Is the Baptism of Laity considered Valid?

[ProtestantReformer]

Greetings all. Currently a lay member seeking membership at a PCA church. Prior to coming to a more well grounded understanding of baptism, I took it upon myself to baptize my own daughter in my own home in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. I know that the normative form of baptism in the reformed tradition is from an ordained minister into the visible church, but is my daughter’s baptism invalid? That is what is at contention & I don’t want to potentially be anabaptist. Any thoughts?

 

[Charles Johnson]

Greetings all. Currently a lay member seeking membership at a PCA church. Prior to coming to a more well grounded understanding of baptism, I took it upon myself to baptize my own daughter in my own home in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. I know that the normative form of baptism in the reformed tradition is from an ordained minister into the visible church, but is my daughter’s baptism invalid? That is what is at contention & I don’t want to potentially be anabaptist. Any thoughts?

It is up to the session of your Church to decide if they will recognize your daughter's baptism, and if not, to have her baptized.
You took it upon yourself to baptize her; don't repeat your mistake by taking it upon yourself to decide if her baptism is valid.

 

[ProtestantReformer]

It is up to the session of your Church to decide if they will recognize your daughter's baptism, and if not, to have her baptized.
You took it upon yourself to baptize her; don't repeat your mistake by taking it upon yourself to decide if her baptism is valid.

I understand that, but I want to know the Biblical precedence to say that baptism by the laity is invalid.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I mean, yeah, it sounds like a baptism. In the Scriptures, only the ones called to ministry are the ones baptizing. Rebaptism doesn't sound necessary in the sight of God, but men may want her to be, as part of the orderly institution. In that case, I would submit.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I understand that, but I want to know the Biblical precedence to say that baptism by the laity is invalid.

The biblical basis is that Christ joined teaching and baptism together when he said "teach all nations, baptizing them" to the Apostles. The office of teaching (i.e. that of a pastor) and the office of baptizing are therefore joined together.
Moreover, we never see a layman baptize in scripture.

 

[ProtestantReformer]

The biblical basis is that Christ joined teaching and baptism together when he said "teach all nations, baptizing them" to the Apostles. The office of teaching (i.e. that of a pastor) and the office of baptizing are therefore joined together.
Moreover, we never see a layman baptize in scripture.

How about Ananias’s baptism of Paul or Philip the deacon’s baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch?

 

[Charles Johnson]

How about Ananias’s baptism of Paul or Philip the deacon’s baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch?

They are generally not considered laymen. Ananias was a prophet (he received a direct vision from Christ, after all) and Philip was an evangelist (or at the very least he was still a deacon). But it seems he was an evangelist by that time from his preaching and evangelism.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Greetings all. Currently a lay member seeking membership at a PCA church. Prior to coming to a more well grounded understanding of baptism, I took it upon myself to baptize my own daughter in my own home in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. I know that the normative form of baptism in the reformed tradition is from an ordained minister into the visible church, but is my daughter’s baptism invalid? That is what is at contention & I don’t want to potentially be anabaptist. Any thoughts?

Thoughts, yes.

Full disclosure: I am writing from an unapologetically credobaptist perspective.

I believe it is a Trinitarian baptism. I think it would be regarded as disorderly but valid, and to submit merely because “men may want her to be” might very well constitute anabaptism.

Having studied this issue somewhat myself, the credibility of the profession of the person being baptized rather than the credentials of the one who is baptizing is often given greater weight based on my research. If you’re chiefly concerned with the external administration of baptism rather than the internal spiritual condition of the person being baptized, maybe this emphasis on the baptizer makes more sense in a paedobaptist context?

This research was somewhat extensive because of how close to home the question is for me: I was baptized by a member of the laity.

