# Resources on why we accept any trinitarian baptism



## SolaScriptura

I have a friend who is on the verge of accepting paedobaptism.  This has been a slow work in progress over the course of about 2 years... about 6 months ago I helped him see the legitimacy of covenant theology as a system and as of about 3 weeks ago he is seriously considering the issue of baptism. The cool thing is my friend is an EFCA pastor! Please pray for him as a switch could have serious ramifications.

Anyway, he has a question about why we (Reformed churches) accept baptism from anyone so long as it was administered with the Trinitarian formula. He would like some resources that explain why it is ok to accept the baptism of true heretics as long as they hold on to the use of the Trinitarian formula. He believes that doing so removes any real Gospel meaning from the sacrament.

Any resources would be helpful.
Thanks!

[Edited on 9-12-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

This resource may be helpful (particularly see Francis Turretin, pp. 48ff).


----------



## SolaScriptura

Attached is the PCA's Study Committee report on the validity of certain baptisms. Please note that this represents the majority report of the committee. I think it is well done and very helpful:

http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.pdf

Here is the minority report from the study committee (the folks who think that RC baptism should be accepted).

http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-093.pdf


----------



## BobVigneault

Explain to him that a baptism can be valid even if it is not scriptural. We face this same tension in many of our convictions and both our sacraments. Some won't go to a church because they don't serve alcoholic wine during the Lord's Supper. This does not take away from the validity of the sacrament.

Let's say an elder is ordained on a certain Suday. Somehow the pastor forgot to call the other elders to lay their hands on him and those who realized the mistake didn't want to make waves. A prayer of dedication was prayed and a vow was made but no hands. Was the ordination biblical? No. Was it valid? Most likely.

Or do you think I'm out to lunch here.


----------



## ServantOfKing

So as someone who was baptized Roman Catholic as an infant and then at age 12 immersed, would it be most correct to hold that RC baptism as my valid baptism not the one made with a profession of faith?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by ServantOfKing_
> So as someone who was baptized Roman Catholic as an infant and then at age 12 immersed, would it be most correct to hold that RC baptism as my valid baptism not the one made with a profession of faith?



The RC baptism was "valid" and a true baptism, according to the Reformed (and I believe Lutheran) viewpoint. Your second act at age 12 was not a "baptism," but superfluous and unnecessary, according to Reformed theology (as there can BE no "second" baptism).


----------



## ServantOfKing

That makes sense... so according to reformed theology it was just an unnecessary act not a true baptism? 

It makes sense, it's just funny because after finally coming to a Biblical understanding of baptism earlier this summer, I'm just now hitting me as to its ramifications on how I view my own baptism.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Ben,

Actually, I would _not_ accept any baptism simply on the basis of water and the Trinity, including Rome's. I would somewhat echo your friend's concern that such a view has negative implications for the meaning of the Gospel in baptism. That is because, as a sacrament of the Church (along with the Lord's Supper) I do not see how baptism can be administered but by a minister who is representative of a true church, which preaches the true Gospel (along with the sacraments and order). 

While it is true that many orthodox, Reformed theologians throughout history (Calvin included) have accepted the baptism of Rome as valid, not all have (I think Thornwell is one example) - and many Reformed pastors and thelogians today agree with me that Calvin and others were inconsistent on that point. There have been a number of discussions on the board regarding the issue, two of the most prominent ones being here and here.

Even if you do agree with (or end up agreeing with) the acceptance of Rome's baptism, I would definitely advise you to at least let your friend know that that is not the only view among the orthodox Reformed paedobaptists, historically or currently.


----------



## JOwen

If we do not accept Roman baptiams, Calvin was never a minister because he was never TRULY baptized. This would invalidate all the baptisms he preformed as well. Not to mention ordination.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Interestingly, in the documents I reference above... the MAJORITY vote of the PCA's study committee on the subject was to advise AGAINST accepting Roman baptism as valid.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Excuse my ignorance, as I am fairly new to the idea of Covenant Theology and infant baptism.

How is it possible that my baptism that was performed by a believing pastor on a believing child in a gospel church under the watchful eye of believing parents could be invalid simply because it was not performed when I was an infant, and yet, someone baptized by an apostate priest (RC) in an apostate church (RC) under the watchful eye of apostate parents be valid simply because it was performed when he was an infant?

I am really not trying to be sarcastic. I just truly don't understand. Would this not mean that any religion that claims some sort of Christian belief in the trinity could baptize infants and that would be acceptable to most Reformed people even if that religion denies justification by faith alone?


----------



## SRoper

"How is it possible that my baptism that was performed by a believing pastor on a believing child in a gospel church under the watchful eye of believing parents could be invalid simply because it was not performed when I was an infant, and yet, someone baptized by an apostate priest (RC) in an apostate church (RC) under the watchful eye of apostate parents be valid simply because it was performed when he was an infant?"

No one claimed that the first baptism you mentioned is invalid. What many are saying is if you were baptized as an infant and are "baptized" again when you are older, the second baptism is no baptism at all. We all agree that adults who come to faith and have not yet been baptized need to be baptized.

Actually the only part that is really in view here is the issue of the baptisms of an apostate church. The issue of the faith of the person who baptizes was already settled in the Donatist controversy.


----------



## SRoper

Furthermore, this in not an issue of paedobaptism vs. antipaedobaptism. The issue is the same no matter the age of the person who received a Roman baptism.


----------



## MW

If RCC baptisms are invalid, then my wife is unbaptised. I suppose that high church Anglican baptisms should also be considered as invalid -- which would make me unbaptised. Where will the line be drawn? Once you make the doctrinal intention of the church an issue here, in the current divided state of the church we will not be able to tell who, if any, are validly baptised. Better to adhere to the old way. Baptism is washing in water in the Trinitarian name -- that is valid baptism regardless of what the doctrinal intention of the minister or church is. What matters is God's faithfulness to His promises. The unfaithfulness of men cannot make void the faithfulness of God.


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Baptism is washing in water in the Trinitarian name -- that is valid baptism regardless of what the doctrinal intention of the minister or church is.



Then by this you affirm the legitimacy of Mormon baptisms. 

I agree with the Majority opinion that I have posted above.


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Baptism is washing in water in the Trinitarian name -- that is valid baptism regardless of what the doctrinal intention of the minister or church is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then by this you affirm the legitimacy of Mormon baptisms.
Click to expand...


Mormon baptism is not washing in water in the Trinitarian name. By profession they cannot even be regarded as washing in water in the name of divinity. Hence I do not affirm the legitimacy of Mormon baptisms.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Here comes the equivocation... 
They use water and they use the Trinitarian formula. 

Read teh majority report.


----------



## Scott Bushey

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs3/cotvorcb/cotvorcb.html

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/rebap.html

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs6/acts19/acts19.html


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> If we do not accept Roman baptiams, Calvin was never a minister because he was never TRULY baptized. This would invalidate all the baptisms he preformed as well. Not to mention ordination.



Going along with the three marks of a true church, most would agree that Rome did not anathematize the Gospel until Trent - at which time Calvin and his contemporary Reformers would have already been baptized.



> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> If RCC baptisms are invalid, then my wife is unbaptised. I suppose that high church Anglican baptisms should also be considered as invalid -- which would make me unbaptised. Where will the line be drawn? Once you make the doctrinal intention of the church an issue here, in the current divided state of the church we will not be able to tell who, if any, are validly baptised. Better to adhere to the old way. Baptism is washing in water in the Trinitarian name -- that is valid baptism regardless of what the doctrinal intention of the minister or church is. What matters is God's faithfulness to His promises. The unfaithfulness of men cannot make void the faithfulness of God.



The Church of England has not anathematized the Gospel and become a synagogue of Satan, as Westminster and essentally all of historic Reformed Christendom has recognized Rome as having done since Trent. And the reason that is significant is because the issue is not the doctrinal beliefs of the person administering the sacrament, but rather the nature and validity of the ecclesiastical body as a whole (i.e. whether it is part of the visible Church). Along that line, what can Rome be said to have as a supposed visible church of Christ that the Mormon church does not?

Also, would you partake of the Mass at, say, a Catholic funeral, wedding or the like?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Also, would you partake of the Mass at, say, a Catholic funeral, wedding or the like?



Absolutely not! (And I would hope that none on this board would ever consider it!)

But this is a non sequitor if it is being used as an argument against accepting RC baptisms. Most would readily admit that RC sacraments are not bene esse of the Lord's sacraments, but the question is weather or not they contain the esse of the sacraments.

Following this, it would be better to be baptized in a reformed church, as the administration of the sacraments is more pure, just as the administration of the word is more pure. Therefore, if one has the choice, one should always choose the more pure of the two, especially where one church has denied and yes anathemetized the true gospel. But the question at hand should be more "How do we consider the baptism of those already baptized in the Roman Church State"? Is it valid or not? (Not bene)

Is there an administration of the Word in the RCC (however marred and apostate it might be)? Or when a priest reads the Word, because of the offical church doctrines, should one consider that "administration" in NO SENSE an administration of the Word?

The same line of thinking could be applied to baptism.

If it is a baptism at all, it is a valid baptism. Because it signifies regeneration, the sign is only as good as what it points to. Becasue one is only regenerated once, it is important that we not "redo" our baptism. 

I am still thinking through the issues, but lean toward accepting RC baptisms (while deploring the RC ).


----------



## SolaScriptura

Again, and some of you really need to think about this as seriously as the PCA study committe has... There MUST be more involved than simply water and the invocation of the Trinitarian words, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" because if those are ALL that it takes for "it" to be considered a legitimate baptism then we MUST concede that the Mormons have legitimate baptisms. But of course you don't want to say that... so you equivocate. 

If Rome is not a Christian church - and my Standards lump marrying a papist in the same class as marrying a heathen... call the Pope anti-Christ, etc... - then there is NO WAY that we can possibly argue that the priests who administer their sacrament are "lawfully ordained" or that they are giving a Christian sacrament any more than we can say that of the Mormon elders who baptize... at least not without equivocation, contradiction, and/or a general double standard.

But the fact that NONE of us would consider accepting a Mormon baptism as legitimate despite the fact that it is done with water and the invocation of the words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" should tell us that there IS more to the legitimate administration of the sacrament than merely following the right formula.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> But the fact that NONE of us would consider accepting a Mormon baptism as legitimate despite the fact that it is done with water and the invocation of the words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" should tell us that there IS more to the legitimate administration of the sacrament than merely following the right formula.




Trent and Calvin agree that 'baptism by heretics' is valid 


Alleges Trent:

"Whosoever shall say that Baptism, which is also given by heretics in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism -- let him be anathema!" Responds 


Calvin:"Canon IV. 

What the Minister intends to do, is of little consequence to us.... Let it suffice then, to have been baptized in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit -- whatever may have been the ignorance or impiety of those who administered baptism to us. Man is merely the hand. It is Christ alone Who truly and properly baptizes."

[Edited on 9-16-2006 by Scott Bushey]

[Edited on 9-16-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Trent and Calvin agree that 'baptism by heretics' is valid...



So you would recommend to a Session that it accept a Mormon baptism?

[Edited on 9-16-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> So you would recommend to a Session that it accept a Mormon baptism?



I would.


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> So you would recommend to a Session that it accept a Mormon baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would.
Click to expand...


Ok. 
Well, I profoundly disagree with your position... but I sure can't accuse you of being inconsistent.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> So you would recommend to a Session that it accept a Mormon baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.
> Well, I profoundly disagree with your position... but I sure can't accuse you of being inconsistent.
Click to expand...


Was Zipporahs circumcision invalid?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> So you would recommend to a Session that it accept a Mormon baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.
> Well, I profoundly disagree with your position... but I sure can't accuse you of being inconsistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Zipporahs circumcision invalid?
Click to expand...


That's a great point Scott. Calvin viemently opposed Zipporah's "administration" of circumcision on her son, as she had absolutely no authority to do so, and yet it appeased the wrath of God (on either Moses or his son).


----------



## Scott Bushey

Rebaptism is a historic Anti-Protestant heresy.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Scott,

If a newly-converted friend of mine from college were to ask me if I could administer baptism to him, and I sprinkled water to him with the Trinitarian formula in our dorm or student center, would you consider him baptized?



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Is there an administration of the Word in the RCC (however marred and apostate it might be)? Or when a priest reads the Word, because of the offical church doctrines, should one consider that "administration" in NO SENSE an administration of the Word?
> 
> The same line of thinking could be applied to baptism.



I agree that the same line of thinking can be applied to both the preached Word and the administered sacrament (in this case baptism). And with regard to the Word, would I consider the reading of the Word by a priest a beneficial hearing of the Word itself? Yes - in the same sense that I would consider any given lay-person going through a passage of Scripture with a friend, or even an unbelieving professor discussing passages of Genesis with a humanities class. The Word always has the power to convict and purify the mind and heart, in any context or setting.

