# REDO: RC Baptism: Is it valid?



## Romans922 (Dec 15, 2008)

After changing my view on this (since the last known PB thread/poll was taken), being a former RC and being baptized, I would like to do this AGAIN! I want my vote on the right side after all. 

Is Roman Catholic Baptism valid?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Dec 15, 2008)

I do not think so. I know that many within the PCA differ on this, but I am loathe to attribute validity to anything done by Papists.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 15, 2008)

Yep.

My vote (And Turretin's, Rutherford's, Calvin's, etc.)

I want to stay out of the ensuing debate, but what I learned from the last discussion regarding this is that we have to realize pluriformity of paradigms here:

1. Many today approach the question from this angle: Rome is not a true church, therefore it's baptism is not valid.

2. What I've noticed of the reformers and post-reformation theologians (non-baptist, of course) is that their logic works exactly oppositely: true and valid baptism is conducted in Rome, therefore _inasmuch as this is done_ (along with reading of the word, etc.), you have a church.

I think that realizing this different paradigm up front will save a lot of problems in future discussion.

Here is the most recent thread to discuss it if you have not read it already: hopefully you can glean something useful from it.


----------



## he beholds (Dec 15, 2008)

I hope so or I'm in disobedience.
I voted yes.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 15, 2008)

I edited the poll to make it Paedo only.

I didn't vote but if I had I would side with J. H. Thornwell. Does anyone know where to find his disertation online? 

Sacramental Sorcery
The invalidity of Roman Catholic Baptism. 

Here is the latest from the PCA....

http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-078.html


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Dec 15, 2008)

As a credo I didn't vote but I will say that the presbyterians I know that don't accept RC baptism say that it was acceptable until Trent. They believe Calvin would not have accepted it after Trent.


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 15, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> As a credo I didn't vote but I will say that the presbyterians I know that don't accept RC baptism say that it was acceptable until Trent. They believe Calvin would not have accepted it after Trent.



But Calvin was alive during and after Trent ... I wonder upon what they base their doubt Calvin accepted RC baptism after Trent.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 15, 2008)

I've often wondered why my fellow Presbyterians always refer to Calvin on this topic and claim that his motives were pre-Tridentine, and ignore the rest of the reformed tradition after Trent that continued to affirm the validity.

Also, there is something that I really don't get about this: Calvin wrote his Antidote to Trent's doctrine of justification (their overthrow of the gospel) in 1547. He lived and wrote for many years after this, including the last two editions of his Institutes. There is no indication of a change in his views on Baptism. I simply don't get this argument that people always bring up. Is my history incorrect? (Sincere question)

-----Added 12/15/2008 at 09:56:54 EST-----

Thanks Lance -- I didn't mean to repeat you: we were posting at the same time.


----------



## CDM (Dec 15, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> I've often wondered why my fellow Presbyterians always refer to Calvin on this topic and claim that his motives were pre-Tridentine, and i*gnore the rest of the reformed tradition* after Trent that continued to affirm the validity.
> 
> Also, there is something that I really don't get about this: Calvin wrote his Antidote to Trent's doctrine of justification (their overthrow of the gospel) in 1547. He lived and wrote for many years after this, including the last two editions of his Institutes. There is no indication of a change in his views on Baptism. I simply don't get this argument that people always bring up. Is my history incorrect? (Sincere question)
> 
> ...



When you say the "rest of Reformed tradition" I take it you mean most Presbyterians _today_ hold Roman baptism to be valid?

It seems to me, if Rome is a true Church then her baptisms are valid. If she's not then her baptisms are invalid. Those who hold Rome to be no true Church to, at the same time, hold her baptisms to be valid has always been a strange and untenable position to me.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 15, 2008)

mangum said:


> When you say the "rest of Reformed tradition" I take it you mean most Presbyterians today hold Roman baptism to be valid?
> 
> It seems to me, if Rome is a true Church then her baptisms are valid. If she's not then her baptisms are invalid.



Actually, I meant the post-Reformation period; the time of orthodox formulation.

Regarding your second point and the difference in logic between what you and someone such as Turretin used, see what I posted in post #3:



> I want to stay out of the ensuing debate, but what I learned from the last discussion regarding this is that we have to realize pluriformity of paradigms here:
> 
> 1. Many today approach the question from this angle: Rome is not a true church, therefore it's baptism is not valid.
> 
> 2. What I've noticed of the reformers and post-reformation theologians (non-baptist, of course) is that their logic works exactly oppositely: true and valid baptism is conducted in Rome, therefore inasmuch as this is done (along with reading of the word, etc.), you have a church.



