Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Should we Baptize previously "Baptized" Roman Catholics who want to join the local church?
Baptising Roman Catholics
- Thread starter Backwoods Presbyterian
- Start date
- Status
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
Was Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, and so on rebaptized? No
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
I realize there is a lot of theological underpinning of this doctrine.
My understanding of the PCA on this is that like the Lord's Supper, in order to recognize communion one would need to be a member of a church "where this Gospel is preached," which would not include churches which officially reject justification by faith (in Christ's righteousness) alone because that is, essentially, the Gospel.
My understanding of the PCA on this is that like the Lord's Supper, in order to recognize communion one would need to be a member of a church "where this Gospel is preached," which would not include churches which officially reject justification by faith (in Christ's righteousness) alone because that is, essentially, the Gospel.
MrMerlin777
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
No.
jambo
Puritan Board Senior
In RC doctrine baptism is essential for salvation. Hence up until recently when an RC baby was dying, calling the priest to administer baptism took priority over calling a doctor. RCs believe this washes away original sin and although does not guarantee salvation, not being baptised positively excludes any hope of salvation. It is also a sign that he belongs to the "one true church". Baptism therefore has a completely different meaning and significance for the RC than it does to the reformed. We do not recognise baptismal regeneration nor would we recognise Mormon, JW or any cult baptism.
If anyone is converted, RC or otherwise, and has therefore really joined the one true church -the church invisible-then they should undergo Christian baptism. (The mode is a seperate issue)
If anyone is converted, RC or otherwise, and has therefore really joined the one true church -the church invisible-then they should undergo Christian baptism. (The mode is a seperate issue)
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
The answer might be a "Yes" because of Vatican II. I need to check on that!
No need to ask a Baptist this question. I think this is a strictly for Presbyterian question.
If it is a seriously performed baptism with water in the name of the Triune God, why should it matter that the person performing the sacrament is an heretic? For those answering "yes," why? Is Baptism into the name of our Savior, or into the authority of his followers?
Why should/must the symbolic washing be repeated? After all, regeneration is a unique event.
Why should/must the symbolic washing be repeated? After all, regeneration is a unique event.
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
Historical precedents, while interesting, are not binding. By the by, not all reformers agreed on this question; Viret disagreed (for one). Also, it was a huge inconsistency to recognize apostate churches' baptisms while severely condemning their practice of the Lord's Table.
The question would be: is the RC part of the visible church? Both sacraments are given to the visible church, and therefore, anyone who administers a "sacrament" in a synagogue of satan is not administering a sacrament, he's administering the table of demons.
It would be impossible to make a blanket statement about all RC churches, since not all are the same. Be that as it may, Christ has given the sacraments to the visible church.
Cheers,
Seb
Puritan Board Junior
Don't forget us Dutch Reformed.
We don't re-baptize RCs, and I don't think we should.The RCC Baptism, for all it faults, is still a Triune Baptism.
From The Belgic Confession:
Last edited:
kalawine
Puritan Board Junior
Don't forget us Dutch Reformed.
The RCC Baptism, for all it faults, is still a Triune Baptism.
From The Belgic Confession:
AMEN brother! I don't think Luther or Calvin were re-baptised! Their RCC baptisms were good enough for them. Besides, if you are re-baptized aren't you putting too much emphasis on baptism?
I was a Catholic for 30 years, and I dont know how we can even compare reformed Paedobaptism with a Catholic Baptism. It may be a "Triune Baptism" but it is completely different in its meaning. I supposedly entered the church of Christ and was cleansed of all my original sin at my baptism.
So my
is that this is far from Christian baptism and we should rebaptise Roman Catholics.
Catholics are not Christian in any form or way, there sacraments are supersticious heresy and I would not regard them as any more truthful than any mormon ceromony.
So my
is that this is far from Christian baptism and we should rebaptise Roman Catholics. Catholics are not Christian in any form or way, there sacraments are supersticious heresy and I would not regard them as any more truthful than any mormon ceromony.
Read the link link:
The Tri-lemma; OR, DEATH BY THREE HORNS.
THE PRESBYTERIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY NOT ABLE TO DECIDE THIS QUESTION:
"IS BAPTISM IN THE ROMISH CHURCH VALID?"
AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY WITHOUT UNBAPTIZING AND UNCHURCHING THE WHOLE PROTESTANT WORLD!
NO PROTESTANT CAN DECIDE IT, AND SAVE HIS BIBLE AND HIS BAPTISM
BY J. R. GRAVES,
Protestant Tri-Lemma
The Tri-lemma; OR, DEATH BY THREE HORNS.
THE PRESBYTERIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY NOT ABLE TO DECIDE THIS QUESTION:
"IS BAPTISM IN THE ROMISH CHURCH VALID?"
AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY WITHOUT UNBAPTIZING AND UNCHURCHING THE WHOLE PROTESTANT WORLD!
NO PROTESTANT CAN DECIDE IT, AND SAVE HIS BIBLE AND HIS BAPTISM
BY J. R. GRAVES,
Protestant Tri-Lemma
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
It seems to me we have defined the issue:
1) Is a baptism effective only if it is done by a "true church"?
