# What Baptism is Valid?



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 12, 2008)

We have discussed ad nauseum on this board and in "real life" the efficacy of Roman Catholic Baptism and its valid/invalid nature and we all pretty much have our thoughts. However I think more pressing in our time is whether or not the baptism by in an apostate Protestant Denomination should be acceptable? I am thinking here Baptisms done in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer (as I have seen done in the PC(USA)) for example. Would you accept that as an acceptable Baptism? 

Personally I would not accept that as a valid Baptism. What Say You?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jun 12, 2008)

The rituals of apostates, I do not hold to be valid. It matters not if the apostate be Roman or Protestant, in my opinion.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 12, 2008)

For a baptism to be valid it must have all of the following:

1. By water and in the name of the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

2. Be performed by a minister of the gospel in an orthodox Protestant church (i.e. the visible church of Christ).

Irregularities which do not render a baptism invalid:

1. An ungodly minister.

2. Non-Christian parents of the child.

3. The wrong mode of baptism.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jun 12, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> For a baptism to be valid it must have all of the following:
> 
> 1. By water and in the name of the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
> 
> ...




Daniel, isn't your statement 2 (under must have all of the following) in conflict with statement 1 (under Irregularities)?


----------



## Galatians220 (Jun 12, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> We have discussed ad nauseum on this board and in "real life" the efficacy of Roman Catholic Baptism and its valid/invalid nature and we all pretty much have our thoughts.


 
Oh.  http://www.sweetim.com/s.asp?im=gen&ref=10 Being more of a "newbie" than not, I didn't realize that. *I'm so sorry.* I'll back out of this one now... _Mea culpa..._

Margaret



http://www.sweetim.com/s.asp?im=gen&ref=12


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 12, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > For a baptism to be valid it must have all of the following:
> ...



No, because the minister may be ungodly (not regenerate) and still be lawfully ordained, so that by his confession he is a minister of the gospel in a true church of Christ.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jun 12, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...




Okay. I see what you're saying. I disagree, but not wanting to go , so rather than discussing "What are the qualities of a true minister of the gospel," I think, in this thread we should stick with the question of the OP:

What Baptism is valid? 

Perhaps a new thread on the validity of the ordination of an unregenerate minister is in order?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 12, 2008)

I agree but it does measure into this discussion as to what constitutes a lawful Ordination. Like do we consider an ELCA or PC(USA) or UMC minister "Lawfully Ordained"?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jun 12, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...





Then again I will call you on this Daniel. If you believe this error, then none of us have been baptized by a lawfully ordained, whatever that means, minister since the rcc laid hands on all the first gen reformers. And please do not go to trent became the deciding line of this. I think Greco played that card, but alas, my straight beats them there pair of dueces..


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 13, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> We have discussed ad nauseum on this board and in "real life" the efficacy of Roman Catholic Baptism and its valid/invalid nature and we all pretty much have our thoughts. However I think more pressing in our time is whether or not the baptism by in an apostate Protestant Denomination should be acceptable? I am thinking here Baptisms done in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer (as I have seen done in the PC(USA)) for example. Would you accept that as an acceptable Baptism?
> 
> Personally I would not accept that as a valid Baptism. What Say You?



In my pastoral ministry, I always accepted the baptism of anyone baptized by a recognized Christian group. That varied from liberal Protestant, to Calvary Chapel, to Pentecostal, to fundamentalist, and even a few Presbyterians. However, after learning that credo baptism is a "heresy" (on another thread), and having always viewed "heresy" as making one liable to hellfire, perhaps the more fundamental question is was I a _Christian_ minister?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Presbyterian Deacon said:
> ...



Rome was a true church prior to Trent, so your concern is not relevant.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jun 13, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...





