# Private Baptisms



## Unoriginalname

A week ago, I was challenged to defend the notion that baptism should be done in a church against the idea that any old person can baptize someone in any place. I think that notion of sacraments being a job of the pastors is pretty easy to defend scripturally but I was having difficulty figuring out away to explain why baptisms should be done in a church setting. I was also having a hard time with the passages in Acts that describe baptisms by the Apostles taking place outside of corporate worship. So I was hoping someone could help shed some light on this issue and help me more fully grasp why private baptisms are wrong. Now for the record I fully believe that private baptisms are not proper but I just do not fully get the rational.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

:grabssomepopcorn:


----------



## KMK

Just turn the argument around on them and have them prove that Baptisms _should_ be done in the home without the presence of the church. 

These kinds of people love to find the exception to the rule and then exploit it. Personally, I would redeem the time and not waste another breathe arguing with them. Instead, ask them how their walk with the Lord is going and focus them on faith in Christ.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Do they have a covenantal understanding of Baptism? If so what is their understanding of the Covenant Community? Do they understand the concept of the visible and unvisible church?

How do they see the Lord Supper being administered? How about church discipline can anybody in their view administer these? What is their understanding of the purpose and responisbility of the local church body? How do they understand the purpose of the hiarchy within the church?

You could explain to them that the church in Acts was in it's infancy and was in transition stage, using the book of Acts solely to build your ecclesiology might not be wise.

Their answers to these questions might give you a place to start.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I agree with Ken that there ought to be a good argument advanced that baptisms _don't_ belong in the church.

I think the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch is the only example from the NT that one can argue took place in a semi-private situation. The rest of them take place (insofar as the setting can be definitively described) in some kind of official church-setting. In any case, even the case of the Ethiopian shows that some kind of official churchly presence is effected by the presence of its officer-bearers performing their duty.

It so happens that corporate worship is perhaps the best, fullest, most ideal expression of the church's existence, presence, and identity. So why _shouldn't_ the regular practice of baptism occur in that setting? It seems most obvious to me that the objection to standard-practice begins from a position that denies the essential propriety of good order in the church and the egalitarian impulse ("hey, you're not better than me!").


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

I suppose "narrative is not normative" would be lost on them, if your having this discussion at all?


----------



## Constantlyreforming

Contra_Mundum said:


> I agree with Ken that there ought to be a good argument advanced that baptisms _don't_ belong in the church.
> 
> *I think the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch is the only example from the NT that one can argue took place in a semi-private situation*. The rest of them take place (insofar as the setting can be definitively described) in some kind of official church-setting. In any case, even the case of the Ethiopian shows that some kind of official churchly presence is effected by the presence of its officer-bearers performing their duty.
> 
> It so happens that corporate worship is perhaps the best, fullest, most ideal expression of the church's existence, presence, and identity. So why _shouldn't_ the regular practice of baptism occur in that setting? It seems most obvious to me that the objection to standard-practice begins from a position that denies the essential propriety of good order in the church and the egalitarian impulse ("hey, you're not better than me!").




It seems that Paul never leaves the jail, yet the jailer and his household are baptized there at the jail....


???

Am I remembering this correctly??


----------



## Poimen

Herman Bavinck argues for the administration of baptism in the midst of the congregation since it “depicts our incorporation into Christ and his church (1 Corinthians 12:13) and is therefore most fittingly administered in the public gathering of believers.” (_Reformed Dogmatics_ Volume 4, page 535)


----------



## Jack K

Here's the argument I'd make:

If Christ were still on earth and in the vicinity when you were going to be baptized, would you want him to be present for your baptism? Would that seem appropriate, or would it be better to do it on your own without him knowing about it? What about the Spirit? Do you want him present?

Well, if you'd want Christ to be there for your baptism, why wouldn't you want Christ's church to be there for your baptism? If you want the Spirit present for your baptism, why not the body of believers who are joined in the Spirit?

The preference for private baptism reveals a weak view of the church and the fact that it is Christ's church, indwelt by his Spirit. Examining passages that give examples of baptism in a missionary context won't help much. You need to study passages that explain how Christ is in the church by his Spirit. Then, with a strong and biblical view of the church, church baptisms make perfect sense.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

Jack-

Do you think that the few instances of quiet or hidden baptisms was to avoid persecution maybe?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Constantlyreforming said:


> It seems that Paul never leaves the jail, yet the jailer and his household are baptized there at the jail.



First, since at least two church-officers are present, as well as however many people are in the household of the Jailer, I think this qualifies as a significant _public_ event. I'm using "public" in the sense that there's no intent to keep this matter "in house" or "under wraps," and that it involves a wide assortment of individuals. The fact that this happens under a particular roof (an attached dwelling) does not argue for privacy in this sense. And why may we not presume that persons from Lydia's house could have been called together to this drama this very night? After all, they had an interest in these things. Such a presence isn't necessary to establish the validity of the occasion, but neither must we exclude the possibility.

Second, this is a nacent-church event. NT churches are constituted in private homes all the time at the beginning; indeed it is the norm, if both Acts and the Epistles give us any accurate picture of the status by way of the examples provided. Hence, Paul in essence (and by his authority) conducts an evangelistic worship service then and there. The baptism is a sign that the church has arrived with official status in Philippi.


