What Baptism is Valid?

[Amazing Grace]

You are not distinguishing between an irregular baptism by a heretic which is still valid, and the sacrament of an apostate communion which cannot be valid as the body is not part of the visible church.

Becasue there is no need to distinguish in the context of the rcc. What makes the distinction daniel? A written man made document? This is absurd. Where in the writ do we find that a confession is mandatory to claim a valid church and until this confession is written, then we do not know what to consider them.

All trent did was provide in writing what was already believed and confessed with certain compramises as every confession or council has. Justyn Martyr is the birth mother of works salvation. The Didache is clearly teaching sacramental salvation. Baptismal regeneration in Nicea. You mean to tell me every error that rome perpetrated for 1500 years pales in comparison with trent?

Let's take this is baby steps Daniel. When the primitive 'church' was formed, according to your understanding, noone could determine rightly the validity of the body becasue no written confession or creed, or document was written. so for 300 years, people could doubt the valdity of the Christian church. Paul most assuredly found them valid. Did the church located in ephesus have some written article of faith? Colosse? Thesselonica? etc etc etc. Is the doctrine of predestination a truth, even though for 1500 years nothing was penned from an ecclesiastical body? Was Gottshalk a heretic for believing this truth? Was auggie?

When the canon was formulated did the church determine the books, or did they confirm what was already believed as canonical? Is your trust in the EO Church who was the first to formally identify the 27 books of the New Testament in A.D. 367. Listed in Athanasius' Easter letter from Alexandria. At the councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397). So what happened from 367 to 397? Are we to understand that since these councils had not occured yet and no formal writing existed, the western church was not valid, or did not know the scriptures?


Rome was as apostate the day after trent as they were the day before. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever.

Of course there is a difference because they have officially anathematized the gospel, and so in no sense can be considered part of the visible institutional church - but we could not say they had officially done this before Trent. This is not the same as the church not formulating something in a creed.

So when am I allowed to point to the correct understanding of Justification? 1500' or 1600's. How do you know they anathamized the Gospel? When was the correct Gospel defined Daniel? Was there a gospel prior to Luthers Confession? According to your hebetudinous logic, there was no Gospel defined until a denomination wrote a creed or confession or had a council.

Hey btw I just learned that word. It will def become part of my vocabulary now. I was called that by my wife the other day, I had to look it up!!!!

I also wish you would answer my questions instead of repeating ad nauseum this ridiculous arguement Daniel.

 

[RamistThomist]

If we reject non-Trinitarian baptisms, how do we avoid the charge of Donatism?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

If we reject non-Trinitarian baptisms, how do we avoid the charge of Donatism?

Because it is the form that is the problem not the person administering the Baptism ultimately.

 

[Romans922]

If the Covenant Promises are not intrinsically connected with the sacrament of baptism, it is not a valid baptism but just an outward act.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Becasue there is no need to distinguish in the context of the rcc. What makes the distinction daniel? A written man made document? This is absurd. Where in the writ do we find that a confession is mandatory to claim a valid church and until this confession is written, then we do not know what to consider them.

All trent did was provide in writing what was already believed and confessed with certain compramises as every confession or council has. Justyn Martyr is the birth mother of works salvation. The Didache is clearly teaching sacramental salvation. Baptismal regeneration in Nicea. You mean to tell me every error that rome perpetrated for 1500 years pales in comparison with trent?

Let's take this is baby steps Daniel. When the primitive 'church' was formed, according to your understanding, noone could determine rightly the validity of the body becasue no written confession or creed, or document was written. so for 300 years, people could doubt the valdity of the Christian church. Paul most assuredly found them valid. Did the church located in ephesus have some written article of faith? Colosse? Thesselonica? etc etc etc. Is the doctrine of predestination a truth, even though for 1500 years nothing was penned from an ecclesiastical body? Was Gottshalk a heretic for believing this truth? Was auggie?

