# Validity of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Baptisms



## Scott1

Are the following ordinarily valid Christian baptisms (that is the person would not be re-baptized)?


----------



## RamistThomist

If we say nay, how do we avoid charges of neo-donatism? I understand how someone could say no, and the reasons thereto.


----------



## raekwon

It'd be interesting to see how those who gave "invalid" answers stack up (ie: credo vs. paedo). Credo folks could heavily weigh things toward the "invalid" side, since they see all pre-profession baptisms as invalid.


----------



## Neogillist

I voted that both are valid, since they are both trinitarian (as far as I know). I myself was baptized as a baby in a Reformed Church so that issue does not concern me. However, someone baptized within a non trinitarian cult such as Oneness Pentecostalism would have to be rebaptized since it would not have been a trinitarian baptism as prescribed by Christ in Mat. 28:19. John Calvin taught that God had preserved the sacrament of baptism within the Roman church and it was a 'remnant' or 'vestige' of true historic Christianity while the Lord's Supper had been corrupted. Now baptists will dissagree with Calvin and argue that both sacraments were corrrupted by Rome. We know from church history that infant baptisms were taking place as early as 200 AD. and that none of the church fathers spoke against the practice. As for the Lord's Supper, however, its corruption came a lot later.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Ivanhoe said:


> If we say nay, how do we avoid charges of neo-donatism? I understand how someone could say no, and the reasons thereto.



The Donatists were disputing and quarreling over who was truly ordained or not. They were for the most part doctrinally identical to the catholic church of the day. The issue now is whether or not the sacrament in RC or EO is actually Christian baptism or just a sub-Christian cultic practice resembling Christian baptism. In other words, is it really baptism at all or just an imitation? So it's not an issue of Donatism. 
If we accept it as true baptism, then the Donatist issue comes into play and in the very least we must consider it to be valid though irregular since it was not performed by a minister of the gospel.


----------



## Witsius

I voted that they are both valid - as I believe that is the position of our denom (well, at least, our pastor  ).
Because of my polemical reading re: papalism and other current heresies, I need to be better informed on this matter in order to defend such a position - as, otherwise, I would lean the other way.
I guess it has to do with the _sign_ vs _the thing signified_. Similarly, the argument would be that despite - say - William Branham's obvious heresy, God (likely) saved all the elect who heard any portion of the Word through Branham (assuming at least a few of the thousands who sat under him were elect). 

I guess I'll pull out my copy of Sacramental Sorcery now and get the other side.


----------



## Scott1

My understanding is that the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) baptize with a Trinitarian pronouncement (i.e. In the Name...) but that it is not a valid Christian baptism.

If all that is required is a "Trinitarian" baptism, why would not such an one be valid?


----------



## Scott1

The poll is closed.

A majority of voters (54%) believe that both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Baptisms are valid as Christian baptisms. (32%) believe that neither are valid as Christian baptisms.

11% said that the person who had had such a baptism who themselves are uncomfortable with its validity, may, on their own initiative, request and then be baptized again, biblically.


In closing, a few areas can still be commented upon if you would like:



> Quote:
> in the very least we must consider it to be valid though irregular since it was not performed by a minister of the gospel.


If the Roman Church today officially does not hold to a biblical Gospel (i.e. justification by faith [in Christ's righteousness] alone) how can one acting on its authority be a minister of "the Gospel"? 



> Quote:
> I voted that both are valid, since they are both trinitarian (as far as I know).


From history, we know the Eastern Orthodox Church broke off from the Roman Church over the issue of the eternality of the Holy Spirit, that is, over the nature of the Trinity. How can a church that officially does not hold the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, perform "Trinitarian" baptism?


----------



## RamistThomist

Scott1 said:


> My understanding is that the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) baptize with a Trinitarian pronouncement (i.e. In the Name...) but that it is not a valid Christian baptism.
> 
> If all that is required is a "Trinitarian" baptism, why would not such an one be valid?



If you redefine the term, you get a different term altogether. The persons in our Trinity are coequal and consubstantial. Their Jesus, for example, is a cosmic sex god who was once just like me...and you. So if by Trinity you mean what the early fathers meant, well and good. If by Trinity they mean sex gods, well it probably is a different term altogether. So while the baptize in the name of the Trinity, they do not mean the same thing we do.


----------



## Scott1

Ivanhoe said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) baptize with a Trinitarian pronouncement (i.e. In the Name...) but that it is not a valid Christian baptism.
> 
> If all that is required is a "Trinitarian" baptism, why would not such an one be valid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you redefine the term, you get a different term altogether. The persons in our Trinity are coequal and consubstantial. Their Jesus, for example, is a cosmic sex god who was once just like me...and you. So if by Trinity you mean what the early fathers meant, well and good. If by Trinity they mean sex gods, well it probably is a different term altogether. So while the baptize in the name of the Trinity, they do not mean the same thing we do.
Click to expand...


So, I hear you saying that "Trinitarian" requires a trinitarian pronouncement with a biblical understanding of the Trinity behind it. This proposition was referring to an earlier question:

Quote:


> I voted that both are valid, since they are both trinitarian (as far as I know).





> From history, we know the Eastern Orthodox Church broke off from the Roman Church over the issue of the eternality of the Holy Spirit, that is, over the nature of the Trinity. How can a church that officially does not hold the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, perform "Trinitarian" baptism?


----------



## Herald

raekwon said:


> It'd be interesting to see how those who gave "invalid" answers stack up (ie: credo vs. paedo). Credo folks could heavily weigh things toward the "invalid" side, since they see all pre-profession baptisms as invalid.



Rae, I think it would be a slam dunk with the majority of credos coming down on the side of invalid. Would that surprise anyone?


----------



## Romans922

Is there any difference between the RC and EO baptism? 

I know RC better, there are no covenant promises attached to Baptism there. Are there covenant promises attached to EO? If there are no Covenant Promises attached to the sacrament, then it is not a valid baptism. It is just an outward act/ritual.


----------



## SolaScriptura

The Trinitarian Formula isn't an incantation. The Mormons use the Trinitarian Formula when they baptize, but none of us would for a moment consider their baptisms valid. 
If the Roman Church is a synagogue of satan, and if it is headed by an antichrist, then its ministers acting by that antichrist's "authority" are NOT administering a Christian baptism regardless of what words they employ. They may as well shake chicken bones and say, "ooga booga!"


----------



## RamistThomist

I would be less flippant in saying EO isn't a Christian church. Read Robert Letham, an ultra-conservative, ultra-Calvinistic OPC elder, on the EO.