I just do not see how you can say this Daniel. If it was, Luther et al would not have tried to reform it. I am 100% certain that there was no difference in Rome from probably Justyn to Trent. A formal declaration against the reformers does not a church make!!!!!. What is the pithy saying I heard regarding this? They anathamized the gospel @ Trent. Therefore prior to December 13th, 1545 they were a true church. But during the next 18 years until the canons of Trent were formally pronounced, the 'truthiness' began to wane until December 4th 1563 when they became a synogogue of satan. Therefore anyone baptized in the rcc prior to Dec 13th 1545 is ok, but anyone baptized during the council becomes suspect, and yet further anyone baptized after December 13th 1545 was not validly baptized. Inless of course they were baptized by someone who received the sacrament prior to 1545, then they are ok.


Ok Daniel, Just one question you are asked to answer.

In 1215, the fourth lateran council convened. Canon 1 States:

CANON 1

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

And finally, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God made flesh by the entire Trinity, conceived with the co-operation of the Holy Ghost of Mary ever Virgin, made true man, composed of a rational soul and human flesh, one Person in two natures, pointed out more clearly the way of life. Who according to His divinity is immortal and impassable, according to His humanity was made passable and mortal, suffered on the cross for the salvation of the human race, and being dead descended into hell, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. But He descended in soul, arose in flesh, and ascended equally in both; He will come at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead and will render to the reprobate and to the elect according to their works. Who all shall rise with their own bodies which they now have that they may receive according to their merits, whether good or bad, the latter eternal punishment with the devil, the former eternal glory with Christ. 

Now Daniel, are you about to say that Rome did not 'officialy' believe in a trinitarian doctrine until 1215?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2008)

> I just do not see how you can say this Daniel. If it was, Luther et al would not have tried to reform it.



Well it is the same as trying to reform an apostatizing denomination like the Church of England. The CoE is a scandolously corrupt church, but it has not *by its confession* anathematized the gospel. And thus it is still part of the visible institutional church. But the same cannot be said of Rome.



> Now Daniel, are you about to say that Rome did not 'officialy' believe in a trinitarian doctrine until 1215?



It may have officially formulated the doctrine in 1215, but this is not the same thing as saying that it anathematized a belief in the Trinity before that date. Before Trent many Papists did not believe the gospel, and so they were a scandalously corrupt body, but at Trent it became official church policy to anathematize the gospel of Christ.


----------



## TimV (Jun 13, 2008)

Everything you wanted to know about the Presbyterian view of the subject but were afraid to ask.

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



> RECOMMENDATIONS:
> (1) That the Assembly adopt the following recommendations with respect to Roman Catholic baptism:
> 
> A. that the General Assembly counsel that the baptism of those churches that have so degenerated from the Gospel of Christ as to be no churches of Christ (cf., Westminster Confession of Faith, xxv, 5; e.g., Unitarian, Mormon, Roman Catholic) is not to be regarded as valid Christian baptism; and
> ...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 13, 2008)

How about the Eastern Orthodox? Same as Rome or not?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> How about the Eastern Orthodox? Same as Rome or not?



I don't know, as I know virtually zero about them.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jun 13, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> > I just do not see how you can say this Daniel. If it was, Luther et al would not have tried to reform it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Sharpen your pencil Daniel. You have been diluted to believe this lie. That is like saying Honorious was not a heretic until he physically wrote down his erroneous belief about the wills of Christ. It is exactly the same thing Daniel. If it takes a formally written papal bull pronoucement from the sofa of Peter, then one cannot be sure what they believe prior to this. Ask any rc and they will tell you I am correct in my asessment. Seriously, if you can get close enough to the leper colony without becoming ill, go and ask a priest or one who would know and see what they say. Instead of looking through skewed lenses of this, why not go right to the horses mouth. I have, and they laughed so hard I thought I would have to do CPR.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > > I just do not see how you can say this Daniel. If it was, Luther et al would not have tried to reform it.
> ...



We are not talking about individuals, but about ecclesiastical bodies. For instance, there are many apostates in the CoE, but we cannot say the CoE is apostate until it officially adopts apostasy as its confession. Baptism by a heretic is irregular but valid; baptism by an apostate communion is invalid.