When the canon was formulated did the church determine the books, or did they confirm what was already believed as canonical? Is your trust in the EO Church who was the first to formally identify the 27 books of the New Testament in A.D. 367. Listed in Athanasius' Easter letter from Alexandria. At the councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397). So what happened from 367 to 397? Are we to understand that since these councils had not occured yet and no formal writing existed, the western church was not valid, or did not know the scriptures?


Rome was as apostate the day after trent as they were the day before. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever.

Of course there is a difference because they have officially anathematized the gospel, and so in no sense can be considered part of the visible institutional church - but we could not say they had officially done this before Trent. This is not the same as the church not formulating something in a creed.

So when am I allowed to point to the correct understanding of Justification? 1500' or 1600's. How do you know they anathamized the Gospel? When was the correct Gospel defined Daniel? Was there a gospel prior to Luthers Confession? According to your hebetudinous logic, there was no Gospel defined until a denomination wrote a creed or confession or had a council.

Hey btw I just learned that word. It will def become part of my vocabulary now. I was called that by my wife the other day, I had to look it up!!!!

I also wish you would answer my questions instead of repeating ad nauseum this ridiculous arguement Daniel.

Nicholas when a denomination officially states that they believe something, then we can definitely say that that is the denominations position. Rome as an institution declared the gospel anathema at Trent. From then on, it is in no way part of the visible church, but is a synagogue of Satan.

For instance, if the PCUSA publicly says: "We deny the deity of Christ", then we can clearly say that the denomination as a body is officially apostate. However, if only certain ministers deny the deity of Christ, then we can only say that the denomination is scandalously corrupt. This is exactly the case with Rome prior to Trent.

You keep saying my argument is ridiculous but you cannot get around the fact that, according to your logic, the "baptism" performed by a man standing on a street corner throwing water over people in the name of the Trinity is also valid.

 

[TimV]

Be performed by a minister of the gospel in an orthodox Protestant church (i.e. the visible church of Christ).

That's a bit more narrow than the PCA position paper, and a bit too Eurocentric.

How is it Eurocentric?

Hi!

While holding Daniel in a very high regard, and being very aware of his historical situation, it needs to be pointed out that Christ has had a witness in many other areas than those traditionally Protestant over the last few centuries. I think of Rushdoony's grandfather, who's eyes were gouged out by the Turks, but who still continued to be a faithful minister of the Gospel due to his having memorized whole texts of the Holy Scriptures. And to think that the Baptisms he did weren't valid seems a bit parochial, and a tad petty.

Thus, I prefer the PCA's position, and at the same time stand in awe of the sheer amount of Daniel's reading.

Best
Tim

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

That's a bit more narrow than the PCA position paper, and a bit too Eurocentric.

How is it Eurocentric?

Hi!

While holding Daniel in a very high regard, and being very aware of his historical situation, it needs to be pointed out that Christ has had a witness in many other areas than those traditionally Protestant over the last few centuries. I think of Rushdoony's grandfather, who's eyes were gouged out by the Turks, but who still continued to be a faithful minister of the Gospel due to his having memorized whole texts of the Holy Scriptures. And to think that the Baptisms he did weren't valid seems a bit parochial, and a tad petty.

Thus, I prefer the PCA's position, and at the same time stand in awe of the sheer amount of Daniel's reading.

Best
Tim

If you can prove that the churches of which you speak are not anti-evangelical, then I might agree with you. I thought I agreed with the PCA, but I must not have thought about all these other groups. When I say "orthodox Protestant" I am thinking within the bounds of my own nation (remember I have not left Ireland in seven years )

Thanks for the kind words.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

That's a bit more narrow than the PCA position paper, and a bit too Eurocentric.

How is it Eurocentric?

Hi!

While holding Daniel in a very high regard, and being very aware of his historical situation, it needs to be pointed out that Christ has had a witness in many other areas than those traditionally Protestant over the last few centuries. I think of Rushdoony's grandfather, who's eyes were gouged out by the Turks, but who still continued to be a faithful minister of the Gospel due to his having memorized whole texts of the Holy Scriptures. And to think that the Baptisms he did weren't valid seems a bit parochial, and a tad petty.