Amazon.com: Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy A Reformed Perspective: Letham, Robert: Books

While we rightly want to preserve the purity of the gospel, we don't want to end up saying that most of the church before Luther wasn't a church. Robert Reymond comes very close to this in his systematic theology. I would have a hard time saying men like St Athanasius, St Basil, St Gregory of Nazianzus and St Gregory of Nyssa are in hell. And it won't do to say "oh, they were really actually Reformed inside," since St Athanasius's soteriology (e.g., theosis) is Eastern Orthodox.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Whoa. Hold your horses. I'm not talking about what folks 1700 years ago may have believed. I'm talking about now. And as a chaplain I have the privilege of knowing EO priests and RC priests... and I get to smoke cigars and discuss doctrine with them. They are not evangelical. They specifcially repudiate sola fide. They believe that our merit contributes to our salvation. If anything, I'd argue that EO theology is mystical to the point of being almost pagan.

But the reality is that most of us aren't going to encounter too many EOs. Most of us deal with RCs on a regular basis.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

For what it's worth, in Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government, by sundry Ministers of London (c. 1646). | Naphtali Press, the ministers argue for the validity of Roman Catholic baptism on the basis that the errors of individuals or institutions can invalidate Christ's ordination. I'm not certain if they would argue for the same for EO however.


----------



## Shane

SolaScriptura said:


> The Trinitarian Formula isn't an incantation. The Mormons use the Trinitarian Formula when they baptize, but none of us would for a moment consider their baptisms valid.
> If the Roman Church is a synagogue of satan, and if it is headed by an antichrist, then its ministers acting by that antichrist's "authority" are NOT administering a Christian baptism regardless of what words they employ. They may as well shake chicken bones and say, "ooga booga!"



Amen


----------



## SolaScriptura

Semper Fidelis said:


> For what it's worth, in Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government, by sundry Ministers of London (c. 1646). | Naphtali Press, the ministers argue for the validity of Roman Catholic baptism on the basis that the errors of individuals or institutions can invalidate Christ's ordination. I'm not certain if they would argue for the same for EO however.




I recognize that this is the historical reality. However, they never really seemed to come to grips with and account for the fact that they were arguing that the Roman Church is apostate, a synagogue of satan, etc... thus her "ordinations" really can't be construed as Christian ordinations. And that means her baptisms are no more valid that those administered by the Mormons. 

Sure, they grant the falsity of Rome when it comes to the Lord's Supper. But if Rome is a true church, and if her ordinations are legitimate, however imperfect, then her administration of the Lord's Supper, however flawed, must be accepted as valid as well as her baptisms. 

No. Rome is a false church. Her ordinations amount to nothing. Baptisms done by her priests are antichristian baptisms.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

SolaScriptura said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, in Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government, by sundry Ministers of London (c. 1646). | Naphtali Press, the ministers argue for the validity of Roman Catholic baptism on the basis that the errors of individuals or institutions can invalidate Christ's ordination. I'm not certain if they would argue for the same for EO however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recognize that this is the historical reality. However, they never really seemed to come to grips with and account for the fact that they were arguing that the Roman Church is apostate, a synagogue of satan, etc... thus her "ordinations" really can't be construed as Christian ordinations. And that means her baptisms are no more valid that those administered by the Mormons.
> 
> Sure, they grant the falsity of Rome when it comes to the Lord's Supper. But if Rome is a true church, and if her ordinations are legitimate, however imperfect, then her administration of the Lord's Supper, however flawed, must be accepted as valid as well as her baptisms.
> 
> No. Rome is a false church. Her ordinations amount to nothing. Baptisms done by her priests are antichristian baptisms.
Click to expand...


AMEN. Good comparison. The Roman "church" is no more valid than any cult would be. Anyone baptised by Antichrist should not see the baptism as any more acceptable then membership of that church would be. My brothers, we must go back to the eschatology of protestantism and recognize that the Man of Sin is here and now. We must stand against Rome and the lies of the false gospel proclaimed by Antichrist (Vicechrist).


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Also, the difference between this and the Donatists is that this baptism (Roman or Eastern) isn't being disputed because of the moral failures of those performing the baptism, but their theology. The Donatists wouldn't accept the baptisms performed by elders who had denied elements of their faith during the time of persecution, whereas I am saying we shouldn't accept the baptisms performed by false teachers of a false gospel. The baptism associates the recipiant with THAT false teaching, not with Christ.


----------



## Scott1

Semper Fidelis said:


> For what it's worth, in Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government, by sundry Ministers of London (c. 1646). | Naphtali Press, the ministers argue for the validity of Roman Catholic baptism on the basis that the errors of individuals or institutions can invalidate Christ's ordination. I'm not certain if they would argue for the same for EO however.




I would agree that a church could have serious errors of doctrine because the efficacy is tied to the thing signified. 

I would even agree the visible church could be widely corrupt, even apostate taken as a whole, and there might be a vestigial remnant sufficient for lawful (biblical) authority to baptise. But doesn't that remnant require the Gospel, which as I understand it, is the object of baptism?

The Westminster Confession, summarizing Scripture, says that baptism must be "*a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto*." (Chapter XXVIII 2.) 

If the Church does not officially hold to the Gospel, how can the baptism be valid?

It seems the _object_ of baptism is Gospel (salvation). If the entity does not hold that, how can one be a minister of something one does not hold?


----------



## Witsius

Scott1 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, in Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government, by sundry Ministers of London (c. 1646). | Naphtali Press, the ministers argue for the validity of Roman Catholic baptism on the basis that the errors of individuals or institutions can invalidate Christ's ordination. I'm not certain if they would argue for the same for EO however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that a church could have serious errors of doctrine because the efficacy is tied to the thing signified.
> 
> I would even agree the visible church could be widely corrupt, even apostate taken as a whole, and there might be a vestigial remnant sufficient for lawful (biblical) authority to baptise. But doesn't that remnant require the Gospel, which as I understand it, is the object of baptism?
> 
> If the Church does not officially hold to the Gospel, how can the baptism be valid?
> 
> It seems the _object_ of baptism is Gospel (salvation). If the entity does not hold that, how can one be a minister of something one does not hold?
Click to expand...


Several things:
1. We're talking about paedobaptism? and,
2. We're talking about the Visible Church?, and
3. We're all agreed that the sign is not efficacious (magic) in and of itself?

For a similar analogy (to EO and Romanism), why not talk about the CRC or the PCUSA?

