Poll: Roman Catholic baptism

[blhowes]

If a person is baptized as an infant in a catholic church, does your church consider it to be a valid baptism?

I'd be interesting in hearing discussion, pro or con, why the catholic baptism should or shouldn't be considered valid. As I mentioned in another thread, I would have a hard time believing that a pope (who in some confessions he or his office are considered the antiChrist) could baptize the infant of an unsaved person and the baptism be considered valid.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Voted Presbyterian and valid.

 

[Bryan]

I myself have never understood how they can be viewed as valid. You have an apostate church administering the covenant sign? It just doesn't make sense.

Bryan
SDG

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Bryan
I myself have never understood how they can be viewed as valid. You have an apostate church administering the covenant sign? It just doesn't make sense.

Bryan
SDG

I agree with this assessment

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
Voted Presbyterian and valid.

Do you agree that its valid? Why or why not?

Question for you or anybody...

Chapter 25, section 5, of the Westminster says:

V. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.

I assume here that they're talking about the catholic church, as an example. If a church has so degenerated, do they still retain the authority, as a synagogue of Satan, to baptize in the name of the trinity?

 

[fredtgreco]

Paedo and no.

This is one that Calvin was wrong on. His comments on the Mass are in clear contradiction to his comments on Romish baptism.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Paedo and no.

This is one that Calvin was wrong on. His comments on the Mass are in clear contradiction to his comments on Romish baptism.

Fred,
Was Calvin referring to Roman Catholic baptisms that were done prior to their apostasy?

Bob,
When the WCF aludes to 'churches', I believe they are refering to churches that are compatable w/ those whom subscribe to the WCF.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Bob,
When the WCF aludes to 'churches', I believe they are refering to churches that are compatable w/ those whom subscribe to the WCF.

Oh, I just assumed that since the next section talks about the pope that it was referring to the catholic church.

BTW, when the confession was written, had some reformed churches already deteriorated to such an extent that they'd be considered the synagogue of Satan?

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by blhowes]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

During the Reformation, before Rome was excommunicated from the Reformed Church and demonstrated their apsotasy (see Trent) their baptism was valid since it was accomplished 1) by a lawfully ordained officer in the church, and 2) that it was Trinitarian. After, that, though, it would be impossible to fulfill #1. If a church is not considered a true church, then #1 is moot.

"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."

Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 4:1; 11:20, 23; Eph. 4:11-12

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Paedo and no.

This is one that Calvin was wrong on. His comments on the Mass are in clear contradiction to his comments on Romish baptism.

I'm inclined to agree with Fred on this. I don't think Calvin was consistent here. I think the following quotes from him yield some light on his discomfort with Roman Catholic baptism...

In this first quote, Calvin calls into question the legitimacy of Roman priests to administer the sacraments...

John Calvin: If those who profess to return to the right way feel hurt by these requirements, they are greatly mistaken. For it is impossible to accept them as Christian pastors if they have not renounced the papal priesthood in which they were ordained to sacrifice Jesus Christ, which is a blasphemy worthy of the highest detestation. In addition, they must solemnly promise to abstain henceforth from all superstitions and pollutions which are repugnant to the simplicity of the gospel. For how can they administer the Holy Supper unless they have separated from the abominations of the Mass? Moreover, they cannot be ministers of baptism unless they have rejected the confusions by which it has been corrupted. In sum, the church cannot accept them as pastors if they do not feel obliged to do their duty. Letter for Bishops and priests of the Papacy. John Calvin, Calvin´s Ecclesiastical Advice, trans. Mary Beaty and Benjamin W. Farley (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), p. 59.

In this quote, Calvin is addressing the question of baptism being administered by laymen, but expresses his sentiment that such things are to be tolerated in a non-reformed (unrestored) church...

