Is the Baptism of a Sect Valid?

(Answer only if you believe RCC baptism valid) Are the baptisms of Sects valid?

  • Yes and the Reformers thought so too

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • No, and the Reformers thought not

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • Yes, even though the Reformers thought not

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • Yes, for Baptists, but the Reformers thought not

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Some sectarian baptisms are valid, and some aren't, and I distinguish between the two along with the

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • The Baptists are an example of a sectarian baptism that the Reformers would consider valid.

    Votes: 1 6.3%

  • Total voters
    16
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Philip,

Been on leave for 2 days with no internet. Thanks for the response. Thanks also to Rev. Winzer. I don't dispute my options might have been poorly worded but I provided a means to interact on those grounds. Notice the very first post had three questions posed:
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?
I honestly did not know what the answer to those questions were. I was trying to find out. I knew that Baptists were considered a Sect but desired to ascertain the validity of their Baptism according to the Reformer's views.

Until you posted, I would note that nobody was clamouring to ask that the poll be edited or even to simply answer the first three questions posed in the Original Post. As it was, over a two day period, I only had 5 answers that the Baptisms of Sects were invalid and that the Reformers thought the same.
 
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.

Nicholas,

I don't doubt the validity of the BC portion but it goes to what constitutes a valid baptism. A Mormon baptism would be, in one sense, a baptism but, in another, not a baptism at all. The question posed dealt with whether or not a sect's baptism is valid or not. If invalid then to perform a Christian baptism would be the first and not the second time that a baptism of an individual occured. The Reformers were concerned (as am I by the way) that a person not be re-baptized. It's enough for me, in the end, to know whose baptism my Church determines valid for discipleship.

I believe Philip's post was helpful but it leads to other questions that I don't have time to ask right now.
 
Until you posted, I would note that nobody was clamouring to ask that the poll be edited or even to simply answer the first three questions posed in the Original Post. As it was, over a two day period, I only had 5 answers that the Baptisms of Sects were invalid and that the Reformers thought the same.

To be fair, no one wanted to ask that the pol be edited until they knew what was being asked.

CT
 
Until you posted, I would note that nobody was clamouring to ask that the poll be edited or even to simply answer the first three questions posed in the Original Post. As it was, over a two day period, I only had 5 answers that the Baptisms of Sects were invalid and that the Reformers thought the same.

To be fair, no one wanted to ask that the pol be edited until they knew what was being asked.

CT

Do you mean something like this?
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?
 
Until you posted, I would note that nobody was clamouring to ask that the poll be edited or even to simply answer the first three questions posed in the Original Post. As it was, over a two day period, I only had 5 answers that the Baptisms of Sects were invalid and that the Reformers thought the same.

To be fair, no one wanted to ask that the pol be edited until they knew what was being asked.

CT

Do you mean something like this?
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?

Yep those are the questions. Sect is such a broad term, that one could answer yes and no to the reformers view of it. It is like asking, "do the scriptures teach that everyone believes in God, yes or no".

I guess next time, no one should ask for clarification but instead should just say, "That poll is horribly worded, do it over again."

CT
 
To be fair, no one wanted to ask that the pol be edited until they knew what was being asked.

CT

Do you mean something like this?
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?

Yep those are the questions. Sect is such a broad term, that one could answer yes and no to the reformers view of it. It is like asking, "do the scriptures teach that everyone believes in God, yes or no".

I guess next time, no one should ask for clarification but instead should just say, "That poll is horribly worded, do it over again."

CT
Works for me. I welcomed the clarification, I merely wondered aloud why more clarification wasn't sought. The original questions were meant to guide the discussion and improvement of the poll as needed. I wasn't offended by Philip's remarks in the least but there was wonderment (shared by that fellow ignorant Reformed guy named Fred Greco) that nobody was weighing in.

The original poll options were poor. I admit it. I don't play tactics with the truth. I did, however, provide an "option" as to whether the baptism of all sects were invalid or some sects (i.e. Baptists were invalid). The question in the OP is still appropriate. It could be expanded to include the types of other sects but I was specifically asking about the validty of Baptist sects.

I'm very impressed by the hindsightedness of your prescience now that others have weighed in. Would you like to explain to me how the questions in the OP were inadequate to spark dialogue given what has transpired? All you have done is repeat the fact that sects are broad? (Question 1 could be answered with a qualifier) But the second question is not so broad (the Reformed admitted that the could so this is very specific). The third question asks for your opinion. In fact, Philip's post answers all 3 questions in the main.
 