----------



## Jack K

Constantlyreforming said:


> Jack-
> Do you think that the few instances of quiet or hidden baptisms was to avoid persecution maybe?



I'm not sure what would qualify as a hidden baptism.

There were some where only few believers seem to have been present.
- The Ethiopian eunuch was simply far from any church.
- The Philippian jailer and his family couldn't wait until the Sabbath by the river because Paul and Silas were liable to be run out of town before then.
- Paul was in no position to be trotted out in front of the church in Damascus, where he was feared. Although his baptism at first glance may look secretive, he proceeded to go out preaching at great personal risk, so clearly there was no hiding involved.

If you ask me, I suspect the urge to get those baptisms done right away was more of a factor than secrecy. In fact, far from any hiding, it seems there was a desire to get those converts officially identified as believers and part of the church before events conspired to separate the missionary from the new believers. Those baptisms are pro-church.

Incidents like those make a decent argument for baptism without delay, but I don't see much secrecy. Being baptized seems to entail being a public believer. In fact, I can't think of any believers in Acts who kept their faith a secret. I'm not saying that's never appropriate, but I can't think of a post-Pentecost example in the Bible. Which instances did you have in mind?


----------



## earl40

Now just to play devil advocate....what are we to do with EXTREMELY shy people? Personally I would have loved to have my sons baptized with our pastor and an elder or two only present. Now of course I sinned in waiting for them to be fully grown before they were baptized but I still would have had (along with all 3 sons) preferred to have a semi private baptism. I will state this as clearly as I can....I HATE BEING IN FRONT OF LARGE CROWDS.


----------



## Unoriginalname

Thanks all of you. Pastor Klein's remark about turning the tables and Rev. Buchanan's remarks about homes constituting churches in the early years after Pentecost pretty much cleared everything up for me.


----------



## kodos

No such thing as a private baptism anyway 

_Therefore, *since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses*, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God._ 

That said - I had my 4 children baptized a couple of months ago - they are very shy. They did fine. I am very shy. I did fine when I got baptized in the old mega church I was baptized in 3.5 years ago. Talk to your session about it - I'm sure you aren't the first shy family they've had to minister to 




earl40 said:


> Now just to play devil advocate....what are we to do with EXTREMELY shy people? Personally I would have loved to have my sons baptized with our pastor and an elder or two only present. Now of course I sinned in waiting for them to be fully grown before they were baptized but I still would have had (along with all 3 sons) preferred to have a semi private baptism. I will state this as clearly as I can....I HATE BEING IN FRONT OF LARGE CROWDS.


----------



## earl40

kodos said:


> No such thing as a private baptism anyway
> 
> _Therefore, *since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses*, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God._
> 
> That said - I had my 4 children baptized a couple of months ago - they are very shy. They did fine. I am very shy. I did fine when I got baptized in the old mega church I was baptized in 3.5 years ago. Talk to your session about it - I'm sure you aren't the first shy family they've had to minister to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now just to play devil advocate....what are we to do with EXTREMELY shy people? Personally I would have loved to have my sons baptized with our pastor and an elder or two only present. Now of course I sinned in waiting for them to be fully grown before they were baptized but I still would have had (along with all 3 sons) preferred to have a semi private baptism. I will state this as clearly as I can....I HATE BEING IN FRONT OF LARGE CROWDS.
Click to expand...


I did and he refused because of "the rules of the PCA". I see this as stepping outside of what thy shall or shall not do. Not good In my most humble opinion but we got through it just fine....though I KNOW there are people who would not get baptized at a good reformed church because of this "rule".


----------



## jwithnell

> I did and he refused because of "the rules of the PCA". I see this as stepping outside of what thy shall or shall not do. Not good In my most humble opinion but we got through it just fine....though I KNOW there are people who would not get baptized at a good reformed church because of this "rule".


 I find this to be a troubling statement. The only rule in true church is the rule of Christ as expressed in the scriptures.

A basic question should be asked here: what does baptism do? Is it a personal statement of faith as is the practice of many credo-baptists (not necessarily reformed). Or is it joining someone to the covenant body of Christ? If it is the latter, which is the historic reformed position, then it makes little sense to engage in baptism outside the church; and since the sacraments are an element of worship, baptism should be done during corporate worship. This also explains why a church should not agree to baptize someone who is not being joined to the local body.

Our personalities (shyness) cannot dictate our actions. God will give the strength to honor Him in the way He has established.


----------



## earl40

jwithnell said:


> I did and he refused because of "the rules of the PCA". I see this as stepping outside of what thy shall or shall not do. Not good In my most humble opinion but we got through it just fine....though I KNOW there are people who would not get baptized at a good reformed church because of this "rule".
> 
> 
> 
> I find this to be a troubling statement. The only rule in true church is the rule of Christ as expressed in the scriptures.
> 
> A basic question should be asked here: what does baptism do? Is it a personal statement of faith as is the practice of many credo-baptists (not necessarily reformed). Or is it joining someone to the covenant body of Christ? If it is the latter, which is the historic reformed position, then it makes little sense to engage in baptism outside the church; and since the sacraments are an element of worship, baptism should be done during corporate worship. This also explains why a church should not agree to baptize someone who is not being joined to the local body.
> 
> Our personalities (shyness) cannot dictate our actions. God will give the strength to honor Him in the way He has established.
Click to expand...


