Is the Baptism of a Sect Valid?

[Semper Fidelis]

***POLL EDITED 9/26/07***

I want answers to the Poll from those only who believe RCC baptism is valid.

The Belgic Confession distinguishes a Sect from a true Church.

1. Did the Reformers believe that the baptism of a sect constituted a valid baptism?
2. Did the Reformers consider Baptists to be a sect?
3. Do you belive the baptism of sects are valid?

The poll allows for multiple selections.

 

[AV1611]

I voted "No"

 

[Amazing Grace]

I want answers to the Poll from those only who believe RCC baptism is valid.

The Belgic Confession distinguishes a Sect from a true Church.

1. Did the Reformers believe that the baptism of a sect constituted a valid baptism?
2. Did the Reformers consider Baptists to be a sect?
3. Do you belive the baptism of sects are valid?

The poll allows for multiple selections.

Richard: Could you please give me an example of a sect.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I guess my baptism may be invalid according to the 3 voters so far. Good thing my faith isn't invalid before God.

Therefore having been justified by faith we have peace with God...

 

[calgal]

I want answers to the Poll from those only who believe RCC baptism is valid.

The Belgic Confession distinguishes a Sect from a true Church.

1. Did the Reformers believe that the baptism of a sect constituted a valid baptism?
2. Did the Reformers consider Baptists to be a sect?
3. Do you belive the baptism of sects are valid?

The poll allows for multiple selections.

Richard: Could you please give me an example of a sect.

Rich:

Do you mean mormons and jw's or anabaptists, Catholics and EO's? Thanks!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I mean by the word, Sect, what the early Reformers and Divines meant by it. The Baptists were not invited to the Westminster Assembly. Baptists were considered a sect by these men.

I want to know if the Reformers and the voters consider the baptism of a Sect, as defined by the Reformers, is valid. I also gave a place for members to except themselves from their views.

 

[Amazing Grace]

I mean by the word, Sect, what the early Reformers and Divines meant by it. The Baptists were not invited to the Westminster Assembly. Baptists were considered a sect by these men.

I want to know if the Reformers and the voters consider the baptism of a Sect, as defined by the Reformers, is valid. I also gave a place for members to except themselves from their views.

So there is no way we can get a list as examples? Or are you only speaking of Baptists? Calvin Called Islam a sect. Waldenses, Albigenses, Cathari are more examples.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Nicholas,

I don't see this as very hard to understand. I gave sufficient example and sufficient exception in the choices.

The Reformers, per my understanding, considered the Baptists a sect. Whether they considered Muslims and others a sect is immaterial if all sects, in their view, had invalid baptisms. Of course, Muslims don't baptize so that's a poor example.

Thus, either:

1. You agree with the Reformers and the Divines that the Baptisms of all sects are invalid or
2. You disagree with them that the Baptisms of all sects are invalid by excepting that you believe the baptism of some sects are valid or
3. You disagree with them that some groups that they considered sects are actually part of the visible Church.

I might be missing an option but I'm not certain why you feel the question is unclear.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I am not sure what the reformers thought. Since the Particular Baptists have their roots in the Reformers and not in the Anabaptists, I would be very interested in knowing what the Reformers thought about the Congregationalists and Particular Baptists around the time of the confessions. There still was a lot of persecution around that time.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I am not sure what the reformers thought. Since the Particular Baptists have their roots in the Reformers and not in the Anabaptists, I would be very interested in knowing what the Reformers thought about the Congregationalists and Particular Baptists around the time of the confessions. There still was a lot of persecution around that time.

I'm really guessing here but are not the English Calvinistic Baptists considered among the English Separatists, which would include the Paedobaptist Independents? I would be surprised if the generality of the establishment men, Scots or English, would have said rebaptism was necessary. I'm turning in and this is all I've had a chance to check in my copy and on Google: John Dick, Scottish united associate minister, in his lectures on theology first published in 1834, has some thoughts in one page here (Google PDF; not going to retype it).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I am not sure what the reformers thought. Since the Particular Baptists have their roots in the Reformers and not in the Anabaptists, I would be very interested in knowing what the Reformers thought about the Congregationalists and Particular Baptists around the time of the confessions. There still was a lot of persecution around that time.