Do we agree that all these bodies are part of the Visible Church?
Membership in the VC is by profession and/or baptism?
Baptism is the means of grace/sign yet, "The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered." 
I would venture to say that likewise, in credobaptism, a result of adult "salvation" and taking place under any ministry of the visible 
church which may be more or less a synagogue of Satan, many babtees[!] may be truly part of the Invisible Church; and, moreover, be benificiaries of that means of grace despite the fact that,"members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them."
And, regarding:
The Westminster Confession, summarizing Scripture, says that baptism must be "*a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto*." (Chapter XXVIII 2.) 
I would also venture to say (correct me if I am wrong) that the WCF is outlining the normal/proper/desirable way of doing things; but, not dismissing the vagaries of history wherein both sacraments and preaching were not necessarily accomplished by 'lawfully' ordained elders/pastors.

We must not tend to the opinion that the efficacy of the sacrament is dependent on the purity of the vessel administering it. Is it enough that that vessel is a member of the visible church?

And what do we make of WCF XXVIII?

Would like to hear more on this whole issue.


----------



## Scott1

> 1. We're talking about paedobaptism? and,



Remember that in Reformed theology with infant baptism, adult ("credo") baptisms are also done.

Infants are baptized to recognize promises (signs and seals) made to the children of believers whereas adults are baptized upon profession of faith. Both. So, the issue of a previous Roman baptism could involve, for example, someone who had a Roman baptism as an adult and then entered a Reformed Church later on.



> 2. We're talking about the Visible Church?, and



In the Reformed understanding of visible/invisible church, yes this is a water baptism done by the (visible) church.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Witsius said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, in Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government, by sundry Ministers of London (c. 1646). | Naphtali Press, the ministers argue for the validity of Roman Catholic baptism on the basis that the errors of individuals or institutions can invalidate Christ's ordination. I'm not certain if they would argue for the same for EO however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that a church could have serious errors of doctrine because the efficacy is tied to the thing signified.
> 
> I would even agree the visible church could be widely corrupt, even apostate taken as a whole, and there might be a vestigial remnant sufficient for lawful (biblical) authority to baptise. But doesn't that remnant require the Gospel, which as I understand it, is the object of baptism?
> 
> If the Church does not officially hold to the Gospel, how can the baptism be valid?
> 
> It seems the _object_ of baptism is Gospel (salvation). If the entity does not hold that, how can one be a minister of something one does not hold?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several things:
> 1. We're talking about paedobaptism? and,
> 2. We're talking about the Visible Church?, and
> 3. We're all agreed that the sign is not efficacious (magic) in and of itself?
> 
> For a similar analogy (to EO and Romanism), why not talk about the CRC or the PCUSA?
> 
> Do we agree that all these bodies are part of the Visible Church?
> Membership in the VC is by profession and/or baptism?
> Baptism is the means of grace/sign yet, "The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered."
> I would venture to say that likewise, in credobaptism, a result of adult "salvation" and taking place under any ministry of the visible
> church which may be more or less a synagogue of Satan, many babtees[!] may be truly part of the Invisible Church; and, moreover, be benificiaries of that means of grace despite the fact that,"members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them."
> And, regarding:
> The Westminster Confession, summarizing Scripture, says that baptism must be "*a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto*." (Chapter XXVIII 2.)
> I would also venture to say (correct me if I am wrong) that the WCF is outlining the normal/proper/desirable way of doing things; but, not dismissing the vagaries of history wherein both sacraments and preaching were not necessarily accomplished by 'lawfully' ordained elders/pastors.
> 
> We must not tend to the opinion that the efficacy of the sacrament is dependent on the purity of the vessel administering it. Is it enough that that vessel is a member of the visible church?
> 
> And what do we make of WCF XXVIII?
> 
> Would like to hear more on this whole issue.
Click to expand...


I also don't believe in accepting the baptisms from liberal denominations either. The baptizer must be a minister of the gospel. As was mentioned before, why not accept the baptisms of the mormons or jehovah's witness' if the doctrine of the group doesn't matter?


----------



## Witsius

ManleyBeasley said:


> I also don't believe in accepting the baptisms from liberal denominations either. The baptizer must be a minister of the gospel. As was mentioned before, why not accept the baptisms of the mormons or jehovah's witness' if the doctrine of the group doesn't matter?



But, many do recognize the RC and EO as part of the 'visible' Church; whereas moroniites and russellites are not recognized as part of the visible Church.


----------



## Witsius

> Remember that in Reformed theology with infant baptism, adult ("credo") baptisms are also done.
> 
> Infants are baptized to recognize promises (signs and seals) made to the children of believers whereas adults are baptized upon profession of faith. Both. So, the issue of a previous Roman baptism could involve, for example, someone who had a Roman baptism as an adult and then entered a Reformed Church later on.



Dear Scott:
(Sorry, I didn't do the quotes properly on the last post.)

That's what I am saying.
So, if someone becomes persuaded/convinced of the reformed position, do we deny that he was 'saved' while in the other (RC, EO, or liberal denom.) section of the visible church? We don't say that he is 'saved' when he becomes a member of a reformed denom (although his Prof. of Faith may be seen as such by some). Ie. esp. when we link baptism with 'salvation', this becomes problematic.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Witsius said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also don't believe in accepting the baptisms from liberal denominations either. The baptizer must be a minister of the gospel. As was mentioned before, why not accept the baptisms of the mormons or jehovah's witness' if the doctrine of the group doesn't matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, many do recognize the RC and EO as part of the 'visible' Church; whereas moroniites and russellites are not recognized as part of the visible Church.
Click to expand...


I guess thats the main issue of the debate then. I do not consider Roman Catholicism, any liberal denom., or any cult a part of the visible Church. They do not preach or believe in the gospel. I certainly wouldn't take communion with any of those groups so why should their Baptisms be accepted?


----------



## Scott1

> I guess thats the main issue of the debate then. I do not consider Roman Catholicism, any liberal denom., or any cult a part of the visible Church. They do not preach or believe in the gospel. I certainly wouldn't take communion with any of those groups so why should their Baptisms be accepted?


I understand and respect your understanding. From Puritan Board, I have come to understand this is the common view among those who hold to "believer's baptism."

The original post is part of an effort to draw out from those who hold to infant baptism, particularly, because the issue for us is also framed in terms of the signs and seals (promises) to the children of believers and from the standpoint of covenant community (believers and their children in the "visible" church community).

The issue there is, what does baptism convey and signify and how must it be biblically performed?

While a "true church" is ideal, the understanding is there is efficacy in the thing signified, in spite of the corruption, errors or even the apostasy of the denomination (or the minister) admitting it. The question for me, at this stage is:

1) Since the object of baptism is the redemptive work of Christ, how can a Church that officially does not hold to that (and expressly rejects it as heresy [i.e. Council of Trent]) administer it? I know many from a "believer's baptism" point of view would not agree, but I do not think the liberal mainline denominations fall into that category. Maybe I'm wrong in this.

