On the validity of sacraments

[TryingToLearn]

1) What is essentially required for a valid baptism?

2) Would any private baptisms be valid? If not, what essential requirement does it lack? If so, why?

3) Would two random christians baptizing each other in the pool be valid (assume they’re genuine in intent and not joking)? If not, what essential requirement does it lack?

4) What of the above situation but one is a minister?

5) Would baptism by the laity, even a woman, in the context of public worship be valid? If not, what essential requirement does it lack?

6) What is essentially required for a valid Lord’s Supper?

7) What essential requirement does the Mass lack which invalidates it? (If it is withholding of the cup, then if it was allowed, would it then be valid?)

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

In what sense do you mean "valid" in your questions?

 

[TryingToLearn]

In what sense do you mean "valid" in your questions?

In that it still counts as essentially a true baptism so that it is not to be “repeated”

And regarding communion, valid insofar as that grace is still being conferred and the act still counts as communion and not something else entirely.

 

[TryingToLearn]

If at all possible, @Alan D. Strange I would very much appreciate your thoughts here as I’ve benefitted from many of your past posts here on things surrounding these questions

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Hi Brandon,

Are you discussing these issues with your elders? They ought to be your primary resource for these kinds of questions.

That said, you're going to get different answers to several of these questions from Presbyterians than from Reformed Baptists. Keep that in mind. Each "school" has some built-in biases and assumptions that will color their perspectives on these things.

But anyway, I will take my shot at your questions.

1) What is essentially required for a valid baptism? That a person who has credibly and outwardly professed faith in Christ be immersed* in water by a validly ordained Minister of the Gospel, or under the direct supervision of a validly ordained Minister of the Gospel and in the presence of the local church assembled.
(I put an asterisk by "immersed" because I don't think that actual dunking of the entire body into a large volume of water is so essential to the valid administration of the ordinance that it "doesn't count" if other modes are used in certain special circumstances. However, "I got sprinkled because that's just the way my church does it" is not, to me, one of those other valid special circumstances.

2) Would any private baptisms be valid? If not, what essential requirement does it lack? If so, why? No. Lacks a validly ordained minister. Lacks the presence of the local church assembled.

3) Would two random christians baptizing each other in the pool be valid (assume they’re genuine in intent and not joking)? If not, what essential requirement does it lack? No. See above.

4) What of the above situation but one is a minister? No. See above.

5) Would baptism by the laity, even a woman, in the context of public worship be valid? If not, what essential requirement does it lack? No. See above.

6) What is essentially required for a valid Lord’s Supper? That ordinance be administer by a validly ordained Minister of the Gospel. That bread* and wine* be used, and that these elements be set aside for the special use in this ordinance.
(Again, "bread" and "wine" have controversy. Is the bread supposed to leavened or unleavened? Many disagree. I leave this point for others to argue. Same with "fermented wine" vs. "unfermented grape juice". I leave that controversy for others to debate.

7) What essential requirement does the Mass lack which invalidates it? (If it is withholding of the cup, then if it was allowed, would it then be valid?)
The (so-called) "Church of Rome" is an apostate church (and therefore, no church at all), and therefore the (so-called) "priests" of that organization are no more "Ministers of the Gospel" than a Muslim Imam would be. Therefore, sacraments (or ordinances, as you prefer) that are performed by them are invalid on their face.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Hi Brandon,

Are you discussing these issues with your elders? They ought to be your primary resource for these kinds of questions.

That said, you're going to get different answers to several of these questions from Presbyterians than from Reformed Baptists. Keep that in mind. Each "school" has some built-in biases and assumptions that will color their perspectives on these things.

But anyway, I will take my shot at your questions.

1) What is essentially required for a valid baptism? That a person who has credibly and outwardly professed faith in Christ be immersed* in water by a validly ordained Minister of the Gospel, or under the direct supervision of a validly ordained Minister of the Gospel and in the presence of the local church assembled.
(I put an asterisk by "immersed" because I don't think that actual dunking of the entire body into a large volume of water is so essential to the valid administration of the ordinance that it "doesn't count" if other modes are used in certain special circumstances. However, "I got sprinkled because that's just the way my church does it" is not, to me, one of those other valid special circumstances.

2) Would any private baptisms be valid? If not, what essential requirement does it lack? If so, why? No. Lacks a validly ordained minister. Lacks the presence of the local church assembled.

3) Would two random christians baptizing each other in the pool be valid (assume they’re genuine in intent and not joking)? If not, what essential requirement does it lack? No. See above.

4) What of the above situation but one is a minister? No. See above.

5) Would baptism by the laity, even a woman, in the context of public worship be valid? If not, what essential requirement does it lack? No. See above.

6) What is essentially required for a valid Lord’s Supper? That ordinance be administer by a validly ordained Minister of the Gospel. That bread* and wine* be used, and that these elements be set aside for the special use in this ordinance.
(Again, "bread" and "wine" have controversy. Is the bread supposed to leavened or unleavened? Many disagree. I leave this point for others to argue. Same with "fermented wine" vs. "unfermented grape juice". I leave that controversy for others to debate.

7) What essential requirement does the Mass lack which invalidates it? (If it is withholding of the cup, then if it was allowed, would it then be valid?)
The (so-called) "Church of Rome" is an apostate church (and therefore, no church at all), and therefore the (so-called) "priests" of that organization are no more "Ministers of the Gospel" than a Muslim Imam would be. Therefore, sacraments (or ordinances, as you prefer) that are performed by them are invalid on their face.

Thanks! I do want to get various answers here so I won’t be replying after this one message so as not to focus in on one person and derail the thread, but:

For 4) What would you say to the argument that the church is present in the minister himself and he thus acts with their authority?

For 5) Wouldn’t this fall under “or under the direct supervision of a validly ordained Minister of the Gospel” and thus be valid?

And for 7) I would just register my disagreement

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Thanks! I do want to get various answers here so I won’t be replying after this one message so as not to focus in on one person and derail the thread, but:

For 4) What would you say to the argument that the church is present in the minister himself and he thus acts with their authority?

