# Is Roman Catholic Baptism valid?



## Puritan Sailor

I know most of the Baptist brethren here would answer &quot;no.&quot; But the paedo's here may differ. I here this common justification for Roman baptism in that they are &quot;trinitarian.&quot; This issue was debated in the 1800's between Thornwell and Hodge. I personally agree with Thornwell. 

RC baptism is not valid because, it is not done in the correct mode and because the Catholic position on the trinity is not biblical.
The correct mode would be with &quot;water&quot; and the &quot;Word&quot; in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But the Catholics add oil to there baptism, calling it christening, therefore departing from the biblical command to use only water (not to meniton all the eronious doctrines they tie to it). 
Secondly, the Catholic view of the Trinity is completely distorted and deformed by their view of Mary and the saints acting as mediators rather than Christ. 

To those who would accept Roman baptism as authentic based on this &quot;trinitarian&quot; statement made at baptism, is it the words of &quot;In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit&quot; that are important, or is it how they define these words? 

How can the &quot;baptism&quot; of a pagan religion be accepted as Christian? We all agree on this board that the RCC is apostate and not a true church. Would the baptism of a Greek Orthodox, Unitarian, &quot;oneness&quot; pentacostal, or Mormon be accepted because they use this &quot;trinitarian&quot; form too? (I'm assuming they use it here, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you see the point I hope). 

I know that Calvin and Luther believed the Roman baptism to be authentic, but that was before the Council of Trent when the Gospel was officially declared heretical, and also before the full blown Mary worship had taken hold of their theology. 
So any thoughts about this?

Puritan Sailor

[Edited on 9-23-2003 by puritansailor]


----------



## JohnV

If you had been baptized, whenever that was, and you later found out that the man who administered the baptism was not only in error, but embraced heresy later in his life, would your baptism still be valid?


----------



## Scott Bushey

I agree w/ John. 
Roman Catholics leadership do not worship the Jesus of the scriptures.


----------



## pastorway

It isn't just about the man administering. It is about the church that has authorized and defined that administration.

Is the RCC a Christian church?

I would cite the WCF on Baptism(emphasis added): 

[quote:e746ec9d02]II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, [b:e746ec9d02]by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto[/b:e746ec9d02].[/quote:e746ec9d02]

A question for my paedo brethren whose churches say that the RCC baptism is valid:

Do you have to take exception to your confession to reach such a conclusion, or is an RCC priest to be believed to be a minister of the (true) gospel, lawfully called thereto? If the &quot;church&quot; he serves is apostate and his vows for ministry deny Scripture itself and decry the true gospel as heresy, how can that baptism be anything more than a mystical, superstitious, religious ritual?

Phillip

[Edited on 9-24-03 by pastorway]


----------



## Bladestunner316

I was baptized at 17 by an arminian/Dispensational preacher??


----------



## fredtgreco

Blade, the issue is not with respect to the doctrine of the one baptizing, but rather with respect to the validity of the sacrament itself and the validity of the ecclesiastical body.

The Confession does make this point:

&quot;The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; [b:413d1c02fa]neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it[/b:413d1c02fa], but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution; which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.&quot; (WCF 27.3)

and

&quot;The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.&quot; (WCF 28.2)

We must first be careful in how we distinguish what constitutes a "true branch of the body of Christ." Both the magisterial reformers and the Puritans (including those who drafted the Confession) rejected the claims of separatists that only a church which completely (in their estimation) followed the dictates of Scripture in all particulars was a "true church." This is clearly seen in Calvin's treatment of the Anabaptists, Owen's comments regarding the schismatics and the Puritan treatment of Brownists and separatists. It should not be surprising then, that the Reformed tradition is not to invalidate baptism on specious or inconsequential grounds. Baptisms are accepted when performed with different modes of water (e.g. by immersion in a baptistic church, cf. WCF 28.3), in a church that denies the details of the doctrines of grace (e.g. Arminian churches), in a church that denies the Biblical character of church government (e.g. Episcopalian churches), and in a church that admits doctrines that the Reformed faith does not confess (e.g. Pentecostal churches).

This, however, should not be taken as proving that any "baptism" will be accepted as valid. It is just as clear, for instance, that the Reformed tradition has rejected baptisms done where the church denies the Trinity (e.g. Unitarianism), the Deity of Christ (e.g. Mormonism, Jehovah Witness), or where the church has denied the true nature of baptism (e.g. Boston Church of Christ). The question that must be answered is not whether it is proper to deny the baptism of any church, but rather whether it is proper to deny the baptism of the particular church in question. Certainly there are elements to baptism which are sine qua non, but there are also elements to baptism about which there is dispute. Specifically considering the question of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism, there have been two positions expressed: (1) such baptism, although irregular, is valid; and (2) such baptism is not Christian baptism. 

There is great controversy in Reformed circles over this. For my part, I side with Thornwell and I believe that Calvin was a bit inconsistent here. He seems to imply in the Institutes that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper in the Roman church was invalid, but that the baptism was. here is something I wrote a while back while interacting with Dr. F.N. Lee on the subject:

[quote:413d1c02fa]First, Calvin states that it is unlawful to depart from a true church:
&quot;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. [b:413d1c02fa]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[/b:413d1c02fa], 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 [b:413d1c02fa]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.[/b:413d1c02fa]&quot; (Institutes IV.i.10, emphasis added)

I must admit that when I read that, I agreed, but was a bit confused. For I know that Calvin (as [FN Lee has] pointed out frequently) regarded Roman baptism as valid (again I grant and do not which to discuss the witness of any &quot;pre-Thorwellian&quot; Protestants). I was confused because if the Roman Church is still in a very real sense a church, then how could Calvin depart from her without declaring himself a schismatic?

As I read on, Calvin gave me his answer to my question when he said in regard to the Roman Church that it is not a true church and therefore departure from her is warranted:
&quot;Since this is the state of matters under the Papacy, we can understand how much of the Church there survives. There, [b:413d1c02fa]instead of the ministry of the word, prevails a perverted government, compounded of lies[/b:413d1c02fa], a government which partly extinguishes, partly suppresses, the pure light. [b:413d1c02fa]In place of the Lord's Supper, the foulest sacrilege has entered[/b:413d1c02fa], 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. [b:413d1c02fa]Wherefore, in declining fatal participation in such wickedness, we run no risk of being dissevered from the Church of Christ.[/b:413d1c02fa]&quot; (Institutes IV.ii.2, emphasis added)

Calvin seems to say that the mark of the preaching of the word and the sacraments (at least with respect to the Lord's Supper) are not found in the Roman communion.


Can you reconcile in Calvin how he could counsel someone to depart from the Roman communion and yet still honor its baptism? It would seem that if Rome is a church (at least for purposes of baptism), and if we those who depart from a church are deserters of religion, then does it not follow that Calvin et al. are deserters of religion?[/quote:413d1c02fa]


----------



## pastorway

I guess I wonder why there is any controversy at all.

Rome believes baptism regenerates. And this is just the first in the list of their heretical errors. They cannot claim the title of &quot;Christian&quot; church when you examine their doctrine. So their baptism is a pagan practice.

Where is this not clear?

Phillip


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:29282505fa][i:29282505fa]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:29282505fa]
I guess I wonder why there is any controversy at all.

Rome believes baptism regenerates. And this is just the first in the list of their heretical errors. They cannot claim the title of &quot;Christian&quot; church when you examine their doctrine. So their baptism is a pagan practice.

Where is this not clear?

Phillip [/quote:29282505fa]

That's my point and my concern! As I sat in a presbytery meeting a couple weeks ago, they asked an ordination candidate whether he thought that a Catholic convert should be rebaptized. He said no because the Catholic baptism was authentic due to it's trinitarian administration. But the RCC is not a Christian church and they have changed the mode and meaning of the sacrament anyway so that it's not biblical baptism. I give Calvin and Luther a pass because in their time the gospel was not yet fully condemned. But by the Council of Trent, it was there in writing, that the gospel is a heresy for the Catholic, and later declarations of the RCC have certainly made their baptism heresy. 

But I would like to return to the idea of the Trinitarian formula. This is how Hodge, and others today, justify a Catholic baptism. There are many &quot;oneness&quot; pentacostals who baptize in the name of the &quot;Father, Son, and Holy Spirit&quot; yet they do not by these definitions mean the biblical Trinity. Would this be considered Christian baptism? If the same justification is used to authentic Roman baptism then why not any trinitarian formula? Is it just the phrase that matters, or what the church and/or pastor mean by that phrase? 

Puritan Sailor


----------



## wsw201

PuritanSailor,

The Council of Trent issued their statements in the late 1540's. I believe Luther had died prior to the Council issuing their edicts. Calvin's final and most complete version of the Institutes was published in 1559. In addition, Calvin wrote a treatise titled &quot;Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote&quot; (good reading too). So Calvin was very much aware of Rome position regarding the Gospel.

The basis for Calvin's and the Divines position on accepting RCC baptism was the Donatist controversy. As the WCF states, baptism does not depend upon the &quot;piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit&quot;. This was also the point Hodge made against Thornwell. I have read Hodge's rebuttal to Thornwell and agree with him.

[Edited on 9-24-2003 by wsw201]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I thought the Council of Trent had finished in the 1560's. I'll have to look for that Trent treatise by Calvin.
Regarding Hodge, how would I get ahold of his rebuttal to Thornwell? Is it still in print somewhere? 
How does Hodge address the issue of the correct mode (i.e. adding oil deliberately) and does he address the trinitarian formula in light of distorted and heretical views of the trinity?


----------



## Bladestunner316

thank you Fred

blade


----------



## wsw201

Puritansailor,

I stand corrected. I believe you are correct as to when the council completed their work. But then again I don't think it came as a surprise to the Reformers as to what the position of the RCC was going to be prior to the council issuing their work.

I only have a hard copy of Hodge's response (and I am in the process of trying to find it!). But here is a link to Hodge's additional response regarding the issue of the RCC being apart of the visible Church.

http://www.reformed.org/misc/hodge_catholic.html

If anyone can find Hodge's response to Thornwell on the web (I could not find it). It would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## kceaster

*How shall we try this?*

What do the Scriptures say regarding administration? I would say that they are rather silent on this point except that it is to be done in the Trinity.

What really needs to be proved is that the administration of the baptism is what is important. Many in the reformation did not think that administration was important as long as it was in the Trinity, which is why they concluded that it was not effectual based upon the one physically administering but upon the the Spirit.

Just because the church does not believe in the Trinity as it should be believed in, does not mean the Trinity does not exist, nor does it mean that God cannot make this baptism effectual to the person. As far as I know, baptism came from God, did it not? Does He not reserve the right to say what He will bless and what He will not?

Incidentally, this is also why we can be assured that the administration of infant baptism is acceptable. It is not because of the water we apply, the words we say, who the pastor is, or even who is being baptized; it is effectual only by the Spirit carrying out God's decree.

When baptism is not administered correctly, with understanding according to the Scriptures, is the one baptised cursed? If this is so, then the physical administration can and does matter. But I think we would have a hard time proving that.

If anyone is to be cursed, it would be the ones who know better, but ignore the clear teaching on the Trinity and upon correct Christian baptism.

But it is still ONLY the Spirit that makes the baptism effectual. Otherwise God is sovereign in all other areas excepting this one.

Do the Scriptures say anything contrary to this?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## JohnV

It just happens that this question was asked on the OPC website. You will find it at:
http://www.opc.org/cce/QandA/
Just scroll down to the second question.

You will also find a subject index to manyother questions at the bottom of the page.


----------



## pastorway

If it can be said that baptism is an ordinance (sacrament) of the Church, then that automatically denies the validity of the baptism of Rome, for they are not a true church in any sense.

The administration must be conducted by a church!

Phillip


----------



## kceaster

*Phillip...*

[quote:93f8e322bb]If it can be said that baptism is an ordinance (sacrament) of the Church, then that automatically denies the validity of the baptism of Rome, for they are not a true church in any sense.

The administration must be conducted by a church!

Phillip [/quote:93f8e322bb]

Could you show this from Scripture?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## blhowes

In the OT, did it matter whether the person administerring the circumcision was circumcised or uncircumcised? 
Bob


----------



## kceaster

*Bob...*

Zipporah circumcised Gershom.

It would appear that the Hivites of Gen 34 may have circumcised themselves.

Joshua circumcised all the males poised to go into the promised land.

The Levitical laws are specific as to when the ceremony is done and we can assume that they (the Levites) are the ones who performed it.

I cannot be for sure, but I think there were other peoples who circumcised. Tribes in Africa were known to do so. What happens when the person who wishes to convert to Judaism in the OT times was already circumcised?

Good questions.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## one-track mind

I'm not sure NT Scripture really specifically tells us who is, and is not, qualified to baptize. 

Certainly, the pattern seems to be that the apostles did most of the baptizing themselves. But, I don't see where Scripture says that that MUST be the case.

On the other hand, consider the &quot;Great Commission&quot; for a moment. Jesus says, &quot;Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them...&quot; (Matt, 28:19, NIV). The same people who are sent to make disciples are also called to baptize. If all believers understand the command to go and make disciples to apply to them (and I think most believers do think that Jesus' commission does apply to each of us), then should that mean that the command to baptize ALSO applies to each believer?

Just a thought...


----------



## Dan....

So if a Baptist preacher is washing his car with his son and, while singing the Doxology, he accidentally sprays his son with the water hose, is his son baptized???



(I'm joking).


----------



## wsw201

I don't think the issue comes down to who can baptize. Yes there have been extra-ordinary circumstances in which circumcision was done by someone who was not authorized to perform the act. But as Pastorway notes, the sacraments/ordinances are for the Church and are therefore to be administered by those who are called by the Church to do so.

To me the issue comes down to &quot;is the RCC a Christian Church&quot;. Granted, the RCC is not a &quot;True Church&quot; but can they be defined as a church as Hodge attempts to do?

Dan,

Of course not !!! His son was only &quot;sprinkled&quot; :saint2:

Now if it were a Presbyterian preacher.....


----------



## blhowes

I didn't know if anybody would take Dan's joke seriously/personally, so I hesitated responding. No disrespect intended to anybody, but when I read it ...


----------



## one-track mind

According to Calvin himself, a true church is a place where &quot;The Word is preached, and the sacraments are rightly administered.&quot;

I got my B.A. at the University of Notre Dame. I met people there whom I regard to be some of the strongest Christians I've ever come across. But, they were the exception, rather than the rule.

As a whole, if the RCC preaches something other than justification by grace through faith alone, then that is not preaching &quot;THE WORD.&quot; And, if they teach baptismal regeneration and veneration of the host prior to the Supper, then that is not &quot;rightly&quot; administering the sacraments.


----------



## blhowes

[b:8e3a470dfb]kc wrote:[/b:8e3a470dfb]
Zipporah circumcised Gershom. 

Wouldn't Zipporah be considered to be circumcised (though a woman) because she was married to Moses?

In general, though, do I understand it correctly that anybody could circumcise anybody and, assuming they've been properly cleansed, could participate in the passover?

Totally unrelated, but can you imagine how different things would be now if God had chosen to use baptism in OT and circumcision in the NT? I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people in the churches that tend toward the &quot;easy believism&quot; gospel decreased ever so slightly.

Bob

[Edited on 9-24-2003 by blhowes]


----------



## wsw201

One-Track,

That is true how Calvin defined a True Church. And no one would say that the RCC is a True Church. But can they be considered a Christian Church as Hodge defines it? And if you have not had the chance to read the article, Hodge defines a Christian Church as the WCF defines the visible church:

Hodge definition of a Christian Church (not a true church):

[quote:a53d6030bd]
Is a church an organized society professing the true religion, united for the worship of God and the exercise of discipline, and subject to the same for of government and to common tribunal? 

This definition is substantially the one given in our standards. &quot;A particular church consists of a number of professing Christians with their offspring, voluntarily associated together for divine worship and godly living agreeably to the Holy Scriptures; and submitting to a certain form of government [sic] [3]. &quot;Professing Christians&quot; is here used as equivalent to &quot;those professing the true religion,&quot; the form of expression adopted in the Confession of Faith and Larger Catechism. It is obvious that the definition suits all the cases mentioned above, applying equally well to a single congregation, and to a whole denomination united in one body.
[/quote:a53d6030bd]


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:d7ce5233d2][i:d7ce5233d2]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:d7ce5233d2]
I don't think the issue comes down to who can baptize. Yes there have been extra-ordinary circumstances in which circumcision was done by someone who was not authorized to perform the act. But as Pastorway notes, the sacraments/ordinances are for the Church and are therefore to be administered by those who are called by the Church to do so.

To me the issue comes down to &quot;is the RCC a Christian Church&quot;. Granted, the RCC is not a &quot;True Church&quot; but can they be defined as a church as Hodge attempts to do?

Dan,

Of course not !!! His son was only &quot;sprinkled&quot; :saint2:

Now if it were a Presbyterian preacher..... [/quote:d7ce5233d2]

Wayne,

I agree completely with you here -- the issue is whether Rome is a church, and it must be admitted that historically, Reformed paedobaptists have answered that question with a [i:d7ce5233d2]qualified[/i:d7ce5233d2] (and that is important) &quot;yes.&quot;

My take on this, after having given it much thought, especially in the context of cases of conscience, is that there is some inconsistency in Calvin (see my previous post). I don't know how he can get around it. For on the one hand, Calvin's view of the church is so (Biblically) high that he defends the Reformers from the charge of schism by pointing out Rome's deficiency as a true church (the word, the mass). But then at the same time, he must defend its true church-ness for purposes of baptism. It does not jell for me.


----------



## JohnV

I think that we need to consider what makes for a church. We can look ahead and picture what a church should be, or we can look back and see what is there. There are a lot of people who consider themsleves Christians, who gather together for worship, an who sit under a common form of government in it. That does not make them true necessarily, but they do gather in God's name. 

It is not necessarily all the additions that make them not a church at all, if they adhere to the rudiments of the worship of the triune God. But their worship can be considered false by others. They are judged in that by the way they keep to the Word. 

As it pertains to their being a church, it is not for us to deny that. That is up to God. It is for us to judge whether it remains true to the Word, and whether we would worship in that manner. It could not be considered a false church if it were not a church, unless we meant that it was no church at all when we call it false. 