In 2009, I came to know the Lord Jesus Christ through an outreach group that was part of a seeker sensitive, non-denominational church and went on to become its own church. I was given a Trinitarian baptism by one of the unordained men serving in an informal leadership capacity in that outreach program who had not baptized someone before. I was not baptized into membership of that church, nor was I baptized at the church. I was immersed in a residential pool behind a house. It was disorderly in hindsight, but it was done gravely and with all sincerity of conviction of sin and profession of faith after weeks upon weeks of study and preparation with the man and with our Bibles open. It was later ruled as a disorderly but valid baptism by the Reformed Baptist church I became a part of. But before joining this Reformed Baptist church, I’d nearly joined a Primitive Brethren church. In those circles you really are in a sense being baptized again for the sake of men and not God, granted you’re being baptized into membership. The “one baptism” in Ephesians 4:5 really struck me throughout this whole journey of soul searching, prayerful study and inquiry.

A few excerpts follow below from that research. It should go without saying that I do not hold or advocate all of the views expressed in these excerpts. I put the relevant bits in bold.

In On Baptism, Chapter 17. Of the Power of Conferring Baptism, Tertullian wrote:

For concluding our brief subject, it remains to put you in mind also of the due observance of giving and receiving baptism. Of giving it, the chief priest (who is the bishop) has the right: in the next place, the presbyters and deacons, yet not without the bishop's authority, on account of the honour of the Church, which being preserved, peace is preserved. Beside these, even laymen have the right; for what is equally received can be equally given. Unless bishops, or priests, or deacons, be on the spot, other disciples are called i.e. to the work. The word of the Lord ought not to be hidden by any: in like manner, too, baptism, which is equally God's property, can be administered by all. But how much more is the rule of reverence and modesty incumbent on laymen— seeing that these powers belong to their superiors — lest they assume to themselves the specific function of the bishop! Emulation of the episcopal office is the mother of schisms. The most holy apostle has said, that all things are lawful, but not all expedient. Let it suffice assuredly, in cases of necessity, to avail yourself (of that rule , if at any time circumstance either of place, or of time, or of person compels you (so to do); for then the steadfast courage of the succourer, when the situation of the endangered one is urgent, is exceptionally admissible; inasmuch as he will be guilty of a human creature's loss if he shall refrain from bestowing what he had free liberty to bestow. But the woman of pertness, who has usurped the power to teach, will of course not give birth for herself likewise to a right of baptizing, unless some new beast shall arise like the former; so that, just as the one abolished baptism, so some other should in her own right confer it! But if the writings which wrongly go under Paul's name, claim Thecla's example as a licence for women's teaching and baptizing, let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that writing, as if he were augmenting Paul's fame from his own store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of Paul, was removed from his office. For how credible would it seem, that he who has not permitted a woman even to learn with over-boldness, should give a female the power of teaching and of baptizing! Let them be silent, he says, and at home consult their own husbands. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Baptist Catechism #96 also was helpful to me. I understand your mileage may vary as you seek to join a PCA church, but it may be helpful to you also nonetheless.

The Baptist Catechism, Question #96

How do baptism and the Lord's supper become effectual means of salvation?
Baptism and the Lord's supper become effectual means of salvation, not for any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ¹, and the working of the Spirit in those that by faith receive them.²

¹ 1 Peter 3:21; Matthew 3:11; 1 Corinthians 3:6–7
² 1 Corinthians 12:3; Matthew 28:19

Question #96

The Baptist Catechism, also known as Keach’s Catechism or the 1695 Catechism

baptistcatechism.org

Lastly, there's also Aquinas' take in Summa Theologica with the question: Whether a Layman Can Baptize?

Objection 1: It seems that a layman cannot baptize. Because, as stated above [4436](A[2]), to baptize belongs properly to the priestly order. But those things which belong to an order cannot be entrusted to one that is not ordained. Therefore it seems that a layman, who has no orders, cannot baptize.
Objection 2: Further, it is a greater thing to baptize, than to perform the other sacramental rites of Baptism, such as to catechize, to exorcize, and to bless the baptismal water. But these things cannot be done by laymen, but only by priests. Therefore it seems that much less can laymen baptize.

Objection 3: Further, just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is Penance. But a layman cannot absolve in the tribunal of Penance. Neither, therefore, can he baptize.

