Thread: "Valid" Christian Baptism

This poll has in view those who hold to infant baptism and the question of whether an infant so baptized would later need to be re-baptized.

What, Scripturally, is required for a "valid" Christian baptism?

I picked the second option for a couple of reasons.

1) Anyone can put the words "Father,Son, and Holy Spirit" together and mean whatever they want.

2) So therefore there must be a Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity behind the words.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

I picked the second option for a couple of reasons.

1) Anyone can put the words "Father,Son, and Holy Spirit" together and mean whatever they want.

2) So therefore there must be a Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity behind the words.

The parents? The minister performing the baptism? The official documents of the denomination?

If for some weird reason someone who proclaims traditional Trinitarian doctrine is a member of the Mormon religion and has their infant baptized - using the appropriate formula - would that baptism be valid?

If the parents don't believe and have no intention of raising the infant in the faith but go ahead and have li'l Trey baptized solely to please the grandparents, does that make for a valid baptism?

I can think of so many permutations and combinations, it makes my head spin.

Originally Posted by Scott1

This poll has in view those who hold to infant baptism and the question of whether an infant so baptized would later need to be re-baptized.

What, Scripturally, is required for a "valid" Christian baptism?

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

The parents? The minister performing the baptism? The official documents of the denomination?

If for some weird reason someone who proclaims traditional Trinitarian doctrine is a member of the Mormon religion and has their infant baptized - using the appropriate formula - would that baptism be valid?

If the parents don't believe and have no intention of raising the infant in the faith but go ahead and have li'l Trey baptized solely to please the grandparents, does that make for a valid baptism?

I can think of so many permutations and combinations, it makes my head spin.

Originally Posted by Scott1

This poll has in view those who hold to infant baptism and the question of whether an infant so baptized would later need to be re-baptized.

What, Scripturally, is required for a "valid" Christian baptism?

The poll has in view the one doing the baptism on authority of his denomination (e.g. What does the denomination, which the minister represents, believe and represent).

The PCA had a study committee on this in 1987. A 4-1 majority voted that something beyond a Trinitarian pronouncement and biblical doctrine of the Trinity was required for a valid Christian baptism.

The majority report particularly focused on the question of concern, i.e. whether a Roman infant baptism was valid and whether re-baptism would be required to enter a "true" communion. It held that such are not valid Christian baptisms for several reasons. The (large) committee majority included some of the founders of the denomination including Mr Settle and Mr Barker.

The majority report cited that most, but not all, of American Presbyterian history was in accordance with their understanding.

The minority of 1 made a case, citing Calvin's Institutes, strongly condemning false church practice and belief, and emphasizing the efficacy of the sacrament in and of itself. It appears to recognize there must be a biblical Trinity doctrine behind the church administering it and that it must be done by a lawfully ordained minister.

The PCA General Assembly voted to receive both the majority and minority report on this. In denomination polity, study committees represent the opinion of the majority of the highest court of the denomination (General Assembly) at that time. They are to be given "due and serious consideration" by lower courts (Sessions, Presbyteries) considering their issues. They are often used to help decide practices and judicial cases but are not absolutely binding. Generally, the Consitution of the Church (e.g. The Westminster Standards or The Book of Church Order) would have to be amended to make a doctrine or practice binding.

So, in effect, the opinion of the General Assembly was that a biblical case could be made for either basis and that individual Sessions and Presbyteries could decide which basis to adopt and adhere to for themselves.

The well-written reports (both majority and minority) were commended for study by local Sessions and Presbyteries.

This is truly a difficult issue to resolve biblically and this history shows that.

The parents? The minister performing the baptism? The official documents of the denomination?

It would be the parents and the denomination, if Presby, or the particular church, if Baptist or non-denominational.

Both Presby's and Baptist require a credible profession of faith before anyone can be Baptized so either the parents, on behalf of the child, or an adult would need to profess their faith and hopefully that would include a belief in the Trinity. The denomination or the particular church, for Baptists, would also have to hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.

I agree with the conclusions Scott cited.

I believe it requires a Trinitarian prouncement and biblical doctrines of the Trinity and the Gospel.

If a sect does not have the gospel, then they cannot, by definition, do Christian anything, including baptism. The adjective is simply not true in their case.

Originally Posted by smhbbag

I agree with the conclusions Scott cited.

I believe it requires a Trinitarian pronouncement and biblical doctrines of the Trinity and the Gospel.

If a sect does not have the gospel, then they cannot, by definition, do Christian anything, including baptism. The adjective is simply not true in their case.

