Poll: Roman Catholic baptism

[C. Matthew McMahon]

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.

Not the same - households / individual synaogues (when they came around) administered those things in the OT (Passover and Circumcision).

Case in point, if Zipporah administered it wrongly, God would have been upset with her.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Ultimately, Matt is correct. The concern should rest in lawful ordinations, not formula. If it is just formula, what would exclude me from dispensing the sacrament.

<Rome does not worship the same Christ>

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
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?

I would think not, but added it just so all combinations were covered. I'd be very surprised if the 0% changes.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by blhowes]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by webmaster
Case in point, if Zipporah administered it wrongly, God would have been upset with her.

And you know He wasn't upset with her?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Ultimately, Matt is correct. The concern should rest in lawful ordinations, not formula. If it is just formula, what would exclude me from dispensing the sacrament.

Wrong. You clearly don't hold to the church fathers, nor to the reformers, nor to the puritans, in this regard. You are failing to distinguish between *improper* and *invalid*. An improperly administered marriage is still a marriage. An improperly administered circumcision is still a circumcision. An improperly administered communion is still communion. An improperly administered baptism is still a baptism.

As a layman, you would be wrong to administer baptism. But if you administered it, the recepient would still have been baptized. Was it proper? NO! Was it nevertheless valid? YES!

Sex before marriage is wrong. But it nevertheless brings children into the world.

Impropriety in the cause doesn't make the effect disappear.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
<Rome does not worship the same Christ>

I challenge you to prove your assertion, beyond what could be said about any Arminian or liberal denomination.

How about the lesbian minister who was just recently reinstated in the Methodist church? Is a baptism done by her invalid, since she shouldn't be ordained, and is obviously unregenerate? And now that the Methodist church has officially accepted her, how about ALL baptisms done by the Methodist church? Has their accepting of homosexuality and female-ordination and Arminianism been sufficient to prove that they don't worship the same God we do?

How about the PCUSA and all their pastors and professors who don't even believe in the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement, the inerrancy of Scripture, etc.? Do they worship the same God we do? Should we accept their baptisms?


Is Rome in heretical error? Certainly. But if you reject their baptisms, while accepting baptisms from the Methodist church, PCUSA, independent Bible churches, congregational baptist churches, pentecostal churches, etc., then such inconsistency and bias is beyond my comprehension. If you think we should really tighten up the definition for "baptism" to ONLY include those done by doctrinally correct ministers in doctrinally correct churches, then you at least need to be consistent and throw out a LOT more baptisms than just Rome's.



Furthermore, what constitutes "lawful ordination"? Is it lawful to ordain someone as a minister if he has never "really" been baptized? If not, then carefully think through the implications. How many millions of men were unlawfully baptized during the revivalism of the 1800s? How many thousands of them became ministers themselves? If their baptism wasn't valid, then was their ordination? If not, then 100% of their millions of parishoners were unlawfully baptized, since the minister baptizing them was not lawfully ordained. How many of them became ministers in the 1900s? in the 1950s? Today?

How many tens of millions of people's baptisms are invalid today, even though they were baptized by their own pastors? After all, even if that pastor was baptized by a pastor who was baptized by an unlawfully baptized pastor in 1840, that means that every one of those pastors were unlawfully ordained, and thus all of their baptisms are invalid. How many people now in the PCA are therefore devoid of "true baptism"?

Reducto ad absurdum. This entire path of thought leads to pure nonsense. A baptism is valid, regardless of whether or not it was properly done.


If you are a layman, should you baptize someone? NO! But if you do, has that person been baptized? YES! Just ask Tertullian, Anselm, Augustine, the founders of the early creeds, Thomas Acquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin.

Should you be baptized by a Roman Catholic priest (or any other Trinitarian who is nevertheless a heretic)? NO! But if you are, have you been baptized? YES! Just ask Tertullian, Anselm, Augustine, the founders of the early creeds, Thomas Acquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin.

This should not be difficult. I'm not even aware of a significant opposing view until Thornwell came along.


I challenge you and Matt to dig up some early church father info, some reformation info, and some puritan info, demonstrating to me how many of these guys (if any) would agree with either one of you concerning the validity (not the propriety) of lay-baptism or RC baptism. (For the later, we can only focus on the reformers and puritans, of course).