On the contrary, Pope Gelasius I and Isidore say that "it is often permissible for Christian laymen to baptize, in cases of urgent necessity."

I answer that, It is due to the mercy of Him "Who will have all men to be saved" (1 Tim.2:4) that in those things which are necessary for salvation, man can easily find the remedy. Now the most necessary among all the sacraments is Baptism, which is man's regeneration unto spiritual life: since for children there is no substitute, while adults cannot otherwise than by Baptism receive a full remission both of guilt and of its punishment. Consequently, lest man should have to go without so necessary a remedy, it was ordained, both that the matter of Baptism should be something common that is easily obtainable by all, i.e. water; and that the minister of Baptism should be anyone, even not in orders, lest from lack of being baptized, man should suffer loss of his salvation.

Reply to Objection 1: To baptize belongs to the priestly order by reason of a certain appropriateness and solemnity; but this is not essential to the sacrament. Consequently, if a layman were to baptize even outside a case of urgency; he would sin, yet he would confer the sacrament; nor would the person thus baptized have to be baptized again.

Reply to Objection 2: These sacramental rites of Baptism belong to the solemnity of, and are not essential to, Baptism. And therefore they neither should nor can be done by a layman, but only by a priest, whose office it is to baptize solemnly.

Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4437]Q[65], AA[3],4), Penance is not so necessary as Baptism; since contrition can supply the defect of the priestly absolution which does not free from the whole punishment, nor again is it given to children. Therefore the comparison with Baptism does not stand, because its effect cannot be supplied by anything else.

I’ll also say that I believe there are very interesting logical consequences if the Great Commission is effectively restricted to the “clergy” rather than the priesthood of all believers. There may be lots of thorny bits that flow from taking such a position. Although, I suppose there are thorny bits downstream of either position.

 

[John The Baptist]

The biblical basis is that Christ joined teaching and baptism together when he said "teach all nations, baptizing them" to the Apostles. The office of teaching (i.e. that of a pastor) and the office of baptizing are therefore joined together.
Moreover, we never see a layman baptize in scripture.

With much respect my friend, I disagree with this argumentation. I don’t think there is enough in that passage to support the case. If you do make the argument from there, there are a number of problems you must deal with:
(I’m assuming you’re speaking of the Great Commission)

First,
Jesus makes the commands this way:
1. Make disciples of all nations. This includes:
a. Baptizing them.
b. Teaching them.

If, as you argue, the command to baptize is limited to those who are in the office of teacher, then no one else can make disciples either. AND no one else can be comforted by the promise of Jesus that He will be with us to the end of the age in our mission here on earth.

Tying in baptism to the office of teacher, due to the command to teach, has many more consequences than you intend.

Second,
If it is the case that office is in view here, the only the apostles could baptize, as He is speaking to the apostles here. This is problematic for obvious reasons. There were 0 pastors at this point.

Now, I understand that the WCF takes the position of only ‘ministers of the Word lawfully ordained’ are to administer the sacraments (27.4), so to the OP, if you want to be faithful to your confession, then that baptism is invalid. And yet the confession also says that baptism is to administered but once. So, I don’t know what they will do with that but I agree with one sentiment above that it must be submitted to your elders.

But, I don’t think the proof texts the WCF are great support for the point of doctrine it is laying forth. I say this with much respect for that great work of Reformed orthodoxy.

This is something to wrestle with, and not without the support of those who care for you in your church.

Edit:
I realize that it is likely the position of my own confession (LBC 26.8), and thus I have not denied the doctrine itself, but just it’s support from that location. To be frank, the proof texts for my own confession are not any better, and possibly worse…

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I realize that it is likely the position of my own confession (LBC 26.8), and thus I have not denied the doctrine itself, but just it’s support from that location. To be frank, the proof texts for my own confession are not any better, and possibly worse…

I agree with the LBCF in these areas also, although I had no knowledge of LBCF or WCF back then in 2009. I think that's why in my case it was ruled as disorderly, but valid. So the distinction I was trying to make was between orderliness and validity along these same lines. Ultimately, I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion and OP's church will have to decide.

