R.C. Sproul, Jr. RCC Baptismal Efficacy

[KevinInReno]

By the way this is an evangelical crowd that the vast majority (I believe it was 68%) when polled in the US believed the statement "God helps those who help themselves" was in scripture. This is a church that knows the Gospel?

 

[toddpedlar]

How can you ever be completely sure - in this life - that someone else is elect?

Regeneration goggles. You can get them at Amazon.com. They're pretty handy.

They used to be sold using mail order ads on the back of comic books, didn't they? I always wanted to order them, but could only afford the whoopie cushion and Dracula teeth...

 

[Scott1]

only the invisible Church truly knows the Gospel.

But that's not really the point here either.

It's not about only those individuals who truly know the gospel baptizing or having a child presented for it.

It's about Christian communion, an ordinance of public worship, performed by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Kevin,

I think you're missing the point. You need to slow down and take the emotion out of this.

There's a reason why the decision is left to the Session to decide whether baptism is appropriate or not and it's not left to a generic answer that can be, once-for-all decided on a discussion board.

If you read the PCA paper there is a reason why the Lord's Supper analogy is apt. We're dealing with Sacramentology here and not the Theology of the Godhead. Nobody argues that the Roman Catholic Church is unorthodox in its trinitarian formula but the PCA paper makes a good distinction between the formal activities (water and words) and what is believed concerning those.

You can disagree or agree with the arguments being made but it is hardly the case that any Churchman is trying to divine the visible from the invisible Church or that the argument comes down completely on the issue of whether or not the trinitarian formulation is creedal or not.

 

[arapahoepark]

Here's (http://www.rts.edu/Site/Resources/FacultyArticles/OneBaptismRevised.pdf) an interesting article that I've passed along when asked, as a long-time visitor to a couple of Reformed Baptist churches, if I will submit to rebaptism.

What if the Lord can take what is meant for what we would call "evil" (the baptism of a newborn in the RCC, albeit a Trinitarian baptism) and turn it to good, for His own purposes, some years later when the person is born again? The second birth was, after all, within God's eternal plan from before the foundation of the world.

Years ago, R. C. Sproul, Jr. wrote a very polemical article against the RCC and former Catholics in "Tabletalk" that brought tears to my eyes - and there's no love lost between the Catholic Church and me. It was harsh and as an ex-Catholic, I was wounded. I wrote to him - and he wrote back. In the final paragraph of his letter, he told me to "go back to Rome."

I have not followed that instruction.

I am lost...why did he tell you to go back to Rome? Because he does not see your baptism as valid?

 

[Peairtach]

how can you ever be completely sure - in this life - that someone else is elect?

regeneration goggles. You can get them at amazon.com. They're pretty handy.

lol

 

[KevinInReno]

Kevin,

I think you're missing the point. You need to slow down and take the emotion out of this.

There's a reason why the decision is left to the Session to decide whether baptism is appropriate or not and it's not left to a generic answer that can be, once-for-all decided on a discussion board.

If you read the PCA paper there is a reason why the Lord's Supper analogy is apt. We're dealing with Sacramentology here and not the Theology of the Godhead. Nobody argues that the Roman Catholic Church is unorthodox in its trinitarian formula but the PCA paper makes a good distinction between the formal activities (water and words) and what is believed concerning those.

You can disagree or agree with the arguments being made but it is hardly the case that any Churchman is trying to divine the visible from the invisible Church or that the argument comes down completely on the issue of whether or not the trinitarian formulation is creedal or not.

Okay then if it's rooted in Sacramentology, are the Roman Catholics the only ones with gross misuse of Sacramentology in Christendom? If there were found other Christian denominations (of which we can all name many) with poor Sacramentology... should they also be blacklisted?

One more question... what kind of Baptism is the kind that the Lord our God supremely and eternally cares about? Which one is commanded, but in itself doesn't hinge on, take away from, or add any Justification?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Okay then if it's rooted in Sacramentology, are the Roman Catholics the only ones with gross misuse of Sacramentology in Christendom?

