# Is the Baptism of a Sect Valid?



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 23, 2007)

***POLL EDITED 9/26/07***

I want answers to the Poll from those only who believe RCC baptism is valid.

The Belgic Confession distinguishes a Sect from a true Church.

1. Did the Reformers believe that the baptism of a sect constituted a valid baptism?
2. Did the Reformers consider Baptists to be a sect?
3. Do you belive the baptism of sects are valid?

The poll allows for multiple selections.


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 23, 2007)

I voted "No"


----------



## Amazing Grace (Sep 23, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I want answers to the Poll from those only who believe RCC baptism is valid.
> 
> The Belgic Confession distinguishes a Sect from a true Church.
> 
> ...



Richard: Could you please give me an example of a sect.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 23, 2007)

I guess my baptism may be invalid according to the 3 voters so far. Good thing my faith isn't invalid before God. 

Therefore having been justified by faith we have peace with God...


----------



## calgal (Sep 23, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > I want answers to the Poll from those only who believe RCC baptism is valid.
> ...



Rich:

Do you mean mormons and jw's or anabaptists, Catholics and EO's? Thanks!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 23, 2007)

I mean by the word, Sect, what the early Reformers and Divines meant by it. The Baptists were not invited to the Westminster Assembly. Baptists were considered a sect by these men.

I want to know if the Reformers and the voters consider the baptism of a Sect, as defined by the Reformers, is valid. I also gave a place for members to except themselves from their views.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Sep 23, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I mean by the word, Sect, what the early Reformers and Divines meant by it. The Baptists were not invited to the Westminster Assembly. Baptists were considered a sect by these men.
> 
> I want to know if the Reformers and the voters consider the baptism of a Sect, as defined by the Reformers, is valid. I also gave a place for members to except themselves from their views.



So there is no way we can get a list as examples? Or are you only speaking of Baptists? Calvin Called Islam a sect. Waldenses, Albigenses, Cathari are more examples.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 23, 2007)

Nicholas,

I don't see this as very hard to understand. I gave sufficient example and sufficient exception in the choices.

The Reformers, per my understanding, considered the Baptists a sect. Whether they considered Muslims and others a sect is immaterial if all sects, in their view, had invalid baptisms. Of course, Muslims don't baptize so that's a poor example.

Thus, either:

1. You agree with the Reformers and the Divines that the Baptisms of all sects are invalid or 
2. You disagree with them that the Baptisms of all sects are invalid by excepting that you believe the baptism of _some_ sects are valid or
3. You disagree with them that some groups that they considered sects are actually part of the visible Church.

I might be missing an option but I'm not certain why you feel the question is unclear.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 23, 2007)

I am not sure what the reformers thought. Since the Particular Baptists have their roots in the Reformers and not in the Anabaptists, I would be very interested in knowing what the Reformers thought about the Congregationalists and Particular Baptists around the time of the confessions. There still was a lot of persecution around that time.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 23, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> I am not sure what the reformers thought. Since the Particular Baptists have their roots in the Reformers and not in the Anabaptists, I would be very interested in knowing what the Reformers thought about the Congregationalists and Particular Baptists around the time of the confessions. There still was a lot of persecution around that time.


I'm really guessing here but are not the English Calvinistic Baptists considered among the English Separatists, which would include the Paedobaptist Independents? I would be surprised if the generality of the establishment men, Scots or English, would have said rebaptism was necessary. I'm turning in and this is all I've had a chance to check in my copy and on Google: John Dick, Scottish united associate minister, in his lectures on theology first published in 1834, has some thoughts in one page here (Google PDF; not going to retype it).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 23, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure what the reformers thought. Since the Particular Baptists have their roots in the Reformers and not in the Anabaptists, I would be very interested in knowing what the Reformers thought about the Congregationalists and Particular Baptists around the time of the confessions. There still was a lot of persecution around that time.
> ...



That would be interesting to find out if they at least considered the English Calvinist Baptists a Church and not a sect. If so, what about non-Calvinistic Baptists?

I'm trying to nail something down here. It should not be too oblique what I'm driving at given another thread on the same subject.

I find it fascinating how clear it is that RCC Baptism is valid but how unclear it is whether or not the Baptism of a Baptist is valid.

I do wish that the folks who are so vocal in sustaining the validity of RCC Baptisms would be likewise vocal in sustaining the validity/invalidity of the Baptism of Baptists and whether they are a sect or no.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 23, 2007)

You'd better watch out Rich. People might start to think you are actually reading those Dispensational books we gave you!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 23, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> You'd better watch out Rich. People might start to think you are actually reading those Dispensational books we gave you!