 

[John The Baptist]

I agree with the LBCF in these areas also, although I had no knowledge of LBCF or WCF back then in 2009. I think that's why in my case it was ruled as disorderly, but valid. So the distinction I was trying to make was between orderliness and validity along these same lines. Ultimately, I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion and OP's church will have to decide.

I agree, that’s an important distinction.

Before I knew anything about anything (15yrs old), other than that Jesus saved me, I was baptized a second time because I felt as though the first one at 9 yrs old was not valid because I was not converted.

I’m just thankful that God is gracious, because looking back I’m not sure that was the right decision. Too confusing to decipher.

All this to say, @ProtestantReformer, have hope that either way, God is gracious in His dealing with our misunderstandings, which are many.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

to submit merely because “men may want her to be” might very well constitute anabaptism.

That's a good point. Ultimately what matters is what God accepts.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's not really up to a PCA Session to determine whether baptism by a lay-person is valid. Our Confession teaches that it is not.

I would let them know that she was baptized by you and that she was never baptized by a Church.

This article is pretty interesting about how Presbyterians view the Church catholic.

John MacPherson – Unity of the Church: The Sin of Schism - Naphtali Press

John MacPherson Unity of the Church: The Sin of Schism Copyright © 1998 Naphtali Press [From John MacPherson, The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology] Our Scottish divines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had a singularly high and clear conception of the unity of the church...

www.naphtali.com

It explains why, historically, Presbyterians would not consider your child to have been baptized in a roundabout manner.

 

[Charles Johnson]

It's not really up to a PCA Session to determine whether baptism by a lay-person is valid. Our Confession teaches that it is not.

I would let them know that she was baptized by you and that she was never baptized by a Church.

This article is pretty interesting about how Presbyterians view the Church catholic.

John MacPherson – Unity of the Church: The Sin of Schism - Naphtali Press

John MacPherson Unity of the Church: The Sin of Schism Copyright © 1998 Naphtali Press [From John MacPherson, The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology] Our Scottish divines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had a singularly high and clear conception of the unity of the church...

www.naphtali.com

It explains why, historically, Presbyterians would not consider your child to have been baptized in a roundabout manner.

It says that only a minister may baptize ("There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospels, that is to say, baptism and the supper of the Lord: neither or which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained.")
But that's not identical to saying that a baptism by a non-minister is invalid and must be repeated. Many of the Church fathers, especially Augustine, believed that baptism by heretics (and implicitly, laymen) was an abuse, but if the baptism was done with the proper formula they would not repeat it. So it is entirely conceivable that one could view baptism by a non-minister as improper, but still a baptism in substance.
Moreover, many presbyterian churches operate this way in practice, when they do not repeat baptist baptisms, even though according to Presbyterians, most baptist ordinations are not valid, because they are not done by a presbytery. After all, the confession does say the minister must be lawfully ordained.
I don't see the Confession directly responding to the question of validity of improperly administered baptism, only that of the proper way to administer it. Thus why I responded he should probably just leave the matter up to his session. After all, if he were to arrive at a different conclusion than them, what recourse would he have but to leave the Church, or go against his conscience? Best to leave it up to them.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It says that only a minister may baptize ("There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospels, that is to say, baptism and the supper of the Lord: neither or which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained.")
But that's not identical to saying that a baptism by a non-minister is invalid and must be repeated. Many of the Church fathers, especially Augustine, believed that baptism by heretics (and implicitly, laymen) was an abuse, but if the baptism was done with the proper formula they would not repeat it. So it is entirely conceivable that one could view baptism by a non-minister as improper, but still a baptism in substance.
Moreover, many presbyterian churches operate this way in practice, when they do not repeat baptist baptisms, even though according to Presbyterians, most baptist ordinations are not valid, because they are not done by a presbytery. After all, the confession does say the minister must be lawfully ordained.
I don't see the Confession directly responding to the question of validity of improperly administered baptism, only that of the proper way to administer it. Thus why I responded he should probably just leave the matter up to his session. After all, if he were to arrive at a different conclusion than them, what recourse would he have but to leave the Church, or go against his conscience? Best to leave it up to them.

