Danish baptism no longer valid?

[orthonorm]

Gay "marriage" does not merely threaten the "holiness" of marriage; it threatens the fundamental definition of marriage.

Civil marriage also does, probably even more so. Luther called marriage "ein weltlich Ding" ("a worldly thing"). That is what the Church of Denmark has been doing since the Reformation. The marrige they perform is basically a blessing of a civil union, not a holy mystery, uniting a man and a woman through divine grace. It has nothing to do with the Orthodox mystery (sacrament) at all.

So whether they perform that rite on a man and a woman only, or also on same-sex couples, it has never been anything like Orthodox marriage for a few centuries. Probably the responsible persons in the MP should get some knowledge about Lutheran theology, before reacting the way they did.

Which Luther? 'Cause I certainly can produce writings by Luther which would argue against the gist of what you are saying here. I am not a Luther expert, but I had to read entirely too much of what he wrote.

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but I don't think Luther saw marriage a merely a "wordly" thing in the light you casting it.

[Gorazd]

From the website of the ELCA, the Lutheran Church in the US in full communion with the Church of Denmark:

Luther rejects the sacramental status of marriage because, unlike baptism and eucharist, it does not convey the forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus. In fact, it is not in any way a means of establishing the reign of Christ through the Gospel. Marriage has its roots before the fall, in the pairing of Adam and Eve. It is part of the ordering of creation and applies to all people, not exclusively Christians. For this reason Luther is adamant that legislation around marital and family matters rightly belongs to the civil authority, not the church. He gives strength to his case by denouncing in detail the multiple ecclesiastical laws that affected couples adversely.

http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Journal-of-Lutheran-Ethics/Issues/February-2009/11-On-Marriage-and-Family.aspx


In Orthodoxy, by contrast, marriage is not a matter of civil authority. It is about God's uncreated grace making husband and wife one flesh.

[OrthoNoob]

Gay "marriage" does not merely threaten the "holiness" of marriage; it threatens the fundamental definition of marriage.

Civil marriage also does, probably even more so. Luther called marriage "ein weltlich Ding" ("a worldly thing"). That is what the Church of Denmark has been doing since the Reformation. The marrige they perform is basically a blessing of a civil union, not a holy mystery, uniting a man and a woman through divine grace. It has nothing to do with the Orthodox mystery (sacrament) at all.

So whether they perform that rite on a man and a woman only, or also on same-sex couples, it has never been anything like Orthodox marriage for a few centuries. Probably the responsible persons in the MP should get some knowledge about Lutheran theology, before reacting the way they did.

Touché.

[Tommelomsky]

I support the decision. Gods commandments matter. Not being "tolerant enough", in time or being trendy. These kind of matters shows the importance of being true to the traditions and not bargain at all.

[OrthoNoob]

I support the decision. Gods commandments matter. Not being "tolerant enough", in time or being trendy. These kind of matters shows the importance of being true to the traditions and not bargain at all.

I am not understanding your point. Which tradition connects sexual morality to valid baptism?

[Kerdy]

I support the decision. Gods commandments matter. Not being "tolerant enough", in time or being trendy. These kind of matters shows the importance of being true to the traditions and not bargain at all.

I am not understanding your point. Which tradition connects sexual morality to valid baptism?

Would it bother you if they taught Jesus was a cool dude like Budda and we can get to heaven on our own?  Would you still think their baptism valid?

[Tommelomsky]

A church that strays away from the traditions where God instituted the marriage to be a Holy union between man and woman in order to be one in flesh, should not be taken lightly. Their baptism is no longer based on the traditions, but on the "now".

Whether the baptisms done before this took effect should be recognized or not, is a more difficult matter, but could also be seen as a consequence of what the "folkchurches" in Sweden and Denmark have done.

It is just an opinion.

[Tommelomsky]

I support the decision. Gods commandments matter. Not being "tolerant enough", in time or being trendy. These kind of matters shows the importance of being true to the traditions and not bargain at all.

I am not understanding your point. Which tradition connects sexual morality to valid baptism?

Would it bother you if they taught Jesus was a cool dude like Budda and we can get to heaven on our own?  Would you still think their baptism valid?

Yes, it would have bothered me. Because it sounds like something the Lutheran church anno 2012 could have said and i can imagine how much upset it would have caused if it was stated like that much longer back ago in time (1000-1500+ years back in time).

