In what sense is Rome part of the Church?

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Scott
Is it appropriate to speak of Roman Catholicism categorically? When Christ evaluated the churches in Revelation it was particular church by particular church (or, at least, region by region). I know one RC congregation that eschewed icons, prayers to saints, and even taught justification by faith. Very protestantized.

yet they resacrificed Christ week after week for atonement in their abberant masses................

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by BrianLanier
I would also encourge people to read this article for the opposing side. (It's much shorter too! ):

http://www.pcanet.org/history/pca/2-079.html

And the minority PCA report too (even shorter)!

http://www.pcanet.org/history/pca/2-093.html

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by BrianLanier
I would like to focus in on this portion of the confession for a moment:

V. 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. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.

This seems to be saying that you can have error in a church to a point and it still be considered a church. This seems to be the view advocated by Andrew, et al. (There remains baptism, lawful ministers, and the doctrine of the Trinity.

The next phrase however is important. This next phrase, "and some have so degenerated, as to become NO chruches of Christ but synagogues of Satan" seems to be saying that there is a point in which a church is no longer a church at ALL but in fact the opposite, a synangogue of Satan. I think it is reasonable to assume that is the case when a church denies the Gospel officially (Gal. 1:6-9, Gal. 5:4)

As Gabe mentioned at the beginning of this thread, I would equate -- as I believe the Confession intends -- the synagogue of Satan to be the apostate Roman Catholic church.

Yet in the very next section Antichrist is said to be in the Church. As difficult as that sounds, the Assembly was very careful in what they said and how they said it. They meant to convey 1) Rome is a synagogue of Satan and 2) the Papal Antichrist is in the church exalting himself against God. There is no need to try to drive a wedge between those two sections of the Confession, both of which have reference to Rome.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I think then - overall - you have to base baptism as "formula" in discussion this issue for those who want to see Rome's batpism as valid. Theology, really, then, has no part to play on the baptizer's ability. In other words, you could, as Calvin said, have the devil baptizing, who is sorely set against everything good and true, and that baptism would be valid (like Judas'). That does not make it lawful. Turretin goes to great lengths to demonstrate that Rome's baptism is utterly unlawful and sinful and wicked, and we should be detered with our every breath against it not for it (which is why I am saddened to see people so extranously defending thier baptism). Those who are baptized by Rome have greatly sinned in being baptized wheterh they know it or not.

Turretin says that although Romish baptism is not to be repeated, it is still "sinful" (vol 3, page 409). Its valid but sinful. He says in no uncertain terms, to cover himself, 1) Thus, the error of the Romanists seem to be approved concerning the absolute necessity of baptism and its efficacy ex opere operato and the superstitious rites added by men, by which the sanctity of this sacraments is foully polluted. (So he says - its is valid, but sinful and foully polluted?) 2) They who do this profess themselves willing to hold communion with a heretical and idolatrous church, since the end of baptism is no other than o introduce the baptized INTO the church in which they receive baptism. 3) An Antichristian ministry is thus approved." You cannot, then, be baptized in a Roman church without entering into a sinful practice. But its accepted? But then, WHY would you want to defend it practically? Because Christ is the real administer?

I think I will agree with Turretin on this and say "But because this cannot be done in the papacy without danger to life, it is better to say simply that it is not lawful." I agree on that same note.

So here are the options that you have - either it is:

1) Formulary - i.e. that whoever says "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, etc." IS IN FACT BAPTIZED.

2) Theologically - i.e. that only those with the forumal AND sound doctrine AND lawfully called to administer it can rightly administer it.

In #1 anyone can do it - Independents, Romans, Arminians, Presbyterians, JWs, Mormons, deacons, non-Christians, etc., because it stands on FORMULA, not THEOLOGY.

In #2 only those lawfully ordained, who are sound in doctrine and have the formula, can administer it properly.

You cannot have both together unless you choose to narrow the gateway for baptism.

Turretin, who is more comprehensive in my estimation than Calvin on this issue, says Rome's baptism is foul, sinful, wicked, unlawful, yet valid because his view rests on formula.

But one would have to 1) determine whether Turretin would say that knowing the state of Rome today, and 2) and whether they desired to open the door to every formulary that walked down the street. So long as "somone" baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, its OK. You cannot pit theology against the formula if you are arguing FOR Rome's batpism. It woudl result in being contradictory.

I think people need to make a choice whether its formulary or theologically administered.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I have never argued that the baptismal formula alone is the grounds for lawful Roman baptism. My argument (see previous posts) is that the ministerial ordination must be lawful for the baptism to be lawful and that Rome meets this criteria.

How does Rome meet this criteria? Minsterial succession only applies to those who hold to the apostolic doctrine. Rome clearly does not. So again, you are left with water and the formula, which Mormons share.

Here is what Rutherford has to say (Due Right of Presbytery, 1644):

1. Caiaphas entered most corruptly to the Priesthood, by the favor of men, and to be high-priest for [only] one year contrary to the Law, which ordained the high-priest to remain for his lifetime. But as Josephus1 said, [also] Toletus,2 Caitan,3 Maldonat,4 Iansonius,5 yea and [even as] our own writers Calvin,6 Marlorat,7 Musculus,8 Rollock,9 [and] Bullinger10 observe, all was done by the will and lust of men; yet Caiaphus was the high-priest and prophesied, which is a specific act of a called prophet, John 11.51-52. It is said, [that] he prophesied as high-priest. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' chair, and are to be heard, Mat 23.1, in so far as they teach God's truth, and yet their entry to their calling was corrupt, if it be true [as] diverse say, that Christ, [in] John 10.7-9, calleth the Scribes and Pharises, Thieves and Robbers, because they came not in by the door, but climbed up another way. But however there [may have been] corruption in the way of their coming to the chair, [and given that] they leavened all [the] other Ordinances of God, and the High Priest [himself] entered a false way, [therefore] the rest of the Rules could not come, but in a corrupt way. But though Augustin11 and Clemens Alexan12 expound the place, [in] John 10, of such as lack a lawful calling, but [if we should interpret it that way] then the place cannot agree with the Scribes and Pharisees, which seemeth to fight with the course of the text. But our interpreters Brentius,13 Beza,14 [and] Rollock,15 expound the place [as referring to] those who preach not Christ soundly, [as] the door and the foundation, but [rather they are those who preach] human traditions, and yet [who still] had a calling. And the text saith so much, where [in] v. 9 salvation is promised to every one who entereth in by Christ the door. Now salvation is not promised to a man, because he hath a lawful calling to the ministry; he may have that and yet be a Child of perdition. We are nowhere forbidden in God's Word to hear teachers sent and called, but only wolves in sheep skins, void of all calling, and intruders. For pastors may be antichrists in [1.] the manner of the entry, as Caiaphas, [or 2.] in the matter of the Doctrine, teaching some of men's traditions, in place of God's Word as [the] Scribesand Pharisees, [or 3. by tolerating an] antichristian calling, as prelates do and have done in Britain. And yet their Ministry [may still] be valid, and his Ministerial acts not [be] null. It is sufficient [simply] that the governing Church give him a calling, either by themselves, their express call, their silence, or tacit calling, or their approbation, communicating with him in his Ministry, [either] by those to whom the Church resigned her power, or by those who stand in place of the Church. Though prelates invade the place of the Church, yet because [1.], they themselves be pastors and have power to teach and baptize as pastors called of Christ, Mat. 18.19, [and 2.] because they stand for the Church, approving, or some way by silence consenting (as in the case of Caiaphas entry to the priest-hood) there[fore], these who are baptized by them, are not re-baptized, and those who are ordained pastors by them are not re-ordained, but have a calling to the Ministry and do validly confer a calling upon others.
....
But saith Robinson, how can England forsake the Church of Rome, and forsake the ministry, which is in the Church, as in the subject, especially, seeing you teach that a true ministry maketh essentially a true Church?

