Question on RCC infant baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.
On the SP adoption of invalidity of RCC baptism, see this thread.
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...idity-of-rc-baptism.85866/page-7#post-1070063
Dr. Ritchie wrote:
The face of Roman Catholicism in America changed markedly during the nineteenth-century owing to mass immigration from Europe. This phenomenon led to fears of a Popish take-over of the United States. Understanding this development is crucial to comprehending the context in which the Old School Presbyterians formulated their novel views respecting Romish baptism, which was probably partly a reaction to both increased Roman Catholic immigration and to cultural "no-popery".​
As he goes on to say, this is not necessarily determinative of if they were right or wrong, but one needs to appreciate the context.
 
Dachaser said:
It would depend on if your church recognized the Church of Rome as being a Valid NT church or not, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think you've understood the root of that position correctly. Many of those who reject the baptism of the Church of Rome, do so on essentially the same basis that they would reject a baptism by the Church of Latter Day Saints. Any society of men is able to define what they intend by various religious rites. But the argument is that any society which has rejected the Gospel is not a Christian Church, so its ministers are not "lawful ministers of Christ", so its rites are not Christian rites.
 
shoe said:
Yes, I think you've understood the root of that position correctly.
Click to expand...

Me thinks u do not; the efficacy of baptism cannot be tied to the church nor minister, else all those who have been baptized by a group that doesn't have the marks that make a church, a true church and those ministers who were unregenerate the time of placing the sign, would be faulty. The efficacy of baptism is in formula and Christ alone.

Also, consider proper ordination into the equation and then u have a perfect storm considering all 3 things.
 
Last edited:
Scott Bushey said:
Me thinks you do not; the efficacy of baptism cannot be tied to the church nor minister, else all those who have been baptized by a group that doesn't have the marks that make a church, a true church and those ministers who were unregenerate the time of placing the sign, would be faulty. The efficacy of baptism is in formula and Christ alone.

Also, consider proper ordination into the equation and then you have a perfect storm considering all 3 things.
Click to expand...

You are discussing efficacy, while the question was about validity. These should be distinguished. WCF 28.2-3 speak to validity, while WCF 28.5-6 addresses efficacy. As an example, if a 10-year-old boy decides to "baptize" his buddy down at the creek while at their summer camp, using water, and a Trinitarian formula, perhaps some might argue that the Holy Spirit would really exhibit and confer, by that use, the grace promised in baptism, but I suspect pretty much every Session in the PCA would judge that it was not a valid Christian baptism.
 
Here, I'll rephrase my statement:

"the efficacy or validity of baptism cannot be tied to the church nor minister, else all those who have been baptized by a group that doesn't have the marks that make a church, a true church and those ministers who were unregenerate the time of placing the sign, would be faulty. The efficacy of baptism is in formula and Christ alone."
 
Scott Bushey said:
Here, I'll rephrase my statement:

"the efficacy or validity of baptism cannot be tied to the church nor minister, else all those who have been baptized by a group that doesn't have the marks that make a church, a true church and those ministers who were unregenerate the time of placing the sign, would be faulty. The efficacy of baptism is in formula and Christ alone."
Click to expand...

As southern Presbyterians try to make clear, however, the issue is not about the regeneracy or lack thereof of the minister. Southern Presbyterians believe that a valid baptism has three essential components, not two: the formula, God's blessing, and the performance of it by a lawfully ordained minister (and that this last element is to be objectively determined, as it is by no means a subjective state of the person, or any kind of inward characteristic). Consider, for instance, WCF 28:2, which states, "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" (emphasis added). What Southern Presbyterians point out is a relatively simple concept: if we are going to accept that Romanist baptisms are valid, then we also have to accept that Romanist priests are ministers of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto. It is absolutely impossible confessionally to state that Romanist baptisms are valid, and yet simultaneously claim that Romanist priests are not ministers of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto. The question can then be stated relatively simply: does a Romanist priest have the lawfully-ordained, gospel-preaching authority to perform valid baptisms?

