For those that hold Roman Baptism as invalid.

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

raderag

Puritan Board Sophomore
I am not 100% where I stand, though I am somewhat convinced by this article by Charles Hodge that a Roman Catholic baptism is valid.

Anyway, for those (not credos obviously) that don't consider RC baptism as valid, what do you make of mainline Protestant Churches? Why would someone preaching liberal theology have a valid baptism if RC doesn't?
 
I am not 100% but I will try to voice some trouble I hae with the whole situation.

Those who would hold to it as valid would claim that it is so because done in the name of the Trinity. That sounds good at first reading. But, let's just use the liberal church for example, they do not believe in a divine Christ. So, that would implicitly involve a redefinition of the Trinity. If the Trinity is redefined, it is a different Trinity. If it is a differeint Trinity, it is not a valid baptism.

But again, I am sympathetic to the view that their baptisms are valid, I am just thinking out loud again.
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I am not 100% but I will try to voice some trouble I hae with the whole situation.

Those who would hold to it as valid would claim that it is so because done in the name of the Trinity. That sounds good at first reading. But, let's just use the liberal church for example, they do not believe in a divine Christ. So, that would implicitly involve a redefinition of the Trinity. If the Trinity is redefined, it is a different Trinity. If it is a differeint Trinity, it is not a valid baptism.

But again, I am sympathetic to the view that their baptisms are valid, I am just thinking out loud again.
Click to expand...


The problem I see is that it is too complicated if Trinitarianism isn't the only point of contention. We could go down a bunch of roads then.
 
How many times must a man be baptized? Since Baptism doesn't regenerate that I don't see a real problem. With the exception that the person was to young to understand or did it to just do it.

I came from the RCC never got baptized there, was baptized in a Baptist church prior to that. (As an funny aside, I being a rather large man and being in a wheelchair and being difficult to get me to the baptistery they poured, not a little water quite a bit. I asked the pastor if he used all the water out of the baptistery. :D )
 
Originally posted by historyb
How many times must a man be baptized? Since Baptism doesn't regenerate that I don't see a real problem. With the exception that the person was to young to understand or did it to just do it.

I came from the RCC never got baptized there, was baptized in a Baptist church prior to that. (As an funny aside, I being a rather large man and being in a wheelchair and being difficult to get me to the baptistery they poured, not a little water quite a bit. I asked the pastor if he used all the water out of the baptistery. :D )
Click to expand...

Good point, how many baptisms do we believe in?

I can understand those that object to RC baptism, but we should be careful where it takes us.
 
I think one objection I have heard is the mode of baptism. I guess they mix oil and water? Anyway, I can understand that as an objection, and may agree with it, but I haven't seen much debate about it.

I imagine that most Presbyterian Churches leave it up to the conscience of the individual?
 
I just brought this issue up with our session. We did not make a final decision. One point to think about: Is the Roman Catholic church a true church of Jesus Christ. I seem to lean toward Dr. John H. Gertstner sr.'s view.

He said that the Catholic church ceased to be a Christian church at the council of Trent when it not only continued (officially) to adhere to heresies but actually (officially) denied justification by faith alone.

Who gets you to heaven? You and Jesus or Jesus alone?
 
Originally posted by Preach
I just brought this issue up with our session. We did not make a final decision. One point to think about: Is the Roman Catholic church a true church of Jesus Christ. I seem to lean toward Dr. John H. Gertstner sr.'s view.

He said that the Catholic church ceased to be a Christian church at the council of Trent when it not only continued (officially) to adhere to heresies but actually (officially) denied justification by faith alone.

Who gets you to heaven? You and Jesus or Jesus alone?
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the essentials of the argument. Have you read Is the Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church? by Charles Hodge?
 
I believe the Romish Church's baptism is valid. For me the issue hinged on whether or not the Popish Church is a true church or not as only a valid ministry may preform a valid baptism. To be clear, the question is not whether the RC is a true church in the sense of a correct church but rather is it true in the sense it is really a church. I agree with the Reformers and Post-Reformers (Turrettin, Rutherford those that lived after Trent) that the R.C. is a true Church materially. The RC believes in the OT and NT scriptures, the apostles creed, the ecumencial councils, in short, the fundamentals of Christianity. It is possible to be a saved Christian and be in the RC. However, when fundamental doctrines are exponed she teaches heresy and therefore is not ministerially a church whose breast we may suck.
 
Originally posted by Peter
I believe the Romish Church's baptism is valid. For me the issue hinged on whether or not the Popish Church is a true church or not as only a valid ministry may preform a valid baptism. To be clear, the question is not whether the RC is a true church in the sense of a correct church but rather is it true in the sense it is really a church. I agree with the Reformers and Post-Reformers (Turrettin, Rutherford those that lived after Trent) that the R.C. is a true Church materially. The RC believes in the OT and NT scriptures, the apostles creed, the ecumencial councils, in short, the fundamentals of Christianity. It is possible to be a saved Christian and be in the RC. However, when fundamental doctrines are exponed she teaches heresy and therefore is not ministerially a church whose breast we may suck.
Click to expand...