John Calvin: This knotty problem cannot be resolved without sacrilege. There is, in addition, the apostle´s opinion: "œAnd no man takes this honor unto himself except the one who is called of God" [Heb. 5:4]. We think, therefore, that a baptism performed by a layman is spurious; this temerity would not be tolerated in a properly established church. Because this has happened in your midst at an early stage, however, before the church´s order was restored and when circumstances were still confused, the error should be forgiven and the baptism (of whatever sort it is) should be tolerated.
This baptism, performed improperly and only once, should not serve as an example. God condones many things in a fragmented church that it would be wrong to allow in a well-ordered church. In former times, when religion was corrupt, circumcision was undoubtedly involved in many faults and corruptions, but we have read that it was not revoked when the people were recalled to a pure worship. It is not necessary, therefore, or even useful to investigate all the circumstances anxiously; this would produce countless worries. What God forgave under the papacy we should also lay to rest. Letter on Baptism Administered Improperly. John Calvin, Calvin´s Ecclesiastical Advice, trans. Mary Beaty and Benjamin W. Farley (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), p. 98.

And in this quote, Calvin states specifically that a parent should not have his/her child baptized in a papal church...

John Calvin: The same principle ought to prevail in the case of baptism. Even if imminent danger is threatening, it still is not permitted to do what God clearly disapproves. We know that baptism in the papacy has been corrupted by many base elements and almost adulterated. If fear were a factor, all the pious would readily agree that it is wrong for parents to bring their infant children to a sinful baptism. It is superficial to seize upon danger as an excuse, as if the baptism itself could change its nature because of that. We know that bearing witness to piety is more precious before God than for piety to yield to threats and fears, at least when fear forces us to a pretense that is a tacit approval of impieties. We grieve with our pious brothers out of affection, but it is not up to us to free them from God´s incontestable law. The Hebrew women in Egypt long ago did not hesitate to put their own lives at risk to save others´ infants [Ex. 1:17]; it is shameful for parents to be so fearful that they defile the souls of their own babies, to the extent that they can. Letter On Certain Controversies Among the Pious Brothers. John Calvin, Calvin´s Ecclesiastical Advice, trans. Mary Beaty and Benjamin W. Farley (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), p. 118.

Now, it is true that Calvin accepted Roman baptisms in his day as valid, and I think his reason for doing so then was due to the fact that the Church was in a state of being restored. I don't think he would view their baptisms as valid in our day. But in all honesty, I am engaging in sheer speculation, and my posture toward my brethren who disagree with me is, I trust, charitable, and accepting.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by webmaster
During the Reformation, before Rome was excommunicated from the Reformed Church and demonstrated their apsotasy (see Trent) their baptism was valid since it was accomplished 1) by a lawfully ordained officer in the church, and 2) that it was Trinitarian. After, that, though, it would be impossible to fulfill #1. If a church is not considered a true church, then #1 is moot.

What does this say for my Bible Church baptism?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

{MODERATE}

I understand your question, but this thread is about RC baptism and its validity today. Let's stay on course.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Post-Trent, no way. Never. Their heresies are "irreformable," according to them.

 

[RamistThomist]

Can a Baptist actually hold that Rome's baptisms count? I understand--even if I might not agree with it--some paedos saying that, but can Baptists logically hold that?

 

[biblelighthouse]

This is one issue where I definitely agree with the Reformers. I hold to the same belief as Calvin, Luther, etc. I believe Roman Catholic baptisms certainly are valid.

A friend of mine wrote a paper on lay-baptism, which of course is not the theme of our current discussion. However, many of his quotes, comments, and insights apply to the present question at hand: Are Roman Catholic baptisms valid?

(Please note, I am NOT advocating that RC baptisms are preferred. Neither am I suggesting that laypeople are supposed to administer baptisms. I am simply discussing whether a RC baptism is at least valid.)

Please consider the following excerpt from my friend's excellent paper. I have added emphasis at places, by putting some of his statements in boldface type:





To the testimony of Ambrose, we can add Augustine, the greatest of the Latin fathers. Speaking of the usurpation of church office by a layman administering baptism, he says,

"œThough it be usurped without necessity, and given by any man to another, that which is given cannot be said not to be given, though it may be truly said to be unlawfully given"¦No devout soldier ever violates the royal stamp, though it be usurped by a private men: for though some by stealth and in a clandestine way set the royal stamp, not to the public money, but their own; yet the money so stamped, when they are either punished or pardoned for their offense, having the royal standard upon it, it is not defaced, but through into the king´s treasury."

