Is the Baptism of a Sect Valid? - Page 2

Semper Fidelis · #41 (**permalink**) 09-26-2007, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

An issue that has not yet been brought up is that of the difference between the BC and the WCF on this point. This is key, as it was only the BC that was cited in the OP. It is also an ongoing debate among the students with whom I was familiar at WSC, as well as the churches from which they have entered their seminary studies. The issue is this - does the WCF hold a broader and more charitable view than the BC on what constitutes a true church (verses a false church/sect/what have you), and if so (and if so correct), are those who hold to the BC language in a strict manner unnecessarily excluding from the body of Christ those whom the Westminster divines would not?

According to the WCF 25.4-5, most modern Baptist churches would be considered true churches who teach and embrace the Gospel, who nevertheless have a corrupted view of the sacraments. This would not make them a sect (as some who hold to the BC would assert), but rather a true church that has within its fold some false practices.

So, assuming that this poll is most directly speaking of baptism coming from anabaptist/baptist churches who, while sectarian in form, yet still proclaim the Gospel, and who have some practice of baptism, communion and public worship that is recognizably Christian, then - yes, I would consider their baptism to be valid.

Interesting. Do you merely suspect this to be the case or is there something in the minutes or something else that makes you believe they were more charitable? My understanding is that Baptists weren't even invited to the assembly. I did note, however, that the WCF didn't use the term but the connection between the BC and the WCF is merely the fact that they're both of the Reformed corpus of Confessions and, generally, the two agree with one another.

elnwood · #42 (**permalink**) 09-26-2007, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

An issue that has not yet been brought up is that of the difference between the BC and the WCF on this point. This is key, as it was only the BC that was cited in the OP. It is also an ongoing debate among the students with whom I was familiar at WSC, as well as the churches from which they have entered their seminary studies. The issue is this - does the WCF hold a broader and more charitable view than the BC on what constitutes a true church (verses a false church/sect/what have you), and if so (and if so correct), are those who hold to the BC language in a strict manner unnecessarily excluding from the body of Christ those whom the Westminster divines would not?

According to the WCF 25.4-5, most modern Baptist churches would be considered true churches who teach and embrace the Gospel, who nevertheless have a corrupted view of the sacraments. This would not make them a sect (as some who hold to the BC would assert), but rather a true church that has within its fold some false practices.

So, assuming that this poll is most directly speaking of baptism coming from anabaptist/baptist churches who, while sectarian in form, yet still proclaim the Gospel, and who have some practice of baptism, communion and public worship that is recognizably Christian, then - yes, I would consider their baptism to be valid.

Richard Mouw, an ecumenist, notes this difference when evaluating the Roman Catholic Church's claim to be the one true church, and he notes that Kuyper observed this as well.
Mouw’s Musings - The President’s Blog » The “One True Church(es)”

Archlute · #43 (**permalink**) 09-26-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

An issue that has not yet been brought up is that of the difference between the BC and the WCF on this point. This is key, as it was only the BC that was cited in the OP. It is also an ongoing debate among the students with whom I was familiar at WSC, as well as the churches from which they have entered their seminary studies. The issue is this - does the WCF hold a broader and more charitable view than the BC on what constitutes a true church (verses a false church/sect/what have you), and if so (and if so correct), are those who hold to the BC language in a strict manner unnecessarily excluding from the body of Christ those whom the Westminster divines would not?

According to the WCF 25.4-5, most modern Baptist churches would be considered true churches who teach and embrace the Gospel, who nevertheless have a corrupted view of the sacraments. This would not make them a sect (as some who hold to the BC would assert), but rather a true church that has within its fold some false practices.

So, assuming that this poll is most directly speaking of baptism coming from anabaptist/baptist churches who, while sectarian in form, yet still proclaim the Gospel, and who have some practice of baptism, communion and public worship that is recognizably Christian, then - yes, I would consider their baptism to be valid.

Interesting. Do you merely suspect this to be the case or is there something in the minutes or something else that makes you believe they were more charitable? My understanding is that Baptists weren't even invited to the assembly. I did note, however, that the WCF didn't use the term but the connection between the BC and the WCF is merely the fact that they're both of the Reformed corpus of Confessions and, generally, the two agree with one another.

Hey Rich, glad to engage you in discussion again!

I don't know the history of the Assembly's relationship to the Baptist churches of the day, but I suspect that even if the Baptists remained uninvited there may be more to the issue than the ministers' views alone. The Westminster Assembly was called by the civil government to draw up a unified religious confession for the realm, and it is possible that the civil government had standards that excluded the Baptists, except for which the divines would have extended invitation. That's just a guess, though. What is not a guess is that the Scottish church sent delegates to the Assembly, but refused to have them actually sit as members of the Assembly. So, one could ask if the Scottish kirk was a sect, or viewed the Westminster Presbyterians as a sect! Of course, this is silly, but it does illustrate that one's inclusion or absence from the Assembly may not say as much about their status as we would initially think.

However, even if the Westminster divines did hold that the Baptists were sectarian, it would make no difference to me. What we hold to is what is written in the confession, and the definition of the church in 25.4-5 would necessarily include Baptist churches as true churches. If the divines thought otherwise, they were at that point contradicting their own given definition in the confession as to what constitutes a true church.

Larry Hughes · #44 (**permalink**) 09-26-2007, 05:13 PM

It's not so much a line item definition of a sect but it does express well the "fruit" or signature character of any given sect. It focuses well on the "spirit" behind a sect. Personally, I like it best of all.

"Patience is one of the things that distinguishes the Church from the sect. The sect must have everything at once. It cannot wait, because it has no future. The Church can wait, because it has a future."

-Hermann Sasse

armourbearer · #45 (**permalink**) 09-26-2007, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry Hughes

It's not so much a line item definition of a sect but it does express well the "fruit" or signature character of any given sect. It focuses well on the "spirit" behind a sect. Personally, I like it best of all.

"Patience is one of the things that distinguishes the Church from the sect. The sect must have everything at once. It cannot wait, because it has no future. The Church can wait, because it has a future."

-Hermann Sasse

That's brilliant!

KMK · #46 (**permalink**) 09-26-2007, 08:11 PM

Only 13 people have voted on this poll, yet 41 PBers voted that they believe RCC baptism to be valid on that other poll. Have the rest been convinced otherwise by the arguments posted on this thread?