A problem with denying the validity of RC baptism

[Pilgrim Standard]

Doesn't this imply that the crux of the debate can't be construed as Donatist vs. non-Donatist conceptions, as if there is a qualitative distinction between the positions, but rather that it's a quantitative question of how thoroughgoing heresy must be to invalidate a sect's claim to being a "church" and thus their administration of sacraments?

Something is amiss here. The basic premise of the catholic (universal church) position is that the ordinance depends upon the institution of Christ, not the church administering it. As soon as one brings in the status of the church this basic premise is denied and the separatist position of Donatism has become the working principle. If it depends on the church administering it, the requirements for establishing a valid baptism will be self-referential and undermine the catholicity of baptism.

But by this argumentation, the Romish church is a valid church a christian could be recomended to join themselves unto. Re: Billy Graham style. Not a false church masquerading as true, that one should be told to avoid. Else how could you ever tell a Christian to avoid a body of the true visible church, especially if is the only one in their area?

There is no catholicity between the present RCC and the Protestant Church. They themselves will not transfer membership outside the RCC. They do not administer Baptism in the catholic Church, they administer what they call baptism within the RCC alone, and it is proprietary in its ownership of the RCC itself, not of the one to whom it is administered to. It is not a baptism into the catholic church it is a rite of the RCC into the RCC in explicit opposition to all other churches. That is more akin to the donitist position you have described.

It is not the same thing. Prepatory oil is sometimes used in the RCC, which violates the element of water alnoe being used. It is not administered by one even remotely assosiated with the office of a minister of the gospel. This has been called irregular, but opens the floodgates to anyone administering baptism. Hence the administration by laypersons and women. Emergency baptisms become valid and must be accepted but discouraged. How may one discourage that which is wrong yet accept it as true? Shrouding it in the label of irregular does not make it true. The inconsistency was recognized by the Scottish Church which was pointed out before. They drew the line at lay persons and women. Are they akin to donitists now?

For the situations that have been called "baptism laundering" this simply shows our imperfection in the Church Militant. The same could be said of a lay person in, say the PCA, that baptized their son in the their woodshed alone because they wanted to. Must the church accept this as irregular? Can they discipline the lay performing something that is valid? "We charge you with performing a valid irregular baptism! We must put this in records of baptism, and discipline"

As a note: I hope that none on this board believe that water batism actually does confer entrance into the viisible church. We should not confuse the symbol with the thing it symbolizes. Surely there are regenerate in the RCC, just as there are regenerate unbaptized in this world.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

The basic premise of the catholic (universal church) position is that the ordinance depends upon the institution of Christ, not the church administering it.

So the mass is valid but irregular too? Of course it is not. It is a different thing.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

This point raises the question of whether or not, on Thornwellian [1] assumptions, any of the Westminster divines were validly baptised? And the same thing applies to anyone who has ever been baptised by anyone who was originally baptised by Rome, which opens a huge can of worms that no man is ever going to be able to shut.

Are you arguing for baptismal apostolic succession?

 

[puritanpilgrim]

So the mass is valid but irregular too? Of course it is not. It is a different thing.

I would like to quote one of my elders at this point:

If you can't say Amen you ought to say ouch.

 

[MW]

But by this argumentation, the Romish church is a valid church a christian could be recomended to join themselves unto.

This does not follow. As a particular church Rome has corrupted all the marks of a true church; consequently she must be accounted a corrupt church from which the faithful should withdraw. Hence Protestantism. It should be observed, the term "protest" implies there is still a valid authority operating at some level. If there were nothing valid about the Church of Rome the proper course would be to separate from her in the manner of the Anabaptists.

Surely there are regenerate in the RCC

How sure can you be when you do not accept the sign by which such a fact is made visible to the church?

 

[MW]

The basic premise of the catholic (universal church) position is that the ordinance depends upon the institution of Christ, not the church administering it.

So the mass is valid but irregular too? Of course it is not. It is a different thing.

If we agree that Christ did not institute the mass it should be obvious that the mass is irrelevant to the discussion. If you understand it is a different thing, why bring it up?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The basic premise of the catholic (universal church) position is that the ordinance depends upon the institution of Christ, not the church administering it.

So the mass is valid but irregular too? Of course it is not. It is a different thing.

"Valid" for our purposes means: having legitimate (legal) force, recognizable, admissible. The great question is: "what shall we acknowledge, and on what basis?"