I'm really guessing here but are not the English Calvinistic Baptists considered among the English Separatists, which would include the Paedobaptist Independents? I would be surprised if the generality of the establishment men, Scots or English, would have said rebaptism was necessary. I'm turning in and this is all I've had a chance to check in my copy and on Google: John Dick, Scottish united associate minister, in his lectures on theology first published in 1834, has some thoughts in one page here (Google PDF; not going to retype it).

That would be interesting to find out if they at least considered the English Calvinist Baptists a Church and not a sect. If so, what about non-Calvinistic Baptists?

I'm trying to nail something down here. It should not be too oblique what I'm driving at given another thread on the same subject.

I find it fascinating how clear it is that RCC Baptism is valid but how unclear it is whether or not the Baptism of a Baptist is valid.

I do wish that the folks who are so vocal in sustaining the validity of RCC Baptisms would be likewise vocal in sustaining the validity/invalidity of the Baptism of Baptists and whether they are a sect or no.

 

[Calvibaptist]

You'd better watch out Rich. People might start to think you are actually reading those Dispensational books we gave you!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

You'd better watch out Rich. People might start to think you are actually reading those Dispensational books we gave you!

 

[MW]

John Dick, Scottish united associate minister, in his lectures on theology first published in 1834, has some thoughts in one page here (Google PDF; not going to retype it).

Here is the text for future reference.

There is a more intricate question respecting baptism by heretics, which gave rise to a keen controversy in the primitive church. Doubts of its validity had been for some time entertained; but, in the third century, the Christians in Asia came to a decision, in more than one Council, that all heretics should be re-baptized before their admission into the communion of the Catholic Church. Stephen, who was then bishop of Rome, was filled with indignation, and proceeded to ex-communicate the Asiatics; but their cause was espoused by Cyprian and the other bishops of Africa, who, in defiance of the threatening of Stephen, pronounced baptism administered by heretics to be void of all efficacy and validity. It was finally determined by the Council of Nice, that those who had been baptized by heretics, should be received into the church simply by the imposition of hands; with the exception of the followers of Paul of Samosata, whom the Council commanded to be re-baptized, because his sect did not acknowledge the Trinity. Those who maintained the invalidity of the baptism of heretics, comprehended under this denomination all the sects which had separated from the great body of Christians; for the character was applied in those times with great latitude, and was sometimes given to worthy persons, who opposed prevailing errors and superstitions. The decree of the Council gave a sanction to the baptism of all the different societies of professed Christians, and excepted those alone by whom the ordinance was essentially corrupted. Some are said to have baptized "in the name of the uncreated God, and in the name of the created Son, and in the name of the sanctifying Spirit, who was created by the created Son;" others, "in the name of the Father the only true God, of Jesus Christ the Saviour and a creature, and of the Holy Ghost the servant of both;" and others, "in the name of the Father, by the Son, and in the Holy Ghost."

It is evident that baptism administered in such forms, is not Christian baptism. It is essentially defective, because it sets aside the doctrine of the Trinity, into the profession of which our Lord commanded his disciples to be baptized. There is, however, considerable difficulty in settling the general question respecting the validity of baptism. Where the form is exactly observed, may it not be vitiated by the administrator, although he bear the character of a minister of Christ? Is every man to be recognized as a minister of Christ, having authority to officiate in his name, who is called such? the man who errs in the fundamental doctrines of religion, the man who holds the Trinity, but is guilty of idolatry, and is tainted with all the pollutions of the Romish Church? It seems to be generally agreed not to scrutinize this matter too minutely, and to admit baptism administered by any person who holds the office of the ministry in the church to which he belongs, and who observes the form prescribed by our Saviour, although it may be encumbered with superstitious rites.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thanks for quoting that Rev. Winzer. Now, as to your thoughts:

1. Is the baptism of sects valid given the above?
2. More specifically, are Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic varieties of Baptists considered sects historically and do you consider the baptisms in such "Churches" (if you believe they are) to be valid?