[Kerdy]

I say baptize everyone.  It's like nuking aliens from space.  It's the only way to be sure.

[Cavaradossi]

I think everybody in this thread should read this article written by the late Patriarch Sergei on Sacramental Economy. It points out a lot of the problems with the thinking that many in this thread are displaying, both those who question how changing a certain belief affects the 'validity' of a heterodox group's baptisms and those who are saying that we should just 'baptize everybody'. I hate to have to pull out this line of argumentation, but both types of thinking are foreign to the mind (or phronema, depending on how pretentious you feel) of Orthodoxy.

[OrthoNoob]

I support the decision. Gods commandments matter. Not being "tolerant enough", in time or being trendy. These kind of matters shows the importance of being true to the traditions and not bargain at all.

I am not understanding your point. Which tradition connects sexual morality to valid baptism?

Would it bother you if they taught Jesus was a cool dude like Budda and we can get to heaven on our own?  Would you still think their baptism valid?

A denial of the Deity of Christ would be problematic. My fairly uneducated guess is that such a group's baptisms would not be valid. But that's not really on the same level as gay "marriage" (which, as you will see if you read my previous posts, does in fact "bother" me).

If Protestants, who by and large teach the filioque, a completely heterodox ecclesiology, a false understanding of the nature of Grace, a different source of revelation, a heterodox understanding of the nature and conditions of salvation, etc., etc. can have their baptisms recognized, I'm not sure why a heretical and immoral understanding of marriage should break the came's back.

[Cavaradossi]

I support the decision. Gods commandments matter. Not being "tolerant enough", in time or being trendy. These kind of matters shows the importance of being true to the traditions and not bargain at all.

I am not understanding your point. Which tradition connects sexual morality to valid baptism?

Would it bother you if they taught Jesus was a cool dude like Budda and we can get to heaven on our own?  Would you still think their baptism valid?

A denial of the Deity of Christ would be problematic. My fairly uneducated guess is that such a group's baptisms would not be valid. But that's not really on the same level as gay "marriage" (which, as you will see if you read my previous posts, does in fact "bother" me).

If Protestants, who by and large teach the filioque, a completely heterodox ecclesiology, a false understanding of the nature of Grace, a different source of revelation, a heterodox understanding of the nature and conditions of salvation, etc., etc. can have their baptisms recognized, I'm not sure why a heretical and immoral understanding of marriage should break the came's back.

It is because the authority of a heterodox group to baptize is not dependent upon that group's beliefs.

[Tommelomsky]

I am not denying Deity. But the question would have been (it is not so of today): could it really be like that? Meaning i would probably have asked a priest or catechumenate-class teacher to explain this to me in a understandable way.

The reasons you mention about the protestant baptism has been a source of questioning in the past, but up to this very hour
i accept that it is valid, even if i disagree with the protestant teaching. Baptism is from what i have been taught valid as long
as it has been done In the Name Of The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit according to the traditions.

So this matter is not a joke to me, it has been and still is source of thinking and wondering from time to another.

[Gorazd]

A church that strays away from the traditions where God instituted the marriage to be a Holy union between man and woman in order to be one in flesh, should not be taken lightly.

As I have mentioned above, Lutherans never considered marriage to be a "Holy union", but a "worldly thing", i.e. a civil matter. In the past, that hasn't ever been a reason for rebaptizing Lutherans.

In fact, my priest once explained that when we receive people into Orthodoxy by chrismation, it does not mean we according an intrinsic value to the act performed outside the Orthodox Church, but in the chrismation, the Holy Spirit completes what was done in the heterodox baptism.

[Tommelomsky]

Thank you for the explanation. That is a good point. It actually brings up some questions i have for my priest in time to come.

[Keble]

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.

[OrthoNoob]

I am not denying Deity.

I didn't think you were. I was responding to Kerdy (who I also do not think denies the Deity of Christ) on a hypothetical question concerning the validity of the baptisms of Deity-denying groups.

The reasons you mention about the protestant baptism has been a source of questioning in the past, but up to this very hour
i accept that it is valid, even if i disagree with the protestant teaching. Baptism is from what i have been taught valid as long
as it has been done In the Name Of The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit according to the traditions.

