# Should I be baptized (or rebaptized)?



## Rufus

I baptized Roman Catholic as a baby, became a Christian maybe a year to three years ago (gradual conversion really), I'm in a credobaptist church, but hold to paedobaptism (and I have attended a Presbyterian church once).

So should I be baptized into a Protestant church and should I go to the Presbyterian church to have it happen? I would like to attend the Presbyterian church again, but I do like the church I currently attend.


----------



## "William The Baptist"

I would say if you are paedo then you obviously ought not be baptized credo...

But I wouldn't change churches_ just_ to be baptized. It is fitting to be in a body, not where you are comfortable, but rather were you are challenged, where you are learning and maturing, where you are a part in serving, and not just because you "like" it. But be convinced in your own mind as to where you are supposed to be, but ultimately, be where the Lord intends for you to be. Whether you stay or change. Baptism isn't mandatory to salvation, so I would be in diligent prayer about it.


----------



## Rufus

"William The Baptist" said:


> I would say if you are paedo then you obviously ought not be baptized credo...
> 
> But I wouldn't change churches_ just_ to be baptized. It is fitting to be in a body, not where you are comfortable, but rather were you are challenged, where you are learning and maturing, where you are a part in serving, and not just because you "like" it. But be convinced in your own mind as to where you are supposed to be, but ultimately, be where the Lord intends for you to be. Whether you stay or change. Baptism isn't mandatory to salvation, so I would be in diligent prayer about it.



Thank you, but I don't know if I should get baptized by the Presbyterian church while still attending my current church.


----------



## "William The Baptist"

Then I have a question too: Can you be baptized by a Presbyterian church without being a member??


----------



## Herald

Rufus said:


> I baptized Roman Catholic as a baby, became a Christian maybe a year to three years ago (gradual conversion really), I'm in a credobaptist church, but hold to paedobaptism (and I have attended a Presbyterian church once).
> 
> So should I be baptized into a Protestant church and should I go to the Presbyterian church to have it happen? I would like to attend the Presbyterian church again, but I do like the church I currently attend.



Sean, are you a member of your current church? If not, do you intend to pursue membership? Most credobaptist churches will require you to be baptized if you were never baptized based on a credible profession of faith. 

As a Baptist I do not consider Roman baptism valid. The issue is doubly moot because it was paedobaptism. 

Should you go to a Presbyterian church to be baptized? Only if you're prepared to join that church. I don't know your situation, but it seems like you should declare where you're going to attend. If you can't abide credobaptist theology and practice you should seriously consider joining the PCA church in your signature.


----------



## Wayne

Sean, you've raised a question of long debate:

PCA Historical Center: Documents of Synod (RPCES) - Validity of Previous Baptism (1981)

and

PCA Position Papers: Baptism (1987); Validity of Certain Baptisms; Minority Report


----------



## Edward

Rufus said:


> Thank you, but I don't know if I should get baptized by the Presbyterian church while still attending my current church.



Where are you a member? 

And, while I'm asking questions, how does your statement 



Rufus said:


> I have attended a Presbyterian church once



match up with your signature block? 



Rufus said:


> Hillsborough Christian Fellowship (Non-Denom), also First Presbyterian Church of Concord, New Hampshire (PCA



The Presbyterian church should not baptize someone unless they are a member (or are being received into membership).

As for PCA, a position paper a few years ago discussed whether RCs should be rebaptized upon joining. My recollection is that whether you had a valid baptism is for the session (not you) to determine. 

Edit:

I see that Mr. Sparkman has provided links to the study papers to which I referenced. Has it really almost 25 years?


----------



## Romans922

Sean,

I was in similar shoes a few years ago after I had been a Christian since 1999, I was about to be examined for ordination and knew I had to defend my view of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism (since I had not been baptized). I studied a lot, knowing my presbytery was one not on 'my side' since they were southern presbyterians, and I was convinced I was wrong. I was baptized prior to my ordination. 

I would say that you need to be baptized. Also, I would request the Presbyterian church to baptize you since 1) a more proper mode would be being used (read "William the Baptist), and 2) it seems like you will join there soon anyway (am I mistaken?).

Things I read that convinced me of the Southern Presbyterian view that Roman Catholic baptism is not valid:

http://biblebased.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/are-roman-catholic-baptisms-valid/
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.pdf
Wayne brought up some, I don't think he added the report from the 1845 Assembly here (this is gold): http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-089.pdf

I'm sure there are more sources out there, especially by R.L. Dabney. These are some of the easier ones to get to. Anyone know any resources on A Puritan's Mind?


----------



## Rufus

Edward said:


> match up with your signature block?



I believe I originally intended on writing that as occasionally attends.

I'll have my drivers license soon enough to make the distance to the Presbyterian church, if I attend and feel called to go there I will and be baptized and pursue membership there, if I don't feel called to it than whatever God wills will happen.


----------



## Jack K

If you think you're about to start attending and join a new church, you should wait until you're there and then discuss the matter with the elders there and decide at that time.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I don't think you should be baptized a second time. But in any case that pastor and session will discuss the matter with you in their own context.