-----Added 12/15/2008 at 10:36:21 EST-----

As someone such as Turretin expresses, the status of Rome as a "church" or as "no church" is slightly more nuanced and intricate than a simple "No."

If we take his argument as an example, he says that inasmuch as the Roman church is _Papal_, it is no church and can only be called one improperly; however, inasmuch as it is _Christian_ it is properly called a church, though mixed with much error: by this he means, inasmuch as it still proclaims fundamental Christian teachings, publicly reads the scriptures, etc., and administers the sacraments -- and "especially baptism" (Turretin's words).

The marks of a church do not become marks _because_ some assembly is a true church; rather, an assembly is a true church _because_ it possesses the marks.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 15, 2008)

mangum said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> > I've often wondered why my fellow Presbyterians always refer to Calvin on this topic and claim that his motives were pre-Tridentine, and i*gnore the rest of the reformed tradition* after Trent that continued to affirm the validity.
> ...



Agreed, Chris. But it is even stranger to me that Calvin argued that Rome's version of the Lord's Supper was invalid because Rome perverted the gospel, and yet her baptism was valid.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 15, 2008)

Mr. Greco,

As a pastor, you are probably better read in Calvin than I am, so I will accept your judgment on this question. Is Calvin's view on Rome and the Supper simply the result of their perversion of the gospel, or is it more related to their perversion of the gospel _by means of_ their version of the supper wherein they themselves offer up Christ's body for an offering and do all manner of other things contrary to the gospel?

If so, I see no contradiction between the two. If not, I stand corrected.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 15, 2008)

Whitefield said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > As a credo I didn't vote but I will say that the presbyterians I know that don't accept RC baptism say that it was acceptable until Trent. They believe Calvin would not have accepted it after Trent.
> ...



Historical Provincialism. That is the formal name for that particular fallacy that allows people to read back into the past, current prejudices.


----------



## CDM (Dec 15, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> mangum said:
> 
> 
> > Prufrock said:
> ...



Maybe, just maybe Calvin was (gasp!) wrong here.  Calvin was surely aware if he held to Rome's baptism being invalid that this would put him in a most precarious spot.  Just sayin'.

******
From the PCA Digest, referring to the Action of the General Assembly, Old School, of 1845:

"Because, since baptism is an ordinance established by Christ in his Church, (Form of Gov., chap. vii; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20,) and is to be administered only by a minister of Christ, duly called and ordained to be a steward of the mysteries of God, (Directory, chap. viii, sec. 1.) it follows that no rite administered by one who is not himself a duly ordained minister of the true Church of God visible, can be regarded as an ordinance of Christ, whatever be the name by which it is called, whatever the form employed in its administration. The so-called priest of the Romish communion are not ministers of Christ, for they are commissioned as agents of the papal hierarchy, which is not a Church of Christ, but the Man of Sin, apostate from the truth, the enemy of righteousness and of God. She has long lain under the curse of God, who has called his people to come out from her, that they be not partakers of her plagues.

"It is the unanimous opinion of all the Reformed churches, that the whole papal body, though once a branch of the visible church, has long since become utterly corrupt, and hopelessly apostate. It was a conviction of this which led to the reformation, and the complete separation of the reformed body from the papal communion. Luther and his coadjutors, being duly ordained presbyters at the time when they left the Romish communion, which then, though fearfully corrupt, was the only visible church in the countries of their abode, were fully authorized by the word of God, to ordain successors in the ministry, and so to extend and perpetuate the Reformed churches as true churches of Christ: while the contumacious adherence of Rome to her corruptions, as shown in the decisions of the Council of Trent, (which she adopts as authoritative,) cuts her off from the visible Church of Christ, as heretical and unsound. This was the opinion of the Reformers, and it is the doctrine of the Reformed churches to this day. In entire accordance to this is the decision of the General Assembly of our Church, passed in 1835, (See Minutes of General Assembly, vol. 8, p. 33) declaring the Church of Rome 
to be an apostate body.​


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 15, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> Mr. Greco,
> 
> As a pastor, you are probably better read in Calvin than I am, so I will accept your judgment on this question. Is Calvin's view on Rome and the Supper simply the result of their perversion of the gospel, or is it more related to their perversion of the gospel _by means of_ their version of the supper wherein they themselves offer up Christ's body for an offering and do all manner of other things contrary to the gospel?
> 
> If so, I see no contradiction between the two. If not, I stand corrected.



