The following motions were adopted at a meeting of the Board of Elders of the Reformed Church, Stoney Creek, and submitted to Classis for advice and recommendations:

1. Whether some form of disciplinary action should be undertaken against some members who have been rebaptized.

2. Whether activities of members concerned (as per statement) should be interpreted as "schism" (art. 14, Constitution R.C.A.).

3. If no disciplinary action can be undertaken, should this be interpreted to mean that the members involved are eligible for the office of Elder and Deacon in the church.

Our Committee offers the following considerations and recommendations.

1. The question of re-baptism had to be dealt with already by the early church. At that time the specific problem was whether or not baptism as administered by sectarian groups should be recognized as "baptism" by the catholic church. After an initial period of hesitation, during which theologians of name supported (re)baptism of those baptized while belonging to a sect, the problem came to be narrowed down to the criterion of he trinitarian formula.* (*See: "A voice from the third century", in this issue of Pioneer - "Re-baptism").

It can fairly be said that from Augustine on the church universal has accepted any trinitarian baptism as valid, even if such baptism had been administered by groups considered heretical. The thinking behind this was that baptism is not administered in the name of the church, a church, a sect, or correct theology, but in the Name of the triune God.

2. With the exception of anabaptist groups, this view has not been challenged during the Reformation, neither from Protestant side (see e.g. Calvin's Institutes IV, 15 : 16), nor from Roman side (Council of Trent). Only with the rise of subjectivistic think',n@ n the church during the post-Reformation period has the practice oi re-baptism gained ground again within the church universal.

3.The prominence of re-baptism in recent church history must also be traced to a tragic failure on the side of the various churches to communicate to its people the grace character of baptism, and the covenant theology behind it. J. state and semi-state churches practices developed which made a mockery of the sacrament of baptism. Out of frustration with such practices a Reformed theologian as Karl Barth has gone so far as to defend that it would be better to drop infant baptism altogether than to continue with a ritual which threatened to rob the sacrament of its essential meaning.

The frequent failure of the churches to be true covenant communities is certainly not strange to the present backlash of rebaptism in the church universal. Neither can the various churches wash their hands in innocence from the spiritual vacuum in the lives of countless members, which has proven fertile ground for sectarian teaching in baptism and the Holy Spirit.

4. As Classis Ontario we must therefore acknowledge both our share in the guilt and our determination to uphold a biblical teaching on baptism.

a. There is guilt on the side of local ministers and consistories who have allowed a situation to develop: in which confession of faith is made by persons with hardly any notion of the covenant; in which many good and regular members suffer from spiritual anemia; in which many of our activities are hardly related to our being the Body of Christ; in which Pentecostal tendencies are viewed with great alarm, but lack of the Holy Spirit is considered less serious; etc.

In this guilt we all share to A greater or smaller degree. Therefore, the situation as it has arisen in Stoney Creek cannot be corrected unless we all confess that we have left undone those things which we ought to have done, and show determination to be truly faithful to the Gospel, in faith and in life.

b. We are determined to uphold a teaching on baptism which does justice to the whole Word of

God, and to reject everything contrary thereto, even if an angel from heaven would teach it. Baptism is the once -for-all incorporation into the Body of Christ. Baptism is an act in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; not an act in the Name of the Holy Spirit alone. Baptism is into a reality which belongs to God, not into a reality which belongs to us (our spiritual feelings, etc.). Baptism is an act of God, not of man.

Baptism, if administered in the Name of the triune God, is a sign and seal of the gracious act of God in a human life, no matter who administers it, and no matter when a person receives it. This is no defense of infant baptism, but of the once-for-all character of all trinitarian baptism. Repetition of baptism, for whatever reason, is a denial of the prevenient grace of God, shifts the emphasis to man, and makes a mockery of the once-for-all incorporation into the Body of Christ. In the case of Pentecostal or similar baptism, re-baptism also tends to separate the Spirit from the Father and the Son. If persons in the R.C.A. hold to such. doctrine, it must be openly rejected as an error of faith, whether it is held by a sincere believer or not.

5. This brings us to the point discipline.

In Reformed teaching discipline 's understood to take place within the context of love for the erring brother, and of concern for the unity of faith in the church. By discipline, the church is bound together, the individual is restrained and, where necessary, "chastised in love" (Karl Barth). The Reformed Church knows several forms of discipline for church members: admonition, suspension and excommunication.

6. Suspension and excommunication.

a. When we consider these forms of discipline, not for an offense in morals, but for an error of faith, we are immediately and painfully made aware of the tragic multiplicity of churches. We are referring here not to the God-given diversity, but to the sinful division of Christianity.

Since the New Testament knows of only one church, one faith, one baptism, one Lord, it knows of suspension (and excomm.) for only one reason: a denial in life of the one faith, one baptism and one Lord. This is specifically defined for us in Scripture: I John 4 : 2, 3. Errors of faith which do not deny that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, no matter how serious, cannot therefore lead to suspension from the one church. If we are at all considering the possibility of suspension, we are thus bound to think in terms of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church. A person cannot be suspended in the Reformed, Church for something that would allow him to be a member in good and regular standing somewhere else in the church universal. Christian discipline must be ecumenical discipline.

b. Suspension of church membership can be applied to the "anabaptist," members of the Stoney Creek church for only one reason: denial of the one faith, one baptism, one Lord. To apply this to baptism: denial of the one baptism can never be shown on the basis of theologically weak or erroneous thinking. It must be shown on the basis of life: does the life of the persons involved deny their belonging to Jesus Christ and His church? There is no charge on the side of the Board of Elders to this effect. Moreover, the Judicial Committee, enlarged with two other ministers, upon examination reported last year, 'We found in these people a sincere faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." Suspension for re-baptism at this time would amount to a rejection of this conclusion reached last year by this Committee, or would have to be based on new developments, which took place after re-baptisrn. In either case it would seem that we can travel the road of suspension for re-baptism as such only at our own peril.

