R.C. Sproul, Jr. RCC Baptismal Efficacy

[py3ak]

Thank you very much for your post, Alan. I have thought for some time that there is no church, no pastor, no communion from which I could not be driven away by focusing on their failures; it is only Christ who can perfectly satisfy even an all-consuming mental scrutiny and never disappoint the most fervent devotion.
And it seems that one of our most frequent failures is in the command expressed more than once in Romans, to receive one another to the glory of God. Whether we simply forget it, or whether we lose patience because someone does not make progress apparent to us in the (always partial) areas of holiness that we care about most, or at a rate of progress that suits us, we often fall notoriously short in this regard - and yet we can err in an identical way by not receiving someone for whom receiving others is also a particular struggle!
Just a few days ago I spent 20 minutes delivering a stern mental lecture to someone on the topic that his pet peeve did not count for more than the pet hang up of the person who triggered his point of irritation. Fortunately I was driving and not able to give voice to my first thoughts; by the time I remembered that if Earl Peeve needed to receive Mistress Hang-up I also needed to receive Earl Peeve, it would appear that his lordship had decided it would be best to be longsuffering.
I should probably call a halt: when you have touched on two points as dear to my heart and as much in my thoughts as our sister Margaret and the command for mutual reception, I must especially beware of derailing threads.

 

[Mushroom]

How can you ever be completely sure - in this life - that someone else is elect?

Regeneration goggles. You can get them at Amazon.com. They're pretty handy.

They used to be sold using mail order ads on the back of comic books, didn't they? I always wanted to order them, but could only afford the whoopie cushion and Dracula teeth...

Or the Joy Buzzer.... those were coool!

So, is my Nazarene baptism at age 30 invalid, since they are a full-blown pelagian communion? If so, I could always fall back on my arminian charismatic baptism at age 20, but perhaps that one was defective as well? No problem, I still have my United Methodist infant baptism... but wait! Oh well, maybe we oughta just take the Chicagoan view of baptism... do it early and often and all the bases will be covered.

 

[dudley]

Roman's DON'T view communion like reformed people do. Neither side accepts the other side. This is a battleground. They think you are literally digesting Christ. How could the reformed camp say anything but no to Roman communion?

One battleground.

But this is not the determinative factor.

In the PCA, all those who are members in good standing of churches WHERE THIS GOSPEL IS PREACHED (Evangelical) are invited to partake in the Lord's Supper.

That's what differentiates Rome.

(This gospel is not preached there).

Presbyterian Church In America (PCA)
Book of Church Order

Chapter 58
The Administration of the Lord's Supper

4.b.

....

Since, by our Lord's appointment, this Sacrament sets forth the
Communion of Saints, the minister, at the discretion of the Session, before
the observance begins, may either invite all those who profess the true
religion, and are communicants in good standing in any evangelical church,
to participate in the ordinance; or may invite those who have been approved
by the Session, after having given indication of their desire to participate.

I agree with Scott that RC baptism is not valid. I am Presbyterian by Public acclimation of faith. My Presbyterian congregation and session accepted my rc baptism. All the Presbyterian churches I explored OPC, PCA and PCusa all accepted my Roman catholic baptism. However I began to question it for the reasons above and others. I had been a communing Presbyterian for over 2 years. My congregation elders presented my request to the session but they also declined my request saying they accepted my rc baptism. I joined a Reformed Baptist congregation in the fall 2009 for several months and was baptized by immersion on Reformation Sunday October 25th 2009. I also was then welcomed to the ordinance of the Lords Supper later in the service the same day. I Later returned to Presbyterianism in 2010.

 

[Scott1]

I agree with Scott that RC baptism is not valid. I am Presbyterian by Public acclimation of faith. My Presbyterian congregation and session accepted my rc baptism. All the Presbyterian churches I explored OPC, PCA and PCusa all accepted my Roman catholic baptism. However I began to question it for the reasons above and others. I had been a communing Presbyterian for over 2 years. My congregation elders presented my request to the session but they also declined my request saying they accepted my rc baptism. I joined a Reformed Baptist congregation in the fall 2009 for several months and was baptized by immersion on Reformation Sunday October 25th 2009. I also was then welcomed to the ordinance of the Lords Supper later in the service the same day. I Later returned to Presbyterianism in 2010.

I've come to accept both ways of viewing this as honest differences with support in both Scripture and the witness of church history and also greatly value the spiritual judgment God has placed in the church to decide such matters, e.g. the church Session.

Anecdotal evidence only, about 1/3 of PCA churches would not accept Roman Baptism as valid, 1/3 would, and another 1/3 either case by case or allowing baptism after a Roman one if the congregant has conviction for it. There is church authority to do that, with a 4-1 study committee (4 for invalid Roman baptism, 1 for its invalidity) being looked to as guidance by the Session or Presbytery.

Dudley's case does again underscore the difficulty and struggle with this, explaining and understanding it. I know of someone who came to Presbyterianism by way of a Baptist church, and to this day, automatically accepts that the Roman baptism is not sufficient. Again, not to belabor the comparison, but it seems strange to them renouncing communion by way of the Lord's Supper, but recognizing it by way of baptism.

I'll tread lightly here, knowing this is a matter of conscience for many (renouncing the former ways of Romanism).
Two cents.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Patrick, it would seem that without the full context of the letter one could no more affirm that the representation was unfair than one could say that it was completely fair. If any ameliorations of such a phrase have been withheld, so have any aggravations of it.

Ruben, this would assume one is not personally acquainted with the person in question, and of course I would then agree with you. But having broke bread with the man on several occasions, I feel I may have a wee bit more insight here. I will drop the point.

Maragaret, I certainly meant no malice in my request for more context surrounding your communication with RC. For the record, RC is not my regula fidei and we have disagreed on occasion . He is someone whose heart I think I know reasonably well from our personal interactions. I apologize for the stress my question caused you. And while we are at it, forget Rome. If you will view my profile you will note I have been there and dug in deep there. It is not a pretty place to be.

AMR

 

[chuckd]

Even the doctrine regarding the Trinity could be wrong (e.g. the Eastern Orthodox is off in this regard) and still have the pronouncement.

This is the second time in this thread that someone made a comment on the Eastern Orthodox and their Trinitarian views. I was always under the impression that they've done the most research in that area (and personhood, being, hypostatic union, etc.) and we adopted our views from them.

e.g. John Zizioulas' Being as Communion

 

[Scott1]

Even the doctrine regarding the Trinity could be wrong (e.g. the Eastern Orthodox is off in this regard) and still have the pronouncement.

This is the second time in this thread that someone made a comment on the Eastern Orthodox and their Trinitarian views. I was always under the impression that they've done the most research in that area (and personhood, being, hypostatic union, etc.) and we adopted our views from them.

e.g. John Zizioulas' Being as Communion

Actually, the Eastern Orthodox schism with the Roman Church was over this issue. It's why there are two communions.
You may find helpful a search of previous posts on that topic.

 

[a mere housewife]

Even the doctrine regarding the Trinity could be wrong (e.g. the Eastern Orthodox is off in this regard) and still have the pronouncement.

This is the second time in this thread that someone made a comment on the Eastern Orthodox and their Trinitarian views. I was always under the impression that they've done the most research in that area (and personhood, being, hypostatic union, etc.) and we adopted our views from them.

e.g. John Zizioulas' Being as Communion

This thread might be especially helpful -- Rev. Winzer's comments are very clear.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/athanasian-creed-consequence-denying-filioque-68357/?referrerid=2689

PS. Margaret, I absolutely agree that you are a pearl, and very beloved by and very much a blessing to your family in the Lord.