Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
I know most of the Baptist brethren here would answer "no." But the paedo's here may differ. I here this common justification for Roman baptism in that they are "trinitarian." This issue was debated in the 1800's between Thornwell and Hodge. I personally agree with Thornwell.
RC baptism is not valid because, it is not done in the correct mode and because the Catholic position on the trinity is not biblical.
The correct mode would be with "water" and the "Word" in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But the Catholics add oil to there baptism, calling it christening, therefore departing from the biblical command to use only water (not to meniton all the eronious doctrines they tie to it).
Secondly, the Catholic view of the Trinity is completely distorted and deformed by their view of Mary and the saints acting as mediators rather than Christ.
To those who would accept Roman baptism as authentic based on this "trinitarian" statement made at baptism, is it the words of "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" that are important, or is it how they define these words?
How can the "baptism" of a pagan religion be accepted as Christian? We all agree on this board that the RCC is apostate and not a true church. Would the baptism of a Greek Orthodox, Unitarian, "oneness" pentacostal, or Mormon be accepted because they use this "trinitarian" form too? (I'm assuming they use it here, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you see the point I hope).
I know that Calvin and Luther believed the Roman baptism to be authentic, but that was before the Council of Trent when the Gospel was officially declared heretical, and also before the full blown Mary worship had taken hold of their theology.
So any thoughts about this?
Puritan Sailor
[Edited on 9-23-2003 by puritansailor]
RC baptism is not valid because, it is not done in the correct mode and because the Catholic position on the trinity is not biblical.
The correct mode would be with "water" and the "Word" in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But the Catholics add oil to there baptism, calling it christening, therefore departing from the biblical command to use only water (not to meniton all the eronious doctrines they tie to it).
Secondly, the Catholic view of the Trinity is completely distorted and deformed by their view of Mary and the saints acting as mediators rather than Christ.
To those who would accept Roman baptism as authentic based on this "trinitarian" statement made at baptism, is it the words of "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" that are important, or is it how they define these words?
How can the "baptism" of a pagan religion be accepted as Christian? We all agree on this board that the RCC is apostate and not a true church. Would the baptism of a Greek Orthodox, Unitarian, "oneness" pentacostal, or Mormon be accepted because they use this "trinitarian" form too? (I'm assuming they use it here, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you see the point I hope).
I know that Calvin and Luther believed the Roman baptism to be authentic, but that was before the Council of Trent when the Gospel was officially declared heretical, and also before the full blown Mary worship had taken hold of their theology.
So any thoughts about this?
Puritan Sailor
[Edited on 9-23-2003 by puritansailor]