I must confess that sometimes I have a hard time understanding why the Northern Presbyterian position never seems to be able to understand what the Southern position is driving at. Accusations of Donatism don't help any. Donatism was about the subjective state of the minister, not the objective state of whether he was a lawfully ordained minister or not. Southern Presbyterians reject Donatism. The minister who administers a true baptism may be a completely unregenerated heretic. He may be a traditor, according to the old problematic practice of giving up Scriptures to the persecutors, that caused the Donatist controversy. That does not make the baptism he performs illegitimate. But if he is not a lawfully ordained minister, then the "baptism" he performs is not a real baptism. If a 14 year old kid decides he is going to "baptize" his little brother in the stream, and decides to do it in a church setting, dunks his kid brother under the water, pronounces the Trinitarian baptism formula, would we say that a real baptism has taken place? I would say no. The Southern Presbyterians would say no, because they believe that it has to be done by a lawfully ordained minister. The Southern position argues this way: 1. Rome is not part of the visible church. 2. Therefore, Rome does not have legitimately ordained ministers. 3. Therefore, the rite that Romanist priests perform is not baptism. It is not true, confessionally, that any old person can perform a baptism. It has to be a lawfully ordained minister of the gospel.

The only other option that I have seen by the Northern position is to argue that Romanist baptisms are valid, but irregular, and the priests don't have the inherent authority to perform them, but yet God still baptizes them despite the irregularity of the status of the priests. This does not seem to me to be consistent with the analogy of faith. Only the properly ordained priests of the OT times were allowed to perform the ceremonial rites. Do we not believe that only lawfully ordained ministers of the gospel can perform similar New Testament rites?

Before the naysayers chime in here, let me note a couple of things. Firstly, I am extremely well aware that the Southern Presbyterian position is in the minority here, not only today, but also in Presbyterian history. I know that Calvin, Hodge (not Hobbes!), and many others, would oppose my position on this. I also know that the Southern position can result in many sticky and difficult practical cases. Still, I believe that Rome is no true church. I believe that, just as Rome has perverted the gospel, so also has she perverted the sacraments. She has anathematized believers, and so she has no true church discipline. Therefore she is not part of the visible church at all. Therefore she does not have legitimately ordained ministers. Therefore, her priests do not administer true sacraments. Just as we do not believe that Romanist priests administer the true Lord's Supper, but rather an idolatrous perversion of the Lord's Supper, so also I believe we should hold that they do not administer true baptism, either.
 
greenbaggins said:
As southern Presbyterians try to make clear, however, the issue is not about the regeneracy or lack thereof of the minister. Southern Presbyterians believe that a valid baptism has three essential components, not two: the formula, God's blessing, and the performance of it by a lawfully ordained minister (and that this last element is to be objectively determined, as it is by no means a subjective state of the person, or any kind of inward characteristic). Consider, for instance, WCF 28:2, which states, "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" (emphasis added). What Southern Presbyterians point out is a relatively simple concept: if we are going to accept that Romanist baptisms are valid, then we also have to accept that Romanist priests are ministers of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto. It is absolutely impossible confessionally to state that Romanist baptisms are valid, and yet simultaneously claim that Romanist priests are not ministers of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto. The question can then be stated relatively simply: does a Romanist priest have the lawfully-ordained, gospel-preaching authority to perform valid baptisms?

I must confess that sometimes I have a hard time understanding why the Northern Presbyterian position never seems to be able to understand what the Southern position is driving at. Accusations of Donatism don't help any. Donatism was about the subjective state of the minister, not the objective state of whether he was a lawfully ordained minister or not. Southern Presbyterians reject Donatism. The minister who administers a true baptism may be a completely unregenerated heretic. He may be a traditor, according to the old problematic practice of giving up Scriptures to the persecutors, that caused the Donatist controversy. That does not make the baptism he performs illegitimate. But if he is not a lawfully ordained minister, then the "baptism" he performs is not a real baptism. If a 14 year old kid decides he is going to "baptize" his little brother in the stream, and decides to do it in a church setting, dunks his kid brother under the water, pronounces the Trinitarian baptism formula, would we say that a real baptism has taken place? I would say no. The Southern Presbyterians would say no, because they believe that it has to be done by a lawfully ordained minister. The Southern position argues this way: 1. Rome is not part of the visible church. 2. Therefore, Rome does not have legitimately ordained ministers. 3. Therefore, the rite that Romanist priests perform is not baptism. It is not true, confessionally, that any old person can perform a baptism. It has to be a lawfully ordained minister of the gospel.