My guess is that neither one of you will come up with much. I realize you both hold to your view very strongly, and I have to respect that. But I think you are standing alone against the history of the church. I have to wonder if even dispensationalism is a more ancient view than your view of "invalid lay-baptisms and invalid RC baptisms". And I say that seriously, not as a joke or as a jab. I just truly think your view is extremely new to the church. But I could be wrong. I still have a lot more church history to study. If I am wrong, I will welcome your correction. Please just point out the quotes and sources for whatever you come up with.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

f I am wrong, I will welcome your correction. Please just point out the quotes and sources for whatever you come up with.

Ok - "œThere are 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; I Cor. 11:20, 23, I Cor. 4:1; Heb. 5:4.)" Article 27, paragraph 4, The Westminster Confession of Faith.

Sacraments are disepnsed my ministers.

The powers of the ministry are seen in preaching, in administering the sacraments, and in ruling. That power is part of the government of the church. Logically, if you accept the baptism of the formula, you accept the lawfulness of the ordination.

I do understand what you are saying. But you have to understadnt hat by opening up the floodgates, you allow ANYTHING to come through. And that logically flows to your acceptance of the "power" of the church resting in the administration of the sacrametns under Christ' rule by someone NOT lawfully dispensing them. Christ is more particular than that.

The Refomers accpeted baptism before Trent. The Puritans accepted it as second generation reformers and the finalization of the Presbyterian system of government they were fighting for. I cannot see how any of them, living today, would accept RC baptism. The WCF here dissents against that, and nowhere in the confession do they accept it other than by one lawfully able to dispense it.

(More here: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Pastoral/McMahonWhoAdministersTheSacrament.htm )

Section 27.3."”The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution; which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

This section is levelled against two tenets of the Church of Rome. That Church holds that the sacraments, when rightly administered, are of themselves effectual to confer grace; and that the intention of the priest or administrator is essential to a sacrament; so that if a priest goes through all the forms of administering baptism or the Lord's supper, and does not in his own mind intend to administer it, it is in fact no sacrament. That the sacraments themselves cannot confer saving grace is evident; for if they had this power in themselves, they would be equally effectual to all who receive them. But many are partakers of the sacraments, who are not partakers of the grace of God. Simon Magus was baptized, and yet remained in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."”Acts 8:13,23. That the efficacy of the sacraments does not depend upon the intention of the administrator. is not less evident; for this would place the administrator in God's stead, whose sole prerogative it is to render the sacraments effectual for the purposes designed by them. Besides, in this case, no one could be certain that he had received the sacraments; because he could not be absolutely certain of the intention of another. In opposition to these absurd tenets, we maintain that the efficacy of the sacraments depends upon the working of the Spirit on the souls of the receivers; and upon the word of institution, which contains a precept authorizing the use of these ordinances, and a promise of benefit by them to the worthy receivers.

So how does this practially work out?

Section 27.4."”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.

We acknowledge only two sacraments instituted by Christ in the gospel, and these are baptism and the Lord's supper; the former being the sign and seal of our spiritual birth, and the latter of our spiritual nourishment. The Church of Rome has added five spurious sacraments"”ordination, marriage, confirmation, penance, and extreme unction. None of these have any divine appointment as sacraments; and the three last, as used by Papists, have no warrant at all from Scripture. None of them are seals of the covenant of grace, and, therefore, they are no sacraments, but are to be considered as gross corruptions of the purity and simplicity of the Christian ritual. In opposition, also, to the Church of Rome, which permits laymen and women to administer the sacrament of baptism in cases of necessity, our Confession asserts that none but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained, has any warrant to dispense the sacraments.

If you think we should really tighten up the definition for "baptism" to ONLY include those done by doctrinally correct ministers in doctrinally correct churches, then you at least need to be consistent and throw out a LOT more baptisms than just Rome's.

Ok -



[Edited on 8-16-2005 by webmaster]

 

[pastorway]

so you would throw out any baptism not performed by a "lawfully ordained minister"?

how do you define a lawfully ordained minister then? cause a lot of us just got un-baptized......

