# Roman Catholic Baptism (poll "do over")



## CalvinandHodges

[Moderator NOTE: To avoid confusion, please vote on the poll question yea or nay as it is phrased rather than yea or nay on the question as phrased below.]
Hey:

If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?


----------



## Calvibaptist

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hey:
> 
> If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?



OK, so your OP is the complete reverse of your poll...

But, since I am a Baptist, you know what my answer is going to be. Of course they would need to be re-baptized. The RCC, despite its trinitarian formula in baptism, is not a Christian church. They do not rightly uphold the gospel or the sacraments (ordinances). Therefore, the baptism is illegitimate.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Calvibaptist said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey:
> 
> If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so your OP is the complete reverse of your poll...
> 
> But, since I am a Baptist, you know what my answer is going to be. Of course they would need to be re-baptized. The RCC, despite its trinitarian formula in baptism, is not a Christian church. They do not rightly uphold the gospel or the sacraments (ordinances). Therefore, the baptism is illegitimate.
Click to expand...

Hi:

Trying to keep you on your toes! 

Would a paedo-baptist from a Presbyterian Church who converted to credo baptism need to be re-baptized?

Grace,

-CH


----------



## AV1611

oops, my "No" ought be a "yes" in the poll.


----------



## SRoper

OK, so I answered the question "Roman Catholic Baptism is it legitimate?"


----------



## SRoper

You should probably throw out this poll and start a new one since people are answering different questions.


----------



## Brian Kooshian

CalvinandHodges said:


> Would a paedo-baptist from a Presbyterian Church who converted to credo baptism need to be re-baptized?



I hope you don't mind if I jump in here.

We had a situation similar to this in my (Reformed Baptist) church, and our conclusion was that since the paedo-baptist person involved was only sprinkled as an infant, then in order to become a member of our church they needed to be baptized as a believer.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Calvibaptist said:


> The RCC, despite its trinitarian formula in baptism, is not a Christian church. They do not rightly uphold the gospel or the sacraments (ordinances). Therefore, the baptism is illegitimate.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon




----------



## Machaira

Calvibaptist said:


> The RCC, despite its trinitarian formula in baptism, is not a Christian church. They do not rightly uphold the gospel or the sacraments (ordinances). Therefore, the baptism is illegitimate.


----------



## ChristianTrader

C. Matthew McMahon said:


>



WWTS, What would Turretin say 

http://www.puritanboard.com/archive/index.php/t-8879.html

CT


----------



## RamistThomist

ChristianTrader said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WWTS, What would Turretin say
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/archive/index.php/t-8879.html
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Aww snap!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

The Reformed Churches and Roman Catholic Baptism: An Anthology of Principle Texts


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Rutherford: A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland (1642)*

Rutherford says this in his _A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland (1642)_ in chapter 10 (see the section and others against Separatism online):


> Hence shortly, I say, the Court of Rome as Popish, is the falling-sickness of the church, not the church. But the same court teaching something of Christ (baptism, good works, etc.) has something of the life and being of a church; howbeit she is not a whole church, her skin being leprous, pocky and polluted.
> 
> 1. Because in a church that is no church, there cannot be a true seal of God’s covenant; but in the Court of Rome there is true baptism, for we baptize not again children once baptized there. Some of the Separation called it idol-baptism, and no baptism, which is Anabaptism. For then all converted Papists must be baptized again, no less than converted Turks or Jews. But (1.), the covenant is there, _Come out of her my people_; then their baptism confirms this covenant. (2.) Circumcision even in apostate Israel is true circumcision; her [children] the Lord’s [children] (_Ezk. 16:21_). He is Israel’s God, _the holy one of Israel in the midst thereof._ In Hezekiah’s reformation the people _ate the Passover,_ and yet all _had corrupted their ways,_ and had been a long time worshipping Idols, and they are not (_2 Chron. 30_) circumcised again; and yet (_Ex. 12_) none but the circumcised might eat the Passover.


----------



## tellville

I'm confused. I thought Presbyterians would 100% accept Roman Catholic Baptism because obviously Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin thought it was acceptable otherwise they would have been rebaptised. Am I missing something?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

tellville said:


> I'm confused. I thought Presbyterians would 100% accept Roman Catholic Baptism because obviously Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin thought it was acceptable otherwise they would have been rebaptised. Am I missing something?


Yes; you are missing Thornwell and the dominant view in Southern Presbyterianism since.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Roman Catholic Baptism*

Since some have been confused by the OP and the thread requiring opposite answers as phrased, I have restarted the thread and folks can re-vote.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Calvibaptist said:


> The RCC, despite its trinitarian formula in baptism, is not a Christian church. They do not rightly uphold the gospel or the sacraments (ordinances). Therefore, the baptism is illegitimate.



I agree. 

Roman Catholic baptism is illegitimate.

Yes, a person who is converted to Christ needs to be rebaptised if he was baptised a Roman Catholic.


----------



## RamistThomist

I voted yes that they are valid. This summer I looked a little more deeply into Thornwell's arguments. I am more appreciative of it but I still demur.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I voted No. It seems to me that the magisterial Reformers wrote at a different time and were not dealing with a Church that had completely repudiated the Gospel yet by its official teaching. RCC baptism in no way resembles Christian baptism except that it uses some words that are the same.

It's kind of like asking if the Judaizer's circumcision is the same as Abraham's.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I voted that Roman baptism is no baptism at all.


----------



## Herald

I stand with my brothers who voted that Roman Catholic baptism is no baptism at all.


----------



## tellville

Ok, just so I understand, when Luther and Calvin and all the other Reformers left the RCC Presbyterians would view their baptisms as still valid because the Council of Trent had not yet been convened and thus had not yet officially decreed against the Gospel. But once Rome had officially repudiated the Gospel through the Council of Trent that was when RCC Baptism became officially invalid?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

tellville said:


> Ok, just so I understand, when Luther and Calvin and all the other Reformers left the RCC Presbyterians would view their baptisms as still valid because the Council of Trent had not yet been convened and thus had not yet officially decreed against the Gospel. But once Rome had officially repudiated the Gospel through the Council of Trent that was when RCC Baptism became officially invalid?


Well, that's the position I think of later Presbyterians like Thornwell, but it was not the position of Presbyterians like Rutherford 80 years after Trent and for most of the 18th century; not sure of the change over period, but a movement began in the PCUSA prior to Thornwell at some point; someone up on this might chime in.


----------



## Pilgrim

NaphtaliPress said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, just so I understand, when Luther and Calvin and all the other Reformers left the RCC Presbyterians would view their baptisms as still valid because the Council of Trent had not yet been convened and thus had not yet officially decreed against the Gospel. But once Rome had officially repudiated the Gospel through the Council of Trent that was when RCC Baptism became officially invalid?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's the position I think of later Presbyterians like Thornwell, but it was not the position of Presbyterians like Rutherford 80 years after Trent and for most of the 18th century; not sure of the change over period, but a movement began in the PCUSA prior to Thornwell at some point; someone up on this might chime in.
Click to expand...


Indeed. What has changed in Rome's teaching since then? The Reformers before and after Trent continued to uphold the validity of Rome's baptism. Yet most often we hear the line about the Reformers being prior to Trent, which as Chris noted is demonstrably false. I suppose the reluctance for those who disagree with the Reformers (both magisterial as well as "second reformation") to just come out say that they believe the Reformers were wrong on this issue is understandable.


----------



## Pilgrim

Also, the poll results are skewed since by my count 7 of the 15 to this point who have voted no are baptists, most of whom, if they are immersionists and not just antipaedobaptists of course view anything other than immersion as invalid anyway. That Baptists would view Rome's baptism as invalid is no surprise at all.


----------



## Herald

Pilgrim said:


> Also, the poll results are skewed since by my count 7 of the 15 to this point who have voted no are baptists, most of whom, if they are immersionists and not just antipaedobaptists of course view anything other than immersion as invalid anyway. That Baptists would view Rome's baptism as invalid is no surprise at all.



Give us credos a bit more credit than that. My stand against Roman baptism is that Roman Catholicism is no longer a true church. I tend to lean more towards John Piper's view of paedobaptistism (although the elders of his church voted against his view). Your response is rather ad hominem and based on a presupposition.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

You may not know this, but the question was a subject of heated debate in the Southern Presbyterian Church back inthe mid-1800's. James Henly Thornwell came out strong against accepting RC baptism, vol. 3 in his Works. However, in the end, the majority vote in the General Assembly was to accept RC baptism.

Peace,

-CH


----------



## Pilgrim

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> You may not know this, but the question was a subject of heated debate in the Southern Presbyterian Church back inthe mid-1800's. James Henly Thornwell came out strong against accepting RC baptism, vol. 3 in his Works. However, in the end, the majority vote in the General Assembly was to accept RC baptism.
> 
> Peace,
> 
> -CH



In fact, the overwhelming majority vote in the 1845 (I believe it was) Old School GA was *against* the validity of RC Baptism, apparently the first Presbyterian or Reformed church to adopt such a stance.


----------



## Pilgrim

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the poll results are skewed since by my count 7 of the 15 to this point who have voted no are baptists, most of whom, if they are immersionists and not just antipaedobaptists of course view anything other than immersion as invalid anyway. That Baptists would view Rome's baptism as invalid is no surprise at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give us credos a bit more credit than that. My stand against Roman baptism is that Roman Catholicism is no longer a true church. I tend to lean more towards John Piper's view of paedobaptistism (although the elders of his church voted against his view). Your response is rather ad hominem and based on a presupposition.
Click to expand...


I don't think it was ad hominem. My point is that this has been a controversy among American Presbyterians since the mid 1800's but it is no controversy at all among Baptists.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Pilgrim said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> You may not know this, but the question was a subject of heated debate in the Southern Presbyterian Church back inthe mid-1800's. James Henly Thornwell came out strong against accepting RC baptism, vol. 3 in his Works. However, in the end, the majority vote in the General Assembly was to accept RC baptism.
> 
> Peace,
> 
> -CH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the overwhelming majority vote in the 1845 (I believe it was) Old School GA was *against* the validity of RC Baptism, apparently the first Presbyterian or Reformed church to adopt such a stance.
Click to expand...

Hey:

You are right - my bad. Somewhere I heard that the vote was against Thornwell - though I never really studied it. I now looked it up and found that Thornwell won on a vote of 168-6 with 7 abstentions.

PCA position paper on the subject:

PCA Position Papers: Baptism - Appendix P - Report of the Study Committee on Question Relating to the Validity of Certain Baptisms (1987)

Thanks, again,

-CH


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pilgrim said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the poll results are skewed since by my count 7 of the 15 to this point who have voted no are baptists, most of whom, if they are immersionists and not just antipaedobaptists of course view anything other than immersion as invalid anyway. That Baptists would view Rome's baptism as invalid is no surprise at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give us credos a bit more credit than that. My stand against Roman baptism is that Roman Catholicism is no longer a true church. I tend to lean more towards John Piper's view of paedobaptistism (although the elders of his church voted against his view). Your response is rather ad hominem and based on a presupposition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it was ad hominem. My point is that this has been a controversy among American Presbyterians since the mid 1800's but it is no controversy at all among Baptists.
Click to expand...


Chris,
The answers are skewed if this was a question intended for Presbyterian's alone. But since there was no such indication that the poll was for Presbyterian's alone the skewing charge is false. Baptist's hold to a credo stance whether it be immersion or any other method of baptism by default. 

Now Concerning Bills, and Dr. Piper's position....
Here is a blurb I wrote concerning Piper and this issue. He openly critiqued Wayne Grudem for some new convictions and revision on this doctrinal issue in his updated Systematic Theology. Response to Grudem on Baptism and Church Membership :: Desiring God



> I use to hold to Pipers view that the Baptism debate needs to take a back seat to Church membership. In fact, I had great admiration for the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland because they hold this view. But as of the last few years my convictions have sharpened a bit.
> 
> I have always held a view that a local congregation is not the whole body of Christ. Unity and Union are very important but Unity and Union are two different issues in my opinion. Union seems to have more of a connection to something than unity. When a union is entered into an attachment is achieved whereby others are put together as one. . Unity to me is a state or quality of being in accord or working harmoniously together. We all have Union with Christ as His body. But congregationally or denominationally we are like many members who may not be directly connected to each other. But we must be walking and working together in unity.
> 
> In our separate confessional standards we have a Union with each other because of our Head Christ Jesus. 1689ers and WCFers so to speak have unions in their confessions. It is convicton and confession that binds the confessors into a union though.
> 
> At this point there are a few issues that one goup must call the other out on. I do know Presbyterians and Baptists who accuse the other of sin if one does not line up with the convictions of the other. The Baptist is accused of the sin of anabaptism by some Presbyterian's along with the sin of not applying the seal of the covenant upon their children. These are not light issues as Piper does not address them. Some Baptist's accuse Presbyterian's of poor hermeneutics in their understanding of Covenant Theology and sinning by not following Christ's command that disciples must be baptised as repentant converts of Christ. Disciples can not be infants or church members in the Final Covenant because one must first exhibit cognizant confessional capabilities. Therefore the Presbyterian is knowingly admitting an unregenerate unforgiven Church membership that is not acknowledged in Jeremiah 31 or the New Covenant.
> 
> There are major differences that do not promote a denominational Union and would in fact be a place where division would be caused by doctrinal differences. At the same time I do believe we can walk in Unity. For we have much more in Common because of our confessional beliefs. The LBCF and WCF are very close to each other. For instance the Person and Work of Christ as laid out in our confessions is spot on, and both of our Confessions hold to a bi-covenantal structure. These are things we can walk in Unity concerning our faith and Practice. And our Union is truly with the Son of God.
> 
> I was a member in a RPCNA church when I was in my 20's. I have also been a PCA member. I joined the PCA with a promise to not cause any fuss over the issue of Baptism. And I didn't. I could never hold a position of authority in that Church because of my beliefs and my non adherence to the WCF. So another question for me to Piper would be.... Why in tarnations would you limit someone like R. C. Sproul, Pipa, Ryken, or any other good Presbyterian in a Baptist Church membership, or would you limit them? Would they be able to live out their convictions in good conscience in a 1689 confessional Church, or in your Reformed Baptist Church? If you are truly a 1689 Covenantal Baptist you couldn't. But if they dwelt amongst themselves they would not be limited in such a way. I would not let them perform their gifts of Elder in a Baptist Church or we would be in a compromised position to hold to our doctrine in my opinion. But at the same time I do hold them as Elders in the Church of Christ in their distinct Presbyterian Union. And I dearly respect them as Elders.
> 
> The differences are to great in my estimation.



I posted this here for Bill more than anyone else. If you want to discuss this issue start another thread. I am not going to allow this thread to be hi-jacked into a Credo debate.

Blessings.


----------



## Romans922

NaphtaliPress said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused. I thought Presbyterians would 100% accept Roman Catholic Baptism because obviously Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin thought it was acceptable otherwise they would have been rebaptised. Am I missing something?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes; you are missing Thornwell and the dominant view in Southern Presbyterianism since.
Click to expand...


Hodge says differently than Thornwell (Southern Presbyterianism isn't always right).


WCF 27:3 The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them: *neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it* (Rom_2:28, Rom_2:29; 1Pe_3:21): but upon the work of the Spirit (Mat_3:11; 1Co_12:13), and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers (Mat_26:27, Mat_26:28; Mat_28:19, Mat_28:20).


WCF 28:7 *The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person* (Tit_3:5).


----------



## NaphtaliPress

This is true and if you note I agree it is true in this instance as well.


Romans922 said:


> Hodge says differently than Thornwell (Southern Presbyterianism isn't always right).


----------



## fredtgreco

NaphtaliPress said:


> This is true and if you note I agree it is true in this instance as well.
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hodge says differently than Thornwell (Southern Presbyterianism isn't always right).
Click to expand...


No, Chris, but it is here.


----------



## Machaira

Romans922 said:


> WCF 27:3 The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them: *neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it* (Rom_2:28, Rom_2:29; 1Pe_3:21): but upon the work of the Spirit (Mat_3:11; 1Co_12:13), and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers (Mat_26:27, Mat_26:28; Mat_28:19, Mat_28:20).
> 
> 
> WCF 28:7 *The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person* (Tit_3:5).



These points were addressed here:

PCA Position Papers: Baptism - Appendix P - Report of the Study Committee on Question Relating to the Validity of Certain Baptisms (1987)

Robert, 

Thanks for the link.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

CalvinandHodges said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey:
> 
> If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so your OP is the complete reverse of your poll...
> 
> But, since I am a Baptist, you know what my answer is going to be. Of course they would need to be re-baptized. The RCC, despite its trinitarian formula in baptism, is not a Christian church. They do not rightly uphold the gospel or the sacraments (ordinances). Therefore, the baptism is illegitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Trying to keep you on your toes!
> 
> Would a paedo-baptist from a Presbyterian Church who converted to credo baptism need to be re-baptized?
> 
> Grace,
> 
> -CH
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## Herald

CredoCovenanter said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give us credos a bit more credit than that. My stand against Roman baptism is that Roman Catholicism is no longer a true church. I tend to lean more towards John Piper's view of paedobaptistism (although the elders of his church voted against his view). Your response is rather ad hominem and based on a presupposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it was ad hominem. My point is that this has been a controversy among American Presbyterians since the mid 1800's but it is no controversy at all among Baptists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris,
> The answers are skewed if this was a question intended for Presbyterian's alone. But since there was no such indication that the poll was for Presbyterian's alone the skewing charge is false. Baptist's hold to a credo stance whether it be immersion or any other method of baptism by default.
> 
> Now Concerning Bills, and Dr. Piper's position....
> Here is a blurb I wrote concerning Piper and this issue. He openly critiqued Wayne Grudem for some new convictions and revision on this doctrinal issue in his updated Systematic Theology. Response to Grudem on Baptism and Church Membership :: Desiring God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use to hold to Pipers view that the Baptism debate needs to take a back seat to Church membership. In fact, I had great admiration for the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland because they hold this view. But as of the last few years my convictions have sharpened a bit.
> 
> I have always held a view that a local congregation is not the whole body of Christ. Unity and Union are very important but Unity and Union are two different issues in my opinion. Union seems to have more of a connection to something than unity. When a union is entered into an attachment is achieved whereby others are put together as one. . Unity to me is a state or quality of being in accord or working harmoniously together. We all have Union with Christ as His body. But congregationally or denominationally we are like many members who may not be directly connected to each other. But we must be walking and working together in unity.
> 
> In our separate confessional standards we have a Union with each other because of our Head Christ Jesus. 1689ers and WCFers so to speak have unions in their confessions. It is convicton and confession that binds the confessors into a union though.
> 
> At this point there are a few issues that one goup must call the other out on. I do know Presbyterians and Baptists who accuse the other of sin if one does not line up with the convictions of the other. The Baptist is accused of the sin of anabaptism by some Presbyterian's along with the sin of not applying the seal of the covenant upon their children. These are not light issues as Piper does not address them. Some Baptist's accuse Presbyterian's of poor hermeneutics in their understanding of Covenant Theology and sinning by not following Christ's command that disciples must be baptised as repentant converts of Christ. Disciples can not be infants or church members in the Final Covenant because one must first exhibit cognizant confessional capabilities. Therefore the Presbyterian is knowingly admitting an unregenerate unforgiven Church membership that is not acknowledged in Jeremiah 31 or the New Covenant.
> 
> There are major differences that do not promote a denominational Union and would in fact be a place where division would be caused by doctrinal differences. At the same time I do believe we can walk in Unity. For we have much more in Common because of our confessional beliefs. The LBCF and WCF are very close to each other. For instance the Person and Work of Christ as laid out in our confessions is spot on, and both of our Confessions hold to a bi-covenantal structure. These are things we can walk in Unity concerning our faith and Practice. And our Union is truly with the Son of God.
> 
> I was a member in a RPCNA church when I was in my 20's. I have also been a PCA member. I joined the PCA with a promise to not cause any fuss over the issue of Baptism. And I didn't. I could never hold a position of authority in that Church because of my beliefs and my non adherence to the WCF. So another question for me to Piper would be.... Why in tarnations would you limit someone like R. C. Sproul, Pipa, Ryken, or any other good Presbyterian in a Baptist Church membership, or would you limit them? Would they be able to live out their convictions in good conscience in a 1689 confessional Church, or in your Reformed Baptist Church? If you are truly a 1689 Covenantal Baptist you couldn't. But if they dwelt amongst themselves they would not be limited in such a way. I would not let them perform their gifts of Elder in a Baptist Church or we would be in a compromised position to hold to our doctrine in my opinion. But at the same time I do hold them as Elders in the Church of Christ in their distinct Presbyterian Union. And I dearly respect them as Elders.
> 
> The differences are to great in my estimation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted this here for Bill more than anyone else. If you want to discuss this issue start another thread. I am not going to allow this thread to be hi-jacked into a Credo debate.
> 
> Blessings.
Click to expand...


Randy - let me rephrase and state that I sympathetic to Piper's position. But I am in agreement with you on keeping this from a credo vs. paedo debate. The real issue is on the validity of Roman baptism. I've made my position on that clear.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

CalvinandHodges said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey:
> 
> If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so your OP is the complete reverse of your poll...
> 
> But, since I am a Baptist, you know what my answer is going to be. Of course they would need to be re-baptized. The RCC, despite its trinitarian formula in baptism, is not a Christian church. They do not rightly uphold the gospel or the sacraments (ordinances). Therefore, the baptism is illegitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Trying to keep you on your toes!
> 
> Would a paedo-baptist from a Presbyterian Church who converted to credo baptism need to be re-baptized?
> 
> Grace,
> 
> -CH
Click to expand...


Just depends. Was he baptised upon his confession of faith and repentance or as an infant? But you knew the answer anyways. Your are baiting.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Gents,

Instead of saying who stated that RC Baptism was valid by the raising of hands, can you guys give me the basic gist of the arguments of those who claim that it is.

It just doesn't seem to me like any of the elements are present in terms of a valid baptism. I'm certainly not one who believes that it befalls fully to the "good intentions" of the baptizer or the person baptized for it to be Covenantally valid but it seems like a Priest really lacks any ability to be speaking in Christ's name as a minister declaring God's promises to them.


----------



## Kevin

I just clicked on this thread to see the results, and wow(!) I did not realise that the PB was made up of so many Baptists.

Not that I object to Baptist being part of the broader reformed church...I was just surprised to find out that they made up a (slight) majority here.


----------



## MW

I voted yes. The unfaithfulness of men does not nullify the faith of God. The sacrament depends upon the institution of God for its legitimacy, not on those who administer it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> I voted yes. The unfaithfulness of men does not nullify the faith of God. The sacrament depends upon the institution of God for its legitimacy, not on those who administer it.




Rev. Winzer,

What do you think about non Christian cults who invoke the name of the Trinity in their baptismal rites? Are they valid? I am not trying to argue with you. I just want to hear what you have to say. Thanks.


----------



## reformedcop

I voted yes. I agree with Reverend Winzer. Baptism is God's ordinance, not man's. If the element of water is used and invoked in the name of the Trinity, its good. I don't have any specific examples, but I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find baptisms administed within the protestant church where the minister turned out to be apostate. Is such a baptism invalid?


----------



## Pilgrim

SemperFideles said:


> Gents,
> 
> Instead of saying who stated that RC Baptism was valid by the raising of hands, can you guys give me the basic gist of the arguments of those who claim that it is.
> 
> It just doesn't seem to me like any of the elements are present in terms of a valid baptism. I'm certainly not one who believes that it befalls fully to the "good intentions" of the baptizer or the person baptized for it to be Covenantally valid but it seems like a Priest really lacks any ability to be speaking in Christ's name as a minister declaring God's promises to them.



Neither does a liberal protestant minister. Do the paedos here regard baptisms from more liberal churches like the UMC, PCUSA, ELCA ECUSA etc as invalid? To me for paedos to be consistent in rejecting RC baptism they should only accept baptisms from confessionally reformed churches.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

CredoCovenanter said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so your OP is the complete reverse of your poll...
> 
> But, since I am a Baptist, you know what my answer is going to be. Of course they would need to be re-baptized. The RCC, despite its trinitarian formula in baptism, is not a Christian church. They do not rightly uphold the gospel or the sacraments (ordinances). Therefore, the baptism is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Trying to keep you on your toes!
> 
> Would a paedo-baptist from a Presbyterian Church who converted to credo baptism need to be re-baptized?
> 
> Grace,
> 
> -CH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just depends. Was he baptised upon his confession of faith and repentance or as an infant? But you knew the answer anyways. Your are baiting.
Click to expand...


Hey:

I considered posting in the 1st post, "Baptists need not answer," but that seemed to me to cut out a response that may be valueable.

To me it seems obvious: Roman Catholic or Presbyterian baptism would be invalid to a credo baptist because there was no individual profession of faith at the time of baptism.

I asked about Presbyterianism because some Baptists here negate RC baptism for reasons other than the above. That is, RC baptism is false because the church itself is false. A Reformed Presbyterian Church is not false. Thus the question.

Grace,

-CH


----------



## MW

CredoCovenanter said:


> What do you think about non Christian cults who invoke the name of the Trinity in their baptismal rites? Are they valid? I am not trying to argue with you. I just want to hear what you have to say. Thanks.



I have to admit I haven't heard of it before now -- a "non Christian" cult invoking the name of the Trinity. Do you have any concrete examples of this in the land of the "free?" With Romanism we have the example of an apostate church. With liberal Protestantism we have the same scenario. But to talk of a non Christian cult invoking the Trinity sounds much like the idea of a round square -- it does not compute.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Is Roman Catholic baptism valid?

Since it is not carried out by a gospel minister in a true Christian church, it is not valid. Rome is a synagogue of Satan. Its baptism is no more valid than that of a man in the street throwing water over someone and invoking the name of the Trinity.

I recommend reading JH Thornwell on this issue.


----------



## Romans922

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Is Roman Catholic baptism valid?
> 
> Since it is not carried out by a gospel minister in a true Christian church, it is not valid. Rome is a synagogue of Satan. Its baptism is no more valid than that of a man in the street throwing water over someone and invoking the name of the Trinity.
> 
> I recommend reading JH Thornwell on this issue.



*neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it*


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think about non Christian cults who invoke the name of the Trinity in their baptismal rites? Are they valid? I am not trying to argue with you. I just want to hear what you have to say. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to admit I haven't heard of it before now -- a "non Christian" cult invoking the name
> of the Trinity. Do you have any concrete examples of this in the land of the "free?" With Romanism we have the example of an apostate church. With liberal Protestantism we have the same scenario. But to talk of a non Christian cult invoking the Trinity sounds much like the idea of a round square -- it does not compute.
Click to expand...



*Mormons* baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

For *Jehovah's Witnesses *baptism is carried out in a body of water. This depends on the location of the people. It can be done in a swimming pool, at the beach, in a river, and even in a bath tub.

The baptism is done in the name of Jesus and his Father and the holy spirit, but at the moment of baptism there is no ritual saying said over the candidate. Part of the process leading up to baptism and their dedication is to recognised the importance of Jesus and his Father and to understand what they are doing is not for the. So it is understood that they are being baptised "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit"

The *Children of God, The Family International* does hold to a Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead. They are a messed up group.


----------



## LadyFlynt

This poll should have been toward paedos only as they are the only ones that the question can logically apply to. (no offense to the baptist brethren here...but it doesn't give a true balance to the poll)


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it



But the Westminster Standards also teach that sacraments are to be adminstered by a minister of the word lawfully ordained (Larger Catechism Q&A 176) - which a popish priest most definitely is not. I think that statement means that a secret hypocrite can administer the sacrament without it affecting the validity of the ordinance.


----------



## Machaira

Romans922 said:


> *neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it*



(2) The second reason given by the General Assembly of 1845 was that the Romish priest are not ministers of Christ and the Word, and therefore the rites administered by them cannot be regarded as the ordinances of Christ. Although your study committee acknowledges the truth of this reason, it regards it as a corollary of reason number (1) and an application of that conclusion and not actually an independent argument. 

*The perspective of our Confession, which reflects the outcome of the early Donatist controversy, when it says that the efficacy of a sacrament does not depend upon the piety of the one that administers it (Westminster Confession of Faith, xxvii, 3), is really dealing with a different situation.* That earlier Donatist controversy dealt with the question of a minister who succumbed momentarily to the pressure of persecution. The church in which he ministered was more or less pure in upholding the Gospel. His succumbing to the pressure of persecution did not thus invalidate the sacraments he had administered. 

The situation in view in the Roman Catholic priesthood is not that which our Confession and the Donatist controversy addresses. It is that of a ministry and a church which, in the words of Paul describing the false teachers of Galatia, preach "a different gospel, which is not another," "distort the gospel of Christ" and thus lie under the Apostolic judgment, "let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:6-9). Therefore, inevitably, in this case, Romish church and Romish ministry are evaluated alike.

PCA Position Papers: Baptism - Appendix P - Report of the Study Committee on Question Relating to the Validity of Certain Baptisms (1987)


----------



## kvanlaan

> Mormons baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
> 
> For Jehovah's Witnesses baptism is carried out in a body of water. This depends on the location of the people. It can be done in a swimming pool, at the beach, in a river, and even in a bath tub.
> 
> The baptism is done in the name of Jesus and his Father and the holy spirit, but at the moment of baptism there is no ritual saying said over the candidate. Part of the process leading up to baptism and their dedication is to recognised the importance of Jesus and his Father and to understand what they are doing is not for the. So it is understood that they are being baptised "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit"
> 
> The Children of God, The Family International does hold to a Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead. They are a messed up group.



Yep, what do we do about these examples? The Mormons, for instance - their interplanetary reincarnation theology would, I think, put them beyond the theological pale. But their Baptism is valid???

It's like a PCUSA lesbian pastorette leading Lord's Supper. The sacrament is the Lord's, but there's strange fire in the kitchen - it is thus not the Lord's Supper, In my humble opinion. Would you sit in on that as a valid sacrament, brothers and sisters? (I don't see this as tangential, but of the same principle.)


----------



## Romans922

Ok, 

Most of the Westminster Divines received RC baptism as a valid baptism.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Calvibaptist said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey:
> 
> If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so your OP is the complete reverse of your poll...
> 
> But, since I am a Baptist, you know what my answer is going to be. Of course they would need to be re-baptized. The RCC, despite its trinitarian formula in baptism, is not a Christian church. They do not rightly uphold the gospel or the sacraments (ordinances). Therefore, the baptism is illegitimate.
Click to expand...


----------



## Calvibaptist

CalvinandHodges said:


> To me it seems obvious: Roman Catholic or Presbyterian baptism would be invalid to a credo baptist because there was no individual profession of faith at the time of baptism.
> 
> I asked about Presbyterianism because some Baptists here negate RC baptism for reasons other than the above. That is, RC baptism is false because the church itself is false. A Reformed Presbyterian Church is not false. Thus the question.
> 
> Grace,
> 
> -CH



Perhaps you didn't pay attention to my first post. My reasoning for it being invalid was not that it was not based on profession or was performed on infants. Pardon me, Baptist brethren, but I think that is a side issue in this question. The main issue is that RCC baptism is not a sign of the covenant. It is an act performed to wash away original sin. It is not performed by a Christian church because, based on the Westminster Standards and the 1689 LBC, they do not rightly uphold the Word and Sacraments. Therefore, it is *not* a Christian rite.