So we cannot tell when a baptism is to be discounted unless it fails to meet a Biblical standard. And that hinges on the triune formula and the testimony of a good confession. We may not have access to the latter, but we can know about the formula followed by the various churches. Otherwise there are many baptism which have to be discounted. 

Such as my own, which was done in a faithful church, but which church went into heresy. How carefully must we examine our own baptisms, and follow closely the men and churches which administered them? Or do we rest in the work of the Spirit, and that he may do according to His promises regardless of man? If men fail, does that mean that the Spirit will fail too?


----------



## Wannabee

I recently read this quote. Don't know if it's useful here, but I found it interesting

Tertullian
Exhortation to Chastity
Vol. VII
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-15.htm#P1000_249272
[quote:506e185dcc]Are not even we laics priests? It is written: &quot;A kingdom also, and priests to His God and Father, hath He made us.&quot;37 It is the authority of the Church, and the honour which has acquired sanctity through the joint session of the Order, which has established the difference between the Order and the laity. Accordingly, where there is no joint session of the ecclesiastical Order, you offer, and baptize, and are priest, alone for yourself. But where three are, a church is, albeit they be laics. For each individual lives by his own faith,38 nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says.39 Therefore, if you have the right of a priest in your own person, in cases of necessity, it behoves you to have likewise the discipline of a priest whenever it may be necessary to have the fight of a priest. If you are a digamist, do you baptize? If you are a digamist, do you offer? How much more capital (a crime) is it for a digamist laic to act as a priest, when the priest himself, if he turn digamist, is deprived of the power of acting the priest! &quot;But to necessity,&quot; you say, &quot;indulgence is granted.&quot; No necessity is excusable which is avoidable. In a word, shun to be found guilty of digamy, and you do not expose yourself to the necessity of administering what a digamist may not lawfully administer. God wills us all to he so conditioned, as to be ready at all times and places to undertake (the duties of) His sacraments. There is &quot;one God, one faith,&quot;40 one discipline too. So truly is this the case, that unless the laics as well observe the rules which are to guide the choice of presbyters, how will there be presbyters at all, who are chosen to that office from among the laics? Hence we are bound to contend that the command to abstain from second marriage relates first to the laic; so long as no other can be a presbyter than a laic, provided he have been once for all a husband.[/quote:506e185dcc]What do you think?

[Edited on 9-24-2003 by Wannabee]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

WCF Ch.28
II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]

WCF Ch.27
IV. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.[10]

WCF Ch25
II. 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]


Ok. Here's some confessional analysis. The WCF states only water is to be used (the Belgic Confession states &quot;pure&quot; water). Rome does not fit this requirment because they also use oil. 

Only a minister of the gospel is to administer baptism who is lawfully called. Rome doesn't meet this requirement either because Catholic priests are not ministers of the gospel. 

Finally, the visible church is defined as those who &quot;profess the true religion&quot;. Rome does not profess the true religion so they miss out on that as well. The only way they could fit under this umbrella is if we considered all people who professed a &quot;true religion&quot; as part of the visible church, which would mean many hybrids like Mormons, JW's, Bahai's, etc. would also fit. Therefore if we are to accept Rome's baptism, we by principle have to accept the rest too. What if a Buddhist decides to baptize someone in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Would we call that a valid baptism? 

Rome does not fit 3 out of the 4 requirements. The do not baptize with only water, the do not have ministers of the gospel, they are not part of the visible church because the don't profess the true religion. They only have the trinitarian formula, with a warped doctrine of the Trinity (or should we say Quadnity including Mary). 

It seems to me inconsistent with the WCF for presbyterians to consider Rome's baptism authentic. 
More thoughts....

Puritan Sailor


----------



## kceaster

*Patrick...*

[quote:22f9e2d550]WCF Ch.28
II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]

WCF Ch.27
IV. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.[10]

WCF Ch25
II. 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][/quote:22f9e2d550]

You must look at these in light of what is said about the sacrament itself, &quot;XXVII:III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it:[7] but upon the work of the Spirit,[8] and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.[9]

We cannot get wrapped around the axle about the outward administration. It is the inward that counts and it is precisely the inward that we cannot administer. The Holy Spirit baptizes.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:e9d3e114b1][i:e9d3e114b1]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:e9d3e114b1]
[quote:e9d3e114b1]WCF Ch.28
II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]

WCF Ch.27
IV. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.[10]

WCF Ch25
II. 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][/quote:e9d3e114b1]

You must look at these in light of what is said about the sacrament itself, &quot;XXVII:III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it:[7] but upon the work of the Spirit,[8] and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.[9]

We cannot get wrapped around the axle about the outward administration. It is the inward that counts and it is precisely the inward that we cannot administer. The Holy Spirit baptizes.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:e9d3e114b1]

But KC, we [b:e9d3e114b1]must[/b:e9d3e114b1] get &quot;wrapped around the outward administration&quot; in one sense. You would not advocate that one who had been baptized in a Mormon church had Biblical baptism, would you? What about Jehovah's Witnesses? How about a Oneness Pentecostal group? You see the issue is not over Donatism, on that both sides are agreed. The issue is whether a sacrament can [b:e9d3e114b1]even be[/b:e9d3e114b1] a sacrament outside the Church. The unanimous answer of the Reformed Church in all its confession is &quot;NO.&quot; We would not call it baptism if a bunch of people got together in my backyard and dumped water over someone, claiming to baptize them if they had no authority, would we? Would we call it the Lord's Supper if a parachurch group with no minister of the gospel served juice and crackers as the Lord's Supper?

What is at issue is whether the Church of Rome qualifies sufficiently in some bare minimalist sense as a church in order to legitimize its baptism. We can disagree over that, but that is the issue.


----------



## kceaster

*Fred...*

Quite right. I thought we were arguing only from a trinitarian RCC standpoint. It is only under these circumstances that I think Calvin and the WCF and Hodge would be arguing for accepting.

That is what I am arguing for as well.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:a979ca7282][i:a979ca7282]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:a979ca7282]
We cannot get wrapped around the axle about the outward administration. It is the inward that counts and it is precisely the inward that we cannot administer. The Holy Spirit baptizes.
[/quote:a979ca7282]

I agree with this principle if the baptism were done within the Christian community. But this assumes that Rome is a Christian Church and that their sacrament is a Christian sacrament. I guess I just don't see how Rome qualifies for either one. And if it is not administered as the bible commands it to be then is it a real baptism or just a manmade tradition? 


[Edited on 9-25-2003 by puritansailor]


----------



## Drdad

Pastor Way is right. I would view a RCC Baptism just the same as I would a Mormon Baptism. Both are heretical and both should not be seen as truly legitimate. We had a man converted from the mormon church in our church and we required him to be Baptized, even though he was baptized in their church.


----------



## JohnV

Before we discount Calvin's views, we should remember that many who followed the Reformers were baptized in the Roman church, including Calvin and Luther. They saw their baptisms as real, in that the Spirit called them out of the Church which had become apostate, into a reformation of the faith. Just because the church had apostacized, that did not void the promises or the work of the Spirit. 

Baptism is chiefly the recognition of the work of the Spirit in the heart of man, not the work of man's heart. Who is to forbid baptism if the witness of the Spirit's work is there? And who is to say that it is ineffective because it was administered by unfaithful men in an unfaithful church? And which of our own clerical people qualify under the regimen of such truth in faith, that we ourselves do disqualify ourselves with our little &quot;isms&quot;? 

For if these objections hold, then ought not the Presbyterians veto any Baptist baptisms, and vise versa? Is this not the logical consequence of the arguments raised so far? Is it not also inconsistent to disqualify RC baptisms, and still hold to a universal Church, which transcends the denominational boundaries, and even invades the territory we usually assign to nether gloom? Is it not true that we recognize that there may indeed be true believers even in some of these apostate churches, because we believe in the efficacy and efficiency of the gospel, wherever it is preached, and under whatever pretext it is preached? And if we recognize that there is a church there, than can we forbid the work of the Spirit accomplished in these places form receiving the signs and symbols of His precious promises? 

These are just my thoughts to add to the discussion. In the Reformed setting I was brought up in, Catholic baptisms were respected, but rebaptisms were not. These latter were regarded as denying the promises and work of the Spirit, and were severely dealt with.


----------



## Drdad

THere is a radically different view between Baptists and Presbyterean debate than between RCC and orthodox Christianity. 

My only question that has not been answered is this: would you accept someone who has been baptized in the mormon church without requiring them to be baptized again? 

I can disagree with some points of Presbytereans but still recognize they are orthodox... I can't do the same for RCC's and Mormons.


----------



## JohnV

Defintely not.

They are not a rightly constituted church. They do not worship the triune God, so their baptisms cannot be respected. Same with the JW's. These are not gatherings of people who worship the true God, nor are their officers then duly ordained. 

But the point you are raising is that once the faithful had departed from the Roman church, could we still consider her a church at all, along with her officers, in spite of the fact that some may still be found among them who would be considered to be elect? Did they not reject the gospel and so lose their status as church? 

I think we need to be careful about that, because God would not destroy Sodom if there were only a few faithful left in the city. And He kept His promises to David and to his people, even when it had become clear that they were not going to amend their ways, even when he sent them prophets and faithful leaders. 

The RC church was once a church; the Mormons and JW's never were. Some of the far out Pentecostal-type churches never really were churches to begin with. We can not look for the work of Spirit in them, as much as in spite of them. But churches which once were true churches are of a different sort, in that the residual effect may still be there. God keeps faith even when we do not; God remains faithful to His Word even when we fall away. Baptism is a sign of the Spirit's work, not ours. 




[Edited on 9-25-2003 by JohnV]


----------



## kceaster

*Derick...*

The reason I cannot categorically say that the RCC baptism is not sufficient is because I know that God has saved people in the RCC. For whatever reason He sees fit, they are still there. For other reasons, God brings them out. But when they have been baptized already and we know that they are saved, how are we adding to anything that has been done by God in their lives? Especially, since we have no mandate in Scripture to do so?

One well known writer is James McCarthy who wrote, &quot;The Gospel According to Rome.&quot; He was raised a 4th generation Catholic. He has since been converted to Protestantism and has come out of the RCC. Why should he be baptized again? You could say that the first time was not done in accordance with Scripture and yet, how do we know that this baptism, even this one, was not effectual?

There are many Christians in the RCC. I think it is a sin for us to speculate on whether or not their baptism is acceptable. God has obviously made it effectual by regeneration. Why add to this work by baptizing them again?

They were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Does man make those words effectual, or does God?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## wsw201

The RCC accepts all the creeds of the ecuminical councils, ie; Nicea, Chalcedon, etc. These are Orthodox creeds that all Christian churches hold to in order to be considered Christian. Mormons and JW's do not hold to these creeds of the Church. Now is the RCC &quot;Reformed&quot; Orthodox? No. Their theology is very screwed up. It is a works-righteousness theology. But then again, so are Protestant Arminian Churches. Todays Arminian Churches are basically Pelagian, which is another gospel. Based on what has been said so far about the RCC, why should any Church accept the baptism of a Church that is &quot;RCC light&quot;? If we are going to say that we would only accept the baptism from only a &quot;True Church&quot; as has been defined, then that leaves out a lot of what we might consider Christian Churches. In fact, why wouldn't the Baptists consider the Presbyterian Church as not a True Church? No Baptist Church I know of would accept my baptism since I was baptised as an infant. They would require me to be &quot;baptised&quot; (re-baptised) before they would consider me as a member. What about folks coming out of the Charasmatic/Word of Faith Churches? Talk about screwed up theology. Is a baptism done by Benny Hinn acceptable? Do any of these types of Churches accept the Nicene Creed?

The point Hodge makes concerning the Church is that under the definition of a True Church, there are very few true churches since most are mixed with some error whether in the Gospel preached or how the sacraments/ordinances are administered or whether there is actually any real discipline in the Church. That is why he makes a distinction between a True Church and a Christian Church.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:d958bc7285][i:d958bc7285]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:d958bc7285]
The RCC accepts all the creeds of the ecuminical councils, ie; Nicea, Chalcedon, etc. These are Orthodox creeds that all Christian churches hold to in order to be considered Christian. Mormons and JW's do not hold to these creeds of the Church. Now is the RCC &quot;Reformed&quot; Orthodox? No. Their theology is very screwed up. It is a works-righteousness theology. But then again, so are Protestant Arminian Churches. Todays Arminian Churches are basically Pelagian, which is another gospel. Based on what has been said so far about the RCC, why should any Church accept the baptism of a Church that is &quot;RCC light&quot;? If we are going to say that we would only accept the baptism from only a &quot;True Church&quot; as has been defined, then that leaves out a lot of what we might consider Christian Churches. In fact, why wouldn't the Baptists consider the Presbyterian Church as not a True Church? No Baptist Church I know of would accept my baptism since I was baptised as an infant. They would require me to be &quot;baptised&quot; (re-baptised) before they would consider me as a member. What about folks coming out of the Charasmatic/Word of Faith Churches? Talk about screwed up theology. Is a baptism done by Benny Hinn acceptable? Do any of these types of Churches accept the Nicene Creed?

The point Hodge makes concerning the Church is that under the definition of a True Church, there are very few true churches since most are mixed with some error whether in the Gospel preached or how the sacraments/ordinances are administered or whether there is actually any real discipline in the Church. That is why he makes a distinction between a True Church and a Christian Church. [/quote:d958bc7285]

Wayne,

Here is the interesting thing for me. What are the marks of the church? They are:



[*:d958bc7285]The proper preaching of the Word
[*:d958bc7285]The proper administration of the sacraments
[*:d958bc7285]The proper use of discipline
[/list:d958bc7285]

Now the problem is that the Roman communion fails all three of these tests. They fail them not per my judgment, but Calvin's. He says that instead of a &quot;ministry of the Word&quot; they have &quot;compounded lies.&quot; They also have a &quot;perverted government,&quot; which especially since Trent calls light darkness and darkness light. To hold to the gospel puts one under the perverted discipline of Rome (&quot;whoever says that salvation is by faith alone...let him be anathama&quot; ). Calvin also denies that the mass is the proper administration of the Lord's Supper. In fact, he declares it &quot;the foulest sacrilege.&quot;

Calvin also does not think it schism to leave Rome because she is not a true church &quot;we run no risk of being dissevered from the Church of Christ.&quot; (See my post above for citations)

Now what is odd for me, is that those who accept Romish &quot;baptism&quot; then wind up circulating a completely different standard, as you have just articulated. The standard then does not become intention or understanding of the sacrament, understanding of the gospel, the nature of a true church (else we would be beholden to return to Rome), or even the marks of a church. Now the &quot;standard&quot; is simply Trinitarian formula. This is as bare bones as possible, and in my mind is only the standard because it is the ONLY way in which the Romish whore bears any resemblance to a church, rather than the synagogue of Satan.


----------



## Drdad

On the first note, I was a Roman Catholic and we even helped start a new RCC in Ona, WV. 

Secondly, I think Fred T. Greco hit on something when he referred to the synogogue of Satan. The issue is not where the RCC agrees with us, the issue is whether or not they are heretical. Can you believe what they teach and still be saved? If they teach heresy, then they are of the synogogue of Satan. Thus, their Baptism is from Satan, not from God. The same applies to mormonism and JW's and so on and so forth.

The issue with other denominations are vastly different. Fred and I may disagree in many areas of theology but I would not discount his orthodoxy.

On another count, considering I am not a Paedo Baptist, I might be off a little in this understanding... but isn't infant Baptism supposed to be done by believing parent(s) for their child. If I were baptized as an infant yet my family did not believe... was my baptism genuine according to the Paedo Baptists? 

Just curious.


----------



## Drdad

One more thing:

Would you guys who think a RCC baptism is legitimate, would you allow a non-Christian to Baptise someone? I think Matthew 28:18-20 clarifies who can Baptize. It must first be a Christian who can teach and disciple. 

I think the fear here is getting into Donatism. And granted, our Baptism is not dependent upon the person who Baptises, but on God. Yet, in some sense it does depend on the person... the person must be approved by the church in accordance to orthodox doctrine and that person should be able to teach the doctrine. Yet, if the man who Baptizes is found to be false, it was not dependent on Him.

Derick


----------



## JohnV

There is a difference between a &quot;true&quot; church and a recognized church. It is not good for us to sit under the authority of the a false church because our faith can be thwarted by it. But the Spirit's work cannot be thwarted. If He calls someone to faith in such a church, who are we to deny that his baptism was effective? But we limit those who would be so recognized.

Where would you draw the line for truth and faithfulness? Even apostate churches still think themselves faithful to the Word. But many don't even begin with the Word. So Mormons and JW's do not qualify, even if we assent to RC baptisms. How do I regard the baptisms done in the Reformed churches which I left because of their apostate leadership? What about nephews and nieces still in those churches? 

I think that maybe we are setting ourselves up for multiple baptisms if we only recognize baptisms done in churches which we deem truly faithful. I think it is a worse thing to rebaptize than to accept a RCC baptism. 

So if we reject a RCC baptism, we had better be very certain that it was not effective. And if we do that, then we have know a man's heart. 

So the question I would ask would be: does the denial of the validity of RCC baptism require a judgment on our part which the Word forbids us?


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:7068f5c7fb][i:7068f5c7fb]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:7068f5c7fb]
There is a difference between a &quot;true&quot; church and a recognized church. It is not good for us to sit under the authority of the a false church because our faith can be thwarted by it. But the Spirit's work cannot be thwarted. If He calls someone to faith in such a church, who are we to deny that his baptism was effective? But we limit those who would be so recognized.

Where would you draw the line for truth and faithfulness? Even apostate churches still think themselves faithful to the Word. But many don't even begin with the Word. So Mormons and JW's do not qualify, even if we assent to RC baptisms. How do I regard the baptisms done in the Reformed churches which I left because of their apostate leadership? What about nephews and nieces still in those churches? 

I think that maybe we are setting ourselves up for multiple baptisms if we only recognize baptisms done in churches which we deem truly faithful. I think it is a worse thing to rebaptize than to accept a RCC baptism. 

So if we reject a RCC baptism, we had better be very certain that it was not effective. And if we do that, then we have know a man's heart. 

