# Confessions and Roman Catholic Baptism



## Scott1

Do our Confessions teach that present generation baptisms by the Roman church are valid christian baptisms, to be administered but once?

This particularly in light of the requirements upon those who administer them, according to our confessional summary of doctrine (see below).

It would be helpful to hear from those with a theological background.

This needs to be handled with care and charity. I would like to focus in this thread on reasoning and explanation rather than a back-and-forth debate. A lot of people are trying to understand this.



Westminster Confession (emphasis added)



> Chapter XXVII
> Of the Sacraments
> IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: *neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.[*10]



London Baptist Confession 1689 (emphasis added)



> Chapter 28: Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper
> 2._____ These holy appointments are *to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.*
> ( Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 4:1 )


----------



## Prufrock

Scott,

The reformers acknowledged that their own baptisms were valid; after the Donatist controversy it has been continually agreed upon that the efficacy of baptism depends in no way upon the sanctity of the administrator. Here is a rather lengthy quote from Calvin, which I hope will answer fully your question, as this is quite representative of the mainstream reformed tradition:



> And, just as among men, when a letter has been sent, if the hand and seal is recognised, it is not of the least consequence who or what the messenger was; so it ought to be sufficient for us to recognise the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, let the administrator be who he may. This confutes the error of the Donatists, who measured the efficacy and worth of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister. Such in the present day are our Catabaptists, who deny that we are duly baptised, because we were baptised in the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters; hence they furiously insist on anabaptism. Against these absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism we were initiated not into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever it may have been administered. Be it that those who baptised us were most ignorant of God and all piety, or were despisers, still they did not baptise us into a fellowship with their ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus Christ, because the name which they invoked was not their own but God’s, nor did they baptise into any other name. But if baptism was of God, it certainly included in it the promise of forgiveness of sin, mortification of the flesh, quickening of
> the Spirit, and communion with Christ. Thus it did not harm the Jews that they were circumcised by impure and apostate priests. It did not nullify the symbol so as to make it necessary to repeat it. It was enough to return to its genuine origin. The objection that baptism ought to be celebrated in the assembly of the godly, does not prove that it loses its whole efficacy because it is partly defective. *When we show what ought to be done to keep baptism pure and free from every taint, we do not abolish the institution of God though idolaters may corrupt it.* Circumcision was anciently vitiated by many superstitions, and yet ceased not to be regarded as a symbol of grace; nor did Josiah and Hezekiah, when they assembled out of all Israel those who had revolted from God, call them to be circumcised anew.



The bold sections roughly corresponds with the section you bolded from the WCF: we teach that baptism ought to be done by a lawfully ordained minister; yet, this does not mean that one who was baptized by another, provided that it was done by application of water and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, has received in invalid baptism.

I cannot speak for the baptists; obviously the case would be different for them if it were an _infant_ baptized in the RCC. But I have no idea how they would answer with reference to an adult being so baptized, whether they would call it valid or no. For the mainline of reformed paedobaptists, however, such has been accepted as valid.

If anyone has any corrections or refinements, please post!

(Edit: quote from Institutes, IV.15.16)


----------



## Guido's Brother

From what I've read, this is something that distinguishes many Presbyterian churches from many Reformed churches (note the word "many"). From what I can tell, many Presbyterians would hold that Roman Catholics ought to be rebaptized (though I recall reading of a debate involving Thornwell on this point -- so even among Presbyterians there hasn't been unanimity). Reformed churches with roots in the Netherlands and Germany have almost unanimously recognized RC baptisms as valid. When I was a missionary in an RC community, we did not rebaptize. Our missionaries working in Brazil (which still has significant numbers of RC) do not rebaptize. 

I don't know how helpful this would be, but let me throw it out here anyway: the late Dr. J. Faber wrote his dissertation on this subject: _ Vestigium ecclesiae: De doop als 'spoor der kerk.' (Cyprianus, Optatus, Augustinus)_. Faber argued for the validity of RC baptisms, working with the Donatist controversies of the early church.


----------



## Scott1

Prufrock 
Puritanboard Freshman 

Thanks for the Calvin quote. I am aware Mr Calvin was baptized in the Roman system as it existed then, and that he was not re-baptized and that he defended his not being re-baptized in his writings. 



> Prufrock
> Puritanboard Freshman
> we teach that baptism ought to be done by a lawfully ordained minister; yet, this does not mean that one who was baptized by another, *provided that it was done by application of water and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit*, has received in invalid baptism.



My understanding is that LDS (Mormon) have a trinitarian pronouncement when they administer- does that mean that is a valid biblical baptism?


So When our Confession, Chapter 27, 3. says (emphasis added):



> II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party *is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto*.[9]



Since our Confession says that baptism must be administered by a "minister of the Gospel" and "lawfully called thereunto," does that teach that a modern generation Roman Catholic priest is a "minister of the Gospel" and that he is lawfull called unto that (ministering the Gospel)? Is that our understanding?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The board is typically divided on this with some good arguments on either side:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/roman-catholic-baptism-poll-do-over-25009/

It was generally accepted by the Reformers as valid. Hodge thought it was valid but, as you can see, there are those that believe this is an inconsistent position.


----------



## Scott1

> From Mr Calvin, supra
> Thus it did not harm the Jews that they were circumcised by impure and apostate priests. It did not nullify the symbol so as to make it necessary to repeat it. It was enough to return to its genuine origin.



I wonder if Mr Calvin addressed this elsewhere- wasn't there a requirement that a Levite administer circumcision (or at least a special class of priest)? 

Realizing the power of this analogy (circumcision cannot practically be re-done), what if the circumcision were done by a Gentile or as part of a pagan practice outside of the Temple in Israel, or even by let's say one's mother? Did the Levitical Law pronounce that valid or were there more requirements?


----------



## Herald

Scott, Baptists have historically rejected Roman baptism for two reasons: 1. Rome is apostate 2. Mode. I think your question is better geared towards Presbyterians.


----------



## Prufrock

> Since our Confession says that baptism must be administered by a "minister of the Gospel" and "lawfully called thereunto," does that teach that a modern generation Roman Catholic priest is a "minister of the Gospel" and that he is lawfully called unto that (ministering the Gospel)? Is that our understanding?



Not at all. Following Wes' post, I am not going to speak for the Presbyterians on this subject, but will only follow the lead of the continental reformed. It is taught that baptism is to be performed in this manner, by a lawful minister; but, if it _had been_ performed by an unlawfully ordained minister, such does not invalidate the act.



> The objection that baptism ought to be celebrated in the assembly of the godly, does not prove that it loses its whole efficacy because it is partly defective. *When we show what ought to be done to keep baptism pure and free from every taint, we do not abolish the institution of God though idolaters may corrupt it.*



And again,


> *Circumcision was anciently vitiated by many superstitions, and yet ceased not to be regarded as a symbol of grace*; nor did Josiah and Hezekiah, when they assembled out of all Israel those who had revolted from God, call them to be circumcised anew.



Such is how I understand, and I believe rightly so, most of the reformed tradition.

Again, please someone refine/correct me if deficient.


----------



## Scott1

Herald said:


> Scott, Baptists have historically rejected Roman baptism for two reasons: 1. Rome is apostate 2. Mode. I think your question is better geared towards Presbyterians.



That's what I have come to understand reading Puritan Board. 

You are right, I'm especially interested in the explanations and reasonings of those who say that they are, or at least might be, especially in light of our Confession(s). And, yes, not focusing on infant baptism.


----------



## Scott1

> Prufrock
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> 
> but, if it had been performed by an unlawfully ordained minister, such does not invalidate the act.



So would that validate Mormon, Jehovah Witness baptism?


----------



## Prufrock

I have not enough wisdom to answer such a question on my own; obviously, I want immediately to say, "of course that would not be valid!" But then as to explain precisely why, I'm sure I would come up short.

Here, however, is Turretin on the matter; who, I think, reading this carefully, could explain quite thoroughly (whether accurately or not is up to us) why such would be invalid, and yet RCC baptisms _are_ valid.



> III. Here therefore we think the question can be solved by distinguishing between heretics. For there are some who corrupt the substance of baptism and omit or change the form of institution; such as were the ancient Arians, who denied a Trinity of persons in unity of essence, and the modern Socinians. Others, while they retain substantials and defend the true doctrine of the holy Trinity contained in the formula of baptism, "œerr on the other heads of doctrine"; as the ancient Novatians and Donatists, and the modern Romanists and Arminians. As to the former, we judge that baptism administered by them is null, and so they are not properly to be rebaptized, but baptized, who have been baptized by such heretics, because they evidently corrupt the essential form of baptism, to which the invocation of the Trinity belongs. For this reason, the baptism of the Arians, who baptized "œin the Father, the only true God, in Jesus Christ, the Savior and a creature, and in the Holy Spirit, the servant of both" (according to the testimony of Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians 9 [NPNF2, 6:324;PL 23.172] and Athanasius, "œContra Arianos, Oratio tertia," Opera omnia [1627], 1:430-31). Still a distinction must be made here again. For either the minister alone was infected with that heresy or the whole church with him. If the latter, we deny it to be a true baptism. If the former (to wit, if the church thinks rightly, notwithstanding the error of the pastor, if he is a secret heretic), provided the formula of Christ be retained, we believe the baptism to be valid and that it is not necessary to rebaptize those who have been once baptized. The sacrament is the property of the church, which is administered in her name and in her faith. On this account, the hidden error of the minister detracts nothing from the integrity of the baptism, provided the essentials are observed and nothing is changed in the word or element. Hence it is evident what reply should be made to the question which can be put, whether the baptism administered in an orthodox church by a minister imbued with Antitrinitarian or Jewish errors (but not detected) is valid. Undoubtedly, the public faith of the church is here to be considered, into which he (who is baptized) is introduced and the promises made to him by Christ. Since these do not depend upon the minister, he (however deeply tainted with secret
> heresy) cannot render them useless and void.
> 
> IV. However, if heretics retain the fundamentals of baptism (which constitute its essence) and do not change or corrupt its form, we hold that baptism administered by such is valid, although they may err on various articles of faith, and their baptism may be mixed up with various extraneous rites in accidentals.