But if we want to compare the Word to the administration of the sacraments, what we need to specifically compare is the preached Word that carries the authority of the Church with it. And in that sense, I would indeed consider the reading or preaching of the Word by a priest _no administration_ of the Word at all, any more than I would consider family devotions or class discussions to have the administrative nature or authority of the preached Word. And that is because Rome is not a church, any more than those other institutions (the family or the college).



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> If it is a baptism at all, it is a valid baptism. Because it signifies regeneration, the sign is only as good as what it points to. Becasue one is only regenerated once, it is important that we not "redo" our baptism.



Agreed - and as I explained above with regard to the preached Word as well, I do not accept their baptism as a valid baptism any more than I would accept my baptizing of a newly converted friend. But since you _do_ consider Rome's baptism a valid baptism at all, your first sentence above logically applies to the Supper as well: Either it is a valid administration of it, or it is not. If Rome can validly administer the sacraments, why would you refuse to partake in the means of grace of their administration of the Supper?


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Was Zipporahs circumcision invalid?



Sigh... 

It was irregular. An analogous situation in modern churches would be someone coming for membership having been baptized by his youth pastor in a hot tub while on a youth retreat... or someone being baptized by his (unordained) dad because the local church is "fine" with it.

The question of the acceptability of Roman baptisms is more akin to me asking: Did the circumcision of the Egyptians or most of the pagans in the ANE make them members of the covenant people of God simply because they experienced the same physical thing as the people of Israel?

NO. 

Because intent and context play a part.

But you disagree and I understand why.... I just hope you can understand why many of us disagree.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Scott,
> 
> If a newly-converted friend of mine from college were to ask me if I could administer baptism to him, and I sprinkled water to him with the Trinitarian formula in our dorm or student center, would you consider him baptized?



You wouldn't do that, so, it is a red herring. 
:bigsmile:


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Was Zipporahs circumcision invalid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh...
> 
> It was irregular. An analogous situation in modern churches would be someone coming for membership having been baptized by his youth pastor in a hot tub while on a youth retreat... or someone being baptized by his (unordained) dad because the local church is "fine" with it.
> 
> The question of the acceptability of Roman baptisms is more akin to me asking: Did the circumcision of the Egyptians or most of the pagans in the ANE make them members of the covenant people of God simply because they experienced the same physical thing as the people of Israel?
Click to expand...


ANE? If the rite was administered, they were truly in the visible church; whether they were in the invisible, only God would know.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Please show me one instance in the whole of scripture where someone was rebaptised?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Scott,
> 
> If a newly-converted friend of mine from college were to ask me if I could administer baptism to him, and I sprinkled water to him with the Trinitarian formula in our dorm or student center, would you consider him baptized?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't do that, so, it is a red herring.
> :bigsmile:
Click to expand...


Suppose then that it is a low-church evangelical friend of mine on campus, who administers it to her newly-converted friend. Was it a baptism?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Please show me one instance in the whole of scripture where someone was rebaptised?



Scott, everyone here would agree that "rebaptism" is an error; and the issue is whether so-called "baptisms" like Rome's and my on-campus friend's are really baptisms at all in the first place.


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> ANE?



Sorry... ANE = Ancient Near East.



> If the rite was administered, they were truly in the visible church; whether they were in the invisible, only God would know.





Ok. Thanks for your input. Peace.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> And that is because Rome is not a church, any more than those other institutions (the family or the college).



And this is another related question that is vital in answering the validity of RC's baptism. Is the RC a church in ANY sense?

The WCF seems to suggest that Rome is in a sense a church:



> VI. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.[14] [but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, *that exalts himself, in the Church,* against Christ and all that is called God.]



I am still thinking through this myself, but it seems to me that even us reformed folk recognize Rome as a church *on SOME level* even today. What do we call it? The Roman Catholic CHURCH. This is a tough issue for me to be sure, as I agree that it is surely a synagogue of Satan. I don't want to come off as defending Rome.



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> If Rome can validly administer the sacraments, why would you refuse to partake in the means of grace of their administration of the Supper?



Again, if I met a pagan that had just converted to Christ, and he desired to become baptized, I would never recommend him go to a RC to do it. Neither would I recommend him go to the local "evangelical" mega-Arminian church to do it either. I would count them both to be valid, but not as pure. 

Yet because of the thing signified by baptism (a ONE-TIME event), I would feel safer accepting a Roman baptism (while not calling it pure by any means).


----------



## Scott Bushey

> I am still thinking through this myself, but it seems to me that even us reformed folk recognize Rome as a church *on SOME level* even today.



Jeff,
I don't believe that the reformed would recognize Rome as a church per se; the key is who is doing the baptising, i.e. Christ.


----------



## ServantOfKing

I am honestly wondering why a Mormon baptism would be considered a baptism at all - when they deny the deity of Christ and do not administer it in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit? 
The way I have always understood it is that they are in no way a Christian church, and they have never been at any time in history. 
I know that the OPC does not accept Mormon baptisms, as my friend was raised in the Mormon church, came to Christ and was baptized into membership of the OP congregation. The "baptism" that the Mormon "church" performed was not accepted because it isn't trinitarian and the Mormon religion is not a Christian religion. 
What is the reasoning behind accepting the Mormon version of baptism? 



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> So you would recommend to a Session that it accept a Mormon baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would.
Click to expand...


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> ANE?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry... ANE = Ancient Near East.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the rite was administered, they were truly in the visible church; whether they were in the invisible, only God would know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Thanks for your input. Peace.
Click to expand...


Ben,
Did I misunderstand your question? Seriously?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by ServantOfKing_
> I am honestly wondering why a Mormon baptism would be considered a baptism at all - when they deny the deity of Christ and do not administer it in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit?
> The way I have always understood it is that they are in no way a Christian church, and they have never been at any time in history.
> I know that the OPC does not accept Mormon baptisms, as my friend was raised in the Mormon church, came to Christ and was baptized into membership of the OP congregation. The "baptism" that the Mormon "church" performed was not accepted because it isn't trinitarian and the Mormon religion is not a Christian religion.
> What is the reasoning behind accepting the Mormon version of baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> So you would recommend to a Session that it accept a Mormon baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Ashley,
Because the reformed have never believed in rebaptism. There are some links I have placed above; please read them for a better understanding.


----------



## Peter

The Popish Church is faithful to the fundamentals of Christianity. They adhere to the Apostle's Creed, the Trinitarian formulas, they reject the errors of Pelagius and the most egregious forms of semi-pelagianism. Only in the superstructure is the Romanist Church rotten. They are a real Christian Church (albeit a harlotrous one) with a valid ministry that efficaciously administers baptism.

Jesus said that the papists of his time, the scribes and pharisees, still sat in the seat of Moses as the readers and interpreters of the law. Despite continuously contradicting the law by their practice and their false traditions their authority was not extinguished. The Popish church has the scriptures and is the means of distributing them for half the christians in the world. The many errors of Rome cannot obliterate the gospel. From the perspective of Satan, this is the genius of the Romish system. After the triumph of Christ over paganism the devil tried to re-establish it but was far more successful subverting Christ's offices and the mission of the church by infecting it with superstition and idolatry. Even though languishing several hundred years under Anti-Christian Roman apostacy the visible church was never lost and though corrupted the gospel and the worship of God survived with it.


----------



## ServantOfKing

Thanks for those links. I read through the shorter one earlier and skimmed some of the longer ones. I am on board with the notion that rebaptism is completely wrong. I do not see a problem with accepting the Roman Catholic baptism. 
My main question is whether or not the Mormon "baptism" is baptism at all. They don't believe Jesus is God. & they don't baptize in the name of the trinity. So what is it that actually makes it a baptism? 
Is it deemed more acceptable for some reason because they are a more established cult? 



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ServantOfKing_
> I am honestly wondering why a Mormon baptism would be considered a baptism at all - when they deny the deity of Christ and do not administer it in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit?
> The way I have always understood it is that they are in no way a Christian church, and they have never been at any time in history.
> I know that the OPC does not accept Mormon baptisms, as my friend was raised in the Mormon church, came to Christ and was baptized into membership of the OP congregation. The "baptism" that the Mormon "church" performed was not accepted because it isn't trinitarian and the Mormon religion is not a Christian religion.
> What is the reasoning behind accepting the Mormon version of baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> So you would recommend to a Session that it accept a Mormon baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ashley,
> Because the reformed have never believed in rebaptism. There are some links I have placed above; please read them for a better understanding.
Click to expand...


----------



## non dignus

thank you Peter for that short analysis of the RC,- best I've seen.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Please show me one instance in the whole of scripture where someone was rebaptised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, everyone here would agree that "rebaptism" is an error; and the issue is whether so-called "baptisms" like Rome's and my on-campus friend's are really baptisms at all in the first place.
Click to expand...


Chris,
As I have said, baptisms from Rome have always been seen as valid; a year ago, I was rejecting them for the same principles Ben is saying. After further studies, I see why Rome's baptism is valid as Zipporah's circumcision. How many unregenerate pastors out there place the sign weekly? Are their baptisms any less valid?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by ServantOfKing_
> Thanks for those links. I read through the shorter one earlier and skimmed some of the longer ones. I am on board with the notion that rebaptism is completely wrong. I do not see a problem with accepting the Roman Catholic baptism.
> My main question is whether or not the Mormon "baptism" is baptism at all. They don't believe Jesus is God. & they don't baptize in the name of the trinity. So what is it that actually makes it a baptism?
> Is it deemed more acceptable for some reason because they are a more established cult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ServantOfKing_
> I am honestly wondering why a Mormon baptism would be considered a baptism at all - when they deny the deity of Christ and do not administer it in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit?
> The way I have always understood it is that they are in no way a Christian church, and they have never been at any time in history.
> I know that the OPC does not accept Mormon baptisms, as my friend was raised in the Mormon church, came to Christ and was baptized into membership of the OP congregation. The "baptism" that the Mormon "church" performed was not accepted because it isn't trinitarian and the Mormon religion is not a Christian religion.
> What is the reasoning behind accepting the Mormon version of baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> So you would recommend to a Session that it accept a Mormon baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ashley,
> Because the reformed have never believed in rebaptism. There are some links I have placed above; please read them for a better understanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Well this may be a moot issue; They don't baptise in the F, S and HG? If they do not, no, their baptism would be invalid; I was going on the premise that they baptised in the trinity.


----------



## Larry Hughes

As always I like to draw a distinction between church denominations and churche bodies that teach a thing and the poor unknowing souls submitting to a thing under said bodies. That being said:

1.	Rebaptism has been considered more than an error, that's soft pedaling the reality and compromising the Cross altogether. 2 + 3 = 6 is an error. Telling a man a second baptism is valid in lieu of his first is another Gospel and damned. Requiring a second baptism is works and another Gospel and thus damned. Telling an infant who was baptized by sprinkling as an infant who is now an adult that he/she must be baptized via immersion and their former baptism is not based in the Gospel and promise, but that they need one based in their faith is another Gospel and damned (since faith does not equal Gospel, the basis for rebaptism is demonic). Scoffing and telling this same person that their baptism which is a sign of God´s promise to them that they trusted in before hand is mocking them for their trusting in said promise signified and is thus persecution without the Sword JUST as Ishmael, the child of law, persecuted Isaac, the child of promise. Rebaptism would be and Israelite being recircumcised into an Egyptian circumcision if it were possible. Telling such to a child of God baptized as an infant and by an non-immersion mode is sin and causing a stumbling of God´s children by those proffering rebaptism. It would be akin to an adult later telling my children when I´m not around, "œNo, you don´t really have your father´s name nor his loving mercy, you must prove your self with a mob like faith in order to earn such", thus causing them to fear me in an unrelational and pagan way and to NOT trust in their father. Ministers who do rebaptize ought to be warned of this damnable practice against God´s people, teaching them FALSELY to not trust in their Heavenly Father Who has baptized them, it will not be something lightly taken by those professing to be teachers and shepherds, they will give account of this false Gospel! Thus, it is no simple error to so instruct the conscience of the child of God. Luther called it sacrilege because it mocks God and he was right. A rebaptism is to throw off Christ and the Cross and renounce the grace of God. Those who have been rebaptized and come to understand this denial of the Gospel should simply repent, Gospel, gracious repentance not legal repentance and then thank their heavenly Father Who already gave them His name and the Gospel in the first baptism sovereignly and in spite of all men involved.
2.	Mormon baptism IS NOT valid because they do not name the true Trinity. The "Father," "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are not the three persons in which the one divinity subsists, but three gods who form a divinity, hence utterly pagan. And the Mormon "œgospel" is again, a false gospel patently developed upon works. Hence, Mormon baptism neither communicate the true name of God OR the Gospel itself (the later is where rebaptisms fail).

