Is Roman Catholic Baptism valid?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
[quote:13b1fb5c2f]
Yes. And my point continues to be proven. Now I understand why Paul continues to express an unbiblical and unreformed view of Rome. He has been taught to do so by Rev. Frame. And so now you see why I am so concerned, not to win a debate, but as Richard Weaver wrote, "Ideas Have Consequences."

[/quote:13b1fb5c2f]

I agree with Frame on this as well. And you and I have argued about it also Fred.

What books/resources were the above quotes from ? ?
 

rembrandt

Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:6bc8dda922]Yes. And my point continues to be proven. Now I understand why Paul continues to express an unbiblical and unreformed view of Rome. He has been taught to do so by Rev. Frame. And so now you see why I am so concerned, not to win a debate, but as Richard Weaver wrote, "Ideas Have Consequences."[/quote:6bc8dda922]

Actually I have held this view for quite some time (many months). I read Frame's book a couple days ago. It did nothing but confirm my view.

Paul
 

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:5753173375]
Could you provide a reference for this please? I think this is a serious charge which some here would like to see verified.
[/quote:5753173375]

I am curious - would you see this as a charge more serious than him saying he was willing to work along aside a Baptist?

The Reformers seemed to have equally low views of Baptists and Catholics, each being limbs of antichrist. I don't think many today find that position persuasive with respect to Baptists but still do with respect to Catholics.

Scott
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:0e9d082cc6][i:0e9d082cc6]Originally posted by Scott[/i:0e9d082cc6]
[quote:0e9d082cc6]
Could you provide a reference for this please? I think this is a serious charge which some here would like to see verified.
[/quote:0e9d082cc6]

I am curious - would you see this as a charge more serious than him saying he was willing to work along aside a Baptist?

The Reformers seemed to have equally low views of Baptists and Catholics, each being limbs of antichrist. I don't think many today find that position persuasive with respect to Baptists but still do with respect to Catholics.

Scott [/quote:0e9d082cc6]

Scott,

Anabaptists and Baptists are not coterminus. Calvin and the reformers comments relate to the former, not the latter. So one would have to have an equally low view of Romanists and Anabaptists, which I think is perfectly applicable.
 

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate
They may not be coterminus but modern baptists are the spiritual heirs of the anabaptists. I would be curious to see positive remarks about baptists of any sort by the magisterial reformers (I have not seen any but have seen plenty of comments made in flaming hostility). I expect they are hard to find.

As Webmaster Matthew suggested in the other thread, it appears that independent churches were viewed as false churches by reformers, and Matthew even suggested that Phillip's (the webmaster) church is a false church (although recognizing that Phillip is a Christian brother). So, if Matthew is right, the answer to ithe questions of whether a Baptist church is a true church is negative. It strikes me as odd that this part of the Reformation is lost but the hatred of Rome remains.

[Edited on 6-9-2004 by Scott]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:d07f18546e][i:d07f18546e]Originally posted by Scott[/i:d07f18546e]
They may not be coterminus but modern baptists are the spiritual heirs of the anabaptists. I would be curious to see positive remarks about baptists of any sort by the magisterial reformers (I have not seen any but have seen plenty of comments made in flaming hostility). I expect they are hard to find.

As Webmaster Matthew suggested in the other thread, it appears that independent churches were viewed as false churches by reformers, and Matthew even suggested that Phillip's (the webmaster) church is a false church (although recognizing that Phillip is a Christian brother). So, if Matthew is right, the answer to ithe questions of whether a Baptist church is a true church is negative. It strikes me as odd that this part of the Reformation is lost but the hatred of Rome remains.

[Edited on 6-9-2004 by Scott] [/quote:d07f18546e]

I believe that would be because Rome has lost the gospel, teaches doctrines that lead to hell and anathamatizes the gospel, whereas Baptists do not.
 

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate
I don't know about that Fred. The Reformers taught that there is no salvation outside the visible church. If Baptist assemblies are not churches (as Matthew suggests), then these people are outside the visible church. Following this reasoning, they would be teaching doctrines that lead people to hell.

In any event, it still seems rather arbitrary to deny Reformed ecclesiology with respect to Rome but not with respect to Baptists. The Reformers were aware of the doctrines you list and I did not see them make exceptions for congregations that hold those doctrines (perhaps they did - I would be happy to see whatever anyone can provide).

