Baptism baptize

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anxious inquirer

Inactive User
When one has no place to worship for conscience sake and is reading and worshipping at home, and the Lord in His infinite grace gives children, is it than acceptable / in accordance to the Scriptures for the head of the house to baptize one's own children?
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
There is nothing in Scripture that allows a head of household to baptize their children.

Search A Puritans Mind. I believe the webmaster has a paper on this issue.
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
Wayne,

Let me ask you and Fred and the other Presbyterian elders here a question.

If a man and his family have just moved and do not have a church home or a church that they are comfortable attending, and he does baptize his children in the pool in the back yard, would you say that that was not a vaild baptism and require "re-baptism" upon their coming to your church?

Phillip
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:3218b56a27][i:3218b56a27]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:3218b56a27]
Wayne,

Let me ask you and Fred and the other Presbyterian elders here a question.

If a man and his family have just moved and do not have a church home or a church that they are comfortable attending, and he does baptize his children in the pool in the back yard, would you say that that was not a vaild baptism and require "re-baptism" upon their coming to your church?

Phillip [/quote:3218b56a27]

It is not a valid baptism. Baptism is given by the Lord Christ to His Church. It is to be administered by the Church.
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
[b:36ab35b302]Fred wrote:[/b:36ab35b302]
It is not a valid baptism. Baptism is given by the Lord Christ to His Church. It is to be administered by the Church.

Fred,
This question isn't directed to you because, if I remember correctly, you don't hold to this position.

Why will many reformed churches accept as valid a baptism from a roman catholic church, basically because they've said the "trinitarian formula", but they wouldn't accept a baptism from a born-again father who baptizes his children (using the same trinitarian formula)?

Just wondering,
Bob

[Edited on 2-21-2004 by blhowes]
 

Anxious inquirer

Inactive User
Re: baptism

Dear Wayne and others,

As I told you already, I can't attend any churchmeeting / fellowship in my area for conscience sake. My wife and I belong through grace, to the Lord and are members of the Church of God, the Body of Christ. The Lord in His infinite goodness has entrusted us six children. I believe on the basis of Scripture that my children ought to be baptized. I have not been able to find any scriptural reason against baptizing them myself and therefore have baptized them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I know this might seem strange and not according to church order, but perhaps one of you should try to help me, to show from Scripture what is right and what not.

On the other hand I would like you to consider you answers so far, as you compare them with the situation in many African and Asian countries where no formal 'ministers' are available and many come to believe in the Lord Jesus as their Saviour and are granted children. Should all those children remain unbaptized?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
[quote:4371a529ba][i:4371a529ba]Originally posted by Anxious inquirer[/i:4371a529ba]
Dear Wayne and others,

As I told you already, I can't attend any churchmeeting / fellowship in my area for conscience sake. My wife and I belong through grace, to the Lord and are members of the Church of God, the Body of Christ. The Lord in His infinite goodness has entrusted us six children. I believe on the basis of Scripture that my children ought to be baptized. I have not been able to find any scriptural reason against baptizing them myself and therefore have baptized them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I know this might seem strange and not according to church order, but perhaps one of you should try to help me, to show from Scripture what is right and what not.

On the other hand I would like you to consider you answers so far, as you compare them with the situation in many African and Asian countries where no formal 'ministers' are available and many come to believe in the Lord Jesus as their Saviour and are granted children. Should all those children remain unbaptized? [/quote:4371a529ba]

AI,
I would imagine that you and your family will at the proper timing become attached to a body of believers-no? I do not see a time frame attached to the sacrament of baptism as much as I see the authority given to the [i:4371a529ba]church at large[/i:4371a529ba] to place the sign upon it's members. No where in the NT do we see just any ole one placing the sign upon a believer or their families.

As the time approaches, and God wills, you will indeed find an ordained minister to place this sacrament upon your children.

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

[Edited on 2-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 

Anxious inquirer

Inactive User
Dear Scott,

We have no idea whether the Lord will at His time bring us into contact with a body of believers.

You are right as to the time frame although I believe that children should be baptized as soon as possible as we start to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord from the day of birth too. If we believe that children are brought into covenant through baptism, then why should we wait?

