I understand that the CTCers would like to see all the conservative Presbyterians and Reformed Protestants swim the Atlantic and the Mediterranean to embrace the holy pontiff (though I suppose the former Protestants will have to towel off first). But I wonder if they ever consider that the Protestants with whom Rome finds ecumenical relations are the liberal communions who ordain women, have interpreted and interpreted away the churches’ confessions, and who turn a blind eye to a woman’s right to choose. Here is news (thanks to our mid-Western correspondent):
In a monumental occasion for ecumenical relations, the U.S. Roman Catholic church and a group of Protestant denominations plan to sign a document on Tuesday evening to formally agree to recognize each other’s baptisms.
Catholic leaders will join representatives from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Christian Reformed Church in North America, Reformed Church in America and United Church of Christ at the ceremony in Austin, Texas, to sign the agreement, which is called the “Common Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Baptism.” The event coincides with the national meeting of Christian Churches Together in the U.S.A.
Currently, the Protestant churches recognize Roman Catholic baptisms, but the Catholic church does not always recognize theirs. The mutual agreement on baptisms, a key sacrament in the churches, has been discussed between denominational leadership for seven years and hinges in part on invoking trinity of the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” during the baptism. . . .
The Roman Catholic church as a whole has generally recognized the baptisms of most mainstream Christian denominations since the Second Vatican Council, a series of historic church meetings from 1962 to 1965, but the formal baptism agreement is the first of its kind for the U.S. church.
Is warm relations with liberal Protestants really what the Call is about? Then again, Rome could simply be imitating evangelicals who have always been squeamish about drawing lines between conservative and liberal Christians.
Old Life 
Darryl,
At least they have the “courage to dialogue.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, dialogue takes courage? Have you not heard of the Spanish Inquisition?
LikeLike
Rome’s not a good negotiating partner with protestants. It’s never Rome giving any ground, and protestants never learn until later what it is they gave up in the ‘dialogue’.
LikeLike
Being that we would also recognize these group’s baptisms (in addition to Catholic baptisms) I am not sure we should throw stones. The point is that a Trinitarian baptism should be recognized regardless of who performs it. The only group we all disagree with are the baptists who re-baptize our people.
If Rome has “generally recognized the baptisms of most mainstream Christian denominations since the Second Vatican Council.” I’m not sure why they feel they need to execute agreements with individual denominations, though. If CTC’s ridculous figure of 30,000 is correct they still have a lot of work to do.
LikeLike
Erik, you’re getting all soft and gooey. Tax season should straighten that right out.
LikeLike
Setback in Rome — John Richard Neuhaus, Catholic Convert from Lutheranism
LikeLike
The problems with Anglicanorum Coetibus Fr Robert Hart, a Touchstone contributor and “Continuing Anglican”.
LikeLike
Baiticum et Switchorum — Fr Robert Hart again — his title, not mine. I’m sure he was trying to be generous with that title. Which “begs the question”, “what’s he going to say if he’s NOT being generous”?
LikeLike
“Courage to dialogue”?
Within time, that will become “courage to convert”. Count on it.
The reason why the RC feels the need to execute agreements with individual denominations like they do is because it is a way to get their foot in the door. Said groups are easy pickins/low hanging fruit.
I once picked up a copy of the newspaper from the conservatives in the PCUSA and was struck by the similarity in jargon about the “kingdom” and the “gospel” etc., i.e. contentless religious wordmongering that I could remember seeing in the local Roman church diocese paper growing up.
IOW it’s only a matter of time, now that somebody is in the “ecumenical” cross hairs. Shelob has sized up her prey and begins to lumber even closer.
LikeLike
Sean,
Just bask in the warm glow while it lasts…
LikeLike
They’ll have to pull Hart’s Machen biography from my cold, dead hands before I convert. I don’t know if the OPC fully realizes the asset they have in Hart & Muether. They are the Buffett & Munger or the Fagen & Becker of the conservative P&R world.
LikeLike
The Hart & Muether of 70’s Jazz/Rock Fusion:
This whole DVD on the making of “Aja” is really good.
LikeLike
Erik –
” I don’t know if the OPC fully realizes the asset they have in Hart & Muether.”
There are a few of us here in Golata, CA who do…
LikeLike
Erik sez “… Being that we would also recognize these group’s baptisms (in addition to Catholic baptisms) I am not sure we should throw stones. The point is that a Trinitarian baptism should be recognized regardless of who performs it. The only group we all disagree with are the baptists who re-baptize our people …”
Ah yes, the baptists. I, of course, whole heartedly agree with your statement about accepting Trinitarian baptisms, although the stumbling block where Rome is concerned may have to do with one’s belief in baptismal regeneration, which is fine for them and most Lutherans, but not for the remainder of the Protestant world. Still, though it is performed by effusion it IS trinitarian (the latter being commanded in Matthew).
Nevertheless, the baptists quibble about it and force re-baptism (or else no membership in their churches, over that Greek word meaning “to dunk” and the insistence on what what seems to be something that Scott Clark calls QIRE as proof of their conversion). So who’s really at odds here, Rome who does it as do the P/R or the rest of the baptistical/evangelical world who MUST have it their way or else?