This would be the same as a bunch of worshipers of Zeus circumcising themselves and expecting the Jews to assume that they were part of the Abrahamic covenant, while they still remained worshipers of Zeus. If it is not a true Christian church, then it is not Christian baptism, whether they are infants or professors, sprinkled or dunked.

I, honestly, think the Reformers (as much as I respect them) were inconsistent on this issue. To call the Romish Pope "the AntiChrist" and then to accept baptism from his religious organization is inconsistent.


----------



## Pilgrim

Romans922 said:


> Ok,
> 
> Most of the Westminster Divines received RC baptism as a valid baptism.



Were there any who did not accept it as valid?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Calvibaptist said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main issue is that RCC baptism is not a sign of the covenant. It is an act performed to wash away original sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you back this up please? I have heard just the opposite from RCs.
Click to expand...


----------



## wsw201

SemperFideles said:


> Gents,
> 
> Instead of saying who stated that RC Baptism was valid by the raising of hands, can you guys give me the basic gist of the arguments of those who claim that it is.
> 
> It just doesn't seem to me like any of the elements are present in terms of a valid baptism. I'm certainly not one who believes that it befalls fully to the "good intentions" of the baptizer or the person baptized for it to be Covenantally valid but it seems like a Priest really lacks any ability to be speaking in Christ's name as a minister declaring God's promises to them.



Here is Charles Hodge's Argument Regarding RC Baptism. I voted yes to the poll as I think Hodge makes an excellent point. 

To him and to me the key is how one defines the church. Do we use the definition per the WCF of the Visible Church or just the definition of the True Church? I agree with Hodge that you can not use the definition of the True Church in isolation from the definition of the Visible Church.


----------



## Calvibaptist

LadyFlynt said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main issue is that RCC baptism is not a sign of the covenant. It is an act performed to wash away original sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you back this up please? I have heard just the opposite from RCs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to make sure everyone understands, this was my quote, not CalvinandHodges'.
> 
> Here is what the Roman Catholic Catechism (taken from the Vatican's website) says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RTICLE 1
> THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
> 
> 1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5
> 
> I. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED?
> 
> 1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse"; the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."6
> 
> 1215 This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."7
> 
> 1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.
> 
> 1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51
> 
> 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
> 
> 1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.65 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.
> 
> 1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted Son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"68 member of Christ and co-heir with him,69 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.70
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are just some of the points. As you can see, according to official Roman Catholic teaching from the Vatican, their baptism is a removal of original sin, the forgiveness of temporal sin, and the means of regeneration.
Click to expand...


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Calvibaptist said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you back this up please? I have heard just the opposite from RCs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to make sure everyone understands, this was my quote, not CalvinandHodges'.
> 
> Here is what the Roman Catholic Catechism (taken from the Vatican's website) says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RTICLE 1
> THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
> 
> 1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5
> 
> I. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED?
> 
> 1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse"; the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."6
> 
> 1215 This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."7
> 
> 1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.
> 
> 1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51
> 
> 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
> 
> 1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.65 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.
> 
> 1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted Son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"68 member of Christ and co-heir with him,69 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.70
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are just some of the points. As you can see, according to official Roman Catholic teaching from the Vatican, their baptism is a removal of original sin, the forgiveness of temporal sin, and the means of regeneration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not any sort of christian baptism.
Click to expand...


----------



## pickwick

I agree that RC baptism is not legitimate.


----------



## Machaira

Calvibaptist said:


> I, honestly, think the Reformers (as much as I respect them) were inconsistent on this issue. To call the Romish Pope "the AntiChrist" and then to accept baptism from his religious organization is inconsistent.



 Well said. 

I have great respect for the Reformers as well, but I do think that they are horribly inconsistent on this issue.


----------



## wsw201

If the only definition of the Church is that of the true church, then only confessional Presbyterian churches are true churches! Every other church has way to many problems.


----------



## shelly

The Arminian gospel is another gospel. A church that teaches that the basic tenets of reformed theology is heresy is most definitely teaching another gospel. I say that their baptism is also invalid.


----------



## RamistThomist

wsw201 said:


> If the only definition of the Church is that of the true church, then only confessional Presbyterian churches are true churches! Every other church has way to many problems.



Amen! Was it Hodge who used the "denomination of money" approach to discerning true churches? If so, I found that helpful.


----------



## wsw201

Spear Dane said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the only definition of the Church is that of the true church, then only confessional Presbyterian churches are true churches! Every other church has way to many problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen! Was it Hodge who used the "denomination of money" approach to discerning true churches? If so, I found that helpful.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if he did. I have linked Hodge's response on the RCC baptism issue. It may be in there.


----------



## Machaira

wsw201 said:


> If the only definition of the Church is that of the true church, then only confessional Presbyterian churches are true churches! Every other church has way to many problems.



_IV. This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, *according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.*_ WCF Chapter XXV Of the Church

Do you really think that RCC fits the bill outlined in bold? Do they teach and embrace the Gospel as found in Scripture? Is their administration of Communion through a sacerdotal priest under the guise of a propitiatory "re-presentation" of Christ in the mass not corrupt through and through? Do they not publicly worship amidst candles and icons which they highly esteem and even venerate? This is just the tip of the iceberg. The RCC is not merely a church with "problems," it's an organization that is thoroughly corrupt.

_V. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; *and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. *Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will._ WCF Chapter XXV Of the Church

If the RCC doesn't fall under the category of churches that _"have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan,"_ then this part of the confession has no meaning.


----------



## SRoper

Calvibaptist said:


> I, honestly, think the Reformers (as much as I respect them) were inconsistent on this issue. To call the Romish Pope "the AntiChrist" and then to accept baptism from his religious organization is inconsistent.



Actually you'll find a strong correlation between the historicist position that the Pope is the Antichrist and the view that Romish baptism is valid. It is perhaps the former view that is driving the latter as the Antichrist has to come from within the church.


----------



## Machaira

SRoper said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I, honestly, think the Reformers (as much as I respect them) were inconsistent on this issue. To call the Romish Pope "the AntiChrist" and then to accept baptism from his religious organization is inconsistent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you'll find a strong correlation between the historicist position that the Pope is the Antichrist and the view that Romish baptism is valid. It is perhaps the former view that is driving the latter as the Antichrist has to come from within the church.
Click to expand...


If this is the case, then why did the Reformers bother to separate from Rome? Again, if this was truly their view, I think it's yet one more demonstration of their inconsistency on this particular topic.


----------



## wsw201

> IV. This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. WCF Chapter XXV Of the Church
> 
> Do you really think that RCC fits the bill outlined in bold? Do they teach and embrace the Gospel as found in Scripture? Is their administration of Communion through a sacerdotal priest under the guise of a propitiatory "re-presentation" of Christ in the mass not corrupt through and through? Do they not publicly worship amidst candles and icons which they highly esteem and even venerate? This is just the tip of the iceberg. The RCC is not merely a church with "problems," it's an organization that is thoroughly corrupt.



I'm not arguing that the RCC is a true church. In fact it is a false church. In addition I would consider a church that teaches Arminianism (RCC lite!) a false church. For Presbyterians, Baptists have the sacrament of baptism wrong, so should they be considered true churches?? The definition of a true church in the WCF is broad for a reason. It does not answer the question "how true is true?". Note that the Standards say "And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure,...". 

But even though we would consider the RCC a false Church, "Church" is still in the definition of a false church! This is Hodges whole argument. There are distinctions in how Church is defined. For what it's worth, I would not call the LDS, JW's or Unitarians False Churches, because there is no way you could ever define them as a church in any biblical sense of the word.



> V. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will. WCF Chapter XXV Of the Church
> 
> If the RCC doesn't fall under the category of churches that "have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan," then this part of the confession has no meaning.



Remember that the divines considered the RCC a false church but did consider them apart of the overall visible church, even as corrupted as they were (and still are). I would consider the Unitarians and Oneness Pentecostals as synagogues of Satan.


----------



## wsw201

Machaira said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I, honestly, think the Reformers (as much as I respect them) were inconsistent on this issue. To call the Romish Pope "the AntiChrist" and then to accept baptism from his religious organization is inconsistent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you'll find a strong correlation between the historicist position that the Pope is the Antichrist and the view that Romish baptism is valid. It is perhaps the former view that is driving the latter as the Antichrist has to come from within the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this is the case, then why did the Reformers bother to separate from Rome? Again, if this was truly their view, I think it's yet one more demonstration of their inconsistency on this particular topic.
Click to expand...


The Reformers did not separate from Rome. Rome separated from the Reformers. Luther was kicked out along with anyone who followed his teaching. The original purpose of the Reformation was to reform the RCC not create a new church.


----------



## Calvibaptist

wsw201 said:


> I'm not arguing that the RCC is a true church. In fact it is a false church. In addition I would consider a church that teaches Arminianism (RCC lite!) a false church. For Presbyterians, Baptists have the sacrament of baptism wrong, so should they be considered true churches?? The definition of a true church in the WCF is broad for a reason. It does not answer the question "how true is true?". Note that the Standards say "And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure,...".
> 
> But even though we would consider the RCC a false Church, "Church" is still in the definition of a false church! This is Hodges whole argument. There are distinctions in how Church is defined. For what it's worth, I would not call the LDS, JW's or Unitarians False Churches, because there is no way you could ever define them as a church in any biblical sense of the word.



So, calling someone a "false Christ" means that they are still a Christ? Faulty logic if you ask me. A false church means they are NOT a church.



> Remember that the divines considered the RCC a false church but did consider them apart of the overall visible church, even as corrupted as they were (and still are). I would consider the Unitarians and Oneness Pentecostals as synagogues of Satan.



The divines considered some within the RCC, because they were true Christians, to be part of the universal church. I don't know that they considered the organization to be part of the true church. Do you have support for this claim?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

wsw201 said:


> If the only definition of the Church is that of the true church, then only confessional Presbyterian churches are true churches! Every other church has way to many problems.




I thought the Cambellite church of Christ was the true church...


----------



## Machaira

wsw201 said:


> Remember that the divines considered the RCC a false church but did consider them apart of the overall visible church, even as corrupted as they were (and still are).



Wayne, 

With all due respect, I think there is something horribly out-of-whack with this kind of thinking.


----------



## Romans922

Pilgrim said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok,
> 
> Most of the Westminster Divines received RC baptism as a valid baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were there any who did not accept it as valid?
Click to expand...


Few, that is why I said most, you can look at the minutes of the Westminster Assembly on this. Of course, I don't know where that is.


----------



## Herald

wsw201 said:


> If the only definition of the Church is that of the true church, then only confessional Presbyterian churches are true churches! Every other church has way to many problems.



I'll take that as a humorous comment.


----------



## wsw201

> The divines considered some within the RCC, because they were true Christians, to be part of the universal church. I don't know that they considered the organization to be part of the true church. Do you have support for this claim?





> With all due respect, I think there is something horribly out-of-whack with this kind of thinking.



I would suggest that you read the link to Charles Hodge's comments on this issue.



> I'll take that as a humorous comment.



Actually it was meant to be sarcastic. 

If the only definition for defining the church is the definition of the True Church, then how true is true? Where do we draw the line in the sand? Who gets to decide? For Presbyterians that would be a confessional Presbyterian church. Or is the answer "I'll know it when I see it!"


----------



## Herald

wsw201 said:


> The divines considered some within the RCC, because they were true Christians, to be part of the universal church. I don't know that they considered the organization to be part of the true church. Do you have support for this claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, I think there is something horribly out-of-whack with this kind of thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suggest that you read the link to Charles Hodge's comments on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that as a humorous comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it was meant to be sarcastic.
> 
> If the only definition for defining the church is the definition of the True Church, then how true is true? Where do we draw the line in the sand? Who gets to decide? For Presbyterians that would be a confessional Presbyterian church. Or is the answer "I'll know it when I see it!"
Click to expand...


Wayne - the difference between Romanism and Presbyterians vs. Baptists is not even in the same ballpark. The true church is not denominational, it is universal - catholic (just not Roman Catholic). Within the universal church are differences in polity and practice. But the cross of Christ is not made of no effect. The gospel is preached in truth, even if some of the peripheral doctrines are banged up a little. Presbyterians and Baptists should be in agreement that Romanism is not Christian. We should not be pointing at each other wondering whether the other is Christian.


----------



## Calvibaptist

wsw201 said:


> Actually it was meant to be sarcastic.
> 
> If the only definition for defining the church is the definition of the True Church, then how true is true? Where do we draw the line in the sand? Who gets to decide? For Presbyterians that would be a confessional Presbyterian church. Or is the answer "I'll know it when I see it!"



I would say a clear line should be the gospel!!! The RCC does not preach the true gospel. They teach works-based salvation, no matter how much faith they mix in. They might have their trinitarian theology right, but they have soteriology completely wrong. How could a religious organization that teaches that baptism washes away original sin, cleanses from temporal sin and regenerates you and also teaches that you have to do six other religious rituals in order to complete the work of Christ on your behalf be even discussed as being Christian? Are we afraid to call a spade a spade simply because Martin Luther and John Calvin didn't get re-baptized?


----------



## Me Died Blue

wsw201 said:


> If the only definition for defining the church is the definition of the True Church, then how true is true? Where do we draw the line in the sand? Who gets to decide? For Presbyterians that would be a confessional Presbyterian church. Or is the answer "I'll know it when I see it!"



I think I see what you mean, Wayne. But even if certain issues create some potential "gray area" with some churches in the middle, wouldn't there still at least be some black-and-white on the "extremes"? Your above mention of the Oneness Pentecostals is one example of what I mean. Even without a clear indication for exactly where to draw the line on each and every case (in light of the WCF's broad definition), I take it you're at least saying that the Trinity, for instance, is one doctrine necessary to be confessed for a group that calls itself a "church" to actually be a church _at all_ (versus a synagogue of Satan).

Along those same lines, wouldn't a saving understanding of the Gospel be just as necessary as the Trinity? And if so, can Rome's Gospel, in its pure form, save? In other words, if someone fully and accurately understands the intended meaning and substance of Rome's doctrine of salvation (such as that articulated by Trent), and that person fully and truly believes it, can he be saved? If not, what makes Rome any more a church in any sense than the Oneness Pentecostals?

EDIT: Once again in this thread, I see that as I was posting, Pastor Mixer already got right to the point. Time after time in this discussion, it's been your fault I haven't been able to offer any original contribution on the issues being discussed!


----------



## wsw201

Douglas and Chris,

Can anyone be saved outside of a Reformed Church? 

If the "true" gospel is the criteria then then all Arminians are in serious peril and are attending synogogues of Satan. And I'm not talking about old style Arminius Arminianism but the new and improved Finneyism that is being preached in pulpits all around this country! How about the Lutherans? Not the ELCA but the Missouri Synod Lutherans or the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans? We can say that they preach Justification by Faith but they have their own version of Baptismal Regeneration in Baptism plus consubstantiation in the Lord's Supper.

With all due respect to the comments that have been made, I have yet to read any post that has considered Charles Hodge's comments on the issue. 



> Wayne - the difference between Romanism and Presbyterians vs. Baptists is not even in the same ballpark. The true church is not denominational, it is universal - catholic (just not Roman Catholic). Within the universal church are differences in polity and practice. But the cross of Christ is not made of no effect. The gospel is preached in truth, even if some of the peripheral doctrines are banged up a little. Presbyterians and Baptists should be in agreement that Romanism is not Christian. We should not be pointing at each other wondering whether the other is Christian.



Bill,

It appears to me that I am not communicating my point very well. I was attempting to point out that when we have only one definition of the church, especially one that is so broad as the definition of a true church, the criteria becomes highly subjective. Fortunately the WCF has another definition of the church in chapter 25 section 2. 

I was not attempting to pit Presbyterian's agaist Baptists.

FYI, the OPC does recognize RCC baptism as a valid baptism.


----------



## Calvibaptist

wsw201 said:


> Douglas and Chris,
> 
> Can anyone be saved outside of a Reformed Church?
> 
> If the "true" gospel is the criteria then then all Arminians are in serious peril and are attending synogogues of Satan. And I'm not talking about old style Arminius Arminianism but the new and improved Finneyism that is being preached in pulpits all around this country! How about the Lutherans? Not the ELCA but the Missouri Synod Lutherans or the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans? We can say that they preach Justification by Faith but they have their own version of Baptismal Regeneration in Baptism plus consubstantiation in the Lord's Supper.
> 
> With all due respect to the comments that have been made, I have yet to read any post that has considered Charles Hodge's comments on the issue.



I think, when you start asking questions like this, you are talking apples and we are talking oranges. We are not trying to fine tune the details someone must understand before they are truly saved. We are saying that a religious organization which has anathematized us because we believe the gospel of justification by faith alone is not a true church. It's not a matter of misguided Christians who have been influenced by Finneyism. It is a matter of a group that proclaims a different gospel. The apostle Paul had one thing to say about them: "Let them be accursed."


----------



## Calvibaptist

Me Died Blue said:


> EDIT: Once again in this thread, I see that as I was posting, Pastor Mixer already got right to the point. Time after time in this discussion, it's been your fault I haven't been able to offer any original contribution on the issues being discussed!



Chris, sorry. I'll start waiting about 5 minutes before I post a response from now on in order to give you a chance to offer some tid-bits of wisdom!


----------



## wsw201

> I think, when you start asking questions like this, you are talking apples and we are talking oranges.



It would appear so.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

LadyFlynt said:


> This poll should have been toward paedos only as they are the only ones that the question can logically apply to. (no offense to the baptist brethren here...but it doesn't give a true balance to the poll)



It shouldn't matter anyways because Polls are not necessarily reflective of what is really true. Just look at our political arena. Also if you took a poll that included the liberal Presbyterians would it matter. There are a lot of those. BTW. Us credo' s are correct.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BaptistInCrisis said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the only definition of the Church is that of the true church, then only confessional Presbyterian churches are true churches! Every other church has way to many problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that as a humorous comment.
Click to expand...


I will also. That is funny.


----------



## MW

CredoCovenanter said:


> *Mormons* baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.



Is this "Trinitarian" baptism? If so, we would have the "round square" problem. Mormons have never belonged to the historic Christian church. Romanism is Christianity corrupted, not non-Christianity.


----------



## RamistThomist

armourbearer said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mormons* baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this "Trinitarian" baptism? If so, we would have the "round square" problem. Mormons have never belonged to the historic Christian church. Romanism is Christianity corrupted, not non-Christianity.
Click to expand...


Ditto, the Mormon trinity cannot be the Christian trinity by definition. For the mormon, Christ and the Holy Spirit are not God.


----------



## MW

The following may be of assistance. It is from Puritan Sermons or Morning Exercises (6:48), by Peter Vinke. It shows that the reformed tradition was not inconsistent in the way it viewed the Roman church, but that there was a sense in which it is a church, and another sense in which it is not.



> WHAT WE THINK CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF ROME.
> 
> But more particularly as to "the church of Rome" (for so we call them that, professing to hold the Christian faith, are united in subjection and obedience unto that see, and do acknowledge the pope their universal pastor): when we call them "a church," we mean no more than that they are a society or company of men who make profession that they are Christians. Thus the Laodiceans are called "a church" (Rev. 3:14), though they were "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked," and we do not read of a sound part amongst them (verse 17). Thus God himself calls the ten tribes his people, after their defection, by reason of circumcision, which they yet retained, and their being the offspring of Jacob (Hosea 4:6). In this sense, soundness of faith is no more essential to a church, than health is to a man. And as a man that hath the plague or leprosy is still a man, though to be shunned; so they may be thus a church, though by all means to be forsaken. But as they themselves take a church for "a company of true believers joined together in communion," so they are no church, their faith being far from the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## Machaira

armourbearer said:


> WHAT WE THINK CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF ROME.
> 
> But more particularly as to "the church of Rome" (for so we call them that, professing to hold the Christian faith, are united in subjection and obedience unto that see, and do acknowledge the pope their universal pastor): when we call them "a church," we mean no more than that they are a society or company of men who make profession that they are Christians. Thus the Laodiceans are called "a church" (Rev. 3:14), though they were "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked," and we do not read of a sound part amongst them (verse 17). Thus God himself calls the ten tribes his people, after their defection, by reason of circumcision, which they yet retained, and their being the offspring of Jacob (Hosea 4:6). In this sense, soundness of faith is no more essential to a church, than health is to a man. And as a man that hath the plague or leprosy is still a man, though to be shunned; so they may be thus a church, though by all means to be forsaken. But as they themselves take a church for "a company of true believers joined together in communion," so they are no church, their faith being far from the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shows that the reformed tradition was not inconsistent in the way it viewed the Roman church, but that there was a sense in which it is a church, and another sense in which it is not.
Click to expand...


I think it shows just the opposite. The RCC is a church and not a church at the same time? An explanation like the one in your quote above only serves to strengthen my resolve that Roman baptism is not valid and the Reformers who thought it was were a bit confused.

". . . we mean no more than that they are a society or company of men who make profession that they are Christians."

". . .so they are no church, their faith being far from the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Machaira said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) The second reason given by the General Assembly of 1845 was that the Romish priest are not ministers of Christ and the Word, and therefore the rites administered by them cannot be regarded as the ordinances of Christ. Although your study committee acknowledges the truth of this reason, it regards it as a corollary of reason number (1) and an application of that conclusion and not actually an independent argument.
> 
> *The perspective of our Confession, which reflects the outcome of the early Donatist controversy, when it says that the efficacy of a sacrament does not depend upon the piety of the one that administers it (Westminster Confession of Faith, xxvii, 3), is really dealing with a different situation.* That earlier Donatist controversy dealt with the question of a minister who succumbed momentarily to the pressure of persecution. The church in which he ministered was more or less pure in upholding the Gospel. His succumbing to the pressure of persecution did not thus invalidate the sacraments he had administered.
> 
> The situation in view in the Roman Catholic priesthood is not that which our Confession and the Donatist controversy addresses. It is that of a ministry and a church which, in the words of Paul describing the false teachers of Galatia, preach "a different gospel, which is not another," "distort the gospel of Christ" and thus lie under the Apostolic judgment, "let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:6-9). Therefore, inevitably, in this case, Romish church and Romish ministry are evaluated alike.
> 
> PCA Position Papers: Baptism - Appendix P - Report of the Study Committee on Question Relating to the Validity of Certain Baptisms (1987)
Click to expand...


That's my issue. As I stated, I don't think it's a matter of the intentions of the baptizer or the baptized that make RC Baptism invalid but the institution itself. Corrupt as some liberal denominations are, their confessions are not completely apostate. I question whether a RC Priest has any ministerial authority to perform the act and am not regarding how gooned up the intention is when the party is baptized.

Thought experiment: If you were a pagan and your little pagan child went over to a neighbor's house to play and the father, a self-ordained "minister", baptizes him in the family pool, is the boy baptized?

I just don't see how one can maintain that the RC Church maintains any contact with the true religion for them to act as its representatives. It's rather, to me, like the Priests of Baal in the Northern Kingdom. Were they permitted, in any way, to administer God's Sacraments?


----------



## Calvibaptist

armourbearer said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mormons* baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this "Trinitarian" baptism? If so, we would have the "round square" problem. Mormons have never belonged to the historic Christian church. Romanism is Christianity corrupted, not non-Christianity.
Click to expand...


I agree with you about it not being Trinitarian baptism because Joseph Smith and all his followers repudiated the concept of a Trinity. But Joseph Smith was a part of a Christian church (under discipline) and began his group as an offshoot of Christianity. So, are they Christianity corrupted? When does "Christianity corrupted" cease to be Christianity. It seems that many have made the concept of the Trinity the litmus test ignoring the fact that they don't teach Christian salvation.



SemperFideles said:


> As I stated, I don't think it's a matter of the intentions of the baptizer or the baptized that make RC Baptism invalid but the institution itself. Corrupt as some liberal denominations are, their confessions are not completely apostate. I question whether a RC Priest has any ministerial authority to perform the act and am not regarding how gooned up the intention is when the party is baptized.



I quite agree. Although, since I'm a Baptist, I have to be careful! 



SemperFideles said:


> I just don't see how one can maintain that the RC Church maintains any contact with the true religion for them to act as its representatives. It's rather, to me, like the Priests of Baal in the Northern Kingdom. Were they permitted, in any way, to administer God's Sacraments?



Were Jereboam's priests considered Priests of Yahweh as they offered liturgical sacrifices to the calves in Bethel?


----------



## MW

Machaira said:


> ". . . we mean no more than that they are a society or company of men who make profession that they are Christians."
> 
> ". . .so they are no church, their faith being far from the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ."



What is it in the second of these definitions which leads to the idea that the first is illegitimate? A Wesleyan Arminian's faith is "far from the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ," and yet Wesleyans are accepted as a society who make profession that they are Christians, and their baptism consequently regarded as valid.


----------



## MW

Calvibaptist said:


> When does "Christianity corrupted" cease to be Christianity.



When it is no longer Christianity corrupted but non-Christianity. Let's get some historical perspective here. The Roman Church upholds the great creeds which delineate catholic Christianity. Individual men don't have the authority to rewrite history as to the qualifications necessary to be regarded as part of the catholc church visible.


----------



## Machaira

armourbearer said:


> Machaira said:
> 
> 
> 
> ". . . we mean no more than that they are a society or company of men who make profession that they are Christians."
> 
> ". . .so they are no church, their faith being far from the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it in the second of these definitions which leads to the idea that the first is illegitimate? A Wesleyan Arminian's faith is "far from the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ," and yet Wesleyans are accepted as a society who make profession that they are Christians, and their baptism consequently regarded as valid.
Click to expand...


If a Wesleyan Arminian's faith is "far from the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ," then he is no minister of Christ and not qualified to baptize anyone. Do you really mean to say that we should grade on a curve or by the lowest common denominator?


----------



## Machaira

armourbearer said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> When does "Christianity corrupted" cease to be Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it is no longer Christianity corrupted but non-Christianity. Let's get some historical perspective here. The Roman Church upholds the great creeds which delineate catholic Christianity. Individual men don't have the authority to rewrite history as to the qualifications necessary to be regarded as part of the catholc church visible.
Click to expand...


So they can teach a false gospel, which according to Paul is no gospel at all, but as long as they're onboard with the great creeds they're "in?"


----------



## MW

Machaira said:


> If a Wesleyan Arminian's faith is "far from the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ," then he is no minister of Christ and not qualified to baptize anyone. Do you really mean to say that we should grade on a curve or by the lowest common denominator?



My view takes "grading" out of the power of men altogether, and leaves it where it belongs -- the unique prerogative of the Judge of all men.


----------



## MW

Machaira said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> When does "Christianity corrupted" cease to be Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it is no longer Christianity corrupted but non-Christianity. Let's get some historical perspective here. The Roman Church upholds the great creeds which delineate catholic Christianity. Individual men don't have the authority to rewrite history as to the qualifications necessary to be regarded as part of the catholc church visible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they can teach a false gospel, which according to Paul is no gospel at all, but as long as they're onboard with the great creeds they're "in?"
Click to expand...


Is it your view that the creeds teach nothing of the true gospel? 1 Cor. 15:1-4, "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you ... that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures."


----------



## Machaira

armourbearer said:


> Is it your view that the creeds teach nothing of the true gospel?



Not at all. Is it your view that the RCC teaches the true Gospel?


----------



## MW

Machaira said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your view that the creeds teach nothing of the true gospel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Is it your view that the RCC teaches the true Gospel?
Click to expand...


It's my view that the RCC's adherence to the historic creeds includes the true gospel so that a man might be led to faith in Jesus Christ in the RCC, just as our first reformers were. However, such is the corruption of the gospel by the RCC that it was necessary to separate from that communion in order to preserve the purity of the Christian faith.


----------



## Machaira

armourbearer said:


> It's my view that the RCC's adherence to the historic creeds includes the true gospel so that a man might be led to faith in Jesus Christ in the RCC, just as our first reformers were. However, such is the corruption of the gospel by the RCC that it was necessary to separate from that communion in order to preserve the purity of the Christian faith.



You don't see the contradiction here? The creeds they hold "officially" may teach the true Gospel, but the RCC actively teaches otherwise. The council of "Trent" anyone?

BTW, the Reformers may have been led to faith in Christ _"in"_ the RCC, but it certainly wasn't _"through"_ them. In other words, they came to faith in Christ by the Grace of God _despite_ the the corruption of the RCC. Does this make it right to turn a blind eye to a thoroughly corrupt system? It would appear that we're still grading on a curve.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> It's my view that the RCC's adherence to the historic creeds includes the true gospel so that a man might be led to faith in Jesus Christ in the RCC, just as our first reformers were. However, such is the corruption of the gospel by the RCC that it was necessary to separate from that communion in order to preserve the purity of the Christian faith.



Rev. Winzer,

Would you consider this the Reformed "litmus test"? I'm honestly trying to determine where the line is here. I'm not immune to the arguments being presented but I find myself unable to defend the idea that the RCC has the authority to baptize into the Church. Do you believe that Baptism requires a minister of the Gospel to be proper and are RCC Priests ministers of the Gospel?


----------



## MW

Machaira said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's my view that the RCC's adherence to the historic creeds includes the true gospel so that a man might be led to faith in Jesus Christ in the RCC, just as our first reformers were. However, such is the corruption of the gospel by the RCC that it was necessary to separate from that communion in order to preserve the purity of the Christian faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see the contradiction here? The creeds they hold "officially" may teach the true Gospel, but the RCC actively teaches otherwise.
> 
> BTW, the Reformers may have been led to faith in Christ _"in"_ the RCC, but it certainly wasn't _"through"_ them. In other words, they came to faith in Christ by the Grace of God _despite_ the the corruption of the RCC. Does this make it right to turn a blind eye to a thoroughly corrupt system? It would appear that we're still grading on a curve.
Click to expand...


The contradiction is inherent with the RCC. They maintain the creeds, but then teach contrary to them. In so far as they maintain the creeds, the gospel is preached and men are saved by the grace of God. In so far as they teach contrary to the creeds, they corrupt the gospel, so that we are obliged to separate from them.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Would you consider this the Reformed "litmus test"?



I think it reflects a changing attitude as to what the reformation was really concerned with. It seems that modern reformed people don't care for being catholic, whereas the reformed church has traditionally identified itself with historic Christianity.


----------



## fredtgreco

Lest one think that this is a neat and tidy question, it would pay to study Calvin's views on separation from Rome (and the charge of schism), his view of the Lord's Supper and the Mass, and his view of baptism.

There is a great deal of inconsistency.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Would you consider this the Reformed "litmus test"? I'm honestly trying to determine where the line is here. I'm not immune to the arguments being presented but I find myself unable to defend the idea that the RCC has the authority to baptize into the Church. Do you believe that Baptism requires a minister of the Gospel to be proper and are RCC Priests ministers of the Gospel?



I would distinguish between a minister essentially considered and the conduct of his ministry. In the former sense RCC priests are ministers, but in the latter sense they are Antichristian and hence to be avoided. Hence the baptism administered by RCC priests is valid though unlawful. We accept it as Christian baptism, but the manner of administering it is unlawful, and so to be shunned.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

fredtgreco said:


> Lest one think that this is a neat and tidy question, it would pay to study Calvin's views on separation from Rome (and the charge of schism), his view of the Lord's Supper and the Mass, and his view of baptism.
> 
> There is a great deal of inconsistency.



