Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
You wouldn't do that, so, it is a red herring.
:bigsmile:
Resources on why we accept any trinitarian baptism
- Thread starter SolaScriptura
- Start date
- Status
You wouldn't do that, so, it is a red herring.
:bigsmile:
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
ANE? If the rite was administered, they were truly in the visible church; whether they were in the invisible, only God would know.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Please show me one instance in the whole of scripture where someone was rebaptised?
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Suppose then that it is a low-church evangelical friend of mine on campus, who administers it to her newly-converted friend. Was it a baptism?
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Scott, everyone here would agree that "rebaptism" is an error; and the issue is whether so-called "baptisms" like Rome's and my on-campus friend's are really baptisms at all in the first place.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Sorry... ANE = Ancient Near East.
Ok. Thanks for your input. Peace.
And this is another related question that is vital in answering the validity of RC's baptism. Is the RC a church in ANY sense?
The WCF seems to suggest that Rome is in a sense a church:
I am still thinking through this myself, but it seems to me that even us reformed folk recognize Rome as a church on SOME level even today. What do we call it? The Roman Catholic CHURCH. This is a tough issue for me to be sure, as I agree that it is surely a synagogue of Satan. I don't want to come off as defending Rome.
Again, if I met a pagan that had just converted to Christ, and he desired to become baptized, I would never recommend him go to a RC to do it. Neither would I recommend him go to the local "evangelical" mega-Arminian church to do it either. I would count them both to be valid, but not as pure.
Yet because of the thing signified by baptism (a ONE-TIME event), I would feel safer accepting a Roman baptism (while not calling it pure by any means).
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Jeff,
I don't believe that the reformed would recognize Rome as a church per se; the key is who is doing the baptising, i.e. Christ.
ServantOfKing
Puritan Board Freshman
I am honestly wondering why a Mormon baptism would be considered a baptism at all - when they deny the deity of Christ and do not administer it in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit?
The way I have always understood it is that they are in no way a Christian church, and they have never been at any time in history.
I know that the OPC does not accept Mormon baptisms, as my friend was raised in the Mormon church, came to Christ and was baptized into membership of the OP congregation. The "baptism" that the Mormon "church" performed was not accepted because it isn't trinitarian and the Mormon religion is not a Christian religion.
What is the reasoning behind accepting the Mormon version of baptism?
The way I have always understood it is that they are in no way a Christian church, and they have never been at any time in history.
I know that the OPC does not accept Mormon baptisms, as my friend was raised in the Mormon church, came to Christ and was baptized into membership of the OP congregation. The "baptism" that the Mormon "church" performed was not accepted because it isn't trinitarian and the Mormon religion is not a Christian religion.
What is the reasoning behind accepting the Mormon version of baptism?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Sorry... ANE = Ancient Near East.
Ok. Thanks for your input. Peace.
Ben,
Did I misunderstand your question? Seriously?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Ashley,
Because the reformed have never believed in rebaptism. There are some links I have placed above; please read them for a better understanding.
The Popish Church is faithful to the fundamentals of Christianity. They adhere to the Apostle's Creed, the Trinitarian formulas, they reject the errors of Pelagius and the most egregious forms of semi-pelagianism. Only in the superstructure is the Romanist Church rotten. They are a real Christian Church (albeit a harlotrous one) with a valid ministry that efficaciously administers baptism.
Jesus said that the papists of his time, the scribes and pharisees, still sat in the seat of Moses as the readers and interpreters of the law. Despite continuously contradicting the law by their practice and their false traditions their authority was not extinguished. The Popish church has the scriptures and is the means of distributing them for half the christians in the world. The many errors of Rome cannot obliterate the gospel. From the perspective of Satan, this is the genius of the Romish system. After the triumph of Christ over paganism the devil tried to re-establish it but was far more successful subverting Christ's offices and the mission of the church by infecting it with superstition and idolatry. Even though languishing several hundred years under Anti-Christian Roman apostacy the visible church was never lost and though corrupted the gospel and the worship of God survived with it.
