D
Deleted member 7239
Guest
I’m sure some of you have family or friends in the Roman Catholic Church. Do you view them as believers since we acknowledge their baptism?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would not acknowledge their Baptism, as they hold to Baptismal Regeneration, and they teach a false Gospel message.I’m sure some of you have family or friends in the Roman Catholic Church. Do you view them as believers since we acknowledge their baptism?
I’m sure some of you have family or friends in the Roman Catholic Church. Do you view them as believers since we acknowledge their baptism?
As Hodge once remarked concerning the sudden decision of the 1845 PCUSA GA in denying the validity of Rome's baptism:I would not acknowledge their Baptism, as they hold to Baptismal Regeneration, and they teach a false Gospel message.
Individuals are still saved in there despite their errors, but they should depart and leave for a real bible believing church once saved by the Lord.
We Presbyterians hold that the efficacy of baptism does not depend on the intention of the one administering it.
For me (ex-Romanist) it begins with an examination of the current practices, the treadmill of initial justification and progressive justification Rome espouses. Take that and then start with Scripture's accurate teachings on the matter.What would you all say is the best place (doctrine) to start with in talking with a RC member? Justification perhaps?
It seems like if we launch into the Pope, praying to saints, purgatory, etc. they will get defensive and stop listening. Maybe there is a PB member who has come from the RC as an adult that can share their experience.
Well I am glad you are not arguing about this, brother.Not here to argue about this,
Well I am glad you are not arguing about this, brother.
I understand your points well enough. Now when the person to whom I had responded to actually makes an argument contrary to what was in fact made, I will happily reconstruct my response. As it stands however, my response was on point to what was proffered by my interlocutor.
A valid Baptism has to come from a valid spiritual authority, and how would the papacy and Rome be able to claim that, as they still continue to deny the true Gospel of the Lord?As Hodge once remarked concerning the sudden decision of the 1845 PCUSA GA in denying the validity of Rome's baptism:
"to pronounce Calvin, Luther, and all the men of that generation, as well as thousands who with no other than Romish baptism have since been received into the Protestant Churches, to have live and died unbaptized"
There is more to the argument of Rome's being an false church, teaching a false gospel, etc., therefore their baptism is invalid than perhaps some have considered carefully. The efficacy of baptism does not depend on the intention of the one administering it. It does not matter what Rome says it is doing in baptism. Let's not give them too much credit in the matter of the form of which was instituted by Christ.
A good appreciation of the history and debate around the topic can be apprehended here:
http://www.peterwallace.org/old/dissertation/3catholicity.htm
The church of Rome would not even be a valid NT church though, as they deny the true Gospel, so why would we see their baptism as being valid?I was merely seeking to correct the straw man. I believe that applies to Mr. Dachaser's comment as well.
why would we see their baptism as being valid?
A valid Baptism has to come from a valid spiritual authority,
That's Donatism, unless you mean by a minister (instead of just any person).
As Hodge once remarked concerning the sudden decision of the 1845 PCUSA GA in denying the validity of Rome's baptism: "to pronounce Calvin, Luther, and all the men of that generation, as well as thousands who with no other than Romish baptism have since been received into the Protestant Churches, to have live and died unbaptized"
I believe Calvin spoke against re-baptizing in the Institutes. Unless I remember wrong.This is something I've never thought of. Having recognized Roman Catholicism's invalidity, were Luther and Calvin ever re-baptized?
I have not read anything that suggested they were re-baptized.This is something I've never thought of. Having recognized Roman Catholicism's invalidity, were Luther and Calvin ever re-baptized?
I will try using my eyes next time and see if that worksI view 'em with my eyes.