# How to view Roman Catholic believers



## Deleted member 7239 (Oct 5, 2017)

I’m sure some of you have family or friends in the Roman Catholic Church. Do you view them as believers since we acknowledge their baptism?


----------



## Gforce9 (Oct 5, 2017)

I don't view those in the RCC as brothers/sisters by virtue of their RCC membership. I know there are tares among wheat in their assemblies, just as in ours. I will say, though, that if they really believe the official teachings of the RCC, especially in matters of Soteriology, there "gospel" is not Paul's, David's, Abraham's, nor Jesus'......

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 5, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I’m sure some of you have family or friends in the Roman Catholic Church. Do you view them as believers since we acknowledge their baptism?


I would not acknowledge their Baptism, as they hold to Baptismal Regeneration, and they teach a false Gospel message.
Individuals are still saved in there despite their errors, but they should depart and leave for a real bible believing church once saved by the Lord.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 5, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I’m sure some of you have family or friends in the Roman Catholic Church. Do you view them as believers since we acknowledge their baptism?



I do not view them as believers unless they believe the Gospel. If they do, they are often far astray and ignorant of the dangers they are under. 

I do not acknowledge their baptism, it is not Christian baptism since they are not part of the visible church.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Oct 5, 2017)

What would you all say is the best place (doctrine) to start with in talking with a RC member? Justification perhaps? 

It seems like if we launch into the Pope, praying to saints, purgatory, etc. they will get defensive and stop listening. Maybe there is a PB member who has come from the RC as an adult that can share their experience.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 5, 2017)

I grew up RC and became a Christian at 17. The Gospel was sufficient (that I was a sinner, Jesus died for sins, I needed to believe it), I learned all the meanings of justification, sanctification, etc. later. But it all depends on who you are talking to...


----------



## jambo (Oct 5, 2017)

I think you have to take each person on an individual basis. However many true believers there are in the RC church they did not become Christians by following the teachings of their church.

Whilst conservative RCs may still hold the traditional beliefs about Mary, purgatory, papal infallibility, the mass etc most do not really believe it but people are just too scared to let go of what they perceive to be the flimsiest of lifelines "just in case"

In terms of books, none better than the book of Hebrews.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I would not acknowledge their Baptism, as they hold to Baptismal Regeneration, and they teach a false Gospel message.
> Individuals are still saved in there despite their errors, but they should depart and leave for a real bible believing church once saved by the Lord.


As Hodge once remarked concerning the sudden decision of the 1845 PCUSA GA in denying the validity of Rome's baptism:
"to pronounce Calvin, Luther, and all the men of that generation, as well as thousands who with no other than Romish baptism have since been received into the Protestant Churches, to have live and died unbaptized" 

There is more to the argument of Rome's being an false church, teaching a false gospel, etc., therefore their baptism is invalid than perhaps some have considered carefully. The efficacy of baptism does not depend on the intention of the one administering it. It does not matter what Rome says it is doing in baptism. Let's not give them too much credit in the matter of the form of which was instituted by Christ.

A good appreciation of the history and debate around the topic can be apprehended here:
http://www.peterwallace.org/old/dissertation/3catholicity.htm

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 5, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> We Presbyterians hold that the efficacy of baptism does not depend on the intention of the one administering it.



Not that I want to argue about this but clarity must come. I would make clear that one denying the validity of a papist baptism has nothing to do with the person who administered it. That's not the argument. It is not the donatist controversy we deal with here because we are not talking about the individual administering the baptism but rather the institution as a whole; thus the holiness of the individual is a question that really has no bearing. Next, I understand the historical precedent among the Reformed to accept RCC baptism since it is Trinitarian; however, a baptism being Trinitarian while necessary is not sufficient. Rome officially anathemized the gospel and baptism in part signifies that which ought to be preached. No institution that anathemizes the gospel has a right to call itself a church and as such has no right to have/administer the sacraments. Third, baptism signifies the gospel - even Rome will say this, but what "gospel" does Rome preach? It is a false gospel, it is an anti-gospel, so how can we say the baptism of Rome is valid if it signifies an anti-gospel? Finally, as the Westminster Confession rightly notes, the sacraments are to be administered by lawfully ordained ministers; but Rome has no right to call herself a true church or a church at all, therefore she has no right to ordain anyone for only the Church can do that.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 5, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> What would you all say is the best place (doctrine) to start with in talking with a RC member? Justification perhaps?
> 
> It seems like if we launch into the Pope, praying to saints, purgatory, etc. they will get defensive and stop listening. Maybe there is a PB member who has come from the RC as an adult that can share their experience.


