Invalidity of Roman Catholic Baptism ???

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ray

Puritan Board Freshman
First of all, I've gone through a few threads on this subject and did not find the resources I'm looking for. I was baptized as a infant in the Church of Rome. But I'm coming to the conclusion that it wasn't a valid one. I've visited and worshiped with brothers in the Lord from RPCGA in Florida this last August and they told me that I need to be Baptized, because Romes baptism is no baptism. So I'm looking for Sermons, Podcasts, and debates from a Reformed and Presbyterian view to confirm this position. And I like to know if Romes baptism is a true baptism, would it be sinful to be rebatized?
 
Last edited:
What does your pastor say? Have you talked much to him about it? I would tend to go along with his recommendation, regardless of what it may be.

The old Reformed (back at the Reformation) recognized that God baptized them, marking them truly by the crooked stylus of Rome.

Centuries before, theologians like Augustin argued successfully and correctly that the Donatists were wrong to deny baptisms were valid because they were done by the hand of lapsed ministers. Why? Because it is Christ and the Spirit who baptizes in truth; the minister is only the authorized agent.

Rome is now a hive of lapsed ministry. However, I'm not aware the church you belong to (RPCNA) has ecclesiastically anathematized the RCC. And the RPCNA still confesses the original WCF at this point, I believe. The pope is "that antichrist;" and still the men who wrote those words believed Rome still baptized validly.

The URCNA has not ecclesiastically anathematized the RCC, either. The churches (or congregations) which will baptize you exist; but they are not the norm, as far as I know.

Baptism symbolically has reference to the work of regeneration, Tit.3:5-6. Baptism is one-time, because regeneration is definitive. It is done to you, in either case. Who marked you in baptism so long ago? Was it the Triune God, Father Son and Holy Spirit?

Do you think you would be feeling the same way, if the church that baptized you as an infant was a liberal Protestant variety? Or is it just that this was a RCC, and they are not a church (meaning anathematized) in your personal judgment?

I know there will be members of this Board who agree you should be baptized. There is no such thing as a "re-baptism," technically; but a repeat of the process amounts to the same thing. Along with the historic Reformation, I think a redo would be an error.

I think you should study this business out a bit longer. At least as long as you've spent on the question of Christian liberty and alcohol...
 
Last edited:
Well I really have no contact with my Pastor or Elders, especially since I've been seeking membership transfer. But i recall asking him this question once and he replied if it was good for Calvin and the reformers it's good enough for me. But this was a few years ago when I wasn't pondering on this subject. It was just a random question one day i had asked him. As for the RPCNA not every pastor i believe hold to the pope being the "main anti-Christ "

As to your question if I would feel the same way if I was baptized by liberal Protestant church, yes I would and probably even more troubled.

Yes I am trying to dish this out. That's why I'm asking for resources. Preferably sermons, podcasts, and debates about this particular subject.

Thanx for replying Bruce.
 
Last edited:
My pastor and session accepted my Roman Catholic baptism and I was received into membership by profession of faith.
 
I was baptized by God as an infant in 1974 in the Episcopal church. I'm still baptized even though I strongly disagree with the episcopal church.
 
First of all, I've gone through a few threads on this subject and did not find the resources I'm looking for. I was baptized as a infant in the Church of Rome. But I'm coming to the conclusion that it wasn't a valid one. I've visited and worshiped with brothers in the Lord from RPCGA in Florida this last August and they told me that I need to be Baptized, because Romes baptism is no baptism. So I'm looking for Sermons, Podcasts, and debates from a Reformed and Presbyterian view to confirm this position. And I like to know if Romes baptism is a true baptism, would it be sinful to be rebatized?

http://www.semperreformanda.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/No-Rebaptisms-in-Acts-18-19-Dr.-F.N.-Lee.pdf

http://www.semperreformanda.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Rebaptism-is-Sin-Dr.-F.N.-Lee.pdf

http://www.semperreformanda.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Calvin-on-the-Validity-of-Romish-Baptism-Dr.-F.N.-Lee.pdf
 
The Church of Rome is an Apostate group, in that it denies the truth of saved by Grace alone through faith alone, and has instead a sacramental mode of salvation.

