Roman Catholic Baptism (poll "do over")

[Amazing Grace]

But, the wicked Northern Kingdom had broken covenant with God. There was no (except for Elijah and the 1000 that God had elected) semblance of any type of true gospel or worship of the true God there. The Northern Kingdom could not properly be called a church despite the existence of Elijah and the 1000.

Well since "church" equals the people of God, it most certainly was present in the North... This has always been the case, and still is now. Even in yours and my pews Douglas. I am very surprised you speak as such...

 

[Calvibaptist]

But, the wicked Northern Kingdom had broken covenant with God. There was no (except for Elijah and the 1000 that God had elected) semblance of any type of true gospel or worship of the true God there. The Northern Kingdom could not properly be called a church despite the existence of Elijah and the 1000.

Well since "church" equals the people of God, it most certainly was present in the North... This has always been the case, and still is now. Even in yours and my pews Douglas. I am very surprised you speak as such...

You have changed my words. I did NOT say the church was not present in the Northern Kingdom. Of course there were believers in the Northern Kingdom. We know of at least 1001. But the Northern Kingdom itself, as a whole, ceased to be a church as the government run religion became apostate and this is what I meant by "the Northern Kingdom could not properly be called a church." Would you suggest that the worship of Baal was the true worship of God? Of course not. It was apostate. Were there believers present as citizens of the Northern Kingdom. Of course there were.

So, are there believers present within the RCC? I assume there are. By the WCF definition of the visible church, these believers would be considered the church.

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;and of their children.

But, the 1689 LBC I believe addresses the problem of calling individual saints who may or may not have any physical connection to each other "the visible church." Here is how it addresses the subject:

All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints;

Notice it calls them "visible saints" not "the visible church." This is the view I hold. Therefore, I can say without doubt that, although there may be many individual Christians that could properly be called "visible saints" within the RCC, the institution as a whole is most definitely NOT the "visible church" because of it's rejection of the gospel, nor should the individual Christians be called the "visible church."

 

[Amazing Grace]

Who here has made the accusation that there are no Christians in the RCC? What those of us who say their baptism is invalid have said time and time again is that the institution is not Christian because the institution denies the gospel. Any arguments about what individual people like Augustine or whoever believed is irrelevant. The discussion has revolved around the official statements of the institution.

What do you mean by "institution"? From all that has been written it seems that the focus has been on the various pronouncements. I assume you can't be talking about their form of government, which is the same as the Anglicans.

But you have brought up an interesting point. Since you seem to believe that there are Christians in the RCC, despite their corrupted doctrines, there must be some semblance of the Gospel being preached in some form or fashion. Therefore, the RCC does qualify as a Church though not a True Church. Just as when Elijah thought he was the only one left in the wicked Northern Kingdom, Israel, God told him that he still had those who had not bowed the knee to Baal.

But, the wicked Northern Kingdom had broken covenant with God. There was no (except for Elijah and the 1000 that God had elected) semblance of any type of true gospel or worship of the true God there. The Northern Kingdom could not properly be called a church despite the existence of Elijah and the 1000.

This is the same with the RCC. The true believers that are there are despite the teaching of the RCC, not because of it.

By institution, I mean the official teaching of the church. The doctrinal statements and pronouncement that make them RCC. I do not mean individual people. This is why I say that a non-Christian organization (institution) cannot give Christian sacraments. The RCC is no more authorized to baptize and give communion than the local Rotary club.

According to God's inspired word, the remnant does make a valid assembly though Douglas. And in fact God's shows him 7000 not only 1000.

Romans 11:

1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Let us look at our Saviors own words addressed to the 'churches' in the book of revelation. He HIMSELF called them churches Douglas.

Pergemos held to the doctrine of Baalim and some nicolation stench
Thyatira: Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not.

Sardis: I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die; for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments, and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

Laodicia: I know thy works that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would that thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

The Remnant: “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ....Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and have the faith of Jesus.” Revelation 12:17, 14:12.


Therefore just as apostate Israel had a remnant of God's people serving Him, so does the rcc.

 

[Larry Hughes]

So:

Some Presbyterian. vote no to modern Roman baptism due to its denial of the Gospel in the Council of Trent. A nice easy approach to a very monolithic group who penned what they confess.

But what about the plethora of informal Gospel denying baptistic/evangelical churches plaguing the country side, I could list 100s just in my area without getting out of Central KY and 90% of them SB. You certainly cannot go to their “official confession” because they like to be slippery as eels, utterly independent (but in sheer hypocrisy allow for “unions”). Their “independence” is somewhat dubious more like independent lemmings all at once saying, “show your independence by everybody raising their hands together”. They are certainly not formally monolithic, although one could argue and show they are monolithic informally. And you certainly cannot pen them down in words if pressed because they will parrot, and I mean parrot only, “faith alone”, because that’s a good protestant already packaged formulation for them. Yet the ENTIRE preaching, use of the Sacraments and life of the church SCREAMS Christ is not NEARLY enough, therefore denying the Lord they confess by their mouths in Word and Sacrament. I suppose that constitutes a re-baptism since the denial of the Gospel by Rome does that for us. Or is it caveated only as that which is formally written down and declared and formally monolithic denial on paper? Denying this reality is stupidity and blindness on the level of denying the color of the sky to be blue and can be instantly waived off.

