In what sense is Rome part of the Church?

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by puritansailor
This isn't about Donatism though. The Donatists were doctrinally the same for the most part as the Catholics. They simply rejected the ordination (and thus the baptisms) of preists who recanted under persecution. It's a completely different case for Rome today. They don't have a doctrinal similarity at all regarding the gospel. They don't have the gospel. They are not ministers of Christ nor Christians in any sense because they reject the gospel. If this was about accepting Lutheran or Anglican baptism, or the validity of baptisms from a backslidden minister, then perhaps we could pull the donatism card. The question is not whether Rome's baptism is valid, but rather can it be called baptism at all? Or is it just a non-Christian initiatory right into a non-Christian (even anti-christian) religion? You have unbeleivers being sprinkled with water by unbelieving men opposed to the gospel, being incorporated into a non- Christian religion. The only similarity is the Trinitarian formula. I just don't see how we can call that Christian baptism.

The fact remains that Donatists were schismatics, heretics, who were outside the visible church, by judicial determination of the true church. According to the Webmaster, "separation from the visible church is not schismatic, but apostasy." Therefore, I think that the example of the Donatists is perfectly relevant to the way the Puritans viewed Rome, ie., as Rome having separated herself from the true church by her apostacy yet retaining sufficient characteristics of the church to remain within the visible church and administer valid baptisms (like the Donatists); hence, Rutherford and the Westminster Assembly and indeed the entire worldwide Presbyterian Church before Thornwell were quite right to acknowledge the validity of Roman baptism while not shying away from affirming that the Papacy was Antichrist.

Again, the difference is that the Donatists doctrinally were still Christians. They fought over a minor issue, ordination. Yes, they were schismatic, but they did not reject the gospel. Rome is more than schismatic. They have completely rejected the faith for another false gospel. And they view there "baptism" as an integeral part of their whole system of incorporation into their false religion. I can't stress that enough. They use it as an initiatory right into their false religion. This is what Mormons do. Baptism is an initiatory right into their false religion as well. Yet they are not considerd part of the church. Perhaps if we looked at their initiatory rights in the light of how the false religions describe and use them, then perhaps we can come to a conclusion on how to view what they call "baptism"?

So do you agree or not that the Donatists were cut off from the true visible Church (out of which there is no possibility of salvation) and yet their baptisms can be valid?

Andrew,

I may be missing something here, but your entire analogy with the Donatists is flawed. They were not heretics. Technically, they were not schismatics either. It was the Donatists who questioned the efficacy of the sacraments conducted by others (i.e. the traditores), not the other way around. As far as I know, no one questioned baptisms done by Donatist ministers. No one said that the Donatists were a false church.

So I think you need to try another analogy.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Cut off from the faith? No. Schismatic? Perhaps. But they were still Christians. The 3 marks were present their regardless of their error regarding ordination. If the Donatists had rejected Christianity then I don't think the Catholics would have been so willing to accept their baptisms. Again I am open to correction here, but Rome is a different animal than the Donatists. A case could be made for legitimate ordinations and baptisms in the days of the Reformers under Donatism, but not after Trent. After Trent we are no longer dealing with schism but a true church (Protestantism) verses a false religion (Rome).

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Andrew,

I may be missing something here, but your entire analogy with the Donatists is flawed. They were not heretics. Technically, they were not schismatics either. It was the Donatists who questioned the efficacy of the sacraments conducted by others (i.e. the traditores), not the other way around. As far as I know, no one questioned baptisms done by Donatist ministers. No one said that the Donatists were a false church.

So I think you need to try another analogy.

It sounds like your definition of heresy is different than the common historic Christian understanding of heresy. Is there anyone (orthodox) you can cite who believes that Donatists were neither heretics nor schismatics?

If the Donatists weren't heretics and they weren't schismatics, how exactly would you classify them? They separated themselves from the true church (thinking they were more pure than the true church and that those who wilted under persecution must be rebaptized under the pains of hell if they did not) and were condemned as heretics by the true church.

The orthodox Christian Church since the time of the Council of Arles (314) and First Council of Nicea (325) has made it clear that Donatism is heresy and schismatic.

George Gillespie on Heresy:

Heretics are deceivers and seducers, who endeavour to pervert others and to overthrow their faith, 2 Tim. 3:13; Acts 20:30; 2 Tim. 2:17-18; Rom. 16:17-19; 2 Pet. 2:2. All known and noted heretics are also schismatics, who make a rupture, and strengthen their own party by drawing after them, or confirming unto them disciples and followers (in so much that [Gk.] heresis often used for a sect, as Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5; 26:5). For this cause the Donatists were condemned as heretics, without imputation of heresy to Cyprian.

