# Is Roman Catholic baptism valid?



## Herald

The only reason I started this thread is because we have opposing threads going on simultaneously; one in the paedo-only forum and one in the credo-only forum. For some odd reason I find a bit of humor in that. 

On the surface the question as to whether Roman Catholic baptism is valid should be a non-starter for Baptists because most Roman Catholic baptisms are of the paedobaptist persuasion. But there are adult converts to Roman Catholicism, so Baptists may have to deal with this issue. 

The proponents of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism often point to the sacrament itself as ordained by God, regardless of whether the administrator of the sacrament is worthy. In the paedo-only thread, Lane Keister wrote:



> So far, no one has really brought up the real issue, which is this: who actually baptizes? If we view baptism as the act of man, then the purity of the church, and the purity of the man will be the essential marks of a valid baptism. If, however, baptism is an act of God, then it doesn't matter how vile the church is, or how vile the minister is (aren't we all vile to some extent or another? Who would be pure enough to minister baptism, if it all depended on him and his church?).



I think Lane did a good job articulating the validity of Roman Catholic baptism.

As an opponent of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism I respond in this manner:

1. Roman Catholic apostasies have stripped it of the right to be called a true church. It is more than just vile; it is an enemy of God. It can no more be called a church than Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses.

2. Roman Catholic baptism is salvific in nature. Lay-Catholics are empowered to baptize infants in the rare occasion where a priest is not available and the infants life is in danger. This is to assure that the child enters into the church and inherits salvation. 

3. The acceptance of Roman Catholic baptism by the early Reformers may have been a vestige of the strong ties many of these men had to their former Roman faith. Many still held out hope for Rome's reformation.

Lane rightly points out that baptism is an act of God. It is to be administered by a qualified minister of a _true _church. The "true church" is the real issue; more so than the minister. At least this is how I, a Baptist, view the ordinance.


----------



## kvanlaan

> 3. The acceptance of Roman Catholic baptism by the early Reformers may have been a vestige of the strong ties many of these men had to their former Roman faith. Many still held out hope for Rome's reformation.



Interesting point. I've also heard that it was for the simple reason that around the time of the reformation, there were not many reformed pastors around, and everyone had already been baptized by the RC church. This thinking seems a little too pragmatic for a group of people who had just endured great suffering at the hands of the RCC, but it was one reason that I've heard put forward.


----------



## Scott1

There is a biblical case to be made for accepting baptisms from the Roman system as valid Christian baptism.

And there is not much to be added to the reasons given for it on these present threads, or other views of this on earlier threads on this topic.

But after carefully considering this, and being surprised to find this a minority opinion among the Reformers, particularly the early ones, here's why I don't think it is wise to accept them as valid:

It's not a case of God "being able" to make a baptism efficacious. He can.

It's not really a case of being a "true church" (some will view this differently, and that's fine, but not the point here) because almost any definition of that would involve things not directly related to baptism.

But it is about the wisdom of representing publicly that an entity that officially does not hold the gospel, that officially has pronounced "anathemas" on it (the gospel) being accepted as a valid ordinance by it. And allowing that to be publicly represented by it.

The issue to me boils down to not being able to separate redemption from baptism. If baptism was about the trinity _alone_ then I would understand it that way. But to my understanding, baptism is also about promises of redemption through a redeemer and that is "signed" and "signified" by the ordinance. (And also I believe specific promises to the children of believers).

When I read the Westminster standards, Chapter XXVIII, it seems to support this (though many of the Reformers did not explicitly, at least, view it this way).



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> (emphasis added)
> 
> Chapter XXVIII:
> 
> II. The outward element to be used in the 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*.
> 
> VI.
> The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, *by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost*, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]



The baptism, to be valid, must be administered by a "minister of the gospel." Can we say that the Roman priest is such? I don't think so, not officially, and not in light of the title and authority he himself claims (e.g. the nature of "priest" and the role of re-doing the atonement in the effect, by authority invested in his understanding of his office).

It also says "right use" of the ordinance. It seems to me that includes a view toward redemption and salvation. Has to, it would seem.

So, in the end, this doesn't really turn on God's ability to make effective an ordinance by an imperfect person and entity administering it- rather about the wisdom of publicly representing that a person and and entity that officially rejects the Trinity's plan of redemption (by grace through faith in Christ's righteousness alone) has been given power and authority from on high to represent what it signs and signifies. 

That seems to me, to necessarily include redemption as well as the Triune God who accomplishes that and it is wise to publicly represent that understanding as such.