My understanding is that Orthodox Churches always have the right to receive converts by baptism (and that the Greeks in fact baptize almost everyone), but that any baptism with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit may be recognized. As long as the Danish Lutherans are baptizing in the name of the Trinity, and with water, I don't see what gay "marriage" (which, again, I stridently oppose) has to do with it.

So this matter is not a joke to me, it has been and still is source of thinking and wondering from time to another.

Rest assured it is not a joke to me either.

[Cavaradossi]

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.

But I would say that this materialistic understanding of baptism is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. The only ones who have the authority to baptize are the people that the Church says have the authority to baptize.

[OrthoNoob]

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.

But I would say that this materialistic understanding of baptism is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. The only ones who have the authority to baptize are the people that the Church says have the authority to baptize.

And who are those?

[Aindriú]

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.

But I would say that this materialistic understanding of baptism is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. The only ones who have the authority to baptize are the people that the Church says have the authority to baptize.

Yes, because that's not "materialistic"... Whatever that means.

[Cavaradossi]

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.

But I would say that this materialistic understanding of baptism is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. The only ones who have the authority to baptize are the people that the Church says have the authority to baptize.

Yes, because that's not "materialistic"... Whatever that means.

It is materialistic in the same sense that certain groups—which after going into schism from their own bishops took some Holy Chrism with them, thinking that they could continue to Chrismate with it—were materialistic in their thinking. That one can, without the consent of the Church, place a man in water, speak the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," and thus baptize that man into the body of Christ is nothing but wishful thinking.

[Cavaradossi]

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.

But I would say that this materialistic understanding of baptism is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. The only ones who have the authority to baptize are the people that the Church says have the authority to baptize.

And who are those?

Whomever the Church says they are.

[elevatedarcher]

I'm just throwing this out there, as I think it may fit with the conversation. I have been thinking lately about my baptism, I went on to worship other gods and eventually thought of myself as an atheist for a point.

Can a baptism be for nothing if someone goes against Christ?

I know reading Luke 15 and the parables of the lost sheep, coin and son give me hope, but I guess I am curious about baptism and everyone's thoughts here.

Peace of Christ be with you all

[Aindriú]

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.

But I would say that this materialistic understanding of baptism is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. The only ones who have the authority to baptize are the people that the Church says have the authority to baptize.

Yes, because that's not "materialistic"... Whatever that means.

It is materialistic in the same sense that certain groups—which after going into schism from their own bishops took some Holy Chrism with them, thinking that they could continue to Chrismate with it—were materialistic in their thinking. That one can, without the consent of the Church, place a man in water, speak the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," and thus baptize that man into the body of Christ is nothing but wishful thinking.

And how many believe themselves to be outside the Church? It's not the institution they trust, it's God. In that case, it's you who is being materialistic.

[Aindriú]

I'm just throwing this out there, as I think it may fit with the conversation. I have been thinking lately about my baptism, I went on to worship other gods and eventually thought of myself as an atheist for a point.

Can a baptism be for nothing if someone goes against Christ?

I know reading Luke 15 and the parables of the lost sheep, coin and son give me hope, but I guess I am curious about baptism and everyone's thoughts here.

Peace of Christ be with you all

Once baptized always baptized. You've been circumsized in spirit. If you stray, you repent and confess.

[Cavaradossi]

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.

But I would say that this materialistic understanding of baptism is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. The only ones who have the authority to baptize are the people that the Church says have the authority to baptize.

Yes, because that's not "materialistic"... Whatever that means.

It is materialistic in the same sense that certain groups—which after going into schism from their own bishops took some Holy Chrism with them, thinking that they could continue to Chrismate with it—were materialistic in their thinking. That one can, without the consent of the Church, place a man in water, speak the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," and thus baptize that man into the body of Christ is nothing but wishful thinking.

And how many believe themselves to be outside the Church? It's not the institution they trust, it's God. In that case, it's you who is being materialistic.

Baptism can only be conferred by those who have the authority to do so, unless you do not believe that the Church has the power to bind and loose.

Let me ask you something, do you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are able to baptize?

[Aindriú]

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.

But I would say that this materialistic understanding of baptism is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. The only ones who have the authority to baptize are the people that the Church says have the authority to baptize.

Yes, because that's not "materialistic"... Whatever that means.