And Baptist would agree to the first about Rome. But then would rebaptize all non-immersed infant baptized preby. And the like. So the Baptist have at least three pliable criteria at their disposal, depending on which way the wind is blowing at any given moment of discussion; Gospel affirming church, immersion only, and adult. Yet, they would have the same problem among their own in the second paragraph.

Medieval times have returned!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

So:

Some Presbyterian. vote no to modern Roman baptism due to its denial of the Gospel in the Council of Trent. A nice easy approach to a very monolithic group who penned what they confess.... Medieval times have returned!

I have been wondering where you have been. I knew you wouldn't be silent on this issue if you had been around. LOL

 

[Larry Hughes]

LOL

I'm here occasionally. Just pretty busy now days. I hope your doing well yourself! This was too much to resist a quick one. Like a big chocolate cookie left out on the table!

Blessings,

L

 

[Calvibaptist]

What do you mean by "institution"? From all that has been written it seems that the focus has been on the various pronouncements. I assume you can't be talking about their form of government, which is the same as the Anglicans.

But you have brought up an interesting point. Since you seem to believe that there are Christians in the RCC, despite their corrupted doctrines, there must be some semblance of the Gospel being preached in some form or fashion. Therefore, the RCC does qualify as a Church though not a True Church. Just as when Elijah thought he was the only one left in the wicked Northern Kingdom, Israel, God told him that he still had those who had not bowed the knee to Baal.

But, the wicked Northern Kingdom had broken covenant with God. There was no (except for Elijah and the 1000 that God had elected) semblance of any type of true gospel or worship of the true God there. The Northern Kingdom could not properly be called a church despite the existence of Elijah and the 1000.

This is the same with the RCC. The true believers that are there are despite the teaching of the RCC, not because of it.

By institution, I mean the official teaching of the church. The doctrinal statements and pronouncement that make them RCC. I do not mean individual people. This is why I say that a non-Christian organization (institution) cannot give Christian sacraments. The RCC is no more authorized to baptize and give communion than the local Rotary club.

According to God's inspired word, the remnant does make a valid assembly though Douglas. And in fact God's shows him 7000 not only 1000.

Romans 11:

1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Let us look at our Saviors own words addressed to the 'churches' in the book of revelation. He HIMSELF called them churches Douglas.

Pergemos held to the doctrine of Baalim and some nicolation stench
Thyatira: Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not.

Sardis: I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die; for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments, and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

Laodicia: I know thy works that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would that thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

The Remnant: “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ....Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and have the faith of Jesus.” Revelation 12:17, 14:12.


Therefore just as apostate Israel had a remnant of God's people serving Him, so does the rcc.

You have again either misunderstood or misrepresented my point. I will assume the first. If you noticed, I said that of course there were believers in the Northern Kingdom and I am sure there are believers in the RCC. OK, so I didn't look up the number of those God set aside (1000 vs 7000). Frankly, it does not matter if there were 600,000,000,000,000 (get my point) believers in the Northern Kingdom or if there are that many in the RCC. The INSTITUTION of the Northern Kingdom, by virtue of its government and its laws and it institutionalized worship was not the true religion. It was false. Within that Northern Kingdom, the true believers did not worship at Bethel or take part of the false pagan practices.

In the RCC, the INSTITUTION by virtue of its hierarchical leadership and its official statements of anathema on the gospel is not the true religion. Within the RCC, I am sure there are true believers. They may not truly know what the INSTITUTION of the RCC is about and they may not know about the anathemas on the gospel. But as they grow in their understanding and in their faith through the power of the Spirit, they will come out from among them.

If you paid attention to any of my posts, you will notice I have made a distinction between institution and individuals. My opposition to the validity of baptism regards the institution that is sanctioning it, not the individuals on who it is performed or the individuals performing the baptism.

And if you read my last post, rather than just reiterating what you had already said, you would have noticed that I quoted the WCF, which would call these individuals the "visible church" and I quoted the LBC, which would not call these individuals the "visible church" but would call them "visible saints."

 

[Amazing Grace]

But, the wicked Northern Kingdom had broken covenant with God. There was no (except for Elijah and the 1000 that God had elected) semblance of any type of true gospel or worship of the true God there. The Northern Kingdom could not properly be called a church despite the existence of Elijah and the 1000.

This is the same with the RCC. The true believers that are there are despite the teaching of the RCC, not because of it.

By institution, I mean the official teaching of the church. The doctrinal statements and pronouncement that make them RCC. I do not mean individual people. This is why I say that a non-Christian organization (institution) cannot give Christian sacraments. The RCC is no more authorized to baptize and give communion than the local Rotary club.

According to God's inspired word, the remnant does make a valid assembly though Douglas. And in fact God's shows him 7000 not only 1000.

Romans 11:

1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Let us look at our Saviors own words addressed to the 'churches' in the book of revelation. He HIMSELF called them churches Douglas.

Pergemos held to the doctrine of Baalim and some nicolation stench
Thyatira: Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not.

Sardis: I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die; for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments, and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

Laodicia: I know thy works that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would that thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

The Remnant: “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ....Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and have the faith of Jesus.” Revelation 12:17, 14:12.