Paul,

I have posted this in other fora as well, and still have not (to my satisfaction) received a satisfactory answer. All the answers are a variation of that given to me by F.N. Lee, in which (paraphrasing) he said that Calvin would have viewed the Roman church as a church, just a really, really, really deformed part of the Church.

Anyway, here is what Calvin says about departing from the church:



> "We have said that the symbols by which the Church is discerned are the preaching of the word and the observance of the sacraments, for these cannot any where exist without producing fruit and prospering by the blessing of God. I say not that wherever the word is preached fruit immediately appears; but that in every place where it is received, and has a fixed abode, it uniformly displays its efficacy. *Be this as it may, when the preaching of the gospel is reverently heard, and the sacraments are not neglected, there for the time the face of the Church appears without deception or ambiguity; and no man may with impunity spurn her authority*, or reject her admonitions, or resist her counsels, or make sport of her censures, far less revolt from her, and violate her unity, (see Chap. 2 sec. 1, 10, and Chap. 3. sec. 12.) For such is the value which the Lord sets on the communion of his Church, that *all who contumaciously alienate themselves from any Christian society, in which the true ministry of his word and sacraments is maintained, he regards as deserters of religion*." (Institutes IV.i.10, emphasis added)



So we see that Calvin will not allow us to depart from a true church, one in which there is the true ministry of the word and *sacraments*. (emphasis mine).

So then, is Calvin against departure from Rome? No, because:



> "Since this is the state of matters under the Papacy, we can understand how much of the Church there survives. There, *instead of the ministry of the word, prevails a perverted government, compounded of lies*, a government which partly extinguishes, partly suppresses, the pure light. *In place of the Lord's Supper, the foulest sacrilege has entered*, the worship of God is deformed by a varied mass of intolerable superstitions; doctrine (without which Christianity exists not) is wholly buried and exploded, the public assemblies are schools of idolatry and impiety. Wherefore, in declining fatal participation in such wickedness, *we run no risk of being dissevered from the Church of Christ*." (Institutes IV.ii.2, emphasis added)



So basically, Calvin thinks everything at Rome is horrible, not worthy of Christ, _*except*_ baptism. Color me biased, but I see pragmatism here, even in solid Calvin.


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 15, 2008)

Turretin _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, Nineteenth Topic, Question XVIII, 

Section I. (in part) "... by the providence of God the true doctrine concerning baptism remains in the church of Rome because in it is retained the matter of true baptism (to wit, water and the formula prescribed by Christ, according to which it is administered in the name of the Trinity). For this reason, baptism performed in that church is considered valid and is not repeated. ..."

Section XIV. "Hence we properly gather that Roman baptism is not to be repeated. (1) The essence of baptism still remains entire in it. (2) The power and efficacy of baptism do not depend on an erring minister or heretic, but on Christ (Mt. 3:11; 1 Cor. 3:5). (3) There are still remains of the church in the papacy (Rev. 18:4) and God has not yet wholly left that church. Now baptism is proper to the church and is administered for him, although by very corrupt ministers."

XV. (in part) "But although we do not think that the baptism once performed should be repeated, still we do not think that infant baptism can be sought or received from popish priests without sin. ..."


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 15, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> ...So basically, Calvin thinks everything at Rome is horrible, not worthy of Christ, _*except*_ baptism. Color me biased, but I see pragmatism here, even in solid Calvin.



Absolutely agree with everything in the post.

They've corrupted everything, and we must depart from the church. Fortunately for many who have come out of her, however, she is still baptizing people, and the Spirit can still use this baptism to seal Christ and the covenant to his elect.


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 15, 2008)

My thought is the acceptance of baptism but not the Lord's Supper might be more than pragmatism. Whereas the essentials are retained in baptism, the essentials of the Lord's Supper have been radically altered by the RCs. With the essentials still present in baptism, it can be accepted, but not encouraged. With the essentials missing from the Lord's Supper it cannot be accepted. I come to this proposition because I do not think Calvin or Turretin were worried about appeasing Rome or those who held to Roman Catholic theology.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 15, 2008)

he beholds said:


> I hope so or I'm in disobedience.
> I voted yes.



