# Catholic & Eastern Orthodox baptism valid?



## Jerusalem Blade (May 23, 2007)

This is a practical question for me. I am in a country where Greek Orthodoxy is the "state" and official religion. But I will some day be back in the states, Lord willing, and be where Catholics are numerous as well.

I aim to evangelize English-speaking Greek Cypriots (so they may in turn evangelize their Greek-only speaking compatriots), and anticipate the Lord converting some.

I was talking with my fellow elder today about receiving various folks into membership in our fledgling church plant, and we happened upon the topic of Catholics and Orthodox wanting to join.

How many of you consider the baptisms of these organizations valid? I know there is difference of opinion among solid Reformed folks.

Thanks for taking the time to consider this.

Steve


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 23, 2007)

What is the confessional position of your church plant?


----------



## KMK (May 24, 2007)

I know Joe Morecraft recognizes RC baptisms as valid.


----------



## SRoper (May 24, 2007)

They are performed with water, and the words of institution are used. I consider them valid.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 24, 2007)

Tom,

The Westminster Standards. Although we honor the 3FU and 1689 and accept into full membership such as hold to them.

There is no other Reformed church in this city (the third largest in the country), and being surrounded by Charismatics and Arminians we desired to offer safe haven to the Reformed and Reformed Baptists as well (many UK expat RBs here).

Steve


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 24, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Tom,
> 
> The Westminster Standards. Although we honor the 3FU and 1689 and accept into full membership such as hold to them.
> 
> ...



I would say then that any trinitarian baptism performed with water would be acceptable. 



> 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. (WCF 27:3)



The alternative would be the need to go back and act as "fruit inspectors" of the original group/minister doing the baptism.


----------



## larryjf (May 24, 2007)

What if they were baptized by a believer who was not ordained??


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 24, 2007)

larryjf said:


> What if they were baptized by a believer who was not ordained??



That would not be lawful.



> There be 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*.


----------



## larryjf (May 24, 2007)

How would "lawfully ordained" be defined?


----------



## Staphlobob (May 24, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> That would not be lawful.




Interesting. I'd never thought of that perspective.

You see, in both Roman and EO theology such a baptism would be considered valid. It may (but not necessarily) require a "conditional" re-baptism, but generally speaking it would be accepted. For centuries these two institutions have accepted "emergency" baptisms as done by anyone ... even non-Christians. Of course the reason for this is that they view baptism as being regenerative. The Reformed don't.

Interesting. Thanks for an insight I'd never considered!


----------



## Tirian (May 24, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> How many of you consider the baptisms of these organizations valid? I know there is difference of opinion among solid Reformed folks.
> 
> Steve




I think the WCF articulates the grounds for acceptance as has already been shown. 

With love and gentleness, it may be necessary to work through any difficulties the adult believer has in relation to their RC baptism on the basis of the spiritual condition of their parents:


WCF 28:4 Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ (Mar_16:15, Mar_16:16; Act_8:37, Act_8:38), but also the *infants of one or both believing parents*, are to be baptized (Gen_17:7, Gen_17:9 with Gal_3:9, Gal_3:14, and Col_2:11, Col_2:12, and Act_2:38, Act_2:39, and Rom_4:11, Rom_4:12; Mat_28:19; Mar_10:13-16; Luk_18:15; 1Co_7:14).

If they knew their parents had not gone on to a life characteristic of one who walks with Christ, they may have some concern over the basis for the application of this covenant sign at the time. 

I think it pays to be sensitive to this, and if it causes them concern that you ought to think through whether it is right in this instance to bar them being baptised now subject to the conditions explained therein (WCF 28:4).

Matt


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 24, 2007)

larryjf said:


> How would "lawfully ordained" be defined?



"According to the common doctrine of Protestants, an ordained minister is a man appointed to perform the sacred functions of teaching and administering the sacraments in any community professing Christianity.... [W]hether it be done by a prelate, a presbytery, by the people, or by the magistrate with the consent of the people, if a man is recognised by a Christian community as a minister, he is to be regarded as having due authority to act as such." (Hodge, _Do Roman Catholic Clergy Count as Ministers of the Gospel?_)


----------



## Herald (May 24, 2007)

Interesting. Many consider Roman baptism valid, but if the officiant of the baptism is not ordained it is not valid. By extension those who hold to this view would recognize Roman priests as having a valid ordination. It seems like a back door validation of Romanism. I understand I am in distinct minority, but I do not view Roman baptism as valid.