Has any lifelong Romanist ever tasted communion? Perhaps so, in spite of things. Here's another question: if Rome's celebration of their mass has no connection whatsoever to the real communion meal, then when was the last time any Romanist ever ate and drank condemnation to himself? You can hardly profane something that is not in some sense present to the observer.

The Lord's Supper is a different thing from baptism. And before anyone says, "They are both sacraments, QED," I have a kitchen full of appliances too, and a stove is a different thing from a dishwasher. The functions of the devices are quite different, though they serve greater ends in common. Likewise, baptism and the Lord's Supper are different, and their respective work may be judged on different criteria. We have no reason to recognize or "validate" Rome's version of the Lord's Supper.

WLC Q. 177. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper differ?
A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord’s supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.

Baptism is a purely passive ordinance, done to someone; no less a picture of monergistic regeneration and spiritual union. The greatest issue of all in baptism is not the party being baptized or the party performing the outward sacrament; but Who it is who saves, Whose ordinance it is.

The Lord's Supper is by design an exhibition of sanctification. It is a rite of renewal and nourishment and growth in grace. The active participants are expected in all cases to bring discernment to the Table, which means being able also to determine whether this is a Table more closely aligned with Christ, or with demons, 1Cor.10:21.

Even in the case of adults, baptism is not given to strong, mature Christians, capable of accurate determination of the "quality" of administration. But it is not reasonable to force every person at points down the line, to post-judge the quality of that which was administered to him at the beginning of his Christian identification. Nor is it proper to have a later church-body also judge it. It is sufficient to have minimal confidence in the basic elements of the ordinance, for it is God who appointed such weak things to exhibit his own glory in the first place.

The communicant, trained to spot and avoid "gross idolatries" (WCF 29.6), should shun the papist mass as the offense that it is. "Confecting" their wafer, repeating the unrepeatable, once-for-all sacrifice (Rom.6:10; Heb.7:27; 9:12); priestly posing as another mediator (1Tim.2:5; Heb.9:15; 12:24)--this is all patent idolatry. No wonder that many thought (and still think) the description of 2Ths.2:4 aptly fits the pope, and by extension his minions.

The taint is too great upon Rome for anyone safely to remain under her spell. She lacks pure ordinances; this is true. But what is defective about those ordinances is that which contributes to the need to escape; while what is truly contained in them remains true, for Rome cannot abolish truth, only bury it or cast it away.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

But by this argumentation, the Romish church is a valid church a christian could be recomended to join themselves unto.

This does not follow. As a particular church Rome has corrupted all the marks of a true church;

Then how do you claim her to be a true church? How can you be sure she is a true church?

It should be observed, the term "protest" implies there is still a valid authority operating at some level. If there were nothing valid about the Church of Rome the proper course would be to separate from her in the manner of the Anabaptists.

We will just have to agree to disagree on our definition of what protestant means. We won't go anywhere down this road. One who is a witness against something does not give or imply authority to that thing.

Surely there are regenerate in the RCC

How sure can you be when you do not accept the sign by which such a fact is made visible to the church?

We don't assume only those who are baptized are saved. There should not be confusing the thing that symbolizes with the thing that it symbolizes. Baptism is not necessary to salvation. This is not to say that it is good for Baptism to be neglected.

The basic premise of the catholic (universal church) position is that the ordinance depends upon the institution of Christ, not the church administering it.

So the mass is valid but irregular too? Of course it is not. It is a different thing.

If we agree that Christ did not institute the mass it should be obvious that the mass is irrelevant to the discussion. If you understand it is a different thing, why bring it up?

I meant it is a different thing than Protestant observance of the Lord's Table.

Divorcing the sacraments from the church by stating that the institution of Christ makes it valid is not a fair argument. There are the implications of form, substance, subject, administration etc. that are in the institution of the ordinances by Christ.

Today, Rome is doing something different in baptism. She is baptizing into something different. She has no ministers of Christ.

 

[MW]

Then how do you claim her to be a true church? How can you be sure she is a true church?

I don't claim she is a true church so far as being a particular church is concerned. The ministry and sacraments as ordinances of Christ are given to the catholic church. For the argument to hold in relation to the catholic church, it only needs to be granted that the form of a church as to visible profession is in some sense to be found among this corrupted church.

We will just have to agree to disagree on our definition of what protestant means. We won't go anywhere down this road. One who is a witness against something does not give or imply authority to that thing.

