Validity of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Baptisms

[Scott1]

understand how any protestant consider RC or EO a valid Christian church. Even our(PCA) position papers considers them a apostate false church.

The PCA had a study committee that produced a well-researched report on the topic specifically of Roman Baptisms. It did not seem to address Eastern Orthodox or other baptisms directly.

http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-078.html



In denominational polity, Study Committees are not absolutely binding but are to be given "due and serious consideration" by courts (e.g. Sessions and Presbyteries).

In this case there was a 4-1 division on the report with four members producing the majority report indicating that Roman baptisms are not valid. One member produced a minority report indicating that they are.

Both reports were received by the General Assembly. Although there was a large majority on the side of their not being valid and that majority included some of the founders of the denomination, this was not definitively determined even for reference value because the General Assembly chose to receive both reports.

Both reports are very well written and researched.

 

[Roldan]

In this case there was a 4-1 division on the report with four members producing the majority report indicating that Roman baptisms are not valid. One member produced a minority report indicating that they are.

Both reports were received by the General Assembly. Although there was a large majority on the side of their not being valid and that majority included some of the founders of the denomination, this was not definitively determined even for reference value because the General Assembly chose to receive both reports.

Both reports are very well written and researched.

Thank you for posting that, I was looking for that report as well. It makes the point clear that I wanted to make anyways, that the majority who takes the position that RC baptisms are not valid doesn't necessarily come from credo's as suggested by some here, once again thanks for the link.

BTW is that a gator in your hands?

 

[Scott1]

BTW is that a gator in your hands?

Yes

 

[tcalbrecht]

Does anyone know what was the practice among the 17th century Presbyterians and Puritans for dealing with converts to the Reformed religion from Romanism? Did they regularly (re)baptize those where were baptized as infants by a Roman priest?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Links and Downloads Manager - Ecclesiology - The Reformed Churches and Roman Catholic Baptism: An Anthology of Principle Texts - The PuritanBoard

 

[tcalbrecht]

Links and Downloads Manager - Ecclesiology - The Reformed Churches and Roman Catholic Baptism: An Anthology of Principle Texts - The PuritanBoard

Thanks!!!!!

 

[Scott1]

Links and Downloads Manager - Ecclesiology - The Reformed Churches and Roman Catholic Baptism: An Anthology of Principle Texts - The PuritanBoard

From the linked article above:

As long as one, then, is a lawfully ordained minister, even though he is hypocrite or heretic, the baptism he performs is valid. One might argue, however, that if Rome is not a true church, then her priests cannot be “lawfully ordained.” Here again though, it is important to note the standard distinction between a lawful minister and a true minister. Like a tyrant who usurps the throne, one may not be a “true” minister, in the sense of fully pleasing God, and yet, as the tyrant still rightly fills certain civil functions (like performing marriages, arresting

This part of the article linked to will take some time to ponder. Maybe this is not what they mean, but it would seem that if someone is declared a heretic, then he could not then go on and perform baptisms as per the Westminster Confession XXVIII 2.

...by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

I can't understand how this could be the intent of the Reformers.

 

[Scott1]

The PCA majority report on Roman baptisms in addressing John Calvin's not being re-baptized (ie. Mr Calvin was infant baptized in the Roman Church and grew quickly into the Reformed movement):

One of the problems remaining is the fact that John Calvin resisted the urging of the Anabaptists that he, having been baptized by the Roman Catholics, should be (re)baptized (Institutes 4.15.16-18). His response must be understood in terms of the uniqueness of the situation and not wrongly generalized. He, of course, resisted the Anabaptists' desire to have him repudiate his infant baptism and receive baptism as an adult believer. The effect that this situation had upon him can be seen in his insisting that Paul did not really baptize the disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus and in his insisting that the baptism of John the Baptist is Christian baptism. This insistence, contrary to the text of the Scriptures, is so that he can assert that those were not "re baptisms" at all in opposition to the Anabaptists. The denomination in which Calvin was baptized was a church in flux, and coming to but not yet beyond the crossroads (cf., Institutes 4.2.11). It is not yet the church of the counter-reformation, the Council of Trent and its anathemas on the doctrine of justification by faith alone (see H. J. Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent,

Sixth Session, Decree Covering Justification" and particularly "Canon 9," "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.") That pre-Reformation church in flux is the church in which Calvin and many of the other Reformation believers had been members. Thus Calvin and the church of today stand at different vantage points in evaluating the Roman Catholic Church, i.e., the church of his infancy, the pre-reformation church, and the Roman Catholic church post-reformation and post Council-of-Trent.