Ldh

[Edited on 9-16-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> As always I like to draw a distinction between church bodies churches that teach a thing and the poor unknowing souls submitting to a thing under said bodies. That being said:
> 
> 1.	Rebaptism has been considered more than an error, that's soft pedaling the reality and compromising the Cross altogether. 2 + 3 = 6 is an error. Telling a man a second baptism is valid in lieu of his first is another Gospel and damned. Requiring a second baptism is works and another Gospel and thus damned. Telling an infant who was baptized by sprinkling as an infant who is now an adult that he/she must be baptized via immersion and it basis is not the Gospel but their faith is another Gospel and damned. Scoffing and telling this same person that their baptism which is a sign of God´s promise to them that they trusted in heretofore is mocking them for their trusting in said promise signified and is thus persecution without the Sword JUST as Ishmael, the child of law, persecuted Isaac, the child of promise. Telling such to a child of God baptized such is sin and causing a stumbling of God´s children by those proffering rebaptism. It would be akin to an adult later telling my children when I´m not around, "œNo, you don´t really have your father´s name nor his loving mercy, you must prove your self with a mob like faith in order to earn such", thus causing them to fear me in an unrelational and pagan way. Ministers who do rebaptize ought to be warned of this damnable practice against God´s people! Thus, it is no simple error to so instruct the conscience of the child of God. Luther called it sacrilege because it mocks God and he was right. A rebaptism is to throw off Christ and the Cross and renounce the grace of God. Those who have been rebaptized and come to understand this denial of the Gospel should simply repent, Gospel, gracious repentance not legal repentance and then thank their heavenly Father Who already gave them His name and the Gospel in the first baptism sovereignly and in spite of all men involved.
> 2.	Mormon baptism IS NOT valid because they do not name the true Trinity. The "Father," "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are not the three persons in which the one divinity subsists, but three gods who form a divinity, hence utterly pagan. And the Mormon "œgospel" is again, a false gospel patently developed upon works. Hence, Mormon baptism neither communicate the true name of God OR the Gospel itself (the later is where rebaptisms fail).
> 
> Ldh



Larry,
Excellent post; my previous posts in regards to the Mormons was going on the premise that they did indeed baptise in the trinity.


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by ServantOfKing_
> My main question is whether or not the Mormon "baptism" is baptism at all. They don't believe Jesus is God. & they don't baptize in the name of the trinity. So what is it that actually makes it a baptism?
> Is it deemed more acceptable for some reason because they are a more established cult?



Yours is a good question. By the way: They DO use the Trinitarian formula. Of course, they don't mean what we mean when they refer to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit... but once we grant that then we move into the realm of saying that there must be more than the recitation of a formula and that intended meaning plays a part. I'm willing to grant that. Some here aren't.

[Edited on 9-16-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ServantOfKing_
> My main question is whether or not the Mormon "baptism" is baptism at all. They don't believe Jesus is God. & they don't baptize in the name of the trinity. So what is it that actually makes it a baptism?
> Is it deemed more acceptable for some reason because they are a more established cult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a good question. By the way: They DO use the Trinitarian formula. Of course, they don't mean what we mean when they refer to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit... but once we grant that then we move into the realm of saying that there must be more than the recitation of a formula and that intended meaning plays a part. I'm willing to grant that. Some here aren't.
> 
> [Edited on 9-16-2006 by SolaScriptura]
Click to expand...


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> 2.	Mormon baptism IS NOT valid because they do not name the true Trinity. The "Father," "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are not the three persons in which the one divinity subsists, but three gods who form a divinity, hence utterly pagan. And the Mormon "œgospel" is again, a false gospel patently developed upon works. Hence, Mormon baptism neither communicate the true name of God OR the Gospel itself (the later is where rebaptisms fail).
> 
> Ldh



Here is the type of equivocation to which I referred above.
For you, the meaning of words, the doctrines involved, etc... MATTER in regards to the Mormons. 

But they don't when it comes to the RC. 

I have a sneaking suspicion that what is really at play here is a deep seated sympathy towards the RC church that just can't quite come to grips with what it means to say that it is a synagogue of Satan instead of a part of the body of Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> 2.	Mormon baptism IS NOT valid because they do not name the true Trinity. The "Father," "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are not the three persons in which the one divinity subsists, but three gods who form a divinity, hence utterly pagan. And the Mormon "œgospel" is again, a false gospel patently developed upon works. Hence, Mormon baptism neither communicate the true name of God OR the Gospel itself (the later is where rebaptisms fail).
> 
> Ldh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the type of equivocation to which I referred above.
> For you, the meaning of words, the doctrines involved, etc... MATTER in regards to the Mormons.
> 
> But they don't when it comes to the RC.
> 
> I have a sneaking suspicion that what is really at play here is a deep seated sympathy towards the RC church that just can't quite come to grips with what it means to say that it is a synagogue of Satan instead of a part of the body of Christ.
Click to expand...


Ben,
With all due respect, you are missing the point. Much like I did previously. I HATE Rome and everything that the organization represents. However, it is Christ whom truly baptises, not the administration.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Scott,

Thanks. I figured that´s why you said what you said early.


Ben, 


Not at all. The RCC does baptize in the true Trinity with meaning and all behind it. This they have never renounced.

Yes, they, RCC, have anathemized the Gospel in Cannon but that in and of itself does not nullify the baptism which is STILL grace and Gospel. What you HAVE to understand and grasp is that a second baptism by its very nature throws off entirely the cross of Christ. There is NO escaping that. It is what that second false ceremony communicates and signifies. It is always in the baptistic paradigm to make Baptism founded upon faith itself and not the Gospel itself, hence the redoing. This is why one group does and one group does not, fundamentally Reformed and Lutherans at this level understand baptism ENTIRELY different the Credo churches, you don´t even have to enter infants into the debate on this point. Yet infants do enter the debate by the nature of holy Baptism, thus Luther said baptism looses its true Gospel witness if we cease to baptize infants and move toward adults only (hence the utter confusion today on the sacrament, Luther was somewhat prophetic in seeing this, so to speak). If the Gospel is understood in the baptism and it is truly understood as God´s work upon the infant AND adult, there is absolutely NO reason for rebaptism. There is absolutely no regard for the credo argument of whether or not infants possess faith, it´s a red herring foisted forward to sustain a false view of baptism altogether.

I hope that helps some.

Blessings,

Ldh


----------



## ServantOfKing

Would a Roman baptism be valid because their teaching on the trinity and Jesus' deity is overall correct, while a Mormon baptism would be invalid because their teaching on the trinity and Jesus is completely heretical? 
For example, I think that a person can be a member of a RC church, trust in Jesus' death and resurrection to save them, be uneducated as to the church's teaching and the scripture, and be a true child of God.
I do not think that a person in an LDS congregation can be a Christian.
Is that a general consensus?


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> However, it is Christ whom truly baptises, not the administration.



That sounds pious, but it really is a smokescreen.

I mean, then why bother with the whole "lawfully ordained" part... heck, Jesus can baptize us w/o human instrumentality at all (as in Spirit baptism). 
You are right in that the spiritual aspects of what true baptism signifies and seals are done by the power and work of God and not by man, hence the legitimacy of irregular baptisms.

But in terms of the administration of water and baptism into the visible church, it is WE who baptize as Christ's ministers, in Christ's name, under Christ's authority.


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> If the Gospel is understood in the baptism and it is truly understood as God´s work upon the infant AND adult, there is absolutely NO reason for rebaptism.
> 
> Ldh



I appreciate this. Read again what you said. That is a mighty big IF...


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by ServantOfKing_
> Would a Roman baptism be valid because their teaching on the trinity and Jesus' deity is overall correct, while a Mormon baptism would be invalid because their teaching on the trinity and Jesus is completely heretical?



Ashley,
It is formula; it is not dependant upon the unregenerate pastor administering the sacrament, but Christs faithfulness.



> For example, I think that a person can be a member of a RC church, trust in Jesus' death and resurrection to save them, be uneducated as to the church's teaching and the scripture, and be a true child of God.
> I do not think that a person in an LDS congregation can be a Christian.
> Is that a general consensus?



Surely, there are some of Gods elect in the Mormon church; they will leave eventually.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> However, it is Christ whom truly baptises, not the administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds pious, but it really is a smokescreen.
> 
> I mean, then why bother with the whole "lawfully ordained" part... heck, Jesus can baptize us w/o human instrumentality at all (as in Spirit baptism).
> You are right in that the spiritual aspects of what true baptism signifies and seals are done by the power and work of God and not by man, hence the legitimacy of irregular baptisms.
> 
> But in terms of the administration of water and baptism into the visible church, it is WE who baptize as Christ's ministers, in Christ's name, under Christ's authority.
Click to expand...


Ben,
You write:



> That sounds pious, but it really is a smokescreen.



The above says I am not _pious_ and I am trying to mislead you intentionally! ???

We both understand about whom is to apply the sacrament. Is the unregenerate pastor whom is placing the sign upon the baptisee any less valid?


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> If the Gospel is understood in the baptism and it is truly understood as God´s work upon the infant AND adult, there is absolutely NO reason for rebaptism.
> 
> Ldh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate this. Read again what you said. That is a mighty big IF...
Click to expand...


I know many such cases, including my own. Consider that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the time of administration.

[Edited on 9-16-2006 by Peter]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> If the Gospel is understood in the baptism and it is truly understood as God´s work upon the infant AND adult, there is absolutely NO reason for rebaptism.
> 
> Ldh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate this. Read again what you said. That is a mighty big IF...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know many such cases, including my own. Consider that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the time of administration.
> 
> [Edited on 9-16-2006 by Peter]
Click to expand...


Exactly; what does the above say about paedobaptism in general?


----------



## Scott Bushey

To be fair to both sides of the issue, here is something by M. Horne. It is from Hodge's position:

Hodge on RC Baptism


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> And that is because Rome is not a church, any more than those other institutions (the family or the college).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is another related question that is vital in answering the validity of RC's baptism. Is the RC a church in ANY sense?
> 
> The WCF seems to suggest that Rome is in a sense a church:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VI. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.[14] [but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, *that exalts himself, in the Church,* against Christ and all that is called God.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still thinking through this myself, but it seems to me that even us reformed folk recognize Rome as a church *on SOME level* even today. What do we call it? The Roman Catholic CHURCH. This is a tough issue for me to be sure, as I agree that it is surely a synagogue of Satan. I don't want to come off as defending Rome.
Click to expand...


Jeff, I´m at least glad you´re being open and consistent enough to acknowledge that this issue is essentially dependent on the question of whether or not Rome is a true church. From my experience (including on this board), most of those who affirm Rome´s baptism do so acknowledging that Rome is not a true church in any sense, and yet still attempt to affirm her baptism. That was Calvin´s position, and it is the inconsistency that I usually see accompanying those who affirm Rome´s baptism.

So concerning the question of Rome´s status as a true church or not, I honestly have to say I´m not sure how to interpret the clause "œin the Church" in the Confession, and would value input from more learned people on the board regarding that clause, and Westminster´s view on Rome as an institution at large. Even so, I have a hard time seeing how the previous section could be interpreted in any way so as to still render Rome a true church in any sense, and how an institution could ever be a "œChurch of Christ" and a "œsynagogue of Satan" at the same time: "œThe purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will." Assuming that the divines were mindful of Rome in writing this section as well, the middle sentence seems to absolutely claim that she is no part of the Church; particularly, the "œnevertheless" would not make sense if those "œsynagogues of Satan" were still true churches in _some_ sense, for the whole point of it is to say (in effect), "œIn spite of _that_, there will always at least be a true visible Church in which to worship." That would only make sense if the "œ_that_" was saying that some former churches had ceased to be true visible churches.

Furthermore, if Rome were still a true church in any sense, there would be significant implications for the Reformation, and the legitimacy of the Protestant churches as a whole; it would have been (and would still be) a giant schism, since the Reformers would not have had the right to depart if Rome had still been a true church. That was certainly Calvin´s view, as was shown in the previous threads I referenced near the beginning of this thread. Also, in addition to the implications for the legitimate or schismatic nature of the Reformation and Protestantism, this issue gets to the heart of the Gospel itself: For the teaching of the true Gospel is the first necessary mark of a true church. No Gospel, no church. Hence, if Rome is still a true church in any sense, then the Gospel she teaches, though tainted, must be said to still at least be pure enough to be saving; and in that case, Catholics could be saved not only _in spite of_ their church´s "œgospel," but _because of_ it, and even Catholics who fully believe every bit of the "œgospel" taught by Rome would be saved by it.



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> If Rome can validly administer the sacraments, why would you refuse to partake in the means of grace of their administration of the Supper?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if I met a pagan that had just converted to Christ, and he desired to become baptized, I would never recommend him go to a RC to do it. Neither would I recommend him go to the local "evangelical" mega-Arminian church to do it either. I would count them both to be valid, but not as pure.
> 
> Yet because of the thing signified by baptism (a ONE-TIME event), I would feel safer accepting a Roman baptism (while not calling it pure by any means).
Click to expand...