2) Since the trinitarian pronouncement is expressly required by Scripture (Matthew 28:19), how can a church (e.g. Eastern Orthodox) that does not hold to the biblical doctrine of the Trinity make such as an authoritative pronouncement, let alone not hold to the object of baptism, salvation (by the Gospel)?


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Ivanhoe said:


> I would be less flippant in saying EO isn't a Christian church. Read Robert Letham, an ultra-conservative, ultra-Calvinistic OPC elder, on the EO.
> 
> Amazon.com: Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy A Reformed Perspective: Letham, Robert: Books
> 
> While we rightly want to preserve the purity of the gospel, we don't want to end up saying that most of the church before Luther wasn't a church. Robert Reymond comes very close to this in his systematic theology. I would have a hard time saying men like St Athanasius, St Basil, St Gregory of Nazianzus and St Gregory of Nyssa are in hell. And it won't do to say "oh, they were really actually Reformed inside," since St Athanasius's soteriology (e.g., theosis) is Eastern Orthodox.



There is disagreement on Athanasius' view of soteriology. Don't assume the EO churches interpretation of his soteriology is any more valid than the RC view of Augustine. There is good evidence that Athanasius wasn't so off base but that our interpretations of his use of language may be off base. I don't consider Athanasius or Augustine RC or EO. 

I would argue that the Roman Catholic church was never a church but that throughout history you find a small band of dissenting (and mostly persecuted) believers. The Waldensians went back way farther in history then many people realize. They actually existed for centuries before they were named after Peter Waldo. Though the Paulinists were accused of numerous heresies by the EO and RC "churches" there is also some evidence that these were fabrications.


----------



## Roldan

North Jersey Baptist said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It'd be interesting to see how those who gave "invalid" answers stack up (ie: credo vs. paedo). Credo folks could heavily weigh things toward the "invalid" side, since they see all pre-profession baptisms as invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rae, I think it would be a slam dunk with the majority of credos coming down on the side of invalid. Would that surprise anyone?
Click to expand...


I'm Paedo, and I can't for the life of me understand how any protestant consider RC or EO a valid Christian church. Even our(PCA) position papers considers them a apostate false church. Therefore on the basis that they are a false church then must mean their Bishops are false and therefore not called hence invalid ministers of the TRUE Christian sacraments so how can their baptism be valid? Can't be. This is the position of my local session as well and all of my theology discussion buddies across the nation and locally and who are paedo's so the "oh your a credo, that figures" assertions are weird to me to be quite honest.

RC not a true church=no true ministers=invalid administrations of sacraments=invalid baptism and invalid communion.


----------



## Scott1

> understand how any protestant consider RC or EO a valid Christian church. Even our(PCA) position papers considers them a apostate false church.




The PCA had a study committee that produced a well-researched report on the topic specifically of Roman Baptisms. It did not seem to address Eastern Orthodox or other baptisms directly.

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



In denominational polity, Study Committees are not absolutely binding but are to be given "due and serious consideration" by courts (e.g. Sessions and Presbyteries).

In this case there was a 4-1 division on the report with four members producing the majority report indicating that Roman baptisms are not valid. One member produced a minority report indicating that they are. 

Both reports were received by the General Assembly. Although there was a large majority on the side of their not being valid and that majority included some of the founders of the denomination, this was not definitively determined even for reference value because the General Assembly chose to receive both reports. 

Both reports are very well written and researched.


----------



## Roldan

Scott1 said:


> In this case there was a 4-1 division on the report with four members producing the majority report indicating that Roman baptisms are not valid. One member produced a minority report indicating that they are.
> 
> Both reports were received by the General Assembly. Although there was a large majority on the side of their not being valid and that majority included some of the founders of the denomination, this was not definitively determined even for reference value because the General Assembly chose to receive both reports.
> 
> Both reports are very well written and researched.



Thank you for posting that, I was looking for that report as well. It makes the point clear that I wanted to make anyways, that the majority who takes the position that RC baptisms are not valid doesn't necessarily come from credo's as suggested by some here, once again thanks for the link.

BTW is that a gator in your hands?


----------



## Scott1

> BTW is that a gator in your hands?



Yes


----------



## tcalbrecht

Does anyone know what was the practice among the 17th century Presbyterians and Puritans for dealing with converts to the Reformed religion from Romanism? Did they regularly (re)baptize those where were baptized as infants by a Roman priest?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Links and Downloads Manager - Ecclesiology - The Reformed Churches and Roman Catholic Baptism: An Anthology of Principle Texts - The PuritanBoard


----------



## tcalbrecht

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Links and Downloads Manager - Ecclesiology - The Reformed Churches and Roman Catholic Baptism: An Anthology of Principle Texts - The PuritanBoard



Thanks!!!!!


----------



## Scott1

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Links and Downloads Manager - Ecclesiology - The Reformed Churches and Roman Catholic Baptism: An Anthology of Principle Texts - The PuritanBoard





> From the linked article above:
> 
> As long as one, then, is a lawfully ordained minister, *even though he is hypocrite or heretic, the baptism he performs is valid.* One might argue, however, that if Rome is not a true church, then her priests cannot be “lawfully ordained.” Here again though, it is important to note the standard distinction between a lawful minister and a true minister. Like a tyrant who usurps the throne, one may not be a “true” minister, in the sense of fully pleasing God, and yet, as the tyrant still rightly fills certain civil functions (like performing marriages, arresting



This part of the article linked to will take some time to ponder. Maybe this is not what they mean, but it would seem that if someone is declared a heretic, then he could not then go on and perform baptisms as per the Westminster Confession XXVIII 2.



> *...by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.*



I can't understand how this could be the intent of the Reformers.


----------



## Scott1

The PCA majority report on Roman baptisms in addressing John Calvin's not being re-baptized (ie. Mr Calvin was infant baptized in the Roman Church and grew quickly into the Reformed movement):



> One of the problems remaining is the fact that John Calvin resisted the urging of the Anabaptists that he, having been baptized by the Roman Catholics, should be (re)baptized (Institutes 4.15.16-18). His response *must be understood in terms of the uniqueness of the situation and not wrongly generalized. *He, of course, resisted the Anabaptists' desire to have him repudiate his infant baptism and receive baptism as an adult believer. The effect that this situation had upon him can be seen in his insisting that Paul did not really baptize the disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus and in his insisting that the baptism of John the Baptist is Christian baptism. This insistence, contrary to the text of the Scriptures, is so that he can assert that those were not "re baptisms" at all in opposition to the Anabaptists. The *denomination in which Calvin was baptized was a church in flux, and coming to but not yet beyond the crossroads (cf., Institutes 4.2.11). It is not yet the church of the counter-reformation, the Council of Trent and its anathemas on the doctrine of justification by faith *alone (see H. J. Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent,





> Sixth Session, Decree Covering Justification" and particularly "Canon 9," "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.") That pre-Reformation church in flux is the church in which Calvin and many of the other Reformation believers had been members. *Thus Calvin and the church of today stand at different vantage points in evaluating the Roman Catholic Church, i.e., the church of his infancy, the pre-reformation church, and the Roman Catholic church post-reformation and post Council-of-Trent. *


----------



## Roldan

tcalbrecht said:


> Did they regularly (re)baptize those where were baptized as infants by a Roman priest?



