# Baptising Roman Catholics



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 21, 2008)

Should we Baptize previously "Baptized" Roman Catholics who want to join the local church?


----------



## SolaGratia (Aug 21, 2008)

Was Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, and so on rebaptized? No


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 21, 2008)

I realize there is a lot of theological underpinning of this doctrine.

My understanding of the PCA on this is that like the Lord's Supper, in order to recognize communion one would need to be a member of a church "where this Gospel is preached," which would not include churches which officially reject justification by faith (in Christ's righteousness) alone because that is, essentially, the Gospel.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Aug 21, 2008)

No.


----------



## jambo (Aug 21, 2008)

In RC doctrine baptism is essential for salvation. Hence up until recently when an RC baby was dying, calling the priest to administer baptism took priority over calling a doctor. RCs believe this washes away original sin and although does not guarantee salvation, not being baptised positively excludes any hope of salvation. It is also a sign that he belongs to the "one true church". Baptism therefore has a completely different meaning and significance for the RC than it does to the reformed. We do not recognise baptismal regeneration nor would we recognise Mormon, JW or any cult baptism. 

If anyone is converted, RC or otherwise, and has therefore really joined the one true church -the church invisible-then they should undergo Christian baptism. (The mode is a seperate issue)


----------



## SolaGratia (Aug 21, 2008)

The answer might be a "Yes" because of Vatican II. I need to check on that!


----------



## Herald (Aug 21, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Should we Baptize previously "Baptized" Roman Catholics who want to join the local church?



No need to ask a Baptist this question. I think this is a strictly for Presbyterian question.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 21, 2008)

Links and Downloads Manager - Ecclesiology - The Reformed Churches and Roman Catholic Baptism: An Anthology of Principle Texts - The PuritanBoard


----------



## P.F. (Aug 21, 2008)

If it is a seriously performed baptism with water in the name of the Triune God, why should it matter that the person performing the sacrament is an heretic? For those answering "yes," why? Is Baptism into the name of our Savior, or into the authority of his followers?

Why should/must the symbolic washing be repeated? After all, regeneration is a unique event.


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 21, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> Was Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, and so on rebaptized? No



Historical precedents, while interesting, are not binding. By the by, not all reformers agreed on this question; Viret disagreed (for one). Also, it was a huge inconsistency to recognize apostate churches' baptisms while severely condemning their practice of the Lord's Table.

The question would be: is the RC part of the visible church? Both sacraments are given to the visible church, and therefore, anyone who administers a "sacrament" in a synagogue of satan is not administering a sacrament, he's administering the table of demons.

It would be impossible to make a blanket statement about all RC churches, since not all are the same. Be that as it may, Christ has given the sacraments to the visible church. 

Cheers,


----------



## Seb (Aug 21, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Should we Baptize previously "Baptized" Roman Catholics who want to join the local church?
> ...



Don't forget us Dutch Reformed.  We don't re-baptize RCs, and I don't think we should.

The RCC Baptism, for all it faults, is still a Triune Baptism. 

From The Belgic Confession:



> Article XXXIV. Holy Baptism
> 
> [...]
> Therefore He has commanded all those who are His to be *baptized with pure water, into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit*, thereby signifying to us, that as water washes away the filth of the body when poured upon it, and is seen on the body of the baptized when sprinkled upon him, so does the blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit internally sprinkle the soul, cleanse it from its sins, and regenerate us from children of wrath unto children of God. *Not that this is effected by the external water, but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God*; who is our Red Sea, through which we must pass to escape the tyranny of Pharaoh, that is, the devil, and to enter into the spiritual land of Canaan.
> ...


----------



## kalawine (Aug 21, 2008)

Seb said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



AMEN brother! I don't think Luther or Calvin were re-baptised! Their RCC baptisms were good enough for them. Besides, if you are re-baptized aren't you putting too much emphasis on baptism?


----------



## Shane (Aug 22, 2008)

I was a Catholic for 30 years, and I dont know how we can even compare reformed Paedobaptism with a Catholic Baptism. It may be a "Triune Baptism" but it is completely different in its meaning. I supposedly entered the church of Christ and was cleansed of all my original sin at my baptism. 

So my  is that this is far from Christian baptism and we should rebaptise Roman Catholics. 
Catholics are not Christian in any form or way, there sacraments are supersticious heresy and I would not regard them as any more truthful than any mormon ceromony.


----------



## Grymir (Aug 22, 2008)

I also would go with no.


----------



## kvanlaan (Aug 22, 2008)

I was going to say no (based on historical evidence re: Calvin et al) but if Shane's post is accurate, I'm swayed somewhat.


----------



## Mayflower (Aug 22, 2008)

Read the link link:

The Tri-lemma; OR, DEATH BY THREE HORNS. 

THE PRESBYTERIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY NOT ABLE TO DECIDE THIS QUESTION:

"IS BAPTISM IN THE ROMISH CHURCH VALID?"

AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY WITHOUT UNBAPTIZING AND UNCHURCHING THE WHOLE PROTESTANT WORLD!

