Home Baptism

[ZekeRambo]

If a person was considering membership in the PCA, and had been baptized (believer's baptism) by his father in a home church, and his father was not an ordained minister, is this baptism considered faithful to the scriptures to be accepted by the church. Or would this person need to be baptized again by an ordained minister?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

just my
One session may decide the situation you describe in one direction, one in another.

If it is felt the question falls closer to the distinction between a regular and an irregular administration of valid baptism, rather than between a baptism and no-baptism, the session may grant the lawfulness of the baptism as one that was 1) intended to be a baptism, 2) done in water, in the name of the Holy Trinity, with no further ceremony, and 3) was recognized thereafter by other identifiable Christians and churches as a valid mark.

The missing element: baptized by a lawfully ordained minister, should not be slighted or regarded as a minor point. But it is not so exclusionary that without it no baptism could ever be regarded as legitimate. Otherwise, all extraordinary circumstances would absolutely prevent baptism. Otherwise, it is a capitulation to the position of Rome and other bodies, who teach that their ministers and churches alone confer baptism legitimately.


On the other side of the opinion, it may be the view of a session that more was missing from the intention, or the manner, or the ability to recognize said baptism as a valid mark, besides the absence of the minister. If so, they might present the case that they do not see that the minimum requirements for a valid baptism were fulfilled. It was an invalid administration.

For instance, they might argue that the idea of private house-churches and self-ordained patriarchs are actually so contrary to the NT doctrine of baptism and of order in the churches that such an ordinance (called "baptism" by the practitioners) was more akin to the baptism of cults than Christian baptism. Coming into the church and under it's ministry and discipline (broadly not narrowly conceived) is marked by baptism.


Finally, it would be good to go over such points for and against among the session alone prior to any meeting with prospective members, to gain a consensus. Then, it would be good to inquire of the candidate for membership about his understanding of what baptism is and does. And, it would be good to obtain the candidate's own testimony of how he regards the rite he underwent, and if he is able with a clear conscience to tie his ritual experience with the biblical teaching of baptism and sacramental theology of the Presbyterian church he wishes to join.

 

[timfost]

just my
One session may decide the situation you describe in one direction, one in another.

If it is felt the question falls closer to the distinction between a regular and an irregular administration of valid baptism, rather than between a baptism and no-baptism, the session may grant the lawfulness of the baptism as one that was 1) intended to be a baptism, 2) done in water, in the name of the Holy Trinity, with no further ceremony, and 3) was recognized thereafter by other identifiable Christians and churches as a valid mark.

The missing element: baptized by a lawfully ordained minister, should not be slighted or regarded as a minor point. But it is not so exclusionary that without it no baptism could ever be regarded as legitimate. Otherwise, all extraordinary circumstances would absolutely prevent baptism. Otherwise, it is a capitulation to the position of Rome and other bodies, who teach that their ministers and churches alone confer baptism legitimately.


On the other side of the opinion, it may be the view of a session that more was missing from the intention, or the manner, or the ability to recognize said baptism as a valid mark, besides the absence of the minister. If so, they might present the case that they do not see that the minimum requirements for a valid baptism were fulfilled. It was an invalid administration.

For instance, they might argue that the idea of private house-churches and self-ordained patriarchs are actually so contrary to the NT doctrine of baptism and of order in the churches that such an ordinance (called "baptism" by the practitioners) was more akin to the baptism of cults than Christian baptism. Coming into the church and under it's ministry and discipline (broadly not narrowly conceived) is marked by baptism.


Finally, it would be good to go over such points for and against among the session alone prior to any meeting with prospective members, to gain a consensus. Then, it would be good to inquire of the candidate for membership about his understanding of what baptism is and does. And, it would be good to obtain the candidate's own testimony of how he regards the rite he underwent, and if he is able with a clear conscience to tie his ritual experience with the biblical teaching of baptism and sacramental theology of the Presbyterian church he wishes to join.

Excellent, thank you!

 

[B.L.]