----------



## MW (Sep 23, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> John Dick, Scottish united associate minister, in his lectures on theology first published in 1834, has some thoughts in one page here (Google PDF; not going to retype it).



 Here is the text for future reference.



> There is a more intricate question respecting baptism by heretics, which gave rise to a keen controversy in the primitive church. Doubts of its validity had been for some time entertained; but, in the third century, the Christians in Asia came to a decision, in more than one Council, that all heretics should be re-baptized before their admission into the communion of the Catholic Church. Stephen, who was then bishop of Rome, was filled with indignation, and proceeded to ex-communicate the Asiatics; but their cause was espoused by Cyprian and the other bishops of Africa, who, in defiance of the threatening of Stephen, pronounced baptism administered by heretics to be void of all efficacy and validity. It was finally determined by the Council of Nice, that those who had been baptized by heretics, should be received into the church simply by the imposition of hands; with the exception of the followers of Paul of Samosata, whom the Council commanded to be re-baptized, because his sect did not acknowledge the Trinity. Those who maintained the invalidity of the baptism of heretics, comprehended under this denomination all the sects which had separated from the great body of Christians; for the character was applied in those times with great latitude, and was sometimes given to worthy persons, who opposed prevailing errors and superstitions. The decree of the Council gave a sanction to the baptism of all the different societies of professed Christians, and excepted those alone by whom the ordinance was essentially corrupted. Some are said to have baptized "in the name of the uncreated God, and in the name of the created Son, and in the name of the sanctifying Spirit, who was created by the created Son;" others, "in the name of the Father the only true God, of Jesus Christ the Saviour and a creature, and of the Holy Ghost the servant of both;" and others, "in the name of the Father, by the Son, and in the Holy Ghost."
> 
> It is evident that baptism administered in such forms, is not Christian baptism. It is essentially defective, because it sets aside the doctrine of the Trinity, into the profession of which our Lord commanded his disciples to be baptized. There is, however, considerable difficulty in settling the general question respecting the validity of baptism. Where the form is exactly observed, may it not be vitiated by the administrator, although he bear the character of a minister of Christ? Is every man to be recognized as a minister of Christ, having authority to officiate in his name, who is called such? the man who errs in the fundamental doctrines of religion, the man who holds the Trinity, but is guilty of idolatry, and is tainted with all the pollutions of the Romish Church? It seems to be generally agreed not to scrutinize this matter too minutely, and to admit baptism administered by any person who holds the office of the ministry in the church to which he belongs, and who observes the form prescribed by our Saviour, although it may be encumbered with superstitious rites.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 24, 2007)

Thanks for quoting that Rev. Winzer. Now, as to your thoughts:

1. Is the baptism of sects valid given the above?
2. More specifically, are Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic varieties of Baptists considered sects historically and do _you_ consider the baptisms in such "Churches" (if you believe they are) to be valid?

I'm not sure why people cannot simply answer these questions plainly. When the question is asked about Roman Catholic baptisms the answers are very plain. Yet, here we are with a group of LBCF subscribers and I want to know if the Presbyterians who are willing to grant validity to an RCC baptism can unequivocally grant the validity of Baptism conducted by a Baptist minister, whether you believe they are in the visible Church or merely a sect, etc. I would also like to know if the Reformers believed that the baptism of a non-Calvinistic Baptist who was otherwise practicing Trinitarian baptism would have considered it valid or no.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Thanks for quoting that Rev. Winzer. Now, as to your thoughts:
> 
> 1. Is the baptism of sects valid given the above?
> 2. More specifically, are Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic varieties of Baptists considered sects historically and do _you_ consider the baptisms in such "Churches" (if you believe they are) to be valid?
> ...



chirp...chirp...


----------



## thekingsknight (Sep 24, 2007)

Hi, Rich!
Don't whether this will help or add more confusion.

English Dissenters: Baptists


----------



## Herald (Sep 24, 2007)

I don't have a dog in this hunt since I am not qualified to answer the poll question. But I join with Rich in wanting to see some plain answers. Come on people. Say what you are dying to say. Spit it out. It's not like any of us Baptists are going to cry in our Wheaties if you say you don't hold our baptism as valid.