I understand your point but I can say that in the OT the baby was cut on the eighth day and I bet all children were not born on a Friday. What I am saying is why can't a baptism occur in front of the pastor and family? Why does the entire congregation HAVE to be present? I see no prohibition in scripture to do such. Also I read of baptisms happening outside of worship services in the NT.


----------



## Jack K

earl40 said:


> What I am saying is why can't a baptism occur in front of the pastor and family? Why does the entire congregation HAVE to be present? I see no prohibition in scripture to do such. Also I read of baptisms happening outside of worship services in the NT.



A more fundamental question might be: Does the church exist to privide services in the most customer-friendly way it can to each "consumer," tailoring its product to meet their preferences? Or does the church conduct all things as it deems best according to Scripture, with all members conforming to that?

Well, there's probably room for some individualization on some matters, but on a matter like baptism it's a good principle to go along with the church's standard practices rather than go looking for an exception that fits one's personal tastes. So even if a private baptism preformed by a pastor might be allowable according to Scripture, and even if you don't see that a public one is better according to Scripture, it's still preferable to gladly submit to the church's standard practices unless you're convinced in conscience that those practices are not merely unnecessary but actually wrong. That's part of belonging to a body rather than being a stand-alone Christian (if there is such a thing).


----------



## kodos

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you _should_ get baptized in private away from the congregation. Maybe I should have been more clear about talking to the session about how to work with your shyness 

Anyway, others have commented since then so I'll take my leave of this thread.



earl40 said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as a private baptism anyway
> 
> _Therefore, *since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses*, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God._
> 
> That said - I had my 4 children baptized a couple of months ago - they are very shy. They did fine. I am very shy. I did fine when I got baptized in the old mega church I was baptized in 3.5 years ago. Talk to your session about it - I'm sure you aren't the first shy family they've had to minister to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now just to play devil advocate....what are we to do with EXTREMELY shy people? Personally I would have loved to have my sons baptized with our pastor and an elder or two only present. Now of course I sinned in waiting for them to be fully grown before they were baptized but I still would have had (along with all 3 sons) preferred to have a semi private baptism. I will state this as clearly as I can....I HATE BEING IN FRONT OF LARGE CROWDS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did and he refused because of "the rules of the PCA". I see this as stepping outside of what thy shall or shall not do. Not good In my most humble opinion but we got through it just fine....though I KNOW there are people who would not get baptized at a good reformed church because of this "rule".
Click to expand...


----------



## earl40

Jack K said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I am saying is why can't a baptism occur in front of the pastor and family? Why does the entire congregation HAVE to be present? I see no prohibition in scripture to do such. Also I read of baptisms happening outside of worship services in the NT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A more fundamental question might be: Does the church exist to privide services in the most customer-friendly way it can to each "consumer," tailoring its product to meet their preferences? Or does the church conduct all things as it deems best according to Scripture, with all members conforming to that?
> 
> Well, there's probably room for some individualization on some matters, but on a matter like baptism it's a good principle to go along with the church's standard practices rather than go looking for an exception that fits one's personal tastes. So even if a private baptism preformed by a pastor might be allowable according to Scripture, and even if you don't see that a public one is better according to Scripture, it's still preferable to gladly submit to the church's standard practices unless you're convinced in conscience that those practices are not merely unnecessary but actually wrong. That's part of belonging to a body rather than being a stand-alone Christian (if there is such a thing).
Click to expand...


My sons did as the church required (as per my point "required"). They did just fine as did my wife and I when we joined in front of the church. My only point is that the fear of being in front of a large crowd is a VERY difficult thing to do for MANY people and In my most humble opinion the church should be sensitive in this matter of what I FIRMLY believe is a matter of conscience.


----------



## jwithnell

When an individual was circumcised in the old covenant, he was being joined to God's nation. In the New Covenant, the kingdom knows no boundaries but has its physical expression in the local church. Baptism is a sign that a person has been set aside from the world as one of God's people.


----------



## earl40

jwithnell said:


> When an individual was circumcised in the old covenant, he was being joined to God's nation. In the New Covenant, the kingdom knows no boundaries but has its physical expression in the local church. Baptism is a sign that a person has been set aside from the world as one of God's people.



Overall I agree...so should we baptize our children twice at both morning services? Or require everybodyto attend one service when we do baptisms? The number of people in attendance should not matter as long as the family and pastor are there In my most humble opinion.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

earl40 said:


> My sons did as the church required (as per my point "required"). They did just fine as did my wife and I when we joined in front of the church. My only point is that the fear of being in front of a large crowd is a VERY difficult thing to do for MANY people and In my most humble opinion the church should be sensitive in this matter of what I FIRMLY believe is a matter of conscience.



Perhaps, a possible solution to a dilemma posed such as this where there is a debilitating form of shyness in play, would be to have a second (or third, etc.) service, preferably on a given Sunday, when a much smaller but still representative presence of the church was gathered for the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacrament of baptism. Alternatively, maybe have the ceremony a few minutes after the service is over--still in obvious connection to it, to the church-body, and the preached Word; but with (by request) fewer people in the immediate vicinity of the font?

