Confessions and Roman Catholic Baptism

[Scott1]

Scott,

Again, no one claims the Eastern Orthodox aren't fully trinitarian. They are. If you want to call them out biblically and say they aren't Trinitarian, then please demonstrate to me biblically the procession of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son, and then demonstrate to me why this is necessary for the Trinity to hold.

(Sorry this post is slightly off the topic of baptism, everyone, but it keeps coming up in this thread; it seems pertinent.)

Westminster Confession of Faith (emphasis added):

Chapter II
Of God, and of the Holy Trinity

III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.[38] The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; [39] the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. [40]

Scripture proofs

[38] (Traditionally, I John 5:7 is placed here, but we have, for obvious reasons, omitted it in our online edition) MATT 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. MATT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. II COR 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

[39] JOHN 1:14,18 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

[40] JOHN 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of me. GAL 4:6 And Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

 

[Prufrock]

Please see above (I added something right before you posted yours). I know what our confession says. I affirm it. But that's not what I am asking.

 

[TheFleshProfitethNothing]

It IS that simple, yet that is not all there is.

What is it one believes about the work of their salvation by each person of the Godhead?

 

[Prufrock]

Scott and Duane,

Sorry, I'd love to respond now, but I have to head out for a while. Work and all that...always gets in the way...

 

[Prufrock]

And Scott, for clarity's sake, let me pose my question a bit differently. I don't want "prooftexts" for the dual procession. If you are going to keep calling the Orthodox "Trinitarian-ly deficient," that they do not actually believe in the trinity, then please give me a scriptural argument that shows that such a belief as theirs negates the trinity.

Thanks.

 

[Scott1]

My understanding is that the largest schism in the Christian Church after the Protestant reformation was over the issue of the trinity. That's why the Orthodox separated from the Roman Church over this.

It seems to me the Roman Church got this right and considered it essential to understanding the Trinity.

It is my understanding that the co-eternality of God the Holy Spirit as our Confession summarizes Scripture to teach is part of a biblical doctrine of the Trinity.

I am glad to see you affirm the Confessional view (and thought you did before) but it goes to show for me how far we are willing to go in placing validity on the bare mechanics of administering baptism.

The Orthodox Church has been separated, over this issue of the Trinity for a 1,000 years.

 

[fredtgreco]

I am not afraid to get wet again...I mean this time, if I go the RE-Baptism route, it will be a pouring...I was immersed last time...though the WCF says 28.III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.

So, anyone who is immersed, must be in error?? I haven't given any in-depth serious thought of my baptism, simply because I was baptised. So, now I must be re-baptised according to, as one posted, "the majority of the board"???

The Confession actually says the opposite of what you interpret. Whereas Baptists insist on immersion (and all other baptisms are invalid or non-baptisms) Confessional Presbyterians believe that the mode is not essential. Whether immersion, affusion (pouring) or aspersion (sprinkling) - all are valid.

 

[TheFleshProfitethNothing]

My question is simply about picking and choosing...WCF 27.III states my position a little better...but, my point is simply if I were baptised by a Oneness Pentecostal, and I'm not exactly sure he was, I believe in the Triune God, Father not the Son, and the Holy Spirit being the Third Person.

It seems to me, that one, as I have mentioned already, can simply state, as long as one believes in Three distinct Persons in the Godhead, and that all are in Essence One God, that that baptism is just fine...yet, when searching to find out if the baptiser REALLY believes in this self same Trinity, is altogether another matter. The God of Rome is NOT our God...yet, it is ok for them to baptise in the Name of the Father, and the Name of the Son, and the Name of the Holy Ghost...and again, as I mentioned earlier...the NAME Paul and Peter used when they baptised was what Name?? Jesus Christ!

Now, here is another valid question...if one is baptised in His Name, and we know Jesus Himself said that many would Come In His Name...does that not make void any baptism by anyone who names the Name of Christ and believes in the Father, Son, and HolyGhost? Whether Oneness or not? Is in fact, the Arminian Trinity the self-Same Trinity of Scripture as the one true God the Reformed believers profess and preach...and if the Arminian Gospel is opposed to ours, how can it be that one believing in it, and is baptised in the name of the "God" of it, be a real and valid baptism?

Does that help to clarify where I'm coming from on this? I sincerely don't question modes. My question is on consistency. I'm with Calvin and I don't need to be re-baptised...and this is my view, until the LORD reveals to me otherwise.