This is the issue for me - the "tidiness" of it I suppose. The criteria are too fuzzy for me.


> Originally posted by *armourbearer*
> I would distinguish between a minister essentially considered and the conduct of his ministry. In the former sense RCC priests are ministers, but in the latter sense they are Antichristian and hence to be avoided. Hence the baptism administered by RCC priests is valid though unlawful. We accept it as Christian baptism, but the manner of administering it is unlawful, and so to be shunned.


I know hypotheticals are a pain but please bear with me.

Suppose there is a man who decides to start a Church in his living room and lays hands upon himself as a minister of the Gospel. He affirms all the historic Creeds and is Trinitarian but he also has a Sacerdotal theology where he declares himself Pope. If he baptizes a man, is the man baptized? If not, why? If not, what distinguishes his illegitmacy from the legitimacy of the priest?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you consider this the Reformed "litmus test"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it reflects a changing attitude as to what the reformation was really concerned with. It seems that modern reformed people don't care for being catholic, whereas the reformed church has traditionally identified itself with historic Christianity.
Click to expand...


Couldn't one be catholic and still consider non-catholic groups to be non-catholic without ceasing to be catholic?


----------



## Calvibaptist

Machaira said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's my view that the RCC's adherence to the historic creeds includes the true gospel so that a man might be led to faith in Jesus Christ in the RCC, just as our first reformers were. However, such is the corruption of the gospel by the RCC that it was necessary to separate from that communion in order to preserve the purity of the Christian faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see the contradiction here? The creeds they hold "officially" may teach the true Gospel, but the RCC actively teaches otherwise. The council of "Trent" anyone?
> 
> BTW, the Reformers may have been led to faith in Christ _"in"_ the RCC, but it certainly wasn't _"through"_ them. In other words, they came to faith in Christ by the Grace of God _despite_ the the corruption of the RCC. Does this make it right to turn a blind eye to a thoroughly corrupt system? It would appear that we're still grading on a curve.
Click to expand...


I had a seminary professor once (Dr. John Hannah) who had a good quote regarding this idea. Someone in class asked him how we should handle someone who ends up getting saved under the false teaching of a (insert unbelieving religious philosopher here). His reply: God can even use an ass to speak his word (Balaam's). But we shouldn't all try to be that ass.

In other words, why are we willing to lower the standards of what we consider to be true Christianity when it comes to the RCC? So, they have the Trinitarian formula right. So what? They don't have salvation right. What about a group that has messed up the Trinitarian formula but believes that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (Except that Christ is just a glorified man)? Why not accept them as well? It is a slipery slope that some are willing to begin down.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Suppose there is a man who decides to start a Church in his living room and lays hands upon himself as a minister of the Gospel. He affirms all the historic Creeds and is Trinitarian but he also has a Sacerdotal theology where he declares himself Pope. If he baptizes a man, is the man baptized? If not, why? If not, what distinguishes his illegitmacy from the legitimacy of the priest?



He couldn't be sacerdotal in theology and lay hands on himself. Sacerdotal theology requires succession. This is the problem with hypotheticals -- they're unreal.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you consider this the Reformed "litmus test"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it reflects a changing attitude as to what the reformation was really concerned with. It seems that modern reformed people don't care for being catholic, whereas the reformed church has traditionally identified itself with historic Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't one be catholic and still consider non-catholic groups to be non-catholic without ceasing to be catholic?
Click to expand...


What makes you catholic? The creeds. So what right do you have to call them non-catholic when they maintain the same creeds?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suppose there is a man who decides to start a Church in his living room and lays hands upon himself as a minister of the Gospel. He affirms all the historic Creeds and is Trinitarian but he also has a Sacerdotal theology where he declares himself Pope. If he baptizes a man, is the man baptized? If not, why? If not, what distinguishes his illegitmacy from the legitimacy of the priest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He couldn't be sacerdotal in theology and lay hands on himself. Sacerdotal theology requires succession. This is the problem with hypotheticals -- they're unreal.
Click to expand...


So you see the authority of the Priest as being one of succession? It seems to me you're ascribing something to the fact that four centuries of apostate men who simply mouth the creeds but don't believe them somehow confer to a Priest a ministerial authority that a man laying hands upon himself does not have.

Beside the fact that it's not "truly" sacerdotal in your view, you didn't answer my question. Would the baptism of the self-annointed man be valid. If not, why?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it reflects a changing attitude as to what the reformation was really concerned with. It seems that modern reformed people don't care for being catholic, whereas the reformed church has traditionally identified itself with historic Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't one be catholic and still consider non-catholic groups to be non-catholic without ceasing to be catholic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you catholic? The creeds. So what right do you have to call them non-catholic when they maintain the same creeds?
Click to expand...


Confession on the one hand while institutionally denying the creed on the other. Transubstantiation mixes the natures of Christ as an example.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Machaira said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a seminary professor once (Dr. John Hannah) who had a good quote regarding this idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same John Hannah who wrote "Our Legacy: The History Of Christian Doctrine?"
Click to expand...


I believe that's him. He was Professor of Church History at Dallas Theological Seminary. I think he is on the board of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. I loved his class. He got me interested in church history.


----------



## Calvibaptist

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it reflects a changing attitude as to what the reformation was really concerned with. It seems that modern reformed people don't care for being catholic, whereas the reformed church has traditionally identified itself with historic Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't one be catholic and still consider non-catholic groups to be non-catholic without ceasing to be catholic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you catholic? The creeds. So what right do you have to call them non-catholic when they maintain the same creeds?
Click to expand...


Let's slow down a minute. You are confusing me. Are you talking about Catholic or catholic? The catholic (universal) church is not the Roman Catholic Church. I know you know this.

I want to clarify, though. Are you suggesting that in order to be considered Roman Catholic all you need to do is give lip service to the creeds? What if I have not been baptized a Catholic, never been to mass, never even considered confession or penance? Would they consider me a Catholic?


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suppose there is a man who decides to start a Church in his living room and lays hands upon himself as a minister of the Gospel. He affirms all the historic Creeds and is Trinitarian but he also has a Sacerdotal theology where he declares himself Pope. If he baptizes a man, is the man baptized? If not, why? If not, what distinguishes his illegitmacy from the legitimacy of the priest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He couldn't be sacerdotal in theology and lay hands on himself. Sacerdotal theology requires succession. This is the problem with hypotheticals -- they're unreal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you see the authority of the Priest as being one of succession? It seems to me you're ascribing something to the fact that four centuries of apostate men who simply mouth the creeds but don't believe them somehow confer to a Priest a ministerial authority that a man laying hands upon himself does not have.
> 
> Beside the fact that it's not "truly" sacerdotal in your view, you didn't answer my question. Would the baptism of the self-annointed man be valid. If not, why?
Click to expand...


I wasn't giving personal opinion. I was noting that, according to the man's own sacrerdotal belief, he would not hold to self-ordination. You want me to answer a hypothetical that is not possible. It's just another square circle, like non-Christian Trinitarianism.


----------



## Calvibaptist

armourbearer said:


> It's just another square circle, like non-Christian Trinitarianism.



So, and this is why message boards are difficult, now it is not the creeds that determine whether something is Christian or not, it is merely a proper view of Trinitarianism?


----------



## MW

Calvibaptist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just another square circle, like non-Christian Trinitarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, and this is why message boards are difficult, now it is not the creeds that determine whether something is Christian or not, it is merely a proper view of Trinitarianism?
Click to expand...


Trinitarianism is fundamental to the creeds.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't one be catholic and still consider non-catholic groups to be non-catholic without ceasing to be catholic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you catholic? The creeds. So what right do you have to call them non-catholic when they maintain the same creeds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confession on the one hand while institutionally denying the creed on the other. Transubstantiation mixes the natures of Christ as an example.
Click to expand...


Correct, and therefore the reformed church separated from the RCC. We are separate from anti-paedobaptists. Their view vitiates the reformed understanding of the covenants. Nevertheless we accept them as far as they go.


----------



## MW

Calvibaptist said:


> Let's slow down a minute. You are confusing me. Are you talking about Catholic or catholic? The catholic (universal) church is not the Roman Catholic Church. I know you know this.



And you know I know this because I use the same system of capitalisation for "catholic" as you do. Therefore when you read "Catholic" I am referring to a proper name, but when you read "catholic" I am referring to a general noun.


----------



## Calvibaptist

armourbearer said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's slow down a minute. You are confusing me. Are you talking about Catholic or catholic? The catholic (universal) church is not the Roman Catholic Church. I know you know this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you know I know this because I use the same system of capitalisation for "catholic" as you do. Therefore when you read "Catholic" I am referring to a proper name, but when you read "catholic" I am referring to a general noun.
Click to expand...


But, the poll is in regards to Catholic, not catholic. The issue is not whether someone is part of the universal church, no matter what religious organization they are in. The issue is whether, based on their repudiation of biblical salvation, the Catholic church is a true church and can, therefore administer baptism. If they are not, and can not, their baptism is no baptism at all, no matter what the intention of the priest or the infant (or convert).


----------



## Calvibaptist

armourbearer said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just another square circle, like non-Christian Trinitarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, and this is why message boards are difficult, now it is not the creeds that determine whether something is Christian or not, it is merely a proper view of Trinitarianism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trinitarianism is fundamental to the creeds.
Click to expand...


Fundamental, but not all-inclusive. One can agree to the Trinitarian concept of the Apostle's Creed but deny that He suffered and died and not be a Christian. My concern with some statements is that they seem to try to boil things down to the least common denominator.

I suggest that there is plenty of non-Christian Trinitarianism. Just because someone has a theological concept correct does not make them Christian. But you can guarantee that if someone has *certain* theological concepts wrong they are not Christian.


----------



## MW

Calvibaptist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's slow down a minute. You are confusing me. Are you talking about Catholic or catholic? The catholic (universal) church is not the Roman Catholic Church. I know you know this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you know I know this because I use the same system of capitalisation for "catholic" as you do. Therefore when you read "Catholic" I am referring to a proper name, but when you read "catholic" I am referring to a general noun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, the poll is in regards to Catholic, not catholic. The issue is not whether someone is part of the universal church, no matter what religious organization they are in. The issue is whether, based on their repudiation of biblical salvation, the Catholic church is a true church and can, therefore administer baptism. If they are not, and can not, their baptism is no baptism at all, no matter what the intention of the priest or the infant (or convert).
Click to expand...


My contention is that the "Roman Catholic Church" (RCC) is part of the catholic church visible. I understand if you, as a maintainer of "believer's only" baptism, don't accept that point. You don't share the Presbyterian view of the church, so it's really a dead end discussion so far as your particular point of view is concerned.


----------



## MW

Calvibaptist said:


> Fundamental, but not all-inclusive. One can agree to the Trinitarian concept of the Apostle's Creed but deny that He suffered and died and not be a Christian. My concern with some statements is that they seem to try to boil things down to the least common denominator.



If this strange species of non-Christian Trinitarianism were a reality (which I seriously doubt), it is obvious that it could not be said to adhere to the creeds. The RCC adheres to the creeds, so I really don't understand what your difficulty is. The emphasis on Trinitarianism pertains to baptism, which must be in the name of the Trinity in order to be valid. Baptism itself is the denominator.


----------



## Machaira

armourbearer said:


> Correct, and therefore the reformed church separated from the RCC. We are separate from anti-paedobaptists. Their view vitiates the reformed understanding of the covenants. Nevertheless we accept them as far as they go.



You are comparing apples to oranges again. Baptists do not deny the Gospel and have legitimate arguments for their view of the covenants. We're talking about differences in theology within the pale of orthodoxy. The same can't be said for Rome.


----------



## Calvibaptist

armourbearer said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you know I know this because I use the same system of capitalisation for "catholic" as you do. Therefore when you read "Catholic" I am referring to a proper name, but when you read "catholic" I am referring to a general noun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, the poll is in regards to Catholic, not catholic. The issue is not whether someone is part of the universal church, no matter what religious organization they are in. The issue is whether, based on their repudiation of biblical salvation, the Catholic church is a true church and can, therefore administer baptism. If they are not, and can not, their baptism is no baptism at all, no matter what the intention of the priest or the infant (or convert).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My contention is that the "Roman Catholic Church" (RCC) is part of the catholic church visible. I understand if you, as a maintainer of "believer's only" baptism, don't accept that point. You don't share the Presbyterian view of the church, so it's really a dead end discussion so far as your particular point of view is concerned.
Click to expand...


My issue has absolutely nothing to do with believers' baptism. It has to do with what constitutes a church. I am assuming you share the Westminster Confession's definition?



> I. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]



Is this paragraph talking about individuals who are believers (all those througout the world that profess the true religion)? Or is it talking about the institution those individuals may happen to belong to?

I have no problem saying that some Roman Catholics are believers. The question comes when you say that the institution called the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian organization. There are a lot of believers that belong to the local Rotary club, but the Rotary club is not a Christian organization.



> IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9]
> 
> V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.



I would say the Roman Catholic Church has, by their denial of the gospel, degenerated to the point where they are no longer a Church of Christ. You don't think that they have degenerated that far. The issue is not believer's baptism; the issue is whether the gospel is necessary to be considered a Christian Church.


----------



## MW

Machaira said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and therefore the reformed church separated from the RCC. We are separate from anti-paedobaptists. Their view vitiates the reformed understanding of the covenants. Nevertheless we accept them as far as they go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are comparing apples to oranges again. Baptists do not deny the Gospel and have legitimate arguments for their view of the covenants. We're talking about differences in theology within the pale of orthodoxy. The same can't be said for Rome.
Click to expand...


Well, I regard their arguments as illegitimate. The point being, there are various degrees of separation.


----------



## MW

Calvibaptist said:


> My issue has absolutely nothing to do with believers' baptism. It has to do with what constitutes a church. I am assuming you share the Westminster Confession's definition?



Yes, I share the WCF view of the church. Do you? Read on down to sect. 6, "that exalteth himself IN THE CHURCH."


----------



## Calvibaptist

armourbearer said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundamental, but not all-inclusive. One can agree to the Trinitarian concept of the Apostle's Creed but deny that He suffered and died and not be a Christian. My concern with some statements is that they seem to try to boil things down to the least common denominator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this strange species of non-Christian Trinitarianism were a reality (which I seriously doubt), it is obvious that it could not be said to adhere to the creeds. The RCC adheres to the creeds, so I really don't understand what your difficulty is. The emphasis on Trinitarianism pertains to baptism, which must be in the name of the Trinity in order to be valid. Baptism itself is the denominator.
Click to expand...


Matthew 7:22-23 - "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' 

These people described by Jesus are people who had theology and external practice right. They are not Christians.


----------



## Calvibaptist

armourbearer said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> My issue has absolutely nothing to do with believers' baptism. It has to do with what constitutes a church. I am assuming you share the Westminster Confession's definition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I share the WCF view of the church. Do you? Read on down to sect. 6, "that exalteth himself IN THE CHURCH."
Click to expand...


But, again, how much do they need to deny until they are no longer a Christian Church?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mormons* baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this "Trinitarian" baptism? If so, we would have the "round square" problem. Mormons have never belonged to the historic Christian church. Romanism is Christianity corrupted, not non-Christianity.
Click to expand...



But the other group I mentioned came out of the Jesus movement. It is trinitarian and cultic. If I am not mistaken Mormonism is Christianity corrupted also. Just to a larger degree.


----------



## Calvibaptist

CredoCovenanter said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mormons* baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this "Trinitarian" baptism? If so, we would have the "round square" problem. Mormons have never belonged to the historic Christian church. Romanism is Christianity corrupted, not non-Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But the other group I mentioned came out of the Jesus movement and is cultic. If I am not mistaken Mormonism is Christianity corrupted also. Just to a larger degree.
Click to expand...


Honestly, it seems like "Trinitarian" is the magic phrase. As long as they are Trinitarian, which the Mormon's are not, they are Christian. It doesn't matter what else they deny, as long as they believe in the Trinity. I know I am exaggerating, but this seems to be the direction of the discussion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> Correct, and therefore the reformed church separated from the RCC. We are separate from anti-paedobaptists. Their view vitiates the reformed understanding of the covenants. Nevertheless we accept them as far as they go.



That view can run both ways. We could say the paedo reformed view vitiates the understanding of the covenants.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

WCF


> 25:5 The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error (Mat_13:24-30, Mat_13:47; 1Co_13:12; Rev 2 and Rev 3): *and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan* (Rom_11:18-22; Rev_18:2). Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to His will (Psa_72:17; Psa_102:28; Mat_16:18; Mat_28:19, Mat_28:20).
> 
> 
> 25:6 There is no other head of the Church, but the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph_1:22; Col_1:18); *nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God* (Mat_23:8-10; 2Th_2:3, 2Th_2:4, 2Th_2:8, 2Th_2:9; Rev_13:6).



If the head is anti the body is also anti. The head tells the body what to do. And it preaches another Gospel which is no Gospel at all, and the RCC denies the Lord and is accursed according to Paul in Galatians chapter 1.

There just seems to be some inconsistencies.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Calvibaptist said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this "Trinitarian" baptism? If so, we would have the "round square" problem. Mormons have never belonged to the historic Christian church. Romanism is Christianity corrupted, not non-Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the other group I mentioned came out of the Jesus movement and is cultic. If I am not mistaken Mormonism is Christianity corrupted also. Just to a larger degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, it seems like "Trinitarian" is the magic phrase. As long as they are Trinitarian, which the Mormon's are not, they are Christian. It doesn't matter what else they deny, as long as they believe in the Trinity. I know I am exaggerating, but this seems to be the direction of the discussion.
Click to expand...


The devils know the the Trinity and they have a personal relationship with Him. It is just a bad one.


----------



## MW

Calvibaptist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundamental, but not all-inclusive. One can agree to the Trinitarian concept of the Apostle's Creed but deny that He suffered and died and not be a Christian. My concern with some statements is that they seem to try to boil things down to the least common denominator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this strange species of non-Christian Trinitarianism were a reality (which I seriously doubt), it is obvious that it could not be said to adhere to the creeds. The RCC adheres to the creeds, so I really don't understand what your difficulty is. The emphasis on Trinitarianism pertains to baptism, which must be in the name of the Trinity in order to be valid. Baptism itself is the denominator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matthew 7:22-23 - "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
> 
> These people described by Jesus are people who had theology and external practice right. They are not Christians.
Click to expand...


What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?


----------



## MW

Calvibaptist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> My issue has absolutely nothing to do with believers' baptism. It has to do with what constitutes a church. I am assuming you share the Westminster Confession's definition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I share the WCF view of the church. Do you? Read on down to sect. 6, "that exalteth himself IN THE CHURCH."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, again, how much do they need to deny until they are no longer a Christian Church?
Click to expand...


They have to deny the fundamentals of historic Christianity.


----------



## MW

CredoCovenanter said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and therefore the reformed church separated from the RCC. We are separate from anti-paedobaptists. Their view vitiates the reformed understanding of the covenants. Nevertheless we accept them as far as they go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That view can run both ways. We could say the paedo reformed view vitiates the understanding of the covenants.
Click to expand...


I wasn't intending on opening up old wounds. The point is, even from your non-paedo perspective, you hold others to be in error, and yet still acknowledge the validity of their ordinances to a certain extent; so there is a limited degree of separation in accord with the particular extent of error.


----------



## MW

CredoCovenanter said:


> But the other group I mentioned came out of the Jesus movement. It is trinitarian and cultic. If I am not mistaken Mormonism is Christianity corrupted also. Just to a larger degree.



Mormons are not Christians, so it cannot be corrupted Christianity.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I share the WCF view of the church. Do you? Read on down to sect. 6, "that exalteth himself IN THE CHURCH."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, again, how much do they need to deny until they are no longer a Christian Church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have to deny the fundamentals of historic Christianity.
Click to expand...


Matthew - having been raised as a Roman Catholic, I can say with surety that the Roman Church denies Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, and Sola Scriptura. I'll leave out Soli Deo Gloria in order to be charitable. These truths, while articulated at Dort, have always been foundational to the Christian faith. Would you agree?


----------



## MW

BaptistInCrisis said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, again, how much do they need to deny until they are no longer a Christian Church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have to deny the fundamentals of historic Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matthew - having been raised as a Roman Catholic, I can say with surety that the Roman Church denies Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, and Sola Scriptura. I'll leave out Soli Deo Gloria in order to be charitable. These truths, while articulated at Dort, have always been foundational to the Christian faith. Would you agree?
Click to expand...


Bill, Arminians deny these things; do you deny them salvation through Christ? Of course not. These things are foundational to the reformed faith. People can be Christians who are not necessarily reformed. Christians maintain the fundamentals of the Christian faith, as confessed in the historic creeds. See 1 Cor. 15:1-4.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have to deny the fundamentals of historic Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew - having been raised as a Roman Catholic, I can say with surety that the Roman Church denies Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, and Sola Scriptura. I'll leave out Soli Deo Gloria in order to be charitable. These truths, while articulated at Dort, have always been foundational to the Christian faith. Would you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill, Arminians deny these things; do you deny them salvation through Christ? Of course not. These things are foundational to the reformed faith. People can be Christians who are not necessarily reformed. Christians maintain the fundamentals of the Christian faith, as confessed in the historic creeds. See 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
Click to expand...


Matthew - in my humble opinion there are two ways to "deny the fundamentals of historic Christianity." There are: 1. Outright denial. 2. Later adoption of beliefs that necessitate the former. I believe the Roman church, through decrees from various councils (1-5th Lateran Councils, Trent, 1rst Vatican Council etc.) negated the substance of its belief from the earlier ecumenical councils (like Nicaea and Chalcedon). 

Our disagreement is one of substance and is not likely to be swayed, so I'll drop the dialog and allow you a final response.

P.S. Oh, and as for Arminians... Matthew it depends on how you define Arminians. If you mean historical Arminianism, I would question salvation. What passes for Arminianism in the majority of baptistic churches is not full blow Arminianism (debatable, I know). Also, Arminianism does not claim to be a church. Roman Catholicism does.


----------



## MW

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Matthew - in my humble opinion there are two ways to "deny the fundamentals of historic Christianity." There are: 1. Outright denial. 2. Later adoption of beliefs that necessitate the former. I believe the Roman church, through decrees from various councils (1-5th Lateran Councils, Trent, 1rst Vatican Council etc.) negated the substance of its belief from the earlier ecumenical councils (like Nicaea and Chalcedon).
> 
> Our disagreement is one of substance and is not likely to be swayed, so I'll drop the dialog and allow you a final response.
> 
> P.S. Oh, and as for Arminians... Matthew it depends on how you define Arminians. If you mean historical Arminianism, I would question salvation. What passes for Arminianism in the majority of baptistic churches is not full blow Arminianism (debatable, I know). Also, Arminianism does not claim to be a church. Roman Catholicism does.



Bill, the RCC has not repudiated the fundamentals of historic Christianity. Modern Arminian Baptists claim to be churches of Jesus Christ and baptise accordingly; and I dare say, what goes on in some of these "churches" is just as blasphemous as what takes place in modern RC worship services, especially with the advent of drama.


----------



## Machaira

armourbearer said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> My issue has absolutely nothing to do with believers' baptism. It has to do with what constitutes a church. I am assuming you share the Westminster Confession's definition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I share the WCF view of the church. Do you? Read on down to sect. 6, "that exalteth himself IN THE CHURCH."
Click to expand...


Yeah . . . I know I'm going to catch flack for this, but . . . You assume the the confession is correct in assigning the identity of antichrist to the Pope. This is debatable and I believe there are big problems with this assumption. Show me one verse in Scripture that says the antichrist will exalt himself "in the Church." It doesn't exist. This is the problem with following the Reformers slavishly and uncritically.


----------



## toddpedlar

Machaira said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> My issue has absolutely nothing to do with believers' baptism. It has to do with what constitutes a church. I am assuming you share the Westminster Confession's definition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I share the WCF view of the church. Do you? Read on down to sect. 6, "that exalteth himself IN THE CHURCH."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah . . . I know I'm going to catch flack for this, but . . . You assume the the confession is correct in assigning the identity of antichrist to the Pope. This is debatable and I believe there are big problems with this assumption. Show me one verse in Scripture that says the antichrist will exalt himself "in the Church." It doesn't exist. This is the problem with following the Reformers slavishly and uncritically.
Click to expand...


Hm I've never heard anyone argue that the Antichrist isn't associated with the church... As for a reference, I'm pretty sure the section in WCF chapter 25 has as a reference text the passage 1 Thess 2:3-4 - "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

Is this not a man exalting himself in the temple (the church) of God? If it's not, I'm not sure what it is... Or do you honestly think this is speaking of a new Jewish temple?


----------



## Me Died Blue

armourbearer said:


> The contradiction is inherent with the RCC. They maintain the creeds, but then teach contrary to them. In so far as they maintain the creeds, the gospel is preached and men are saved by the grace of God. In so far as they teach contrary to the creeds, they corrupt the gospel, so that we are obliged to separate from them.



I know we're all agreed that individual Roman Catholics can be saved, but I wanted to elaborate on this. I think we're all likewise agreed that, say, contemporary evangelical synergists (not historic Arminians) compromise the purest form of the Gospel, but that their system of belief, even when fully understood and believed, still contains enough of the true Gospel to be an object of _saving_ faith. What about pure Roman Catholicism? Like I had asked Wayne earlier, if someone fully and accurately understands the intended meaning and substance of Rome's doctrine of salvation (such as that articulated by Trent), and that person fully and truly believes it, can he be saved?

You also mentioned, "We are separate from anti-paedobaptists. Their view vitiates the reformed understanding of the covenants. Nevertheless we accept them as far as they go." We believe that even though their understanding is wrong on aspects of the covenants, "full-blooded" 1689-ers still believe a _saving_ Gospel. Can "full-blooded, through-and-through" Roman Catholics believe a _saving_ Gospel?



Machaira said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> My issue has absolutely nothing to do with believers' baptism. It has to do with what constitutes a church. I am assuming you share the Westminster Confession's definition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I share the WCF view of the church. Do you? Read on down to sect. 6, "that exalteth himself IN THE CHURCH."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah . . . I know I'm going to catch flack for this, but . . . You assume the the confession is correct in assigning the identity of antichrist to the Pope. This is debatable and I believe there are big problems with this assumption. Show me one verse in Scripture that says the antichrist will exalt himself "in the Church." It doesn't exist. This is the problem with following the Reformers slavishly and uncritically.
Click to expand...


{Mod note} Let's not get into an entire discussion on Historicism in this thread. If anyone wants to follow this line of thought, let's do it in a new thread. {/Mode note}


----------



## Machaira

toddpedlar said:


> Is this not a man exalting himself in the temple (the church) of God? If it's not, I'm not sure what it is... Or do you honestly think this is speaking of a new Jewish temple?



Like Matthew, you assume that "temple" means "church." I don't believe it does. I'm certainly not alone in this.


----------



## toddpedlar

Machaira said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this not a man exalting himself in the temple (the church) of God? If it's not, I'm not sure what it is... Or do you honestly think this is speaking of a new Jewish temple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like Matthew, you assume that "temple" means "church." I don't believe it does. I'm certainly not alone in this.
Click to expand...


The WCF (at least in its prooftexts) seems to assume this, and Calvin and Henry certainly agreed. I don't want to totally discount an interpretation which includes a partial-preterist kind of fulfillment, which I assume would refer to the desecration of the Jewish temple prior to 70AD, or to events surrounding Caligula & his desire to be worshipped as God...but even if these are factors, it doesn't discount the idea that Paul speaks here of someone in the church as well. 

You've not let on why you disagree with 'temple' here being reference to a man in the church exalting himself... what's your reasoning?


----------



## Machaira

toddpedlar said:


> Machaira said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this not a man exalting himself in the temple (the church) of God? If it's not, I'm not sure what it is... Or do you honestly think this is speaking of a new Jewish temple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like Matthew, you assume that "temple" means "church." I don't believe it does. I'm certainly not alone in this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The WCF (at least in its prooftexts) seems to assume this, and Calvin and Henry certainly agreed. I don't want to totally discount an interpretation which includes a partial-preterist kind of fulfillment, which I assume would refer to the desecration of the Jewish temple prior to 70AD, or to events surrounding Caligula & his desire to be worshipped as God...but even if these are factors, it doesn't discount the idea that Paul speaks here of someone in the church as well.
> 
> You've not let on why you disagree with 'temple' here being reference to a man in the church exalting himself... what's your reasoning?
Click to expand...


It would seem that my point is quickly slipping away. The point is that the argument which says the antichrist sets himself up in the "Church" is far from proven Biblically and therefore cannot be the slam dunk in proving Rome to be part of the visible Church. 

BTW, I do take the "presterist" view of eschatology, (_not_ "full" presterism for the record).


----------



## Me Died Blue

*{Mod note} Again, let's take the discussion on Historicism and the Pope as the Anti-Christ to another thread. I'll delete any future posts on it in the current discussion. {/Mod note}*


----------



## MW

Me Died Blue said:


> I know we're all agreed that individual Roman Catholics can be saved, but I wanted to elaborate on this.



If we are all agreed on this, then I must point out the contradiction in maintaining individual RCs can be saved whilst denying the validity of their baptism. What does baptism signify and seal? Salvation. This is the same contradiction the anti-paedo makes when he maintains infants can be saved and then denies their baptism.



Me Died Blue said:


> You also mentioned, "We are separate from anti-paedobaptists. Their view vitiates the reformed understanding of the covenants. Nevertheless we accept them as far as they go." We believe that even though their understanding is wrong on aspects of the covenants, "full-blooded" 1689-ers still believe a _saving_ Gospel. Can "full-blooded, through-and-through" Roman Catholics believe a _saving_ Gospel?



It's just too easy to refer to London Confession Baptists, since they share the same soteriology with Presbyterians (in the main). Let's consider fundamentalist, dispensational types; especially the modern ones that allow for contemporary worship and drama, who have no qualms with pictures of Jesus, etc. As far as I can see, they have corrupted the gospel and worship of God as much as the RCC. Now, is their baptism accepted as valid? Undoubtedly it is.

Concerning the question of a through and through RC, I would think he is much the same as a through and through Judaist, like Saul of Tarsus, and his religion would lead him to think he should do many things contrary to the name of Jesus. So no, he would not believe a saving gospel, but persecute it to an extreme. But the same rule of "consistency" would bring out the true colours of many systems of belief within Protestantism, and show it to be something altogether different from Christianity. Nevertheless, we are thankful for the grace of God which restrains true Christians from falling into wholesale, faith-destroying error; and rather than encourage them to go further into error we should acknowledge what is true, and help them to understand the way of the Lord more perfectly.


----------



## Archlute

I voted "yes" for its validity, which is a change in my view from a discussion some months back. This is due to a combination of two things (the details upon which I do not have time to elaborate).

First, the discussion of Calvin and other reformers on this issue have me convinced that the modern rhetoric against RC baptism in conservative presbyterian circles fails to interact with the nature of the church, including the church in a radically corrupted state, in a manner as nuanced and encompassing as our earlier brothers in the faith.