(Note, this was linked in another thread. I didn't take the time to type it all out myself...)


----------



## Scott1

> Turretin on the matter





> the question can be solved by distinguishing between heretics
> 
> because they evidently corrupt the essential form of baptism, to which the invocation of the Trinity belongs
> 
> either the minister alone was infected with that heresy or the whole church with him. If the latter, we deny it to be a true baptism.
> 
> if heretics retain the fundamentals of baptism (which constitute its essence) and do not change or corrupt its form, we hold that baptism administered by such is valid,



Very helpful in understanding the reasoning, thank you.

It seems, from Mr Turretin that

1) Baptism requires a trinitarian pronouncement and a biblical view of the Trinity. 

I wonder if that would preclude an Orthodox baptism, under his view?

2) He seems to imply more is required though:


> if heretics retain the fundamentals of baptism (which constitute its essence) and do not change or corrupt its form,



Does a "fundamental of baptism" require anything about the Gospel, e.g. the person and work of Christ in redemption?

Also, isn't there something implicit in the trinity about the Gospel? Isn't the Gospel somehow part and and parcel of Trinitarian doctrine?


----------



## Prufrock

> Also, isn't there something implicit in the trinity about the Gospel? Isn't the Gospel somehow part and and parcel of Trinitarian doctrine?



Since no one else is biting, I'll take a shot here. I think that if we are going to hold our orthodox notion of the trinity, and not, say, an _economical_ understanding of the trinity as Tertullian, then think we'd have to be very careful making statements like that; for that would seem to make it impossible to talk about God apart from consideration of creation. If the trinity is essential to God, then he is triune entirely apart from creation, and as such, entirely apart from anything having to do with the gospel.

However, while I would maintain what is written above, nevertheless, in our condition we only relate to God _as redeemed creatures_, and that means creatures who were redeemed by the work of the trinity. Thus, our understanding of the trinity is never _practically_ separated from the gospel of our redemption. How can any of us who are redeemed hear the name of the Son without rejoicing in his cross, and the purchase he made; how can any of us hear the name of the Father without standing in awe of his counsel which he purposed in Christ, sending his son to satisfy justice in our stead and calling us unto eternal life and glory; how can any of us who are redeemed hear the name of the Holy Spirit without celebrating in the love of God which he sheds in our hearts, and the union he effects between us and our head, Jesus Christ, and the assurance which he gives to us as he seal us unto the day of redemption?

Thus, when we baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we who live in the gospel truly understand more than these bare words, and more than what they signify _essentially_ regarding the nature of God. We understand them in terms of the gospel of our redemption. Now (from a paedobaptist perspective of course), whether the baptizer fully understood the gospel in the way that we think we do or not, what matters to me later in life when I come to understand and take benefit from my baptism, is that I was truly sealed and set apart in the name and by the work of this triune God, and I take great comfort in that. Thus, whether it was RCC, or Eastern Orthodox, or Arminians -- we all intend the same thing when we name the three persons of the trinity. A Jehovah's witness does _not_ intend the same thing; thus, what comfort should I have in such a baptism -- it was made in the name of a different god. But regardless of whether or not a RCC and I have the same understanding of the gospel, they still baptize in the name of the same God, and when I understand the gospel, that seal has the same meaning as though I were baptized in a presbyterian church.

(Have I stepped out on a limb here, anyone?)


----------



## Scott1

> Prufrock
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> (Have I stepped out on a limb here, anyone?)



Yes- but that is what leadership, derived from good character is made of. Thank you.



> I think that if we are going to hold our orthodox notion of the trinity, and not, say, an economical understanding of the trinity as Tertullian, then think we'd have to be very careful making statements like that; for that would seem to make it impossible to talk about God apart from consideration of creation.



Can you explain what you mean here?



> Thus, whether it was RCC, or Eastern Orthodox, or Arminians -- we all intend the same thing when we name the three persons of the trinity.



Don't the Eastern Orthodox mean something very different in the Trinity, though? A Holy Spirit who does not eternally proceed from the Father? Doesn't this go to the very nature of God (and that's why the Roman church separated from the Orthodox over the very nature of God)?


----------



## Scott1

> II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]





> Prufrock
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> I am not going to speak for the Presbyterians on this subject, but will only follow the lead of the continental reformed. It is taught that baptism is to be performed in this manner, by a lawful minister; but, _if it had been performed by an unlawfully ordained minister, such does not invalidate the act._



Reflecting on the Confession at this point, it seems hard to read a hypothetical converse statement doctrine in this. i.e. _If however the minister was not of the gospel and not lawfully called unto it, the baptism, however would be valid._


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

The Gospel preaches the Triune God. Christ as being central to us, for He revealed the work of the Father, namely Election, and the Spirit reveals to us those things of Christ, not speaking of Himself, but whatever He recieves He teaches us...Work of the Father, Election; Work of the Son Propitiation; Work of the Spirit, Life and Understanding of the work of the Son, who reveals the work of the Father in our salvation, all this reresulting in Fruits manifold.

It is important to Baptize in the Name of the Father and the Name of the Son, and the Name of the Holy Ghost...for Salvation is of the LORD.

Whenever we preach, or rather study and preach, we might want to look into how the Triune God is working in each Chapter and verse we are looking to comprehend.

(Just saying).


----------



## yeutter

*Eastern Orthodox Baptism valid*



Scott1 said:


> Don't the Eastern Orthodox mean something very different in the Trinity, though? A Holy Spirit who does not eternally proceed from the Father? Doesn't this go to the very nature of God (and that's why the Roman church separated from the Orthodox over the very nature of God)?
> 
> 
> 
> The Eastern Orthodox teach that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father from all eternity. Their disagreement with the Western Chrurch is whether or not He also proceeds from the Son. Even that disagreement should be broken down into two parts. The first is the Nicene creed originally said "proceeds from the Father." The Western Church unilaterally added "and from the Son." On this point the Eastern Orthodox Church is correct. Whether or not the West was ontologically correct to add the filoque is a second question.
> In any event the Eastern Orthodox Church believes in the Trinity in a meaningful sence of the word. Eastern Orthodox Baptism is administered with water, with a Trinitarian intent, using the right words "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Therefore Eastern Orthodox Baptism is valid. I have reservations/questions about Nestorian Baptism and Coptic Baptism but not about cannonical Eastern Orthodox Baptism.
Click to expand...


----------



## Scott1

yeutter 
Puritanboard Sophomore




> Their disagreement with the Western Chrurch is whether or not He also proceeds from the Son. Even that disagreement should be broken down into two parts. The first is the Nicene creed originally said "proceeds from the Father." The Western Church unilaterally added "and from the Son." On this point the Eastern Orthodox Church is correct. Whether or not the West was ontologically correct to add the filoque is a second question.




That view doesn't sound like "one God in three persons."


----------



## Scott1

> Quote:
> Prufrock
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> I am not going to speak for the Presbyterians on this subject, but will only follow the lead of the continental reformed. It is taught that baptism is to be performed in this manner, by a lawful minister; but, if it had been performed by an unlawfully ordained minister, such does not invalidate the act.
> 
> Reflecting on the Confession at this point, it seems hard to read a hypothetical converse statement doctrine in this. i.e. If however the minister was not of the gospel and not lawfully called unto it, the baptism, however would be valid.



Still pondering this.

From what the Confession says, it seems that a baptism must be performed by a "minister of the Gospel" who is lawfully called to be a minister of the Gospel. I don't want to read into it but it would seem to imply that if a baptism is not done that way that it is not merely sin, but makes the ordinance invalid.

Certainly, we would say (not trying to make light of this) a child in a swimming pool who makes a playful pronouncement is not conducting a baptism. It's not merely that an unlawful performance could be made efficacious because of the substance conveyed. Else, there would be no authority from which to administer any sacrament from Christ's Church.

What do you think?


----------



## Prufrock

Scott,

They certainly believe the trinity, and profess the Nicene creed in its, well, _most_ orthodox form, if you will. It is simply a logical dispute as to the nature of the procession of the Spirit, whether he proceed only from the Father, or from both the Father and the Son. But they are surely within the bounds of being fully trinitarian.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Prufrock

> From what the Confession says, it seems that a baptism must be performed by a "minister of the Gospel" who is lawfully called to be a minister of the Gospel. I don't want to read into it but it would seem to imply that if a baptism is not done that way that it is not merely sin, but makes the ordinance invalid.



The reason why I disagree with where you put the emphasis in this clause of the the confession is that the reformed, in general, _accepted_ baptisms performed by those they would not consider "lawfully ordained," i.e., Roman Catholics. _Prescribing the proper manner of something is not identical to negating the effect of something performed improperly._ A prescription is not an identity. Thus, if I say that delivering a baby is only to be performed by a lawful obstetrician, the subsequent fact that my child was delivered by a midwife in my bathtub does not negate the fact that a birth did, in fact, occur.

The _sina qua non_ of baptism is the water, and the naming of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And though we testify that baptism _ought_ to be administered by one lawfully ordained, such is not substantial to the act itself in our tradition.

