Is Roman Catholic Baptism Valid?

Over the past 10 years, I’ve been examined by 4 different presbyteries. These have been profoundly edifying experiences that have deepened my love for the brethren and biblical polity. While each presbytery’s exam had its own flavor, a unique blend mixed from past controversies within and denominational hot topics without, in each case I was asked, “Is Roman Catholic baptism valid?”

While this question is not of the same cardinal significance as others, it does reveal where one draws certain ecclesiastical and sacramental lines which will inevitably be tested in the trenches of pastoral ministry. So, this is a good and useful conversation for brothers to have in a spirit of unity, humility, and gentleness, as iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:7) for the blessing of God’s people and the glory of Christ. With those ends in mind, I offer four reasons I believe Roman Catholic baptism is invalid.

1.  The Roman Catholic Bible is corrupted.

It comes as a shock to most when they learn that the Apocrypha, a collection of extracanonical books written during the intertestamental period, was not formally canonized by the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) until the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1545-1563). While Trent merely codified the practice of the RCC throughout the Middle Ages, neither the Jews nor the early church fathers believed the Apocrypha was inspired by God. In fact, these apocryphal texts are the wells from which poisonous doctrines like purgatory, prayers for the dead, and meritorious almsgiving were drawn. The sale of indulgences, still practiced by the RCC today, was a wicked but logical application of these false doctrines.

I once heard Dr. Neil Stewart ask in a sermon, “If I cut you a slice of the most delicious-looking, chocolate cake you’d ever seen, but then told you that a tablespoon of dog dirt had been mixed into the batter, would you still eat it?” The gasp of disgust from the congregation was audible. In the same way, the Bible of the RCC is a mixture of pure and impure, heavenly and worldly, divine and human and must be rejected by the faithful as corrupt. If the RCC is built on faulty foundation and a broken bible, how can it be considered a true Christian church? If it’s not a true Christian church how can her ordinances be valid Christian sacraments?

2. The gospel of Rome is corrupted.

The single greatest question facing sinful people is, “How can I be reconciled to a holy God?” Every world religion and philosophy has offered variations of the same answer: faith and works; doctrine and deeds. Only the Christian gospel proclaims that one is saved by the grace of God alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. “Yet we know,” Paul trumpeted, “that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16).

This is the heart of saving religion; the heavenly difference between Christianity and every other “ology” and “ism” the world has ever known. Therefore, Paul was adamant in his defense: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8-9). “…if this article [of justification] stands, the church stands;” Luther pleaded, “[but] if this article collapses, the church collapses.”   

But during the 6^th session of the Council of Trent, the RCC anathemized this doctrine of justification for which the Lord Jesus lived and died:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God; let him be anathema.

What’s more, the RCC holds that justification “is conferred in baptism” (CCC 1992) and “establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom” (CCC 1993). Like the Pharisees and Judaizers of old, the RCC insists that man is saved through a doomed combination of God’s grace and human effort. That is perhaps made most clear in CCC 2010:

“…Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.”

Paul warned the Galatians, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8-9). Since the RCC explicitly anathematizes the gospel of Jesus Christ and preaches a contrary gospel instead, they are cut off from the visible church. Thus, whatever rituals they perform are not the sacraments which Jesus gave only to his bride the church, but the superstitious forgeries of apostates.  

3. The priesthood of the RCC is corrupted.

The Scriptures and our Standards require that the sacraments be performed only by “lawfully ordained” ministers of the gospel (WCF 28:2). For one to affirm the validity of Roman baptism, they would necessarily have to acknowledge that a Catholic priest is lawfully ordained gospel minister. This I cannot and will not do.

What’s more, through the RCC’s sacrament of holy orders, a priest receives the “indelible spiritual character” (CCC 1582) and undergoes an ontological transformation whereby he is enabled, “to act as a representative of Christ, Head of the Church, in his triple office of priest, prophet, and king” (CCC 1581). This transformation ontologically separates him from laymen (CCC 1583). If an elder or overseer “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it,” (Titus 1:9) a Roman Catholic priest cannot be considered a minister of the gospel he explicitly denies. According to Rome he’s not even human, as we are. Therefore, whatever rituals he may perform cannot be valid biblical sacraments.

4. The RCC’s sacrament of baptism is corrupted.

The RCC holds to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, asserting, “By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin” (CCC 1263). Since the Westminster Divines rejected the Popish mass for its theological abuses, calling it “abominably injurious” (WCF. 29:2), should Roman baptism not also be rejected for the abominably injurious doctrine of baptismal regeneration?

But the RCC’s sacrament of baptism is not only theologically corrupted, it is materially corrupted in that the outward element of water is mingled with oil: “The anointing with sacred chrism, perfumed oil consecrated by the bishop, signifies the gift of the Holy Spirit to the newly baptized, who has become a Christian, that is, one ‘anointed’ by the Holy Spirit, incorporated into Christ who is anointed priest, prophet, and king.” (CCC 1241). If someone wishing to join our church had been previously baptized with water and glitter, or water and single malt scotch, or water and cedar sawdust would we recognize that as a valid baptism? Of course not.

Since the bible, gospel, priesthood, and sacrament of the RCC are all corrupted, their baptism cannot be valid. Nevertheless, individual cases must be handled with great care and pastoral wisdom. In the past, when receiving someone into membership who has only received Roman baptism, it has been the practice of the sessions with whom I’ve served to explain our position (that the RCC is apostate and her sacraments are invalid) and encourage them to be baptized without requiring baptism as a condition for membership but leaving the matter to the individual’s conscience. The first three adults I had the honor of baptizing were converts rescued from the Roman Catholic Church by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Some Common Objections

“But that’s Donatism!” some say (many, actually!). The ancient Donatists wrongly concluded that the sacraments performed by ministers who had renounced Christ during Diocletian’s persecutions of the 4^th century, were invalid. But the Westminster Confession takes direct aim at that error: “neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit…” (WCF 27:3). The four grounds upon which I believe the Bible rejects Roman baptism are principial not personal, doctrinal not moral. I’m protesting the RCC as an institution, not individual priests. Therefore, the accusation of Donatism is misplaced.                         