2) If so, do we define a "true church" by its doctrine of the Trinity alone or does it require also that the church hold to the Gospel of Salvation?
3) Do any other doctrines from Scripture also need to apply?
1) Is a baptism effective only if it is done by a "true church"?
2) If so, do we define a "true church" by its doctrine of the Trinity alone or does it require also that the church hold to the Gospel of Salvation?
3) Do any other doctrines from Scripture also need to apply?
You need to ask your self, is the RCC still a true church ?
If you think so, than ofcourse is there baptism valid, but if not so, how can you see this as a valid baptism, only because that's done in name of the Trinity ?
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
Right. The question comes into focus here... If the Roman Church officially rejects justification by Christ's righteousness alone (the Gospel), and the ultimate authority of Scripture (sola Scriptura) but does hold to a biblical doctrine of the Trinity and other important biblical doctrines, can baptism have God's unction to initiate children into the covenant community in communion with the church universal? This is a deep question, one that needs to be handled carefully.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Is it the Trinitarian formula alone? 
Reformed Baptist
Puritan Board Sophomore
Not sure why it would be a Preby question...but I would say yes, they should be baptized. Which would not be a re-baptism per se, but a first, actual, biblical baptism.
Seb
Puritan Board Junior
Is it the Trinitarian formula alone?
On the Paedo side I think it primarily is. Using that formula you would re-baptize Mormons, JWs, etc. But not RCs, Seventh Day Adventist, Armstrongites, etc.
But using that formula alone wouldn't we re-baptize Oneness-Pentecostals etc?
On the Credo side, some tend to re-baptize so many because for them it's tied into a valid confession of faith.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
With regard to the "true church" element, would we require a person who was baptized as an infant in Protestant church by a known apostate to be re-baptized? I should hope not. We do not want to replay the Donatist Controversy.
Of course, there was much disagreement on this question in the 19th century presbyterian church, with I believe Hodge and Thornwell going toe-to-toe over the issue (Hodge saying "no"; Thornwell "yes").
I was reading the text of a sermon by Ligon Duncan on baptism, and he said that the Session at First Pres Jackson does not require re-baptism for an RC joining, unless the person joining has a major issue over his baptism (the person is deeply convicted that the baptism was not valid). While this isn't a perfect solution to the issue, it does seem to be a via media.
A (deliberately) non-Trinitarian baptism is not the same thing as a RCC baptism. So if a oneness Pentecostal or Mormon converted, he or she would need to be baptized (not really "re", since the first was not a Christian baptism).
Of course, there was much disagreement on this question in the 19th century presbyterian church, with I believe Hodge and Thornwell going toe-to-toe over the issue (Hodge saying "no"; Thornwell "yes").
I was reading the text of a sermon by Ligon Duncan on baptism, and he said that the Session at First Pres Jackson does not require re-baptism for an RC joining, unless the person joining has a major issue over his baptism (the person is deeply convicted that the baptism was not valid). While this isn't a perfect solution to the issue, it does seem to be a via media.
Is it the Trinitarian formula alone?
A (deliberately) non-Trinitarian baptism is not the same thing as a RCC baptism. So if a oneness Pentecostal or Mormon converted, he or she would need to be baptized (not really "re", since the first was not a Christian baptism).
Reformed Baptist
Puritan Board Sophomore
It seems the issue for the Presbyterian wil be a trinitarian baptism by which will be accepted a Romish baptism, an amazing thing in my eyes and diminishes in my estimation that strong polemic of John Gill on the matter which I before felt was a little rough, and the Baptist position which will recognize as only true baptism as a baptism for disciples alone (using Fred Malone's phrase to prevent the silly wrangling of words over 'believer's baptism).
This has been an enlightening topic for me.
This has been an enlightening topic for me.
Dearly Bought
Puritan Board Junior
Spot on. I'll go with Calvin on this one.
To the OP's question, I say nay.
I probably do not know enough to debate this, but can we really say it is OK simply because it is Trinitrian? When the central meaning of the "sacrament" is competely wrong?
I hope I am alowed to post this to clear up what Catholic baptism means?
This is what the Catholic Chatecism says regarding baptism.
-------------------------------------
"1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse"; the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."6
1215 This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."7
1216 "This bath is called enlightenment, because those who receive this [catechetical] instruction are enlightened in their understanding
. . . ."8 Having received in Baptism the Word, "the true light that enlightens every man," the person baptized has been "enlightened," he becomes a "son of light," indeed, he becomes "light" himself:9
Baptism is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift....We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God's Lordship"
--------------------------------
I was rebaptised as a Christian as I regarded my baptism in the Catholic church as completely wrong in its meaning.
You see even if it was Trinitarian my first baptism was not a Christian Baptism.
It is completely heretical in its meaning. Maybe I am missing something but in my limited knowledge that is where I stand.
I will be away for a week but will be eager to read the rest of the discussion when I get back.
- Status