Richard: Could you please give me an example of a sect.

Mormons, JWs, Anabaptists...I would not count the RCC as a sect but an apostate church.

NB: One question that needs be asked is are "Reformed Baptists" Anabaptist?

I think we must be careful in defining anyone by the term anabaptist. Perhaps we can just call them 'rebatizers'. Anabaptist(radical reformers) is much broader than just baptism.
 
I was a true Anabaptist when I first got saved. I became a member of a little fellowship in North Charleston, SC. It was an independent holiness Pentecostal church that practiced a low grade communal living (separate domiciles in close proximity), pacifism, political non-activism; the pastor was authoritarian and claimed to be a prophet in the OT sense.

This was a sect in the real sense of the word. It could have easily devolved into a cult. I would accept their baptism because they baptized in the trinitarian formula and adhered to the Apostles' Creed.

RCC is valid.
(JW's and Mormons are cults. Islam is a cult. RCC does not qualify as a cult.)

There are two kinds of sects. Good sects and OK sects.

:2cents:


P.S. The mark of a cult is that it assumes the posture of a family. It takes a good authority structure (covenant household) and transposes it into a 'church'. The RCC doesn't exhibit this.

However, the cult of Islam is marked by honor killings in the household which is their form of church discipline. There seems to be little difference between church discipline and paternal discipline. And incidentally, paedo-communion blurs these distinctions as well (though with less annoyance at city hall).
 
Last edited:
An issue that has not yet been brought up is that of the difference between the BC and the WCF on this point. This is key, as it was only the BC that was cited in the OP. It is also an ongoing debate among the students with whom I was familiar at WSC, as well as the churches from which they have entered their seminary studies. The issue is this - does the WCF hold a broader and more charitable view than the BC on what constitutes a true church (verses a false church/sect/what have you), and if so (and if so correct), are those who hold to the BC language in a strict manner unnecessarily excluding from the body of Christ those whom the Westminster divines would not?

According to the WCF 25.4-5, most modern Baptist churches would be considered true churches who teach and embrace the Gospel, who nevertheless have a corrupted view of the sacraments. This would not make them a sect (as some who hold to the BC would assert), but rather a true church that has within its fold some false practices.

So, assuming that this poll is most directly speaking of baptism coming from anabaptist/baptist churches who, while sectarian in form, yet still proclaim the Gospel, and who have some practice of baptism, communion and public worship that is recognizably Christian, then - yes, I would consider their baptism to be valid.
 
An issue that has not yet been brought up is that of the difference between the BC and the WCF on this point. This is key, as it was only the BC that was cited in the OP. It is also an ongoing debate among the students with whom I was familiar at WSC, as well as the churches from which they have entered their seminary studies. The issue is this - does the WCF hold a broader and more charitable view than the BC on what constitutes a true church (verses a false church/sect/what have you), and if so (and if so correct), are those who hold to the BC language in a strict manner unnecessarily excluding from the body of Christ those whom the Westminster divines would not?

According to the WCF 25.4-5, most modern Baptist churches would be considered true churches who teach and embrace the Gospel, who nevertheless have a corrupted view of the sacraments. This would not make them a sect (as some who hold to the BC would assert), but rather a true church that has within its fold some false practices.

So, assuming that this poll is most directly speaking of baptism coming from anabaptist/baptist churches who, while sectarian in form, yet still proclaim the Gospel, and who have some practice of baptism, communion and public worship that is recognizably Christian, then - yes, I would consider their baptism to be valid.

Interesting. Do you merely suspect this to be the case or is there something in the minutes or something else that makes you believe they were more charitable? My understanding is that Baptists weren't even invited to the assembly. I did note, however, that the WCF didn't use the term but the connection between the BC and the WCF is merely the fact that they're both of the Reformed corpus of Confessions and, generally, the two agree with one another.
 
An issue that has not yet been brought up is that of the difference between the BC and the WCF on this point. This is key, as it was only the BC that was cited in the OP. It is also an ongoing debate among the students with whom I was familiar at WSC, as well as the churches from which they have entered their seminary studies. The issue is this - does the WCF hold a broader and more charitable view than the BC on what constitutes a true church (verses a false church/sect/what have you), and if so (and if so correct), are those who hold to the BC language in a strict manner unnecessarily excluding from the body of Christ those whom the Westminster divines would not?

