Something is amiss here. The basic premise of the catholic (universal church) position is that the ordinance depends upon the institution of Christ, not the church administering it. As soon as one brings in the status of the church this basic premise is denied and the separatist position of Donatism has become the working principle. If it depends on the church administering it, the requirements for establishing a valid baptism will be self-referential and undermine the catholicity of baptism.
A problem with denying the validity of RC baptism
- Thread starter Reformed Covenanter
- Start date
- Status
Something is amiss here. The basic premise of the catholic (universal church) position is that the ordinance depends upon the institution of Christ, not the church administering it. As soon as one brings in the status of the church this basic premise is denied and the separatist position of Donatism has become the working principle. If it depends on the church administering it, the requirements for establishing a valid baptism will be self-referential and undermine the catholicity of baptism.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
johnny
Puritan Board Sophomore
These are all great questions to ask,
Perhaps if we view the gospel from the antithesis, then it becomes easier to understand the work of spiritual regeneration that leads to baptism. In other words, how can an unregenerate man ever desire baptism anyway.
And what unregenerate baptiser would desire to baptise unless they were trying to pervert the gospel message.
(as in the case of JW's Mormons Buddhist's ect)
On another point, what are we make of the example of Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8.
Is Peter not suggesting that the heart of the Baptiser is important?
Perhaps if we view the gospel from the antithesis, then it becomes easier to understand the work of spiritual regeneration that leads to baptism. In other words, how can an unregenerate man ever desire baptism anyway.
And what unregenerate baptiser would desire to baptise unless they were trying to pervert the gospel message.
(as in the case of JW's Mormons Buddhist's ect)
On another point, what are we make of the example of Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8.
Is Peter not suggesting that the heart of the Baptiser is important?
If there is no profession of Christianity it cannot be Christian. Profession of Christianity is essential to catholicity.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Are you talking about the one baptizing or the one being baptized?
If you're talking about the one being baptized, then certainly we all agree on this, and furthermore that's not the question at hand.
If you're talking about the one doing the baptizing, then what counts as a profession of Christianity? Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals all claim to make a profession of Christianity.
Last edited:
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
But their baptisms fail the test of Trinitarianism, which makes them invalid.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Mormons use Trinitarian baptism. LDS.org Baptism "The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: 'Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.'"
Nicholas Perella
Puritan Board Freshman
That may push the argument back into the court that Rome gives invalid baptisms (thus re-baptize). Catholicism preaches, speaks, and writes about a different Christ, a different Son of God, than the one that I hear in the gospel and law, thus, Scripture. Thus a different Triune God than what I have come to know and love.
I think Pastor Winzer is talking about something else, and I say this because Sean was responding within the context of what Pastor Winzer had stated.
The private conscience of the believer in a Roman Catholic false church, who was baptized and received communion there, but had left for another church, maybe PCA if I follow along the most widely expressed church being discussed in this thread. That believer interprets the baptism (and communion) differently than Catholicism. Interprets the Christ instituted office in which applies the sacraments and additionally the Christ instituted sacraments (baptism and communion only) as signs and seals of the promise of Christ Jesus (a Protestant hermeneutic). Drawing upon the differing quotes and historical references, such as Rutherford in this thread if I remember correctly, and baptism truly (signs and seals of the promise of Christ Jesus), such a man like Rutherford could look upon the baptism of a former Roman Catholic with acceptance and the hypothetical former Roman Catholic also could improve upon their infant baptism as the Westminster Confession states and interpret the baptism truly as opposed to Catholicism falsity. By the work of the Holy Spirit much assurance will happen from such improvements upon their baptism for God so promises.
Larger catechism Q&A 167. "How is our baptism to be improved by us?" is still meaningful to the former Roman Catholic who was baptized in a Roman Catholic false church.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
[FONT="] [/FONT] [FONT="]Just as an interesting historical side note, the RCC has dealt with this issue from their perspective by performing "conditional baptisms." For example, in 1559 the Catholic Church in Scotland issued official instructions that children who had undergone “Protestant baptism” were to be re-christened/baptized with the following words: “‘If thou art baptized, I do not baptize thee; but if thou art not baptized, I baptize thee in the name of the Father,' etc.’” (David Patrick, Statutes of the Scottish Church; 1225–1559, [Edinburgh: The University Press, 1907], 186f.) To my knowledge similar conditional baptism rubrics are still in effect in the RCC today.[/FONT]
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Their use of words like "Father" and "Son" imply something wholly different than who God the Father and God the Son really are, for the Mormon, these are humanoid entities and thus fail any orthodox view of the Trinity.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
So then we're essentially determining the validity of baptism based on one's (i.e the administrator's) doctrinal understanding (orthodox vs. heretic).