WCF 28.7:


> *The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person*.18
> (18) Tit.3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."



Belgic Confession, Art.34:


> ...the ministers, on their part, administer the sacrament, and that which is visible, but our Lord giveth that which is signified by the sacrament, namely, the gifts and invisible grace; washing, cleansing and purging our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts, and filling them with all comfort; giving unto us a true assurance of his fatherly goodness; putting on us the new man, and putting off the old man with all his deeds. Therefore we believe, that every man, who is earnestly studious of obtaining life eternal, *ought to be but once baptized with this only baptism, without ever repeating the same: since we cannot be born twice.*...



It is a Donatistic error to connect the efficacy of baptism to the quality of the minister/church. Rejecting RC baptism due to the degree of apostasy therein puts us in the unenviable position of (among other things) requiring us to run the same analysis on EVERY other church body, for consistency's sake.

Furthermore, it is hard not to conclude (when the truly catholic view of the unity of the church--militant and triumphant--is accounted for) that a metaphorical "cutting off" of RCC-performed baptism from the "body" does far worse than chronologically amputating only those persons baptized after [fill in the blank: 1000? 1550? 1845? other?]. It testifies that an innumerable host of evangelical believers who left the RCC, and whose baptism was considered legitimate--gracious _in spite of the facts_--were actually mistaken, and they are accounted by us (if we consistently take this view) as never having actually admitted to the church. It even jeopardizes (conceptually) the previous baptisms of generations prior to the arbitrary cut-off date, due to the unified nature of the deathless body of Christ, the church. Thankfully, I think the PC re-thought its "historic" decision at a later opportunity.

So, "cutting off" the RCC in 1845 has the effect of also cutting off Calvin and Augustin, whether we like it or not--because they are still alive, and the church that baptized them is the RCC. It's specious to argue that: "Well, they were members of the invisible church, and that's what *really* counts." No, cutting them all off is an ex post facto act of judicial discipline without due process. The fact is, that God's elect are marked graciously in baptism, no matter which church does it. And we simply don't have the right to invalidate baptisms, even of churches that have wandered from the rule of faith. We cannot pretend as if history (past) and eternity are not meaningful categories in relation to this question, and our present attitudes only affect our "forward progress."


----------



## deleteduser99

Yes this is coming from a credobaptist, but I would advise you to be baptized a second time, just because you know at this point that at the time of your baptism, you were a complete stranger to grace. But concerning the Roman Catholic church, from my perspective you were baptized into a false religion, because they preach another gospel, really the same as though you had been baptized into Islam, Buddhism or paganism.

I'm glad to know that you can rejoice in knowing God's election towards you. May He bless you in your walk!


----------



## Romans922

Just a note, if RC 'baptism' is not valid, it is no baptism at all and therefore cannot be considered as a 'first' baptism where one needs a second baptism. Using this line of argumentation of it being a 'second' baptism doesn't help Sean.

The question here then must be, "Is RC 'baptism' valid?" If it is, Sean shouldn't be baptized, if it is not, he should be baptized. Plain and simple.

All baptists will say, "No." In America, Northern Presbyterians will say, "Yes" and Southern Presbyterians will say, "No."

Bruce, I don't like disagreeing with you because I mostly always agree, but you said,


> "It is a Donatistic error to connect the efficacy of baptism to the quality of the minister/church."



That is true about the Donastic error, but the difference here is Roman Catholicism can't be considered a 'church' and priests/bishops cannot be considered biblically ordained ministers.


----------



## greenbaggins

I must admit that this question has been extremely vexing to me, for I cannot agree with both Charles Hodge and Dabney/Thornwell at the same time. Hodge believed in the validity of RCC baptism, while Dabney and Thornwell did not. Basically, the Northern Presbyterian Church followed Hodge, and the Southern Presbyterian Church followed Dabney and Thornwell. There are good arguments on both sides. However, I think that the most basic question is this: is Romanism a true church, or part of the true church? If it is, then their baptism is valid. If it is not, then their baptism is invalid. Hodge actually argued that the RCC church was a valid church. In my opinion, this goes too far. Romanism is not part of the true church. Therefore, I deny the validity of Romanist baptisms. And if they are not baptisms at all, then we are not "rebaptizing." Every session will need to examine the evidence for the validity of any baptism. This is part of fencing the table.


----------



## Phil D.

Rev. Keister,

Of course one problem that ultimately has to be dealt with in this context is that if Romanism is deemed not part of the true church, then men like Luther, Calvin, etc. etc. were never truly baptized. The proposal that Rome became apostate only after many of its worst heresies were "officially" codified at Trent seems kind of arbitrary to me, as well as being of relatively late origins. Any thought s on this difficult aspect of the issue?


----------



## Marrow Man

Part of the problem with not recognizing RCC baptisms (and I think Bruce hints at this when he says, "Rejecting RC baptism due to the degree of apostasy therein puts us in the unenviable position of (among other things) requiring us to run the same analysis on EVERY other church body, for consistency's sake") is that questions would need to be raised about validity of certain mega-liberal denominations as to whether they are part of the visible church as well. I certainly do not deny that, say, the UCC is part of the visible church (as much as it pains me to say that!), but in some ways conservative Protestants have more in common with the RCC than some (most?) components of the UCC (e.g., view of Scripture as the word of God, Trinitarianism, the natures of Christ, moral issues such as abortion and homosexuality, etc.). Shall we require former members of apostate Protestant denominations to likewise be "re-baptized"?


