# who may administer the sacraments



## Scott (Dec 16, 2005)

(this is a split off the abuses of priesthood of believer thread in the theological forum)

Donald wrote:


> So have I erred in the times I have administered communion at home with my wife? We, too, have a small home group and have been administered the Sacrament in that setting. Is this wrong?



Can anyone direct us to any resources that make the biblical case that only lawfully ordained ministers may ordinarily rightly administer the sacraments? (or just present the arguments here).

Thanks


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 16, 2005)

Here is what Dr. McMahon wrote on the subject:


Who May Administer the Sacraments?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 16, 2005)

Matt's essay is helpful. 

The first question is whether there is such a thing as ordination to special office. See Calvin, Institutes 4.3.16:



> There remains the rite of ordination, to which we have given the last place in the call. It is clear that when the apostles admitted any man to the ministry, they used no other ceremony than the laying on of hands, I judge that this rite derived from the custom of the Hebrews, who, as it were,
> presented to God by the laying on of hands that which they wished to be blessed and consecrated. So Jacob, about to bless Ephraim and Manasseh, laid his hands on their heads Genesis 48:14]. Our Lord followed this practice when he prayed over the children [Matthew 19:15]. With the same meaning, I suppose, the Jews laid their hands upon their sacrifices according to the prescription of the law [Numbers 8:12; 27:23; Leviticus 1:4; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15,24,29,33; etc.]. The apostles, accordingly, signified by the laying on of hands that they were offering to God him whom they were receiving into the ministry. However, they used it also with those upon whom they conferred the visible graces of the Spirit [Acts 19:6]. Anyway, this was the solemn rite used whenever they called anyone to the ministry of the church. In this way they consecrated the pastors and teachers, and the deacons.
> 
> Although there exists no set precept for the laying on of hands, because we see it in continual use with the apostles, their very careful observance ought to serve in lieu of a precept. And surely it is useful for the dignity of the ministry to be commended to the people by this sort of sign, as also to
> ...



See also 4.3.12 on who should become a minister.

The second thing is the nature of the sacraments. 

They are the Word made visible. They are means of grace. If there are divinely ordained special offices, to which the administration of the Word has been entrusted, and it is evident that there are, then the administration of the Word (whether preached or administered in water or bread and wine) belongs to that office.

I think I saw someone somewhere asking, "should I stop administering communion at home" or some such. 

YES! 

Ministers, elders, and deacons are not, in their offices, private persons. They are public persons, duly elected and ordained to special office. The administration of the Holy Gospel and sacraments belongs to the special office of minister. 

See Calvin, Institutes, 4.1.22 and also 413.14.

No private person has the right to take to himself the administration of sacraments. At best it is irregular at worst it is unlawful. Indeed, it's probably not too much to say that what is being done isn't even a sacrament.

I can call myself "President" and issue pardons to anyone I want, but I doubt that anyone will pay attention to them! My calling them pardons doesn't make them so. There must be warrant and grounds.

Jesus gave the administration of sacraments to his apostles and his apostles instituted offices.

The urge for private persons to usurp public, ecclesiastical office, is an American, egalitarian, democratic impulse, but it should be resisted especially by those who call themselves "Reformed."

rsc

[Edited on 12-16-2005 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> No private person has the right to take to himself the administration of sacraments. At best it is irregular at worst it is unlawful. Indeed, it's probably not too much to say that what is being done isn't even a sacrament.



Just for clarification, are you suggesting that only priests were allowed to administer circumcision in the Old Testament? After all, it was a sacrament! Was Zipporah sinning in Exodus 4:25? I know Calvin thought she was, but I'm curious whether you agree with him.


----------



## brymaes (Dec 16, 2005)

I think that a distinction between _lawful_ and _valid_ is necessary...


