Fair questions. I don't think there is an "overruling." The fact is that the sacraments do not stand alone. They are significant ceremonies and therefore signify something. As such they are tied to the fundamentals of the faith. In the case of conversion some understanding of the Christian faith is required for baptism. In the case of infants the parents are required to believe the faith and undertake for their children to be raised in it. Hence the historic prominence of catechesis.
Are Roman Catholic priests considerd as "lawfully called."
- Thread starter Free Christian
- Start date
- Status
Fair questions. I don't think there is an "overruling." The fact is that the sacraments do not stand alone. They are significant ceremonies and therefore signify something. As such they are tied to the fundamentals of the faith. In the case of conversion some understanding of the Christian faith is required for baptism. In the case of infants the parents are required to believe the faith and undertake for their children to be raised in it. Hence the historic prominence of catechesis.
That seems perfectly reasonable. But now we are back to requiring some degree of true profession by a church in order for the sacrament to be a sacrament, in which case it seems to me that the question is what degree of true profession is required for a church's baptisms to be valid. Rome at least professes the Trinity; Mormonism is not even monotheistic. That's fair enough. It is not totally clear to me, however, why the profession of a false gospel is not enough to render a church's baptisms non-baptisms, but the profession of a false God is. It clearly isn't adequate to say that only the water and the formula matter, as we have now agreed that the profession of the faith - at least in some measure - does, in fact, have a bearing on the question.
Thank you for your patience in answering my questions, by the way.
ETA: As you are no doubt accustomed to by now, I believe I have figured out the answer to my question. I believe the answer from the Rutherfordian perspective (Well, that's what I'm calling it; someone needs to give it a real name) may be that, as far as the validity of baptism is concerned, when two faiths are held in contradiction, the true one should be given priority because of the potential it has to lead to true faith, by which someone would then leave the false church and unite to the true. Rome holds to the true faith in the creeds, while simultaneously denying the true faith and affirming a false gospel in later counsels, but with regard to the validity of her baptism, the true confession takes priority. Is that fair? If so, it wouldn't apply to Mormons, who don't even confess a single God, and cannot be said to have any measure of true profession. Is that an accurate summary (not necessarily an eloquent one) of your own position?
Last edited:
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Eric, whilst I don't have any great answers to much I do know that the JW's do not consider Christ to be God, nor do they believe in the Trinity, Godhead as we do. They say and profess that Jesus was just a man. So if they baptise in that way then they would be baptising in the name of God, the Father, the son a mere man, and the Holy Spirit! That is no Baptism at all.
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
\
Anyone!?
Hi Brett, I hope you are moving about a little better.
What we believe might be happening at the time the ordinance is administered does not make the ordinance valid. If a person's "good meaning" made the ordinance valid it would open the door for people to introduce all kinds of significant ceremonies. The only thing required to make an ordinance valid is the appointment of God. Faith is required for it to be effective for us personally, but it is the appointment of God which makes it a valid ordinance.
In the case of baptism, which is only to be administered once, when it has been administered according to divine appointment, it is valid, and should not be repeated.
Last edited:
Austin, I do not think we are "back" to a point where we have to judge the mark of the church by the status of the church. It is recognised by all that the fundamentals of the faith are taught by Rome. Thornwell's argument (and that usually adopted by his followers) is that the errors of Rome vitiate the truth of those fundamentals (especially in justification and sanctification). If this were the case it would remove the reason why we see a necessity of fundamentals in the first place, which is to identify the basic elements of truth. But more to the point, it shows conclusively that the baptism itself is denied on the basis of a judgment made about the church of Rome apart from a consideration of basic marks.
Your last paragraph seems to be getting at the core issue. Fundamentals are called such for a reason. They are qualities without which the entity would cease to be. No matter how defaced that entity becomes in other respects, while it has the fundamental qualities of a certain object it is rightly identified as that object.
Your last paragraph seems to be getting at the core issue. Fundamentals are called such for a reason. They are qualities without which the entity would cease to be. No matter how defaced that entity becomes in other respects, while it has the fundamental qualities of a certain object it is rightly identified as that object.
