# Question on RCC infant baptism



## beloved7 (Mar 15, 2018)

Do Presbyterians recognize it? Would a Presbyterian church, such as the PCA have a new member get baptized or would the RCC baptism be accepted as valid?

This is not for arguments sake, I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 15, 2018)

In most PCA and OPC churches, a RCC baptism would probably be accepted as valid. However, there are a minority of churches that would not accept it. This reflects a long-standing debate between the Northern Presbyterians (who generally, but not always, accepted RCC baptism as valid) and the Southern Presbyterians (who generally, but not always, rejected RCC baptism).

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 15, 2018)

Others are welcome to correct me, but as far as I can tell from my studies it seems that in the main, most (or many) Presbyterians accept any baptism that was done by water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The person (or organization) doing the baptism is not important. The Triune Formula is important.

SOME Presbyterians do not, based on the idea that the Sacraments must be administered by a Minister of the Gospel, and Rome hasn't had any Ministers of the Gospel for a few centuries because it's not a true church anymore, but rather, an apostate body.

As a Baptist, I have a laundry list of reasons why I would consider someone sprinkled, poured, or dunked in the RCC to be unbaptized and would need to be baptized. But Presbyterians by nature wouldn't consider many of those concerns anyway.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 15, 2018)

Declaration on RCC Baptism - Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 15, 2018)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Others are welcome to correct me, but as far as I can tell from my studies it seems that in the main, most (or many) Presbyterians accept any baptism that was done by water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The person (or organization) doing the baptism is not important. The Triune Formula is important.
> 
> SOME Presbyterians do not, based on the idea that the Sacraments must be administered by a Minister of the Gospel, and Rome hasn't had any Ministers of the Gospel for a few centuries because it's not a true church anymore, but rather, an apostate body.
> 
> As a Baptist, I have a laundry list of reasons why I would consider someone sprinkled, poured, or dunked in the RCC to be unbaptized and would need to be baptized. But Presbyterians by nature wouldn't consider many of those concerns anyway.


We're in agreement. As a Particular Baptist myself, I don't recognize my RCC baptism either, and was truely baptized in 2014. Just curious what others positions are, particularly of those who also hold to covenant theology.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 15, 2018)

beloved7 said:


> Do Presbyterians recognize it? Would a Presbyterian church, such as the PCA have a new member get baptized or would the RCC baptism be accepted as valid?
> 
> This is not for arguments sake, I'm genuinely curious.



Our Lord, in His providence, did not reform the church until the essential of faith alone was pushed by The Reformers.


----------



## Logan (Mar 15, 2018)

https://reformedbooksonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/the-reformed-churches-and-roman-catholic-baptism-an-anthology-of-principle-texts.pdf

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 15, 2018)

Logan said:


> https://reformedbooksonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/the-reformed-churches-and-roman-catholic-baptism-an-anthology-of-principle-texts.pdf


Thank you for this, very thorough resource brother.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 15, 2018)

beloved7 said:


> Thank you for this, very thorough resource brother.



Except in its highly truncated and highly inadequate description of the Southern Presbyterian position. There is no awareness of Thornwell's actual arguments. See what Matthew MacMahon linked to above for a much better rendition of the Southern position, and see also the articles of Ryan McGraw for a modern-day defense of the Southern position.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 15, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Except in its highly truncated and highly inadequate description of the Southern Presbyterian position. There is no awareness of Thornwell's actual arguments. See what Matthew MacMahon linked to above for a much better rendition of the Southern position, and see also the articles of Ryan McGraw for a modern-day defense of the Southern position.


I will certainly do that thank you brother.


----------



## Logan (Mar 15, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Except in its highly truncated and highly inadequate description of the Southern Presbyterian position. There is no awareness of Thornwell's actual arguments.



I don't think it was meant to be. But it is a pretty good summary of what was the historic (dare I say "universal"?) Reformed position all the way up to Thornwell.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 15, 2018)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Declaration on RCC Baptism - Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly



"and is to be administered only by a lawful minister of Christ, duly called and ordained to be a steward of the mysteries of God (WCF Chapter 27:4)"

in my opinion, this opens up a whole new discussion....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Inactiver user19912 (Mar 15, 2018)

Hello, folks. This might also be a helpful resource, from a mentor of mine and Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary professor, Dr. Nick Willborn. Don't judge him harshly for mentoring me; he did the best he could with what he had to work with, after all 

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=9105163935

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Username4000 (Mar 15, 2018)

Sean! Didn't realize you were on here.

Anyway, the question also might involve baptisms by improper administrators. In churches like the old Mars Hill, the person baptizing you was not necessarily an elder, but someone who was influential in your walk, whether an elder, community group leader, spouse, or parent. It was certainly under the _authority_ of the elders, and with their consent, but they weren't doing the dunking. Should we also question the validity of these baptisms?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 15, 2018)

Wasn't this one of the distinguishing points between the Reformed and the Anabaptists "re-baptists." One would have to engage the WCF and its instruction for one baptism and the efficacy resting in Christ rather than the qualifications of the undershepherd.


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 15, 2018)

jwithnell said:


> Wasn't this one of the distinguishing points between the Reformed and the Anabaptists "re-baptists." One would have to engage the WCF and its instruction for one baptism and the efficacy resting in Christ rather than the qualifications of the undershepherd.


It really depends on what is considered rebaptizing; I've only been baptized once as I don't recognize the RCC baptism. Though others would charge me as an Anabaptist, which I would not miss any sleep over.