By your definition there is no difference between "witnessing against" and "protesting," but the latter usually implies an objection to the exercise of a power of some kind. Historically, it is the latter sense in which the word "Protestant" has been used.

We don't assume only those who are baptized are saved.

No; but we also recognise that outside the visible church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation; and baptism is the ordinary means by which salvation is visibly signified to us. You would have us be assured of regenerate persons within the Roman Church where there is no visible sign of it.

I meant it is a different thing than Protestant observance of the Lord's Table.

If the mass is a different thing to that which Christ instituted, it has no word of institution for its validity. It is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. Washing with water in the Triune name has the word of institution for its validity.

Today, Rome is doing something different in baptism. She is baptizing into something different. She has no ministers of Christ.

Saying so doesn't make it so. The power to effect what is symbolised in the sacrament belongs to Christ alone.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

This thread is alarming to me on many levels.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This point raises the question of whether or not, on Thornwellian [1] assumptions, any of the Westminster divines were validly baptised? And the same thing applies to anyone who has ever been baptised by anyone who was originally baptised by Rome, which opens a huge can of worms that no man is ever going to be able to shut.

Are you arguing for baptismal apostolic succession?

I am asking a question with reference to the logical consequences of the Thornwellian position.

 

[ProtestantBankie]

This thread is alarming to me on many levels.

If you could explain each of these levels rather than leaving us with this statement brother. I don't know how to respond otherwise.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

This thread is alarming to me on many levels.

If you could explain each of these levels rather than leaving us with this statement brother. I don't know how to respond otherwise.

As Baptists, we of course have no problem denying the validity of RC baptism. I think what confuses us about the Presbyterian position is how you could view the head of that church to be the very antichrist, and yet somehow accept as valid the baptisms administered under his authority.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

This thread is alarming to me on many levels.

If you could explain each of these levels rather than leaving us with this statement brother. I don't know how to respond otherwise.

As Baptists, we of course have no problem denying the validity of RC baptism. I think what confuses us about the Presbyterian position is how you could view the head of that church to be the very antichrist, and yet somehow accept as valid the baptisms administered under his authority.

Thank you. You summed up my vexation most succinctly.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Should the govt. of Russia today accept a birth certificate issued under Soviet Union authority? What about the govt. of this country; should we accept such documentation?

Of course they should, and we should. But, no doubt, there will be some that argue otherwise, perhaps even on the basis of the fact that the Soviets participated in not one, but two revolutions that radically altered the character of the govt. of that region. Many people less than 100yrs ago considered the govt. there totally illegitimate. The US govt. even joined Allied forces in invading Russia to fight the Reds, Polar Bear Expedition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point is, that neither the Reds, the Whites, the Tsars, or anybody else is "in charge" of births in that part of the world. But as long as people living there wanted some sort of public record of birth, one could say with reason that this person was "enrolled" among the citizenry. In fact, to deny such would be tantamount to declaring that person nonexistent--curiously, a sad reality for many people under that and other totalitarian regimes, regardless of what their official paperwork declared. But that's the kind of thing that can happen when the govt. sees itself as something other than an administrative record-keeper; and instead as an autonomous Power that gives and takes on its own authority.

And that, of course, is not too far removed from what various church-govt.s do when they declare null and void the "identification papers," the baptismal-certificate of some other church-govt. body. "You are a non-person, because we don't admit the legitimacy of that govt. issuing you that paper."

Not every case of "paperwork" is legitimate. Not every self-styled govt. has the right to be recognized. But, like it or not, the Soviets were the successor govt. to old Russian govt. And today's Russia is the successor to the failed Soviet state, though ideologically (doctrinally) there are many differences through three successive instances of govt. in that territory.

The legitimacy of a baptism (like a birth certificate) is not a direct result of the power structure in place.

 

[Nicholas Perella]

I am wading through this and thank the necessary correction in terms of "communion" that I received for it is completely different than the Lord's Supper of Protestantism. Thank you for that men.

This is how I am understanding this and currently find contentment with. The actual words used during baptism in Catholicism are God's written Word. In communion His written Word and counsel have been completed taken away by Catholicism.

That said, thereby, the authority of God's written Word is God Himself not antichrist Rome. This goes for the early church council's based on God's written Word, so, the foundation of truth in Christ may still be found in Rome this way also. Again to reiterate, thus His written Word being Self-authoritative even in these instances is not corrupted or darkened by Catholicism. They are simply not shown and demonstrated by Rome as much as a consistent gospel preached in other, more purer churches.