Therefore just as apostate Israel had a remnant of God's people serving Him, so does the rcc.

You have again either misunderstood or misrepresented my point. I will assume the first. If you noticed, I said that of course there were believers in the Northern Kingdom and I am sure there are believers in the RCC. OK, so I didn't look up the number of those God set aside (1000 vs 7000). Frankly, it does not matter if there were 600,000,000,000,000 (get my point) believers in the Northern Kingdom or if there are that many in the RCC. The INSTITUTION of the Northern Kingdom, by virtue of its government and its laws and it institutionalized worship was not the true religion. It was false. Within that Northern Kingdom, the true believers did not worship at Bethel or take part of the false pagan practices.

In the RCC, the INSTITUTION by virtue of its hierarchical leadership and its official statements of anathema on the gospel is not the true religion. Within the RCC, I am sure there are true believers. They may not truly know what the INSTITUTION of the RCC is about and they may not know about the anathemas on the gospel. But as they grow in their understanding and in their faith through the power of the Spirit, they will come out from among them.

If you paid attention to any of my posts, you will notice I have made a distinction between institution and individuals. My opposition to the validity of baptism regards the institution that is sanctioning it, not the individuals on who it is performed or the individuals performing the baptism.

And if you read my last post, rather than just reiterating what you had already said, you would have noticed that I quoted the WCF, which would call these individuals the "visible church" and I quoted the LBC, which would not call these individuals the "visible church" but would call them "visible saints."

Douglas, there is no need to highlight certain word to emphasize your point... I did not mean to misunderstand nor misrepresent you. But I am unclear to the point you are making between the WCF and the LBC. ie visible church vs visible saints. Are you equating the Northern Kingdom with the rcc? And since the NK was not a levitical priesthood, idolatrous etc etc etc they were not true worshippers/true church of God, ipso facto neither is the rcc. Therefore rendering rcc baptisms invalid.

 

[wsw201]

In the RCC, the INSTITUTION by virtue of its hierarchical leadership and its official statements of anathema on the gospel is not the true religion. Within the RCC, I am sure there are true believers. They may not truly know what the INSTITUTION of the RCC is about and they may not know about the anathemas on the gospel. But as they grow in their understanding and in their faith through the power of the Spirit, they will come out from among them.

If you paid attention to any of my posts, you will notice I have made a distinction between institution and individuals. My opposition to the validity of baptism regards the institution that is sanctioning it, not the individuals on who it is performed or the individuals performing the baptism.

Douglas,

I think your comments about the WCF and LBCF pretty much crystalize why we differ regarding the RCC. Since Baptists and Presbyterians have two differing views of ecclesiology, we are going to have totally different views of what constitutes a Church in any basic form.

I would argue that the form of government should not be a part of the reason that a church should considered a False Church. Church government goes to the well being of a church not the actual being of a church.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Protestant Tri-lemma

THis is a great article and a must read...

"But the General Assembly seemed to think that there was more truth in the Church of Rome before than since the Reformation--that she never became hopelessly corrupt in doctrine until the Council of Trent. This we presume to be a mistake. The Council of Trent but uttered the voice of Papacy in the form of decrees. There was not a sentiment then uttered that had not previously been held by the hierarchy. Let the history of the Romish Church speak. Long before this Council, did she not claim for the Pope the attributes of holiness and infallibility? Did she not assert that she was Christ's vicar upon earth?--Lord God the Pope? Did she not claim for him dominion, temporal and spiritual, over the whole earth; and declare that he might dispose of crowns, and kingdoms, and continents at his sovereign pleasure? That he had a right to dethrone kings, absolve subjects from their allegiance, and by his mandate, make that sin which was no sin, and convert sin into virtue? Were not her garments reeking with the blood of God's people? Had she not thrown down the altars, and subverted the worship of God; filling her temples with the images of saints and angels and establishing the adoration of relies and dead men's bones? Had she not licensed sin by selling indulgences; annulled the doctrine of repentance by her superstitious penances, and that of justification by faith in Jesus, by foolish observances and human merit? In a word, she was stained with every crime, foul with every pollution; had assumed and exercised the most hellish powers; had propagated as divine truths the most outrageous falsehoods; had uttered the most horrid blasphemies, and had filled the world with error, fraud, superstition, and blood! The earth was drunk with the wine of her fornication.

From the fatal conclusions of the positions taken by the General Assembly, there is no possible escape. The baptisms and ordinances of all Protestants are nullified, whether Romish baptisms are valid or invalid.

The man who would say this, would brand the Bible with falsehood, and Christ with imposture, it is true; but what will not man do rather than confess that he is wrong, and has led others into error? It may possibly be thought that no Christian man would advocate, before the Christian world, such a position.

Little did anyone know, but the 'man' Thornwell did just that. The more I read about this, the more I recoginize Thornwell as speaking lies...

It was well that the General Assembly did not countenance such irreverent utterances,* preferring to peril the ecclesiastical claims of all Protestants, in the eyes of man, and be repudiated, it may be, rather than to assume this attitude toward Christ.