If a new member to the PCA in the south was instructed to be baptized again even though they were a former baptized RC, would that make them an Anabaptist? It depends who you ask I suppose.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 15, 2018)

jwithnell said:


> Wasn't this one of the distinguishing points between the Reformed and the Anabaptists "re-baptists." One would have to engage the WCF and its instruction for one baptism and the efficacy resting in Christ rather than the qualifications of the undershepherd.



That is moot for the one who believes in the invalidity of papist baptism. In their view, the individual has not yet been baptized. So it is not a question of rebaptism because their argument strikes at the validity of the papist baptism. If it is invalid, then it is no baptism at all. People on both sides believe what the Standards say that we ought to be baptized once.

This also isn't comparable to the donatist controversy. Because the individual is not in question as to the administration but rather if he has been given authority from God. As well as, and more in view, is the institution of the papacy as a whole. The holiness of the individual is a question that really has no bearing on this conversation. At least from the one who believes in the invalidity of papist baptism.

This (donatist argument), however, is often used as an argument against that position, but it is a strawman.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 15, 2018)

beloved7 said:


> If a new member to the PCA in the south was instructed to be baptized again even though they were a former baptized RC, would that make them an Anabaptist? It depends who you ask I suppose.


That was me, except the question involved a demonstrably unfaithful mainline pastor. In the deep south PCA church where I raised the question about my own baptism, I was directed to the WCF.


Romans922 said:


> This (donatist argument), however, is often used as an argument against that position, but it is a strawman.


I really doubt the Westminster divines were donatists, even if people in the last 50 years wanted to put their interpretive spin on the words. Calvin and the Geneva church adopted a no-rebaptism position, specifically addressing people who had been baptised by the RC. Thornwell et al proposed an overature to reject RC bapism and were voted down 169-8 in the 1845 general assembly. 

Charles Hodge, while acknowledging the grave error of the RC, used the language of the early church giving a three-point test for baptism including whether it was done in the name of the triune God, with water, and with the purpose of joining someone to the church.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## hammondjones (Mar 15, 2018)

koenig said:


> Should we also question the validity of these baptisms?



In such a case, we may be able to bring in a distinction between irregular and invalid baptisms.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 15, 2018)

jwithnell said:


> I really doubt the Westminster divines were donatists, even if people in the last 50 years wanted to put their interpretive spin on the words. Calvin and the Geneva church adopted a no-rebaptism position, specifically addressing people who had been baptised by the RC. Thornwell et al proposed an overature to reject RC bapism and were voted down 169-8 in the 1845 general assembly.
> 
> Charles Hodge, while acknowledging the grave error of the RC, used the language of the early church giving a three-point test for baptism including whether it was done in the name of the triune God, with water, and with the purpose of joining someone to the church.



I think you misunderstood what I was saying or at least attempting to say. I wasn't calling anyone a donatist. I was saying the argument that is often used _today_ against those who do not believe in the validity of papist baptisms is that they are donatists. I am calling that argument a strawman.

Further, I think your history is backwards (if my history is correct). The PCUS (southern church) determined that papist baptism was not a Christian baptism (the vote you cited however was correct). That's neither here nor there though. 

Today, we cannot just look at the Reformers as whatever they did is gospel. We must be careful. Knowing that a lot of what they did was wonderful, they were not perfect or complete. One fact is important, we are some 450 years after. And a lot has changed in the RC compared to at that time (e.g. Vatican 1 and 2). 

Another factor is our Standards which says that a church may so deteriorate that it becomes no church at all. We have to see that as a possibility of the RC. We can't just close our eyes to the facts of the papacy because the Reformers held their view of that group 450+ years ago. I hope you would not suggest that a protestant denomination doesn't ever change in doctrine. How many denominations have we seen be strong at first and then plunge themselves into nothingness and great judgment because of their horrible erring from the truth? I'd venture to say many throughout history, and yes even some of those have become no church at all. Therefore, if we are to talk about this, we can't just say, "Calvin said this..." or this puritan said that. We have to come to a conclusion of the state of the papacy today. Do they proclaim the Gospel in any way, degree in the Preaching of the Word or Sacraments? Or is it something that may fit with Gal. 1:8-9? Are their ministers rightly ordained? 

And if you say that the papacy is a true church, I would venture to say that perhaps you don't' truly treat them like it. You would have to, being a Christian, encourage roman catholics to continue worshipping in their 'churches'. That they will be 'okay' there and they will grow, etc. in the faith. You might encourage them to consider more faithful churches, but you can't say if you continue there believing what the church preaches you are going to hell. Because they are a true church. If someone from your congregation was moving and the only church in the close area they were moving to was RC, would you really discourage them or if a Session not allow their membership to transfer to RC? They are a true church after all, even if astray in many ways (That's the view, as best I can tell, of those who believe in the validity of papist baptism - that they are a true church). If that is correct, then a Session would not refuse such a transfer.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 15, 2018)

Andrew is correct; one's position on baptism should not be based on the validity of the church, nor the minister, else all unregenerate ministers baptisms would as well be invalid. Yes, optimally, those marks should be in place, but we cannot, in an absolute sense, prove this one way or the other.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 15, 2018)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Declaration on RCC Baptism - Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly



What this statement grants with one hand, it seems to remove with the other. Can you help me understand why it says of the Roman Catholic rites:

_They are therefore to be considered spurious as representing the false gospel propagated by Roman Catholicism. _

Then, under the some of the practical exceptions to this ruling, you'll find:

_No member of this denomination can be with held from the Lord’s Supper because they have only a Roman baptism.
_
My quandary is how can all the "pastoral care" in the world justify opening the Lord's Table to someone you don't believe is truly baptized?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 15, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> What this statement grants with one hand, it seems to remove with the other. Can you help me understand why it says of the Roman Catholic rites:
> 
> _They are therefore to be considered spurious as representing the false gospel propagated by Roman Catholicism. _
> 
> ...