----------



## Scott (Dec 16, 2005)

Joseph: I know that the church has historically seen exceptions for necessity, as with midwives baptizing dying babies. Ziporah could be an exception, given the circumstances.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 16, 2005)

I like seeing that penguin administering baptism, don't you Rev. Maes? He may not be ordained, but he does it with authority all the same. There's a lesson in there somewhere.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I like seeing that penguin administering baptism, don't you Rev. Maes? He may not be ordained, but he does it with authority all the same. There's a lesson in there somewhere.



I doubt that the penguin is a priest of God according to 1 Peter 2:5 and 2:9.

However, according to these passages, you and I *are* priests of God.


----------



## Scott (Dec 16, 2005)

"However, according to these passages, you and I *are* priests of God."

So was each and every Israelite. (See Ex. 19:6). Yet still performance of many religious rituals were limited to the Levitical priests.

[Edited on 12-16-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (Dec 16, 2005)

John: What is that penguin statement from?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "However, according to these passages, you and I *are* priests of God."
> 
> So was each and every Israelite. (See Ex. 19:6). Yet still performance of many religious rituals were limited to the Levitical priests.



In response to your comment, here is what I said on another thread:


Didn't Exodus 19:5-6 come *before* there were any Levitical priests? And furthermore, was not God's statement *conditional*?

My understanding is that God intended them ALL to be priests, in the fullest sense of the word, IF they would "obey [God] fully and keep [His] covenant". But they didn't do this. They failed to obey Him fully and keep His covenant. So He separated out only one tribe (the Levites) to be His priests. Thus, by setting up the Levitical priesthood, God was revoking the promise of Exodus 19:5-6, because Israel had already failed the condition of the promise.

But in 1 Peter 2, all believers are called priests, and that never gets revoked.


----------



## Scott (Dec 16, 2005)

Joseph: You are sounding dispensational!


----------



## Peter (Dec 16, 2005)

Now under the NT, the ordinary NT office of Elder only, cf Mt 16, Mt 28, _Jus Divinum _


----------



## Scott (Dec 16, 2005)

19:22 suggests there was already a special class of priests in operation. Apart from that, Moses was already a priest in a special sense (not the general priesthood).

Is your understanding that the masses were not worthy through their covenant breaking and as a penalty God imposed the priesthood on them? And the New Testament liberates us from this curse by liberating us from heirarchy and restoring egalitarianism?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Joseph: You are sounding dispensational!



That word makes my blood boil. I despise dispensationalism.

So would you care to elaborate, please?


----------



## Peter (Dec 16, 2005)

A good book to read on the relation between OT church gov't and NT would be _Aaron's Rod Blosoming_. Beyond that I cannot comment b/c I havent read the book!


----------



## Scott (Dec 16, 2005)

Sorry - did not mean to push any buttons. Anyway, to me sounds sort of like Plan A and Plan B. I would never expect to hear a reformed person interpret Ex. 19 that way, but it would sound very natural in a dispensational situation. And, For what it's worth, some of my best friends are dispie, so I am not trying to be pejorative.


----------



## brymaes (Dec 16, 2005)

> John: What is that penguin statement from?



He's talking about my avatar.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 19:22 suggests there was already a special class of priests in operation. Apart from that, Moses was already a priest in a special sense (not the general priesthood).



Good point. I'll have to think about that.

Here's another possibility: When God said that he *would* make them a nation of priests, maybe he was pointing to the New Testament. After all God placed the promise of priesthood in the future. But 1 Peter 2 places the priesthood of all believers in the *present*.



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> And the New Testament liberates us from this curse by liberating us from heirarchy and restoring egalitarianism?



I do not believe in egalitarianism. The elders/overseers of a church certainly have more authority that the rest of the church members. Scripture plainly commands us to obey our elders. And of course the elders have the authority to carry out church discipline.

But I do not think the elders carry the unique role of preaching Scripture, or of administering the sacraments. As far as I can tell, those two things are not specifically given to the elders alone, to the exclusion of everyone else.