We do this kind of thing when we desire to offer the Lord's Supper to those confined to hospital beds, for instance. We do not believe in private communion, i.e. that it is unscriptural; and so we have a public worship service in the hospital room. Size limitations limit the number of attendees, however the minister is present, the session is represented by at least one elder, and others (perhaps family) are encouraged to attend for the sake of "the body," of which the invalid is a member, and to which our participation in sacramental worship is a testimony.

We judge the appropriateness of a request for such a communion against the circumstances and our theology of the sacraments. I think we should also judge a particular request for baptism by the same criteria. A person who just prefers a "river baptism," and wants the church to accommodate his preference, should be judged pretty strictly, in my opinion. But a "weaker" brother or sister?, I think somewhat more generously.

An individual's requests, desires, or preferences do not automatically trigger the church's bending-over-backwards to do its work on his terms. The point of coming to Christ (and to his church, which is trying to do his business his way) is that HE sets the terms. So, we have standard ways of doing things, consistent ways. But, if we can see a way to accommodate someone, by which the essentials are maintained and our *faith* (i.e. content, theology; not just subjective trust) affirmed, then we should do what we can to support one element of the body, for the sake of the whole body.


----------



## jwithnell

Pastor Buchanan, I realize I may be asking you to speculate here, but the Westminster divines made a much clearer statement regarding the Lord's Table during public worship. Might this have been as a result of the issues of the day? Or that baptisms during worship just went without saying? To this day, the Lutherans will practice the private "celebrations" of both and I'm fairly certain the Roman Catholics do as well, so it would have been a known practice. I don't doubt that these sacraments belong in a public worship setting. I'm just curious about what history may have been involved in our confessional standards. Thanks!


----------



## Edward

earl40 said:


> My only point is that the fear of being in front of a large crowd is a VERY difficult thing to do for MANY people and In my most humble opinion the church should be sensitive in this matter of what I FIRMLY believe is a matter of conscience.



The PCA BCO provides that 1) Baptism must be by a "minister of Christ called to be the steward of the mysteries of God" BCO 56-1 and 2) "It is not to be privately administered, but in the presence of the
congregation under the supervision of the Session." BCO 56-2. These are constitutional provisions of the church. If your conscience does not permit you to submit to the discipline of the church on this issue, perhaps you should seek out a group more willing to accommodate your preferences. 

Please keep in mind that Baptism is not merely an ordinance or symbolic act. It is a Sacrament of the church. (See WCF 27).


----------



## Edward

earl40 said:


> .so should we baptize our children twice at both morning services?



What does the WCF teach us?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

jwithnell said:


> Pastor Buchanan, I realize I may be asking you to speculate here, but the Westminster divines made a much clearer statement regarding the Lord's Table during public worship. Might this have been as a result of the issues of the day? Or that baptisms during worship just went without saying? To this day, the Lutherans will practice the private "celebrations" of both and I'm fairly certain the Roman Catholics do as well, so it would have been a known practice. I don't doubt that these sacraments belong in a public worship setting. I'm just curious about what history may have been involved in our confessional standards. Thanks!



We don't do private remembrances of the sacraments. That is our fundamental, confessional stance according to Westminster.

Our Protestant divines opposed the Roman practice. It was a _sacramentalist_ practice, a practice that encouraged the taking of communion for its own sake, without reference to the body of believers, without emphasis on the Word (sacraments are never to be administered apart from the preaching). But in Romanism, the vital thing is the grace in the sacrament for the participant. And the only "church" that is important is the priest, not the body. Masses were one of the many things people literally paid the church to have access unto, so wealthy persons could afford to have priests come and give them their gift.


----------



## Pergamum

My own baptism is as follows:

I was saved at age 18 and did not belong to a church. Actually, I was really suspicious of churches since I visited many that were unsound. So, my uncle was a non-denominational pastor and I had him baptize me at a river in a national park (sort of private, but at a public place) so that I could follow the first step of obedience that I saw the disciples do in the NT. Then, I began to research local churches to join and joined my present sending church about 18 months later. If I had known of a solid church, I would have been baptized there (sort of being "baptized into the local membership") there, but I did not have a church at the time and so still tried to proceed with what I saw the believers do asap when they believed in the NT. I saw no good reason to delay baptism and yet I felt I could not bind myself to local church membership until I found a solid local church (which was hard to find).

Thoughts?


----------



## earl40

Edward said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .so should we baptize our children twice at both morning services?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the WCF teach us?
Click to expand...



The WCF teaches a lot for which I thank The Lord. Where does it speak to the issue that one must be baptized with all or most of the congregation present?


----------



## earl40

Contra_Mundum said:


> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor Buchanan, I realize I may be asking you to speculate here, but the Westminster divines made a much clearer statement regarding the Lord's Table during public worship. Might this have been as a result of the issues of the day? Or that baptisms during worship just went without saying? To this day, the Lutherans will practice the private "celebrations" of both and I'm fairly certain the Roman Catholics do as well, so it would have been a known practice. I don't doubt that these sacraments belong in a public worship setting. I'm just curious about what history may have been involved in our confessional standards. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't do private remembrances of the sacraments. That is our fundamental, confessional stance according to Westminster.
> 
> Our Protestant divines opposed the Roman practice. It was a _sacramentalist_ practice, a practice that encouraged the taking of communion for its own sake, without reference to the body of believers, without emphasis on the Word (sacraments are never to be administered apart from the preaching). But in Romanism, the vital thing is the grace in the sacrament for the participant. And the only "church" that is important is the priest, not the body. Masses were one of the many things people literally paid the church to have access unto, so wealthy persons could afford to have priests come and give them their gift.
Click to expand...