Maybe a better question than if you would personally partake of the Mass would be this: If a present evangelical _did_ decide to partake of it at some event, do you think they would have validly (even if not purely) received the Lord´s Supper as a means of grace that day?



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Please show me one instance in the whole of scripture where someone was rebaptised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, everyone here would agree that "rebaptism" is an error; and the issue is whether so-called "baptisms" like Rome's and my on-campus friend's are really baptisms at all in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris,
> As I have said, baptisms from Rome have always been seen as valid; a year ago, I was rejecting them for the same principles Ben is saying. After further studies, I see why Rome's baptism is valid as Zipporah's circumcision. How many unregenerate pastors out there place the sign weekly? Are their baptisms any less valid?
Click to expand...


Again, the issue is not the personal views or even salvific state of the pastor administering it, but rather the validity of the ecclesiastical institution as a whole, since baptism is a sacrament _of the Church_. I´m still waiting to hear your answer on whether a low-church evangelical friend of mine baptizing her newly-converted friend in their dorm with water an the Trinity would be a valid baptism.



> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Telling an infant who was baptized by sprinkling as an infant who is now an adult that he/she must be baptized via immersion and their former baptism is not based in the Gospel and promise, but that they need one based in their faith is another Gospel and damned (since faith does not equal Gospel, the basis for rebaptism is demonic).



Well, as I´ve made clear already, _no one_ here is advocating rebaptism, but challenging whether certain so-called "œbaptisms" are baptisms at all. Furthermore, even though I certainly agree with you that rebaptism is a great error and a misunderstanding of the nature of the sacrament, I hope you do not believe the logical implications of your statement above, which would mean that the vast majority of historic Particular Baptists have been teaching another Gospel and have been damned. That is ridiculous.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Ben,

Maybe this will help:

It's not at ALL a big "if", it is the nature of the Gospel, Good News. This is the VERY point of any sacrament or sign, as Calvin points out, to help us in our weakness...a how can I know it is "For Me". Just because men abuse it does not mean we are allowed to redefine it any more than abusers of the Gospel do not allow us to alter its pure message. Just because a killer kills with a knife does not foresake the surgeons healing use of it.

A crucial piece of the puzzle that often goes missing is that baptism is God´s work and doing and not man´s, yet God uses men as his arms and legs so to speak to carry it out in time and space. That´s a HUGE difference in baptistic paradigms versus reformed and Lutheran. This is why a first baptism given in His name is valid and a second one NEVER CAN be, God never baptizes again and God never regards HIS first and own baptism as invalid for HE gave it and it is rooted in HIS promise, it is HIS sign, HIS Gospel, HIS, HIS, HIS. Thus, it is NEVER invalid per credo thinking and thus a second, third, fourth or etc"¦baptism is NEVER a valid baptism and NEVER from God.

Ask a Baptist why they rebaptize. They must define the first as invalid thus denying the true work of God and His sign, so that the "œrebaptism" becomes to them the only real baptism. This they can only do if baptism itself is rooted in actual faith rather than the promise and thus it must communicate incorrectly. That is baptism in that paradigm does not communicate the Gospel or the promise of eternal life but the recipient´s possession of faith. This is why when they foist by communication and doubt upon children of infant baptism to be "œrebaptized" they are for them communicating to them that God has NOT promised them eternal life in the Gospel of Jesus Christ in which they (infants baptized) should trust (which IS faith by the way) and onto works.

This is why at the end of the day it is fool hard to even try to argue with a Credo giving credence to that form of doctrine for it is at the end of the day not just eschew a bit but entirely different. It is akin to half-way compromising with arminian theology saying we only differ by degree, we don´t. We differ as in black and white, being and non-being, on this issue.

That´s not being "œmean" or "œcold" but simply straightforward.

Ldh

[Edited on 9-16-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Larry Hughes

Or to say as Paul said similarly of circumcision in Romans, Its not as if the Word of God failed just because those circumcised sought their own righteousness in lieu of the righteousness of God (grace and Christ crucified). Similarly unto baptism.

Paul in reality has already answered this very question for us.

Ldh


----------



## Scott Bushey

Chris,
You write:



> I´m still waiting to hear your answer on whether a low-church evangelical friend of mine baptizing her newly-converted friend in their dorm with water an the Trinity would be a valid baptism.



Chris,
I've been pondering the thought. I would have to say, that depends. Maybe this is a challenge to my being consistant. If we were in the Sudan and there were no churches and I baptised you, would it be valid? Here in the states where there are formal churches, I would have to say no. This drags Hodge's view into play; Hodge believed that Rome was not a true church, hence their administrators of the sacraments not true leaders ordained by Christ. Does this answer your question?

By the way, not to sidetrack the thread, How'd you like the cigars?


----------



## Larry Hughes

One other point. Paul never argued that trusting in circumcision that was the sign of the covenant of grace or the Gospel itself was wrong, in fact that is the correct way to understand it (that is heaven to earth, means of communicating, literally communicating with the Word attached, grace). Paul only argued and corrected vehemently when the sign was used as sign of "œseeking their own righteousness" (i.e. earth to heaven, obedience in this legal sense.) And that´s fundamentally what the reformers were correcting with Rome´s ex opere operato view. It was not that baptism as much as it communicates the Gospel and the forgiveness of sin with the Good News attached to it was to not be trusted in, in fact in this way it IS trusted in and IS saving faith for it is trusting in what it unites us to, His crucifixion and resurrection (for us) as Paul plenteously uses it. Paul actually uses Baptism to reassure the Gospel in numerous places. However, the Anabaptist later come along and over threw the correct understanding of the sign again by linking it not to the Gospel but to the possession of faith itself. 

Faith itself is not the Gospel, Christ crucified from start to finish is. If the sign, baptism, is not primarily unto the Gospel but is unto faith, then it is manifestly obvious that such a baptism IS NOT communicating Christ crucified to anyone (the whole point of baptism). We are not to observe baptism and laud over the "œgreat faith" of the recipient, but to the Christ crucified and risen to which it points. That´s two different religious views altogether.

Earthly example: If I write you a check saying "œPay To The Order Of""¦$10,000. That communicates and promises one thing. But if I write a check saying "œPay To The Order Of""¦3 beans, then that communicates and promises something else altogether. Similarly if Baptism is a sign of your faith, that´s in essence saying faith itself will assure me. But if Baptism says as it does Christ crucified and risen for your sin, then that is an entirely infinitely differing level of assurance and true saving faith"¦it has the final element of saving faith; trust in Christ for me, the element of trust not just belief of a things reality.

If the recipient denies "œChrist died for your sins" and finally falls away seeking their own righteousness (which is the ONLY alternative), it is not as if the Word of God itself fails, is that not obvious. It merely proves the point that man by his own effort, will, or an actively exerted faith will NEVER receive the Gospel. Thus, the folly of baptism point to "œmy faith" or "œyour faith". 

ldh


----------



## non dignus

So baptism is gospel and not law. Then those who have a 'law' understanding of it have another gospel?


----------



## Larry Hughes

1. Yes, baptism is Gospel and not Law that is the meaning of being buried with Christ and raised with Him, point blank and without apology.

2.	In terms of baptism, yes, but not unto the whole of their doctrine necessarily.

Paul´s entire point unto the Galatians concerning circumcision was to that very point concerning the sign.

This is why it is of no avail to them when they are attacked by the devil. Anyone who has suffered under the "did I get it right" (post faith) of the devil understands this very clearly, those who have never suffered are quite unaware of it. Rather than like Luther saying, "No Satan you are a liar, I am baptized (Gospel)", this person is tormented by their baptism (Law). Satan runs from the Gospel but he certainly being a good lawyer uses false law to make God´s children doubt Christ. This is usually driven by a fear of sin they are struggling with that has driven them to doubt the grace of God for them (as if they ever could earn it), seeing due to this sin no evidence that they are saved, so they are being led to think.

This too is driven by not understanding that Christ died not only for your sins in particular past, present and future and enumerated which by comparison are peccadilloes and effects of a MUCH DEEPER issue. But that Christ died for YOUR NATURE, YOUR turned in upon yourself, whereby sin takes on an entirely different cloak that may be quite pretty on the outside.

The credal position manifestly says, Baptism POST faith, else it is no baptism at all. Like it or not there´s no denying this without denying the position altogether. The struggling Christian, and keep in mind ONLY the struggling Christian is affected this way, the very one the sign is meant to strengthen, is then turned away from the Cross, Gospel, (where the sign should be pointing) and INTO him/herself, Law, (where the sign should NOT be pointing). He must then find out if some evidence of real faith existed post baptism, he's being led astray. The deeper he/she digs the worse it gets, because, again, he is now turned IN upon him/herself (the very definition of the sin nature) and the holy Law is relentless, thus the sin nature as a side effect grows due to the very fear. He/she NOW will be so turned upon him/herself that they will NEVER produce a fruit even if they save lives at their expense. At length finding nothing definitive to trust in, having scrapped himself inwardly raw, he now wonders, "œdid I ever possess true faith". Here, even faith becomes a work and he has diabolically been turned in upon himself in all things to search out these things, the very place he should NOT be turned (keep in mind this is a struggling Christian and not a deluded one). FAITH THAT IS REAL SAVING FAITH NEVER LOOKS AT ITSELF, BUT Christ ALONE, YET BAPTISM THAT POINTS TO FAITH FORCES THIS VERY ISSUE! In effect, this form of teaching on baptism KILLS real saving faith.

His eyes have been torn by the devil and this doctrine from Christ altogether, it matters very little what is preached from the pulpit. Now locked into the devil´s trappings he finds himself hopeless for he can find no reason that he possessed, then, faith (post baptism). Given the definition of the credistic paradigm, baptism only post faith as true, valid and real, he cannot depend upon his baptism for his weakness, the purpose of a sign/sacrament "“ he now must assess, "œWas I truly baptized and should I be baptized again (or really baptized if you will)"? If he/she answers no, then the devil will assault further by saying, "œSee, if you truly were a believer, you´d do this thing." Continually note how Christ crucified "œfor ME" is lost in this, the very purpose for baptism (eyes are completely off of Christ). If the answer becomes "œyes" and he/she does it, then the devil has one his victory of subtle works righteousness and the person goes for rebaptism whereby he can rest in what he falsely thinks it points to, his faith or evidence of his faith. For a time he/she remains solid, perhaps for life, but IF some tremendous sin surprises him/her in the future the whole cycle starts again and the devil tosses them to and fro upon this wind of doctrine whereby he/she doubts God. Thus, many, especially sensitive consciences who REALLY HEAR the Law, are re-baptized multiple times. After all according to credistic paradigm on this issue, "œYou have to get the work right". Again, this is not meant to be mean spirited, its simply fact. This offered as a package of "œgospel" with "œgospel" language annexed to it is clearly another gospel which is NO Gospel at all.

You can preach out of one side of your mouth "œjustification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone", then usurp it by your actions and works (James). A church can hold forth justification by grace alone through faith alone in WORDS, yet its actions (works) can communicate quite another message of another type of faith (James´ whole point). In fact the "œpressure" of the church´s other actions can squelch altogether the Gospel. It can say, "œYou are justified by the work of Christ ALONE, but you better do this or that". Rather than letting the fruit of the Gospel have its own way. In fact to press a man this way is another way of denying that the Gospel and the Gospel ALONE is the power, it doesn´t appear to work so we need to tweak the message a bit. 

Thus, setting forth a baptism that is based upon faith itself and not the Gospel itself is a Law (especially if you add to that a secondary law of a particular mode only). If baptism is based upon MY faith and not the Gospel itself and foisted forth as a true sign of the believer, THEN it is another Gospel.

Again, it is as Luther said a rebaptism is nothing less than sacrilege and profanity toward God, it mocks Him and it is obvious it does so for it mocks Christ crucified and the wrath HE bore.

Blessings,

Ldh

[Edited on 9-17-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Calvibaptist

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Please show me one instance in the whole of scripture where someone was rebaptised?



OK, I admit, I am still a little confused. I keep hearing you guys quoting OT references and calling it baptism, when in fact it was circumcision. I understand the concept that baptism replaces circumcision, but Zipporah did not baptize her child, she circumcised him.

There are plenty of instances when those who had been circumcized as children were baptized as adults. Just read the NT. So how can the two be equal if both were done to people? Is there not some difference like, at the very least, a development of the New Covenant?


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> By the way, not to sidetrack the thread, How'd you like the cigars?



I know this wasn't directed to me, but...

Scott, I might-maybe-possibly would be induced to consider your position if I were smoking on some more of those cigars...