This is why I have previously referred to the private conscience of the former or current Roman Catholic. Aside from the need of the current RC to get out of the great hostility of Catholicism toward God, the basis of peace with God by a former of RC in which the improvement of their baptism still persists by God, is because God's written Word and thus His real presence as that means of grace was present during their baptism. This may assure them by covenant that they truly have been set apart by God into His church. Their leaving the RC is another indicator in my opinion for their godly graving in the doing of God's will and their need to feed on God's written Word (for man does not live by bread alone).

What I personally was having trouble with, was reconciling this with say 'Mormonism'. If God's written Word is present, then how does that differ from the RC? I was thinking the answer is historical. There is a historical foundation in which Roman Catholicism is not simply a church that was originally founded falsely as Mormonism has been. Mormonism never was a Christian church, even to begin with. Rome was at one time and their current confessing of beliefs still adheres to early church council positions that are based and therefore specially revealed in God's written Word. So they were founded Christian but throughout history have fallen away with true elements still adhered to, yet, dark and corrupt teachings increasingly are humanly referred to within Catholicism. Mormonism from the outset never had this foundation of Truth in Christ and so they are not trying to simply cover or corrupt what they once had and still hold to, though even these efforts of Catholicism fail to corrupt as long as such heavenly things are remain adhered to by RC (Matt. 5:19-20). Mormonism never had and do not hold to any true sense of Christ. Their (Mormonism) teachings are false teachings through and through. RC has false teachings along side true teachings.

I do not desire to mislead anybody, so, I stand corrected for this is how I currently understand this. I currently find this understanding of mine satisfying and have a sense of contentment with this comment of mine beside what little measure of understanding from God's written Word that I systematically possess.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

Then how do you claim her to be a true church? How can you be sure she is a true church?

I don't claim she is a true church so far as being a particular church is concerned. The ministry and sacraments as ordinances of Christ are given to the catholic church. For the argument to hold in relation to the catholic church, it only needs to be granted that the form of a church as to visible profession is in some sense to be found among this corrupted church.

I don't understand the dichotomy that you are drawing between a particular church and form of a church. On one hand she is not a true church and on the other she is a true church because she has the "form of a church as to visible profession." It seems that we see her "visible profession" as different things.

We will just have to agree to disagree on our definition of what protestant means. We won't go anywhere down this road. One who is a witness against something does not give or imply authority to that thing.

By your definition there is no difference between "witnessing against" and "protesting," but the latter usually implies an objection to the exercise of a power of some kind. Historically, it is the latter sense in which the word "Protestant" has been used.

Protesting an objection to the exercise of some power of an organization does not imply that there is a valid power extant along with the protested power in the protested org.

We don't assume only those who are baptized are saved.

No; but we also recognise that outside the visible church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation; and baptism is the ordinary means by which salvation is visibly signified to us. You would have us be assured of regenerate persons within the Roman Church where there is no visible sign of it.

Are you stating that there is no assurance of salvation of any persons outside of baptism? Not even profession of faith in Christ? Are we not to believe an adult professing faith in Christ alone, who is not yet baptized is saved prior to baptism?

Today, Rome is doing something different in baptism. She is baptizing into something different. She has no ministers of Christ.

Saying so doesn't make it so. The power to effect what is symbolised in the sacrament belongs to Christ alone.

I agree that the power to effect what is symbolised belongs to Christ alone. The claim that Rome is doing something different in the place of baptism because it is symbolizing something different is not my statement, it is the statement of Rome.
Rome States:

"it actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."
"In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation."
"By Baptism all sins are forgiven"
"Baptism incorporates us into the Church."
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of Baptism

You know how the Roman Church defines "the Church." A right that incorporates people into the RCC alone is not the same as the sacrament that symbolizes our Union with Christ and entrance into the visible Church. Baptism is an ordinance of consecration to God, not an incorporation into Rome Alone.
I feel like I am arguing against equivocation here.
You seem to define:
the RCC as a "true form," "untrue particular," church, residing within the visible church.
That Baptism has the word of institution for its validity, if it is in the Triune name including a washing with water. However you also argue that there must be a true form church that this sacrament be associated with. There is the implication that Rome necessarily has ministers of the gospel that can dispense this sacrament, or there is some warrant in the Scripture I am unaware of in which those other than ministers of the gospel can administer baptism.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

Baptism is a purely passive ordinance, done to someone; no less a picture of monergistic regeneration and spiritual union. The greatest issue of all in baptism is not the party being baptized or the party performing the outward sacrament; but Who it is who saves, Whose ordinance it is.