The only other option that I have seen by the Northern position is to argue that Romanist baptisms are valid, but irregular, and the priests don't have the inherent authority to perform them, but yet God still baptizes them despite the irregularity of the status of the priests. This does not seem to me to be consistent with the analogy of faith. Only the properly ordained priests of the OT times were allowed to perform the ceremonial rites. Do we not believe that only lawfully ordained ministers of the gospel can perform similar New Testament rites?

Before the naysayers chime in here, let me note a couple of things. Firstly, I am extremely well aware that the Southern Presbyterian position is in the minority here, not only today, but also in Presbyterian history. I know that Calvin, Hodge (not Hobbes!), and many others, would oppose my position on this. I also know that the Southern position can result in many sticky and difficult practical cases. Still, I believe that Rome is no true church. I believe that, just as Rome has perverted the gospel, so also has she perverted the sacraments. She has anathematized believers, and so she has no true church discipline. Therefore she is not part of the visible church at all. Therefore she does not have legitimately ordained ministers. Therefore, her priests do not administer true sacraments. Just as we do not believe that Romanist priests administer the true Lord's Supper, but rather an idolatrous perversion of the Lord's Supper, so also I believe we should hold that they do not administer true baptism, either.
Click to expand...

I've been terribly impressed with the modern "Northern position," as evinced in some comments here, even as I acknowledge the validity of RCC baptism. The historical position, which I find myself in agreement with, acknowledged the validity also of RCC ordination and considered it part of the basis for their baptisms being valid.

Reformed theologians of the past like Turretin did not accept the validity of Roman baptisms performed by laypersons or women. This being the case, the view that for a baptism to be valid requires only the correct formula and that the status of the "minister" is irrelevant would not have been shared by them and is, as far as I can see, novel to relatively recent American Presbyterianism. Baptism is not a private act, it is an ecclesial one, and does not exist without some relation to the visible church. The Reformers, for instance in the document Logan helpfully provided, over and over again recognize that a RCC baptism is valid in part because Roman priests still stand as "true pastors" (to use Perkins' terms). Indeed, Rutherford argued that the validity of RCC baptism actually proves the validity of the RCC ordination. I think that the Southern position makes perfect sense to those of us who hold the traditional one. It's just that we see Rome as more analogous to apostate Israel whose priests could still legitimately administer circumcision than to, for instance, Mormons or Muslims.
 
greenbaggins said:
Therefore she does not have legitimately ordained ministers. Therefore, her priests do not administer true sacraments.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, then, none of the purported baptisms by the first generation reformers who came out of the Roman church were valid, the reformers were not validly baptized, and those who were ordained in the Roman church were not really pastors?
 
To say Roman Catholic priests are not lawfully ordained ministers is to say they have no right to preach the Gospel.
 
For those dashing in and out of this thread, what are the distinctives between the way the Northern Presbyterian view held RCC baptism valid and how the historical Presbyterian and Reformed view does?
TheOldCourse said:
I've been terribly impressed with the modern "Northern position," as evinced in some comments here, even as I acknowledge the validity of RCC baptism. The historical position,
Click to expand...
 
TheOldCourse said:
Baptism is not a private act, it is an ecclesial one, and does not exist without some relation to the visible church.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Never implied otherwise (if u were referring to my posts). Sacramentology is church based and even if the organization has issues, if it is done in Christ's name, it is done as a church function because it originated as a church function. One cannot divorce one from the other.

the view that for a baptism to be valid requires only the correct formula and that the status of the "minister" is irrelevant would not have been shared by them and is, as far as I can see, novel to relatively recent American Presbyterianism.
Click to expand...

Well, surely it is not 'irrelevant' but the efficacy/validity cannot be dependent on the status either. How many people have been baptized by an organization that did not have the marks in place? How about faulty ordinations? Unregenerate elders?

Nigel Lee does well in dealing with Thornwell's assessment here:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/men...alidity-of-the-baptism-of-the-church-of-rome/
 
Last edited:
NaphtaliPress said:
For those dashing in and out of this thread, what are the distinctives between the way the Northern Presbyterian view held RCC baptism valid and how the historical Presbyterian and Reformed view does?
Click to expand...

I perhaps was a little imprecise to group all Northern Presbyterians together, but the frequent argument is made by those who claim to bear the mantle of Hodge today is that a valid baptism only requires the proper Trinitarian form and that the status of the one baptizing is irrelevant as to the validity of the sacrament.