Second, (as rare and as inconsistent as this may be for them) there are evangelical priests within the RCC. I know a man who grew up in the Catholic church who learned the true Gospel from his priest, and although that man is now a member of a Reformed denomination, he will never swerve from his conviction that there are truly evangelical priests within the RCC. This does not make the errors of that church acceptable, but it does lend credence to the position that Rome (as Calvin notes in his Institutes) is a corrupt church, yet has within her pale congregations that are faithful to the Gospel. It may be much more rare since Trent, but they still exist.


----------



## jtbdad

I voted not sure, which would be surprising to those who know I was immersed as an adult after being a teen aged convert to Roman Catholicism. I was sure then that my RC Baptism was not valid. Now I am not sure but I am sure that my immersion as an adult was. 

I guess I am displaying my ignorance here.


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> It's just too easy to refer to London Confession Baptists, since they share the same soteriology with Presbyterians (in the main). Let's consider fundamentalist, dispensational types; especially the modern ones that allow for contemporary worship and drama, who have no qualms with pictures of Jesus, etc. As far as I can see, they have corrupted the gospel and worship of God as much as the RCC. Now, is their baptism accepted as valid? Undoubtedly it is.



As one who is intimately familiar with the Roman Catholic church (coming from an Italian and Polish background, having a cousin who is a priest, going to Catholic schools for 7+ years, and being a former altar boy), this statement is incredibly far off base. It is impossible to compare drama and pictures of Jesus with praying to "the Mother of God," speaking of Mary as mediatrix (as John Paul and Mother Teresa did, as well as thousands of other Catholics do) and puragtory. The Roman system is corrupt beyond all measure. Only Rome has officially _anatamatized_ the gospel. And not just the Reformed pure gospel, but even the barest gospel that would save. Anyone who is saved in Rome is saved in spite of her teachings, not because of it. We might just as well say that the NY Times derived some ecclesiastical benefit because she has Christians in her employ.



Archlute said:


> I voted "yes" for its validity, which is a change in my view from a discussion some months back. This is due to a combination of two things (the details upon which I do not have time to elaborate).
> 
> First, the discussion of Calvin and other reformers on this issue have me convinced that the modern rhetoric against RC baptism in conservative presbyterian circles fails to interact with the nature of the church, including the church in a radically corrupted state, in a manner as nuanced and encompassing as our earlier brothers in the faith.



The Roman-validity position position has equal troubles with the nature of the state. Consider this- Calvin states in unequivical terms that it is unlawful to depart from a true church:



> "We have said that the symbols by which the Church is discerned are the preaching of the word and the observance of the sacraments, for these cannot any where exist without producing fruit and prospering by the blessing of God. I say not that wherever the word is preached fruit immediately appears; but that in every place where it is received, and has a fixed abode, it uniformly displays its efficacy. *Be this as it may, when the preaching of the gospel is reverently heard, and the sacraments are not neglected, there for the time the face of the Church appears without deception or ambiguity; and no man may with impunity spurn her authority*, or reject her admonitions, or resist her counsels, or make sport of her censures, far less revolt from her, and violate her unity, (see Chap. 2 sec. 1, 10, and Chap. 3. sec. 12.) For such is the value which the Lord sets on the communion of his Church, that *all who contumaciously alienate themselves from any Christian society, in which the true ministry of his word and sacraments is maintained, he regards as deserters of religion*." (Institutes IV.i.10, emphasis added)




Yet Calvin acknowledges that departure from Rome is not only warranted, but required:



> "Since this is the state of matters under the Papacy, we can understand how much of the Church there survives. There, *instead of the ministry of the word, prevails a perverted government, compounded of lies*, a government which partly extinguishes, partly suppresses, the pure light. *In place of the Lord's Supper, the foulest sacrilege has entered*, the worship of God is deformed by a varied mass of intolerable superstitions; doctrine (without which Christianity exists not) is wholly buried and exploded, the public assemblies are schools of idolatry and impiety. Wherefore, in declining fatal participation in such wickedness, *we run no risk of being dissevered from the Church of Christ*." (Institutes IV.ii.2, emphasis added)



Calvin has no problem saying that one of Rome's sacraments is no sacrament at all? You should ask yourself, what maketh them to differ? How can Calvin say that Rome has no preaching of the Word (see above) and that one sacrament is "the foulest sacrilege" and yet the other sacrament is valid? Either both sacraments are valid (because after all, the sacrament does not depend on the intention of the one administering) or neither. To say one is anathama, and the other lawful is sophistry. I understand why Calvin would see the need to defend baptism while not needing to defend the Mass - after all, to make RC baptism invalid at that time would unbaptize basically the entire Reformed church. But need we make the same historical mistake now?
[FONT=&quot]If this is the case, is must be appropriate to argue that Calvin would advise a recent RCC convert on the day after his baptism that the baptism was valid, but that he must depart from the false communion of the RCC. That appears to me to be complete nonsense. Imagine that conversation: [/FONT]

Joe: "just got baptized"
Calvin: "where?"
Joe: "in the Roman Catholic parish by the priest."
Calvin: "whoa! You need to get out of there now."
Joe: "Why?"
Calvin: "because it is not a proper church. They don't have any preaching and the Mass is the foulest sacrilege. {Next 10 minutes taken up with Calvin citing all the Romanist abuses such as he does in the _Institutes_} Don't waste a moment and get out!"
Joe: "Yikes! I guess I should not have had anything to do with them. I guess I should not have been baptized with them, and as a result joined to their communion in baptism."
Calvin: "well, don't worry about it. The baptism is fine. They did use the Trinitarian formula after all."


You can only understand and hold Calvin's position on Roman baptism if you ignore his views on schism and the Mass.


----------



## Kevin

armourbearer said:


> Me Died Blue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know we're all agreed that individual Roman Catholics can be saved, but I wanted to elaborate on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we are all agreed on this, then I must point out the contradiction in maintaining individual RCs can be saved whilst denying the validity of their baptism. What does baptism signify and seal? Salvation. This is the same contradiction the anti-paedo makes when he maintains infants can be saved and then denies their baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> Me Died Blue said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also mentioned, "We are separate from anti-paedobaptists. Their view vitiates the reformed understanding of the covenants. Nevertheless we accept them as far as they go." We believe that even though their understanding is wrong on aspects of the covenants, "full-blooded" 1689-ers still believe a _saving_ Gospel. Can "full-blooded, through-and-through" Roman Catholics believe a _saving_ Gospel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just too easy to refer to London Confession Baptists, since they share the same soteriology with Presbyterians (in the main). Let's consider fundamentalist, dispensational types; especially the modern ones that allow for contemporary worship and drama, who have no qualms with pictures of Jesus, etc. As far as I can see, they have corrupted the gospel and worship of God as much as the RCC. Now, is their baptism accepted as valid? Undoubtedly it is.
> 
> Concerning the question of a through and through RC, I would think he is much the same as a through and through Judaist, like Saul of Tarsus, and his religion would lead him to think he should do many things contrary to the name of Jesus. So no, he would not believe a saving gospel, but persecute it to an extreme. But the same rule of "consistency" would bring out the true colours of many systems of belief within Protestantism, and show it to be something altogether different from Christianity. Nevertheless, we are thankful for the grace of God which restrains true Christians from falling into wholesale, faith-destroying error; and rather than encourage them to go further into error we should acknowledge what is true, and help them to understand the way of the Lord more perfectly.
Click to expand...


WELL SAID!!!


----------



## Kevin

armourbearer said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have to deny the fundamentals of historic Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew - having been raised as a Roman Catholic, I can say with surety that the Roman Church denies Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, and Sola Scriptura. I'll leave out Soli Deo Gloria in order to be charitable. These truths, while articulated at Dort, have always been foundational to the Christian faith. Would you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill, Arminians deny these things; do you deny them salvation through Christ? Of course not. These things are foundational to the reformed faith. People can be Christians who are not necessarily reformed. Christians maintain the fundamentals of the Christian faith, as confessed in the historic creeds. See 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
Click to expand...




Game, set, match.


----------



## Kevin

Archlute said:


> I voted "yes" for its validity, which is a change in my view from a discussion some months back. This is due to a combination of two things (the details upon which I do not have time to elaborate).
> 
> First, the discussion of Calvin and other reformers on this issue have me convinced that the modern rhetoric against RC baptism in conservative presbyterian circles fails to interact with the nature of the church, including the church in a radically corrupted state, in a manner as nuanced and encompassing as our earlier brothers in the faith.
> 
> Second, (as rare and as inconsistent as this may be for them) there are evangelical priests within the RCC. I know a man who grew up in the Catholic church who learned the true Gospel from his priest, and although that man is now a member of a Reformed denomination, he will never swerve from his conviction that there are truly evangelical priests within the RCC. This does not make the errors of that church acceptable, but it does lend credence to the position that Rome (as Calvin notes in his Institutes) is a corrupt church, yet has within her pale congregations that are faithful to the Gospel. It may be much more rare since Trent, but they still exist.



You make a good point brother. I also know several people who confess faith in Christ who learned it within the RCC. It is hard for us to admit this but the word of God is powerful enough to overcome any system of false doctrine.


----------



## Herald

Kevin said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew - having been raised as a Roman Catholic, I can say with surety that the Roman Church denies Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, and Sola Scriptura. I'll leave out Soli Deo Gloria in order to be charitable. These truths, while articulated at Dort, have always been foundational to the Christian faith. Would you agree?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, Arminians deny these things; do you deny them salvation through Christ? Of course not. These things are foundational to the reformed faith. People can be Christians who are not necessarily reformed. Christians maintain the fundamentals of the Christian faith, as confessed in the historic creeds. See 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Game, set, match.
Click to expand...


Kevin - only in YOUR tennis match. In my ball game I hit a home run over the left field wall into the picnic area. The point? Valid baptism is in the eye of the beholder. Just as in the paedo-credo debates, this one has clear lines drawn and all we can do is throw snowballs at each other.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, Arminians deny these things; do you deny them salvation through Christ? Of course not. These things are foundational to the reformed faith. People can be Christians who are not necessarily reformed. Christians maintain the fundamentals of the Christian faith, as confessed in the historic creeds. See 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Game, set, match.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kevin - only in YOUR tennis match. In my ball game I hit a home run over the left field wall into the picnic area. The point? Valid baptism is in the eye of the beholder. Just as in the paedo-credo debates, this one has clear lines drawn and all we can do is throw snowballs at each other.
Click to expand...


The combination of travel to 3 cities in 6 days and few hours of sleep has made me a bit irritable. Nevertheless, the litany of , , etc to every post in this thread is not really adding anything to the conversation. It doesn't really do to have every post by every one we agree with quoted one at a time.

I would like to engage more in dialogue on this but I'm simply too tired to engage in fruitful discussion. I still have a problem with the nature of the argument in favor of the validity. It's not that I want to reject it outright given the piety of the many men I respect that hold to it but it's just not clicking for me. I just don't see the "succession" thing that gives the Priest the authority to Baptize. That argument alone appears Sacerdotal.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> I just don't see the "succession" thing that gives the Priest the authority to Baptize.



Where does the minister receive his authority to baptise in foro ecclesiae? By the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. The Romanist makes the succession episcopal, whereas the reformed make it evangelical; but it is succession nonetheless.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

fredtgreco said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just too easy to refer to London Confession Baptists, since they share the same soteriology with Presbyterians (in the main). Let's consider fundamentalist, dispensational types; especially the modern ones that allow for contemporary worship and drama, who have no qualms with pictures of Jesus, etc. As far as I can see, they have corrupted the gospel and worship of God as much as the RCC. Now, is their baptism accepted as valid? Undoubtedly it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As one who is intimately familiar with the Roman Catholic church (coming from an Italian and Polish background, having a cousin who is a priest, going to Catholic schools for 7+ years, and being a former altar boy), this statement is incredibly far off base. It is impossible to compare drama and pictures of Jesus with praying to "the Mother of God," speaking of Mary as mediatrix (as John Paul and Mother Teresa did, as well as thousands of other Catholics do) and puragtory. The Roman system is corrupt beyond all measure. Only Rome has officially _anatamatized_ the gospel. And not just the Reformed pure gospel, but even the barest gospel that would save. Anyone who is saved in Rome is saved in spite of her teachings, not because of it. We might just as well say that the NY Times derived some ecclesiastical benefit because she has Christians in her employ.
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted "yes" for its validity, which is a change in my view from a discussion some months back. This is due to a combination of two things (the details upon which I do not have time to elaborate).
> 
> First, the discussion of Calvin and other reformers on this issue have me convinced that the modern rhetoric against RC baptism in conservative presbyterian circles fails to interact with the nature of the church, including the church in a radically corrupted state, in a manner as nuanced and encompassing as our earlier brothers in the faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Roman-validity position position has equal troubles with the nature of the state. Consider this- Calvin states in unequivical terms that it is unlawful to depart from a true church:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We have said that the symbols by which the Church is discerned are the preaching of the word and the observance of the sacraments, for these cannot any where exist without producing fruit and prospering by the blessing of God. I say not that wherever the word is preached fruit immediately appears; but that in every place where it is received, and has a fixed abode, it uniformly displays its efficacy. *Be this as it may, when the preaching of the gospel is reverently heard, and the sacraments are not neglected, there for the time the face of the Church appears without deception or ambiguity; and no man may with impunity spurn her authority*, or reject her admonitions, or resist her counsels, or make sport of her censures, far less revolt from her, and violate her unity, (see Chap. 2 sec. 1, 10, and Chap. 3. sec. 12.) For such is the value which the Lord sets on the communion of his Church, that *all who contumaciously alienate themselves from any Christian society, in which the true ministry of his word and sacraments is maintained, he regards as deserters of religion*." (Institutes IV.i.10, emphasis added)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Calvin acknowledges that departure from Rome is not only warranted, but required:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Since this is the state of matters under the Papacy, we can understand how much of the Church there survives. There, *instead of the ministry of the word, prevails a perverted government, compounded of lies*, a government which partly extinguishes, partly suppresses, the pure light. *In place of the Lord's Supper, the foulest sacrilege has entered*, the worship of God is deformed by a varied mass of intolerable superstitions; doctrine (without which Christianity exists not) is wholly buried and exploded, the public assemblies are schools of idolatry and impiety. Wherefore, in declining fatal participation in such wickedness, *we run no risk of being dissevered from the Church of Christ*." (Institutes IV.ii.2, emphasis added)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calvin has no problem saying that one of Rome's sacraments is no sacrament at all? You should ask yourself, what maketh them to differ? How can Calvin say that Rome has no preaching of the Word (see above) and that one sacrament is "the foulest sacrilege" and yet the other sacrament is valid? Either both sacraments are valid (because after all, the sacrament does not depend on the intention of the one administering) or neither. To say one is anathama, and the other lawful is sophistry. I understand why Calvin would see the need to defend baptism while not needing to defend the Mass - after all, to make RC baptism invalid at that time would unbaptize basically the entire Reformed church. But need we make the same historical mistake now?
> [FONT=&quot]If this is the case, is must be appropriate to argue that Calvin would advise a recent RCC convert on the day after his baptism that the baptism was valid, but that he must depart from the false communion of the RCC. That appears to me to be complete nonsense. Imagine that conversation: [/FONT]
> 
> Joe: "just got baptized"
> Calvin: "where?"
> Joe: "in the Roman Catholic parish by the priest."
> Calvin: "whoa! You need to get out of there now."
> Joe: "Why?"
> Calvin: "because it is not a proper church. They don't have any preaching and the Mass is the foulest sacrilege. {Next 10 minutes taken up with Calvin citing all the Romanist abuses such as he does in the _Institutes_} Don't waste a moment and get out!"
> Joe: "Yikes! I guess I should not have had anything to do with them. I guess I should not have been baptized with them, and as a result joined to their communion in baptism."
> Calvin: "well, don't worry about it. The baptism is fine. They did use the Trinitarian formula after all."
> 
> 
> You can only understand and hold Calvin's position on Roman baptism if you ignore his views on schism and the Mass.
Click to expand...


It looks like no one wants to interact with you Fred.


----------



## fredtgreco

No, Randy, this issue with Calvin does not get a lot of press. I will admit, however, taht when I asked Dr. F.N. Lee the same question about the hypothetical baptized person, he admitted that the baptism should be accepted and the man immediately compelled to leave the RCC.


----------



## MW

CredoCovenanter said:


> It looks like no one wants to interact with you Fred.



To be honest, I started to frame a reply to Fred's response to me, but then I realised I was only answering his experience, and therefore desisted. His experience can't be wrong, but as persuasive as it may have been to himself it can be no guide to others.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like no one wants to interact with you Fred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, I started to frame a reply to Fred's response to me, but then I realised I was only answering his experience, and therefore desisted. His experience can't be wrong, but as persuasive as it may have been to himself it can be no guide to others.
Click to expand...


Reverend Winzer,

There was a bit more to his post than his experience. You have short changed Fred's comments.


----------



## MW

CredoCovenanter said:


> There was a bit more to his post than his experience. You have short changed Fred's comments.



Perhaps there was in addressing others; but in addressing me, this is what was said:



> As one who is intimately familiar with the Roman Catholic church (coming from an Italian and Polish background, having a cousin who is a priest, going to Catholic schools for 7+ years, and being a former altar boy), this statement is incredibly far off base. It is impossible to compare drama and pictures of Jesus with praying to "the Mother of God," speaking of Mary as mediatrix (as John Paul and Mother Teresa did, as well as thousands of other Catholics do) and puragtory. The Roman system is corrupt beyond all measure. Only Rome has officially anatamatized the gospel. And not just the Reformed pure gospel, but even the barest gospel that would save. Anyone who is saved in Rome is saved in spite of her teachings, not because of it. We might just as well say that the NY Times derived some ecclesiastical benefit because she has Christians in her employ.



How does one answer this experience, where one is not as "intimately familiar" with the RCC?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a bit more to his post than his experience. You have short changed Fred's comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps there was in addressing others; but in addressing me, this is what was said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As one who is intimately familiar with the Roman Catholic church (coming from an Italian and Polish background, having a cousin who is a priest, going to Catholic schools for 7+ years, and being a former altar boy), this statement is incredibly far off base. It is impossible to compare drama and pictures of Jesus with praying to "the Mother of God," speaking of Mary as mediatrix (as John Paul and Mother Teresa did, as well as thousands of other Catholics do) and puragtory. The Roman system is corrupt beyond all measure. Only Rome has officially anatamatized the gospel. And not just the Reformed pure gospel, but even the barest gospel that would save. Anyone who is saved in Rome is saved in spite of her teachings, not because of it. We might just as well say that the NY Times derived some ecclesiastical benefit because she has Christians in her employ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does one answer this experience, where one is not as "intimately familiar" with the RCC?
Click to expand...


I am not so sure one needs to be so intimately familiar with the RCC to understand that these actions or teachings exist in the apostate. I learned this stuff by reading about it and discussing it with other RCC members and Reformed books.

BTW what is so wrong about listening to someone's experience and following their advice if it is based upon truth. Paul used his in his letters. 

One more thing.... 

You said this...


> To be honest, I started to frame a reply to Fred's response to me, but then I realised I was only answering his experience, and therefore desisted. His experience can't be wrong, but as persuasive as it may have been to himself it can be no guide to others.



Why can't Fred's experience, which is based in truth and doctrine, be a guide to others? Paul used his experiences and truth to guide others and even to try to persuade others of the truth. What in Fred's testimony is a untruthful that it shouldn't be a guide? 

Plus you still haven't dealt with Fred's Post. What about the comments by and on Calvin?


----------



## wsw201

Randy,

Regarding Fred's post, no one, including myself or Rev. Winzer, are going to argue with Fred's experience with the RCC. My in-laws did novinas (sp?) for two years after my wife and I got married. I as well as anyone else on this board would not recommend attending an RC church. In fact I would tell anyone who was a member of the RCC to get out ASAP! For what it's worth, I would also say the same thing to the person attending the happy-clappy church down the street where they get a half hour plus of therapy instead of the Gospel.

Regarding the inconsistencies with Calvin and virtually all the Reformed theologians up to Thornwell, I would recommend reading the link I provided.

Below is an excerpt from Hodge's paper that might help:



> The next step in the argument is, of course, the consideration of the question, whether the church of Rome comes within the definition, the correctness of which we have endeavored to establish? It was very common with the reformers and their successors to distinguish between the papacy, and the body of people professing Christianity under its dominion. When, by the church of Rome they meant the papacy, the denounced it as the mystical Babylon, and synagogue of Satan; when they meant by it the people, considered as a community professing the essential doctrines of the gospel, they admitted it to be a church. This distinction is natural and just, though it imposes the necessity of affirming and denying the same proposition. If by the church of Rome, you mean one thing, it is not a church; if you mean another, it is a church. People will not trouble themselves, however, with such distinctions, though they often unconsciously make them, and are forced to act upon them. Thus by the word England, we sometimes mean the country, sometimes the government, and sometimes the people. If we mean by it the government, we may say (in reference to some periods of its history), that it is unjust, cruel, persecuting, rapacious, opposed to Christ and his kingdom: when these things could not be said with truth of the people [4].
> 
> Though we regard the above distinction as sound, and though we can see no more real contradiction in saying Rome is a church, and is not a church, than in saying a man is mortal and yet immortal, spiritual yet carnal, a child of God yet sold under sin; yet as the distinction is not necessary for the sake either of truth or perspicuity, we do not intend to avail ourselves of it. All that we have to beg is, that brethren would not quote against us the sweeping declarations and denunciations of our Protestant fore-fathers against popery as the man of sin, antichrist, the mystical Babylon, and synagogue of Satan, as proof of our departure from the Protestant faith. In all those denunciations we could consistently join; just as our fathers, as Professor Thornwell acknowledges, while uttering those denunciations, still admitted Rome, in one sense, to be a church. Our present object is to enquire whether the church of Rome, taking the term as Bishop Sanderson says, Conjunctim pro toto aggregato, just as we take the term, church of England, falls within the definition of a church given above.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Hello all.

First I will say it is a pleasure to be part of the board. I will attempt to jump in this discussion as well as I am able.

Since I hold to the 3FU, I have always questioned the wording of them concerning baptism. IT could certainly lead one to believe they were approving a belief of BR(Baptismal Regeneration).

In this way he signifies to us that just as water washes away the dirt of the body when it is poured on us and also is seen on the body of the baptized when it is sprinkled on him, so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally,
in the soul, by the Holy Spirit. It washes and cleanses it from its sins and transforms us from being the children of wrath into the children of God.So ministers, as far as their work is concerned, give us the sacrament and what is visible, but our Lord gives what the sacrament signifies—namely the invisible gifts and graces; washing, purifying, and cleansing our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts and filling them
with all comfort; giving us true assurance of his fatherly goodness; clothing us with the "new man" and stripping off the "old," with all its works.For this reason we believe that anyone who aspires to reach eternal life ought to be baptized only once
without ever repeating it—*for we cannot be born twice*.Yet this baptism is profitable
not only when the water is on us and when we receive it but throughout our entire lives.

Question 71. Where has Christ promised us, that he will as certainly wash us by his blood and Spirit, as we are washed with the water of baptism?
Answer. In the institution of baptism, which is thus expressed: [f] "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [g]," "he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." This promise is also repeated, where the scripture calls baptism the [h] washing of regeneration, and the washing _ away of sins.

Question 70. What is it to be washed with the blood and Spirit of Christ?
Answer. It is to receive of God the remission of sins, freely, for the sake of Christ's blood, which he [d] shed for us by his sacrifice upon the cross; and also to be renewed by the Holy Ghost, and sanctified to be members of Christ, that so we may more and more die unto sin, and [e] lead holy and unblamable lives.


I am not attempting to digress this thread, my point simply being is that the rcc belief of baptismal regeneration can be also concluded that the above mentioned confessions appear to speak the same language to the untrained eye. Therefore to claim a rcc baptism invalid becasue of their understanding does not come as cut and dry as one may expect.

2) I do see a similarity being presented against the validity as a flavor of Donatism. It can be denied and spun that it is not, but in actuality it is. Rev. Winzer touched on this already. IF the false profession of parents, unregenerate parents do not invalidate the sacrament, then the channel of who gives it certainly cannot.

3) Calvin: It is on the grounds of God's faithfulness that Calvin affirms,

...Moreover, if we have rightly determined that a sacrament is not to be estimated by the hand of hem by whom nit is administered, but is to be received as from the hand of God Himself, from Whom nit undoubtedly proceeded, we may hence infer that its dignity neither gains nor loses by the administrator... This confutes the error of the Donatists, who measured the efficacy and worth of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister. *Such en the present day are our catabaptists (rebaptizers) who deny that we are duly baptized, because we were baptized en the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters; hence, they furiously insist on anabaptism (rebaptism). Against these absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism we were initiated not into the name of any man, but into the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever nit may have been administered. *(Institutes, 1559 edition, IV: 15:16-17)


And also in a PCA position paper:

"The process of investigation through the dim past, searching out such things as faith or the lack of it in deceased priest or parents, will convince one that only God knows the heart. Dr. Buswell wisely wrote ... 'The value of participation depends wholly upon its institution by Christ, and not in the slightest degree upon the human channel by which it is administered.' *If we are not careful, none of us will know for sure if we have been baptized. Likewise, if our salvation rested on the quality of our faith rather than faith's perfect object, we could not truly know if we are saved ...* God has not left us in such confusing positions. We can know we are saved and we can know we are baptized."_


----------



## jbergsing

Calvibaptist said:


> The RCC, despite its trinitarian formula in baptism, is not a Christian church. They do not rightly uphold the gospel or the sacraments (ordinances). Therefore, the baptism is illegitimate.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Calvibaptist said:


> Matthew 7:22-23 - "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
> 
> These people described by Jesus are people who had theology and external practice right. They are not Christians.




Are we free to declare that many "Reformers' may fall into this category also? We most certainly can. So again this scripture cannot be wrested to mean only an rcc priest. 

Lets look at two scenarios.

1) You were baptised rc, you now join yourself to a Presbyterian church where you read the 1845 paper and thornwell. You ask to be rebaptised. Suddenly th person who baptised you leaves the fold and begins to embrace a false gospel. Or you find out he was a hypocrite when he baptised you, would you still consider the second baptism valid?


2) What if you were baptised my Zwingli? His understanding differs as much if not more than Calvins than the rcc does. Would you need to be rebatised if baised as ananabaptist? that would be ironic though..


3) You partake in the Supper with ought against you neighbor. You receive it in an unworthy manner. You are convicted after receiving it, would you even dare to ask the minister to give you another piece of bread and sip of wine? Noone can answer yes to this. Yet did you receiving it in an unworthy manner invalidate the sacrament? No it did not. Therefore the creature whether giving or receiving can do nothing to improve on it nor invalidate it.


----------



## fredtgreco

Amazing Grace said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 7:22-23 - "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
> 
> These people described by Jesus are people who had theology and external practice right. They are not Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we free to declare that many "Reformers' may fall into this category also? We most certainly can. So again this scripture cannot be wrested to mean only an rcc priest.
> 
> Lets look at two scenarios.
> 
> 1) You were baptised rc, you now join yourself to a Presbyterian church where you read the 1845 paper and thornwell. You ask to be rebaptised. Suddenly th person who baptised you leaves the fold and begins to embrace a false gospel. Or you find out he was a hypocrite when he baptised you, would you still consider the second baptism valid?
> 
> 
> 2) You partake in the Supper with ought against you neighbor. You receive it in an unworthy manner. You are convicted after receiving it, would you even dare to ask the minister to give you another piece of bread and sip of wine? Noone can answer yes to this. Yet did you receiving it in an unworthy manner invalidate the sacrament? No it did not. Therefore the creature whether giving or receiving can do nothing to improve on it nor invalidate it.
Click to expand...


Perhaps a better question, and one more in line with issues of Donatism, would be whether the "church" that the minister is in openly anathamatizes the gospel. We are not talking about individual ministers and their regenerate nature (or not). That question was resolved centuries ago. We are talking about whether an organization that loudly proclaims that the gospel message leads one to hell, and that one must work ones way to heaven has a legitimate baptism.

Here's a second question if (when?) Rome finally declares Mary a Mediatorix (if some qualifications to be sure) - would Rome's baptism still be legitimate?


----------



## Amazing Grace

fredtgreco said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 7:22-23 - "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
> 
> These people described by Jesus are people who had theology and external practice right. They are not Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we free to declare that many "Reformers' may fall into this category also? We most certainly can. So again this scripture cannot be wrested to mean only an rcc priest.
> 
> Lets look at two scenarios.
> 
> 1) You were baptised rc, you now join yourself to a Presbyterian church where you read the 1845 paper and thornwell. You ask to be rebaptised. Suddenly th person who baptised you leaves the fold and begins to embrace a false gospel. Or you find out he was a hypocrite when he baptised you, would you still consider the second baptism valid?
> 
> 
> 2) You partake in the Supper with ought against you neighbor. You receive it in an unworthy manner. You are convicted after receiving it, would you even dare to ask the minister to give you another piece of bread and sip of wine? Noone can answer yes to this. Yet did you receiving it in an unworthy manner invalidate the sacrament? No it did not. Therefore the creature whether giving or receiving can do nothing to improve on it nor invalidate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps a better question, and one more in line with issues of Donatism, would be whether the "church" that the minister is in openly anathamatizes the gospel. We are not talking about individual ministers and their regenerate nature (or not). That question was resolved centuries ago. We are talking about whether an organization that loudly proclaims that the gospel message leads one to hell, and that one must work ones way to heaven has a legitimate baptism.
> 
> Here's a second question if (when?) Rome finally declares Mary a Mediatorix (if some qualifications to be sure) - would Rome's baptism still be legitimate?
Click to expand...





Will you answer mine if I answer yours? 

Yes the baptism is valid in both scenarios. Unless they add MAry's name to the triune formula.

See Fred. Some consider many gospels presented will lead one to hell, but yet their baptism is not questioned. Therefore like the gentleman said in the PCA paper, one can always doubt their baptism when anything other than Christ, the giver, is looked at. Just as judging ones own salvation can be doubted when looking to self. Yet God assures on both..


----------



## Calvibaptist

Amazing Grace said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 7:22-23 - "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
> 
> These people described by Jesus are people who had theology and external practice right. They are not Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we free to declare that many "Reformers' may fall into this category also? We most certainly can. So again this scripture cannot be wrested to mean only an rcc priest.
> 
> Lets look at two scenarios.
> 
> 1) You were baptised rc, you now join yourself to a Presbyterian church where you read the 1845 paper and thornwell. You ask to be rebaptised. Suddenly th person who baptised you leaves the fold and begins to embrace a false gospel. Or you find out he was a hypocrite when he baptised you, would you still consider the second baptism valid?
Click to expand...


The issue here is not whether an individual who does the baptizing is a believer or not. It is that, despite it's trinitarian belief, the institution that sanctions the baptism is NOT Christian. The significance of RC baptism is that it washes away original sin and regenerates the person being baptized. So the significance of the baptism is NOT Christian. The understanding of the person being baptized (if they are not an infant) is that their original sin is being washed away and they are being regenerated. So the understanding of the baptismal candidate is NOT Christian.




> 2) What if you were baptised my Zwingli? His understanding differs as much if not more than Calvins than the rcc does. Would you need to be rebatised if baised as ananabaptist? that would be ironic though..



His understanding on the gospel is not different. He does not believe that baptism regenerates and is necessary to make it into heaven.