I held that it was for a long time (as a former Roman Catholic who had only been 'baptized' as a Roman Catholic), but was convinced that it was not valid after much, much study. I was baptized at the Church that I am now the Pastor, two months prior to my ordination.


The final kicker was probably knowing this one fact: Roman Catholics do not communicate promises attached to their 'baptism'. If there are no promises (COVENANT PROMISES) attached to water being poured on someone, then it is just an outward action of water being poured out (that's it).


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Dec 16, 2008)

There were many factors that may have played into Calvin's acceptance of RC baptism. I personally think he was afraid of being labeled as an anabaptist (though he would not have truly been denying infant baptism).


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 16, 2008)

I still wrestle with it. But I'm at the point where I would have no problem baptizing a Roman Catholic convert if it was a matter of conscience for them. Many times they want to be baptized Protestant because they want a clean break from their former idolatry.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 16, 2008)

This is a difficult issue with sincerely held and reasonable difference.

You may find helpful the previous thread where a lot of these points were discussed in detail (link from post 3)

The PCA study paper on this topic (4-1) against the biblical validity of Roman baptism frames many of these points helpfully as well (link from post 5). Both sides are respectfully presented and well thought out.


A few things to consider on this topic:

In the context of Mr Calvin's times, he was defending biblical reformation against the anabaptist idea of invalidity of baptism on several grounds, including that infant baptisms were per se invalid. This had big implications for covenant theology and other key aspects of reformed theology as it was being systematized at that time. This was in his mind and writings a great struggle at the time.

As Mr Calvin was nominally of the Roman church at birth, coming out from it as were many of the reformers and probably still saw it as being "reformable" back to the apostolic chrisitianity of the first century- he was not seeking to start a new, seperate religion.

It became more clear as time went on what the Roman church was becoming in relation to the gospel in the time following Mr Calvin. At his time, it really was in transition. It became clear later that the Roman doctrinal system was not only officially rejecting the gospel (justification by faith in Christ's righteousness alone), but pronouncing "anathemas" (curses) on it- officially. Some, in good faith place the emphasis on the validity of performance of the sacrament itself (trinitarian pronouncement and intent). 

While I'm not quite seeing it as a requirement that the church administering baptism have all the "marks" of a "true church," I can't get past the fact that the gospel is the very object of baptism.

As Reverend Greco mentioned, it is also difficult to understand why we would reject communion with the Roman system today by the Lord's Supper on the one hand, yet accept it on the other, in baptism.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 16, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> But it is even stranger to me that Calvin argued that Rome's version of the Lord's Supper was invalid because Rome perverted the gospel, and yet her baptism was valid.





ManleyBeasley said:


> There were many factors that may have played into Calvin's acceptance of RC baptism. I personally think he was afraid of being labeled as an anabaptist (though he would not have truly have been denying infant baptism).



Yes, Calvin denying the validity of RC baptism, to be coherent, would have to be the first one to be re-baptized

and that would have passed the «wrong message», so to speak.

Those were very understandable circumstantial and pastoral concerns.

Paul circumcised Timothy Acts 16:3

Should we derive theology or practice from this?


But I pose another rhetorical questions! 

*Does it matter who administers the sacrament?*


Calvin again is not very consistent

*Institutes book 4 CHAPTER 15. OF BAPTISM.*

16. Moreover, if we have rightly determined that a sacrament is not to be estimated by the hand of him by whom it is administered, but is to be received as from the hand of God himself, from whom it undoubtedly proceeded, we may hence infer that its dignity neither gains nor loses by the administrator.
(…) so it ought to be sufficient for us to recognise the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, let the administrator be who he may.

20. It is here also pertinent to observe, that it is improper for private individuals to take upon themselves the administration of baptism; for it, as well as the dispensation of the Supper, is part of the ministerial office.

*Second Helvetic Confession 1566 * Bullinger et al

XX of Holy Baptism

5 . we teach that baptism should not be administered in the church by women or 
midwives. For Paul secludes women from Ecclesiastical callings. But Baptism 
belongs to Ecclesiastical offices


So, myself, I will stick to *the Old School* of Hodge and Alexander


----------