I most certainly agree Pastor Buchanan. This is a refreshing reminder in the midst of the debate at hand and is very welcomed. However, one must admit either that Rome possesses ministers of the gospel, or admit an inconsistency with the confessional standards which speaking of the two sacraments that “both are seals of the same covenant, are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and by none other…” (WLC Q173)

It is sufficient to have minimal confidence in the basic elements of the ordinance, for it is God who appointed such weak things to exhibit his own glory in the first place.

But it is more than confidence in the basic elements of the ordinance, because lds baptism is not accepted. There is a line drawn between Romish Baptism and lds baptism by proponents of your view. In the Scriptures, the form of baptism always contains an administration by the Ministers of God in the Church.

for Rome cannot abolish truth, only bury it or cast it away.

While I agree that Rome can in no way abolish truth, but it can cast it away, it has not only cast away the Gospel, but it has declared war against the Gospel, the minsters thereof, and the believers and promoters thereof. This is no church of Christ that is simply in error, and I find it highly dangerous to equate it to dead Sardis and lukewarm Laodicea. Which one of these attempted to rid the earth of the Gospel? Lacking Gospel & bad doctrine do not equate to religious genocide.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

This point raises the question of whether or not, on Thornwellian [1] assumptions, any of the Westminster divines were validly baptised? And the same thing applies to anyone who has ever been baptised by anyone who was originally baptised by Rome, which opens a huge can of worms that no man is ever going to be able to shut.

Are you arguing for baptismal apostolic succession?

I am asking a question with reference to the logical consequences of the Thornwellian position.

My appoligies, brother. I thought the implication of what you stated was advocating the necessity of anyone performing baptism have a perfect line of baptism going back to the apostles as if they should have some form of certificate of origin or proven genealogical baptismal descent.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

Should the govt. of Russia today accept a birth certificate issued under Soviet Union authority? What about the govt. of this country; should we accept such documentation?

Of course they should, and we should. But, no doubt, there will be some that argue otherwise, perhaps even on the basis of the fact that the Soviets participated in not one, but two revolutions that radically altered the character of the govt. of that region. Many people less than 100yrs ago considered the govt. there totally illegitimate. The US govt. even joined Allied forces in invading Russia to fight the Reds, Polar Bear Expedition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point is, that neither the Reds, the Whites, the Tsars, or anybody else is "in charge" of births in that part of the world. But as long as people living there wanted some sort of public record of birth, one could say with reason that this person was "enrolled" among the citizenry. In fact, to deny such would be tantamount to declaring that person nonexistent--curiously, a sad reality for many people under that and other totalitarian regimes, regardless of what their official paperwork declared. But that's the kind of thing that can happen when the govt. sees itself as something other than an administrative record-keeper; and instead as an autonomous Power that gives and takes on its own authority.

And that, of course, is not too far removed from what various church-govt.s do when they declare null and void the "identification papers," the baptismal-certificate of some other church-govt. body. "You are a non-person, because we don't admit the legitimacy of that govt. issuing you that paper."

Not every case of "paperwork" is legitimate. Not every self-styled govt. has the right to be recognized. But, like it or not, the Soviets were the successor govt. to old Russian govt. And today's Russia is the successor to the failed Soviet state, though ideologically (doctrinally) there are many differences through three successive instances of govt. in that territory.

The legitimacy of a baptism (like a birth certificate) is not a direct result of the power structure in place.

Pastor, the illustration sounds very nice. But I don't see this as what is occuring. In this illustration, there must be an authority that has granted specific persons in a specific body authority to issue birth certificates. However, an organization that has declared war against the first authority, uses men outside of the nation to write bills of slavery which are not transferrable nor are they birth certificates, although they call them such.

In no way is the non transferrable bill of slavery a birth certificate, even though it is called such, and is written in ink on paper. Nor does the bill of slavery or the absence of an actual birth certificate disprove ones birth or existance.

