Are Roman Catholic priests considerd as "lawfully called."

[Free Christian]

Hello all. I have been wondering.
Do or does anyone consider that Roman Catholics priests have or are lawfully called to be such?
Called by who?

 

[One Little Nail]

Hi Brett, I know that you'll be in agreement with me in this that romish priests are no ministers of Christ.
I don't seem to understand your question or what your seeking, can you elaborate on this? when you say calling
you mean to the office of priesthood, because I definitely know there not called by God's Spirit.

 

[Free Christian]

Hi Robert. I guess Im trying to understand some peoples view that the RC church is part of the body of Christ, true Churches.
That their Baptisms for example are valid when done by a RC priest. That anything done by them is so.
As I understand a Baptism is to be done by a Minister who is lawfully called. Also that a Minister is to be gifted of the Holy Spirit.
I also understand that many believe, along with the calling to ministry by the Church itself, that there is an inward call from God to this.
In that regard I am confused as to how God would call someone to minister in a Church that would openly go against all that scripture teaches!
I should add that before posting the question I did a search, exhaustive, here in the search function but could not find a satisfactory answer so I asked it here.

 

[MW]

Brett, Roman Catholic priests are false teachers who are to be shunned. The reason why Roman Catholic baptism should be accepted as valid is due to the fact that the ordinance is Christ's, not man's. When one makes it dependent on man it ceases to be a divine sign and seal of covenant benefits. It becomes nothing more than a visible demonstration of man's own spirituality, which is always imperfect. Then qualification after qualification is added to the person administering it, and each individual will require specific qualifications which differ from another individual's qualifications, which can only lead to further division and confusion. It is fundamentally schismatic to deny the validity of an ordinance which Christ has instituted.

 

[Romans922]

Do or does anyone consider that Roman Catholics priests have or are lawfully called to be such?

ASIDE: It also says, "by a Minister of the Gospel" which the phrase your questioning is qualifying. A RC is no minister of the Gospel, but a Minister of a false Gospel in the Synagogue of Satan.


WCF 25.5 - "The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."

RC being no Church of Christ shows why the sacrament can't be administered at all in RC. RC is not of Christ nor of His Church, thus it isn't His sacrament being administered.

 

[Free Christian]

Thanks Mathew. I sort of get that. In another post recently when Baptism was raised I was going to answer this
"I was Baptised in a Church which today I would not go back into to worship, a Pentecostal one. Would I consider I needed to be rebaptised? No, as my Baptism was between myself and God when I truly accepted the Lord and the Lord lead me out of it. I know that when that happened I became a true Christian, far from a good and perfect one, but a true Christian nonetheless."
I did not post it as I was not sure of the implications of those in the RC church and thought to myself "what about the priest there who I cannot fathom as being called of God, or gifted by the Holy Spirit, or in a church that openly goes against almost everything true and Holy!" So perhaps my initial thought was correct, that it was based upon the individual action between the person and God and not the person administering it. In saying that I am not implying that anyone can now go and Baptise people. I am guessing here that, although it is required that it should be, or is preferable that it is administered by a truly faithful Minister, the fact that one does it or goes through with it truthfully in their heart then it is recognised as a true Baptism, between themselves and God? Agree, that RC priests should be shunned, 100%, in fact whenever I see one I am repulsed at what they represent.

 

[One Little Nail]

http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/r-c-sproul-jr-rcc-baptismal-efficacy-75769/

This was posted on a recent thread which got closed for some reason, it was RC Sprouls position on Rome taken from a previous post, it has relevance here because if you deny the validity of the "church" of rome you deny by good & necessary
consequence the validity of its "ministry" & as a consequence the validity of its sacraments;

Ask RC: Should we accept a Roman Catholic baptism as legitimate?

The vast majority of Protestants since the time of the Reformation take the view that we should accept Roman Catholic baptism. Several reasons are proffered. First, the donatist controversy. During the days of the Diocletian persecution there were those professing Christians who essentially repudiated the faith. The Donatists argued that the sacraments performed by those who recanted the faith were therefore invalid. Saint Augustine wisely argued that the efficacy of a sacrament is not tied to the faith of the one administering it. Second, there is the reality that at the time of the Reformation the magisterial Reformers accepted Roman Catholic baptism as valid. Third, there is nothing unbiblical about what is said in the Roman Catholic baptism, and it is said in the same Trinitarian formula as Protestant baptism. Fourth, many Protestants consider Rome to be a deeply flawed, chock-full-of-serious-errors true church and her baptisms irregular, but valid.

