Resources on why we accept any trinitarian baptism

[SolaScriptura]

I have a friend who is on the verge of accepting paedobaptism. This has been a slow work in progress over the course of about 2 years... about 6 months ago I helped him see the legitimacy of covenant theology as a system and as of about 3 weeks ago he is seriously considering the issue of baptism. The cool thing is my friend is an EFCA pastor! Please pray for him as a switch could have serious ramifications.

Anyway, he has a question about why we (Reformed churches) accept baptism from anyone so long as it was administered with the Trinitarian formula. He would like some resources that explain why it is ok to accept the baptism of true heretics as long as they hold on to the use of the Trinitarian formula. He believes that doing so removes any real Gospel meaning from the sacrament.

Any resources would be helpful.
Thanks!

[Edited on 9-12-2006 by SolaScriptura]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

This resource may be helpful (particularly see Francis Turretin, pp. 48ff).

 

[SolaScriptura]

Attached is the PCA's Study Committee report on the validity of certain baptisms. Please note that this represents the majority report of the committee. I think it is well done and very helpful:

http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-079.pdf

Here is the minority report from the study committee (the folks who think that RC baptism should be accepted).

http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-093.pdf

 

[BobVigneault]

Explain to him that a baptism can be valid even if it is not scriptural. We face this same tension in many of our convictions and both our sacraments. Some won't go to a church because they don't serve alcoholic wine during the Lord's Supper. This does not take away from the validity of the sacrament.

Let's say an elder is ordained on a certain Suday. Somehow the pastor forgot to call the other elders to lay their hands on him and those who realized the mistake didn't want to make waves. A prayer of dedication was prayed and a vow was made but no hands. Was the ordination biblical? No. Was it valid? Most likely.

Or do you think I'm out to lunch here.

 

[ServantOfKing]

So as someone who was baptized Roman Catholic as an infant and then at age 12 immersed, would it be most correct to hold that RC baptism as my valid baptism not the one made with a profession of faith?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by ServantOfKing
So as someone who was baptized Roman Catholic as an infant and then at age 12 immersed, would it be most correct to hold that RC baptism as my valid baptism not the one made with a profession of faith?

The RC baptism was "valid" and a true baptism, according to the Reformed (and I believe Lutheran) viewpoint. Your second act at age 12 was not a "baptism," but superfluous and unnecessary, according to Reformed theology (as there can BE no "second" baptism).

 

[ServantOfKing]

That makes sense... so according to reformed theology it was just an unnecessary act not a true baptism?

It makes sense, it's just funny because after finally coming to a Biblical understanding of baptism earlier this summer, I'm just now hitting me as to its ramifications on how I view my own baptism.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Ben,

Actually, I would not accept any baptism simply on the basis of water and the Trinity, including Rome's. I would somewhat echo your friend's concern that such a view has negative implications for the meaning of the Gospel in baptism. That is because, as a sacrament of the Church (along with the Lord's Supper) I do not see how baptism can be administered but by a minister who is representative of a true church, which preaches the true Gospel (along with the sacraments and order).

While it is true that many orthodox, Reformed theologians throughout history (Calvin included) have accepted the baptism of Rome as valid, not all have (I think Thornwell is one example) - and many Reformed pastors and thelogians today agree with me that Calvin and others were inconsistent on that point. There have been a number of discussions on the board regarding the issue, two of the most prominent ones being here and here.

Even if you do agree with (or end up agreeing with) the acceptance of Rome's baptism, I would definitely advise you to at least let your friend know that that is not the only view among the orthodox Reformed paedobaptists, historically or currently.

 

[JOwen]

If we do not accept Roman baptiams, Calvin was never a minister because he was never TRULY baptized. This would invalidate all the baptisms he preformed as well. Not to mention ordination.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Interestingly, in the documents I reference above... the MAJORITY vote of the PCA's study committee on the subject was to advise AGAINST accepting Roman baptism as valid.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Excuse my ignorance, as I am fairly new to the idea of Covenant Theology and infant baptism.

How is it possible that my baptism that was performed by a believing pastor on a believing child in a gospel church under the watchful eye of believing parents could be invalid simply because it was not performed when I was an infant, and yet, someone baptized by an apostate priest (RC) in an apostate church (RC) under the watchful eye of apostate parents be valid simply because it was performed when he was an infant?

I am really not trying to be sarcastic. I just truly don't understand. Would this not mean that any religion that claims some sort of Christian belief in the trinity could baptize infants and that would be acceptable to most Reformed people even if that religion denies justification by faith alone?

 

[SRoper]

"How is it possible that my baptism that was performed by a believing pastor on a believing child in a gospel church under the watchful eye of believing parents could be invalid simply because it was not performed when I was an infant, and yet, someone baptized by an apostate priest (RC) in an apostate church (RC) under the watchful eye of apostate parents be valid simply because it was performed when he was an infant?"

