Question for Paedo-baptists.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jash Comstock

Puritan Board Freshman
If someone was baptized as an RC, is their baptism valid? Are they covenant members? In a pastoral situation, if someone came to Christ and wanted to join your church but was baptized as a Roman Catholic, would you grant them membership?
 
In the view of Calvin and the reformers, Roman Catholic baptisms were valid; Calvin for instance never felt the need to be rebaptized.

The WCF describes thusly:
WCF CHAP. XXVIII said:
2. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

The question really rests, confessionally, on whether a minister in the Catholic church is lawfully called. The Trinitarian formula and so on is employed in a Catholic baptism, but there is question over the minister. I believe the majority view, however, is that any baptism preformed by an ordained minister using the Trinitarian formula is accepted.
 
But am I correct in assuming that only children of Covenant members are valid baptismal candidates? If so, how does one assume that the parents of a baptized Roman Catholic is a covenant member?
 
yes. They are baptized so they do not need baptized again.

Doug Wilson is a Federal Visionist
Doug Wilson holds this position
Ergo, you are a Federal Visionist

Or

Doug Wilson holds this position
That makes it a Federal Vision doctrine
You believe in Federal Vision Theology

:hug:

Doug Wilson and James White debated this very topic and while it was an engaging debate, I wish that Doug Wilson would have debated a fellow paedobaptist.
 
I suppose the baptism of one in the LDS 'church' is valid, thus they don't need to be baptized again.

The answer is 'no' it is not a valid baptism, so it is no baptism at all.

This is a controversial topic and will typically be disputed based on if you are influenced more by Charles Hodge (northern Presbyterian) [valid] or Thornwell (Southern) [not valid].
 
Charles Hodge was not at the 1845 GA where the vote was taken on the question of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism. He was not, by the way, customarily at GA, due to his health, though he moderated the GA in 1846.

Dr. Thornwell was, as usual, at the 1845 GA, and argued strongly against the validity of baptism administered by the RCC. The vote was 169-8 against its validity. Though not there, Hodge responded, as he did to GA yearly in the July issue of the Biblical Repretory and Princeton Review, calling the decision sudden and surprising, indicating that he felt it hasty and was taken aback by it.

Over the course of years, though Hodge was in the minority in 1845, his position came to bear greater influence so that many Presbyterians would now regard RC baptism as valid. For Hodge's position, see his 1845 GA article in the BRPR beginning at p. 444 or get a copy of his Church Polity, preferably with my preface :) and read his piece on "The Validity of Romish Baptism" which is excerpted from the GA article. This is online as well, I believe.

Peace,
Alan
 
The historic Presbyterian position (i.e. what is accepted in the PCA) is that any person baptized in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit by a minister of a trinitarian church, is considered to be baptized.

Some sectarians (also known as donatists) will insist that only those baptisms performed by the "right man" are valid. However this is not the position of the mainstream of orthodoxy.
 
Hi:

Though Calvin held that Roman Catholic baptism was valid you have to remember that both Luther and Calvin were seeking to Reform the Church of Rome and not break away from it. The Council of Trent (1563) is the usual mark as to when it became impossible to Reform the Roman church.

Before answering the question of the OP one must first ask if the Roman Catholic church is still a valid church? Personally, I believe there are many Christians in the RC church, but as to the system as a whole I believe that it is Antichrist.

My answer to the question would be that Roman Catholic baptism is not valid. For some excellent arguments against RC baptism see James Henly Thornwell's, "The Validity of the Baptism of the Church of Rome," Works, vol. 3, 283ff.

Blessings,

Rlob
 
So then since a priest is not a minister and RC isn't part of Christ's Church, there is no baptism. Also, the PCAs position is what you find in the Westminster Standards. So not just a minister, but more specifically a minister lawfully ordained which a priest is not.


The historic Presbyterian position (i.e. what is accepted in the PCA) is that any perso baptized in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit by a minister of a trinitarian church, is considered to be baptized.

Some sectarians (also known as donatists) will insist that only those baptisms performed by the "right man" are valid. However this is not the position of the mainstream of orthodoxy.

Here is a good article on this issue: http://biblebased.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/are-roman-catholic-baptisms-valid/
 
Those baptised in the Church of Rome or Eastern Orthodox Churches are baptised into the Catholic (i.e. Universal) Visible Church, and in this sense are Christians. Whether particular individuals are born again is another question, over which only God is ultimately infallible.