----------



## greenbaggins

Phil D. said:


> Rev. Keister,
> 
> Of course one problem that ultimately has to be dealt with in this context is that if Romanism is deemed not part of the true church, then men like Luther, Calvin, etc. etc. were never truly baptized. The proposal that Rome became apostate only after many of its worst heresies were "officially" codified at Trent seems kind of arbitrary to me, as well as being of relatively late origins. Any thought s on this difficult aspect of the issue?



This is one of the reasons I held the other view for so long, not to mention what Tim brought up in the post after you. I don't know that I have an answer, honestly. I am beginning to think that we need to ask the question about the PCUSA. Do they preach the gospel? There are some Bible-believing churches in the PCUSA. There is a renewal movement afoot there. So the question is exceedingly difficult, and cannot easily be answered. However, I know of no Romanist "church" that preaches the Gospel. If a church does not preach the Gospel, then how can it be a true church if it is missing one of the key marks? Wouldn't we send a pretty strong message to the PCUSA if we started baptizing people born in that apostate denomination? The question about Luther and Calvin is far more difficult, actually, and I don't even pretend to have an answer to that one. So pick your poison: either have the difficulties that have been mentioned while holding to the Southern view, or be forced to acknowledge that the Roman Catholic Church is part of the true church. I just cannot go with the latter.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

greenbaggins said:


> There are some Bible-believing churches in the PCUSA. There is a renewal movement afoot there. So the question is exceedingly difficult, and cannot easily be answered. .



Yes, there are indeed bible believing churches in the PCUSA, and a renewal movement. Thus, practically, I am not sure how anyone would ever be able to look at an individual's PCUSA baptism and say "This one is OK. This one is not." I don't know of any "bible believing" RC churches, although I am sure some part of the invisible church might be found there.


----------



## Scott1

This is indeed a vexing question, and there is honest difference of opinion within the reformed house.

A believer's only baptism communion, as has been mentioned, would not recognize an infant baptism, let alone a Roman one.

And, as has been repeated above, counsel ought always be sought by the authority God has placed in the covenant community where you are covenanted. You are confessing that doctrine, and ought be doing so by a clear conscience informed by the Word of God.

Mr. Calvin resisted a second baptism (he was infant baptized in the Roman system), and weakly, in my opinion, defended that position. I can't help but think, given the trajectory of his biblical theology, had he lived longer and had he seen the Council of Trent officially repudiate the gospel (justification by faith), he would have come to a different conclusion. The reformers became more free as time went on in the Reformation, and their views developed as the church was reformed. But, that is only speculation.

For myself, all I can discern Biblicaly is that it is difficult to judge the degree of apostasy of a communion at a given point in time. There is overcoming grace (not salvific) at the time of ordinance of baptism.

However, a communion (Roman) that officially repudiates the gospel (justification by faith alone), and pronounces anathemas on it, officially, cannot in any sense be considered a 'true church' in terms of administering the ordinance- which itself, is a sign and seal of that gospel.

If we don't have the gospel, we don't have anything Christian left.


----------



## Peairtach

If you had been living in OT times and had been circumcised as a Samaritan you wouldn't have had the opportunity of re-circumcision.



> Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat *in the temple of God*, proclaiming himself to be God. (II Thess 2:3-4, ESV)



If the Papacy is the Man of Sin, the Roman Catholic Church is part of the visible catholic Church, because it says that he takes his seat in the temple of God.


----------



## Scott1

Peairtach said:


> If you had been living in OT times and had been circumcised as a Samaritan you wouldn't have had the opportunity of re-circumcision.



That's one way of looking at it, and it has a valid underlying point- something to the finality of that ordinance.

But looking at it another way, the fact of it having been done is not absolutely determinative that is valid. By that logic, a Jehovah's Witness "baptism" would be valid, or a "mock" ceremony. I think the Westminster Standards recognize something of this by saying that it must be performed by a "minister of the gospel." (cf WCF XXVIII 2.)


----------



## Peairtach

Scott1 said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had been living in OT times and had been circumcised as a Samaritan you wouldn't have had the opportunity of re-circumcision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way of looking at it, and it has a valid underlying point- something to the finality of that ordinance.
> 
> But looking at it another way, the fact of it having been done is not absolutely determinative that is valid. By that logic, a Jehovah's Witness "baptism" would be valid, or a "mock" ceremony. I think the Westminster Standards recognize something of this by saying that it must be performed by a "minister of the gospel." (cf WCF XXVIII 2.)
Click to expand...


Fair enough. Those "churches" that reject the great ecumenical creeds are not Christian in any sense.


----------



## CharlieJ

I don't know that a Jehovah's Witness baptism would be valid. My understanding is that Trinity + water = baptism. JW's don't do Trinity. Do they use the Triune name when they baptize?