Phillip

 

[Peter]

Joseph,
This is a very relevant question I have been troubled with for some time (though I've been putting it off). Your comments have been very helpful, thank you. However, the marriage analogy is waaay off, but I dont think i even need to point that out. Second, Matt and Scott are not guilty of Donatism here. Yes, the early fathers condemned the view that baptism preformed by a minister who lapsed into heresy was invaild, but that is not the question. The question is whether the trinitarian formula plus water done by someone who is not the officer of Christ equals a valid baptism.

Thanks for your input every one. I will be following this thread closely...

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Peter]

 

[fredtgreco]

Matt,

While I agree with your assessment on Rome's baptism, your extrapolation just does not wash. Many, many Reformers, Puritans and successors to the divines accepted Romish baptism as valid.

Also, your statement here:

The Refomers accpeted baptism before Trent. The Puritans accepted it as second generation reformers and the finalization of the Presbyterian system of government they were fighting for. I cannot see how any of them, living today, would accept RC baptism. The WCF here dissents against that, and nowhere in the confession do they accept it other than by one lawfully able to dispense it.

is self serving. Trent was a full century before the Westminster Assembly. Rome had codified her apostasy. She had continued to persecute the true Church. The Puritans were the victims of that very persecution under "bloody Mary." To say that they were more interested in the discussions regarding Independency than Popery flabbergasts me.

That is all beside the point however, since we do not have to throw out other baptisms because of Rome. Rome is antichrist. She has placed herself in the place of Christ Himself. Not only is her doctrine of justfication anathema, but her doctrine of the Sacraments is anathama. Calvin said EXACTLY that with respect to the Mass. In fact, he said that the Mass is so far from being a valid/lawful (whatever word one wants to use) that it justified the Reformers from leaving Rome's communion - something that Calvin says is only possible if Rome is no longer a true Church. Then he turns around and says that Rome's baptism is not so bad, but can be accepted. He is at 180 from himself on these two sacraments. I believe that this has far more to do with practical considerations than theological ones. Calvin wisely surmised the chaos and excesses that would arise (and did under the Anabaptists) if all Roman baptisms were invalid. So I believe he compromised, and covered his tracks.

All this to say that Roman baptism is far different from Baptist or Methodist baptism. In fact, it has more in common with the cults than other denominations. The only thing that ties it to proper baptism is the formula. They do not use the same elements - inserting oil and perfume; they do not have the same intent - stating that it justifies ex opere operata; they do not have any of the marks of a true Church. Rome is out on her own (damnable) limb here.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by webmaster

if I am wrong, I will welcome your correction. Please just point out the quotes and sources for whatever you come up with.

Ok - "œThere are 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; I Cor. 11:20, 23, I Cor. 4:1; Heb. 5:4.)" Article 27, paragraph 4, The Westminster Confession of Faith.

Sacraments are disepnsed my ministers.

You are still failing to distinguish between the propriety of the act and the fact (validity) of the act. Your quote above shows that a layman should not baptize. But your quote above does not say that a lay-baptism is "no baptism at all".

You are pulling the "bait-and-switch" tactic. Your argument is basically going like this:

Matt's move #1 --- Give a Reformed quote demonstrating that lay-baptism is not supposed to be done.
Matt's move #2 --- Say, "See! Lay-baptism is no baptism at all!"

Sorry, but it does not follow. Proving my car is not blue does not prove that my car is not red. You have proven apples, and yet have tried to claim that you have proven oranges.

You need to demonstrate that the fathers, reformers, and puritans would have rebaptized laymen, for example, because their baptism was "no baptism at all".

(I'm sure you won't have any problems finding quotes if you will just flip over to some anabaptist literature!)

Originally posted by webmaster
The powers of the ministry are seen in preaching, in administering the sacraments, and in ruling. That power is part of the government of the church. Logically, if you accept the baptism of the formula, you accept the lawfulness of the ordination.

So, take preaching for example. If I fail to be lawfully ordained, and nevertheless go pastor a congregational church, then what will be the result of my preaching? If someone hears me preach the Gospel, will the listener's ability to be saved be thrown out the window because I am preaching unlawfully? I think not. A sermon given unlawfully is still a sermon. The Gospel preached under improper circumstances is still the Gospel.