LikeLike
Bryan, is it really courage for co-holistic gospelers to kumbaya, or would it be to affirm Jesus and Paul when they say divisions are necessary?
LikeLike
George, Belgic 34 seems to suggest the latter.
LikeLike
Erik, how about Joel and Ethan Coen?
LikeLike
D.G. – Here’s my answer about comparing you two to the Coen’s:
LikeLike
Erik, that’s two thumbs up, right?
LikeLike
George: Ah yes, the baptists. I, of course, whole heartedly agree with your statement about accepting Trinitarian baptisms, although the stumbling block where Rome is concerned may have to do with one’s belief in baptismal regeneration, which is fine for them and most Lutherans, but not for the remainder of the Protestant world. Still, though it is performed by effusion it IS trinitarian (the latter being commanded in Matthew).
RS: It is interesting how people fight with Rome over the Gospel and yet still think that their baptism is biblical and/or valid because it is performed with the proper words. If Rome truly denies the Gospel, then how can it be considered a true Church and how can a non-Church perform biblical baptisms?
George: Nevertheless, the baptists quibble about it and force re-baptism (or else no membership in their churches, over that Greek word meaning “to dunk” and the insistence on what what seems to be something that Scott Clark calls QIRE as proof of their conversion).
RS: Interesting. Well, if there is no biblical evidence of conversion, then why does one think that one is converted or in the New Covenant? If we accept Roman baptism, then the argument is that the baptism is a sign of conversion or regenertion. So what is so wrong about wanting to see evidence of true faith before baptism if one does not believe that baptism saves?
George: So who’s really at odds here, Rome who does it as do the P/R or the rest of the baptistical/evangelical world who MUST have it their way or else?
RS: Maybe there is much more to the story.
LikeLike
Richard, your Donatism is showing. The Second Helvetic Confession begs to differ on tying sacramental efficacy to the personal piety of the administrator:
Moreover, we strongly detest the error of the Donatists who esteem the doctrine and administration of the sacraments to be either effectual or not effectual, according to the good or evil life of the ministers. For we know that the voice of Christ is to be heard, though it be out of the mouths of evil ministers; because the Lord himself said: “Practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do” (Matt. 23:3). We know that the sacraments are sanctified by the institution and the word of Christ, and that they are effectual to the godly, although they be administered by unworthy ministers. Concerning this matter, Augustine, the blessed servant of God, many times argued from the Scriptures against the Donatists.
It’s also curious how you tie sacramental efficacy to ecclesiology. I thought an emphasis on the latter was for the lazy and disobedient?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, your Donatism is showing. The Second Helvetic Confession begs to differ on tying sacramental efficacy to the personal piety of the administrator:
“Moreover, we strongly detest the error of the Donatists who esteem the doctrine and administration of the sacraments to be either effectual or not effectual, according to the good or evil life of the ministers. For we know that the voice of Christ is to be heard, though it be out of the mouths of evil ministers; because the Lord himself said: “Practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do” (Matt. 23:3). We know that the sacraments are sanctified by the institution and the word of Christ, and that they are effectual to the godly, although they be administered by unworthy ministers. Concerning this matter, Augustine, the blessed servant of God, many times argued from the Scriptures against the Donatists.”
RS: Interesting that the sacraments are said to be effectual to the godly, which would seem to have the idea of the Supper being taken by believers. However, my argument is not so much about the efficacy of the sacrament being connected to the piety of the administrator as such, but should those who deny the Gospel of grace be said to even baptize at all. If one accepts the baptism of Rome and at the same time insists that Rome teaches a false Gospel, it seems to open the door for other things. Would you think that a baptism from a Mormon was acceptable if the “minister” used the proper words?
Zrim: It’s also curious how you tie sacramental efficacy to ecclesiology. I thought an emphasis on the latter was for the lazy and disobedient?
RS: You have a long memory for words, but not so much the context of the words. Since worship must be in spirit and truth and the sacraments are thought to be part of worship, I would argue that the intent is that they should be administered by a true church and a believing minister. After all, without faith God cannot be pleased. There is also a difference between finding out later that a minister was unconverted when administering the sacraments and accepting them from a group that denies the Gospel according to its creeds.
The context from the Scripture proof given in the Second Helvetic is also interesting:
Mat 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.”
LikeLike
Are any of you in churches that re-baptize Catholic converts? I think the non-binding majority opinion of the PCA still says that Catholic baptisms are invalid, but I don’t know how widespread re-baptism is.
–Protestant Jeremy
LikeLike
Here are a couple of Mormons on the Trinity from Mormon.org:
What do Mormons believe about the nature of God? – FAQ
Karen N. answered…
While we don’t believe in the Holy Trinity that I did when I grew up a Protestant Christian (Lutheran), we do believe that God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are all members of the Godhead–three separate and distinct beings that are one in purpose. If we are created in our Heavenly Father’s image, as we are told in the Holy Bible that we are, and the Trinity were true, we don’t reflect as humans that conglomerate. Rather, we are spiritual beings with earthly or temporal bodies. In the instance of the baptism of Jesus Christ, His Heavenly Father spoke from the heavens, and The Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove. There would have been no need, had the Trinity as defined by many churches existed. I am grateful to know of the distinct roles of the three beings and how perfect their harmony is with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That I have a Heavenly Father and that I have his perfect son, Jesus Christ as my mediator and who suffered and died that not only he, but we, can live eternally. And that I have the spirit and the promptings of the Holy Ghost to guide and comfort me in my life on behalf of the Father and the Son.