I _understand _your question. Not every minister in the RPCGA is necessarily on the same page on this. There are two parts to the paper.
Part 1 is the "statement," part 2 (where your question comes in) is the "exception" to the statement for _some _ministers.

The RPCGA allows _latitude _to ministers who have conscious-binding exceptions on certain points in this statement (not only with this paper but also within the denominational lines of doctrinal adherence (we have that outlined in the BCO - supra, infra, etc.)). Those who "hold to" the paper's statement would not fall under the exceptions. They accept what is written ABOVE, "Allowed Exceptions to the Declaration on Roman Catholic Baptisms." Other ministers, who may have been already in the RPCGA when this was argued at GA, and needed those exceptions, and continue adhering to those exceptions as the latitude they need or want, regardless of the logical question you posed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Mar 15, 2018)

beloved7 said:


> such as the PCA



Since you called out the PCA, I'll refer you to the study paper on the subject. 

Appendix P: Report on the Validity of Certain Baptisms (1987)
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.html

Appendicies: (1845, 1871)
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-089.html

Minority Report (1987) (Adopted)
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-093.html

I'd pick Frank Barker or Paul Settle over the author of the minority report.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Ray (Mar 15, 2018)

beloved7 said:


> We're in agreement. As a Particular Baptist myself, I don't recognize my RCC baptism either, and was truely baptized in 2014. Just curious what others positions are, particularly of those who also hold to covenant theology.


Here’s a short Review Of Thornwell argument against RCC Baptism if you like to check it out brother. There’s a few other articles that might be of your interest on here too on Baptism. 
Grace n Peace...
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/review-of-thornwells-the-validity-of-the-baptism-of-the-church-of-rome/

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 15, 2018)

Edward said:


> Since you called out the PCA, I'll refer you to the study paper on the subject.
> 
> Appendix P: Report on the Validity of Certain Baptisms (1987)
> http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.html
> ...


Thank you for the links, it's appreciated. Also please don't misunderstand; I'm not "calling out" the PCA in the sense that I'm challenging. I'm simply inquiring and mentioned them because I know that they are covenantal and theologically conservative.


----------



## Edward (Mar 15, 2018)

beloved7 said:


> because I know that they are covenantal and theologically conservative.



That might be going a bit far. Perhaps "theologically moderate".


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 16, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> In most PCA and OPC churches, a RCC baptism would probably be accepted as valid. However, there are a minority of churches that would not accept it. This reflects a long-standing debate between the Northern Presbyterians (who generally, but not always, accepted RCC baptism as valid) and the Southern Presbyterians (who generally, but not always, rejected RCC baptism).


It would depend on if your church recognized the Church of Rome as being a Valid NT church or not, wouldn't it?


----------



## shoe (Mar 17, 2018)

Edward said:


> Appendix P: Report on the Validity of Certain Baptisms (1987)
> http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.html
> 
> Minority Report (1987) (Adopted)
> http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-093.html


These are indeed good resources for understanding the debate in the PCA. However, just to correct what may be incorrectly inferred by the "(Adopted)" note, the position of that Minority Report was not adopted (and neither was the position of the committee's main report), though the *recommendations* of the minority report *were* adopted, including these two recommendation:
*1.* That the Assembly receive both the Committee and the Minority Reports, commending them to the attention of its churches and lower courts as information. _Adopted_.
*2. *That the Assembly leave decisions in these matters to be made, on a case by case basis, by the lower courts, subject to normal review and control or judicial processes. _Adopted_.

So, effectively, the only thing decided on that day, was that the two opposing view points and and practices would continue to coexist.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 17, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> It would depend on if your church recognized the Church of Rome as being a Valid NT church or not, wouldn't it?



No. Read my earlier response which addresses that issue.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 17, 2018)

On the SP adoption of invalidity of RCC baptism, see this thread.
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...idity-of-rc-baptism.85866/page-7#post-1070063
Dr. Ritchie wrote: 
The face of Roman Catholicism in America changed markedly during the nineteenth-century owing to mass immigration from Europe. This phenomenon led to fears of a Popish take-over of the United States. Understanding this development is crucial to comprehending the context in which the Old School Presbyterians formulated their novel views respecting Romish baptism, which was probably partly a reaction to both increased Roman Catholic immigration and to cultural "no-popery".​As he goes on to say, this is not necessarily determinative of if they were right or wrong, but one needs to appreciate the context.


----------



## shoe (Mar 17, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> It would depend on if your church recognized the Church of Rome as being a Valid NT church or not, wouldn't it?


Yes, I think you've understood the root of that position correctly. Many of those who reject the baptism of the Church of Rome, do so on essentially the same basis that they would reject a baptism by the Church of Latter Day Saints. Any society of men is able to define what they intend by various religious rites. But the argument is that any society which has rejected the Gospel is not a Christian Church, so its ministers are not "lawful ministers of Christ", so its rites are not Christian rites.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 17, 2018)

shoe said:


> Yes, I think you've understood the root of that position correctly.



Me thinks u do not; the efficacy of baptism cannot be tied to the church nor minister, else all those who have been baptized by a group that doesn't have the marks that make a church, a true church and those ministers who were unregenerate the time of placing the sign, would be faulty. The efficacy of baptism is in formula and Christ alone.