Well, the same goes for the edible Gospel, and the liquid Gospel. If communion is administered by someone who is not lawfully ordained, the recepients still feast upon Christ by faith, and partake of Him spiritually. If I myself administer the Lord's Supper, I am wrong. But it doesn't shackle the Holy Spirit's ability to make communion fully valid for those receiving it.

The same goes for baptism.

Originally posted by webmaster

I do understand what you are saying. But you have to understadnt that by opening up the floodgates, you allow ANYTHING to come through. And that logically flows to your acceptance of the "power" of the church resting in the administration of the sacrametns under Christ' rule by someone NOT lawfully dispensing them. Christ is more particular than that.

Christ is particular. But I don't think He is particularly interested in starving His elect children, and depriving them of communion with Himself every time an unlawfully ordained minister or lay-person administers the Lord's Supper.

I do agree that Christ is particular about obedience. The offending administrator of baptism and the eucharist must stop what he's doing and repent. But his personal sin doesn't invalidate that which is received by those who are baptized and by those who receive the Lord's Supper.

Originally posted by webmaster

The Refomers accpeted baptism before Trent. The Puritans accepted it as second generation reformers and the finalization of the Presbyterian system of government they were fighting for. I cannot see how any of them, living today, would accept RC baptism.

For what it's worth, I cannot see how any of them, living today, would reject RC baptism. I do repect your opinion, the opinion of a doctor of the church. But if you expect me to change my mind, you are going to have to do better than to just give me your opinion. It was either Luther or Calvin that said he would accept the sacraments as valid if performed by an epicurean, or even by the Devil himself. Well, I figure the modern RC church fits in that range somewhere, so I figure the reformers would accept modern RC baptisms.

How about laybaptism? That's something the church had many centuries to think about. Can you show me some reformers and puritans who would have demanded a lay-baptized person to be re-baptized?

Originally posted by webmaster
The WCF here dissents against that, and nowhere in the confession do they accept it other than by one lawfully able to dispense it.

(More here: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Pastoral/McMahonWhoAdministersTheSacrament.htm )

Again, Matt, you are trying to demonstrate apples in order to prove oranges. I already am quite convinced that the reformers and puritans believed that a non-lawfully-ordained minister should not administer the sacraments. Got it.

But you have not demonstrated anything concerning their beliefs about what to do with a person who has been baptized by a layman or unlawfully ordained minister. This is the "orange" you have not dealt with.

Originally posted by webmaster

If you think we should really tighten up the definition for "baptism" to ONLY include those done by doctrinally correct ministers in doctrinally correct churches, then you at least need to be consistent and throw out a LOT more baptisms than just Rome's.

Ok -

I completely disagree with you, and I think I have already amply demonstrated that the church fathers, reformers, and puritans would disagree with you.

But hey, at least I have to give you a thumbs up for being more consistent!





Again, I challenge you to supply quotes from the early church fathers, the reformers, and the puritans, demonstrating any of them who believed baptism must be redone if it was originally performed by a layman. (That at least would move me closer to being convinced that they would also reject modern RC baptisms.) But I don't think you are going to succeed in finding many quotes to give me, if any at all.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by pastorway


so you would throw out any baptism not performed by a "lawfully ordained minister"?

how do you define a lawfully ordained minister then? cause a lot of us just got un-baptized......

Phillip

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
All this to say that Roman baptism is far different from Baptist or Methodist baptism. In fact, it has more in common with the cults than other denominations. The only thing that ties it to proper baptism is the formula. They do not use the same elements - inserting oil and perfume;

Fred, please elaborate more here. I would be happy to throw out RC baptism along with JW baptism and Mormon baptism, but I cannot in good conscience do so. However, you may be helping me here. Are you saying that RC baptisms are with oil and perfume, and that water is not used?

If RC baptism is truly radically different from other baptisms, I am all ears, and am listening quite intently. I would be happy to kick RC baptism out the window if I can logically do so.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
they do not have the same intent - stating that it justifies ex opere operata; they do not have any of the marks of a true Church. Rome is out on her own (damnable) limb here.

Just curious: Are you therefore saying that Church of Christ baptisms are also invalid, since they also believe salvation is inseperably tied to the physical act of water baptism, and that you cannot be saved without it?