Pastor Bruce, first of all I loved your suggestion in your earlier post about possibly having a baptism for some people after the service. Also in your opinion though you agree with the WCF on the issue of private communion and baptism do you see where the reformers might have been overreacting to this issue? I understand the historical context of why they did require "public" administration of the sacraments but I can see where possible exceptions could be allowed today. I work at a hospital and the only people receiving "communion" are the RC's. Which In my most humble opinion is sad in that the only "witness" to the patients and staff of communion at our hospital is from the RC "church".

Now make no mistake I agree with the WCF and its historical context of why they instituted these rules then, and am willing to follow them personally. My only contention is that there should be more exceptions for those that are house bound, confined to hospitals, ect. I say this knowing that a LARGE population of our congregations are indeed in such situations. I see this often with aging members that live the last year of their life without receiving of the sacrament of communion.


----------



## Edward

earl40 said:


> The WCF teaches a lot for which I thank The Lord. Where does it speak to the issue that one must be baptized with all or most of the congregation present?



Play fair here. (self moderating additional comments).

That wasn't the question that I was addressing. So don't try to change the question after you've been given the answer. 
And if you don't like the Socratic method, I'll spell it out.

Your question: "...so should we baptize our children twice at both morning services?"

My answer: "What does the WCF teach us?"

Lesson from the WCF: "VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person." Chapter 28, Paragraph 7

Clear answer: No, you shouldn't repeat the baptism in multiple services.

Now, to get to your other question:

The PCA BCO follows, in this area, the construct laid out in the "Directory for the Publick Worship of God" adopted in 1645

"BAPTISM, as it is not unnecessarily to be delayed, so it is not to be administered in any case by any private person, but by a minister of Christ, called to be the steward of the mysteries of God.

"Nor is it to be administered in private places, or privately, but in the place of publick worship, and in the face of the congregation, where the people may most conveniently see and hear; and not in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed. "


----------



## earl40

Edward said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The WCF teaches a lot for which I thank The Lord. Where does it speak to the issue that one must be baptized with all or most of the congregation present?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Play fair here. (self moderating additional comments).
> 
> That wasn't the question that I was addressing. So don't try to change the question after you've been given the answer.
> And if you don't like the Socratic method, I'll spell it out.
> 
> Your question: "...so should we baptize our children twice at both morning services?"
> 
> My answer: "What does the WCF teach us?"
> 
> Lesson from the WCF: "VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person." Chapter 28, Paragraph 7
> 
> Clear answer: No, you shouldn't repeat the baptism in multiple services.
> 
> Now, to get to your other question:
> 
> The PCA BCO follows, in this area, the construct laid out in the "Directory for the Publick Worship of God" adopted in 1645
> 
> "BAPTISM, as it is not unnecessarily to be delayed, so it is not to be administered in any case by any private person, but by a minister of Christ, called to be the steward of the mysteries of God.
> 
> "Nor is it to be administered in private places, or privately, but in the place of publick worship, and in the face of the congregation, where the people may most conveniently see and hear; and not in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed. "
Click to expand...


Edward I meant no offence or any suggestion that I was not playing fair. I only asked with the ad hominem assumption that we are indeed supposed to baptize in front of the church. In other words, my "argument", which I assure you was in no way with any rancor, was that I would consider in front of the "church" could include the pastor, an elder or two, and the family. This would be an accommodation for the extremely shy, and in the case of the infirm communion.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz

What a great thread and subject. From the OP, it seems we are dealing with a couple of different questions here:
1) Is baptism done before “a church presense” (defined loosely as the congregation/community of believers) the only valid setting/method? Therefore, "private baptisms" are invalid?
2) Can baptism be performed by any Christian, an educated Christian, a trained Christian or must it be an ordained minister and if ordained, who’s ordination counts?

So to answer Question 1:
I may be alone on this one... but I’m going against the crowd here. As a believer in paedobaptist (infant & adult baptisms), I believe Baptism is between the believer and God. Therefore, I believe “private baptisms” done outside of "the church setting/presence" CAN BE absolutely valid. I’m not saying they ALL are valid but that some are certainly valid. I do not see anywhere scripturally that we can claim “private baptisms” are invalid.

Are we really prepared to say “If the congregation was not there, your baptism didn’t count?” Are we prepared to say “God does not accept that baptism”? So, in response to Pergamum’s baptism in the river – I would never tell you that your baptism was “not accepted BY GOD.” This baptism was still done before God and the absence of the church body does not invalidate the baptism. 