While I certainly understand this common view I do not embrace it. Baptism is, among other things, that sacrament by which one enters into the visible church. Rome, after the formal adoption of the sixth session of the Council of Trent, became an apostate church. That makes her in my judgment not merely a bad church, but a former church. A bad husband is one who is unfaithful. A rightly divorced husband, though he had had to be married in order to be unfaithful, is no longer a husband. If I am correct, being baptized into a local Roman Catholic church is not being baptized into a part of the visible church.

While the Trinity is a necessary, beautiful, critically important doctrine, while I believe that to deny it is to deny the faith, that it was the key issue for the first 500 years of the church after the ascension, this does not make it the alone necessary doctrine for a church to be a church. Any “church” for instance, that denies the resurrection of the body is not a church, and we should not accept their baptisms. In like manner, any “church” that says that anyone who teaches we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law should be damned, as Rome says in the sixth session of the Council of Trent, even if they affirm the Trinity, is not rightly administering the sacrament.

Which brings us to the Reformers. Though they may have addressed this and I missed it, it is important to remember that they are answering the question principally in a pre-Trent context. They are dealing with people who were baptized before Rome ceased to be a church, however weak they might have been up to that point. I don’t think Calvin or Luther or Zwingli, etc. needed to be baptized again because they were baptized when Rome was still a church.

Finally, the distinction between the Donatist issue and this issue is here- I am not saying that the unbelief of the one administering the sacrament makes it invalid. I am saying the unbelief of the institution into which one is being “baptized” makes it invalid. It’s not that the baptizer disbelieves, but that the church is not a church.

As rare as my position may be I am by no means the only one to take it. The southern Presbyterian tradition takes the same position. On the other hand, it has always been my practice not to impose my view on anyone. No one should ever get into any trouble for agreeing with Luther, Calvin, Warfield and Hodge and disagreeing with me. I believe Christians should submit to the wisdom of their shepherds on this issue, and I believe elders should be gracious toward their sheep.

 

[Free Christian]

ASIDE: It also says, "by a Minister of the Gospel" which the phrase your questioning is qualifying. A RC is no minister of the Gospel, but a Minister of a false Gospel in the Synagogue of Satan.
WCF 25.5 - "The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."
RC being no Church of Christ shows why the sacrament can't be administered at all in RC. RC is not of Christ nor of His Church, thus it isn't His sacrament being administered.

Hello Andrew. That cannot be cast aside what you say and must be taken into consideration also.
It is things like that which sparked my question.
Is it that it is secondary, the qualifications and rightful calling of those who administer it, to the truthfulness of the act itself between the person and God?

 

[MW]

Brett, yes, I would say the same applies with the Pentecostal churches that believe in the Trinity and baptise accordingly. They are to be shunned for their false teachings and practices, but the ordinance of baptism is valid. This applies even though they are sometimes self-appointed ministers, which would make their calling less qualified than Roman Catholic priests, who at least have a form of ordination.

Another reason why the ordinance of Christ must be paramount is the reality of apostate ministers. Suppose the person who baptised you later apostatised. If baptism depended on the spirituality of the minister nobody could be sure they were baptised.

Robert, your conclusion does not follow from the premise. There were numerous occasions where Israel apostatised but circumcision remained valid nonetheless.

 

[au5t1n]

There were seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal in Elijah's time, yet the circumcision of the apostates was still regarded as valid.

I encountered this point in reading Samuel Rutherford's "A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul's Presbtery in Scotland," and I raised it to a minister on this board while he was in New Braunfels (Our denomination holds the Southern Presbyterian view of not regarding RC baptisms as valid). He pointed out that circumcision, unlike baptism, cannot be repeated, so the comparison is unequal. Doesn't that weaken the force of this argument? I realize there are other arguments, and I'll admit I found Mr. Rutherford's case fairly compelling. I tabled consideration of the matter at the time because I was not willing to pull it to the forefront of my thinking/reading and let the necessary reading (e.g., Thornwell's Sacramental Sorcery) displace my current reading list arrangement. But eventually I will need to consider the matter again.