 

[yeutter]

Those who believe in Paedo Communion would have to reject the validity of Popish Baptism so they would have a ground to exclude Roman Catholics from the Lord's Table.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by fredtgreco
All this to say that Roman baptism is far different from Baptist or Methodist baptism. In fact, it has more in common with the cults than other denominations. The only thing that ties it to proper baptism is the formula. They do not use the same elements - inserting oil and perfume;

Fred, please elaborate more here. I would be happy to throw out RC baptism along with JW baptism and Mormon baptism, but I cannot in good conscience do so. However, you may be helping me here. Are you saying that RC baptisms are with oil and perfume, and that water is not used?

It is not that water is not used, but that other elements are added, namely oil and perfume.

If RC baptism is truly radically different from other baptisms, I am all ears, and am listening quite intently. I would be happy to kick RC baptism out the window if I can logically do so.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
they do not have the same intent - stating that it justifies ex opere operata; they do not have any of the marks of a true Church. Rome is out on her own (damnable) limb here.

Just curious: Are you therefore saying that Church of Christ baptisms are also invalid, since they also believe salvation is inseperably tied to the physical act of water baptism, and that you cannot be saved without it?

Yes, I think that Church of Christ baptisms are invalid, because it is not a church, and hence has no authority to baptize. The crux of the matter is whether Rome (or anyone else) is a true (albeit imperfect) church.

I am willing to be completely wrong here - but I am guessing that the vast majority (perhaps nearly all) of those who accept Papist baptisms have never been a witness to it and the idolatry that surrounds it.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by yeutter
Those who believe in Paedo Communion would have to reject the validity of Popish Baptism so they would have a ground to exclude Roman Catholics from the Lord's Table.

Thomas,

I don't follow you here. My experience is that paedocommunionists are ardent "Rome's baptism is valid" proponents.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

stating that it justifies ex opere operata

Looks like we'd just about have to throw out Federal Vision baptisms as well, then ...

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

stating that it justifies ex opere operata

Looks like we'd just about have to throw out Federal Vision baptisms as well, then ...

Not so. One (Romish) is the official dogma of the body; the other is the abberant view of the minister in a body with an orthodox (Confessional) view of baptism.

This question is actually much, much closer to the Donatist controversy.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

This question is actually much, much closer to the Donatist controversy.

Explain briefly, please?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I'm following all of you, but you have to be willing to allow the floodgates to open if you go there.

Some ideas:

Cyprian, with his fellow African Bishops, decreed that baptism administered by heretics AND schismatics was not true baptism, and that those baptized should be rebaptized. Letter to Januarius [Letter 69, ANF 5:375-77] Quintus [ANF 5:377-78] to Stephen [Letter 71 ANF 5:378-79] Jubaianus [ANF 5:379-86], and from the Acts of the Council of Carthage [ANF 5:565-72].

Turretin says that Cyprian disagreed in the exact same manner that I am disagreeing. I am not going to tell anyone that their baptism is invalid after the fact. I don't need to do that. I will let them make their own judgments and let their conscience fall where it may. Certainly, this is not the Donatist position, in which, as Turretin points out, they said that all baptisms, then, were practically invalid. Phillip's point is taken and practical horrors would occur.

Then you have another thing to consider, because we want to consider everything before we make a concrete conclusion. If a JW is not a JW yet, say he doesn't convert for a week, and baptizes you according to the formula, then you are bound to accept it, lawful or not, event hough int he next week he affirms his JW doctrine thought he previous week he had not. This is obviously problematic.

The Nicene council accepted some baptisms by heretics and not others. Which is somewhat funny. The Paulianists or Samosotians are excepted and one would have to be rebaptized. (See Nicene Canon 19).

Turretin says we should solve the question by distinguishing heretics. Baptism done by Socinians and Arians is not accepted, and by Novations, Donatists and Romanists, and Arminians, is accepted. One should also consider what "lawful" means - accepted, and unlawful, not accepted as in the WCF.