Actually it would be just baptize not re- for the first one was not a valid one in the first place and cannot be called a baptism.


----------



## KMK

Semper Fidelis said:


> For what it's worth, in Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government, by sundry Ministers of London (c. 1646). | Naphtali Press, the ministers argue for the validity of Roman Catholic baptism on the basis that the errors of individuals or institutions *can* invalidate Christ's ordination. I'm not certain if they would argue for the same for EO however.



I am having difficulty understanding this. Do you mean to say, "the errors of individuals or institutions *cannot* invalidate Christ's ordination." Or am I just being dense?


----------



## tcalbrecht

Roldan said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they regularly (re)baptize those where were baptized as infants by a Roman priest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it would be just baptize not re- for the first one was not a valid one in the first place and cannot be called a baptism.
Click to expand...


Actually, it appears that was not the position of the Reformers or of anyone of note prior to Thornwell and the Southern Presbyterians in the mid-19th century. 

Calvin viewed RC baptism as valid and any subsequent application of water as a re-baptism. Thus he resisted the practices of the Anabaptists. Turretin, Knox, and others all shared a similar view with Calvin.

BTW, welcome to the PB.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

tcalbrecht said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they regularly (re)baptize those where were baptized as infants by a Roman priest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it would be just baptize not re- for the first one was not a valid one in the first place and cannot be called a baptism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it appears that was not the position of the Reformers or of anyone of note prior to Thornwell and the Southern Presbyterians in the mid-19th century.
> 
> Calvin viewed RC baptism as valid and any subsequent application of water as a re-baptism. Thus he resisted the practices of the Anabaptists. Turretin, Knox, and others all shared a similar view with Calvin.
> 
> BTW, welcome to the PB.
Click to expand...


Well, we could keep in mind that the Reformers can be wrong. The pre-reformers (Waldensians, Hussites, and Wycliffe) didn't accept RC baptism as valid. 

Also, its fine to refer to the confessions (I've done it myself) but we don't need to treat it like its scripture. Something being in accord with a confession doesn't end the argument.


----------



## Roldan

tcalbrecht said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they regularly (re)baptize those where were baptized as infants by a Roman priest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it would be just baptize not re- for the first one was not a valid one in the first place and cannot be called a baptism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it appears that was not the position of the Reformers or of anyone of note prior to Thornwell and the Southern Presbyterians in the mid-19th century.
> 
> Calvin viewed RC baptism as valid and any subsequent application of water as a re-baptism. Thus he resisted the practices of the Anabaptists. Turretin, Knox, and others all shared a similar view with Calvin.
Click to expand...


Thats ok, the Reformation was still in process, can't get everything right in one shot 




> BTW, welcome to the PB.



Thanx


----------



## Scott1

> Westminster Confession of Faith
> Chapter XXVIII
> Of Baptism
> 
> I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, *to be continued in His Church *until the end of the world.[8]
> 
> II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, *by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]*
> 
> III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]
> 
> IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]
> 
> V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]
> 
> VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, *by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised *is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]
> 
> VII. *The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person*.[18]



Here are sections of the Confession that might apply to the validity of a Christian baptism.

The questions from this with regard to the validity of a Roman Catholic baptism would be:

1) Is the Roman Church, presently a "continuing" church of Jesus Christ
2) Are her officials "ministers of the Gospel"
3) Are her officials "lawfull called unto" ministry of the Gospel
4) Does the Roman Church "rightly use" the sacrament of baptism toward "the grace promised"
5) Is the sacrament administered in a Roman service


----------



## Scott1

> Also, its fine to refer to the confessions (I've done it myself) but we don't need to treat it like its scripture. Something being in accord with a confession doesn't end the argument.



That's true.

However, its not the whole story to say that a Confession does not represent biblical doctrine because it is fallible.

In Reformed Theology, the unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement. This is not true in every denomination of the Christian church universal.

Yes, a Confession is suboordinate to the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture. A Confession can, through a deliberative process, be changed. However, the Confession is taken to be a faithful summary of the doctrine of Scripture. Every single statement and proposition is footnoted with a Scripture "proof." So, the Confession is both systematic and literal.

If one disagrees, they need to take the specific statement or proposition and argue, from Scripture that it does not accurately represent Scripture in that statement or proposition.


----------



## Roldan

Scott1 said:


> Westminster Confession of Faith
> Chapter XXVIII
> Of Baptism
> 
> I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, *to be continued in His Church *until the end of the world.[8]
> 
> II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, *by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]*
> 
> III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]
> 
> IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]
> 
> V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]
> 
> VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, *by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised *is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]
> 
> VII. *The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person*.[18]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are sections of the Confession that might apply to the validity of a Christian baptism.
> 
> The questions from this with regard to the validity of a Roman Catholic baptism would be:
> 
> 1) Is the Roman Church, presently a "continuing" church of Jesus Christ
> 2) Are her officials "ministers of the Gospel"
> 3) Are her officials "lawfull called unto" ministry of the Gospel
> 4) Does the Roman Church "rightly use" the sacrament of baptism toward "the grace promised"
> 5) Is the sacrament administered in a Roman service
Click to expand...


no 
no
no
no
no 

Its unanimous


----------



## tcalbrecht

ManleyBeasley said:


> Well, we could keep in mind that the Reformers can be wrong. The pre-reformers (Waldensians, Hussites, and Wycliffe) didn't accept RC baptism as valid.
> 
> Also, its fine to refer to the confessions (I've done it myself) but we don't need to treat it like its scripture. Some being in accord with a confession doesn't end the argument.



But these same anabaptist (anti-paedobaptistic/believer’s baptism) views of the Waldensians and Wycliffe were condemned by later Reformers.

And so, in spite of these views, the mainstream of the Reformation churches accepted RC baptism as being valid. It’s apparent that those minority individuals and churches with credobaptistic leanings refused to accept the common practice of infant baptism, which very well may explain their need to see Roman Catholics (re)baptized. 