Jesus said that the papists of his time, the scribes and pharisees, still sat in the seat of Moses as the readers and interpreters of the law. Despite continuously contradicting the law by their practice and their false traditions their authority was not extinguished. The Popish church has the scriptures and is the means of distributing them for half the christians in the world. The many errors of Rome cannot obliterate the gospel. From the perspective of Satan, this is the genius of the Romish system. After the triumph of Christ over paganism the devil tried to re-establish it but was far more successful subverting Christ's offices and the mission of the church by infecting it with superstition and idolatry. Even though languishing several hundred years under Anti-Christian Roman apostacy the visible church was never lost and though corrupted the gospel and the worship of God survived with it.
ServantOfKing
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks for those links. I read through the shorter one earlier and skimmed some of the longer ones. I am on board with the notion that rebaptism is completely wrong. I do not see a problem with accepting the Roman Catholic baptism.
My main question is whether or not the Mormon "baptism" is baptism at all. They don't believe Jesus is God. & they don't baptize in the name of the trinity. So what is it that actually makes it a baptism?
Is it deemed more acceptable for some reason because they are a more established cult?
My main question is whether or not the Mormon "baptism" is baptism at all. They don't believe Jesus is God. & they don't baptize in the name of the trinity. So what is it that actually makes it a baptism?
Is it deemed more acceptable for some reason because they are a more established cult?
non dignus
Puritan Board Sophomore
thank you Peter for that short analysis of the RC,- best I've seen.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Chris,
As I have said, baptisms from Rome have always been seen as valid; a year ago, I was rejecting them for the same principles Ben is saying. After further studies, I see why Rome's baptism is valid as Zipporah's circumcision. How many unregenerate pastors out there place the sign weekly? Are their baptisms any less valid?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Well this may be a moot issue; They don't baptise in the F, S and HG? If they do not, no, their baptism would be invalid; I was going on the premise that they baptised in the trinity.
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
As always I like to draw a distinction between church denominations and churche bodies that teach a thing and the poor unknowing souls submitting to a thing under said bodies. That being said:
1. Rebaptism has been considered more than an error, that's soft pedaling the reality and compromising the Cross altogether. 2 + 3 = 6 is an error. Telling a man a second baptism is valid in lieu of his first is another Gospel and damned. Requiring a second baptism is works and another Gospel and thus damned. Telling an infant who was baptized by sprinkling as an infant who is now an adult that he/she must be baptized via immersion and their former baptism is not based in the Gospel and promise, but that they need one based in their faith is another Gospel and damned (since faith does not equal Gospel, the basis for rebaptism is demonic). Scoffing and telling this same person that their baptism which is a sign of God´s promise to them that they trusted in before hand is mocking them for their trusting in said promise signified and is thus persecution without the Sword JUST as Ishmael, the child of law, persecuted Isaac, the child of promise. Rebaptism would be and Israelite being recircumcised into an Egyptian circumcision if it were possible. Telling such to a child of God baptized as an infant and by an non-immersion mode is sin and causing a stumbling of God´s children by those proffering rebaptism. It would be akin to an adult later telling my children when I´m not around, "œNo, you don´t really have your father´s name nor his loving mercy, you must prove your self with a mob like faith in order to earn such", thus causing them to fear me in an unrelational and pagan way and to NOT trust in their father. Ministers who do rebaptize ought to be warned of this damnable practice against God´s people, teaching them FALSELY to not trust in their Heavenly Father Who has baptized them, it will not be something lightly taken by those professing to be teachers and shepherds, they will give account of this false Gospel! Thus, it is no simple error to so instruct the conscience of the child of God. Luther called it sacrilege because it mocks God and he was right. A rebaptism is to throw off Christ and the Cross and renounce the grace of God. Those who have been rebaptized and come to understand this denial of the Gospel should simply repent, Gospel, gracious repentance not legal repentance and then thank their heavenly Father Who already gave them His name and the Gospel in the first baptism sovereignly and in spite of all men involved.
