Confessions and Roman Catholic Baptism

[Scott1]

Do our Confessions teach that present generation baptisms by the Roman church are valid christian baptisms, to be administered but once?

This particularly in light of the requirements upon those who administer them, according to our confessional summary of doctrine (see below).

It would be helpful to hear from those with a theological background.

This needs to be handled with care and charity. I would like to focus in this thread on reasoning and explanation rather than a back-and-forth debate. A lot of people are trying to understand this.



Westminster Confession (emphasis added)

Chapter XXVII
Of the Sacraments
IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.[10]

London Baptist Confession 1689 (emphasis added)

Chapter 28: Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper
2._____ These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.
( Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 4:1 )

 

[Prufrock]

Scott,

The reformers acknowledged that their own baptisms were valid; after the Donatist controversy it has been continually agreed upon that the efficacy of baptism depends in no way upon the sanctity of the administrator. Here is a rather lengthy quote from Calvin, which I hope will answer fully your question, as this is quite representative of the mainstream reformed tradition:

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. 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.

The bold sections roughly corresponds with the section you bolded from the WCF: we teach that baptism ought to be done by a lawfully ordained minister; yet, this does not mean that one who was baptized by another, provided that it was done by application of water and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, has received in invalid baptism.

I cannot speak for the baptists; obviously the case would be different for them if it were an infant baptized in the RCC. But I have no idea how they would answer with reference to an adult being so baptized, whether they would call it valid or no. For the mainline of reformed paedobaptists, however, such has been accepted as valid.

If anyone has any corrections or refinements, please post!

(Edit: quote from Institutes, IV.15.16)

 

[Guido's Brother]

From what I've read, this is something that distinguishes many Presbyterian churches from many Reformed churches (note the word "many"). From what I can tell, many Presbyterians would hold that Roman Catholics ought to be rebaptized (though I recall reading of a debate involving Thornwell on this point -- so even among Presbyterians there hasn't been unanimity). Reformed churches with roots in the Netherlands and Germany have almost unanimously recognized RC baptisms as valid. When I was a missionary in an RC community, we did not rebaptize. Our missionaries working in Brazil (which still has significant numbers of RC) do not rebaptize.

I don't know how helpful this would be, but let me throw it out here anyway: the late Dr. J. Faber wrote his dissertation on this subject: Vestigium ecclesiae: De doop als 'spoor der kerk.' (Cyprianus, Optatus, Augustinus). Faber argued for the validity of RC baptisms, working with the Donatist controversies of the early church.

 

[Scott1]

Prufrock
Puritanboard Freshman

Thanks for the Calvin quote. I am aware Mr Calvin was baptized in the Roman system as it existed then, and that he was not re-baptized and that he defended his not being re-baptized in his writings.

Prufrock
Puritanboard Freshman
we teach that baptism ought to be done by a lawfully ordained minister; yet, this does not mean that one who was baptized by another, provided that it was done by application of water and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, has received in invalid baptism.

My understanding is that LDS (Mormon) have a trinitarian pronouncement when they administer- does that mean that is a valid biblical baptism?


So When our Confession, Chapter 27, 3. says (emphasis added):

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]

Since our Confession says that baptism must be administered by a "minister of the Gospel" and "lawfully called thereunto," does that teach that a modern generation Roman Catholic priest is a "minister of the Gospel" and that he is lawfull called unto that (ministering the Gospel)? Is that our understanding?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The board is typically divided on this with some good arguments on either side:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/roman-catholic-baptism-poll-do-over-25009/

It was generally accepted by the Reformers as valid. Hodge thought it was valid but, as you can see, there are those that believe this is an inconsistent position.

 

[Scott1]

From Mr Calvin, supra
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.

I wonder if Mr Calvin addressed this elsewhere- wasn't there a requirement that a Levite administer circumcision (or at least a special class of priest)?

