The Roman Church has taught for centuries that baptism can be performed
invalidly. When that happens the
baptism has to be repeated and done right.
Until that happens, the baptism is without effect. The person isn’t baptised until
she or he is baptised correctly and by a person who intends to do at least what
the Church does.
The notion of invalid baptism may be inspired by Acts 19:1-5 which says that though John baptised
people for repentance and as a prayer for help from God to live a better life
and in view of the coming of the Messiah Jesus, these people had to be baptised
again in the name of the Lord Jesus.
If a person is baptised with olive oil the baptism is invalid for it
requires water. It seems crazy to
hold that having water is more important than saying, “I cleanse or
baptise you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. It is clearly superstition. Oil can
clean as well. Water on its own
isn’t very good.
If a person is baptised in the name of God and Mary the baptism is
invalid for it has to be done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit. Many priests used to make a
mistake when baptising babies. They
did not know enough about the Latin language to realise that they were baptising,
“In the Name of the Father, Daughter and Holy Spirit”.
If a person is baptised and the person baptising is only miming then the
baptism is invalid. The intention
for the rite to give grace is essential.
The Church of Rome says an Atheist can have this intention when his
attitude is that he wants the baptism to work if there is a God. He intends to do what the Church does.
If you baptise yourself the baptism is invalid. So it is better then to be baptised by
an atheist than to baptise yourself no matter how holy you are and how much
faith you have! This shows the
absurdity of baptism.
The Church of Rome officially declared in 2001 that Mormon baptism was
and is invalid for the Mormons meant two exalted men and one ghost by the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit though they baptised and baptise in water in the
name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
So for baptism to work you must have the Catholic idea of what the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are, three divine beings who are all good and
omnipotent and all-knowing. The
Mormon belief differs too much from Catholicism to allow its baptism to work.
Catholic baptism is null and void because that religion thinks that the
formula, “I baptise thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit”, is a magical charm. Baptism is to be a prayer to God to save
that person from everlasting suffering in Hell and from sin and cause the birth
of a relationship with God and the Catholic Church cannot mean this prayer for
it has the wrong God and means the wrong things.
Rome teaches that the saints influence God which means that the saints
are better than God and are the real Gods.
A perfect God cannot be influenced by his creatures. Rome then cannot mean to baptise in the
name of the Father - it just mouths the words.
If the saints are more powerful than God and better than what he is, then it is hypocrisy and degrading to baptise a child in the name of God.
And Rome says you can be holy while wallowing in venial sin without
regrets even though the holiness is just offering God rotten scraps off the
table as it were. Is that not
saying, “God, I do this good but I refuse to let go of the evil I
like.” That is not real good
any more than St Paul would have been good if he did every good work but
without love or holiness of heart (1 Corinthians 13:3).
Christians believe that just baptising in the name of the Father and the Spirit
is invalid. If that is true then
the same thing happens if you mean the wrong thing say by God or by Jesus. The water might be there and the formula
might be right but the meaning is wrong and baptism in the name of a false
Jesus cannot work. The Bible speaks
of baptism in the name of Jesus. Perhaps
that was just for brevity and perhaps in the name of Jesus means that the
washing and the words of the Father, Son and Spirit were done and said in the
authority of Jesus. Catholic
baptism is not baptism.
Protestant baptism is more likely to be valid than Catholic baptism for
they don’t have saint worship for the real Gods in Catholicism are the
saints and God in Protestantism promises you holiness by imputation without
good works. That is, that Jesus has
become holy for you so you don’t have to be perfect.
Baptism can only be conferred by a believer. Atheists are acting against
their own beliefs if they baptise even if they intend to give grace if they are
wrong and there is a God after all that gives grace through baptism. You are expected to do what you believe
is right but you can’t always be taking the safe side or that is not
logical or practical and besides there is no evidence that baptising is the
safe side. Would the Catholic praise
a Catholic who during his prayers said, “If I have the wrong God then
whatever God exists or gods or whatever then I praise you and apologise if I am
mistaken and have had the wrong God”? Most certainly not. The Atheist cannot give grace through
baptism because he or she is acting against her or his own convictions. Their intention isn’t good so it
cannot confer baptism.
Since when could an Atheist intending to give baptismal grace in case it
works be counted as an intention?
After all it is offset with his intention, “I hope this
doesn’t work for I don’t think there is a God?” This is the strongest intention so the
first one isn’t an intention at all but only a pretence.
The Atheist’s intention is invalid if they wilfully let down
Atheism or if they do not know any better.
If they knew they would not baptise. The Atheist does wrong and since sin
prevents genuine good works the Atheist cannot validly baptise for the rite is
just blasphemy coming from the likes of an Atheist. Sin is the complete rejection of God so
there can be no true intention for saving.