Francis Turretin:

III. Here therefore we think the question can be solved by distinguishing between heretics. For there are some who corrupt the substance of baptism and omit or change the form of institution; such as were the ancient Arians, who denied a Trinity of persons in unity of essence, and the modern Socinians. Others, while they retain substantials and defend the true doctrine of the holy Trinity contained in the formula of baptism, "œerr on the other heads of doctrine"; as the ancient Novatians and Donatists, and the modern Romanists and Arminians. As to the former, we judge that baptism administered by them is null, and so they are not properly to be rebaptized, but baptized, who have been baptized by such heretics, because they evidently corrupt the essential form of baptism, to which the invocation of the Trinity belongs. For this reason, the baptism of the Arians, who baptized "œin the Father, the only true God, in Jesus Christ, the Savior and a creature, and in the Holy Spirit, the servant of both" (according to the testimony of Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians 9 [NPNF2, 6:324;PL 23.172] and Athanasius, "œContra Arianos, Oratio tertia," Opera omnia [1627], 1:430-31). Still a distinction must be made here again. For either the minister alone was infected with that heresy or the whole church with him. If the latter, we deny it to be a true baptism. If the former (to wit, if the church thinks rightly, notwithstanding the error of the pastor, if he is a secret heretic), provided the formula of Christ be retained, we believe the baptism to be valid and that it is not necessary to rebaptize those who have been once baptized. The sacrament is the property of the church, which is administered in her name and in her faith. On this account, the hidden error of the minister detracts nothing from the integrity of the baptism, provided the essentials are observed and nothing is changed in the word or element. Hence it is evident what reply should be made to the question which can be put, whether the baptism administered in an orthodox church by a minister imbued with Antitrinitarian or Jewish errors (but not detected) is valid. Undoubtedly, the public faith of the church is here to be considered, into which he (who is baptized) is introduced and the promises made to him by Christ. Since these do not depend upon the minister, he (however deeply tainted with secret heresy) cannot render them useless and void.

Samuel Rutherford:

CONSIDERATION ONE. There is a separation Negative, or a non-union, and a separation Positive. Though a Church of Schismatics retains the sound faith, yet separating from others, be deserted by any, it is a Negative separation from a true church, and laudable, as the faithful, in Augustine´s time, did well in separating from the Donatists, for with them they were never one, in that faction, though they separated not from the true faith held by Donatists, but kept a Positive union with them, so do all the faithful well to separate from the churches of the Separatists.

Webmaster:

The Donatists, then, became schismatic "“ the very thing they thought they were trying to reject.

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Since your critique of the Roman view of the Trinity and hence baptism seems to be based on their view of justification by faith alone, do you also reject the validity of baptisms by any Arminian church?

If it is theologically erred, I would reject that as well.

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Since your critique of the Roman view of the Trinity and hence baptism seems to be based on their view of justification by faith alone, do you also reject the validity of baptisms by any Arminian church?

If it is theologically erred, I would reject that as well.

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]

Care to elaborate?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Only a true church can administer the sacraments. If the person administering the sacrament is not ordained lawfully or the group overseeing the sacrament, i.e. a self proclaimed church, does not have the 3 marks that make up a true church, the sacrament would not be biblical or one that Christ had commanded.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Only a true church can administer the sacraments. If the person administering the sacrament is not ordained lawfully or the group overseeing the sacrament, i.e. a self proclaimed church, does not have the 3 marks that make up a true church, the sacrament would not be biblical or one that Christ had commanded.

Then I take it you would not accept a baptism performed by an Independent church as valid, for example, because it lacks the mark of proper church discipline and administration of the sacraments -- correct?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Only a true church can administer the sacraments. If the person administering the sacrament is not ordained lawfully or the group overseeing the sacrament, i.e. a self proclaimed church, does not have the 3 marks that make up a true church, the sacrament would not be biblical or one that Christ had commanded.

Then I take it you would not accept a baptism performed by an Independent church as valid, for example, because it lacks the mark of proper church discipline and administration of the sacraments -- correct?

If they lack the 3 marks of a true church, correct. I would not.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Only a true church can administer the sacraments. If the person administering the sacrament is not ordained lawfully or the group overseeing the sacrament, i.e. a self proclaimed church, does not have the 3 marks that make up a true church, the sacrament would not be biblical or one that Christ had commanded.

Then I take it you would not accept a baptism performed by an Independent church as valid, for example, because it lacks the mark of proper church discipline and administration of the sacraments -- correct?

If they lack the 3 marks of a true church, correct. I would not.