For me (ex-Romanist) it begins with an examination of the current practices, the treadmill of initial justification and progressive justification Rome espouses. Take that and then start with Scripture's accurate teachings on the matter.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 5, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> Not here to argue about this,


Well I am glad you are not arguing about this, brother. 

I understand your points well enough. Now when the person to whom I had responded to actually makes an argument contrary to what was in fact made, I will happily reconstruct my response. As it stands however, my response was on point to what was proffered by my interlocutor.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 5, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Well I am glad you are not arguing about this, brother.
> 
> I understand your points well enough. Now when the person to whom I had responded to actually makes an argument contrary to what was in fact made, I will happily reconstruct my response. As it stands however, my response was on point to what was proffered by my interlocutor.



I was merely seeking to correct the straw man. I believe that applies to Mr. Dachaser's comment as well.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 5, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> As Hodge once remarked concerning the sudden decision of the 1845 PCUSA GA in denying the validity of Rome's baptism:
> "to pronounce Calvin, Luther, and all the men of that generation, as well as thousands who with no other than Romish baptism have since been received into the Protestant Churches, to have live and died unbaptized"
> 
> There is more to the argument of Rome's being an false church, teaching a false gospel, etc., therefore their baptism is invalid than perhaps some have considered carefully. The efficacy of baptism does not depend on the intention of the one administering it. It does not matter what Rome says it is doing in baptism. Let's not give them too much credit in the matter of the form of which was instituted by Christ.
> ...


A valid Baptism has to come from a valid spiritual authority, and how would the papacy and Rome be able to claim that, as they still continue to deny the true Gospel of the Lord?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 5, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> I was merely seeking to correct the straw man. I believe that applies to Mr. Dachaser's comment as well.


The church of Rome would not even be a valid NT church though, as they deny the true Gospel, so why would we see their baptism as being valid?


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Oct 5, 2017)

So in summary, we should talk with them as we would any person and maybe start with the things we agree on (Trinity, sinless life, death, and resurrection of Christ, inerrancy of scripture) and then move to scriptures about justification that make it impossible to remain a Roman Catholic?

I am trying to plan my next conversation with a RC family member and want to have a plan.


----------



## hammondjones (Oct 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> why would we see their baptism as being valid?



Father, Son, Holy Spirit

Did Paul declare the Galatians' baptisms null and void and invalid? I don't think so. Yet that church taught a false gospel.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Oct 5, 2017)

As far as the validity of their baptism goes--couldn't we look at it as a parallel of circumcision in the OT? Those who have received circumcision by the Pharisees for example couldn't be re-circumcised when they came to a true understanding of salvation and the Law and salvation-- So we wouldn't require a re-administration as a covenant sign? 

Am I thinking correctly on this?


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 5, 2017)

Jesse, you might want to consider taking a brief look at Gregg Allison's book on Roman Catholicism, which is based on the work of Leonardo di Chirico. RC is based on two main pillars that hold up everything else: 1. the church is an extension of the incarnation of Christ (this is where authority comes from, papal and conciliar); 2. grace perfects nature (this is where the sacrementalism comes from, and the semi-Pelagianism. Understand RC as a system before you critique any part of it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Oct 5, 2017)

That is a good book recommendation----Believe it or not, I read that last year after he was on the Reformed Forum. I think that its easy to get into rabbit-tralls with RC people and I was hoping to hear some success stories about practically dealing with them without getting wound up in the details and traditions.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> A valid Baptism has to come from a valid spiritual authority,



That's Donatism, unless you mean by a minister (instead of just any person).


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Oct 5, 2017)

For example, understanding nature-grace dualism is important to understand the RC church, but I can't imagine the blank stare I would get if I brought that term up with a family member. So maybe keeping it simple and focused on justification is the best way to go about it.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 5, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's Donatism, unless you mean by a minister (instead of just any person).



"A valid spiritual authority" - someone who is lawfully ordained. If you take someone who is a lawfully ordained minister and then question baptisms they administer for X-problem, then you have the issue of Donatism. 

