The only reason I started this thread is because we have opposing threads going on simultaneously; one in the paedo-only forum and one in the credo-only forum. For some odd reason I find a bit of humor in that.
On the surface the question as to whether Roman Catholic baptism is valid should be a non-starter for Baptists because most Roman Catholic baptisms are of the paedobaptist persuasion. But there are adult converts to Roman Catholicism, so Baptists may have to deal with this issue.
The proponents of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism often point to the sacrament itself as ordained by God, regardless of whether the administrator of the sacrament is worthy. In the paedo-only thread, Lane Keister wrote:
I think Lane did a good job articulating the validity of Roman Catholic baptism.
As an opponent of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism I respond in this manner:
1. Roman Catholic apostasies have stripped it of the right to be called a true church. It is more than just vile; it is an enemy of God. It can no more be called a church than Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses.
2. Roman Catholic baptism is salvific in nature. Lay-Catholics are empowered to baptize infants in the rare occasion where a priest is not available and the infants life is in danger. This is to assure that the child enters into the church and inherits salvation.
3. The acceptance of Roman Catholic baptism by the early Reformers may have been a vestige of the strong ties many of these men had to their former Roman faith. Many still held out hope for Rome's reformation.
Lane rightly points out that baptism is an act of God. It is to be administered by a qualified minister of a true church. The "true church" is the real issue; more so than the minister. At least this is how I, a Baptist, view the ordinance.
On the surface the question as to whether Roman Catholic baptism is valid should be a non-starter for Baptists because most Roman Catholic baptisms are of the paedobaptist persuasion. But there are adult converts to Roman Catholicism, so Baptists may have to deal with this issue.
The proponents of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism often point to the sacrament itself as ordained by God, regardless of whether the administrator of the sacrament is worthy. In the paedo-only thread, Lane Keister wrote:
So far, no one has really brought up the real issue, which is this: who actually baptizes? If we view baptism as the act of man, then the purity of the church, and the purity of the man will be the essential marks of a valid baptism. If, however, baptism is an act of God, then it doesn't matter how vile the church is, or how vile the minister is (aren't we all vile to some extent or another? Who would be pure enough to minister baptism, if it all depended on him and his church?).
I think Lane did a good job articulating the validity of Roman Catholic baptism.
As an opponent of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism I respond in this manner:
1. Roman Catholic apostasies have stripped it of the right to be called a true church. It is more than just vile; it is an enemy of God. It can no more be called a church than Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses.
2. Roman Catholic baptism is salvific in nature. Lay-Catholics are empowered to baptize infants in the rare occasion where a priest is not available and the infants life is in danger. This is to assure that the child enters into the church and inherits salvation.
3. The acceptance of Roman Catholic baptism by the early Reformers may have been a vestige of the strong ties many of these men had to their former Roman faith. Many still held out hope for Rome's reformation.
Lane rightly points out that baptism is an act of God. It is to be administered by a qualified minister of a true church. The "true church" is the real issue; more so than the minister. At least this is how I, a Baptist, view the ordinance.