[Saturday 12:01PM 10272012] reformedgirl:


Pergamum said:


> My own baptism is as follows: I was saved at age 18 and did not belong to a church. Actually, I was really suspicious of churches since I visited many that were unsound. So, my uncle was a non-denominational pastor and I had him baptize me at a river in a national park (sort of private, but at a public place) so that I could follow the first step of obedience that I saw the disciples do in the NT. .......I did not have a church at the time and so still tried to proceed with what I saw the believers do asap when they believed in the NT. I saw no good reason to delay baptism and yet I felt I could not bind myself to local church membership until I found a solid local church (which was hard to find). Thoughts?



I'm a bit surprised by the "hostility" I detect in this thread against believers of “private baptism outside of the church presence”. It seems extreme to say:


KMK said:


> These kinds of people love to find the exception to the rule and then exploit it. Personally, I would redeem the time and not waste another breathe arguing with them. Instead, ask them how their walk with the Lord is going and focus them on faith in Christ.


 Apparently, since I am one of "these kinds of people", as your sister in Christ, I assure you that my belief in “private baptism” is due to my love FOR the law of God and my Bible and not due to “my wanting to exploit the law of God”. And my walk with the Lord is going great and I spend ALL of my spare time in my faith (it is my only "hobby"), so there is no need to tell me to focus on my faith.

This surprises me because I am not aware of any biblical mandate for baptism within the church presence. If there is not a direct mandate, how can we be dogmatic about this? Are you prepared to walk up to Pergamum or another brother or sister in Christ and say "God rejected your baptism." Does the Bible really tell you so? 

As a paedobaptist, baptism is between me and God. I don't need to make a spectacle of this before men because this is about what God did and not about what I did. Again, along the same thinking as Pergamum, is it valid to delay baptism for family and friends to see "the show?" If it were on a Monday and Jesus or Paul were here today and told me the gospel and I believed, I am certain that someone/he would baptize me right where we were. He wouldn't wait days until Sunday rolled around for the whole church to gather or wait until next month when all my relatives could make it for the show. A pastor I know waited 6 months to baptize a new believer - waiting for others to convert so he could baptize 5 people instead of 1 at a time. Is this a valid reason for delay? Is waiting for family or friends a valid reason? If so, how long shall we wait? Does baptism then become more of "a show" than about God and the individual believer? The last baptism I went to certainly felt like "a show", with everyone congratulating each other... for their good work??? Is that consistent with Calvinism and giving God all the glory?

If we are claiming that baptism is ONLY valid IF the church is present, then what happens if “the church” later falls away as unbelievers? Or evolves into a cult? Does this invalidate my baptism? Certainly not! Baptism is not validated based on the pastor doing the baptism OR the congregation present during the baptism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

earl40 said:


> do you see where the reformers might have been overreacting to this issue? I understand the historical context of why they did require "public" administration of the sacraments but I can see where possible exceptions could be allowed today. I work at a hospital and the only people receiving "communion" are the RC's. Which In my most humble opinion is sad in that the only "witness" to the patients and staff of communion at our hospital is from the RC "church".



I don't believe the Reformers stance was overreaction. I think it was well-thought out theologically.

I may be mistaken, and can be corrected, but I believe that not all baptisms of old-time, even in post-Reformation, Protestant churches, were done _in the regular worship service._ The reason is actually quite practical: although there were many churches and mostly uniform in a given territory, nevertheless, with a large population and a parish-system, baptisms (possibly several) in nearly every main worship-service during the year would be very demanding respecting time. If (for example) they were reserved for four services a year, that would still be hours of baptisms--unless the whole ceremony were reduced to assembly line efficiency. I know of some rather large Reformed churches that have one baptism-Sunday per month (or quarter) in order to deal with even that lower level of intensity (which is much more than we typically see in our tiny congregations).

So the reality was that children (or others) were often baptized outside worship. This is *not inconsistent* with the DPW's statements, "Nor is it to be administered in private places, or privately, but in the place of publick worship, and in the face of the congregation, where the people may most conveniently see and hear...." The requirement is not that the baptism be done between the call to worship and the benediction; but that it be done in public, at the place of ordinary church business. "In the face of the congregation" assumes not worship (although that situation is ideal for it) but that the presence of the body is the right-expectation.

The meeting-house is not simply the space reserved for worship, but the *concourse* of the Christians. We don't need a specially sanctified or consecrated place for baptism any more than we need holy-water. So, the place for the font is in the meeting house, at the front, or at the door, or in the main aisle. Whether we are seated/standing for worship, or pausing on our way, out of reverence for the baptism and the Word proclaimed that arrests us on our way, this is a joyful interlude.


As for the Lord's Supper: it is a pity that the church (and I mean the minister, session, and a few others) doesn't come more often to the hospital or nursing home for the sake of the shut-in. If our fellow cannot come to church, then let church come to the fellow. We will sing, we will pray, we will read Scripture, we will have a mini-sermon, and we will have Communion. This is the way that we will do it, when the time comes.

This is so far from being a "private communion" that it is rather public to the possibility of offending certain of the public. Too bad. Jesus comes first.


----------



## Edward

earl40 said:


> I would consider in front of the "church" could include the pastor, an elder or two, and the family. This would be an accommodation for the extremely shy, and in the case of the infirm communion.



You are aware, aren't you, that Presbyterians don't have godparents at baptisms? The members of the congregation take vows, as well. How am I, as a member, supposed to fulfill my role if I haven't been invited to attend?