Also, consider proper ordination into the equation and then u have a perfect storm considering all 3 things.


----------



## shoe (Mar 17, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Me thinks you do not; the efficacy of baptism cannot be tied to the church nor minister, else all those who have been baptized by a group that doesn't have the marks that make a church, a true church and those ministers who were unregenerate the time of placing the sign, would be faulty. The efficacy of baptism is in formula and Christ alone.
> 
> Also, consider proper ordination into the equation and then you have a perfect storm considering all 3 things.



You are discussing _efficacy_, while the question was about _validity._ These should be distinguished. WCF 28.2-3 speak to validity, while WCF 28.5-6 addresses efficacy. As an example, if a 10-year-old boy decides to "baptize" his buddy down at the creek while at their summer camp, using water, and a Trinitarian formula, perhaps some *might* argue that the Holy Spirit would really exhibit and confer, by that use, the grace promised in baptism, but I suspect pretty much every Session in the PCA would judge that it was not a valid Christian baptism.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 17, 2018)

Here, I'll rephrase my statement:

"the efficacy or validity of baptism cannot be tied to the church nor minister, else all those who have been baptized by a group that doesn't have the marks that make a church, a true church and those ministers who were unregenerate the time of placing the sign, would be faulty. The efficacy of baptism is in formula and Christ alone."


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 18, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Here, I'll rephrase my statement:
> 
> "the efficacy or validity of baptism cannot be tied to the church nor minister, else all those who have been baptized by a group that doesn't have the marks that make a church, a true church and those ministers who were unregenerate the time of placing the sign, would be faulty. The efficacy of baptism is in formula and Christ alone."



As southern Presbyterians try to make clear, however, the issue is not about the regeneracy or lack thereof of the minister. Southern Presbyterians believe that a valid baptism has three essential components, not two: the formula, God's blessing, and the performance of it by a lawfully ordained minister (and that this last element is to be _objectively_ determined, as it is _by no means_ a _subjective_ state of the person, or any kind of inward characteristic). Consider, for instance, WCF 28:2, which states, "The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, _by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto_" (emphasis added). What Southern Presbyterians point out is a relatively simple concept: if we are going to accept that Romanist baptisms are valid, then we _also have to accept_ that Romanist priests _are_ ministers of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto. It is absolutely impossible confessionally to state that Romanist baptisms are valid, and yet simultaneously claim that Romanist priests are not ministers of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto. The question can then be stated relatively simply: does a Romanist priest have the lawfully-ordained, gospel-preaching authority to perform valid baptisms? 

I must confess that sometimes I have a hard time understanding why the Northern Presbyterian position never seems to be able to understand what the Southern position is driving at. Accusations of Donatism don't help any. Donatism was about the subjective state of the minister, not the objective state of whether he was a lawfully ordained minister or not. Southern Presbyterians reject Donatism. The minister who administers a true baptism may be a completely unregenerated heretic. He may be a _traditor_, according to the old problematic practice of giving up Scriptures to the persecutors, that caused the Donatist controversy. That does not make the baptism he performs illegitimate. But if he is not a lawfully ordained minister, then the "baptism" he performs is not a real baptism. If a 14 year old kid decides he is going to "baptize" his little brother in the stream, and decides to do it in a church setting, dunks his kid brother under the water, pronounces the Trinitarian baptism formula, would we say that a real baptism has taken place? I would say no. The Southern Presbyterians would say no, because they believe that it has to be done by a lawfully ordained minister. The Southern position argues this way: 1. Rome is not part of the visible church. 2. Therefore, Rome does not have legitimately ordained ministers. 3. Therefore, the rite that Romanist priests perform is not baptism. It is not true, confessionally, that any old person can perform a baptism. It has to be a lawfully ordained minister of the gospel. 

The only other option that I have seen by the Northern position is to argue that Romanist baptisms are valid, but irregular, and the priests don't have the inherent authority to perform them, but yet God still baptizes them despite the irregularity of the status of the priests. This does not seem to me to be consistent with the analogy of faith. Only the properly ordained priests of the OT times were allowed to perform the ceremonial rites. Do we not believe that only lawfully ordained ministers of the gospel can perform similar New Testament rites? 