Concerning WCF 28.2, I don't think that's addressing the minimum requirements for validity, but rather what ought to be done. Certainly someone baptized by a Baptist lay-person does not need to be baptized again.


----------



## dudley

Herald said:


> Rufus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I baptized Roman Catholic as a baby, became a Christian maybe a year to three years ago (gradual conversion really), I'm in a credobaptist church, but hold to paedobaptism (and I have attended a Presbyterian church once).
> 
> So should I be baptized into a Protestant church and should I go to the Presbyterian church to have it happen? I would like to attend the Presbyterian church again, but I do like the church I currently attend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sean, are you a member of your current church? If not, do you intend to pursue membership? Most credobaptist churches will require you to be baptized if you were never baptized based on a credible profession of faith.
> 
> As a Baptist I do not consider Roman baptism valid. The issue is doubly moot because it was paedobaptism.
> 
> Should you go to a Presbyterian church to be baptized? Only if you're prepared to join that church. I don't know your situation, but it seems like you should declare where you're going to attend. If you can't abide credobaptist theology and practice you should seriously consider joining the PCA church in your signature.
Click to expand...


I agree with Bill. I am too an ex Roman catholic and considered the same question a while back. I am now a Presbyterian and was received into the Presbyterian church I now attend by public reaffirmation of faith in front of the entire congregation. The Presbyterian church accepted my Roman catholic baptism. I am now a practicing and confirmed Presbyterian by affirmation of faith and I receive communion and fully participate in the life of my Presbyterian church. I am now a Presbyterian and by Gods amazing grace no longer a Roman catholic but a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian, Praise God!


----------



## Herald

I appreciate Bruce's earlier comments, however I have a different take on Roman baptism. One can argue that the spiritual condition of the administrator of the ordinance does not make the ordinance valid or invalid. Roman baptism is troubled not just by the administrator but by the entire organization and its belief of what baptism is and what it accomplishes: 

1. Roman Catholicism is not a church
2. Roman Catholicism views baptism as salvific 
3. Roman baptism requires a surrogate

What is different from Roman Catholicism and other spiritually dead religions? Yes, Roman Catholicism has roots in the true Christian faith, but has long since apostatized. It is no better than Hinduism, Buddhism, or Mormonism. The Trinitarian nature of Roman baptism is corrupted by how they view and practice it. This is not just the problem of Roman Catholic clergy but of the whole organization - from the Pope on down. 

Of course, as a Baptist, I am not able to accept the validity of Roman baptism because of its paedo nature.


----------



## Marrow Man

Herald said:


> Of course, as a Baptist, I am not able to accept the validity of Roman baptism because of its paedo nature.



But, judging by your comments, you would also not accept an adult convert to the RCC who was baptized into the RCC as an adult, correct?


----------



## Herald

Marrow Man said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, as a Baptist, I am not able to accept the validity of Roman baptism because of its paedo nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, judging by your comments, you would also not accept an adult convert to the RCC who was baptized into the RCC as an adult, correct?
Click to expand...


Correct.


----------



## Herald

Actually, the surrogate issue is a major problem. If you think about it, an infant who is baptized in the Roman manner is not actually being baptized at all. Oh yes, the water is applied to the infant, but without a surrogate there is no baptism. It is the surrogate's confession that adds validity to the Roman rite (from the Roman point of view). An adult Roman Catholic convert has an additional problem. A credible profession of faith, from a true evangelical perspective, is not required to convert to Roman Catholicism. One has to ask the question whether baptism is a sign of faith in Christ, or a sign of capitulation towards Rome. Obviously I believe it's the latter.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

God can use a crooked stick to draw a straight line.

Baptism is something that happens to a person; not something fundamentally that he does, but is done to. At least, that's true in Presbyterianism.

Is the intent to identify this person with the Triune God of Scripture? And with the true church-universal and militant? If these are true, and the formula is straight out of Scripture, and the means used is water--I cannot find any confessional basis for denying that the RCs do, in fact, baptize. I think the objection places too much emphasis on what WE are doing as the church, rather than on recognizing human hands-on in what GOD is doing.

They are defective, severely, in doctrine and practice. They have a form of godliness, and deny the power thereof. Their ministry has little more than a formal shell of ordination. But before we overthrow our recognition of baptisms that they conduct, we should be careful to note how conveniently we pass by many other similar defects in other churches. The "irregularity" of Romish baptism is no more an impediment to our recognizing it, than if we recognize some other "irregularly" performed baptism, as done by a Charismatic-Arminian-baptist. Unless we want to start saying that our church (whichever one) is the ONLY church that has a true baptism, along with perhaps a few others that we periodically bring up for a review of how well they line up with us doctrinally.
_______________________________________________

Look, its a mark of the rejection of any kind of catholicity of the church-visible, to overthrow the baptisms of other bodies. This is frankly the position of the majority of Baptists, though some of them (thankfully) allow such marks as we have in our Presbyterian churches (but would insist on regularizing the rite if one of us joined them). What I call that is a "happy inconsistency" that allows us to be baptized _in some sense by them_ who are our gospel-fellows, but without deep down abolishing their prejudice against our identifying ourselves as citizens of the common kingdom, if while in their borders we are without a passport of their own issue.

