# Reformed Catholicism and Romish Baptism



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 26, 2004)

The RC's quote A. A. Hodge in asserting that Roman Catholics are our brethren. His quote seems to support their view.

So, is Hodge a heretic, or are they misinterpreting him? Or are Roman Catholic baptisms valid?

http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/2004/12/aa_hodge_on_bap.html

[Edited on 12-30-2004 by ConfederateTheocrat]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 26, 2004)

Unfortunately, Princeton followed Charles Hodge in the opinion that Rome was still a church and therefore still had an authenticate baptism. A.A. Hodge was following his lead. That has been the predominate view in reformed history too. But there was a big debate between Hodge and Thornwell on this topic, but the Presbyterians sided with Hodge in the end. We had a similar debate on this Board too which really hasn't been resolved yet on this thread, if you want to read up some more on it:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1976#pid61886


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 26, 2004)

Thank you for the link and info. I was hoping to get A. A. Hodge's systematic theology, but now I don't know.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat_
> Thank you for the link and info. I was hoping to get A. A. Hodge's systematic theology, but now I don't know.


Both Charles and A.A. Hodge are worth reading. I would not discount them just becuase of that view of Rome. Most reformed theologians held that view, and most still do today. Holding that Rome is still a church doesn't mean you approve of their heresy. It just means you acknowledge the validity of the sacrament.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat_
> Thank you for the link and info. I was hoping to get A. A. Hodge's systematic theology, but now I don't know.



A.A. Hodge does not have a Systematic. He write "Outlines of Theology" He was the son of Charles Hodge. Both the Hodges were orthodox, Reformed theologians. While I disagree with them on the issue of Romish baptism, it is a matter of intramural debate in Presbyterianism. There is no reason to fear either Hodge as a sound source of theology. Basically, they hold that the Trinitarian formula alone is enough. Rome is a church to them, but just barely. One could even say that they hold Rome to be a church to place a greater condemnation on Rome - it is not just a cult, but an apostate Christian organization.

On the other hand, Reformed Catholicism is NOT a good source for theology, and you would be best served not even bothering to read anything there. I know I wish I didn't have to.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 26, 2004)

Thank you Fred for your comments. I thought I saw a Systematic Theology by A. A., but I must have confused it with Charles Hodge . 

You also told me to read the Puritan divines and the Reformers before Rushdoony. I have recieved some money from Christmas, and I was going to U2U regarding your suggestions on where to start, but the U2U system doesn't seem to be working.

(*note: I don't care if you -referring to anyone reading this- think I'm a cheesy little Presbyterian for having some Rushdoony books but not Puritan/Reformer books. I am a former Baptist who has just become Presbyterian, so I am stupid on where to go admittedly.*)

[Edited on 12-27-2004 by ConfederateTheocrat]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 26, 2004)

The Hodges are a good place to start  Look also at Berkof's Sytematic Theology. He covers a wider spectrum of reformed history and theologians.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat_
> ...



This reminds me of a lot of the discussion in the "Fundamental Integrity" thread, which I hope will eventually be resurrected, as it is a _fundamental_  issue, and one on which I am currently thinking very much.

I do agree with you that holding that Rome is still a church does not necessarily imply approval of her teachings. But, as Fred pointed out to me in that thread, what it does have implications for is the legitimacy of Protestant churches.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 26, 2004)

I will second the recommendation of Berhkoff--he is good overall and golden on some areas. If I am not mistaken, you can get Charles Hodge's Systematic at CBD for $20.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 26, 2004)

I'm glad to hear further high recommendations of Berkhof's systematic, as I just received it on the 25th!


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat_
> Thank you Fred for your comments. I thought I saw a Systematic Theology by A. A., but I must have confused it with Charles Hodge .
> 
> You also told me to read the Puritan divines and the Reformers before Rushdoony. I have recieved some money from Christmas, and I was going to U2U regarding your suggestions on where to start, but the U2U system doesn't seem to be working.
> ...



