# Accepting Roman baptism



## Breadloaf (Jan 25, 2005)

>>>s is really only applicable to a padeobaptist<<<

Why is it that most Reformed Presbyterians do NOT consider the Roman church to be our brothers in the faith, yet we accpet their baptism? Some say that it is because the baptism is still in the name of the Trinity. Does the Roman church truly believe in the Trinity, or is their conception of the nature of the God, specifically that of the Second Person, so skewed that we could say they do not actually believe in the Trinity at all? In that case, we would reduce "being baptized in the name of the Trinity" to a magical incantation involving the right words spoken: "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."

-JK
PCA
Cambridge MA


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Breadloaf_
> >>>s is really only applicable to a padeobaptist<<<
> 
> Why is it that most Reformed Presbyterians do NOT consider the Roman church to be our brothers in the faith, yet we accpet their baptism? Some say that it is because the baptism is still in the name of the Trinity. Does the Roman church truly believe in the Trinity, or is their conception of the nature of the God, specifically that of the Second Person, so skewed that we could say they do not actually believe in the Trinity at all? In that case, we would reduce "being baptized in the name of the Trinity" to a magical incantation involving the right words spoken: "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."
> ...




There is ONE baptism that Paul speaks of. The Holiness of those administering it have absolutely no effect on the sacrament. As long as it is done as prescribed in Scripture, it is valid. Once we meddle with the efficacy of a gift from God, it will only lead to superstition. This was further pronounced against the Donatists of the early church. What can man possibly add to the grace of God? NOTHING. We have tried, but it results in nothingness.

Joe


----------



## JOwen (Jan 25, 2005)

Most traditional Reformed and Presbyterian denominations do recognize Roman Catholic baptisms. Not accepting them is a new(ish) American idea. If we do not accept their baptisms (and ordinations) then Knox. Calvin, Luther etc, were never true ministers of the gospel, and therefor not members of the true Church because they were never re-baptized or re-ordained.

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 25, 2005)

Luther seems to suggest in his writings a tendency towards Joe's opinion. Though this article is in regards to the recipients, it speaks of the efficacy of the sacrament and may be helpful for this discussion: 

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/LutherMartinCatechismInfantBaptism.htm


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 25, 2005)

Do you think Calvin would accept Roman Cahtolic Baptism now?

Here is why I ask that - 

...Calvin is baptized. His baptism is valid. The RCC is not YET apostate. 

Within the time frame that someone was baptized within the time that the church had not gone apostate, it would logicially seem valid. But what about when it is not udring that time? Would it still be valid, logically speaking? If it is, and apostates can administer the sacraments and be valid, what woud stop anyone from doing it and be valid?

So again, would the Reformed concensus say that apostate administration of the sacraments, so long as it is done in the "name of the Trinity" be valid?

Do we really need a minister of the Gospel or not for these things?

I was reading Banner man on this issue, and I think he skirts aorund really answsering the quesiton well though he has a whole chapter dealing with this issue. Its like he flips back and forth because the conseqeunces seem to be too difficult to handle.

What are your thoughts on accepting this idea?

Not to belabor the point, can someone set forth in a real concise paragraph, why the Reformed concensus was to accept it by those who are not considered ministers of the Gospel?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 25, 2005)

I've always failed to see how a consistent and principled distinguishment can be made between Rome's baptism and a 10-year-old baptizing someone with a water bottle, if we do in reality consider Rome to be an apostate institution.


----------



## Breadloaf (Jan 25, 2005)

*Baptism*



> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> Most traditional Reformed and Presbyterian denominations do recognize Roman Catholic baptisms. Not accepting them is a new(ish) American idea. If we do not accept their baptisms (and ordinations) then Knox. Calvin, Luther etc, were never true ministers of the gospel, and therefor not members of the true Church because they were never re-baptized or re-ordained.
> 
> Kind regards,
> ...



Dear Jerrold:

While I understand and share your affection for the men you have mentioned, members of the true Church are those who have been saved by Christ; baptism does not save. Baptism is not REQUIRED for membership in the true Church; the act of the Holy Spirit in regeneration is. And I would certainly argue that they were regenerate men.

More to the point, the _implications_ of the answer to the question I have posed really don't have anything to do with the answer, do they? If it were true that a Roman baptism could not be considered a genuine baptism, there could be some drastic implications. But it does not change the truth, does it?

Yours,

JK
PCA
Cambridge, MA


----------



## Breadloaf (Jan 25, 2005)

> There is ONE baptism that Paul speaks of. The Holiness of those administering it have absolutely no effect on the sacrament. As long as it is done as prescribed in Scripture, it is valid. Once we meddle with the efficacy of a gift from God, it will only lead to superstition. This was further pronounced against the Donatists of the early church. What can man possibly add to the grace of God? NOTHING. We have tried, but it results in nothingness.
> 
> Joe



True, the holiness of the administrator does not change the effecaciousness of the sacrament. But can one whom we consider not to be in the visible church (Roman), and/or one who is NOT "in the Son" baptize in the name of the Son? As others have said, how is that different than my non-Christian aunt baptizing with a Trinitarian formula because she thinks its "beautiful" but "not really true."

-JK
PCA 
Cambridge MA

[Edited on 25-1-2005 by Breadloaf]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 25, 2005)

In 1642 this issue was brought up and the controversy started. Robert Barrow and another theologian named Barebone were the persons involved with this. You might want to google these guys and see if anything comes up. I haven't done this yet. Barbone was the Paedo baptist and Barrow was the credo. If you don't see anything under these two names look up Henry Jessy. He was a co-pastor with Barbone.

Title Praisegod Barbone's work...
A discourse tending to prove the Baptisme in, or under The Defection of Antichrist to be an Ordinance of Jesus Christ. As also That the Baptisme of Infants or Children is warrantable, and agreeable to the word of God. Wherein the perpetuity of the estate of Christs Church in the world, and the everlastingnesse of the Covenant of Almighty God to Abraham are set forth as Maine Grounds, and sundry other particular things are controverted, London, 1642

Long Title, Aye?

I just read about it today.

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Dan.... (Jan 25, 2005)

> I've always failed to see how a consistent and principled distinguishment can be made between Rome's baptism and a 10-year-old baptizing someone with a water bottle, if we do in reality consider Rome to be an apostate institution.





...similar to what I was saying in another recent thread: If I were to baptize my daughter in the kitchen sink (although improperly administered), so long as I say the Trinitarian formula, would her "baptism" be valid? If not, then why exactly would a RC baptism be valid?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 25, 2005)

We've discussed this in detail on this thread:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1976#pid61886

Check it out.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> In 1642 this issue was brought up and the controversy started. Robert Barrow and another theologian named Barebone were the persons involved with this. You might want to google these guys and see if anything comes up. I haven't done this yet. Barbone was the Paedo baptist and Barrow was the credo. If you don't see anything under these two names look up Henry Jessy. He was a co-pastor with Barbone.
> 
> Title Praisegod Barbone's work...
> ...



You can't find this thing. It seems to be lock up on some microfilm in Cleveland from what I understand. You can buy the use of it or something.


----------