Before the naysayers chime in here, let me note a couple of things. Firstly, I am extremely well aware that the Southern Presbyterian position is in the minority here, not only today, but also in Presbyterian history. I know that Calvin, Hodge (not Hobbes!), and many others, would oppose my position on this. I also know that the Southern position can result in many sticky and difficult practical cases. Still, I believe that Rome is no true church. I believe that, just as Rome has perverted the gospel, so also has she perverted the sacraments. She has anathematized believers, and so she has no true church discipline. Therefore she is not part of the visible church at all. Therefore she does not have legitimately ordained ministers. Therefore, her priests do not administer true sacraments. Just as we do not believe that Romanist priests administer the true Lord's Supper, but rather an idolatrous perversion of the Lord's Supper, so also I believe we should hold that they do not administer true baptism, either.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 18, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> As southern Presbyterians try to make clear, however, the issue is not about the regeneracy or lack thereof of the minister. Southern Presbyterians believe that a valid baptism has three essential components, not two: the formula, God's blessing, and the performance of it by a lawfully ordained minister (and that this last element is to be _objectively_ determined, as it is _by no means_ a _subjective_ state of the person, or any kind of inward characteristic). Consider, for instance, WCF 28:2, which states, "The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, _by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto_" (emphasis added). What Southern Presbyterians point out is a relatively simple concept: if we are going to accept that Romanist baptisms are valid, then we _also have to accept_ that Romanist priests _are_ ministers of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto. It is absolutely impossible confessionally to state that Romanist baptisms are valid, and yet simultaneously claim that Romanist priests are not ministers of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto. The question can then be stated relatively simply: does a Romanist priest have the lawfully-ordained, gospel-preaching authority to perform valid baptisms?
> 
> I must confess that sometimes I have a hard time understanding why the Northern Presbyterian position never seems to be able to understand what the Southern position is driving at. Accusations of Donatism don't help any. Donatism was about the subjective state of the minister, not the objective state of whether he was a lawfully ordained minister or not. Southern Presbyterians reject Donatism. The minister who administers a true baptism may be a completely unregenerated heretic. He may be a _traditor_, according to the old problematic practice of giving up Scriptures to the persecutors, that caused the Donatist controversy. That does not make the baptism he performs illegitimate. But if he is not a lawfully ordained minister, then the "baptism" he performs is not a real baptism. If a 14 year old kid decides he is going to "baptize" his little brother in the stream, and decides to do it in a church setting, dunks his kid brother under the water, pronounces the Trinitarian baptism formula, would we say that a real baptism has taken place? I would say no. The Southern Presbyterians would say no, because they believe that it has to be done by a lawfully ordained minister. The Southern position argues this way: 1. Rome is not part of the visible church. 2. Therefore, Rome does not have legitimately ordained ministers. 3. Therefore, the rite that Romanist priests perform is not baptism. It is not true, confessionally, that any old person can perform a baptism. It has to be a lawfully ordained minister of the gospel.
> 
> ...



I've been terribly impressed with the modern "Northern position," as evinced in some comments here, even as I acknowledge the validity of RCC baptism. The historical position, which I find myself in agreement with, acknowledged the validity also of RCC ordination and considered it part of the basis for their baptisms being valid.

Reformed theologians of the past like Turretin *did not* accept the validity of Roman baptisms performed by laypersons or women. This being the case, the view that for a baptism to be valid requires only the correct formula and that the status of the "minister" is irrelevant would not have been shared by them and is, as far as I can see, novel to relatively recent American Presbyterianism. Baptism is not a private act, it is an ecclesial one, and does not exist without some relation to the visible church. The Reformers, for instance in the document Logan helpfully provided, over and over again recognize that a RCC baptism is valid in part because Roman priests still stand as "true pastors" (to use Perkins' terms). Indeed, Rutherford argued that the validity of RCC baptism actually proves the validity of the RCC ordination. I think that the Southern position makes perfect sense to those of us who hold the traditional one. It's just that we see Rome as more analogous to apostate Israel whose priests could still legitimately administer circumcision than to, for instance, Mormons or Muslims.


----------



## Edward (Mar 18, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Therefore she does not have legitimately ordained ministers. Therefore, her priests do not administer true sacraments.



Just to be clear, then, none of the purported baptisms by the first generation reformers who came out of the Roman church were valid, the reformers were not validly baptized, and those who were ordained in the Roman church were not really pastors?


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 18, 2018)

To say Roman Catholic priests are not lawfully ordained ministers is to say they have no right to preach the Gospel.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 18, 2018)

For those dashing in and out of this thread, what are the distinctives between the way the Northern Presbyterian view held RCC baptism valid and how the historical Presbyterian and Reformed view does?


TheOldCourse said:


> I've been terribly impressed with the modern "Northern position," as evinced in some comments here, even as I acknowledge the validity of RCC baptism. The historical position,


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 18, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> Baptism is not a private act, it is an ecclesial one, and does not exist without some relation to the visible church.



Agreed. Never implied otherwise (if u were referring to my posts). Sacramentology is church based and even if the organization has issues, if it is done in Christ's name, it is done as a church function because it originated as a church function. One cannot divorce one from the other.



> the view that for a baptism to be valid requires only the correct formula and that the status of the "minister" is irrelevant would not have been shared by them and is, as far as I can see, novel to relatively recent American Presbyterianism.



Well, surely it is not 'irrelevant' but the efficacy/validity cannot be dependent on the status either. How many people have been baptized by an organization that did not have the marks in place? How about faulty ordinations? Unregenerate elders?

Nigel Lee does well in dealing with Thornwell's assessment here:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/men...alidity-of-the-baptism-of-the-church-of-rome/


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 18, 2018)

NaphtaliPress said:


> For those dashing in and out of this thread, what are the distinctives between the way the Northern Presbyterian view held RCC baptism valid and how the historical Presbyterian and Reformed view does?



I perhaps was a little imprecise to group all Northern Presbyterians together, but the frequent argument is made by those who claim to bear the mantle of Hodge today is that a valid baptism only requires the proper Trinitarian form and that the status of the one baptizing is irrelevant as to the validity of the sacrament.

The historical position, as I understand it exemplified by Rutherford, Turretin, etc. is that a valid baptism must be administrated by a lawfully ordained minister of the visible church in addition to being in the correct form. It agrees that regeneration of the minister is not required, against the Donatists, but a lawful ordination is. Hodge himself admits that the Presbyterian and Reformed churches had almost universally invalidated lay baptism though he seems hesitant to adopt the same. Thus, in maintaining the validity of RCC baptism the historical position also maintained the validity of RCC ordination and acknowledge it as a visible church of Christ, albeit one terribly corrupted and beset by the abuses of the Antichrist.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 18, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> I perhaps was a little imprecise to group all Northern Presbyterians together, but the frequent argument is made by those who claim to bear the mantle of Hodge today is that a valid baptism only requires the proper Trinitarian form and that the status of the one baptizing is irrelevant.
> 
> The historical position, as I understand it exemplified by Rutherford, Turretin, etc. is that a valid baptism must be administrated by a lawfully ordained minister of the visible church in addition to being in the correct form. It agrees that regeneration of the minister is not required, against the Donatists, but a lawful ordination is. Hodge himself admits that the Presbyterian and Reformed churches had almost universally invalidated lay baptism though he seems hesitant to adopt the same. Thus, in maintaining the validity of RCC baptism the historical position also maintained the validity of RCC ordination and acknowledge it as a visible church of Christ, albeit one terribly corrupted and beset by the abuses of the Antichrist.