----------



## Herald

> Ask a Baptist why they rebaptize. They must define the first as invalid thus denying the true work of God and His sign, so that the "œrebaptism" becomes to them the only real baptism. This they can only do if baptism itself is rooted in actual faith rather than the promise and thus it must communicate incorrectly. That is baptism in that paradigm does not communicate the Gospel or the promise of eternal life but the recipient´s possession of faith. This is why when they foist by communication and doubt upon children of infant baptism to be "œrebaptized" they are for them communicating to them that God has NOT promised them eternal life in the Gospel of Jesus Christ in which they (infants baptized) should trust (which IS faith by the way) and onto works.
> 
> This is why at the end of the day it is fool hard to even try to argue with a Credo giving credence to that form of doctrine for it is at the end of the day not just eschew a bit but entirely different. It is akin to half-way compromising with arminian theology saying we only differ by degree, we don´t. We differ as in black and white, being and non-being, on this issue.



Larry, I will be straightforward also. I do not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be a true church. It long ago abdicated any pretense of being a church that proclaimed the true gospel of grace. It is a false church. I rank it as not much better than the Mormon's, SDA or the JW's. I fail to see how a baptism, that is administered by a religious sect that is an enemy of Christ, can be considered valid.

On a sidenote, John Piper's church no longer requires those who were baptized as infants to be rebaptized (I am not sure on this, but I believe Roman Catholic baptism is _not_ recognized as valid). As a credo, I initially criticized Piper's decision. While not quite there yet, I find myself being more empathetic to his reasoning. If Piper's stance on those who were baptized as infants becomes widely accepted in credo churches, how does that effect the contention of your post? While remaining firmly credo, a Baptist church may recognize an infant baptism in a _true_ church, one that proclaims the gospel of grace. Roman Catholic baptism would not be recognized per reasons I gave earlier.

Not a sermon, just a thought.


----------



## Larry Hughes

> Scott, I might-maybe-possibly would be induced to consider your position if I were smoking on some more of those cigars... [\quote]
> 
> Too funny!!! The saints enjoying fellowship even in a spirited debate, now that's the way it ought to be!


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> And that is because Rome is not a church, any more than those other institutions (the family or the college).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is another related question that is vital in answering the validity of RC's baptism. Is the RC a church in ANY sense?
> 
> The WCF seems to suggest that Rome is in a sense a church:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VI. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.[14] [but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, *that exalts himself, in the Church,* against Christ and all that is called God.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still thinking through this myself, but it seems to me that even us reformed folk recognize Rome as a church *on SOME level* even today. What do we call it? The Roman Catholic CHURCH. This is a tough issue for me to be sure, as I agree that it is surely a synagogue of Satan. I don't want to come off as defending Rome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeff, I´m at least glad you´re being open and consistent enough to acknowledge that this issue is essentially dependent on the question of whether or not Rome is a true church. From my experience (including on this board), most of those who affirm Rome´s baptism do so acknowledging that Rome is not a true church in any sense, and yet still attempt to affirm her baptism. That was Calvin´s position, and it is the inconsistency that I usually see accompanying those who affirm Rome´s baptism.
> 
> So concerning the question of Rome´s status as a true church or not, I honestly have to say I´m not sure how to interpret the clause "œin the Church" in the Confession, and would value input from more learned people on the board regarding that clause, and Westminster´s view on Rome as an institution at large. Even so, I have a hard time seeing how the previous section could be interpreted in any way so as to still render Rome a true church in any sense, and how an institution could ever be a "œChurch of Christ" and a "œsynagogue of Satan" at the same time: "œThe purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will." Assuming that the divines were mindful of Rome in writing this section as well, the middle sentence seems to absolutely claim that she is no part of the Church; particularly, the "œnevertheless" would not make sense if those "œsynagogues of Satan" were still true churches in _some_ sense, for the whole point of it is to say (in effect), "œIn spite of _that_, there will always at least be a true visible Church in which to worship." That would only make sense if the "œ_that_" was saying that some former churches had ceased to be true visible churches.
> 
> Furthermore, if Rome were still a true church in any sense, there would be significant implications for the Reformation, and the legitimacy of the Protestant churches as a whole; it would have been (and would still be) a giant schism, since the Reformers would not have had the right to depart if Rome had still been a true church. That was certainly Calvin´s view, as was shown in the previous threads I referenced near the beginning of this thread. Also, in addition to the implications for the legitimate or schismatic nature of the Reformation and Protestantism, this issue gets to the heart of the Gospel itself: For the teaching of the true Gospel is the first necessary mark of a true church. No Gospel, no church. Hence, if Rome is still a true church in any sense, then the Gospel she teaches, though tainted, must be said to still at least be pure enough to be saving; and in that case, Catholics could be saved not only _in spite of_ their church´s "œgospel," but _because of_ it, and even Catholics who fully believe every bit of the "œgospel" taught by Rome would be saved by it.
Click to expand...


Chris,

I don't have time to respond to your post at this time, but to say that a I have been challenged on my views of Rome and her status as a church in this thread. It has alot of helpful discussion regarding this topic. 

That being said, I have not fully made up my mind, but am leaning in the direction in which I have argued.


----------



## Larry Hughes

> There are plenty of instances when those who had been circumcized as children were baptized as adults. Just read the NT. So how can the two be equal if both were done to people? Is there not some difference like, at the very least, a development of the New Covenant?



This is an excellent question and why I love being with the saints, we all grow and learn and are sharpened against ALL the devil´s ploys by ALL OUR struggles and questions. We should as grace saved people not be afraid to ask such great question so as to find the deeper richness of our Lord. Because I assure you somebody else is wonder this.

This does bring up other questions, we have a tendency to see "œlarge" blocks of time and forget the smallest increments and thus draw up a doctrine. Because it is not as if they were babies then boom adults. What about babies STILL babies circumcised on the eighth day and not just babies who were "œthen" adults. Remember the inception of Pentecost was basically one day and not five or so years. So babies circumcised at eight days of age that were so 24 hours earlier to Pentecost were still babies 24, 48, 72, 168 hours later as well as those circumcised the day before Pentecost 365 days, 730 days, 1095 days, 1460 days later? After 1460 days the definition of "œbaby" gets a bit fuzzy.


L


----------



## Larry Hughes

> Larry, I will be straightforward also.



Bill,

You know and can rest assured that I always appreciate that and I never take your thoughts as ANYTHING less than graciously straightforward. I just think that needs to be said so neither of us take a wrong spirit on this, and I know you whole heartedly agree with that. I really appreciate you bringing that up to keep things "œcool"! A pause and reminder is good because of that terrible flesh that we all still possess. I´m glad you saw that before I steered down a bad path, which I can do!!



> I do not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be a true church. It long ago abdicated any pretense of being a church that proclaimed the true gospel of grace. It is a false church. I rank it as not much better than the Mormon's, SDA or the JW's.



Agree without ANY qualifications.



> I fail to see how a baptism, that is administered by a religious sect that is an enemy of Christ, can be considered valid.



This is because you do not see, as I too did not, that baptism is God´s and supercedes even a sect, Rome in this case. I´ve already explained why Mormon baptism is not the same as Rome´s. But based upon a strict rendering of your own definition, I would have to deny even a Baptistic baptism, which I do not, because it is rendered not as a means of grace but an ordinance, not Gospel but rather Law as I´ve argued before hand. The Baptist paradigm is showing itself. The whole struggle that you are struggling with is seeing it primarily as given either by man´s effort either by the recipient, the institution or even the pastor rather than the work of God. Surely you see the positions problem. 

The Mormon church is a "œhomerun" so to speak. Yet, even under the rubric of Credo, do you accept a Seventh Day Adventist? A Church of Christ´s? Which are manifestly BOTH repugnant deniers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and are blantantly works based salvation NO DIFFERENT WHATSOEVER from Rome! I was a SB once, do you accept another Baptist church whose doctrine is more works based than Rome EVER promoted? This is no theory for I KNOW many Baptist congregations that require "œrebaptism" based upon this, sometimes from one door step to the next (my wife for example could give witness of this issue in many SC KY baptistic churches personally). I know MANY Baptist sects this way in KY. So, you see that even under your own paradigm you have a problem, you need not leave the credo paradigm.



> On a sidenote, John Piper's church no longer requires those who were baptized as infants to be rebaptized (I am not sure on this, but I believe Roman Catholic baptism is not recognized as valid). As a credo, I initially criticized Piper's decision. While not quite there yet, I find myself being more empathetic to his reasoning. If Piper's stance on those who were baptized as infants becomes widely accepted in credo churches, how does that effect the contention of your post? While remaining firmly credo, a Baptist church may recognize an infant baptism in a true church, one that proclaims the gospel of grace. Roman Catholic baptism would not be recognized per reasons I gave earlier.



Excellent question that I´ve wrestled with NOT AT ALL unlike yourself. I wasn´t going to post on this, but ironically we think at least alike about some issues we are wrestling with in our brains. You bring up a great issue, no doubt. Here is my answer as best I can state it to date, because I really wrestled with that with another brother Baptist, my closest in the faith. And I only post it as thought and not dogmatic!

I see Dr. Piper´s dilemma. He´s wrestling with the same issue on the Credo side that many on the Paedeo side wrestle with in reverse, but his is one by definition of how to deal with it under an exclusive paradigm (immersion/adults only) as opposed to an inclusive paradigm (modes vary/both adults and children of adults), this is KEY difference. He professes this Credistic paradigm, yet the bulk of his teachers who even speak at his conferences, not to mention Luther, Calvin, Edwards, et. Ali. Were baptized as infants and support this position.

It´s quite a dilemma without a doubt!

Here is my thought on that issue. He should not. Why? Because you cannot go half way, that´s why I say its black and white for both sides and not a matter of degree(s). If both sides are honest this must be recognized! To lure in by other wise superb Gospel preaching, those baptized as infants by sprinkling and maintain otherwise, if only by implication, that baptism is by immersion and adult believers only is flying under false colors (even Spurgeon mentions this). All he will succeed in doing is luring children of the promise under that church and make them doubt their Lord´s promise ON THEM by implication. If you would be a Shepherd of the sheep of Christ you MUST look at how you may falsely cause them to stumble. You HAVE to LOOK at the effects upon their conscious for nothing else truly matters for the Christian.

You have to realize that it is GREATER persecution to cause a man to doubt by "œcalling something God´s command", even if by true ignorance, than to make them do it with the sword. You must ALWAYS consider the conscience of the child of God! If one thrusted my body into a rebaptism against my conscience, my conscience is against it though my body is forced. Yet if you pressure me falsely by saying, "œthus says the Lord", my conscience is disturbed ABOVE my body. If my body is forced to do a thing against myself, then I´ve resisted unto the faith, even if burned for it. But if you cause me to doubt God by implied pressure unto say immersion and rebaptism as an adult, then you have caused me to DOUBT God and do a work in order to find assurance and rest.

Thus, though Piper´s struggle sounds ecumenical and peaceful it is really his own struggle and he should not draw in others into his church this way. Because at the end of the day you cannot make a half way house.

It is analogous to this: If someone holds a weapon to you and says "œdo this" that´s one form of persecution. Another form of true persecution, which Paul points out in Galatians, does not involve the sword at all and CAN be worse. It is a form that says, "œThus saith the Lord" when He really doesn´t saith. By example though absurd, it is like this: If I say you should not speed then that is one level. But if I say and somewhat convincingly and can even wring Scripture out to support my position, "œThe Lord says you should not speed", then to one truly loving to do his/her Lord´s bidding even if it is not really their Lord´s bidding, that is infinitely different.

My position is "“ is that they ought not accept into their fellowship said persons for it is deception when all is said and done and it will cause them to sin, or stumble, and as a teacher the accountability is greater.

Ldh


----------



## Herald

Larry - excellent post. You've given much to ponder and reply to. It is late (12:06 AM), and it officially the Lord's Day. Time for me to get to bed and enter into worship with my church family later today. Rest assured I will give you post an adequate read and reply as thoughtfully as I am able.

May the Lord Jesus Christ be your portion always.

Bill


----------



## Scott Bushey

Jeff,
The link was helpful! It's funny how my position has changed since we discussed this previously. I agree w/ Andrew in this quote from the thread you cite:



> I think the distinction that I am trying to make -- in keeping with Hodge, Rutherford, Turretin, Calvin, et al. -- is that Rome lacks the marks of a true church but has not lost the characteristics of a material church.



In light of this, Rome's baptism would be valid.

[Edited on 9-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Jeff,
> The link was helpful! It's funny how my position has changed since we discussed this previously. I agree w/ Andrew in this quote from the thread you cite:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the distinction that I am trying to make -- in keeping with Hodge, Rutherford, Turretin, Calvin, et al. -- is that Rome lacks the marks of a true church but has not lost the characteristics of a material church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In light of this, Rome's baptism would be valid.
Click to expand...




Yep. It's interesting to see my old posts too!

