Orthodox churches should not accept the baptisms of mainline denominations that have chosen to revise their teachings such that they are no longer orthodox in theology or ethical practices. Many looking at this question content themselves with whether the right form of baptism was administered—baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This idea stems from what the Church decided in the Donatist Controversy, that baptism was still valid despite the theological or ethical state of the priest administering it. That decision should be separated from the challenge facing the Church in our day, where the form of orthodoxy is still practiced but the substance of orthodox convictions and practices are rejected. This crisis of the Church today centres around homosexuality and gender ideology, but it is not limited to it. Because of this revision of orthodox teaching in what were once orthodox denominations and churches, many have separated themselves and their churches and even formed new denominations. However, the question of whether their baptisms can be accepted is a serious issue.
Father Luis Ladaria, S.J., has written an excellent article on baptism in regard to the Mormon Church, ‘The Question of the Validity of Baptism Conferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints’. In it, he argues that, for baptism to be valid (in the Roman Catholic Church), it must be the right matter (water), the right form (words declaring that it is ‘baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’), with the right intent of the minister, and the right disposition of the recipient. (Those practicing infant baptism speak of the right disposition of the parent/s). I think that these topics provide a fruitful way of speaking about baptism (as also they have historically for discussion of the Eucharist). Yet I would like to press harder on what is means by ‘intent’ and ‘disposition’.
The issue of a distinction between John and Jesus on baptism is a key for the argument that Christian baptism is not just for the repentance for the forgiveness of sins but also a participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Romans 6). A baptism of repentance needs to become a baptism into Christ for it to be fully Christian. This observation should extend any discussion of baptism only in terms of its Trinitarian form (Matthew 28.19). Mormons have the right form for baptism but deny orthodox Christianity in rejecting Trinitarian teaching (see the explanation in Fr. Luis Ladaria). Hence the Church does not accept their baptism or, for that matter, any unity with them.
Intent, too—I would argue—must not only refer to the act: ‘I am not just pouring water on you but am baptizing you’. That is essential, of course, but I would argue that ‘intent’ must also involve what the act is symbolizing: a true cleansing from sin. Paul explains this intent regarding baptism in Romans 6.1-4 and Galatians 3.26. Those baptised into Christ are morally changed:
Romans 6.1-4 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Galatians 3.27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Equally, the recipients’ disposition is important. In baptism, new Christians pledge (or appeal to God for—the Greek is ambiguous) a morally changed life—a good conscience—through the work of the risen Christ. Peter writes,
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3.21).
By way of example—one highly relevant in our times—if either ministers of baptism affirm homosexuality or recipients of baptism continue in homosexual sin, they are rejecting the ethical change declared in baptism of dying and rising with Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 6.9-11). In the language of speech-act theory, they are separating the locution (simply what is said) from the perlocution (what the words actually accomplish). We associate the outward act of baptism with an inward cleansing, a resurrection to a righteous life in Christ—what Jesus calls being born from above/again (John 3.3). How can one perform baptism while declaring a sin to be acceptable? How can a recipient be baptised while affirming a sinful life? The equivalent would be saying ‘I do’ in a marriage ceremony while already being involved with another woman.
This needs to be expanded from a discussion of individuals and applied corporately as well. I think there needs to be a fifth category to consider in the case of baptism, the Eucharist, and ordination: ecclesiology. (It is implied in Fr Ladaria’s essay.) For baptism, being baptised into Christ is being baptised into the body of Christ, the Church. Being ‘in Christ’ is not simply an individualistic matter. The one baptizing is not only saying, ‘I am a Christian’ but also ‘I am part of Christ’s Church’.
Paul says regarding those baptised into Christ that they are all one in Christ. What Paul says in Galatians 3.28-29 is equivalent to what he says in 1 Corinthians 12.13, and both passages relate baptism to a unity with others in the Church:
Galatians 3.28-29 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 12.13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
Churches that separate from denominations because they introduce heretical teaching are saying that they are not one with them. They recognise a legitimate, even essential, separation on matters of orthodoxy, as we see in 1 John 2.19 and 2 Peter 2.1-3:
1 John 2.19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
2 Peter 2.1-3 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
It surely follows that we should also reject the baptismal and Eucharistic practices and the ordinations of those individuals and denominations that teach falsely and separate from us over orthodoxy. There is no unity in Christ with those who determine to walk in sin and who teach unrighteousness. It is immensely mistaken to accept baptism simply because it has the right form—Trinitarian baptism—without considering the right intent in the denomination regarding sin and the disposition of the recipient regarding sin and righteousness.
English (US) · 