Answer: [1] England may well separate from Rome [as Rome turns away from] the fundamental parts of Faith, and [yet] not separate from Rome's baptism, or ministry, in so far as they be essentially the ordinances of Christ. And I retort this argument: how can Separatists separate from both us and Rome, and yet retain the baptism in both our church and Rome. [2] A ministry true in the essence may make a Church true kata ti, in so far; but because of many other substantial corruptions in Rome, it is a Church which we ought to forsake.
....
I answer: That proveth a difference between the ministery and baptism, which is not the question at issue; but it [still] proveth not this to be false: if Rome's baptism be lawful in its essence, so is Rome´s ministry.

 

[Peter]

Matt, I'm leaning towards a 3rd position, the position of Rutherford, where he says the baptiser must use the formula and he must have a valid ministry.

Turrettin and others say it is sinful to seek Romish Baptism yet valid, and the difference is important because in the time of the reformers and ours' there are people who come out of the harlot and if they do not recognize the difference they will be re-baptize which is also sinful.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Peter
Matt, I'm leaning towards a 3rd position, the position of Rutherford, where he says the baptiser must use the formula and he must have a valid ministry.

Turrettin and others say it is sinful to seek Romish Baptism yet valid, and the difference is important because in the time of the reformers and ours' there are people who come out of the harlot and if they do not recognize the difference they will be re-baptize which is also sinful.

If they come out of the harlot, the baptism would not be valid, hence it would not be a rebaptism.

 

[Peter]

Which brings us back to the original question: is Rome in the Church?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Another paper (by OPC Pastor Peter Wallace) worth reading for those studying this subject who are interested in the historical controversy that resulted in the 1845 American decision to reject the validity of RC baptism (the first Presbyterian decision of its kind so far as I know) and the 1854 Scottish decision to continue to accept RC baptism:

http://www.peterwallace.org/dissertation/3catholicity.htm

 

[Peter]

I'd like to limit the discussion for the time being only to the question of Rome's position in the visible church, if that's alright with everyone. We already have enough, "is Rome's Baptism valid" threads.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Peter
Turrettin and others say it is sinful to seek Romish Baptism yet valid, and the difference is important because in the time of the reformers and ours' there are people who come out of the harlot and if they do not recognize the difference they will be re-baptize which is also sinful.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Charles Hodge on Whether the Church of Rome is Part of the Visible Church

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by john_Mark
Sorry, I should have been clearer since the thread is about accepting Rome as a church rather than soley baptism.

If Rome is part of the church and her baptisms are valid, then on what basis do you not consider her members to be Christians?

Because they reject justification by faith alone (among other things). This strikes at the heart of the gospel. The Council of Trent anathematized the gospel.

There are a number of Reformed works which explain how the RCC lacks the marks of a true church and yet retains the validity of ordination and baptism.

But if not Christians, how do they comport with:

WLC 166 Unto whom is baptism to be administered? A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him,(1) but infants descended from parents, either both or but one of them professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are, in that respect, within the covenant, and to be baptized

Aren't there two requirements to be the recipient of baptism? (1) Validity of the ordinance (part of the Church, formula, etc); (2) a credible profession of faith by the one baptized or his parent?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by john_Mark
Sorry, I should have been clearer since the thread is about accepting Rome as a church rather than soley baptism.

If Rome is part of the church and her baptisms are valid, then on what basis do you not consider her members to be Christians?

Because they reject justification by faith alone (among other things). This strikes at the heart of the gospel. The Council of Trent anathematized the gospel.

There are a number of Reformed works which explain how the RCC lacks the marks of a true church and yet retains the validity of ordination and baptism.

But if not Christians, how do they comport with:

WLC 166 Unto whom is baptism to be administered? A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him,(1) but infants descended from parents, either both or but one of them professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are, in that respect, within the covenant, and to be baptized

Aren't there two requirements to be the recipient of baptism? (1) Validity of the ordinance (part of the Church, formula, etc); (2) a credible profession of faith by the one baptized or his parent?

I have only been addressing 1) the validity of the ordinance as administered, ie., meaning whether it should be accepted as the Westminster Assembly and the entire Presbyterian Church until 1845 believed, or disowned as Anabaptists and Separatists, and the majority of the American Presbyterian Church after 1845, believed, in light of who and how it is administered. Clearly, no one should seek our Roman baptism and to do so would be sinful. There is also sin on the part of Roman priests who fail in their duty to administer the sacrament to those who appropriately (Biblically) qualify to receive it.

The Catechism specifically notes that only those in the visible church are to be baptized and therefore the twin issues of whether Rome is in any sense part of the visible church and whether her baptism should be accepted (even if there is some sin associated with the administration or reception of the sacrament) are both relevant to what the Assembly is saying here.

From the perspective of the one being baptized (2), faith on the part of the one baptized or his parent is indeed necessary for the right reception of the sacrament. But that has not been the point of discussion -- at least so far. The lack of faith on the part of the one being baptized or his parents does not undermine the validity of the sacrament, although it does bring sin into the situation.

The same errors associated here with Roman baptism also occur in Protestant churches of various sorts -- re-baptism in such situations (provided minimum Biblical criteria are met) is also not merited.


[Edited on 9-19-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
See it online at:
http://www.naphtali.com/separa1.htm

Originally posted by Peter
By the way, I remember an article in an issue of the Presbyterian Anthology (Naphtali Press) by Rutherford on separating from churches I think would have some relevant portions.

