# For those that hold Roman Baptism as invalid.



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

I am not 100% where I stand, though I am somewhat convinced by this article by Charles Hodge that a Roman Catholic baptism is valid. 

Anyway, for those (not credos obviously) that don't consider RC baptism as valid, what do you make of mainline Protestant Churches? Why would someone preaching liberal theology have a valid baptism if RC doesn't?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2006)

I am not 100% but I will try to voice some trouble I hae with the whole situation. 

Those who would hold to it as valid would claim that it is so because done in the name of the Trinity. That sounds good at first reading. But, let's just use the liberal church for example, they do not believe in a divine Christ. So, that would implicitly involve a redefinition of the Trinity. If the Trinity is redefined, it is a different Trinity. If it is a differeint Trinity, it is not a valid baptism.

But again, I am sympathetic to the view that their baptisms are valid, I am just thinking out loud again.


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I am not 100% but I will try to voice some trouble I hae with the whole situation.
> 
> Those who would hold to it as valid would claim that it is so because done in the name of the Trinity. That sounds good at first reading. But, let's just use the liberal church for example, they do not believe in a divine Christ. So, that would implicitly involve a redefinition of the Trinity. If the Trinity is redefined, it is a different Trinity. If it is a differeint Trinity, it is not a valid baptism.
> ...




The problem I see is that it is too complicated if Trinitarianism isn't the only point of contention. We could go down a bunch of roads then.


----------



## historyb (Feb 13, 2006)

How many times must a man be baptized? Since Baptism doesn't regenerate that I don't see a real problem. With the exception that the person was to young to understand or did it to just do it.

I came from the RCC never got baptized there, was baptized in a Baptist church prior to that. (As an funny aside, I being a rather large man and being in a wheelchair and being difficult to get me to the baptistery they poured, not a little water quite a bit. I asked the pastor if he used all the water out of the baptistery.  )


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by historyb_
> How many times must a man be baptized? Since Baptism doesn't regenerate that I don't see a real problem. With the exception that the person was to young to understand or did it to just do it.
> 
> I came from the RCC never got baptized there, was baptized in a Baptist church prior to that. (As an funny aside, I being a rather large man and being in a wheelchair and being difficult to get me to the baptistery they poured, not a little water quite a bit. I asked the pastor if he used all the water out of the baptistery.  )



Good point, how many baptisms do we believe in?

I can understand those that object to RC baptism, but we should be careful where it takes us.


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

I think one objection I have heard is the mode of baptism. I guess they mix oil and water? Anyway, I can understand that as an objection, and may agree with it, but I haven't seen much debate about it.

I imagine that most Presbyterian Churches leave it up to the conscience of the individual?


----------



## Preach (Feb 14, 2006)

I just brought this issue up with our session. We did not make a final decision. One point to think about: Is the Roman Catholic church a true church of Jesus Christ. I seem to lean toward Dr. John H. Gertstner sr.'s view. 

He said that the Catholic church ceased to be a Christian church at the council of Trent when it not only continued (officially) to adhere to heresies but actually (officially) denied justification by faith alone.

Who gets you to heaven? You and Jesus or Jesus alone?


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Preach_
> I just brought this issue up with our session. We did not make a final decision. One point to think about: Is the Roman Catholic church a true church of Jesus Christ. I seem to lean toward Dr. John H. Gertstner sr.'s view.
> 
> He said that the Catholic church ceased to be a Christian church at the council of Trent when it not only continued (officially) to adhere to heresies but actually (officially) denied justification by faith alone.
> ...



I agree with you on the essentials of the argument. Have you read Is the Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church? by Charles Hodge?


----------



## Peter (Feb 14, 2006)

I believe the Romish Church's baptism is valid. For me the issue hinged on whether or not the Popish Church is a true church or not as only a valid ministry may preform a valid baptism. To be clear, the question is not whether the RC is a true church in the sense of a correct church but rather is it true in the sense it is really a church. I agree with the Reformers and Post-Reformers (Turrettin, Rutherford those that lived after Trent) that the R.C. is a true Church materially. The RC believes in the OT and NT scriptures, the apostles creed, the ecumencial councils, in short, the fundamentals of Christianity. It is possible to be a saved Christian and be in the RC. However, when fundamental doctrines are exponed she teaches heresy and therefore is not ministerially a church whose breast we may suck.


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> I believe the Romish Church's baptism is valid. For me the issue hinged on whether or not the Popish Church is a true church or not as only a valid ministry may preform a valid baptism. To be clear, the question is not whether the RC is a true church in the sense of a correct church but rather is it true in the sense it is really a church. I agree with the Reformers and Post-Reformers (Turrettin, Rutherford those that lived after Trent) that the R.C. is a true Church materially. The RC believes in the OT and NT scriptures, the apostles creed, the ecumencial councils, in short, the fundamentals of Christianity. It is possible to be a saved Christian and be in the RC. However, when fundamental doctrines are exponed she teaches heresy and therefore is not ministerially a church whose breast we may suck.



So, what would your Church do if someone had an RC baptism, and wanted to be rebaptized? Honestly, I am not sure about my Church.


----------



## Peter (Feb 14, 2006)

Their request should be denied as catabaptism is a sin.


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Their request should be denied as catabaptism is a sin.