I think that it is important to keep a very clear distinction (such as Andrew's) when speaking of Rome. I think all of us would agree that Rome is a false church, not to be trusted in, and a synagogue of Satan. *We must not comprimse this.* That being said, what is the difference between calling an institution a "church" in the broadest sense, or just a gathering? What makes a church a church? We can call Rome a false church, but we still tack on the term "church" when speaking of that whore. I wouldn't call Jehovah's witnesses a "church." It's more of a cult. A gathering. Technically speaking, Rome isn't a cult. It may come close (and I might WANT to call it a cult, under the pope), but I don't think it technically meets the qualifications.

Just a couple of early Sabbath


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> .... what is the difference between calling an institution a "church" in the broadest sense, or just a gathering? What makes a church a church? We can call Rome a false church, but we still tack on the term "church" when speaking of that whore. I wouldn't call Jehovah's witnesses a "church." It's more of a cult. A gathering. Technically speaking, Rome isn't a cult. It may come close (and I might WANT to call it a cult, under the pope), but I don't think it technically meets the qualifications.



in my opinion a group that holds to the Apostles' Creed is at least visible (Mormons don't qualify because or their tritheism). 'Material' is a great way to put it. 

I guess I am departing from the historic Protestant view that a visible church is a true church. The Roman church is false but all too visible.


----------



## Larry Hughes

A church is only truly visible if it clearly sets forth the Gospel. The standing and falling church is upon "justification by faith alone" regardless of building (physical) or institution (legal construction on paper). Thus, Rome retains the physical while not the true visibility. If an "on looker" cannot see, perceive, hear or some how have communicated to them the clear gospel (hidden either by direct words to that effect or by the churches actions), then the Kingdom of God IS NOT visible to them. Similarly the disobedient shepherds as Jesus says shuts the kingdom of heaven out from themselves and their hearers if "Christ is our Righteousness" is not constantly declared every Lords day and throughout the churches actions. They can be a great "bible teaching" group as where the diligent Pharisees, but they are only "searching the Scriptures thinking that by them they have life when these continually bear witness of Christ."

When "Christ is our righteousnes", alone I might add for emphasis, is not there, then the church independant of physical or institutional status fails to be "visible". In short if I cannot hear Christ for me in your preaching, worship or sacraments then Christ is manifestly not visible to me or anyone.

It would be better for such an institution to fail, die off and cease to be for in reality it has already and just retains the hauntings and empty shells of its former self. The church as an institution should be ready to loose itself for the sake of the Gospel in order to communicate the Gospel if it would be a true church. If the pastor is a faithful shepherd he will preach the Gospel, Christ and Him crucified, in season and out of season...even if EVERYONE in the church leaves him. When the church seeks to saves its institutional status over and above the Gospel, then it will have the form but it is in reality lost altogether. Thus, Rome, thus Seeker friendly churches, thus the SB seeking numbers at all cost, thus regenerate church movements, thus all who seek to sustain the churches institution above the Gospel. If the Gospel be not there in purity and clarity, one should not have to "read between the lines" to hear it, then you have no church but the material form of it only, the empty husk.

What makes a church a church is the Gospel and NOTHING else.

Blessings,

Ldh


----------



## Larry Hughes

September 17, 2006

To be clear concerning the issue of baptism, I´m not trying to set forth a legal path for credo Baptists unto infant baptism, not at all. But in hope show forth the Gospel in it that then the path may be made clear. If all I succeed in doing is in essence say, "œMy law is better than your law towards God", then I´ve failed miserably. What I´m wanting to say concerning baptism is, "œHere is the richness of the Gospel and by holding the other position one is sadly and alas hurting one´s self by it." This is why I have at length attempted to show the real difference in extrinsic versus intrinsic reward/punishment else where. If you don´t eat the food before you, then the problem is not being legally disobedient but just denying the gift that is good for you in and of itself. Like my own father when growing up telling me I ought to drive safely. In rebellion I would hear a "œlegal" component and disobey. When in reality he was not being legal but loving me and saying, "œthis is good for you".

It ought NEVER be that infant baptizers should say, "œI´m being more obedient by do this thing" (legal obedience). If this is the paedeo´s position then he/she should first seek to remove their beam so they can help their brother Baptist and their dear children who TOO are of the kingdom with their speck. Rather the paedeo should think and say, "œIt is better because it is Gospel and a gift, here will you not please consider and see the richness of the grace of our God toward us all in this and give it to your children." Because the effects of baptizing our children go deeper than just unto them, it affects the gospel richness of our own baptisms. To see the infant able to do nothing but RECEIVE the Gospel that is annexed to the Baptismal waters is nothing less than seeing the Gospel in its most naked form. For the infant can DO NOTHING but receive the gift of God. And THIS viewed by adults is a rich rich rich re-preaching of the true nature of the Gospel they themselves have both in Word and Sacrament. Seeing infants so baptized reminds us in the point blank way what the Gospel is to us, that we DO nothing, just receive the richness of the abundance of God´s mercy. 

For what adult doesn´t live their life every single week, every hour and every second struggling with the flesh, the world and the devil. Who after a few minutes of weekly life has not already begun to sin and then the doubts assault freshly. Looking inward does absolutely nothing. However, when the Lord´s day comes and if one is blessed enough to see an infant baptized and the Word attending, seeing the pure RECEIVING of the Good News this way, PURE RECEIVING, it reminds us of the nature of God´s goodness and love toward us and then drives us to true Gospel repentance. It freshly breaks us and gives us certain hope that, "œYes this IS the Gospel." And it points back to our own baptism which is specifically upon us. Luther was brilliant in observing that if we cease to baptize children baptism will at length loose its witness. If we are honest in extended version of credo baptism this is EXACTLY what has happened. 

It is no small thing to know that baptism is God´s work to us specifically and to each one in particular, that in this seal impressed upon us we have the promise and THAT IS faith and strengthens faith. This KILLS all rededications and rebaptisms and efforts on "œmy" part and says, "œHERE is God´s grace, receive it, rest and have the peace that surpasses ALL understanding." If I were Bill Gates and I wrote Scott a check for a million dollars to be cashed in the far future, what is that to you? But if I have written Bill the same check, then that means something TO YOU, YOUR conscience specifically. Similarly it is no small thing to know God´s Gospel is TO YOU via baptism that comes TO YOU specifically. This is why it must be rooted in HIS name, HIS Gospel and HIS promise and not in FAITH, the receiving instrument itself. For if I doubt my faith (which is faith looking at faith or faith in faith or assurance in faith itself) or the evidence whereby I seek to measure and detect it and I´ve understood my baptism to be based upon "œmy real faith", then baptism which is TO ME is of no avail at all. It in essence disappears at THE VERY moment it ought to be the greatest strength to me, during a struggle and doubt.

When all is said and done in this life, when suffering comes one´s way either by one´s own sin and doubts, failures as a Christian, tragedies such as Katrina or wars, poverty, debt, sickness, cancer, a car wreck, the tragic loss of a loved one, etc"¦the baptism of God which is the Gospel and the promise is ALL one really has. One can then say, "œEven though tragedy besets me and this suffering is REAL and the pain is REAL, I am baptized and God has promised to wash me of ALL my sin and live with Him and Christ and the Holy Spirit with the great saints of all time when I finally depart this trail of tears."

This is what is lost when we no longer baptize our infants. All because of what it can no longer point to due to no longer giving it to them and the man made arguments to sustain the doctrine. What is lost in its witness is very simply that it is a gift to be utterly RECEIVED. This is what in part Jesus meant when "œsuch are the kingdom of heaven and you cannot even enter the kingdom of heaven least you are as these babes and infants". It looses the eschatological element of the coming of the kingdom of heaven here and now, faith itself. We loose the picture when we exclude our infant children, especially infants, from the Sacrament, it looses its Gospel witness as both Luther and Calvin said. Christ was extremely wise when He said this. It is to our hurt that we fail to do this, it is a true loss of the Gospel to fail to do this. It is self inflicted pain. It is to inflict our own hurt and detriment, intrinsic punishment, to so deny God saying to us in the waters of baptism, "œI forgive you." It is folly to say of baptism, "œNo that cannot be what it is, it must be faith." If God says in baptism I forgive you for Christ´s sake and this baptism is unto you specifically, the Gospel specifically to you "“ is not the folly of denying it its pain and punishment? In short, if God says I forgive you and we reply by our wrong ideas of baptism, "œNo". Is not the folly of this obvious. Is not the pain we thus reciprocally inflict upon ourselves its own just reward. In baptism God says, "œYOU are forgiven for Christ´s sake". To spurn this by a redefinition of baptism as unto "œfaith" its self is its own punishment and not a legal punishment for disobedience to the sign that is otherwise extrinsic to it. ALL of this is lost when we no longer baptize our children and the LOSE is no small thing at all, but GREAT INDEED. Yet, the loss is self inflicted and intrinsically given.

What the argument boils down to is "“ is baptism a means of grace or a confirmation of grace. The two are mutually exclusive. For the former gives by its nature while the later by definition does not give. If I do it as an "œobedience" to "œconfirm" grace, that is from earth to heaven communicate, climbing Jacob´s ladder as Rome use to do, then it cannot in any way be a gift from God.

The great error the baptistic paradigm falls under is fundamentally misguiding the true direction of worship of the true God. True worship consists in the direction from heaven to earth, receiving from God not vice versa. Our thankfulness is ONLY in reciprocation of the first. Why is this direction, receiving from God true worship? For it is EXACTLY and ONLY who God really is, "œI am the Lord your God you shall have no other gods before you." The God who is the God of love, true godly love, the law which is in reality love "“ is a God of a love that is utterly outwardly turned and NEVER inwardly turned. This is the entire point and display of the Cross of Christ, this is its foolishness and offense to the fallen nature "“ that God is a God of utterly love and absolute outward turning Who gives and this is the way we were originally created before the fall. Pagan gods and our idolatry of God consists in reversing this worship. Pagan worship consists in "œour doing" to "œmove" God rather than receiving from God. It´s subtle but it is the difference between the real God who was crucified for us and an idol by any name. In all forms of pagan worship either inside or outside of the church itself the effort is directed such that we "œdo" things in order to "œmove" God, rather than "œreceive" from God so that we are "œmoved". Two different religions. This relates to baptism which all affirm as part of worship. If one views baptism as a "œconfirmation of grace" and based upon one´s own faith, then one will inevitably form an idolatrous form of baptism or worship, earth to heaven (hear God I´m being obedient and confirming Your work). That is entirely different from receiving grace and gospel in baptism. The views differ this way: One is a gift from God, the other is an empty badge of confirmation or authentication.

The baptistic paradigm erroneously assumes that it holds baptism higher by making it a badge of confirmation only given to those ALREADY possessing faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. Baptism is infinitely the highest when it is the GIFT of God, just as Christ crucified and risen to Whom it points is the ONLY HIGH gift of God "“ even if it is rejected. For HIS love IS HIM and HIS love gives.

Thus, true worship comes about when we receive from God and reflexively give a thanksgiving, the later is the effect of the former and not when we "œoffer up" as if to move God to be gracious to us.

Blessings In Christ Alone,

Larry


----------



## Arch2k

In reflecting on this question a bit more, I think it is important for us to keep in mind the logical order of things.

1. Is a church a true church because she administers the word, discipline and sacraments *validly*? 

Or...

2. Are the word, discipline and sacraments valid because they are adminstered by a true church?

In my understanding, the former is the reformed position. Therefore, if Rome's baptism retains enough orthodoxy (i.e. water & Trinity), then in some sense, she is still a true church, but not a orthodox church. She may be completely laid to waste on the Lord's supper and gospel, but her baptism still valid. 

I encourage all to read the thread In what sense is Rome part of the Church?


----------



## Larry Hughes

Jeff,



> 1. Is a church a true church because she administers the word, discipline and sacraments validly?
> 
> Or...
> 
> 2. Are the word, discipline and sacraments valid because they are adminstered by a true church?



That's an excellent ordering of thought. Your scientist is coming out in you!

Thanks, very helpful.

Ldh

[Edited on 9-17-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Larry Hughes

That's a great point. 

Because the implications are far reaching. What if PCUSA maintains her renaming of the Trinity and carries that forth into their baptisms? Is she then the "infant" version of the "credo" version of the Mormons on baptism and the Trinity? Yet, all along she retains the formality of "holding to the WCF" (though this doesn't).

This is not out of the realm of possibility and theory only. Churches could be faced in a nearer future than farther with assessing this if some left and came to say PCA or other Reformed infant baptizing church or even the Lutherans, all those within the ruberic of infant baptizing.

Is PCUSA in danger of being the first to acheive real cultic status out of the infant baptizing realm yet retaining the span of baptism (adults and children) akin to Credo counter parts (i.e. Mormons or JWs)?

Something to chew on for sure.

L


----------



## SolaScriptura

Seriously, guys... you need to consider facts.

1. It is not "THE" historic thing to acknowledge the validity of Rome's baptism. In fact, with only one exception, ALL American Presbyterian/Reformed GAs/Synods have declared to Roman baptisms unvalid. 

2. Hodge's "influential" article was written in protest of a resounding defeat at GA.
3. Reformed theology calls for more than simple formal compliance in terms of element and words of institution for the right administration of the sacraments.