When you joined the Presbyterian Church in America, you took a vow to "submit yourselves to the government and discipline
of the Church". A Constitutional requirement of our church is that baptism be done 'in the presence of the congregation." You must quit trying to subvert the constitution of the church (and seeking to get your officers to violate their ordination vows) over your shortcomings. 

If you feel that the constitutional portions of the PCA BCO is unscriptural, that the Directory of Publick Worship is unscriptural, then you probably should move on. If you are dealing with a personal weakness that makes compliance difficult, then you need to deal with your problem, not expect an entire denomination to bend to accommodate your 'issue'.


----------



## earl40

Edward said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would consider in front of the "church" could include the pastor, an elder or two, and the family. This would be an accommodation for the extremely shy, and in the case of the infirm communion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are aware, aren't you, that Presbyterians don't have godparents at baptisms? The members of the congregation take vows, as well. How am I, as a member, supposed to fulfill my role if I haven't been invited to attend?
> 
> When you joined the Presbyterian Church in America, you took a vow to "submit yourselves to the government and discipline
> of the Church". A Constitutional requirement of our church is that baptism be done 'in the presence of the congregation." You must quit trying to subvert the constitution of the church (and seeking to get your officers to violate their ordination vows) over your shortcomings.
> 
> If you feel that the constitutional portions of the PCA BCO is unscriptural, that the Directory of Publick Worship is unscriptural, then you probably should move on. If you are dealing with a personal weakness that makes compliance difficult, then you need to deal with your problem, not expect an entire denomination to bend to accommodate your 'issue'.
Click to expand...


Dear Edward. Please read what I wrote with some charity. We as a family did indeed join and my sons were baptized in front of the congregation. I simply asked a few questions and Rev. Bruce answered them very well In my most humble opinion.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz

> The members of the congregation take vows, as well. How am I, as a member, supposed to fulfill my role if I haven't been invited to attend?



Does anyone have any Bible evidence for the congregation to take vows?

Was Paul still responsible for holding Christians from other churches (in which Paul wasn't present at their baptism) accountable? Certainly. Example: Peter

If we didn't witness a person being baptized, are we blocked from Mt 18? Certainly not.



> You must quit trying to subvert the constitution of the church (and seeking to get your officers to violate their ordination vows) over your shortcomings.



Those sound like fighting words.


----------



## earl40

Jackie Kaulitz said:


> You must quit trying to subvert the constitution of the church (and seeking to get your officers to violate their ordination vows) over your shortcomings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those sound like fighting words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love Edward's zeal to defend BCO. I really just think he read me wrong, nothing more.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz

I was wondering if a wiser brother in Christ might please take some time to address some of the questions I posed above (in my prior 2 posts). I am open to alternative views but seek a biblical view rather than a church view based on "well, we've just always done it that way." I am not implying that anyone has stated this, just that I'd love to see some verses if we are going to tell others that private baptisms are not valid. Thanks!


----------



## Jack K

Hi, Jackie:

I don't think any of us who're advocating making baptisms part of the church service have said other baptisms are invalid. We're just saying that the best practice is to do them in a church service, in particular because (1) the word should be preached as well as seen in the sacrament lest the rite become an empty ritual and (2) it's a congregational event, not just a private one, because the person being baptized is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit—and the church is Christ's church, indwelt by the Spirit, consisting of the Father's children. As people who believe in doing the things as they are best done, we've made public, church-service baptisms the practice of our churches.

This is not because there's a direct mandate for it in the Bible, but because it fits biblical baptisms and especially because it fits what the Bible tells us about the church.

You said, "As a paedobaptist, baptism is between me and God." Well, it seems to me you're reacting (rightly) against the tendency in _some_ Baptist churches to make much of the individual being baptized and to celebrate that person. I've seen that myself. It's isn't good. But... the solution cannot be to say baptism is just between me and God. That's not the way Christ has set up our lives in him. He's set us up to be part of a body that holds together in him. This is why I said several posts back that the key to understanding why baptisms ought to be done in church is not found in biblical examples of baptisms, but in passages about the church. Once one understands how strongly believers are spiritually tied to each other, united in Christ and in the Spirit and also _with_ Christ and _with_ the Spirit, it just starts to seem completely wrong to go off alone to be baptized, unless unusual conditions warrant it. The idea that may life with God is apart from the church is like saying I'm a son of the Father but have no meaningful relationship with his other children. Then why did Christ set us up as a family, a body?

I think all sorts of baptisms are valid even if they weren't done the best way they could have been. I praise God they were done at all, and I carry on. But when I have a chance before the fact to offer advice, I tell people they ought to be baptized in front of the church family—because when you join Christ you also join that family. It's proper for them to be invited, vows or not.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz

Thank you Jack for clarifying. I 100% agree that it is best done in a church and for the exact reasons you outlined - we are a community and the body united as one. And I guess part of my reason for replying is exactly as you stated eloquently - "some churches celebrate the people."