Protestants sometimes say that since Rome sees baptism as a sacrament
that physically causes grace it is invalid. Rome responds that God has freely chosen
to cause grace in a person at baptism the same as Protestants believe that God
has freely decided to confer grace on a person who trusts in Christ alone for
salvation. The water and the words
do not bring the grace to birth, God does. He just chooses to work through this
sign.
The idea of baptism giving grace in this way sounds so much like magic
that Protestants are often unconvinced.
Magicians could say that their spells work because the divine has
inspired them to do the spells and has intended to give power and blessings
through them.
When God can give the same grace to somebody who wants it a lot as to
somebody who is less keen on it through baptism it shows that its power is
based on a rite or magic and not on the person’s suitability.
Some Protestants have the notion that the Roman Church thinks that God
puts power into the water of baptism that passes on to the child or person who
is being baptised. It’s like
holy radioactive water! Rome
doesn’t teach this and is horrified at the suggestion that it does. But if God puts grace directly in the
recipient why can’t he put it in the water and give it to the child
through the water? This point shows
how close baptism is to superstition if it’s not actually superstition. The rite does not honour God so how
could it be valid? How can the
Church complain? How can it split
hairs?
The Catholic Church cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that it is absurd for God
to put the grace into the water when he does as good as that by refusing the
grace until water is poured on the person.
Baptism is the sign of the covenant of grace. If the Bible view of predetermination
(that God sets it up so that those who wants in Heaven will come to him and be
saved while the rest will be lost forever in Hell) is true then to be valid,
baptism has to be a sign that one is supposed to have been predestined for
salvation by God regardless of what one has done or will do. Catholic baptism is not a sign of this
but the cult believes you have to cooperate with God in God and it denies that
salvation is God’s choice and not ours.
Some Protestants
argue that even heretical baptism is valid and the baptism should not be
repeated. Because baptism pictures
salvation and you can only be saved once you can only be baptised once. But when there is much dispute over
whether or not you can be saved once or over and over again it is clear they
should re-baptise just in case.
They object then that the heretical baptism picturing the removal of sin
by Jesus’ blood is enough.
For baptism to picture salvation properly the baptism has to recognise
cleansing by the blood of Jesus properly.
The Catholic Jesus cannot cleanse sins for he is the wrong one so it
follows that baptism into the Catholic Church is invalid for it pictures
salvation from sin through heresy and doctrines that would make God weep for
they are offensive. The Catholics
mean the wrong thing by Jesus and so their Jesus is another Jesus and they
might as well baptise in the name of the Father, Joseph Smith and the Holy
Spirit. When God would reject a
baptism performed with oil though the most important thing is the wording, he
will surely more hastily reject a baptism in which the wording is correct but
abused. The Protestants then reply
that baptism is valid despite the unbelief of the minister. So it is the recipient that counts but
that cannot solve anything when the recipient is being entered into a heretical
and apostate faith by the baptism.
St Paul wrote that the table of the Lord has nothing in common with that
of demons (1 Corinthians 10). The
same would surely be true of his baptism.
God could not accept a baptism that is supposed to confer a new birth
when it does no such thing.
The words used in
baptism, “I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit”, mean you baptise in their authority. To accept baptism means you are
submitting yourself to the authority of the Trinity in all things. Baptism then is meant to unite people
under one faith and one authority (page 53, The Institutes of
Christian Religion). The
baptiser says he baptises you which means he is declaring that his doctrine
really respects God and there is no serious error in his teaching. For example, if salvation is by faith
alone and not by faith and good works like you have in the Roman Church then to
be baptised into a sect that teaches the latter is a grave departure from the
authority of God which is about saving you. God cannot accept the faith of a person
who makes grave errors simply because that person is following not the gospel
but his perception of it. The
person would probably not accept God if he knew better for most people do not
obey God or like him much except when they want something so God has to be fair
to himself and not accept this faith for he deserves the best.
It could be argued
that since Jesus said to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
he meant in their authority and not to suggest what wording should be used. If I ask junior staff to talk to a client
in my name I do not mean they have to say they are me. Jesus didn’t say any words needed
to be said. But you get the
impression from Acts that baptism should be performed in the name of Jesus. Acts wasn’t saying about baptism
in the name of Jesus for brevity – Acts never worried about brevity. If words are needed then baptism must be
done with this wording, “I baptise you in the name of Jesus”, and
not, “I baptise you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” The latter wording can be used by a
non-believer in Jesus who believes God is three people Father, Son and
Spirit. Jesus and God the Son are
not necessarily the same person. The Church says that if there had never been a
Jesus there would still have been a God the Son. Catholic baptism is invalid for assuming Jesus
commanded water baptism, it had to be done in his name only.
