Is Roman Catholic Baptism valid?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As to Reformers views of anabaptists / baptists, this is from Luther's Augusburg Confession:

[quote:aadea14c08]
They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.
[/quote:aadea14c08]

Do you have any quotes of Reformers approving of baptistic / anabaptistic baptisms? There may be - I would like to study this area more.
 
[quote:81e408dc2d][i:81e408dc2d]Originally posted by Scott[/i:81e408dc2d]
Fred: I think you are obscuring the essence of your questions (which are good ones) with things designed to be silly. The water gun is an example. Let me ask, if a lawfully ordained minister of the gospel performed the ritual of baptism exactly right, except he used a water gun instead of his hand, would that invalidate the baptism? While water guns are obviously stupid and should not be used, I expect we can at least agree that they do not go to the essence of the sacrament.

Also, are you suggesting that if someone is drunk that this invalidates the adminstration of the Lord's Supper? If the only objectionable part of the ceremony is that the minister's blood alchohol content is marginally over the limit, would that invalidate the ceremony in your opinion?

BTW, I think that baptisms from non-Trinitarian sects like the Mormons are invalid, even if they use the proper formula.

Scott [/quote:81e408dc2d]

Scott,

Point well taken, except that my "silliness" (which was intentional and not hyperbolic) was intended to get at the issue of intent. Mark's statements seemed the essence of [i:81e408dc2d]ex opere operato[/i:81e408dc2d] to me - he only requires the water to be applied (in whatever manner) using the words of the Trinity (in whatever manner intended).

This is a clear result of his "acceptance" of Mormon baptism that uses the words, "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" when in fact the meaning that is poured into those words is completely contrary to the doctrine of the Trinity (i.e. Mormons believe the Son is a created being, the spirit brother of Lucifer).

The water gun and drunk analogies were designed so that no one could assume that there was ANY intention to conduct Christian baptism. So when Mark said those baptisms were valid, he was acknowledging that intent is unecessary and meaningless. Your point however is different and well taken - impairments to intent to do not subvert intent. So yes, even though it would be silly, if a Christian minister administered Baptism with the appropriate intent using a water gun it would be valid.

I think that the only point about which you and I would differ (as opposed to Mark's more minimalist formula) is over the whether an orthodox understanding (as opposed to Mormon or Moose lodge understanding) of the Trinity was ALL that was necessary.

By the way, are you going to GA?
 
[quote:7a26065938]
If this is the case, the bare minimum, then we must also acknowledge the Mormon's and all other cultic groups who claim the name Christian. Are you willing to go that far Mark? And if so, why?
[/quote:7a26065938]

That is a good question.

I have been thinking about this, and there may be one more requirement. What do you think of these ? ?

1. Water
2. The Name Of The Trinity
3. Administered by a professing, outwardly practicing disciple of Christ

Matthew 28 made me realize He told disciples to make disciples. Now, we all now there are different levels of discipleship, but that I think, is the bare minimum.

A Mormon then ? ? no. They do not know Christ, because they do not know the Trinity. Neither do Arian JW's.

However, I do think Rome and the Orthodos are still valid here. It is still done within the context of historic Trinitarian Christianity.

I am not saying Rome does not have idolatrous practices and a misunderstanding of justification. They do have the Trinity though.

How many Presbyterian and Baptist elders have every doctrine perfectly figured out ? ?
 
[quote:c146742fcb]
If this is the case, the bare minimum, then we must also acknowledge the Mormon's and all other cultic groups who claim the name Christian. Are you willing to go that far Mark? And if so, why?
[/quote:c146742fcb]

I would not recognize a Mormon baptism, even if Trinitarian. I think the teaching of the church has a position on this, and the Mormons are not Trinitarian in an orthodox sense. I will say that this raises problems with recognizing a baptism from a congregational background, however. How could you verify that organization's beliefs if they are anti-creedal? or what if they no longer exist - say some flash in the pan house church that existed only for a year or so but succeeded in baptizing someone?
 
[quote:8c57c059b4][i:8c57c059b4]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:8c57c059b4]
How many Presbyterian and Baptist elders have every doctrine perfectly figured out ? ? [/quote:8c57c059b4]

We've been down this road before Mark, but you do of course understand that no one is acknowledging the need for perfection in every (or even the majority of) Christian doctrines. You simply limit it to the Trinity (not even the doctrine of Scripture). I broaden it to include a few more doctrines.
 
