Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Validity of Baptism (Was Re: In Communion with Rome?) Message-ID: Date: 23 Oct 90 08:08:05 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics Lines: 60 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: >Also, I dispute the notion that intercommunion *necessarily* means approval. >Anglican churches, as a rule, invite ALL baptized to partake of communion, >regardless of denomination (within limits, but they are extremely wide). >This represents no apporval at all other than that of the validity of >baptism-- and if Wisconsin and Missouri care to dissent to this on the basis >of doctrinal differences, they have just declared their own baptisms >invalid: after all, their chain of baptisms passes through Rome, as with the >other protestants. Lutherans (presumably almost all of us) recognize the validity of any baptism in which 1. Water is applied to the individual. 2. The Baptism is performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19). We show this acknowledgement when we do not require new members, who received Christian baptism in other churches, to be re-baptized. I mention this because there is a man in my congregation who belonged to several churches before ours. We are the first church that has not re-baptized him. I believe we might question the validity of a baptism performed by a church that teaches false doctrine regarding the triune nature of God (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc.), because then it is not clear what is meant by baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is strange to hear you say that because we declare ourselves separate from Rome, that our baptisms are not valid. This is Donatism, which is rejected as much by Rome as by us. Augustine, in particular, waged battles against this heresy. The validity of a baptism depends not on the faith of the baptized individual, nor on the faith or doctrine of the one who baptizes, but only on Christ's word, command, and promise: "Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved." David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "He that believes and is baptized Shall see the Lord's salvation; Baptized into the death of Christ, He is a new creation. Thro' Christ's redemption he shall stand Among the glorious heavenly band Of ev'ry tribe and nation." --"Enhver som tror og bliver doebt" Thomas Kingo, 1689. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [I'd be interesting in knowing what groups rebaptize those who have already been baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (I'll make an exception for those who insist on immersion, as long as they accept those from other groups who have been baptized by immersion.) I haven't run into rebaptism. --clh]