Thank you for your help. I believe I understand well now. When I undertake an exhaustive study of this matter (including reading the relevant literature), I will be better prepared to ask the right questions and to think it through thoroughly and carefully now. I appreciate it.
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Mathew. Thanks for asking. Im getting there but the recovery is a bit slower than I anticipated or was told. Probably from carrying around some old injuries along with it.
Im getting there also in regards to this thread as well, not yet but nearly.
Im getting there also in regards to this thread as well, not yet but nearly.
One Little Nail
Puritan Board Sophomore
Chris you would do the Church a great service by republishing this work in a modern typeset & format.
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
This is the thing which causes a hurdle to me.
Are Roman Catholic priests considered "Lawfully called as per the Westminster Confession of Faith"?
For a person to be considered as Lawfully Called and deemed a Minister worthy of administering any of the following, the Sacraments or Baptism, what is the definition for that to which they are considered a Lawfully Called Minister who is worthy of such?
For the wording to be there that it is to be administered by a Lawfully Called person would also leave one with the conclusion that there are those who are not such. Meaning there has to be an absolute definition of what that is so as to be able to know who is and who is not. We are told to be aware of false teachers and so on, so that would logically follow that we be able to recognise who is.
If one then is not Lawfully Called, being that it says it is to be administered by one that is, then how can one say it is or has been done according to the requirements? If it is not done according to the requirements but is accepted then does that not void the initial requirements or are there special circumstances in which it does not?
Are Roman Catholic priests considered "Lawfully called as per the Westminster Confession of Faith"?
For a person to be considered as Lawfully Called and deemed a Minister worthy of administering any of the following, the Sacraments or Baptism, what is the definition for that to which they are considered a Lawfully Called Minister who is worthy of such?
For the wording to be there that it is to be administered by a Lawfully Called person would also leave one with the conclusion that there are those who are not such. Meaning there has to be an absolute definition of what that is so as to be able to know who is and who is not. We are told to be aware of false teachers and so on, so that would logically follow that we be able to recognise who is.
If one then is not Lawfully Called, being that it says it is to be administered by one that is, then how can one say it is or has been done according to the requirements? If it is not done according to the requirements but is accepted then does that not void the initial requirements or are there special circumstances in which it does not?
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
I think what is being said by "lawfully called" is that we would not direct someone to be baptised or get baptism for his/her children from a priest, liberal minister, or someone otherwise heterodox. But that does not mean that the word of Christ in water baptism is nullified if administered by a priest of liberal minister, any more than their reading of a passage of Scripture nullifies that.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
In answer to my own first question, no I do not consider RC priests to be lawfully called.
To accept their Baptism we must accept all Baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Regardless of the Church it was administered in. That the action of the Baptism and its validity rests between the person and God and the ministering of it in the name of the Triune God (not upon the person administering it). That although it is stated that it is to be done by a "Lawfully Called Minister", and it is preferable that it is done this way, but the Baptism itself does not rest upon it being performed by one and that if it is not done this way it is still a valid Baptism?
That the statement for it to be administered by "a Lawfully Called Minister" is more a direction to do so rather than a total requirement.
Yes?
To accept their Baptism we must accept all Baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Regardless of the Church it was administered in. That the action of the Baptism and its validity rests between the person and God and the ministering of it in the name of the Triune God (not upon the person administering it). That although it is stated that it is to be done by a "Lawfully Called Minister", and it is preferable that it is done this way, but the Baptism itself does not rest upon it being performed by one and that if it is not done this way it is still a valid Baptism?
That the statement for it to be administered by "a Lawfully Called Minister" is more a direction to do so rather than a total requirement.
Yes?
Brett, that is how I understand it. The ordinance is valid when it is done according to Christ's appointment notwithstanding unlawful additions. But to be conscientious and seek the Lord's blessing we should also observe the lawful manner of administering it, including a lawfully ordained minister.
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thanks Mathew. I think ill lay that one to rest then.
- Status