[quote:e9d3e114b1][i:e9d3e114b1]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:e9d3e114b1]
[quote:e9d3e114b1]WCF Ch.28
II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]
WCF Ch.27
IV. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.[10]
WCF Ch25
II. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6][/quote:e9d3e114b1]
You must look at these in light of what is said about the sacrament itself, "XXVII:III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it:[7] but upon the work of the Spirit,[8] and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.[9]
We cannot get wrapped around the axle about the outward administration. It is the inward that counts and it is precisely the inward that we cannot administer. The Holy Spirit baptizes.
In Christ,
KC [/quote:e9d3e114b1]
But KC, we [b:e9d3e114b1]must[/b:e9d3e114b1] get "wrapped around the outward administration" in one sense. You would not advocate that one who had been baptized in a Mormon church had Biblical baptism, would you? What about Jehovah's Witnesses? How about a Oneness Pentecostal group? You see the issue is not over Donatism, on that both sides are agreed. The issue is whether a sacrament can [b:e9d3e114b1]even be[/b:e9d3e114b1] a sacrament outside the Church. The unanimous answer of the Reformed Church in all its confession is "NO." We would not call it baptism if a bunch of people got together in my backyard and dumped water over someone, claiming to baptize them if they had no authority, would we? Would we call it the Lord's Supper if a parachurch group with no minister of the gospel served juice and crackers as the Lord's Supper?
What is at issue is whether the Church of Rome qualifies sufficiently in some bare minimalist sense as a church in order to legitimize its baptism. We can disagree over that, but that is the issue.
[quote:e9d3e114b1]WCF Ch.28
II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]
WCF Ch.27
IV. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.[10]
WCF Ch25
II. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6][/quote:e9d3e114b1]
You must look at these in light of what is said about the sacrament itself, "XXVII:III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it:[7] but upon the work of the Spirit,[8] and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.[9]
We cannot get wrapped around the axle about the outward administration. It is the inward that counts and it is precisely the inward that we cannot administer. The Holy Spirit baptizes.
In Christ,
KC [/quote:e9d3e114b1]
But KC, we [b:e9d3e114b1]must[/b:e9d3e114b1] get "wrapped around the outward administration" in one sense. You would not advocate that one who had been baptized in a Mormon church had Biblical baptism, would you? What about Jehovah's Witnesses? How about a Oneness Pentecostal group? You see the issue is not over Donatism, on that both sides are agreed. The issue is whether a sacrament can [b:e9d3e114b1]even be[/b:e9d3e114b1] a sacrament outside the Church. The unanimous answer of the Reformed Church in all its confession is "NO." We would not call it baptism if a bunch of people got together in my backyard and dumped water over someone, claiming to baptize them if they had no authority, would we? Would we call it the Lord's Supper if a parachurch group with no minister of the gospel served juice and crackers as the Lord's Supper?
What is at issue is whether the Church of Rome qualifies sufficiently in some bare minimalist sense as a church in order to legitimize its baptism. We can disagree over that, but that is the issue.