# A problem with denying the validity of RC baptism



## Reformed Covenanter

In another thread a few years ago, Bruce made this comment about the logical implications of denying Romish baptism:



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



We can all agree that Romish baptism is irregular, but if it is totally invalid then where does one stop? Should a PCUSA or a Church of Scotland baptism be deemed invalid? If not, then why not accept Romish baptism as well?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress

If one is puzzled why the likes of the early Reformers and more specifically post Trent men such as Rutherford et al, maintained the validity of Roman baptism, I've always found John MacPherson's lecture helpful. He founds it in their rejection of separatism and sectarianism. I don't think it should be any surprise that the rejection of RCC baptism in Presbyterianism came out of the US. John MacPherson - Unity of the Church: The Sin of Schism | Naphtali Press

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> I don't think it should be any surprise that the rejection of RCC baptism in Presbyterianism came out of the US.



I don't mean this comment in a nationalistic sense, but any theological movement/position that originated in America needs to be treated with great suspicion. Not because it is American as such, but because (owing to the youth of the country in question) it is likely to be new.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos

"From the country that brought you the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses" doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement????


----------



## JP Wallace

I don't mean it in that nationalistic way either but I have often wondered what it was about 19th century America that produced Joseph Smith for example and that produced so many people willing to follow him? Was it living at frontiers? Hardship? I'm sure their are resources on this, any suggestions. Europe and Britain had its weirdos and cults but none ever took off the way such movements did in America, why is that?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

But didn't Ireland bring us John Nelson Darby?


----------



## kodos

I won't claim to be a church historian - but our civil magistrate opened the way for this when they said that the United States owed no allegiance to Jesus Christ, and (claimed) to be neutral in the affairs of religion.

Any schismatic can open up shop and start peddling their poison.


----------



## JP Wallace

Darby was just amother weirdo until Scofield popularised him ☺.


----------



## Jack K

My theory: Americans value progress and independence. New is better and I get to choose. It's much of our strength and also our weakness.


----------



## Peairtach

If Romish baptism isn't to be accepted _ergo_ the Roman Church isn't part of the Visible Catholic Church _ergo_ then the Pope isn't the Antichrist:

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God *sitteth in the temple of God*, shewing himself that he is God. (II Thess. 2:4)


----------



## greenbaggins

One of the difficulties here in understanding the Southern Presbyterian position on the invalidity of Romish baptism hinges on the question of whether it is the quality of the minister that is in question, or the quality of the Romish church as a whole. The Southern position does NOT argue based on the intention of a minister (here I would have to demur with my good brother Bruce's interpretation of the Donatist controversy, which hinged on the _intention_ of the minister, not the _quality_ of the minister), but starts with the more basic question of whether Rome is a true church or not. If Rome is not a true church, then what does that make its priests? The Reformers died to be able to say that Rome was no true church. 

There is a vast historical difference between the Donatist controversy and the question of the validity of Romish baptism. The church was the church in early apostolic times. Donatists centered their critique on the _traditores_ (any who handed anything or anyone over to the Roman authorities). Because of their fall into sin, the Donatists did not regard such people as being fit for service in the church. Not even the Donatists, therefore, were questioning the church as it existed then, but rather individuals in it. By contrast, the Southern Presbyterians question the identity of the RCC as being a true church at all. Only a true church can ordain true ministers. And only true ministers can perform true sacraments. 

I fully realize that this is an intramural debate (I know that I am arguing against Hodge and the Northern Presbyterian tradition). I am also well aware that Calvin did not re-baptize anyone who was baptized in the RCC. However, I am not sure that any of those theologians really got at the proper issue, which is this: is Rome a true church? If not, then how can it have true ministers? I.e., how could they be properly ordained? 

When one brings this issue to the OP, I think we need to look carefully at what a true church is, since the issue of true ministers hinges on the true church. No, it is not a matter of the intent of the minister, or of the sin into which the minister may have fallen. All Presbyterians, Northern and Southern both, agree that the sacraments belong to Jesus Christ, not to us. He is the ultimate Person administering them in any case. But it would be good to make sure that we firmly dissociate the Southern Presbyterian position from the Donatist controversy, which which it has little in common.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

greenbaggins said:


> here I would have to demur with my good brother Bruce's interpretation of the Donatist controversy, which hinged on the _intention_ of the minister, not the _quality_ of the minister



Lane,
Is your disagreement with me, or with Augustin? Donatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The first question, therefore, was whether the Sacrament of Penance can effect a reconciliation whereby the apostate, or in some cases specifically the traditor, may be returned to full communion. The orthodox Catholic position was that the sacrament was for precisely such cases, though at the time the Church still followed the discipline of public penance whereby a penitent for such a grievous offence would spend years, even decades, first outside the doors of the church begging for the prayers of those entering, then kneeling inside the church building during services, then standing with the congregation, and finally receiving the Eucharist again in a long progress toward full reconciliation. *The Donatists held that such a crime, after the forgiveness of baptism, disqualified one for leadership in the Church, a position of extreme rigorism*.
> 
> The second question was the validity of sacraments celebrated by priests and bishops who had been apostates under the persecution. *The Donatists held that all such sacraments were invalid; by their sinful act, such clerics had rendered themselves incapable of celebrating valid sacraments.* This is known as ex opere operantis, Latin for from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting. *The Catholic position*, according to Augustine, was ex opere operato — from the work having been worked; in other words, *that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God's work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly*. Hence, to the Donatists, a priest who had been an apostate but who repented could speak the words of consecration forever, but he could no longer confect the Eucharist. To Catholics, a person who received the Eucharist from the hands of even an unrepentant sinning priest still received Christ's Body and Blood, their own sacramental life being undamaged by the priest's faults.



The Donatists found the ministry of those leaders who had denied the faith under Diocletian _lacking,_ and thus their baptisms invalid. Not because of their mal-intent, but because of their supposed lack of _sanctity._

I think all agreed that the intent of either party was virtually identical. So, the matter had to do with whether the one (ad by extension the church) performing the sacrament still possessed the necessary charism. If Donatists had not questioned the legitimacy of the church (in some sense) how could they defend their separation? They thought of themselves within the church-catholic, but refused the ministry validated by the majority.

I don't have to fully buy-into Augustin's sacramental theology (which, despite what is claimed for it in the article, wasn't quite the later Medieval construction) to agree with him that the blessing is with God, and not with the ministry. Nor with his countenance of political enforcement of uniformity (to the point even of the sword).

I agree with you that one may argue whether Rome has so far become a "synagogue of Satan" that all her rites are abominable. But history cannot be utterly swept out the door, nor can the basic elements (water, name of the Trinity).


----------



## MW

From McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia, 1:649: "Repetition of Baptism. — In the third century the question arose whether the baptism of heretics was to be accounted valid, or whether a heretic who returned to the Catholic Church was to be rebaptized. In opposition to the usage of the Eastern and African churches, which was defended by Cyprian, the principle was established in the Roman Church under Stephen, that the right of baptism, if duly performed, was always valid, and its repetition contrary to the tradition of the church. In the next age Basil and Gregory of Nazianzen followed Cyprian's view, but by the influence of Augustine the Roman view became the prevalent one; but *the Donatists maintained that heretics must be rebaptized*. See Donatists (Hagenbach, Hist, of Doct. § 72 and 137, and references there). After the Reformation, the Roman Church, compelled by its old usage and principle, continued to acknowledge the validity of Protestant baptisms, while Protestants, in turn, admit the validity of Roman Catholic baptism."


----------



## greenbaggins

Contra_Mundum said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> here I would have to demur with my good brother Bruce's interpretation of the Donatist controversy, which hinged on the _intention_ of the minister, not the _quality_ of the minister
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lane,
> Is your disagreement with me, or with Augustin? Donatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first question, therefore, was whether the Sacrament of Penance can effect a reconciliation whereby the apostate, or in some cases specifically the traditor, may be returned to full communion. The orthodox Catholic position was that the sacrament was for precisely such cases, though at the time the Church still followed the discipline of public penance whereby a penitent for such a grievous offence would spend years, even decades, first outside the doors of the church begging for the prayers of those entering, then kneeling inside the church building during services, then standing with the congregation, and finally receiving the Eucharist again in a long progress toward full reconciliation. *The Donatists held that such a crime, after the forgiveness of baptism, disqualified one for leadership in the Church, a position of extreme rigorism*.
> 
> The second question was the validity of sacraments celebrated by priests and bishops who had been apostates under the persecution. *The Donatists held that all such sacraments were invalid; by their sinful act, such clerics had rendered themselves incapable of celebrating valid sacraments.* This is known as ex opere operantis, Latin for from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting. *The Catholic position*, according to Augustine, was ex opere operato — from the work having been worked; in other words, *that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God's work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly*. Hence, to the Donatists, a priest who had been an apostate but who repented could speak the words of consecration forever, but he could no longer confect the Eucharist. To Catholics, a person who received the Eucharist from the hands of even an unrepentant sinning priest still received Christ's Body and Blood, their own sacramental life being undamaged by the priest's faults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Donatists found the ministry of those leaders who had denied the faith under Diocletian _lacking,_ and thus their baptisms invalid. Not because of their mal-intent, but because of their supposed lack of _sanctity._
> 
> I think all agreed that the intent of either party was virtually identical. So, the matter had to do with whether the one (ad by extension the church) performing the sacrament still possessed the necessary charism. If Donatists had not questioned the legitimacy of the church (in some sense) how could they defend their separation? They thought of themselves within the church-catholic, but refused the ministry validated by the majority.
> 
> I don't have to fully buy-into Augustin's sacramental theology (which, despite what is claimed for it in the article, wasn't quite the later Medieval construction) to agree with him that the blessing is with God, and not with the ministry. Nor with his countenance of political enforcement of uniformity (to the point even of the sword).
> 
> I agree with you that one may argue whether Rome has so far become a "synagogue of Satan" that all her rites are abominable. But history cannot be utterly swept out the door, nor can the basic elements (water, name of the Trinity).
Click to expand...


Lack of sanctity in the minister does not disqualify the baptism. I think we agree on this (together with Augustine, I might add). Where I don't think we agree is in the supposed application of this principle to the Southern Presbyterian position. The point the Southern Presbyterians were making is NOT that the RCC priest is disqualified because of his own _lack of sanctity_. They would argue that the RCC priest is disqualified because _he does not have a lawful ordination from a true church_. 

The problem with the Northern Presbyterian position is fairly simple. In order to say that RCC baptism is valid, you have to say that it is performed in a true church. Hodge really squirmed in saying this, but he wound up saying that there was a remnant, however polluted, of the true church in the RCC. I believe the Southern Presbyterian position is therefore more consistent: no true church, no true baptism. And I would flatly deny that the Southern Presbyterian position is Donatist.


----------



## greenbaggins

MW said:


> From McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia, 1:649: "Repetition of Baptism. — In the third century the question arose whether the baptism of heretics was to be accounted valid, or whether a heretic who returned to the Catholic Church was to be rebaptized. In opposition to the usage of the Eastern and African churches, which was defended by Cyprian, the principle was established in the Roman Church under Stephen, that the right of baptism, if duly performed, was always valid, and its repetition contrary to the tradition of the church. In the next age Basil and Gregory of Nazianzen followed Cyprian's view, but by the influence of Augustine the Roman view became the prevalent one; but *the Donatists maintained that heretics must be rebaptized*. See Donatists (Hagenbach, Hist, of Doct. § 72 and 137, and references there). After the Reformation, the Roman Church, compelled by its old usage and principle, continued to acknowledge the validity of Protestant baptisms, while Protestants, in turn, admit the validity of Roman Catholic baptism."



I am well aware that the Southern Presbyterian position is the minority position, Matthew. It is a bit irritating to see that the Southern position is not even mentioned here.


----------



## MW

greenbaggins said:


> I am well aware that the Southern Presbyterian position is the minority position, Matthew. It is a bit irritating to see that the Southern position is not even mentioned here.



My only aim was to identify what Donatists maintained.


----------



## yeutter

greenbaggins said:


> The problem with the Northern Presbyterian position is fairly simple. In order to say that RCC baptism is valid, you have to say that it is performed in a true church. Hodge really squirmed in saying this, but he wound up saying that there was a remnant, however polluted, of the true church in the RCC. I believe the Southern Presbyterian position is therefore more consistent: no true church, no true baptism. And I would flatly deny that the Southern Presbyterian position is Donatist.


The problem with the Southern Presbyterian position is that this leads to seeing baptism as the work of a true Church as opposed to a false church. If baptism administered by a cleric in the Church of Rome is not valid where do we draw the line. Is baptism by a cleric in the Eastern Orthodox Church valid? Is baptism by a liberal Methodist cleric valid? Is baptism by a liberal Disciples of Christ cleric valid?
St. Augustine held that baptism was God's work not man's. Valid baptism depended on the application of water, in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, with Trinitarian intent. therefore baptism by a schismatic like the Donatist, or Novation cleric was valid. Baptism by heretic like an Arian cleric was not valid, even if the right words were used.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

greenbaggins said:


> *The problem with the Northern Presbyterian position is fairly simple*. In order to say that RCC baptism is valid, you have to say that it is performed in a true church. Hodge really squirmed in saying this, but he wound up saying that there was a remnant, however polluted, of the true church in the RCC. I believe the Southern Presbyterian position is therefore more consistent: no true church, no true baptism. And I would flatly deny that the Southern Presbyterian position is Donatist.



I think you should be a bit more clear here: it is not merely the Northern Presbyterian position, it is *the* historic, confessional Presbyterian position.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

kodos said:


> "From the country that brought you the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses" doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement????


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Peairtach said:


> If Romish baptism isn't to be accepted _ergo_ the Roman Church isn't part of the Visible Catholic Church _ergo_ then the Pope isn't the Antichrist:
> 
> Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God *sitteth in the temple of God*, shewing himself that he is God. (II Thess. 2:4)



It is interesting that you should mention this point, Richard. Many moons ago, I had a discussion with an adherent to the Neo-Donatist position who is also a big believer in the papal antichrist theory. He convinced me that Romish baptism is wrong, but he did not realise that the logic he employed in order to deny the validity of Romish baptism also caused me to question whether or not the pope was the antichrist.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

greenbaggins said:


> I fully realize that this is an intramural debate (I know that I am arguing against Hodge and the Northern Presbyterian tradition). I am also well aware that Calvin did not re-baptize anyone who was baptized in the RCC. However, I am not sure that any of those theologians really got at the proper issue, which is this: is Rome a true church? If not, then how can it have true ministers? I.e., how could they be properly ordained?



So, Lane, are you saying that any baptism carried out by anyone who has not been properly ordained is invalid? 

If so, then prepare to open a huge  

This theory would surely require each and everyone of us to investigate whether or not the minister who baptised us was 1) a minister of a true church; 2) validly ordained.


----------



## David Pope

I've always thought it odd that RC baptism is acceptable while intermarriage with a papist is forbidden.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

In the PCA each session decides whether to re-baptize RCC baptized folk, correct? So, each PCA member on transfer to another PCA church could face the re-baptism question scenario? 
The person's denying RCC baptism validity to which the founders of our Westminster theology were reacting, were separatists. See Rutherford et al on how they argue the question as I referenced earlier.
See Rutherford here: Rutherfurd Against Separatism: Part Three | Naphtali Press


----------



## greenbaggins

yeutter said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the Northern Presbyterian position is fairly simple. In order to say that RCC baptism is valid, you have to say that it is performed in a true church. Hodge really squirmed in saying this, but he wound up saying that there was a remnant, however polluted, of the true church in the RCC. I believe the Southern Presbyterian position is therefore more consistent: no true church, no true baptism. And I would flatly deny that the Southern Presbyterian position is Donatist.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the Southern Presbyterian position is that this leads to seeing baptism as the work of a true Church as opposed to a false church. If baptism administered by a cleric in the Church of Rome is not valid where do we draw the line. Is baptism by a cleric in the Eastern Orthodox Church valid? Is baptism by a liberal Methodist cleric valid? Is baptism by a liberal Disciples of Christ cleric valid?
> St. Augustine held that baptism was God's work not man's. Valid baptism depended on the application of water, in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, with Trinitarian intent. therefore baptism by a schismatic like the Donatist, or Novation cleric was valid. Baptism by heretic like an Arian cleric was not valid, even if the right words were used.
Click to expand...


So Roman Catholicism is not heresy? If not, and if the RCC is a true church, then we should all go back to Rome, since, as has been pointed out, schism is a terrible sin. We cannot live in schism from the true church. I don't buy the argument that there can be a true sacrament without there being a true church. They are both necessary to each other.


----------



## greenbaggins

Reformed Covenanter said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem with the Northern Presbyterian position is fairly simple*. In order to say that RCC baptism is valid, you have to say that it is performed in a true church. Hodge really squirmed in saying this, but he wound up saying that there was a remnant, however polluted, of the true church in the RCC. I believe the Southern Presbyterian position is therefore more consistent: no true church, no true baptism. And I would flatly deny that the Southern Presbyterian position is Donatist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should be a bit more clear here: it is not merely the Northern Presbyterian position, it is *the* historic, confessional Presbyterian position.
Click to expand...


I was not aware that the question of whether or not to baptize Roman Catholics was confessionally set in stone already. Are you accusing Thornwell, Dabney, Gerardeau, and Palmer of unconfessionalism on this point? Everyone agrees that a person can be baptized only once. The question is whether or not RCC baptism is a valid baptism. 



> So, Lane, are you saying that any baptism carried out by anyone who has not been properly ordained is invalid?
> 
> If so, then prepare to open a huge
> 
> This theory would surely require each and everyone of us to investigate whether or not the minister who baptised us was 1) a minister of a true church; 2) validly ordained.



Every church has to make this judgment all the time when receiving members from another church. Obviously, someone who was dunked in a back-yard pool with the Trinitarian formula by their non-ordained uncle was not baptized. We cannot separate the sacraments from the church. If the question of a properly ordained minister of the gospel does not figure in to the question of a valid baptism, then why can't a non-ordained person pour some water over someone (even in the presence of the rest of the church??), recite the Trinitarian formula, and call it a baptism?


----------



## greenbaggins

NaphtaliPress said:


> In the PCA each session decides whether to re-baptize RCC baptized folk, correct? So, each PCA member on transfer to another PCA church could face the re-baptism question scenario?
> The person's denying RCC baptism validity to which the founders of our Westminster theology were reacting, were separatists. See Rutherford et al on how they argue the question as I referenced earlier.
> See Rutherford here: Rutherfurd Against Separatism: Part Three | Naphtali Press



I don't have a problem separating from Rome. I seriously doubt that any PCA church would deny a baptism coming from another PCA church! Do you know of any instances of this?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

greenbaggins said:


> Are you accusing Thornwell, Dabney, Gerardeau, and Palmer of unconfessionalism on this point?



Did they modify how they received the Westminster Standards on baptism? If so, then I cannot accuse them of going against the teaching of the confession as received by their denomination. I think, however, that the original intent of the WCF was to accept Romish baptism as irregular, but valid.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

It would not have been addressed directly in the Westminster Standards because it was not an issue. The Reformed position at the time very clearly was to accept RCC baptism and the men at the assembly would have argued for it against the separatist position which was to unchurch their churches because they accepted it.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Gomarus was the outlier; his position arguing against accepting RCC baptism was translated for the first time and appeared in The Confessional Presbyterian 9 (appropriately with Thornwell on the cover).


----------



## greenbaggins

Reformed Covenanter said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you accusing Thornwell, Dabney, Gerardeau, and Palmer of unconfessionalism on this point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they modify how they received the Westminster Standards on baptism? If so, then I cannot accuse them of going against the teaching of the confession as received by their denomination. I think, however, that the original intent of the WCF was to accept Romish baptism as irregular, but valid.
Click to expand...


I would love for you to prove that from the WS. I could not find any indications in the WCF, WLC, WSC, or the DPW that they regarded RCC baptism as irregular yet valid. In fact, the indications are actually hinting the other way (definitely short of proof, I admit). For instance, WCF 27.4 states that neither sacrament "may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained." Plainly the WS view the status of the minister as a minister lawfully ordained as essential to the right administration of the sacraments. It does NOT depend solely on the formula. Then, DPW, in the chapter on baptism, says that the sacrament is not to be administered "in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed." These two places do not prove that the Westminster divines regarded RCC baptism as invalid. However, I would ask these questions: can we really say that RCC priests are lawfully ordained ministers of the Word? They are not ministers in their own opinion, but magisters. And, in our opinion, they do not administer the Word, but something else. One can make a case that the Southern Presbyterian position is fully compatible with the WS.


----------



## greenbaggins

NaphtaliPress said:


> It would not have been addressed directly in the Westminster Standards because it was not an issue. The Reformed position at the time very clearly was to accept RCC baptism and the men at the assembly would have argued for it against the separatist position which was to unchurch their churches because they accepted it.



I would not unchurch any Reformed church that accepted RCC baptisms. What I might do, however, is baptize any people transferring from such a church that had not been baptized in the PCA church, but rather had had their RCC "baptism" accepted. That would not be unchurching the PCA church.


----------



## greenbaggins

I need to say a couple more things. Firstly, I think that both the Northern and Southern positions are compatible with the WS, since, as Chris has pointed out, they didn't address the issue. 

Secondly, I really, really don't like the term "separatists" being applied to the Southern position. Firstly, we don't separate from our Northern brothers over this issue. Neither do we unchurch them. But we must separate from Rome, must we not? 

Thirdly, I think that the Northern position has typically lumped in the Southern position with the Donatist controversy without actually addressing the real issues at stake. We need to distinguish a historical situation where there was no issue of a false church (in the time of the Donatist controversy, it wasn't the issue at stake) versus a time when Rome anathematized the gospel thereby proving herself to be no true church. 

This last point has direct relevance to the question about other denominations' baptisms as to whether they are accepted by Southern Presbyterians or not. One main difference that Rome has with EO, Methodists, and PCUSA, etc., is that Rome has anathematized the gospel, and these other denominations have not. I am not the only one to claim that when a church anathematizes the true gospel, it has ceased to be a true church at all, and that this is the point when it happens.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

greenbaggins said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you accusing Thornwell, Dabney, Gerardeau, and Palmer of unconfessionalism on this point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they modify how they received the Westminster Standards on baptism? If so, then I cannot accuse them of going against the teaching of the confession as received by their denomination. I think, however, that the original intent of the WCF was to accept Romish baptism as irregular, but valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would love for you to prove that from the WS. I could not find any indications in the WCF, WLC, WSC, or the DPW that they regarded RCC baptism as irregular yet valid. In fact, the indications are actually hinting the other way (definitely short of proof, I admit). For instance, WCF 27.4 states that neither sacrament "may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained." Plainly the WS view the status of the minister as a minister lawfully ordained as essential to the right administration of the sacraments. It does NOT depend solely on the formula. Then, DPW, in the chapter on baptism, says that the sacrament is not to be administered "in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed." These two places do not prove that the Westminster divines regarded RCC baptism as invalid. However, I would ask these questions: can we really say that RCC priests are lawfully ordained ministers of the Word? They are not ministers in their own opinion, but magisters. And, in our opinion, they do not administer the Word, but something else. One can make a case that the Southern Presbyterian position is fully compatible with the WS.
Click to expand...