So the question I would ask would be: does the denial of the validity of RCC baptism require a judgment on our part which the Word forbids us? [/quote:7068f5c7fb]

John,

I think that the issue you raise is actually not that difficult. We look to the objective, rather than the subjective in churches. Just as when we speak of the fact that baptism is to be performed on the children of &quot;believing&quot; parents, we interpret it to mean those who have made a credible profession of faith (or as the confession puts it: &quot;those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ&quot; WCF 28.4) -- so we treat churches. We make a judgment about the church in a formal, objective fashion (has this church been declared apostate?) , not a subjective fashion (do I think it is apostate?).

I also disagree with your premise. Far worse a sin to neglect Christian baptism than to go through an additional rite that has no significance (i.e. rebaptism).


----------



## wsw201

Fred,

I understand your delimma regarding Calvin. I don't know the answer to it, but sometimes Calvin can get alittle convoluted in that he is not always systematic in his writing (sometimes I think its just a 16th century thing in how they presented their arguments). Setting Calvin aside for know, consider Hodge and his argument.

What Hodge is using is the definition of the visible church per the WCF in advancing his argument. My question is simply &quot;is that valid&quot;?

If we only use the definition of a &quot;True Church versus a False Church&quot;, do we limit who we will consider Christians much less who's baptism will be acceptable. As I pointed out previously, the theology of a Protestant Arminian Church is not that much different from the RCC. Both are distorting the Gospel. Assuming a Baptistic Arminian Church, both reflect errors in the sacraments. In addition, Arminianism was condemned at the Synod of Dordt as heretical. And that verision of arminianism was not as bad as the Arminianism/Finneyism of today's Evangelical Churches.

Consider Hodge's point concerning definition:


[quote:775a46e8c6]
We may say that a church is a society in which the pure word of God is preached, the sacraments duly administered, and discipline properly exercised by legitimate officers. [b:775a46e8c6]This, however, is a description of a pure and orderly church, and not an enumeration of the essential attributes of such a body[/b:775a46e8c6]. If we use that description as a definition, we must exclude all but orthodox Presbyterians from the pale of the church. The eastern churches, the church of England, the Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists would without exception be cut off. Every one of these classes of Christians fails, according to our standard, in some one or more of the above specifications. They are all defective either as to doctrine, or as to the sacraments, or as to the proper exercise of discipline, or as to the organs through which such discipline is exercised. This distinctions between a description and definition, between an enumeration of what belongs to a pure church, and what is necessary to the being of a church, is often disregarded. 

Turrettin expressly makes the distinctions between &quot;a true church,&quot; i.e., a church which conforms of the true standard of what a church ought to be, and a heretical, corrupt, and apostate church. True, in his use of the term, corresponds to orthodox or pure; not with real. A body, therefore, according to him may be a church, and yet not a true church. We adverted to this fact in our former article, and referred so distinctly to the statements of Turrettin that we are surprised to find Theophilus quoting from him as he does. &quot;Since the church of Rome,&quot; says Turrettin, &quot;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.&quot;

It is very evident, therefore, that Rome, according to Turrettin, is to be viewed under two aspects; under the one she is a church, i.e., a body in which the people of God still are; which retains the word of God and the preaching of it, though corrupted, and the sacraments, especially baptism. Under the other aspect, i.e., as a papal body, she is not a church; i.e., her popery and all her corruptions are anti-christian and apostate. She is not therefore a true church, for a true church is free from heresy, from superstition, from oppressive regimen, from corruption of manners, and from doubt or diffidence. 

When we turn to the Scriptures and to the common language of Christians, we do not find the word church used in senses which admit of being embraced under one definition. In other words, the essential attributes of the church, in the established sense of the term, are not its essential attributes in another equally authorized sense. Thus we are told that the church consists of the whole number of the elect who ever have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof. In this sense of the word, it is essential to the church that it consist of the elect only, and that it should include them all. That this definition is sustained by scriptural usage cannot be disputed. It is in this sense the church is the body of Christ, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. It is by the church, thus understood, God is to manifest to principalities and powers his manifold wisdom. This is the church which Christ loved, and for which he gave himself that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church. It would of course be absurd to contend that no society is a church which does not come under this definition.
[/quote:775a46e8c6] 

Hodge goes through other definitional views of what constitutes a Church, but that would make this post way too long.

Based on Hodge's argument, JohnV's comments are valid.


----------



## JohnV

May I ask you a question Fred? Was Calvin rebaptized, along with those who followed in the Reformaton who came out of the Roman church? Did they not recognize the baptism they received? 

Also, the Dutch Reformed used to teach that rebaptism was a heinous sin. It amounted to denying the Holy Spirit. Those who were rebaptized with a believer's baptism were put out of the church. I recall a few instances of that happening. 

And again, I would like to emphasize that paedo baptism logically includes recognizing baptism done in the name of the Triune God, done in a Christian church (not necessarily a true church) because of the nature of the sacrament's meaning. When we baptize we are recognizing the work of the Spirit, not the heart of a man who receives it. The burning question is, &quot;Who is to prevent them from being baptized if the promise of the Spirit is upon them?&quot; 

When a man confesses his guilt, and professes his faith, he does so before God and before the Church. The validity of it does not depend on the faithfulness of the church, as long as it represents the form of a duly constituted body of Christ, as cited from Turretin above. But even if such a church has become false, God is not, and it was still done before His face. 

We can prove that a church has ignored a proper baptism, but how are we going to prove that God ignored it?

OK, that's more than one question. I got carried away. So far I still think that we should recognize RCC baptisms. But I am just fielding these objections because this is what I have been taught, and I have never worked through it before to this extent. You may be right, but I am not yet convinced. The question is certainly legitemate.


----------



## JohnV

I would also like to qualify something from Hodge. The Bible does have some stipulations concerning Church, but by way of direct inference. If Paul was upset with the Galatian and/or Corinthian churches, he stilll recognized them as churches. And the seven churches of Revelation are also recognized as churches, even though some are to the point of having their lampstand removed. But God is the one Who removes it, not us. 

Thus if the RCC bacame Unitarian, we could then assume it's lampstand had been removed. But while it has the rudiments of a properly constituted church, worshipping the Triune God, preaching the Word, administering the scasraments, and exercising discipline, (though it does not meet the standards of a true church) yet it is a Christian church nevertheless. And because it is, we can then recognize them as false. Otherwise they would be no church at all, and therefore it would be redundant to call them a false church. 

The question still remains, however, concerning all the time that has passed and the ample opportunities given these churches to recognize the true gospel. And they have consistently rejected it. And we are now long past that generation of reformers who came out the RCC, though there are still some coming out to this day, and embracing the true Doctrine of Grace. 

Though I am not convinced, yet I see the need for further investigation, and the weakness of my doctrine. Thanks to God, and to you all for your spiritual help in this.


----------



## JohnV

Here is a website of reformation still happening in the RCC:
http://www.refcm.org

Look under Mission fields - Italy. The minister mentioned in the article must remain unnamed because of the particular setting he is in. 

[Edited on 9-25-2003 by JohnV]


----------



## pastorway

Is a Synagogue of Satan ever to be considered a &quot;Christian&quot; church? Is a &quot;church&quot; that denies the very gospel itself in any way Christian just because they mouth the words, &quot;In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit&quot; ??

The RCC believes this baptism regenerates. They believe that we are saved by faith and works. They offer for sale the forgiveness of sin. Where in the Bible is a &quot;church&quot; like this commended for being a &quot;church&quot; at all in any way?

They (the RCC) have left their first love. They have forsaken Christ and His Word. Their leaders are pawns of Satan deceiving the world and leading people to hell. People who they baptize with the &quot;correct&quot; words. 

I do not doubt that God can save men in the RCC - but it is not because they are in the RCC. God saves His elect wherever they are - be it a sound reformed church, a cult, on the street, or in an back alley. Just because God saves people in the most awful places on earth does not then give any validity that &quot;place&quot; having the &quot;right&quot; to administer the &quot;sacraments&quot; of the Church of Jesus Christ. 

How dare any of use give validity to anything Rome does - Calvin or no Calvin!! Hodge or no Hodge!!

The Bible says they are wolves. It says they lead men to hell. It says they are dangerous and shrwed. It says they will overturn the faith of many and lead the gullible astray. 

To be always reforming is to denounce Rome and any other cult that defiles the gospel of our Lord.

So back to the question - Is a Synagogue of Satan ever to be considered a &quot;Christian&quot; church? Yes or No.

Phillip

[Edited on 9-25-03 by pastorway]


----------



## JohnV

[quote:0181dbcc36][i:0181dbcc36]by pastor Way[/i:0181dbcc36]
Is a Synagogue of Satan ever to be considered a &quot;Christian&quot; church? Yes or No. [/quote:0181dbcc36]

I hear you Phillip. I too am concerned about that. But as a Presbyterian, who believes in paedo baptism, I also see the other point. It's a good question, although I can't help thinking it is also a trick question. The way you ask it leaves us with only one answer. But the logic which follows it leaves us with no alternative but to go back and rethink it. For where would we stop in rejecting baptisms done in the name of the Trinity?


----------



## Drdad

Heresy is a good starting point at drawing the line. I would even go so far as to say the agreement that a few of the Puritans drew up in the early 1600's on what is and is not a true church (of which I would add a few.) When the Puritans of the early 1600's got together an drew up criteria on when they would fellowship the following is what they said. One person tried to limit it to the Apostle's Creed, but was rightly disputed by the rest of the group. I believe Owens and Baxter were a part of this meeting, but my history on this is a little vague (and my books are packed ready to move). Here is their line


[quote:068190eec8]
1. That the Holy Scripture is that rule of knowing God and living unto Him which whoso does not believe cannot be saved

2. That there is a God who is the Creator, Governor and Judge of the world, which is to be received by faith, and every other way of the knowledge of Him is insufficient.

3. That this God who is the Creator is eternally distinct from all creatures in His Being and Blessedness.

4. That this God is One in Three Persons or subsistences (God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

5. That Jesus Christ is the only Mediator between God and Man without the knowledge of whom there is no salvation.

6. That this Jesus Christ is the true God.

7. That this Jesus Christ is also true Man.

8. That this Jesus Christ is God and Man in One Person.

9. That this Jesus Christ is our Redeemer, who by paying a ransom and bearing our sins has made satisfaction for them.

10. That this same Lord Jesus Christ is He that was Crucified at Jerusalem, and rose again and ascended into Heaven.

11. That this same Jesus Christ being the only God and Man in One Person remains for ever a distinct Person from all saints and angels notwithstanding their union and communion with Him.

12. That all men by nature were dead in sins and trespasses, and no man can be saved unless he be born again, repent, and believe.

13. That we are justified and saved by grace and faith in Jesus Christ and not by works.

14. That to continue in any known sin upon what pretence or principle soever is damnable.

15. That God is to be worshipped according to His own will, and whosoever shall forsake and despise all the duties of His worship cannot be saved.

16. That the dead shall rise, and that there is a day of judgment wherein all shall appear, some to go into everlasting life and some into everlasting condemnation.

[/quote:068190eec8]


----------



## JohnV

I know what you are saying, Derrick. I feel the tension. Part of the difference is in our particular views on baptism. And I won't step over that line. I can see that the view you hold makes the demand it does upon you, and that you are fully convinced. Perhaps I don't understand it well enough to appreciate it as you do. I hope that you are assured that I am trying to understand it, and that if I still do not accept it, or do accept it, it will be for the reason that it is what I am persuaded is the truly Biblical understnding, just as I am assured of your personal integrity as well. 

As such, I am content to just let it go at this for now. It seems that we are just arguing the same arguments over and over. Unless it becomes a true issue, that it comes up as a real life situation, we should just leave it as it is, perhaps. I just don't want to do anything to hurt our fellowship.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:c4aee399fb][i:c4aee399fb]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:c4aee399fb]

I hear you Phillip. I too am concerned about that. But as a Presbyterian, who believes in paedo baptism, I also see the other point. It's a good question, although I can't help thinking it is also a trick question. The way you ask it leaves us with only one answer. But the logic which follows it leaves us with no alternative but to go back and rethink it. For where would we stop in rejecting baptisms done in the name of the Trinity? [/quote:c4aee399fb]

This is a good point John in where to draw the line about the Trinity. But most reformed churches have already drawn the line. They accept Roman baptism (and Greek Orthodox), and reject other trinitarian baptisms from Mormons, JW's, oneness pentacostals, and cultic groups. Yet Rome is just as heretical as these groups, if not more. This is what confuses me about the issue for it seems to me to be inconsistent. If all that is required is the trinitarian formula then we can reject no baptisms from any group, who uses that name. 

We reject the doctrine of the Mass even though the same elements are used as the Lord's Supper. But we reject it because the elements are not used according to the command of Scripture and Rome attaches heretical doctrines to the elements. We would claim anyone who partakes of it is commiting idolatry due to their heretical nature of the sacrament. Why do we not reject Rome's baptism based on the same criteria? 

Also, others brought up the fact that the elect are still among them and saved out of Rome. Yet, they certainly are not saved by any effort of Rome because they do not preach the gospel but condemn it. These elect are saved because they either read Scripture for themselves or are exposed to the gospel through an outside influence. And the other &quot;trinitarian&quot; baptism groups also have elect who are saved out of them. Yet this fact does not matter in rejecting their baptism. 

Also, just because Rome claims to believe in peado-baptism, doesn't mean they believe in biblical peado-baptism (no smart remarks from the Baptists please :wink1: ). 
Rome claims to believe as we do in the apostle's creed of &quot;the forgiveness of sins&quot; yet we completely disagree about the nature of that forgiveness.

This is a practical matter. Many come to the reformed faith with these backgrounds and we must judge whether or not to administer baptism to these converts as Jesus commands us to do.
Some more thoughts...

Puritan Sailor


----------



## JohnV

Thoughtful comments, Puritan Sailor. Please note that I am not saying that the trinitarian formual is the only consideration. Many groups would not baptize in the names of the Trinity. So we need not bother about them. For if they do they still lack the recognition of being, or once having been a Christian church. 

What I am concerned about is the work of the Spirit, not the work of man. My question would be not who I think should be recognized as baptized, but who the Spirit recognizes. 

We have personally met that catholic man from Italy who received the gospel in the Catholic Church, recognizes the baptism he received, like Calvin did, and holds to the same promises that we do. He is now Reformed, but working in his own church. This is why I refer to an actual case in the post above. This man is a Christian, and he has been baptized. 

I do not want to carry this too far, and be too dogmatic about it. It is not my place. This conundrum is like many other impasses we have concerning baptism. We do not know enough. I would like to continue studying the comments made in this and other threads, so that I can come to a better understanding of what baptism actually is, and why it is. It seems to me that this is the crux of the problem. 

I always seem to be forgetting one thing.

















Ahhhh,....... make that two things.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:029b50deea][i:029b50deea]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:029b50deea]
What I am concerned about is the work of the Spirit, not the work of man. My question would be not who I think should be recognized as baptized, but who the Spirit recognizes. 
[/quote:029b50deea]

Your concerns are also making me more interested to study the topic even more 
But and can't help but ask regarding the reference to the Catholic Reformed gentleman, was it the Holy Spirit working through a Christian baptism? Or was it the Holy Spirit working in him in spite of his pagan baptism? 

And as Calvin so well pointed out with many other Reformers, we may distinguish the sacrament from the spiritual reality it points to, but we cannot seperate them. Certainly, a genuine convert has the baptism of the spirit and we rejoice in this, but he must also be baptized in water to fulfill the Lord's command to outwardly join the covenant and benefit from the means of grace. 

If Rome's baptism is not valid, then this convert can't use it as a means of grace and so must be biblically baptized.
Even more thoughts....

Puritan Sailor


----------



## JohnV

[quote:619a429501]But and can't help but ask regarding the reference to the Catholic Reformed gentleman, was it the Holy Spirit working through a Christian baptism? Or was it the Holy Spirit working in him in spite of his pagan baptism? 
[i:619a429501]as asked by Puritan Sailor[/i:619a429501][/quote:619a429501]
Thank you for that question. I am in agreement with Fred, in so far that I think that there are some inconsistencies we have to work out. I just don't want to exchange one set of inconsistencies for another set. What the Confessions say, and what God's approved teachers say, require us to search more diligently than they did in answering such questions, and until we are sure that we are not jumping to conclusions. Some things may not make sense to us now, but if they made sense to such men as Calvin, and the fathers who wrote the Confessions, after the struggles and determination they demonstrated, I am just not going to discount it that easily.

As to the question, you should remember that to judge the Roman Catholic baptism as valid requires as much judgment on our part as judging it to be pagan. And again, you are concentrating on the men and the temmporal institutions. 

It is one thing to judge a church for its' teachings and practices; it is another to judge whether or not God has any respect for them. For all the error which is involved in the RCC, are we so sure that God does not honour some baptisms which are done in His name, if even for the briefest of times the parents admitting their child for baptism believe? What I think is that there may indeed be people within that church who come to a knowledge of salvation, but the church uses its' authority to quench any progress made in the faith, for she wishes to receive the praise of men rather than God receive it. Therefore it is not good that anyone remain in that church, for the good of their spiritual life. That is why she is regarded as a false church, filled with depravity and wickedness. But that does not negate what is in the hearts of those whom the Spirit calls out of her, just as we have been at one time. And we did not seek rebaptism, through our Reformation fathers. 

Nor is every RCC church the same. Some of the ones in my area are no different than the evangelical churches, as regards the simple preaching of the Cross of Christ and the Resurrection. Some are only outwardly RC. Since God does not let His Word return to Him empty, it follows that there may indeed be some activity of the Spirit in some of these churches, or rather in the hearts of some in those churches in spite of the churches. 

I don't know if that answers your question, Puritan Sailor. I too have questions about it; and I am trying to present the case in favour because it still needs thinking through. As it stands, I will follow the fathers while I wrestle with it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:0d730fb2cb][i:0d730fb2cb]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:0d730fb2cb]
Nor is every RCC church the same. Some of the ones in my area are no different than the evangelical churches, as regards the simple preaching of the Cross of Christ and the Resurrection. Some are only outwardly RC. Since God does not let His Word return to Him empty, it follows that there may indeed be some activity of the Spirit in some of these churches, or rather in the hearts of some in those churches in spite of the churches. 
[/quote:0d730fb2cb]

I guess this has not been my experience with the RCC. I did not know there were any gospel preaching Catholics left. I thought the remainder were booted out by the end of the Jansenist controversy. At my Jesuit college, there was no mention anywhere of the gospel, except from a small Protestant group of students who met once and awhile for fellowship. So if there are still some gospel preachers left, then I will need to rethink my position too. Thanks for the discussion brother. 
Puritan Sailor


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Here is a U2U to me from Me Died Blue, posted here with his permission. I think he has some interesting thoughts. Let's see if it provokes some further discussion.