Quentin answered…
I believe that most Christians today belief in a concept called the Trinity. This definition of God is based on the Nicean Creed or Apostles Creed. Both of these creeds were written about 400 years after Christ and were written by committees where there was vehement dissent. Is this how God provided information or knowledge in the past? No. The Trinity has no scriptural basis as far as I can tell. To whom was Christ speaking when he said, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do?” Or what was Stephen seeing in vision when he saw Jesus on the right hand of God? To whom was Christ speaking when he told Mary to not touch him as he had not ascended to his Father yet? We believe that God the Father sent his only begotten Son Jesus Christ to the earth and that Jesus will send another comforter even the Holy Ghost. So, we believe they are 3 separate beings–all acting with one voice, one purpose, one goal–to help us find true joy and happiness.
Based on those assessments and the fact that Mormons believe they can baptize the dead by having another person stand in for the dead person, I think we would clearly reject their baptisms.
LikeLike
D.G. – Erik, that’s two thumbs up, right?
Erik – You betcha.
LikeLike
The Mormon goal to baptize everyone who has ever lived, including Jews who died in the Holocaust, hasn’t gone over well in the Jewish community. I think this goal is one reason Mormons are so into genealogy.
LikeLike
@Richard, I would suggest you listen to Douglas Wilson and James White’s debate on accepting Roman Catholic baptisms. You can also buy the video on line for a few bucks. Some of the questions you’re asking are off kilter. Many other questions are answered in this debate. It’s an excellent debate, very informative, and an example of two christian men, debating a very important subject, with christian charity.
FWIW, the Mormons do not believe in the doctrine of the trinity.
LikeLike
Jeremy, I believe it varies from session to session in the world of NAPARC.
LikeLike
Prot Jeremy: “Are any of you in churches that re-baptize Catholic converts”
Yes, count us among that group, although we don’t call it re-baptism. Just baptism.
LikeLike
Ted I respectively ask, are you Presbyterian? Then why would your church abandon the consensus of our brave reformers who accepted RC baptisms?
LikeLike
But, Richard, to suggest that those who deny the gospel don’t baptize at all is the same as questioning the efficacy of baptism on the basis of the administrator’s piety. Still, if Paul can affirm the efficacy of the true gospel being preached but for wrong motives then what keeps us from affirming a true baptism being administered but in the context of a false gospel? The Reformed even affirm true baptisms wrongly and sinfully delayed (credo-baptists).
Yes, it’s ideal for a baptism to be administered in a true church by a pious pastor. But it’s too far to suggest that efficacy turns on faith. And I still find it curious that one who emphasizes experiential faith over creedal faith puts so much weight on what is formally confessed in order to conclude on the legitimacy of baptism.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: Richard, I would suggest you listen to Douglas Wilson and James White’s debate on accepting Roman Catholic baptisms. You can also buy the video on line for a few bucks.
RS: I own the DVD and have watched/listened to that a few times.
Doug Sowers: Some of the questions you’re asking are off kilter. Many other questions are answered in this debate. It’s an excellent debate, very informative, and an example of two christian men, debating a very important subject, with christian charity.
RS: Doug, not all thing of Doug Wilson as holding to the Gospel of grace alone in a consistent way. As I recall the “debate”, James White was amazed at some of the things that Doug Wilson was saying. I am also not sure why it is off kilter to think of an organization that denies the true Gospel as an organization that is not a church and has no right to baptize.
Doug Sowers: FWIW, the Mormons do not believe in the doctrine of the trinity.
RS: I am aware that Mormons do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity as historical Protestants state it, but one question I had (at least one of the points at one point) was would it be okay if they (Mormons) baptized a person (for example, at his or her request) and said that they baptized the person in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Is it just repeating the names that makes it a true baptism? I would argue that while Roman Catholicism (as well as all semi-Pelagians and Arminians) uphold a form of the Trinity (Ontological Trinity), they deny an essential aspect of the Trinity. While RC’s, semi-Pelagians, and the Arminians all SAY that they believe in the Trinity, they deny the economical Trinity is reality and practice. It is one thing to say that one believes the Trinity, but when they deny it in theology and practice it makes others wonder.
LikeLike
Zrim: But, Richard, to suggest that those who deny the gospel don’t baptize at all is the same as questioning the efficacy of baptism on the basis of the administrator’s piety.
RS: I remain unconvinced that we are talking about the same issue. No one but the Church has the right and privilege to administer the sacraments. No one is a Church (either individual church or a denomination) that denies the Gospel. Jesus commanded the Church to baptize. No one but the Church can do that. One can be part of the Church and not be a pious person, so I don’t see my argument being the same.
Zrim: Still, if Paul can affirm the efficacy of the true gospel being preached but for wrong motives then what keeps us from affirming a true baptism being administered but in the context of a false gospel? The Reformed even affirm true baptisms wrongly and sinfully delayed (credo-baptists).