 

[Roldan]

Did they regularly (re)baptize those where were baptized as infants by a Roman priest?

Actually it would be just baptize not re- for the first one was not a valid one in the first place and cannot be called a baptism.

 

[KMK]

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 am having difficulty understanding this. Do you mean to say, "the errors of individuals or institutions cannot invalidate Christ's ordination." Or am I just being dense?

 

[tcalbrecht]

Did they regularly (re)baptize those where were baptized as infants by a Roman priest?

Actually it would be just baptize not re- for the first one was not a valid one in the first place and cannot be called a baptism.

Actually, it appears that was not the position of the Reformers or of anyone of note prior to Thornwell and the Southern Presbyterians in the mid-19th century.

Calvin viewed RC baptism as valid and any subsequent application of water as a re-baptism. Thus he resisted the practices of the Anabaptists. Turretin, Knox, and others all shared a similar view with Calvin.

BTW, welcome to the PB.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

Did they regularly (re)baptize those where were baptized as infants by a Roman priest?

Actually it would be just baptize not re- for the first one was not a valid one in the first place and cannot be called a baptism.

Actually, it appears that was not the position of the Reformers or of anyone of note prior to Thornwell and the Southern Presbyterians in the mid-19th century.

Calvin viewed RC baptism as valid and any subsequent application of water as a re-baptism. Thus he resisted the practices of the Anabaptists. Turretin, Knox, and others all shared a similar view with Calvin.

BTW, welcome to the PB.

Well, we could keep in mind that the Reformers can be wrong. The pre-reformers (Waldensians, Hussites, and Wycliffe) didn't accept RC baptism as valid.

Also, its fine to refer to the confessions (I've done it myself) but we don't need to treat it like its scripture. Something being in accord with a confession doesn't end the argument.

 

[Roldan]

Did they regularly (re)baptize those where were baptized as infants by a Roman priest?

Actually it would be just baptize not re- for the first one was not a valid one in the first place and cannot be called a baptism.

Actually, it appears that was not the position of the Reformers or of anyone of note prior to Thornwell and the Southern Presbyterians in the mid-19th century.

Calvin viewed RC baptism as valid and any subsequent application of water as a re-baptism. Thus he resisted the practices of the Anabaptists. Turretin, Knox, and others all shared a similar view with Calvin.

Thats ok, the Reformation was still in process, can't get everything right in one shot

BTW, welcome to the PB.

Thanx

 

[Scott1]

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

II. 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.[9]

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]

Here are sections of the Confession that might apply to the validity of a Christian baptism.

The questions from this with regard to the validity of a Roman Catholic baptism would be:

1) Is the Roman Church, presently a "continuing" church of Jesus Christ
2) Are her officials "ministers of the Gospel"
3) Are her officials "lawfull called unto" ministry of the Gospel
4) Does the Roman Church "rightly use" the sacrament of baptism toward "the grace promised"
5) Is the sacrament administered in a Roman service

 

[Scott1]

Also, its fine to refer to the confessions (I've done it myself) but we don't need to treat it like its scripture. Something being in accord with a confession doesn't end the argument.

That's true.

However, its not the whole story to say that a Confession does not represent biblical doctrine because it is fallible.

In Reformed Theology, the unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement. This is not true in every denomination of the Christian church universal.

Yes, a Confession is suboordinate to the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture. A Confession can, through a deliberative process, be changed. However, the Confession is taken to be a faithful summary of the doctrine of Scripture. Every single statement and proposition is footnoted with a Scripture "proof." So, the Confession is both systematic and literal.

If one disagrees, they need to take the specific statement or proposition and argue, from Scripture that it does not accurately represent Scripture in that statement or proposition.

 

[Roldan]

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

II. 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.[9]

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]

Here are sections of the Confession that might apply to the validity of a Christian baptism.

