# Is it Really Water?



## Parakaleo (Oct 30, 2022)

The Reformed generally accept baptisms done by other Christian groups under these conditions:

- In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
- By a lawfully ordained person
- With water

Many have argued that Roman Catholic baptism should be accepted on the basis of the first two conditions being met, but what about the third? It is common knowledge that the Roman Catholic priest uses "holy water" to baptize. Some have testified over the centuries that things like "consecrated salt", different oils, or even the priest's spit have been added to the water as part of making it "holy".

"It's still 99.9 percent water, though," someone might counter, "surely that still counts as using water?"

The problem is, if the priest *will* use the hocus pocus concoction he has made to baptize someone, but *will not* use the ordinary water that flows out of our taps at home or falls directly from the sky above, how could anyone say that the third condition I listed above, as understood by all the Reformed churches, has been met?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 30, 2022)

It’s the Lord’s Day, brother.


----------



## ZackF (Oct 30, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> It’s the Lord’s Day, brother.



Why can’t doctrine on the sacraments be discussed?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Parakaleo (Oct 30, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> It’s the Lord’s Day, brother.


I understand that we normally put aside heated or vigorous debate on the Lord's day, but I had hoped to engage in a normal conversation on baptism on the Lord's day. I had thought it could be part of godly conference with brethren. If it were to become an animated discussion, I would agree it is better saved for a different day.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 30, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> It’s the Lord’s Day, brother.


I'm not sure this is an inappropriate question on the Lord's Day. It concerns God's worship, and I had personally never considered this before.

Blake, I wonder if your question might not be moot since if an RC priest performs the baptism in the first place, it is invalid. But, to answer your question without considering that matter, I would say at this present time, having only considered it for the past few minutes, that if a minister's superstition caused him to change the identity or contents of the water, I would question the validity of the baptism. Still, I'm not sure if this would be because of the water _per se_, or if it would be because of the underlying superstition.


----------



## alexanderjames (Oct 30, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Blake, I wonder if your question might not be moot since if an RC priest performs the baptism in the first place, it is invalid.


I was of the understanding that the reformed view is that even baptism administered by a RC priest should be considered valid?

*Edit* - it appears from a quick search that opinions on this matter are divided amongst those under the Reformed umbrella.


----------



## John The Baptist (Oct 30, 2022)

Taylor said:


> that if a minister's superstition caused him to change the identity or contents of the water, I would question the validity of the baptism. Still, I'm not sure if this would be because of the water _per se_, or if it would be because of the underlying superstition.


I agree with this. There is no such thing as “pure water,” all has some non H20 contents. And even if you were limiting to “natural water” like streams/lakes, then tap water is excluded because it’s been treated with various things. 

On top of that, I was baptized in a public swimming pool, but it was by an evangelical, ordained minister. I consider it valid. So, as Taylor said, I think it has to do with the superstition.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 30, 2022)

ZackF said:


> Why can’t doctrine on the sacraments be discussed?


There are going to be a limited number of mods online (not saying anyone here is going to break rules). I would think heavy theological discussion could wait for any other time than a Lord’s day morning. But don’t mind me. I’ll bow out.


----------



## Parakaleo (Oct 30, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> There are going to be a limited number of mods online (not saying anyone here is going to break rules). I would think heavy theological discussion could wait for any other time than a Lord’s day morning. But don’t mind me. I’ll bow out.


I had not considered that any kind of discussion where disagreement is probable to likely might require attention from the moderators, who are due a rest from moderating. That is a fair point and I will hold off on revisiting this until another day.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 30, 2022)

"Blake, I wonder if your question might not be moot since if an RC priest performs the baptism in the first place, it is invalid. "

In my PCA past it was perfectly valid. Not saying the PCA is right but it isn't a moot question.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 30, 2022)

Moderating. Reopened. Was Let's take this up again Monday. It's not like we haven't been over this ever before. For further reading.




__





Old School Presbyterians vs PCI on Romish baptism


GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND […] REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE, AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH FOREIGN CHURCHES Dr KILLEN, as Convener, read the following as the report of this Committee, and also subjoined letter from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the...




www.puritanboard.com





7 pager. https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...he-validity-of-rc-baptism.85866/#post-1068965

3 pager. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/question-on-rcc-infant-baptism.95176/#post-1162126


----------



## Parakaleo (Oct 31, 2022)

Thanks, Chris.

The reason I brought this post in the first place is because I think so much "ink" has been spilled debating points related to the first two conditions I listed above. Is the Roman Catholic Church a legitimate part of the visible church? Are their ordinances valid? Are the priests lawfully ordained? etc. 