> 3) You partake in the Supper with ought against you neighbor. You receive it in an unworthy manner. You are convicted after receiving it, would you even dare to ask the minister to give you another piece of bread and sip of wine? Noone can answer yes to this. Yet did you receiving it in an unworthy manner invalidate the sacrament? No it did not. Therefore the creature whether giving or receiving can do nothing to improve on it nor invalidate it.



This is apples and oranges again. The issue is not mode or heart attitude of the one being baptized or even of the one doing the baptizing. The issue is whether the RC as an institution has the right to baptize or even offer the Lord's Supper.

I do not believe the RC Mass is a valid presentation of the Lord's Supper because of two reasons: 1) They are not a Christian church, 2) They have an errant view called transubstantiation.

If RC baptism is Christian and valid because the RC is a Christian institution, then let's all go back to Mother Rome and repent of our 500 year schism. If we are not willing to do that because the errors in Rome make the institution un-Christian, then this discussion is silly.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Calvibaptist said:


> The issue here is not whether an individual who does the baptizing is a believer or not. It is that, despite it's trinitarian belief, the institution that sanctions the baptism is NOT Christian. The significance of RC baptism is that it washes away original sin and regenerates the person being baptized. So the significance of the baptism is NOT Christian. The understanding of the person being baptized (if they are not an infant) is that their original sin is being washed away and they are being regenerated. So the understanding of the baptismal candidate is NOT Christian.



0k, so the issue is moved into a different area now. TO avoid the Donatist heresey, we are now including the denomination as a whole. As I pointed out in an above post, the 3FU has ambiguous language on baptism that could be said to resemble baptismal regeneration. Even the WCF has been accused of teaching this, wrongly I will add, but accused none the less. Therefore we cannot use this arguement at all. Again you are pointing to the creature in the equation. Understanding. As if one has a perfect understanding in sacramental theology and the mysteries conferred upon them by God. Again if we look to ANYTHING other than God's grace, which is what? Unmerited favor for lack of space, who better to receive the grace of Baptism than one who lacks understanding? This is pure grace to me as defined in scripture. God bestows a blessing on one who deserves nothing. 






Calvibaptist said:


> His understanding on the gospel is not different. He does not believe that baptism regenerates and is necessary to make it into heaven.



Agreed, but his understanding of Baptism is not inline with the confessions nor scripture either.. We cannot pick and choose.




Calvibaptist said:


> This is apples and oranges again. The issue is not mode or heart attitude of the one being baptized or even of the one doing the baptizing. The issue is whether the RC as an institution has the right to baptize or even offer the Lord's Supper.
> 
> I do not believe the RC Mass is a valid presentation of the Lord's Supper because of two reasons: 1) They are not a Christian church, 2) They have an errant view called transubstantiation.
> 
> If RC baptism is Christian and valid because the RC is a Christian institution, then let's all go back to Mother Rome and repent of our 500 year schism. If we are not willing to do that because the errors in Rome make the institution un-Christian, then this discussion is silly.



You are correct, and proved my point. But you MUST also include Lutherans in the category now. Consubstantiation and BR is confessed by them. Sooner or later, everyone will have to question their baptism. 

IF it is invalid, than all first gen reformers were in serious error and needed to be rebatized.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Amazing Grace said:


> 0k, so the issue is moved into a different area now. TO avoid the Donatist heresey, we are now including the denomination as a whole. As I pointed out in an above post, the 3FU has ambiguous language on baptism that could be said to resemble baptismal regeneration. Even the WCF has been accused of teaching this, wrongly I will add, but accused none the less. Therefore we cannot use this arguement at all. Again you are pointing to the creature in the equation. Understanding. As if one has a perfect understanding in sacramental theology and the mysteries conferred upon them by God. Again if we look to ANYTHING other than God's grace, which is what? Unmerited favor for lack of space, who better to receive the grace of Baptism than one who lacks understanding? This is pure grace to me as defined in scripture. God bestows a blessing on one who deserves nothing.



No, this is the area that I brought the discussion into in my very first response to the OP which is the first response on page 1. The question is not understanding of the sacrament (or ordinance, for us Baptists ). The question is whether the institution proclaims a Christian gospel. If they do not, they are not a Christian institution and have no right to partake of Christian sacraments (ordinances). If this is the case, they are, in reality, no different from the local civic organization. We would not accept the baptism of someone who got sprinkled or dunked by the Boy Scouts.



> Agreed, but his understanding of Baptism is not inline with the confessions nor scripture either.. We cannot pick and choose.



My issue is not whether the institution understands baptism. We have disagreement between credo/paedo all the time, but we understand the gospel. This institution does not embrace the Christian gospel.




> You are correct, and proved my point. But you MUST also include Lutherans in the category now. Consubstantiation and BR is confessed by them. Sooner or later, everyone will have to question their baptism.
> 
> IF it is invalid, than all first gen reformers were in serious error and needed to be rebatized.



Since this thread isn't about the Lord's Supper, I am not going to get into that argument. I am unsure of the official Lutheran position on BR. I have seen statements on Lutheran websites that salvation necessitates baptism, but am unsure of the official position. The official position of the RCC is crystal clear.

If you read through this entire thread, you will see that I do believe the first gen reformers were highly inconsistent in this area. But, most people expect that because I am a Baptist. However, my views on this have nothing to do with mode or timing of baptism. They have everything to do with the institution sanctioning the baptism.

Would you accept the baptism of a Mormon? What about a JW? What about someone from the Branch Davidian cult? What about someone who is baptized by the Salvation Army? Or what about the baptism of the YMCA? All of them have parts of Christianity they agree with and parts they don't. None of them are Christian churches, therefore none of them have the right to baptize. Neither does the RCC.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Calvibaptist said:


> Would you accept the baptism of a Mormon? What about a JW? What about someone from the Branch Davidian cult? What about someone who is baptized by the Salvation Army? Or what about the baptism of the YMCA? All of them have parts of Christianity they agree with and parts they don't. None of them are Christian churches, therefore none of them have the right to baptize. Neither does the RCC.




I would not, becasue they have a faulty view of the trinity. And the historic creeds. I actually think the rcc has a more correct understanding of the sacrament administration. 

form, matter, intent...


----------



## Archlute

CredoCovenanter said:


> It looks like no one wants to interact with you Fred.



Sorry, gents. I would like to think about Fred's comments some more (and maybe even interact with them!), but I've only got about 10 min online today, so it may have to wait a bit (by which time, of course, there will have been written another three or four pages on this subject, thus making my response little more than a belated wave )


----------



## MW

CredoCovenanter said:


> Why can't Fred's experience, which is based in truth and doctrine, be a guide to others? Paul used his experiences and truth to guide others and even to try to persuade others of the truth. What in Fred's testimony is a untruthful that it shouldn't be a guide?
> 
> Plus you still haven't dealt with Fred's Post. What about the comments by and on Calvin?



Fred's experience is limited. My experience with RC's, based in truth and doctrine, tells me that some priests preach the gospel, albeit they also mix some strange traditions with it, but then so do Arminian Protestants; and I've come across a few traditional Augustinians who would put Protestants to shame. Nevertheless, neither of our experiences are normative. What _is_ normative is God's institutions, which are not dependent on man, but on the faithfulness of God from generation to generation.

Fred never mentioned anything about Calvin in his response to me; it was only in reference to others that he invented some dialogue between Calvin and one baptised in the RCC. If I were inclined to respond to that dialogue, I would simply replace the name of the RCC with some fundamentalist baptist church. It is beyond me why the baptism of one is accepted whilst the baptism of the other is rejected. This just goes to show the partiality of personal experience. Blessings!


----------



## Calvibaptist

Amazing Grace said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you accept the baptism of a Mormon? What about a JW? What about someone from the Branch Davidian cult? What about someone who is baptized by the Salvation Army? Or what about the baptism of the YMCA? All of them have parts of Christianity they agree with and parts they don't. None of them are Christian churches, therefore none of them have the right to baptize. Neither does the RCC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not, becasue they have a faulty view of the trinity. And the historic creeds. I actually think the rcc has a more correct understanding of the sacrament administration.
> 
> form, matter, intent...
Click to expand...


That is a good answer for Mormons and JW's, but not for Salvation Army (a Wesleyan group) and the YMCA, both of which are orthodox in their beliefs, but are para-church ministries, and therefore, not able to baptize.

Suppose a college student got saved at a Campus Crusade meeting and then was baptized by the Campus Crusade leader, who is not a member of a church. Would you accept their baptism or would you say that because they were not baptized by a church it was invalid? Amazingly, in my estimation, a lot of Baptists wouldn't have a problem with it. I do.


----------



## Amazing Grace

SemperFideles said:


> I voted No. It seems to me that the magisterial Reformers wrote at a different time and were not dealing with a Church that had completely repudiated the Gospel yet by its official teaching. RCC baptism in no way resembles Christian baptism except that it uses some words that are the same.
> 
> It's kind of like asking if the Judaizer's circumcision is the same as Abraham's.



I have read this answer many times before. But Rome ratified beliefs already confessed prior to Trent. Calvin et al knew this and still claimed it to be valid.


----------



## Kevin

A couple of observations;

First, Bill is correct. Baptist and Presbyterians are just throwing snowballs over the fence at each other. Of course baptists think RCC baptisms are invalid, they think presbyterian baptisms are invalid. Why should I be surprised at this? I should not be, we have a very different view of what the purpose and signifigence of baptism *is*.

Second, Rev. Winzer is correct. The traditional, historic, mainstream reformed & presbyterian view is that RCC baptisms are *valid*. This also should surprise no one. The historic/mainstream reformed view is not unknown in our day.

Third, the burden of proof is on the revisionist/inovaters. For me (since I happen to agree with the historic reformed position) it is enough to say "Yes, and Amen!" when I hear the traditional view expounded. This does not convince my baptist brothers any more now,then it convinced their forefathers when my grandfathers made the same point 400 years ago. However, when a reformed or presbyterian hears this he should be prepared to say "Yes, but...".

I object not at all when someone says "Calvin/Knox/whoever did say that BUT, I believe that the Scripture requires...". That is all well and good. However, to say that you are presbyterian yet that you reserve to yourself the right of reconsideration is (to my mind at least) the same as climbing over the fence and joining the other (anabaptist) side. To say that Calvin- Knox-WCF said `X` however I am convinced that by `X` they meant `Y`& you believe that you are convinced that they meant `Z`. This is also an acceptable intramural debate, (witness the entire EP discussion). But to say (as a presbyterian) that Calvin-Knox-WCF said `X`& Ì`think that `X`is wrongandiftheylivedtodaytheywouldthinklikeme is also (In my humble opinion) to climb over the fence to the annabaptist side. To be clear I do not expect that baptist will agree here. My only point is that I am shocked that presbyterians don`t agree.

In conclusion two things stand out. One, I had no idea that baptist made up the majority on the Puritan (!) Board. Second, I had no idea that so many presbyterians had conceded so much to the (ana)baptist view.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> Bill, Arminians deny these things; do you deny them salvation through Christ? Of course not. These things are foundational to the reformed faith. People can be Christians who are not necessarily reformed. Christians maintain the fundamentals of the Christian faith, as confessed in the historic creeds. See 1 Cor. 15:1-4.



I actually hold that if an Arminianian truly understands Arminianism they cannot be a Christian. Thankfully most Arminians are inconsistent and don't understand where their doctrine is leading them. However, learned Arminians - who fully understand what Calvinism is teaching, and hate it - do not have a credible profession of faith, as they HATE the gospel of Christ (wrongly called Calvinism).

However, one difference between "evangelical" Arminian churches and Popery, is that Rome has actually anathematized the gospel, whereas most Arminians just misunderstand it and their churches would formally claim to believe in justification by faith alone (while Rome has declared it accursed).


----------



## Amazing Grace

Calvibaptist said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you accept the baptism of a Mormon? What about a JW? What about someone from the Branch Davidian cult? What about someone who is baptized by the Salvation Army? Or what about the baptism of the YMCA? All of them have parts of Christianity they agree with and parts they don't. None of them are Christian churches, therefore none of them have the right to baptize. Neither does the RCC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not, becasue they have a faulty view of the trinity. And the historic creeds. I actually think the rcc has a more correct understanding of the sacrament administration.
> 
> form, matter, intent...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a good answer for Mormons and JW's, but not for Salvation Army (a Wesleyan group) and the YMCA, both of which are orthodox in their beliefs, but are para-church ministries, and therefore, not able to baptize.
> 
> Suppose a college student got saved at a Campus Crusade meeting and then was baptized by the Campus Crusade leader, who is not a member of a church. Would you accept their baptism or would you say that because they were not baptized by a church it was invalid? Amazingly, in my estimation, a lot of Baptists wouldn't have a problem with it. I do.
Click to expand...




Good question Douglas. I am not one for hypotheticals when it comes to the Scriptures. My premature observation would be yes. Since it is Christ that Baptizes and not man. AS long as the form matter and intent are held. All I can point to at this time is 1 Cor 1:...

11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ."

13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into* the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 

Insert your 'para church' name into the appropriate slot. So I was not Batized by a minister in a methodist, arminian, Presbyterian, reforemd, baptist church. I am certain I was baptized by Christ..

As a Pastor, YOU do not baptized. You are a channel. The denomination is a channel. Now before you think I am allowing for the opposite extreme of anyone can just throw water on someone and say you are baptized, I am not. 

Discussions like this make me thankfull my salvation is not dependant upon being baptized, let alone being baptized 'correctly'*


----------



## Calvibaptist

Amazing Grace said:


> Discussions like this make me thankfull my salvation is not dependant upon being baptized, let alone being baptized 'correctly'



I absolutely agree with you here!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Kevin said:


> A couple of observations;
> 
> First, Bill is correct. Baptist and Presbyterians are just throwing snowballs over the fence at each other. Of course baptists think RCC baptisms are invalid, they think presbyterian baptisms are invalid. Why should I be surprised at this? I should not be, we have a very different view of what the purpose and signifigence of baptism *is*.
> 
> Second, Rev. Winzer is correct. The traditional, historic, mainstream reformed & presbyterian view is that RCC baptisms are *valid*. This also should surprise no one. The historic/mainstream reformed view is not unknown in our day.
> 
> Third, the burden of proof is on the revisionist/inovaters. For me (since I happen to agree with the historic reformed position) it is enough to say "Yes, and Amen!" when I hear the traditional view expounded. This does not convince my baptist brothers any more now,then it convinced their forefathers when my grandfathers made the same point 400 years ago. However, when a reformed or presbyterian hears this he should be prepared to say "Yes, but...".
> 
> I object not at all when someone says "Calvin/Knox/whoever did say that BUT, I believe that the Scripture requires...". That is all well and good. However, to say that you are presbyterian yet that you reserve to yourself the right of reconsideration is (to my mind at least) the same as climbing over the fence and joining the other (anabaptist) side. To say that Calvin- Knox-WCF said `X` however I am convinced that by `X` they meant `Y`& you believe that you are convinced that they meant `Z`. This is also an acceptable intramural debate, (witness the entire EP discussion). But to say (as a presbyterian) that Calvin-Knox-WCF said `X`& Ì`think that `X`is wrongandiftheylivedtodaytheywouldthinklikeme is also (In my humble opinion) to climb over the fence to the annabaptist side. To be clear I do not expect that baptist will agree here. My only point is that I am shocked that presbyterians don`t agree.
> 
> In conclusion two things stand out. One, I had no idea that baptist made up the majority on the Puritan (!) Board. Second, I had no idea that so many presbyterians had conceded so much to the (ana)baptist view.



1. If you want to agree with a litany of posts then do so all at once. This is what the multi-quote feature is for. If you can't figure out how to use it then just say "I agree with everything Rev. Winzer said." Don't spam the thread with pointless  one at a time.

2. I think you brought the discussion down to an immature level by claiming that those who would disagree with Calvin or Knox on this issue are suddenly "Anabaptists". We are discussing this issue. Nobody is starting a micro-Presbytery or taking exceptions to the WCF on this issue. No doubt the framers of the WCF believed RCC baptism to be valid but it is still a worthy topic of discussion. Even if I choose to disagree with the WCF on this subject it is still my opinion at that point and I'm not claiming it to be normative doctrine. Frankly, it would be pretty hard to argue that the belief that RCC baptism is valid is a doctrine taught in the WCF except obliquely. Insofar as I was a member of a denomination that taught it, I would submit to the teaching and would extend the right hand of fellowship to a brother in that denomination that my elders recognized as being in the visible Church.

3. It does not do to simply quote a Reformer or Divine to state "...Calvin thought it was valid...." It is also necessary that we understand _why_ he thought it was valid. I remain unsatisfied, personally, that I could defend the notion on Scriptural grounds. I don't claim to have studied the issue in-depth but I have yet to be convinced by Scripture that RCC Baptism is valid. It is not because all the other Presbyterians and I are "Anabaptist" as you so impiously charge.


----------



## wsw201

> 3. It does not do to simply quote a Reformer or Divine to state "...Calvin thought it was valid...." It is also necessary that we understand why he thought it was valid. I remain unsatisfied, personally, that I could defend the notion on Scriptural grounds. I don't claim to have studied the issue in-depth but I have yet to be convinced by Scripture that RCC Baptism is valid. It is not because all the other Presbyterians and I are "Anabaptist" as you so impiously charge.



Rich,

Okay, I'll try you! Have you read the link I provided on Hodge's agruement? I have backed off this thread because it seems that no one wants to even come close to taking on the issue from any objective view point. Of all the folks on this board who have voted that they would consider an RC baptism valid (though definately irregular) are not saying that the RCC is a true church. In fact it is a FALSE CHURCH! *But the question is "is the RCC apart of the visible church?". * The only argument I have read on this thread is that the RCC is not a true church and thats it! If this is the only definition of the church that there is then we are down to confessional Presbyterians only. I say confessional Presbyterians only because this is the logical implication of using just this definition. I can find all kinds of problems with the various denominations out there which would exclude them from being a "True Church". As I said before, how true is true and who gets to decide? How do we avoid subjectivism.

In my post to Randy I took an excerpt from the Hodge link that provides a cogent arguement about how the church can be defined. Who is willing to say that Hodge is wrong and why he's wrong. Any takers??

And don't think that this whole discussion doesn't have implications. As I have noted earlier, the OPC recognizes RC baptism. They followed Hodge vs Thornwell. Has the OPC gone over the edge? In fact, if memory serves me correctly, the URC also accepts RC Baptism (any URC guy out there can correct me if I'm wrong).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> Of all the folks on this board who have voted that they would consider an RC baptism valid (though definately irregular) are not saying that the RCC is a true church. In fact it is a FALSE CHURCH! But the question is "is the RCC apart of the visible church?".



The visible church (according to the Westminster Standards) is those who profess the TRUE religion and their children. Romanists do not profess the true religion - since they have anathematized the gospel - and are therefore not part of the visible church but a synagogue of Satan. Consequently, their baptism is no more valid that a bunch of pagans on the street throwing water over each other and invoking the name of the Trinity.


> The only argument I have read on this thread is that the RCC is not a true church and thats it! If this is the only definition of the church that there is then we are down to confessional Presbyterians only. I say confessional Presbyterians only because this is the logical implication of using just this definition. I can find all kinds of problems with the various denominations out there which would exclude them from being a "True Church". As I said before, how true is true and who gets to decide? How do we avoid subjectivism.



Presbyterians do not claim that we alone are the true church (see WCF Chapter 26). Other Protestants profess the true religion (even though their worship and church government may be corrupt), and therefore they are part of the visible church of Jesus Christ. Rome does not profess the true religion, and hence it is not part of the visible church of Christ on earth.


----------



## Amazing Grace

SemperFideles said:


> 3. It does not do to simply quote a Reformer or Divine to state "...Calvin thought it was valid...." It is also necessary that we understand _why_ he thought it was valid. I remain unsatisfied, personally, that I could defend the notion on Scriptural grounds. I don't claim to have studied the issue in-depth but I have yet to be convinced by Scripture that RCC Baptism is valid. It is not because all the other Presbyterians and I are "Anabaptist" as you so impiously charge.




I agree with this Rich. We all tend to use a very wide brish when speaking on certain topics.

What is confronting me on the issue is what happenned for 1800 years prior to the 1845 PCA thronwell issue? I know some speak of this so called 'Great Apostacy', but if in 1845 rc baptisms were considered invalid by some, then when did they become invalid? Was there EVER a time in the primitive church that they were valid? Or did God leave His church destitute of this sacrament for 19 centuries. I know He claims to always have a remnant according to grace, so this cannot be what happened. And I cannot believe that a revelation of perfect baptismal theology was given to Thornwell..


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Of all the folks on this board who have voted that they would consider an RC baptism valid (though definately irregular) are not saying that the RCC is a true church. In fact it is a FALSE CHURCH! But the question is "is the RCC apart of the visible church?".
> 
> 
> 
> Romanists do not profess the true religion - since they have anathematized the gospel - and are therefore not part of the visible church but a synagogue of Satan.
Click to expand...


WHat does this mean Daniel? "Anathamize the Gospel?" I have seen you and others use it..

Again, When did they become a 'SoS?' At trent?


----------



## Romans922

What about being baptized by at PCUSA church or a church which is called presbyterian but preaches a unitarian gospel? Well, for instance when i was baptized the church was preaching the gospel correctly, i think, i mean, i was a infant, so I really don't know what the church particularly was like, but I know they were presbyterian but now they preach an anathamatizable doctrine. What if the RCC church that I attended when I was baptized was preaching the Gospel boldly, just because they are linked to a the rest of RCC does that make my baptism unvalid? 

What about the conservative PCUSA church - they baptized an infant, well they are part of the PCUSA and so it isn't valid.


----------



## wsw201

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Of all the folks on this board who have voted that they would consider an RC baptism valid (though definately irregular) are not saying that the RCC is a true church. In fact it is a FALSE CHURCH! But the question is "is the RCC apart of the visible church?".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The visible church (according to the Westminster Standards) is those who profess the TRUE religion and their children. Romanists do not profess the true religion - since they have anathematized the gospel - and are therefore not part of the visible church but a synagogue of Satan. Consequently, their baptism is no more valid that a bunch of pagans on the street throwing water over each other and invoking the name of the Trinity.
> 
> 
> 
> The only argument I have read on this thread is that the RCC is not a true church and thats it! If this is the only definition of the church that there is then we are down to confessional Presbyterians only. I say confessional Presbyterians only because this is the logical implication of using just this definition. I can find all kinds of problems with the various denominations out there which would exclude them from being a "True Church". As I said before, how true is true and who gets to decide? How do we avoid subjectivism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Presbyterians do not claim that we alone are the true church (see WCF Chapter 26). Other Protestants profess the true religion (even though their worship and church government may be corrupt), and therefore they are part of the visible church of Jesus Christ. Rome does not profess the true religion, and hence it is not part of the visible church of Christ on earth.
Click to expand...


Daniel,

It would appear that you are not one of the "takers". Again, read Hodge's argument. His paper answers your issues. Tell me why he and the Reformed churches up to Thornwell were wrong.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

wsw201 said:


> Daniel,
> It would appear that you are not one of the "takers". Again, read Hodge's argument. His paper answers your issues. Tell me why he and the Reformed churches up to Thornwell were wrong.


It should also be noted that this is the kind of a-historical taken-out-of -context reading-later-views-into-the-text that people like the FVists do. The Assembly as far as I know to a man would have not rebaptized a RC convert. Note the Rutherford quote above.


----------



## fredtgreco

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of all the folks on this board who have voted that they would consider an RC baptism valid (though definately irregular) are not saying that the RCC is a true church. In fact it is a FALSE CHURCH! But the question is "is the RCC apart of the visible church?".
> 
> 
> 
> Romanists do not profess the true religion - since they have anathematized the gospel - and are therefore not part of the visible church but a synagogue of Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHat does this mean Daniel? "Anathamize the Gospel?" I have seen you and others use it..
> 
> Again, When did they become a 'SoS?' At trent?
Click to expand...


CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.


----------



## Amazing Grace

fredtgreco said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romanists do not profess the true religion - since they have anathematized the gospel - and are therefore not part of the visible church but a synagogue of Satan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHat does this mean Daniel? "Anathamize the Gospel?" I have seen you and others use it..
> 
> Again, When did they become a 'SoS?' At trent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...


Thank you Fred. Now I understand the cliche correctly. This brings me to my above mentioned point. One would be very incorrect to state the rcc became a SoS at Trent just becasue of a canon pronouncement. They believed this for centuries. Trent is not the barometer of the rcc profession of faith. So again I ask, were baptisms ever valid in the roman church?

I also ask has anyone answered the question/statement mentioned many posts ago that why was not circumcisn repeated when an apostate priest administered it?


----------



## fredtgreco

Amazing Grace said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHat does this mean Daniel? "Anathamize the Gospel?" I have seen you and others use it..
> 
> Again, When did they become a 'SoS?' At trent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you Fred. Now I understand the cliche correctly. This brings me to my above mentioned point. One would be very incorrect to state the rcc became a SoS at Trent just becasue of a canon pronouncement. They believed this for centuries. Trent is not the barometer of the rcc profession of faith. So again I ask, were baptisms ever valid in the roman church?
> 
> I also ask has anyone answered the question/statement mentioned many posts ago that why was not circumcisn repeated when an apostate priest administered it?
Click to expand...


Actually, Nicholas, there is something very significant about Trent. The Reformers and Puritans certainly thought so (even those that acknowledge RC baptism as valid). At Trent formally and deliberately rejected the gospel. It did so in the context of an official Church council, which all RCs are obliged to obey and submit to. It would be (in my mind) somewhat analogous to the situation (in principle, not in importance) if a Presbyterian denomination formally changed the WCF to remove the sections on the Sabbath, and instead added a statement saying the Lord's Day was like any other day. Many PCA and OPC churches _informally_ do that, but a _formal_ and obligatory pronouncement is different.

In answer to your second question: the are different issues entirely. An apostate priest who was a part of the visible true church may administer the sacraments (per the Donatist solution). With the RC church the issue is not the individual, but the whole. For example, a perfectly orthodox man in the RC (or the YMCA) still cannot administer valid baptism. It is the flip side of the Donatist ruling - that the intention and heart of the man doe snot affect the validity (or invalidity) of the church's sacraments.


----------



## JM

While searching for something else I found the follow article and thought I'd post it for interest sake, I haven't read it yet.

The Tri-lemma


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> What does this mean Daniel? "Anathamize the Gospel?" I have seen you and others use it..



The Council of Trent declared that anyone who believed in justification by faith alone.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by wsw201 View Post
> Daniel,
> It would appear that you are not one of the "takers". Again, read Hodge's argument. His paper answers your issues. Tell me why he and the Reformed churches up to Thornwell were wrong.
> It should also be noted that this is the kind of a-historical taken-out-of -context reading-later-views-into-the-text that people like the FVists do. The Assembly as far as I know to a man would have not rebaptized a RC convert. Note the Rutherford quote above.



I do not doubt the assertion that the Westminster Divines would not have re-baptized a RC convert; however, in doing this they were acting inconsistently with their doctrine of the visible church. Moreover, the idea that Romanism is anti-Christian, but that the Pope is 'in the church' (25:6) is a contradiction, which various American Presbyterians have resolved by dropping from the Confession.

Basically, Thornwell was right because he took the WCF view of the visible church to its logical conclusion (i.e. the visible church is those that profess the true religion and their children - not "baptized" pagans), which led him to believe that Rome was not in it as Rome is not a true church of Jesus Christ. I am familiar with Hodge's arguments (though its a long time since I read them - I think it was in David Calhoun's history of Princeton Seminary), I remember him arguing that Rome was still part of the visible church - a view I reject.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Amazing Grace said:


> I also ask has anyone answered the question/statement mentioned many posts ago that why was not circumcisn repeated when an apostate priest administered it?



Uhhhh, not to be too graphic, but once you cut it off, it's gone. Circumcision cannot be repeated. But, since you mentioned the continuity argument....

If a priest in the Northern Kingdom who was not a Levite and ministered at Bethel circumcised an Amorite convert, bringing them into the Northern Kingdom pagan religion, would that Amorite be considered in covenant with God?


----------



## Machaira

wsw201 said:


> In my post to Randy I took an excerpt from the Hodge link that provides a cogent arguement about how the church can be defined. Who is willing to say that Hodge is wrong and why he's wrong. Any takers??



It's already been said, but I'll say it again. According to the WCF chapter 25 the visible church consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion and of their children. Hodge argues that the RCC is part of the visible Church because it holds to the historic creeds. He then turns around and admits the following:

*"While we admit the truth of the objection as a fact, viz., that the dominant class of theologians do explain away most of the saving doctrines of her ancient creeds, yet we deny that this destroys the argument from the profession of those creeds, in proof that as a society she retains saving truth. Because it is the creeds and not the explanations, that constitute the profession of the people."*

What contradictory nonsense. The RCC holds the creeds in name only because as Hodge admits they pour their own meaning into the propositions they contain. This demonstrates very clearly that the RCC as an entity does not profess the true religion and can rightly be described as a synagogue of Satan.

*"The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."* WCF 25:5

BTW, the first part of WCF 25:5 answers nicely those who continue to say that if we exclude Rome from the visible Church then we must do the same with all churches in which we can find fault or with whom we disagree.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Daniel Ritchie said:


> .
> Basically, Thornwell was right because he took the WCF view of the visible church to its logical conclusion (i.e. the visible church is those that profess the true religion and their children - not "baptized" pagans), which led him to believe that Rome was not in it as Rome is not a true church of Jesus Christ.


You need to add "to what he thought was" before "its logical conclusion".


----------



## Amazing Grace

fredtgreco said:


> Actually, Nicholas, there is something very significant about Trent. The Reformers and Puritans certainly thought so (even those that acknowledge RC baptism as valid).



Those would equal pretty much all prior to Trent though. I wasnt as if Calvin and Luther Stood alone on this. 




fredtgreco said:


> At Trent formally and deliberately rejected the gospel. It did so in the context of an official Church council, which all RCs are obliged to obey and submit to. It would be (in my mind) somewhat analogous to the situation (in principle, not in importance) if a Presbyterian denomination formally changed the WCF to remove the sections on the Sabbath, and instead added a statement saying the Lord's Day was like any other day. Many PCA and OPC churches _informally_ do that, but a _formal_ and obligatory pronouncement is different.




But the fact remains, is just becasue it was ratified, does not mean this belief was OPENLY confessed throughout the ages Fred. To use the Council of trent as the demarkation point as the rcc becoming a 'sos' is weak, actually not even weak, but just wrong. Why did Trent take place? It was a RESPONSE, just as EVERY confession is done against another Party. IE the protties reformation. If the reformation never took place, there would be no trent. Just as Dort was in response to the remondstrands. 

Fred, think about this faulty reasoning, and let me give you an example. 

Canon 1 of the Fouth Lateran Council in the year 1215.

Text: We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple; the Father (proceeding) from no one, but the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Ghost equally from both, always without beginning and end. The Father begetting, the Son begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal, the one principle of the universe, Creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal, who from the beginning of time and by His omnipotent power made from nothing creatures both spiritual and corporeal, angelic, namely, and mundane, and then human, as it were, common, composed of spirit and body. The devil and the other demons were indeed created by God good by nature but they became bad through themselves; man, however, sinned at the suggestion of the devil. This Holy Trinity in its common essense undivided and in personal properties divided, through Moses, the holy prophets, and other servants gave to the human race at the most opportune intervals of time the doctrine of salvation. 