I think that your position means that you would only accept certain Presbyterian/Reformed church baptisms as valid -- am I missing something?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Only a true church can administer the sacraments. If the person administering the sacrament is not ordained lawfully or the group overseeing the sacrament, i.e. a self proclaimed church, does not have the 3 marks that make up a true church, the sacrament would not be biblical or one that Christ had commanded.

Then I take it you would not accept a baptism performed by an Independent church as valid, for example, because it lacks the mark of proper church discipline and administration of the sacraments -- correct?

If they lack the 3 marks of a true church, correct. I would not.

I think that your position means that you would only accept certain Presbyterian/Reformed church baptisms as valid -- am I missing something?

There are independants that (in my opinion) are in error, yet have the three marks........I would accept that.

 

[Saiph]

Only a true church can administer the sacraments. If the person administering the sacrament is not ordained lawfully or the group overseeing the sacrament, i.e. a self proclaimed church, does not have the 3 marks that make up a true church, the sacrament would not be biblical or one that Christ had commanded.

So how is donatism different than your view?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Only a true church can administer the sacraments. If the person administering the sacrament is not ordained lawfully or the group overseeing the sacrament, i.e. a self proclaimed church, does not have the 3 marks that make up a true church, the sacrament would not be biblical or one that Christ had commanded.

Then I take it you would not accept a baptism performed by an Independent church as valid, for example, because it lacks the mark of proper church discipline and administration of the sacraments -- correct?

If they lack the 3 marks of a true church, correct. I would not.

I think that your position means that you would only accept certain Presbyterian/Reformed church baptisms as valid -- am I missing something?

There are independants that (in my opinion) are in error, yet have the three marks........I would accept that.

How do you define the three marks?

My understanding is:

1. Sound doctrine
2. Right administration of the sacraments
3. Right administration of discipline

By my count, a typical Reformed Independent Baptist congregation, for example, would not, by definition, meet the standard of marks #2 and #3.

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Mark,
Good to see ya! You've been missed!

Enlighten me. I am all ears.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Only a true church can administer the sacraments. If the person administering the sacrament is not ordained lawfully or the group overseeing the sacrament, i.e. a self proclaimed church, does not have the 3 marks that make up a true church, the sacrament would not be biblical or one that Christ had commanded.

Then I take it you would not accept a baptism performed by an Independent church as valid, for example, because it lacks the mark of proper church discipline and administration of the sacraments -- correct?

If they lack the 3 marks of a true church, correct. I would not.

I think that your position means that you would only accept certain Presbyterian/Reformed church baptisms as valid -- am I missing something?

There are independants that (in my opinion) are in error, yet have the three marks........I would accept that.

How do you define the three marks?

My understanding is:

1. Sound doctrine
2. Right administration of the sacraments
3. Right administration of discipline

By my count, a typical Reformed Independent Baptist congregation, for example, would not, by defintion, meet the standard of marks #2 and #3.

So, are you saying that all independants are not true churches? All I see us doing here is chasing our tails. In fact, it has divided even you and I Andrew (not in a bad way, mind you). But all this is showing is that even though you and I agree on much, when taken to the minutia, we disagree as well.

 

[Saiph]

Just giving you a hard time. You are attacking the church not the efficacy of the eucharist right ?


I am looking for a Church. Our pastor retired and the assembly was too small to call a new Ruling Elder.

Been considering the Anglican Mission in America . . .

How is your family ? ?

 

[Scott Bushey]

We're doing well mark. See my avatar. Zoe is growing like a weed. 2 years old. She prays with us and even gives a hearty AMEN! afterwards!

Please take the time to read over the thread and correct me where I am missing it.

I have read Andrews position as well as considered N. Lee's paper on Calvin. However, I cannot get passed the fact that if it is formula alone, where do we draw the line?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
So, are you saying that all independants are not true churches? All I see us doing here is chasing our tails. In fact, it has divided even you and I Andrew (not in a bad way, mind you). But all this is showing is that even though you and I agree on much, when taken to the minutia, we disagree as well.

Now we are getting back to the distinction that I have been trying to make which is the difference between true and material churches. I accept both Independent and Roman Catholic churches are falling under the umbrella of material churches (of course I distinguish between the false gospel of Romanism and the true gospel of Reformed Independent churches). But your criteria as set forth does not seem to allow for the validity of many baptisms outside Presbyterianism.