----------



## a mere housewife

I get confused because it seems to me that all that could be said against the Mormons could be said against the Roman Catholics, and all that can be said for RC's can be said for Mormons, with the sole qualifier that we do not have a tradition of accepting Mormon baptisms because we did not reform out of their specific heresy. Yet 1) not simply in practice, but on paper, Rome has an authority that is not the Bible; 2) not simply in practice, but again on paper, they worship idols; 3) Not simply in practice, but in creed they reject salvation by grace alone and teach a different doctrine; and 4) we actually do not accept their ordination any more than that of Mormons, for we do not simply transfer such. So how is their baptism legitimately performed, and the Mormons is not? 
It's one thing if a church is impure in practice. But when their creeds and documents are such that they are not the gospel and are not submitted to the authority of the gospel -- such that their avowed teachings shut up the kingdom of heaven against men -- it seems like church discipline in other true churches would require having no fellowship with them in their sacraments?

I'm sorry if this seems confused. I'm sure I don't know all the proper terms for these things and that there is much I don't understand.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

One reason why the Reformational-Reformed view accepts RCC baptism, and rejects for example Mormon-rite baptism, has to do with our understanding of history and the organic relations within the church of history. The gospel was present organically and in strength in the old Roman church; it has never been present in the Mormon organization.

I can look at a tree, mostly dead wood sticking up out of the ground, and recognize that it grew up living. In fact, I can find several good trees right around it which grew up from this trees "acorns". Then, I can look over here and I find a dead stick pointing up out of the ground. As I look at that stick and across to the dead-wood tree, there doesn't seem much formally different between them.

In fact, they represent very different realities. The one is dead, and has never been alive (at least as a tree). The other has been through disease, lightning strikes, termites, rot, and bears only an external similarity to her more healthy offspring.

Think of the baptized as leaves on those trees. On the healthy trees the leaves are sprouted and they appear green; on the dying tree, the leaves have been sprouted, but they might not look so well. On the stick, there are leaf-looking attachments; they look to the untrained eye like the sproutings of any of the other trees.

The big difference is that one could take a leaf from the dying tree, and make it live on a living tree. The leaves bear a legitimate relation. But no leaf-like attachment from the stick--no matter how much like a leaf it looks--can make legitimize pinning it to a tree.

We cannot abstract a church from its history, not so long as we live in that same history, and live with an awareness of our connections. Rome is a "degenerated" church. Mormonism is an entirely different religion.

It really does affect how we view this connection to history, if we still recognize that Rome is like a diseased relative--no, make that an ancestor--living on life support. Many Protestants today have long ago renounced any connection to this creature. Some anabaptists go so far as to claim that they never had any relation to her, but have another root entirely. Then others claim that history is meaningless or accidental; only the doctrinal and eschatological is relevant in any way, shape, or form.


Taking it back to my original illustration: if you think the deadwood is totally dead--it belongs on its side gathering moss but for some reason it is still standing--then you will not receive anyone baptized from her. If you say, "I cannot tell that from the leaf alone; it appears graftable, the leaf does not have the disease of the trunk/root/branch," then you will receive that leaf as one providentially, unusually preserved by God.


----------



## dudley

*I agree with Herald that roman catholic baptism is not valid*

I am now a Reformed Calvinist Baptist and I agree with Herald that roman catholic baptism is not valid and primarily because I see the roman catholic church as an invalid church who calls herself Christian. I left Roman Catholicism in 2006 because I was disillusioned by the current pope Joseph Ratzinger. I became an Episcopalian after leaving the Roman catholic church at the invitation of friends who were Episcopalian. It was not that I wanted to become a Protestant but I began to see the current pope trying to return the rc church to a pre Vatican II mentality. The Episcopal church I joined was still Catholicism to me without the pope. However I knew I had become a Protestant by joining the Episcopal church but I really did not know what it really meant to be Protestant. I started to study Protestantism and the Protestant Reformation and exploring all Protestant denominations. That study and also after prayerful contemplation led me to the Reformed Faith and I became a Presbyterian. in 2007. I have been a communing Presbyterian since 2007. 

I became a Presbyterian in 2007 by Public acclimation of faith. My Presbyterian congregation and session accepted my rc baptism. I also at that time openly renounced roman catholicism and her pope and all her false teachings which run contrary to the true Gospel at a session a few weeks prior to being admitted to the Presbyterian church at a Sunday service.

However in the last year I began to question the validity of my roman catholic baptism because I no longer saw roman catholicism as a true Christian faith. I had renounced the roman catholic church and faith and her pope and all her heretical teachings which are contrary to scripture when I became a Presbyterian because I saw the roman church as truly apostate.