The Westminster Standards were written in a historical context, and so our interpretation of the Standards cannot be divorced from that context. If we want to discover the original intent of those who wrote/accepted the Westminster Standards, then you have to read their writings. Chris has show, on multiple occasions, that Samuel Rutherford _et al_ accepted post-Trent RCC baptism as irregular, but valid. Consequently, Rutherford _et al_ would have regarded the re-baptism of Romish converts as a violation of WCF 28:7, "The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person." Indeed, was it not one of the main bones of contention between the Reformed and the Anabaptists that the latter insisted on the re-baptism of those baptised within Rome, while the former did not?

Moreover, if we are going to appeal to WCF 27:4 and 28:2 against accepting the validity of Romish baptisms, then we are again back to the same problem of having to reject the validity of every baptism carried out by anyone who was not a lawfully ordained Presbyterian minister.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Lane, it is not compatible in the sense of original intent. How could it be? I am using the term separatist only because that was the argument at the time of the Assembly as far as who was arguing for and against RCC baptism. Rutherford et al were post Trent; the gospel had been anathematized already. The divines clearly could not have intended any sympathy to the later SP view when they argued oppositely in the controversy with separatists at the time. I thought it was granted Gomarus was ahead of his time and generally rejected until arguments of the 19th century?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The problem, as I see it, with your argument Lane is that it wasn't discussed at the Westminster Assembly because it wasn't an issue. Everyone agreed on the RC baptism issue (as their personal practice in the local parish confirms). When a Roman convert came into Sutton Coldfield did Anthony Burgess have him baptized? Why not? 

Also, as an addendum, confessionally the PC(USA) has anathematized the Gospel, as Van Til showed in his work on the Confession of 1967. Has EO ever "had" the gospel, when it comes to JBFA?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

As Ben suggests, where does it all end? May we accept Arminian baptisms? Dispensational baptisms? Federal Vision baptisms? Plymouth Brethren baptisms? The first three of these groups are not preaching the gospel as set for in our Confession, and the last group does not practice baptism by lawfully ordained ministers. Does that mean that all these baptisms are invalid? What about a baptism carried out by a PCA minister who was baptised and ordained by the PCUSA after it went liberal? Would even that baptism count?


----------



## SolaScriptura

Bottom line up front: I agree with Lane on this subject. While I possess neither his breadth or depth of knowledge nor his powers of communication, I would like to say:

I shake my head every time the “Donatist” label gets thrown out. It’s the equivalent of throwing out the word “bigot” – the intended effect is to make the object of the label suddenly throw up their hands and back peddle and bend over backwards to prove that they _aren’t_. But I digress…
It is lamentable that the language of WCF 27.3 is functionally used to nullify the language of WCF 27.4, 28.2, and 29.3. 

As Lane has pointed out, the issue is that since the RCC is not a church its ordinations are irrelevant. Since a non-church cannot lawfully ordain a minister of the Word, and since we confess that only lawfully ordained ministers may administer the Sacraments, then the RCC does not offer the sacraments. Period. The RCC can no more baptize someone than can a woman with her daughters in the backyard swimming pool. You'd think it would be pretty cut and dry.

The “Trinitarian formula” is not a mere incantation whose utterance automatically validates the action, regardless of who says the “magic words” and in what context. If so, then even though we may indignantly grumble about the impropriety of it, we really do need to accept as legitimate ‘baptisms’ performed by teenagers in the swimming pool at summer camp. And, if the recitation of the Trinitarian formula really is the bottom line, then we should accept Mormon baptisms. (Gasp!) Thankfully, the mere recitation of the Trinitarian formula is not the sole requirement for a legitimate baptism.

I believe that two things prevent the majority of the Reformed world from acknowledging what should actually be pretty obvious:
1. A fideistic commitment to pious sounding theological language (“It’s the Holy Spirit that baptizes!”)
2. Fear (or laziness) to do the pastoral work of telling someone that they need to be baptized. 

Thus sums up my position:
RCC = no church = no lawful ordinations = no true sacraments.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

What changed in Rome from 1646 to 1850 and what makes Rome different from Constantinople et al?

Also I am not sure effectively calling those of us who do not agree with the Southern position cowards is much better than a Donatist label.


----------



## Romans922

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> What changed in Rome from 1646 to 1850 and what makes Rome different from Constantinople et al?



Growing in knowledge and understanding of God's word and reality just as the reformers did compared to the likes of the early church?


----------



## greenbaggins

Moderator's note: Whoa there! I did not see the word coward being used. Let's keep the temperature cool here, as it has been so far.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The temperature is down. 

I am not sure why you needed to shout.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Romans922 said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> What changed in Rome from 1646 to 1850 and what makes Rome different from Constantinople et al?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Growing in knowledge and understanding of God's word and reality just as the reformers did compared to the likes of the early church?
Click to expand...


Touche  

However, the Westminster Assembly, I think, was certainly directly aware of Rome's apostasy and her wickedness (hence the original WCF 25.6 and our unnecessary change).

A question I have, for historical curiosity, what was it about the Southern Presbyterians that made this a unique position among them?


----------



## Romans922

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> However, the Westminster Assembly, I think, was certainly directly aware of Rome's apostasy and her wickedness (hence the original WCF 25.6 and our unnecessary change).



And maybe on this subject they may have been too close to the context to see the full picture (all assumption, but possible)??


----------



## greenbaggins

I will reply to the _animus imponentis_ argument later when I have had the chance to talk to Ryan McGraw about it. I can answer the Anabaptist issue fairly readily. 

The primary issue was infant baptism, no matter where it happened. That is what the term "Anabaptist" primarily refers to. They believed it was from the devil. Yes, they also believed in "re-baptizing" someone "baptized" as an adult in the RCC, because they were baptized by "unworthy" ministers. Their arguments were much more closely related to the Donatist method of argumentation than the SP arguments were. They based the idea of unworthiness on the moral standing of the minister. There are quite enough significant differences between Anabaptists and the SP arguments that the guilt by association argument won't work here.


----------



## greenbaggins

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The temperature is down.
> 
> I am not sure why you needed to shout.



I wasn't shouting. You used a somewhat inflammatory word ("cowards"), which is a word that Ben did not use. Fear is not the same as cowardice. Ben did use the term "fear." I just wanted to make sure that nothing escalated here. If you're good, then we move on.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

greenbaggins said:


> I will reply to the animus imponentis argument later when I have had the chance to talk to Ryan McGraw about it. I can answer the Anabaptist issue fairly readily.
> 
> The primary issue was infant baptism, no matter where it happened. That is what the term "Anabaptist" primarily refers to. They believed it was from the devil. Yes, they also believed in "re-baptizing" someone "baptized" as an adult in the RCC, because they were baptized by "unworthy" ministers. Their arguments were much more closely related to the Donatist method of argumentation than the SP arguments were. They based the idea of unworthiness on the moral standing of the minister. There are quite enough significant differences between Anabaptists and the SP arguments that the guilt by association argument won't work here.



Obviously it would be absurd to argue that SPs are precisely the same as Anabaptists, as the former believe in infant baptism, but surely it is reasonable enough to state that both SPs and Anabaptists agree that the initial baptism of RCC converts was invalid. Both would surely argue that this invalidity was partly owing to their belief that Rome was, in no sense, a true part of the church. While I can admit that the SPs may not go as far as the Anabaptists did, that does not negate the fact that there is some significant overlap between these two viewpoints.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

greenbaggins said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The temperature is down.
> 
> I am not sure why you needed to shout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't shouting. You used a somewhat inflammatory word ("cowards"), which is a word that Ben did not use. Fear is not the same as cowardice. Ben did use the term "fear." I just wanted to make sure that nothing escalated here. If you're good, then we move on.
Click to expand...


----------



## greenbaggins

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The problem, as I see it, with your argument Lane is that it wasn't discussed at the Westminster Assembly because it wasn't an issue. Everyone agreed on the RC baptism issue (as their personal practice in the local parish confirms). When a Roman convert came into Sutton Coldfield did Anthony Burgess have him baptized? Why not?
> 
> Also, as an addendum, confessionally the PC(USA) has anathematized the Gospel, as Van Til showed in his work on the Confession of 1967. Has EO ever "had" the gospel, when it comes to JBFA?



I can't find in Van Til's work that he argues this about the Confession of 1967. Does that Confession of 1967 preach another gospel which is incompatible with the Westminster Standards? Yes, of course. But that is different from claiming that the Confession of 1967 actually condemns those who hold to the true gospel. His booklet is available here: https://presupp101.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/van-til-the-confession-of-1967.pdf


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Didn't John Gerstner write a critique of the 1967 document; I think it was in the book entitled, _Primitive Theology_, though I do not know if he went so far as to call it another gospel.


----------



## kodos

SolaScriptura said:


> The “Trinitarian formula” is not a mere incantation whose utterance automatically validates the action, regardless of who says the “magic words” and in what context. If so, then even though we may indignantly grumble about the impropriety of it, we really do need to accept as legitimate ‘baptisms’ performed by teenagers in the swimming pool at summer camp. And, if the recitation of the Trinitarian formula really is the bottom line, then we should accept *Mormon baptisms*. (Gasp!) Thankfully, the mere recitation of the Trinitarian formula is not the sole requirement for a legitimate baptism.



Learning a lot from this thread, so I'm thankful to everyone who is participating. I did want to take one issue with the Mormon example however. The Roman Church for all her faults, still holds to a (as far as I am aware) orthodox formulation of the Trinity (including the Athanasian Creed). She holds to the same ecumenical "catholic" creeds that we would that identify the God of that church as being Triune. 

They do believe that one that receives the sign of baptism is identified with the Triune God.

This makes it vastly different from what the Mormons believe about their "god".

The Roman Church might not understand the work of our Triune God in Salvation - but they can identify who He is.

As a side note - it is interesting to me how many people who have come out of the RCC into Presbyterian Circles have a new appreciation for the Apostles Creed that they have memorized all their life in the Roman Church.


----------



## greenbaggins

Reformed Covenanter said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will reply to the animus imponentis argument later when I have had the chance to talk to Ryan McGraw about it. I can answer the Anabaptist issue fairly readily.
> 
> The primary issue was infant baptism, no matter where it happened. That is what the term "Anabaptist" primarily refers to. They believed it was from the devil. Yes, they also believed in "re-baptizing" someone "baptized" as an adult in the RCC, because they were baptized by "unworthy" ministers. Their arguments were much more closely related to the Donatist method of argumentation than the SP arguments were. They based the idea of unworthiness on the moral standing of the minister. There are quite enough significant differences between Anabaptists and the SP arguments that the guilt by association argument won't work here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it would be absurd to argue that SPs are precisely the same as Anabaptists, as the former believe in infant baptism, but surely it is reasonable enough to state that both SPs and Anabaptists agree that the initial baptism of RCC converts was invalid. Both would surely argue that this invalidity was partly owing to their belief that Rome was, in no sense, a true part of the church. While I can admit that the SPs may not go as far as the Anabaptists did, that does not negate the fact that there is some significant overlap between these two viewpoints.
Click to expand...


That there is some overlap does not prove that the SP position is wrong. That would have to be decided on other grounds, as I'm sure you'll agree. 

It is interesting that I have not seen the central argument of the SP position refuted yet. The actual argument goes like this: 1. Rome is no true church. 2. Only a true church can ordain ministers of the gospel. 3. Only truly ordained ministers of the gospel can validly baptize. 4. Therefore, Rome's baptisms are not valid. Putting the confessional issue to the side for a moment, where is the illogicality of this position, exactly? Saying "where does it end?" does not actually address the syllogism. The way I see it, the Westminster divines were willing to say 1, 2, and 3, but were unwilling to say 4.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

greenbaggins said:


> That there is some overlap does not prove that the SP position is wrong. That would have to be decided on other grounds, as I'm sure you'll agree.



Yes.




greenbaggins said:


> It is interesting that I have not seen the central argument of the SP position refuted yet. The actual argument goes like this: 1. Rome is no true church. 2. Only a true church can ordain ministers of the gospel. 3. Only truly ordained ministers of the gospel can validly baptize. 4. Therefore, Rome's baptisms are not valid.



I think the distinction between irregular and invalid adequately covers these points: only a truly ordained minister of the word should baptise; people who are not lawfully ordained ministers do sinfully administer the sacrament of baptism, but that does not mean that the baptism is a non-baptism, otherwise they would not be administering the sacrament in an irregular and sinful manner but simply pouring water on people's heads.


----------



## SolaScriptura

kodos said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> The “Trinitarian formula” is not a mere incantation whose utterance automatically validates the action, regardless of who says the “magic words” and in what context. If so, then even though we may indignantly grumble about the impropriety of it, we really do need to accept as legitimate ‘baptisms’ performed by teenagers in the swimming pool at summer camp. And, if the recitation of the Trinitarian formula really is the bottom line, then we should accept *Mormon baptisms*. (Gasp!) Thankfully, the mere recitation of the Trinitarian formula is not the sole requirement for a legitimate baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learning a lot from this thread, so I'm thankful to everyone who is participating. I did want to take one issue with the Mormon example however. The Roman Church for all her faults, still holds to a (as far as I am aware) orthodox formulation of the Trinity (including the Athanasian Creed). She holds to the same ecumenical "catholic" creeds that we would that identify the God of that church as being Triune.
> 
> They do believe that one that receives the sign of baptism is identified with the Triune God.
> 
> This makes it vastly different from what the Mormons believe about their "god".
> 
> The Roman Church might not understand the work of our Triune God in Salvation - but they can identify who He is.
Click to expand...


1. As soon as you bring this up, you implicitly grant that it takes more than the recitation of words for the Formula to matter. The larger meaning - the meaning intended by the ecclesiastical context - matters. And because context matters...
2. Although the words of institution in Matt 28:19 are Trinitarian, we aren't baptized into "The Trinity" in the abstract. We're baptized into Christ specifically. This can be seen in that every subsequent mentioning of being baptized "into" (a name) is always specified as Jesus (e.g., Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27). This is important because baptism isn't about "acknowledging the Trinity," per se. Baptism is about uniting with Christ and his church. As head of the church, the sacraments are Christ's ordnances. And what is Christ and his kingdom apart from the Gospel? To identify with Christ is to identify with the Gospel-community. The Gospel is absolutely central to our understanding. To accept Christ is to accept the Gospel. To reject the Gospel is to reject Christ. (And of course, to reject the Son is to reject the Father...) In a very real sense "Christ" is almost short-hand for the Gospel. There may be 3 marks of a true church, but certainly the position of "chief among equals" goes to the Word rightly preached because it is the Word rightly preached that enables the other two. (This is why the sacraments are dependent upon and attendant to the Word preached. I can preach without the sacraments, but I cannot give the sacraments without giving the Word.) A church without the Gospel is a church without Christ and is consequentially not a church at all. Thus, in a context like the RCC, they use the language of Trinitarianism, but they formally and officially repudiate what the Bible means by it. As a result, it doesn't matter that they say the Trinitarian formula.


----------



## kodos

SolaScriptura said:


> 1. As soon as you bring this up, you implicitly grant that it takes more than the recitation of words for the Formula to matter. The larger meaning - the meaning intended by the ecclesiastical context - matters. And because context matters...
> 2. Although the words of institution in Matt 28:19 are Trinitarian, we aren't baptized into "The Trinity" in the abstract. We're baptized into Christ specifically. This can be seen in that every subsequent mentioning of being baptized "into" (a name) is always specified as Jesus (e.g., Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27). This is important because baptism isn't about "acknowledging the Trinity," per se. Baptism is about uniting with Christ and his church. As head of the church, the sacraments are Christ's ordnances. And what is Christ and his kingdom apart from the Gospel? To identify with Christ is to identify with the Gospel-community. The Gospel is absolutely central. There may be 3 marks of a true church, but certainly the position of "chief among equals" goes to the Word rightly preached because it is the Word rightly preached that enables the other two. (This is why the sacraments are dependent upon and attendant to the Word preached. I can preach without the sacraments, but I cannot give the sacraments without giving the Word.) A church without the Gospel is a church without Christ and is consequentially not a church at all. Thus, in a context like the RCC, they use the language of Trinitarianism, but they formally and officially repudiate what the Bible means by it. As a result, it doesn't matter that they say the Trinitarian formula.



I can (somewhat) understand where you are coming from, but do we hold the same view of those who preach an Arminian gospel? It seems that for the sake of consistency, that we would have to say that an Arminian Baptist baptism is "no baptism" whatsoever. If that is your view, then I can certainly see the consistency in it. But if it is not, how do you parse out the distinction? The Arminian, as does the Roman Catholic, adds works to salvation. Indeed, many (or most) Arminian groups in our neck of the woods considers Calvinism heresy and say that we are preaching a different gospel - as would the Roman Catholic.

I am not arguing for or against one position or another, but I'm unclear of what distinctions are being made here.


----------



## SolaScriptura

kodos said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As soon as you bring this up, you implicitly grant that it takes more than the recitation of words for the Formula to matter. The larger meaning - the meaning intended by the ecclesiastical context - matters. And because context matters...
> 2. Although the words of institution in Matt 28:19 are Trinitarian, we aren't baptized into "The Trinity" in the abstract. We're baptized into Christ specifically. This can be seen in that every subsequent mentioning of being baptized "into" (a name) is always specified as Jesus (e.g., Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27). This is important because baptism isn't about "acknowledging the Trinity," per se. Baptism is about uniting with Christ and his church. As head of the church, the sacraments are Christ's ordnances. And what is Christ and his kingdom apart from the Gospel? To identify with Christ is to identify with the Gospel-community. The Gospel is absolutely central. There may be 3 marks of a true church, but certainly the position of "chief among equals" goes to the Word rightly preached because it is the Word rightly preached that enables the other two. (This is why the sacraments are dependent upon and attendant to the Word preached. I can preach without the sacraments, but I cannot give the sacraments without giving the Word.) A church without the Gospel is a church without Christ and is consequentially not a church at all. Thus, in a context like the RCC, they use the language of Trinitarianism, but they formally and officially repudiate what the Bible means by it. As a result, it doesn't matter that they say the Trinitarian formula.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can (somewhat) understand where you are coming from, but do we hold the same view of those who preach an Arminian gospel? It seems that for the sake of consistency, that we would have to say that an Arminian Baptist baptism is "no baptism" whatsoever. If that is your view, then I can certainly see the consistency in it. But if it is not, how do you parse out the distinction? The Arminian, as does the Roman Catholic, adds works to salvation. Indeed, many (or most) Arminian groups in our neck of the woods considers Calvinism heresy and say that we are preaching a different gospel - as would the Roman Catholic.
> 
> I am not arguing for or against one position or another, but I'm unclear of what distinctions are being made here.
Click to expand...


We routinely assert what other groups teach. What we're actually often attributing to them (and they to us!) is our assertion of our understanding of the (apparent) implications and or (apparent) logical consequences of what they teach. We are certain that Arminianism teaches works. I can assure you that 100% of the Arminian ministers I know would vehemently recoil from that idea just as we vehemently reject the caricatures of Reformed doctrine that we get charged with. When it comes to our Arminian brothers, our Lutheran brothers, our Anglican brothers... I am thankful for their inconsistencies. 

However, in the case of Rome we aren't dealing with what a particular minister may be thinking, nor are we dealing with a broadly defined and applied "system of theology" that transcends churches. No, we're talking about a formal institution with a huge Magisterium. They have spent centuries carefully (and not so carefully!) codifying what they believe - and they have been equally intentional about articulating what they don't. The long and short of it is that Rome, at Trent, has officially and formally repudiated and anathematized the Gospel. Further, I'd suggest that later pronouncements - such as Mary being the Queen of Heaven and a host of 10,000+ saints - have served to call into question their own monotheistic commitments.


But now I'm going to demure and back out of the conversation. Lane is more than capable of articulating the correct view.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

SolaScriptura said:


> The long and short of it is that Rome, at Trent, has officially and formally repudiated and anathematized the Gospel.


I must agree here.

Modern Semi-Pelagian Arminian's while inconsistent have done no such thing as anathematizing the gospel. I speak of those independant from the belief in baptismal regeneration.

Mormons, Russelites were never in the Church. 

1) When an Ecclesiastical body has officially anathematized the gospel, they have left the gospel completely, and the Church as a whole. *They* are the schismatic. No valid baptism.
2) When an Ecclesiastical body was never in the church, no valid baptism.
3) When an Ecclesiastical body baptizes non-Trinitarian, no valid baptism. 
4) When an Ecclesiastical body baptizes to remove sin, no valid baptism.

The charge of schismatic laid against my position is untenable, as:
1) The groups above would in no way accept our baptism, 
2) The groups above have so perverted their position in the church as to be nothing more than impostors,
3) The groups above are the schismatics

Note:This bears nothing on the Papacy as Anti-Christ as the Papacy rose within and out of that visible church which did become so corrupt that it, at & from its head, attempted to stamp out the saints of God, with the cooperation of the church system etc... 




kodos said:


> The Roman Church might not understand the work of our Triune God in Salvation - but they can identify who He is.


I disagree with this. To them, he is under the power of the priest, who given the power through the papacy, has the ability to bring him down out of heaven and re-sacrifice him. They are identifying something totally different my friend. This is not a simple mistake in doctrine, or a lack of development in understanding. This is a false identification.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

At the end of the day, it seems to me that Rome's own definitive declaration of the anathemas at Trent (as Ben has noted), is what should decide the matter. Yes, I know, there are a myriad of Romanist views on what exactly Trent was stating when so stated (such is Romanism and its jelly like doctrinal statements), but the plain reading makes it clear that Romanism has been apostate for many hundreds of years. Hence, the question then becomes one of acceptance of a practice by an apostate group.


----------



## ProtestantBankie

The Covenanters gave a very accurate description of Roman Antichrist and were not slow to criticise the elements of Roman baptism which were wrong. Notably, the necessity of it and how hell was the only possible prospect for infants departing without it. Yet, they had nothing further to add. 

When the Protestant Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland outlawed the Pope's baptism and his mass - they did not require re-baptism. Such thing would have been included if it was felt necessary by the Protestant church. You need only read the penalties they applied to the Pope's laws in other areas to see how quick a rebaptism would have been demanded.


----------



## SRoper

Why do we use North and South as shorthand for views on Roman baptism? It seems Hodge vs. Thornwell is a very poor proxy for North vs. South in this case. The 1845 Old School vote on the question was “nearly unanimous” against the validity of Roman baptism. Delegates from Northern states outnumbered Southern delegates by about two to one. Of the eight delegates who signed the dissent, five were from the North and three were from the South.

Minutes of the 1845 General Assembly

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Romans922

Interesting Scott.


----------



## Nicholas Perella

Praise the Lord

What about a Roman Catholic that confesses the true gospel? Who put their private understanding above the false theology of Rome?

These questions assume a Roman Catholic may discern that what Rome teaches is false therefore they may be leaving Rome for a true church. These questions also assume that what said Roman Catholic truly confesses is what they think baptism (or communion) is, and realize that their private understanding is different from Rome's official teaching. The context of this discussion is pertaining to the Roman Catholic who has left Rome realizing their private gospel understanding differs not only to what Rome confesses but condemns.