Scott
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
[quote:712a514681]
In any event, it still seems rather arbitrary to deny Reformed ecclesiology with respect to Rome but not with respect to Baptists. The Reformers were aware of the doctrines you list and I did not see them make exceptions for congregations that hold those doctrines (perhaps they did - I would be happy to see whatever anyone can provide).
[/quote:712a514681]

You are right. I pointed this out a while back and got in trouble.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:df80c48633][i:df80c48633]Originally posted by Scott[/i:df80c48633]
I don't know about that Fred. The Reformers taught that there is no salvation outside the visible church. If Baptist assemblies are not churches (as Matthew suggests), then these people are outside the visible church. Following this reasoning, they would be teaching doctrines that lead people to hell.

In any event, it still seems rather arbitrary to deny Reformed ecclesiology with respect to Rome but not with respect to Baptists. The Reformers were aware of the doctrines you list and I did not see them make exceptions for congregations that hold those doctrines (perhaps they did - I would be happy to see whatever anyone can provide).

Scott [/quote:df80c48633]

Scott,

The Reformers actually taught that there was no [i:df80c48633]ordinary[/i:df80c48633] possibility of salvation outside the Church (WCF 25.2). That is a good deal different than what you stated.

The issue is not so much an issue of ecclesiology as soteriology. The crucial doctrine of justification is directed pretty much directly at Rome.

I also do not think that Matt said that Baptist churches are not churches, but that they are false (as in error) churches. I see this as a major difference from violating Galatians 1.

The interesting thing is that modern Reformed churches do not treat Rome as the Reformers and Westminster divines did. If they did, they would - as you point out, accept Roman baptism, but they would also treat Romanists as apostates, denying them citizenship, in some cases waging war against them, and disciplining any who married a Romanist:

[quote:df80c48633]
It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. [b:df80c48633]And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters[/b:df80c48633]: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies[/quote:df80c48633]

Interesting, isnt it, that Romanists are placed in the same company as infidels and [i:df80c48633]other[/i:df80c48633] idolaters? Baptists and independents are not. What do you make of that?
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
We do not have them here today to ask them what they meant by "other idolaters".
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:c9a9052556][i:c9a9052556]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:c9a9052556]
We do not have them here today to ask them what they meant by "other idolaters". [/quote:c9a9052556]

That's not the point, alothough I think that would probably be clear from the debates - Matt?

The point is at least that the divines [b:c9a9052556]did[/b:c9a9052556] see marriage with a Romanist (papist) as being on a par with marrying an infidel.

So much for a gracious look at Rome.
 

rembrandt

Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:ef667e76e0][i:ef667e76e0]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:ef667e76e0]
[quote:ef667e76e0][i:ef667e76e0]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:ef667e76e0]
We do not have them here today to ask them what they meant by "other idolaters". [/quote:ef667e76e0]

That's not the point, alothough I think that would probably be clear from the debates - Matt?

The point is at least that the divines [b:ef667e76e0]did[/b:ef667e76e0] see marriage with a Romanist (papist) as being on a par with marrying an infidel.

So much for a gracious look at Rome. [/quote:ef667e76e0]

Gracious? I don't think anybody said that. Apostle Paul makes it clear that someone who is temporarily in sin can definitely be our brethren, but we are not to associate with them until they repent. So, forbiding someone to marry a Catholic, really proves nothing. Just because we are to treat them like infidels, it is only in the hope that they will repent. I don't think it follows that a marriage with someone is on par with the Church's ecumenical relations. I think the main thrust of not wanting to marry a Catholic or the likes, is for practical reasons. She may bring you back to Rome etc.

So this proves nothing of whether Rome was a [true] church.

Paul
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:bbaaef28f6][i:bbaaef28f6]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:bbaaef28f6]

Gracious? I don't think anybody said that. Apostle Paul makes it clear that someone who is temporarily in sin can definitely be our brethren, but we are not to associate with them until they repent. So, forbiding someone to marry a Catholic, really proves nothing. Just because we are to treat them like infidels, it is only in the hope that they will repent. I don't think it follows that a marriage with someone is on par with the Church's ecumenical relations. I think the main thrust of not wanting to marry a Catholic or the likes, is for practical reasons. She may bring you back to Rome etc.

So this proves nothing of whether Rome was a [true] church.

