Roman Catholic Baptism (poll "do over")

Roman Catholic Baptism: is it legitimate (valid)?


  • Total voters
    115
Status
Not open for further replies.

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
[Moderator NOTE: To avoid confusion, please vote on the poll question yea or nay as it is phrased rather than yea or nay on the question as phrased below.]
Hey:

If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey:

If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?

OK, so your OP is the complete reverse of your poll...

But, since I am a Baptist, you know what my answer is going to be. Of course they would need to be re-baptized. The RCC, despite its trinitarian formula in baptism, is not a Christian church. They do not rightly uphold the gospel or the sacraments (ordinances). Therefore, the baptism is illegitimate.
 
Hey:

If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?

OK, so your OP is the complete reverse of your poll...

But, since I am a Baptist, you know what my answer is going to be. Of course they would need to be re-baptized. The RCC, despite its trinitarian formula in baptism, is not a Christian church. They do not rightly uphold the gospel or the sacraments (ordinances). Therefore, the baptism is illegitimate.
Hi:

Trying to keep you on your toes! :wink:

Would a paedo-baptist from a Presbyterian Church who converted to credo baptism need to be re-baptized?

Grace,

-CH
 
You should probably throw out this poll and start a new one since people are answering different questions.
 
CalvinandHodges said:
Would a paedo-baptist from a Presbyterian Church who converted to credo baptism need to be re-baptized?

I hope you don't mind if I jump in here.

We had a situation similar to this in my (Reformed Baptist) church, and our conclusion was that since the paedo-baptist person involved was only sprinkled as an infant, then in order to become a member of our church they needed to be baptized as a believer.
 
Rutherford: A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland (1642)

Rutherford says this in his A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland (1642) in chapter 10 (see the section and others against Separatism online):
Hence shortly, I say, the Court of Rome as Popish, is the falling-sickness of the church, not the church. But the same court teaching something of Christ (baptism, good works, etc.) has something of the life and being of a church; howbeit she is not a whole church, her skin being leprous, pocky and polluted.

1. Because in a church that is no church, there cannot be a true seal of God’s covenant; but in the Court of Rome there is true baptism, for we baptize not again children once baptized there. Some of the Separation called it idol-baptism, and no baptism, which is Anabaptism. For then all converted Papists must be baptized again, no less than converted Turks or Jews. But (1.), the covenant is there, Come out of her my people; then their baptism confirms this covenant. (2.) Circumcision even in apostate Israel is true circumcision; her [children] the Lord’s [children] (Ezk. 16:21). He is Israel’s God, the holy one of Israel in the midst thereof. In Hezekiah’s reformation the people ate the Passover, and yet all had corrupted their ways, and had been a long time worshipping Idols, and they are not (2 Chron. 30) circumcised again; and yet (Ex. 12) none but the circumcised might eat the Passover.
 
I'm confused. I thought Presbyterians would 100% accept Roman Catholic Baptism because obviously Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin thought it was acceptable otherwise they would have been rebaptised. Am I missing something?
 
I'm confused. I thought Presbyterians would 100% accept Roman Catholic Baptism because obviously Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin thought it was acceptable otherwise they would have been rebaptised. Am I missing something?
Yes; you are missing Thornwell and the dominant view in Southern Presbyterianism since.
 
Roman Catholic Baptism

Since some have been confused by the OP and the thread requiring opposite answers as phrased, I have restarted the thread and folks can re-vote.
 
The RCC, despite its trinitarian formula in baptism, is not a Christian church. They do not rightly uphold the gospel or the sacraments (ordinances). Therefore, the baptism is illegitimate.

I agree.

Roman Catholic baptism is illegitimate.

Yes, a person who is converted to Christ needs to be rebaptised if he was baptised a Roman Catholic.
 
I voted yes that they are valid. This summer I looked a little more deeply into Thornwell's arguments. I am more appreciative of it but I still demur.
 
I voted No. It seems to me that the magisterial Reformers wrote at a different time and were not dealing with a Church that had completely repudiated the Gospel yet by its official teaching. RCC baptism in no way resembles Christian baptism except that it uses some words that are the same.

It's kind of like asking if the Judaizer's circumcision is the same as Abraham's.
 