 

[Free Christian]

There were numerous occasions where Israel apostatised but circumcision remained valid nonetheless.

Ahh, now that shines a new light on things! Good example.

 

[MW]

There were seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal in Elijah's time, yet the circumcision of the apostates was still regarded as valid.

I encountered this point in reading Samuel Rutherford's "A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul's Presbtery in Scotland," and I raised it to a minister on this board while he was in New Braunfels (Our denomination holds the Southern Presbyterian view of not regarding RC baptisms as valid). He pointed out that circumcision, unlike baptism, cannot be repeated, so the comparison is unequal. Doesn't that weaken the force of this argument? I realize there are other arguments, and I'll admit I found Mr. Rutherford's case fairly compelling. I tabled the matter at the time because I was not willing to pull it to the forefront and let the necessary reading (e.g., Thornwell's Sacramental Sorcery) displace my current reading list arrangement. But eventually I will need to consider the matter again.

Sorry, Austin; I changed that line to something more general.

I don't think the objection is relevant. The Reformed argue that baptism, like circumcision, is only once to be administered. Besides, it is possible to undo one's circumcision and have it done again.

 

[au5t1n]

Interesting. Were there any kinds of baptisms (or baptisms so-called) which Reformers and Puritans (or at least a portion of them) did not accept, such as baptisms by self-appointed ministers of by fathers? I have encountered that claim as well, albeit from a different source.

 

[One Little Nail]

Hi Robert. I guess Im trying to understand some peoples view that the RC church is part of the body of Christ, true Churches.

This was spoken about in the previous thread, http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=83120, there not part of the body of Christ, otherwise known as the church invisible, the the body of Christ is his mystical or spiritual body which consists of all the elect redeemed of all times & places.
You probably mean are they part of the Church Universal or visible church. I would say no that after the council of trent it unchurched itself, and is no true church, nor part of the visible church.

That their Baptisms for example are valid when done by a RC priest. That anything done by them is so.

romish priests are no ministers of Christ so how could the baptism they give be valid or legitimate? see RC Sproul's comments above, but this point has been debated & there is a view held by Reformed folk even on this Forum
that it is valid, so we must show our erring brethren charity.
Martin Luther remarked that the doctrine of Justification by Faith ( Imputed righteousness ) was the article by which the Church stood or fell, rome denied this doctrine officially & creedally at trent therefore it fell, & as I've
said previously she is reprobate & fallen, thus no Church, Babylon the great is fallen, fallen. this is undisputed fact.

As I understand a Baptism is to be done by a Minister who is lawfully called. Also that a Minister is to be gifted of the Holy Spirit.
I also understand that many believe, along with the calling to ministry by the Church itself, that there is an inward call from God to this.

Yes a minister ought to be a professing christian in good standing, that is not disqualified or had his credentials revoked by some scandal, that is that he is a lawfully called Minister, whether by God or man (ordained)'
we cannot see into a persons heart but can only know them by their fruit, manner & doctrine & the like, which would indicate an inward calling of the Holy Ghost
Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,
there is a difference between a Shepherd & a wolf is there not, though there a false ministers in true churches, as was foretold & forthtold by The Lord & his Apostles.
also if the Church he belongs to, whether particular & local,independent or associated, denominational or national, be a true church then he performs a valid baptism.
there are other valid baptisms like those performed by evangelists & the like, but I am keeping the context to the visible Church to fit the context of the thread.

In that regard I am confused as to how God would call someone to minister in a Church that would openly go against all that scripture teaches!

The Lord would not call such a one, so there is no need to be confused brother, 2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. The Lord warned of wolves in sheep's clothing
false teachers & the like. Paul even said that they would arise from within the true church;

Act 20:28-30 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God,
which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

 

[One Little Nail]

Post 9

Brett, yes, I would say the same applies with the Pentecostal churches that believe in the Trinity and baptise accordingly. They are to be shunned for their false teachings and practices, but the ordinance of baptism is valid. This applies even though they are sometimes self-appointed ministers, which would make their calling less qualified than Roman Catholic priests, who at least have a form of ordination.

