SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Jeff,
As a Teaching Elder ordained by the PCA, I am (willingly) constrained by the Standards of my denomination. As you know, being Reformed refers to my theology, being Presbyterian (strictly speaking) refers to my form of church government. (Though I do believe that presbyterian government is part and parcel of being Reformed, but that's another issue.)
WCF 31.3 declares that it is the role and duty of "œsynods and councils" to decide matters of the faith. This responsibility is not a prerogative that is given to individual men no matter how intelligent, influential or helpful he may be. Thus, I am profoundly impressed by the humility of the men who wrote the PCA´s minority report (these were the men on the study committee who recommended granting the legitimacy of RC baptisms) when they concede "“ in the face of the Majority report which was contrary to their own position,
While the next to last sentence in this quote is obviously the point at which the minority report differs from the majority report, the last sentence is instructive: it is not the prerogative of individuals to determine the validity or invalidity of a baptism. That belongs to the courts of the Church.
Thus, when men speak it is helpful. Calvin is helpful. Luther is helpful. Hodge is helpful. Thornwell is helpful. Dabney is helpful. But none of these men constitute a court of the Church.
When a court of the Church decides, it is patently unPresbyterian to argue that one man had his way. This is especially true when the highest court in the Church repeatedly affirms a given position. Hodge, THE (and I note THE) great voice of American Presbyterian dissent, noted in his article that in the 1845 Old School GA, the GA voted 169 to 8 (with 6 abstaining) to rule RC baptisms invalid. That is hardly a close call. Since that time with almost 100% unanimity, the GAs have decided the same thing: Roman "œbaptisms" are not baptisms. In fact, as of the date of the publication of the Study Committee´s appendix in 1987, only ONE GA/Synod had voted to grant the legitimacy of RC baptisms, that being the RPCES´s 1981 Synod. Even then, they granted the legitimacy of Roman baptisms because they believed that Roman baptisms meet Hodge´s 3rd requirement, that is that they are intending to obey Christ´s command.
It seems like what is going on in this thread is a lot of arguing along the lines of a "œpersonality cult." Again, according to the Confession it belongs to the courts of the church to decide, not to individuals.
But I will grant for a moment that Thornwell was likely the leading voice to marshal together the arguments that ultimately led to an apparent total uniformity of opinion in the minds of over 100 years of American presbyters. However, while Thornwell may have been the first to put 2 and 2 together, the constituent arguments were not created by him. For instance, in 1790 the GA made a correlation between "œtrue church and true ordinances" with a corollary of a "œfalse church and invalid ordinances." This is because of WCF 25.3. Furthermore, in 1835 the GA declared that the RC cannot be called a Christian Church. It was only a matter of time before someone put the two together... who knows, perhaps both of these GAs would have made a decision similar to that of the 1845 Old School GA. Unfortunately, we'll never know because the question of the legitimacy of Roman baptisms never came up at those GAs.
As a result, the decision of the GA of 1845 states, "œAs certainly then, as the dogmas and practices of papal Rome are not the holy religion of Christ, must it be conceded, that the papal body is not a Church of Christ"¦; and if not, then"¦ the rite they call baptism, is not, in any sense, to be regarded as valid Christian baptism." Remember, this decision passed by a vote of 169 to 8. Furthermore, these presbyters (Old School conservatives, not New School "œprogressives", mind you!) had access to Luther, Calvin"¦ Hodge. Every subsequent GA has had access to the same arguments and yet virtually all of them have decided against accepting Roman baptisms.
Now, my denomination has essentially decided to not decide. That is, as far as I´m aware, the policy of the PCA is to allow each Session to decide. Thus there is room for charitable disagreement.
What I don´t like, and do not appreciate, is the attitude and approach of some of the Presbyterians on this site who place the writings of those who are NOT courts of the Church as if they are determinative of what is and isn´t faithfulness to Christ and His Word. That power belongs to the courts.
As a teaching elder, I would concede to the decision of my session, but I would try to get them to see what so many presbyters have seen, namely, that RC baptisms are no baptisms at all.
[Edited on 9-17-2006 by SolaScriptura]