As to the ordinance of baptism we have the NT teaching us that the disciples were commanded to baptize and that they actually baptized. We do not read of a certain class of people being 'ordained' to baptize, on the contrary we read that all are priests (Rev. 1:6). There is nowhere in the NT a 'special' or 'ordained' class of people like in the OT. What is so special is the fact that each one is equally a member of the body (1 Cor. 10:17; 12 whole chapter), that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, and one is our Master, we ought all to be servants. Yes ofcourse there are different gifts etc., but still one is not above another. There is no 'clerus' in Scripture, and what is there is clearly refuted and todays existance I believe is a leftover of the Popish system.

We need servants, true pastors for the flock.

With kind regards,
 

Anxious inquirer

Inactive User
Dear Scott,

Does it make any difference to know what denomination I previously was attached to? Would it not be more important and helpful to try to answer some of my questions instead of satisfying your curiousness.

Perhaps you could help me further by showing me from Scripture - which I assume is for both of us our only reference - some answers on my questions.

Untill now I haven't read much helpfull and Scriptural based reactions on my questions and hope this will change.

With kind regards,
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
AI,
Why so defensive? It does make a difference. Seperating oneself and family from the local church (in my opinion) is serious! The concern over denomination is important. Why? Because you have inquired about baptism; I am curious as to what denomination you held to; what statement of faith?

In regards to satisfying my curiousity: certain issues require this information for the counsel to be scriptural. I cannot, based upon my conscience, counsel you rightfully, without knowing the issues.

The reason everyone is dancing around your questions is due to the fact that we need to establish why and what has disenchanted you from orthodox worship. Now this is not to imply that if something is rightfully pricking your conscience (according to Gods word) that you have drawn away from gathering w/ any specific group; as I have said, I can relate. But before I myself will address your questions, I need a little background on what exactly has assaulted your conscience.

In HIM,

[Edited on 2-22-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 

Roldan

Puritan Board Junior
[quote:24c301e049][i:24c301e049]Originally posted by Anxious inquirer[/i:24c301e049]
Dear Scott,

Does it make any difference to know what denomination I previously was attached to? Would it not be more important and helpful to try to answer some of my questions instead of satisfying your curiousness.

Perhaps you could help me further by showing me from Scripture - which I assume is for both of us our only reference - some answers on my questions.

Untill now I haven't read much helpfull and Scriptural based reactions on my questions and hope this will change.

With kind regards, [/quote:24c301e049]

AI, Are you diligently seeking a solution to your dillema? For one who is seeking truth with his/her heart will do everything possible to find the answer. Why a sarcastic reply to an honest question? Are looking for the truth or just justification for what you already are CONVINCED of?

I know you probably don't want my opinion but here it is anyways.

You had no right to administer a sacrament that is only to be given by an ordained minister called by God Himself.

And your problem is that you are looking at an external sign for salvation instead of what the sign means. Not implying that the sign is not important but what is more important is what the sign signifies.

I am inspired by your passion to be biblical but let us not deny centuries of church history that God has established to satisfy our own convictions.

I am no theologian so this is from a layman perspective.


May God swiftly answer your prayers and grant you peace in this time of struggle.

In His Covenant, Roldan
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
Webmaster....

I thought as much. And I agree with you and Fred. Baptism, whether we call it a sacrament or an ordinance, is given by Christ to His church to be administered by those qualified to lead. The Great Commission was given to the Apostles and the example given all through the book of Acts was that those who went, preached, planted churches, and baptised were those sent by the authority of the church.

This is the testimony of Scripture.

If I was in the same situation (and not an elder in the church), I would find a church near or far and have those in the church administer baptism to my kids when approproate.

I would also want more info on this particular circumstance to know why no local body will do....or no local body within driving distance. How far? As far as necessary!

Phillip
 

Anxious inquirer

Inactive User
Dear Phillip, Scott, and Roldan,

I had no intention to be defensive or sarcastic, neither to seek a solution for a dillema, or justification for something I am convinced of already. I just desire some plain answers with solid Scriptural arguments. Many questions are left not answered also one by Bob Howes!

Perhaps I have been to harsh / direct and therefore the discussion goes towards a side which I do not really appreciate and of which I think others are not really edified. Therefore I have no further desire to continue this discussion in this way and leave the subject for what it is.

With kind regards,
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
[quote:2f9fb60d8c][i:2f9fb60d8c]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:2f9fb60d8c]
Wayne,

Let me ask you and Fred and the other Presbyterian elders here a question.

If a man and his family have just moved and do not have a church home or a church that they are comfortable attending, and he does baptize his children in the pool in the back yard, would you say that that was not a vaild baptism and require "re-baptism" upon their coming to your church?