----------



## Herald (Sep 24, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I don't have a dog in this hunt since I am not qualified to answer the poll question. But I join with Rich in wanting to see some plain answers. Come on people. Say what you are dying to say. Spit it out. It's not like any of us Baptists are going to cry in our Wheaties if you say you don't hold our baptism as valid.



btw - the answer to this question has some tentacles. If Baptist baptism is not valid, is it inconsistent that Baptists be allowed to be members of the PB or serve as moderators? Think about your answer. Wouldn't we be in disobedience to the clear teaching of scripture? And know this, if someone asks me about the proper mode, administration, and significance of baptism I am going to speak my conscience on the matter. Maybe this is cause for a different thread.


----------



## tellville (Sep 24, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have a dog in this hunt since I am not qualified to answer the poll question. But I join with Rich in wanting to see some plain answers. Come on people. Say what you are dying to say. Spit it out. It's not like any of us Baptists are going to cry in our Wheaties if you say you don't hold our baptism as valid.
> ...



I thought the point of this thread was to draw out these very points.


----------



## Herald (Sep 24, 2007)

tellville said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> > BaptistInCrisis said:
> ...



Mark - I'm not sure. So far there seems to be a careful dance going on.


----------



## tellville (Sep 24, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> > BaptistInCrisis said:
> ...



Which is why as Baptist's we stay well clear of dancing!


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 24, 2007)

Calvin's wife was raised by an anabaptist family and was not rebaptized.


----------



## Timothy William (Sep 24, 2007)

I voted "yes, even though the Reformers thought not" though I am not well qualified to say what the Reformers thought. It is a hard one to give my reasons on, as the idea that a Baptist's baptism would not be valid had never before seriously entered my head, so I did not know the arguments in favour of that view well enough to say why I did not find them convincing. As said above, the Trinitarian nature of the Baptism seems to be the key.

Tangent: I do know a man who, on converting from Anglo-Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy decided that his prior baptism was not valid due to the addition of the filioque to the Nicean creed making his CofE baptism not properly Trinitarian, as in his view the Western church had an incompatible view of the Trinity. I wouldn't think this would be an issue with a convert from EO, however, but perhaps it would be.


----------



## MW (Sep 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Thanks for quoting that Rev. Winzer. Now, as to your thoughts:
> 
> 1. Is the baptism of sects valid given the above?
> 2. More specifically, are Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic varieties of Baptists considered sects historically and do _you_ consider the baptisms in such "Churches" (if you believe they are) to be valid?



I thought my RCC comparisons with fundie baptists in the other thread made it evident that I consider such baptisms valid. As to whether Baptists are a sect, I suppose I would stop at saying their view of the church is sectarian, and leave it at that.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 24, 2007)

Found this in James Durham. I am presuming he would be representative of the Scots Presbyterian view, that would side with Stephen over Cyprian.


> (2.) It is when men too vehemently press such a thing, as if the contrary
> thereof, or those who maintain the same, were intolerable, and so in a fiery
> violent way seek to beat down that which is indeed an error, though of
> infirmity. It is marked by some that write church history, and Augustine is
> ...


----------



## Amazing Grace (Sep 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Nicholas,
> 
> I don't see this as very hard to understand. I gave sufficient example and sufficient exception in the choices.
> 
> ...



Then I will answer YES to #2 and #3 above. With the qualification that form, intent and matter are consistant with the early church liturgy of the 'rite'. 

As a note, it was not my lack of understanding, but the clarity of the question formed. You directed us to the Belgic Confession, which was written in 1561 specifically to exhonerate the charge of of being rebels against Spain. Then included the word 'Divines' in there which makes me think of the WCF. In my limited understanding of every minutia in that specific time the BC was written, baptism/rebaptism of sects was not a hill to die on. But I may be wrong

Article 34 of the BC:

For this reason we believe that anyone who aspires to reach eternal life ought to be *baptized only once without ever repeating it-*- for we cannot be born twice. Yet this baptism is profitable not only when the water is on us and when we receive it but throughout our entire lives.

*For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received *and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children.


----------



## Philip A (Sep 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I'm not sure why people cannot simply answer these questions plainly. When the question is asked about Roman Catholic baptisms the answers are very plain.



The hesitation, at least on my part, isn’t any reluctance to affirm the validity of the baptism of Baptists. I hesitated because the question, honestly, is poorly asked. If you’d have asked simply if the baptism of Baptists, or Pentecostals, or Calvary Chapel was valid, I’d have been able to affirm it immediately. When my wife and I joined the URC, my Lutheran baptism, her Roman Catholic baptism, and our friend’s Holiness Pentecostal baptism were all considered equally valid.