Now are you about to claim that since this was 'officially' pronounced in the year 1215, that all the years previous that this was confessed openly it takes a different tone? The RCC did not believe in a trinitarian Godhead prior to 1215? I know you will not nor cannot admit to that. So in effect, the same rule applies to Trent, therefore leaving us with the fact that from 1500 to 1845, nothing new happened in the rcc, and if they saw fit to determine their baptisms valid, then so do I. 


I could continue with numerous examples of the above. It is very clear, that a confession or creed is done with its primary reason to argue against another 'idea' per se'. Nothing more and nothing else.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> You need to add "to what he thought was" before "its logical conclusion".



Maybe, but how can Rome be part of the visible church when it does not profess the true religion, which according to the Westminster Standards is requisite to being part of the visible church. The Puritans agreed that Romanism was not true religion, if so, how could it be part of the visible church? If it is not part of the visible church, then its ordinances cannot be accepted as valid.

To those who accept the legitimacy of Romish baptism, I have this question: would you accept it if it was adminstered by a mid-wife?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Daniel,
We're going around in circles. Wayne has referred everyone to the Hodge piece for the argument in general. On midwives, no it is not a valid baptism; and that's because the Reformers, at least our Scots Presbyterian Reformers, made a distinction between lawful and valid Baptisms. This distinction is explained by MacPherson in his lecture on _The Unity of the Church, the Sin of Schism. _


----------



## wsw201

Machaira said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my post to Randy I took an excerpt from the Hodge link that provides a cogent arguement about how the church can be defined. Who is willing to say that Hodge is wrong and why he's wrong. Any takers??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already been said, but I'll say it again. According to the WCF chapter 25 the visible church consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion and of their children. Hodge argues that the RCC is part of the visible Church because it holds to the historic creeds. He then turns around and admits the following:
> 
> *"While we admit the truth of the objection as a fact, viz., that the dominant class of theologians do explain away most of the saving doctrines of her ancient creeds, yet we deny that this destroys the argument from the profession of those creeds, in proof that as a society she retains saving truth. Because it is the creeds and not the explanations, that constitute the profession of the people."*
> 
> What contradictory nonsense. The RCC holds the creeds in name only because as Hodge admits they pour their own meaning into the propositions they contain. This demonstrates very clearly that the RCC as an entity does not profess the true religion and can rightly be described as a synagogue of Satan.
Click to expand...


This is hardly contradictory. Theologians can pontificate on whatever they want and re-interpret what they see fit but the creeds stand as they are as what the church confesses. It is the same for the Standards. Presbyterians can turn it into a wax nose (and have done so!) but the Standards say what they say and that is the official position of the church. In fact, how many Presbyterians do you think have actually read, much less studied, the Standards? Do you honestly believe the average person in the pew really understands all the ins and outs of the Standards?

Regarding their doctrines of salvation, I am sure you read what Hodge wrote on what is needed to be known to be saved. We have had these discussions on this board before. Is it as much as the thief on the cross knew or does one have to have the knowledge of a Calvin? What's the baseline? The Athanasian Creed pretty much sums it up for me but maybe not for you. Just like Fred, my wife grew up in the RCC. Went to the various RC schools through high school. When I first talked to her about what the RCC believed, she was totally clueless. She couldn't believe that the RCC really held to those doctrines. Its the same with the rest of her family. They have never heard of Trent much less read it. And this is Hodge's point regarding the RCC doctrine of salvation. Is it corrupted? you bet. But is there a kernal of truth based on their accepted confessions that would qualify them as a Church, though not a true church? yes. And this is what the Magistrial Reformers saw as well as the later Reformers.



> "The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan." WCF 25:5
> 
> BTW, the first part of WCF 25:5 answers nicely those who continue to say that if we exclude Rome from the visible Church then we must do the same with all churches in which we can find fault or with whom we disagree.



It answers it nicely? Not quite. How much mixture and error needs to be there before a church degenerates into "no church of Christ"? I'm afraid that question is left un-answered in 25:5.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> On midwives, no it is not a valid baptism; and that's because the Reformers, at least our Scots Presbyterian Reformers, made a distinction between lawful and valid Baptisms.



So baptism by a RC priest is valid, but not by an RC mid-wife?


----------



## Romans922

NaphtaliPress said:


> Daniel,
> We're going around in circles. Wayne has referred everyone to the Hodge piece for the argument in general. On midwives, no it is not a valid baptism; and that's because the Reformers, at least our Scots Presbyterian Reformers, made a distinction between lawful and valid Baptisms. This distinction is explained by MacPherson in his lecture on _The Unity of the Church, the Sin of Schism. _



Did we talk about what the Westminster Divines thought?


----------



## wsw201

Romans922 said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> We're going around in circles. Wayne has referred everyone to the Hodge piece for the argument in general. On midwives, no it is not a valid baptism; and that's because the Reformers, at least our Scots Presbyterian Reformers, made a distinction between lawful and valid Baptisms. This distinction is explained by MacPherson in his lecture on _The Unity of the Church, the Sin of Schism. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did we talk about what the Westminster Divines thought?
Click to expand...


I think we did back on page 4. Or was it page 3?


----------



## fredtgreco

wsw201 said:


> Machaira said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my post to Randy I took an excerpt from the Hodge link that provides a cogent arguement about how the church can be defined. Who is willing to say that Hodge is wrong and why he's wrong. Any takers??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already been said, but I'll say it again. According to the WCF chapter 25 the visible church consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion and of their children. Hodge argues that the RCC is part of the visible Church because it holds to the historic creeds. He then turns around and admits the following:
> 
> *"While we admit the truth of the objection as a fact, viz., that the dominant class of theologians do explain away most of the saving doctrines of her ancient creeds, yet we deny that this destroys the argument from the profession of those creeds, in proof that as a society she retains saving truth. Because it is the creeds and not the explanations, that constitute the profession of the people."*
> 
> What contradictory nonsense. The RCC holds the creeds in name only because as Hodge admits they pour their own meaning into the propositions they contain. This demonstrates very clearly that the RCC as an entity does not profess the true religion and can rightly be described as a synagogue of Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is hardly contradictory. Theologians can pontificate on whatever they want and re-interpret what they see fit but the creeds stand as they are as what the church confesses. It is the same for the Standards. Presbyterians can turn it into a wax nose (and have done so!) but the Standards say what they say and that is the official position of the church. In fact, how many Presbyterians do you think have actually read, much less studied, the Standards? Do you honestly believe the average person in the pew really understands all the ins and outs of the Standards?
> 
> Regarding their doctrines of salvation, I am sure you read what Hodge wrote on what is needed to be known to be saved. We have had these discussions on this board before. Is it as much as the thief on the cross knew or does one have to have the knowledge of a Calvin? What's the baseline? The Athanasian Creed pretty much sums it up for me but maybe not for you. Just like Fred, my wife grew up in the RCC. Went to the various RC schools through high school. When I first talked to her about what the RCC believed, she was totally clueless. She couldn't believe that the RCC really held to those doctrines. Its the same with the rest of her family. They have never heard of Trent much less read it. And this is Hodge's point regarding the RCC doctrine of salvation. Is it corrupted? you bet. But is there a kernal of truth based on their accepted confessions that would qualify them as a Church, though not a true church? yes. And this is what the Magistrial Reformers saw as well as the later Reformers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan." WCF 25:5
> 
> BTW, the first part of WCF 25:5 answers nicely those who continue to say that if we exclude Rome from the visible Church then we must do the same with all churches in which we can find fault or with whom we disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It answers it nicely? Not quite. How much mixture and error needs to be there before a church degenerates into "no church of Christ"? I'm afraid that question is left un-answered in 25:5.
Click to expand...


Wayne,

Perhaps we can get guidance from WCF 24.3, which consigns papists to category with "infidels" and "other idolaters"


----------



## wsw201

> Wayne,
> 
> Perhaps we can get guidance from WCF 24.3, which consigns papists to category with "infidels" and "other idolaters"



True. And as it also says "therefore such as profess the true *reformed* religion should not marry" them.

But the question is does the RCC have any kernel of the True Religion (not the Reformed religion) in it that would qualify it as a Church (as corrupted as it is) in regard to the validity (though irregular) of its baptism (not marraige).

As an aside: do you remember at the Pittsburgh GA when 24.3 was brought up as an allowable exception. Do you remember how that was resolved?


----------



## Machaira

fredtgreco said:


> Wayne,
> 
> Perhaps we can get guidance from WCF 24.3, which consigns papists to category with "infidels" and "other idolaters"



Unfortunately, that probably won't be good enough either. Here is little more of Hodge's argument. Notice the blatant contradictions. 

_"Since the church of Rome," says Turrettin, "may be viewed under a twofold aspect, either in reference to the profession of Christianity and of the evangelical truths which she retains, or in reference to her subjection to the pope, and to her corruptions both in matters of faith and morals, we can speak of her in two different ways. under one aspect, we do not deny she retains some truth; under the other *we deny that she is Christian and apostolical, and affirm her to be anti-christian and apostate. In one sense, we admit she may be still called a CHRISTIAN CHURCH.* 1st. In reference to the people of God, or the elect, who are called to come out of her even at the time of her destruction, Rev. xviii. 4. 2d. In reference to external form, or certain elements of a dispersed church, the vestiges of which are still conspicuous, as well as regards the word of God and the preaching thereof, which she still retains, although corrupted, as the administration of the sacraments, especially baptism, which as to its substance is there retained in its integrity. *3d. In reference to the evangelical truths, as concerning the Trinity, Christ the mediator, God and man, by which she is distinguished from a congregation of pagans or infidels. But we deny that she can be properly and simply (i.e., without qualification) be called a true church,* much less the only and the catholic church, as they would wish to have her called."_


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> But the question is does the RCC have any kernel of the True Religion (not the Reformed religion) in it that would qualify it as a Church (as corrupted as it is) in regard to the validity (though irregular) of its baptism (not marraige).



In my opinion no, Rome denies and anathematizes the gospel - which means that, as a communion, it is accursed (Gal. 1:9)



> In reference to the evangelical truths, as concerning the Trinity, Christ the mediator, God and man, by which she is distinguished from a congregation of pagans or infidels. But we deny that she can be properly and simply (i.e., without qualification) be called a true church,



This is double-talk by Hodge, Rome is a church, but not a true church. However, it is impossible to be a part of the visible church *unless* a grouping is a true church. Rome is a congregation of pagans and infidels precisely because she has totally anathematized the gospel.

Moreover, if popish baptism is valid, then what about its communion? Would it be okay for us all now to go to Mass if we could not receive the Lord's Supper anywhere else?


----------



## Me Died Blue

I just want to comment that it's impressive how civil and respectful this discussion has still remained throughout - _especially_ compared with most debate threads that reach this length and beyond...and in the baptism forum at that!


----------



## Calvibaptist

Me Died Blue said:


> I just want to comment that it's impressive how civil and respectful this discussion has still remained throughout - _especially_ compared with most debate threads that reach this length and beyond...and in the baptism forum at that!



Chris, I am offended that you would go to such great lengths to call me a heretic and demand that you repent!


----------



## Me Died Blue

Calvibaptist said:


> Me Died Blue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to comment that it's impressive how civil and respectful this discussion has still remained throughout - _especially_ compared with most debate threads that reach this length and beyond...and in the baptism forum at that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris, I am offended that you would go to such great lengths to call me a heretic and demand that you repent!
Click to expand...


Well, I guess "heretic" was a somewhat strong word to use on my part - after all, _your_ church _does_ still have the authority to administer baptism.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> In my opinion no, Rome denies and anathematizes the gospel - which means that, as a communion, it is accursed (Gal. 1:9)
> 
> 
> This is double-talk by Hodge, Rome is a church, but not a true church. However, it is impossible to be a part of the visible church *unless* a grouping is a true church. Rome is a congregation of pagans and infidels precisely because she has totally anathematized the gospel.



Daniel, I understand your extreme polemical opinion here, but it is going beyond what is needed. For some odd reason, I cannot get an answer to my question of when did Rome become a synogogue of satan? If it happened at trent, your arguement does not carry much weight at all. I have clearly pointed out to Fred that to say this happened becasue of Trent is erroneous. That is like saying we knew nothing of Predestination prior to Luther/Calvin. 

God promised to never leave His people orphans, is the great apostacy true then? Scripture says as I have pointed out before, there is always a remnant saved accoriding to Grace. Even in its dimist moments, Gods people are breathing and walking. 

Were Augustines Baptisms valid? Were Luthers baptisms valid? He held on to BR and penance and consubstantiation?

Did Gottshalk baptize people with validity?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. 

1) When did ROme become a syongogue of satan?( I am not saying it is)

2) Were there any valid baptisms after John Died? Up until this Thronwell character came on the scene? 1845...


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Me Died Blue said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me Died Blue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to comment that it's impressive how civil and respectful this discussion has still remained throughout - _especially_ compared with most debate threads that reach this length and beyond...and in the baptism forum at that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris, I am offended that you would go to such great lengths to call me a heretic and demand that you repent!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess "heretic" was a somewhat strong word to use on my part - after all, _your_ church _does_ still have the authority to administer baptism.
Click to expand...

All jokes aside, let's keep this thread civil; the fact that it has gone this long means temptation is around the corner. Every one gut up for being nice for the long hall.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Suggestion: This may be worth a new thread; that raises your specific subject visibility on its on right and may get you more input.


Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion no, Rome denies and anathematizes the gospel - which means that, as a communion, it is accursed (Gal. 1:9)
> 
> 
> This is double-talk by Hodge, Rome is a church, but not a true church. However, it is impossible to be a part of the visible church *unless* a grouping is a true church. Rome is a congregation of pagans and infidels precisely because she has totally anathematized the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I understand your extreme polemical opinion here, but it is going beyond what is needed. For some odd reason, I cannot get an answer to my question of when did Rome become a synogogue of satan? If it happened at trent, your arguement does not carry much weight at all. I have clearly pointed out to Fred that to say this happened becasue of Trent is erroneous. That is like saying we knew nothing of Predestination prior to Luther/Calvin.
> 
> God promised to never leave His people orphans, is the great apostacy true then? Scripture says as I have pointed out before, there is always a remnant saved accoriding to Grace. Even in its dimist moments, Gods people are breathing and walking.
> 
> Were Augustines Baptisms valid? Were Luthers baptisms valid? He held on to BR and penance and consubstantiation?
> 
> Did Gottshalk baptize people with validity?
> 
> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.
> 
> 1) When did ROme become a syongogue of satan?( I am not saying it is)
> 
> 2) Were there any valid baptisms after John Died? Up until this Thronwell character came on the scene? 1845...
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Daniel Ritchie said:


> However, one difference between "evangelical" Arminian churches and Popery, is that Rome has actually anathematized the gospel, whereas most Arminians just misunderstand it and their churches would formally claim to believe in justification by faith alone (while Rome has declared it accursed).



By an Arminian church I suppose you mean those who have embodied Arminianism in their confessional standards. If so, the "anathema" is understood to be applicable to any who teach contrary to the "received gospel" of the church. So there is no real difference here except that Trent makes explicit what is otherwise implicit for confessionally Arminian churches. I can remember PB discussing a fundie tract where Calvinism was presented as the way that leads to destruction.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Me Died Blue said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me Died Blue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to comment that it's impressive how civil and respectful this discussion has still remained throughout - _especially_ compared with most debate threads that reach this length and beyond...and in the baptism forum at that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris, I am offended that you would go to such great lengths to call me a heretic and demand that you repent!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess "heretic" was a somewhat strong word to use on my part - after all, _your_ church _does_ still have the authority to administer baptism.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but we wait too long...


----------



## Calvibaptist

NaphtaliPress said:


> Suggestion: This may be worth a new thread; that raises your specific subject visibility on its on right and may get you more input.
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion no, Rome denies and anathematizes the gospel - which means that, as a communion, it is accursed (Gal. 1:9)
> 
> 
> This is double-talk by Hodge, Rome is a church, but not a true church. However, it is impossible to be a part of the visible church *unless* a grouping is a true church. Rome is a congregation of pagans and infidels precisely because she has totally anathematized the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I understand your extreme polemical opinion here, but it is going beyond what is needed. For some odd reason, I cannot get an answer to my question of when did Rome become a synogogue of satan? If it happened at trent, your arguement does not carry much weight at all. I have clearly pointed out to Fred that to say this happened becasue of Trent is erroneous. That is like saying we knew nothing of Predestination prior to Luther/Calvin.
> 
> God promised to never leave His people orphans, is the great apostacy true then? Scripture says as I have pointed out before, there is always a remnant saved accoriding to Grace. Even in its dimist moments, Gods people are breathing and walking.
> 
> Were Augustines Baptisms valid? Were Luthers baptisms valid? He held on to BR and penance and consubstantiation?
> 
> Did Gottshalk baptize people with validity?
> 
> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.
> 
> 1) When did ROme become a syongogue of satan?( I am not saying it is)
> 
> 2) Were there any valid baptisms after John Died? Up until this Thronwell character came on the scene? 1845...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Since I was born in 1970, I wasn't alive during the 2000 year development of the RCC. I can't tell you exactly when it abandoned the gospel. Neither can anyone else point to a specific time when it passed from light into darkness. It's like asking exactly when Baroque music ceased being baroque and became Classical. The end of the Baroque period is officially in 1750 because that was the year Bach died. But the music in 1749 would have had elements of the Classical period and the music in 1751 would have still had elements of the Baroque period. I can tell you that the music was not in a Baroque style in 1850, though, and it isn't right now.

The RCC was constantly (despite what they say) developing. When was the exact date of the crossover? That's a silly question. What we do know for sure is that the Council of Trent places them squarely opposed to the gospel. So the change was developing before that. Since they still uphold Trent, they are still opposed to the gospel. Who cares when it happened. The OP (and the bulk of the discussion) regards what they are NOW, not when they became what they are.


----------



## wsw201

Machaira said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne,
> 
> Perhaps we can get guidance from WCF 24.3, which consigns papists to category with "infidels" and "other idolaters"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that probably won't be good enough either. Here is little more of Hodge's argument. Notice the blatant contradictions.
> 
> _"Since the church of Rome," says Turrettin, "may be viewed under a twofold aspect, either in reference to the profession of Christianity and of the evangelical truths which she retains, or in reference to her subjection to the pope, and to her corruptions both in matters of faith and morals, we can speak of her in two different ways. under one aspect, we do not deny she retains some truth; under the other *we deny that she is Christian and apostolical, and affirm her to be anti-christian and apostate. In one sense, we admit she may be still called a CHRISTIAN CHURCH.* 1st. In reference to the people of God, or the elect, who are called to come out of her even at the time of her destruction, Rev. xviii. 4. 2d. In reference to external form, or certain elements of a dispersed church, the vestiges of which are still conspicuous, as well as regards the word of God and the preaching thereof, which she still retains, although corrupted, as the administration of the sacraments, especially baptism, which as to its substance is there retained in its integrity. *3d. In reference to the evangelical truths, as concerning the Trinity, Christ the mediator, God and man, by which she is distinguished from a congregation of pagans or infidels. But we deny that she can be properly and simply (i.e., without qualification) be called a true church,* much less the only and the catholic church, as they would wish to have her called."_
Click to expand...


There is a difference between contradictions and a distinctions. Distinctions are an important part of theology. The Church makes distinctions all the time. Is it a contradiction to say that a person is a saint and a sinner at the same time?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> Daniel, I understand your extreme polemical opinion here, but it is going beyond what is needed. For some odd reason, I cannot get an answer to my question of when did Rome become a synogogue of satan? If it happened at trent, your arguement does not carry much weight at all. I have clearly pointed out to Fred that to say this happened becasue of Trent is erroneous. That is like saying we knew nothing of Predestination prior to Luther/Calvin.



Rome became a synagogue of Satan at Trent. At that point it declared the gospel anathema. Previously it was a scandously corrupt church, but had orthodox creeds (much like the Church of England today). But at Trent _by its confession_ Rome officially rejected the gospel.




> Were Augustine's Baptisms valid? Were Luther's baptisms valid? He held on to BR and penance and consubstantiation?



Again, we are not saying that anybody who held to any doctrinal error cannot be recognised as a true minister of Jesus Christ. Augustine and Luther were both Christians. Modern day Popish priests - who openly confess the dogmatic decrees of the Council of Trent - are not ministers of the gospel, whereas both Luther and Augustine were.



> 2) Were there any valid baptisms after John Died? Up until this Thornwell character came on the scene? 1845...



Of course there were valid baptism, carried out by ministers of the gospel in true Christian churches. Thornwell merely recognised that Romish baptism could not be valid as it was not carried out by a lawfully ordained Christian minister in a true church of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Machaira

wsw201 said:


> Machaira said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hodge says the following regarding the RCC:
> 
> *. . . we deny that she is Christian and apostolical, and affirm her to be anti-christian and apostate. In one sense, we admit she may be still called a CHRISTIAN CHURCH.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it a contradiction to say that a person is a saint and a sinner at the same time?
Click to expand...


No, this is called "sanctification." 



> Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.



Romans 7 & 8 also speaks to this situation. 

So to discriminate between a sanctified sinner and one who is not is a Biblical distinction. To affirm that an entity such as the RCC is _anti-christian and christian_ at the same time is not a distinction, but rather a contradiction. To affirm that the RCC _subscribes_ to the historic creeds, but explains away their true meaning is a contradiction. 

I can honestly say that after reading Hodge's very bad arguments, I truly understand this thread.


----------



## wsw201

Machaira said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Machaira said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hodge says the following regarding the RCC:
> 
> *. . . we deny that she is Christian and apostolical, and affirm her to be anti-christian and apostate. In one sense, we admit she may be still called a CHRISTIAN CHURCH.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it a contradiction to say that a person is a saint and a sinner at the same time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, this is called "sanctification."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Romans 7 & 8 also speaks to this situation.
> 
> So to discriminate between a sanctified sinner and one who is not is a Biblical distinction. To affirm that an entity such as the RCC is _anti-christian and christian_ at the same time is not a distinction, but rather a contradiction. To affirm that the RCC _subscribes_ to the historic creeds, but explains away their true meaning is a contradiction.
> 
> I can honestly say that after reading Hodge's very bad arguments, I truly understand this thread.
Click to expand...


Sorry Jim but you don't understand it at all. Sanctification?? That was not what I was getting at nor what Hodge was getting at.

I think the bottomline is that there is such distain for the RCC folks can't see the forrest for the trees. The idea that there can be ANY Christians in the RCC seems to be beyond comprehension.


----------



## Machaira

wsw201 said:


> Machaira said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it a contradiction to say that a person is a saint and a sinner at the same time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, this is called "sanctification."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Romans 7 & 8 also speaks to this situation.
> 
> So to discriminate between a sanctified sinner and one who is not is a Biblical distinction. To affirm that an entity such as the RCC is _anti-christian and christian_ at the same time is not a distinction, but rather a contradiction. To affirm that the RCC _subscribes_ to the historic creeds, but explains away their true meaning is a contradiction.
> 
> I can honestly say that after reading Hodge's very bad arguments, I truly understand this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Jim but you don't understand it at all. Sanctification?? That was not what I was getting at nor what Hodge was getting at.
> 
> I think the bottomline is that there is such distain for the RCC folks can't see the forrest for the trees. The idea that there can be ANY Christians in the RCC seems to be beyond comprehension.
Click to expand...



No Wayne, I do understand. It's not a contradiction to say one is a sinner and saint at the same time. Again, it is a contradiction to say that an institution is anti-christian and christian at the same time. This is the crux of Hodge's arguments. Why does it surprise you that any would feel disdain for an institution that anathemtizes justification by faith alone, as well as many other Biblical doctrines? As for you last comment, I have been very careful to distinguish between the RCC as an institution and the elect that are within her ranks. So have many others here. 

Sorry brother, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

wsw201 said:


> 3. It does not do to simply quote a Reformer or Divine to state "...Calvin thought it was valid...." It is also necessary that we understand why he thought it was valid. I remain unsatisfied, personally, that I could defend the notion on Scriptural grounds. I don't claim to have studied the issue in-depth but I have yet to be convinced by Scripture that RCC Baptism is valid. It is not because all the other Presbyterians and I are "Anabaptist" as you so impiously charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich,
> 
> Okay, I'll try you! Have you read the link I provided on Hodge's agruement? I have backed off this thread because it seems that no one wants to even come close to taking on the issue from any objective view point. Of all the folks on this board who have voted that they would consider an RC baptism valid (though definately irregular) are not saying that the RCC is a true church. In fact it is a FALSE CHURCH! *But the question is "is the RCC apart of the visible church?". * The only argument I have read on this thread is that the RCC is not a true church and thats it! If this is the only definition of the church that there is then we are down to confessional Presbyterians only. I say confessional Presbyterians only because this is the logical implication of using just this definition. I can find all kinds of problems with the various denominations out there which would exclude them from being a "True Church". As I said before, how true is true and who gets to decide? How do we avoid subjectivism.
> 
> In my post to Randy I took an excerpt from the Hodge link that provides a cogent arguement about how the church can be defined. Who is willing to say that Hodge is wrong and why he's wrong. Any takers??
> 
> And don't think that this whole discussion doesn't have implications. As I have noted earlier, the OPC recognizes RC baptism. They followed Hodge vs Thornwell. Has the OPC gone over the edge? In fact, if memory serves me correctly, the URC also accepts RC Baptism (any URC guy out there can correct me if I'm wrong).
Click to expand...


Wayne,

I honestly haven't had the time. I'll give it a look. I haven't seen many arguments presented in this thread that I can latch on to. I still don't understand the notion of succession. How long must a Church be a false Church before its ministers (priests) lose any authority to speak for God? I haven't had time to investigate this in the past week but was primarily frustrated at the charge that all who disagree are closet Anabaptists.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

In case anyone missed the great resource linked way earlier in this thread, here is the introduction below; the PDF file contains: 

1. French Confession of Faith (1559) 5 

2. John Calvin 7 

3. John Knox 11 

4. Theodore Beza 14 

5. William Perkins 19 

6. Samuel Rutherford 23 

7. Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) 30 

8. Richard Baxter 33 

9. Francis Turretin 43 

10. Charles Hodge (part one) 52 

11. Charles Hodge (part two) 83 

Introduction

How should Presbyterian and Reformed churches relate to those individuals and congregations who maintain communion with the Bishop of Rome? The Reformation of the 16th Century highlighted serious doctrinal problems in late medieval theology. But instead of heeding the call for reform, the greater part of the Western Church dug in her heals at the Council of Trent and insisted all the more vigorously in maintaining numerous and serious errors. Among other things, Trent vigorously denied, in the decrees and canons on justification from the sixth session (Henrici Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum 792-843), that justification before God is a forensic act in which God declares one to be righteous, based solely on the imputed righteousness of Christ, received by faith alone, apart from works. This, as well as other issues (such as viewing the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead, prayer to and veneration of images and saints, common worship only in Latin, and refusal to publish the Bible in the vernacular for the laity) not only became huge barriers to communion, but also led to a widespread denunciation of the Roman communion as officially apostate. 

If it is indeed the case that Rome remains apostate until she disavows the teaching of the Council of Trent, then how should Presbyterian and Reformed churches relate to Roman churches? Specifically, how should we view Roman baptism? In many parts of the Presbyterian and Reformed world, this remains largely a moot question. Throughout much of the Southern US, for example, one rarely comes into contact with a Roman Catholic. Rarer still does a baptized Roman Catholic convert and seek membership or communion in a Presbyterian church. Those in such a context have the enviable luxury of expressing their views, without the bother of having to put them into practice. Let one begin laboring as a missionary however, in (say) Latin America, and the question ceases to be merely academic. What should one do when nominal Roman Catholics begin coming to Christ in large numbers? They hear the gospel clearly for the first time in their lives; they intelligently profess faith in Jesus Christ, rejecting every other intermediary and every other hope of salvation; and they desire communion with a Presbyterian church. What should be done? 

Peru Mission, a Presbyterian team working in northern Peru, faced exactly this question, and found it to be the source of no small amount of consternation. We were keenly aware of the importance of Holy Baptism: it is the means of grace, instituted by Christ, for bringing converts and their children into the Church, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. Christ has commanded us in the Great Commission to make disciples by baptizing and teaching them. But we also recognize that baptism is a one-time event. It is Christ who ultimately performs the work of baptism.[1] To repeat it, then, is to show great disregard not only for the Sacrament itself, but it is also to deny the action and ministry of Christ who is the Author of every valid baptism. Further, it is important that a validly baptized person not be rebaptized, because to do so would be a schismatic act. It would be to effectively deny that the person was a visible Christian, or that the church to which he belonged was in any sense a part of the visible Christian church. 

In our efforts to grapple with the question, we of course sought wisdom and instruction from God in the Holy Scriptures. But we also sought to honor the teachers Christ has given His church in past ages and to glean wisdom from their study of the Word of God. We were aware of the controversy in the early church between bishops Cyprian and Stephen. Cyprian argued that all heretics should be rebaptized. Stephen took the view that it was only necessary to lay hands on them, acknowledging their repentance. Later, the Donatists in North Africa followed Cyprian and insisted on rebaptizing all heretics. Augustine and the First Council of Nicea both opposed this in the case of heretics who still maintained the doctrine of the Trinity and the proper words of institution. This position won the day until the time of the Reformation, when the Anabaptists rejected all infant baptisms, and later, baptisms not administered by full immersion. All of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches, however, continued to hold the Augustinian position, accepting, as we shall see, even Roman Baptism, until the Southern Presbyterian, James Henley Thornwell in the 19th Century squared off against Charles Hodge in an extensive debate that started on the floor of the Presbyterian (Old School) General Assembly and spilled over later into the Princeton Review, the Watchman and Observer, and the Southern Presbyterian Review. Thornwell rejected Roman Baptism, while Charles Hodge accepted its validity. Since then, the Northern Presbyterian Church has largely followed Hodge with the Southern Church similarly favoring Thornwell. 

The object of this volume is to gather together the dominant testimony of the Reformed tradition on this subject (most of which has remained locked away in dusty libraries) in one small volume. Here we present a brief statement from the French Confession of 1559 as well as statements by John Calvin from his Institutes and commentaries, and part of a short essay by John Knox. Then we have two short pieces, from Theodore Beza and William Perkins, which nevertheless present complete, self-contained arguments. Next is an excerpt from Samuel Rutherford, who is actually arguing for the validity of Roman ordination, but part of the basis for this argument, he says, is the validity of Roman baptism. We then have a short examination of the Westminster Confession (1647), concluding that, though the issue is not raised explicitly, the Divines in several key statements clearly assumed the validity of Roman Baptism when they insisted that rebaptism was unlawful. From there, we have two longer discussions by Richard Baxter and Francis Turretin, and finally, two longer essays by Charles Hodge. All of these authors accept the validity of Roman Baptism. In fact, we do not find a single author from the Reformed tradition who rejects Roman Baptism, until Thornwell pled his case in the mid 19th Century. We did not include his work in this volume, first, because of its great length, and secondly, because it, unlike the other texts collected here, has been readily available from the Banner of Truth Trust for nearly forty years. 