It is materialistic in the same sense that certain groups—which after going into schism from their own bishops took some Holy Chrism with them, thinking that they could continue to Chrismate with it—were materialistic in their thinking. That one can, without the consent of the Church, place a man in water, speak the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," and thus baptize that man into the body of Christ is nothing but wishful thinking.

And how many believe themselves to be outside the Church? It's not the institution they trust, it's God. In that case, it's you who is being materialistic.

Baptism can only be conferred by those who have the authority to do so, unless you do not believe that the Church has the power to bind and loose.

Let me ask you something, do you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are able to baptize?

The authority is by being baptized into the Royal Priesthood of Christ.

I don't know how JWs baptize.

[celticfan1888]

LOL! How come that has anything to do with validity of baptism?

It shows that the Danish church has strayed even further away from traditional Christianity.

LOL, where is the line exactly?

[celticfan1888]

I think the reason behind it is stupid, but I'm very glad they've opted for receiving Lutherans by baptism now. Surely if the promotion of sexual sin is an impediment to valid baptism, then so are obvious heresies like the Immaculate Conception and Papal infallibility? Just shows how legalistic and absurd the whole notion of "validity" actually is. Chrismation only is an act of economia, not an indicator of the sacramental "validity" of heterodox communions.

This!

[Gorazd]

I wonder how many fromer Danish Lutherans actually have joined the Moscow Patriarchate. I guess it's not a big number?

[Cavaradossi]

Yes, because that's not "materialistic"... Whatever that means.

It is materialistic in the same sense that certain groups—which after going into schism from their own bishops took some Holy Chrism with them, thinking that they could continue to Chrismate with it—were materialistic in their thinking. That one can, without the consent of the Church, place a man in water, speak the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," and thus baptize that man into the body of Christ is nothing but wishful thinking.

And how many believe themselves to be outside the Church? It's not the institution they trust, it's God. In that case, it's you who is being materialistic.

Baptism can only be conferred by those who have the authority to do so, unless you do not believe that the Church has the power to bind and loose.

Let me ask you something, do you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are able to baptize?

The authority is by being baptized into the Royal Priesthood of Christ.

I don't know how JWs baptize.

They baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. On what grounds then, would you think it to be ok to reject their baptism, as most Western Christians do? Surely you do not believe that even they have the authority to baptize.

[Achronos]

Yes, because that's not "materialistic"... Whatever that means.

It is materialistic in the same sense that certain groups—which after going into schism from their own bishops took some Holy Chrism with them, thinking that they could continue to Chrismate with it—were materialistic in their thinking. That one can, without the consent of the Church, place a man in water, speak the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," and thus baptize that man into the body of Christ is nothing but wishful thinking.

And how many believe themselves to be outside the Church? It's not the institution they trust, it's God. In that case, it's you who is being materialistic.

Baptism can only be conferred by those who have the authority to do so, unless you do not believe that the Church has the power to bind and loose.

Let me ask you something, do you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are able to baptize?

The authority is by being baptized into the Royal Priesthood of Christ.

I don't know how JWs baptize.

They baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. On what grounds then, would you think it to be ok to reject their baptism, as most Western Christians do?

No they don't.

I mean you are talking about JW's baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit right?

[Cavaradossi]

Yes, because that's not "materialistic"... Whatever that means.

It is materialistic in the same sense that certain groups—which after going into schism from their own bishops took some Holy Chrism with them, thinking that they could continue to Chrismate with it—were materialistic in their thinking. That one can, without the consent of the Church, place a man in water, speak the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," and thus baptize that man into the body of Christ is nothing but wishful thinking.

And how many believe themselves to be outside the Church? It's not the institution they trust, it's God. In that case, it's you who is being materialistic.

Baptism can only be conferred by those who have the authority to do so, unless you do not believe that the Church has the power to bind and loose.

Let me ask you something, do you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are able to baptize?

The authority is by being baptized into the Royal Priesthood of Christ.

I don't know how JWs baptize.

They baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. On what grounds then, would you think it to be ok to reject their baptism, as most Western Christians do?

No they don't.

I mean you are talking about JW's baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit right?

Perhaps I am mistaken. But that matters very little. The Mormons I know do use the baptismal formula given in the Great Commission, and could serve as just as good of an example. There is a certain bit of sophistry that one has to engage in to reject the baptism of Mormons (and other non-trinitarians) on the grounds of their beliefs, which I would like to point out.