Charles,

Your theological opinion about what someone should do if they are in the PCA is unrelated to what Augustine would have believed. The Presbyterian Church has a historical view on this question. It may not be the same as all, but we view the baptism of anyone by laypersons or women as both invalid and unlawful. Some PCA Churches side with Thornwell and view Roman Catholic baptisms as invalid and unlawful, but that is left up to the Session. It is not left up to the Session to decide whether or not baptism by a lay person is valid or lawful.

It's important to receive counsel in Ecclesiastical matters from someone who knows what they're talking about from a Church Order perspective. Questions of what a person ought to do in a visible communion are not settled by an appeal to Church history. A Session will want to know if the person has been baptized because that matters with respect to the present or later question of communicant membership. If a Session does not realize the person was never baptized in a valid manner then this hinders their ability to properly shepherd. If a Session in the PCA wrongfully concluded that a lay-person's baptism was valid, they can be brought up on charges by the Presbytery.

Our Scottish theologians were so generous in their conception of what constitutes a true church of Christ that, keen as their antagonism to Rome of necessity was, they did not seek to unchurch her, or to treat her baptism as invalid. We might not have been surprised had they scrupled as to whether the priests of the Romish church should be recognized as minsters of the word. But here again the recognition of the church in which they served as a branch of the church of Christ, notwithstanding her manifold and grievous corruptions, weighed so heavily with them that they did not raise the question as to the validity of the orders of the priests of Rome. So little disposed were the divines of Scotland, and with them those of the Reformed churches generally, to question the validity of baptism administered within any Christian church that they even declined to pronounce baptism administered by a deposed minister invalid, and rather introduced a distinction, useful though somewhat fine, between a valid and a lawful baptism. The action of the deposed minister and the conduct of those receiving baptism at his hands was distinctly unlawful, but the baptism itself was valid, and as such could not be ignored. In the application of this distinction, however, they carefully restricted themselves to the recognition of baptism administered by those who had some claim to be recognized as men ordained by the church. Women and laymen, who presumed, in accordance with Romish practice in cases of emergency, (( And quhensaever the tyme of neid chancis that the barne can nocht be brocht conveniently to a preist and the barne be feivit to be in peril of dede, than all men and women may be ministeris of Baptyme, swa that quhen thai lay wattir apon the barne, with that, thai pronunce the wordis of Baptyme intendand to minister that sacrament, as the kirk intendis. The Catechism of John Hamilton, 1552; The Sacrament of Baptyme, the fourt cheptour. )) to dispense the ordinance, were not only themselves dealt with as profaners of the holy sacrament, but their action was regarded as invalid as well as unlawful. Any child who had received a so-called baptism from a woman or a layman must be presented in a regular way and receive baptism as a child not yet baptized.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

... The Presbyterian Church has a historical view on this question. It may not be the same as all, but we view the baptism of anyone by laypersons or women as both invalid and unlawful ...

Is there an official PCA source that's binding on the whole PCA that explains this policy?

Edit to Add #1: I checked the PCA's BCO and I didn't find anything.
Edit to Add #2: I ask because what you are saying seems to contradict everything I've ever heard from Presbyterians in the past about what makes Baptism "valid" and not subject to be repeated.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Charles,

Your theological opinion about what someone should do if they are in the PCA is unrelated to what Augustine would have believed. The Presbyterian Church has a historical view on this question. It may not be the same as all, but we view the baptism of anyone by laypersons or women as both invalid and unlawful. Some PCA Churches side with Thornwell and view Roman Catholic baptisms as invalid and unlawful, but that is left up to the Session. It is not left up to the Session to decide whether or not baptism by a lay person is valid or lawful.

It's important to receive counsel in Ecclesiastical matters from someone who knows what they're talking about from a Church Order perspective. Questions of what a person ought to do in a visible communion are not settled by an appeal to Church history. A Session will want to know if the person has been baptized because that matters with respect to the present or later question of communicant membership. If a Session does not realize the person was never baptized in a valid manner then this hinders their ability to properly shepherd. If a Session in the PCA wrongfully concluded that a lay-person's baptism was valid, they can be brought up on charges by the Presbytery.