The historical position, as I understand it exemplified by Rutherford, Turretin, etc. is that a valid baptism must be administrated by a lawfully ordained minister of the visible church in addition to being in the correct form. It agrees that regeneration of the minister is not required, against the Donatists, but a lawful ordination is. Hodge himself admits that the Presbyterian and Reformed churches had almost universally invalidated lay baptism though he seems hesitant to adopt the same. Thus, in maintaining the validity of RCC baptism the historical position also maintained the validity of RCC ordination and acknowledge it as a visible church of Christ, albeit one terribly corrupted and beset by the abuses of the Antichrist.
 
Last edited:
TheOldCourse said:
I perhaps was a little imprecise to group all Northern Presbyterians together, but the frequent argument is made by those who claim to bear the mantle of Hodge today is that a valid baptism only requires the proper Trinitarian form and that the status of the one baptizing is irrelevant.

The historical position, as I understand it exemplified by Rutherford, Turretin, etc. is that a valid baptism must be administrated by a lawfully ordained minister of the visible church in addition to being in the correct form. It agrees that regeneration of the minister is not required, against the Donatists, but a lawful ordination is. Hodge himself admits that the Presbyterian and Reformed churches had almost universally invalidated lay baptism though he seems hesitant to adopt the same. Thus, in maintaining the validity of RCC baptism the historical position also maintained the validity of RCC ordination and acknowledge it as a visible church of Christ, albeit one terribly corrupted and beset by the abuses of the Antichrist.
Click to expand...

Some quotes to this effect (mostly gathered from Logan's helpful document):

Perkins:

I. By this doctrine they are justly to be blamed, who would have their children rebaptized, which were before baptized by Popish priests; because the sacrament, though administered by a Papist, if he stand in the room of a true pastor; & keep the form thereof, is a true sacrament.

(...)
If it be said, that then the true sacraments may be out of the true church, as in the church of Rome at this day; because heretics and such like ministers are not of the church. I answer, that there is in the church of Rome, the hidden church of God, and the Sacraments are there used, not for the Romish church, but for the hidden church which is in the midst of Papacy; like as the lantern bears light not for itself, but for the passengers: yet hence it follows not, that we should communicate with idolaters, heretics, and wicked persons.
Click to expand...

Rutherford:

Though prelates invade the place of the Church, yet because [1.], they themselves be pastors and have power to teach and baptize as pastors called of Christ, Mat. 18.19, [and 2.] because they stand for the Church, approving, or some way by silence consenting (as in the case of Caiaphas entry to the priest-hood) there[fore], these who are baptized by them, are not re-baptized, and those who are ordained pastors by them are not re-ordained, but have a calling to the Ministry and do validly confer a calling upon others.

(...)

I answer: That proveth a difference between the ministery and baptism, which is not the question at issue; but it [still] proveth not this to be false: if Rome's baptism be lawful in its essence, so is Rome’s ministry.
Click to expand...

Turretin:

II. On the other hand we contend that the baptism by laymen (of whatever sex they may be) is a nullity

(....)

VI. Although heretics are not true members of the invisible church, that does not hinder them from administering true baptism provided they retain its essentials; for they accommodate the tongue and hand only in this act to God. It is God who baptized and who is efficacious through the minister; as God through a corrupt ministry can gather a church from adults, so through baptism administered by heretics from infants. For although they do not belong to the orthodox church, still they can belong to the external but impure church. In them, the infidelity of men does not make void the faith of God, because baptism is not of men, but of God, which he wishes sometimes to be conserved in an impure church; as we find that God still preserved a remnant under Ahab in the time of Elijah (1 K. 19:18), however much the church had been corrupted in other ways.
Click to expand...
 
As an aside, lay baptism seems to be increasingly common in evangelical Baptist circles and is something that must be reckoned with. I have heard multiple Baptist ministers over the last few years arguing that it is proper for a convert to be baptized by the one who led them to Christ regardless of their ordination status, oftentimes a father or friend. Perhaps that view has been around for quite some time but I hadn't come across it much until recently. I would expect that a modern "Northern" Presbyterian would not "re"-baptize such a person but a "Southern" or historical Presbyterian would.
 