Thanks Chris.

This quote was helpful:

ANSWER. Papists hold fundamentals, and so do Jews hold all the Old Testament, and Papists hold both new and old. But we know they so hold fundamentals, that by their doctrine they overturn them, and though there are fundamentals taught in the Popish Church, which may save if they were believed, yet they are not a true and ministerial church simply; because, though they teach that there is one God, they teach also there are a thousand gods whom they adore, and though they teach there is one Mediator, yet do they substitute infinite mediators with and besides Christ. So that the truth is, [there is] not a formal, ministerial and visible active external calling in the Church of Rome, as it is a visible church, in the which we can safely remain, though fundamentals are safe in Rome, and the books of the Old and New Testaments are there; yet are they not there ministerially as in a mother whose breasts we can suck. For fundamental points falsely exponed, cease to be fundamental points; yea, as they are ministerially in Rome, they are destructive of the foundation, though there are some ministerial acts valid in that church, for the which the Church of Rome is called a true church, in some respect, according to something essential to the true church; yet never sine adjecto [without addition], as if it were a true church where we can worship God. Fundamentals are safe in Rome materially in themselves, so as some may be saved who believe these fundamentals; but fundamentals are not safe in Rome, Ecclesiastice, Ministeraliter, Pastoraliter, in a church way, so as by believing these from their chairs so exponed, they can be saved who do believe them; out of which we may have the doctrine of faith and salvation as from a visible mother, whose daughters we are.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

So then we're back to square one with the Mormons for they as well have the OT and NT locked up in their halls but supplement them with Smith's abominations just as the papists do their councils and papal infallibility.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by webmaster

So here are the options that you have - either it is:

1) Formulary - i.e. that whoever says "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, etc." IS IN FACT BAPTIZED.

2) Theologically - i.e. that only those with the forumal AND sound doctrine AND lawfully called to administer it can rightly administer it.

In #1 anyone can do it - Independents, Romans, Arminians, Presbyterians, JWs, Mormons, deacons, non-Christians, etc., because it stands on FORMULA, not THEOLOGY.

In #2 only those lawfully ordained, who are sound in doctrine and have the formula, can administer it properly.

You cannot have both together unless you choose to narrow the gateway for baptism.

Matt,

With all due respect, I believe you have created a false dichotomy.

Here is position #3:
"Baptism's validity is based upon the formula. And the teaching of that formula ITSELF must be theologically correct."

Note that I have not said that the administrator's Gospel must be correct, their doctrine of Scripture, or even their doctrine of baptism. The formula itself is Trinitarian, so a non-Trinitarian administration of baptism undoes the formula itself, and renders the baptism null and void.

Thus, via position #3, Mormon and JW baptisms are invalid, because they are inherently non-Trinitarian, regardless of the words being used. But the RC church does believe in the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, thus they do NOT defile the baptismal formula, thus their baptisms ARE valid.



Here is a parallel:


I tell a person, "Believe in Jesus, and you will be saved."
Then I tell that person, "My dog's name is 'Jesus'."

Am I preaching the Gospel? No. My redefinition of "Jesus" nullifies the "formula" I'm preaching.


However, suppose I say, "Believe in Jesus, and you will be saved."
And I tell that person, "Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, the Word, the Second person of the Trinity."
But also suppose that in my heart, I really do not have faith in Jesus.

Am I preaching the Gospel? Yes! I have not redefined the word "Jesus". Thus, the "formula" I'm preaching is correct, regardless of the fallen state of my heart.



In essence, I really am just saying that the FORMULA is necessary. But I am making an important point: Changing the definitions *behind* the words in the formula is tantamount to changing the formula itself.

In other words, if I say "Jesus is Lord", but my definition of "Jesus" is incorrect, then I have not truly said that Jesus is Lord. For example, if a JW were to say, "Jesus is Lord", it would be no different from someone saying, "Michael the archangel is Lord."

Changing the definition IS changing the formula. But if you get the definitions right, then you get the formula right. That's why Trinitarian baptisms are valid, and non-Trinitarian baptisms are not valid. A RC priest says "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", and is speaking of the Trinity. A JW says "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", and is NOT speaking of the Trinity.



So, once again, here is position #3, which I believe is correct:

"Baptism's validity is based upon the formula. And the teaching of that formula ITSELF must be theologically correct."

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by puritansailor
So then we're back to square one with the Mormons for they as well have the OT and NT locked up in their halls but supplement them with Smith's abominations just as the papists do their councils and papal infallibility.

True. Perhaps the mormon church can be called materially a true church because they believe in God and Jesus, etc. but like the papistical not a true ministerial church because these fundamentals understood and taught means heresy for them (viz. polythiesm).

 

[Scott Bushey]

Joe writes:

"Baptism's validity is based upon the formula. And the teaching of that formula ITSELF must be theologically correct."

The formula that Rome teaches is not "theologically correct". They do not believe in the same Jesus of the scriptures.

 

[J Andrew Deane]

Thanks for these posts.
I was just thinking about this issue.

Very helpful, folks.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I have never argued that the baptismal formula alone is the grounds for lawful Roman baptism. My argument (see previous posts) is that the ministerial ordination must be lawful for the baptism to be lawful and that Rome meets this criteria.

How does Rome meet this criteria? Minsterial succession only applies to those who hold to the apostolic doctrine. Rome clearly does not. So again, you are left with water and the formula, which Mormons share.

Here is what Rutherford has to say (Due Right of Presbytery, 1644):