I stand with my brothers who voted that Roman Catholic baptism is no baptism at all.
 
Ok, just so I understand, when Luther and Calvin and all the other Reformers left the RCC Presbyterians would view their baptisms as still valid because the Council of Trent had not yet been convened and thus had not yet officially decreed against the Gospel. But once Rome had officially repudiated the Gospel through the Council of Trent that was when RCC Baptism became officially invalid?
 
Ok, just so I understand, when Luther and Calvin and all the other Reformers left the RCC Presbyterians would view their baptisms as still valid because the Council of Trent had not yet been convened and thus had not yet officially decreed against the Gospel. But once Rome had officially repudiated the Gospel through the Council of Trent that was when RCC Baptism became officially invalid?
Well, that's the position I think of later Presbyterians like Thornwell, but it was not the position of Presbyterians like Rutherford 80 years after Trent and for most of the 18th century; not sure of the change over period, but a movement began in the PCUSA prior to Thornwell at some point; someone up on this might chime in.
 
Ok, just so I understand, when Luther and Calvin and all the other Reformers left the RCC Presbyterians would view their baptisms as still valid because the Council of Trent had not yet been convened and thus had not yet officially decreed against the Gospel. But once Rome had officially repudiated the Gospel through the Council of Trent that was when RCC Baptism became officially invalid?
Well, that's the position I think of later Presbyterians like Thornwell, but it was not the position of Presbyterians like Rutherford 80 years after Trent and for most of the 18th century; not sure of the change over period, but a movement began in the PCUSA prior to Thornwell at some point; someone up on this might chime in.

Indeed. What has changed in Rome's teaching since then? The Reformers before and after Trent continued to uphold the validity of Rome's baptism. Yet most often we hear the line about the Reformers being prior to Trent, which as Chris noted is demonstrably false. I suppose the reluctance for those who disagree with the Reformers (both magisterial as well as "second reformation") to just come out say that they believe the Reformers were wrong on this issue is understandable.
 
Also, the poll results are skewed since by my count 7 of the 15 to this point who have voted no are baptists, most of whom, if they are immersionists and not just antipaedobaptists of course view anything other than immersion as invalid anyway. That Baptists would view Rome's baptism as invalid is no surprise at all.
 
Also, the poll results are skewed since by my count 7 of the 15 to this point who have voted no are baptists, most of whom, if they are immersionists and not just antipaedobaptists of course view anything other than immersion as invalid anyway. That Baptists would view Rome's baptism as invalid is no surprise at all.

Give us credos a bit more credit than that. My stand against Roman baptism is that Roman Catholicism is no longer a true church. I tend to lean more towards John Piper's view of paedobaptistism (although the elders of his church voted against his view). Your response is rather ad hominem and based on a presupposition.
 
Hi:

You may not know this, but the question was a subject of heated debate in the Southern Presbyterian Church back inthe mid-1800's. James Henly Thornwell came out strong against accepting RC baptism, vol. 3 in his Works. However, in the end, the majority vote in the General Assembly was to accept RC baptism.

Peace,

-CH
 
Hi:

You may not know this, but the question was a subject of heated debate in the Southern Presbyterian Church back inthe mid-1800's. James Henly Thornwell came out strong against accepting RC baptism, vol. 3 in his Works. However, in the end, the majority vote in the General Assembly was to accept RC baptism.

Peace,

-CH

In fact, the overwhelming majority vote in the 1845 (I believe it was) Old School GA was against the validity of RC Baptism, apparently the first Presbyterian or Reformed church to adopt such a stance.
 
Also, the poll results are skewed since by my count 7 of the 15 to this point who have voted no are baptists, most of whom, if they are immersionists and not just antipaedobaptists of course view anything other than immersion as invalid anyway. That Baptists would view Rome's baptism as invalid is no surprise at all.

Give us credos a bit more credit than that. My stand against Roman baptism is that Roman Catholicism is no longer a true church. I tend to lean more towards John Piper's view of paedobaptistism (although the elders of his church voted against his view). Your response is rather ad hominem and based on a presupposition.

I don't think it was ad hominem. My point is that this has been a controversy among American Presbyterians since the mid 1800's but it is no controversy at all among Baptists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top