church binds and looses as the delegated holder of the keys of the Kingdom. In His name and by His Word the church remits or retains sins—this defining who are in or not in the Kingdom of God. Thus, the church extends or withholds the sacraments and does so because it acts in a declaratory capacity as the pillar and foundation of God's truth (I Timothy 3:15). How, then could the subject of baptism have the final word on the validity of a sacrament only extended in the regulation of Christ to the church? It is our present view and practice that the church determines the validity and acceptability of confessions of faith. But the Lord alone knows who are really His (cf. II Timothy 2:19). If the church must do such responsible things as these, how much more is it able to do the lesser which already properly belong in the scope of its divine delegation. If our members determine the validity of their baptisms, who can hinder their independent decision on the acceptability of their confession of faith? Or shall members under the sterner censures unilaterally declare a repentance unrecognized by the leadership as sufficient and proceed to serve themselves the Lord's Supper? We think not! To doubt that it is the church who makes this judgment is to question if the church is anything more than a conglomerate of people with a common experience of personal salvation. Even if that were all the church is, all conglomerations of people develop leadership to fill vacuums. We are human, and therefore instinctively arrange ourselves in family structures. Leaders we will have and we will follow, and decisions for us and about us they shall make. Even if we were to admit that the flock will determine the validity of their own baptisms, they would then be at pains to know if the leadership of the church agreed with their decision. While we insist upon an unwavering position at this point, we do recommend a more yielding countenance toward any who have protracted difficulty accepting their previous "baptism" as valid. There are important subjective considerations to be addressed. IV. Counsel to Pastors and Sessions A. Reasons to Resist a Subsequent Baptism. 1. Broken Symbolism. By the grace of God our church is of the unified conviction that the segment of salvation, which is the conversion complex, is unrepeatable. This is part of the spiritual reality which baptism as shadow signifies. If we allow a perversion of the shadow, we possibly open the door to a misreading of the reality. Some Christians think they can be in and out of Christ, which error does great damage to their souls! Baptisms should be occasions of teaching sound doctrine. Good doctrine insists that the baptism with the Holy Spirit, regeneration, justification, and adoption can only occur once. We men may baptize twice, but God Himself cannot regenerate twice without breaking His Word (1 John 3:9). Christ cannot baptize twice with the Spirit. Those disposed to second baptisms may be susceptible to the logical consistency that the things signified are also repeatable. This is the very thing our Lord wants His courageous servants in His name to oppose. If we know a Christian believes himself to have a valid baptism, we must refuse all requests for repetition. The one requesting may not realize it, but we know we would be insulting by symbol those saving acts of the Lord which are punctiliar in nature. Similarly, if we were by policy to partake of communion only once, we would thereby assault the continuous nature of the work of sanctification. The symbolism of baptism being administered only once communicates foundational truths about our union with Christ. 2. The Faithfulness of God. A marriage with one partner faithful to the vows and the other not does not require ceremonial repetition of vows in order to be a true marriage. The faithful partner could well refuse a repetition on the grounds of seriousness about them the first time. Such vows are really made only once, even though reaffirmed in the heart constantly. Likewise, we counsel against rebaptism in favor of reaffirmation! 3. The Impact Upon the Convert's Family. The apostle Paul found sincere zeal in unbelieving Israel. It registered with him (Romans 10:1-4); he was in anguish over Israel's unbelief and dismissal of the true significance of their entire tradition in order to win them (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). He even participated in Jewish ceremonies in Acts 21:17-26 that were already fulfilled in Christ. It would be very easy in the light of some New Testament teaching to avoid all Jewish ceremony and practice. Most of Paul's observers knew only the ceremony and not Christ: His atoning offering or true purification. But Paul was reaching out to win Israelites, without denying His Lord. In fact, he fought with unwavering principle all attempts to require any ceremony as a prerequisite to salvation. The offense of the cross he joyfully and boldly embraced. But unnecessary insult to the sensitivities of even the unregenerate who are so attached to their ceremonies, was something to be avoided. The example is clear to us. Our counsel to our new Christians with parents sensitive to this issue is that they not be baptized again. Those could well have been loving parents hoping and praying the best for their children in much sincerity, even if crippled by ignorance. The positive witness to the family could well be, God has done these great things for me that my baptism pointed to. By faith I have confirmed those vows and I now truly belong to the Lord. A testimony that stresses the divinely intended substance of the first "baptism" is far better than a defense of the superiority of the second one. Converts might even be able, in sincerity, to thank their parents for showing an interest in their eternal welfare. 