When you ask if the baptism of a sect is valid, the question is unanswerable, because you’ve not distinguished between sects. Note that Turretin answers the question of the validity of baptism by heretics with his “we distinguish”, and goes on to say that to answer the question, we must distinguish between heretics. He gives the example that the baptism of the Arminians is valid, but the baptism of the Socinians is not.

Additionally, when you ask us if we consider the baptism of a sect to be valid, you also ask us to weigh in on whether the Reformers considered it valid, too. Now there is far too much spurious citing of the Reformers, both here on the PB and in the Church at large, for me to be comfortable pronouncing from the hip whether or not they did. If you want a thoughtful answer, you’ve got to give us time to do the research.

Having said all that, I still can’t answer your poll question , because I don’t see an answer stating:


> Some sectarian baptisms are valid, and some aren't, and I distinguish between the two along with the Reformers.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 24, 2007)

Philip A said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure why people cannot simply answer these questions plainly. When the question is asked about Roman Catholic baptisms the answers are very plain.
> ...



 It depends on the sect. My understanding is that if the baptism was trinitarian the Reformers accepted it but that they rejected baptism by Socinians and others who did not have an orthodox view of the trinity.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Sep 25, 2007)

Richard:

Is this the end of the thread?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 26, 2007)

Philip A said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure why people cannot simply answer these questions plainly. When the question is asked about Roman Catholic baptisms the answers are very plain.
> ...



Philip,

Been on leave for 2 days with no internet. Thanks for the response. Thanks also to Rev. Winzer. I don't dispute my options might have been poorly worded but I provided a means to interact on those grounds. Notice the very first post had three questions posed:


> 1. Did the Reformers believe that the baptism of a sect constituted a valid baptism?
> 2. Did the Reformers consider Baptists to be a sect?
> 3. Do you belive the baptism of sects are valid?


I honestly did not know what the answer to those questions were. I was trying to find out. I knew that Baptists were considered a Sect but desired to ascertain the validity of their Baptism according to the Reformer's views.

Until you posted, I would note that nobody was clamouring to ask that the poll be edited or even to simply answer the first three questions posed in the Original Post. As it was, over a two day period, I only had 5 answers that the Baptisms of Sects were invalid and that the Reformers thought the same.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 26, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > Nicholas,
> ...



Nicholas,

I don't doubt the validity of the BC portion but it goes to what constitutes a valid baptism. A Mormon baptism would be, in one sense, a baptism but, in another, not a baptism at all. The question posed dealt with whether or not a sect's baptism is valid or not. If invalid then to perform a Christian baptism would be the _first_ and not the second time that a baptism of an individual occured. The Reformers were concerned (as am I by the way) that a person not be re-baptized. It's enough for me, in the end, to know whose baptism my Church determines valid for discipleship.

I believe Philip's post was helpful but it leads to other questions that I don't have time to ask right now.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 26, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Until you posted, I would note that nobody was clamouring to ask that the poll be edited or even to simply answer the first three questions posed in the Original Post. As it was, over a two day period, I only had 5 answers that the Baptisms of Sects were invalid and that the Reformers thought the same.



To be fair, no one wanted to ask that the pol be edited until they knew what was being asked. 

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 26, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > Until you posted, I would note that nobody was clamouring to ask that the poll be edited or even to simply answer the first three questions posed in the Original Post. As it was, over a two day period, I only had 5 answers that the Baptisms of Sects were invalid and that the Reformers thought the same.
> ...



Do you mean something like this?


> 1. Did the Reformers believe that the baptism of a sect constituted a valid baptism?
> 2. Did the Reformers consider Baptists to be a sect?
> 3. Do you belive the baptism of sects are valid?


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 26, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Richard: Could you please give me an example of a sect.



Mormons, JWs, Anabaptists...I would not count the RCC as a sect but an apostate church.

*NB:* One question that needs be asked is are "Reformed Baptists" Anabaptist?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 26, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > SemperFideles said:
> ...



Yep those are the questions. Sect is such a broad term, that one could answer yes and no to the reformers view of it. It is like asking, "do the scriptures teach that everyone believes in God, yes or no".

I guess next time, no one should ask for clarification but instead should just say, "That poll is horribly worded, do it over again."

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 26, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > ChristianTrader said:
> ...