Some quotes to this effect (mostly gathered from Logan's helpful document):

Perkins:



> I. By this doctrine they are justly to be blamed, who would have their children rebaptized, which were before baptized by Popish priests; because the sacrament, though administered by a Papist, if he stand in the room of a true pastor; & keep the form thereof, is a true sacrament.
> 
> (...)
> If it be said, that then the true sacraments may be out of the true church, as in the church of Rome at this day; because heretics and such like ministers are not of the church. I answer, that there is in the church of Rome, the hidden church of God, and the Sacraments are there used, not for the Romish church, but for the hidden church which is in the midst of Papacy; like as the lantern bears light not for itself, but for the passengers: yet hence it follows not, that we should communicate with idolaters, heretics, and wicked persons.



Rutherford:



> Though prelates invade the place of the Church, yet because [1.], they themselves be pastors and have power to teach and baptize as pastors called of Christ, Mat. 18.19, [and 2.] because they stand for the Church, approving, or some way by silence consenting (as in the case of Caiaphas entry to the priest-hood) there[fore], these who are baptized by them, are not re-baptized, and those who are ordained pastors by them are not re-ordained, but have a calling to the Ministry and do validly confer a calling upon others.
> 
> (...)
> 
> I answer: That proveth a difference between the ministery and baptism, which is not the question at issue; but it [still] proveth not this to be false: if Rome's baptism be lawful in its essence, so is Rome’s ministry.



Turretin:



> II. On the other hand we contend that the baptism by laymen (of whatever sex they may be) is a nullity
> 
> (....)
> 
> VI. Although heretics are not true members of the invisible church, that does not hinder them from administering true baptism provided they retain its essentials; for they accommodate the tongue and hand only in this act to God. It is God who baptized and who is efficacious through the minister; as God through a corrupt ministry can gather a church from adults, so through baptism administered by heretics from infants. For although they do not belong to the orthodox church, still they can belong to the external but impure church. In them, the infidelity of men does not make void the faith of God, because baptism is not of men, but of God, which he wishes sometimes to be conserved in an impure church; as we find that God still preserved a remnant under Ahab in the time of Elijah (1 K. 19:18), however much the church had been corrupted in other ways.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 18, 2018)

As an aside, lay baptism seems to be increasingly common in evangelical Baptist circles and is something that must be reckoned with. I have heard multiple Baptist ministers over the last few years arguing that it is proper for a convert to be baptized by the one who led them to Christ regardless of their ordination status, oftentimes a father or friend. Perhaps that view has been around for quite some time but I hadn't come across it much until recently. I would expect that a modern "Northern" Presbyterian would not "re"-baptize such a person but a "Southern" or historical Presbyterian would.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 18, 2018)

Edward said:


> Just to be clear, then, none of the purported baptisms by the first generation reformers who came out of the Roman church were valid, the reformers were not validly baptized, and those who were ordained in the Roman church were not really pastors?



Most Southern Presbyterians will respond by saying that the Council of Trent was the hard line when Rome ceased being a part of the visible church. I would be cheerfully willing to grant that the ordinations of anyone ordained before Trent were lawful ordinations, and that any people baptized by that generation of priests were truly baptized, even if that baptism happened after Trent. But I would say that any "ordinations" after Trent in the Roman communion were not lawful ordinations, so anyone "baptized" by someone ordained after Trent was not baptized at all. At Trent, Rome anathematized the gospel, kicked out those who believed in the true gospel, and made idols out of the sacraments. At Trent, Rome destroyed the marks of the church within herself.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 18, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> lay baptism seems to be increasingly common in evangelical Baptist circles and is something that must be reckoned with.



Chris,
Most people in this country originally come out of these folds. Many Presbyterians started out in Arminian, baptist settings; many, in questionable groups. What do we do with these? Are they only irregular? The ordinations, are they valid? The way I see it, it is all based on some divining rod of sorts. Would the reformers accept the ordinations? I know of no church, PCA or OPC who rebaptise people who come out of a Calvary Chapel and join the PCA or OPC. In fact, a Particular Baptist setting I attended prior to my Presbyterianism, acknowledged a CC elder as valid. in my opinion, this is the larger issue, not Rome's baptism.

Lane,
If it is not Donatism, based on what u said, what other groups would you say are not valid baptisms?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 18, 2018)

“We condemn the papal assemblies, as the pure Word of God is banished from them [and] their sacraments are corrupted or falsified…. Nevertheless, as some trace of the Church is left in the papacy, and the virtue and substance of baptism remain, and as the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon the person who administers it — we confess that those baptized in it do not need a second baptism. But, on account of its corruptions, we cannot present children to be baptised in it without incurring pollution.”