RS: But did Paul say that these men were not part of the Church or that they were unbelievers? Paul also ( in the context of that passage) thanked God that the Gospel was being preached. The men, though they had wrong motives, were preaching the true Gospel.
Zrim: Yes, it’s ideal for a baptism to be administered in a true church by a pious pastor. But it’s too far to suggest that efficacy turns on faith.
RS: But to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, it is okay for a person that is not a part of a church and is not a true Christian to baptize people. I was not arguing that efficacy turns on faith, but that if the baptism (in word) is not being done by a true church and not even by a true Christian, then there is no faith at all.
Zrim: And I still find it curious that one who emphasizes experiential faith over creedal faith puts so much weight on what is formally confessed in order to conclude on the legitimacy of baptism.
RS: I don’t think the emphasis is on formal profession as such, but simply that it is curious to me that those who would say that RC’s deny the true Gospel can still perform biblical baptisms. The command was given to the Church and to no one else. It seems that to depart from that is to see baptism as efficacious in and of itself and to put too much stress on it rather than on the sovereign God in the preaching of the Gospel.
LikeLike
I was not arguing that efficacy turns on faith, but that if the baptism (in word) is not being done by a true church and not even by a true Christian, then there is no faith at all.
So what, Richard? You seem to be suggesting that faith has to be really present, which seems to suggest that that reality has some bearing on efficacy (otherwise I’m not sure what the point is). I’m saying a true baptism, which I presume to be Trinitarian, can be done in a false church by a faithless minister. The efficacy turns on the presence of the Spirit, not faith.
The command was given to the Church and to no one else. It seems that to depart from that is to see baptism as efficacious in and of itself and to put too much stress on it rather than on the sovereign God in the preaching of the Gospel.
Again, efficacy is grounded in the presence of the Spirit, not the faith of people. And neither is the point that baptism is efficacious in and of itself (the Reformed reject ex opere operato), but when coupled with the Spirit. But this idea that the Reformed put too much stress on baptism only adds to the irony: it’s credo-baptists who demand a Trinitarian baptism be re-done and the paedobaptists who accept those done even by false ministers within false churches and even those done by whatever mode or having been sinfully delayed. Sheesh, credos even identify themselves by their baptismal sacramental theology (Baptists).
LikeLike
Zrim quoting RS: was not arguing that efficacy turns on faith, but that if the baptism (in word) is not being done by a true church and not even by a true Christian, then there is no faith at all.
Zrim: So what, Richard? You seem to be suggesting that faith has to be really present, which seems to suggest that that reality has some bearing on efficacy (otherwise I’m not sure what the point is). I’m saying a true baptism, which I presume to be Trinitarian, can be done in a false church by a faithless minister. The efficacy turns on the presence of the Spirit, not faith.
RS: I am saying that if there is no true church, no true minister, and not true Gospel, then there is no faith there. Paedobaptist say that baptism is done on account of the faith of the parents and Baptists (in differing ways) say that those who are baptized should have faith.
WCF 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]
RS: Notice two things. People are to be baptized into the visible Church and baptism is to be continued in His Church.
WCF Ch XXVIII 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]
RS: Again, notice two things. Baptism is to be done to two types of people 1. Those who profess faith in Christ and 2. The children of believing parents.
Zrim quoting RS: The command was given to the Church and to no one else. It seems that to depart from that is to see baptism as efficacious in and of itself and to put too much stress on it rather than on the sovereign God in the preaching of the Gospel.
Zrim: Again, efficacy is grounded in the presence of the Spirit, not the faith of people. And neither is the point that baptism is efficacious in and of itself (the Reformed reject ex opere operato), but when coupled with the Spirit. But this idea that the Reformed put too much stress on baptism only adds to the irony: it’s credo-baptists who demand a Trinitarian baptism be re-done and the paedobaptists who accept those done even by false ministers within false churches and even those done by whatever mode or having been sinfully delayed. Sheesh, credos even identify themselves by their baptismal sacramental theology (Baptists).
RS: Read the WCF again. Baptism is to be done in and continued in the Church. My point continues to be something apart from the efficacy of baptism, but of the right to baptize. No one has the right to baptize that is not part of a true Church and and those who do not preach the Gospel cannot be said to be part of a true Church (Calvin said that as well). The WCF says very clearly that only believers and the infants of believers are to be baptized. So the Gospel must be there and there must be faith there for one to have the right to baptize at all. If there is no right to baptize, then should those who had water applied to them by a non-Church refer to that as a baptism?
LikeLike
Richard, you may want to make it a matter of right to baptize instead of efficacy, but the forms simply don’t take your lead. They prioritize efficacy. And if, as WCF 27.3 says “…the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers,” then Roman and as well as Anabaptist baptisms are legitimate.
In other words, if someone is effectively baptized by God, what purpose does it serve to squabble over rights?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, you may want to make it a matter of right to baptize instead of efficacy, but the forms simply don’t take your lead. They prioritize efficacy. And if, as WCF 27.3 says “…the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers,” then Roman and as well as Anabaptist baptisms are legitimate.