Would suggest that theur baptism was not valid, as not from a real and proper Christian church, and so you would want to have it administered now, as one who hascome to saving faith in Christ, and with real understanding of now being a Christian.

You looked for Presbyterian views, I am a Baptist, but we would allow for Presbyterian baptism in my church, not though RC one!
 
Rev. Bruce,

I'm in agreement with you here.
John Calvin in the Institutes says that circumcision was no less valid, even though it was administered during the times of great apostasy by Israel and Judah. However my question is would baptism be valid if administered by a cult group like the Mormons, or the Jehovah Witnesses or any group that has never been a part of the church of God?

Regards,
 
Thanx you brothers for your input. Is there Any southern Presbyterian resources someone can point me too? Since they hold to the Roman baptism being no baptism. Sermons or podcasts?
 
The problem here is that the Church of Rome is in same class as those 2 churches, so if we would refuse their baptism, why accept Catholic?
 
I've been working with a Spanish-speaking URC mission work for the last two years. As you might imagine, this question comes up a fair amount.

It has not been our practice to rebaptize anyone who was baptized in a Roman Catholic church (nor the one man who was baptized in an Eastern Orthodox church because his mom thought the line at the RC church was too long). In explaining that position to inquirers, two points seem to have been most helpful.

1. The falsity of Rome's gospel arises primarily from their distorting additions to the truth. Thus the gospel is confessed, but is then slathered over with a thick helping of error.
2. Baptism is the sign of God's promise. The faithlessness of man does not invalidate God's promise. Therefore as someone comes to faith and seeks to follow the Lord, we hear the fulfillment of that word which God spoke in baptism, even though that was not the intention of the priest or church.

So far this has satisfied those with concern about the validity of their baptism.
 
John Calvin in the Institutes says that circumcision was no less valid, even though it was administered during the times of great apostasy by Israel and Judah.

However my question is would baptism be valid if administered by a cult group like the Mormons, or the Jehovah Witnesses or any group that has never been a part of the church of God?
That's really the crux. There were/are/will be groups of people out there who assert a claim to be a proper church and possess a proper ministry. Each time, the nature of the claim must be studied. Sometimes the case is open-and-closed, as with cults like LDS and JW. When have these groups ever been part of the church universal? When begun, they originally repudiated the existing churches in toto.

How different from the Reformation churches, which did not deny the historic church. There were some entities in the Reformation which did deny the historic church: the Anabaptists and other fanatics. That's part of the reason why the Protestants sought to distinguish themselves from the Radicals.

Frankly, the Radicals were claiming to be the church reborn; so their claims to be baptizing etc. were more than simply a new administration of Christ's church. They denied the validity of not only previous baptisms, but the existence of the church for ages, and their right to reboot. There were numerous other aberrations, but the bottom line is that they were the equivalent of the Mormons in the 16th century.

As an aside, we should recognize that most Baptists in America today are not (direct) descendants of the Anabaptists. There are some of those direct descendants, in those of a Mennonite strain, and some others. We might say that recognizing their baptisms today (assuming so) is a product of their movement as a body toward evangelical religion over time. But most Baptists in America trace their history to the long English ecclesial tradition. In their specific origin, they were deemed sectarian and divisive by many; but from the beginning many churchmen, who did not agree with their separatism and distinctive doctrines, nevertheless found they remained within the evangelical religion.

Back to the issue of the western, medieval Church. There is the substantive question of the relation of papacy and Rome to the church spread over Europe. And one of the modern student's challenges is appreciating how unlike modern denominational structure was the medieval church--in spite of Imperial Rome. It can be argued that--with the rise of the nation-states in Europe, together with establishment of state-churches, and Rome's reaction to the Reformation with the Council of Trent and counter-reformation--the consolidation of the RCC was the first modern denominational creation.