So, what would your Church do if someone had an RC baptism, and wanted to be rebaptized? Honestly, I am not sure about my Church.
 
Originally posted by Peter
Their request should be denied as catabaptism is a sin.
Click to expand...

I guess my question is whether this is an ecclesiastical issue or one of personal conscience. You seem to be saying the former, but I wonder what my denom say. Just pondering.
 
Originally posted by raderag
I think one objection I have heard is the mode of baptism. I guess they mix oil and water?
Click to expand...


No, my understanding is that they do not mix oil and water. Rather, they apply "chrism" (an annointing with oil) before or after the baptism itself. But when the water is applied, I think it is just water.

In any case, the RCC definitely accepts baptisms done in pure water, with nothing else needing to be added.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by biblelighthouse]
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by raderag
I think one objection I have heard is the mode of baptism. I guess they mix oil and water?
Click to expand...


No, my understanding is that they do not mix oil and water. Rather, they apply "chrism" (an annointing with oil) before or after the baptism itself. But when the water is applied, I think it is just water.

In any case, the RCC definitely accepts baptisms done in pure water, with nothing else needing to be added.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by biblelighthouse]
Click to expand...

Thanks Joseph. What do you think about the issue?
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Those who would hold to it as valid would claim that it is so because done in the name of the Trinity. That sounds good at first reading. But, let's just use the liberal church for example, they do not believe in a divine Christ. So, that would implicitly involve a redefinition of the Trinity. If the Trinity is redefined, it is a different Trinity. If it is a differeint Trinity, it is not a valid baptism.
Click to expand...

According to this thinking, then, do liberal churches (like the PCUSA) truly believe in a divine Christ? How about the Methodists? How about the Wesleyan/Nazarene/Holiness groups? If we start making judgments on whether "their" Christ is "truly divine", a lot of people on this board would probably throw out all Arminian baptisms. Before long, no baptisms will be accepted unless they are done by the RPCGA. I speak in a bit of hyperbole, but you see what I mean.

The fact is that Rome explicitly affirms the full Godhood of Jesus Christ, whereas Mormons and JWs do not. A RC baptism is valid, and a mormon/JW baptism is not valid.

I know you were just playing the devil's advocate, Jacob. And of course I agree with you that we should accept Rome's baptism.
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Those who would hold to it as valid would claim that it is so because done in the name of the Trinity. That sounds good at first reading. But, let's just use the liberal church for example, they do not believe in a divine Christ. So, that would implicitly involve a redefinition of the Trinity. If the Trinity is redefined, it is a different Trinity. If it is a differeint Trinity, it is not a valid baptism.
Click to expand...

According to this thinking, then, do liberal churches (like the PCUSA) truly believe in a divine Christ? How about the Methodists? How about the Wesleyan/Nazarene/Holiness groups? If we start making judgments on whether "their" Christ is "truly divine", a lot of people on this board would probably throw out all Arminian baptisms. Before long, no baptisms will be accepted unless they are done by the RPCGA. I speak in a bit of hyperbole, but you see what I mean.

The fact is that Rome explicitly affirms the full Godhood of Jesus Christ, whereas Mormons and JWs do not. A RC baptism is valid, and a mormon/JW baptism is not valid.

I know you were just playing the devil's advocate, Jacob. And of course I agree with you that we should accept Rome's baptism.
Click to expand...

I wonder if perhaps we should accept RC baptism but deny the most liberal Prot baptism (i.e. UCC).
 
Originally posted by raderag
I am not 100% where I stand, though I am somewhat convinced by this article by Charles Hodge that a Roman Catholic baptism is valid.
Click to expand...

I need to read the article, but what does "valid" mean regarding baptism? What makes a baptism valid, and why?
 
Originally posted by Civbert
Originally posted by raderag
I am not 100% where I stand, though I am somewhat convinced by this article by Charles Hodge that a Roman Catholic baptism is valid.
Click to expand...

I need to read the article, but what does "valid" mean regarding baptism? What makes a baptism valid, and why?
Click to expand...

Valid meaning recognized by the Church as the one true baptism, and not to be redone. If someone was "Baptized" in a non-Trinitarian sect, then they definitly would need to be baptized properly. On the other hand, if it were just at the PCA church down the Street, it would be accepted. The differences are when it comes to Roman Catholic Baptisms.
 
Originally posted by raderag
Originally posted by Peter
Their request should be denied as catabaptism is a sin.
Click to expand...

I guess my question is whether this is an ecclesiastical issue or one of personal conscience. You seem to be saying the former, but I wonder what my denom say. Just pondering.
Click to expand...

