Are RC and/or Arminian baptisms valid? (I assume that Arminian=Semi-Pelagian)

[shelly]

I read the thread Is Roman Catholic Baptism Valid?
But it didn't really answer the question. I believe this question has great implications for many people.

If someone is baptised in an arminian church which condemns belief in the doctrines of grace as heresy; then how can ones baptism be valid. For that matter unless one comes to believe differently than what is preached, how can one even be saved?

The implication is obvious. Many people are coming out of these churches having already been baptised. They leave these churches because they come to see the heresy being taught. That's not the only reason they leave and they may not be able to articulate it in that way at the time.

short version:
So here they are: believers who have been baptised in a church that denies God's choosing but instead believes the individual chooses. That's not the gospel. Do they need to be baptised?

I'd really appreciate evidence to support your position. Something from scripture is best!

shelly

ps. this is my first poll...hope it works right

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Shelly,

See responses below:

Originally posted by shelly
I read the thread Is Roman Catholic Baptism Valid?
But it didn't really answer the question. I believe this question has great implications for many people.

If someone is baptised in an arminian church which condemns belief in the doctrines of grace as heresy; then how can ones baptism be valid.

We should not assume that doctrinal error invalidates a sacrament. What makes a sacrament valid is not the degree to which a church is orthodox but the divine institution. If the degree of orthodoxy determines the validity of a sacrament, then all sacraments are invalid to some degree! Is every minister's theology without any error whatever? I guess not. How much error is too much? Who gets to say?

For that matter unless one comes to believe differently than what is preached, how can one even be saved?

God is gracious and he uses crooked sticks to strike straight blows. Poor doctrine is not justified by that fact, but it is a fact.

The implication is obvious. Many people are coming out of these churches having already been baptised.

If it is a a baptism then it cannot be repeated any more than a circumcision can be repeated. Whatever anyone else does, it is not a baptism.

I'd really appreciate evidence to support your position. Something from scripture is best!

How about Phil 1:15-18. The Apostle Paul says that even those who preach the gospel from bad motives are still preaching the gospel. Doesn't this establish a principle that it is not the character or even the motive of the one administering the Word, whether as a sermon or as a sacrament, which Calvin called the gospel made visible, but the divine institution and promises attached to the same?

In my mind we (i.e., the Western church) resolved this question when Augustine refuted the Donatists who argued that the validity of baptism depends on the character of the minister. Augustine said, in effect, no, the spiritual quality of the minister does not determine the validity of the sacrament. The W. church agreed with Augustine. The Reformation agreed with Augustine. We did not re-baptize folk who were converted from Rome to Lutheranism or later, to the Reformed faith. Calvin was not re-baptized.

We've generally said that Trinitarian baptisms, however irregularly administered are still valid. The Roman church was as theologically corrupt (albeit in different ways) then as it is now. We accepted Roman baptisms as valid.

The Synod of Dort did not call for the re-baptism of those who were baptized by Remonstrant (Arminian) pastors. Indeed, those Remonstrant ministers who repented/recanted of their Arminianism were restored to their pulpits, and some who were not repentant were later restored, much to the regret of the orthodox!

The point is that, with a few exceptions, the majority report in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches has been that RC and Arminian baptisms are valid.

We analyze the question by distinguishing between valid and invalid (e.g., between Christian and Mormon) and between regular (e.g., a minister in a true church) and irregular (e.g., a campus crusade worker) baptisms.

Irregular baptisms are still baptisms. They should be discouraged in the strongest terms, but they are baptisms.

Does this answer your question? If not, why not?

rsc

 

[Civbert]

"Valid" doesn't seem like it applies to "baptism". Maybe legitimate, or legal. And shouldn't we note a difference between water baptism and spiritual.

But since water baptism is a sign and seal, and not necessary for spiritual baptism, then it's a technical issue (more-or-less). Then the technical issue is a matter of the baptism being "Trinitarian" - "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". (I wonder if the Mormons say something different.)

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Peru Mission Paper on Roman Catholic Baptism

 

[Civbert]

Here's an article by John Robbins on the issue: Attacking Roman Catholic Baptism

The article was prompted by the response to a prior e-mail Defending Roman Catholic Baptism where John Robbins pointed out a really bad argument made by Calvin: to wit

Circumcision was anciently vitiated by many superstitions, and yet ceased not to be regarded as a symbol of grace; nor did Josiah and Hezekiah, when they assembled out of all Israel those who had revolted from God, call them to be circumcised anew."

What many people missed was the how laughable Calvin's last argument was - that Josiah and Hezekiah did not call for them to be circumcised anew! Even Calvin can give a bad argument! As John Robbins noted, that the great Calvin can make such a mistake should humble and caution us.
:bigsmile:

But that's an aside. I just thought I'd post the link to Attacking Roman Catholic Baptism since it does question the validity of Roman Catholic Baptism.