Edward said:
Just to be clear, then, none of the purported baptisms by the first generation reformers who came out of the Roman church were valid, the reformers were not validly baptized, and those who were ordained in the Roman church were not really pastors?
Click to expand...

Most Southern Presbyterians will respond by saying that the Council of Trent was the hard line when Rome ceased being a part of the visible church. I would be cheerfully willing to grant that the ordinations of anyone ordained before Trent were lawful ordinations, and that any people baptized by that generation of priests were truly baptized, even if that baptism happened after Trent. But I would say that any "ordinations" after Trent in the Roman communion were not lawful ordinations, so anyone "baptized" by someone ordained after Trent was not baptized at all. At Trent, Rome anathematized the gospel, kicked out those who believed in the true gospel, and made idols out of the sacraments. At Trent, Rome destroyed the marks of the church within herself.
 
TheOldCourse said:
lay baptism seems to be increasingly common in evangelical Baptist circles and is something that must be reckoned with.
Click to expand...

Chris,
Most people in this country originally come out of these folds. Many Presbyterians started out in Arminian, baptist settings; many, in questionable groups. What do we do with these? Are they only irregular? The ordinations, are they valid? The way I see it, it is all based on some divining rod of sorts. Would the reformers accept the ordinations? I know of no church, PCA or OPC who rebaptise people who come out of a Calvary Chapel and join the PCA or OPC. In fact, a Particular Baptist setting I attended prior to my Presbyterianism, acknowledged a CC elder as valid. in my opinion, this is the larger issue, not Rome's baptism.

Lane,
If it is not Donatism, based on what u said, what other groups would you say are not valid baptisms?
 
Last edited:
“We condemn the papal assemblies, as the pure Word of God is banished from them [and] their sacraments are corrupted or falsified…. Nevertheless, as some trace of the Church is left in the papacy, and the virtue and substance of baptism remain, and as the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon the person who administers it — we confess that those baptized in it do not need a second baptism. But, on account of its corruptions, we cannot present children to be baptised in it without incurring pollution.”

Calvin
 
Scott Bushey said:
Chris,
Most people in this country originally come out of these folds. Many Presbyterians started out in Arminian, baptist settings; many, in questionable groups. What do we do with these? Are they only irregular? The ordinations, are they valid? The way I see it, it is all based on some divining rod of sorts. Would the reformers accept the ordinations? I know of no church, PCA or OPC who rebaptise people who come out of a Calvary Chapel and join the PCA or OPC. In fact, a Particular Baptist setting I attended prior to my Presbyterianism, acknowledged a CC elder as valid. in my opinion, this is the larger issue, not Rome's baptism.
Click to expand...

The modern situation is much messier, no doubt, and the Northern view, being the most generous, would makes things a lot simpler. The other views may precipitate some awkward and difficult pastoral conversations. As you know my wife was baptized in the RCC church. She became a member in the CanRC which takes the traditional view and then transferred to an OPC church where the pastor took the Southern view. That's a difficult situation for the pastor who, in his conscience, has to regard her as unbaptized and yet also must give due acknowledgment to the letter of transfer from a sister church acknowledging her as a baptized member in good standing.

Interestingly enough, as I recall the Lutherans took a view similar to what's being described here as the Northern one and have accepted lay baptisms as valid. I haven't seen @DMcFadden around much lately but perhaps he could confirm.
 
Scott Bushey said:
“We condemn the papal assemblies, as the pure Word of God is banished from them [and] their sacraments are corrupted or falsified…. Nevertheless, as some trace of the Church is left in the papacy, and the virtue and substance of baptism remain, and as the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon the person who administers it — we confess that those baptized in it do not need a second baptism. But, on account of its corruptions, we cannot present children to be baptised in it without incurring pollution.”

Calvin
Click to expand...