Realizing the power of this analogy (circumcision cannot practically be re-done), what if the circumcision were done by a Gentile or as part of a pagan practice outside of the Temple in Israel, or even by let's say one's mother? Did the Levitical Law pronounce that valid or were there more requirements?

 

[Herald]

Scott, Baptists have historically rejected Roman baptism for two reasons: 1. Rome is apostate 2. Mode. I think your question is better geared towards Presbyterians.

 

[Prufrock]

Since our Confession says that baptism must be administered by a "minister of the Gospel" and "lawfully called thereunto," does that teach that a modern generation Roman Catholic priest is a "minister of the Gospel" and that he is lawfully called unto that (ministering the Gospel)? Is that our understanding?

Not at all. Following Wes' post, I am not going to speak for the Presbyterians on this subject, but will only follow the lead of the continental reformed. It is taught that baptism is to be performed in this manner, by a lawful minister; but, if it had been performed by an unlawfully ordained minister, such does not invalidate the act.

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.

And again,

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.

Such is how I understand, and I believe rightly so, most of the reformed tradition.

Again, please someone refine/correct me if deficient.

 

[Scott1]

Scott, Baptists have historically rejected Roman baptism for two reasons: 1. Rome is apostate 2. Mode. I think your question is better geared towards Presbyterians.

That's what I have come to understand reading Puritan Board.

You are right, I'm especially interested in the explanations and reasonings of those who say that they are, or at least might be, especially in light of our Confession(s). And, yes, not focusing on infant baptism.

 

[Scott1]

Prufrock
Puritanboard Freshman


but, if it had been performed by an unlawfully ordained minister, such does not invalidate the act.

So would that validate Mormon, Jehovah Witness baptism?

 

[Prufrock]

I have not enough wisdom to answer such a question on my own; obviously, I want immediately to say, "of course that would not be valid!" But then as to explain precisely why, I'm sure I would come up short.

Here, however, is Turretin on the matter; who, I think, reading this carefully, could explain quite thoroughly (whether accurately or not is up to us) why such would be invalid, and yet RCC baptisms are valid.

III. Here therefore we think the question can be solved by distinguishing between heretics. For there are some who corrupt the substance of baptism and omit or change the form of institution; such as were the ancient Arians, who denied a Trinity of persons in unity of essence, and the modern Socinians. Others, while they retain substantials and defend the true doctrine of the holy Trinity contained in the formula of baptism, "œerr on the other heads of doctrine"; as the ancient Novatians and Donatists, and the modern Romanists and Arminians. As to the former, we judge that baptism administered by them is null, and so they are not properly to be rebaptized, but baptized, who have been baptized by such heretics, because they evidently corrupt the essential form of baptism, to which the invocation of the Trinity belongs. For this reason, the baptism of the Arians, who baptized "œin the Father, the only true God, in Jesus Christ, the Savior and a creature, and in the Holy Spirit, the servant of both" (according to the testimony of Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians 9 [NPNF2, 6:324;PL 23.172] and Athanasius, "œContra Arianos, Oratio tertia," Opera omnia [1627], 1:430-31). Still a distinction must be made here again. For either the minister alone was infected with that heresy or the whole church with him. If the latter, we deny it to be a true baptism. If the former (to wit, if the church thinks rightly, notwithstanding the error of the pastor, if he is a secret heretic), provided the formula of Christ be retained, we believe the baptism to be valid and that it is not necessary to rebaptize those who have been once baptized. The sacrament is the property of the church, which is administered in her name and in her faith. On this account, the hidden error of the minister detracts nothing from the integrity of the baptism, provided the essentials are observed and nothing is changed in the word or element. Hence it is evident what reply should be made to the question which can be put, whether the baptism administered in an orthodox church by a minister imbued with Antitrinitarian or Jewish errors (but not detected) is valid. Undoubtedly, the public faith of the church is here to be considered, into which he (who is baptized) is introduced and the promises made to him by Christ. Since these do not depend upon the minister, he (however deeply tainted with secret
heresy) cannot render them useless and void.