1. Caiaphas entered most corruptly to the Priesthood, by the favor of men, and to be high-priest for [only] one year contrary to the Law, which ordained the high-priest to remain for his lifetime. But as Josephus1 said, [also] Toletus,2 Caitan,3 Maldonat,4 Iansonius,5 yea and [even as] our own writers Calvin,6 Marlorat,7 Musculus,8 Rollock,9 [and] Bullinger10 observe, all was done by the will and lust of men; yet Caiaphus was the high-priest and prophesied, which is a specific act of a called prophet, John 11.51-52. It is said, [that] he prophesied as high-priest. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' chair, and are to be heard, Mat 23.1, in so far as they teach God's truth, and yet their entry to their calling was corrupt, if it be true [as] diverse say, that Christ, [in] John 10.7-9, calleth the Scribes and Pharises, Thieves and Robbers, because they came not in by the door, but climbed up another way. But however there [may have been] corruption in the way of their coming to the chair, [and given that] they leavened all [the] other Ordinances of God, and the High Priest [himself] entered a false way, [therefore] the rest of the Rules could not come, but in a corrupt way. But though Augustin11 and Clemens Alexan12 expound the place, [in] John 10, of such as lack a lawful calling, but [if we should interpret it that way] then the place cannot agree with the Scribes and Pharisees, which seemeth to fight with the course of the text. But our interpreters Brentius,13 Beza,14 [and] Rollock,15 expound the place [as referring to] those who preach not Christ soundly, [as] the door and the foundation, but [rather they are those who preach] human traditions, and yet [who still] had a calling. And the text saith so much, where [in] v. 9 salvation is promised to every one who entereth in by Christ the door. Now salvation is not promised to a man, because he hath a lawful calling to the ministry; he may have that and yet be a Child of perdition. We are nowhere forbidden in God's Word to hear teachers sent and called, but only wolves in sheep skins, void of all calling, and intruders. For pastors may be antichrists in [1.] the manner of the entry, as Caiaphas, [or 2.] in the matter of the Doctrine, teaching some of men's traditions, in place of God's Word as [the] Scribesand Pharisees, [or 3. by tolerating an] antichristian calling, as prelates do and have done in Britain. And yet their Ministry [may still] be valid, and his Ministerial acts not [be] null. It is sufficient [simply] that the governing Church give him a calling, either by themselves, their express call, their silence, or tacit calling, or their approbation, communicating with him in his Ministry, [either] by those to whom the Church resigned her power, or by those who stand in place of the Church. Though prelates invade the place of the Church, yet because [1.], they themselves be pastors and have power to teach and baptize as pastors called of Christ, Mat. 18.19, [and 2.] because they stand for the Church, approving, or some way by silence consenting (as in the case of Caiaphas entry to the priest-hood) there[fore], these who are baptized by them, are not re-baptized, and those who are ordained pastors by them are not re-ordained, but have a calling to the Ministry and do validly confer a calling upon others.
....
But saith Robinson, how can England forsake the Church of Rome, and forsake the ministry, which is in the Church, as in the subject, especially, seeing you teach that a true ministry maketh essentially a true Church?

Answer: [1] England may well separate from Rome [as Rome turns away from] the fundamental parts of Faith, and [yet] not separate from Rome's baptism, or ministry, in so far as they be essentially the ordinances of Christ. And I retort this argument: how can Separatists separate from both us and Rome, and yet retain the baptism in both our church and Rome. [2] A ministry true in the essence may make a Church true kata ti, in so far; but because of many other substantial corruptions in Rome, it is a Church which we ought to forsake.
....
I answer: That proveth a difference between the ministery and baptism, which is not the question at issue; but it [still] proveth not this to be false: if Rome's baptism be lawful in its essence, so is Rome´s ministry.

Ok. 2 things:

1) Regarding Rutherford and ministerial succession; He bases their minsterial succession on the legitimacy of their baptism. But this doesn't help our discussion any since both the legitimacy of their baptism and their ordination need to be proven. How can one be truly ordained a minister of Jesus Christ if he is required to declare the gospel anathema? Such an act requires excommunication not ordination. The example of Caiaphas only illustrates the opposite view. Judaism was eventually cut off along with her preisthood and offices for rejecting Christ. How can we allow Rome to do the same and still consider them legitimate?

2) As regards the use of oil in baptism, you were partially correct. According to the Catholic Catechism (summarized from sections 1234- 1245) the baptismal ceremony involves several stages; the sign of the cross, then "proclamation of the Word," then an exorcism is performed, then annoiting with "the oil of catechumens" or the preist lays hands on him to renounce Satan. These steps enable the candidate to "confess the faith of the Church to which he will be 'entrusted' by baptism." Then a prayer is made over the baptismal water praying for the power of the Spirit to be sent upon the water thus enabling baptismal regeneration. Then the water is applied 3 times with the formula (done by immersion in the EO). Then the "chrism" is applied, a perfumed oil which signifies the gift of the Spirit (In the EO, this part is called Confirmation, but Rome doesn't call it Confirmation. They wait until the teenage years for that sacrament). Then of course there is the lighting of a candle and mention is made of a required white garment. At the conclusion they are brought to the altar fro what is called their "first Holy Communion" in which they say the Lord's Prayer (though they do not give the child the Mass until 'the age of reason'). This is considered the entire baptismal ceremony.

So oil is part and parcel of the ceremony, before and after the water.

Combine all this, their rejectin of Christ, their adding elements to the sacrament, and their offically calling Mary "queen of heaven," what else do you need to consider them no longer a church?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Ok. 2 things:

1) Regarding Rutherford and ministerial succession; He bases their minsterial succession on the legitimacy of their baptism. But this doesn't help our discussion any since both the legitimacy of their baptism and their ordination need to be proven. How can one be truly ordained a minister of Jesus Christ if he is required to declare the gospel anathema? Such an act requires excommunication not ordination. The example of Caiaphas only illustrates the opposite view. Judaism was eventually cut off along with her preisthood and offices for rejecting Christ. How can we allow Rome to do the same and still consider them legitimate?

Would you agree that the Donatists were heretics, ie., outside the visible church, but their baptism was lawful? Augustine said they were heretics and that separation from them was necessary, but said their baptisms were lawful.

Samuel Rutherford uses this argument as well as a host of others to justify the inclusion of Rome -- though antiChristian, indeed the seat of AntiChrist -- in some sense (materially) within the visible Church.

For Rutherford, the valid baptism is a sign of a valid ministry, and vice-versa, though both such can exist in a schismatic church, as in the case of the Donatists, by putting primary emphasis on the promises of God wrt to the church and its ordinances. This is a different view of the church than exists in modern Presbyterianism today, but then again there is a great gulf between modern Presbyterianism in America and the views of the Reformers and Puritans in ecclesiology, eschatology and in other areas.

He makes many distinctions which are worth keeping in mind, including the differences between the condition of the Jews as a "divorced wife" and that of Rome as a "harlot," such as:

1. There is a separation in the visible church, and a separation out of and from the visible church.

CONCLUSION ONE. We are to separate in the true visible church, from all communion wherein need-force we cannot choose but sin, suppose we separate not from the church

CONCLUSION THREE. About Separation from Rome, and spiritual Babel, we have two parties to satisfy, if they would in reason be informed. 1. Papists. 2. Separatists, opposers of Presbyterian government, who think we have all as good reason to separate from ourselves and Presbyterian churches, as from Babel. But I shall speak a little of the first in some few theses considerable for our purpose.

CONSIDERATION ONE. It is most false what Bellarmine1 says, churches all withered as branches separated from trees, when they separated from Rome. Joseph grew as a fruitful branch, and blessings were on the top of his head, when he was separated from his brethren (Deut. 33:16). For 1., the contrary is seen in the reformed churches who never flourished, as since our separation from Rome. 2. The churches in Asia and Africa, and especially the Greek church fourished ever since, and they separated from Rome, and had famous learned men in them after the separation, as Theophylact, Damascen, Oecumenius, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Elias Cretensis, Basil, Nilus, and many others; and especially the Ethiopian and Armenian churches had both their bishops and assemblies, howbeit general [assemblies] they could not have, seeing they were apart, not the whole church.