This comment needs little commentary, but there is one highlight to make. The analogy of the royal seal will be important when we discuss the views of John Calvin. To the testimony of Augustine can be added that of local and ecumenical councils. This is an important argument. When the councils of Arles, Nicea, or Constantinople pronounced an anathema on heretics such as Arius or Nestorius, they also deposed these men of their ecclesiastical office. This is very clear in their disciplinary cannons. However, they still accepted baptisms performed within any heretical sect which used water and the Trinitarian formula. So, for instance, the council of Arles accepts the baptism of Arians, but not that of sects which did not use the Trinitarian formula. But, if their baptisms were accepted, and they were deposed of office, the church essentially accepted the baptism of laymen. This is especially true when one considers that officers ordained in the ranks of deposed heretics were not always required to be re-ordained. Finally, I adduce the testimony of Thomas Aquinas, who says, "œConsequently, if a layman were to baptize even outside a case of urgency, he would sin, yet he would confer the sacrament, nor would the person thus baptized have to be baptized again." This needs no comment.

It is often assumed that the early church accepted lay baptism because the early church believed in baptismal regeneration. Not only is this a little anachronistic (In that such concepts were defined differently in earlier eras), it also does not make any sense. A belief in baptismal regeneration does not necessitate the acceptance of lay baptism anymore than it necessitates the acceptance of a baptism by a heretic, a baptism without water, or a baptism not performed in the Trinitarian name. The only way this argument could work is if the early church position was only concerned with "œemergency baptism," but it clearly goes beyond this. Nor can we simply reduce the position of the early church to superstition. (I.e. They believed that correct formula made baptism) Modern Presbyterians don´t believe anything else, they just add one more ingredient to the formula, as Hodge indicated. Furthermore, it would be somewhat strange to stake one´s trust in the opinions of the Westminster divines while not considering the opinion of those who framed Nicea and Constantinople.
Let us now consider the precedent laid for us in the writings of the magisterial Reformers. Who better to begin with than Martin Luther;

"œSuppose a group of earnest Christian laymen were taken prisoner and set down in a desert without an episcopally ordained priest among them. And suppose they were to come to a common mind there and then in the desert and elect one of their number"¦and charge him to baptize, say mass, pronounce absolution, and preach the gospel. Such a man would be as truly a priest as though he had been ordained by all the bishops and popes in the world. This is why in cases of necessity anyone can baptize and give absolution. This would be impossible if we were not all priests."

What is important here? Luther sees episcopal office as representative of a priesthood shared by the Christian community. This is especially indicated by the end, where he says that laymen would never be able to baptize unless all were priests. Obviously, he sees ministerial administration of sacraments as regular, but it is clear that he would not condemn the validity of lay baptism in principle. It is also quite clear that the Lutheran confessional tradition, including the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, has accepted lay baptism as valid, though not regular. Luther is quoted by one of the founding members of the LCMS as saying,

"œWe hold fast to this, that there is no other Word of God save that only which all Christians are commanded to proclaim, and there is no other baptism than the one which all Christians can give; that there is no other remembrance of the Supper of the Lord than that which every Christian may celebrate."

The opinion of John Calvin is very hard to nail down on this issue. Most authors (Including Ronald Wallace I believe) argue that he would have accepted a lay baptism. I have received correspondence on this particular topic from Francis Nigel Lee, who has perhaps written more than any other person of Calvin´s view of rebaptism. He believes Calvin would have accepted a lay-baptism.
The reason Calvin´s view is so hard to nail down is that he seems to never directly address the issue. He is clearer than any Reformer that lay baptism is wrong. Do not be mistaken. Calvin believed that baptism performed by a layman was a tremendous sin. He self-consciously disagrees with those father´s such as Augustine and Tertullian who were shaky on the issue. Under no circumstance is baptism, for Calvin, to be administered by a layman. But this is a far cry from saying that baptism by a layman is null or invalid. (Remember Hodge´s distinction) The only quotation I have been able to find where Calvin considers lay baptism "œnull," I have not been able to locate in primary sources, and the quotation also has Calvin recognizing lay baptisms in certain church-historical situations.
There are two things to take note of: Calvin´s theology of baptism, and his specific statements on the administration of baptism. But before I go on, I need to anticipate an objection. It is often assumed that in the following quotes, Calvin merely uses strong hyperbole to make a point. It is assumed that he merely speaks of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism by using strong language. While I could picture this in Luther, Calvin is very precise in his words and analogies. Many of his analogies are an argument from the greater to the lesser. Many do not even appear in a context discussing Roman Catholic baptism. I say this up front, so that these quotations are taken on their own merit.
First, Calvin´s theology of baptism is demonstrated in his Institutes, when he says,