IV. However, if heretics retain the fundamentals of baptism (which constitute its essence) and do not change or corrupt its form, we hold that baptism administered by such is valid, although they may err on various articles of faith, and their baptism may be mixed up with various extraneous rites in accidentals.

(Note, this was linked in another thread. I didn't take the time to type it all out myself...)

 

[Scott1]

Turretin on the matter

the question can be solved by distinguishing between heretics

because they evidently corrupt the essential form of baptism, to which the invocation of the Trinity belongs

either the minister alone was infected with that heresy or the whole church with him. If the latter, we deny it to be a true baptism.

if heretics retain the fundamentals of baptism (which constitute its essence) and do not change or corrupt its form, we hold that baptism administered by such is valid,

Very helpful in understanding the reasoning, thank you.

It seems, from Mr Turretin that

1) Baptism requires a trinitarian pronouncement and a biblical view of the Trinity.

I wonder if that would preclude an Orthodox baptism, under his view?

2) He seems to imply more is required though:

if heretics retain the fundamentals of baptism (which constitute its essence) and do not change or corrupt its form,

Does a "fundamental of baptism" require anything about the Gospel, e.g. the person and work of Christ in redemption?

Also, isn't there something implicit in the trinity about the Gospel? Isn't the Gospel somehow part and and parcel of Trinitarian doctrine?

 

[Prufrock]

Also, isn't there something implicit in the trinity about the Gospel? Isn't the Gospel somehow part and and parcel of Trinitarian doctrine?

Since no one else is biting, I'll take a shot here. I think that if we are going to hold our orthodox notion of the trinity, and not, say, an economical understanding of the trinity as Tertullian, then think we'd have to be very careful making statements like that; for that would seem to make it impossible to talk about God apart from consideration of creation. If the trinity is essential to God, then he is triune entirely apart from creation, and as such, entirely apart from anything having to do with the gospel.

However, while I would maintain what is written above, nevertheless, in our condition we only relate to God as redeemed creatures, and that means creatures who were redeemed by the work of the trinity. Thus, our understanding of the trinity is never practically separated from the gospel of our redemption. How can any of us who are redeemed hear the name of the Son without rejoicing in his cross, and the purchase he made; how can any of us hear the name of the Father without standing in awe of his counsel which he purposed in Christ, sending his son to satisfy justice in our stead and calling us unto eternal life and glory; how can any of us who are redeemed hear the name of the Holy Spirit without celebrating in the love of God which he sheds in our hearts, and the union he effects between us and our head, Jesus Christ, and the assurance which he gives to us as he seal us unto the day of redemption?

Thus, when we baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we who live in the gospel truly understand more than these bare words, and more than what they signify essentially regarding the nature of God. We understand them in terms of the gospel of our redemption. Now (from a paedobaptist perspective of course), whether the baptizer fully understood the gospel in the way that we think we do or not, what matters to me later in life when I come to understand and take benefit from my baptism, is that I was truly sealed and set apart in the name and by the work of this triune God, and I take great comfort in that. Thus, whether it was RCC, or Eastern Orthodox, or Arminians -- we all intend the same thing when we name the three persons of the trinity. A Jehovah's witness does not intend the same thing; thus, what comfort should I have in such a baptism -- it was made in the name of a different god. But regardless of whether or not a RCC and I have the same understanding of the gospel, they still baptize in the name of the same God, and when I understand the gospel, that seal has the same meaning as though I were baptized in a presbyterian church.

(Have I stepped out on a limb here, anyone?)

 

[Scott1]

Prufrock
Puritanboard Freshman

(Have I stepped out on a limb here, anyone?)

Yes- but that is what leadership, derived from good character is made of. Thank you.

I think that if we are going to hold our orthodox notion of the trinity, and not, say, an economical understanding of the trinity as Tertullian, then think we'd have to be very careful making statements like that; for that would seem to make it impossible to talk about God apart from consideration of creation.

Can you explain what you mean here?