I have not seen much discussed relating to the third condition I listed, "with water". If I am right that the concoction the Roman Catholic Church uses for baptism is not properly termed "water" (as required by Scripture, Acts 8:36; 10:47), that would be the simplest, clearest ground on which to reject Roman Catholic baptism.


----------



## MChase (Oct 31, 2022)

I think a similar question can be asked of grape juice in the Lord's Supper. I am convinced that it is not the most pure, so sinful, but I am not convinced that it completely invalidates the sacrament. Its unlawful but valid. I think a similar distinction would be applied to Rome at least on this specific part of the argument.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 31, 2022)

Parakaleo said:


> Thanks, Chris.
> 
> The reason I brought this post in the first place is because I think so much "ink" has been spilled debating points related to the first two conditions I listed above. Is the Roman Catholic Church a legitimate part of the visible church? Are their ordinances valid? Are the priests lawfully ordained? etc.
> 
> I have not seen much discussed relating to the third condition I listed, "with water". If I am right that the concoction the Roman Catholic Church uses for baptism is not properly termed "water" (as required by Scripture, Acts 8:36; 10:47), that would be the simplest, clearest ground on which to reject Roman Catholic baptism.



Are they adding other stuff to the water? I know many churches add water to wine in the Supper, and that was an ancient practice, but I didn't know Rome added things to water.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 31, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Are they adding other stuff to the water? I know many churches add water to wine in the Supper, and that was an ancient practice, but I didn't know Rome added things to water.


The priest spitting in the water was an issue but I don't recall if this was something the reformers (1st and 2nd) addressed in their polemics against the anabaptists and separatists or not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 31, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> The priest spitting in the water was an issue but I don't recall if this was something the reformers (1st and 2nd) addressed in their polemics against the anabaptists and separatists or not.


Historically, I've only read about RCs applying spittle to the infant's ears and nostrils, and/or, somewhat rarely, the priest would spit into their mouth, all as part of a pre-baptism exorcism. I don't recall it being mixed with the actual water. And how on earth would Anabaptists be implicated in such practices ?!?

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 31, 2022)

In some Roman communions, if the priest didn't have the right thoughts, then the sacrament was invalid. This, ironically, comes close to that. If x isn't just right, then it is not right. That also brings to mind the old Donatist heresies.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 31, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> Historically, I've only read about RCs applying spittle to the infant's ears and nostrils, and/or, somewhat rarely, the priest would spit in their mouth, all as part of a pre-baptism exorcism. I don't recall it being mixed with the actual water. And how on earth would Anabaptists be implicated in such practices ?!?


I'm saying the argument would come up in whether it invalidated the reformers' baptism. Maybe I'm misremembring; I thought it was into the water.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Oct 31, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> If x isn't just right, then it is not right.


 
That's the Regulative Principle.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 31, 2022)

Parakaleo said:


> That's the Regulative Principle.



Your original question is still unclear. Do you mean if the water isn't 100% H2O or are you referring to the priest's intentions?


----------



## John The Baptist (Oct 31, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> If x isn't just right, then it is not right. That also brings to mind the old Donatist heresies.


I was thinking the same exact thing at the beginning of this thread. That’s why I think it likely doesn’t have much to do with the content of the water (think of the Ethiopian eunuch, that water was likely dank) and much more to do with the meaning of the baptism. This is where it gets tricky because we do not want to be like the Donatists, but there must be some line to draw or any baptism in a heretical church would count as long as it’s done in the triune name by a lawfully ordained minister (as long as we’re talking lawful by their standards, otherwise we’re back to square one). I’d say it’s easier to reject the baptism on grounds that it’s the RCC, not the content of the water. 


Parakaleo said:


> That's the Regulative Principle.


Okay, but not the purity of the water. That would mean most everyone (if not everyone) on this thread has an invalid baptism. It has to be about the priest’s intentions/superstitions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Oct 31, 2022)

The Roman Catholic catechism appears to distinguish the pre-baptism rituals like exorcism, anointing, the blessing of the water, etc, from baptism itself, which they say is immersion in water three times in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or otherwise by the pouring of water three times.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## John The Baptist (Oct 31, 2022)

I wouldn’t think belief in baptismal regeneration itself (obviously the minister/denomination administering the baptism) invalidates one’s baptism (Lutherans, right? I know a lot of restoration movement churches). Can someone chime in on this?


----------



## Parakaleo (Nov 1, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Your original question is still unclear. Do you mean if the water isn't 100% H2O or are you referring to the priest's intentions?