Paul [/quote:bbaaef28f6]


Paul,

What you say is complete conjecture and has absolutely no foundation in the text. It is put forward solely to buttress your point. Let's look at WCF 24.3 in its full context:


[quote:bbaaef28f6]WCF 24.3 It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent.(1) Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord.(2) And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.(3)

(1)Heb. 13:4; 1 Tim. 4:3; 1 Cor. 7:36,37,38; Gen. 24:57,58
(2)1 Cor. 7:39
(3)Gen. 34:14; Exod. 34:16; Deut. 7:3,4; 1 Kings 11:4; Neh. 13:25,26,27; Mal. 2:11,12; 2 Cor. 6:14[/quote:bbaaef28f6]

The Confession then makes several statements:

1. Marriage is not confined simply to Christians: [i:bbaaef28f6]"It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry"[/i:bbaaef28f6]

2. Christians are only to marry other Christians:
[i:bbaaef28f6]"it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord"[/i:bbaaef28f6]

3. As a result of premise #2 ([i:bbaaef28f6]"therefore"[/i:bbaaef28f6], Christians ([i:bbaaef28f6]"such as profess the true reformed religion"[/i:bbaaef28f6])are not to marry those who are not Christians, namely:

a. infidels
b. papists
c. other idolaters
d. nor those whose life and beliefs would contradict a profession of faith, namely:

(1)such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or
(2)maintain damnable heresies

So we can logically assume that the category of infidels, papists and other idolaters are exclusive of the category of Christians.

The proof texts all relate to the marrying of those who are pagans. Remember that Paul says that Christians are free to marry [b:bbaaef28f6]in the Lord[/b:bbaaef28f6] (1 Cor 7:39), without further qualification (the proof text cited by the Confession here). He does not say, in the Lord, except not likely to draw you astray. The categories are black and white - in the Lord, or not in the Lord. Paul does on to illustrate the point that such a marriage outside the Lord is like siding with Baal - the pre-eminent figure of idolatry and paganism in the OT.

Notice that it is significant that Christians are not forbidden from marrying those who are in error (i.e. Baptists, Arminians, etc.) but only those who maintain [b:bbaaef28f6]damnable heresies[/b:bbaaef28f6] (viz. infidels, other idolaters and papists). This is further pressed home by the fact that heresy is a violation of the 1st commandment, per WLC 105 : "What are the sins forbidden in the first commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the first commandment are, Atheism, in denying, or not having a God; Idolatry, in having or worshipping more gods than one, or any with or instead of the true God...unbelief, [b:bbaaef28f6]heresy[/b:bbaaef28f6]"

Why are papists singled out of all "churches in error" ? Why not Arminians? Why not anabaptists? Why not baptists?
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:1cdf23c2de][i:1cdf23c2de]Originally posted by Scott[/i:1cdf23c2de]
[quote:1cdf23c2de]
Could you provide a reference for this please? I think this is a serious charge which some here would like to see verified.
[/quote:1cdf23c2de]

I am curious - would you see this as a charge more serious than him saying he was willing to work along aside a Baptist?

The Reformers seemed to have equally low views of Baptists and Catholics, each being limbs of antichrist. I don't think many today find that position persuasive with respect to Baptists but still do with respect to Catholics.

Scott [/quote:1cdf23c2de]

Scott,
Is there language respecting baptists similar to this used by Knox with respect to Roman baptism? He clearly distinguishes between invalidating baptisms that were previously done by Rome and participating in a Roman baptism:

[quote:1cdf23c2de]
Answers to Some Questions
Concerning Baptism, etc.