CONSIDERATION THREE. We hold that Rome made the separation from the Reformed Churches, and not we from them, as the rotten wall makes the schism in the house, when the house stands still and the rotten wall falls.

1. Because we left not Christianity in Rome, but the leprosy of Popery growing upon Christianity, seeing we kept the Apostolic faith, and did positively separate from the pooks, blybes, and ulcers of Christian Rome.

2. We did not separate from the Western Churches, either collective or representively gathered in a general council.

3. We departed not from a national, provincial or parishonal church, or pastors that we had before, nor from the material temples and churches, except that some not very considerable hirelings and idol-pastors would not go before us.

4. And because the succession of fundamental truths from generations to generations, is as necessary as the perpetual existence of the true catholic Church, while the covenant with night and day and the ordinances of heaven shall continue (Jer. 31:37); therefore there were a succession of professors and members of the Catholic Church that did ever hold these fundamentals, which we to this day hold against Rome; supposing histories cannot clear the particular persons by name.

5. We have not separated from Rome´s baptism and ordination of pastors according to the substance of the act, nor from the letter of the twelve articles of the Creed and contents of the Old and New Testament, as they stand with relation to the mind and intent of the Holy Ghost; howbeit we have left the false interpretations of the lords of poor people´s faith and consciences.

CONSIDERATION FOUR. We separate not from acts of love to have the relics of Babel saved; howbeit we have separated from communion in faith and worship.

CONSIDERATION FIVE. The essential ingredients and reasons of a lawful divorce are here: 1. We could not lie in one bed with that sometime sister Church of Rome, but our skin behoved to rub upon her botch-boil, and therefore we did separate from nothing but corruption. 2. There was there persecutions, and in that we are patients and ejected rather than departers on foot and horse. 3. A professed dominion over our consciences. 4. Necessity of receiving the mark of the beast, and so the plagues of the beast, to worship images, and the work of men´s hands, a necessity of professing fundamental errors, that subvert the foundation of faith, did all necessitate our separation.

CONSIDERATION SIX. The church of believers might lawfully use Justa tutela eternæ salutis, a necessary defence for salvation, and forsake her corrupt guides and choose others, and so we had the consent of the church to the separation, and a voice from heaven, Come out of her my people.

CONSIDERATION SEVEN. A collateral and sister church, such as Rome ever was, is not said to separate from another; the lesser separates always from the greater, the member from the body. Where there is a schism, sister Protestant churches then cannot be said to separate one from another, nor can the crime of schism here be more objected to us than to Rome, but rather to Rome separating from orthodox and right believing Rome.

CONSIDERATION EIGHT. We separate not from men but errors. 2. We separate from Papism kindly, properly and totally; from Christian articles in no sort. 3. From points of truth sewn and engraven with Popery only by accident, breaking the thread and needle that sowed them together.

OBJECTION. It is objected, An Antichristian church cannot ordain Christian ministers; Rome was then an Antichristian church, Ergo.

ANSWER. 1. That which is wholly, as touching its whole essence Antichristian, cannot ordain Christian ministers. True, a dead man cannot beget a living [child]; the Roman Church was not wholly Antichristian, but kept some of Christ´s truth. That which is Antichristian in part only, may ordain ministers, who have the essence of a ministerial calling; for Israel was no wife, but a whore (Hos. 2:2) a whore and no wife, merite & iure, in ill deserving; yet a mother and a wife, de facto, and keeping something of a covenanted bride, is called God´s people (Hos. 4:6), and (Ezk. 16:21) Thou hast slain my children, then her [children] were God´s [children] in covenant, and not bastards. God was still Samaria´s God (Hos. 13:16), a remnant according to election remained (Rom. 11:5). The orthodox fathers acknowledged the Africans as a true church, who defended heresy, that [children] baptized by heretics were to be baptized again. 2. A calling is extraordinary, either in habit or in exercise; in habit as to be an apostle, and have the gift of miracles. Thus our reformers´ calling was not extraordinary. They were not immediately called by God from heaven; for they would not have concealed such a calling, if they had had any such. Or a calling is extraordinary in the exercise, and that two ways. (1.) Either in the principle moving them to teach, or (2.) in the manner of teaching and efficacy; a calling extraordinary in the principle moving, is twofold. [1.] Either a mere prophetical impulsion of revelation, stirring them up to such an act, as the Spirit of the Lord came upon Saul, and he prophesied. This our reformers had not; because we never find that they alleged it. [2.] A more than ordinary motion with illumination by God´s Spirit, speaking in the Scriptures, in which motions they were not subordinate in the exercise of their ministry to the church of pastors; but immediately in that subordination to God, and in this I prove that our reformers were extraordinary doctors.

1. Because (Ezk. 34) in an universal apostasy of the prophets and shepherds, the Lord extraordinarily works (v. 11), For thus saith the Lord God, hehold I, even I will both search my sheep, and seek them out. Now this is by pastors, when the ordinary pastors are all failed. So (Rev. 11) in that universal apostasy under Antichrist, when the Gentiles tread upon the outer court of the Temple, and the holy city, God stirreth up two witnesses to prophecy in sackcloth, that is, some few pastors (for two is the smallest number) and they prophecy, and are slain, and yet they rise again. We need not apply this to men in particular, as to John Hus, and Jerome of Prague; but certainly some few spoke against Babylon, and they were borne down, and oppressed, and killed, and men of that same spirit rose and spoke that same truth, as if the very two men who were slain, had risen within three days again.

2. Because when the church is overgrown with heresy and apostasy, our reformers in the exercise of their ministry, were not to keep a certain flock as in a constituted church, and supposing they had no calling but eminent gifts, they were to spread the gospel to nations, as Luther did. And supposing the people should resist them, as in many places they did; yet God called them, and they were not to expect election from people. So Cyprus and Cyrenus preached (Acts 11; 18), and we read of no vocation that they had from either people or apostle. So Origen7 preached to a people in a certain town, where there was not one Christian, and afterwards he was chosen their pastor.

As for the Church of Rome, supposing our reformers had their calling thence, yet have we a true ministry and there was a church in Rome before the Lateran Council, which could constitute a true ministry, as I clear in these distinctions, for the Church of Rome, it has these parts.

DISTINCTION ONE. 1. The court of Rome and clergy. 2. The seduced people.