4. The Burden of Investigating all Baptisms. And some may have had faith! Some may have been in Christ at the time they gave the rite. The process of investigation through the dim past, searching out such things as faith or the lack of it in deceased priests or parents will convince one that only God knows the heart. The difficulties of investigation will also lead, in practicality, to a policy of second baptism without the often impossible research. Subjective validation will spread to all other baptisms also. If an RPCES pastor is shown to be unregenerate, all his "baptisms" could fall with him. Dr. Buswell wisely wrote of participation in the other sacrament. "The value of participation depends wholly upon its institution by Christ, and not in the slightest degree upon the human channel by which it is administered."[8] If we are not careful, none of us will know for sure if we have been baptized. Likewise, if our salvation rested on the quality of our faith rather than faith's perfect object, we could not truly know if we are saved. The committee believes God has not left us in such confusing positions. We can know we are saved and we can know we are baptized. 5. Our Doctrinal Standards. Those who perform subsequent baptisms have a confessional responsibility to treat them purely as initial baptisms. This must be done on some grounds, either the convictions of the Presbyterian minister and session, or the conscience of the convert. B. Reasons to Consider Requests for a Subsequent Baptism. 1. The Lingering Question of Whether the "Baptism" was Truly Valid. After discussion and review of this question, we will probably not be fully persuaded as a body of elders on this question. On such a question as this, a commissioner is allowed to leave Synod persuaded of a view different from that recommended by Synod. Such a brother is not under the same strain as the new convert. The mature brother is not being denied an opportunity to obey Christ. In fact, he is being allowed to obey with a free conscience. We may, in unhurried fashion, review and refine our views. The new believer may want to know without undue delay if he can obey the Lord by being baptized! Since we allow fellow elders leeway on this subject, can we not allow some to those less capable of bearing the same burden? Must we make God's lambs accept positions His shepherds are not so sure of? The problem is not so much that the lambs ask us hard questions, as that we have not adequately resolved the replies. In such circumstances, the greater burden ought to be carried by the strong. 2. The Nature of a Ceremony. We urge ourselves to remember that this is a ceremony, not the inner substance of our faith. It is not to be neglected or abased, but neither is it to be magnified. The apostle Paul could not specifically recall exactly how many he had baptized (I Corinthians 1:13-17). Baptismal ceremonies were not central to his ministry. 3. The Priority of Human Need over Ceremony. Possibly the most notable example of ceremonial violation is David's eating the showbread, lawful only for the priests to eat (Mark 2:23-26). For David to eat the priest's showbread without reason would be wrong, but it was allowed in the situation David faced, and the Lord expressly indicated that it was permitted even though ceremonially unlawful! The Sabbath is meant for man, the showbread could be used for man, and baptism, too, is meant for man to bolster faith and be for them the occasion of sealing vows of allegiance. Thus, it is a gracious condescension to our human, physical, and psychological makeup. In a situation where the convert is not confident that he has been baptized, there is a need the church must meet. We may be assured that he has been baptized, but he needs to know that he has been, too. We ought to meet this kind of hunger even by bending of ceremony so that each of our flock knows for certain that he has been baptized once. In the context of sacrifice and ceremony, the Lord told rigid Pharisees that he desired mercy. In the tension between our scruples and the needs of the converts, your committee advises that the weightier issue is the need of our people. 4. Our Responsibility to the Convert's Conscience. Our counsel is to teach patiently the full-orbed doctrines we believe the Lord has graciously brought us to understand. If the arguments against dismissing an earlier "baptism" do not avail—we propose a cheerful administration of the water of baptism for conscience's sake. We believe that if the minister is secure in his convictions and committed to the health of his people, second administrations will be rare. 5. A Possible Hindrance to Fellowship. C. Pastoral Responsibilities. 1. The Pastor's Conscience. 2. The Pastor's Role as Teacher of the Word. 3. The Pastor's Role as Shepherd. V. Guidelines to Assist in Recognizing the Validity of a Previous Baptism. "What is Baptism? "It is a sacrament wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and the partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's" (Q. 94, Westminster Catechism). If a baptism comes from within a Christian tradition where the Trinity is understood and Jesus Christ is accepted as the one who came in the flesh and where He is designated the Savior, we urge acceptance of that baptism as valid. Thus, we reject outrightly the baptisms of the cults who stand outside the stream of catholic history. There is a distinct difference between contrived imitations and Roman distortions. The Holy Spirit and the truth of the gospel are not absent in the Roman Catholic Church. However, at this point, we express our firm outrage that so many of its communicants have been taught to trust in the sacraments themselves and to give only lip-service to the atoning sacrifice of the Savior. The truth of God has