What would the charges be based on if neither the BOCO nor the Confession specify which baptisms are valid? Is there another document on the matter?

 

[MChase]

We accept Baptist baptism because they are irregularly ordained ministers but ordained ministers nonetheless.

I find it interesting that Rutherford proves the ‘validity’ of Romish ministry because of the validity of their baptism. I don’t know that I necessarily agree on that point, but it does operate on the assumption that baptism is connected to a lawfully ordained ministry. Further, what if a group of college kids break bread and drink some wine? What is to stop one from calling that a valid, albeit irregular, administration of the Lord’s Supper?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What would the charges be based on if neither the BOCO nor the Confession specify which baptisms are valid? Is there another document on the matter?

BCO 56-1
56-1. Baptism is not to be unnecessarily delayed; 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.

Again, this is consonant with the historical view of Presbyterians on the topic of whether a baptism is either valid or lawful. The BCO requires in multiple sections that a person be baptized. It never hedges on what the requirements for baptism. It doesn't have a standard that, as long as the formula is accurate, the baptism is valid. One might as well ask where the BCO requires a Session to judge a baptism without water or not in the name of the Trinity as being valid or lawful.

Historically, Presbyterians have accepted Roman Catholic baptisms as valid but unlawful on the grounds that the RCC is still a Church. It has *never* believed that laymen or women could perform a valid baptism. The issue owes to the commitment that it is the Church that baptizes and not an individual. This is why private baptisms are also prohibited by our BCO. The reason why ministers may only baptize is not a power in them but that, because they are ordained, they are authorized to speak for the Church in the Sacrament.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

From the Ad Hoc Committee to Study the Validity of Certain Baptisms, adopted by the 1987 GA:

CRITERIA OF VALIDITY AND CRITERIA OF REGULARITY However helpful and informative it may be to consider historical instances in the Scriptures, it is principally to explicit, verbal instructions that we must look in order to establish Biblical criteria. As a confessional church, we seek guidance from the Confessional Standards as reliable summaries of that which the Scriptures teach. The following criteria are determinative of validity, and must therefore be present in the administration of baptism: (By their very nature, extraordinary cases are those which do not follow the rule, but our concern is to set forth which criteria are those which Scripture specifies).

1. Administered in the most Holy Name of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19; WCF 2:3). This formula may be expressed occasionally in the name of Christ Jesus as mediatorial representative of the Trinity (for example, Acts 2:38).
2. With water (Matt. 3:11; 28:19; John 1:33; 3:5; LC 177). It may be noted that application of oil as symbolic of the Spirit is exemplified in Scripture.
3. Unto those who profess faith in, and obedience unto, Christ; or unto children of those professing faith in Christ. (Gen. 17-7-9; Acts 2:31-39; 1 Cor. 7:14; LC 155; WCF 28:4, 14:1,2, and especially 14:3 with regard to the nature of the faith required.)
4. Administered by a lawfully ordained minister of the Gospel (WCF 27:4; 1 Cor. 4:1; 11:23; Heb. 5:4; Rom. 15:8.).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Edit to Add #2: I ask because what you are saying seems to contradict everything I've ever heard from Presbyterians in the past about what makes Baptism "valid" and not subject to be repeated.

I'm not sure who you've been speaking with. Presbyterians distinguish between something being lawful (aka regular) and valid. A baptism may be irregular but still valid. This is why Presbyterians (with the exception of Southern Presbyterians) count RCC baptism as valid but irregular (or unlawful) and would not baptize again. Baptisms by laypersons have always been viewed as both invalid and unlawful. See my quotes above.

 

[Phil D.]

From the Ad Hoc Committee to Study the Validity of Certain Baptisms, adopted by the 1987 GA:

I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but it looks like that portion is from the Minority Report.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but it looks like that portion is from the Minority Report.