Yes, Calvin was clear on the matter as well. Given that Calvin wrote mostly pre-Trent I thought the later writers were more illuminating given that the Southern Presbyterians, like Lane, have usually used that as the line in the sand. I respect the Southern position immensely and am a fan of Thornwell, but it seems unlikely to me that the RCC ceased being part of the visible church in any sense in 1563 and it just took Presbyterianism three centuries to realize it (or at least its ramifications). It's not as if they missed the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre or other full manifestations of the spirit of Antichrist in it
 
Someone tell me the difference between the papacy after the Council of Trent (Reformation/Puritan era) and the papacy after Vatican 1 and 2 (Today).
 
greenbaggins said:
Accusations of Donatism don't help any. Donatism was about the subjective state of the minister, not the objective state of whether he was a lawfully ordained minister or not. Southern Presbyterians reject Donatism. The minister who administers a true baptism may be a completely unregenerated heretic. He may be a traditor, according to the old problematic practice of giving up Scriptures to the persecutors, that caused the Donatist controversy. That does not make the baptism he performs illegitimate. But if he is not a lawfully ordained minister, then the "baptism" he performs is not a real baptism. If a 14 year old kid decides he is going to "baptize" his little brother in the stream, and decides to do it in a church setting, dunks his kid brother under the water, pronounces the Trinitarian baptism formula, would we say that a real baptism has taken place? I would say no. The Southern Presbyterians would say no, because they believe that it has to be done by a lawfully ordained minister. The Southern position argues this way: 1. Rome is not part of the visible church. 2. Therefore, Rome does not have legitimately ordained ministers. 3. Therefore, the rite that Romanist priests perform is not baptism. It is not true, confessionally, that any old person can perform a baptism. It has to be a lawfully ordained minister of the gospel.
Click to expand...


Lane,
A few things:

1) Please define 'lawfully ordained'.
2) How is a baptism by an 'unregenerate heretic', different from a Papist?
3) Exactly, what baptisms would you say are valid? Church of Christ? Methodists? Calvary Chapel? Episcopal bishop?
4) What about congregational baptists whose 'ordination' is essentially from the membership?

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Scott Bushey said:
Lane,
If it is not Donatism, based on what you said, what other groups would you say are not valid baptisms?
Click to expand...

Different Southern Presbyterians will, no doubt, draw the line differently. I would say that if a denomination has anathematized the gospel, it has ceased to be part of the true visible church. But this is tricky, too. There might be some faithful churches still in a denomination that has anathematized the gospel. There has to be a case-by-case analysis done that takes extenuating circumstances into account, since it is difficult to make generalizations.

Scott Bushey said:
Lane,
A few things:

1) Please define 'lawfully ordained'.
2) How is a baptism by an 'unregenerate heretic', different from a Papist?
3) Exactly, what baptisms would you say are valid? Church of Christ? Methodists? Calvary Chapel? Episcopal bishop?
4) What about congregational baptists whose 'ordination' is essentially from the membership?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

1. As I currently see things, I would define "lawfully ordained" this way: a. It has to happen in a church that is part of the true visible church. b. It has to happen by a church's validation (I think a congregationalist's ordination is valid). c. It has to happen to a man. d. It has to happen with the laying on of hands. There might be other essential components, but this is my working definition for now.
2. My example of an "unregenerate heretic" would be someone who is ordained in a church that is still part of the true visible church but has heretical views. The Papist is a heretic who is not part of the true visible church. The validity of a minister's ordination does not depend on his own personal theological views, but it does depend on whether the ordaining body is part of the true visible church or not.
3. To my current knowledge, none of the denoms you listed have anathematized the gospel. They all have serious problems, and are slipping. But they still allow room for folks who believe the gospel.
4. See my answer to 1.

TheOldCourse said:
The modern situation is much messier, no doubt, and the Northern view, being the most generous, would makes things a lot simpler. The other views may precipitate some awkward and difficult pastoral conversations. As you know my wife was baptized in the RCC church. She became a member in the CanRC which takes the traditional view and then transferred to an OPC church where the pastor took the Southern view. That's a difficult situation for the pastor who, in his conscience, has to regard her as unbaptized and yet also must give due acknowledgment to the letter of transfer from a sister church acknowledging her as a baptized member in good standing.
Click to expand...