Turretin makes an important point which is to be noted here - "the sacrament is the property of the church." (Vol 3, page 397). That means if a secret heretic administers the sacrament it is OK, even if they deny the Trinity, but do the formula right, int he church which he is involved with is orthodox on the formula and Trinity. (Will any of you go that far?) (How far WILL you go? - and that is my point)

Now the argument is made "the essentials remain there as much as to form as to matter (to with the word with the element and the formula prescribed by Christ - that it be administered in the name of the Trinity)." However, I think this is selling it short because that is not all Christ did - rather, He did that, and gave the authority to the rightful apostles to administer this in His name.

Its true that we never read of any of those who were baptized by heretics were rebaptized by the apostles. But then again, we don't have a specific record of an infant being baptized either.

It seems that the second generation reformers and after believed (and I certainly acquiesce to this) that heretics can accommodate the tongue and hand only in this act to God. But Turretin says, "It is God who baptized and who is efficacious through the minister." But I think, though, that this is my contention - how does one move from "heretics" administering baptism as valid, to "God being efficacious through the minister?" Thus, Balaam's ass could spit on an infant and we could call it baptism so long as it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

At least the Reformers on this were somewhat clear, though not readily as I would like them to be. They say that receiving baptism from the first order of heretics (those who tear away the foundations of doctrine) are not to be seen as valid. No true baptism is among them, or the Lord's Supper for that matter. For those of the secondary sort, those that are not Trinitarian heretics so to speak, or at least as they judged, their baptism was valid. HOWEVER, they did believe that to seek out such a baptism should bring a measure of guilt. (Turretin, vol 3, page 398). Why? Because its invalid? Now that is about as inconsistent as I have ever seen Turretin on anything. He says, "although we think their baptism ought not to be repeated, still we do not judge that it can be sought or received without guilt." That's inconsistency. He should say, they should have no guilt whosoever because the baptism is completely and utterly valid. But I think, full well, that Turretin knows that "something is amiss."

Now with Rome, they do retain the formula for baptism. Yet, strikingly, Turretin says that their baptism is corrupted. He says that their baptism "cherishes grievous errors" and in practice it "sins in many ways, both by the use of a foreign tongue and by various rites partly superstitious, partly useless and impious." Strange that the rite can be accepted, and sinful? He then says that those "parts" of baptism that are not right, in the baptism that you are baptized with in their church by their priests, should be rejected. Okay, so we pick apart the good from the bad in the actual rite itself. Sounds very strained to me! But here, the argument is that baptism is spiritual, so those other things just don't count. And thus, the baptism remains valid.

The arguments of the Reformers is three fold: 1) The essence of baptism still remains in Roman Baptism. 2) The power and efficacy of baptism does not depend on the heretic or erring minster, but on Christ, 3) There are still remains in the papacy remnants of the true church "and GOD HAS NOT YET WHOLLY LEFT THAT CHURCH." Strange statement. Do you agree?

#2 is not going to completely work since Christ's authority resides in the Presbytery as the power of the keys to bind and loose and etc. Does the minister count as Christ works through them? Will Christ bless the sacrament if not done by a minister?

Yet, even though we've flipped flopped about sixty times now with the arguments they are straining, Turretin still does not really help us out here - he says that although Romish baptism is not to be repeated, it is still "sinful" (vol 3, page 409). I love that - its valid but sinful. He says in no uncertain terms, to cover himself, 1) Thus,m the error of the Romanists seem to be approved concerning the absolute necessity of baptism and its efficacy ex opere operato and the superstitious rites added by men, by which the sanctity of this sacraments is foully polluted. (Help me out - its is valid, but sinful and foully polluted?) 2) They who do this profess themselves willing to hold communion with a heretical and idolatrous church, since the end of baptism is no other than o introduce the baptized INTO the church in which they receive baptism. 3) An Antichristian ministry is thus approved." You cannot, then, be baptized in a Roman church without entering into a sinful practice. But its accepted? But then, WHY would you want to defend ti practically? Because Christ is the real administer?

I think I will agree with Turretin on this and say "But because this cannot be done in the papacy without danger to life, it is better to say simply that it is not lawful." And so, I end on that same note.