Calvin

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Mar 18, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Council of Trent was the hard line



Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 18, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Chris,
> Most people in this country originally come out of these folds. Many Presbyterians started out in Arminian, baptist settings; many, in questionable groups. What do we do with these? Are they only irregular? The ordinations, are they valid? The way I see it, it is all based on some divining rod of sorts. Would the reformers accept the ordinations? I know of no church, PCA or OPC who rebaptise people who come out of a Calvary Chapel and join the PCA or OPC. In fact, a Particular Baptist setting I attended prior to my Presbyterianism, acknowledged a CC elder as valid. in my opinion, this is the larger issue, not Rome's baptism.



The modern situation is much messier, no doubt, and the Northern view, being the most generous, would makes things a lot simpler. The other views may precipitate some awkward and difficult pastoral conversations. As you know my wife was baptized in the RCC church. She became a member in the CanRC which takes the traditional view and then transferred to an OPC church where the pastor took the Southern view. That's a difficult situation for the pastor who, in his conscience, has to regard her as unbaptized and yet also must give due acknowledgment to the letter of transfer from a sister church acknowledging her as a baptized member in good standing. 

Interestingly enough, as I recall the Lutherans took a view similar to what's being described here as the Northern one and have accepted lay baptisms as valid. I haven't seen @DMcFadden around much lately but perhaps he could confirm.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 18, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> “We condemn the papal assemblies, as the pure Word of God is banished from them [and] their sacraments are corrupted or falsified…. Nevertheless, as some trace of the Church is left in the papacy, and the virtue and substance of baptism remain, and as the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon the person who administers it — we confess that those baptized in it do not need a second baptism. But, on account of its corruptions, we cannot present children to be baptised in it without incurring pollution.”
> 
> Calvin



Yes, Calvin was clear on the matter as well. Given that Calvin wrote mostly pre-Trent I thought the later writers were more illuminating given that the Southern Presbyterians, like Lane, have usually used that as the line in the sand. I respect the Southern position immensely and am a fan of Thornwell, but it seems unlikely to me that the RCC ceased being part of the visible church in any sense in 1563 and it just took Presbyterianism three centuries to realize it (or at least its ramifications). It's not as if they missed the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre or other full manifestations of the spirit of Antichrist in it


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 18, 2018)

Someone tell me the difference between the papacy after the Council of Trent (Reformation/Puritan era) and the papacy after Vatican 1 and 2 (Today).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 18, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> Someone tell me the difference between the papacy after the Council of Trent (Reformation/Puritan era) and the papacy after Vatican 1 and 2 (Today).



Guitars?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 19, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Accusations of Donatism don't help any. Donatism was about the subjective state of the minister, not the objective state of whether he was a lawfully ordained minister or not. Southern Presbyterians reject Donatism. The minister who administers a true baptism *may be a completely unregenerated heretic*. He may be a _traditor_, according to the old problematic practice of giving up Scriptures to the persecutors, that caused the Donatist controversy. *That does not make the baptism he performs illegitimate*. But if he is not a *lawfully ordained* minister, then the "baptism" he performs* is not a real baptism*. If a 14 year old kid decides he is going to "baptize" his little brother in the stream, and decides to do it in a church setting, dunks his kid brother under the water, pronounces the Trinitarian baptism formula, would we say that a real baptism has taken place? I would say no. The Southern Presbyterians would say no, because they believe that it has to be done by a lawfully ordained minister. The Southern position argues this way: 1. Rome is not part of the visible church. 2. Therefore, Rome does not have legitimately ordained ministers. 3. Therefore, the rite that Romanist priests perform is not baptism. It is not true, confessionally, that any old person can perform a baptism. It has to be a lawfully ordained minister of the gospel.




Lane,
A few things:

1) Please define 'lawfully ordained'.
2) How is a baptism by an 'unregenerate heretic', different from a Papist?
3) Exactly, what baptisms would you say are valid? Church of Christ? Methodists? Calvary Chapel? Episcopal bishop?
4) What about congregational baptists whose 'ordination' is essentially from the membership?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 19, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Lane,
> If it is not Donatism, based on what you said, what other groups would you say are not valid baptisms?



Different Southern Presbyterians will, no doubt, draw the line differently. I would say that if a denomination has anathematized the gospel, it has ceased to be part of the true visible church. But this is tricky, too. There might be some faithful churches still in a denomination that has anathematized the gospel. There has to be a case-by-case analysis done that takes extenuating circumstances into account, since it is difficult to make generalizations. 



Scott Bushey said:


> Lane,
> A few things:
> 
> 1) Please define 'lawfully ordained'.
> ...



1. As I currently see things, I would define "lawfully ordained" this way: a. It has to happen in a church that is part of the true visible church. b. It has to happen by a church's validation (I think a congregationalist's ordination is valid). c. It has to happen to a man. d. It has to happen with the laying on of hands. There might be other essential components, but this is my working definition for now. 
2. My example of an "unregenerate heretic" would be someone who is ordained in a church that is still part of the true visible church but has heretical views. The Papist is a heretic who is not part of the true visible church. The validity of a minister's ordination does not depend on his own personal theological views, but it does depend on whether the ordaining body is part of the true visible church or not.
3. To my current knowledge, none of the denoms you listed have anathematized the gospel. They all have serious problems, and are slipping. But they still allow room for folks who believe the gospel. 
4. See my answer to 1. 



TheOldCourse said:


> The modern situation is much messier, no doubt, and the Northern view, being the most generous, would makes things a lot simpler. The other views may precipitate some awkward and difficult pastoral conversations. As you know my wife was baptized in the RCC church. She became a member in the CanRC which takes the traditional view and then transferred to an OPC church where the pastor took the Southern view. That's a difficult situation for the pastor who, in his conscience, has to regard her as unbaptized and yet also must give due acknowledgment to the letter of transfer from a sister church acknowledging her as a baptized member in good standing.