I would also grant that Pentecostal churches that believe in the Trinity and hold to Justification by faith are true churches, however errant they may be, have a valid baptism.
Some self-appointed ministers have a legitimate call, neither Calvin nor Spurgeon were not ordained, though these be true ministers called of God and not man, others who have no inward call of The Holy Ghost but be self appointed are not true ministers of Christ, yet if they have received an ordination from a true church of Christ, then they are usurpers & false ministers though rightly ordained, their baptisms being yet valid.

On the point of Roman Catholic priests, who at least have a form of ordination, I grant it, though it be an ordination of sorts it be not a true christian ordination but an empty husk or shell of a former time when her ordinations were true, though this was long ago in ancient times before her apostasy, just like you see the shell of long ago abandoned & demolished church cathedral lying in ruins.

Another reason why the ordinance of Christ must be paramount is the reality of apostate ministers. Suppose the person who baptised you later apostatised. If baptism depended on the spirituality of the minister nobody could be sure they were baptised.

I do grant that false or errant ministers may do valid baptisms, if they are ordained in or by true churches & whether or not they do latter apostatize is inconsequential to the argument.
the argument is not about whether ministers be true or false but whether romish priests are ministers at all, I deny this assumption, non ministers cannot have valid or legitimate baptisms.

Robert, your conclusion does not follow from the premise. There were numerous occasions where Israel apostatised but circumcision remained valid nonetheless.

My conclusion does follow my premise, if rome has become a non-church then her priests cease to be christian ministers & her baptism is no baptism. pre-trent I would agree that she functioned in much the same way as apostate Isreal,
because she was apostate like Israel but still a church, however she has unchurched herself. The ordinance of baptism was instituted by Christ our God, to be performed by the church's ministers I do not grant that romes priests are
ministers of Christ thus they cannot lawfully have the authority to baptise, if they do monkey the ordinance it is not christian baptism but a mockery.

The New Testament Church could have a name to live but be dead, that is as to its outward form it could be pure yet be dead, yet still a true church, though I grant this to be uncommon or it could contain error yet be a church, the position of rome pre-trent. Also there could be true churches who have so apostatized from the Gospel to have been unchurched & reprobated becoming a synagogue of satan, this is where rome finds herself today post-trent & also were Israel after the flesh has been since her apostasy & rejection of Christ & his gospel post-crucifixion, the church of rome should have heeded the Apostle Paul warning in Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

I grant that your conclusion does follow your premise as you believe rome to be a church, that contains dangerous false teachers, thus a church that is errant, maybe even apostate, though still a church thus making her baptisms valid, if I held to your premise I would accept your conclusion, I do not hold nor grant your premise, as I believe rome post-trent to be uncurched.


the argument from the greater to the lesser holds true,if the church be true & minister false, the baptism is still valid, but If the church is a non-church & the minister false, then the baptism is false & not valid.

this is the position of rome, a non-church with a false ministry administering invalid baptisms.

 

[MW]

My conclusion does follow my premise, if rome has become a non-church then her priests cease to be christian ministers & her baptism is no baptism.

Robert, you are entitled to your opinion but I hope it never has an opportunity to break out into open schism against those souls who would be unchurched by it.

 

[earl40]

My conclusion does follow my premise, if rome has become a non-church then her priests cease to be christian ministers & her baptism is no baptism.

Robert, you are entitled to your opinion but I hope it never has an opportunity to break out into open schism against those souls who would be unchurched by it.

No doubt a pastoral concern. Though words of Our Lord in John 15 do come into mind and how He warns how we are to bear fruit. I grant He is speaking of individuals though I do see where an institution can also be applicable to His warning as the Good Shepherd.

 

[MW]

No doubt a pastoral concern. Though words of Our Lord in John 15 do come into mind and how He warns how we are to bear fruit. I grant He is speaking of individuals though I do see where an institution can also be applicable to His warning as the Good Shepherd.

A pastoral concern which reaches beyond the Roman Church to Protestant churches which have received Romish baptism as valid and have not rebaptised. Are they also to be cut off by this new law of sacraments?

 

[earl40]

No doubt a pastoral concern. Though words of Our Lord in John 15 do come into mind and how He warns how we are to bear fruit. I grant He is speaking of individuals though I do see where an institution can also be applicable to His warning as the Good Shepherd.

