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’.[1] 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[2]:
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.
The standard for orthodoxy is not only the doctrine of the Trinity. First John is addressing a rejection of Jesus and His saving work, and 2 Peter is addressing a similar error that includes sexual ('sensuality') errors and greed. 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 substance--claim that baptism makes. Revisionist denominations and ministers have the form of Christian baptism, but their intent is the opposite of baptism's intent. They affirm sin and reject righteousness in Christ. They deny the need to be cleansed from certain sins or that Jesus died for those sins, that the Master bought them. Instead, they teach sensuality. Their baptisms, Trinitarian in form, are nevertheless a rejection of the very dying and rising with Christ that baptism involves.
[1] See https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html
(accessed 6 July, 2025).
[2] I leave aside the wider discussion of this matter, that is, whether
the act of baptism is a symbol or an outward sign of an inward grace (a sacrament).
Comments