This is your final warning to take the emotion out of your replies or you will not be permitted to participate in this thread further.

As I already noted, this is an issue for the Session who works with the person joining the Church and it is left to their discretion.

In answer to your question, the answer is "No", there are other denominations whose baptisms would need to be investigated. This issue requires careful reflection and not heated rhetoric.

We don't speculate about God a se regarding what He has ordained. We are obedient to what He was written and live by that. We do confess, however, that the graces signified by Baptism are "...not only signified but sealed for worthy recipients...." Consequently, baptism is Sacramentally connected to salvation in a way that is worth reflecting upon.

 

[Galatians220]

I concede it was not one of the most diplomatic letters I've ever written. Anyway, it was that statement of mine that occasioned the harsh response from Rev. Sproul. If I wrote something on that order today, I'd hope that I wouldn't be as strident. Since I don't recall the exchange being specifically about RC baptism, my statement was kind of gratuitous and irrelevant to the current discussion...

 

[KevinInReno]

Okay then if it's rooted in Sacramentology, are the Roman Catholics the only ones with gross misuse of Sacramentology in Christendom?

This is your final warning to take the emotion out of your replies or you will not be permitted to participate in this thread further.

As I already noted, this is an issue for the Session who works with the person joining the Church and it is left to their discretion.

In answer to your question, the answer is "No", there are other denominations whose baptisms would need to be investigated. This issue requires careful reflection and not heated rhetoric.

We don't speculate about God a se regarding what He has ordained. We are obedient to what He was written and live by that. We do confess, however, that the graces signified by Baptism are "...not only signified but sealed for worthy recipients...." Consequently, baptism is Sacramentally connected to salvation in a way that is worth reflecting upon.

Thank you for clarifying your position. I apologize for my question being read in the vein of heated rhetoric. I was just honestly curious if the view was only based in Rome, or throughout Christendom. I don't think every reply on this thread supporting your view overall, agrees with the distinction you just laid out. So I thought the question was legitimate and not rhetorical. While I still disagree with your overall view, I do appreciate the consistency of it.

 

[Peairtach]

The fact that the OT sign that corresponds to baptism could only be done once, should be a factor in our consideration of this question. Also the fact that regeneration only happens once.

We should be loathe to baptise again or "again" unless there is something seriously defective in the baptism or "baptism".

There is also a lower standard of examination for baptism than for the Lord's Supper, baptism being given on an uncontradicted profession of faith, whereas the Lord's Supper is administered on an accredited profession of faith. Baptism is the outer door of the Visible Church, whereas the Lord's Supper is the inner door which can be opened or closed.

 

[Scott1]

The fact that the OT sign that corresponds to baptism could only be done once, should be a factor in our consideration of this question. Also the fact that regeneration only happens once.

We should be loathe to baptise again or "again" unless there is something seriously defective in the baptism or "baptism".

There is also a lower standard of examination for baptism than for the Lord's Supper, baptism being given on an uncontradicted profession of faith, whereas the Lord's Supper is administered on an accredited profession of faith. Baptism is the outer door of the Visible Church, whereas the Lord's Supper is the inner door which can be opened or closed.

You illustrate your points well.

The question, of course, does get to whether a [valid] baptism was done in the first place. Obviously, a Jehovah's Witness 'baptism' would not be valid, so it wouldn't be a matter of doing it twice since a Christian baptism was not done in the first place.

There might be an analogy here, a weak one at least in that one joins a church as a member and then is able to transfer to another. But even though one went through membership in say a false religion, that wouldn't make them eligible to transfer to an evangelical church.

It's difficult to see that a "Trinitarian pronouncement" alone makes a baptism valid. Even the doctrine regarding the Trinity could be wrong (e.g. the Eastern Orthodox is off in this regard) and still have the pronouncement. Imagine an extreme case, someone making the correct pronouncement in jest in a swimming pool, e.g.

There has to be more than a pronouncement, it would seem, to be a genuine Christian baptism. And more than a pronouncement and biblical doctrine of the Trinity alone because the sign and seal points to salvation.