----------



## Grymir (Jun 13, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> We have discussed ad nauseum on this board and in "real life" the efficacy of Roman Catholic Baptism and its valid/invalid nature and we all pretty much have our thoughts. However I think more pressing in our time is whether or not the baptism by in an apostate Protestant Denomination should be acceptable? I am thinking here Baptisms done in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer (as I have seen done in the PC(USA)) for example. Would you accept that as an acceptable Baptism?
> 
> Personally I would not accept that as a valid Baptism. What Say You?



Hi Backwood Presbyterian! I would not accept a baptism in the name of 'Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer' a valid. Libs/Barthians use that lingo to cover up the fact that they do not believe the trinity. I've even heard of worse. (In the Disciples of Christ Church's). Daniel Ritchie's validity test is real good -

"Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie 
For a baptism to be valid it must have all of the following:

1. By water and in the name of the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

2. Be performed by a minister of the gospel in an orthodox Protestant church (i.e. the visible church of Christ).

Irregularities which do not render a baptism invalid:

1. An ungodly minister.

2. Non-Christian parents of the child.

3. The wrong mode of baptism."

As to the supposed contradiction, there isn't any. My first thought's were about a Catholic, or a liberal minister. If they used the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it would make the baptism valid, not because of the ministers greatness, but because of God's. It would depend then on the person getting baptized and the power and word of God. Daniel's Validity Test is great because it does not invalidate a baptism that we reformed may debate about, ie sprinkle or dunked, or any other thing. 

Southern, Great question. That 'Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer' line makes me want to barf. You should hear it when they use that lingo constantly in sermons, or invocations, or even communion. Enjoy y'all! - Grymir


----------



## TimV (Jun 13, 2008)

> Be performed by a minister of the gospel in an orthodox Protestant church (i.e. the visible church of Christ).



That's a bit more narrow than the PCA position paper, and a bit too Eurocentric.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jun 13, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...





This is the exact argument rome uses regarding infallibilty. The Papal office is infallible, even if individuals have spoken heretical falsehoods. 

I do not know where you received your rules from on this matter Daniel. But they make absolutely no sense. If my son tell me he got an A in Math. I need not wait for his reprort card to claim it is true.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 13, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> For a baptism to be valid it must have all of the following:
> 
> 1. By water and in the name of the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
> 
> ...



How do you define "orthodox Protestant church?" Would this include Methodists, for example? Or is it limited to churches subscribing to one of the Reformed confessions?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > For a baptism to be valid it must have all of the following:
> ...



Yes, Methodists do claim to believe the gospel, though corrupt it with their Arminianism. But they are not official apostates like Rome. This is the difference between receiving an irregular baptism by a heretic, and an invaldi baptism at the hands of an apostate communion.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing Grace said:
> ...



You are not distinguishing between an irregular baptism by a heretic which is still valid, and the sacrament of an apostate communion which cannot be valid as the body is not part of the visible church.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 13, 2008)

Grymir said:


> Hi Backwood Presbyterian! I would not accept a baptism in the name of 'Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer' a valid. Libs/*Barthians* use that lingo to cover up the fact that they do not believe the trinity. I've even heard of worse. (In the Disciples of Christ Church's).
> Southern, Great question. That 'Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer' line makes me want to barf. You should hear it when they use that lingo constantly in sermons, or invocations, or even communion. Enjoy y'all! - Grymir



Timothy,

Barth is really not the source of all evil in the world! Most Barthians I knew back in the day have no problem with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The issue _de jure_ came well after Barth but has infected the academy almost everywhere: feminism.

Feminists cannot stand the thought of "Father." So, in mainline circles like yours (and to a lesser extent where I was most of my life), the "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" line is a way of doing God in a gender-neutral dress. Gender-neutral and "inclusive" forms of God-speak are _de rigueur _ throughout the mainline. Most pastors trained in mainline schools stumble all over themselves avoiding the word, "Father," for God.


----------



## Grymir (Jun 13, 2008)

O.k. Barth is not the source of all evil in the world. I got carried away there a little bit. The feminist movement would have been a better choice of words. I stand corrected.