It’s not surprising that if one doesn’t accept Reformed and Presbyterian baptisms as valid then that person also will not accept RC baptism as valid. At the heart of the problem is a defective view of the covenant and the nature of the one holy catholic church.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Scott1 said:


> The questions from this with regard to the validity of a Roman Catholic baptism would be:
> 
> 1) Is the Roman Church, presently a "continuing" church of Jesus Christ
> 2) Are her officials "ministers of the Gospel"
> 3) Are her officials "lawfull called unto" ministry of the Gospel
> 4) Does the Roman Church "rightly use" the sacrament of baptism toward "the grace promised"
> 5) Is the sacrament administered in a Roman service





> So also it must be said of the papists, since it was not in their power to blot out God’s covenant entirely, although with regard to themselves, as I have said, they are without it; and show by their obstinacy that they are the sworn enemies of God. *Hence it arises, that our baptism does not need renewal, because although the Devil has long reigned in the papacy, yet he could not altogether extinguish God’s grace: nay, a Church is among them; *for otherwise Paul’s prophecy would have been false, when he says that Antichrist was seated in the temple of God. (2 Thessalonians 2:4.) If in the papacy there had been only Satan’s dungeon or brothel, and no form of a Church had remained in it, this had been a proof that Antichrist did not sit in the temple of God. But this, as I have said, exaggerates their crime, and is very far from enabling them to erect their crests as they do. For when they thunder out with full cheeks — “We are the Church of God,” or, “The seat of the Church is with us,” — the solution is easy; the Church is indeed among them, that is, God has his Church there, but hidden and wonderfully preserved: but it does not follow that they are worthy of any honor; nay, they are more detestable, because they ought to bear sons and daughters to God: but they bear them for the Devil and for idols, as this passage teaches.
> 
> Calvin's Commentary on Ezekiel 16:20-21



Similarly, I do not believe Calvin required Roman priests to be reordained when coming into protestant churches. Thus, they would be considered lawfully called even if largely defective in their views. The sacrament is not dependent on the piety of the individual minister (WCF 27:3).


----------



## ManleyBeasley

tcalbrecht said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we could keep in mind that the Reformers can be wrong. The pre-reformers (Waldensians, Hussites, and Wycliffe) didn't accept RC baptism as valid.
> 
> Also, its fine to refer to the confessions (I've done it myself) but we don't need to treat it like its scripture. Some being in accord with a confession doesn't end the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But these same anabaptist (anti-paedobaptistic/believer’s baptism) views of the Waldensians and Wycliffe were condemned by later Reformers.
> 
> And so, in spite of these views, the mainstream of the Reformation churches accepted RC baptism as being valid. It’s apparent that those minority individuals and churches with credobaptistic leanings refused to accept the common practice of infant baptism, which very well may explain their need to see Roman Catholics (re)baptized.
> 
> It’s not surprising that if one doesn’t accept Reformed and Presbyterian baptisms as valid then that person also will not accept RC baptism as valid. At the heart of the problem is a defective view of the covenant and the nature of the one holy catholic church.
Click to expand...


You're getting off the subject in this. I'm not arguing for Credo-Baptism (though I do believe in it), I'm arguing against RC baptism based on the fact that RC is a false apostate church. I doubt many Baptists in this forum would put infant baptism among protestants on the level of RC "baptism". If infant baptism were the issue then I would be debating that; I'm not. I don't demand that you be Baptized again. I'm saying that an apostate church (all the reformers believed RC was the apostacy of prophesy) cannot perform (whether infant or not) Baptisms.

The argument isn't "did the reformers accept RC baptism?" The argument is "should the reformers have accepted RC baptism?" The pre-reformers did believe in believers baptism but that wasn't the central reason why they didn't accept RC baptisms. Wycliff wasn't entirely clear on whether he had a serious problem with infant baptism but he hated RC baptism. Its not fair for you to automatically dismiss credo-baptist arguments in this debate unless we are specifically arguing for credo-baptism. I have been very careful to dodge that issue because I don't think its nearly as important as condemning the authority of RC to Baptize anyone at all in any way they want. If they only baptized adults I would still reject it just as completely.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

tcalbrecht said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The questions from this with regard to the validity of a Roman Catholic baptism would be:
> 
> 1) Is the Roman Church, presently a "continuing" church of Jesus Christ
> 2) Are her officials "ministers of the Gospel"
> 3) Are her officials "lawfull called unto" ministry of the Gospel
> 4) Does the Roman Church "rightly use" the sacrament of baptism toward "the grace promised"
> 5) Is the sacrament administered in a Roman service
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So also it must be said of the papists, since it was not in their power to blot out God’s covenant entirely, although with regard to themselves, as I have said, they are without it; and show by their obstinacy that they are the sworn enemies of God. *Hence it arises, that our baptism does not need renewal, because although the Devil has long reigned in the papacy, yet he could not altogether extinguish God’s grace: nay, a Church is among them; *for otherwise Paul’s prophecy would have been false, when he says that Antichrist was seated in the temple of God. (2 Thessalonians 2:4.) If in the papacy there had been only Satan’s dungeon or brothel, and no form of a Church had remained in it, this had been a proof that Antichrist did not sit in the temple of God. But this, as I have said, exaggerates their crime, and is very far from enabling them to erect their crests as they do. For when they thunder out with full cheeks — “We are the Church of God,” or, “The seat of the Church is with us,” — the solution is easy; the Church is indeed among them, that is, God has his Church there, but hidden and wonderfully preserved: but it does not follow that they are worthy of any honor; nay, they are more detestable, because they ought to bear sons and daughters to God: but they bear them for the Devil and for idols, as this passage teaches.
> 
> Calvin's Commentary on Ezekiel 16:20-21
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Similarly, I do not believe Calvin required Roman priests to be reordained when coming into protestant churches. Thus, they would be considered lawfully called even if largely defective in their views. The sacrament is not dependent on the piety of the individual minister (WCF 27:3).
Click to expand...


The problem with Calvin's justification of refusing to baptize the RC converts is found earlier in the text itself. It says that he is revealed through the "apostasia" (defection, divorse). It is refered to as the temple of God because it is a turning away from true Christianity and even calls itself the church. The baptisms performed by an apostate church are apostate baptisms.


----------



## tcalbrecht

ManleyBeasley said:


> You're getting off the subject in this. I'm not arguing for Credo-Baptism (though I do believe in it), I'm arguing against RC baptism based on the fact that RC is a false apostate church. I doubt many Baptists in this forum would put infant baptism among protestants on the level of RC "baptism". If infant baptism were the issue then I would be debating that; I'm not. I don't demand that you be Baptized again. I'm saying that an apostate church (all the reformers believed RC was the apostacy of prophesy) cannot perform (whether infant or not) Baptisms.
> 
> The argument isn't "did the reformers accept RC baptism?" The argument is "should the reformers have accepted RC baptism?" The pre-reformers did believe in believers baptism but that wasn't the central reason why they didn't accept RC baptisms. Wycliff wasn't entirely clear on whether he had a serious problem with infant baptism but he hated RC baptism. Its not fair for you to automatically dismiss credo-baptist arguments in this debate unless we are specifically arguing for credo-baptism. I have been very careful to dodge that issue because I don't think its nearly as important as condemning the authority of RC to Baptize anyone at all in any way they want. If they only baptized adults I would still reject it just as completely.



