A problem with denying the validity of RC baptism

[greenbaggins]

It would not have been addressed directly in the Westminster Standards because it was not an issue. The Reformed position at the time very clearly was to accept RCC baptism and the men at the assembly would have argued for it against the separatist position which was to unchurch their churches because they accepted it.

I would not unchurch any Reformed church that accepted RCC baptisms. What I might do, however, is baptize any people transferring from such a church that had not been baptized in the PCA church, but rather had had their RCC "baptism" accepted. That would not be unchurching the PCA church.

 

[greenbaggins]

I need to say a couple more things. Firstly, I think that both the Northern and Southern positions are compatible with the WS, since, as Chris has pointed out, they didn't address the issue.

Secondly, I really, really don't like the term "separatists" being applied to the Southern position. Firstly, we don't separate from our Northern brothers over this issue. Neither do we unchurch them. But we must separate from Rome, must we not?

Thirdly, I think that the Northern position has typically lumped in the Southern position with the Donatist controversy without actually addressing the real issues at stake. We need to distinguish a historical situation where there was no issue of a false church (in the time of the Donatist controversy, it wasn't the issue at stake) versus a time when Rome anathematized the gospel thereby proving herself to be no true church.

This last point has direct relevance to the question about other denominations' baptisms as to whether they are accepted by Southern Presbyterians or not. One main difference that Rome has with EO, Methodists, and PCUSA, etc., is that Rome has anathematized the gospel, and these other denominations have not. I am not the only one to claim that when a church anathematizes the true gospel, it has ceased to be a true church at all, and that this is the point when it happens.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Are you accusing Thornwell, Dabney, Gerardeau, and Palmer of unconfessionalism on this point?

Did they modify how they received the Westminster Standards on baptism? If so, then I cannot accuse them of going against the teaching of the confession as received by their denomination. I think, however, that the original intent of the WCF was to accept Romish baptism as irregular, but valid.

I would love for you to prove that from the WS. I could not find any indications in the WCF, WLC, WSC, or the DPW that they regarded RCC baptism as irregular yet valid. In fact, the indications are actually hinting the other way (definitely short of proof, I admit). For instance, WCF 27.4 states that neither sacrament "may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained." Plainly the WS view the status of the minister as a minister lawfully ordained as essential to the right administration of the sacraments. It does NOT depend solely on the formula. Then, DPW, in the chapter on baptism, says that the sacrament is not to be administered "in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed." These two places do not prove that the Westminster divines regarded RCC baptism as invalid. However, I would ask these questions: can we really say that RCC priests are lawfully ordained ministers of the Word? They are not ministers in their own opinion, but magisters. And, in our opinion, they do not administer the Word, but something else. One can make a case that the Southern Presbyterian position is fully compatible with the WS.

The Westminster Standards were written in a historical context, and so our interpretation of the Standards cannot be divorced from that context. If we want to discover the original intent of those who wrote/accepted the Westminster Standards, then you have to read their writings. Chris has show, on multiple occasions, that Samuel Rutherford et al accepted post-Trent RCC baptism as irregular, but valid. Consequently, Rutherford et al would have regarded the re-baptism of Romish converts as a violation of WCF 28:7, "The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person." Indeed, was it not one of the main bones of contention between the Reformed and the Anabaptists that the latter insisted on the re-baptism of those baptised within Rome, while the former did not?

Moreover, if we are going to appeal to WCF 27:4 and 28:2 against accepting the validity of Romish baptisms, then we are again back to the same problem of having to reject the validity of every baptism carried out by anyone who was not a lawfully ordained Presbyterian minister.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Lane, it is not compatible in the sense of original intent. How could it be? I am using the term separatist only because that was the argument at the time of the Assembly as far as who was arguing for and against RCC baptism. Rutherford et al were post Trent; the gospel had been anathematized already. The divines clearly could not have intended any sympathy to the later SP view when they argued oppositely in the controversy with separatists at the time. I thought it was granted Gomarus was ahead of his time and generally rejected until arguments of the 19th century?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

The problem, as I see it, with your argument Lane is that it wasn't discussed at the Westminster Assembly because it wasn't an issue. Everyone agreed on the RC baptism issue (as their personal practice in the local parish confirms). When a Roman convert came into Sutton Coldfield did Anthony Burgess have him baptized? Why not?