Note that I do appreciate you and Pastor Winzer as well, explaining your positions, and your seemingly exhaustive patience with me on this topic, even though we are at a dissagreement at the moment.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

To clarify, because the church militant is imperfect and sees through a glass darkly, we have accepted that which is not baptism as baptism, just as we have given the sign to the reprobate. This does not necessitate that those in various churches who have a romish baptism are somehow not in the church. The presence or lack of the visible symbol does not necessitate the presence or lack thereof of the thing symbolized. If a person has been interviewed and accepted into the church and professed Christ but only posses a romish baptism, I would regard them as a member and brother/sister in Christ. But this still does not make their romish baptism what baptism is, as one can possess that which baptism sybmolizes and not the proprer sign thereof. Nor would I treat them as some form of second class citizen.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Pastor, [your] illustration sounds very nice. But I don't see this as what is occuring. In this illustration, there must be an authority that has granted specific persons in a specific body authority to issue birth certificates. However, an organization that has declared war against the first authority, uses men outside of the nation to write bills of slavery which are not transferrable nor are they birth certificates, although they call them such.

In no way is the non transferrable bill of slavery a birth certificate, even though it is called such, and is written in ink on paper. Nor does the bill of slavery or the absence of an actual birth certificate disprove ones birth or existance.

This is an incoherent response to my post. I have to wonder whether my point was even grasped; plus there is an extraneous and irrelevant (at the very least inexplicable) insertion of "bills of slavery" into the equation.

Somehow, legitimate birth certificates (instruments of continuity in my illustration) seem to be analogized to illegitimate bills of slavery, minus the analogy.

And part of my point has to do with the fact that God (supreme authority) ordains every life born into the world; and the state merely recognizes this fact and notarizes it when authorized to do so--which function often continues unabated through radical transformations of governmental forms. The state does not confer validity to the birth. But that "legal paper" is no inconsequential flutter.

To clarify, because the church militant is imperfect and sees through a glass darkly, we have accepted that which is not baptism as baptism,

Ah, no. We don't accept as baptism what can in no way be regarded as baptism.

just as we have given the sign to the reprobate.

No, this is a Baptist position, not a Presbyterian one. We do not say the reprobate have not been baptized.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

I have to wonder whether my point was even grasped;

I must not have grasped your point.

plus there is an extraneous and irrelevant (at the very least inexplicable) insertion of "bills of slavery" into the equation.

you could replace that with anything that is not "birth certificate" in the illustration. Since you view RCC baptism to be the biblical practice, I can see how you would object to anything different being put in the place of "birth certificate."

Somehow, legitimate birth certificates (instruments of continuity in my illustration) seem to be analogized to illegitimate bills of slavery, minus the analogy.

My point is that that there is something illegitimate going by the same name.

The state does not confer validity to the birth.

I agree. Christ confers validity to the birth.

just as we have given the sign to the reprobate.

No, this is a Baptist position, not a Presbyterian one. We do not say the reprobate have not been baptized.

my statement was "we have given the sign to the reprobate."

A general broke away from the King. He made war with the King & the King's subjects and recruited his own subjects. The General that broke away confers citizenship in his illegitimate nation, as he claims the place of the King. This does not confer citizenship in the Kings nation on the Generals subjects just because the General says he is the true King of the true nation. In reality the Generals nation is an illegitimate nation. But when one breaks away from the Generals nation, to join the Kings nation, he swears allegiance to the King.

If I am in gross error, I ask forgiveness for it. I am not seeking to upset others, especially ministers of the Gospel. But this is where my understanding is.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Interesting thread. Just read through it.

Hodge's "Validity of Romish Baptism" remains, in my view, a good response to the action of the 1845 PCUSA GA. Scott, of course, is right, and I'm glad that he earlier pointed it out, that this was an action of a church before the 1861 split, so it was not, strictly speaking, a South v. North matter.

One thing, however, unless I missed it (in this rather long thread!), that has not been pointed out is Hodge's reaction to the precipitousness of the GA's action. Hodge is shocked by it (he was not at the GA; he scarcely ever went due to his health--though he went in 1846 and was elected as moderator) and wonders what "new light" compelled the commissioners "to pronounce Calvin, Luther, and all the men of that generation, as well as thousands who with no other than Romish baptism have since been received into the Protestant Churches, to have live and died unbaptized?"

