Do Protestant churches accept Catholic baptism as valid?

[Root of Jesse]

Its not so simple as child care as no one can make such a decision for you... I can see where this is going so I will say I was informing you at least some protestant Christians would not accept some form of catholic baptism (infant). My comment should not be construed as an attack or commentary about how you or anybody practices that ritual

I mean, really, though. You don't believe that baptism has any salvific effect, and in many cases, Catholics immerse babies at baptism. So if baptism has no effect on the individual, why not accept it?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, yes. Baptism validates your faith to the local congregation. It reassures the church body and yourself that you are going full steam on this Christian thing. God's grace saves people, not religious ceremony. You cannot be saved by works. Ephesians 2:8 clearly states that. It would be foolish to think that any sort of ceremony invokes God's grace upon a person, that is up to the sovereign will of God to ultimately decide. It doesn't mean I cannot pray for it, and guide my child to God. God is not a magic genie at your or any priest's command. He tells you what to do, not the other way around.

And yet Scripture tells us "Baptism now saves you." In other words, you're born again. Baptism doesn't validate faith. I used to attend Baptist services with my mother once in a while, and every time, they would hold an altar call and invite people to come up. My mother always looked at me expectantly, like "why won't you go???" And, by the way, it is a work to present yourself for baptism the way you folks do it. That doesn't mean you're saved by works. And we don't believe you're saved by works. What happens at baptism, or any Sacrament in the Catholic Church, is that we call upon the Holy Spirit to confer the grace requested.
It's not the other way around, either, brother, but we do ask God for his favor. Don't you?

 

[CalmRon]

I mean, really, though. You don't believe that baptism has any salvific effect, and in many cases, Catholics immerse babies at baptism. So if baptism has no effect on the individual, why not accept it?

Short answer is because they don't want to I have no horse on this race, I was baptized twice as a Baptist and almost a third time as an Adventist. You join a religion or a denomination/sect you usually have to adhere to their rule or else why bother. So if I were to become catholic I would follow catholic practices but if I became reformed I shouldn't expect them to accept my practices from previously being catholic. In that instance they may require I get rebaptized as a show of my new faith.

 

[BobRyan]

That's pretty much "it," yes. We might also say that it is a minority of Protestant churches that fall into either of those categories (Believer's Baptism and/or total immersion considered necessary for validity).

According to Christianity Today - the SDA church is the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world - and it believes in total immersion - believer's baptism as the only method practiced in the NT - and acceptable in the church. So while this may indeed be the minority view - a number of large groups do hold to it. Not just the Baptists of all variations.

 

[hedrick]

Mainline churches generally do accept Catholic baptisms. The PCUSA has an explicit agreement on mutual recognition of baptism. Other churches may not either because (1) they don't accept infant baptism or (2) they require some level of doctrinal or organizational agreement and don't think Catholics qualify, or (3) because of more serious differences on what baptism is. Many of the contributors here have mentioned (1). The PCA (a more conservative Presbyterian Church) doesn't accept Catholic baptisms for reason (2). They're not alone. You've also seem some examples here of (3). Under (3), I've run into Christians who will rebaptize someone if their faith has developed sufficiently that they don't think their original baptism reflected real faith. Or who associate it with membership in their particular church.

 

[Albion]

According to Christianity Today - the SDA church is the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world - and it believes in total immersion - believer's baptism as the only method practiced in the NT - and acceptable in the church. So while this may indeed be the minority view

Yes, it is decidedly the minority view...and we've already dealt with the misleading "5th largest denomination in the world" claim.

 

[FireDragon76]

Aside from Baptists (and related churches such as SDA) and many non-denoms, only conservative Presbyterian churches wouldn't accept a Roman Catholic baptism. Very ironic because John Calvin was baptized as a Roman Catholic and never was rebaptized, in fact he was harshly critical of the practice. So it would seem Calvin and Luther would come down on the side of accepting Roman Catholic baptisms.

Methodists and most Holiness groups that practice infant baptism would also accept Roman Catholic baptism.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Short answer is because they don't want to I have no horse on this race, I was baptized twice as a Baptist and almost a third time as an Adventist. You join a religion or a denomination/sect you usually have to adhere to their rule or else why bother. So if I were to become catholic I would follow catholic practices but if I became reformed I shouldn't expect them to accept my practices from previously being catholic. In that instance they may require I get rebaptized as a show of my new faith.

You're missing the point. The Bible says there's one faith, one baptism, one Lord. Apparently, you don't believe that, and apparently, the Catholic Church, and apparently some Protestant Churches, do. But that's why we accept baptisms of other Christian denominations as valid.

 

[CalmRon]

You're missing the point. The Bible says there's one faith, one baptism, one Lord. Apparently, you don't believe that, and apparently, the Catholic Church, and apparently some Protestant Churches, do. But that's why we accept baptisms of other Christian denominations as valid.