Thus, whether it was RCC, or Eastern Orthodox, or Arminians -- we all intend the same thing when we name the three persons of the trinity.

Don't the Eastern Orthodox mean something very different in the Trinity, though? A Holy Spirit who does not eternally proceed from the Father? Doesn't this go to the very nature of God (and that's why the Roman church separated from the Orthodox over the very nature of God)?

 

[Scott1]

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]

Prufrock
Puritanboard Freshman

I am not going to speak for the Presbyterians on this subject, but will only follow the lead of the continental reformed. It is taught that baptism is to be performed in this manner, by a lawful minister; but, if it had been performed by an unlawfully ordained minister, such does not invalidate the act.

Reflecting on the Confession at this point, it seems hard to read a hypothetical converse statement doctrine in this. i.e. If however the minister was not of the gospel and not lawfully called unto it, the baptism, however would be valid.

 

[TheFleshProfitethNothing]

The Gospel preaches the Triune God. Christ as being central to us, for He revealed the work of the Father, namely Election, and the Spirit reveals to us those things of Christ, not speaking of Himself, but whatever He recieves He teaches us...Work of the Father, Election; Work of the Son Propitiation; Work of the Spirit, Life and Understanding of the work of the Son, who reveals the work of the Father in our salvation, all this reresulting in Fruits manifold.

It is important to Baptize in the Name of the Father and the Name of the Son, and the Name of the Holy Ghost...for Salvation is of the LORD.

Whenever we preach, or rather study and preach, we might want to look into how the Triune God is working in each Chapter and verse we are looking to comprehend.

(Just saying).

 

[yeutter]

Eastern Orthodox Baptism valid

Don't the Eastern Orthodox mean something very different in the Trinity, though? A Holy Spirit who does not eternally proceed from the Father? Doesn't this go to the very nature of God (and that's why the Roman church separated from the Orthodox over the very nature of God)?

The Eastern Orthodox teach that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father from all eternity. Their disagreement with the Western Chrurch is whether or not He also proceeds from the Son. Even that disagreement should be broken down into two parts. The first is the Nicene creed originally said "proceeds from the Father." The Western Church unilaterally added "and from the Son." On this point the Eastern Orthodox Church is correct. Whether or not the West was ontologically correct to add the filoque is a second question.
In any event the Eastern Orthodox Church believes in the Trinity in a meaningful sence of the word. Eastern Orthodox Baptism is administered with water, with a Trinitarian intent, using the right words "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Therefore Eastern Orthodox Baptism is valid. I have reservations/questions about Nestorian Baptism and Coptic Baptism but not about cannonical Eastern Orthodox Baptism.

 

[Scott1]

yeutter
Puritanboard Sophomore

Their disagreement with the Western Chrurch is whether or not He also proceeds from the Son. Even that disagreement should be broken down into two parts. The first is the Nicene creed originally said "proceeds from the Father." The Western Church unilaterally added "and from the Son." On this point the Eastern Orthodox Church is correct. Whether or not the West was ontologically correct to add the filoque is a second question.

That view doesn't sound like "one God in three persons."

 

[Scott1]

Quote:
Prufrock
Puritanboard Freshman

I am not going to speak for the Presbyterians on this subject, but will only follow the lead of the continental reformed. It is taught that baptism is to be performed in this manner, by a lawful minister; but, if it had been performed by an unlawfully ordained minister, such does not invalidate the act.

Reflecting on the Confession at this point, it seems hard to read a hypothetical converse statement doctrine in this. i.e. If however the minister was not of the gospel and not lawfully called unto it, the baptism, however would be valid.

Still pondering this.

From what the Confession says, it seems that a baptism must be performed by a "minister of the Gospel" who is lawfully called to be a minister of the Gospel. I don't want to read into it but it would seem to imply that if a baptism is not done that way that it is not merely sin, but makes the ordinance invalid.