Yes, Hodge did believe, as has been alluded to herein, that, corrupt as the Roman Catholic Church was, it retained a remnant of the true church. Such a conviction was the universal sentiment of the Protestant churches up to that point. This is what Hodge finds so puzzling: "The suddenness with which this decision has been made will add not a little to the surprise and regret with which it will be received. The judgment has come before the argument . We do not doubt that the brethren who urged the course adopted by the Assembly, have examined the subject, but we are very sure the Church has not . We question whether one in twenty of our ministers have ever given it more than a passing consideration. Yet as the Assembly professes to speak in the name of the whole Church, it would seem proper that no decision so important and so deeply affecting the character of the whole body in the eyes of Christendom, should be pronounced, until means had been taken to ascertain the views of the Church generally. The Assembly has indeed the right to resolve all questions of casuistry, regularly presented, and to give advice to the lower courts when requested. We do not question the right. We only venture to question the wisdom of giving an answer suddenly, in opposition to all previous practice, and to the principles of every other protestant Church [emphasis added]. The fact that the answer is new, creates a reason for being slow to pronounce it."

I think Hodge's analysis here, and that subsequently of many others, prompted re-examination of this decision, with many coming to reject the reasoning of the 1845 GA. It is the case, however, that this reasoning of the 1845 GA remained persuasive for many in the Southern Presbyterian Church, though even here, as also has been noted herein, many sessions in the PCA have come to regard RCC baptism as valid.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The state does not confer validity to the birth.

I agree. Christ confers validity to the birth.

I think my point would be that there is quite a close analogy between profession/church membership and "new birth," which makes my choice of the "birth/birth-certificate" illustration more than a handy grab.

That's why I demure from the counter-examples you offer (slave-bills, civil war divisions). How do these alternate proposals function in relation to the actual history of Rome? How do they work better than mine, or cancel the illustration I offered? For that matter, my original example was oriented to a "revolutionary" condition, in which a whole State was converted (not religiously), and again, and again! The new conditions notwithstanding, the old papers should have had, and still have, validity.

I'm not looking to prolong this interchange, Benjamin. I'd really rather not publicly disagree with you. But I'm not grieved over it; I don't resent your contrary opinion.

Peace.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

That's why I demure from the counter-examples you offer (slave-bills, civil war divisions).

I suppose this is simply where our beliefs differ. I believe the RCC has rejected and declared war on the Gospel, hence reference to them splitting away while trying to retain not only legitimacy but Sola Ecclesia legitimacy.

I think you believe the RCC is still within the visible church and possesses Ministers of the Gospel. If that indeed is the case, then my illustrations make no sense whatsoever.

I'm not looking to prolong this interchange, Benjamin. I'd really rather not publicly disagree with you. But I'm not grieved over it; I don't resent your contrary opinion.

Thank you for that Pastor. While there is a sadness that the entire Church is not in agreemet in all things, it is good to know that we do not resent each other’s contrary opinions. I am glad that Ministers such are you have defended the position you believe to be true with kindness and patience.

Peace.

 

[MW]

I don't understand the dichotomy that you are drawing between a particular church and form of a church.

Once it is accepted that there are members of the visible catholic church who may not have membership in any particular church, it should be obvious that things which belong to catholicity are not dependent on the status of particular churches. As WCF 25 teaches, the ordinances belong in this category. They are given for the church as catholic. They are not given for particular churches. A particular church might corrupt them so far as to be regarded as no church of Christ. Yet it does not alter the fact that these ordinances are administered for the benefit of the catholic church.

Are you stating that there is no assurance of salvation of any persons outside of baptism?

A person may be assured of salvation without baptism, but his visible profession is signified by baptism. The church has no way of discerning a person's state before God. She is bound to examine the profession which the person makes, and to require baptism as a sign of obedience to Christ.

I agree that the power to effect what is symbolised belongs to Christ alone. The claim that Rome is doing something different in the place of baptism because it is symbolizing something different is not my statement, it is the statement of Rome.

Rome saying so doesn't make it so. Your appeal to Rome gives her too much say in the matter. The efficacy of baptism does not depend on the intention of the one administering it.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

For those who hold that Romish baptism is real baptism, would you also hold to the idea that the Popish Mass is also a real administration of the Lord's Supper?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

For those who hold that Romish baptism is real baptism, would you also hold to the idea that the Popish Mass is also a real administration of the Lord's Supper?

Apples and Oranges. Two different sacraments with different sanctions.

 

[Romans922]

Apples and Oranges. Two different sacraments with different sanctions.

I'm not seeing much proof that the two are apples and oranges (I mean you can't just say it and it be true). They are sacraments instituted by Christ. If Rome is a true church (part of visible church) then the sacraments instituted by Christ administered therein are both valid. That is the logical conclusion based on the argumentation made in this thread by those who hold to the validity of papist baptism.