Does that help?


----------



## greenbaggins

Eastern Orthodoxy is fully Trinitarian. For support of this conclusion, see Robert Letham's excellent books on the subject, one on the Trinity, and one on EO. The question of the spiration of the Spirit coming from only the Father or from the Father and the Son together does not affect the question of whether the EO's formula is fully Trinitarian. It is fully Trinitarian.


----------



## Scott1

> Prufrock
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> It is simply a logical dispute as to the nature of the procession of the Spirit, whether he proceed only from the Father, or from both the Father and the Son.



This is very hard for me to overlook. It seems no small matter, but goes to the substance of God. That seems to be what the Trinity represents.

I will appreciate the link from Reverend Kiester and will look at that.


----------



## OPC'n

Scott1 said:


> Prufrock
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> 
> but, if it had been performed by an unlawfully ordained minister, such does not invalidate the act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So would that validate Mormon, Jehovah Witness baptism?
Click to expand...


It is my understanding that the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses do not believe that Christ is divine...so their baptisms cannot be counted.


----------



## Scott1

> The reason why I disagree with where you put the emphasis in this clause of the the confession is that the reformed, in general, accepted baptisms performed by those they would not consider "lawfully ordained," i.e., Roman Catholics.



I haven't studied this thoroughly so I can't speak authoritatively on this point. Of course, because many reformers did something doesn't automatically make it right. They sometimes also accepted or performed burning at the stake, too (not saying that to distract, only to acknowledge that the standard of conduct, while remarkably biblical, was not perfect).

It seems to me that Mr Calvin and Mr Luther didn't really view themselves as starting a new church, but rather reforming the church catholic to the christianity of the apostles. From their vantage point, they were attempting to reform the "mother church" away from the institution of the papacy and back toward Scripture. In that context, it is somewhat understandable that at that time, from their vantage point in history, they might not have required re-baptism of those who culturally or historically had grown up in the Roman church.

I understand that also, at that time in history, they were also, on another front, challenging the doctrine of Anabaptists and others who were requiring re-baptism, the idea being that infant baptism was never valid, ever, under any circumstances. So validating infant baptism based on its substance was very much on their mind.

Over time, the lines of seperation became much clearer, the doctrine was established and it seemed to establish that the sacraments were to be done carefully and with close fidelity to the Word.

Now I understand that the administrator does not need to be perfect for the substance of baptism to be accomplished. The church administering it does not to be perfect either because the substance will be accomplished by God's power. But to say that Reformers didn't intend in their language via the confession, *to be administered by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto * to mean the church at least officially had to hold to a biblical gospel seems implausible right now. 

In the case of Rome, it became clear later (after Mr Calvin and Mr Luther) that not only was the Gospel rejected, but anathemas pronounced upon it. This was probably not clear to Mr Calvin and Mr Luther at that time.


----------



## Scott1

sjonee said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prufrock
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> 
> but, if it had been performed by an unlawfully ordained minister, such does not invalidate the act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So would that validate Mormon, Jehovah Witness baptism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses do not believe that Christ is divine...so their baptisms cannot be counted.
Click to expand...


That is my understanding as well. The presupposition being tested at this post was whether a "trinitarian pronouncement" alone makes for a valid Christian baptism. I think we all agree:
1) A valid Christian baptism requires more than a mere "trinitarian pronouncement"
2) Our confessions (e.g. Westminster, London Baptist) summarize the doctrine of Scripture to require more than a mere "trinitarian pronouncement"

We are proceeding from that point of biblical understanding.

The issues from there are for the Roman Church,

1) Does the church administering the sacrament of baptism need to hold a biblical Gospel
2) Do our confessions require that

For the Orthodox Church

It is 1) and 2) and
3) Does the church administering the sacrament of baptism need to hold a biblical doctrine of the Trinity (behind its pronouncement)
4) Do our confessions require that


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

WCF 28.V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

This is saying, as I have read and re-read it, that NOT being baptized does not mean that one cannot be regenerated or saved without it, and of course not all who were baptized are all saved in their lifetime.

Am I wrong in saying that Paul at one time, came across two disciples (of John in reality), that had only been baptized with John's Baptism...and then Paul give a brief on recieving the Holy Ghost since they believed, and yet they had not so much as heard of the Holy Ghost.

I hope this isn't opening a  , but doesn't Luke write that Paul baptised them in the Name of Jesus?

And I find it interesting that Paul was actually glad he hadn't been the one to baptise a bunch of Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:17)

Excerpt:
Geneva Study Bible
{19} For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: {20} not with {l} wisdom of words, lest the {21} cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

(19) The taking away of an objection: that he gave not himself to baptize many amongst them: not for the contempt of baptism, but because he was mainly occupied in delivering the doctrine, and committed those that received his doctrine to others to be baptized. And so he declared sufficiently how far he was from all ambition: whereas on the other hand they, whom he reprehends, as though they gathered disciples to themselves and not to Christ, bragged most ambitiously of numbers, which they had baptized.

(20) Now he turns himself to the teachers themselves, who pleased themselves in brave and glory-seeking eloquence, to the end that they might draw more disciples after them. He openly confesses that he was not similar to them, opposing gravely, as it became an apostle, his example against their perverse judgments: so that this is another place in this epistle with regard to the observing of a godly simplicity both in words and sentences in teaching the Gospel.

(l) With eloquence: which Paul casts off from himself not only as unnecessary, but also as completely contrary to the office of his apostleship: and yet Paul had this kind of eloquence, but it was heavenly, not of man, and void of fancy words.

(21) The reason why he did not use the pomp of words and fancy speech: because it was God's will to bring the world to his obedience by that way, by which the most foolish among men might understand that this work was done by God himself, without the skill of man. Therefore as salvation is set forth to us in the Gospel by the cross of Christ, which nothing is more contemptible than, and more far from life, so God would have the manner of the preaching of the cross, most different from those means with which men do use to draw and entice others, either to hear or believe: therefore it pleased him by a certain kind of most wise folly, to triumph over the most foolish wisdom of the world, as he had said before by Isaiah that he would. And by this we may gather that both these teachers who were puffed up with ambitious eloquence, and also their hearers, strayed far away from the goal and mark of their calling.

The Reformers involved with the Geneva Bible seem to have already seen that it isn't the Baptism that saves (As Rome teaches it does), but that it is quite important an act to do being Commanded of the Lord...and that it is the Sacrament of which we are essentially identified as Believers as well as Covenanters. 

Yes? No? Maybe So?


----------



## Prufrock

Scott,

Thanks for your posts.



> In the case of Rome, it became clear later (after Mr Calvin and Mr Luther) that not only was the Gospel rejected, but anathemas pronounced upon it. This was probably not clear to Mr Calvin and Mr Luther at that time.


Again, I am not arguing as to the truth or prudence of accepting Roman baptisms (although, personally, I do believe that such are, in fact, valid baptisms); I am simply putting forth what seems to be the clear trajectory of historic Reformed teaching. We have to remember that it wasn't just Luther and Calvin who thought these baptisms valid. Long after Trent and the anathemas placed upon our teaching, the most orthodox theologians of our tradition still taught such baptisms valid.



> Over time, the lines of seperation became much clearer, the doctrine was established and it seemed to establish that the sacraments were to be done carefully and with close fidelity to the Word.


Indeed. But I have to ask you a question back, which relates quite strongly to what you keep asking: does strict teaching as to _after what manner we ought to perform something_ mean that it is negated if not done the way it ought to be? We, from the historic paedo position, have taught that the substance of the sacrament consists of 1.) The element (i.e. water), and 2.) The name in which it is done. So long as these two things have been done properly (which, from the Turretin quote I included above, means not just that the trinitarian names are pronounced, but also that they _intend_ by this the orthodox meaning), then a baptism has been performed. Yes, it ought to be done by a proper minister, and it would be wrong for a reformed believer to seek out a baptism performed by another; but we don't mean by this that one who has previously been baptized by a Roman has received an invalid baptism.

Again, this is not an argument for the truth of it; just a delineation of the historic reformed thought.

Thanks.


----------



## Scott1

Paul,

Many thanks for discussing this difficult issue. I appreciate both your knowledge and irenic tone (a term I perhaps would not have known without Puritan Board) and trust this will be helpful for others seeking out biblical truth in this.



> Chapter XXVIII
> Of Baptism
> I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] *Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[*8]



It seems to me the assumption of the Confession here is that "His Church" needs to do the baptizing. While I realize there is a lot of discussion of what really constitutes "His Church" (the "marks" of a true church), it seems to me that might require, at a minimum, His Gospel. Without the Gospel, we are not left with much. That would seemingly disqualify the Roman Church in this generation, at least.

It seems the Confession is making this a qualification ab initio, not merely something aspirational, that His Church does the baptism, not something outside of His Church that gets the Trinitarian prouncement right and has a biblical view of the Trinity alone. It seems it would have to be His Church. Without the Gospel, it is hard indeed to see His Church.

From there, it would need to be done by a minister of the Gospel (that would seem to be a broadening clause, to include non-Reformed churches but it would seem specifically not the Roman one).



> II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, *by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto*.





> Prufrock
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> Long after Trent and the anathemas placed upon our teaching, the most orthodox theologians of our tradition still taught such baptisms valid.


We would both agree "our teaching" is not really ours, it is the clear teaching of the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture, and what Christ taught himself- salvation by grace through faith (in Christ's righteousness alone).