If there is not even a charitable pretense of that, what is one joining?

(And that doesn't seem to be setting the admittedly lower bar for baptism too high to require that).

 

[Peairtach]

Well if you narrow the Visible Christian Church down too much you're into all sorts of trouble.

The next thing is baptisms done in Liberal Protestant Churches. Are they valid? Barthians and others inject their own meaning into all the right words.

Salvation is possible with the deposit of truth there is in the Greek Catholic and Roman Catholic Churches; I know that is in spite of the amount of rubbish that is covering the truth.

Unless the evangelical and Reformed churches are going to have a council to eject Rome and EO from the Visible Catholic Church, we'll have to leave it to the Lord to do it.

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

The Confession of Faith says that the Pope is in the Church, so presumably the divines regarded Rome as in some sense part of the Visible Church.

It takes patience and faith on the part of the saints to live with these anomalies until the Lord puts them right in His own time: the "natural branches" - the Jews - for the most part unbelieving, and vast parts of the Visible Catholic Church under apostasy.

 

[Scott1]

Well if you narrow the Visible Christian Church down too much you're into all sorts of trouble.

Distinguishing, perhaps, the Roman communion as it has stood for nearly half a millennium from the broad swath of Christianity that "protested" to the evangelical truths of salvation would still include, charitably, nearly every other communion.

Unless the evangelical and Reformed churches are going to have a council to eject Rome and EO from the Visible Catholic Church, we'll have to leave it to the Lord to do it.

It would seem that's always been the state of things- we have a mere "nominal" Christian communion, visible, but nothing that charitably could be called an evangelical (of the biblical Gospel) one. Again, that doesn't mean there cannot be some real Christians there, but by the Church's own confession and discipline it is not.

That seems to be different.

Especially when the communion has intentionally differentiated itself from Christian gospel, pronounced 'anathemas' on those who believe it, etc. and required its officers to reject it.

What can a minister lawfully perform in such circumstances?

 

[Romans922]

Is a Roman Catholic Priest/Cardinal/Bishop a lawfully God-ordained minister?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Years ago, R. C. Sproul, Jr. wrote a very polemical article against the RCC and former Catholics in "Tabletalk" that brought tears to my eyes - and there's no love lost between the Catholic Church and me. It was harsh and as an ex-Catholic, I was wounded. I wrote to him - and he wrote back. In the final paragraph of his letter, he told me to "go back to Rome."

I have not followed that instruction.

You would need to produce the full context of the letter for me to believe that "go back to Rome" stands alone and in the context you have portrayed it. This comment is terribly unfair to RC Sproul as it is written.

AMR

 

[py3ak]

Patrick, it would seem that without the full context of the letter one could no more affirm that the representation was unfair than one could say that it was completely fair. If any ameliorations of such a phrase have been withheld, so have any aggravations of it.

 

[Rufus]

It's important to remember that the Roman Catholic Church is part of the visible church; a wrongful, dark, unscriptural, part of the visible church, but part of the visible church nonetheless.

 

[Romans922]

It's important to remember that the Roman Catholic Church is part of the visible church; a wrongful, dark, unscriptural, part of the visible church, but part of the visible church nonetheless.

It is?

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Anyone want to answer the question in Post #50?

 

[Peairtach]

You could end up pitting Section II of Chapter XXV against Section VI of Chapter XXV.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

 

[Scott1]

You could end up pitting Section II of Chapter XXV against Section VI of Chapter XXV.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

It seems the Confession is consistent here, though.

II. says "profess the true religion," charitably, its difficult to say that any communion that officially repudiates the biblical gospel (and pronounces anathemas on those who do) can be the 'true' part. I don't think this is intended to reflect perfect doctrine- the Confession recognizes elsewhere that the visible church is mixture of truth and error.

But it is difficult to say, even charitably, that the Roman communion as intentionally positioned is a true Christian communion. It's a legacy one, fallen, no doubt.