When the Ten Tribes apostasised from the Temple Worship, was their circumcision valid? Yes, it was.

Those baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity in churches which are a part of the Visible Catholic Church, don't need baptism again.

Rob
but as to the system as a whole I believe that it is Antichrist.

Luther and Calvin believed that the Papacy and its system was the "Big Daddy Antichrist" predicted by John and Paul (the Apostles!).

The Papacy opposes Christ by being an idol set up in his place. He is anti- Christ (i.e. against Christ) by being anti -Christ (i.e. in the place of Christ) ; aping Christ by e.g. creating "saints", as a simple example.

But the Antichrist, Man of Sin and Son of Perdition, sits enthroned in Christ's place within God's Temple.

Ergo, the Roman Catholic Church must be part of God's Temple i.e. God's Church.

so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. (II Thess 2:4, ESV)

Rob
I believe there are many Christians in the RC church,

All Roman Catholics are Christians. The question is how many of them are true Christians. Same with Presbyterians.

All married men are husbands. How many are true husbands?

It's better not to be outwardly and legally in a covenant relationship with God, and in that sense have covenant privileges and have the name of Christian, than to be thus and not have the inner reality of the covenant in a changed heart and life.
 
Last edited:
But am I correct in assuming that only children of Covenant members are valid baptismal candidates?
No... Adult converts are also valid baptismal candidates.

Some presbyterians, such as John Knox would argue for the validity of RC baptism on the account that it was trinitarian. Others such as the RPCGA would argue against the validity. See their documentation online. http://www.rpcga.us/SiteContent/65/documents/RPCGA Declaration on RCC Baptism.pdf

Knox stated in his Answers to Some Questions Concerning Baptism, etc.
I add, whosoever offers their children to the papistical baptism, offers them to the devil, who was author and first inventor of all such abominations; and therefore, whosoever communicates with the papistical sacraments, approves (and before the world allows) whatsoever doctrine and religion they profess. Yea, farther, who offers their children to the papistical baptism, offers them not to God, nor to Christ Jesus his Son, but to the devil, [the] chief author and inventor of such abominations.
But he then goes on to state:
"Shall we be baptized again," do some demand, "that in our infancy were polluted with that adulterated sign?" I answer, "No," for the Spirit of regeneration, which is freely given to us by Christ Jesus our whole sufficiency, has purged from us that poison which we drank in the days of our blindness.
 
Last edited:
Kevin:

I agree with you that RC baptism is valid. My arguments are essentially those of Hodge.

I find it interesting, however, that you say that the PCA position, simpliciter, is to accept RC baptism. I have PCA TE friends who do not affirm its validity. Br. Andrew Barnes on this board has affirmed otherwise, for example, and he is not an "odd duck" for doing so. To say that acceptance of RC baptism is the "historic" position is not quite accurate: certainly in the 19th century the opposite was true (and I meant to cite, in addition to Hodge's, Thornwell's arguments: thanks, Rob, for doing so).

In fact, I have OPC friends who think otherwise. Many assume that the OPC is completely in Hodge's camp on this. Most are, but not all. As recently as a few decades back, the Presbytery of New Jersey (OPC) ruled that RC baptism was not valid. And then, as has also been cited on PB, there are other Presbyterians than the PCA and OPC who question its validity.

I say all of this to say that it's probably not best to present the position on this as a monolith. While practice (history) is quite important on a question like this, ultimately, as is always true for Protestants, the argument will have to be made from Scripture.

Peace,
Alan
 
If a Catholic baptism is invalid because the church is apostate, then baptism in a mainline church may be invalid too.

If a mainline baptism is invalid, then baptism in a liberal-leaning PCA may be invalid too.

If a liberal-leaning PCA baptism is invalid, than baptism by any minister who's later shown to be wrong in his theology may be invalid too.

You see the problem. We start to place our confidence in the trustworthiness of the church or minister rather than in the trustworthiness of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in whose names we are baptized.

This is why I side with a Catholic baptism being valid, though I admit it's a tough question and those opposed have some good reasons to be opposed.
 
Jack,

Is RC a true church? Yes or no?

Is a priest a minister lawfully ordained? Yes or no?



If you were in a position to do so, would you receive a RC member by way of transfer of letter into your congregation?

