A problem with denying the validity of RC baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you. I missed Post #157 the first time through this thread.

This is a lot to commend Rev. Buchanan's comments in that post. I'll think on it.
 
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.

They would both be valid perhaps (although RCC withholding the cup may suggest the sacrament is not there in essence, baptism in Rome was affirmed as it was true in essence but corrupt in accidents), but not necessarily to be sought. Turretin and others argued that those who sought to have their infants baptized by the Papists sinned, though the baptism was valid, because of the participation in the concomitant corruptions. The same would apply to and probably even be magnified in the case of the Mass. The difference of course is that the Supper is meant to be repeated, so there is no error in administering it again as there would be with baptism.
 
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.

They would both be valid perhaps (although RCC withholding the cup may suggest the sacrament is not there in essence, baptism in Rome was affirmed as it was true in essence but corrupt in accidents), but not necessarily to be sought. Turretin and others argued that those who sought to have their infants baptized by the Papists sinned, though the baptism was valid, because of the participation in the concomitant corruptions. The same would apply to and probably even be magnified in the case of the Mass. The difference of course is that the Supper is meant to be repeated, so there is no error in administering it again as there would be with baptism.

I am not returning to the thread permanently. I just popped in to say something about the Mass. It is non-confessional to say that the Mass is a valid sacrament in any way, shape or form. WCF 29.2 "...the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of his elect."
 
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.
Now how can a Church corrupt ordinances so much as to be regarded as no Church of Christ and these ordinances so currpted as to not be regarded as eminating from the Church of Christ be still be counted as ordinances of the Church of Christ? I think this arugument gives Rome too much say in the matter.

Because Christ instutited baptism, and does give efficacy to baptism, this does not make anything called baptism what Christ instituted. We agree he has given it to the universal church, but this does not give a church that is no church of Christ a place within the Church.

What is a church that is no church of Christ?

Sacrifice was issued at the Temple in Bethel of Israel, but though God commanded sacrifice, it was to be at the Temple in Jerusalem, by the priests of God. Now this sacrifice was for the benifit of the catholic church, but not at Bethel, not administered by anyone, not by a false priesthood raised up, regardless of their intent or lineage or supposed claim.

Did not Amos condemn this? Amos 4:4 "Go to Bethel and sin; go to Gilgal and sin yet more. Bring your sacrifices every morning, your tithes every three years." Amos 5:22 "Though you offer me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fatted beasts."

The claim was that they were worshipping in the Name of God, but it was an impostor kingdom, and impostor priesthood, and impostor place. Given, God did institue sacrifice for the benifit of the Church of Christ, but it was to be administered by the Church of Christ, as they were instituted.

Do you claim that Rome has Ministers of the Gospel, or is the claim that Baptism is administered by those who are not Ministers of the Gospel, and can be done in such a way as to be so corrupted as to not be from the Church of Christ, though that is who it is to be adminsterd by?

I hope you can understand my confusion with your position.
 
What is a church that is no church of Christ?

Dear brother, I respect your desire for clarification, but my previous responses have already unpacked this type of question and the way it should be answered from a confessional perspective.

If you claim the baptism of the Church of Rome is invalid on the basis that she is a false church, I ask you, On what basis do you say she is a false church? Unless God has told you by extraordinary revelation that Rome is a false Church, you are obliged to first examine its ministry and ordinances in terms of divine institution.

I can say she is a false church because I have evaluated the ministry and ordinances, and I have discovered the extent to which the Church of Rome has corrupted them. If we proceed according to this order of examination -- the biblical order -- we are bound to acknowledge that the form of baptism as Christ has instituted it is still basically observed notwithstanding the many corruptions which have been added to it. The fact Rome proves itself a false church in other ways does not invalidate what is still observed according to divine institution. As one of the prophets has taught us to ask, What is the chaff to the wheat? Or, as one of the apostles has taught us to answer, Let God be true and every man a liar.
 
This is an interesting historical note concerning the old school GA where this was debated. It seems that at the same GA in 1845 (which was overwhelming in ruling against the validity of RC baptism, something like 169-9), came the decision on slavery. The GA voted to support slavery by a nearly equally wide margin: 168-13.

A quote from the dissertation that Bruce posted:

" It is worth noting that immediately after the baptism debate came the decision on the slavery question, which was decided 168-13 (see chapter six). Only ruling elder Samuel Hibben of Chillicothe Presbytery voted in the minority on both questions. One southern observer commented that the debate on Roman Catholic baptism “did much good every way. It had a happy tendency to harmonize the Assembly, and to bring them to great unanimity on other points. The subject of slavery excited much interest. There are but five or six abolitionists in the Assembly. With some of these I have become acquainted. They deserve more our sympathy than our abuse. They seem to be honest, well meaning men; but evidently deluded on this one subject.” “Letters from GA” WS 8.42 (June 5, 1845) 167."
 