"œNow, suppose what we have determined is true - that a sacrament must not be judged by the hand of the one by whom it is ministered, but as if it were from the very hand of God, from which it doubtless has come. From this we may then infer that nothing is added to it or taken from it by the worth of him by whose hand it is administered. Among men, if a letter is sent, provided the handwriting and seal are sufficiently recognized, it makes no different who or of what sort the carrier is. In like manner, it ought to be enough for us to recognize the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, whatever carrier may bring them."

We need to pay very close attention to precisely what Calvin is arguing. First, notice he uses a similar image to that of Augustine, who uses it to vindicate the validity of lay baptism. It is true that Calvin is discussing this in the context of the validity of Roman baptism, but his analogy speaks of the minister as only the "œdelivery boy" and the sacrament as the "œletter itself." The sacrament is analogously separated from the minister. Consequently, it would be safe to infer that Calvin, even while opposing lay baptism, would recognize in such a baptism the seal of the Lord, no matter "œof what sort character" the "œcarrier may bring." But we do not infer his sacramental theology from this quote alone. Calvin, when he comments on Exodus 4:25, discusses the often-used example of Zipporah. Those who argue for the propriety of lay baptism often adduce her as an example of a non-priest in the Old Testament who administered a sacrament. Calvin comments on the event,

"œCertainly the child was not duly circumcised; and still it is plain from the event, that the ceremony thus rashly performed pleased God; for it is immediately added, that "˜He let him go.´ For thus I interpret, that the scourge of God ceased or was removed, because he was pacified by the repentance both of Moses and of Zipporah, although it was improper in itself."

This is an important passage, because it shows that Calvin made a distinction between a proper administration of sacraments and the actual performance of them. He is clear that God was pleased by the act. Calvin discusses this passage in two other places. (In his Institutes and in his Appendix to the Tract on Reforming the Church) In both cases he stresses how wrong Zipporah was for performing the sacrament, but he also stresses that God accepted the circumcision, though imperfectly administered. This leads us to a numbered list of Calvin´s specific statements on the administration of sacraments.

1. "œIf some Epicurean, inwardly grinning at the whole performance, were to administer the Supper to me according to the command of Christ and the rule given by Him, and in due form -- I would not doubt that the bread and the cup held forth by his hand are pledges to me of the body and blood of Christ."
2. "œWhat the minister intends to do, is of little consequence to us"¦.Let it suffice then, to have been baptized in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit -- whatever may have been the ignorance or impiety of those who administered baptism to us. Man is merely the hand. It is Christ alone Who truly and properly baptizes."
3. "œIt matters not to me whether he who performs the baptism is a diabolical man -- or even the devil."
4. "œWe hold the ordinance of God to be too sacred to depend for its efficacy on man. Even if it were then to be that Judas or any other epicurean contemner of everything sacred is the administrator -- the spiritual nourishment of the body and blood of Christ [in the Sacrament] are conferred through his hand just as if her were an angel come down from heaven."
5. "œSo it is with Baptism; it is a sacred and immutable testimony of the grace of God, though it were administered by the devil, though all who may partake of it were ungodly and polluted as to their own persons. Baptism ever retains its own character, and it never contaminated by the vices of men."

There are several things to note about these quotations. First, the devil is not an ordained minister. An Epicurean (A heretical Greek philosopher) is not an ordained minister. Judas died before the command for apostles to baptize in Mat. 28. Once again, many could argue this to be mere rhetoric. But, second, some of these quotations, such as the last one, do not appear in contexts where Calvin is discussing the validity of Romish baptism. Third, his theology of baptism clearly distinguishes between propriety and validity. The validity of the sacrament, it is clear throughout, is dependent upon the fact that it is "œChrist alone Who truly and properly baptizes." Ministers baptize "œin the name" (read "œin the place") of God. Calvin´s theology would seem to indicate (recall the "œletter" analogy) that lay baptism is valid, because the "œcarrier" is and never has been the issue. Finally, we undo Calvin´s argument if we think that he is merely addressing Roman baptism. Often, his point in speaking of the devil or an Epicurean is to make an argument from the greater to the lesser. If a baptism performed by the devil is valid, how much more is a baptism performed by a Roman Catholic minister? To reduce his argument is to loose it.