If a person was considering membership in the PCA, and had been baptized (believer's baptism) by his father in a home church, and his father was not an ordained minister, is this baptism considered faithful to the scriptures to be accepted by the church. Or would this person need to be baptized again by an ordained minister?

This is a really good question that I'm curious about and I hope we'll hear from more of our Reformed brethren on it. I know the scenario is specific to the PCA, but I'd love to hear how other NAPARC denominations would potentially handle this situation.

For instance, they might argue that the idea of private house-churches and self-ordained patriarchs are actually so contrary to the NT doctrine of baptism and of order in the churches that such an ordinance (called "baptism" by the practitioners) was more akin to the baptism of cults than Christian baptism.

In what way would a "private house-church with a self-ordained patriarch" be different than say a non-denominational school cafeteria church with a self-appointed pastor? Could a session not also potentially take issue with the latter using the same rationale?

Thanks in advance for your time and attention.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

In what way would a "private house-church with a self-ordained patriarch" be different than say a non-denominational school cafeteria church with a self-appointed pastor? Could a session not also potentially take issue with the latter using the same rationale?

I think you are right in identifying some important similarities between the two situations. I don't think it is irrelevant to be forced to consider how our cultural context impacts our decisions on how to implement our doctrinal convictions. We live in a time when "entrepreneurial ecclesiastics" is not uncommon; so how does one discern between pastor Bob with his mail-order diploma and ordination certificate (if that) waving a Bible while having a sincere religious following, and a cult group?

Two people, one from either camp, shows up at your congregation, hoping to find a more sure and steady orientation to the truth as it is in Jesus. Both of them were "baptized" (their term) in their respective places. What is the path of wisdom for embracing each of them? One method, two?

It might be easiest to take a simple, hardline stance. But what if that doesn't seem wise? Partly, one has to examine the doctrine that is taught in the places of origin. Who is the "God" in whose name these persons have been identified? And what is the fruit of these organizations?

In the case of the "school-cafeteria church," it may be possible to see something more than a shadow, something beyond an escapee from the discipline and unity of the communion of saints. The escapee is that man who despises the institutional church, and won't be bothered with finding a good one; or may have least interest of all in a good one, which practices proper (not intrusive) discipline.

The refugee is someone who may have been chased out of church and honestly can't find a decent church; he isn't against the comfort of an assembly of the faithful, but he's been burned by one or more terrible examples. However, both an escapee and a refugee can become snared by pride, and the view that they are too good for any churches nearby. The man (or woman) who sets up organized religion for themselves--albeit on the smallest of scales, the family--is making a radical theological claim.

It is also a philosophical claim, and a hermeneutical claim--several claims wrapped up together in a bundle. Furthermore, no one is free of influences. Either he understands what sort of "school" or "tradition" he fits in, or he goes in his way ignorantly, often claiming to believe nothing but (but all that is in) the Bible. "Who claims you?" is a question of great significance, and has only become derisible in this post-modern age, when every question of identity is lodged in the individual human will.

But baptism (in the strictly Reformed, and partly in the semi-Reformed sense) is first/principally about that question, "Who claims you?" The more baptism is understood as a statement of "I claim" (be the object Christ, or this church, or whatever), the less churches ought to care how the subject obtained this token of his claim.

That's all for now from me.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

But baptism (in the strictly Reformed, and partly in the semi-Reformed sense) is first/principally about that question, "Who claims you?" The more baptism is understood as a statement of "I claim" (be the object Christ, or this church, or whatever), the less churches ought to care how the subject obtained this token of his claim.

AMEN!!!!! You are one of the best at teaching us about baptism Pastor. Thank You So Much. I relish in your baptism posts. They have benefitted me and mine so much.

 

[Tom Hart]

Under what circumstances could such a baptism (as described in the OP) be valid?

I may be accused of taking a "hard line" on this, but I cannot think of any situation where such would be acceptable, or even necessary. Similarly, the other sacrament of the church, the Lord's Supper, ought not to be admistered by laymen.

Christ says to the Apostles, "Go and baptize." He does not simply say to all Christians, "Get baptized."