Would you allow a member of RC to partake in the Lord's Supper if you were in a position to administer and fence the table?


Also, please note the PCA Majority Report on this topic, which found RC baptisms as invalid:

“One of the problems remaining is the fact that John Calvin resisted the urging of the Anabaptists that he, having been baptized by the Roman Catholics, should be (re)baptized (Institutes 4.15.16-18). His response must be understood in terms of the uniqueness of the situation and not wrongly generalized. He, of course, resisted the Anabaptists’ desire to have him repudiate his infant baptism and receive baptism as an adult believer. The effect that this situation had upon him can be seen in his insisting that Paul did not really baptize the disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus and in his insisting that the baptism of John the Baptist is Christian baptism. This insistence, contrary to the text of the Scriptures, is so that he can assert that those were not “re baptisms” at all in opposition to the Anabaptists. The denomination in which Calvin was baptized was a church in flux, and coming to but not yet beyond the crossroads (cf., Institutes 4.2.11). It is not yet the church of the counter-reformation, the Council of Trent and its anathemas on the doctrine of justification by faith alone (see H. J. Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, “Sixth Session, Decree Covering Justification” and particularly “Canon 9,” “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.”) That pre-Reformation church in flux is the church in which Calvin and many of the other Reformation believers had been members. Thus Calvin and the church of today stand at different vantage points in evaluating the Roman Catholic Church, i.e., the church of his infancy, the pre-reformation church, and the Roman Catholic church post-reformation and post Council-of-Trent. The analogy could be drawn between certain congregational churches in New England before and after the transition to Unitarianism.” [PCA, (Majority) REPORT OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE ON QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF CERTAIN BAPTISMS]

“In 1835 the Assembly declared the papacy to be apostate from Christ, and no true church. As we do not recognize her as a portion of the visible Church of Christ, we cannot, consistently, view her priesthood as other than usurpers of the sacred functions of the ministry, her ordinances as unscriptural, and her baptism as totally invalid.”

Jack, this would be different than the PCUSA for example that you brought up. No assembly has declared the PCUSA as apostate officially, whereas this has happened as to RC, especially if you consider the very language of the Westminster Standards and the language of the pope as the antichrist.
 
Last edited:
Hi:

Calvin, and I am not sure about Luther, taught that the Church of Rome was a valid church in its essentials, "esse," but that it was antichrist in regards to the benefits "bene esse." It seems to me that after Trent the Roman Catholic church has corrupted the essentials in such a way that it can no longer be considered a Christian church in its essentials.

That is a debate that has been going on in Protestantism for a long time.

Blessings,

Rob

Those baptised in the Church of Rome or Eastern Orthodox Churches are baptised into the Catholic (i.e. Universal) Visible Church, and in this sense are Christians. Whether particular individuals are born again is another question, over which only God is ultimately infallible.

When the Ten Tribes apostasised from the Temple Worship, was their circumcision valid? Yes, it was.

Those baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity in churches which are a part of the Visible Catholic Church, don't need baptism again.

Rob
but as to the system as a whole I believe that it is Antichrist.

Luther and Calvin believed that the Papacy and its system was the "Big Daddy Antichrist" predicted by John and Paul (the Apostles!).

The Papacy opposes Christ by being an idol set up in his place. He is anti- Christ (i.e. against Christ) by being anti -Christ (i.e. in the place of Christ) ; aping Christ by e.g. creating "saints", as a simple example.

But the Antichrist, Man of Sin and Son of Perdition, sits enthroned in Christ's place within God's Temple.

Ergo, the Roman Catholic Church must be part of God's Temple i.e. God's Church.

so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. (II Thess 2:4, ESV)

Rob
I believe there are many Christians in the RC church,

All Roman Catholics are Christians. The question is how many of them are true Christians. Same with Presbyterians.

All married men are husbands. How many are true husbands?

It's better not to be outwardly and legally in a covenant relationship with God, and in that sense have covenant privileges and have the name of Christian, than to be thus and not have the inner reality of the covenant in a changed heart and life.
 
It also made sense for me to be baptized as a Protestant

But am I correct in assuming that only children of Covenant members are valid baptismal candidates?
No... Adult converts are also valid baptismal candidates.