I'm not sure why people cannot simply answer these questions plainly. When the question is asked about Roman Catholic baptisms the answers are very plain. Yet, here we are with a group of LBCF subscribers and I want to know if the Presbyterians who are willing to grant validity to an RCC baptism can unequivocally grant the validity of Baptism conducted by a Baptist minister, whether you believe they are in the visible Church or merely a sect, etc. I would also like to know if the Reformers believed that the baptism of a non-Calvinistic Baptist who was otherwise practicing Trinitarian baptism would have considered it valid or no.

 

[fredtgreco]

Thanks for quoting that Rev. Winzer. Now, as to your thoughts:

1. Is the baptism of sects valid given the above?
2. More specifically, are Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic varieties of Baptists considered sects historically and do you consider the baptisms in such "Churches" (if you believe they are) to be valid?

I'm not sure why people cannot simply answer these questions plainly. When the question is asked about Roman Catholic baptisms the answers are very plain. Yet, here we are with a group of LBCF subscribers and I want to know if the Presbyterians who are willing to grant validity to an RCC baptism can unequivocally grant the validity of Baptism conducted by a Baptist minister, whether you believe they are in the visible Church or merely a sect, etc. I would also like to know if the Reformers believed that the baptism of a non-Calvinistic Baptist who was otherwise practicing Trinitarian baptism would have considered it valid or no.

chirp...chirp...

 

[thekingsknight]

Hi, Rich!
Don't whether this will help or add more confusion.

English Dissenters: Baptists

 

[Herald]

I don't have a dog in this hunt since I am not qualified to answer the poll question. But I join with Rich in wanting to see some plain answers. Come on people. Say what you are dying to say. Spit it out. It's not like any of us Baptists are going to cry in our Wheaties if you say you don't hold our baptism as valid.

 

[Herald]

I don't have a dog in this hunt since I am not qualified to answer the poll question. But I join with Rich in wanting to see some plain answers. Come on people. Say what you are dying to say. Spit it out. It's not like any of us Baptists are going to cry in our Wheaties if you say you don't hold our baptism as valid.

btw - the answer to this question has some tentacles. If Baptist baptism is not valid, is it inconsistent that Baptists be allowed to be members of the PB or serve as moderators? Think about your answer. Wouldn't we be in disobedience to the clear teaching of scripture? And know this, if someone asks me about the proper mode, administration, and significance of baptism I am going to speak my conscience on the matter. Maybe this is cause for a different thread.

 

[tellville]

I don't have a dog in this hunt since I am not qualified to answer the poll question. But I join with Rich in wanting to see some plain answers. Come on people. Say what you are dying to say. Spit it out. It's not like any of us Baptists are going to cry in our Wheaties if you say you don't hold our baptism as valid.

btw - the answer to this question has some tentacles. If Baptist baptism is not valid, is it inconsistent that Baptists be allowed to be members of the PB or serve as moderators? Think about your answer. Wouldn't we be in disobedience to the clear teaching of scripture? And know this, if someone asks me about the proper mode, administration, and significance of baptism I am going to speak my conscience on the matter. Maybe this is cause for a different thread.

I thought the point of this thread was to draw out these very points.