In Mr Luther's view, justification by (Christ's righteousness alone), which is the Gospel, which the Roman Church rejects and pronounces anathema on...

is the hinge of the door upon which the Church turns

I need to research the latter Reformed theologians and their view. Certainly it was not unanimous. All I know is my denomination did a (very helpful) study paper on this and 4-1 ruled that Roman baptisms are not valid Christian baptisms. In our polity, that does not have the force of ecclesiastical law or intepretation, but it is cause for "due and serious consideration."
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.html

So, I have heard there is a long line of theologians who have maintained Roman baptisms are not valid Christian baptisms.

It is also interesting to me that many who might say the Bible, and our Confession teach that Roman baptisms are, while defective, still valid due to their substance, say on the other hand,
the Lord's Supper is not shared with that communion. That's not the topic here and I won't go into it- but it only underscores the difficulty in understanding all this, for God's Honor and God's Glory.


----------



## Prufrock

Thanks, Scott. It's certainly an interesting and worthwhile topic to think both individually and corporately about. The practical working out of our doctrine is certainly meritorious of such time and energy.



> All I know is my denomination did a (very helpful) study paper on this and 4-1 ruled that Roman baptisms are not valid Christian baptisms.



Interesting. To what denomination do you belong? Is there a link to an online version of that position paper? I would love to read it. I have to confess that my knowledge of reformed and presbyterian polity and practice drops to almost zero when it comes to American or post-1800s stuff. I'd be quite interested in hearing a modern body's ruling on this.



> It seems the Confession is making this a qualification ab initio, not merely something aspirational, that His Church does the baptism, not something outside of His Church that gets the Trinitarian prouncement right and has a biblical view of the Trinity alone. It seems it would have to be His Church. Without the Gospel, it is hard indeed to see His Church.


 On a personal level, I certainly feel the weight of this reasoning; yet, I am not sure that it is fully convincing. The sacrament is, surely, a gift of Christ to his church, and will continue in the church through all ages. However, I'm not sure that the conclusion follows from this. For instance, we testify the same thing about the public reading of scripture. It is a gift, and an ordained means of grace in the church. Yet, I would not say that such a reading of scripture ceases to be effective _because_ it is performed in a Roman Catholic Church.

Secondly, I _have to_ understand the WCF in light of the theological climate in which it was born. And when I consider that the seeming majority of teachers at that time understood such baptisms valid, I must read these confessional statements in light of that. Thus, when I read the "by a lawfully ordained minister" clause, I have to understand this as prescriptive, not a definition of substance.

Thirdly, I will give you one, perhaps surprising reason for which Turretin pleads the efficacy of Roman baptism:


> There are still remains of the church in the papacy (Rev. 18:4) and God has not yet wholly left that church.


 They had no problem referring to the RCC as yet a church, and this is long after Trent. I would point out that, as I interpret it, the WCF itself refers to the RCC as a church. The original 1647, XXV.6 reads,


> There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.


 The revisions took out the entire last clause, removing the portion about the pope being "that Anitchrist." Ironically, I think that this move of "conciliation" allowed for a different accusation -- that of Rome being no church at all. For in the 1647, whatever it might say about the pope and his practice, it yet refers to the location of his exaltation against Christ as being "in the Church." Perhaps many here will disagree with this. Nevertheless, I find a consistent pattern in early reformed teachers, though still after Trent, referring to the Roman assembly yet as the church--Indeed, as a highly corrupt church with whom we can have no fellowship, and headed by "that antichrist" himself, but a church nonetheless. Thus I find myself disagreeing with the baptist idea of "it is no church at all."

Fourthly (sorry this is getting long), as you have brought up numerous times the "by a minister lawfully ordained" clause, such is not particular to the WCF. Thus, going back to Turretin, we find him stating:


> But although we do not think that the baptism once performed should be repeated, *still we do not think that infant baptism can be sought or received from popish priests without sin.*


 This roughly answers to the WCF. i.e., "Baptism is only to be administered by lawfully ordained ministers--not by a popish priest. However, as I (Turretin) have been arguing, a baptism by a popish priest is, nevertheless, valid."

Finally, in a very practical way, what do you think of this: I, personally, was baptized in a United Methodist Church as a child. Now, I don't know what you know about the UMC, but they are sometimes known as not being the most "evangelically" or "gospel" minded churches out there... Nevertheless, now, being regenerated by God, I still take great comfort in this baptism. I see this very visible seal of God upon me (of the very Triune God by whose name I was sealed), and the spirit assures my heart continually. I would not call this an invalid baptism. Thus I can see why those, such as a Calvin, who were baptized in Rome, later in life can see in very real terms the benefit (thus, validity?) of their baptisms. Just a thought.

Let me know what you think; I'll be looking forward to your response. Again, if you know of a place online where your church has that position paper, I'd love to read it.


----------



## Scott1

> Indeed, as a highly corrupt church with whom we can have no fellowship, and headed by "that antichrist" himself, but a church nonetheless. Thus I find myself disagreeing with the baptist idea of "it is no church at all."



It would seem that an entity that

1) is highly corrupt
2) with whom we can have no fellowship
3) headed by "that antichrist"

is not a church. How could we possibly have no fellowship at all with other branches of Christianity? In this, I assume you agree that someone in a Roman fellowship should not partake of the Lord's Supper in for example, an OPC church. Is that correct?

Couldn't we say points 1 to 3 apply to another religion entirely (e.g. Buddhism)?

We Reformed understand the distinction between the "visible" and "invisible" Church. There are individual Christians in the Roman communion. There are almost certainly some in non-christian religions (e.g. Someone gets saved today in a Buddhist Temple, and for a short time remains there).

But that is not the same thing as saying the ecclesiastical authority of the Church has the authority to perform or represent sacraments. That would seem, at least, to require a minister of the Gospel, the object of baptism. I don't see how any church can be a church without the Gospel. The Gospel is the spiritual basis of the invisible, universal church.



> Finally, in a very practical way, what do you think of this: I, personally, was baptized in a United Methodist Church as a child. Now, I don't know what you know about the UMC, but



Actually, we have something in common. I too was so baptized and was an active UMC member.

I am aware of the falling away from the authority of Scripture within that denomination and the liberalism that now dominates it denominational polity. We both would no longer agree with the Arminian influence in the theology. However, we both know there is still a big block of Christians, God fearing people who believe the Gospel there. The Church still officially holds to the ultimate authority of Scripture and the Gospel (the four legs of the table of Mr Wesley). The UMC does not officially pronounce anathema on the Gospel, but nominally, at least still holds it.

So, like you, I understand a UMC infant baptism would be valid as a Christian baptism, to be administered but once.


----------



## Prufrock

Scott,

(Side note: I just typed a hugely long quote from Turretin, and then erased it accidentally...)

Regarding the Roman church aspect, sorry if that got us off on a rabbit trail, but here is a paraphrase of how Turretin answers that question.

Short version, Turretin says that we can consider the RCC church under two forms: one, as it is Christian, under which consideration it may still be called a church, though much corrupted; and two, as it is papal, under which consideration it is to be considered Antichristian and apostate. However, under this consideration it may still be improperly and relatively called a church: 1.) the the believers and elect still in her; 2.) for containing the forms and scattered ruins of the church, namely the preaching of the word which is still in her, and the administration of the sacraments, *"especially baptism, which is still preserved entire in her as to substance"* (interesting note); and 3.) she still contains Christian and evangelical truths concerning the one triune God, Christ the God-man Mediator, the incarnation, death, resurrection, etc.

So much for Turretin. This certainly aids in his being able to accept the validity of Roman baptisms.

You asked:


> How could we possibly have no fellowship at all with other branches of Christianity?


 Well, how much fellowship does an OPC have with a United Methodist Church, or the Nazerene across town?

Also,


> In this, I assume you agree that someone in a Roman fellowship should not partake of the Lord's Supper in for example, an OPC church. Is that correct?


 Certainly I agree.

Overall, the only thing I can say is that historically, the reformed have not understood the minister of baptism to be a part of its substance, and again, that's how I have to understand the confession. A prescription is not the same as a definition of substance. Sorry to sound like a broken record with this. Baptism is indeed to be performed by a lawful minister of the gospel, and it would be sin for me to neglect such an administration and seek it elsewhere -- so goes the confession; however, this does not mean that baptism hasn't occurred without this, as this is not part of the substance of baptism -- it is only the proper means of its dispensing, which we would sin to do without.

By the way, thanks for posting that link. Ha, I must be blind; how didn't I see that right there?


----------



## Scott1

> she still contains Christian and evangelical truths concerning the one triune God, Christ the God-man Mediator, the incarnation, death, resurrection, etc.



Yes, we do share some important doctrines with the Roman church, the doctrine of the Trinity being one of them.



> one, as it is Christian, under which consideration it may still be called a church, though much corrupted; and two, as it is papal, under which consideration it is to be considered Antichristian and apostate. However, under this consideration it may still be improperly and relatively called a church: 1.) the the believers and elect still in her; 2.) for containing the forms and scattered ruins of the church, namely the preaching of the word which is still in her,



What it seems like Mr Turretin is saying is that one can be a Christian without the Gospel and one can be a Christian denomination without the Gospel- that's the implication. From that, he says but as long as there is a generalized biblical belief in the Trinity, anyone can baptize.

I know this takes this reasoning to an extreme but it sounds like Mr Turretin would say that a lone person, not a Christian but who intellectually believes in the basics of the Trinity (not even the eternality of the Holy Spirit from the Son to allow Orthodox), who is not even a member of a church could validly perform a Christian baptism because God will convey the substance. There is not even faith in this scenario to convey it, there are no Christians, the entity rejects the Gospel and substitutes another way to salvation.