I would agree that without the gospel, there's nothing for a person to be baptized into. But how narrowly must we define the specifics of the gospel doctrine? Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone wasn't a tightly packaged doctrine prior to the 16th century (yes I know it was there, but not as thoroughly defined) but many millions of people were baptized into orthodox trinitarian churches, east and west. And prior to the tightly packaged trinitarian doctrine of the 3rd/4th centuries, many were baptized with a trinitarian formula but without so firm a grasp of the doctrine. I've kind of wrestled with this question before. It seems reasonable that the church be held to increasingly higher standards of belief as those beliefs become more well-defined and understood--so that there is no longer an excuse for anything less than firm trinitarian doctrine after Nicea, and anything less than sola fide after the Reformation. Otherwise there would be an awful lot of invalid baptisms before the 1500s...

So I guess that would mean that anyone baptized outside of a Reformed/Lutheran church must be rebaptized? Boy, that sure seems stringent, because the baptism wouldn't "count," which almost seems to be trending toward baptismal regeneration (which Lutherans hold to anyway--another sticky wicket...)

What's the relevance of Donatism to this question?

Originally Posted by smhbbag

I agree with the conclusions Scott cited.

I believe it requires a Trinitarian prouncement and biblical doctrines of the Trinity and the Gospel.

If a sect does not have the gospel, then they cannot, by definition, do Christian anything, including baptism. The adjective is simply not true in their case.

It seems reasonable that the church be held to increasingly higher standards of belief as those beliefs become more well-defined and understood--so that there is no longer an excuse for anything less than firm trinitarian doctrine after Nicea, and anything less than sola fide after the Reformation

The efficacy of baptism- is it dependent on "evolving standards" of (visible) church doctrine or is it (has it always been) dependent on something else. The question is difficult because we know it is an ordinance of Scripture, given by the Lord Himself. This is why Christians began doing it- the Lord's example, the Scriptures command it.

Who has authority from God to do it, what must he represent (or his church doctrine) in performing it? Very difficult questions indeed.

Did the Church need to have the doctrine of the Trinity down (e.g. Council of Nicea) or was it implicitly understood, or could she merely obey the command and look in faith toward God's commandment and promises regarding it?

This reasoning almost makes it seem like an understanding of the Gospel was even more important in baptism then (the first century) than was a biblical understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Scripture is explicit in saying the pronouncement needs to be "Trinitarian" (cf Matthew 28:19) but, as we know, the Doctrine of the Trinity is necessarily deduced by good inference from Scripture, that is, it is implicit from Scripture.

So I guess that would mean that anyone baptized outside of a Reformed/Lutheran church must be rebaptized?

I don't think this flows from your reasoning (and good questioning) of this because if baptism does require a basic belief in the Gospel by the authority administering it, almost every denomination would qualify.

Another way we might ask this is...

1) How can a baptism by an authority that does not believe Jesus (alone) saves be a valid administration of the sacrament? Isn't that the object of the sacrament- salvation, redemption through Christ (alone)?

2) Am I understanding correctly that the object of the sacrament of baptism is not really (visible) church membership but rather salvation, by grace through Jesus Christ (alone)?

Originally Posted by wsw201

The parents? The minister performing the baptism? The official documents of the denomination?

It would be the parents and the denomination, if Presby, or the particular church, if Baptist or non-denominational.

Both Presby's and Baptist require a credible profession of faith before anyone can be Baptized so either the parents, on behalf of the child, or an adult would need to profess their faith and hopefully that would include a belief in the Trinity. The denomination or the particular church, for Baptists, would also have to hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.

If I've understood correctly, accepting RC/EO baptisms as valid is a fairly new phenomenon so far as Presbyterianism/Reformed goes.

If this is true, then no wonder the RCC/EOC have gained credibility as legitimate Christian denominations, whose members should be counted as believers.

It's tied in with the notion of the children of believers being the "littlest disciples". A church baptizes children of families where the faith is practiced, so far as the leadership knows. The Christian faith is being handed down from one generation to the next.

Therefore, if RC/EO baptisms are recognized as valid, it makes sense that there is increasingly a corresponding belief that the Christian faith is being passed down via the RCC/EOC from one generation to the next....that the faith exists in those organizations/denominations in order to BE passed down.

Surely if it was believed that the one baptized isn't going to be discipled in the faith, there either wouldn't be a baptism performed, or the baptism wouldn't be recognized as valid.