----------



## larryjf (May 24, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> "According to the common doctrine of Protestants, an ordained minister is a man appointed to perform the sacred functions of teaching and administering the sacraments in any community professing Christianity.... [W]hether it be done by a prelate, a presbytery, by the people, or by the magistrate with the consent of the people, if a man is recognized by a Christian community as a minister, he is to be regarded as having due authority to act as such." (Hodge, _Do Roman Catholic Clergy Count as Ministers of the Gospel?_)



Interesting.
I wonder if a Catholic community should be considered a Christian community. What would be the common denominator to be considered a Christian community?

I also wonder how that might carry over in some folks idea of online community.


----------



## KMK (May 24, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> "According to the common doctrine of Protestants, an ordained minister is a man appointed to perform the sacred functions of teaching and administering the sacraments in any community professing Christianity.... [W]hether it be done by a prelate, a presbytery, by the people, or by the magistrate with the consent of the people, if a man is recognised by a Christian community as a minister, he is to be regarded as having due authority to act as such." (Hodge, _Do Roman Catholic Clergy Count as Ministers of the Gospel?_)



Which Hodge is that?


----------



## KMK (May 24, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> There is no other Reformed church in this city (the third largest in the country), and being surrounded by Charismatics and Arminians we desired to offer safe haven to the Reformed and Reformed Baptists as well



I am right behind you on that, brother! We try to do the same. We have basically become a haven for anyone who is tired of 'purpose driven/church growth' and desires the pure milk of the word.


----------



## Archlute (May 24, 2007)

SRoper said:


> They are performed with water, and the words of institution are used. I consider them valid.



Scott, there is a well written PCA study committee report found here:

http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.pdf

It may not change your mind, but I found it convincing.


So, no, I do not consider them to be valid baptisms.


----------



## larryjf (May 24, 2007)

Excellent article Adam.


----------



## MW (May 24, 2007)

Once you bring "lawfully ordained" as a pre-requisite to valid baptism I think you create unnecessary difficulties. The WCF was clarifying how baptism *should* be performed; it wasn't indicating what elements are necessary to make a baptism valid. The Shorter Catechism provides the bare essentials. It is washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Presbyterians sometimes do things which are not according to the usual order. A a result, are we to investigate any and every baptism to ensure the person administering it was an actual minister and not a home missionary? And then there are the Independents and Liberals -- I've heard of some bizarre things which take place amongst them, including baptism by females; and a big question mark remains as to whether a person who has only been elected by the congregation is lawfully ordained.

It is best to make baptism by a lawfully ordained minister the ordinary rule, without making it a pre-requisite to valid baptism.


----------



## Romans922 (May 24, 2007)

One thing to remember is that 'lawfully ordained' cannot be defended from Scripture, but is (I believe) a safeguard to make sure that the sacraments are performed alongside the Word of God.


----------



## Romans922 (May 24, 2007)

Archlute said:


> Scott, there is a well written PCA study committee report found here:
> 
> http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.pdf
> 
> ...



And yet, the PCA didn't fully adopt that report: it rather accepted the Majority (the report linked above) and the Minority Report (http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-078.html#4), and the decision on whether it is valid is to be made by lower courts for each individual case.


----------



## SRoper (May 24, 2007)

KMK said:


> Which Hodge is that?



Probably Charles Hodge who was strongly in favor of the validity of Romish baptisms.



Archlute said:


> Scott, there is a well written PCA study committee report found here:
> 
> http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.pdf



I've read it before. I think American Presbyterians have been wrong on this for some time, and the position historically held by the Reformed is the correct one. I find the minority report more convincing.



Matthew Glover said:


> I think the WCF articulates the grounds for acceptance as has already been shown.
> 
> With love and gentleness, it may be necessary to work through any difficulties the adult believer has in relation to their RC baptism on the basis of the spiritual condition of their parents:



Let's not confuse the validity of a thing with its lawfulness or propriety. While it would be unlawful for an unbeliever to have his child baptized as the WCF affirms, it is still a valid baptism.


----------



## MW (May 24, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> One thing to remember is that 'lawfully ordained' cannot be defended from Scripture...



The WCF states the point three times in three chapters (27:4, 28:2, 29:3), providing various Scripture proofs to support it. It is a Scriptural proposition; and given the regulative principle of worship the NT's silence on non-ordained administration is conclusive.


----------



## larryjf (May 24, 2007)

SRoper said:


> I've read it before. I think American Presbyterians have been wrong on this for some time, and the position historically held by the Reformed is the correct one. I find the minority report more convincing.



The minority report linked to above states that the WCF 28:3 teaches that baptism by immersion is "improper." Yet the confession merely states that dipping a person is not "necessary." Why would it be improper to be immersed?