I guess my question is whether this is an ecclesiastical issue or one of personal conscience. You seem to be saying the former, but I wonder what my denom say. Just pondering.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> I think one objection I have heard is the mode of baptism. I guess they mix oil and water?




No, my understanding is that they do not mix oil and water. Rather, they apply "chrism" (an annointing with oil) before or after the baptism itself. But when the water is applied, I _think_ it is just water.

In any case, the RCC _definitely_ accepts baptisms done in pure water, with nothing else needing to be added.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Thanks Joseph. What do you think about the issue?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Those who would hold to it as valid would claim that it is so because done in the name of the Trinity. That sounds good at first reading. But, let's just use the liberal church for example, they do not believe in a divine Christ. So, that would implicitly involve a redefinition of the Trinity. If the Trinity is redefined, it is a different Trinity. If it is a differeint Trinity, it is not a valid baptism.



According to this thinking, then, do liberal churches (like the PCUSA) truly believe in a divine Christ? How about the Methodists? How about the Wesleyan/Nazarene/Holiness groups? If we start making judgments on whether "their" Christ is "truly divine", a lot of people on this board would probably throw out _all_ Arminian baptisms. Before long, no baptisms will be accepted unless they are done by the RPCGA. I speak in a bit of hyperbole, but you see what I mean.

The fact is that Rome explicitly affirms the full Godhood of Jesus Christ, whereas Mormons and JWs do not. A RC baptism is valid, and a mormon/JW baptism is not valid.

I know you were just playing the devil's advocate, Jacob. And of course I agree with you that we should accept Rome's baptism.


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



I wonder if perhaps we should accept RC baptism but deny the most liberal Prot baptism (i.e. UCC).


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> Thanks Joseph. What do you think about the issue?




I definitely think we should accept Rome's baptism.


I agree with William Perkins, Richard Baxter, Francis Turretin, and Samuel Rutherford on this issue.

Click on these links to read what each of these men wrote regarding this subject.

Each of them are very well known Reformed Protestants who lived and wrote _after_ the Council of Trent.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> I am not 100% where I stand, though I am somewhat convinced by this article by Charles Hodge that a Roman Catholic baptism is valid.



I need to read the article, but what does "valid" mean regarding baptism? What makes a baptism valid, and why?


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Valid meaning recognized by the Church as the one true baptism, and not to be redone. If someone was "Baptized" in a non-Trinitarian sect, then they definitly would need to be baptized properly. On the other hand, if it were just at the PCA church down the Street, it would be accepted. The differences are when it comes to Roman Catholic Baptisms.


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



Bret,

The PCA leaves it up to the Session. If you go to the Historical Document section of the PCA web site there is a paper from GA on this issue.

In my humble opinion, the key issue concerning RC baptism goes to how one defines the Church. Is the Church defined solely under the guise of the "True Church"? or as the as the "Visible Church" per the WCF (which is broader). This is the point that Hodge gets at in is paper.


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Ok, that makes sense. What about the OPC? Is it determined by the GA or the Presbytery? I know that the OPC is more centrally run.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> I need to read the article, but what does "valid" mean regarding baptism? What makes a baptism valid, and why?



Here are my  :

What does "valid" mean in reference to baptism? It means that it is considered a "true baptism" which never needs to be repeated. For example, if a Roman Catholic becomes a true Christian, and decides to join the PCA, he should not be re-baptized, because his baptism is valid. But if a Jehovah's Witness becomes a Christian, and decides to join the PCA, he should be baptized, because his first "baptism" was not a true baptism at all. It was not Trinitarian, and thus it was invalid.

A baptism is valid if it is Trinitarian, i.e. "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost". If the baptism is intended in a polytheistic way (i.e. Mormon), then it is not Trinitarian. If the baptism is done while denying the deity of Christ (i.e. JWs), then it is not Trinitarian.

And of course the piety of the person performing the baptism has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the baptism.


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



I have not seen any official paper on this subject, but from what I understand the OPC accepts RC baptism.


----------



## brymaes (Feb 14, 2006)

> I have not seen any official paper on this subject, but from what I understand the OPC accepts RC baptism.



Per an OPC pastor that is a friend of mine, this is true. The denomination as a whole accepts Romish baptisms.

[Edited on 2-15-2006 by theologae]


----------



## SRoper (Feb 14, 2006)

"I wonder if perhaps we should accept RC baptism but deny the most liberal Prot baptism (i.e. UCC)."

Perhaps. I was baptized UCC, and I had some uncertainty about whether it was a valid baptism. When I wanted to join Redeemer (PCA), I left it up to the session to decide if it was valid since I don't really understand all the issues. I told the elder that examined me about my concern. They found that it was a valid baptism, and I consider the matter settled.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 14, 2006)

We discussed this extensively here:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1976#pid61886


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> "I wonder if perhaps we should accept RC baptism but deny the most liberal Prot baptism (i.e. UCC)."
> 
> Perhaps. I was baptized UCC, and I had some uncertainty about whether it was a valid baptism. When I wanted to join Redeemer (PCA), I left it up to the session to decide if it was valid since I don't really understand all the issues. I told the elder that examined me about my concern. They found that it was a valid baptism, and I consider the matter settled.



Sounds like the right approach to me.


----------