A pastoral concern which reaches beyond the Roman Church to Protestant churches which have received Romish baptism as valid and have not rebaptised. Are they also to be cut off by this new law of sacraments?

I hear and understand the problems you propose. Why do you think a valid church would cut them off if they decided to say Rome's baptism is not valid?

Also my thoughts on this are framed by the confession which says explicitly that a true visible Church is the institution that has been given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God to dispense.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.

 

[MW]

I hear and understand the problems you propose. Why do you think a valid church would cut them off if they decided to say Rome's baptism is not valid?

My point is that the Protestant churches who accept the baptism as valid are then regarded as corrupt in one of the marks of the church because they retain unbaptised members in the view of those who do not accept the baptism as valid. These kinds of schismatic judgements naturally follow when the "marks" are judged by the church rather than the church judged by the "marks."

 

[Free Christian]

Ok, perhaps Ill word it this way.
Can a person be Baptised by a false teacher, false minister when at the time it was done they "believed the person to be a True Minister"?
Does this make their Baptism True?
As I am sure those in the RC church having it done believe that they are such.
Believing that they are being Baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
I think of things like this.
When those in the last day as in Mathew 7 v 21 to 23 where Christ says to them who did good works in His name, "depart from me, ye that work iniquity".
I am sure that their good works were good works and the fact that Jesus rejects them does not mean that the works themselves were not good, such as helping the starving, homeless, sick and so on. But that the person themselves were not truly of Christ. So even though their actions were good and commendable in a way it was their own personal standing in Truth and Faith wise which causes their rejection and that their works would not be in themselves regarded as bad?

 

[earl40]

I hear and understand the problems you propose. Why do you think a valid church would cut them off if they decided to say Rome's baptism is not valid?

My point is that the Protestant churches who accept the baptism as valid are then regarded as corrupt in one of the marks of the church because they retain unbaptised members in the view of those who do not accept the baptism as valid. These kinds of schismatic judgements naturally follow when the "marks" are judged by the church rather than the church judged by the "marks."

Yes the point you make is indisputable. Thank you.

 

[au5t1n]

when the "marks" are judged by the church rather than the church judged by the "marks."

I think that is a very interesting way of putting it. It makes me wonder, though, whether anyone really doesn't judge the marks by the church at all. Doesn't your own view require a certain degree of judging the marks by the church in that you reject the validity of Mormon baptism because the LDS church is a non-church? If so, it seems that the older view simply places the line of "judging a mark by the church" in a different place than the "Thornwellian" view (I'm not sure what to call it or who actually originated it). That is not to say that the line isn't being placed in the right place by the older view. As noted, I don't know. But it does somewhat weaken an argument that contends the marks shouldn't be judged by the church, or at least on the surface it appears to do so. Perhaps I am just misunderstanding your reason for rejecting Mormon baptism. Thoughts?

 

[Loopie]

This is just a related thought, but I have heard that Jehovah's Witnesses baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Certainly we do not consider them a true church, right? Yet even though they use the 'proper words', we would not consider their baptism valid, would we? Thoughts?

 

[au5t1n]

Addressing the OP with regard to Roman ministers: In going back and reviewing Rutherford's comments on Rome in A Peaceable and Temperate Plea, I was reminded of a distinction he made between a true church veritate Metaphysica and a true church veritate Ethica. I'll type some of it here, since it is quite interesting and relevant to the OP:

Samuel Rutherford, A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul's Presbytery in Scotland (1642), Chapter 10:

A third Distinction is necessary; a true Church is one thing veritate Metaphysica, with the verity of essence, as a sick-man, or a man wanting a legg is a true man, and hath a reasonable soule in him, and a true church veritate Ethica, a Church morally true, that is, a sound, whole, a pure Church professing the sound faith, that is another thing. Rome is a sick-Church and a maimed and lamed Church, wanting legs and armes, and so is not morally a true Church, for vile corruption of Doctrine is there, as we say a thief is not a true man, but a false and a taking man, yet he hath a mans nature and a reasonable soule in him; the question is if Rome have the soul, life and being of a Church.