So you guys go on and side with this imaginary notion of what (supposedly) true Reformed theology calls for - a notion that literally ignores the actions of just about ALL American Presbyterian/Reformed church bodies on the subject. As for me, I'm going to side with my ecclesiastical forefathers.


----------



## Arch2k

Mr. Duncan,

If you are so serious about maintaining the doctrine of our ecclesiastical forefathers, then I beg you, can you name one of the reformed ministers that expressed the position that Roman baptisms are invalid before that of Thornwell? Unless, that is, you believe that Presbyterianism began in America...

Thanks in advance,


----------



## Scott Bushey

Calvin (Book IV, chs 15, 16)"By this consideration, the error of the Donatists is effectually refuted, who made the force and value of the sacrament commensurate with the worth of the minister. Such are our modern Katabaptists, who strenuously deny that we were properly baptized, because we received the rite from impious idolators in the papacy; and they are therefore ferocious for re-baptism. We shall, however, be sufficiently guarded against their nonsense, if we remember we were baptized not in the name of any man, but in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and therefore baptism is not of man, but of God, no matter by whom it was administered."



[Edited on 9-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Larry Hughes

> 3. Reformed theology calls for more than simple formal compliance in terms of element and words of institution for the right administration of the sacraments.



Then it places the church above the Word of God for ecclesiastical trappings and is to be rejected. And nothing you can say will bind me otherwise. For the Words of institution are of the Word of God its self and what works and validates the Sacrament, and not the administers which can be hypocrites, the church which could retain form but be apostate and not the recepient who too could be a hypocrite.

"This is My blood shed for the forgiveness of sin" can be given by the devil himself and yet it gives what it says it gives and institutes the sacrament as valid and true IN SPITE of ANYTHING else surrounding it. 

Or as Luther rightly points out, one can receive the Sacrament from the devil's steaming claw so powerful is the Word of God and His Sacrament.

L


----------



## Larry Hughes

Ditto on Calvin!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Lets not forget Judas' baptisms.......


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Mr. Duncan,
> 
> If you are so serious about maintaining the doctrine of our ecclesiastical forefathers, then I beg you, can you name one of the reformed ministers that expressed the position that Roman baptisms are invalid before that of Thornwell? Unless, that is, you believe that Presbyterianism began in America...
> 
> Thanks in advance,



Jeff,
As a Teaching Elder ordained by the PCA, I am (willingly) constrained by the Standards of my denomination. As you know, being Reformed refers to my theology, being Presbyterian (strictly speaking) refers to my form of church government. (Though I do believe that presbyterian government is part and parcel of being Reformed, but that's another issue.)

WCF 31.3 declares that it is the role and duty of "œsynods and councils" to decide matters of the faith. This responsibility is not a prerogative that is given to individual men no matter how intelligent, influential or helpful he may be. Thus, I am profoundly impressed by the humility of the men who wrote the PCA´s minority report (these were the men on the study committee who recommended granting the legitimacy of RC baptisms) when they concede "“ in the face of the Majority report which was contrary to their own position, 


> Whereas God alone determines the efficacy (inward, spiritual grace) signified by the outward signs, it is the Church itself which must ministerially determine the validity and regularity or propriety of baptisms, in the same manner as it determines the validity (credibility) of professions of faith of those seeking membership in the Church. For, it was to the Church itself that Christ assigned the authority of the keys of the Kingdom and the responsibility of carrying out His Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20). As the report of the 159th General Synod of the RPCES correctly observed, the church thus extends or withholds the sacraments in its declaratory and ministerial capacity as the God-appointed pillar and foundation of God´s truth (1 Tim 3:15). The Church ministerially declares administration of the sacraments to be valid (or, invalid) on the basis of the presence (or absence) of outward, discernible elements which constitute the criteria for validity (Larger Catechism 163). It is not, therefore, the prerogative of individuals within the church, nor of recipients of the sacrament to declare a baptism to be valid or invalid.



While the next to last sentence in this quote is obviously the point at which the minority report differs from the majority report, the last sentence is instructive: it is not the prerogative of individuals to determine the validity or invalidity of a baptism. That belongs to the courts of the Church.

Thus, when men speak it is helpful. Calvin is helpful. Luther is helpful. Hodge is helpful. Thornwell is helpful. Dabney is helpful. But none of these men constitute a court of the Church. 

When a court of the Church decides, it is patently unPresbyterian to argue that one man had his way. This is especially true when the highest court in the Church repeatedly affirms a given position. Hodge, THE (and I note THE) great voice of American Presbyterian dissent, noted in his article that in the 1845 Old School GA, the GA voted 169 to 8 (with 6 abstaining) to rule RC baptisms invalid. That is hardly a close call. Since that time with almost 100% unanimity, the GAs have decided the same thing: Roman "œbaptisms" are not baptisms. In fact, as of the date of the publication of the Study Committee´s appendix in 1987, only ONE GA/Synod had voted to grant the legitimacy of RC baptisms, that being the RPCES´s 1981 Synod. Even then, they granted the legitimacy of Roman baptisms because they believed that Roman baptisms meet Hodge´s 3rd requirement, that is that they are intending to obey Christ´s command.

It seems like what is going on in this thread is a lot of arguing along the lines of a "œpersonality cult." Again, according to the Confession it belongs to the courts of the church to decide, not to individuals. 

But I will grant for a moment that Thornwell was likely the leading voice to marshal together the arguments that ultimately led to an apparent total uniformity of opinion in the minds of over 100 years of American presbyters. However, while Thornwell may have been the first to put 2 and 2 together, the constituent arguments were not created by him. For instance, in 1790 the GA made a correlation between "œtrue church and true ordinances" with a corollary of a "œfalse church and invalid ordinances." This is because of WCF 25.3. Furthermore, in 1835 the GA declared that the RC cannot be called a Christian Church. It was only a matter of time before someone put the two together... who knows, perhaps both of these GAs would have made a decision similar to that of the 1845 Old School GA. Unfortunately, we'll never know because the question of the legitimacy of Roman baptisms never came up at those GAs.

As a result, the decision of the GA of 1845 states, "œAs certainly then, as the dogmas and practices of papal Rome are not the holy religion of Christ, must it be conceded, that the papal body is not a Church of Christ"¦; and if not, then"¦ the rite they call baptism, is not, in any sense, to be regarded as valid Christian baptism." Remember, this decision passed by a vote of 169 to 8. Furthermore, these presbyters (Old School conservatives, not New School "œprogressives", mind you!) had access to Luther, Calvin"¦ Hodge. Every subsequent GA has had access to the same arguments and yet virtually all of them have decided against accepting Roman baptisms.

Now, my denomination has essentially decided to not decide. That is, as far as I´m aware, the policy of the PCA is to allow each Session to decide. Thus there is room for charitable disagreement. 

What I don´t like, and do not appreciate, is the attitude and approach of some of the Presbyterians on this site who place the writings of those who are NOT courts of the Church as if they are determinative of what is and isn´t faithfulness to Christ and His Word. That power belongs to the courts. 

As a teaching elder, I would concede to the decision of my session, but I would try to get them to see what so many presbyters have seen, namely, that RC baptisms are no baptisms at all.

[Edited on 9-17-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Larry Hughes

Ben,

I´m only approaching it from the possession of the believer´s conscience and not the court of the church as to church practice. The minute I perceive that I cannot appeal to the Scriptures or those clearly called in history to bring forth the Gospel by ANY group is the minute I consider whether I should leave that group if such persists. I would not do so lightly or without due diligence but none-the-less as ANY Christian would confess, I am bound by the Word of God and not the church courts. I am only bound by the church courts in as much as she is faithful to Whom she answers. That´s not rebellion but discerning whether or not the shepherd is faithfully feeding the sheep Christ or not. As Christ said the sheep will not hear any voice excepting the voice of Christ via the under shepherds, all others he will flee.

As you say, it is charitably left open in the PCA, we accept their baptisms at our church. In as much as it is left open and in as much as the conscience of the believer is bound only by the Word of God and in as much as the believer´s conscience is crucial, for we are to love those whom Christ died for above all else, then it is incumbent upon the under shepherds to place great care here. When the under shepherds make statements that the words of institution, that is God´s Word, His voices is of little relevance concerning the sacraments and that the ecclesiastical body is greater, then great alarm is necessary. For one is not under mining Rome, which who would disagree with that, but one is undermining the Sacraments of Grace so crucially dear to the heart of the believer (this was exactly the Anabaptist problem), in an unhealthy zeal against Rome they destroyed the very Gospel in the Sacraments. And that will not be taken lightly in the highest court of heaven.

If one heads down the path that the Words of institution and meanings behind them are irrelevant or lesser weighted than church courts, then all is meaningless and who can know if they at all were baptized truly unless it was by a very very very particular group setting forth the definition? The words of institution and meanings behind them are not of small relevance but the highest of all. After all it is the Word and Message of God to us, not church courts or church governments. Churches and denominations will come and go as 6000+ years of fallen history prove without exception, but the Word of God remains forever.

If you place the "œcourts" of the church above the Gospel, then you´ve lost the entire point of the courts in the first place, to guard the Gospel and sheep. I´ve seen this very phenomena among the SB and been intimately involved at the leadership level of this very thing. They perceive a problem in their denomination but they think the solution is to go back to the good ole days of elder led leadership and so forth. That is merely a tool, the real problem is that the Gospel itself is for the most part not at all in their Word preached, worship service or sacraments (not all but a large bulk of them & SB know EXACTLY what I´m talking about). I´ve seen churches ripped apart over this issue, when they should have been preaching the Gospel to make amends, even in the face of opposition (One is not really being persecuted if one is just being thrown out on their ear for forcing mere governing changes in a church, that´s just a good ole fashion secular power struggle with churchy language annexed to it). 

No, it is the Gospel that is primary even at the sacrifice of ANY church government. If a church government puts itself as prime, then all is lost whether we speak of Episcopalian, Presbyterian or Congregational. The Church does not exist on this earth for its institutional government but for the Gospel which is from start to finish Christ and him crucified. The church government serves the Gospel and NEVER the other way around. When the church government fails at this guardianship, then it is to be eschewed for idolatry in the form of church government has arisen.

If you think all that I´ve written is unto rebellion then you´ve missed the point of what I´m saying OR I´ve been unclear which is quite possible. If so, I apologize in advance.

Blessings In Christ Alone,

Larry


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ben,
You write:



> Now, my denomination has essentially decided to not decide. That is, as far as I´m aware, the policy of the PCA is to allow each Session to decide. Thus there is room for charitable disagreement.



If the issue is so _etched in stone_ why is it that the PCA leaves it up to individual bodies to make personal decisions? Why is it not _law_ for them to follow Hodge and his decision? 

Have I misunderstood what you are saying?

You add:



> "œAs certainly then, as the dogmas and practices of papal Rome are not the holy religion of Christ, must it be conceded, that the papal body is not a Church of Christ"¦; and if not, then"¦ the rite they call baptism, is not, in any sense, to be regarded as valid Christian baptism."



What was the above based upon?

I would like you to comment on Hodge's statement I previously mentioned, as well as the above statemrnt in regards to apostolic succesionism.



[Edited on 9-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Ben,
> You write:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, my denomination has essentially decided to not decide. That is, as far as I´m aware, the policy of the PCA is to allow each Session to decide. Thus there is room for charitable disagreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the issue is so _etched in stone_ why is it that the PCA leaves it up to individual bodies to make personal decisions? Why is it not _law_ for them to follow Hodge and his decision?
> 
> Have I misunderstood what you are saying?
Click to expand...


Perhaps I misunderstand what _you're_ saying. Hodge argued that we SHOULD accept Roman baptisms. His criteria for a legitimate baptism is essentially threefold... that a legitimate baptism is one in which there is 1)washing with water, 2) with the Trinitarian formula, and 3) with the intent to obey Christ's command.

ALL I'm saying is that no American Presbyterian/Reformed GA/Synod bought his argument until the RPCES 1981 General Synod sided with him. I brought this up because of your (and others) claim that to accept Roman baptism is THE only correct way and that ANY other option is contrary to the Reformed faith. I happen to appreciate the flexibility given to the local church Session by the PCA. While I am opposed to accepting Roman baptisms, I can appreciate the concerns of my brethren who believe we should accept them. 



> You add:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "œAs certainly then, as the dogmas and practices of papal Rome are not the holy religion of Christ, must it be conceded, that the papal body is not a Church of Christ"¦; and if not, then"¦ the rite they call baptism, is not, in any sense, to be regarded as valid Christian baptism."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was the above based upon?
> 
> I would like you to comment on Hodge's statement I previously mentioned, as well as the above statemrnt in regards to apostolic succesionism.
Click to expand...


That quote was taken from the Old School GA of 1845's written decision. Those were their words.