Last edited:
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Therein lines the rub.
The RCC has a totally different Jesus in mind when they use the Trinitarian Formula to Baptize.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Did the RCC deny Chalcedon recently?
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Ok then. Is the RCC still a church, in your opinion?
And, do they HAVE to explicitly deny Chalcedon, when the Jesus they actively preach isn't the same Jesus that actually saves?
And, do they HAVE to explicitly deny Chalcedon, when the Jesus they actively preach isn't the same Jesus that actually saves?
I find it interesting that you say they "claim" to make a profession of Christianity. Why the qualification at this point? They either make a profession or they don't. Roman Catholicism professes Christianity. We do not say it "claims" to do it. It at least retains the outward form of a profession. These other groups by classification are seen as dubious because they deny the very form of Christianity.
I think they must come very nearly to just such a repudiation.
The question at issue is whether the RCC institution was entrusted by Jesus with this ministration. The Mormons have been brought into the discussion (for some reason). When was the Mormon organization ever entrusted by Christ with this (or any other) ministration? They never were. But the church of Rome was.
I said earlier, this is a curiously intertwined issue of both theology and history. WHEN was this ministration withdrawn from the RCC by the same Person who gave it? The fact that the officials in that denomination make ludicrous claims of their powers to make and do such and such, in conjunction with Christ's sacrament--any many other errors--does not give other bodies the right-of-removal (pruning), which is the Vinedresser's exclusive work, the Lamplighter's work.
Both individuals and churches have the duty to join with the the best exhibition of Christ's church he can, see the Belgic Confession Art.29. False-church is a problem in this world, of which Christians must be aware. Unfortunately, as WCF 25.5 reminds us, "the purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error." So, we must do what we can, both as individuals and as churches/denominations, to preserve purity of doctrine and practice.
But this separation, and the purification of our doctrine and practice, does not further take-away what remains of the gifts of Christ within those ruins lately departed. They confess the Creeds of their fathers, which are ours also, refusing to put them away though they cake them with grime and rust. When they abandon them, if they abandon them, then they have no discernible Christian existence any more. Only then could we say that the lampstand had been removed.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
So, the RCC is still a valid church, in your opinion, Rev. Buchanan?
TheOldCourse
Puritan Board Sophomore
I guess this is what I was getting at. One way of affirming RCC baptism is to say that the sacrament is valid (if irregular) if the form is correct. That is to say: water, trinitarian formula, professing believer/covenant child, etc. The person of the administrator is irrelevant as far as the validity, though certainly not the regularity, of the sacrament. To my reading, this is a modern manner of affirming RCC baptism, though perhaps there are older exemplars of it that I haven't come across. The church administering it doesn't come into the equation.
Rutherford and Hodge, for instance, both expressly consider the status of the administer as a lawful minister of the visible church essential to the validity of the sacrament, not just the regularity. This is why the Scottish church "rebaptized" those who had received lay or women baptisms in the RCC church but not those who were baptized by priests. If this is the case, the ecclesial status of the minister must come into consideration somewhere, no?
Here's a representative selection from Rutherford:
Hodge:
Neither, as far as I've read, come straight out and say it, but their logic would seem to imply that if Rome did further apostatize and renounce the Scriptures and creeds, their baptism would be invalid. None of this is to say that their reasoning is necessarily superior to the newer, but it does seem that many today that place themselves in the historical consensus of the Reformed church in affirming RCC baptism as valid actually do so for rather different reasons than the older theologians did. It actually seems more like Separatist logic who, like Robinson, utterly deny that the RCC is a church in any sense but affirm RCC baptism irrespective.
I am not seeing the relevance of this nor how this is supposed to indicate a different approach. Rutherford and Hodge held the ministry to be given to the catholic church, as is stated in the Westminster Confession.
Sean, what do you mean by "valid?"
What I think is that the RCC is less-pure, rather than more; is much degenerated; and contains idolatry (all three being my confessed doctrine).
And I agree with the Belgic that Rome is marked the more by signs of the false church than the true, for in my judgment she (in varying degrees) "ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word, but adds to and takes away from them, as she thinks proper; relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily and according to the Word of God and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness and idolatry."
I did not give Rome her charter. I cannot take it away. Rome makes certain claims respecting her patrimony, and is (partly) defined thereby. Rome is some kind of church, because she does not repudiate her origins (even while she embellishes them). As tempting as it is to hurl the epithet at her, "synagogue of Satan," and no church of Christ, I cannot say to what degree she has fallen, a judgment made even more difficult by her protestations of love for Christ, according to the ancient Creeds.