So Fred :

Valid baptism entails.

1. Water
2. The name of the Trinity
3. Agreement with the solas.
4. Professing, practicing, disciple of Christ.

On 4 would you limit it to Elders as well ? ?
 
[quote:164a143cd0][i:164a143cd0]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:164a143cd0]
So Fred :

Valid baptism entails.

1. Water
2. The name of the Trinity
3. Agreement with the solas.
4. Professing, practicing, disciple of Christ.

On 4 would you limit it to Elders as well ? ? [/quote:164a143cd0]

How is this not donatism? All Fred has to do now is show how a Roman priest is not a disciple of Christ and that they do not agree with the solas. In my opinion 3, 4 are not qualifications...

Paul
 
[quote:87ff60cb92]
In my opinion 3, 4 are not qualifications...
[/quote:87ff60cb92]

I tend to agree with you.

But lets try to find the [i:87ff60cb92]via media[/i:87ff60cb92] here between Donatism, and [i:87ff60cb92]ex opere operato[/i:87ff60cb92].

You can see the squirt gun analogy is absurd right ? ?
 
Fred:

I am not going to the GA this year, as we have a new born baby. I will probably try and make the GA next year.

BTW, let me clarify a few points of agreement with some things you have said.

[1] As to marrying Catholics, yes I agree with the confession that this is wrong. As an elder, I would intervene if a congregant intended to do this. I would not intervene if the marriage was to another of an orthodox Protestant denomination.

[2] We as presbyterians obviously have alot more in common with orthodox baptists, especially Reformed baptists like Phillip, than we do with Catholics.

[3] While I do acknowledge the validity of Catholic baptisms (as did many reformers), I would not acknowledge the baptisms of people from unorthodox cults. I would acknowledge Catholic baptisms for the same reasons reformers did, which is that they hold the orthodox doctrines as expressed in the Creed and conciliar decisions. This does present practical problems in dealing with people baptized by independents and people from transiet congregations (as it is hard and sometimes impossible to tell what the congregation believed).

[4] I would typically counsel Catholics to leave the Catholic church and join a Reformed church. There are many reasons for this, including that they are not trained in the Word in any meaningful sense. And along with you I would typically be happy if friends or relatives left the Catholic church and joinedn orthodox Protestant church. Still, I don't think that this means that RC is not a church in any sense.

While there are "conservative" Catholic churches in America, in my experience the RC congregations I have encountered are indistiguishable from mainline liberalism.

I also do not judge individual Catholics or congregations by the Catholic Catechism. Many hold different views. In fact, I have a hard time finding anyone who accepts this, except for the EWTN types (I'm sure there are many, but I just don't run accross them). I knew of a priest, for example, who taught justification by faith alone, did not pray to Mary or the saints, and did not have icons in his church. He was a very Protestant Catholic.

Scott
 
[quote:1a9f530e9d]...my experience the RC congregations I have encountered are indistiguishable from mainline liberalism.[/quote:1a9f530e9d]

Can you give some examples? Liberalism can be a broad term.
 
[quote:1107bcdc49][i:1107bcdc49]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:1107bcdc49]
[quote:1107bcdc49]...my experience the RC congregations I have encountered are indistiguishable from mainline liberalism.[/quote:1107bcdc49]

Can you give some examples? Liberalism can be a broad term. [/quote:1107bcdc49]

They do not regard the Bible as the Word of God. They do not acknowledge the authority of the Pope or his infallibility when speaking ex cathedra - an incredible number of American Catholics reject the Pope's dogma re: homosexuality, abortion, etc.

Perhaps the best place to look would be at the websites of those Romanists who are unreconstructed - Scott Hahn, EWTN et al - their disdain for much of American Catholicism is readily apparent.

Should it surprise us? Protestantism went liberal when she gave up her Bible in the late 19th century. Rome gave up her Bible in the 16th.
 
One example would be John Kerry's congregation, which has openly gay couples as members. It has been in the news lately. BTW, half of Massachussetts is Catholic and most its state legislature and judiciary is Catholic and yet it is the first state with a state supreme court decision requiring gay marriage. Catholicism has been nearly impotent there to stop this abomination. It just does not influence people's lives.

