Validity of Administered Baptism
A Position Statement
by the Session
of
Chapelgate Presbyterian Church, PCA
August 10, 1999
Prepared
by the
Sacraments Committee
Introduction
The Sacraments Committee was an ad hoc committee appointed by the Session of Chapelgate Presbyterian Church, PCA. It's purpose was to research the issues surrounding baptizing those individuals seeking membership into the church for the first time irrespective of other baptisms administered to them in the past by other churches. This issue is not a new one. The debate on this matter has continued since the beginnings of the Reformation.
The Sacrament Committee spent
numerous hours researching the issues regarding valid baptism. The Committee reviewed the Scriptures
regarding baptism and further explored baptism's covenantal aspects. The Committee also reviewed the
Westminster Confession of Faith (which is the system of doctrine that the PCA
subscribes to). Finally, the
Committee researched the writings of several biblical scholars and theologians
(the likes of Luther, Calvin, Hodge, etc.)
The questions the Committee
considered were:
1. What constitutes a
valid baptism?
2. In what situations,
if any, should rebaptism be administered?
This paper summarizes the
Committee's work and brings the reader to a logical conclusion regarding valid
baptism.
Those who come before the church requesting rebaptism usually possess the same rationale as those evangelical churches that require rebaptism: either the administration, mode, or qualifications of those who administered the baptism were not in accordance with the doctrinal standards of the church that is receiving the new members. For example, many would say that a Roman Catholic baptism is invalid because the Roman Catholic Church is not evangelical (let alone reformed), and therefore it's leadership is not qualified to administer baptism to anyone. There are many denominations that will not receive the infant baptisms of the Presbyterian church, citing that a believer must first profess his faith in Christ and be saved before being baptized. There are even those that will request rebaptism because they found out that their pastor was not a believer, thus invalidating the baptism.
In each of these cases the common denominator is that validity of baptism in each of these cases is assumed to be dependent on human performance and qualities. The question that needs to be answered is: does baptism depend on human performance or God's?
The PCA and other reformed
denominations believe that baptism is a sign and seal of God's covenant with
man. It is to signify our
ingrafting into Christ. It is
God's mark on His covenant people that sets them apart. Baptism was ordained by Christ and it
is a symbol of what work God has done in us, not what we have done.
Consider the covenantal
aspects of baptism, starting with rite of circumcision and how it relates to
baptism.
The two ordinances instituted by God to His people in the Old Testament were circumcision and the Passover. Both were bloody signs. Circumcision required the cutting of the foreskin which produced blood. (Genesis 17:10-14). The Passover required the sacrifice of the blood of a spotless lamb (Exodus 12:1-13). Both of these pointed to the accomplished work of Jesus Christ. Both ordinances were clearly ordained by God but man must carry them out. Nowhere in the Scriptures does it imply that man is contributing anything to the covenant.
If we look at the
characteristics of both ordinances, we see clearly that circumcision can only
be performed once, signifying God's adoption of His people, whereas the
Passover was continuous, signifying the continual cleansing of sin of His
people. Likewise, baptism replaces
circumcision as the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace and is to be
administered only once (Colossians 2:11-14). The Lord's Supper replaces the Passover. Both signs do not deal with blood,
since they point back to the work of Christ on the cross.
The question that arises is:
is circumcision considered invalid if not administered properly? Let's look at two examples in the Old
Testament. In Genesis 34, we have
the story of Jacob's daughter Dinah who was raped by Shechem, a Hivite. Shechem subsequently fell in love with
Dinah and sought her hand in marriage.
Shechem's father Hamor went to ask Jacob for Dinah to be Shechem's wife. Meanwhile, Jacob's sons hear of the
rape and became very angry. Hamor
proposed to Jacob's sons to intermarry with them and that he would avail the
Hivite women to them. Jacob's sons
agree only on the condition that the entire Hivite nation be circumcised so
that they would become part of the "covenant" family. Jacob's sons, specifically Simeon and Levi, had no intention
of having the Hivite men join them.
It was all a shrewd murderous plot to leave the Hivite men in pain and
totally vulnerable to attack. The
Hivite men were indeed killed by the sword of Simeon and Levi. The question is: is the circumcision administered unto
the Hivite men considered valid in spite of the motive that was behind this
event? The Committee cites that
had the Hivites lived and were presented before Jacob to be included as part of
the nation Israel, they could not be circumcised again. Though the motive behind the
circumcision was malicious and far from God's mandate, the circumcision itself
did not change. The sign and seal
were still the same.