----------



## KMK (May 24, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> The WCF states the point three times in three chapters (27:4, 28:2, 29:3), providing various Scripture proofs to support it. It is a Scriptural proposition; and given the regulative principle of worship the NT's silence on non-ordained administration is conclusive.



 I would never presume to thinnk that the divines had no scriptural reasons behind their confession. Some may not agree with their reasons, but they had reasons nevertheless.

Also, I agree with Rev Winzer's point that the 'lawfully ordained' rule was not included to define valid baptism, but to define who should do the baptizing.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (May 25, 2007)

I would recommend that anyone seriously considering this question to read JH Thornwell, in his third volume on this subject. He comes down decidedly on the side of rejecting RCC baptism, and brings good argumentation from the perspective of sacramentology.


----------



## SRoper (May 25, 2007)

larryjf said:


> The minority report linked to above states that the WCF 28:3 teaches that baptism by immersion is "improper." Yet the confession merely states that dipping a person is not "necessary." Why would it be improper to be immersed?



I'm not sure what the intentions of the divines were, but I take their use of the conjuction "but" to mean they considered pouring and sprinkling to be the only proper modes. They never say immersion is a proper way of baptising. I'm sure someone else can comment more intelligently on the subject.


----------



## Archlute (May 25, 2007)

SRoper said:


> I'm not sure what the intentions of the divines were, but I take their use of the conjuction "but" to mean they considered pouring and sprinkling to be the only proper modes. They never say immersion is a proper way of baptising. I'm sure someone else can comment more intelligently on the subject.



That section of the confession was meant as a polemic against those who would insist upon baptism by immersion only, hence the statement that immersion is not "necessary" for a valid baptism. I do not believe that they viewed immersion as improper, as baptisms had been practiced within the church by employing all three modes before the assembly's time.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 25, 2007)

For resources in favor of accepting the validity of RC baptism, see the following articles by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee: 

Calvin on the Validity of 'Romish" Baptism

Catabaptism in the Presbyterian Church of America


----------



## KMK (May 25, 2007)

It is my understanding that the reformes felt no need to have themselves rebaptized. My understanding might be inaccurate.


----------



## etexas (May 25, 2007)

Traditional Anglican View is that the sacrament is valid.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 25, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> This is a practical question for me. I am in a country where Greek Orthodoxy is the "state" and official religion. But I will some day be back in the states, Lord willing, and be where Catholics are numerous as well.
> 
> I aim to evangelize English-speaking Greek Cypriots (so they may in turn evangelize their Greek-only speaking compatriots), and anticipate the Lord converting some.
> 
> ...



I personally am still working through this. I like Thornwell's argument, but then I don't want to dismiss the Reformers and Westminster divines. Both have good arguments. It's just hard for me to fathom Roman Catholicism (or EO) as christian, and therefore their sacrament as a legitimate Christian sacrament. They have both rejected the gospel. But that is not why I responded here. 

I have a professor here who was a pastor in northern Ireland. They had several converts from Rome and interestingly all of them wished to be baptized. The converts didn't consider their Roman baptism to be legitimate at all. So he would baptize them. They wanted a clean break from Roman Catholicism. The denomination had a similar position to the PCA, leaving it up to the session to decide. 

So what do your EO converts desire? Are they seeking baptism again? Or do they consider their own baptism valid? Just curious. It may help work through the issue there at the local level.


----------



## Romans922 (May 25, 2007)

I was RC, but did not desire to be baptized again. I still hate RC though.


----------



## etexas (May 25, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> I was RC, but did not desire to be baptized again. I still hate RC though.


Chuckle. (no guile in you)


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 28, 2007)

Thank you all for the thoughts, leads, and information. I will have to consider it all.

I was just talking with a Cypriot friend, who converted from Orthodoxy to "Evangelical" Christianity (years ago, not in my church), and he wanted to be re-baptized. I think he is of baptistic suasion (as many of the Evangelicals are here, and Arminian to boot), and it may be he did not consider his infant baptism per se valid, be it EO or any.

My wife converted from Greek Orthodoxy to an evangelical faith in Christ, and went directly into a PCA congregation (Redeemer in Manhattan -- which she loves and misses sorely), and is content her baptism is valid.

It is significant to me Luther and Calvin, despite strong opposition to Rome, did not seek re-baptism. But, as I said, I will have to consider all the above material. I _do_ anticipate it coming up, for I am asking the Lord for converts, and I want my mind settled.

Thanks again, all.

Steve


----------

