Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If we say nay, how do we avoid charges of neo-donatism? I understand how someone could say no, and the reasons thereto.
If the Roman Church today officially does not hold to a biblical Gospel (i.e. justification by faith [in Christ's righteousness] alone) how can one acting on its authority be a minister of "the Gospel"?Quote:
in the very least we must consider it to be valid though irregular since it was not performed by a minister of the gospel.
From history, we know the Eastern Orthodox Church broke off from the Roman Church over the issue of the eternality of the Holy Spirit, that is, over the nature of the Trinity. How can a church that officially does not hold the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, perform "Trinitarian" baptism?Quote:
I voted that both are valid, since they are both trinitarian (as far as I know).
My understanding is that the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) baptize with a Trinitarian pronouncement (i.e. In the Name...) but that it is not a valid Christian baptism.
If all that is required is a "Trinitarian" baptism, why would not such an one be valid?
My understanding is that the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) baptize with a Trinitarian pronouncement (i.e. In the Name...) but that it is not a valid Christian baptism.
If all that is required is a "Trinitarian" baptism, why would not such an one be valid?
If you redefine the term, you get a different term altogether. The persons in our Trinity are coequal and consubstantial. Their Jesus, for example, is a cosmic sex god who was once just like me...and you. So if by Trinity you mean what the early fathers meant, well and good. If by Trinity they mean sex gods, well it probably is a different term altogether. So while the baptize in the name of the Trinity, they do not mean the same thing we do.
I voted that both are valid, since they are both trinitarian (as far as I know).
From history, we know the Eastern Orthodox Church broke off from the Roman Church over the issue of the eternality of the Holy Spirit, that is, over the nature of the Trinity. How can a church that officially does not hold the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, perform "Trinitarian" baptism?
It'd be interesting to see how those who gave "invalid" answers stack up (ie: credo vs. paedo). Credo folks could heavily weigh things toward the "invalid" side, since they see all pre-profession baptisms as invalid.
The Trinitarian Formula isn't an incantation. The Mormons use the Trinitarian Formula when they baptize, but none of us would for a moment consider their baptisms valid.
If the Roman Church is a synagogue of satan, and if it is headed by an antichrist, then its ministers acting by that antichrist's "authority" are NOT administering a Christian baptism regardless of what words they employ. They may as well shake chicken bones and say, "ooga booga!"
For what it's worth, in Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government, by sundry Ministers of London (c. 1646). | Naphtali Press, the ministers argue for the validity of Roman Catholic baptism on the basis that the errors of individuals or institutions can invalidate Christ's ordination. I'm not certain if they would argue for the same for EO however.
For what it's worth, in Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government, by sundry Ministers of London (c. 1646). | Naphtali Press, the ministers argue for the validity of Roman Catholic baptism on the basis that the errors of individuals or institutions can invalidate Christ's ordination. I'm not certain if they would argue for the same for EO however.
I recognize that this is the historical reality. However, they never really seemed to come to grips with and account for the fact that they were arguing that the Roman Church is apostate, a synagogue of satan, etc... thus her "ordinations" really can't be construed as Christian ordinations. And that means her baptisms are no more valid that those administered by the Mormons.
Sure, they grant the falsity of Rome when it comes to the Lord's Supper. But if Rome is a true church, and if her ordinations are legitimate, however imperfect, then her administration of the Lord's Supper, however flawed, must be accepted as valid as well as her baptisms.
No. Rome is a false church. Her ordinations amount to nothing. Baptisms done by her priests are antichristian baptisms.
For what it's worth, in Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government, by sundry Ministers of London (c. 1646). | Naphtali Press, the ministers argue for the validity of Roman Catholic baptism on the basis that the errors of individuals or institutions can invalidate Christ's ordination. I'm not certain if they would argue for the same for EO however.
For what it's worth, in Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government, by sundry Ministers of London (c. 1646). | Naphtali Press, the ministers argue for the validity of Roman Catholic baptism on the basis that the errors of individuals or institutions can invalidate Christ's ordination. I'm not certain if they would argue for the same for EO however.
I would agree that a church could have serious errors of doctrine because the efficacy is tied to the thing signified.
I would even agree the visible church could be widely corrupt, even apostate taken as a whole, and there might be a vestigial remnant sufficient for lawful (biblical) authority to baptise. But doesn't that remnant require the Gospel, which as I understand it, is the object of baptism?
If the Church does not officially hold to the Gospel, how can the baptism be valid?