RS: I think you are making an unwarranted deduction from WCF 27:3. Since WCF XXVIII sure seems to view baptism within the Church, it makes more sense to recognize that 27:3 is being spoken of as within the Church rather than without. In other words, let us imagine a man that is minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and baptizes 20 people over a period of time. Let’s say the man turns out to be having an illicit relationships during part of the time people were baptized. So people begin to question their baptism based on his lack of piety. WCF 27 covers that rather than a baptism done by a group that denies the Gospel.
Zrim: In other words, if someone is effectively baptized by God, what purpose does it serve to squabble over rights?
RS: But you are assuming that they are effectively baptized by God. But again, your view has no way of declaring a baptism done by a non-Christian plumber who is in an apostate denomination as invalid. It appears that your view amounts to saying that if a person has water applied with the appropriate words it is then a proper baptism. It also leads us to the position that God will honor the preaching of the Scriptures by unconverted men preaching heresy as long as they read the Scriptures here and there.
LikeLike
Richard, no, my position assumes a healthy measure of charity to certain Christian sects (as opposed to completely false religionists, e.g. Mormons or pagans). This is actually the Protestant Reformation way, to affirm the Trinitarian orthodoxy of Rome. You are assuming the Radical Reformation way, the one that says the former didn’t go far enough in its reforms. Sorry, but your hyper-Calvinism (thanks, Todd) is showing again.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, no, my position assumes a healthy measure of charity to certain Christian sects (as opposed to completely false religionists, e.g. Mormons or pagans).
RS: Or perhaps it is an unhealthy measure of false reality.
Zrim: This is actually the Protestant Reformation way, to affirm the Trinitarian orthodoxy of Rome. You are assuming the Radical Reformation way, the one that says the former didn’t go far enough in its reforms.
RS: But the Reformers themselves said we were to continue Reforming. Are yous saying that the Reformers were perfect in all that they set out in writing? Of course not, but what is so radical about saying that there are some things they were not perfect one? What is so strange to affirm with the Reformers that to be a Church one must have the true Gospel? Then, along with the WCF, to affirm that the sacraments should only happen in true churches?
Zrim: Sorry, but your hyper-Calvinism (thanks, Todd) is showing again.
RS: Perhaps you should show that I am a hyper-Calvinist from the Confessions rather than from the people you normally seem to despise (Ian Murray types). If you will notice the list of things that makes one a hyper-Calvinist comes from Ian Murray and his book on Spurgeon and Hyper-Calvinism. It is interesting that you will revert to Murray when you want while knocking his style of revivalism at the same time. By the way, that is fine, but just realize where your standards for hyper-Calvinism come from. As stated before, my views on things fit very will with the WSC and the WLC. If you wish to think of them as standards of Hyper-Calvinism, then that is fine.
LikeLike
Richard, by hyper-Calvinist I mean one who emphasizes “always reforming” and forgets the “always Reformed,” as in saying the Protestants didn’t go far enough in their reforms, as in rejecting anything the Roman church does simply because it’s the Roman church. That’s a Calvinist going hyper.
LikeLike
DGH,
I know that it’s up to the different sessions, but how widespread is the practice? Feel free to ask a colleague if you don’t know. Many of my PCA friends in seminary were surprised that it would be done. Does your church do it? Do you know many churches that do? Right now I’m just interested in how common it is.
Protestant Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy,
The short answer is I don’t know. The situation has never come up on the sessions where I have served and other elders don’t talk about this for likely the same reason.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, by hyper-Calvinist I mean one who emphasizes “always reforming” and forgets the “always Reformed,” as in saying the Protestants didn’t go far enough in their reforms, as in rejecting anything the Roman church does simply because it’s the Roman church. That’s a Calvinist going hyper.
RS: But the phrase “always reforming” was a Reformation phrase. We should not expect for God to reveal everything to one group of people in history and just read and write about what they said. Jesus is still Prophet. Also, I don’t reject anything Roman Catholics do because it is Roman Catholic. If anyone believes what the Reformers taught as the Bible, then that person will reject the idea that Roman Catholicism teaches the Gospel. If anyone believes what the Reformers taught was the Church, then that person will reject the idea that Roman Catholicism can be considered a true Church because it rejects the Gospel. That is no hyper, that is simply being in line with the Refomers. I might add that it is also biblical. One can also look at Galatians 1:6ff and see that there is only one Gospel. What the Reformers taught was declared to be anathema by Rome. What the Reformers taught declared Rome to be anathema. One cannot have it both ways.
LikeLike
Richard, I understand the Reformed definition of a true church, which excludes plenty including the Roman church. The point, however, is that God is free to work outside his church even amongst the sects. To affirm the trinitarian baptism of a member of a Christian sect is not the same thing as affirming that sect. Your semi-revivalist ecclesiology is all off such that you undermine institutional faith over there but over-emphasize it over here, and the irony is how you constrict the Spirit.
LikeLike
Prot. Jeremy,
I’ve been a minister in the PCA fourteen years, and served in three different presbyteries, and I can think of only two ministers/churches that “re-baptized” Catholic converts. In one presbytery, the question of re-baptism was regularly asked on the floor of exams (transfer and ordination). Our session doesn’t do it, though we find it common that folks coming to join have never been baptized, having been raised in baptistic churches. Many of them in their 30’s.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I understand the Reformed definition of a true church, which excludes plenty including the Roman church. The point, however, is that God is free to work outside his church even amongst the sects.