But then again, why can't Barth be the source of all evil in the church?  The libs are even worse in my book, but it is killing me to say that he is not the source of all evil in the world. I've even read some of his writings that make me wonder if he didn't have a ghost writer. It 'seems' so orthodox at times. Don't tell anybody I said this, or I'll have some Mormons come knocking at your door.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 13, 2008)

Timothy,

If you want to have fun with a mainline pastor, keep using "Father" in your prayers. They get as skittish as a yapping chihuahua caught in a strobe light. It so goes against the grain of their training that you can expect at least of hour of NO pronouns for God at all (e.g., So God so loved God's world, that God gave God's child . . . "). [Be careful not to abuse the name of the Lord just to get your liberal interlocutor squirming. I was simply observing what they do when a traditionalist speaks traditionally.]


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 13, 2008)

TimV said:


> > Be performed by a minister of the gospel in an orthodox Protestant church (i.e. the visible church of Christ).
> 
> 
> 
> That's a bit more narrow than the PCA position paper, and a bit too Eurocentric.



How is it Eurocentric?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jun 13, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...





Becasue there is no need to distinguish in the context of the rcc. What makes the distinction daniel? A written man made document? This is absurd. Where in the writ do we find that a confession is mandatory to claim a valid church and until this confession is written, then we do not know what to consider them.

All trent did was provide in writing what was already believed and confessed with certain compramises as every confession or council has. Justyn Martyr is the birth mother of works salvation. The Didache is clearly teaching sacramental salvation. Baptismal regeneration in Nicea. You mean to tell me every error that rome perpetrated for 1500 years pales in comparison with trent? 

Let's take this is baby steps Daniel. When the primitive 'church' was formed, according to your understanding, noone could determine rightly the validity of the body becasue no written confession or creed, or document was written. so for 300 years, people could doubt the valdity of the Christian church. Paul most assuredly found them valid. Did the church located in ephesus have some written article of faith? Colosse? Thesselonica? etc etc etc. Is the doctrine of predestination a truth, even though for 1500 years nothing was penned from an ecclesiastical body? Was Gottshalk a heretic for believing this truth? Was auggie? 

When the canon was formulated did the church determine the books, or did they confirm what was already believed as canonical? Is your trust in the EO Church who was the first to formally identify the 27 books of the New Testament in A.D. 367. Listed in Athanasius' Easter letter from Alexandria. At the councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397). So what happened from 367 to 397? Are we to understand that since these councils had not occured yet and no formal writing existed, the western church was not valid, or did not know the scriptures? 


Rome was as apostate the day after trent as they were the day before. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing Grace said:
> ...



Of course there is a difference because they have *officially* anathematized the gospel, and so in no sense can be considered part of the visible institutional church - but we could not say they had *officially* done this before Trent. This is *not* the same as the church not formulating something in a creed.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jun 13, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



So when am I allowed to point to the correct understanding of Justification? 1500' or 1600's. How do you know they anathamized the Gospel? When was the correct Gospel defined Daniel? Was there a gospel prior to Luthers Confession? According to your _hebetudinous_ logic, there was no Gospel defined until a denomination wrote a creed or confession or had a council. 

Hey btw I just learned that word. It will def become part of my vocabulary now. I was called that by my wife the other day, I had to look it up!!!!

I also wish you would answer my questions instead of repeating ad nauseum this ridiculous arguement Daniel.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2008)

If we reject non-Trinitarian baptisms, how do we avoid the charge of Donatism?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 13, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> If we reject non-Trinitarian baptisms, how do we avoid the charge of Donatism?



Because it is the form that is the problem not the person administering the Baptism ultimately.


----------



## Romans922 (Jun 13, 2008)

If the Covenant Promises are not intrinsically connected with the sacrament of baptism, it is not a valid baptism but just an outward act.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing Grace said:
> ...



Nicholas when a denomination officially states that they believe something, then we can definitely say that that is the denominations position. Rome *as an institution* declared the gospel anathema at Trent. From then on, it is in no way part of the visible church, but is a synagogue of Satan.