NO PROTESTANT CAN DECIDE IT, AND SAVE HIS BIBLE AND HIS BAPTISM

BY J. R. GRAVES,

Protestant Tri-Lemma


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 22, 2008)

It seems to me we have defined the issue:

1) Is a baptism effective only if it is done by a "true church"?

2) If so, do we define a "true church" by its doctrine of the Trinity alone or does it require also that the church hold to the Gospel of Salvation?

3) Do any other doctrines from Scripture also need to apply?


----------



## Mayflower (Aug 22, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> It seems to me we have defined the issue:
> 
> 1) Is a baptism effective only if it is done by a "true church"?
> 
> ...



You need to ask your self, is the RCC still a true church ?
If you think so, than ofcourse is there baptism valid, but if not so, how can you see this as a valid baptism, only because that's done in name of the Trinity ?


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 22, 2008)

Mayflower said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me we have defined the issue:
> ...



Right. The question comes into focus here... If the Roman Church officially rejects justification by Christ's righteousness alone (the Gospel), and the ultimate authority of Scripture (sola Scriptura) but does hold to a biblical doctrine of the Trinity and other important biblical doctrines, can baptism have God's unction to initiate children into the covenant community in communion with the church universal? This is a deep question, one that needs to be handled carefully.


----------



## ww (Aug 22, 2008)

Nope! Trinitarian Baptism is Valid Baptism!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 22, 2008)

Is it the Trinitarian formula alone?


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 22, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Should we Baptize previously "Baptized" Roman Catholics who want to join the local church?
> ...



Not sure why it would be a Preby question...but I would say yes, they should be baptized. Which would not be a re-baptism per se, but a first, actual, biblical baptism.


----------



## Seb (Aug 22, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Is it the Trinitarian formula alone?



On the Paedo side I think it primarily is. Using that formula you would re-baptize Mormons, JWs, etc. But not RCs, Seventh Day Adventist, Armstrongites, etc. 

But using that formula alone wouldn't we re-baptize Oneness-Pentecostals etc?

On the Credo side, some tend to re-baptize so many because for them it's tied into a valid confession of faith.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 22, 2008)

With regard to the "true church" element, would we require a person who was baptized as an infant in Protestant church by a known apostate to be re-baptized? I should hope not. We do not want to replay the Donatist Controversy.

Of course, there was much disagreement on this question in the 19th century presbyterian church, with I believe Hodge and Thornwell going toe-to-toe over the issue (Hodge saying "no"; Thornwell "yes").

I was reading the text of a sermon by Ligon Duncan on baptism, and he said that the Session at First Pres Jackson does not require re-baptism for an RC joining, _unless_ the person joining has a major issue over his baptism (the person is deeply convicted that the baptism was not valid). While this isn't a perfect solution to the issue, it does seem to be a _via media_.




Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Is it the Trinitarian formula alone?



A (deliberately) non-Trinitarian baptism is not the same thing as a RCC baptism. So if a oneness Pentecostal or Mormon converted, he or she would need to be baptized (not really "re", since the first was not a Christian baptism).


----------



## ww (Aug 22, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Is it the Trinitarian formula alone?



I'll let John Calvin answer that: 



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


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 22, 2008)

It seems the issue for the Presbyterian wil be a trinitarian baptism by which will be accepted a Romish baptism, an amazing thing in my eyes and diminishes in my estimation that strong polemic of John Gill on the matter which I before felt was a little rough, and the Baptist position which will recognize as only true baptism as a baptism for disciples alone (using Fred Malone's phrase to prevent the silly wrangling of words over 'believer's baptism). 

This has been an enlightening topic for me.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Aug 22, 2008)

whitway said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Is it the Trinitarian formula alone?
> ...



Spot on. I'll go with Calvin on this one. 

To the OP's question, I say nay.


----------



## Shane (Aug 23, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> A (deliberately) non-Trinitarian baptism is not the same thing as a RCC baptism. So if a oneness Pentecostal or Mormon converted, he or she would need to be baptized (not really "re", since the first was not a Christian baptism).



I probably do not know enough to debate this, but can we really say it is OK simply because it is Trinitrian? When the central meaning of the "sacrament" is competely wrong?

I hope I am alowed to post this to clear up what Catholic baptism means?
This is what the Catholic Chatecism says regarding baptism.

-------------------------------------
"1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse"; the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."6

1215 This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."7

1216 "This bath is called enlightenment, because those who receive this [catechetical] instruction are enlightened in their understanding 
. . . ."8 Having received in Baptism the Word, "the true light that enlightens every man," the person baptized has been "enlightened," he becomes a "son of light," indeed, he becomes "light" himself:9

Baptism is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift....We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God's Lordship"
--------------------------------

I was rebaptised as a Christian as I regarded my baptism in the Catholic church as completely wrong in its meaning.
You see even if it was Trinitarian my first baptism was not a Christian Baptism.

It is completely heretical in its meaning. Maybe I am missing something but in my limited knowledge that is where I stand.

I will be away for a week but will be eager to read the rest of the discussion when I get back.


----------