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Joseph,
So, a JW's baptism would then be valid? I have a friend whom is a JW; she told me that they baptise in the name of the father, son and HS.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Which is precisely why I think we have to draw the line, Scott.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Joseph,
So, a JW's baptism would then be valid? I have a friend whom is a JW; she told me that they baptise in the name of the father, son and HS.

I guess one could strain needles and say that their Jesus isn't divine.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Joseph,
So, a JW's baptism would then be valid? I have a friend whom is a JW; she told me that they baptise in the name of the father, son and HS.

They may use those words, but that is no Trinitarian baptism, because JW's are not Trinitarian! The "Jesus" they speak of is the archangel Michael, not the eternal Second Person of the Trinity (which they don't even believe exists).

I would argue that Rome's baptism is Trinitarian, but the baptisms of JW's and Mormons are NOT Trinitarian. Thus, JW and Mormon baptisms are invalid.

 

[biblelighthouse]

For what it's worth, I wouldn't be surprised to see Rome's baptism change one day. In the past 100 years, Mary has really "climbed up the ladder" of veneration in RC theology. So it very well may happen in another few decades that she finally gets her "big promotion", and gets to truly be on the same level as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then Rome may start baptizing in the name of the "Quadrinity" . . . ."baptizing them in the name of the Father, Mother, Son, and Holy Spirit". (I want to barf after writing that!) At that point, of course, it would no longer be a Trinitarian baptism, and would no longer be valid at all. So, for what it's worth, I do think it is possible that Rome will eventually apostatize to the point that even their baptism is invalid. They have gone very far. I just don't think they have quite gone that far yet.

 

[Scott Bushey]

If the trinity that Rome believes in is established upon a Jesus (little 'J') that is not the tetelestai Christ, how is this any different from the JW's anti-trinitarian position. The Jesus of Rome is weak; he needs his mother to help redeem his people. He is a Christ whom did not accomplish 'everything' at Calvary, but needs to recrucify himself week after week.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I must confess this issue challenges me. I need to study it further...I see valid points on both sides. On the one hand, Rome since the Council of Trent is clearly apostate and I grant that the validity of an apostate church's baptism is disconcerting. On the other hand, the claim that denying the validity of the Romish baptism, in light of the fact that it used to be a true church and the efficacy of the sacrament does not depend on the baptizer, would unchurch the whole Protestant world, is troubling to me as well.

This is a tough issue. The validity of the sacraments always seems to boil down to "How close to the original do you have to be?"

Is grape juice ok?

Is leavened bread ok?

Do you use filtered water, dirty water, heated water (for infants)?

All of us have probably heard of people in the hippie generation serving communion with pizza and soda. We all know it is wrong, but it is sometimes hard to draw the line on what is acceptable. We all have ideas on what is BEST and CLOSEST to the originals, but that still doesn't answer what is acceptable without completely abandoning the sacrament altogether.

James White brought up an interesting scenerio in a debate I heard that involved a pastor spraying the congregation with a hose, and baptizing them all in this fashion. Is it wrong? It sounds crazy!

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
If the trinity that Rome believes in is established upon a Jesus (little 'J') that is not the tetelestai Christ, how is this any different from the JW's anti-trinitarian position. The Jesus of Rome is weak; he needs his mother to help redeem his people. He is a Christ whom did not accomplish 'everything' at Calvary, but needs to recrucify himself week after week.

While I do not disagree with the theology mentioned above per se, that same reasoning would nail most evanjellyfish churches (which might not be a bad thing).