I understand the argument that a false church equates a false baptism thus re-baptize. Yet what about the person who was baptized and what they believe the baptism means? Does their conscience have a say in this? Whether still in Rome or they have left Rome.

Having said all this their membership alone in a Roman Catholic false church may null and void their private understanding since their membership is what they confess. Yet I think the matter of private confession still holds weight before God because not every church we make our vows with is perfect and there may be practices and doctrine within any church that a person may privately object to in accord with their conscience confession before God. I am not saying Rome is 'not a perfect church'. Categorically I have stated Rome is a false church, but the matter of private confession versus public confession (membership) may be involved in coming to terms with these questions and the discussion in general.

God Bless


----------



## MW

Just to clarify again what Donatists maintained: "the Donatists maintained that heretics must be rebaptized." If the argument is that Rome has fallen into heresy and therefore administers an invalid baptism, the argument is by definition "Donatist."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The main problem with the SP anti-RC baptism position, as has been already mentioned, is that it proves too much. It frankly brings into question any baptism done outside NAPARC.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SolaScriptura

The primary assertion of the Donatists, and the view that is commonly understood by the term "Donatism," was certainly _not_ that heretics had to be rebaptized. (Might someone be able to pull up some quote that demonstrates that some Donatists taught, or were said to teach, that heretics had to be rebaptized? Sure, MW has done it in a previous post. But the cited article grossly mischaracterizes Donatism and their teaching. Regardless of whether they taught that heretics had to be rebaptized, I do know that it was most certainly not the thrust of their teaching, nor was it the reason they were deemed a threat to society.)

Heretics were not their concern, it was the _traditores_, who were their concern. The Donatists focused on the discipline of the church, not the doctrine of the church. There is a huge difference between being a "traitor" and a "heretic." 

The Donatists never questioned the doctrinal/confessional accuracy of the "traditores" beliefs. They weren't calling the "traitors" heretics. By way of contrast, precisely because the Donatists were emphatic about the separation between holy and profane, they believed the church was to be a highly exclusive society who were defined in large part by their personal holiness. Due to their emphasis on personal holiness, the Donatists asserted that the validity of the sacraments was tied to the minister in such a way that the minister's personal moral failures rendered the sacraments void. The sacrament's validity depends upon personal moral purity.

The Donatists believed that the _traditores_ had shown their cowardice and faithlessness by lapsing during the persecutions - these moral failings were inexcusable to them. As such, in their mind a "traditore" Bishop did not have the ability to administer the sacrament of ordination to a priest, and consequently, since the "priest" was not legitimately ordained, he was essentially an unordained man and thus he could not lawfully administer the sacraments.

As such, the Donatists were not so much heretics as they were schismatics:
"The Donatists were the first Christians who separated from the church on the ground of discipline. The church had hitherto been rent and torn by heresies, such as Gnosticism and Manichaeism, which had affected doctrines; but the schism of the Donatists was due to objections to the discipline of the church, and became the parent and pattern of all schisms due to a similar cause. It is important to remember that Donatism was not heresy, as the word is ordinarily understood. All heretics are, in one sense, schismatics, but all schismatics are not heretics; and the Donatists themselves protested, with justice, against being considered heretics." -- John Mee Fuller, “Donatism,” ed. William Smith and Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines (London: John Murray, 1877–1887), 881.

The issue of Donatism address personal moral purity and its alleged effect upon the legitimacy of the sacraments. The WCF addresses Donatism in 27.3 by specifically denying the efficacy of the sacraments is tied to the piety or intent of the individual.

But in the light of the rest of the Confession, this has to be understood as saying, in effect, "the efficacy of the sacraments is not tied to the personal piety or intent of an _otherwise lawfully ordained minister._" 

The RCC is not just "morally impure" while maintaining correct doctrine. On the contrary, she has sold herself lock, stock, and barrel to antichrist and is no church.

Regarding the notion that we have to question the baptisms of all but the Reformed... this rationale makes sense if you believe the only ones in possession of the Gospel are the Reformed. But thankfully, most of us are true Catholics and we understand that the true Gospel is maintained, albeit imperfectly, in a host of denominations and theological traditions. As such we warmly accept the validity of baptisms administered in the context of other churches and humbly commit ourselves to the lordship of Christ who will, in his perfect time, bring us all to maturity and knowledge of the truth. Amen.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## yeutter

greenbaggins said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the Northern Presbyterian position is fairly simple. In order to say that RCC baptism is valid, you have to say that it is performed in a true church. Hodge really squirmed in saying this, but he wound up saying that there was a remnant, however polluted, of the true church in the RCC. I believe the Southern Presbyterian position is therefore more consistent: no true church, no true baptism. And I would flatly deny that the Southern Presbyterian position is Donatist.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the Southern Presbyterian position is that this leads to seeing baptism as the work of a true Church as opposed to a false church. If baptism administered by a cleric in the Church of Rome is not valid where do we draw the line. Is baptism by a cleric in the Eastern Orthodox Church valid? Is baptism by a liberal Methodist cleric valid? Is baptism by a liberal Disciples of Christ cleric valid?
> St. Augustine held that baptism was God's work not man's. Valid baptism depended on the application of water, in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, with Trinitarian intent. therefore baptism by a schismatic like the Donatist, or Novation cleric was valid. Baptism by heretic like an Arian cleric was not valid, even if the right words were used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Roman Catholicism is not heresy? If not, and if the RCC is a true church, then we should all go back to Rome, since, as has been pointed out, schism is a terrible sin. We cannot live in schism from the true church. I don't buy the argument that there can be a true sacrament without there being a true church. They are both necessary to each other.
Click to expand...


I agree their is an appearance of inconsistency when we say that baptism performed by a cleric in the Church of Rome is valid and say that the mass celebrated by a cleric in the Church of Rome is an accursed idolatry. Part of the reason we can say this is because Rome is not a cult but an apostate Church.
Se should accept as valid the baptism performed by a cleric of an apostate Church; so long as that Church has not formally renounced orthodox Christology and the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.


----------



## yeutter

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> ... but the plain reading makes it clear that Romanism has been apostate for many hundreds of years. Hence, the question then becomes one of acceptance of a practice by an apostate group.


Other groups like the modernist/liberal Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the United Church of Canada and the Presbyterian Church USA are and have been apostate for years. Where do we draw the line? Should we accept the baptism of liberal protestants as valid? Is baptism in an Eastern Orthodox Church valid?


----------



## Peairtach

When we take the analogy from circumcision, the traditional Reformed position is the correct one. The Northern Kingdom wasn't collectively excommunicated.

It is part of the mystery of Babylon - the apostate Church and apostate Christianity - that the light of a candle and the voice of the bride and bridegroom are mysteriously and tragically in her, beneath all the vile rubbish.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SRoper said:


> Why do we use North and South as shorthand for views on Roman baptism? It seems Hodge vs. Thornwell is a very poor proxy for North vs. South in this case. The 1845 Old School vote on the question was “nearly unanimous” against the validity of Roman baptism. Delegates from Northern states outnumbered Southern delegates by about two to one. Of the eight delegates who signed the dissent, five were from the North and three were from the South.
> 
> Minutes of the 1845 General Assembly



Scott, thanks for point that out; do you know what Thomas Smyth's view was?


----------



## greenbaggins

MW said:


> Just to clarify again what Donatists maintained: "the Donatists maintained that heretics must be rebaptized." If the argument is that Rome has fallen into heresy and therefore administers an invalid baptism, the argument is by definition "Donatist."



This is manifestly and obviously false. The traditores were sinning, not hereticing.


----------



## greenbaggins

yeutter said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the Northern Presbyterian position is fairly simple. In order to say that RCC baptism is valid, you have to say that it is performed in a true church. Hodge really squirmed in saying this, but he wound up saying that there was a remnant, however polluted, of the true church in the RCC. I believe the Southern Presbyterian position is therefore more consistent: no true church, no true baptism. And I would flatly deny that the Southern Presbyterian position is Donatist.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the Southern Presbyterian position is that this leads to seeing baptism as the work of a true Church as opposed to a false church. If baptism administered by a cleric in the Church of Rome is not valid where do we draw the line. Is baptism by a cleric in the Eastern Orthodox Church valid? Is baptism by a liberal Methodist cleric valid? Is baptism by a liberal Disciples of Christ cleric valid?
> St. Augustine held that baptism was God's work not man's. Valid baptism depended on the application of water, in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, with Trinitarian intent. therefore baptism by a schismatic like the Donatist, or Novation cleric was valid. Baptism by heretic like an Arian cleric was not valid, even if the right words were used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Roman Catholicism is not heresy? If not, and if the RCC is a true church, then we should all go back to Rome, since, as has been pointed out, schism is a terrible sin. We cannot live in schism from the true church. I don't buy the argument that there can be a true sacrament without there being a true church. They are both necessary to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree their is an appearance of inconsistency when we say that baptism performed by a cleric in the Church of Rome is valid and say that the mass celebrated by a cleric in the Church of Rome is an accursed idolatry. Part of the reason we can say this is because Rome is not a cult but an apostate Church.
> Se should accept as valid the baptism performed by a cleric of an apostate Church; so long as that Church has not formally renounced orthodox Christology and the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.
Click to expand...


Couple of problems with this. On what basis do you say that orthodox Christology and Trinity are the bar for a valid baptism? That would be quite difficult to prove from Scripture. While it is quite easy to prove that the doctrine of the Trinity is _necessary_ for a proper baptism (see the Great Commission), that is different from saying it is sufficient. On the topic of Christology, do you really believe that the RCC has not left the reservation on Christology? The Mass attacks the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, not to mention attacking the humanity of Christ by claiming that the human is divine enough to be everywhere. The idolatry of the Mass hardly points to an orthodox Christology. That the RCC holds to a human and divine nature in one person is not sufficient for orthodox Christology when they also ascribe divine characteristics to the human. 

I really think the question of "where does it all end"? has been answered by Ben, and doesn't really need to be asked anymore, as at least 5 people have brought it up. If you're not happy with the answer, that is understandable, but please don't act as though it hasn't been answered. Both Ben and I have answered it.


----------



## greenbaggins

On the question of "irregular" versus "invalid," I think Chad Van Dixhoorn's comments are apropos vis-a-vis the question whether a minister has to be the one to perform the sacraments. In his commentary on the WCF, he says that the Great Commission was "deliberately given to the church's teachers" (p. 364). Even more tellingly, he notes that when the Lord's Supper was being attempted in Corinth, the Lord's Supper was_ not being eaten at all_: "The Corinthians administered the supper to themselves, each person grabbing what they wanted, when they wanted it. Paul deemed that this was not the Lord's supper at all (1 Cor. 11:20)." Logically, if the sacraments are always connected to the preaching of the Word, then only ordained ministers _can_ perform the sacraments. The PCA, at least, has been fairly consistent in saying that when a non-ordained person gets up to "preach," it is not actually called preaching, but exhorting.


----------



## greenbaggins

A couple of quotations on the Donatist controversy might be helpful. From Harold O.J. Brown's book on Heresies, "Essentially the Donatists taught nothing heretical in our sense, but they refused to acknowledge the idea that the sanctity of the church lies in its integrity as an institution; they insisted that it had to lie in the spiritual excellence of its leaders" (p. 199). 

Then, from Latourette's history, p. 139, "Out of the controversy came the enunciation of the principle, formulated by one of the councils called to deal with the issues raised by the Donatists, that, contrary to the latters' contention, ordination and baptism are not dependent for their validity upon the _moral character_ (italics added; notice it does NOT say "orthodox teaching," LK) of the one through whose hands they are administered."


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Emphasis mine below on the matter of what was meant by the term "traditore":

"The Donatists were rigorous in their support of the spiritual rewards of martyrdom, and it was the lax policy of the church at Carthage towards _traditores_, i.e. those who had ‘handed over’ their copies of the Scriptures to be burned during the Great Persecution of 303, which caused the bad feeling and led to schism."

Ferguson, Sinclair B., and J.I. Packer. New dictionary of theology 2000 : 206. Print.


"The Donatists were a strict party in North Africa who refused to recognize Caecilian as bishop of Carthage because, they alleged, he had been ordained by a traditor, one who had ‘handed over’ or ‘betrayed’ Scriptures to the authorities in the recent persecution."

Dowley, Tim, J. H. Y. Briggs, et al., eds. Introduction to the History of Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006. Print.


"When the persecution died down and discipline was restored to the church, the most important moral problem was what should be done about the traditores, those who had “handed over” sacred books for destruction. (Biblical studies are poorer in the material at their disposal because of the persecution of Diocletian.) But not all Christians were traditores. Copies of the Scriptures were buried and hidden and then brought out again."

Herklots, H. G. G. “Discovering the Oldest New Testaments.” _Christian History Magazine-Issue 43_: How We Got Our Bible, Canon to King James 1994 : n. pag. Print.


"The African practise of rebaptizing schismatics, applied by the Donatists to the adherents of Cæcilianus, was disallowed, and the Roman custom of mere laying on of hands sanctioned. The Donatist accusation that Felix of Aptunga, the consecrator of Cæcilianus, had been a traditor (one who gave up the sacred books to the heathen; see LAPSED), which had been only incidentally considered, took a prominent place here; but the synod decided that only those against whom traditio could be proved by official documents should be considered guilty, and that even in those cases orders conferred by them were valid."

Jackson, Samuel Macauley, ed. The new Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia of religious knowledge: embracing Biblical, historical, doctrinal, and practical theology and Biblical, theological, and ecclesiastical biography from the earliest times to the present day 1908–1914 : 487. Print.


"For more than a hundred years this schism split the African church, spreading bitter discord and violence. While a variety of non-theological factors (e.g. nationalist feeling, economic stringency) complicated the issue, its ostensible origin was the alleged irregularity of the consecration of Caecilian as bishop of Carthage in 311. One of the consecrators, Felix of Aptunga, was accused (falsely, according to the Catholics) of being a traditor, i.e. of having surrendered copies of the Scriptures to the civil authorities during Diocletian’s persecution. The Donatists took the lines of rigorism; the validity of the sacraments, they taught, depended on the worthiness of the minister, and the Church ceased to be holy and forfeited its claim to be Christ’s body when it tolerated unworthy bishops and other officers, particularly people who had been traditores, in its ranks. In this case the resulting contamination, they held, infected not only Caecilian and his successors, but everyone in Africa and throughout the whole world who maintained communion with them. Presupposed in this attitude is the puritan conception of the Church as a society which is de facto holy, consisting exclusively of actually good men and women. With this as their premiss the Donatists argued that they alone could be the ecclesia catholica, which Scripture attested to be the immaculate bride of Christ, without spot or wrinkle, since they required positive holiness from laity and clergy alike. The so-called Catholics, they urged, could not with justice make out their claim to be the true Church."

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. Fifth, Revised. London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 1977. Print.


There are many more that could be cited, but the above should suffice.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

greenbaggins said:


> Logically, if the sacraments are always connected to the preaching of the Word, then only ordained ministers can perform the sacraments.



According to the logic of this argument, would you argue that it is impossible - not merely unlawful - for a lay-man even to profanely administer the sacrament?


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

MW said:


> Just to clarify again what Donatists maintained: "the Donatists maintained that heretics must be rebaptized." If the argument is that Rome has fallen into heresy and therefore administers an invalid baptism, the argument is by definition "Donatist."



i do not believe that the argument is that "Rome fell into Heresy therefore their baptism is invalid." I find the argument to be Rome has officially anathematized the gospel itself, therefore their baptism is invalid.

In contrast, the Modern semi-pelagian arminian church has fallen into various heresy but they have not officially anathematized the gospel. I would consider their baptism valid in the church. 

We all know that just because someone claims to be performing a baptism they claim to be Christian, does not make their baptism valid. Just because someone uses the "Trinitarian formula" does not make the baptism valid.

We can all recognize a strict dichotomy between those who have anathematized the gospel in an official and binding fashion, used the highest to the lowest office of the church to attempt to stamp out God's elect from the earth, AND those that have fallen into some degree of misunderstanding of the gospel.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Thank you for finding that Scott. I was just looking it up. This link will summarize some of the details: 169 in favor of the motion (to reject RC baptism); 8 against; 6 abstained. 

As to the historical background of why this came out of America, it was likely the rising anti-Roman Catholic sentiment reacting to the increase immigration, as the book suggests.

Here is part of the motion:

“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...“The Church, (i.e. the church visible,) as defined in our standards, is the whole body of those persons, together with their children, who make profession of the holy religion of Christ, and of submission to his laws. (Form of Gov. chap. ii, sec. 2) As certainly then, as the dogmas and practices of papal Rome are not the holy religion of Christ, must it be conceded, that the papal body is not a Church of Christ at all; and if not, then her agents, be they styled priest, bishops, archbishops, cardinals or pope, are not ministers of Christ in any sense; for they have no connection with his true visible Church; and not being true ministers of Christ, they have no power to administer Christian ordinances, and the rite they call baptism, is not, in any sense, to be regarded as valid Christian Baptism...

“Nor is the fact that instances now and then occur of apparent piety in the members of her communion, and of intelligence, zeal, and conscientiousness in some of her priests, any ground of objection against the position here taken by this Assembly. The virtues of individuals do not purify the body of which they are members. We are to judge of the character of a body claiming to be a church of Christ, – not by the opinions or practices of its individual members, but by its standards and its allowed practices. Bound as he is by the authority of his church, – and that on pain of her heaviest malediction, – to understand the Scriptures only in the sense in which his church understands and explains them, a consistent papist cannot receive or hold the true religion, or the doctrines of grace. If he does, he must either renounce the papacy, or hypocritically conceal his true sentiments, or he must prepare to brave the thunders of her wrath. True religion and an intelligent adherence to papal Rome are utterly incompatible and impossible. The Church and the papacy are the repelling poles of the moral system.

“Difficulties may possibly arise in individual cases. It may not be easy at all times to say whether an applicant for admission into the Church of Christ has, or has not been baptized: whether he has been christened by a popish pastor or not. In all such doubtful cases the session of a church must act according to the light before them. But it is safer and more conducive to peace and edification, to embrace a well established principle for our guidance, and act upon it firmly in the fear of God, leaving all consequences with him than to suffer ourselves, without any fixed principles, to be at the mercy of circumstances...."

"In 1835 the Assembly declared the papacy to be apostate from Christ, and no true church. As we do not recognize her as a portion of the visible Church of Christ, we cannot, consistently, view her priesthood as other than usurpers of the sacred functions of the ministry, her ordinances as unscriptural, and her baptism as totally invalid.”

You can read an easier text-copy on this blog. The original decision is specifically at this link, a collection of acts of the Presbyterian church (easier to find than the previous link above).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> "For more than a hundred years this schism split the African church, spreading bitter discord and violence. While a variety of non-theological factors (e.g. nationalist feeling, economic stringency) complicated the issue, its ostensible origin was the alleged irregularity of the consecration of Caecilian as bishop of Carthage in 311. One of the consecrators, Felix of Aptunga, was accused (falsely, according to the Catholics) of being a traditor, i.e. of having surrendered copies of the Scriptures to the civil authorities during Diocletian’s persecution. The Donatists took the lines of rigorism; the validity of the sacraments, they taught, depended on the worthiness of the minister, and the Church ceased to be holy and forfeited its claim to be Christ’s body when it tolerated unworthy bishops and other officers, particularly people who had been traditores, in its ranks. In this case the resulting contamination, they held, infected not only Caecilian and his successors, but everyone in Africa and throughout the whole world who maintained communion with them. Presupposed in this attitude is the puritan conception of the Church as a society which is de facto holy, consisting exclusively of actually good men and women. With this as their premiss the Donatists argued that they alone could be the ecclesia catholica, which Scripture attested to be the immaculate bride of Christ, without spot or wrinkle, since they required positive holiness from laity and clergy alike. *The so-called Catholics, they urged, could not with justice make out their claim to be the true Church*."
> 
> Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. Fifth, Revised. London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 1977. Print.



It just seems to me, that if a party is _doing today_ what the Donatist party _was then doing_ (see the bold print above) when they were opposed for it, then formally the charge sticks.

What is being argued from those who deny the charge or take it to court, is that the _circumstances_ have changed, and therefore whatever similarities exist between the parties in comparison (denying the other church is legitimate, baptizing-again-for-the-first-time, etc.) are accidental and not substantive.

If one uses the criterion of "maintaining false doctrine" as the key and distinct difference between the catholic party of that day, and the Roman party of today, _making the counter-party justified in the latter case _(in contrast to the former case), then I think that one should need to be specific on considerably more opponents than Rome.

And frankly, considering history and the human tendency toward (degrees of) rational consistency, I think it would be a matter of time before the list of the "unbaptized" included not a few other denominations, as instances of defending the new principle.

The reason the church generally doesn't recognize "baptisms" of Mormons, or sundry washings of even further distant sects and religions, has to do with history and theology, not one or the other. The ancient catholic-party argument or principle, contained within our legacy, continues to resonate with our catholic (small-c) ecclesiology.

It is one of history's curiosities that, with some pragmatic exceptions, the Reformed stand between two bodies of Christians who in the most formal of senses unchurch the Reformed. On the one side are the Lutherans, who deny that the Reformed practice the Lord's Supper; they refuse the Reformed the table in their communion. On the other side are the Baptists, who deny that the Reformed practice baptism--whether of infants who thus have never been baptized, or of adults who have never been immersed; they refuse the Reformed (either as members, or typically their table) unless we become baptized in their eyes. Between them both, the Reformed have no sacraments or ordinances! They are thus unchurched.

Reformed ecclesiology recognizes both the baptism of the Baptists, and the table of the Lutherans--even when the Reformed practice closed communion. We do not unchurch them. In fact, we recognize as much as we possibly can both to the left and the right, granting charity to very poor representations of Christianity. Our sacramental doctrine is understood to attach very deeply near the root of our doctrine of the church-universal. It is an exhibition of claim to union with Christ. When we ask, "Which Christ?" the answer must be as he is defined by the Creeds and Councils of the early church.

The 16C-17C Reformers had a chance to put JBFA or "the gospel" alongside the Christ of the Creeds. They chose not to, and we should ask today whether their principles are just as valid today, before setting them by for new ones.

Rome is not a healthy part of Christ's body. For all their size and outward pomp, they believe many curious and unbiblical accretions concerning the religion that taught them life. But it seems to me, we step up to a level of universal jurisdiction in advance of our limitations, when (more than with personal branches, Jn.15:5, 1Cor.5:2) as one collective bough a church declares some other bough or church--comprised of countless individual branches and twigs--to be gone, removed. As if we had the mind of God in this thing.

I can't envision a denomination outside of the American context, at the height of Protestant optimism, and spitting in Rome's eye, making such declarations.


----------



## greenbaggins

Reformed Covenanter said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, if the sacraments are always connected to the preaching of the Word, then only ordained ministers can perform the sacraments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the logic of this argument, would you argue that it is impossible - not merely unlawful - for a lay-man even to profanely administer the sacrament?
Click to expand...