This is indeed a sticky situation. However, I think there is room in the Southern view for recognition (and action upon such a recognition) that it is a minority position. If such a person came to me, I would argue for respecting the CanRC's reception into membership, and I would not go for a baptism of the person. It's irregular, sure. But we are faced with plenty of irregularities in church life, and we have to be ecumenically aware. In this case, we would have two conflicting priorities: 1. the person is not baptized, according to the Southern view; but 2. a fellow NAPARC church received her into membership, and this deserves respect. So which of these two principles should trump the other? I think that if the Southern position is going to co-exist peacably alongside the Northern position, which I see no reason why it should not, then it should respect the pastoral decisions of fellow NAPARC churches, and also humbly maintain its self-awareness as a minority position, and not seek to stir up trouble.
 
shoe said:
Yes, I think you've understood the root of that position correctly. Many of those who reject the baptism of the Church of Rome, do so on essentially the same basis that they would reject a baptism by the Church of Latter Day Saints. Any society of men is able to define what they intend by various religious rites. But the argument is that any society which has rejected the Gospel is not a Christian Church, so its ministers are not "lawful ministers of Christ", so its rites are not Christian rites.
Click to expand...
This is how I would see this issue, as for one to be able to claim that a water baptism was valid and from the Lord, they would have to be aprt of a true NT Church, and do not see the Church of Rome as teaching the real Gospel message of Christ.
 
Scott Bushey said:
Me thinks you do not; the efficacy of baptism cannot be tied to the church nor minister, else all those who have been baptized by a group that doesn't have the marks that make a church, a true church and those ministers who were unregenerate the time of placing the sign, would be faulty. The efficacy of baptism is in formula and Christ alone.

Also, consider proper ordination into the equation and then you have a perfect storm considering all 3 things.
Click to expand...
The ulimate authority would be from Jesus and the scriptures, and a Church like Rome has not the true Gospel being taught, so loses their foundation authority to be valid in water baptism.
 
Edward said:
Just to be clear, then, none of the purported baptisms by the first generation reformers who came out of the Roman church were valid, the reformers were not validly baptized, and those who were ordained in the Roman church were not really pastors?
Click to expand...
Can there even be valid ministers if the church is not a NT one, and has another false Gospel message being taught?
 
greenbaggins said:
Different Southern Presbyterians will, no doubt, draw the line differently. I would say that if a denomination has anathematized the gospel, it has ceased to be part of the true visible church. But this is tricky, too. There might be some faithful churches still in a denomination that has anathematized the gospel. There has to be a case-by-case analysis done that takes extenuating circumstances into account, since it is difficult to make generalizations.

1. As I currently see things, I would define "lawfully ordained" this way: a. It has to happen in a church that is part of the true visible church. b. It has to happen by a church's validation (I think a congregationalist's ordination is valid). c. It has to happen to a man. d. It has to happen with the laying on of hands. There might be other essential components, but this is my working definition for now.
2. My example of an "unregenerate heretic" would be someone who is ordained in a church that is still part of the true visible church but has heretical views. The Papist is a heretic who is not part of the true visible church. The validity of a minister's ordination does not depend on his own personal theological views, but it does depend on whether the ordaining body is part of the true visible church or not.
3. To my current knowledge, none of the denoms you listed have anathematized the gospel. They all have serious problems, and are slipping. But they still allow room for folks who believe the gospel.
4. See my answer to 1.

This is indeed a sticky situation. However, I think there is room in the Southern view for recognition (and action upon such a recognition) that it is a minority position. If such a person came to me, I would argue for respecting the CanRC's reception into membership, and I would not go for a baptism of the person. It's irregular, sure. But we are faced with plenty of irregularities in church life, and we have to be ecumenically aware. In this case, we would have two conflicting priorities: 1. the person is not baptized, according to the Southern view; but 2. a fellow NAPARC church received her into membership, and this deserves respect. So which of these two principles should trump the other? I think that if the Southern position is going to co-exist peacably alongside the Northern position, which I see no reason why it should not, then it should respect the pastoral decisions of fellow NAPARC churches, and also humbly maintain its self-awareness as a minority position, and not seek to stir up trouble.
Click to expand...
The Church of Rome officially holds and supports another and false Gospel, so how can those who are authorized by it to teach and administer rites be valid in the sense as being duly authorized by Jesus to perform those acts in His name?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Polanus1561
Vos on Infant Baptism
Replies
6
Views
1K
CGS
C
dsanch1120
Hodge on Infant Baptism
Replies
4
Views
1K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
Kaalvenist
  • Locked
Thoughts on Infant Baptism
Replies
6
Views
2K
Larry Hughes
L
thistle93
  • Locked
infant baptism questions?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Marrow Man
Marrow Man
scottmaciver
  • Locked
Infant Baptism
Replies
0
Views
1K
scottmaciver
scottmaciver
Back
Top