But if you have a someone who is not a valid spiritual authority (they are not lawfully ordained), then the issue is not Donatism.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 5, 2017)

I believe the approach must be the same as that for cults that I've mentioned in another thread: ask what they are trusting in for their salvation. What is the grounds of justification? Pin them to the wall with it: "Why do you suppose that God will let you into Heaven rather than damn you for eternity?" That is a question that can't easily be weaseled out of, and it is the most important question for a sinner to confront. Whether they were validly baptized, whether they're communicants, whether they understand much or little don't matter as much as where their hope and trust is placed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 5, 2017)

Generally, it is better to deal with the person in front of you instead of a preconception of their philosophy. What is your hope? What do you understand the Bible to teach? ...


----------



## bookslover (Oct 5, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> As Hodge once remarked concerning the sudden decision of the 1845 PCUSA GA in denying the validity of Rome's baptism: "to pronounce Calvin, Luther, and all the men of that generation, as well as thousands who with no other than Romish baptism have since been received into the Protestant Churches, to have live and died unbaptized"



This is something I've never thought of. Having recognized Roman Catholicism's invalidity, were Luther and Calvin ever re-baptized?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 5, 2017)

bookslover said:


> This is something I've never thought of. Having recognized Roman Catholicism's invalidity, were Luther and Calvin ever re-baptized?


I believe Calvin spoke against re-baptizing in the _Institutes. _Unless I remember wrong.
Pretty sure he and Luther did consider their baptisms valid.


----------



## Mathias321 (Oct 5, 2017)

As I always say on this: the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian but there exists some within the Roman Catholic Church who are saved *in spite* of their tradition’s teachings. Those who truly and devoutly follow Rome’s teachings I cannot say have a valid profession of faith regardless of their baptism.


----------



## jw (Oct 5, 2017)

I view 'em with my eyes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 6, 2017)

bookslover said:


> This is something I've never thought of. Having recognized Roman Catholicism's invalidity, were Luther and Calvin ever re-baptized?


I have not read anything that suggested they were re-baptized.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Oct 6, 2017)

Joshua said:


> I view 'em with my eyes.


I will try using my eyes next time and see if that works

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> So in summary, we should talk with them as we would any person and maybe start with the things we agree on (Trinity, sinless life, death, and resurrection of Christ, inerrancy of scripture) and then move to scriptures about justification that make it impossible to remain a Roman Catholic?
> 
> I am trying to plan my next conversation with a RC family member and want to have a plan.


Stay on the Gospel itself, and explain to them just how we can know for sure that we are saved and right now have eternal life in Christ, as no sincere Catholic can say that this is their experience.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's Donatism, unless you mean by a minister (instead of just any person).


The validity of the water baptism has to come from those who would subscribe to the true Gospel. correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2017)

Matthew G. Bianco said:


> As I always say on this: the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian but there exists some within the Roman Catholic Church who are saved *in spite* of their tradition’s teachings. Those who truly and devoutly follow Rome’s teachings I cannot say have a valid profession of faith regardless of their baptism.


The baptism Rome can give to someone is not following the true Gospel.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2017)

jambo said:


> I think you have to take each person on an individual basis. However many true believers there are in the RC church they did not become Christians by following the teachings of their church.
> 
> Whilst conservative RCs may still hold the traditional beliefs about Mary, purgatory, papal infallibility, the mass etc most do not really believe it but people are just too scared to let go of what they perceive to be the flimsiest of lifelines "just in case"
> 
> In terms of books, none better than the book of Hebrews.


The persons who are saved in the Church of Rome are saved despite their bad theology, as their Church teaches and holds to a false Gospel.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2017)

bookslover said:


> This is something I've never thought of. Having recognized Roman Catholicism's invalidity, were Luther and Calvin ever re-baptized?


That is why most of our Ex Catholics were rebaptized, as they themselves never saw the baptism as being valid, as it came to them from Rome.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The validity of the water baptism has to come from those who would subscribe to the true Gospel. correct?



Did the Galatian church have true baptism?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Did the Galatian church have true baptism?


IF they taught and held to the real Gospel.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> IF they taught and held to the real Gospel.



They clearly abandoned the gospel, yet Paul speaks to them as though they are baptized Christians.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> They clearly abandoned the gospel, yet Paul speaks to them as though they are baptized Christians.


They held to the real gospel message, and were in danger though of trying to go back under Law keeping as a requirement to being really now saved.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> They held to the real gospel message, and were in danger though of trying to go back under Law keeping as a requirement to being really now saved.



Paul says things like "you have fallen from grace" and "if an angel or anyone preaches any other gospel." This is language of those who didn't hold the gospel, yet that didn't negate their baptism-giving authority.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The baptism Rome can give to someone is not following the true Gospel.