And basically, we Presbyterians are doing the same thing, if we deny the RCs baptism. We're on those terms insisting that only our offices have the official seal, though we will accept certain others as equivalent. Whereas, historically (in Presbyterianism for 300 years up to 1845, and since then on the northern side), and always for the continental Reformed: we've acknowledge that those tokens bestowed--even by a church that basically misuses the privilege of handing such things out--nonetheless are to be honored "for the sake of the fathers," and for the sake of Him who gave that seal to the church.

If they break the seal, or alter it to truly change it and make it unrecognizable, that's a stronger argument that they've no more of the power to bestow it. But, thus far the arguments haven't been compelling to many, outside a relatively narrow band of the ecclesial spectrum.

But in general, this is a distinction between the strictly Reformed and the Baptist. We profess to believe in a catholicity, though we recognize that there is (obviously) no Catholicity of the church. And I have to say, it strikes me as the essence of sectarianism to deny that a baptism that was intended to mark a person with the sign of catholicity (baptism) should be overthrown. Mormons? have no connection to the historic, Christian church. They are a completely different religion. And I think most other questions are also easily dismissed.


----------



## Rufus

Thank you everybody and God bless, I will pray over all of this, a moderator can close this thread now _unless_ people want to continue debating over whether Roman Catholic baptism is valid.


----------



## dudley

Contra_Mundum said:


> God can use a crooked stick to draw a straight line.
> 
> Baptism is something that happens to a person; not something fundamentally that he does, but is done to. At least, that's true in Presbyterianism.
> 
> Is the intent to identify this person with the Triune God of Scripture? And with the true church-universal and militant? If these are true, and the formula is straight out of Scripture, and the means used is water--I cannot find any confessional basis for denying that the RCs do, in fact, baptize. I think the objection places too much emphasis on what WE are doing as the church, rather than on recognizing human hands-on in what GOD is doing.
> 
> They are defective, severely, in doctrine and practice. They have a form of godliness, and deny the power thereof. Their ministry has little more than a formal shell of ordination. But before we overthrow our recognition of baptisms that they conduct, we should be careful to note how conveniently we pass by many other similar defects in other churches. The "irregularity" of Romish baptism is no more an impediment to our recognizing it, than if we recognize some other "irregularly" performed baptism, as done by a Charismatic-Arminian-baptist. Unless we want to start saying that our church (whichever one) is the ONLY church that has a true baptism, along with perhaps a few others that we periodically bring up for a review of how well they line up with us doctrinally.
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Look, its a mark of the rejection of any kind of catholicity of the church-visible, to overthrow the baptisms of other bodies. This is frankly the position of the majority of Baptists, though some of them (thankfully) allow such marks as we have in our Presbyterian churches (but would insist on regularizing the rite if one of us joined them). What I call that is a "happy inconsistency" that allows us to be baptized _in some sense by them_ who are our gospel-fellows, but without deep down abolishing their prejudice against our identifying ourselves as citizens of the common kingdom, if while in their borders we are without a passport of their own issue.
> 
> And basically, we Presbyterians are doing the same thing, if we deny the RCs baptism. We're on those terms insisting that only our offices have the official seal, though we will accept certain others as equivalent. Whereas, historically (in Presbyterianism for 300 years up to 1845, and since then on the northern side), and always for the continental Reformed: we've acknowledge that those tokens bestowed--even by a church that basically misuses the privilege of handing such things out--nonetheless are to be honored "for the sake of the fathers," and for the sake of Him who gave that seal to the church.
> 
> If they break the seal, or alter it to truly change it and make it unrecognizable, that's a stronger argument that they've no more of the power to bestow it. But, thus far the arguments haven't been compelling to many, outside a relatively narrow band of the ecclesial spectrum.
> 
> But in general, this is a distinction between the strictly Reformed and the Baptist. We profess to believe in a catholicity, though we recognize that there is (obviously) no Catholicity of the church. And I have to say, it strikes me as the essence of sectarianism to deny that a baptism that was intended to mark a person with the sign of catholicity (baptism) should be overthrown. Mormons? have no connection to the historic, Christian church. They are a completely different religion. And I think most other questions are also easily dismissed.


 
Amen Rev Bruce, I commend your answer and agree with you completely when you said "They are defective, severely, in doctrine and practice. They have a form of godliness, and deny the power thereof. Their ministry has little more than a formal shell of ordination. But before we overthrow our recognition of baptisms that they conduct, we should be careful to note how conveniently we pass by many other similar defects in other churches. The "irregularity" of Romish baptism is no more an impediment to our recognizing it, than if we recognize some other "irregularly" performed baptism, as done by a Charismatic-Arminian-baptist. Unless we want to start saying that our church (whichever one) is the ONLY church that has a true baptism, along with perhaps a few others that we periodically bring up for a review of how well they line up with us doctrinally."

