Does The PCA Recognize RCC Baptism?

[Aconba]

...

 

[kenrapoza]

I don't think there is an official PCA position on Roman Catholic baptisms. Some Pastors consider it to be a valid baptism and others do not, so I think that it may be up to the discretion of the particular session. If you are interested in joining a PCA congregation, I recommend that you speak with the pastor of the particular church you are looking at and asking his position on it.

 

[AMR]

The PCA' GA position is articulated here:

PCA Position Papers: Baptism - Appendix P - Report of the Study Committee on Question Relating to the Validity of Certain Baptisms (1987)

Note that the counsel is to deny Catholic baptism as valid, but the counsel offered is not a binding upon the local session.

 

[hedrick]

The same argument could be made against Arminians and liberals. Do you accept other Protestant baptisms?

 

[Monseigneur_Gentilhomme]

The vast majority of Reformed persons (including those in the PCA and OPC and other NAPARC Churches) will accept any baptism done in the name of the triune God and with the intent that using the words represents Basic Trinitarian theology. Thus Mormons baptise with the formula but not the intent, thus it is invalid. However Catholics, though they would be apostate, acknowledge the Trinity so it counts.

 

[hedrick]

The vast majority of Reformed persons (including those in the PCA and OPC and other NAPARC Churches) will accept any baptism done in the name of the triune God and with the intent that using the words represents Basic Trinitarian theology. Thus Mormons baptise with the formula but not the intent, thus it is invalid. However Catholics, though they would be apostate, acknowledge the Trinity so it counts.

That's what I always thought, but a PCA position paper recommends not accepting Catholic baptisms. See AMR's post. My question was for PCA people who accept the position paper.

The paper argues that the traditional criteria of baptism in the name of the Trinity, with water, in response to Christ's command aren't enough, because it would result in accepting Mormon baptisms. The usual analysis is that while they say the words, they reject the Trinity, so they aren't baptizing in the name of the Trinity. The same would be true for Unitarians and JWs. So initially the position paper seems to differ from tradition primarily in rejecting RC baptism.

However they consider the most effective argument against RC baptism the fact that they are not a valid Church, due to apostacy. They recommend against accepting baptism by "those churches that have so degenerated from the Gospel of Christ as to be no churches of Christ". They list Unitarian, Mormon and RC. But the reason for my question is that many PCA members consider many more bodies than that to be apostate, e.g. PCUSA. Since the position paper really defines proper church in terms of the Gospel, and many PCA members don't think Arminians are preaching the true Gospel, this could actually result in accepting only other conservative Reformed (and possibly Lutheran) baptisms.

 

[Aconba]

...

 

[AMR]

I agree with the PCA on nearly every issue except this one. Hopefully, this will not become an issue for me when I am ready to officially become a church member. My conscience will not permit me to insult God by being “re-baptized”.

It will be up to the local session to determine, so you may find yourself having to shop around for one that will accept your arguments if you are unwilling to accept theirs.

AMR

 

[Monseigneur_Gentilhomme]

That's what I always thought, but a PCA position paper recommends not accepting Catholic baptisms. See AMR's post. My question was for PCA people who accept the position paper.

The paper argues that the traditional criteria of baptism in the name of the Trinity, with water, in response to Christ's command aren't enough, because it would result in accepting Mormon baptisms. The usual analysis is that while they say the words, they reject the Trinity, so they aren't baptizing in the name of the Trinity. The same would be true for Unitarians and JWs. So initially the position paper seems to differ from tradition primarily in rejecting RC baptism.

However they consider the most effective argument against RC baptism the fact that they are not a valid Church, due to apostacy. They recommend against accepting baptism by "those churches that have so degenerated from the Gospel of Christ as to be no churches of Christ". They list Unitarian, Mormon and RC. But the reason for my question is that many PCA members consider many more bodies than that to be apostate, e.g. PCUSA. Since the position paper really defines proper church in terms of the Gospel, and many PCA members don't think Arminians are preaching the true Gospel, this could actually result in accepting only other conservative Reformed (and possibly Lutheran) baptisms.

I did a bit of digging, and that quote was 100% wrong. I think it comes from the MINORITY REPORT, but not the official paper.

Here is the link to the main paper: PCA Position Papers: Baptism and Non-Communing Membership (1977)

Local Churches (i.e. councils) decide.

Also in an appendix (PCA Position Papers: Baptism - Appendix P - Report of the Study Committee on Question Relating to the Validity of Certain Baptisms (1987)), it recomends denying RC baptism, but it was never officially adapted by the Synod. Therefore, the it is left up to local councils and presbyteries.

 

[AMR]

But the reason for my question is that many PCA members consider many more bodies than that to be apostate, e.g. PCUSA.

Members have many opinions, but I am unaware of any General Assembly statements declaring the PC(USA) apostate. Not saying the day will come when that happens, but I have not seen anything in writing. Do you have a pointer to something that would correct me?

AMR

 

[Monseigneur_Gentilhomme]

In effect, the PCA is congregationalish. General Assemblies rarely like to actually decide on manners.

 

[hedrick]

Members have many opinions, but I am unaware of any General Assembly statements declaring the PC(USA) apostate. Not saying the day will come when that happens, but I have not seen anything in writing. Do you have a pointer to something that would correct me?

AMR

No, more comments in forums, and of course the most recent discussions have tended to involve our attitudes towards gays. The question doesn't seem to bring out the best in people. I've been sort of assuming that "The Layman" represents a PCA view, but it could be that PCA folks would consider them as hysterical as I do.

Outside of a few divisive issues (mostly related to gender and sex), I don't actually find much difference between myself and other Reformed folk (or between our pastor and, say Keller). However I seem to be getting more radical in my old age, so check back tomorrow...

Unfortunately a lot of people's minds seem to be focused on sex.