Here is an open letter from a traditionalist criticizing the state of the Catholic church:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/index.htm
 
St Augustine would have said valid baptism requires:

1. The application of water

2. The use of Trinitarian language "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holly Ghost."

3. Trinitarian intent.

That is why he believed Novation and Donatist Baptism to be valid but Arian Baptism to be invalid
 
[quote:00d7b8bb93][i:00d7b8bb93]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:00d7b8bb93]
[quote:00d7b8bb93]...my experience the RC congregations I have encountered are indistiguishable from mainline liberalism.[/quote:00d7b8bb93]

Can you give some examples? Liberalism can be a broad term. [/quote:00d7b8bb93]
At the catholic college I went too, I met very few if any Catholics who actually held to the churches dogma. In the two Bible classes I took, both were taught with liberal textbooks and teachers, who denied the divinity of Christ and that Scripture was the Word of God. One teacher was a former nun, the other, a former priest. Both were devout in their attendance upon church services and even prayer, but it was no more than tradition, or perhaps natural religion. Both held Christ to be a great teacher and that's about it. The nun. had no problems claiming that the NT had been revised and polluted by the later church and fully espoused the teachings of the Jesus Seminar. Now, this curriculim had to be approved by some preist higher up in charge of the department, who in turn answered to higher preists in the college. Yet this stuff was taught readily without protest from even the Catholic divinity students I met. Granted, it's only one college, but it was a Jesuit University. Granted this is only anecdotal evidence for you but I'm sure there are others who could testify of this too.
 
[quote:a782e10106][i:a782e10106]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:a782e10106]
[quote:a782e10106][i:a782e10106]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:a782e10106]
[quote:a782e10106]...my experience the RC congregations I have encountered are indistiguishable from mainline liberalism.[/quote:a782e10106]

Can you give some examples? Liberalism can be a broad term. [/quote:a782e10106]
At the catholic college I went too, I met very few if any Catholics who actually held to the churches dogma. In the two Bible classes I took, both were taught with liberal textbooks and teachers, who denied the divinity of Christ and that Scripture was the Word of God. One teacher was a former nun, the other, a former priest. Both were devout in their attendance upon church services and even prayer, but it was no more than tradition, or perhaps natural religion. Both held Christ to be a great teacher and that's about it. The nun. had no problems claiming that the NT had been revised and polluted by the later church and fully espoused the teachings of the Jesus Seminar. Now, this curriculim had to be approved by some preist higher up in charge of the department, who in turn answered to higher preists in the college. Yet this stuff was taught readily without protest from even the Catholic divinity students I met. Granted, it's only one college, but it was a Jesuit University. Granted this is only anecdotal evidence for you but I'm sure there are others who could testify of this too. [/quote:a782e10106]

Eeeeps! It wasn't [i:a782e10106]Roman[/i:a782e10106] Catholic was it?
 
[quote:a39a3f7bad][i:a39a3f7bad]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:a39a3f7bad]
Eeeeps! It wasn't [i:a39a3f7bad]Roman[/i:a39a3f7bad] Catholic was it? [/quote:a39a3f7bad]
Of course it was. It was a Jesuit school.
 
[quote:1439d2bf5c][i:1439d2bf5c]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:1439d2bf5c]
St Augustine would have said valid baptism requires:

1. The application of water

2. The use of Trinitarian language "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holly Ghost."

3. Trinitarian intent.

That is why he believed Novation and Donatist Baptism to be valid but Arian Baptism to be invalid [/quote:1439d2bf5c]
Do you happen to have a source for this view of Augustine?

Also, when we get into the idea of Trinitarian intent, we must then ask, who's trinitarian intent? Do you mean a biblical trinitarian intent? Of just that they are intending to use the trinity no matter what there definition may be of it? And if it's the biblical trinitarian intent, how far are we to allow deviance from the biblical teaching of the Trinity? Should restrict it to only the definition of the person of the Godhead, or also include the work of those persons in our salvation as taught biblically? And on what basis either way? You see, the line is not very negotiable. It seems we must either accept their baptism according to their profession, whether they are consistent with it or not (i.e Papists or Mormons) or we must reject all churches who reject the biblical view of salvation. It seems to me to be coming down to an all or nothing deal the more we discuss this. But, we can't even agree on a standard to judge by yet.