If no baptism be valid except administered by a duly ordained minister of Christ in a true Church of Christ, visible, as the Assembly truly decided, let Presbyterians and the world decide if the baptisms of Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, or any one of the first Presbyterian ministers or members, were valid.


"The Old School General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, a few years ago, decided that no baptism was valid except administered by a regular ordained minister in the true Church of God, visible; that the Romish Church was not the Church of God at all, and that, therefore, baptism administered within its pales and by its priesthood was no baptism! Then, according to Presbyterian principles, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, John Knox, and their contemporary Reformers, all of whom were baptized by Papists, had no Christian baptism! The chain of baptismal successors from the Apostolic Church to the Presbyterian Church, which the General Assembly had declared to be essential to valid baptism, has been broken asunder, and all the spiritual smiths beneath the skies can not mend it. And thus our Presbyterian brethren, by the solemn decision of their highest ecclesiastical tribunal, have no baptism!


All I can say is WOW. I never thought of this at all. If we confess that one must be 'duly ordained,' whatever that entails, and if we out of one side of our Mouths Claim Calvin and Luther did not receive a vlaid baptism because Rome could not deliver the sacraments according to our own understnading, then how could Luther be ordained to the line of succession to perform the sacraments on others? This is now the crux of the issue for me, and I will not be moved in any other direction. The 'Protestant succession of duly ordained ministers came from Rome. And if Rome can do one, then they can administer the other..."

If it be true that no baptism is valid unless administered by "a duly ordained minister of the true Church of God visible," (though we should grant that the Church of Rome is, and ever has been, such a church,) even then no Presbyterian or Pedobaptist can have a reasonable assurance that he has been truly baptized.

What a dreadful thought

 

[Dennis1963]

 

[danmpem]

I see no difference in someone being baptized as a member of the RCC and someone being baptized as a member of the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If one is baptized as an LDS and then becomes a convert of the gospel of Christ, then he must be baptized as a believer. The same goes for any heretical religion.

 

[Romans922]

I see no difference in someone being baptized as a member of the RCC and someone being baptized as a member of the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If one is baptized as an LDS and then becomes a convert of the gospel of Christ, then he must be baptized as a believer. The same goes for any heretical religion.

And what if he is baptized in the Church of God Holiness or a baptist church which is profoundly heretical? Then he must be baptized? How does one know if the church they are baptized in, which might now be heretical, was heretical then or not?

Are we going on the marks of a church here (Word, Sacraments, Discipline)? or just on if they are catholic or mormon?

 

[danmpem]

I see no difference in someone being baptized as a member of the RCC and someone being baptized as a member of the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If one is baptized as an LDS and then becomes a convert of the gospel of Christ, then he must be baptized as a believer. The same goes for any heretical religion.

And what if he is baptized in the Church of God Holiness or a baptist church which is profoundly heretical? Then he must be baptized? How does one know if the church they are baptized in, which might now be heretical, was heretical then or not?

Are we going on the marks of a church here (Word, Sacraments, Discipline)? or just on if they are catholic or mormon?

Good question. I'll sit on that one for a while and then get back to you.

 

[etexas]

Hey:

If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?

OK, so your OP is the complete reverse of your poll...

But, since I am a Baptist, you know what my answer is going to be. Of course they would need to be re-baptized. The RCC, despite its trinitarian formula in baptism, is not a Christian church. They do not rightly uphold the gospel or the sacraments (ordinances). Therefore, the baptism is illegitimate.

Right to a point...one thing determined at the Chaldea Counsel was " Even if a Priest os Bishop is in a state of mortal sin or even teachs not according to truth, so long as the ancient formulas for the sacraments are followed....the Sacraments are valid." I should note that many reformers noted this esp. in regard to Baptism, and accepted it.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I just recieved, for free, "Sacramental Sorcery: The Invalidity of Roman Catholic Baptism" by Thornwell. Trinity Foundation is giving them away for FREE.

Since it has "never been refuted" it may be a good idea to get it, and then "update" this thread after reading through some of the thoughtful arguments on matter, form, and intention behind the papist's practice.

Thornwell summarizes Hodge's "unbiblical argument" and wrote the treaty as part of the Princeton Review in 1845 to defend the Assembly's position (that is still in effect?). In 1845 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (old school) decalred (169 to 8 on vote) that Roman Catholic baptism is not Christian Baptism.

 

[Amazing Grace]

I just recieved, for free, "Sacramental Sorcery: The Invalidity of Roman Catholic Baptism" by Thornwell. Trinity Foundation is giving them away for FREE.

Since it has "never been refuted" it may be a good idea to get it, and then "update" this thread after reading through some of the thoughtful arguments on matter, form, and intention behind the papist's practice.

Thornwell summarizes Hodge's "unbiblical argument" and wrote the treaty as part of the Princeton Review in 1845 to defend the Assembly's position (that is still in effect?). In 1845 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (old school) decalred (169 to 8 on vote) that Roman Catholic baptism is not Christian Baptism.

Refuted in the PCA paper I quoted in post 250:

All I can say is WOW. I never thought of this at all. If we confess that one must be 'duly ordained,' whatever that entails, and if we out of one side of our Mouths Claim Calvin and Luther did not receive a vlaid baptism because Rome could not deliver the sacraments according to our own understnading, then how could Luther be ordained to the line of succession to perform the sacraments on others? This is now the crux of the issue for me, and I will not be moved in any other direction. The 'Protestant succession of duly ordained ministers came from Rome. And if Rome can do one, then they can administer the other..."