It seems the object of baptism is Gospel (salvation). If the entity does not hold that, how can one be a minister of something one does not hold?
1. We're talking about paedobaptism? and,
2. We're talking about the Visible Church?, and
For what it's worth, in Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or The Divine Right of Church Government, by sundry Ministers of London (c. 1646). | Naphtali Press, the ministers argue for the validity of Roman Catholic baptism on the basis that the errors of individuals or institutions can invalidate Christ's ordination. I'm not certain if they would argue for the same for EO however.
I would agree that a church could have serious errors of doctrine because the efficacy is tied to the thing signified.
I would even agree the visible church could be widely corrupt, even apostate taken as a whole, and there might be a vestigial remnant sufficient for lawful (biblical) authority to baptise. But doesn't that remnant require the Gospel, which as I understand it, is the object of baptism?
If the Church does not officially hold to the Gospel, how can the baptism be valid?
It seems the object of baptism is Gospel (salvation). If the entity does not hold that, how can one be a minister of something one does not hold?
Several things:
1. We're talking about paedobaptism? and,
2. We're talking about the Visible Church?, and
3. We're all agreed that the sign is not efficacious (magic) in and of itself?
For a similar analogy (to EO and Romanism), why not talk about the CRC or the PCUSA?
Do we agree that all these bodies are part of the Visible Church?
Membership in the VC is by profession and/or baptism?
Baptism is the means of grace/sign yet, "The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered."
I would venture to say that likewise, in credobaptism, a result of adult "salvation" and taking place under any ministry of the visible
church which may be more or less a synagogue of Satan, many babtees[!] may be truly part of the Invisible Church; and, moreover, be benificiaries of that means of grace despite the fact that,"members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them."
And, regarding:
The Westminster Confession, summarizing Scripture, says that baptism must be "a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto." (Chapter XXVIII 2.)
I would also venture to say (correct me if I am wrong) that the WCF is outlining the normal/proper/desirable way of doing things; but, not dismissing the vagaries of history wherein both sacraments and preaching were not necessarily accomplished by 'lawfully' ordained elders/pastors.
We must not tend to the opinion that the efficacy of the sacrament is dependent on the purity of the vessel administering it. Is it enough that that vessel is a member of the visible church?
And what do we make of WCF XXVIII?
Would like to hear more on this whole issue.
I also don't believe in accepting the baptisms from liberal denominations either. The baptizer must be a minister of the gospel. As was mentioned before, why not accept the baptisms of the mormons or jehovah's witness' if the doctrine of the group doesn't matter?
Remember that in Reformed theology with infant baptism, adult ("credo") baptisms are also done.
Infants are baptized to recognize promises (signs and seals) made to the children of believers whereas adults are baptized upon profession of faith. Both. So, the issue of a previous Roman baptism could involve, for example, someone who had a Roman baptism as an adult and then entered a Reformed Church later on.
I also don't believe in accepting the baptisms from liberal denominations either. The baptizer must be a minister of the gospel. As was mentioned before, why not accept the baptisms of the mormons or jehovah's witness' if the doctrine of the group doesn't matter?
But, many do recognize the RC and EO as part of the 'visible' Church; whereas moroniites and russellites are not recognized as part of the visible Church.
I understand and respect your understanding. From Puritan Board, I have come to understand this is the common view among those who hold to "believer's baptism."I guess thats the main issue of the debate then. I do not consider Roman Catholicism, any liberal denom., or any cult a part of the visible Church. They do not preach or believe in the gospel. I certainly wouldn't take communion with any of those groups so why should their Baptisms be accepted?
I would be less flippant in saying EO isn't a Christian church. Read Robert Letham, an ultra-conservative, ultra-Calvinistic OPC elder, on the EO.
Amazon.com: Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy A Reformed Perspective: Letham, Robert: Books
While we rightly want to preserve the purity of the gospel, we don't want to end up saying that most of the church before Luther wasn't a church. Robert Reymond comes very close to this in his systematic theology. I would have a hard time saying men like St Athanasius, St Basil, St Gregory of Nazianzus and St Gregory of Nyssa are in hell. And it won't do to say "oh, they were really actually Reformed inside," since St Athanasius's soteriology (e.g., theosis) is Eastern Orthodox.
It'd be interesting to see how those who gave "invalid" answers stack up (ie: credo vs. paedo). Credo folks could heavily weigh things toward the "invalid" side, since they see all pre-profession baptisms as invalid.
Rae, I think it would be a slam dunk with the majority of credos coming down on the side of invalid. Would that surprise anyone?