We have discussed ad nauseum on this board and in "real life" the efficacy of Roman Catholic Baptism and its valid/invalid nature and we all pretty much have our thoughts. However I think more pressing in our time is whether or not the baptism by in an apostate Protestant Denomination should be acceptable? I am thinking here Baptisms done in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer (as I have seen done in the PC(USA)) for example. Would you accept that as an acceptable Baptism?

Personally I would not accept that as a valid Baptism. What Say You?

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairmount ARP Church, Sewickley, PA
Student of Theology Pittsburgh Theological Seminary & Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary

“If the Church could be aroused to a deeper sense of the glory that awaits her, she would enter with a warmer spirit into the struggles that are before her.”-- J.H. Thornwell

The rituals of apostates, I do not hold to be valid. It matters not if the apostate be Roman or Protestant, IMO.

__________________
Sterling Harmon
Coventry, CT
PCA
Deacon
________________

"Whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God."
-- John Calvin, Institutes III:xv.3.

"Our Lord God must be a good man, to be fond of worthless fellows. I cannot like them, and yet I, myself, am one."
-- Martin Luther, Table Talk

For a baptism to be valid it must have all of the following:

1. By water and in the name of the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

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

Irregularities which do not render a baptism invalid:

1. An ungodly minister.

2. Non-Christian parents of the child.

3. The wrong mode of baptism.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Daniel, isn't your statement 2 (under must have all of the following) in conflict with statement 1 (under Irregularities)?

__________________
Sterling Harmon
Coventry, CT
PCA
Deacon
________________

"Whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God."
-- John Calvin, Institutes III:xv.3.

"Our Lord God must be a good man, to be fond of worthless fellows. I cannot like them, and yet I, myself, am one."
-- Martin Luther, Table Talk

Oh. Being more of a "newbie" than not, I didn't realize that. I'm so sorry. I'll back out of this one now... Mea culpa...

Margaret

__________________
Margaret
Free Church of Scotland [Continuing]
Michigan

"He must increase, but I must decrease." - John 3:30

No, because the minister may be ungodly (not regenerate) and still be lawfully ordained, so that by his confession he is a minister of the gospel in a true church of Christ.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Okay. I see what you're saying. I disagree, but not wanting to go , so rather than discussing "What are the qualities of a true minister of the gospel," I think, in this thread we should stick with the question of the OP:

What Baptism is valid?

Perhaps a new thread on the validity of the ordination of an unregenerate minister is in order?

__________________
Sterling Harmon
Coventry, CT
PCA
Deacon
________________

"Whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God."
-- John Calvin, Institutes III:xv.3.

"Our Lord God must be a good man, to be fond of worthless fellows. I cannot like them, and yet I, myself, am one."
-- Martin Luther, Table Talk

I agree but it does measure into this discussion as to what constitutes a lawful Ordination. Like do we consider an ELCA or PC(USA) or UMC minister "Lawfully Ordained"?

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairmount ARP Church, Sewickley, PA
Student of Theology Pittsburgh Theological Seminary & Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary

“If the Church could be aroused to a deeper sense of the glory that awaits her, she would enter with a warmer spirit into the struggles that are before her.”-- J.H. Thornwell

Then again I will call you on this Daniel. If you believe this error, then none of us have been baptized by a lawfully ordained, whatever that means, minister since the rcc laid hands on all the first gen reformers. And please do not go to trent became the deciding line of this. I think Greco played that card, but alas, my straight beats them there pair of dueces..

__________________
N. Robert; Trinity Reformed Church RCA, Holland MI

Once in a while you can get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."

In my pastoral ministry, I always accepted the baptism of anyone baptized by a recognized Christian group. That varied from liberal Protestant, to Calvary Chapel, to Pentecostal, to fundamentalist, and even a few Presbyterians. However, after learning that credo baptism is a "heresy" (on another thread), and having always viewed "heresy" as making one liable to hellfire, perhaps the more fundamental question is was I a Christian minister?

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Rome was a true church prior to Trent, so your concern is not relevant.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

I just do not see how you can say this Daniel. If it was, Luther et al would not have tried to reform it. I am 100% certain that there was no difference in Rome from probably Justyn to Trent. A formal declaration against the reformers does not a church make!!!!!. What is the pithy saying I heard regarding this? They anathamized the gospel @ Trent. Therefore prior to December 13th, 1545 they were a true church. But during the next 18 years until the canons of Trent were formally pronounced, the 'truthiness' began to wane until December 4th 1563 when they became a synogogue of satan. Therefore anyone baptized in the rcc prior to Dec 13th 1545 is ok, but anyone baptized during the council becomes suspect, and yet further anyone baptized after December 13th 1545 was not validly baptized. Inless of course they were baptized by someone who received the sacrament prior to 1545, then they are ok.


