Friday, August 27, 2004

Charles Hodge, the Roman Catholic Church, Apostasy and Baptism

"The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error: and some have so degenerated as to become apparently no Churches of Christ. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to his will. " - WCF Chapter XXV, V

In 1845, Charles Hodge objected to the decision of the Presbyterian General Assembly which denied the validity of Roman Catholic baptisms. Hodge alludes to Calvin stating that: "...those circumcised by apostate priests under the old dispensation, were never recircumcised, or treated as not having received that rite by the inspired prophets..."

Participants in the current 'reformed Catholic' conflagration have turned to Hodge's words as a source for the legitimacy of their claims. It is most certainly true, that Hodge believed in the validity of 'Romish' (his term, not mine) baptisms... and the basis for his acceptance of their validity is directly related to the fact that Hodge believed Roman Catholic priests to be appointed and recognized presbyters in a community professing to believe the scriptures.

"We maintain that as the Romish priests are appointed and recognized as presbyters in a community professing to believe the scriptures, the early creeds, and the decisions of the first four general councils, they are ordained ministers in the sense above stated; and consequently baptism administered by them is valid. It has accordingly been received as valid by all Protestant churches from the Reformation to the present day." - Charles Hodge, "Do Roman Catholic Clergy Count as Ministers of the Gospel?", Princeton Review, 1846

In so writing, Hodge has Calvin on his side in that Calvin often wrote similarly. Yet Calvin likened the Roman Catholics to the Edomites, who though circumcised rejected God through their father Esau. Thus, it seems, Calvin taught that the baptized Roman Catholic and the baptized Protestants were 'brothers' in the same way the Jews were brothers of the Edomites, with reference to Deuteronomy.

"You shall not abhor an Edomite; because he is your brother! You shall not abhor an Egyptian; because you were a stranger in his land!" - Deuteronomy 23:7

Dr. Francis Nigel Lee, in his 1990 work, "Calvin on the Validity of 'Romish' Baptism" writes of this, "Calvin argues that baptized Protestants are now far closer to baptized Romanists than either of them are to unbaptized Moslems."

Lee seems not to notice however, that Calvin was quick to point out that the Catholic was not, by virtue of his baptism saved, nor even in the Church of God proper, but rather was connected to God by the promise of baptism. "Let us therefore diligently note here of the children of [the circumcised] Esau...that if any of them would renounce his own kindred" -- as converted Papists should their kindred Romanists -- "he would be accounted in the number of this blessed flock" of God's True People."

Thus regardless of the Edomite's circumcision or the Romanist's baptism they are brothers only in the sense of the flesh, as much as Paul's Jewish brethren that he lamented over in Romans 9 and elsewhere. But we must recall what he said about them.

"...who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises... But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants."

Therefore, apart from their abandonment of the apostate system, both the Edomite's circumcision and the Romanist's baptism were of no regard, and, as Paul writes "your circumcision has become uncircumcision." (Rom 2:25)

At what point then did Judaism become heretical, rather than simply apostate... that is, when did we cease considering Jews our brothers? Or does Judaism remain orthodox? If it is apostate, at what point and by what means would Rome incur the same judgment stated in the WCF as to be considedered "so degenerated as to become apparently no Churches of Christ"?

During the height of the 1846 debate within the Presbyterian Church, Hodge wrote that he believed the Roman Catholic Church was part of the 'visible church' but also pointed out that "the true, or invisible church consists of true believers". Hodge also stated, "That Romanists as a society profess the true religion, meaning thereby the essential doctrines of the gospel, those doctrines which if truly believed will save the soul, is, as we think, plain." (Is The Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church?, Charles Hodge, Princeton Review, April 1846)

Some 26 years later, Hodge's Systematic Theology was published and therein is found:

"The doctrine of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, is an integral part of the great system of error, which must stand or fall as a whole. Romanism is another gospel. It proposes a different method of salvation from that presented in the word of God." Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Part III, Ch.XX, Remarks 5. 1871~2