This is an interesting historical note concerning the old school GA where this was debated. It seems that at the same GA in 1845 (which was overwhelming in ruling against the validity of RC baptism, something like 169-9), came the decision on slavery. The GA voted to support slavery by a nearly equally wide margin: 168-13.

A quote from the dissertation that Bruce posted:

" It is worth noting that immediately after the baptism debate came the decision on the slavery question, which was decided 168-13 (see chapter six). Only ruling elder Samuel Hibben of Chillicothe Presbytery voted in the minority on both questions. One southern observer commented that the debate on Roman Catholic baptism “did much good every way. It had a happy tendency to harmonize the Assembly, and to bring them to great unanimity on other points. The subject of slavery excited much interest. There are but five or six abolitionists in the Assembly. With some of these I have become acquainted. They deserve more our sympathy than our abuse. They seem to be honest, well meaning men; but evidently deluded on this one subject.” “Letters from GA” WS 8.42 (June 5, 1845) 167."

Mark Noll says in America's God that U.S. Christians took a position on race-based, chattel slavery that was adopted by virtually no other orthodox Christians anywhere in the world. Indeed, see the snippy correspondence that the Old School GA sent to the Irish Presbyterians around this time. He put this oddity down to a matter of cultural hermeneutics. Perhaps the same could be said for their views on Romish baptism?
 
It is very lamentable and of course a stain on the spiritual ancestry of some of us, that they argued for slavery so. We know there was animus / fear of RC immigrants at the time, correct? So it is a theory worth exploring at least.
 
It is very lamentable and of course a stain on the spiritual ancestry of some of us, that they argued for slavery so. We know there was animus / fear of RC immigrants at the time, correct? So it is a theory worth exploring at least.

I think it is; the United States was primarily a Protestant country, but a relatively isolated one geographically. It had not faced the domestic threat from Romanism that Protestants in the UK and continental Europe had for centuries, and thus increased RC immigration, especially in the 1840s, probably led to fears of a Romanist take-over. In such a context, an over-reaction against Romish baptism seems understandable.
 
Last edited:
As Baptists, we of course have no problem denying the validity of RC baptism.

What is it about the LBC that makes this issue easier for Baptists?

LBC 28:2 These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.2

WCF 28:2 The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Bill The Baptist View Post
As Baptists, we of course have no problem denying the validity of RC baptism.
What is it about the LBC that makes this issue easier for Baptists?

LBC 28:2 These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.2
WCF 28:2 The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called there


Are you joking? First they practice infant baptism, so we don't recognize that. Secondly, they don't baptize by immersion, so we don't recognize the baptism. Thirdly, in the council of Trent they said that anyone who says you are save by faith alone is an anathema, so even their believers baptism is suspect.
 
Not all RCs were baptized as infants. The LBC does not say that sprinkling 'invalidates' a baptism, only that it wasn't 'properly administered'.

I only say this to defend my question. You have answered it. I don't want to hijack the thread so I will drop it and take it up in a thread of its own someday.
 
Ken,
If for some reason I wanted to join your church, would you consider me "previously baptized?"

I was baptized at somewhere near 6mo. of age, in a gospel church by a Christian minister, by sprinkling, etc.

Assuming yours was among some few (to my knowledge) Baptist churches that would receive me "as is," still I am certain that most would not--on the supposition that I was not 1) necessarily baptized upon profession, and 2) necessarily according to the singularly acceptable method: full immersion. Of what concern is the church/minister that baptized me at that point?

I suppose that for practical purposes, remaining outside of the Baptist-fold they might allow that "theoretically" I might be accepted as a disorderly sort of Christian. But many strict Baptist churches would not commune me at the Table, as I am not baptized in their view, hence not a recognizable "member" of any true church on that basis!

So, I don't think primary Baptist considerations typically begin anywhere in the vicinity of the question of "lawful ministry." The LBC expressions, though borrowed from the WCF, practically assume other Baptist-backgrounds for what they admit as valid. Persons joining Baptist churches from any paedo-baptist-tradition, or even sprinkling/effusion tradition, usually wish to comply with standard Baptist practice. The LBC parts quoted seem more relevant to "lay-baptism" or even more anti-ecclesiastical stances.

Baptists don't actually view as valid most Presbyterian or Reformed baptisms. Roman baptism is even further away.
 
This is an interesting historical note concerning the old school GA where this was debated. It seems that at the same GA in 1845 (which was overwhelming in ruling against the validity of RC baptism, something like 169-9), came the decision on slavery. The GA voted to support slavery by a nearly equally wide margin: 168-13.