Thus, I prefer the PCA's position, and at the same time stand in awe of the sheer amount of Daniel's reading.

Best
Tim

I am still not sure how what Daniel said is "Eurocentric" in that regard.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Of course there is a difference because they have officially anathematized the gospel, and so in no sense can be considered part of the visible institutional church - but we could not say they had officially done this before Trent. This is not the same as the church not formulating something in a creed.

So when am I allowed to point to the correct understanding of Justification? 1500' or 1600's. How do you know they anathamized the Gospel? When was the correct Gospel defined Daniel? Was there a gospel prior to Luthers Confession? According to your hebetudinous logic, there was no Gospel defined until a denomination wrote a creed or confession or had a council.

Hey btw I just learned that word. It will def become part of my vocabulary now. I was called that by my wife the other day, I had to look it up!!!!

I also wish you would answer my questions instead of repeating ad nauseum this ridiculous arguement Daniel.

Nicholas when a denomination officially states that they believe something, then we can definitely say that that is the denominations position. Rome as an institution declared the gospel anathema at Trent. From then on, it is in no way part of the visible church, but is a synagogue of Satan.

For instance, if the PCUSA publicly says: "We deny the deity of Christ", then we can clearly say that the denomination as a body is officially apostate. However, if only certain ministers deny the deity of Christ, then we can only say that the denomination is scandalously corrupt. This is exactly the case with Rome prior to Trent.

You keep saying my argument is ridiculous but you cannot get around the fact that, according to your logic, the "baptism" performed by a man standing on a street corner throwing water over people in the name of the Trinity is also valid.

There is no fact to get around Daniel. One has nothing to do with the other. It amounts to as much truth as me saying, hey, If you consdier baseball a true sport, then whatabout jockey's in the derby. Now scratch your head and say ; "Nicholas, what are you talking about" becasue a man on the corner with a squirtgun has nothing to do with Romes baptisms becoming invalid on dec 4th 1563. First of all no body is an institution. If that is what you call a denomination, well we are starting on different foundations. Second, you would then agree that honorious was not a heretic because when he spoke on the wills of Christ, he did not do it ex cathedra, or in the capacity of the Holy See.

Again I want answers to the following without repeating This base statement of Decalring the gospel anathema at trent.

1) When was the true Gospel declared Daniel?

2) Did Rome give us the canon, or did they confirm what was already believed.

3) When did any local assembly in Pauls letters write a formal document of Gospel truth?

4) whose writings are you parroting? I am more concerned you have been swayed by such pithy sayings and beliefs and catch phrases.

5) a denomination is made up of individuals, it is not seperate, therefore, how many 'leaders' have to be heretics for the denomination to be considered a sos?

6) were those circumcized in the apostate northern kingdom, who were judged as being false jews by God Himself, recircumcized upon returning to Judah?

7) do you believe the primitive church/local bodies that Paul addresed, had writen a confession of faith? If not, then how can we be sure on whatthey believed? Would you consider the church at Corinth a sos becasue of their refusal to kick the fornicator out?

Are you aware that there was not one dissenting voice at Trent on Justification? Not one Daniel. Now are you telling me that most people were swayed in the 18 years of the council? Becasue of this fact, I can most certainly concur that at the first day of the council in 1545, the same canon on justification could have been given as it was written almost 20 years later.

 

[TimV]

I am still not sure how what Daniel said is "Eurocentric" in that regard.

He answered it, if you read carefully!

Armenia, Iraq, Syria etc.. aren't in Europe. "And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they shall hear My voice; and they shall become one flock with one shepherd."

 

[Kevin]

If we reject non-Trinitarian baptisms, how do we avoid the charge of Donatism?

Because the donatist rejected trinitarian baptisms by ministers who later fell away. Or at least did not respond to the persecution the way the donatists thought was right.

The dabate was not over the form of baptism, but over the character of the officiating minister.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Just to give reference to a past discussion..... Here is this..

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/roman-catholic-baptism-poll-do-over-25009/