 

[B.L.]

If a person was considering membership in the PCA, and had been baptized (believer's baptism) by his father in a home church, and his father was not an ordained minister, is this baptism considered faithful to the scriptures to be accepted by the church. Or would this person need to be baptized again by an ordained minister?

Can you describe what this "home church" gathering was like? What sorts of people were drawn to it and how did it get started? Was the father you described recognized as the elder of the group and thus functioning as the spiritual leader? If you can provide additional details it would be helpful.

 

[Dachaser]

Under what circumstances could such a baptism (as described in the OP) be valid?

I may be accused of taking a "hard line" on this, but I cannot think of any situation where such would be acceptable, or even necessary. Similarly, the other sacrament of the church, the Lord's Supper, ought not to be admistered by laymen.

Christ says to the Apostles, "Go and baptize." He does not simply say to all Christians, "Get baptized."

Pastors and Elders are ordained to preach and teach, but where is it stated only them can baptize and apply Communion?

 

[B.L.]

Under what circumstances could such a baptism (as described in the OP) be valid?

I may be accused of taking a "hard line" on this, but I cannot think of any situation where such would be acceptable, or even necessary. Similarly, the other sacrament of the church, the Lord's Supper, ought not to be admistered by laymen.

I pulled my WCF off the shelf and was thumbing through the Directory for the Publick Worship of God and the opening couple sentences under the section titled Administration of the Sacraments reads:

"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..."

No ambiguity there as to where and by whom the sacrament of baptism is to be administered, that's for sure!. I think the subjects this section of the directory has in mind are infants, but it is no doubt applicable to all subjects, young and old, who are presented forward.

I guess the question I'm mulling around in my head is "now what?" If the baptism is determined to be invalid strictly because it was administered privately and by a man without official ordination papers is the Presbyterian Church really going to re-baptize the individual?

How is it a Presbyterian Church would accept the validity of one's baptism who had it administered while in the arms of the Synagogue of Satan (Roman Catholic Church), but when it comes to a scenario like the one described in the OP some sessions might consider it invalid? I suppose the definition of what constitutes a true church would have to be considered. While acknowledging that the best of churches under heaven are mixed with truth and error, I am one who fails to see how the RCC can be considered a true church.

What makes the RCC a true church and thus its administration of baptism valid, but not in the case of the "house church"? Surely it's not the venue (public vs. private) and surely it's not the one who administered it (pagan priest vs. unordained man), right? Assuming the "house church" administered the sacrament using the Trinitarian formula it can't be that either.

But baptism (in the strictly Reformed, and partly in the semi-Reformed sense) is first/principally about that question, "Who claims you?" The more baptism is understood as a statement of "I claim" (be the object Christ, or this church, or whatever), the less churches ought to care how the subject obtained this token of his claim.

I enjoyed your entire post Pastor Bruce and camped out on this section for a long time. Could not the question "Who claims you?" be used to support the baptism scenario highlighted in the OP though? I mean it's this question that makes what I highlighted to Tom regarding the validity of RCC baptisms in the eyes of Presbyterians possible, no?

--

I'm steering the ship a bit off course by introducing the RCC comparison, but I do think it's worth discussing since we're talking about the validity of baptism.

 

[Tom Hart]

Pastors and Elders are ordained to preach and teach, but where is it stated only them can baptize and apply Communion?

I already referred to Matthew 28:19.

Every case of baptism in the New Testament is administered by a minister of God. (That argument ought to be convincing enough for a Baptist.)

I refer you to the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 176:

176. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper agree?

A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper agree, in that the author of both is God; the spiritual part of both is Christ and his benefits; both are seals of the same covenant, are to be dispensed by ministers of the word, and by none other; and to be continued in the church of Christ until his second coming.​

The Directory for Public Worship has been referenced above.

And the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, in Chapter 28, would appear to agree.

 

[Tom Hart]

I pulled my WCF off the shelf and was thumbing through the Directory for the Publick Worship of God and the opening couple sentences under the section titled Administration of the Sacraments reads:

"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..."