DISTINCTION TWO. 1. There is a teaching court professing and teaching popery, and obtruding it upon the consciences of others. 2. There is a people professing and believing this with heat of zeal. 3. A people misled, ignorant, not doubting but following. 4. There is a people of God, Come out of her my people, Ergo there is a covenanted people of God there (2 Thes. ) Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, Ergo God has a Temple in Rome.

DISTINCTION THREE. 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 leg is a true man, and has a reasonable soul in him, and a true church vertate 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 arms, 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 has a man´s nature and a reasonable soul in him. The question is if Rome has the soul, life and being of a church.

DISTINCTION FOUR. A fourth distinction is, that the question is either of a teaching and a ministerial church, professing Christ, the Word and Baptism, or of a believing church and spouse of Christ.

DISTINCTION FIVE. If Rome relatively is a wife in comparison of other churches, of if Rome absolutely in herself is a church?

DISTINCTION SIX. If Rome is jure and merito, a spouse, or a harlot, or de facto, a wife, not having received a bill of divorcement, as the church of the Jews.

DISTINCTION SEVEN. If Rome according to some parts is a spouse, and keeps any list of marriage kindness to her husband, or if she is according to other parts a cast off whore.

DISTINCTION EIGHT. If Rome is materially a church, having in it the doctrine of faith, or if formally it is no church, having no professed faith that has the nature of faith.

Hence shortly, I say, the Court of Rome as Popish, is the falling-sickness of the church, not the church. But the same court teaching something of Christ (baptism, good works, etc.) has something of the life and being of a church; howbeit she is not a whole church, her skin being leprous, pocky and polluted.

1. Because in a church that is no church, there cannot be a true seal of God´s covenant; but in the Court of Rome there is true baptism, for we baptize not again children once baptized there. Some of the Separation called it idol-baptism, and no baptism, which is Anabaptism. For then all converted Papists must be baptized again, no less than converted Turks or Jews. But (1.), the covenant is there, Come out of her my people; then their baptism confirms this covenant. (2.) Circumcision even in apostate Israel is true circumcision; her [children] the Lord´s [children] (Ezk. 16:21). He is Israel´s God, the holy one of Israel in the midst thereof. In Hezekiah´s reformation the people ate the Passover, and yet all had corrupted their ways, and had been a long time worshipping Idols, and they are not (2 Chron. 30) circumcised again; and yet (Ex. 12) none but the circumcised might eat the Passover.

2. Because the Word God, and so the contract of marriage, is professed amongst them, and so there is an external 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 fundamental truths are taught that may beget faith, and so there are true and valid pastoral acts in that church. (2.) I say there is a hid and invisible church and temple in Rome, and these God warns 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 fundamental truths, and obtruding them upon the consciences of others, is not the believing church, and so not the spouse and body of Christ. (3.) Rome now compared with Paul´s Rome which he did write unto, is no church, no spouse, as a whorish wife compared with herself in her first month to her husband, while she was chaste, is now, when she embraces the bosom of a stranger, no wife, and yet Rome compared with Indians who worship Satan, with Persians who worship the Sun, with the Egyptians who worshipped gods growing in their gardens, and onions and garlic; for so Juvenal, O sanctas gentes quibus hec naseuntur in hortis Numma.

I say being compared with these, they are the Lord´s Temple (2 Thes. 2:4), and his wife, as (one8 says well) apostate Israel compared with Syrians [and] Philistines, is counted God´s people, having the true God for their God (2 Kings 5:8, 15, 17). But being compared with Judah which ruled with God, and was faithful with the saints, is called no wife, but a harlot, (Hos. 2:2, 5; 4:15; 5:3, 4).

(4.) Rome jure 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 matrimonial tables which she keeps, is a church, and differs from the Jews, as a church and no church. Because, abeit the Jews have the Old Testament, which implicitly and by interpretation is the covenant, yet they [lack] two things which destroys the essence of a true church.

[1.] The Jews give not so much as a virtual consent to the marriage and the very external active calling and invitation to come to Christ, and all ministerial publishing of the news of salvation is removed from them (Acts 13:46). But there is a virtual consent to the marriage with Christ in Rome, and salvation there in word, and some ministerial and pastoral publication thereof as in the seed.

[2.] Jews directly oppugne the cardinal foundation of salvation (1 Cor. 3:11; Acts 4:12; 1 Thes. 2:15, 16). Christ Jesus, Papists profess him, and have his seals amongst them, especially baptism.

(5.) Rome in concreto, according to her best part, to wit, secret believers, groaning and sighing in Egypt´s 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.

(6.) However Rome is materially a true church, having the material object of faith, the doctrine of the Old and New Testament common with us, yet formally they are not one church with us, but there is a real and essential separation between us and them, as between a true church and an Antichristian church, a spouse of Christ and no spouse. For faith relatively taken, faith of many united in one society essentially constitutes a church, and the formal object of their faith is the word of the church, and of men, or God´s Word as expounded by men, and our faith´s formal object is the Word of God, as the Word of God, and so do formally differ.

(7.) Howbeit I say Rome is a church teaching and professing, and has something of the life and being of a true church, yet I hold not that Rome is Christ´s body, nor his wife. Neither mean I with our late novators, Prelates and their faction sometimes in this land, and now in England, that Rome is a true church, as they taught, that is, so a true church as, [1.] we erred in separating from that leper whore; [2.] that her errors are not fundamental, and that we and this mother can be reconciled and bed together. But what I say, is held by our divines Calvin,9 Junius,10 Whittaker,11 that famous divine Rivet,12 that most learned professor Gilbertus Voetius,13 and our divines.

Voetius makes nine ranks of these that were not dyed and engrained Papists in the Popish church. (1.) Some deceived. (2.) Some compelled. (3.) Some ignorant. (4) Some careless, who took not heed to that faith. (5.) Some doubting. (6.) Some loathing it. (7.) Some sighing. (8.) Some opposing and contradicting it. (9.) Some separating from it.

Now seeing that our church has nothing to do with Rome, and our ministry lawful, Separatists may hence be satisfied. Neither yet do I think with Spalatin (de repub. Eccles. in oftensione error. & Suarez cap. 1 pag. 887, 888), that the Roman Church is erroneous only in excess, seeing in substantial points there is such defect also as averts faith.

I would commend the previously cited papers by Rutherford for further study as to his reasons for both validating the ministerial ordination and baptism of Rome while at the same time vindicating the necessity of separation from her.