I notice you didn't say anything about whether you're talking to your own Church elders. Don't bypass your local church.

In answer to your question: "No." The church is more than just the minister. When Jesus said, "when two or three are gathered together in my name", he was talking about the assembly of the congregation, not just the presence of one minister.

For 5) Wouldn’t this fall under “or under the direct supervision of a validly ordained Minister of the Gospel” and thus be valid?

You didn't say anything about a minister being present or overseeing it, so I didn't answer it with that in mind.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

And for 7) I would just register my disagreement

The bolded section of Chapter 26 of the London Baptist Confession of Faith is referring specifically to the Romish "Church".

"Synagogue of Satan" = "Not a Church". "Not a Church" = "No valid ministers of the Gospel".

 

[jwithnell]

Two points that reflect my holding to the Westminster Confession:

The sacraments, in part, distinguish between those in the church and the those who are in the world. To what church is the person being added by baptism? What church is giving watchful care over the person who is approaching the table?

The person administering sacraments cannot improve or diminish the grace exhibited. This is wholly by God, specifically the Holy Spirit.

 

[yeutter]

1) What is essentially required for a valid baptism?

2) Would any private baptisms be valid? If not, what essential requirement does it lack? If so, why?

3) Would two random christians baptizing each other in the pool be valid (assume they’re genuine in intent and not joking)? If not, what essential requirement does it lack?

4) What of the above situation but one is a minister?

5) Would baptism by the laity, even a woman, in the context of public worship be valid? If not, what essential requirement does it lack?

6) What is essentially required for a valid Lord’s Supper?

7) What essential requirement does the Mass lack which invalidates it? (If it is withholding of the cup, then if it was allowed, would it then be valid?)

First we must answer what are the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper? The answer I would give aligns with the one given in the Heidelberg questions 69 through 74. The Sacraments are visible holy signs and seals, appointed of God for this end, that by the use thereof, Christ may the more fully declare and seal to us the,promise of the Gospel: namely, that of free grace, He,grants us the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life for the sake of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross.
The Holy Ghost teaches in the Gospel, and assures us by the Holy Sacraments, that our whole salvation stands in the one sacrifice of Christ made for us on the cross. In Holy Baptism, we must then ask, how is the person baptized signed and sealed that he has part in the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross. In baptism Christ instituted this outward washing with water. and joined therewith the promise: that he is washed with His blood and Spirit from the pollution of his soul, and that all his sins, are certainly washed away.
Thus in answer to the first question I answer that for a Baptism to be valid three conditions must be fulfilled.
a. It must be done with water. Dipping in, poured on, or sprinkled with water.
b. The right words from the Bible must be used. "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
c. Trinitarian intent must be present. The person being baptized, or the parent of the child being baptized must intend for this symbolic washing to be baptism. The person performing the baptism must intend to be baptizing the person or child into Christ.

The sixth question asks what is essentially required for the celebration of the Lord's Supper to be valid. Again I would look to the Heidelberg questions 75 -77 and answer that Christ has commanded that all believers are to come to Him by faith and eat of this broken bread and to drink of this cup in remembrance of Him:
a. First, that His body was offered and broken on the cross for me and His blood shed forme, as certainly as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me and the cup communicated to me;and further, that with His crucified body and shed blood He Himself feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, as certainly as I receive from the hand of the minister and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, which are given me as certain tokens of the body and blood of Christ.
b. To eat the crucified body and drink the shed blood of Christ?It means not only to embrace with a believing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ, and thereby to obtain the forgiveness of sins and life eternal; but, moreover also, to be so united more and more to His sacred body by the Holy Spirit, who dwells both in Christ and in His Church and thus in us, that, although He is in heaven and we on earth, we are nevertheless flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone, and live and are governed forever by one Spirit, as members of the same body are by one soul.
c. Christ promised, that He will thus feed and nourish believers with His body and blood, as certainly as they eat of this broken bread and drink of this cup?In the institution of the Supper, which says: “The Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread,and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He come."
And this promise is also repeated by St. Paul, where he says: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.”

The seventh question asks what essential elements of the Lord's Supper are lacking in the Popish Mass? Again I would look to the answers given in the Heidelberg questions 78 - 80.
a. First we must answer, does the bread and the wine become the real body and blood of Christ? The Bible tells us no. The water in Baptism is not changed into the blood of Christ, nor becomes the washing away of sins in and of itself, being only the divine token and assurance thereof; so likewise in the Lord’s Supper the sacred bread1) does not become the body of Christ itself,though agreeably to the nature and usage of sacraments it is called the body of Christ.
b. Christ calls the bread His body, and the cup His blood, or the new covenant in His blood, and St. Paul, uses the same kind of language speaking of the communion of the body and the blood of Christ. Christ speaks in this manner deliberately, namely, to teach us thereby, that like as the bread and wine sustain this temporal life, so also His crucified body and shed blood are the true meat and drink of our souls unto life eternal; but much more, by this visible sign and pledge He assures us, that we are as really partakers of His true body and blood by the working of the Holy Ghost, as we receive by the mouth of the body these holy tokens in remembrance of Him; and that all His sufferings and obedience are as certainly our own, as if we ourselves had suffered and done all in our own person.
c. What then is the difference is there between the Lord’s Supper and the Popish Mass? The Lord’s Supper testifies to us, that we have full forgiveness of all our sins by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which He Himself once accomplished on the cross; and that by the Holy Ghost we are grafted into Christ, who, with His true body, is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father, and is there to be worshipped. But the Mass teaches, that the living and the dead do not have forgiveness of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is still daily offered for them by the priests, and that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine.
The Popish mass teaches that Christ is physically present in the consecrated bread and wine and believers should worshipped Christ in the consecrated bread and wine. Thus the Mass at bottom is nothing else than a denial of the one real sacrifice and passion of Jesus Christ on the cross, and an accursed idolatry.

https://rcus.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Heidelberg-Catechism-Traditional.pdf

 

[TryingToLearn]

I suppose I could add 8) would the supper of the Lutherans be valid? If so, why?