If it be true that no baptism is valid unless administered by "a duly ordained minister of the true Church of God visible," (though we should grant that the Church of Rome is, and ever has been, such a church,) even then no Presbyterian or Pedobaptist can have a reasonable assurance that he has been truly baptized.

What a dreadful thought

 

[CalvinandHodges]

I just recieved, for free, "Sacramental Sorcery: The Invalidity of Roman Catholic Baptism" by Thornwell. Trinity Foundation is giving them away for FREE.

Since it has "never been refuted" it may be a good idea to get it, and then "update" this thread after reading through some of the thoughtful arguments on matter, form, and intention behind the papist's practice.

Thornwell summarizes Hodge's "unbiblical argument" and wrote the treaty as part of the Princeton Review in 1845 to defend the Assembly's position (that is still in effect?). In 1845 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (old school) decalred (169 to 8 on vote) that Roman Catholic baptism is not Christian Baptism.

Refuted in the PCA paper I quoted in post 250:

All I can say is WOW. I never thought of this at all. If we confess that one must be 'duly ordained,' whatever that entails, and if we out of one side of our Mouths Claim Calvin and Luther did not receive a vlaid baptism because Rome could not deliver the sacraments according to our own understnading, then how could Luther be ordained to the line of succession to perform the sacraments on others? This is now the crux of the issue for me, and I will not be moved in any other direction. The 'Protestant succession of duly ordained ministers came from Rome. And if Rome can do one, then they can administer the other..."

If it be true that no baptism is valid unless administered by "a duly ordained minister of the true Church of God visible," (though we should grant that the Church of Rome is, and ever has been, such a church,) even then no Presbyterian or Pedobaptist can have a reasonable assurance that he has been truly baptized.

What a dreadful thought

Greetings Amazing Grace and welcome:

Prior to the Reformation the RC Church was the only Christian Church. The Reformation, if you remember, was an attempt to address the abuses of the RC Church. Luther did not intend to split from the Church, but to amend its ways. Only when it became self-evident that the RC Church had no intention of changing or being changed was a split from it necessary. Thus, I do not think that your statement is entirely accurate.

As long as the RC Church remained a true Church its baptism was valid. Danmpem made a good point in that a false church cannot make a true baptism. If the RC Church is considered a false church, then baptism by a Roman priest would not be considered valid.

During the Reformation the RC Church was given the chance to repent of its ways and renounce the extra-Biblical baggage it taught during the Dark and Medieval Ages. Because it did not and embraced and defended these ungodly doctrines it went from being a true church and showed itself for what it really was - the Antichrist.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

 

[Amazing Grace]

I just recieved, for free, "Sacramental Sorcery: The Invalidity of Roman Catholic Baptism" by Thornwell. Trinity Foundation is giving them away for FREE.

Since it has "never been refuted" it may be a good idea to get it, and then "update" this thread after reading through some of the thoughtful arguments on matter, form, and intention behind the papist's practice.

Thornwell summarizes Hodge's "unbiblical argument" and wrote the treaty as part of the Princeton Review in 1845 to defend the Assembly's position (that is still in effect?). In 1845 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (old school) decalred (169 to 8 on vote) that Roman Catholic baptism is not Christian Baptism.

Refuted in the PCA paper I quoted in post 250:

All I can say is WOW. I never thought of this at all. If we confess that one must be 'duly ordained,' whatever that entails, and if we out of one side of our Mouths Claim Calvin and Luther did not receive a vlaid baptism because Rome could not deliver the sacraments according to our own understnading, then how could Luther be ordained to the line of succession to perform the sacraments on others? This is now the crux of the issue for me, and I will not be moved in any other direction. The 'Protestant succession of duly ordained ministers came from Rome. And if Rome can do one, then they can administer the other..."

If it be true that no baptism is valid unless administered by "a duly ordained minister of the true Church of God visible," (though we should grant that the Church of Rome is, and ever has been, such a church,) even then no Presbyterian or Pedobaptist can have a reasonable assurance that he has been truly baptized.

What a dreadful thought

Greetings Amazing Grace and welcome:

Prior to the Reformation the RC Church was the only Christian Church. The Reformation, if you remember, was an attempt to address the abuses of the RC Church. Luther did not intend to split from the Church, but to amend its ways. Only when it became self-evident that the RC Church had no intention of changing or being changed was a split from it necessary. Thus, I do not think that your statement is entirely accurate.

As long as the RC Church remained a true Church its baptism was valid. Danmpem made a good point in that a false church cannot make a true baptism. If the RC Church is considered a false church, then baptism by a Roman priest would not be considered valid.