The Scriptural requirement is water. We don't need to insist on 100% purity to know whether or not we are using water. We just use plain old water. I am not making an issue out of the purity levels of the water used by the Roman Catholic Church. It's more an issue of the preparation. Is the Scriptural requirement for water met when a priest won't use regular water? Even if the thing he uses is "close enough" that someone who grabbed a cup when the priest wasn't looking and brought it to me could make me agree that what he was holding is regular water? But, this is just the way of the Roman Catholic Church. Change things as much as will be allowed to maintain a level of plausibility.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 1, 2022)

Parakaleo said:


> The Scriptural requirement is water. We don't need to insist on 100% purity to know whether or not we are using water. We just use plain old water. I am not making an issue out of the purity levels of the water used by the Roman Catholic Church. It's more an issue of the preparation. Is the Scriptural requirement for water met when a priest won't use regular water? Even if the thing he uses is "close enough" that someone who grabbed a cup when the priest wasn't looking and brought it to me could make me agree that what he was holding is regular water? But, this is just the way of the Roman Catholic Church. Change things as much as will be allowed to maintain a level of plausibility.


Do you have evidence they are putting funny stuff in the water?


----------



## ZackF (Nov 1, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Do you have evidence they are putting funny stuff in the water?


I don’t remember seeing that during my RC days. Tap water and jugged water went into baptismal fonts. The same with “holy water” containers as I recall. Oil would gum up the spouts. I can’t imagine it being used. The cups and saucers would be cleaned in a designated sink to capture any unused blood or crumbs.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 1, 2022)

ZackF said:


> I don’t remember seeing that during my RC days. Tap water and jugged water went into baptismal fonts. The same with “holy water” containers as I recall. Oil would gum up the spouts. I can’t imagine it being used. The cups and saucers would be cleaned in a designated sink to capture any unused blood or crumbs.



Agreed. I think the issue here is the theology behind it, not the substance of the water itself. The OP wasn't clear, so I am just guessing. So on substance-wise, there shouldn't be a problem. I live in Louisiana, so our water is 70% sediment, but I think it is still water substance.

We have to be careful saying it is invalid based on the theology of the priest. I tend to go with the northern Presbyterians on this. Otherwise, it runs too close to the heresy of Donatism.

I do understand the reason why some say RC baptisms are invalid, but the OP seemed really unique in that regard.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MChase (Nov 1, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> We have to be careful saying it is invalid based on the theology of the priest. I tend to go with the northern Presbyterians on this. Otherwise, it runs too close to the heresy of Donatism.



The opposition to Romish baptism is not necessarily Donatist. It has more to do with the validity of their ordination. Unordained Joe Blow might have a decent enough soteriology, but if he baptizes his own child in the ocean I am not counting that as valid.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 1, 2022)

MChase said:


> The opposition to Romish baptism is not necessarily Donatist. It has more to do with the validity of their ordination. Unordained Joe Blow might have a decent enough soteriology, but if he baptizes his own child in the ocean I am not counting that as valid.



Fair point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rome2Geneva (Nov 1, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Do you have evidence they are putting funny stuff in the water?


In the old rite (pre-Vatican 2) the priest puts a few drops of oil in the font prior to baptism. Not sure if that is still done in the new rite.

Here's my question: what does 'invalid' even mean within a Reformed context? In a Roman Catholic context it means that the sacrament 'didn't work'. In the case of baptism it would mean that the infusion of sanctifying grace was prevented either because of defect in matter or intention. Since we Reformed don't believe in baptismal regeneration, what does an 'invalid' baptism mean? I was baptized as an infant in the RC and wasn't required to undergo the sacrament again when joining a Presbyterian church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MChase (Nov 1, 2022)

Rome2Geneva said:


> In the old rite (pre-Vatican 2) the priest puts a few drops of oil in the font prior to baptism. Not sure if that is still done in the new rite.
> 
> Here's my question: what does 'invalid' even mean within a Reformed context? In a Roman Catholic context it means that the sacrament 'didn't work'. In the case of baptism it would mean that the infusion of sanctifying grace was prevented either because of defect in matter or intention. Since we Reformed don't believe in baptismal regeneration, what does an 'invalid' baptism mean? I was baptized as an infant in the RC and wasn't required to undergo the sacrament again when joining a Presbyterian church.



I'm not presuming to comment on any particular administration of the sacrament (or lack thereof), but think of the Lord's Supper being administered in a private household by a bunch of college students with no ordained minister, no preaching, no fencing, etc. Is that a _valid_ administration of the Supper? I'd say no. 