 

[Prufrock]

Scott,

Sorry this will be a fairly contradictory post to yours, but there's just a lot in here I think is absolutely not true.

It is my understanding that the co-eternality of God the Holy Spirit as our Confession summarizes Scripture to teach is part of a biblical doctrine of the Trinity.

Actually, neither side denies the eternal procession of the Spirit. This is not a matter of orthodoxy or heresy. The Spirit is eternal, equal with the Father and Son. Consult Turretin, or the other protestant writers: there is nothing offensive in the Eastern Orthodox doctrine. This really is not a big issue. I have no problems with the Eastern understanding, and I don't think any other confessional people ought to, either.

My understanding is that the largest schism in the Christian Church after the Protestant reformation was over the issue of the trinity. That's why the Orthodox separated from the Roman Church over this.

It seems to me the Roman Church got this right and considered it essential to understanding the Trinity.

And,

The Orthodox Church has been separated, over this issue of the Trinity for a 1,000 years.

It's really not quite that simple, historically. The issue isn't the filioque (the clause, "and from the Son, in the Nicene Creed) itself. On the Western side, it has to do with the authority of Rome, and on the Eastern side, an adherence to a belief in the perfection of the creeds.
The original Nicene Creed ended simply with, "And we believe in the Holy Spirit." Then, at Constantinople, the ecumenical council expanded this to say, "the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified, etc." Only the Father was still mentioned as the source of procession. The East and West already had differing ideas about this at this point, both of which could be represented by the Creed: the Greeks understood it restrictively, and the Latins allowed for inclusivity. In 589, a synod in Toledo, Spain, added the filioque clause to their Nicene Creed. When it was requested of Pope Leo III to allow this to be added to the creed, though he decided in favor of the doctrine of double procession, he nevertheless opposed its addition to the creed and even took steps to ensure it could never be done. Schaff notes: His predecessor, Hadrian I., had a few years before (between 792 and 795) defended the Greek formula of John of Damascus and patriarch Tarasius, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. But the violent assault of Photius upon the Latin doctrine, as heretical, drove the Latin church into the defensive. Hence, since the ninth century, the, Filioque was gradually introduced into the Nicene Creed all over the West, and the popes themselves, notwithstanding their infallibility, approved what their predecessors had condemned."

Thus, the Eastern church stands opposed to the Western innovation of adding something to the creed, which they claim they have absolutely no right to do. This is a big problem for the Eastern church, who believes solidly in the perfection of the ancient creeds and is opposed to theological "newness." Thus, they accuse the West of heresy.

The problem was different in the west. Theological considerations aside, the East simply was not submitting to Rome and her judgments. Thus, the East is schismatic.

Ultimately, the source of division between the two churches is entirely political, not theological. The filioque is often pointed to as an occasion of continued division, but it is nowhere close to being the cause. The cause is authority.

I am glad to see you affirm the Confessional view (and thought you did before) but it goes to show for me how far we are willing to go in placing validity on the bare mechanics of administering baptism.

I actually think it wonderful that we allow such things. This is our acknowledgment that baptism doesn't belong to us, but rather to God; and as long as the thing itself (all that belongs to the substance of baptism) is performed, then who are we to say God cannot/will not use this?

Anyway, I really hope the Eastern Orthodox trinity thing is something you'll be able to let go. It is a philosophical/metaphysical issue; not scriptural. It stands or falls based upon logic, not exegesis. It in no way changes the substance of the trinity.

 

[Prufrock]

Duane,

You said,

My question is simply about picking and choosing...WCF 27.III states my position a little better...

The only problem is that I think that goes entirely against your argument. The confession there states, "The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers." Indeed, the worthiness of the administrator has nothing to do with it. The word of institution, however, does.

The God of Rome is NOT our God...

He's not? Are you saying that God is created by us and how we understand and describe him? Or is YHWH just YHWH, whether we understand him rightly or not?

Is in fact, the Arminian Trinity the self-Same Trinity of Scripture as the one true God the Reformed believers profess and preach...and if the Arminian Gospel is opposed to ours, how can it be that one believing in it, and is baptised in the name of the "God" of it, be a real and valid baptism?

I think you seriously need to rethink some things in here. If you so intimately tie the person of God to our understanding of all his actions and deeds, then what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees about what God has commanded or done, or the manner in which he has done it, worships a different God. Is the God of the supralapsarian a "different god" then the infralapsarian worships? Of course not. I'd slow down and rethink that statement and what it is that you're charging.

I sincerely don't question modes. My question is on consistency.

