Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!udel!princeton!njin!paul.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Validity of Baptism Message-ID: Date: 26 Nov 90 01:19:22 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 36 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Joe Buehler writes: >The doctrine on intention is just common sense, really. Suppose I have >a motion picture in which people are baptized. Are they really >baptized? If they are, then you can only shoot the scene once, because >knowingly rebaptising someone is mortal sin. You might not even be able >to shoot the scene at all, unless you can find some non-Christians to >baptize! The extremity of this case, however, points up one problem with all this talk about intent. Let me give five graded examples: 1) The obviously fake movie baptism. 2) The baptism into, say, the 1st Church of Guys Worshipping Marilyn Monroe. 3) The JW or Mormon baptism. 4) The pentecostal baptism. 5) the RC baptism. Now, the first two are very obviously bogus; the first has the intent NOT to baptize, and the second has the intent NOT to have anything to do with Jesus. But if there are defects in the third and fourth, they are not of the same ilk. There's a difference between not having christian theology at all and having defective theology. It's approximately the same as the difference between not being a christian and being a sinning christian. This points the validity of the donatism argument here. Lack of intention is one thing; defects of intention are like unto sins, and do not interfere. -- C. Wingate + "Our God to whom we turn when weary with illusion, + Whose stars serenely burn above this world's confusion, mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Thine is the mighty plan, the steadfast order sure mimsy!mangoe + In which the world began, endures, and shall endure."