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by puritansailor]
 
[quote:94106d15d8][i:94106d15d8]Originally posted by py3ak[/i:94106d15d8]
Here is an audio clip by Bahnsen on the topic. I got it from James White's site.
http://69.49.233.15/BahnsenBaptism.mp3 [/quote:94106d15d8]

Am I wrong in saying that the Donatists believed certain ministers were corrupt BECAUSE the church they were ministers of was corrupt? How is this not obvious to other people that this is the DONATIST doctrine?

Also, I am getting tired of people saying that the Roman Catholic church is apostate. If they knew the [historic] criteria for apostacy, they would NEVER say that. Am I missing something here?

Paul
 
[quote:a80b0d7880][i:a80b0d7880]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:a80b0d7880]
[quote:a80b0d7880][i:a80b0d7880]Originally posted by py3ak[/i:a80b0d7880]
Here is an audio clip by Bahnsen on the topic. I got it from James White's site.
http://69.49.233.15/BahnsenBaptism.mp3 [/quote:a80b0d7880]

Am I wrong in saying that the Donatists believed certain ministers were corrupt BECAUSE the church they were ministers of was corrupt? How is this not obvious to other people that this is the DONATIST doctrine?

Also, I am getting tired of people saying that the Roman Catholic church is apostate. If they knew the [historic] criteria for apostacy, they would NEVER say that. Am I missing something here?

Paul [/quote:a80b0d7880]

The Roman church IS apostate. It has anathamatized the gospel. It has a gospel that is another gospel, and no gospel at all (Gal. 1). Her mass is idolatry. Her worship is an affront to God. She implicitly and in many cases explicitly denies the uniqueness of Christ, assigning both sinlessness, and participation in the work atonement to Mary. She denies the sufficiency of God's word, adds to God's word, and binds the consciences of men with the commandments of men. Her "Pope" exalts himself into the palce of Christ, and denies that there is one mediator between God and man by having a vicar of Christ (the Pope).

Rome is little better (and much similar) to Pharisaical Judaism. Please read through Owen's Biblical Theology - he points this out in great detail.

Finally, the Donatists believed that certain ministers were unqualified for the office perpetually because of their actions. They believed that because the minister was unqualified, the effect of the sacrament was negated and null and void. It did not have to do with the false nature of the Church. There were not two separate churches. the issue is completely separate and distinct.
 
[quote:14a6038d23]They believed that because the minister was unqualified, the effect of the sacrament was negated and null and void. It did not have to do with the false nature of the Church. There were not two separate churches. the issue is completely separate and distinct.[/quote:14a6038d23]

When I said "Because the churches were corrupt," I meant that obviously if the church was corrupt, the minister of the church was corrupt. However, I definitely realize that they didn't accept baptism from a morally clean church with an unworthy minister. [b:14a6038d23]My intent was to show that it is Donatistic to not accept a baptism just because of the invalidity of the church (which definitely assumes the invalidity of the minister.[/b:14a6038d23])

Not two seperate churches?? I thought the Donatists were out of communion with Rome. This was the first great schism, right?

Paul

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by rembrandt]
 
[quote:6cec4988ff]
Also, I am getting tired of people saying that the Roman Catholic church is apostate. If they knew the [historic] criteria for apostacy, they would NEVER say that. Am I missing something here?
[/quote:6cec4988ff]

Criteria:

Canon 10 "If anyonje says that men are justified without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us, or by that justice are formally just, let him be anathema." Council of Trent, page 43, Canons Concerning Justification

Canon 12 "If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than faith in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is theis confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema."

Rome has declared war on Christ and the Gospel.

Just so we are clear, and there is no abiguity:

The ROMAN CHURCH IS APOSTATE. Anyone who follows the Great Whore will be damned for all eternity and suffer under teh wrath of God Almight for thier blasphemy in overthrowing the Gospel of grace with a man made salvation of meritorious works.

Hoep that is clear. If it is not, let me know.

Apostacy is twofold - 1) it is where one is one the road of heresy, and they must repent or be damned, or 2) they have embraced the heresy and will in fact be damned.

Read John Owen's Apostasy from the Gospel. Short book, concise, easy to follow.
 