I wrote all that so you would know I have thought this through and ahve read the Reformers and I know what they taught. At the same time there have been guys in history, like Cyprian, and the practicalness of Turretin mimicking Bucer and Bullinger that said we ought just to call it unlawful. Personally, I really don't want to open up the door for Romish Baptism in our day performed by heretical apostate priests, or any others for that matter that are not lawfully ordained. Should you go and get re-baptized? Nah. But then be SURE you agree with the reformers, summarized very nicely by Turretin when he says that such baptisms are filled with sin, foul, and wicked. You explain this to Mrs. Smith who waltzes into your congregation and say, "Listen Mrs. Smith. Even though your baptism was wicked, sinful and foul in the eyes of God being administered by a heretic and in an apostate church, Christ still ministered that to you." Watch the glazed look form over her eyes.

If lawful ordination was not an issue with me in terms of ecclesiology, maybe I would be less critical on this than Turretin or Calvin or Bucer of BUllinger or Luther. But for now it is. I'd rather be practically theologically consistent.

My (10 cents)

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by webmaster]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

This question is actually much, much closer to the Donatist controversy.

Explain briefly, please?

The Donatist controversy was whether a baptism administered by an apostate/schismatic/unbelieving minister in the Church was invalid. The answer was no, because the power of the sacrament resides in the Church, not the person administering.

Thus with the FV controversy. Even if we allow that every FV minister is apostate and unbelieving (which is a big assumption), the baptism would still be valid because they administered it in a branch of the true Church.

Rome's baptism, however, in addition to being ex opere operata, is also in a false church, hence the difference.

 

[wsw201]

The Hodge/Thornwell debates was mentioned earlier and I think that it wa one of the key debates regarding the RC church. If you haven't had a chance to read Hodge's or Thornwell's position, you should. The key between the two was how do we define the Visible Church". Each man defined it differently. Thornwell defined the visible church based on the definition of the True Church. Hodge took a different approach based on the WCF definition of the Visible Church.

Here is a LINK to Hodge's view of the RC Church and the validity of its baptism. I have never been able to find Thornwell's position paper on the web, so if anyone knows where it is, let me know.

I highly recommend reading these two position papers. These are not a couple of lightweight theologians and their arguments are pretty sound. Personally, I think Hodge's position and definition of the Visible Church is the most compelling.

 

[blhowes]

Very interesting discussion.

The poll so far is pretty much as expected. No surprises on the baptist side, and about two-to-one on the paedo side in support of the catholic baptism.

In Presbyterian and other paedo churches, is this a decision that's usually left up to the individual churches to decide about, or is it a higher-level policy?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Originally posted by blhowes
In Presbyterian and other paedo churches, is this a decision that's usually left up to the individual churches to decide about, or is it a higher-level policy?

PCA leaves to each session. Not sure of OPC and elsewhere.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by NaphtaliPress]

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
PCA leaves to each session. Not sure of OPC and elsewhere.

Thanks. A 'dumb-baptist' question...and a session is a group of churches that are part of a larger general assembly?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by blhowes
Very interesting discussion.

The poll so far is pretty much as expected. No surprises on the baptist side, and about two-to-one on the paedo side in support of the catholic baptism.

In Presbyterian and other paedo churches, is this a decision that's usually left up to the individual churches to decide about, or is it a higher-level policy?

See http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-078.html

 

[NaphtaliPress]

"Session" is what Presbyterians call the elders of the congregation; the Reformed churches call it a "consistory."

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by wsw201
The Hodge/Thornwell debates was mentioned earlier and I think that it wa one of the key debates regarding the RC church. If you haven't had a chance to read Hodge's or Thornwell's position, you should. The key between the two was how do we define the Visible Church". Each man defined it differently. Thornwell defined the visible church based on the definition of the True Church. Hodge took a different approach based on the WCF definition of the Visible Church.

Here is a LINK to Hodge's view of the RC Church and the validity of its baptism. I have never been able to find Thornwell's position paper on the web, so if anyone knows where it is, let me know.

I highly recommend reading these two position papers. These are not a couple of lightweight theologians and their arguments are pretty sound. Personally, I think Hodge's position and definition of the Visible Church is the most compelling.

However, it has to be said Hodge's opinion in his own day did not reflect the majority view. Emory University Professor E. Brooks Holifield, who has devoted a chapter to this controversy in his most recent work, has made this comment...

