Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
See post #157 aboveFor those who hold that Romish baptism is real baptism, would you also hold to the idea that the Popish Mass is also a real administration of the Lord's Supper?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
See post #157 aboveFor those who hold that Romish baptism is real baptism, would you also hold to the idea that the Popish Mass is also a real administration of the Lord's Supper?
Apples and Oranges. Two different sacraments with different sanctions.
I'm not seeing much proof that the two are apples and oranges (I mean you can't just say it and it be true). They are sacraments instituted by Christ. If Rome is a true church (part of visible church) then the sacraments instituted by Christ administered therein are both valid. That is the logical conclusion based on the argumentation made in this thread by those who hold to the validity of papist baptism.
Apples and Oranges. Two different sacraments with different sanctions.
I'm not seeing much proof that the two are apples and oranges (I mean you can't just say it and it be true). They are sacraments instituted by Christ. If Rome is a true church (part of visible church) then the sacraments instituted by Christ administered therein are both valid. That is the logical conclusion based on the argumentation made in this thread by those who hold to the validity of papist baptism.
They would both be valid perhaps (although RCC withholding the cup may suggest the sacrament is not there in essence, baptism in Rome was affirmed as it was true in essence but corrupt in accidents), but not necessarily to be sought. Turretin and others argued that those who sought to have their infants baptized by the Papists sinned, though the baptism was valid, because of the participation in the concomitant corruptions. The same would apply to and probably even be magnified in the case of the Mass. The difference of course is that the Supper is meant to be repeated, so there is no error in administering it again as there would be with baptism.
Now how can a Church corrupt ordinances so much as to be regarded as no Church of Christ and these ordinances so currpted as to not be regarded as eminating from the Church of Christ be still be counted as ordinances of the Church of Christ? I think this arugument gives Rome too much say in the matter.A particular church might corrupt them so far as to be regarded as no church of Christ. Yet it does not alter the fact that these ordinances are administered for the benefit of the catholic church.
What is a church that is no church of Christ?
" It is worth noting that immediately after the baptism debate came the decision on the slavery question, which was decided 168-13 (see chapter six). Only ruling elder Samuel Hibben of Chillicothe Presbytery voted in the minority on both questions. One southern observer commented that the debate on Roman Catholic baptism “did much good every way. It had a happy tendency to harmonize the Assembly, and to bring them to great unanimity on other points. The subject of slavery excited much interest. There are but five or six abolitionists in the Assembly. With some of these I have become acquainted. They deserve more our sympathy than our abuse. They seem to be honest, well meaning men; but evidently deluded on this one subject.” “Letters from GA” WS 8.42 (June 5, 1845) 167."
This is an interesting historical note concerning the old school GA where this was debated. It seems that at the same GA in 1845 (which was overwhelming in ruling against the validity of RC baptism, something like 169-9), came the decision on slavery. The GA voted to support slavery by a nearly equally wide margin: 168-13.
A quote from the dissertation that Bruce posted:
" It is worth noting that immediately after the baptism debate came the decision on the slavery question, which was decided 168-13 (see chapter six). Only ruling elder Samuel Hibben of Chillicothe Presbytery voted in the minority on both questions. One southern observer commented that the debate on Roman Catholic baptism “did much good every way. It had a happy tendency to harmonize the Assembly, and to bring them to great unanimity on other points. The subject of slavery excited much interest. There are but five or six abolitionists in the Assembly. With some of these I have become acquainted. They deserve more our sympathy than our abuse. They seem to be honest, well meaning men; but evidently deluded on this one subject.” “Letters from GA” WS 8.42 (June 5, 1845) 167."
It is very lamentable and of course a stain on the spiritual ancestry of some of us, that they argued for slavery so. We know there was animus / fear of RC immigrants at the time, correct? So it is a theory worth exploring at least.
As Baptists, we of course have no problem denying the validity of RC baptism.
LBC 28:2 These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.2
WCF 28:2 The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
Quote Originally Posted by Bill The Baptist View Post
As Baptists, we of course have no problem denying the validity of RC baptism.
What is it about the LBC that makes this issue easier for Baptists?
LBC 28:2 These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.2
WCF 28:2 The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called there
This is an interesting historical note concerning the old school GA where this was debated. It seems that at the same GA in 1845 (which was overwhelming in ruling against the validity of RC baptism, something like 169-9), came the decision on slavery. The GA voted to support slavery by a nearly equally wide margin: 168-13.