It sounds from your definition of what constitutes a valid baptism you would have to logically exclude all but Reformed and Presbyterian church baptisms because anything else is not going to meet the standards of the three marks of a true church. I am trying to reiterate your position and take it to its logical conclusion, but I am not seeking to put words in your mouth, so I welcome clarification, but it seems to me that your argument is indeed a non-Presbyterian approach to the validity of baptism by churches that don't meet your standard because you would necessarily require the re-baptism of just about everybody.

Yes, I know that you and I agree on so many things and I wish this issue wasn't so troublesome for us. On one hand, it is a matter of theological minutia but on the other it has enormous practical implications.

I am weary of the rabbit trails too, my friend, but it has been educational to try to flesh out our respective views on ecclesiology and baptism.

Just so you know I have been and continue to be greatly blessed by your friendship, brother. God bless you, my friend.

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Saiph]

Wow kids grow so fast . . I will send you a recent picture of my kids and I in U2u.

brother the answer is simple. ANY christian can administer the sacraments.
But it is normative that Elders or fathers do it.

Who circumcised ? ? Who served passover ? ?

(Even Zipporah did the slicing when Moses failed)

Are we making the eldership Levitical ? ? Who ordained Melchizedek ? ?

 

[Peter]

Hodge:

We may say that a church is a society in which the pure word of God is preached, the sacraments duly administered, and discipline properly exercised by legitimate officers. This, however, is a description of a pure and orderly church, and not an enumeration of the essential attributes of such a body. If we use that description as a definition, we must exclude all but orthodox Presbyterians from the pale of the church. The eastern churches, the church of England, the Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists would without exception be cut off. Every one of these classes of Christians fails, according to our standard, in some one or more of the above specifications. They are all defective either as to doctrine, or as to the sacraments, or as to the proper exercise of discipline, or as to the organs through which such discipline is exercised.

Thanks for that link Andrew.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Peter
Hodge:

We may say that a church is a society in which the pure word of God is preached, the sacraments duly administered, and discipline properly exercised by legitimate officers. This, however, is a description of a pure and orderly church, and not an enumeration of the essential attributes of such a body. If we use that description as a definition, we must exclude all but orthodox Presbyterians from the pale of the church. The eastern churches, the church of England, the Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists would without exception be cut off. Every one of these classes of Christians fails, according to our standard, in some one or more of the above specifications. They are all defective either as to doctrine, or as to the sacraments, or as to the proper exercise of discipline, or as to the organs through which such discipline is exercised.

Thanks for that link Andrew.

 

[Arch2k]

I am reading Rutherfurd Against Separatism, and ran across some quotes that are relevant to the discussion in this thread, and thought I would share them.

DISTINCTION NINE. So that the truth is, [there is] not a formal, ministerial and visible active external calling in the Church of Rome, as it is a visible church, in the which we can safely remain, though fundamentals are safe in Rome, and the books of the Old and New Testaments are there; yet are they not there ministerially as in a mother whose breasts we can suck. For fundamental points falsely exponed, cease to be fundamental points; yea, as they are ministerially in Rome, they are destructive of the foundation, though there are some ministerial acts valid in that church, for the which the Church of Rome is called a true church, in some respect, according to something essential to the true church; yet never sine adjecto [without addition], as if it were a true church where we can worship God.

One Theological, Moral and Ecclesiastic, as the doctrine of the Counsel of Trent, which is in a ministerial way, with professed obstinacy, against the fundamental truths rightly exponed, and such an aversion of the foundation makes the Popish Church no church truly visible, whose breasts we can suck.

The Orthodox believers agreed with the Novations against the Arians about the consubstansiality of Christ; and though excommunicate persons defend and hold all fundamentals sound, and so may be materially a true church, yet because their profession is no profession, but a denying of the power of godliness, they cannot be formally a visible church, but are for scandals cast out of the visible church.

For the truth is, the essence and definition of a church agrees not equally to a true church and a visible church; yea a visible church as it is visible is not formally a true church, but the redeemed church only is the true church.

 

[Peter]

1. When determining whether a particular church is a member of the visible church we must be careful to examine it by the definition of a church, not a description of the ideal church. The 3 marks of the church are description not a definition. If they were a definition of the ben esse of a church they would exclude Congregationalists (discipline), Reformed Baptists (sacrament, discipline), and every other church except orthodox Presbyterians. 2. A particular church of the visible church is (a) an organized group, (b) gathered for worship and discipline, (c) that professes the true faith, (d) and is under a common tribunal. 3. It is obvious the Church of Rome meets a,b & d. 4. Rome professes the true faith materially and therefore may be considered church materially. That is, they believe what is essential to salvation, viz. they believe the OT and NT, the believe the ecumenical creeds, etc. However, ministerially, ie, when they expound upon these truths they teach heresy.