 

[yeutter]

I suppose I could add 8) would the supper of the Lutherans be valid? If so, why?

Confessional Lutherans believe that the Lord’s Supper testifies to us, that we have full forgiveness of all our sins by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which He Himself once accomplished on the cross; and that by the Holy Ghost we are grafted into Christ. The Lutheran mass teaches that Christ is in some sense physically present in and under the consecrated bread and wine and the hearts of believers; but not in a sense that Christ should worshipped in the consecrated bread and wine.
Therefore the confessional Lutheran Lord's Supper is valid.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Confessional Lutherans believe that the Lord’s Supper testifies to us, that we have full forgiveness of all our sins by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which He Himself once accomplished on the cross; and that by the Holy Ghost we are grafted into Christ. The Lutheran mass teaches that Christ is in some sense physically present in and under the consecrated bread and wine and the hearts of believers; but not in a sense that Christ should worshipped in the consecrated bread and wine.
Therefore the confessional Lutheran Lord's Supper is valid.

Could you list out the essential elements of the supper and why the Lutherans would have a valid one but not the Catholics? Is it the form, matter, minister, and/or intent that are present in one but not the other? It seems to me both have valid ministers, Rome may lack matter when the cup is denied, I’m unsure as to form with regard to Roman consecration if it’s in Latin, and unsure as to specific intent with both but it seems general intent is there with both.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

1) What is essentially required for a valid baptism?

2) Would any private baptisms be valid? If not, what essential requirement does it lack? If so, why?

3) Would two random christians baptizing each other in the pool be valid (assume they’re genuine in intent and not joking)? If not, what essential requirement does it lack?

4) What of the above situation but one is a minister?

5) Would baptism by the laity, even a woman, in the context of public worship be valid? If not, what essential requirement does it lack?

6) What is essentially required for a valid Lord’s Supper?

7) What essential requirement does the Mass lack which invalidates it? (If it is withholding of the cup, then if it was allowed, would it then be valid?)

Dr.Strange will probably have many good things to say.

1) Water, the words of institution, and the Trinitarian name is most essential; along with (in the Presbyterian, confessional position) the administration by a minister lawfully ordained, all done "in the face of" the church--a phrase subject to various interpretations, but surely encompassing both a public witness and the church's approval. If the three items first mentioned are not present, it is no baptism; as for the latter, the issues become questions of "irregularity" rather than strict "validity." Some irregular efforts cannot be recognized, while others may be.

2) "Private baptism" at base denies the corporate, churchly nature of baptism. Baptism recognizes either 1) that a believer has come into the church where it is; or 2) that the church has arrived to enfold a believer where he is. Waiting for a properly conducted baptism shows true and proper deference for divine order. Patience acknowledges God's providence and timing and imputes worth to the visible church and the (needful) regular ministry it was designed to provide to the saints.

3. The scenario pictured presumes that God does not intend (or so it is thought) to provide these Christians with the church's visible presence; or perhaps individualism is already an essential character of the religion being practiced. It is one thing to be determined to establish the church on a nearly deserted island (as actually happened on Pitcairn Island), genuinely doubtful of any arrival of a minister within a single lifetime. It is another to ignore the nearby presence of the church and its dutiful ministry supplied by Christ to the purpose. The two "randos," serious as they may be, appear to believe that they automatically possess the right to act as an official (or that there are no officials), unlike the very Lord they profess who did not take honor by his own will, but admitted a divine call, and "did not glorify himself" to become the Highest church Official of all, see Heb.5:4-5. Therefore, these "baptisms" would be most irregular and of dubious validity.

4. If one such person is a minister, then presumably he has official authority to baptize. Should he act alone; or should he (in those exact circumstances) encourage patience and a better, more public and more generally approved recognition of this individual Christian by the whole church at the occasion of his baptism?

5. Lay baptism is quite improper, and especially in the context of public worship ("...because of the angels!"). Such business has been encouraged in extremis by church bodies that teach baptismal regeneration, seeing as they believe salvation is either impossible without it, or baptism's intrinsic benefits should be extended to any who may profit by the ordinance itself, regardless of the general propriety associated with its ordinary application. Hence, baptism by midwife or another for "emergency's" sake. The scenario either undervalues or overvalues the thing for its own sake and personal benefit, at the expense of respect for church order; rather than for its beneficent association with the visible administration of the kingdom of God and the covenant of grace. Perhaps, nevertheless given the context of the church at worship in some sense (albeit terribly marred by irregularity) such a person might be admitted by a well-ordered church as a "baptized person" in spite of it all if the sine qua non basics were observed. It is a situation where wisdom would be needed to give proper counsel. After all, the historic position of the Reformed churches generally admits the validity of Romish baptism, where other sorts of irregularities abound.

6. A valid Lord's Supper requires bread and wine, distinctly served, and the words of Christ's institution; being administered by one lawfully ordained, to be received by the baptized and repentant believers thus admitted, cognizant of their duty and discerning of the Lord's body. Sacraments are divine mysteries given to stewards of them, who are required to be found faithful in that trust. These men watch over the souls of persons who may be admitted, or declined for their own good! The minister sets apart the authorized elements from common purpose to special use in the context of the administration, doing so in the place and stead of Christ, who serves his disciples yet again by the hand of his servant in the same meal carried over from its inaugural celebration. Lacking the elemental facts, and lacking a proper minister of this service, one has to wonder what kind of supper is happening though it bear the name "communion meal."