"The ritual system [in the Church of Rome] is utterly inconsistent with the whole genius of Christianity... The idea that a man's state before God depends on anything external, on birth, on membership in any visible organization, or on any outward rite or ceremony, is utterly abhorrent to the religion of the Bible. It did not belong to Judiasm except in the corrupt form of Pharisaism." - Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Part III, Ch. XX, The Sacraments. Their Necessity

Can it be said that a church whose system is "utterly inconsistent with the whole genius of Christianity" and which teaches "another gospel" and a "great system of error" also "profess the true religion, meaning thereby the essential doctrines of the gospel, those doctrines which if truly believed will save the soul"? Can a system "utterly inconsistent with the whole genius of Christianity" remains a truly Christian church?

I can't help but wonder if Hodge, later in life, found his previous views irreconcilable with the facts, or if the current users of Hodge's words aren't reading more into Hodge than he intended.

Finally, in his Systematic Theology, Hodge writes:

"In like manner, baptism does not make a man a Christian. It is the appointed means of avowing that he is a Christian; it is the badge of his Christian profession before men, it secures for him the privileges of membership in the visible Church, and it is a pledge on the part of God that, if sincere and faithful, he shall partake of all the benefits of the redemption of Christ." - Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Part III, Ch. XX, Baptism is a Condition of Salvation

(As a baptist, I find that admission quite sweet...) During the recent discussions there have been those who have quoted B.B. Warfield in support of their views, as one of my previous posts indicates, Warfield did not agree with everything I believe they intended to make him say... likewise those who have quoted Charles Hodge should clearly note what Hodge was intending and admit what he said in his Systematic Theology when (and if) it contradicts with their views. Plus, it might be improper to import the quotes from the battles of 19th century into our current ones without proper context.


  1. Anonymous10:12 PM


  2. Anonymous12:30 PM

    No argument has any effect against these 'Reformed' Catholics. They're, in my experience in dealing with them, not at the top of their class, if you know what ah mean...

  3. I'm shocked that it's had the effect that it did...

  4. Anonymous9:07 PM

    But (referencing the comments thread at having to do with your post) notice how you may as well be talking to a pile of bricks when you point out their - the 'Reformed' Catholics - disingenuous use of the words of reformers and theologians they obviously hold no solidarity in truth or sympathy with. It's like listening to American Communist Party members coopting the words of the Founding Fathers and making them to say that what they really meant was that America should be a Communist police state. Frankly, these 'Reformed' Catholics are no longer boys that need our help and understanding but have become pure devils. Orwellian violation of truth and reality is as criminal in the theological realm as in the political and, arguable, more so.

  5. Anonymous11:23 PM

    wow, Mr 12:30 Anon is grim enough but oh my oh my, Mr 9:07 Anon is a real winner. Calling Christians "pure devils" is a real act of love and charity. I applaud you, sir, for you winsome and noble view of people with whom you may be spending eternity with.... or not.

    NAAN Boy

  6. Anonymous12:15 AM

    They're in sympathy with the same devils that hunted down Christians and murdered them for standing for and defending Biblical Truth. And they, on top of that, suggest with nearly every word they write that those martyrs for the faith were 'really' on the side of the devils that oppressed and murdered them. To call them pure devils is on-the-mark. They've been set straight enough times to know better. That they continue shows their motivation is purely to deceive and defile. If they didn't call themselves Reformed or quote the writings of Calvin and Calvinist reformers and Reformed theologians dishonestly as they do then they'd just be another sect of misguided or dumb self-styled Christians. What they are doing puts them in a different category.

  7. "Although the Papacy cannot properly be called a Church, still, against the will of Antichrist himself, there is some vestige of a Church in the Papacy, as Baptism and some other remnants." - Calvin, Institutes, Book 4, 2, 11.

  8. Anonymous3:11 AM

    God holds to the highest standard in his judgment those who know the truth and deny it. Those who know the truth, deny and teach against it in order to deceive are in a worse situation.