 

[Rufus]

It's important to remember that the Roman Catholic Church is part of the visible church; a wrongful, dark, unscriptural, part of the visible church, but part of the visible church nonetheless.

It is?

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Anyone want to answer the question in Post #50?

Doesn't the WCF at another point mention the Church along with parts of it that were "in darkness"? The visible Israel was still the visible Israel when Ahab was King.

 

[Galatians220]

Years ago, R. C. Sproul, Jr. wrote a very polemical article against the RCC and former Catholics in "Tabletalk" that brought tears to my eyes - and there's no love lost between the Catholic Church and me. It was harsh and as an ex-Catholic, I was wounded. I wrote to him - and he wrote back. In the final paragraph of his letter, he told me to "go back to Rome."

I have not followed that instruction.

You would need to produce the full context of the letter for me to believe that "go back to Rome" stands alone and in the context you have portrayed it. This comment is terribly unfair to RC Sproul as it is written.

AMR

I am a liar until proven not to be one, which I cannot do in this case because the letter was pitched long ago. Okay. This seems always to be so, especially when a clergyman and a lay person are at odds. What could be more "Roman" than that, though?

I said above that my statement was gratuitous and irrelevant to the current discussion, even though it was the truth. I also implied that I regretted the tone of the letter that I wrote to Rev. Sproul, Jr. that occasioned his response. What else can I say? What else can I do? Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

I will delete my posts.

And maybe I will go back to Rome... (Not really.) But the sheer onus of pain in remaining among Reformed people for such a long time is getting to be *a bit much.* I don't need this anymore; I've got too many other things going on.

'Bye.

 

[Peairtach]

Scott

But it is difficult to say, even charitably, that the Roman communion as intentionally positioned is a true Christian communion. It's a legacy one, fallen, no doubt.

But it says that the Papacy is "in the Church", ergo the Roman Catholic Church is a very corrupt part of the Visible Church, as was true in OT times in Judah and Israel.

 

[Romans922]

Scott

But it is difficult to say, even charitably, that the Roman communion as intentionally positioned is a true Christian communion. It's a legacy one, fallen, no doubt.

But it says that the Papacy is "in the Church", ergo the Roman Catholic Church is a very corrupt part of the Visible Church, as was true in OT times in Judah and Israel.

Richard, we Americans might disagree with you here, as we changed this part of the confession where it reads now "There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.
Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof."

 

[Scott1]

Scott

But it is difficult to say, even charitably, that the Roman communion as intentionally positioned is a true Christian communion. It's a legacy one, fallen, no doubt.

But it says that the Papacy is "in the Church", ergo the Roman Catholic Church is a very corrupt part of the Visible Church, as was true in OT times in Judah and Israel.

But that original version also says the Pope is the antichrist(!),
how in any sense could he be in the church?

 

[Peairtach]

An antichrist is an idol set up in Christ's place in the Church, or at least with a veneer of Christianity to deceive. E.g. In John's Epistles he cites Christian Gnosticism as an antichrist.

An "antichrist" opposes Christ by being put in His place. Christian Gnosticism taught that Christ had not come in the flesh; in Romanism the Papacy cleverly supplants Christ.

Scott

how in any sense could he be in the church?

who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. (II Thess 2:4)

But if you don't agree with the original wording of the WCF, but the American revision, I'll bow out of this argument, as we would be talking past each other if you don't believe that the Papacy is the Antichrist. We'd have to have another thread on that last subject - which I don't fancy - of which there have been probably not a few!

 

[Alan D. Strange]

And maybe I will go back to Rome... (Not really.) But the sheer onus of pain in remaining among Reformed people for such a long time is getting to be *a bit much.* I don't need this anymore; I've got too many other things going on.

Margaret:

I have a daughter of the same name. And, of course, you know that the name means "pearl." And we all know what goes into forming the pearl and that our Lord is the Pearl of Great Price. You are His and cannot go back to Rome, which you know has nothing to offer. Your brethren here don't despise you but cherish you and your witness to God's goodness and grace. It is the three-fold enemy (the devil, the flesh, and the world) that seeks to discourage and attack. It is the evil one who wants you to give up.