I believe the Romanists and the Roman catholic church is defective, severely, in doctrine and practice. It is why I left that church and becamse a Protestant. It is wht I renounced the pope and Roman catholicism but I did not not and could not renounce my baptism. However the iregularity of the Romish baptism I had as a baby I believe is valid and my leaving the church of Rome and becoming a Presbyterian by public afirmation of faith was a completion of a desire placed in me by the amazing grace of God to find and be part of the true Gospel and faith and church of Jesus Christ and the apostles which I do believe is the Reformed Protestant faith and the Presbyterian church of which I am now a fulled professed member. I am validly baptised and I am a Christian, a Reformed Protestant and I am a Presbyterian.


----------



## Scott1

This is very difficult to understand, acceptance of Roman baptism, yet there is much good substance and believers on both sides, even in our reformed house.

The PCA study committee on this was 4-1 against their validity, with several of its "founding fathers" in majority.

It's also made difficult because biblical reformed denominations do not share communion (Lord's Supper) with the Roman communion- that is a Roman member visiting a biblical reformed communion is not to partake of the Lord's Supper.

Perhaps a distinction is made that baptism is more something God does for us, whereas the Lord's Supper is more based on our own volition, self-examination? (Honestly, I just can't get there)



> The Catholic teaching based on the Council of Trent, Canon 4:
> 
> Extraordinary minister
> 
> In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infidel or Jew.
> 
> The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Moreover, he must thereby intend really to baptize the person, or technically, he must intend to perform what the Church performs when administering this sacrament.
> 
> 
> Read more: When did the Roman Catholic Church recognize Protestant Baptism



Perhaps this is going beyond the scope of this thread, if so, moderators please feel free to so move.

What makes this even more difficult is that Roman doctrine for 500 years would allow a non-ordained person, apparently even a self conscious, non Christian, even a heretic to baptize. While this goes to the form attending, it makes it all the more uncertain that the person even intended to baptize into the Triune God, let alone baptize toward its object, which is salvation.

How can someone get into the church universal (visible) if no one believes the gospel (justification by faith). In the case of an infant baptized by believing parents, it is the faith (in the gospel), redemption, that causes a believing parent to bring their child?
Isn't that the basis rather than a generic belief in the trinity?

The questions asked of parents when their infant child is baptized are about their faith in covenant promises of redemption.

Very difficult indeed.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Scott,
I agree that the matter can be vexing, which is (to my thinking) another reason to generally accept other baptisms, unless specific reason is put forward calling it into question. The default position seems to me: _persuade me otherwise_.

What may we to do with the PCUSA, which proposes alternate-trinitarian names for God (*not yet sanctioned for baptism*)? Whose name is "on their foreheads" (Rev.22:4)? One may well argue this is a grosser distortion of baptism than even the RCs came up with.

Again, I see this as a question that should ordinarily be left to lie, unless specific grounds for questioning the basic form/formula has been noted; then, the burden of proof still stands with the person who thinks the issue is live, to change our basic catholic stance.


----------



## raekwon

"William The Baptist" said:


> Then I have a question too: Can you be baptized by a Presbyterian church without being a member??



To answer this question quickly: presbyterians believe that baptism is baptism *into the church*, so when you're baptized (whether during infancy or upon profession of faith), you become a member of that local church.

There have certainly been times where that wasn't the case, but they're the very rare exception.


----------



## Phil D.

Contra_Mundum said:


> the PCUSA...has officially permitted "baptism" into some alternate-trinity



Seriously?!


----------



## Peairtach

raekwon said:


> "William The Baptist" said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I have a question too: Can you be baptized by a Presbyterian church without being a member??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To answer this question quickly: presbyterians believe that baptism is baptism *into the church*, so when you're baptized (whether during infancy or upon profession of faith), you become a member of that local church.
> 
> There have certainly been times where that wasn't the case, but they're the very rare exception.
Click to expand...


Baptism is into the Holy Trinity, Christ and the Church. There is the visible Church and the invisible Church. Christ is Head of both the visible and invisible Church.

Many that are baptised - both adults and children - are not part of the invisible Church when they are baptised, but later become so.

The Roman Catholic Church is part of the visible Church. How many people in the RC Church are part of the invisible Church only God knows but if they listen to what they're taught about salvation it will put them in the wrong direction.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Phil D. said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> the PCUSA...has officially permitted "baptism" into some alternate-trinity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?!
Click to expand...

I'm going to go back and edit my statement. What I claimed is the "stance" of the PCUSA on the subject has NOT been adopted as the official church position, which SFAIK has not changed from 2006. That year their General Assembly received and commended a report that re-branded the Trinity with all manner of alternatives, which are admissible for worship.

The report was *amended* to state that the biblical formula "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" remains standard for usage in baptism.


Alternatives to the biblical trinitarian Name include:


> “Rainbow, Ark and Dove,” “Speaker, Word and Breath,” “Overflowing Font, Living Water and Flowing River,” “Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-Giving Womb,” “Sun, Light and Burning Ray,” “Giver, Gift and Giving,” “Lover, Beloved and Love,” “Rock, Cornerstone and Temple,” “Fire that Consumes, Sword that Divides and Storm that Melts Mountains,” and “The One Who Was, The One Who Is and The One Who Is to Come.”