Can you explain?

 

[Scott1]

Thanks for the history and interaction on this, Paul.

I think two ways of looking at this are well stated now and there is no need for further clarification. Hopefully, people studying this will see two ways to view this within Presbyterian and reformed doctrine. A lot of good points have been made and I have found this useful in searching this out for myself.

Hopefully, also this will further love for and protection of the Gospel, and our Lord's church.

Blessings.

 

[OPC'n]

Well, it's faith in Christ. But the reason I mentioned this is slightly different. As most of our theologians have professed, infants surely do not have faith; they may have the "germ of faith," i.e., the Holy Spirit, but not faith itself. Thus, for an infant being baptized in the RCC, whether or not the infant has faith in the gospel or not is a moot point. However, later in life, should that person come to faith, the sacrament then, through this faith, can still have efficacy, sealing the believer and assuring his heart. So yes, a right faith is necessary for the sacrament to have efficacy -- but that faith is the faith of the recipient, not the administering church. It is not because they are in the visible church that the sacraments are efficacious; the church is simply the only place wherein there is authority for dispensing them. Does that make sense?

Faith in Christ's righteousness alone? That's the Gospel.


Yes, infants do not have faith (actually, I don't believe we know that), but it is the faith of the parents, anyway, isn't it?

Again, is the church the place of authority where it does not hold to the Gospel? (I realize we discussed this before).

I thought you guys just convinced me that some infants do have faith in Christ and that if they die they go to heaven? The germ of faith? What's that? You're either regenerated or you're not.

 

[Scott1]

sjonee
Puritanboard Freshman

I thought you guys just convinced me that some infants do have faith in Christ and that if they die they go to heaven? The germ of faith? What's that? You're either regenerated or you're not.

We were not discussing infant salvation because we both agree God can and does save infants- we just do not know how many or how few that is.

Right here, we were talking about the faith of the parents bringing their child forward for baptism.

Believing that God can and does save infants, means God regenerates them and they immediately have faith. They may not have cognitive ability to express it to us (or we may not be able to understand it) but it is there because God causes it to be there, and God can do that at any age.

 

[Pilgrim]

Hmm...getting quite confusing in here. Whether one believes in the ONE Triune God comes in to question again, if you want to strain at gnats....

Look! If one is baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ, by a Oneness, what is different about those who baptise in the Name of the Trinity? I mean, one can say they believe in the Triune God and STILL hate the docrine of Election, or Limited Atonement, etc., etc...

Are they REALLY believing in the ONE true God and Saviour? On the one hand proclaiming this Triune God and on the other "denying the One who bought them"?

I am not afraid to get wet again...I mean this time, if I go the RE-Baptism route, it will be a pouring...I was immersed last time...though the WCF says 28.III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.

So, anyone who is immersed, must be in error?? I haven't given any in-depth serious thought of my baptism, simply because I was baptised. So, now I must be re-baptised according to, as one posted, "the majority of the board"???

Regarding the "majority of the board," my point certainly wasn't that truth is decided by what a majority of the PB thinks. I was emphasizing that it wasn't a credo/paedo issue, that both orthodox Presbyterians and Baptists agree that Oneness Pentecostal baptism is not Christian baptism.

The term "Pentecostal" means different things in different parts of the country. Where I am from in Louisiana it typically means Oneness, but in other parts of the country where Oneness people are practically unheard of, it is assumed that it is a Trinitarian group like the Assembly of God. As another poster noted, the fact that he baptized in the name of Jesus may be an indication that he was Oneness. Baptism in the name of Jesus isn't unbiblical, but today it is generally Oneness groups that do this. I would attempt to locate the statement of faith of that church to determine whether or not it was Oneness.

 

[Prufrock]

Thanks for the history and interaction on this, Paul.

I think two ways of looking at this are well stated now and there is no need for further clarification. Hopefully, people studying this will see two ways to view this within Presbyterian and reformed doctrine. A lot of good points have been made and I have found this useful in searching this out for myself.

And thank you also, Scott.

 

[TheFleshProfitethNothing]

Hey! Prufrock and Scott1

Ye lackest signatures in your posts. I plead ye; maketh ye signatures for each of thine selves, that thine selves may be true. By this we may knowest, from whence ye cometh; though we may not know where ye listeth.

I thankest both of ye for your haste to make this aright!

 

[Prufrock]

I would if I could but I can't. See here.

 

[TheFleshProfitethNothing]

oh..lol....wow...I do apologize for my jest...thanks for the link.