During the Reformation the RC Church was given the chance to repent of its ways and renounce the extra-Biblical baggage it taught during the Dark and Medieval Ages. Because it did not and embraced and defended these ungodly doctrines it went from being a true church and showed itself for what it really was - the Antichrist.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

Brother Robert:

The words are not mine, but taken from a PCA paper. The main point is if lawful ordination is also a litmus test, then one cannot affirm one and deny the other. If the priest cannot dispense a valid baptism, he cannot dispense his laying of the hands for ordination. Hence noone has been lawfully or validly baptised

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Refuted in the PCA paper I quoted in post 250:

All I can say is WOW. I never thought of this at all. If we confess that one must be 'duly ordained,' whatever that entails, and if we out of one side of our Mouths Claim Calvin and Luther did not receive a vlaid baptism because Rome could not deliver the sacraments according to our own understnading, then how could Luther be ordained to the line of succession to perform the sacraments on others? This is now the crux of the issue for me, and I will not be moved in any other direction. The 'Protestant succession of duly ordained ministers came from Rome. And if Rome can do one, then they can administer the other..."

If it be true that no baptism is valid unless administered by "a duly ordained minister of the true Church of God visible," (though we should grant that the Church of Rome is, and ever has been, such a church,) even then no Presbyterian or Pedobaptist can have a reasonable assurance that he has been truly baptized.

What a dreadful thought

Greetings Amazing Grace and welcome:

Prior to the Reformation the RC Church was the only Christian Church. The Reformation, if you remember, was an attempt to address the abuses of the RC Church. Luther did not intend to split from the Church, but to amend its ways. Only when it became self-evident that the RC Church had no intention of changing or being changed was a split from it necessary. Thus, I do not think that your statement is entirely accurate.

As long as the RC Church remained a true Church its baptism was valid. Danmpem made a good point in that a false church cannot make a true baptism. If the RC Church is considered a false church, then baptism by a Roman priest would not be considered valid.

During the Reformation the RC Church was given the chance to repent of its ways and renounce the extra-Biblical baggage it taught during the Dark and Medieval Ages. Because it did not and embraced and defended these ungodly doctrines it went from being a true church and showed itself for what it really was - the Antichrist.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

Brother Robert:

The words are not mine, but taken from a PCA paper. The main point is if lawful ordination is also a litmus test, then one cannot affirm one and deny the other. If the priest cannot dispense a valid baptism, he cannot dispense his laying of the hands for ordination. Hence noone has been lawfully or validly baptised

Hey:

I see. The question I think is that was the RC Church a valid Church prior to the Reformation? To this I would affirm. Did it become an antichristian church after the Reformation? To this I would also affirm. I would not pin an exact date as to when this actually happened, but since Calvin, Luther and Zwingli were born before Rome apostatized their baptisms would be valid - as well as the baptisms they performed on others.

Luther nailed his 95 Thesis on October 31, 1517 and was a call for the RC church to repent. The RC church did not give a comprehensive answer to Luther until the Council of Trent 1545. I think that this would start the slide of the RC church into apostacy. So, if a date was to be pinned for this, then I would think that RC baptism became invalid after 1545 around the same time it truly became a false church.

Consequently, those Reformers and Protestant ministers who were baptized in the RC church prior to say 1545 received a valid baptism and their ordinations would not be compromised.

Blessings to you brother,

-CH

 

[Amazing Grace]

Hey:

I see. The question I think is that was the RC Church a valid Church prior to the Reformation? To this I would affirm. Did it become an antichristian church after the Reformation? To this I would also affirm. I would not pin an exact date as to when this actually happened, but since Calvin, Luther and Zwingli were born before Rome apostatized their baptisms would be valid - as well as the baptisms they performed on others.

Luther nailed his 95 Thesis on October 31, 1517 and was a call for the RC church to repent. The RC church did not give a comprehensive answer to Luther until the Council of Trent 1545. I think that this would start the slide of the RC church into apostacy. So, if a date was to be pinned for this, then I would think that RC baptism became invalid after 1545 around the same time it truly became a false church.

Consequently, those Reformers and Protestant ministers who were baptized in the RC church prior to say 1545 received a valid baptism and their ordinations would not be compromised.

Blessings to you brother,

-CH

Brother, again thank you for the kind rebuttal. Yet I am going to remain steadfast against this thought of Trent being the line of demarcation of the rcc becoming a synagogue of Satan. To relieve myself and you from the task of repeating myself, I have stated this clearly in many posts prior to this date.

I will suggest that you and others who are propagating this understanding, to speak with an RC scholar. I have, and as I mentioned, there was nothing new declared at Trent. Trent was convened only to answer the Lutheran/protestant reformation statements of faith. Just as Dort was only convened because of the remonstrant. If you study this closely, you will see that all Trent did was formally "REAFFIRM" positions held for centuries. To be clear against the attack of Protestants. Therefore, if you believe that RC baptisms became invalid because of Trent, as if their doctrines/dogmas changes, you are amiss.

This line of thinking is exactly what the rcc uses when we (protties) speak against the infallibility of the church. For instance, this is a perfect parallel to this thought. Let’s take their claim of Pope Honorious. If you are not familiar with this person, he reigned as bishop of Rome from 625 to 638 A.D. During this time, Honorius officially embraced the heresy of montheletism, which teaches that Christ had only one will, the divine. This is heretical. Jaroslav Pelikan makes these comments:

In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151).


SO now what does the rcc do? Well they say that certain criteria must be met for the pope to be speaking in the chair of Peter. Ex cathedra, He must be teaching in his official capacity as the pope and he must be defining doctrine for the entire Church. The claim is made that Honorius did not meet these conditions. They say he was only speaking as a private person giving a theological opinion.