A quote from the dissertation that Bruce posted:

" It is worth noting that immediately after the baptism debate came the decision on the slavery question, which was decided 168-13 (see chapter six). Only ruling elder Samuel Hibben of Chillicothe Presbytery voted in the minority on both questions. One southern observer commented that the debate on Roman Catholic baptism “did much good every way. It had a happy tendency to harmonize the Assembly, and to bring them to great unanimity on other points. The subject of slavery excited much interest. There are but five or six abolitionists in the Assembly. With some of these I have become acquainted. They deserve more our sympathy than our abuse. They seem to be honest, well meaning men; but evidently deluded on this one subject.” “Letters from GA” WS 8.42 (June 5, 1845) 167."

Mark Noll says in America's God that U.S. Christians took a position on race-based, chattel slavery that was adopted by virtually no other orthodox Christians anywhere in the world. Indeed, see the snippy correspondence that the Old School GA sent to the Irish Presbyterians around this time. He put this oddity down to a matter of cultural hermeneutics. Perhaps the same could be said for their views on Romish baptism?

How in the world is slavery relevant to the validity of RC baptism? You completely lost me here. If your argument is that the GA's decision on RC baptism is worthless because it ALSO voted the way it did on slavery, then it is the argument that is worthless. Why bring this up at all?
 
Ken,
If for some reason I wanted to join your church, would you consider me "previously baptized?"

I was baptized at somewhere near 6mo. of age, in a gospel church by a Christian minister, by sprinkling, etc.

Assuming yours was among some few (to my knowledge) Baptist churches that would receive me "as is," still I am certain that most would not--on the supposition that I was not 1) necessarily baptized upon profession, and 2) necessarily according to the singularly acceptable method: full immersion. Of what concern is the church/minister that baptized me at that point?

I suppose that for practical purposes, remaining outside of the Baptist-fold they might allow that "theoretically" I might be accepted as a disorderly sort of Christian. But many strict Baptist churches would not commune me at the Table, as I am not baptized in their view, hence not a recognizable "member" of any true church on that basis!

So, I don't think primary Baptist considerations typically begin anywhere in the vicinity of the question of "lawful ministry." The LBC expressions, though borrowed from the WCF, practically assume other Baptist-backgrounds for what they admit as valid. Persons joining Baptist churches from any paedo-baptist-tradition, or even sprinkling/effusion tradition, usually wish to comply with standard Baptist practice. The LBC parts quoted seem more relevant to "lay-baptism" or even more anti-ecclesiastical stances.

Baptists don't actually view as valid most Presbyterian or Reformed baptisms. Roman baptism is even further away.

Thanks for the clarification, Rev Buchanan. I appreciate your insight.
 
Not all RCs were baptized as infants. The LBC does not say that sprinkling 'invalidates' a baptism, only that it wasn't 'properly administered'.

I only say this to defend my question. You have answered it. I don't want to hijack the thread so I will drop it and take it up in a thread of its own someday.

Baptist generally only call Baptism immersion. This is chapter 29 from the LBCF 1689:

Chapter 29
BAPTISM

29.1 Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person baptized a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection, of being grafted into him,1 of remission of sins,2 and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.3

Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12; Gal 3:27
Mar 1:4; Act 22:16
Rom 6:4

29.2 Those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects for this ordinance.1

Mat 3:1-12; Mar 1:4-6; Luk 3:3-6; Mat 28:19-20; Mar 16:15-16; Joh 4:1-2; 1Co 1:13-17; Act 2:37-41; 8:12-13,36-38; 9:18; 10:47-48; 11:16; 15:9; 16:14-15,31-34; 18:8; 19:3-5; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; Gal 3:27; Col 2:12; 1Pe 3:21; Jer 31:31-34; Phi 3:3; Joh 1:12-13; Mat 21:43

29.3 The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, in which the person is to be baptised1 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.2

Mat 3:11; Act 8:36,38; 22:16
Mat 28:18-20

29.4 Immersion, or dipping the person in water, is essential for the proper administration of this ordinance.1
 
This is an interesting historical note concerning the old school GA where this was debated. It seems that at the same GA in 1845 (which was overwhelming in ruling against the validity of RC baptism, something like 169-9), came the decision on slavery. The GA voted to support slavery by a nearly equally wide margin: 168-13.

A quote from the dissertation that Bruce posted:

" It is worth noting that immediately after the baptism debate came the decision on the slavery question, which was decided 168-13 (see chapter six). Only ruling elder Samuel Hibben of Chillicothe Presbytery voted in the minority on both questions. One southern observer commented that the debate on Roman Catholic baptism “did much good every way. It had a happy tendency to harmonize the Assembly, and to bring them to great unanimity on other points. The subject of slavery excited much interest. There are but five or six abolitionists in the Assembly. With some of these I have become acquainted. They deserve more our sympathy than our abuse. They seem to be honest, well meaning men; but evidently deluded on this one subject.” “Letters from GA” WS 8.42 (June 5, 1845) 167."