The baptism now used in the Papistry is not the true baptism which Christ Jesus did institute and command to be used in his kirk; but it is an adulteration and profanation of the same, and therefore is to be avoided of all God's children.
That it is adulterated, and so consequently profane, is evident: First, for many things are added, besides Christ's institution; and all man's additions in God's perfect ordinance, especially in his religion, are execrable and detestable before him. Secondly, the promises of salvation in Christ Jesus are not (in the papistical baptism) lively and truly explained to the people; the word is not preached; yea, that which they read is not understood. The end and use of a true sacrament are not considered, but rather the people are led to put their confidence in the bare ceremony.
That none of God's children ought, or may, with pure conscience, offer their children to the papistical baptism, one reason of the Holy Ghost (pronounced by St. Paul) may instruct and assure such as rather list to be obedient than contentious. "I would not," says he, "that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye may not drink of the Lord's cup, and the cup of devils. Ye may not be partaker of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils" (1 Cor. 10:21-22). If the causes why sacraments were instituted are rightly understood and considered, [b:1cdf23c2de]this reason of the apostle shall damn all those that offer their children to an adulterated sign[/b:1cdf23c2de]; for as sacraments, besides other uses and ends, are ordained to be seals of the justice {righteousness} of faith, so are they also a declaration of our profession before the world, and an approbation of that doctrine and religion which are taught by such as with whom we communicate, in receiving the sacraments. [b:1cdf23c2de]Now it is evident that the papistical doctrine, in the chief point of our salvation, and their whole religion, are as contrary to Christ's doctrine and true religion, as darkness is unto light[/b:1cdf23c2de]: which nevertheless is approved and allowed before the world, by all such as communicate with any of their adulterous sacrilege for sacraments they cannot be properly called. I add, [b:1cdf23c2de]whosoever offers their children to the papistical baptism, offers them to the devil[/b:1cdf23c2de], who was author and first inventor of all such abominations; and therefore, whosoever communicates with the papistical sacraments, approves (and before the world allows) whatsoever doctrine and religion they profess. [b:1cdf23c2de]Yea, farther, who offers their children to the papistical baptism, offers them not to God, nor to Christ Jesus his Son, but to the devil[/b:1cdf23c2de], the chief author and inventor of such abominations[/quote:1cdf23c2de]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Now as touching what the Westminster divines thought regarding Rome and whether it was a true church or not, an excellent source is from the Morning Exercises at Crippelgate first published in 1661, given in London.

In volume 6, Rev. Henry Wilkinson continues the "Morning Exercises Against Popery" in his sermon "The Pope of Rome is Antichrist" by saying:

If the pope be the Antichrist...if this body politic, head and members be the Antichristian state, and this state is the Papacy; then it cannot be the true church. It is true that Antichrist, head and members, are the counterfeit of the true church, and of Christ, the Head; and therefore they cannot be the true church...How can that be a true church whose head is the Man of Sin, who hath all those black and hellish characters belonging to him? Such a church cannot be founded upon the twelve apostles. Therefore that cannot be a true church whichb hath Abaddon and Apollyon for the heads. How can that be a true church which is so opposite to the true church, both head and members.[/quote]

I guess I would follow with the question, which one of you would view it as a matter of indifference whether you relatives were in communion with Rome or a baptist church? Maybe you don't have to make that choice, but for me, I would leap for joy if my relatives professed faith and joined the most Arminian, baptistic, yea, even pentecostal church and left Rome. She is a whore, damning all who listen to her lies, feeding poison to her infants in the milk bottle. May God crush her and may she never rise again!
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
Knox is dead wrong on this point.

All that Scripture requires is water, and the name of the Trinity.

I would like to see anyone show Scripture to prove otherwise.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:78aeaeb851][i:78aeaeb851]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:78aeaeb851]
Knox is dead wrong on this point.

All that Scripture requires is water, and the name of the Trinity.

I would like to see anyone show Scripture to prove otherwise. [/quote:78aeaeb851]

So then if I go into the local Moose Lodge or Mormon tabernacle and squirt people with a squirt gun and pronounce them baptized in the name of the Trinity, it is a lawful baptism then? Let's see... water, (check), name of the Trinity (check). I guess so.
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
Cool! That means I can be a very effective missionary now with my water gun and superstitious phrase. Beside, splashing water on a person in the "name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" certainly is easier than trying to remember how to spell [i:5b8294c2ca]supercalifragilisticexpalidotious[/i:5b8294c2ca].....

This thread gives us yet anther reason to reject Frame....the list is building.

And the Roman church was not the only church on earth for a thousand years. It started going wrong when Constantine declared it the state religion of Rome and mixed it with al of their idolatry and syncretism.

Phillip

:rolleyes:
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
As goofy and irreverant as that is Fred, I have to say yes.

Someone show me where scripture requires anything more.
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
Well there is Matthew 28 for starters.....

19Go therefore and [u:a0ed2a3b7d]make disciples[/u:a0ed2a3b7d] of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

One must be a disciple to be baptized, not just Joe Schmoe on the street sprinkled with water with the right words said.

While we may disagree on what a disciple is, we would (should) all agree that baptism is only for disciples of Jesus Christ!!

Phillip
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:8cafebc5d2][i:8cafebc5d2]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:8cafebc5d2]
As goofy and irreverant as that is Fred, I have to say yes.

Someone show me where scripture requires anything more. [/quote:8cafebc5d2]

I thought that the sacraments were more than [i:8cafebc5d2]ex opere operato[/i:8cafebc5d2], but that they were actually for the Church, to, in the words of the Confession: "put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word."