Where Scripture gives elders power, then let it be given! And it's clearly given in regard to doctrinally overseeing the church, disciplining its members, etc. But it is NOT clearly given in regard to the administration of the sacraments, as far as I can tell.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Sorry - did not mean to push any buttons. Anyway, to me sounds sort of like Plan A and Plan B. I would never expect to hear a reformed person interpret Ex. 19 that way, but it would sound very natural in a dispensational situation. And, For what it's worth, some of my best friends are dispie, so I am not trying to be pejorative.



Dispensationalists assume discontinuity, unless Scripture states otherwise.

Covenant Theologians assume continuity, unless Scripture states otherwise.


I wouldn't have any problem assuming continuity in this point. But Scripture has a few things to say:

1) I don't see the administration of circumcision restricted to the priests in the OT. (Thus, even if there is continuity, why would baptism be restricted to pastors in the NT?)

2) Hebrews points out very clearly that the Levitical priesthood *has* been abolished.

3) Exodus 19 places the priesthood of all believers in the *future*, whereas 1 Peter 2 places the priesthood of all believers in the *present*.

Those are just a few things off the top of my head that make me seriously question the idea that there is a one-to-one correspondence between OT Levitical priests and NT church elders. I _would_ assume continuity even here, except for the various Scriptures that seem to suggest otherwise.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



It was irregular, but as I read the narrative, had she not done, Yahweh would have (apparently) killed Moses -- God takes infant baptism very seriously! 

That's why we have the categorical distinction between "regular" and "irregular." Lay baptism is valid but irregular. Calvin was right. He didn't say that those aren't baptisms, but that the laity have taken to themselves and office to which they are not called. Folk ought not do it. Yes, it could be called sinful for laity to arrogate to themselves an office which is not theirs.

We really need to recover the idea of office.

rsc


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...






Thank you for your post, Dr. Clark. 

I am willing to consider the possibility that it might be irregular for laymen to administer the sacraments. That is a subject that is still foggy for me. 

But I am VERY adamant about accepting the VALIDITY of baptisms, even if they were irregularly administered.

I have a friend who was baptized by his dad. The PCA church he went to gave him untold grief over it, and would not permit him to join the church. Finally, he gave up on them and went to another PCA church . . . the mother PCA church that had planted the other one . . . and they welcomed him with open arms! I think stories such as this are a real black-eye on the face of the PCA church. It is one thing for a pastor to teach that lay-baptisms are irregular. But it is another thing entirely to deny membership to someone because they won't violate their conscience and get re-baptized.

At the very least, we must accept that lay-baptisms are valid, even if irregular.



By the way, just for the record, I am having my 3 very young daughters baptized this coming Sunday evening. And it will NOT be a lay-baptism. An ordained PCA minister is doing it.


----------



## Scott (Dec 16, 2005)

"By the way, just for the record, I am having my 3 very young daughters baptized this coming Sunday evening. And it will NOT be a lay-baptism. An ordained PCA minister is doing it."



BTW, I don't you are dispensational. I just thought that the argument sounded a bit that way to me. And also I am not suggesting a one-to-one correspondence b/t Levitical priesthood and NT pastors. I was just making the point that even in the OT there was a general priesthood of the believer and that general priesthood did not mean that each individual had authority to adminster God's sacraments.


----------



## Scott (Dec 16, 2005)

Dr Clark: Appreciate your comments. Can you direct us to any online articles/resources on the topic? Thanks


----------



## DTK (Dec 16, 2005)

> By the way, just for the record, I am having my 3 very young daughters baptized this coming Sunday evening. And it will NOT be a lay-baptism. An ordained PCA minister is doing it.


I mean no offense, but I could not in good conscience do this as a minister in the PCA for this reason; because I find it somewhat irregular. When we baptize our children, we are baptizing them into a particular visible church, where vows are made not only by the parents, but by the congregation as well which must pledge their responsibility in assisting the parents in the nurture of their child. And it is obvious that the precious covenant children in question are not being baptized into the visible church where the baptism will be performed. Unless I'm mistaken, given the circumstances surrounding this baptism, they will not be received, as such, into the membership of any particular visible church.