[quote:4836d3daac]I completely agree with the perspective on the validity of RC baptism for which you argued throughout the earlier thread to which you referred Mark and I. However, in your last post in that thread, you said, &quot;So if there are still some gospel preachers left, then I will need to rethink my position too.&quot; 

I would venture to say that you don't in fact need to change your view (thus confessing some RC baptisms as valid) just in light of that fact. I say this because what the WCF says about the validity of baptism with regard to ecclesiology is that it must be administered &quot;by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.&quot; Furthermore, the issue of lawful calling involves not the doctrinal soundness of the minister himself, but the lawfulness of his ordination, which is &quot;by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by those preaching presbyters to whom it doth belong.&quot; Thus, if the institutional church that ordains a minister is a true church, then and only then is the minister &quot;lawfully called,&quot; and thus qualified to administer the sacrament of baptism. 

So even if there are some Gospel-preaching priests within the RCC today, it is not a true church as an institution, and therefore the priests' ordination was not valid, which means they have no biblical warrant to administer the sacrament of baptism. 

For all I know, you may have kept the position you argued throughout the thread. I simply noticed that you said you'd have to rethink it in light of the fact that some RC priests still preach the biblical Gospel, but I believe that that still doesn't consitute their baptism as valid. 
[/quote:4836d3daac]

The only criticism I would like to point out here is that ministers do not obtain there calling from the church but from God. The church only confirms it. For instance, who ordained John the Baptist? Just a thought.


----------



## rembrandt

It is weird coming in on the middle of this!

[b:e6a414b0ca]Let me first of all say that I [i:e6a414b0ca]embrace[/i:e6a414b0ca] my Roman baptism (as an infant).[/b:e6a414b0ca] Last night I was gazing at the picture taken at my baptism for the first time since I've converted! A beautiful site indeed!

[quote:e6a414b0ca][i:e6a414b0ca]Me Died Blue's U2U[/i:e6a414b0ca]
So even if there are some Gospel-preaching priests within the RCC today, it is not a true church as an institution, and therefore the priests' ordination was not valid, which means they have no biblical warrant to administer the sacrament of baptism. 

For all I know, you may have kept the position you argued throughout the thread. I simply noticed that you said you'd have to rethink it in light of the fact that some RC priests still preach the biblical Gospel, but I believe that that still doesn't consitute their baptism as valid.[/quote:e6a414b0ca]

I think you should rethink the qualifications for a 'true church'. There are MANY Reformed theologians who believe Rome is a true church (in some sence), though very unlawful. 

Let me also say that I think Rome is within the realm of the historic Christian faith in their [i:e6a414b0ca]basic[/i:e6a414b0ca] and most [i:e6a414b0ca]important[/i:e6a414b0ca] beliefs. I believe they preach the gospel, just in a very tainted and distorted way. When you think about it, we must also assume that many of the Church Fathers didn't preach the true gospel. Are you willing to say this? 

Having a protestant understanding of justification is NOT necessary!!! Unless you want to say that all the baptisms performed prior to the Reformation were false. I believe, along with the Reformers, that Rome does dispense the true sacraments.

Paul


----------



## fredtgreco

Did the Church Fathers ever anathamatize the gospel?

Rome did - and does. Trent still stands to this day as a monument to her whoredom.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:d1d07e2687][i:d1d07e2687]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:d1d07e2687]
Did the Church Fathers ever anathamatize the gospel?

Rome did - and does. Trent still stands to this day as a monument to her whoredom. [/quote:d1d07e2687]

yeah, thats a good arguement.

But I would say, that they have anathamized an [i:d1d07e2687]understanding[/i:d1d07e2687] of justification. I do believe it is flawed, but they don't cease to be a 'true church' at that very moment, given that they still do believe in enough knowledge of justification that can save somebody.

Paul


----------



## Me Died Blue

[quote:6a8257beb9][i:6a8257beb9]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:6a8257beb9]
The only criticism I would like to point out here is that ministers do not obtain there calling from the church but from God. The church only confirms it. For instance, who ordained John the Baptist? Just a thought. [/quote:6a8257beb9]

Agreed, but God still uses means to bring about His purposes. As to John the Baptist, the historic Presbyterian position is that the ordinary procedures of ordination must be followed [i:6a8257beb9]except[/i:6a8257beb9] in extraordinary cases, where a by-passing of the ordinary procedures is essential. I would say that John the Baptist's was such a case.

[quote:6a8257beb9][i:6a8257beb9]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:6a8257beb9]
Let me also say that I think Rome is within the realm of the historic Christian faith in their [i:6a8257beb9]basic[/i:6a8257beb9] and most [i:6a8257beb9]important[/i:6a8257beb9] beliefs. I believe they preach the gospel, just in a very tainted and distorted way. 

Having a protestant understanding of justification is NOT necessary!!! Unless you want to say that all the baptisms performed prior to the Reformation were false. I believe, along with the Reformers, that Rome does dispense the true sacraments.[/quote:6a8257beb9]

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot accept the Gospel that modern Rome preaches as [i:6a8257beb9]any[/i:6a8257beb9] Gospel at all, tainted or not. They preach salvation by the works of man, which denies the one theme that is central to all of the talk of redemption throughout the entire Bible. Understanding justification to be by faith alone is at the heart of the Gospel, which is what the whole Bible is dedicated to expounding. A salvation apart from self-merit is the [i:6a8257beb9]only[/i:6a8257beb9] thing that sets Christianity apart from the rest of the world's religions, and thus I cannot acknowledge a church that denies it as explicitly as Rome does as a true church.

As to all pre-Reformation baptisms being false, and the Reformers acknowledging the validity of Roman baptism: I never said I believe all pre-Reformation baptisms were false, but rather, I agree with the Reformers that they were valid. However, mentioning this viewpoint of theirs does not apply to your argument, because it was not until the Council of Trent that Rome explicitly denied the heart of the biblical Gospel to the extent that they continue to today. I'm with the Reformers that the Rome prior to the Reformation was a true church, but I also believe that they would be with me that the Rome of the 21st century is not a true church. We touched on that issue some on this page: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=4894&amp;page=2.

In Christ,


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:f0a444af0c][i:f0a444af0c]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:f0a444af0c]
[quote:f0a444af0c][i:f0a444af0c]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:f0a444af0c]
Did the Church Fathers ever anathamatize the gospel?

Rome did - and does. Trent still stands to this day as a monument to her whoredom. [/quote:f0a444af0c]

yeah, thats a good arguement.

But I would say, that they have anathamized an [i:f0a444af0c]understanding[/i:f0a444af0c] of justification. I do believe it is flawed, but they don't cease to be a 'true church' at that very moment, given that they still do believe in enough knowledge of justification that can save somebody.

Paul [/quote:f0a444af0c]

actually, they have anathamatized the Bible's teaching on justification. Rome has said that if a man believes salvation is by grace alone, he is going to hell. That is what they say.

And they actually do not have &quot;enough knowledge of justification that can save somebody.&quot; People can be saved in the Roman church [i:f0a444af0c]in spite of[/i:f0a444af0c] it and its teachings, but not [i:f0a444af0c]because of it[/i:f0a444af0c].


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:c0b9cc4a86][i:c0b9cc4a86]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:c0b9cc4a86]
[quote:c0b9cc4a86][i:c0b9cc4a86]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:c0b9cc4a86]
[quote:c0b9cc4a86][i:c0b9cc4a86]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:c0b9cc4a86]
Did the Church Fathers ever anathamatize the gospel?

Rome did - and does. Trent still stands to this day as a monument to her whoredom. [/quote:c0b9cc4a86]

yeah, thats a good arguement.

But I would say, that they have anathamized an [i:c0b9cc4a86]understanding[/i:c0b9cc4a86] of justification. I do believe it is flawed, but they don't cease to be a 'true church' at that very moment, given that they still do believe in enough knowledge of justification that can save somebody.

Paul [/quote:c0b9cc4a86]

actually, they have anathamatized the Bible's teaching on justification. Rome has said that if a man believes salvation is by grace alone, he is going to hell. That is what they say.

And they actually do not have &quot;enough knowledge of justification that can save somebody.&quot; People can be saved in the Roman church [i:c0b9cc4a86]in spite of[/i:c0b9cc4a86] it and its teachings, but not [i:c0b9cc4a86]because of it[/i:c0b9cc4a86]. [/quote:c0b9cc4a86]

Good points. I still think there are elements in Rome of a true church. They have misunderstanding of justification, it is very horrible, but it is not a complete return to the law [i:c0b9cc4a86]all together[/i:c0b9cc4a86]. There have always been true and vaild camps within the Christian church, who have liked to emphasize James' perspective on the importance of works. I allow for some misunderstanding and some tolerance. Just because they don't place more emphasis on St. Paul than another writter doesn't make them totally invalid. And if they [i:c0b9cc4a86]condemn[/i:c0b9cc4a86] St. Paul's theology, that definitely puts their church in judgment, but it still does not mean that in some [i:c0b9cc4a86]sence[/i:c0b9cc4a86] it is a church. 

Paul


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:92795ca7ab][i:92795ca7ab]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:92795ca7ab]
Good points. I still think there are elements in Rome of a true church. They have misunderstanding of justification, it is very horrible, but it is not a complete return to the law [i:92795ca7ab]all together[/i:92795ca7ab]. There have always been true and vaild camps within the Christian church, who have liked to emphasize James' perspective on the importance of works. I allow for some misunderstanding and some tolerance. Just because they don't place more emphasis on St. Paul than another writter doesn't make them totally invalid. And if they [i:92795ca7ab]condemn[/i:92795ca7ab] St. Paul's theology, that definitely puts their church in judgment, but it still does not mean that in some [i:92795ca7ab]sence[/i:92795ca7ab] it is a church. 

Paul [/quote:92795ca7ab]

Paul, if you are correct, then you must cease protesting and rejoin Rome. If Rome still has the gospel and is a true church, then the Reformers never should have departed from her. The original Westminster Confession made this clear with its statement on the pope.


----------



## Guest

[b:dd6710bd4d]Is this the Gospel?[/b:dd6710bd4d]

CANON 9: &quot;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.&quot; 

CANON 12: &quot;If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed&quot; 

Canon 14: &quot;If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.&quot; 

Canon 23: &quot;lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,- except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.&quot; 

Canon 24: &quot;If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.&quot; 

Canon 30: &quot;If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.&quot; 

Canon 33: &quot;If any one saith, that, by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

[b:dd6710bd4d]Or this?[/b:dd6710bd4d]

Ineffabilis Deus
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception (December 8, 1854)

Our soul overflows with joy and our tongue with exultation. We give, and we shall continue to give, the humblest and deepest thanks to Jesus Christ, our Lord, because through his singular grace he has granted to us, unworthy though we be, to decree and offer this honor and glory and praise to his most holy Mother. [b:dd6710bd4d]All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin[/b:dd6710bd4d] -- in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world: in her who is the glory of the prophets and apostles, the honor of the martyrs, the crown and joy of all the saints; in her who is the safest refuge and the most trustworthy helper of all who are in danger; in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is [b:dd6710bd4d]the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world;[/b:dd6710bd4d] in her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church; in her who has destroyed all heresies and snatched the faithful people and nations from all kinds of direst calamities; in her do we hope who has delivered us from so many threatening dangers. We have, therefore, a very certain hope and complete confidence that the most Blessed Virgin will ensure by her most powerful patronage that all difficulties be removed and all errors dissipated, so that our Holy Mother the Catholic Church may flourish daily more and more throughout all the nations and countries, and may reign &quot;from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth,&quot; and may enjoy genuine peace, tranquility and liberty. We are firm in our confidence that she will obtain pardon for the sinner, health for the sick, strength of heart for the weak, consolation for the afflicted, help for those in danger; that she will remove spiritual blindness from all who are in error, so that they may return to the path of truth and justice, and that here may be one flock and one shepherd. 

Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and [b:dd6710bd4d]having in her care the work of our salvation[/b:dd6710bd4d], she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even [b:dd6710bd4d]stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son[/b:dd6710bd4d], Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard. 

THAT is another Gospel.

Mark


----------



## DanielC

What about this: while in Romania, a friend of mine was wondering if she should be baptized again. She was baptized as an infant in the Eastern Orthodox Church (particularly, the Romanian Orthodox Church). She also says that her parents are not christians, even though they attend a protestant church every now and then.

What would you tell her?


----------



## pastorway

The RCC preaches [i:e9d27974d5]another gospel[/i:e9d27974d5]. Another gospel that cannot save. Another gospel that leads men to hell. Another gospel that denies the Scriptures. Another gospel that steals glory from Christ and gives it to Mary, the saints, angels, and other people.

The Mormon church baptizes in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost....are they Christians too? Would a person who was covnerted to Christ from Mormonism need to be baptized or would his baptism be accepted as valid?

What is different between Rome and Mormonism? They both preach another Jesus and another way of salvation.

If a church does not have the gospel then no formulation of words can transform a religious ritual into a sacrament! Doing it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit does not make it baptism. 

Rome is far beyond the scope of being a true church. They think their baptism regenerates you. How any reformed church or person can accept such a superstitious ritual as if it were an ordinance of the church is really quite beyond me.

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

I agree wiyth Phillip on this one. Even though I have heard a descent defense in regards to the trinity and the fact that Rome embraces the Apostles creed, I have to acknowledge the fact that (as I have said elsewhere) Rome's theology destroys any theological good embracing the AC may bring about.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:0296519c8b]Paul, if you are correct, then you must cease protesting and rejoin Rome. If Rome still has the gospel and is a true church, then the Reformers never should have departed from her. The original Westminster Confession made this clear with its statement on the pope.[/quote:0296519c8b]

Rome was not the [i:0296519c8b]only[/i:0296519c8b] church at the time of the Reformation. The Eastern Orthodox were excommunicated by Rome around 1100. I should either return to Rome or the East if I didn't have an excuse. But I believe that there was a just cause for the Reformation. I am rethinking some of Luther's patience in dealing with Rome, but over all, I think the [i:0296519c8b]initial[/i:0296519c8b] cause was a good thing. We excaped rampant papal tyranny and oppression. When such thing is the case, and given that Rome is not the [i:0296519c8b]only[/i:0296519c8b] church, I see it a good thing to seperate, until one day the offending party will repent. 

I believe along with [i:0296519c8b]most[/i:0296519c8b] Reformed theologians that Rome was THE Church atleast for the first 800 years. One day, probably not until in heaven, I hope to be reunited to her and enjoy the fellowship of all the departed saints through all ages.

Paul


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:ea5cf58401][i:ea5cf58401]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:ea5cf58401]
[quote:ea5cf58401]Paul, if you are correct, then you must cease protesting and rejoin Rome. If Rome still has the gospel and is a true church, then the Reformers never should have departed from her. The original Westminster Confession made this clear with its statement on the pope.[/quote:ea5cf58401]

Rome was not the [i:ea5cf58401]only[/i:ea5cf58401] church at the time of the Reformation. The Eastern Orthodox were excommunicated by Rome around 1100. I should either return to Rome or the East if I didn't have an excuse. But I believe that there was a just cause for the Reformation. I am rethinking some of Luther's patience in dealing with Rome, but over all, I think the [i:ea5cf58401]initial[/i:ea5cf58401] cause was a good thing. We excaped rampant papal tyranny and oppression. When such thing is the case, and given that Rome is not the [i:ea5cf58401]only[/i:ea5cf58401] church, I see it a good thing to seperate, until one day the offending party will repent. 

I believe along with [i:ea5cf58401]most[/i:ea5cf58401] Reformed theologians that Rome was THE Church atleast for the first 800 years. One day, probably not until in heaven, I hope to be reunited to her and enjoy the fellowship of all the departed saints through all ages.

Paul [/quote:ea5cf58401]

Paul,

Rome was [i:ea5cf58401]the[/i:ea5cf58401] Church. Eastern Orthodoxy was viewed by the Roman Church (and the Reformers) as having schismatically departed from the Church by denying a fundamental aspect of the Trinity (the filioque clause). The EO church was not seen as the true church by the Reformers or Romanists.

The reason that Calvin could advise separating from Rome is that it was not a true Church (I think that makes him a bit schitzophrenic on the issue of Romanist baptism, but that is neither here nor there at this point). If Rome was a true church, Calvin states that it is unlawful to depart from a true church:

[quote:ea5cf58401]
&quot;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. [b:ea5cf58401]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[/b:ea5cf58401], 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 [b:ea5cf58401]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.[/b:ea5cf58401]&quot; (Institutes IV.i.10, emphasis added) [/quote:ea5cf58401]

But in point of fact Calvin did counsel leaving the Rome, because it was not a true church:

[quote:ea5cf58401]&quot;Since this is the state of matters under the Papacy, we can understand how much of the Church there survives. There, [b:ea5cf58401]instead of the ministry of the word, prevails a perverted government, compounded of lies[/b:ea5cf58401], a government which partly extinguishes, partly suppresses, the pure light. [b:ea5cf58401]In place of the Lord's Supper, the foulest sacrilege has entered[/b:ea5cf58401], 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. [b:ea5cf58401]Wherefore, in declining fatal participation in such wickedness, we run no risk of being dissevered from the Church of Christ.[/b:ea5cf58401]&quot; (Institutes IV.ii.2, emphasis added)[/quote:ea5cf58401]

So you see, your position, Paul is not Calvin's.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:37f8cd10b5]Rome was the Church. Eastern Orthodoxy was viewed by the Roman Church (and the Reformers) as having schismatically departed from the Church by denying a fundamental aspect of the Trinity (the filioque clause). The EO church was not seen as the true church by the Reformers or Romanists.[/quote:37f8cd10b5]

[i:37f8cd10b5]I said[/i:37f8cd10b5] they were excommunicated. The EO also excommunicated Rome. So how do you know which is right? I mean, EO refused to accept the Pope, which sparked all kind of fires, and lead to the double excommunication. Rome had no right to excommunicate EO, because they were also THE Church. Both sides were thirsty over political interests, therefore I see them as both in the wrong. These confused Church situations are hard to deal with, but I see them as both THE valid Church, just divided (like OT Israel).