Here I point out a fact often made much of by those who believe Rome's baptisms should not be considered valid. Namely, that the post-Trent RCC may be conceived as distinct from the medieval western Church. However, the argument rests upon a number of false or weak assumptions; the chief of which, I believe, is supposing a council--one of our own--is capable of determining the moment Christ has removed a church's lampstand, Rev.2:5. Really, the only way we can tell such a thing infallibly, is by seeing a church disappear. Government dissolves or fractures; members depart; material assets disintegrate or are dispersed.

With respect to Rome, there was a degree of those symbols of decay on account of the Reformation. Some historicist interpreters of Revelation even equate Rome's rally to the beast's recovery from a mortal wound, 13:3. But the western Church did not die, neither in the Protestant world, nor in the RCC. Now, we continue to say to the RCC what we would also say to ourselves: "Without repentance, Christ will come and take your lampstand." Perhaps he already has come in the Spirit, against them or (God forbid) against us. But so long as the institution totters along, it has not fallen.

We cannot deny that the western church had a legitimate ministry from Christ--not unless we're willing to say the Anabaptists were correct. I'm not asserting the necessity of ministerial succession, either, for the validity of sacraments. I am saying: that simply pointing to doctrinal declension, even official documents anathematizing important truth (in part), cannot prove the revocation by Christ of his ministry in a body he permits to continue, a body that can prove some form of connection with an indubitable or agreed-upon ministry.

I think there is wisdom today, as much as there was four centuries ago, in saying God is still calling out of a decrepit church those elect, concerning whom he has already used that body to mark them as his property.
 
Spanish ministry as in Mexico? From my understanding all the Presbyterian Churches in Mexico will baptize you again if you come out of the Roman Church. They recognize the RCC baptism as being invalid.
 
Thornwell is the go to guy on this from the Southern wing of the 19th century church. If memory serves, he was decidedly against RCC baptism as valid. And if memory serves further--and I'm going way back in my church history mental hard-drive here, Charles Hodge replied admirably in the opposite corner.
Thanx you brothers for your input. Is there Any southern Presbyterian resources someone can point me too? Since they hold to the Roman baptism being no baptism. Sermons or podcasts?
 
ou're baptism IS valid. Not all on the PB will agree; not all in the Reformed tradition agree--we're not as monolithic as some might think--then again, neither is Rome. Arguments from authority or arguments from tradition might be fallacious, and must be weighed carefully. But they're not necessarily invalid arguments. The general Reformed position is that RCC baptism is valid. The reasons that others have written of above are, frankly, more than sufficient. You're spot on in thinking that you might be more troubled if you'd been baptized by a liberal Protestant "church"--and you'd be correct! To follow Reuben's point, Rome is guilty of gross addition, but on the cardinal truths of the Godhead,the Trinity, the Virgin Birth etc. Rome is not wrong. It officially confesses ALL the articles of the Nicean Creed--and though many of it's ministers are grossly hedonistic, they'd best keep any non-Nicean opinions they might hold to themselves. You'll not find that in mainline Protestantism. In my view, mainline communities such as the PCUSA and Methodists and Episcopalians are harboring outright heretics in high positions, and as ecclesial bodies they're publicly advocating any number of heresies that the neither the Reformed, nor Rome tolerated. You'll find modern versions of Arianism and Socinianism if you search hard enough, and universalism abounds. Rome is officially guilty of much--but not those crimes. BTW I grew up Irish Catholic in New Jersey and went through parochial school under the auspices of the Dominican Order--so I understand your questions.
 
The problem here is that the Church of Rome is in same class as those 2 churches, so if we would refuse their baptism, why accept Catholic?


You cannot be serious. LDS and JW are cults, pure and simple and were from the get-go. JW are the heirs of Arius, plus a number of other weird ideas they've accrued. Mormons? They're much more fun to debate than JW's, but likely further from the truth than the JW. I was a Baptist for about 2 years and I got dunked but good--and immersion in Ascension Presbytery is a non-teachable exception. But that Irish Catholic priest when JFK was president sprinkled me proper--so, I'm covered. Did I read one of your comments correctly--that your Baptistic church invalidates the RCC rite, but accepts a Presbyterian ceremony? I've never known a baptist to say that.
 