Just my thoughts,
DTK


----------



## pastorway (Dec 16, 2005)

> It was irregular, but as I read the narrative, had she not done, Yahweh would have (apparently) killed Moses -- God takes infant baptism very seriously!



I missed it in the text - where exactly did Zipporah baptize the child?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Dr Clark: Appreciate your comments. Can you direct us to any online articles/resources on the topic? Thanks



I'm sure there are some, but no online sources come to mind - unless the Institutes are online somewhere! I'm sure they must be at CCEL or some other place.

rsc


----------



## gwine (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > By the way, just for the record, I am having my 3 very young daughters baptized this coming Sunday evening. And it will NOT be a lay-baptism. An ordained PCA minister is doing it.
> ...



Interestingly enough, the BOCO (chapter 56-5) for the PCA makes asking the congregation an option.


> The minister shall then propose the following questions:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I did not see where the OPC requires the minister to ask the congregation to answer the last question, but at a recent baptism our pastor addressed the congregation as to our duties to the child(ren).

But I fully agree with your thoughts.



> I missed it in the text - where exactly did Zipporah baptize the child?



We must have *zipped* right past it when we were reading, Pastor Way!


----------



## Scott (Dec 19, 2005)

> I mean no offense, but I could not in good conscience do this as a minister in the PCA for this reason; because I find it somewhat irregular. When we baptize our children, we are baptizing them into a particular visible church, where vows are made not only by the parents, but by the congregation as well which must pledge their responsibility in assisting the parents in the nurture of their child. And it is obvious that the precious covenant children in question are not being baptized into the visible church where the baptism will be performed. Unless I'm mistaken, given the circumstances surrounding this baptism, they will not be received, as such, into the membership of any particular visible church.



Now that you mention this, I have had these thoughts too in the context of another situation like this.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> It was irregular, but as I read the narrative, had she not done, Yahweh would have (apparently) killed Moses -- God takes infant baptism very seriously!
> 
> ...



I don't think that comment would go unchallenged before a theological examination committee.



> 2. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
> 
> 3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.
> 
> (WCF, Chapter 28)



I see a confessional distinction between, say, baptism by immersion, (irregular), and "baptism" by any but a lawfully called minister of the gospel (invalid).



> It is here also pertinent to observe, that it is improper for private individuals to take upon themselves the administration of baptism; for it, as well as the dispensation of the Supper, is part of the ministerial office. For Christ did not give command to any men or women whatever to baptise, but to those whom he had appointed apostles. And when, in the administration of the Supper, he ordered his disciples to do what they had seen him do (he having done the part of a legitimate dispenser), he doubtless meant that in this they should imitate his example. The practice which has been in use for many ages, and even almost from the very commencement of the Church, for laics to baptise, in danger of death, when a minister could not be present in time, cannot, it appears to me, be defended on sufficient grounds. Even the early Christians who observed or tolerated this practice were not clear whether it were rightly done. This doubt is expressed by Augustine when he says, "œAlthough a laic have given baptism when compelled by necessity, I know not whether any one can piously say that it ought to be repeated. For if it is done without any necessity compelling it, it is usurpation of another´s office; but if necessity urges, it is either no fault, or a venial one" (August. Cont. Epist. Parmen. Lib. 2 c. 13). With regard to women, it was decreed, without exception, in the Council of Carthage (cap. 100), that they were not to presume to baptise at all. But there is a danger that he who is sick may be deprived of the gift of regeneration if he decease without baptism! By no means. Our children, before they are born, God declares that he adopts for his own when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our seed after us. In this promise their salvation is included. None will dare to offer such an insult to God as to deny that he is able to give effect to his promise. How much evil has been caused by the dogma, ill expounded, that baptism is necessary to salvation, few perceive, and therefore think caution the less necessary. For when the opinion prevails that all are lost who happen not to be dipped in water, our condition becomes worse than that of God´s ancient people, as if his grace were more restrained than under the Law. In that case, Christ will be thought to have come not to fulfil, but to abolish the promises, since the promise, which was then effectual in itself to confer salvation before the eighth day, would not now be effectual without the help of a sign.
> 
> (Calvin's _Institutes_, IV.15.20)



He also has a comment about Zipporah in paragraph 22.