[b:37f8cd10b5]SO, here we have that Rome is no longer the final authority in all maters. We have a higher ecclesiastical court to appeal to. This is the Universal Church.[/b:37f8cd10b5] This is my best arguement, and a very valid one at that. A modern example would be that if a denomination excommunicated someone, they have the greater part of Christendom who they can appeal to. They may or may not see the excommunication as valid, and they may or may not receive that person into the church. So to reiterate, it is NOT dependent upon [i:37f8cd10b5]one part[/i:37f8cd10b5] of the Body's rulings.

In regards to the Reformation, as I said, I am rethinking Luther's right to do as he did. Should he have had more patience, and dealt with things more gradually? Maybe. But I am not going to wrestle with these things here. If Luther was wrong, then he was wrong. But that doesn't make the Reformation full of invalid churches. I believe the necessity prevailed...

[quote:37f8cd10b5]So you see, your position, Paul is not Calvin's.[/quote:37f8cd10b5]

Can you show me that Calvin thought that Rome was in [i:37f8cd10b5]no sence[/i:37f8cd10b5] a church?

Paul


----------



## fredtgreco

Paul,

Can you show me where in any sense - other than in accepting Rome's baptism - that Calvin thought Rome was a true church?

Remember that Calvin says [b:7f68b037b2]&quot;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.&quot;[/b:7f68b037b2]

So then if Calvin also says: [b:7f68b037b2]&quot;Wherefore, in declining fatal participation in such wickedness, we run no risk of being dissevered from the Church of Christ&quot;[/b:7f68b037b2]

We can infer quite easily that Calvin did not think himself guilty of being a deserter of religion. He also therefore did not see Rome as even a &quot;Christian society.&quot; If he did, then his second statement is a lie.

The EO is not an equal but divided part of the Church. They have denied a part of the doctrine of the Trinity. They are wrong. The Bible is correct - everywhere that it speaks of the Spirit of Christ - the EOs are wrong, and hence schismatic. They are schismatic over a fundamental doctrine, the Trinity, not a secondary one (say, eschatology or the role of the magistrate).

There is no universal church in the sense that you describe it. There is a universal church in the invisible sense, but there is no vague body that tolerates opposite teachings on cardinal doctrines of the faith. This is not a &quot;just get along&quot; thing. One body teaches the Scriptures, the other the doctrine of devils.

Such is true of Rome. She has denied the gospel, and is under the anathama of God (viz. Gal. 1) . That at least was one thing Rome got right - if the gospel is denied, then those denying it are anathama. The only problem was that Rome was against the Bible. Rome is a synagogue of Satan, whose leader exalts himself in the place of Christ, and he is antichrist. Any who are saved in the Papist body are saved in spite of its teachings not because of it. Rome leads souls to death and destruction. It is analogous to the false wicked prophets and shepherds who are rebuked by Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

I have never heard or read any Reformed divine or theologian every acknowledge anything good or valid from Rome but (sometimes) her baptism. The Mass is denounced in the most vile of terms. You read what Calvin had to say about their &quot;preaching.&quot; Her priests are not called ministers of the gospel. Her precious doctrines (Mariolatry, purgatory, papal infallibility, etc) are despised and refuted.

Please show me any place where Rome is upheld other than accepting her baptism as legitimate.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:2475de1ab7]Can you show me where in any sense - other than in accepting Rome's baptism - that Calvin thought Rome was a true church?[/quote:2475de1ab7]

No. I just think that he did not think that it was not [b:2475de1ab7]a[/b:2475de1ab7] church in a sence (in which case there would be [i:2475de1ab7]some[/i:2475de1ab7] truthfullness in it.

[quote:2475de1ab7]The EO is not an equal but divided part of the Church. They have denied a part of the doctrine of the Trinity. They are wrong. The Bible is correct - everywhere that it speaks of the Spirit of Christ - the EOs are wrong, and hence schismatic. They are schismatic over a fundamental doctrine, the Trinity, not a secondary one (say, eschatology or the role of the magistrate).[/quote:2475de1ab7]

&quot;The Orthodox recognize seven Ecumenical Councils, up to the Second Nicene Council (787)&quot; (Hall of Church History). The EO DOES accept the orthodox view. &quot;The filioque clause found in the Western version of this creed is one of the major disagreements between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity. [b:2475de1ab7]This clause was not accepted even by the Western Church until the turn of the first millennium[/b:2475de1ab7]&quot; (creeds.net). [b:2475de1ab7]The filioque was NOT in the original creed! Thus they do adhere to all the major creeds![/b:2475de1ab7]

[quote:2475de1ab7]There is no universal church in the sense that you describe it. There is a universal church in the invisible sense, but there is no vague body that tolerates opposite teachings on cardinal doctrines of the faith. This is not a &quot;just get along&quot; thing.[/quote:2475de1ab7]

There is a tolerance level. We cannot agree on every minute detail. Frame's &quot;Evangelical Reunion&quot; captures what I am talking about here.

[quote:2475de1ab7]I have never heard or read any Reformed divine or theologian every acknowledge anything good or valid from Rome but (sometimes) her baptism.[/quote:2475de1ab7]

Frame says in his book that a Roman priest is his brother in Christ and working alongside with him for the same cause. 

Paul


----------



## BrianLanier

[quote:20de537470][i:20de537470]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:20de537470]
Frame says in his book that a Roman priest is his brother in Christ and working alongside with him for the same cause. 
[/quote:20de537470]

PLEASE say this isn't so!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!:sniff:


----------



## BrianLanier

[quote:bc322f5115][i:bc322f5115]Originally posted by BrianLanier[/i:bc322f5115]
[quote:bc322f5115][i:bc322f5115]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:bc322f5115]
Frame says in his book that a Roman priest is his brother in Christ and working alongside with him for the same cause. 
[/quote:bc322f5115]

PLEASE say this isn't so!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!:sniff: [/quote:bc322f5115]

Well, I just researched this statement and to let Frame speak for himself:

&quot;The sort of unity my wife experienced in her neighborhood Bible study I have also experienced, especially in pro-life activity. In a recent rally I attended, the most eloquent speaker by far was a Roman Catholic priest, and he was at his best when he spoke of salvation through Christ alone. Oh yes: he also mentioned that he addressed Mary in prayer. He carefully explained that he did not worship Mary, but that she was part of the communion of saints, and that he desired her fellowship as he desired that of living saints in bringing his requests to God. I still do not share his assurance that Mary hears our prayers and somehow relays them to God. But in that context the distance between my views and those of the priest, on that matter anyway, did not seem terribly far apart. He was fighting - far more heroically than I, for he had been to jail often for his convictions - a battle for Jesus and for the little ones made in God's image. I have no doubt that he and I are fighting the same battle.&quot;

A little ambiguous on what that battle is. They are both battling against abortion but he seems to imply more than that.


----------



## BrianLanier

Here are some other quotes from Frame on the subject:

&quot;In my Protestant bliss, I can say fairly complacently that the 1054 split between east and west was due to papal arrogance. My Roman Catholic friends are welcome to try to set me straight. But as for the doctrinal issue, whether the Spirit proceeds only from the Father or from the Son as well, it is hard to imagine why that should be the cause of so momentous a division. It is a very difficult question, one hard to resolve from Scripture. And the concept of &quot;procession&quot; is mysterious indeed, part of the mystery of the Trinity itself. The meaning of it is not at all obvious. I think I can defend the western position, but I cannot see why it should be made a test of orthodoxy. Certainly one can be a knowledgeable and effective minister of God's Word whichever position he takes - or without taking any position at all.&quot;

and

&quot;Granting that Luther was right in his doctrinal dispute with Rome, was he also right to start a new denomination? "Well, he was excommunicated," someone will say. "What else could he do?" Well, he could have continued to teach as an excommunicate Catholic (while rejecting the grounds of the excommunication), praying that God would one day establish his theology in the whole church. [b:8b8369fc78]Was Luther required to start afresh because the Roman Catholic Church was no longer a true church? But the Reformers did not believe that the Roman Catholic Church had totally lost all the characteristics of a true church. They did not, for example, rebaptize people who had been baptized as Roman Catholics[/b:8b8369fc78].3&quot;

and

&quot;4. Of course, formal judgments by one church that another church is totally apostate have been exceedingly rare in church history. Augustine did not make such a judgment against the schismatics and heretics of his day; [b:8b8369fc78]the Protestant reformers did not make it against the Roman Catholic Church[/b:8b8369fc78]; the Puritans did not so judge the Anglican Church; nor did J. Gresham Machen so condemn the Presbyterian Church U. S. A&quot;

and finally

&quot;[b:8b8369fc78]Very much the same is true with the Lord's Supper. I agree with the Protestant reformers that the Roman mass is blasphemous because in it there is idolatrous worship of the host (thought to be the literal body of Christ) and because the mass is regarded as some sort of continuing sacrifice for sin[/b:8b8369fc78]. These are serious errors, and they would prevent me from participating in Roman Catholic communion unless I could get assurance that those doctrines were not held by the particular congregation in question. [b:8b8369fc78]Yet I do not deny that in such circumstances the Lord's Supper is being received[/b:8b8369fc78]. Think of a parallel with preaching (for the Reformers usefully regarded the sacraments as "visible words"): A sermon may contain a mixture of error and truth. Yet the presence of error does not prove that the truth has not also been present.&quot;

I must say that I am definately NOT in agreement with Mr. Frame here. I think that I am more and more have a bad taste in my mouth for Mr. Frames work.

I know how you feel Fred.


----------



## rembrandt

Even if you don't agree with him, I thank you for posting that!


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:ad51c2da96][i:ad51c2da96]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:ad51c2da96]
Frame says in his book that a Roman priest is his brother in Christ and working alongside with him for the same cause. 
[/quote:ad51c2da96]

Could you provide a reference for this please? I think this is a serious charge which some here would like to see verified.


Also, I don't want this thread to get locked up, so let's please try to stay on the issues at hand. 

How does Rome qualify to be a true church?
It has been answered &quot;they hold to the ecumenical Creeds.&quot; 

So let's explore this aspect further before we move on to other qualifications regarding the validity of Rome. 

What is required to say someone holds to the Creeds? Must you only hold to the Creeds in name only (i.e. like the liberals)? Or must you also hold to the biblical meaning of those words?
For instance, let's take the Apostle's Creed's. 
[quote:ad51c2da96]I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ,
His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen. [/quote:ad51c2da96]

Let's examine this phrase, &quot;[b:ad51c2da96]the forgiveness of sins[/b:ad51c2da96].&quot;
What does Scripture say regarding the forgiveness of sins? Obviously, it is found through the once for all atoning work of Christ on our behalf, imputed to our account through faith. 

Is this how Rome understands this phrase? Obviously not. Forgiveness is acheived through a semi-pelagian scheme of grace+works, no different than any other false religion. 

So do they really hold to the Apostle's Creed? 
Can such an interpretation of the Creed be considered Christian?


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:8b96464d7e]Could you provide a reference for this please? I think this is a serious charge which some here would like to see verified.[/quote:8b96464d7e]

Look above. I think the references were posted while you were typing.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:089ca8cdbd]Is this how Rome understands this phrase? Obviously not. Forgiveness is acheived through a semi-pelagian scheme of grace+works, no different than any other false religion.[/quote:089ca8cdbd]

Was Rome semi-pelagian when they wrote this creed? 

[quote:089ca8cdbd](i.e. like the liberals)?[/quote:089ca8cdbd] 
I do NOT think liberals qualify. Because with them it is not a matter of interpretation, but a [i:089ca8cdbd]complete disregard[/i:089ca8cdbd] for the authority of the Bible. So they are of no threat to our discussion at hand. 

Paul


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:86d1ca0248][i:86d1ca0248]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:86d1ca0248]
[quote:86d1ca0248]Is this how Rome understands this phrase? Obviously not. Forgiveness is acheived through a semi-pelagian scheme of grace+works, no different than any other false religion.[/quote:86d1ca0248]

Was Rome semi-pelagian when they wrote this creed? 
[/quote:86d1ca0248]
No they were not.
[quote:86d1ca0248]
[quote:86d1ca0248](i.e. like the liberals)?[/quote:86d1ca0248] 
I do NOT think liberals qualify. Because with them it is not a matter of interpretation, but a [i:86d1ca0248]complete disregard[/i:86d1ca0248] for the authority of the Bible. So they are of no threat to our discussion at hand. 
[/quote:86d1ca0248]
I think it applies perfectly. You say the liberals disregard the Bible but so does Rome. And the liberals as well have no problem claiming to believe in the Apostle's Creed. That was in fact one of their war-crys against Machen, &quot;Give us the simple religion of the Apostle's Creed.&quot; They held to it tenaciously, but they also redefined it so they could say they hold to it, just like Rome. 

And it still doesn't answer the question.
Does Rome really hold to the Apostle's Creed?

[Edited on 6-9-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:8bb32d0e1c]I think it applies perfectly. You say the liberals disregard the Bible but so does Rome. And the liberals as well have no problem claiming to believe in the Apostle's Creed.[/quote:8bb32d0e1c]

No, my point was that they disregard the authority of the Bible. Rome upholds the authority of the Bible (as their canons clearly say). Rome has not fallen into liberalism, and this is perhaps one of the great aspects about her.

[quote:8bb32d0e1c]And it still doesn't answer the question. 
Does Rome really hold to the Apostle's Creed?[/quote:8bb32d0e1c]

I would say &quot;without a doubt.&quot; 

Paul


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:34858e1b13]No they were not.[/quote:34858e1b13]

How do you figure? When do you date the apostles creed? Do you think that Rome had some other understanding than semipelagianism (as we know it today- they didn't call themselves that- the term was invented early 400s) during that time? If it was before Augustine, can you prove they did not hold to a semi position in their writings?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:2a56714006][i:2a56714006]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:2a56714006]
[quote:2a56714006]No they were not.[/quote:2a56714006]

How do you figure? When do you date the apostles creed? Do you think that Rome had some other understanding than semipelagianism (as we know it today- they didn't call themselves that- the term was invented early 400s) during that time? If it was before Augustine, can you prove they did not hold to a semi position in their writings? [/quote:2a56714006]
I assume the church remained faithful to the Word of God until the hersies erupted. So I believe the early church held to the apostolic teaching regarding salvation until some heresy erupted which required clarification of the doctrines of salvation. There are very few if any writings I know of to prove either way that the church was semi-pelagian at the time the Apostle's Creed was written (somewhere in the 1st-2nd century). The papacy as I understand did not rise to great power until later, probably excellerated under Constantine. 

And all of this is irrelevent anyway. If the Apostle's Creed was in fact written by semi-pelagians, with the semi-pelagian scheme of forgiveness taught, then we would be obligated to reject it. 

[quote:2a56714006]No, my point was that they disregard the authority of the Bible. Rome upholds the authority of the Bible (as their canons clearly say). Rome has not fallen into liberalism, and this is perhaps one of the great aspects about her. [/quote:2a56714006]
I don't know which Rome you are refering to here. Liberalism is alive and well in Rome, though they have not officially recognized it. Just go to a Jesuit college as I did and take a Bible class. And you still cannot shake off the liberals, for they to claim to hold to the authority of Scripture in their own sense just as Rome does. They pick and choose which parts of Scripture they will apply just as Rome does, and thus both redefine what it means to hold to the &quot;authority of Scripture.&quot; 

And likewise both liberals and Rome claim to believe in &quot;the forgiveness of sins&quot; yet they do not hold to the biblical teaching of that term. So can we really say they hold to it? I say no. Thus the claim that are a true church because they hold to the Creeds is incorrect, because they do not in fact hold to them, or at least not the Apostle's Creed.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:0490a34bd1][i:0490a34bd1]Originally posted by BrianLanier[/i:0490a34bd1]
Here are some other quotes from Frame on the subject:

&quot;In my Protestant bliss, I can say fairly complacently that the 1054 split between east and west was due to papal arrogance. My Roman Catholic friends are welcome to try to set me straight. But as for the doctrinal issue, whether the Spirit proceeds only from the Father or from the Son as well, it is hard to imagine why that should be the cause of so momentous a division. It is a very difficult question, one hard to resolve from Scripture. And the concept of &quot;procession&quot; is mysterious indeed, part of the mystery of the Trinity itself. The meaning of it is not at all obvious. I think I can defend the western position, but I cannot see why it should be made a test of orthodoxy. Certainly one can be a knowledgeable and effective minister of God's Word whichever position he takes - or without taking any position at all.&quot;

and

&quot;Granting that Luther was right in his doctrinal dispute with Rome, was he also right to start a new denomination? "Well, he was excommunicated," someone will say. "What else could he do?" Well, he could have continued to teach as an excommunicate Catholic (while rejecting the grounds of the excommunication), praying that God would one day establish his theology in the whole church. [b:0490a34bd1]Was Luther required to start afresh because the Roman Catholic Church was no longer a true church? But the Reformers did not believe that the Roman Catholic Church had totally lost all the characteristics of a true church. They did not, for example, rebaptize people who had been baptized as Roman Catholics[/b:0490a34bd1].3&quot;

and

&quot;4. Of course, formal judgments by one church that another church is totally apostate have been exceedingly rare in church history. Augustine did not make such a judgment against the schismatics and heretics of his day; [b:0490a34bd1]the Protestant reformers did not make it against the Roman Catholic Church[/b:0490a34bd1]; the Puritans did not so judge the Anglican Church; nor did J. Gresham Machen so condemn the Presbyterian Church U. S. A&quot;

and finally

&quot;[b:0490a34bd1]Very much the same is true with the Lord's Supper. I agree with the Protestant reformers that the Roman mass is blasphemous because in it there is idolatrous worship of the host (thought to be the literal body of Christ) and because the mass is regarded as some sort of continuing sacrifice for sin[/b:0490a34bd1]. These are serious errors, and they would prevent me from participating in Roman Catholic communion unless I could get assurance that those doctrines were not held by the particular congregation in question. [b:0490a34bd1]Yet I do not deny that in such circumstances the Lord's Supper is being received[/b:0490a34bd1]. Think of a parallel with preaching (for the Reformers usefully regarded the sacraments as "visible words"): A sermon may contain a mixture of error and truth. Yet the presence of error does not prove that the truth has not also been present.&quot;

I must say that I am definately NOT in agreement with Mr. Frame here. I think that I am more and more have a bad taste in my mouth for Mr. Frames work.