Mark,

Considering that you (like me) have an entire lifetime to spend with Calvin's Institutes, you could start there. I would also recommend an accessible and pastoral Puritan like Thomas Watson, or Jeremiah Burroughs, or Thomas Boston or Richard Sibbes. If you like History, then William Cunningham's _Historical Theology_ is excellent. And probably one of my favorite works of all time is _The Marrow of Modern Divinity_ by Edward Fisher (with notes by Thomas Boston).


----------



## DTK (Dec 27, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat_
> So, is Hodge a heretic, or are they misinterpreting him? Our are Roman Catholic baptisms valid?


I wouldn't be overly concerned about that quote from A. A. Hodge which is being exploited by the adherents of the New Counter Reformation Movement. They have simply taken what A. A. Hodge granted as a minimum and have attempted to maximize it as though he was a hero of ecumenism with Rome. He was not.

Historically, Calvin accepted Roman Catholic baptisms as valid since, after all, the magisterial reformers had a strong aversion to re-baptism. But that doesn't mean that they condoned Roman baptisms favorably. Consider some of Calvin's comments to this effect...

*John Calvin speaking of papal priests:* If those who profess to return to the right way feel hurt by these requirements, they are greatly mistaken. For it is impossible to accept them as Christian pastors if they have not renounced the papal priesthood in which they were ordained to sacrifice Jesus Christ, which is a blasphemy worthy of the highest detestation. In addition, they must solemnly promise to abstain henceforth from all superstitions and pollutions which are repugnant to the simplicity of the gospel. For how can they administer the Holy Supper unless they have separated from the abominations of the Mass? Moreover, they cannot be ministers of baptism unless they have rejected the confusions by which it has been corrupted. In sum, the church cannot accept them as pastors if they do not feel obliged to do their duty. Letter for Bishops and priests of the Papacy. John Calvin, _Calvin´s Ecclesiastical Advice_, trans. Mary Beaty and Benjamin W. Farley (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), p. 59. 

*John Calvin:* This knotty problem cannot be resolved without sacrilege. There is, in addition, the apostle´s opinion: "œAnd no man takes this honor unto himself except the one who is called of God" [Heb. 5:4]. We think, therefore, that a baptism performed by a layman is spurious; this temerity would not be tolerated in a properly established church. Because this has happened in your midst at an early stage, however, before the church´s order was restored and when circumstances were still confused, the error should be forgiven and the baptism (of whatever sort it is) should be tolerated.
This baptism, performed improperly and only once, should not serve as an example. God condones many things in a fragmented church that it would be wrong to allow in a well-ordered church. In former times, when religion was corrupt, circumcision was undoubtedly involved in many faults and corruptions, but we have read that it was not revoked when the people were recalled to a pure worship. It is not necessary, therefore, or even useful to investigate all the circumstances anxiously; this would produce countless worries. What God forgave under the papacy we should also lay to rest. Letter on Baptism Administered Improperly. John Calvin, _Calvin´s Ecclesiastical Advice_, trans. Mary Beaty and Benjamin W. Farley (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), p. 98. 

*John Calvin:* The same principle ought to prevail in the case of baptism. Even if imminent danger is threatening, it still is not permitted to do what God clearly disapproves. We know that baptism in the papacy has been corrupted by many base elements and almost adulterated. If fear were a factor, all the pious would readily agree that it is wrong for parents to bring their infant children to a sinful baptism. It is superficial to seize upon danger as an excuse, as if the baptism itself could change its nature because of that. We know that bearing witness to piety is more precious before God than for piety to yield to threats and fears, at least when fear forces us to a pretense that is a tacit approval of impieties. We grieve with our pious brothers out of affection, but it is not up to us to free them from God´s incontestable law. The Hebrew women in Egypt long ago did not hesitate to put their own lives at risk to save others´ infants [Ex. 1:17]; it is shameful for parents to be so fearful that they defile the souls of their own babies, to the extent that they can. Letter On Certain Controversies Among the Pious Brothers. John Calvin, _Calvin´s Ecclesiastical Advice_, trans. Mary Beaty and Benjamin W. Farley (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), p. 118. 