I’m not sure I’m getting off the subject. You mentioned Wycliffe, etc. I’m not sure you can separate their catabaptist (condition of Rome) vs. anabaptist (place of infants) views. Both positions were considered error by the larger body of magisterial reformers. It seems logical that catabaptists of Calvin’s day were opposed to Roman baptism because of the state of both the administrator and the recipient.

Bottom line here is that I have not seen any persuasive arguments that undermine the position of the magisterial reformers and are entirely consistent with the Reformed confessions, which in turn accurately reflect the teaching of Scripture. 

And, from a non-credo standpoint, is there really a difference between the claims that a) the sacrament is invalid because the administration is unbiblical and b) the sacrament is invalid because the administrator is heretical? But that’s another discussion.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

tcalbrecht said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting off the subject in this. I'm not arguing for Credo-Baptism (though I do believe in it), I'm arguing against RC baptism based on the fact that RC is a false apostate church. I doubt many Baptists in this forum would put infant baptism among protestants on the level of RC "baptism". If infant baptism were the issue then I would be debating that; I'm not. I don't demand that you be Baptized again. I'm saying that an apostate church (all the reformers believed RC was the apostacy of prophesy) cannot perform (whether infant or not) Baptisms.
> 
> The argument isn't "did the reformers accept RC baptism?" The argument is "should the reformers have accepted RC baptism?" The pre-reformers did believe in believers baptism but that wasn't the central reason why they didn't accept RC baptisms. Wycliff wasn't entirely clear on whether he had a serious problem with infant baptism but he hated RC baptism. Its not fair for you to automatically dismiss credo-baptist arguments in this debate unless we are specifically arguing for credo-baptism. I have been very careful to dodge that issue because I don't think its nearly as important as condemning the authority of RC to Baptize anyone at all in any way they want. If they only baptized adults I would still reject it just as completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not sure I’m getting off the subject. You mentioned Wycliffe, etc. I’m not sure you can separate their catabaptist (condition of Rome) vs. anabaptist (place of infants) views. Both positions were considered error by the larger body of magisterial reformers. It seems logical that catabaptists of Calvin’s day were opposed to Roman baptism because of the state of both the administrator and the recipient.
> 
> Bottom line here is that I have not seen any persuasive arguments that undermine the position of the magisterial reformers and are entirely consistent with the Reformed confessions, which in turn accurately reflect the teaching of Scripture.
> 
> And, from a non-credo standpoint, is there really a difference between the claims that a) the sacrament is invalid because the administration is unbiblical and b) the sacrament is invalid because the administrator is heretical? But that’s another discussion.
Click to expand...


1. You can separate the catabaptist and anabaptist views because Wycliffe obviously did. He was ambiguous about the anabaptism but clear on the catabaptism. Again, the question isn't what the reformers believed but whether they should have believed it or not (upholding RC baptisms). Since you were saying (by appealing to history) that all the reformers accepted RC baptism I was responding by saying the pre-reformers did not. Saying the reformers considered their views to be in error means nothing. The pre-reformers (by taking the position they did) considered the reformers position to be error also (as did some later "non-credos").

2. Apparently they aren't persuasive to you but that doesn't mean they aren't right. If you are the Lawyer and Judge then it loads the dice.

3.Yes there is. There are different levels of error. I attend a PCA church even though I am credo-baptist. Baptism doesn't at all keep me from having communion with my presbyterian brothers, its a debatable issue. A false view of the gospel keeps me from having communion with anyone who adheres to that false view (RC). Because of that, I will more seriously disagree with my brother about him accepting a RC baptism then I will him baptizing infants.


----------



## tcalbrecht

ManleyBeasley said:


> 1. You can separate the catabaptist and anabaptist views because Wycliffe obviously did.



That is not at all obvious. He insisted on believer baptism over and against infant baptism. He was a proto-anabaptist. And these pre-reformers, as you call them, were no Church synods or councils called to resolve controversies. They were individuals with individual beliefs often in error. The Confessions produced by the Reformers and their spiritual children were all opposed to rebaptism, whether originally done by Roman Catholic or Anabaptist.



ManleyBeasley said:


> 2. Apparently they aren't persuasive to you but that doesn't mean they aren't right. If you are the Lawyer and Judge then it loads the dice.



All of the arguments given here have been addressed by Calvin, et al four centuries ago. They seemed reasonable to Reformed Christians (not to mention Lutherans and Anglicans) up until modern times. These were the views of men actively persecuted by the papacy, even to death at times. They knew the real error of Rome. Many of them regularly interacted with Roman prelates. Yet they did not deny that RC baptism was valid and need not be redone. What do we know that they did not know, either of history or of the Scriptures? Indeed, their consistent appeal to Old Testament passages relating with the Israelite priesthood and circumcision makes it abundantly clear that they were covenantally sound wrt the understanding of the sacraments. 

The rebaptism arguments have not improved with age. 



ManleyBeasley said:


> 3.Yes there is. There are different levels of error. I attend a PCA church even though I am credo-baptist. Baptism doesn't at all keep me from having communion with my presbyterian brothers, its a debatable issue. A false view of the gospel keeps me from having communion with anyone who adheres to that false view (RC). Because of that, I will more seriously disagree with my brother about him accepting a RC baptism then I will him baptizing infants.



So, does that mean I more offensive to you because I recognize the baptism of Roman Catholics rather than simply because I had my children baptized when they were infants?


