Posted on 08/26/2008 6:30:33 AM PDT by Gamecock
Question:
In a recent leadership class in our church, the discussion arose as to what baptisms would we or do we accept in our church. The answer was given that we would accept any baptism, including Roman Catholic, that was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I was pretty sure that I had the doctrine down pat, and recall being taught by this very church that we would only accept baptisms done in churches considered to be based in true belief. This is to say that the baptism would be recognized for those from believing households only. What is the OPC position or understanding of this issue? Do you know of a written treatment of this subject? I am very willing to be convinced otherwise, but for now I see this as another of the increasing number of tattered edges in the church.
Answer:
It is generally the practice of the OPC to accept Roman Catholic baptism as fulfilling the requirement for baptism. The reasoning behind this practice is that the sanctity of the ordinance does not depend on the character of the person performing the baptism. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way: "The grace exhibited which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit and the word of institution" (27:3). Also see Matthew 10:8, in which Jesus gave authority to the 12 disciples to heal the sick, cast out demons, raise the dead, etc. Judas was one of them and doubtless performed these wonders. Yet he was an apostate. (See John 12:12 and Acts 1:25.) These miraculous works in Jesus' name were not negated by Judas' defection.
There are some in the OPC who question RC baptism on the basis of the Roman Catholic belief in baptismal regeneration. So, as a matter of conscience, the session or the applicant for membership might call for re-baptism. However, I know of no instances that I can quote, and I'm unaware that the question has come to any General Assembly for adjudication. Moreover, it is my guess that the OPC and the PCA are of one mind on the matter. Let me know if you have information to the contrary of which I am not aware.
I find the OPC to be most gracious in how it deals with other religious entities.
I think so.
Obviously, Baptists won't accept infant Baptisms. But then again some Baptists won't even accept other Baptist Baptisms. Conversly, I think most churches will accept Baptist Baptisms.
I don't know of any Christian church that will accept a Mormon Baptism.
I think Roman Catholics will accept Trinitarian Baptisms from other denominations. Let's ask....
And most will not accept any baptism that was not done by immersion.
Baptism represents the catholic nature of Christ’s true Church (Eph. 4:5). In the transition from older covenant to the new it replaced circumcision (which was cultic/racial in nature) as the sacrament of inclusion for Christ’s Church.
Sadly, the common Baptist practice undermines this universal sign of Christ’s covenant relationship to His people. That is why the views of the so-called “rebaptizers” at the time of the Reformation were condemned by the rest of the Protestant world.
But then again some Baptists won't even accept other Baptist Baptisms. Conversly, I think most churches will accept Baptist Baptisms.
My impression from hanging around them back in my college days was that they varied from pretty loose credo-only to "gotta be baptised in our church" (which would be a problem of conscience if you hold that it should be done once.)
Which is another question altogether. Who receives? Who performs? Repeat baptisms? My impression of run-of-the-mill evangelicalism (where I currently hang out, in increasing frustration) is that they are shockingly lax with respect to practice.
Let's ask....
Think you might want to have the Religion Moderator flag this as ecumenical.....
Like the OPC and PCA (following the position of Presbyterians like Charles Hodge) I have no problem accepting RC or EO baptism as valid, even with the baggage of baptismal regeneration. Just as I have no problem accepting Baptist baptism as valid, even though most Baptists deny the sacramental nature of baptism and implicitly deny the place of children in the covenant by refusing them the sign of inclusion.
Catholics accept baptisms from any Christian church which is performed using the words from the bible, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.
The words must be those of Jesus which is Trinitarian. For that reason, this past spring, several ultra-leftist Catholic parishes were admonished by the Vatican and told that they must re-baptize infants who were being baptized, “in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier.” Those congregations apparently did not like the words “Father” and “Son” as they thought they were sexists. Idiots!
That can be either a positive or a negative. Sometimes they need to do a better job of hitting the PCA over the head.
Technically correct, to the best of my knowlege - I know of no JUDICIAL CASES to reach GA on this issue.
However, in the interest of completeness, the author should have made reference to the actions of the 1845 assembly of the Old School Presbyterians.
"1. The Action of the General Assembly, Old School, of 1845, (Minutes, 1845, pages 34-37).
"The Committee appointed to draw up a minute expressive of the views of the Assembly, presented a report, which was read and adopted, and is as follows, viz.
"The Committee appointed to prepare a minute expressive of the view of this Assembly, in returning a negative to Overture No. 6, leave to report.
"The question presented to this Assembly by Overture from the Presbytery of Ohio, 'Is Baptism in the Church of Rome Valid?' is one of a very grave character, and of deep practical importance. The answer to it must involve principles vital to the peace, the purity, and the stability of the church of God. "After a full discussion carried through several days, this Assembly has decided, by a nearly unanimous vote [173 yeas to 8 nays], that baptism so administered, is not valid."...
The 1987 PCA majority and minority report (both received but not adopted by the GA), the 1845 action quoted above (and the reasoning behind it) and some additional materials can be found here:
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-078.html
Thanks for the ping. My best guess is that our SBC church would accept a Catholic baptism IF it was a believer's baptism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.