7. The Roman mass' essential error is its blasphemous and idolatrous character. The intent of the priest is (technically, and by the official pronouncement of the RCC regardless of what the celebrant or participant personally expects) is calling Christ out of heaven and into the transsubstantiated element, worshipping the element, and the re-sacrifice of the Lamb who was (in real Scriptural terms) once for all sacrificed. The priest's role is to facilitate the infusion of substantive grace directly into the participants through an act that of itself (ex opere) works a spiritual benefit. The communicant has faith in the priest and in the element, trusting that the church knows that which is to be believed and what is happening beyond the ritual. Taking mass is required for most members to have real hope of reaching heaven. There has been some withholding the cup, as well as the sometimes practice of intinction (combining the elements in one delivery of a dipped wafer), all which is corruption of the order of the Supper. There is occasional service in Latin, seldom understood except by the most dedicated devotees (the modern RCC promotes and prefers mass conducted in the vernacular); the use of an unknown tongue is both contrary to scripture and to the design of worship, as well as denying to those participating only by observation (such as the young or uninstructed) the opportunity to grow in faith and knowledge in preparation for full Supper participation in due time. So there are various problems that infect the Roman mass, and rob it of the Supper's intended nature and character and blessing for the believer. The true Supper is almost unrecognizable under Rome's accretions (this was the reformers' essential objection, and one great purpose in their corrections in that era). Those who utterly deny the validity of the mass usually do so for the same reason they deny Rome's baptism: that the body is so degenerate as to be a synagogue of Satan; there is no true gospel left in the church of Rome. My position is closer to the original reformers: that Rome's doctrine and ministry is corrupt, yet retains vestiges of its original validity making its sacraments formally valid; but that corruption makes their teaching sacraments more dangerous than healthy, more likely to cause harm than do a little good with what good remains; so the wise Christian should seek out the true church--a less corrupt and more faithful church--for the blessing of its teaching and sacraments.

8. The Lutherans (confessionally) possess the pure gospel. Their doctrine, while we have some serious disagreements with some aspects of it (and they with ours) is incomparably more true to Holy Scripture than Rome's. Consequently, their ministry is not corrupt to Rome's degree, and their sacraments are in their presentation (according to the elements and words of institution, and a legitimate ministry that delivers them) undoubtedly valid. Now, a confessional Lutheran will be quite likely to deny a non-Lutheran Protestant table fellowship; and honestly, a Presbyterian or Reformed or ParticularBaptist confessional believer should probably respect the Lutheran confession and not seek an overt or unobtrusive dare at joining their Supper (which, depending on the form of liturgy, may resemble in startling respect the Roman mass). It is a needless offense, for our doctrine teaches we may have by observation alone nearly all the benefit of the Supper even apart from mouth-participation. It is by degree, and not the essence of the blessing, that we enjoy Christ and all his benefits through full participation in the Supper. Just so, our children who do not yet partake by reason of beginning immaturity have already come by the time they are mature to practical reception of nearly all the Supper's blessing through observation, capped eventually by their admission to full communion and the complete enjoyment of the sacrament. It may be sad to think we are not so loved by the Lutherans, that we may share the one Table of the Lord in formal affair. But the loss is only outward and visible, and does not extend into heaven where at his board we feed on Christ.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Dr.Strange will probably have many good things to say.

1) Water, the words of institution, and the Trinitarian name is most essential; along with (in the Presbyterian, confessional position) the administration by a minister lawfully ordained, all done "in the face of" the church--a phrase subject to various interpretations, but surely encompassing both a public witness and the church's approval. If the three items first mentioned are not present, it is no baptism; as for the latter, the issues become questions of "irregularity" rather than strict "validity." Some irregular efforts cannot be recognized, while others may be.

2) "Private baptism" at base denies the corporate, churchly nature of baptism. Baptism recognizes either 1) that a believer has come into the church where it is; or 2) that the church has arrived to enfold a believer where he is. Waiting for a properly conducted baptism shows true and proper deference for divine order. Patience acknowledges God's providence and timing and imputes worth to the visible church and the (needful) regular ministry it was designed to provide to the saints.

3. The scenario pictured presumes that God does not intend (or so it is thought) to provide these Christians with the church's visible presence; or perhaps individualism is already an essential character of the religion being practiced. It is one thing to be determined to establish the church on a nearly deserted island (as actually happened on Pitcairn Island), genuinely doubtful of any arrival of a minister within a single lifetime. It is another to ignore the nearby presence of the church and its dutiful ministry supplied by Christ to the purpose. The two "randos," serious as they may be, appear to believe that they automatically possess the right to act as an official (or that there are no officials), unlike the very Lord they profess who did not take honor by his own will, but admitted a divine call, and "did not glorify himself" to become the Highest church Official of all, see Heb.5:4-5. Therefore, these "baptisms" would be most irregular and of dubious validity.

4. If one such person is a minister, then presumably he has official authority to baptize. Should he act alone; or should he (in those exact circumstances) encourage patience and a better, more public and more generally approved recognition of this individual Christian by the whole church at the occasion of his baptism?

5. Lay baptism is quite improper, and especially in the context of public worship ("...because of the angels!"). Such business has been encouraged in extremis by church bodies that teach baptismal regeneration, seeing as they believe salvation is either impossible without it, or baptism's intrinsic benefits should be extended to any who may profit by the ordinance itself, regardless of the general propriety associated with its ordinary application. Hence, baptism by midwife or another for "emergency's" sake. The scenario either undervalues or overvalues the thing for its own sake and personal benefit, at the expense of respect for church order; rather than for its beneficent association with the visible administration of the kingdom of God and the covenant of grace. Perhaps, nevertheless given the context of the church at worship in some sense (albeit terribly marred by irregularity) such a person might be admitted by a well-ordered church as a "baptized person" in spite of it all if the sine qua non basics were observed. It is a situation where wisdom would be needed to give proper counsel. After all, the historic position of the Reformed churches generally admits the validity of Romish baptism, where other sorts of irregularities abound.