Baptism is meant
to unite the baptised in one faith and who help each other live under the
authority so it follows that sectarian baptism is invalid. If the sect that deliberately and
without sufficient cause breaks away from the sect that has the truth or the most
truth if there is no absolutely right Church then it loses the power to baptise
validly for it simply does not mean what the words say.
Authority is only
exercised through the word of God.
If the Bible alone is the word of God then it follows that baptism is only
valid if you believe the Bible only.
This would invalidate baptism by the Catholic Church which does not let
the Bible speak for itself but interprets it through tradition which it
considers to be the word of God as well.
Again the reason the baptism is invalid is because the words are not
meant in the required and proper sense.
Baptism cannot be
valid then if it puts you under the wrong authority – even if you are
partly under the wrong authority in some grave matters and especially if you
are totally under the wrong authority.
Baptism into a deceiving sect in which a cult-leader dictates to you
what to believe about God is baptism into divine authority in name only. The baptism is no good for this
authority pretends to be speaking for God and is actually taking his
place. Baptism into a sect that
follows an unusual form of Bible interpretation is silencing the word of God
though it looks as if it is not and is equally invalid. The worst kind of deception is one that
uses the truth and seems to be devoted to it for it is more spiritually
dangerous and harder to see through which is why baptism should only be
undergone when you are sure the sect giving it to submits as well as possible
to the word of God. It means also
that you need to be an adult to be baptised and to know what you are
doing. Infant baptism is invalid
and those baptised as infants are not really baptised at all. They need to be baptised as adults. Infant baptism is a serious sin because
you need to find God’s truth for yourself before you can consent to be baptised. It puts religion before spirituality.
If you find your
sect is wrong you have to find another sect and get baptised again in it to be
on the safe side. The Catholic
practice is totally in opposition to people finding the truth of God.
Some say that since baptism is a sign (that is a symbol) of regeneration
even a Catholic baptism will do and it does not need to be repeated if the
baptised person enters a Christian denomination. If it is that, then it is meant to be an
expression of the new birth and now to receive it. This means the Catholic baptism is no
good because it opposes the new birth by falsely claiming to be the new
birth. Catholics regard baptism as
symbolic of regeneration but they deny that it is just a symbol. But it is a symbol of the wrong rebirth
so it is invalid.
Roman Catholic baptism is invalid and any Christian Church that accepts
it as valid is denying itself.
WORKS CONSULTED
12 Church of Christ Doctrines Compared with the Holy Scriptures,
Homer Duncan, Missionary Crusader, Texas, 1984
All One Body – Why Don’t We Agree? Erwin W Lutzer, Tyndale, Illinois, 1989
Baptism, Meaning, Mode & Subjects, Michael Kimmitt, K & M Books,
Trelawnyd, 1997
But the Bible Does not Say So, Rev Roberto Nisbet, Church Book
Room Press, London, 1966
But What About the
Thief on the Cross? Cecil Willis, Guardian of Truth, Bowling Green, Kentucky
Christian Baptism, Philip Crowe, Mobray, Oxford, 1980
Covenant Reformed News, Volume 7, Number 13, Ballymena, Northern Ireland
Four Great Heresies, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1975
Handbook to the Controversy with
Is it necessary for you to be baptised to be saved? Hoyt H Houchen,
Guardian of Truth, Bowling Green, Kentucky
Is Water Baptism Essential to Salvation? Curtis Hutson, Sword of the Lord, 1988
Jesus and the Four Gospels, John Drane, Lion, Herts, 1984
Objections to Roman Catholicism, Edited by Michael de la Bedoyere,
Constable, London, 1964
Radio Replies, Vol 3, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press,
Reason and Belief, Bland Blanschard, George Allen & Unwin Ltd,
London, 1974
Regeneration or the New Birth, A W Pink, Evangelical Press, Welwyn, Herts,
England, undated
The Documents of Vatican II, Edited by Walter M Abbott SJ, Geoffrey
Chapman Ltd, London, 1967
The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1986
The Only Way of Salvation, H. A. Twelves, Christadelphian ALS,
Birmingham
Vicars of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi, London, 1993
When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Scripture
Press Publications, Illinois, 1992
Why Baptism Really Matters, Fred Pearce, Christadelphian Publishing
Office, Birmingham
Why Does God? Domenico Grasso SJ, St Paul Publications, Bucks,
England, 1970
Why you Should be Baptized, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God,
The WWW
Doctrinal Summary by Br Thomas Mary MICM. This page informs us that Catholic
teaching is that if you hear of the Catholic Church and don’t join it or
study it your damnation is guaranteed.
It affirms that babies that die without baptism will be banned from
Heaven forever.
BIBLE QUOTATIONS FROM:
The Amplified Bible