According to the WCF 25.4-5, most modern Baptist churches would be considered true churches who teach and embrace the Gospel, who nevertheless have a corrupted view of the sacraments. This would not make them a sect (as some who hold to the BC would assert), but rather a true church that has within its fold some false practices.

So, assuming that this poll is most directly speaking of baptism coming from anabaptist/baptist churches who, while sectarian in form, yet still proclaim the Gospel, and who have some practice of baptism, communion and public worship that is recognizably Christian, then - yes, I would consider their baptism to be valid.

Richard Mouw, an ecumenist, notes this difference when evaluating the Roman Catholic Church's claim to be the one true church, and he notes that Kuyper observed this as well.
Mouw’s Musings - The President’s Blog » The “One True Church(es)”
 
An issue that has not yet been brought up is that of the difference between the BC and the WCF on this point. This is key, as it was only the BC that was cited in the OP. It is also an ongoing debate among the students with whom I was familiar at WSC, as well as the churches from which they have entered their seminary studies. The issue is this - does the WCF hold a broader and more charitable view than the BC on what constitutes a true church (verses a false church/sect/what have you), and if so (and if so correct), are those who hold to the BC language in a strict manner unnecessarily excluding from the body of Christ those whom the Westminster divines would not?

According to the WCF 25.4-5, most modern Baptist churches would be considered true churches who teach and embrace the Gospel, who nevertheless have a corrupted view of the sacraments. This would not make them a sect (as some who hold to the BC would assert), but rather a true church that has within its fold some false practices.

So, assuming that this poll is most directly speaking of baptism coming from anabaptist/baptist churches who, while sectarian in form, yet still proclaim the Gospel, and who have some practice of baptism, communion and public worship that is recognizably Christian, then - yes, I would consider their baptism to be valid.

Interesting. Do you merely suspect this to be the case or is there something in the minutes or something else that makes you believe they were more charitable? My understanding is that Baptists weren't even invited to the assembly. I did note, however, that the WCF didn't use the term but the connection between the BC and the WCF is merely the fact that they're both of the Reformed corpus of Confessions and, generally, the two agree with one another.

Hey Rich, glad to engage you in discussion again! :D

I don't know the history of the Assembly's relationship to the Baptist churches of the day, but I suspect that even if the Baptists remained uninvited there may be more to the issue than the ministers' views alone. The Westminster Assembly was called by the civil government to draw up a unified religious confession for the realm, and it is possible that the civil government had standards that excluded the Baptists, except for which the divines would have extended invitation. That's just a guess, though. What is not a guess is that the Scottish church sent delegates to the Assembly, but refused to have them actually sit as members of the Assembly. So, one could ask if the Scottish kirk was a sect, or viewed the Westminster Presbyterians as a sect! Of course, this is silly, but it does illustrate that one's inclusion or absence from the Assembly may not say as much about their status as we would initially think.

However, even if the Westminster divines did hold that the Baptists were sectarian, it would make no difference to me. What we hold to is what is written in the confession, and the definition of the church in 25.4-5 would necessarily include Baptist churches as true churches. If the divines thought otherwise, they were at that point contradicting their own given definition in the confession as to what constitutes a true church.
 
It's not so much a line item definition of a sect but it does express well the "fruit" or signature character of any given sect. It focuses well on the "spirit" behind a sect. Personally, I like it best of all.

"Patience is one of the things that distinguishes the Church from the sect. The sect must have everything at once. It cannot wait, because it has no future. The Church can wait, because it has a future."

-Hermann Sasse
 
It's not so much a line item definition of a sect but it does express well the "fruit" or signature character of any given sect. It focuses well on the "spirit" behind a sect. Personally, I like it best of all.

"Patience is one of the things that distinguishes the Church from the sect. The sect must have everything at once. It cannot wait, because it has no future. The Church can wait, because it has a future."

-Hermann Sasse

That's brilliant!
 
Only 13 people have voted on this poll, yet 41 PBers voted that they believe RCC baptism to be valid on that other poll. Have the rest been convinced otherwise by the arguments posted on this thread?:think:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top