Also, as an addendum, confessionally the PC(USA) has anathematized the Gospel, as Van Til showed in his work on the Confession of 1967. Has EO ever "had" the gospel, when it comes to JBFA?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

As Ben suggests, where does it all end? May we accept Arminian baptisms? Dispensational baptisms? Federal Vision baptisms? Plymouth Brethren baptisms? The first three of these groups are not preaching the gospel as set for in our Confession, and the last group does not practice baptism by lawfully ordained ministers. Does that mean that all these baptisms are invalid? What about a baptism carried out by a PCA minister who was baptised and ordained by the PCUSA after it went liberal? Would even that baptism count?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Bottom line up front: I agree with Lane on this subject. While I possess neither his breadth or depth of knowledge nor his powers of communication, I would like to say:

I shake my head every time the “Donatist” label gets thrown out. It’s the equivalent of throwing out the word “bigot” – the intended effect is to make the object of the label suddenly throw up their hands and back peddle and bend over backwards to prove that they aren’t. But I digress…
It is lamentable that the language of WCF 27.3 is functionally used to nullify the language of WCF 27.4, 28.2, and 29.3.

As Lane has pointed out, the issue is that since the RCC is not a church its ordinations are irrelevant. Since a non-church cannot lawfully ordain a minister of the Word, and since we confess that only lawfully ordained ministers may administer the Sacraments, then the RCC does not offer the sacraments. Period. The RCC can no more baptize someone than can a woman with her daughters in the backyard swimming pool. You'd think it would be pretty cut and dry.

The “Trinitarian formula” is not a mere incantation whose utterance automatically validates the action, regardless of who says the “magic words” and in what context. If so, then even though we may indignantly grumble about the impropriety of it, we really do need to accept as legitimate ‘baptisms’ performed by teenagers in the swimming pool at summer camp. And, if the recitation of the Trinitarian formula really is the bottom line, then we should accept Mormon baptisms. (Gasp!) Thankfully, the mere recitation of the Trinitarian formula is not the sole requirement for a legitimate baptism.

I believe that two things prevent the majority of the Reformed world from acknowledging what should actually be pretty obvious:
1. A fideistic commitment to pious sounding theological language (“It’s the Holy Spirit that baptizes!”)
2. Fear (or laziness) to do the pastoral work of telling someone that they need to be baptized.

Thus sums up my position:
RCC = no church = no lawful ordinations = no true sacraments.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

What changed in Rome from 1646 to 1850 and what makes Rome different from Constantinople et al?

Also I am not sure effectively calling those of us who do not agree with the Southern position cowards is much better than a Donatist label.

 

[Romans922]

What changed in Rome from 1646 to 1850 and what makes Rome different from Constantinople et al?

Growing in knowledge and understanding of God's word and reality just as the reformers did compared to the likes of the early church?

 

[greenbaggins]

Moderator's note: Whoa there! I did not see the word coward being used. Let's keep the temperature cool here, as it has been so far.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

The temperature is down.

I am not sure why you needed to shout.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

What changed in Rome from 1646 to 1850 and what makes Rome different from Constantinople et al?

Growing in knowledge and understanding of God's word and reality just as the reformers did compared to the likes of the early church?

Touche

However, the Westminster Assembly, I think, was certainly directly aware of Rome's apostasy and her wickedness (hence the original WCF 25.6 and our unnecessary change).

A question I have, for historical curiosity, what was it about the Southern Presbyterians that made this a unique position among them?

 

[Romans922]

However, the Westminster Assembly, I think, was certainly directly aware of Rome's apostasy and her wickedness (hence the original WCF 25.6 and our unnecessary change).

And maybe on this subject they may have been too close to the context to see the full picture (all assumption, but possible)??

 

[greenbaggins]

I will reply to the animus imponentis argument later when I have had the chance to talk to Ryan McGraw about it. I can answer the Anabaptist issue fairly readily.

The primary issue was infant baptism, no matter where it happened. That is what the term "Anabaptist" primarily refers to. They believed it was from the devil. Yes, they also believed in "re-baptizing" someone "baptized" as an adult in the RCC, because they were baptized by "unworthy" ministers. Their arguments were much more closely related to the Donatist method of argumentation than the SP arguments were. They based the idea of unworthiness on the moral standing of the minister. There are quite enough significant differences between Anabaptists and the SP arguments that the guilt by association argument won't work here.