The questions from this with regard to the validity of a Roman Catholic baptism would be:

1) Is the Roman Church, presently a "continuing" church of Jesus Christ
2) Are her officials "ministers of the Gospel"
3) Are her officials "lawfull called unto" ministry of the Gospel
4) Does the Roman Church "rightly use" the sacrament of baptism toward "the grace promised"
5) Is the sacrament administered in a Roman service

no
no
no
no
no

Its unanimous

 

[tcalbrecht]

Well, we could keep in mind that the Reformers can be wrong. The pre-reformers (Waldensians, Hussites, and Wycliffe) didn't accept RC baptism as valid.

Also, its fine to refer to the confessions (I've done it myself) but we don't need to treat it like its scripture. Some being in accord with a confession doesn't end the argument.

But these same anabaptist (anti-paedobaptistic/believer’s baptism) views of the Waldensians and Wycliffe were condemned by later Reformers.

And so, in spite of these views, the mainstream of the Reformation churches accepted RC baptism as being valid. It’s apparent that those minority individuals and churches with credobaptistic leanings refused to accept the common practice of infant baptism, which very well may explain their need to see Roman Catholics (re)baptized.

It’s not surprising that if one doesn’t accept Reformed and Presbyterian baptisms as valid then that person also will not accept RC baptism as valid. At the heart of the problem is a defective view of the covenant and the nature of the one holy catholic church.

 

[tcalbrecht]

The questions from this with regard to the validity of a Roman Catholic baptism would be:

1) Is the Roman Church, presently a "continuing" church of Jesus Christ
2) Are her officials "ministers of the Gospel"
3) Are her officials "lawfull called unto" ministry of the Gospel
4) Does the Roman Church "rightly use" the sacrament of baptism toward "the grace promised"
5) Is the sacrament administered in a Roman service

So also it must be said of the papists, since it was not in their power to blot out God’s covenant entirely, although with regard to themselves, as I have said, they are without it; and show by their obstinacy that they are the sworn enemies of God. Hence it arises, that our baptism does not need renewal, because although the Devil has long reigned in the papacy, yet he could not altogether extinguish God’s grace: nay, a Church is among them; for otherwise Paul’s prophecy would have been false, when he says that Antichrist was seated in the temple of God. (2 Thessalonians 2:4.) If in the papacy there had been only Satan’s dungeon or brothel, and no form of a Church had remained in it, this had been a proof that Antichrist did not sit in the temple of God. But this, as I have said, exaggerates their crime, and is very far from enabling them to erect their crests as they do. For when they thunder out with full cheeks — “We are the Church of God,” or, “The seat of the Church is with us,” — the solution is easy; the Church is indeed among them, that is, God has his Church there, but hidden and wonderfully preserved: but it does not follow that they are worthy of any honor; nay, they are more detestable, because they ought to bear sons and daughters to God: but they bear them for the Devil and for idols, as this passage teaches.

Calvin's Commentary on Ezekiel 16:20-21

Similarly, I do not believe Calvin required Roman priests to be reordained when coming into protestant churches. Thus, they would be considered lawfully called even if largely defective in their views. The sacrament is not dependent on the piety of the individual minister (WCF 27:3).

 

[ManleyBeasley]

Well, we could keep in mind that the Reformers can be wrong. The pre-reformers (Waldensians, Hussites, and Wycliffe) didn't accept RC baptism as valid.

Also, its fine to refer to the confessions (I've done it myself) but we don't need to treat it like its scripture. Some being in accord with a confession doesn't end the argument.

But these same anabaptist (anti-paedobaptistic/believer’s baptism) views of the Waldensians and Wycliffe were condemned by later Reformers.

And so, in spite of these views, the mainstream of the Reformation churches accepted RC baptism as being valid. It’s apparent that those minority individuals and churches with credobaptistic leanings refused to accept the common practice of infant baptism, which very well may explain their need to see Roman Catholics (re)baptized.

It’s not surprising that if one doesn’t accept Reformed and Presbyterian baptisms as valid then that person also will not accept RC baptism as valid. At the heart of the problem is a defective view of the covenant and the nature of the one holy catholic church.