How can a church be called a (Christian church) without the Gospel (of Christ)?

The fact that the Roman church at one time held the Gospel does not mean that a remnant remains in it for all time based on the past, regardless of what it believes or does now as Mr Turretin seems to argue. 

I do not know the answer to this but it seems Mr Turretin, by analogy would argue that a Samaritan (with a mixed up religion) could validly perform circumcision. Yes a circumcision was done, no doubt, it is a fact, but did that initiate the person into the covenant community of Israel? As long as there was a generic belief in the God of Israel. I don't know but it would seem the Law would have required the half Jew/half Gentile Samaritan to go through ceremonial washings (e.g. baptism) to get into the covenant community of Israel (by analogy, like a second baptism because the first was not valid).

Bottom line, it is hard to see how the Gospel does not essentially define the Church, both as to individuals and the corporate body. It would almost be like saying the sacraments operate outside the church. Doesn't the Confession make clear they are given to the church?


----------



## Scott1

> one, as it is Christian, under which consideration it may still be called a church, though much corrupted;



How can it be Christian without the Gospel (of Christ)?


(the bananas here are Reformed, but they are perplexed)

(the bananas are routing here for the Gospel)


----------



## Prufrock

Scott,

Backing up, first, the Eastern Orthodox are fully trinitarian -- they do not deny, as you imply, the eternity of the Holy Spirit. They teach fully that the Holy Spirit is fully divine, that he proceeds eternally from the Father.

Second, if it's all right with you, and though I was the one that brought it up, let's take the "churchliness" of the Roman CC out of this; I think it will lead us down more rabbit trails than it will aid in our understanding of the subject. I will mention something pertaining to this, however: the logic of men such as Calvin and Turretin starts at the opposite end of you, and moves in the other direction. You start with the premise that the RCC is no church, therefore, it cannot properly possess the sacrament of baptism. 

The old divines started from the other end, however; they observed, "baptism is practiced here; the word, though corrupt, is still read here; therefore, insomuch as these things are, then the church exists though in deplorable form." You have started with the church, and then determine on that basis whether or not baptism is performed; they started with baptism, and see it performed, therefore the church must exist in at least some form here, they say.

This different view point makes discussion wholly impractical on one level.

I will bring up Zipporah here, because Turretin does as well. When asking whether laymen or women can administer baptism (to which he staunchly answers, NO), he mentions that the case of Zipporah circumcision Moses' son cannot be pleaded. We must practice upon the basis of law, not story. However, he does note that, though this is not a right circumcision after the practice of men, and that it is sinful to engage in such practice, it was nevertheless efficacious before God. Why? Because _the thing itself_ (i.e., circumcision) was done, though improperly. What is the corollary to baptism? Though it is sinful and proper for any but a proper minister of the gospel to administer baptism, if _the thing itself_ is done (i.e., application of the water, and that in the name of the trinity, so long as it is _the_ Trinity that is intended), then it is truly done. This is valid before God.

Anyway, I think we may just be repeating ourselves at this point, so I do apologize.

End note: 
You said,


> It would almost be like saying the sacraments operate outside the church.


isn't it more true that the efficacy of sacraments is tied to faith, and not to its being in the church? Don't we rather define the church as that in which the sacraments are administered (along with the word being preached and discipline exercised)? We say that salvation belongs in the church _because_ that is where these means of grace are held and dispensed. It is not their being in the church which gives them efficacy (that is through the operation of God, and through faith); rather, it is on account of these that we identify and recognize the church; and we say that only the church may lawfully perform them, for what warrant does a private man have to baptize?


----------



## Scott1

> Backing up, first, the Eastern Orthodox are fully trinitarian -- they do not deny, as you imply, the eternity of the Holy Spirit. They teach fully that the Holy Spirit is fully divine, that he proceeds eternally from the Father.



But not the Son?



> You said,
> 
> Quote:
> It would almost be like saying the sacraments operate outside the church.
> 
> isn't it more true that the efficacy of sacraments is tied to faith, and not to its being in the church?



Yes, but isn't it faith in the Gospel?



> You start with the premise that the RCC is no church, therefore, it cannot properly possess the sacrament of baptism.
> 
> The old divines started from the other end, however; they observed, "baptism is practiced here; the word, though corrupt, is still read here; therefore, insomuch as these things are, then the church exists though in deplorable form." You have started with the church, and then determine on that basis whether or not baptism is performed; *they started with baptism, and see it performed, therefore the church must exist in at least some form here,* they say.



That is helpful, thank you.

I guess I am assuming that a church is not a Christian church without the Gospel.

It seems the logic is that because there is a trinitarian prouncement at baptism, there must be a church "in some form." There are a whole lot of assumptions in that, and we have alluded to that in earlier posts.

The other aspect from Mr Turretin's arguments is that because there was, in the past, a Gospel held, that now, in the present where none is held, that makes the baptism valid now (because there used to be a Gospel).


----------



## Prufrock

> But not the Son?


Nope. But that's okay. This is not a substantial difference. It is a matter of logic, not of faith. We don't really get on the Eastern Orthodox for that. They're trinitarian.

You said,


> Yes, but isn't it faith in the Gospel?


 Well, it's faith in Christ. But the reason I mentioned this is slightly different. As most of our theologians have professed, infants surely do not have faith; they may have the "germ of faith," i.e., the Holy Spirit, but not faith itself. Thus, for an infant being baptized in the RCC, whether or not the infant has faith in the gospel or not is a moot point. However, later in life, should that person come to faith, the sacrament then, through this faith, can still have efficacy, sealing the believer and assuring his heart. So yes, a _right_ faith is necessary for the sacrament to have efficacy -- but that faith is the faith of the recipient, not the administering church. It is not because they are in the visible church that the sacraments are efficacious; the church is simply the only place wherein there is authority for dispensing them. Does that make sense?

Also, you said


> It seems the logic is that because there is a trinitarian prouncement at baptism, there must be a church "in some form." There are a whole lot of assumptions in that, and we have alluded to that in earlier posts.


I don't think there are quite as many assumptions as it may seem. In so much as the marks of the church are present, then you have, however relatively and improperly, a form of a church.



> The other aspect from Mr Turretin's arguments is that because there was, in the past, a Gospel held, that now, in the present where none is held, that makes the baptism valid now (because there used to be a Gospel).


That, actually, isn't a part of his argument.

Anyway, I hope the clarification about faith and efficacy was helpful. As for the rest, well, I'm probably just  Sorry.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

I must interject something here:

As there are those who come in Jesus' Name saying...can it also be applied to the Father, and the Spirit?

We can realize by God's Holy Writ, comparing what the person coming in His name is saying...and realizing through the discernment of the Spirit whether this is the One True Christ...(ye shall know them by their fruits and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh)...can we not use the same Holy Writ to discern whether or not a particular "church" (such as the Eastern Orthodox) believes in the One True Triune God?

One can say they believe in Christ, and preach another Gospel... what of asking these "Trinitarians" if they believe the Work of the Father is indeed the Electing of Some into Christ? What will be their answer? 

Ask them, what is the Work of Christ in Salvation? Will they respond with Propitiating for the sins of those the Father Elected? In-so-doing, revealing the Father and His work in the Salvation of men?

Finally, ask them What the Work of the Spirit is in Salvation...will they answer or agree (this includes the former questions, agreement or understanding), with the knowledge that the Spirit gives Life and Understanding of the Work of the Son, who reveals the Work of the Father?

If they don't Understand the Work of each person of the Triune Godhead, (notice I didn't say KNOW), then how is it they believe in the same LORD of Heaven you believe in? Not to mention the same Jesus Christ.

How does that fit in here? Do we take Christ's words in (I believe) Matthew 13, and just kind of use them for JW's or LDS folks? What do you think?


----------



## Scott1

> *Well, it's faith in Christ*. But the reason I mentioned this is slightly different. As most of our theologians have professed, *infants surely do not have faith*; they may have the "germ of faith," i.e., the Holy Spirit, but not faith itself. Thus, for an infant being baptized in the RCC, whether or not the infant has faith in the gospel or not is a moot point. However, later in life, should that person come to faith, the sacrament then, through this faith, can still have efficacy, sealing the believer and assuring his heart. So yes, a right faith is necessary for the sacrament to have efficacy -- but that faith is the faith of the recipient, not the administering church. It is not because they are in the visible church that the sacraments are efficacious; *the church is simply the only place wherein there is authority for dispensing them*. Does that make sense?



Faith in Christ's righteousness alone? That's the Gospel.

Yes, infants do not have faith (actually, I don't believe we know that), but it is the faith of the parents, anyway, isn't it?

Again, is the church the place of authority where it does not hold to the Gospel? (I realize we discussed this before).


----------



## Prufrock

Scott, sorry, I think you misread one of those statements: I don't include the RCC as a lawfully ordained place for the administration of the sacrament. They do not have that authority. Which is why it would be sin to seek out baptism there, as this goes against the proper way of administration.


----------



## Scott1

One summary question, if I may:

Is it fair to say you do not think the Gospel is necessary for baptism to be efficacious in:

1) the church administrating it,
2) the administrator (e.g. priest), 
3) the recipient,
4) or the parents of the recipient (in the case of an infant)?

Nobody, only because the substance is conveyed by trinitarian prouncement.

Only a Trinitarian prouncement, and a biblical trinitarian heritage (without the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the Son)- that's it?


----------



## Prufrock

Scott,

I think this question, by its wording, forces the answerer into categories he would not apply himself.