Certainly, we would say (not trying to make light of this) a child in a swimming pool who makes a playful pronouncement is not conducting a baptism. It's not merely that an unlawful performance could be made efficacious because of the substance conveyed. Else, there would be no authority from which to administer any sacrament from Christ's Church.

What do you think?

 

[Prufrock]

Scott,

They certainly believe the trinity, and profess the Nicene creed in its, well, most orthodox form, if you will. It is simply a logical dispute as to the nature of the procession of the Spirit, whether he proceed only from the Father, or from both the Father and the Son. But they are surely within the bounds of being fully trinitarian.

Hope that helps.

 

[Prufrock]

From what the Confession says, it seems that a baptism must be performed by a "minister of the Gospel" who is lawfully called to be a minister of the Gospel. I don't want to read into it but it would seem to imply that if a baptism is not done that way that it is not merely sin, but makes the ordinance invalid.

The reason why I disagree with where you put the emphasis in this clause of the the confession is that the reformed, in general, accepted baptisms performed by those they would not consider "lawfully ordained," i.e., Roman Catholics. Prescribing the proper manner of something is not identical to negating the effect of something performed improperly. A prescription is not an identity. Thus, if I say that delivering a baby is only to be performed by a lawful obstetrician, the subsequent fact that my child was delivered by a midwife in my bathtub does not negate the fact that a birth did, in fact, occur.

The sina qua non of baptism is the water, and the naming of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And though we testify that baptism ought to be administered by one lawfully ordained, such is not substantial to the act itself in our tradition.

Does that help?

 

[greenbaggins]

Eastern Orthodoxy is fully Trinitarian. For support of this conclusion, see Robert Letham's excellent books on the subject, one on the Trinity, and one on EO. The question of the spiration of the Spirit coming from only the Father or from the Father and the Son together does not affect the question of whether the EO's formula is fully Trinitarian. It is fully Trinitarian.

 

[Scott1]

Prufrock
Puritanboard Freshman

It is simply a logical dispute as to the nature of the procession of the Spirit, whether he proceed only from the Father, or from both the Father and the Son.

This is very hard for me to overlook. It seems no small matter, but goes to the substance of God. That seems to be what the Trinity represents.

I will appreciate the link from Reverend Kiester and will look at that.

 

[OPC'n]

Prufrock
Puritanboard Freshman


but, if it had been performed by an unlawfully ordained minister, such does not invalidate the act.

So would that validate Mormon, Jehovah Witness baptism?

It is my understanding that the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses do not believe that Christ is divine...so their baptisms cannot be counted.

 

[Scott1]

The reason why I disagree with where you put the emphasis in this clause of the the confession is that the reformed, in general, accepted baptisms performed by those they would not consider "lawfully ordained," i.e., Roman Catholics.

I haven't studied this thoroughly so I can't speak authoritatively on this point. Of course, because many reformers did something doesn't automatically make it right. They sometimes also accepted or performed burning at the stake, too (not saying that to distract, only to acknowledge that the standard of conduct, while remarkably biblical, was not perfect).

It seems to me that Mr Calvin and Mr Luther didn't really view themselves as starting a new church, but rather reforming the church catholic to the christianity of the apostles. From their vantage point, they were attempting to reform the "mother church" away from the institution of the papacy and back toward Scripture. In that context, it is somewhat understandable that at that time, from their vantage point in history, they might not have required re-baptism of those who culturally or historically had grown up in the Roman church.

I understand that also, at that time in history, they were also, on another front, challenging the doctrine of Anabaptists and others who were requiring re-baptism, the idea being that infant baptism was never valid, ever, under any circumstances. So validating infant baptism based on its substance was very much on their mind.

Over time, the lines of seperation became much clearer, the doctrine was established and it seemed to establish that the sacraments were to be done carefully and with close fidelity to the Word.

Now I understand that the administrator does not need to be perfect for the substance of baptism to be accomplished. The church administering it does not to be perfect either because the substance will be accomplished by God's power. But to say that Reformers didn't intend in their language via the confession, to be administered by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto to mean the church at least officially had to hold to a biblical gospel seems implausible right now.