You're getting off the subject in this. I'm not arguing for Credo-Baptism (though I do believe in it), I'm arguing against RC baptism based on the fact that RC is a false apostate church. I doubt many Baptists in this forum would put infant baptism among protestants on the level of RC "baptism". If infant baptism were the issue then I would be debating that; I'm not. I don't demand that you be Baptized again. I'm saying that an apostate church (all the reformers believed RC was the apostacy of prophesy) cannot perform (whether infant or not) Baptisms.

The argument isn't "did the reformers accept RC baptism?" The argument is "should the reformers have accepted RC baptism?" The pre-reformers did believe in believers baptism but that wasn't the central reason why they didn't accept RC baptisms. Wycliff wasn't entirely clear on whether he had a serious problem with infant baptism but he hated RC baptism. Its not fair for you to automatically dismiss credo-baptist arguments in this debate unless we are specifically arguing for credo-baptism. I have been very careful to dodge that issue because I don't think its nearly as important as condemning the authority of RC to Baptize anyone at all in any way they want. If they only baptized adults I would still reject it just as completely.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

The questions from this with regard to the validity of a Roman Catholic baptism would be:

1) Is the Roman Church, presently a "continuing" church of Jesus Christ
2) Are her officials "ministers of the Gospel"
3) Are her officials "lawfull called unto" ministry of the Gospel
4) Does the Roman Church "rightly use" the sacrament of baptism toward "the grace promised"
5) Is the sacrament administered in a Roman service

So also it must be said of the papists, since it was not in their power to blot out God’s covenant entirely, although with regard to themselves, as I have said, they are without it; and show by their obstinacy that they are the sworn enemies of God. Hence it arises, that our baptism does not need renewal, because although the Devil has long reigned in the papacy, yet he could not altogether extinguish God’s grace: nay, a Church is among them; for otherwise Paul’s prophecy would have been false, when he says that Antichrist was seated in the temple of God. (2 Thessalonians 2:4.) If in the papacy there had been only Satan’s dungeon or brothel, and no form of a Church had remained in it, this had been a proof that Antichrist did not sit in the temple of God. But this, as I have said, exaggerates their crime, and is very far from enabling them to erect their crests as they do. For when they thunder out with full cheeks — “We are the Church of God,” or, “The seat of the Church is with us,” — the solution is easy; the Church is indeed among them, that is, God has his Church there, but hidden and wonderfully preserved: but it does not follow that they are worthy of any honor; nay, they are more detestable, because they ought to bear sons and daughters to God: but they bear them for the Devil and for idols, as this passage teaches.

Calvin's Commentary on Ezekiel 16:20-21

Similarly, I do not believe Calvin required Roman priests to be reordained when coming into protestant churches. Thus, they would be considered lawfully called even if largely defective in their views. The sacrament is not dependent on the piety of the individual minister (WCF 27:3).

The problem with Calvin's justification of refusing to baptize the RC converts is found earlier in the text itself. It says that he is revealed through the "apostasia" (defection, divorse). It is refered to as the temple of God because it is a turning away from true Christianity and even calls itself the church. The baptisms performed by an apostate church are apostate baptisms.

 

[tcalbrecht]

You're getting off the subject in this. I'm not arguing for Credo-Baptism (though I do believe in it), I'm arguing against RC baptism based on the fact that RC is a false apostate church. I doubt many Baptists in this forum would put infant baptism among protestants on the level of RC "baptism". If infant baptism were the issue then I would be debating that; I'm not. I don't demand that you be Baptized again. I'm saying that an apostate church (all the reformers believed RC was the apostacy of prophesy) cannot perform (whether infant or not) Baptisms.

The argument isn't "did the reformers accept RC baptism?" The argument is "should the reformers have accepted RC baptism?" The pre-reformers did believe in believers baptism but that wasn't the central reason why they didn't accept RC baptisms. Wycliff wasn't entirely clear on whether he had a serious problem with infant baptism but he hated RC baptism. Its not fair for you to automatically dismiss credo-baptist arguments in this debate unless we are specifically arguing for credo-baptism. I have been very careful to dodge that issue because I don't think its nearly as important as condemning the authority of RC to Baptize anyone at all in any way they want. If they only baptized adults I would still reject it just as completely.