In the historic reformed understanding Roman Catholic baptism is still baptism. I think the use of the word "efficacy" here is going to cause problems. Baptism is only "efficacious" in believers. Validity and efficiency are two separate things, and separate from all of these is right performance.

1. Right performance. Baptism is only to be performed by a minister of the gospel lawfully ordained. We confess this. Thus, it is not rightly performed by a Roman. The right and proper place of baptism is with evangelical churches. This, however, does not ensure efficacy -- an non-elect person can still be baptized in a church by a lawfully ordained minister where the gospel is rightly and fully preached, along with the rest of the counsel of God.

2. Validity. A baptism is "valid" when its substance has been performed. This means the proper element is applied (water) in the name of the triune God, so long as by "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is intended what the orthodox intent; and yes, this fully includes Eastern Orthodox, who again, are fully trinitarian (since you keep mentioning that). This is a baptism. This is the substance of baptism. All else is accidental. There are accidents, indeed, which are proper and improper, but they remain accidents (i.e., the administrator). Zipporah was unlawful in the administration of circumcision, yet this does not mean that circumcision was nevertheless performed. Thus, a Roman Catholic may be unlawful in administering the sacrament, yet the substance of the sacrament has been performed.

3. Efficacious. A baptism, no matter what, is only efficacious to the elect. Whatever misunderstanding of the gospel the church in which I was baptized may have, I am no longer in that church. I have come to faith. And this faith makes the baptism effectual. It clings to the sealing by the (orthodox's) Triune God. The administrator of my baptism may not have understood fully the distinct role that each member of the Godhead played in my redemption, but I understand it; and I am also no longer in that church, and I have faith; and thus, beholding my seal of this triune God, it is an effective sacrament. Because, 1.) it was a valid baptism; and 2.) it is made effectual through faith.


----------



## Prufrock

TheFleshProfitethNothing said:


> If they don't Understand the Work of each person of the Triune Godhead, (notice I didn't say KNOW), then how is it they believe in the same LORD of Heaven you believe in? Not to mention the same Jesus Christ.



Duane, you raise some valid thoughts here, but I don't think they quite apply. They are just a bit too fluid. Are we thus to claim that Arminian baptisms are invalid? 

Also, it is not the administrator who is sealed; it is the recipient. It is efficacious in me because I know by whom I am sealed, regardless of the salvific understanding of the administrator.


----------



## Scott1

> I think the use of the word "efficacy" here is going to cause problems. Baptism is only "efficacious" in believers.



Yes, only the Holy Spirit can make baptism efficacious. That term has specialized meaning in Reformed Theology so using it in this way may be confusing.


----------



## Staphlobob

I was baptized by the papist church in 1953. Later on when I became Lutheran (1986) my baptism wasn't questioned. The same was true when I became Presbyterian (ERPC) in 2007.

The only water ever thrown on me was by a priest.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

I just wanted to say, being baptism doesn't save you to begin with, as I pretty much posted a couple of posts ago...I don't believe it matters where you were baptised...as long as it is in the name of the Father...Son...Holy Ghost; OR the Name of Jesus Christ (being "All Power in heaven and on earth hath been given unto Me").

The fact one WAS indeed baptised, before Salvation, doesn't mean anything...the point is one was baptised, period. Now in the case of those who were never baptised, well, they would of necessity need to be baptised. 

Does, "He who is not for Me is against Me" apply in this situation at all? At one point men were casting out demons in Christ's name and the Apostles wanted to rebuke them...and that was Christ's reply. Is this a similar situation??


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

By the way...I'm not arguing against unbelievers baptism...I believe if one was publicly baptised that it makes sense they don't need another...though I can make an argument that one should be rebaptised.

I was baptised by a Pentecostal preacher in the name of Jesus Christ...should I go get rebaptised?

Or does baptism save me? 

I know the answer, so don't get all crazy in the head thinking..."oh my goodness, this man needs some guidance!!!" or some other thing.


----------



## Scott1

From the PCA Study Commission on the validity of certain baptisms majority report (1987):



> In its historical survey, *the Committee found that with one exception the General Assemblies of American Presbyterian churches where making a judgment on the matter have taken the position of non-validity for Roman Catholic baptism.* This was done in 1845 by the Old School Assembly and the reasons given in the report have prevailed until today. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church took the same position in 1876. The United Presbyterian Church in North America, in various actions from 1869 to 1871, took the same position. The Presbyterian Church, U.S., commonly referred to as the Southern Presbyterian Church, had consistently taken the same position of the non-validity of Romish baptism. The Southern Church referred to the action of the General Assembly, Old School, of 1845, but took a full action of its own in 1871. The Assembly of 1884 reaffirmed the action of 1871 and the Assembly of 1914 declined to rescind its action of 1884. The one exception is the action of the 1981 Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, espousing and reiterating the objections of Charles Hodge to the decision of the 1845 General Assembly.


----------



## Prufrock

Thanks for posting that.

And indeed, who am I against such a committee, but, nevertheless, I dissent from that decision, and am in favor of the older reformed tradition and, what I think was the accepted practice that the WCF was founded upon.


----------



## Staphlobob

TheFleshProfitethNothing said:


> By the way...I'm not arguing against unbelievers baptism...I believe if one was publicly baptised that it makes sense they don't need another...though I can make an argument that one should be rebaptised.
> 
> I was baptised by a Pentecostal preacher in the name of Jesus Christ...should I go get rebaptised?
> 
> Or does baptism save me?
> 
> I know the answer, so don't get all crazy in the head thinking..."oh my goodness, this man needs some guidance!!!" or some other thing.




Cool.


----------



## Scott1

Prufrock said:


> Thanks for posting that.
> 
> And indeed, who am I against such a committee, but, nevertheless, I dissent from that decision, and am in favor of the older reformed tradition and, what I think was the accepted practice that the WCF was founded upon.



There was also a minority report that supports your understanding.

Although the vote was 4 to 1 in favor of nonvalidity of (modern) Roman baptisms, both reports were received by the PCA General Assembly which means both views are recommended for "due and serious consideration" by church courts (e.g. sessions and presbyteries). The effect of that, in our polity, as I understand it, is there was no fixed position on this issue commended to the denomination. Sometimes "Study Committees" don't settle things, but they do allow everyone to be heard- but that's another topic.

I would note that a couple of men on the majority were "founding fathers" of the PCA, whose opinions are greatly respected.


----------



## Scott1

From the PCA majority report regarding the arguments for the validity of Roman baptisms (emphasis added):



> A. An Analysis of the Arguments for the Validity of Roman Catholic Baptism.
> 
> The committee considered the arguments presented by the RPCES Synod's committee report. In doing so, it followed the advice and urging of that committee to read and consider the arguments of the most vigorous American exponent of that position, C. Hodge. The article by Hodge, written in opposition to the 1845 Assembly's decision on the matter, which Hodge himself felt constrained to note was by a vote of 169 to 8, with 6 abstaining, appeared in the Princeton Review of 1845, pp. 444, ff., and has been reproduced in Hodge's Church Polity, pp. 191 ff. *The writer argues that three things are necessary for there to be a valid baptism, i.e., washing with water, in the name of the Trinity, and with the ostensible professed design to comply with the command of Christ, i.e., intent. The conclusion reached by Hodge was that the three elements are present in Roman Catholic baptism and therefore that it is valid. *
> *The committee was convinced that this case was both inadequate *and also at points in error in reference to Roman Catholic baptism. *Its inadequacy is seen by the fact that this appraisal or system of analysis would also of necessity declare as valid the baptism of certain professedly Christian but sectarian groups, such as the Mormons. *Usually those arguing for the Roman Catholic baptism would agree that these other baptisms are not valid because in the second and third aspects, in the name of the Trinity and with true design or intent, these other baptisms are not really Biblical and Christian in their use of the Trinity or in their understanding of the design or intent of baptism. But it is just this objection with respect to the true design or intent that the committee thinks applies also to Roman Catholic baptism. At this point we see both an inadequacy and an error.
> 
> Although the three elements are present in Mormon baptism, they are now seen to be inadequate as formal and external items. *They may now only function as significant items when they are controlled by and expressions of the overarching truth of the Gospel. Without the truth of the Gospel, *there is no true and valid baptism even when these elements are present. It is this larger perspective which is necessary and which is lacking in Hodge's application of the three elements to the Roman Catholic church.
> 
> As one step forward to this necessary larger perspective, one can see further the inadequacy and error of this three-element approach by comparing it with our confessional evaluation of the other sacrament, the Lord's Supper, as it is administered in the Roman Catholic Church as the mass. Here also one can devise a formal and external description of the elements necessary for a valid Lord's Supper which is properly analogous to that given for a valid baptism, i.e., the prescribed material, bread and wine, the prescribed formula, the words of institution, and the intent, "with the ostensible professed design to comply with the command of Christ" (Minutes, RPCES, 1981, p. 45). But notice, in spite of the fact that these three analogous elements are present, *our confessional standards adjudge the Roman Catholic observance of the Lord's Supper, the mass, to be invalid.* The Westminster Confession of Faith (xxix, 2) says "that the Papist sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice " The Confession (xxix, 6) goes on to say that the doctrine of the mass "overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries" (italics added).
> 
> *With this question of doctrine we have come to a larger aspect of the question. It is not only the doctrine of the sacrament itself that is in view, but also the question of the doctrine concerning the church as one faithful or degenerate with respect to the Gospel.* It is this larger perspective concerning the church which has already brought Presbyterians in fact to recognize the invalidity of Mormon baptism, even when the three elements are present, and the invalidity of Unitarian baptism (Minutes of General Assembly, 1814; Minutes of General Assembly, 1871). This brings us then to a consideration of the case for the invalidity of Roman Catholic baptism.


