Is Roman Catholic Baptism valid?

[LawrenceU]

I know I'm wading into the middle of something here, but are we not warned against judgment 'krinw' ? It seems to me in my reading of Scripture that very clearly does the Bible state that only God can discern the position of one's soul. If perfect assent to and embracing of perfect theology is the path to salvation then I've missed that verse.

'The just shall live by faith.' Not, 'the just shall live by a assenting to a perfect credal statement'.

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by LawrenceU]

 

[Me Died Blue]

[quote:b1736fbb39][i:b1736fbb39]Originally posted by LawrenceU[/i:b1736fbb39]
'The just shall live by faith.' Not, 'the just shall live by a assenting to a perfect credal statement'.[/quote:b1736fbb39]

This is true, but there is also a point at which someone's "credal statement" can become so flawed that they are putting faith in a different God and Gospel altogether.

In Christ,

 

[Puritan Sailor]

We are called to judge with "righteous judgment" and to test the spirits. It is judging self-righteously which is condemned. We must test all things by the Word. And so we must do with this issue, especially with the practical implications involved.

 

[LawrenceU]

The type of judgment to which I alluded is that of determining ones position in eternity. Only God can do that. Of course we are to discern spirits and 'judge' fruit, but ONLY God can see the final place of a man's soul.

 

[Me Died Blue]

But God has clearly laid out in His Word the things one must believe in order to have a saving faith. So would you at least grant that people we know who clearly and explicitly deny the Christian God and Gospel their entire life will perish?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Ok, let's get back to the thread topic.

Is Roman Catholic baptism valid?

We've discussed some criteria and yet we can't agree. If we lower the bar too much (i.e. water and the Trinity name), then we end up including non-Christian cults. If we raise it too high, then only those in our own denomination will be accepted as baptised under a true church. Some have suggested that Rome still holds to the Creeds, but as I showed with the Apostles Creed, Rome does not in fact hold to the Creeds without changing the meaning of the language (for example the phrase "the forgiveness of sins" ) so they don't really hold to the Creeds. We agree that water is the required physical element for baptism, but Rome uses more than water, adding oil deliberately to the mix, thus defiling the sacrament.


So where do we draw the line?

How about this option for a criteria?

If a church officially condemns the gospel, they cease to be a true church, and thus lose their legitimacy for all the sacraments and God given ministries because of their apostacy. And, within the umbrella of those who have NOT officially condemned the Gospel, we may acknowledge their baptisms, with water and the name of the Trinity. Ecumenical, but not too ecumenical to compromise the gospel or fall into donatism.

I'll just submit this hypothesis for discussion.

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:731c060890]Some have suggested that Rome still holds to the Creeds, but as I showed with the Apostles Creed, Rome does not in fact hold to the Creeds without changing the meaning of the language (for example the phrase "the forgiveness of sins" ) so they don't really hold to the Creeds. We agree that water is the required physical element for baptism, but Rome uses more than water, adding oil deliberately to the mix, thus defiling the sacrament.[/quote:731c060890]

I never understood your thing about "forgiveness of sins."

If water is the [i:731c060890]required[/i:731c060890] element, then it is there in the Roman baptism. We haven't yet talked about adding other elements. If water baptism along with other elements is not true baptism, then nobody during the middle ages was baptized. Rome practiced these things during the times of the Reformers, and yet the Reformers never said it was false baptism.

[quote:731c060890]If a church officially condemns the gospel, they cease to be a true church, and thus lose their legitimacy for all the sacraments and God given ministries because of their apostacy. And, within the umbrella of those who have NOT officially condemned the Gospel, we may acknowledge their baptisms, with water and the name of the Trinity. Ecumenical, but not too ecumenical to compromise the gospel or fall into donatism.[/quote:731c060890]

Certain people (on this board) believe that the Arminians have condemned the true gospel and are all going to hell. So again, it becomes too narrow, and we only accept Calvinists.

Paul

 

[Puritan Sailor]

[quote:36f89e5041][i:36f89e5041]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:36f89e5041]
I never understood your thing about "forgiveness of sins."
[/quote:36f89e5041]
Then read the posts again. Rome doesn't belive in the biblical way of forgiving sin as expressed in the Creed.
[quote:36f89e5041]
If water is the [i:36f89e5041]required[/i:36f89e5041] element, then it is there in the Roman baptism. We haven't yet talked about adding other elements. If water baptism along with other elements is not true baptism, then nobody during the middle ages was baptized. Rome practiced these things during the times of the Reformers, and yet the Reformers never said it was false baptism. [/quote:36f89e5041]
This was mentioned in the beginning of the thread. Please go back and read.

[quote:36f89e5041]
Certain people (on this board) believe that the Arminians have condemned the true gospel and are all going to hell. So again, it becomes too narrow, and we only accept Calvinists.
[/quote:36f89e5041]
You missed the point. There are plenty of arminian churches out there who have not officially condemned the gospel. Rome declares it anethema. Most Arminian churches would not say that Reformed christians are anethema for what they believe. They still permit the truth along side their errors. Rome is not tolerant of the truth but condemns it. Same with the Mormons.

 

[Scott]

Patrick:

What is your evidence that Rome's understanding of the creedal statement "forgiveness of sins" differs from the original understanding of that statement?

Also, what do you think about modern Protestant understanding the phrase about Christ descending into hell? Few Protestants would understand this as Christ actually going to hell. Yet, there is some reason to believe that this was the original understanding (although I have not studied the issue much). I have one Reformed friend who remains silent during that portion of the reading of the creed, for example, because she thinks it is wrong.

Scott

 

[Puritan Sailor]

[quote:d53c5e84ac][i:d53c5e84ac]Originally posted by Scott[/i:d53c5e84ac]
Patrick:

What is your evidence that Rome's understanding of the creedal statement "forgiveness of sins" differs from the original understanding of that statement?

Also, what do you think about modern Protestant understanding the phrase about Christ descending into hell? Few Protestants would understand this as Christ actually going to hell. Yet, there is some reason to believe that this was the original understanding (although I have not studied the issue much). I have one Reformed friend who remains silent during that portion of the reading of the creed, for example, because she thinks it is wrong.

Scott [/quote:d53c5e84ac]
Read my earlier posts in the thread.

 

[Scott]

Here is an interesting piece from Samuel Rutherford affirming Roman Catholic baptisms and Roman Cathlilc ministers while at the same time denouncing independent ministers and their baptisms (see article "Samuel Rutherford . . &quot:
http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/

Here is an excerpt to a concern I think Fred raised:


[quote:26e8ea4e83]
But saith Robinson [the separatist], 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. . .
[/quote:26e8ea4e83]

On another point, if the logic and biblical understanding of his article holds, then Reformed churches should accept Catholic baptisms but reject those from independents. This seems to be the opposite of the tendency today, with many skeptical about or hotile to Roman baptisms but easily accepting baptisms of independents, Baptists, Bible Church folk, etc.

Certainly I have not experienced much of the concern for the lawfulness of institutional ministerial authority that Rutherford seemed to have.

Scott

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Scott]

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Scott]