I know how you feel Fred. [/quote:0490a34bd1]

Yes. And my point continues to be proven. Now I understand why Paul continues to express an unbiblical and unreformed view of Rome. He has been taught to do so by Rev. Frame. And so now you see why I am so concerned, not to win a debate, but as Richard Weaver wrote, &quot;Ideas Have Consequences.&quot;


----------



## Scott

[quote:1b34752d7d]
Rome has not fallen into liberalism
[/quote:1b34752d7d]

I would suggest that many if not most Romish congergations in America are for substantive matters indistinguishable from mainline liberal churches. You may want to see the Ratzinger Report from a Catholic perspective. Frank Schaeffer (now orthodox) has some scathing criticisms of post-Vaitcan II Roman Catholicism too.

Scott


----------



## Scott

Luther was a virulent anti-Catholic with a firebreath. Yet he said:

[quote:a2a49c6070]
We confess that under the papacy there is much Christianity, yea, the whole Christianity, and has from thence come to us. We confess that the papacy possesses the genuine Scriptures, genuine baptism, the genuine sacrament of the altar, the genuine keys for the remission of sins, the true ministry, the true catechism, the Ten Commandments, the articles of the Creed, the Lord's Prayer. . . . I say that under the Pope is the true Christendom, yea, the very elite of Christendom, and many pious and great saints.
Martin Luther (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VII.530)
[/quote:a2a49c6070]

[Edited on 6-9-2004 by Scott]


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:739677cb48][i:739677cb48]Originally posted by Scott[/i:739677cb48]
Luther was a virulent anti-Catholic with a firebreath. Yet he said:

[quote:739677cb48]
We confess that under the papacy there is much Christianity, yea, the whole Christianity, and [b:739677cb48]has from thence come to us[/b:739677cb48]. We confess that the papacy possesses the genuine Scriptures, genuine baptism, the genuine sacrament of the altar, the genuine keys for the remission of sins, the true ministry, the true catechism, the Ten Commandments, the articles of the Creed, the Lord's Prayer. . . . I say that under the Pope is the true Christendom, yea, the very elite of Christendom, and many pious and great saints.
Martin Luther (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VII.530)
[/quote:739677cb48]

[Edited on 6-9-2004 by Scott] [/quote:739677cb48]

Scott,

The key here is two things: (1) timing (pre-Trent) and (2) the portion I have bolded above.

The point remains that under the Reformers doctrine of the Church, if they viewed Rome as a legitimate church, they had no right in leaving it. See my quote from Calvin above.


----------



## Scott

They had mixed views. They did see the Roman church as a true church in a sense, as their eschatology demanded it. The Antichrist sitting in the temple was the Pope sitting in the temple of the church. If it were no church at all, it could not fulfill this prophecy. Calvin also recognized that individual congregations under papal dominion could be true churches (in a congregational sense).

Also, their views of churches cut in different directions. I don't think that Calvin would have recognized Baptist churches as churches (although I could be wrong - I have not read as much of this as of RC). Whatever the answer, he and other magisterial reformers considered the anabaptists as enemies equal to Catholics. Reformed today seem to have abondoned that idea largely. This is from Calvin's reply to Sadelto:

[quote:d4de41709b]
Well, then, does Chrysostom admonish us to reject all who under the pretense of the Spirit, lead us away from the simple doctrine of the gospel the Spirit having been promised not to reveal a new doctrine, but to impress the truth of the gospel on our minds. And we, in fact, experience in the present day how necessary the admonition was. We are assailed by two sects, which seem to differ most widely from each other. For what similitude is there in appearance between the Pope and the Anabaptists? And yet, that you may see that Satan never transforms himself so cunningly, as not in some measure to betray himself, the principal weapon with which they both assail us is the same. For when they boast extravagantly of the Spirit, the tendency certainly is to sink and bury the Word of God, that they may make room for their own falsehoods.&quot;
[/quote:d4de41709b]

Anyway, this is the direction the other thread on true or false churches was taking. Adopting the the Reformers' ecclesiology could eem to entail dimissing congregational (Baptist) churches as much as Roman churches. Although, I would like to read more on the Reformers' views of independency and look forward to Matthew's paper on it. Their comments on baptists were as harsh as the comments on papists. Knox, for example, wrote:

[quote:d4de41709b]
&quot;...the Papists are busy to espy our offences, faults and infirmities..., they are not the enemies most to be feared. For...of the other [Anabaptist] sort of whom before we have somewhat spoken, the craft and malice of the devil fighting against Christ is more covert and therefore more to be feared.&quot;
[/quote:d4de41709b]

BTW, I am not endorsing an anti-Baptist view and do recognize their orthodox churches as true churches, albeit ones with error. For what it's worth, I also recognize that denominations by their nature are error, including my own. As the PCA BCO rightly says, the existence of denomination obscures the unity of Christ. 

Scott

[Edited on 6-9-2004 by Scott]


----------



## Saiph

[quote:13b1fb5c2f]
Yes. And my point continues to be proven. Now I understand why Paul continues to express an unbiblical and unreformed view of Rome. He has been taught to do so by Rev. Frame. And so now you see why I am so concerned, not to win a debate, but as Richard Weaver wrote, &quot;Ideas Have Consequences.&quot; 

[/quote:13b1fb5c2f]

I agree with Frame on this as well. And you and I have argued about it also Fred.

What books/resources were the above quotes from ? ?


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:6bc8dda922]Yes. And my point continues to be proven. Now I understand why Paul continues to express an unbiblical and unreformed view of Rome. He has been taught to do so by Rev. Frame. And so now you see why I am so concerned, not to win a debate, but as Richard Weaver wrote, &quot;Ideas Have Consequences.&quot;[/quote:6bc8dda922]

Actually I have held this view for quite some time (many months). I read Frame's book a couple days ago. It did nothing but confirm my view.

Paul


----------



## Scott

Mark:

The quotes from Frame are from Evangelical Reunion, which is a book I highly recommend. It is available free online here:
http://www.thirdmill.org/magpt_main.asp#frame

Scott


----------



## Scott

[quote:5753173375]
Could you provide a reference for this please? I think this is a serious charge which some here would like to see verified. 
[/quote:5753173375]

I am curious - would you see this as a charge more serious than him saying he was willing to work along aside a Baptist? 

The Reformers seemed to have equally low views of Baptists and Catholics, each being limbs of antichrist. I don't think many today find that position persuasive with respect to Baptists but still do with respect to Catholics.

Scott


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:0e9d082cc6][i:0e9d082cc6]Originally posted by Scott[/i:0e9d082cc6]
[quote:0e9d082cc6]
Could you provide a reference for this please? I think this is a serious charge which some here would like to see verified. 
[/quote:0e9d082cc6]

I am curious - would you see this as a charge more serious than him saying he was willing to work along aside a Baptist? 

The Reformers seemed to have equally low views of Baptists and Catholics, each being limbs of antichrist. I don't think many today find that position persuasive with respect to Baptists but still do with respect to Catholics.

Scott [/quote:0e9d082cc6]

Scott,

Anabaptists and Baptists are not coterminus. Calvin and the reformers comments relate to the former, not the latter. So one would have to have an equally low view of Romanists and Anabaptists, which I think is perfectly applicable.


----------



## Scott

They may not be coterminus but modern baptists are the spiritual heirs of the anabaptists. I would be curious to see positive remarks about baptists of any sort by the magisterial reformers (I have not seen any but have seen plenty of comments made in flaming hostility). I expect they are hard to find.

As Webmaster Matthew suggested in the other thread, it appears that independent churches were viewed as false churches by reformers, and Matthew even suggested that Phillip's (the webmaster) church is a false church (although recognizing that Phillip is a Christian brother). So, if Matthew is right, the answer to ithe questions of whether a Baptist church is a true church is negative. It strikes me as odd that this part of the Reformation is lost but the hatred of Rome remains.

[Edited on 6-9-2004 by Scott]


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:d07f18546e][i:d07f18546e]Originally posted by Scott[/i:d07f18546e]
They may not be coterminus but modern baptists are the spiritual heirs of the anabaptists. I would be curious to see positive remarks about baptists of any sort by the magisterial reformers (I have not seen any but have seen plenty of comments made in flaming hostility). I expect they are hard to find.

As Webmaster Matthew suggested in the other thread, it appears that independent churches were viewed as false churches by reformers, and Matthew even suggested that Phillip's (the webmaster) church is a false church (although recognizing that Phillip is a Christian brother). So, if Matthew is right, the answer to ithe questions of whether a Baptist church is a true church is negative. It strikes me as odd that this part of the Reformation is lost but the hatred of Rome remains.

[Edited on 6-9-2004 by Scott] [/quote:d07f18546e]

I believe that would be because Rome has lost the gospel, teaches doctrines that lead to hell and anathamatizes the gospel, whereas Baptists do not.


----------



## Scott

I don't know about that Fred. The Reformers taught that there is no salvation outside the visible church. If Baptist assemblies are not churches (as Matthew suggests), then these people are outside the visible church. Following this reasoning, they would be teaching doctrines that lead people to hell. 

In any event, it still seems rather arbitrary to deny Reformed ecclesiology with respect to Rome but not with respect to Baptists. The Reformers were aware of the doctrines you list and I did not see them make exceptions for congregations that hold those doctrines (perhaps they did - I would be happy to see whatever anyone can provide).

Scott


----------



## Saiph

[quote:712a514681]
In any event, it still seems rather arbitrary to deny Reformed ecclesiology with respect to Rome but not with respect to Baptists. The Reformers were aware of the doctrines you list and I did not see them make exceptions for congregations that hold those doctrines (perhaps they did - I would be happy to see whatever anyone can provide). 
[/quote:712a514681]

You are right. I pointed this out a while back and got in trouble.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:df80c48633][i:df80c48633]Originally posted by Scott[/i:df80c48633]
I don't know about that Fred. The Reformers taught that there is no salvation outside the visible church. If Baptist assemblies are not churches (as Matthew suggests), then these people are outside the visible church. Following this reasoning, they would be teaching doctrines that lead people to hell. 

In any event, it still seems rather arbitrary to deny Reformed ecclesiology with respect to Rome but not with respect to Baptists. The Reformers were aware of the doctrines you list and I did not see them make exceptions for congregations that hold those doctrines (perhaps they did - I would be happy to see whatever anyone can provide).

Scott [/quote:df80c48633]

Scott,

The Reformers actually taught that there was no [i:df80c48633]ordinary[/i:df80c48633] possibility of salvation outside the Church (WCF 25.2). That is a good deal different than what you stated.

The issue is not so much an issue of ecclesiology as soteriology. The crucial doctrine of justification is directed pretty much directly at Rome.

I also do not think that Matt said that Baptist churches are not churches, but that they are false (as in error) churches. I see this as a major difference from violating Galatians 1.

The interesting thing is that modern Reformed churches do not treat Rome as the Reformers and Westminster divines did. If they did, they would - as you point out, accept Roman baptism, but they would also treat Romanists as apostates, denying them citizenship, in some cases waging war against them, and disciplining any who married a Romanist:

[quote:df80c48633]
It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. [b:df80c48633]And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters[/b:df80c48633]: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies[/quote:df80c48633]

Interesting, isnt it, that Romanists are placed in the same company as infidels and [i:df80c48633]other[/i:df80c48633] idolaters? Baptists and independents are not. What do you make of that?


----------



## Saiph

We do not have them here today to ask them what they meant by &quot;other idolaters&quot;.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:c9a9052556][i:c9a9052556]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:c9a9052556]
We do not have them here today to ask them what they meant by &quot;other idolaters&quot;. [/quote:c9a9052556]

That's not the point, alothough I think that would probably be clear from the debates - Matt?

The point is at least that the divines [b:c9a9052556]did[/b:c9a9052556] see marriage with a Romanist (papist) as being on a par with marrying an infidel.

So much for a gracious look at Rome.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:ef667e76e0][i:ef667e76e0]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:ef667e76e0]
[quote:ef667e76e0][i:ef667e76e0]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:ef667e76e0]
We do not have them here today to ask them what they meant by &quot;other idolaters&quot;. [/quote:ef667e76e0]

That's not the point, alothough I think that would probably be clear from the debates - Matt?

The point is at least that the divines [b:ef667e76e0]did[/b:ef667e76e0] see marriage with a Romanist (papist) as being on a par with marrying an infidel.

So much for a gracious look at Rome. [/quote:ef667e76e0]

Gracious? I don't think anybody said that. Apostle Paul makes it clear that someone who is temporarily in sin can definitely be our brethren, but we are not to associate with them until they repent. So, forbiding someone to marry a Catholic, really proves nothing. Just because we are to treat them like infidels, it is only in the hope that they will repent. I don't think it follows that a marriage with someone is on par with the Church's ecumenical relations. I think the main thrust of not wanting to marry a Catholic or the likes, is for practical reasons. She may bring you back to Rome etc.

So this proves nothing of whether Rome was a [true] church.

Paul


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:bbaaef28f6][i:bbaaef28f6]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:bbaaef28f6]

Gracious? I don't think anybody said that. Apostle Paul makes it clear that someone who is temporarily in sin can definitely be our brethren, but we are not to associate with them until they repent. So, forbiding someone to marry a Catholic, really proves nothing. Just because we are to treat them like infidels, it is only in the hope that they will repent. I don't think it follows that a marriage with someone is on par with the Church's ecumenical relations. I think the main thrust of not wanting to marry a Catholic or the likes, is for practical reasons. She may bring you back to Rome etc.

So this proves nothing of whether Rome was a [true] church.

Paul [/quote:bbaaef28f6]


Paul, 

What you say is complete conjecture and has absolutely no foundation in the text. It is put forward solely to buttress your point. Let's look at WCF 24.3 in its full context:


[quote:bbaaef28f6]WCF 24.3 It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent.(1) Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord.(2) And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.(3) 

(1)Heb. 13:4; 1 Tim. 4:3; 1 Cor. 7:36,37,38; Gen. 24:57,58 
(2)1 Cor. 7:39 
(3)Gen. 34:14; Exod. 34:16; Deut. 7:3,4; 1 Kings 11:4; Neh. 13:25,26,27; Mal. 2:11,12; 2 Cor. 6:14[/quote:bbaaef28f6]

The Confession then makes several statements: 

1. Marriage is not confined simply to Christians: [i:bbaaef28f6]&quot;It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry&quot;[/i:bbaaef28f6]

2. Christians are only to marry other Christians: 
[i:bbaaef28f6]&quot;it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord&quot;[/i:bbaaef28f6]

3. As a result of premise #2 ([i:bbaaef28f6]&quot;therefore&quot;[/i:bbaaef28f6], Christians ([i:bbaaef28f6]&quot;such as profess the true reformed religion&quot;[/i:bbaaef28f6])are not to marry those who are not Christians, namely:

a. infidels
b. papists
c. other idolaters
d. nor those whose life and beliefs would contradict a profession of faith, namely:

(1)such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or 
(2)maintain damnable heresies

So we can logically assume that the category of infidels, papists and other idolaters are exclusive of the category of Christians.

The proof texts all relate to the marrying of those who are pagans. Remember that Paul says that Christians are free to marry [b:bbaaef28f6]in the Lord[/b:bbaaef28f6] (1 Cor 7:39), without further qualification (the proof text cited by the Confession here). He does not say, in the Lord, except not likely to draw you astray. The categories are black and white - in the Lord, or not in the Lord. Paul does on to illustrate the point that such a marriage outside the Lord is like siding with Baal - the pre-eminent figure of idolatry and paganism in the OT.

Notice that it is significant that Christians are not forbidden from marrying those who are in error (i.e. Baptists, Arminians, etc.) but only those who maintain [b:bbaaef28f6]damnable heresies[/b:bbaaef28f6] (viz. infidels, other idolaters and papists). This is further pressed home by the fact that heresy is a violation of the 1st commandment, per WLC 105 : &quot;What are the sins forbidden in the first commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the first commandment are, Atheism, in denying, or not having a God; Idolatry, in having or worshipping more gods than one, or any with or instead of the true God...unbelief, [b:bbaaef28f6]heresy[/b:bbaaef28f6]&quot; 

Why are papists singled out of all &quot;churches in error&quot; ? Why not Arminians? Why not anabaptists? Why not baptists?


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:1cdf23c2de][i:1cdf23c2de]Originally posted by Scott[/i:1cdf23c2de]
[quote:1cdf23c2de]
Could you provide a reference for this please? I think this is a serious charge which some here would like to see verified. 
[/quote:1cdf23c2de]

I am curious - would you see this as a charge more serious than him saying he was willing to work along aside a Baptist? 

The Reformers seemed to have equally low views of Baptists and Catholics, each being limbs of antichrist. I don't think many today find that position persuasive with respect to Baptists but still do with respect to Catholics.

Scott [/quote:1cdf23c2de]

Scott,
Is there language respecting baptists similar to this used by Knox with respect to Roman baptism? He clearly distinguishes between invalidating baptisms that were previously done by Rome and participating in a Roman baptism:

[quote:1cdf23c2de]
Answers to Some Questions
Concerning Baptism, etc.