6. A valid Lord's Supper requires bread and wine, distinctly served, and the words of Christ's institution; being administered by one lawfully ordained, to be received by the baptized and repentant believers thus admitted, cognizant of their duty and discerning of the Lord's body. Sacraments are divine mysteries given to stewards of them, who are required to be found faithful in that trust. These men watch over the souls of persons who may be admitted, or declined for their own good! The minister sets apart the authorized elements from common purpose to special use in the context of the administration, doing so in the place and stead of Christ, who serves his disciples yet again by the had of his servant in the same meal carried over from its inaugural celebration. Lacking the elemental facts, and lacking a proper minister of this service, one has to wonder what kind of supper is happening though it bear the name "communion meal."

7. The Roman mass' essential error is its blasphemous and idolatrous character. The intent of the priest is (technically, and by the official pronouncement of the RCC regardless of what the celebrant or participant personally expects) is calling Christ out of heaven and into the transsubstantiated element, worshipping the element, and the re-sacrifice of the Lamb who was (in real Scriptural terms) once for all sacrificed. The priest's role is to facilitate the infusion of substantive grace directly into the participants through an act that of itself (ex opere) works a spiritual benefit. The communicant has faith in the priest and in the element, trusting that the church knows that which is to be believed and what is happening beyond the ritual. Taking mass is required for most members to have real hope of reaching heaven. There has been some withholding the cup, as well as the sometimes practice of intinction (combining the elements in one delivery of a dipped wafer), all which is corruption of the order of the Supper. There is occasional service in Latin, seldom understood except by the most dedicated devotees (the modern RCC promotes and prefers mass conducted in the vernacular); the use of an unknown tongue is both contrary to scripture and to the design of worship, as well as denying to those participating only by observation (such as the young or uninstructed) the opportunity to grow in faith and knowledge in preparation for full Supper participation in due time. So there are various problems that infect the Roman mass, and rob it of the Supper's intended nature and character and blessing for the believer. The true Supper is almost unrecognizable under Rome's accretions (this was the reformers' essential objection, and one great purpose in their corrections in that era). Those who utterly deny the validity of the mass usually do so for the same reason they deny Rome's baptism: that the body is so degenerate as to be a synagogue of Satan; there is no true gospel left in the church of Rome. My position is closer to the original reformers: that Rome's doctrine and ministry is corrupt, yet retains vestiges of its original validity making its sacraments formally valid; but that corruption makes their teaching sacraments more dangerous than healthy, more likely to cause harm than do a little good with what good remains; so the wise Christian should seek out the true church--a less corrupt and more faithful church--for the blessing of its teaching and sacraments.

8. The Lutherans (confessionally) possess the pure gospel. Their doctrine, while we have some serious disagreements with some aspects of it (and they with ours) is incomparably more true to Holy Scripture than Rome's. Consequently, their ministry is not corrupt to Rome's degree, and their sacraments are in their presentation (according to the elements and words of institution, and a legitimate ministry that delivers them) undoubtedly valid. Now, a confessional Lutheran will be quite likely to deny a non-Lutheran Protestant table fellowship; and honestly, a Presbyterian or Reformed or ParticularBaptist confessional believer should probably respect the Lutheran confession and not seek an overt or unobtrusive dare at joining their Supper (which, depending on the form of liturgy, may resemble in startling respect the Roman mass). It is a needless offense, for our doctrine teaches we may have by observation alone nearly all the benefit of the Supper even apart from mouth-participation. It is by degree, and not the essence of the blessing, that we enjoy Christ and all his benefits through full participation in the Supper. Just so, our children who do not yet partake by reason of beginning immaturity have already come by the time they are mature to practical reception of nearly all the Supper's blessing through observation, capped eventually by their admission to full communion and the complete enjoyment of the sacrament. It may be sad to think we are not so loved by the Lutherans, that we may share the one Table of the Lord in formal affair. But the loss is only outward and visible, and does not extend into heaven where at his board we feed on Christ.

Would these principles be correct?:

Requirements for validity:


Baptism: Form, matter, intent, minister*

Form: Triune name

Matter: Water

Intent: General intent of Christian baptism

Valid Minister*: Valid Minister**

*This is more controversial as some think lay baptisms valid

**This is controversial as some think, for instance, a deacon under the oversight of a minister could baptize validly.



Supper: Form, matter, intent, minister

Form: Consecration

Matter: Bread and wine or equivalents

Intent: General intent to celebrate communion with other Christians

Valid Minister: A valid minister*

*Again, perhaps we can add, “or one under the oversight of a minister”



A few determinations from the principles (if one holds lay baptism valid, they can simply replace “minister”):

Private baptism by a minister: Valid

Baptism by a minister with coca-cola: Invalid

Minister administering the supper at his home with at least one other person: Valid

Mass without the cup: Invalid

Mass with the cup: Valid

For the last one, it seems from the principles that if a mass were conducted so that the cup is in fact offered, then they would have the matter which is the one element that would be missing and thus make it valid. Although in specific intent Rome corrupts the sacrament believing it to be a sacrifice, this cannot invalidate the sacrament since general intent is required for its validity and if specific intent could and did invalidate it, then Rome’s baptism would be equally invalid due to the specific intent of baptismal regeneration (and with Lutheran baptism) and likewise Lutherans would have an invalid supper due to the specific intent of consubstantiation.
It seems to me one is going to have to think along these lines as not all “masses” are the same, especially today. They could in principle all become valid one day (eg in principle Rome could just adopt the WCF and do it as we do it) but my question is getting at what essential element they’re lacking that prevents this.

 

[DanSSwing]

2) Would any private baptisms be valid? If not, what essential requirement does it lack? If so, why? No. Lacks a validly ordained minister. Lacks the presence of the local church assembled.

Philip's baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch lacked the presence of the local church assembled.

On the broader issue, what constitutes a "validly ordained" minister? Does the ordination of a denomination suffice whereas an independent congregation agreeing to accept someone as a pastor does not?

 

[TryingToLearn]

Philip's baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch lacked the presence of the local church assembled.

On the broader issue, what constitutes a "validly ordained" minister? Does the ordination of a denomination suffice whereas an independent congregation agreeing to accept someone as a pastor does not?