2) As regards the use of oil in baptism, you were partially correct. According to the Catholic Catechism (summarized from sections 1234- 1245) the baptismal ceremony involves several stages; the sign of the cross, then "proclamation of the Word," then an exorcism is performed, then annoiting with "the oil of catechumens" or the preist lays hands on him to renounce Satan. These steps enable the candidate to "confess the faith of the Church to which he will be 'entrusted' by baptism." Then a prayer is made over the baptismal water praying for the power of the Spirit to be sent upon the water thus enabling baptismal regeneration. Then the water is applied 3 times with the formula (done by immersion in the EO). Then the "chrism" is applied, a perfumed oil which signifies the gift of the Spirit (In the EO, this part is called Confirmation, but Rome doesn't call it Confirmation. They wait until the teenage years for that sacrament). Then of course there is the lighting of a candle and mention is made of a required white garment. At the conclusion they are brought to the altar fro what is called their "first Holy Communion" in which they say the Lord's Prayer (though they do not give the child the Mass until 'the age of reason'). This is considered the entire baptismal ceremony.

So oil is part and parcel of the ceremony, before and after the water.

Combine all this, their rejectin of Christ, their adding elements to the sacrament, and their offically calling Mary "queen of heaven," what else do you need to consider them no longer a church?

I stand corrected as to the place of oil in Rome's sacrament of baptism. The source I was relying on seems to be a little unreliable. Additionally, there is some diversity even within Rome as to the particulars of administration. The exorcism bit is particularly heinous. However, I have reviewed the Catholic Encyclopedia's statement on what constitutes a valid Catholic baptism and it is affirmed only water is truly necessary. The use of oil is prescribed but not necessary for validity according to Rome. So I would view it's use as a grievous superstitious error but not sufficient to overthrow the validity of Roman baptism.

I do not need to be persuaded that Rome's administration of the sacrament is riddled with error and superstitution and unBiblical accretions. That would be preaching to the choir, so to speak :bigsmile: I am also aware of the Mariolatry that goes on in Romanism, as well as the plethora of other idolatries. These things confirm me in my conviction that Rome is Antichrist -- just as all the Reformers and Puritans believed and the Westminster Confession teaches. But as Antichrist must dwell in the church (2 Thess. 2.4) so there must be some sense in which the kingdom of Antichrist overlaps with the kingdom of Christ, and thus in Rev. 18.4 we see God calling his people out of Babylon before it is to be destroyed.

I suppose our views on eschatology and ecclesiology are somewhat bound together. The rejection of the Puritan teaching on Antichrist is historically linked to the rejection of Rome as being in any sense still part of the church and vice versa.

Rome is apostate but heresy and apostacy abound in the Protestant church too. A fully consistent rejection of the lawfulness of ministry and baptism of Rome would require the same for much of Protestantism as well.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Andrew,
I appreciate what you are bringing to the table here. I am trying to wrap my brain around the rationale. The first question that comes to mind again is does Rome have the marks of a true church? If they do not, then formula is paramount. If it is formula, then the Mormons baptism would be valid as well as all the others mentioned. Would you agree with this?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Andrew,
I appreciate what you are bringing to the table here. I am trying to wrap my brain around the rationale. The first question that comes to mind again is does Rome have the marks of a true church? If they do not, then formula is paramount. If it is formula, then the Mormons baptism would be valid as well as all the others mentioned. Would you agree with this?

I think the distinction that I am trying to make -- in keeping with Hodge, Rutherford, Turretin, Calvin, et al. -- is that Rome lacks the marks of a true church but has not lost the characteristics of a material church.

I would not classify the Mormon church under either category since it has never, ever been part of the true church and is a polytheistic religion which is contrary to both the formula and theology that is required at a minimum level to have a place in any sense in the visible church of Christ.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Would you agree that the Donatists were heretics, ie., outside the visible church, but their baptism was lawful? Augustine said they were heretics and that separation from them was necessary, but said their baptisms were lawful.

Samuel Rutherford uses this argument as well as a host of others to justify the inclusion of Rome -- though antiChristian, indeed the seat of AntiChrist -- in some sense (materially) within the visible Church.

For Rutherford, the valid baptism is a sign of a valid ministry, and vice-versa, though both such can exist in a schismatic church, as in the case of the Donatists, by putting primary emphasis on the promises of God wrt to the church and its ordinances. This is a different view of the church than exists in modern Presbyterianism today, but then again there is a great gulf between modern Presbyterianism in America and the views of the Reformers and Puritans in ecclesiology, eschatology and in other areas.

He makes many distinctions which are worth keeping in mind, including the differences between the condition of the Jews as a "divorced wife" and that of Rome as a "harlot," such as:

This isn't about Donatism though. The Donatists were doctrinally the same for the most part as the Catholics. They simply rejected the ordination (and thus the baptisms) of preists who recanted under persecution. It's a completely different case for Rome today. They don't have a doctrinal similarity at all regarding the gospel. They don't have the gospel. They are not ministers of Christ nor Christians in any sense because they reject the gospel. If this was about accepting Lutheran or Anglican baptism, or the validity of baptisms from a backslidden minister, then perhaps we could pull the donatism card. The question is not whether Rome's baptism is valid, but rather can it be called baptism at all? Or is it just a non-Christian initiatory right into a non-Christian (even anti-christian) religion? You have unbeleivers being sprinkled with water by unbelieving men opposed to the gospel, being incorporated into a non- Christian religion. The only similarity is the Trinitarian formula. I just don't see how we can call that Christian baptism.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by puritansailor
This isn't about Donatism though. The Donatists were doctrinally the same for the most part as the Catholics. They simply rejected the ordination (and thus the baptisms) of preists who recanted under persecution. It's a completely different case for Rome today. They don't have a doctrinal similarity at all regarding the gospel. They don't have the gospel. They are not ministers of Christ nor Christians in any sense because they reject the gospel. If this was about accepting Lutheran or Anglican baptism, or the validity of baptisms from a backslidden minister, then perhaps we could pull the donatism card. The question is not whether Rome's baptism is valid, but rather can it be called baptism at all? Or is it just a non-Christian initiatory right into a non-Christian (even anti-christian) religion? You have unbeleivers being sprinkled with water by unbelieving men opposed to the gospel, being incorporated into a non- Christian religion. The only similarity is the Trinitarian formula. I just don't see how we can call that Christian baptism.

The fact remains that Donatists were schismatics, heretics, who were outside the visible church, by judicial determination of the true church. According to the Webmaster, "separation from the visible church is not schismatic, but apostasy." Therefore, I think that the example of the Donatists is perfectly relevant to the way the Puritans viewed Rome, ie., as Rome having separated herself from the true church by her apostacy yet retaining sufficient characteristics of the church to remain within the visible church and administer valid baptisms (like the Donatists); hence, Rutherford and the Westminster Assembly and indeed the entire worldwide Presbyterian Church before Thornwell were quite right to acknowledge the validity of Roman baptism while not shying away from affirming that the Papacy was Antichrist.