 

[Herald]

I don't have a dog in this hunt since I am not qualified to answer the poll question. But I join with Rich in wanting to see some plain answers. Come on people. Say what you are dying to say. Spit it out. It's not like any of us Baptists are going to cry in our Wheaties if you say you don't hold our baptism as valid.

btw - the answer to this question has some tentacles. If Baptist baptism is not valid, is it inconsistent that Baptists be allowed to be members of the PB or serve as moderators? Think about your answer. Wouldn't we be in disobedience to the clear teaching of scripture? And know this, if someone asks me about the proper mode, administration, and significance of baptism I am going to speak my conscience on the matter. Maybe this is cause for a different thread.

I thought the point of this thread was to draw out these very points.

Mark - I'm not sure. So far there seems to be a careful dance going on.

 

[tellville]

btw - the answer to this question has some tentacles. If Baptist baptism is not valid, is it inconsistent that Baptists be allowed to be members of the PB or serve as moderators? Think about your answer. Wouldn't we be in disobedience to the clear teaching of scripture? And know this, if someone asks me about the proper mode, administration, and significance of baptism I am going to speak my conscience on the matter. Maybe this is cause for a different thread.

I thought the point of this thread was to draw out these very points.

Mark - I'm not sure. So far there seems to be a careful dance going on.

Which is why as Baptist's we stay well clear of dancing!

 

[Pilgrim]

Calvin's wife was raised by an anabaptist family and was not rebaptized.

 

[Timothy William]

I voted "yes, even though the Reformers thought not" though I am not well qualified to say what the Reformers thought. It is a hard one to give my reasons on, as the idea that a Baptist's baptism would not be valid had never before seriously entered my head, so I did not know the arguments in favour of that view well enough to say why I did not find them convincing. As said above, the Trinitarian nature of the Baptism seems to be the key.

Tangent: I do know a man who, on converting from Anglo-Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy decided that his prior baptism was not valid due to the addition of the filioque to the Nicean creed making his CofE baptism not properly Trinitarian, as in his view the Western church had an incompatible view of the Trinity. I wouldn't think this would be an issue with a convert from EO, however, but perhaps it would be.

 

[MW]

Thanks for quoting that Rev. Winzer. Now, as to your thoughts:

1. Is the baptism of sects valid given the above?
2. More specifically, are Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic varieties of Baptists considered sects historically and do you consider the baptisms in such "Churches" (if you believe they are) to be valid?

I thought my RCC comparisons with fundie baptists in the other thread made it evident that I consider such baptisms valid. As to whether Baptists are a sect, I suppose I would stop at saying their view of the church is sectarian, and leave it at that.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Found this in James Durham. I am presuming he would be representative of the Scots Presbyterian view, that would side with Stephen over Cyprian.

(2.) It is when men too vehemently press such a thing, as if the contrary
thereof, or those who maintain the same, were intolerable, and so in a fiery
violent way seek to beat down that which is indeed an error, though of
infirmity. It is marked by some that write church history, and Augustine is
of that same mind, that Stephen, Bishop of Rome, did more hurt to the
church by his too vehement opposing of Cyprian‘s error (which was that
those that were baptized by heretics, or schismatics, ought again to be
baptized), because he thereby hazarded the dividing and renting of the
church by refusing communion with such as were against him, than
Cyprian did in his maintaining of his error, because though it was still his
opinion, he meekly and condescendingly carried in it, with respect to the
unity of the church. Treatise Concerning Scandal (Naphtali Press, 1990: 4.2.237).

 

[Amazing Grace]

Nicholas,

I don't see this as very hard to understand. I gave sufficient example and sufficient exception in the choices.

The Reformers, per my understanding, considered the Baptists a sect. Whether they considered Muslims and others a sect is immaterial if all sects, in their view, had invalid baptisms. Of course, Muslims don't baptize so that's a poor example.

Thus, either:

1. You agree with the Reformers and the Divines that the Baptisms of all sects are invalid or
2. You disagree with them that the Baptisms of all sects are invalid by excepting that you believe the baptism of some sects are valid or
3. You disagree with them that some groups that they considered sects are actually part of the visible Church.

I might be missing an option but I'm not certain why you feel the question is unclear.