Let's turn to another example
in the Old Testament. In Exodus
4:24-26, God was ready to strike Moses dead because he had not circumcised his
son. Instead his wife Zipporah
circumcised him, thus saving Moses' life.
Zipporah was not a Hebrew, rather, a Midianite. It is clear from Genesis 17 that the
male leader of the family was to perform circumcision. A case could be made also that the
leader of the tribe would be responsible for the administration of circumcision
(Abraham circumcised Eliezer, his servant). It was obvious that God recognized the circumcision of Moses'
son because Moses' life was spared, even though the qualifications of the one
who administered it were not according to God's mandate.
The basic premise is that
circumcision is a one time event, signifying God's promises (who only has to
declare it once to be valid for all time) to His covenant people. Has anyone in the Bible been
re-circumcised? Impossible. Did the rite of circumcision
necessarily depend on the qualifications or motives of the persons
administering it? No. This argument should then be carried
forward to baptism, which replaced circumcision. We will now explore the New Testament and solidify this
argument of "one baptism."
After the resurrection of
Christ and the Pentecost, we are introduced to the new sign and seal of the
Covenant of Grace: Baptism. In
Acts 2:38-39, Peter tells us, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name
of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift
of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all
who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." It
is clear that baptism was identified with the one time event of being brought
into the covenant, and that this promise extended not only to the believer but
his entire household. Baptism is
identified with a one time, irreversible event: salvation in Christ alone.
You may ask, "what about
John's baptism?" Was the baptism
by John the Baptist considered invalid after the coming of Jesus and the
proclamation by Peter to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ? Let's take a look at a difficult
passage that deals with this issue.
In Acts 19:1-7, we recount Paul's visit to Ephesus, where he encountered
some new believers. In verse 2, he
said to them, "did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they replied, "No, we have not even
heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."
In verse 3, Paul continues his conversation by asking, "Into what then
were you baptized?" They replied,
"Into John's baptism." Paul then
said in verse 4, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the
people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." Verses 5-7 continue, "And when they
heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon
them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and
prophesying." On the surface this
passage might have the appearance that Paul had rebaptized these new believers
thus invalidating John's baptism.
But John Calvin sees differently.
In his Institutes of Christian Religion, Calvin asserts that Luke, the
author of The Acts, was not telling two different things (baptizing and laying
on hands), but that "he was following
the form of narration familiar to the Hebrews, who first put forward a
summary of the matter and then explained it more fully."[1] Calvin asserts that Luke's style of
writing was to summarize first, then fill in the detail; which means that they
were baptized in Christ through the baptism with the Holy Spirit—not
water. John's baptism was not to
be invalidated, only made complete through the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
Acts 1:5 states, "for John
baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many
days from now." Certainly this was
the true sign placed on the believer.
It intimates that water baptism in Christ does not have to take place
again. Nowhere in Scripture does
it say that they Apostles were ever baptized after John's baptism. They were baptized with the Holy
Spirit. This is an event that only
takes place once in the life of the believer because it signifies the regenerating
power of the Holy Spirit based on the accomplished work of Christ on the cross
(the once and for all sufficient sacrifice for all sins of God's
elect—past, present and future).
To say that baptism with the Holy Spirit could be done more than once to
the same person is to deny the efficacy of the completed work of Christ, thus
making our faith in vain.
A sign or seal of a covenant
promise, especially a covenant by our sovereign God, need only be done
once. His promises are eternal and
unchangeable. They cannot be broken. One sign is all we need for our
assurance that we are in His covenant family. The New Testament backs this up through many passages. Ephesians 4:5 states, "One Lord, One
Faith, One Baptism." There are
many places in scripture where the word baptism is preceded by a definite
article, thus implying the oneness of it. In Romans 6:3, Paul tells us that we were baptized into
Christ's death—a one time event.
1 Corinthians 12:13 states that, "by one Spirit we were baptized into
one body." Here, the oneness of
baptism is identified with the oneness of the Spirit and body of Christ.
In Chapter 28 of the
Westminster Confession of Faith, we are told that "The sacrament of Baptism is
but once to be administered unto any person."[2] It cites Titus 3:5 where "washing of
regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" is preceded by a definite
article.