What I am saying is that arminian churches would not agree with your view of the substitutionary work of Christ. Both groups seek to apply the redemption that Christ tried to buy. Should we draw the line there?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
If the trinity that Rome believes in is established upon a Jesus (little 'J') that is not the tetelestai Christ, how is this any different from the JW's anti-trinitarian position. The Jesus of Rome is weak; he needs his mother to help redeem his people. He is a Christ whom did not accomplish 'everything' at Calvary, but needs to recrucify himself week after week.

The Arminian Jesus is just as weak. He can't save anyone on His own. He needs the help of the sinner in order for him/her to be saved. Logically, if you invalidate RC baptisms on the grounds of the "weakness" of their Jesus, then we should invalidate Arminian baptisms as well. But I don't think we want to go there.

Does Rome believe the Father is the uncreated, eternal God? Yes.
Does Rome believe the Son is the uncreated, eternal God? Yes.
Does Rome believe the HS is the uncreated, eternal God? Yes.
Does Rome believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, and not three Gods? Yes.

JW and Mormons cannot answer yes to all four questions, so their baptisms are invalid.

But the RC baptism is Trinitarian.

Calvin was correct. Luther was correct. (And to be anachronistic, I believe we can demonstrate that Augustine would agree, as well.) Modern Reformed Presbyterians who accept RC baptisms are correct, too.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
This is one issue where I definitely agree with the Reformers. I hold to the same belief as Calvin, Luther, etc.

I believe it was the single view of Presbyterianism until Thornwell (did he have any predecessors?). Certainly it was the view of the divines at the Westminster Assembly; it was a feature of Scottish Presbyterianism which is explained if not strongly defended by John MacPherson in his lecture on the Unity of the Church: The Sin of Schism here:
http://www.naphtali.com/Macpherson.htm
But there has always been a tension as MacPherson illustrates from the Scottish Confession of Faith and the First Book of Discipline.

 

[SRoper]

I always thought that the baptism would be valid, but it would not be done lawfully. Of course I'm not entirely neutral here as I count my UCC baptism to be valid.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Just thinking this through - how can a baptism be valid but administered unlawfully? That is a contradiction. If it is not administered lawfully, then how can it be administered at all?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by webmaster
Just thinking this through - how can a baptism be valid but administered unlawfully? That is a contradiction. If it is not administered lawfully, then how can it be administered at all?

Zipporah was out of line when she circumcised the son of Moses. She unlawfully administered the sacrament.

But if you were to take a look at the child afterwards, I don't think you would question whether or not circumcision had really been administered.



God Himself turned away His wrath after the improper circumcision, thus agreeing that a circumcision had truly been administered.


Augustine, those who held to the early creeds, Calvin, Luther, and many other reformers, puritans, etc. have understood that there is an important difference between the lawfulness of administration and the fact/validity of administration.

It helps me to remember that ministers themselves, really, do not administer the sacraments. Rather, God administers them. The ministers, whether lawfully ordained or not, are just the "delivery boys" for the administration. When you were baptized, Matt, God was making a statement about you. He is the one who really administered the baptism. The instrument He used to do it is immaterial. Hopefully, a lawfully ordained minister did it. But if not, your baptism is still valid, because the impropriety of the "delivery boy" does not change the validity of the baptism God Himself administered unto you.

The same goes for the Lord's Supper. If, unbeknownst to you, (but knownst to everyone else), a Roman Catholic priest were to disguise himself as a PCA minister, and somehow convince your PCA church to let him administer communion, and you were to partake, you would still be receiving a valid Lord's Supper, and not the popish mass. The administrator may be unlawfully ordained, and his intent may involve thoughts of transubstantiation. But that would not affect YOU. In partaking of the bread and wine in faith, you would still be spiritually feasting upon Christ. I do not believe God would invalidate your participation in His body and blood due to the sin of a priest in sheep's clothing.

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[biblelighthouse]

It might also be beneficial to consider marriage in this context, even though it's not a sacrament.

Is it right for a marriage to be performed by the state, with no mention whatsoever of God or the Scriptures? I think not!

Nevertheless, I think we all agree that a marriage performed by a justice of the peace is still a valid marriage that we would accept, should that couple join one of our churches.

Thus, the marriage was valid, though unlawfully performed.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Does Rome believe in the same Jesus of the scriptures? Is it the same Jesus?