RS: But of course He is free to do as He pleases, but it is surprising to read your position on this.
Zrim: To affirm the trinitarian baptism of a member of a Christian sect is not the same thing as affirming that sect.
RS: But can one really believe the Trinity and can they really have a true concept of baptism if they deny the Gospel? I just cannot see that at all. The sacraments are for the true Church.
Zrim: Your semi-revivalist ecclesiology is all off such that you undermine institutional faith over there but over-emphasize it over here, and the irony is how you constrict the Spirit.
RS: Interesting, but I thought the irony was with your position. While you advocate the means of grace over here, you sound more Charismatic with the Spirit over there. I don’t see how I am constricting the Spirit when I think that the Spirit generally operates in the true Church and with the means of grace along with truth and spirit.
LikeLike
Richard, and I’m not sure how you keep aligning yourself with the Protestant reformers. They were baptized in the Roman church and still refused to be re-baptized because God already baptized them. Are you telling Calvin you’re more Calvinist than him? Hyper.
LikeLike
No matter how many times you squish the “always reforming” line it always pops up after the rain like mushrooms. Never mind, it’s a thankless job, but we’ll keep spraying the Roundup.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/semper-reformanda/
Ecclesia reformata est semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei.
The reformed church is always being reforming by/according to the Word of God.
As in reforming its practice back in line with its doctrine.
IOW we don’t keep reinventing the wheel in every generation.
cheers
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, and I’m not sure how you keep aligning yourself with the Protestant reformers. They were baptized in the Roman church and still refused to be re-baptized because God already baptized them. Are you telling Calvin you’re more Calvinist than him? Hyper.
RS: Perhaps the circumstances of his not being re-baptized have changed. The last year of the Council of Trent was the year he had died. In other words, Rome had not officially declared the Gospel anathema until after Calvin died. But then again, the Bible is the standard. You have a hyper usage of that word.
LikeLike
Bob S: No matter how many times you squish the “always reforming” line it always pops up after the rain like mushrooms. Never mind, it’s a thankless job, but we’ll keep spraying the Roundup.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/semper-reformanda/
Ecclesia reformata est semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei.
The reformed church is always being reforming by/according to the Word of God.
As in reforming its practice back in line with its doctrine.
IOW we don’t keep reinventing the wheel in every generation.
RS: That is correct, no need to reinvent the wheel in every generation. However, the Pharisess would not have thought of themselves as being out of line with their forefathers. Getting the practice back in line after it has drifted away is quite hard.
LikeLike
Richard, but prior to Trent there had been plenty of Protestant calls for persons to come out of the Roman church, something that obviously suggests she wasn’t kosher. But you’re on the wrong side of larger Reformed history and practice, per none other than Berkhof:
They [the Reformed] have generally recognized the baptism of other Churches, not excluding the Roman Catholics, and also of the various sects, except in the case of Churches and sects which denied the Trinity. Thus they refused to honour the baptism of the Socinians and of the Unitarians. In general, they considered a baptism as valid which was administered by a duly accredited minister and in the name of the triune God.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, but prior to Trent there had been plenty of Protestant calls for persons to come out of the Roman church, something that obviously suggests she wasn’t kosher. But you’re on the wrong side of larger Reformed history and practice, per none other than Berkhof:
They [the Reformed] have generally recognized the baptism of other Churches, not excluding the Roman Catholics, and also of the various sects, except in the case of Churches and sects which denied the Trinity. Thus they refused to honour the baptism of the Socinians and of the Unitarians. In general, they considered a baptism as valid which was administered by a duly accredited minister and in the name of the triune God.
RS: On the other hand, Trent declared Roman Catholicism to be a non-Church (by implication) by putting an anathema on the Gospel in 1564 (18 years after Luther died and the year Calvin died). How can one be a duly accredited minister when one does not preach the Gospel and is in a “denomination” that does not preach the Gospel? But again, a question I tried to raise above, how can one deny the Gospel and still be thought of as holding to the true Trinity in anything other than using words?
LikeLike
Oh, I don’t know, Richard, I was baptized in an Episcopal church as an infant then re-baptized in an Arminian Bible church in early adulthood. I have since repented of the latter, but no Reformed church of which I have been a member has ever demanded three times a charm. You can keep hyperventilating and drawing the baptismal line at the gospel instead of the Trinity (where Jesus draws it in Matthew 28, btw–is Jesus just promoting the vain repetition of magic words?), but the historical arrangement seems right to me.
LikeLike
RS: That is correct, no need to reinvent the wheel in every generation. However, the Pharisess would not have thought of themselves as being out of line with their forefathers. Getting the practice back in line after it has drifted away is quite hard.
RS: On the other hand, Trent declared Roman Catholicism to be a non-Church (by implication) by putting an anathema on the Gospel in 1564 (18 years after Luther died and the year Calvin died). How can one be a duly accredited minister when one does not preach the Gospel and is in a “denomination” that does not preach the Gospel? But again, a question I tried to raise above, how can one deny the Gospel and still be thought of as holding to the true Trinity in anything other than using words?