In the case of Rome, it became clear later (after Mr Calvin and Mr Luther) that not only was the Gospel rejected, but anathemas pronounced upon it. This was probably not clear to Mr Calvin and Mr Luther at that time.

 

[Scott1]

Prufrock
Puritanboard Freshman


but, if it had been performed by an unlawfully ordained minister, such does not invalidate the act.

So would that validate Mormon, Jehovah Witness baptism?

It is my understanding that the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses do not believe that Christ is divine...so their baptisms cannot be counted.

That is my understanding as well. The presupposition being tested at this post was whether a "trinitarian pronouncement" alone makes for a valid Christian baptism. I think we all agree:
1) A valid Christian baptism requires more than a mere "trinitarian pronouncement"
2) Our confessions (e.g. Westminster, London Baptist) summarize the doctrine of Scripture to require more than a mere "trinitarian pronouncement"

We are proceeding from that point of biblical understanding.

The issues from there are for the Roman Church,

1) Does the church administering the sacrament of baptism need to hold a biblical Gospel
2) Do our confessions require that

For the Orthodox Church

It is 1) and 2) and
3) Does the church administering the sacrament of baptism need to hold a biblical doctrine of the Trinity (behind its pronouncement)
4) Do our confessions require that

 

[TheFleshProfitethNothing]

WCF 28.V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

This is saying, as I have read and re-read it, that NOT being baptized does not mean that one cannot be regenerated or saved without it, and of course not all who were baptized are all saved in their lifetime.

Am I wrong in saying that Paul at one time, came across two disciples (of John in reality), that had only been baptized with John's Baptism...and then Paul give a brief on recieving the Holy Ghost since they believed, and yet they had not so much as heard of the Holy Ghost.

I hope this isn't opening a , but doesn't Luke write that Paul baptised them in the Name of Jesus?

And I find it interesting that Paul was actually glad he hadn't been the one to baptise a bunch of Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:17)

Excerpt:
Geneva Study Bible
{19} For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: {20} not with {l} wisdom of words, lest the {21} cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

(19) The taking away of an objection: that he gave not himself to baptize many amongst them: not for the contempt of baptism, but because he was mainly occupied in delivering the doctrine, and committed those that received his doctrine to others to be baptized. And so he declared sufficiently how far he was from all ambition: whereas on the other hand they, whom he reprehends, as though they gathered disciples to themselves and not to Christ, bragged most ambitiously of numbers, which they had baptized.

(20) Now he turns himself to the teachers themselves, who pleased themselves in brave and glory-seeking eloquence, to the end that they might draw more disciples after them. He openly confesses that he was not similar to them, opposing gravely, as it became an apostle, his example against their perverse judgments: so that this is another place in this epistle with regard to the observing of a godly simplicity both in words and sentences in teaching the Gospel.

(l) With eloquence: which Paul casts off from himself not only as unnecessary, but also as completely contrary to the office of his apostleship: and yet Paul had this kind of eloquence, but it was heavenly, not of man, and void of fancy words.

(21) The reason why he did not use the pomp of words and fancy speech: because it was God's will to bring the world to his obedience by that way, by which the most foolish among men might understand that this work was done by God himself, without the skill of man. Therefore as salvation is set forth to us in the Gospel by the cross of Christ, which nothing is more contemptible than, and more far from life, so God would have the manner of the preaching of the cross, most different from those means with which men do use to draw and entice others, either to hear or believe: therefore it pleased him by a certain kind of most wise folly, to triumph over the most foolish wisdom of the world, as he had said before by Isaiah that he would. And by this we may gather that both these teachers who were puffed up with ambitious eloquence, and also their hearers, strayed far away from the goal and mark of their calling.

The Reformers involved with the Geneva Bible seem to have already seen that it isn't the Baptism that saves (As Rome teaches it does), but that it is quite important an act to do being Commanded of the Lord...and that it is the Sacrament of which we are essentially identified as Believers as well as Covenanters.