Ok Daniel, Just one question you are asked to answer.

In 1215, the fourth lateran council convened. Canon 1 States:

CANON 1

Text: We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple; the Father (proceeding) from no one, but the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Ghost equally from both, always without beginning and end. The Father begetting, the Son begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal, the one principle of the universe, Creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal, who from the beginning of time and by His omnipotent power made from nothing creatures both spiritual and corporeal, angelic, namely, and mundane, and then human, as it were, common, composed of spirit and body. The devil and the other demons were indeed created by God good by nature but they became bad through themselves; man, however, sinned at the suggestion of the devil. This Holy Trinity in its common essense undivided and in personal properties divided, through Moses, the holy prophets, and other servants gave to the human race at the most opportune intervals of time the doctrine of salvation.

And finally, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God made flesh by the entire Trinity, conceived with the co-operation of the Holy Ghost of Mary ever Virgin, made true man, composed of a rational soul and human flesh, one Person in two natures, pointed out more clearly the way of life. Who according to His divinity is immortal and impassable, according to His humanity was made passable and mortal, suffered on the cross for the salvation of the human race, and being dead descended into hell, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. But He descended in soul, arose in flesh, and ascended equally in both; He will come at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead and will render to the reprobate and to the elect according to their works. Who all shall rise with their own bodies which they now have that they may receive according to their merits, whether good or bad, the latter eternal punishment with the devil, the former eternal glory with Christ.

Now Daniel, are you about to say that Rome did not 'officialy' believe in a trinitarian doctrine until 1215?

__________________
N. Robert; Trinity Reformed Church RCA, Holland MI

Once in a while you can get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."

Well it is the same as trying to reform an apostatizing denomination like the Church of England. The CoE is a scandolously corrupt church, but it has not by its confession anathematized the gospel. And thus it is still part of the visible institutional church. But the same cannot be said of Rome.

It may have officially formulated the doctrine in 1215, but this is not the same thing as saying that it anathematized a belief in the Trinity before that date. Before Trent many Papists did not believe the gospel, and so they were a scandalously corrupt body, but at Trent it became official church policy to anathematize the gospel of Christ.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Everything you wanted to know about the Presbyterian view of the subject but were afraid to ask.

PCA Position Papers: Baptism - Appendix P - Report of the Study Committee on Question Relating to the Validity of Certain Baptisms (1987)

__________________
Tim Vaughan, 48 years old, member Redeemer OPC, Santa Maria CA.

How about the Eastern Orthodox? Same as Rome or not?

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairmount ARP Church, Sewickley, PA
Student of Theology Pittsburgh Theological Seminary & Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary

“If the Church could be aroused to a deeper sense of the glory that awaits her, she would enter with a warmer spirit into the struggles that are before her.”-- J.H. Thornwell

I don't know, as I know virtually zero about them.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Sharpen your pencil Daniel. You have been diluted to believe this lie. That is like saying Honorious was not a heretic until he physically wrote down his erroneous belief about the wills of Christ. It is exactly the same thing Daniel. If it takes a formally written papal bull pronoucement from the sofa of peter, then one cannot be sure what they believe prior to this. Ask any rc and they will tell you I am correct in my asessment. Seriously, if you can get close enough to the leper colony without becoming ill, go and ask a priest or one who would know and see what they say. Instead of looking through skewed lenses of this, why not go right to the horses mouth. I have, and they laughed so hard I thought I would have to do CPR.

__________________
N. Robert; Trinity Reformed Church RCA, Holland MI

Once in a while you can get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."

We are not talking about individuals, but about ecclesiastical bodies. For instance, there are many apostates in the CoE, but we cannot say the CoE is apostate until it officially adopts apostasy as its confession. Baptism by a heretic is irregular but valid; baptism by an apostate communion is invalid.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Hi Backwood Presbyterian! I would not accept a baptism in the name of 'Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer' a valid. Libs/Barthians use that lingo to cover up the fact that they do not believe the trinity. I've even heard of worse. (In the Disciples of Christ Church's). Daniel Ritchie's validity test is real good -

"Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie
For a baptism to be valid it must have all of the following:

1. By water and in the name of the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

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

Irregularities which do not render a baptism invalid:

1. An ungodly minister.

2. Non-Christian parents of the child.

3. The wrong mode of baptism."

As to the supposed contradiction, there isn't any. My first thought's were about a Catholic, or a liberal minister. If they used the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it would make the baptism valid, not because of the ministers greatness, but because of God's. It would depend then on the person getting baptized and the power and word of God. Daniel's Validity Test is great because it does not invalidate a baptism that we reformed may debate about, ie sprinkle or dunked, or any other thing.

Southern, Great question. That 'Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer' line makes me want to barf.