Others insist that since the RCC baptizes with water in the triune name of God, their sacrament is valid. But Mormons do the same.[1] My 6-year-old son could learn the sacramental choreography and formula. If he were to “baptize” his little brother in the bathtub, is that baptism valid? No. Baptism must be performed by “a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto” (WCF 8:2).

But what is a “lawfully” ordained minister? Some argue that “lawful” (WCF 8:2), is in reference to the rules and procedures of a particular body. Thus, a RCC priest that is ordained in accordance with Rome’s polity is “lawfully” ordained. But if the term “lawfully,” is subjectively defined by the conflicting standards of various ecclesiastical bodies, it means nothing. “Lawfully” must be in reference to the law of God, “the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined” (WCF 1:10).

Some insist that rejecting the validity of Roman baptism goes beyond our Confessional Standards. But it seems evident that the Divines viewed the RCC as apostate when they forbid Christians from participating in “the popish sacrifice of the mass” (WCF 29:2) and from marrying “with infidels, papists, or other idolaters” (WCF 24:3).

To some, the entire conversation in which we discuss the validity of other traditions feels too much like ecclesiastical “whack-a-mole.” It seems judgmental and exclusive. What about the person baptized by an ordained woman or homosexual in a liberal protestant church? What about the person baptized by their unordained youth director in a summer camp swimming pool? These are good questions that deserve answers. Is it not the duty of church leaders to humbly but firmly identify who is inside the visible church and who is outside? Who is orthodox and who is heterodox? Yes. Much of Jesus’ ministry was dedicated to drawing careful distinctions between true and false religion. In his epistles, Paul regularly named apostates. It is our duty as shepherds in the church to protect the flock of Christ by exposing and resisting wolves and false shepherds.

The final common rebuttal I’ve heard in defense of Roman baptism is the fact that Reformers like John Calvin didn’t seek baptism after leaving Rome. In a court of law this would be classified as circumstantial evidence because it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine precisely why someone didn’t do a thing 500 years ago. In the face of that circumstantial evidence, I offer my own:

1. Some protestants and reformation creeds validate Roman baptism, but not all. Most notably the Scotts Confession, penned by Calvin’s student, John Knox, states, “And, therefore, it is, that we flee the society with the Papistical Kirk in participation of their Sacraments; first, because their ministers are no ministers of Christ Jesus.... And, secondly, Because they have so adulterated, both the one sacrament and the other, with their own inventions, that no part of Christ’s action abideth in the original purity; for oil, salt, spittle, and suchlike in baptism, are but men’s inventions…” (Scots Confession Chapter 22). Following our Scottish heritage, the general assemblies of every American presbyterian church that have ruled on this matter, declared Roman baptism invalid with only two exceptions: the RPCES and the PCA.

2. Calvin wasn’t only feuding with the RCC, but also with the Anabaptists who rejected infant-baptism. Could it be that Calvin didn’t want to cede an inch of ground to the Anabaptist by submitting to baptism as an adult? Could it be that his hostility towards the Anabaptists nuanced his willingness to see and decry Roman baptism for what it was?

3. The Council of Trent which formally anathemized the gospel didn’t conclude until December of 1563, just months before Calvin’s death. Could it be that had Calvin survived to witness the complete credal apostasy of Rome, he may have come to a different view of their baptism?

4. To suggest that Calvin was sympathetic to the RCC is… an interesting take. In summarizing Calvin’s view, Sinclair Ferguson wrote, “Yet, it remains true, Calvin acknowledges, that there are believers--however confused--within the pale of Rome. Correspondingly there are ‘traces of churches,’ but Rome itself cannot be considered a true church or part of the one true church. In fact, Rome gives expression to the spirit of antichrist.”

Over the years, as I read through Calvin’s Commentaries and Institutes, I’ve kept a running list of his harshest criticism of the RCC. The document is now very long and Calvin’s animosity towards Rome burns white hot throughout all his works. Consider the following from Calvin’s commentary on John 10:16:

“…when the Church submits to Christ alone, and obeys his commands, and hears his voice and his doctrine, then only is it in a state of good order. If Papists can show us that there is anything of this sort among them, let them enjoy the title of the Church, of which they vaunt so much. But if Christ is silent there, if his majesty is trodden under foot, if his sacred ordinances are held up to scorn, what else is their unity but a diabolical conspiracy, which is worse far more to be abhorred than any dispersion… there is no church where Christ does not reign, and that there is no kingdom of God, but where the honor of shepherd is granted to Christ.”

5. Finally, and with fear and trembling, could it be that Calvin was just wrong on this one? Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I love John Calvin. On Thursdays at 6:00 a.m., a dozen men of my church meet for Coffee with Calvin to pour over his Institutes of the Christian Religion together. I always refer to Calvin’s commentary on a text before preaching that text because I revere his wisdom and pastoral insight. Nevertheless, as a Presbyterian minister the confession of my faith is Word of God and the Westminster Standards… not Calvin’s greatest hits. I’m willing to disagree with him on this one, but I don’t think I do.

I am indebted to the authors of the PCA’s 1987 Study Committee Report on this subject. You can read it here.