We asserted our arguments regarding the oneness of baptism, and that it is single event, a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace, symbolizing the ingrafting into Christ, the remissions of sins by His blood, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, of adoption and the resurrection unto everlasting life. The final question that needs to be addressed concerns the validity of a baptism previously administered. The validity of a previous baptism in human terms usually points to two general areas. One is whether the baptism itself was administered properly in faith as instituted by Christ. Was the baptism administered in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as Matthew 28:19 mandates? The other area, and more controversial one, has to do with the credentials of the person administering the baptism. Thus begins the debate that has lasted centuries. We will explore what the reformers and other notable theologians had to say about these issues in order to draw our conclusions.
Let's turn our attention first to the two most notable figures in the history of our reformed faith: John Calvin and Martin Luther. Both argued that Romish baptism (Roman Catholic) was considered valid. Considering that there was a clear division between these men and the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, their statements regarding the validity of the Romish baptism must be duly regarded.
Calvin asserted in his Institutes of Christian Religion that though baptism is not administered by the Author Himself; He does speak us through the sign by all the things it represents. Basically, Calvin believed that it did not depend upon the merit of him who administers the baptism. Calvin further claims,
"Nothing is added to [baptism] or taken from it by the
worth of him by whose hand it is administered. Among men, if a letter is sent, provided the handwriting and
seal are sufficiently recognized, it makes no difference whom or what sort the
carrier is. In like manner, it
ought to be enough for us to recognize the hand and seal of our Lord in His
sacraments, whatever carrier may bring them.
"This
argument neatly refutes the error of the Donatists [of St. Augustine's era],
who measured the force and value of the sacrament by the worth of the
minister. Such today are our
Catabaptists, who deny that we have been duly baptized because we were baptized
by impious and idolatrous men under the papal government.
"Éthat
baptism is accordingly not of man but of God, no matter who administers
it. Ignorant or even contemptuous
as those who baptized us were of God and all piety, they did not baptize us
into the fellowship or either their ignorance of sacrilege, but into faith in
Jesus Christ, because it was not their own name but God's that they invoked,
and they baptized us into no other name.
But if it was the baptism of God, it surely had, enclosed in itself, the
promise of forgiveness of sins, mortification of the flesh, spiritual vivification,
and participation in Christ. Thus
it was no hindrance to Jews to be circumcised by impure and apostate priests;
nor was the sign therefore void so that it had to be repeated, but it was a
sufficient means by which to return to the real source.
".
. .For when in ancient times circumcision was corrupted by many superstitions,
it did not cease nevertheless to be regarded as a symbol of grace. And when Josiah and Hezekiah called out
of all Israel those who had forsaken God (II Kings 22, 23, 18),
they did not summon them to a second circumcision."[3]
Martin Luther, in refuting the argument of the Anabaptists, asserted that if we were to follow their argument (i.e., rebaptizing those who were baptized under the Roman Catholic Church) then we would have to disavow the Scripture, because it was taught by the papacy. He also cites Matthew 23:3, where Jesus instructs His disciples to do what the Pharisees say, but do not act according to their deeds. Luther intimates that many good things come from bad people, including baptism. Baptism itself, Luther asserts, is a work of God, not invented by man, but commanded by God and witnessed to by the Gospel.[4]
After considering Calvin and Luther's comments on the matter, it can also be concluded that baptism administered to a child of non-believing parents would also be considered valid, based on the argument that it does not depend on the qualifications of the one administering it. The argument is the same for those presenting the child to be baptized. The sign and seal, because they are ordained and instituted by God are still valid to the one who receives it.
Other notable Theologians concurred. Meredith Kline, an Old Testament professor at Gordon Conwell Seminary, who also taught at Westminster Seminary, is considered a noted covenantal and reformed biblical scholar. He stated that baptism is an oath sign from God to the Covenant family; that to rebaptize would say that the original oath sign was invalid, thus refuting the everlasting promises of God.[5]
St. Augustine considered rebaptism as a sacrilege, as he was refuting the arguments of the Donatists.[6]
William Hendrickson, in his
commentary on Matthew, quoted the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in
the United States of America, Philadelphia, 1941:
"It [baptism] becomes an effectual means of salvation,
not from any virtue in it, or in him that doth administer it, but only by the
blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive
it."
He
goes on to say, ". . .in the final analysis this rich result is not brought
about by the person who administers the rite of baptism, not even if that
person's name is John the Baptist.