A quote from the dissertation that Bruce posted:
" It is worth noting that immediately after the baptism debate came the decision on the slavery question, which was decided 168-13 (see chapter six). Only ruling elder Samuel Hibben of Chillicothe Presbytery voted in the minority on both questions. One southern observer commented that the debate on Roman Catholic baptism “did much good every way. It had a happy tendency to harmonize the Assembly, and to bring them to great unanimity on other points. The subject of slavery excited much interest. There are but five or six abolitionists in the Assembly. With some of these I have become acquainted. They deserve more our sympathy than our abuse. They seem to be honest, well meaning men; but evidently deluded on this one subject.” “Letters from GA” WS 8.42 (June 5, 1845) 167."
Mark Noll says in America's God that U.S. Christians took a position on race-based, chattel slavery that was adopted by virtually no other orthodox Christians anywhere in the world. Indeed, see the snippy correspondence that the Old School GA sent to the Irish Presbyterians around this time. He put this oddity down to a matter of cultural hermeneutics. Perhaps the same could be said for their views on Romish baptism?
Ken,
If for some reason I wanted to join your church, would you consider me "previously baptized?"
I was baptized at somewhere near 6mo. of age, in a gospel church by a Christian minister, by sprinkling, etc.
Assuming yours was among some few (to my knowledge) Baptist churches that would receive me "as is," still I am certain that most would not--on the supposition that I was not 1) necessarily baptized upon profession, and 2) necessarily according to the singularly acceptable method: full immersion. Of what concern is the church/minister that baptized me at that point?
I suppose that for practical purposes, remaining outside of the Baptist-fold they might allow that "theoretically" I might be accepted as a disorderly sort of Christian. But many strict Baptist churches would not commune me at the Table, as I am not baptized in their view, hence not a recognizable "member" of any true church on that basis!
So, I don't think primary Baptist considerations typically begin anywhere in the vicinity of the question of "lawful ministry." The LBC expressions, though borrowed from the WCF, practically assume other Baptist-backgrounds for what they admit as valid. Persons joining Baptist churches from any paedo-baptist-tradition, or even sprinkling/effusion tradition, usually wish to comply with standard Baptist practice. The LBC parts quoted seem more relevant to "lay-baptism" or even more anti-ecclesiastical stances.
Baptists don't actually view as valid most Presbyterian or Reformed baptisms. Roman baptism is even further away.
Not all RCs were baptized as infants. The LBC does not say that sprinkling 'invalidates' a baptism, only that it wasn't 'properly administered'.
I only say this to defend my question. You have answered it. I don't want to hijack the thread so I will drop it and take it up in a thread of its own someday.
This is an interesting historical note concerning the old school GA where this was debated. It seems that at the same GA in 1845 (which was overwhelming in ruling against the validity of RC baptism, something like 169-9), came the decision on slavery. The GA voted to support slavery by a nearly equally wide margin: 168-13.
A quote from the dissertation that Bruce posted:
" It is worth noting that immediately after the baptism debate came the decision on the slavery question, which was decided 168-13 (see chapter six). Only ruling elder Samuel Hibben of Chillicothe Presbytery voted in the minority on both questions. One southern observer commented that the debate on Roman Catholic baptism “did much good every way. It had a happy tendency to harmonize the Assembly, and to bring them to great unanimity on other points. The subject of slavery excited much interest. There are but five or six abolitionists in the Assembly. With some of these I have become acquainted. They deserve more our sympathy than our abuse. They seem to be honest, well meaning men; but evidently deluded on this one subject.” “Letters from GA” WS 8.42 (June 5, 1845) 167."
Mark Noll says in America's God that U.S. Christians took a position on race-based, chattel slavery that was adopted by virtually no other orthodox Christians anywhere in the world. Indeed, see the snippy correspondence that the Old School GA sent to the Irish Presbyterians around this time. He put this oddity down to a matter of cultural hermeneutics. Perhaps the same could be said for their views on Romish baptism?
How in the world is slavery relevant to the validity of RC baptism? You completely lost me here. If your argument is that the GA's decision on RC baptism is worthless because it ALSO voted the way it did on slavery, then it is the argument that is worthless. Why bring this up at all?
Two ships might cross paths going in completely opposite directions. The slavery issue seems to fall into this category. Items regularly come before church courts without any connection with other items, and final decisions can be made simply as a matter of course.