Mark Noll says in America's God that U.S. Christians took a position on race-based, chattel slavery that was adopted by virtually no other orthodox Christians anywhere in the world. Indeed, see the snippy correspondence that the Old School GA sent to the Irish Presbyterians around this time. He put this oddity down to a matter of cultural hermeneutics. Perhaps the same could be said for their views on Romish baptism?

How in the world is slavery relevant to the validity of RC baptism? You completely lost me here. If your argument is that the GA's decision on RC baptism is worthless because it ALSO voted the way it did on slavery, then it is the argument that is worthless. Why bring this up at all?

The point is that there was a tendency towards certain odd notions among the Old School Presbyterians owing to the social and cultural circumstances in which they found themselves in during the antebellum era. Keep in mind that American Presbyterians were generally antislavery at the time of the Revolution/Early Republic, but later moved in a proslavery direction as chattelism became more culturally respectable and economically beneficial. Hence the use of Mark Noll's term cultural hermeneutics.

As providence would have it, this morning I have been reading Gordon Wood's overview of the early republic, Empire of Liberty (OUP, 2009). On pp 591ff, He mentions that the RCs were a small minority in 1790 and that under Bishop John Carroll of Maryland they adopted what could be termed a form "Republican Catholicism" (my term), which sought to promote independence from the Vatican, the use of an English liturgy and Bible translation, religious tolerance as part of a multi-denominational society, and the separation of church and state.

The face of Roman Catholicism in America changed markedly during the nineteenth-century owing to mass immigration from Europe. This phenomenon led to fears of a Popish take-over of the United States. Understanding this development is crucial to comprehending the context in which the Old School Presbyterians formulated their novel views respecting Romish baptism, which was probably partly a reaction to both increased Roman Catholic immigration and to cultural "no-popery".
 
Two ships might cross paths going in completely opposite directions. The slavery issue seems to fall into this category. Items regularly come before church courts without any connection with other items, and final decisions can be made simply as a matter of course.
 
Two ships might cross paths going in completely opposite directions. The slavery issue seems to fall into this category. Items regularly come before church courts without any connection with other items, and final decisions can be made simply as a matter of course.

Yes, indeed, thanks for this, Matthew.
 
Obviously it would be an absurdity to argue that because someone was wrong on racial slavery that therefore they must also be wrong on RC baptism. I do not, however, think that was the point that Ben was making. The point was that American Presbyterians at this time had a tendency to adopt certain idiosyncratic views, which should make us wary thinking that their position came about as a result of disinterested analysis of the issue. I strongly suspect that both their geographic isolation from other Protestants and the wider social and cultural context of antebellum America, especially in relation to widespread RC immigration, had a lot to do with their approach to the issue of RC baptism. Conversely, however, an opponent of the validity of RC baptism could argue that these historical circumstances came about in the providence of God as a means of giving the American Presbyterians a sounder understanding of the question.

For those interested in the development of Presbyterian views on the chattel slavery issue, I am currently reading a rather interesting pamphlet by George Bourne:

https://archive.org/stream/addresstopresbyt00bour#page/n3/mode/2up
 
Daniel (and Ben):

As one who has done a good deal of research into these General Assemblies (in the 1840's-60s) of the PCUSA as part of the work that I have done on Hodge and the Spirituality of the Church, I can assure you that you are not "barking up the wrong tree." As I am seeking to publish in this area (an article is coming out, but I am also hoping to publish a monograph), I'll not say a great deal here but just a bit.

While it is rather complex, there are all sorts of connections here, particularly with the PCUSA wanting to maintain the "bond of union" (of the nation) at virutally all cost, even acting in contravention, arguably, to its excellent 1818 statement condemning slavery. The 1845 GA did not approve slavery as such (being critical as usual of its obvious abuses), but was more critical of abolition than even the abuses of chattel slavery, and sought to turn the temperature down on the debate in order to save the nation, and the church, from disunion.

Part of the concern here was also the mass of RC immigrants coming here and diluting the British Protestant heritage. Not a few in the Whig party expressed such and the "Know-Nothings" were formed to secure this; not a small number of Old Schoolers resonated with these concerns/convictions. At this time, all sorts of outside political convictions seemed to be influencing GA actions, including what the GA did with regards to slavery and RC baptism (by which Hodge, as I noted above, was quite surprised and dismayed). Again, much more could be said here, but I would posit some rather significant connections between these things that may elude those, understandably, who are not historians of the period.

Peace,
Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top