And a bit later in the same chapter:

Hence shortly I say, The Court of Rome as Popish, is the falling-sicknesse of the Church, not the Church. But the same Court teaching something of Christ, baptisme, good-works, &c, hath something of the life and being of a Church, howbeit she be not a whole Church, her skinne being leprous, pocky and poluted.

Later,

1. Because the word of God and so the contract of Marriage is professed amongst them, and so there is an externall active calling there, and the word of the covenant sounding amongst them, and a passive calling also, because many secretly believe and obey. 3. Many fundamentall truths are taught that may beget faith, and so there are true and valid pastorall acts in that Church. 2. I say there is an hid and invisible Church and Temple in Rome, and these God warneth to come out of Babel, and these we by writings cry unto, that they would forsake their harlot mother, and worship the Lord in truth, and they obey, howbeit they dare not profess the truth. But the teaching Church teaching Popery and fundamentall truths, and obtruding them upon the consciences of others, is not the believing Church, and so not the spouse and body of Christ.

Later still,

4. Rome iure and merito, in her bad deserving to her Lord, is no wife, no Church, no spouse, no people in covenant with God, and yet de facto and formally in possession, in profession, and for matrimoniall tables which she keepeth is a Church, and differeth from the Jewes, as a Church and no Church.

Later,

5. Rome in concreto, according to her best part, to wit, secret beleevers groaning and sighing in Egypts bondage is a true Church; but Rome in abstracto, the faction of Papists, as Papists, are no spouse of Christ, but the whore of Babel, and mother of fornications.

That is probably enough for now. I tried to type out some of the portions most relevant to the OP. Hopefully this is helpful in understanding the nuances that exist in the way the Reformed church has historically regarded Rome and her ministry.

I'd love to hear from those who have read either Rutherford, or Thornwell, or both, as to what you think of these portions from Rutherford, and if you disagree with him, how you'd answer his points.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

See also here: Rutherfurd Against Separatism: Part Three | Naphtali Press
and Schism & Separatism | Naphtali Press

 

[au5t1n]

See also here: Rutherfurd Against Separatism: Part Three | Naphtali Press
and Schism & Separatism | Naphtali Press

Thank you, Mr. Coldwell. I didn't realize the whole chapter was on your website. It appears I didn't need to type those quotations. I have only a facsimile and have never found the work (or even such a large portion of it) typed out anywhere.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

You are welcome. That was done for one of the old Naphtali Press Anthology issues, I don't want to think how long ago, spring 1989 issue (vol. 2 no. 2). I had toyed with publishing Peaceable Plea because it is the shortest of R's works on Presbyterianism, and mostly importantly, Rutherford proves in it at least, that he understands the benefit of nice concise chapters!

 

[MW]

Doesn't your own view require a certain degree of judging the marks by the church in that you reject the validity of Mormon baptism because the LDS church is a non-church?

I wouldn't think so. I look at the marks of the church, discover that the LDS has none of them, not even the form of them, and conclude they are a cult. It is examined in the light of the same marks as any other profession is examined. In contrast to this process, we have been told that one of the marks is to be adapted in relation to the Roman Catholic Church merely on the basis that it is already judged to be no church. It is obvious, upon this view of it, that some other criteria are being utilised for a prior judgment on the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[au5t1n]

I wouldn't think so. I look at the marks of the church, discover that the LDS has none of them, not even the form of them, and conclude they are a cult. It is examined in the light of the same marks as any other church is examined. In contrast to this process, we have been told that the mark itself is to be adapted in relation to the Roman Catholic Church merely on the basis that it is already judged to be no church. It is obvious, upon this view of it, that some other criteria are being utilised for a prior judgment on the Roman Catholic Church.

I believe I have an overall grasp of what you're saying, but I'm missing a step in the argument somewhere. On what basis did you conclude that the LDS does not have the mark of baptism, if not from prior consideration of their profession of a false faith? Same question with regard to discipline. Didn't you have to consider the LDS's lack of profession of the faith in order to arrive at the conclusion that their sacraments are not marks? I realize the profession of the faith is a mark, and even the singular mark. In that case, my only guess as to how you are rejecting the marks in their own right is that you must be using one mark (the profession of the faith) to overrule the others, which I guess makes some sense when you consider that the sacraments depend on the Word. Is my guess correct, or do you have some other explanation?