Yes? No? Maybe So?

 

[Prufrock]

Scott,

Thanks for your posts.

In the case of Rome, it became clear later (after Mr Calvin and Mr Luther) that not only was the Gospel rejected, but anathemas pronounced upon it. This was probably not clear to Mr Calvin and Mr Luther at that time.

Again, I am not arguing as to the truth or prudence of accepting Roman baptisms (although, personally, I do believe that such are, in fact, valid baptisms); I am simply putting forth what seems to be the clear trajectory of historic Reformed teaching. We have to remember that it wasn't just Luther and Calvin who thought these baptisms valid. Long after Trent and the anathemas placed upon our teaching, the most orthodox theologians of our tradition still taught such baptisms valid.

Over time, the lines of seperation became much clearer, the doctrine was established and it seemed to establish that the sacraments were to be done carefully and with close fidelity to the Word.

Indeed. But I have to ask you a question back, which relates quite strongly to what you keep asking: does strict teaching as to after what manner we ought to perform something mean that it is negated if not done the way it ought to be? We, from the historic paedo position, have taught that the substance of the sacrament consists of 1.) The element (i.e. water), and 2.) The name in which it is done. So long as these two things have been done properly (which, from the Turretin quote I included above, means not just that the trinitarian names are pronounced, but also that they intend by this the orthodox meaning), then a baptism has been performed. Yes, it ought to be done by a proper minister, and it would be wrong for a reformed believer to seek out a baptism performed by another; but we don't mean by this that one who has previously been baptized by a Roman has received an invalid baptism.

Again, this is not an argument for the truth of it; just a delineation of the historic reformed thought.

Thanks.

 

[Scott1]

Paul,

Many thanks for discussing this difficult issue. I appreciate both your knowledge and irenic tone (a term I perhaps would not have known without Puritan Board) and trust this will be helpful for others seeking out biblical truth in this.

Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

It seems to me the assumption of the Confession here is that "His Church" needs to do the baptizing. While I realize there is a lot of discussion of what really constitutes "His Church" (the "marks" of a true church), it seems to me that might require, at a minimum, His Gospel. Without the Gospel, we are not left with much. That would seemingly disqualify the Roman Church in this generation, at least.

It seems the Confession is making this a qualification ab initio, not merely something aspirational, that His Church does the baptism, not something outside of His Church that gets the Trinitarian prouncement right and has a biblical view of the Trinity alone. It seems it would have to be His Church. Without the Gospel, it is hard indeed to see His Church.

From there, it would need to be done by a minister of the Gospel (that would seem to be a broadening clause, to include non-Reformed churches but it would seem specifically not the Roman one).

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

Prufrock
Puritanboard Freshman

Long after Trent and the anathemas placed upon our teaching, the most orthodox theologians of our tradition still taught such baptisms valid.

We would both agree "our teaching" is not really ours, it is the clear teaching of the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture, and what Christ taught himself- salvation by grace through faith (in Christ's righteousness alone).

In Mr Luther's view, justification by (Christ's righteousness alone), which is the Gospel, which the Roman Church rejects and pronounces anathema on...

is the hinge of the door upon which the Church turns

I need to research the latter Reformed theologians and their view. Certainly it was not unanimous. All I know is my denomination did a (very helpful) study paper on this and 4-1 ruled that Roman baptisms are not valid Christian baptisms. In our polity, that does not have the force of ecclesiastical law or intepretation, but it is cause for "due and serious consideration."
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.html

So, I have heard there is a long line of theologians who have maintained Roman baptisms are not valid Christian baptisms.

It is also interesting to me that many who might say the Bible, and our Confession teach that Roman baptisms are, while defective, still valid due to their substance, say on the other hand,
the Lord's Supper is not shared with that communion. That's not the topic here and I won't go into it- but it only underscores the difficulty in understanding all this, for God's Honor and God's Glory.