2. Mormon baptism IS NOT valid because they do not name the true Trinity. The "Father," "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are not the three persons in which the one divinity subsists, but three gods who form a divinity, hence utterly pagan. And the Mormon "œgospel" is again, a false gospel patently developed upon works. Hence, Mormon baptism neither communicate the true name of God OR the Gospel itself (the later is where rebaptisms fail).
Ldh
[Edited on 9-16-2006 by Larry Hughes]
1. Rebaptism has been considered more than an error, that's soft pedaling the reality and compromising the Cross altogether. 2 + 3 = 6 is an error. Telling a man a second baptism is valid in lieu of his first is another Gospel and damned. Requiring a second baptism is works and another Gospel and thus damned. Telling an infant who was baptized by sprinkling as an infant who is now an adult that he/she must be baptized via immersion and their former baptism is not based in the Gospel and promise, but that they need one based in their faith is another Gospel and damned (since faith does not equal Gospel, the basis for rebaptism is demonic). Scoffing and telling this same person that their baptism which is a sign of God´s promise to them that they trusted in before hand is mocking them for their trusting in said promise signified and is thus persecution without the Sword JUST as Ishmael, the child of law, persecuted Isaac, the child of promise. Rebaptism would be and Israelite being recircumcised into an Egyptian circumcision if it were possible. Telling such to a child of God baptized as an infant and by an non-immersion mode is sin and causing a stumbling of God´s children by those proffering rebaptism. It would be akin to an adult later telling my children when I´m not around, "œNo, you don´t really have your father´s name nor his loving mercy, you must prove your self with a mob like faith in order to earn such", thus causing them to fear me in an unrelational and pagan way and to NOT trust in their father. Ministers who do rebaptize ought to be warned of this damnable practice against God´s people, teaching them FALSELY to not trust in their Heavenly Father Who has baptized them, it will not be something lightly taken by those professing to be teachers and shepherds, they will give account of this false Gospel! Thus, it is no simple error to so instruct the conscience of the child of God. Luther called it sacrilege because it mocks God and he was right. A rebaptism is to throw off Christ and the Cross and renounce the grace of God. Those who have been rebaptized and come to understand this denial of the Gospel should simply repent, Gospel, gracious repentance not legal repentance and then thank their heavenly Father Who already gave them His name and the Gospel in the first baptism sovereignly and in spite of all men involved.
2. Mormon baptism IS NOT valid because they do not name the true Trinity. The "Father," "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are not the three persons in which the one divinity subsists, but three gods who form a divinity, hence utterly pagan. And the Mormon "œgospel" is again, a false gospel patently developed upon works. Hence, Mormon baptism neither communicate the true name of God OR the Gospel itself (the later is where rebaptisms fail).
Ldh
[Edited on 9-16-2006 by Larry Hughes]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Larry,
Excellent post; my previous posts in regards to the Mormons was going on the premise that they did indeed baptise in the trinity.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Yours is a good question. By the way: They DO use the Trinitarian formula. Of course, they don't mean what we mean when they refer to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit... but once we grant that then we move into the realm of saying that there must be more than the recitation of a formula and that intended meaning plays a part. I'm willing to grant that. Some here aren't.
[Edited on 9-16-2006 by SolaScriptura]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Here is the type of equivocation to which I referred above.
For you, the meaning of words, the doctrines involved, etc... MATTER in regards to the Mormons.
But they don't when it comes to the RC.
I have a sneaking suspicion that what is really at play here is a deep seated sympathy towards the RC church that just can't quite come to grips with what it means to say that it is a synagogue of Satan instead of a part of the body of Christ.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Ben,
With all due respect, you are missing the point. Much like I did previously. I HATE Rome and everything that the organization represents. However, it is Christ whom truly baptises, not the administration.
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Scott,
Thanks. I figured that´s why you said what you said early.
Ben,
Not at all. The RCC does baptize in the true Trinity with meaning and all behind it. This they have never renounced.
