Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Validity of Baptism (Was Re: In Communion with Rome?) Message-ID: Date: 28 Oct 90 08:29:38 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics Lines: 82 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: >There is at least one example of rebaptism in the New Testament, >Acts 19:1-6. Paul found at Ephesus some disciples who had been >baptized "unto John's baptism," the evidence being that they had not >received the Holy Ghost. It is clear in this instance that the believers had not received proper instruction, for they did not know that the Holy Spirit existed. This makes it clear that they were not baptized in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit -- if they had been, they would know about the Holy Spirit. Rebaptism in this instance is called for, if only to ensure that we know Christ's command is fulfilled. The idea that one needs authorization to baptize is not found in the Scripture. (As far as I know). On this point our moderator might be interested in reading the words of the Scot's confession, written by John Knox and five associates: "Two things are necessary for the right administration of the sacraments. The first is that they should be ministered by lawful ministers, and we declare that these are men appointed to preach the Word, unto whom God has given the power to preach the gospel, and who are lawfully called by some Kirk {church}. .... This is why we abandon the teaching of the Roman Church and withdraw from its sacraments; firstly, because their ministers are not true ministers of Christ Jesus (indeed they even allow women, whom the Holy Ghost will not permit to preach in the congregation, to baptize)..." I think this is interesting, because while Knox & friends show a proper respect for the called public ministry, which is in fact established by God, they miss the point concerning who may administer sacraments, and seem to fall into Donatism. The church normally asks its called ministers to administer the sacraments, mostly because they have the training and understanding to administer them properly, and so that they can be administered in an orderly manner. In particular the Lord's Supper is a communion of the church; it is a sacrament to be received as a group. When the church meets as a group it is only natural that the called minister lead in its worship, and in consecrating and distributing the elements. This is what he is called to do, so we let him do it. In addition the minister, acting for the church, exercises the responsibility of preventing those who would receive the sacrament unworthily from doing so 'to their damnation'. Baptism, however, is different from the Lord's Supper. Baptism is inherently an individual sacrament, and not a communion. Good order still calls for the minister to be permitted to administer the sacrament. There is considerable value, for instance, in performing baptisms in a public worship service, so that all can know that the individual has been baptized, and be reminded of their own baptism - which is still of considerable value to them. However, in a case of an emergency -- someone about to die without the sacrament -- anyone - literally anyone - can baptize, and so offer the forgiveness of sins that God promises with baptism. Many parents whose newborn child has died, have found some consolation in learning that a nurse or nun had baptized the infant before death. I understand that this is standard practice in Catholic hospitals. I presume that if we had Lutheran hospitals the practice would be the same -- although we might ask the parents' consent first. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [I don't think it is Donatism to ask that the sacraments be properly administered, i.e. to be surrounded by proper teaching and preaching, and to take their appropriate role in the Church. Nor do I think it is Donatism to separate onesself from a group that seems to be encouraging erroneous practices in conjunction with the sacraments. Donatism originally said that one's salvation could be compromised if one had been baptized by someone who had given in to Roman persecution. This is a problem both for practical and theoretical reasons. Practically it is a problem because people can't see into the hearts of their pastor. Theoretically it is a problem because it suggests that the power of the sacraments comes from the minister, rather than from God. However if someone is teaching incorrect things about the sacraments, while it may not invalidate Christ's commands to do them or his promises about their effect, it can cause people not to get the full benefit from them. Thus errors should still be corrected. --clh]