Yes, I would also point out Paul’s baptism was also private and the Reformed allowed for the same in extreme circumstances, therefore publicity is not essential to the validity of the sacrament (which is obvious anyways as it doesn’t fall under any of the essential elements of matter, form, intent, or minister)

 

[yeutter]

Dr. Martin Luther authored his 1516 book; 'The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ—Against the Fanatics' to answer the question of the validity of the Lord's Supper. In 1527 Martin Luther followed this up in a letter he wrote to Ulrich Zwingli where he said words to the effect that he would rather drink pure blood of Christ with the Pope than drink mere wine with the fanatics.
What than is the difference between the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran position.
A confessional Lutheran would agree that with the Reformed that the Lord’s Supper testifies to us, that we have full forgiveness of all our sins by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which He Himself once accomplished on the cross; and that by the Holy Ghost we are grafted into Christ.
A confessional Lutheran would say that when we take and eat the bread and wine we really physically partake of the body and blood of Christ.
But unlike a Roman Catholic a confessional Lutheran would not worship the consecrated bread and wine because Christ is present in it. A confessional Lutheran would say that when we receive the consecrated bread and wine we feed on Christ in our heart by faith. The worship that flows from this is thanksgiving, not adoration of the sacrament.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Would these principles be correct?:

Requirements for validity:


Baptism: Form, matter, intent, minister*

Form: Triune name

Matter: Water

Intent: General intent of Christian baptism

Valid Minister*: Valid Minister**

*This is more controversial as some think lay baptisms valid

**This is controversial as some think, for instance, a deacon under the oversight of a minister could baptize validly.



Supper: Form, matter, intent, minister

Form: Consecration

Matter: Bread and wine or equivalents

Intent: General intent to celebrate communion with other Christians

Valid Minister: A valid minister*

*Again, perhaps we can add, “or one under the oversight of a minister”



A few determinations from the principles (if one holds lay baptism valid, they can simply replace “minister”):

Private baptism by a minister: Valid

Baptism by a minister with coca-cola: Invalid

Minister administering the supper at his home with at least one other person: Valid

Mass without the cup: Invalid

Mass with the cup: Valid

For the last one, it seems from the principles that if a mass were conducted so that the cup is in fact offered, then they would have the matter which is the one element that would be missing and thus make it valid. Although in specific intent Rome corrupts the sacrament believing it to be a sacrifice, this cannot invalidate the sacrament since general intent is required for its validity and if specific intent could and did invalidate it, then Rome’s baptism would be equally invalid due to the specific intent of baptismal regeneration (and with Lutheran baptism) and likewise Lutherans would have an invalid supper due to the specific intent of consubstantiation.
It seems to me one is going to have to think along these lines as not all “masses” are the same, especially today. They could in principle all become valid one day (eg in principle Rome could just adopt the WCF and do it as we do it) but my question is getting at what essential element they’re lacking that prevents this.

I will say though I’m now unsure about the argument to invalidity from the denial of the cup as Turretin argues in his section, Communion under Both Kinds, that in cases of necessity, bread alone may be used and thus it would seem both elements are not essential for validity

 

[Northern Crofter]

The person performing the baptism must intend to be baptizing the person or child into Christ.

I don't see support for this in the confessional statements you supplied (or any others used by members of PB).

Calvin was very helpful for me on this point years ago with regard to baptism. Note especially his following comments (emphasis added):

"Moreover, if we have rightly determined that a sacrament is not to be estimated by the hand of him by whom it is administered, but is to be received as from the hand of God himself, from whom it undoubtedly proceeded, we may hence infer that its dignity neither gains nor loses by the administrator. And, just as among men, when a letter has been sent, if the hand and seal is recognised, it is not of the least consequence who or what the messenger was; so it ought to be sufficient for us to recognise the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, let the administrator be who he may. This confutes the error of the Donatists, who measured the efficacy and worth of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister. Such in the present day are our Catabaptists, who deny that we are duly baptised, because we were baptised in the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters; hence they furiously insist on anabaptism. Against these absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism we were initiated not into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever it may have been administered. Be it that those who baptised us were most ignorant of God and all piety, or were despisers, still they did not baptise us into a fellowship with their ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus Christ, because the name which they invoked was not their own but God’s, nor did they baptise into any other name. But if baptism was of God, it certainly included in it the promise of forgiveness of sin, mortification of the flesh, quickening of the Spirit, and communion with Christ. Thus it did not harm the Jews that they were circumcised by impure and apostate priests. It did not nullify the symbol so as to make it necessary to repeat it. It was enough to return to its genuine origin. The objection that baptism ought to be celebrated in the assembly of the godly, does not prove that it loses its whole efficacy because it is partly defective. When we show what ought to be done to keep baptism pure and free from every taint, we do not abolish the institution of God though idolaters may corrupt it. (Institutes, Chapter 15, Section 16 "Baptism not affected by the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister. Hence no necessity to rebaptise those who were baptised under the Papacy.")

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Two points that reflect my holding to the Westminster Confession:

The sacraments, in part, distinguish between those in the church and the those who are in the world. To what church is the person being added by baptism? What church is giving watchful care over the person who is approaching the table?

The person administering sacraments cannot improve or diminish the grace exhibited. This is wholly by God, specifically the Holy Spirit.

I don’t know if it’s required that someone who is baptized be added to the membership of the local church. The FPCNA adheres to the WCF, for example, but treats baptism as separate and distinct from church membership, such that people who are baptized are not added as members to the local church right away (e.g. children).

 

[yeutter]

yeutter said:
The person performing the baptism must intend to be baptizing the person or child into Christ.

Northern Crofter responded:
"I don't see support for this in the confessional statements you supplied (or any others used by members of PB)."

You are correct this statement did not come from the Heidelberg.

St. Augustine of Hippo said that for a baptism to be valid it must be done with Trinitarian intent.
You may recall that Augustine took the position that irrespective of what words were used when performing the baptism, Arian baptisms were not valid, because they were heretical and lacked Trinitarian intent.
You also may remember that Augustine held that Donatist and Novitian sacraments were valid because they were schismatic, not heretical.