  9. Anonymous6:59 AM

    Well, of course, Micah's concerns about Hodge have been answered at and at my blog. Yes, the only reason I post anonymously is because all I need is another Internet account--unlike others who use anonymity to clearly and viciously attack their theological opponents.

    Comments such as:
    "Frankly, these 'Reformed' Catholics are no longer boys that need our help and understanding but have become pure devils. Orwellian violation of truth and reality is as criminal in the theological realm as in the political and, arguable, more so."

    are most certainly ludicrous but above all these sorts of ad hominem attacks do everything but meet the challenges we have presented with any sort of depth and serious response. That's fine as long as everybody recognizes such words for what they are: the opinion of an anonymous critic who simply doesn't want to deal with the facts of the matter, instead choosing to attack myself and others personally.

    Kevin D. Johnson

  10. The Anonymous poster who refuses to name himself here has identified himself through his words and tone. He is "CT" or "JMontane" aka "James Montane" or other pseudonyms behind which he hides in order to make horrid comments. He's been booted from and my blog and the NTRMin discussion board because of profanity and general hate and inability to be rational.

    His reference to "devils" and use of "on the mark" are the biggest tips, but there are other phrases with which he has marked himself.

  11. Anonymous9:21 AM

    The 'Reformed' Catholics have banned everybody who has responded to them on their various sites in a manner other than "Another great post, Kevin!" They have demonstrated over and over that they can't handle debate, they can't defend their positions, all they can do is ban and then state that their critics used 'bad language' or whatever. (I've got a typical thread saved from Kevin Johnson's blog - in case Kevin is even beginning to contemplate telling another lie - where his friend T. Enloe was on the losing end of an exchange and Kevin jumped in, called me 'sickening', and banned me. T. Enloe then wrote a 'kill shot' of course once I couldn't respond. This is the same story that occurs over and over on the rC's various sites with anybody who critiques their claims and positions.)

    If you check regularly you'll see very interesting, well-written responses to their posts, critical of their claims (not from me, my I.P. was banned from the site long ago), and then when you check back to see their rebuttal all you find is that the well-written comment has been deleted into the 'Reformed' Catholic memory hole.

    When you need a coercive, policed envirnonment for your ideas to even survive it's a good sign your ideas are worthless.

  12. Anonymous9:35 AM

    Because 'Reformed' Catholics, like modern day liberals, play games rather than show any interest in handling truth they will pounce on my absolute word 'everybody' in the above comment, knowing what I meant. They have to play these kinds of games because their motive is to deceive people and defile truth. Let 'everybody' be 'most people'...

    But, Micah, though I may have innoculated you with these comments, look for them to ban you if you show them up like you did in your recent comments there. I'm not saying your desire or motive was to show anybody up, but just stating truth and pointing out factual error and exposing dishonest, out-of-context, selective quoting, etc., is enough for them to feel shown up...

    After awhile, after they and their false gospel have been exposed of necessity, they will get some natural silent treatment. Then they'll either slither back into the tent, claiming to be born again, or they'll convert to Roman Catholicism (their inevitable only choice), and they'll become Roman apologists picking off the ignorant and the innocent and making themselves generally approved of by the devil. So be it.

  13. Firstly, Mr. Anon, please cease and desist. My blog is not your personal spot to take your agression out on the so-called 'Reformed Catholics', please make your own blog and fire away. :)

    Secondly, Kevin, "Micah's concerns about Hodge have been answered" is untrue. I think my concerns have illuminated some problems within the 'Reformed Catholic' paradigm, illustrated by Paul Owen's vapid, bordering on silly, response to me at

    Needless to say, I'm going to continue my research. I had no idea that my post would draw as much attention as it has and believe that is is indicative of something as well.

    "...the Papacy cannot properly be called a Church..."

  14. Anonymous11:40 AM

    Been there, done that, Micah. And very willing to leave your blog (and thanks for the request to leave, by the way!)...

  15. I appreciate your understanding. You're free to comment, just keep the rethoric at a low roar. :|