 

[Prufrock]

Thanks, Scott. It's certainly an interesting and worthwhile topic to think both individually and corporately about. The practical working out of our doctrine is certainly meritorious of such time and energy.

All I know is my denomination did a (very helpful) study paper on this and 4-1 ruled that Roman baptisms are not valid Christian baptisms.

Interesting. To what denomination do you belong? Is there a link to an online version of that position paper? I would love to read it. I have to confess that my knowledge of reformed and presbyterian polity and practice drops to almost zero when it comes to American or post-1800s stuff. I'd be quite interested in hearing a modern body's ruling on this.

It seems the Confession is making this a qualification ab initio, not merely something aspirational, that His Church does the baptism, not something outside of His Church that gets the Trinitarian prouncement right and has a biblical view of the Trinity alone. It seems it would have to be His Church. Without the Gospel, it is hard indeed to see His Church.

On a personal level, I certainly feel the weight of this reasoning; yet, I am not sure that it is fully convincing. The sacrament is, surely, a gift of Christ to his church, and will continue in the church through all ages. However, I'm not sure that the conclusion follows from this. For instance, we testify the same thing about the public reading of scripture. It is a gift, and an ordained means of grace in the church. Yet, I would not say that such a reading of scripture ceases to be effective because it is performed in a Roman Catholic Church.

Secondly, I have to understand the WCF in light of the theological climate in which it was born. And when I consider that the seeming majority of teachers at that time understood such baptisms valid, I must read these confessional statements in light of that. Thus, when I read the "by a lawfully ordained minister" clause, I have to understand this as prescriptive, not a definition of substance.

Thirdly, I will give you one, perhaps surprising reason for which Turretin pleads the efficacy of Roman baptism:

There are still remains of the church in the papacy (Rev. 18:4) and God has not yet wholly left that church.

They had no problem referring to the RCC as yet a church, and this is long after Trent. I would point out that, as I interpret it, the WCF itself refers to the RCC as a church. The original 1647, XXV.6 reads,

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 exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

The revisions took out the entire last clause, removing the portion about the pope being "that Anitchrist." Ironically, I think that this move of "conciliation" allowed for a different accusation -- that of Rome being no church at all. For in the 1647, whatever it might say about the pope and his practice, it yet refers to the location of his exaltation against Christ as being "in the Church." Perhaps many here will disagree with this. Nevertheless, I find a consistent pattern in early reformed teachers, though still after Trent, referring to the Roman assembly yet as the church--Indeed, as a highly corrupt church with whom we can have no fellowship, and headed by "that antichrist" himself, but a church nonetheless. Thus I find myself disagreeing with the baptist idea of "it is no church at all."

Fourthly (sorry this is getting long), as you have brought up numerous times the "by a minister lawfully ordained" clause, such is not particular to the WCF. Thus, going back to Turretin, we find him stating:

But although we do not think that the baptism once performed should be repeated, still we do not think that infant baptism can be sought or received from popish priests without sin.

This roughly answers to the WCF. i.e., "Baptism is only to be administered by lawfully ordained ministers--not by a popish priest. However, as I (Turretin) have been arguing, a baptism by a popish priest is, nevertheless, valid."

Finally, in a very practical way, what do you think of this: I, personally, was baptized in a United Methodist Church as a child. Now, I don't know what you know about the UMC, but they are sometimes known as not being the most "evangelically" or "gospel" minded churches out there... Nevertheless, now, being regenerated by God, I still take great comfort in this baptism. I see this very visible seal of God upon me (of the very Triune God by whose name I was sealed), and the spirit assures my heart continually. I would not call this an invalid baptism. Thus I can see why those, such as a Calvin, who were baptized in Rome, later in life can see in very real terms the benefit (thus, validity?) of their baptisms. Just a thought.

Let me know what you think; I'll be looking forward to your response. Again, if you know of a place online where your church has that position paper, I'd love to read it.