Thus a person baptized by a cult whose Christology or Trinitarian theology is heretical or questionable should not be viewed as a person who has been validly baptized.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Arian baptisms were not valid, because they were heretical and lacked Trinitarian intent.
You also may remember that Augustine held that Donatist and Novitian sacraments were valid because they were schismatic, not heretical.
Thus a person baptized by a cult whose Christology or Trinitarian theology is heretical or questionable should not be viewed as a person who has been validly baptized.

How do you define "Trinitarian intent"? I agree that "baptisms" from heretical cults/sects are not valid - for example, I believe the Arians used a formula like "I baptise you in the name of the greater father and the lesser son" which is extrabiblical and not Trinitarian. But you seemed to be saying that intent of the person performing the baptism mattered, not that they were outside of the visible Church. For example, if a person is baptised by a minister in a confessing church who pronounces the Biblical baptismal formula, but if that minister secretly does not believe in the Trinity, would that baptism be valid?

I will throw this out there, too - Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop (10 years after the Council of Nicaea).

St. Augustine of Hippo said that for a baptism to be valid it must be done with Trinitarian intent.

I don't recall him saying that. Do you have a source for this?

 

[jwithnell]

I don’t know if it’s required that someone who is baptized be added to the membership of the local church. The FPCNA adheres to the WCF, for example, but treats baptism as separate and distinct from church membership, such that people who are baptized are not added as members to the local church right away (e.g. children).

The confession states that the visible church consists of believers and their children. Historically, the question has been whether children are baptized and are at that point added to a particular church, or if they are members because they are born to believing parents and therefore may be baptized. If my memory is correct, Johannes Vos held the latter position.

Those more knowledgeable about the Scottish Presbyterians may have different insights, but baptizing children without adding them to the church would be aberrant in the Presbyterian understanding of the covenant.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The confession states that the visible church consists of believers and their children. Historically, the question has been whether children are baptized and are at that point added to a particular church, or if they are members because they are born to believing parents and therefore may be baptized. If my memory is correct, Johannes Vos held the latter position.

Those more knowledgeable about the Scottish Presbyterians may have different insights, but baptizing childrean without adding them to the church would be aberrant in the Presbyterian understanding of the covenant.

The words "member" and "membership" now means something it once did not.

Until recently (19th century on), I think it has always been understood in confessional Churches that baptism brings one into the visible Church, and then participating in the Lord's Supper is a sign that the baptized person identifies with and assumes the covenant responsibilities of being a part of the visible Church.

But now we have added a modern concept of "church membership" which requires taking or signing a public membership vow or covenant to become a "formal member" of a particular church or congregation - something I would argue seeped into American Reformed communities from their close contact with the prevailing congregationalism of the land.

So I think we often are talking past one another when we use the words "member" and "membership."

This dissertation was helpful for me when I was studying this issue a few years ago: https://www.calvin.edu/library/database/dissertations/Ahn_Sang_Hyuck.pdf. Dr. Hyuck puts Rutherford’s writings on the subject in context as he was responding to the Congregationalists.
Unlike the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists required four conditions (Articles) to be met before allowing a person to become a communicant member.

I believe the 2 most applicable parts of Rutherford's The Due Right of Presbyteries are found in:

Part 1, CHAP. 5. SECT. 5. PROP. 3. QUEST. 6., pp.85-86 (I have updated the spelling):

3. Distinct. An explicit vocal Covenant whereby we bind ourselves to the first three Articles [see above] in a tacit way, by entering in a new relation to such a Pastor, and to such a Flock, we deny not, as if the thing were unlawful for we may swear to perform God's commandments, observing all things requisite in a lawful oath. 2. But that such a covenant is required by divine institution, as the essential form of a Church and Church-membership, as though without this none were entered members of the visible Churches of the Apostles, nor can now be entered in Church-state, nor can have right unto the seals of the covenant, we utterly deny.

4. Distinct. We grant a covenant in Baptism which is the seal of our entry unto the visible Church. 2. That it is requisite that such Heretics, Papists, Infidels, as be received as members of our visible Church, (from which Papists have fallen, having received baptism from us) do openly profess subjection to God, and his Church, in all the Ordinances of God. And that Infidels give a confession of their faith, before they be baptized. 3. Nor deny we that at the election of a Pastor, the Pastor and people tie themselves, by reciprocation of oaths, to each other, the one to fulfill faithfully the ministry that he hath received of the Lord; the other to submit to his ministry in the Lord, but these reciprocal oaths, make neither of them members of a visible Church, for they were that before these oaths were taken.

and in Part 2, CHAP. 4. SECT. 5., pp.185-186 (in this section Rutherford is responding to the Congregationalist position “Why we do not admit the Members of the Churches of Old England to the Seals of the Covenant”). I have again modernized the spelling:

Quest. I. Whether the Seals of the Covenant can be denied to professors of approved piety, because they are not members of a particular visible Church, in the New Testament.

Our Brethren deny any Church Communion, and the seals of the Covenant, Baptism, to the children of Believers, the Lord's Supper to believers themselves, who come to them from Old England, because they be not members of the particular Congregation to which they come, and because there is no visible, Church in the New Testament, but one particular Parish, and all who are without a particular Parish, are without the visible Church, and so are not capable of either Church censures, or the Seals of the Covenant, because they have right to the seals of the Covenant, but only this visible Church.

We hold all who profess faith in Christ, to be members of the visible Church, though they be not members of a visible Congregation, and that the seals of the Covenant should not be denied to them. And for more full clearing of the question, let these considerations be observed.