That is the point, there are other faith traditions that don't hold Catholicism in high regard, and belief in the church is very fragmented,So they don't accept certain things like infant baptism and may question catholic baptism in general. As for the quote, that was written at a time when the Church knew only one faith, lord and baptism. A study of church history from any perspective should tell you that. You are stating that someone from another denomination should accept something you denomination does because we are supposed to be one faith; it depends on what you mean when say faith, some have things in their faith that they find essential and see that other Christians lack, so there is no great Christian unity today

 

[rockytopva]

Any baptism done in the name of Jesus Christ is a valid baptism. If it were not for the closed communion I would not have a problem with visiting Catholic churches.

 

[Albion]

That is the point, there are other faith traditions that don't hold Catholicism in high regard, and belief in the church is very fragmented,So they don't accept certain things like infant baptism and may question catholic baptism in general.

We all know that.

But most non-Catholic churches--and certainly most of the prominent denominations and churches--would.

There's nothing altered when anyone points to a small exception here or there. The point is that, usually, the Protestant churches that everyone knows accept a transfer of membership without requiring a rebaptism-- which is to say, they accept the person's baptism in the RCC as valid.

 

[graceandpeace]

I think others have already given a sufficient answer. I think any of the traditions that accept infant baptism (especially in the mainline) will accept a Roman Catholic who was baptized as an infant. Most of the world's Christians practice infant baptism - Episcopalians/Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc - so it is only certain groups that either don't accept it/require "re-baptism"/etc.

 

[CalmRon]

We all know that.

But most non-Catholic churches--and certainly most of the prominent denominations and churches--would.

There's nothing altered when anyone points to a small exception here or there. The point is that, usually, the Protestant churches that everyone knows accept a transfer of membership without requiring a rebaptism-- which is to say, they accept the person's baptism in the RCC as valid.

Just pointing out to our friend that its not really uniform across Christianity nor should we expect it to be.

 

[JM]

I'm a little late but...some do. Some don’t.

Obviously Baptists require confession of faith and immersion, many Baptist churches fence the table by saying something along the lines of, “all those who have confessed faith and followed the Lord in believers baptism are invited to the Lord’s Table…” That means even other Protestants who were baptized as infants would have to be baptized by immersion. I can’t speak to every Presbyterian body but old school Southern Presbyterians deny Roman Catholic baptism believing Rome doesn’t preach the Gospel.

“She thus perverts the truth of God; she rejects the doctrine of justification by faith; she substitutes human merit for the righteousness of Christ; and self-inflicted punishment for gospel repentance: She proclaims her so-called baptism, to be regeneration, and the reception of the consecrated wafer in the eucharist, to be the receiving of Christ himself, the source and fountain of grace, and with him all the grace he can impart. Is this the truth? Is reliance on this system, true religion? Can, then, the papal body be a Church?”

Yours in the Lord,
jm

 

[hedrick]

I can’t speak to every Presbyterian body but old school Southern Presbyterians deny Roman Catholic baptism believing Rome doesn’t preach the Gospel.

The PCUSA and OPC accept Catholic baptism. The PCA does not.

 

[JM]

The PCUSA and OPC accept Catholic baptism. The PCA does not.

I think the ARP accepts RC baptism. My buddy is a minister with ARP so I'll ask him about it.

I wish my memory was better but I had a pipe and talk with Dr. Pipa Pres of Greenville Presbyterian Theological and the discussion was about Roman baptism. I think he sided with Dabney...

jm

 

[ImaginaryDay]

To the bolded, why? We use immersion in very many cases. Even for infants. Again, though, why would you reject a parents' authority to make important decisions for their children?

If there is no scriptural evidence for immersion(I'm not making the argument, just raising a question), why would be used in "very many cases" in the Catholic churches?

 

[BobRyan]

According to Christianity Today - the SDA church is the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world - and it believes in total immersion - believer's baptism as the only method practiced in the NT - and acceptable in the church. So while this may indeed be the minority view - a number of large groups do hold to it. Not just the Baptists of all variations.

Yes, it is decidedly the minority view...and we've already dealt with the misleading "5th largest denomination in the world" claim.

If Christianity Today was "misleading" I have not seen anyone actually point that out.

Is that wishful thinking in your post? Or do you have a link?

 

[BobRyan]

If there is no scriptural evidence for immersion(I'm not making the argument, just raising a question), why would be used in "very many cases" in the Catholic churches?

The Bible provides that evidence and only references "Believer's Baptism" accompanied with the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" by the one being baptized.

 

[SeventyOne]

I hear a lot of criticism of us calling Protestants "separated bretheren". But the question comes up...we accept Trinitarian baptisms as valid in the Catholic Church. Do Protestant churches accept Catholic baptism as valid? So, if I wanted to convert to your church, whether non-denom, or Methodist, or whatever, would you require me to be baptized into your denomination?

I'd be amazed if they did accept it, since it's essentially a baptism from a separate religion.