You may ask, why am I making this connection? Because you are making the same connection. You will undoubtedly condemn Honorious and say the criterion is a cloak. That it does not matter if he was sitting in the chair of Peter or not, he was the bishop of Rome, and therefore this statement on the will of Christ makes him a heretic. No other official criteria must be met. On which I agree, yet you will say that the rcc became a false church because at Trent, certain criteria were met that did not exist before. Namely a formal declaration of dogma/doctrine. Now if in one instance a formal declaration of speaking ex cathedra does not have to be met in our eyes for honorious to be condemned a heretic, destroying the myth of papal infallibility, how can we say a formal "Anathema of the Gospel" as Greco and Ritchie call it, has to be done at a council, when all it was was a reaffirmation of centuries old beliefs only done because of the protestant reformation? Trent did not change or add anything that was not already confessed when the early reformers were baptized. There is not one shred of evidence that anyone said after Trent, "Wow, I never knew they believed that". In fact, it did not receive much attention because it again only reaffirmed what the reformers wanted to reform!!!!! Justification was the foundation, the crux of Luther’s argument. "On which the church stands or falls" And the roman church confessed faith plus works forever and ever.

I would say you would be more consistent to say there has not been a valid baptism for centuries. That the roman church disintegrated much much before Trent. Then you would be left with another dilemma. All ordinations would be false too. And the reformers, who were ordained by succession, would be unlawful and invalid, resulting in invalid baptisms for them, you and me. And this is a dreadful thought.

 

[SoCalReformed]

If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?

As a Reformed Baptist, the first thing I would do is welcome him; and if he sincerely repudiates his Roman Catholicism, repents of his sins, and embraces Jesus Christ and His righteousness alone for his salvation, then I would insist that he be baptized as a believer.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

The 'Protestant succession of duly ordained ministers came from Rome. And if Rome can do one, then they can administer the other..."

Before or after apostasy from the Gospel?

Its like saying that certain factions of Christendom now are synagogues of satan (and they are) but that not ALL of Christendom is a synagogue of satan as a result of the rotton apples.

Historically, that did not mean that within the "Roman Church" there were not lawfully ordained ministers, or that the Gospel was completely eclipsed for centuries. Not true.

To say "everyone believed everything" in this manner in the RCC would be to deny the very gleaming lights of the Gospel itself from all those that preached the Gospel. Just because the pope hated the Gospel, did not meant the Augustinian monks gave the Gospel up during the 13th century.

Trent merely "canonized" thier apsotasy, and at that point, as Calvin follows (as the Reformed Church Follows), they are no longer to be considered a church. Trent canonized "beliefs" against the Reformation. WHich is why we conveniently deem those canons as the "counter-reformation". THe scattered writings of ROman Catholic writers was not even to bind the consciences of the people in thier church. THey needed official documents.

Its simply impossible to blanket the entire RCC pre-Trent in the fashion that you are by erasing that demarcation that clearly existed in both the Roman Chruch and the Reformer's minds. Even if you don't buy that - they did.

I would also be leary of hanging your hat on the words of a Roman Catholic Scholar. The servants of Satan are not good posts to hang your hat, even on historical issues.

 

[Herald]

If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?

As a Reformed Baptist, the first thing I would do is welcome him; and if he sincerely repudiates his Roman Catholicism, repents of his sins, and embraces Jesus Christ and His righteousness alone for his salvation, then I would insist that he be baptized as a believer.

Amen. But we're Baptists. Of course we would require believers baptism!

 

[Amazing Grace]

If a Roman Catholic was to join your church - would he/she need to be re-baptized?

As a Reformed Baptist, the first thing I would do is welcome him; and if he sincerely repudiates his Roman Catholicism, repents of his sins, and embraces Jesus Christ and His righteousness alone for his salvation, then I would insist that he be baptized as a believer.

Reed, when I looked quick, I thought, "Hey isnt Frank Zappa dead, why is he posting on the pb?"

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hey:

I see. The question I think is that was the RC Church a valid Church prior to the Reformation? To this I would affirm. Did it become an antichristian church after the Reformation? To this I would also affirm. I would not pin an exact date as to when this actually happened, but since Calvin, Luther and Zwingli were born before Rome apostatized their baptisms would be valid - as well as the baptisms they performed on others.

Luther nailed his 95 Thesis on October 31, 1517 and was a call for the RC church to repent. The RC church did not give a comprehensive answer to Luther until the Council of Trent 1545. I think that this would start the slide of the RC church into apostacy. So, if a date was to be pinned for this, then I would think that RC baptism became invalid after 1545 around the same time it truly became a false church.

Consequently, those Reformers and Protestant ministers who were baptized in the RC church prior to say 1545 received a valid baptism and their ordinations would not be compromised.

Blessings to you brother,

-CH

Brother, again thank you for the kind rebuttal. Yet I am going to remain steadfast against this thought of Trent being the line of demarcation of the rcc becoming a synagogue of Satan. To relieve myself and you from the task of repeating myself, I have stated this clearly in many posts prior to this date.