What you have posited is that the sacraments are efficacious regardless of intent or relationship to the church.

Let me ask it a different way: is it a proper Lord's Supper if a bunch of drunkards in a bar pass out bread and wine and partake in the name of the Trinity? Why or why not?
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:e660ad2ec1][i:e660ad2ec1]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:e660ad2ec1]
Well there is Matthew 28 for starters.....

19Go therefore and [u:e660ad2ec1]make disciples[/u:e660ad2ec1] of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

One must be a disciple to be baptized, not just Joe Schmoe on the street sprinkled with water with the right words said.

While we may disagree on what a disciple is, we would (should) all agree that baptism is only for disciples of Jesus Christ!!

Phillip [/quote:e660ad2ec1]

:amen:

As I go to tuck in my four little disciples. :wink:
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
It isn't about the minister, but about the CHURCH, Mark. A synagogue of satan has no right to administer the sacraments of the Body of Jesus Christ. In fact, if they attempt to do so, they are performing religious rituals only, and not true Christian sacraments. They blaspheme them by trying to administer them. They mock God.

The Mass is an abomination and Roman baptism is not Christian baptism, for their baptism is built upon a foundation other than the gospel. In fact, it is built on the foundation of [i:577c869d68]another[/i:577c869d68] gospel, which is shifting sand and will lead to destruction.

Phillip
 

rembrandt

Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:17798e5a43]It isn't about the minister, but about the CHURCH[/quote:17798e5a43]

The donatists thought the other [i:17798e5a43]CHURCHES[/i:17798e5a43] were corrupt, [i:17798e5a43]therefore[/i:17798e5a43] they thought the ministers were corrupt.

We know its not about the minister, we also know its not about the church. If you think it is about the church, then were do you draw the line on donatism? Because that is precisely donatist thought that has always been condemned.

Paul

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by rembrandt]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:6ecbf5eca9][i:6ecbf5eca9]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:6ecbf5eca9]
[quote:6ecbf5eca9]It isn't about the minister, but about the CHURCH[/quote:6ecbf5eca9]

The donatists thought the other [i:6ecbf5eca9]CHURCHES[/i:6ecbf5eca9] were corrupt, [i:6ecbf5eca9]therefore[/i:6ecbf5eca9] they thought the ministers were corrupt.

We know its not about the minister, we also know its not about the church. If you think it is about the church, then were do you draw the line on donatism? Because that is precisely donatist thought that has always been condemned.

Paul

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by rembrandt] [/quote:6ecbf5eca9]

I'm wondering where the line is drawn for ex opere operato.
 

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate
Phillip:

You should be cautious in your condemnation of Frame. If more Reformed were true to their Reformed history, your church could be viewed as a false church too, and perhaps a limb of antichrist. I do not at all believe that it is. It seems to me that it is only because modern Reformed focus on the anti-Catholic writings but ignore the anti-anabaptistic writings that this happens. You may dislike Frame but he would not say that your church is a false church, unlike others on this board. (BTW, I do not think your church is false and if I am in the Austin area over a weekend I may try and drop by to worship with you guys - I live in the Fort Worth area).

Scott
 

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate
Fred: I think you are obscuring the essence of your questions (which are good ones) with things designed to be silly. The water gun is an example. Let me ask, if a lawfully ordained minister of the gospel performed the ritual of baptism exactly right, except he used a water gun instead of his hand, would that invalidate the baptism? While water guns are obviously stupid and should not be used, I expect we can at least agree that they do not go to the essence of the sacrament.

Also, are you suggesting that if someone is drunk that this invalidates the adminstration of the Lord's Supper? If the only objectionable part of the ceremony is that the minister's blood alchohol content is marginally over the limit, would that invalidate the ceremony in your opinion?

BTW, I think that baptisms from non-Trinitarian sects like the Mormons are invalid, even if they use the proper formula.

Scott
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
[quote:090c002693][i:090c002693]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:090c002693]
All that Scripture requires is water, and the name of the Trinity.

AND...

As goofy and irreverant as that is Fred, I have to say yes.

Someone show me where scripture requires anything more. [/quote:090c002693]

So this discussion keeps coming back to this: water and the trinitarian formula.

If this is the case, the bare minimum, then we must also acknowledge the Mormon's and all other cultic groups who claim the name Christian. Are you willing to go that far Mark? And if so, why?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top