Phillip [/quote:2f9fb60d8c]

It would not be a "re-baptism" since the child was not baptized in the first place.

AI,

Would highly recommend reading the paper that Matt provided a link to. It should answer your questions.
 

Wannabee

Obi Wan Kenobi
AI,

For the record, and as unpopular as it is on this board, I'm with you on this one.

in my opinion - True ordination is from God. Requiring man to be ordained by man in order to observe/administer the ordinances is legalistic and cannot be proven via Scripture. It's an authoritarian argument (by the way, I've read the article and find it unconvincing).

I've seen lots of words used (philosophy), but not the Word used clearly on this issue.

No insult intended, just my :wr50:.
 

BrianLanier

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:e84cb7cbad][i:e84cb7cbad]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:e84cb7cbad]
[quote:e84cb7cbad][i:e84cb7cbad]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:e84cb7cbad]
Wayne,

Let me ask you and Fred and the other Presbyterian elders here a question.

If a man and his family have just moved and do not have a church home or a church that they are comfortable attending, and he does baptize his children in the pool in the back yard, would you say that that was not a vaild baptism and require "re-baptism" upon their coming to your church?

Phillip [/quote:e84cb7cbad]

It is not a valid baptism. Baptism is given by the Lord Christ to His Church. It is to be administered by the Church. [/quote:e84cb7cbad]

Fred,

I have been dealing with this issue lately with my boss. He was NOT baptized by an ordained minister, just a laymen. This was several years ago. I explained to him basically what you said, that it is to be administerd by the Church. After a little bit he agreed with me. However, tonight I was reading an article by Dr. F.N. Lee, Catabaptism in the PCA (page 8 & 9)and it sparked my interest. To quote from the article:

"For truly confessional Presbyterians pay more than just lip service to the Westminster Standards. Solemnly do the latter declare: 'Neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it.... The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person' [including the Romanist previously baptized by a priest]. Westminster Confession 27:3 & 28:7 and Larger Catechism 177. "Furthermore, baptism is not to 'be dispensed by any but by a Minister of the Word lawfully ordained' -- as distinct from a Ruling Elder, [b:e84cb7cbad]or a Plymouth Brethren layman[/b:e84cb7cbad], or a Modernistic Presbyterian Lady-Minister, or an [b:e84cb7cbad]unordained Baptist [/b:e84cb7cbad]working through some non-denominational missionary society. Westminster Confession 27:4 & 28:2 and Larger Catechism 176. [b:e84cb7cbad]However, even baptisms irregularly performed by the latter -- are valid[/b:e84cb7cbad]. So too are baptisms validly performed by male Romish priests -- and even by Pentecostalistic homosexual TV Evangelists. Such should never be repeated in more orthodox circles later. See Westminster Confession 27:3 and 28:5 (citing Romans 2:28f & Exodus 4:24-26). "Let us then go forth and lead the millions of irregularly but validly baptized Romanists of South America to the Triune God of their baptism! Let us not, with Thornwell and the whole gang of non-denominational rebaptizing missionary societies) antagonize them -- and lose them for the Gospel -- instead of winning them for the very Christ to Whom their baptism points!"


What do you think of this statement??? Any help would be appreciated.

In Christ,

Brian

[Edited on 3-17-2004 by BrianLanier]
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
I would disagree with the statement regarding, "even baptisms irregularly performed by the latter -- are valid." Regarding the "Modernistic Presbyterian Lady-Minister", I'm not sure about that one. I would have to think about it.

Word and Sacrament go together in Christ's Church. The Sacrament is empty without the Word preached. Lay people are not called to the office of Pastor, whose calling is to preach the Word to God's people. Therefore, because of the connection between Word and Sacrament, only those who are ordained/called to the office of Pastor can rightly administer the Sacraments (whether Baptism or the Lord's Supper).
 

mjbee

Puritan Board Freshman
Pastors and elders, gentlemen and scholars, does Ex 4:24-26 have anything to do with this conversation? Zipporah was not a duly-constituted authority to perform a circ, but it would appear that her actions averted God's wrath.
In the absence of a duly-constituted ordained minister who is obedient to God's Word, could God perhaps honor the blundering attempts of a layman to be obedient to Him?