*John Calvin:* From baptism, in like manner, have we rescinded many additions which were partly useless, and partly, from their superstitious tendency, noxious. We know the form of baptism which the apostles received from Christ, which they observed during their lifetime, and which they finally left to posterity. But the simplicity which had been approved by the authority of Christ, and the practice of the apostles, did not satisfy succeeding ages. I am not at present discussing whether those persons were influenced by sound reasons, who afterwards added chrism, salt, spittle, and tapers. I only say, what every one must know, that to such a height had superstition or folly risen, that more value was set on these additions than on the genuineness of baptism itself. 
We have studied also to banish the preposterous confidence which stopped short at the external acts and paid not the least regard to Christ. For, as well in the schools as in sermons, they so extolled the efficacy of signs, that, instead of directing men to Christ, they taught them to confide in the visible elements. John Calvin, _The Necessity of Reforming the Church_ (Dallas: Protestant Heritage Press, 1995), p. 66.

And in commenting on the WCF, A. A. Hodge himself stated... 
*A. A. Hodge:* Hence Romanists and Ritualists have inferred that the sign is inseparable from the grace signified, and that these spiritual effects are due to the outward ordinance. Hence the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But it must be observed that the Scriptures do not assert these spiritual attributes of water baptism in itself considered, but of water baptism as the sign or emblem of baptism by the Holy Ghost. These spiritual attributes belong only to baptism by the Spirit, and they accompany the sign only when the sign is accompanied by that which it signifies. It does not follow, however, that the sign is inseparable from the grace. The grace is sovereign; and experience teaches us that it is often absent from the sign, and that the sign is least frequently honored by the presence of the grace when it is itself most implicitly relied upon.... The extreme held by Papists and Ritualists of baptismal regeneration. (a) This is not taught in Scripture. The language relied upon to prove it (John 3:5; Acts 2:38) is easily explained on the principle that, in virtue of the sacramental union between the sign and the grace signified, what is true of the one is metaphorically predicated of the other. There is nothing said of the efficacy of Baptism which is not likewise said of the efficacy of the truth. (James 1:18; John 17:19.) But the mere hearing of the truth saves no one. (b) Baptism cannot be the only or ordinary means of regeneration, because faith and repentance are the fruits of regeneration, but the pre"“requisites of Baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:37; 10:47.) (c) Universal experience in Romanist and Ritualistic communities proves that the baptized are not generally regenerated. Our Savior says, "œBy their fruits ye shall know them." See A. A. Hodge, _The Confession of Faith_.

*A. A. Hodge:* The Protestant advocates of Baptismal Regeneration, without committing themselves to the Romish theory of an opus operatum, hold that baptism is God´s ordained instrument of communicating the benefits of redemption in the first instance. That whatever gracious experiences may be enjoyed by the unbaptized, are uncovenanted mercies. That by baptism the guilt of original sin is removed, and the Holy Ghost is given, whose effects remain like a seed in the soul, to be actualized by the free"“will of the subject, or neglected and hence rendered abortive. Every infant is regenerated when baptized. If he dies in infancy the seed is actualized in paradise. If he lives to adult age, its result depends upon his use of it (Blunt´s "œDict. of Theology," Art. Baptism). See above, Ch. 29., Ques. 4.
They rest their doctrine on a large class of Scripture passages like the following, "œChrist gave himself for the church that he might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water, by the word"Eph 5:26, "œArise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.""“"“Acts 22:16. Also John 3:5;1 Pet. 3:21;Gal. 3:27, etc.
The Reformed explain these passages on the following principles. 1st. In every sacrament there are two things (a) an outward visible sign, and (b) an inward invisible grace thereby signified. There is between these a sacramental or symbolical relation that naturally gives rise to a usus loquendi (meaning of words by usage), whereby the properties and effects of the grace are attributed to the sign. Yet it never follows that the two are inseparable, any more than it proves the absurdity that the two are identical.
2d. The sacraments are badges of religious faith, and necessarily involve the profession of that faith. In all ordinary language, therefore, that faith is presumed to be present, and to be genuine, in which case the grace signified by the sacrament is, of course, always not only offered but conveyed ("œShorter Catechism," Ques. 91 and. 92).... The great evil of the system of which the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is a part, is that it tends to make religion a matter of external and magical forms, and hence to promote rationalistic skepticism among the intelligent, and superstition among the ignorant and morbid, and to dissociate among all classes religion and morality. See his _Outlines of Bible Topics_, as Mr. Greco has so helpfully recommended.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> Mark,
> 
> Considering that you (like me) have an entire lifetime to spend with Calvin's Institutes, you could start there. I would also recommend an accessible and pastoral Puritan like Thomas Watson, or Jeremiah Burroughs, or Thomas Boston or Richard Sibbes. If you like History, then William Cunningham's _Historical Theology_ is excellent. And probably one of my favorite works of all time is _The Marrow of Modern Divinity_ by Edward Fisher (with notes by Thomas Boston).