This is indeed a sticky situation. However, I think there is room in the Southern view for recognition (and action upon such a recognition) that it is a minority position. If such a person came to me, I would argue for respecting the CanRC's reception into membership, and I would not go for a baptism of the person. It's irregular, sure. But we are faced with plenty of irregularities in church life, and we have to be ecumenically aware. In this case, we would have two conflicting priorities: 1. the person is not baptized, according to the Southern view; but 2. a fellow NAPARC church received her into membership, and this deserves respect. So which of these two principles should trump the other? I think that if the Southern position is going to co-exist peacably alongside the Northern position, which I see no reason why it should not, then it should respect the pastoral decisions of fellow NAPARC churches, and also humbly maintain its self-awareness as a minority position, and not seek to stir up trouble.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 19, 2018)

shoe said:


> Yes, I think you've understood the root of that position correctly. Many of those who reject the baptism of the Church of Rome, do so on essentially the same basis that they would reject a baptism by the Church of Latter Day Saints. Any society of men is able to define what they intend by various religious rites. But the argument is that any society which has rejected the Gospel is not a Christian Church, so its ministers are not "lawful ministers of Christ", so its rites are not Christian rites.


This is how I would see this issue, as for one to be able to claim that a water baptism was valid and from the Lord, they would have to be aprt of a true NT Church, and do not see the Church of Rome as teaching the real Gospel message of Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 19, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Me thinks you do not; the efficacy of baptism cannot be tied to the church nor minister, else all those who have been baptized by a group that doesn't have the marks that make a church, a true church and those ministers who were unregenerate the time of placing the sign, would be faulty. The efficacy of baptism is in formula and Christ alone.
> 
> Also, consider proper ordination into the equation and then you have a perfect storm considering all 3 things.


The ulimate authority would be from Jesus and the scriptures, and a Church like Rome has not the true Gospel being taught, so loses their foundation authority to be valid in water baptism.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 19, 2018)

Edward said:


> Just to be clear, then, none of the purported baptisms by the first generation reformers who came out of the Roman church were valid, the reformers were not validly baptized, and those who were ordained in the Roman church were not really pastors?


Can there even be valid ministers if the church is not a NT one, and has another false Gospel message being taught?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 19, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Different Southern Presbyterians will, no doubt, draw the line differently. I would say that if a denomination has anathematized the gospel, it has ceased to be part of the true visible church. But this is tricky, too. There might be some faithful churches still in a denomination that has anathematized the gospel. There has to be a case-by-case analysis done that takes extenuating circumstances into account, since it is difficult to make generalizations.
> 
> 1. As I currently see things, I would define "lawfully ordained" this way: a. It has to happen in a church that is part of the true visible church. b. It has to happen by a church's validation (I think a congregationalist's ordination is valid). c. It has to happen to a man. d. It has to happen with the laying on of hands. There might be other essential components, but this is my working definition for now.
> 2. My example of an "unregenerate heretic" would be someone who is ordained in a church that is still part of the true visible church but has heretical views. The Papist is a heretic who is not part of the true visible church. The validity of a minister's ordination does not depend on his own personal theological views, but it does depend on whether the ordaining body is part of the true visible church or not.
> ...


The Church of Rome officially holds and supports another and false Gospel, so how can those who are authorized by it to teach and administer rites be valid in the sense as being duly authorized by Jesus to perform those acts in His name?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 19, 2018)

Time for a re-visit of the previous discussion of this same basic topic (the thread was highlighted by Chris above, too:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/a-problem-with-denying-the-validity-of-rc-baptism.85866/

Read it over.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 19, 2018)

All seven pages worth; so, maybe less need to run that length again I hope.


Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Time for a re-visit of the previous discussion of this same basic topic (the thread was highlighted by Chris above, too:
> 
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/a-problem-with-denying-the-validity-of-rc-baptism.85866/
> 
> Read it over.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 19, 2018)

NaphtaliPress said:


> All seven pages worth; so, maybe less need to run that length again I hope.


Indeed. It will not come to that




if I have any say in the matter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 19, 2018)

I should have read that thread that was referred earlier. Simple logic, in my opinion.

The only thing I would suggest on the side of those that accept RCC baptism based on the obvious, we could discuss how we are to make sure that the flood gates are not open to every Tom, Dick and Harry that attempts to justify baptizing whomever.


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 19, 2018)

The responses here have not disappointed; very thorough indeed. To the board, I apologize for posting a topic in which has already been discussed at length. I'm still discovering the ins and outs on here and will first attempt to utilize the search function in the future before posting.

One thing that has fascinated me is the differing opinion between north and south Presbyterians. The cultural and population demographic aspects surely do play a role. It was my assumption that the denominational hierarchy/ polity would have a definitive mandate on what is acceptable.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 19, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Indeed. It will not come to that
> 
> 
> 
> if I have any say in the matter.



Indeed not. That was one of the most frustrating threads I have ever participated in.


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 19, 2018)

As to the North vs. South question, isn't it the case that the Old School Presbyterians rejected RC baptism at the GA level before the split?


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 19, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Indeed not. That was one of the most frustrating threads I have ever participated in.



Here, at the PB, we strive to keep our ministers from unwarranted head-banging, pretzel-bending, and other generally unsafe practices, Lane! Additionally, with Patrick at the gate with his big whoopin' stick further need for anything stronger than a Tylenol should be wholly unnecessary.......

Reactions: Funny 2


----------