The designation "syn. of Satan" was given to them of the OT church who deliberately repudiated Christ, and counted him their enemy; who professed not a trace of love for him. If a former church becomes Unitarian or Arian (for example), rejects the Creeds, renounces the cardinal doctrines of the church--this could (and probably has) taken place, and such probably deserves that apostate name.
The church in Sardis was still a church, though Christ calls her "dead," Rev.3:1. The church in Laodicea--most rich and famous--made Christ vomit, 3:17,16. Rome reminds me of these.
TheOldCourse
Puritan Board Sophomore
To clarify, I'm not saying you personally are taking a different approach, though I'm still trying to figure out precisely what distinctions you're making here. What I'm referring to is that many contemporary ministers who argue for RCC baptism validity generally would also not rebaptize those who had been baptized by laymen or women, provided the correct form was used. Scott Clark has argued as much elsewhere. Rev. Barnes seems to be taking the same approach above. In my experience, this is the tack taken by most American Presbyterians who defend RCC baptism validity.
On the other hand, Rutherford et. al. do not view lay baptism, to take that example again, as any baptism at all because, given that baptism is entrusted to the visible and catholic church, an ordained minister of the church must administer it for it to be valid. The question then remains on that position, when is that church to which the minister belongs no church at all? I think you were getting at that with your profession question, but there still remains something of a doctrinal test, if a very elementary one, as to what constitutes denying "the very form of Christianity". I think it's noteworthy that both Rutherford and especially Hodge go to some length in demonstrating that doctrinal truth that Rome maintains as part of the basis for validating their baptism. Both mention the catholic creeds, and Hodge goes on and discusses atonement, forgiveness of sins, necessity of divine interest, etc. in demonstrating that the Roman church is still in some sense a church and its baptism valid. Some Thornwellians would have us believe that in institutionally denying the solas of the Reformation the RCC retains, qualitatively, no more of the form of Christianity than Mormons.
That requires a different set of criteria again. I wouldn't say it is a new approach. Even on the Rutherford/Hodge examples, if someone said he was baptised in a church which allowed lay baptism, one might not be sure that he had been baptised by a minister.
These discussions become very intricate and leading principles are quickly lost sight of. Baptism was appointed to be administered but once. At the same time, the institution only had in view one, holy, catholic, apostolic church. The rise of divisions have confused the subject. If we keep in view that baptism as an ordinance is given to the visible catholic church, and evaluate it on that basis, then we are in a better position to see through the confusion which divisions have created.
I'm still interested to know what folks who unchurch Rome because of Trent think the churches of England and Scotland should have done after 1547?
puritanpilgrim
Puritan Board Junior
If someone was baptized as a believer, then I would accept the baptism. If they were not a believer then they should be baptized after they have believed. It would be hard to accept the UPC baptism because they have a bent towards works righteousness and they deny the eternal son ship of Jesus. And I don't think the words the minister says are magical, so I'm not as concerned with what the minister said, as I am concerned over what the person believed at the point of the baptism. That is my plumbline. The minister could end up falling away, but it wouldn't matter, because it was the faith of person being baptized. Also, the scriptures never say the person baptizing must be an ordained minister.
puritanpilgrim
Puritan Board Junior
But, then they say faith they mean faith + works. How is that Christianity. You are not Christian because you say that you are.
We are working within a Presbyterian view of the church where the "visible church" is constituted by "profession." All who profess faith in Christ and obedience unto Him are Christians by profession. Those who hold to regenerate church membership are not working within the same view of the church.
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
"You are not Christian because you say that you are." It seems straightforward to me that such a statement is observing that profession of Christianity does not guarantee its reality.
SolamVeritatem
Puritan Board Freshman
Josh,
Thanks for the reply! It's helpful to know how you view that. Believe it or not, this scenario/situation is becoming all the more important, because by God's grace there are many who are coming from Oneness Apostolic backgrounds into reformed theology. Some of them (like me) have been immersed multiple times for different reasons, which I won't get into because this is not what the OP is about. As I read this thread though, I'm grateful for brothers, both Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian, who are much more adept than me at getting through the sometimes muddy water (no pun intended) of the issues surrounding baptism and the acceptance of such.
In Him,
Craig
Thanks for the reply! It's helpful to know how you view that. Believe it or not, this scenario/situation is becoming all the more important, because by God's grace there are many who are coming from Oneness Apostolic backgrounds into reformed theology. Some of them (like me) have been immersed multiple times for different reasons, which I won't get into because this is not what the OP is about. As I read this thread though, I'm grateful for brothers, both Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian, who are much more adept than me at getting through the sometimes muddy water (no pun intended) of the issues surrounding baptism and the acceptance of such.
In Him,
Craig
- Status
