Transfer members/baptism, pt 2.

Status
Not open for further replies.

raekwon

Puritan Board Junior
So as to avoid a thread hijack, I'll pose this question again in a new thread . . .

WCF 28:2 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 .

So, knowing the confessional language, I wonder how some Presbyterians would handle someone transferring in from a Baptist denomination in which the person administering baptism doesn't necessarily have to be an ordained minister or elder (for example, at the SBC church I used to be a member of, most baptisms were administered by pastors, but occasionally, it would be administered by a lay-person who was instrumental in the baptizand's conversion). Priesthood of all believers and all that rot. I personally don't believe that priesthood of all believers extends to ministerial functions or privileges, but anyway . . .

Would/should such a baptism be considered invalid?
 
I'm not a Presbyterian proper but yes, we recognize as valid a baptism by a baptised lay-person. If done in ignorance there is no sin. Of course we don't like the practice but deem re-baptism a sin.
 
Not only in WCF 28, but again in WCF Chapter 27:4: "There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord; neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the word, lawfully ordained." (Matt 28:19, 20)

Heb 5:1-4 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

In light of that teaching from Sripture and our WCF subordinate standards, we wouldn't accept into membership the baptism of a person who was baptized by a lay-person, or an unordained minister.
 
I'm having trouble seeing the justification for baptisms only being performed by ministers of the Word. I can see it being good as far as church order is concerned, but I don't see it taught in Scripture.

The Hebrews 5 passage is talking about the Old Covenant priesthood, and I assume most of us would assert that there is no special "priesthood" today. That seems to me to be a more Catholic or Anglican understanding.

Regarding the great commission in Matthew 28, it was indeed spoken to the apostles.

[BIBLE]Matthew 28:18-20[/BIBLE]

Most Christians, though, understand "making disciples of all nations," and "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" to be commands for all Christians. Why, then, would we understand "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" to apply only to the ordained ministers of the Word?

And if baptism were primarily the role of ministers of the Word, why did Paul, being a minister of the Word, not consider baptizing one of his primary responsibilities?

[BIBLE]1 cor 1:14-17[/BIBLE]
 
No, in most Presbyterian churches that baptism would not be considered invalid. It would be irregular, but not invalid.

As noted above some of the smaller groups would disagree with this practice.
 
Rae,

The rule is per the Standards. When you get into the expections like the one you have mentioned, each Session will have to make that determination. My personal position would be that if a person was baptized at a youth camp meeting by the youth guy in the camp swimming pool, I would have serious reservations.

It should be noted that the Sacraments are for the Church and administering these sacraments are the responsibility of those who have been called by God to oversee his Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top