Is Rome’s baptism perfect? Hardly. Can it be improved? Absolutely. Is Rome’s baptism ideal or recommended? Surely not. But does it remain valid? Yes, and for that reason, people who’ve been baptized in Rome should not be re-baptized. They should instead trust that divine intentions and divine grace outmatch Rome’s with every drop of baptismal water.

If you’re a minister of the gospel, you have to wrestle with what to do with the baptisms performed in the Roman Catholic Church. If someone wants to become a member of your church, and you learn that he was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church, what do you do? Do you call it not a real baptism because Rome doesn’t have the gospel? Do you accept the validity of the baptism while rejecting Rome as a legitimate expression of Christ’s Church? This is a matter not only for ministers of the gospel and their elders, but also for the ones baptized by Rome. As they come to the Reformed and Presbyterian expression of the faith and church government, how are they to view their baptism? There’s a reason they broke away from Rome. Having broken away, what remains? Does their baptism endure? Were they ever truly baptized? Must they be re-baptized, or baptized for the first time? These are important questions, and the debate among the Reformed and Presbyterians has long endured even after our Presbyterian fathers Hodge and Thornwell had their time in the ring. What I propose to do in this brief post is not to rehash the debate and arguments between these brothers in the Lord, but to point out how the Westminster Confession of Faith may give us an answer by way of contrast. That is to say, when we look at the Confession’s words on baptism and then its words on the Lord’s Supper, the Westminster divines speak differently about these two sacraments.

If we listen to the Confession with an ear to the historical situation and the views offered in that day, we are keenly aware of the polemics of the document. We know that these divine pugilists hold back no punches, but instead rock the body of Rome with big, nasty hooks whenever they see an opening. In other words, the Westminster divines were never soft on Rome. After all, the original expression of the WCF views the Pope as the Antichrist. With our ears perked up, then, I want us to hear the noticeable silence of contrast when we consider the Confession’s language on the Lord’s Supper and Baptism.

Read More