If an expectation that the candidate for baptism will be - or at least has the potential to be - discipled in the faith isn't a requirement, then any water baptism performed with the appropriate formula should logically be accepted. Even a Mormon baptism. They baptize via immersion, and use the traditional phrasing of "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

However, I've never heard anyone suggest that's not a requirement

So assuming there does exist an expectation of the baptizee being in a situation wherein the Christian faith will be taught, then the Mormon baptism being rejected, even though the traditional elements are used, while an RCC/EO baptism is accepted appears to make a statement about the RCC/EOC. They must be legitimate purveyors of the gospel, unlike the LDS.

ISTM it's not a coincidence that the RCC/EOC is gaining acceptance in some Presbyterian/Reformed circles as being legitimate - albeit highly flawed - Christian denominations at the same time that RCC/EOC baptisms are being accepted as valid.

Gryphonette

If I've understood correctly, accepting RC/EO baptisms as valid is a fairly new phenomenon so far as Presbyterianism/Reformed goes.

Actually, it appears that Mr Calvin and Mr Luther were not re-baptized after their infant Roman Church baptisms. Mr Calvin even wrote to defend his not being re-baptized emphasizing the validity of the sacrament despite the corruption of the church and her representative administering it. There was a background of "Anabaptists" promoting re-baptism which he generally viewed as great error, even heresy. These reasons go back to the understanding of scripture covenantaly (covenant theology) where promises to the children of believers are actually signed and sealed by baptism. [This did not mean salvation was conveyed by baptism in the Reformed understanding, but real promises and grace were signed by the ordinance]. Reformed theology takes the sacraments very seriously.

Also, the Council of Trent had not concluded quite then. So, officially, the Roman Catholic Church did not officially reject justification by faith alone as the basis for salvation (sola fide) and the authority of Scripture (sola scriptura) until the Council of Trent- 1563, about 4 years after Mr Calvin died. Not sure that would have made a difference, but that is some of the immediate context.

Apparently, American Presbyterian official doctrine almost always (but there was at least one exception) held that Roman Church baptisms were not valid. It appears from my research that the main reason was that she had become corrupt to the point of destroying the authority to convey the sacrament. Which "corruptions" made that so seems to have varied from time-to-time in official reasoning.

There's a lot of issues relating to "covenant" involved in baptism. I'm working through understanding this.

WCF 28.2

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

See also WLC 165

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ has ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.


Baptism admits into the visible church so at the least it should be administered by the visible church, no? As well as by a minitser lawfully called to that office in the visble church.

If I've understood correctly, accepting RC/EO baptisms as valid is a fairly new phenomenon so far as Presbyterianism/Reformed goes.

If this is true, then no wonder the RCC/EOC have gained credibility as legitimate Christian denominations, whose members should be counted as believers.

Anne,

Actually, as has been noted, the recognition of RCC baptism by the Reformed has been around for quite awhile. The debate over RCC baptism was highlighted by the Thornwell/Hodge debate way back when.

FWIW, HERE is where you can find Hodge's argument. I don't know if Thornwell's argument is on the Web, but if it is I bet Andrew can find it!!

I was baptized in a Roman Catholic Church as an infant but I chose to be rebaptized when I got converted. The Roman Catholic Church baptism is not based on the truth. Calvin and Luther were struggling with their stand on Baptism because they were coming out from Pre-Reformation period and they were persecuted during the earlier years. However, their stand became clearer when they became freer----Salvation by grace through faith, Alone.

The Roman Catholics believe tha baptism saves while Reformed believes that there is grace during Infant baptism because God is present and we are reminding Him of His Covenant promise to children of believers. However, grace in Baptism is totally different from Saving Grace.

We don't want to soften the claims of the Gospel because our children are infant baptized in our Reformed denomination and the fact that their parents are Christians. Without repentance and Saving faith , they will go to hell. That's how serious it is.

We pray and trust God that He will one day by His grace give Saving grace to our children. We continue to take seriously our responsibility to teach God's word to our children and hoping that one day God will save them.

Apart from having faith in the Gospel there is no salvation and we don't want to believe like the Catholics do.

Rebaptized ex- Roman Catholic,

The poll has closed.

Almost half of voters (46%) think a valid Christian baptism requires only a Trinitarian prouncement and that a biblical doctrine of the Trinity be held forth.

The next largest block (21%) believe that in addition to these two Trinitarian requirements that a biblical doctrine of the Gospel must be held by the church baptising.

Another large block (18%) believe that there must be a Trinitarian prouncement, biblical doctrines of the Gospel and authority of Scripture plus additional marks of a "true church."

Early voting seemed to favor the option "a Trinitarian pronouncement alone is sufficient" and quickly shifted to adding the requirement that the church represented must also hold to a biblical doctrine of the Trinity. This pattern held to the end, and in the end, (12%) voted that a Trinitarian prouncement alone is sufficient.