I’m not sure I’m getting off the subject. You mentioned Wycliffe, etc. I’m not sure you can separate their catabaptist (condition of Rome) vs. anabaptist (place of infants) views. Both positions were considered error by the larger body of magisterial reformers. It seems logical that catabaptists of Calvin’s day were opposed to Roman baptism because of the state of both the administrator and the recipient.

Bottom line here is that I have not seen any persuasive arguments that undermine the position of the magisterial reformers and are entirely consistent with the Reformed confessions, which in turn accurately reflect the teaching of Scripture.

And, from a non-credo standpoint, is there really a difference between the claims that a) the sacrament is invalid because the administration is unbiblical and b) the sacrament is invalid because the administrator is heretical? But that’s another discussion.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

You're getting off the subject in this. I'm not arguing for Credo-Baptism (though I do believe in it), I'm arguing against RC baptism based on the fact that RC is a false apostate church. I doubt many Baptists in this forum would put infant baptism among protestants on the level of RC "baptism". If infant baptism were the issue then I would be debating that; I'm not. I don't demand that you be Baptized again. I'm saying that an apostate church (all the reformers believed RC was the apostacy of prophesy) cannot perform (whether infant or not) Baptisms.

The argument isn't "did the reformers accept RC baptism?" The argument is "should the reformers have accepted RC baptism?" The pre-reformers did believe in believers baptism but that wasn't the central reason why they didn't accept RC baptisms. Wycliff wasn't entirely clear on whether he had a serious problem with infant baptism but he hated RC baptism. Its not fair for you to automatically dismiss credo-baptist arguments in this debate unless we are specifically arguing for credo-baptism. I have been very careful to dodge that issue because I don't think its nearly as important as condemning the authority of RC to Baptize anyone at all in any way they want. If they only baptized adults I would still reject it just as completely.

I’m not sure I’m getting off the subject. You mentioned Wycliffe, etc. I’m not sure you can separate their catabaptist (condition of Rome) vs. anabaptist (place of infants) views. Both positions were considered error by the larger body of magisterial reformers. It seems logical that catabaptists of Calvin’s day were opposed to Roman baptism because of the state of both the administrator and the recipient.

Bottom line here is that I have not seen any persuasive arguments that undermine the position of the magisterial reformers and are entirely consistent with the Reformed confessions, which in turn accurately reflect the teaching of Scripture.

And, from a non-credo standpoint, is there really a difference between the claims that a) the sacrament is invalid because the administration is unbiblical and b) the sacrament is invalid because the administrator is heretical? But that’s another discussion.

1. You can separate the catabaptist and anabaptist views because Wycliffe obviously did. He was ambiguous about the anabaptism but clear on the catabaptism. Again, the question isn't what the reformers believed but whether they should have believed it or not (upholding RC baptisms). Since you were saying (by appealing to history) that all the reformers accepted RC baptism I was responding by saying the pre-reformers did not. Saying the reformers considered their views to be in error means nothing. The pre-reformers (by taking the position they did) considered the reformers position to be error also (as did some later "non-credos").

2. Apparently they aren't persuasive to you but that doesn't mean they aren't right. If you are the Lawyer and Judge then it loads the dice.

3.Yes there is. There are different levels of error. I attend a PCA church even though I am credo-baptist. Baptism doesn't at all keep me from having communion with my presbyterian brothers, its a debatable issue. A false view of the gospel keeps me from having communion with anyone who adheres to that false view (RC). Because of that, I will more seriously disagree with my brother about him accepting a RC baptism then I will him baptizing infants.

 

[tcalbrecht]

1. You can separate the catabaptist and anabaptist views because Wycliffe obviously did.

That is not at all obvious. He insisted on believer baptism over and against infant baptism. He was a proto-anabaptist. And these pre-reformers, as you call them, were no Church synods or councils called to resolve controversies. They were individuals with individual beliefs often in error. The Confessions produced by the Reformers and their spiritual children were all opposed to rebaptism, whether originally done by Roman Catholic or Anabaptist.

2. Apparently they aren't persuasive to you but that doesn't mean they aren't right. If you are the Lawyer and Judge then it loads the dice.