I would argue that if a non-ordained person seeks to administer the sacrament, that it is not the sacrament. I have given reasons already, but I will summarize them here: 1. the Great Commission was given to the disciples, who were ordained by Christ. 2. The sacrament is tied to the Word and seals the Word. If a non-ordained person cannot preach, then he cannot seal the preaching either. 3. The argument from 1 Corinthians that Van Dixhoorn states in his WCF commentary shows that the Corinthians were trying to administer the sacraments themselves, and Paul says that it was not the Lord's Supper that they were celebrating.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

greenbaggins said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, if the sacraments are always connected to the preaching of the Word, then only ordained ministers can perform the sacraments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the logic of this argument, would you argue that it is impossible - not merely unlawful - for a lay-man even to profanely administer the sacrament?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would argue that if a non-ordained person seeks to administer the sacrament, that it is not the sacrament. I have given reasons already, but I will summarize them here: 1. the Great Commission was given to the disciples, who were ordained by Christ. 2. The sacrament is tied to the Word and seals the Word. If a non-ordained person cannot preach, then he cannot seal the preaching either. 3. The argument from 1 Corinthians that Van Dixhoorn states in his WCF commentary shows that the Corinthians were trying to administer the sacraments themselves, and Paul says that it was not the Lord's Supper that they were celebrating.
Click to expand...


All points 1 and 2 prove is that it is an irregularity for the non-ordained to administer a baptism; that does not prove that the baptism is wholly invalid. As for point 3, that exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:20 seems rather convenient. If Paul literally held that they were not observing the Lord's Supper, in any sense, then how could he rebuke them for _profanely_ observing the Lord's Supper? The ESV Study Bible note says that, "Because of their selfish elitism, when the Corinthians observe the Lord's Supper they are not *rightly* representing the sacrificial death of Christ (vv. 24, 26) and the true character of the Lord." [emphasis added] In other words, by their profane observance of the Lord's Supper, they are distorting the meaning of the sacrament, which would be impossible if they were not observing communion in any sense at all.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> And frankly, considering history and the human tendency toward (degrees of) rational consistency, I think it would be a matter of time before the list of the "unbaptized" included not a few other denominations, as instances of defending the new principle.



Bruce, thanks for your contributions to this thread. Given the direction in which the neo-Donatists are running, on their theory, do you think that any of us can have any certainty that we have been validly baptised? What if we were baptised by someone who originally received RC-baptism? Is that baptism valid on neo-Donatist assumptions? After all, this non-baptised individual should never have been ordained having never received the sacrament of entrance into the visible church!


----------



## greenbaggins

I am done with this thread. If the only thing I am ever going to receive is accusation of being a Donatist, even after repeated and careful argumentation that there is not enough overlap with Donatism for the label to fit, explaining until I am blue in the face, only to have someone else claim that I am Donatist, then no one is listening.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

If this thread is going to continue with profit let's all overlook the twits and tweaks and simply discuss the subject.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Given the direction in which the neo-Donatists are running, on their theory, do you think that any of us can have any certainty that we have been validly baptised? What if we were baptised by someone who originally received RC-baptism? Is that baptism valid on neo-Donatist assumptions? After all, this non-baptised individual should never have been ordained having never received the sacrament of entrance into the visible church!


Daniel,
How do you determine the validity of a baptism. Trinitarian formula? Claims to be Christian? Lacks degrees of heresy? Where does it stop? How much can an entire church apostatize from the true faith and still issue valid baptism? Obviously you do not consider all out war via anathematizing the Gospel itself enough to invalidate a church's baptism. Specifically, where do you draw the line?


----------



## richardnz

*Some help from Calvin*

Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament – Ronald S Wallace

The effect of the sacraments independent of the presiding minister

It must here, however, be clearly stated that Calvin holds that the efficacy of the sacrament for the faithful cannot be hindered by the unworthiness of the presiding minister. “We hold the ordinance of God too sacred to depend for its efficacy on man. Be it then that Judas, or any other epicurean contemner of everything sacred, is the administrator, the spiritual body and blood of Christ are conferred through his hand just as if He were an angel come down from heaven”. (C.R 9:26)
Jesus, according to Calvin, abstained purposely from administering Baptism to testify to all ages “that Baptism loses nothing of its value when administered by a mortal man”. (Comm. on John 4:2, CR 47:78
Baptism is a “sacred and immutable testimony of the grace of God, though it were administered by the devil, though all who partake of it were ungodly and polluted as to their own persons. Baptism ever retains its own character and is never contaminated by the vices of men.” (Comm. on Amos 5:25-6, C.R. 43:98)


----------



## Steve Curtis

Just to add to the discussion, Dr. F. N. Lee also addressed the issue at hand (and drew upon Calvin's remarks mentioned by Richard):

http://www.francisnigellee.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Who-May-Baptize-Dr.-F.N.-Lee.pdf


----------



## SolaScriptura

That's just silly. If the devil can baptize, so too can Mormons. Like Lane, I'm done with this.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## kodos

greenbaggins said:


> I am done with this thread. If the only thing I am ever going to receive is accusation of being a Donatist, even after repeated and careful argumentation that there is not enough overlap with Donatism for the label to fit, explaining until I am blue in the face, only to have someone else claim that I am Donatist, then no one is listening.



I just wanted to say, brother - that I am very grateful for your contributions to the thread (as well as Ben's, and others) who might buck what is often traditionally been considered the validity of Roman Catholic Baptisms. I'm sorry that it appears to have become a heated discussion, though I am certain that no parties to this debate meant to cause anguish or harm.

But I did learn a lot of the "American/Southern Presbyterian" viewpoint in this debate. So, thank you for your thoughtful responses - even though at the moment I would be more inclined to accept the "traditional view".

So, thank you for your input into this often contentious subject!


----------



## TheOldCourse

MW said:


> Just to clarify again what Donatists maintained: "the Donatists maintained that heretics must be rebaptized." If the argument is that Rome has fallen into heresy and therefore administers an invalid baptism, the argument is by definition "Donatist."



That seems like an oversimplification (and I tend to maintain the validity of RC baptism). The Donatists rebaptized because they believed that heresy invalidated a previously legitimate baptism. The Thornwell position as I understand it holds that there never was a baptism in the first place to invalidate since there was no church of Christ, granted custody of the means of grace, to perform it. We can argue whether their thesis concerning the essential elements of baptism (viz. administered by a minister of a true church), but they clearly reject the Donatist position that one can invalidate a previously valid baptism. 

I would expect everyone here would advocate "rebaptism" for someone who was "baptized" in an anti-Trinitarian cult that uses a heretical formula. That would suggest the locus of the debate should not be over "rebaptism" per se, but the essential elements, the sine qua non, of baptism.


----------



## Romans922

Chris thank you. 

I have found in this thread an often mischaracterization of what is often call the S. Presbyterian view of the validity of RC baptism (which in the S.P. view is no baptism at all to begin with). The S. Presbyterian view does not invalidate a previously valid baptism, but rather says (as has to do with RC) it was never a baptism at all because RC is not part of the True Church of Jesus Christ (Visible) and thus has no true gospel ministers. 

And as others continue to mischaracterize the S.P. position. The S.P. view has nothing to do with the sanctity/unworthiness of the minister who administers the so-called baptism. As Lane has said, it goes to the very heart of the issue: Is Rome (Roman Catholicism) a part of the True Church of Jesus Christ? This is the issue. This is the only issue really that should be debated in this thread. If you say it is not part of the True Church of Jesus Christ, then there are no true ministers of Christ there, then what they do in their 'baptism' is no baptism at all, and when they join Christ's Church, to baptize them is not a rebaptism at all (i.e. not anabaptist). If they are part of the True Church of Jesus Christ, then their ministers are true ministers, and their so-called baptism is valid, is a real baptism, and one who is baptized in such a circumstance should not be rebaptized.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

So much for the use of hyperbole.
Contrary to the now saintly Dr. Lee, the Scottish church did not accept baptism by women and non officers. MacPherson explains the Scottish view of rebaptism of those baptized by the RCC.


> John MacPherson - Unity of the Church: The Sin of Schism | Naphtali Press
> Our Scottish theologians were so generous in their conception of what constitutes a true church of Christ that, keen as their antagonism to Rome of necessity was, they did not seek to unchurch her, or to treat her baptism as invalid. We might not have been surprised had they scrupled as to whether the priests of the Romish church should be recognized as minsters of the word. But here again the recognition of the church in which they served as a branch of the church of Christ, notwithstanding her manifold and grievous corruptions, weighed so heavily with them that they did not raise the question as to the validity of the orders of the priests of Rome. So little disposed were the divines of Scotland, and with them those of the Reformed churches generally, to question the validity of baptism administered within any Christian church that they even declined to pronounce baptism administered by a deposed minister invalid, and rather introduced a distinction, useful though somewhat fine, between a valid and a lawful baptism. The action of the deposed minister and the conduct of those receiving baptism at his hands was distinctly unlawful, but the baptism itself was valid, and as such could not be ignored. In the application of this distinction, however, they carefully restricted themselves to the recognition of baptism administered by those who had some claim to be recognized as men ordained by the church. Women and laymen, who presumed, in accordance with Romish practice in cases of emergency,[SUP]5[/SUP] to dispense the ordinance, were not only themselves dealt with as profaners of the holy sacrament, but their action was regarded as invalid as well as unlawful. Any child who had received a so-called baptism from a woman or a layman must be presented in a regular way and receive baptism as a child not yet baptized.
> It should not indeed be overlooked that the Scottish Confession of Faith of 1560 lays down two things as requisite to true baptism: (1.) That it be ministered by lawful ministers, preachers of the word, chosen thereto by some kirk, and (2.) that it be ministered in such elements and in such sort as God has appointed. Then it proceeds to declare the Papistical ministers are no ministers of Christ Jesus, _Yea (which is more horrible) they suffer women, whom the Holy Ghost will not suffer to teach in the congregation, to baptize,_ and also they adulterate the Sacrament by using oil, salt, spittle, and such-like inventions of men.[SUP]6[/SUP] And so in theory they make Romish baptisms not only unlawful but also invalid. In an exactly contemporary document, however, the First Book of Discipline, drawn up by the same six Reformers, it is only enjoined that the introducers of these inventions be punished.[SUP]7[/SUP] So far as appears, even from the beginning of the Reformation in Scotland, the idea of the unity of the church so prevailed that even in regard to Romish baptism, against which so much could be said, only its lawfulness, but not its validity, was called in question.
> -----------
> 5· And quhensaever the tyme of neid chancis that the barne can nocht be brocht conveniently to a preist and the barne be feivit to be in peril of dede, than all men and women may be ministeris of Baptyme, swa that quhen thai lay wattir apon the barne, with that, thai pronunce the wordis of Baptyme intendand to minister that sacrament, as the kirk intendis. _The Catechism of John Hamilton,_ 1552; The Sacrament of Baptyme, the fourt cheptour. [↩]
> 6· Laing’s Knox, vol. ii. chap. xxii. pp. 115, 116. Dunlop’s _Collection,_ vol. ii. pp. 84-86. [↩]
> 7· Laing’s Knox, _Ut sup._ p. 187. Dunlop, _Ut sup._p. 521. _Such as would presume to alter Christ’s perfect Ordinance you ought severely to punish._ [↩]


Here is what Rutherford wrote in reply to Separatists who said the Reformers' ministry was invalid (and thus their baptisms) because from Rome.


> Rutherfurd Against Separatism: Part Three | Naphtali Press
> But concerning the other point, we see not how we are to separate from other reformed churches, as Ainsworth[SUP]3[/SUP] says, and how Mr. Jacob says, _Our reformed divines cannot satisfy the objection that Calvin and Luther, and Zwinglius, who had their ordination and calling to be pastors from the Church of Rome, and so from Antichrist, and so our ministers having ordination and calling from ministers, who had their calling from Antichrist cannot be lawful ministers, nor our church a true church, seeing it wants a true ministry, except we say with them, they had their calling essentially from the suffrages and consent of the church of believers, who have power to ordain ministers, and power to depose and excommunicate them if need be._
> 
> But I answer, this power is in the back of the Bible, and amongst unwritten traditions, not in the holy oracles of the Old and New Testament. Hence I will speak a word of the calling of our reformers, and of the Church of Rome, if they could give a calling to our reformers, seeing we hold them to be an Antichristian church.
> 
> Some answer, and Walleus[SUP]4[/SUP] approves them, that Luther, Zwingli, Farel were pastors ordinary of churches, and so had power to convince the gainsayers. But the question yet remains from whence had these before them their calling? Our divines, Tylen,[SUP]5[/SUP] Bucan,[SUP]6[/SUP] Professors at Leyden,[SUP]7[/SUP] Walleus, distinguish here three things. 1. Something in the calling of our reformers was from God; so authoritatively they were called of God, the ministry being of God. 2. The Christian church lying under Popery, called, designed, and ordained the men to be pastors; so their calling according to the substance of the act was from God, and the Roman Church as a Christian church. 3. There was corruption in the way and manner of their vocation, as the Antichristian ceremonies, and an oath to maintain the doctrine of the Church of Rome, not only as a Christian church, but also as Romish. If any of them did swear to defend the corruptions of the Church, this latter was taken away by God’s illumination of their minds. A called minister swears to defend truth, and this truth of this church; but aye under the notion of truth; and if he sees it to be error he still holds the substance of his oath, in as far as it is obligatory and ties him in conscience.
> 
> OBJECTION. It is objected, _An Antichristian church cannot ordain Christian ministers; Rome was then an Antichristian church, Ergo_.
> 
> ANSWER. 1. That which is wholly, as touching its whole essence Antichristian, cannot ordain Christian ministers. True, a dead man cannot beget a living [child]; the Roman Church was not wholly Antichristian, but kept some of Christ’s truth. That which is Antichristian in part only, may ordain ministers, who have the essence of a ministerial calling; _for Israel was no wife, but a whore_ (_Hos. 2:2_) _a whore and no wife, merite & iure,_ in ill deserving; yet a mother and a wife, _de facto,_ and keeping something of a covenanted bride, is called God’s people (_Hos. 4:6_), and (_Ezk. 16:21_) _Thou hast slain my children,_ then her [children] were God’s [children] in covenant, and not bastards. God was still Samaria’s God (_Hos. 13:16_), _a remnant according to election remained_ (_Rom. 11:5_). The orthodox fathers acknowledged the Africans as a true church, who defended heresy, that [children] baptized by heretics were to be baptized again. 2. A calling is extraordinary, either in habit or in exercise; in habit as to be an apostle, and have the gift of miracles. Thus our reformers’ calling was not extraordinary. They were not immediately called by God from heaven; for they would not have concealed such a calling, if they had had any such. Or a calling is extraordinary in the exercise, and that two ways. (1.) Either in the principle moving them to teach, or (2.) in the manner of teaching and efficacy; a calling extraordinary in the principle moving, is twofold. [1.] Either a mere prophetical impulsion of revelation, stirring them up to such an act, as the Spirit of the Lord came upon Saul, and he prophesied. This our reformers had not; because we never find that they alleged it. [2.] A more than ordinary motion with illumination by God’s Spirit, speaking in the Scriptures, in which motions they were not subordinate in the exercise of their ministry to the church of pastors; but immediately in that subordination to God, and in this I prove that our reformers were extraordinary doctors.
> 
> 1. Because (_Ezk. 34_) in an universal apostasy of the prophets and shepherds, the Lord extraordinarily works (_v. 11_), _For thus saith the Lord God, hehold I, even I will both search my sheep, and seek them out._ Now this is by pastors, when the ordinary pastors are all failed. So (_Rev. 11_) in that universal apostasy under Antichrist, _when the Gentiles tread upon the outer court of the Temple, and the holy city, God stirreth up two witnesses to prophecy in sackcloth,_ that is, some few pastors (for two is the smallest number) and they prophecy, and are slain, and yet _they rise again._ We need not apply this to men in particular, as to John Hus, and Jerome of Prague; but certainly some few spoke against Babylon, and they were borne down, and oppressed, and killed, and men of that same spirit rose and spoke that same truth, as if the very _two men who were slain,_ had _risen within three days again._
> 
> 2. Because when the church is overgrown with heresy and apostasy, our reformers in the exercise of their ministry, were not to keep a certain flock as in a constituted church, and supposing they had no calling but eminent gifts, they were to spread the gospel to nations, as Luther did. And supposing the people should resist them, as in many places they did; yet God called them, and they were not to expect election from people. So Cyprus and Cyrenus preached (_Acts 11; 18_), and we read of no vocation that they had from either people or apostle. So Origen[SUP]8[/SUP] preached to a people in a certain town, where there was not one Christian, and afterwards he was chosen their pastor.
> 
> As for the Church of Rome, supposing our reformers had their calling thence, yet have we a true ministry and there was a church in Rome before the _Lateran Council,_ which could constitute a true ministry, as I clear in these distinctions, for the Church of Rome, it has these parts.
> 
> DISTINCTION ONE. 1. The court of Rome and clergy. 2. The seduced people.
> 
> DISTINCTION TWO. 1. There is a teaching court professing and teaching popery, and obtruding it upon the consciences of others. 2. There is a people professing and believing this with heat of zeal. 3. A people misled, ignorant, not doubting but following. 4. There is a people of God, _Come out of her my people, Ergo_ there is a covenanted people of God there (_2 Thes. _) _Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, Ergo_ God has a Temple in Rome.
> 
> DISTINCTION THREE. A third distinction is necessary; a true church is one thing _veritate Metaphysica_, with the verity of essence, as a sick man, or a man wanting a leg is a true man, and has a reasonable soul in him, and a true church_ vertate Ethica_, a church morally true, that is, a sound, whole, a pure church professing the sound faith, that is another thing. Rome is a sick church and a maimed and lamed church, wanting legs and arms, and so is not morally a true church; for vile corruption of doctrine is there, as we say a thief is not a true man, but a false and a taking man, yet he has a man’s nature and a reasonable soul in him. The question is if Rome has the soul, life and being of a church.
> 
> DISTINCTION FOUR. A fourth distinction is, that the question is either of a teaching and a ministerial church, professing Christ, the Word and Baptism, or of a believing church and spouse of Christ.
> 
> DISTINCTION FIVE. If Rome relatively is a wife in comparison of other churches, of if Rome absolutely in herself is a church?
> 
> DISTINCTION SIX. If Rome is_ jure _and _merito_, a spouse, or a harlot, or _de facto_, a wife, not having received a bill of divorcement, as the church of the Jews.
> 
> DISTINCTION SEVEN. If Rome according to some parts is a spouse, and keeps any list of marriage kindness to her husband, or if she is according to other parts a cast off whore.
> 
> DISTINCTION EIGHT. If Rome is materially a church, having in it the doctrine of faith, or if formally it is no church, having no professed faith that has the nature of faith.
> 
> Hence shortly, I say, the Court of Rome as Popish, is the falling-sickness of the church, not the church. But the same court teaching something of Christ (baptism, good works, etc.) has something of the life and being of a church; howbeit she is not a whole church, her skin being leprous, pocky and polluted.
> 
> 1. Because in a church that is no church, there cannot be a true seal of God’s covenant; but in the Court of Rome there is true baptism, for we baptize not again children once baptized there. Some of the Separation called it idol-baptism, and no baptism, which is Anabaptism. For then all converted Papists must be baptized again, no less than converted Turks or Jews. But (1.), the covenant is there, _Come out of her my people_; then their baptism confirms this covenant. (2.) Circumcision even in apostate Israel is true circumcision; her [children] the Lord’s [children] (_Ezk. 16:21_). He is Israel’s God, _the holy one of Israel in the midst thereof._ In Hezekiah’s reformation the people _ate the Passover,_ and yet all _had corrupted their ways,_ and had been a long time worshipping Idols, and they are not (_2 Chron. 30_) circumcised again; and yet (_Ex. 12_) none but the circumcised might eat the Passover.
> 
> 2. Because the Word God, and so the contract of marriage, is professed amongst them, and so there is an external active calling there, and the word of the covenant sounding amongst them, and a passive calling also, because many secretly believe and obey.
> 
> 3. Many fundamental truths are taught that may beget faith, and so there are true and valid pastoral acts in that church. (2.) I say there is a hid and invisible church and temple in Rome, and these God warns _to come out of Babel,_ and these we by writings cry unto, that they would forsake their harlot mother, and worship the Lord in truth, and they obey, howbeit they dare not profess the truth. But the teaching church teaching Popery and fundamental truths, and obtruding them upon the consciences of others, is not the believing church, and so not the spouse and body of Christ. (3.) Rome now compared with Paul’s Rome which he did write unto, is no church, no spouse, as a whorish wife compared with herself in her first month to her husband, while she was chaste, is now, when _she embraces the bosom of a stranger,_ no wife, and yet Rome compared with Indians who worship Satan, with Persians who worship the Sun, with the Egyptians who worshipped gods growing in their gardens, and onions and garlic; for so Juvenal, _O sanctas gentes quibus hec naseuntur in hortis Numma._
> 
> I say being compared with these, they are the Lord’s Temple (_2 Thes. 2:4_), and his wife, as (one[SUP]9[/SUP] says well) _apostate Israel compared with Syrians [and] Philistines, is counted God’s people, having the true God for their God_ (_2 Kings 5:8, 15, 17_). _But being compared with Judah which ruled with God, and was faithful with the saints, is called no wife, but a harlot,_ (_Hos. 2:2, 5; 4:15; 5:3, 4_).
> 
> (4.) Rome _jure_ and _merito_, in her bad deserving to her Lord, is no wife, no church, no spouse, no people in covenant with God, and yet _de facto_ and formally in possession, in profession, and for matrimonial tables which she keeps, is a church, and differs from the Jews, as a church and no church. Because, abeit the Jews have the Old Testament, which implicitly and by interpretation is the covenant, yet they [lack] two things which destroys the essence of a true church.
> 
> [1.] The Jews give not so much as a virtual consent to the marriage and the very external active calling and invitation to come to Christ, and all ministerial publishing of the news of salvation is removed from them (_Acts 13:46_). But there is a virtual consent to the marriage with Christ in Rome, and salvation there in word, and some ministerial and pastoral publication thereof as in the seed.
> 
> [2.] Jews directly oppugne the cardinal foundation of salvation (_1 Cor. 3:11; Acts 4:12; 1 Thes. 2:15, 16_). Christ Jesus, Papists profess him, and have his seals amongst them, especially baptism.
> 
> (5.) Rome in _concreto_, according to her best part, to wit, secret believers, groaning and sighing in Egypt’s bondage, is a true church; but Rome in _abstracto,_ the faction of Papists, as Papists, are no spouse of Christ, but the whore of Babel, and mother of fornications.
> 
> (6.) However Rome is materially a true church, having the material object of faith, the doctrine of the Old and New Testament common with us, yet formally they are not one church with us, but there is a real and essential separation between us and them, as between a true church and an Antichristian church, a spouse of Christ and no spouse. For faith relatively taken, faith of many united in one society essentially constitutes a church, and the formal object of their faith is the word of the church, and of men, or God’s Word as expounded by men, and our faith’s formal object is the Word of God, as the Word of God, and so do formally differ.
> 
> (7.) Howbeit I say Rome is a church teaching and professing, and has something of the life and being of a true church, yet I hold not that Rome is Christ’s body, nor his wife. Neither mean I with our late novators, Prelates and their faction sometimes in this land, and now in England, that Rome is a true church, as they taught, that is, so a true church as, [1.] we erred in separating from that leper whore; [2.] that her errors are not fundamental, and that we and this mother can be reconciled and bed together. But what I say, is held by our divines Calvin,[SUP]10[/SUP] Junius,[SUP]11[/SUP] Whittaker,[SUP]12[/SUP] that famous divine Rivet,[SUP]13[/SUP] that most learned professor Gilbertus Voetius,[SUP]14[/SUP] and our divines.
> 
> Voetius makes nine ranks of these that were not dyed and engrained Papists in the Popish church. (1.) Some deceived. (2.) Some compelled. (3.) Some ignorant. (4) Some careless, who took not heed to that faith. (5.) Some doubting. (6.) Some loathing it. (7.) Some sighing. (8.) Some opposing and contradicting it. (9.) Some separating from it.
> 
> Now seeing that our church has nothing to do with Rome, and our ministry lawful, Separatists may hence be satisfied. Neither yet do I think with Spalatin (_de repub. Eccles. in oftensione error. & Suarez cap. 1 pag. 887, 888)_, that the Roman Church is erroneous only in excess, seeing in substantial points there is such defect also as averts faith.
> -----------
> 3· Ainsworth, Counterpoyson, p. 8. [↩]
> 
> 4· Anton Walleus, loc. com. 8. Eccles. pa. 910. [↩]
> 
> 5· Tylon, _syntag theol. dis. 23 thes. 41, 42, 43._ [↩]
> 
> 6· Bucan._ loc. com. 42, quest. 47._ [↩]
> 
> 7· Profess. Leydens. dis. 42, thes. 41, 42, 43. [↩]
> 
> 8· Origen. Homil. 11. in Num. 18. [↩]
> 
> 9· Francis John, ans. to ob. of separat., p. 62, 63. [↩]
> 
> 10· Calv. _Inst. in lib. 4 cap. 2 sec. 11._ [↩]
> 
> 11· Junius, _lib. singu. de eccl. cap. 17_ [↩]
> 
> 12· Whittaker, _contro 2 quest. 3 cap. 2._ [↩]
> 
> 13· Revit _in Catho. orthodox 101 q 7. tract 2. 11._ [↩]
> 
> 14· Gilb. Voetius, _desper. causa papatus, lib. 3. cap. 7_. _sect. 2._ [↩]


----------



## TheOldCourse

Thank you (other) Chris, I was looking for that section from Rutherford a little while ago and couldn't find it. A great bit of careful and important distinction there. It shows how one could affirm the Thornwell premise (i.e. valid baptism must be administered by an ordained minister of the visible church) but still maintain the validity of RC baptism.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the direction in which the neo-Donatists are running, on their theory, do you think that any of us can have any certainty that we have been validly baptised? What if we were baptised by someone who originally received RC-baptism? Is that baptism valid on neo-Donatist assumptions? After all, this non-baptised individual should never have been ordained having never received the sacrament of entrance into the visible church!
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> How do you determine the validity of a baptism. Trinitarian formula? Claims to be Christian? Lacks degrees of heresy? Where does it stop? How much can an entire church apostatize from the true faith and still issue valid baptism? Obviously you do not consider all out war via anathematizing the Gospel itself enough to invalidate a church's baptism. Specifically, where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...