[Achronos]

Well JW's most certainly don't baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. The two questions JW's have to answer are as follows:

"(1) On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
(2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?"
http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/baptism_questions.html

But this raises another point, about Mormons. Even if Mormons baptized by "The Father, etc" can't that be rejected because their conception of all three are wholly unorthodox? Why is that sophistry?

[Gorazd]

Mormons are polytheists, and our God does not live on Kolob.

[Achronos]

Mormons are polytheists, and our God does not live on Kolob.

I think you have the latter wrong. Do modern LDS members even accept such astronomy?

EDIT FWIW my priest and I talked about baptisms of the heterodox, he said he would baptize protestants, JWs, Mormons, etc. I think Roman Catholics are the exception, for the most part.

[Kerdy]

I support the decision. Gods commandments matter. Not being "tolerant enough", in time or being trendy. These kind of matters shows the importance of being true to the traditions and not bargain at all.

I am not understanding your point. Which tradition connects sexual morality to valid baptism?

Would it bother you if they taught Jesus was a cool dude like Budda and we can get to heaven on our own?  Would you still think their baptism valid?

A denial of the Deity of Christ would be problematic. My fairly uneducated guess is that such a group's baptisms would not be valid. But that's not really on the same level as gay "marriage" (which, as you will see if you read my previous posts, does in fact "bother" me).

If Protestants, who by and large teach the filioque, a completely heterodox ecclesiology, a false understanding of the nature of Grace, a different source of revelation, a heterodox understanding of the nature and conditions of salvation, etc., etc. can have their baptisms recognized, I'm not sure why a heretical and immoral understanding of marriage should break the came's back.

I just don't see any difference between one heresy and another.  If a group is corrupt at their core, everything they do should be undone and corrected.

[Cavaradossi]

Well JW's most certainly don't baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. The two questions JW's have to answer are as follows:

"(1) On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
(2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?"
http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/baptism_questions.html

But this raises another point, about Mormons. Even if Mormons baptized by "The Father, etc" can't that be rejected because their conception of all three are wholly unorthodox? Why is that sophistry?

It is sophistry because on those same grounds, the baptisms of the Arians and Pneumatomachi (whose understanding of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was definitely not Orthodox) should have been rejected, yet canonically, we are to accept the baptisms of Arians and Pneumatomachi (see canon VII of First Constantinople). If we reject Mormon baptisms (as we should), on what grounds can we reject them? Perhaps we could go the route the Roman Catholic Church goes, in saying that their baptisms should be rejected because they do not intend to perform the same baptism performed by the Church. But then it could be argued that many heterodox groups do not intend to perform the same baptism either, and yet their baptisms are considered to be valid. This is where I think a good understanding of economy and the Church's power to bind and loose needs to come into play, because the alternatives (focusing on form alone, or on form and intent) are unsatisfactory.

[Achronos]

Well JW's most certainly don't baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. The two questions JW's have to answer are as follows:

"(1) On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
(2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?"
http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/baptism_questions.html

But this raises another point, about Mormons. Even if Mormons baptized by "The Father, etc" can't that be rejected because their conception of all three are wholly unorthodox? Why is that sophistry?

It is sophistry because on those same grounds, the baptisms of the Arians and Pneumatomachi (whose understanding of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was definitely not Orthodox) should have been rejected, yet canonically, we are to accept the baptisms of Arians and Pneumatomachi (see canon VII of First Constantinople). If we reject Mormon baptisms (as we should), on what grounds can we reject them? Perhaps we could go the route the Roman Catholic Church goes, in saying that their baptisms should be rejected because they do not intend to perform the same baptism performed by the Church. But then it could be argued that many heterodox groups do not intend to perform the same baptism either, and yet their baptisms are considered to be valid. This is where I think a good understanding of economy and the Church's power to bind and loose needs to come into play, because the alternatives (focusing on form alone, or on form and intent) are unsatisfactory.

Ok thanks for clarifying.

[JamesRottnek]

I support the decision. Gods commandments matter. Not being "tolerant enough", in time or being trendy. These kind of matters shows the importance of being true to the traditions and not bargain at all.

I hear that Baptists eat shrimp; my bishop refuses to rebaptize them though.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Convert Issues (Moderator: Thomas) > Topic: Danish baptism no longer valid?