In what sense is Rome part of the Church?
- Thread starter Peter
- Start date
- Status
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
While the Roman error of justification by works and faith is sufficient to make it an apostate church, it does not follow that this error means they have repudiated the doctrine of the Trinity.
I am aware that there is a movement in the RCC to make Mary the de facto fourth member of the Trinity, but that is not official Roman doctrine.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
I have never argued that the baptismal formula alone is the grounds for lawful Roman baptism. My argument (see previous posts) is that the ministerial ordination must be lawful for the baptism to be lawful and that Rome meets this criteria.
Scott has been arguing that to say Roman trinitarian baptisms are lawful means the door is opened to Morman and JW baptisms. I have denied this on the grounds that both groups are anti-Trinitarian, but I have denied this even more emphatically upon the grounds that both groups have always been outside the true church and thus there is no lawful church power to baptize. Lawful church power is the minimum criteria for a valid baptism (after which the baptismal formulation must be considered).
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Andrew,
It seems as if you are seperating the two realities. Jesus is at the basis of justification by faith alone. Remove this justifying Christ from the equation and replace him with a non justifying Christ and what do you get? An unbiblical Christ. Apply this Christ to the trinity, same outcome, false trinity.
Here is a quote from N. Lee's paper. Keep in mind, I don't agree with lee. I am just using this to take it to it's furthest conclussion, that being, if the formula is the only requisite, then even the independants that baptise in their tubs are valid.
Calvin says baptism in Rome and even by the devil is still valid In two of his letters56 to the catabaptistic antitrinitarian heretic Socinus, Calvin makes the same point. The Reformer insists that, unlike antitrinitarian unitarians like Socinus, there is still in trinitarian "Rome a remnant of the Church." Consequently, "baptism there is still valid" etc. Indeed, adds Calvin, "it matters not to me whether he who performs the baptism is a diabolical man -- or even the devil." For even Satan would still have to baptize us not in his own wretched name, but only in the fully trustworthy Name of the Triune God. Again, in another communication, Calvin -- like John Knox after him -- shows his preference for Romanism above Anabaptism. For Calvin indicates he prefers the administration of infant baptism even in the Romish Church -- to its non-administration among infants of Anabaptists.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Interesting! So then you would agree with Calvin? I cannot understand how a baptism initiated without a biblical trinity can be a valid baptism, but I'm listening.
Sorry Andrew. I don't think we need to answer the Trinitarian critique of Scott's given (1) JWs' leadership have no ministry (2) its a misrepresentation of the position b/c we're not arguing a clear conception of the trinity is required just the trinitarian formula, if the former were required everyone must view their baptism with suspicion b/c no one knows the thoughts and intentions of baptiser.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
I think when Luther and/or Calvin uses the term "devil" in this context, they have in mind Judas. Judas baptized. Were his baptisms valid or invalid? The Reformers and Puritans, I think, would agree that his baptism were valid despite the fact that he was a "very devil."
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
This is not accurate. I know that my church and it's leadership holds to the WCF. That document substantiates their view of the trinity.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Since your critique of the Roman view of the Trinity and hence baptism seems to be based on their view of justification by faith alone, do you also reject the validity of baptisms by any Arminian church?
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Scott,
According to your logic above, do you also reject all baptisms performed in Arminian churches, i.e. Nazarene, Methodist, Anglican, etc.?
Or do you consider the Arminian Jesus to be less of a "non justifying Christ" than the RC Jesus?
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Ha! You beat me to the same argument, Andrew. Good going. We must have been typing the same thing at the same time. 
I was about to ask Scot the same thing
I'm just following along, and don't feign myself worthy of full participation
, but, tentatively, I would judge someone's specifically Trinitarian orthodoxy more on their ontological statements about the Trinity, rather than their specific take on the economic mission of the Son on Earth.
They believe Christ is Light of Light, very God of very God, of a reasonable soul and body consisting, and hold to Nicea and Chalcedon. I definitely think they are mistaken concerning the nature of the atonement, the people for whom it was made, and its efficacy. But I wouldn't say that this particular theological area invalidates their Trinitarian orthodoxy, though it definitely affects my judgment of them in other areas.