Then I will answer YES to #2 and #3 above. With the qualification that form, intent and matter are consistant with the early church liturgy of the 'rite'.

As a note, it was not my lack of understanding, but the clarity of the question formed. You directed us to the Belgic Confession, which was written in 1561 specifically to exhonerate the charge of of being rebels against Spain. Then included the word 'Divines' in there which makes me think of the WCF. In my limited understanding of every minutia in that specific time the BC was written, baptism/rebaptism of sects was not a hill to die on. But I may be wrong

Article 34 of the BC:

For this reason we believe that anyone who aspires to reach eternal life ought to be baptized only once without ever repeating it-- for we cannot be born twice. Yet this baptism is profitable not only when the water is on us and when we receive it but throughout our entire lives.

For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children.

 

[Philip A]

I'm not sure why people cannot simply answer these questions plainly. When the question is asked about Roman Catholic baptisms the answers are very plain.

The hesitation, at least on my part, isn’t any reluctance to affirm the validity of the baptism of Baptists. I hesitated because the question, honestly, is poorly asked. If you’d have asked simply if the baptism of Baptists, or Pentecostals, or Calvary Chapel was valid, I’d have been able to affirm it immediately. When my wife and I joined the URC, my Lutheran baptism, her Roman Catholic baptism, and our friend’s Holiness Pentecostal baptism were all considered equally valid.

When you ask if the baptism of a sect is valid, the question is unanswerable, because you’ve not distinguished between sects. Note that Turretin answers the question of the validity of baptism by heretics with his “we distinguish”, and goes on to say that to answer the question, we must distinguish between heretics. He gives the example that the baptism of the Arminians is valid, but the baptism of the Socinians is not.

Additionally, when you ask us if we consider the baptism of a sect to be valid, you also ask us to weigh in on whether the Reformers considered it valid, too. Now there is far too much spurious citing of the Reformers, both here on the PB and in the Church at large, for me to be comfortable pronouncing from the hip whether or not they did. If you want a thoughtful answer, you’ve got to give us time to do the research.

Having said all that, I still can’t answer your poll question , because I don’t see an answer stating:

Some sectarian baptisms are valid, and some aren't, and I distinguish between the two along with the Reformers.

 

[Pilgrim]

I'm not sure why people cannot simply answer these questions plainly. When the question is asked about Roman Catholic baptisms the answers are very plain.

The hesitation, at least on my part, isn’t any reluctance to affirm the validity of the baptism of Baptists. I hesitated because the question, honestly, is poorly asked. If you’d have asked simply if the baptism of Baptists, or Pentecostals, or Calvary Chapel was valid, I’d have been able to affirm it immediately. When my wife and I joined the URC, my Lutheran baptism, her Roman Catholic baptism, and our friend’s Holiness Pentecostal baptism were all considered equally valid.

When you ask if the baptism of a sect is valid, the question is unanswerable, because you’ve not distinguished between sects. Note that Turretin answers the question of the validity of baptism by heretics with his “we distinguish”, and goes on to say that to answer the question, we must distinguish between heretics. He gives the example that the baptism of the Arminians is valid, but the baptism of the Socinians is not.

Additionally, when you ask us if we consider the baptism of a sect to be valid, you also ask us to weigh in on whether the Reformers considered it valid, too. Now there is far too much spurious citing of the Reformers, both here on the PB and in the Church at large, for me to be comfortable pronouncing from the hip whether or not they did. If you want a thoughtful answer, you’ve got to give us time to do the research.

Having said all that, I still can’t answer your poll question , because I don’t see an answer stating:

Some sectarian baptisms are valid, and some aren't, and I distinguish between the two along with the Reformers.

It depends on the sect. My understanding is that if the baptism was trinitarian the Reformers accepted it but that they rejected baptism by Socinians and others who did not have an orthodox view of the trinity.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Richard:

Is this the end of the thread?