No one claimed that the first baptism you mentioned is invalid. What many are saying is if you were baptized as an infant and are "baptized" again when you are older, the second baptism is no baptism at all. We all agree that adults who come to faith and have not yet been baptized need to be baptized.

Actually the only part that is really in view here is the issue of the baptisms of an apostate church. The issue of the faith of the person who baptizes was already settled in the Donatist controversy.

 

[SRoper]

Furthermore, this in not an issue of paedobaptism vs. antipaedobaptism. The issue is the same no matter the age of the person who received a Roman baptism.

 

[MW]

If RCC baptisms are invalid, then my wife is unbaptised. I suppose that high church Anglican baptisms should also be considered as invalid -- which would make me unbaptised. Where will the line be drawn? Once you make the doctrinal intention of the church an issue here, in the current divided state of the church we will not be able to tell who, if any, are validly baptised. Better to adhere to the old way. Baptism is washing in water in the Trinitarian name -- that is valid baptism regardless of what the doctrinal intention of the minister or church is. What matters is God's faithfulness to His promises. The unfaithfulness of men cannot make void the faithfulness of God.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by armourbearer
Baptism is washing in water in the Trinitarian name -- that is valid baptism regardless of what the doctrinal intention of the minister or church is.

Then by this you affirm the legitimacy of Mormon baptisms.

I agree with the Majority opinion that I have posted above.

 

[MW]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura

Originally posted by armourbearer
Baptism is washing in water in the Trinitarian name -- that is valid baptism regardless of what the doctrinal intention of the minister or church is.

Then by this you affirm the legitimacy of Mormon baptisms.

Mormon baptism is not washing in water in the Trinitarian name. By profession they cannot even be regarded as washing in water in the name of divinity. Hence I do not affirm the legitimacy of Mormon baptisms.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Here comes the equivocation...
They use water and they use the Trinitarian formula.

Read teh majority report.

 

[Scott Bushey]

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs3/cotvorcb/cotvorcb.html

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/rebap.html

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs6/acts19/acts19.html

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by JOwen
If we do not accept Roman baptiams, Calvin was never a minister because he was never TRULY baptized. This would invalidate all the baptisms he preformed as well. Not to mention ordination.

Going along with the three marks of a true church, most would agree that Rome did not anathematize the Gospel until Trent - at which time Calvin and his contemporary Reformers would have already been baptized.

Originally posted by armourbearer
If RCC baptisms are invalid, then my wife is unbaptised. I suppose that high church Anglican baptisms should also be considered as invalid -- which would make me unbaptised. Where will the line be drawn? Once you make the doctrinal intention of the church an issue here, in the current divided state of the church we will not be able to tell who, if any, are validly baptised. Better to adhere to the old way. Baptism is washing in water in the Trinitarian name -- that is valid baptism regardless of what the doctrinal intention of the minister or church is. What matters is God's faithfulness to His promises. The unfaithfulness of men cannot make void the faithfulness of God.

The Church of England has not anathematized the Gospel and become a synagogue of Satan, as Westminster and essentally all of historic Reformed Christendom has recognized Rome as having done since Trent. And the reason that is significant is because the issue is not the doctrinal beliefs of the person administering the sacrament, but rather the nature and validity of the ecclesiastical body as a whole (i.e. whether it is part of the visible Church). Along that line, what can Rome be said to have as a supposed visible church of Christ that the Mormon church does not?

Also, would you partake of the Mass at, say, a Catholic funeral, wedding or the like?

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Also, would you partake of the Mass at, say, a Catholic funeral, wedding or the like?

Absolutely not! (And I would hope that none on this board would ever consider it!)

But this is a non sequitor if it is being used as an argument against accepting RC baptisms. Most would readily admit that RC sacraments are not bene esse of the Lord's sacraments, but the question is weather or not they contain the esse of the sacraments.

Following this, it would be better to be baptized in a reformed church, as the administration of the sacraments is more pure, just as the administration of the word is more pure. Therefore, if one has the choice, one should always choose the more pure of the two, especially where one church has denied and yes anathemetized the true gospel. But the question at hand should be more "How do we consider the baptism of those already baptized in the Roman Church State"? Is it valid or not? (Not bene)

Is there an administration of the Word in the RCC (however marred and apostate it might be)? Or when a priest reads the Word, because of the offical church doctrines, should one consider that "administration" in NO SENSE an administration of the Word?

The same line of thinking could be applied to baptism.

If it is a baptism at all, it is a valid baptism. Because it signifies regeneration, the sign is only as good as what it points to. Becasue one is only regenerated once, it is important that we not "redo" our baptism.

I am still thinking through the issues, but lean toward accepting RC baptisms (while deploring the RC ).

 

[SolaScriptura]

Again, and some of you really need to think about this as seriously as the PCA study committe has... There MUST be more involved than simply water and the invocation of the Trinitarian words, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" because if those are ALL that it takes for "it" to be considered a legitimate baptism then we MUST concede that the Mormons have legitimate baptisms. But of course you don't want to say that... so you equivocate.

