All the Reformed Churches, as well as the Lutherans, practically and confessedly recognized the Validity of Romanish Baptism. Gallic Conf., Art. 28. “Because, nevertheless, that in the papacy some scant vestiges of the true Church remain, and especially the substance of Baptism, the efficacy of which does not depend upon him that administers it, we acknowledge those baptized by them, not to need to be re-baptized, although on account of the corruptions adhering, no one can offer his infants to be baptized by them, without suffering pollution himself.” Calvin’s Institutes, Bk. IV., Chap. 15, § 16. “Such in the present day are our Cata-baptists, who deny that we are duly baptized, because we were baptized in the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters; hence they furiously insist on Ana-baptism. Against these absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism we were initiated not into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and, therefore, that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever it may have been administered. * * * It did not harm the Jews that they were circumcised by impure and apostate priests. It did not nullify the symbol so as to make it necessary to repeat it. It was enough to return to its genuine origin. * * * Circumcision was anciently vitiated by many superstitions, and yet ceased not to be regarded as a symbol of grace; nor did Josiah and Hezekiah, when they assembled out of all Israel those who had revolted from God, call them to be circumcised anew.”
A. A. Hodge | Questions on the Text of the Systematic Theology of Dr. Charles Hodge (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1885), 136.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Heidelblog
The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
More by Heidelblog ›
To clarify, my question is, if someone who is baptized SDA came to Christ would he need to be baptized into the true church or was his baptism valid?
Hi Jared,
This is question on which I think orthodox Reformed might differ among themselves.
For most of the existence of the SDA in the USA the confessional/orthodox Presbyterians and Reformed have regarded them as a “cult” (or what we once called a sect). Traditional Adventism is that and it is not orthodox Christianity. It denies the gospel, sola Scriptura, sola gratia, and sola fide.
In the last 20 years or so, however, there has been a more orthodox evangelical movement in the SDA. Were someone to come from that setting, a consistory might judge that he was baptized. Others might reach a different conclusion.
One question is what the SDA understands by the Trinity. I don’t know the answer to that question.
This issue is further complicated by the fact that, in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Anabaptists held heterodox beliefs, including a Christology that, in the Belgic Confession, the Reformed churches denounce formally as heresy, and yet I don’t think that the Reformed re-baptized them (if the Anabaptist administration was their first “baptism.”
The traditionalist Adventist reliance on Ellen G. White is highly problematic as is their eschatology, their Judaizing on the Sabbath (i.e., the Saturday Sabbath), and their man-made food laws among other things.
Even further complicating things, there is a fairly liberal element in the SDA.
It’s a difficult question.
My opinion: were someone to come from a traditional SDA background, I would baptize him because what they had was not a Christian baptism. The most cautious route would be to reject the SDA administration as not a baptism and thus to baptize the convert.
Thank you for your response. That is my view as well, but I have recently received some pushback for it by those who would say that as long as a baptism is done with the right formula, it is valid. I think that the words “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” are not a magical incantation that makes a non-Christian baptism valid.
The biggest complicating factor for me, is the historical lack of evidence of baptizing someone who was first baptized an anabaptist. All in all, I think it is safer to baptize a former SDA, if we are wrong it’s better that we are wrong and accidentally “rebaptize” than for people to go unbaptized.
Here is a case where consistories, classes, and synods are helpful. Were I faced with this question practically (as distinct from theoretically), I would definitely ask the consistory and together we would probably ask the classis for their opinion.
Good point. It’s always a great thing when presbyterian government works!
What about those who were baptized (with the Trinitarian formula) into heretical cults like the Seventh Day Adventists? “Churches” that don’t have “some trace of the Church” left in them, as they were never of the true church.