I defintely am going to get the Institutes on hardback very soon. I only have a paperback abriged copy . It is semi-helpful. I was thinking about Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology or Luther's commentaries.

I will check out Thomas Watson and the other Puritans. Those, I have a feeling, might be too advanced for me now. Is Amazon a good place for Purian works (I'll check to see later)? If there is a better place for such books, let me know. I can't wait for more books to be sold through Puritan Publications .


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat_
> ...



 You really should post this in the Reformed Catholicism comments section (I think they have one).


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 29, 2004)

Mark,

Try Cumberland Valley or Alldirect.com for books. Alldirect is the cheapest but may not have the best selection.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Mark,
> 
> Try Cumberland Valley or Alldirect.com for books. Alldirect is the cheapest but may not have the best selection.



Will do .


----------



## DTK (Dec 29, 2004)

> You really should post this in the Reformed Catholicism comments section (I think they have one).


Well, I don't really think that would serve any meaningful purpose, since I've already interacted with this man and shown him these quotes on another forum. He decided that he would rather not interact with me and abandoned the thread.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > You really should post this in the Reformed Catholicism comments section (I think they have one).
> ...



He did not interact because these quotes would silence him.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > You really should post this in the Reformed Catholicism comments section (I think they have one).
> ...



David,

That's because it is oh so much more fun to throw witty insults and reparte than to actually interact. For that reason, I have refrained from even trying on commenting there. I get enough abuse in their blogs anyway.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> David,
> 
> That's because it is oh so much more fun to throw witty insults and reparte than to actually interact. For that reason, I have refrained from even trying on commenting there. I get enough abuse in their blogs anyway.



This is very true. I remember seeing one post there in which Paul Owen (I believe) called you out by name, and attacked the Puritanboard as well!


----------



## DTK (Dec 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Fred and Mark,

There were actually several threads where we interacted, but he finally decided he had said his piece and left. It became clear to me that he was simply parroting almost word for word one of the contributors to the book, _The Federal Vision_. I'm convinced in my own mind that he simply jumped on the bandwagon of this New Counter Reformation Movement without having really thought through all of its ramifications. But then, I was told that I had succumbed to that dastardly rationalistic mindset of the enlightenment. 

When I began to provide sources from Calvin and others, I was informed that I was simply regurgitating quotations I was spoon-fed in seminary, with no understanding of the historical setting and/or context. It's always a humbling experience to be informed by someone 17 years your junior, who was probably in diapers when I began studying all of this, how uninformed I am. But I suppose a good dose of such is healthy for all of us.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## twogunfighter (Dec 31, 2004)

Mark

I like these guys books. 

http://www.heritagebooks.org/default.asp


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 31, 2004)

> _Originally posted by twogunfighter_
> Mark
> 
> I like these guys books.
> ...



So do I. I think that's where I'll get my books. Thanx alot!


----------