If Rome is not a Christian church - and my Standards lump marrying a papist in the same class as marrying a heathen... call the Pope anti-Christ, etc... - then there is NO WAY that we can possibly argue that the priests who administer their sacrament are "lawfully ordained" or that they are giving a Christian sacrament any more than we can say that of the Mormon elders who baptize... at least not without equivocation, contradiction, and/or a general double standard.

But the fact that NONE of us would consider accepting a Mormon baptism as legitimate despite the fact that it is done with water and the invocation of the words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" should tell us that there IS more to the legitimate administration of the sacrament than merely following the right formula.

 

[Scott Bushey]

But the fact that NONE of us would consider accepting a Mormon baptism as legitimate despite the fact that it is done with water and the invocation of the words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" should tell us that there IS more to the legitimate administration of the sacrament than merely following the right formula.

Trent and Calvin agree that 'baptism by heretics' is valid


Alleges Trent:

"Whosoever shall say that Baptism, which is also given by heretics in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism -- let him be anathema!" Responds


Calvin:"Canon IV.

What the Minister intends to do, is of little consequence to us.... Let it suffice then, to have been baptized in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit -- whatever may have been the ignorance or impiety of those who administered baptism to us. Man is merely the hand. It is Christ alone Who truly and properly baptizes."

[Edited on 9-16-2006 by Scott Bushey]

[Edited on 9-16-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Trent and Calvin agree that 'baptism by heretics' is valid...

So you would recommend to a Session that it accept a Mormon baptism?

[Edited on 9-16-2006 by SolaScriptura]

 

[Scott Bushey]

So you would recommend to a Session that it accept a Mormon baptism?

I would.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

So you would recommend to a Session that it accept a Mormon baptism?

I would.

Ok.
Well, I profoundly disagree with your position... but I sure can't accuse you of being inconsistent.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

So you would recommend to a Session that it accept a Mormon baptism?

I would.

Ok.
Well, I profoundly disagree with your position... but I sure can't accuse you of being inconsistent.

Was Zipporahs circumcision invalid?

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by SolaScriptura

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

So you would recommend to a Session that it accept a Mormon baptism?

I would.

Ok.
Well, I profoundly disagree with your position... but I sure can't accuse you of being inconsistent.

Was Zipporahs circumcision invalid?

That's a great point Scott. Calvin viemently opposed Zipporah's "administration" of circumcision on her son, as she had absolutely no authority to do so, and yet it appeased the wrath of God (on either Moses or his son).

 

[Scott Bushey]

Rebaptism is a historic Anti-Protestant heresy.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Scott,

If a newly-converted friend of mine from college were to ask me if I could administer baptism to him, and I sprinkled water to him with the Trinitarian formula in our dorm or student center, would you consider him baptized?

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Is there an administration of the Word in the RCC (however marred and apostate it might be)? Or when a priest reads the Word, because of the offical church doctrines, should one consider that "administration" in NO SENSE an administration of the Word?

The same line of thinking could be applied to baptism.

I agree that the same line of thinking can be applied to both the preached Word and the administered sacrament (in this case baptism). And with regard to the Word, would I consider the reading of the Word by a priest a beneficial hearing of the Word itself? Yes - in the same sense that I would consider any given lay-person going through a passage of Scripture with a friend, or even an unbelieving professor discussing passages of Genesis with a humanities class. The Word always has the power to convict and purify the mind and heart, in any context or setting.

But if we want to compare the Word to the administration of the sacraments, what we need to specifically compare is the preached Word that carries the authority of the Church with it. And in that sense, I would indeed consider the reading or preaching of the Word by a priest no administration of the Word at all, any more than I would consider family devotions or class discussions to have the administrative nature or authority of the preached Word. And that is because Rome is not a church, any more than those other institutions (the family or the college).

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
If it is a baptism at all, it is a valid baptism. Because it signifies regeneration, the sign is only as good as what it points to. Becasue one is only regenerated once, it is important that we not "redo" our baptism.

Agreed - and as I explained above with regard to the preached Word as well, I do not accept their baptism as a valid baptism any more than I would accept my baptizing of a newly converted friend. But since you do consider Rome's baptism a valid baptism at all, your first sentence above logically applies to the Supper as well: Either it is a valid administration of it, or it is not. If Rome can validly administer the sacraments, why would you refuse to partake in the means of grace of their administration of the Supper?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Was Zipporahs circumcision invalid?

Sigh...

It was irregular. An analogous situation in modern churches would be someone coming for membership having been baptized by his youth pastor in a hot tub while on a youth retreat... or someone being baptized by his (unordained) dad because the local church is "fine" with it.

The question of the acceptability of Roman baptisms is more akin to me asking: Did the circumcision of the Egyptians or most of the pagans in the ANE make them members of the covenant people of God simply because they experienced the same physical thing as the people of Israel?

NO.

Because intent and context play a part.

But you disagree and I understand why.... I just hope you can understand why many of us disagree.