I guess I took some posts to "look down upon" private baptisms and to me that implied they were being looked upon as "invalid." I want it to be clear that these baptisms may totally be valid and I wouldn't want people who have had private baptisms for whatever reason to think they need to be re-baptized. I don't want "what is preferred" (church baptisms) to be held so highly that "what is also good" (private baptisms) becomes looked down upon or shunned and those who have had them, to be shamed or in doubt. The tone of the thread made me feel "attacked" as a supporter of private baptisms and if I had been privately baptized, I would have probably felt a mix of unsure and unhappy emotions. I don't want my brothers and sisters to feel like outcasts this way.


----------



## KMK

Jackie Kaulitz said:


> The members of the congregation take vows, as well. How am I, as a member, supposed to fulfill my role if I haven't been invited to attend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any Bible evidence for the congregation to take vows?
> 
> Was Paul still responsible for holding Christians from other churches (in which Paul wasn't present at their baptism) accountable? Certainly. Example: Peter
> 
> If we didn't witness a person being baptized, are we blocked from Mt 18? Certainly not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must quit trying to subvert the constitution of the church (and seeking to get your officers to violate their ordination vows) over your shortcomings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those sound like fighting words.
Click to expand...


It would be best if your asked these questions in a new thread.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

It would probably help any respondent to understand what your present beliefs are, JK.

And then, we need to be using the same vocabulary in the same way.



Jackie Kaulitz said:


> I believe Baptism is between the believer and God.


Why? What does this statement mean?

If your desire is to have a biblical view, it would help if you began by basing with whatever alternative views you have on a strictly biblical basis. Churches have done that; they didn't just apply pressure to everyone, and expect them to get in line on the basis of their authoritative "say-so." Of course, some churches have claimed just that kind of power, but not all, and certainly not from the beginning.

So, if you don't already have a biblical basis for what you believe, it might help first to ask what your church confesses the Bible to teach on the subject, and seek if at all possible to adopt that view. Of course, you may decide to go back and retrofit your beliefs, by finding a biblical basis for them; it might be a bit ad hoc at that point, however, and the danger is that you end up with an unstable set of beliefs that don't well-cohere.



Jackie Kaulitz said:


> I believe “private baptisms” done outside of "the church setting/presence" CAN BE absolutely valid. I’m not saying they ALL are valid but that some are certainly valid.


Why do you hold any of these beliefs?

Here's where terminology/definitions are also important. Your use of "private baptisms" may be idiosyncratic; whereas the term originally has a particular meaning, with reference to the church institution. A "secret" baptism could very well be a "public" baptism as opposed to a "private" baptism, depending on how one defines all the terms.

For our part, we are defining terms in such a way that what we call "private baptisms" are unscriptural and therefore improper. Furthermore, we often allow for the validity of certain "improper" baptisms. See, this can be quite complicated, as we try to describe what the Bible instructs, expects, and allows.




Jackie Kaulitz said:


> Does baptism then become more of "a show" than about God and the individual believer?


Baptism shouldn't be a "show," but it is supposed to be an announcement of sorts: "This person is one of us, a paper-citizen of the Kingdom of God." How do we know? "Well, he was baptized; I was there; I saw it. She's legit."

Furthermore, baptism is (in the Reformed consciousness) a statement not essentially about "me-'n-God," but a statement from God to the church, that he will save all--including this person here--who has faith in him.




Jackie Kaulitz said:


> If we are claiming that baptism is ONLY valid IF the church is present, then what happens if “the church” later falls away as unbelievers?


This is basically a restatement of the ancient "Donatist" question/controversy. The church answered that question by affirming that God's statement mattered most, not the quality of the church or the leader (then/later) that baptized.


Hope this begins to answer your questions.


----------



## Pilgrim

My apologies if this example has already come up. 

The usual "private baptism," at least in the Baptist view, is this--Johnny gets saved and his dad (who is not an elder) thinks it would be extra special if he baptized him himself in the backyard swimming pool. This is with no involvement of the local congregation if they're even members of one at all. (I'm not sure how often this really happens, especially among those who have been members and have been involved with Baptist churches with any semblance of order. But I've heard it come up and have heard some defend the view that any believer can baptize and it need not be connected with a local church.) Some churches will accept such baptisms, some will not. Some apparently will reject any baptism not performed by a pastor in the church during a regular service or else performed under the auspices of a church as in the case of a service in which people are baptized in a river or similar body of water. 

Strict Baptists often tend to have less room for a category of "Irregular but not invalid" that you'll find with Presbyterians/Reformed who usually will accept Roman Catholic baptisms. There are all kinds of public immersions that many Baptist churches will reject too (i.e. non-Baptist immersions) but I don't want to take us off track.


----------



## Edward

earl40 said:


> and Rev. Bruce answered them very well In my most humble opinion.


I would point out that he is ordained in a different denomination than we are, and without studying the documents of his church, which I have not, I'm not willing to apply his answer to our denomination. 

I am not sure that I agree with his reading of 'in the face of the congregation' from the DPW, but perhaps he's given more study to this passage than I have. 

One possible solution to the issue that you raised might be for the session to call a worship service on the Lord's day at a time (and perhaps a place) other than that regularly observed. (This should probably be in addition to, rather than instead of, the regular worship.) BUT is should be announced in advance to the congregation and the entire congregation should be invited. This is going to mean more work for the pastor - if they call a 7 am Sunday worship, they're going to need to have a full service, and he's going to need to give his sermon. And the folks who normally attend later in the morning might not show up.


----------