What Hodge statement do you reference?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> While I am opposed to accepting Roman baptisms, I can appreciate the concerns of my brethren who believe we should accept them.



Fair enough. As well, My pastor sides w/ your position. As I said to him, this is one of those things that will not be worked out any time soon.......


----------



## SolaScriptura

Isn't your pastor our own Dr. Matt?


----------



## Romans922

I was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. How am I to know or go look back upon the priest who baptized me and say that it isn't valid when I don't know if he is a Christian or not? Maybe he is 1 out 1000 priests in the RCC that are Christian (not an accurate number, just putting a number out there). I don't think I can accurately state that all people in the RCC are not Christians. Obviously, I believe the confession states that it doesn't depend on the man but the office. So if this man is a Christian, is his ordaination to his office not valid because it is from the RCC? I might ask the same question to the man who is ordained to an office in an AoG church. I don't know. I have to accept my baptism based on many other things but these are some questions I have had.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Isn't your pastor our own Dr. Matt?



Afirmative.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Andrew,

That is exactly why it is based in the Word of God, water, Trinitarian and so forth and not the man giving, receiving or the church per se. Else we'd have to question millions of Christian baptisms including my own in a Southern Baptist church. God's Word alone binds your conscience and God's Word alone can unbind it.

The very first question I asked the elders when we joined our church was this, would they require me or my wife to be "rebaptized". If so I would have had to continue on searching on that basis alone so important is a correct Gospel understanding of the sacraments. Because I WAS NOT going to sin and mock God or Christ given to me. I'd already been through the devil's rebaptism battle for 7 long dark years of my life and would rather had the sword than do that again.

The believer's conscience, the original intent of the question asked on this board is the issue at hand. The sacraments authority rests in God's name and nothing else, it is God's gift not mans.

May Christ Be Richly Yours Always,

Larry


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> I was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. How am I to know or go look back upon the priest who baptized me and say that it isn't valid when I don't know if he is a Christian or not? Maybe he is 1 out 1000 priests in the RCC that are Christian (not an accurate number, just putting a number out there). I don't think I can accurately state that all people in the RCC are not Christians. Obviously, I believe the confession states that it doesn't depend on the man but the office. So if this man is a Christian, is his ordaination to his office not valid because it is from the RCC? I might ask the same question to the man who is ordained to an office in an AoG church. I don't know. I have to accept my baptism based on many other things but these are some questions I have had.



Andrew, the WCF 27.3 cannot be taken absolutely w/o any further consideration or else 27.4 and 28.2 and 29.3 would all be meaningless. Furthermore, the WCF's prohibition of receiving the Lord's Supper from a priest (29.4) would likewise be out of line. 

As virtually every GA/Synod ruling on the subject has decided, the question of the validity of Roman baptisms is NOT analagous to the Donatist controversy. From the 1987 committee report:



> That earlier Donatist controversy dealt with the question of a minister who succumbed momentarily to the pressure of persecution. The church in which he ministered was more or less pure in upholding the Gospel. His succumbing to the pressure of persecution did not thus invalidate the sacraments he had administered.
> 
> The situation in view in the Roman Catholic priesthood is not that which our Confession and the Donatist controversy addresses. It is that of a ministry and a church which, in the words of Paul describing the false teachers of Galatia, preach "a different gospel, which is not another," "distort the gospel of Christ" and thus lie under the Apostolic judgment, "let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:6-9). Therefore, inevitably, in this case, Romish church and Romish ministry are evaluated alike.



In other words, Andrew... in regards to your situation, you don't NEED to "worry" about the spiritual state of the RC priest who performed the rite on you, because IT DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is that he is a false teacher, under apostolic anathema, in a false ministry, under apostolic anathema, in a false church, under apostolic anathema. As such nothing they do - though it may appear in form to be Christian - can actually be considered Christian. Particularly, the sacraments belong to the Church, for induction into the visible Church, etc... therefore, by definition they cannot (note that I'm not saying SHOULD NOT) be be administered by someone outside the Church.

I encourage you (and everyone here) to read the report.


----------



## Arch2k

Again, 

the fundamental error I am seeing is the confusion of what makes a sacrament/church.

Valid administration of the sacrament(s)/word make the church, not the other way around.


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Again,
> 
> the fundamental error I am seeing is the confusion of what makes a sacrament/church.
> 
> Valid administration of the sacrament(s)/word make the church, not the other way around.



Interestingly, you undermine yourself in how you phrase that last sentence. According to the WCF, a false church or a false minister CANNOT "validly" administer the sacrament. Thus, a "valid administration" of the sacrament can only (by definition!) be performed in a true church. See WCF 25.3. Likewise, 27.4 disagrees with you.
By definition, the sacraments belong to the church and are administered in and by the church. NO ONE ELSE CAN (note: not MAY) rightly administer the sacraments.

Remember: right administration of the sacraments is a mark (or sign) of a true church... what (logically) comes first? The mark, or the thing making the mark?
Right administration of the sacraments is not an ingredient that goes into a true church. There is a difference.

There is a reason why just about every GA/Synod has disagreed with you.

[Edited on 9-18-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Again,
> 
> the fundamental error I am seeing is the confusion of what makes a sacrament/church.
> 
> Valid administration of the sacrament(s)/word make the church, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, you undermine yourself in how you phrase that last sentence. According to the WCF, a false church or a false minister CANNOT "validly" administer the sacrament. Thus, a "valid administration" of the sacrament can only (by definition!) be performed in a true church. See WCF 25.3. Likewise, 27.4 disagrees with you.
> By definition, the sacraments belong to the church and are administered in and by the church. NO ONE ELSE CAN (note: not MAY) rightly administer the sacraments.
> 
> Remember: right administration of the sacraments is a mark (or sign) of a true church... what (logically) comes first? The mark, or the thing making the mark?
> Right administration of the sacraments is not an ingredient that goes into a true church. There is a difference.
> 
> There is a reason why just about every GA/Synod has disagreed with you.
Click to expand...


Maybe "administration" wasn't the best terminology to use. How about valid sacrament? I agree that with WCF 25.3 and 27.4 that the administration must be preformed by a minister of the gospel lawfully ordained in a true branch of the visible church. However, my meaning still stands. 

Let me ask you, what are the marks of a church? Does a mark of a true church include a valid baptism? If so, what determines a valid baptism...a true church? 

You have to see the circular reasoning in this...


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Again,
> 
> the fundamental error I am seeing is the confusion of what makes a sacrament/church.
> 
> Valid administration of the sacrament(s)/word make the church, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, you undermine yourself in how you phrase that last sentence. According to the WCF, a false church or a false minister CANNOT "validly" administer the sacrament. Thus, a "valid administration" of the sacrament can only (by definition!) be performed in a true church. See WCF 25.3. Likewise, 27.4 disagrees with you.
> By definition, the sacraments belong to the church and are administered in and by the church. NO ONE ELSE CAN (note: not MAY) rightly administer the sacraments.
> 
> Remember: right administration of the sacraments is a mark (or sign) of a true church... what (logically) comes first? The mark, or the thing making the mark?
> Right administration of the sacraments is not an ingredient that goes into a true church. There is a difference.
> 
> There is a reason why just about every GA/Synod has disagreed with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe "administration" wasn't the best terminology to use. How about valid sacrament? I agree that with WCF 25.3 and 27.4 that the administration must be preformed by a minister of the gospel lawfully ordained in a true branch of the visible church. However, my meaning still stands.
> 
> Let me ask you, what are the marks of a church? Does a mark of a true church include a valid baptism? If so, what determines a valid baptism...a true church?
> 
> You have to see the circular reasoning in this...
Click to expand...


Jeff, a couple things:

1. How does your meaning still stand? If the sacrament must be performed by a true minister in a true church, then we must decide if Rome is a true church with her minsters being true undersheperds. 

2. The reasoning is only circular if we hold the notion that the signs, or marks of a church stand in isolation from the church (and each other!) and those signs determine, or come together, to make a true church. However, if we look at the marks as being signs to point us to true churches, then we can see that the marks are simply confirmatory of something that is. Following 1 Cor 15:3, the chief and most important sign of a true church is the Gospel rightly preached. All other signs are subordinate to this, as Paul himself declares the Gospel message to have "first importance."


----------



## Kevin

I have been following this debate with some interest. I don't want to jump int the fray but I believe you overstated your position that "no presbyterian bodies accepted RC baptism".

I will have to confirm later but I am almost certain that the CofS, PCofC, and the ARP DO consider RC baptism valid Ben.


----------



## non dignus

Perhaps there is a true sacrament vs a valid sacrament.


----------



## ServantOfKing

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Jeff, a couple things:
> 
> 1. How does your meaning still stand? If the sacrament must be performed by a true minister in a true church, then we must decide if Rome is a true church with her minsters being true undersheperds.
> 
> 2. The reasoning is only circular if we hold the notion that the signs, or marks of a church stand in isolation from the church (and each other!) and those signs determine, or come together, to make a true church. However, if we look at the marks as being signs to point us to true churches, then we can see that the marks are simply confirmatory of something that is. Following 1 Cor 15:3, the chief and most important sign of a true church is the Gospel rightly preached. All other signs are subordinate to this, as Paul himself declares the Gospel message to have "first importance."



According to this line of reasoning, what makes the RCC worse than apostate Protestant churches teaching false gospels? 
For example, the health, wealth, and prosperity gospel? Or the "you can save yourself? gospel? Or "you have to be baptized to be saved."

It may be that the RCC administers the sacrament of baptism almost more Biblically than some churches, like the Church of Christ for example.

So I guess, where do we draw the line between RCC & apostate Protestant?


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> I have been following this debate with some interest. I don't want to jump int the fray but I believe you overstated your position that "no presbyterian bodies accepted RC baptism".
> 
> I will have to confirm later but I am almost certain that the CofS, PCofC, and the ARP DO consider RC baptism valid Ben.



That isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that every American Presbyterian/Reformed GA/Synod - with one exception - up until the writing of the PCA's position paper in 1987, when dealing with the question of the validity of Roman baptism, has sided with it being invalid.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Ben,
By "American" do you mean PCUS/PCUSA?


> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> I have been following this debate with some interest. I don't want to jump int the fray but I believe you overstated your position that "no presbyterian bodies accepted RC baptism".
> 
> I will have to confirm later but I am almost certain that the CofS, PCofC, and the ARP DO consider RC baptism valid Ben.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that every American Presbyterian/Reformed GA/Synod - with one exception - up until the writing of the PCA's position paper in 1987, when dealing with the question of the validity of Roman baptism, has sided with it being invalid.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kevin

I'll check, but again i think the ARP is not on your side on this one.

If you are limiting you focus to American presbterianism I think that is far too narrow. After all it is "possible" that a particular error could be widspread within one nation but unknown outside of it.

Sorry I said I would stay out of this!

BTW this does seem to be a "distinctly american" issue.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Chris, Kevin, et al...

Read the Committee Report. I posted it near the beginning of this thread. 

I only have about one more week to be at home before the army splits up my family until after Christmas. So pardon me, but I believe I've taken enough time from my family to discuss this matter... I'm done.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Ben,
Pardon me for asking a simple question. 
All,
It does appear from the paragraph I found that the report is only dealing with GAs and Synods that have dealt with the question, PCUS/PCUSA, UPC, RPCES and the Cumberlands. So it does not address denoms where a change may have never been sought, like the ARP if Kevin is correct.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Chris,

I apologize - I wasn't trying to be rude. It is just a simple matter of time management. I hope you understand.

Ben


----------



## NaphtaliPress

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Chris,
> 
> I apologize - I wasn't trying to be rude. It is just a simple matter of time management. I hope you understand.
> 
> Ben


Certainly; thanks Ben.


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Valid administration of the sacrament(s)/word make the church, not the other way around.



Jeff, you hit the nail on the head there!


----------



## Larry Hughes

> Quote:
> Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
> Valid administration of the sacrament(s)/word make the church, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> Jeff, you hit the nail on the head there!



Bingo! Jeff your analysis still stands.

Else NO ONE can see the church OR KNOW what is the true church.

Stepping back at the 50,000 foot view for overall analysis: We see that the whole of the post of the arguments being introduced counter to this position PROVE THAT very FACT rather baldly. THAT's why the counter arguments are being argued and causing confusion - it becomes "what is the church". The very question when the counter arguments arise - arise BECAUSE without the Word & Sacarments being the basis the VERY first question arises immediately, then where is the church? Then multiple manmade theories arise to answer this (here is the church, there is the church, our denomination can trace Apostolic origins, no our denomination can show continuity and etc... If the definition does not lie in the OBJECTIVE WORD & SACRAMENTS.

The RCC church may still be the great whore of babylon, but there sure are certainly a lot of protestant strumpets running around out there. They just don't have official Trent anathemas written down whereby they can be pinned down on their denial of the Gospel. They are more like modern politicians, they slip around on denying the Gospel like a greasy eel.

Ldh


----------