Works for me. I welcomed the clarification, I merely wondered aloud why more clarification wasn't sought. The original questions were meant to guide the discussion and improvement of the poll as needed. I wasn't offended by Philip's remarks in the least but there was wonderment (shared by that fellow ignorant Reformed guy named Fred Greco) that nobody was weighing in. 

The original poll options were poor. I admit it. I don't play tactics with the truth. I did, however, provide an "option" as to whether the baptism of all sects were invalid or some sects (i.e. Baptists were invalid). The question in the OP is still appropriate. It could be expanded to include the types of other sects but I was specifically asking about the validty of Baptist sects.

I'm very impressed by the hindsightedness of your prescience now that others have weighed in. Would you like to explain to me how the questions in the OP were inadequate to spark dialogue given what has transpired? All you have done is repeat the fact that sects are broad? (Question 1 could be answered with a qualifier) But the second question is not so broad (the Reformed admitted that the could so this is very _specific_). The third question asks for your opinion. In fact, Philip's post answers all 3 questions in the main.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Sep 26, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Richard: Could you please give me an example of a sect.
> ...



I think we must be careful in defining anyone by the term anabaptist. Perhaps we can just call them 'rebatizers'. Anabaptist(radical reformers) is much broader than just baptism.


----------



## non dignus (Sep 26, 2007)

I was a true Anabaptist when I first got saved. I became a member of a little fellowship in North Charleston, SC. It was an independent holiness Pentecostal church that practiced a low grade communal living (separate domiciles in close proximity), pacifism, political non-activism; the pastor was authoritarian and claimed to be a prophet in the OT sense. 

This was a sect in the real sense of the word. It could have easily devolved into a cult. I would accept their baptism because they baptized in the trinitarian formula and adhered to the Apostles' Creed. 

RCC is valid.
(JW's and Mormons are cults. Islam is a cult. RCC does not qualify as a cult.) 

There are two kinds of sects. Good sects and OK sects.




P.S. The mark of a cult is that it assumes the posture of a family. It takes a good authority structure (covenant household) and transposes it into a 'church'. The RCC doesn't exhibit this. 

However, the cult of Islam is marked by honor killings in the household which is their form of church discipline. There seems to be little difference between church discipline and paternal discipline. And incidentally, paedo-communion blurs these distinctions as well (though with less annoyance at city hall).


----------



## Archlute (Sep 26, 2007)

An issue that has not yet been brought up is that of the difference between the BC and the WCF on this point. This is key, as it was only the BC that was cited in the OP. It is also an ongoing debate among the students with whom I was familiar at WSC, as well as the churches from which they have entered their seminary studies. The issue is this - does the WCF hold a broader and more charitable view than the BC on what constitutes a true church (verses a false church/sect/what have you), and if so (and if so correct), are those who hold to the BC language in a strict manner unnecessarily excluding from the body of Christ those whom the Westminster divines would not?

According to the WCF 25.4-5, most modern Baptist churches would be considered true churches who teach and embrace the Gospel, who nevertheless have a corrupted view of the sacraments. This would not make them a sect (as some who hold to the BC would assert), but rather a true church that has within its fold some false practices. 

So, _assuming_ that this poll is most directly speaking of baptism coming from anabaptist/baptist churches who, while sectarian in form, yet still proclaim the Gospel, and who have some practice of baptism, communion and public worship that is recognizably Christian, then - yes, I would consider their baptism to be valid.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 26, 2007)

Archlute said:


> An issue that has not yet been brought up is that of the difference between the BC and the WCF on this point. This is key, as it was only the BC that was cited in the OP. It is also an ongoing debate among the students with whom I was familiar at WSC, as well as the churches from which they have entered their seminary studies. The issue is this - does the WCF hold a broader and more charitable view than the BC on what constitutes a true church (verses a false church/sect/what have you), and if so (and if so correct), are those who hold to the BC language in a strict manner unnecessarily excluding from the body of Christ those whom the Westminster divines would not?
> 
> According to the WCF 25.4-5, most modern Baptist churches would be considered true churches who teach and embrace the Gospel, who nevertheless have a corrupted view of the sacraments. This would not make them a sect (as some who hold to the BC would assert), but rather a true church that has within its fold some false practices.
> 
> So, _assuming_ that this poll is most directly speaking of baptism coming from anabaptist/baptist churches who, while sectarian in form, yet still proclaim the Gospel, and who have some practice of baptism, communion and public worship that is recognizably Christian, then - yes, I would consider their baptism to be valid.