Reformed and Presbyterian folk are the worst there is, except for everyone else. Yes, we can be unkind, off-putting, and downright nasty. It reminds me of what a friend of mine (who is with the Lord) used to say: The greatest challenge to and for the Christian faith is not anything that the Bible teaches but the conduct of Christians, failing as we do to live as we ought. Whatever RC might have said in whatever context (I've said some things that I wished I hadn't), the important thing is drawing near to Christ in your trials and finding your all in Him. Don't give way to fear and discouragement. That's so easy to do, I know. Remember, the most frequent command in Scripture is some form of "fear not...". And the opposite of that fear to which we are tempted to give way is faith. A faith that draws near and rests and trusts in Him.

I sense great pain in what you write here. You have in Jesus a sympathetic high priest, able to be touched with the feeling of your infirmities, who was tempted in all points like you, yet never giving way to sin. Thanks be to God that He did not sin, living and dying for us sinners. I pray that you will be strengthened and enjoy rest in the Savior.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Scott1]

An antichrist is an idol set up in Christ's place in the Church, or at least with a veneer of Christianity to deceive. E.g. In John's Epistles he cites Christian Gnosticism as an antichrist.

An "antichrist" opposes Christ by being put in His place. Christian Gnosticism taught that Christ had not come in the flesh; in Romanism the Papacy cleverly supplants Christ.

Scott

how in any sense could he be in the church?

who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. (II Thess 2:4)

But if you don't agree with the original wording of the WCF, but the American revision, I'll bow out of this argument, as we would be talking past each other if you don't believe that the Papacy is the Antichrist. We'd have to have another thread on that last subject - which I don't fancy - of which there have been probably not a few!

Yes, Richard, we understand the points, but for those following:

We both would say there is a sense in which being "antichrist" is to be set in an office that visibly opposes the mediatorial role of our Lord on earth (or anywhere else), through the Holy Spirit. And we acknowledge that the original Westminster summary (but not that clause in the one generally adopted in the American colonies) seemed to say the Pope was the Antichrist.

But, that is not the point of our discussion about whether Roman communion baptism is valid in Christian communion.

Whether that office, claiming to be Christ's mediator (rather than Christ) on earth is THE or A TYPE OF antichrist,
you can see how difficult it is turning that around to say,
but his baptism is proper and sufficient, binding upon Christendom.

The difficulty is made even more acute when explaining the sacrament and church membership to one who has renounced that communion, come out of it, and sees the sign and seal of salvation by grace through faith is what it is all about.

 

[Galatians220]

Rev. Strange,

Thank you so much for your kind words, dear brother in Christ. You have a wonderful, pastoral heart that so clearly indicates your loving and unwavering devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ and points us all to Him as the Source of all love, all comfort and all peace. Yep, Margaret means "pearl;" the "Irish-ters" on my mother's side named me Margaret Mary, a name I doubt is borne by any other five-point Calvinists...

Oh, I'm not going back to Rome, although I do like a good bingo game now and then. I doubt I could even bring myself to pull into the parking lot of the 1,500-family parish that's a half-mile from my home, of which I used to be an active member. It's done; the Lord has claimed me and will not let me go.

I apologize to anyone I offended. Bottom line: I never should have mentioned any letters, any statements... It was wrong. I do consider it a blessing to be upbraided for my action, although experiences over the past 12 "Reformed" years have left me very thin-skinned. Is it sometimes happier and more pleasant to be among the old gang at the Knights of Columbus on a Friday night? Oh yes, but -- they haven't got the Gospel. They've no sense of their own sin, or that rather than eat, drink (mostly drink) and be merry, they should first face the pressing matter of Jesus Christ, and whether they really will spend their eternity with Him. That's what's really a crying shame. The people are laughing while they're perishing.

So again, thank you, Rev. Strange and thank you, Patrick.

Blessings and love in our Lord Jesus Christ - and in our Father Who loves us enough to chastise us - to all here...