All John can do is urge upon his hearers the necessity of conversion. As to Baptism, he can supply the sign,
but it will take One mightier than John to supply the thing signified."[7]
Two other noted theologians, Heinrich Heppe and Charles Hodge, not only discussed valid baptism but also gave stipulations where baptism was invalid. Heinrich Heppe, a 19th century German Reformed theologian whose theology falls between Calvin and Melanchthon, the father of Lutheran theology, had this to say:
"Hence
that of such heretics as do not acknowledge the basic dogmas of the Church,
especially the doctrine of the triunity of God, is to be as emphatically
rejected and regarded as null, as the baptism of those heretics who confess
these dogmas (and so also the baptism dispensed in the Romish Church) must be
considered as real baptism."[8]
Heppe denied the validity of baptism administered by the Arians and the Socinians, who denied the Trinity. He affirmed the validity of baptism administered by the Novations, Donatists, Romans and Arminians. The Council of Nicaea rejected the baptism of the Arians because of their non-Trinitarian views.
Charles Hodge, in his debate
against James Henley Thornwell during the 1845 General Assembly, stated, "the
efficacy [of baptism] does not depend on any virtue in them or in him by whom
they are administered, but upon the attending influence of the Holy Spirit." He also asserted, "Washing with water
by an anti-Trinitarian is not baptism."[9]
Finally, Chapter 27, Section 3 of The Westminster Confession of Faith states:
"The
grace by which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not
conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend
upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and
the word of institution, which contains, together with precept authorizing the
use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers."[10]
Based on the research conducted, it is the Committee's conclusion that the validity of baptism is not dependent upon the credentials, piety, or dogma of the minister who administers it, but solely on the Holy Spirit. Baptism must be administered in the name of our Triune God, as commanded by our Lord Himself. Otherwise it is not a valid baptism. Roman Catholic baptism is considered to be valid in that it is administered in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. No matter what the doctrines of the church may be, if the baptism sign and seal is very clear as to its authenticity (i.e., that it is administered in the name of or Triune God and the recognition of the working of the Holy Spirit that the baptism signifies is evident), then it is to be considered a valid baptism.
When a believer approaches the leadership of the church to request baptism, it is the duty of the leadership to research the background of the request and to determine if valid baptism has already been administered to the one requesting it. If, during the research, the leadership finds that the original baptism administered is indeed valid based on the conditions stated previously, then the believer seeking to be baptized should be counseled against such request and should be encouraged to read through this paper and do his/her own research, searching the scriptures and seeking godly counsel on the matter.
It is the Committee's belief based on its research that the pastoral staff should not administer baptism if a believer has already been baptized under valid conditions, and they should refuse to do so, citing Chapter 27 of The Westminster Confession of Faith. The Committee believes that rebaptizing is nothing less than refuting the once-and-for-all sufficient work of Jesus Christ. To rebaptize would be to deny the validity of God's sign and seal of the covenant that was originally placed on a believer. We must remember that it does not depend on our merit, but on God alone. He authored this sign. He commanded its administration. He seals it with the work of the Holy Spirit. Nothing that we do will ever change it.
[1] ÔPaul did not Rebaptize', John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, 24.18, John McNeill (ed.) (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1977) pp. 1317-1319.
[2] ÔOf Baptism', The Westminster Confession of Faith, 28.7, (Atlanta, Committee for Christian Education & Publications, 1990), p. 91.
[3] ÔBaptism does not depend upon the merit of him who administers it', John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, 15.16, John McNeill (ed.) (Philadelphia, the Westminster Press, 1977) pp. 1315-1316.
[4] ÔConcerning Rebaptism', Timothy Lull, Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings, (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 341-343, 350-351.
[5] ÔChristian Baptism', Meredith Kline, By Oath Consigned, (Grand Rapids, Mich., Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1975) pp. 79-83.
[6] ÔDonatists', Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo, (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1969), pp. 218‑219.
[7] ÔMatt. 3:11', William Hendrickson, New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, Mich., Baker Book House), 1975), pp. 207-209.
[8] ÔValidity', Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, (Grand Rapids, Mich., Baker Book House, 1978), pp. 613-614.
[9] ÔValidity of Romish Baptism, 1845 General Assembly', Charles Hodge, Princeton Theological Review, pp. 444-472.
[10] ÔOf the Sacraments, The Westminster Confession of Faith, 27.3, (Atlanta, Committee for Christian Education & Publications, 1990), pp. 87-88.