been slighted, but the enemy of God has not had a thorough victory. Recent developments in some segments of the Roman church have been beyond the expectations and faith of most of us. __________________________ Endnotes: [2] Westminster Confession, XXVIII:VI [3] Westminster Confession, XXVIII:VII [4] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 506. "The ministry of the sacraments must, of course, go hand in hand with the ministry of the Word. It is merely the symbolical presentation of the gospel, addressed to the eye rather than the ear." [5] Matthew 16:18; John 20:21-23. The key to the House of David in Isaiah 22:15-24, symbolized office, position, authority, opening and shutting, and being in charge of the royal palace. In Revelation 3:7, this same symbolism shows the royal authority of Christ in the House of David. [6] Westminster Confession, XXVIII:VI [7] We urge again, at this point, attention to Romans 2:28 – 3:4, referred to previously. [8] James Oliver Buswell, Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. Vol. II, p. 237. [9] Westminster Confession, XXVIII.VI [10] In the Minutes of the 22nd General Synod of the Evangelical Presbyterian branch of the RPCES, a motion concerning a brother who had been previously ordained as a Roman Catholic priest, would have required "that he also be rebaptized". This is the very terminology we must avoid. The Judicial Commission did not insist that his baptism be repeated. HISTORICAL APPENDIX A 1. Northern Presbyterian History of This Doctrinal Debate In 1790, the General Assembly resolved that sessions should judge the validity of baptism in difficult cases with the aid of presbytery:
J. Aspinwall Hodge summarizes the following history of this discussion in What is Presbyterian Law as Defined by the Church Courts? (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1884), p. 84-85.
Immediately following the 1845 Assembly, Charles Hodge wrote a vigorous dissent to this nearly unanimous (169 for, 8 against, 6 abstaining) Assembly decision. It is an article so definitive, it still merits the church's closest study. In it Hodge argued:
Since the 1845 General Assembly had been influenced by various southerners (including James H. Thornwell), later assemblies took a more tolerant position, after the withdrawal of the Southern Presbyterian Church. J. Aspinwall Hodge (p. 85) summarizes this more moderate position:
This decision, however, has all the marks of parliamentary compromise about it. It says neither that Roman Catholic baptism is valid, nor that it is not. The decision to leave the question to the judgment of each church session may as much reflect the absence of a consensus as its presence. Did the two sides merely agree to disagree? Or was there a principled return to the more catholic position of 1790? The current practice of the Northern Presbyterian Church is given by Eugene Carson Blake in Presbyterian Law for the Local Church (The Division of Publication of the Board of Christian Education of the PCUSA, 1953), p. 45: A baptized Roman Catholic may be received either on profession of faith or on reaffirmation of faith. Discretion is left to the session as to the mode of reception, even to the inclusion of a rebaptism, if it is desired by the new member, although a session should be careful not to require rebaptism of anyone who has already been baptized in the name of the Triune God. 2. Southern Presbyterian History of this Doctrinal Debate Under the influence of James H. Thornwell, the Southern Presbyterian Church took a more restrictive view of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism: The General Assembly of 1871 declared invalid the baptism of the Romish, Unitarian, and Campbellite (Christian) Churches. (AD, pp. 25-26.) In 1882, this position was modified with reference to the Campbellite (Christian) Church as follows: To affirm that no minister of that denomination ever administers Christian baptism, is a proposition that this Assembly is not prepared to accept, and the decision of the question of how far the certificates and sacraments of the churches of that denomination are to be recognized and received, must be left to the session and Presbyteries immediately interested in the subject. (GA, 1882, pp. 573-574). The Assembly of 1884 (p. 206) reaffirmed the action of 1871 relating to this subject, as it applied to Romish baptism only. The other two were not mentioned. Again in 1909, (p. 48), the Assembly deemed no further action on Romish baptism necessary, and in 1914, (pp. 62-63), the Assembly declined to rescind its action of 184 on this subject (J.D. Leslie, Presbyterian Law and Procedure in the PCUS [Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1930], p. 135. HISTORICAL APPENDIX B RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. We recommend that baptism be recognized as valid when the following three elements are present: 2. We urge our pastors and sessions to accept Roman Catholic baptism as valid because baptism is God's institution. 3. We urge our pastors and sessions, thus, to avoid a subsequent baptism of those we believe to have been validly baptized. 4. If, after careful instruction on the meaning and symbolism of baptism, our people still cannot believe that they have ever been truly baptized, we recommend yielding to their needs and consciences by baptizing them. It should not be done, however, if the candidate for baptism has tendencies toward denial of such clear biblical doctrines as the unrepeatable nature of regeneration, justification, adoption, and the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Breaking the symbolism would do evident damage in such cases.
ACTION: Back to the Table of Contents of Documents of Synod ©PCA Historical Center, 12330 Conway Road, St. Louis, MO, 2018. All Rights Reserved. |