Commentary available here:
AlbertMohler.com &ndash; The God Who Names Himself
Reportage available here:
PC(USA) - 217th General Assembly (2006) - Assembly votes to 'receive' and commend to the church


----------



## KaphLamedh

Hello Rufus! The baptism is the case between God and you. No one of us can tell you what to do, that's up to you. Pray and study bible and the most important is that you ask God what to do. Baptists say: Yes you have to rebaptize yourself and presbyterians do not think it's necessary and lutherans say that absolutely not to do that. I was baptized as infant into Lutheran church just because of tradition in Finland.

I was born again when I was 29, and Lutherans teach that we born again in baptism and we can always return to "grace of baptism". I never returned to "grace of baptism", but I was saved by grace of Jesus Christ. Just as Virgin Mary is an idol in Catholic Church, is baptism as an idol in Lutheran Church today. I was baptized in the river by Christian friend of mine and I didn't join any church at that moment, but months later I was joined to Free Church. Calvinism came to my life just three years ago and now when I have read more about confessions I have noticed that London Baptist Confession is that I do agree the most, because of baptism.
I hope that Acts 19: 1-7 helps you:
_1.And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland[a] country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." 3And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John’s baptism." 4And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized in* the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7There were about twelve men in all. (ESV)*_


----------



## "William The Baptist"

Peairtach said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> To answer this question quickly: presbyterians believe that baptism is baptism *into the church*, so when you're baptized (whether during infancy or upon profession of faith), you become a member of that local church.
> 
> There have certainly been times where that wasn't the case, but they're the very rare exception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism is into the Holy Trinity, Christ and the Church. There is the visible Church and the invisible Church. Christ is Head of both the visible and invisible Church.
> 
> Many that are baptised - both adults and children - are not part of the invisible Church when they are baptised, but later become so.
> 
> The Roman Catholic Church is part of the visible Church. How many people in the RC Church are part of the invisible Church only God knows but if they listen to what they're taught about salvation it will put them in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...


So, perhaps this is very elementary, is a credobaptism valid if one wished to join a Presbyterian church? My confusion stems from the difference in full immersion verses pouring/sprinkling (I have read on this... I just can't recall exactly). I'm sure this has been addressed before... and I probably haven't gone through enough forums to find it yet. Feel free to direct me elsewhere.

Also, thank you Raekwon for your response.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

"William The Baptist" said:


> So, perhaps this is very elementary, is a credobaptism valid if one wished to join a Presbyterian church? My confusion stems from the difference in full immersion verses pouring/sprinkling (I have read on this... I just can't recall exactly). I'm sure this has been addressed before... and I probably haven't gone through enough forums to find it yet. Feel free to direct me elsewhere.
> 
> Also, thank you Raekwon for your response.


If your question is:
1) Would my previous baptism _on profession of faith_ (a self-confessed creed) count me as "baptized" in a Presbyterian's eyes? the answer is *certainly*. Many new converts to Christianity are baptized on profession of faith in Presbyterian churches.

If your question is:
2) Does the "manner" or "mode" of baptism matter to a Presbyterian? the answer is, not nearly as much as it does on a Baptist's reckoning. Neither the amount of water, nor its method of application are items of first-order consideration by a Presbyterian.


> WCF 28:3 "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary: but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person."


This statement can be taken to mean that pouring or sprinkling are _preferred_ modes; but its essential thrust is not to stipulate any preference, but to deny the exclusivity of any one form--least of all immersion.

My personal feelings concerning mode have shifted--from once being fairly set-against immersion mode (as lacking--by my lights--sufficient biblical encouragement) though immersion did not in any way invalidate a baptism; to being a bit more ambivalent about the utility of the various modes, including immersion. I now think there is symbolism in immersion that (at least conceptually) might be best displayed (among all the options) by baptism in those conditions; while that choice naturally sacrifices being the "best display" of other symbolism. No single mode can signify it the BEST in every category--its just impossible.

Personally, I still think immersion is a bit ostentatious (showy and overly dramatic) for the sobriety of public worship; but having seen many a tastefully done immersion (granting allowances for the additional logistics required for the arrangement), I am content to say that even Presbyterians could use immersion as mode--provided (!) that the mode was simply the ordinary way of baptizing everyone in that church, and not a special concession or provision to one individual (the "menu" approach to baptism).


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

"William The Baptist" said:


> So, perhaps this is very elementary, is a credobaptism valid if one wished to join a Presbyterian church? My confusion stems from the difference in full immersion verses pouring/sprinkling (I have read on this... I just can't recall exactly). I'm sure this has been addressed before... and I probably haven't gone through enough forums to find it yet. Feel free to direct me elsewhere.



Yes. My church regularly accepts folks into membership who were "credobaptised." Including me!


----------



## "William The Baptist"

Thank you Rev. Bruce for your most helpful answer. Yes, I was wondering about both, so I am glad you went ahead and answered it twice over. 

Thanks Gulfcoast Presbyterian, as well!