All of the arguments given here have been addressed by Calvin, et al four centuries ago. They seemed reasonable to Reformed Christians (not to mention Lutherans and Anglicans) up until modern times. These were the views of men actively persecuted by the papacy, even to death at times. They knew the real error of Rome. Many of them regularly interacted with Roman prelates. Yet they did not deny that RC baptism was valid and need not be redone. What do we know that they did not know, either of history or of the Scriptures? Indeed, their consistent appeal to Old Testament passages relating with the Israelite priesthood and circumcision makes it abundantly clear that they were covenantally sound wrt the understanding of the sacraments.

The rebaptism arguments have not improved with age.

3.Yes there is. There are different levels of error. I attend a PCA church even though I am credo-baptist. Baptism doesn't at all keep me from having communion with my presbyterian brothers, its a debatable issue. A false view of the gospel keeps me from having communion with anyone who adheres to that false view (RC). Because of that, I will more seriously disagree with my brother about him accepting a RC baptism then I will him baptizing infants.

So, does that mean I more offensive to you because I recognize the baptism of Roman Catholics rather than simply because I had my children baptized when they were infants?

 

[ManleyBeasley]

1. You can separate the catabaptist and anabaptist views because Wycliffe obviously did.

That is not at all obvious. He insisted on believer baptism over and against infant baptism. He was a proto-anabaptist. And these pre-reformers, as you call them, were no Church synods or councils called to resolve controversies. They were individuals with individual beliefs often in error. The Confessions produced by the Reformers and their spiritual children were all opposed to rebaptism, whether originally done by Roman Catholic or Anabaptist.

2. Apparently they aren't persuasive to you but that doesn't mean they aren't right. If you are the Lawyer and Judge then it loads the dice.

All of the arguments given here have been addressed by Calvin, et al four centuries ago. They seemed reasonable to Reformed Christians (not to mention Lutherans and Anglicans) up until modern times. These were the views of men actively persecuted by the papacy, even to death at times. They knew the real error of Rome. Many of them regularly interacted with Roman prelates. Yet they did not deny that RC baptism was valid and need not be redone. What do we know that they did not know, either of history or of the Scriptures? Indeed, their consistent appeal to Old Testament passages relating with the Israelite priesthood and circumcision makes it abundantly clear that they were covenantally sound wrt the understanding of the sacraments.

The rebaptism arguments have not improved with age.

3.Yes there is. There are different levels of error. I attend a PCA church even though I am credo-baptist. Baptism doesn't at all keep me from having communion with my presbyterian brothers, its a debatable issue. A false view of the gospel keeps me from having communion with anyone who adheres to that false view (RC). Because of that, I will more seriously disagree with my brother about him accepting a RC baptism then I will him baptizing infants.

So, does that mean I more offensive to you because I recognize the baptism of Roman Catholics rather than simply because I had my children baptized when they were infants?

1. The info on Wycliffe is ambiguous but we know he opposed RC Baptism.

You don't see them as pre-reformers? Calvin did. He acknowledged his succession to the Waldensians. The Waldensians existed for hundreds of years before the reformation (possibly from the 7th century though not called Waldensians then because Waldo wasn't alive). These weren't a few individuals, they were countless people who lived for centuries who were slaughtered like animals by the RC because of their gospel preaching. The Hussites and Lollards also existed for a couple of centuries before the reformation. Though many anabaptists were heretics, many others were godly people who believed the gospel and were persecuted and they rejected RC baptisms. The baptist puritans also didn't accept RC baptism (they were credo so they rejected infant baptism in general but they rejected RC baptism for reasons beyond infant baptism; it was baptism by a false church) and believed that with a greater seriousness than just their debate with presbyterians and congregationalists.

2. You can place the synods up to the hundreds of years of history of the pre-reformers and baptists if you like but I don't think their acceptance of RC baptism holds water. You keep trying to turn this into a debate about infant verses believers baptism when its supposed to be about RC baptism. The fact is its wrong to say that because the 1st covanent circumsized physical infants then the second then baptizes physical infants. The 1st circumsizes physical infants which equates to the 2nd baptizing spiritual infants. The physical to physical misses the equation. You're making me digress.