E. Brooks Holifield: Yet he [Charles Hodge] resisted powerful currents of anti-catholic teaching in his own denomination. When the General Assembly in 1845 denied the validity of Catholic baptism and pronounced Catholics "œoutside the visible Church of Christ," Hodge opposed the majority. He argued that the Roman communion included professing believers and that it taught enough about God, Christ, and the Spirit to convey saving truth; while the Papacy was outside the visible church, many ordinary Catholics were within it. The ultraconservatives, led by Thornwell and Breckinridge, pronounced Hodge´s conclusions a disaster and launched another campaign to check the influence of Princeton, but Hodge refused to relent. E. Brooks Holifield, Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 388.

I'm presently reading this book by Holifield, and it is fascinating, especially his treatment of the Mercersburg theology.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
"Session" is what Presbyterians call the elders of the congregation; the Reformed churches call it a "consistory."

Thanks.

Originally posted by Fred
See http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-078.html

Thanks for the link. I skimmed part of it, will read it through later (have to take the boys to the store to get some fishing tackle now)

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by DTK

Originally posted by wsw201
The Hodge/Thornwell debates was mentioned earlier and I think that it wa one of the key debates regarding the RC church. If you haven't had a chance to read Hodge's or Thornwell's position, you should. The key between the two was how do we define the Visible Church". Each man defined it differently. Thornwell defined the visible church based on the definition of the True Church. Hodge took a different approach based on the WCF definition of the Visible Church.

Here is a LINK to Hodge's view of the RC Church and the validity of its baptism. I have never been able to find Thornwell's position paper on the web, so if anyone knows where it is, let me know.

I highly recommend reading these two position papers. These are not a couple of lightweight theologians and their arguments are pretty sound. Personally, I think Hodge's position and definition of the Visible Church is the most compelling.

However, it has to be said Hodge's opinion in his own day did not reflect the majority view. Emory University Professor E. Brooks Holifield, who has devoted a chapter to this controversy in his most recent work, has made this comment...

E. Brooks Holifield: Yet he [Charles Hodge] resisted powerful currents of anti-catholic teaching in his own denomination. When the General Assembly in 1845 denied the validity of Catholic baptism and pronounced Catholics "œoutside the visible Church of Christ," Hodge opposed the majority. He argued that the Roman communion included professing believers and that it taught enough about God, Christ, and the Spirit to convey saving truth; while the Papacy was outside the visible church, many ordinary Catholics were within it. The ultraconservatives, led by Thornwell and Breckinridge, pronounced Hodge´s conclusions a disaster and launched another campaign to check the influence of Princeton, but Hodge refused to relent. E. Brooks Holifield, Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 388.

I'm presently reading this book by Holifield, and it is fascinating, especially his treatment of the Mercersburg theology.

Blessings,
DTK

True. From what I have been able to glean about the issue, Thornwell's position had become the majority opinion and passed GA. (From what I understand, Hodge was not at that GA). But what I find interesting is how they came at the subject from totally seperate directions regarding how they defined the visible church.

To me the question is what is the proper definition of the visible church? Hodge? or Thornwell? or a mix of the two?

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

Originally posted by 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.

No one has mentioned that the doctrine changed in the Presbyterian Church under the cultural pressure from the KnowNothings and anti-Catholic movements of the 1840 see: http://www.peterwallace.org/dissertation/abstract.htm chapter 3 which is at:
http://www.peterwallace.org/dissertation/3catholicity.htm where he writes

The Old School General Assembly voted 173-8 to declare Roman Catholic baptism invalid. Given the general anti-Catholic sentiment of the times, this may not sound surprising. But this decision is remarkable because the Old School prided itself on its conservatism, and yet this was the first time that any Reformed church had rejected the validity of Roman Catholic baptism.[1] Presbyterians in Scotland and Ireland had historically followed the 1565 decision of the Scottish General Assembly accepting the validity of such baptisms.[2] While anti-Catholicism played a significant role (together with the traditional eschatological description of the pope as the "œbeast" or "œantichrist"), that alone cannot explain why the Old School chose to reject the validity of Roman Catholic baptism. Changing conceptions of catholicity, along with the common sense moral reasoning associated with what Mark Noll has called a Reformed literal hermeneutic were also crucial in developing overwhelming support for such a radical innovation.[3]

this is an excellent PhD thesis and worthwhile the time to read.

....