[Edited on 12-19-2005 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> By the way, just for the record, I am having my 3 very young daughters baptized this coming Sunday evening. And it will NOT be a lay-baptism. An ordained PCA minister is doing it.



If this is being done outside/apart from the local congregation, I don't see how a PCA minister in good standing can participate in such a service. In your zeal to affirm the place of infants in the visible church, you are apparently denigating the doctrine of the visible church since you are going outside the oversight of elders. Two wrongs do not make a right.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> I see a confessional distinction between, say, baptism by immersion, (irregular), and "baptism" by any but a lawfully called minister of the gospel (invalid).
> 
> [Edited on 12-19-2005 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## Scott (Dec 19, 2005)

> If this is being done outside/apart from the local congregation, I don't see how a PCA minister in good standing can participate in such a service. In your zeal to affirm the place of infants in the visible church, you are apparently denigating the doctrine of the visible church since you are going outside the oversight of elders. Two wrongs do not make a right.



I know what you mean and lean this way. I understand, though, that the reformed practice in America (18th and 19th centuries) was to be overinclusive in terms of baptizing infants of parents, even if parents did not attend the church of the baptizing minister or are not even members of any church at all. Not sure what the reasoning was, but would be interested to know.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> > If this is being done outside/apart from the local congregation, I don't see how a PCA minister in good standing can participate in such a service. In your zeal to affirm the place of infants in the visible church, you are apparently denigating the doctrine of the visible church since you are going outside the oversight of elders. Two wrongs do not make a right.
> ...



The PCA Book of Chruch Order makes it clear that elders have duties and responsibilities with regard to noncommuning members. The sign of baptism is the means by which the elders identify those to whom these duties apply. If elders do not recognize baptism then they do not recognize their duty to these members. Sponsoring a family "baptism", even if overseen by an ordained elder, does not seem to resolve the deeper issues regarding the nature of the visible church. In fact I'm not sure what it signifies since it has no ecclesiastical purpose.


----------



## Scott (Dec 19, 2005)

Tom: It would bring people into the visible church, which the WCF defines as those who profess the Christian faith and their children. The WCF does not define baptism as a symbol of the local congregation.


----------



## Peter (Dec 19, 2005)

Doesn't Heb 13 enjoin obeying and remembering those who have rule over _you_? 

Joseph, I would be on the other side of the spectrum. I lean towards the view baptisms preformed by nonministers are invalid, though may be persuaded they are valid yet irregular. The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven belong to Christ's officers not the body of faithful.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Tom: It would bring people into the visible church, which the WCF defines as those who profess the Christian faith and their children. The WCF does not define baptism as a symbol of the local congregation.



If it is not a valid baptism, then it does not "bring people into the visible church". The WCF goes on to further define the visible church thusly; "Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto." The "ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God" highlight the necessity/importance of ordained elder having oversight esp. with regard to the sacraments. A teaching elder in the PCA may baptize members of his own congregation, or, with permission of the Session on special occasion, the member of another PCA congregation. I do not believe they have the right to baptize a person under any other circumstances (except perhaps a TE exercising the special role of a evangelist).

Suppose your congregation only observed the Lord's Supper on what you considered an infrequent basis. Would you feel it is your right to call in another elder from some other congregation to have it served in your home more frequently?


----------



## Scott (Dec 19, 2005)

Tom: I agree with your concerns. I see it as a matter of lawfulness over validity.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 20, 2005)

1 Cor 4:1 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 20, 2005)

Into what "local church" was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> Into what "local church" was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized?



As any good theology professor would note, you do not establish the norm from the special cases. The Ethiopian eunuch was a special case, coming as it were under the instruction of Philip the evangelist by divine appointment. "Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, 'Arise and go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.' This is desert. " (Acts 8:26)

As I noted in an earlier comment, the role of an evangelist is taken as a somewhat special case in the BCO. 