----------



## Pilgrim

TheFleshProfitethNothing said:


> By the way...I'm not arguing against unbelievers baptism...I believe if one was publicly baptised that it makes sense they don't need another...though I can make an argument that one should be rebaptised.
> 
> I was baptised by a Pentecostal preacher in the name of Jesus Christ...should I go get rebaptised?



If it was a Oneness Pentecostal preacher then indeed you would need to be baptized. The vast majority of the forum, whether paedo or credo, would agree.


----------



## Prufrock

That is, in the case of the Oneness part. Per earlier parts of this discussion, a baptism by those who do not profess the trinity is no baptism, though Witsius (and a few others that I remember) were willing to grant the _possibility_ of baptism being valid if performed in only the name of Jesus, so long as by his name they represent the entire, true trinity. A Oneness church, however, (who are the only people I know of today who so baptize[?]) would fall outside this realm.


----------



## Prufrock

That does raise an interesting question which has never occurred to me before, however; perhaps others out there have. If one has been baptized, and later in life either comes to faith, or simply attends a new church, then what is the proper practice if there is doubt whether a proper baptism was administered? If I can not tell you whether my baptism was trinitarian or not, do I play the "safe" route, and be baptized; or do I play it "optimistically" and trust that it was? As an elder or minister, what do you have that new member do who is not sure of the circumstances of his baptism?

I'm curious to know what you think -- especially if there are elders out there...

*Edited to add*
Now that I've asked this, I think the answer is probably a bit more obvious than I thought for a minute there. If one knows nothing of their baptism (only vaguely that it occurred), then such probably doesn't mean too much, nor would it seem to offer much aid to faith. Or am I missing the point here?
When the confessions were written, this seems like it would have never been an occurring incident for many reasons.


----------



## Scott1

> Prufrock
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> Per earlier parts of this discussion, a baptism by those who do not profess the trinity is no baptism, though Witsius (and a few others that I remember) were willing to grant the possibility of baptism being valid if performed in only the name of Jesus, so long as by his name they represent the entire, true trinity



This strikes me as showing the logical and practical limitations of saying that as long as a baptism is "trinitarian", this alone makes it is always a valid Christian baptism, made so by the mechanics, and it is to be administered but once.

On the one hand, we say it is the trinitarian pronouncement that does it, then we say trinitarian pronouncement plus trinitarian intent, but not necessarily a biblical doctrine of the trinity. It seems this makes the administration of this determinative, not biblical truth, faith or church authority.

I know baptism is not analogous to preaching the Word of God, but we would certainly say wrong preaching was invalid, and needed to be corrected. The Word wrongly taught would not be sacrosanct in the sense we could not re-do it. But, it is almost as if baptism is, yet our standards are very specific about who must do it.



> If one has been baptized, and later in life either comes to faith, or simply attends a new church, then what is the proper practice if there is doubt whether a proper baptism was administered?



I have heard there are three practices in my denomination regarding Roman baptisms:

1) invalid so baptism is necessary
2) valid so re-baptism is not necessary
3) probably valid but if church member (or parents of an infant) are doubting it, they may be re-baptized

While there is practical benefit to the third position, it seems odd to me that we would turn the doctrinal decision of the administration of a church sacrament (to be done, according to the Confession only "by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto,") over to person being baptized. 

The fact that we are willing to re-baptize in the case of doubt shows that perhaps we are not as sure about what constitutes a valid baptism (e.g. the mechanics only) or that it is made sacrosanct by the mechanics.


----------



## Prufrock

> but not necessarily a biblical doctrine of the trinity.


?

Sorry for the short response, but where did that one come from? That's the keystone to what I've been saying Turretin, et al have been arguing this whole time. It has to be the biblical doctrine of the trinity.


----------



## Scott1

Prufrock said:


> but not necessarily a biblical doctrine of the trinity.
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> Sorry for the short response, but where did that one come from? That's the keystone to what I've been saying Turretin, et al have been arguing this whole time. It has to be the biblical doctrine of the trinity.
Click to expand...


That phrase was part of refering to the allowance for the Orthodox to not believe that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the other members of the Godhead (Father and Son), 

that is that Orthodox baptisms are valid Christian baptisms, to be administered but once, even though they do not hold the complete biblical view of the Trinity (let alone the Gospel).


----------



## Prufrock

Scott,

Again, no one claims the Eastern Orthodox aren't fully trinitarian. They are. If you want to call them out biblically and say they aren't Trinitarian, then please demonstrate to me biblically the procession of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son, and then demonstrate to me why this is necessary for the Trinity to hold.

(I've been convinced that the Western conception is true, of a dual procession, just in case anyone is wondering; I hold the WCF's maintaining of this.)

(Sorry this post is slightly off the topic of baptism, everyone, but it keeps coming up in this thread; it seems pertinent.)


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

Hmm...getting quite confusing in here. Whether one believes in the ONE Triune God comes in to question again, if you want to strain at gnats....

Look! If one is baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ, by a Oneness, what is different about those who baptise in the Name of the Trinity? I mean, one can say they believe in the Triune God and STILL hate the docrine of Election, or Limited Atonement, etc., etc...

Are they REALLY believing in the ONE true God and Saviour? On the one hand proclaiming this Triune God and on the other "denying the One who bought them"?

I am not afraid to get wet again...I mean this time, if I go the RE-Baptism route, it will be a pouring...I was immersed last time...though the WCF says 28.III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is *rightly administered *by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person. 

So, anyone who is immersed, must be in error?? I haven't given any in-depth serious thought of my baptism, simply because I was baptised. So, now I must be re-baptised according to, as one posted, "the majority of the board"???


----------



## Scott1

Prufrock said:


> Scott,
> 
> Again, no one claims the Eastern Orthodox aren't fully trinitarian. They are. If you want to call them out biblically and say they aren't Trinitarian, then please demonstrate to me biblically the procession of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son, and then demonstrate to me why this is necessary for the Trinity to hold.
> 
> (Sorry this post is slightly off the topic of baptism, everyone, but it keeps coming up in this thread; it seems pertinent.)



Westminster Confession of Faith (emphasis added):



> Chapter II
> Of God, and of the Holy Trinity
> 
> III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.[38] The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; [39] *the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. [40]*



Scripture proofs



> [38] (Traditionally, I John 5:7 is placed here, but we have, for obvious reasons, omitted it in our online edition) MATT 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. MATT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. II COR 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
> 
> [39] JOHN 1:14,18 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
> 
> [40] JOHN 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of me. GAL 4:6 And Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.


----------



## Prufrock

Please see above (I added something right before you posted yours). I know what our confession says. I affirm it. But that's not what I am asking.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

It IS that simple, yet that is not all there is.

What is it one believes about the work of their salvation by each person of the Godhead?


----------



## Prufrock

Scott and Duane,

Sorry, I'd love to respond now, but I have to head out for a while. Work and all that...always gets in the way...


----------



## Prufrock

And Scott, for clarity's sake, let me pose my question a bit differently. I don't want "prooftexts" for the dual procession. If you are going to keep calling the Orthodox "Trinitarian-ly deficient," that they do not actually believe in the trinity, then please give me a scriptural argument that shows that such a belief as theirs negates the trinity.

Thanks.


----------



## Scott1

My understanding is that the largest schism in the Christian Church after the Protestant reformation was over the issue of the trinity. That's why the Orthodox separated from the Roman Church over this. 

It seems to me the Roman Church got this right and considered it essential to understanding the Trinity.

It is my understanding that the co-eternality of God the Holy Spirit as our Confession summarizes Scripture to teach is part of a biblical doctrine of the Trinity.

I am glad to see you affirm the Confessional view (and thought you did before) but it goes to show for me how far we are willing to go in placing validity on the bare mechanics of administering baptism.

The Orthodox Church has been separated, over this issue of the Trinity for a 1,000 years.


----------



## fredtgreco

TheFleshProfitethNothing said:


> I am not afraid to get wet again...I mean this time, if I go the RE-Baptism route, it will be a pouring...I was immersed last time...though the WCF says 28.III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is *rightly administered *by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.
> 
> So, anyone who is immersed, must be in error?? I haven't given any in-depth serious thought of my baptism, simply because I was baptised. So, now I must be re-baptised according to, as one posted, "the majority of the board"???



The Confession actually says the opposite of what you interpret. Whereas Baptists _insist_ on immersion (and all other baptisms are invalid or non-baptisms) Confessional Presbyterians believe that the mode is not essential. Whether immersion, affusion (pouring) or aspersion (sprinkling) - all are valid.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

My question is simply about picking and choosing...WCF 27.III states my position a little better...but, my point is simply if I were baptised by a Oneness Pentecostal, and I'm not exactly sure he was, I believe in the Triune God, Father not the Son, and the Holy Spirit being the Third Person.

It seems to me, that one, as I have mentioned already, can simply state, as long as one believes in Three distinct Persons in the Godhead, and that all are in Essence One God, that that baptism is just fine...yet, when searching to find out if the baptiser REALLY believes in this self same Trinity, is altogether another matter. The God of Rome is NOT our God...yet, it is ok for them to baptise in the Name of the Father, and the Name of the Son, and the Name of the Holy Ghost...and again, as I mentioned earlier...the NAME Paul and Peter used when they baptised was what Name?? Jesus Christ!

