This is a practical question for me. I am in a country where Greek Orthodoxy is the "state" and official religion. But I will some day be back in the states, Lord willing, and be where Catholics are numerous as well.

I aim to evangelize English-speaking Greek Cypriots (so they may in turn evangelize their Greek-only speaking compatriots), and anticipate the Lord converting some.

I was talking with my fellow elder today about receiving various folks into membership in our fledgling church plant, and we happened upon the topic of Catholics and Orthodox wanting to join.

How many of you consider the baptisms of these organizations valid? I know there is difference of opinion among solid Reformed folks.

Thanks for taking the time to consider this.

Steve

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

What is the confessional position of your church plant?

__________________
Tom Albrecht
Member, Covenant URCNA, New Holland, PA.

"I'm not a famous man. I'm just a simple country doctor with horse sense."

I know Joe Morecraft recognizes RC baptisms as valid.

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/

They are performed with water, and the words of institution are used. I consider them valid.

__________________
Scott Roper
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA): "A bunch of hippie Calvinists"
Winston-Salem, NC

Tom,

The Westminster Standards. Although we honor the 3FU and 1689 and accept into full membership such as hold to them.

There is no other Reformed church in this city (the third largest in the country), and being surrounded by Charismatics and Arminians we desired to offer safe haven to the Reformed and Reformed Baptists as well (many UK expat RBs here).

Steve

I would say then that any trinitarian baptism performed with water would be acceptable.

The alternative would be the need to go back and act as "fruit inspectors" of the original group/minister doing the baptism.

What if they were baptized by a believer who was not ordained??

__________________
Larry Bray
Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/
Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net
-----------------------------------------------------
“The Christian must not be of such a complying nature as to cut the coat of his profession according to the fashion of the times…" - William Gurnall

That would not be lawful.

How would "lawfully ordained" be defined?

Interesting. I'd never thought of that perspective.

You see, in both Roman and EO theology such a baptism would be considered valid. It may (but not necessarily) require a "conditional" re-baptism, but generally speaking it would be accepted. For centuries these two institutions have accepted "emergency" baptisms as done by anyone ... even non-Christians. Of course the reason for this is that they view baptism as being regenerative. The Reformed don't.

Interesting. Thanks for an insight I'd never considered!

__________________
Kevin Guillory
Pastor
Redeemer Christian Congregation
Baltimore, MD

I don't interpret Scripture. Scripture
interprets itself. And in the process ...
Scripture interprets me!

I think the WCF articulates the grounds for acceptance as has already been shown.

With love and gentleness, it may be necessary to work through any difficulties the adult believer has in relation to their RC baptism on the basis of the spiritual condition of their parents:


WCF 28:4 Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ (Mar_16:15, Mar_16:16; Act_8:37, Act_8:38), but also the infants of one or both believing parents, are to be baptized (Gen_17:7, Gen_17:9 with Gal_3:9, Gal_3:14, and Col_2:11, Col_2:12, and Act_2:38, Act_2:39, and Rom_4:11, Rom_4:12; Mat_28:19; Mar_10:13-16; Luk_18:15; 1Co_7:14).

If they knew their parents had not gone on to a life characteristic of one who walks with Christ, they may have some concern over the basis for the application of this covenant sign at the time.

I think it pays to be sensitive to this, and if it causes them concern that you ought to think through whether it is right in this instance to bar them being baptised now subject to the conditions explained therein (WCF 28:4).

Matt

__________________
Matthew Glover
Reformed Presbyterian Church of Australia

"According to the common doctrine of Protestants, an ordained minister is a man appointed to perform the sacred functions of teaching and administering the sacraments in any community professing Christianity.... [W]hether it be done by a prelate, a presbytery, by the people, or by the magistrate with the consent of the people, if a man is recognised by a Christian community as a minister, he is to be regarded as having due authority to act as such." (Hodge, Do Roman Catholic Clergy Count as Ministers of the Gospel?)

Interesting. Many consider Roman baptism valid, but if the officiant of the baptism is not ordained it is not valid. By extension those who hold to this view would recognize Roman priests as having a valid ordination. It seems like a back door validation of Romanism. I understand I am in distinct minority, but I do not view Roman baptism as valid.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

Interesting.
I wonder if a Catholic community should be considered a Christian community. What would be the common denominator to be considered a Christian community?

I also wonder how that might carry over in some folks idea of online community.

Which Hodge is that?

I am right behind you on that, brother! We try to do the same. We have basically become a haven for anyone who is tired of 'purpose driven/church growth' and desires the pure milk of the word.

Scott, there is a well written PCA study committee report found here:

http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.pdf

It may not change your mind, but I found it convincing.


So, no, I do not consider them to be valid baptisms.

__________________
Soli Deo Gloria

Excellent article Adam.

Once you bring "lawfully ordained" as a pre-requisite to valid baptism I think you create unnecessary difficulties. The WCF was clarifying how baptism *should* be performed; it wasn't indicating what elements are necessary to make a baptism valid. The Shorter Catechism provides the bare essentials. It is washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Presbyterians sometimes do things which are not according to the usual order. A a result, are we to investigate any and every baptism to ensure the person administering it was an actual minister and not a home missionary? And then there are the Independents and Liberals -- I've heard of some bizarre things which take place amongst them, including baptism by females; and a big question mark remains as to whether a person who has only been elected by the congregation is lawfully ordained.

It is best to make baptism by a lawfully ordained minister the ordinary rule, without making it a pre-requisite to valid baptism.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

One thing to remember is that 'lawfully ordained' cannot be defended from Scripture, but is (I believe) a safeguard to make sure that the sacraments are performed alongside the Word of God.

__________________
Rev. Andrew J. Barnes
Husband of Dena
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

And yet, the PCA didn't fully adopt that report: it rather accepted the Majority (the report linked above) and the Minority Report (http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-078.html#4), and the decision on whether it is valid is to be made by lower courts for each individual case.

Probably Charles Hodge who was strongly in favor of the validity of Romish baptisms.

I've read it before. I think American Presbyterians have been wrong on this for some time, and the position historically held by the Reformed is the correct one. I find the minority report more convincing.

Let's not confuse the validity of a thing with its lawfulness or propriety. While it would be unlawful for an unbeliever to have his child baptized as the WCF affirms, it is still a valid baptism.

The WCF states the point three times in three chapters (27:4, 28:2, 29:3), providing various Scripture proofs to support it. It is a Scriptural proposition; and given the regulative principle of worship the NT's silence on non-ordained administration is conclusive.