 

[greenbaggins]

The temperature is down.

I am not sure why you needed to shout.

I wasn't shouting. You used a somewhat inflammatory word ("cowards"), which is a word that Ben did not use. Fear is not the same as cowardice. Ben did use the term "fear." I just wanted to make sure that nothing escalated here. If you're good, then we move on.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I will reply to the animus imponentis argument later when I have had the chance to talk to Ryan McGraw about it. I can answer the Anabaptist issue fairly readily.

The primary issue was infant baptism, no matter where it happened. That is what the term "Anabaptist" primarily refers to. They believed it was from the devil. Yes, they also believed in "re-baptizing" someone "baptized" as an adult in the RCC, because they were baptized by "unworthy" ministers. Their arguments were much more closely related to the Donatist method of argumentation than the SP arguments were. They based the idea of unworthiness on the moral standing of the minister. There are quite enough significant differences between Anabaptists and the SP arguments that the guilt by association argument won't work here.

Obviously it would be absurd to argue that SPs are precisely the same as Anabaptists, as the former believe in infant baptism, but surely it is reasonable enough to state that both SPs and Anabaptists agree that the initial baptism of RCC converts was invalid. Both would surely argue that this invalidity was partly owing to their belief that Rome was, in no sense, a true part of the church. While I can admit that the SPs may not go as far as the Anabaptists did, that does not negate the fact that there is some significant overlap between these two viewpoints.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

The temperature is down.

I am not sure why you needed to shout.

I wasn't shouting. You used a somewhat inflammatory word ("cowards"), which is a word that Ben did not use. Fear is not the same as cowardice. Ben did use the term "fear." I just wanted to make sure that nothing escalated here. If you're good, then we move on.

 

[greenbaggins]

The problem, as I see it, with your argument Lane is that it wasn't discussed at the Westminster Assembly because it wasn't an issue. Everyone agreed on the RC baptism issue (as their personal practice in the local parish confirms). When a Roman convert came into Sutton Coldfield did Anthony Burgess have him baptized? Why not?

Also, as an addendum, confessionally the PC(USA) has anathematized the Gospel, as Van Til showed in his work on the Confession of 1967. Has EO ever "had" the gospel, when it comes to JBFA?

I can't find in Van Til's work that he argues this about the Confession of 1967. Does that Confession of 1967 preach another gospel which is incompatible with the Westminster Standards? Yes, of course. But that is different from claiming that the Confession of 1967 actually condemns those who hold to the true gospel. His booklet is available here: https://presupp101.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/van-til-the-confession-of-1967.pdf

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Didn't John Gerstner write a critique of the 1967 document; I think it was in the book entitled, Primitive Theology, though I do not know if he went so far as to call it another gospel.

 

[Rom]

The “Trinitarian formula” is not a mere incantation whose utterance automatically validates the action, regardless of who says the “magic words” and in what context. If so, then even though we may indignantly grumble about the impropriety of it, we really do need to accept as legitimate ‘baptisms’ performed by teenagers in the swimming pool at summer camp. And, if the recitation of the Trinitarian formula really is the bottom line, then we should accept Mormon baptisms. (Gasp!) Thankfully, the mere recitation of the Trinitarian formula is not the sole requirement for a legitimate baptism.

Learning a lot from this thread, so I'm thankful to everyone who is participating. I did want to take one issue with the Mormon example however. The Roman Church for all her faults, still holds to a (as far as I am aware) orthodox formulation of the Trinity (including the Athanasian Creed). She holds to the same ecumenical "catholic" creeds that we would that identify the God of that church as being Triune.

They do believe that one that receives the sign of baptism is identified with the Triune God.

This makes it vastly different from what the Mormons believe about their "god".

The Roman Church might not understand the work of our Triune God in Salvation - but they can identify who He is.

As a side note - it is interesting to me how many people who have come out of the RCC into Presbyterian Circles have a new appreciation for the Apostles Creed that they have memorized all their life in the Roman Church.

 

[greenbaggins]

I will reply to the animus imponentis argument later when I have had the chance to talk to Ryan McGraw about it. I can answer the Anabaptist issue fairly readily.