7. Admonition.

a. The only form of discipline that remains would be that of admonition. Admonition is sometimes understood as being the first step on the road to suspension. In that case, if admonition fails to obtain results, suspension is the necessary next step. In Reformed tradition, however, admonition may also be considered a form of discipline in its own right. In that case it is an act of discipline which may end with its voicing, WHETHER OR NOT THE INTENDED RESULT IS OBTAINED. The intended result of admonition with .respect to the re-baptised members would be correction of the error or, failing that, perhaps transfer to another denomination. Correction of an error cannot be forced. Transfer to another denomination cannot be forced either, since neither Bible nor constitution provide us with an opportunity to do so. It is, obvious, therefore, that admonition in the case of re-baptism would have to end with its voicing. It is with this interpretation that we use the word admonition here.

b. In our opinion, admonition is a form of discipline that can and must be applied to rebaptised members of the Reformed Church. Re-baptism reveals a grave misunderstanding regarding the nature of baptism, a misunderstanding which must be pointed out and corrected, where possible. This kind - an only this, kind -of discipline would indeed benefit the erring members and promote the purity of the church, thus vindicating Christ's honor (Art. 14, sec. 1, Constitution). This kind of discipline would also be for the sake of all those whoe faith may have become confused as the results of the re-baptism of others, and ultimately for the sake of the unity of the faith in the Stoney Creek and other congregations of our Classis.

c. In our opinion, such admonition must be public, since the error is public. It should be applied by way of a public statement prepared by the local Board of Elders along the lines developed above, and read from the pulpit. Furthermore, such admonition, to be remedial for all, should be coupled with some form of public teaching on the nature of baptism and the work of the Holy Spirit. By such action the Board of Elders would show its determination not only to correct, but also to help build up and close the gap between faith and life with respect to the teach ing on the covenant community. For ultimately the question of rebaptism is less important than the task to teach and live out of the fulness of the Reality which is signified to us in baptism.

Recommendation I

That Classis voices her opinion that in the case of re-baptism public admonition by the Board of Elders is the proper and only means of Christian discipline.

(This was changed by Classis to read: "That Classis voices her opinion that in the case of rebaptism public admonition by the Board of Elders is a proper means of Christian discipline.")

The first question dealt with possible disciplinary action for an error of faith. The second deals with possible disc. action on account of the propagation of such error of faith.

1. If Classis is of the opinion that re-baptism reveals a grave error of faith, then propagation of this error will have to be considered as an offense against the unity of the faith in the church. Such offense will tend to have serious schismatic or disruptive consequences in the life of the Church, whether intended or not.

2. The "Statement" on activities of the members involved gives strong indications of propagation on their side, by word, tape and literature. However, it does not offer any documentation on the content of such propagation. Unless this is received, possibly on the floor of Classis, our Committee cannot proceed on the basis of proof of propagation of re-baptism, or other errors of faith.

3. However, if further documentation would show that the members involved are engaged in spreading the idea of the need for re-baptism within the congregation, the Board of Elders, in our opinion, should order them to refrain from such activities at once. This could be made part of the admonition as recommended under I.

4. If, after admonition, the members involved would continue with propagation of the kind described under 3, the Board of Elders has a duty to consider suspension Of their church membership. Such suspension would then be, not for an error of faith, but for the continued and wilful disturbance of the unity of the faith in the congregation by propagating this error as the truth.

Recommendation II

That Classis considers the "Statement" given by the Board of Elders as proof of propagation by the members concerned, but as inconclusive with respect to schismatic activities.

Recommendation III

That Classis advises the Board of Elders to follow the procedure as outlined under points 3 and 4 if propagation of a schismatic nature can be documented.

(Classis changed recommendations III and IV to read: "That Classis considers the 'Statement' given by the Board of Elders as proof of propagation by the members concerned, and advises the Board of Elders to follow the procedure as outlined under points 3 and 4".)

The question of eligibility for the offices

If Classis would be of the opinion that no form of discipline is applicable to the members involved, should then the offices still be closed to them for reasons other than of discipline?

The answer to this question is not as obvious as is sometimes thought, since neither Constitution nor Liturgy spells out anything that would close the offices for such other reasons. Particularly as concerns the Constitution we find it a weakness that, whereas it requires the teaching elder to promise loyalty to Reformed doctrine (art. 3, 15), it fails to do so for the ruling elder. However, the Provisional Liturgy, as adopted by our Classis, asks office bearers "to be loyal to the witness and work" of the R.C.A. Therefore, even if Classis would reject the recommendation to admonish the members involved, the latter could not in go od conscience make the vow of loyalty, and thus ought not to be considered eligible for the offices.

Recommendation IV

That Classis voices as her opinion that members who are rebaptized are not eligible for the offices within the R.,C.A. as long as they continue in their error.