Baptism is Christ's ordinance, which is profanely and irregularly administered by Rome, but it is still Christ's ordinance. Rome anathematized the gospel in the days of the Westminster divines, yet the divines still accepted its baptism as valid, though irregular.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Trent ruled on Justification by Faith and the reform movement in 1547 in the sixth session if I have my facts right. The Scottish Reformation took place in 1560. Scotland didn't re-baptize the nation or at the very least did not re-baptize everyone baptized since 1547. England did not re-baptize all those baptized under bloody Mary. Should they have?


Reformed Covenanter said:


> Baptism is Christ's ordinance, which is profanely and irregularly administered by Rome, but it is still Christ's ordinance. Rome anathematized the gospel in the days of the Westminster divines, yet the divines still accepted its baptism as valid, though irregular.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> Trent ruled on Justification by Faith and the reform movement in 1547 in the sixth session if I have my facts right. The Scottish Reformation took place in 1560. Scotland didn't re-baptize the nation or at the very least did not re-baptize everyone baptized since 1547. England did not re-baptize all those baptized under bloody Mary. Should they have?



This point raises the question of whether or not, on Thornwellian [1] assumptions, any of the Westminster divines were validly baptised? And the same thing applies to anyone who has ever been baptised by anyone who was originally baptised by Rome, which opens a huge can of worms that no man is ever going to be able to shut. I think too many people who hold the Thornwellian position are being swayed by sound-bites such as "Rome has anathematized the gospel" that they do not seem to be able to recognise where their logic is leading them.

[1] Is that term even a word?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I'm not sure about that. By the days of the WA the church of England would have had a new generation of ministers who would have baptized that generation and of course been ordained under the Elizabethan settlement. The in between would be the question wouldn't it? I'm late to get ready for church..... But am interested what exactly those principles would have advised and what to think of subsequent times as you have raised.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

greenbaggins said:


> I am done with this thread. If the only thing I am ever going to receive is accusation of being a Donatist, even after repeated and careful argumentation that there is not enough overlap with Donatism for the label to fit, explaining until I am blue in the face, only to have someone else claim that I am Donatist, then no one is listening.



For the sake of peace, let us call it the Thornwellian position. Some of us here think the position is Neo-Donatism, while others have argued to the contrary. Just because some of us remain convinced that the Donatist charge has some substance does not mean we are not listening; it just means that we are not convinced by the counter-arguments. 

For reasons that Scott has outlined, it is not accurate to frame the question in terms of Northern vs Southern Presbyterianism (though am I right in saying that the OPC accepts Romish baptism while the PCA [generally] does not?). Hence, I propose that we drop the use of "Donatist" or "Southern Presbyterian" and, for want of a better term, we label the anti-RC baptism position "Thornwellian".


----------



## RamistThomist

Here is a Patristic observation: Eastern Orthodox churches are having this debate today for similar reasons: do they rebaptize converts from other Trinitarian (Filioque aside) communions? The liberal jurisdictions (EP; GOARCH) say no; the conservative (ROCOR) say yes. Because the East never really faced the Donatist controversy, they don't really have a good platform to address these questions.


----------



## Romans922

[PCA generally DOES...but it is left up the individual sessions]


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The minority position then in the PCA is not to accept RC baptism? If this is so, do those of you who hold to the re-baptism view in the PCA refuse the Lord's supper to someone who was baptized as a RC but whose prior Presbyterian church they joined accepted their baptism as valid? Is it a question you ask everyone transferring to your congregation? If the answer is the person was only baptized in the RCC, and they refuse re-baptism, do you refuse the transfer to your congregation? I guess I don't understand how this is supposed to work, not taking one or the other view across the PCA? Is it then de facto unenforceable to insist on the re-baptism view? I know we're talking about the PCA, but still, color me confused.


----------



## MW

Proving a man eats apples does not disprove he eats oranges. The references to the earlier Donatist controversy do not negate what was argued in Augustine's time. For first hand evidence of what the Donatists taught one may consult Augustine's On Baptism, written directly against the Donatists. Whether one agrees with Augustine's arguments, it is evident that the Donatists maintained the invalidity of baptism by heretics and opposed the church catholic on this point.


----------



## TheOldCourse

NaphtaliPress said:


> The minority position then in the PCA is not to accept RC baptism? If this is so, do those of you who hold to the re-baptism view in the PCA refuse the Lord's supper to someone who was baptized as a RC but whose prior Presbyterian church they joined accepted their baptism as valid? Is it a question you ask everyone transferring to your congregation? If the answer is the person was only baptized in the RCC, and they refuse re-baptism, do you refuse the transfer to your congregation? I guess I don't understand how this is supposed to work, not taking one or the other view across the PCA? Is it then de facto unenforceable to insist on the re-baptism view? I know we're talking about the PCA, but still, color me confused.



I was wondering the same thing, particularly as it may some day hit home in the case of my wife, who was baptized in the RC church and not rebaptized. She was received into membership of a CanRC church and transferred her membership to an OPC church (the OPC generally does not rebaptize RC's as far as I'm aware). Would Lane, or another pastor who takes the Thornwellian position, receive someone like her as a transfer from a church in a sister (or even the same) denomination without rebaptism based upon her already being received into the covenant assembly at the discretion of another session or would they insist on rebaptism?


----------



## TheOldCourse

MW said:


> Proving a man eats apples does not disprove he eats oranges. The references to the earlier Donatist controversy do not negate what was argued in Augustine's time. For first hand evidence of what the Donatists taught one may consult Augustine's On Baptism, written directly against the Donatists. Whether one agrees with Augustine's arguments, it is evident that the Donatists maintained the invalidity of baptism by heretics and opposed the church catholic on this point.



You're no doubt right in that for the Donatists apostasy (real or dissembling) did not only invalidate the baptism of the apostate but also, in the case of the minister, those baptized by them. There still is a distinction there, however, with Thornwellians questioning the _ecclesiastical_ qualifications of RC ministers whereas the Donatists questioned the _personal_ qualifications of apostate ministers. It's my understanding that the traditional defense of the validity of RC baptism by men like Rutherford (and Hodge more recently, who was pretty clear on the issue) still saw administration of the sacrament by a lawfully ordained minister of the church to be an essential element of a valid baptism--they just argued that an RC priest was still a lawfully ordained minister of the church. As MacPherson states above, a baptism administered by woman or lay-person, even if with the correct external form, was not regarded as a valid baptism and recipients of such were to be "rebaptized." 

Thus it is, in fact, reasonable and not strictly speaking Donatist to question the ecclesiastical qualifications of a minister in determining the validity of baptism. Some more modern Reformed writers (Scott Clark, for instance) have insisted that it is only the external form that makes baptism valid and the person of the administrator (even if a lay-person) has only to do with the regularity rather than validity of baptism, but that was not the position of Hodge nor the Scots as far as I am aware. Where Thornwellians err, I believe, is in missing Rutherford's distinction with regards to the Romans as a church rather than in appropriating the errors of the Donatists.

Edit: Here's Hodge on the point:

"We maintain that as the Romish priests are appointed and recognized as presbyters in a community professing to believe the scriptures, the early creeds, and the decisions of the first four general councils, they are ordained ministers in the sense above stated; and consequently baptism administered by them is valid. It has accordingly been received as valid by all Protestant churches from the Reformation to the present day." from "Do Roman Catholic Clergy Count as Ministers of the Gospel?", Princeton Review, 1846


----------



## Romans922

The PCA position (official) is to leave it up to the Session (though the position paper itself is to see RC baptism as invalid). The prevailing practice today in the PCA generally you will find is to accept RC baptism as valid.


----------



## kodos

The PCA practice seems bizarre to me. Each session gets to rule? I could be okay in one PCA, hold membership in the denomination, yet travel to another PCA whose session would consider my baptism invalid (even as a member of the PCA). Would they still allow me to take communion without ever being baptized? (in their eyes).

Seems odd to allow individual sessions to unchurch Rome... Seems Congregational, not Presbyterian.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

_Yahtzee_.


kodos said:


> Seems Congregational, not Presbyterian.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## puritanpilgrim

This has been a fascinating read. But, this is one question I don't ever have to deal with.


----------



## MW

TheOldCourse said:


> Thus it is, in fact, reasonable and not strictly speaking Donatist to question the ecclesiastical qualifications of a minister in determining the validity of baptism.



This would be true so long as the question is confined to the form of ordination. If "heresy" is made the determining factor in rejecting the validity of the ministerial office, the question is essentially Donatist in nature.


----------



## Edward

NaphtaliPress said:


> The minority position then in the PCA is not to accept RC baptism?



The Majority report was against acceptance of RC baptism. The minority report was in favor. Both reports were accepted by the GA an commended to the lower courts as information. Decisions are to be made on a case by case basis subject to judicial process. 

Majority report PCA Position Papers: Baptism - Appendix P - Report of the Study Committee on Question Relating to the Validity of Certain Baptisms (1987)

Minority report PCA Position Papers: Minority Report from the Committee to Study the Validity of Certain Baptisms (1987)

I am unaware of any survey as to which is the majority and which is the minority practice within the denomination. And were a survey to be made, would the determination be made on number of congregations on each position, or number of members represented. Were I to make an uneducated guess, it would be that the majority of sessions have not even addressed the issue. 'Undecided' may well be the majority position.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

kodos said:


> The PCA practice seems bizarre to me. Each session gets to rule? I could be okay in one PCA, hold membership in the denomination, yet travel to another PCA whose session would consider my baptism invalid (even as a member of the PCA). Would they still allow me to take communion without ever being baptized? (in their eyes).
> 
> Seems odd to allow individual sessions to unchurch Rome... Seems Congregational, not Presbyterian.



This approach of each session deciding for itself seems to imply that we are an association of churches, as opposed to being one church. I agree that it appears to be more Congregational than Presbyterian.


----------



## TheOldCourse

MW said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus it is, in fact, reasonable and not strictly speaking Donatist to question the ecclesiastical qualifications of a minister in determining the validity of baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be true so long as the question is confined to the form of ordination. If "heresy" is made the determining factor in rejecting the validity of the ministerial office, the question is essentially Donatist in nature.
Click to expand...


I suppose so, but it's ecclesiastical apostasy rather than personal. Would viewing Unitarian/Socianian baptisms as invalid be Donatist, if they used the correct forms? Rutherford, Hodge, and others base their defense of RC baptism validity on the Papists still being a church of Christ in some sense, and part of the basis for that contention is that Rome still confesses the Catholic creeds, the OT and NT, etc. If that were not the case and they presented a yet more complete rejection of biblical truth, presumably they could not be regarded as a church of Christ in any sense, and their baptisms would be invalid. Doesn't this imply that the crux of the debate can't be construed as Donatist vs. non-Donatist conceptions, as if there is a qualitative distinction between the positions, but rather that it's a quantitative question of how thoroughgoing heresy must be to invalidate a sect's claim to being a "church" and thus their administration of sacraments?


----------



## SRoper

kodos said:


> The PCA practice seems bizarre to me. Each session gets to rule? I could be okay in one PCA, hold membership in the denomination, yet travel to another PCA whose session would consider my baptism invalid (even as a member of the PCA). Would they still allow me to take communion without ever being baptized? (in their eyes).
> 
> Seems odd to allow individual sessions to unchurch Rome... Seems Congregational, not Presbyterian.



Baptism laundering. Say you want to become a member of Grumpy Stickler Church, but your baptism isn't quite up to snuff. Just join St. Open and Affirming Church first and transfer your membership to Grumpy Stickler. Your baptism will come out sparkly clean.

I don't think this works in practice. We've been members of three PCA churches now and each wanted to interview us and some wanted us to fill out paperwork. None simply accepted a letter of transfer. I've tried to make sure that I mention my less-than-ideal UCC baptism in case the session decides it wasn't the real deal.


----------



## kodos

SRoper said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems odd to allow individual sessions to unchurch Rome... Seems Congregational, not Presbyterian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism laundering. Say you want to become a member of Grumpy Stickler Church, but your baptism isn't quite up to snuff. Just join St. Open and Affirming Church first and transfer your membership to Grumpy Stickler. Your baptism will come out sparkly clean.
> 
> I don't think this works in practice. We've been members of three PCA churches now and each wanted to interview us and some wanted us to fill out paperwork. None simply accepted a letter of transfer. I've tried to make sure that I mention my less-than-ideal UCC baptism in case the session decides it wasn't the real deal.
Click to expand...


Hi Scott,
Fundamentally, the problem I have with this practice is that it is doing violence to the 'catholicity' that is foundational to Presbyterianism. In an ideal world, Presbyterians would see a single catholic Presbyterian Church. Due to our sinfulness, that is not the reality (now).

That said, each denomination models this catholicity in its polity.

Having one church of the same communion have different rules for the validity of a member's baptism (baptism in itself signifying entrance into the visible, catholic church) seems to strike to the heart of the very idea of Presbyterianism. Enforced logically, it would mean that some members of two separate PCA churches would not be able to commune at the Lord's Table together.

Hence my comment about it seemingly being Congregational, not Presbyterian.


----------



## Eoghan

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Should a Church of Scotland baptism be deemed invalid?



As the Church of Scotland drifts further and further from the WCF, I would love to know the point at which Presbyterians view it as invalid.


----------



## Peairtach

Eoghan said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should a Church of Scotland baptism be deemed invalid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the Church of Scotland drifts further and further from the WCF, I would love to know the point at which Presbyterians view it as invalid.
Click to expand...


There have been men openly and publically spouting heresy in the CofS, like William Barclay, from way back. Moreover their divinity schools have been given over to liberal theology since anyone can remember, along with numerous of their ministers.

They fatally altered their relationship to the WCF in the '20s.

I don't know how recent events should change our view of their baptism.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## SolamVeritatem

puritanpilgrim said:


> This has been a fascinating read. But, this is one question I don't ever have to deal with.



Aaron,

I hear what you're saying brother, and perhaps you may never deal with this particular question, but a couple of questions do come to mind for Baptists.

What if someone were baptized by immersion in a modalist/heretical church (Oneness Pentecostal) but later rejected the non-Trinitarian position altogether and accepted the orthodox historical position of the true church. Would there be a requirement to rebaptize them?

Also, what if the same type of individual was baptized by an ecumenical/Oneness minister, who, fearful of being critical to one side or the other, performed the immersion baptism by saying the following words: "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, all in the name of Jesus!" How would you proceed?

Just curious brother, and would love to hear your perspective. 

In Him,

Craig


----------



## SRoper

puritanpilgrim said:


> This has been a fascinating read. But, this is one question I don't ever have to deal with.



I guess (re-)baptizing (for the first time) everyone who comes in the door is one way to address the problem.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

SRoper said:


> puritanpilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been a fascinating read. But, this is one question I don't ever have to deal with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess (re-)baptizing (for the first time) everyone who comes in the door is one way to address the problem.
Click to expand...


Baptists tend to focus more on the subject and mode of baptism rather than the one who performed the baptism. If someone was baptized by immersion upon a profession of faith, then rebaptism is generally deemed to be unnecessary. What I often run into as a Baptist pastor are people who request to be rebaptized because they believe their previous baptism was not valid for one reason or another. I will typically counsel these people that rebaptism is not necessary, however they will generally insist.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> I guess (re-)baptizing (for the first time) everyone who comes in the door is one way to address the problem.




That's my solution. But, not everyone, only those who profess faith in Christ.


----------



## JoannaV

I wish Lane and Ben would come back!

I am always slightly confused as to what this actually looks like, this process of determining if someone's baptism was valid.
Imagine someone is trying to join a Presbyterian church. They qualify in all other ways, including agreeing with paedobaptism. So the only issue is their baptism. They were baptised in some kind of credobaptist church, perhaps an independent church. How would the validity of their baptism be determined? Does the answer vary depending on whether RC baptism is accepted?


----------



## SRoper

kodos said:


> Hi Scott,
> Fundamentally, the problem I have with this practice is that it is doing violence to the 'catholicity' that is foundational to Presbyterianism. In an ideal world, Presbyterians would see a single catholic Presbyterian Church. Due to our sinfulness, that is not the reality (now).
> 
> That said, each denomination models this catholicity in its polity.
> 
> Having one church of the same communion have different rules for the validity of a member's baptism (baptism in itself signifying entrance into the visible, catholic church) seems to strike to the heart of the very idea of Presbyterianism. Enforced logically, it would mean that some members of two separate PCA churches would not be able to commune at the Lord's Table together.
> 
> Hence my comment about it seemingly being Congregational, not Presbyterian.



Well, we are talking about the PCA, although we don't call it Congregational--it's "grassroots." Not sure why this issue would be the sticking point. Seems like there are any number of issues that are decided at the local level that would have similar implications. Take age of communicant membership. One church might admit 10-year-olds to the table and another might wait until they are 18. What happens when the 10-year-old visits the other church? Must that be decided at the denominational level?


----------



## MW

TheOldCourse said:


> Doesn't this imply that the crux of the debate can't be construed as Donatist vs. non-Donatist conceptions, as if there is a qualitative distinction between the positions, but rather that it's a quantitative question of how thoroughgoing heresy must be to invalidate a sect's claim to being a "church" and thus their administration of sacraments?



Something is amiss here. The basic premise of the catholic (universal church) position is that the ordinance depends upon the institution of Christ, not the church administering it. As soon as one brings in the status of the church this basic premise is denied and the separatist position of Donatism has become the working principle. If it depends on the church administering it, the requirements for establishing a valid baptism will be self-referential and undermine the catholicity of baptism.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

MW said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't this imply that the crux of the debate can't be construed as Donatist vs. non-Donatist conceptions, as if there is a qualitative distinction between the positions, but rather that it's a quantitative question of how thoroughgoing heresy must be to invalidate a sect's claim to being a "church" and thus their administration of sacraments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something is amiss here. The basic premise of the catholic (universal church) position is that the ordinance depends upon the institution of Christ, not the church administering it. As soon as one brings in the status of the church this basic premise is denied and the separatist position of Donatism has become the working principle. If it depends on the church administering it, the requirements for establishing a valid baptism will be self-referential and undermine the catholicity of baptism.
Click to expand...


Can a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Jehovah's Witness, an Atheist, or a Mormon perform a valid Christian baptism?


----------



## Romans922

Sean, I think so if any of such people in various religions do it just as Christ instituted it.


----------



## johnny

These are all great questions to ask,

Perhaps if we view the gospel from the antithesis, then it becomes easier to understand the work of spiritual regeneration that leads to baptism. In other words, how can an unregenerate man ever desire baptism anyway.
And what unregenerate baptiser would desire to baptise unless they were trying to pervert the gospel message.
(as in the case of JW's Mormons Buddhist's ect)

On another point, what are we make of the example of Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8. 
Is Peter not suggesting that the heart of the Baptiser is important?


----------



## MW

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Can a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Jehovah's Witness, an Atheist, or a Mormon perform a valid Christian baptism?



If there is no profession of Christianity it cannot be Christian. Profession of Christianity is essential to catholicity.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

MW said:


> SeanPatrickCornell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Jehovah's Witness, an Atheist, or a Mormon perform a valid Christian baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no profession of Christianity it cannot be Christian. Profession of Christianity is essential to catholicity.
Click to expand...


Are you talking about the one baptizing or the one being baptized?

If you're talking about the one being baptized, then certainly we all agree on this, and furthermore that's not the question at hand.

If you're talking about the one doing the baptizing, then what counts as a profession of Christianity? Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals all claim to make a profession of Christianity.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

But their baptisms fail the test of Trinitarianism, which makes them invalid.


----------



## Phil D.

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> But their baptisms fail the test of Trinitarianism, which makes them invalid.



Mormons use Trinitarian baptism. LDS.org Baptism "The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: 'Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.'"


----------



## Nicholas Perella

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> But their baptisms fail the test of Trinitarianism, which makes them invalid.