David,

Please go here:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/a-problem-with-denying-the-validity-of-rc-baptism.85866/

Review carefully the entire thread as it contains materials that are edifying on the topic. Then form questions or assertions based upon what you have learned therein.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> Please go here:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/a-problem-with-denying-the-validity-of-rc-baptism.85866/
> ...


Post # 11 seems to be my current position on this issue, or at least really close to it.


----------



## ZackF (Oct 7, 2017)

Joshua said:


> I view 'em with my eyes.



After bathing?


----------



## jw (Oct 7, 2017)

ZackF said:


> After bathing?


Technically, _both_. *At least* once a month. Sometimes, every day.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 8, 2017)

A member of my church is a woman in her early 60s who left the RCC a couple decades ago for Protestantism. About 18 months ago, this woman invited her sister, who is a fairly committed but "ignorant" Catholic, to come to our church. She showed up with her husband - a lapsed Catholic. A few days after their visit, the sister was at home and she fell down some stairs, breaking her leg to the point that she had to have fairly significant surgery. I visited her in the hospital a couple times and then at their home - bringing them some excellent chili on one occasion. That I met with them non-judgmentally, and treated them with love and concern, was so touching to him that he's had both he and his wife (the sister of my church member) in our church every Sunday since then. In the past 7-8 months they've come A LONG way and a few weeks ago I overheard her telling another woman that she "thinks" she's becoming a Presbyterian. That was pretty cool. They're both asking lots of questions, especially in light of our current Reformation series. 

It is my policy to "view" RCC adherents in accordance with their level of commitment and knowledge. I've met some who are really knowledgable about what the RCC teaches, they repudiate the Solas, etc. These really are the minority, but with these I view them as definitely unsaved, and I treat them like cultists. 

Then there are those who may be committed to attending, they self-identify as Catholics, but they really don't understand what Rome teaches, and frankly, they don't really even understand that there's a difference between what Rome and Protestants teach concerning the Gospel, etc. These I view much more charitably, as "misguided brethren" - not saying that I believe they ARE saved, I'm saying I treat them like people to be taught and corrected and assume the best until they prove recalcitrant. Still, I don't consider them as having been baptized, because again, the sacraments are pointers to the Word, and the RCC doesn't have the Gospel.

A third group of Catholics are nominal only - maybe they were raised in it, but now their only affiliation is when they have a kid and need him baptized, or something like that. These I view and treat as worldlings to be evangelized. 

By treating the sister of my member, along with her husband, like those in the 2nd category, I won a hearing and by God's grace they appear to be moving in the right direction.

Just my two cents...

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Oct 8, 2017)

SolaScriptura said:


> A member of my church is a woman in her early 60s who left the RCC a couple decades ago for Protestantism. About 18 months ago, this woman invited her sister, who is a fairly committed but "ignorant" Catholic, to come to our church. She showed up with her husband - a lapsed Catholic. A few days after their visit, the sister was at home and she fell down some stairs, breaking her leg to the point that she had to have fairly significant surgery. I visited her in the hospital a couple times and then at their home - bringing them some excellent chili on one occasion. That I met with them non-judgmentally, and treated them with love and concern, was so touching to him that he's had both he and his wife (the sister of my church member) in our church every Sunday since then. In the past 7-8 months they've come A LONG way and a few weeks ago I overheard her telling another woman that she "thinks" she's becoming a Presbyterian. That was pretty cool. They're both asking lots of questions, especially in light of our current Reformation series.
> 
> It is my policy to "view" RCC adherents in accordance with their level of commitment and knowledge. I've met some who are really knowledgable about what the RCC teaches, they repudiate the Solas, etc. These really are the minority, but with these I view them as definitely unsaved, and I treat them like cultists.
> 
> ...



Great story, Ben! Give pertinent updates.....


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 9, 2017)

I don't know of any Protestant church who re-baptizes Roman Catholic persons, but we would re-baptize a person who came out of Mormonism or Jehovahism. For that reason, we would say the baptism of the Roman Catholic church is valid. The Pentecostal folks have bad theology also but I wouldn't condemn them all to hell. What we do see are denominations who hold to bad theology, but within those denominations some of God's children can be found. Even within reformed churches there can be found faulty theology, but that doesn't condemn these people to hell. God is very merciful and patient. Thankfully, our salvation is dependent upon Christ alone and not the extent of our wisdom upon matters of God.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 9, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> For that reason



For what reason?


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 9, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> For what reason?