This is different than the Lutheran church administering the Lord's Supper, where we would disagree with all that is going on - certainly with all they _think_ is going on - but it is still valid.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Nov 1, 2022)

Rome2Geneva said:


> In the old rite (pre-Vatican 2) the priest puts a few drops of oil in the font prior to baptism. Not sure if that is still done in the new rite.
> 
> Here's my question: what does 'invalid' even mean within a Reformed context? In a Roman Catholic context it means that the sacrament 'didn't work'. In the case of baptism it would mean that the infusion of sanctifying grace was prevented either because of defect in matter or intention. Since we Reformed don't believe in baptismal regeneration, what does an 'invalid' baptism mean? I was baptized as an infant in the RC and wasn't required to undergo the sacrament again when joining a Presbyterian church.



Would you agree that there is some kind of standard that separates "baptism" from "not-baptism"?

We both agree (I hope) that baptism performed using perfumed oil instead of water is not baptism.

We both agree (I hope) that someone who is knocked unconscious, kidnapped and blindfolded, and then dunked completely in pure water while someone says, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" can not really be said to be baptized.

At some point, a baptism done "just wrong enough" simply doesn't count.

I think it's good for people to explore the limits of this stuff.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 1, 2022)

the form of the Sacrament of Baptism has two essential elements: the pouring of water over the head of the person to be baptized (or the immersion of the person in water); and the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."


RamistThomist said:


> In some Roman communions, if the priest didn't have the right thoughts, then the sacrament was invalid. This, ironically, comes close to that. If x isn't just right, then it is not right. That also brings to mind the old Donatist heresies.





It is my understanding that the Church of Rome recognizes a baptism as valid if:

1. the person to be baptized is dipped into [immersed] in water, or the infant has water poured over their head
2. and the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." are uttered over the baptized person
3. and the baptism is performed with Trinitarian intent. That is to say, the person performing the baptism must intend what the Catholic Church intends in order for the baptism to be valid. Therefore for the baptism to be valid in the eyes of the Church of Rome. when the person performing the baptism baptizes "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," he must mean in the name of the Trinity, and he must intend to bring the person being baptized into the fullness of Christ's Church.

On the other hand, if the person performing the baptism is a cultist who denies the Trinity, the Church of Rome would regard the baptism as being invalid. 
For instance members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ["Mormons"] refer to themselves as Christians, they do not believe the same thing that Catholics, Canonical Orthodox, and Trinitarian Protestants believe about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Rather than believing that these are Three Persons in One God [the Trinity], the LDS cult teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate deities. Therefore, the Church of Rome 
denies the validity of LDS baptism, because Mormons, when they baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," do not intend what Christians intend, that is, they do not intend to baptize in the name of the Trinity.

The Church of Rome permits midwives and nurses to perform baptisms of dying infants, and regards these baptisms as valid as long as water is sprinkled or poured on the head of the infant, the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' are used, and the midwife or nurse performs this baptism with Trinitarian intent.


----------



## Rome2Geneva (Nov 2, 2022)

MChase said:


> I'm not presuming to comment on any particular administration of the sacrament (or lack thereof), but think of the Lord's Supper being administered in a private household by a bunch of college students with no ordained minister, no preaching, no fencing, etc. Is that a _valid_ administration of the Supper? I'd say no.
> 
> This is different than the Lutheran church administering the Lord's Supper, where we would disagree with all that is going on - certainly with all they _think_ is going on - but it is still valid.



I'm looking for a Reformed definition of _validity _in regards to the administration of the sacraments. My entire formation in sacramental theology is thoroughly Roman Catholic. I still have a lot to learn regarding the Reformed understanding of these terms and concepts. So I'm not being rhetorical when I ask these questions.

So in talking about _validity _of a sacrament my first question is: Did it 'work'? What you are describing above would fall under the Roman Catholic definition of _illicit: _not permitted. For instance, A Catholic priest who leaves the faith and becomes an atheist could still _validly _transubstantiate bread into the body of Christ (according to Rome). However this consecration would be uncanonical: _illicit._

Regarding Reformed theology, what determines if a sacrament 'works', ie: the particular grace of the sacrament having been received? If an adult convert to the Reformed faith is unknowingly baptized in water to which a copious amount of some foreign substance has been added, has that person not been visibly brought into communion with the Covenant community of the Church? The matter with which he has been baptized is certainly _illicit, _but does that mean that his baptism would be useless and have to be repeated? In other words, what is the particular grace that would not have been received in this case?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rome2Geneva (Nov 2, 2022)

yeutter said:


> the form of the Sacrament of Baptism has two essential elements: the pouring of water over the head of the person to be baptized (or the immersion of the person in water); and the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not true. As long as the person used the correct matter (water) and form (I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit) it is presumed that the person baptizing intends to do 'what the Church does'. According to Rome even atheists can validly baptize in an emergency. That's because Rome believes that sacraments work: _ex opere operato._


----------



## alexmacarie (Nov 2, 2022)

Francis Turretin has a satisfactory treatment of this question in his institutes.


----------