That may push the argument back into the court that Rome gives invalid baptisms (thus re-baptize). Catholicism preaches, speaks, and writes about a different Christ, a different Son of God, than the one that I hear in the gospel and law, thus, Scripture. Thus a different Triune God than what I have come to know and love.

I think Pastor Winzer is talking about something else, and I say this because Sean was responding within the context of what Pastor Winzer had stated.

The private conscience of the believer in a Roman Catholic false church, who was baptized and received communion there, but had left for another church, maybe PCA if I follow along the most widely expressed church being discussed in this thread. That believer interprets the baptism (and communion) differently than Catholicism. Interprets the Christ instituted office in which applies the sacraments and additionally the Christ instituted sacraments (baptism and communion only) as signs and seals of the promise of Christ Jesus (a Protestant hermeneutic). Drawing upon the differing quotes and historical references, such as Rutherford in this thread if I remember correctly, and baptism truly (signs and seals of the promise of Christ Jesus), such a man like Rutherford could look upon the baptism of a former Roman Catholic with acceptance and the hypothetical former Roman Catholic also could improve upon their infant baptism as the Westminster Confession states and interpret the baptism truly as opposed to Catholicism falsity. By the work of the Holy Spirit much assurance will happen from such improvements upon their baptism for God so promises.

Larger catechism Q&A 167. "How is our baptism to be improved by us?" is still meaningful to the former Roman Catholic who was baptized in a Roman Catholic false church.


----------



## Phil D.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Just as an interesting historical side note, the RCC has dealt with this issue from their perspective by performing "conditional baptisms." For example, in 1559 the Catholic Church in Scotland issued official instructions that children who had undergone “Protestant baptism” were to be re-christened/baptized with the following words: “‘If thou art baptized, I do not baptize thee; but if thou art not baptized, I baptize thee in the name of the Father,' etc.’” (David Patrick, _Statutes of the Scottish Church; 1225–1559_, [Edinburgh: The University Press, 1907], 186f.) To my knowledge similar conditional baptism rubrics are still in effect in the RCC today.[/FONT]


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Phil D. said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> But their baptisms fail the test of Trinitarianism, which makes them invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons use Trinitarian baptism. LDS.org Baptism "The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: 'Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.'"
Click to expand...

Their use of words like "Father" and "Son" imply something wholly different than who God the Father and God the Son really are, for the Mormon, these are humanoid entities and thus fail any orthodox view of the Trinity.


----------



## Phil D.

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Their use of words like "Father" and "Son" imply something wholly different than who God the Father and God the Son really are, for the Mormon, these are humanoid entities and thus fail any orthodox view of the Trinity.



So then we're essentially determining the validity of baptism based on one's (i.e the administrator's) doctrinal understanding (orthodox vs. heretic).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> But their baptisms fail the test of Trinitarianism, which makes them invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons use Trinitarian baptism. LDS.org Baptism "The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: 'Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their use of words like "Father" and "Son" imply something wholly different than who God the Father and God the Son really are, for the Mormon, these are humanoid entities and thus fail any orthodox view of the Trinity.
Click to expand...


Therein lines the rub.

The RCC has a totally different Jesus in mind when they use the Trinitarian Formula to Baptize.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> But their baptisms fail the test of Trinitarianism, which makes them invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons use Trinitarian baptism. LDS.org Baptism "The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: 'Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their use of words like "Father" and "Son" imply something wholly different than who God the Father and God the Son really are, for the Mormon, these are humanoid entities and thus fail any orthodox view of the Trinity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therein lines the rub.
> 
> The RCC has a totally different Jesus in mind when they use the Trinitarian Formula to Baptize.
Click to expand...


Did the RCC deny Chalcedon recently?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Ok then. Is the RCC still a church, in your opinion?

And, do they HAVE to _explicitly_ deny Chalcedon, when the Jesus they actively preach isn't the same Jesus that actually saves?


----------



## MW

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> If you're talking about the one doing the baptizing, then what counts as a profession of Christianity? Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals all claim to make a profession of Christianity.



I find it interesting that you say they "claim" to make a profession of Christianity. Why the qualification at this point? They either make a profession or they don't. Roman Catholicism professes Christianity. We do not say it "claims" to do it. It at least retains the outward form of a profession. These other groups by classification are seen as dubious because they deny the very form of Christianity.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Ok then. Is the RCC still a church, in your opinion?
> 
> And, do they HAVE to _explicitly_ deny Chalcedon, when the Jesus they actively preach isn't the same Jesus that actually saves?



I think they must come very nearly to just such a repudiation.

The question at issue is whether the RCC _institution_ was entrusted by Jesus with this ministration. The Mormons have been brought into the discussion (for some reason). When was the Mormon organization *ever* entrusted by Christ with this (or any other) ministration? They never were. But the church of Rome was.

I said earlier, this is a curiously intertwined issue of both theology _and_ history. WHEN was this ministration withdrawn from the RCC by the same Person who gave it? The fact that the officials in that denomination make ludicrous claims of their powers to make and do such and such, in conjunction with Christ's sacrament--any many other errors--does not give other _bodies_ the right-of-removal (pruning), which is the Vinedresser's exclusive work, the Lamplighter's work.

Both individuals and churches have the _duty_ to join with the the best exhibition of Christ's church he can, see the Belgic Confession Art.29. False-church is a problem in this world, of which Christians must be aware. Unfortunately, as WCF 25.5 reminds us, "the *purest* churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error." So, we must do what we can, both as individuals and as churches/denominations, to preserve purity of doctrine and practice.

But this separation, and the purification of our doctrine and practice, does not further take-away what remains of the gifts of Christ within those ruins lately departed. They confess the Creeds of their fathers, which are ours also, refusing to put them away though they cake them with grime and rust. When they abandon them, if they abandon them, then they have no discernible Christian existence any more. Only then could we say that the lampstand had been removed.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

So, the RCC is still a valid church, in your opinion, Rev. Buchanan?


----------



## TheOldCourse

MW said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't this imply that the crux of the debate can't be construed as Donatist vs. non-Donatist conceptions, as if there is a qualitative distinction between the positions, but rather that it's a quantitative question of how thoroughgoing heresy must be to invalidate a sect's claim to being a "church" and thus their administration of sacraments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something is amiss here. The basic premise of the catholic (universal church) position is that the ordinance depends upon the institution of Christ, not the church administering it. As soon as one brings in the status of the church this basic premise is denied and the separatist position of Donatism has become the working principle. If it depends on the church administering it, the requirements for establishing a valid baptism will be self-referential and undermine the catholicity of baptism.
Click to expand...


I guess this is what I was getting at. One way of affirming RCC baptism is to say that the sacrament is valid (if irregular) if the form is correct. That is to say: water, trinitarian formula, professing believer/covenant child, etc. The person of the administrator is irrelevant as far as the validity, though certainly not the regularity, of the sacrament. To my reading, this is a modern manner of affirming RCC baptism, though perhaps there are older exemplars of it that I haven't come across. The church administering it doesn't come into the equation. 

Rutherford and Hodge, for instance, both expressly consider the status of the administer as a lawful minister of the visible church essential to the _validity_ of the sacrament, not just the regularity. This is why the Scottish church "rebaptized" those who had received lay or women baptisms in the RCC church but not those who were baptized by priests. If this is the case, the ecclesial status of the minister must come into consideration somewhere, no?

Here's a representative selection from Rutherford:



> [John] Robinson [the Separatist] and our brethren acknowledge that the Church of Rome hath true baptism, even as the vessels of the Lord's house profaned in Babylon may be carried back to the temple. But if these vessels were broken and mingled with brass and iron, and cast in another mould they could not obtain their former place in the temple. Baptism is a vessel profaned in Babel, but not broken; but the ministry and priesthood of Rome is like the new melted and mingled vessel, and [is] essentially degenerated from the office of pastorship. But I answer, if baptism be valid in Rome [then] so are the ministers baptizers. For if the ministers and priests be essentially no ministers, then baptism administered by the Romish priests is no Ministry, and all [the same] as [that] administered by midwives and private persons, who therefore cannot administer the sacraments validly in the essential causes, because they are essentially no ministers. If therefore, Robinson will [insist] that [the] Romish priesthood [is] essentially no ministery, [then] by that same reason he must say [that] baptism administrated by Romish priests is no baptism. The contrary whereof he confesseth: otherwise he must say [that] baptism administered, a non babente potestatem, even by women and private men, is valid, and cannot be but esteemed lawful in the substance of the act. Those have a ministry, essentially entire, who have power under Christ to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments, Matthew 28.19. The Romish priests have this, and are called to this by the Church.



Hodge:



> Without anticipating that point however we maintain that as the Romish priests are appointed and recognized as presbyters in a community professing to believe the Scriptures the early creeds and the decisions of the first four general councils they are ordained ministers in the sense above stated and consequently baptism administered by them is valid It has accordingly been received as valid by all Protestant Churches from the Reformation to the present day



Neither, as far as I've read, come straight out and say it, but their logic would seem to imply that if Rome did further apostatize and renounce the Scriptures and creeds, their baptism would be invalid. None of this is to say that their reasoning is necessarily superior to the newer, but it does seem that many today that place themselves in the historical consensus of the Reformed church in affirming RCC baptism as valid actually do so for rather different reasons than the older theologians did. It actually seems more like Separatist logic who, like Robinson, utterly deny that the RCC is a church in any sense but affirm RCC baptism irrespective.


----------



## MW

TheOldCourse said:


> Rutherford and Hodge, for instance, both expressly consider the status of the administer as a lawful minister of the visible church essential to the _validity_ of the sacrament, not just the regularity.



I am not seeing the relevance of this nor how this is supposed to indicate a different approach. Rutherford and Hodge held the ministry to be given to the catholic church, as is stated in the Westminster Confession.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> So, the RCC is still a valid church, in your opinion, Rev. Buchanan?



Sean, what do you mean by "valid?"

What I think is that the RCC is less-pure, rather than more; is much degenerated; and contains idolatry (all three being my confessed doctrine).

And I agree with the Belgic that Rome is marked the more by signs of the false church than the true, for in my judgment she (in varying degrees) "ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word, but adds to and takes away from them, as she thinks proper; relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily and according to the Word of God and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness and idolatry."

I did not give Rome her charter. I cannot take it away. Rome makes certain claims respecting her patrimony, and is (partly) defined thereby. Rome is _some kind of church,_ because she does not repudiate her origins (even while she embellishes them). As tempting as it is to hurl the epithet at her, "synagogue of Satan," and no church of Christ, I cannot say to what degree she has fallen, a judgment made even more difficult by her protestations of love for Christ, according to the ancient Creeds.

The designation "syn. of Satan" was given to them of the OT church who deliberately repudiated Christ, and counted him their enemy; who professed not a trace of love for him. If a former church becomes Unitarian or Arian (for example), rejects the Creeds, renounces the cardinal doctrines of the church--this could (and probably has) taken place, and such probably deserves that apostate name.

The church in Sardis was still a church, though Christ calls her "dead," Rev.3:1. The church in Laodicea--most rich and famous--made Christ vomit, 3:17,16. Rome reminds me of these.


----------



## TheOldCourse

MW said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rutherford and Hodge, for instance, both expressly consider the status of the administer as a lawful minister of the visible church essential to the _validity_ of the sacrament, not just the regularity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not seeing the relevance of this nor how this is supposed to indicate a different approach. Rutherford and Hodge held the ministry to be given to the catholic church, as is stated in the Westminster Confession.
Click to expand...


To clarify, I'm not saying you personally are taking a different approach, though I'm still trying to figure out precisely what distinctions you're making here. What I'm referring to is that many contemporary ministers who argue for RCC baptism validity generally would also not rebaptize those who had been baptized by laymen or women, provided the correct form was used. Scott Clark has argued as much elsewhere. Rev. Barnes seems to be taking the same approach above. In my experience, this is the tack taken by most American Presbyterians who defend RCC baptism validity. 

On the other hand, Rutherford et. al. do not view lay baptism, to take that example again, as any baptism at all because, given that baptism is entrusted to the visible and catholic church, an ordained minister of the church must administer it for it to be valid. The question then remains on that position, when is that church to which the minister belongs no church at all? I think you were getting at that with your profession question, but there still remains something of a doctrinal test, if a very elementary one, as to what constitutes denying "the very form of Christianity". I think it's noteworthy that both Rutherford and especially Hodge go to some length in demonstrating that doctrinal truth that Rome maintains as part of the basis for validating their baptism. Both mention the catholic creeds, and Hodge goes on and discusses atonement, forgiveness of sins, necessity of divine interest, etc. in demonstrating that the Roman church is still in some sense a church and its baptism valid. Some Thornwellians would have us believe that in institutionally denying the solas of the Reformation the RCC retains, qualitatively, no more of the form of Christianity than Mormons.


----------



## MW

TheOldCourse said:


> What I'm referring to is that many contemporary ministers who argue for RCC baptism validity generally would also not rebaptize those who had been baptized by laymen or women, provided the correct form was used.



That requires a different set of criteria again. I wouldn't say it is a new approach. Even on the Rutherford/Hodge examples, if someone said he was baptised in a church which allowed lay baptism, one might not be sure that he had been baptised by a minister.

These discussions become very intricate and leading principles are quickly lost sight of. Baptism was appointed to be administered but once. At the same time, the institution only had in view one, holy, catholic, apostolic church. The rise of divisions have confused the subject. If we keep in view that baptism as an ordinance is given to the visible catholic church, and evaluate it on that basis, then we are in a better position to see through the confusion which divisions have created.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I'm still interested to know what folks who unchurch Rome because of Trent think the churches of England and Scotland should have done after 1547?


NaphtaliPress said:


> Trent ruled on Justification by Faith and the reform movement in 1547 in the sixth session if I have my facts right. The Scottish Reformation took place in 1560. Scotland didn't re-baptize the nation or at the very least did not re-baptize everyone baptized since 1547. England did not re-baptize all those baptized under bloody Mary. Should they have?
> 
> 
> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism is Christ's ordinance, which is profanely and irregularly administered by Rome, but it is still Christ's ordinance. Rome anathematized the gospel in the days of the Westminster divines, yet the divines still accepted its baptism as valid, though irregular.
Click to expand...




Reformed Covenanter said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trent ruled on Justification by Faith and the reform movement in 1547 in the sixth session if I have my facts right. The Scottish Reformation took place in 1560. Scotland didn't re-baptize the nation or at the very least did not re-baptize everyone baptized since 1547. England did not re-baptize all those baptized under bloody Mary. Should they have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This point raises the question of whether or not, on Thornwellian [1] assumptions, any of the Westminster divines were validly baptised? And the same thing applies to anyone who has ever been baptised by anyone who was originally baptised by Rome, which opens a huge can of worms that no man is ever going to be able to shut. I think too many people who hold the Thornwellian position are being swayed by sound-bites such as "Rome has anathematized the gospel" that they do not seem to be able to recognise where their logic is leading them.
> 
> [1] Is that term even a word?
Click to expand...




NaphtaliPress said:


> I'm not sure about that. By the days of the WA the church of England would have had a new generation of ministers who would have baptized that generation and of course been ordained under the Elizabethan settlement. The in between would be the question wouldn't it? I'm late to get ready for church..... But am interested what exactly those principles would have advised and what to think of subsequent times as you have raised.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> I hear what you're saying brother, and perhaps you may never deal with this particular question, but a couple of questions do come to mind for Baptists.
> 
> What if someone were baptized by immersion in a modalist/heretical church (Oneness Pentecostal) but later rejected the non-Trinitarian position altogether and accepted the orthodox historical position of the true church. Would there be a requirement to rebaptize them?
> 
> Also, what if the same type of individual was baptized by an ecumenical/Oneness minister, who, fearful of being critical to one side or the other, performed the immersion baptism by saying the following words: "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, all in the name of Jesus!" How would you proceed?
> 
> Just curious brother, and would love to hear your perspective.



If someone was baptized as a believer, then I would accept the baptism. If they were not a believer then they should be baptized after they have believed. It would be hard to accept the UPC baptism because they have a bent towards works righteousness and they deny the eternal son ship of Jesus. And I don't think the words the minister says are magical, so I'm not as concerned with what the minister said, as I am concerned over what the person believed at the point of the baptism. That is my plumbline. The minister could end up falling away, but it wouldn't matter, because it was the faith of person being baptized. Also, the scriptures never say the person baptizing must be an ordained minister.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> If there is no profession of Christianity it cannot be Christian. Profession of Christianity is essential to catholicity.



But, then they say faith they mean faith + works. How is that Christianity. You are not Christian because you say that you are.


----------



## MW

puritanpilgrim said:


> You are not Christian because you say that you are.



We are working within a Presbyterian view of the church where the "visible church" is constituted by "profession." All who profess faith in Christ and obedience unto Him are Christians by profession. Those who hold to regenerate church membership are not working within the same view of the church.


----------



## timmopussycat

MW said:


> puritanpilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> puritanpilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no profession of Christianity it cannot be Christian. Profession of Christianity is essential to catholicity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, then they say faith they mean faith + works. How is that Christianity. You are not Christian because you say that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are working within a Presbyterian view of the church where the "visible church" is constituted by "profession." All who profess faith in Christ and obedience unto Him are Christians by profession. Those who hold to regenerate church membership are not working within the same view of the church.
Click to expand...


I don't think the opposition in the post cited is between conceptions of regenerate vs. professing church membership. It seems the antithesis is faith + works one side vs. faith alone, no?


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> I don't think the opposition in the post cited is between conceptions of regenerate vs. professing church membership. It seems the antithesis is faith + works one side vs. faith alone, no?



"You are not Christian because you say that you are." It seems straightforward to me that such a statement is observing that profession of Christianity does not guarantee its reality.


----------



## SolamVeritatem

Josh,

Thanks for the reply! It's helpful to know how you view that. Believe it or not, this scenario/situation is becoming all the more important, because by God's grace there are many who are coming from Oneness Apostolic backgrounds into reformed theology. Some of them (like me) have been immersed multiple times for different reasons, which I won't get into because this is not what the OP is about. As I read this thread though, I'm grateful for brothers, both Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian, who are much more adept than me at getting through the sometimes muddy water (no pun intended) of the issues surrounding baptism and the acceptance of such. 

In Him,

Craig


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

MW said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't this imply that the crux of the debate can't be construed as Donatist vs. non-Donatist conceptions, as if there is a qualitative distinction between the positions, but rather that it's a quantitative question of how thoroughgoing heresy must be to invalidate a sect's claim to being a "church" and thus their administration of sacraments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something is amiss here. The basic premise of the catholic (universal church) position is that the ordinance depends upon the institution of Christ, not the church administering it. As soon as one brings in the status of the church this basic premise is denied and the separatist position of Donatism has become the working principle. If it depends on the church administering it, the requirements for establishing a valid baptism will be self-referential and undermine the catholicity of baptism.
Click to expand...


But by this argumentation, the Romish church is a valid church a christian could be recomended to join themselves unto. Re: Billy Graham style. Not a false church masquerading as true, that one should be told to avoid. Else how could you ever tell a Christian to avoid a body of the true visible church, especially if is the only one in their area?

There is no catholicity between the present RCC and the Protestant Church. They themselves will not transfer membership outside the RCC. They do not administer Baptism in the catholic Church, they administer what they call baptism within the RCC alone, and it is proprietary in its ownership of the RCC itself, not of the one to whom it is administered to. It is not a baptism into the catholic church it is a rite of the RCC into the RCC in explicit opposition to all other churches. That is more akin to the donitist position you have described.

It is not the same thing. Prepatory oil is sometimes used in the RCC, which violates the element of water alnoe being used. It is not administered by one even remotely assosiated with the office of a minister of the gospel. This has been called irregular, but opens the floodgates to anyone administering baptism. Hence the administration by laypersons and women. Emergency baptisms become valid and must be accepted but discouraged. How may one discourage that which is wrong yet accept it as true? Shrouding it in the label of irregular does not make it true. The inconsistency was recognized by the Scottish Church which was pointed out before. They drew the line at lay persons and women. Are they akin to donitists now?

For the situations that have been called "baptism laundering" this simply shows our imperfection in the Church Militant. The same could be said of a lay person in, say the PCA, that baptized their son in the their woodshed alone because they wanted to. Must the church accept this as irregular? Can they discipline the lay performing something that is valid? "We charge you with performing a valid irregular baptism! We must put this in records of baptism, and discipline"

As a note: I hope that none on this board believe that water batism actually does confer entrance into the viisible church. We should not confuse the symbol with the thing it symbolizes. Surely there are regenerate in the RCC, just as there are regenerate unbaptized in this world.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

MW said:


> The basic premise of the catholic (universal church) position is that the ordinance depends upon the institution of Christ, not the church administering it.



So the mass is valid but irregular too? Of course it is not. It is a different thing.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Reformed Covenanter said:


> This point raises the question of whether or not, on Thornwellian [1] assumptions, any of the Westminster divines were validly baptised? And the same thing applies to anyone who has ever been baptised by anyone who was originally baptised by Rome, which opens a huge can of worms that no man is ever going to be able to shut.


Are you arguing for baptismal apostolic succession?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> So the mass is valid but irregular too? Of course it is not. It is a different thing.



I would like to quote one of my elders at this point:

If you can't say Amen you ought to say ouch.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

Pilgrim Standard said:


> But by this argumentation, the Romish church is a valid church a christian could be recomended to join themselves unto.



This does not follow. As a particular church Rome has corrupted all the marks of a true church; consequently she must be accounted a corrupt church from which the faithful should withdraw. Hence Protestantism. It should be observed, the term "protest" implies there is still a valid authority operating at some level. If there were nothing valid about the Church of Rome the proper course would be to separate from her in the manner of the Anabaptists.



Pilgrim Standard said:


> Surely there are regenerate in the RCC



How sure can you be when you do not accept the sign by which such a fact is made visible to the church?


----------



## MW

Pilgrim Standard said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic premise of the catholic (universal church) position is that the ordinance depends upon the institution of Christ, not the church administering it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the mass is valid but irregular too? Of course it is not. It is a different thing.
Click to expand...


If we agree that Christ did not institute the mass it should be obvious that the mass is irrelevant to the discussion. If you understand it is a different thing, why bring it up?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim Standard said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic premise of the catholic (universal church) position is that the ordinance depends upon the institution of Christ, not the church administering it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the mass is valid but irregular too? Of course it is not. It is a different thing.
Click to expand...


"Valid" for our purposes means: having legitimate (legal) force, recognizable, admissible. The great question is: "what shall we acknowledge, and on what basis?"

Has any lifelong Romanist _ever_ tasted communion? Perhaps so, in spite of things. Here's another question: if Rome's celebration of their mass has *no* connection whatsoever to the real communion meal, then when was the last time any Romanist ever ate and drank condemnation to himself? You can hardly profane something that is not _in some sense _present to the observer.

The Lord's Supper is a different thing from baptism. And before anyone says, "They are _both_ sacraments, QED," I have a kitchen full of appliances too, and a stove is a different thing from a dishwasher. The functions of the devices are quite different, though they serve greater ends in common. Likewise, baptism and the Lord's Supper are different, and their respective work may be judged on different criteria. We have no reason to recognize or "validate" Rome's version of the Lord's Supper.



