It also made sense for me to be baptized as a Protestant
But am I correct in assuming that only children of Covenant members are valid baptismal candidates?
No... Adult converts are also valid baptismal candidates.
Some presbyterians, such as John Knox would argue for the validity of RC baptism on the account that it was trinitarian. Others such as the RPCGA would argue against the validity. See their documentation online.
http://www.rpcga.us/SiteContent/65/documents/RPCGA Declaration on RCC Baptism.pdf
Knox stated in his
Answers to Some Questions Concerning Baptism, etc.
I add, whosoever offers their children to the papistical baptism, offers them to the devil, who was author and first inventor of all such abominations; and therefore, whosoever communicates with the papistical sacraments, approves (and before the world allows) whatsoever doctrine and religion they profess. Yea, farther, who offers their children to the papistical baptism, offers them not to God, nor to Christ Jesus his Son, but to the devil, [the] chief author and inventor of such abominations.
But he then goes on to state:
"Shall we be baptized again," do some demand, "that in our infancy were polluted with that adulterated sign?" I answer, "No," for the Spirit of regeneration, which is freely given to us by Christ Jesus our whole sufficiency, has purged from us that poison which we drank in the days of our blindness.
We , Reformed Protestants are first to ascertain from Scripture what the true sacrament of baptism is, and then judge the practice of the church in every age by this standard.... The unbroken transmission of a visible Church in any line of succession is a figment of papists and prelatists. Conformity with the Scriptures, not ecclesiastical genealogy, is the true touchstone of a sound church.”
All here know I am an ex Roman catholic and now a Presbyterian. However a few years ago before becoming a Presbyterian in my present church by affirmation of faith before the congregation.; While exploring the Baptists I requested and was Baptized in a Protestant Baptism by immersion in a Baptist church.
Baptists have not acknowledged other baptism than immersion. And therefore if you have received some other form of baptism, and you desire to join a Baptist church, and especially a Reformed Baptist church, immersion will be required. Now that is not because Reformed Baptists are just being mean and nasty and picky. It is because of their very theology of baptism that that is required, so there are definitely ecclesiastical divides on this issue. And it is an important one to study.
In the northern Presbyterian church, Charles Hodge argued that all Roman Catholic baptism ought to be accepted as legitimate Christian baptism. In the southern Presbyterian church, James Henley Thornwell argued that it should not be accepted as Christian baptism. And in the PCA, in order to avoid the controversy, we have left that up to local sessions, so we split the difference as usual. Basically what we said is, that we will leave that up to the local session to determine on a case-by-case basis.
the Roman Church wasn’t a church, and B. since the Roman Church was not a church, therefore the Roman Priesthood was not ordained clergy.
In the late 1980s a debate arose within the PCA that has troubled Presbyterians for centuries, namely is Roman Catholic Baptism valid, or should we baptize someone who was sprinkled in a Roman Catholic Church when we admit them to membership in a PCA church? In 1987 the PCA majority report of the Ad Hoc committee appointed to study the validity of certain baptisms determined that Roman Catholic baptism was indeed invalid, and thus no true baptism at all. This report was prepared by Frank M. Barker, Jr., Carl W. Bogue, Jr., George W. Knight, III, Chairman, and Paul G. Settle so it represented a fairly wide diversity of views within the PCA. They noted that the American Presbyterians in their GAs of 1790 and 1835 had determined that the Roman Catholic Church (hereafter RCC) was an apostate organization, and therefore no part of the true church.
The almost unanimous opinion of the Old School GA of 1845 was also that being no part of the true church, the RCC could not administer a valid baptism.
If we were to go against the opinion of prior Old School Presbyterians by contending that the baptism of the RCC is valid, most modern Presbyterians would be put in the exceedingly odd position of admitting that they would not receive a member of the RCC into one’s own church by letter of transfer, because they judge them not to be members of a true church, but that they would acknowledge that their baptism, the sign and seal of entrance into the visible church, was valid. In fact, this silly situation would be only heightened by the fact that we specifically do not allow members of the RCC to come to Lord’s Supper because we do not consider them to be members in good standing of an evangelical church. In short in everything we do, we deny the RCC to be a part of the visible church. So to acknowledge their baptism as valid would be impossibly inconsistent – it simply has no possible foundation other than
“It is the unanimous opinion of all the Reformed churches, that the whole papal body, though once a branch of the visible church, has long since become utterly corrupt, and hopelessly apostate. It was a conviction of this which led to the reformation, and the complete separation of the reformed body from the papal communion. Luther and his coadjutors, being duly ordained presbyters at the time when they left the Romish communion, which then, though fearfully corrupt, was the only visible church in the countries of their abode, were fully authorized by the word of God, to ordain successors in the ministry, and so to extend and perpetuate the Reformed churches as true churches of Christ: while the contumacious adherence of Rome to her corruptions, as shown in the decisions of the Council of Trent, (which she adopts as authoritative,) cuts her off from the visible Church of Christ, as heretical and unsound. This was the opinion of the Reformers, and it is the doctrine of the Reformed churches to this day. In entire accordance to this is the decision of the General Assembly of our Church, passed in 1835, (See Minutes of General Assembly, vol. 8, p. 33) declaring the Church of Rome to be an apostate body.