Interesting. Do you merely suspect this to be the case or is there something in the minutes or something else that makes you believe they were more charitable? My understanding is that Baptists weren't even invited to the assembly. I did note, however, that the WCF didn't use the term but the connection between the BC and the WCF is merely the fact that they're both of the Reformed corpus of Confessions and, generally, the two agree with one another.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 26, 2007)

Archlute said:


> An issue that has not yet been brought up is that of the difference between the BC and the WCF on this point. This is key, as it was only the BC that was cited in the OP. It is also an ongoing debate among the students with whom I was familiar at WSC, as well as the churches from which they have entered their seminary studies. The issue is this - does the WCF hold a broader and more charitable view than the BC on what constitutes a true church (verses a false church/sect/what have you), and if so (and if so correct), are those who hold to the BC language in a strict manner unnecessarily excluding from the body of Christ those whom the Westminster divines would not?
> 
> According to the WCF 25.4-5, most modern Baptist churches would be considered true churches who teach and embrace the Gospel, who nevertheless have a corrupted view of the sacraments. This would not make them a sect (as some who hold to the BC would assert), but rather a true church that has within its fold some false practices.
> 
> So, _assuming_ that this poll is most directly speaking of baptism coming from anabaptist/baptist churches who, while sectarian in form, yet still proclaim the Gospel, and who have some practice of baptism, communion and public worship that is recognizably Christian, then - yes, I would consider their baptism to be valid.



Richard Mouw, an ecumenist, notes this difference when evaluating the Roman Catholic Church's claim to be the one true church, and he notes that Kuyper observed this as well.
Mouw’s Musings - The President’s Blog » The “One True Church(es)”


----------



## Archlute (Sep 26, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > An issue that has not yet been brought up is that of the difference between the BC and the WCF on this point. This is key, as it was only the BC that was cited in the OP. It is also an ongoing debate among the students with whom I was familiar at WSC, as well as the churches from which they have entered their seminary studies. The issue is this - does the WCF hold a broader and more charitable view than the BC on what constitutes a true church (verses a false church/sect/what have you), and if so (and if so correct), are those who hold to the BC language in a strict manner unnecessarily excluding from the body of Christ those whom the Westminster divines would not?
> ...



Hey Rich, glad to engage you in discussion again! 

I don't know the history of the Assembly's relationship to the Baptist churches of the day, but I suspect that even if the Baptists remained uninvited there may be more to the issue than the ministers' views alone. The Westminster Assembly was called by the civil government to draw up a unified religious confession for the realm, and it is possible that the civil government had standards that excluded the Baptists, except for which the divines would have extended invitation. That's just a guess, though. What is not a guess is that the Scottish church sent delegates to the Assembly, but refused to have them actually sit as members of the Assembly. So, one could ask if the Scottish kirk was a sect, or viewed the Westminster Presbyterians as a sect! Of course, this is silly, but it does illustrate that one's inclusion or absence from the Assembly may not say as much about their status as we would initially think.

However, even if the Westminster divines did hold that the Baptists were sectarian, it would make no difference to me. What we hold to is what is written in the confession, and the definition of the church in 25.4-5 would necessarily include Baptist churches as true churches. If the divines thought otherwise, they were at that point contradicting their own given definition in the confession as to what constitutes a true church.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 26, 2007)

It's not so much a line item definition of a sect but it does express well the "fruit" or signature character of any given sect. It focuses well on the "spirit" behind a sect. Personally, I like it best of all.

_"Patience is one of the things that distinguishes the Church from the sect. The sect must have everything at once. It cannot wait, because it has no future. The Church can wait, because it has a future."_

-Hermann Sasse


----------



## MW (Sep 26, 2007)

Larry Hughes said:


> It's not so much a line item definition of a sect but it does express well the "fruit" or signature character of any given sect. It focuses well on the "spirit" behind a sect. Personally, I like it best of all.
> 
> _"Patience is one of the things that distinguishes the Church from the sect. The sect must have everything at once. It cannot wait, because it has no future. The Church can wait, because it has a future."_
> 
> -Hermann Sasse



That's brilliant!


----------



## KMK (Sep 26, 2007)

Only 13 people have voted on this poll, yet 41 PBers voted that they believe RCC baptism to be valid on that other poll. Have the rest been convinced otherwise by the arguments posted on this thread?


----------