Our prayer is that the availability of these texts will assist ministers and sessions who face this dilemma, and that it will give Presbyterian and Reformed brethren an appreciation of the broader Reformed tradition on this complicated question. 
-------------
[1] Just as Christ's is the voice we hear when the Gospel is rightly preached 
(Eph 2.17); and just as He is the Cantor leading the Holy Assembly in worship 
(Heb 2.11-12); and just as He is the host at the Lord's Supper who gives us His 
body and blood that we might have life (1 Cor 11.24-25; John 6.51-58), so in like manner, it is He who performs the act of baptism, no matter whose hands might actually pour the water. Calvin's comments on John 4.1-2 are appropriate here: “He gives the designation of Christ's Baptism to that which he conferred by the hands of others, in order to inform us that Baptism ought not to be estimated by the person of the minister, but that its power depends entirely on its Author, in whose name, and by whose authority, it is conferred. Hence, we derive a remarkable consolation, when we know that our baptism has no less efficacy to wash and renew us, than if it had been given by the hand of the Son of God. Nor can it be doubted that, so long as he lived in the world, he abstained from the outward administration of the sign, for the express purpose of testifying to all ages, that Baptism loses nothing of its value when it is administered by a mortal man. In short, not only does Christ baptize inwardly by his Spirit, but the very symbol which we receive from a mortal man ought to be viewed by us in the same light as if Christ himself displayed his hand from heaven, and stretched it out to us. Now if the Baptism administered by a man is Christ's Baptism, it will not cease to be Christ's Baptism whoever be the minister.” ​


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Rome became a synagogue of Satan at Trent. At that point it declared the gospel anathema. Previously it was a scandously corrupt church, but had orthodox creeds (much like the Church of England today). But at Trent _by its confession_ Rome officially rejected the gospel.



I still see no connection between Trent, or any confission/creed determing one to become what they were not prior to this. Daniel, I suggest you read the Councils of the rcc and study there doctrinal beliefs before you make a statement like this. AS I pointed out earlier, if you take this line of reasoning, then you Must also conclude they did not confess the trinity until the 4th Lateran council in 1215. Is this true? 

How about the Council of Orange that took place in 529. Are you familiar with the canons for this? There is much truth in the Council. But was the church lacking in this understnading? If you were to tell Augustine, Oh Gus, now I know what you believe becasue it has been officially pronounced by the church in writing, what would he say? 



I know the topic of Baptizing heretics, or baptism by heretics plagued the early church. I have some files on it somewhere, i will have to re read them. I vaguely remember the 7th COuncil of Carthage with Cyprian leading sounds some what like this thread!!!!!.. So actually there is nothing new under the sun....



Victoricus of Thabraca5 said: If heretics are allowed to baptize and to give remission of sins, wherefore do we brand them with infamy and call them heretics?


Demetrius of Leptiminus6 said: We maintain one baptism, because we demand for the Church Catholic alone her own property. But they who say that heretics truly and legitimately baptize, are themselves the people who make not one, but many baptisms. For since heresies are many, according to their number will be reckoned baptisms.


Iambus of Germaniciana7 said: They who approve of the baptism of heretics, disapprove of ours, in denying that they who are, I will not say washed, but befouled, outside the Church, ought to be baptized in the Church.


Peter of Hippo Diarrhytus12 said: Since there is one baptism in the Catholic Church, it is manifest that one cannot be baptized outside the Church. And therefore I judge that those who have been dipped in heresy or in schism, when they come to the Church, should be baptized.

Pretty ironic hah?


But the one thing we must remember is a heretic then was not based on what some use the term for in 1845 up to today. It was against the Gnostics, followers of Marcion, Valentinus, etc etc. Those who denied the triune Godhead. 

The Didache on baptism:

CHAPTER 7 - CONCERNING BAPTISM

"And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if thou have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm. But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but thou shalt order the baptized to fast one or two days before." 

Justin Martyr: A.D. 110-165
Justin was a Gentile convert who wrote a defense of Christianity to the pagan Romans. In His "First Apology," Justin described Christian practice in general in all the churches. Here is his comment on baptism. 

CHAPTER 61 - CHRISTIAN BAPTISM

"I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, *for the remission of their sins that are past,* we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. ..."

"And for this we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed." 

Terrible Baptismal Theology if I do say so myself by Justin..

Since, therefore, from the preaching and testimony of Christ Himself, the Father who sent must be first known, then afterwards Christ, who was sent, and there cannot be a hope of salvation except by knowing the two together; how, when God the Father is not known, nay, is even blasphemed, can they who among the heretics are said to be baptized in the name of Christ, be judged to have obtained the remission of sins? For the case of the Jews under the apostles was one, but the condition of the Gentiles is another. The former [Jews], because they had already gained the most ancient baptism of the law and Moses, were to be baptized also in the name of Jesus Christ, in conformity with what Peter tells them in the Acts of the Apostles, saying, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For this promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Peter makes mention of Jesus Christ, not as though the Father should be omitted, but that the Son also might be joined to the Father. Finally, when, after the resurrection, the apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens, they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” How, then, do some say, that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea, and in opposition to the Church, so that it be only in the name of Jesus Christ, everywhere, and in whatever manner, can obtain remission of sin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in the full and united Trinity? Unless while one who denies Christ is denied by Christ, he who denies His Father whom Christ Himself confessed is not denied; and he who blasphemes against Him whom Christ called His Lord and His God, is rewarded by Christ, and obtains remission of sins, and the sanctification of baptism! But by what power can he who denies God the Creator, the Father of Christ, obtain, in baptism, the remission of sins, since Christ received that very power by which we are baptized and sanctified, from the same Father, whom He called “greater” than Himself, by whom He desired to be glorified, whose will He fulfilled even unto the obedience of drinking the cup, and of undergoing death? What else is it then, than to become a partaker with blaspheming heretics, to wish to maintain and assert, that one who blasphemes and gravely sins against the Father and the Lord and God of Christ, can receive remission of sins in the name of Christ? What, moreover, is that, and of what kind is it, that he who denies the Son of God has not the Father, and he who denies the Father should be thought to have the Son, although the Son Himself testifies, and says, “No man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father?” So that it is evident, that no remission of sins can be received in baptism from the Son, which it is not plain that the Father has granted. Especially, since He further repeats, and says, “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.”


Daniel and others who claim Roman baptisms are invalid, I do suggest you read Novatian and Cyprians arguements. Novatian siad:

Priests who had apostatized in the face of Roman persecution should not be allowed to dispense the sacraments

Sacraments administered by the unworthy were invalid

A holy church could not contain unholy members 

When his followers fled back to the established church, they had to decide if they needed to be rebaptized. This is when Steven of Romae and Cyprian debated hostily. If we could recover those manuscrips, of which I have a few notes, it is a mirrored image of this discussion. From the debate:* Cyprian who argued that baptisms given by schismatics were not real baptisms at all. Stephen, whose view ultimately prevailed noted that baptism belongs to Christ, not the church, and the standing of the baptizer is not the relevant issue*.

Of Which I wholeheartedly agree with Stevem on this point. 

In time, the Donatists became a schismatic sect, claiming that they were the only true Christians.(sound familiar Daniel) The Donatists refused to accept baptisms performed in the Catholic Church, claiming they were invalid. The Donatists also insisted that a baptism performed by an “impure” priest was not valid.(again sound familiar) You can insert Thornwells name into this without missing a beat..

Augustine emerged on the scene and dismantled the Donatists. Augustine argued (like Bishop Steven before him) *that baptism is of Christ, not of the baptizer.* Therefore, “reformed” Donatists that wished to return to the Mother Church did not need to be rebaptized. Among Augustine’s many statements on the topic:

“It is true that Christ’s baptism is holy; and although it may exist among heretics or schismatics, yet it does not belong to the heresy or schism; and therefore even those who come from thence to the Catholic Church herself ought not to be baptized afresh.” (The Seven Books Of Augustin, Bishop Of Hippo, On Baptism, Against The Donatists, p. 780)


This is the deciding issue for me. Batpism is a distinct element of a body/denomination. It is nt and should not be included or lumped together in whatever other Dogmas may be pronounced by that denomination. As long as the form, matter, and intent are there, baptism is valid..


Here is a good article showing Cyprians position:Cleerical Purity in Third Century

AAS an aside, the name given to the Novaians is 'katharoi, or Puritans" Another irony!!!!..


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> Daniel, I suggest you read the Councils of the rcc and study there doctrinal beliefs before you make a statement like this.



Read this quote from the Council of Trent itself:



> If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.



Here we clearly see that Rome has declarded the doctrine of justification by faith alone, not only to be erroneous, but anathema. Therefore, Rome has anathamatized the Biblical gospel and, as a result, it is officially a synagogue of Satan.

I am not denying that Rome was in serious error before Trent, but at Trent it officially declared the gospel anathema. Hence it cannot be a true church of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Calvibaptist

wsw201 said:


> I think the bottomline is that there is such distain for the RCC folks can't see the forrest for the trees. The idea that there can be ANY Christians in the RCC seems to be beyond comprehension.



Who here has made the accusation that there are no Christians in the RCC? What those of us who say their baptism is invalid have said time and time again is that the *institution* is not Christian because the *institution* denies the gospel. Any arguments about what individual people like Augustine or whoever believed is irrelevant. The discussion has revolved around the official statements of the *institution*.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Daniel, I suggest you read the Councils of the rcc and study there doctrinal beliefs before you make a statement like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read this quote from the Council of Trent itself:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we clearly see that Rome has declarded the doctrine of justification by faith alone, not only to be erroneous, but anathema. Therefore, Rome has anathamatized the Biblical gospel and, as a result, it is officially a synagogue of Satan.
> 
> I am not denying that Rome was in serious error before Trent, but at Trent it officially declared the gospel anathema. Hence it cannot be a true church of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...




I guess we are going around in circles. I know your answer to when is Daniel.. I just disagree wholeheartedly. There was no new discovies made at Trent. They were responding, just as all other confessions are done, to what they felt was error. 

Let me as you this, if Trent did not happen, would you still conclude they are a 'sos' or not? I cant believe you could say otherwise.

If the WCF was never penned, would you still say your faith is the true Gospel? Of course you would Daniel.

My point in asking you to research the history of the Roman Church was only for your benefit. As you will see with minor amount of time, is nothing declared at trent wasnt already in place and enforced...Or else Luther would not have complained.....He didnt need Trent, Calvin didnt need trent, Wycliffe didnt need trent. Gottshalk didnt need trent.. Get my drift Daniel?

I dont know what to call the error you are making, but Trent is not the reason Rome is in error. 

Can you respond to me statement about the Trinity in Canon 1 at the 4th Lateran Council? 

Radbertus wrote about transubstantiation 400 years prior to the 4th Lateran council. Ratramus, defined pretty much what we consider the supper to be. 

There is ALWAYS a seed form for every doctrine and dogma Daniel. The seed, the Kernal of the Gospel was present in the OT. Then fully revealed to the NT church. Yet, it was not something new. Therefore just as we claim the Church of God, the true Isreal of God existed prior to pentacost as a Kernal, and not consider it completely 'new', therefore claim our start in 33 ad or close to it, we cannot claim the the rcc became a sos just becasue they declaired it an official position at Trent.


Therefore, if Roman Baptisms were considered scripturally valid prior, they are valid now.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Calvibaptist said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the bottomline is that there is such distain for the RCC folks can't see the forrest for the trees. The idea that there can be ANY Christians in the RCC seems to be beyond comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who here has made the accusation that there are no Christians in the RCC? What those of us who say their baptism is invalid have said time and time again is that the *institution* is not Christian because the *institution* denies the gospel. Any arguments about what individual people like Augustine or whoever believed is irrelevant. *The discussion has revolved around the official statements of the institution.*
Click to expand...




Which again is incorrect to do Douglas!!!!! WHy did Luther reform prior to Trent? Nothing changed in his mind, not Calvins et al.... Why do you have to use trent as the line in the sand when noone else does?


----------



## Calvibaptist

Amazing Grace said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the bottomline is that there is such distain for the RCC folks can't see the forrest for the trees. The idea that there can be ANY Christians in the RCC seems to be beyond comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who here has made the accusation that there are no Christians in the RCC? What those of us who say their baptism is invalid have said time and time again is that the *institution* is not Christian because the *institution* denies the gospel. Any arguments about what individual people like Augustine or whoever believed is irrelevant. *The discussion has revolved around the official statements of the institution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which again is incorrect to do Douglas!!!!! WHy did Luther reform prior to Trent? Nothing changed in his mind, not Calvins et al.... Why do you have to use trent as the line in the sand when noone else does?
Click to expand...


I never argued that Trent was the line of demarcation. I argued that it is the institution that denies the gospel. I also said it is irrelevant to the current discussion when that denial developed and when the line was officially (or unofficially) crossed. The line has been crossed. To quote a movie line, they are so far over the line, the line looks like a dot to them.

You could use the same line of argumentation about the Mormon cult. When did Joseph Smith and his followers become heretics? Was it when he wrote The Pearl of Great Price? What about when he supposedly translated the Book of Mormon? What about when he was a professing member of an evangelical Christian church? It is really irrelevant. Mormonism is heresy right now. 

The Roman Catholic Church denies the gospel right now. Did they do it before Trent? I am sure they did. Did they do it all at once? Of course not. Satan is the master at incrementalization (is that even a word?). We know that, today, they deny the gospel. How can an institution that denies the gospel be a Christian church? Especially when Paul tells the Galatians that anyone who brings another gospel is accursed?


----------



## wsw201

Calvibaptist said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the bottomline is that there is such distain for the RCC folks can't see the forrest for the trees. The idea that there can be ANY Christians in the RCC seems to be beyond comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who here has made the accusation that there are no Christians in the RCC? What those of us who say their baptism is invalid have said time and time again is that the *institution* is not Christian because the *institution* denies the gospel. Any arguments about what individual people like Augustine or whoever believed is irrelevant. The discussion has revolved around the official statements of the *institution*.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by "institution"? From all that has been written it seems that the focus has been on the various pronouncements. I assume you can't be talking about their form of government, which is the same as the Anglicans.

But you have brought up an interesting point. Since you seem to believe that there are Christians in the RCC, despite their corrupted doctrines, there must be some semblance of the Gospel being preached in some form or fashion. Therefore, the RCC does qualify as a Church though not a True Church. Just as when Elijah thought he was the only one left in the wicked Northern Kingdom, Israel, God told him that he still had those who had not bowed the knee to Baal.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Calvibaptist said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who here has made the accusation that there are no Christians in the RCC? What those of us who say their baptism is invalid have said time and time again is that the *institution* is not Christian because the *institution* denies the gospel. Any arguments about what individual people like Augustine or whoever believed is irrelevant. *The discussion has revolved around the official statements of the institution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which again is incorrect to do Douglas!!!!! WHy did Luther reform prior to Trent? Nothing changed in his mind, not Calvins et al.... Why do you have to use trent as the line in the sand when noone else does?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never argued that Trent was the line of demarcation. I argued that it is the institution that denies the gospel. I also said it is irrelevant to the current discussion when that denial developed and when the line was officially (or unofficially) crossed. The line has been crossed. To quote a movie line, they are so far over the line, the line looks like a dot to them.
> 
> You could use the same line of argumentation about the Mormon cult. When did Joseph Smith and his followers become heretics? Was it when he wrote The Pearl of Great Price? What about when he supposedly translated the Book of Mormon? What about when he was a professing member of an evangelical Christian church? It is really irrelevant. Mormonism is heresy right now.
> 
> The Roman Catholic Church denies the gospel right now. Did they do it before Trent? I am sure they did. Did they do it all at once? Of course not. Satan is the master at incrementalization (is that even a word?). We know that, today, they deny the gospel. How can an institution that denies the gospel be a Christian church? Especially when Paul tells the Galatians that anyone who brings another gospel is accursed?
Click to expand...



OK, I htought this whole defense of your was based around trent, I apologise. I guess I am getting Douglas and Daniel mixed up.... Either way, they appear to never be on the same time with the reformers in totality Douglas. So then or now does make a difference. Justin was a free willy, Origen had odd beliefs, tertullian ended up a Montanist. Augustine is championed by both parties becasue of his ambiguity in certain areas, Chrysostom the same. Trent is invisible to this discussion, the roman church is basically the same now as it has been. Sure certain areas have been reclarified under the guidance of Newman with his development of doctrine perversion, but the 5 solas have never been in their grasp, yet their baptisms were considered valid by the reformers up to thornwell. I mean the Second Epistle of Clemt speaks of the meritorious value of Good works... 

If you were to say they were never valid, you would be more consistant. 


I also think you are too narrow in defining the Gospel as only Justification by faith.... And Since I believe Baptism is distinct from Doctrine, as long as the 'Rule of Faith' is understood, it is valid..Here is perhaps the fullest expression of the Rule, found in the writings of Tertullian.

Now, with regard to this rule of faith -- that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend -- it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen "in diverse manners" by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics



If this is confessed by the channel administering baptism, this universal truth of the Faith, that is all that is needed.. WHich is a kernal of the Gospel. In fact Paul says its the Gospel he preached in 1 Cor 15


----------



## Herald

I purposely try to avoid responding directly to posts made by Doug. He's my pastor and it seems self-serving. But on this issue I have to stand side-by-side with him in agreement. Trent serves as an official declaration by the Roman church against biblical Christianity. Are we to believe that Rome abandoned biblical Christianity at Trent? No. It did so well before Trent. By the time the Roman church made its proclamation at Trent, it was nothing more than _"ab absurdo."_ 

The time that has passed from Trent to today has only served to underscore Rome's departure from biblical Christianity. And that is _*the reason*_ why I reject Roman baptism as valid. It has nothing at all to do with mode.


----------



## Herald

wsw201 said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the bottomline is that there is such distain for the RCC folks can't see the forrest for the trees. The idea that there can be ANY Christians in the RCC seems to be beyond comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who here has made the accusation that there are no Christians in the RCC? What those of us who say their baptism is invalid have said time and time again is that the *institution* is not Christian because the *institution* denies the gospel. Any arguments about what individual people like Augustine or whoever believed is irrelevant. The discussion has revolved around the official statements of the *institution*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "institution"? From all that has been written it seems that the focus has been on the various pronouncements. I assume you can't be talking about their form of government, which is the same as the Anglicans.
> 
> But you have brought up an interesting point. Since you seem to believe that there are Christians in the RCC, despite their corrupted doctrines, there must be some semblance of the Gospel being preached in some form or fashion. Therefore, the RCC does qualify as a Church though not a True Church. Just as when Elijah thought he was the only one left in the wicked Northern Kingdom, Israel, God told him that he still had those who had not bowed the knee to Baal.
Click to expand...


Wayne - I won't speak for Doug, but the word institution describes the Roman Catholic Church in all its parts. The entire organization as governed from the Vatican. The institution.

I became a Christian while a member of the Roman church, but I was not saved by anything preached by the Roman church. I was saved apart from it, but while still in it. In the same way a Mormon can be saved while still in the LDS church. A Jehovah's Witness can be saved while still attending a Kingdom Hall. The new life they have in Christ should lead them out of these false churches and to an "institution" where Christ is proclaimed.


----------



## Calvibaptist

wsw201 said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the bottomline is that there is such distain for the RCC folks can't see the forrest for the trees. The idea that there can be ANY Christians in the RCC seems to be beyond comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who here has made the accusation that there are no Christians in the RCC? What those of us who say their baptism is invalid have said time and time again is that the *institution* is not Christian because the *institution* denies the gospel. Any arguments about what individual people like Augustine or whoever believed is irrelevant. The discussion has revolved around the official statements of the *institution*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "institution"? From all that has been written it seems that the focus has been on the various pronouncements. I assume you can't be talking about their form of government, which is the same as the Anglicans.
> 
> But you have brought up an interesting point. Since you seem to believe that there are Christians in the RCC, despite their corrupted doctrines, there must be some semblance of the Gospel being preached in some form or fashion. Therefore, the RCC does qualify as a Church though not a True Church. Just as when Elijah thought he was the only one left in the wicked Northern Kingdom, Israel, God told him that he still had those who had not bowed the knee to Baal.
Click to expand...


But, the wicked Northern Kingdom had broken covenant with God. There was no (except for Elijah and the 1000 that God had elected) semblance of any type of true gospel or worship of the true God there. The Northern Kingdom could not properly be called a church despite the existence of Elijah and the 1000.

This is the same with the RCC. The true believers that are there are despite the teaching of the RCC, not because of it.

By institution, I mean the official teaching of the church. The doctrinal statements and pronouncement that make them RCC. I do not mean individual people. This is why I say that a non-Christian organization (institution) cannot give Christian sacraments. The RCC is no more authorized to baptize and give communion than the local Rotary club.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Calvibaptist said:


> But, the wicked Northern Kingdom had broken covenant with God. There was no (except for Elijah and the 1000 that God had elected) semblance of any type of true gospel or worship of the true God there. The Northern Kingdom could not properly be called a church despite the existence of Elijah and the 1000.



Well since "church" equals the people of God, it most certainly was present in the North... This has always been the case, and still is now. Even in yours and my pews Douglas. I am very surprised you speak as such...


----------



## Calvibaptist

Amazing Grace said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, the wicked Northern Kingdom had broken covenant with God. There was no (except for Elijah and the 1000 that God had elected) semblance of any type of true gospel or worship of the true God there. The Northern Kingdom could not properly be called a church despite the existence of Elijah and the 1000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well since "church" equals the people of God, it most certainly was present in the North... This has always been the case, and still is now. Even in yours and my pews Douglas. I am very surprised you speak as such...
Click to expand...


You have changed my words. I did NOT say the church was not present in the Northern Kingdom. Of course there were believers in the Northern Kingdom. We know of at least 1001. But the Northern Kingdom itself, as a whole, ceased to be a church as the government run religion became apostate and this is what I meant by "the Northern Kingdom could not properly be called a church." Would you suggest that the worship of Baal was the true worship of God? Of course not. It was apostate. Were there believers present as citizens of the Northern Kingdom. Of course there were.

So, are there believers present within the RCC? I assume there are. By the WCF definition of the visible church, these believers would be considered the church.



> The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;and of their children.



But, the 1689 LBC I believe addresses the problem of calling individual saints who may or may not have any physical connection to each other "the visible church." Here is how it addresses the subject:



> All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints;



Notice it calls them "visible saints" not "the visible church." This is the view I hold. Therefore, I can say without doubt that, although there may be many individual Christians that could properly be called "visible saints" within the RCC, the institution as a whole is most definitely NOT the "visible church" because of it's rejection of the gospel, nor should the individual Christians be called the "visible church."


----------



## Amazing Grace

Calvibaptist said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who here has made the accusation that there are no Christians in the RCC? What those of us who say their baptism is invalid have said time and time again is that the *institution* is not Christian because the *institution* denies the gospel. Any arguments about what individual people like Augustine or whoever believed is irrelevant. The discussion has revolved around the official statements of the *institution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "institution"? From all that has been written it seems that the focus has been on the various pronouncements. I assume you can't be talking about their form of government, which is the same as the Anglicans.
> 
> But you have brought up an interesting point. Since you seem to believe that there are Christians in the RCC, despite their corrupted doctrines, there must be some semblance of the Gospel being preached in some form or fashion. Therefore, the RCC does qualify as a Church though not a True Church. Just as when Elijah thought he was the only one left in the wicked Northern Kingdom, Israel, God told him that he still had those who had not bowed the knee to Baal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, the wicked Northern Kingdom had broken covenant with God. There was no (except for Elijah and the 1000 that God had elected) semblance of any type of true gospel or worship of the true God there. The Northern Kingdom could not properly be called a church despite the existence of Elijah and the 1000.
> 
> This is the same with the RCC. The true believers that are there are despite the teaching of the RCC, not because of it.
> 
> By institution, I mean the official teaching of the church. The doctrinal statements and pronouncement that make them RCC. I do not mean individual people. This is why I say that a non-Christian organization (institution) cannot give Christian sacraments. The RCC is no more authorized to baptize and give communion than the local Rotary club.
Click to expand...




According to God's inspired word, the remnant does make a valid assembly though Douglas. And in fact God's shows him 7000 not only 1000. 

Romans 11:

1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself *seven thousand *men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 

Let us look at our Saviors own words addressed to the 'churches' in the book of revelation. He HIMSELF called them churches Douglas.

Pergemos held to the doctrine of Baalim and some nicolation stench
Thyatira: Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not.

Sardis: I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die; for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments, and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. 

Laodicia: I know thy works that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would that thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

The Remnant: “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ....Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and have the faith of Jesus.” Revelation 12:17, 14:12.


Therefore just as apostate Israel had a remnant of God's people serving Him, so does the rcc.


----------



## Larry Hughes

So:

Some Presbyterian. vote no to modern Roman baptism due to its denial of the Gospel in the Council of Trent. A nice easy approach to a very monolithic group who penned what they confess. 

But what about the plethora of informal Gospel denying baptistic/evangelical churches plaguing the country side, I could list 100s just in my area without getting out of Central KY and 90% of them SB. You certainly cannot go to their “official confession” because they like to be slippery as eels, utterly independent (but in sheer hypocrisy allow for “unions”). Their “independence” is somewhat dubious more like independent lemmings all at once saying, “show your independence by everybody raising their hands together”. They are certainly not formally monolithic, although one could argue and show they are monolithic informally. And you certainly cannot pen them down in words if pressed because they will parrot, and I mean parrot only, “faith alone”, because that’s a good protestant already packaged formulation for them. Yet the ENTIRE preaching, use of the Sacraments and life of the church SCREAMS Christ is not NEARLY enough, therefore denying the Lord they confess by their mouths in Word and Sacrament. I suppose that constitutes a re-baptism since the denial of the Gospel by Rome does that for us. Or is it caveated only as that which is formally written down and declared and formally monolithic denial on paper? Denying this reality is stupidity and blindness on the level of denying the color of the sky to be blue and can be instantly waived off.

And Baptist would agree to the first about Rome. But then would rebaptize all non-immersed infant baptized preby. And the like. So the Baptist have at least three pliable criteria at their disposal, depending on which way the wind is blowing at any given moment of discussion; Gospel affirming church, immersion only, and adult. Yet, they would have the same problem among their own in the second paragraph. 

Medieval times have returned!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Larry Hughes said:


> So:
> 
> Some Presbyterian. vote no to modern Roman baptism due to its denial of the Gospel in the Council of Trent. A nice easy approach to a very monolithic group who penned what they confess.... Medieval times have returned!



I have been wondering where you have been. I knew you wouldn't be silent on this issue if you had been around. LOL


----------



## Larry Hughes

LOL

I'm here occasionally. Just pretty busy now days. I hope your doing well yourself! This was too much to resist a quick one. Like a big chocolate cookie left out on the table!

Blessings,

L


----------



## Calvibaptist

Amazing Grace said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "institution"? From all that has been written it seems that the focus has been on the various pronouncements. I assume you can't be talking about their form of government, which is the same as the Anglicans.
> 
> But you have brought up an interesting point. Since you seem to believe that there are Christians in the RCC, despite their corrupted doctrines, there must be some semblance of the Gospel being preached in some form or fashion. Therefore, the RCC does qualify as a Church though not a True Church. Just as when Elijah thought he was the only one left in the wicked Northern Kingdom, Israel, God told him that he still had those who had not bowed the knee to Baal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, the wicked Northern Kingdom had broken covenant with God. There was no (except for Elijah and the 1000 that God had elected) semblance of any type of true gospel or worship of the true God there. The Northern Kingdom could not properly be called a church despite the existence of Elijah and the 1000.
> 
> This is the same with the RCC. The true believers that are there are despite the teaching of the RCC, not because of it.
> 
> By institution, I mean the official teaching of the church. The doctrinal statements and pronouncement that make them RCC. I do not mean individual people. This is why I say that a non-Christian organization (institution) cannot give Christian sacraments. The RCC is no more authorized to baptize and give communion than the local Rotary club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to God's inspired word, the remnant does make a valid assembly though Douglas. And in fact God's shows him 7000 not only 1000.
> 
> Romans 11:
> 
> 1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
> 
> 2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
> 
> 3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
> 
> 4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself *seven thousand *men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
> 
> 5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
> 
> Let us look at our Saviors own words addressed to the 'churches' in the book of revelation. He HIMSELF called them churches Douglas.
> 
> Pergemos held to the doctrine of Baalim and some nicolation stench
> Thyatira: Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not.
> 
> Sardis: I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die; for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments, and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.
> 
> Laodicia: I know thy works that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would that thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
> 
> The Remnant: “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ....Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and have the faith of Jesus.” Revelation 12:17, 14:12.
> 
> 
> Therefore just as apostate Israel had a remnant of God's people serving Him, so does the rcc.
Click to expand...


You have again either misunderstood or misrepresented my point. I will assume the first. If you noticed, I said that of course there were believers in the Northern Kingdom and I am sure there are believers in the RCC. OK, so I didn't look up the number of those God set aside (1000 vs 7000). Frankly, it does not matter if there were 600,000,000,000,000 (get my point) believers in the Northern Kingdom or if there are that many in the RCC. The *INSTITUTION* of the Northern Kingdom, by virtue of its government and its laws and it institutionalized worship was not the true religion. It was false. Within that Northern Kingdom, the true believers did not worship at Bethel or take part of the false pagan practices.

In the RCC, the *INSTITUTION* by virtue of its hierarchical leadership and its official statements of anathema on the gospel is not the true religion. Within the RCC, I am sure there are true believers. They may not truly know what the *INSTITUTION* of the RCC is about and they may not know about the anathemas on the gospel. But as they grow in their understanding and in their faith through the power of the Spirit, they will come out from among them.

If you paid attention to *any* of my posts, you will notice I have made a distinction between institution and individuals. My opposition to the validity of baptism regards the institution that is sanctioning it, not the individuals on who it is performed or the individuals performing the baptism.

And if you read my last post, rather than just reiterating what you had already said, you would have noticed that I quoted the WCF, which would call these individuals the "visible church" and I quoted the LBC, which would *not* call these individuals the "visible church" but would call them "visible saints."