Which was adopted per the minutes.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

ction of the 15th General Assembly (1987), as recorded on page 162 of their Minutes :
15-74 Ad Interim Committee on Baptism.
The Assembly returned to the report of the Committee (see 15-70, p. 156).
The Minority Report's recommendations were adopted as the substitute motion and
then adopted. (See Appendix P, p. 416 for the text of the report)-[http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.html]
1. That the Assembly receive both the Committee and the Minority Reports, commending them to the attention of its churches and lower courts as information. Adopted.
2. That the Assembly leave decisions in these matters to be made, on a case by case basis, by the lower courts, subject to normal review and control or judicial processes. Adopted.
3. That the Assembly discharge the Committee with thanks. Adopted.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but it looks like that portion is from the Minority Report.

I think this part clarifies this issue...

Action of the 15th General Assembly on this report [excerpted from the Minutes of the Assembly]:
15-70 Ad Interim Committee on Baptism
TE Carl Bogue, chairman, led in prayer and presented the report (Appendix P, p. 416). Recommendations 1 - 4 were moved and seconded. Recommendation 1 of the Minority Report was moved and seconded in substitute of the majority's recommendation. The order of the day arrived before action was taken. See 15-74, p. 162 for action.
15-74 Ad Interim Committee on Baptism
The Assembly returned to the report of the Committee (See 15-70, p. 156). The Minority Report's recommendations were adopted as the substitute motion and then adopted. (See Appendix P, p. 416 for the text of the report)
1. That the Assembly receive both the Committee and the Minority Reports, commending them both to the attention of its churches and lower courts as information. Adopted.
2. That the Assembly leave decisions in these matters to be made, on a case by case basis, by the lower courts, subject to normal review and control or judicial processes. Adopted.
3. That the Assembly discharge the Committee with thanks. Adopted.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

ction of the 15th General Assembly (1987), as recorded on page 162 of their Minutes :
15-74 Ad Interim Committee on Baptism.
The Assembly returned to the report of the Committee (see 15-70, p. 156).
The Minority Report's recommendations were adopted as the substitute motion and
then adopted. (See Appendix P, p. 416 for the text of the report)-[http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.html]
1. That the Assembly receive both the Committee and the Minority Reports, commending them to the attention of its churches and lower courts as information. Adopted.
2. That the Assembly leave decisions in these matters to be made, on a case by case basis, by the lower courts, subject to normal review and control or judicial processes. Adopted.
3. That the Assembly discharge the Committee with thanks. Adopted.

Looks like this is consonant with the advice above to leave it up to the Session.

 

[sgemmen9]

It's required that an elder or minister conduct the baptism in the Reformed faith, ideally. In my congregation, for example, we would reach out to someone who baptized their own child as an act of accidental/unintentional insubordination to their member vows. Presbyterian polity generally follows this format based on the assumptions made about the Scriptural understanding of office and profession of faith. As mentioned previously, see what your session says in this instance. It wouldn't be considered a rebaptism if they considered it invalid as there technically hasn't been a first baptism.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Looks like this is consonant with the advice above to leave it up to the Session.

It's curious to me that it is the Baptists that seem to know the most about Presbyterian baptism and practice.

The "answer" to the question is not that it is the Presbyterian conviction, historically or confessionally that the validity of a baptism is left to the Session.

If I could push your conclusion to its limit, by your reading of the report, a PCA session could also conclude that baptism was valid that:
a. Was not Trinitarian.
b. Was not performed with water.
c. Was not performed on a person who is either a professed believer or a Covenant child.
d. Was performed by a lay-person.

BUT

...because the Session determined it valid, it was a valid baptism. After all, where in the Refport or the BCO does it say that a Session must deem the above invalid?

You don't seem to understand how judicial review works within the Presbyterian system. Yes, the Session might make the determination in a particular case, but it is subject to Judicial review. The question being asked within the PCA at the time was not whether lay-person baptism was valid but RCC baptism and other similar edge cases. Thornwell taught, and many in the PCUS practiced, that RCC baptism was invalid. I might add that the irony in this thread is that Baptists think that lay-person baptism is valid whereas RCC baptism is not. The reverse is the case in Presbyterian and Reformed practice.