Me: It seems your logic boxes you into a blind canyon. Trinitatian baptism: Rome, a church that denies the gospel- but there may be a priest that baptizes who truly believes… A reformed church (say OPC), a church that owns the gospel – but the minister that baptizes who may not truly believe (I know… a stretch). In either case you limit God’s secret election and regeneration in baptism to man and his perfection rather than acknowledging God’s own efficacious and sovereign grace in baptism bestowed on whom He so chooses for eternal life. Neither the unbelieving church nor the unbeliveing minister restricts the predestination of God in baptism.
I’m not advocating an “anything goes” as the norm in baptism. But the accepted practice given to the church doesn’t limit God in effecting his purpose of salvation in any person’s life. Just my two cents.
LikeLike
Jeremy, our session looked at Charles Hodge’s argument (don’t re-baptize) and puritan-type arguments and decided not to rebaptize Catholics. It was after a good bit of discussion.
Peter Wallace takes a look at this issue as it played out in American Presbyterianism in Hodge’s day. http://www.peterwallace.org/dissertation/3catholicity.htm
LikeLike
Zrim: Oh, I don’t know, Richard, I was baptized in an Episcopal church as an infant then re-baptized in an Arminian Bible church in early adulthood. I have since repented of the latter, but no Reformed church of which I have been a member has ever demanded three times a charm. You can keep hyperventilating and drawing the baptismal line at the gospel instead of the Trinity (where Jesus draws it in Matthew 28, btw–is Jesus just promoting the vain repetition of magic words?), but the historical arrangement seems right to me.
RS: When one is baptized in the name of the Father, one is baptized into all that the Father is and stands for. The same is true of the Son and of the Spirit. When one is baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one is now considered to be in their name and no longer belongs to self. Just saying the words is not the same thing as believing the words.
LikeLike
Jack Millter: It seems your logic boxes you into a blind canyon. Trinitatian baptism: Rome, a church that denies the gospel- but there may be a priest that baptizes who truly believes… A reformed church (say OPC), a church that owns the gospel – but the minister that baptizes who may not truly believe (I know… a stretch). In either case you limit God’s secret election and regeneration in baptism to man and his perfection rather than acknowledging God’s own efficacious and sovereign grace in baptism bestowed on whom He so chooses for eternal life. Neither the unbelieving church nor the unbeliveing minister restricts the predestination of God in baptism.
RS: It sounds as if you believe that it is the norm for regeneration to happen at baptism. I don’t, so that may be part of the issue.
Jack Miller: I’m not advocating an “anything goes” as the norm in baptism. But the accepted practice given to the church doesn’t limit God in effecting his purpose of salvation in any person’s life. Just my two cents.
RS: While it is very true that the practice does not limit God in effecting His purposes, that should not be an encouragement or license to base a practice on.
LikeLike
RS: It sounds as if you believe that it is the norm for regeneration to happen at baptism. I don’t, so that may be part of the issue.
Me: No, not if you mean baptism automatically equals or results in regeneration. But your question avoids the quandary I posited to you.
Jack Miller: I’m not advocating an “anything goes” as the norm in baptism. But the accepted practice given to the church doesn’t limit God in effecting his purpose of salvation in any person’s life. Just my two cents.
RS: While it is very true that the practice does not limit God in effecting His purposes, that should not be an encouragement or license to base a practice on.
Me: Your response to my statement simply agrees with what I wrote. Again, you didn’t interact with what I offered as a problem to your line of reasoning.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that Baptists rebaptize everyone who was baptized as a baby so arguing about Catholic baptisms being valid or not with a Baptist kind of misses the point.
LikeLike
Jack Miller: Your response to my statement simply agrees with what I wrote. Again, you didn’t interact with what I offered as a problem to your line of reasoning.
RS: I guess it seemed to me your presented problem (unless I missed it) depended on baptism, election, and regeneration being tied together. As one who believes in justification by grace alone through faith alone, your presented quandry does not present a problem to me (as I see it). My position is that those whom God elects God regenerates and gives faith apart from baptism. The pattern given in Matthew 28:19 is to make disciples and baptize them, that is, baptize disciples. The pattern is then continued in Acts where it was disciples/believers who believed and then were baptized. The command of trinitarian baptism, then, is to be applied to disciples. I am not trying to get off the subject, but simply to say that is we carefully look at the command of what to do and then of those that we are commanded to baptize, things look different.
Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.
Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
37 And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
38 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
LikeLike
Richard,
Since you won’t address the quandary that I offered above, then let me respond to your words/question regarding baptism with this question of Calvin’s from his Institutes directed to those who would misconstrue the nature of a sacrament:
Let them [you] tell me, in fine,what is meant by the declaration of Paul, that baptism is “the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost?” (Titus 3:5)
LikeLike
Jack Miller: Since you won’t address the quandary that I offered above, then let me respond to your words/question regarding baptism with this question of Calvin’s from his Institutes directed to those who would misconstrue the nature of a sacrament:
RS: I simply don’t feel the weight of what you see as a quandry, which leaves be little to no room to address the quandry you see.
Jack Miller: Let them [you] tell me, in fine,what is meant by the declaration of Paul, that baptism is “the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost?” (Titus 3:5)
RS: The key is in trying to discern that the “washing of regeneration” means and how the genetive ties in. I would simply note that it is the washing of regeneration and not the regeneration of washing. In other words, it is regeneration that does the washing rather than the washing bringing forth the regeneration.