Some presbyterians, such as John Knox would argue for the validity of RC baptism on the account that it was trinitarian. Others such as the RPCGA would argue against the validity. See their documentation online. http://www.rpcga.us/SiteContent/65/documents/RPCGA Declaration on RCC Baptism.pdf

Knox stated in his Answers to Some Questions Concerning Baptism, etc.
I add, whosoever offers their children to the papistical baptism, offers them to the devil, who was author and first inventor of all such abominations; and therefore, whosoever communicates with the papistical sacraments, approves (and before the world allows) whatsoever doctrine and religion they profess. Yea, farther, who offers their children to the papistical baptism, offers them not to God, nor to Christ Jesus his Son, but to the devil, [the] chief author and inventor of such abominations.
But he then goes on to state:
"Shall we be baptized again," do some demand, "that in our infancy were polluted with that adulterated sign?" I answer, "No," for the Spirit of regeneration, which is freely given to us by Christ Jesus our whole sufficiency, has purged from us that poison which we drank in the days of our blindness.

We , Reformed Protestants are first to ascertain from Scripture what the true sacrament of baptism is, and then judge the practice of the church in every age by this standard.... The unbroken transmission of a visible Church in any line of succession is a figment of papists and prelatists. Conformity with the Scriptures, not ecclesiastical genealogy, is the true touchstone of a sound church.”
All here know I am an ex Roman catholic and now a Presbyterian. However a few years ago before becoming a Presbyterian in my present church by affirmation of faith before the congregation.; While exploring the Baptists I requested and was Baptized in a Protestant Baptism by immersion in a Baptist church.
Baptists have not acknowledged other baptism than immersion. And therefore if you have received some other form of baptism, and you desire to join a Baptist church, and especially a Reformed Baptist church, immersion will be required. Now that is not because Reformed Baptists are just being mean and nasty and picky. It is because of their very theology of baptism that that is required, so there are definitely ecclesiastical divides on this issue. And it is an important one to study.

In the northern Presbyterian church, Charles Hodge argued that all Roman Catholic baptism ought to be accepted as legitimate Christian baptism. In the southern Presbyterian church, James Henley Thornwell argued that it should not be accepted as Christian baptism. And in the PCA, in order to avoid the controversy, we have left that up to local sessions, so we split the difference as usual. Basically what we said is, that we will leave that up to the local session to determine on a case-by-case basis.
the Roman Church wasn’t a church, and B. since the Roman Church was not a church, therefore the Roman Priesthood was not ordained clergy.

In the late 1980s a debate arose within the PCA that has troubled Presbyterians for centuries, namely is Roman Catholic Baptism valid, or should we baptize someone who was sprinkled in a Roman Catholic Church when we admit them to membership in a PCA church? In 1987 the PCA majority report of the Ad Hoc committee appointed to study the validity of certain baptisms determined that Roman Catholic baptism was indeed invalid, and thus no true baptism at all. This report was prepared by Frank M. Barker, Jr., Carl W. Bogue, Jr., George W. Knight, III, Chairman, and Paul G. Settle so it represented a fairly wide diversity of views within the PCA. They noted that the American Presbyterians in their GAs of 1790 and 1835 had determined that the Roman Catholic Church (hereafter RCC) was an apostate organization, and therefore no part of the true church.


The almost unanimous opinion of the Old School GA of 1845 was also that being no part of the true church, the RCC could not administer a valid baptism.

If we were to go against the opinion of prior Old School Presbyterians by contending that the baptism of the RCC is valid, most modern Presbyterians would be put in the exceedingly odd position of admitting that they would not receive a member of the RCC into one’s own church by letter of transfer, because they judge them not to be members of a true church, but that they would acknowledge that their baptism, the sign and seal of entrance into the visible church, was valid. In fact, this silly situation would be only heightened by the fact that we specifically do not allow members of the RCC to come to Lord’s Supper because we do not consider them to be members in good standing of an evangelical church. In short in everything we do, we deny the RCC to be a part of the visible church. So to acknowledge their baptism as valid would be impossibly inconsistent – it simply has no possible foundation other than
“It is the unanimous opinion of all the Reformed churches, that the whole papal body, though once a branch of the visible church, has long since become utterly corrupt, and hopelessly apostate. It was a conviction of this which led to the reformation, and the complete separation of the reformed body from the papal communion. Luther and his coadjutors, being duly ordained presbyters at the time when they left the Romish communion, which then, though fearfully corrupt, was the only visible church in the countries of their abode, were fully authorized by the word of God, to ordain successors in the ministry, and so to extend and perpetuate the Reformed churches as true churches of Christ: while the contumacious adherence of Rome to her corruptions, as shown in the decisions of the Council of Trent, (which she adopts as authoritative,) cuts her off from the visible Church of Christ, as heretical and unsound. This was the opinion of the Reformers, and it is the doctrine of the Reformed churches to this day. In entire accordance to this is the decision of the General Assembly of our Church, passed in 1835, (See Minutes of General Assembly, vol. 8, p. 33) declaring the Church of Rome to be an apostate body.