Last spring I expressed to my minister and the elders that I wanted to be baptized as a Protestant in the Presbyterian church because I no longer accepted the validity of my rc baptism. It was presented to a session and the Presbyterian session said no.

I wanted to receive a believers Baptism, because I had experienced like Calvin and many of the reformers a “True Protestant Conversion” I had been born again and wanted to publicly demonstrate that conversion by the sign of the ordinance of Baptism. I also stated again that I now believed that my rc baptism was invalid because their creeds and documents are such that they are not the gospel and are not submitted to the authority of the gospel but to a man who calls himself Christ’s vicar and I see that as an untrue church. I also said: that I believed that baptism, to be valid, must be administered by a "minister of the gospel." And I could not believe any longer that the Roman priest is such. 

I then started to explore and attend a Reformed Baptist congregation. I began worshipping with them and I joined the Inquirers class. I liked what I was told in the first class : “Baptists view the papist baptism as not a valid as to one who is Scripturally baptized, (even though he was once a recipient of the "so-called papist baptism)," is not being re-baptized, but is in truth being baptized for the FIRST time!” I agreed totally and began to study the London Baptist confession.

I also discovered that Reformed Calvinist Presbyterians and Reformed Calvinist Baptists are both stems of the Reformed branch of Protestantism. We are purely Protestant in the Puritan tradition. We both express love for Jesus as the only mediator between God and man, We both hold to the five Solas, We both have Biblical preaching and the Reformed Calvinist Baptists hold to the Calvinist principals of T.U.L.I.P. as do the Presbyterians. 

I began to study and compare the Westminster confession and the London Baptist confession which I now ascribe to. I also began to believe I liked the LBC position on sacrament as an ordinance and a sign because it further removes us as Reformed Protestants form the corrupt roman catholic notion that one needs the Lords Supper and the ordinance of Baptism to be saved. It is a public demonstration and a symbol of our salvation by faith alone, through Christ alone and not because of the ordinance. I believe the Baptist position is authentically Reformed Protestant and I received the ordinance of Baptism as a Reformed Protestant in the Reformed Baptist church on Reformation Sunday October 25th 2009. I also was then welcomed to the ordinance of the Lords Supper later in the service the same day.
I am now a Reformed Baptist and still a Calvinist Protestant .

I believe as does Herald that roman catholic baptism is not valid.

I also believe that we reformed Baptists are also Reformed Protestants because I include all those who hold to a covenantal understanding of scripture, and the doctrines of grace. I believe my Presbyterian brethren on the PB and my former Reformed Presbyterian congregation are authentically Protestant and Reformed Protestant. I read today J. A. Wylie's The Papacy is Antichrist" It is a wonderful essay that I was able to get on line. My PB brother Jim recommended it. I had read Wyllie’s’ The History Of Protestantism" when I was preparing to become a Presbyterian. I recommend both his essay and his book. I have found many Protestants to lack a clear understanding of what it truly means to be Protestant. I recommend that all read Wylie, cradle Protestants and converts to Protestantism as I did. 

I think what is really important that Reformed Protestants be authentically Protestant in that we protest the heresy of popery and proclaim the true Gospel. I became a Reformed Protestant for that very reason.



In faith, 
Dudley


----------



## Berean

dudley said:


> I am now a Reformed Calvinist Baptist ......and I became a Presbyterian. in 2007. I have been a communing Presbyterian since 2007.
> 
> I became a Presbyterian in 2007 by Public acclimation of faith.
> In faith,
> Dudley



How can you be a "Reformed Calvinist Baptist" and a Presbyterian?


----------



## a mere housewife

Thank you for the answer, Rev. Buchanan: I need to think more about it, and about some information on other threads bearing on the issue. I don't want to simply protest (though my visceral reaction after several experiences in Mexico is to fight any sort of union with that darkness) but to understand. I think my main question is whether the issue is not so much one of the nature of baptism, but of the nature of church discipline -- which is one of the marks, along with the sacraments, of a 'true church'.


----------



## dudley

*Read my full post,it expalins ...*



Berean said:


> dudley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am now a Reformed Calvinist Baptist ......and I became a Presbyterian. in 2007. I have been a communing Presbyterian since 2007.
> 
> I became a Presbyterian in 2007 by Public acclimation of faith.
> In faith,
> Dudley
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you be a "Reformed Calvinist Baptist" and a Presbyterian?
Click to expand...


I am no longer a Presbyterian. If you read my full piece it explains I became a Reformed Baptist on October 25th 2009, Reformation Sunday. I now ascribe to the London Baptist Confession.

In faith alone, 

Dudley


----------