Spanish ministry as in Mexico? From my understanding all the Presbyterian Churches in Mexico will baptize you again if you come out of the Roman Church. They recognize the RCC baptism as being invalid.

Spanish-speaking as in having the services in Spanish; we're located in Chicago Heights, IL.
 
Is there Any southern Presbyterian resources someone can point me too? Since they hold to the Roman baptism being no baptism.

Have you read the work of the PCA Study Committee? I recall that they did a pretty good historical survey.

They appended the 1845 report (you did ask for old) here: (html) http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-089.html (pdf) http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-089.pdf

Majority report (1987) http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.pdf
Minority report (1987) http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-093.pdf

(PCA bottom line - generally leave it to the local session to deal with on a case by case basis.)
 
Is there Any southern Presbyterian resources someone can point me too? Since they hold to the Roman baptism being no baptism.

Have you read the work of the PCA Study Committee? I recall that they did a pretty good historical survey.

They appended the 1845 report (you did ask for old) here: (html) http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-089.html (pdf) http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-089.pdf

Majority report (1987) http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.pdf
Minority report (1987) http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-093.pdf

(PCA bottom line - generally leave it to the local session to deal with on a case by case basis.)

Thanx Edward I will.
 
They view the one performed by a Presbyterian church as being valid, a sit was done by a true church, but would also highly suggest thatthe person have the believers baptism redone. Think all former Catholics took the plunge, and some of the Presbyterian ones did!

And yes, the Church of Rome is a Bible cult like SDA/JW/Mormons, as all teach a false Gospel!
 
Last edited:
1. The falsity of Rome's gospel arises primarily from their distorting additions to the truth. Thus the gospel is confessed, but is then slathered over with a thick helping of error.
This is much more sane understanding of where Rome is at. Though I think we all have serious issues with the Roman church, they do not deny Christ's resurrection, his death on the cross, ascension, the infallibility of the Bible, etc. I am sick of people treating them like they are Mormans or something. I am actually more concerned about the Donatism that is growing amongst Protestants.
 
They view the one performed bya Presbyterian church as being valid, a sit was done by a true church, but would also highly suggest thatthe person have the believers baptismdone. Think all former Catholics took the plunge, and some of the Presbyterian onmes did!

And yes, the Church of Rome is a Bible cult like SDA/JW/Mormons, as all tewach a false Gospel!

David my baptist friend. I think you are assuming I do not believe in Infant Baptism, but I do believe in infant baptism, I also believe that if a church rejects to baptize a infant/child of a Covenant member they are a False Church. I can see your tension against Christian Baptism "paedo-baptism "

Belgic Confession
Article 29: Of the marks of the true Church, and wherein she differs from the false Church.
We believe, that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects, who call themselves the Church. The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself. With respect to those, who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians: namely, by faith; and when they have received Jesus Christ the only Savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood, as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit, all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in him." As for the false Church, she ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word, but adds to and takes from them, as she thinks proper; she relieth more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those, who live holily according to the Word of God, and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness, and idolatry. These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.

Article 34: Of Holy Baptism.
We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, who is the end of the law, hath made an end, by the shedding of his blood, of all other sheddings of blood which men could or would make as a propitiation or satisfaction for sin: and that he, having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, hath instituted the sacrament of baptism, instead thereof; by which we are received into the Church of God, and separated from all other people and strange religions, that we may wholly belong to him, whose ensign and banner we bear: and which serves as a testimony to us, that he will forever be our gracious God and Father. Therefore he has commanded all those, who are his, to be baptized with pure water, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost": thereby signifying to us, that as water washeth away the filth of the body, when poured upon it, and is seen on the body of the baptized, when sprinkled upon him; so doth the blood of Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost, internally sprinkle the soul, cleanse it from its sins, and regenerate us from children of wrath, unto children of God. Not that this is effected by the external water, but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God; who is our Red Sea, through which we must pass, to escape the tyranny of Pharaoh, that is, the devil, and to enter into the spiritual land of Canaan. Therefore the ministers, on their part, administer the sacrament, and that which is visible, but our Lord giveth that which is signified by the sacrament, namely, the gifts and invisible grace; washing, cleansing and purging our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts, and filling them with all comfort; giving unto us a true assurance of his fatherly goodness; putting on us the new man, and putting off the old man with all his deeds. Therefore we believe, that every man, who is earnestly studious of obtaining life eternal, ought to be but once baptized with this only baptism, without ever repeating the same: since we cannot be born twice. Neither doth this baptism only avail us, at the time when the water is poured upon us, and received by us, but also through the whole course of our life; therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, whom we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised, upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful, than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that, which Christ hath done for them; as the Lord commanded in the law, that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christ's suffering and death, shortly after they were born, by offering for them a lamb, which was a sacrament of Jesus Christ. Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, that baptism is for our children. And for this reason Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ.