I will suggest that you and others who are propagating this understanding, to speak with an RC scholar. I have, and as I mentioned, there was nothing new declared at Trent. Trent was convened only to answer the Lutheran/protestant reformation statements of faith. Just as Dort was only convened because of the remonstrant. If you study this closely, you will see that all Trent did was formally "REAFFIRM" positions held for centuries. To be clear against the attack of Protestants. Therefore, if you believe that RC baptisms became invalid because of Trent, as if their doctrines/dogmas changes, you are amiss.

This line of thinking is exactly what the rcc uses when we (protties) speak against the infallibility of the church. For instance, this is a perfect parallel to this thought. Let’s take their claim of Pope Honorious. If you are not familiar with this person, he reigned as bishop of Rome from 625 to 638 A.D. During this time, Honorius officially embraced the heresy of montheletism, which teaches that Christ had only one will, the divine. This is heretical. Jaroslav Pelikan makes these comments:

In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151).


SO now what does the rcc do? Well they say that certain criteria must be met for the pope to be speaking in the chair of Peter. Ex cathedra, He must be teaching in his official capacity as the pope and he must be defining doctrine for the entire Church. The claim is made that Honorius did not meet these conditions. They say he was only speaking as a private person giving a theological opinion.

You may ask, why am I making this connection? Because you are making the same connection. You will undoubtedly condemn Honorious and say the criterion is a cloak. That it does not matter if he was sitting in the chair of Peter or not, he was the bishop of Rome, and therefore this statement on the will of Christ makes him a heretic. No other official criteria must be met. On which I agree, yet you will say that the rcc became a false church because at Trent, certain criteria were met that did not exist before. Namely a formal declaration of dogma/doctrine. Now if in one instance a formal declaration of speaking ex cathedra does not have to be met in our eyes for honorious to be condemned a heretic, destroying the myth of papal infallibility, how can we say a formal "Anathema of the Gospel" as Greco and Ritchie call it, has to be done at a council, when all it was was a reaffirmation of centuries old beliefs only done because of the protestant reformation? Trent did not change or add anything that was not already confessed when the early reformers were baptized. There is not one shred of evidence that anyone said after Trent, "Wow, I never knew they believed that". In fact, it did not receive much attention because it again only reaffirmed what the reformers wanted to reform!!!!! Justification was the foundation, the crux of Luther’s argument. "On which the church stands or falls" And the roman church confessed faith plus works forever and ever.

I would say you would be more consistent to say there has not been a valid baptism for centuries. That the roman church disintegrated much much before Trent. Then you would be left with another dilemma. All ordinations would be false too. And the reformers, who were ordained by succession, would be unlawful and invalid, resulting in invalid baptisms for them, you and me. And this is a dreadful thought.

Hi Amazing:

I am dittoing what Pastor McMahon has said above in post #263

I would also add that there is a matter of Repentance involved here:

...because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery whith her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds, Rev. 2:20-22.

Prior to the Reformation the RC church was the only Christian church in existence in Europe. I think we can all agree with that. The Church had become mixed with the True Church and the Antichrist over the centuries. This was spoken of by Paul beforehand:

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God, 2 Thess. 2:4.

The Antichrist (man of sin) is the Pope of Rome. Here we are told that the Antichrist will set his seat (the Holy See) within the True Church "The Temple of God."

We are told the duration of the reign of the Antichrist here:

And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies: and power was given unto him to continue fourty and two months, Rev. 13:5.

When we follow the day/year theory accepted in prophecy we see this number as 1260 years (42months times 30 days/month equals 1260).

The Bible tells us how the Antichrirst will be destroyed:

And then shall the Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and the brightness of his coming, 2 Thess. 2:8.

I believe that the reference to "the spirit of his mouth" is to the Word of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ as it was revived under the Reformation. What "the brightness of his coming" means I know not, but it may be a reference to the firey overthrow of the Pope in the city of Rome:

Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her. And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning ... And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets: for God hath avenged you on her, Rev. 18:8,9; 18-20.

This, I believe, is the judgment that the Pope of Rome will receive in the future. However, this was not given to them without a call to repentance:

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues, Rev. 18:4.

The point that I am trying to make is simple: There was apostacy in Rome prior to the Reformation. The True Church was also in the RC communion as well. The Reformation was a call to the Pope and the RC Church to repent of its evil ways. At the council of Trent the Roman Church decided not to repent, but to embrace its Antichristian teachings and defend them from the Protestant "heretics." The people of God heeded the warning in Rev. 18:4, and Protestantism was born.

Because it refused to repent the Roman Church has apostatized and has ceased being a True Church of God. Until its judgment detailed in Rev. 18 is fulfilled the call to repentance to the RC Church remains in effect.

Think of it like excommunication. If a man is excommunicated from the Church, he is no longer considered a member of it. However, once he repents he will be taken back into the Church. It appears from Rev. 18 that the RC Church will never come to repentance. This seems to be the teaching of Rev. 20:10 - the Beast being the Church of Rome, and the False Prophet being Islam:

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Thus, I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a true church of God for it has been "excommunicated" and has not repented of its evil doctrines.

An excommunicated priest cannot perform the sacraments in a valid fashion.

Grace,

-CH