Sometimes I don't express myself well....I'll try again and give a quote from the OPC website which explains this better than I do. 

We re-baptize people who come out of Mormonism/Jehovahism but we do not re-baptize people who come out of Catholicism. Why do we re-baptize those who come out of Mormonism/Jehovahism? Because they are heretics and do not believe in the divine nature of Christ. Catholics do believe Christ is divine. 

"It is generally the practice of the OPC to accept Roman Catholic baptism as fulfilling the requirement for baptism. The reasoning behind this practice is that the sanctity of the ordinance does not depend on the character of the person performing the baptism. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way: "The grace exhibited 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" (27:3). Also see Matthew 10:8, in which Jesus gave authority to the 12 disciples to heal the sick, cast out demons, raise the dead, etc. Judas was one of them and doubtless performed these wonders. Yet he was an apostate. (See John 12:12 and Acts 1:25.) These miraculous works in Jesus' name were not negated by Judas' defection." ~OPC website.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 10, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> I don't know of any Protestant church who re-baptizes Roman Catholic persons, but we would re-baptize a person who came out of Mormonism or Jehovahism. For that reason, we would say the baptism of the Roman Catholic church is valid. The Pentecostal folks have bad theology also but I wouldn't condemn them all to hell. What we do see are denominations who hold to bad theology, but within those denominations some of God's children can be found. Even within reformed churches there can be found faulty theology, but that doesn't condemn these people to hell. God is very merciful and patient. Thankfully, our salvation is dependent upon Christ alone and not the extent of our wisdom upon matters of God.


We have rebaptized many former Catholics in our Baptist Church, as that is a requirement for not salvation, but to been accepted in as a church member.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 10, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> Sometimes I don't express myself well....I'll try again and give a quote from the OPC website which explains this better than I do.
> 
> We re-baptize people who come out of Mormonism/Jehovahism but we do not re-baptize people who come out of Catholicism. Why do we re-baptize those who come out of Mormonism/Jehovahism? Because they are heretics and do not believe in the divine nature of Christ. Catholics do believe Christ is divine.
> 
> "It is generally the practice of the OPC to accept Roman Catholic baptism as fulfilling the requirement for baptism. The reasoning behind this practice is that the sanctity of the ordinance does not depend on the character of the person performing the baptism. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way: "The grace exhibited 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" (27:3). Also see Matthew 10:8, in which Jesus gave authority to the 12 disciples to heal the sick, cast out demons, raise the dead, etc. Judas was one of them and doubtless performed these wonders. Yet he was an apostate. (See John 12:12 and Acts 1:25.) These miraculous works in Jesus' name were not negated by Judas' defection." ~OPC website.


And yet the Gospel that the Church of Rome teaches its members is just as heretical as the one JW/Mormons get taught, as none really are saved by that Gospel..


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 10, 2017)

If the mere invoking of the Trinitarian formula is sufficient, then LDS baptisms are valid. It isn't sufficient to balk and say "well the RCC is Trinitarian" ... because Baptism is not a sign and seal of the Doctrine of the Trinity. It is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace - pointing to The Gospel. If the Gospel content is absent, then whatever words are uttered before the act are moot. Further, while the Doctrine of the Trinity is essential, let's not forget that the doctrine that Holy Scripture calls a matter of "first importance" - the only doctrine given this designation by Scripture - is the Gospel. Sure the Gospel assumes the Trinity, but that doesn't negate the fact that in terms of confession, the Gospel is the absolutely _sine qua non_ of Christianity. No Gospel, no Church, whatever else they may believe. It really is that simple. Resist allowing the Trinitarian Formula to become, functionally, a mere incantation.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## earl40 (Oct 10, 2017)

SolaScriptura said:


> If the mere invoking of the Trinitarian formula is sufficient, then LDS baptisms are valid. It isn't sufficient to balk and say "well the RCC is Trinitarian" ... because Baptism is not a sign and seal of the Doctrine of the Trinity. It is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace - pointing to The Gospel. If the Gospel content is absent, then whatever words are uttered before the act are moot. Further, while the Doctrine of the Trinity is essential, let's not forget that the doctrine that Holy Scripture calls a matter of "first importance" - the only doctrine given this designation by Scripture - is the Gospel. Sure the Gospel assumes the Trinity, but that doesn't negate the fact that in terms of confession, the Gospel is the absolutely _sine qua non_ of Christianity. No Gospel, no Church, whatever else they may believe. It really is that simple. Resist allowing the Trinitarian Formula to become, functionally, a mere incantation.