I'm certain one could find a Presbyterian Session that deems the baptism of a person by a lay-person to be valid. For that matter, I could point you in the direction of a Session that calls women Pastors (we're dealing with that). The issue is that the PCA, or its historical forebears has never considered them to be valid. It rejected the Roman Catholic idea of emergency baptisms, in part, because it didn't inexorably link salvation to baptism.

This thread began with a person, desiring to join a PCA congregation and asked about the validity of his child's baptism. He received opinions about the validity of the child's baptism from Baptists who would not consider my own children's baptism to be valid, even while advising that baptism by a lay-person is valid. I would suggest that, when asking about the validity of baptism one consults those with knowledge of Presbyterian and Reformed history on the question.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

... I might add that the irony in this thread is that Baptists think that lay-person baptism is valid whereas RCC baptism is not ...

Why is this ironic?

The lay-persons under discussion are at least Christians.

RCC are not Christians.

To me if there were any irony, the irony would be in accepting the baptisms done by Non-Ministers from a Non-Church while rejecting baptisms by Non-Ministers from a True Church.

That being said: Regarding Baptists, I wouldn't paint with such a broad brush. Although you correctly judge that I reject RCC Baptism, I am not so entirely sure that I accept layman baptisms either. I'm still working that issue out.

But you speak very confidently and boldly about what the accepted Presbyterian practices is. Maybe you're right about it. But I've had a significant number of Presbyterians (including Ruling Elders and Teaching Elders) tell me that as a Baptist, I am dead wrong in asking someone infant sprinkled (by RCC or otherwise) to be baptized "again" because Baptism performed by ANYONE AT ALL is "valid" (even if illegal) as long as it's done in the Trinitarian formula, with some amount of water, with the intention to be performing Christian Baptism. Apparently to hold any other view is "Donatism" according to my former interlocutors.

Perhaps they are wrong, and you are right. But that doesn't take away the fact that there are REs and TEs at large who don't see it as you do.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Why is this ironic?

The lay-persons under discussion are at least Christians.

RCC are not Christians.

To me if there were any irony, the irony would be in accepting the baptisms done by Non-Ministers from a Non-Church while rejecting baptisms by Non-Ministers from a True Church.

The irony owes to the fact that it is the Baptists trying to instruct Presbyterian Elders on their practice arguing that the Presbyterian and Reformed conviction on the invalidity of lay-person baptisms is false. The Baptists don't seem to touch on the peculiar difference between themselves and Presbyterian/Reformed persons as to why they historically accepted Roman catholic baptisms and not lay-person baptisms. they are arguing as a Baptist would and then saying the Presbyterian is wrong to assert that a Roman Catholic baptism is valid while denying the validity of a lay-person baptism.

But you speak very confidently and boldly about what the accepted Presbyterian practices is. Maybe you're right about it. But I've have a significant number of Presbyterians (including Ruling Elders and Teaching Elders) tell me that as a Baptist, I am dead wrong in asking someone infant sprinkled (by RCC or otherwise) to be baptized "again" because Baptism performed by ANYONE AT ALL is "valid" (even if illegal) as long as it's done in the Trinitarian formula, with some amount of water, with the intention to be performing Christian Baptism. Apparently to hold any other view is "Donatism" according to my former interlocutors.

How do you want me to respond? If I told you that I knew a "significant" number of Reformed Baptists that think that infants ought to be baptized would you be persuaded that I ought to give that answer to a person asking whether or not a Reformed Baptist would think that their child, baptized in a Roman Catholic Church, was baptized? I have not merely opined but provided resources from the very Church I have been an Elder within for a long time, and you wonder about why I"m confident? My confidence owes to not only years of study but participation in the Courts of our Church for a considerable period of time including well over a decade examining men for ordination both at the Presbytery and denominational level (as a member elected by the GA to serve on the PCA's Theological Examining Committee).