John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 3:8 “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
RS: The soul is born from above as the Spirit blows and by the will of God and not by the will of man (a priest, a minister, a parent).. The soul is washed in regeneration and not by water which can only touch the body. “It is God’s Spirit who regenerates us and makes us new creatures, but since His grace is invisible and hidden, a visible symbol of it is given to us in baptism.” Calvin
LikeLike
Richard,
Richard, you didn’t explain what Paul means by calling baptism “…..” And your quoting Calvin (with whom I agree) is somewhat ironic as he offers no support for what I suspect is your argument concerning what Paul means. But you tell me, do you agree with Calvin in this instance?
Calvin – Now the Apostles are wont to draw an argument from the Sacraments, to prove that which is there exhibited under a figure, because it ought to be held by believers as a settled principle, that God does not sport with us by unmeaning figures, but inwardly accomplishes by his power what he exhibits by the outward sign; and therefore, baptism is fitly and truly said to be “the washing of regeneration.” The efficacy and use of the sacraments will be properly understood by him who shall connect the sign and the thing signified, in such a manner as not to make the sign unmeaning and inefficacious, and who nevertheless shall not, for the sake of adorning the sign, take away from the Holy Spirit what belongs to him. Although by baptism wicked men are neither washed nor renewed, yet it retains that power, so far as relates to God, because, although they reject the grace of God, still it is offered to them. But here Paul addresses believers, in whom baptism is always efficacious, and in whom, therefore, it is properly connected with its truth and efficacy. (Titus commentary)
I agree, we are not cleansed by the outward washing of water and that baptism is only sure means of grace to the elect, yet Calvin cautions from his Institutes…
“Moreover, two faults are here to be avoided. We must neither, by setting too little value on the signs, dissever them from their meanings to which they are in some degree annexed, nor by immoderately extolling them, seem somewhat to obscure the mysteries…”
You seem to fall into the former camp?
“The nature of the sacrament is therefore overthrown, if in the mode of signifying the earthly sign corresponds not to the heavenly reality…” – Calvin
Lastly, you wrote:
RS: The soul is born from above as the Spirit blows and by the will of God and not by the will of man (a priest, a minister, a parent)…
Me: Then why have a priest or minister to baptize, or a parent to catechize? The Spirit of God is sufficient, is He not?
LikeLike
Jack Miller: Richard, you didn’t explain what Paul means by calling baptism “…..” And your quoting Calvin (with whom I agree) is somewhat ironic as he offers no support for what I suspect is your argument concerning what Paul means. But you tell me, do you agree with Calvin in this instance?
Calvin – Now the Apostles are wont to draw an argument from the Sacraments, to prove that which is there exhibited under a figure, because it ought to be held by believers as a settled principle, that God does not sport with us by unmeaning figures, but inwardly accomplishes by his power what he exhibits by the outward sign; and therefore, baptism is fitly and truly said to be “the washing of regeneration.” The efficacy and use of the sacraments will be properly understood by him who shall connect the sign and the thing signified, in such a manner as not to make the sign unmeaning and inefficacious, and who nevertheless shall not, for the sake of adorning the sign, take away from the Holy Spirit what belongs to him. Although by baptism wicked men are neither washed nor renewed, yet it retains that power, so far as relates to God, because, although they reject the grace of God, still it is offered to them. But here Paul addresses believers, in whom baptism is always efficacious, and in whom, therefore, it is properly connected with its truth and efficacy.
RS: No, I don’t agree that baptism can be fitly said “the washing of regeneration.” I say that because regeneration is what does the washing and not the water.
Jack Miller: I agree, we are not cleansed by the outward washing of water and that baptism is only sure means of grace to the elect, yet Calvin cautions from his Institutes…
“Moreover, two faults are here to be avoided. We must neither, by setting too little value on the signs, dissever them from their meanings to which they are in some degree annexed, nor by immoderately extolling them, seem somewhat to obscure the mysteries…”
You seem to fall into the former camp?
RS: But of course I don’t think that I am setting too little value on the signs by thinking that Calvin ascribes to baptism what should be ascribed to the work of the Spirit. His interpretation at this point is the regeneration of washing when in fact the text speaks of the washing of regeneration.
“The nature of the sacrament is therefore overthrown, if in the mode of signifying the earthly sign corresponds not to the heavenly reality…” – Calvin
RS: Or perhaps the nature of the sacrament is overthrown when a person puts too much stress on it that reality does not.
Jack Miller: Lastly, you wrote:
RS: The soul is born from above as the Spirit blows and by the will of God and not by the will of man (a priest, a minister, a parent)…
Jack Miller: Then why have a priest or minister to baptize, or a parent to catechize? The Spirit of God is sufficient, is He not?
RS: He is sufficient but He has chosen to use the Word of Truth to do His regenerating work.
James 1:18 In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
I would argue that the later position of Calvin (if Wallace is right) is that Calvin did not see power in the sacraments but in the Word preached when the sacraments were done. Regeneration occurs when God exercises His will to do so and yet He uses the word of truth to do so.
LikeLike