Surly this is a tad more "complicated" that what you expressed, in that we the Reformed Presbyterian churches grew out of the RC church unlike the cults of the JW's or LDS.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 10, 2017)

earl40 said:


> Surly this is a tad more "complicated" that what you expressed, in that we the Reformed Presbyterian churches grew out of the RC church unlike the cults of the JW's or LDS.



It's not really more complex: whether one begins in apostasy or finds their way there, the result is the same. The RCC is no better off than the other cults. In fact, their judgment is likely more severe.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 10, 2017)

SolaScriptura said:


> If the mere invoking of the Trinitarian formula is sufficient, then LDS baptisms are valid.



While the thesis doesn't stand or fall with this, the content of the Trinitarian claim is different, since their Jesus is a created dude who was born from a sex god.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 10, 2017)

SolaScriptura said:


> It's not really more complex: whether one begins in apostasy or finds their way there, the result is the same. The RCC is no better off than the other cults. In fact, their judgment is likely more severe.



I am sympathetic though I wish to not be known as a schismatic which is what happens if one insists on rebaptizing RC's.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Oct 10, 2017)

I think we should hold out hope that there are Christ's sheep among flocks ran by wolves. In the time of the Refomation this was more true than today considering we have every resource at our fingertips. I don't believe adult literate Roman Catholics who have access to the scriptures and every historical resource have much of an excuse.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 10, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I think we should hold out hope that there are Christ's sheep among flocks ran by wolves. In the time of the Refomation this was more true than today considering we have every resource at our fingertips. I don't believe adult literate Roman Catholics who have access to the scriptures and every historical resource have much of an excuse.



What I have been hearing is that in many RC churches there is protestant preaching going on. I have heard it myself in the past, and I tend to call this "Folk Catholicism". The Lord works in mysterious ways which I have witnessed time and time again.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 10, 2017)

SolaScriptura said:


> If the mere invoking of the Trinitarian formula is sufficient, then LDS baptisms are valid. It isn't sufficient to balk and say "well the RCC is Trinitarian" ... because Baptism is not a sign and seal of the Doctrine of the Trinity. It is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace - pointing to The Gospel. If the Gospel content is absent, then whatever words are uttered before the act are moot. Further, while the Doctrine of the Trinity is essential, let's not forget that the doctrine that Holy Scripture calls a matter of "first importance" - the only doctrine given this designation by Scripture - is the Gospel. Sure the Gospel assumes the Trinity, but that doesn't negate the fact that in terms of confession, the Gospel is the absolutely _sine qua non_ of Christianity. No Gospel, no Church, whatever else they may believe. It really is that simple. Resist allowing the Trinitarian Formula to become, functionally, a mere incantation.


You articulated my understanding on this issue better than I ever could.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 10, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I think we should hold out hope that there are Christ's sheep among flocks ran by wolves. In the time of the Refomation this was more true than today considering we have every resource at our fingertips. I don't believe adult literate Roman Catholics who have access to the scriptures and every historical resource have much of an excuse.


I do not think that any would see that no Catholics can get saved, but that when they are, its salvation the same way as any of us were, and not the way Rome teaches.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 10, 2017)

earl40 said:


> I am sympathetic though I wish to not be known as a schismatic which is what happens if one insists on rebaptizing RC's.


How so, as that Church is not a real NT one?


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 10, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> We have rebaptized many former Catholics in our Baptist Church, as that is a requirement for not salvation, but to been accepted in as a church member.


I'm not familiar with the Baptist confession, but I would suspect that since it doesn't agree with infant baptism it would make sense that the Baptist wouldn't accept RC baptism. I would be surprised if it accepted Presbyterian baptism either.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 10, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> And yet the Gospel that the Church of Rome teaches its members is just as heretical as the one JW/Mormons get taught, as none really are saved by that Gospel..


I would strongly disagree with this.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 11, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> I would strongly disagree with this.


Why? Rome holds to Sacramental salvation system, deny trhe full sufficiency of the Cross of Christ, as they hold with those 7 means of Grace and the mass as means to get saved. That is totally refuted by Pauline theology of Justification.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 11, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> I'm not familiar with the Baptist confession, but I would suspect that since it doesn't agree with infant baptism it would make sense that the Baptist wouldn't accept RC baptism. I would be surprised if it accepted Presbyterian baptism either.


Pretty much all Baptists , reformed or not, would require getting redone in order to become church members.


----------