The primary issue was infant baptism, no matter where it happened. That is what the term "Anabaptist" primarily refers to. They believed it was from the devil. Yes, they also believed in "re-baptizing" someone "baptized" as an adult in the RCC, because they were baptized by "unworthy" ministers. Their arguments were much more closely related to the Donatist method of argumentation than the SP arguments were. They based the idea of unworthiness on the moral standing of the minister. There are quite enough significant differences between Anabaptists and the SP arguments that the guilt by association argument won't work here.

Obviously it would be absurd to argue that SPs are precisely the same as Anabaptists, as the former believe in infant baptism, but surely it is reasonable enough to state that both SPs and Anabaptists agree that the initial baptism of RCC converts was invalid. Both would surely argue that this invalidity was partly owing to their belief that Rome was, in no sense, a true part of the church. While I can admit that the SPs may not go as far as the Anabaptists did, that does not negate the fact that there is some significant overlap between these two viewpoints.

That there is some overlap does not prove that the SP position is wrong. That would have to be decided on other grounds, as I'm sure you'll agree.

It is interesting that I have not seen the central argument of the SP position refuted yet. The actual argument goes like this: 1. Rome is no true church. 2. Only a true church can ordain ministers of the gospel. 3. Only truly ordained ministers of the gospel can validly baptize. 4. Therefore, Rome's baptisms are not valid. Putting the confessional issue to the side for a moment, where is the illogicality of this position, exactly? Saying "where does it end?" does not actually address the syllogism. The way I see it, the Westminster divines were willing to say 1, 2, and 3, but were unwilling to say 4.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

That there is some overlap does not prove that the SP position is wrong. That would have to be decided on other grounds, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Yes.

It is interesting that I have not seen the central argument of the SP position refuted yet. The actual argument goes like this: 1. Rome is no true church. 2. Only a true church can ordain ministers of the gospel. 3. Only truly ordained ministers of the gospel can validly baptize. 4. Therefore, Rome's baptisms are not valid.

I think the distinction between irregular and invalid adequately covers these points: only a truly ordained minister of the word should baptise; people who are not lawfully ordained ministers do sinfully administer the sacrament of baptism, but that does not mean that the baptism is a non-baptism, otherwise they would not be administering the sacrament in an irregular and sinful manner but simply pouring water on people's heads.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The “Trinitarian formula” is not a mere incantation whose utterance automatically validates the action, regardless of who says the “magic words” and in what context. If so, then even though we may indignantly grumble about the impropriety of it, we really do need to accept as legitimate ‘baptisms’ performed by teenagers in the swimming pool at summer camp. And, if the recitation of the Trinitarian formula really is the bottom line, then we should accept Mormon baptisms. (Gasp!) Thankfully, the mere recitation of the Trinitarian formula is not the sole requirement for a legitimate baptism.

Learning a lot from this thread, so I'm thankful to everyone who is participating. I did want to take one issue with the Mormon example however. The Roman Church for all her faults, still holds to a (as far as I am aware) orthodox formulation of the Trinity (including the Athanasian Creed). She holds to the same ecumenical "catholic" creeds that we would that identify the God of that church as being Triune.

They do believe that one that receives the sign of baptism is identified with the Triune God.

This makes it vastly different from what the Mormons believe about their "god".

The Roman Church might not understand the work of our Triune God in Salvation - but they can identify who He is.

1. As soon as you bring this up, you implicitly grant that it takes more than the recitation of words for the Formula to matter. The larger meaning - the meaning intended by the ecclesiastical context - matters. And because context matters...
2. Although the words of institution in Matt 28:19 are Trinitarian, we aren't baptized into "The Trinity" in the abstract. We're baptized into Christ specifically. This can be seen in that every subsequent mentioning of being baptized "into" (a name) is always specified as Jesus (e.g., Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27). This is important because baptism isn't about "acknowledging the Trinity," per se. Baptism is about uniting with Christ and his church. As head of the church, the sacraments are Christ's ordnances. And what is Christ and his kingdom apart from the Gospel? To identify with Christ is to identify with the Gospel-community. The Gospel is absolutely central to our understanding. To accept Christ is to accept the Gospel. To reject the Gospel is to reject Christ. (And of course, to reject the Son is to reject the Father...) In a very real sense "Christ" is almost short-hand for the Gospel. There may be 3 marks of a true church, but certainly the position of "chief among equals" goes to the Word rightly preached because it is the Word rightly preached that enables the other two. (This is why the sacraments are dependent upon and attendant to the Word preached. I can preach without the sacraments, but I cannot give the sacraments without giving the Word.) A church without the Gospel is a church without Christ and is consequentially not a church at all. Thus, in a context like the RCC, they use the language of Trinitarianism, but they formally and officially repudiate what the Bible means by it. As a result, it doesn't matter that they say the Trinitarian formula.