From a 1565 court decision of the Church of Scotland General Assembly:

The Assembly had been asked "œIf baptisme administrat be ane papist priest, or in the papistical manner shall it be reiterat?" They had answered:

When sic children come to years of understanding, they should be instructed in the doctrine of salvation, the corruption of the papistrie might be declared unto them, whilk they most publickly damne, before they be admitted to the Lord's table, whilks if they doe there needs not the external sign to be reiterat; for no papist ministers baptisme without water, and some forme of words, whilks are the principalls of the external signe; we ourselves were baptized be papists, whose corruptions and abuses now we damne, cleaving only to the simple ordinance of Jesus Christ, and to the veritie of the Holy Ghost, whilk makes baptisme to work in us be the proper effects thereof, without any declaration of the external signe. If sic children come never to the knowledge of trew doctrine, they are to be left to the judgment of God.

Samuel J. Baird, A Collection of the Acts, Deliverances, and Testimonies of the Supreme Judicatory of the Presbyterian Church (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856) 80, quoting from the Booke of the Universal Kirk, 41.

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Scott Bushey]

And this brings us back to the fact that they approve of one of the sacraments but not the other...............is this consistant?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Peter
Sorry Andrew. I don't think we need to answer the Trinitarian critique of Scott's given (1) JWs' leadership have no ministry (2) its a misrepresentation of the position b/c we're not arguing a clear conception of the trinity is required just the trinitarian formula, if the former were required everyone must view their baptism with suspicion b/c no one knows the thoughts and intentions of baptiser.

This is not accurate. I know that my church and it's leadership holds to the WCF. That document substantiates their view of the trinity.

Since your critique of the Roman view of the Trinity and hence baptism seems to be based on their view of justification by faith alone, do you also reject the validity of baptisms by any Arminian church?

* bump *

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by puritansailor
This isn't about Donatism though. The Donatists were doctrinally the same for the most part as the Catholics. They simply rejected the ordination (and thus the baptisms) of preists who recanted under persecution. It's a completely different case for Rome today. They don't have a doctrinal similarity at all regarding the gospel. They don't have the gospel. They are not ministers of Christ nor Christians in any sense because they reject the gospel. If this was about accepting Lutheran or Anglican baptism, or the validity of baptisms from a backslidden minister, then perhaps we could pull the donatism card. The question is not whether Rome's baptism is valid, but rather can it be called baptism at all? Or is it just a non-Christian initiatory right into a non-Christian (even anti-christian) religion? You have unbeleivers being sprinkled with water by unbelieving men opposed to the gospel, being incorporated into a non- Christian religion. The only similarity is the Trinitarian formula. I just don't see how we can call that Christian baptism.

The fact remains that Donatists were schismatics, heretics, who were outside the visible church, by judicial determination of the true church. According to the Webmaster, "separation from the visible church is not schismatic, but apostasy." Therefore, I think that the example of the Donatists is perfectly relevant to the way the Puritans viewed Rome, ie., as Rome having separated herself from the true church by her apostacy yet retaining sufficient characteristics of the church to remain within the visible church and administer valid baptisms (like the Donatists); hence, Rutherford and the Westminster Assembly and indeed the entire worldwide Presbyterian Church before Thornwell were quite right to acknowledge the validity of Roman baptism while not shying away from affirming that the Papacy was Antichrist.

Again, the difference is that the Donatists doctrinally were still Christians. They fought over a minor issue, ordination. Yes, they were schismatic, but they did not reject the gospel. Rome is more than schismatic. They have completely rejected the faith for another false gospel. And they view there "baptism" as an integeral part of their whole system of incorporation into their false religion. I can't stress that enough. They use it as an initiatory right into their false religion. This is what Mormons do. Baptism is an initiatory right into their false religion as well. Yet they are not considerd part of the church. Perhaps if we looked at their initiatory rights in the light of how the false religions describe and use them, then perhaps we can come to a conclusion on how to view what they call "baptism"?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by puritansailor
This isn't about Donatism though. The Donatists were doctrinally the same for the most part as the Catholics. They simply rejected the ordination (and thus the baptisms) of preists who recanted under persecution. It's a completely different case for Rome today. They don't have a doctrinal similarity at all regarding the gospel. They don't have the gospel. They are not ministers of Christ nor Christians in any sense because they reject the gospel. If this was about accepting Lutheran or Anglican baptism, or the validity of baptisms from a backslidden minister, then perhaps we could pull the donatism card. The question is not whether Rome's baptism is valid, but rather can it be called baptism at all? Or is it just a non-Christian initiatory right into a non-Christian (even anti-christian) religion? You have unbeleivers being sprinkled with water by unbelieving men opposed to the gospel, being incorporated into a non- Christian religion. The only similarity is the Trinitarian formula. I just don't see how we can call that Christian baptism.

The fact remains that Donatists were schismatics, heretics, who were outside the visible church, by judicial determination of the true church. According to the Webmaster, "separation from the visible church is not schismatic, but apostasy." Therefore, I think that the example of the Donatists is perfectly relevant to the way the Puritans viewed Rome, ie., as Rome having separated herself from the true church by her apostacy yet retaining sufficient characteristics of the church to remain within the visible church and administer valid baptisms (like the Donatists); hence, Rutherford and the Westminster Assembly and indeed the entire worldwide Presbyterian Church before Thornwell were quite right to acknowledge the validity of Roman baptism while not shying away from affirming that the Papacy was Antichrist.

Again, the difference is that the Donatists doctrinally were still Christians. They fought over a minor issue, ordination. Yes, they were schismatic, but they did not reject the gospel. Rome is more than schismatic. They have completely rejected the faith for another false gospel. And they view there "baptism" as an integeral part of their whole system of incorporation into their false religion. I can't stress that enough. They use it as an initiatory right into their false religion. This is what Mormons do. Baptism is an initiatory right into their false religion as well. Yet they are not considerd part of the church. Perhaps if we looked at their initiatory rights in the light of how the false religions describe and use them, then perhaps we can come to a conclusion on how to view what they call "baptism"?

So do you agree or not that the Donatists were cut off from the true visible Church (out of which there is no possibility of salvation) and yet their baptisms can be valid?

Charles Hodge:

"œSome heretics corrupt the very substance of baptism, as the ancient Arians, modern Socinians, rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, others, retaining the essentials of the ordinance and the true doctrine of the Trinity, err as to other doctrines, as formerly the Novatians and Donatists, and now the Papists and Arminians. The baptisms of the former class are to be rejected; those of the latter are retained, although they err as to many doctrines, and their baptisms, in circumstantials, are polluted by various ceremonies."

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]