----------



## Amazing Grace

Calvibaptist said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, the wicked Northern Kingdom had broken covenant with God. There was no (except for Elijah and the 1000 that God had elected) semblance of any type of true gospel or worship of the true God there. The Northern Kingdom could not properly be called a church despite the existence of Elijah and the 1000.
> 
> This is the same with the RCC. The true believers that are there are despite the teaching of the RCC, not because of it.
> 
> By institution, I mean the official teaching of the church. The doctrinal statements and pronouncement that make them RCC. I do not mean individual people. This is why I say that a non-Christian organization (institution) cannot give Christian sacraments. The RCC is no more authorized to baptize and give communion than the local Rotary club.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to God's inspired word, the remnant does make a valid assembly though Douglas. And in fact God's shows him 7000 not only 1000.
> 
> Romans 11:
> 
> 1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
> 
> 2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
> 
> 3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
> 
> 4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself *seven thousand *men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
> 
> 5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
> 
> Let us look at our Saviors own words addressed to the 'churches' in the book of revelation. He HIMSELF called them churches Douglas.
> 
> Pergemos held to the doctrine of Baalim and some nicolation stench
> Thyatira: Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not.
> 
> Sardis: I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die; for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments, and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.
> 
> Laodicia: I know thy works that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would that thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
> 
> The Remnant: “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ....Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and have the faith of Jesus.” Revelation 12:17, 14:12.
> 
> 
> Therefore just as apostate Israel had a remnant of God's people serving Him, so does the rcc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have again either misunderstood or misrepresented my point. I will assume the first. If you noticed, I said that of course there were believers in the Northern Kingdom and I am sure there are believers in the RCC. OK, so I didn't look up the number of those God set aside (1000 vs 7000). Frankly, it does not matter if there were 600,000,000,000,000 (get my point) believers in the Northern Kingdom or if there are that many in the RCC. The *INSTITUTION* of the Northern Kingdom, by virtue of its government and its laws and it institutionalized worship was not the true religion. It was false. Within that Northern Kingdom, the true believers did not worship at Bethel or take part of the false pagan practices.
> 
> In the RCC, the *INSTITUTION* by virtue of its hierarchical leadership and its official statements of anathema on the gospel is not the true religion. Within the RCC, I am sure there are true believers. They may not truly know what the *INSTITUTION* of the RCC is about and they may not know about the anathemas on the gospel. But as they grow in their understanding and in their faith through the power of the Spirit, they will come out from among them.
> 
> If you paid attention to *any* of my posts, you will notice I have made a distinction between institution and individuals. My opposition to the validity of baptism regards the institution that is sanctioning it, not the individuals on who it is performed or the individuals performing the baptism.
> 
> And if you read my last post, rather than just reiterating what you had already said, you would have noticed that I quoted the WCF, which would call these individuals the "visible church" and I quoted the LBC, which would *not* call these individuals the "visible church" but would call them "visible saints."
Click to expand...




Douglas, there is no need to highlight certain word to emphasize your point... I did not mean to misunderstand nor misrepresent you. But I am unclear to the point you are making between the WCF and the LBC. ie visible church vs visible saints. Are you equating the Northern Kingdom with the rcc? And since the NK was not a levitical priesthood, idolatrous etc etc etc they were not true worshippers/true church of God, ipso facto neither is the rcc. Therefore rendering rcc baptisms invalid.


----------



## wsw201

> In the RCC, the INSTITUTION by virtue of its hierarchical leadership and its official statements of anathema on the gospel is not the true religion. Within the RCC, I am sure there are true believers. They may not truly know what the INSTITUTION of the RCC is about and they may not know about the anathemas on the gospel. But as they grow in their understanding and in their faith through the power of the Spirit, they will come out from among them.
> 
> If you paid attention to any of my posts, you will notice I have made a distinction between institution and individuals. My opposition to the validity of baptism regards the institution that is sanctioning it, not the individuals on who it is performed or the individuals performing the baptism.



Douglas,

I think your comments about the WCF and LBCF pretty much crystalize why we differ regarding the RCC. Since Baptists and Presbyterians have two differing views of ecclesiology, we are going to have totally different views of what constitutes a Church in any basic form. 

I would argue that the form of government should not be a part of the reason that a church should considered a False Church. Church government goes to the well being of a church not the actual being of a church.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Protestant Tri-lemma

THis is a great article and a must read...

"But the General Assembly seemed to think that there was more truth in the Church of Rome before than since the Reformation-*-that she never became hopelessly corrupt in doctrine until the Council of Trent. This we presume to be a mistake. The Council of Trent but uttered the voice of Papacy in the form of decrees. There was not a sentiment then uttered that had not previously been held by the hierarchy. *Let the history of the Romish Church speak. Long before this Council, did she not claim for the Pope the attributes of holiness and infallibility? Did she not assert that she was Christ's vicar upon earth?--Lord God the Pope? Did she not claim for him dominion, temporal and spiritual, over the whole earth; and declare that he might dispose of crowns, and kingdoms, and continents at his sovereign pleasure? That he had a right to dethrone kings, absolve subjects from their allegiance, and by his mandate, make that sin which was no sin, and convert sin into virtue? Were not her garments reeking with the blood of God's people? Had she not thrown down the altars, and subverted the worship of God; filling her temples with the images of saints and angels and establishing the adoration of relies and dead men's bones? Had she not licensed sin by selling indulgences; annulled the doctrine of repentance by her superstitious penances, and that of justification by faith in Jesus, by foolish observances and human merit? In a word, she was stained with every crime, foul with every pollution; had assumed and exercised the most hellish powers; had propagated as divine truths the most outrageous falsehoods; had uttered the most horrid blasphemies, and had filled the world with error, fraud, superstition, and blood! The earth was drunk with the wine of her fornication.

*From the fatal conclusions of the positions taken by the General Assembly, there is no possible escape. The baptisms and ordinances of all Protestants are nullified, whether Romish baptisms are valid or invalid*.

The man who would say this, would brand the Bible with falsehood, and Christ with imposture, it is true; but what will not man do rather than confess that he is wrong, and has led others into error? It may possibly be thought that no Christian man would advocate, before the Christian world, such a position.

Little did anyone know, but the 'man' Thornwell did just that. The more I read about this, the more I recoginize Thornwell as speaking lies...

It was well that the General Assembly did not countenance such irreverent utterances,* preferring to peril the ecclesiastical claims of all Protestants, in the eyes of man, and be repudiated, it may be, rather than to assume this attitude toward Christ.


If no baptism be valid except administered by a duly ordained minister of Christ in a true Church of Christ, visible, as the Assembly truly decided, let Presbyterians and the world decide if the baptisms of Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, or any one of the first Presbyterian ministers or members, were valid.


"The Old School General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, a few years ago, decided that no baptism was valid except administered by a regular ordained minister in the true Church of God, visible; that the Romish Church was not the Church of God at all, and that, therefore, baptism administered within its pales and by its priesthood was no baptism! Then, according to Presbyterian principles, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, John Knox, and their contemporary Reformers, all of whom were baptized by Papists, had no Christian baptism! The chain of baptismal successors from the Apostolic Church to the Presbyterian Church, which the General Assembly had declared to be essential to valid baptism, has been broken asunder, and all the spiritual smiths beneath the skies can not mend it. And thus our Presbyterian brethren, by the solemn decision of their highest ecclesiastical tribunal, have no baptism!


All I can say is WOW. I never thought of this at all.  If we confess that one must be 'duly ordained,' whatever that entails, and if we out of one side of our Mouths Claim Calvin and Luther did not receive a vlaid baptism because Rome could not deliver the sacraments according to our own understnading, then how could Luther be ordained to the line of succession to perform the sacraments on others? This is now the crux of the issue for me, and I will not be moved in any other direction. The 'Protestant succession of duly ordained ministers came from Rome. And if Rome can do one, then they can administer the other..."

*If it be true that no baptism is valid unless administered by "a duly ordained minister of the true Church of God visible," (though we should grant that the Church of Rome is, and ever has been, such a church,) even then no Presbyterian or Pedobaptist can have a reasonable assurance that he has been truly baptized.*

What a dreadful thought


----------



## Dennis1963




----------



## danmpem

I see no difference in someone being baptized as a member of the RCC and someone being baptized as a member of the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If one is baptized as an LDS and then becomes a convert of the gospel of Christ, then he must be baptized as a believer. The same goes for any heretical religion.


----------



## Romans922

danmpem said:


> I see no difference in someone being baptized as a member of the RCC and someone being baptized as a member of the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If one is baptized as an LDS and then becomes a convert of the gospel of Christ, then he must be baptized as a believer. The same goes for any heretical religion.



And what if he is baptized in the Church of God Holiness or a baptist church which is profoundly heretical? Then he must be baptized? How does one know if the church they are baptized in, which might now be heretical, was heretical then or not? 

Are we going on the marks of a church here (Word, Sacraments, Discipline)? or just on if they are catholic or mormon?


----------



## danmpem

Romans922 said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no difference in someone being baptized as a member of the RCC and someone being baptized as a member of the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If one is baptized as an LDS and then becomes a convert of the gospel of Christ, then he must be baptized as a believer. The same goes for any heretical religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what if he is baptized in the Church of God Holiness or a baptist church which is profoundly heretical? Then he must be baptized? How does one know if the church they are baptized in, which might now be heretical, was heretical then or not?
> 
> Are we going on the marks of a church here (Word, Sacraments, Discipline)? or just on if they are catholic or mormon?
Click to expand...


Good question. I'll sit on that one for a while and then get back to you.


----------



## etexas

Calvibaptist said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey:
> 
> If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so your OP is the complete reverse of your poll...
> 
> But, since I am a Baptist, you know what my answer is going to be. Of course they would need to be re-baptized. The RCC, despite its trinitarian formula in baptism, is not a Christian church. They do not rightly uphold the gospel or the sacraments (ordinances). Therefore, the baptism is illegitimate.
Click to expand...

Right to a point...one thing determined at the Chaldea Counsel was " Even if a Priest os Bishop is in a state of mortal sin or even teachs not according to truth, so long as the ancient formulas for the sacraments are followed....the Sacraments are valid." I should note that many reformers noted this esp. in regard to Baptism, and accepted it.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I just recieved, for free, "Sacramental Sorcery: The Invalidity of Roman Catholic Baptism" by Thornwell. Trinity Foundation is giving them away for FREE.

Since it has "never been refuted" it may be a good idea to get it, and then "update" this thread after reading through some of the thoughtful arguments on matter, form, and intention behind the papist's practice.

Thornwell summarizes Hodge's "unbiblical argument" and wrote the treaty as part of the Princeton Review in 1845 to defend the Assembly's position (that is still in effect?). In 1845 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (old school) decalred (169 to 8 on vote) that Roman Catholic baptism is not Christian Baptism.


----------



## Amazing Grace

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> I just recieved, for free, "Sacramental Sorcery: The Invalidity of Roman Catholic Baptism" by Thornwell. Trinity Foundation is giving them away for FREE.
> 
> Since it has "never been refuted" it may be a good idea to get it, and then "update" this thread after reading through some of the thoughtful arguments on matter, form, and intention behind the papist's practice.
> 
> Thornwell summarizes Hodge's "unbiblical argument" and wrote the treaty as part of the Princeton Review in 1845 to defend the Assembly's position (that is still in effect?). In 1845 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (old school) decalred (169 to 8 on vote) that Roman Catholic baptism is not Christian Baptism.




Refuted in the PCA paper I quoted in post 250:

All I can say is WOW. I never thought of this at all. If we confess that one must be 'duly ordained,' whatever that entails, and if we out of one side of our Mouths Claim Calvin and Luther did not receive a vlaid baptism because Rome could not deliver the sacraments according to our own understnading, then how could Luther be ordained to the line of succession to perform the sacraments on others? This is now the crux of the issue for me, and I will not be moved in any other direction. The 'Protestant succession of duly ordained ministers came from Rome. And if Rome can do one, then they can administer the other..."

If it be true that no baptism is valid unless administered by "a duly ordained minister of the true Church of God visible," (though we should grant that the Church of Rome is, and ever has been, such a church,) even then no Presbyterian or Pedobaptist can have a reasonable assurance that he has been truly baptized.

What a dreadful thought


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Amazing Grace said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just recieved, for free, "Sacramental Sorcery: The Invalidity of Roman Catholic Baptism" by Thornwell. Trinity Foundation is giving them away for FREE.
> 
> Since it has "never been refuted" it may be a good idea to get it, and then "update" this thread after reading through some of the thoughtful arguments on matter, form, and intention behind the papist's practice.
> 
> Thornwell summarizes Hodge's "unbiblical argument" and wrote the treaty as part of the Princeton Review in 1845 to defend the Assembly's position (that is still in effect?). In 1845 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (old school) decalred (169 to 8 on vote) that Roman Catholic baptism is not Christian Baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Refuted in the PCA paper I quoted in post 250:
> 
> All I can say is WOW. I never thought of this at all. If we confess that one must be 'duly ordained,' whatever that entails, and if we out of one side of our Mouths Claim Calvin and Luther did not receive a vlaid baptism because Rome could not deliver the sacraments according to our own understnading, then how could Luther be ordained to the line of succession to perform the sacraments on others? This is now the crux of the issue for me, and I will not be moved in any other direction. The 'Protestant succession of duly ordained ministers came from Rome. And if Rome can do one, then they can administer the other..."
> 
> If it be true that no baptism is valid unless administered by "a duly ordained minister of the true Church of God visible," (though we should grant that the Church of Rome is, and ever has been, such a church,) even then no Presbyterian or Pedobaptist can have a reasonable assurance that he has been truly baptized.
> 
> What a dreadful thought
Click to expand...


Greetings Amazing Grace and welcome:

Prior to the Reformation the RC Church was the only Christian Church. The Reformation, if you remember, was an attempt to address the abuses of the RC Church. Luther did not intend to split from the Church, but to amend its ways. Only when it became self-evident that the RC Church had no intention of changing or being changed was a split from it necessary. Thus, I do not think that your statement is entirely accurate.

As long as the RC Church remained a true Church its baptism was valid. Danmpem made a good point in that a false church cannot make a true baptism. If the RC Church is considered a false church, then baptism by a Roman priest would not be considered valid.

During the Reformation the RC Church was given the chance to repent of its ways and renounce the extra-Biblical baggage it taught during the Dark and Medieval Ages. Because it did not and embraced and defended these ungodly doctrines it went from being a true church and showed itself for what it really was - the Antichrist.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Amazing Grace

CalvinandHodges said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just recieved, for free, "Sacramental Sorcery: The Invalidity of Roman Catholic Baptism" by Thornwell. Trinity Foundation is giving them away for FREE.
> 
> Since it has "never been refuted" it may be a good idea to get it, and then "update" this thread after reading through some of the thoughtful arguments on matter, form, and intention behind the papist's practice.
> 
> Thornwell summarizes Hodge's "unbiblical argument" and wrote the treaty as part of the Princeton Review in 1845 to defend the Assembly's position (that is still in effect?). In 1845 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (old school) decalred (169 to 8 on vote) that Roman Catholic baptism is not Christian Baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Refuted in the PCA paper I quoted in post 250:
> 
> All I can say is WOW. I never thought of this at all. If we confess that one must be 'duly ordained,' whatever that entails, and if we out of one side of our Mouths Claim Calvin and Luther did not receive a vlaid baptism because Rome could not deliver the sacraments according to our own understnading, then how could Luther be ordained to the line of succession to perform the sacraments on others? This is now the crux of the issue for me, and I will not be moved in any other direction. The 'Protestant succession of duly ordained ministers came from Rome. And if Rome can do one, then they can administer the other..."
> 
> If it be true that no baptism is valid unless administered by "a duly ordained minister of the true Church of God visible," (though we should grant that the Church of Rome is, and ever has been, such a church,) even then no Presbyterian or Pedobaptist can have a reasonable assurance that he has been truly baptized.
> 
> What a dreadful thought
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Greetings Amazing Grace and welcome:
> 
> Prior to the Reformation the RC Church was the only Christian Church. The Reformation, if you remember, was an attempt to address the abuses of the RC Church. Luther did not intend to split from the Church, but to amend its ways. Only when it became self-evident that the RC Church had no intention of changing or being changed was a split from it necessary. Thus, I do not think that your statement is entirely accurate.
> 
> As long as the RC Church remained a true Church its baptism was valid. Danmpem made a good point in that a false church cannot make a true baptism. If the RC Church is considered a false church, then baptism by a Roman priest would not be considered valid.
> 
> During the Reformation the RC Church was given the chance to repent of its ways and renounce the extra-Biblical baggage it taught during the Dark and Medieval Ages. Because it did not and embraced and defended these ungodly doctrines it went from being a true church and showed itself for what it really was - the Antichrist.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -CH
Click to expand...


Brother Robert:

The words are not mine, but taken from a PCA paper. The main point is if lawful ordination is also a litmus test, then one cannot affirm one and deny the other. If the priest cannot dispense a valid baptism, he cannot dispense his laying of the hands for ordination. Hence noone has been lawfully or validly baptised


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Amazing Grace said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refuted in the PCA paper I quoted in post 250:
> 
> All I can say is WOW. I never thought of this at all. If we confess that one must be 'duly ordained,' whatever that entails, and if we out of one side of our Mouths Claim Calvin and Luther did not receive a vlaid baptism because Rome could not deliver the sacraments according to our own understnading, then how could Luther be ordained to the line of succession to perform the sacraments on others? This is now the crux of the issue for me, and I will not be moved in any other direction. The 'Protestant succession of duly ordained ministers came from Rome. And if Rome can do one, then they can administer the other..."
> 
> If it be true that no baptism is valid unless administered by "a duly ordained minister of the true Church of God visible," (though we should grant that the Church of Rome is, and ever has been, such a church,) even then no Presbyterian or Pedobaptist can have a reasonable assurance that he has been truly baptized.
> 
> What a dreadful thought
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings Amazing Grace and welcome:
> 
> Prior to the Reformation the RC Church was the only Christian Church. The Reformation, if you remember, was an attempt to address the abuses of the RC Church. Luther did not intend to split from the Church, but to amend its ways. Only when it became self-evident that the RC Church had no intention of changing or being changed was a split from it necessary. Thus, I do not think that your statement is entirely accurate.
> 
> As long as the RC Church remained a true Church its baptism was valid. Danmpem made a good point in that a false church cannot make a true baptism. If the RC Church is considered a false church, then baptism by a Roman priest would not be considered valid.
> 
> During the Reformation the RC Church was given the chance to repent of its ways and renounce the extra-Biblical baggage it taught during the Dark and Medieval Ages. Because it did not and embraced and defended these ungodly doctrines it went from being a true church and showed itself for what it really was - the Antichrist.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -CH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brother Robert:
> 
> The words are not mine, but taken from a PCA paper. The main point is if lawful ordination is also a litmus test, then one cannot affirm one and deny the other. If the priest cannot dispense a valid baptism, he cannot dispense his laying of the hands for ordination. Hence noone has been lawfully or validly baptised
Click to expand...


Hey:

I see. The question I think is that was the RC Church a valid Church prior to the Reformation? To this I would affirm. Did it become an antichristian church after the Reformation? To this I would also affirm. I would not pin an exact date as to when this actually happened, but since Calvin, Luther and Zwingli were born before Rome apostatized their baptisms would be valid - as well as the baptisms they performed on others.

Luther nailed his 95 Thesis on October 31, 1517 and was a call for the RC church to repent. The RC church did not give a comprehensive answer to Luther until the Council of Trent 1545. I think that this would start the slide of the RC church into apostacy. So, if a date was to be pinned for this, then I would think that RC baptism became invalid after 1545 around the same time it truly became a false church.

Consequently, those Reformers and Protestant ministers who were baptized in the RC church prior to say 1545 received a valid baptism and their ordinations would not be compromised.

Blessings to you brother,

-CH


----------



## Amazing Grace

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hey:
> 
> I see. The question I think is that was the RC Church a valid Church prior to the Reformation? To this I would affirm. Did it become an antichristian church after the Reformation? To this I would also affirm. I would not pin an exact date as to when this actually happened, but since Calvin, Luther and Zwingli were born before Rome apostatized their baptisms would be valid - as well as the baptisms they performed on others.
> 
> Luther nailed his 95 Thesis on October 31, 1517 and was a call for the RC church to repent. The RC church did not give a comprehensive answer to Luther until the Council of Trent 1545. I think that this would start the slide of the RC church into apostacy. So, if a date was to be pinned for this, then I would think that RC baptism became invalid after 1545 around the same time it truly became a false church.
> 
> Consequently, those Reformers and Protestant ministers who were baptized in the RC church prior to say 1545 received a valid baptism and their ordinations would not be compromised.
> 
> Blessings to you brother,
> 
> -CH



Brother, again thank you for the kind rebuttal. Yet I am going to remain steadfast against this thought of Trent being the line of demarcation of the rcc becoming a synagogue of Satan. To relieve myself and you from the task of repeating myself, I have stated this clearly in many posts prior to this date.

I will suggest that you and others who are propagating this understanding, to speak with an RC scholar. I have, and as I mentioned, there was nothing new declared at Trent. Trent was convened only to answer the Lutheran/protestant reformation statements of faith. Just as Dort was only convened because of the remonstrant. If you study this closely, you will see that all Trent did was formally "REAFFIRM" positions held for centuries. To be clear against the attack of Protestants. Therefore, if you believe that RC baptisms became invalid because of Trent, as if their doctrines/dogmas changes, you are amiss. 

This line of thinking is exactly what the rcc uses when we (protties) speak against the infallibility of the church. For instance, this is a perfect parallel to this thought. Let’s take their claim of Pope Honorious. If you are not familiar with this person, he reigned as bishop of Rome from 625 to 638 A.D. During this time, Honorius officially embraced the heresy of montheletism, which teaches that Christ had only one will, the divine. This is heretical. Jaroslav Pelikan makes these comments:

In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151).


SO now what does the rcc do? Well they say that certain criteria must be met for the pope to be speaking in the chair of Peter. Ex cathedra, He must be teaching in his official capacity as the pope and he must be defining doctrine for the entire Church. The claim is made that Honorius did not meet these conditions. They say he was only speaking as a private person giving a theological opinion. 

You may ask, why am I making this connection? Because you are making the same connection. You will undoubtedly condemn Honorious and say the criterion is a cloak. That it does not matter if he was sitting in the chair of Peter or not, he was the bishop of Rome, and therefore this statement on the will of Christ makes him a heretic. No other official criteria must be met. On which I agree, yet you will say that the rcc became a false church because at Trent, certain criteria were met that did not exist before. Namely a formal declaration of dogma/doctrine. Now if in one instance a formal declaration of speaking ex cathedra does not have to be met in our eyes for honorious to be condemned a heretic, destroying the myth of papal infallibility, how can we say a formal "Anathema of the Gospel" as Greco and Ritchie call it, has to be done at a council, when all it was was a reaffirmation of centuries old beliefs only done because of the protestant reformation? Trent did not change or add anything that was not already confessed when the early reformers were baptized. There is not one shred of evidence that anyone said after Trent, "Wow, I never knew they believed that". In fact, it did not receive much attention because it again only reaffirmed what the reformers wanted to reform!!!!! Justification was the foundation, the crux of Luther’s argument. "On which the church stands or falls" And the roman church confessed faith plus works forever and ever. 

I would say you would be more consistent to say there has not been a valid baptism for centuries. That the roman church disintegrated much much before Trent. Then you would be left with another dilemma. All ordinations would be false too. And the reformers, who were ordained by succession, would be unlawful and invalid, resulting in invalid baptisms for them, you and me. And this is a dreadful thought.


----------



## SoCalReformed

CalvinandHodges said:


> If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?



As a Reformed Baptist, the first thing I would do is welcome him; and if he sincerely repudiates his Roman Catholicism, repents of his sins, and embraces Jesus Christ and His righteousness alone for his salvation, then I would insist that he be baptized as a believer.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> The 'Protestant succession of duly ordained ministers came from Rome. And if Rome can do one, then they can administer the other..."


 
Before or after apostasy from the Gospel?

Its like saying that certain factions of Christendom now are synagogues of satan (and they are) but that not ALL of Christendom is a synagogue of satan as a result of the rotton apples. 

Historically, that did not mean that within the "Roman Church" there were not lawfully ordained ministers, or that the Gospel was completely eclipsed for centuries. Not true. 

To say "everyone believed everything" in this manner in the RCC would be to deny the very gleaming lights of the Gospel itself from all those that preached the Gospel. Just because the pope hated the Gospel, did not meant the Augustinian monks gave the Gospel up during the 13th century.

Trent merely "canonized" thier apsotasy, and at that point, as Calvin follows (as the Reformed Church Follows), they are no longer to be considered a church. Trent canonized "beliefs" against the Reformation. WHich is why we conveniently deem those canons as the "counter-reformation". THe scattered writings of ROman Catholic writers was not even to bind the consciences of the people in thier church. THey needed official documents.

Its simply impossible to blanket the entire RCC pre-Trent in the fashion that you are by erasing that demarcation that clearly existed in both the Roman Chruch and the Reformer's minds. Even if you don't buy that - they did.

I would also be leary of hanging your hat on the words of a Roman Catholic Scholar. The servants of Satan are not good posts to hang your hat, even on historical issues.


----------



## Herald

RRHeustisJr said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a Reformed Baptist, the first thing I would do is welcome him; and if he sincerely repudiates his Roman Catholicism, repents of his sins, and embraces Jesus Christ and His righteousness alone for his salvation, then I would insist that he be baptized as a believer.
Click to expand...


Amen. But we're Baptists. Of course we would require believers baptism!


----------



## Amazing Grace

RRHeustisJr said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a Reformed Baptist, the first thing I would do is welcome him; and if he sincerely repudiates his Roman Catholicism, repents of his sins, and embraces Jesus Christ and His righteousness alone for his salvation, then I would insist that he be baptized as a believer.
Click to expand...



Reed, when I looked quick, I thought, "Hey isnt Frank Zappa dead, why is he posting on the pb?"


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Amazing Grace said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey:
> 
> I see. The question I think is that was the RC Church a valid Church prior to the Reformation? To this I would affirm. Did it become an antichristian church after the Reformation? To this I would also affirm. I would not pin an exact date as to when this actually happened, but since Calvin, Luther and Zwingli were born before Rome apostatized their baptisms would be valid - as well as the baptisms they performed on others.
> 
> Luther nailed his 95 Thesis on October 31, 1517 and was a call for the RC church to repent. The RC church did not give a comprehensive answer to Luther until the Council of Trent 1545. I think that this would start the slide of the RC church into apostacy. So, if a date was to be pinned for this, then I would think that RC baptism became invalid after 1545 around the same time it truly became a false church.
> 
> Consequently, those Reformers and Protestant ministers who were baptized in the RC church prior to say 1545 received a valid baptism and their ordinations would not be compromised.
> 
> Blessings to you brother,
> 
> -CH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, again thank you for the kind rebuttal. Yet I am going to remain steadfast against this thought of Trent being the line of demarcation of the rcc becoming a synagogue of Satan. To relieve myself and you from the task of repeating myself, I have stated this clearly in many posts prior to this date.
> 
> I will suggest that you and others who are propagating this understanding, to speak with an RC scholar. I have, and as I mentioned, there was nothing new declared at Trent. Trent was convened only to answer the Lutheran/protestant reformation statements of faith. Just as Dort was only convened because of the remonstrant. If you study this closely, you will see that all Trent did was formally "REAFFIRM" positions held for centuries. To be clear against the attack of Protestants. Therefore, if you believe that RC baptisms became invalid because of Trent, as if their doctrines/dogmas changes, you are amiss.
> 
> This line of thinking is exactly what the rcc uses when we (protties) speak against the infallibility of the church. For instance, this is a perfect parallel to this thought. Let’s take their claim of Pope Honorious. If you are not familiar with this person, he reigned as bishop of Rome from 625 to 638 A.D. During this time, Honorius officially embraced the heresy of montheletism, which teaches that Christ had only one will, the divine. This is heretical. Jaroslav Pelikan makes these comments:
> 
> In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151).
> 
> 
> SO now what does the rcc do? Well they say that certain criteria must be met for the pope to be speaking in the chair of Peter. Ex cathedra, He must be teaching in his official capacity as the pope and he must be defining doctrine for the entire Church. The claim is made that Honorius did not meet these conditions. They say he was only speaking as a private person giving a theological opinion.
> 
> You may ask, why am I making this connection? Because you are making the same connection. You will undoubtedly condemn Honorious and say the criterion is a cloak. That it does not matter if he was sitting in the chair of Peter or not, he was the bishop of Rome, and therefore this statement on the will of Christ makes him a heretic. No other official criteria must be met. On which I agree, yet you will say that the rcc became a false church because at Trent, certain criteria were met that did not exist before. Namely a formal declaration of dogma/doctrine. Now if in one instance a formal declaration of speaking ex cathedra does not have to be met in our eyes for honorious to be condemned a heretic, destroying the myth of papal infallibility, how can we say a formal "Anathema of the Gospel" as Greco and Ritchie call it, has to be done at a council, when all it was was a reaffirmation of centuries old beliefs only done because of the protestant reformation? Trent did not change or add anything that was not already confessed when the early reformers were baptized. There is not one shred of evidence that anyone said after Trent, "Wow, I never knew they believed that". In fact, it did not receive much attention because it again only reaffirmed what the reformers wanted to reform!!!!! Justification was the foundation, the crux of Luther’s argument. "On which the church stands or falls" And the roman church confessed faith plus works forever and ever.
> 
> I would say you would be more consistent to say there has not been a valid baptism for centuries. That the roman church disintegrated much much before Trent. Then you would be left with another dilemma. All ordinations would be false too. And the reformers, who were ordained by succession, would be unlawful and invalid, resulting in invalid baptisms for them, you and me. And this is a dreadful thought.
Click to expand...


Hi Amazing:

I am dittoing what Pastor McMahon has said above in post #263 

I would also add that there is a matter of Repentance involved here:



> ...because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery whith her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds, Rev. 2:20-22.


Prior to the Reformation the RC church was the only Christian church in existence in Europe. I think we can all agree with that. The Church had become mixed with the True Church and the Antichrist over the centuries. This was spoken of by Paul beforehand:



> Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God, 2 Thess. 2:4.


The Antichrist (man of sin) is the Pope of Rome. Here we are told that the Antichrist will set his seat (the Holy See) within the True Church "The Temple of God."

We are told the duration of the reign of the Antichrist here:



> And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies: and power was given unto him to continue fourty and two months, Rev. 13:5.


When we follow the day/year theory accepted in prophecy we see this number as 1260 years (42months times 30 days/month equals 1260).

The Bible tells us how the Antichrirst will be destroyed:



> And then shall the Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and the brightness of his coming, 2 Thess. 2:8.


I believe that the reference to "the spirit of his mouth" is to the Word of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ as it was revived under the Reformation. What "the brightness of his coming" means I know not, but it may be a reference to the firey overthrow of the Pope in the city of Rome:



> Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her. And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning ... And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets: for God hath avenged you on her, Rev. 18:8,9; 18-20.


This, I believe, is the judgment that the Pope of Rome will receive in the future. However, this was not given to them without a call to repentance:



> And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues, Rev. 18:4.


The point that I am trying to make is simple: There was apostacy in Rome prior to the Reformation. The True Church was also in the RC communion as well. The Reformation was a call to the Pope and the RC Church to repent of its evil ways. At the council of Trent the Roman Church decided not to repent, but to embrace its Antichristian teachings and defend them from the Protestant "heretics." The people of God heeded the warning in Rev. 18:4, and Protestantism was born.

Because it refused to repent the Roman Church has apostatized and has ceased being a True Church of God. Until its judgment detailed in Rev. 18 is fulfilled the call to repentance to the RC Church remains in effect.

Think of it like excommunication. If a man is excommunicated from the Church, he is no longer considered a member of it. However, once he repents he will be taken back into the Church. It appears from Rev. 18 that the RC Church will never come to repentance. This seems to be the teaching of Rev. 20:10 - the Beast being the Church of Rome, and the False Prophet being Islam:



> And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, *where the beast and the false prophet are*, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


Thus, I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a true church of God for it has been "excommunicated" and has not repented of its evil doctrines.

An excommunicated priest cannot perform the sacraments in a valid fashion.

Grace,

-CH


----------