The baptism now used in the Papistry is not the true baptism which Christ Jesus did institute and command to be used in his kirk; but it is an adulteration and profanation of the same, and therefore is to be avoided of all God's children.
That it is adulterated, and so consequently profane, is evident: First, for many things are added, besides Christ's institution; and all man's additions in God's perfect ordinance, especially in his religion, are execrable and detestable before him. Secondly, the promises of salvation in Christ Jesus are not (in the papistical baptism) lively and truly explained to the people; the word is not preached; yea, that which they read is not understood. The end and use of a true sacrament are not considered, but rather the people are led to put their confidence in the bare ceremony.
That none of God's children ought, or may, with pure conscience, offer their children to the papistical baptism, one reason of the Holy Ghost (pronounced by St. Paul) may instruct and assure such as rather list to be obedient than contentious. "I would not," says he, "that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye may not drink of the Lord's cup, and the cup of devils. Ye may not be partaker of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils" (1 Cor. 10:21-22). If the causes why sacraments were instituted are rightly understood and considered, [b:1cdf23c2de]this reason of the apostle shall damn all those that offer their children to an adulterated sign[/b:1cdf23c2de]; for as sacraments, besides other uses and ends, are ordained to be seals of the justice {righteousness} of faith, so are they also a declaration of our profession before the world, and an approbation of that doctrine and religion which are taught by such as with whom we communicate, in receiving the sacraments. [b:1cdf23c2de]Now it is evident that the papistical doctrine, in the chief point of our salvation, and their whole religion, are as contrary to Christ's doctrine and true religion, as darkness is unto light[/b:1cdf23c2de]: which nevertheless is approved and allowed before the world, by all such as communicate with any of their adulterous sacrilege for sacraments they cannot be properly called. I add, [b:1cdf23c2de]whosoever offers their children to the papistical baptism, offers them to the devil[/b:1cdf23c2de], who was author and first inventor of all such abominations; and therefore, whosoever communicates with the papistical sacraments, approves (and before the world allows) whatsoever doctrine and religion they profess. [b:1cdf23c2de]Yea, farther, who offers their children to the papistical baptism, offers them not to God, nor to Christ Jesus his Son, but to the devil[/b:1cdf23c2de], the chief author and inventor of such abominations[/quote:1cdf23c2de]


----------



## fredtgreco

Now as touching what the Westminster divines thought regarding Rome and whether it was a true church or not, an excellent source is from the Morning Exercises at Crippelgate first published in 1661, given in London.

In volume 6, Rev. Henry Wilkinson continues the &quot;Morning Exercises Against Popery&quot; in his sermon &quot;The Pope of Rome is Antichrist&quot; by saying:

If the pope be the Antichrist...if this body politic, head and members be the Antichristian state, and this state is the Papacy; then it cannot be the true church. It is true that Antichrist, head and members, are the counterfeit of the true church, and of Christ, the Head; and therefore they cannot be the true church...How can that be a true church whose head is the Man of Sin, who hath all those black and hellish characters belonging to him? Such a church cannot be founded upon the twelve apostles. Therefore that cannot be a true church whichb hath Abaddon and Apollyon for the heads. How can that be a true church which is so opposite to the true church, both head and members.[/quote]

I guess I would follow with the question, which one of you would view it as a matter of indifference whether you relatives were in communion with Rome or a baptist church? Maybe you don't have to make that choice, but for me, I would leap for joy if my relatives professed faith and joined the most Arminian, baptistic, yea, even pentecostal church and left Rome. She is a whore, damning all who listen to her lies, feeding poison to her infants in the milk bottle. May God crush her and may she never rise again!


----------



## Saiph

Knox is dead wrong on this point.

All that Scripture requires is water, and the name of the Trinity.

I would like to see anyone show Scripture to prove otherwise.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:78aeaeb851][i:78aeaeb851]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:78aeaeb851]
Knox is dead wrong on this point.

All that Scripture requires is water, and the name of the Trinity.

I would like to see anyone show Scripture to prove otherwise. [/quote:78aeaeb851]

So then if I go into the local Moose Lodge or Mormon tabernacle and squirt people with a squirt gun and pronounce them baptized in the name of the Trinity, it is a lawful baptism then? Let's see... water, (check), name of the Trinity (check). I guess so.


----------



## pastorway

Cool! That means I can be a very effective missionary now with my water gun and superstitious phrase. Beside, splashing water on a person in the &quot;name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit&quot; certainly is easier than trying to remember how to spell [i:5b8294c2ca]supercalifragilisticexpalidotious[/i:5b8294c2ca].....

This thread gives us yet anther reason to reject Frame....the list is building.

And the Roman church was not the only church on earth for a thousand years. It started going wrong when Constantine declared it the state religion of Rome and mixed it with al of their idolatry and syncretism.

Phillip


----------



## Saiph

As goofy and irreverant as that is Fred, I have to say yes.

Someone show me where scripture requires anything more.


----------



## pastorway

Well there is Matthew 28 for starters.....

19Go therefore and [u:a0ed2a3b7d]make disciples[/u:a0ed2a3b7d] of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.&quot; Amen.

One must be a disciple to be baptized, not just Joe Schmoe on the street sprinkled with water with the right words said.

While we may disagree on what a disciple is, we would (should) all agree that baptism is only for disciples of Jesus Christ!!

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:8cafebc5d2][i:8cafebc5d2]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:8cafebc5d2]
As goofy and irreverant as that is Fred, I have to say yes.

Someone show me where scripture requires anything more. [/quote:8cafebc5d2]

I thought that the sacraments were more than [i:8cafebc5d2]ex opere operato[/i:8cafebc5d2], but that they were actually for the Church, to, in the words of the Confession: &quot;put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.&quot;

What you have posited is that the sacraments are efficacious regardless of intent or relationship to the church.

Let me ask it a different way: is it a proper Lord's Supper if a bunch of drunkards in a bar pass out bread and wine and partake in the name of the Trinity? Why or why not?


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:e660ad2ec1][i:e660ad2ec1]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:e660ad2ec1]
Well there is Matthew 28 for starters.....

19Go therefore and [u:e660ad2ec1]make disciples[/u:e660ad2ec1] of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.&quot; Amen.

One must be a disciple to be baptized, not just Joe Schmoe on the street sprinkled with water with the right words said.

While we may disagree on what a disciple is, we would (should) all agree that baptism is only for disciples of Jesus Christ!!

Phillip [/quote:e660ad2ec1]



As I go to tuck in my four little disciples.


----------



## Saiph

I just want to see where the line of Donatism is drawn.


----------



## pastorway

It isn't about the minister, but about the CHURCH, Mark. A synagogue of satan has no right to administer the sacraments of the Body of Jesus Christ. In fact, if they attempt to do so, they are performing religious rituals only, and not true Christian sacraments. They blaspheme them by trying to administer them. They mock God.

The Mass is an abomination and Roman baptism is not Christian baptism, for their baptism is built upon a foundation other than the gospel. In fact, it is built on the foundation of [i:577c869d68]another[/i:577c869d68] gospel, which is shifting sand and will lead to destruction.

Phillip


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:17798e5a43]It isn't about the minister, but about the CHURCH[/quote:17798e5a43]

The donatists thought the other [i:17798e5a43]CHURCHES[/i:17798e5a43] were corrupt, [i:17798e5a43]therefore[/i:17798e5a43] they thought the ministers were corrupt. 

We know its not about the minister, we also know its not about the church. If you think it is about the church, then were do you draw the line on donatism? Because that is precisely donatist thought that has always been condemned.

Paul

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:6ecbf5eca9][i:6ecbf5eca9]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:6ecbf5eca9]
[quote:6ecbf5eca9]It isn't about the minister, but about the CHURCH[/quote:6ecbf5eca9]

The donatists thought the other [i:6ecbf5eca9]CHURCHES[/i:6ecbf5eca9] were corrupt, [i:6ecbf5eca9]therefore[/i:6ecbf5eca9] they thought the ministers were corrupt. 

We know its not about the minister, we also know its not about the church. If you think it is about the church, then were do you draw the line on donatism? Because that is precisely donatist thought that has always been condemned.

Paul

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by rembrandt] [/quote:6ecbf5eca9]

I'm wondering where the line is drawn for ex opere operato.


----------



## Scott

Phillip:

You should be cautious in your condemnation of Frame. If more Reformed were true to their Reformed history, your church could be viewed as a false church too, and perhaps a limb of antichrist. I do not at all believe that it is. It seems to me that it is only because modern Reformed focus on the anti-Catholic writings but ignore the anti-anabaptistic writings that this happens. You may dislike Frame but he would not say that your church is a false church, unlike others on this board. (BTW, I do not think your church is false and if I am in the Austin area over a weekend I may try and drop by to worship with you guys - I live in the Fort Worth area).

Scott


----------



## Scott

Fred: I think you are obscuring the essence of your questions (which are good ones) with things designed to be silly. The water gun is an example. Let me ask, if a lawfully ordained minister of the gospel performed the ritual of baptism exactly right, except he used a water gun instead of his hand, would that invalidate the baptism? While water guns are obviously stupid and should not be used, I expect we can at least agree that they do not go to the essence of the sacrament. 

Also, are you suggesting that if someone is drunk that this invalidates the adminstration of the Lord's Supper? If the only objectionable part of the ceremony is that the minister's blood alchohol content is marginally over the limit, would that invalidate the ceremony in your opinion?

BTW, I think that baptisms from non-Trinitarian sects like the Mormons are invalid, even if they use the proper formula.

Scott


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:090c002693][i:090c002693]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:090c002693]
All that Scripture requires is water, and the name of the Trinity. 

AND...

As goofy and irreverant as that is Fred, I have to say yes.

Someone show me where scripture requires anything more. [/quote:090c002693]

So this discussion keeps coming back to this: water and the trinitarian formula. 

If this is the case, the bare minimum, then we must also acknowledge the Mormon's and all other cultic groups who claim the name Christian. Are you willing to go that far Mark? And if so, why?


----------



## Scott

As to Reformers views of anabaptists / baptists, this is from Luther's Augusburg Confession:

[quote:aadea14c08]
They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism. 
[/quote:aadea14c08]

Do you have any quotes of Reformers approving of baptistic / anabaptistic baptisms? There may be - I would like to study this area more.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:81e408dc2d][i:81e408dc2d]Originally posted by Scott[/i:81e408dc2d]
Fred: I think you are obscuring the essence of your questions (which are good ones) with things designed to be silly. The water gun is an example. Let me ask, if a lawfully ordained minister of the gospel performed the ritual of baptism exactly right, except he used a water gun instead of his hand, would that invalidate the baptism? While water guns are obviously stupid and should not be used, I expect we can at least agree that they do not go to the essence of the sacrament. 

Also, are you suggesting that if someone is drunk that this invalidates the adminstration of the Lord's Supper? If the only objectionable part of the ceremony is that the minister's blood alchohol content is marginally over the limit, would that invalidate the ceremony in your opinion?

BTW, I think that baptisms from non-Trinitarian sects like the Mormons are invalid, even if they use the proper formula.

Scott [/quote:81e408dc2d]

Scott,

Point well taken, except that my &quot;silliness&quot; (which was intentional and not hyperbolic) was intended to get at the issue of intent. Mark's statements seemed the essence of [i:81e408dc2d]ex opere operato[/i:81e408dc2d] to me - he only requires the water to be applied (in whatever manner) using the words of the Trinity (in whatever manner intended).

This is a clear result of his &quot;acceptance&quot; of Mormon baptism that uses the words, &quot;in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit&quot; when in fact the meaning that is poured into those words is completely contrary to the doctrine of the Trinity (i.e. Mormons believe the Son is a created being, the spirit brother of Lucifer).

The water gun and drunk analogies were designed so that no one could assume that there was ANY intention to conduct Christian baptism. So when Mark said those baptisms were valid, he was acknowledging that intent is unecessary and meaningless. Your point however is different and well taken - impairments to intent to do not subvert intent. So yes, even though it would be silly, if a Christian minister administered Baptism with the appropriate intent using a water gun it would be valid.

I think that the only point about which you and I would differ (as opposed to Mark's more minimalist formula) is over the whether an orthodox understanding (as opposed to Mormon or Moose lodge understanding) of the Trinity was ALL that was necessary.

By the way, are you going to GA?


----------



## Saiph

[quote:7a26065938]
If this is the case, the bare minimum, then we must also acknowledge the Mormon's and all other cultic groups who claim the name Christian. Are you willing to go that far Mark? And if so, why? 
[/quote:7a26065938]

That is a good question.

I have been thinking about this, and there may be one more requirement. What do you think of these ? ?

1. Water
2. The Name Of The Trinity
3. Administered by a professing, outwardly practicing disciple of Christ

Matthew 28 made me realize He told disciples to make disciples. Now, we all now there are different levels of discipleship, but that I think, is the bare minimum.

A Mormon then ? ? no. They do not know Christ, because they do not know the Trinity. Neither do Arian JW's.

However, I do think Rome and the Orthodos are still valid here. It is still done within the context of historic Trinitarian Christianity.

I am not saying Rome does not have idolatrous practices and a misunderstanding of justification. They do have the Trinity though.

How many Presbyterian and Baptist elders have every doctrine perfectly figured out ? ?


----------



## Scott

[quote:c146742fcb]
If this is the case, the bare minimum, then we must also acknowledge the Mormon's and all other cultic groups who claim the name Christian. Are you willing to go that far Mark? And if so, why? 
[/quote:c146742fcb]

I would not recognize a Mormon baptism, even if Trinitarian. I think the teaching of the church has a position on this, and the Mormons are not Trinitarian in an orthodox sense. I will say that this raises problems with recognizing a baptism from a congregational background, however. How could you verify that organization's beliefs if they are anti-creedal? or what if they no longer exist - say some flash in the pan house church that existed only for a year or so but succeeded in baptizing someone?


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:8c57c059b4][i:8c57c059b4]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:8c57c059b4]
How many Presbyterian and Baptist elders have every doctrine perfectly figured out ? ? [/quote:8c57c059b4]

We've been down this road before Mark, but you do of course understand that no one is acknowledging the need for perfection in every (or even the majority of) Christian doctrines. You simply limit it to the Trinity (not even the doctrine of Scripture). I broaden it to include a few more doctrines.


----------



## Saiph

So Fred :

Valid baptism entails.

1. Water
2. The name of the Trinity
3. Agreement with the solas.
4. Professing, practicing, disciple of Christ.

On 4 would you limit it to Elders as well ? ?


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:164a143cd0][i:164a143cd0]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:164a143cd0]
So Fred :

Valid baptism entails.

1. Water
2. The name of the Trinity
3. Agreement with the solas.
4. Professing, practicing, disciple of Christ.

On 4 would you limit it to Elders as well ? ? [/quote:164a143cd0]

How is this not donatism? All Fred has to do now is show how a Roman priest is not a disciple of Christ and that they do not agree with the solas. In my opinion 3, 4 are not qualifications...

Paul


----------



## Saiph

[quote:87ff60cb92]
In my opinion 3, 4 are not qualifications... 
[/quote:87ff60cb92]

I tend to agree with you.

But lets try to find the [i:87ff60cb92]via media[/i:87ff60cb92] here between Donatism, and [i:87ff60cb92]ex opere operato[/i:87ff60cb92]. 

You can see the squirt gun analogy is absurd right ? ?


----------



## Scott

Fred:

I am not going to the GA this year, as we have a new born baby. I will probably try and make the GA next year.

BTW, let me clarify a few points of agreement with some things you have said.

[1] As to marrying Catholics, yes I agree with the confession that this is wrong. As an elder, I would intervene if a congregant intended to do this. I would not intervene if the marriage was to another of an orthodox Protestant denomination.

[2] We as presbyterians obviously have alot more in common with orthodox baptists, especially Reformed baptists like Phillip, than we do with Catholics. 

[3] While I do acknowledge the validity of Catholic baptisms (as did many reformers), I would not acknowledge the baptisms of people from unorthodox cults. I would acknowledge Catholic baptisms for the same reasons reformers did, which is that they hold the orthodox doctrines as expressed in the Creed and conciliar decisions. This does present practical problems in dealing with people baptized by independents and people from transiet congregations (as it is hard and sometimes impossible to tell what the congregation believed). 

[4] I would typically counsel Catholics to leave the Catholic church and join a Reformed church. There are many reasons for this, including that they are not trained in the Word in any meaningful sense. And along with you I would typically be happy if friends or relatives left the Catholic church and joinedn orthodox Protestant church. Still, I don't think that this means that RC is not a church in any sense. 

While there are &quot;conservative&quot; Catholic churches in America, in my experience the RC congregations I have encountered are indistiguishable from mainline liberalism. 

I also do not judge individual Catholics or congregations by the Catholic Catechism. Many hold different views. In fact, I have a hard time finding anyone who accepts this, except for the EWTN types (I'm sure there are many, but I just don't run accross them). I knew of a priest, for example, who taught justification by faith alone, did not pray to Mary or the saints, and did not have icons in his church. He was a very Protestant Catholic. 

Scott


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:1a9f530e9d]...my experience the RC congregations I have encountered are indistiguishable from mainline liberalism.[/quote:1a9f530e9d]

Can you give some examples? Liberalism can be a broad term.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:1107bcdc49][i:1107bcdc49]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:1107bcdc49]
[quote:1107bcdc49]...my experience the RC congregations I have encountered are indistiguishable from mainline liberalism.[/quote:1107bcdc49]

Can you give some examples? Liberalism can be a broad term. [/quote:1107bcdc49]

They do not regard the Bible as the Word of God. They do not acknowledge the authority of the Pope or his infallibility when speaking ex cathedra - an incredible number of American Catholics reject the Pope's dogma re: homosexuality, abortion, etc.

Perhaps the best place to look would be at the websites of those Romanists who are unreconstructed - Scott Hahn, EWTN et al - their disdain for much of American Catholicism is readily apparent.

Should it surprise us? Protestantism went liberal when she gave up her Bible in the late 19th century. Rome gave up her Bible in the 16th.


----------



## Scott

One example would be John Kerry's congregation, which has openly gay couples as members. It has been in the news lately. BTW, half of Massachussetts is Catholic and most its state legislature and judiciary is Catholic and yet it is the first state with a state supreme court decision requiring gay marriage. Catholicism has been nearly impotent there to stop this abomination. It just does not influence people's lives. 