Bret,

The PCA leaves it up to the Session. If you go to the Historical Document section of the PCA web site there is a paper from GA on this issue.

In my humble opinion, the key issue concerning RC baptism goes to how one defines the Church. Is the Church defined solely under the guise of the "True Church"? or as the as the "Visible Church" per the WCF (which is broader). This is the point that Hodge gets at in is paper.
 
Originally posted by wsw201
Originally posted by raderag
Originally posted by Peter
Their request should be denied as catabaptism is a sin.
Click to expand...

I guess my question is whether this is an ecclesiastical issue or one of personal conscience. You seem to be saying the former, but I wonder what my denom say. Just pondering.
Click to expand...

Bret,

The PCA leaves it up to the Session. If you go to the Historical Document section of the PCA web site there is a paper from GA on this issue.

In my humble opinion, the key issue concerning RC baptism goes to how one defines the Church. Is the Church defined solely under the guise of the "True Church"? or as the as the "Visible Church" per the WCF (which is broader). This is the point that Hodge gets at in is paper.
Click to expand...

Ok, that makes sense. What about the OPC? Is it determined by the GA or the Presbytery? I know that the OPC is more centrally run.
 
Originally posted by Civbert

I need to read the article, but what does "valid" mean regarding baptism? What makes a baptism valid, and why?
Click to expand...

Here are my :2cents: :

What does "valid" mean in reference to baptism? It means that it is considered a "true baptism" which never needs to be repeated. For example, if a Roman Catholic becomes a true Christian, and decides to join the PCA, he should not be re-baptized, because his baptism is valid. But if a Jehovah's Witness becomes a Christian, and decides to join the PCA, he should be baptized, because his first "baptism" was not a true baptism at all. It was not Trinitarian, and thus it was invalid.

A baptism is valid if it is Trinitarian, i.e. "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost". If the baptism is intended in a polytheistic way (i.e. Mormon), then it is not Trinitarian. If the baptism is done while denying the deity of Christ (i.e. JWs), then it is not Trinitarian.

And of course the piety of the person performing the baptism has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the baptism.
 
Originally posted by raderag
Originally posted by wsw201
Originally posted by raderag
Originally posted by Peter
Their request should be denied as catabaptism is a sin.
Click to expand...

I guess my question is whether this is an ecclesiastical issue or one of personal conscience. You seem to be saying the former, but I wonder what my denom say. Just pondering.
Click to expand...

Bret,

The PCA leaves it up to the Session. If you go to the Historical Document section of the PCA web site there is a paper from GA on this issue.

In my humble opinion, the key issue concerning RC baptism goes to how one defines the Church. Is the Church defined solely under the guise of the "True Church"? or as the as the "Visible Church" per the WCF (which is broader). This is the point that Hodge gets at in is paper.
Click to expand...

Ok, that makes sense. What about the OPC? Is it determined by the GA or the Presbytery? I know that the OPC is more centrally run.
Click to expand...

I have not seen any official paper on this subject, but from what I understand the OPC accepts RC baptism.
 
I have not seen any official paper on this subject, but from what I understand the OPC accepts RC baptism.
Click to expand...

Per an OPC pastor that is a friend of mine, this is true. The denomination as a whole accepts Romish baptisms.

[Edited on 2-15-2006 by theologae]
 
"I wonder if perhaps we should accept RC baptism but deny the most liberal Prot baptism (i.e. UCC)."

Perhaps. I was baptized UCC, and I had some uncertainty about whether it was a valid baptism. When I wanted to join Redeemer (PCA), I left it up to the session to decide if it was valid since I don't really understand all the issues. I told the elder that examined me about my concern. They found that it was a valid baptism, and I consider the matter settled.
 
Originally posted by SRoper
"I wonder if perhaps we should accept RC baptism but deny the most liberal Prot baptism (i.e. UCC)."

Perhaps. I was baptized UCC, and I had some uncertainty about whether it was a valid baptism. When I wanted to join Redeemer (PCA), I left it up to the session to decide if it was valid since I don't really understand all the issues. I told the elder that examined me about my concern. They found that it was a valid baptism, and I consider the matter settled.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the right approach to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Accepting Roman baptism
Replies
11
Views
2K
PuritanCovenanter
PuritanCovenanter
D
  • Locked
Those Holding To believers baptism See Children Included!
Replies
29
Views
4K
KMK
KMK
blhowes
  • Locked
Poll: Roman Catholic baptism
2 3 4
Replies
104
Views
9K
VirginiaHuguenot
V
Herald
  • Locked
Is Roman Catholic baptism valid?
Replies
8
Views
12K
dudley
dudley
Scott1
  • Locked
Confessions and Roman Catholic Baptism
2 3
Replies
77
Views
9K
TheFleshProfitethNothing
TheFleshProfitethNothing
Back
Top