But, admittedly, we are not speaking of that sort of case, are we? There was no "local church" for the eunuch to attach himself to at that point in time. Same is true with many of the examples in the book of Acts.

I don't believe one can make the case for skirting the jurisdiction of the local church in a disagreement over doctrine. I think it places the TE who performed the "service" in an untenable position.


----------



## DTK (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> Into what "local church" was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized?


One might just as well ask into what church were those thousands on the day of Pentecost baptized? The NT Church was created on that day. There was no NT "Christian" church prior to their baptism as such, but the apostles were acting with unique authority to be the foundation stones of Christ's Church. The eunuch was baptized into the only church that had been planted, the Jerusalem church. Now, when we all go back into history, and begin living in the days of the commencement and establishment of the NT Christian Church in the world, then such a question is relevant. But since the nature of such events are unrepeatable, they find no justification _post ex facto_ to that unique time in the history of the church. 

Moreover, Philip was acting in the capactity of an evangelist, and had such authority. As a pastor in the PCA, I don't presently have the authority to act as an evangelist to plant churches, because I have not been commissioned as such.

But such a fact is really unimportant to the one looking for the justification of an irregularity to our present day situation, because he's looking only to justify his irregularity, so let's choose an event unique to the foundation of the NT church and make it a norm to fit the whims of the present under the cover of a "biblical" sanction. 

The BCO of the PCA directs its ministers to charge the parents with vows at their childrens' baptism. But in this case, I do not know how the minister in question can exert any authority to hold you to those vows, hence no possibility of even being subject to discipline. Now, it may be a delightful set of circumstances to you presently, but it may well be that the day will come (especially if you're ever ordained and find yourself as a pastor of a congregation) when you'll find yourself regretting this irregularity, and the implications of this precedent which you've modeled before your precious children. And the  may not be so funny then.

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> As any good theology professor would note, you do not establish the norm from the special cases.



And I never suggested that we should. I'm arguing for the propriety of the situation, not the regularity of it.



> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> The Ethiopian eunuch was a special case



My case is a special case too. My pastor AND the PCA pastor agree that it would be a sin to break fellowship with my church over baptism. (Unity in the midst of disagreement is NOT generally a strong point for Reformed people, unfortunately!) But God does command unity, and I do not believe He takes kindly to church hopping. Instead of changing churches every time I change a doctrine, it is probably a better idea to stay and be a light where I am. And very good things have come from me staying at MBC.

On the other hand, my pastor AND the PCA pastor agree with me that it would be a sin to NOT baptize my girls. Even though my pastor is credo, he told me I must follow my convictions in this area.

Furthermore, it is not as if I had no other connections to the PCA church, and it is not as if my church was totally absent from the baptism. To the contrary, I regularly attend PCA Bible studies, so we do have a connection to the PCA church. And several MBC families came to the baptism.

Finally, we DID do the baptism in the context of worship. The PCA pastor opened in prayer, we all sang a couple of Psalms together, the pastor then preached a sermon on the covenant, and on covenant baptism. Then he baptized my 3 girls. Then we sang another Psalm. Then the pastor closed in prayer.

It was a beautiful occasion!


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> It was a beautiful occasion!



It's hard to argue against aesthetics. 

I'm just curious, did the PCA pastor have the permission of his session or presbytery to perform this "irregular service"? 

If someone walked into a PCA church and said, "I go to the baptist church down the street, but I really want my children baptized," do you think the the pastor should be permitted to perform the "service"? I guess I'm failing to see the difference.

It's interesting that the credo pastor viewed what you were (potentially) doing as sin by not baptizing your child. I assume that he took that as subjective sin ala Rom 14:23. If he took it as objective sin, then he too would be in sin. Did he take any responsibility in (potentially) contributing to your sin by not having the church baptize your children?

If I were in the PCA pastor's prebytery I would certainly raise an objection.


----------