Here is an open letter from a traditionalist criticizing the state of the Catholic church:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/index.htm


----------



## yeutter

St Augustine would have said valid baptism requires:

1. The application of water

2. The use of Trinitarian language &quot;I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holly Ghost.&quot;

3. Trinitarian intent.

That is why he believed Novation and Donatist Baptism to be valid but Arian Baptism to be invalid


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:00d7b8bb93][i:00d7b8bb93]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:00d7b8bb93]
[quote:00d7b8bb93]...my experience the RC congregations I have encountered are indistiguishable from mainline liberalism.[/quote:00d7b8bb93]

Can you give some examples? Liberalism can be a broad term. [/quote:00d7b8bb93]
At the catholic college I went too, I met very few if any Catholics who actually held to the churches dogma. In the two Bible classes I took, both were taught with liberal textbooks and teachers, who denied the divinity of Christ and that Scripture was the Word of God. One teacher was a former nun, the other, a former priest. Both were devout in their attendance upon church services and even prayer, but it was no more than tradition, or perhaps natural religion. Both held Christ to be a great teacher and that's about it. The nun. had no problems claiming that the NT had been revised and polluted by the later church and fully espoused the teachings of the Jesus Seminar. Now, this curriculim had to be approved by some preist higher up in charge of the department, who in turn answered to higher preists in the college. Yet this stuff was taught readily without protest from even the Catholic divinity students I met. Granted, it's only one college, but it was a Jesuit University. Granted this is only anecdotal evidence for you but I'm sure there are others who could testify of this too.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:a782e10106][i:a782e10106]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:a782e10106]
[quote:a782e10106][i:a782e10106]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:a782e10106]
[quote:a782e10106]...my experience the RC congregations I have encountered are indistiguishable from mainline liberalism.[/quote:a782e10106]

Can you give some examples? Liberalism can be a broad term. [/quote:a782e10106]
At the catholic college I went too, I met very few if any Catholics who actually held to the churches dogma. In the two Bible classes I took, both were taught with liberal textbooks and teachers, who denied the divinity of Christ and that Scripture was the Word of God. One teacher was a former nun, the other, a former priest. Both were devout in their attendance upon church services and even prayer, but it was no more than tradition, or perhaps natural religion. Both held Christ to be a great teacher and that's about it. The nun. had no problems claiming that the NT had been revised and polluted by the later church and fully espoused the teachings of the Jesus Seminar. Now, this curriculim had to be approved by some preist higher up in charge of the department, who in turn answered to higher preists in the college. Yet this stuff was taught readily without protest from even the Catholic divinity students I met. Granted, it's only one college, but it was a Jesuit University. Granted this is only anecdotal evidence for you but I'm sure there are others who could testify of this too. [/quote:a782e10106]

Eeeeps! It wasn't [i:a782e10106]Roman[/i:a782e10106] Catholic was it?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:a39a3f7bad][i:a39a3f7bad]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:a39a3f7bad]
Eeeeps! It wasn't [i:a39a3f7bad]Roman[/i:a39a3f7bad] Catholic was it? [/quote:a39a3f7bad]
Of course it was. It was a Jesuit school.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:1439d2bf5c][i:1439d2bf5c]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:1439d2bf5c]
St Augustine would have said valid baptism requires:

1. The application of water

2. The use of Trinitarian language &quot;I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holly Ghost.&quot;

3. Trinitarian intent.

That is why he believed Novation and Donatist Baptism to be valid but Arian Baptism to be invalid [/quote:1439d2bf5c]
Do you happen to have a source for this view of Augustine?

Also, when we get into the idea of Trinitarian intent, we must then ask, who's trinitarian intent? Do you mean a biblical trinitarian intent? Of just that they are intending to use the trinity no matter what there definition may be of it? And if it's the biblical trinitarian intent, how far are we to allow deviance from the biblical teaching of the Trinity? Should restrict it to only the definition of the person of the Godhead, or also include the work of those persons in our salvation as taught biblically? And on what basis either way? You see, the line is not very negotiable. It seems we must either accept their baptism according to their profession, whether they are consistent with it or not (i.e Papists or Mormons) or we must reject all churches who reject the biblical view of salvation. It seems to me to be coming down to an all or nothing deal the more we discuss this. But, we can't even agree on a standard to judge by yet. 

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## py3ak

Here is an audio clip by Bahnsen on the topic. I got it from James White's site.
http://69.49.233.15/BahnsenBaptism.mp3


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:94106d15d8][i:94106d15d8]Originally posted by py3ak[/i:94106d15d8]
Here is an audio clip by Bahnsen on the topic. I got it from James White's site.
http://69.49.233.15/BahnsenBaptism.mp3 [/quote:94106d15d8]

Am I wrong in saying that the Donatists believed certain ministers were corrupt BECAUSE the church they were ministers of was corrupt? How is this not obvious to other people that this is the DONATIST doctrine?

Also, I am getting tired of people saying that the Roman Catholic church is apostate. If they knew the [historic] criteria for apostacy, they would NEVER say that. Am I missing something here?

Paul


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:a80b0d7880][i:a80b0d7880]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:a80b0d7880]
[quote:a80b0d7880][i:a80b0d7880]Originally posted by py3ak[/i:a80b0d7880]
Here is an audio clip by Bahnsen on the topic. I got it from James White's site.
http://69.49.233.15/BahnsenBaptism.mp3 [/quote:a80b0d7880]

Am I wrong in saying that the Donatists believed certain ministers were corrupt BECAUSE the church they were ministers of was corrupt? How is this not obvious to other people that this is the DONATIST doctrine?

Also, I am getting tired of people saying that the Roman Catholic church is apostate. If they knew the [historic] criteria for apostacy, they would NEVER say that. Am I missing something here?

Paul [/quote:a80b0d7880]

The Roman church IS apostate. It has anathamatized the gospel. It has a gospel that is another gospel, and no gospel at all (Gal. 1). Her mass is idolatry. Her worship is an affront to God. She implicitly and in many cases explicitly denies the uniqueness of Christ, assigning both sinlessness, and participation in the work atonement to Mary. She denies the sufficiency of God's word, adds to God's word, and binds the consciences of men with the commandments of men. Her &quot;Pope&quot; exalts himself into the palce of Christ, and denies that there is one mediator between God and man by having a vicar of Christ (the Pope).

Rome is little better (and much similar) to Pharisaical Judaism. Please read through Owen's Biblical Theology - he points this out in great detail.

Finally, the Donatists believed that certain ministers were unqualified for the office perpetually because of their actions. They believed that because the minister was unqualified, the effect of the sacrament was negated and null and void. It did not have to do with the false nature of the Church. There were not two separate churches. the issue is completely separate and distinct.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:14a6038d23]They believed that because the minister was unqualified, the effect of the sacrament was negated and null and void. It did not have to do with the false nature of the Church. There were not two separate churches. the issue is completely separate and distinct.[/quote:14a6038d23]

When I said &quot;Because the churches were corrupt,&quot; I meant that obviously if the church was corrupt, the minister of the church was corrupt. However, I definitely realize that they didn't accept baptism from a morally clean church with an unworthy minister. [b:14a6038d23]My intent was to show that it is Donatistic to not accept a baptism just because of the invalidity of the church (which definitely assumes the invalidity of the minister.[/b:14a6038d23])

Not two seperate churches?? I thought the Donatists were out of communion with Rome. This was the first great schism, right?

Paul

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:6cec4988ff]
Also, I am getting tired of people saying that the Roman Catholic church is apostate. If they knew the [historic] criteria for apostacy, they would NEVER say that. Am I missing something here? 
[/quote:6cec4988ff]

Criteria:

Canon 10 &quot;If anyonje says that men are justified without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us, or by that justice are formally just, let him be anathema.&quot; Council of Trent, page 43, Canons Concerning Justification

Canon 12 &quot;If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than faith in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is theis confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.&quot;

Rome has declared war on Christ and the Gospel.

Just so we are clear, and there is no abiguity:

The ROMAN CHURCH IS APOSTATE. Anyone who follows the Great Whore will be damned for all eternity and suffer under teh wrath of God Almight for thier blasphemy in overthrowing the Gospel of grace with a man made salvation of meritorious works.

Hoep that is clear. If it is not, let me know.

Apostacy is twofold - 1) it is where one is one the road of heresy, and they must repent or be damned, or 2) they have embraced the heresy and will in fact be damned.

Read John Owen's Apostasy from the Gospel. Short book, concise, easy to follow.


----------



## BrianLanier

AMEN and AMEN

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by BrianLanier]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:08026ca969][i:08026ca969]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:08026ca969]
Also, I am getting tired of people saying that the Roman Catholic church is apostate. If they knew the [historic] criteria for apostacy, they would NEVER say that. Am I missing something here?
[/quote:08026ca969] 
Apparently you are missing something. What if YOUR criteria for apostacy? 

And, if you believe that water and the name of the Trinity are only necessary for a valid baptism, then you must accept a Mormon baptism. Is this the case with you?


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:2c31ee4b5f]Read John Owen's Apostasy from the Gospel. Short book, concise, easy to follow.[/quote:2c31ee4b5f]

I have it. I will read it.

[quote:2c31ee4b5f]Apostacy is twofold - 1) it is where one is one the road of [b:2c31ee4b5f]heresy[/b:2c31ee4b5f], and they must repent or be damned, or 2) they have embraced the [b:2c31ee4b5f]heresy[/b:2c31ee4b5f] and will in fact be damned.[/quote:2c31ee4b5f] 

So Matt, do you say that all heresy automatically equals apostacy? Thats what it looks like. Do you consider Arminianism heresy? It looks like they are all damned, then.

Paul


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:0f27c12b5d]
So Matt, do you say that all heresy automatically equals apostacy?[/quote:0f27c12b5d]

Yes. Heresy will damn you.

[quote:0f27c12b5d]Thats what it looks like. Do you consider Arminianism heresy? It looks like they are all damned, then. 
[/quote:0f27c12b5d]

Yes, Classic Arminianism is heresy and it will damn you. It is salvation by works. (Rome is its logical end.)

Synod of Dordt about Arminians:

&quot;the Synod earnestly warns the false accusers themselves to consider how heavy a judgment of God awaits those who give false testimony against so many churches and their confessions, trouble the consciences of the weak, and seek to prejudice the minds of many against the fellowship of true believers.&quot;

&quot;on the points associated with it by its very nature and tendency draws the minds of people away from all godliness and religion, is an opiate of the flesh and the devil, and is a stronghold of Satan where he lies in wait for all people, wounds most of them, and fatally pierces many of them with the arrows of both despair and self-assurance...&quot;


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:d963c89a2d]Yes, Classic Arminianism is heresy and it will damn you. It is salvation by works. (Rome is its logical end.)[/quote:d963c89a2d]

I believe it is heresy too. But do you think they are all going to hell? Is that the logical conclusion of damnation?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Make a distinction between &quot;Arminiansm&quot; (as in 1590-1680) and &quot;arminianism&quot; (little &quot;a&quot today.

Three camps:

The ignorant arminian - he thinks he had something to do with it, but is a baby Christian, just learning new things.

The wrestling arminian - he has seen the bible is in conflict with what he believes, and is wrestling through.

The complacent arminian - who is settled in his doctrine and believes it and defends it and will not consider anything else (Dave Hunt, Norman Geisler, etc.)

The first two certainly have the possibility of being saved. The last one, as they adhere to a false system of works, are damned if they believe it unto death.

Yes, they go to hell for believing a different Gospel.

Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## rembrandt

I DEFINITELY agree with your distinctions.

Norman Geisler is not going to heaven? Well I guess that excludes John Wesley. What about all those hymns he wrote? And what about C.S. Lewis?

Paul


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Balaam prophesied about Christ. Can you imagine being used of God to prophesy about the coming of our Lord?? that woudl be a most excellent thing. However, Balaam was a false prophet, and is in hell.

2 Peter 2:15 They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

Jude 1:11 Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.

Men may be used of God for all sorts of things. That does not necessarily argue their salvation.


----------



## LawrenceU

I know I'm wading into the middle of something here, but are we not warned against judgment 'krinw' ? It seems to me in my reading of Scripture that very clearly does the Bible state that only God can discern the position of one's soul. If perfect assent to and embracing of perfect theology is the path to salvation then I've missed that verse. 

'The just shall live by faith.' Not, 'the just shall live by a assenting to a perfect credal statement'.

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by LawrenceU]


----------



## Me Died Blue

[quote:b1736fbb39][i:b1736fbb39]Originally posted by LawrenceU[/i:b1736fbb39]
'The just shall live by faith.' Not, 'the just shall live by a assenting to a perfect credal statement'.[/quote:b1736fbb39]

This is true, but there is also a point at which someone's &quot;credal statement&quot; can become so flawed that they are putting faith in a different God and Gospel altogether.

In Christ,


----------



## Puritan Sailor

We are called to judge with &quot;righteous judgment&quot; and to test the spirits. It is judging self-righteously which is condemned. We must test all things by the Word. And so we must do with this issue, especially with the practical implications involved.


----------



## LawrenceU

The type of judgment to which I alluded is that of determining ones position in eternity. Only God can do that. Of course we are to discern spirits and 'judge' fruit, but ONLY God can see the final place of a man's soul.


----------



## Me Died Blue

But God has clearly laid out in His Word the things one must believe in order to have a saving faith. So would you at least grant that people we know who clearly and explicitly deny the Christian God and Gospel their entire life will perish?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Ok, let's get back to the thread topic. 

Is Roman Catholic baptism valid?

We've discussed some criteria and yet we can't agree. If we lower the bar too much (i.e. water and the Trinity name), then we end up including non-Christian cults. If we raise it too high, then only those in our own denomination will be accepted as baptised under a true church. Some have suggested that Rome still holds to the Creeds, but as I showed with the Apostles Creed, Rome does not in fact hold to the Creeds without changing the meaning of the language (for example the phrase &quot;the forgiveness of sins&quot; ) so they don't really hold to the Creeds. We agree that water is the required physical element for baptism, but Rome uses more than water, adding oil deliberately to the mix, thus defiling the sacrament. 


So where do we draw the line?

How about this option for a criteria?

If a church officially condemns the gospel, they cease to be a true church, and thus lose their legitimacy for all the sacraments and God given ministries because of their apostacy. And, within the umbrella of those who have NOT officially condemned the Gospel, we may acknowledge their baptisms, with water and the name of the Trinity. Ecumenical, but not too ecumenical to compromise the gospel or fall into donatism. 

I'll just submit this hypothesis for discussion.


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:731c060890]Some have suggested that Rome still holds to the Creeds, but as I showed with the Apostles Creed, Rome does not in fact hold to the Creeds without changing the meaning of the language (for example the phrase &quot;the forgiveness of sins&quot; ) so they don't really hold to the Creeds. We agree that water is the required physical element for baptism, but Rome uses more than water, adding oil deliberately to the mix, thus defiling the sacrament.[/quote:731c060890]

I never understood your thing about &quot;forgiveness of sins.&quot;

If water is the [i:731c060890]required[/i:731c060890] element, then it is there in the Roman baptism. We haven't yet talked about adding other elements. If water baptism along with other elements is not true baptism, then nobody during the middle ages was baptized. Rome practiced these things during the times of the Reformers, and yet the Reformers never said it was false baptism.

[quote:731c060890]If a church officially condemns the gospel, they cease to be a true church, and thus lose their legitimacy for all the sacraments and God given ministries because of their apostacy. And, within the umbrella of those who have NOT officially condemned the Gospel, we may acknowledge their baptisms, with water and the name of the Trinity. Ecumenical, but not too ecumenical to compromise the gospel or fall into donatism.[/quote:731c060890]

Certain people (on this board) believe that the Arminians have condemned the true gospel and are all going to hell. So again, it becomes too narrow, and we only accept Calvinists.

Paul


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:36f89e5041][i:36f89e5041]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:36f89e5041]
I never understood your thing about &quot;forgiveness of sins.&quot;
[/quote:36f89e5041]
Then read the posts again. Rome doesn't belive in the biblical way of forgiving sin as expressed in the Creed. 
[quote:36f89e5041]
If water is the [i:36f89e5041]required[/i:36f89e5041] element, then it is there in the Roman baptism. We haven't yet talked about adding other elements. If water baptism along with other elements is not true baptism, then nobody during the middle ages was baptized. Rome practiced these things during the times of the Reformers, and yet the Reformers never said it was false baptism. [/quote:36f89e5041]
This was mentioned in the beginning of the thread. Please go back and read. 

[quote:36f89e5041]
Certain people (on this board) believe that the Arminians have condemned the true gospel and are all going to hell. So again, it becomes too narrow, and we only accept Calvinists.
[/quote:36f89e5041]
You missed the point. There are plenty of arminian churches out there who have not officially condemned the gospel. Rome declares it anethema. Most Arminian churches would not say that Reformed christians are anethema for what they believe. They still permit the truth along side their errors. Rome is not tolerant of the truth but condemns it. Same with the Mormons.


----------



## Scott

Patrick:

What is your evidence that Rome's understanding of the creedal statement &quot;forgiveness of sins&quot; differs from the original understanding of that statement?

Also, what do you think about modern Protestant understanding the phrase about Christ descending into hell? Few Protestants would understand this as Christ actually going to hell. Yet, there is some reason to believe that this was the original understanding (although I have not studied the issue much). I have one Reformed friend who remains silent during that portion of the reading of the creed, for example, because she thinks it is wrong.

Scott


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:d53c5e84ac][i:d53c5e84ac]Originally posted by Scott[/i:d53c5e84ac]
Patrick:

What is your evidence that Rome's understanding of the creedal statement &quot;forgiveness of sins&quot; differs from the original understanding of that statement?

Also, what do you think about modern Protestant understanding the phrase about Christ descending into hell? Few Protestants would understand this as Christ actually going to hell. Yet, there is some reason to believe that this was the original understanding (although I have not studied the issue much). I have one Reformed friend who remains silent during that portion of the reading of the creed, for example, because she thinks it is wrong.

Scott [/quote:d53c5e84ac]
Read my earlier posts in the thread.


----------



## Scott

Here is an interesting piece from Samuel Rutherford affirming Roman Catholic baptisms and Roman Cathlilc ministers while at the same time denouncing independent ministers and their baptisms (see article &quot;Samuel Rutherford . . &quot:
http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/

Here is an excerpt to a concern I think Fred raised:


[quote:26e8ea4e83]
But saith Robinson [the separatist], how can England forsake the Church of Rome, and forsake the ministry, which is in the Church, as in the subject, especially, seeing you teach that a true ministry maketh essentially a true Church? 

Answer: [1] England may well separate from Rome [as Rome turns away from] the fundamental parts of Faith, and [yet] not separate from Rome's baptism, or ministry, in so far as they be essentially the ordinances of Christ. And I retort this argument: how can Separatists separate from both us and Rome, and yet retain the baptism in both our church and Rome. [2] A ministry true in the essence may make a Church true kata ti, in so far; but because of many other substantial corruptions in Rome, it is a Church which we ought to forsake. . .
[/quote:26e8ea4e83]

On another point, if the logic and biblical understanding of his article holds, then Reformed churches should accept Catholic baptisms but reject those from independents. This seems to be the opposite of the tendency today, with many skeptical about or hotile to Roman baptisms but easily accepting baptisms of independents, Baptists, Bible Church folk, etc.

Certainly I have not experienced much of the concern for the lawfulness of institutional ministerial authority that Rutherford seemed to have.

Scott

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Scott]

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Scott]


----------