[Edited on 5-31-2006 by Civbert]

 

[shelly]

If the degree of orthodoxy determines the validity of a sacrament, then all sacraments are invalid to some degree!

I'm not talking about degrees of orthodoxy. I'm talking about whether a church that considers reformed theology to be heresy can really baptise without it needing to be "redone".


Total Depravity-- I was taught that this one is correct. The attitude towards the "evil Calvinists" was a begrudging one. They hated to agree with Calvinists over anything.

Unconditional Election-- I was taught this was heresy and that the Bible doesn't mean that God chose who he would save, but he knew who would accept him. They actually said "God looked down the corridors of time and saw who would be saved" That was how foreknowledge was explained.

Limited Atonement--This was something else that was taught as a heresy held by Calvinists. I was taught that Jesus died to save the whole world. Not all would chose him, but that wasn't his fault because he made a way of salvation for all.

irresistible Grace-- I was taught this was heresy and against the nature of God. Instead we have been given a free will to chose or not chose God.

Perseverance of the Saints-- This wasn't explained well. The idea was given that baptists believe this but calvinists do something to twist it and they don't actually believe it. It seemed to be based on the idea that there needed to be actions to back up the profession and that calvinists were quick to say that someone wasn't saved if they didn't act like it, but baptists believed that they were saved because they accepted Christ. "Once saved, always saved"

So Arminians say that 3 out of the 5 are heresy. The only reason they haven't formally declared it anathema is because they are too stinkin independent to get together on it. I say this is what I was taught, but it's also what my husband was taught and what anyone I've ever talked to where this topic came up was taught. This is what was taught in a required doctrines class (2 semesters)at a fairly well-known christian university. Few disagreed and the class was filled with 20 year olds from all over the country (and some foreign countries-don't know what kind of church they were from) from mostly Arminian churches.

It's way more than "poor doctrine".

"

God is gracious and he uses crooked sticks to strike straight blows. Poor doctrine is not justified by that fact, but it is a fact.

If someone is preaching the gospel from bad motives--then fine, let God judge; but if someone is preaching heresy then its not the gospel, it is another gospel and we are to judge/discern. We are definitely not to accept it as gospel. If we accept an Arminian or RC baptism aren't we actually saying that the church who baptised
preached the true gospel? If that's the case then why does doctrine matter? It just becomes semantics because everyone is believing the same thing, we just say it differently. BUT...Words mean something. They can't be "redefined" and still mean the same.

2 Corinthians 11
3But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

4For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

1 Timothy 1:2-4 (English Standard Version)
3As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship[a] from God that is by faith.

2 Peter 2 emphasis mine
1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.



None of my experience is with the SBC, its all IFB up until 3 years ago.
So perhaps they do not declare it heresy, I wouldn't know.

But since water baptism is a sign and seal, and not necessary for spiritual baptism, then it's a technical issue (more-or-less). Then the technical issue is a matter of the baptism being "Trinitarian" - "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". (I wonder if the Mormons say something different.)

Arminians preach a different Christ. So even if they baptise and use the right words they don't mean the same thing. The Son they are talking about is one who made a way of salvation and waits for people to chose him. And on the flip side the idea of election is said to be heresy.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but this topic has been at the forefront of my thinking for almost a year.
And now it just won't be contained. I sincerly believe I'm right, so if I'm wrong set me straight.

shelly

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Shelly,

In the history of the W. church, proportionally few people have held the five points of Calvinism, speaking anachronistically.

I'm not prepared to dispense with the entire church before the Reformation, however errant it was.

It might be useful to distinguish between error and heresy. The latter transgresses the catholic creeds, the former errs as judged by the Reformed confessions.

Heresy would be narrower than error.

The Synod of Dort, who gave us the five points, took a very dim view of the Remonstrants and their errors (see Rejection of Errors 2.3), but they didn't say that the Remonstrants were unbaptized and they didn't therefore baptize them. They regarded them as baptized persons.

Does it matter if the Synod who gave us the five points disagrees with your reading of Scripture?

You don't have to convince me that Arminianism is a grave error. I affirmed that when I took my ordination vows, but I don't think I agreed that all the Remonstrants were not actually baptized.

rsc

 

[Puritanhead]

I don't even care anymore about this sorta stuff..... Let God worry about it.
:bigsmile:

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
I don't even care anymore about this sorta stuff..... Let God worry about it.
:bigsmile:

Ryan,

I don't worry about it either. I reject Roman Catholic baptism on the basis that the Roman Catholic church has ceased to be a Christian church (In my humble opinion). The reason I don't worry about it is due to the fact that I am confident in my position.