It also made sense for me to be baptized as a Protestant because I not only questioned the validity myself of RC baptism I wrote the following as my personal confession of faith when becoming a Presbyterian.
The following is my personal experience of being “born again” regeneration by the grace of God alone … For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
My personal statement of my Reformed faith as a Presbyterian.. how I responded to the gift of grace alone a gift from God…
I am an ex Roman catholic I renounced Roman Catholicism, her pope and its teachings which transcend and contradict scripture when I became a Protestant.
I also believe that a Roman catholic needs to reject openly Roman Catholicism and her pope to be truly free and experience a true Protestant conversion after being born again by Gods amazing grace…regeneration…..
I Dudley Davis reject all the traditions and teachings of the Roman Catholic church and as a Protestant I accept, embrace and believe the following as part of my Christian Reformed Protestant faith
I believe in the God of the Bible
I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God
I believe God is trinity, one God in three persons
I believe Jesus Christ is very God of very God
I believe that the Christ has come in the flesh
I believe in the resurrection of the dead
I believe in eternal judgment
I believe in a heaven and a hell and that all who are elected by the saving grace of God and accept Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and thus are born again in Jesus Christ as believers of His Gospel and live the life of evangelizing his good news will be with his Father in Gods Kingdom of Heaven for all eternity.
I believe in justification by faith alone.
I sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Presbyterian church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures and I submit to the teachings of the Presbyterian Protestant tenets and doctrine.
I believe the Bible as the word of God and the only and final authority and path to salvation I submit in discipline to the doctrines of John Calvin and the teachings of the Presbyterian Church in doctrine and life.
It is Christ alone who is salvation to our souls, not the Church of Rome or the Pope"
I believe in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, the authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and practice and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
I believe now as the Reformers who realized as they studied the Scriptures that the great central doctrine of the gospel was expressed in the comprehensive sentence, “Christ died for our sins.” The death of Christ was the great center from which the doctrine of salvation sprung.
In grace,
Dudley
---------- Post added at 12:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 AM ----------
So then since a priest is not a minister and RC isn't part of Christ's Church, there is no baptism. Also, the PCAs position is what you find in the Westminster Standards. So not just a minister, but more specifically a minister lawfully ordained which a priest is not.
The historic Presbyterian position (i.e. what is accepted in the PCA) is that any perso baptized in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit by a minister of a trinitarian church, is considered to be baptized.
Some sectarians (also known as donatists) will insist that only those baptisms performed by the "right man" are valid. However this is not the position of the mainstream of orthodoxy.
Here is a good article on this issue:
Are Roman Catholic Baptisms Valid? « Building Old School Churches
Amen!In short in everything we do,as Reformed Protestants, we deny the RCC to be a part of the visible church. So to acknowledge their baptism as valid would be impossibly inconsistent – it simply has no possible foundation other than be baptised as a Protestant when converting from the RCC.
---------- Post added at 12:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 AM ----------
So then since a priest is not a minister and RC isn't part of Christ's Church, there is no baptism. Also, the PCAs position is what you find in the Westminster Standards. So not just a minister, but more specifically a minister lawfully ordained which a priest is not.
The historic Presbyterian position (i.e. what is accepted in the PCA) is that any perso baptized in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit by a minister of a trinitarian church, is considered to be baptized.
Some sectarians (also known as donatists) will insist that only those baptisms performed by the "right man" are valid. However this is not the position of the mainstream of orthodoxy.
Here is a good article on this issue:
Are Roman Catholic Baptisms Valid? « Building Old School Churches
Amen!In short in everything we do,as Reformed Protestants, we deny the RCC to be a part of the visible church. So to acknowledge their baptism as valid would be impossibly inconsistent – it simply has no possible foundation other than be baptised as a Protestant when converting from the RCC.
and read his piece on "The Validity of Romish Baptism" which is excerpted from the GA article. This is online as well, I believe. 