----------



## ManleyBeasley

tcalbrecht said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You can separate the catabaptist and anabaptist views because Wycliffe obviously did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not at all obvious. He insisted on believer baptism over and against infant baptism. He was a proto-anabaptist. And these pre-reformers, as you call them, were no Church synods or councils called to resolve controversies. They were individuals with individual beliefs often in error. The Confessions produced by the Reformers and their spiritual children were all opposed to rebaptism, whether originally done by Roman Catholic or Anabaptist.
> 
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Apparently they aren't persuasive to you but that doesn't mean they aren't right. If you are the Lawyer and Judge then it loads the dice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the arguments given here have been addressed by Calvin, et al four centuries ago. They seemed reasonable to Reformed Christians (not to mention Lutherans and Anglicans) up until modern times. These were the views of men actively persecuted by the papacy, even to death at times. They knew the real error of Rome. Many of them regularly interacted with Roman prelates. Yet they did not deny that RC baptism was valid and need not be redone. What do we know that they did not know, either of history or of the Scriptures? Indeed, their consistent appeal to Old Testament passages relating with the Israelite priesthood and circumcision makes it abundantly clear that they were covenantally sound wrt the understanding of the sacraments.
> 
> The rebaptism arguments have not improved with age.
> 
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3.Yes there is. There are different levels of error. I attend a PCA church even though I am credo-baptist. Baptism doesn't at all keep me from having communion with my presbyterian brothers, its a debatable issue. A false view of the gospel keeps me from having communion with anyone who adheres to that false view (RC). Because of that, I will more seriously disagree with my brother about him accepting a RC baptism then I will him baptizing infants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, does that mean I more offensive to you because I recognize the baptism of Roman Catholics rather than simply because I had my children baptized when they were infants?
Click to expand...


1. The info on Wycliffe is ambiguous but we know he opposed RC Baptism.

You don't see them as pre-reformers? Calvin did. He acknowledged his succession to the Waldensians. The Waldensians existed for hundreds of years before the reformation (possibly from the 7th century though not called Waldensians then because Waldo wasn't alive). These weren't a few individuals, they were countless people who lived for centuries who were slaughtered like animals by the RC because of their gospel preaching. The Hussites and Lollards also existed for a couple of centuries before the reformation. Though many anabaptists were heretics, many others were godly people who believed the gospel and were persecuted and they rejected RC baptisms. The baptist puritans also didn't accept RC baptism (they were credo so they rejected infant baptism in general but they rejected RC baptism for reasons beyond infant baptism; it was baptism by a false church) and believed that with a greater seriousness than just their debate with presbyterians and congregationalists. 

2. You can place the synods up to the hundreds of years of history of the pre-reformers and baptists if you like but I don't think their acceptance of RC baptism holds water. You keep trying to turn this into a debate about infant verses believers baptism when its supposed to be about RC baptism. The fact is its wrong to say that because the 1st covanent circumsized physical infants then the second then baptizes physical infants. The 1st circumsizes physical infants which equates to the 2nd baptizing spiritual infants. The physical to physical misses the equation. You're making me digress.

3. I don't know if I'm more offended but I do take it more seriously that you advocate apostate (RC) baptisms.


----------



## tcalbrecht

ManleyBeasley said:


> 1.	The info on Wycliffe is ambiguous but we know he opposed RC Baptism.



And advocated believer baptism. I believe Wycliffe, like later Anabaptists, viewed infant baptism as a sign of the RC apostacy. I don’t see any way to differentiate his opposition to RC baptism from his belief in believer baptism.




ManleyBeasley said:


> 2. You can place the synods up to the hundreds of years of history of the pre-reformers and baptists if you like but I don't think their acceptance of RC baptism holds water. You keep trying to turn this into a debate about infant verses believers baptism when its supposed to be about RC baptism. The fact is its wrong to say that because the 1st covanent circumsized physical infants then the second then baptizes physical infants. The 1st circumsizes physical infants which equates to the 2nd baptizing spiritual infants. The physical to physical misses the equation. You're making me digress.



You are certainly free to interact with the arguments of Calvin, Turretin, Hodge, and the others who hold another view. I do not need to reproduce those arguments. As I said, the arguments here have not improved to the point where they trump those Reformed churches. 

I said noting about infant baptism/circumcision in my second point. Why do you keep coming back to it? The entire Baptist argument is based on an overextended dichotomy between physical vs. spiritual when it comes to the sign of the covenant. I know that. I merely pointed out that the magisterial Reformers were consistently covenantal in their understanding and interpretation of the sacraments. For this reason they properly viewed RC baptism as valid.

Actually, I’m not doing anything but what the Reformers did, who clearly justified their acceptance of RC baptism based on their understanding of the covenantal relationship between circumcision and baptism. I won’t apologize for the fact that I’m not a Baptist, but I do see the arguments contra RC baptism as more in line with Baptist ecclesiology.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

tcalbrecht said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.	The info on Wycliffe is ambiguous but we know he opposed RC Baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And advocated believer baptism. I believe Wycliffe, like later Anabaptists, viewed infant baptism as a sign of the RC apostacy. I don’t see any way to differentiate his opposition to RC baptism from his belief in believer baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. You can place the synods up to the hundreds of years of history of the pre-reformers and baptists if you like but I don't think their acceptance of RC baptism holds water. You keep trying to turn this into a debate about infant verses believers baptism when its supposed to be about RC baptism. The fact is its wrong to say that because the 1st covanent circumsized physical infants then the second then baptizes physical infants. The 1st circumsizes physical infants which equates to the 2nd baptizing spiritual infants. The physical to physical misses the equation. You're making me digress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certainly free to interact with the arguments of Calvin, Turretin, Hodge, and the others who hold another view. I do not need to reproduce those arguments. As I said, the arguments here have not improved to the point where they trump those Reformed churches.
> 
> I said noting about infant baptism/circumcision in my second point. Why do you keep coming back to it? The entire Baptist argument is based on an overextended dichotomy between physical vs. spiritual when it comes to the sign of the covenant. I know that. I merely pointed out that the magisterial Reformers were consistently covenantal in their understanding and interpretation of the sacraments. For this reason they properly viewed RC baptism as valid.
> 
> Actually, I’m not doing anything but what the Reformers did, who clearly justified their acceptance of RC baptism based on their understanding of the covenantal relationship between circumcision and baptism. I won’t apologize for the fact that I’m not a Baptist, but I do see the arguments contra RC baptism as more in line with Baptist ecclesiology.
Click to expand...


1. Again his advocating of believer's baptism was only clear in relation to RC converts to the gospel. I personally agree that he believed in believer's baptism in every case but this can't be proven historically (since some Lollards were Credo and some Paedo)

2. "The rebaptism arguments have not improved with age." I assume you were arguing for infant baptism and insulting Baptists with this statement. Thats at least how it comes across. The entire Baptist argument is 1. Biblical (no evidence of infant baptism in the bible only believers), 2. theological (The old covenant infant (physical) circumcision equal to new covenant infant (spiritual) baptism) , 3. Historical (The pre-reformation gospel believing groups, orthadox anabaptists, and the Baptist churches all have held to believer's baptism) and in that order of importance. It is not all based on the theological argument as you say.

3. I'm saying its not valid for you to appeal to the reformers. The debate is not what the reformers believed on this issue because we all agree that the reformers accepted RC baptism. The debate is whether they were right. You can't say that the reformers must be right in accepting RC baptism because the reformers believed it.


----------