Now, here is another valid question...if one is baptised in His Name, and we know Jesus Himself said that many would Come In His Name...does that not make void any baptism by anyone who names the Name of Christ and believes in the Father, Son, and HolyGhost? Whether Oneness or not? Is in fact, the Arminian Trinity the self-Same Trinity of Scripture as the one true God the Reformed believers profess and preach...and if the Arminian Gospel is opposed to ours, how can it be that one believing in it, and is baptised in the name of the "God" of it, be a real and valid baptism?

Does that help to clarify where I'm coming from on this? I sincerely don't question modes. My question is on consistency. I'm with Calvin and I don't need to be re-baptised...and this is my view, until the LORD reveals to me otherwise.


----------



## Prufrock

Scott, 

Sorry this will be a fairly contradictory post to yours, but there's just a lot in here I think is absolutely not true.



> It is my understanding that the co-eternality of God the Holy Spirit as our Confession summarizes Scripture to teach is part of a biblical doctrine of the Trinity.



Actually, neither side denies the eternal procession of the Spirit. This is not a matter of orthodoxy or heresy. The Spirit is eternal, equal with the Father and Son. Consult Turretin, or the other protestant writers: there is nothing offensive in the Eastern Orthodox doctrine. This really is not a big issue. I have no problems with the Eastern understanding, and I don't think any other confessional people ought to, either.



> My understanding is that the largest schism in the Christian Church after the Protestant reformation was over the issue of the trinity. That's why the Orthodox separated from the Roman Church over this.
> 
> It seems to me the Roman Church got this right and considered it essential to understanding the Trinity.


And,


> The Orthodox Church has been separated, over this issue of the Trinity for a 1,000 years.


It's really not quite that simple, historically. The issue isn't the filioque (the clause, "and from the Son, in the Nicene Creed) itself. On the Western side, it has to do with the authority of Rome, and on the Eastern side, an adherence to a belief in the perfection of the creeds.
The original Nicene Creed ended simply with, "And we believe in the Holy Spirit." Then, at Constantinople, the ecumenical council expanded this to say, "the Lord and giver of life, _who proceeds from the Father_, who with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified, etc." Only the Father was still mentioned as the source of procession. The East and West already had differing ideas about this at this point, both of which could be represented by the Creed: the Greeks understood it restrictively, and the Latins allowed for inclusivity. In 589, a synod in Toledo, Spain, added the filioque clause to their Nicene Creed. When it was requested of Pope Leo III to allow this to be added to the creed, though he decided in favor of the doctrine of double procession, he nevertheless opposed its addition to the creed and even took steps to ensure it could never be done. Schaff notes: His predecessor, Hadrian I., had a few years before (between 792 and 795) defended the Greek formula of John of Damascus and patriarch Tarasius, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. But the violent assault of Photius upon the Latin doctrine, as heretical, drove the Latin church into the defensive. Hence, since the ninth century, the, Filioque was gradually introduced into the Nicene Creed all over the West, and the popes themselves, notwithstanding their infallibility, approved what their predecessors had condemned."

Thus, the Eastern church stands opposed to the Western innovation of adding something to the creed, which they claim they have absolutely no right to do. This is a big problem for the Eastern church, who believes solidly in the perfection of the ancient creeds and is opposed to theological "newness." Thus, they accuse the West of heresy.

The problem was different in the west. Theological considerations aside, the East simply was not submitting to Rome and her judgments. Thus, the East is schismatic.

Ultimately, the source of division between the two churches is entirely political, not theological. The filioque is often pointed to as an occasion of continued division, but it is nowhere close to being the cause. The cause is authority.



> I am glad to see you affirm the Confessional view (and thought you did before) but it goes to show for me how far we are willing to go in placing validity on the bare mechanics of administering baptism.


I actually think it wonderful that we allow such things. This is our acknowledgment that baptism doesn't belong to us, but rather to God; and as long as _the thing itself_ (all that belongs to the substance of baptism) is performed, then who are we to say God cannot/will not use this?

Anyway, I really hope the Eastern Orthodox trinity thing is something you'll be able to let go. It is a philosophical/metaphysical issue; not scriptural. It stands or falls based upon logic, not exegesis. It in no way changes the substance of the trinity.


----------



## Prufrock

Duane,

You said,


> My question is simply about picking and choosing...WCF 27.III states my position a little better...


The only problem is that I think that goes entirely against your argument. The confession there states, "The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, *and the word of institution*, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers." Indeed, the worthiness of the administrator has nothing to do with it. The word of institution, however, does.



> The God of Rome is NOT our God...


 He's not? Are you saying that God is created by us and how we understand and describe him? Or is YHWH just YHWH, whether we understand him rightly or not?



> Is in fact, the Arminian Trinity the self-Same Trinity of Scripture as the one true God the Reformed believers profess and preach...and if the Arminian Gospel is opposed to ours, how can it be that one believing in it, and is baptised in the name of the "God" of it, be a real and valid baptism?


I think you seriously need to rethink some things in here. If you so intimately tie the person of God to our understanding of all his actions and deeds, then what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees about what God has commanded or done, or the manner in which he has done it, worships a different God. Is the God of the supralapsarian a "different god" then the infralapsarian worships? Of course not. I'd slow down and rethink that statement and what it is that you're charging.



> I sincerely don't question modes. My question is on consistency.


Can you explain?


----------



## Scott1

Thanks for the history and interaction on this, Paul.

I think two ways of looking at this are well stated now and there is no need for further clarification. Hopefully, people studying this will see two ways to view this within Presbyterian and reformed doctrine. A lot of good points have been made and I have found this useful in searching this out for myself.

Hopefully, also this will further love for and protection of the Gospel, and our Lord's church.

Blessings.


----------



## OPC'n

Scott1 said:


> *Well, it's faith in Christ*. But the reason I mentioned this is slightly different. As most of our theologians have professed, *infants surely do not have faith*; they may have the "germ of faith," i.e., the Holy Spirit, but not faith itself. Thus, for an infant being baptized in the RCC, whether or not the infant has faith in the gospel or not is a moot point. However, later in life, should that person come to faith, the sacrament then, through this faith, can still have efficacy, sealing the believer and assuring his heart. So yes, a right faith is necessary for the sacrament to have efficacy -- but that faith is the faith of the recipient, not the administering church. It is not because they are in the visible church that the sacraments are efficacious; *the church is simply the only place wherein there is authority for dispensing them*. Does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in Christ's righteousness alone? That's the Gospel.
> 
> 
> Yes, infants do not have faith (actually, I don't believe we know that), but it is the faith of the parents, anyway, isn't it?
> 
> Again, is the church the place of authority where it does not hold to the Gospel? (I realize we discussed this before).
Click to expand...


I thought you guys just convinced me that some infants do have faith in Christ and that if they die they go to heaven? The germ of faith? What's that? You're either regenerated or you're not.


----------



## Scott1

> sjonee
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> I thought you guys just convinced me that some infants do have faith in Christ and that if they die they go to heaven? The germ of faith? What's that? You're either regenerated or you're not.



We were not discussing infant salvation because we both agree God can and does save infants- we just do not know how many or how few that is.

Right here, we were talking about the faith of the parents bringing their child forward for baptism.

Believing that God can and does save infants, means God regenerates them and they immediately have faith. They may not have cognitive ability to express it to us (or we may not be able to understand it) but it is there because God causes it to be there, and God can do that at any age.


----------



## Pilgrim

TheFleshProfitethNothing said:


> Hmm...getting quite confusing in here. Whether one believes in the ONE Triune God comes in to question again, if you want to strain at gnats....
> 
> Look! If one is baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ, by a Oneness, what is different about those who baptise in the Name of the Trinity? I mean, one can say they believe in the Triune God and STILL hate the docrine of Election, or Limited Atonement, etc., etc...
> 
> Are they REALLY believing in the ONE true God and Saviour? On the one hand proclaiming this Triune God and on the other "denying the One who bought them"?
> 
> I am not afraid to get wet again...I mean this time, if I go the RE-Baptism route, it will be a pouring...I was immersed last time...though the WCF says 28.III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is *rightly administered *by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.
> 
> So, anyone who is immersed, must be in error?? I haven't given any in-depth serious thought of my baptism, simply because I was baptised. So, now I must be re-baptised according to, as one posted, "the majority of the board"???



Regarding the "majority of the board," my point certainly wasn't that truth is decided by what a majority of the PB thinks. I was emphasizing that it wasn't a credo/paedo issue, that both orthodox Presbyterians and Baptists agree that Oneness Pentecostal baptism is not Christian baptism. 

The term "Pentecostal" means different things in different parts of the country. Where I am from in Louisiana it typically means Oneness, but in other parts of the country where Oneness people are practically unheard of, it is assumed that it is a Trinitarian group like the Assembly of God. As another poster noted, the fact that he baptized in the name of Jesus _may_ be an indication that he was Oneness. Baptism in the name of Jesus isn't unbiblical, but today it is generally Oneness groups that do this. I would attempt to locate the statement of faith of that church to determine whether or not it was Oneness.


----------



## Prufrock

> Thanks for the history and interaction on this, Paul.
> 
> I think two ways of looking at this are well stated now and there is no need for further clarification. Hopefully, people studying this will see two ways to view this within Presbyterian and reformed doctrine. A lot of good points have been made and I have found this useful in searching this out for myself.



And thank you also, Scott.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

Hey! Prufrock and Scott1

Ye lackest signatures in your posts. I plead ye; maketh ye signatures for each of thine selves, that thine selves may be true. By this we may knowest, from whence ye cometh; though we may not know where ye listeth.

I thankest both of ye for your haste to make this aright!


----------



## Prufrock

I would if I could but I can't. See here.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

oh..lol....wow...I do apologize for my jest...thanks for the link.


----------