> WLC Q. 177. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper *differ*?
> A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord’s supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.



Baptism is a purely passive ordinance, done to someone; no less a picture of monergistic regeneration and spiritual union. The greatest issue of all in baptism is not the party being baptized or the party performing the outward sacrament; but Who it is who saves, Whose ordinance it is.

The Lord's Supper is by design an exhibition of sanctification. It is a rite of renewal and nourishment and growth in grace. The active participants are expected _in all cases_ to bring discernment to the Table, which means being able also to determine whether this is a Table more closely aligned with Christ, or with demons, 1Cor.10:21.

Even in the case of adults, baptism is not given to strong, mature Christians, capable of accurate determination of the "quality" of administration. But it is not reasonable to force every person at points down the line, to post-judge the quality of that which was administered to him at the beginning of his Christian identification. Nor is it proper to have a later church-body also judge it. It is sufficient to have minimal confidence in the basic elements of the ordinance, for it is God who appointed such weak things to exhibit his own glory in the first place.

The communicant, trained to spot and avoid "gross idolatries" (WCF 29.6), should shun the papist mass as the offense that it is. "Confecting" their wafer, repeating the unrepeatable, once-for-all sacrifice (Rom.6:10; Heb.7:27; 9:12); priestly posing as another mediator (1Tim.2:5; Heb.9:15; 12:24)--this is all patent idolatry. No wonder that many thought (and still think) the description of 2Ths.2:4 aptly fits the pope, and by extension his minions.

The taint is too great upon Rome for anyone safely to remain under her spell. She lacks pure ordinances; this is true. But what is _defective_ about those ordinances is that which contributes to the need to escape; while what is truly contained in them remains true, for Rome cannot abolish truth, only bury it or cast it away.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

MW said:


> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> 
> But by this argumentation, the Romish church is a valid church a christian could be recomended to join themselves unto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This does not follow. As a particular church Rome has corrupted all the marks of a true church;
Click to expand...

Then how do you claim her to be a true church? How can you be sure she is a true church?



MW said:


> It should be observed, the term "protest" implies there is still a valid authority operating at some level. If there were nothing valid about the Church of Rome the proper course would be to separate from her in the manner of the Anabaptists.


We will just have to agree to disagree on our definition of what protestant means. We won't go anywhere down this road. One who is a witness against something does not give or imply authority to that thing.



MW said:


> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely there are regenerate in the RCC
> 
> 
> 
> How sure can you be when you do not accept the sign by which such a fact is made visible to the church?
Click to expand...

We don't assume only those who are baptized are saved. There should not be confusing the thing that symbolizes with the thing that it symbolizes. Baptism is not necessary to salvation. This is not to say that it is good for Baptism to be neglected. 




MW said:


> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic premise of the catholic (universal church) position is that the ordinance depends upon the institution of Christ, not the church administering it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the mass is valid but irregular too? Of course it is not. It is a different thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we agree that Christ did not institute the mass it should be obvious that the mass is irrelevant to the discussion. If you understand it is a different thing, why bring it up?
Click to expand...

I meant it is a different thing than Protestant observance of the Lord's Table.

Divorcing the sacraments from the church by stating that the institution of Christ makes it valid is not a fair argument. There are the implications of form, substance, subject, administration etc. that are in the institution of the ordinances by Christ.

Today, Rome is doing something different in baptism. She is baptizing into something different. She has no ministers of Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Then how do you claim her to be a true church? How can you be sure she is a true church?



I don't claim she is a true church so far as being a particular church is concerned. The ministry and sacraments as ordinances of Christ are given to the catholic church. For the argument to hold in relation to the catholic church, it only needs to be granted that the form of a church as to visible profession is in some sense to be found among this corrupted church.



Pilgrim Standard said:


> We will just have to agree to disagree on our definition of what protestant means. We won't go anywhere down this road. One who is a witness against something does not give or imply authority to that thing.



By your definition there is no difference between "witnessing against" and "protesting," but the latter usually implies an objection to the exercise of a power of some kind. Historically, it is the latter sense in which the word "Protestant" has been used.



Pilgrim Standard said:


> We don't assume only those who are baptized are saved.



No; but we also recognise that outside the visible church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation; and baptism is the ordinary means by which salvation is visibly signified to us. You would have us be assured of regenerate persons within the Roman Church where there is no visible sign of it.



Pilgrim Standard said:


> I meant it is a different thing than Protestant observance of the Lord's Table.



If the mass is a different thing to that which Christ instituted, it has no word of institution for its validity. It is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. Washing with water in the Triune name has the word of institution for its validity.



Pilgrim Standard said:


> Today, Rome is doing something different in baptism. She is baptizing into something different. She has no ministers of Christ.



Saying so doesn't make it so. The power to effect what is symbolised in the sacrament belongs to Christ alone.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

This thread is alarming to me on many levels.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This point raises the question of whether or not, on Thornwellian [1] assumptions, any of the Westminster divines were validly baptised? And the same thing applies to anyone who has ever been baptised by anyone who was originally baptised by Rome, which opens a huge can of worms that no man is ever going to be able to shut.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you arguing for baptismal apostolic succession?
Click to expand...


I am asking a question with reference to the logical consequences of the Thornwellian position.


----------



## ProtestantBankie

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> This thread is alarming to me on many levels.



If you could explain each of these levels rather than leaving us with this statement brother. I don't know how to respond otherwise.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

ProtestantBankie said:


> SeanPatrickCornell said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is alarming to me on many levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you could explain each of these levels rather than leaving us with this statement brother. I don't know how to respond otherwise.
Click to expand...


As Baptists, we of course have no problem denying the validity of RC baptism. I think what confuses us about the Presbyterian position is how you could view the head of that church to be the very antichrist, and yet somehow accept as valid the baptisms administered under his authority.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Bill The Baptist said:


> ProtestantBankie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeanPatrickCornell said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is alarming to me on many levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you could explain each of these levels rather than leaving us with this statement brother. I don't know how to respond otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As Baptists, we of course have no problem denying the validity of RC baptism. I think what confuses us about the Presbyterian position is how you could view the head of that church to be the very antichrist, and yet somehow accept as valid the baptisms administered under his authority.
Click to expand...


Thank you. You summed up my vexation most succinctly.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Should the govt. of Russia today accept a birth certificate issued under Soviet Union authority? What about the govt. of this country; should we accept such documentation?

Of course they should, and we should. But, no doubt, there will be some that argue otherwise, perhaps even on the basis of the fact that the Soviets participated in not one, but two revolutions that radically altered the character of the govt. of that region. Many people less than 100yrs ago considered the govt. there totally illegitimate. The US govt. even joined Allied forces in invading Russia to fight the Reds, Polar Bear Expedition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point is, that neither the Reds, the Whites, the Tsars, or anybody else is "in charge" of births in that part of the world. But as long as people living there wanted some sort of public record of birth, one could say with reason that this person was "enrolled" among the citizenry. In fact, to deny such would be tantamount to declaring that person nonexistent--curiously, a sad reality for many people under that and other totalitarian regimes, regardless of what their official paperwork declared. But that's the kind of thing that can happen when the govt. sees itself as something other than an administrative record-keeper; and instead as an autonomous Power that gives and takes on its own authority.

And that, of course, is not too far removed from what various church-govt.s do when they declare null and void the "identification papers," the baptismal-certificate of some other church-govt. body. "You are a non-person, because we don't admit the legitimacy of that govt. issuing you that paper."

Not every case of "paperwork" is legitimate. Not every self-styled govt. has the right to be recognized. But, like it or not, the Soviets were the successor govt. to old Russian govt. And today's Russia is the successor to the failed Soviet state, though ideologically (doctrinally) there are many differences through three successive instances of govt. in that territory.

The legitimacy of a baptism (like a birth certificate) is not a direct result of the power structure in place.


----------



## Nicholas Perella

I am wading through this and thank the necessary correction in terms of "communion" that I received for it is completely different than the Lord's Supper of Protestantism. Thank you for that men.

This is how I am understanding this and currently find contentment with. The actual words used during baptism in Catholicism are God's written Word. In communion His written Word and counsel have been completed taken away by Catholicism.

That said, thereby, the authority of God's written Word is God Himself not antichrist Rome. This goes for the early church council's based on God's written Word, so, the foundation of truth in Christ may still be found in Rome this way also. Again to reiterate, thus His written Word being Self-authoritative even in these instances is not corrupted or darkened by Catholicism. They are simply not shown and demonstrated by Rome as much as a consistent gospel preached in other, more purer churches. 

This is why I have previously referred to the private conscience of the former or current Roman Catholic. Aside from the need of the current RC to get out of the great hostility of Catholicism toward God, the basis of peace with God by a former of RC in which the improvement of their baptism still persists by God, is because God's written Word and thus His real presence as that means of grace was present during their baptism. This may assure them by covenant that they truly have been set apart by God into His church. Their leaving the RC is another indicator in my opinion for their godly graving in the doing of God's will and their need to feed on God's written Word (for man does not live by bread alone).

What I personally was having trouble with, was reconciling this with say 'Mormonism'. If God's written Word is present, then how does that differ from the RC? I was thinking the answer is historical. There is a historical foundation in which Roman Catholicism is not simply a church that was originally founded falsely as Mormonism has been. Mormonism never was a Christian church, even to begin with. Rome was at one time and their current confessing of beliefs still adheres to early church council positions that are based and therefore specially revealed in God's written Word. So they were founded Christian but throughout history have fallen away with true elements still adhered to, yet, dark and corrupt teachings increasingly are humanly referred to within Catholicism. Mormonism from the outset never had this foundation of Truth in Christ and so they are not trying to simply cover or corrupt what they once had and still hold to, though even these efforts of Catholicism fail to corrupt as long as such heavenly things are remain adhered to by RC (Matt. 5:19-20). Mormonism never had and do not hold to any true sense of Christ. Their (Mormonism) teachings are false teachings through and through. RC has false teachings along side true teachings.

I do not desire to mislead anybody, so, I stand corrected for this is how I currently understand this. I currently find this understanding of mine satisfying and have a sense of contentment with this comment of mine beside what little measure of understanding from God's written Word that I systematically possess.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

MW said:


> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then how do you claim her to be a true church? How can you be sure she is a true church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't claim she is a true church so far as being a particular church is concerned. The ministry and sacraments as ordinances of Christ are given to the catholic church. For the argument to hold in relation to the catholic church, it only needs to be granted that the form of a church as to visible profession is in some sense to be found among this corrupted church.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the dichotomy that you are drawing between a particular church and form of a church. On one hand she is not a true church and on the other she is a true church because she has the "form of a church as to visible profession." It seems that we see her "visible profession" as different things. 



MW said:


> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> 
> We will just have to agree to disagree on our definition of what protestant means. We won't go anywhere down this road. One who is a witness against something does not give or imply authority to that thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your definition there is no difference between "witnessing against" and "protesting," but the latter usually implies an objection to the exercise of a power of some kind. Historically, it is the latter sense in which the word "Protestant" has been used.
Click to expand...

 Protesting an objection to the exercise of some power of an organization does not imply that there is a valid power extant along with the protested power in the protested org.



MW said:


> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't assume only those who are baptized are saved.
> 
> 
> 
> No; but we also recognise that outside the visible church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation; and baptism is the ordinary means by which salvation is visibly signified to us. You would have us be assured of regenerate persons within the Roman Church where there is no visible sign of it.
Click to expand...

Are you stating that there is no assurance of salvation of any persons outside of baptism? Not even profession of faith in Christ? Are we not to believe an adult professing faith in Christ alone, who is not yet baptized is saved prior to baptism? 


MW said:


> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, Rome is doing something different in baptism. She is baptizing into something different. She has no ministers of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Saying so doesn't make it so. The power to effect what is symbolised in the sacrament belongs to Christ alone.
Click to expand...

I agree that the power to effect what is symbolised belongs to Christ alone. The claim that Rome is doing something different in the place of baptism because it is symbolizing something different is not my statement, it is the statement of Rome. 
Rome States: 


> "it actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."
> "In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation."
> "By Baptism all sins are forgiven"
> "Baptism incorporates us into the Church."
> Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of Baptism


You know how the Roman Church defines "the Church." A right that incorporates people into the RCC *alone* is not the same as the sacrament that symbolizes our Union with Christ and entrance into the visible Church. Baptism is an ordinance of consecration to God, not an incorporation into Rome Alone.
I feel like I am arguing against equivocation here. 
You seem to define:
the RCC as a "true form," "untrue particular," *church*, residing within the visible church. 
That Baptism has the word of institution for its validity, if it is in the Triune name including a washing with water. However you also argue that there must be a true form church that this sacrament be associated with. There is the implication that Rome necessarily has ministers of the gospel that can dispense this sacrament, or there is some warrant in the Scripture I am unaware of in which those other than ministers of the gospel can administer baptism.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Contra_Mundum said:


> Baptism is a purely passive ordinance, done to someone; no less a picture of monergistic regeneration and spiritual union. The greatest issue of all in baptism is not the party being baptized or the party performing the outward sacrament; but Who it is who saves, Whose ordinance it is.


I most certainly agree Pastor Buchanan. This is a refreshing reminder in the midst of the debate at hand and is very welcomed. However, one must admit either that Rome possesses ministers of the gospel, or admit an inconsistency with the confessional standards which speaking of the two sacraments that “both are seals of the same covenant, are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and by none other…” (WLC Q173)


Contra_Mundum said:


> It is sufficient to have minimal confidence in the basic elements of the ordinance, for it is God who appointed such weak things to exhibit his own glory in the first place.


But it is more than confidence in the basic elements of the ordinance, because lds baptism is not accepted. There is a line drawn between Romish Baptism and lds baptism by proponents of your view. In the Scriptures, the form of baptism always contains an administration by the Ministers of God in the Church.


Contra_Mundum said:


> for Rome cannot abolish truth, only bury it or cast it away.


While I agree that Rome can in no way abolish truth, but it can cast it away, it has not only cast away the Gospel, but it has declared war against the Gospel, the minsters thereof, and the believers and promoters thereof. This is no church of Christ that is simply in error, and I find it highly dangerous to equate it to dead Sardis and lukewarm Laodicea. Which one of these attempted to rid the earth of the Gospel? Lacking Gospel & bad doctrine do not equate to religious genocide.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This point raises the question of whether or not, on Thornwellian [1] assumptions, any of the Westminster divines were validly baptised? And the same thing applies to anyone who has ever been baptised by anyone who was originally baptised by Rome, which opens a huge can of worms that no man is ever going to be able to shut.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you arguing for baptismal apostolic succession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am asking a question with reference to the logical consequences of the Thornwellian position.
Click to expand...

My appoligies, brother. I thought the implication of what you stated was advocating the necessity of anyone performing baptism have a perfect line of baptism going back to the apostles as if they should have some form of certificate of origin or proven genealogical baptismal descent.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Contra_Mundum said:


> Should the govt. of Russia today accept a birth certificate issued under Soviet Union authority? What about the govt. of this country; should we accept such documentation?
> 
> Of course they should, and we should. But, no doubt, there will be some that argue otherwise, perhaps even on the basis of the fact that the Soviets participated in not one, but two revolutions that radically altered the character of the govt. of that region. Many people less than 100yrs ago considered the govt. there totally illegitimate. The US govt. even joined Allied forces in invading Russia to fight the Reds, Polar Bear Expedition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The point is, that neither the Reds, the Whites, the Tsars, or anybody else is "in charge" of births in that part of the world. But as long as people living there wanted some sort of public record of birth, one could say with reason that this person was "enrolled" among the citizenry. In fact, to deny such would be tantamount to declaring that person nonexistent--curiously, a sad reality for many people under that and other totalitarian regimes, regardless of what their official paperwork declared. But that's the kind of thing that can happen when the govt. sees itself as something other than an administrative record-keeper; and instead as an autonomous Power that gives and takes on its own authority.
> 
> And that, of course, is not too far removed from what various church-govt.s do when they declare null and void the "identification papers," the baptismal-certificate of some other church-govt. body. "You are a non-person, because we don't admit the legitimacy of that govt. issuing you that paper."
> 
> Not every case of "paperwork" is legitimate. Not every self-styled govt. has the right to be recognized. But, like it or not, the Soviets were the successor govt. to old Russian govt. And today's Russia is the successor to the failed Soviet state, though ideologically (doctrinally) there are many differences through three successive instances of govt. in that territory.
> 
> The legitimacy of a baptism (like a birth certificate) is not a direct result of the power structure in place.


Pastor, the illustration sounds very nice. But I don't see this as what is occuring. In this illustration, there must be an authority that has granted specific persons in a specific body authority to issue birth certificates. However, an organization that has declared war against the first authority, uses men outside of the nation to write bills of slavery which are not transferrable nor are they birth certificates, although they call them such. 

In no way is the non transferrable bill of slavery a birth certificate, even though it is called such, and is written in ink on paper. Nor does the bill of slavery or the absence of an actual birth certificate disprove ones birth or existance.

Note that I do appreciate you and Pastor Winzer as well, explaining your positions, and your seemingly exhaustive patience with me on this topic, even though we are at a dissagreement at the moment.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

To clarify, because the church militant is imperfect and sees through a glass darkly, we have accepted that which is not baptism as baptism, just as we have given the sign to the reprobate. This does not necessitate that those in various churches who have a romish baptism are somehow not in the church. The presence or lack of the visible symbol does not necessitate the presence or lack thereof of the thing symbolized. If a person has been interviewed and accepted into the church and professed Christ but only posses a romish baptism, I would regard them as a member and brother/sister in Christ. But this still does not make their romish baptism what baptism is, as one can possess that which baptism sybmolizes and not the proprer sign thereof. Nor would I treat them as some form of second class citizen.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Pastor, [your] illustration sounds very nice. But I don't see this as what is occuring. In this illustration, there must be an authority that has granted specific persons in a specific body authority to issue birth certificates. However, an organization that has declared war against the first authority, uses men outside of the nation to write bills of slavery which are not transferrable nor are they birth certificates, although they call them such.
> 
> In no way is the non transferrable bill of slavery a birth certificate, even though it is called such, and is written in ink on paper. Nor does the bill of slavery or the absence of an actual birth certificate disprove ones birth or existance.



This is an incoherent response to my post. I have to wonder whether my point was even grasped; plus there is an extraneous and irrelevant (at the very least inexplicable) insertion of "bills of slavery" into the equation.

Somehow, legitimate birth certificates (instruments of continuity in my illustration) seem to be analogized to illegitimate bills of slavery, minus the analogy.

And part of my point has to do with the fact that God (supreme authority) ordains every life born into the world; and the state merely recognizes this fact and notarizes it when authorized to do so--which function often continues unabated through radical transformations of governmental forms. The state does not confer validity to the birth. But that "legal paper" is no inconsequential flutter.



Pilgrim Standard said:


> To clarify, because the church militant is imperfect and sees through a glass darkly, we have accepted that which is not baptism as baptism,


Ah, no. We don't accept as baptism what can in no way be regarded as baptism.



Pilgrim Standard said:


> just as we have given the sign to the reprobate.


No, this is a Baptist position, not a Presbyterian one. We do not say the reprobate have not been baptized.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Contra_Mundum said:


> I have to wonder whether my point was even grasped;


I must not have grasped your point. 


Contra_Mundum said:


> plus there is an extraneous and irrelevant (at the very least inexplicable) insertion of "bills of slavery" into the equation.


 you could replace that with anything that is not "birth certificate" in the illustration. Since you view RCC baptism to be the biblical practice, I can see how you would object to anything different being put in the place of "birth certificate."



Contra_Mundum said:


> Somehow, legitimate birth certificates (instruments of continuity in my illustration) seem to be analogized to illegitimate bills of slavery, minus the analogy.


My point is that that there is something illegitimate going by the same name.




Contra_Mundum said:


> The state does not confer validity to the birth.


I agree. Christ confers validity to the birth. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> 
> just as we have given the sign to the reprobate.
> 
> 
> 
> No, this is a Baptist position, not a Presbyterian one. We do not say the reprobate have not been baptized.
Click to expand...

 my statement was "we have given the sign to the reprobate."

A general broke away from the King. He made war with the King & the King's subjects and recruited his own subjects. The General that broke away confers citizenship in his illegitimate nation, as he claims the place of the King. This does not confer citizenship in the Kings nation on the Generals subjects just because the General says he is the true King of the true nation. In reality the Generals nation is an illegitimate nation. But when one breaks away from the Generals nation, to join the Kings nation, he swears allegiance to the King.

If I am in gross error, I ask forgiveness for it. I am not seeking to upset others, especially ministers of the Gospel. But this is where my understanding is.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Interesting thread. Just read through it.

Hodge's "Validity of Romish Baptism" remains, in my view, a good response to the action of the 1845 PCUSA GA. Scott, of course, is right, and I'm glad that he earlier pointed it out, that this was an action of a church before the 1861 split, so it was not, strictly speaking, a South v. North matter. 

One thing, however, unless I missed it (in this rather long thread!), that has not been pointed out is Hodge's reaction to the precipitousness of the GA's action. Hodge is shocked by it (he was not at the GA; he scarcely ever went due to his health--though he went in 1846 and was elected as moderator) and wonders what "new light" compelled the commissioners "to pronounce Calvin, Luther, and all the men of that generation, as well as thousands who with no other than Romish baptism have since been received into the Protestant Churches, to have live and died unbaptized?"

Yes, Hodge did believe, as has been alluded to herein, that, corrupt as the Roman Catholic Church was, it retained a remnant of the true church. Such a conviction was the universal sentiment of the Protestant churches up to that point. This is what Hodge finds so puzzling: "The suddenness with which this decision has been made will add not a little to the surprise and regret with which it will be received. The judgment has come before the argument . We do not doubt that the brethren who urged the course adopted by the Assembly, have examined the subject, but we are very sure the Church has not . We question whether one in twenty of our ministers have ever given it more than a passing consideration. Yet as the Assembly professes to speak in the name of the whole Church, it would seem proper that no decision so important and so deeply affecting the character of the whole body in the eyes of Christendom, should be pronounced, until means had been taken to ascertain the views of the Church generally. The Assembly has indeed the right to resolve all questions of casuistry, regularly presented, and to give advice to the lower courts when requested. We do not question the right. *We only venture to question the wisdom of giving an answer suddenly, in opposition to all previous practice, and to the principles of every other protestant Church* [emphasis added]. The fact that the answer is new, creates a reason for being slow to pronounce it."

I think Hodge's analysis here, and that subsequently of many others, prompted re-examination of this decision, with many coming to reject the reasoning of the 1845 GA. It is the case, however, that this reasoning of the 1845 GA remained persuasive for many in the Southern Presbyterian Church, though even here, as also has been noted herein, many sessions in the PCA have come to regard RCC baptism as valid.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state does not confer validity to the birth.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Christ confers validity to the birth.
Click to expand...

I think my point would be that there is quite a close analogy between profession/church membership and "new birth," which makes my choice of the "birth/birth-certificate" illustration more than a handy grab.

That's why I demure from the counter-examples you offer (slave-bills, civil war divisions). How do these alternate proposals function in relation to the actual history of Rome? How do they work better than mine, or cancel the illustration I offered? For that matter, my original example was oriented to a "revolutionary" condition, in which a whole State was converted (not religiously), and again, and again! The new conditions notwithstanding, the old papers should have had, and still have, validity.