 

[Rom]

1. As soon as you bring this up, you implicitly grant that it takes more than the recitation of words for the Formula to matter. The larger meaning - the meaning intended by the ecclesiastical context - matters. And because context matters...
2. Although the words of institution in Matt 28:19 are Trinitarian, we aren't baptized into "The Trinity" in the abstract. We're baptized into Christ specifically. This can be seen in that every subsequent mentioning of being baptized "into" (a name) is always specified as Jesus (e.g., Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27). This is important because baptism isn't about "acknowledging the Trinity," per se. Baptism is about uniting with Christ and his church. As head of the church, the sacraments are Christ's ordnances. And what is Christ and his kingdom apart from the Gospel? To identify with Christ is to identify with the Gospel-community. The Gospel is absolutely central. There may be 3 marks of a true church, but certainly the position of "chief among equals" goes to the Word rightly preached because it is the Word rightly preached that enables the other two. (This is why the sacraments are dependent upon and attendant to the Word preached. I can preach without the sacraments, but I cannot give the sacraments without giving the Word.) A church without the Gospel is a church without Christ and is consequentially not a church at all. Thus, in a context like the RCC, they use the language of Trinitarianism, but they formally and officially repudiate what the Bible means by it. As a result, it doesn't matter that they say the Trinitarian formula.

I can (somewhat) understand where you are coming from, but do we hold the same view of those who preach an Arminian gospel? It seems that for the sake of consistency, that we would have to say that an Arminian Baptist baptism is "no baptism" whatsoever. If that is your view, then I can certainly see the consistency in it. But if it is not, how do you parse out the distinction? The Arminian, as does the Roman Catholic, adds works to salvation. Indeed, many (or most) Arminian groups in our neck of the woods considers Calvinism heresy and say that we are preaching a different gospel - as would the Roman Catholic.

I am not arguing for or against one position or another, but I'm unclear of what distinctions are being made here.

 

[SolaScriptura]

1. As soon as you bring this up, you implicitly grant that it takes more than the recitation of words for the Formula to matter. The larger meaning - the meaning intended by the ecclesiastical context - matters. And because context matters...
2. Although the words of institution in Matt 28:19 are Trinitarian, we aren't baptized into "The Trinity" in the abstract. We're baptized into Christ specifically. This can be seen in that every subsequent mentioning of being baptized "into" (a name) is always specified as Jesus (e.g., Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27). This is important because baptism isn't about "acknowledging the Trinity," per se. Baptism is about uniting with Christ and his church. As head of the church, the sacraments are Christ's ordnances. And what is Christ and his kingdom apart from the Gospel? To identify with Christ is to identify with the Gospel-community. The Gospel is absolutely central. There may be 3 marks of a true church, but certainly the position of "chief among equals" goes to the Word rightly preached because it is the Word rightly preached that enables the other two. (This is why the sacraments are dependent upon and attendant to the Word preached. I can preach without the sacraments, but I cannot give the sacraments without giving the Word.) A church without the Gospel is a church without Christ and is consequentially not a church at all. Thus, in a context like the RCC, they use the language of Trinitarianism, but they formally and officially repudiate what the Bible means by it. As a result, it doesn't matter that they say the Trinitarian formula.

I can (somewhat) understand where you are coming from, but do we hold the same view of those who preach an Arminian gospel? It seems that for the sake of consistency, that we would have to say that an Arminian Baptist baptism is "no baptism" whatsoever. If that is your view, then I can certainly see the consistency in it. But if it is not, how do you parse out the distinction? The Arminian, as does the Roman Catholic, adds works to salvation. Indeed, many (or most) Arminian groups in our neck of the woods considers Calvinism heresy and say that we are preaching a different gospel - as would the Roman Catholic.