[quote:08026ca969][i:08026ca969]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:08026ca969]
Also, I am getting tired of people saying that the Roman Catholic church is apostate. If they knew the [historic] criteria for apostacy, they would NEVER say that. Am I missing something here?
[/quote:08026ca969]
Apparently you are missing something. What if YOUR criteria for apostacy?

And, if you believe that water and the name of the Trinity are only necessary for a valid baptism, then you must accept a Mormon baptism. Is this the case with you?
 
[quote:2c31ee4b5f]Read John Owen's Apostasy from the Gospel. Short book, concise, easy to follow.[/quote:2c31ee4b5f]

I have it. I will read it.

[quote:2c31ee4b5f]Apostacy is twofold - 1) it is where one is one the road of [b:2c31ee4b5f]heresy[/b:2c31ee4b5f], and they must repent or be damned, or 2) they have embraced the [b:2c31ee4b5f]heresy[/b:2c31ee4b5f] and will in fact be damned.[/quote:2c31ee4b5f]

So Matt, do you say that all heresy automatically equals apostacy? Thats what it looks like. Do you consider Arminianism heresy? It looks like they are all damned, then.

Paul
 
[quote:0f27c12b5d]
So Matt, do you say that all heresy automatically equals apostacy?[/quote:0f27c12b5d]

Yes. Heresy will damn you.

[quote:0f27c12b5d]Thats what it looks like. Do you consider Arminianism heresy? It looks like they are all damned, then.
[/quote:0f27c12b5d]

Yes, Classic Arminianism is heresy and it will damn you. It is salvation by works. (Rome is its logical end.)

Synod of Dordt about Arminians:

"the Synod earnestly warns the false accusers themselves to consider how heavy a judgment of God awaits those who give false testimony against so many churches and their confessions, trouble the consciences of the weak, and seek to prejudice the minds of many against the fellowship of true believers."

"on the points associated with it by its very nature and tendency draws the minds of people away from all godliness and religion, is an opiate of the flesh and the devil, and is a stronghold of Satan where he lies in wait for all people, wounds most of them, and fatally pierces many of them with the arrows of both despair and self-assurance..."
 
[quote:d963c89a2d]Yes, Classic Arminianism is heresy and it will damn you. It is salvation by works. (Rome is its logical end.)[/quote:d963c89a2d]

I believe it is heresy too. But do you think they are all going to hell? Is that the logical conclusion of damnation?
 
Make a distinction between "Arminiansm" (as in 1590-1680) and "arminianism" (little "a") today.

Three camps:

The ignorant arminian - he thinks he had something to do with it, but is a baby Christian, just learning new things.

The wrestling arminian - he has seen the bible is in conflict with what he believes, and is wrestling through.

The complacent arminian - who is settled in his doctrine and believes it and defends it and will not consider anything else (Dave Hunt, Norman Geisler, etc.)

The first two certainly have the possibility of being saved. The last one, as they adhere to a false system of works, are damned if they believe it unto death.

Yes, they go to hell for believing a different Gospel.

Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by webmaster]
 
I DEFINITELY agree with your distinctions.

Norman Geisler is not going to heaven? Well I guess that excludes John Wesley. What about all those hymns he wrote? And what about C.S. Lewis?

Paul
 
Balaam prophesied about Christ. Can you imagine being used of God to prophesy about the coming of our Lord?? that woudl be a most excellent thing. However, Balaam was a false prophet, and is in hell.

2 Peter 2:15 They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

Jude 1:11 Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.

Men may be used of God for all sorts of things. That does not necessarily argue their salvation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Herald
  • Locked
Is Roman Catholic baptism valid?
Replies
8
Views
14K
dudley
dudley
M
  • Locked
Is Roman Catholic baptism valid?
Replies
25
Views
5K
Herald
Herald
Jerusalem Blade
  • Locked
Catholic & Eastern Orthodox baptism valid?
2
Replies
34
Views
10K
Jerusalem Blade
Jerusalem Blade
blhowes
  • Locked
Poll: Roman Catholic baptism
2 3 4
Replies
104
Views
15K
VirginiaHuguenot
V
Backwoods Presbyterian
  • Locked
What Baptism is Valid?
2
Replies
41
Views
10K
PuritanCovenanter
PuritanCovenanter
Back
Top