I'm not looking to prolong this interchange, Benjamin. I'd really rather not publicly disagree with you. But I'm not grieved over it; I don't resent your contrary opinion.

Peace.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Contra_Mundum said:


> That's why I demure from the counter-examples you offer (slave-bills, civil war divisions).


I suppose this is simply where our beliefs differ. I believe the RCC has rejected and declared war on the Gospel, hence reference to them splitting away while trying to retain not only legitimacy but Sola Ecclesia legitimacy. 

I think you believe the RCC is still within the visible church and possesses Ministers of the Gospel. If that indeed is the case, then my illustrations make no sense whatsoever. 


Contra_Mundum said:


> I'm not looking to prolong this interchange, Benjamin. I'd really rather not publicly disagree with you. But I'm not grieved over it; I don't resent your contrary opinion.


Thank you for that Pastor. While there is a sadness that the entire Church is not in agreemet in all things, it is good to know that we do not resent each other’s contrary opinions. I am glad that Ministers such are you have defended the position you believe to be true with kindness and patience. 

Peace.


----------



## MW

Pilgrim Standard said:


> I don't understand the dichotomy that you are drawing between a particular church and form of a church.



Once it is accepted that there are members of the visible catholic church who may not have membership in any particular church, it should be obvious that things which belong to catholicity are not dependent on the status of particular churches. As WCF 25 teaches, the ordinances belong in this category. They are given for the church as catholic. They are not given for particular churches. A particular church might corrupt them so far as to be regarded as no church of Christ. Yet it does not alter the fact that these ordinances are administered for the benefit of the catholic church.



Pilgrim Standard said:


> Are you stating that there is no assurance of salvation of any persons outside of baptism?



A person may be assured of salvation without baptism, but his visible profession is signified by baptism. The church has no way of discerning a person's state before God. She is bound to examine the profession which the person makes, and to require baptism as a sign of obedience to Christ.



Pilgrim Standard said:


> I agree that the power to effect what is symbolised belongs to Christ alone. The claim that Rome is doing something different in the place of baptism because it is symbolizing something different is not my statement, it is the statement of Rome.



Rome saying so doesn't make it so. Your appeal to Rome gives her too much say in the matter. The efficacy of baptism does not depend on the intention of the one administering it.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

For those who hold that Romish baptism is real baptism, would you also hold to the idea that the Popish Mass is also a real administration of the Lord's Supper?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> For those who hold that Romish baptism is real baptism, would you also hold to the idea that the Popish Mass is also a real administration of the Lord's Supper?



Apples and Oranges. Two different sacraments with different sanctions.


----------



## Romans922

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Apples and Oranges. Two different sacraments with different sanctions.



I'm not seeing much proof that the two are apples and oranges (I mean you can't just say it and it be true). They are sacraments instituted by Christ. If Rome is a true church (part of visible church) then the sacraments instituted by Christ administered therein are both valid. That is the logical conclusion based on the argumentation made in this thread by those who hold to the validity of papist baptism.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> For those who hold that Romish baptism is real baptism, would you also hold to the idea that the Popish Mass is also a real administration of the Lord's Supper?


See post #157 above


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Thank you. I missed Post #157 the first time through this thread.

This is a lot to commend Rev. Buchanan's comments in that post. I'll think on it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The page linked below contains a nice synopsis of the 19th century debate, and sets it within a wider historical context.
http://www.peterwallace.org/old/dissertation/3catholicity.htm


----------



## TheOldCourse

Romans922 said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges. Two different sacraments with different sanctions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not seeing much proof that the two are apples and oranges (I mean you can't just say it and it be true). They are sacraments instituted by Christ. If Rome is a true church (part of visible church) then the sacraments instituted by Christ administered therein are both valid. That is the logical conclusion based on the argumentation made in this thread by those who hold to the validity of papist baptism.
Click to expand...


They would both be valid perhaps (although RCC withholding the cup may suggest the sacrament is not there in essence, baptism in Rome was affirmed as it was true in essence but corrupt in accidents), but not necessarily to be sought. Turretin and others argued that those who sought to have their infants baptized by the Papists sinned, though the baptism was valid, because of the participation in the concomitant corruptions. The same would apply to and probably even be magnified in the case of the Mass. The difference of course is that the Supper is meant to be repeated, so there is no error in administering it again as there would be with baptism.


----------



## greenbaggins

TheOldCourse said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges. Two different sacraments with different sanctions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not seeing much proof that the two are apples and oranges (I mean you can't just say it and it be true). They are sacraments instituted by Christ. If Rome is a true church (part of visible church) then the sacraments instituted by Christ administered therein are both valid. That is the logical conclusion based on the argumentation made in this thread by those who hold to the validity of papist baptism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They would both be valid perhaps (although RCC withholding the cup may suggest the sacrament is not there in essence, baptism in Rome was affirmed as it was true in essence but corrupt in accidents), but not necessarily to be sought. Turretin and others argued that those who sought to have their infants baptized by the Papists sinned, though the baptism was valid, because of the participation in the concomitant corruptions. The same would apply to and probably even be magnified in the case of the Mass. The difference of course is that the Supper is meant to be repeated, so there is no error in administering it again as there would be with baptism.
Click to expand...


I am not returning to the thread permanently. I just popped in to say something about the Mass. It is non-confessional to say that the Mass is a valid sacrament in any way, shape or form. WCF 29.2 "...the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of his elect."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

MW said:


> A particular church might corrupt them so far as to be regarded as no church of Christ. Yet it does not alter the fact that these ordinances are administered for the benefit of the catholic church.


Now how can a Church corrupt ordinances so much as to be regarded as no Church of Christ and these ordinances so currpted as to not be regarded as eminating from the Church of Christ be still be counted as ordinances of the Church of Christ? I think this arugument gives Rome too much say in the matter. 

Because Christ instutited baptism, and does give efficacy to baptism, this does not make anything called baptism what Christ instituted. We agree he has given it to the universal church, but this does not give a church that is no church of Christ a place within the Church. 

What is a church that is no church of Christ? 

Sacrifice was issued at the Temple in Bethel of Israel, but though God commanded sacrifice, it was to be at the Temple in Jerusalem, by the priests of God. Now this sacrifice was for the benifit of the catholic church, but not at Bethel, not administered by anyone, not by a false priesthood raised up, regardless of their intent or lineage or supposed claim.

Did not Amos condemn this? Amos 4:4 "Go to Bethel and sin; go to Gilgal and sin yet more. Bring your sacrifices every morning, your tithes every three years." Amos 5:22 "Though you offer me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fatted beasts."

The claim was that they were worshipping in the Name of God, but it was an impostor kingdom, and impostor priesthood, and impostor place. Given, God did institue sacrifice for the benifit of the Church of Christ, but it was to be administered by the Church of Christ, as they were instituted.

Do you claim that Rome has Ministers of the Gospel, or is the claim that Baptism is administered by those who are not Ministers of the Gospel, and can be done in such a way as to be so corrupted as to not be from the Church of Christ, though that is who it is to be adminsterd by?

I hope you can understand my confusion with your position.


----------



## MW

Pilgrim Standard said:


> What is a church that is no church of Christ?



Dear brother, I respect your desire for clarification, but my previous responses have already unpacked this type of question and the way it should be answered from a confessional perspective.

If you claim the baptism of the Church of Rome is invalid on the basis that she is a false church, I ask you, On what basis do you say she is a false church? Unless God has told you by extraordinary revelation that Rome is a false Church, you are obliged to first examine its ministry and ordinances in terms of divine institution.

I can say she is a false church because I have evaluated the ministry and ordinances, and I have discovered the extent to which the Church of Rome has corrupted them. If we proceed according to this order of examination -- the biblical order -- we are bound to acknowledge that the form of baptism as Christ has instituted it is still basically observed notwithstanding the many corruptions which have been added to it. The fact Rome proves itself a false church in other ways does not invalidate what is still observed according to divine institution. As one of the prophets has taught us to ask, What is the chaff to the wheat? Or, as one of the apostles has taught us to answer, Let God be true and every man a liar.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

This is an interesting historical note concerning the old school GA where this was debated. It seems that at the same GA in 1845 (which was overwhelming in ruling against the validity of RC baptism, something like 169-9), came the decision on slavery. The GA voted to support slavery by a nearly equally wide margin: 168-13. 

A quote from the dissertation that Bruce posted:



> " It is worth noting that immediately after the baptism debate came the decision on the slavery question, which was decided 168-13 (see chapter six). Only ruling elder Samuel Hibben of Chillicothe Presbytery voted in the minority on both questions. One southern observer commented that the debate on Roman Catholic baptism “did much good every way. It had a happy tendency to harmonize the Assembly, and to bring them to great unanimity on other points. The subject of slavery excited much interest. There are but five or six abolitionists in the Assembly. With some of these I have become acquainted. They deserve more our sympathy than our abuse. They seem to be honest, well meaning men; but evidently deluded on this one subject.” “Letters from GA” WS 8.42 (June 5, 1845) 167."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> This is an interesting historical note concerning the old school GA where this was debated. It seems that at the same GA in 1845 (which was overwhelming in ruling against the validity of RC baptism, something like 169-9), came the decision on slavery. The GA voted to support slavery by a nearly equally wide margin: 168-13.
> 
> A quote from the dissertation that Bruce posted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " It is worth noting that immediately after the baptism debate came the decision on the slavery question, which was decided 168-13 (see chapter six). Only ruling elder Samuel Hibben of Chillicothe Presbytery voted in the minority on both questions. One southern observer commented that the debate on Roman Catholic baptism “did much good every way. It had a happy tendency to harmonize the Assembly, and to bring them to great unanimity on other points. The subject of slavery excited much interest. There are but five or six abolitionists in the Assembly. With some of these I have become acquainted. They deserve more our sympathy than our abuse. They seem to be honest, well meaning men; but evidently deluded on this one subject.” “Letters from GA” WS 8.42 (June 5, 1845) 167."
Click to expand...


Mark Noll says in _America's God_ that U.S. Christians took a position on race-based, chattel slavery that was adopted by virtually no other orthodox Christians anywhere in the world. Indeed, see the snippy correspondence that the Old School GA sent to the Irish Presbyterians around this time. He put this oddity down to a matter of cultural hermeneutics. Perhaps the same could be said for their views on Romish baptism?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

It is very lamentable and of course a stain on the spiritual ancestry of some of us, that they argued for slavery so. We know there was animus / fear of RC immigrants at the time, correct? So it is a theory worth exploring at least.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> It is very lamentable and of course a stain on the spiritual ancestry of some of us, that they argued for slavery so. We know there was animus / fear of RC immigrants at the time, correct? So it is a theory worth exploring at least.



I think it is; the United States was primarily a Protestant country, but a relatively isolated one geographically. It had not faced the domestic threat from Romanism that Protestants in the UK and continental Europe had for centuries, and thus increased RC immigration, especially in the 1840s, probably led to fears of a Romanist take-over. In such a context, an over-reaction against Romish baptism seems understandable.


----------



## KMK

Bill The Baptist said:


> As Baptists, we of course have no problem denying the validity of RC baptism.



What is it about the LBC that makes this issue easier for Baptists?



> LBC 28:2 These holy appointments are to be administered* by those only who are qualified and thereunto called*, according to the commission of Christ.2





> WCF 28:2 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*.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Quote Originally Posted by Bill The Baptist View Post
> As Baptists, we of course have no problem denying the validity of RC baptism.
> What is it about the LBC that makes this issue easier for Baptists?
> 
> LBC 28:2 These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.2
> WCF 28:2 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 there




Are you joking? First they practice infant baptism, so we don't recognize that. Secondly, they don't baptize by immersion, so we don't recognize the baptism. Thirdly, in the council of Trent they said that anyone who says you are save by faith alone is an anathema, so even their believers baptism is suspect.


----------



## KMK

Not all RCs were baptized as infants. The LBC does not say that sprinkling 'invalidates' a baptism, only that it wasn't 'properly administered'.

I only say this to defend my question. You have answered it. I don't want to hijack the thread so I will drop it and take it up in a thread of its own someday.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Ken,
If for some reason I wanted to join your church, would you consider me "previously baptized?"

I was baptized at somewhere near 6mo. of age, in a gospel church by a Christian minister, by sprinkling, etc.

Assuming yours was among some few (to my knowledge) Baptist churches that _would_ receive me "as is," still I am certain that most would not--on the supposition that I was not 1) necessarily baptized upon profession, and 2) necessarily according to the singularly acceptable method: full immersion. Of what concern is the church/minister that baptized me at that point?

I suppose that for practical purposes, remaining outside of the Baptist-fold they might allow that "theoretically" I might be accepted as a _*disorderly*_ sort of Christian. But many strict Baptist churches would not commune me at the Table, as I am not baptized in their view, hence not a recognizable "member" of any true church on that basis!

So, I don't think primary Baptist considerations *typically begin* anywhere in the vicinity of the question of "lawful ministry." The LBC expressions, though borrowed from the WCF, practically assume other Baptist-backgrounds for what they admit as valid. Persons joining Baptist churches from any paedo-baptist-tradition, or even sprinkling/effusion tradition, usually wish to comply with standard Baptist practice. The LBC parts quoted seem more relevant to "lay-baptism" or even more anti-ecclesiastical stances.

Baptists don't actually view as valid most Presbyterian or Reformed baptisms. Roman baptism is even further away.


----------



## greenbaggins

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an interesting historical note concerning the old school GA where this was debated. It seems that at the same GA in 1845 (which was overwhelming in ruling against the validity of RC baptism, something like 169-9), came the decision on slavery. The GA voted to support slavery by a nearly equally wide margin: 168-13.
> 
> A quote from the dissertation that Bruce posted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " It is worth noting that immediately after the baptism debate came the decision on the slavery question, which was decided 168-13 (see chapter six). Only ruling elder Samuel Hibben of Chillicothe Presbytery voted in the minority on both questions. One southern observer commented that the debate on Roman Catholic baptism “did much good every way. It had a happy tendency to harmonize the Assembly, and to bring them to great unanimity on other points. The subject of slavery excited much interest. There are but five or six abolitionists in the Assembly. With some of these I have become acquainted. They deserve more our sympathy than our abuse. They seem to be honest, well meaning men; but evidently deluded on this one subject.” “Letters from GA” WS 8.42 (June 5, 1845) 167."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mark Noll says in _America's God_ that U.S. Christians took a position on race-based, chattel slavery that was adopted by virtually no other orthodox Christians anywhere in the world. Indeed, see the snippy correspondence that the Old School GA sent to the Irish Presbyterians around this time. He put this oddity down to a matter of cultural hermeneutics. Perhaps the same could be said for their views on Romish baptism?
Click to expand...


How in the world is slavery relevant to the validity of RC baptism? You completely lost me here. If your argument is that the GA's decision on RC baptism is worthless because it ALSO voted the way it did on slavery, then it is the argument that is worthless. Why bring this up at all?


----------



## KMK

Contra_Mundum said:


> Ken,
> If for some reason I wanted to join your church, would you consider me "previously baptized?"
> 
> I was baptized at somewhere near 6mo. of age, in a gospel church by a Christian minister, by sprinkling, etc.
> 
> Assuming yours was among some few (to my knowledge) Baptist churches that _would_ receive me "as is," still I am certain that most would not--on the supposition that I was not 1) necessarily baptized upon profession, and 2) necessarily according to the singularly acceptable method: full immersion. Of what concern is the church/minister that baptized me at that point?
> 
> I suppose that for practical purposes, remaining outside of the Baptist-fold they might allow that "theoretically" I might be accepted as a _*disorderly*_ sort of Christian. But many strict Baptist churches would not commune me at the Table, as I am not baptized in their view, hence not a recognizable "member" of any true church on that basis!
> 
> So, I don't think primary Baptist considerations *typically begin* anywhere in the vicinity of the question of "lawful ministry." The LBC expressions, though borrowed from the WCF, practically assume other Baptist-backgrounds for what they admit as valid. Persons joining Baptist churches from any paedo-baptist-tradition, or even sprinkling/effusion tradition, usually wish to comply with standard Baptist practice. The LBC parts quoted seem more relevant to "lay-baptism" or even more anti-ecclesiastical stances.
> 
> Baptists don't actually view as valid most Presbyterian or Reformed baptisms. Roman baptism is even further away.



Thanks for the clarification, Rev Buchanan. I appreciate your insight.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Not all RCs were baptized as infants. The LBC does not say that sprinkling 'invalidates' a baptism, only that it wasn't 'properly administered'.
> 
> I only say this to defend my question. You have answered it. I don't want to hijack the thread so I will drop it and take it up in a thread of its own someday.



Baptist generally only call Baptism immersion. This is chapter 29 from the LBCF 1689:

Chapter 29
BAPTISM

29.1 Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person baptized a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection, of being grafted into him,1 of remission of sins,2 and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.3

Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12; Gal 3:27
Mar 1:4; Act 22:16
Rom 6:4

29.2 Those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects for this ordinance.1

Mat 3:1-12; Mar 1:4-6; Luk 3:3-6; Mat 28:19-20; Mar 16:15-16; Joh 4:1-2; 1Co 1:13-17; Act 2:37-41; 8:12-13,36-38; 9:18; 10:47-48; 11:16; 15:9; 16:14-15,31-34; 18:8; 19:3-5; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; Gal 3:27; Col 2:12; 1Pe 3:21; Jer 31:31-34; Phi 3:3; Joh 1:12-13; Mat 21:43

29.3 The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, in which the person is to be baptised1 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.2

Mat 3:11; Act 8:36,38; 22:16
Mat 28:18-20

*29.4 Immersion, or dipping the person in water, is essential for the proper administration of this ordinance*.1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

greenbaggins said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an interesting historical note concerning the old school GA where this was debated. It seems that at the same GA in 1845 (which was overwhelming in ruling against the validity of RC baptism, something like 169-9), came the decision on slavery. The GA voted to support slavery by a nearly equally wide margin: 168-13.
> 
> A quote from the dissertation that Bruce posted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " It is worth noting that immediately after the baptism debate came the decision on the slavery question, which was decided 168-13 (see chapter six). Only ruling elder Samuel Hibben of Chillicothe Presbytery voted in the minority on both questions. One southern observer commented that the debate on Roman Catholic baptism “did much good every way. It had a happy tendency to harmonize the Assembly, and to bring them to great unanimity on other points. The subject of slavery excited much interest. There are but five or six abolitionists in the Assembly. With some of these I have become acquainted. They deserve more our sympathy than our abuse. They seem to be honest, well meaning men; but evidently deluded on this one subject.” “Letters from GA” WS 8.42 (June 5, 1845) 167."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mark Noll says in _America's God_ that U.S. Christians took a position on race-based, chattel slavery that was adopted by virtually no other orthodox Christians anywhere in the world. Indeed, see the snippy correspondence that the Old School GA sent to the Irish Presbyterians around this time. He put this oddity down to a matter of cultural hermeneutics. Perhaps the same could be said for their views on Romish baptism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How in the world is slavery relevant to the validity of RC baptism? You completely lost me here. If your argument is that the GA's decision on RC baptism is worthless because it ALSO voted the way it did on slavery, then it is the argument that is worthless. Why bring this up at all?
Click to expand...


The point is that there was a tendency towards certain odd notions among the Old School Presbyterians owing to the social and cultural circumstances in which they found themselves in during the antebellum era. Keep in mind that American Presbyterians were generally antislavery at the time of the Revolution/Early Republic, but later moved in a proslavery direction as chattelism became more culturally respectable and economically beneficial. Hence the use of Mark Noll's term cultural hermeneutics.

As providence would have it, this morning I have been reading Gordon Wood's overview of the early republic, Empire of Liberty (OUP, 2009). On pp 591ff, He mentions that the RCs were a small minority in 1790 and that under Bishop John Carroll of Maryland they adopted what could be termed a form "Republican Catholicism" (my term), which sought to promote independence from the Vatican, the use of an English liturgy and Bible translation, religious tolerance as part of a multi-denominational society, and the separation of church and state. 

The face of Roman Catholicism in America changed markedly during the nineteenth-century owing to mass immigration from Europe. This phenomenon led to fears of a Popish take-over of the United States. Understanding this development is crucial to comprehending the context in which the Old School Presbyterians formulated their novel views respecting Romish baptism, which was probably partly a reaction to both increased Roman Catholic immigration and to cultural "no-popery".


----------



## MW

Two ships might cross paths going in completely opposite directions. The slavery issue seems to fall into this category. Items regularly come before church courts without any connection with other items, and final decisions can be made simply as a matter of course.


----------



## greenbaggins

MW said:


> Two ships might cross paths going in completely opposite directions. The slavery issue seems to fall into this category. Items regularly come before church courts without any connection with other items, and final decisions can be made simply as a matter of course.



Yes, indeed, thanks for this, Matthew.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Obviously it would be an absurdity to argue that because someone was wrong on racial slavery that therefore they must also be wrong on RC baptism. I do not, however, think that was the point that Ben was making. The point was that American Presbyterians at this time had a tendency to adopt certain idiosyncratic views, which should make us wary thinking that their position came about as a result of disinterested analysis of the issue. I strongly suspect that both their geographic isolation from other Protestants and the wider social and cultural context of antebellum America, especially in relation to widespread RC immigration, had a lot to do with their approach to the issue of RC baptism. Conversely, however, an opponent of the validity of RC baptism could argue that these historical circumstances came about in the providence of God as a means of giving the American Presbyterians a sounder understanding of the question.

For those interested in the development of Presbyterian views on the chattel slavery issue, I am currently reading a rather interesting pamphlet by George Bourne:

https://archive.org/stream/addresstopresbyt00bour#page/n3/mode/2up


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Daniel (and Ben):

As one who has done a good deal of research into these General Assemblies (in the 1840's-60s) of the PCUSA as part of the work that I have done on Hodge and the Spirituality of the Church, I can assure you that you are not "barking up the wrong tree." As I am seeking to publish in this area (an article is coming out, but I am also hoping to publish a monograph), I'll not say a great deal here but just a bit.

While it is rather complex, there are all sorts of connections here, particularly with the PCUSA wanting to maintain the "bond of union" (of the nation) at virutally all cost, even acting in contravention, arguably, to its excellent 1818 statement condemning slavery. The 1845 GA did not approve slavery as such (being critical as usual of its obvious abuses), but was more critical of abolition than even the abuses of chattel slavery, and sought to turn the temperature down on the debate in order to save the nation, and the church, from disunion. 

Part of the concern here was also the mass of RC immigrants coming here and diluting the British Protestant heritage. Not a few in the Whig party expressed such and the "Know-Nothings" were formed to secure this; not a small number of Old Schoolers resonated with these concerns/convictions. At this time, all sorts of outside political convictions seemed to be influencing GA actions, including what the GA did with regards to slavery and RC baptism (by which Hodge, as I noted above, was quite surprised and dismayed). Again, much more could be said here, but I would posit some rather significant connections between these things that may elude those, understandably, who are not historians of the period. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Alan, thanks for your comments; I look forward to reading your forthcoming publications.


----------