For instance, if the PCUSA publicly says: "We deny the deity of Christ", then we can clearly say that the denomination as a body is officially apostate. However, if only certain ministers deny the deity of Christ, then we can only say that the denomination is scandalously corrupt. This is exactly the case with Rome prior to Trent.

You keep saying my argument is ridiculous but you cannot get around the fact that, according to your logic, the "baptism" performed by a man standing on a street corner throwing water over people in the name of the Trinity is also valid.


----------



## TimV (Jun 13, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > > Be performed by a minister of the gospel in an orthodox Protestant church (i.e. the visible church of Christ).
> ...



Hi!

While holding Daniel in a very high regard, and being very aware of his historical situation, it needs to be pointed out that Christ has had a witness in many other areas than those traditionally Protestant over the last few centuries. I think of Rushdoony's grandfather, who's eyes were gouged out by the Turks, but who still continued to be a faithful minister of the Gospel due to his having memorized whole texts of the Holy Scriptures. And to think that the Baptisms he did weren't valid seems a bit parochial, and a tad petty. 

Thus, I prefer the PCA's position, and at the same time stand in awe of the sheer amount of Daniel's reading.

Best
Tim


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2008)

TimV said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > TimV said:
> ...



If you can prove that the churches of which you speak are not anti-evangelical, then I might agree with you. I thought I agreed with the PCA, but I must not have thought about all these other groups. When I say "orthodox Protestant" I am thinking within the bounds of my own nation (remember I have not left Ireland in seven years )

Thanks for the kind words.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 13, 2008)

TimV said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > TimV said:
> ...



I am still not sure how what Daniel said is "Eurocentric" in that regard.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jun 13, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...





There is no fact to get around Daniel. One has nothing to do with the other. It amounts to as much truth as me saying, hey, If you consdier baseball a true sport, then whatabout jockey's in the derby. Now scratch your head and say ; "Nicholas, what are you talking about" becasue a man on the corner with a squirtgun has nothing to do with Romes baptisms becoming invalid on dec 4th 1563. First of all no body is an institution. If that is what you call a denomination, well we are starting on different foundations. Second, you would then agree that honorious was not a heretic because when he spoke on the wills of Christ, he did not do it ex cathedra, or in the capacity of the Holy See. 

Again I want answers to the following without repeating This base statement of Decalring the gospel anathema at trent.

1) When was the true Gospel declared Daniel?

2) Did Rome give us the canon, or did they confirm what was already believed.

3) When did any local assembly in Pauls letters write a formal document of Gospel truth?

4) whose writings are you parroting? I am more concerned you have been swayed by such pithy sayings and beliefs and catch phrases. 

5) a denomination is made up of individuals, it is not seperate, therefore, how many 'leaders' have to be heretics for the denomination to be considered a sos? 

6) were those circumcized in the apostate northern kingdom, who were judged as being false jews by God Himself, recircumcized upon returning to Judah?

7) do you believe the primitive church/local bodies that Paul addresed, had writen a confession of faith? If not, then how can we be sure on whatthey believed? Would you consider the church at Corinth a sos becasue of their refusal to kick the fornicator out? 

Are you aware that there was not one dissenting voice at Trent on Justification? Not one Daniel. Now are you telling me that most people were swayed in the 18 years of the council? Becasue of this fact, I can most certainly concur that at the first day of the council in 1545, the same canon on justification could have been given as it was written almost 20 years later.


----------



## TimV (Jun 13, 2008)

> I am still not sure how what Daniel said is "Eurocentric" in that regard.



He answered it, if you read carefully!

Armenia, Iraq, Syria etc.. aren't in Europe. "And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they shall hear My voice; and they shall become one flock with one shepherd."


----------



## Kevin (Jun 13, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> If we reject non-Trinitarian baptisms, how do we avoid the charge of Donatism?





Because the donatist rejected trinitarian baptisms by ministers who later fell away. Or at least did not respond to the persecution the way the donatists thought was right.

The dabate was not over the form of baptism, but over the character of the officiating minister.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 13, 2008)

Just to give reference to a past discussion..... Here is this..

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/roman-catholic-baptism-poll-do-over-25009/


----------