First, Dist. All believers, as believers, in foro Dei, before God have right to the seals of the Covenant, these to whom the Covenant and body of the Charter belongeth, to these the seal belongeth, but in foro Ecclesiastico, and in an orderly Church-way, the seals are not to be conferred by the Church upon persons because they believe, but because they profess their believing: therefore the Apostles never baptized Pagans, but upon profession of their faith.
Second Dist. Faith in Christ truly giveth right to the seals of the Covenant, and in God's intention and decree, called voluntas beneplaciti, they belong only to the invisible Church, but the orderly way of the Churches giving the seals, is, because such a society is a professing or visible Church, and orderly giving of the seals according to God’s approving will, called, voluntas signi & revelata, belongeth to the visible Church….
We hold that those who are not members of a particular Congregation, may lawfully be admitted to the seals of the Covenant.
First, Because those to whom the promises are made, and profess the Covenant, these should be baptized. But men of approved piety are such, though they be not members of a particular Parish. The proposition is Peter’s argument, Act. 2. 38.
Secondly, Those who are not Members of a particular Church may be visible professors, and so members of a visible Church, Ergo, the seals of the Covenant belongeth to them.
Thirdly, The contrary opinion hath no warrant in God's Word.
Fourthly, The Apostles required no more of those whom they baptized, but profession of belief, as Act. 10. 47. Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? Act. 8. 37. If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest he baptized: no more is sought of the Jailor, Act. 16. 31. 34.

And there is, of course, AA Hodge's famous quote: " "A Church has no right to make anything a condition of membership which Christ has not made a condition of salvation." (from his commentary on The Westminster Confession of Faith, p.5)

 

[yeutter]

How do you define "Trinitarian intent"? I agree that "baptisms" from heretical cults/sects are not valid - for example, I believe the Arians used a formula like "I baptise you in the name of the greater father and the lesser son" which is extrabiblical and not Trinitarian. But you seemed to be saying that intent of the person performing the baptism mattered, not that they were outside of the visible Church. For example, if a person is baptised by a minister in a confessing church who pronounces the Biblical baptismal formula, but if that minister secretly does not believe in the Trinity, would that baptism be valid?

I will throw this out there, too - Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop (10 years after the Council of Nicaea).

Sorry for the delayed reply. I am currently in Thailand and am traveling without my library so I cannot tell you where St. Augustine said, or implied that Trinitarian intent was necessary.
You agree that when an Arians used a formula like "I baptise you in the name of the greater father and the lesser son" which is extrabiblical and not Trinitarian the baptism would not be valid.
Let me offer another example. When a person is baptized by the Latter Day Saints cult the following words are used:
The Mormon elder states the full name of the person to be baptizes and says, “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen” (Doctrine and Covenants 20:73).
In this example the right words were used but Trinitarian intent was lacking. Therefore, I think we all agree that the Mormon baptism is not valid.
The Trinitarian intent refers to the intent of both the person, or his parents in the case of an infant, being baptized and of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the person performing the baptism. The unworthiness of the particular clergyman performing the baptism does not render the baptism invalid, if his ecclesiastical jurisdiction is orthodox. This is addressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion Article XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments. "Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men."

The threefold standard for a Baptism to be valid
a. Baptism must be done with water. Dipping in, poured on, or sprinkled with water.
b. The right words from the Bible must be used. "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
c. Trinitarian intent must be present. The person being baptized, or the parent of the child being baptized must intend for this symbolic washing to be baptism. The person performing the baptism must intend to be baptizing the person or child into Christ.

The question of whether the person performing the baptism intends with Trinitarian intent to be baptizing the person or child into Christ, is not clear when you consider some marginal groups. For instance in South Asia some ancient Churches claim to be Trinitarian but do not subscribe to the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Chalcedon. Some of the Mar Thoma Churches seem to be Nestorian. Some others seem to be Monophysite. Are baptisms performed by those bodies valid?

 

[Sam Jer]

6. A valid Lord's Supper requires bread and wine, distinctly served, and the words of Christ's institution; being administered by one lawfully ordained, to be received by the baptized and repentant believers thus admitted, cognizant of their duty and discerning of the Lord's body. Sacraments are divine mysteries given to stewards of them, who are required to be found faithful in that trust. These men watch over the souls of persons who may be admitted, or declined for their own good! The minister sets apart the authorized elements from common purpose to special use in the context of the administration, doing so in the place and stead of Christ, who serves his disciples yet again by the hand of his servant in the same meal carried over from its inaugural celebration. Lacking the elemental facts, and lacking a proper minister of this service, one has to wonder what kind of supper is happening though it bear the name "communion meal."

Would that mean that those PCA's and Anglicans who use intinction do not have communion at all, even not half of it, putting them outside the true church?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Would that mean that those PCA's and Anglicans who use intinction do not have communion at all, even not half of it, putting them outside the true church?

We generally don't take such a strong stance (complete absence of one of the marks of the church). I would call it a serious error, one that pushes the practicing church toward the kind of corruption that marred the Roman church when the Reformation was called. Don't mess with Christ's institution, is my plea.

 

[Sam Jer]

We generally don't take such a strong stance (complete absence of one of the marks of the church). I would call it a serious error, one that pushes the practicing church toward the kind of corruption that marred the Roman church when the Reformation was called. Don't mess with Christ's institution, is my plea.

The way you said it sounded as if you were taking "such a strong stance" (which I get - you were addresing a diffrent question - but that clarity does matter)

 

[Sam Jer]

1) What is essentially required for a valid baptism?

2) Would any private baptisms be valid? If not, what essential requirement does it lack? If so, why?

3) Would two random christians baptizing each other in the pool be valid (assume they’re genuine in intent and not joking)? If not, what essential requirement does it lack?

4) What of the above situation but one is a minister?

5) Would baptism by the laity, even a woman, in the context of public worship be valid? If not, what essential requirement does it lack?

6) What is essentially required for a valid Lord’s Supper?

7) What essential requirement does the Mass lack which invalidates it? (If it is withholding of the cup, then if it was allowed, would it then be valid?)

may I suggest that sometimes, a clear defenition of how the sacrament ought to be administered is easier to establish then definimg the "bare minimum" that is still the sacrament rather than something else?