Yes, they, RCC, have anathemized the Gospel in Cannon but that in and of itself does not nullify the baptism which is STILL grace and Gospel. What you HAVE to understand and grasp is that a second baptism by its very nature throws off entirely the cross of Christ. There is NO escaping that. It is what that second false ceremony communicates and signifies. It is always in the baptistic paradigm to make Baptism founded upon faith itself and not the Gospel itself, hence the redoing. This is why one group does and one group does not, fundamentally Reformed and Lutherans at this level understand baptism ENTIRELY different the Credo churches, you don´t even have to enter infants into the debate on this point. Yet infants do enter the debate by the nature of holy Baptism, thus Luther said baptism looses its true Gospel witness if we cease to baptize infants and move toward adults only (hence the utter confusion today on the sacrament, Luther was somewhat prophetic in seeing this, so to speak). If the Gospel is understood in the baptism and it is truly understood as God´s work upon the infant AND adult, there is absolutely NO reason for rebaptism. There is absolutely no regard for the credo argument of whether or not infants possess faith, it´s a red herring foisted forward to sustain a false view of baptism altogether.
I hope that helps some.
Blessings,
Ldh
Thanks. I figured that´s why you said what you said early.
Ben,
Not at all. The RCC does baptize in the true Trinity with meaning and all behind it. This they have never renounced.
Yes, they, RCC, have anathemized the Gospel in Cannon but that in and of itself does not nullify the baptism which is STILL grace and Gospel. What you HAVE to understand and grasp is that a second baptism by its very nature throws off entirely the cross of Christ. There is NO escaping that. It is what that second false ceremony communicates and signifies. It is always in the baptistic paradigm to make Baptism founded upon faith itself and not the Gospel itself, hence the redoing. This is why one group does and one group does not, fundamentally Reformed and Lutherans at this level understand baptism ENTIRELY different the Credo churches, you don´t even have to enter infants into the debate on this point. Yet infants do enter the debate by the nature of holy Baptism, thus Luther said baptism looses its true Gospel witness if we cease to baptize infants and move toward adults only (hence the utter confusion today on the sacrament, Luther was somewhat prophetic in seeing this, so to speak). If the Gospel is understood in the baptism and it is truly understood as God´s work upon the infant AND adult, there is absolutely NO reason for rebaptism. There is absolutely no regard for the credo argument of whether or not infants possess faith, it´s a red herring foisted forward to sustain a false view of baptism altogether.
I hope that helps some.
Blessings,
Ldh
ServantOfKing
Puritan Board Freshman
Would a Roman baptism be valid because their teaching on the trinity and Jesus' deity is overall correct, while a Mormon baptism would be invalid because their teaching on the trinity and Jesus is completely heretical?
For example, I think that a person can be a member of a RC church, trust in Jesus' death and resurrection to save them, be uneducated as to the church's teaching and the scripture, and be a true child of God.
I do not think that a person in an LDS congregation can be a Christian.
Is that a general consensus?
For example, I think that a person can be a member of a RC church, trust in Jesus' death and resurrection to save them, be uneducated as to the church's teaching and the scripture, and be a true child of God.
I do not think that a person in an LDS congregation can be a Christian.
Is that a general consensus?
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
That sounds pious, but it really is a smokescreen.
I mean, then why bother with the whole "lawfully ordained" part... heck, Jesus can baptize us w/o human instrumentality at all (as in Spirit baptism).
You are right in that the spiritual aspects of what true baptism signifies and seals are done by the power and work of God and not by man, hence the legitimacy of irregular baptisms.
But in terms of the administration of water and baptism into the visible church, it is WE who baptize as Christ's ministers, in Christ's name, under Christ's authority.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
I appreciate this. Read again what you said. That is a mighty big IF...
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Ashley,
It is formula; it is not dependant upon the unregenerate pastor administering the sacrament, but Christs faithfulness.
Surely, there are some of Gods elect in the Mormon church; they will leave eventually.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Ben,
You write:
The above says I am not pious and I am trying to mislead you intentionally! ???
We both understand about whom is to apply the sacrament. Is the unregenerate pastor whom is placing the sign upon the baptisee any less valid?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Exactly; what does the above say about paedobaptism in general?
- Status