Respectfully,
Melissa
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
[quote:0e496a795b][i:0e496a795b]Originally posted by mjbee[/i:0e496a795b]
Pastors and elders, gentlemen and scholars, does Ex 4:24-26 have anything to do with this conversation? Zipporah was not a duly-constituted authority to perform a circ, but it would appear that her actions averted God's wrath.
In the absence of a duly-constituted ordained minister who is obedient to God's Word, could God perhaps honor the blundering attempts of a layman to be obedient to Him?

Respectfully,
Melissa [/quote:0e496a795b]

The situation with Zipporah is an exception (and to the shame of Moses) and should not be considered the rule. Consider what happened to Saul (1 Sam 13). I am sure he felt his heart was in the right place.

But if the Lord meets you on the way to someplace and wants to kill you, you might want to take it as a sign to circumcise your son. :yes:
 

BrianLanier

Puritan Board Freshman
[b:8f72f7d993]Re-posted for Fred[/b:8f72f7d993]
[quote:8f72f7d993][i:8f72f7d993]Originally posted by BrianLanier[/i:8f72f7d993]
[quote:8f72f7d993][i:8f72f7d993]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:8f72f7d993]
[quote:8f72f7d993][i:8f72f7d993]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:8f72f7d993]
Wayne,

Let me ask you and Fred and the other Presbyterian elders here a question.

If a man and his family have just moved and do not have a church home or a church that they are comfortable attending, and he does baptize his children in the pool in the back yard, would you say that that was not a vaild baptism and require "re-baptism" upon their coming to your church?

Phillip [/quote:8f72f7d993]

It is not a valid baptism. Baptism is given by the Lord Christ to His Church. It is to be administered by the Church. [/quote:8f72f7d993]

Fred,

I have been dealing with this issue lately with my boss. He was NOT baptized by an ordained minister, just a laymen. This was several years ago. I explained to him basically what you said, that it is to be administerd by the Church. After a little bit he agreed with me. However, tonight I was reading an article by Dr. F.N. Lee, Catabaptism in the PCA (page 8 & 9)and it sparked my interest. To quote from the article:

"For truly confessional Presbyterians pay more than just lip service to the Westminster Standards. Solemnly do the latter declare: 'Neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it.... The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person' [including the Romanist previously baptized by a priest]. Westminster Confession 27:3 & 28:7 and Larger Catechism 177. "Furthermore, baptism is not to 'be dispensed by any but by a Minister of the Word lawfully ordained' -- as distinct from a Ruling Elder, [b:8f72f7d993]or a Plymouth Brethren layman[/b:8f72f7d993], or a Modernistic Presbyterian Lady-Minister, or an [b:8f72f7d993]unordained Baptist [/b:8f72f7d993]working through some non-denominational missionary society. Westminster Confession 27:4 & 28:2 and Larger Catechism 176. [b:8f72f7d993]However, even baptisms irregularly performed by the latter -- are valid[/b:8f72f7d993]. So too are baptisms validly performed by male Romish priests -- and even by Pentecostalistic homosexual TV Evangelists. Such should never be repeated in more orthodox circles later. See Westminster Confession 27:3 and 28:5 (citing Romans 2:28f & Exodus 4:24-26). "Let us then go forth and lead the millions of irregularly but validly baptized Romanists of South America to the Triune God of their baptism! Let us not, with Thornwell and the whole gang of non-denominational rebaptizing missionary societies) antagonize them -- and lose them for the Gospel -- instead of winning them for the very Christ to Whom their baptism points!"


What do you think of this statement??? Any help would be appreciated.

In Christ,

Brian

[Edited on 3-17-2004 by BrianLanier] [/quote:8f72f7d993]

Just didn't want this one to fall through the cracks. Just waiting for Fred.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Brian,

I (along with Wayne) would disagree with Dr. Lee. I do not do so lightly. The issue is not whether there is some magic in the minister, but rather whether the baptism was performed (albeit irregularly) by the church. We would not consider the Lord's Supper valid if done outside the context of the Church, so why baptism?


So the issue is whether it was under the oversight of the church. If the Church that your boss was a part of acknowledged the baptism, and it is recognized as a true church (as opposed to a cult) I would recognize it. But if it was done without any authority at all (i.e. by a self-appointed non-demonantional man under no authority, then I would consider it invalid.

Does that help? Sorry for the delay.
 

BrianLanier

Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks for the response Fred. I will inquire of him more tomorrow at work, then I will get back to you as needed. Again, thanks for responding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top