I'm just following along, and don't feign myself worthy of full participation
, but, tentatively, I would judge someone's specifically Trinitarian orthodoxy more on their ontological statements about the Trinity, rather than their specific take on the economic mission of the Son on Earth.They believe Christ is Light of Light, very God of very God, of a reasonable soul and body consisting, and hold to Nicea and Chalcedon. I definitely think they are mistaken concerning the nature of the atonement, the people for whom it was made, and its efficacy. But I wouldn't say that this particular theological area invalidates their Trinitarian orthodoxy, though it definitely affects my judgment of them in other areas.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Scott,
If we have to be perfect on our understanding, and all of the implications of the Trinity, then nobody can have a valid baptism, because nobody has a perfect view of Christ.
If we want to be wooden literally technical, if we err with one fact concerning Christ, it is not the Christ of the scriptures.
Not supporting a side yet, just weeding through some of the arguments.
If we have to be perfect on our understanding, and all of the implications of the Trinity, then nobody can have a valid baptism, because nobody has a perfect view of Christ.
If we want to be wooden literally technical, if we err with one fact concerning Christ, it is not the Christ of the scriptures.
Not supporting a side yet, just weeding through some of the arguments.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
How does Rome meet this criteria? Minsterial succession only applies to those who hold to the apostolic doctrine. Rome clearly does not. So again, you are left with water and the formula, which Mormons share.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
From my perspetive, this is a reasonable hypothetical question and one which I anticipated -- my answer is that I would no longer consider Rome's baptism to be valid.
john_Mark
Puritan Board Freshman
If one considers Rome's baptism valid does one then hold that the roman catholic is a fellow Christian?
If not, then what is the baptism valid for?
If so, is there any part of the Christian fellowship you would not participate in with them i.e. worship, bible study, etc.?
If not, then what is the baptism valid for?
If so, is there any part of the Christian fellowship you would not participate in with them i.e. worship, bible study, etc.?
BrianLanier
Puritan Board Freshman
I would like to focus in on this portion of the confession for a moment:
This seems to be saying that you can have error in a church to a point and it still be considered a church. This seems to be the view advocated by Andrew, et al. (There remains baptism, lawful ministers, and the doctrine of the Trinity.
The next phrase however is important. This next phrase, "and some have so degenerated, as to become NO chruches of Christ but synagogues of Satan" seems to be saying that there is a point in which a church is no longer a church at ALL but in fact the opposite, a synangogue of Satan. I think it is reasonable to assume that is the case when a church denies the Gospel officially (Gal. 1:6-9, Gal. 5:4)
This seems to be saying that you can have error in a church to a point and it still be considered a church. This seems to be the view advocated by Andrew, et al. (There remains baptism, lawful ministers, and the doctrine of the Trinity.
The next phrase however is important. This next phrase, "and some have so degenerated, as to become NO chruches of Christ but synagogues of Satan" seems to be saying that there is a point in which a church is no longer a church at ALL but in fact the opposite, a synangogue of Satan. I think it is reasonable to assume that is the case when a church denies the Gospel officially (Gal. 1:6-9, Gal. 5:4)
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
No the validity of Roman baptism does not imply that there exists a bond of Christian fellowship between a baptized Roman Catholic and a Protestant church member in good standing.
What it does imply that that there is no need for re-baptizing a Roman Catholic who converts to Protestant Christianity because the sacrament is made efficacious to that person upon their true conversion by faith.
There are some people on this Board who have only received a Roman Catholic baptism and yet are members in good standing of Protestant churches. To deny the validity of Roman baptism is to deny the validity of their church membership.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Maybe a different question - why would you want Rome's baptism to be valid?
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Who has said that they want Rome's baptism to be valid? I for one do not -- at least consciously -- try to base my theology on what I want but rather what the Scriptures teach.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Because they reject justification by faith alone (among other things). This strikes at the heart of the gospel. The Council of Trent anathematized the gospel.
There are a number of Reformed works which explain how the RCC lacks the marks of a true church and yet retains the validity of ordination and baptism.
I would encourage you to read this paper:
http://www.perumission.org/Roman Baptism.pdf
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
Is it appropriate to speak of Roman Catholicism categorically? When Christ evaluated the churches in Revelation it was particular church by particular church (or, at least, region by region). I know one RC congregation that eschewed icons, prayers to saints, and even taught justification by faith. Very protestantized.
BrianLanier
Puritan Board Freshman
I would also encourge people to read this article for the opposing side. (It's much shorter too! ):
http://www.pcanet.org/history/pca/2-079.html
):http://www.pcanet.org/history/pca/2-079.html
- Status