----------



## Dennis1963

Rufus said:


> I baptized Roman Catholic as a baby, became a Christian maybe a year to three years ago (gradual conversion really), I'm in a credobaptist church, but hold to paedobaptism (and I have attended a Presbyterian church once).
> 
> So should I be baptized into a Protestant church and should I go to the Presbyterian church to have it happen? I would like to attend the Presbyterian church again, but I do like the church I currently attend.


Personally I believe you were baptized once and that is good enough. I also was baptized Roman Catholic.

---------- Post added at 10:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------

Besides, who the person was who baptized you is not really important.


----------



## clinpep05

The question is "Should I be baptized (or rebaptized)?" The only answer to that question can come from God himself who gave us the ordinance of babtism as a way to express our inward faith in an outward manor. Paul wrote in Colossians 2:12"_Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."_
Water baptism is a way of identifing ourselves with Christ in burial of the flesh. When we are made alive unto God we are told to be Baptized as the first act of obedience unto our LORD,going through this ceremony telling everyone "Look at me.. I was dead but now I am Alive" therefore putting us in correct fellowship with Christ. _"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"_ The salvation mentioned is in the second aspect (the salvation of sins power in our lives).

I suspect that when you were an infant you had no understanding of exactly what Baptism means or is... Therefore in my opinion ( and please note my opinions are flawed by my nature) you should be "re-baptized" or actually baptized scripturally which i believe was never accomplished. Really its a small matter, I know people who were baptized 5 or 6 times before they actually understood what they were doing. My wife got baptized once in her teens because the church was giving away these cool new teen bibles to everyone that came for Batptism. LOL She got her bible and she got wet, but she was lost. She ended up getting saved in a small bible study in her 20s. 

I hope this helps you, Baptism is important in fellowship with our LORD as well as church membership.


----------



## Dennis1963

I'm not sure if this is addressed to me but, I'll comment. Hope you don't mind. 



clinpep05 said:


> I suspect that when you were an infant you had no understanding of exactly what Baptism means or is...


I think your suspicion is correct. I surly cannot remember back then. 



> Therefore in my opinion ( and please note my opinions are flawed by my nature) you should be "re-baptized" or actually baptized scripturally which i believe was never accomplished. Really its a small matter, I know people who were baptized 5 or 6 times before they actually understood what they were doing. My wife got baptized once in her teens because the church was giving away these cool new teen bibles to everyone that came for Batptism. LOL She got her bible and she got wet, but she was lost. She ended up getting saved in a small bible study in her 20s.


Thanks for your opinion. However, I firmly believe God chose His elect before the foundation of the world. If I was baptized by the hands of a RC priest, that was who God chose to use, or it wouldn't have happened. I believe when one is baptized, it is actually an act of God. Just as a priest cannot call Christ down into a piece of bread, the priest also has nothing to offer but his services in baptism. Now, don't get me wrong, as you, my opinions are imperfect also. 

However, I do not rule out the possibility that I may be re-baptized, I just do not see scripture (at this time) pointing to that. I'm not convicted of it; if I read a good scriptural case for it, it may indeed change.  




> I hope this helps you, Baptism is important in fellowship with our LORD as well as church membership.


 I agree baptism is important, Jesus said so. 


Thank you and God Bless.


----------



## clinpep05

lol sorry if it felt like i was aiming anything toward you... not my intention... 

You know i read a book called "The Trail of Blood" that shows how Baptists got their name because they went around Re-baptizing every convert. The Catholics named them Anti-Baptists and the name stuck. LOL Guilty as charged (with my hand up) 

thanks


----------



## Scott1

Also, wanted to make clear for those following,
We all agree that a biblical, reformed presbyterian church _would_ accept the baptism of any historic Protestant (evangelical) communion, e.g. Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, etc. of either infant or adult as valid baptism. The idea being, baptism is only once, and a charitable view of the household of faith, Christ's Body, the universal church. 

The only question is whether the Roman church would fit that definition. There are honest and good faith differences in the Reformed house on that question.


----------



## Marrow Man

clinpep05 said:


> My wife got baptized once in her teens because the church was giving away these cool new teen bibles to everyone that came for Batptism. LOL She got her bible and she got wet, but she was lost. She ended up getting saved in a small bible study in her 20s.



That is awful, simply awful (the carrot for baptism, not the latter part). What a trivializing of what the Lord instituted. Churches that do this and call themselves "Baptist" make a mockery of the name. I am thankful for the faithful Baptists out there. I am also glad that she found the Lord, albeit later.


----------



## Peairtach

It is the Lord's Supper as the inner door of the Church - by its opening or closing to the individual(s) concerned - that should be used to correct mistakes, not baptism.


----------



## cajunhillbilly53

clinpep05 said:


> lol sorry if it felt like i was aiming anything toward you... not my intention...
> 
> You know i read a book called "The Trail of Blood" that shows how Baptists got their name because they went around Re-baptizing every convert. The Catholics named them Anti-Baptists and the name stuck. LOL Guilty as charged (with my hand up)
> 
> thanks




Actually that should be *Ana*baptist not *Anti*baptist. Anti means agianst baptism, ana means rebaptising. Be sure you use the correct prefix. Plus the book The Trail of Blood has some historic mistakes in it.


----------