I do understand that Romes still retains Christian Orthodoxy in it; like the Trinity, Virgin Birth, Creeds Ext..... But my dilemma is that there is No promise of the Gospel attached to it! And that they Condemn the True Gospel! So I feel it's a dry baptism. I can see why Augustian and the early church excepted the Donatist baptism as being valid, from my understanding it's because some of early church fathers believe in Baptismal Regeneration. But as Reformed we do not.
 
I do not mind that there are Anglicans/Presbyterian/ etc that hold to infant baptism, as that fits into your Covenant views, butdo findtrouble with those who see Sacramental grace in it, as Catholics do!
 
Their primary falseness thoug is with their perverted Gospel message, as it teaches sacramentalism way to salvation, and NOT in Pauline justification of the sinner...

They hold to Bible, but only so far ar theChurch interpretes it, and dosee need of confessyion to priest, Purgetory, worshipping Mary etc...

They hold to them being true church...

All marks of a biblical cult!
 
And yes, the Church of Rome is a Bible cult like SDA/JW/Mormons, as all teach a false Gospel!
I grant that Rome is in serious error regarding justification and they obscure the gospel. It is neither charitable nor fair to throw them in the same group as JW and Mormons. JW and Mormons are arch-heretics; even calling them heretics is probably being too fair. One denies the Holy Trinity, whilst the other denies monotheism.

Catholics and Protestants both share the catholic faith; they both affirm the true doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity and the incarnation of our Lord. It is such a serious category error to see Mormons on the same level as Roman Catholics.
 
Last edited:
They view the one performed by a Presbyterian church as being valid, a sit was done by a true church, but would also highly suggest thatthe person have the believers baptism redone. Think all former Catholics took the plunge, and some of the Presbyterian ones did!

And yes, the Church of Rome is a Bible cult like SDA/JW/Mormons, as all teach a false Gospel!
Moderator note:

David, you are posting in a forum wherein only those holding to paedo-baptism are permitted to respond to clarifying questions. Advocating a view contrary to paedo-baptism in this sub-forum is not permitted. If you have a question about paedo-baptism, feel free to ask, but do not respond to others with views contrary to the position.
 
Last edited:
Their primary falseness thoug is with their perverted Gospel message, as it teaches sacramentalism way to salvation, and NOT in Pauline justification of the sinner...

They hold to Bible, but only so far ar theChurch interpretes it, and dosee need of confessyion to priest, Purgetory, worshipping Mary etc...

They hold to them being true church...

All marks of a biblical cult!

David, rather than using hyperbolic language, please refresh yourself on the proper understanding of what the marks of a Christian cult comprise. A cult of Christianity is a group of people claiming to be Christian, which embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders (who often claiming Gnostic-like special knowledge or divine revelation), or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible. A Christian cult also evidences a highly closed environment, wherein its adherents are hyper-managed, subjected to strict rules, ostracization when disobeying, and other behavioral restrictions to keep its members in line with the cult's views.

The most charitable view of Romanism is that it is an apostate church organization, primarily for the reason that it has anathematized justification by faith alone. Along these lines, I remind you of the teachings of the ninth commandment:

http://www.puritanboard.com/content.php/40-The-9th-Commandment
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top