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]