It also made sense for me to be baptized as a Protestant because I not only questioned the validity myself of RC baptism I wrote the following as my personal confession of faith when becoming a Presbyterian.

The following is my personal experience of being “born again” regeneration by the grace of God alone … For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
My personal statement of my Reformed faith as a Presbyterian.. how I responded to the gift of grace alone a gift from God…
I am an ex Roman catholic I renounced Roman Catholicism, her pope and its teachings which transcend and contradict scripture when I became a Protestant.
I also believe that a Roman catholic needs to reject openly Roman Catholicism and her pope to be truly free and experience a true Protestant conversion after being born again by Gods amazing grace…regeneration…..

I Dudley Davis reject all the traditions and teachings of the Roman Catholic church and as a Protestant I accept, embrace and believe the following as part of my Christian Reformed Protestant faith

I believe in the God of the Bible
I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God
I believe God is trinity, one God in three persons
I believe Jesus Christ is very God of very God
I believe that the Christ has come in the flesh
I believe in the resurrection of the dead
I believe in eternal judgment

I believe in a heaven and a hell and that all who are elected by the saving grace of God and accept Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and thus are born again in Jesus Christ as believers of His Gospel and live the life of evangelizing his good news will be with his Father in Gods Kingdom of Heaven for all eternity.

I believe in justification by faith alone.

I sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Presbyterian church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures and I submit to the teachings of the Presbyterian Protestant tenets and doctrine.

I believe the Bible as the word of God and the only and final authority and path to salvation I submit in discipline to the doctrines of John Calvin and the teachings of the Presbyterian Church in doctrine and life.

It is Christ alone who is salvation to our souls, not the Church of Rome or the Pope"

I believe in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, the authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and practice and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

I believe now as the Reformers who realized as they studied the Scriptures that the great central doctrine of the gospel was expressed in the comprehensive sentence, “Christ died for our sins.” The death of Christ was the great center from which the doctrine of salvation sprung.

In grace,
Dudley

---------- Post added at 12:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 AM ----------

So then since a priest is not a minister and RC isn't part of Christ's Church, there is no baptism. Also, the PCAs position is what you find in the Westminster Standards. So not just a minister, but more specifically a minister lawfully ordained which a priest is not.


The historic Presbyterian position (i.e. what is accepted in the PCA) is that any perso baptized in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit by a minister of a trinitarian church, is considered to be baptized.

Some sectarians (also known as donatists) will insist that only those baptisms performed by the "right man" are valid. However this is not the position of the mainstream of orthodoxy.

Here is a good article on this issue: Are Roman Catholic Baptisms Valid? « Building Old School Churches

Amen!In short in everything we do,as Reformed Protestants, we deny the RCC to be a part of the visible church. So to acknowledge their baptism as valid would be impossibly inconsistent – it simply has no possible foundation other than be baptised as a Protestant when converting from the RCC.

---------- Post added at 12:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 AM ----------

So then since a priest is not a minister and RC isn't part of Christ's Church, there is no baptism. Also, the PCAs position is what you find in the Westminster Standards. So not just a minister, but more specifically a minister lawfully ordained which a priest is not.


The historic Presbyterian position (i.e. what is accepted in the PCA) is that any perso baptized in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit by a minister of a trinitarian church, is considered to be baptized.

Some sectarians (also known as donatists) will insist that only those baptisms performed by the "right man" are valid. However this is not the position of the mainstream of orthodoxy.

Here is a good article on this issue: Are Roman Catholic Baptisms Valid? « Building Old School Churches

Amen!In short in everything we do,as Reformed Protestants, we deny the RCC to be a part of the visible church. So to acknowledge their baptism as valid would be impossibly inconsistent – it simply has no possible foundation other than be baptised as a Protestant when converting from the RCC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top