No ambiguity there as to where and by whom the sacrament of baptism is to be administered, that's for sure!. I think the subjects this section of the directory has in mind are infants, but it is no doubt applicable to all subjects, young and old, who are presented forward.

No ambiguity at all. There are good reasons for such restrictions, of course. Namely it is to avoid such situations as that described in the OP, the multiplication of sects.

I guess the question I'm mulling around in my head is "now what?" If the baptism is determined to be invalid strictly because it was administered privately and by a man without official ordination papers is the Presbyterian Church really going to re-baptize the individual?

How is it a Presbyterian Church would accept the validity of one's baptism who had it administered while in the arms of the Synagogue of Satan (Roman Catholic Church), but when it comes to a scenario like the one described in the OP some sessions might consider it invalid? I suppose the definition of what constitutes a true church would have to be considered. While acknowledging that the best of churches under heaven are mixed with truth and error, I am one who fails to see how the RCC can be considered a true church.

What makes the RCC a true church and thus its administration of baptism valid, but not in the case of the "house church"? Surely it's not the venue (public vs. private) and surely it's not the one who administered it (pagan priest vs. unordained man), right? Assuming the "house church" administered the sacrament using the Trinitarian formula it can't be that either.

You're perhaps aware that among Presbyterians views on RCC baptism differ. I lean towards a rejection of RCC baptism because it is an apostate body. However, I am not entirely settled on the issue.

 

[ZekeRambo]

Can you describe what this "home church" gathering was like? What sorts of people were drawn to it and how did it get started? Was the father you described recognized as the elder of the group and thus functioning as the spiritual leader? If you can provide additional details it would be helpful.

This was reported to me in a conversation and I didn't ask a lot of questions because it pretty much caught me by surprise. It sounded like a gathering of a couple of families and each head of household would administer baptism and communion to his family alone. My friend grew up in a patriarchal family. My friend is quite orthodox and is well established in the church.

 

[ZekeRambo]

Finally, it would be good to go over such points for and against among the session alone prior to any meeting with prospective members, to gain a consensus. Then, it would be good to inquire of the candidate for membership about his understanding of what baptism is and does. And, it would be good to obtain the candidate's own testimony of how he regards the rite he underwent, and if he is able with a clear conscience to tie his ritual experience with the biblical teaching of baptism and sacramental theology of the Presbyterian church he wishes to join.

Brother, thank you for your thoughtful reply!

 

[B.L.]

It sounded like a gathering of a couple of families and each head of household would administer baptism and communion to his family alone.

Wow. This is an insightful tidbit. This is a first for me; never heard of this practice.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Could not the question "Who claims you?" be used to support the baptism scenario highlighted in the OP though? I mean it's this question that makes what I highlighted to Tom regarding the validity of RCC baptisms in the eyes of Presbyterians possible, no?

I think part of our broadening discussion is noting who recognizes whom. Many privatizing families or groups do not recognize the legitimacy of the institutional church. They might not deny there are Christians within, or that baptisms are conducted under its auspices; but they ask, "Who are they to claim you?"

My diagnostic question can be explored in several directions. One is with emphasis on WHO, as in who or what is this person, group, or institution? The issue isn't, "Does anyone claim you," followed by a label for the identified entity. It's a matter of discovering the legitimacy of the assertion of authority.

Note as well, this philosophy of identity begins with the genus rather than the species. My identity is not self-created; the first step in self-identity is knowing whence I come.

This philosophy, by the way, is reflected in Calvin's famous first lines from the Institutes, where he begins stating we know God (our origin) by that same act by which we know ourselves (the derived).

My understanding of baptism is that while it includes, sooner or later, a man's faith-claim to belong to Jesus, to the Triune God, to the church; yet fundamentally it is an expression of God's claim, Christ's through his church's, that a certain man belongs to him. Baptism is a sign of the gospel promise, payable, redeemable unto faith.

My questions asks: Who made that claim on you? How easy/hard is it to recognize that (or if) God takes ownership of the mark that supposedly contains his name?