3. I don't know if I'm more offended but I do take it more seriously that you advocate apostate (RC) baptisms.

 

[tcalbrecht]

1. The info on Wycliffe is ambiguous but we know he opposed RC Baptism.

And advocated believer baptism. I believe Wycliffe, like later Anabaptists, viewed infant baptism as a sign of the RC apostacy. I don’t see any way to differentiate his opposition to RC baptism from his belief in believer baptism.

2. You can place the synods up to the hundreds of years of history of the pre-reformers and baptists if you like but I don't think their acceptance of RC baptism holds water. You keep trying to turn this into a debate about infant verses believers baptism when its supposed to be about RC baptism. The fact is its wrong to say that because the 1st covanent circumsized physical infants then the second then baptizes physical infants. The 1st circumsizes physical infants which equates to the 2nd baptizing spiritual infants. The physical to physical misses the equation. You're making me digress.

You are certainly free to interact with the arguments of Calvin, Turretin, Hodge, and the others who hold another view. I do not need to reproduce those arguments. As I said, the arguments here have not improved to the point where they trump those Reformed churches.

I said noting about infant baptism/circumcision in my second point. Why do you keep coming back to it? The entire Baptist argument is based on an overextended dichotomy between physical vs. spiritual when it comes to the sign of the covenant. I know that. I merely pointed out that the magisterial Reformers were consistently covenantal in their understanding and interpretation of the sacraments. For this reason they properly viewed RC baptism as valid.

Actually, I’m not doing anything but what the Reformers did, who clearly justified their acceptance of RC baptism based on their understanding of the covenantal relationship between circumcision and baptism. I won’t apologize for the fact that I’m not a Baptist, but I do see the arguments contra RC baptism as more in line with Baptist ecclesiology.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

1. The info on Wycliffe is ambiguous but we know he opposed RC Baptism.

And advocated believer baptism. I believe Wycliffe, like later Anabaptists, viewed infant baptism as a sign of the RC apostacy. I don’t see any way to differentiate his opposition to RC baptism from his belief in believer baptism.

2. You can place the synods up to the hundreds of years of history of the pre-reformers and baptists if you like but I don't think their acceptance of RC baptism holds water. You keep trying to turn this into a debate about infant verses believers baptism when its supposed to be about RC baptism. The fact is its wrong to say that because the 1st covanent circumsized physical infants then the second then baptizes physical infants. The 1st circumsizes physical infants which equates to the 2nd baptizing spiritual infants. The physical to physical misses the equation. You're making me digress.

You are certainly free to interact with the arguments of Calvin, Turretin, Hodge, and the others who hold another view. I do not need to reproduce those arguments. As I said, the arguments here have not improved to the point where they trump those Reformed churches.

I said noting about infant baptism/circumcision in my second point. Why do you keep coming back to it? The entire Baptist argument is based on an overextended dichotomy between physical vs. spiritual when it comes to the sign of the covenant. I know that. I merely pointed out that the magisterial Reformers were consistently covenantal in their understanding and interpretation of the sacraments. For this reason they properly viewed RC baptism as valid.

Actually, I’m not doing anything but what the Reformers did, who clearly justified their acceptance of RC baptism based on their understanding of the covenantal relationship between circumcision and baptism. I won’t apologize for the fact that I’m not a Baptist, but I do see the arguments contra RC baptism as more in line with Baptist ecclesiology.

1. Again his advocating of believer's baptism was only clear in relation to RC converts to the gospel. I personally agree that he believed in believer's baptism in every case but this can't be proven historically (since some Lollards were Credo and some Paedo)

2. "The rebaptism arguments have not improved with age." I assume you were arguing for infant baptism and insulting Baptists with this statement. Thats at least how it comes across. The entire Baptist argument is 1. Biblical (no evidence of infant baptism in the bible only believers), 2. theological (The old covenant infant (physical) circumcision equal to new covenant infant (spiritual) baptism) , 3. Historical (The pre-reformation gospel believing groups, orthadox anabaptists, and the Baptist churches all have held to believer's baptism) and in that order of importance. It is not all based on the theological argument as you say.

3. I'm saying its not valid for you to appeal to the reformers. The debate is not what the reformers believed on this issue because we all agree that the reformers accepted RC baptism. The debate is whether they were right. You can't say that the reformers must be right in accepting RC baptism because the reformers believed it.