I am not arguing for or against one position or another, but I'm unclear of what distinctions are being made here.

We routinely assert what other groups teach. What we're actually often attributing to them (and they to us!) is our assertion of our understanding of the (apparent) implications and or (apparent) logical consequences of what they teach. We are certain that Arminianism teaches works. I can assure you that 100% of the Arminian ministers I know would vehemently recoil from that idea just as we vehemently reject the caricatures of Reformed doctrine that we get charged with. When it comes to our Arminian brothers, our Lutheran brothers, our Anglican brothers... I am thankful for their inconsistencies.

However, in the case of Rome we aren't dealing with what a particular minister may be thinking, nor are we dealing with a broadly defined and applied "system of theology" that transcends churches. No, we're talking about a formal institution with a huge Magisterium. They have spent centuries carefully (and not so carefully!) codifying what they believe - and they have been equally intentional about articulating what they don't. The long and short of it is that Rome, at Trent, has officially and formally repudiated and anathematized the Gospel. Further, I'd suggest that later pronouncements - such as Mary being the Queen of Heaven and a host of 10,000+ saints - have served to call into question their own monotheistic commitments.


But now I'm going to demure and back out of the conversation. Lane is more than capable of articulating the correct view.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

The long and short of it is that Rome, at Trent, has officially and formally repudiated and anathematized the Gospel.

I must agree here.

Modern Semi-Pelagian Arminian's while inconsistent have done no such thing as anathematizing the gospel. I speak of those independant from the belief in baptismal regeneration.

Mormons, Russelites were never in the Church.

1) When an Ecclesiastical body has officially anathematized the gospel, they have left the gospel completely, and the Church as a whole. They are the schismatic. No valid baptism.
2) When an Ecclesiastical body was never in the church, no valid baptism.
3) When an Ecclesiastical body baptizes non-Trinitarian, no valid baptism.
4) When an Ecclesiastical body baptizes to remove sin, no valid baptism.

The charge of schismatic laid against my position is untenable, as:
1) The groups above would in no way accept our baptism,
2) The groups above have so perverted their position in the church as to be nothing more than impostors,
3) The groups above are the schismatics

Note:This bears nothing on the Papacy as Anti-Christ as the Papacy rose within and out of that visible church which did become so corrupt that it, at & from its head, attempted to stamp out the saints of God, with the cooperation of the church system etc...

The Roman Church might not understand the work of our Triune God in Salvation - but they can identify who He is.

I disagree with this. To them, he is under the power of the priest, who given the power through the papacy, has the ability to bring him down out of heaven and re-sacrifice him. They are identifying something totally different my friend. This is not a simple mistake in doctrine, or a lack of development in understanding. This is a false identification.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

At the end of the day, it seems to me that Rome's own definitive declaration of the anathemas at Trent (as Ben has noted), is what should decide the matter. Yes, I know, there are a myriad of Romanist views on what exactly Trent was stating when so stated (such is Romanism and its jelly like doctrinal statements), but the plain reading makes it clear that Romanism has been apostate for many hundreds of years. Hence, the question then becomes one of acceptance of a practice by an apostate group.

 

[ProtestantBankie]

The Covenanters gave a very accurate description of Roman Antichrist and were not slow to criticise the elements of Roman baptism which were wrong. Notably, the necessity of it and how hell was the only possible prospect for infants departing without it. Yet, they had nothing further to add.

When the Protestant Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland outlawed the Pope's baptism and his mass - they did not require re-baptism. Such thing would have been included if it was felt necessary by the Protestant church. You need only read the penalties they applied to the Pope's laws in other areas to see how quick a rebaptism would have been demanded.

 

[SRoper]

Why do we use North and South as shorthand for views on Roman baptism? It seems Hodge vs. Thornwell is a very poor proxy for North vs. South in this case. The 1845 Old School vote on the question was “nearly unanimous” against the validity of Roman baptism. Delegates from Northern states outnumbered Southern delegates by about two to one. Of the eight delegates who signed the dissent, five were from the North and three were from the South.

Minutes of the 1845 General Assembly

 

[Romans922]

Interesting Scott.